DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING
WFP EVALUATION
Agreement #FFE-696-2015/007-00
WFP Rwanda
November 23, 2021
WFP's USDA McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program's Support in Rwanda 2016-2021
Endline Decentralized Evaluation 
Key personnel for the evaluation
WFP Rwanda
Evaluation Manager Sarah Cruz
PREPARED BY
Bruce Ravesloot, Team Leader
Jeanne Downen, Senior Evaluator
Justin Tuyiringire, National Evaluator 
Daria Muteteri, National Evaluator 
Juventine Mujawase, National Evaluator 
Christine Kayiraba, National Evaluator
Monica Mueller, Research Analyst/ Quality Assurance Manager
Lloyd Banwart, Data Analyst
Jeremie Kaelin, Research Associate
Acknowledgements
The Evaluation Team would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance received from the colleagues at the 
World Food Programme in Rwanda and thank them for their time, inputs and flexibility to complete the 
evaluation in complex and challenging circumstances. 
At WFP Rwanda we thank Sarah Cruz, Head of M&E, for her support and dedication as evaluation manager, 
and Amy Blauman, Programme Policy Officer for the Home Grown School Feeding Programme, who served 
as focal point from inception through the fieldwork and reporting phases. We further thank Edith Heines, 
Representative and Country Director, and all the management staff who gave valuable time and feedback. 
All extended their support and hospitality to the team and assisted us with our many requests. In addition, 
we extend our appreciation to the Government of Rwanda officials, United Nations partners, WFP 
cooperating partners and the donors, who all provided valuable input. The team at World Vision Rwanda 
were generous with their time and expertise, contributing to the development of the literacy assessment tool, 
training the field team on its application, and adding insight to assessment results. Finally, we thank the 
communities and households who shared their views and experiences with us. It is our sincere hope that the 
people with whom WFP and the Government work will benefit from this evaluation and experience positive 
gains in their lives as a result of implementing its recommendations.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the evaluation team, and do not necessarily reflect those 
of the World Food Programme or USDA. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely 
with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP or USDA of the opinions 
expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do not imply the expression 
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP or USDA concerning the legal or constitutional status of any 
country, territory, or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers.
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was 
prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication 
do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States 
Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Evaluation features ............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Context................................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Subject being evaluated.............................................................................................................................7
1.4 Evaluation methodology, limitations, and ethical considerations .............................................................13
2. Evaluation Findings.................................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Relevance ..........................................................................................................................................................17
2.2 Effectiveness .....................................................................................................................................................22
2.3 Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................................................36
2.4 Impact and sustainability ................................................................................................................................37
2.5 Factors affecting the results ...........................................................................................................................39
3. Conclusions and recommendations......................................................................................................... 45
3.1 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................45
3.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................50
Annex 1: Stakeholder Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 57
Annex 2: Evaluation Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 59
Annex 3: Government Policies and Priorities Related to Food Security, Social Protection and 
Education ........................................................................................................................................................62
Annex 4: Map ..................................................................................................................................................64
Annex 5: Results Framework ........................................................................................................................ 66
Annex 6: Outcome and Outputs Tables....................................................................................................... 70
Annex 7: Terms of Reference........................................................................................................................ 97
Annex 8: Data Collection Tools ................................................................................................................... 119
Annex 9: Evaluation Matrix......................................................................................................................... 124
Annex 10: Methodology............................................................................................................................... 134
Annex 11: List of People Interviewed......................................................................................................... 145
Annex 12: Field Schedule............................................................................................................................. 147
Annex 13: Supplementary Tables: EGRA Survey Results ......................................................................... 148
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................153
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................156
List of Figures
Figure 1: 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 ..........................................................................23
Figure 2: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA- supported classroom/ school.......................28
Figure 3: McGovern-Dole Programme coverage in Rwanda...................................................................................65
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentage of food insecure households, by district, 2015 and 2018..................................................... 2
Table 2: Attendance pre- and post- COVID-19 school closures............................................................................... 7
Table 3: McGovern-Dole Programme overview ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Commodity distributions, expected v. actual ...........................................................................................12
Table 5: OECD-DAC criteria and evaluation questions...........................................................................................13
Table 6: Key evaluation questions ............................................................................................................................14
Table 7: Reading performance for third-grade students at endline.....................................................................23
Table 8: Reading comprehension, third grade (all students to read and/or listen)............................................24
Table 9: Student health and hygiene knowledge, baseline, midterm and endline.............................................31
Table 10: Midterm evaluation recommendations1 and actions............................................................................39
Table 11: Stakeholder analysis and mapping..........................................................................................................57
Table 12: Timeline of tasks and deliverables, by phase .........................................................................................59
Table 13: Government policies and priorities related to food security, social protection and education.......62
Table 14: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (cumulative figures).70
Table 15: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions (cumulative figures)
.......................................................................................................................................................................................70
Table 16: Percent 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 (cumulative figures)................................................70
Table 17: Number of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures) ............................................................71
Table 18: Number of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90 percent of 
scheduled school days per school year (cumulative figures) ................................................................................71
Table 19: Number of teachers receiving awards (annual figures) ........................................................................72
Table 20: Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA 
assistance (cumulative figures) .................................................................................................................................72
Table 21: Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials (literacy starter kits) provided as 
a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)...........................................................................................................72
Table 22: Number of students benefiting from literacy starter kits provided as a result of USDA assistance 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................73
Table 23: Number of target schools with supplemental reading materials available to students as result of 
USDA assistance (cumulative figures) ......................................................................................................................73
Table 24: Number of teaching and reading materials procured as a result of USDA assistance to be used in 
schools (annual figures) .............................................................................................................................................73
Table 25: Number of books distributed in communities to establish school and community libraries (annual 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................73
Table 26: Number of community-generated reading materials (annual figures) ...............................................74
Table 27: Number of students benefiting from libraries and new reading materials provided as a result of 
USDA assistance (annual figures) .............................................................................................................................74
Table 28: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers (cumulative figures)........................................................74
Table 29: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new 
and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures) ...............................75
Table 30: Increased skills and knowledge of school administrators (cumulative figures).................................75
Table 31: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques and tools as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures).................................................................76
Table 32: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result 
of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)..................................................................................................................76
Table 33: Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of 
USDA assistance (cumulative figures) ......................................................................................................................77
Table 34: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result 
of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)..................................................................................................................77
Table 35: Number of daily school meals provided to school age children as a result USDA assistance (annual 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................77
Table 36: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals as a result of USDA assistance 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................78
Table 37: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance (annual figures) ......................78
Table 38: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA funded interventions (annual figures) ........78
Table 39: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA funded interventions (annual figures) .....79
Table 40: Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of 
USDA assistance (annual figures) .............................................................................................................................79
Table 41: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools (annual 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................80
Table 42: Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (male) (annual figures)........80
Table 43: Number of public-partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (other) (annual figures)....80
Table 44: Number of smallholder farmers benefiting from partnerships with schools (annual figures) ........80
Table 45: Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance (private) 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................81
Table 46: Number of school gardens established and maintained (annual figures)..........................................81
Table 47: Number of students benefiting from the establishment and maintenance of school gardens 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................81
Table 48: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classroom/school (annual figures)
.......................................................................................................................................................................................82
Table 49: Percent of students who miss more than 10 school days per year due to illness (cumulative 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................82
Table 50: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils) (cumulative figures) ........................................82
Table 51: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as result of USDA assistance (latrines) (cumulative figures) ....................................82
Table 52: Number of fuel-efficient stoves provided and rehabilitated (annual figures)....................................83
Table 53: Number of individuals directly benefiting from the provision and rehabilitation of fuel-efficient 
stoves (annual figures) ...............................................................................................................................................83
Table 54: Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance (cumulative figures).................84
Table 55: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education (cumulative figures)..................................................................................................................................84
Table 56: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education (annual figures).........................................................................................................................................84
Table 57: Number of parents trained on the importance of literacy (annual figures) .......................................85
Table 58: Number of reading clubs established as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)....................85
Table 59: Number of student writing competitions facilitated as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
.......................................................................................................................................................................................85
Table 60: Number of students benefiting from the development of reading clubs (annual figures) ..............86
Table 61: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades primary schooling, demonstrate that they can 
read and understand the meaning of grade level text (annual figures) ..............................................................86
Table 62: Number of SGACs or similar school governance structures supported as a result of USDA 
assistance (annual figures) ........................................................................................................................................86
Table 63: Number of parents trained as part of SGACs (annual figures).............................................................86
Table 64: Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices (cumulative 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................87
Table 65: Number of students reached with health and hygiene messages as a result of USDA assistance 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................87
Table 66: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (annual 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................87
Table 67: Percent of cooks and storekeepers who can identify at least three safe food preparation and 
storage practices (cumulative figures) .....................................................................................................................88
Table 68: Number of cooks and storekeepers trained on food preparation and storage practices (annual 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................88
Table 69: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 
(cumulative figures) ....................................................................................................................................................89
Table 70: Number of schools using an improved water source and sanitation facilities (cumulative figures)89
Table 71: Number of students benefiting from newly constructed/rehabilitated latrines (annual figures)....89
Table 72: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities (annual figures) ................................................89
Table 73: Number of rainwater catchment systems constructed and/or enhanced (annual figures) .............90
Table 74: Number of students benefiting from newly constructed and/or enhanced rainwater catchment 
systems (annual figures) ............................................................................................................................................90
Table 75: Number of schools using an improved water sources (annual figures) .............................................90
Table 76: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) (cumulative figures) .................................91
Table 77: Number of students receiving deworming medications (annual figures) ..........................................91
Table 78: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils) (cumulative figures) ........................................91
Table 79: Number of educational facilities (i.e school buildings, classrooms and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (kitchens, cook areas) (annual figures) ..................92
Table 80: Number of educational facilities (i.e school buildings, classrooms and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (other school grounds or school buildings, i.e. 
storeroom) (annual figures).......................................................................................................................................92
Table 81: Number of students benefiting from kitchens, cook areas and storerooms built or rehabilitated 
(annual figures) ...........................................................................................................................................................92
Table 82: Number of government staff trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative 
figures) .........................................................................................................................................................................93
Table 83: Number of government staff trained at national level (annual figures) .............................................93
Table 84: Number of government staff trained at district level (annual figures)................................................93
Table 85: Improved policy and regulatory framework (cumulative figures)........................................................94
Table 86: Number of HGSF Steering Committee and Technical Committee meetings held (annual figures) .94
Table 87: Number of government financing strategies developed (annual figures)..........................................94
Table 88: Number of government monitoring and evaluation systems established (annual figures).............94
Table 89: Number of district and national-level Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) and Ministry of Agriculture 
(MINAGRI) staff supported by new HGSF policies (annual figures)......................................................................95
Table 90: Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations or administrative procedures in the 
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (stage 5) (annual figures).............................95
Table 91: Number of educational policies regulation, or administrative procedures in the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA assistance (stage 5) (annual figures) ..............................................................95
Table 92: Increased government support (annual figures) ...................................................................................95
Table 93: Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups (cumulative figures)...........96
Table 94: Anticipated methodological limitations and mitigation strategies; comments post-evaluation....139
Table 95: Ethical issues and safeguards implemented ........................................................................................143
Table 96: Key informant interviews conducted.....................................................................................................145
Table 97: Focus group discussions conducted......................................................................................................145
Table 98: Field schedule...........................................................................................................................................147
Table 99: Percent 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.................................................................................148
Table 100: Reading, listening and comprehension of short story, midterm and endline................................148
Table 101: Percent of third grade students in words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) range, midterm and 
endline........................................................................................................................................................................148
Table 102: Reading and comprehension at endline, by district, midterm and endline ...................................148
Table 103: Students' home support and time allocation, midterm and endline ..............................................149
Table 104: Percentage of students in classroom identified as attentive by their teachers .............................149
Table 105: Student attentiveness, by grade; baseline, midterm, and endline ..................................................149
Table 106: School administrator use and application of teaching techniques, midterm and endline...........149
Table 107: Sources of food for school meals, midterm and endline..................................................................150
Table 108: Parents' knowledge of education benefit and storekeepers' knowledge of good practices; 
baseline, midterm and endline ...............................................................................................................................150
Table 109: School SGAC engagement, midterm and endline..............................................................................150
Table 110: Health and hygiene practices at endline, by district, midterm and endline ...................................151
Table 111: Health and hygiene practice utilization/application, midterm and endline ...................................151
Table 112: School water source and availability, midterm and endline.............................................................151
Table 113: External support to schools, midterm and endline ...........................................................................152
Date | Report Number i
Executive Summary 
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the final evaluation report of the World Food Programme’s (WFP) United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (“McGovern-Dole”) 
Programme’s Support in Rwanda (2016-2021).1, 2 This activity evaluation covers Phase I of the programme 
from January 2016 to March 2021 and all targeted districts. The evaluation was commissioned by WFP 
Rwanda. 
PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, INTENDED AUDIENCE, AND CONTEXT
2. The evaluation’s objectives are accountability and learning. It examines the project’s impact and identifies
lessons for future programming, including the baseline evaluation and design of Phase II (2021-2025). The 
key evaluation questions are: 
1) Have literacy rates of school-age children improved over the duration of the programme?
2) Has the use of health and dietary practices increased?
3) What is the level of community involvement and participation in decision-making in school 
governance mechanisms? and
4) What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively deliver, implement, 
and sustain school meal interventions? 
3. The evaluation applies OECD-DAC assessment criteria and reports history and end-of-project status of 
USDA-required indicators. 
4. The primary users of the evaluation are WFP Rwanda and its partners, World Vision, Gardens for Health 
International, and Rwanda Biomedical Centre, to understand programme performance and obtain insights 
to inform future design; the Rwanda Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), Ministry of Agriculture and Animal 
Resources (MINAGRI), and district governments, to understand programme performance and alignment 
with government priorities; USDA, to assess programme performance, findings and lessons to inform other 
McGovern-Dole programmes; and WFP Regional Bureau Nairobi, WFP headquarters, WFP Office of 
Evaluation, and the WFP Executive Board, for wider organizational learning and accountability.
5. Rwanda is a small, densely populated country with a growing economy (though COVID-19 generated some 
economic setbacks) and a vision to become an upper-income country by 2050. It has made significant gains 
in reducing poverty but continues to experience high levels of food insecurity, malnourishment, and 
stunting, especially in rural areas. Nearly all children are enrolled in primary school; girls have a slightly 
higher enrolment rate than boys (98.0 percent and 97.3 percent, respectively) 3 and also a higher primary 
completion rate (101.8 percent and 89.0, respectively). 4 The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in school 
closures in March 2020; schools re-opened in November 2020 for grades 4-6, and in mid-late February 
2021 for all grades. 
EVALUATION SUBJECT
6. WFP implemented Phase I (2015-2021) of the McGovern-Dole Programme with the original aims of 
supporting the Government to develop a national school feeding programme and to build government 
1 The program in Rwanda is hereafter referred to as the “McGovern-Dole Programme.” 2 The terms of reference refer to the McGovern-Dole grant as the WFP Rwanda HGSF. The two terms are used 
interchangeably and in context, as there are cases where we mean to highlight the home-grown school feeding aspect. 3 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2018. Education Sector Strategic Plan, 2018/19-2023/24. 4 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 2020. Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2020. Secondary completion rates not reported.
Date | Report Number ii
capacity for a handover of activities by 2020. The Government officially named WFP as its main partner in 
school feeding in 2019. The focus of the Phase I programme, designed in 2015, has shifted from a 
handover of the programme to building the capacity of Phase I schools to serve as model schools for the 
national programme, and then to transition those schools into the national school feeding programme in 
2023/24.5
 This change followed the Government’s approval and funding of a national school feeding 
programme to begin in 2021. At present, the Government does not have the budgetary resources to adopt 
all aspects of the McGovern-Dole model nationally. The longer transition time will allow the Government to 
identify additional funding sources and more cost-efficient measures to support the national programme. 
7. The McGovern Dole strategic objectives are (1) improved literacy of school-aged children and (2) increased 
use of health and dietary practices. The programme focuses on school feeding and education; water, 
sanitation and hygiene; health and nutrition; and capacity strengthening. It provides hot meals to primary 
school students, meeting a significant portion of a child’s daily nutritional requirements while providing an 
incentive to attend school. It supports an improved education environment, providing kitchen and 
sanitation infrastructure, training of school staff, literacy clubs, training on school gardens and nutrition, 
engagement of parents in education, strengthening the capacity of agricultural cooperatives to supply meal 
ingredients, modeling of low-cost meals from local foods, and delivering technical assistance to the 
Government on school feeding policies, strategies, and guidelines for a national programme.
8. The McGovern-Dole Programme targets 108 schools in four districts with some of the highest rates of 
poverty, food insecurity, and stunting in the country: Karongi, Rutsiro, Nyaruguru, and Nyamagabe.6 It is 
implemented by WFP in partnership with MINAGRI, MINEDUC, World Vision, Gardens for Health 
International, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, and district governments. Its implementation period (including 
three no-cost extensions) is October 1, 2015 – November 30, 2021. McGovern Dole funded the programme 
at $25 million with additional funding from the MasterCard, FEED and Caterpillar Foundations.
METHODOLOGY
9. The evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, using secondary and primary data to assess
performance against targets, and analyzing the factors that affected performance, including the impact of 
COVID-19. Methods included a desk review; school survey and Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) in 
104 schools, semi-structured interviews with key informants and focus groups, observation of programme 
activities, and triangulation of data from WFP and partners. National and subnational lines of inquiry 
focused on programme alignment with government strategies and policies, transition planning, and 
strengthening government capacities for the national school feeding programme launching in 2021. 
School-level data collection focused on assessing achievements against targets and the quality and impact 
of activities. The main methodological limitation was that some of data from the EGRA baseline (conducted 
in June 2016) had limited comparability to the data from the midterm (conducted September-October 2018) 
and endline, owing to the presence of non-response data in the reading comprehension questions at 
baseline; the report thus primarily compares midterm and endline results. 
KEY FINDINGS: RELEVANCE
10. The McGovern-Dole Programme is highly relevant to the needs and goals of schools in some of Rwanda’s 
poorest areas. It supports improved learning outcomes and infrastructure and complementary activities to 
achieve those outcomes. The programme aligns with government strategies and priorities in education, 
food and nutrition, and school health; with WFP corporate objectives; and with United Nations Sustainable 
Development Goal (SDG) 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for Goals).
5 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda. Plan of Operations and Activities. 6 After the data collection phase, the program received a no-cost extension through September 2021 that added an additional 
school, bringing the total number of schools to 108.The evaluation does not extend to the additional school.
Date | Report Number iii
WFP’s work at the national level is highly relevant as WFP has identified where the McGovern-Dole 
Programme contributes to a government framework for a national school feeding programme.
KEY FINDINGS: EFFECTIVENESS
Key EQ 1: Have literacy rates of school-age children improved over the duration of the 
program?
11. A key outcome indicator is the percent 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. The endline EGRA tested 
third-grade students to maintain comparability with the baseline. The results show that third-grade 
students improved or retained their reading performance and comprehension skills. Key informant and 
focus group responses indicate that community reading volunteers were the main reason for continued 
improvement during COVID-related school closures. Supportive learning environments at home – such as 
encouragement and assistance from parents and older siblings, and having reading materials available in 
the home – were viewed as contributing to students’ reading skills even before the pandemic.
12. The evaluation methodology does not allow conclusions regarding the direct attribution of student literacy 
results to programme activities; numerous variables outside the programme’s control could affect student 
outcomes. Nevertheless, based on qualitative data and the evaluation team’s assessment, programme 
activities designed to improve the quality of literacy instruction were both well-suited to the objective and 
indeed contributed to the observed improvements in student reading skills. These activities included
providing a print-rich learning environment in schools, training teachers in new methods, and encouraging 
consistent teacher attendance. In addition, the training of head teachers and district and sector education 
officers on teacher coaching methods, and the training of administrators on school management, were 
considered highly beneficial, especially for school management. Providing schools with supplemental 
literacy material, and establishing reading clubs in school catchment areas supported by facilitators trained 
in the “Literacy Boost” approach, were also considered factors in instructional effectiveness.
13. Key informants noted the growing involvement of parents in various school activities, and a corresponding 
increased appreciation among parents of the importance of education, which supports student attendance 
and learning. The increase in girls’ attendance is of special note, and in addition to the factors noted above, 
may be related to the construction of girls’ sanitation rooms on school grounds.
Key EQ 2: Has the use of health and dietary practices increased?
14. Health and hygiene infrastructure improved at schools, with improved water supply, latrines, girls’ 
sanitation rooms, and kitchen infrastructure in place at all schools. Due to the pandemic, permanent 
handwashing facilities were introduced. The programme has trained all parents on home health and 
hygiene practices. Qualitative interviews revealed few gains in knowledge among students and cooks on 
good practices though there is evidence that these practices are used: the percentage of students who can 
identify at least three key health and hygiene practices improved only slightly, from 49.2 percent at
midterm to 52.9 percent at endline,
7 though students were observed washing their hands before entering 
class. The ability of cooks and storekeepers to identify at least three safe food preparation and storage 
practices declined. This was attributed to lack of practice during school closures, few refresher trainings, 
and turnover. Nevertheless, cooks were observed to use good personal and food preparation hygiene, 
though they were not always able to identify the good practices. 
Key EQ 3: What is the level of community-level involvement and participation in decision￾making in school governance mechanisms?
15. Head teachers and school committees state that parent engagement and understanding of the importance 
of education, along with parent trust in schools, is increasing. Three-quarters of parents (74.3 percent) 
7 Source: midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Date | Report Number iv
could name at least three benefits of primary education at endline, a small increase since midterm 69.8 
percent).8 School General Assembly Committees were strengthened through training on governance, 
school management, and conducting community dialogues. The level of parent contributions to the cost of 
school meals varies widely among schools and affects some schools’ ability to meet expenses. 
Key EQ 4: What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively 
deliver, implement, and sustain school meal interventions?
16. The Government officially named WFP as its main partner in school feeding in 2019. The partnership 
between the Government and WFP technical support has resulted in substantial gains in the capacity of 
local and national institutions in the design, management and implementation of school feeding. A national 
School Feeding Technical Working Group was established in 2019, and MINEDUC has institutionalized a 
School Feeding unit and a National School Feeding Steering Committee to guide the roll-out of a national 
programme in 2021. Stakeholders view WFP as a good partner, and there is strong collaboration with 
government institutions and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners. Partner capacity is strong, as 
evidenced by their delivery of results against targets; for example, World Vision’s work on WASH 
infrastructure and literacy has been a critical component of programme success. Key Findings: Efficiency 
17. WFP and partners have achieved results in an efficient and timely manner. At the national level, the 
programme’s focus on technical assistance and capacity strengthening has been effective in assisting the 
Government to develop the skills for management, coordination, and oversight of a national programme.
At the local level, the programme has effectively encouraged timely attendance and student retention, 
supporting improved teaching and learning outcomes and better school management, increased parent 
awareness and engagement on the importance of education, and resulted in greater knowledge about 
nutrition and the potential of school and kitchen gardens in communities. 
KEY FINDINGS: IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY 
18. The sustainable impact of the McGovern-Dole Programme lies in its significant contributions to 
government policy and strategies for a national school feeding programme, and in the Government’s 
institutionalization of school feeding within government staffing structures.
19. The programme’s influence on national approaches to gender equality is reflected in the Government’s 
recognition of the value of girls’ sanitation rooms and the work to develop meals that meet adolescent girls’ 
nutritional needs. There is scope for greater gender sensitivity in the programme, and potentially for the 
scaled-up national programme.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RESULTS
20. A key internal factor influencing results is the quality, capacity and commitment of WFP staff, especially the 
dedication to learning and programme strengthening in its second half. The leadership, systems and 
processes that shape the programme have been greatly strengthened and WFP staff have grown in 
strategy, policy and facilitation skills. This has fostered strong partnerships with the Government, and the 
programme’s strategic relevance is now recognized. Improved coordination, communication, and role 
clarity within WFP Rwanda, expanded staffing, and greater support from technical units have increased the 
programme’s effectiveness and its credibility with Government. Government officials credit WFP’s 
willingness to collaborate and to support government priorities with engendering joint ownership of the 
programme. Partner inclusion is stronger, activities are better integrated, and operational collaboration 
remains strong. A procurement model that strengthens the capacity of local farmers to supply school 
meals is aligned with government priorities and is making good progress. Programme managers adapted 
activities during COVID-19-related school closures to continue its operations, including organizing take￾home rations for students, adopting remote training modalities for school personnel, providing literacy 
8 Source: midterm and endline head teacher surveys.
Date | Report Number v
outreach to homes, extending gardening activities to communities, and addressing outstanding school 
infrastructure needs.
21. Another internal factor that supported strong results was the country office’s willingness to act on the 
recommendations from the midterm evaluation. At midpoint, WFP and the Government were building the 
systems needed for a sustainable school meals programme. The midterm evaluation noted the opportunity 
to more deliberately apply programme experience to support the Government in developing the national 
school feeding programme. This required WFP to better organize itself internally, better present 
programme results to the Government, and have a more structured approach to government partnership 
and capacity strengthening. 
22. Key external factors favoring success are an organized education structure, a supportive policy 
environment, government commitment to funding, and recognition of the need for continued technical 
assistance to the Government to implement its national school feeding programme. The COVID-19 
pandemic and related restrictions had a major impact on school closures; however, programme partners 
took adaptive actions to continue activities and trainings within pandemic parameters, helping ensure the 
continuity of the programme. 
CONCLUSION
23. Programme performance has been strong, especially since the midterm evaluation. Most endline targets 
are met or exceeded in nearly all activities. The programme’s transition from a focus on a small number of 
schools to include strengthening national capacity has effectively broadened its impact and influence on a 
national scale. The programme is well positioned for Phase II, with good internal management in WFP, strong 
working relations with Government and partners, and capacity at the implementation and policy levels to 
provide technical support to the roll-out of Rwanda’s national school feeding programme.
RECOMMENDATIONS
24. Recommendations are presented by priority within strategic and operational categories. 
25. Strategic Recommendation 1: Consolidate WFP internal staff capacity to be enablers rather than 
implementors. Many WFP Rwanda staff are skilled in operations whereas WFP’s expanded role requires 
staff to work at a policy and strategy level, and to manage government relations. WFP Rwanda has grown 
staff capability in capacity strengthening, partnership facilitation and relationship management for school 
feeding. These skills should be institutionalized and amplified across its broader portfolio. There is a 
strategic opportunity to formalize these capability requirements into human resources policies and 
processes, and to consolidate current experience into internal training models. It should also contribute its 
experience to WFP regionally and globally.
26. Strategic Recommendation 2: Consolidate and better document the country office’s capacity strengthening 
strategy, approach and priorities for application across the country strategic plan as a whole, building on 
the McGovern-Dole experience. Capacity strengthening needs to be considered a unique outcome to get 
the right level of design attention. It is essential that WFP’s efforts to evolve and scale up essential services 
are properly co-designed with the Government and other stakeholders, and reliably resourced for 
continuity. A specific strategic objective linked to government capacity strengthening will legitimize and 
publicly demonstrate WFP’s role in addressing school feeding risks and opportunities ahead, and position 
WFP to provide continued support.
27. Strategic Recommendation 3: Decide on WFP’s approach to supporting further development of a national 
procurement strategy so this can be resourced, planned, and efficiently executed. WFP has provided 
essential strategic and practical support to the Government’s consideration of its procurement model 
options. WFP needs to understand the Government’s specific expectations for WFP support so this can be 
effectively resourced and planned. Specifically, WFP needs to know how to position itself between a 
leadership role in presenting options and facilitating decisions, and a supporting technical role while 
Government works this through.
Date | Report Number vi
28. Strategic Recommendation 4: Establish a learning agenda at country-office level to complement 
performance monitoring, test assumptions and document lessons from school feeding interventions. The 
McGovern-Dole Programme has built a strong performance monitoring system. In addition to output- and 
outcome-level results, it needs to capture learning regarding the underlying assumptions for change and 
determinants of success. Learning and reflection processes require dedicated systems, especially for 
programmes like McGovern-Dole that require real-time information for adaptive management. It is 
especially important for learning around gender equality in education.
29. The foundations of the national school feeding programme are established. However, much remains to be 
learned around scaling, equity and access to programme benefits, targeting across the nexus of schools￾community-local-government needs and capacities, purpose and boundaries of procurement models, 
alignment with related initiatives, resourcing, and sustainability of Phase 1 results. These issues need to be 
documented for stakeholders’ strategic and operational decision-making. Programme partners have 
contributed much to learning and should be included in developing and realizing the learning agenda. WFP 
Rwanda has a real contribution to make to the broader system on these issues, but process documentation 
is critical to realize this potential.
30. Operational Recommendation 1: Retain and continue to improve the effective McGovern-Dole Programme 
operating model developed after the Phase 1 midterm. An operating model framework considers the 
foundational elements that underpin strategic and implementation results. It commonly includes the 
following elements: people, governance, process, service delivery model, technology, and performance 
insights and data. It would be a useful framework for WFP to track performance of core organizational 
components as it continues to evolve its role.
31. Operational Recommendation 2: Ensure appropriate balance between capacity strengthening and 
direct implementation. A key factor that has enabled the programme to contribute to the development of 
the national school feeding programme is its technical credibility and grounded experience. It will be 
important for WFP to ensure its facilitation and technical support remain credible, by maintaining a high￾quality school feeding operation that demonstrates capacity to advise the Government on these issues. 
Some of this can come from WFP’s global experience and by connecting the Government to global school 
feeding networks.
32. Operational Recommendation 3: Maintain support to Phase I McGovern-Dole Programme schools, 
communities, and cooperatives. The Phase II design includes all Phase I schools until the second half of 
Phase II. It will be important that WFP continue to draw lessons, monitor and organize support directly and 
indirectly (e.g., through government and local partners) to Phase 1 project sites during the second half of 
Phase II. Concrete examples are supporting maintenance systems for the multitude of school 
infrastructure built in the last year of the programme and continuing to evolve the discussions with 
parents, and school, community, and local government representatives on expectations for parent 
contributions.
33. Operational Recommendation 4: Build adaptive management and agility into the Phase II design 
and implementation plan. A key strength in Phase I was making critical decisions efficiently and at the 
right time. Given that Phase II will focus more on the practical realities of the national school feeding 
programme, a similar level of agility and funding flexibility will be required to address emerging risks and 
opportunities. This can be facilitated by building in regular reflection points focusing on progress toward 
outcomes, routine performance monitoring, and maintaining a leadership culture that enables bold 
management, operational and funding decisions when necessary.
34. Operational Recommendation 5: Establish contingency planning at school and community level to 
prepare for and respond to shocks and stresses like COVID-19. WFP has effective contingency planning 
policies and processes that allowed management to quickly pivot the programme during the pandemic. 
The benefits of contingency plans and systems are clear. There is an opportunity now to embed 
contingency planning more directly into the local systems that WFP supports, which will contribute to 
broader resilience building and mitigate risks to the programme.
Date | Report Number vii
35. Operational Recommendation 6: Implement appropriate gender analysis and approaches for Phase 
II. While the McGovern-Dole Programme design aligns with relevant gender policies and frameworks, 
efforts toward gender-equitable outcomes and gender-appropriate approaches would benefit from a 
broader lens that monitors how interventions influence GEWE. The absence of a comprehensive gender 
analysis, and the missed opportunity to implement relevant gender- sensitive approaches in interventions,
are significant gaps. The programme should make learning on gender an explicit focus for Phase II. WFP 
should conduct a gender analysis at baseline and consider a gender audit at midterm and/or at endline. 
Date | Report Number 1
1. Introduction 
1.1 EVALUATION FEATURES 
1. This is the report of the independent endline evaluation of World Food Programme (WFP) Rwanda’s Home￾Grown School Feeding (HGSF) Programme 2016-2021.9
, 10 WFP Rwanda commissioned the evaluation to 
provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of programme performance. It has the dual 
objectives of accountability – to assess and report on programme performance and results, and learning –
to determine why certain results occurred, and to derive lessons and good practices. The evaluation is 
timed and designed to inform the baseline evaluation of Phase II of the programme (2020-2025), 
operational and strategic decisions for Phase II, as well as learning in the context of COVID-19.
2. Specifically, the endline evaluation i) reviews the project’s relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, impact, 
and sustainability, ii) collects performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level results, iii) 
assesses whether the project has succeeded in achieving McGovern Dole’s two strategic objectives, iv) 
investigates the project’s overall impact, and v) identifies meaningful lessons that stakeholders can apply to 
future programming. The main stakeholders with a direct interest in this evaluation and its 
recommendations are the WFP Rwanda Country Office (CO); its partner NGOs World Vision and Gardens 
for Health International (GHI); Government of Rwanda counterpart ministries, especially the Ministry of
Education (MINEDUC), Ministry of Local Affairs (MINALOC), and Ministry of Agriculture and Animal 
Resources (MINAGRI); and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the primary donor.11
Programme beneficiaries are also key stakeholders, in line with WFP’s and the ET’s commitments to 
accountability to affected populations.
3. The evaluation scope covers the entire implementation period of the McGovern-Dole Programme (2016-
2021). It covers the 107 schools in the four districts where the programme is implemented - Nyaruguru, 
Nyamagabe, Rutsiro and Karongi.12 The evaluation also covers WFP’s capacity strengthening activities at the 
national level, designed to support the Government’s development of a national school feeding 
programme.
4. The evaluation was conducted by TANGO International, which also conducted the midterm evaluation
(MTE). The evaluation team (ET) was comprised of two international consultants (one female, one male) and 
four field-based national consultants (three female, one male), supported by a quantitative data analyst 
and a research associate. The team brings expertise in school feeding, food security, capacity 
strengthening, gender, quantitative and qualitative methods, and statistical analysis, as well as extensive 
experience evaluating WFP programmes. Both the national and international consultants have evaluated 
numerous similar programmes in Rwanda and the region.
5. Evaluation planning started in November 2020 and continued through the inception phase in December 
2020. Due to school closures and other mitigation measures related to COVID-19, evaluation fieldwork was 
delayed till February 2021 and conducted by the local team over four weeks; the international consultants 
conducted remote interviews in the same approximate period. The cut-off date for data collection was 
March 14, 2021. 13 
9 A no-cost extension through September 2021 was granted as this report was being finalized. 10 The terms of reference refer to the McGovern-Dole grant as the WFP Rwanda HGSF. The two terms are used 
interchangeably and in context, as there are cases where we mean to highlight the home-grown school feeding aspect. 11 See Annex 1 for complete stakeholder listing and analysis. 12 After the data collection phase, the program received a no-cost extension through September 2021 that added an 
additional school, bringing the total number of schools to 108.The evaluation does not extend to the additional school. 13 See further discussion and details in Section 1.4 and Annex 2.
Date | Report Number 2
1.2 CONTEXT 
Poverty and food security 
6. Rwanda is a small, hilly, landlocked, and densely populated country in East Africa with about 12.5 million 
people (2018). While Rwanda ranks 160th out of 185 countries in the 2020 Human Development Index,14 it 
is making progress in reducing food insecurity and poverty. Poverty decreased between 2011 and 2017 
from almost 45 percent to just over 38 percent;15 extreme poverty declined from 24.1 to 16 percent.16 The 
highest rates of poverty and extreme poverty are in the south and west, including the four districts 
targeted by this programme – Karongi (approximately 53 percent), Rutsiro (approximately 49 percent), 
Nyaruguru (approximately 53 percent), and Nyamagabe (approximately 48 percent).17
7. The Government of Rwanda monitors food security through the Comprehensive Food Security and 
Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) conducted by WFP. The 2018 CFSVA found that 18.7 percent of households 
are food insecure.18 Among those, 1.7 percent are severely food insecure. Food insecurity is highest in 
Western Province (29.9 percent of households), followed by Southern Province (20.5 percent), Northern 
Province (17.8 percent), and Eastern Province (16.2 percent). The stunting rate is highest in Western 
Province (40.2 percent)19, which exceeds the World health Organization critical threshold for stunting (>40 
percent). Food insecurity declined in the four targeted districts between 2015 and 2018 (Table 1). 
Table 1: Percentage of food insecure households, by district, 2015 and 2018
2015 2018
Rutsiro 57% 49%
Nyamagabe 42% 30%
Nyaruguru 37% 24%
Karongi 35% 25%
Source: CFSVA 2015 and 2018
Key data and trends related to SDG 2: Zero hunger
8. Forty-one percent of Rwandans are undernourished, and almost one fifth is food insecure (SDG 2.1.1).20
Thirty-three percent of children under five years of age (CU5) are stunted and nine percent are severely 
stunted.21 Stunting is inversely related to wealth quintile; 49 percent of children in the lowest wealth 
quintile are stunted, compared with 11 percent of children in the highest quintile. Low educational 
attainment and poor diet are common in mothers of stunted children. In addition, 12.6 percent of CU5 are 
underweight (low weight for age) and 2 percent are acutely malnourished (low weight for height).
9. Micronutrient deficiencies are also a public health concern; 37 percent of children under five and 19 
percent of women of reproductive age are anemic. The most common causes of anemia are lack of iron in 
the diet and intestinal worms, preventing the absorption of micronutrients and minerals such as iron. 
Worm infections affect 65 percent of the population in Rwanda, and school-aged children are particularly 
affected. Main drivers of malnutrition are poor access to quality water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) as 
well as poor care practices such as not receiving antenatal care, even among those who can access a 
nutritional, balanced diet.
22
14 UNDP. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. 
15 National Institute of Statistics Rwanda (NISR). 2015. Rwanda Poverty Profile Report 2013/14. 16 NISR. 2018. Rwanda Poverty Profile Report 2016/17-Results of Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (EICV5). 17 NISR. 2018. EICV5.
18 WFP. 2018. Rwanda: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis. 19 Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20. Key Indicators Report. National Institute of Statistics 
of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF. 2020.
20 WFP. 2018. Rwanda: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis. 21 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 2020. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20 Key Indicators Report. 
October. https://dhsprogramme.com/pubs/pdf/PR124/PR124.pdf 22 United Nations Rwanda. 2017. Rwanda Common Country Analysis. 
Date | Report Number 3
10. Vision 2020 sought to modernize agriculture and increase productivity,23 and numerous national policies 
support agricultural improvements. Between 2012 and 2014, annual crop production increased by 5.7 
percent, higher than the population growth rate (2.5 percent).24 Still, production is highly seasonal and poor 
families face higher prices and lower supply during the lean season. The majority of households in Rwanda 
are smallholder farmers with small plots of land. Women play an important role in farming, and 24 percent 
of the land is owned by women. However, women are mainly engaged in production rather than better￾paying value-added agricultural processing and marketing activities. 
Key data and trends related to SDG 4: Quality education
11. The government provides 12 years of free, compulsory, basic education to all children. The Education 
Sector Strategic Plan (2018/19-2023/24) emphasizes access to learning for disadvantaged students such as 
girls, children from poor families, and people with disabilities.25 Primary school enrolment is high (98.0 
percent girls; 97.3 percent boys) and gender equity has been largely achieved due to government policies 
emphasizing the importance of universal primary education and gender equality in education. This includes 
the elimination of fees for basic education by government in 2003 that has enabled more children, 
especially girls, to attend school. The Gender Parity Index (the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in all primary 
schools) in Rwanda was 0.99 in 2018, indicating that girls are near parity with boys.26 The primary school 
completion rate has increased substantially in recent years, from 60.4 percent overall in 2015 to 95.4 
percent in 2019 (females: 65.5 percent to 101.8 percent; males: 55.3 percent to 89.0 percent).27 Female 
enrolment in both lower and upper secondary has been slightly but consistently higher than male 
enrolment in all years from 2014-2019, with net enrolment decreasing for both sexes in this period.
28
12. According to an assessment of literacy and numeracy skills done in 2014, 45.3 percent of P2 students could 
read at grade level and 32.9 percent were numerate consistent with their grade level. 29 The adult literacy 
rate in Rwanda for people 15 years and older was 73.2 percent in 2018.30
13. Classrooms are often crowded, with over 60 students per teacher in the project schools, against a national 
standard of 45 students to one teacher. In 2016, 1,545 out of a total of 185,666 children enrolled in pre￾primary education were identified as having a disability; in primary schools, children with disabilities 
represent 0.75 percent of the total number of children enrolled, a similar percentage to the previous three 
years.31 This represents fewer than one percent of enrolled students and is significantly below the expected 
numbers within the population. Students with a disability represented only one percent of the total 
enrolled in secondary education in 2016.
14. The average primary school has one toilet for every 52 students (national targets: 40:1 for boys and 30:1 for 
girls). Only 54.1 percent of schools have piped water.32 MINEDUC estimates that menstruation accounts for 
an average of 50 days/girl/year in absences, and menstrual management continues to negatively affect 
girls, especially in the poorest districts. The education sector plan has a dedicated budget line to address 
education barriers for girls, including the provision of gender-sensitive WASH facilities. 
23 Government of Rwanda. 2004. Rwanda Vision 2020. 24 NISR. 2015. EICV4.
25 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2018. Education Sector Strategic Plan, 2018/19-2023/24. 26 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.PRSL.ZS?locations=RW 27 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 2020. Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2020. Secondary completion rates not 
reported.
28 In the 2014-2019 period, the net enrolment rate secondary education for girls ranged from a high of 37.70 percent in 2014 
to a low of 26.70 percent in 2019 to a high of 45.00 percent in 2019. For boys, it ranged from a high of 33.60 percent in 2014 
to a low of 22.10 percent in 2019. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 2020. Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2020. 29 Republic of Rwanda. 2019. Rwanda Voluntary National Review Report. 
30 World Bank. 2020. Data as of September 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS?locations=RW 31 Republic of Rwanda. MINEDUC. 2018. Revised Special Needs and Inclusive Education Policy. October. 
https://www.mineduc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Mineduc/Publications/POLICIES/Special_Needs_Strategic_Plan.pdf
32 United Nations Rwanda. 2017. Rwanda Common Country Analysis. 
Date | Report Number 4
15. There are several early literacy initiatives in Rwanda in addition to the McGovern-Dole programme.
MINEDUC, World Vision Rwanda, and WFP are partnering on Literacy Boost, a school feeding and literacy 
programme for 195,000 children in grades 1‐3 in 280 primary schools in central Rwanda.33 USAID funds 
Soma Umenye (2016-2021), a national early-grade reading intervention which focuses on Kinyarwanda 
reading skills for one million children in grades 1-3; and Mureke Dusome (2015-2020), a nationwide early￾grade literacy project. The Building Learning Foundations project funded by the UK Government seeks to 
enhance the quality of English and math teaching in grades 1-3 for 2.6 million children in public and 
Government primary schools. 
16. Other relevant education programmes implemented by the Government are the One Cup of Milk per Child 
school feeding programme for pre-primary students and a cash transfer to secondary schools to provide a 
midday meal. Another relevant initiative is MINESANTE’s 12+ programme,34 which aims to reduce drop‐out 
rates by creating safe spaces in schools for girls; the programme targets 114,500 girls (ages 10‐12) in 
primary schools.
Key data and trends related to SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals
17. Rwanda has made progress on a relevant key SDG 17 indicator: Government Health and Education 
spending (5.8 percent of GDP in 2020).35 The Government has been successful in funding 84 percent of its 
budget in 2018/2019 from domestic sources.36 External grants declined to 16 percent in 2017/2018, which 
is a promising trend for continued self-financing of education, health and other social sector programmes. 
18. While the McGovern-Dole Programme does not explicitly mention human rights, the ET notes that the 
project supports two fundamental human rights as recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. The project activities, through its provision of a hot, healthy school meal, supports the Right to Food, 
which is interlinked with nutrition and health, and the ability to learn. The McGovern-Dole Programme 
activities centered around literacy, an improved learning environment at schools, and gender equality in 
education supports the Right to Education.
Health 
19. Nationally, the prevalence of stunting is 33 percent, a decrease of eight percentage points since 2012; 
however, stunting remains high in Western Province at 40 percent, and at 33 percent in Southern Province.
37 Stunting is influenced by several factors including diets low in nutrients and/or calories, illness, poor 
water quality, and the mother’s level of education. Stunting prevalence is 45 percent among mothers with 
no education versus 36 percent among mothers with a primary school education. Diets are high in starches 
and legumes and very low in animal protein, and only 17 percent of children aged 6 to 23 months have a 
minimum acceptable diet. Teenage pregnancies have increased over the past decade to 7.3 percent of 
women aged 15-19, attributed to violence against women, poverty, and lack of knowledge about 
reproductive health.38
20. Micronutrient deficiencies contribute to malnourishment. Anemia affects 37 percent of CU5, caused by 
iron-deficient diets, and intestinal worms. Intestinal worms prevent the absorption of nutrients and affect 
65 percent of Rwandans, particularly school-aged children. Other contributors to malnutrition are poor 
access to WASH and health services and poor care practices. 39 A relevant initiative in this respect is the 
33 (1) Evaluation TOR. (2) World Vision. 2016. Rwanda Annual Report 2016. 34 12+ is supported by DFID, Nike Foundation, and PSI. Source: Evaluation TOR. 35 SDG Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 2018. 36 Republic of Rwanda. 2019. Rwanda Voluntary National Review Report. 
37 Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20. Key Indicators Report. National Institute of Statistics 
of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF. 2020. 38 Republic of Rwanda, Gender Monitoring Office. 2019. The State of Gender Equality in Rwanda from Transition to 
Transformation. March. 39 United Nations Rwanda. 2017. Rwanda Common Country Analysis. 
Date | Report Number 5
Ubuzima WASH project,40 which trains Community Health Workers and school‐based volunteers through 
the Community‐based Environmental Health Promotion Programme (CBEHPP), MINESANTE’s approved 
methodology of working with communities to help them identify and solve their own health and hygiene 
issues. World Vision is Rwanda’s largest implementer of CBEHPP and outside of the McGovern-Dole 
Programme is supporting MINESANTE in training 45,000 CHWs in 15,000 villages to reduce hygiene‐related 
diseases in communities and within schools. 
21. The latest Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (2016/17) indicates that the mean time needed to 
travel to a health center (on foot) is 56.2 minutes in southern provinces and 53.6 minutes in western 
provinces, slightly higher than the national average of 49.9 minutes; the report notes especially large 
reductions over the previous five years for rural areas and poor households.41
Gender 
22. The Government of Rwanda has incorporated gender equality and gender equity as cross-cutting principles 
into its major legal and policy frameworks. Rwanda’s 2003 constitution (revised in 2015) recognizes 
women’s rights and gender equality, and women are legally guaranteed equal rights under land and 
inheritance laws. The National Strategy for Transformation (2018-2023) sets and tracks targets for the 
country’s development that include indicators for gender progress in education, employment, health, and 
other areas. Rwanda was ranked seventh in the 2021 Global Gender Gap Index by the World Economic 
Forum, the only Africa country to rank in the top ten in gender parity. The ranking recognizes Rwanda’s 
progress in reducing gender inequality, particularly in economic and political participation by women.42
However, there is less progress in other areas, and the 2020 Gender Inequality Index, which captures 
inequality in reproductive health, empowerment, and labor markets, ranks Rwanda 92nd out of 189 
countries.43
23. Women continue to face inequities based on traditional gender roles that prioritize family and household 
duties for girls and women, as well as economic and health challenges. Female-headed households are 23 
percent of all households and are more likely to be poorer and more food insecure than those headed by 
men. Around one-quarter of households in the four McGovern-Dole supported districts are female-headed. 
Between 51 percent and 77 percent of households in those districts are in the poorest wealth quintiles.44 
Only 54 percent of female-headed households had some education versus 80 percent of male-headed 
households (2018).45 Half of households whose head completed primary school are food secure, while only 
26 percent of households whose head had no schooling are food secure. Children in 29 percent of the 
poorest households were absent for one week or more over a three-month period compared to only 12 
percent of children in wealthier households. 
Government policies and priorities relevant to the program46
24. The Government of Rwanda is guided by the national development plans Vision 2020, Vision 2035 and 
Vision 2050, which envision Rwanda transforming from an agrarian to an upper-income, knowledge-based 
economy. The country’s poverty reduction strategy prioritizes quality education for all as a prerequisite for 
a knowledge-based economy. 
25. Vision 2050 aims to eliminate chronic malnutrition, guided by the national Food and Nutrition Policy (2018-
2024).47 The School Health and Nutrition (2014) policy states that all schoolchildren shall study in a healthy 
40 Ubuzima operates via a cost‐sharing partnership between World Vision and Rwanda’s Water and Sanitation Corporation 
(WASAC), partnering with MINESANTE. Source: Evaluation TOR. 41 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). 2018. Rwanda Poverty Profile Report, 2016/17. November. 42 World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2021. Insight Report. March 2021. 43 United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2020.
44 WFP. 2018. Rwanda 2018: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis. 45 “Some” education is not defined in the reference document (WFP. 2018. Rwanda 2018: Comprehensive Food Security and 
Vulnerability Analysis.)
46 See Annex 3 for a listing of additional relevant government policies.
47 WFP. 2018. Draft Country Strategic Plan (2019-2023). 
Date | Report Number 6
environment in child-friendly schools. Agriculture plays a key role in economic growth, poverty reduction, 
and food security.
26. Rwanda has improved the quality, coverage, and access to basic education through the Education Sector 
Strategic Plan (2018/19-2023/24). In 2012 the Government committed to providing 12 years of free, 
compulsory basic education. Rwanda has nearly achieved universal primary education and gender parity at 
pre-primary and primary levels. At the end of 2019, MINEDUC changed the language of instruction for 
lower (P1-P3) and upper primary (P4-P6) from Kinyarwanda to English.48
27. MINEDUC leads the education sector on policy, planning, coordination, regulation, monitoring and 
evaluation of the education activities sector. The Rwanda Education Board (REB) oversees education 
activities up to secondary level. District Administrations are responsible for the delivery of local education 
services. District Education Officers (DEOs), employed by the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC), 
plan, deliver and monitor education services in their districts. 
Other international assistance in Rwanda relevant to the program
28. Total official development assistance to Rwanda and official aid received was USD 1.191 billion in 2019.49
Specific areas of assistance relevant to the programme, beyond education described above, include work 
under One UN and assistance to the health sector, as described below.
29. United Nations collaboration. WFP has worked in Rwanda since 1975.50 Rwanda is one of eight pilot 
countries in which United Nations agencies coordinate closely through One UN. United Nations agencies 
coordinate their activities toward economic transformation, social transformation, and transformational 
governance (the three pillars of the Government’s National Strategy for Transformation) through the 
United Nations Development Assistance Programme (UNDAP II) (2018-2023).51 United Nations inter-agency 
collaboration includes WFP and UNHCR’s joint assistance to Congolese and Burundian refugees in 
Rwanda52 and WFP, UNICEF and UNESCO collaboration on education activities such as creating Child‐
Friendly School standards and assessing literacy and numeracy. 
30. Assistance to the health/nutrition sector. USAID Rwanda’s Feed the Future current multi-year strategy 
works to improve infrastructure, agricultural market linkages, nutrition, innovation, and policy through 
multiple activities.53 Since 2013, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) has partnered with the 
Government to work with food producers to produce fortified blended foods to reduce malnutrition among 
infants and pregnant and lactating women.54 CHAI is supporting Africa Improved Foods on sourcing local 
agricultural produce to use in its factory which produces nutritious fortified blended foods that can be 
distributed throughout the country. USAID also supports programming in Rwanda under the President’s 
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the President’s Malaria Initiative, and the Global Climate Change initiative.55
Effect of COVID-19 in Rwanda
31. COVID-19 infections and deaths have been low in Rwanda, largely due to the Government’s rapid action on 
prevention measures including lockdowns, movement restrictions, and school closures.56 Schools closed 
48 MINEDUC. 2019. Communiqué: MINEDUC endorses the use of English language as a medium of instruction in lower 
primary. December. https://www.mineduc.gov.rw/news-detail/communique1 49 World Bank. Website consulted 7 June 2o21: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD?locations=RW 50 WFP. 2017. WFP Rwanda Country Brief. November. 51 United Nations Rwanda. 2018. UNDAP 2018-2023 for Rwanda. Signed 31 July 2018. 52 Rwanda hosts approximately 74,500 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (UNHCR 2021, DRC Situation, May 
2021; figure from March 2021) and 47,800 from Burundi in six camps and in urban areas (UNHCR 2021, Burundi Situation, 
May 2021; figure from May 2021). A voluntary repatriation of Burundian refugees has been ongoing since August 2020. The 
protracted refugee situation strains limited resources of the Government of Rwanda and international donors. 53 USAID. 2018. Rwanda: Nutrition Profile.
54 Evaluation TOR; WFP. 2015. WFP Rwanda FY 2015 McGovern-Dole proposal. 55 History of USAID Rwanda. https://www.usaid.gov/history-usaidrwanda 56 University World News – Africa Edition. 2021. Smooth start as universities in Kigali reopen. 01 March. 
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210228222455672
Date | Report Number 7
in March 2020; they re-opened in November 2020 for grades 4-6, and in January 2021 for grades 1-. In both 
cases, school feeding resumed immediately upon school re-opening. Comparing the most recent reporting 
periods around the pandemic for which attendance data are available,57 the decrease in attendance was
greater for boys (see Table 2). 
Table 2: Attendance pre- and post- COVID-19 school closures
Apr 2019 –
Sep 2019
Oct 2019 –
Mar 2020
Apr 2020 –
Sep 2020
Oct 2020 –
Mar 2021
All 95%
Data not 
collected
Data not 
collected
92.1%
Boys 94% 88.3%
Girls 96.2% 96%
Source: WFP Rwanda, email communication
32. March 2021 cumulative figures indicate 25,311 COVID cases and 337 deaths.58 The Government has 
strengthened social protection programmes, set up remote learning programmes, and enacted an 
economic recovery plan for affected households and businesses. The pandemic prevention measures are 
expected to negatively affect the economy as output and employment have been reduced.59
1.3 SUBJECT BEING EVALUATED 
Table 3: McGovern-Dole Programme overview
• Subject of evaluation: WFP's USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Programme’s Support in Rwanda 2016-2021
• Type of evaluation: Activity evaluation
• Timeline/duration: Proposal submitted FY 2015; approved for implementation period 1 October 2015 – 30 
September 2020; granted a no-cost extension into FY2021 with a new end date of June 30, 2021; a second 
no-cost extension was later authorized through September 2021 
• Budget: McGovern Dole (USDA): $25 million over five years (2016-2020); additional funding from the 
MasterCard, FEED and Caterpillar Foundations 
• Geographic areas: Initially 104 rural schools (up to 85,000 primary school students; currently approx. 
83,000 students across Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe districts in the south (daily cooked meals), and in Rutsiro 
and Karongi districts in the west (daily porridge meals); through no-cost extensions, in 2020, WFP expanded 
the coverage of meals and select activities to three additional schools in Karongi, and in 2021 a fourth school 
was added, bringing the total to 108 schools 
• Thematic areas: School feeding and education; water, sanitation and hygiene, health, and dietary practices, 
national capacity strengthening
• Transfer modality: In-kind food transfers (US food commodities and local and regional purchase of food 
commodities) and capacity strengthening
• Partners: MINAGRI, MINEDUC, World Vision, GHI, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, districts
Activity description
33. The strategic objectives of the WFP Rwanda HGSF Programme60 are (1) improved literacy of school-aged 
children and (2) increased use of health and dietary practices.. The programme started in October 2015; it 
was originally scheduled to end September 2020 but has received two no-cost extensions, taking it through 
57 Due to covid, WFP did not collect or report attendance data for the October 2019 – March 2020 or the April – September 
2020 reporting periods. We therefore compare the October 2020 – March 2021 period to April – September 2019. 58 Rwanda Biomedical Centre. 2021. https://www.rbc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/annoucement/Update-on-COVID-19-03-
05-2021-eng.jpg . Update dated 5 March. 59 World Bank. Rwanda Economic Update. Protect and Promote Human Capital in a Post-COVID-19 World. Edition No. 16, 
January 2021. 
60 The program in Rwanda is hereafter referred to as the “McGovern-Dole Programme.”
Date | Report Number 8
November 2021. The programme supports approximately 83,000 primary school61 children annually in 
10862 schools in four of the poorest and most food-insecure districts in Rwanda (see map, Annex 4). The 
participating schools were selected by WFP and MINEDUC through a process that identified the target 
districts, selected the most food-insecure sectors within those districts based on primary data on poverty 
and health, and within those areas selected specific schools and communities that had the capacity to 
participate in the activities.63
34. In Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru districts in Southern Province, 40,000 children receive a daily meal during 
the school week consisting of 120 grams (g) of maize, 30g beans, 15g vitamin-A-fortified vegetable oil, and 
3g iodized salt.64 In Karongi and Rutsiro districts in Western Province, 43,000 primary school students 
receive a porridge meal consisting of 120g of Supercereal and 15g of sugar. Approximately half of the 
students are female. Girls and boys receive the same meal, in keeping with gender equality principles. The 
food commodities selected for the programme are intended to fulfil a significant portion of each student’s 
daily nutritional requirements. The meal is also formulated to reduce micronutrient deficiencies and 
improve iron uptake when combined with deworming medications, as there is a high prevalence of anemia 
among schoolchildren in Rwanda. 
35. Beyond providing a daily meal, the McGovern-Dole Programme supports an integrated set of activities to 
create an enhanced educational environment. The activities include piped water supply to schools, 
improved kitchens and storerooms, and school gardens. The programme design addresses gender equality 
in education by expanding and upgrading latrines to provide appropriate sanitation facilities for girls but 
does not otherwise have a strong gender focus. The physical improvements are complemented by training 
in literacy instruction methods for teachers, management training for head teachers, and literacy groups to 
promote students’ reading outside the classroom. Other programme activities include capacity 
strengthening for head teachers, teachers, School General Assembly Committees (SGACs), School 
Management Committees, cooks, and storekeepers.
Funding
36. The US $25 million McGovern-Dole programme in Rwanda is funded by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme.65 The 
McGovern-Dole programme, administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service, delivers international school 
feeding using donated in-kind commodities, usually supplied by the United States, and also delivers 
financial and technical assistance. The programme provides imported U.S. food commodities and financial 
support, and WFP procures maize meal, beans sugar and salt with separate funding from private donors 
such as MasterCard. Other programme donors are the FEED and Caterpillar Foundations. As of the last 
Annual Country Report available when this report was being finalized, the programme was confirmed in 
2019 as more than 100 percent funded for multi-year use.66
Results framework
37. McGovern-Dole Programme in Rwanda aligns with the McGovern-Dole results framework and foundational 
results, which each describe causal pathways and assumptions (see Annex 5). With respect to the 
McGovern-Dole results framework, the programme addresses Strategic Objective (SO) 1, improved literacy 
of school-age children, and SO 2, increased use of health and dietary practices, with a view to supporting the 
Government in establishing a national school feeding programme, including strengthening capacity at 
national, district and school levels.67 Activities have been planned, sequenced, and implemented to ensure 
61 Grades 1-6 62 Originally 104 schools. Three schools were added in Karongi in 2020 and one more was added mid-2021. 63 WFP. 2015. WFP Rwanda FY2015 McGovern-Dole proposal. 64 For a portion of the program, these commodities were purchased through the WFP Rwanda USDA’s Local and Regional 
Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Programme (2017-2019). See paragraphs 42, 79, and 111. 65 USDA McGovern-Dole Grant FFE-696-2015/007-00. 66 WFP. 2019. Rwanda Annual Country Report. Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023. 67 See Annex 5: Results Framework.
Date | Report Number 9
achievement of SO1 and SO2, which both support improved student attendance (MGD 1.3). Activities for 
both SOs show a logical causal chain. 
38. The programme contributes to the achievement of the McGovern-Dole foundational result, increased 
capacity of government institutions, by strengthening the national school feeding programme and by building 
capacity at national, district and school levels to eventually integrate elements of the McGovern-Dole 
Programme, including the strengthening of literacy and good health and hygiene practices among students 
and school personnel. It also supports the foundational result, increased engagement of local organizations 
and community groups, by building the capacity of local agricultural cooperatives to eventually supply food 
to school feeding programmes. 
Theory of change
39. The program design follows the McGovern-Dole Results Framework (see Annex 5). Activities have been 
planned, sequenced and implemented to ensure achievement of Strategic Objective 1, Improved Literacy of 
School-Age Children. Activities have also been aligned with the objectives of SO2, Increased Use of Health and 
Dietary Practices, to ensure that the broad range of interventions that support improved student 
attendance (MGD 1.3) are achieved. While there is no explicit theory of change for the program, the 
activities implemented to achieve both strategic objectives show a logical causal chain. The foundational 
results incorporate the actions that the McGovern-Dole initiative considers critical to the development of a 
sustainable, government-financed and -managed HGSF program for primary schools. This includes 
increased capacity of government institutions, community groups and local organizations.
40. While there is no theory of change for the programme, an important underlying assumption in an imputed 
theory of change is that parents will make consistent and adequate contributions to maintain school meal 
activities, such as helping fund cooks’ salaries and providing fuel wood. The national Government also 
views parent contributions, whether cash or in-kind, as an important element of sustainability. However, 
there is a question of whether this design aspect is appropriate to local capacity in poor areas. Schools 
must pay cooks, purchase firewood, buy soap and utensils, and pay for water, and they depend in part on 
cash contributions from the community to meet these costs. Individual schools may decide to allow 
parents to donate firewood, vegetables, labor or other in-kind contributions approved by the school if they 
are unable to provide cash. While parent contributions have increased since the MTE due to increased 
sensitization, most of the schools visited by the ET are still struggling to cover these expenses. This is not 
surprising given that the programme works in some of the most impoverished districts in Rwanda. WFP 
and partners have proactively managed this aspect of programme to minimize the risk to effectiveness and 
sustainability.
Gender
41. While WFP has a strong institutional focus on gender equality, the McGovern-Dole results framework does 
not specifically mention gender equality as an objective. The project proposal does not reference a gender 
analysis. The CO’s Country Gender Action Plan 2016-2020 refers to a gender baseline study done in 2015-
2016 but the plan notes only limited challenges to the HGSF, in terms of the number of female cooks and 
female teachers. 
Past evaluations
42. The McGovern-Dole Programme baseline was conducted in June 2016 to inform programme design.68 The 
MTE69 covered the 2016-2018 (second quarter included); Table 10 in Section 2.5 details the MTE 
recommendations and actions taken to address them. Another relevant report is the endline evaluation of 
the WFP Rwanda Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Programme (2017-2019), which was 
68 WFP Rwanda. 2016. Baseline Study: Home Grown School Feeding Programme. Conducted by IPSOS. 69 WFP Rwanda. 2019. WFP's USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program's Support in 
Rwanda 2016-2020: Evaluation Report, Midterm Evaluation. July.
Date | Report Number 10
awarded by USDA to complement the McGovern-Dole Programme. 70 As noted above, a gender study was 
conducted in 2015-2016.
Amendments to initial programme design
43. WFP implemented Phase I (2015-2021) of the McGovern-Dole Programme with the original aims of 
supporting the Government to develop a national school feeding programme and to build government 
capacity for a handover of activities by 2020. The Government officially named WFP as its main partner in 
school feeding in 2019. The focus of the Phase I programme, designed in 2015, has shifted from a 
handover of the programme to building the capacity of Phase I schools to serve as model schools for the 
national programme, and then to transition those schools into the national school feeding programme in 
2023/24.71 This change followed the Government’s approval and funding of a national school feeding 
programme to begin in 2021. At present, the Government does not have the budgetary resources to adopt 
all aspects of the McGovern-Dole model nationally. The longer transition time will allow the Government to 
identify additional funding sources and more cost-efficient measures to support the national programme. 
44. WFP’s implementation of the programme is consistent with the original programme design, with a few 
exceptions. First, the programme had initially planned to install lower-cost kitchen facilities to allow for the 
construction of a greater number of kitchens. However, the design did not consider the need for 
maintenance and training on maintenance. When quality problems arose in the lower-cost kitchens, the 
programme opted for a revised design at higher cost. Based on MTE recommendations, there has also 
been attention to improving reliable access to water for meal preparation and cleanup, as well as general 
hygiene and sanitation. After the MTE, World Vision allocated as much funding as possible from its literacy 
activities to WASH. Interviews show that the early proposal consultations between WFP and World Vision 
did include a robust WASH component but that this was not included in the final design due to funding 
limitations. 
45. In 2020 and early 2021, the McGovern-Dole Programme was adapted to keep some important programme 
activities running, albeit at a reduced level, during the COVID-19 pandemic. No in-school meals could be 
provided between April and September 2020;
72 instead, WFP distributed take-home rations (THR) to ensure 
that vulnerable schoolchildren had access to food. Reading clubs were unable to meet, so Literacy Boost 
coordinators arranged book-lending activities so that children could continue to receive reading materials 
at home. Trainings for school administrators and teachers continued but were changed from in-person 
training to self-learning manuals, and SGACs met in socially distanced small groups. Trainings on health 
and hygiene incorporated the symptoms and transmission modes of COVID-19. Booklets and posters were 
distributed to inform people about COVID-19 prevention measures. GHI helped distribute vegetables from 
school gardens to vulnerable families who could not obtain fresh produce due to movement restrictions. 
MINEDUC also required that permanent handwashing stations be established at schools to prevent the 
spread of COVID-19. Renovations to school facilities continued, though the pandemic delayed construction 
of some kitchen and WASH facilities in some locations. 
46. Another exception to the original programme design concerns an evolving understanding of requirements 
for a local purchase model to sustain school feeding over the longer term. The programme proposal 
defined the model in terms of proximity of farmers and farmer cooperatives. However, this assumption 
was made with limited analysis or stakeholder consultation at the time. At programme midpoint, the 
country office commissioned an evaluation of their LRP programme to inform ongoing consultation with 
the Government on suitable models and modalities.
73
70 Available here: https://www.wfp.org/publications/rwanda-local-regional-procurement-project-2017-2019-endline-evaluation 71 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda. Plan of Operations and Activities. 7272 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 73 WFP. 2020. Evaluation of USDA’s Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (Rwanda 2017-19). Endline. 
Date | Report Number 11
Beneficiary data
47. Programme reach has been extensive, with 150,255 individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded 
programme interventions (75,096 girls [122.6 percent of target]; 75,159 boys [108.8 percent of target), as of 
March 31, 2021, well over the target of 133,328 (112.7 percent of target). Similarly, the target is exceeded 
for the number of individuals benefiting indirectly from the programme with 238,872 indirect beneficiaries 
against a target of 175,379 (136.2 percent of target).
74 Complete sex-disaggregated data are given in Annex 
6, Table 14 and Table 15 (cumulative figures) and Table 38 and Table 39 (annual figures).
Commodity distribution data
48. Over the life of the activity, the programme distributed 98 percent of planned commodities in Southern 
province and 79.8 percent of planned commodities in Western province (Table 4). The lower distribution 
rate in Western districts was due largely to difficulty reaching schools during the rainy season, which 
caused delivery delays. At the time of the endline evaluation, food distribution was ongoing to allow for 
further consumption of commodities. Another relevant distribution was deworming treatment; annual 
targets were met or nearly met, and the life-of programme target was exceeded (see Annex 6, Table 76 and 
Table 77 and discussion in paragraph 138). 
(see table next page)
74 Direct beneficiaries include children, teachers, school administrators, parents, cooks, storekeepers, farmers, and 
government staff. To calculate indirect beneficiaries, to prevent the double-counting of siblings and parents on PTAs, WFP 
Rwanda uses a family multiplier of 3 instead of 5 (Rwandan national standard).
Date | Report Number 12
Table 4: Commodity distributions, expected v. actual
Reporting timeline
(by fiscal year)
Vegetable oil distributions: 
Southern provinces
CSB+ distributions: 
Western provinces
Expected 
(NMT)
Actual a
(NMT)
% 
Achieved
Expected 
(NMT)
Actual a
(NMT)
% 
Achieved
FY21 Q1-2 1/10/2020-31/03/2021 62.44 34.66 55.50%b 494.22 464.33 93.95%
FY20 Q3-4 1/04/2020-30/09/2020 70.42 82.58 117.28c 564.99 678 120%
FY20 Q1-2 1/10/2019-31/03/2020 42.21 42.21 100% 295.83 295.83 100%
FY19 Q3-4 1/04/2019-30/09/2019 70.51 70.51 100% 564.85 564.85 100%
FY19 Q1-2 1/10/2018-31/03/2019 190.30 190.30 100% 46.54 46.54 100%
FY18 Q3-4 1/04/2018-30/09/2018 55.19 51.73 94% 706.95 444.46 63%h
FY18 Q1-2 1/10/2017-31/03/2018 43.12 66.52 154%d 384.48 326.22 85%e
FY 17 Q3-4 1/04/2017-30/09/2017 f 42.00 41.25 98% 349.44 326.22 93%
FY 17 Q1-2 1/10/2016-31/03/2017 f 27.86 18.29 66% 181.88 135.21 74%
FY 16 Q3-4 1/04/2016-30/09/2016 f 36.53 28.54 78%g 299.75 148.10 49%g
FY 16 Q1-2 21/12/2015-31/03/2016 f Not started N/A Not started N/A
Total: 640.58 626.60 98% 3,888.92 3,103.53 79.80%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and ET consultation with WFP for FY2021 data. a The country office notes that delivery of USDA commodities to Rwanda is often delayed, which sometimes compels distribution of the foods 
before their expiration date, affecting actual vs planned volumes in some periods. b Lower achievement than planned due to COVID-related closures still in effect in September 2020. Upper primary re-opened in November
2020 and lower primary re-opened in January 2021; full feeding for all grades did not begin till January 2021. c Higher achievement than planned because when schools closed due to COVID-19, the programme distributed higher-than-usual volume of 
take-home rations to cover the anticipated 3-4 months when students would not be in school. This was also done to make sure the vegetable 
oil and CSB+ would be fully consumed before their expiration date; this was done with USDA approval and was a factor in the rationale for the 
no-cost extension granted for April-September 2021. d Higher achievement than planned because enrolment was higher than planned (total enrolment during this period was nearly 85,000 
compared to the following year, when it dropped to 81,250); balances (14MT) for academic term starting April were distributed at schools to 
ensure no pipeline break.
e Slower rate of consumption owing to structural challenges like access to schools during the rainy season, resulting in delivery delays. WFP is 
working with the Government to resolve. f Fluctuations in percentage achievement during this period due to fluctuations in enrolment. The programme kicked off ~June 2016, so some 
of the lower achievement rates are due to the distribution occurring in a partial year only. g Food had already been distributed for Q2 in southern provinces and in Q3 for western and southern provinces for the school year. h Lower achievement than planned because enrolment dropped below target in 2018, a drastic decrease from 2017.
Date | Report Number 13
1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, LIMITATIONS, AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Evaluation criteria and questions
49. This evaluation was designed to address the OECD-DAC75 criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
impact, and sustainability of the McGovern-Dole Programme, per USDA monitoring and evaluation policy 
as specified in the evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR) (see Annex 7). Table 5 presents the OECD-DAC 
evaluation criteria and corresponding questions. 
Table 5: OECD-DAC criteria and evaluation questions
Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance To what extent is the programme in line with the needs of beneficiaries (boys and girls) and 
partners, including Government?
To what extent is the activity aligned with WFP, partner, UN agency, and donor policies and 
priorities?
To what extent is the intervention based on a sound gender analysis? To what extent is the 
design and implementation of the intervention gender-sensitive?
*(new) Are the changes made to activities (design and implementation) due to COVID-19 
relevant to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and 
priorities?
Effectiveness To what extent are the outcomes or objectives of the intervention likely to be achieved?
What are the major factors influencing progress in achievement or non-achievement of the 
outcomes/objectives of the intervention?
To what extent does the intervention deliver results for boys and girls?
Efficiency Is the programme implemented in a timely way? Are the activities cost-efficient? Is the 
programme implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? Were the 
project strategies efficient in terms of financial and human resource inputs as compared to 
outputs?
Does the monitoring system efficiently meet the needs and requirements of the project?
Impact What are the medium-term effects on beneficiaries’ lives?
What are the gender-specific medium-term impacts? Did the intervention influence the 
gender context?
*(new) To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance?
Sustainability To what extent is the Government taking ownership of the programme (e.g. demonstrated 
commitment and contributions)?
What is the demonstrated capacity at central and sub-national levels to manage the 
program? 
Are local communities (School General Assembly Committees, farmers’ groups, etc.) fully 
involved in and contributing toward school feeding and education activities?
Has the policy framework supporting the National School Feeding Programme been 
strengthened within the project period?
What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of 
sustainability of the program?
75 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
Date | Report Number 14
50. The TOR also presented key evaluation questions to highlight key lessons and performance to inform 
future strategic and operational decisions (see Table 6). 
Table 6: Key evaluation questions
) Have literacy rates of school-age children improved over the duration of the program? If so, how and why? For 
example, are students able to read grade-level text? Are teachers demonstrating new methods of teaching? 
2) Has the use of health and dietary practices increased? If so, how? Has illness-related absence decreased? Are 
students washing their hands? Are schools and school kitchens clean? How are school gardens being used? 
3) What is the level of community-level involvement and participation in decision-making in school governance 
mechanisms (School General Assembly Committees and School Management Committees [SMCs])? Particularly, 
what is the level of involvement and participation of women? Also, what is the level and sustained continuity of 
community contributions in cash and in kind?
4) What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively deliver, implement, and sustain 
school meal interventions? What relationship structures among these institutions yield the most successful and 
effective school meal programmes? Is WFP’s capacity support to smallholder farmers and key line ministries 
appropriate/sufficient to effectively facilitate national ownership? Has the provided capacity support increased 
the Government’s capacity to own and sustain a national school meals program?
51. In addition, the country office has emphasized the following evaluation priorities:
• Use of primary quantitative data to assess results in literacy and WASH (e.g., via the Early Grade 
Reading Assessment (EGRA) tool); and
• How can WFP work more strategically in its capacity development efforts with Government? What 
capacity development approaches/activities are working/not working? Where do things stand in terms 
of being on track for transition of the programme into the national school feeding programme and 
government ownership? 
52. There was also interest in understanding the impact of COVID-19 prevention measures and school closures 
in 2020. 
53. To meet evaluation expectations across these multiple areas of inquiry, the ET tailored the OECD-DAC 
evaluation questions and sub-questions to the country context and operating environment, and combined 
these with the key evaluation questions and priorities into an evaluation matrix. The matrix enumerates all 
questions and their corresponding analysis methods. This was initially done for the midterm evaluation, 
and again reviewed and validated by WFP in the endline inception phase and finalized before fieldwork. 
Special attention was given to gender equality in the formulation and administration of the questions and 
data collection tools (see Annex 8). The evaluation matrix designed at midterm has been reorganized at 
endline to more clearly harmonize the interrelationships of the OECD-DAC criteria and the key evaluation 
questions.76 The evaluation matrix (Annex 9) reflects the sum of the questions, criteria and priorities 
expressed in the TOR and by the country office; it streamlines the organization and content of the original 
matrix, while retaining all original questions. The matrix now organizes all questions under the appropriate 
OECD-DAC criteria, with an additional section on factors affecting results, and is the basis for the 
organization of findings reported in Section 2 of this report.
76 The ET acknowledges that the evalation matrix typically does not change at the reporting stage and that this diverges from 
Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) guidelines. However, the endline inception report (including the 
evaluation matrix) did not undergo DEQAS review, a country office decision based on the need to move forward with the 
evaluation after COVID-related delays and to complete the endine evaluation in time to inform the baseline study for Phase II 
of the programme. The reorganization of the evaluation matrix responds to comments from the external DEQAS review of 
the draft endline report around harmonizing the various sets of questions presented in the TOR. The reorganization was 
made with the approval of the CO, which reviewed and approved the final version of the matrix. 
Date | Report Number 15
Methodology77
54. The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to assess programme performance and the factors that 
affected performance. This approach combined a desk review; a school headmaster survey, EGRA survey,78
qualitative interviews with key informants and focus groups (see list in Annex 11); observation at schools; 
and examination of quantitative data from WFP and partner reports. National and subnational lines of 
qualitative inquiry focused on the programme’s alignment with government strategies and policies, 
transition planning, and strengthening capacities for the national school feeding programme. School-level 
data collection focused on assessing progress toward targets and quality and impact of activities, outputs 
and outcomes. 
55. The endline sampling methodology for school-based data collection activities replicated the sampling 
methodology used at midterm.79 The first stage of the sample selected 20 schools from the 104 schools 
receiving support at the time of the midterm evaluation, using probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) 
systematic random sampling. The ET acknowledges that the programme has since added three schools
(plus a fourth, in a no-cost extension in mid-2021); this was a very small percentage increase in the sample 
frame and thus did not require a new calculation. Moreover, the three new schools only received a meal
and a few selected activities,80 thus other areas of the programme that were measured at midterm could 
be not assessed such as reading comprehension and WASH in the new schools. The same 20 schools were 
visited at midterm and endline, allowing a panel study at school level. The EGRA and additional 
health/WASH questions were administered to 440 third-grade students (220 M and 220 F), maintaining 
grade-level comparability with the baseline. 
Analysis
56. Qualitative analysis involved first entering all interview notes into a data matrix organized according to the 
categories explicit in the evaluation questions. This data matrix is the core set of information used for the 
analysis. Content analysis was then used to identify key messages around each evaluation theme as well as 
variability in the message from one stakeholder group to another.
57. Quantitative analysis was conducted using STATA version 15.0 software. This included descriptive analysis 
such as cross-tabulations, means, and significance tests to provide additional context to the underlying 
components of key indicators. The manner in which data for the programme was monitored and collected 
does not allow for sophisticated statistical analysis or cross-analysis of select project indicators, e.g., the 
installation of WASH facilities and girls’ attendance. Results are presented for the sample as a whole; while 
in some cases results are also presented at district level, the methodology does not allow for statistically 
valid comparisons across districts.
81 Due to budget constraints, the evaluation design did not allow for 
advanced analysis beyond calculation of point estimates and longitudinal performance comparisons for 
key indicators, and did not compensate for programme monitoring deficits. That said, in the view of the ET 
the midterm and endline design are considered an efficient and fit-for-purpose evaluation option for the 
programme.
58. The evaluation report includes outcome and output data for all McGovern-Dole indicators in Annex 6 in the 
interest of providing complete performance data for all stakeholders, especially USDA. The data for these 
indicators are extensive and serve as reference; the analysis in this report focuses on those indicators most 
relevant to answering the evaluation questions – primarily the outcome indicators. 
77 See full details of the methodology in Annex 10. 78 We report comparative data from the EGRA baseline survey (data collected June 2016), EGRA midterm survey (data collected 
September – October 2018), and EGRA endline survey (data collected February 2021; see field schedule in Annex 12). 79 Details on school and student sampling methodology are given in Annex 10. 80 The new schools receive food and new kitchens, storerooms and stoves. 81 This would require a larger sample size, which was beyond the budget available.
Date | Report Number 16
Gender considerations
59. All methods of inquiry included review of evidence of the programme’s attention to gender equity and 
women’s empowerment (GEWE). This included but was not limited to the review of GEWE aspects of 
programme design, strategy, and implementation as reflected in programme and government documents, 
inclusion of GEWE questions in interviews and focus groups, and assessment of gender-disaggregated 
data. 
Triangulation checks on validity and reliability
60. Primary quantitative data from the EGRA and school surveys82 were triangulated with quarterly and annual 
report data and with qualitative findings to assess the validity, reliability and consistency of the data and 
concurrence of all evidence sources regarding results. The ET also checked for internal consistency in WFP 
reporting on McGovern-Dole indicators, identified quantitative data discrepancies, and worked with the 
country office to make needed clarifications and corrections, which are reflected in this report.
61. The evaluation also examined all McGovern Dole outcome indicators where end-of-project achievement 
varies more than 10 percent from the target in either direction and sought to explain any variances beyond 
those parameters. This often entailed requesting clarification from the CO. Where the variance could be 
explained, this was either noted in a table note and/or, where there were implications for answering the 
evaluation questions, incorporated into the analysis in the main narrative.
62. The ET faced some challenges in interpreting the indicator names and calculations; several indicators are 
phrased identically but are considered outcome indicators when data are computed on a cumulative basis, 
and are considered output indicators when (the same) data are computed on an annual basis. This is a 
non-standard distinction between outcome and output indicators. There is also some redundancy in 
indicators; for example, “Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as 
a result of USDA assistance” (Table 33) and Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance” (Table 34) report exactly the same data. The ET has 
discussed these issues of definitions and efficiencies with the country office, and the country office has 
indicated its intent to apply these lessons in creating a more streamlined indicator set in Phase II.
Ethical considerations
63. The ET observed ethical research practices such as informed consent, protecting personally identifying 
information, and child protection protocols. The ethical safeguards used by the ET are discussed in Annex 
10, Section J. 
Constraints and limitations
64. The implementation of the original evaluation plan encountered two main constraints. First, the inception 
phase was delayed from mid-2020 until November 2020 due to COVID-19, and data collection was delayed 
until February 2021 due to pandemic-related in-country movement restrictions. Second, the international 
consultants could not travel to Rwanda due to COVID-19 restrictions. Instead, they conducted remote 
interviews and the national team collected data in the field. This approach was effective for data collection 
but limited the informal interaction that takes place during in-country work. To address this challenge, 
weekly check-ins were organized to enable essential space for iteration and reflection between the ET and 
the McGovern-Dole Programme.
65. The main methodological limitation, also noted in the midterm report, was that some of the baseline data 
had limitations that did not allow comparability with the midterm and endline evaluations. This was due 
largely to the presence, in the baseline, of non-response data in the reading comprehension questions. 
82 The last EGRA was conducted at midterm using Tangerine software; the complete midterm EGRA source files were no 
longer available and had to be rebuilt for the endline. This challenge was successfully resolved through support from World 
Vision and extra resourcing provided by TANGO.
Date | Report Number 17
Therefore, most of the comparisons in this report are to the MTE results. The ET did re-estimate baseline 
values for EGRA scores to allow comparability on reading comprehension.83
2. Evaluation Findings 
2.1 RELEVANCE 
Relevance to needs
66. WFP’s targeting of the most food insecure districts is appropriate to geographic needs and to the needs of 
primary schools, which are in some of the poorest areas in those districts. The original school selection had 
input from DEOs, local mayors, and World Vision, and was verified by WFP, MINEDUC, and World Vision. 
Teachers, DEOs, and WFP staff cited school meals as relevant to children’s nutrition needs and having 
increased regular attendance and reduced dropouts. Outcome data from the project shows that regular 
school attendance84 increased from 67.1 percent at baseline to 96 percent at endline (percentages 
calculated against final attendance targets) (Annex 6, Table 48). District officials interviewed at endline
indicate the project is aligned with the Government’s goal of ensuring student attendance and retention. 
The programme provides the same meal content and portions to girls and boys. However, going beyond 
the basics of school meal content, WFP’s work on nutrient gap analysis for the national school feeding 
programme has expanded thinking on school nutrition and has increased gender sensitivity toward the 
nutritional needs of adolescent girls, who may still be matriculating in primary school. WFP has worked with 
MINEDUC on constructing local school meal menus to address the specific nutritional needs of adolescent 
girls (e.g., iron-rich foods). 
67. In addition to supporting food security and access to education, the programme has provided access to 
water, sanitation facilities, nutrition education, and literacy training in very poor areas, all of which are 
highly relevant to children’s health and increases their ability to participate in an improved learning 
environment. These activities are relevant to local needs, in that rural schools in food insecure areas lack 
basic infrastructure, including WASH facilities, students have limited access to reading material and few 
resources for reading outside of school, and families struggle to feed their children an adequate diet. 
68. The relevance of the programme was clear in interviews with MINEDUC and district officials, who credited a 
noticeable improvement in test scores in schools supported by the McGovern-Dole Programme to the 
school meals and the literacy activities.85 MINEDUC sees the programme as very important to the retention 
and health of primary school students, though small in scope in relation to the national school system. 
Notwithstanding the challenges to engaging community support for school feeding mentioned above, this 
strategy is nonetheless relevant to create greater ownership and interest among parents in the 
components of the McGovern-Dole Programme and their importance to a quality education. 
69. In terms of the programme’s work with smallholder farmers, it provides support to both women and men, 
including women-run cooperatives, which is consistent with Rwanda’s National Cooperative Policy 
promoting membership for women and gender equality in cooperatives.86 Cooperatives are owned by their 
members; in the WFP Rwanda school feeding portfolio, women comprise 52 percent of the total 
membership of supported cooperatives. WFP’s support for female cooperatives and members is important 
as, according to a recent government report, women’s membership (nationally) is only 42 percent 
83 The ET was unable to replicate the results reported in the baseline report, and therefore re-estimated the baseline values 
by applying the same methodology used at midterm to the raw baseline data. 84 “Regular” is defined as attending 80 percent or more of the total days school is in session.
85 This is consistent with the improved results measured by the EGRA, discussed in Section 2.2, Key EQ 1. 86 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2014. National School Health Policy, Kigali 2014. Republic of Rwanda. National 
Cooperative Policy in Rwanda Toward Private Cooperative Enterprises and Business Entities for Socio-Economic 
Transformation. Revised version [1]. Kigali, January 15, 2018.
Date | Report Number 18
compared to 52 percent for men (2015). 87 Women’s lower rate of membership is attributed to their 
disproportionate share of household duties, which limits their time to participate in outside activities. 
Coherence with national policies, strategies, and government initiative 
70. National school feeding policy. The McGovern-Dole Programme contributes to national development 
goals on education, food and nutrition security and capacity strengthening. There is a strong coherence 
with government policies and plans including increasing the literacy rate to 99 percent by 2050 and 
universal pre-primary enrolment rates by 2050 from 17.5 percent (2016).88 In addition, the programme has 
provided appropriate and flexible support to school feeding policy development, which has been ongoing 
throughout the programme, and supported the establishment of associated governance systems and 
functional processes, as described in the paragraphs below. 
71. The McGovern-Dole Programme was designed to align with the Government of Rwanda’s implicit and 
subsequently declared policy priority to scale up a national school feeding programme. The Government 
finalized its school feeding policy and strategy in 2019. In anticipation of this action, WFP began work in 2019 
with the Government on the School Feeding Operational Guidelines to support the Government’s school 
feeding strategy. The policy, strategy, and guidelines were approved by MINEDUC in 2021 and form the basis 
of trainings for key stakeholders in the national scale-up. A School Feeding Programme unit was created in 
MINEDUC to support the roll-out, with WFP assisting with the institutionalization of the unit by developing job 
profiles for its staff. Following its adoption of a National School Feeding Policy and strategy in 2019, in 2020 
the Government demonstrated its commitment to scaling up school feeding to reach 3.3 million pre-primary, 
primary, and secondary students.89 It increased the school feeding budget from US $5 million in 2014 to US$ 
37 million for school meals and US $19 million for kitchen and stove construction in 2020-2021. 
72. Interviews across a range of stakeholders confirm the view among senior government officials that the 
McGovern-Dole Programme has been an important contributor to developing the national programme.
Government officials stated that the work with WFP has connected education officials to a global school 
feeding network that allows the Government to benchmark its progress against other countries as the 
economy of Rwanda grows. At the local level, district officials interviewed indicate the project is aligned 
with the Government’s Vision 2050 goal of poverty reduction. 
73. Previously, the main coordination mechanisms between the programme and its government partners were 
semi-annual steering committee meetings led by MINEDUC and quarterly coordination meetings led by 
MINEDUC and WFP. In late 2019, WFP supported the Government to establish a National School Feeding 
Technical Working Group (TWG) under the Education Sector Working Group. The TWG is chaired by 
MINEDUC and co-chaired by WFP and meets quarterly. It has grown into the main coordination mechanism 
to guide not only the McGovern-Dole Programme but all school feeding efforts in Rwanda. In October 2020, 
WFP reported that with the end of the project, all programme governance would shift from the Steering 
Committee to the National School Feeding TWG90 and to the new National School Feeding Steering 
Committee.91
87 Republic of Rwanda, Gender Monitoring Office. 2019. The State of Gender Equality in Rwanda from Transition to 
Transformation. March. 88 Republic of Rwanda. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. Vision 2050. 
https://www.nirda.gov.rw/uploads/tx_dce/Vision_English_Version_2050_-31_Dec_2020.pdf 89 Draft review comment from WFP Rwanda.
90 Membership of National School Feeding TWG: MINEDUC (chair), MINALOC, MINAGRI, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Trade 
and Industry, Rwanda Basic Education Board, National Childhood Development Agency, Rwanda Cooperative Agency, Rwanda 
Food and Drugs Authority, and Rwanda Biomedical Center, WFP (co-chair), FAO, UNICEF, USAID, World Vision International, 
Japan International Cooperation Agency, European Union, Africa New Life Ministries, FH Association Rwanda, Movement for 
the Fight Against Hunger in the World, The Wellspring Foundation for Education, Water Aid. Source: Rwanda School Feeding 
Operational Guidelines Summary. 91 Membership of National School Feeding Steering Committee: MINEDUC (chair), MINALOC, Ministry of Gender and Family 
Promotion, MINAGRI (co-chair), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Ministry of Trade and Industry, 
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Infrastructure, Rwanda Basic Education Board, Rwanda Public Procurement Authority, 
Date | Report Number 19
74. Below the national level, programme coherence is monitored regularly through quarterly technical 
meetings with all stakeholders at district level and regular monitoring meetings, also at district level. These 
district meetings have played an important role in bridging the national – subnational gap identified as a 
sustainability risk during the MTE. In Karongi district, a recent resolution from a technical committee 
meeting called for the inclusion of school feeding in 2019-2020 imihigo (performance contracts) in each 
sector where the programme operates. This is an encouraging development as it formalizes local 
commitments to school feeding 92 though it remains to be seen if other districts adopt the same approach.
75. Gender policies. The McGovern-Dole Programme is aligned with the Government’s policies on gender 
equality, which are well articulated in Rwanda’s legal, policy and strategic frameworks. The programme is 
also aligned with the WFP Gender Policy 2015-2020. Equal access to education is addressed in Rwanda’s 
Girls’ Education Policy (2008) which aims to eliminate gender disparities in education.93 Rwanda has 
achieved gender parity in education, with a net national enrolment rate of 98.6 percent for girls and 98.4 
percent for boys (2019).94 The programme is further aligned with the National Gender Policy (2010) whose 
goal is to integrate gender equality and equity into government planning and programmes for social and 
economic development, including addressing the social, cultural and economic factors that prevent girls 
from enjoying equal access to education.95 The McGovern-Dole Programme provides equal access to school 
meals, handwashing, literacy clubs, gardens and nutrition education for girls and boys and sensitizes 
communities and parents to the importance of education for girls as well as boys. The programme has 
made a significant contribution to the retention of girls in school by constructing girls’ sanitation rooms 
which enable adolescent girls to continue to attend school during their menstrual cycle. 
76. The McGovern-Dole Programme support to agricultural cooperatives aligns with the Government’s 
Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation (2018-2024), which contains specific strategies to address 
gender issues in agriculture through its inclusion of women-run cooperatives and cooperatives with a 
majority of female members, enabling women to build capacity to provision local schools. 
Complementarity to the policies, priorities, and interventions of donors, relevant 
government entities, and NGO partners 
77. United States Government. The McGovern-Dole Programme is consistent with the United States Foreign 
Agricultural Service Strategic Plan, specifically Goal 4, Objective 4.1: Implement non-trade-focused 
congressionally mandated programmes.
96 The programme contributes to the Foreign Agricultural Service’s 
sustainability goal by strengthening government capacity to implement a national school feeding 
programme and to assume full management of the school meals activity implemented under the 
McGovern-Dole Programme, although on a more limited scale. By helping local agricultural cooperatives 
build their capacity to supply food for school meals, the McGovern-Dole Programme helps to ensure a 
sustainable source of supply for school feeding programmes that will also help communities to develop 
new markets and greater resilience.97, 98 In order to build on complementary partnerships and ensure 
coordination among development actors, WFP has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with 
Rwanda TVET Board, National Childhood Development Agency, Rwanda Cooperative Agency, Rwanda Food and Drugs 
Authority, Rwanda Agriculture Board, WFP (co-chair), FAO, UNICEF, USAID, DFID, World Vision International. Source: Rwanda 
School Feeding Operational Guidelines Summary. 92 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 93 Republic of Rwanda, Gender Monitoring Office. 2019.The State of Gender Equality in Rwanda from Transition to 
Transformation. March. 
94 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 2020. Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2020, December 2020. 95 Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion. 2010. National Gender Policy, July 2010. 
96 United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. NDa. Foreign Agricultural Service Strategic Plan (2019-
2022). 
97 United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. NDb. FY 2019 Food Assistance Proposal Guidance 
and Request for Applications.
98 See also the discussion on impact and sustainability in Section 3.1.
Date | Report Number 20
the USAID Feed the Future ‘Hinga Weze’ programme. Of the 10 districts targeted by Hinga Weze, three 
districts overlap with the McGovern-Dole Programme (Rutsiro, Karongi and Nyamagabe).99
78. Government of Rwanda. The WFP Rwanda 2015 McGovern-Dole proposal states that the programme was 
designed to support the National School Feeding Programme and contribute to its continued development 
and sustainability. The Government’s National School Feeding policy endorses a school feeding programme 
based on local purchase of commodities with a view to eventual nationwide implementation without 
external support. The Education Sector Strategic Plan 2018/2019-2023/2024 and the National School Health 
Policy 2014 mention the Government’s intention to create a National School Feeding Programme. The focus 
on primary school aligns closely with the Government’s goal of reducing stunting and malnutrition, and to 
improve literacy and learning outcomes. In addition, the National School Health Policy 2014 recognizes the 
importance of deworming to prevent malnutrition and anemia in school-age children. Deworming services 
are normally provided to schools by local health officials. The McGovern-Dole Programme supported this 
health objective by partnering with the Rwanda Biomedical Centre to pilot the distribution of deworming 
medicine by teachers. This teacher distribution model has been adopted by the Government and scaled up 
nationally.
79. As part of the Rwanda Country Strategic Plan 2019—2023, WFP interventions in Rwanda also include Phase 
3 of the Sustainable Market Alliance and Assets Creation for Resilient Communities and Gender Transformation
project (2020 to 2023), and the Sustainable Agricultural Productivity and Market Linkages project (2021-2024). 
WFP and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have longstanding collaboration to support 
smallholder farmers to access markets, such as through Purchase for Progress (P4P), which was a separate 
activity under the country office during the first part of the programme but has since merged with other 
agricultural support activities. The Government has integrated lessons learned from P4P to create the 
Common P4P (CP4P), which purchases food from smallholder cooperatives for the National Strategic 
Reserve.100 In March 2020, WFP transitioned from the USDA-funded LRP project to approach working with 
the private sector to develop marketing and distribution models that are accessible to farmers. This is a 
general approach for all WFP-supported cooperatives in the country which also applies to MGD 
interventions.101
80. NGOs. Synergies with NGO partners have been strategic and, as a result, successful in meeting evolving 
beneficiary and stakeholder needs. World Vision, a primary partner in the McGovern-Dole Programme,
targets vulnerable children and their families in a number of areas that are congruent with McGovern-Dole 
interventions, including education, literacy, health and nutrition, and water, sanitation and hygiene. The 
partnership with World Vision was critical for the programme to meet learner needs during the COVID-19 
suspension of school, for example, by reallocating programme resources to strengthen community literacy 
activities. World Vision’s experience with WASH interventions strengthened that component of the 
McGovern-Dole Programme in the second half of the programme, with separate latrines for girls and 
disabled students, piped water, permanent handwashing stations, and sanitation rooms for girls. 
81. There has been positive adaptive management of partnerships and partner focus throughout the 
programme. A partnership with the Adventist Development and Relief Association (ADRA) early in the 
programme to build kitchens was dropped due to problems with the quality of the construction. WFP then 
coordinated construction with private firms and directly managed the completion of remaining. Earlier in 
the programme, World Vision focused on building or enhancing rainwater collection systems; after the 
MTE, the programme shifted to connecting schools to a permanent water source in close collaboration with 
the Government, i.e., MINALOC. World Vision also demonstrated adaptive management during the school 
closure by shifting reading clubs to book lending and replacing temporary handwashing stations with
permanent structures.
99 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 100 WFP. 2014. Purchase for Progress - P4P Rwanda. 101 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020).
Date | Report Number 21
82. In another example of partnership management, FAO was part of the initial design for school gardens but 
did not participate due to budgetary limitations, which delayed the start of this activity. This workstream 
was then shifted to a new partner GHI, who brought significant value added with experience in practical 
nutrition education. GHI works to address the root causes of chronic malnutrition, especially among 
children. Its activities include the integration of agriculture and nutrition among Rwandan families, many of 
whom are farmers but who lack knowledge on nutrition. GHI promotes skills and knowledge needed to 
achieve healthy diets through the cultivation of home gardens and school gardens using readily available 
local resources that are accessible to poor families. 
Coherence with WFP and UN-wide strategies, policies and normative guidance 
83. WFP Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The McGovern-Dole 
Programme aligns with the WFP CSP (2017-2021), which is guided by SDGs 2 and 17 of the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development. The programme supports WFP’s corporate SO1, end hunger by protecting access 
to food, improve nutrition, and achieve food security, which aligns with SDG 2. 
84. The programme also supports WFP CSP SO2, partner to support SDG implementation, which includes 
strengthening country capacities for implementation and aligns with SDG 17. This is reflected in part in 
WFP’s strategy of embedding staff in MINEDUC and MINAGRI to coordinate USDA partners and track 
implementation and is a useful way to foster collaboration, ensure alignment of policies and strategies, and 
build government capacity for school feeding. The selection of technically skilled partners to implement the 
literacy, WASH, and nutrition components further supports the principle of partnering to achieve SDG 
results.
85. The programme component that develops the capacity of smallholder cooperatives to eventually supply 
commodities for school feeding is aligned with WFP CSP SO3, to achieve food security. The ET noted in the 
MTE that the USDA requirement to use imported food is not aligned with WFP’s policy supporting local 
procurement. The McGovern-Dole Programme was developing the capacity of local smallholder 
cooperatives to provide maize directly to local agro-processors producing CSB+, which would enable 
processors to source maize in-country instead of importing it. WFP is continuing its work to strengthen 
agricultural cooperatives to play an important role in the provisioning of school meals. 
86. As achieving middle-income status is part of Rwanda’s national vision, the McGovern-Dole Programme also 
aligns with WFP’s strategic concern about assisting vulnerable populations within middle-income countries. 
87. WFP policies. The McGovern-Dole Programme in Rwanda is aligned with WFP’s School Feeding Policy 
(2013) which focuses on helping countries to establish and maintain nationally owned programmes linked 
to local agricultural production. 102 It also aligns with the WFP School Feeding Strategy 2020-2030 focus to 
establish and maintain government-led school feeding programmes through technical support and 
capacity development, and to develop links with smallholder agricultural producers to supply schools, 
support livelihoods, and strengthen market linkages. 
88. WFP’s support to government in strengthening capacity for the national school feeding programme is 
highly coherent with WFP’s shift to an upstream role and its global strategic focus on helping countries to 
strengthen national policies and systems.103
89. The McGovern-Dole Programme is still guided by the current WFP 2015-2020 Gender Policy:104 it promotes 
the participation of girls and indicator data are disaggregated by gender. The programme provides for the 
construction of gender-sensitive toilet facilities for girls (as well separate, non-gendered toilets for disabled 
students). WFP has worked to sensitize MINEDUC, school administrators, teachers, and cooks on gender 
equality and to encourage greater female participation in the programme. In 2019, WFP commissioned two 
studies on gender dynamics and access to credit within the bean value chain, which led to gender 
sensitization training for WFP supported cooperatives, including those currently participating in the 
102 WFP November 2013. Revised School Feeding Policy. 103 WFP. 2017. WFP Strategic Plan (2017-2021). 104 Initially the WFP 2009 policy, later subsumed by the WFP 2015-20 Gender Policy. Evaluation TOR.
Date | Report Number 22
McGovern-Dole Programme. The MTE noted that the McGovern-Dole Programme did not include a specific 
approach to address gender equality and women’s empowerment. This was still the case at endline.
90. United Nations. The United Nations agencies in Rwanda coordinate closely through One UN initiative. 
Since 2008, agencies have coordinated their activities for economic and social transformation and 
transformational governance through the United Nations Development Assistance Programme (now 
UNDAP II, 2018-2023). United Nations inter-agency collaboration includes WFP and UNHCR’s joint work on 
refugee issues and WFP, UNICEF and UNESCO collaboration on education activities such as creating Child‐
Friendly School standards and assessing literacy and numeracy. UNICEF has been an important partner in 
WFP’s work in education. UNICEF is co-chair with MINEDUC of the Education Sector Working Group (ESWG), 
which provides a forum for cross-sector planning. WFP is an active member of the ESWG and supported the 
Government to establish a TWG on school feeding under the ESWG in 2019.105 UNICEF collaborates closely 
with WFP in education policy and technical approaches to nutrition and WASH. UNICEF partnered with WFP, 
World Vision, and MINEDUC to design low-cost permanent handwashing stations for schools in response to 
the pandemic, and to jointly advocate for construction funds. WFP worked closely with FAO on a 
framework for the NSFP operational guidelines.
Key Findings and Conclusions – Relevance
91. The McGovern-Dole Programme is highly relevant to the needs of schools and their educational goals 
in some of Rwanda’s poorest areas, supporting not only improved learning, but providing the 
infrastructure and complementary activities to support better learning outcomes and improved 
teaching and school management.
92. The McGovern-Dole Programme aligns with national priorities on education, school meals, improved 
food security and nutrition, community participation, gender equity, and agricultural development.
93. WFP has effectively identified where the McGovern-Dole Programme fits with government strategy on 
school feeding and has been able to amplify the impact of the government programme by providing 
technical assistance for the national school feeding programme expansion through appropriate 
capacity strengthening and accompaniment models.
2.2 EFFECTIVENESS 
Key EQ 1: Have literacy rates of school-age children improved over the duration of the 
program?
94. As measured by changes in key indicators between the start of the programme and the final evaluation, 
literacy results and performance have been strong, with most targets met or exceeded, despite the 
prolonged closure of schools due to COVID-19. One important outcome indicator is the percent 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. The endline EGRA survey finds that the end-of-programme target for girls and 
boys combined was well exceeded (77.7 percent actual versus 69 percent target), as were the gender￾disaggregated targets (Annex 13, Table 99). As shown in Figure 1, there was strong, steady growth in 
students’ reading comprehension relative to programme expectations over time. Figure 1 further shows 
that girls outperformed boys in reading comprehension over the life of the programme. Qualitative 
interviews yielded several explanations for better performance by girls. District education officials in 
Rutsiro said that girls participate more in reading clubs than boys. Teachers confirmed that girls perform 
better at reading than boys and said that boys spend more time playing games. SGAC members in Rutsiro 
said that since the school feeding programme started, girls attend classes more frequently than boys, 
which contributes to better reading scores. Parents interviewed in Rutsiro confirmed this view, as did 
MINEDUC officials. 
105 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (Oct 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020).
Date | Report Number 23
Figure 1: 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
Source: Baseline. midterm and endline EGRA surveys
95. The analysis in Table 7 indicates that third-graders’ reading performance – as measured by various reading 
tasks – improved at both midterm and endline: all changes were positive and statistically significant 
compared to baseline. The data in Table 8 also show improvements in third-graders’ reading 
comprehension, as measured by the percentage of students who could answer more questions correctly: 
at midterm, 55.1 percent of third-graders exceeded the standard and at endline, 83.2 percent. Key 
informant and focus group responses indicate that community reading volunteers were the main reason 
for continued improvement while schools were closed due to COVID-19. The role of community volunteers 
was critical in distributing reading materials at home and encouraging parents to read with their children; 
or, if parents were illiterate, to have the children tell them what they read. In some cases, older siblings 
who were home from boarding school also played a key role in establishing a supportive reading 
environment in the household.
Table 7: Reading performance for third-grade students at endline
Indicator
Baseline Midterm Endline
Reported
Re￾estimated a
# of 
Tasks
Mean 
per 
Minute
# of 
Tasks
Mean 
per 
Minute
# of 
Tasks
Reading letter-sounds 11.0 16.4 100 49.0*** 95 56.8*** 101
Reading syllables 25.0 45.6 100 55.8*** 100 59.5*** 101
Familiar words 11.0 21.1 50 29.9*** 50 26.9*** 50
Unfamiliar words 7.0 14.8 50 33.7*** 50 32.5*** 50
Correct words in text/story 10.0 20.1 65 22.8** 56 56.2*** 79
n n/a 402 441 435
Source: Baseline, midterm and endline EGRA surveys.
Statistically significant at the .10 (*), .05 (**) or .01 (***) level with the re-estimated baseline data a The presence of non-response data for reading comprehension in the baseline data reduced the comparability from endline to 
baseline. Baseline values were re-estimated to address this constraint.
41.5 39.8
43.3
59 56.8
62.9
77.7
70.2
85
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Total Boys girls
BL (2016) MT (2019) EL (2021)
Date | Report Number 24
Table 8: Reading comprehension, third grade (all students to read and/or listen)
Total correct answers to 
comprehension questions
Rating (aligned to 
2012 NSC proposal)1
Midterm Endline
% of students 
to achieve Total % % of students 
to achieve Total %
0 (0% of total questions) Does not meet standard
(0-44% correct) 4.3
17.3
0
1 (20%) 4.9 Does not meet standard
(0-44% correct) 3.2 0.5
2 (40%) Does not meet standard
(0-44% correct) 9.8 4.4
3 (60%) Meets standard
(45-69% correct) 27.7 27.7 12 12
4 (80%) Exceeds standard
(70+% correct)
37.6 55.1 30.1 83.2 5 (100%) 17.5 53.1
n= 441 n= 435
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA survey.
1 NSC = National Standards Committee
96. The EGRA survey results also indicate midterm-to-endline improvements in students’ ability to read and 
comprehend a short story, in reading speed (as measured by number of words correct per minute), and in 
the ability to read and understand grade-level text (see Annex 13, Table 100 through Table 102). Midterm￾to-endline increases are also seen in the percentage of students who get reading help from their parents, 
and in students’ time available to study and do homework (see Annex 13, Table 103). Across all grades (1-6), 
there were sizeable increases in the percent of students identified by their teachers as attentive (see Annex 
13, Table 104). 
97. While EGRA results for the McGovern-Dole project are positive, they cannot be compared with non-project 
schools or national averages as comparable studies are not available.106 The McGovern-Dole Programme 
does not have performance benchmarks for reading and comprehension and national benchmarks are not 
yet established. In 2019, the USAID Soma Umenye project and the Rwanda Education Board developed early 
grade reading benchmarks for Kinyarwanda oral reading fluency and reading comprehension for grades 1, 
2, and 3, and the Local Early Grade Reading Assessment (LEGRA) to measure literacy performance against 
the benchmarks.107 However, these results are not directly comparable with the midterm and endline EGRA 
survey data used in the current evaluation due to methodology, survey timing, sample size, and geographic 
location of the EGRA and the LEGRA pilots.
MGD 1.1: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
98. The programme focused on improving the learning environment in schools by training teachers in new, 
higher quality teaching techniques and tools and by promoting a more consistent classroom presence by 
teachers. Teachers who showed exemplary teaching performance were recognized with teaching awards 
by World Vision in 2018 and 2019 (see Annex 6, Table 19).108,109 This likely contributed to exceeding 
programme targets, with 1,240 teachers using new techniques and tools (126 percent of target), and 1,680 
teachers attending school at least 90 percent of the time (257.3 percent of target) (Annex 6, Table 17 to 
Table 19).
99. The programme has effectively increased access to books and other learning materials, which were in 
critically short supply at the outset of the programme. Consequently, World Vision distributed all planned 
106 USAID’s Soma Umenye project refers to early grade reading benchmarks; see paragraph 97. 107 USAID. 2020. “Early Grade Reading in Rwanda: What Does ‘Good’ Look Like and How Do We Measure It?” October 21. 
https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/learning/early-grade-reading-what-does-good-look-and-how-do-we-measure-it 108 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 109 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019).
Date | Report Number 25
school supplies to the 104 schools in 2017.110 For the 2017 distribution, World Vision provided more than 
double the planned number of textbooks and teaching and learning materials (learning starter kits) to 
schools (Annex 6, Table 20 and Table 21). The number of students benefitting from the starter kits far 
exceeded the annual target of 20,750 in all five years since the distribution; at the highest, 96,041 students 
benefitted (2018; 463 percent of target) and at the lowest, 41,877 students (2020; 202 percent of target). 
The ET observed a print-rich environment in school classrooms during both the midterm and final 
evaluations. 
100.Since FY2017, all programme schools were provided with supplemental reading material. (Annex 6, Table 
23 through Table 27). Literacy materials enabled the programme to reach into the communities, with 312 
weekend reading clubs established in the school catchment areas (Annex 6, Table 58). Each club is 
supported by three facilitators (though some clubs have fewer), trained by World Vision on the Literacy 
Boost Community Action model.111 School librarians were trained on library management techniques and 
on the new Reading club Toolkit. To encourage reading club facilitators to continue volunteering, World 
Vision distributed smart phones for communication between facilitators, Kinyarwanda model teachers and 
project staff.
101.Due to COVID-19 restrictions, reading clubs were unable to meet during the school closure. To ensure 
continued access to reading materials, World Vision organized door-to-door book lending with grade 1-3 
students.112 Reading facilitators told ET interviewers that outreach and follow-up was not easy, especially to 
distant households, but parents ensured that books loaned to students were kept in good condition at 
home, and literate parents are helping their children with their reading and writing skills, a finding 
consistent with the EGRA survey data (see Annex 13, Table 103). 
102.To improve the teaching of literacy skills, the programme trained and certified 1,509 teachers, educators, 
and teaching assistants (target: 816) (Annex 6, Table 28). Peer observations by teachers and classroom 
observations by programme staff, Sector Education Inspectors and headmasters indicate a yearly increase 
in the number of teachers demonstrating improved literacy-teaching skills. (Annex 6, Table 28 and Table 
29). 
103.World Vision conducts quarterly refresher trainings for teachers. Classroom observations confirmed that 
every trained teacher visited is using at least three to four Literacy Boost Techniques in each lesson.113
Interviews with teachers confirm they received training from World Vision on reading techniques and 
teaching methods, while some have received refresher trainings. During school closure, trainings were 
adapted and rolled out using a self-learning manual developed by World Vision’s Literacy Boost 
Coordinators and shared with teachers through WhatsApp groups. Hard copies were also distributed.114
104.Head teachers, school-based mentors, deans of studies, sector education officers, and district education 
officers were trained and certified on teacher coaching methods, again far exceeding the target (262
trained versus 139 target, an achievement of 188.5 percent) (Annex 6, Table 30). Coaching techniques 
included the creation of teacher development plans, classroom observation, giving feedback, the 
facilitation of learning circles and peer-to-peer observation.115 The endline school survey confirms that head 
teachers apply new techniques (Annex 13, Table 106). Trainings were adapted to COVID-19 restrictions 
using a self-learning approach, and ET interviews with administrators confirm they received training from 
World Vision on school management and planning. District officials and school personnel told the ET that 
the training of teachers and school administrators, especially the teacher coaching, are perceived as a 
strength of the McGovern-Dole Programme.
110 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 111 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 112 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 113 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 114 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 115 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019).
Date | Report Number 26
MGD 1.2: Improved Attentiveness
105.Attentiveness. The EGRA survey indicates that at endline, 74.1 percent of students in classrooms were 
identified as attentive by their teacher (Annex 13, Table 104). This is below the target of 80 percent, but still 
an improvement over 57.4 percent at midterm, with similar midterm-endline improvements at all grade 
levels (Annex 13, Table 105). Interviews with school administrators and teachers indicate that attention 
levels were slightly lower after schools reopened but were still higher than at midterm.
106.Beneficiaries and meals data. The endline beneficiary target is exceeded with 147,798 students receiving 
daily school meals against a target of 127,650 (115.8 percent of target) (Annex 6, Table 34). This kept up 
with enrolment, which rose steadily during the project period to 115.8 percent of target at endline (73,403 
girls vs target 66,378 and 74,395 boys vs target 61,272 (Annex 6, Table 54). Yearly beneficiary targets 
decreased after 2017 (Annex 6, Table 36) due to new schools being established in the programme 
catchment areas and student being transferred to schools outside of the McGovern-Dole Program;
116 in 
those years the programme continued to exceed or nearly meet yearly targets for number of students 
served, with the lowest achievement level still high, at 94 percent in FY2020. 
107.The overall number of school meals provided achieved 80.4 percent of target (see Annex 6, Table 32). The 
yearly targets for meals were almost met in 2017-2019, with over 14 million school meals provided in each 
of these three years (see Annex 6, Table 35). No in-school meals were provided between April and 
September 2020 because schools closed due to COVID-19.117 To enable continued support, WFP organized 
two take-home-ration (THR) distributions to students in all118 schools supported by the McGovern-Dole 
Programme.119 The THR were meant only for students, but interviews with SGACs indicate that THRs were 
shared within household and usually lasted a week or less (2-7 days maximum, depending on family size). 
From October 2020 to March 2021, fewer meals were distributed than in previous years due to COVID￾related school closures (see Annex 6, Table 35).
108.Planned commodities were provided to 58 schools in Karongi and Rutsiro districts, where students receive 
a daily meal of CSB+ and sugar while students in 49 schools in Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe districts receive 
a meal of beans, salt, fortified oil and fortified maize meal. USDA provides in-kind commodities of CSB+ and 
fortified oil while Mastercard provided funds to purchase beans, salt, sugar, and fortified maize meal. 
109.Procurement. Beans and maize meal are procured locally while salt is procured regionally and sugar 
internationally.120 Endline school survey findings show small decreases in the percentages of schools 
receiving food from school gardens (50 percent at midterm vs 45 percent at endline), NGOs (100 percent at 
midterm vs 90 percent at endline)121, and parents (5 percent at midterm vs 0 percent at endline) while 
provision from local markets increased from 40 percent at midterm to 55 percent at endline (Annex 13, 
Table 107).
110.Meal timeliness and quality. Students and school personnel interviewed by the ET said they appreciated 
receiving timely meals. Students like the maize and porridge meals but complain that sometimes the beans 
are not well cooked. 
111.Capacity strengthening. WFP provided capacity strengthening to 35 McGovern-Dole-supported 
cooperatives in southern and western provinces.122 This includes 16 cooperatives supported under the LRP
116 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 117 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 118 Three new schools were added in January 2020 in Karongi. Further, a satellite school that was previously created at one of 
the McGovern-Dole-supported schools in Karongi, has now been established as an official school. This former satellite school 
brings the total number of schools with these THR to 108. 119 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 120 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020). 121 The survey question is Where is the food for the children obtained? This response option is worded NGOs provided; there is 
no response option for WFP. NGOs include WFP, and there are no agencies providing food to the schools.
122 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019).
Date | Report Number 27
Programme, which closed in September 2019.123 McGovern-Dole training encompasses business plan 
development, facilitating access to formal financial institutions, coaching, cooperative governance, financial 
management, access to markets, training on Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and post-harvest handling 
and storage.124
112.The number of smallholder farmers benefiting from partnerships with schools grew from zero in 2016 
(against a target of 5,935) to 3,922 at the midterm in 2018 (34 percent of the target of 11,500). At endline, 
9,771 smallholder farmers benefited from partnerships with schools, 85 percent of the target of 11,500 
farmers (Annex 6, Table 44). Due to time limitations, the ET visited four cooperatives, two of which had not 
yet sold products to WFP or schools, though the cooperatives view WFP and schools as their most 
promising market linkages. Cooperative members interviewed by the ET confirmed having received 
training, though some said only a few members were trained. Seventeen cooperatives have developed 
business plans. Interviews with MINAGRI indicated that farmer groups need comprehensive support in 
strengthening production and commercial capacity in order to supply schools, in addition to strengthening 
local-to-national market systems. 
113.School gardens. The target for the establishment and maintenance of school gardens, led by GHI, was 
reached in 2018 (Annex 6, Table 46). The activity has expanded considerably since the midterm and now 
also includes nutrition activities/training for parents, school personnel, local government, and community 
members125. It further includes the development and distribution of educational material in schools; the 
creation of Nutrition Oversight Committees in all schools; meetings with cell leaders to develop supervision 
plans and the development of performance contracts with schools (Imihigo) to include nutrition-sensitive 
activities; the provision of seeds and garden support packages to schools126; cooking demonstrations and 
nutrition trainings; and support to schools to organize parent nutrition days. 127
114.During the school closure, GHI partnered with cell leaders and school authorities to identify and distribute 
vegetables grown in the school gardens to 4,498128 vulnerable families. A survey of 371 home gardens 
maintained by students who received seeds from 45 programme schools was conducted by GHI in 
December 2020. The survey found that schools provided nine types of vegetable seeds, with amaranth, 
kale, onion, and beets the most distributed, while the best-producing vegetables were spinach, chayote, 
celery, leeks, and nightshade. Students were growing an average of 3.4 types of vegetables.129
MGD 1.3: Improved Student Attendance
115.Attendance. The programme target for overall regular school attendance was nearly achieved, at 96 
percent actual vs planned (Annex 6, Table 48). As shown in Figure 2, attendance climbed fairly steadily. By 
FY2021, attendance was 101.3 percent of target for boys and 91.2 percent for girls in FY2021. Teachers and 
SGACs told the ET that school meals motivate children to attend regularly. 
123 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 124 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 125 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 126 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020). 127 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 128 Number reflects 770 in April – September 2020 and 3,728 in October – December. Distribution was mostly in the Western 
Region (Rutsiro and Karongi). Source: GHI Quarterly Report October- December 2020. 129 GHI. Student Home Garden Survey. December 2020. 
Date | Report Number 28
Figure 2: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA- supported 
classroom/ school
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and ET consultation with WFP for FY2021 
data.
116.The final target of 5 percent, for the percentage of students who miss more than 10 school days per year 
due to illness, was met every year from FY2017 to FY2021 inclusive (Annex 6, Table 49). In FY2021, the value 
for girls was 1.72 percent and 2.4 percent for boys. The small increase between FY2020 and FY2021 is likely 
due to COVID-19, as parents and teachers were more cautious about sending students who show signs of 
illness to school.130 At endline, teachers and SGAC members interviewed said that students look healthier 
and that dropout rates have decreased significantly. 
117.GEWE. The programme and the Government view gender equity largely in terms of enrolment, attendance, 
retention, and access to education. In this respect, it has been successful; school administrators and staff 
told the EGRA/school survey team that girls’ attendance has increased over the course of the programme. 
Girls are active in the literacy clubs and perform better than boys on EGRA reading tests.
118.One programme contribution singled out by government, WFP, and school-based KIs as influencing gender 
equality and protection are the girls’ sanitation rooms, which reduce absenteeism because they enable girls 
to attend school during their menstrual period. Thirty-six percent of female students in the McGovern-Dole 
Programme are of adolescent age.131 Teachers noted that prior to having the sanitation rooms, some girls 
would fall behind in their studies and drop out of school. Key informants also said that teachers guide girls 
in the use of the sanitation rooms and are available to talk to the girls, so that the girls feel more secure at 
school. Nevertheless, there is room for a more gender-sensitive approach in establishing access to the 
sanitation rooms. The ET found that girls often must request the sanitation room key from a male teacher, 
which was awkward for the girls, and that sanitation rooms were located too close to classrooms and thus 
not in a private space. The Government has adopted the provision of girls’ sanitation rooms for all schools, 
contingent on available funding. However other stakeholders are also prioritizing sanitation rooms; Action 
Aid and World Vision have both constructed these in the McGovern-Dole Programme schools. World Vision 
has constructed 33 girls’ rooms in the McGovern-Dole schools, 72 of the 108 schools (67 percent) have girls' 
rooms.
132
130 WFP. 2021. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021). 131 WFP Rwanda. 2021. Semi-annual student survey. March. 132 Per information provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report.
42,226 48,943
55,135 55,137
60,507
43,409
50,327
56,707 56,707
62,079
85,635
99,201
111,841 111,841
122,586
127,650
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Female Male Total Target (total)
Date | Report Number 29
119.Also, adoption in national schools is not only based on government budget but on other stakeholders also 
prioritizing girls' rooms. For example, Action Aid has constructed girls' rooms in a number of schools in 
Rwanda, even in some McGovern-Dole schools. While World Vision has constructed 33 girls' rooms in the 
programme, 72 of the 107 schools have girls' rooms (67% of our schools).133
120.Timeliness. Interviews with WFP staff cited internal qualitative monitoring that shows school meals 
decrease tardiness among students.134 Teachers and administrators said that the meals helped girls attend 
school on time, as before they were delayed preparing meals at home. Interviews with parents and SGACs 
confirm children’s eagerness to attend school on time knowing they will receive a meal. With children taken 
care of at school parents also indicated having more time for work.
121.Kitchens. At endline, all 104 schools have access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
including new or rehabilitated kitchens, cook areas, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils. Kitchens, 
storerooms, and stoves were built under the supervision of two commercial contractors, district officials 
and WFP technical staff.135 Targets for the provision of fuel-efficient stoves are exceeded. (Annex 6, Table 50
and Table 52).
122.Latrines. At endline, targets for the construction or facilitation of latrines are exceeded: 476 stalls vs a 
target of 364 (130.8 percent achievement) and 34 latrines vs a target of 26 (130.8 percent achievement) 
(Annex 6, Table 51). The target was met in 2018 but due to the ongoing need for latrines at many 
programme schools, World Vision raised an additional US $90,000 from private partners to construct more 
latrines.136
123.Parent awareness of the importance of education. The percentage of parents in target communities 
who can name at least three benefits of primary education increased from 69.8 percent at midterm to 74.3 
percent at endline (Annex 6, Table 108), but fell short of the target of 90 percent.137 World Vision completed 
the planned parent awareness workshops in early 2019, but planned additional activities based on the low 
progress on this indicator at midterm, including four radio programmes (two in the south and two in the 
west) aired by World Vision during COVID-19.138 The programmes covered reading awareness, the 
importance of education, parental engagement in children’s education, and good health and hygiene 
practices. A quick assessment conducted by reading club facilitators during house-to-house lending 
activities found that 4,038 parents (54 percent male, 46 percent female) listened to one or more of the 
programmes during this period.
124.Monthly workshops were organized to raise awareness on the importance of education among parents of 
children attending the programme’s reading clubs.139 The programme decided to include all parents of 
children enrolled in community reading clubs,140 which dramatically increased the number of parents 
trained in the last two years of the program: from 1,231 parents (85 percent of the annual target) in 2019 to 
4,038 in 2020 (277 percent of target) and 19,134 in 2021 (1,314 percent of target) (Annex 6, Table 57). From 
2017-2021, the programme trained 42,464 parents. Additionally, during house-to-house book lending visits, 
reading club facilitators distributed flyers to 19,134 parents (47 percent men, 53 percent women) stressing 
the importance of literacy and parents’ reading awareness.141
125.Community trainings. Between 2017 and 2021, trainings were provided to SGACs in all project schools 
(Annex 6, Table 62 and Table 63). Trainings and refreshers were provided by World Vision to SGAC 
members on the use of the Citizen Voice and Action (CVA) model to conduct community dialogue at 
133 Per information provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report. 134 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 135 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 136 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report ((Oct 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020). 137 Endline school survey conducted by the evaluation team. 138 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 139 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 140 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 141 WFP. 2021. MGD Semi-Annual Report (November 2020 – April 2021). Advance excerpt provided by WFP.
Date | Report Number 30
schools.
142CVA training equips SGAC members to discuss issues related to school meal preparation and 
distribution, WASH, literacy, parent contributions to school feeding, and student and teacher attendance. 
SGACs then develop action plans to address challenges and to guide advocacy efforts for school 
improvements. Regular school monitoring exercises revealed the growing involvement of parents in school 
management through the use of school scorecards to monitor progress.143 The school endline survey 
indicates that SGACs received training on nutrition, school feeding, school management and governance, 
health, school infrastructure, and school gardens (Annex 13, Table 109).
126.In some schools, parents have contributed to replacing and repairing handwashing stations, purchasing 
new kitchen utensils, and providing manure for school gardens.144Parent contributions are also a critical 
input to pay cooks’ salaries, and to purchase produce and firewood. Each school administration and SGAC 
determine the amount of the parent contribution; this ranges from 300 Rwf (US$ 0.32) to 1,500 Rwf (US$ 
1.62) per student per term, though in some schools, parents may instead make in-kind contributions of 
firewood or volunteer labor in the kitchen or garden. The parent contribution fund is managed by either a 
teacher, the SGAC or the school administrator and 98 percent of schools record this amount in a financial 
record book.145 The MTE report indicated that some parents had concerns with how these funds were 
managed, i.e., the risk of funds disappearing or being used for other purposes. Interviews at endline show 
that these concerns were mostly addressed through discussion between parents, community leaders and 
school staff, which was facilitated by the programme.
127.FGDs with SGACs indicate that parents’ contributions are slowly increasing but are estimated to vary from 
40 to 80 percent of parents; the ability to contribute is more challenging in certain schools and for very 
poor families. Students told the ET that, in some cases, students do not receive a meal when their parents 
do not contribute. The country office reports that this practice is highly discouraged by WFP, parents and 
MINEDUC but some schools continue to practice it and not report it.146 
Key EQ 2: Has the use of health and dietary practices increased?
MGD 2.1: Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices
128.EGRA findings indicate a small increase in knowledge of health and hygiene practices in all project districts 
(53 percent at endline vs 49 percent at midterm) except Karongi where the midterm value (48 percent) 
decreased to 41 percent at endline (Annex 13, Table 110). Despite this increase, the target for students who 
can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices (80 percent) is not met (Table 9 and Annex 6, 
Table 64).
129.The EGRA findings show an improvement in students’ health and hygiene practices at endline, including 
handwashing with soap after toilet and before eating, brushing teeth, eating a balanced diet, and avoiding 
open defecation. However, the findings also indicate a decrease in other personal hygiene (e.g., bathing) 
from 91 percent at midterm to 81 percent at endline (Annex 13, Table 111). District officials and the 
majority of teachers interviewed told the ET that they noticed an improvement in handwashing practices. 
The ET noted that students are continually reminded by teachers to practice good hygiene, so may have 
forgotten some practices during the long absence from school. However, students were observed washing 
their hands before entering class.147
142 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 143 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 144 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 145 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 146 Per information provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report. 147 The ET observed permanent handwashing stations at the school entrances where all students wash their hands. They also 
observed “step and wash” technology (kandagira ukarabe) in classrooms (though some did not have water) and by the latrines, 
though some students did not adopt the practice.
Date | Report Number 31
Table 9: Student health and hygiene knowledge, baseline, midterm and endline
Indicator Target Baseline Midterm n Endline n
Percent of students who can identify at least 3 
key health and hygiene practices
80.0 n/a 49.2 441 52.9 435
Male students 80.0 48.0 48.6 220 44.7 215
Female students 80.0 47.0 49.8 221 60.9 220
Source: Baseline, midterm and endline EGRA surveys
No significant difference between male and female students at midterm is observed at a p<0.05 level or lower.
130.Training for parents on good health and hygiene practices focused on the importance of improved hygiene 
at home, including personal hygiene, safe drinking water, handwashing, skin diseases, safe food handling, 
latrine sanitation, and preventing acute respiratory infections (ARI).148 The target was exceeded across all 
project years because the project decided to train all parents, as children are more likely to contract 
hygiene-related diseases at home (Annex 6, Table 66).
131.The project also organized health and hygiene campaigns in all 104 schools. Targets were met in 2017-2018 
and almost met in 2019-2021, with achievement ranging from 91 – 98 percent (Annex 6, Table 65). 
Interviews conducted by World Vision showed increased child awareness of the importance of good health 
and hygiene practices. At the beginning of the project, World Vision provided manufactured handwashing 
stations to each school but over time these ceased to function. After the MTE, World Vision and WFP 
designed a handwashing station model for schools that can be made from readily available, low-cost 
materials. 149 During COVID-19, permanent improved handwashing stations were added in 38 schools. Each 
school now has at least one handwashing station outside of each classroom, latrine, and kitchen. To ensure 
that students received health and hygiene messages while schools were closed, World Vision’s Reading 
Club Facilitators distributed booklets containing good hygiene practices messages to children when they 
were at home during lockdown.150 Interviews show that COVID prevention messaging from the Government 
and other sources further reinforced knowledge on handwashing practices.
MGD 2.2: Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices
132.Cooks and storekeepers in the four districts received training on food handling, meals, safe food 
preparation, storage and WASH,151 with bi-annual refresher trainings as cooks and storekeepers frequently 
change in the programme schools.152 The number of trained cooks and storekeepers thus varies across 
project years; the number trained was highest in 2018 (469 trained; 90 percent of target) and 2019 (459 
trained; 88 percent of target). While training numbers dipped to a low of 164 (32 percent of target) in 2020 
due to the pandemic-related suspension of group meetings and trainings, they were back on track by April 
2021, with 309 cooks and storekeepers trained against a FY target of 520, representing 59 percent 
achievement at midyear (Annex 6, Table 68). 
133.The endline school survey shows a large decrease from baseline to endline in cooks/storekeepers’ ability to 
identify at least three safe preparation and storage practices, from 92 percent at baseline to 85 percent to 
40 percent at midline and endline, respectively (final target 95 percent) (Annex 13, Table 108). This is 
attributed to trained cooks leaving the schools, schools with no cooks, and to newly hired cooks who took 
part in the endline assessment but have limited skills or training from the project, along with a lack of 
practice for cooks during school closure. The ET did observe that cooks practiced good hygiene both 
148 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 149 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 150 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020); draft review comment from World Vision 151 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). Information also confirmed during key 
informant interviews with cooks and storekeepers. 
152 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019).
Date | Report Number 32
personally and in kitchens, including handwashing, though the cooks were not always able to identify the 
good practices. 
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
134.The indicator used to measure nutrition knowledge relates to training: number of individuals trained in child 
health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance. The number of individuals trained between 2017-2021 
was 25,590 against an endline target of 208 (Annex 6, Table 69). This does not necessarily represent vast 
overachievement – rather, it is a measurement issue explained by a change in training model, whereby the 
indicator target was based on the original model. Initially, training was to be conducted using a training-of￾trainers approach, which would be consistent with a target of 208 individuals, as these individuals would in 
turn train many (hundreds or thousands) others. Given GHI’s solid expertise in direct capacity 
strengthening in health and sanitation, the programme approach shifted from training trainers to training 
beneficiaries directly; in a decision agreed with WFP, World Vision also changed its training model to 
include all parents. While it is possible or even likely that the programme’s training efforts achieved the 
intended scope, this indicator no longer measures this accurately. 
MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services
135.The project met or exceeded the target number of schools with improved sanitation facilities in all project 
years (Annex 6, Table 72). The project built or reconstructed 34 latrines, exceeding the target. World Vision 
reallocated funds to meet an increased need for latrines due to higher student numbers.153,154
136.The target for all 104 programme schools to have an improved water source and sanitation facilities was 
reached in 2018 (Annex 6, Table 70). The endline school survey confirmed that all schools in the sample use 
piped water (Annex 13, Table 112). Building/rehabilitating water collection systems included the provision 
of rainwater catchment systems but as rainwater supplies were inconsistent, in 2019 the National School 
Feeding Steering Committee approved connecting schools to piped water sources.155 WFP reallocated funds 
for this purpose and in late 2019, eight additional schools were connected to piped water156 and in 2020, 
12 additional schools were connected, bringing to 20 the total number of schools connected to water by 
the McGovern-Dole Programme.157 School staff told the ET that some schools with piped water receive only 
intermittent supply, and some schools struggle to pay water bills.
137.With COVID-19, the challenge of adequate handwashing facilities in schools nationwide was widely 
discussed. MINEDUC issued a requirement to schools to construct permanent handwashing stations. In 
response, WFP and RBC constructed 10 permanent handwashing stations and World Vision constructed 28 
stations in select project schools.158 Of the two joint designs by WFP, UNICEF, MINEDUC and World Vision, 
the Government has adopted one nationwide for construction in over 1,300 schools.159 ET interviews with 
district officials indicate there is still a need for WASH material, especially soap. In addition, schools with 
new permanent structures must contend with much higher water bills. 
MGD 2.5: Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions
138.Deworming is organized twice a year by the Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC) as part of the national 
Integrated Health Week (IHW). WFP has had a partnership with RBC since 2016 and supports the delivery of 
the annual campaign.160 Yearly targets for the number of students receiving deworming treatment were 
153 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 154 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 155 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018). 156 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 157 2020 data provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report. 158 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 159 Additional information on handwashing facilities construction provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation 
Reference Group review of draft report.. 160 WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018).
Date | Report Number 33
met in 2017-2018 and achieved 94 percent or higher in 2019-2021 (Annex 6, Table 77. In 2020, RBC 
transitioned the IHW campaign to a decentralized model with deworming conducted at school and 
community levels. World Vision also supported RBC in the development of tools and materials for the 
prevention of Neglected Tropical Diseases and parasitic diseases for use in RBC’s new campaign model.161
MGD 2.6: Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools and Equipment
139.As reported in the discussion on improved school infrastructure (paragraph 121) all 104 programme 
schools have improved food preparation and storage equipment. The kitchen facilities constructed in 
Rutsiro and Karongi districts in 2017-2018 were rehabilitated to reduce smoke production. Due to COVID￾19 lockdowns in Rwanda, there were some delays in planned construction and handover, but these were 
completed by programme end.162
Key EQ 3: What is the level of community-level involvement and participation in decision￾making in school governance mechanisms?
140.Communities’ and parents’ engagement with schools has strengthened since the MTE. Parents are more 
engaged with schools as they are better informed, are familiar with the reading club activities, and value 
the school meals. District officials confirmed that parents have a greater recognition of their role in their 
children’s education and an increased sense of responsibility regarding their contribution to the 
programme. Several factors contribute to this expanded involvement, including greater outreach to 
parents through parent and school committee meetings, capacity strengthening of teachers, volunteers, 
and cooks, and the involvement of cooperatives. GHI’s outreach with school gardens, seeds, and nutrition 
education has also generated more community engagement with the schools, and World Vision aired radio 
programmes during COVID-19 to raise awareness on the importance of education. Increased awareness 
generated by the reading clubs and strengthened community literacy activities through better alignment 
with school curricula, have been both drivers and results of overall parent engagement. The success of 
these efforts is borne out in endline EGRA indicators, as well: the percent of parents in target communities 
who can name at least three benefits of primary education rose from 69.8 percent at midline to 74.3 
percent in FY2021 (Annex 13, Table 108 and Annex 6, Table 55).
141.Parents support the school by contributing to school decision-making, school management, financial and 
in-kind contributions to the school feeding programme, direct purchase of vegetables from school gardens, 
and supporting assistant teachers with childcare. The SGAC mobilizes and sensitizes parents, especially on 
contributions, and represent parents in decisions relating to education and school development. Teachers 
and school administrators stated that more parents are attending school meetings. Interviews with parents 
and SGAC members indicate that school committees are working with parents to facilitate collaboration 
between the parents and the school and are working with local leaders to reduce dropouts. The 
EGRA/school survey team noted that the FGDs with parents and school committees were gender-balanced 
in terms of participation by men and women, though women are mainly engaged in the school 
management committees. 
142.Teachers and school administrators stated that parent contributions have improved since the MTE, and 
now, according to KIIs and FGDs with parents and SGAC members, 40-80 percent of parents are providing 
cash or in-kind support to school meals. However, KIs in many schools said that parent contributions 
remain a significant challenge and often are not sufficient to enable schools to pay cooks and to buy 
firewood and vegetables. This is attributed to parents’ view that school meals are the responsibility of the 
Government, the effect of COVID-19 on incomes, and poverty. Schools continue to sensitize parents to their 
role in the programme and to the reasons for contributing. 
143.Job creation and training for cooks and cleaners is valued by the community. During the MTE the ET noted 
that few cooks at the schools were women. The number of female cooks is slowly increasing, and in 2019, 
161 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020). 162 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020).
Date | Report Number 34
73 percent of WFP-assisted schools have at least one female cook.163 Some barriers remain to women’s 
employment as cooks, including the attitude of many men that women are not strong enough to stir the 
large pots of food. Another barrier in the western region is the need for cooks to walk to school before 
sunrise, which is not safe for women, in order to prepare porridge in the morning. 
Key EQ 4: What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively 
deliver, implement, and sustain school meal interventions?
Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
144.The number of government staff trained and certified exceeded life-of-project targets (Annex 6, Table 82). 
At national level, training was given on managing programme implementation, linking programme partners 
and ministries, and coordination and oversight. At the district level, training focused on increasing 
ownership, and sustainability mechanisms including an emphasis on producing sufficient vegetables in the 
next programme phase. 164
Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework 
145.The national School Feeding Policy and strategy, first written in 2016 with WFP support, were updated with 
WFP technical assistance and approved by MINEDUC in 2019. 165 While a new national nutrition policy was 
being formulated in 2020, WFP held meetings with stakeholders to ensure school feeding would be 
reflected in the new policy. Both policies are awaiting full approval by the Cabinet, which is projected for 
2021. WFP has committed to support MINEDUC in drafting a financing strategy for the national scale up of 
school feeding in 2020/2021 (Annex 6, Table 85 and Table 89). 
146.WFP supported MINEDUC to finalize the draft School Feeding Operational Guidelines in 2019 and 2020 and 
MINEDUC approved the guidelines in 2021. The guidelines provide comprehensive guidance for the 
implementation of school feeding including governance, reporting, food handling, preparation, nutrition, 
storage and safety, and procurement.166 WFP also created a summary of the guidelines in English and 
Kinyarwanda which has been distributed nationwide to all schools. These guidelines are to be used as the 
official government instructions on school feeding. The guidelines build upon WFP’s support to MINEDUC in 
developing menu modelling for the national school feeding programme using nutritious, locally sourced 
foods. The model menus influenced the national budget planning process and resulted in MINEDUC 
proposing a higher government budget for meal allocations. 167 It also provided the Government with a cost 
benchmark for a nutritious meal for the first time.168 This enables MINEDUC to compare its current subsidy 
for a nutritious meal, which covers about 40 percent of the cost, with the actual cost. 
147.The project planned to hold six meetings per year with the former HGSF Steering Committee and Technical 
Committee.169 Sixty-four meetings were held between 2017 and 2021, indicating strong communication and 
coordination among committee members. WFP reports that quarterly meetings were held at district level, 
and yearly meetings at national level (Annex 6, Table 86). 
148.To support more robust data collection and monitoring of school feeding programmes, WFP supported two 
government workshops in 2020 to incorporate improved indicators into MINEDUC’s management 
information system. WFP assisted MINEDUC to pilot the new school feeding module in 10 McGovern-Dole 
schools in 2020. The target for establishing government monitoring and evaluation systems has been met 
163 WFP. 2019. Rwanda Annual Country Report. Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023. 164 Per communication with country office during review of M&E data. 165 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 166 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 167 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 168Per information provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report. 169 Details on these committees are discussed in Section 2.1, paragraph 73.
Date | Report Number 35
(Annex 6, Table 88); WFP trained all 107 schools in May 2021 to be users and a larger pilot is ongoing with 
national roll-out planned for September 2021.170
149.The McGovern-Dole Programme supports three staff at the national level, one in MINAGRI and two in 
MINEDUC, who provide coordination, management, supervision, monitoring and reporting of project 
activities at the national level using existing government structures and resources. 171 In August 2020, 
following continuous advocacy by WFP, MINEDUC established a four-person school feeding unit within the 
ministry. WFP supported the development of job profiles for the unit 172 (Annex 6, Table 89).
150.In each programme district, the McGovern-Dole Programme supports a district coordinator to monitor, 
coordinate and provide technical assistance to programme activities, and to advocate for the programme 
with district Government.173 District coordinators are key participants in WFP workshops on the 
development of operational guidelines and school nutrition indicators, and on the review of national 
training materials created by WFP and MINEDUC. The district coordinators are also important resources for 
administrators and schools implementing the government school feeding programme.
151.WFP, district coordinators and MINEDUC adapted existing global training guides to develop national 
guidelines for food quality and safety for all schools in Rwanda.174 Training materials will support 
implementation of the guidelines and include a video series to complement future in-person trainings.175
Increased Government Support
152.The Government has approved a large budget increase for the NSFP. Prior to the introduction of the NSFP, 
it was envisioned that public-private investments would be leveraged as a result of USDA assistance and 
that the Government would allocate part of its budget to the national programme. With the advent of the 
NSFP, the original indicator to attract financial support is no longer relevant;176 the target and actual values 
for this indicator are zero. (Annex 6, Table 92).
Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
153.The objective to increase engagement of local organizations and community groups is reported under 
paragraphs 111-112 on partnerships with farmer groups to supply food to schools. WFP provided support 
and capacity building to 35 McGovern-Dole-supported cooperatives in southern and western provinces177
(Annex 6, Table 43). In addition, the target of 104 SGACs supported as a result of USDA assistance was 100 
percent achieved in 2017 (Annex 6, Table 93). The number of public-private partnerships formed as a result 
of USDA assistance was achieved in 2020, with a similar result in 2021, with 35 partnerships formed (113 
percent). In addition, community outreach efforts of World Vision resulted in 936 community volunteers 
leading weekly Reading Clubs throughout the project.178
170 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). Updated info provided by country office via 
email correspondence 2 August 2021.
171 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 172 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 173 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019). 174 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020). 175 WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020). 176 Note received by the ET from WFP as part of the review of outcome performance data (24 March 2021). 177 WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019). 178 Per information provided by World Vision in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report.
Date | Report Number 36
Key Findings and Conclusions – Effectiveness
154.Over the life of the programme, the McGovern-Dole Programme consistently exceeded or nearly met 
its annual targets for the number of school-aged children receiving daily meals (see Annex 6, Table 36), 
despite the constraints imposed by the pandemic. To complement food assistance, the programme has 
supported activities in nutrition education, improved WASH, deworming, training of cooks and other 
areas that contribute to improved nutrition. 
155.The McGovern-Dole Programme has been effective in significantly improving children’s reading skills. 
EGRA scores and interviews with school administrators and teachers confirmed the improvement in 
children’s reading capacities, with girls better performing than boys. Key informant and focus group 
responses indicate that community reading volunteers were the main reason for continued 
improvement while schools were closed due to COVID-19.
156.The programme provides equal access to benefits for girls and boys and has supported and influenced 
the Government’s policies on gender equality. There is scope for greater gender sensitivity in some 
aspects of the programme, and potentially for the scaled-up national programme.
2.3 EFFICIENCY 
157.As noted throughout Section 2, programme targets were often exceeded to a considerable degree. Part of 
the McGovern-Dole Programme’s success in meeting (and exceeding) targets is that it is an intensive 
programme with layered interventions that focuses on a small number of schools. At the same time, 
interviews with programme staff indicate that some targets were also set too low at the beginning of the 
programme and were not sufficiently adjusted to account for changes to the implementation approach 
during the programme. Details for significant over- and under-achievement against indicator targets are 
provided as table notes in Annex 6.
158. In the second half of the programme, WFP and partners expanded the programme’s value for money 
through their integrated support and input to national school feeding policies and strategies. This was 
paired successfully with learning from implementation at district, school, and community level that could 
be applied to context-appropriate scaling. The programme, especially since the midterm, has reached 
beyond its four target districts to support the development of national school feeding policy and guidelines 
that will apply to the entire national school system. This transition from a focus on implementation to a 
broader role in strengthening national capacity effectively broadened the impact of the McGovern-Dole 
Programme. Significantly, WFP staff acknowledged that the pandemic restrictions allowed them more time 
to focus on discussions at the national level with government partners and on technical support for a 
national school feeding programme.
159.The reorientation of specific programme components indicates an increase in the efficient use of 
resources, particularly in the second half of the programme. For instance, the expanded implementation of 
the school garden component in particular addresses questions raised in the MTE about this activity’s 
efficient use of resources; the inclusion of community outreach and nutrition information in the school 
garden activity indicates that its efficiency has improved. In another example, the project literacy 
component was adapted to provide better complementarity to Soma Umenya, another literacy project that 
was modelled after the McGovern-Dole Programme and had more comprehensive coverage. The active 
engagement of World Vision and WFP in the education sector helped to assure understanding and 
alignment with existing national initiatives. 
160.Programme and partner integration have improved since the midterm, increasing the efficiency of 
operations. Internally, WFP has instituted greater coordination among the HGSF, logistics, nutrition, and 
smallholder agricultural market support units in the country office since the midterm, creating an internal 
working group to bring unit heads together on strategic issues. Partners are now included in strategic 
discussions with the Government on school feeding, whereas at midterm, programme partners were 
Date | Report Number 37
mainly engaged in implementation. Monitoring and evaluation coordination has also improved through the 
involvement of the internal working group.
161.The introduction of the CSP and SO managers has brought more experienced staff into programme 
strategy and management. This, along with hiring more staff after the midterm, has improved 
management and operational efficiency. Staff interviews indicated some concerns that the introduction of 
additional staffing levels poses a risk to the direct engagement of senior leadership with the programme. In 
addition, as a result of intermediary staffing levels, senior leadership may receive fewer details and less key 
information to make informed decisions, and less input from staff who are most closely linked to 
understanding the work. The specific concern here is that this may dilute the level of senior leadership 
attention to the programme, which was a main factor in programme strengthening after the MTE. 
162.WFP has worked with MINEDUC to improve the efficient use of resources by developing a low-cost design 
for school kitchens, and a design for handwashing stations that can be constructed from local materials. 
These two designs have fed into the national construction of more than 2,600 kitchens in government 
schools and more than 1,300 permanent handwashing stations.179 School administrators are aware that 
they are responsible for kitchen maintenance, though whether they will have sufficient budget to do so is 
unclear. The programme has also financed piped water supply to many schools to replace unreliable water 
catchment systems, but some schools report intermittent supply from piped systems, indicating that 
reliable water supply continues to be a challenge despite this investment. 
Key Findings and Conclusions – Efficiency
163.Program targets were exceeded due to the programme’s high-intensity programming across a small 
number of schools. However, in some cases targets were also set and kept too low.
164.WFP and partners expanded the programme’s value-for-money through their integrated support and 
input to national school feeding policies and strategies. Pandemic restrictions on direct implementation 
activities provided further opportunity for strategic engagement with the Government. WFP and 
partners have demonstrated efficiency through the realization of programme results in an economic 
and timely way, and through a high-level of adaptive management that resulted in efficiency 
improvements, especially in the second half of the programme, i.e., improvements to the school 
garden and construction activities.
165.Improvements to the internal operating model of WFP and strengthening of partnership arrangements 
increased efficiency across the programme as a whole.
2.4 IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY 
166.The sustainable impact of the McGovern-Dole Programme is evident in its contributions to national policy 
and strategies, and in the Government’s decision to institutionalize school feeding management functions. 
These institutionalized functions include the establishment of a National School Feeding Steering 
Committee, a Technical Working Group, and a School Feeding unit within MINEDUC. Both are now part of 
the government structure, with their own budgets. Along with budgetary support, the strong ownership 
and leadership of the school feeding programme by senior government officials is an important 
contributor in sustainability. WFP has played a significant role in establishing these structures and 
government ownership, in part through WFP’s ability to demonstrate results and use lessons from the 
McGovern-Dole Programme to support the government’s own education priorities. WFP is a member of the 
National School Feeding Steering Committee, which enables it to continue to contribute to the design and 
implementation of a sustainable national school feeding programme that is appropriate to the capacities 
and budget of the Government. The task of capacity strengthening of the new institutions and their staff –
from the national to the district level – is a longer-term challenge, particularly in the areas of procurement
of nutritious local foods and addressing, maintaining water infrastructure, and safe meal preparation in 
179 Per information provided by WFP Rwanda country office in Evaluation Reference Group review of draft report.
Date | Report Number 38
schools. National capacity building for sustainability extends beyond partner ministries; in Phase II WFP will 
work with national academic and training institutions to train a cadre of managers in the future with the 
skills to implement the programme. WFP will continue to provide technical support to the Government in 
these and other areas in Phase II. 
167.An important contribution to the sustainability of school feeding was WFP’s work with MINEDUC to develop 
model meal menus for the NSFP.180 The model menus provide a seasonally based, cost-effective school 
meal using locally available foods. The meal is designed to meet 50 – 70 percent of a child’s micronutrient 
requirements and one-third of daily energy, protein, and fat requirements. 181 Menu modeling also 
addressed the additional nutritional requirements of adolescent girls. This was well received by the 
Government, which saw it as a relevant technical solution which contributed to understanding of how 
school feeding could address education, nutrition, and agricultural needs. 
168.The Government has also shown its commitment to a national school feeding programme by allocating 10 
percent of its education budget to school feeding, with additional money set aside for kitchens and other 
infrastructure. However, the current government budget of US $0.06 per day provides only 38 percent of 
the cost of a model meal. The model meal aims for a base cost of US $0.14 per day. The government plans 
to provide a cash transfer to cover US $0.10 of the meal and will rely on a parent contribution of US $0.04 
per child per day to cover the full cost. The model menus have prompted MINEDUC to increase its budget
request for school meals. WFP also continues to advocate with the Government for an increased allocation. 
169.WFP continues to learn from the McGovern-Dole experience and adapt its approach. The programme 
currently relies in part on imported food, an inherently unsustainable strategy, but sources beans and 
maize for school meals locally, in alignment with government policy to support local production. To support 
a sustainable school feeding programme, WFP developed a procurement strategy for the Government 
based on local purchase that would eliminate reliance on imported food while supporting local and 
regional market development. The strategy to provide more nutritious meals aims to promote greater 
diversity in crop production while providing a reliable school-based market for small farmers and 
contributing to greater resilience among farmers. The Government was very supportive of a procurement 
strategy linked to smallholder farmers, which is in line with the Government’s designation of agricultural 
development as a national priority. Another contribution to sustainability in Phase II will be the integration 
of cash transfers for the purchase of food locally and will move to serve only hot meals in line with the 
Government's request.182 
170.A key challenge to sustainability is the development of a national school feeding model that is appropriate 
to needs and resources. The McGovern-Dole Programme has been a key contributor to this process, with 
WFP and World Vision designing low-cost kitchen and handwashing facilities for schools, which have been 
adopted by the Government for all schools. While the Government does not have the budget to adopt the
entire McGovern-Dole model, it has recognized the value of its integrated education, nutrition, and WASH 
components; for instance, on a national basis, it is encouraging school gardens and the training of cooks 
and storekeepers. Education officials acknowledge that there are still many challenges to implementing a 
national school feeding programme, and that poor areas will still need a subsidy and partners even after 
five years.
180 MGD Semi-Annual Report Apr-Sept 2020. 181 WFP. School Feeding in Rwanda. Menu Modelling and Meal Options. April 2020. 182 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda. Introduction and Strategic Analysis. 
Date | Report Number 39
Key Findings and Conclusions – Impact and Sustainability
171.After the MTE, the McGovern-Dole Programme expanded its impact from direct results in targeted 
schools to larger scale systems-level impact through targeted support for a national school feeding 
programme and central and decentralized levels. This support encompasses an effective combination 
of technical input to national policies and strategies paired with context-specific learning from 
implementation.
172.The sustainable impact of the McGovern-Dole Programme is evident in its substantial contributions to 
a national policy and strategies to scale up a national school feeding programme, which is now seeing 
increased government budget support, and in its contributions to the institutionalization of school 
feeding within government structures. 
2.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE RESULTS 
Internal factors 
173.A key internal factor that contributed to the strong results achieved by the McGovern-Dole Programme 
since the MTE was the country office’s willingness and ability to act on the recommendations from that 
evaluation. At midpoint, WFP and the Government were building the systems needed for a sustainable 
school meals programme. The MTE noted the opportunity for the programme to more deliberately apply 
its experience to support and guide the government in developing the national school feeding programme.
This required WFP to better organize itself internally into a credible partner, better present its results to 
Government and have a more structured approach to its government partnership and capacity 
strengthening to facilitate easier government engagement. Table 10 shows the headline MTE 
recommendations and the actions taken by the country office, which are discussed in greater detail below. 
Table 10: Midterm evaluation recommendations1 and actions
Operational 
Recommendations Country Office Actions
R1: Strengthen WFP 
management, role clarity 
and staff capacity for 
functions related to the 
McGovern-Dole 
programme 
[high priority]
This recommendation was fully implemented and provided the foundation for 
the programme’s success in the second half of its implementation period. 
Country office management collaborated closely with the HGSF unit to resolve 
this recommendation within a 12-month period. As discussed in multiple 
conversations with the country office, WFP country office leadership, including 
the new Country Director, were strongly engaged in operations and strategy in 
the second half of the programme, which allowed for more adaptive 
management. Regular briefings with country office management helped ensure 
that management was kept abreast of new developments. The roles and 
responsibilities between the HGSF unit, technical units and senior leadership 
were clarified. Coordination and collaborative planning were increased, and 
informal day-to-day communication was regularized. Additional country office 
positions around capacity strengthening and strategic outcomes and increased 
technical capacity at HQ/RB level were leveraged to provide direct support to the 
programme. Key country office personnel with strategic skills sets were 
positioned to provide support to the HGSF programme as a whole, including for 
government advocacy and partnership functions – which was a specific emphasis 
of this recommendation. Field monitoring staff was increased so schools were 
visited monthly instead of only twice per semester. This provided more regular 
programme monitoring to maintain implementation quality and allowed more 
frequent reporting and review with government on challenges and follow-up 
actions. Relationships with partners were strengthened at both senior leadership 
and operational levels. 
Date | Report Number 40
Table 10: Midterm evaluation recommendations1 and actions
Operational 
Recommendations Country Office Actions
R2: Organize reflection 
meetings to inform 
knowledge management, 
advocacy, and strategic 
thinking. [high priority]
This recommendation was largely implemented. An HGSF Internal Working 
Group was created specifically in response to this recommendation. It is chaired 
by the Deputy Country Director and includes all key head of units and other 
relevant colleagues. Senior country office leadership placed particular emphasis 
on reflection activities that considered a whole-of-programme approach to 
supporting government to develop a national school feeding programme. Such
reflection was organized through regular semi-annual meetings, monthly 
meetings as well as incorporated into regular planning and performance 
monitoring sessions between the HGSF unit and country office senior leadership. 
Through these activities, the HGSF programme increasingly recognized the 
relevance and potential of its partnership and capacity strengthening modalities, 
and it matured to consider strategic decisions and results of equal importance to 
those at operational level. The caveat to this recommendation is that the country 
office did not institutionalize or properly resource a knowledge management 
function to capture, organize and document the process and results learning 
generated through its reflection activities. While this information was accessible 
to the ET through interviews, it was not documented for efficient and effective 
future use. 
R3: Contribute to the 
development of a school 
kitchen model that 
integrates primary and 
secondary school kitchen 
infrastructure and can still 
be supported by parent 
and community 
contributions. [medium 
priority]
This recommendation was largely implemented. The programme shifted 
resources from COVID-19 affected activities to scale up and improve its 
infrastructure activities, including rehabilitation and building of kitchens. WFP 
and MINEDUC designed a low-cost kitchen model for the national school feeding 
programme. Integration of primary and secondary school kitchens was 
considered where relevant, and new kitchen infrastructure always took into 
account facilities across both primary and secondary grades if present in the 
same school. The issue of parent and community school engagement 
contributions was elevated to a strategic priority by country office leadership, 
with positive progress noted at endline and a clear line of sight to further 
improve on this issue.
Strategic 
Recommendations Country Office Actions
R4: Initiate a structured 
transition or 
continuation planning 
process with the 
Government [high 
priority]
This recommendation was fully implemented, especially the recommendation to 
establish an intersectoral working group, led by the government with 
backstopping from WFP as necessary, that focuses on the school feeding and 
education nexus. In 2019, WFP supported the Government to establish a 
Technical Working Group on school feeding under the Education Sector Working 
Group, which is now the main coordination mechanism to guide McGovern-Dole 
Programme to government efforts. Overall, WFP action to support the 
Government to develop a national school feeding programme that builds on the 
McGovern-Dole results has become more needs-based, deliberate and
structured. For Government, this has made the relationship with WFP and 
management of WFP support easier to manage and apply. 
1 WFP Rwanda. 2019. WFP's USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Programme’s Support in Rwanda 2016-2020: Evaluation Report, Midterm Evaluation. July.
174.The quality and commitment of McGovern-Dole Programme staff has played a key role in the 
success of the programme. Senior leadership capacity and engagement, noted as a key challenge at 
midterm, have improved and been a key driver of success in the second half of the programme. Across KIIs, 
WFP and partner senior leadership were consistently highlighted as internal and external champions of the 
McGovern-Dole Programme. This leadership and high-level support provided McGovern-Dole Programme 
Date | Report Number 41
staff with the confidence and organizational support to intensify programme activities where needed, 
establish and subsequently achieve higher standards of quality, and facilitate stronger partnerships with 
key government counterparts. 
175.Leadership also played an important part in establishing a culture reset, especially in WFP, around the 
McGovern-Dole Programme. At the time of the midline evaluation, the strategic relevance of the McGovern￾Dole Programme was not fully understood and appreciated. At endline, it is very evident that the 
McGovern-Dole Programme is a flagship initiative for WFP. The government partnership and capacity 
strengthening elements of the programme now reflect what WFP in Rwanda wants to be known for.
176.Roles, skills and capabilities across McGovern-Dole Programme functions have been strengthened. WFP 
made changes that increased competency, credibility and trust with partners, specifically with the 
Government. These changes included ensuring high-quality staffing and a reduction in turnover at the
country-office level, supported by the re-establishment of a dedicated school feeding unit at WFP HQ. 
Further changes were made at RB level to increase capacity and accessibility on core and supporting 
programme functions - including nutrition-sensitive approaches, school feeding modalities, gender and 
social inclusion, and supply chain management. 
177.Coordination and communication have improved significantly since midterm. Within WFP, role clarity 
and regular coordination/communication channels between the McGovern-Dole Programme team and
country office technical and functional support units, and with senior leadership, has improved. Day-to-day 
decision-making is facilitated through frequent communication on an as-needed basis, instead of being 
addressed at monthly or bi-monthly meetings as was the case at midterm. Such meetings are now instead 
organized as reflection points, which is more appropriate to their frequency. 
178.Despite some staffing changes, relationships and coordination among WFP, World Vision and Garden 
Health International have improved decision-making processes since midterm. More regular formal and 
informal engagement at senior leadership level among these programme partners has improved functional 
collaboration, facilitated a whole-of-programme approach and enabled presentation of the consolidated 
McGovern-Dole Programme model to external stakeholders. The absence of such an approach was a 
particular gap noted at midterm. Operational collaboration among partners, which was already fit-for￾purpose at midterm, has been maintained.
179.The McGovern-Dole Programme service delivery model has been further tailored to the local 
context. Building on the solid technical capacity already in place at midline, McGovern-Dole Programme 
partners have continued to refine service delivery functions across all programme objectives to ensure that 
capacity strengthening, direct implementation by schools and communities, and outreach and advocacy 
activities are as efficient and effective as possible. The endline qualitative data indicate that satisfaction 
with McGovern-Dole Programme activities has, in general, increased or remained at a similar level as 
midterm. The lack of appropriate WASH infrastructure, noted as a critical deficit at midterm, has been 
addressed with available means. Reliable access to water is still a work in progress, but advances have 
been made in collaboration with Government. Provision of sanitation rooms for adolescent girls has 
contributed to regular attendance and retention of girls in school, according to project partners. Parent and 
community engagement has improved, mainly due to increased trust in the McGovern-Dole Programme 
and the schools associated with the programme: the programme has successfully managed to settle many 
of the concerns of parents, particularly related to the need for and the use of cash and in-kind 
contributions that schools were requesting.
180.Similarly, the programme has made meaningful progress in developing a procurement model that aligns 
with government needs and capacities. While this progress is notable, it is the McGovern-Dole Programme 
way-of-working that stands out most: the programme has successfully positioned itself as a partner that 
listens carefully to Government and addresses government priorities for McGovern-Dole Programme 
support. The programme has a positive reputation within Government and has become a strategic and 
technical partner of choice for current and future opportunities. 
Date | Report Number 42
181.Adaptive management in a dynamic operating environment. The programme managers successfully 
adapted interventions to remain relevant in a dynamic and complex environment. For example, 
programme managers adjusted the activities of implementing partners early in the programme. Especially 
notable was the positive manner in which managers responded comprehensively to the recommendations 
of the midterm review. Programme managers further demonstrated their agility through several highly 
effective responses to the challenges of COVID-19 by reallocating programme resources to provide take￾home rations during school closures, extending literacy services to students at home, continuing teacher 
trainings using a self-learning manual, extending outreach on school gardens and nutrition to communities 
around schools, and highlighting the importance of WASH infrastructure in schools.
182.The programme adapted its monitoring system to improve capture of programme results, which has added 
credibility to the McGovern-Dole Programme and to the value it has offered to Government. The 
programme has made significant investments in its performance monitoring function, which was evident 
all the way through to the collaboration with the ET at endline. For example, the McGovern-Dole 
Programme baseline study report (July 2016) focused on indicators that could be measured before project 
implementation. Some baseline indicators could not be measured because their definition is linked to the 
implementation of project activities. Following the baseline study, WFP reviewed and realigned the targets. In 
preparation for the midterm and endline evaluations, WFP put in place a strong programme monitoring 
component that collected and compiled data from each of the beneficiary schools and related activities on a 
regular basis. An improvement in the adjusted system is that all indicators, including policy-related indicators, 
require specific project records. 
183.The ability of the programme to give accurate and reliable insight into its progress was cited by 
government and other sector stakeholders as a key strength, which positioned the McGovern-Dole 
Programme as a dependable stakeholder across its implementation domains. In addition, the programme 
has been credited for enhancing the utilization of its insights and performance data through strong visual 
representation of results, succinct and easy-to-use briefs on a range of technical topics, and readily 
available coaching by programme staff when additional explanation or information was required.
184.Interviews with programme staff indicated that a next step would be to complement the performance 
monitoring function with a learning function. The establishment of a learning agenda to proactively explore 
the validity of programme assumptions, and identify risks and opportunities to programme effectiveness, 
sustainability and scale-up was considered critical for continued success. Interviews indicate that this was 
especially relevant given WFP’s evolving role in Rwanda and the focus on government capacity 
strengthening, which is still a relatively new workstream for WFP. Interviews further indicated that key 
elements of a successful learning agenda are already in place, i.e., a learning culture, good coordination 
and communication within the programme and with stakeholders, and focus on evidence-based decision 
making. A formal learning agenda would tie all these elements together into an effective system for proper 
resourcing and utilization.
185.Partnership and relationship management are, appropriately, central to the McGovern-Dole 
Programme model. WFP and the programme partners have a large network of relationships across the 
many domains covered by this programme. These are critical to the strategic and operational success of 
the programme, and the programme has demonstrated that it takes these relationships seriously. The 
programme was cited as relationship-driven as opposed to seeking short-term wins, which was a major 
contributor to positive perceptions of the programme by government agencies, communities, and schools.
186.The programme adapted effectively to the risks and opportunities posed by COVID-19. The impacts of 
COVID-19, including the impacts of COVID response decisions has been discussed throughout this report. 
COVID-19 has severely disrupted the ability of the programme to conduct its school feeding and school￾based education activities, which posed a significant risk to the ability of the programme to achieve its 
intended outcome-level results. However, as the endline results have shown, these risks did not emerge -
mainly due to the enabling factors already described in this section but also due to COVID-related 
opportunities taken by the programme that offset these risks. There are three key examples that 
demonstrate these opportunities.
Date | Report Number 43
187.First, somewhat unexpectedly to the ET, the programme achieved strong literacy results despite schools 
being closed. Qualitative information attributes this result to the reallocation of resources from school￾based support to community literacy activities. Weaknesses in community-based literacy activities were 
corrected after the midterm evaluation, and the community literacy activities (along with school-based 
activities) were considered essential to achieving outcomes. COVID-19 gave the programme time and 
resources to address a programme weakness that provided critical support during school closures.
188.Second, with schools closed the programme was able to focus on urgent infrastructure deficits, which had 
also been noted at midterm. The programme shifted resources to the construction and rehabilitation of 
WASH facilities, kitchens, and storerooms. Where possible, this was timed to coincide with government 
efforts to increase reliable access to water. For many schools this resulted in a dramatic change in water 
availability for meal preparation and clean-up, and for hygiene and sanitation facilities. Some concerns 
remain over the capability of schools to maintain this new infrastructure, but this risk is already being 
reviewed by programme staff.
189.Third, with schools closed both government and McGovern-Dole Programme partners had the time and 
bandwidth to focus on ensuring the policy framework, partnership and capacity investment were aligned 
with the potential of the programme to contribute to a national school feeding programme in Rwanda. The 
time gained from school closures gave all parties the opportunity to focus on preparing good practices and 
lessons learned for consideration in policy and decision-making processes. This much-needed pause 
enabled to programme to not only demonstrate programmatic results but also to present insights and 
options to continue scaling at national level, including through its Phase 2 programme.
External factors 
190.The enabling environment for the McGovern-Dole Programme in Rwanda continues to be strong.
Several of the enabling external factors noted at midterm remain valid at endline. Schools remain generally 
well organized with regular support from district officials and have been able to successfully apply the 
practices promoted by the project. The supportive policy environment, noted at midterm, has only 
strengthened since then. When combined with increasing budgetary readiness, leadership and capacity of 
Government, this is a key driver of programme success. Government capacity at national and subnational 
levels, which was already noted as strong at midterm, has significantly improved. Both levels of 
Government have a mature understanding of their capacity limitations and that further growth of the 
national school feeding programme must be facilitated in partnership with other stakeholders. The 
partnership between the McGovern-Dole Programme and Government can best be described as highly 
collaborative, even edging toward a co-created school feeding policy framework in Rwanda.
191.One external challenge is the change in the language of instruction in schools from Kinyarwanda to English
in 2020. The full impact of this change is not yet evident as schools were closed for much of 2020. The 
change poses a challenge to primary school teachers – a 2018 study found that 38 percent of grade 1-3 
teachers are able to teach in English - and to students who are still mastering their Kinyarwanda skills.183
The change potentially jeopardizes curriculum delivery and inclusion and may negatively impact learning 
outcomes, especially in rural areas where teachers are less likely to have English language skills.
184 The ET 
notes that World Vision has successfully piloted a toolkit through the McGovern-Dole Programme that 
supports teachers to build skills and techniques for teaching in English while building the English language 
skills of students. The toolkit will be used with lower primary teachers in Phase II. 
192.COVID-19 and preventive measures such as lockdowns have pushed Rwanda into a recession and slowed 
economic growth.185 The gross domestic product fell by 3.4 percent in 2020 against a pre-pandemic growth 
183 World Bank. Quality Basic Education for Human Capital Development in Rwanda. Project Information Document. 7 Nov 
2018.
184 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda. Plan of Operations and Activities. 185 Government of Rwanda. Rwanda Economic Update. Protect and Promote Human Capital in a Post-COVID-19 World. 
January 2021, Edition no. 16.
Date | Report Number 44
rate of 9.5 percent in 2019.186 As a result, poverty is expected to rise by 5.1 percentage points in 2021 with 
the greatest impact on women’s employment and in rural areas. While the government response included 
increased social protection measures, reduced revenues may impact the government’s ability to fully fund 
education activities at planned levels. The budget for the 2021-2022 academic year has been reduced, and 
the impact is expected to show up in the baseline for Phase II.187
193.The pandemic has had an impact on agricultural cooperatives, which are important to the sustainability of 
school feeding programmes as well as to the national food supply. One study of 90 cooperatives in eight 
African countries found that by mid-2020, most had lost income due to the market disruption caused by 
COVID-19.188 In Rwanda, the drop was due primarily to a decrease in consumer spending and decreases in 
the selling price for maize and other crops. 
194.Other external factors noted as challenges at midterm have been addressed. As discussed under Internal 
Factors, communities have become more trusting of school management, which was a deliberate 
McGovern-Dole Programme focus since midterm. The Government has also taken steps to address the gap 
in coordination between national and subnational levels, including improving information flow and 
increasing participation in planning and progress meetings. Qualitative findings indicate that WFP has 
played a supporting role in closing this gap.
Key Findings and Conclusions – Factors Affecting the Results
195.The McGovern-Dole Programme operating model has been strengthened since midterm. The 
programme investments in people, governance, process, service delivery model, and performance 
insights and data have contributed significantly to programme results at endline.
196.Improvements in performance monitoring have added credibility to the McGovern-Dole Programme.
The ability of the programme to give accurate and reliable insight into its progress was cited by 
government and other sector stakeholders as a key strength, which positioned the McGovern-Dole 
Programme as a dependable stakeholder across its implementation domains. Related 
improvements include the strong visual representation of results, succinct and easy-to-use briefs on 
a range of technical topics, and readily available coaching by programme staff when additional 
explanation or information was required.
197.Partnership and relationship management are, appropriately, front and center to the McGovern￾Dole Programme model. The investment in and prioritization of long-term relationships over short￾term wins will continue to drive programme impact and sustainability.
198.There continues to be a strong enabling environment for the McGovern-Dole Programme in 
Rwanda. Several of the enabling external factors noted at midterm remain valid at endline, i.e., 
capacity of schools and Government.
199.Of great benefit to the programme were the strengthened capacity at county-office, RB and HQ 
levels. This included ensuring high-quality staffing and a reduction in turnover at the country-office 
level, the re-establishment of a dedicated school feeding unit at WFP HQ, and changes at RB level to 
increase capacity and accessibility on core and supporting a range of programme functions relevant 
to school feeding programme design and implementation.
200.Key external factors that affected programme performance at midterm have been addressed to the 
extent possible. Communities have become more engaged with schools and in the process have 
developed greater understanding of parents’ role in education, and greater trust in school 
management of parent contributions. Government has taken steps to address the gap in 
coordination between national and subnational levels.
186 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. Statistical article. 18 March 2021. 187 Personal communication, WFP Rwanda. July 2021. 188 USAID. Marketlinks. Resilient to Crises: How the Adaptive Nature of Cooperatives has Aided in Overcoming COVID-19-
related Challenges. Venture 37. October 7, 2020.
Date | Report Number 45
201.COVID-19 presented both risks and opportunities for the programme. Expected setbacks in literacy 
results due to school closure did not materialize. Instead, COVID-19 presented several opportunities 
that the McGovern-Dole Programme was able to leverage to amplify overall results. With schools 
closed the programme shifted resources to community literacy activities, the programme was able 
to focus on urgent infrastructure deficits, and McGovern-Dole Programme partners had the time 
and bandwidth to focus on ensuring the policy framework, partnership and capacity investment was 
aligned with the decision by Government to scale up to a national school feeding programme.
3. Conclusions and recommendations 
3.1 CONCLUSIONS
Relevance
202.The McGovern-Dole Programme is aligned with government priorities in education and child nutrition and 
is highly relevant to the needs of primary schools in some of the poorest and most food-insecure areas of 
Rwanda. School meals are relevant to national goals for improved child nutrition and increased student 
attendance, attention, and retention. Programme activities to improve access to water, sanitation facilities, 
nutrition education, and literacy training are highly relevant to children’s health and their ability to get the 
most value from an improved learning environment. 
203.The programme was agile in adapting to changing circumstances and addressing complex needs to 
maintain a high level of relevance of programme activities. In the first half of the programme, partnership 
arrangements were effectively reorganized for both the education and agriculture components of the 
programme. In the second half, the programme proactively addressed the critical assumption of parent 
contributions required to support school feeding implementation. Programme staff worked closely with 
school and community stakeholders and parents to clarify expectations for parent support, which helped 
settle uncertainties for many parents.
204.The school closures and movement restrictions due to COVID-19 preventive measures presented both risks 
and opportunities to the McGovern-Dole Programme. The programme was able to adapt to school closures 
by shifting reading activities to the household level and engaging parents. In addition, it implemented 
needed infrastructure improvements, and school garden activities expanded to support home vegetable 
production and provide nutrition information. Programme partners and Government had more time to 
focus on policy, strategy, and capacity strengthening. 
205.The training of teachers, head teachers, district education officials, parents and others through the 
programme is relevant to the need for improved teaching methods, better school management, and 
stronger community engagement. The resulting improvements in the quality of teaching and teacher 
attendance, and the greater engagement of local education officials, parents and other stakeholders offer 
lessons that are relevant to the broader primary education sector. Local education officials perceive these 
trainings as a strength of the McGovern-Dole Programme and credit the trainings with improving school 
management. 
206.The programme is relevant to the needs of the Government of Rwanda. It was designed to align with the 
Government of Rwanda’s implicit and subsequently declared policy priority to scale up a national school 
feeding programme. As such, it has provided critical technical expertise and capacity strengthening to 
support the development and roll-out of the Government’s national school feeding programme. It further 
enables the Government to connect to a global school feeding network through WFP, which allows the 
Government to learn from others’ experience and to benchmark its progress against other countries. WFP’s 
work with Government to develop several low-cost options to kitchen construction, handwashing stations, 
nutritious meals using seasonal, locally available foods, and meals that meet the nutritional needs of 
Date | Report Number 46
adolescent girls, is highly relevant to helping the Government meet its goals for a national school feeding 
programme within its current budget limitations.
207.The development of a capacity strengthening approach and a procurement strategy linked to smallholder 
farmers who would supply the national school feeding programme is relevant to government priorities to 
buy food locally, support agricultural development and improve the livelihoods of small farmers. Capacity 
strengthening is provided to both women and men, including women-run cooperatives, consistent with 
national policy supporting gender equality in cooperative membership. While the McGovern-Dole 
Programme aligns with relevant gender policies pertaining to the programme components, the design and 
any subsequent adaptations did not include any specific approaches to address gender equality and 
women’s empowerment. 
208.The McGovern-Dole Programme is aligned with WFP corporate objectives and relevant policies, in 
particular the WFP School Feeding Strategy 2020-2030. The programme also aligns with the United Nations 
commitments to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for Goals).
Effectiveness
209.The McGovern-Dole Programme, with its integrated approach to an improved learning environment, has 
been effective in significantly improving children’s reading skills. Officials state that the programme has 
improved attendance and performance, and reduced dropouts. Officials cited several additional benefits of 
the programme, including the literacy clubs, improved school management due to training, additional 
training of teachers and cooks who often have limited experience, improved hygiene, the involvement of 
parents and SGACs, and the links to cooperatives. The programme strengthened its monitoring system, 
improving its ability to demonstrate the results of the model to the Government.
210.WFP has effectively leveraged the learning and experience from the McGovern-Dole Programme to provide 
a model for the Government’s National School Feeding Programme (NSFP).
189 WFP strengthened 
government capacity through training, staff secondments, establishing committees, and participation in 
international meetings such as the Global Child Nutrition Forums in 2018 and 2019. WFP established strong 
working relationships with MINEDUC on policy and implementation and with MINAGRI on capacity building 
of small farmers for local food production. WFP has provided technical assistance, tools, accountability 
frameworks, and south-south learning opportunities to build management skills for the NSFP. WFP 
supported the Government to establish an intersectoral working group on school feeding and education, 
and a National School Feeding TWG. The TWG has played a key role in operationalizing the school feeding 
policy, coordinating stakeholders and investments, and aligning the programme with long-term 
government strategy. Collaboration between WFP and MINEDUC has produced school feeding operational 
guidelines, a national nutrition policy, and a training video for storekeepers and cooks. Health and literacy 
results from the McGovern-Dole model have provided evidence for the Government to request more 
funding for school meals. WFP continues to support government efforts to implement the NSFP using a 
HGSF approach. WFP’s close collaboration with the Government on the McGovern-Dole Programme has 
increased government ownership of the programme and has resulted in school feeding being elevated to a 
national priority by the Government. 
211.WFP’s technical assistance and work in capacity strengthening, and the Government of Rwanda’s active 
engagement in school feeding policies, strategies, and programmes, have supported efforts to mainstream 
lessons from the McGovern-Dole Programme. MINEDUC officials underscored the willingness of the 
Government to learn, and WFP’s willingness to listen and collaborate, as key to adapting the learning from 
the McGovern-Dole Programme into the NSFP. This flexibility has fostered collaboration on low-cost 
models for kitchens, WASH facilities and school meal menus that consider the Government’s budget 
constraints. Programme partners adapted their interventions to local needs, e.g., moving from school￾based to community literacy activities, and adopting a community outreach and engagement model for 
189 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda.
Date | Report Number 47
school gardens and nutrition. During school closures, the programme addressed outstanding 
infrastructure needs for WASH facilities, kitchens and storerooms in some schools. 
212.Girls enjoy equal access to McGovern-Dole Programme benefits and exhibit better attendance and higher 
performance in primary school than boys. WFP’s work with the Government on nutritional analysis has 
helped expand potential options for school meals that can help meet the specific nutritional needs of 
adolescent girls. However, the support for GEWE has focused largely on equal enrolment and 
matriculation. Current efforts do not adequately enable girls’ continued academic achievement, job 
opportunities and leadership roles in society, nor do they address social norms that expect girls to 
prioritize household care-taking responsibilities over education among families, teachers, and students. 
Sensitization of teachers to gender attitudes is especially important, as only 30 percent of school staff are 
female.190
Efficiency 
213.The programme has demonstrated efficiency in meeting or substantially exceeding most of its targets 
within its approved budget, and in a timely way. This is evidenced by performance indicator results as well 
as internal progress reports, EGRA survey results, and key informant interviews with local and national 
stakeholders. 
214.Changes within WFP Rwanda have improved programme and partner integration since the midterm and 
increased the efficiency of operations. WFP has instituted greater coordination among McGovern-Dole 
Programme staff and the logistics, nutrition, and smallholder agricultural market support units in the 
Country Office since the midterm, creating an internal working group to bring unit heads together on 
strategic issues. 
215.The programme adjusted specific interventions based on the midterm findings, which created greater 
efficiencies in the use of programme resources. The literacy component was integrated into the 
Government’s national literacy initiative, resulting in changed McGovern-Dole activities that ensured better 
efficiency and collaboration with another project that began operating in the same geographical area. This 
integration had the additional benefit of giving greater visibility to the McGovern-Dole Programme’s work in 
improving literacy. The expanded and intensified approach to the implementation of the school garden 
component since the midterm has justified the use of programme resources for this activity. 
216.During the school closure and movement restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, WFP and partners 
were able to adapt a few activities so that the programme continued to reach students and communities. 
Literacy club facilitators visited homes to loan books so children could continue reading activities and 
distributed health and hygiene booklets to households. Radio programmes were broadcast in each 
programme district to sensitize parents on the importance of education and literacy, and flyers were given 
to parents to maintain awareness of these important topics. GHI distributed 29,465 fruit and agroforestry 
trees to schools and 12,992 vegetable seedlings to parents during COVID-19 pandemic, and offered training 
on kitchen gardens. WFP organized two THR distributions for students.
Impact and Sustainability 
217.The McGovern-Dole Programme has had a degree of influence on the Government’s approach to the 
national school feeding programme. The demonstrated willingness of the Government to commit to and 
expand school feeding as a way to address food insecurity and help ensure the future development of the 
country is evidence of the Government’s intention to sustain a school feeding programme. While the 
Government does not have the resources to replicate the McGovern-Dole Programme model in all schools, 
it has adopted some of its approaches for the national programme, such as kitchen infrastructure and 
WASH components, and is working with WFP on increasing the capacity of smallholder farmers to provision 
the schools. 
190 WFP.2019. Rwanda Annual Country Report. Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023.
Date | Report Number 48
218.As of 2021, the national government has increased its budget commitment to school feeding eight-fold, 
investing in kitchens and other infrastructure in over 2,600 schools. Despite increased budget allocation, 
the Government cannot yet support the entire cost of a national school meal programme. To address budget 
constraints, WFP has developed model menus for the national school feeding programme that will provide a 
nutritious meal based on low-cost, seasonal, locally available foods, at a cost of 148 Rwf (US$ 0.15) for a base 
meal.191 Such practical solutions also support the government priority to reduce malnutrition among children. 
219.WFP has worked with MINEDUC on sustainable solutions to the budgetary and logistic challenges of a 
national programme by modeling low-cost school meal menus that use locally available, seasonal foods, 
constructing local menus to address the specific nutritional needs of adolescent girls, and collaborating on 
models for low-cost kitchens and handwashing stations that can be constructed from locally available 
materials. WFP’s capacity strengthening of smallholder farmer cooperatives, including women-run 
cooperatives, to eventually supply school meals programmes will be a significant contribution to the 
sustainability of the national programme.
220.The ET notes that the Phase II proposal includes a plan for WFP and national-level academic and training 
institutions to jointly develop and implement training in aspects of NSFP management and include to NSFP 
skills into curricula.192 The institutionalization of training in NSFP management skills is an important step in 
ensuring there will be a broad, sustainable base of management professionals who can implement the 
programme over the long term. WFP has also drawn on Phase I experience and recognized that capacity at 
district, cell, school and community levels will need to be strengthened during Phase II to manage the 
greatly expanded NSFP. 
221.As the McGovern-Dole Programme phases out of current schools and begins operations in new schools, 
sustainability in programme schools will vary between sites. The parent contribution remains a challenge to 
programme sustainability. In cases of families with multiple school-age children, schools will face problems 
paying for cooks, firewood and vegetables as poor parents will not be able to provide contributions for all 
their children. The programme schools know that they are responsible for maintenance of their new 
infrastructure, but several school heads expressed uncertainty about how they would pay for maintenance. 
District education officials are very supportive of the McGovern-Dole Programme achievements, which will 
help encourage the continued use of methods and approaches introduced to school staff by the program; 
nevertheless, funding will continue to be a challenge. 
Impact and Key Lessons Learned
222.The McGovern-Dole Programme has provided technical expertise and capacity strengthening critical 
to the development of the Government’s national school feeding programme.
223.The McGovern-Dole Programme model has influenced the Government to adopt some of its 
approaches in the National School Feeding Programme, specifically kitchen infrastructure and WASH 
facilities. The McGovern-Dole Programme has helped the Government to create sustainable 
solutions to implementation challenges by developing low-cost kitchen models and handwashing 
stations, and by modeling low-cost school meal menus based on local foods.
224.Adaptive management and a proactive approach to learning can yield significant performance 
improvements, as evidenced by the changes made after the MTE. After the MTE, the country office 
strengthened internal management, added staff capacity and clarified roles and responsibilities 
between the HGSF unit, technical units and senior leadership. Coordination, communication, and 
planning among technical units was formalized. This adaptive management approach was evident in 
the programmatic responses to COVID-19 challenges.
225.Leadership and organizational culture are critical for effective adaptive management. The country 
office demonstrated these qualities by acting on the MTE recommendations. This included 
191 WFP Rwanda. School Feeding Newsletter. April-September 2020. 192 WFP. 2021. WFP Rwanda Phase II proposal for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme in Rwanda.
Date | Report Number 49
emphasizing learning and knowledge management and strengthening strategic and technical input 
to the Government to aid with the transition process. 
226.Effective capacity strengthening and authentic government partnership need to be based on 
credibility, relationships, and trust. Along with better internal programme management, the 
programme improved monitoring and reporting of results to the Government to better demonstrate 
programme achievements. The country office intentionally pursued a more structured approach to 
its engagement with the Government on developing the National School Feeding Programme. The 
Government’s appreciation of WFP acting as a facilitator rather than a driver of change has 
engendered a stronger partnership. 
227.The original timeframe of the programme was too short to achieve the expected result of full 
transition into a national school feeding programme in a five-year period. Future designs should use 
a phased approach from the outset, similar to how Phase 2 was designed to build on Phase 1, with 
markers or benchmarks that identify readiness for the next phase to begin.
Date | Report Number 50
3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
228.The recommendations are presented by priority (1 = highest priority) within strategic and operational categories, with suggested implementation 
timelines and responsible parties. The strategic recommendations draw on insights from the Phase I experience. The operational recommendations 
pull through those insights into practical options for Phase II. Ultimately, WFP and government capacity to undertake the work required to move 
forward and assist the Government in its scale-up of the national school feeding programme for primary and pre-primary schools will determine the 
priority and sequencing of actions. 
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
Str￾1
Recommendation 1: Consolidate WFP internal staff 
capacity to be enablers rather than implementors. WFP is 
assuming a new role globally in strengthening the capacity of 
government institutions to carry out many activities 
previously implemented by WFP. Many WFP Rwanda staff are 
skilled in operations whereas WFP’s new role requires staff to 
work at a policy and strategy level and to manage 
government relations. WFP Rwanda has meaningfully grown 
staff capability around capacity-strengthening modalities, 
partnership facilitation and relationship management for 
school feeding. These skills should be institutionalized and 
amplified across its broader programme of work. WFP 
Rwanda management has a strategic opportunity to formalize 
these capability requirements into its human resources
policies and processes, and to consolidate current experience 
into internal training/induction models. It should contribute 
this experience to WFP regionally and globally, where many 
country offices are on similar journeys in terms of changing 
the nature of WFP’s impact through the CSPs.
Strategic WFP Rwanda 
country office
RBN, HQ High 2021-22
Str￾2
Recommendation 2: Consolidate and better document 
the country office’s capacity-strengthening strategy, 
approach and priorities for application across the CSP as 
a whole, building on the McGovern-Dole experience. It is 
essential that WFP create an enabling environment within the 
CSP to continue to evolve and grow its capacity-strengthening 
model in partnership with the Government and other 
Strategic WFP Rwanda 
country office
RBN, HQ
with input from 
government 
counterparts
Medium 2021-22
Date | Report Number 51
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
stakeholders. Consolidated success across the CSP will also 
strengthen the country office’s resource mobilization strategy 
for continuity and scale. Similar to Recommendation 1, this 
recommendation focuses on keeping the momentum of 
WFP’s current credibility and role as a key government 
partner in Rwanda. While WFP and the McGovern-Dole 
Programme have greatly contributed to strategic thinking and 
planning on a national school feeding programme, roll-out of 
this programme at scale will be a large undertaking that will 
require an expanded government partnership over the next 
several years. Capacity-strengthening results at the CSP level 
will legitimize and publicly demonstrate WFP’s capacity as a 
key partner for the Government of Rwanda.
Str￾3
Recommendation 3: Decide on WFP’s approach to supporting 
further development of a national procurement strategy so 
this can be resourced, planned, and efficiently executed. WFP 
has provided essential strategic and practical support to the 
Government’s consideration of its procurement model 
options. To remain an effective government partner, WFP 
needs to develop and present a clear understanding of 
existing systems, as well as understand the Government’s 
specific expectations for WFP support so this can be 
effectively resourced and planned. Specifically, WFP needs to 
know how to position itself between a leadership role in 
presenting options and facilitating decisions, and a supporting 
technical role, while the Government works this through.
Across all options, WFP will need to have capacity and 
resources in place to engage with multiple ministries and local 
government over an extended period. Such engagement will 
necessarily deal with policy development, public financing, 
consultation and co-creation processes, pilot initiatives, and 
models for scaling. In addition, any WFP approach will need to 
develop a position within the debate on imported versus 
locally sourced food commodities, which includes donor 
parameters for local purchase models.
Strategic WFP Rwanda
country office
RBN and HQ
In collaboration with 
programme partners, 
especially government 
counterparts
Medium 2021-2023
Date | Report Number 52
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
Str￾4
Recommendation 4: Establish a learning agenda at country￾office level to complement performance monitoring, test 
assumptions and document lessons from school feeding 
interventions. The McGovern-Dole Programme has built a 
strong performance monitoring system and contributed to 
strengthened M&E at country-office level. While the system 
adequately tracks output- and outcome-level results, it does 
not capture critical learning regarding the underlying 
assumptions for change and determinants of success to date. 
This documentation is not readily available for the country 
office to draw on for further strategic and programme design 
decisions. Learning and reflection processes require 
dedicated systems, processes and resources if they are to be 
utilized, especially for rapidly evolving programmes like the 
McGovern-Dole Programme, which require real-time 
information for adaptive management. It is especially 
important for learning around gender equality in education, 
specifically learning that focusses on what approaches work 
to address risks and opportunities for change.
The foundations of the NSFP and WFP’s role in supporting its 
continued evolution have been established. However, much 
remains to be learned around issues like scaling, equity and 
access to programme benefits; targeting across the nexus of 
schools, community, and local government needs and 
capacities; purpose and boundaries of procurement models; 
alignment with related initiatives; resourcing; and 
sustainability of Phase 1 results. While WFP Rwanda is 
contributing to USDA’s school feeding learning agenda 
through special studies, these issues also need to be tracked, 
documented, and made fit-for-purpose for strategic and 
operational decision-making by a range of audiences. 
Programme partners have contributed much to learning and 
should be included in developing and carrying out the 
learning agenda. Finally, as noted under Recommendation 1, 
WFP Rwanda has a real contribution to make to the broader 
Strategic WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from RBN,
HQ and programme 
partners
Medium 2022
Date | Report Number 53
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
WFP system. To fully realize this potential, process 
documentation is critical.
Op￾1
Recommendation 1: Retain and continue to improve the 
effective McGovern-Dole Programme operating model 
developed after the Phase 1 midterm. An operating model 
framework considers the foundational elements that 
underpin strategic and implementation results. It commonly 
includes the following elements: people, governance, process, 
service delivery model, technology, and performance insights 
and data. It is especially helpful for organizations and 
programmes in transition and would be a useful framework 
for WFP to track performance of core organizational 
components as it continues to evolve its role.
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from RBN
or HQ, if required by 
country office
High by Phase II 
midpoint*
Op￾2
Recommendation 2: Ensure appropriate balance between 
capacity strengthening and direct implementation. A key 
factor that has enabled the McGovern-Dole Programme to 
make such a positive contribution to the development of the 
NSFP is its technical credibility and grounded experience. It 
will be important for WFP to ensure its facilitation and 
technical support to strengthening government policies and 
processes remains credible by maintaining a high-quality 
school feeding operation that demonstrates capacity to 
advise the Government on these issues. Some of this can 
come from WFP’s global experience and by connecting the 
Government to global school feeding networks, but a critical 
mass of implementation across key components of school 
feeding in Rwanda will need to remain.
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from RBN
or HQ
Medium by Phase II 
midpoint*
Op￾3
Recommendation 3: Maintain support to Phase I 
McGovern-Dole Programme schools, communities, and 
cooperatives. The programme came to its full fruition after 
its midpoint. Two years of comprehensive implementation 
that built on the foundations set in the earlier part of the 
programme have yielded good results, but this is insufficient 
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from 
programme partners
High by Phase II 
midpoint*
Date | Report Number 54
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
to ingrain the sustainability of the behavior and systems 
changes currently observed. The Phase II design includes all 
Phase I schools until the second half of Phase II. It will be 
important that WFP continue to draw lessons, monitor, and 
organize support directly and indirectly (e.g., through 
government and local partners) to Phase 1 project sites 
during the second half of Phase II. Concrete examples are 
supporting maintenance systems for the multitude of school 
infrastructure built in the last year of the programme, and 
continuing to evolve the discussions with parents and 
representatives from schools, communities, and local 
government on expectations for parent contributions.
Op￾4
Recommendation 4: Build adaptive management and 
agility into the Phase II design and implementation plan.
A key strength of Phase I was its ability to make critical 
decisions efficiently and at the right time. Given that Phase II 
will focus more on the practical realities of how the NSFP will 
run, it is safe to assume that at minimum, a similar level of 
agility and funding flexibility will be required to address 
emerging risks and opportunities. This can be facilitated by 
building in regular reflection points that focus on progress 
toward outcomes in addition to routine performance 
monitoring, and maintaining a leadership culture that enables 
bold management, operational and funding decisions when 
necessary.
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from 
programme partners
High by Phase II 
midpoint*
Op￾5
Recommendation 5: Establish contingency planning at school 
and community level to prepare for and respond to shocks 
and stresses like COVID-19. WFP has effective contingency 
planning policies and processes in place that allowed it to 
quickly pivot the programme during the COVID-19 pandemic, 
such as distributing THR to students. The benefits of 
contingency plans and systems are clear. There is an 
opportunity now to embed contingency planning more 
directly into the local systems that WFP facilitates and 
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from 
programme partners
High by Phase II 
midpoint*
Date | Report Number 55
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping Responsibility Other contributing 
entities
Priority:
High/medium By when
supports, which will contribute to broader resilience building 
and also mitigate material risk to WFP’s programmes.
Op￾6
Recommendation 6: Implement appropriate gender 
analysis and approaches for Phase II. While the McGovern￾Dole Programme design establishes alignment with relevant 
gender policies, frameworks and initiatives, WFP’s efforts 
toward gender-equitable outcomes and gender-appropriate 
approaches would benefit from a broader lens that 
understands and monitors how interventions influence 
GEWE. The absence of a comprehensive gender analysis, and 
the missed opportunity to implement gender- sensitive 
approaches in interventions where they are relevant, were 
significant gaps in Phase I. The programme should make 
learning on gender an explicit focus for Phase II, drawing on 
what has been learned in Phase I. The ET notes the progress 
WFP has made at a corporate level in driving the gender, 
social inclusion, and disability agenda forward. This gives WFP 
Rwanda the opportunity to draw on the corporate 
momentum, experience, and technical resources to establish 
the McGovern-Dole Phase II programme as gender-sensitive 
to start with. In particular, the WFP Gender and Age marker is 
a useful starting tool to measure the extent that gender and 
age are integrated into programme design and monitoring.
For Phase II, WFP should conduct a gender analysis at 
baseline and consider a gender audit at midterm and/or at 
endline. WFP should also consider conducting a social norms 
analysis to determine if barriers to behavior change around 
gender (and health and dietary practices) are rooted in social 
norms that can be addressed by the programme. This will 
help direct the country office to appropriate tools and 
approaches for further integration of gender and other 
inclusion domains into Phase II strategy and operations.
Operational WFP Rwanda 
country office
With input from RBN,
HQ and programme 
partners
High by Phase II 
midpoint*
*with the opportunity to use the mid-term review as a validation exercise of the relevance of any outstanding issues
Date | Report Number 56
Date | Report Number 
57
Annex 1: Stakeholder Analysis
Table 11: Stakeholder analysis and mapping
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluations and likely use of evaluation reports for this 
stakeholder
WFP STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office Rwanda Responsible for the country-level planning and operations implementation, WFP 
Rwanda has a direct stake in the evaluations and an interest in learning from 
experience to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account internally 
as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for performance and results of its 
operation. 
Regional Bureau (RB) 
Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of country office and technical guidance and 
support, the RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial 
account of the operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation 
findings to apply this learning to other country offices. The Regional Evaluation 
Officers supports country office /RB management to ensure quality, credible and 
useful decentralized evaluations. 
Office of Evaluation 
(OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, 
credible and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well as 
roles and accountabilities of various decentralized evaluation stakeholders as 
identified in the evaluation policy. 
WFP Executive Board 
(EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the 
effectiveness of WFP programmes. These evaluations will not be presented to the 
Board but their findings may feed into thematic and/or regional syntheses and 
corporate learning processes.
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP 
determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. Consequently, 
students, teachers, and SGACs are considered key stakeholders. The level of 
participation of women and men, boys and girls in the evaluations through 
interviews, surveys and focus-group discussions in the evaluations and their 
perspectives will be sought. Available data will be disaggregated by sex and age 
when relevant. 
Government As WFP is implementing the McGovern-Dole Programme to support the 
Government in setting up a national school feeding programme, MINEDUC, 
MINAGRI, the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), Ministry of Local Affairs 
(MINALOC) and the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (MIGEPROF) as well 
as the four implementing districts have a direct interest in knowing whether 
activities are aligned with their priorities, harmonized with the actions of other 
partners, and attain the expected results. Issues related to capacity 
strengthening, handover and sustainability will be of interest. 
Date | Report Number 
58
Main donor USDA USDA funds WFP’s McGovern-Dole Programme through a McGovern-Dole Grant 
(FFE-696-2015/007-00) and so has a strong interest in knowing whether their 
funds have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective and 
contributed to USDA’s own strategies and programmes. 
Other donors MasterCard funds some of the food commodities used in the programme and 
contributed to overall implementation of complementary activities.
UN Country Team The UNDAP 2018-23 contributes to the national goal of “developing Rwandans 
into a capable and skilled people with quality standards of living and a stable and 
secure society” through Outcome 3 which reads as follows: By 2023 people in 
Rwanda, particularly the most vulnerable, enjoy increased and equitable access 
to quality education, health, nutrition and WASH services.” The UNCT therefore 
has a shared interest in the evaluation findings, particularly UNICEF, UNESCO, 
WHO, FAO, UNFPA and UNHCR whose work in this area is interconnected with 
that of WFP.
School Feeding 
Technical Working 
Group members 
NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at the 
same time having their own interventions. The results of the evaluation might 
affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations and partnerships. 
The School Feeding Technical Working Group is a key group of stakeholders, 
including members World Vision (sub-grantee focusing on literacy and health), 
Gardens for Health International and Rwanda Biomedical Centre (key 
implementing partners), and others.
Date | Report Number 59
Annex 2: Evaluation Timeline 
Table 12 shows the original (planned) timeline presented during the inception phase. The timeline was adjusted numerous times given repeated delays related to 
COVID-19, e.g., school closures and repeated changes to re-opening dates, the need to procure official permissions for local travel, and scheduling interviews with 
government officials and other stakeholders who were occupied with the pandemic. These delays had cascading effects on the analysis and reporting stages. The ET 
has noted in the “actual” column the dates that the listed tasks were realized; precise dates are given where available however given the numerous changes, other 
dates are approximated.
Table 12: Timeline of tasks and deliverables, by phase
Task
Dec 14-20
Dec 21-27
Dec 28 - Jan 3
Jan 4-10
Jan 11-17
Jan 18-24
Jan 25-31
Feb 1-7
Feb 8-14
Feb 15-21
Actual
Inception/ Planning Planned
Desk review of documents x x x x approx. the same
Inception meetings/ communications x x x approx. the same
Intro mtgs w/ World Vision to modify EGRA tool (WV 
confirmed they will send updated EGRA tool by Dec 23) x x approx. the same
Review any other surveys that need to be programmed 
(headmaster); revise as needed x x x approx. the same
Translate headmaster, SGAC, teacher, community tools 
into Kinyarwanda x x x approx. the same
Prepare and submit brief inception report: methodology, 
workplan/ field schedule, survey tools and topical 
outlines
x draft submitted Dec 23 
Dec 29: WFP returns feedback on inception report x Jan 07
Revise/ finalize inception report
x
Jan 15 (slight delay given ongoing 
conversations re: changing possibilities for 
fieldwork start dates due to COVID-19 
protocols in Rwanda)
Data Collection Data collection task schedule delayed due 
to COVID-related constraints: extended 
school closures and need to secure travel 
permissions
Date | Report Number 60
Table 12: Timeline of tasks and deliverables, by phase
Task
Dec 14-20
Dec 21-27
Dec 28 - Jan 3
Jan 4-10
Jan 11-17
Jan 18-24
Jan 25-31
Feb 1-7
Feb 8-14
Feb 15-21
Actual
Inception/ Planning Planned
TANGO works with World Vision to modify and finalize 
EGRA tool x approx. the same
Jan 4-5 TBD: Inception day w/ local team in WFP office 
and int'l team virtual (+ prep) x these meetings happened virtually throughout 
January
Schedule remote interviews x x late Jan into Feb
Conduct and write up remote interviews x x x some in Jan, most in Feb through mid-Mar
Field test tools (in Kigali) (EGRA and headmaster) and 
quant analyst review x late Jan; desk-based review testing as field 
team awaits GoR travel clearance
Feb 03: 
field team receives GoR travel clearance
Schedule school visits and KIIs x early Feb
School, community, district, cooperative data collection 
and write-up; ongoing consults/debriefs with local & int'l 
teams x x x Feb 04-24
Ongoing remote QA of EGRA and headmaster surveys 
and tech support; ongoing updates to local consultants 
as data are analyzed
x x x Feb 04-24
Follow-up interviews and consultations x x x Feb-Mar
In-country debrief Mar 23
Analysis and Reporting 
Analyze EGRA and headmaster survey results (incl. 
combining w/BL data and conducting statistical tests) x x late Mar – Apr 20
Write up EGRA and headmaster survey results x x late Mar – Apr 20
Local consultants clean up notes and generate summary 
reports (interim product for internal use); review by int'l 
team
x late Mar – Apr 20
Submit draft evaluation report (ER) x Apr 21
Date | Report Number 61
Table 12: Timeline of tasks and deliverables, by phase
Task
Dec 14-20
Dec 21-27
Dec 28 - Jan 3
Jan 4-10
Jan 11-17
Jan 18-24
Jan 25-31
Feb 1-7
Feb 8-14
Feb 15-21
Actual
Inception/ Planning Planned
Circulation of draft Evaluation Report for review to HQ 
and ERG two weeks (per TOR) DEQAS comments received May 19
ERG comments received May 28
DEQAS comments review call May 24
extensive consultation with country office to 
clarify indicator data and other questions 
arising from the review process
Submit revised ER based on HQ & ERG feedback three weeks to incorporate feedback (per TOR) Aug 20
Circulation of draft Evaluation Report for review to USDA three weeks (per TOR) pending
Submit final ER based on USDA feedback three weeks to incorporate feedback (per TOR) pending
Prepare and submit 2-page brief March - early April, 
pending status of report finalization pending
Date | Report Number 62
Annex 3: Government Policies and Priorities Related to 
Food Security, Social Protection and Education
Table 13: Government policies and priorities related to food security, social protection and education
Vision 2020 Vision 2020 is the main policy framing Rwanda’s development priorities. It seeks to Vision 2020 seeks to modernize 
agriculture and increase productivity,193 and transform Rwanda into a middle-income country with healthier, educated 
and more prosperous Rwandans by 2020. Vision 2020 considers gender a cross-cutting issue and commits to 
establishing a gender friendly legal and policy framework.
Multi-Sectoral Food and Nutrition 
Policy and Strategic Plan (2013–
2018)
This plan addresses stunting through multi-sectoral nutrition activities, including nutrition screening of children under 
age five.194 A more recent strategic plan for agriculture investment (PSTA IV 2018–2023) aims to mainstream food 
security and nutrition throughout strategic programmes. Multi-stakeholder platforms such as the Inter-Ministerial 
Coordination Committee have been established to expand nutrition activities jointly implemented by the Government 
and development partners. 
National Social Protection 
Strategy (2011)
The NSPS prioritizes development of the social protection sector to ensure that all poor and vulnerable people are 
guaranteed a minimum income and access to core public services. The Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme (VUP) is a 
large-scale Government social protection programme that aims to eradicate extreme poverty by 2020.195 Implemented 
by the Local Administrative Entities Development Agency (LODA) under the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC), 
VUP targets schools in the poorest areas. It is part of the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS 
2), which includes indicators and targets to reduce chronic malnutrition among children under two, reduce poverty, and 
create employment, exports, and 11.5 percent economic growth.196
National Strategy for 
Transformation (2018-2023)
Rwanda’s key poverty reduction strategy focuses on three pillars, of which the social transformation pillar has a priority 
area to ensure quality of education for all, aiming at building a knowledge-based economy.197 The other two pillars are 
economic transformation and transformational governance.
Education Sector Strategic Plan 
(ESSP) (2010‐2015)
The ESSP aims to improve the quality of education. It prioritizes school feeding as a key component of school health and 
nutrition. The Rwanda Education Board (REB) supports the ESSP and works to build teachers’ capacities. The 
193 Government of Rwanda. 2004. Rwanda Vision 2020. 194 USAID. 2018. Rwanda: Nutrition Profile. 195 NISR. 2018. Vision 2020 Umurenge Program (VUP) - Baseline Survey. 196 Government of Rwanda. 2013. Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013 – 2018. 197 United Nations Rwanda. United Nations Development Assistance Plan UNDAP II 2018 -2023 A summary.
Date | Report Number 63
Competence-Based-Curriculum developed by the REB and MINEDUC establishes specific descriptors for literacy relevant 
to McGovern-Dole Programme goals.198
Guided by the ESSP, now in its fourth cycle, Rwanda has invested significant resources toward improving the quality and 
coverage of all levels of education, as well as toward implementing policies that aim to achieve universal and equitable 
access to basic education for all Rwandan children. The provision of universal, compulsory and free nine years of basic 
education for children aged seven to 15 years has had a significant impact on increasing access, and this is now being 
expanded to 12 years. The curriculum has undergone a major reform, with a new competence-based curriculum being 
phased in from January 2016 (United Nations Rwanda. 2017. Rwanda Common Country Analysis [cited in evaluation TOR]).
School Health and Nutrition 
(2013) policy
This policy states, “all Rwandan schoolchildren shall achieve their full development potential by studying in a healthy 
environment in child-friendly schools.” It includes capacity building for teachers and students on school health and 
nutrition; school health clubs help disseminate knowledge.
Social Protection Sector Strategy 
(2018-2024)
The Government has set the ambitious goal of moving from low-income status to upper-income status by year 2050, and 
through the forthcoming Social Protection Sector Strategy (2018-2024), has made a commitment to provide a life-cycle 
approach to social protection systems. The economy is growing and income inequality is decreasing, which strengthens 
the possibility that the Government will indeed move toward its goals and self-finance social protection, including access 
to education and food insecurity safety nets for all. 
National Gender Policy 2010 This policy sets forth guidelines for integrating gender equality and equity into government planning and programmes 
for social and economic development. This policy is relevant to the goal of equal access to education for girls. 
Girls’ Education Policy 2008 The purpose of this policy is to establish a legislative and institutional framework to promote gender equality in 
education, to ensure that gender issues are part of planning at all levels, and to eliminate gender discrimination in 
education. This policy is relevant to ensuring that girls are able to attend school, and receive non-discriminatory 
treatment in learning environments. 
198 (1) Read a variety of texts accurately and fast; (2) Express ideas, messages and events through writing legible texts in good handwriting with correctly spelt words; (3) Communicate ideas 
effectively through speaking using correct phonetics of words; and (4) Listen carefully for understanding and seeking clarification when necessary. REB/MINEDUC. 2015. Competence-Based 
Curriculum: Summary of Curriculum Framework Pre-primary to Upper Secondary 2015. 
Date | Report Number 
64
Annex 4: Map 
(see next page)
Date | Report Number 
65
 Figure 3: McGovern-Dole Programme coverage in Rwanda
Date | Report Number 66
Annex 5: Results Framework
Source: WFP Rwanda. 2015. Results Framework. PowerPoint. (“Foundational Results” diagram).
(see next three pages)
Date | Report Number 67
Date | Report Number 68
Date | Report Number 69
Date | Report Number 
70
Annex 6: Outcome and Outputs 
Tables
MGD SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children
Outcome: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions
Table 14: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
New 133,328 0 96,362 72.3% 110,779 83,1% 124,565 93,4% 138,123 103,6% 150,255 112.7%
Continuing 77,503 0 0 - 74,294 95,9% 71,627 92,4% 64,000 82,6% 80,887 104.4%
Female 61,240 0 48,689 79.5% 55,753 91% 62,508 102,1% 69,151 112,9% 75,096 122.6%
Male 69,088 0 47,673 69% 55,026 79,6% 62,057 89,8% 68,972 99,8% 75,159 108.8%
Total 133,328 0 96,362 72.3% 110,779 83,1% 124,565 93,4% 138,123 103,6% 150,255 112.7%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: Exceeded targets may be attributed to higher numbers of 'new' students in some years and a much higher number of teachers and parents 
trained/supported than what was initially planned.
Outcome: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions
Table 15: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
175,379 0 285,345 162,7% 254,976 145,4% 243,750 139% 235,230 134.1% 238,872 136.2%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The overall cumulative number of students supported over the life of the project was higher than planned and therefore 
the indirect beneficiaries, calculated as a multiplier of 3, is also higher than planned.
Outcome: Percent 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
Table 16: Percent 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 (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018* FY2019 FY2020* FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 77% 0 43.3% 56.2% - - 62.9% 81.7% - - 85% 110.4%
Male 62% 0 39.8% 64.2% - - 56.8% 91.6% - - 70.2% 113.2%
Total 69% 0 41.5% 60.1% - - 59% 85.5% - - 77.7% 112.6%
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA survey.
* Data not collected this year.
Date | Report Number 
71
MGD 1.1: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
Outcome: Number of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
Table 17: Number of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
984 0 874 88.8% 949 96.4% 1,240 126% 1,240 126% 1,240 126%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: Both grade 1-3 teachers and grade 4-6 teachers were trained. Targets were exceeded because all teachers who 
teach grade 1 to 3 were trained (not only Kinyarwanda teachers, but also teachers of different subjects). Furthermore, 
World Vision also trained upper grade primary English teachers (teachers of grades 4 - 6) in all 104 schools. These were 
not originally included in the plan and were therefore also not included in the target.
MGD 1.1.1: More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Outcome: Number of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90 percent of 
scheduled school days per school year 
Table 18: Number of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90 percent of 
scheduled school days per school year (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
653 0 1,354 207.4% 1,423 217.9% 1,435 219.8% 1,558 238.6% 1,680 257.3%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: It is difficult to report and interpret this indicator as a percentage. Below are the raw data, using # of teachers 
attending/teaching for at least 90 percent of scheduled days as the numerator and # of teachers as the denominator, and 
the corresponding percentage, by year:
1 October 2020 – 31 March 2021: 1680/1706 (98.5 percent)
1 October 2020 – 31 March 2020: not assessed; schools closed due to COVID-19
1 April 2019 - 30 September 2019: 1435/1529 (93.9 percent)
1 October 2018 - 31 March 2019: 1409/1463 (96.3 percent)
1 October 2017 - 30 September 2018: 1423/1448 (98.3 percent)
Note also that both grade 1-3 teachers and grade 4-6 teachers were trained. Targets were exceeded because all teachers 
who teach grade 1 to 3 were trained (not only Kinyarwanda teachers, but also teachers of different subjects). Furthermore, 
World Vision also trained upper grade primary English teachers (teachers of grades 4 - 6) in all 104 schools. These were not 
originally included in the plan and were therefore also not included in the target.
Date | Report Number 
72
Output: Promote teacher attendance and recognition
Table 19: Number of teachers receiving awards (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 104 -
2017 0 298 -
2018 237 298 80%
2019 431 298 145%
2020 0 104 0%
2021 0 104 0%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
MGD 1.1.2: Better Access to School Supplies & Materials
Outcome: Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA 
assistance
Table 20: Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA 
assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
132,990 0 59,653 44.9% 224,621 168.9% 258,005 194% 258,005 194% 269,237 202.4%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: Exceeded targets are attributed to the project’s response to the demand for new storybooks and the substantial need for 
reading materials, especially in the community.
Outputs: Distribute school supplies and material
Table 21: Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials 
(literacy starter kits) provided as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 26 -
2017 70 26 269%
2018 0 26 -
2019 0 26 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
73
Table 22: Number of students benefiting from literacy starter kits provided as a 
result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 20,750 -
2017 65,669 20,750 316%
2018 96,041 20,750 463%
2019 87,011 20,750 419%
2020 41,877 20,750 202%
2021 44,648 20,750 215%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data
MGD 1.1.3: Improved Literacy Instructional Materials
Outcome: Number of target schools with supplemental reading materials available to students as result of 
USDA assistance
Table 23: Number of target schools with supplemental reading materials available to 
students as result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
Final target FY16 FY2017-21
Actual Actual Actual vs. target
104 0 104 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 
data.
Outputs: Establish Libraries and Produce Books and Supplementary Reading Materials
Table 24: Number of teaching and reading materials procured as a result of USDA 
assistance to be used in schools (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 6,120 -
2017 10,933 6,300 174%
2018 2,080 6,300 33%
2019 21,528 0 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data
Table 25: Number of books distributed in communities to establish school and 
community libraries (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 28,560 -
2017 10,080 29,400 34%
2018 164,968 29,400 561%
2019 11,856 0 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 11,322 0 11.322%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
74
Table 26: Number of community-generated reading materials (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 4,680 -
2017 290 7,722 4%
2018 92,304 7,254 1,272%
2019 11,856 7,254 163%
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
Table 27: Number of students benefiting from libraries and new reading 
materials provided as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 20,700 -
2017 84,876 41,500 205%
2018 85,139 83,106 102%
2019 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 75,973 83,106 91%
2021 79,624 83,106 96
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
MGD 1.1.4: Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Outcome: Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Table 28: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019-21
Actual Actual Actual vs. target Actual Actual vs. target Actual Actual vs. target
# who use new 
techniques or 
tools 
653 0 874 133.8% 949 145.3% 1,240 189.9%
# trained/certified 816 0 1 105 135.4% 1,427 174.9% 1,509 184.9%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a 
result of USDA assistance
** Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as result of USDA assistance
Note: The total 1,509 teachers trained is comprised of 1,072 grade 1 to grade 3 teachers and 437 grade 4 to grade 6. 
Achievement was over target because all teachers who teach grade 1 to 3 were trained – not only Kinyarwanda teachers, as 
there was a challenge regarding teachers changing the subjects they teach). Furthermore, World Vision also trained upper￾grade primary English teachers (grades 4 to 6 teachers) in all 104 schools. These were not originally included in the plan and 
were therefore also not included in the target.
Date | Report Number 
75
Output: Training teachers 
Table 29: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools 
who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result 
of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 168 -
2017 874 272 321%
2018 949 272 349%
2019 1,240 272 456%
2020 1,195 0 -
2021 818 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
Note: Both grade 1-3 teachers and grade 4-6 teachers were trained. Targets were exceeded 
because all teachers who teach grade 1 to 3 were trained (not only Kinyarwanda teachers, but 
also teachers of different subjects). Furthermore, World Vision also trained upper grade primary 
English teachers (teachers of grades 4 - 6) in all 104 schools. These were not originally included 
in the plan and were therefore also not included in the target.
MGD 1.1.5: Increased Skills and Knowledge of Administrators
Outcome: Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
Table 30: Increased skills and knowledge of school administrators (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16-17 FY2018-19 FY2020-21
Actual Actual Actual vs. target Actual Actual vs. target
# who use new 
techniques or tools 93 0 252 271% 252 271%
# trained/certified 139 0 252 181.3% 262 188.5%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as 
a result of USDA
** Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as result of USDA assistance
Note: Overachievement for this indicator was due to the fact that mentors were not included in the 
initial target. However, to ensure alignment with the teacher coaching model, World Vision decided to 
include mentors in the teacher coaching activities.
Date | Report Number 
76
Output: Training school administrators
Table 31: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques and tools as a result of USDA assistance 
(annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 43 -
2017 0 32 -
2018 181 32 566%
2019 237 32 741%
2020 239 0 -
2021 243 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
MGD 1.2: Improved Attentiveness
MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger / MGD 1.2.1.1: Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Outcome: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a 
result of USDA assistance
Table 32: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school￾age children as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
FY Final Target Actual Actual vs. target
FY2016
74,808,333
0 0
FY2017 17,631,534 23.6%
FY2018 31,698,108 42.4%
FY2019 46,381,463 62.%
FY2020 52,262,213 69.9%
FY2021 60,168,995 80.4 %
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: In the last reporting period (1 October 2020 – 31 March 2021), 4,906,782 meals were provided. 
The number is lower than previous semi-annual periods because of school closures: students were 
not in school in October, P5-P6 returned in early November, P4 later in November, and P1-P3 in 
January.
Date | Report Number 
77
Outcome: Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of 
USDA assistance
Table 33: Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance 
(cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 66,378 0 47,717 71.9% 54,714 82.4% 61,166 92.1% 67,809 102.2% 73,403 110.6%
Male 61,272 0 47,398 77.4% 54,681 89.2% 61,396 100.2% 68,311 111.5% 74,395 121.4%
New 127,650 0 95,115 74.5% 109,395 85.7% 122,562 96% 136,120 106.6% 147,798 115.8%
Continuing 71,970 0 0 - 73,174 101.7% 68,083 94.6% 64,852 90.1% 67,946 94.4%
Total 127,650 0 95,115 74.5% 109,395 85.7% 122,562 96% 136,120 106.6% 147,798 115.8%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The >100 percent achievement in FY2021 is explained by the addition of 11,678 new students to the programme (5,594 females and 6,084 males).
Outcome: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result 
of USDA assistance
Table 34: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 66,378 0 47,717 71.9% 54,714 82.4% 61,166 92.1% 67,809 102.2% 73,403 110.6%
Male 61,272 0 47,398 77.4% 54,681 89.2% 61,396 100.2% 68,311 111.5% 74,395 121.4%
New 127,650 0 94,572 74.5% 109,395 85.7% 122,562 96% 136,120 106.6% 147,798 115.8%
Continuing 71,970 0 0 - 73,174 101.7% 68,083 94.6% 64,852 90.1% 67,946 94.4%
Total 127,650 0 95,115 74.5% 109,395 85.7% 122,562 96% 136,120 106.6% 147,798 115.8%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The >100 percent achievement in FY2021 is explained by the addition of 11,678 new students to the programme (5,594 females and 6,084 
males).
Outputs: Provide school meals
Table 35: Number of daily school meals provided to school age 
children as a result USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 14,962,000 -
2017 14,807,052 14,962,000 99%
2018 14,066,574 14,962,000 94%
2019 14,683,355 14,962,000 98%
2020 5,880,750 14,962,000 39%
2021 4,906,782 14,962,000 33%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 78
Table 36: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
Female Male New Continuing Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 43,215 - 0 39,890 - 0 83,106 - 0 71,970 - 0 83,106 -
2017 47,460 43,215 110% 47,112 39,890 118% 95,115 11,136 854% 73,174 71,970 102% 94,572 83,106 114%
2018 41,696 43,215 96% 43,296 39,890 109% 14,280 14,280 100% 71,327 71,970 99% 84,992 83,106 102%
2019 39,683 43,215 92% 41,567 39,890 104% 13,167 11,136 118% 68,083 71,970 95% 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 38,261 43,215 89% 40,149 39,890 101% 13,558 11,136 122% 64,852 71,970 90% 78,410 83,106 94%
2021 38,995 43,215 90% 40,629 39,890 102% 11,678 11,136 105% 67,946 71,970 94% 79,624 83,106 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 37: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance (annual figures)
Female Male Total New Continuing
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 43,215 - 0 39,890 - 0 83,106 - 0 88,784 - 0 0 -
2017 47,460 43,215 110% 47112 39,890 118% 94,572 83,106 114% 96,362 11,136 865% 0 77,648 -
2018 41,696 43,215 96% 43,296 39,890 109% 84,992 83,106 102% 14,417 11,136 129% 74,294 77,648 96%
2019 39,683 43,215 92% 41,567 39,890 104% 81,250 83,106 98% 13,786 11,136 124% 71,627 77,648 92%
2020 38,261 43,215 89% 40,149 39,890 101% 78,410 83,106 94% 13,558 11,136 122% 64,000 77,648 82%
2021 38,995 43,215 90% 40,629 39,890 102% 79,624 83,106 96% 11,678 11,136 105% 67,946 77,648 88%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 38: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA funded interventions (annual figures)
Female Male Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 46,167 - 0 42,626 - 0 88,784 -
2017 48,689 46,167 105% 47,673 42,626 112% 96,362 88,784 109%
2018 43,076 42,626 101% 44,931 46,167 97% 88,007 88,793 99%
2019 41,479 42,626 97% 43,934 46,167 95% 85,413 88,793 96%
2020 39,754 42,626 93% 41,975 46,167 91% 81,729 88,784 92%
2021 45,614 42,626 107% 47,405 46,167 103% 93,019 88,784 105%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 79
Table 39: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA funded interventions (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance (actual vs target)
2016 0 175,379 -
2017 283,716 175,379 162%
2018 254,976 249,318 102%
2019 243,750 175,379 139%
2020 235,230 175,379 134%
2021 238,872 175,379 136%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 40: Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
Female Male New Continuing Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 43,215 - 0 39,890 - 0 83,106 - 0 0 - 0 83,106 -
2017 47,460 43,215 110% 47,112 39,890 118% 95,115 11,136 854% 0 71,970 - 94,572 83,106 114%
2018 41,696 43,215 96% 43,296 39,890 109% 14,280 11,136 128% 73,174 71,970 102% 84,992 83,106 102%
2019 39,683 43,215 92% 41,567 39,890 104% 13,167 11,136 118% 68,083 71,970 95% 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 38,261 43,215 89% 40,149 39,890 101% 13,558 11,136 122% 64,852 71,970 90% 78,410 83,106 94%
2021 38,995 43,215 90% 40,629 39,890 102% 11,678 11,136 105% 67,946 71,970 94% 79,624 83,106 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
80
Table 41: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools (annual figures)
Female Male Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 43,215 - 0 39,890 - 0 83,106 -
2017 39,937 43,215 92% 41,470 39,890 104% 81,406 83,106 98%
2018 39,863 43,215 92% 40,957 39,890 103% 80,819 83,106 97%
2019 38,438 43,215 89% 39,628 39,890 99% 78,066 83,106 94%
2020 0 43,215 - 0 39,890 - 0 83,106 -
2021 37,439 43,215 87% 35,894 39,890 90% 73,333 83,106 88%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for 
FY2021 data.
Note: No reporting for FY2020 due to COVID-related school closures.
Table 42: Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (male)
(annual figures)
Female Male Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
Not collected anymore (globally)
Outputs: Develop Partnerships with Farmer Groups to Supply Food to Schools
Table 43: Number of public-partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (other) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 16 -
2017 15 8 188%
2018 0 7 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 16 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 44: Number of smallholder farmers benefiting from 
partnerships with schools (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 5,935 0%
2017 2,918 8,903 33%
2018 3,922 11,500 34%
2019 3,922 11,500 34%
2020 9,771 11,500 85%
2021 9,771 11,500 85%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
81
Table 45: Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as 
a result of USDA assistance (private) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 0 -
2018 0 0 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Outputs: Establish and Maintain School Gardens
Table 46: Number of school gardens established and maintained 
(annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 104 -
2017 0 104 -
2018 104 104 100%
2019 104 104 100%
2020 104 104 100%
2021 106 104 102%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 47: Number of students benefiting from the establishment and 
maintenance of school gardens (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 83,106 -
2017 0 83,106 -
2018 84,992 83,106 102%
2019 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 75,973 83,106 91%
2021 79,624 83,106 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
82
MGD 1.3: Improved Student Attendance
Outcome: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classroom/school
Table 48: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classroom/school (annual figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 66,378 0 42,226 63.6% 48,943 73.7% 55,137 83.1% 55,137 83.1% 60,507 91.2%
Male 61,272 0 43,409 70.8% 50,327 82.1% 56,707 92.5% 56,707 92.5% 62,079 101.3%
Total 127,650 0 85,635 67.1% 99,201 77.7% 111,841 87.6% 111,841 87.6% 122,586 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: While the actual/target percentage for FY2021 for females is 91.2 percent (close to but not meeting the target), the total number 
of female students regularly (80%) attending USDA-supported classrooms (37,439) is 96 percent of female students enrolled.
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives / 1.3.1.1 Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Output: Increased Access to Food (School Feeding) - Reported under MGD 1.2.1.1 / Activity reported 
under Output 1.2.1.1
MGD 1.3.2: Reduced Health-Related Absences 
Outcome: Percent of students who miss more than 10 school days per year due to illness
Table 49: Percent of students who miss more than 10 school days per year due to illness (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 5% 0 1.8% 103.4% 1.4% 103.8% 0.8% 104.4% 0.8% 104.4% 1.72% 103.5%
Male 5% 0 1.6% 103.6% 1.3% 103.9% 0.6% 104.6% 0.6% 104.6% 2.38% 102.8%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
MGD 1.3.3: Improved School Infrastructure
Outcome: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils)
Table 50: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils) (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
104 0 55 52.9% 80 76.9% 80 76.9% 93 89.4% 104* 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* At the end of June 2021, this number will be 107 as new infrastructure has been built in the three new schools added to 
the programme.
Outcome: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as result of USDA assistance (latrines)
Table 51: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as result of USDA assistance (latrines) (cumulative figures)
Final target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020-21
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Stances 364 0 266 73.1% 364 100% 392 107.7% 476 130.8%
Latrines 26 0 19 73.1% 26 100% 28 107.7% 34 130.8%
Date | Report Number 
83
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: Based on additional needs identified in target schools, World Vision mobilized additional funding to build five 
latrine blocks beyond what the project had originally targeted. The project target of 26 has thus been exceeded.
Outputs: Provide fuel-efficient stoves
Table 52: Number of fuel-efficient stoves provided and rehabilitated 
(annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 104 -
2017 109 0 -
2018 50 30 167%
2019 0 0 -
2020 52 0 -
2021 44 0 44%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 53: Number of individuals directly benefiting from the 
provision and rehabilitation of fuel-efficient stoves (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 83,626 -
2017 40,224 83,626 48%
2018 22,065 83,626 26%
2019 0 83,626 -
2020 0 83,626 -
2021 77,352 83,626 92%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
84
MGD 1.3.4: Increased Student Enrolment
Outcome: Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance
Table 54: Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 66,378 0 47,717 71.9% 54,714 82.4% 61,166 92.1% 67,809 102.2% 73,403 110.6%
Male 61,272 0 47,398 77.4% 54,681 89.2% 61,396 100.2% 68,311 111.5% 74,395 121.4%
Total 127,650 0 95,115 74.5% 109,395 85.7% 122,562 96% 136,120 106.6% 147,798 115.8%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The final cumulative target (FY2021) is higher than target because over time, a higher number of new students enrolled in certain 
years compared to what was planned.
MGD 1.3.5: Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
Outcome: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education
Table 55: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
90% - 69% 76.7% 69% 76,7% 69.8% 77.6% 69.8% 77.6% 74.3% 82.6%
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher survey.
Outputs: Raising awareness on the importance of education
Table 56: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at 
least three benefits of primary education (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0% 60% -
2017 1% 70% 1%
2018 69% 80% 86.3%
2019 69.8% 80% 87.3%
2020 69.8% 90% 77.6%
2021 74.3 90% 82.6%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
85
Table 57: Number of parents trained on the importance of literacy 
(annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 1,456 0%
2017 3,897 1,456 268%
2018 14,164 1,456 973%
2019 1,231 1,456 85%
2020 4,038 1,456 277%
2021 19,134 1,456 1,314%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Outputs: Establish activities to promote literacy
Table 58: Number of reading clubs established as a result of USDA 
assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 102 -
2017 168 105 160%
2018 42 105 40%
2019 0 0 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Total: 312
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: In their review of the draft evaluation report, both World Vision and WFP 
Rwanda affirmed that the total number of reading clubs established is 312, 
though there were some nuanced differences in the data noted in their 
comments. World Vision stated that since 2016, the project established 312 
reading clubs: 102 in 2016 and 210 in 2017 (which are different annual numbers 
from the data in this table). WFP Rwanda stated that the correct number is 312 
reading clubs established (three clubs per catchment area. The evaluation team 
accepts 312 as the correct total and considers this the most relevant data point.
Table 59: Number of student writing competitions facilitated as a 
result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 8 0%
2018 4 8 50%
2019 8 8 100%
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
86
Table 60: Number of students benefiting from the development of 
reading clubs (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 4,080 0%
2017 24,164 8,280 292%
2018 24,107 12,480 193%
2019 21,356 12,480 171%
2020 26,166 12,480 210%
2021 33,624 12,480 269%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 61: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades primary schooling, demonstrate that 
they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text (annual figures)
Female Male Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016* - - - - - - - - -
2017 43.3% 77% 56.2% 39.8% 62% 64.2% 41.5% 69% 60.1
2018* - - - - - - - - -
2019 62.9% 77% 81.7% 56.8% 62% 91.6% 59% 69% 85.5%
2020* - - - - - - - - -
2021 85% 77% 110,4% 70,2% 62% 113,2% 77.7% 69% 112,6%
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA survey.
* Data not collected this year.
Outputs: Training (SGACs)
Table 62: Number of SGACs or similar school governance structures 
supported as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 104 -
2017 104 104 100%
2018 79 104 76%
2019 104 104 100%
2020 104 104 100%
2021 104 104 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 63: Number of parents trained as part of SGACs (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 520 -
2017 1,287 520 248%
2018 327 520 63%
2019 365 520 70%
2020 1,024 520 197%
2021 0 520 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
87
MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices
MGD 2.1: Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices
Outcome: Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices
Table 64: Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices (cumulative 
figures)
Final 
target
FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Female 80% 0 47% 58.8% 47% 58.8% 49.2% 61.5% 49.2% 61.5% 60.9% 76.1%
Male 80% 0 48% 60% 48% 60% 48.6% 60.8% 48.6% 60.8% 44.7% 55.9%
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA survey.
Output: Training (SGACs) – Reported under MGD 1.3.5 
Outputs: Training and awareness on good health and hygiene practices
Table 65: Number of students reached with health and hygiene messages 
as a result of USDA assistance (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 83,106 -
2017 85,398 83,106 103%
2018 84,992 83,106 102%
2019 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 75,973 83,106 91%
2021 78,538 83,106 95%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 66: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA 
assistance (annual figures)
Female Male Total
FY Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T Actual Target A/T
2016 0 145 0% 0 63 0% 0 208 0%
2017 723 145 499% 623 63 989% 1,346 208 647%
2018 9,741 145 6,718% 8,617 63 1,3678% 18,358 208 8,826%
2019 1,290 145 890% 2,462 63 3,908% 5,242 208 2,520%
2020 1,881 145 1,297% 1,315 63 2,087% 3,196 208 1,537%
2021 0 145 - 0 63 - 0 208 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for 
FY2021 data.
Note: Targets were exceeded because the project trained all parents on good health practices (as 
children are more likely to contract hygiene-related diseases at home); the data reflect the number of 
parents who have been trained on health and hygiene using the CBHPP model.
Date | Report Number 
88
MGD 2.2: Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices
Outcome: Percent of cooks and storekeepers who can identify at least three safe food preparation and 
storage practices
Table 67: Percent of cooks and storekeepers who can identify at least three safe food preparation 
and storage practices (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
95% 0 92% 96.8% 92% 96.8% 85% 89.5% 85% 89.5% 40% 42.1%
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher survey.
Note: The low percentage of achievement at the end of the project may be due to turnover and lack of practice due to 
the COVID-19 school closures in 2020. As most trainings could not happen during the closures, cooks spent nearly a 
year with no refresher, plus with high turnover, new cooks were not trained for nearly 12 months.
Output: Training food preparation and storage practices
Table 68: Number of cooks and storekeepers trained on food preparation 
and storage practices (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 520 -
2017 330 520 63%
2018 469 520 90%
2019 459 520 88%
2020 164 520 32%
2021 309 520 59%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The low percentage of achievement at the end of the project may be due to 
turnover and lack of practice due to the COVID-19 school closures in 2020. As most 
trainings could not happen during the closures, cooks spent nearly a year with no 
refresher, plus with high turnover, new cooks were not trained for nearly 12 months.
Date | Report Number 
89
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Outcome: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance
Table 69: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 145 0 723 498.6% 5,888 4,061% 5,888 4,061% 7,769 5,358% 7,769 5,357.9%
Male 63 0 623 988.9% 4,816 7,644% 4,816 7,644% 6,131 9,732% 6,131 9,731.7%
Total 208 0 1,346 647.1% 10,704 5,146% 10,704 5,146% 13,900 6,683% 13,900 6,682.7%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: Targets were exceeded because the project trained all parents on good health practices (as children are more likely to contract hygiene￾related diseases at home); the data reflect the number of parents who have been trained on health and hygiene using the CBHPP model.
Output: Establish and maintain school gardens – Reported under MGD 1.2.1 (1.2.1.1)
MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services
Outcome: Number of schools using an improved water source and sanitation facilities
Table 70: Number of schools using an improved water source and sanitation facilities (cumulative figures) 
Schools Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Water source 104 0 97 93.3% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100%
Sanitation facilities 104 0 102 98.1% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Output: Building/rehabilitating latrines: For number of latrines/stances, see: Table 51
Table 71: Number of students benefiting from newly 
constructed/rehabilitated latrines (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 9,581 -
2017 13,025 5,593 233%
2018 5,064 5,593 91%
2019 7,455 5,593 133%
2020 4,475 5,593 80%
2021 0 5,593 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 72: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 54 -
2017 102 65 157%
2018 104 85 122%
2019 104 104 100%
2020 104 104 100%
2021 104 104 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
90
Output: Building/rehabilitating water collecting systems 
Table 73: Number of rainwater catchment systems constructed and/or 
enhanced (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 20 -
2017 46 20 230%
2018 15 15 100%
2019 8 9 89%
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 74: Number of students benefiting from newly constructed and/or 
enhanced rainwater catchment systems (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 15,960 -
2017 24,535 15,960 154%
2018 8,993 11,970 75%
2019 13,887 7,182 193%
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 75: Number of schools using an improved water sources (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 54 -
2017 97 65 149%
2018 104 85 122%
2019 104 104 100%
2020 104 104 100%
2021 104 104 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
91
MGD 2.5: Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions
Outcome: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s)
Table 76: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
127,650 0 8,963a 68.9% 102,243 80.1% 115,410 90.4% 128,968 101% 140,646 110.2%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: The number of students enrolled over the life of the project exceeded the original target for deworming, which 
accounts for end-of-project achievement higher than 100 percent. a Per consultation with the country office, lower achievement rate in FY2017 (and discrepancy with the figure reported for 
the corresponding output indicator in Table 77) is likely due to defining and reporting this indicator differently in FY2017 
compared to FY2018 and beyond. Counting may have been different in the first year, e.g. by including or not including 
deworming treatments for students who were programme versus non-programme.
Output: Distribute deworming medication
Table 77: Number of students receiving deworming medications (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 83,106 0%
2017 85,398 83,106 103%
2018 83,590 83,106 101%
2019 81,250 83,106 98%
2020 78,410 83,106 94%
2021 79,624 83,106 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
MGD 2.6: Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools and Equipment
Outcome: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils)
Table 78: Number of target schools with access to improved food preparation and storage equipment 
(kitchens, cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils) (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual
Actual 
vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual 
vs. target
104 0 55 52.9% 80 76.9% 80 76.9% 93 89.4% 104* 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* At the end of June 2021, this number will be 107 as new infrastructure has been built in the three new schools added to 
the programme.
Date | Report Number 
92
Output: Building/rehabilitating kitchen storerooms 
Table 79: Number of educational facilities (i.e school buildings, classrooms and latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (kitchens, cook areas) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 52 -
2017 55 52 106%
2018 25 10 250%
2019 0 5 -
2020 13 5 260%
2021 11 5 220%
Total 104*
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* Of the total 104 facilities, 55 were kitchens and stoves rehabilitated/constructed by ADRA. An additional four 
kitchens are being constructed in the four new schools that have been added to the program; the country office 
reports that these will be finished before the end of the programme.
Table 80: Number of educational facilities (i.e school buildings, classrooms and 
latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (other school 
grounds or school buildings, i.e. storeroom) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 52 -
2017 89 52 171%
2018 25 10 250%
2019 0 5 -
2020 13 5 260%
2021 11 5 220%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP 
for FY2021 data.
Table 81: Number of students benefiting from kitchens, cook areas and 
storerooms built or rehabilitated (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance
(actual vs target)
2016 0 41,553 -
2017 61,066 83,106 73%
2018 22,065 83,106 27%
2019 0 83,106 -
2020 0 83,106 -
2021 79,624 83,106 96%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
93
Foundational Results
MGD 1.4.1/2.7.1: Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Outcome: Number of government staff trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance
Table 82: Number of government staff trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Female 58 0 8 13.8% 12 20.7% 56 96.6% 117 201.7% 121 208.6%
Male 86 0 6 7% 10 11.6% 114 132.6% 227 264% 231 268.6%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Note: It is likely that only national government staff were contemplated in the original target. District government staff were not 
included in reporting until FY2019, which would explain the high achievement rates starting in FY2019.
Outputs: Capacity building: Local, regional, national
Table 83: Number of government staff trained at national level (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 13 0%
2017 6 13 46%
2018 11 13 85%
2019 15 13 115%
2020 35 13 269%
2021 3 13 23%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 84: Number of government staff trained at district level (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 60 0%
2017 8 60 13%
2018 216 60 360%
2019 151 60 252%
2020 144 60 240%
2021 114 60 190%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
94
MGD 1.4.2/2.7.2: Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework 
Outcome: Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Table 85: Improved policy and regulatory framework (cumulative figures)
Schools Final 
target
FY2016-FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Number of Child health and nutrition policies, regulations
or administrative procedures in the following stages of 
development as result of USDA assistance
1 0 0 -
Number of educational policies, regulations, or 
administrative procedures in each of the following stages 
of development as a result of USDA assistance
1 0 1 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Output: Support implementation of the National HGSF program
Table 86: Number of HGSF Steering Committee and Technical Committee 
meetings held (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 6 -
2017 13 6 217%
2018 28 6 467%
2019 10 6 167%
2020 8 6 133%
2021 5 6 83%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 87: Number of government financing strategies developed (annual 
figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 1 -
2018 0 0 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 0 0 -
2021 0 0 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 88: Number of government monitoring and evaluation systems 
established (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 1 -
2018 0 0 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 1 0 -
2021 1 1 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team 
consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
95
Table 89: Number of district and national-level Ministry of Education 
(MINEDUC) and Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) staff supported by new 
HGSF policies (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 73 -
2017 0 73 -
2018 0 73 -
2019 4 73 5%
2020 4 73 5%
2021 4 73 5%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 90: Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures in the following stages of development as a result 
of USDA assistance (stage 5) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 0 -
2018 0 0 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 0 1 -
2021 0 1 -
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with 
WFP for FY2021 data.
Table 91: Number of educational policies regulation, or administrative 
procedures in the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance (stage 5) (annual figures)
FY Actual Target Performance 
(actual vs target)
2016 0 0 -
2017 0 0 -
2018 0 0 -
2019 0 0 -
2020 1 1 100%
2021 1 1 100%
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation 
with WFP for FY2021 data.
MGD 1.4.3/2.7.3: Increased Government Support
Outcome: Increased Government Support
Table 92: Increased government support (annual figures)
Schools Final 
target
FY2016-FY2021
Actual
Value of public-private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (host government) 0 0
Percent increase in budget allocated by the Government of Rwanda to 
Home-Grown School Feeding Program 0 0
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
Date | Report Number 
96
MGD 1.4.4/2.7.4: Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Outcome: Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Table 93: Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups (cumulative figures)
Final 
target
FY16 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Actual Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
Actual Actual vs. 
target
SGACs 
supported * 104 0 104 100% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100% 104 100%
Public-private 
partnerships 
formed **
31 0 24 77.4% 24 77.4% 19 61.3% 35 112.9% 35 112.9%
Value of public￾private sector 
investments ***
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: WFP. Semi-annual donor reports 2016-2020 and evaluation team consultation with WFP for FY2021 data.
* Number of SGACs or similar "school" governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance
** Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (other). Variances in achievement of target are due to two factors: i) 
the subtraction and addition of cooperatives over the course of the project; some dropped out due to disinterest and others previously supported 
under LRP were shifted under the support umbrella of McGovern-Dole; and ii) the project added cooperatives supported by the two-year USDA LRP 
programme, which was not foreseen at the start of the project.
*** Value of public-private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance (private)
Date | Report Number 97
Annex 7: Terms of Reference 
Terms of Reference
MIDTERM AND ENDLINE EVALUATIONS of
WFP Rwanda’s Home Grown School Feeding Programme 2016-2020 (USDA McGovern Dole Grant FFE￾696-2015/007-00) 
in 2018 and 2020-21 for WFP Rwanda 
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Reasons for the evaluations
2.1. Rationale
2.2. Objectives
2.3. Stakeholders and users
3. Context and subject of the evaluations
3.1. Context
3.2. Subject of the evaluations
4. Evaluation approach
4.1. Scope
4.2. Evaluation criteria and questions
4.3. Data availability
4.4. Methodology
4.5. Quality assurance and assessment
5. Phases and deliverables
5.1. Midterm evaluation
5.2. Endline evaluation
6. Organization of the evaluation
6.1. Evaluation conduct
6.2. Team composition and competencies
6.3. Security considerations
7. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
8. Communication and budget
8.1. Communication
8.2. Budget
Annex 1 Map
Annex 2 Tentative Evaluation Schedule
Annex 3 EC TOR
Annex 4 ERG TOR
Annex 5 Results frame
Date | Report Number 98
Table of Acronyms
ACR Annual Country Report
CBEHPP Community‐based Environmental Health Promotion Program
CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis 
CHAI Clinton Health Access Initiative
CHW Community Health Workers
CO Country Office
CSR Country Strategic Review of Food Security and Nutrition 
DDP District Development Plans
DEO District Education Officers
DEQAS Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System
DFID Department for International Development 
EB Executive Board
EC Evaluation Committee 
ERG Evaluation Reference Group
ESSP Education Sector Strategic Plan
EQAS Evaluation Quality Assurance System
GEWE Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
HGSF Home Grown School Feeding
MDG Millenium Development Goal(s)
MGD McGovern-Dole
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
MINALOC Ministry of Local Affairs
MINEDUC Ministry of Education
MINESANTE Ministry of Health
MININFRA Ministry of Infrastructure
NST National Strategy for Transformation
OEV WFP Office of Evaluation
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
RB(N) Regional Bureau (Nairobi)
REB Rwanda Education Board
SDG Sustainable Development Goal(s)
SEO Sector Education Officers 
SGBV Sexual and Gender-based Violence
SMC School Management Committees
SPR Standard Project Report
WFP World Food Programme
UN CCA UN Common Country Analysis
UNDAP UN Development Assistance Plan 
UNDSS UN Department of Safety and Security 
UNHDI UN Human Development Index 
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United Stated Department of Agriculture
WASAC Water and Sanitation Corporation
Date | Report Number 99
1. Introduction
1. This Terms of Reference (TOR) is for the midterm and endline evaluations of WFP Rwanda’s Home-Grown 
School Feeding (HGSF) Programme 2016-2020199 (USDA McGovern Dole (MGD) Grant FFE-696-2015/007-
00) in Rwanda. These two activity evaluations are commissioned by WFP Rwanda and will take place from 
June/July to December 2018 and December 2020 to May 2021, respectively. 
2. The TOR was prepared by WFP Rwanda based upon an initial document review and consultation with 
stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides 
key information to the evaluation team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process. 
Secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluations.
3. The HGSF Programme supports around 79,000 primary students annually across 107200 schools in four 
of Rwanda’s poorest and most food insecure districts – Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe in the south and 
Rutsiro and Karongi in the west (see map in Annex 1). Children in the south receive a daily hot meal 
whereas students in the western province are provided a porridge meal. As a contribution to the project, 
some schools occasionally provide locally grown vegetables to enrich the meals. The programme also 
undertakes activities to improve student literacy outcomes, increased use of health and dietary practices, 
including WASH, setting up school gardens, providing deworming medication and supporting the 
strengthening of government staff capacities. 
2. Reasons for the evaluations
2.1 Rationale
4. The midterm evaluation was commissioned to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of 
the project’s performance so that WFP Rwanda and its project partners, World Vision and Gardens for 
Health International, can adjust course as necessary for the remainder of the project term. 
5. The endline evaluation is being commissioned to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment 
of the project to evaluate its success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons learned. The endline 
evaluation will be designed to inform the baseline evaluation of WFP Rwanda’s Home-Grown School 
Feeding (HGSF) Programme 2020-2025 phase II to maximise efficiency and avoid stakeholder fatigue 
during data collection considering the geographic overlap and continuity of some activities. It is 
important to create sufficient opportunity to consolidate and apply the endline learning to the baseline 
design and even to inform Phase II detailed implementation decisions, to the extent possible.
199 The HGSF programme was later granted a no-cost extension into FY2021 with a new end date of June 30, 2021. 200 From 2016-2019, the programme supported 104 schools; in 2020, WFP began providing meals and select activities to 3 
new schools in Karongi making the total project number 107.
Date | Report Number 100
2.2 Objectives 
6. Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
• Accountability – The midterm and endline evaluations will assess and report on the performance 
and results of WFP Rwanda’s Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) Programme 2016-2020.
• Learning – The evaluations will determine the reasons why certain results occurred, to draw lessons 
and derive good practices for learning. It will also provide evidence-based findings to inform 
operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated, and lessons will be 
incorporated into relevant information-sharing systems.
7. Specifically, the midterm evaluation allowed to i) review the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
impact, and sustainability, ii) collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level 
results, iii) assess whether the project is on track to meet the results and targets, iv) review the results 
frameworks and theory of change, and v) identify any necessary mid-course corrections. Hence, more 
weight was given to learning as can be expected for a midterm evaluation. 
8. Specifically, the endline evaluation will i) review the project’s relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, 
impact, and sustainability, ii) collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level 
results, iii) assess whether the project has succeeded in achieving McGovern Dole’s two strategic 
objectives, iv) investigate the project’s overall impact, and v) identify meaningful lessons learned that 
WFP, USDA, and other stakeholders can apply to future programming. Hence, about equal weight is given 
to learning and accountability.
2.3 Stakeholders and users
9. Several stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the evaluations 
and some of them will be asked to play a role in the evaluation processes. Table 1 below provides a 
preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team as part of the 
inception phase. 
10. Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key 
stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s 
empowerment (GEWE) in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation 
by women, men, boys and girls from different groups.
Table 1: Preliminary stakeholders’ analysis
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluations and likely use of evaluation reports for this 
stakeholder
WFP STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO) 
Rwanda
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, 
WFP Rwanda has a direct stake in the evaluations and an interest in learning 
from experience to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account 
internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for performance and 
results of its operation. 
Regional Bureau (RB) 
Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, 
the RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of 
the operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation 
findings to apply this learning to other country offices. The Regional Evaluation 
Officers supports CO/RB management to ensure quality, credible and useful 
decentralized evaluations. 
Office of Evaluation 
(OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, 
credible and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well 
as roles and accountabilities of various decentralised evaluation stakeholders 
as identified in the evaluation policy. 
Date | Report Number 101
WFP Executive Board 
(EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the 
effectiveness of WFP programmes. These evaluations will not be presented to 
the Board but their findings may feed into thematic and/or regional syntheses 
and corporate learning processes.
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP 
determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. 
Consequently, students, teachers, and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs)201
are considered key stakeholders. The level of participation of women and 
men, boys and girls in the evaluations through interviews, surveys and focus￾group discussions in the evaluations and their perspectives will be sought. 
Available data will be disaggregated by sex and age when relevant. 
Government As WFP is implementing the HGSF Programme to support the government in 
setting up a national school feeding programme, the Ministry of Education 
(MINEDUC), the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), the 
Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), Ministry of Local Affairs (MINALOC) and 
the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (MIGEPROF) as well as the four
implementing districts have a direct interest in knowing whether activities are 
aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the actions of other partners, and 
meet the expected results. Issues related to capacity development, handover 
and sustainability will be of interest. 
Main donor USDA USDA funds WFP’s HGSF Programme through a McGovern Dole Grant (FFE￾696-2015/007-00) and so has a strong interest in knowing whether their funds 
have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective and 
contributed to their own strategies and programmes. 
Other donors Additionally, MasterCard funds some of the food commodities used in the 
programme and contributed to overall implementation of complementary 
activities.
UN Country Team The UNDAP 2018-23 contributes to the national goal of “developing Rwandans 
into a capable and skilled people with quality standards of living and a stable 
and secure society” through Outcome 3 which reads as follows: By 2023 
people in Rwanda, particularly the most vulnerable, enjoy increased and 
equitable access to quality education, health, nutrition and WASH services. 
The UNCT therefore has a shared interest in the evaluation findings, 
particularly UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, FAO, UNFPA and UNHCR whose work in 
this area is interconnected with that of WFP.
Other partners World 
Vision, Gardens for 
Health International, and 
Rwanda Biomedical 
Centre
NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at 
the same time having their own interventions. The results of the evaluation 
might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations and 
partnerships. World Vision is a sub-grantee focusing on literacy and health. 
Gardens for Health International and Rwanda Biomedical Centre are key 
implementing partners.
11. The primary users of the midterm evaluation were:
201 PTAs have officially been renamed School General Assembly Committees (SGAC).
Date | Report Number 102
• WFP Rwanda and its partners World Vision, Gardens for Health International, and Rwanda 
Biomedical Centre to adjust course as necessary for the remainder of the project term; 
• MINEDUC and MINAGRI to learn whether the programme is performing well and is aligned with its 
priorities, particularly in terms of capacity development, handover and sustainability;
• USDA as the primary funder of the HGSF Programme to learn whether the programme is 
performing well. USDA may use findings and lessons learned to inform McGovern Dole 
programme funding, design, and implementation decisions;
• MasterCard as a funder of the HGSF programme may use the findings to inform its decision on the 
best models of school feeding as well as to target its funding;
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau Nairobi (RBN), it is expected to use the evaluation 
findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight;
• WFP HQ may use the evaluation for wider organizational learning and accountability;
• OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as 
for annual reporting to the Executive Board.
12. The primary users of the endline evaluation will be:
• WFP Rwanda and its partners World Vision, Gardens for Health International, and Rwanda 
Biomedical Centre to learn from programme implementation;
• MINEDUC and MINAGRI to learn whether the programme performed well and aligned with its 
priorities, particularly in terms of capacity development, handover and sustainability;
• USDA as the primary funder of the HGSF Programme to learn whether the programme is 
performing well. USDA may use findings and lessons learned to inform McGovern Dole 
programme funding, design, and implementation decisions;
• MasterCard as a funder of the HGSF programme may use the findings to inform its decision on the 
best models of school feeding as well as to target its funding;
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau Nairobi (RBN), it is expected to use the evaluation 
findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight;
• WFP HQ may use the evaluation for wider organizational learning and accountability;
• OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as 
for annual reporting to the Executive Board.
3. Context and subject of the evaluations
3.1 Context
13. Rwanda is a densely populated, low-income country with a total population of about 12 million people, 
ranked 157 of 189 countries in human development (2019 UNHDI). Since the 1994 genocide, the 
Government of Rwanda has consistently and rather successfully pursued development objectives. 
Rwanda made significant progress in implementing the MDGs and is well placed to continue within the 
SDG framework (UNDAP 2013-18). An annual GDP growth rate of 7.2 percent since 2010 has been 
accompanied by decreasing income inequality, although still among the highest in Africa (UN CCA 
2017).
14. Moreover, 41 percent of Rwandans are undernourished, and 38.2 percent of the population continues 
to live below the poverty line and almost one fifth is food insecure (SDG 2.1.1) (CFSVA 2018). Levels of 
stunting among young children remain very high (38 percent in the 2019 Global Nutrition Report for 
Rwanda). Stunting is more common among children with mothers who are young, did not complete 
secondary education, or are stunted themselves and have an unbalanced dietary intake. 12.6 percent 
of children under five are underweight (low weight for age) and 2 percent are acutely malnourished 
(low weight for height) (CFSVA 2018). 
Date | Report Number 103
15. Micronutrient deficiencies are also a public health concern; 37 percent of children under five and 19 
percent of women of reproductive age are anemic. The most common causes of anemia are lack of 
iron in the diet, and intestinal worms, preventing the absorption of micronutrients and minerals such 
as iron. Worm infections affect 65 percent of the population in Rwanda, and school-aged children are 
particularly affected. Main drivers for malnutrition are poor access to quality water, health services and 
sanitation (WASH) as well as poor care practices such as not receiving antenatal care, even among 
those who can access a nutritional, balanced diet (UN CCA 2017).
16. At 98.5 percent, Rwanda’s primary enrolment rate is among the highest in sub-Saharan Africa. Girls and 
boys show very similar numbers, but equitable access is an issue among vulnerable populations such 
as children with disabilities. Worryingly, primary school completion has considerably dropped from 73 
percent in 2012 to 65 percent (boys 59 percent, girls 71 percent) in 2016202, indicating a high dropout 
rate. The student-to-teacher ratio is high at 57:1, leaving little time for teachers to interact with 
students. The extent of limited delivery of quality education is evidenced by low competencies in 
literacy and numeracy among primary-school-going children. 
17. The average primary school has one toilet for every 52 students. The national target is 40:1 for boys 
and 30:1 for girls. MINEDUC estimates that menstrual management alone accounts for an average of 
50 days/girl/year in absences. While some steps have been taken to improve the situation, menstrual 
management continues to negatively affect girls, especially girls in the poorest districts (UN CCA 
2017). In addition, only 54.1 percent of schools in Rwanda have access to piped tap water. 
18. National literacy assessments in Rwanda have revealed generally poor reading skills among primary 
school students. In 2012, a Rwanda National Standards Committee defined third-grade Kinyarwanda 
reading fluency as 33-47 words correct per minute, yet, according to an Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA) conducted that year, 13 percent of students in primary grade 4 (P4), could not read 
a single word of a P2/3 level text in Kinyarwanda. Another 13 percent were reading fewer than 15 
correct words per minute, far below what is necessary for comprehension. In 2014, a reading 
assessment conducted by the USAID-funded Literacy, Language, and Learning project found that 60 
percent of P1 students, 33 percent of P2 students, and 21 percent of P3 students were unable to read a 
single word of grade level text. By 2017, research showed that 54.9 percent of primary grade 3 students 
and 56.4 percent of primary grade 6 students met standards (In Rwanda, 61 percent of adult women 
are literate whereas the figure is 39 percent for men.) (MINEDUC Annual Statsbook, 2019).
19. The social protection system has evolved in the last decade, moving from a host of fragmented, 
uncoordinated and often underfunded programmes to increasingly coordinated, government-owned 
programmes operating at scale. Thus, great strides were made regarding poverty reduction and 
vulnerability, mainly with households being the primary targeting unit (UN CCA 2017). The Social 
Protection Sector Strategy 2018-24 is taking this further by adopting a life-cycle approach and promoting 
universal access to social security and protection for all Rwandans, whether poor or not. Quite a radical 
shift, and appropriate given the country’s vision to reach upper income status by 2050.
20. Rwanda has made commendable progress in ensuring gender equality however glaring challenges still 
exist between males and females. While Rwanda has the highest percentage of women in parliament in 
the world (62 percent) and female representation in high also in other positions of power (55 percent 
of the cabinet, 57 percent of Supreme Court Justices), gender balance in local government leadership 
has not yet been fully addressed as most positions continue to be dominated by men, raising concerns 
around effective implementation of all gender equality related programmes. Similar observations and 
arguments suggest that there is a critical gap in the quality of overall participation and specifically 
women’s participation in these platforms as there is limited evidence to suggest otherwise.
21. The HGSF Programme supports students in four of Rwanda’s poorest and most food insecure districts: 
Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe in the southern province and Rutsiro and Karongi in the western province 
(see map in Annex 1). Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe districts have particularly high numbers of 
households led by women and people with disabilities, compounding vulnerability. The 107 
programme schools were selected from sectors with the highest poverty levels per the government’s 
202 From 2017 onward, MINEDUC has not reported on primary school completion rates.
Date | Report Number 104
household poverty classification (UBUDEHE), also considering each school’s capacity and willingness to 
implement activities (WFP Rwanda 2015 MGD proposal). 
22. WFP is implementing the HGSF Programme to support the government in setting up a national school 
feeding programme, with an initial view to build capacity and complete a full handover of activities by 
2021. As the programme has evolved, WFP’s plans to handover the programme have shifted into 
building the capacity of schools further, to serve as model school feeding schools to eventually 
transition into the national school feeding programme during the next project phase. Since its 
establishment in 2017, MINEDUC and WFP co-chair the HGSF National Steering Committee which is 
bringing together key stakeholders to coordinate the programme and ensure sustainability. In 2020, 
MINEDUC also established the National School Feeding Steering Committee, to oversee all school 
feeding operations in the country. WFP will co-chair the Committee with MINEDUC.
23. The Government of Rwanda’s mid- to long-term outlook is guided by the national development plan 
Vision 2050, which envisions Rwanda transforming from an agrarian to a knowledge-based economy, 
attaining upper middle-income country status by 2035 and high-income status by 2050. To help achieve 
this, the country’s key poverty reduction strategy, the National Strategy for Transformation (NST), 
focuses on three pillars, of which the social transformation pillar has a priority area to ensure quality of 
education for all, aiming at building a knowledge-based economy (UN CCA 2017).
24. As the lead of the education sector, MINEDUC heads policy formulation, planning, coordination, 
regulation, monitoring and evaluation of the entire education sector (UN CCA 2017). The ministry 
works closely with the semi-autonomous Rwanda Education Board (REB) which provides national 
oversight for coordinating and implementing education activities at pre-primary, primary and 
secondary level.
25. Under the Local Government Act (2013) District Administrations have responsibility for the delivery of 
education services. The extent to which MINEDUC and REB have influence at the district level is 
determined by the level of interest and priority afforded to education by the District Executives. District 
Development Plans (DDPs) determine district priorities and where resources are allocated. District 
Education Officers (DEOs) are employed by the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) and managed 
by their District Administrations. DEOs are actively involved in the planning, delivery and monitoring of 
education in their districts. Below the DEOs are sector education officers (SEOs) responsible for 
overseeing delivery of education services and running of schools.
26. Guided by the Education Sector Strategic Plan III (ESSP), now in its third203 cycle, Rwanda has invested 
significant resources and made considerable progress over the past 25 years, towards improving the 
quality and coverage of all levels of education, as well as towards implementing policies that aim to 
achieve universal and equitable access to basic education for all Rwandan children. In 2012 the GoR 
committed to a full twelve-year cycle of free and compulsory basic education. Today, primary level 
enrolment is the highest in East Africa, at 98.3 percent, and having surpassed its ESSP 2014 enrolment 
target of 97 percent, Rwanda is close to achieving its goal of universal primary education. Gender parity 
in enrolment is nearly achieved and stable across pre-primary and primary levels. 
27. The Soma Umenye Project (2016-2021), implemented by Chemonics, is a national early grade reading 
intervention with the aim to improve Kinyarwanda reading skills for primary grades 1-3 (1million 
children) in public and GoR-aided schools. Activities focus on classroom instruction techniques, teacher 
manuals, and pre-service teacher training programmes. USAID’s Mureke Dusome Project (2015-2020), 
implemented by Save the Children, is a nationwide early grade literacy project which aims to foster 
partnerships between schools and the broader community in a bid to improve Kinyarwanda literacy 
among primary students through community mobilization, and reading clubs. These USAID 
investments in child literacy are reinforced by the UK Department for International Development￾funded Building Learning Foundations project, implemented by Voluntary Service Overseas, which 
seeks to improve learning outcomes by enhancing quality of English and Math teaching in primary 
grades 1-3 in all public and GoR-aided primary schools through teacher development, leadership and 
systems strengthening. These interventions respond to Soma Umenye 2017 EGRA findings showing 
203 The current ESSP III runs from 2018/2019-2023/2024
Date | Report Number 105
that without stronger foundations in literacy and numeracy, and expanded access to age-appropriate 
reading materials, learners are unlikely to see improved education outcomes.
28. In support of school health, the Ministry of Health (MINESANTE) has a ‘12+ Programme’, supported by 
the Nike Foundation and PSI, targeting 114,500 girls between the ages of 10‐12 years in primary 
schools across Rwanda, funded by DFID, with the objective of reducing drop‐out of girls by creating 
safe spaces in schools for girls. World Vision also has a cost‐sharing partnership with Rwanda’s Water 
and Sanitation Corporation (WASAC) through its Ubuzima WASH project partnering with MINESANTE, 
training Community Health Workers (CHWs) and school‐based volunteers through the Community‐
based Environmental Health Promotion Programme (CBEHPP). CBEHPP is MINESANTE’s approved 
methodology of working with communities to help them identify and solve their own health and 
hygiene issues. World Vision is Rwanda’s largest implementer of CBEHPP and outside of the MGD 
project is supporting MINESANTE in training 45,000 CHWs in 15,000 villages to reduce hygiene‐related 
diseases in communities and within schools (WFP Rwanda 2015 MGD proposal).
204
29. UNICEF has supported modelling and scaling‐up Child‐Friendly School standards, which were adopted 
as the national quality guidelines for school infrastructure and software inputs. The Learning 
Achievement in Rwandan Schools (LARS) Assessment was supported by UNICEF to improve the quality 
of education and measure learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy. The joint UN Development 
Assistance Programme (UNDAP) 2018‐2023 is focusing on increased and equitable access to quality 
education, health, nutrition and WASH services. 
3.2. Subject of the evaluations
30. This is an activity evaluation of a USD 25 million grant to improve literacy and increase the use of health 
and dietary practices. The midterm evaluation was conducted in 2018, while the endline will be 
completed in 2020-21. The midterm evaluation covered the 2016-2018 (second quarter included) 
timeframe, while the endline evaluation will cover the entire implementation period (2016-2020205).
31. The HGSF Programme supports students across 107 schools in four of Rwanda’s poorest and most 
food insecure districts – Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe in the south and Rutsiro and Karongi in the west 
(see map in Annex 1). Children in the south receive a daily hot meal whereas students in the western 
province are provided a porridge meal. The programme started in October 2015 and will conclude in 
March 2021.
32. WFP has planned to reach 83,000 students annually in grades 1-6, and reached 99 percent in 2016 and 
103 percent in 2017, with similar numbers of boys and girls. In 2018, WFP reached 101 percent of 
students, while in 2019 and 2020, student enrolment reduced206 to 98 percent and 94 percent 
respectively, resulting mostly from the establishment of new satellite schools to reduce overcrowding. 
It is important to highlight that in a country like Rwanda where national net enrolment measures 98.3 
percent, increased enrolment is not the main focus of the programme but rather improved quality of 
education, nutrition, health and attendance. Over the programme cycle, WFP plans to use 4,657 metric 
tonnes of SuperCereal and 540 metric tonnes of vegetable oil. Additionally, maize meal, beans, salt and 
sugar are non-USDA commodities and as such purchased from other mobilized funds (WFP Rwanda 
2015 MGD proposal).
33. The HGSF Programme aims to achieve the McGovern Dole strategic goals of improved literacy of 
school-age children (MGD SO1) and increased use of health and dietary practices (MGD SO2) in the 
targeted areas through a set of interconnected activities, with a view to supporting the government in 
establishing a national school feeding programme, including building capacity at national, district and 
204 These programmes have since finished and WFP requests that the evaluation firm conducts a mapping of new/current 
WASH programmes in schools.
205 Implementation extended to March 31, 2021 and project agreement to June 31, 2021 to allow sufficient time to 
complete the endline evaluation. 206 Causes of the reduction as identified during the March 2020 remote data collection exercise include: i) the creation of 
satellite schools to reduce the number of students travelling long distances to reach school; ii) a shortage of classrooms 
for students following the Government’s transition of upper primary students from double to single shift days, resulting
in the Government limiting grade 1 enrolment only to students who are 7 years old; iii) the expansion of some primary 
schools to include secondary students (groupe scolaire) influenced lower student enrolment numbers as more classes 
had to be dedicated to secondary students.
Date | Report Number 106
school levels to facilitate a future handover (see results frame in annex). It is important to note that 
following the approval of the national school feeding policy in 2020, and the resulting increased budget 
allocation to scale up the government’s school feeding programmes to all pre-, primary and secondary 
students in the 2020/21 academic year, the previous focus on a handover of the programme to 
government has now shifted to an aim to transition the HGSF Programme into the National School 
Feeding Programme. 
34. WFP, together with its implementing government partners MINEDUC and MINAGRI as well as key 
implementing NGO partners, is carrying out activities to achieve MGD SO1 by: promoting teacher 
attendance and recognition; distributing school supplies and materials; improving literacy instruction 
materials; increasing the skills and knowledge of teachers and administrators; providing school meals; 
developing partnerships with farmer groups to supply food to schools; establishing and maintaining 
school gardens; increasing use of health and dietary practices; raising awareness on the importance of 
education; and reducing health-related absenteeism at schools. 
35. WFP and partners carry out activities to achieve MGD SO2 by: raising awareness on good hygiene 
practices; enhancing food preparation and cooking practices; building and rehabilitating latrines and 
water collection systems; distributing deworming medication; and building/rehabilitating kitchens, 
cooking areas and storerooms, and providing fuel-efficient stoves. 
36. To ensure the development of a nationally owned, sustainable school feeding programme, WFP and 
partners carry out activities to achieve MGD foundational results by: increasing the capacity of 
government institutions (1.4.1/2.7.1), improving the policy and regulatory framework (1.4.2/2.7.2), and 
increasing government support (1.4.3/2.7.3). To increase engagement of local organizations and 
community groups (1.4.4/2.7.4), WFP and partners train PTAs, raise awareness on the importance of 
education, develop partnerships with farmer groups and local cooperatives to supply food to schools, 
engage parents and communities through the establishment and maintenance of school gardens, and 
strengthen school health clubs through training and awareness on good health and hygiene practices.
37. The McGovern Dole grant for the five-year programme is USD 25 million. WFP estimates that the total 
value of contributions mobilized for this project outside of McGovern Dole resources will be around 
USD 12.1 million. These resources have enabled the full implementation of the programme, including 
locally procuring maize meal and beans with funding from MasterCard.
38. The HGSF baseline study report from July 2016 focused on indicators that could be measured before 
project implementation. Some indicators could not be measured because their definition is linked to 
the implementation of project activities. Baseline values for each indicator measured against its 
corresponding target, as per the project document, were summarized (see baseline report in annex). 
Following the baseline study, the report continues, it is essential that WFP reviews and realigns the 
targets. In preparation for the midterm and endline evaluations, there is also a need for a strong 
programme monitoring component that collects and compiles data from each of the beneficiary school 
and related activities on a regular basis. All indicators, including policy-related indicators, require 
specific project records. 
39. The centralized midterm evaluation of WFP Rwanda’s Country Programme (June 2017) noted that 
although the McGovern Dole grant provided much-needed funding for HGSF, it has also led to some 
unalignment with WFP as well as national priorities. The MGD intervention saw a return to providing 
(for part of the beneficiaries) food imported from the U.S. – a condition which was clearly required by 
the donor. This modality is in contradiction with the Government of Rwanda’s own expressed 
preference but also with the logic promoted by WFP’s School Feeding Policy of giving priority to helping 
countries establish and maintain nationally owned programmes linked to local agricultural production. 
However, WFP has sought to address this by designing the project in such a way that it will support the 
local production of vegetable oil and CSB+207 and contribute to the development of a national strategy 
that if successful will sustain the benefits of USDA support beyond the life of the project. The report 
says that it was too soon to measure sustainability/handover in 2016. 
207 In 2020, the Government made it clear that school feeding programmes should move toward a design where all 
students receive a hot meal.
Date | Report Number 107
40. The evaluation report concluded that HGSF activities are “completely” integrated in government 
planning and monitoring at local level, with officials participating in all steps of the process. The 
programme promotes the participation of girls, and the baseline allows monitoring against gender 
indicators as advised by the WFP 2009 Gender Policy (later subsumed by the WFP 2015-20 Gender 
Policy), the report continues. The programme does not, however, include a specific approach to 
address Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE) or Sexual and Gender-based Violence 
(GBV) as foreseen in the 2009 policy.
41. A cost-benefit analysis conducted by WFP in collaboration with MasterCard in November 2017 
concluded that every dollar invested in school meals in Rwanda can generate a return of USD 4.8 and 
5.6 for home-grown and in-kind modalities, respectively, over a child’s lifetime. Finally, the midterm and 
endline evaluations will be guided by the WFP Evaluation Policy 2016-2021 and the USDA Monitoring 
and Evaluation Policy 2019. 
4. Evaluation approach
4.1 Scope
42. WFP Rwanda is looking to assign one contract for both a midterm and endline evaluation of the 2016-
2020 McGovern Dole grant. The programme started in late 2015 with the goal of supporting school feeding 
in 104 schools in four districts: Nyaruguru, Nyamagabe, Rutsiro and Karongi in Rwanda (see map in Annex 1). 
In 2020, WFP expanded the coverage of meals and a few select activities to 3 additional schools, making the 
total 107 supported. 
43. This is an activity evaluation of a USD 25 million grant to improve literacy and increase the use of health 
and dietary practices. The programme provides U.S. produced agricultural commodities and financial 
assistance, and supports capacity development and enhanced monitoring and reporting, with a key emphasis 
on sustainability and government ownership. In addition to USDA-provided commodities, WFP procures 
maize meal and beans locally through additional funds raised separately through private donors, such as 
MasterCard.
44. The midterm evaluation took place in 2018, while the endline will be completed in 2020-21. The midterm 
evaluation covered the 2016-2018 (second quarter included) timeframe, while the endline evaluation will 
cover the entire implementation period (2016-2021).
45. The beneficiaries of the programme are 79,000 primary school students per year, grades 1-6. Of these, 
49 percent are female. Other stakeholders who get access to capacity building activities are Parent-Teacher 
Associations (PTAs)208, School Management Committees (SMCs), teachers and head teachers, storekeepers 
and cooks.
4.2 Evaluation criteria and questions
46. Evaluation Criteria. The evaluations will address all five OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, impact and sustainability), as per USDA Monitoring and Evaluation policy. 
47. Evaluation Questions. Aligned with the evaluation criteria, the evaluations will address the following 
key questions, which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. 
Collectively, the evaluation questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the HGSF 
Programme, which could inform future strategic and operational decisions. The four key questions that need 
to be investigated are:
a. Have literacy rates of school age children improved over the duration of the programme? 
If so, how and why? For example, are students able to read grade-level text? Are teachers 
demonstrating new methods of teaching? 
208 PTAs have now been changed to School General Assembly Committees (SGAC) and SMCs are now known as Senior 
Management Teams, which report to the SGAC. However, important to note that only the SGACs are mentioned in the 
law. 
Date | Report Number 108
b. Has the use of health and dietary practices increased? If so, how? Has illness-related 
absence decreased? Are students washing their hands and are schools and school 
kitchens clean? How are school gardens being used? 
c. What is the level of community-level involvement and participation in decision-making in 
school governance mechanisms (PTAs and SMCs)? Particularly, what is the level of 
involvement and participation of men? Also, what is the level and sustained continuity of 
community contributions in cash and in kind?
d. What are the key institutions (i.e.. international, national, provincial/district and local
stakeholders) and governance structures required to effectively deliver, implement, and 
sustain school meal interventions? What relationship structures among these institutions 
yield the most successful and effective school meal programmes? Is WFP’s capacity 
support to smallholder farmers and key line ministries appropriate/sufficient to 
effectively facilitate national ownership? Has the provided capacity support increased the 
government’s capacity to own and sustain a national school meals programme?
48. The evaluation questions will be reviewed within the course of the inception period, and there will be 
some differentiation between midterm and endline questions. For example, the midterm also included 
achievement of outputs rather than only outcomes and objectives, whereas the endline will focus more on 
impact.
49. Gender equality and empowerment of women should be mainstreamed throughout the evaluation, 
including disaggregation of all data and considering whether gender has been integrated in design, planning, 
implementation and results. Reflecting UNDAP concern on gender equality “Ensure women’s full and 
effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in political, 
economic and public life”, the evaluators are specifically required to investigate gender aspects in question 
c. above.
50. Table 2 below presents key evaluation criteria and corresponding questions: 
Table 2: Criteria and evaluation questions
Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance To what extent is the programme in line with the 
needs of beneficiaries (boys and girls) and partners, 
including government?
To what extent is the activity aligned with 
community, local government, and national 
government policies and priorities?
To what extent is the intervention based on a sound 
gender analysis? To what extent is the design and 
implementation of the intervention gender-sensitive?
Are the changes made to activities (design and 
implementation) due to Covid-19 relevant?
Effectiveness To what extent are the outcomes or objectives of the 
intervention likely to be achieved?
What are the major factors influencing progress in 
achievement or non-achievement of the 
outcomes/objectives of the intervention?
To what extent does the intervention deliver results 
for boys and girls?
Efficiency Is the programme implemented in a timely way? Are 
the activities cost-efficient? Is the programme 
implemented in the most efficient way compared to 
alternatives? Were the project strategies efficient in 
terms of financial and human resource inputs as 
compared to outputs?
Date | Report Number 109
Does the monitoring system efficiently meet the 
needs and requirements of the project?
Impact What are the medium-term effects on beneficiaries’ 
lives?
What are the gender-specific medium term impacts? 
Did the intervention influence the gender context?
To what extent did COVID-19 affect project 
implementation and performance?
Sustainability To what extent is the government taking ownership 
of the programme (e.g., demonstrated commitment 
and contributions)?
What is the demonstrated capacity at central and 
sub-national levels to manage the programme? 
Are local communities (PTAs, farmers’ groups, etc.) 
fully involved in and contributing toward school 
feeding and education activities?
Has the policy framework supporting the HGSF been 
strengthened within the project period?
What are the major factors influencing the 
achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of 
the program?
4.3 Data availability 
51. The evaluations will entail qualitative and quantitative primary data collection that the evaluation team 
will be responsible for. In addition, the following is a list of background data and/or information available 
for the evaluation team. It is expected that the team will expand this at inception phase.
• Baseline and midline reports for WFP’s USDA McGovern Dole HGSF Programme 2016-2020, 
including data collection tools;
• School feeding handbook;
• WFP School feeding policy;
• 2016, 2017, and 2018 Standard Project Reports (SPRs);
• 2019 ACR Report
• WFP HGSF semi-annual reports to USDA;
• USDA commitment letter for Agreement;
• Evaluation Plan;
• USDA Monitoring and Evaluation Policy;
• USDA McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions Handbook;
• Other government education data/policies as applicable.
52. The evaluation team responsible for the baseline assessment warned about the availability and usability 
of certain data sets. Following the recommendations of the baseline team, WFP and its partners have 
improved data collection tools to provide the level of granularity required by the donor and to answer most 
of the evaluation questions. For instance, school records now provide attendance information per individual 
child and teacher, records are revised monthly and are subject to random checks. However, during the 
inception phase, the evaluation team will be responsible for controlling the quality and reliability of data sets 
and formulate alternative strategies to fill potential data gaps. 
53. The evaluation team is expected to explore key questions c. (gender) and d. (institutional preparedness 
for hand-over) largely through qualitative data (although some quantitative data on gender parity is also 
expected). Key question d. will require an analysis of similar experiences in other countries and a comparison 
with the situation in Rwanda. 
Date | Report Number 110
54. Even though, at this point, WFP does not envision the use of such data collection tools, the evaluation 
team should also bear in mind that the Government of Rwanda requires formal approval of household 
surveys three months before the field phase takes place.
55. Concerning data and information, the evaluation team should:
• Assess availability, validity and reliability as part of the inception phase of the midterm evaluation 
expanding on the information provided in section 4. This assessment will inform the data 
collection;
• Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and 
acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
4.4 Methodology
56. The independent evaluation team is responsible for developing the full methodology during the inception 
phase. In this stage, the ET should validate the methodological approach followed during the baseline 
assessment and propose improvements where required. 
57. Question a. (literacy) will be answered using data collected through the EGRA standard test. To conduct 
the EGRA and adapt it to the local context, the selected evaluator should reference the EGRA toolkit209. 
58. Question b. (health and dietary practices), is likely to be based on data collected through school and 
student surveys, direct observation and key informant interviews.
59. Key questions c. and d. were not explicitly included in the baseline assessment and will require the team 
to develop an appropriate methodological approach at this stage. 
60. Midterm findings on key question d.informed the development of a hand-over strategy from WFP to 
the Government of Rwanda. It is expected that the evaluation team formulates clear recommendations 
that could help a smooth transition to a country-owned home-grown school feeding programme. At 
endline, the evaluation team should concentrate on assessing the progress made in handing over the 
activities. 
61. The endline design will replicate the full mid-term design with (1) appropriate adaptations/supplements 
to areas of inquiry to account for hypothesized impacts of COVID-19, and (2) context-specific data 
collection protocols.
62. The team should identify potential risks of the approach and mitigation measures. The following should 
be considered and included by the evaluation team: 
• Firstly, confirm and define specific evaluation questions that are answered, and record them in the 
WFP Evaluation Matrix;
• Include description of sample categories and identify appropriate sample sizes (margin of error 5 
percent, confidence level 95 percent);
• Design credible data collection instruments;
• Use mixed methods in the evaluation design and data collection (including quantitative and 
qualitative) to ensure a comprehensive design, and the reasons for the changes in indicators can be 
explained. This can include triangulation of information through a variety of means, or different 
evaluation questions being answered through different methods and types of data. The use of mixed 
methods should be documented in the inception report; 
• To the extent possible, ensure that data collection tools are consistent with baseline tools to ensure 
comparability;
• WFP anticipates that the consultants will recommend a methodology that will likely include carrying 
out key informant interviews and focus group discussions (list of interviews to be agreed upon at 
inception phase). The qualitative data collection will gather information on gender equality, capacity 
strengthening and changes in the institutional context. However, bidding companies should also 
propose a wider variety of methods (including, but not limited to most significant change, outcome 
harvesting, etc.) whenever they feel these could be useful in enriching the evaluation products; 
209 EGRA Toolkit, Second Edition. https://globalreadingnetwork.net/resources/early-grade-reading-assessment-egra￾toolkit-second-edition
Date | Report Number 111
• Ensure the evaluation design considers ways to ensure that the voices of women, girls, men and 
boys are heard and documented;
• Ensure the methodology and evaluation implementation are ethical and conform to the UNEG 
Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
• In light of Covid-19, international consultants may face travel restrictions and quarantine measures 
to enter Rwanda. In addition, the evaluation team may be unable to conduct face-to-face data 
collection. To avoid any evaluation delays, national team members may need to lead on the 
primary data collection, supported by international team members remotely
• COVID-19 influence on impact pathways and establishing attribution/contribution to measurable 
programme results will need to be addressed by a strong evaluation design., i.e., undertaking the 
EGRA that accounts for a dynamic education context and ensuring appropriate school, community 
and government engagement protocols across all areas of inquiry.
63. The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality are employed:
• Appointment of an Evaluation Manager with no previous involvement with the HGSF programme 
(Daniel Svanlund, WFP M&E Officer);
• Establishment of an Evaluation Committee;
• Establishment of an Evaluation Reference Group.
64. The main risk identified that could affect the methodology proposed for the midterm and endline is the 
weakness of the baseline study (the sample size of students was small; some data sets had to be 
reconstructed due to the unavailability of reliable data, e.g., teachers’ attendance). As a mitigating 
measure, the evaluation team should highlight the strength of the evidence underlying the findings in 
the midterm and endline. 
65. In addition, the CO will continuously assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the 
implementation of the evaluation. Explicit and systematic consideration of risks and benefits 
throughout the evaluation process is required. WFP has guidance and options available to support 
Country Offices. The set of norms and standards (including ethical) that guide the practice of evaluation 
in the UN, including Independency and Impartiality, will continue to guide the evaluation. If evaluations 
can no longer rely on field missions and face-to-face interviews, affecting methodology and data 
collection options, remote data collection will be considered. Decisions about evaluation data collection 
timing and approaches will aim to minimize exposure to risk (including of contracting COVID-19) for 
individuals (women, men, girls and boys), communities, WFP and partners’ employees who would be 
involved in the evaluation as interviewees/informants as well as national and international evaluators.
4.5 Quality assurance and assessment
66. WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected 
from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality Assurance, Templates for 
evaluation products and Checklists for their review. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality 
assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the 
international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform 
to best practice. 
67. DEQAS will be systematically applied to these evaluations. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be 
responsible for ensuring that the evaluations progress as per the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting 
a rigorous quality control of the evaluations’ products ahead of their finalization. 
68. WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This includes 
Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant Checklist will be applied 
at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
69. To enhance the quality and credibility of these evaluations, an outsourced quality support (QS) 
service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter provides review of the draft inception 
and evaluation report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and provide:
Date | Report Number 112
a. systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft 
inception/midterm/endline evaluation report; 
b. recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/midterm/endline evaluation 
report.
70. The evaluation manager will review the feedback and recommendations from QS and share with the team 
leader, who is expected to use them to finalise the inception/ evaluation report. To ensure transparency and 
credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards[1], a rationale should be provided for 
any recommendations that the team does not consider when finalising the report.
71. This quality assurance process as outlined above does not interfere with the views and independence of 
the evaluation team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and convincing way 
and draws its conclusions on that basis.
72. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and accuracy) 
throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility 
of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is 
available in WFP’s Directive CP2010/001 on Information Disclosure.
73. All final evaluation reports will be subjected to a post hoc quality assessment by an independent entity 
through a process that is managed by OEV. The overall rating category of the reports will be made public 
alongside the evaluation reports.
5. Phases and deliverables 
74. The evaluation will be conducted in two stages: a midterm evaluation was conducted between June/July 
and December 2018, and an endline evaluation that will take place between December 2020 and May 2021. 
Although the two phases are interconnected steps of the same evaluative exercise, their objectives are 
slightly different as outlined in the following sections.
75. The deliverables and deadlines for each phase are as follows: 
Figure 1: Summary Process Map
5.1 Midterm evaluation 
76. The objective of the midterm evaluation was to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of 
performance of the project so that WFP and its project partners can adjust course as necessary for the 
remainder of the project term. Specifically, the midterm evaluation allowed to (1) review the project’s 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, (2) collect performance indicator data for 
strategic objectives and higher-level results, (3) assess whether the project is on track to meet the results and 
targets, (4) review the results frameworks and theory of change, and (5) identify any necessary mid-course 
corrections. The evaluation will rely on the Baseline Study for baseline data and critical context necessary to 
evaluate the project at interim. 
[1] UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, 
enhances stakeholder ownership and increases public accountability”
1. Prepare 2. Inception
•Inception Report
3. Midterm 
data 
collection
• Aide memoire / 
debriefing PPT
4. 
Analyze 
data and 
Report
• Midterm 
Evaluation 
Report
5. Endline 
data 
collection
• Aide memoire 
/debriefing PPT
6. Analyze 
Data and 
Report
• Final report
7. 
Disseminate 
and follow￾up
Date | Report Number 113
77. The evaluation firm selected for this assignment developed the methodological approach following the 
indications provided in 4.2 Evaluation Questions and 4.4 Methodology. The evaluators also validated and 
revised the assumptions and risk analysis underlying the project design. 
78. The main deliverables of the midterm evaluation were the following: 
• Inception report. It was written following WFP recommended template. The evaluators validated 
the methodology utilized in the baseline phase and/or proposed alternative methods to measure 
the same indicators. This meant setting out a full study design including what data was being 
collected and for what purpose, how sampling was done determined by the evaluation team), how 
the data was being analysed and triangulated. The inception report also included a data quality 
assurance plan, and how the evaluators managed and safeguarded ethics during the life of the 
evaluation. Annexed to the inception report, the evaluation team included a detailed work plan 
including, timeline and activities.
• Midterm report, including a first draft, where the final approach, methodology and data collection 
tools were clearly recorded, including their limitations and mitigations measures. The report 
recorded all standard and custom indicator baseline and midterm values.
• Clean data sets, including quantitative data sets in Excel, statistical software code, and transcripts 
and/or notes from focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
• A PowerPoint presentation of main findings and conclusions to debrief WFP Rwanda management 
and other relevant staff were prepared and presented
• 2-page brief containing findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Table 3: Midterm evaluation deliverables
Dates Deliverables 
June/July –
August 2018
• Desk review of key project documents 
• Create a data quality assurance plan
• Review baseline methodology; confirm and finalise evaluation questions and 
evaluation design and methodology (including sampling strategy), and draft 
an inception report for agreement 
• Finalize inception report with the inclusion of Evaluation Reference Group’s 
comments 
• Data collection instruments
• Arrange field visits
September –
October 2018
• Conduct field visits 
• Conduct key stakeholder focus groups and key informant interviews and 
collect data with other suggested methods
• Enter, clean, and analyse data 
October – early 
December 2018
• Draft midterm report 
• Seek Evaluation Reference Group’s comments on the draft midterm report 
• Finalize midterm report 
• Prepare and present a PowerPoint presentation of main findings and 
conclusions to debrief WFP Rwanda management and other relevant staff 
• Prepare and share a 2-page brief with key stakeholders 
5.2 Endline evaluation 
79. The objective of the final evaluation is to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the 
performance of the project to evaluate the project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons 
learned. Specifically, the final evaluation will: (1) use the same methodology developed for the midterm to 
measure key indicators, (2) analyses data to compare results before and after the intervention, and (3) identify 
meaningful lessons learned that WFP, USDA, and other relevant stakeholders can apply to future 
Date | Report Number 114
programming. The endline evaluation will also allow to unpack the COVID-19 influence on impact pathways 
on programme results.
80. WFP will carry out the final evaluation during the final year of the USDA-MGD grant between December 
2020 and May 2021. 
81. The main deliverables of the endline are the following: 
• Inception report. It must be written following WFP recommended template. The evaluators must 
validate the methodology utilized in the baseline and midterm phases and/or propose alternative 
methods to measure the same indicators. This means setting out a full study design including what 
data is being collected and for what purpose, how sampling is done (to be determined by the 
evaluation team), how the data is being analysed and triangulated. The inception report must also 
include a data quality assurance plan, and how the evaluators will manage and safeguard ethics 
during the life of the evaluation. Annexed to the inception report, the evaluation team should 
include a detailed work plan including, timeline and activities.
• Endline report, including a first draft, using WFP recommended template. It must set out a detailed 
methodology section, study design, and any limitations or where the study design was 
compromised. Should detail how data was collected, validated and analysed, and how conclusions 
were drawn. How different types of methods were brought together in the analysis. Annexes to the 
final report include but are not limited to a copy of the final ToR, bibliography, detailed sampling
methodology, maps, a list of all meetings and participants, final survey instruments, table of all 
standard and custom indicator with baseline, midterm and endline values, list of supported 
schools.
• Clean data sets, including quantitative data sets in Excel, statistical software code, and transcripts 
and/or notes from focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
• PowerPoint presentation of main findings and conclusions for de-briefing and purposes. 
• 2-4 page brief containing findings, conclusions and recommendations written for a nontechnical 
audience that includes photos and graphs or charts.
• Conduct a 1-day workshop to share evaluation findings with key stakeholders.
Date | Report Number 115
Table 4: Endline evaluation deliverables
Dates Deliverables 
December 2020 • Finalize updated evaluation questions and evaluation design and 
methodology (including sampling strategy), and draft an inception report for 
agreement 
• Finalize inception report with the inclusion of Evaluation Reference Group’s 
comments 
• Update data collection instruments
• Arrange field visits
January –
February 2021
• Conduct field visits 
• Conduct key stakeholder focus groups and key informant interviews and 
collect data with other suggested methods
• Enter, clean, and analyse data 
March – early 
April 2021
• Draft endline report 
• Seek Evaluation Reference Group’s comments on the draft endline report 
• Finalize endline report 
• Prepare and present a PowerPoint presentation of main findings and 
conclusions to debrief WFP Rwanda management and other relevant staff 
• Prepare and share a 2-4 page brief with key stakeholders 
• Conduct a 1-day workshop to share evaluation findings with key 
stakeholders
6. Organization of the evaluation
6.1 Evaluation conduct
82. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close 
communication with the WFP Evaluation Manager and School Feeding Programme Manager. The team will 
be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition. All communication between the evaluation team 
and stakeholders should go through or include the evaluation manager and School Feeding Programme 
Manager.
83. The evaluation team will draw its own conclusions free from political influence or organization pressure. 
The evaluation team will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject of evaluation 
or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect the code of conduct of 
the evaluation profession. The Evaluation Manager has not been part of the project’s implementation.
84. Specifically, evaluators shall respect and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects and 
communities, in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights 
conventions. Evaluators shall respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, 
personal interaction, gender roles, disability, age and ethnicity, while using evaluation instruments 
appropriate to the cultural setting. Evaluators shall ensure prospective participants are treated as 
autonomous agents, free to choose whether to participate in the evaluation, while ensuring that the relatively 
powerless are represented. Evaluators shall make themselves aware of and comply with legal codes (whether 
international or national) governing, for example, interviewing children and young people. 
85. The evaluation team should also guarantee the right to provide information in confidence and make 
participants aware of the scope and limits of confidentiality, while ensuring that sensitive information cannot 
be traced to its source (right to confidentiality).
86. Evaluators shall act to minimise risks and harms to, and burdens on, those participating in the evaluation, 
without compromising the integrity of the evaluation findings (avoidance of harm).
6.2 Team composition and competencies
87. The Team Leader should be a senior evaluator with at least 15 years of experience in research and/or 
evaluation with demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary and mixed quantitative and qualitative 
Date | Report Number 116
method evaluations, and additional significant experience in other development and management positions. 
In addition, the team leader should also have prior experience evaluating school meals programmes, ideally 
USDA-funded McGovern-Dole grants. 
88. The Team leader will also have expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools. She/he will 
also have leadership and communication skills, including a track record of excellent writing and presentation 
skills. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) design the approach and methodology; ii) guiding and 
managing the team; iii) leading the field missions and representing the baseline team; iv) drafting and 
revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work i.e. (exit) debriefing presentation midterm 
and endline reports. 
89. The team must include strong demonstrated knowledge of qualitative and quantitative data and statistical 
analysis will be required. It should include both women and men and at least one team member should be 
familiar with WFP’s operations (preferably school feeding). 
90. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance of 
expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas: 
• School Feeding;
• WASH;
• Primary Education (with a strong knowledge of early primary school reading process);
• Food security;
• Gender expertise;
• Some expertise in smallholder farmer support is desirable;
• All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience 
and some familiarity with Rwanda;
• The team should have knowledge of English and Kinyarwanda. The required language of both the 
midterm and endline reports is English.
91. Team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required and 
have a track record of written work on similar assignments. 
92. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document 
review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) 
contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s). 
93. Considering the COVID-19 travel restrictions, it is strongly suggested to prioritize strong national team 
members supported by international team members remotely.
6.3 Security considerations
94. Security clearance where required is to be obtained.
• As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible 
for ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation 
for medical or situational reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall 
under the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. 
• Consultants hired independently are covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) 
system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP. 
Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling to be obtained from 
designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the Field 
courses in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.210
95. However, to avoid any security incidents, the WFP Rwanda Evaluation Manager is requested to facilitate 
that: 
• The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges 
a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
210 Field Courses: Basic; Advanced
Date | Report Number 117
• The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g., curfews, child 
protection protocols.
7. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
a- WFP Rwanda:
The WFP Rwanda Deputy Director will take responsibility to:
• Assign an Evaluation Manager for the evaluation: Sarah Cruz, M&E Officer.
• Compose the internal Evaluation Committee and the Evaluation Reference Group (see below).
• Approve the final TOR, inception and evaluation reports.
• Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment of 
an Evaluation Committee and of a Reference Group (see below and TN on Independence and 
Impartiality). 
• Participate in discussions on the evaluation design and subject, its performance and results with the 
Evaluation Manager and the evaluation team. 
• Participate in debriefing(s). 
• Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management 
Response to the evaluation recommendations.
The Evaluation Manager: 
• Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR.
• Ensures quality assurance mechanisms are operational.
• Consolidates and shares comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the 
evaluation team.
• Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support). 
• Ensures that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluations; 
facilitates the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; sets up meetings, field visits; and provides 
logistic support during the fieldwork.
• Organises security briefings for the evaluation team and provides any materials as required.
b- An internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence and 
impartiality of the evaluation (see EC TOR in annex).
c- USDA, as the main funder of the programme, will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the 
key evaluation products. USDA will also participate in the evaluation as a key informant prior to the start of 
in-country fieldwork. 
d- The Regional Bureau: When not the Commissioning Office, the RB will take responsibility to:
• Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate. 
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the evaluation 
subject as relevant, as required. 
• Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports
• Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the 
recommendations. 
• While the Regional Evaluation Officer Nikki Zimmerman will perform most of the above 
responsibilities, other RB relevant technical staff may participate in the Evaluation Reference Group 
and/or comment on evaluation products as appropriate. 
e- Relevant WFP Headquarters divisions will take responsibility to:
• Discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and subject of evaluation. 
• Comment on the evaluation TOR, inception and evaluation reports, as required. 
f- Other stakeholders (Government, NGOs) will review and comment on key evaluation deliverables as 
experts in an advisory capacity (see ERG TOR in annex). 
g- The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV, through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the Evaluation 
Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is responsible for providing access 
Date | Report Number 118
to the outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports from an 
evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk function upon request. 
8. Communication and budget
8.1 Communication
96. To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from these evaluations, the evaluation 
team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. This will be 
achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between key 
stakeholders. All communication between the evaluation team and stakeholders should go through or 
include the evaluation manager and School Feeding Programme Manager.
97. As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly 
available. Following the final approval of the evaluation reports, findings and recommendations shall be 
shared in various ways, including through discussions with WFP senior management and staff (primarily to 
enhance strategic and operational aspects) as well as with key partners including USDA, MINEDUC and 
MINAGRI, as well as World Vision, Gardens for Health International and relevant UN agencies. WFP will publish
both the reports and the management responses. The published versions of the evaluation reports must be 
free from proprietary and personal identifying information. 
98. The evaluation team is requested to prepare and present PowerPoint presentations (to debrief WFP 
management to inform strategic and operational decision-making) and 2-page briefs on the midterm and 
endline reports, both of which will be published on the WFP website and shared with national stakeholders 
and other WFP country offices currently receiving USDA grants. The evaluation team will also organize a one￾day workshop at WFP Rwanda premises to share the findings and recommendations from the endline 
evaluation with key stakeholders. WFP and the evaluation team may discuss further the detailed 
communication/dissemination plan. 
8.2 Budget
99. For this evaluation, the budget will: 
• Be based on procurement through Long-term Agreements. Rates are guided by pre-agreed rates.
• As detailed in the project’s Evaluation Plan, the total combined budget for this contract will not 
exceed USD 300,000.
• Travel/subsistence/other direct expenses should be accounted for as instructed in the WFP budget 
template. 
Please send any queries to the Evaluation Manager, Sarah Cruz, M&E Officer, WFP Rwanda at 
sarah.cruz@wfp.org.
Date | Report Number 
119
Annex 8: Data Collection Tools
As described in Annex 13 H, the data collection tools presented here were accompanied by corresponding excel 
data entry and topline analysis matrices
WFP COUNTRY OFFICE
Illustrative list of interviewees: McGovern-Dole Programme Team, M&E Team, Health/ Nutrition Officer, 
Admin/Finance Officer, Logistics Team, Gender Focal Point, Deputy Country Director 
1. How has MINEDUC collaborated with the McGovern-Dole Program? 
2. To what extent are HGSF activities aligned with national education policy? Has the WFP HGSF work fed 
into national policy development? 
3. How was MINEDUC involved in the design of HGSF activities? Is the design relevant and realistic? 
4. How have gender issues been taken into account in the program? Is this approach appropriate and 
effective?
5. What is your assessment of the performance of the WFP Rwanda country office and sub-national offices? 
6. What are the communication and information-sharing processes between WFP and MINEDUC? How 
effective are these processes for coordination and decision-making?
7. Extent to which WFP has considered and addressed national and local capacity opportunities and 
constraints (probe: design phase, implementation, capacity development/handover plan)? 
8. What analysis has been done regarding the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the program? What 
are your impressions of cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness?
9. What capacity development support has WFP provided? Relevance and quality of support? Examples of 
changes as a result of that support?
10. Strengths of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? What has worked well? 
11. Constraints/ challenges of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? How have these been addressed?
12. What factors have influenced achievement/ non-achievement of results? 
13. Are the resources and expertise WFP has mobilized, adequate to implement HGSF? 
14. Do you see any further opportunities for cooperation with Governmental and non-Governmental 
partners (e.g., in health, education, gender equity)? 
15. To what extent has WFP supported partnerships with the private sector to address sustainability?
16. What are MINEDUC’s needs and concerns around sustainability and full Government ownership of the 
McGovern-Dole Program? 
17. What should be the priorities for the remainder of the programme period? Suggestions on how to 
improve the program?
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION – NATIONAL LEVEL
Topical outline may also be used for donor interviews
1. What do you see as the purpose of the McGovern-Dole Program?
2. What changes have you noted in the schools or students since the project started? Differences between 
boys and girls? 
3. Describe any positive or negative impact of the programme on:
a. the school? 
Date | Report Number 
120
b. wider community? 
c. the people who prepare the meals? 
d. local farmers/producers? 
4. How/to what extent does the McGovern-Dole Programme complement other educational and social 
protection initiatives? 
5. What capacity development support has WFP provided? Relevance and quality of support? Examples 
of changes as a result of that support?
6. What are the communication and information-sharing processes between WFP and MINEDUC at 
sub-national level? How effective are these processes for coordination and decision-making?
7. Strengths of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? What has worked well? 
8. Constraints/ challenges of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? (probe: logistics, human 
resources, capacity)? How have these been addressed? 
9. What factors have influenced achievement/ non-achievement of results? 
10. How have gender issues been taken into account in the program? Is this approach appropriate and 
effective?
11. What should be the priorities for the remainder of the programme period? Suggestions on how to 
improve the program?
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION – SUB-NATIONAL LEVEL
General Questions
1. How has your institution collaborated with the McGovern-Dole Program? 
2. How did the design of HGSF activities take place? What was your institution’s involvement? Is the design 
relevant and realistic? 
3. To what extent are HGSF activities aligned with the policies and priorities of your institution? 
4. What is your assessment of the performance of the WFP Rwanda country office and sub-national offices? 
5. What are the communication and information-sharing processes between WFP and your institution? 
How effective are these processes for coordination and decision-making?
6. What are your institution’s needs and concerns around sustainability and full Government ownership of 
the McGovern-Dole Program? 
7. Are activities by other partners or other agencies sufficient to complement the McGovern-Dole 
Programme to enhance sustainability? What additional partnerships could be explored?
8. Strengths of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? What has worked well? 
9. Constraints/ challenges of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? How have these been addressed?
10. What factors have influenced achievement/ non-achievement of results? 
11. What should be the priorities for the remainder of the programme period? Suggestions on how to 
improve the program?
Date | Report Number 
121
Ministry-specific Topics
Ministry Additional/Specific Line of Inquiry
Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) --Alignment with PSTA4 
--Role the ministry plays with smallholder farmers
Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA)
Ministry of Local Affairs (MINALOC) Seek MINALOC perspective on how the 
implementation of the programme is involving the 
local authorities as key stakeholders
Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion 
(MIGEPROF)
--Alignment of HGSF with nutrition guideline/ 
policy/ strategy 
-- How have gender issues been taken into account 
in the program? Is this approach appropriate and 
effective?
IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS, UNICEF
Interviewees: World Vision, Gardens for Health International, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, UNICEF211
1. How has your organization collaborated with the McGovern-Dole Program? 
2. How was your organization involved in the design of HGSF activities? Is the design relevant and realistic? 
3. What are the communication and information-sharing processes between WFP and your institution? 
How effective are these processes for coordination and decision-making?
4. What factors have influenced the performance of the collaboration during this period (positively or 
negatively)? 
5. What additional opportunities exist for collaboration/synergies with your own organization? 
6. Do you see any further opportunities for cooperation with Governmental and non-Governmental 
partners (e.g., in health, education, gender equity)? 
7. What analysis has been done regarding the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the program? What 
are your impressions of cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness?
8. Strengths of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? What has worked well? 
9. Constraints/ challenges of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? How have these been addressed?
10. How have gender issues been taken into account in the program? Is this approach appropriate and 
effective?
11. What should be the priorities for the remainder of the programme period? Suggestions on how to 
improve the program?
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION AND TEACHERS
Illustrative list of interviewees: Administrator, head teachers/ headmaster, teachers
1. What do you see as the purpose of the McGovern-Dole Program?
2. What records are kept on (1) administration of meals and (2) student attendance? (ask to see records; 
check if gender-disaggregated)
3. What changes have you noted in the school or students since the project started? Differences between 
boys and girls? 
4. Describe any positive or negative impact of the programme on:
211 UNICEF supported modelling and scaling up Child‐Friendly School standards, which were adopted as the national 
quality guidelines for school infrastructure and software inputs. UNICEF also supported the Learning Achievement in 
Rwandan Schools (LARS) Assessment to improve the quality of education and measure learning outcomes in literacy and 
numeracy.
Date | Report Number 
122
a. the school? 
b. wider community? 
c. the people who prepare the meals? 
d. local farmers/producers? 
5. Strengths of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? What has worked well? (probe: logistics, 
relationship with the community)
6. Constraints/ challenges of the McGovern-Dole Programme to date? How have these been addressed?
7. What factors have influenced achievement/ non-achievement of results? 
8. Have deliveries during the last year been regular and complete (all items received in the requested 
amounts)? 
9. Has the school had to interrupt feeding for any extended periods during the last year? Why? 
10. Does the school follow the official ration scale and number and timing of meals per day? If not, why not? 
11. Are there any other health activities in the school (deworming, malaria prevention)? Who implements 
them? Quality and effectiveness?
12. Suggestions on how to improve the program?
SCHOOL GENERAL ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES (SGACS) AND SCHOOL MANAGEMENT 
COMMITTEES (SMCS)
1. What do you see as the purpose of the McGovern-Dole Program?
2. What is the role of the [SGAC/SMC] in the program?
3. Do parents contribute to the meals (probe: fresh vegetables, condiments, fuel; level of participation, 
difficulties)
4. What changes have you seen in the students since the project started? Differences between boys and 
girls?
5. Describe any positive or negative impact of the programme on:
a. the school? 
b. wider community? 
c. the people who prepare the meals? 
d. local farmers/producers? 
6. What has worked well? 
7. Constraints and challenges? How have these been addressed?
8. Suggestions on how to improve the program?
COOKS 
1. What do you see as the purpose of the McGovern-Dole Program?
2. What is your role in the program? 
3. What changes have you noted in the school or students since the project started? Differences between 
boys and girls?
4. Is the food sufficient?
5. Do parents contribute to the meals (fresh vegetables, condiments, fuel, work)?
6. Who decides on the composition of the meals? 
Date | Report Number 
123
7. Have deliveries during the last year been regular and complete (all items received in the requested 
amounts)? If not, why not? 
8. Has the school had to interrupt feeding for any extended periods during the last year? Why? 
9. Does the school follow the official ration scale and number and timing of meals per day? If not, why not? 
10. Has the initiative had an impact on your lives? Has it affected how you are seen/ treated by the school or 
by the community? Describe.
11. Suggestions on how to improve the program?
STUDENTS (GRADE 5 AND HIGHER)
1. What do you like most about the school meals?
2. What do you like least about the school meals?
3. Has the McGovern-Dole Programme changed anything for you? (probe: concentration, attendance, one 
extra meal a day, one less meal at home per day, extra burden of in-kind or cash contribution)
4. On the days that there are no meals, do you still come to school? Do other children come to school?
5. If you could change something about the school meals, what would that be?
FARMER GROUPS, LOCAL COOPERATIVES, STOREKEEPERS
1. What do you see as the purpose of the McGovern-Dole Program?
2. What is your role in the program? 
3. Benefits/advantages to your of participating in the programme (probe: benefits to group/cooperative; 
individual/personal benefits)? What has worked well?
4. Constraints/challenges of participating in the program? How have these been addressed?
5. What training or support have you received from WFP (or partners)? Relevance and quality of 
training/support? Examples of changes you’ve made as a result of that support?
6. Do you plan to continue participating in the McGovern-Dole Program? Why or why not?
7. Suggestions on how to improve the program?
Date | Report Number 124
Annex 9: Evaluation Matrix
Note: As noted in Section 1.4, the evaluation matrix has been reorganized since the inception phase of this endline evaluation to more clearly harmonize the 
interrelationships of the OECD-DAC criteria and the key evaluation questions. Where questions have been relocated, the reference to the question number in the 
inception report (IR) is noted in parentheses at the end of the question. 
OECD-DAC CRITERIA 1: RELEVANCE
Sub-questions Analysis/
Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
To what extent are the objectives, 
targeting, activities and transfer 
modalities … 
OECD 1.1 …coherent with/relevant to the 
needs of the food-insecure population, 
and have they remained relevant? 
(Consider the distinct needs of women, 
men, boys and girls from different 
groups and geographical areas.) … (1.1 in 
IR matrix)
OECD 1.2 …in line with the needs of 
beneficiaries (boys and girls)? … (1.1 in IR 
matrix)
OECD 1.3 …based on a sound gender 
analysis? … (1.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.4 To what extent is the design 
and implementation of the intervention 
gender-sensitive? (1.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.5 *(new in endline) Are the 
changes made to activities (design and 
implementation) due to COVID-19 
relevant to beneficiaries, global, country, 
1) Level of access to education and retention at 
programme design stage and over time
2) Prevalence of poverty and food insecurity by 
district
3) Indications of the role that school feeding 
can play in improving access to education
4) Extent to which beneficiary and geographical 
targeting are in line with the spatial pattern 
of food insecurity and address inclusion / 
exclusion error
5) Coherence with recommendations from past 
assessments, analyses, evaluations
6) Extent to which problem analysis and 
previous assessments were used to guide 
programme design 
7) Extent that analysis was done to identify (1) 
differentiated needs of targeted groups and 
(2) objectives and components designed to 
respond to those needs 
8) Extent to which local stakeholders were 
consulted and involved in programme 
design
9) Level of ownership and responsibility 
accorded to stakeholders at programme 
design stage
Assessments, 
analyses of the target 
population (e.g., 
baseline, midterm 
quant survey, outside 
assessments)
Perspectives of target 
population (via FGDs, 
KIs)
KIs with gov’t 
ministries (national 
and sub-national 
levels) and partners
National 
policies/strategies
UN and WFP 
corporate policies
Documentation of 
gov’t, donor, and 
partner strategies
and programmes
Compare programme 
design and results 
framework against
recommendations of past 
assessments, analyses, 
evaluations
Compare perspectives 
among KIs (gov’t nat’l and 
sub-nat’l level], NGO 
partners, WFP staff, UN 
partners, 
Relevance
Sustainability
Date | Report Number 125
and partner/institution needs, policies, 
and priorities? … (1.1 in IR matrix)
To what extent are the objectives, 
targeting, activities and transfer 
modalities…
OECD 1.6 … coherent with/relevant to 
national policies and strategies, including 
education, food security, nutrition, and 
gender? (1.2 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.7 …complementary to the 
policies, priorities, and interventions of 
donors, relevant government entities, 
and NGO partners? (1.3 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.8 …in line with the needs of 
partners, including Government? (1.3 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.9 …coherent with/relevant to 
relevant WFP and UN
-wide system 
strategies, policies and normative 
guidance? (1.4 in IR matrix)
OECD 1.10 To what extent is the overall 
approach (combining direct assistance 
and capacity development) to support
the transition toward full gov’t 
management and implementation of a 
national school feeding programme,
appropriate? (1.5 in IR matrix) 
10) Analysis of programme results framework
11) Alignment of objectives, targeting, activities 
and transfer modalities with relevant 
national policies/strategies
12) Extent to which the handover strategy is in 
line with the conditions/constraints in terms 
of human and financial capacity at the 
moment that the project was conceived
13) Extent to which lessons from other school 
feeding handover situations were taken into 
account in programme design
14) Coherence of the objectives and activities 
with those of partners; synergies with other 
projects and with related sectors (e.g., 
health)
15) Degree of consultation between WFP and 
other actors in relevant areas
16) Degree of understanding of the project 
demonstrated by other actors who work in 
the same area 
17) Existence of memoranda of understanding 
and their relevance to programme 
objectives/activities
18) Coherence of the objectives and activities 
with WFP and UN
-wide strategies, policies, 
and normative guidance, e.g., regarding 
education/school feeding, food security, 
nutrition, capacity development, gender
19) Appropriateness and extent to which WFP 
has supported the gov’t in selecting a school 
feeding model that best fits with 
Government institutions, processes and 
policy frameworks structures and policies
20) Quality of the capacity analysis that took 
place at the time of project design and 
degree to which the needs of different 
Programme 
documents, incl. 
results framework
Budget documents 
Date | Report Number 126
institutions/key actors was taken into 
account
21) Coherence between the identified needs, 
budgeting in the project document, and 
actual expenditure in areas related to 
capacity development and handover
22) Degree to which issues around financial 
sustainability were taken into account in the 
design and implementation of the project
23) Extent to which a cost analysis approach was 
employed at the moment when decisions 
were taken about project transitioning and 
the extent to which this has continued to be 
considered
24) Extent to which the technical capacity needs 
of WFP were taken into account to 
adequately support a transition process, and 
were reviewed/adjusted over time
Date | Report Number 127
OECD-DAC CRITERIA 2: EFFECTIVENESS
Key EQ 1: Have literacy rates of school-age children improved over the duration of the program?
Elaboration per TOR: If so, how and why? For example, are students able to read grade-level text? Are teachers demonstrating new methods of teaching? 
Sub-questions Analysis/
Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 2/ KEQ 1.1 What is the level of 
attainment of planned results and 
performance? (gender-disaggregated, as 
data permit) (2.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 1.2 Have literacy rates of 
school-age children improved over the 
duration of the program? If so, how and 
why? (2.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 1.3 Are students able to 
read grade-level text? (2.1 in original 
matrix) 
OECD 2/ KEQ 1.4 Are teachers 
demonstrating new methods of 
teaching? (2.1 in IR matrix)
25) Comparison of endline survey data against 
baseline or midline, as appropriate; focus on 
EGRA indicators
26) Attention to gender-disaggregated data, 
where available
Baseline, midterm 
and endline data 
(EGRA and school 
survey)
Observation
Interviews with 
informants for survey 
modules
Follow-up all self-reported 
school survey data with 
in-person interviews to 
elaborate data and
conduct spot checks 
against school-level 
documentation
Effectiveness
Impact
Key EQ 2: Has the use of health and dietary practices increased?
Elaboration per TOR: If so, how? Has illness-related absence decreased? Are students washing their hands? Are schools and school kitchens clean? How are school gardens 
being used?
Sub-questions Analysis/
Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.1 What is the level of attainment 
of planned results and performance? (gender￾disaggregated, as data permit)? (2.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.2 Has the use of health and 
dietary practices increased? If so, how? (2.1 in IR 
matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.3 Has illness-related absence 
decreased? (2.1 in IR matrix)
27) Comparison of endline survey data 
against baseline or midterm, as 
appropriate; focus on McGovern￾Dole indicators
28) Attention to gender-disaggregated 
data, where available
Baseline data (EGRA 
and school survey)
Midterm and endline 
data (EGRA and 
school survey) (incl. 
data on health and 
dietary practices)
Observation
Follow-up all self-reported 
endline school survey 
data with in-person 
interviews to elaborate 
data and conduct spot 
checks against school￾level documentation
Effectiveness
Impact
Date | Report Number 128
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.4 Are students washing their 
hands? (2.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.5 Are schools and school kitchens 
clean? (2.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 2.6 How are school gardens being 
used? (2.1 in IR matrix)
Interviews with 
informants for survey 
modules
Key EQ 3: What is the level of community-level involvement and participation in decision-making in school governance mechanisms 
Elaboration per TOR: Particularly, what is the level of involvement and participation of women? Also, what is the level and sustained continuity of community contributions 
in cash and in kind?
Note: School governance mechanisms include School General Assembly Committees (SGACs) and School Management Committees (SMCs).
Sub-questions Analysis/
Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.1 What is the level of community￾level involvement and participation in decision￾making in SGACs and SMCs? (2.2 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.2 Particularly, what is the level of 
involvement and participation of women? (2.2 in 
IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.3 What is the capacity and 
willingness for community/parent contributions 
in cash and in kind? (2.2 in IR matrix)
29) Qualitative analysis of SGAC and 
SMC structure, composition, and 
processes
30) Qualitative analysis of the influence 
of SGACs and SMCs on school 
feeding policies and practices
31) Extent of involvement and 
participation of women and men; 
qualitative analysis of any gender 
dynamics that affect representation 
and decision-making
Focus groups with 
SGACs and SMCs
KIs with school-level 
actors and other 
stakeholders who 
have first-hand 
knowledge of this 
issue
Observation
Compare KII findings, FGD 
findings, and observation
Effectiveness
Impact
Sustainability
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.4 To what extent has the 
programme addressed gender equality and 
protection issues? (2.3 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.5 What are the gender-specific 
medium-term impacts? Did the intervention 
influence the gender context? (2.3 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 3.6 To what extent has the 
programme influenced gender equality and 
protection? (2.3 in IR matrix)
32) Qualitative analysis of WFP, gov’t, 
UNICEF, and partner perspectives on 
how the programme has addressed 
gender and protection
33) Focus groups with students, SGACs, 
SMCs on gender and protection 
issues that affect them and how the 
programme has handled them
34) KIIs with stakeholders with 
knowledge of how the programme 
has addressed gender and 
protection
Baseline, midterm 
and endline data 
(EGRA and school 
survey)
KIIs and FGDs
Observation
Compare WFP 
perspectives on gender 
and protection with those 
of programme 
participants and non-WFP 
stakeholders
Effectiveness
Impact
Sustainability
Date | Report Number 129
Key EQ 4: What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively deliver, implement, and sustain school meal interventions?
Elaboration per TOR: What relationship structures among these institutions yield the most successful and effective school meal programmes? Is WFP’s capacity support to 
smallholder farmers and key line ministries appropriate/sufficient to effectively facilitate national ownership? Has the provided capacity support increased the Government’s 
capacity to own and sustain a national school meals program?
Question and Sub-questions Analysis/
Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 2/ KEQ 4.1 What are the key institutions 
(i.e., international, national, provincial/district 
and local) and governance structures required to 
effectively deliver, implement, and sustain school 
meal interventions? (3.2 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 4.2 What relationship structures 
among these institutions yield the most 
successful and effective school meal 
programmes? (3.2 in IR matrix)
OECD 2/ KEQ 4.3 Has the provided capacity 
support increased the Government’s capacity to 
own and sustain a national school meals
program? (3.2 in IR matrix)
35) Quality and effectiveness of external 
context, relationships/partnerships, 
and processes, including but not 
limited to:
o Communication, information￾sharing, and coordination with 
partners
o Are the right partners on board –
is anyone excluded
o Extent of systematization of 
cooperative arrangements
36) Capacity strengths and weaknesses 
of institutional partners
37) Financial resource opportunities and 
constraints of institutional partners
38) Country/regional context: policy 
framework, politics, governance, civil 
infrastructure, business, markets, 
natural hazards
39) Factors inherent to serving remote 
communities
40) GEEW
Programme 
documents
Country/regional 
context information
KIs with WFP staff and 
external stakeholders
Observation
Comparison of 
assessment of 
contributing factors by 
internal and external KIs
Comparison of subjective 
and objective information
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Sustainability
Impact
Date | Report Number 130
OECD-DAC CRITERIA 3: EFFICIENCY
Sub-questions Analysis/ Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 3.1 How efficient is the programme in 
achieving results to date? (2.4 in IR matrix)
OECD 3.2 Is the programme implemented in a 
timely way? (2.4 in IR matrix)
OECD 3.3 Are the activities cost-efficient? (2.4 in 
IR matrix)
OECD 3.4 Is the programme implemented in the 
most efficient way compared to alternatives? (2.4 
in IR matrix)
OECD 3.5 Were the project strategies efficient in 
terms of financial and human resource inputs as 
compared to outputs? (2.4 in IR matrix)
OECD 3.6 Does the monitoring system efficiently 
meet the needs and requirements of the project? 
(2.4 in IR matrix)
41) Timing and timeliness of 
implementation; adherence to 
implementation schedule 
42) Cost-efficiency of activities relative 
to alternatives
43) Efficiency of project strategies in 
terms of financial and human 
resource inputs vs outputs
44) Adequacy of monitoring system 
relative to programme needs and 
requirements
Programme 
documentation, incl. 
budget 
documentation
Endline data (EGRA 
and school survey)
KIIs with WFP 
management, 
financial and M&E 
staff
Compare assessments by 
KIs with performance
data 
Efficiency
Date | Report Number 131
OECD-DAC CRITERIA 4+5: IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Sub-questions Analysis/ Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
OECD 4/5-1 Has the programme yielded any 
unintended results, positive or negative? (3.3 in 
IR matrix)
45) Existence/identification of positive 
results not anticipated in the results 
framework; exploration of the 
extent to which these results can be 
attributed to the program
46) Existence/identification of 
unintended negative results; 
exploration of the extent to which 
these results can be attributed to 
the program
47) GEEW
Focus groups
KIs
Programme 
documents, incl. 
results framework
Observation
Comparison of data from 
all sources; exploration 
with the country office
Impact
Effectiveness
OECD 4/5-2 How effective are efforts to date to 
build government capacity to fully hand over 
school feeding? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-3 To what extent is the Government 
taking ownership of the programme (e.g. 
demonstrated commitment and contributions)? 
(4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-4 What is the demonstrated capacity at 
central and sub-national levels to manage the 
program? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-5 Are local communities (SGACs, 
farmers’ groups, etc.) fully involved in and 
contributing toward school feeding and 
education activities? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-6 Has the policy framework supporting 
the HGSF been strengthened within the project 
period? (4.1 in IR matrix)
48) Analysis of programme 
documentation regarding steps 
taken and steps planned toward 
capacity development of 
smallholders and gov’t
49) Assessment of the existence, 
rationale and quality of capacity 
development plans
50) WFP perspectives (national and sub￾national) on gov’t readiness for 
handover
51) Gov’t perspectives (national and sub￾national) on gov’t readiness for 
handover
52) Perceptions of staff and 
stakeholders on efficiency (cost, 
systems, staff, alternatives, etc.). 
53) Extent to which resources (human, 
physical, financial, organizational 
and functional) were optimally used 
in project implementation
Programme 
documents
KIIs – both national 
and sub-national level
Compare perspectives of 
WFP and gov’t
Relevance
Effectiveness
Sustainability
Impact
Date | Report Number 132
OECD 4/5-7 What are the major factors 
influencing the achievement or non-achievement 
of sustainability of the program? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-8 Is WFP’s capacity support to 
smallholder farmers and key line ministries 
appropriate/sufficient to effectively facilitate 
national ownership? (key Q from TOR) (4.1 in IR 
matrix)
OECD 4/5-9 How WFP can work more 
strategically in its capacity development efforts 
with Government? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-10 What is the progress and status of 
capacity development? (4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-11 What capacity development 
approaches/ activities are working/not working? 
(4.1 in IR matrix)
OECD 4/5-12 To what extent is the programme 
on track for handover readiness and 
Government ownership? (4.1 in IR matrix)
54) Quality of processes (e.g., supply 
chain management), relevance of 
the division of responsibilities in the 
management of the operation at 
different levels
55) Existence and quality of 
coordination that has been put in 
place with partners to optimize 
resources
Date | Report Number 133
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RESULTS
Sub-questions Analysis/ Indicators Data Sources Triangulation Evaluation 
Criteria
Factors 1 What are the key WFP-internal factors 
contributing to achievement or non-achievement 
of desired results? (3.1 in IR matrix)
Factors 2 What are the key external factors 
contributing to achievement or non-achievement 
of desired results? (3.2 in IR matrix)
Factors 3 *(new in endline) To what extent did 
COVID-19 affect project implementation and 
performance? (3.1 and 3.2 in IR matrix)
Note: Factors 1 and 2 replace What are the major 
factors influencing progress in achievement or non￾achievement of the outcomes/objectives of the 
intervention? (3.1 and 3.2 in IR matrix)
56) Quality and effectiveness of WFP￾internal context and processes, 
including but not limited to:
o Staff level
o Staff capacity
o Financial resources
o Supply chain/ pipeline 
management
o Quality, timeliness and use of 
monitoring data
o Quality, timeliness, and 
processes for internal 
communication and decision 
making (HQ-RB-CO-field)
o Technical backstopping from HQ￾RB
o Knowledge management
o GEEW
Programme 
documents
KIs with WFP staff and 
external stakeholders
Observation
Comparison of 
assessment of 
contributing factors by 
internal and external KIs
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Sustainability
Impact
Date | Report Number 
134
Annex 10: Methodology
This annex provides further details regarding the evaluation methodology. The evaluation is a performance 
evaluation and as noted in Section 1.1 of the main report, has the dual objectives of accountability and 
learning. Specifically, the endline evaluation i) reviews the project’s relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, 
impact, and sustainability, ii) collects performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level 
results, iii) assesses whether the project has succeeded in achieving McGovern Dole’s two strategic 
objectives, iv) investigates the project’s overall impact, and v) identifies meaningful lessons that 
stakeholders can apply to future programming.
A. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND TOOLS
The table below summarizes the data collection tools.
Overview of main data collection tools
Data collection 
method(s)
Type of data to 
be collected Comments
School administrator 
/headmaster survey 
(ODK) 
McGovern-Dole 
indicators
-- ET to conduct in-person interviews.
--Additional qualitative data to be collected from KIs 
and/or focus groups1 with headmasters/ head 
teachers, teachers, students, cooks, storekeepers, 
SGACs and SMCs. 
EGRA tool McGovern-Dole 
indicators
ET will administer the EGRA (literacy + WASH questions) to 
3rd graders. 
Topical outlines Qualitative data 
on all evaluation 
questions and to 
validate and help 
interpret indicator 
data
Topical outlines for: 
--WFP Kigali and field staff
--Government ministries
--District Government (District Education Officials)
--Project-supported District Coordinators
--Implementing Partners (World Vision, Gardens for Health 
International, Rwanda Biomedical Centre)
--Donors (USDA, MasterCard)
--United Nations Agency Partners (UNICEF, FAO)
--Schools (Head teachers/ headmasters, teachers, SGAC, 
School Feeding Committee)
--Plus observation of WASH facilities, school meal 
distribution, kitchen conditions, commodity storage
1 Focus groups to be disaggregated by gender where feasible.
229.The baseline did not establish a value for the McGovern-Dole indicator, Percent of parents in target 
communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education. The report noted that this 
indicator could not be collected via a household survey, as a household survey would require approval 
by the National Institute of Statistics in Rwanda (typically a 3-month process).212 The endline evaluation 
assessed parent knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAPs) and perspectives via focus groups with 
SGACs, and – for triangulation – also included a question in the school headmaster survey to ask their 
perception of parent knowledge of the benefits of primary education.
212 A parent survey had been planned for 2016 but was not carried out. The midterm evaluation faced the same 
limitation to conducting a parent survey but added a question on this indicator in the head teacher survey to 
report progress based on head teachers’ estimates.
Date | Report Number 
135
230.See the evaluation matrix (Annex 9) for a detailed description of data sources and data collection tools 
and how these link to evaluation sub-questions. The evaluation questions were translated into data 
collection tools: topical outlines for interviews and focus groups, the EGRA tool, and a school 
administrator survey. Topical outlines were reviewed and updated where necessary for the field work 
once current programme documents were reviewed; the updated outlines were shared with WFP and 
USDA for review. The EGRA and school headmaster tools were pre-tested before commencing data 
collection. All tools were adjusted based on reviewer comments and pre-test results before they were 
finalized and deployed. 
231.Quantitative data (EGRA results and school administrator survey data) were collected on Android 
tablets using Open Data Kit (ODK) and Tangerine (RTI) data collection software. Final versions of the 
tools were coded for application onto the Android devices and translated into Kinyarwanda. At any 
time, the tool questions and responses could be viewed on the tablets in Kinyarwanda or in English for 
quality and content review. 
232.At TANGO’s request, the World Vision literacy team updated the Kinyarwanda reading content in the 
EGRA tool at endline to ensure that the students would be tested on fresh content. The endline tool 
reflects the same standard as in previous evaluations and was administered to 3rd graders to ensure 
comparability of results. World Vision’s literacy team worked in-country with the local ET to refresh and 
update their knowledge of the survey programming and orient them to the new content. In addition, 
the EGRA tool was augmented with the few questions needed to collect data for required WASH 
indicators, which would also map new and current WASH programmes in the surveyed schools. 
233.TANGO worked with World Vision on the design, programming and training on tablets and software. 
National team members participated in all training activities, and field tested and administered the 
tools. 
234.Quality control included researchers providing daily updates to TANGO. Data was uploaded to TANGO 
secure servers twice per week at minimum (see table below). TANGO reviewed the data and provided 
feedback on data quality and survey progress and highlighted specific data issues to be discussed with 
researchers.
Data protection
Data Protection: TANGO maintains daily backup copies of all qualitative and quantitative data in a 
secure physical location, on site at TANGO headquarters as well as in separate secure locations on 
secure cloud servers that are only accessible to TANGO data managers. TANGO assignments that 
employ tablets for data collection (e.g., mixed-methods baseline, midterm and final evaluations) 
use CAPI software. Data are uploaded daily from the field to secure cloud servers in an encrypted 
format. Data on the servers are only accessible to authorized TANGO data managers. The 
downloadable ODK software TANGO uses does not have any mechanisms that might allow ODK to 
access or control TANGO’s devices or systems. TANGO contracts with an IT specialist who follows a 
protocol to ensure that TANGO IT systems (hardware and software) are equipped with current anti￾virus, malware, and other relevant tools to ensure the maintenance and security of the data and 
information that TANGO collects and produces in the course of business.
235.TANGO concluded the field mission with a debrief or workshop that served as an informal validation of 
preliminary findings. This was followed by discussions with the country office and ERG to formulate 
actionable and complete recommendations to include in the draft report.
B. SAMPLE SELECTION
236.Two kinds of quantitative data were collected from all students in the sample: (1) data from applying 
the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), to assess any changes in reading levels, and (2) data to 
inform the indicator, Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices, to 
assess any changes in health and nutrition practices. 
237.The endline sampling methodology replicated the methodology used at midterm. The ET applied the 
formula below to arrive at the minimum sample size of students to assure statistical accuracy in 
comparisons across subsamples or survey rounds:
Date | Report Number 
136
n = Deff* [(Zα + Zβ)2 * (P1*(1-P1) + P2*(1-P2) / (P2 - P1)2]*NR
where:
Variable
Assumed 
value Description
n =
Deff = 2 Design effect for complex sample design (assumed to be = 2)
Zα = 1.282 Z value associated with desired significance level for confidence (90%, 
one-tailed)
Zβ = 0.842 Z value associated with desired significance level for power (80%, one￾tailed)
P1 = 50.0% estimated level of an indicator measured as a proportion at the time of 
the first survey or within a comparison group
P2 = 65.0%
expected level of the indicator either at a later survey round or different 
comparison group. (P2 - P1) is the magnitude of change or difference 
across subgroups that the sample is powered to detect (in this case, a 
difference of 30%, or 15 percentage points). 
NR 10.0% Non-response rate
238.This formula computed a minimum required sample size of 210 students to enable statistically 
accurate comparisons for a single stratum. The McGovern-Dole indicators are program-wide, i.e., based 
on students in all four districts where HGSF is implemented. While it was possible to stratify the sample 
by grade and achieve statistical accuracy, this would have required a sample of 210 students in each 
grade of interest (i.e., 210 students in 1st grade, 210 students in 2nd grade, etc.). Likewise, stratifying by 
district would have require samples of 210 students per district. Given that the McGovern-Dole 
indicators are whole-programme and that significant additional resources would have been required to 
make statistically robust comparisons across grades or districts, the ET used only two strata, stratifying 
by gender only. Such disaggregation was important to make statistically valid comparisons of results 
for boys and girls. As statistically representative gender-disaggregated data were not available for the 
baseline, stratifying at midterm allowed the ET to establish statistically representative data points for 
boys and girls and thus allowed meaningful comparisons at endline. This required a minimum sample 
size of 210 male students and 210 female students; the ET rounded up the sample size to 220 males 
and 220 females for logistical ease – where 11 male and 11 female P3 students were interviewed in 20 
schools. 
239.The ET noted the country office’s interest in disaggregating results to enable exploring the possible 
reasons for any differences. The ET therefore proposed to (1) disaggregate results by district – with the 
understanding that these results are indicative, not statistically representative; and (2) use the 
preliminary disaggregated results to inform qualitative lines of inquiry, to better understand why some 
districts may be achieving different results than others. 
C. STUDENT SAMPLING FRAME 
240.All 220 male students and all 220 female students were administered the EGRA and the health/WASH 
questions added to the end of EGRA tool. The sampling frame was 3rd grade students, to maintain 
comparability with the baseline. The process for defining the student sampling frame mirrored the 
systematic random sampling method used in the baseline. The first stage of the sample selected 20 
schools from the 104 schools that were receiving support at the time of the midterm evaluation, using 
probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) systematic random sampling. The ET acknowledged that the
programme has since added three schools, increasing the number of total schools from 104 to 107; 
this was a very small percentage increase in the sample frame and thus did not require a new 
calculation. Moreover, the three new schools only received a meal and a few selected activities, thus 
other areas of the programme that were measured at midterm could not be assessed such as reading 
comprehension, WASH etc. Using the same 20 schools at midterm and endline allowed a panel study at 
the school level, whereby the same schools were visited in both rounds and assessed with respect to 
the same activities. 
Date | Report Number 
137
241.The second-stage sample selection and sampling frame was developed and completed upon arrival in 
the school using the attendance register for that day (this presumed that the Covid context/protocols 
allowed for an in-school EGRA). In each 3rd grade class one sampling frame was developed for girls and 
one for boys. Then 11 students were randomly selected from each sampling frame. The ET notes that 
resources did not allow for collecting data from a control group/counterfactual for outcome 
monitoring.
D. SCHOOL SELECTION AND SCHOOL-LEVEL SURVEY
242.As discussed above, 220 boys and 220 girls were interviewed for two sampling strata, totaling 440 
students. The number of schools to be visited to administer the school survey and EGRA tool and reach 
440 students was a function of how many EGRAs and school surveys could be completed in a day. The 
EGRA/school survey team consisted of four national evaluators. The ET estimated that in one day, one 
team could administer the EGRA to 11 students and conduct the survey in 2-4 schools. The ET had 
budgeted 15 school days (i.e., excluding weekends) for this activity, which allowed the team to reach 
the sample size of 440. 
243.As noted in the previous section, the endline used the same sample of schools used at midterm, which 
was a two-stage clustered sample of 20 schools drawn using the PPS method. The ET used a country￾office-provided list of all project schools showing how many girls and boys in each school’s 3rd grade 
class. While the margin of error corresponding to the EGRA and WASH data from the two student 
samples (girls and boys) remained 10 percent, the margin of error for the data from the multi-module 
school surveys was 17 percent. We found the latter margin of error reasonable given the survey 
budget. A lower margin of error would have required a larger sample for the school surveys, and this 
was not achievable with the current budget.
244.The students in each selected school were administered the EGRA+WASH tool. In addition, the 
EGRA/school survey team administered a school-level quantitative survey to school administrators to 
assess progress on school-level indicators. 
245.There were a few considerations regarding the timing and manner of administration of the school 
survey tool. The draft Word Vision version from the midterm survey was adjusted slightly for the 
endline, and sent to WFP to review the changes, then returned to TANGO for finalization in Word and 
ODK. The EGRA/school survey team pre-tested the tool with age-appropriate children after the EGRA 
workshop and before the start of fieldwork. Revisions were made to integrate any needed adjustments 
indicated by the pre-test to finalize the tool for fieldwork. 
246.For the headmaster portion of the survey, the team collected indicator data for the school directly from 
the headmaster. While two team members administered the EGRA to students, the third team member 
interviewed the headmaster to complete that portion of the survey on the tablet. 
E. ADMINISTRATION OF EGRA
247.The EGRA was administered by the national ET members made up of Rwandan consultants (the 
EGRA/school survey team), who worked in teams of two. 
248.As in the baseline, the ET sought to minimize interruption of school learning activities by coordinating 
closely with school headmasters and teachers on student sampling, warm-up and assessment. The 
national team members consulted with WFP staff, literacy partner (World Vision), and school staff in 
advance to determine the timeliest window for conducting the assessment in each school.
F. SITE SELECTION FOR QUALITATIVE TEAM FIELD VISITS
249.As international travel restrictions related to Covid-19 prevented the international evaluators from 
being present in Rwanda, the national team also assisted with the collection of primary qualitative data 
with the guidance of the international evaluators. This constituted a “deep dive” inquiry at school, 
sector and district level, covering all districts and geographically focused on a subset of 10 of the 20 
schools in the EGRA/school survey sample. As noted, data from EGRA/school survey were statistically 
analyzed by TANGO in tranches on a rolling basis, in order to inform and fine-tune both the sampling 
and the lines of inquiry of the qualitative work. 
Date | Report Number 
138
250.The national team visited the same 10 schools and/or communities (depending on access under Covid￾19 guidelines) visited during the midterm. These schools were purposively selected based on (1) 
schools where quantitative data analysis has been completed; (2) trends and questions emerging from 
the initial quantitative data analysis (3) location, to collect input from schools in varied settings and 
contexts (4) school size and (5) logistical feasibility. The national team interviewed headmasters, 
teachers, SGAC members, cooks and made observations on WASH facilities, kitchen conditions, 
commodity storage facilities, and where possible observed school meal distributions. 
G. SITE SELECTION FOR AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVES AND FARMER GROUPS
251.Selection of agriculture cooperatives and farmer groups was undertaken in close consultation with WFP 
staff and included cooperatives visited at midline to assess their development, as well as cooperatives 
that were most relevant to the procurement options at endline. Number of cooperatives visited by the 
ET was determined in consultation with WFP staff and on convenience based on the school field tour.
H. DATA ANALYSIS 
252.Quantitative analysis was conducted using STATA version 15.0 software. The ET conducted descriptive 
analysis, such as cross-tabulations, means, and significance tests to provide additional context to the 
underlying components of key indicators. This analysis was conducted per module of the school 
administrator survey tool. The student and school samples drawn at endline were self-weighted, and 
therefore no sampling weights was calculated or applied in the estimation of statistics. The data 
collection tools were applied using software programmed with internal controls to ensure data are 
consistent and reduce the likelihood of data entry errors. During the data analysis stage, all data were 
reviewed for outliers (initially flagged as three standard deviations or more for continuous variables). 
Discrete variables were reviewed for consistency. When potential data errors were identified, the 
analyst asked the researcher to consult any notes associated with the interview. If no further 
information was available, then the data point was recoded to missing. 
253.The qualitative analysis used a matrix approach to record, organize and analyze qualitative data and
ensure all team members recorded information consistently and in a manner that directly responded 
to research questions. Capturing qualitative data in matrices enabled identification of important 
patterns in responses and contextual information that may help to explain quantitative or secondary 
data. Data matrices also helped triangulate responses from FGDs, KIIs, in-depth interviews and other 
sources to determine whether information is reliable. 
254.During the analysis and reporting phase, the ET built in systematic opportunities for WFP and 
stakeholder consultation. This included but is not limited to sharing the draft report and soliciting 
comments, sharing draft recommendations to review and refine via teleconference and/or email 
communications, and other teleconferences as needed. 
Date | Report Number 
139
I. LIMITATIONS AND RISKS
Table 94 replicates the table in the inception report for this evaluation, listing potential methodological limitations to the evaluation and proposed strategies to 
minimize their impact. It adds a column to report whether the anticipated limitations were encountered in the conduct of the evaluation, and steps taken.
Table 94: Anticipated methodological limitations and mitigation strategies; comments post-evaluation
Possible Limitation as Identified in 
Inception Phase Discussion Mitigation Strategy Comments Post-Evaluation
Quality and availability of secondary 
data, including the baseline data set
Secondary data sources/ documents typically 
vary in quality and reliability. Some of the 
data/ information the ET requests may not be 
available or may take a significant time 
investment to acquire. Some of the baseline 
data may vary in quality or structure and thus 
limit comparability in subsequent evaluations.
Assess the quality of secondary sources; 
prioritize analysis of research/data 
deemed high-quality; triangulate data 
across sources and provide opportunities 
for diverse stakeholders to validate 
findings. Consult with the country office 
and other stakeholders early in the 
evaluation process to identify data needs 
and gaps to enable primary data 
collection to address gaps and quality 
issues.
The presence of non-response data for 
reading comprehension in the baseline 
data reduced the comparability from 
endline to baseline. To address this 
constraint, baseline values were re￾estimated.
Respondent bias Respondent bias is an inherent risk in any 
evaluation. For example, respondents may 
wish to report in a way they think will favor 
them in terms of new or continued 
programme benefits or positive recognition.
The ET will solicit perspectives from a 
range of stakeholders and take 
anticipated biases into account during 
analysis; the team will seek a balance of 
perspectives. The methodology will rely 
on a cross-section of information sources 
(e.g., stakeholder groups, beneficiaries) 
and using a mixed-methods approach to 
ensure triangulation of information 
through a variety of means. 
Strategy implemented as planned. No 
issues encountered.
Date | Report Number 
140
Budget and time constraints The scope of the evaluation and time in the 
field are determined by resources available. 
The scope must therefore be clearly defined 
and delimited.
Use the inception phase to determine, 
per consultation with WFP stakeholders, 
evaluation priorities and special points of 
interest (e.g., thematic, geographic, 
strategic). Ensure clear expectations of all
parties on the main evaluation questions 
and the extent to which these can feasibly 
be investigated given existing data/ 
information and the time and resources 
available for collecting and analyzing this 
and new information.
The evaluation budget and in-country 
time were adequate. The ET found the 
timeline between fieldwork and the 
submission of the draft report to be 
challenging, compounded by delays in 
receiving information due to office 
absences, and the receipt of needed data 
well into the drafting period
Generalizability of findings As noted above, resources and time 
determine how much ground the ET can 
cover. This is not necessarily problematic, 
however when framing findings it is important 
to identify any limitations on generalizability of 
findings. In addition, the impact of Covid-19 
prevention measures and the closure of 
schools for much of 2020 will limit the 
generalizability of findings to the baseline and 
midterm. 
Specific limitations of the programme will 
be noted in the evaluation report and 
presentations of findings. Again, 
agreement and understanding of all 
stakeholders regarding the scope of the 
evaluation is important to interpreting 
the findings, analysis, and 
recommendations in the appropriate 
context. The ET will assess findings in light 
of the impact of Covid-19 and its 
associated prevention measures on the 
programme.
Strategy implemented as planned. No 
issues encountered.
Date | Report Number 
141
Turnaround time for approval of 
evaluation tools 
Conformance with the proposed schedule is 
contingent on the timely review and approval 
of the EGRA/school survey tool and the topical 
outlines. The schedule is tight, so there is little 
room for delays from any party.
TANGO will ensure regular, frequent 
communication with the country office so 
that any adjustments by any party to 
anticipated timelines/due dates are 
shared immediately and the calendar can 
be adjusted to accommodate the 
requirements of all sides as best as 
possible. Certain activities must take 
place in January: the EGRA workshop, 
updating and programming the EGRA and 
school survey, and field tour planning; 
TANGO and the country office must work 
concurrently to the inception report 
review to obtain the information needed 
for these tasks.
Strategy implemented as planned. No 
issues encountered.
Mobility The international evaluators are unable to be 
present in Rwanda due to international travel 
restrictions. The local team may encounter 
mobility limitations such as those due to 
Covid-19 restrictions, weather or terrain. 
These constraints could affect the sampling 
and field schedule.
At this time, there are no issues to 
constrain mobility, although Covid-19 
restrictions will need to be assessed just 
prior to fieldwork and are subject to 
change. The ET will communicate 
regularly with the country office 
regarding any changes that would affect 
the activity/ travel plan.
Date | Report Number 
142
School closures or delays in opening 
schools
Covid-related protocols in Rwanda affect 
school opening and hours, and thus the ET’s 
easy access to students for EGRA testing and 
to personnel for interviews. At this writing, the 
re-opening date for lower primary is set for 18 
January 2021.
TANGO and the country office are 
communicating regularly to stay abreast 
of school status and adjust plans as 
necessary. If lower-grade primary schools 
are not open or not fully accessible due to 
Covid-19 restrictions, and the team is not 
able to start the survey at the schools 
within the time allocated for field data 
collection, the EGRA cannot be conducted 
and will be dropped from the endline. A 
community-based approach to the EGRA 
survey is not advisable. 
As applicable, TANGO will also follow the 
“Do No Harm” protocols we have 
modified for working in the Covid context; 
see Annex 10.
Strategy implemented as planned. No 
issues encountered.
Date | Report Number 
143
J. ETHICAL SAFEGUARDS
255.All TANGO staff, consultants, and officers associated with this evaluation complied with TANGO’s 
policies and procedures, including TANGO’s Code of Ethics and Conduct. The ET also received refresher 
information as needed on ethical research safeguards and child and youth protection, based on 
UNICEF guidance and WFP policies and standards. 
256.The ET ensured appropriate ethical considerations were in place for all interviews by informing all 
interviewees of the purpose and duration of the interview, how they were identified to participate in 
the interview, informing interview participants of their rights, providing guarantees that specific 
interview findings will remain confidential and that all information provided will be used to assess the 
programme, with no direct attribution to the interviewee. Finally, all interviewees were informed that 
they may choose not to participate, and gave their verbal consent to participate before the interview 
moved forward. The ET also obtained verbal consent before taking any photographs. There were 
neither interview nor photo refusals. Enumerators introduced themselves to the head teacher, 
teachers and students, and obtained consent before starting activities at the school. They treated 
administrators, teachers, students and others respectfully and talked to students in a friendly and 
supportive manner.
257.TANGO has conformed to WFP and UNEG ethical standards in the conduct of this evaluation. We 
safeguarded and ensured the observation of ethical practices at all stages of the evaluation cycle. This 
has included ensuring informed consent, protecting privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of 
participants, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of participants, ensuring fair 
recruitment of participants (including women and socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the 
evaluation results in no harm to participants or their communities.
258.Table 95 describes ethical issues that were considered in the evaluation preparation/design, data 
collection, data analysis, reporting and dissemination, and how they were monitored and managed 
during the implementation of the evaluation. 
Table 95: Ethical issues and safeguards implemented
• Ethical issue • Safeguard/measure
• 1. Interviewing child/youth 
respondents (child 
protection issue) – for EGRA 
assessment and student 
interviews/ focus groups
• 1. Ensured that a teacher was present, to monitor the interview 
and ensure that the child felt safe and comfortable.
• 2. Reviewed World Vision child protection protocols and signed 
statements of compliance.
• 3. Consulted with WFP programme staff for any additional 
guidance.
• 2. Reliability and accuracy 
of school-level data 
• 2. During school visits, EGRA/school survey team reviewed 
survey responses and spot-checked supporting documentation 
to validate data accuracy. Individual student performance on 
EGRA tests were not shared with teachers. 
• 3. Compliance with 
Evaluation Code of 
Conduct
• 3. As contractually required, all consultants read and agreed to 
conform to the WFP Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards and 
the UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System.
• 4. Data protection • 4. Tablets were password secure and data were uploaded as 
soon as possible to a remote secure server.
K. QUALITY ASSURANCE
259.A foundation of quality control is effective training on data collection techniques, methodologies, and 
the technology used to collect data. The entire team is highly experienced in all methodologies 
employed in this evaluation, so the training elements focused on reviewing specific data collection 
tools, and data entry and protocols for ODK surveys with the national researchers. The ET members, 
with the support of HQ-based TANGO analysts and survey specialists, were the primary developers of 
Date | Report Number 
144
both the topical outlines and the school survey tools, and provided orientation and training to national 
researchers on all tools. The ET, including quantitative and qualitative researchers, was small, with 
team members engaged in both qualitative and quantitative activities. This increased the reliability of 
the data – ensuring tools were applied equally across different regions, settings, and schools. 
260.Sample size determination and sampling procedures were verified by Mark Langworthy, a TANGO 
partner and economist with extensive experience in quantitative surveys. A HQ-based TANGO analyst 
programmed the ODK survey tools into computer tablets and provided in-person training and real-time
support to data collection and quality assurance for the EGRA/school survey. Supervision and 
coordination with the quantitative team were maintained by remote data quality control to identify any 
problems or anomalies, plus regular voice communication between the enumerators and the team 
leader. The team uploaded data to the TANGO server daily. TANGO reviewed the data and provided 
feedback on data quality and survey progress and highlighted specific issues twice per week. Data 
quality checks confirm strong internal validity for the quantitative tools. Equally, the quantitative results 
were largely in line with qualitative data – suggesting strong external validity. 
261.It is the duty of the team leader to ensure the protection of human subjects and their confidentiality, 
and training interviewers in obtaining verbal consent from participants. To ensure the security of the 
data, TANGO follows standard operating practices such as locked files, password secured databases 
and the handing over of all hard copies (where applicable) to TANGO. Participating individuals were 
assigned identification numbers, and this number is the only identifier to appear on any data collection 
tools such as surveys, written notes, transcripts and labels on audio tapes. A single list linking the 
names of participating individuals and their identification numbers is kept in a protected file that is only 
accessible to a small number of TANGO senior staff. 
262.Quality assurance was maintained in the reporting process by a TANGO Quality Assurance Manager 
who reviewed content to ensure that it met the criteria laid out in the TOR, that all comments by 
stakeholders were addressed, and that the report content fairly reflects the findings of the qualitative 
team and the quantitative data. Qualitative interviews with adults were recorded with the permission of 
the interviewees, and the recording was used to verify the accuracy of the interviewer notes.
263.Accountability to affected populations links to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key 
stakeholders in its work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s 
empowerment (in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by 
women, men, boys and girls from different groups. The final evaluation report’s findings, conclusions 
and recommendations reflect the ET’s GEEW analysis as appropriate.
Date | Report Number 
145
Annex 11: List of People Interviewed 
Table 96 presents summary information regarding interviews conducted to comply with USDA 
requirements for excluding personally-identifying information in the evaluation report.
Table 96: Key informant interviews conducted
Title #KIIs
WFP Rwanda
WFP Rwanda staff 9 KIIs (2M, 7F)
School - based
School-based staff (teachers, head teachers) 
and SGAC members
10 KIIs (8M, 2F)
District Government
District staff/ officials (department heads, 
mayors/vice-mayors, education officers, 
inter alia)
15 KIIs (11M, 4F)
National Government
National government staff/officials 2 KIIs (1M, 1F)
Partner NGOs
Partner NGO staff 6 KIIs (5M, 1F)
USDA
USDA staff 2 KIIs (1M, 1F)
Table 97: Focus group discussions conducted
Focus Group Type #M #F District/sector School/other Date
Cooks 3 0 Nyamagabe Primary school 08/02/2021
Storekeeper 1 0 Nyamagabe Primary school 08/02/2021
Students 3 3 Nyamagabe Primary school 08/02/2021
Cooks 2 1 Nyamagabe Primary school 09/02/2021
Literacy teachers 2 6 Nyamagabe Primary school 09/02/2021
SGAC 2 2 Nyamagabe Groupe scolaire 09/02/2021
Parents 2 3 Nyamagabe Groupe scolaire 09/02/2021
Parents 4 3 Nyamagabe Primary school 09/02/2021
Cooks 2 1 Nyamagabe Groupe scolaire 09/02/2021
Students 4 4 Nyamagabe Groupe scolaire 09/02/2021
Students 3 2 Nyamagabe Primary school 09/02/2021
Cooperative 5 3 Nyamagabe Other 10/02/2021
Cooperative 4 3 Nyaruguru Other 11/02/2021
Storekeeper 0 1 Nyaruguru Groupe scolaire 11/02/2021
Cooks 3 1 Nyaruguru Groupe scolaire 11/02/2021
Cooks 3 1 Nyaruguru Primary school 12/02/2021
Literacy teachers 3 3 Nyaruguru Primary school 12/02/2021
SGAC 3 2 Nyaruguru Groupe scolaire 12/02/2021
Parents 3 3 Nyaruguru Primary school 12/02/2021
Students 4 4 Nyaruguru Primary school 12/02/2021
Parents 5 1 Karongi Groupe Scolaire 16/02/2021
Date | Report Number 
146
Table 97: Focus group discussions conducted
Focus Group Type #M #F District/sector School/other Date
Literacy teachers 1 5 Karongi Groupe scolaire 16/02/2021
Cooks 2 1 Karongi Groupe scolaire 16/02/2021
Storekeeper 0 1 Karongi Groupe scolaire 16/02/2021
Students 5 3 Karongi Primary school 16/02/2021
Students 7 8 Karongi Groupe scolaire 16/02/2021
Reading 
facilitators 1 2 Karongi Primary school 16/02/2021
Cooperative 2 0 Karongi Other 17/02/2021
Cooks 2 1 Nyaruguru Group scolaire 18/02/2021
Storekeeper 0 1 Nyaruguru Groupe scolaire 18/02/2021
Students 3 3 Nyaruguru Primary school 18/02/2021
SGAC 5 0 Rutsiro Groupe scolaire 18/02/2021
Cooperative 2 3 Rutsiro Other 19/02/2021
Cooks 2 1 Rutsiro Primary school 19/02/2021
SGAC 5 0 Rutsiro Primary school 19/02/2021
Students 4 4 Rutsiro Primary school 19/02/2021
Students 4 4 Rutsiro Groupe scolaire 19/02/2021
Reading 
facilitators 3 3 Karongi Primary school 19/02/2021
Reading 
facilitators 1 1 Karongi Primary school 19/02/2021
Parents 3 3 Karongi Primary school 22/02/2021
Storekeeper 1 0 Karongi Primary school 22/02/2021
Cooks 2 0 Karongi Primary school 22/02/2021
Storekeeper 2 0 Karongi Primary school 22/02/2021
Students 4 4 Karongi Primary school 22/02/2021
Literacy teachers 4 4 Rutsiro Primary school 22/02/2021
Reading 
facilitators 3 4 Karongi Primary school 24/02/2021
Literacy teachers 8 0 Karongi Primary school 24/02/2021
SGAC 5 3 Karongi Primary school 24/02/2021
Cooks 1 1 Karongi Primary school 24/02/2021
Storekeeper 1 0 Karongi Primary school 24/02/2021
Students 4 4 Karongi Groupe scolaire 24/02/2021
Students 4 4 Karongi Groupe scolaire 24/02/2021
Students 4 4 Karongi Groupe scolaire 24/02/2021
TOTAL 156 119 (total: 275)
Date | Report Number 
147
Annex 12: Field Schedule
Table 98: Field schedule
Day # Date Day Time Region District School name
Day 1 04.févr Thur AM Nyaruguru Ngoma Groupe Scolaire Kiyonza
PM Nyaruguru Ngoma --
Day 2 05.févr Fri AM Nyaruguru Ruheru Remera Primary School
PM Nyaruguru Ngoma Groupe Scolaire Kiyonza
Day 3 08.févr Mon AM Nyamagabe Kamegeri Kirehe Primary School
PM Nyamagabe Kamegeri Kiraro Protestant Primary School
Day 4 09.févr Tue AM Nyamagabe Cyanika Rugogwe Primary School
PM Nyamagabe Cyanika Kiyumba Primary School
Day 5 10.févr Wed AM Nyamagabe Musange Musange Primary School
PM Nyamagabe Musange --
Day 6 11.févr Thur AM Nyarurguru Nyabimata Nyabimata Primary School
PM Nyaruguru Nyabimata Gihemvu Primary School
Day 7 12.févr Fri AM Nyaruguru Kivu Rugerero Primary School
PM Nyarurugu Kivu
Day 8 15.févr Mon AM Rutsiro Kivumu Kivumu Groupe Scolaire
PM Rutsiro Kivumu Buganamana Primary School
Day 9 16.févr Tue AM Karongi Gashari Mwendo Groupe Scolaire
PM Karongi Gashari --
Day 10 17.févr Wed AM Rutsiro Ruhango Rwamiko Groupe Scolaire
PM Rutsiro Ruhango --
Day 11 18.févr Thur AM Rutsiro Manihira Kabeza Groupe Scolaire
PM Rutsiro Manihira
Day 12 19.févr Fri AM Rutsiro Manihira Ruhango Primary School
PM Rutsiro --
Day 13 22.févr Mon AM Karongi Murundi Nyamabuye Primary School
PM Rutsiro Murundi --
Day 14 23.févr Tue AM Karongi Ruganda Nyamugwagwa Primary School
PM Karongi Gitesi Kanunga Primary School 
Day 15 24.févr Wed AM Karongi Murundi Mujyojyo Primary School 
PM Karongi Murundi --
Date | Report Number 
148
Annex 13: Supplementary Tables: 
EGRA Survey Results
Table 99: Percent 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 
Final 
target
Baseline Midterm Endline Overall 
Actual achievement Actual v. 
target
Actual Actual v. 
target
Actual Actual v. 
target
Female 77% 43.3% 56.2% 62.9% 81.7% 85% 110.4% 110.4%
Male 62% 39.8% 64.2% 56.8% 91.6% 70.2% 113.2% 113.2%
Total 69% 41.5% 60.1% 59% 85.5% 77.7% 112.6% 112.6%
Source: Baseline, midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Table 100: Reading, listening and comprehension of short story, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
Total Male Female Total Male Female
Percent of students to read short story1 64.6 60.5 68.8 80.5 73.5 87.3
Percent of students to fully comprehend the short 
story (regardless if they read or listened) 82.8 82.4 83.2 95.2 94 96.4
n 441 220 221 435 215 220
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys
1 No time restrictions were placed on the students for this exercise, however the 60-second point is tracked in the data. This 
measure includes students who complete the story (regardless of time taken) with minimal errors.
Table 101: Percent of third grade students in words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) range, midterm 
and endline
WCPM
Midterm Endline
Overall Male Female Overall Male Female
0 18.4 25.0 11.8 0 0 0
1 to 15 14.3 8.6 19.9 0.7 0.5 0.9
16 to 30 32.4 25.5 39.3 3.1 1 5.1
31 to 40 16.1 16.8 15.4 8.5 4.3 12.6
41 to 56 18.8 24.1 13.6 38.6 29.5 47.4
> 56 words n/a n/a n/a 49.2 64.76 34
n 441 220 221 435 215 220
Sources: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Table 102: Reading and comprehension at endline, by district, midterm and endline
Indicator Target Midterm n Endline n
Percent 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
69.0 51.5 441 77,7 435
Karongi district n/a 41.8 110 76,2 105
Nyamagabe district n/a 51.8 110 70,0 110
Nyaruguru district n/a 58.2 110 83,6 110
Rutsiro district n/a 54.1 111 81,0 110
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Date | Report Number 
149
Table 103: Students' home support and time allocation, midterm and endline
Indicator Midterm Endline
Percent of students to get help reading from parents for 
homework/reading
83.2 91.5
Male students 87.3 86.9
Female students 78.7 95.9
Percent of students to have enough time to study and do 
homework
88.0 98.9
Male students 89.1 97.7
Female students 86.9 100.0
n 441 435
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys.
No significant difference between male and female students at midterm is observed at a p<0.05 level or lower.
Table 104: Percentage of students in classroom identified as attentive by their teachers
Final 
target
Baseline Midterm Endline
Actual Actual vs. target Actual Actual vs. target Actual Actual vs. target
80% 60% 75% 57.4% 71.8% 74.1% 92.6%
Source: Baseline, midterm and endline head teacher surveys
Table 105: Student attentiveness, by grade; baseline, midterm, and endline
Target Baseline Midterm n a Endline n
Percent of students in classrooms 
identified as attentive by their 
teachers as attentive
80.0 60.0 57.4 74.1
First grade n/a 66.0 2,116 72.1 10,254
Second grade n/a 58.0 1,804 75.4 6,213
Third grade n/a 59.8 1,844 79.4 5,848
Fourth grade n/a 51.8 1,667 73.3 5,649
Fifth grade n/a 51.4 1,540 73.8 5,938
Sixth grade n/a 50.9 805 70.8 4,448
Weighted total 57.4 57.4 9,776 74.0 38,350
a Reported number of total students in each grade 
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys
Table 106: School administrator use and application of teaching techniques, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
% of 
Head 
teachers
Target # of Head 
teachersa
% of 
Head 
teachers
Target # of Head 
teachers
School administrators and officials who 
received trainings or certifications as a 
result of USDA assistance
95.0 93 99 100.0 104
n 20 104 20 104
a Values extrapolated from sample data
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys
Date | Report Number 
150
Table 107: Sources of food for school meals, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
% of Schools # of Schools a % of Schools # of Schools
Partnership with local farmer groups 0 0 0 0
Source of food for schoolchildren:
NGOs providedb 100 104 90.0 94
School garden 50 52 45.0 47
Local markets 40 42 55.0 57
Parents provided 5 5 0.0 0
n 20 104 20 104
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys a Extrapolated from sample data
b The survey question is Where is the food for the children obtained? This response option is worded NGOs provided; there is 
no response option for WFP. NGOs include WFP, and there are no agencies providing food to the schools.
Table 108: Parents' knowledge of education benefit and storekeepers' knowledge of good 
practices; baseline, midterm and endline
Indicator Baseline Target Midterm n Endline n
Percent of parents in target communities 
who can name at least three benefits of 
primary education
n/a 90.0 69.8a 20 74.3 20
Percent of cooks and storekeepers who can 
identify at least three safe food 
preparation and storage practices
92 95.0 85.0 20 40.0 20
a A proxy indicator asking school head teachers to estimate this proportion
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys
Table 109: School SGAC engagement, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
Mean number of schools with SGAC (or similar group) per school 1.5 1.55
Mean number of active SGAC members 9.6 9.95
Mean number of SGAC meetings per year 3.8 3.05
Percent of SGACs to have available meeting minutes 100.0 100.0
Percent of SGACs to receive training 100.0 100.0
Percent of SGACs to receive type of training:
Nutrition / school feeding 90.0 80.0
School garden 85.0 100.0
Improved school management 80.0 70.0
School governance 65.0 20.0
Health 60.0 15.0
School infrastructure 30.0 0.0
n 20 20
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys
Date | Report Number 
151
Table 110: Health and hygiene practices at endline, by district, midterm and endline
Indicator Midterm Target n Endline Target n
Percent of students who can identify at least three key 
health and hygiene practices 49.2 80 441 52.9 80 435
Karongi district 48.2 n/a 110 41.0 n/a 105
Nyamagabe district 47.3 n/a 110 54.5 n/a 110
Nyaruguru district 60.9 n/a 110 64.5 n/a 110
Rutsiro district 40.5 n/a 111 51.0 n/a 110
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Table 111: Health and hygiene practice utilization/application, midterm and endline
Indicator Midterm Endline
Percent of students to regularly practice: 
Other personal hygiene (i.e., bathing) 91.4 80,7
Handwash with soap after toilet 42.0 44,4
Handwash before eating 36.5 46,7
Drink clean/treated water 15.2 n/a
Use of clean water 10.2 n/a
Brush teeth 8.4 21,1
Eating a balanced diet 5.0 8,7
Avoid open defecation 4.8 8,0
Eat well-cooked food 4.8 n/a
Wash fruits and vegetables 2.0 n/a
n 441 435
Source: Midterm and endline EGRA surveys
Table 112: School water source and availability, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
Target % of Schools # of 
Schoolsa % of Schools # of 
Schools 
Schools using an improved water source 104 95.0 99b 100.0 104
Piped water (improved) n/a 80.0 83 100.0 104
Protected spring (improved) n/a 10.0 10 10.0 10
Rainwater (improved) n/a 5.0 5 5.0 5
Unprotected spring (not improved) n/a 5.0 5 5.0 5
Water is available from primary water source 4+ 
days per school week n/a 75.0 78
75.0 78
n 20 104 20 104
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher surveys a Values extrapolated from sample data
b There is a small discrepancy in the midterm value for this indicator as found in the MTE survey data (value: 99) and the 2018 semi￾annual report (value: 104). The midterm survey finds that 95% of the sample has an improved water source, which was determined 
by enumerator observation, which suggests that at least one school was observed to lack an improved water source. In an email
communication (28 Nov 2018), the country office stated that at baseline, 62 of the 104 schools already had an improved water 
source (this is consistent with earlier documentation) and that since the baseline, World Vision has supplied 55 schools with 
rainwater harvesting tanks “meaning that all 104 schools now have an ‘improved water source.’ ” A possible explanation for this 
discrepancy is a possible difference in how improved water source was defined at baseline and midline and/or interpreted by the 
respondents. 
Date | Report Number 
152
Table 113: External support to schools, midterm and endline
Midterm Endline
% of 
Schools
# of 
Schools a 
% of 
Schools
# of 
Schools Sources of Support
Receiving external support for: 
School feeding 100 104 100 104 WFP
Training of teachers 100 104 70 73 WFP, World Vision
Deworming 95 99 80 83 Government
Provision of school materials, textbooks, 
books 95 99 90 94 MINEDUC,
World Vision
Renovation/construction of infrastructure in 
school, e.g., classes, kitchens, stores 95 99 45 47 WFP, MINEDUC
Sanitation (water and toilets) 85 88 90 94 Plan International, World 
Vision, UNICEF
School governance 85 88 95 99 WFP, MINEDUC
Other nutrition activities 80 83 95 99 GHI
Health education 55 57 40 42 MINISANTE
n 20 104 20 104
Source: Midterm and endline head teacher survey
a Values extrapolated from sample data
Date | Report Number 
153
Bibliography
EGRA Toolkit, Second Edition. https://globalreadingnetwork.net/resources/early-grade-reading-assessment￾egra-toolkit-second-edition.
Government of Rwanda. 2004. Rwanda Vision 2020. 
Government of Rwanda. 2013. Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013 – 2018.
National Institute of Statistics Rwanda (NISR). 2015. Rwanda Poverty Profile Report 2013/14.
NISR. 2018. Rwanda Poverty Profile Report 2016/17-Results of Integrated Household Living Conditions 
Survey (EICV5). 
NISR. 2018. Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme (VUP) - Baseline Survey.
REB/MINEDUC. 2015. Competence-Based Curriculum: Summary of Curriculum Framework Pre-primary to 
Upper Secondary 2015. 
Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20. Key Indicators Report. National 
Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF. 2020.
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2018. Education Sector Strategic Plan, 2018/19-2023/24.
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2016 Education Statistical Yearbook.
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2014. National School Health Policy, Kigali 2014. 
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. 2008. Girls’ Education Policy, April 2008.
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion. 2010. National Gender Policy, July 2010.
Republic of Rwanda. 2018. National Cooperative Policy in Rwanda Toward Private Cooperative Enterprises 
and Business Entities for Socio-Economic Transformation. Revised version [1]. Kigali, January 15, 2018.
Republic of Rwanda. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. 2015. Vision 2050. 
Republic of Rwanda. 2019. Rwanda Voluntary National Review Report. Sachs, J., et al. 2018. SDG Index and 
Dashboards Report 2018.
SDG Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 2018.
The State of Gender Equality in Rwanda from Transition to Transformation. Gender Monitoring Office, 
Republic of Rwanda. March 2019.
UN Rwanda. 2018. UNDAP 2018-2023 for Rwanda. Signed 31 July 2018.
UNDP. 2020. Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier Human Development and the 
Anthropocene. 
UNHCR. 2018. Burundi situation. October 2018.
UNHCR. 2020. DRC situation. October 2020.
Date | Report Number 
154
United Nations Rwanda. 2017. Rwanda Common Country Analysis. Final report.
United Nations Rwanda. 2018. UNDAP 2018-2023 for Rwanda. Signed 31 July 2018.
United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. NDa. Foreign Agricultural Service 
Strategic Plan (2019-2022). 
United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. NDb. FY 2019 Food Assistance 
Proposal Guidance and Request for Applications.
USAID. 2018. Rwanda: Nutrition Profile.
USAID. History of USAID Rwanda. Accessed at https://www.usaid.gov/history-usaidrwanda.
USDA McGovern-Dole Grant FFE-696-2015/007-00.
WFP. 2017a. WFP Strategic Plan (2017-2021).
WFP. Operation Evaluation: Rwanda, Common Country Programme, 200539, Midterm Evaluation (2013-
2016)
WFP Rwanda. 2015. FY 2015 McGovern-Dole proposal.
WFP Rwanda. 2020. School Feeding Newsletter. April-September 2020.
WFP VAM. 2016. Rwanda 2015: CFSVA (Data collected in April-May 2015).
WFP. 2014. Purchase for Progress - P4P Rwanda.
WFP. 2015. WFP Rwanda FY 2015 McGovern-Dole proposal.
WFP. 2016. Country Programme – Rwanda (2013-2018). SPR 2016.
WFP. 2017. Country Programme - Rwanda - (2013-2018) SPR 2017.
WFP. 2017d. WFP Rwanda Country Brief. November 2017.
WFP. 2018. Draft Country Strategic Plan (2019-2023). 
WFP. 2018. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018).
WFP. 2018. Rwanda: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) 2018 (Data collected 
in March-April 2018).
WFP. 2018. Rwanda: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA).
WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019).
WFP. 2019. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019).
WFP. 2019. Rwanda Annual Country Report.
WFP. 2020. Evaluation of USDA’s Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Programme (Rwanda 2017-19). 
Endline. 
WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (April 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020).
Date | Report Number 
155
WFP. 2020. MGD Semi-Annual Report (October 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020).
World Bank Group. 2021. Rwanda Overview. 
World Bank. Rwanda Economic Update. Protect and Promote Human Capital in a Post-COVID-19 World. 
Edition No. 16, January 2021. 
World Food Programme. 2019. Rwanda Annual Country Report 2020. Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023. 
World Vision. 2016. Rwanda Annual Report 2016. 
Date | Report Number 
156
Acronyms
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Association
ARI Acute Respiratory Infection
CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
CHAI Clinton Health Access Initiative
CP4P Common P4P
CRRF Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework
CU5 Children under five years of age
CVA Citizen Voice and Action
DEO District Education Officer
DEQAS Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
ESWG Education Sector Working Group
ET Evaluation Team
FY Fiscal Year
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEWE Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
GHI Gardens for Health International
GII Gender Inequality Index
HGSF Home Grown School Feeding
HQ Headquarters
IHW Integrated Health Week
IR Inception report
LEGRA Local Early Grade Reading Assessment
LRP Local Regional Procurement Project
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
MINALOC Ministry of Local Affairs
MINEDUC Ministry of Education
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MTE Midterm evaluation
NST National Strategy for Transformation
NSFP National School Feeding Programme
OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Development 
Assistance Committee 
OEV (WFP) Office of Evaluation
P4P Purchase for Progress
PPS Probability-proportional-to-size
RBC Rwanda Biomedical Centre
REB Rwanda Education Board
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SGAC School General Assembly Committee
SMC School Management Committee
SO Strategic Objective
THR Take-home ration
TOR Terms of Reference
TWG Technical Working Group
UNDAP United Nations Development Assistance Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Date | Report Number 
157
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WCPM Words correct per minute
WFP World Food Programme
Date | Report Number 
158
World Food Programme Rwanda
http://www1.wfp.org/countries/rwanda
[Place, Month
b6/download/
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/cdcbe4be57914c65b0dbcbd201196a
and Year, Report number]