McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Project Midterm Evaluation Cameroon – 2021 Submitted by Isabelle McMahon Et4d, LLC 708 Montrose Ave. Charlottesville, VA 22903 Submitted to Patrick Gallagher Nascent Solutions Inc. 85 S. Bragg St., Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22312 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. Midterm Evaluation Report – Nascent Solutions Project in Cameroon, McGovern-Dole Program Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Agreement Number: FFE-631-2018/011-00 Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2018 Project Duration: 5 years (2018-2023) Implemented by: Nascent Solutions, Inc. Evaluation Authored by: Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d) Karla Giuliano Sarr, Isabelle McMahon, Michel Rousseau, Noreen Mucha, Alice Michelazzi i Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... viii Project Background and Purpose........................................................................................................... viii Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations...................................................................... viii Findings and Conclusions......................................................................................................................... ix Performance Measurement Plan Update—Key Indicator Review ...................................................... ix Relevance.............................................................................................................................................. x Effectiveness........................................................................................................................................ xi Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................. xi Impact .................................................................................................................................................. xi Sustainability....................................................................................................................................... xii Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. xii 1. Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Context ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Project Description........................................................................................................................ 2 Project Activities ................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Disruptions................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Results Framework........................................................................................................................ 4 1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation............................................................................................................. 4 2. Evaluation Design and Methodology.................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Evaluation Questions.................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Evaluation Design.......................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Sampling Methods........................................................................................................................ 6 Quantitative Sample .............................................................................................................................7 Qualitative Sample................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4. Data-Collection Methods.............................................................................................................. 9 Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 11 Evaluation Team.................................................................................................................................. 11 Quality Control and Ethical Approach..................................................................................................... 12 Ensuring an Ethical Approach ............................................................................................................. 12 Field Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 12 Data Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 12 ii 2.5. Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................... 13 Quantitative Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 13 Qualitative Analysis............................................................................................................................. 13 2.6. Evaluation Limitations................................................................................................................. 14 3. Findings............................................................................................................................................... 14 Performance Measurement Plan Update—Indicator Review ................................................................ 14 Evaluation Questions.......................................................................................................................... 16 Relevance............................................................................................................................................ 16 2. Effectiveness............................................................................................................................... 24 3. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 38 4. Impact ......................................................................................................................................... 42 5. Sustainability............................................................................................................................... 64 4. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 78 Annex 1: Results Framework ...................................................................................................................... 81 Annex 2: Details of the Quantitative Sample.............................................................................................. 84 Annex 3: Details of Qualitative Sample....................................................................................................... 91 Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed........................................................................................................ 92 Annex 5: Evaluation Matrix......................................................................................................................... 94 Annex 6: Data Collection Tools................................................................................................................... 99 EGRA Instrument................................................................................................................................. 99 Student Questionnaire...................................................................................................................... 101 Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women and Parent Survey................................................................109 Head Teacher Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 122 Teacher and Head Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 132 Stallings Observation ........................................................................................................................ 146 Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory ........................................................................... 147 Cook and Storekeeper Questionnaire............................................................................................... 150 Annex 7: Et4d Team Members for Midterm Evaluation........................................................................... 157 Annex 8: Statistical Weighting and Adjustment Factors........................................................................... 160 Annex 9: Detailed Challenges and Mitigation Strategies.......................................................................... 162 Annex 10: Comprehensive EGRA Results.................................................................................................. 165 Annex 11: Terms of Reference (TOR)........................................................................................................ 171 Annex 12: Additional figures..................................................................................................................... 180 iii List of Figures Figure 1: Map of the four regions and 240 schools 2 Figure 2: Project activities 3 Figure 3: Data collection methods used in midterm evaluation 9 Figure 4: Teacher and principal awareness of Nascent COVID response 23 Figure 5: Proportion of time that storage volunteers follow hygiene rules 38 Figure 6: Teacher and principals' level of satisfaction with students' reading performance 44 Figure 7: Average literacy index comparison between baseline and midline (by school type) 45 Figure 8: Teachers' agreement that students are more attentive due to the school canteen & reasons teachers identify as to why the canteens lead to increased attentiveness 47 Figure 9: Comparison of MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 results (baseline and midline) 48 Figure 10: Concepts teachers report learning in Nascent trainings and applying in practice 49 Figure 11: Difference in change in observed portion of lesson with active pedagogy between baseline and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms 50 Figure 12: Proportion of school principals reporting satisfaction with observed reading instruction 51 Figure 13: Lessons learned from trainings as identified by principals 51 Figure 14: Mid Upper Arm Circumference Tape (MUAC) 54 Figure 15: Comparison of principals' perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on students' food supply 61 Figure 16: Proportion of parents reporting sending their child to school with meals (by school type) 62 Figure 17: Nascent's approach to sustainability by component 65 Figure 18: Reasons reported for volunteers to be satisfied with their involvement in Nascent activities 71 iv List of Tables Table 1: Overview of midterm evaluation participants viii Table 2: Distribution of comparison and treatment schools by zone and region 7 Table 3: Midterm quantitative sample broken down by activity (includes project and comparison schools) 8 Table 4: Summary of key informant interviews by category and gender 9 Table 5: Summary of focus group discussions by category and gender 9 Table 6: Detailed overview of instruments 10 Table 7: Key Nascent indicators with baseline and midterm measures 15 Table 8: Indicator status at midterm 31 Table 9: Hygiene practices presented within Nascent facilitation guide 33 Table 10: Availability of a handwashing stations at school by group, timepoint and region 35 Table 11: Kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers’ roles and responsibilities 36 Table 12: Infrastructure burn-rate breakdown as of March 31, 2021 41 Table 12: Percentage of parents reporting their children’s handwashing with soap habits by region; comparison of midterm and baseline results 52 Table 13: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times by group, timepoint and region 53 Table 14: Percentage of parents reporting their children’s handwashing with soap habits by region; comparison of midterm and baseline results 54 Table 15: Minimum dietary diversity for women (5 out of 10) 56 Table 16: Sampling design and power per instrument 83 Table 17: Summary statistics for students participating in EGRA sample 84 Table 18: Summary statistics for students 85 Table 19: Summary statistics for mothers sample 85 Table 20: Summary statistics for teachers sample 86 Table 21: Summary statistics for principals sample 86 Table 22: Summary statistics for schools 87 Table 23: Summary statistics for teachers in schools 87 Table 24: Summary statistics for principals interviewed 87 Table 25: Summary statistics for teachers interviewed 88 Table 26: Summary statistics for interviewed parents (mothers) 88 Table 27: Summary statistics for interviewed students 89 Table 28: Reading category definitions 165 v Table 29: Reading category by school type 165 Table 30: Reading category by gender 166 Table 31: Reading category by region 166 Table 32: Reading category by zone 167 Table 33: Literacy achievement index point scale 167 Table 34: Average literacy index score by school type, gender, region, and zone 168 Table 35: Average scores for each subtask with 95% confidence interval 168 Table 36: Average scores for each subtask by school type 169 Table 37: Average score for each subtask by gender 169 Table 38: Average Score for each subtask by region 170 Table 39: Average score for each subtask by zone 170 List of Images Image 1: Child receiving take-home ration 22 Image 2: Students wearing face masks 25 Image 3: School garden 42 Image 4: Students engaged in learning in a crowded classroom 46 Image 5: Teacher ensuring children wash their hands before entering the classroom 52 Image 6: Student reading at a blackboard 67 vi List of Acronyms Acronym Full Term AME Students’ Mothers’ Association (Association des Mères d'Élèves) APE Students’ Parents’ Association (Association des Parents d'Élèves) CLSPM Correct Letter Sound per Minute CWPM Correct Words per Minute DDS Dietary Diversity Score EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment Et4d Evaluation Technology for Development FTF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year FGD Focus Group Discussion FFE Food for Education FFP Food for Progress KII Key Informant Interview MCGOVERN-DOLE McGovern-Dole MDD-W Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MINEDUB Ministry of Basic Education MINEE Ministry of Water and Energy MINSANTE Ministry of Public Health ORF Oral Reading Fluency PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PPS Probability Proportion Sample vii Acronym Full Term PSM Propensity Score Matching RECAMEF Cameroon National Network of Mothers' Associations for Girls' Education (Réseau Camerounais des Associations des Mères pour l'Éducation de la Fille) SO Specific Objective SOW Statement of Work SDG Sustainable Development Goal THR Take Home Rations TOR Terms of Reference TOC Theory of Change USDA United States Department of Agriculture WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WRA Women of Reproductive Age viii Executive Summary Project Background and Purpose Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent) is implementing a McGovern-Dole (MCGOVERN-DOLE) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition project in Cameroon, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This five-year (2018–2023), $27M project is designed to improve the literacy of primary-level children through improved literacy instruction, student attentiveness, and student attendance. The main activity of the project is the provision of a daily lunch and periodic take-home rations. Educators receive training and support to improve school management and teaching practice. The project also aims to increase positive health, nutrition and dietary practices for target students and the community, including pregnant and lactating women at risk of malnutrition, through sanitation and hygiene interventions, as well as through food distribution at community health centers. The project benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, their family members, teachers, administrators, civil servants, parent-teacher association members, and others associated with 240 primary schools in four regions (Adamaoua, East, North, and North West); more than half of schools are in Francophone regions. The project has faced significant disruptions. Schools in the English-speaking North West region were closed at the time the project began in 2019 due to a secessionist movement; a portion reopened in late 2020. Schools countrywide closed between March and October 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and preparation of and serving of hot meals on school premises remained suspended at the time of the evaluation. The midterm evaluation took place in February-March 2021. Its audience is Nascent, USDA, implementation partners, beneficiary participants, and various stakeholders within Cameroon. Nascent intends to use its content to 1) assess progress; 2) provide a signal of the effectiveness of interventions; 3) reassess the project’s theory of change; 4) make midcourse corrections; 5) document lessons learned; and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths. Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations The midterm study is an impact evaluation with a quasi-experimental design using a difference-in￾differences analysis to evaluate impact. Five OECD-DAC criteria guide the evaluation: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, along with 23 evaluation questions. The methodology is consistent with the mixed-methods approach used at baseline and combines key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and document review with the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), surveys, school observations, and attendance data. A total of 120 schools (60 project schools and 60 comparison schools), selected via two-stage cluster sampling, made up the quantitative sample. Purposeful selection guided the qualitative sample. Table 1 provides an overview. Table 1: Overview of midterm evaluation participants Quantitative Sample Qualitative Sample • 5,024 students • 1,198 parents • 117 head teachers • 582 teachers • 282 cooks • 65 storekeepers • 38 parents • 24 teachers • 1 Hygiene Champion • 30 government officials • 5 health workers • 39 Nascent staff • 2 Nascent partners • 2 USDA staff ix Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d), an evaluation firm based in the United States, led both the baseline and midterm studies. The evaluation team was able to mitigate certain study limitations through the triangulation of multiple data sources and methods, nuanced analysis, as well as a close relationship with Nascent developed at baseline. These limitations included possible response bias and recall bias. The evaluation also took place earlier than anticipated to address Ramadan fasting and the rainy season, which meant that students were assessed midyear (March 2021) instead of at the end of the school year (May 2021). This timing may lead to small underestimates of pupil literacy performance in some measurements, as indicator targets anticipated evaluations would occur at the end of the 2020- 21 school year Findings from qualitative data are also not strictly representative, but they may be transferable. The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges to both the evaluation and project implementation. Findings and Conclusions Performance Measurement Plan Update—Key Indicator Review Green highlighting in Table 7 shows meaningful improvement for two key project indicators. The percentage of teachers engaged in active instruction increased from 51.0 percent at baseline to 78.2 percent at midline. School-age children observed correctly washing their hands increased by a similar margin (from 23.0% to 58.8%). No significant improvement is observed in students who demonstrate reading and understanding of grade-level text, average student attendance rate, the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity, or for the literacy achievement index. Midline results demonstrate a notable increase in the proportion of class time where more than five students were off task, an increase from 16.9 to 33.4 percent. Table 7: Key Nascent indicators with baseline and midterm measures1 Green indicates improved performance relative to baseline; red indicates underperformance relative to baseline; gold indicates nearly the same performance as baseline. Indicators Baseline Midline p-value MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text? Benchmark: 60% (3/5 correct answers) All: 1.7% (0.7%; 4.2%) Girls: 1.1% (0.3%; 4.7%) Boys: 2.3% (0.9%; 5.9%) All: 0.3% (0.1%;1.1%) Girls: 0.1% (0.1%;1.9%) Boys:0.5% (0.1%; 0.9%) 0.032 0.070 0.068 Literacy Achievement Index2 25.53 (22.3; 29.1) 24.76 (22.1; 27.4) 0.709 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for 50%+ of classroom time? 51.0% (42.8%; 60.5%) 78.2% (70.2%; 84.5%) <0.000 1 Cell coloring is green when results are improving as expected. Yellow indicates positive movement but less than expected. Red indicates a decrease since baseline or that results are moving in the wrong direction (e.g., MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2). 2 This indicator gives a global indication of students’ performance distribution on letter reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension subtasks, providing a broader picture of reading competence. x MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off-task”? 16.9% (12.2%; 23,1%) 33.4% (29.8%; 37.0%) <0.000 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in USDA-supported classrooms/schools? All: 69.4% (63.6%; 76.3%) Girls: 69.8% (63.5%; 76.3%) Boys: 69.3% (62.6%; 75.3%) All: 69.5% (65.8%; 73.2%) Girls: 69.4% (65.4%; 73.4%) Boys: 69.7% (66.1%; 73.3%) 0.914 0.879 0.934 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands? All: 1.4% (0.0%; 4.3%) Girls: 1.8% (0.0%; 5.5%) Boys: 1.3% (0.0%; 3.8%) All: 58.8% (49.5%; 68.1%) Girls: 61.9% (51.1%; 71.7%) Boys: 55.4% (45.9%; 65.0%) <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity?3 All: 38.9% (29.3%; 46.4%) All: 39.5% (31.5%; 48.1%) 0.750 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences 1. Low parental awareness of the importance of education 2. Helping the family with chores or farm work at home 3. Health issues 1. Health issues 2. Teacher is absent 3. Late or no payment of school fees N/A Relevance Findings show that stakeholders and beneficiaries share Nascent’s understanding of the problems and solutions that inform the project design, and they unanimously indicate that the Nascent project addresses these issues. Nascent’s strategies unequivocally support the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels through efforts to strengthen access and quality to the educational system. Nascent supports Cameroon’s National Strategic Development Plan and provides critical support in the absence of an active national school feeding policy. The provision of school lunches stands out, but also other components, including school and community gardens and efforts to mediate women’s and children’s acute or moderate malnutrition. Nascent’s provision of handwashing stations, soap, face masks, and sensitization efforts, as well as take-home rations to address COVID-19 complications also proved important. The evaluation concludes that capacity-building, stakeholder participation, and partnerships with government officials were generally seen as critical to successful implementation. That at least 10 mayors in two regions intend to integrate budget line items for school canteens in their operating budgets gives a powerful illustration of the project’s relevance to stakeholders. “I told you that we have a council-level development plan. All of this incorporates what we want and what is planned, our strategic planning. It’s about nutrition and education issues. It’s directly in line with the Nascent project.” (Mayor, East Region, Interview) 3 The number of respondents under 19 years-old is 7, which does not allow for proper disaggregation of data. xi Effectiveness In addition to the key outcome indicators discussed above, Et4d reviewed progress toward 10 randomly selected output indicators. Despite considerable obstacles, Nascent has largely performed well in terms of both results and finances and has reached six of these ten targets. Unmet targets have been most affected by COVID-19 and disruptions related to insecurity in the North West. Nascent has demonstrated nimbleness and ingenuity in the face of disruption and higher-than-anticipated enrollment. As may be expected, the government’s continued COVID-19-related suspension of school meals has had a negative impact on project implementation, but findings show that Nascent is doing what it can to distribute take-home rations and urge children to bring lunch to school. Findings suggest that Nascent has clearly upgraded school availability and use of handwashing stations, moving from 3 percent at baseline to 88 percent at midline. Additionally, students have increased their overall use of latrines. While Nascent has little control over hindering external factors, findings show that coordination with the government counterparts merits additional attention. The project should also consider reinforcing advocacy efforts to reinitiate school feeding in the COVID-19 context, based on Et4d’s positive experiences from other McGovern-Dole countries in the region, including Benin and Mali. Efficiency Overall, the project has efficiently used time and resources in the face of considerable challenges. Despite delays in implementation, the project’s approach to training, especially its modular approach, can serve as a model for other development efforts. The same holds true for the implementation of the DHIS2 system and community farms. Project efficiencies also demonstrate ongoing project learning and the ability to improve processes. At the same time, Nascent’s infrastructure activities have ambitious goals, showing less efficiency in this area. Yet Nascent’s infrastructure implementation is exemplary compared to other MCGOVERN-DOLE projects evaluated by Et4d. The use of contractor fines and the close supervision of a coordinating engineer may be recommendable practices for elsewhere. Nascent’s activities in the North West may warrant a review, as challenging infrastructure and insecurity demand significant efforts with arguably lower returns on investment. Impact The midterm evaluation provides promising results for improvements in some areas. While results require careful interpretation due to the short time span between teacher trainings and midterm data collection, external observation shows that project teachers have increased their use of active pedagogy by 27.2 percentage points, as indicated in Figure 11. Figure 11: Difference in change in observed portion of lesson with active pedagogy between baseline and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms As expected, students’ literacy results as measured by EGRA are not as positive. Students’ reading comprehension results remain quite low, as only 0.3 percent of students obtained a passing score. Analysis of more basic subtasks using a literacy index shows a positive gain for project schools, and even the decrease in comprehension scores from baseline seems to be less for project schools than for 60.6% 51.0% 61.9% 78.2% 0% 50% 100% Baseline Midline Comparison Project xii comparison schools, indicating that Nascent activities may provide some protection against COVID shocks. On the other hand, analysis of survey and interview data shows that the suspension of school feeding may have negatively affected project performance. At the same time, as indicated above, Nascent’s continued provision of food in the form of take-home rations seems to be making a difference, as the proportion of parents who report “always” providing lunches to their children in Nascent schools surpasses the portion of parents doing the same in comparison schools by 23 percentage points. While unintended effects are generally minor, some reported inappropriate practices of PTAs leveraging the project for monetary gains require addressing. Sustainability It is still too early in the project’s life cycle to make any definitive determinations about sustaining project elements after project close. The disruptions of COVID-19 have further compressed the implementation timeline. Nonetheless, findings show a coherent vision of sustainability among stakeholders. Some promising signs of sustainability exist at midterm already, including community ownership for the maintenance of new infrastructure, indications of an organic spread of project teaching and administrative practices to non-Nascent schools, and community participation with meager or nonexistent incentives. Nascent’s pilot of 36 graduation schools, a subset of schools with community farms, also shows promise and elicits enthusiasm. At the same time, the model requires significant external support. In general, there is great variation in potential across the project areas, and contextual factors, including high teacher mobility, the high proportion of community-paid teachers, and an unpredictable climate which threatens sustainability efforts. “I want to respond to my colleagues who say that if schools do not receive inputs they will not work the community fields. In my area, for example, there are two schools that haven’t received anything but have worked fields. It all depends on their determination and their willingness.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Recommendations The findings and conclusions lead to the following abridged recommendations. A more comprehensive list can be found within the main report. Parentheses indicate responsible parties. Remaining project time: 1. Plan in advance, so the reinstated school feeding program will meet challenges and be prepared to run refresher trainings for volunteers to reinvigorate and further enhance community engagement. (Nascent Leadership, Field Coordinators, Field Agents) 2. Leverage positive experiences and gains in integrating Nascent’s literacy strategies within Cameroon’s pre-service and in-service teacher training. Develop additional advocacy strategies to include champions (teaching coaches) already spreading Nascent strategies. (Nascent Leadership/Literacy Team) 3. Continue plan to use dry rations to motivate children to come to school; receipt should be conditioned by regular attendance. (Nascent Leadership) 4. Strengthen advocacy efforts with the government to 1) reopen school canteens based on positive experiences from the subregion (Benin, Mali); 2) finalize and implement Cameroon’s national school feeding policy with a dedicated directorate. (Nascent Leadership) xiii 5. Develop an advocacy strategy with MINEDUB to reduce teacher mobility within the project intervention zone. (Nascent Leadership) 6. Further develop capacity-building for good governance at the council level, with a focus on the payment of PTA teachers. (Nascent Field Coordinators) 7. Develop a Student WASH Club strategy to promote and amplify hygiene efforts at the school level. (WASH Team) 8. Closely follow the graduation school initiative with strong monitoring and special studies. Be sure to capture community farm’s production and accounting records to see which farm actually turns a profit. (M&E Team) Future projects: 1. Continue to advocate for funding of the national school feeding policy and the establishment of a dedicated directorate a central element of future MCGOVERN-DOLE programming in Cameroon. (USDA) 2. Reconsider the intervention zones for future programs so as to reduce distance between target schools. Also revisit whether or not it makes sense to continue programming in the North West given ongoing security challenges and the implication for overall project logistics and resources. Should programming continue in the North West, it should be deliberately framed as crisis response. (Nascent Leadership/USDA) 1 1.Introduction and Purpose 1.1. Project Context Cameroon is a lower middle-income country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of $1,518. 4Cameroon is the largest economy in the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC), a region experiencing an economic crisis triggered by the steep fall in oil prices. 5 Cameroon has 24 major languages, with both English and French serving as official languages. Located along the Atlantic Ocean, the country shares borders with Chad, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and Nigeria. Two of its regions (North West and Southwest) are Anglophone, while the rest of the country is Francophone. Cameroon ranks 150 out of 189 in the Human Development Index and 39 percent of the population lives under the poverty line. According to the World Food Programme (2019), poverty is most concentrated in the northernmost and eastern regions. The Far North, North, Adamaoua and Eastern regions frequently experience food crises and climate shocks. Political disruption in the North West region since the teacher strikes of November 2016 has led to unrest, insecurity, and the closure of schools. Additional strains on vulnerable communities arise from the arrival of refugees fleeing conflicts in northeastern Nigeria and the Central African Republic, as well as from internal displacement due to Boko Haram activities in the Far North Region and armed conflict in the North West and South West regions. Chronic malnutrition is a serious issue in Cameroon, with 29 percent of children under the age of five suffering from stunting. Rural areas demonstrate a higher percentage of stunting (36%) than urban areas (20%). Stunting is 41 percent in the North, 37 percent in the Far North and in the East, and 35 percent in Adamaoua, according to the latest demographic health survey (DHS) published in 2020.6 Stunting prevalence thresholds above 30 percent are very high and considered an emergency for immediate attention.7 Decreased access to food is pushing poor households in the North West and Southwest regions to adopt crisis-coping strategies such as reducing the number of meals per day and limiting food portions, 8 a situation further exacerbated by lack of school meals. The limited consumption of nutritious food, diarrheal disease reducing the absorption of nutrients, and restricted access to clean water, sanitation, and health services contribute to high malnutrition rates. These realities are compounded by a lack of community and household knowledge of hygiene practices (handwashing with soap, safe food preparation, etc.), which leads to poor health and nutritional outcomes. Access to quality education and health and social services is weak or nonexistent. With regard to education, the primary school adjusted net enrollment rate for both sexes was 91 percent in 2019, with 4 World Bank Global Indicators. (2019). GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) – Cameroon. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2019&locations=CM&start=1960&view=chart 5 World Bank. (2019). The World Bank in Cameroon: Overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cameroon/overview 6 Institut National de la Statistique (INS) et ICF. (2018 [2020]). Enquête Démographique et de Santé [Demographic Health Survey], pp. 224–25. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR360/FR360.pdf 7 de Onis, M., Borghi, E., Arimond, M., Webb, P., Croft, T., Saha, K., De-Regil, L. M., Thuita, F., Heidkamp, R., Krasevec, J., Hayashi, C., & Flores-Ayala, R. (2019). Prevalence thresholds for wasting, overweight and stunting in children under 5 years. Public Health Nutrition, 22(1), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018002434 8 Cameroon—Key Message Update: Fri, 2021-01-29 | Famine Early Warning Systems Network. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2021, from https://fews.net/west-africa/cameroon/key-message-update/january-2021 2 girls trailing boys (87% compared to 96%). The year 2018 saw a 64 percent primary school completion rate (both sexes), with girls leading boys by less than one percentage point. 9 The educational system suffers from inadequately trained teachers and administrators, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, a lack of school feeding projects, insufficient teaching materials, teacher absenteeism, and a policy environment slow to change—all factors that hinder an enabling environment. 1.2. Project Description Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent) is implementing a McGovern-Dole (MCGOVERN-DOLE) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition project in Cameroon, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This five-year (October 2018 to September 2023), $27M project is designed to improve the literacy of primary-level children through improved literacy instruction, student attentiveness, and student attendance. The project also aims to increase positive health, nutrition and dietary practices for target students and the community, including pregnant and lactating women suffering from malnutrition. This project follows a 2015 MCGOVERN-DOLE project, Advancing Literacy through Good Nutrition (ALIGN), implemented in the North West region from October 2015 to June 2018. The project benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, their family members, teachers, administrators, civil servants, parent-teacher association members, and others associated with 240 primary schools in Cameroon. The 240 schools have more than 90,000 enrolled students and more than 1,000 teachers. Schools are located in four regions (Adamaoua, East, North, and North West) of Cameroon. About 62 percent of the schools (148) are located in three French￾speaking regions of Cameroon, with the remainder (92) in one English-speaking region, the North West. 10 The target schools include government￾operated public schools, as well as private schools affiliated with the Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, and Presbyterian faiths. The schooling regions under investigation are predominantly rural, with agriculture-based economies that produce mostly staple foods, particularly millet, although maize and cassava are also prominent. Schools in the North West have largely remained closed due to ongoing political unrest since 2016. As a result, the 9 UNESCO Institute of Statistics. (2021). Cameroon. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/cm 10 Nascent Solutions. (2020). TOR midterm evaluation. Note that the number of schools was reduced from the original 265 (215 in Adamaoua, East, North, and 50 in the North West) after baseline results showed student enrollment to be higher than expected. Figure 1: Map of the four regions and 240 schools 3 midterm evaluation did not include activities in this area.11 While the project’s primary objective is improving literacy, the staple activity is the provision of a daily lunch using food commodities provided by the USDA. Nascent seeks to improve • Quality of literacy instruction, through more consistent teacher attendance, provision of better teaching and materials, and training of teachers and administrators; • Student attentiveness, through the daily lunch program and extracurricular activities; • Student attendance, through school infrastructure improvements, enrollment outreaches, an increased community understanding of education benefits, and reducing health related absences; • Use of positive health and dietary practices, through increased knowledge of hygiene, safe food preparation, and nutrition, as well as increased access to clean water and sanitation and preventative health interventions; • Education systems, through enhancing the capacity of government and civil society, as well as improving local education- and nutrition-related policies. Nascent has developed relationships with local partners and stakeholders to support project implementation, namely, the Ministry of Basic Education, the titular government agency for the program, and the municipal authorities who are directly responsible for primary education. Other key partners include the Ministry of Public Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Water and Energy, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (AgReach Program), which supports the project’s learning agenda. Project Activities In total, the project implements 17 activities to achieve McGovern-Dole’s project objectives, of which the staple activity is the provision of a daily lunch and periodic take-home rations (THR) using food commodities provided by the USDA. Figure 2 provides a list of activities. Figure 2: Project activities 11 At the time of writing, 38 of the 92 schools had reopened, though enrollment is down from 2016 levels at most of them (Correspondence with M&E team, May 2, 2021; October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual report). 1. Building/Rehabilitation: Kitchens and Storerooms 2. Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and Water Systems 3. Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines 4. Capacity Building: Local, Regional, National Level 5. Distribution: School Supplies and Material 6. Establish Activities to Promote Literacy 7. Establish and Train Parent-Teacher Associations 8. Establish School Gardens and Community Farms 9. Facilitate Student Access to Preventive Health Interventions 10. Production of Books and Supplementary Reading Material 11. Promote Teacher Attendance 12. Provide School Meals 13. Provide Take-Home Rations (THR) 14. Raise Awareness on the Importance of Education 15. Training: Health and Nutrition Practices 16. Training: Food Preparation and Storage Practice 17. Training: Teachers and School Administrators 4 Project Disruptions Nascent’s project has faced significant disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and political developments. Due to COVID-19, the Government of Cameroon (GoC) mandated school closures on March 18, 2020, along with prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people and requiring physical distancing and mask wearing to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The government also closed national borders and limited urban and inter-urban travel. Schools resumed on October 5, 2020, though school feeding remained suspended through the time of writing the evaluation report. As a result, Nascent shifted to distributing commodities as dry take-home rations (THR) to pupils, cooks, teachers, and mobile reading participants12. The 92 target schools in the North West region had been closed since a teacher strike in November 2016, with 38 of the schools reopening in early 2021. At the time of writing, these schools were operating temporarily from church buildings and community halls. 13 1.3. Results Framework The project’s results framework identifies the various pathways between activities, outcomes, and the attainment of strategic objectives. Annex 1 reproduces the three-page document. According to correspondence with Nascent, the results framework closely aligns with the larger MCGOVERN-DOLE program results framework; as such, no separate theory of change is required. The results framework contains critical assumptions necessary for achieving targeted outcomes and impacts. Critical assumptions address the larger environment of project implementation, including that macroeconomic, climatic and security conditions remain stable, that local communities are receptive to the project, and that trainings manage to positively change behaviors and attitudes. At the school level, the project requires that school meals do not displace instructional time or feeding at home and, similarly, that the provision of school supplies does not displace household educational spending. It is also important that turnover for key stakeholders remain modest, including for teachers, and that critical individuals within the Government of Cameroon continue to champion the project and are able to mobilize political will and resources. A specific evaluation question further explores the relevancy of the results framework to stakeholders. 1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation The midterm evaluation informs Nascent, USDA, and implementation partners of the project’s impact and progress. Nascent intends to use its content to 1) assess progress in project implementation; 2) provide a signal of the effectiveness of interventions; 3) reassess the project’s theory of change in light of the graduation model and its prospect for promoting sustainability; 4) make mid-course corrections; 5) document lessons learned; and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths to stakeholders. The midterm evaluation builds on the quasi-experimental design that characterized the baseline evaluation. Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d), an evaluation firm based in the United States, led both evaluations. As indicated above, the audience for the evaluation includes implementing partners, the donor, USDA, as well as government partners at the local, regional, and national levels. The evaluation contributes to informing USDA’s learning agenda in that results address noted gaps in the evidence of high-level 12 Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report, p. 4. 13 Nascent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report, p. 4. 5 impacts of school-meal programs on student learning and cognition. Given the longer duration of Nascent programming in Cameroon, findings also offer insights into longer-term measures. Finally, the evaluation provides valuable information to other organizations and donors active or interested in becoming active in supporting holistic approaches to improved learning, namely, school feeding programs. 2.Evaluation Design and Methodology The evaluation questions and sub-questions are based on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria. The midterm evaluation addresses five categories: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The detailed evaluation questions that guide the process are presented below, with definitions of each criterion provided as additional context.14 The questions address various facets of Nascent’s results framework, and the associated findings provide an indication of the project’s progress toward achieving its strategic objectives of improved literacy in school-age children and an increased use of positive health and dietary practices. 2.1. Evaluation Questions 1. Relevance — The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change. 1.1. Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Do beneficiaries understand the problem and the solution to the problem in the same way as the project? 1.2. Is implementation design consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels? 1.3. Did the support provided by Nascent during the COVID-19 pandemic address the needs of beneficiaries? 2. Effectiveness — The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups. 2.1. Are the program’s activities implemented according to plan? (infrastructure, training, distributing school meals, distributing take-home rations, distributing materials, improving curricula, school garden) 2.2. Have there been internal and/or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of project activities? Are these obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the Government of Cameroon, or other partners? 2.3. Are program products and outcome targets achieved (see list of 10 output indicators)? And if not, why? 2.4. To what extent are students following best practices in the schools regarding hygiene? 2.5. To what extent are kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers implementing organizational and hygiene skills acquired through the training? 3. Efficiency — The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way. 14 See OECD Home: Evaluation Criteria: https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm 6 3.1. Which outputs were obtained most cost-efficiently in the most timely manner? 3.2. Which were obtained least cost-efficiently in the least timely manner? 3.3. Should the project allocate resources differently in the future? 4. Impact — The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects. 4.1. To what extent have students (boys and girls) increased their reading comprehension compared to baseline? 4.2. To what extent have students improved their attentiveness? 4.3. To what extent have teachers improved the quality of their teaching? And to what extend have head teachers improved their capacity to manage the school? 4.4. To what extent have students improved their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices? 4.5. To what extent has the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity improved? 4.6. Is the project causing any unintended effects? 4.7. To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance? What measures were taken to mitigate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? 5. Sustainability — The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue. 5.1. Do stakeholders have the same vision of sustainability? 5.2. Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed? 5.3. Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes? 5.4. How is the local community engaged and or contributing to sustain project activities, especially school feeding? 5.5. To what extent is the graduation model more likely to be sustainable? 2.2. Evaluation Design The evaluation design is a quasi-experimental impact study design using a difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate impact. The study also benefits from a convergent mixed-methods approach in which qualitative data from key informant interviews (KIIs), focus-group discussions (FGDs), and document review simultaneously join with quantitative data to respond to the above evaluation questions. The baseline data was collected in March 2019, while midterm data collection took place two years later, between March 9 and March 23, 2021. The diverse methods, as well as the range of stakeholders who participated in the evaluation, allow for triangulation, enhancing the reliability and comprehensiveness of the findings. The design also follows a two-pronged methodology that addresses both the assessment of midterm indicators and the exploration of evaluation questions. 2.3. Sampling Methods This section describes the basic sampling strategy employed by the evaluation team. We provide an overview of both quantitative and qualitative samples. As the evaluation matrix details in Annex 5, both quantitative and qualitative methods informed the calculation of indicator values as well as responses to the evaluation questions. 7 Quantitative Sample Like at baseline, the midterm evaluation used probability-proportionate-to-size (PPS) sampling to randomly select target and comparison schools from the Nascent project implementation area.15 Et4D used a two-stage cluster sampling with project and comparison schools as the primary sampling unit, 16 and students as the secondary unit. Schools were represented proportionally in the sample, as they are in the student population, as demonstrated in Table 2. We excluded schools with fewer than 150 enrolled students enrolled as it appeared unlikely that the number of students present would meet sampling requirements. The sampling process also considered regions as a stratification variable, as well as the type of location (urban vs. rural). Schools within 30 kilometers of a subdivisional headquarters were categorized as urban, the remainder categorized as rural. A different cohort of students than at baseline was used for the analysis, while the schools remained the same whenever possible. Due to changes in the selection of project schools and in the subdivisions covered by the project, which happened after the baseline evaluation, 24 new treatment schools and 16 new comparison schools were included in the final sample of 120 schools. The baseline study demonstrated that the comparison and treatment schools were a suitable match on several metrics, including: student enrollment (total and per class), proportion of female students, student age and language background, proportion of female teachers, pupil/teacher ratio, teaching experience, age, and formal education level of teachers, and teacher language background (see tables 16-21 of baseline survey report). Table 2: Distribution of comparison and treatment schools by zone and region Region Rural Urban Total Comparison Schools 49 11 60 Adamaoua 5 1 6 East 8 2 10 North 36 8 44 Project Schools 49 11 60 Adamaoua 4 1 5 East 8 1 9 North 37 9 46 Total 98 22 120 A randomly selected group of 16 Grade 2 students (8 girls and 8 boys) per school took part in the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). To better assess the Nascent project’s teacher-training initiatives 15 Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) is a sampling method in which the probability of selecting a unit is directly proportional to the unit's measure of size. 16 Cluster sampling is defined as a sampling method where multiple clusters of people are created from a population where they are indicative of homogeneous characteristics and have an equal chance of being a part of the sample. 8 through classroom observation, all classes from each of the Grades 1, 2, and 3 were observed using the Stallings Classroom Observation system. To assess the impact of hygiene initiatives, selection prioritized Grade 5 and 6 students and, in case of their absence, any other grade within the school. After drawing the classroom and assigning a number to every child, eight children were randomly sampled using numbers from the register at each school. The design privileged older students, as they were most likely to be able to respond to questions concerning hygiene and nutrition. Data collectors also randomly chose 15 Grade 2 students and asked them to bring their mothers to school for the MDD-W (Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women) to ensure that at least 10 mothers would take part per school. Head teachers (also described as “school directors”) also participated in the midterm data collection. Lastly, where possible, Et4d data collectors surveyed all cooks and storekeepers supporting the Nascent project. Due to the suspension of the canteens at the time of data collection, cooks and storekeepers came to the schools to meet with evaluators. Annex 2 provides additional details of the quantitative sample. Table 3: Midterm quantitative sample broken down by activity (includes project and comparison schools) Questionnaire Male Female Total Head teacher 108 9 117 Teacher 434 148 582 Parent N/A 1,198 1,198 EGRA + child survey 922 887 1,809 Attention + child survey 1,512 1,703 3,215 Cooks 4 278 282 Storekeepers 62 3 65 School observation N/A N/A 120 Attendance N/A N/A 120 Qualitative Sample The evaluation team selected from among project schools for the qualitative sample taking into account region as well as rural/urban location. Because of the predominance of project schools within the North, the qualitative sample included two schools from this region and one school each from Adamaoua and the East. One of the schools chosen also happened to be bilingual. One school also had a farm and was selected because it came from the graduation school sample. At the school level, the sampling of qualitative participants was purposeful and focused both on beneficiaries and implementers. To the extent possible, selection criteria emphasized that individuals participating in interviews and focus groups should be knowledgeable stakeholders who have actively taken part in the project and could best contribute valuable input. Head teachers selected parents for interviews. All teachers present participated in FGDs. At the beneficiary level, the evaluation team also sought representativeness in terms of geography, ethnicity, gender, and age. A parent’s level of engagement in the school also made for an important criterion for selection. When recruiting parents for focus groups, the evaluation team considered whether parents took part in the parents’ association (APE), the mothers’ association (AME), or the school-management committee; whether they were a hygiene champion, and/or active in the project 9 farm and/or the school canteen as cooks or storekeepers. The qualitative data collection included focus groups with parents and teachers, and key informant interviews with the local government authorities and Nascent staff. Since most of the parents did not speak French, the evaluation team used local languages, with the assistance of a translator. Notes were taken in French. In total, 140 participants (63 females and 77 males) took part in eight FGDs and 35 KIIs. Table 4: Summary of key informant interviews by category and gender Category Number KIIs Female Total Male Total Participant Total National Officials (MINEDUB, MINREX) 2 2 2 Regional Officials (MINEDUB, MINEE, MINADER,MISANTE) 13 3 17 20 Local Officials (Mayors) 4 2 6 8 Community Health Center 2 4 1 5 Hygiene Champion 1 1 1 Program Staff (Nascent) 10 15 24 39 Program partners (RECAMEC, Engineer) 2 1 1 2 Donor 1 1 1 Grand Total 35 25 53 78 Table 5: Summary of focus group discussions by category and gender Category Number of FGDs Female Total Male Total Participant Total Parent (APE/AME; Cooks) 4 28 10 38 Teachers 4 10 14 24 Grand Total 8 38 24 62 The next section provides more details of the data-collection methods used. 2.4. Data-Collection Methods To provide updated midterm measures for the selected 10 indicators, as well as to answer the evaluation questions, the evaluation employed a variety of methods as identified in Figure 3. 10 Figure 3: Data collection methods used in midterm evaluation Figure 3 provides an overview of the instruments used for the midterm evaluation of the Nascent project. Full copies of evaluation tools are included in Annex 6. Table 6: Detailed overview of instruments Name of Instrument Description Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Subtasks include oral comprehension, phonemic awareness, letter sound knowledge, familiar words reading, invented words reading, story reading, comprehension Student Questionnaire (EGRA) Survey questions on demography, absenteeism, homework, nutrition, socioeconomic status (SES) Student Questionnaire (Hygiene) Survey questions on absenteeism, hygiene, nutrition, socioeconomic status (SES) Head Teacher Questionnaire Survey questions on demography, school characteristics, parent associations, teacher absenteeism, training and participation in MCGOVERN-DOLE-FFE, COVID-19 Teacher Questionnaire (SIL, CP, CE1) Survey questions on demography, class characteristics, literacy training, coaching support, COVID-19 Teacher Questionnaire (CE2, CM1, CM2) Survey questions on demography, class characteristics, hygiene instruction, COVID-19 Cook or Storekeeper Questionnaire Survey questions on demography, participation in school feeding program activities (cooking or food storage), and training Stallings Classroom Observation Measures 1) the percentage of teachers in Grades 1-6 spending at least 50% of their classroom time on active instruction and 2) percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off task”17 Hand washing observation and school inventory Observation of 20 students per school to assess if children are washing their hands after going to the latrine, inventory of school sanitary equipment and access to water Women Minimum Dietary Survey and parent survey MDD-W survey and survey questions on demography, child characteristics, child health, hygiene and nutrition practices, child absenteeism, socioeconomic status (SES) 17 Evidence from Stallings shows that teachers spending at least 50 percent of time engaged in “active instruction” is associated with high-achieving students. Document Review Early Grade Reading Assessment Surveys Stallings Classroom Observation Hand￾washing Observation Women's Minimum Dietary Survey Focus Group Discussions Key Informant Interviews 11 Name of Instrument Description Attendance Head count KII Guide for Implementing Partners Semi-structured interview guide with questions related to the DAC criteria: 1) relevance, 2) effectiveness, 3) efficiency, 4) impact, and 5) sustainability FGD Guide for Parents FGD Guide for Teachers or KII Head teacher FGD Guide for government partners Fieldwork Data collection took place over a period of five weeks from February 18 to March 31, 2021 and included in-person activities as well as remote communications. Prior to in-country data collection, Et4d held an enumerator training workshop in Garoua from March 1 to March 6, 2021. The workshop was attended by 17 Nascent staff, and 59 enumerators who had been preselected to participate in the training by Nascent. At the end of training, 52 enumerators were selected to continue on to data collection, among them 15 females (29%). In addition, 13 enumerators and 12 supervisors who had participated in the baseline evaluation took part in the midterm process, allowing for continuity between data points. The selection of data collectors was made taking into account gender, language spoken, previous experience, and familiarity with technology. Once in the field, Nascent Field Agents acted as team leaders for four enumerators. Training covered an introduction to the project and to data-collection tools and methods, practical application among trainees, field practice, debriefing and quiz sessions, constructive feedback and logistics. Training also allowed data collectors to become familiar with two data-collection applications: Tangerine (for EGRA) and SurveyCTO (for all other survey tools).18 The evaluation team implemented COVID-19 prevention measures for the duration of the training. During training sessions, trainees and trainers were required to wear face masks at all times and a handwashing station was placed outside the training venue. During school-based practical exercises, enumerators were required to practice implementing the COVID-19 protocol that they would follow during data collection. Qualitative and quantitative data collection occurred simultaneously, although quantitative data collection was more intensive. The evaluation team beganconducted KIIs with critical stakeholders onfrom February 18 to March 31, 2021, prior to deployment, and continued on international colleagues’ departure from Cameroon until March 31.. In addition to taking notes, evaluators recorded interviews, which they later uploaded to Trint, a subscription-based transcription service. Evaluators then reviewed and corrected the interview transcripts. The evaluation team later carefully reviewed and refined transcripts. School-level data collection began on March 9 and continued through March 23, lasting two weeks. Data collectors were expected to upload data daily to SurveyCTO’s and Tangerine’s servers as internet connectivity allowed. Enumerators continued to practice COVID-19 protocols throughout in￾person data collection. Evaluation Team The Et4d evaluation team comprised six team members, four of whom took part in the MCGOVERN￾DOLE2018 Cameroon baseline evaluation and therefore had an excellent understanding of the program and its context. Ms. Isabelle McMahon acted as Project Director and served as the point of contact 18 Tangerine® is a mobile data-collection app developed by RTI; it is used to collect EGRA data. 12 between Nascent and the Et4d team of consultants. She coordinated the activities of the key consultants and monitored project deliverables and timelines. She also led the development of data￾collection tools and the training for the survey tools. She performed a selection of key informant interviews and focus groups. Dr. Michel Rousseau, an experienced psychometrician, served as the Technical Lead for the evaluation. He oversaw all sampling and statistical aspects of the project. Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr served as the Research Lead and advised the project team on education-specific requirements and research methods. She also led the mixed-methods analysis and report writing. The Senior Expert Advisor for Nutrition and WASH was Ms. Noreen Mucha. This technical expert advised the project team regarding instrument design and wrote the relevant sections of the final project report. In addition, Ms. Alice Michelazzi led the enumerator training, overseeing data collection and quality control throughout, in addition to leading focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Ms. Félicité Djoukouo managed the enumerators, did focus group discussions and key informant interviews with the Et4d team, and performed quality control during data collection as well as administrative and organizational tasks. Drs. Rousseau and Giuliano Sarr provided remote support throughout the evaluation. (For complete backgrounds of team members, see Annex 7.) Quality Control and Ethical Approach Ensuring an Ethical Approach The midterm evaluation ensured utmost adherence to international ethical standards for research involving human subjects through several mechanisms. Et4d ensured that provisions were made to protect the confidentiality of the people involved through a consistently applied informed-consent process. Et4d was also attentive to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data in its storage and disposal. In the written report, identities of individuals are masked Et4d also carefully trained enumerators to ensure compliance with the Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, including respect for human dignity, respect for free and informed consent, respect for vulnerable persons, respect for privacy and confidentiality, and respect for justice and inclusiveness, recognizing the potential for harm and maximizing benefits for all involved. Nascent sought permission from head teachers for the Et4d team to visit the schools, and enumerators received permission from the head teachers to conduct interviews with students. The enumerator training reviewed appropriate ethical conduct. Enumerators also worked in pairs to ensure accountability. Nascent inquired with Cameroon’s national research ethics committee about the necessity of obtaining approval for the evaluation. Nascent was told that a project evaluation is exempt from approval. Field Quality Control Enumerators were observed only during the first day of data collection. Et4d ensured that the sampling strategy defined by Et4d and Nascent was enforced, and that quality assurance processes described in training manuals were followed. Et4d assisted the teams remotely throughout the data-collection process to ensure a smooth process and to address any issues the teams encountered, especially issues related to the adjustment of the data-collection schedule due to unplanned school closings. Data Quality Control Et4d also enacted a number of techniques throughout the evaluation process to ensure data quality control. For example, Tangerine data were downloaded daily and analyzed to ensure respect for the 13 three-second rule.19 Data from SurveyCTO were also downloaded daily for quality checks, including questionnaires, classroom observations, and MDD. This process sought to guarantee that no data went missing by comparing the school summary sheet, which showed all surveys and assessments completed by the team, and the actual data available on the server. Other quality checks included cross-checking attendance with sampling sheets and verifying that the data from school observation sheets matched the data from each survey. Similarly, Tangerine IDs were checked to confirm matches between EGRA and student questionnaire data. Qualitative data quality was ensured as team members listened to audio recordings from interviews alongside transcripts to ensure fidelity. Et4d also reviewed the uploading of qualitative data to SurveyCTO and subsequently into an Excel database to assure conformity with transcripts. 2.5. Data Analysis Methods The convergent mixed-methods design of the evaluation permitted the simultaneous analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. The sections below lay out these distinct processes. It is also worth noting that the evaluation team paid close attention to instances in which findings from the two strands seemed to contradict each other. As applicable, analysis within the later findings section explores such cases, providing possible explanations. The team also paid close attention to gender disaggregation for both strands of analyses. Quantitative Analysis Before conducting statistical analysis, survey weights were computed and added to the datasets, and all analysis took into consideration the survey design when running all statistical analysis. While two-thirds of the schools remained the same from baseline, a different cohort of students was used for the analysis. Impact analysis using a difference-in-differences approach (DiD) was conducted at the school level. Covariates were added to the regression analysis so as to control for characteristics that could influence students’ learning. For performing comparisons between comparison and program schools, an independent sample t-test was performed with continuous outcome, and a chi-square test with categorical outcome. For the comparisons between two groups for indicators, linear regression was used for continuous outcome and logistic regression for dichotomous outcome. (See Annex 8 for more details on statistical weighting.) Qualitative Analysis All qualitative interviews and focus groups were first transcribed, then the data were input into SurveyCTO, and finally they were transferred to Excel for a thematic analysis guided by evaluation questions. This process allowed for the rapid sorting of the data by interview question as well as by stakeholder profile (type of stakeholder, gender, location, etc.) The evaluation team next generated preliminary findings that informed the creation of formal codes. Columns were inserted within the Excel workbook to capture coding, also making it possible to see trends across stakeholder profiles. This approach allowed data collected from each source to be analyzed separately and then examined in relation to other sources to determine convergence and divergence, as well as general trend trajectories. The evaluation team also took into account outliers, recognizing that the qualitative sample was not representative and, moreover, that outlying cases may provide important insights for the larger population. Finally, illustrative quotes were identified to provide further context for report findings and to take full advantage of the thick description that a mixed-methods analysis makes possible. 19 The three-second rule refers to enumerators moving on to the next question item after a child is not able to answer within three seconds. 14 2.6. Evaluation Limitations The midterm evaluation process encountered a number of challenges and limitations. Many of them are common for the type of assessment performed. The COVID-19 pandemic context presents the exception, as it led to substantial programmatic and evaluation process changes. Nonetheless, team members felt well equipped to mitigate. Possibilities of response bias, for example, the chance that respondents connected to the project would wish to see it succeed and therefore answer queries accordingly, were countered by the use of multiple data sources and triangulation for findings. Evaluators also required specific examples from respondents and stressed the strict confidentiality of all responses to participants. Triangulation—combined with an expanded sample size at midterm when compared to baseline—also served to mitigate the limited sample size characteristic of the purposive qualitative approach (which also needed to take into account resource constraints, including time). The evaluation team strongly felt that despite its limitations stemming from a lack of strict representativeness, the qualitative component of the midterm assessment offered valuable and transferable insights into the Nascent project. Likewise, evaluators in their analyses and reporting narratives explicitly took into account possible sample bias and the impact of the evaluation’s relatively early timing in March. The evaluation was scheduled for this time period to avoid April-May Ramadan fasting and the rainy season, yet doing so meant that the evaluation assessed student literacy levels at mid-year rather than at the end of the school year, which may influence assessment results. The team responded to the challenges of remote data collection necessitated by the safety protocols of COVID-19 with an abundance of flexibility, making use of a variety of applications—including the widely available Zoom and phone calls—to reach some of the stakeholders at times convenient for them as much as possible. Detailed questions and guidelines created by the evaluation team meant to counter possible recall bias when assessing the nutritional intake of women of reproductive age. And finally, the last￾minute resignation of a Field Agent post training had little effect on evaluation proceedings as the team’s M&E Officer took on the resigned colleague’s tasks. (See Annex 9 for a more detailed description of challenges and mitigation strategies.) 3.Findings The findings section is informed by both an update of critical project indicators from baseline and responses to evaluation questions. The first, indicators section provides a skeletal overview of project developments. The second, evaluation-question section provides a more comprehensive treatment, including a greater contextualization of findings that may help explain indicator results. Performance Measurement Plan Update—Indicator Review The mid-term evaluation report provides an update to eight key indicators from baseline. As applicable, the analysis draws on findings from related indicators to contextualize results. Table 7 provides an overview of these indicators and their baseline and midline values. (For more information about the data-collection tools that informed the various sources, see Annex 6.) 15 Table 7: Key Nascent indicators with baseline and midterm measures20 Green indicates improved performance relative to baseline; red indicates underperformance relative to baseline; gold indicates nearly the same performance as baseline. Indicators Baseline Midline p-value MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text? Benchmark: 60% (3/5 correct answers) All: 1.7% (0.7%; 4.2%) Girls: 1.1% (0.3%; 4.7%) Boys: 2.3% (0.9%; 5.9%) All: 0.3% (0.1%;1.1%) Girls: 0.1% (0.1%;1.9%) Boys:0.5% (0.1%; 0.9%) 0.032 0.070 0.068 Literacy Achievement Index21 25.53 (22.3; 29.1) 24.76 (22.1; 27.4) 0.709 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for 50%+ of classroom time? 51.0% (42.8%; 60.5%) 78.2% (70.2%; 84.5%) <0.000 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off-task”? 16.9% (12.2%; 23,1%) 33.4% (29.8%; 37.0%) <0.000 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in USDA-supported classrooms/schools? All: 69.4% (63.6%; 76.3%) Girls: 69.8% (63.5%; 76.3%) Boys: 69.3% (62.6%; 75.3%) All: 69.5% (65.8%; 73.2%) Girls: 69.4% (65.4%; 73.4%) Boys: 69.7% (66.1%; 73.3%) 0.914 0.879 0.934 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands? All: 1.4% (0.0%; 4.3%) Girls: 1.8% (0.0%; 5.5%) Boys: 1.3% (0.0%; 3.8%) All: 58.8% (49.5%; 68.1%) Girls: 61.9% (51.1%; 71.7%) Boys: 55.4% (45.9%; 65.0%) <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity?22 All: 38.9% (29.3%; 46.4%) All: 39.5% (31.5%; 48.1%) 0.750 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences 1. Low parental awareness of the importance of education 2. Helping the family with chores or farm work at home 3. Health issues 1. Health issues 2. Teacher is absent 3. Late or no payment of school fees N/A Meaningful improvement is observed for two project indicators as conveyed by the green highlighting in Table 7. First, the percentage of teachers engaged in active instruction for 50 percent or more of 20 Cell coloring is green when results are improving as expected. Yellow indicates positive movement but less than expected. Red indicates a decrease since baseline or that results are moving in the wrong direction (e.g., MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2) 21 This indicator gives a global indication of students’ performance distribution on letter reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension subtasks, providing a broader picture of reading competence. 22 The number of respondents under 19 years-old is 7, which does not allow for proper disaggregation of data. 16 classroom time went from 51.0 percent at baseline to 78.2 percent at midline. Second, the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands increased from 23.0 percent to 58.8 percent between baseline and midline, perhaps driven by COVID-19 prevention messaging. No significant improvement is observed for the percentage of students who demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade-level text, average student attendance rate, prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity, or for the literacy achievement index. In addition, midline results demonstrate a notable increase in the proportion of classroom time where more than five students were off-task during classroom observations. The midline proportion is 33.4 percent, compared to 16.9 percent observed at baseline. Lastly, the results for the MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2 indicator, ranked reasons for student absences, are inconclusive. While low parental awareness of the importance of education and children needing to help with chores or farm work are not reported as reasons for missing school—a positive sign—these seem to be replaced by two other common challenges: teacher absences and difficulties paying school fees. Health issues make for a justified reason for absenteeism, so it may be a good sign that it appears among the top-ranked reasons. This section provided an overview of midterm indicator values and changes to these key outcome indicators since the baseline evaluation. The next section addresses a series of evaluation questions and will provide greater context for understanding this variation in indicators. Evaluation Questions Relevance According to the OECD, the criterion of relevance addresses the “extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.”23 Three evaluation questions comprise this section. 1.1. Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Do beneficiaries understand the problem and the solution to the problem in the same way as the project? As indicated above, the overall project design focuses on improving the literacy of primary-level children. The underlying project theory posits that existing reading instruction, as well as students’ health, nutrition, and dietary habits must be ameliorated to support increased attentiveness and attendance necessary to foster literacy development. To answer this evaluation question, we rely largely on qualitative data from interviews across stakeholder groups including Nascent staff, the donor, parents, teachers, and government partners. Interviews with USDA as well as project staff demonstrated their familiarity with the project’s strategic framework and the interconnectivity between program components. Analysis of staff interviews also demonstrates staff’s understanding that the Nascent project ranks above all as an education initiative that relies on a multidisciplinary approach. Staff also emphasized the importance of a participatory approach that allows for capacity development. Staff interviews also highlighted Nascent’s focus on capacity-building. They shared examples of trainings with community members, as well as of those meant to support head teachers in improving their management skills. We next turn to beneficiary views. All four parent focus groups noted a problem with under-enrollment and school attendance. They attributed this problem to children not having money for food, or food itself, as well as waiting for food to be prepared at home before leaving for school. Unanimously, 23 This definition and susbsequent definitions were informed by the following resource: OECD Home: Evaluation Criteria, https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm 17 parents indicated that these problems have been addressed and that school attendance has improved. Parents largely attribute these changes for the better to the school feeding component. Survey data also underscores that parents are most aware of school canteen efforts, as 90 percent of parents identified Nascent’s provision of foodstuffs. In focus groups, parents also noted that the provision of school materials and school gardens have helped alleviate the problem. A parent shared: “The problem was that, first of all, kids would arrive late to school or they were absent because they waited until their mothers could prepare something for them to eat before going to school. Now, kids, when they eat, they can spend the whole day at school. Many problems have been solved and kids come to school regularly. Nascent’s arrival has really improved our children’s education.” (Parent, FGD, Rural Adamaoua Region School) Three of four teacher focus groups discussed the issue and agreed with parents that hunger had proved a persistent problem that kept children from attending school.24 One group also specified that girls were particularly affected. In addition, teachers pointed to professional development trainings as well as the provision of school materials as highly helpful in addressing the problem. Local, regional, and national government officials from the ministries involved in Nascent’s project (Agriculture, Basic Education, Water and Energy, External Relations and Health) as well as mayors also shared their views about the underlying problems that Nascent seeks to address. Respondents in over three-quarters of the interviews identified hunger as the issue, followed by low school attendance and enrollment. Respondents tended to identify issues related to their own purview, as agricultural officials focused on Nascent’s work to support school and community gardens and health officials spoke about women and children’s acute or moderate malnutrition. Analysis of government responses provides additional insights into the project’s relevance. First, some officials pointed to the project’s intervention zone aligning with the needs of the population, citing how these regions are prone to climatic events and famine. 25 Second, three officials underlined Nascent’s participatory approach as appropriate and well-founded. One spoke about how it allowed mothers to better understand principles of good nutrition and act to support their own and their families’ health. An education official, different from the one quoted above, focused on school gardens: “Our communities must understand that Nascent has opened the door, and now it’s up to us to assure the follow-through. So, through this project, the school gardens will make up for Nascent's departure, when the time comes. Nascent is not there to give us rice all the time. As the proverb says: ‘Teach me to fish, don't give me fish.’” (Regional Education Delegate, Interview) 24 Some responses to focus group questions were not covered in all groups due to time. The one group that did not respond varies by question. This issue is consistent throughout the findings section and applies below as well. 25 Nascent’s October 2019-March 2020 Seminannual Report provides detailed descriptions of challenges in each of these regions, adding security concerns and malnutrition. 18 Finally, another official specified Nascent’s holistic approach and praised the organization’s recognition of the project components’ interconnected nature. This view supports staff comments above. Lastly, stakeholders also pointed to persistent gaps, including a lack of teachers to respond to demand. One parent group noted that the majority of teachers at the school were compensated by the community rather than the government. Similarly, one teacher’s FGD expressed the need for more school materials. This was counter-balanced by another group that praised the materials already provided. In addition, local officials are investigating how communities might contribute local foods, rather than having to rely on imports. 1.2. Is implementation design consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels? Answers to this question rely on document review as well as qualitative data and depict multiple ways Nascent’s design supports government priorities. To begin, Cameroon’s National Development Strategy 2020-2030 emphasizes human capital development and articulates as a goal an education system that produces young people who are “integrated, bilingual, competent,” and able to contribute to the country’s development. 26 One of the strategic objectives supporting this goal is to guarantee school access at the primary level, clearly in alignment with Nascent’s implementation design. Further, the government identifies three key strategic components: access and equity; quality and employability; strengthening of the education system. The document also indicates out-of-school youth as its major concern and notes girls’ heightened vulnerability. Finally, the strategy also identifies the provision of school canteens within primary schools, especially in rural areas, as one of the key actions of its social security strategy. The document also includes a policy to promote the production and distribution of low-cost school textbooks throughout the country. Again, these strategies align with Nascent’s approach. In addition, Nascent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Basic Education in February 2016 that clearly demonstrates the government’s support of Nascent’s project and approach. That document reaffirms the Government of Cameroon’s commitment to the Sustainability Development Goals as well as to four Ministry of Basic Education programs under which Nascent and the ministry will collaborate: o Promotion of Universal Primary Education o Promotion of Literacy, Formal and Informal Basic Education, and of National Languages; o The Support to Preschool Development; and o Governance and Institutional Support. In discussions with USDA and Nascent staff, participants emphasized that Nascent’s objectives and strategies aligned with the priorities of the various partner ministries. They pointed out that if their efforts did not align with government priorities, they would not be allowed to operate. Staff also provided examples of particular government efforts that resemble Nascent’s implementation, including promoting enrollment, capacity-building for educators, school construction, access to clean water, and promoting a personal-hygiene–focused curriculum. While the MOU cited above refers to a National School Feeding policy developed in 2015, Nascent staff noted that while it has not yet gone into effect, homegrown school feeding was promoted at the continent level. Staff also emphasized how their ongoing close collaboration with government officials for agricultural, health, WASH, and education trainings further demonstrates the relevance of Nascent’s implementation design to government priorities. Nascent staff work with government officials to prepare the trainings, develop manuals together, and co-facilitate. In some cases, including in agriculture, government officials take direct next 26 République du Cameroun. (2020). Stratégie nationale de développement 2020-2030, p. 73. 19 steps with communities in overseeing their practical work in the fields. In addition, technical staff supporting infrastructure projects confirmed that implementation followed technical specifications required by Cameroonian government. Analyses of interviews with Cameroonian government officials from the various relevant ministries further triangulate findings of relevancy. All officials interviewed spoke of synergy between Nascent’s implementation design and national-level priorities. Like staff, they accentuated that alignment with government strategy was required for projects to operate. A Ministry of Basic Education official further emphasized that Nascent’s work aligns with the National Strategic Development Plan, describing it as a “very useful” project for the country. Two other education officials, regional Education Delegates, stressed Nascent’s alignment with the national curriculum, particularly its emphasis on quality, while another emphasized the importance of Nascent’s work with regional inspectors. In addition, Ministry of Agriculture representatives expressed synergy, though one also lamented that the Government of Cameroon has not yet implemented its own school feeding policy. Health officials similarly pointed out Nascent’s ability to fill a void in providing nutritional support to children under five, as stated in the quote below. “We were very, very happy when Nascent arrived. Indeed, we are responsible for addressing children’s food and nutrition up to the age of five years old. . . . Nascent is very welcome because it’s a continuation of our work.” (Regional Authority, Ministry of Health, Interview) A Regional Focal Point emphasized how important Nascent’s work was in providing products and services to children with acute and moderate malnutrition. Only one official of the 20 interviewed on this topic expressed concerns about Nascent’s approach. A Ministry of Water and Energy official noted a desire to be more involved in choosing schools, an issue that may be internal to the particular ministry. Local and Regional Priorities When asked specifically about how the Nascent project may align with local or regional priorities, both project staff and government officials across all four ministries explained how local and regional priorities echo national priorities—and are thus complementary. Many officials used the phrase “in sync” to describe their relationship. At the national level, an education official explained how national￾level strategies translate seamlessly to the local level, while another official indicated that Nascent’s approach also agrees with regional realties, in particular in the North. The same held true for the four agriculture officials interviewed. All of them underlined the importance of seed distribution and the support Nascent provides. Similarly, all three Ministry of Water and Energy officials described a close relationship with the Nascent project and their willingness to support project activities. Ministry of Health officials at the regional level equally expressed how Nascent addresses their priorities. Some of Nascent’s school feeding staff underlined how certain mayors have pledged to include line items for school canteens in their budgets, notably six mayors in the North and four mayors in the East. One of these staff interviewed explained how a mayor had integrated 1 million Francs CFA in their budget to support school canteens at two schools. All four mayors interviewed during data collection further described Nascent’s approach as complementary to their efforts. Two mayors proved particularly emphatic when asked about relevancy, as demonstrated by the quotes below: 20 “I told you that we have a council-level development plan. All of this incorporates what we want and what is planned, our strategic planning. It’s about nutrition and education issues. It’s directly in line with the Nascent project.” (Mayor, East Region, Interview) “Absolutely! It’s because of that that we have integrated it in our council-level budget. Nascent’s implementation activities are completely in tune with our vision.” (Mayor, North Region, Interview) Mother-Tongue Instruction The issue of mother-tongue instruction provides the only exception. Despite a positive interview with the National Focal Point at the Ministry of Basic Education who reiterated the government’s commitment to mother-tongue languages and awareness of their benefit as languages of instruction, interviews with Nascent staff and document review reveal weaker alignment with national priorities on this issue. Nascent had originally planned to pilot Lamnso and Fulfulde as the languages of instruction in 20 schools (10 in Anglophone regions, 10 in Francophone regions). Given security issues in Anglophone regions, Nascent revised its plan to focus on the other 10 schools. 27 The project also planned to develop mother-tongue literacy materials. Interviews with Nascent staff, including project leadership, question the government’s commitment, while also acknowledging the challenging political and linguistic environment of Cameroon. Based on the results of an evaluation from an earlier pilot project, 28 Nascent has been waiting for the government to make a decision about piloting since December 2019. With piloting paused, Nascent moved forward with the development of literacy materials in mother tongues.29 The project’s most recent semiannual report details important progress, as Nascent gained approval from authorities in the North region to pilot after-school mother-tongue literacy activities in the Fulfulde language starting in September 2021. Four teachers will be trained to support the activity. 30 27 Nascent Solutions. (2019). Year 2 Workplan, October 2019-September 2020. 28 The Ministry of Basic Education piloted the National Languages Initiative in Africa (ELAN) beginning in 2013. (Source: Nascent Solutions. (2019). Year 2 Workplan, October 2019-September 2020). 29 Nascent Solutions. (2020). Year 3 Workplan, October 2020-September 2021. 30 Nacent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report. 21 1.3. Did the support provided by Nascent during the COVID-19 pandemic address the needs of beneficiaries? This question focuses specifically on how the project may have met beneficiaries’ needs during the COVID-19 pandemic and the relevance of Nascent’s response. A later question (Impact 4.5) explores in more depth project adaptations and their possible mitigation of COVID-19’s impact. The answer to the present relevance question draws largely on qualitative data. Initiatives the project developed to address beneficiary needs include the conversion of school meals into take-home rations (THR) during school closures and up to the present as the Government of Cameroon continues to maintain the suspension of meals at schools out of an abundance of caution. According to school feeding staff, the distribution of THRs began in June 2020 to empty school reserves prior to the end of the school year, and it continued when schools reopened. Staff also noted that this created a major change for the project, requiring significant adaptation from parents. The project also provided sensitizations to 220,000 people on COVID-19 preventions through radio and door-to-door social behavior–change messages in local languages. In interviews, multiple Nascent staff members underlined the importance—and innovation—of using a well-understood local language for COVID messaging.31 The project trained 224 community health workers to sensitize communities on COVID-19 safety measures and referrals and sensitized 1,140 teachers and 8,333 students of examination classes on good hygiene and COVID-19 prevention measures. Nascent also set up 74 handwashing units at schools to encourage proper hand hygiene; these included buckets and soap.32 The project required employees, especially Field Agents, to follow COVID-19 safety protocols to demonstrate a good example. Nascent also provided masks and hand sanitizer to participants during trainings, as well as masks to all teachers. 33 Lastly, through its partner, School-to-School International (STS), the project also provided six Master Trainers with virtual support for innovative strategies to aid in reading instruction (originally planned for in-person support). Direct discussions with beneficiaries further emphasize that Nascent’s response to the pandemic met their needs. All three teacher focus groups identified ways in which Nascent provided support to school communities. All cited the distribution of soap as important, while two groups mentioned the distribution of face masks. One of these groups, from a rural community in the North, expressed gratitude, noting that they had hoped all students would also receive masks, though they understood that this may not have been possible. Figure 4 depicts the awareness of teachers and head teachers of Nascent’s COVID response efforts and shows that around three-quarters of educators knew of Nascent’s distribution of soap, handwashing stations, and masks. As expected, they were less aware of community-level efforts34. All three parent groups also gave very positive responses, although they were 31 Interview with M&E staff, Nutrition-WASH staff, and a Nascent Field Agent. 32 Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual report. 33 Interview with Nutrition WASH staff and Nascent Field Agent. 34 Results may reflect purposeful sampling that privileged those with project awareness. Image 1: Child receiving take-home ration 22 not always as clear. One group, from a rural community in the East, emphasized how Nascent had helped reduce the burden on parents of buying protective gear. Figure 4: Teacher and head teacher awareness of Nascent COVID response In complement, analysis of interviews with government officials also point to how Nascent’s support aligned with the needs of beneficiaries. Officials from the agriculture, health, and education sectors underlined Nascent’s support of the government’s prevention strategy, including social distancing, mask-wearing, and handwashing. All four education officials interviewed found awareness-raising efforts and the distribution of materials immensely important, saying that they had helped extend the government’s reach. They emphasized handwashing, in particular. One national-level Pedagogical Inspector proved particularly articulate: “Nascent seriously helped the communities. They received messages about how to treat COVID-19 within schools, as well as the provision of sanitation kits to help prepare able children to go back to school. So, I think that it is very noteworthy, and we consider that it has definitely helped the government, because we have around 12,000 schools and the government can’t intervene in all the schools, can’t provide hand sanitizer and soap and sanitation equipment used to fight COVID.” (Pedagogical Instructor, Interview) 2% 5% 12% 34% 63% 71% 73% 76% 80% 7% 8% 5% 14% 37% 60% 82% 76% 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Remote training for pedagogical instructors Other Radio messages on hygiene Distribution of posters and flyiers Good hygiene training THR distribution Handwashing station distribution Face mask distribution to teachers Soap distribution Teachers Head teachers 23 Despite these efforts, the extent of school closures and concerns about learning loss require investigation into how Nascent responded to these needs. More than three-quarters of teachers (78%) and head teachers (80%) surveyed reported that none of their students had access to remote learning activities during school closures. As EQ 4.7 presents in detail below, while the project had examined possibilities, it was decided that the level of resources needed proved high and that, based on previous studies, the impact was likely to be too low to make developing a remote program viable. 1.4. Conclusion: Relevance Findings show that stakeholders and beneficiaries share Nascent’s understanding of the problems and solutions that inform the project design. Direct and indirect beneficiaries clearly share the project’s view of the various challenges to enrollment and attendance, and they unanimously indicate that the Nascent project addresses these issues. The provision of school lunches stands out, but also other components, including school and community gardens and efforts to mediate women’s and children’s acute or moderate malnutrition. Pathways that accentuate capacity-building as well as stakeholder participation are also generally seen as critical to successful implementation. Nascent’s strategies unequivocally support the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels through efforts to strengthen access and quality to the educational system. Nascent supports Cameroon’s National Strategic Development Plan and provides critical support in the absence of an active national school feeding policy. Partnerships with government officials, particularly at the local and regional levels, exemplify this synergy. It is significant that at least 10 mayors in two regions intend to integrate budget line items for school canteens in their operating budgets. The mother-tongue pilot is the only area that may exhibit a slight tension between Nascent’s approach and government strategies, likely the result of ambiguous government messaging and indecision. Nascent’s support to beneficiaries during the ongoing pandemic responds to their needs while also aiding in government prevention measures. The provision of handwashing stations, soap, and face masks, as well as sensitization efforts, appear most noteworthy. The months during which the provision of meals halted between school closure in March and the distribution of THR in June demonstrate a gap in service that may have been unavoidable due to the crisis situation. Similarly, while it is understandable that Nascent may not have been able to provide students with learning opportunities during school closures, more than three-quarters of teachers and head teachers lamented that almost none of their students had access to distance-learning programming. This finding requires revisiting during planning for future projects in anticipation of similar crises, as efforts from the government, UNICEF, and UNESCO faced enormous challenges regarding delivery and accessibility. 24 Image 2: Students wearing face masks 2. Effectiveness The DAC criteria of effectiveness is defined as “the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups.” Effectiveness focuses more closely on outputs and attributable results than impact. Five questions inform the response to this criterion and address implementation challenges, the achievement of project targets, and the integration of best practices. 2.1. Are the program’s activities implemented according to plan? (infrastructure, training, distributing school meals, distributing take-home rations, distributing materials, improving curricula, school garden) Despite major disturbances, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic and unrest in the North West region, discussions with project stakeholders and document review show that activities have largely been implemented according to plan. The response to this question outlines how activities have shifted, while EQ 2.2 addresses the internal and external factors underlying these changes in greater depth. Regarding COVID-19, the pandemic has significantly disrupted activities. Not only were schools closed beginning in March 2020, but since they reopened in October 2020, the Government of Cameroon has also continued its suspension of the preparation and serving of hot meals on the school premises, making Nascent pivot to provide students with THRs instead. Interviews with the project leadership, USDA and M&E Specialists as well as the project’s April-September semiannual report, underscored the magnitude of this disruption. While a monthly home distribution obviously proves less targeted than daily hot school meals, the USDA and some ministerial colleagues point out that Nascent has managed the difficult situation commendably. “It wasn’t easy because, as you know, everything is calculated, and to now recalculate so that a child from Family X consumes the prescribed number of calories hasn’t been easy. They have had a hard time, but they have succeeded in being sure that children are able to benefit from the rations.” (Inspector, Ministry of Basic Education, Interview) 25 “There is always an ongoing effort by Nascent to be dynamic and to change based on the circumstances, and they have always been amenable to any regulations or circumstances that USDA has to dictate given the implications of the program.” (USDA staff, Interview) COVID-related restrictions on large gatherings also prevented the implementation of some trainings, including those on child health and nutrition, safe food preparation/storage, commodity management, and educator trainings. The sessions were converted to virtual modalities where possible, but others were pushed back from early 2020 to the final quarter of 2020, according to two senior leadership officials. Similarly, efforts to provide students with deworming medications, the rollout of library activities, community information sessions on the importance of education, and efforts to promote public-private partnerships and cooperatives/savings and loan entities were all delayed. The project has also faced notable continued political disruption in the North West region, an upheaval that originated with teacher strikes in November 2016 and transformed into a secessionist movement. Unrest closed all 92 project schools in that region from the beginning of the project. As of June 2021, 38 schools had reopened, operating temporarily from church buildings and community halls. 35 Nascent has again adapted programming by providing THRs in that area and operating its mobile reading project to keep children connected with texts during school closures.36 The political situation also resulted in a modification of the evaluation scope to focus only on the North, East and Adamaoua regions and not to include the North West due to a lack of activities. The project baseline also found that enrollment was higher than expected in originally targeted schools, which led to an adjustment in school selection and a decrease from 265 to 240 target schools. The evaluation team notes that this significant change did not affect the implementation schedule. Nonetheless, high enrollments continued to have an effect on programming, as it was impossible to distribute THRs to Grade 5 and Grade 6 pupils for the first and second terms of the 2019-2020 academic year, since available commodities could not cover both extensive THR distribution and school meals.37 Technical staff, in an interview, confirmed that about 15,000 more students were enrolled in project schools than had been originally expected during the proposal stage in 2018. The implementation of infrastructure activities has also changed, according to interviews with project leadership, technical staff and a government Regional WASH Focal Point. Modifications include a reduction in the number of boreholes (from 10 to 7) to respond to adjustments in market prices and delays, particularly in the Adamaoua region. At the same time, the project indicates managing these delays, in part due to a strategy of fining contractors for delayed services. The COVID-19 pandemic seems not have had an effect on infrastructure activities. Other notable project delays include a two-week delay in food distribution at the beginning of the project and the development of a video-based nutrition education study with the University of Illinois. Nascent staff noted short delays in food delivery, both at the beginning of the project and due to COVID￾19. At the same time, they indicate that the project’s efficient coordination of in-country logistics has allowed them to make up lost time during distribution. The video-based study is now on schedule for September 2021 according to the project’s leadership. 35 Nascent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report. 36 Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report. Interviews touching on this aspect include the interview with the Country Director as well as USDA. 37 Nascent Solutions (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual Report. 26 Despite major impediments, the project is on track in terms of its installation of school gardens, as well as for nutrition activities. Staff also pointed out that they have adjusted WASH activities, as indicated above, to incorporate sensitization and behavior change communications related to COVID-19. Finally, in regard to the project budget, interview data indicate that the project is doing well despite disruptions. Two members of project leadership shared that the budget remained as planned, though the spending plan had to shift to accommodate the pandemic, with spending concentrated in the final quarter of Year 2 and the first quarter of Year 3. At the time of writing, the project was working on budget reallocations. 2.2. Have there been internal and/or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of project activities? Are these obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the Government of Cameroon, or other partners? The response to this question builds on EQ 2.1 and provides additional information about hindering external and internal factors. Analysis draws on document review and interview data. External factors The COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on project implementation (see above) and the political situation in the North West represent by far the most prominent and significant challenges. Additional insecurity challenges: Nascent staff explained that the crisis in the North West has caused logistical challenges, such as a complex transportation strategy involving different sets of trucks as well as motorbikes, which are necessary to carry commodities to schools. Similarly, according to the Nutrition-WASH Field Coordination team, the project experienced difficulties fully targeting THR distribution to children from project schools, as other children also attended the Mobile Reading Program. In addition, complications occurred in other geographical intervention areas, notably in Adamaoua and the East, where spillover from the crisis in the Central African Republic (CAR) and the presence of refugees, as well as ongoing micro-conflicts between agriculturalist and pastoralist communities in Adamaoua, require constant vigilance and adaptation. Staff shared how CAR rebels blocked transportation for a couple weeks in Adamaoua. Government-level challenges: In some instances, there is a lack of coordination among government partners. The government’s stalled school feeding policy makes for a major impediment, and no particular entity oversees school feeding within the government. As a result, Nascent must work with four different ministries (Basic Education, Water and Energy, Agriculture, and Health) to coordinate and get all the delegations involved and engaged to support school feeding in target zones. The geographic spread of the project’s intervention further complicates coordination in Adamaoua and the East, making it difficult for Nascent to establish itself as an important partner with local authorities. A representative from the Ministry of Water and Energy made a related observation: “Maybe I should say that Nascent, according to me, is not sufficiently known in the region. For an activity like this that wants to lead such major activities . . .I don’t know if it’s due to internal methods, but communications are not that far-reaching. People really don’t know it except for those who have worked with them. If the Ministry of Water and Energy or the Ministry of Basic Education do what they should, it’s very important that it is publicized, so that it can be known by the larger public and relayed by the administrative authorities and the different group leaders and traditional leaders and all the rest. You see this sort of activity can’t be led only 27 through state support. It should be well known at the community level.” (Water & Energy Regional Delegate, Interview) Challenges with the government manifest in many ways, including the cumbersome clearance process for commodities to leave Douala to regional warehouses. While the project has signed an establishment agreement with the Government of Cameroon, which grants Nascent total customs exoneration for the importation of commodities and project materials and should alleviate the issue,38 the M&E team and the Commodities Coordinator identified persistent misunderstandings between the different government departments responsible for the implementation of the provision of the agreement and delays. A national Ministry of External Relations official concurred that the agreement did not entirely solve the issue, despite Nascent’s dynamism and continued efforts to serve targeted areas. Other Nascent staff cited challenges with weak communication among government officials. For example, in the East, there was an incident in which authorities refused to allow Nascent food to enter the community as they doubted its legitimacy and quality. This led to a delay of a couple of months as Nascent worked to obtain necessary verifications. In addition, both Nascent staff and government partners identified other coordination issues, including challenges to scheduled activities requiring government presence (e.g., trainings and other meetings) given the government’s solicitation by other partners as well as some gaps in communication. Two Agricultural Delegates as well as a national-level education official expressed a desire for more inputs into project operations. The agricultural officials indicated wanting to be more involved in school selection, so as to align with zones that had a greater presence of agricultural agents – though Nascent staff note this is outside their purview. More important, the national-level education official indicated wanting more communication from Nascent, so that they could be aware of the project’s lessons learned, good practices, and conclusions to inform the government’s work across the country. The official specifically asked to have access to the midterm evaluation report, for example. At the same time, other officials indicated that they felt they worked very well already with Nascent and had no issues to report. These individuals included an Education Delegate/Inspector, a WASH Regional Focal Point, and a Water and Energy Official. Poor infrastructure: Poor roads in certain areas impact the delivery of commodities and materials for infrastructure projects. As noted earlier, poor roads in the North West region negatively impact an already challenging operating environment. Similarly, Nascent has learned to contact authorities in the East close to the CAR border to appraise the situation prior to sending goods. They cited a bridge collapsing, which elicited schedule changes. A project staff member providing technical infrastructure assistance also spoke of a site where the contractor could not deliver materials because of surrounding road conditions. Climate challenges: Both excess and lack of rain have complicated project implementation despite strong efforts, as indicated by the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team and the Commodities team, as well as regional delegates from various ministries. The rainy season paired with poor roads complicates delivery to project schools in more remote locations. At the same time, a lack of precipitation in the North, attributed to climate change, stymies the best of agricultural efforts. Lack of capacity: The issue of weak capacity arose most notably in discussion with project technical staff, but it is also relevant for teachers, many of whom lack training, particularly community recruits. A 38 Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report. 28 technical staff member reported that some of the contractors and workers did not have required technical capacity, which has led to multiple revisions of installations and the dismissal of some workers. Limitations of the educational system: Analysis points to poor learning conditions at many schools, including makeshift classrooms with high enrollment, particularly in more urban areas, as well as the complex teacher mobility issue as underlying systemic challenges to Nascent’s interventions. “Another one is the teacher transfer—teachers are always in transfer. The government—you know we are not able to request that a teacher be transferred— when a teacher is transferred, this affects the project. Finally, we came to realize that over 65 percent of teachers are recruited by the PTA. Their transfer is already in their pocket. They can leave at any time if they see something elsewhere. So, imagine training such teachers and realizing that they disappeared.” (Nascent staff, Interview) M&E colleagues further insisted that the regions in which the project operates proved challenging in terms of climatic conditions, combined with insecurity that further exacerbated teacher-mobility challenges. Operating environment favors assistance without participation: Analysis also points to how Nascent’s development-based approach differs from the humanitarian approach implemented by other organizations in many of the same intervention zones. Field Agents, for instance, explain how beneficiaries, namely parents and other community members, have come to expect the provision of supplies or materials without demonstrating engagement. Nascent, on the other hand, espouses a participatory approach that requires accountability from community partners, demonstrating an underlying philosophical tension. Nonetheless, discussions with Field Agents, the School Feeding and the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team reveal that the project has managed to surmount these challenges by rallying community participation over time and with persistence. Internal Factors Analysis of project documents and interviews reveals only three internal challenges. Indeed, the USDA Program Analyst, a small number of Nascent staff, and the majority of government officials from the agricultural and health sectors were not able to identify any challenges. Staff turnover: In addition to the transition of the Country Director that took place in March 2019 (but seems to have had no negative impact on the project39), repeated changes in staffing occurred at the Field Coordinator level. The April-September 2019 semiannual report identifies a period of active recruitment as the project ramped up, as well as reassignments. An interview with the Nutrition-WASH Field Coordination team evidenced frustration about minor turnover among Field Agents. The challenging operating environments of these zones, as well as the unique skill set required for a successful Field Agent, may contribute. Disparate placement of target schools: As indicated in the baseline report, the fact that the number of project schools in the East and Adamaoua are limited, while there is a great concentration of schools in the North makes it difficult to establish synergy of implementation and between communities. The project slightly revised school selection after baseline (as identified above). It is worth noting that this 39 Project leadership also suggest that an overlap period of one month between the out-going and incoming COPs as well as the consistent presence of the Program Manager helped assure a smooth transition. 29 factor did not arise in interviews with stakeholders, indicating that most may consider the dispersed intervention zone a manageable challenge. In addition, when questioned on this topic, program leadership explained that working in the four regions was a USDA requirement during the proposal stage in 2018 – USDA desired to continue building on previous projects which focused in the North and North West regions. In addition, the choice of schools also takes into account real political pressures to spread target schools out among districts. 2.3. Are program products and outcome targets achieved (see list of 10 indicators)? And if not, why? The response to this question relies on Nascent’s monitoring data and performance reports as well as information from interviews and other correspondence between the evaluation team and project staff. As indicated in Table 8, at the time of writing the project had achieved six of its 10 Year 2 targets, surpassing each one by a wide margin. 30 Table 8: Indicator status at midterm40 Green indicates overperformance relative to target; red indicates underperformance relative to target. # Result/Performance Indicator Year 1 Target Year 1 Achieved Year 2 Target Year 2 Achieved Relationship to target 6 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1.2: Number of grade 1-3 students receiving new literacy materials as a result of USDA assistance 0 0 23,850 48,892 +105% 9 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1.4: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0 0 444 0 -100% 11 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1.6: Number of schools organizing after-school literacy activities as a result of USDA assistance 0 92 80 132 +180% 15 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2.1.1: Number of daily school meals that include fruits, vegetables, and/or animal￾sourced proteins in addition to USDA commodities 0 0 539,156 387,671 -28% 19 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3.3/2.4: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 10 56 35 55 +147% 21 MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.4.1/2.7.1: Number of government civil servants receiving capacity building training as a result of USDA assistance 0 0 90 151 +68% 25 MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.1: Number of individuals trained in hygiene as a result of USDA assistance 170 0 8,800 14,971 +67% 27 MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.2: Number of individuals trained in commodity management as a result of USDA assistance 1,200 435 740 329 -61% 31 MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.3: Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs 0 0 4,771 8,536 +79% 40 Cell coloring is green when results are improving as expected. Yellow indicates positive movement but less than expected. Red indicates a decrease since baseline or that results are moving in the wrong direction (e.g., MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2) 31 # Result/Performance Indicator Year 1 Target Year 1 Achieved Year 2 Target Year 2 Achieved Relationship to target 33 MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.3: Number of individuals trained on improved gardening methods as a result of USDA assistance 55 958 8,490 4,021 -42% While the proportion of targets achieved remains the same between Year 1 and Year 2, in Year 2, Nascent has managed to address each of the relevant activities as the project life cycle has evolved. Analysis of progress by MCGOVERN-DOLE result shows that Nascent reached its Year 2 target for four of the six literacy-focused indicators and two of the four WASH-focused targets. Further analysis by result follows. Results 1 indicators The project met two-thirds of Result 1 indicators by the end of Year 2. According to discussions with the M&E and Literacy team, the project was able to surpass the Indicator 6 target due to a combination of higher-than-expected enrollment and a lower-than-expected market price of school supplies. Similarly, the project surpassed its Indicator 19 target by 147 percent. Project staff indicated that the high attainment resulted from after-school activities already taking place in some schools, including in the North West, where schools have not yet fully resumed. The project also surpassed its education infrastructure target by 147 percent. (Efficiency EQs below will provide more detailed explanation.) As the M&E team indicated, Nascent managed to build on its previous experiences to succeed. Timing also proved advantageous, as Nascent’s efficiency allowed for handwashing stations to be in place prior to the urgency of COVID-19. Nascent staff further explained, “We learned a lot from Kumbo [previous Nascent project in the North West] about how to conduct efficient recruitment procedures for contractors (better procurement practices), and we knew we needed to start early. Some infrastructure is easier to build than others—handwashing stations are very easy to build and cheap. We were able to move very quickly on handwashing stations, and there is a great interest in that, even before the Covid-19 pandemic.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Finally, the project exceeded its target for training with government civil servants by 68 percent. This training took place before the COVID lockdown. According to the M&E team, more government officials expressed interest in the training than originally expected, and the original target may well have underestimated beneficiary needs. In terms of the two results not achieved, it was not possible for the project to fulfill its education￾training objectives (Indicator 9) during the COVID-19 lockdown. Both Literacy and M&E teams felt confident that the project would be able to catch up during Year 3. Nascent also failed to reach its Year 2 target for Indicator 15, the number of daily school meals that include fruits, vegetables, and/or animal￾sourced proteins in addition to USDA commodities. Project performance was 28 percent below target. All sector teams provided explanations for these results, including how, in some schools, particularly in the East and Adamaoua regions, school feeding started two months late, in part because some communities needed more time to fully understand and buy into the project. The School Feeding team further stipulated that the initial targets included the North West, where only dry rations have been distributed, and that dry rations do not include fruits, vegetables, and/or animal-sourced proteins. More 32 importantly school shutdown in March 2020 due to COVID hampered attainment of results. Through further discussion with Nascent M&E staff, the evaluation team learned that, in accordance with guidance from USDA, targets are not distinct for the North West region, despite the latter’s unique and challenging operating context. Results 2 indicators The project managed to meet two of four Year 2 targets related to improving students’ health, nutrition, and dietary practices. The number of individuals trained in hygiene as a result of USDA assistance (Indicator 25) exceeded the two-year cumulative target by 67 percent. The number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs exceeded the two-year cumulative target by 79 percent. The WASH-Nutrition team pointed to heightened awareness of hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as health centers maintaining function during lockdown, as reasons for the project’s success. Two Results 2 indicators concern school-based trainings: Indicator 27 (individuals trained in commodity management) and Indicator 33 (gardening methods). School-based trainings did not take place during COVID-related school closures, meaning that the project could not meet these targets as a result. The M&E team also pointed out that the Indicator 27 target included schools in the North West, where training activities did not take place in Year 2. In addition, other coordination teams commented that they felt certain trainings were not adequately covered within the targets and that results may prove misleading. Both the Commodity and the School Feeding teams questioned the calculations for Indicator 27 that concerns training in commodity management. The Commodity team felt that the calculation may not have included refresher trainings, while the School Feeding team suggested that the target should have been reached because all cooks were trained, either directly or via outreach. Similarly, for Indicator 33, the Agriculture Coordination team pointed to how trainings related to the creation of cooperatives had not been included in project counts. These findings suggest that relevant project staff have gaps in understanding how project indicators are computed. 2.4. To what extent are students following best practices in the schools regarding hygiene? The response to this question focuses on Nascent’s materials, as well as survey and interview data. We begin the section with an overview of Nascent’s approach to hygiene education. Nascent’s Approach to Hygiene in Schools Document review shows that Nascent developed the Hygiene and Sanitation Facilitators Guide in collaboration with the Ministry of Health’s Department of Health and Nutrition. 41 In total, Nascent trained 14,971 Hygiene and Health Champions (HHC). 42 These individuals are members of the government health personnel system meant to raise community awareness of the dangers of water- and sanitation-related diseases. Parents and teachers in selected schools served as HHC to promote improved hygiene practices in the project intervention zones. Parents’ participation complemented what children learned in school about hygiene. The guide also details how daily hygiene and sanitation practices promoted at school, in health centers, and in the community focus on 1) handwashing with clean water and soap at critical times, 2) personal hygiene, 3) environmental hygiene, and 4) food hygiene. Table 9 details practices indicated within the guide. 41 Nascent Solutions. (2019). GUIDE DU FACILITATEUR: Hygiène et assainissement [FACILITATOR’S GUIDE: Hygiene and Sanitation]. 42 From years 1 and 2. Informed from results of USDA indicator: MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.1: Number of individuals trained in hygiene as a result of USDA assistance. 33 Table 9: Hygiene practices presented within Nascent facilitation guide Handwashing with Soap Personal hygiene practices Environmental hygiene Food hygiene • Before preparing meals • Before and after meals • Before breastfeeding • After toileting • After defecation • After handling children’s stools • After visits to public places, markets, events, ceremonies, hospital • Brushing teeth at least twice a day with toothbrush and toothpaste • Bathing at least once a day • Washing hair at least once a week • Changing clothes daily with clean clothes • Menstrual hygiene • Disposing of clothes of sick and deceased people • Daily latrine cleaning • Defecating in latrine and not in open • Building latrines with local materials • Cleaning house yard, school yard and community daily • Use and daily cleaning of animal pens • Cleaning water corner daily • Avoiding waste disposal in water corner • Cleaning fruits and vegetables before consumption • Cleaning vegetables before preparation with clean water • Avoiding preparation of spoiled foods • Cleaning utensils with clean water and soap Nascent also developed the Teacher’s Guide for Teaching in Hygiene, Health and Nutrition for teachers to help with instruction in hygiene and health practices. 43 Nascent assigns an HHC to each project school to help reinforce WASH practices in schools s. 44 Champions also work to reinforce practice while helping the committees raise awareness about hygiene and health in their communities. Champions cascade trainings by organizing subsequent sessions and work with schools and households to improve latrines, teaching them how to use latrines and emphasizing good hygiene practices. The Champions are responsible for conducting school-cleanliness inspections using an Inspection Checklist, as well as for organizing inter-school and inter-class hygiene competitions in partnership with the committees. The 2021 work plan foresees such competitions for May and June 2021. Project teachers are responsible for WASH activities in schools. Hygiene Practice in Schools Global best practices for school hygiene include handwashing with soap (HWWS), improved environmental hygiene including sanitation practices, the safe disposal of child feces, the safe handling and storage of drinking water, and menstrual hygiene.45 The midterm data evaluation looked specifically at HWWS, as well as environmental hygiene practices and school handwashing-station use using the Handwashing Observation and School Inventory tool (see Annex 6). School Handwashing-Station Use The midterm evaluation conducted handwashing observation using the Handwashing Observation and School Inventory tool (see Annex 6) to determine the presence of a basic minimum level of service for hygiene within visited schools. This criterion aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) indicator for WASH in schools and is defined as “handwashing facilities with water and soap available at 43 Nascent Solutions. (2020). Guide du Maitre pour L’enseignement des Notions en Hygiène, Santé et Nutrition [Teacher’s Guide for Teaching in Hygiene, Health and Nutrition]. 44 Student health clubs (Clubs d’Enfants) align with the National Strategy for the Promotion of Drinking Water Supply, Hygiene and Sanitation in the Environment for Schools in Cameroon as part of the 2017 Promotion of the Clean School for All strategy (Stratégie nationale de promotion de l’approvisionnement en eau potable, l’hygiène et l’assainissement en milieu scolaire au Cameroun. See Ministry of Basic Education: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cmr197627.pdf 45 UNICEF. (n.d). “Hygiene.” https://www.unicef.org/wash/hygiene. 34 the school at the time of the survey.”46 Results from the evaluation’s student questionnaire indicate that 88 percent of schools boasted a basic hygiene service, usually defined as a handwashing facility with water and soap available, compared to the initial 2 percent at baseline. At the same time, it is important to note that, due to COVID-19 protocol, the evaluator had to stay at a distance, leaving them unable to check the availability of soap. Still, observation data shows that 6 percent of schools had a limited hygiene service at baseline, compared to 0 percent at midterm, defined as a handwashing facility with water but no soap. While nearly all schools (91%) at baseline had no hygiene service, only about one￾tenth (12%) of project schools did so at midterm, defined as no facility or water available. Figure 19 presents these findings, while Table 10 disaggregates these findings by region. Results demonstrate a significant improvement in the availability of handwashing stations, the research limitation notwithstanding. (See Annex 12 for related additional figure.) Figure 19: Availability of a handwashing stations at school (%) Table 10: Availability of a handwashing stations at school by group, timepoint and region Group/Timepoint Region No Hygiene Service Limited Hygiene Service Basic Hygiene Service Comparison/Baseline Adamawa 83.3% 16.7% 0% East 100% 0% 0% North 90.3% 6.5% 3.2% Project/Baseline Adamawa 100% 0% 0% East 80% 20% 0% North 92.6% 3.7% 3.7% Comparison/Midterm 46 WHO/UNICEF. (2018). Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools: Global Baseline Report 2018. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/jmp-wash-in-schools-en.pdf 91% 92% 12% 65% 6% 6% 8% 3% 2% 88% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Project - Baseline Comparison - Baseline Project - Midterm Comparison - Midterm No Hygiene Service Limited Hygiene Service Basic Hygiene Service 35 Adamawa 33.3% 16.7% 50% East 90% 0% 10% North 68.2% 6.8% 25% Project/Midterm Adamawa 0% 0% 100% East 33.3% 0% 66.7% North 8.7% 0% 91.3% Regional analysis also shows important differences, with Adamaoua making the most gains as it shifted from a total absence of basic service to full compliance. The North region also experienced a large gain (from 4% to 91%), followed by the East (from 0% to 67%). Student-reported availability of soap and ash at school handwashing stations does allow for some triangulation in the absence of more robust observation data. Students surveyed reported that 95.8 percent of schools had soap or ash available. Similarly, students indicated using the soap at the school handwashing stations at least sometimes (98.6%), with nearly two-thirds of students reporting they always did so. Availability proved much lower near the latrines, however, as only a quarter (26.7%) of students reported soap and water always available there, with 20.3 percent of students reporting availability sometimes. Environmental Hygiene Practices Cameroon’s National Strategy for the Promotion of Drinking Water Supply, Hygiene, and Sanitation in the Environment School in Cameroon calls for support to improve school access to WASH infrastructure including water points, drinking water and latrines with hand washing device, hygiene kits, garbage, etc.).47 Nascent’s Hygiene and Sanitation Facilitators guide also touches on sanitation and reviews different types: 1) on-site sanitation; 2) semi-collective sanitation; 48 and 3) collective sanitation with sewer networks, and then the types of latrines. 49 The manual also explains the consequences of open defecation, contamination routes, and describes the simple management of latrines. Midterm survey data provide insights into students’ environmental hygiene practices to support healthy strategies. When parents were asked if they thought their children used the latrine at school, nearly half (45%) answered “yes, always,” followed by a quarter (27%) who responded “yes, sometimes.” Only 2.5 percent indicated, “no, never.” Similarly, data collectors at midterm found that nearly all school latrines (97.9%) were functional, compared to slightly less (87.5%) at baseline. Common student perceptions for the conditions of the latrines at midterm included 16.8 percent liked to use them, 16.9 percent felt they were clean, and 14.6 percent answered, “Sometimes I hold back so I don't have to use the latrine.” 47 Ministry of Basic Education. (2017). Stratégie nationale de promotion de l’approvisionnement en eau potable, l’hygiène et l’assainissement en milieu scolaire au Cameroun. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cmr197627.pdf 48 Per the manual, onsite sanitation usually refers to a system of latrines or flush toilets for urine and excreta, and a sump to collect domestic water (kitchen, shower, dishes). Latrines consist of a simple plank or slab laid across a pit. Once filled, simple pits should be emptied regularly. Semicollective sanitation is suitable for a small group of dwellings, it includes a small-diameter sewer system buried at a shallow depth associated with a decentralized summary treatment system. 49 Types of latrines include: Single-pit family latrines with SanPlat slabs; Improved Ventilated Latrines (VIP); Manual Flush Toilets (TCM); and ECOSAN latrines. 36 In addition, in terms of the disposal of feces, when parents were asked where their child’s feces were disposed of when not in school, well over the majority (90.9%) answered that children used the latrine at home. Midterm data also show that 81.5 percent of students report using the latrine, compared to 78.1 percent at baseline, avoiding open defecation. Students’ survey responses indicate that the main reasons for not using latrines were children not wanting to (21.6%) and that they were not clean (11.4%) and smelled bad (10.4%). According to the KIIs, the use of latrines remained problematic for some, as it is not common practice within the communities. This finding contradicts the quantitative data suggesting the need for further investigation on latrine use. 2.5. To what extent are kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers implementing organizational and hygiene skills acquired through the training? Kitchen and commodity-storage Volunteers have an important role to play in the functioning of school canteens. According to updated project indicators (see MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.2 in Table 8 above), Nascent trained 435 volunteers in Year 1 and 329 in Year 2, a decrease of 61 percent between years. Table 11 highlights their roles and responsibilities. No baseline measures exist for the kitchen and commodity￾storage volunteers. Table 11: Kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers’ roles and responsibilities50  Participate fully in the preparation of school meals according to the planned cooking schedule  Be punctual in the kitchen in the morning  Cook meals according to nutritional principles  Put the food in the wash basins and bring and distribute it to the pupils  Distribute cups to the students and serve them drinking water  Make sure students wash their hands before eating  Make sure students eat in peace and order  Clean all the utensils, sort them, and prepare the area for cooking the next day  Make sure the firewood is ready for the next day  Align with the Food Management Committee At the beginning of the project, Nascent also provided support to build commodity storerooms and kitchens (see EQ 3.2 below for more information). At first a lot of schools did not have these kitchens or storerooms, so food commodities and supplies needed to be temporarily stored in parents’ homes. Hygiene Rules Followed for Preparing Meals and Maintaining the Kitchen In terms of implementing organizational and hygiene skills acquired through Nascent trainings, 81 percent of volunteers reported cleaning utensils daily. However, in the qualitative interviews, volunteers identify the maintenance and cleanliness of utensils as the most challenging practice to enforce. Survey data also show that three-quarters of volunteers (77%) said they cleaned the pans daily, while less than half (46%) of them use soap to clean. Perhaps even more concerning, only 47 percent of volunteers report regularly washing their hands, only 35 percent manage the garbage, and only a quarter (25%) report using (safe) drinking water. Similarly, only 17 percent of respondents report not leaving food on the ground, and only 1.4 percent used a source of water purification. Volunteers thought the following top five things could be adjusted to improve school-canteen operations: provide more utensils (47%), increase compensation (40%), diversify compensation (40%), provide more condiments (38%), and improve access to water (32%). (Question 5.4 below provides an additional exploration of kitchen volunteers’ experiences.) Storage Organizational Skills and Hygiene Habits 50 Nascent Solutions. (2019). Sécurité Alimentaire et Préparation des Aliments A Grande Echelle: Guide du Facilitateur. 37 In terms of school-inventory management, before the COVID-19 crisis resulted in the suspension of school feeding, more than half (59%) of commodity-management volunteers reported organizing storage daily, under one-tenth (7%) of volunteers did so four times a week, 17 percent did it one to three times a week, and the same proportion (17%) reported doing so one to three times a month. Nascent provided volunteers with the manual, Food Management Training: Food Storage and Handling, as part of the commodities management training. When surveyed, nearly all the volunteers (99%) found it useful, with 85 percent describing it as “very useful.” In terms of satisfaction with the current state of storeroom organization and inventory management, volunteers also unanimously expressed satisfaction, with 31 percent saying they were “very satisfied.”51 When asked about possible storeroom/kitchen improvements, one-third (34%) of commodity-management volunteers felt that their compensation could be improved, followed by pest control for rodents (26%), and equal proportions (17%) felt more attention needed to be paid either to the size of the room or to shelf space and training. In response to a question about the lessons learned from training, three-quarters of commodities￾management volunteers (75%) mentioned the importance of cleaning the floor, while two-thirds (62%) mentioned avoiding leaving food on the ground, half (51%) remembered the need to eliminate rodents, and over a third (40%) remembered that it is not good to mix food commodities with cleaning/fertilizer products. The least mentioned concepts from the training were to remove expired products (28%) and to use the oldest stock first (22%). As Figure 5 indicates, in terms of adherence to hygiene rules for stock management, a high percentage (78%) of storage volunteers indicated following the rules at least most of the time, with nearly one-third (29%) asserting that they do so all of the time. Storage volunteers also identified some solid reasons why kitchen/storeroom hygiene rules might not be followed, including the need for a bigger storeroom (28%), the excessive time required for cleaning (23%), the lack of products to help with pest control (14%), an inability to determine the products’ expiration (12%), a lack of storekeepers (11%), an ill-trained food manager (9%), and damage to the storeroom (8%). 2.6. Conclusion: Effectiveness Overall, findings show that despite considerable obstacles, Nascent has largely performed well in terms of both results and finances. Nascent has demonstrated nimbleness in the face of disruption. Of course, the government’s continued COVID-19-related suspension of school meals has had a negative impact on project implementation, but findings show that Nascent is doing what it can to distribute THRs and urge children to bring lunch to school. Unrest in the North West has also proven highly disruptive, requiring ingenuity and modifications from project staff. Although beyond the scope of this evaluation, findings show that Nascent has adapted 51 The distribution of responses is worth noting for this question. Results show that 31 percent of volunteers responded “very satisfied,” 58 percent indicated “more or less satisfied,” and 11 percent responded only “moderately satisfied.” Rarely 5% Quite often 18% Most of the time 48% All the time 29% Figure 5: Proportion of time that storage volunteers follow hygiene rules 38 through the provision of take-home rations as well as services offered through the Mobile Reading Program. The organization also sought to make up for time lost at the time of data collection. While Nascent has little control over external factors that hinder implementation, it might consider doubling down on advocacy efforts with the Government of Cameroon to reinitiate school feeding based on positive experiences from countries in the region as witnessed by Et4d’s other McGovern-Dole evaluation work. The only internal factor that Nascent may wish to consider for future programming is the disparate placement of target schools, which puts stress on project response in an already challenging environment. Nascent has achieved six of its ten targets. Those that remain elusive have been most affected by COVID-19 and disruptions related to insecurity in the North West. Findings also show that targets met have been surpassed by a wide margin, which suggests they may have not been sufficiently calibrated at the start. Similarly, staff remain somewhat unclear on the computation of targets, which requires attention. Nascent may also wish to revisit the separation of targets for the North West to be better equipped to understand change. Nascent’s support clearly upgraded schools’ availability and use of handwashing stations and helped upgrade many schools from providing no or limited hygiene service to basic hygiene service since baseline. Students also increased the overall use of latrines, avoiding open defecation. In addition, an increase of functional school latrines indicates an improvement in the overall management of latrines at midterm. Since COVID restrictions did not allow for a robust observation of the use of soap, and because students reported sometimes lacking soap or ash near latrines at the majority of schools, additional investigation of these matters is needed. Overall, there was an increase in the training of kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers from baseline to midterm, though volunteers still find hygiene practices in the school storerooms and kitchens lagging behind. Reasons include a lack of incentives and the burdens of time and rodents. 3. Efficiency The midterm evaluation also sought to assess the efficiency of the Nascent project, that is, “the extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.” Three evaluation questions address efficiency, and answers rely on qualitative data from document review as well as interviews. 3.1. Which outputs were obtained most cost-efficiently in the best timely manner? The project faced major delays due to COVID-19 school closures and restrictions, though some project components were affected less than others. Interviews with project staff largely inform these findings, since project beneficiaries have little awareness of the project’s work plan. Nonetheless, when asked if project activities seem to have taken place as scheduled, feedback from focus groups with parents and teachers was highly positive. Similarly, comments in the two teachers’ focus groups indicate that the teachers consulted felt the project calendar had been respected and that timing was appropriate. Four project activities emerge from analysis as being efficiently implemented: 1) trainings, 2) project monitoring and record-keeping system, 3) commodities delivery, and 4) community farms. Trainings: While the pandemic delayed trainings and led to adjustments, including virtual delivery, as indicated above in response to EQ 2.1, stakeholder interview responses also indicated that trainings, once held, were conducted efficiently. For example, the project uses a cascade training or training-of￾trainers approach. For education, the project provided a virtual training through School-to-School International (STS) to Master Trainers in Year 2 who, in turn, trained literacy coaches who would be able 39 to reach classrooms. 52 Similarly, a member of the Nutrition team shared how the project also relied on Hygiene Champions who they train and who, in turn, perform community outreach. Moreover, Nascent also uses a modular training approach in which they convene participants for multiple simultaneous trainings, rotating staff. As a staff member explained, “So, what we do is that we organize, we choose the location. And we choose participants, let's say it could involve three technical staff, so we all move to the field at the same time. We organize those three trainings in the same location in just one particular school. So, we start with one team, having this training in one room. I’m in the next room having my training. At another point, we switch teams, and what it means is both technical staffs touch the different participants in the same day, so it becomes cost-effective for us to do trainings like that. Otherwise that would have been two different trainings on two separate occasions where we are supposed to go to the field.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Cost-effective project-monitoring system: Interviews with the project’s M&E team also showcased that Nascent is using District Health Information Software 2 (DHIS2) for project monitoring. DHIS2 is an open￾source, web-based system that applies to multiple sectors, including education. 53 The M&E team felt very excited about its use with colleagues across project components, as the quote below illustrates. They emphasized that it constituted a low-cost solution they wished they had begun implementing with other colleagues, specifically commodity management, much earlier. “The DHIS2 system itself, the initial setup, costs about $10,000, and annually, after that, years two, three, four or five, we will spend less than $2,000 per year, that's for server hosting and for some outside technical assistance to maintain it. And then the tablets are quite cheap . . . and they allow the Field Agents to upload information from the field as long as they have a mobile connection or Wi-Fi connection, so that that saves money on fuel and coming to a town. . . . That's an example of a system that was originally intended only for M&E and is now being expanded to track commodities and literacy coaching data.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Commodities delivery: Interviews with the Commodities Coordination team as well as Field Agents indicate that commodities delivery has become more efficient as the project has evolved. The project can anticipate delays in the transit of goods from the United States to Cameroon and prepares accordingly. A more efficient on-the-ground logistics organization allows for catch-up once materials have arrived. Nascent is also working more closely with customs and the Ministry of External Relations to unblock the release of commodities, as described above. Community farms: The project established 36 rather than the originally targeted 20 farms, according to the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team as well as the April-September 2020 semiannual report. The 52 Nascent Solutions. (2020). Year 3 Workplan, October 2020-September 2021. It indicates that trainings will continue through June 2021. 53 See https://dhis2.org for more information. 40 team identified its awareness-raising efforts as particularly effective for fostering interest. While surpassing the target represents a project success, data also point to factors that complicate farm establishment and may make it more difficult in some areas. For example, the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team reports that obtaining land for farming in the East proves highly challenging, while poor precipitation greatly complicates production in the North region. Field Agents further detailed that schools opening at the end of the dry season (September) made it very difficult to find water for school gardens at the start of the academic year. 3.2. Which were obtained least cost-efficiently in the least timely manner? In contrast to EQ 3.1, the present question investigates least cost-efficient project activities. Again, four key project components emerge from analysis: 1) infrastructure activities; 2) general Nascent activities in the North West region; 3) school gardens; and 4) library and MTE (mother-tongue education) activities. Infrastructure: While infrastructure projects continued on schedule despite COVID-19-related delays elsewhere, they encountered challenges due to poor roads and some contractors not able to respond to the project timeline. Data also revealed an overall burn rate of 134 percent for the infrastructure project as of March 31, 2021, indicative of Nascent’s recognition that more infrastructure was needed than originally anticipated. As Table 12 demonstrates, the project has far exceeded the burn rate, and indeed its budget, for kitchens, food stores, and classrooms, as well as latrines. A project memo from the Country Director details that while 45 kitchens, 45 stores, and 25 latrines (115 structures in all), had been budgeted, the project needed to build 48 kitchens, 47 stores, 32 latrines (127 structures in total), 12 more than anticipated. 54 This is because it became clear after project launch that more schools needed kitchens than originally anticipated. At the same time, the cost of borehole construction was more expensive than thought, leading to a higher burn rate. Technical staff also specified that materials cost much more in the East than in the other regions, despite previous cost investigations. Nonetheless, these additional costs have not had a major impact on Nascent’s overall budget. Table 12: Infrastructure burn-rate breakdown as of March 31, 202155 Infrastructure type Burn rate (%) Kitchens, Food stores, Classrooms 242.48 Latrines 110.52 Boreholes 50.20 Global rate 134.40 Activities in the North West: As indicated above, the security situation in the North West has resulted in major project adaptations. Interviews with project staff, including a member of the project leadership and the M&E team, underline that the distribution of commodities and other project materials cost more than anticipated. Some activities in the North West have proven inefficient. Recall from EQ 2.2 above that the project has resorted to multiple transporters so that commodities can reach their destinations. This is a necessary adaptation to realities on the ground, but also less cost-efficient than anticipated. The quote below provides additional detail. 54 Nascent Solutions. (June 2, 2020). Memorandum from Country Director: Over run of MCGOVERN-DOLE budget for the construction of kitchens, stores, latrines. 55 Source: Communication with the Program Manager, April 27, 2021. 41 “You know, it's not a fully operating project in the North West, of course, because most of the schools aren't open, but we were struggling to get mobile reading data on time from them, and we made several visits . . . several phone calls, several follow￾ups, and we struggled to get information on time. So, if you think about the resources used to get what is a small amount of information compared to the North, Adamaoua, and East, the ratio there was quite bad.” (Nascent staff, Interview) The M&E team also emphasized that they had to use more resources relative to the other intervention regions to obtain necessary monitoring data from colleagues in the North West. As mentioned earlier, they cited poor communications as well as blocked roads as causes for inefficiencies. School gardens: Lastly, school-garden production has also lacked in efficiency. According to Field Agents and the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, many communities have been reluctant to participate in the project in general, and it has taken a long time for staff to help communities engage. At the time of data collection, the project had succeeded in establishing 148 school gardens, though not within the original timeframe due to sensitization and outreach efforts. Image 3: School garden Library and MTE activities: While education activities seem largely efficient in their use of resources and time, a staff member did point to challenges in identifying appropriate French books for libraries, which has led to their delayed implementation. As described above, the project’s mother-tongue education pilot has remained stalled due to ambiguities from government partners. 3.3. Should the project allocate resources differently in the future? Data collection fell at a time when the Nascent project was holding internal discussions about budget reallocation, making it challenging to obtain a full picture of how the organization might allocate resources differently in the future. At the same time, several project staff described resource allocation as adequate, including USDA and the Nutrition-WASH and School Feeding Coordination teams. A 42 member of project leadership indicated that the budget would need “slight realignments.” Nonetheless, findings emerged that point to some ways that the project might redistribute its resources and include: - Additional emphasis on COVID-19 sensitizations — These activities were unexpected but have become an important feature of project implementation. - Revisions to the infrastructure budget and activities to reflect challenges explored above. - Reconsideration of the budget for activities in the North West region — A member of project leadership reiterated how the project was distributing smaller rations than had originally been planned as more students have been participating in the mobile reading activity. (See EQ 2.2 for more details.) - Redistribution of funds for the mother-tongue initiative — Project staff, namely the Literacy team, expressed the desire to repurpose the funds allocated for the mother-tongue initiative to other activities if the government is not enthusiastic about the activity. In addition, interview data indicate that some budget-line items are not burning as fast as others. A senior project staff shared that budget lines for agricultural components related to school gardens, transportation and administration, and professional services have not been burning very quickly. On the other hand, the senior project staff member argued that budget lines supporting PTA, teacher training, and activities promoting literacy are burning fast. The Literacy team similarly signaled a need for increased funding for school-supply distribution. Finally, the Nutrition Coordinator indicated the need for the deployment of more corn soy blend plus commodities for moderately malnourished children, though other staff note the needs will always exceed the resources. The Country Director expressed confidence at the possibility of realigning project funds to other activities because Nascent had been efficient in its implementation and likely had savings. 3.4. Conclusion: Efficiency Investigations demonstrate that the project has largely employed an efficient use of time and resources despite the considerable challenges of political insecurity and the COVID-19 pandemic. The project’s approach to training, especially its modular approach, may serve as a model for other development efforts. The same holds true for the implementation of the DHIS2 system. Project efficiencies also demonstrate ongoing project learning and the ability to improve processes as project implementation evolves. At the same time, Nascent’s infrastructure activities have ambitious goals and the project has proven less efficient in this area. Nonetheless, Nascent’s infrastructure implementation stands out as exemplary compared to other MCGOVERN-DOLE projects. The use of contractor fines may stand as a promising practice to be recommended elsewhere. Nascent’s activities in the North West may merit adjustments, however. Efforts required for that region surpass those of other intervention regions, even though the return on investment is arguably lower. The evaluation team urges Nascent to frame North West interventions more deliberately as crisis response. The evaluation team felt that project resources were generally well allocated and that the project was working thoughtfully to realign funds as needed. 4. Impact Impact — DAC definition: The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects. 43 4.1. To what extent have students (boys and girls) increased their reading comprehension compared to baseline? This question draws upon data collected using the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). The EGRA is a collection of highly valid literacy assessments developed by RTI in 2006 with financial support from USAID and the World Bank. EGRA is a comprehensive measure of literacy, with tools spanning phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, all of which are considered to be essential components of effective reading instruction.56 The indicator review above illustrated that the percentage of students with passing reading comprehension scores decreased from 1.7 percent (95% CI : 0.7%; 4.2%) at baseline to 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1%; 1.1% percent at midline. 57 In addition to examining students’ reading comprehension abilities, the evaluation sought to understand more holistically how students may have increased their overall literacy performance since baseline. When surveyed, both teachers and head teachers at Nascent schools responded much more positively about their satisfaction with their students’ reading performance. Figure 6 shows how more than three-quarters of teachers (79%) and nearly nine-tenths of head teachers (89%) at Nascent schools express being at least “more or less” satisfied. 58 Further analysis of teacher responses shows that teachers at Nascent schools in the North expressed particular satisfaction (79.8% compared to 58.4% and 41.7% for Adamaoua and the East regions, respectively). 59 Figure 6: Teacher and head teachers' satisfaction with students' reading performance (school type) In addition, all respondents interviewed agreed that project activities had helped improve literacy. Project staff, however, proved most conservative in their responses and most often deferred to EGRA scores. The M&E and Literacy Coordination teams as well as a member of the project leadership pointed to some of the challenges that they felt constituted barriers to improved comprehension scores. They 56 Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit: Second Edition, RTI International, Mar 2016. 57 A nationwide early-grade mathematics assessment (EGMA) and EGRA study provides some contextualization and confirms that reading comprehension scores are likely to be low for the Grade 2 students who took part in the Nascent midterm study. The Unité des Acquis Scolaires (UAS) (2019) study found that 14 percent of third-graders in French-speaking schools scored a passing score, increasing from 8 percent at an earlier time period. Still, 70 percent of students were not able to respond to any comprehension questions. This study was conducted in 2019 and did not include students in the North West or Southwest regions due to insecurity. Source: Unité des Acquis Scolaires (UAS). (2019). Rapport de l’évaluation des acquis scolaires EGRA/EGMA dans les classes de cours élémentaire 1 et class 3 du cycle primaire. 58 The differences for both teachers and head teachers are statistically significant (p<0.000). 59 Differences are significant between Adamaoua and the North Region (p=0.004) and between the East and North regions (p<0.000). The sample size of principals per region does not allow for regional analysis. 9% 3% 15% 3% 40% 18% 46% 9% 43% 55% 35% 76% 8% 24% 4% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Comparison Project Comparison Project Teachers Head Teachers No, not at all No, not really Yes, more or less Yes, very 44 cited COVID- related school closures as well as the low comprehension levels that students had at baseline. As an M&E Officer shared, “I’m more optimistic about the second goal—positive health and dietary practices. I am less optimistic that we will make a significant impact on the literacy piece. This is because what we have seen in the previous McGovern-Dole project in Cameroon and because it’s a much more complex issue, especially when starting with 75 to 80 percent non-readers. Harder to move the needle when it’s at zero.” (Nascent staff, Interview) In addition, the above sections outline how teacher training and coaching activities were implemented later than planned due to COVID-19. These delays may also have contributed to weakened improvements in students’ literacy results. Additional EGRA Results While the EGRA results do not demonstrate reading gains for students at Nascent schools, they do demonstrate less of a reduction in scores than at comparison schools. Annex 10 presents a comprehensive review of EGRA results. Here, we present the most salient findings from a difference-in￾differences analysis that investigated possible significant change between baseline and midline measures comparing comparison and project schools. Results show that there is significant change only for the literacy index, where we see that project school scores are 4.523 points higher than what we observe in comparison schools. 60 Moreover, all difference-in-differences estimators are positive, which indicates that students in project schools have made more “gains” than students in comparison schools, but the only significant differences are overall and for girls. In addition, descriptive results show that at baseline, students in comparison schools present an average literacy index of 28.595, which goes down to 23.174 at midline (see Figure 7). For the project schools, students present an average of 25.658 at baseline, and this goes down only to 24.760. This lower performance at midline can probably be attributed to COVID-19, and students in project schools show significantly fewer differences between midline and baseline. These results suggest that Nascent schools largely maintained their gains, while comparison schools dropped more significantly. 60 Results are statistically significant at p=0.004. 45 Figure 7: Average literacy index comparison between baseline and midline (by school type) 4.2. To what extent have students improved their attentiveness? The response to this question draws on interview data, survey results, and classroom observations. Classroom observations relied upon the Stallings Observation System. The Stallings Observation System (Stallings) provides a quantitative measure of key classroom variables influencing the efficacy of teaching and learning, including use of instructional time, use of materials, core pedagogical practices, and student engagement.61 Stallings includes a classroom observation composed of a series of ten 15- second snapshots spread evenly throughout a class period. During each snapshot, the teacher and pupils are placed on a matrix indicating the activities in which they are engaged, and any materials being used. To begin, interviews demonstrate that key stakeholders feel that Nascent’s interventions have increased student attentiveness. All three teacher focus groups that responded to this question affirmed that the school feeding program helped students be more attentive. Two of the groups indicated that some students now bring food with them to school, a non-extant practice before. A teacher in one group explained how the practice has evolved during the pandemic canteen closure. “The children have slowly begun to bring food to school. But here, they thought they could only bring Nascent-provided food. We sensitized them by letting them know they can bring what was prepared at home. There were difficulties, but now things have changed a bit. Yesterday during recess, we found that they came with food and shared amongst themselves. It was very interesting.“ (Teacher, Rural School in the Adamaoua Region, FGD) 61 Conducting classroom observations: analyzing classrooms dynamics and instructional time - using the Stallings 'classroom snapshot' observation system: user guide. World Bank Group, 2015. 28.595 23.174 25.658 24.76 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Baseline Midline Comparison Project 46 Image 4: Students engaged in learning in a crowded classroom Participants in all four parent focus groups agreed, whether it concerned food provided at the school or the dry take-home rations. Parents generally stressed how the functioning school canteen helped motivate students to go to school. Two groups also indicated that children were now more attentive to their schoolwork at home, as they no longer returned home hungry. Regional ministry officials from both education and agriculture were also supportive, though limited in their comments due to their distance from students. In general, they agreed that students receiving food at school, and particularly if they did not have to leave school to return after lunch, would have positive effects on attentiveness. An Education Delegate as well as a Field Agent further pointed to overcrowded classrooms as challenging environments, even for the most well-fed student and the best trained teacher. The same Field Agent also called attention to how younger children (preschool and Grade 1) may fall asleep after eating. This comment reminds us that school feeding alone cannot address all schooling challenges in Cameroon. Survey results also suggest that Nascent’s activities may increase student attentiveness. When surveyed, 94 percent of teachers indicated that they thought that students were more attentive due to the school canteens, with over two-thirds of teachers (69.4%) indicating, “yes, very.” When asked why, teachers pointed to students being satiated, more awake, and less tired (see Figure 8). 47 Figure 8: Left: Teachers' agreement that students are more attentive due to the school canteen; Right: Reasons teachers identify as to why the canteens lead to increased attentiveness In addition, the midline evaluation compared average student attendance rates with baseline data in accordance with the MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3 indicator. Results show no change between the two time periods (69.5% at midline, compared with 69.4% at baseline; see Table 7 for more information). Gender disaggregation also showed no change. At the same time, the midline followed up with parents about their perceived reasons for student absences (MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2 indicator). Results ranked reasons as 1) health issues, 2) teacher is absent, and 3) late or no payment of school fees. In comparison, baseline results were 1) low parental awareness of the importance of education, 2) helping the family with chores or farm work at home, and 3) health issues. The changes in these reasons and their ranking seems to suggest that demand for schooling has increased since baseline and that parents may have gained a greater appreciation for the importance of education. Because the results for MCGOVERN￾DOLE 1.3 show no change however, it is not possible to say that these perceptions have translated to improved attendance. The absence of the school feeding line at midline may offer a partial explanation but more specific investigation is warranted during the endline evaluation. At the same time, however, midline results for indicator MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 (see indicator review above) demonstrate that nearly twice the proportion of students were off task at midterm compared to baseline (33.4% versus 16.9%). These results, depicted in Figure 9, derive from the Stallings Classroom Observation tool. Additional difference-in-differences analysis, however, indicates no significant difference between comparison and project schools, suggesting that the difference observed between baseline and midline happened in both groups62. 62 Upon review of evaluation, Nascent staff suggested that the results may reflect increases in class sizes. The evaluation team suggests that additional investigation is needed to confirm this suggestion. No, not really 5% Yes, more or less 24% Yes, very 69% I don't know/No response 2% 65.1% 61.8% 44.4% 6.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Satiated More awake Less tired Other 48 Figure 9: Comparison of MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 results (baseline and midline) 4.3. To what extent have teachers improved the quality of their teaching? And to what extent have head teachers improved their capacity to manage the school? Nascent has developed an approach for improving teaching quality that includes training and coaching support. In-service training targets head teachers, instructional coaches, and teachers. Training took place in two phases between September 2020 and January 2021. 63 A review of training materials shows that coach and teacher materials focus on effective reading strategies, with an emphasis on the five components of reading, while the Year 3 work plan adds that training will also focus on creating child￾centered classrooms and planning effective reading and writing lessons. Training for head teachers focused on leadership, school development plans, identifying school and student needs. At the time of data collection, head teachers had been trained on the first two of six modules. Nascent also contracted with School-to-School International (STS) to lead a training session for Master Trainers that took place virtually in Year 2. 64 To understand how these practices may have contributed to improving the quality of teachers’ practice, we look largely to survey and observation results, with additional reference to interview data. Teacher Practice Improvements When surveyed, two-thirds of teachers (66.9%) at Nascent schools indicated having attended a Nascent training. All 121 teachers who indicated having attended a training judged them useful, with 95.2 percent responding, “very useful.” Similarly, these same teachers reported that the methods covered could improve students’ reading, with 91.1 percent responding “yes, very.” Moreover, Figure 10 displays teachers’ self-reporting of lessons learned from trainings, as well as those they apply to their teaching 63 Nascent. (no date). Liste des formations. 64 Documents reviewed include the Nascent Solutions (2020) Year 3 Workplan, as well as training manuals: Nascent Solutions. (2020). Piste 1 : Manuel de formation au leadership des chefs d'établissement; Nascent Solutions. (2020). Guide du facilitateur pour les formateurs des coaches en lecture; Nascent Solutions. (2020). Guide du facilitateur pour les formateurs des enseignants en lecture. 16.9% 3.6% 16.9 33.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Baseline Midterm Comparison Project 49 practice. Phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, and decoding ranked as the three concepts teachers identified most. Teachers also indicated the concepts they found most difficult. The top three responses were decoding (23.4% of teachers), comprehension (23.1%), and teaching vocabulary (21.5%). Figure 10: Concepts teachers report learning in Nascent trainings and applying in practice Interview data provides additional nuance to understand teachers’ experiences during training and in their classrooms. All three teacher focus groups that addressed Nascent trainings gave overwhelmingly positive reviews. They appreciated the concepts taught and felt that they were made aware of both new, positive practices and ineffective ones that they needed to change. The quotes below, though similar to utterances from other teachers, are particularly poignant: “It went a long way to help me to know how to handle my class, especially in English language sound and word building. Yes, because the seminar was all about reading and teaching the pupils how to read, reading them on how to break words into syllables, to decode in a way that when you try to teach them to read, you do not just teach the word they are reading, but you teach the sound of the letter and the word, so they know the letter of the word and the sound that that letter gives, they will know how to pronounce it. . . . So in that sense, you surely know a way to help us, to help me in particular, how to teach reading, and it was not only reading, it was also grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension. So that was a very great thing. I appreciate that.” (Teacher, Rural School in the East Region, FGD) “Me, specifically, I’ve had a new experience. They showed us a strategy that I hadn’t seen before, and back in the classroom, I tried to put it into practice. I hope this will work, because it has really helped me. I didn’t know that we could teach reading through games and through song.” (Teacher, Rural School in the Adamaoua Region, FGD) Perhaps even more notable, external observation using the Stalling Classroom observation tool also shows that project teachers have greatly improved their use of active pedagogy. As the indicator review section above reported, the MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1 indicator that measures the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for at least half of the classroom time increased by 27.2 points at midline 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Weekly planning Annual planning: Program Comprehension Reading fluency Teaching vocabulary Decoding Alphabetic principle Phonemic awareness Apply to practice Lessons learned 50 (from 51.0% to 78.2%). In addition, a comparison of the change in comparison and project schools during this period shows that project schools made significantly more improvement during that time period. Figure 11 displays the change and shows how the difference-in-differences estimator of effect calculates to 25.9 percent and is statistically significant (p=0.001). Figure 11: Difference in change in observed portion of lesson with active pedagogy between baseline and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms Coaching and Head teacher’s Support Responses from stakeholders also indicate the effectiveness of coaching and head teachers’ support to teachers. Education delegates interviewed indicate that teaching coaches (animateurs pédagogiques) regularly visit both comparison and project schools. Survey data confirmed that all project school head teachers reported that their teachers received a visit from a pedagogical advisor, as compared to 48.8 percent in comparison schools. More than half of head teachers (53.7%) indicated that they had received at least three visits. 65 A teaching coach who sat for an interview indicated her excitement about Nascent’s approach, especially the emphasis on phonics and decoding, and how she has shared it with teachers from non-Nascent schools as well. At the school level, 85.4 percent of project and 95.1 percent of comparison school head teachers report having observed their Grade 1 and Grade 2 teachers during a reading lesson66. More than one and a half times more project school head teachers (21.5 points more) expressed satisfaction with observed teaching quality than head teachers in comparison schools, 67 as Figure 12 depicts. 65 These results are not statistically significant. Note that significance cannot be computed for the difference reported in schools receiving visits from teaching coaches, as one of the responses was 100 percent. 66 While the proportion of comparison teachers reporting having conducted a teacher observation is higher, this result is not statistically significant. 67 The difference is statistically significant (p<0.000). 60.6% 61.9% 51.0% 78.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Baseline Midline Comparison Project 51 Figure 12: Proportion of head teachers reporting satisfaction with observed reading instruction (by school type) Head Teachers Improve Management Capacity All surveyed head teachers in project schools indicated having participated in a Nascent training. Like teachers, the head teachers also all described the training as useful, with 96.3 percent (all but 2 of 59 head teachers) saying “very useful.” Head teachers also provided an indication of the lessons they recall learning most from trainings. As Figure 13 illustrates, the top three responses were the implementation of school development plans, head teachers’ roles and responsibilities, and what makes an effective school. Figure 13: Lessons learned from trainings as identified by head teachers68 As with teachers above, qualitative data provides additional nuance and confirms head teachers’ appreciation of Nascent trainings. The head teachers within each of the three teaching staff focus groups that responded to this question expressed their satisfaction. Head teachers spoke of how they felt more confident in their leadership roles and responsibilities, and how they were also clearer on the roles of other stakeholders, including teachers, the dean of studies, and community members. A head teacher from a rural school in the region of Adamaoua stated the following: 68 Note that the evaluation team has translated plans de développement scolaire (PDS) to “school development plans” in English and auto-évaluation scolaire (AES) to “school self-assessment.” 2.5% 43.8% 2.8% 42.9% 64.4% 10.8% 32.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Comparison Project Not at all Not very More or less Yes very 75.9% 64.1% 62.5% 51.0% 48.5% 35.9% 23.3% 8.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Implementation of school development plans Head teacher's role and responsibilities What is an effective school Working better with teachers and conducting… Community engagement and improving… School self-assessment of the implementation of… Working better with students to account for self-… Understand and manage improvement cycle 52 “If all people in leadership received this training, things would change in this country. With adults, we must not impose anything. It is through discussion that we solve problems. Together you find the solution. Before this training, we were called “dictators,” because you made your decision, and you must implement. But when you examine the problem together, you find the solution.” (Head teacher, Rural School in the Adamaoua Region, FGD) In addition, one Education Delegate commented enthusiastically that Nascent head teachers stand out from others, because they take reporting seriously and provide strong monitoring and follow-up. Timing Suggests Cautious Interpretation of Results While the results above are positive, the recent delivery of Nascent trainings requires a cautious interpretation of results. Stakeholders urge a similar approach. An education official, for instance, cautioned that it may be too early for the effects of Nascent trainings to be visible. Similarly, some Nascent staff expressed satisfaction with current progress yet advised restraint due to the recent administration of trainings. The M&E team insisted that time may be too short to see a change in practice, and in students’ test results, in particular. 4.4. To what extent have students improved their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices? This question builds on findings from EQ 2.4 above and makes comparisons with baseline data using both survey and interview data. Recall that Nascent support teaches Health and Hygiene Champions to promote hygiene topics for children that emphasize handwashing with soap, proper fecal and menstrual sanitation, bathing, clothes washing, and teeth bushing.69 Image 5: Teacher ensuring children wash their hands before entering the classroom 69 Nascent Solutions. (November 2018). McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program: Performance Monitoring Plan, FY 2018–FY 2023. 53 Handwashing with Soap The midterm evaluation assessed the extent to which students have improved hygiene practices through its Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory tool. Data collectors observed 20 students per school to assess if children are washing their hands after using the latrine, and they also performed an inventory of school sanitary equipment and access to water. The parent survey asked about hygiene and nutrition practices as reported above for EQ 2.4. Figure 20 illustrates student survey responses when asked to report “handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times”, while Table 13 disaggregates responses by region. As indicated, the rates of student HWWS as reported by both parents and students have increased at midterm for all critical times. Washing after defecation has made the largest gain (51% at midterm, from 21% at baseline, according to students). Reporting is still very low for ahead of preparing a meal, at only 10 percent by students and 13 percent by parents at midterm. This number might be low if students do not yet help their parents with meal preparations. Gender may also affect this result and requires additional scrutiny. Figure 20: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times Table 13: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times by group, timepoint and region Time/Group Region Before Eating Before preparing meal After Defecation After Playing Comparison/Baseline Adamawa 93.3% 11.9% 40.7% 11.9% 95% 13% 52% 31% 95% 7% 37% 20% 87% 10% 51% 23% 85% 5% 21% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Before Eating Before Preparing a Meal After Defecation After Playing Project Student Baseline Project Student Midline Project Parents Baseline Project Parent Midlne 54 East 95% 5% 30% 10% North 96.7% 11.1% 24.2% 14.4% Project/Baseline Adamawa 100% 9.5% 38.1% 19.0% East 80.6% 6.5% 33.9% 9.7% North 98.5% 7.8% 37.2% 21.6% Comparison/Midterm Adamawa 100% 18.3% 46.7% 51.7% East 100% 1.0% 36.5% 11.5% North 92.3% 11.1% 47% 26.6% Project/Midterm Adamawa 94% 30% 64% 56% East 95.6% 1.1% 31.1% 22.2% North 94.8% 11.8% 56% 25.5% Regional analysis shows variation in results. In the Adamaoua region, handwashing before eating actually decreased from 100 percent to 94 percent at midterm, while handwashing for all other time points increased by at least 20 points, as Table 14 displays. In the North region, handwashing before eating also decreased by nearly 4 points, while handwashing before preparing a meal and after playing increased modestly. Washing after defecation increased in the North by nearly 20 points. In the East region, on the other hand, handwashing before eating increased by nearly 15 points, and washing after playing increased by 10 percentage points. At the same time, reported rates of handwashing before preparing a meal decreased, and after defecation it decreased slightly. It is concerning that handwashing with soap before eating decreased in two regions (Adamaoua and North), and it requires investigation and response by the project. Table 14: Percentage of parents reporting their children’s handwashing with soap habits by region; comparison of midterm and baseline results Adamaoua Midterm East Midterm North Midterm Adamaoua Baseline East Baseline North Baseline Adamaoua Change East Change North Change Before eating 94.0% 95.6% 94.8% 100.0% 80.8% 98.5% -6.0% 14.8% -3.7% Before Preparing a meal 30.0% 1.1% 11.8% 9.5% 1.9% 7.8% 20.5% -0.8% 4.0% 55 After defecation 64.0% 31.1% 56.0% 38.1% 34.6% 37.2% 25.9% -3.5% 18.8% After playing 56.0% 22.2% 25.5% 19.0% 11.5% 21.6% 37.0% 10.7% 3.9% Across the sample, students generally report using the handwashing stations. Survey results indicate that well over half (59.9%) of students report using stations “always,” while over a third of students (36.7%) report using them “sometimes.” Students also reported on reasons for not using the school handwashing stations. While few students (175, or 6.3%) indicate not using them, the most common reason they provide is that they don’t want to (19.2%), followed by students not having time to wash their hands (4.2%) and that there are too many people using them (2.9%). 70 Students’ Reported Attitudes toward Latrine Use Survey data also indicate that students largely find school latrines clean and safe, which may indicate an improvement in hygiene habits. When asked if latrines were clean, nearly one-quarter (24.9%) replied “always” and more than half of respondents (55.5%) said “sometimes.” One-fifth of students (19.6%) still reported “never,” which requires additional attention. In terms of safety, students also reported the following about feeling safe in the latrine—always (34.9%), sometimes (43.2%), never (21.9%). Gender disaggregation of the data shows little distinction between girls and boys, however. Again, the high proportion of students never feeling safe requires reflection on the part of the project.71 Interview Data Supports Improved Practice Qualitative data indicate that stakeholders believe children are washing hands more frequently, supporting the trend for the overall sample above. Nascent field staff indicated in interviews that students were washing hands more often and that, at the same time, more handwashing stations were available. As far as improved nutrition practices—such as consuming a more diverse diet and eating more frequent meals—it was hard for Nascent field staff to evaluate these practices because of the suspension of school-prepared meals resulting from COVID-19 preventative measures. While Nascent has trained parents on safe food preparation and handling, so that children can safely bring meals to school, field staff cannot qualify these practices. 4.5. To what extent has the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity improved? Nascent activities that contribute to improving the dietary diversity for women of a reproductive age (15 to 49 years of age) include: trainings for community health workers in 1) Improving their knowledge on nutrition on food groups, how to constitute healthy balanced diets using local foods and best infant and young child feeding practices, and 2) increasing access to nutrient and calorie rich foods as take￾home rations, specifically malnourished pregnant and lactating women. Nascent trains local health workers (community 70 Note that 26 percent of respondents did not answer this question, while 16.8 percent responded “other.” 71 Note that these questions were not asked at baseline so cannot be compared across time. Figure 1 A yellow Mid Upper Arm Circumference Tape (MUAC) 4: Mid Upper Arm Circumference Tape (MUAC) (less than 230mm or 23cm) qualifies pregnant and lactating women for a THR, as they are designated as malnourished. 56 health workers) established in each community who intend sensitize these women and also carry out culinary demonstrations. They are equally trained on how to adequately screen and identify malnourished women in the communities. Screening uses a Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tape (see Figure 14), to determine if women are malnourished and therefore, qualify for take-home rations. In addition, Nascent has worked with schools to develop or improve community farms and school gardens. This section addresses Nascent’s direct activities with women and the organization’s agricultural activities. Activities Targeting Women of Reproductive Age To support efforts with community health workers, Nascent has developed the Health & Nutrition Facilitator’s Guide. 72 As indicated above in response to EQ 2.3, Nascent reached 8,536 pregnant and lactating women through health centers with take-home rations (based on indicator MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.3). Pregnant and lactating women with MAM who assess at the yellow level of MUAC tape, indicated by having less than 230 mm, qualify for Nascent take-home rations. Packages include 8 kg of U.S. white long grain rice, 3 kg of U.S. pinto beans, and 4 liters of U.S. vitamin A–fortified oil; they are distributed four times a year in line with women’s antenatal care attendance and vaccination campaigns at health centers. The evaluation team largely measured women’s diets through the Women’s Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) Survey, 73 a validated, easy-to-use, quick, and low-cost indicator to measure the women’s consumption/uptake of a diverse diet by counting the food groups consumed the previous day using 24- hour recall. 74 The survey provides a dichotomous indicator (returning a yes or no value) of whether or not the women have consumed at least five out of ten defined food groups the previous day or night and proves useful for assessing diet quality. Table 15 identifies the various food groups assessed by the survey. In accordance with guidance, the midterm and baseline MDD-W assessments took place in the same season and focused on the same food groups and methodology. Seasonality is important here, because the relationship between food group diversity and micronutrient intakes and adequacy can vary by season. It is also important to note that the global guidance for the MDD-W changed in March 2021, 75 but since evaluators used the older 2016 guidance for baseline, they used the same one for this midterm. 76 Two required categories were added for Cameroon: 1) condiments and seasonings; and 2) other beverages and food. The evaluating team also recorded optional categories, including red palm oil, other oils and fats, savory and fried snacks, sweets, and insects and other small proteins. The two additional required and five optional categories did not form part of the indicator calculation. Table 15: Minimum dietary diversity for women (5 out of 10) 1. Foods made from grains, white roots and tubers and plantains (white flesh) 72 Nascent Solutions. (August 2019). Santé & Nutrition Guide du facilitateur. 73 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Minimum Dietary Diversity Women.” http://www.fao.org/nutrition/assessment/tools/minimum-dietary-diversity-women/en/. 74 It is a population-level indicator based on a 24-hour recall period of a single day and night, so although data are collected from individual women, the indicator cannot be used to describe diet quality for an individual woman. This is because of normal day-to-day variability in individual intakes. 75 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Minimum Dietary Diversity Women.” Accessed March 3, 2021. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/assessment/tools/minimum-dietary-diversity-women/en/ 76 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. (2016). [Technical Brief]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations USAID’s Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA), managed by FHI 360. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf 57 2. Legumes/Pulses (beans, peas and lentils): Mature beans or peas 3. Nuts and Seeds 4. Dairy: Milk (NOT SOY) and milk products 5. 5.1. Meat and Poultry, 5.2. Organ Meat, 5.3 Fish/Seafood 6. Eggs 7. Dark Green Leafy Vegetables (exclude herbs eaten in small amounts) 8. Other Vitamin A-Rich Fruits and Vegetables 9. Other Vegetables 10. Other Fruits The evaluation team noted some important limitations in the approach to measuring dietary diversity for women of reproductive age (WRA) as the evaluation questioned all parents who were also WRA about women’s dietary diversity. These parents were not necessarily directly targeted for the THR interventions at the local community health facilities. The results therefore have limited meaning aside from possible spillover effects. Field Agents similarly noted this limitation but underlined that they felt the project was having an impact on the diets of women of reproductive age. Analysis shows that in the project regions, MDD-W stayed the same between baseline and midterm, at 39 percent. Regional analysis, however, shows variation as it increased from 29 percent at baseline to 56 percent at midline in Adamaoua, stayed about the same in the North region (from 43% to 44%), and decreased from 25 percent to 10 percent in the East region. Without knowing if these parents also received the direct intervention at the health centers, a direct correlation between these results and Nascent’s activities remains impossible. The mean number of food groups consumed by the women also stayed the same for the baseline and midterm—an average of 4.21 food groups. The regional mean number of food groups identifies a meaningful difference only between time points for Adamaoua, as the average number of food groups increased from 3.6 to 4.6. This result suggests that women ate a more diverse diet at midterm than they did at baseline in that region. 77 In all regions, the mean number of food groups consumed was better in the urban areas at baseline, yet the mean decreased from 4.7 to 4.2 for urban respondents at midterm. As we might expect from this result, the proportion of women consuming low-nutrient-dense food groups increased from 44 percent to just under half of respondents (49%). Low-nutrient-dense food groups include other oils and fats (12), 78 seasonings and spices (13), 79 other drinks and foods (14), 80 savory and fried snacks (15), 81 and sweets (16). 82 Although “insects and other small proteins” (17) was added as an additional food group at midterm, only 1 percent of women reported consuming foods from this group.83 By region it changed from 43 percent to 68 percent (Adamaoua), from 39 percent to 30 percent (East region), and from 45 percent to 49 percent (North 77 The other regions showed little change. The East stayed the same at 3.5 groups, while the North experienced a slight decrease from 4.5 to 4.3, signifying no real improvements. 78 Numbers indicate food group numbers according to the FAO. Group 12 indicates Other oils and fats such as Butter, pork fat, chicken fat, palm, soybean, sunflower oil, and margarine. 79 Food group-13: Seasonings and spices (garlic, lemon, ginger, fresh herbs, Maggi, onion, chili, fish sauce, salt). 80 Food group-14: Other drinks and foods (energy drinks, coffee, coke, Fanta, fruit juice (processed), soda, tea). 81 Food group-15: Savory and fried snacks (fried donuts, banana, cassava, corn, sweet potato, potato chips, fried snacks). 82 Food group-16: Sweets (sugarcane, ice cream, cakes, sweetened condensed milk, honey, pastries, small cake). 83 Food group-17: Insects and other small proteins (caterpillars, cicadas, dragonflies, fish eggs, grasshoppers, insect larvae, cricket, termites). 58 region), which might be explained by adapting coping mechanisms to eat less nutrient-dense food or the opposite, where the women might have more money to buy sweets and snacks. Interviews with health center workers and volunteer community health workers indicated no relapses for women participating in Nascent activities. Once they had received the take-home rations and education about how to eat a balanced meal, the women did not return to the health center. This could also indicate that women were simply not following up, since no mechanism existed for following up after the initial assessment. The Northern Regional Nutrition Focal Point expressed satisfaction about the quality of the training, suggesting that he could see some impact. Some parents also seem to demonstrate some lessons learned, especially in relation to vitamin A intake. Community Gardens Nascent supports targeted inputs and training for the development of school gardens and community farms, working with the Ministry of Agriculture to conduct trainings for community members. In Year 1, Nascent trained 958 individuals, followed by 4,021 individuals in Year 2, as reported for indicator MDG 2.3 above (see EQ 2.3). Trainings focused on improved gardening methods. In addition, Nascent provides improved agricultural inputs such as seeds (celery, parsley, tomatoes, spices, plantains, cassava, maize, okra) and organic fertilizers. EQs 4.7, 5.2, and 5.5 provide additional information about the impact of school gardens. 4.6. Is the project causing any unintended effects? Data from interviews with various stakeholders indicate that about two-thirds of discussions did not identify any unintended effects of Nascent programming. Stakeholders that commented on unintended effects include the USDA, Nascent staff, teaching staff, parents, local administrators (mayors), and ministerial officials. Those who identified unintended consequences generally articulated two issues: 1) shifting demands for services, namely, higher enrollments in project schools; and 2) lunch service encroaching on learning. Stakeholders also identified additional effects that include the enrollment of underage children, an inappropriate leveraging of the project by PTAs, and tensions between the community and the school. These effects seem less common but require attention. Systems Strained by Participation Across stakeholders interviewed, the most cited unintended effect of programming was that project schools with school feeding programs may contribute in drawing students away from schools that did not offer this service. This contributes to over-enrollment at project schools, while non-project schools face lower student numbers, though school feeding is not the only driver involved. Two of four teachers focus groups point to increased student enrollment as a negative effect, while the third group did not. Only some educational and agricultural officials saw enrollment shifts as a consequence, whereas Water and Energy and Health officials did not agree. The following quotes from teachers as well as a regional Agricultural Delegate provide further description: “Maybe in the way that surrounding schools have emptied because we have the project here at our school and that attracts outside students. We might say that this is a negative effect like that.” (Teacher, Rural School in North Region, FGD) “Schools without the project have been abandoned for schools with the project, so we observe a shift. . . .Now, Nascent has come next door with a project-assisted school. Progressively, you’ll see that a previously good school has been depopulated for this 59 one. . . . it’s a negative effect for this school. And this also leads to project teachers being overloaded.” (Agricultural Delegate, Interview) While shifting enrollment may be unintended, Nascent staff interviewed made clear that they had anticipated this effect common to many school feeding initiatives throughout the world. The School Feeding Coordination team clarified that they had asked head teachers to review new enrollments and to have a discussion with families when children enroll who live more than three kilometers from the school. At the same time, a member of project leadership pointed to monitoring challenges, which were further complicated by COVID-related school closures. This staff member shared, “Unfortunately, COVID kind of interrupted the last school year and this school year and prevented us from monitoring enrollment trends consistently for that period. So, we are not even able to clearly point out that the school feeding, which was suspended, which is not ongoing, has pulled children out of neighboring schools. Also because in the Francophone regions, with the number of schools and the geographical spread of the project, and also the geography of the area, we hardly have the kind of proximity of school project or non-project that we had in the North West.” (Nascent staff, Interview) In addition to schools becoming over-solicited, the Nutrition Coordination team explained that some health centers also strained to meet increased demand. The extent of the issue was not clear, but the team provided an example of a health center used to serving 50 women at a time that found itself with 200 seeking services on the days of Nascent distributions. While this made for a positive development, it also overwhelmed the staff who could not attend to everyone seeking assistance. Encroaching on Class Schedules To a lesser extent, stakeholders indicated that school meals may encroach on learning time. An Education Focal Point noted that lunches were not included within time schedules and that the feeding program could therefore impact lesson time. The Commodity Management Coordination team further stipulated that when water sources are not readily available at schools, the preparation of hot lunches requires that cooks, commodity management committee members, and sometimes students travel long distances to fetch water. This causes food to be served late and for some children to miss out on class time. The lack of water also complicates good hygiene efforts. In addition, one teacher focus group indicated that teachers lost time in class because they needed to help organize school meals. The teachers clarified that this had only happened at the beginning of the program, and that the school and Nascent had found a solution. This issue did not surface in the remaining teacher three focus groups. Other Unintended Effects Some other effects, though not as widely reported by stakeholders also, bear mention: - Enrollment of underage children: Some parents seem to be enrolling children in schools to take advantage of the school meals even though they aren’t yet of school-going age (Education Focal Point) - Inappropriate leveraging of project by PTAs: Field Agents report that parents’ organizations in some schools use dry-ration distribution as leverage to get children and families to pay PTA dues. Worse, 60 Field Agents report observing that some schools have increased the cost of PTA dues, using the project as a pretext for the increase. Project staff deemed the increase inappropriate. - Tensions between schools and communities: Field agents also raised the issue of tensions in some schools between the head teacher and the community because of the project. The discussion cited an example in one school where the community falsely accused the head teacher of profiting from the unfounded sale of land to the project without the community’s knowledge. They shared that the head teacher was no longer on speaking terms with the community for this reason. 4.7. To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance? What measures were taken to mitigate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? Question 4.7 addresses the impact of COVID-19 on project implementation and its possible mitigation. This question complements relevance EQ 1.3 and effectiveness EQ 2.1 above. As indicated in response to these questions, COVID-19 forced school closures between March and October 2020, limited the size of gatherings, and suspended school feeding. This question further investigates the effect that COVID may have had on the project’s overall performance and more closely investigates the project’s mitigation response. Nascent’s COVID-19 Mitigation Efforts Recall from above that, at the school level, Nascent distributed soap and installed handwashing stations. Nascent also distributed masks to teachers and front-line health workers. Discussions with various stakeholders, including project leadership, coordination teams, field staff, government officials, and parents underline how Nascent also applied social distancing measures, reduced the number of participants at trainings and other gatherings, and distributed hand sanitizer. Interviews indicate how, where possible, staff worked from home while Field Agents continued to maintain a presence in the field while respecting social distancing and other prevention measures. Counterparts in the various ministries as well as project staff reported how Nascent employed preventative measures. Document review illuminates further how Nascent adapted its operations to support the government’s preventative measures. Some Nascent activities continued to function during the pandemic, including infrastructure, health center activities, and school gardening. The main changes to project implementation are as follows: - Distribution of commodities as dry take-home rations (THR) to pupils, cooks, and teachers, as mandated by Cameroon’s Ministry of Basic Education. USDA approved this shift.84 - Continued monitoring of the management of produce from school gardens to ensure money from sales contributed to PTA funds - Relocation of books from mobile libraries to the homes of Library Managers to prevent crowding and training for Library Managers on COVID-19 prevention - Dissemination of messages on hygiene and sanitation through local radio stations, posters, and door-to-door sensitization including awareness messages specific to COVID-19 in eight local languages in intervention regions - Training of community health workers, teachers, and students of examination classes on good hygiene and COVID-19 prevention measures - Greater emphasis on establishing handwashing units at schools - Use of radio and social media platforms to mobilize parents to enroll children for the 2020-2021 academic year 84 Note that Nascent was already employing its mobile reading program in the North West region. This initiative distributes take-home rations. 61 - Volunteer cultivation of school gardens and community farms. 85 The absence of an alternative or distance-learning strategy on this list also merits mention. Interviews with Nascent staff indicate that after studying possibilities and low rates of connection for intervention areas, and seeing that schools would reopen in October, Nascent made the informed decision not to develop a separate distance-learning strategy. While they indicate that they did develop a proposal for tablet-based learning for rural areas, it was discarded after an internal review on its feasibility. Instead, the response seems to have been varied, with some examples of teachers working with students in small groups to provide them with exercises at home. Lastly, another senior project staff member made clear that COVID adaptations had little impact on the project budget. The project managed to incorporate changes within existing activities. For instance, radio messages were already within the budget, so that Nascent simply added messages related to hygiene and COVID-19. The additional distribution of soap, hand sanitizer, and masks did not prove very expensive. Effects of COVID-19 on Project Performance Interview and survey data reveal that COVID-19 has heavily impacted two areas of project performance: hygiene efforts and school feeding. We discuss each in depth below. In addition, Water and Energy Delegates and Agricultural Delegates called attention to how ministerial agents were less likely to perform visits and monitoring due to COVID-19 lockdowns. Water and Energy officials also indicated that material costs, like water pump equipment, had increased due to pandemic complications. Similarly, the Commodities Coordination team also noted a slowing in terms of the government’s ability to process arrivals through customs due to fewer agents working. At the same time, according to the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, school gardens and community farm efforts continued to work well to support community support of schools. It is unclear if support can be sustained during a prolonged suspension of the school feeding program, however. Regarding overall project performance and the project’s first strategic objective related to literacy, interviewees and survey data provide insights. Education officials spoke about the disruption that COVID-19 has caused to the school year and children’s learning. Two education officials as well as Field Agents underlined the limited number of children per class due to COVID-19 prevention measures, leaving schools to resort to double-shift administration, requiring teachers to teach twice. One official underlined the dramatic increase in teachers’ workload. Another expressed concern for students during the suspension of in-school feeding given that students had grown accustomed to receiving food at school. Similarly, survey results show that across both comparison and project schools, nearly all teachers (93.9%) and head teachers (92.6%) responded that COVID-19 had a negative impact on students’ learning, with more than a third of teachers (39.1%) and nearly half of head teachers (46.3%) declaring it “very negative.” Differences between the perceptions of comparison and project schools are negligible, however. Next, we turn more precisely to hygiene and school feeding. Positive Effect on Hygiene Efforts Mixed-methods sources support that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced hygiene efforts. When asked to qualify the impact of the pandemic on school hygiene activities, head teachers and teachers (97.5% and 87.4%, respectively) overwhelmingly responded that the impact had been positive. Interviews support the same finding. As a member of the M&E team indicated, 85 List compiled from Nascent Solutions (2020). COVID-19 Updates; Nascent Solutions (2020) April-September 2020 Semiannual Report. 62 “Providing means for people to be able to wash their hands in some public places, I think that the effect is not something that we can overemphasize. In fact, I think that because of COVID and the measures that we took, we have basically achieved more than we would have achieved, especially in the WASH component, if COVID wasn't here.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Negative Effect on school Feeding On the other hand, analysis of survey and interview data shows that the suspension of school feeding and the project’s pivot to THR may have negatively affected project performance. Figure 15 demonstrates how project school head teachers were 33.5 points more likely to report that COVID-19 had negatively impacted students’ food supply than head teachers in comparison schools. This is likely because head teachers recognize the disruption that the suspension of the school feeding program has caused for their students. Figure 15: Comparison of head teachers' perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on students' food supply (%) A diversity of stakeholders interviewed expressed concerns about the project’s shift to take-home rations, while at the same time acknowledging no other logical recourse. A WASH Focal Point interviewed lamented that THRs did not have the same targeted impact as a school meal because the dry ration benefited the whole family. He stated, ”From the information I’ve learned about the crisis, there has been a policy change such that now they provide foodstuffs to families, so that they can prepare meals for the children. But this hasn’t always happened the way it is intended. Once the food is given directly to the family, it becomes the family’s meal and no longer the child’s meal. Whereas at school, it is the child’s meal. And that creates a monitoring problem—how to assure that the meal that is provided is actually prepared for the child. . . . It’s a matter of resilience that has its constraints, but there is no other solution.” (WASH Focal Point, Interview) At the same time, parents’ survey responses indicate that the THR may be making a difference. While close to half of parents (44.5%) from Nascent schools reported that they never provided their child with food from home for lunch, as Figure 16 indicates, this is less than the more than three-quarters (78%) of 7.3% 4.1% 36.8% 6.5% 15.3% 8.1% 31.7% 61.1% 8.9% 20.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Comparison Project Positive No impact A little negative Somewhat negative Very negative 63 parents in comparison schools who report the same. In addition, the proportion of parents who report “always” providing lunches to their children in Nascent schools surpasses the portion of parents doing the same in comparison schools by 23 percentage points. 86 Figure 16: Proportion of parents reporting sending their child to school with meals (by school type) At the same time, Field Agents expressed skepticism, noting that even when families were asked to prepare meals for the child to bring to school, not all of them did. In addition, Field Agents and the School Feeding Coordination team noted that without school meals, children’s attendance at school had decreased. The two quotes below provide further details: ”During COVID we’ve seen students go home at break to get something to eat and then they come back late or they don’t come back at all.” (Field Agent, Interview) “We’ve noticed that children came more often to school when there was food, and now that the canteens have been suspended, we observe a certain abandoning. For example, the last time, when we announced the food distribution, there were a lot of children who came only to get the foodstuffs, even though the previous days there weren’t as many students at school. It’s something that is going to negatively impact the project.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Nascent Remains Confident Despite the many challenges, Nascent staff largely indicate confidence about their ability to make up some of the lost progress before project end should school feeding resume soon. Two members of project leadership and Literacy Coordination team all expressed this sentiment. As illustration, a Nascent staff member offered the following: "Thinking of measuring impact in two years’ time, most definitely we will be able to reach the expected final performance. This is because we already have the resources needed to make an impact: teachers have the capacity, school feeding is available as well as libraries and Bloom [software.] The circumstances will be perfect for the desired impact." (Nascent staff, Interview) 86 Differences are statistically significant (p<0.000). 45% 78% 27% 16% 29% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Project Comparison Never Sometimes Always 64 Nascent program and M&E staff indicated that the project revised targets as part of a routine post￾baseline revision as required by USDA. The revision took place during July-September 2020, but the project did not account for COVID’s impact on targets at that time, per guidance from USDA. At the time of writing, the suspension of school meals was still in effect, however, and if the suspension continues, it will prove nearly impossible to maintain project performance at the same level. 4.8. Conclusion: Impact The midterm evaluation provides promising results for improvements in teaching quality despite the short lapse in time between trainings and data collection. Not only do teachers and head teachers express satisfaction with trainings and positive changes in their practice but observation also shows that project teachers made meaningful gains in their use of active instructional strategies. These results are impressive but also require cautious interpretation and further investigation at end line. As expected, students’ literacy results as measured by EGRA are not as positive. Students’ reading comprehension results remain quite low, as only 0.3 percent of students obtained a passing score. Analysis that includes more basic subtasks using the literacy index does show a positive gain for project schools, however, and indicates that more children learned letters and used decoding than in comparison schools. In addition, given the unique and intense disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures, the decrease in comprehension scores for project schools seems to be less than that of comparison schools. These results may indicate that Nascent’s intervention has provided some protection against COVID shocks. Similarly, while findings are mixed concerning the effects of THRs, a significantly higher proportion of Nascent parents indicate sending their children to school with lunch when compared to parents in the comparison group. The impact that Nascent may have on student attentiveness is more difficult to ascertain, especially given that evaluators could not observe school feeding in practice due to the COVID-related suspension. Stakeholder perspectives are overwhelmingly positive that school feeding and other efforts contribute to students’ satiation and alertness. However, observation results using the Stallings classroom observation tool show a large decrease in attentiveness common to both comparison and project groups. Results warrant further investigation. Findings demonstrate that Nascent’s project has unintended effects, including the expected transfer of some students to project schools from neighboring institutions to take part in school meals. More unexpected, however, are some reported inappropriate practices by some PTAs that may leverage the project for monetary gains. The project should investigate and mitigate as needed, being careful to also recognize that the project holds the potential to create tensions between schools and communities. Results for students’ nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices varied, but all students increased their handwashing-with-soap practice at all critical times from baseline to midterm. Findings reveal that soap is available at school handwashing stations but may not be as prominent near latrines. Students still do not always use soap to wash their hands, and in some cases, children report just not wanting to wash their hands, indicating a need for a communication intervention on behavioral change. It is difficult to determine if women’s’ dietary diversity changed between baseline and midterm, as reported results stayed the same across the sample. Qualitative data may suggest some progress. 5. Sustainability The final DAC criterion this midterm evaluation addresses is sustainability, defined by the OECD as “the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.” Five evaluation questions guide findings and cover various aspects of sustainability. 65 5.1. Do stakeholders have the same vision of sustainability? This midterm evaluation explored the extent to which stakeholders’ visions of sustainability align. Findings show a general agreement among stakeholders. Analysis of interview data as well as the design outlined within the Cooperative Agreement clarify that Nascent implements a holistic and multilevel approach to sustainability. According to project leadership as well as the USDA, Nascent MCGOVERN￾DOLE understands sustainability as necessary in two directions: bottom-up from within the community and top-down from the government. USDA and two key members of project staff all spoke about the importance of efforts to address both levels, indicating alignment between project leadership and donor. A member of project leadership underlined how the project envisions communities producing their own food commodities for use in school feeding. At the same time, Nascent would like to see the Government of Cameroon develop a national school-feeding policy and to take responsibility for buying some of the inputs necessary for school feeding. She underlined the critical nature of government engagement at the national level: “But the implementation of the national school feeding policy is essential to sustain school feeding countrywide because one community can only do as much as they can do within their community and one municipality can only do as much as they can do within their municipality. That's where we are. Sustaining the school feeding is possible, but a lot depends on how much engagement the government takes.” (Member of project leadership, Interview) In the absence of a dedicated school feeding directorate, national-level efforts focus on building coordination between four ministries, which findings above have demonstrated as challenging at times (see EQ 2.2). At the local level, Nascent aims to engage with local councils, which through decentralization have come to manage primary schools. Nascent works to empower local councils through their capacity-building efforts, so that they can take on activities and recruit parental support. Close collaboration with government counterparts and awareness-raising and sensitization efforts ,make for two key features of Nascent’s approach that support sustainability. Not only did discussions with Nascent staff across the various project components demonstrate their understanding of the linkages of these features with sustainability but discussions with government officials also did. For example, Education and Nutrition Focal Points, two interviews with Agricultural Delegates, an interview with Water and Energy Delegates, health officials and discussions with four local councils emphasized the need for early community involvement in programming to begin to the process of taking ownership of efforts. As illustration, a Health Delegate interviewed stated, “You see communities where productivity has increased. If the project ensures that the meals served to the children come from home-produced food items, from the community . . . so the community will continuously improve their production because they know that there will always be a market for that and then they will eventually improve their livelihoods and the livelihood of their community. So, for the project to be sustainable, the community must appropriate it, they must own it, they must learn about the good practices that the project is bringing about.” (Education Focal Point, Interview) 66 Nascent has defined approaches to sustainability for each of its project components. Figure 17 presents descriptions that draw from the Cooperative Agreement and interviews. The coordination teams for each component affirmed each of these strategies, again, demonstrating cohesion of Nascent’s vision. Figure 17: Nascent's approach to sustainability by component At the same time, stakeholders, government counterparts, in particular, emphasized the precariousness of sustainability. As an agricultural delegate pointed out, they have seen school feeding programs fail before after a project ended. The next question investigates the likelihood of success. 5.2. Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed? Here, we focus on early signs that the sustainability of Nascent interventions may be possible after project close, as well as on obstacles that may prevent or dampen the project’s lasting effects. The evaluation team acknowledges overlap with the subsequent EQ 5.3, which focuses on activities that may continue. Emerging Signs of Sustainability Analysis of interview data reveal possible signs that stakeholders are taking ownership of Nascent activities and outcomes. They include: Infrastructure upkeep: Field Agents, a Water and Energy Delegate, and technical staff indicate that certain communities have identified volunteers to help with infrastructure maintenance. Project technical staff further pointed out that, at the seven sites with constructed boreholes, Nascent has formed water-management committees trained to do light repairs on the structures. Some of these individuals have been associated with the project since construction and had helped the contractors. Technical staff underlined the development of ownership: School feeding •Progressing handing off to schools. Years 1 & 2: Nascent will provide meals every day. •Year 3: Phasing down: Locally produced food from school gardens & parent donations Literacy •Provision of in￾service trainings to administrators and teachers. •Advocacy for integration within national education policy. Agriculture •Community farms and school gardens support sustainability; •Strengthen and/or establish farmers cooperatives Health & Nutrition •Community health workers provide trainings for pregnant and lactating mothers •How to maintain a diverse diet while using local food Water •Developing committees to handle repairs •Integrating maintenance in development plans for new water systems. 67 “We have the local authorities like the mayor, the inspectors of Basic Education. We made it clear to them that as we are handling this project, as from today, they are the ones to continue to take care of this project. So the projects are under their care, and just for this one-year period that we are monitoring, I will tell you, without any fear, that the projects will be sustainable. And given also the importance the people attached to the project, I can assure you that they will take care of the project . . . .” (Nascent staff, Interview) Enthusiasm about agricultural activities: Nearly all stakeholders who spoke about school gardens and community farms expressed great interest. As EQ 5.5 will further explore, the project already surpassed its target for communities participating in the graduation program with focus on community farms. Thirty-six rather than 20 schools participate in the program, according to a member of project leadership. In addition, farmers’ cooperatives seem to generate a lot of interest from government counterparts. Their enthusiasm suggests this as a project element that can be sustained and that, moreover, may fortify school feeding efforts in the future. Education practices spreading beyond Nascent schools: Stakeholders also provide indication that new education practices are spreading beyond Nascent targets. As indicated in EQ 4.3 above, at least one Teaching Coach interviewed mentioned sharing Nascent strategies with teachers from non-project schools. The next question (EQ 5.3) will also explore this issue in greater detail. Image 6: Student reading at a blackboard Participation achieved without incentives or with modest remuneration: Few of Nascent’s activities involve direct incentives, with the exception of those which involve project kitchen and commodity￾storage volunteers. They receive modest in-kind remuneration, including six kilograms of rice per trimester and hot school meals. In the original design, students with attendance exceeding 85 percent also receive six kilograms of rice per trimester. 87 In comparison with other projects offering in-kind 87 It seems that actual school enrollments exceeding planned enrollment required more provisions for canteens and may not have enabled Nascent to follow through with this activity. 68 incentives, such as a 50 kilogram bag of rice as an incentive for high-achieving students in a girls’ education project in Guinea, 88 or how cooks receive a monthly five-liter bottle of oil in an MCGOVERN￾DOLE project in Benin, 89 Nascent’s incentives are modest yet still seem to stimulate participation. Local council ownership: As indicated above, including in EQ 1.2, multiple stakeholders report that certain local councils (mayors) are already signaling a commitment to support school feeding efforts. A variety of stakeholders noted the critical role mayors have to play in sustaining project activities, including the School Feeding and Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, Field Agents, Agricultural Delegates and two members of project leadership. In particular, a senior staff member expressed that local councils have the potential to take on Nascent activities at the end of the project, though a definitive prediction was impossible. Moreover, in addition to the numerous local councils identified above in EQ 1.2, field staff provided a concrete example of a mayor’s office providing in-kind support, as well as fully supporting non-project schools emulating Nascent’s approach: “There are mayors’ offices that are engaged, even if their achievements aren’t fully realized because it’s recent. Others have even brought materials in addition to what Nascent provides. The materials are made available to the community, who then gets involved. They come on workdays because just recently there is a mayor . . . who even visited the plot of land. He said, ‘the tractor is going to come work here.’ And moreover, he has committed to supporting two schools. The is engagement at the local level. These give hope for the entire community. They’ll be able to pick up the baton.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Persistent Reticence While findings are largely positive for initial progress toward sustainability, as can be expected at midterm, analysis also indicates some reticence to fully appropriate project activities. Key project staff (members of the M&E team, a member of project leadership) as well as the USDA Program Analyst emphasized remaining gaps in achieving sustainability. Notable among them is the lack of progress toward a national school feeding policy. In addition, an Education Delegate also felt skeptical that school feeding activities would continue and reiterated the importance of dedicated budget line items. Moreover, the three mayors’ offices interviewed did not signal direct support for project initiatives. Rather, one mayor’s office suggested that they were considering providing financial assistance to personnel involved with school farms and school canteens, while another reiterated their support for school canteens and for women of childbearing age. The exact nature of the support remained unclear. Similarly, a parent focus group indicated that local council support, though offered, had proven inadequate; in this case, they were unable to meet the demands of the school canteen for potable water. These findings suggest work remaining to be done to further promote ownership within local councils across Nascent’s intervention zone. 88 Lynd, M., Sarr, K. G., Thukral, H., Kpokomou, M., Koulibaly, A., Harrington, L., Gandara, F. & Denauw, M. (2016). A Holistic Approach to Girls’ Education — School-to-School International’s Whole Child Model in Guinea. UNGEI. https://www.ungei.org/publication/holistic-approach-girls-education-school-school-internationals-whole-child￾model-guinea 89 Data collected during midterm evaluation of Catholic Relief Services Keun Faaba project by evaluation team. 69 Potential Obstacles to Sustainability In addition to the challenges that have hindered project implementation (see EQ 2.2 above), stakeholders cited challenges specific to sustainability. These include: • Lack of land: Education Delegates cite lack of land for school agricultural efforts as an obstacle. An Agricultural Delegate suggested that involving only Education Delegates in the choice of schools may have exacerbated this issue. As remedy, officials suggests that Nascent assist with advocacy with traditional leaders. • Teacher and health worker mobility: The M&E team cited turnover of teacher and health workers as an impediment to sustainability, as the project may lose trained personnel to other non-project locations. • COVID suspension of hot meal distribution: As education and health delegates signaled, the moratorium on school meals inflicted by COVID-19 may create additional challenges for sustainability. Certainly, the interruption is a departure from Nascent’s original timeline, which imagined schools beginning to phase down in Year 3. • Burden on PTAs to pay teachers: According to the M&E team, more than 60 percent of teachers within the intervention zone are PTA teachers. This burden may act as an obstacle for the PTAs being able to use the funds raised from the school gardens and community farms for the provision of foodstuffs to their own school feeding program. • Limited coverage: An Education Delegate from the East region also pointed to Nascent’s coverage area, suggesting that with such few schools in a region, talk of sustainability seemed inappropriate. 5.3. Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes? This question builds on findings from earlier questions and focuses at the activity level. Here, findings touch on infrastructure, school feeding, agriculture, and training activities. Infrastructure Support Indications that infrastructure maintenance committees and volunteers exist in some communities suggests that infrastructure projects may continue operating into the future, an idea supported by Field Agents and the project technical staff, among others. School Feeding There is limited evidence that school feeding can continue in some cases beyond project close. Evidence above pointed to instances in which mayors’ offices have taken up the provision of school feeding programs, though time must allow for further scrutiny of those efforts. Similarly, a member of project leadership shared a prediction that around one-third of schools may be self-sufficient with support from local councils for a period of time after the end of the project. She specified, “Communities on their own will be able to provide—not all the 148 schools in the Francophone region for sure—but I'm confident that at least 30 percent or so of schools will be able to provide meals for their children two to three school days within a week at the end of the project. For how long this would last? We hope that the councils can really be able to continue to include an increase in their budget support for school feeding to sustain that effort from the community.” (Nascent staff, Interview) 70 Community Farms and Gardens As indicated above, community, government, and project staff have all expressed great enthusiasm for the potential of community farms and gardens. The USDA also indicated that these project activities may be the most likely to endure after project end. In addition, as the last EQ (5.5) will address, community agricultural efforts constitute the focus of Nascent’s graduation model. Additional evidence from parent focus groups and from regional agricultural officials add to the already compelling support for these efforts. Among the four parent focus groups, three indicated interest in continuing the school gardens and farms. Two quotes in particular stand out: “Also, the garden may continue, but we have problems with water, and it doesn’t always function. Now the garden has started to produce something, and we think that we’ll start to sell the produce in order to have a little money for the kitchen.” (Parent, Rural School in the East Region, FGD) “The garden offers a lot of possibilities to continue after the project. We are waiting for the right season to also start a field not far from the school.” (Parent, Rural School in the North Region, FGD) At the same time, as the first quote indicates, water supply constitutes a persistent issue for this community. A lack of reliable water source could hinder the continuation of agricultural efforts for communities in similar situations. In addition, two sets of regional agricultural government officials who sat for separate interviews agreed with the potential for the continuity of school gardens and the community farms. One group made the point that the work will need to intensify and, as stated elsewhere, that communities will need to appropriate the work. They added that the benefit of farms and gardens will need to emerge very clearly, and also be visible to other communities to inspire them to replicate. Continued Use of Newly Acquired Practices Nascent’s M&E team as well as some community-based stakeholders insist that practices learned in trainings may continue past project close. While practices cited included local production and the use of corn-soy blend, as well as new hygiene practices, emphasis was largely on education-related strategies. For example, two of four teacher focus groups strongly emphasized that they planned to continue the use of newly learned teaching techniques. Findings also indicate that regional delegations have asked to use the materials developed by Nascent for training non-Nascent teachers. As indicated earlier, this finding aligns with data relating how teaching coaches are already sharing strategies with non-Nascent schools. Moreover, an Education Focal Point also waxed enthusiastic about teachers’ newly learned practices to support literacy, but sagely pointed out that sustainability will require integration within teacher pre-service and in-service training and collaboration with teaching colleges. An Education Delegate expressed similar enthusiasm but pointed out the need for continued support. Nascent leadership appears to also recognize this constraint, as the Cooperative Agreement notes the importance of advocating for inclusion within the national education strategy (see EQ 5.1). Indeed, the Literacy team spoke of actions to institutionalize Nascent content. Efforts included Nascent training coaches who worked with leadership at the education inspectors’ training school, who reported back to the training school and adopted portions of Nascent training. The Literacy team further clarified, 71 “Whatever activity we are implementing is in partnership with all the different services of the ministry, so we have made the training content available to the inspector general of education, in the service of pedagogy. So, they have the content. We actually even reviewed the content together, and they validated it. So, we are expecting that the feedback from the regional delegates and regional inspectors should also be a motivation for this content to be adopted nationwide.” (Nascent staff, Interview) 5.4. How is the local community engaged and/or contributing to sustain project activities, especially school feeding? Survey data and qualitative interviews inform the response to this question. Survey data provide insights about the experiences of kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers, arguably the community members most directly involved in Nascent activities, while interview data address engagement more broadly. Kitchen and Commodity-Storage Volunteer Engagement Recall that 282 kitchen volunteers and 65 commodity-storage volunteers responded to survey questions about their engagement prior to COVID-19 disruptions as part of the midterm evaluation. Nearly all kitchen volunteers (94.3%) and more than three-quarters of storage volunteers (84.6%) indicate having participated in the school canteen since the beginning of the project. Just under two-thirds of storage volunteers report participating at least four times a week (61.6%). Nearly nine in ten (88.9%) kitchen volunteers report participating in the canteen once a week. This is to be expected, as the project stablishes five teams of five cooks at each school, with each team providing a meal once a week. When asked about their motivation for supporting school feeding, most kitchen volunteers (83.0%) responded so that children could have meals. Nearly two-thirds of storage volunteers (64.2%) shared this motivation, while the same proportion (65.4%) found motivation in the desire to participate in the development of their community. Nearly all kitchen volunteers (94.8%) report having received compensation for their work, while the opposite holds true for storage volunteers, as 93.0 percent indicate not receiving compensation. Nearly all kitchen volunteers (97.8%) identified compensation as 6 kilograms of rice per trimester. Data show that while nearly three-quarters of kitchen volunteers (73.3%) report satisfaction with this compensation, more than a quarter of respondents (26.1%) feel dissatisfied. Disaggregation shows that a higher proportion of kitchen volunteers in the North expressed dissatisfaction when compared to other regions. 90 The existence of the previous McGovern-Dole project run by Counterpart International in the North may further complicate the situation. 91 Overall, however, nearly all kitchen and storage volunteers (93.6% and 93.0%, respectively) indicated satisfaction with their engagement in the Nascent project. Storage volunteers show a slightly higher level of intense satisfaction than kitchen volunteers, as 64.2 percent of storage volunteers answered “yes, really,” compared to 52.8 percent of kitchen volunteers. 90The combined result of cooks who identified “no, not at all” and “no, not really” was 35.8 percent for the North, compared to 25.6 percent for the East and 4 percent for Adamaoua. These results are not statistically significant (p=0.1798). 91 Despite efforts to identify evaluation reports, the team did not have information about how Counterpart handled compensation. 72 Figure 18: Reasons reported for volunteers to be satisfied with their involvement in Nascent activities As Figure 18 indicates, the top two reasons volunteers provide for their satisfaction are that they are happy to help and because they wish to lend their support to the school feeding project. Interestingly, about one-tenth of kitchen volunteers (9.5%) cited the meal they are provided as a reason for satisfaction, particularly because kitchen volunteers work only one day a week. No one cited oil rations or monetary incentives. More General Community Engagement Analysis of interview data reveals enthusiasm as well as variation in community engagement. In general, parents and teachers felt positive about their involvement. Teachers in all three focus groups, for example, expressed that parents were engaged, while also stressing that parents had limited resources and capacities. For their own part, parents who sat for focus groups indicated their enthusiasm for taking on more responsibility for school feeding, as expressed in three of four focus groups. As illustration, one group from an urban school in the North recalled that community participation in the school field had been “massive.” Parents noted that cooks readily participated even before learning about compensation. Parents in another group from a rural school in Adamaoua expressed their eagerness to continue: ”Nascent trained parents, and we’ve already identified a plot for the community field. We are going to cultivate corn and vegetables, so that we can continue the school canteen.” (Parent, Rural School in Adamaoua Region, Focus Group) At the same time, another parent in the focus group stressed the need for continued project accompaniment. The fourth parents’ group, from a rural school in the East, showed greater reticence and expressed needing more support from local authorities, in particular, the reliable supply of sufficient water for the canteen, to continue to function in the future. Discussions with members of local councils also provided examples of community engagement. Notably, two councils referred to how local traditional leaders provided land for school use. Another council described that the community had 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% I don't know/No response I like getting out of the house I like being with other parents Meal we are given Other To support school canteen I'm happy to help Storage volunteers Kitchen volunteers 73 created a cooperative to support the project, likely in reference to Nascent’s emphasis on cooperative formation. Analysis indicates the possibility of significant regional differences in how communities respond to Nascent programming. Both Nascent staff and government stakeholders relayed that Nascent encountered more difficulties in the East and Adamaoua, where communities are used to receiving assistance from large NGOs without any community participation. A mayor from the East region provided confirmation: “To say that communities will engage is difficult. It’s a mentality issue. They are used to receiving assistance. Well! Now, there’s a new paradigm that is being developed, and time is needed to bring targeted stakeholders to understand this new reality.” (Mayor, East Region, Interview) A technical staff member similarly lamented the difficulties for communities in the East to support infrastructure maintenance. At the same time, a School Feeding team member described communities in the East that were highly participatory, noting the need for a nuanced understanding of variations in participation. Findings indicate that engagement in the North has been less complicated and that inhabitants seem to participate more regularly. The evaluation team also noted that the Counterpart project operated in the North beginning in 2012, so that many communities already understand the benefits for their children in a school feeding project. 5.5. To what extent, is the graduation model likely to be sustainable? As part of the midterm evaluation, Nascent requested that the evaluation team assess its school feeding sustainability model theory of change specific to its graduation school model. 92 Overview of Graduation Model The graduation school approach promotes local ownership and oversight of school meals. Target schools “benefit from increased support and follow-up to produce yearly estimated higher quantities of food crops to progressively replace USDA-donated commodities in school meals.”93 Nascent staff also point out that the graduation schools serve to demonstrate to the government what is possible, particularly as the government remains reticent to fully engage in school feeding. Schools receive inputs from Nascent in addition to enhanced support. The April-September 2020 semiannual report notes that within that period Nascent distributed 5 metric tons of seeds and 20 metric tons of fertilizer to participant schools. Enhanced agricultural support includes additional trainings for PTA members in topics such as improved cropping techniques and harvest management. At the time of writing, Nascent had trained 2,616 PTA members. 94 Schools also received additional financial assistance. According to document review and discussions with Nascent staff, criteria for selection included: - Active PTAs that would engage in project activities, particularly school gardening - At least one hectare of land available to the school for a community farm 92 It is worth noting that the overall theory of change is fairly standardized across USDA McGovern-Dole projects. 93 Nascent Solutions. (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual report, p. 34. Also see Nascent Solutions. (2019). Termes de référence pour le programme d’accompagnement des écoles sélectionnées en vue de pérenniser le fonctionnement des cantines scolaires, p. 2., for a list of objectives. 94 Nascent Solutions. (2021). September 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report. 74 - A minimum of 50 square meters set aside for a garden In addition, field agents emphasized that chosen communities needed to be dynamic, a point of pride for many of these communities. Nascent has selected 36 schools to participate in the program, well beyond the originally planned 20 schools and reflective of high levels of community interest. Of these schools, 25 are located in the North, 6 in the East, and 5 in the Adamaoua region. It is expected that the garden and community farm will produce some percentage of the school’s meals by Years 4 and 5 of the project. (Indeed, the 36 community farms produced 64 tons of food by December 2020, which would have covered some percentage of school feeding needs in program year 3 had the COVID pandemic not brought about the closure of schools and suspension of school feeding. Instead, the food was sold at school level and the proceeds saved for later use in school feeding.) Communities acquired land with the help of traditional authorities. Nascent began trainings to PTAs and materials distribution in March 2020, with the first cropping season scheduled for April 2020. 95 According to Field Agents and a member of project leadership, Nascent has developed a tailored approach to each school appropriate for the local climate and ecosystem. The technical work plan and the terms of reference show calculations for each school relevant to overall production, school needs, production targets, expected surplus, and anticipated quantity for sale. Field Agents also emphasized how calculations take into account anticipated population growth. The quote below from a member of project leadership provides further indication of the many considerations involved in the graduation school model. “Our Agriculture team has developed a graduation plan which has targets in terms of production of different main crops by region, based on the current ration for daily school meals that we are providing using USDA commodities. So, they worked with the Nutrition team to look at what the nutritional value 100 grams of rice and 30 grams of beans brings to a child daily and how that could be generated from local means and what that translates into in terms of metric tons of maize, beans, soybeans, and groundnuts produced from the school. Also, we understand that everything that will be consumed in school may not be produced by the school farm depending on the specificities of each locality. Some graduation schools actually expanded, for example, melon production, not because it would feed children with melon, but because they will sell melon to buy corn and soybeans when they would need some to serve one or two or three school meals per week.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Enthusiasm for Graduation Schools Program Overall, stakeholders sampled expressed great enthusiasm for the graduation model. The extra schools participating in the graduation model give a major indication of interest in the program. In addition, all four local council representatives interviewed expressed their support for the pilot schools. A member of a mayor’s office in the East also accentuated how the pilot schools can serve as an inspiration to other schools, in alignment with Nascent views, as indicated above. Similarly, all teachers’ groups responded positively to questions about the model. Discussion in one of these groups, with teachers from a rural community in the East region, indicated pride in how the community farm allowed them to sell some 95 Nascent Solutions. (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual Report; April-September Semiannual Report. 75 products and to use the money to buy fish to supplement students’ meals. Another group, this time from a rural community in the North, similarly expressed satisfaction and noted how with teacher and community engagement, as well as with support from the local government, they managed to succeed. One parents’ group, from an urban school community in the North, boasted of having cultivated 14 bags of corn and feeling that the capital earned helped their efforts at sustainability. Similarly, a subdivisional delegate in the East expressed great excitement for what growing efforts may produce and indicated that communities are moving toward ownership for the effort. The Nutrition-WASH Coordination team also commented on growing enthusiasm within communities, and found that techniques requiring minimal manufactured fertilizers proved promising. Challenges Remain Considerable While enthusiasm is strong, findings also reveal numerous challenges that confront the potential success of the graduation school model. They include: Community engagement precarious: Findings demonstrate that community engagement is critical for community farms to succeed. While some Agricultural Delegates addressed this issue, Field Agents, in particular, emphasized how communities may not be able to provide the attention and effort necessary for agricultural efforts to meet expectations for supporting school feeding. They pointed to competing obligations for their time, including their own farms. Community members find it particularly difficult during the harvest and seeding seasons when high levels of effort are needed. PTA teachers also require compensation: School communities may wish to dedicate funds to other objectives, in particular, for supporting teachers paid by PTAs rather than government salaries. Field Agents described how PTAs might consider prioritizing payment of PTA teachers over school feeding: “The needs are enormous. For example, there are schools that have two state￾provided teachers, or maybe it’s just the head teacher who is paid by the state. There are, for example, three or four other teachers who are not paid, and it’s the PTA who pays them. If they have this harvest, I don’t see how they will, for instance, feed children but leave teachers unpaid. So, there are all these factors to consider. Sometimes it’s difficult if there are other priority needs.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Survey results confirm a high prevalence of PTA teachers within sampled zones. Nearly all schools (115 of 120, 95.8%) report having at least one grade with a PTA-supported teacher, while six schools (5.0%) report that all grades rely on PTA teachers. 96 In interviews, Field Agents recommended advocacy at the local government level to provide a long-term solution for teacher salaries. Canteens remain closed during COVID: The suspension of the school feeding program has also slowed down community farm efforts. A member of project leadership and Field Agents indicated how the intended use of production was halted and that it proved challenging to identify alternatives. In many cases, the crops were currently stored and would likely be sold when market prices increase. A member of project leadership also pointed to a school that managed to purchase a printer and a water pump during the COVID shutdown, saying this would not have been possible with an operational school canteen. 96 The difference between project and comparison schools was not statistically significant. {Please confirm my change here. Is this what you meant?} 76 Climatic conditions threaten consistent production: Field Agents, in particular, but also an Agricultural Delegate from the East, cited how challenging climatic environments can hinder the regularity of school agricultural production. The unpredictable nature of the crop yield leads some stakeholders to question the viability of the model. “I’m a little jealous when I listen to you [other Field Agents], because we’ve launched community farms in my pilot schools, but the lack of rain in my zone has been really discouraging. My school that did the most only produced 14 bags on a hectare. It was catastrophic for the others because of the rains.” (Nascent staff, Interview) Emerging yet Fragile Signs of Sustainability Despite the challenges, there are some emerging signs that the graduation model is gaining traction. Most significant may be how 20 non-graduation project schools have emulated the model in developing their own community farms. 97 A Field Agent provided additional details: “I want to respond to my colleagues who say that if schools do not receive inputs they will not work the community fields. In my area, for example, there are two schools that haven’t received anything but have worked fields. It all depends on their determination and their willingness.” (Nascent staff, Interview) At the same time, a number of key stakeholders expressed concern that graduation schools will have difficulties sustaining school-feeding efforts in the future, including some members of Nascent’s leadership as well as Field Agents. One such staff member echoed the concern that communities may not be able to generate sufficient income to regularly purchase items such as oil and salt, while also providing the food necessary for the school canteen. Another key staff member pointed to unpredictable operating conditions. Nonetheless, recall that graduation-model activities only began less than a year before mid-term evaluation data collection took place and how the design calls for a gradual transition to schools committing to greater responsibility for the production of school meals. Some stakeholders, including Field Agents, subscribe to this argument. 5.6. Conclusion: Sustainability The midterm evaluation allowed for an in-depth investigation of the possibility of sustaining project elements after project close. In Year 3, it is still too early in the project’s life cycle to make any definitive determinations, and the COVID-19 pandemic has further compressed the timeline for implementation, especially as school feeding has been suspended for at least a year at the time of writing. Yet findings show coherence in the vision of sustainability that stakeholders possess, from the donor and project leadership to field staff and beneficiaries. The model, while multifaceted, remains largely premised on beneficiary appropriation of new practices and strategies, as well as government buy-in at the local, regional, and national levels. Nascent has developed clear objectives for sustainability for each of its project components, and staff at all levels can articulate them, again demonstrating alignment of vision. 97 Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual report, p. 11. 77 While the evaluation team can only conjecture at how the project and the operating context will evolve in the remaining project time, some promising signs of sustainability exist at midterm already. These include community ownership for the maintenance of new infrastructure, indications of an organic spread of project teaching and administrative practices to non-Nascent schools, and community participation with meager or non-existent incentives. Findings demonstrate great enthusiasm at all levels for agricultural activities, and there are strong indications of local councils demonstrating commitment to school feeding through in-kind and monetary contributions, the gold standard for sustainability. At the same time, these efforts are sporadic, and more widespread adherence will likely require much effort, advocacy, and favorable operating conditions possibly beyond Nascent’s control. The project would do well to closely monitor the situation of all these developments to be able to share lessons learned and mediate as needed. Nascent should also focus on advocacy efforts at the national level that can address the integration of MCGOVERN-DOLE literacy strategies within pre-service and in￾service training, as well as identify a solution for teacher mobility. Literacy-focused programs in other countries, like the USAID-supported Mali SIRA early-grade reading project implemented by EDC, have had success in negotiating with the Ministry of Education for project teachers to remain at post, which has benefited the project, though at the cost of some ill-will among teachers. As may be expected given hindering factors noted in the effectiveness section above, findings demonstrate that community participation is strong in some cases but also sporadic and regionally dependent, with the North allowing for greater community responsiveness than the other two regions. Contextual factors beyond Nascent’s control seem largely to blame for this situation, and extended implementation may help foster greater participation. Findings show that the engagement of kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers has largely proven successful. While the graduation model elicits great enthusiasm, it also requires a high level of external support. Findings demonstrate impressive developments, such as non-graduation schools initiating community farms. At the same time, there is reason to be wary and express some skepticism for long-term prospects, due to both considerable challenges (unpredictable climate as well as the structural issue of PTA teachers) and the relatively short implementation history of this component. Field Agents demonstrated great enthusiasm for sharing experiences, and Nascent should seek out similar future opportunities. 78 4.Recommendations The recommendations below draw on the findings and conclusions of the midterm evaluation report to provide direction for midcourse corrections and future projects. The table indicates the stakeholder most likely able to address the recommendation, as well as the appropriate timeframe for implementation. The evaluation team also reiterates that Nascent should continue to emphasize strategies that have so far proven effective, as well as those with potential that, due to various circumstances cited earlier, have not yet had sufficient time to demonstrate any effect. These include teacher training and support strategies, as well as graduation model programming. # RECOMMENDATION ACTOR TIMEFRAME 1 The unexpected pandemic situation and extensive closures to school canteens have proven a major disruption to the Nascent project. There is a risk that Nascent will encounter difficulties when school canteens restart. Plan in advance for this eventuality and be prepared to do refresher trainings for volunteers to reinvigorate and further enhance community engagement efforts. Focus specifically on hygiene practices for kitchen volunteers and storekeepers. Nascent Leadership; Field Coordinators; Field Agents Immediate 2 Further investigate student attentiveness through special studies. Findings showed a decrease in student attentiveness at midterm, an unexpected finding, but perhaps related to school closures, the absence of active school feeding, and other disruptions. Nascent M&E Team Immediate 3 Analysis of project indicators shows little change in student attendance since baseline. Nascent should reinstate its plan to use dry rations to motivate children to come to school, and receipt should be conditioned on regular attendance. Investigate if six kilograms is enough of an incentive and, if not, modify. Nascent Leadership Immediate 4 Leverage positive experiences and gains in integrating Nascent’s literacy strategies within Cameroon’s pre-service and in-service teacher training. Develop additional advocacy strategies to include champions (teaching coaches) who are already spreading Nascent strategies to non-project schools. Nascent Leadership; Literacy Team Immediate 5 Develop a Student WASH Club strategy to promote and amplify hygiene efforts at the school level. Simultaneously conduct a short study to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of hygiene champions. WASH Team; M&E Team Immediate 6 Develop an advocacy strategy with the MINEDUB that aims to reduce teacher mobility within the project intervention zone. Investigate how development partners in other contexts, such as EDC’s SIRA in Mali, were able to successfully negotiate with the Ministry of Education. Nascent Leadership Immediate 7 Very few students had access to distance-learning opportunities during the COVID-19 school lockdown. Identify possible solutions for future lockdowns that may include connecting students to radio programming offered by other development partners. Investigate how alternative education programs within intervention zones handled the lockdownto Nascent Leadership; USDA; Cameroon Immediate/ Future projects 79 # RECOMMENDATION ACTOR TIMEFRAME see if they developed useful strategies. In addition to other resources, refer to USAID’s COVID paper Delivering Distance Learning in Emergencies. Min of Basic Education 8 Further strengthen advocacy efforts with the government to 1) reopen school canteens based on positive experiences from the subregion (Benin, Mali, etc.) and 2) finalize and implement Cameroon’s national school-feeding policy and establish a dedicated directorate. For future projects, this advocacy element should be even more prominent, as Cameroon has demonstrated interest. Nascent Leadership USDA Immediate Future projects 9 Consider developing separate targets for activities in the North West given the specificity of implementation in that region. This will not only allow for better visibility of results within the North West but reduce skewing of results for other intervention zones. Nascent M&E Team; Leadership Immediate 10 Findings demonstrate internal confusion about how indicators are calculated among some Nascent staff. Integrate clarification and refresher sessions in meetings and internal trainings and discuss the results. Nascent M&E Team Immediate 11 Local government partners at the council level, particularly local councils, were generally enthusiastic about Nascent. Within the context of decentralization, they also have increased power to oversee education including budgets. Further develop capacity building for good governance at the council level. A focal point of this work should include payment of PTA teachers. Also help local councils share experiences of how they have integrated budget line items for school canteens within their operating budgets. Nascent Field Coordinator Immediate 12 Given beginning but positive outcomes of the graduation school model, closely follow the initiative with strong monitoring and special studies. Be sure to capture community farms’ production and accounting records to see which farm actually turns a profit. Nascent M&E Team Immediate 13 Discussions with Field Agents proved very generative and they seemed to benefit from sharing their experiences. Regularly provide Field Agents with the opportunity to meet with other colleagues to share their successes and challenges. Nascent Immediate 14 Findings indicate some confusion about how schools can use produce from school gardens and community farms, but, more concerning, that some PTAs may leverage Nascent participation to generate higher contributions from parents, etc. Define and communicate clear guidelines to schools and communities (including PTAs). Nascent Leadership Immediate 15 Implement regular regional meetings with all the sectoral stakeholders, share the work plan, and discuss progress to further increase buy-in at the regional level. This effort will also address sentiments expressed during the midterm evaluation that some officials wish to be more Field Coordinators Immediate 80 # RECOMMENDATION ACTOR TIMEFRAME involved and consulted regarding Nascent’s school feeding program. For example, establish/revive a project steering committee at the regional level where the project shares updates with all stakeholders once or twice a year. Share reports with regional stakeholders more frequently. The midterm evaluation report offers an opportunity to share information and keep regional officials engaged. Nascent should prioritize short products for dissemination, either the executive summary or a concise briefing document. Nascent M&E Team with Leadership 16 Reconsider the intervention zone for future programs so as to reduce distance between target schools. Deliberately frame programming in the North West region as crisis response, given ongoing security challenges and the implication for overall project logistics and resources. Nascent Leadership; USDA Future programs 17 If the security situation allows, include schools in the North West within the final evaluation to better understand how they may have benefited from Nascent programming during heightened periods of crisis. It will be helpful to map services available to beneficiaries and to understand how Nascent’s model might be further enhanced to respond to fragile contexts. Nascent M&E Team 18 Investigate opportunities to showcase Nascent’s successes for other McGovern-Dole recipients and beyond. Successful practices include Nascent’s modular training approach, widespread use of the DHIS2 system, its approach to infrastructure programming, and the graduation model. Nascent Leadership; USDA Immediate 81 Annex 1: Results Framework The MCGOVERN-DOLE 2018 project has developed the following results framework. Each diagram is specific to one of the two strategic objectives. The third page addresses critical assumptions necessary for successful implementation and attainment of expected results. 82 83 84 Annex 2: Details of the Quantitative Sample Sampling Design and Power per instrument Table 16 presents the confidence interval and the power of each sample for each of the instruments used to calculate some of the indicators. Table 16: Sampling design and power per instrument Instrument Sample Size Sampling method Confidence Interval and Power EGRA 1,878 • 16 students (8 boys/8 girls) randomly selected from one level, Grade 2 ME of 3.2% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect a 5.7% change in improved literacy outcome Hygiene questionnaire 3,215 • 16 students (EGRA) • 6 Grade 5, 6 Grade 6 ME of 3.3% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect a 9.2% change in improved literacy outcome Stallings 288 • All teachers present from levels 1-3 For the improved quality of instruction outcome, ME of 13.4% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect a difference of 10.2%. For the improved student attentiveness outcome, ME of 8.4% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect a difference of 14.3% MDD-W 1,231 • 15 students randomly selected in grade 2 and asked to bring their mothers in order to ensure that 10 mothers could be interviewed. ME of 3.4% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect an 8.4% change in health and dietary practices outcome Handwashing 360 • 20 students were observed in each school where a handwashing station was available ME of 11.6% with 95% confidence interval and power to detect a 15.4% change in handwashing outcome 85 Summary statistics For the schools, the teachers, the parents, and the students, we checked for any difference between the comparison and the project schools. If the groups were significantly different, it could explain some of the differences in the outcome indicators. As illustrated in Table 17, the main differences between the two groups of schools are that (1) the project schools are 38 percent larger than the comparison schools (555 vs. 397 students), and (2) the average number of students per class is higher in project schools by 25 percent (90 vs. 72 students). On the other hand, the proportion of multigrade classrooms is higher in comparison schools (51% vs. 36%), which is logical since multigrade classrooms are more prevalent in smaller schools. Table 17: Summary statistics for students participating in EGRA sample Comparison Project Total Gender: Boys 435 (50.7%) 487 (51.2%) 922 (51.0%) Girls 423 (49.3%) 464 (48.8%) 951 (49.0%) Zone: Rural 691 (80.5%) 760 (79.9%) 1,451 (80.2%) Urban 167 (19.5%) 191 (20.1%) 358 (19.8%) Region: Adamaoua 93 (10.84%) 78 (8.2%) 171 (9.5%) East Region 119 (13.9%) 140 (14.7%) 259 (14.3%) North Region 646 (75.3%) 733 (77.1%) 1,379 (76.2%) Overall 858 (100%) 951 (100%) 1,809 (100%) 86 Table 18: Summary statistics for students Comparison Project Total Gender Boys 726 (46.0%) 786 (48,0%) 1,512 (47.0%) Girls 851 (54.0%) 852 (52.0%) 1,703 (53.0%) Zone Rural 1,285 (81.5%) 1,314 (80.2%) 2,599 (80.8%) Urban 292 (18.5%) 324 (19.8%) 616 (19.2%) Region Adamaoua 182 (11.5%) 143 (8.7%) 325 (10.1%) East Region 238 (15.1%) 240 (14.7%) 478 (14.9%) North Region 1,157 (73.4%) 1,255 (76.6%) 2,412 (75.0%) Overall 1,577 (100%) 1,638 (100%) 3,215 (100%) Table 19: Summary statistics for mothers sample Comparison Project Total Zone: Rural 489 (81.6%) 480 (80.1%) 969 (80.9%) Urban 110 (18.4%) 119 (19.9%) 229 (19.1%) Region: Adamaoua 60 (10.0%) 50 (8.4%) 110 (9.2%) East Region 96 (16.0%) 90 (15.0%) 186 (15.5%) North Region 443 (74.0%) 459 (76.6%) 902 (75.3%) Overall 599 599 1,198 87 Table 20: Summary statistics for teachers sample Comparison Project Total Gender: Female 55 (22.1%) 93 (27.9%) 148 (25.4%) Male 194 (77.9%) 240 (72.1%) 434 (74.6%) Zone: Rural 195 (78.3%) 263 (79.0%) 458 (78.7%) Urban 54 (21.%) 70 (21.0%) 124 (21.3%) Region: Adamaoua 18 (7.2%) 19 (5.7%) 37 (6.4%) East Region 43 (17.3%) 49 (14.7%) 92 (15.8%) North Region 188 (75.5%) 265 (79.6%) 453 (77.8%) Overall 249 (100%) 333(100%) 582 (100%) Table 21: Summary statistics for principle sample Comparison Project Total Zone: Rural 47 (81.0%) 48 (81.4%) 95 (81.2%) Urban 11 (19.0%) 11 (18.6%) 22 (18.8%) Region: Adamaoua 6 (10.3%) 5 (8.5%) 11 (9.4%) East Region 10 (17.2%) 9 (15.3%) 19 (16.2%) North Region 42 (72.4%) 45 (76.3%) 87 (74.4%) Overall 58 (100%) 59 (100%) 117 (100%) 88 Table 22: Summary statistics for schools Comparison Project Difference Comparison Project Difference Number of total enrolled students 392.0 571.8 179.8*** Students enrolled in grade 1 (SIL) 94.5 132.1 37.7** Students enrolled in grade 2 (CP) 71.2 99.5 28.3*** Students enrolled in grade 3 (Ce1) 64.7 89.6 24.8** Students enrolled in grade 4 (Ce2) 59.5 83.3 23.7** Students enrolled in grade 5 (Cm1) 54.8 84.8 30.0*** Students enrolled in grade 6 (Cm2) 49.0 82.6 33.6*** Number of levels in the school 5.9 6.0 -0.1 Average number of students per classroom 65.8 95.3 29.5*** Proportion of female students in % 43.2% 46.1% 0.3%** *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 Table 23: Summary statistics for teachers in schools Comparison Project Difference Proportion of male teachers in % 78.7% 74.4% -4.3% Proportion of female teachers in % 21.3% 25.6% 4.3% Pupil/Teacher ratio 81.7 81.5 -0.2 *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 Table 24: Summary statistics for principals interviewed Comparison Project Difference Average age 43.5 45.2 1.6 Average years of experience 6.2 8.2 2.0* Proportion of female directors in % 6.9% 8.5% 1.6% *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 89 Table 25: Summary statistics for teachers interviewed Comparison Project Difference Total number of teachers observed 110 160 50 Teachers in grade 1 (SIL) 1 1 0 Teachers in grade 2 (CP) 1 0 -1 Teachers in grade 3 (Ce1) 5 2 -3 Teachers in grade 4 (Ce2) 28 48 20 Teachers in grade 5 (Cm1) 35 54 15 Teachers in grade 6 (Cm2) 33 48 15 Average age 34.3 35.1 0.8 Average years of experience 9.9 9.4 -0.5 Proportion of female teachers in % 12.7% 15.0% 2.3% *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 Table 26: Summary statistics for interviewed parents (mothers) Comparison Project Difference Total number of women surveyed 599 599 0 Average age 33.2 36.6 3.4 Language at home*** Other 51,7% 48,1% -3.6% Fulfulde 33.9% 30.1% -3.8% Gbaya 3.8% 9.5% 5,7% Français 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% Maka 2.3% 2.7% 0.4% Mbum 3.5% 4.8% 1.3% Level of Literacy Spoke French 35.4% 49.1% 13.7%*** Read French 32.4% 42.2% 9.8%*** Level of Education *** None 50.1% 38.1% -12.0% Primary school 33.6% 39.6% 6.0% Secondary school or above 16.3% 22.3% 6.0% Simple Poverty Score Card 26.4 27.5 1.2 *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 90 Table 27: Summary statistics for interviewed students Comparison Project Difference Total number of students assessed 1,569 1,646 77 Average age 10.8 10.8 0.0 Student Gender Female 46.0% 48.0% -2.0% Male 54.0% 52.0% -2.0% Language at home *** Other 56.5% 57.5% 1.0% Fulfulde (6) 31.2% 26.4% -4.8% Gbaya (8) 3.2% 6.7% 3.5% Français (7) 1.0% 2.1% 1.1% Maka (13) 3.3% 2.4% -0.9% Mbum (14) 4.8% 4.9% 0.1% Simple Poverty Score Card 36.5 37.3 -0.8 *p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 91 Annex 3: Details of Qualitative Sample Category Stakeholder Number KII/FGD Female Total Male Total Participant Total Donor USDA 1 1 1 Authority-National MINEDUB 1 1 1 MINREX 1 1 1 Authority-Region MINADER 3 5 5 MINEDUB 4 2 4 6 MINEE 3 6 6 MISANTE 3 1 2 3 Authority-Local Mayor 4 2 6 8 Community Health Center 2 4 1 5 Community-Parent AME-APE 4 28 10 38 Hygiene Champion 1 1 1 Program Nascent Commodity 1 2 2 4 Nascent Field Agents 1 3 10 13 Nascent Field Coordinators 1 1 2 3 Nascent Finance 1 1 1 2 Nascent Literacy 1 4 4 Nascent M&E 1 0 3 3 Nascent Management 1 1 1 2 Nascent Nutrition 1 1 1 2 Nascent Nutrition-WASH 1 1 2 3 Nascent School Feeding 1 1 2 3 Program-Partner Nascent Engineer 1 1 1 RECAMEC 1 1 1 School Teachers 4 10 14 24 Grand Total 43 63 77 140 92 Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed CODE DESCRIPTION TYPE D01 Agreement USDA-Nascent Contract D02 Agreement USDA-Nascent - Executed Contract D03 Contract with partner Contract D04 Result Framework Report D05 Performance Monitoring Plan-Narrative Report D06 Performance Monitoring Plan Report D07 COVID Contingency Plan Report D10 Performance report - Semi Annual - Oct 18/Mar 19 Performance report D11 Performance report - Semi Annual - April 19/Sept 19 Performance report D12 Performance report - Semi Annual - Oct 19/Mar 20 Performance report D13 Performance report - Semi Annual - April 20/Sept 20 Performance report D14 Performance report - Semi Annual - Oct 20/Mar 21 Performance report D15 Evidence behind MCGOVERN-DOLE Report D16 Work plan Year - All Work plan D17 Work plan Year 1 - Oct 19-Sept 20 Work plan D18 Work plan Year 2 - Oct 20-Sept 21 Work plan D19 Pilot school strategy Report D20 Current list of school List D21 List of pilot schools List D22 List of field agents List D23 Staff list List D24 List of government partners contact List D25 List of training List D26 Sample TOR- Training replication Memo D27 Memo on over run budget Kitchens Memo D28 Indicator breakdown by region and disaggregated Memo D29 Project Burn rate as March 2021 Memo D30 Training Manual - Nutrition Training D31 Training Manual - Hygiene Training D32 Training Manual - Facilitator Health & Nutrition Training 93 CODE DESCRIPTION TYPE D33 Curriculum Health & Nutrition Curriculum D34 Training Manual - PTA Training D35 Manual for creation of GIC and Cooperatives Training D36 Training Manual - Seed selection technics Training D37 Training Manual - Agriculture technics for school garden and community farms Training D40 Training Manual - Literacy Coach Training D41 Training Manual - Teachers Training D42 Training Manual - Head Teachers Training D43 Literacy Technics - Training Manual - Teachers Training D44 Teacher Observation Form Other D45 MOU with MINEDUB Contract D46 MOU with pilot schools Contract D47 Reading test Other D48 Store inspection check list Other D50 Agreement Nascent and Cameroon Government Contract D51 Engineer Infrastructure reports Report D52 National School Feeding Policy of Cameroon (French) Policy D53 National School Feeding Policy of Cameroon (English) Policy D60 Cameroon EGRA-EGMA Report Report D61 Minimum Dietary Diversity For Women Reference D62 Cameroon Nation development strategy 2020-2030 Report D63 Poverty Index Reference D64 UNICEF WASH in schools monitoring Reference D65 UNICEF handwashing Reference D66 National Hygiene Promotion Strategy in Schools (2017) Policy D67 National Hygiene Promotion Strategy in Schools (2014) Policy 94 Annex 5: Evaluation Matrix INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE R01 Relevance: Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Do beneficiaries understand the problem and the solutions to the problem in the same way as the project? [1.1] D01-02-Agreement USDA-Nascent D04-Results Framework D45-MOU with MINEDUB KII - Nascent KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Parent survey [QP601-604] R02 Relevance: Is implementation design consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels? [1.2] D45-MOU with MINEDUB D62-Cameroon Nation development strategy 2020-2030 KII - Nascent KII - USDA KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region R03 Relevance: Did the support provided by Nascent during the Covid-19 pandemic address the needs of beneficiaries? [1.3] D07-Covid Contingency Plan D13-Performance report KII - Nascent KII - USDA KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Head teacher Survey [QD501- 505] Teacher Survey [QT401-403] R04 Effectiveness: Are the program’s activities implemented according to plan ? (Infrastructure, training, distributing school meals, distributing take home rations, distributing materials, improving curricula, school garden) [2.1] D10-D11-D12-D13-Performance reports D16-D17-D18-Workplans D25-List of training D51-Engineer Infrastructure Report KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) R05 Effectiveness: Have there been internal and/or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of project activities? Are these obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the Government or other partners?[2.2] D10-D11-D12-D13-Performance reports D05-D06-PMP KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) 95 INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE R06 Effectiveness: Are program products and outcome targets achieved? (See list of 10 indicators) and if not why? [2.3] D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 Performance reports D28- Indicator breakdown by region and disaggregated KII - Nascent R07 Effectiveness: To what extent are students following best practices in the schools regarding hygiene? [2.4] D08-Baseline Evaluation D33-Curiculum - Hygiene and Nutrition D64-UNICEF WASH in schools monitoring D65-UNICEF Handwashing D66-Cameroon national policy WASH in schools KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Parent survey [QP507-511] Student survey [QE401-417] Teacher survey [QT301-308] Hand washing R08 Effectiveness: To what extent are kitchen and commodity storage volunteers implementing organizational and hygiene skills acquired through the training? [2.5] D30-Training Manual - Nutrition D31-Training Manual - Hygiene D32-Training Manual Facilitator - Hygiene and Nutrition D34- Training Manual - PTA D48- Store inspection checklist KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Head teacher Survey [QD215- 218] Cook Survey [QC211-217 / QC311-317] School Inventory R09 Efficiency: Which outputs were obtained most cost-efficiently in a timely manner? [3.1] D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 Performance reports D51-Engineer Infrastructure Report KII - Nascent FGD Teachers FGD Parents R10 Efficiency: Which were obtained least cost￾efficiently in a timely manner? [3.2] D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 Performance reports D51-Engineer Infrastructure Report KII - Nascent FGD Teachers FGD Parents R11 Efficiency: Should the project allocate resources differently in the future? [3.3] D27- Memo on over run budget Kitchens KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy 96 INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE D29- Project Burn rate as March 2021 R12 Impact: To what extent have students (boys and girls) increased their reading comprehension compared to baseline? [4.1] D08-Base Line Evaluation D60-EGRA Cameroon D47-Test de lecture KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers EGRA Teacher survey [QT204-210] R13 Impact: To what extent have students improved their attentiveness ? [4.2] KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Stallings Classroom Observation Teacher survey [QT309-311] R14 Impact: To what extent have teachers improved the quality of their teaching? To what extend have Head teachers improved their capacity to manage the school ?[4.3] D08-Baseline Evaluation D25-List of Trainings D40-Training Manual -Literacy Coach D41-Training Manual -Teachers D42-Training Manual -Head Teachers D43-Training Manual -Additional techniques D44-Teacher observation Form D49-Report on teacher observation KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers Stallings Classroom Observation Head teacher Survey [Q301-312] Teacher survey [QT204-210] R15 Impact: To what extent have students improved their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices? [4.4] D08-Base Line Evaluation D33-Curriculum Health & Nutrition D66- National Hygiene Promotion Strategy in Schools (2017) KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Student survey [QE401-417] Head teacher Survey [QD401- 433] Teacher Survey [QT301-308] 97 INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE R16 Impact: To what extent has the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity improved? [4.5] D08-Base Line Evaluation D61-Minimum Dietary Diversity For Women KII - Nascent KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Parent survey￾MDDW [QP301- 329] R17 Impact: Is the project causing any unintended effects? [4.6] KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) R18 Impact: To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance? What measures were taken to mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 pandemic? [4.7] D07-Covid Contingency Plan KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Head teacher Survey [QD501- 505] Teacher Survey [QT401-403] R19 Sustainability: Do stakeholders have the same vision of sustainability? [5.1] D19-Pilot School Strategy D46-MOU with Graduation Schools KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers R20 Sustainability: Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed? [5.2] KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) R21 Sustainability: Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes? [5.3] KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region 98 INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) R22 Sustainability: How is the local community engaged and or contributing to sustain project activities, especially school feeding? [5.4] KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region FGD - Teachers FGD - Parents (PTA) Cook survey [QC201- 210/QC301-310] R23 Sustainability: To what extent, is the graduation model more likely to be sustainable? [5.5] D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 Performance reports D19-Pilot School Strategy D46-MOU with Graduation Schools D21-List of graduation schools KII - Nascent KII - USDA/USA-Embassy KII - Ministries National KII - Ministries Region 99 Annex 6: Data Collection Tools EGRA Instrument Section 1. Compréhension orale Amina a très faim. Elle pose un plat de riz et de poulet sur la table. Amina va se laver les mains. Le chat grimpe sur la table et emporte le morceau de poulet. Elle trouve le chat qui mange son poulet. Elle pleure. Sa mère revient et lui donne un autre morceau. Elle sourit et remercie sa mère. 1. Qu’est-ce que Amina pose sur la table ? Un plat de riz et de poulet. 2. Que fait le chat quand Amina va se laver les mains ? Le chat grimpe sur la table, le chat emporte le morceau du poulet - 3. Pourquoi Amina pleure-t-elle ? Le chat a mangé son poulet. 4. Qui donne à Amina un autre morceau de poulet ? Sa mere 5. Pourquoi Amina sourit-elle ? Elle a un autre morceau de viande. Section 2. Identification du son initial Jus – Ami – Nuit – Vélo – Ballon – Odeur - Dormir - Etat - Feuille – Zéro Section 3. Identification des sons i A f O s é p D z ou Q N on f i m L E G t b O v ou L T j c b m V K a R u f é J s r b s c an p k f ch a e ch u S i M g oi T n P Z P e g in F d o T v d é b A m on t C o L R L q B e n i a p ou gn E ch V d U ç oi M G 100 Section 4. Lecture de mots familiers il tu sa ma vol lire ami on car ou papa sol bébé peur sage cri blé carte fleur vache chaise bleu vole sur peau clé mil monde table mur fin date tour posé kilo ronde maman arbre faire porter été beau pain rougir moto mal douze bol vélo vide Section 5. Lecture de mots inventés ol tal zopé lapa chane sar beya ciko ja raite bige osi ja tipa osi flir donré toche iro neul nur bair pro mouli vor bape clo doupé ima duse voul ul dop blu dreu ibrau zi lorpe til oti moud loso lota moro vaf fero lépa dola résa tipa Section 6a. Lecture du texte (petite histoire) et compréhension Baba aime aller au champ avec sa mère. [8] 1- Qu’est-ce que Baba aime faire ? [aller au champ ; ou aller au champ avec sa mère] Un jour en allant au champ, sa mère tombe. Elle se casse une jambe [22] 2- Comment la jambe de sa mère s’est-elle cassée ? [elle est tombée] Il court au village appeler son oncle. Baba et son oncle l’amènent au dispensaire [36] 3- Qui amènent sa mère au dispensaire ? [Baba et son oncle] Le docteur soigne la jambe de mère. [43] 4- Qui a soigné la jambe de sa mère ? [le docteur] Baba sourit. Il est content du docteur. [50] 5- Pourquoi est-ce que Baba est content du docteur ? [Il a soigné sa mère] 101 Student Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE – ELEVE Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Elèves CP Bonjour ! Je m’appelle ________. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation qui aide les enfants. Je fais des tests de lecture en français pour en savoir plus sur la façon d'aider les élèves à mieux travailler et à lire. Si tu acceptes de participer, tu seras invité à faire quelques petits jeux avec des lettres, des mots et des histoires en français. Je vais aussi te poser quelques questions sur ta famille et la langue que tu parles à la maison. Cela prendra environ 20 minutes. À tout moment, tu peux décider d’arrêter. Ce que tu fais avec moi ne changera pas tes notes de classe. Tes résultats seront gardés secrets. Ton enseignant et ta famille savent que tu participes, mais ils ne connaitront pas tes résultats. Tu ne recevras rien en échange de ta participation, mais ce que tu fais nous aidera à améliorer l’enseignement de la lecture. Encore une fois, tu n’es pas obligé de participer si tu ne le veux pas. Si tu arrives à une question à laquelle tu préfères ne pas répondre, ce n’est pas grave, on peut passer. As-tu des questions ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Est-ce que tu es d’accord pour participer ? Peut-on commencer ? Elèves Cm1, Cm2 Bonjour ! Je m’appelle ________. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation qui aide les enfants. Je vais te poser des questions sur ce que tu penses de l’hygiène dans ton école et sur tes absences. Ce que tu fais avec moi ne changera pas tes notes de classe. Tes réponses seront gardées secrètes. Ton enseignant et ta famille savent que tu participes, mais ils ne connaitront pas tes réponses. Tu ne recevras rien en échange de ta participation, mais ce que tu fais nous aidera à améliorer les pratiques dans les écoles du Cameroun. Encore une fois, tu n’es pas obligé de participer si tu ne le veux pas. Si tu arrives à une question à laquelle tu préfères ne pas répondre, ce n’est pas grave, on peut passer. As-tu des questions ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Est-ce que tu es d’accord pour participer ? Peut-on commencer ? 102 Nº Question Réponse 1. Information sur l’élève 101 Genre (regardezl’enfant et cochez) o Masculin o Féminin 102 Quel âge as-tu ? ______ 103 Quelle langue parles-tu en général à la maison ? o Anglais o Baka o Daba o Dii o Fali o Fulfulde o Français o Gbaya o Guidar o Kako o Mafa o Mbum o Mpumpong o Vonvon o Autre 104 En quelle classe es-tu cette année ? NB : Pour le test EGRA, si l'enfant n'est pas en CP, mettre fin à l'entretien (Revenir au consentement), indiquer le problème en commentaire et aviser le chef d'équipe o SIL o CP o CE1 o CE2 o CM1 o CM2 105 En quelle classe étais-tu l’année dernière ? NB : Uniquement EGRA o SIL o CP o CE1 o CE2 o CM1 o CM2 106 As-tu fréquenté une école maternelle ? NB : Uniquement EGRA o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 2. Repas et Absence 201 As-tu mangé aujourd'hui avant de venir à l'école ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 202 As-tu amené de la nourriture avec toi pour manger à l’école ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 203 [oui Q202] Qu’est-ce que tu as amené ?  De l’argent pour acheter quelque chose  Riz  Beignets  Bouillie  Couscous  Chips  Arachides grillées  Kossam / Yaourt / Lait  Igname  Haricot  Patates / Frites  Spaghetti / Talia  Snack : Bakou  Légumes préparés 103 Nº Question Réponse  Pain chargé  Fruits  Autre, préciser 204 Est-ce que tu as été absent à l’école la semaine dernière ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 205 [Q202=Oui] Si Oui, pour quelle raison as-tu été absent ? (NB : Ne pas lire les réponses) o Distance de l’école o Problèmes de santé o Retard ou non-paiement des frais de scolarité o Manque de matériel ou d’uniforme scolaire o Aider la famille avec les corvées ou le travail agricole à la maison o Participation aux funérailles ou aux festivités traditionnelles o La famille manque de moyens pour se procurer de la nourriture o Les enfants ont faim o Pression négative des camarades pour manquer l'école o Faible conscience parentale sur l’importance de l'éducation o L’enseignant est absent o École fermée o Autre, spécifier 3. Pratique de la lecture (Uniquement EGRA) 301 Est-ce que tu as un livre de français à la maison ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 302 Est-ce que tu as un livre de mathématique à la maison ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 303 En dehors des livres de texte, est-ce qu’il y a d’autres livres ou des journaux chez toi ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 304 Y-a-t’il des personnes dans ta famille qui savent lire ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 305 En dehors de l’école, combien de fois t’exerces-tu à lire des lettres et des mots ? o Tous les jours o Plusieurs fois par semaine o Une ou deux fois par semaine o Jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 306 En dehors de l’école, combien de fois lis-tu des livres ? o Tous les jours o Plusieurs fois par semaine o Moins d’une fois par semaine o Jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 307 Est-ce que ton papa parle Français ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 308 Est-ce que ton papa sait lire ? o Oui 104 Nº Question Réponse o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 309 Est-ce que ta maman parle Français ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 310 Est-ce que ta maman sait lire ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 311 Combien de fois reçois-tu de l’aide pour tes devoirs à la maison ? o Tous les jours o Plusieurs fois par semaine o Moins d’une fois par semaine o Jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 312 Qui t’aide le plus pour faire tes devoirs à la maison  Père et/ou Mère Frères et/ou Sœur  Autre personne Personne  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 4. Pratique de l’hygiène 401 Y-a-t’il des stations de lavage dans l’école [L’énumérateur peut répondre à cette question] o Oui o Non 402 Y-a-t’il des latrines fonctionnelles dans l’école [L’énumérateur peut répondre à cette question] o Oui o Non 403 [Q402 = Oui] Est-ce que tu utilises les latrines de l’école ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 404 [Q404 = Non] and [Q402 = Oui] Pourquoi n’utilises-tu pas les latrines de l’école ?  Je ne me sens pas en sécurité  Elles ne sont pas propres  Elles sentent mauvais  Il n’y a pas d’eau ou elles ne fonctionnent pas  Il n’y a trop de gens qui les utilisent  Elles sont trop loin  Je n’ai pas le temps  Je ne veux pas/Je n’ai pas envie  Les toilettes sont fermées  Les toilettes sont insuffisantes  Je ne sais pas les utiliser  Les toilettes sont mixtes  Mes parents me l’ont interdit  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 405 [Q401 = Oui] Quand tu es à l'école, te laves tu les mains après être allé(e) aux latrines ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 406 [Q401 = Oui] Quand tu manges à l'école, te laves-tu les mains avant de manger ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Je ne mange pas à l’école 407 [Q401 = Oui] - [Q402 = Oui] o Oui, toujours 105 Nº Question Réponse Près des latrines de ton école y a-t’il de l’eau et du savon ? o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 408 [Q402 = Oui] Les latrines de ton école sont-elles toujours propres ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 409 [Q402 = Oui] Te sens tu en sécurité dans les latrines de ton école ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 410 [Q402 = Oui] Peux-tu me décrire l’odeur des latrines ?  Ça sent bon !  Parfois cela ne sent pas bon mais en général cela va  Cela sent mauvais, je rentre et je sors aussi vite que je peux  J’arrête de respirer  Cela sent tellement mauvais que je n’y vais pas, j’attends d’être à la maison  Cela sent tellement mauvais que je n’y vais pas, je fais à l’extérieur  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 411 [Q402 = Oui] Que penses-tu des latrines de ton école ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  J’aime bien les utiliser  Elles sont propres  Elles ont tout ce dont j’ai besoin, du savon, de l’eau  Parfois je me retiens pour ne pas avoir à utiliser les latrines  Je suis dégoûté par les latrines de mon école  Je déteste y aller  Les latrines sont cassées/ne fonctionnent pas  Elles sont fermées je ne peux pas y aller  Elles sont mixtes, je ne veux pas y aller  Je ne m’y sens pas en sécurité  Je ne sais pas/pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 412 Quand te laves-tu les mains ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses, insister sur sa pratique]  Avant de manger  Avant de préparer le repas  Avant de donner à manger aux enfants  Après avoir nettoyé un enfant qui a déféqué  Après le repas  Après défécation  Après avoir touché un animal  Après mon réveil  Quand m’être mouché ou si j’éternue  Après avoir joué  Après avoir travaillé aux champs  Avant de venir à l’école  En arrivant à la maison après la classe  À tout moment à cause du Covid 19  Autre, spécifier 106 Nº Question Réponse  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 413 [Q401= Oui] Utilises-tu les stations de lavage de mains de l’école ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 414 [Q414= Non] Pourquoi n’utilises-tu pas les stations de lavage de l’école ?  Il n’y a pas de savon ni de cendre  Elles ne sont pas propres  Il n’y a pas d’eau  Elles sont cassées et fonctionnent pas  Il n’y a trop de gens qui les utilisent  Elles sont trop loin  Je n’ai pas le temps  Je ne veux pas / Je n’ai pas envie  L’eau est sale  Autre, spécifier  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 415 [Q401= Oui] Y-a-il de savon ou des cendres aux stations de lavage de mains de l’école ? [L’énumérateur peut répondre à cette question] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 416 [Q401= Oui] - [Q414= Oui] - [Q415= Oui] Utilises-tu le savon/cendre aux les stations de lavage de mains de l’école ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 417 Comment peut-on éviter d’attraper la diarrhée ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Se laver les mains après défécation  Se laver les mains avant de manger  Se laver les mains après avoir touché un animal  Se laver les mains après avoir joué  Utiliser de l’eau propre  Boire de l’eau potable ou purifiée  Utiliser des latrines propres  Nettoyer les toilettes après utilisation  Ne pas manger de nourriture avariée  Laver les fruits et les légumes avant de les manger  Comprimés de déparasitage  Feuilles de goyaves  Charbon dans l’eau  Ne pas manger des fruits qui ne sont pas mûrs  Ne pas manger de sucrerie  Ne pas s’approcher des personnes malades  Ne pas manger le diner (Mangue acide avec du piment)  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 5. Information Socio-économique Question Réponse Valeur 501 Combien de personnes vivent dans ta maison ? (Une maison est une unité socio-économique d'une ou plusieurs personnes — indépendamment du sang o Huit ou plus o Sept o Six o Cinq 0 6 8 11 107 Nº Question Réponse ou de la relation conjugale — qui ont vécu (ou prévoient de vivre) ensemble pendant au moins six mois des douze précédents dans le même composé, qui partagent des ressources, qui mangent habituellement ensemble, et qui reconnaissent la même tête.) o Quatre o Trois o Deux o Un o Pas de réponse 16 19 24 34 N/A 502 Est-ce que la (plus âgée) femme chef du foyer ou épouse sait lire et écrire une phrase simple en Français et/ou en Anglais ? o Non o Seulement en anglais o Pas de femme chef du foyer ou conjointe o Français o Pas de réponse 0 1 3 6 N/A 503 Quel type sol y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? (Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour aider l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer les images à l'enfant) o Terre o Bois, ciment, autre o Carrelage, marbre o Pas de réponse 0 5 9 N/A 504 Quel type de latrines ta famille utilise-t-elle ? o Défécation à l’air98 o Latrines non améliorée99 o Latrines améliorée 100 o Pas de réponse 0 4 6 N/A 505 Quel type de combustible ta maman utilise-t-elle principalement pour la cuisine ? (Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour aider l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer les images à l'enfant) o Bois ramassé ou donné o Pétrole o Bois acheté o Charbon, électricité, sciures, copeau de bois. Ne cuisine pas, autre o Gaz o Pas de réponse 0 2 3 8 16 N/A 506 Y-a-t ’il un fer à repasser électrique dans ta maison ? o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 6 N/A 507 Y-a-t ’il une télévision dans ta maison ? o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 4 N/A 508 Y-a-t ’il une radio ou une stéréo (chaine musicale) dans ta maison ? o Non o Seulement une radio o Stéréo o Pas de réponse 0 3 7 N/A 509 Y-a-t ’il un meuble ou une armoire dans ta maison o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 3 N/A 510 Combien de téléphone portable y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? o Zéro o Un 0 4 98 Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre 99 Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou ouvert 100 Latrines latrine avec dalle ou améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec ou sans réservoir 108 Nº Question Réponse o Deux o Trois ou plus o Pas de réponse 6 9 N/A 109 Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women and Parent Survey Consommation alimentaire 24 heures Si nécessaire compléter la fiche ci-dessous avec les aliments listés par la personne interviewée. Heure Type d’aliment Quantité Groupe Nombre de repas : Consommation exceptionnelle : oui - non 110 Analyse de la consommation alimentaire Numéro Groupe Exemples Norme quantité Consommé Oui/Non Quantité OK Oui/Non 1 Céréales, racines blanches, tubercules et bananes plantains Banane plantain, blé, ignames, racine de cassave, maïs, pommes de terre, manioc, taro, riz-blanc, pain, pâtes, autres aliments fabriqués à partir de grains 1 cuil. Service 1 moyenne, 1 tranche. 2 Légumes sec Haricots noirs-blanc-rouge, lentilles, niébé, pois, produits à base de soja 1 cuil. Service 1 paquet 2 ptt cuil. Soupe : 1 tasse 3 Noix et graines Arachides, noix de cajou, graine de melon Beurre d'arachide, pâte de sésame 1 paquet 2 ptt cuil. 4 Lait et produits laitiers Lait ou lait en poudre Yaourt Fromage Liquide : 8 gde cuil. En poudre : 1 gde cuil. Crémeux : 1 tasse 5 Viandes de chair et de poisson et de abats Bœuf Poulet, canard, dinde Cochon Abats (fois, poumons, intestin) Poisson, coquillage 1/2 poignée 6 Œuf Œuf de n’importe quel oiseau 2 œufs 7 Légumes feuilles vert foncé Amarante verte, chou des marais Épinard Feuilles de cassave, de citrouille, de manioc, de niébé, de patate douce, de tamarin Kale 1 cuil. Service 1/2 tasse. Soupe : 1 tasse 8 Fruits et légumes riches en vitamine A Légumes Carottes, citrouille, courge (orange ou jaune foncé), patates douces, poivron rouge, pastèque Fruit 1 cuil. Service 1 moyen 1/2 tasse Soupe : 1 tasse 111 Numéro Groupe Exemples Norme quantité Consommé Oui/Non Quantité OK Oui/Non Fruit de la passion, kaki mangue, melon cantaloup papaye, pêches, 9 Autres légumes Aubergine, carotte blanche, chou, christophine, concombre, gombo, haricots verts, maïs frais, napier, oignon, tomate. Soupe : mélange de légumes – Sauce Tomate 2 cuil. Service 1 moyen 1/2 tasse Soupe : 1 tasse 10 Autres fruits Ananas, banane, noix de coco, figue, fruit étoilé, goyave, orange, mandarine, poire, pomme, prune, tamarin 1 cuil. Service 1 moyen 1/2 tasse Soupe : 1 tasse 11 Huile de palme 1 ptt cuil. 12 Autres huiles et graisses Beurre, graisse de porc, de poulet, huile de palme, de soja, de tournesol, margarine N/A N/A 13 Assaisonnements et épices Ail, citron, gingembre, herbes fraiches, Maggi, oignon, piment, sauce de poisson, sel N/A N/A 14 Autres boissons et aliments Boissons énergétiques, café, coke, Fanta, jus de fruits (traité), soda, thé N/A N/A 15 Snacks salés et frits Beignets frits, chips de banane, de cassave, de maïs, de patates douces, de pomme de terre, snacks frits N/A N/A 16 Bonbons Bonbons, canne à sucre, crème glacée, gâteaux, lait concentré sucré, miel, pâtisseries, petit gâteau N/A N/A 17 Insectes et autres petites protéines Chenille, cigales, libellules, œufs de poisson, sauterelles, larves d'insectes, cricket, termites N/A N/A 112 QUESTIONNAIRE – PARENT (mère) Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Je fais une étude pour évaluer les habitudes alimentaires des mamans au Cameroun et l’hygiène des enfants et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Les informations serviront à évaluer le projet de cantine scolaire et à améliorer le programme. Le sondage normalement prendra environ 20 minutes. Les informations recueillies seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront montrées à personne. Je ne vais pas enregistrer votre nom ou les noms de vos enfants. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Décider de ne pas participer ou de choisir d’arrêter l'interview en cours n'entraînera aucun résultat négatif ni pour vos enfants ou dans votre relation avec Nascent Solutions. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les femmes et les enfants du Cameroun. As-tu des questions ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Est-ce que tu es d’accord pour participer ? Peut-on commencer ? Nº Question Réponse 1. Information sur l’élève 101 Connaissez-vous votre date de naissance ? [NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas répondre] Jour____ Mois___ Année____ 102 [Q101 NE 99] Si, non connaissez-vous votre âge approximatif ? [NB : Si nécessaire, l’enumérateur estime approximativement l’âge de la femme] ______ ans 103 L’âge de la femme n’est pas entre 15 et 49 ans, confirmer que vous souhaitez mettre fin à l’entretien. o Oui o Non 2. Caractéristique du parent ou gardienne (Femme en âge de procréer 15-49) 201 Combien de grossesses avez-vous eu ? ____ grossesses 202 Combien d’enfant avez-vous ? ____ enfants 113 Nº Question Réponse 203 Quel âge a votre enfant le plus âgé ? ____ ans 204 Quel âge a votre enfant le plus jeune ? NB : si moins d’un an indiquer 1. ____ ans 205 Quelles langues parlez-vous le plus souvent à la maison ? o Anglais o Gbaya o Baka o Guidar o Daba o Kako o Dii o Mafa o Fali o Mbum o Fulfulde o Mpumpong o Français o Autre 206 Quel est votre niveau en français ? o Je parle couramment o Je comprends et je parle assez bien o Je comprends et je parle un peu o Je comprends un peu mais je ne parle pas o Je ne parle pas le français o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 207 Quel est votre niveau en lecture en français (ou en langue locale)? o Je sais lire parfaitement o Je sais lire assez bien o Je sais lire un peu o Je ne sais pas lire o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 208 Quel est votre niveau d’éducation ? [NB : Cycle commencé, Si école Coranique indiquer Aucun) o Supérieur o Secondaire -Cycle 2 o Secondaire -Cycle 1 o Primaire o Aucun o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 209 Quelle est votre occupation principale ? o Sans emploi / femme au foyer o Femme de ménage o Travail agricole o Propriétaire foncier o Journalier(ière) o Commerçant(e) o Travailleur(euse) de bureau o Artisan(e) o Retraité(e) o Autre o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 3. Consommation du jour précédent 301 Combien de repas avez-vous pris hier ? _______ 302 Votre consommation d’hier, peut-elle être considérée comme « normale » ? [Nous voulons nous assurer que cette prise de nourriture était comme n'importe quel jour typique-pas célébration de vacances, mariage, ou le jeûne] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse Maintenant, nous allons parler de ce que vous avez mangé durant la journée d’hier à la maison ou bien en dehors ? Merci d’inclure tout ce que vous avez mangé ou bu, comme snack ou repas principal. 114 Nº Question Réponse Pouvez-vous penser à ce que vous avez mangé ? Je vais vous poser quelques questions. Si vous ne vous souvenez pas je vais vous aider. Exemple de questions : 1) Quelle a été la première chose que vous avez mangé hier ? a. Pouvez-vous me montrer la taille ? [Montrer sur les mesures de volume et de taille approximative.] b. Quelle heure était-il ? [Matin, midi, après-midi, soir] c. Avez-vous quelque chose à boire ? un fruit ? [Pensez à tous les aliments qui n'ont pas été mentionnés mais sont couramment consommé pour ce repas.] ? 2) Quand avez-vous mangé la fois suivante ? 3) Avez-vous eu d'autres collations au cours de la journée ? [Mangues cueillies sur un arbre, arachides, etc.] 4) Avez-vous acheté de la nourriture dans la rue ? L’enquêteur répond à ces questions sur papier, et il fait ensuite les calculs permettant de répondre aux questions ci￾dessous 301 Groupe 1 consommé ? [Céréales, racines blanches, tubercules et bananes plantains] o Oui o Non 302 [si oui Q303] - Groupe 1 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 303 Groupe 2 consommé ? [Légumes secs] o Oui o Non 304 [si oui Q305] - Groupe 2 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 305 Groupe 3 consommé ? [Noix et graines] o Oui o Non 306 [si oui Q307] - Groupe 3 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 307 Groupe 4 consommé ? [Lait et produits laitiers] o Oui o Non 308 [si oui Q309] - Groupe 4 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 309 Groupe 5 consommé ? [Viandes de chair et de poisson et de abats] o Oui o Non 310 [si oui Q311] - Groupe 5 en quantité suffisante o Oui o Non 311 Groupe 6 consommé ? [Œufs] o Oui o Non 312 [Q313=Oui] - Groupe 6 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 313 Groupe 7 consommé ? [Légumes feuilles vert foncé] o Oui o Non 314 [Q315=Oui] - Groupe 7 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 115 315 Groupe 8 consommé ? [Fruits et légumes riches en vitamine A] o Oui o Non 316 [Q317=Oui] - Groupe 8 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 317 Groupe 9 consommé ? [Autres légumes] o Oui o Non 318 [Q319=Oui] - Groupe 9 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 319 Groupe 10 consommé ? [Autres fruits] o Oui o Non 320 [Q321=Oui] - Groupe 10 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 321 Groupe 11 : Huile de palme consommée ? o Oui o Non 322 [Q324=Oui] - Huile de palme en quantité suffisante ? o Oui o Non 323 Groupe 12 : Autre huiles et matière grasse consommées, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 324 Groupe 13 : Assaisonnements et épices, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 325 Groupe 14 : Autres boissons et aliments, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 326 Groupe 15 : Snacks salés et frits, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 327 Groupe 16 : Bonbons, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 328 Groupe 17 : Insectes, consommé ? o Oui o Non o N/A 4. Connaissance des concepts de la diététique 401 Selon vous, qu’est ce qui constitue une alimentation équilibrée pour une femme, particulièrement si elle est enceinte ou allaite ? [NB : Ne pas proposer les réponses, si la personne ne sait pas, cocher ‘pas de réponse’ sans insister]  Inclure les cinq grandes familles d’aliment (Légumes, fruits, céréales/féculant, viande/poisson/œuf/noix, produits laitiers)  Inclure des aliments contenant des vitamines  Inclure des aliments contenant de la vitamine A (huile de palme)  Inclure des aliments variés  Inclure des fruits et légumes  Inclure des aliments riches en fer  Autre, spécifier  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 116 402 Combien de repas prenez-vous en moyenne chaque jour ? ________ repas 403 Avez-vous un régime alimentaire équilibré ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, la plupart du temps o Non, rarement o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 404 [Q403 = Non] Pourquoi, ne suivez-vous pas un régime alimentaire équilibré ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Je ne sais pas ce qu’est un régime alimentaire équilibré  Cela ne m’intéresse pas  Je ne pense pas que cela soit important  Ma famille n'a pas les moyens d'acheter certains aliments  Nous n’avons accès aux fruits et légumes quand cela n’est pas la saison  La priorité c’est d’avoir le ventre plein  Cela prend trop de temps  J’oublie /Je n’y pense pas  Autre, préciser  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 405 Lorsque vous étiez enceinte, avez-vous modifié votre régime alimentaire ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 406 [Q405 = Oui] En quoi avez-vous modifié votre alimentation ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Je mange plus de viande  Je mange plus d’aliments riche en fer  Je mange plus de fruit  Je mange plus de légumes  J’évite certains aliments  Je mange une plus grande quantité  Ce dont j’ai envie  Autre, spécifier 407 Avez-vous évité certains aliments quand vous étiez enceinte ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 408 Avez-vous évité certains aliments quand vous étiez enceinte ? [NB : Proposer les réponses si nécessaire]  Boisson alcoolisée  Viande crue  Poisson cru  Légumes et fruits non lavés  Produits laitiers non pasteurisés  Autre, spécifier 409 Au cours des 3 dernières années, avez-vous reçu une formation ou assisté à une présentation sur la diététique (nutrition) ou l’hygiène ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 410 [Q409 = Oui] Comment avez-vous reçu ces informations cette formation/instruction ? [NB : Si agent de santé ou école demandé si à leur connaissance Nascent était impliqué]  Projet Nascent  École  Agent de santé communautaire  Hôpital  Membre de ma famille  Voisins ou amis  Radio  Télévision / vidéo  Internet 117  Mobile / SMS  Autre, spécifier 411 [Q409 = Oui] Avez-vous mis en œuvre certains des conseils /stratégies proposées ? o Oui o Non 412 [Q409 = Oui] and [Q411 = Oui] Qu’est-ce qui vous a convaincu d’essayer ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Je fais confiance à la personne qui m’a donné ce conseil  J’ai assisté à une démonstration et cela m’a convaincu  J’ai vu d’autre personnes mettre en place ces conseils/stratégies  J’ai entendu des gens dire ce c’était bien. Alors j’ai fait la même chose  J’essaye tout ce qui semble améliorer la santé et le développement de mes enfants  J'ai reçu quelque-chose pour essayer  C’est ma religion  Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 413 [Q409 = Oui] and [Q411 = Non] Pour quelles raisons n’avez-vous pas souhaité d’essayer ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Je n’étais pas convaincue de leur valeur  C’était trop cher  Ce n’était pas disponible  D’autres membres de ma famille n’étaient pas d’accord  J'ai oublié ce que j'ai appris  Je n’ai pas une vie assez régulière  Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 5. Enfant et hygiène Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les pratiques d’hygiène de vos enfants, qui sont à l’école primaire, si vous avez plusieurs enfants, merci de donner les réponses pour votre enfant scolarisé au primaire le plus âge 501 Votre maison dispose-elle d’un endroit spécifique pour se laver les mains ? o Oui o Non 502 Q501=Oui] Où se trouve cet endroit dans votre maison ?  Près des toilettes  Près de l’endroit où on prépare les repas  Dehors  Autre 503 [Q501=Oui] Y-a-t’il du savon, où vous vous laver les mains ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 504 Votre enfant se lave-il les mains ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 505 [Q504=Oui] A quelle occasion votre enfant se lave-t-il les mains ? NB : Ne pas lire les réponses  Avant de manger  Avant de préparer le repas  Avant de donner à manger aux enfants  Après avoir nettoyé un enfant qui a déféqué  Après le repas  Après défécation  Après avoir touché un animal  Après son réveil 118  Après se moucher ou éternuer  Après avoir joué  Après avoir travaillé aux champs  Autre  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 506 [Q504=Oui] Le plus souvent, qu’utilise votre enfant pour se laver les mains ? o Uniquement de l’eau o Eau + savon o Eau + Liquide vaisselle o Eau + Cendre o Eau + Feuilles de citronnier o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 507 Pensez-vous que votre enfant se lave les mains régulièrement quand il est à l’école ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 508 [Projet] [Q507=Oui] Pensez-vous que la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le projet a amené vos enfants à changer de comportement vis-à-vis du lavage des mains ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 509 Quand votre enfant n’est pas à l’école, où vont ses excréments ? NB : Proposer les options si nécessaire  Dans la brousse  Dans le jardin ou la cour de la maison  Dans les latrines de ma maison  Dans les latrines de l’école  Dans les latrines partagées avec le voisin  Dans les latrines communautaires  Dans les poubelles  Enterrées  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 510 Pensez-vous que votre enfant utilise régulièrement les latrines lorsqu’il est à l’école ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 511 [Projet] Pensez-vous que la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le projet Nascent a amené vos enfants à changer de comportement vis-à-vis de l’utilisation des latrines ? NB : Diminution de la défécation l’air libre o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 6. Projet Cantine Scolaire 601 Votre enfant le plus jeune, scolarisé à l’école primaire a-t’il été absent la semaine dernière ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 602 Pour quelle raison ? o Distance de l’école o Problèmes de santé o Retard ou non-paiement des frais de scolarité o Manque de matériel ou d’uniforme scolaire o Aider la famille avec les corvées ou le travail agricole à la maison o Participation aux funérailles ou aux festivités traditionnelles 119 o La famille manque de moyens pour se procurer de la nourriture o Les enfants ont faim o Pression négative des camarades pour manquer l'école o Faible conscience parentale sur l’importance de l'éducation o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse o Autre, spécifier 603 [Projet] A votre connaissance que fait l’organisation Nascent dans votre école ?  Fournir des vivres pour la cantine  Former les cuisinières et le magasinier  Mettre en place un comité de gestion pour la cantine  Donner des fournitures scolaires aux enfants  Donner des manuels de lecture aux enfants  Former les enseignants  Former les membres de l’APE/AME  Former les volontaires pour le jardin  Sensibiliser les mamans pour une meilleur nutrition  Mettre en place des dispositifs de lavage de mains  Mettre en place un accès à l’eau  Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser 604 [Projet] Les interventions de l’organisation Nascent dans votre école correspondent-elles à vos attentes ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 605 [Projet] Si oui #602 Pourquoi ?  Grâce à la cantine, les enfants sont plus assidus  Grâce à la cantine, les enfants sont plus attentifs en classe  Grâce aux formations, les parents d’élèves ont appris à gérer la cantine scolaire  Grâce aux formations, les enseignants utilisent de meilleures méthodes pour enseigner la lecture  Grâce aux formations et au support du projet, le jardin produit des légumes  Grâce à la sensibilisation, les mamans se nourrissent mieux  Grâce à la sensibilisation les enfants se lavent mieux les mains  Grâce à la sensibilisation les enfants ne défèquent pas à l’air libre  Grace au projet, nous avons de l’eau dans l’école  Autre, spécifier 606 [Projet] [Q602=Non] Pourquoi ?  Cela ne sert à rien car à la fin du projet tout s’arrêtera 120  Le projet ne rémunère pas les cuisinières et magasiniers  Les parents n’ont pas le temps de s’implique dans la cuisine ou le jardinage  L’école n’a toujours pas accès à l’eau  Autre, spécifier 607 [Projet] Combien de fois vos enfants ont-ils reçu des rations sèches depuis le début de l’année scolaire ? o 3 fois o 2 fois o 1 fois o Jamais 608 Projet Comment les rations sèches sont-elles utilisées dans votre famille ? o Uniquement pour nourrir les enfants scolarisés dans l’école o Principalement pour nourrir les enfants scolarisés dans l’école o Pour nourrir tous les enfants de la famille et les parents o Pour nourrir principalement les adultes de la famille o Pour nourrir la famille élargie (inclue grands￾parents, voisins.) o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 609 Préparez-vous un repas le midi pour vos enfants ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 610 La semaine dernière votre enfant le plus jeune a￾t’il emmener à manger à l’école : o 4 à 5 fois o 3 fois o 2 fois o 1 fois o Aucune fois o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 7. Information Socio-économique Question Réponse Valeur 701 Combien de personnes vivent dans ta maison ? (Une maison est une unité socio-économique d'une ou plusieurs personnes — indépendamment du sang ou de la relation conjugale — qui ont vécu (ou prévoient de vivre) ensemble pendant au moins six mois des douze précédents dans le même composé, qui partagent des ressources, qui mangent habituellement ensemble, et qui reconnaissent la même tête.) o Huit ou plus o Sept o Six o Cinq o Quatre o Trois o Deux o Un o Pas de réponse 0 6 8 11 16 19 24 34 N/A 702 Est-ce que la (plus âgée) femme chef du foyer ou épouse sait lire et écrire une phrase simple en Français et/ou en Anglais ? o Non o Seulement en anglais o Pas de femme chef du foyer ou conjointe o Français o Pas de réponse 0 1 3 6 N/A 703 Quel type sol y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? [NB : Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse] o Terre o Bois, ciment, autre o Carrelage, marbre o Pas de réponse 0 5 9 N/A 121 704 Quel type de latrines ta famille utilise-t-elle ? o Défécation à l’air101 o Latrines non améliorée102 o Latrines améliorée 103 o Pas de réponse 0 4 6 N/A 705 Quel type de combustible ta maman utilise-t-elle principalement pour la cuisine ? (Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour aider l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer les images à l'enfant) o Bois ramassé ou donné o Pétrole o Bois acheté o Charbon, électricité, sciures, copeau de bois. Ne cuisine pas, autre o Gaz o Pas de réponse 0 2 3 8 16 N/A 706 Y-a-t ’il un fer à repasser électrique dans ta maison ? o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 6 N/A 707 Y-a-t ’il une télévision dans ta maison ? o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 4 N/A 708 Y-a-t ’il une radio ou une stéréo (chaine musicale) dans ta maison ? o Non o Seulement une radio o Stéréo o Pas de réponse 0 3 7 N/A 709 Y-a-t ’il un meuble ou une armoire dans ta maison o Non o Oui o Pas de réponse 0 3 N/A 710 Combien de téléphone portable y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? o Zéro o Un o Deux o Trois ou plus o Pas de réponse 0 4 6 9 N/A 711 Votre famille possède-t’elle un vélo ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 712 Votre famille possède-t’elle une mobylette ou une moto ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 713 Votre famille possède-t’elle une charrette tirée par un animal ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 8. Commentaires 801 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ? 802 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes, clarifications, commentaires). 101 Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre 102 Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou ouvert 103 Latrines latrine avec dalle ou améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec ou sans réservoir 122 Head Teacher Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE – DIRECTEUR Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille pour Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre école et le corps enseignant. Cette information nous aidera à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend normalement 40 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de l’éducation primaire au Cameroun. NB : Proposer au répondant de lui fournir les contacts de Nascent Solution s’il le désire. Maintenant, avez-vous des questions à poser sur le sondage ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Me donnez-vous la permission de poursuivre l’interview ? Oui / Non Nº Question Réponse 1. Caractéristiques du directeur et capacités Je vais commencer par vous poser quelques questions vous même 101 Êtes-vous le directeur en titre de l'école ? o Oui o Non 102 Genre (regardezl’interlocuteur et cochez) o Masculin o Féminin 103 Quel âge avez-vous ? [NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas répondre] _______ ans 104 Quelle(s) classe(s) enseignez-vous ?  SIL  CP  Ce1 123 Nº Question Réponse  Ce2  Cm1  Cm2  Aucune (Seulement directeur) 105 Quel type de contrat avez-vous ? o Fonctionnaire (Publique) o Permanent (Privé) o Contractuel o Maitre des parents (APE) o Maitre communal o Maitre bénévole o Autre (Stagiaire…) 106 Quel est votre niveau d’étude ? o Master I o License o Baccalauréat o Probatoire o BEPC o CEP 107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEM o CAPIA o Aucun o Autre 108 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous ? _______ années 109 [Q100 = Directeur] Depuis combien d’années êtes-vous directeur d’établissement ? [NB : Dans cette école ou une autre école] _______ années 110 Avez-vous reçu une formation professionnelle (Formation continue) au cours des 3 dernières années [NB : Ne pas prendre en considération les réunions pédagogiques, inclure les formations de Nascent] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 2. Information sur l’école Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur votre école et les enseignants 201 Quelles classes sont enseignées au sein de votre établissement ?  SIL  Cours préparatoire (CP)  CE1  CE2  CM1  CM2  Tous 202 Combien y a-t’il de salles de classe utilisées dans votre école ? NB Compter même en matériaux provisoires _______ 203 Votre école fait-il parti d’un groupe scolaire ? o Oui o Non 204 Votre établissement a-t’il deux sessions NB : une le matin et une l’après-midi ou 3 jours/3 jours o Oui o Non 124 Nº Question Réponse 205 Combien d’enseignants de sexe masculin y-a-t’il dans votre école ? [NB : Inclure le directeur] ______ 206 Combien d’enseignants de sexe féminin y-a-t’il dans votre école ? [Inclure la directrice] ______ 207 Dans quelles classes y a-t'il un maître des parents (APE) dans votre école ?  SIL  Cours préparatoire (CP)  CE1  CE2  CM1  CM2  Aucun 208 T Les maîtres titulaires ont-ils été assidus à l’école depuis le début de l’année ? (NB : Oui vraiment = moins de 2 jours d’absence, pas du tout =plus 20 jours d’absence) o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 208 P Les maîtres des parents ont-ils été assidus à l’école depuis le début de l’année ? (NB : Oui vraiment = moins de 2 jours d’absence, pas du tout =plus 20 jours d’absence) o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 209 T Les maîtres titulaires sont-ils ponctuels depuis le début de l’année ? (NB : Oui vraiment = pas de retard, pas du tout = plus de 2 heures de retard) o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 209 P Les maîtres des parents ont-ils été ponctuels depuis le début de l’année ? (NB : Oui vraiment = pas de retard, pas du tout = plus de 2 heures de retard) o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 210 Votre école a-t-elle une association de parents d’élèves (APE) ? o Oui o Non 211 [Si oui 210] Comment qualifiez-vous le niveau d’activité de l’APE ? [NB : Très active : Organise des réunions mensuellement et tient des procès-verbaux, Modérément active : se réunit une fois par trimestre] o Très active o Modérément active o Pas du tout active o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 212 Votre école a-t-elle une cantine fonctionnelle ? o Oui o Non 125 Nº Question Réponse NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid 213 Votre école a-t-elle des vendeurs de snack et/ou repas ? NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Oui o Non 214 Votre école dispose-t’elle d’un club d’hygiène ? o Oui o Non 215 [Projet] Les cuisinières et les gestionnaires de vivres ont-ils bénéficiés d’une formation ? NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 216 [Projet] Pensez-vous que les cuisinières soient bien organisées ? NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 217 [Projet] Pensez-vous que les cuisinières respectent les règles d’hygiène ? NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 218 [Projet] A votre connaissance, à quels types de difficultés le comité de gestion de la cantine doit-il parfois faire face ? [NB : Lister chaque option et cocher si oui]  Difficultés d’organisation  La communauté juge la ration sèche distribué insignifiante  Difficulté dans la gestion du temps  Recrutement des cuisinières  Recrutement du parent gestionnaire de vivres  Assiduité des cuisinières  Assiduité du parent gestionnaire de vivres  Difficulté pour achat des condiments  Approvisionnement en bois  Insuffisance de vaisselle  Insuffisance d’ustensiles  Vol de vivres  Pas d’accès à l’eau à proximité  Retard dans la livraison des vivres  Cuisine en mauvais état ou inexistante  Magasin en mauvais état ou inexistant  Difficulté pour le respect des règles d’hygiène  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 219 Votre école a-t’elle bénéficié de programme d’aide d’une ONG internationale (Autre que Nascent) dans les 3 dernières années ? Depuis l’année académique 2017-2018 ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 126 Nº Question Réponse NB : Autre que Nascent 220 De quels types d’aide votre école a-t’elle bénéficié ?  Forage ou puit  Latrines  Salle de classe  Formation des enseignants  Établissement des actes de naissance  Distribution de matériel scolaire  Dispositif de lavage de main  Autre, spécifier 3. Pratique des enseignants – Formation - Absence Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les formations, l’observation des enseignants et l’évaluation des élèves 301 [Projet] Avez- vous reçu une formation dans la cadre du projet Nascent ? o Oui o Non 302 [Projet] [Si oui 301] A quelle formation avez-vous participé ?  Nord - Phase 1 - Sept 2020  Nord - Phase 2 - Jan 2021  Adamaoua - Phase 1 - Sept 2020  Adamaoua - Phase 2 - Jan 2021  Est - Phase 1 - Sept 2020  Est - Phase 2 - Jan 2021  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 303 [Projet] [Si oui 301] Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ? o Très utile o Assez utile o Pas vraiment utile o Pas du tout utile o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 304 [Projet] [Si oui 301] Quels sont les principaux enseignements que vous avez tiré de cette formation ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses.]  Qu’est-ce qu’une école efficace  Le rôle et les responsabilités du chef d’établissement  Mieux travailler avec les enseignants et faire des observations  Mieux travailler avec les élèves en tenant compte de l’estime de soi  Comprendre en gérer le changement et le cycle d’amélioration  Mise en œuvre des plans de développement scolaire (PDS)  Auto-évaluation scolaire (AES) pour la mise en œuvre des PDS  Implication de la communauté et amélioration des relations avec la communauté  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 305 [Projet] Vos enseignants de SIL, CP et CE1 ont-ils reçu une formation dans la cadre du projet Nascent depuis septembre 2019 ? o Oui, tous o Oui, certains o Non, aucun o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 306 [Projet] o Très utile 127 Nº Question Réponse [Si oui 304] Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de la formation reçue par les enseignants ? o Assez utile o Pas vraiment utile o Pas du tout utile o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 307 Depuis le début de l’année, les enseignants de SIL et CP ont-ils reçu la visite d’un animateur pédagogique ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 308 Depuis le début de l’année, avez-vous observé des enseignants de SIL et CP enseigner la lecture ? o Oui o Non 309 [Si oui 308] Combien de fois avez-vous mené une observation ? o Trois fois ou plus o Deux fois o Une fois o Jamais o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 310 [Si oui 309] Sur la base de vos observations, êtes-vous satisfait de la qualité de l’enseignement de la lecture ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 311 Êtes-vous satisfait des performances des élèves de votre école en lecture en fin de CP ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 312 Comment contrôlez-vous les progrès scolaires de des élèves au cours de l'année scolaire ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses.]  J’examine les résultats des élèves aux tests donnés par enseignants  Les enseignants m’informent des progrès  J’effectue des observations de classe  J'utilise les courbes de performance  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 313 Quelles langues les enseignants utilisent-ils le plus souvent pour enseigner la lecture dans votre école en SIL et CP ?  Anglais  Baka  Daba  Dii  Fali  Fulfulde  Français  Gbaya  Guidar  Kako  Mafa  Maka  Mbum  Mpumpong  Autre 4. Infrastructure sanitaire de l’école Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les infrastructures sanitaires de l’école 401 Qu'utilisent les élèves pour faire leurs besoins dans votre école ? [NB : Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre  Défécation à l’air (Pas de latrines)  Trou ouvert, fosse sans dalle  Latrines à dalle  Latrines améliorée  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 128 Nº Question Réponse Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou ouvert Latrines améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec ou sans réservoir] 402 De combien de latrines fonctionnelles dispose votre école ? [NB : Exclure les latrines des enseignants, indiquer « 0 » si pas de latrines, si latrine partage avec une autre école, diviser par le nombre d’écoles] ____ 403 [Q402 > 0] Y a-t’il des latrines pour garçons et des latrines pour filles ? o Oui o Non 404 [Oui 403] La séparation fille/garçon est-elle respectée ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 405 [Q402 > 0] Les latrines sont-elles à usage exclusif pour l'école ? [Utilisées uniquement par les élèves ou les enseignants] ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait Pas / Pas de réponse 406 [Q402 > 0] Les latrines sont-elles sûres ? [Les latrines ferment, on ne peut pas voir à l’intérieur, la dalle est en bon état] o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 407 Votre école dispose-t-elle d'une procédure de routine pour le nettoyage et d'entretien des latrines, qui garantit que des latrines propres et fonctionnelles sont disponibles à tout moment ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait Pas / Pas de réponse 408 Comment qualifieriez-vous l’état des latrines ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  En bon état  Facile d’utilisation  Propres  Il n’y en a pas assez  Cassées ou en mauvais état  Besoin d’amélioration  Sentent mauvais  Sales  Pleines (besoin d’être vidangée]  Autre, précisez  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 409 De combien de dispositifs de lavage de main dispose votre école ? [Un seau dans la classe peut être considéré comme une station de lavage] _____ 129 Nº Question Réponse 410 Les stations de lavages disposent-elles généralement de savon ou de cendre ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 411 Comment qualifiez-vous l’état des dispositifs de lavages ? o Parfait o Assez bon o Besoins d’amélioration o Mauvais o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 412 Existent-ils des systèmes de lavage de mains à côté des latrines ? o Oui o Non 413 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une modification des comportements des enfants relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 414 Votre école a-t’elle reçu des dispositifs de lavage de main supplémentaire afin de prévenir la Covid-19 ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 415 [Oui Q414] Combien ______ 416 [Oui Q414] Qui vous a fourni les dispositifs de lavage de main supplémentaire ?  Le gouvernement  Les élus  Les communes  Nascent  UNICEF  Associations  Autre NGO  Autre bienfaiteur ; à spécifier  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 417 Votre école dispose-t-elle d’un accès à l’eau ? o Oui, dans l’école o Oui, à proximité de l’école o Oui, mais loin de l’école o Non 418 [Oui Q417] De quel est le type d’accès à l’eau l’école dispose-t￾elle ? o Puit fermé o Puit ouvert o Forage à pompe solaire o Forage à pompe manuelle ou à pied o Forage à pompe à moteur o Eau de pluie o Eau en bouteille o Eau courante (SCE) o Eau livrée par camion-citerne o Autre 419 L’approvisionnement en eau fonctionne-il ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 420 Y-a-il assez d’eau à l’école pour mener à bien les activités suivantes : NB : lister les activités et cocher  Boire  Faire la cuisine  Se laver les mains 130 Nº Question Réponse  Faire du jardinage  Approvisionner la communauté 421 [Q418 NE ‘SCE’] L’eau est-elle traité avant d’être bue ? o Oui, toujours o Oui, parfois o Non, jamais 422 Quelle méthode est utilisée pour le traitement de l’eau ? [Q418 NE ‘Non’]  Bouillir l’eau  Filtrer l’eau  Acheter l’eau  Ajouter de l’eau de Javel, solution chlorée ou des comprimés de chlore  Ajouter de l’alun (Aluminium Sulfate)  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 423 Comment l’eau pour boire est-elle stockée ?  Seau ou bassine en plastique  Seau ou bassine en tôle galvanisée ou céramique  Bidon avec bouchon  Dans le réservoir de collecte des eaux de pluie  Il n’y a pas de stockage  Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 5. Covid Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions La crise de la Covid 501 Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur les apprentissages des élèves ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Plutôt négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 502 Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur l’alimentation des enfants ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Plutôt négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 503 Projet Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités de jardinage ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Assez négatif o Plutôt négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 504 Projet Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités liées à l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Plutôt négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 505 Projet  Distribution de rations sèches  Émissions de radio pour les enfants 131 Nº Question Réponse A votre connaissance quelles actions ont été mises en place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la crise de la Covid ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Formation à distance des animateurs pédagogique  Message radio sur l’hygiène  Distribution de poster/affiches  Distribution de cache-nez pour les enseignants  Distribution de dispositif de lavage des mains  Distribution de savon  Formation sur l’hygiène  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 506 Dans quelles proportions vos élèves ont-ils eu recours à l’apprentissage à distance pendant les fermetures dû à la Covid ? [NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la distribution des matériels par l’école.] o Oui, tous o Oui, une grande partie o Oui, mais très peu o Non, aucun o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 6. Commentaires 601 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ? 602 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes, clarifications, commentaires). 132 Teacher and Head Teacher Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE – ENSEIGNANT Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Enseignant SIL-CP-Ce1 Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____ Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture. Si vous acceptez de participer, vous n'avez pas besoin de faire quelque chose de spécial. Vous pouvez poursuivre votre cours comme si je n’étais pas dans la classe. Veuillez également encourager vos élèves à continuer comme si je n’étais pas dans la classe. L'observation prendra environ 50 minutes. Ces informations nous aideront à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de l’éducation primaire au Cameroun. Enseignant Ce2-Cm1-Cm2 Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____ Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture. Ces informations nous aideront à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de l’éducation primaire au Cameroun. 133 NB : Proposer au répondant de lui fournir les contacts de Nascent Solution s’il le désire. Maintenant, avez-vous des questions à poser sur le sondage ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Me donnez-vous la permission de poursuivre l’interview ? Oui / Non Nº Question Réponse Classe observée 01 Quelles classes sont observées ?  SIL  Cours préparatoire (CP)  CE1  CE2  CM1  CM2 02 S’agit-il d’une classe multi-niveau o Oui o Non 03 Nombre d’élèves inscrits Filles ______ Garçons______ 04 Nombre d’élèves présents Filles ______ Garçons______ 05 Pour la leçon que vous observez, quel pourcentage d'élèves ont des manuels ou d'autres documents imprimés ? [NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer leur manuel] o 90 % ou plus o +/- 70% o +/- 50% o +/- 30% o 10 % ou moins 06 Pour la leçon que vous observez, quel pourcentage d'élèves ont des cahiers ou des feuilles pour écrire et un crayon ou un stylo ? [NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer leur cahier] o 90 % ou plus o +/- 70% o +/- 50% o +/- 30% o 10 % ou moins 07 Quelles matières sont enseignées pendant l’observation ? [NB : Dans la mesure du possible, demander à l’enseignant d’enseigner les la lecture] o Lecture o Mathématique o Sciences sociales o Autre Nº Question Réponse 1. Caractéristiques de l’enseignant et capacités Je vais commencer par vous poser quelques questions vous même 101 Genre (regardezl’interlocuteur et cochez) o Masculin o Féminin 102 Êtes-vous le directeur de cette école o Oui o Non 103 Quelle(s) classe(s) enseignez-vous ?  SIL  CP  Ce1  Ce2  Cm1  Cm2 104 Quel âge avez-vous ? _______ ans 134 Nº Question Réponse [NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas répondre] 105 Quel type de contrat avez-vous ? o Fonctionnaire (Publique) o Permanent (Privé) o Contractuel o Maitre des parents (APE) o Maitre communal o Maitre bénévole o Autre (Stagiaire…) 106 Quel est votre niveau d’étude ? o Master I o License o Baccalauréat o Probatoire o BEPC o CEP 107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEMP o CAPIA o Aucun o Autre 108 Avez-vous reçu une formation professionnelle (Formation continue) au cours des 3 dernières années [NB : Ne pas prendre en considération les réunions pédagogiques, inclure les formations de Nascent] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 109 Quelles langues parlez-vous ?  Anglais  Baka  Daba  Dii  Fali  Fulfulde  Français  Gbaya  Guidar  Kako  Mafa  Mbum  Mpumpong  Autre 110 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous ? _______ années 111 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous dans cette école ? _______ années 112 Depuis combien d’années enseigner vous dans le même cycle ? Préparatoire (SIL-CP) Élémentaire (Ce1-Ce2) Moyen (Cm1-Cm2) _______ années 113 Si vous en aviez la possibilité, souhaiteriez-vous être transféré dans une autre école ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 114 Si oui, pour quelles raisons ? NB : Ne pas lire les réponses  Pour être plus proche de ma famille  Pour être dans une zone urbaine  Pour être dans ma région d’origine  Pour être dans une école plus petite  Pour être dans une école plus grande  Pour être mieux payé  Pour travailler avec une autre équipe 135 Nº Question Réponse  A cause des problèmes d'insécurité  A cause de problèmes de santé  A cause la charge de travail  Pour changer  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser 2. Information sur le suivi pédagogique et la formation (uniquement enseignants de SIL, CP,Ce1) Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur le suivi pédagogique et la formation 201 [Q102 = non] Depuis le début de l’année scolaire, combien de fois le directeur (trice) est-il/elle venu vous observer dans votre classe ? o Trois fois ou plus o Deux fois o Une fois o Jamais o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 202 Depuis le début de l’année scolaire, combien de fois l’animateur pédagogique est-il venu vous observer dans votre classe o Trois fois ou plus o Deux fois o Une fois o Jamais o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 203 Êtes-vous satisfait des performances des élèves de votre classe en lecture ? o Oui vraiment o Oui plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 204 Quelle méthode d'évaluation utilisez-vous pour vérifier si les élèves ont assimilé votre leçon de lecture ? [NB : Ne pas proposer les réponses]  Évaluation écrite  Évaluation orale individuelle  Évaluation orale collective  Vérification du cahier d’exercice  Vérification des devoirs à la maison  Ardoise  Pas d’évaluation 205 [Projet] Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du projet cantine (Nascent) ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 206 [Projet] A quelles formations avez-vous participé  Nord - Phase 1 - Oct 2020  Nord - Phase 2 - Nov. 2020  Adamaoua - Phase 1 - Oct 2020  Adamaoua - Phase 2 - Nov. 2020  Est - Phase 1 - Oct 2020  Est - Phase 2 - Nov 2020 207 [Projet] [Si oui 204] Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ? o Très utile o Assez utile o Pas vraiment utile o Pas du tout utile o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 208 [Projet] [Si oui 204] Quels sont les principaux enseignements que vous avez tiré de cette formation ? [NB : Ne pas lister les options]  La conscience phonémique  Le principe alphabétique  Le décodage  L’enseignement du vocabulaire  La fluidité  La compréhension 136 Nº Question Réponse  Le programme de lecture : planification annuelle  Planification hebdomadaire  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 209 [Projet] [Si oui 204] Quelles méthodes avez-vous mis en pratique pour l’enseignement de la lecture ou la préparation de vos cours ? [NB : lister les techniques et cocher si oui]  La conscience phonémique  Le principe alphabétique  Le décodage  L’enseignement du vocabulaire  La fluidité  La compréhension  Le programme de lecture : planification annuelle  Planification hebdomadaire  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 210 [Projet] [Si oui 204] Quelles méthodes vous semblent difficiles à mettre en œuvre ? [NB : lister les techniques et cocher si oui]  La conscience phonémique  Le principe alphabétique  Le décodage  L’enseignement du vocabulaire  La fluidité  La compréhension  Le programme de lecture : planification annuelle  Planification hebdomadaire  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 211 [Projet] [Si oui 204] Pensez-vous que ces méthodes permettront d’améliorer le niveau des élèves en lecture ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 3. Hygiène (Uniquement enseignant de ce2-cm1-cm2) 301 À quelle fréquence enseignez-vous l'hygiène en classe ? o Une fois par semaine ou plus o Une fois par mois o Quelques fois par an o Une fois par an o Jamais 302 [Q301 NE ‘jamais]’ Quels sujets relatifs à l'hygiène enseignez-vous dans votre classe ? [NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques104  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées 105  Boire de l’eau potable106  Se brosser les dents 104 Critical times include critical times (1) before eating, 2) before preparing food, 3) before feeding children, 4) after defecating, 5) after attending to a child that has defecated), use of improved latrines, and use of quality water source facilities and household water treatment. 105 Private facility of the following types: flush or pour-flush to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet. 106 Source of drinking water is piped water, public tap or standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected spring, protected dug well, or rainwater collection. 137 Nº Question Réponse  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 303 Selon vous, dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont-ils le plus besoin de s'améliorer ? [NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées  Boire de l’eau potable  Se brosser les dents  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 304 Dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont￾ils le plus de difficultés à respecter par manque de moyens ou d’accès à l’eau ? [NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées  Boire de l’eau potable  Se brosser les dents  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 305 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une modification positive des comportements des enfants relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 306 [Projet] [Q305 =Oui] Pensez-vous que les changements de comportement vis-à-vis du lavage de mains soit le résultat de la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le projet ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 307 F Pensez-vous que vos élèves filles utilisent régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 138 Nº Question Réponse 307 M Pensez-vous que vos élèves garçons utilisent régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 308 [Projet] Pensez-vous que l’usage des latrines a augmenté suite à la prise en place du projet de Nascent ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 309 [Projet] Pensez-vous que grâce la cantine scolaire les enfants sont plus attentifs ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 310 [Projet] [Q309 = Non] Si non, Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Ils ne peuvent pas se concentrer  Ils sont fatigués  Ils ont mal au ventre  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser ___________ 311 [Projet] [Q309 = Oui] Si oui, Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Ils sont plus éveillés  Ils sont rassasiés  Ils sont moins fatigués car ils n’ont pas besoin de rentrer chez eux pour manger  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 4. L’impact de la crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages 401 [Q102 = non] Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid a affecté les apprentissages de vos élèves ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Assez négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 402 [Q102 = non] [Projet] Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités liées à l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Assez négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 403 [Q102 = non] [Projet] A votre connaissance quelles action ont été mises en place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la crise de la Covid ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Distribution de rations sèches  Émissions de radio pour les enfants  Formation à distance des animateurs pédagogique  Message radio sur l’hygiène  Distribution de poster/affiches  Distribution de cache-nez pour les enseignants  Distribution de dispositif de lavage des mains  Distribution de savon  Formation sur l’hygiène  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 139 Nº Question Réponse  Autre, spécifier 404 [Q102 = non] Dans votre classe, dans quelles proportions vos élèves ont-ils eu recours à l’apprentissage à distance pendant les fermetures dû à la Covid ? [NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la distribution des matériels par l’école.] o Oui, tous o Oui, une grande partie o Oui, très peu o Non, aucun o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 5. Commentaires 501 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ? 502 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes, clarifications, commentaires). 140 QUESTIONNAIRE – ENSEIGNANT (Ce2 – Cm1 – Cm2) Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____ Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture. Ces informations nous aideront à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de l’éducation primaire au Cameroun. NB : Proposer au répondant de lui fournir les contacts de Nascent Solution s’il le désire. Maintenant, avez-vous des questions à poser sur le sondage ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Me donnez-vous la permission de poursuivre l’interview ? Oui / Non Nº Question Réponse 1. Caractéristiques de l’enseignant et capacités Je vais commencer par vous poser quelques questions vous même 101 Genre (regardezl’interlocuteur et cochez) o Masculin o Féminin 102 Êtes-vous le directeur de cette école o Oui o Non 103 Quelle(s) classe(s) enseignez-vous ?  SIL  CP  Ce1  Ce2  Cm1  Cm2 104 Quel âge avez-vous ? _______ ans 141 Nº Question Réponse [NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas répondre] 105 Quel type de contrat avez-vous ? o Fonctionnaire (Publique) o Permanent (Privé) o Contractuel (Privé ex : Banque Mondiale) o Enseignant communautaire (APE) o Autre (Stagiaire…) 106 Quel est votre niveau d’étude ? o Master I o License o Baccalauréat o Probatoire o BEPC o CEP 107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEM o CAPIA o Aucun o Autre 108 Avez-vous reçu une formation professionnelle (Formation continue) au cours des 3 dernières années [NB : Ne pas prendre en considération les réunions pédagogiques] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 109 Quelles langues parlez-vous ?  Anglais  Baka  Daba  Dii  Fali  Fulfulde  Français  Gbaya  Guidar  Kako  Mafa  Mbum  Mpumpong  Autre 110 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous ? _______ années 111 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous dans cette école ? _______ années 112 Depuis combien d’années enseigner vous dans le même cycle ? Préparatoire (SIL-CP) Élémentaire (Ce1-Ce2) Moyen (Cm1-Cm2) _______ années 113 Si vous en aviez la possibilité, souhaiteriez-vous être transféré dans une autre école ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 114 Si oui, pour quelles raisons ?  Pour être plus proche de ma famille  Pour être dans une zone urbaine  Pour être dans ma région d’origine  Pour être dans une école plus petite  Pour être dans une école plus grande  Pour être mieux payé  Pour travailler avec une autre équipe 142 Nº Question Réponse  Pour changer  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser 2. Information sur le suivi pédagogique, la formation et les enseignants 3. Hygiène 301 À quelle fréquence enseignez-vous l'hygiène en classe ? o Une fois par semaine ou plus o Une fois par mois o Quelques fois par an o Une fois par an o Jamais 302 [Q301 NE ‘jamais]’ Quels sujets relatifs à l'hygiène enseignez-vous dans votre classe ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques107  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées 108  Boire de l’eau potable109  Se brosser les dents  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 303 Selon vous, dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont-ils le plus besoin de s'améliorer ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées  Boire de l’eau potable  Se brosser les dents  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 304 Dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont￾ils le plus de difficultés à respecter par manque de moyens ou d’accès à l’eau ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au moments critiques  Hygiène alimentaire  Utiliser des latrines améliorées  Boire de l’eau potable  Se brosser les dents  Se laver le corps  Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles 107 Critical times include critical times (1) before eating, 2) before preparing food, 3) before feeding children, 4) after defecating, 5) after attending to a child that has defecated), use of improved latrines, and use of quality water source facilities and household water treatment. 108 Private facility of the following types: flush or pour-flush to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet. 109 Source of drinking water is piped water, public tap or standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected spring, protected dug well, or rainwater collection. 143 Nº Question Réponse  Laver ses habits  Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse  La prévention des maladies  Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid  Autre, spécifier 305 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une modification positive des comportements des enfants relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non Pas de tout o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 306 [Projet] [Q305 =Oui] Pensez-vous que les changements de comportement vis-à-vis du lavage de mains soit le résultat de la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le projet ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 307 F Pensez-vous que vos élèves filles utilisent régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 307 M Pensez-vous que vos élèves garçons utilisent régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 308 [Projet] Pensez-vous que l’usage des latrines a augmenté suite à la mise en place du projet de Nascent ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 309 [Projet] Pensez-vous que grâce à la cantine scolaire les enfants sont plus attentifs ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 310 [Projet] [Q309 = Non] Si non, Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Ils ne peuvent pas se concentrer  Ils sont fatigués  Ils ont mal au ventre  Chez les jeunes enfants, manger donne envie de dormir  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser ___________ 311 [Projet] [Q309 = Oui] Si oui, Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Ils sont plus éveillés  Ils sont rassasiés  Ils sont moins fatigués car ils n’ont pas besoin de rentrer chez eux pour manger  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 144 Nº Question Réponse 4. L’impact de la crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages 401 [Q102 = non] Selon vous, comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages de vos élèves ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Assez négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 402 [Projet] [Q102 = non] Selon vous, comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités liées à l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Positif o Aucun impact o Faiblement négatif o Assez négatif o Très négatif o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 403 [Projet] [Q102 = non] A votre connaissance quelles action ont été mises en place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la crise de la Covid ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Distribution de rations sèches  Émissions de radio pour les enfants  Formation à distance des animateurs pédagogique  Message radio sur l’hygiène  Distribution de poster  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 404 [Q102 = non] A votre connaissance, vos élèves ont-ils eu recours à l’apprentissage à distance pendant les fermetures dû à la Covid ? [NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la distribution des matériels par l’école.] o Oui, tous o Oui, une grande partie o Oui, très peu o Non, aucun o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 5. Classe observée 501 Quelles classes sont observées ?  SIL  Cours préparatoire (CP)  CE1  CE2  CM1  CM2 502 S’agit-il d’une classe multi-niveau o Oui o Non 503 Nombre d’élèves inscrits Filles ______ Garçons______ 504 Nombre d’élèves présents Filles ______ Garçons______ 505 Pour la leçon que vous observez, quel pourcentage d'élèves ont des manuels ou d'autres documents imprimés ? [NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer leur manuel] o 90 % ou plus o +/- 70% o +/- 50% o +/- 30% o 10 % ou moins 145 Nº Question Réponse 506 Pour la leçon que vous observez, quel pourcentage d'élèves ont des cahiers ou des feuilles pour écrire et un crayon ou un stylo ? [NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer leur cahier] o 90 % ou plus o +/- 70% o +/- 50% o +/- 30% o 10 % ou moins 507 Quelles matières sont enseignées pendant l’observation ? [NB : Dans la mesure du possible, demander à l’enseignant d’enseigner les la lecture] o Lecture o Mathématique o Sciences sociales o Autre 6. Commentaires 601 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ? 602 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes, clarifications, commentaires). 146 Stallings Observation Nombre : ___ Observation de classe Heure : Localisez l’enseignant, identifier ce qu'il/elle fait, quelles ressources sont utilisée, et la participation des élèves. Continuez à observer la salle de classe en commençant par la droite, en notant l'activité des élèves jusqu'à ce que vous reveniez à l'enseignant. L'observation devrait prendre environ 15 secondes. Entourez les codes appropriés ci-dessous. Notez tout ce qui sort de l'ordinaire dans commentaires supplémentaires. M = Maitre E = Élève 1 = Un N = Nombreux (plusieurs) T= Tous Ressources Activité Pas de ressources Livre/Manuel Cahier/Outils pour écrire Tableau noir Aides didactiques 1. Lecture à haute voix M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 2. Démonstration / Cours magistral M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 3. Discussion / Débat Question - réponse M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 4. Pratique – exercices M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 5. Devoir en classe M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 6. Copier M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N M = Maitre E = Élève 1 = Un P = Petit groupe (5 ou moins) G = Grand groupe (6 or more) T= Tous Activité Participation 8. Discipline [10] M 1 P G T 9. Gestion de classe avec les élèves [11] M 1 P G T E 1 P G 10. Gestion de classe sans les élèves [12] M 11. Interaction sociale entre l’enseignant et les élèves ou entre les élèves [8] M 1 P G T E 1 P G 12. Interaction sociale entre l’enseignant et une personne extérieure ou enseignant non impliqué [13] M 13. Enseignant en dehors de la classe [14] M 147 14. Élèves non impliqués [9] E 1 P G Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory OBSERVATIONS DE LAVAGE DE MAINS/LATRINES Jour Mois Année Heure Minute Date Heure Nom de l’école Code : Enumérateur Équipe # Question Réponse 1. Hygiène dans l’école 100 Combien y-a-t’il de latrine dans cette école ? [NB : Si les latrines sont partagées avec une autre école du groupe, diviser par le nombre d’écoles] ____ Filles uniquement ____ Garçons uniquement ____ Élèves indifférenciés ____ Enseignants uniquement 101 Y a-t’il au moins une station de lavage des mains dans cette école ? o Oui o Non 102 [Q101 = Oui] Y a-t’il de l'eau aux stations de lavage ? o Oui o Non 103 [Q101 = Oui] Que trouve-t’on à proximité des stations de lavage pour se laver les mains ?  Savon  Cendre  Sable  Rien 104 Les stations de lavage sont-elles utilisées à d’autres fins que le lavage des mains ? o Oui o Non 105 [Q104 = Oui] Lesquelles ?  Laver le linge  Nettoyer les plats  Prendre une douche  Cuisiner  Ablutions  Lavage de la tête  Lavage des pieds  Boire (les enfants)  Faire boire les animaux  Autre 106 [Q101 = Oui] Les stations de lavage des mains semblent-elles être couramment utilisées (y a-t’il de l'eau sur le sol ?) o Oui o Non 107 [Q101 = Oui] Quelle est la distance approximative entre les stations de lavage des mains et les latrines ? _______ mètres 148 Question Réponse 108 [Q101 = Oui] Quelle est la distance approximative entre les stations de lavage des mains et la classe la plus éloignée ? _______ mètres 109 Y-a-t’il des animaux dans la cour de l’école ? o Oui o Non 110 Avez-vous vu des enfants faire pipi dans la cour de l’école ? o Oui o Non 4. Le magasin et les cuisine [Projet] 401 L’école a-t’elle une cuisine ? o Oui o Non 402 [Q401 = Oui] La cuisine est-elle bien équipée ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 403 [Q401 = Oui] La cuisine est-elle propre ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 404 [Q401 = Oui] La cuisine est-elle bien rangée ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 405 [Q401 = Oui] Les ustensiles de cuisine sont-ils bien rangés ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 406 L’école a-t’elle un magasin ? o Oui o Non 407 [Q406 = Oui] Le magasin est-il propre ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 408 [Q406 = Oui] Le magasin est-il bien rangé ? o Oui, très bien o Oui, plutôt bien o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Je n’ai pas pu accéder 149 Observation du lavage des mains Les superviseurs observent si les élèves se lavent les mains après avoir utilisé les toilettes. Ils doivent se tenir debout ou s'asseoir dans un endroit assez proche des latrines et de la station de lavage des mains afin qu'ils puissent voir si un étudiant se lave les mains après avoir utilisé les toilettes. Mais ils ne devraient pas s'asseoir trop près de sorte qu'il est évident ce qu'ils font (si d'autres élèves savent que vous regardez si oui ou non ils se lavent les mains, ils se laveront probablement leurs mains). Pour chaque élève que vous voyez en utilisant les toilettes, marquez sur la feuille ci-dessous si oui ou non ils se lavent les mains. N'enregistrez pas les noms des élèves. Sélectionner de préférence les classe de Cm1 et Cm2, ou à défaut les classe de Ce1 ou Ce2. S’il n’est pas possible d’identifier une classe, spécifier la classe au niveau de l’élève ou indiquer indéfini. Courte pause (lavage après utilisation des latrines) Classe Genre Lavage des mains ? Classe Genre Lavage des mains ?  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non  Oui Non 150 Cook and Storekeeper Questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE – CUISINIER / MAGASINIER Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA) Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier) Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier) Département : (Spécifier) Arrondissement : (Spécifier) Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier) Nom de l’école : (Spécifier) École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier) Bonjour ! Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre école et le corps enseignant. Cette information nous aidera à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes. La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de l’éducation primaire au Cameroun. NB : Proposer au répondant de lui fournir les contacts de Nascent Solution s’il le désire. Maintenant, avez-vous des questions à poser sur le sondage ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin] Me donnez-vous la permission de poursuivre l’interview ? Oui / Non Nº Question Réponse 1. Caractéristiques du parent 101 Genre (regardezl’interlocuteur et cochez) o Masculin o Féminin 102 Quel âge avez-vous ? [NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas répondre] _______ ans 103 Combien d’enfants avez-vous dans l’école primaire (ou le groupe) dans lequel vous êtes volontaire ? ______ enfants 104 Quel est votre rôle au sein du programme de Cantine Scolaire ?  Cuisinier  Parent gestionnaire de vivre 105 Quel est votre niveau en Français ? o Je parle couramment 151 Nº Question Réponse o Je comprends et je parle assez bien o Je comprends et je parle un peu o Je comprends un peu mais je ne parle pas o Je ne parle pas le français o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 106 Quel est votre niveau en lecture en Français ? o Je sais lire parfaitement o Je sais lire assez bien o Je sais lire un peu o Je ne sais pas lire o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 107 Quel est votre niveau en calcul ? o Je sais très bien faire des calculs o Je sais assez bien faire des calculs o Je sais un peu faire des calculs o Je ne sais pas faire des calculs o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 2. Information sur la cuisine Q104 = Cuisinier 201 Depuis combien de temps participez-vous à la préparation des repas ? o Depuis le démarrage du projet o Moins d’un an o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 202 Avec quelle fréquence interveniez-vous avant la crise Covid pour préparer les repas ? o 4 à 5 fois par semaine o 2 à 3 fois par semaine o 1 fois par semaine o 1 à 3 fois par mois o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 203 Pourquoi prenez-vous part à cette activité bénévole ? [NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]  Pour permettre aux enfants d’avoir un repas  Parce que le directeur me l’a demandé  Pour être avec d’autres parents  Pour être proche de mes enfants  Pour recevoir une compensation  Pour participer au développement de ma communauté  Je remplace un autre parent  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 204 Avez-vous reçu une forme de compensation pour votre travail ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 205 [Oui 204] Quelle est la nature de cette compensation ?  Compensation financière  6 kg de riz par trimestre  Repas (Chaque jour travaillé)  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser_______ 206 [Si Oui 204] Êtes-vous satisfait de cette compensation ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 207 [Si Oui 204] Seriez-vous prêts à continuer sans cette compensation ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 152 Nº Question Réponse 208 Êtes-vous satisfait de votre engagement dans le projet de Nascent ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 209 [Si oui, 208], Si oui. Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Je suis content(e) d’aider  J’aime être avec d’autres parents  Pour le riz que l’on nous donne  Pour les repas que l’on nous donne  Pour l’argent que l’on nous donne  Parce que j’aime sortir de chez moi  Pour apporter mon soutien au projet de cantine  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 210 [Si non, 208], Si non. Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Cela prend trop de temps  C'est fatiguant  Parce que les autres ne participent pas  Parce que mon mari s'en plaint  Nous ne recevons pas de compensation  Nous ne recevons pas assez de compensation  Je dois toujours remplacer les absents  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 211 Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du projet ? (NB : Directe ou réplication] o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 212 [Si oui, 211] Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ? o Très utile o Assez utile o Pas vraiment utile o Pas du tout utile o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 213 Êtes-vous satisfait de l’organisation de la cuisine ? o Très satisfait o Plutôt Satisfait o Moyennement satisfait o Peu satisfait o Pas du tout satisfait o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 214 Quel sont les points qui selon vous pourraient être améliorés ? (NB : Ne pas mentionner les options)  Meilleurs d’ustensiles pour cuisiner  Plus d’ustensiles  Meilleure organisation de la cuisine  Cuisine plus grande  Cuisine plus propre  Améliorer l'accès à l'eau  Avoir plus de condiments  Installer / réparer des foyers améliorés  Construire une cuisine couverte  Augmenter le nombre de cuisinières actives  Améliorer la relation avec l’administration de l’école  Améliorer la formation des cuisinières 153 Nº Question Réponse  Améliorer la répartition des tâches entre les parents  Augmenter la compensation  Diversifier les compensations  Rien, tout est parfait  Ne sais pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 215 Pouvez-vous nous lister les règles d’hygiène à respecter pour la préparation des repas et l’entretien de la cuisine ? [NB : Ne pas lister les options]  Nettoyage quotidien ustensiles  Nettoyage quotidien des casseroles  Utilisation de savon pour nettoyer  Utilisation d’eau potable  Purification de l’eau  Couvrir les aliments  Ne pas laisser les animaux s’approcher  Se laver les mains régulièrement  Utiliser du savon  Se couvrir la tête  Mettre un tablier  Se couper les ongles courts  Gérer les ordures  Ne pas laisser les enfants au sol  Ne pas laisser les aliments au sol  Ne sais pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 216 Pensez-vous que dans votre cuisine les règles d’hygiène sont appliquées : [NB : Nettoyage des ustensile, nettoyage de la cuisine, purification de l’eau…] o Tout le temps o La plupart du temps o Assez souvent o Rarement o Jamais o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 217 Selon vous qu’est ce qui rend difficile la mise en œuvre systématique des règles d’hygiène ? [Ne donner pas les options]  Le nettoyage prend trop de temps  Les cuisiniers ne sont pas bien formés  Il n’y a pas assez de cuisiniers  La cuisine n’est pas assez grande  L’accès à l'eau est trop loin de la cuisine  Nous devons amener nos jeunes enfants  Moi j’applique les règles, mais les autres non  Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre spécifier_____ 3. Information sur le magasin Q104 = Magasinier 301 Avant la crise Covid, pendant combien de temps avez-vous participé à la gestion du magasin ? o Depuis le démarrage du projet o Moins d’un an o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 302 Avant la crise COVID Avec quelle fréquence interveniez-vous pour la gestion des stocks ? o Tous les jours (5 jours sur 5) o Presque tous les jours (4 jours sur 5) o 1 à 3 fois par semaine o 1 à 3 fois par mois o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 303 Pourquoi prenez-vous part à cette activité bénévole ?  Pour permettre aux enfants d’avoir un repas  Parce que le directeur me l’a demandé  Pour être avec d’autres parents 154 Nº Question Réponse [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Pour être proche de mes enfants  Pour recevoir une compensation  Pour participer au développement de ma communauté  Je remplace un autre parent  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser : _________ 304 Avez-vous reçu une forme de compensation pour votre travail ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 305 [Oui 304], quelle est la nature de cette compensation ?  Compensation financière  6 kg de riz par trimestre  Repas (Chaque jour travaillé)  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, préciser_______ 306 [Si Oui 304] êtes-vous satisfait par cette compensation ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 307 [Si Oui 304] seriez-vous prêts à continuer sans cette compensation ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 308 Êtes-vous satisfait de votre engagement dans le projet de Nascent ? o Oui, vraiment o Oui, plus ou moins o Non, pas vraiment o Non, pas du tout o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 309 [Si oui, 308], Si oui. Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Je suis content(e) d’aider  J’aime être avec d’autres parents  Pour le riz que l’on nous donne  Pour les repas que l’on nous donne  Pour l’argent que l’on nous donne  Parce que j’aime sortir de chez moi  Pour apporter mon soutien au projet de cantine  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 310 [Si non, 309], Si non. Pourquoi ? [NB : Ne pas lire les réponses]  Cela prend trop de temps  Nous ne recevons pas de compensation  Nous ne recevons pas assez de compensation  Je dois toujours remplacer les absents  Autre, spécifier 311 Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du projet ? o Oui o Non o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 312 Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ? o Très utile o Assez utile o Pas vraiment utile o Pas du tout utile o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse 155 Nº Question Réponse 313 Êtes-vous satisfait de l’organisation du magasin et de la gestion des stocks ? o Très satisfait o Plutôt satisfait o Moyennement satisfait o Peu satisfait o Pas du tout satisfait o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse 314 Quel sont les points qui selon vous pourraient être améliorés ? (NB : ne pas mentionner les options)  La taille du local  L'espace des étagères  L’organisation du stockage  La propreté  La sécurité  Améliorer l'état du magasin  Augmenter le nombre de personnes actives  Améliorer la relation avec l’administration de l’école  Améliorer la formation du parent gestionnaire de vivres  Améliorer les traitements contre les rongeurs  Améliorer la protection du magasin contre la pluie  Fournir une compensation au parent gestionnaire de vivres   Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 315 Pouvez-vous nous lister les règles d’hygiène et de bonne gestion à respecter pour le magasin ? [NB : Ne pas lister les options]  Enlever les produits périmés  Utiliser d'abord les stocks les plus anciens (FIFO)  Ne pas laisser les vivres à même le sol  Nettoyer le sol  Éliminer les rongeurs (fumigène)  Reconditionner les sacs percés  Ne pas mélanger les denrées alimentaires avec les produits phytosanitaires  Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 316 Pensez-vous que dans le magasin les règles d’hygiène pour la gestion des stocks sont appliquées : [NB : Enlever les produits périmés, ne pas laisser les denrées à même le sol, nettoyer le sol, éliminer les rongeurs] o Tout le temps o La plupart du temps o Assez souvent o Rarement o Jamais o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse 317 Selon vous qu’est ce qui empêche une mise en œuvre systématique de ces règles ? [NB : Ne donner pas les options]  Le nettoyage prend trop de temps  Le gestionnaire de vivres n’est pas bien formé  Il n'y a pas assez de magasiniers  Il faudrait une plus grand magasin  Non n'avons pas de produits pour éliminer les rongeurs  Le magasin est endommagé  Nous ne savons pas quand les produits sont périmés 156 Nº Question Réponse  Manque de courage, laisser-faire  Moi j’applique les règles, mais les autres non  Ne sait pas / pas de réponse  Autre, spécifier 4. Commentaires 401 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ? 402 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes, clarifications, commentaires). 157 Annex 7: Et4d Team Members for Midterm Evaluation Project Director and Evaluation Lead Isabelle McMahon, MBA & Measurement and Evaluation Master Ms. Isabelle McMahon is an international, multilingual development professional with more than 25 years of experience. She is an evaluation expert with vast experience in qualitative and mixed-methods design and analysis, applied research, and in promoting the use of evidence-based findings for organizational learning and project improvement. Additionally, Ms. McMahon is highly experienced with the planning, management, and monitoring of data-collection processes, the integration of technology where effective, as well quality-assurance procedures. Ms. McMahon has led three USDA McGovern￾Dole impact evaluations. She has also led six EGRA-focused World Bank evaluations and recently headed the evaluation of the USAID reading program in Mali (SIRA). She is a skilled strategic planner with a great ability to conceptualize, innovate, plan, and execute ideas and systems even under stressful conditions, all while meeting deadlines. She is an excellent communicator, expressing her ideas clearly and concisely in written, oral, and visual form. She has worked for USAID, the World Bank, and other international foundations, organizations, and donors. For Nascent, Ms. McMahon acted as Project Director and served as the main point of contact. She personally led the enumerator training for the survey tools, the data collection in the Francophone region, and the qualitative component. Senior Evaluation Expert and Education Lead Karla Giuliano Sarr, PhD Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr is fluent in French and has more than 10 years of experience conducting research and evaluation, technical assistance and capacity-building in international education. Dr. Sarr has worked on programs focusing on basic education, youth programming, multilingual education, education in crisis and conflict, community-school relationships, reading, girls' education, as well as training and curriculum development. Dr. Sarr has lived and worked in West Africa in addition to conducting applied research and evaluation projects in the region as an international consultant. Dr. Sarr currently serves as Team Leader for an independent evaluation of Nigeria’s progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 4 with UNICEF, as well as for a baseline evaluation for a FCDO-funded Girls’ Education Challenge program in Sierra Leone. She has led studies for four USAID early-grade reading programs in Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, and Senegal. She also served as the Principal Investigator for the endline evaluation of a French-funded program to end school-related gender-based violence in Cameroon, Senegal and Togo. In addition, Dr. Sarr has taught at both the middle school and graduate school levels, first as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Gabon and then full-time at the School for International Training Graduate Institute, where she continues to work as an adjunct professor. Dr. Sarr has an MA and EdD in Educational Policy and Leadership from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and a BS from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. For Nascent’s midterm evaluation, Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr, as Senior Evaluation and Education Specialist, advised the team in regard to instrument development and led the writing of the final evaluation report, working closely with all team members. Senior Nutrition and WASH Expert Noreen Mucha, MPA Ms. Noreen Mucha has more than 17 years of experience working in international development, primarily focusing on the public health sector yet also working in the agriculture and education sectors. 158 Her experience includes working with multiple donors, the United Nations, host country governments, international non-governmental organizations, think tanks, the U.S. military, research institutions, and universities. Her technical areas of expertise include nutrition (both specific and sensitive) to reduce stunting and acute malnutrition, infectious disease (including HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis), as well as programming for orphans and vulnerable children. Ms. Mucha has experience with both qualitative and quantitative research and evaluations, including performance evaluations, impact evaluations, and household surveys. Ms. Mucha served as the on-team nutrition expert to conduct a performance evaluation for the USG/USAID Feed the Future “Malawi Integrating Nutrition into Value Chains,” which included the development of data-collection tools, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions for women of reproductive-age smallholder farmers. Ms. Mucha is currently working for a USAID-funded project in Zambia to assist the national government (the Zambia National Food and Nutrition Commission) to develop its national nutrition common results framework. Ms. Mucha has worked with Et4d on several USDA-FFE evaluations and recently provided technical assistance to an NGO to develop the nutrition components for the MCGOVERN-DOLE FFE program design for Mozambique. For the Nascent program, as the Senior Nutrition and WASH expert, Ms. Mucha advised the team in regard to the instrument development and wrote the evaluation report sections related to hygiene and nutrition. Data Analysis Lead Michel Rousseau, PhD Professor Michel Rousseau, a native French speaker, has been a university professor since 2005. He teaches psychometrics, quantitative methods, and classroom assessment. Parallel to his academic work, he has also served as a consultant for international development projects in many countries, mainly in Africa (Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Morocco, and Zambia). In those projects, he has worked on the development of assessment tests for impact evaluation and conducted test equating and other statistical analyses. With Et4d, he performed the data analysis for the PEARL project in the South Pacific for the early-grade reading evaluations, Nascent’s endline and baseline evaluations in Cameroon, and the CRS FFE baseline and midterm evaluation in Benin. Additionally, he is the founder of GAUSS, a consultant company in Quebec that offers services in the fields of research and psychometrics. Dr. Rousseau guided the Et4d team on all issues related to sampling, and he conducted the quantitative analysis. EGRA Trainer, Quality Assurance and Survey Coordinator Lead Alice Michelazzi Ms. Alice Michelazzi is a fluent French speaker. She has led numerous data-collection projects using technology in several African countries with leading firms such as Et4d, Chemonics, Edintersect, School￾to-School International (STS), and Montrose. With STS, she led qualitative instrument design workshops and headed the qualitative data collection using focus groups. In Tanzania, she formed part of the baseline data collection for the first phase of the USDA FFE intervention in Mara Region, implemented by PCI (2014). She also carried out the midline evaluation (2015). For Et4d, Ms. Michelazzi performed three EGRA-enumerator training sessions for the PEARL project and coordinated the data collection in two countries. She was also the EGRA trainer for Nascent’s endline and baseline evaluation in Cameroon and for the CRS FFE baseline and midterm evaluation in Benin. Ms. Michelazzi worked with Ms. McMahon, Dr. Sarr, and the Nascent M&E team to develop or adapt the questionnaires and interview protocols. She also rendered the questionnaires for digital devices. As the lead trainer, she selected and trained the EGRA enumerators in Cameroon in collaboration with Ms. McMahon. As the survey coordinator, she also defined the quality-assurance protocols to be followed by the survey coordinator during data collection and supervised the data collection for EGRA, as well as the focus groups. 159 Survey Trainer and Field Coordinator Félicité Djoukouo Ms. Djoukouo is Et4d’s local partner in Cameroon. Ms. Djoukouo graduated with a master’s degree in Sociology, with a specialization in Population and Development from the University of Yaoundé in Cameroon. She has experience in various kinds of empirical work as well as in impact-evaluation surveys. For the Global Mapping of Organizations and Experts Working on Gender and Migration in Americas, Europe, Africa (MENA), and Asia and the Pacific, implemented by the Women in Migration Network, she successfully mapped organizations and experts in Africa and MENA. She has conducted various studies in Cameroon as a research assistant, including the study of out-of-school children in Cameroon assigned to the Institut de formation et de recherche démographiques and McDonald Limited of the University of Cambridge, financed by UNICEF. She also collaborated with the Nascent Solutions Yaoundé office, supervising the project mapping internally displaced persons from Southwest and North West regions of Cameroon to assist humanitarian actions financed by UNICEF and Plan International Cameroon. Ms. Djoukouo speaks at least five Cameroonian languages and is well-versed in techniques required for the management of enumerators for quality data collection. She also has working experience in all 10 regions of Cameroon. M. Djoukouo’s role for the project included the management of the enumerators, performing focus group discussions and key informant interviews with the Et4d team, providing quality control during data collection, and performing administrative and organizational tasks. 160 Annex 8: Statistical Weighting and Adjustment Factors Sampling weights In order to correct estimates for unequal probability of selection caused by clustering of the sample, we applied a two-step procedure for weighting the data. In the first step, base weights were computed for each dataset; and, in the second step, adjustment factors were applied to correct for non-participation of the selected subjects as well as selection within school. The probability of inclusion of each student in strata s = {comparison urban, comparison rural, program urban, program rural} is: π𝑠𝑠 = � 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 � ∗ � 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠� = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 Where - gl ab is the total enrollment of school i in strata s - 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠is the total enrollment of all schools in strata s - 𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠 is the total number of schools sampled in strata s - 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 is the number of students sampled per school in strata s Thus, the school weight (inverse probability of selection) for strata s is: 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 = 1 𝜋𝜋� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠 Adjustment factors The probability of inclusion of participant type k = {teacher, parent, student (Grades 4-6)} in the teacher, parent, student attentiveness and WASH surveys, respectively is: 𝜋𝜋𝑘𝑘 = 𝑠𝑠𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 Where - 𝑠𝑠𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 is the number of participant type k sampled in school i - 𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 is the total number of all participant type k in school i Thus, the adjustment factor (inverse probability of selection) for participant type k is: 𝐴𝐴𝑘𝑘 = 1 𝜋𝜋 � 𝑘𝑘 = 𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 Finally, for the EGRA reading assessment, the probability of selecting a non-repeating student of gender g = {male, female} from the 3rd grade of school i is: 161 𝜋𝜋𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 = 𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 Where - 𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 is the number of non-repeating students of gender g sampled from the 2nd grade of school i - 𝑀𝑀𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 is the total number of non-repeating students of gender g in school i Thus, the adjustment factor (inverse probability of selection) for EGRA reading scores are: 𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝜋𝜋 � 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 = 𝑀𝑀𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 Adjustment factors are multiplied by the respective school weight when weighting each observation. 162 Annex 9: Detailed Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Limitation/Challenge Mitigation Strategy Response bias: Many stakeholders participating in the evaluation have an interest in seeing the program succeed. Those most engaged with Nascent may be positively biased toward the programming, particularly if they are currently receiving financial support. Elicit explicit examples from evaluation participants, stressing confidentiality and the importance of objectivity to improving the program as a whole. Additionally, the evaluation team drew on multiple data sources, triangulating findings to answer EQs. Remote data collection, timeframe, and access: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the remote conduct of 14 interviews (through Skype, Google, Zoom, WhatsApp, or telephone, as appropriate) Stakeholder participation depended on availability and access to technology. Ensuring as much flexibility as possible within the process. The team utilized Zoom, an online platform easily accessible to all respondents, and shared clear instructions for navigating the platform with all participants in advance of the session. Phone calls were also made. Timing of the data collection: Data collection took place in March to avoid the rainy season and Ramadan fasting. This schedule contradicted the suggested timing of MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1 indicator, “by the end of two grades of primary schooling”(May/June). The March data collection may thus underestimate students’ literacy levels. Additionally, the seasonality of dietary diversity means that data collection here only represents that point in time, not the full year. Analysis and reporting take these constraints into account, as indicated in narrative below. Staff turnover during data collection: A Field Agent training to provide supervision in the field resigned from the project on the last day of training. Nascent’s M&E Officer took this individual’s place and assured continuity throughout the data collection process. 163 Limitation/Challenge Mitigation Strategy Limited qualitative sample: Purposive sampling means that results are not generalizable. In addition, the small size of the qualitative sample may not reflect a broad representation of viewpoints. The size of the sample is informed by resource constraints, including time. Timeframes and risk factors meant the evaluation team could not access hard-to-reach rural areas. This limitation is characteristic of a qualitative approach. Analysis accentuates that qualitative findings, while not strictly representative, may be transferable and connect to the experiences of others, thereby providing valuable insights applicable to other stakeholders. Moreover, Et4d made additional efforts at midterm to expand its sample, visiting four rather than three communities. Triangulation with other data sources and mixed-methods analysis further helps address limitations. Design does not allow measurement of impact at health facilities: Parents sample is focused at school-level, not necessarily target beneficiaries for health intervention (pregnant and breastfeeding mothers) Limitation is acknowledged within analysis Selection / Sampling bias for students and parents: Students present at school may represent those more committed to schooling, as well as students with more support at home, those who live closer to the school, and those who have less additional demands on their time. Girls also often carry more of a household burden, leading to the greater likelihood of their absence. In addition, parents responded to questions about dietary intake but may not have directly benefited from Nascent services within health centers. Et4d addressed this limitation by using post￾stratification weighting to correct for any underrepresentation. Analysis of students sampled pays close attention to gender and socioeconomic status to help address these concerns. Analysis of dietary diversity made note of these limitations and proposed suggestions for end line. 164 Limitation/Challenge Mitigation Strategy Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability (IRR) can be a concern when gathering data as a team of data collectors. The evaluation team paid special attention to IRR during training and frequent answers were precoded for questionnaires. Assessor Accuracy Measurement (AAM) was performed for EGRA. Enumerators scoring above 90% in the AAM exercise were retained for data collection. Recall bias: Dietary diversity is assessed based on participant responses relying on memory and accurate recall. The 24-hour dietary recall exercises may not truly represent their usual intake. The team provided guidance to enumerators during the training on how to help students remember what they ate and convert their food intake into food categories. Differences in school size between project and control schools: Project schools were larger in size (school enrollment) compared to comparison schools. Class sizes were also larger. When combined, these effects may mitigate each other as the first might underestimate Nascents’ performance and the second might overestimate it. The team triangulated data from multiple sources whenever possible. 165 Annex 10: Comprehensive EGRA Results EGRA scores by Reading category To get a better sense of students’ actual reading levels, we developed a scale that measures progress across five levels: non-reader, emerging pre-reader, beginning reader, intermediate reader, and fluent reader. As illustrated in Table 28, we calculated student scores for each level based on EGRA results for three subtasks: letter sound, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Table 28: Reading category definitions Level Category Definition EGRA Subtasks 1 Non-Reader The child does not read any letters. Letter Sound 2 Emerging Pre-Reader The child reads letters but no words. Letter Sound 3 Beginning Reader The child reads less than 20 words per minute. Oral Reading Fluency 4 Intermediate Reader The child reads more than 20 words per minute but does not meet the 60% reading comprehension threshold Oral Reading Fluency Reading Comprehension 5 Fluent Reader The child reaches 60% for reading comprehension. Reading Comprehension Next, we present the results from the midterm evaluation. Table 29: Reading category by school type Comparison Project Total Non-Reader 21.9% 18.2% 19.8% Emerging Pre-reader 65.6% 67.0% 66.4% Novice reader 10.4% 12.4% 11.6% Intermediate reader 2.0% 2.4% 2.3% Fluent Comprehending reader 0.01% 0% 0.001% The difference between groups is not statistically significant (p=0.363) 166 Table 30: Reading category by gender Boys Girls Non-Reader 19.7% 19.9% Emerging Pre-reader 66.2% 66.6% Novice reader 11.7% 11.4% Intermediate reader 2.4% 2.1% Fluent Comprehending reader 0.01% 0% The difference between genders is not statistically significant (p=0.831) Table 31: Reading category by region Adamaoua East Region North Region Non-Reader 16.9% 34.9% 15.8% Emerging Pre-reader 76.9% 62.9% 64.2% Novice reader 5.3% 2.1% 16.6% Intermediate reader 0.8% 0.1% 3.4% Fluent Comprehending reader 0% 0% 0.01% The difference between regions is statistically significant (p=0.002) 167 Table 32: Reading category by zone Rural Urban Non-Reader 20.8% 16.6% Emerging Pre-reader 66.4% 66.4% Novice reader 10.7% 14.4% Intermediate reader 2.1% 2.7% Fluent Comprehending reader 0.01% 0% The difference between zones is not statistically significant (p=0.241) Literacy Index Apart from tracking reading performance using the MCGOVERN-DOLE Strategic indicators and reading categories, a literacy achievement index provides an aggregate score that measures children’s cumulative reading performance. In the literacy index below, each level is assigned points based on a scale ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the fluent reader (60% correct in Reading Comprehension) and 0 representing the non-reader. Et4d suggests this index may be used by Nascent in parallel with its preexisting SO1 indicator. Table 33: Literacy achievement index point scale Level Category Points 1 Non-Reader 0 2 Emerging Pre-Reader 25 3 Beginning Reader 50 4 Intermediate Reader 75 5 Fluent Comprehending Reader 100 To determine the literacy achievement index of a given sample, each student’s score is calculated according to the highest reading level they achieved in any subtask, and then a weighted average is computed for the entire sample. For instance, if a child could not read any letters and were in the non￾reader category, he or she would receive a score of zero. Conversely, if a student met the reading comprehension benchmark of 60%, the score value would be 100. The literacy index for the midterm sample has been calculated below by school type, gender, region and zone. 168 Table 34: Average literacy index score by school type, gender, region, and zone Average 95% CI p-value School type Comparison 23.17 20.95-25.40 0.365 Project 24.76 22.12-27.40 Gender Boy 24.20 22.34-26.06 0.766 Girl 23.95 21.91-26.00 Region Adamaoua 22.51 19.63-25.39 0.010 East Region 16.84 13.68-20.01 North Region 26.96 25.15-28.76 Zone Rural 23.55 21.49-25.62 0.252 Urban 25.79 22.54-29.04 Overall 24.09 22.32-25.86 Results by subtask This next section presents midterm results by EGRA subtask. Table 35: Average scores for each subtask with 95% confidence interval Average 95% CI Listening comprehension – Percent correct 22.56 18.12-26.98 Initial sound – Percent correct 22.30 19.22-25.38 Correct letter name per minute 8.57 7.34-9.80 Correct familiar words per minute 1.64 1.26-2.01 Correct non-words per minute 0.79 0.53-1.04 Oral reading fluency 1.33 0.88-1.78 Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.31 0.13-0.48 169 Table 36: Average scores for each subtask by school type Comparison Project p-value Listening comprehension – Percent correct 20.67 23.94 0.468 Initial sound – Percent correct 19.81 24.13 0.186 Correct letter name per minute 7.97 9.02 0.421 Correct familiar words per minute 1.35 1.84 0.192 Correct non-words per minute 0.75 0.82 0.715 Oral reading fluency 1.40 1.28 0.788 Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.21 0.38 0.310 Table 37: Average score for each subtask by gender Boy Girl p-value Listening comprehension – Percent correct 21.79 23.47 0.365 Initial sound – Percent correct 23.03 21.43 0.474 Correct letter name per minute 8.55 8.60 0.978 Correct familiar words per minute 1.65 1.62 0.772 Correct non-words per minute 0.82 0.74 0.440 Oral reading fluency 1.33 1.32 0.958 Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.39 0.21 0.143 170 Table 38: Average Score for each subtask by region Adamaoua East North p-value Listening comprehension – Percent correct 30.33 46.67 12.10 0.045 Initial sound – Percent correct 23.56 14.81 24.38 0.113 Correct letter name per minute 8.49 3.52 10.27 0.002 Correct familiar words per minute 1.18 0.26 2.24 0.015 Correct non-words per minute 0.39 0.11 1.13 0.005 Oral reading fluency 0.41 0.08 2.03 <0.000 Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.25 0.02 0.42 0296 Table 39: Average score for each subtask by zone Rural Urban p-value Listening comprehension – Percent correct 20.54 29.01 0.148 Initial sound – Percent correct 20.76 27.23 0.045 Correct letter name per minute 8.29 9.49 0.382 Correct familiar words per minute 1.58 1.82 0.606 Correct non-words per minute 0.74 0.94 0.681 Oral reading fluency 1.28 1.49 0.695 Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.30 0.33 0.916 171 Annex 11: Terms of Reference (TOR) Terms of Reference Midterm Evaluation of a 5-year McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Project in Cameroon Implementer: Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent) Funder: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Location: Adamawa, East, and North regions of Cameroon Duration: Around January-July 2021. A mix of home-based and field-based work required. Purpose of this ToR: To solicit bids for a midterm evaluation for Nascent’s McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Project in Cameroon. This will continue a quasi-experimental evaluation setup at baseline by an external evaluation firm. Project Description This is a five-year project funded under USDA’s McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Implemented by Nascent, the project is designed to improve the literacy of school-age children through improved literacy instruction, student attentiveness, and student attendance. Secondarily, the project intends to increase the use of positive health and dietary practices. The project runs from October 2018 to September 2023. While the primary objective is improving literacy, the staple activity is the provision of a daily lunch using food commodities provided by USDA. Nascent seeks to improve: • Quality of literacy instruction, through more consistent teacher attendance, provision of better teaching and materials, and training of teachers and administrators; • Student attentiveness, through the daily lunch program and extracurricular activities; • Student attendance, through school infrastructure improvements, enrollment outreaches, an increased community understanding of education benefits, and reducing health related absences; • Use of positive health and dietary practices, through increased knowledge of hygiene, safe food preparation, and nutrition, as well as increased access to clean water and sanitation and preventative health interventions; 172 • Education systems, through enhancing the capacity of government and civil society, as well as improving local education- and nutrition-related policies. The project benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, family members, teachers, administrators, civil servants, parent-teacher association members, and others associated with 240 primary schools in Cameroon. The 240 schools have more than 90,000 enrolled students and more than 1,000 teachers. Approximately 62% of the schools are in three French-speaking regions of Cameroon, with the remainder in one English-speaking region. Due to ongoing socio-political unrest in the English-speaking North West region and subsequent indefinite closure of schools, this midterm evaluation will focus only on the French￾speaking Adamawa, East, and North regions, which contain 148 project schools. Partners include the Ministry of Basic Education, Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Water and Energy, Ministry of Social Affairs, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (AgReach program). Purpose and Use The midterm evaluation will inform Nascent, USDA, and implementation partners of the project’s impact and progress. We will use its content to 1) assess progress in project implementation; 2) provide a signal of the effectiveness of interventions; 3) reassess our theory of change; 4) make mid-course corrections; 5) document lessons learned; and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths to stakeholders. This will continue a quasi-experimental evaluation setup at baseline by an external evaluation firm. Research Questions Nascent is primarily interested in understanding Nascent’s impact on the project’s Key Questions. Which changes are attributable to the project? What is the magnitude of those changes? Key Questions MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text? MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for 50%+ of classroom time? MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off￾task”? MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools? MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands? MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity? 173 MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences Several of these Key Questions require disaggregation by sex and/or age. Additionally, evaluators will address two additional KAP questions via surveys: 1. What are the nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practices of women of reproductive age (15-49 years)? 2. What are the students’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in terms of hygiene? Figures for student enrollment and teacher attendance will be reached via secondary data analysis. In addition to the impact questions above, the midterm evaluation will also investigate effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, and sustainability: Question Suggested Methodology, pending evaluator advice For a sample of approximately 10 randomly selected indicators, what level of progress has been made against the baseline and against targets? Conduct a desk review of baseline report, target figures, and semi-annual reports as of Sept 2020. Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Is implementation consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and national levels? Is the project causing any unintended effects? 1. Conduct key informant interviews and semi-structured focus group discussions among teachers, school administrators, parents, trainers from local teacher training colleges, and education and school feeding officials in local and national government. 2. Conduct key informant interviews among Nascent staff and partners. Which outputs were obtained most cost￾efficiently? Which were obtained least cost-efficiently? Should the project allocate resources differently in the future? Conduct key informant interviews among Nascent staff. Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed? Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes? How is the local community engaged and or contributing to sustain project activities, especially school feeding? Conduct key informant interviews and semi-structured focus group discussions among teachers, school administrators, parents, trainers from local teacher training colleges, and education and school feeding officials in local and national government. Employ typical case sampling and critical case sampling. Did the support provided by Nascent during the COVID-19 pandemic address the needs of beneficiaries? 1. Conduct key informant interviews and semi-structured focus group discussions among teachers, school administrators, PTA members, 174 Question Suggested Methodology, pending evaluator advice trainers from local teacher training colleges, and education and school feeding officials in local and national government. 2. Conduct key informant interviews among Nascent staff and partners. Study Design The evaluators will continue to use a quasi-experimental impact study design setup during the baseline survey, preferably using school-level propensity score matching, principal component analysis, and/or a difference-in-differences analysis method, as appropriate. The evaluators will mimic the cluster sampling strategy and size of the baseline survey (see “How to Apply” section below), with schools as the primary sampling unit, and students/classrooms/parents as the secondary sampling unit, depending on the key indicator. Stratification must occur at the regional level. The midterm evaluation will utilize data collection tools in the same manner as the baseline survey. Qualitative data will be collected at project schools only, in a continuation of data collection initiated at baseline. Qualitative sampling will be purposive, seeking a broad representation of viewpoints. Data will be collected using focus groups and/or key informant interviews targeting local stakeholders such as parents, head teachers, teachers, older students, and education and other government officers. Tools MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1 – Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) is a collection of highly valid literacy assessments developed by RTI in 2006 with financial support from USAID and the World Bank. EGRA is a comprehensive measure of literacy, with tools spanning phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, all of which are considered to be essential components of effective reading instruction.110 The evaluator will collect data through Android tablets. MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1 and 1.2 – Stallings Observation System The Stallings Observation System (Stallings) provides a quantitative measure of key classroom variables influencing the efficacy of teaching and learning, including use of instructional time, use of materials, core pedagogical practices, and student engagement.111 Stallings includes a classroom observation composed of a series of ten 15-second snapshots spread evenly throughout a class period. During each 110 Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit: Second Edition, RTI International, Mar 2016. 111 Conducting classroom observations: analyzing classrooms dynamics and instructional time - using the Stallings 'classroom snapshot' observation system: user guide. World Bank Group, 2015. 175 snapshot, the teacher and pupils are placed on a matrix indicating the activities in which they are engaged, and any materials being used. Stallings assessments will be collected through Android tablets. MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2 – Handwashing observations and dietary diversity surveys UNICEF’s WASH in Schools Monitoring Package includes a hygiene survey module - a set of questions, observations and focus group discussion guidelines for use in national WASH in Schools surveys.112 The module also includes questions on water sources and sanitation facilities. The Feed the Future (FtF) indicator handbook provides guidance on measuring minimum dietary diversity for women of reproductive age (MDD-W).113 A woman of reproductive age is considered to consume a diet of minimum diversity if she consumed at least 5 of 10 specific food groups during the previous day and night. Estimated timeline Item Started Completed Design January 2021 March 2021 Logistical arrangements February 2021 April 2021 Training on tools April 2021 April 2021 Data collection April 2021 May 2021 Data cleaning May 2021 June 2021 Data analysis and visualization May 2021 June 2021 Report writing June 2021 July 2021 Reviews of drafts by Nascent July 2021 August 2021 Submit report to USDA August 2021 August 2021 Deliverables Deliverable Deadline (negotiable) Evaluation work plan / inception report, explaining how evaluators will operationalize the evaluation in question (design, methodology, ethics plan, quality assurance plan, training agendas, etc.), to be submitted after a desk review and consultations with Nascent. This inception report will include the survey tools, focus group discussion protocols and/or key informant interview questions. March 2021 Report: A concise written narrative. August 2021 112 UNICEF WASH in Schools Monitoring Package, April 2011. 113 Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, updated Sept 2019. 176 Stand-alone 3-page briefing on the evaluation in question. This is viewed as a polished and widely accessible executive summary. It will allow Nascent and USDA to easily disseminate content. This should be in English and French. August 2021 Presentation: Maximum of 30 PowerPoint slides highlighting key themes of the report. No oral presentation required; slide deck only. August 2021 Outline for Reports 1. Cover Page 2. Table of Contents 3. List of Acronyms 4. Executive summary including the background, key findings, conclusions and recommendations 5. Introduction and objectives of the evaluation 6. Research design including key indicators 7. Methodology including data sources, data limitations, and timeline of evaluation implementation 8. Study findings 9. Conclusion based on the findings 10. Limitations includes any constraints of the evaluation 11. Recommendations based on the conclusions 12. References 13. Annexes (list of data sources including interviews, data collection tools etc.) Existing Data and Performance Information Nascent will make the following available to the evaluators: • Baseline survey report and datasets • Evaluation Plan • Performance Monitoring Plan • Results Framework • Work plans • Semi-annual reports 177 Profile of Evaluation Team Evaluators are welcome to assemble a team as they see fit (not including field level data collectors, who will be recruited separately). Their skills should be complementary, with one identified as the Team Lead, who will bear responsibility for all work products and processes. Firms and groups of independent consultants are welcome to apply. Combined, the team should have the following skills and attributes: • Demonstrated experience leading complex impact evaluations. • Demonstrated expertise in study design and sampling. • Demonstrated experience in the development of quantitative data collection tools and managing field data collection (including mobile). • Demonstrated experience in using qualitative methods such as focus group discussions and key informant interviews. • Demonstrated experience in data management and analysis using statistical software, including analyzing complex (multi-stage cluster samples) surveys. • Demonstrated experience using propensity score matching, principal component analysis, and difference-in-differences analysis techniques. • Demonstrated experience in concise, illuminating report writing, including data visualization. • Demonstrated experience in training and managing field data collectors and complex logistics. • Subject matter expertise in literacy and education. • Subject matter expertise in maternal nutrition, child nutrition, and hygiene. • Strong teamwork ability across cultures and time zones. • Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate with a variety of stakeholders, ranging from young students to government officials. • Experience with EGRA. • Experience with the Stallings Classroom Observation system. • Experience with dietary diversity surveys. • Experience with USDA McGovern-Dole projects. • Experience in Cameroon. If other criteria are met, preference is given to Cameroon-based teams. • High proficiency in written and verbal French and English. How to Apply 178 Interested evaluators should apply by submitting the following documents in a single PDF no later than 16 October 2020. Submissions must be made via e-mail to admin@nascents.org with the subject line “Cameroon midterm evaluation bid”. 1. Organizational/team capacity statement outlining relevant evaluation experience and ability to perform the evaluation with methodological rigor. This should be a maximum of 5 pages. 2. CV of each proposed evaluator with his/her role clearly identified. Please limit CVs to no more than 4 pages per person. 3. Financial proposal that includes (in US dollars only): 1. Daily fee and days required for each team member 2. Estimated expenses attributable to each team member (as noted below, several expenses are paid for directly by Nascent. Do not include them in this financial proposal). This might include, for example, airfare for team members travelling to Cameroon. These parameters may be useful when constructing your financial proposal: • The baseline reached 61 intervention schools and 60 comparison schools. 71 of those 121 schools were in the North, 28 in Adamawa, and 22 in the East region. • See below the sample sizes achieved during the baseline. r Total sample (intervention + comparison) MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text? 1,880 grade 2 students MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for 50%+ of classroom time? 290 grade 1-3 classrooms MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off-task”? 290 grade 1-3 classrooms MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools? 121 schools (grade 1-6) MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands? 720 students MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity? 1,230 women MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences 290 grade 1-3 classrooms; 53 focus 179 r Total sample (intervention + comparison) group participants (parents and teachers) • The baseline conducted 25 key informant interviews of government staff, Nascent staff, and other stakeholders. • Nascent requires the sampling strategy to allow for comparisons between male and female students, as well as two age categories for some Key Questions. • Data collection will occur in French and perhaps some local languages when necessary. Deliverables are in English, with the exception of a 3-page briefing, which should be in English and French. • Nascent will arrange and directly pay for the items below. These should not be included in the proposed budget. o Ground transport during evaluation activities o Accommodation during evaluation activities o Per diem for meals and incidentals o Printing, copying, and routine office supplies o Internet and other communications during evaluation activities o Field-level data collectors/enumerators and supervisors (to be discussed further with evaluators) o Venues and food at trainings/meetings o Nascent possesses 30 Android tablets which can be used for data collection (and mostly eliminate the need for data entry) o Mobile data collection subscriptions 180 Annex 12: Additional figures Figure 19: Availability of a handwashing stations at school (%) Figure 20: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times 91% 92% 12% 65% 6% 6% 8% 3% 2% 88% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Project - Baseline Comparison - Baseline Project - Midterm Comparison - Midterm No Hygiene Service Limited Hygiene Service Basic Hygiene Service 95% 13% 52% 31% 95% 7% 37% 20% 87% 10% 51% 23% 85% 5% 21% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Before Eating Before Preparing a Meal After Defecation After Playing Project Student Baseline Project Student Midline Project Parents Baseline Project Parent Midlne