1 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (FFECN) Programme in Nepal FY20, Nepal (2020-2024) Decentralized McGovern-Dole Baseline Evaluation DraftReport WFP EVALUATION [WFP Nepal Country Office] Agreement Number: [FFE-367-2020-012-00] Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2020 Project Duration: [2020-2024] March, 2022 2 Key personnel for the evaluation [WFP Nepal] Evaluation Manager Stuti Amatya PREPARED BY: Udbodh Rijal, Team Leader Deependra Kaji Thapa, SHN Expert Subas Risal, Gender and Qualitative Expert Dinesh Thapa, Literacy and EGRA Expert Niranjan Dhungel, Evaluation Manager 3 Acknowledgments New ERA wishes to express its sincere and heart-felt thanks and appreciation to the World Food Programme (WFP), Nepal for entrusting us with the responsibility to undertake the “Baseline Study for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Supported McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme in Nepal 2020-2024”. Our deep appreciation goes to WFP Monitoring Evaluation Review and Knowledge Management (MREKM) and the programme team. Their technical inputs and guidance were invaluable throughout this study. Thanks go particularly to Ms. Kanta Khanal, Ms. Sangita Bista, and Ms. Stuti Amatya from the WFP for their continued support throughout the whole process of the study. Furthermore, the study team would also like to thank Education Review Office (ERO) for providing feedback on the tools and providing the national Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) tool, Nepali language classroom observation tool for early grades, and other invaluable suggestions and supports. We would also like to extend our thanks to the partner organizations (Mercy Corps, Integrated Development Society, and World Education) for taking the time to review the tools and contributing to the training of the field researchers. Last but not the least, our warmest and most respectful thanks go to respondents from the school (Head Teachers, Nepali language Teachers in Early Grade Reading (EGR), School Health and Nutrition (SHN) Focal Teachers, Cooks, School Management Committees (SMCs), Students and Parents), the members from the farmer groups, storekeepers, Center for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD), Food for Education Programme (FFEP), Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST), District Education Coordination Units (EDCUs) of the six programme districts, Municipality Officials, Ministry of Social Development (MoSD) at Dhangadhi and Surkhet, WFP sub-offices at Dipayal-Silghadhi and Surkhet, and partner organizations for providing their valuable time for interviews and sharing their experiences with the survey team. We believe that the study report would help provide important information about the programme to all concerned. i 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 the US Department of Agriculture (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 concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory, or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. i Table of Contents Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................i List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................iv 1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 EVALUATION FEATURES ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Subject of the Baseline, Theory of Change, and Baseline Questions .....................................................6 2.1 SUBJECT OF THE BASELINE, THEORY OF CHANGE, ACTIVITIES, AND INTENDED OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIO N AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ....................................................................12 3. Evaluation Approach and Methodology for Baseline Data Collection.................................................13 3.1 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................13 3.2 BASELINE DATA COLLECTIO N METHODS AND TOOLS ....................................................................14 3.3 LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................16 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE BASELINE DATA COLLECTIO N.........................................................17 3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIO NS ................................................................................................................18 4. Baseline Findings and Discussions ...............................................................................................................19 5. Conclusions and Lessons ................................................................................................................................56 ANNEXES Annex 1: Summary Terms of Reference ...............................................................................................................61 Annex 2: Baseline Timeline......................................................................................................................................64 Annex 3: FY20 Programme Districts ......................................................................................................................65 Annex 4: Project Indicators .....................................................................................................................................66 Annex 5: Theory of Change ......................................................................................................................................74 Annex 6: Evaluation Criteria and Questions for Midterm and End-line Evaluation...................................75 Annex 7: Evaluation Matrix for Baseline ..............................................................................................................79 Annex 8: Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)....................................................................................................81 Annex 9: Data Collections Tools .............................................................................................................................92 A: Quantitative Tools ..............................................................................................92 B: Qualitative Tools ..............................................................................................192 Annex 10: Methodology ..........................................................................................................................................229 Annex 11: Tables of Baseline Findings on Performance Indicators .............................................................231 Annex 12: Baseline Value and Annual Targets..................................................................................................265 Annex 13: Detailed Stakeholders Analysis .........................................................................................................267 Annex 14: Conflict of Interest forms ...................................................................................................................271 Annex 15: List of People Intervie wed..................................................................................................................277 Annex 16: Bibliography...........................................................................................................................................279 Annex 17: Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................282 ii List of Figures Figure 4.1: Students receiving school meals on all school days..................................................................... 20 Figure 4.2 (a): Average attendance rate ................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 4.2 (b): Attendance rate based on headcount ........................................................................................... 22 Figure 4.3: Average retention rate..................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4.4: Percentage of school-age children meeting minimum diet diversity......................................... 24 Figure 4.5: Awareness on benefits of school meal program among parents .............................................. 26 Figure 4.6: Percentage of schools having an improved toilet ........................................................................ 29 Figure 4.7: Percentage of adolescent girls receiving weekly Iron Folic Acid Supplementation.................. 31 Figure 4.8: Percentage of schools with provision of sanitary pads................................................................ 32 Figure 4.9: Percentage of schools with IEC/BCC package ............................................................................... 33 Figure 4.10: Percentage of schools conducting annual health screening....................................................... 34 Figure 4.11: Percentage of school children demonstrating child health and nutrition practices ................ 35 Figure 4.12: Percentage of schools practicing segregated waste management ........................................... 36 Figure 4.13: Percentage of absent students due to illness ............................................................................... 37 Figure 4.14: Percentage of adolescent girls practicing hygienic menstrual behaviour ................................. 38 Figure 4.15: Percentage of children reporting handwashing at critical times................................................ 39 Figure 4.16: Percentage of students reporting hand washing practice at critical moments ....................... 40 Figure 4.17: Scores on listening comprehension ............................................................................................... 42 Figure 4.18: Scores on letter decoding................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 4.19: Scores on oral reading fluency........................................................................................................ 43 Figure 4.20: Scores on reading comprehension................................................................................................. 44 Figure 4.21: Distribution of the scores of the students in reading comprehension...................................... 44 Figure 4.22: Relationship between fluency and comprehension by gender and mother tongue ............... 45 Figure 4.23: Percentage of Nepali teachers using new and quality teaching ................................................. 46 Figure 4.24: Percentage of Head Teachers demonstrating the use of new techniques or tools................. 47 Figure 4.25: Percentage of farmers practicing improved agricultural practice.............................................. 48 Figure 4.26: OPI related results in radar chart................................................................................................... 49 iii List of Tables Table 1.1: Period of school closure due to COVID pandemic ..............................................................................1 Table 1.2: Comparison of Karnali and Sudhur Paschim province with national level......................................3 Table 2.1: Annual Beneficiary Figures.....................................................................................................................7 Table 2.3: Resources allocated by activities...........................................................................................................8 Table 2.3: Commodity Purchase Breakdown by Commodity and Origin.........................................................10 Table 2.4: Evaluation Questions for the Baseline Survey...................................................................................12 Table 3.1: Qualitative Data Collection Method, Levels and Type of Study Participants .................................15 Table 4.1: Percentage of parents and school-going children aware of the benefits of SMP.........................24 Table 4.2: Percentage of school cooks demonstrating safe food preparation and storage practices .........26 Table 4.3: Percentage of schools using an improved drinking water source..................................................27 Table 4.4: Percentage of School Children Receiving Deworming Medication(s) at School ............................29 Table 4.5: Percentage of schools having toilet with sanitary pads disposal bin..............................................31 Table 4.6: Percentage of schools celebrating national sanitation-related campaign at the community level.........................................................................................................................................................33 Table 4.7: Percentage of schools conducting annual health screening, by different categories ..................34 Table 4.8: Percentage of school-age children with good personal hygiene.....................................................37 Table 4.9: Scores of the grade three students on individual six subtasks of EGRA ........................................40 Table 4.10: Fluency Category of Students..............................................................................................................42 Table 4.11: Relation between Fluency and Comprehension................................................................................44 Table 4.12: Scoring process in the calculation of OPI...........................................................................................49 iv Executive Summary Overview of the Study 1. This report presents findings from a Baseline Survey (BLS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (FFECN) Programme in Nepal (FY20). The McGovern-Dole FY20 is managed by the World Food Programme (WFP) in close coordination with the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST), Government of Nepal (GoN). The BLS was carried out by an independent research firm (New ERA) and was undertaken between August 2021 and March 2022. This baseline is the first phase of the series and will be followed by a midterm (MT) evaluation in 2023, and an end-line (EL) evaluation in 2024. 2. WFP is implementing the McGovern-Dole FFECN Programme in six districts (Jajarkot, Achham, Doti, Bajura, Bajhang, and Darchula) of Karnali and Sudurpashchim provinces from 2020 to 2024. The programme has six major activities - (a) Food Distribution; (b) Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage; (c) Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions; (d) Promote Improved Literacy; (e) Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals; and (f) Capacity Building - Supporting Transition through Local and Provincial Capacitation. 3. The objectives of the overall evaluation series are both accountability and learning. The purpose of the BLS is to establish the baseline data for standard and custom outcome indicators in line with the approved Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), and provide a situational analysis before the project begins, and the context necessary for the midterm and end-line evaluations to assess coherence, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the project. 4. The expected user of this report includes the WFP country office, regional bureau, government, implementing partners, development partners working in the area of education, and USDA. 5. Besides, a special study (delivered separately and not included in this report) was nested in this BLS to explore the factors contributing to the literacy performance of school-age children besides school meals and standard academic curriculum. Methodology 6. A non-experimental cross-sectional design covering the programme areas was used for the BLS. This will enable the assessment of the temporal changes throughout midterm and end-line evaluations. A mixed￾method approach with both quantitative and qualitative components including review of records, on-site observation, and Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) of grade three students were employed for the data collection. 7. Altogether 330 public schools out of 2415 schools covered by the programme were sampled from the six districts. Head teachers (n = 330); Nepali teachers teaching Nepali in grade three (n = 136, only in Bajhang, Bajura and Darchula); School health and nutrition (SHN) teachers (n = 212, only in Achham, Bajhang, Bajura and Darchula); students (n = 2087 from grades 4-8 and n = 3979 for EGRA); parents (n = 1849); and school cooks (n = 78) were the key respondents from the school. Similarly, farmer groups/cooperatives (n = 18, three per district); farmers (n = 52); and storekeepers (n = 12; two per district) managing the distribution of food under the WFP implemented school meal programme (SMP) were other respondents. Besides, 39 key informant interviews (KIIs) with a range of stakeholders at the federal, provincial, district, and local level and with the school management committees; 24 focus group discussions (FGDs) with adolescent girls and parents/communities; and organization performance index (OPI) workshops at the municipalities (two per district) comprised other sources of information. 8. The analysis was geared towards establishing the baseline values of twenty-nine performance indicators. Additionally, evaluation questions and sub-questions were developed to explore the coherence, relevance, and sustainability aspects of the programme. The initial findings on these three aspects from the baseline will be further elaborated and deepened during the MT and EL. The other three aspects of the evaluation, namely effectiveness, efficiency, and impact will be assessed during the MT and EL. 9. The study faced a few challenges. Unavailability of school records on school meal distribution and SHN related aspects was a key limitation. Unavailability of some target populations such as school cooks at the v time of the survey was another challenge. The survey was conducted at time which was somewhat atypical in that the schools were closed for an extended period of time due to COVID-19 until a few months prior to the survey. This might have some bearing on the literacy performance of the grade three as assessed by the study team. Besides, many schools were found to be closed during the time of the survey due to local festivals, and some students were still absent when the schools reopened and headcount of the students could be conducted. Summary of Key Findings Activity 1-Food Distribution 10. SBCC Custom 7: On average, 78 percent of the students received school meals on all school days during the reference period of a month, i.e., September 20211. The result was based on only 90 continuing schools which maintained necessary records for the reference period. 11. Standard 2: Students attended school on 61 percent on average of the school days during the reference period. The average attendance rate was higher in USDA-supported continuing schools and schools with all three interventions (SMP+ EGR+ SHN). 12. Custom 1: The proportion of schools retaining students was found to be satisfactory (92%) with minor variation across categories of districts, programme, school level, and gender and mother tongue of students. 13. Custom 11: The mean dietary diversity score for children, as reported by their parents, was 4.8, indicating a child on average consumed food items from 5 food groups. Almost 93 percent of children met the Minimum Diet Diversity (MDD) requirement. 14. Custom 12: Around 16 percent of the parents having school-going children were aware of the benefits. Among the listed benefits, the majority of the parents identified ‘motivates children to go to school’ (68%), and ‘motivates to stay longer at school’ (53%) as the major benefits of the SMP. 15. Custom 14: Only 13 percent of students could enlist at least 5 benefits of the SMP. Among the benefits, ‘motivates to go to school’ (51%), and ‘motivates to stay longer at school’ (43%) were listed more often. Activity 2- Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage 16. Standard 20: Around one-third (30%) of school cook demonstrated safe food preparation and storage practice (highest in Darchula 44% and lowest in Jajarkot 22%). Activity 3- Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions 17. Standard 27: The observation of the school environment showed that 93 percent of the schools were using an improved source of drinking water. Most of the schools had their main source of drinking water as piped water, while five percent of schools reported students to bring water from home, and two percent did not have any reliable source of drinking water. 18. Standard 28: Most (94%) schools had an improved sanitation facility. The majority of the schools (81%) had flush latrine (to a septic tank or a closed pit), while nine percent had flush latrine to the piped sewer system. Five (2.4%) schools did not have any sanitation facility. 19. Standard 29: The survey with students showed that 82 percent of school students received deworming tablets at least once at the school, while 53 percent received it twice during the last academic year. 20. Custom 4: Only nine percent of adolescent girls reported receiving full dose (i.e., 26 tablets in a year) of iron tablets as recommended by the government of Nepal while more than two-thirds (68%) received at least one tablet at school during the last academic year. 21. Custom 5: About 83 percent of the basic and secondary schools had the availability of sanitary pads for girls. Provision of sanitary pads was highest in schools from Achham district (97%) and lowest in Bajhang district (59%). 1 Bhadra 16 to Ashoj 14 2078 B.S. (Bikram Sambat) according to Nepali calendar vi 22. Custom 6: About 45 percent of the basic and secondary schools had a toilet with containers/bins for storing/disposing of the used sanitary pads. Provision of containers/bins was low in the WFP programme continuing schools (31%), compared to the new schools (51%). Similarly, a higher proportion of secondary schools had such bins (50%), compared to the basic schools (37%). 23. SBCC Custom 5: Only 14 percent of schools had at least one set of Information Education and Communication (IEC) and Behavior Change Communication (BCC) packages at school. Bajura had the highest proportion (35%) of schools with EC and BCC packages while Darchula had the lowest (6%). 24. SBCC Custom 6: About 41 percent of schools were celebrating national sanitation-related campaigns at the community level, with the proportion highest in Achham (57%) and lowest in Bajhang (22%). Secondary level schools were more actively implementing such campaigns (60%), compared to primary 2 (30%) and basic (40%) schools. 25. Custom 3: Only nine percent of the schools conducted annual health screening including all five components. More than one-third (38%) of schools had conducted at least one health screening for measuring weight during the last academic year, while one-fourth (25%) had conducted height measurement, and 22 percent conducted vision screening. A relatively fewer proportion of schools conducted other annual health screenings such as hearing tests (12%) and dental check-ups (12%). 26. Standard 19: About half (49%) of the school students demonstrated appropriate child health and nutrition practices. Such practices were more often observed among students in Darchula (55%), and less often in Bajura (37%). Students from basic (up to grade 8) school and female children demonstrated better practices. 27. Custom 8: Around 32 percent of schools were having segregated waste management practices according to the nature of waste. 28. SBCC Custom 1: Around 19 percent of the parents reported that their children had missed at least one school day in the past month due to health-related reasons. Among the children who were absent for health-related reasons (n = 345), the mean number of school days missed was 3.6 per month. 29. SBCC Custom 2: Around 33% of students were observed having good personal hygiene, with the proportion of students maintaining good personal hygiene highest in Darchula (53%), and lowest in Achham (20%). Students from the WFP project continuing schools showed better personal hygiene (37%) compared to students from new schools (30%). 30. SBCC Custom 3: Around 79 percent of adolescent girls reported practicing hygienic menstrual behavior. A higher proportion of adolescent girls from new schools (81%) compared to old (WFP programme continuing) schools (75%) practiced hygienic menstrual behavior. 31. SBCC Custom 4: Only nine percent of the students reported handwashing at five or more critical moments. A higher proportion of females (13%) reported handwashing at critical moments compared to male (6%) students. Activity 4- Promoting Improved Literacy 32. Standard 1: Grade 3 students performed far below the expected target of literacy outcomes with only one percent of the sample of 3,979 students demonstrating that they could read as per the national benchmark of CWPM ≥ 45 in the fluency, and 80 percent or above in the comprehension (4 or more correct answers out of 5). Only a minimal difference was found in the scores across EGRA subtasks, with a marginal gain for students from EGR schools and students with mother tongue Nepali. 33. Standard 4: Only 18 percent of Nepali subject teachers demonstrated the application of new pedagogical techniques and tools to teach early grade literacy. However, a higher proportion of teachers from WFP/USDA continuing schools (25%) were applying such techniques and tools as compared to 9 percent of teachers in new schools. 2 Primary schools are those where highest grade run is grade 5; basic schools are those that run up to grade 8; and secondary schools are those that run grade 9 or above. vii 34. Standard 6: Overall, 35 percent of the head teachers demonstrated using the new techniques or tools. Comparatively schools from the three districts where all three programmes (SMP+SHN+EGR) are being implemented demonstrated better results compared to other districts. 35. Custom 9: Five out of the twelve municipalities had a practice of recognizing and rewarding teachers. Four municipalities from Achham and Bajura did not have such a practice. 36. Custom 13: Only four out of twelve municipalities had developed or contextualized instructional materials. Four municipalities from Doti and Bajura did not have such a practice. viii Activity 5 - Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals 37. LRP 12: Around 29 percent of farmers were adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies (adopting at least 7 out of 10 practices). A higher proportion of farmers were practicing local cultural practices such as mulching, line sowing, weeding, etc. (65%), soil conservation and fertilizer management (62%), and improved seed varieties (60%). 38. FFPr 12: For all the relevant OPI indicators, the responses from the local government units considered were either ‘extremely low performance’ or ‘low performance’. From the responses, the total average was computed as 1.7 or 2 (round figure). The majority of the responses were ‘low performing’ which is scored as 2. Findings on Evaluation Questions 39. a. Relevance: The USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 is quite relevant as it clearly aligns with beneficiaries’ and stakeholders’ needs. The programme is innovative in its whole cycle approach to health and education that mainly encompasses improvements in children’s attendance in public schools. Key beneficiaries of the project include girls and the socially disadvantaged. The programme appears to benefit particularly those living in remote areas of the two provinces considered for the baseline study. One of the findings however indicates the need of introducing an effective mechanism for monitoring the midday meal. The WFP to strengthen the overall relevance and to produce effective results can work jointly with the local government units. 40. b. Coherence: The programme is largely guided by clear intention to contribute towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 which is ‘ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all’. Attainment of quality education sets the stage for the achievements of other SDGs including SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation). 41. The programme appears to align with the Nepal government’s commitments towards improving children’s enrolment in public schools, and reduction in repetition and dropout rates. There are several education￾related plans, policies, and programmes that the country has implemented or is currently implementing mainly including Education for All (EFA), School Sector Reform Programme (SSRP), and School Sector Development Plan (SSDP). It is crucial to mention the Education Sector Plan (ESP, 2021-2030) in terms of coherence. The plan accommodates the mid-day meals programme as one of the key components. Likewise, the government has prioritized School Health and Nutrition (SHN) program in light of the significant role that the programme has been playing towards promoting children’s enrolment. 42. It is however important to consider the challenges in the implementation of the plans and policies. Some of the challenges include i) lack of effective coordination among the three tiers of the government; ii) lack of capacity among the officials particularly at the local government units, and iii) lack of clarity of roles among all tiers of government. This has an overall bearing on the implementation of the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20. 43. c. Sustainability: Nepal's government is highly invested in a national school meals programme as evidenced by various documents like Education Sector Plan and budget allocation. WFP has well-planned transition strategy where two districts will be transitioned annually to a government-led cash-based school meals programme. The FY20 cycle has incorporated the learnings from the previous cycle to ensure a smooth transition of the handover districts. Preparatory action for handover, continued support post-handover, plan to capacitate local government is some of the key strategies in the FY20 cycle to sustain the benefits generated by the project. Lessons Learned and Conclusion 44. This study has provided the baseline value of the standard and custom outcome indicators as stipulated in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and formed the basis for monitoring and evaluating the change in these indicators during the midterm and end-line study. The BLS revealed the need of improving the awareness of SMP among parents and students. Cleanliness of school kitchen, proper ventilation, and installation of improved cooking stove need to be ensured across the schools. Schools in all districts need support in installing handwashing stations ensuring availability of water and soap, construction of gender￾separate toilet facilities, waste management, and menstrual hygiene management facilities. Adequate availability and use of health, nutrition, and WASH-related IEC and BCC packages should be ensured in all ix schools. School health programme needs to be strengthened, ensuring the adequate provision of deworming tablets to school students, iron and folic acid supplementation to adolescent girls, and annual health screening. Local farmers should be provided adequate knowledge, skills, and resources for adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies. The BLS results reinforce the importance of McGovern-Dole FFECN Programme interventions to improve the health, hygiene, and nutrition practice of school students, thereby promoting school attendance and reducing dropout. It is expected that the BLS has provided a guideline for designing and implementing the activities of the McGovern-Dole FFECN Programme in Nepal. 45. The literacy outcomes of the students as assessed through EGRA are not satisfactory. The findings also corroborate the low use of new and quality teaching techniques and tools by Nepali language teachers and the low use of new techniques or tools by the head teachers. Considering the vital and cross-curricular importance of reading skills, any reforms targeted at improving the literacy outcomes and their associated factors should incorporate a programmatic reform in the input and infrastructures that apply for the students both inside and outside the classroom. Municipalities should prioritize recognizing and rewarding teachers based on performance. 46. Lessons learned from data limitations due to lack of school records (such as number of students receiving school meals on all schooldays, health-related absenteeism, number of students receiving deworming medications, adolescent girls receiving iron-folic supplementation, and also attendance and enrollment records in a few cases) need to be accorded a priority, and the school administrators should be encouraged and trained to keep necessary information systematically. Similarly, the unavailability of some target populations (such as school cooks) resulted in a small sample size for the analysis. The programme should reach out to the schools and explore ways to address such issues in the future. 1 1. Introduction 47. This report presents findings from a Baseline Survey (BLS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (FFECN) Programme in Nepal (FY20). The McGovern-Dole FY20 is managed by World Food Programme (WFP) in close coordination with the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST), Government of Nepal (GoN). This decentralized evaluation series was commissioned by WFP Nepal based on the Terms of Reference attached in Annex 1. 48. This BLS was carried out by an independent research firm (New ERA). The purpose of the BLS was to establish the current situation against which the midterm (MT) and end-line (EL) evaluations will measure progress towards the targets. 49. A special study has been nested in this BLS to explore the factors contributing to the literacy performance of school-age children besides school meals and standard academic curriculum and has made actionable recommendations that could be tracked during the midterm and the end line evaluation. However, there is a separate deliverable for the special report, and therefore has not been included in this report. 1.1 EVALUATION FEATURES 50. The BLS is the first of a series of the three linked evaluations3 for McGovern-Dole FY20 and will be followed by the midterm evaluation in 2023 and the end-line evaluation in 2024. The BLS and the special study were originally scheduled for mid-2021 but were delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic-related school closures. The schools opened in September 2021 and closed again in October 2021 for the national festival. The BLS was thus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022 (data was collected in November and December 2021). The table below shows the period of school closure in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19. Annex 2 presents the detailed timeline followed throughout the BLS. Table 1.1: Period of school closure due to COVID pandemic Academic Year School Closed Period School Closed Days 2077 B.S. (April 2020 to April 2021) 23rd March 2020 to 20th November 2020 210 2078 B.S. (April 2021 to April 2022) 16th May 2021 to 1st September 2021 7th October 2021 to 11th November 15th January to 12th February 148 51. The McGovern-Dole FY20 programme covering the period of November 2020 to October 2024 is the fourth consecutive cycle following FY12-14, FY14-16, and FY18-21. The McGovern-Dole FY20 covers six districts - one (Jajarkot) from Karnali Province and five (Doti, Bajhang, Darchula, Achham, and Bajura) from Sudurpashchim Province (see map Annex 3). This round of programme focuses on the preparation for handover to the government, by increasing the emphasis on local production and procurement. Unlike FY17, the FY20 covers all schools from six districts. Therefore, 54 percent of the schools in total (57% in the sample) are continued from FY17 while about 46 percent of schools (43% in the sample) are new in FY20. The programme aims to achieve three strategic outcomes - a) Improve literacy of school-aged children (McGovern-Dole SO1), b) Increased use of health and dietary practices (McGovern-Dole SO2), and c) Improved effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional procurement (LRP SO1). WFP aims to achieve these three strategic outcomes in collaboration with MoEST Food for Education Project (FFEP) and partnership with sub-recipient World Education (WE), Mercy Corps (MC), and Integrated Development Society (IDS). Beginning with a caseload of 241,621 students in 2,297 schools ranging from pre-primary (Early Childhood Development) to grade 5 in all six districts, WFP will provide mid-day meals consisting of various commodities, for 180 days per year, six days per week. 52. The evaluation series has two mutually reinforcing objectives: 53. Accountability: The evaluation series will assess and report on the performance and results of the McGovern-Dole FY20 by assessing whether targeted beneficiaries have received expected services and 3 The evaluation series for FY20 cycle consists of a baseline (2020-2021), midterm (planned for 2023) and end line evaluation (planned for 2024). 2 whether programmes have met their stated goals and objectives aligned with the results framework (RF) and assumptions. 54. Learning: The evaluation series will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not, draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. They will provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. 55. The BLS had the following objectives - 56. Establish baseline data for standard and custom outcome indicators in line with the approved Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). 57. Provide a situational analysis before the project begins, and the context necessary for the midterm and end￾line evaluations to assess the project’s coherence, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. The BLS explored the coherence, relevance, and sustainability aspects of the programme, and these initial findings will be elaborated on and deepened during the MT and EL. 58. Special Study: The special study that has been nested in the BLS will be repeated in midterm, and end-line evaluation. At baseline, the objective was to explore the factors contributing to the literacy achievement of school-age children besides school meals and standard academic curriculum. 59. The evaluation team consulted with several external and internal stakeholders who have an interest in the results of the BLS. As such the expected users of the baseline findings are WFP CO, the host government, direct implementing partners (Mercy Corps, Integrated Development Society Nepal, and World Education), local NGOs, intermediaries of the McGovern-Dole FY20 (schools, local farmers groups/cooperatives, women’s groups, and local communities), UN agencies, development partners, I/NGOs working in the education sector, USDA, WFP Regional Bureau of Bangkok, headquarter, and Office of Evaluation. The WFP CO and its implementing partner will use the baseline findings to establish a baseline benchmark for indicators and revisit the target if necessary. 60. The research firm, New Era, was contracted for the baseline survey of the evaluation series. The evaluation team was briefed about the McGovern-Dole programme and the decentralized evaluation approach. 61. Accountability to the affected population is a crucial aspect of WFP’s commitment to include beneficiaries as key stakeholders in their work. The BLS has ensured Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE) in the evaluation process through the participation and consultation of women and men, boys and girls of different ages, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. The BLS (methodology, criteria, questions, and the analytical framework) has taken into consideration the UNEG gender equality and human rights principles4. The work also adheres to the Humanitarian Principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. 62. A team including a Team Leader, an Evaluation Manager, a Literacy Expert, an SHN Expert, a Qualitative/GEDSI Expert, a CAPI Programmer, a Research Assistant, and a team of more than a hundred field staff were involved in this survey. The work began in August 2021; training to the field staff was provided from the fourth week of October to the second week of November, field work was conducted from the third week of November to the third week of December, and data cleaning, analysis, and the preparation of the draft report were done until the second week of January 2022. 1.2 CONTEXT 63. Despite years of several initiatives undertaken by the GoN and development partners to reduce poverty and promote economic growth, Nepal remains one of the world’s poorest countries ranking 142 out of 189 countries on the 20195 Human Development Index (HDI). According to the multidimensional poverty index published by the GoN in 20186, 28.6 percent of the population lived in multi-dimensional poverty 7. The most striking figure is that 95 percent of them are rural and thus the key physical location of intervention by WFP 4 UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports 5 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report, 2020 6 The Government of Nepal’s multidimensional poverty index study was an internationally comparable measure of acute poverty, created by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative with the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report Office (UNDP HDRO). The study uses DHS and MICS data. 7 NPC 2018. Nepal Multidimensional Poverty Index. https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/Nepal_MPI.pdf 3 in this programme. The selected two provinces for the FY20 cycle are the westernmost province of Nepal while Karnali province is the largest, poorest, and least densely populated province8. Large geographical disparities are evident across the province in poverty incidence, with Karnali and Sudurpashchim Province being poorer than the rest of the country 9. The table below highlights the comparative diversity of the two provinces in comparison with the national level. Table 1.2: Comparison of Karnali and Sudhur Paschim province with national level SN Description National Karnali Province Sudur Paschim Province 1 Total Population 29192480 1694889 2711270 2 Geographical area 147181 sq.km 27,984 sq.km 15,539 sq.km 3 HDI 0.602 0.538 0.547 4 Life expectancy 70.2 67.03 66.93 5 GDP 333671.90 NPR million 4831.38 NPR million 8788.21 NPR million 6 Literacy Rate 67.91% 62.7% 63.48% 64. As provisioned in the Constitution of Nepal promulgated in 2015, the country has transformed into a federal democratic republic with seven provinces and 753 local level governments that include 460 rural municipalities. Under this system, the local level government has been provided with the authority for planning, financing, and delivery of basic education (a year of pre-primary, followed by Grades 1 through 8), secondary education (Grades 9 through 12), and non-formal education programmes. The federal structure in the governance system will bridge the gap between different layers of government, schools, and the community and allow for improved accountability, better-informed curriculum development, promotion of mother tongue-based instruction, and effective education service delivery. 65. WFP has started putting its efforts to build the capacity of the MoEST to better provide service delivery in the federal system. WFP is currently expanding its support to federal, provincial, and local governments (LGs) to mitigate the existing challenges to provide education during the transition to federalism and to increase their capacity to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. 66. Education: Quality education is the necessary foundation to further achieve other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as good health and well-being (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and decent work and economic growth (SDG 8). Nepal has committed to fulfilling the right to education of its people and made significant efforts towards ensuring access to educational services by all, including the poor and disadvantaged. National Education Policy 2019 aims to universalize pre-primary education by 2025, provide foundational literacy/numeracy for all by 2025, and improve the educational infrastructures of schools conducive for early childhood education, in cooperation and collaboration with government agencies, public, and organizations10. 67. Despite significant development in SDG 4 (ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all), some issues need attention. Access to quality education is inequitable and often depends on factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, geographical location, caste, and disability status11. Compared to national rates, there is a huge discrepancy in youth literacy rate by gender, province, and wealth quintile. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2019 has shown about 70% of the women aged 15-24 are literate versus 83% of their male counterparts at the national level. The youth literacy rate for females in Karnali and Sudurpashchim province is lower than the national average of 59% and is lowest among females in the poorest wealth index quintile (52%)12. Children from ethnic minorities, girls, Dalit, and Muslim children tend to have poorer learning outcomes13. UNICEF (2016) reports that Dalit communities have the lowest access to basic education amongst the different caste categories and have a 8 Census 2021, Center Bureau of Statistics, Nepal Government 9 Provincial Poverty in Nepal, https://doi.org/10.3126/pragya.v7il.35170 10 MoEST 2019. National Education Policy 11 UNICEF. Education Data. Nepal. https://www.unicef.org/nepal/education. 12 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2019, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal 13 Ministry of Education, WFP and Mastercard (2018) National School Meals Programme in Nepal Cost-Benefit Analysis; UNICEF Nepal (2019) Invest in Every Child. 4 stark decline in the transition from basic to secondary level education resulting in higher dropout14. A 2014, USAID-supported nationally representative Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) found that 34 percent of second graders and 19 percent of third-grade students could not read a single word of Nepali 15. Similarly, the BLS of McGovern-Dole FY17 revealed that 23 percent of the third graders could not read a single word of Nepali while 30 percent of them could not answer any of the questions correctly 16. Nepal’s linguistic, geographical, and socio-economic diversity also affects schools’ ability to provide quality education services for all students. The nationally representative EGRA also revealed that students who reported speaking Nepali at home performed better than students speaking another first language17. 68. Nutrition and Food Security: SDG 2 aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The Global Food Security Index score of Nepal is 53.718. Nepal has a score of 19.119 in the Global Hunger Index 20 and falls under the moderate category which has substantially come down from 36.8 in 2000. The food insecure population is more concentrated in rural areas21 and mountain and hilly zone compared to terai 22. Malnutrition rates are still high as stunting for children below age five is 31.5 percent, underweight is 24.3 percent, and wasting is 12 percent. Karnali Province has the highest proportion of stunted, wasted, and underweight children followed by Sudurpashchim province. 69. Agriculture/Smallholder Farmers: Target 2.3 of SDG 2 aims to double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, and family farmers by 2030. In Nepal, Smallholder Farmers (SHF) are spread throughout the vast countryside, often remote and hard to access. According to Food and Agriculture Organization, SHF accounts for roughly 70 percent of the food produced in Nepal. While smallholder farming is one of the main means of income for most working-age adults, there continues to be a need to provide support on establishing income-generating opportunities to most households, and ultimately SHF. According to a 2020 WFP market analysis, the seasonality of locally procurable pulses and legumes varies significantly, as well as the cost, given distances between communities and markets. 70. Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: SDG 6 seeks to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. The situation surrounding WaSH in Nepal, while steadily improving, remains an area with room for improvement23. School-level surveys that were done in 2018 and 2019, highlighted the unequal availability of WaSH facilities between the four districts targeted for WaSH interventions (Achham, Bajura, Bajhang, and Darchula). Access to menstrual hygiene and sanitary items is still limited. Sanitary pad disposal facilities within latrines were found in 14.4 percent (Achham), 12.7 percent (Bajura), 12.6 percent (Darchula), and 5.1 percent (Bajhang) of schools24. 71. Gender Analysis: With a Gender Inequality Index (GII) value of 0.452, Nepal ranks 110th out of 162 countries in gender inequality and discrimination still plague the country 25. The female HDI value for Nepal is 0.549, compared to 0.619 for males resulting in a Gender Development Index (GDI) value of 0.886. It suggests that the degree of gender disparity in human development in Nepal is not very high, with the female HDI value only 11.3% lower than that of males. Nepal’s GDI value reached 0.886 in 2019 from 0.75 in 1995, an increase 14 UNICEF 2016. Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children: Nepal Country Study 15 USAID’s Early Grade Reading Programme in Nepal, https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/fact-sheets/usaid-early-grade-reading￾program-egrp-nepal 16 USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme in Nepal, 2018-2021, baseline study report 17 https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country (accessed on 27th October 2021) 18 https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country (accessed on 27th October 2021) 19 https://www.globalhungerindex.org/nepal.html 20 GHI uses a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher hunger levels. 21 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Ministry of Health, Kathmandu, Nepal 22 SDGs and food insecurity in karnali: Results from food insecurity experience scale. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Central bureau of Statistics, World Food Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization, 2018. 23 School Sector Development Plan, FY2016/17-2022/23 (B.S. 2073-2080). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. March 2020. 2018 Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene School-level Survey carried out by the Government of Nepal, WFP and IDS in 10 selected districts in provinces 5,6, and 7 25 Human Development Report 2020, Briefing note for countries on the 2020 Human Development Report, Nepal, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/NPL.pdf 5 of 18 percent26. Thus, given the objectives of the McGovern-Dole FY20, gender disparities in outcomes, particularly related to health and education as inter-related indicators must be addressed. Doing so will help improve the nutritional status of school children and enhance educational outcomes. 72. Government Programmes and Policies: To address these interrelated challenges, the GoN has put in place a solid policy framework since 2015. Comprehensive, multi-sectoral policies including the agricultural development strategy 2015-2035, the national action plan for zero hunger 2016-2025, the multi-sector nutrition plan 2018-2022, and the School Sector Development Plan 2016-2023 have been established to ensure Nepal is no longer considered a Least-Developed Country (LDC) by 2022. The 2015 constitution enshrines the right to food, which is further reiterated in the 2018 Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act. The 2018 Free and Compulsory Basic Education Act states that “No child will be hungry” signaling that health and nutrition is an important issues within the education system. These two instruments provide the overarching policy framework for the National School Meals Programme (NSMP), which has gradually grown in reach and stability. 73. School Feeding Needs: As defined by the World Bank, “School Meals Programme (SMP) is targeted social safety net that provides both educational and health benefits to the most vulnerable children, thereby increasing enrolment rates, reducing absenteeism, and improving food security at the household level”27. The most direct and immediate benefits of SMP are enhanced enrolment and reduced absenteeism rates amongst children. Studies have reported that SMP is one of the few education interventions that show a positive impact on both school participation (enrolment, attendance, completion) and learning (scores on cognitive, language, and mathematics tests)28 addition to the food security and nutritional benefits, multiple analyses of the School Feeding approach have repeatedly shown that quality education, combined with a guaranteed package of health and nutrition interventions at school, such as school feeding, can contribute to child and adolescent development and build human capital 29. 74. WFP’s Cost-Benefit Analysis report (2018)30 highlights that the investment in school meals is profitable as a social safety net, benefiting individuals and communities. SMP also acts as safety nets by ensuring education for children and increasing their chances to earn higher income as adults. Further, school feeding protects local food security where it exists, and assists communities attain food security by promoting sustainable practices. The cost-benefit analysis30 further shows that for every 1 US$ invested in SMPs, an economic value return of up to US$ 5.2 is generated over the lifetime of a beneficiary in the country’s economy, predominantly attributed to improved education and increased productivity, additional income to impoverished households, and better health outcomes as a result of the SMP. 75. Programme Description: WFP has been present in Nepal since 1963 and has supported the Government of Nepal in various projects, ranging from short-term quick onset emergency responses, as well as longer-term development work. Currently, WFP implements its country strategic plan until the end of 2023, focusing on supporting the Government of Nepal as it institutionalizes its federal system. One of the main components of WFP’s support over the past decades has been on school feeding. The WFP has been supporting the GoN to implement the School Meals Programme through food transfers since 1974 to improve the education and nutritional outcomes of school age children. WFP through Activity 3 of the current country strategic plan aims to end malnutrition by reaching targeted populations in food-insecure areas with nutritionally sensitive, shock-responsive social services delivered through a strengthened National Social Protection Framework31. WFP is currently on its fourth cycle of McGovern-Dole funding in its mission to see through the final handover 26 Nepal Human Development Report 2020, National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal, https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/NHDR_2020.pdf 27 Bundy, Donald; Burbano, Carmen; Grosh, Margaret; Gelli, Aulo; Jukes, Matthew; Drake, Lesley. World Bank. 2009. Rethinking School Feeding Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2634 28 3IE (2016). The impact of education programmes on learning and school participation in low- and middle-income countries. Systematic Review Summary 7. https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/srs7-education￾report.pdf 29 Nutrition interventions and their educational and nutrition outcomes for pre-school and primary (up to grade 5) school￾age children in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 30 WFP.2018. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the School Meals Programmes in Nepal 31 Nepal CSP 2019-2023, Line of Sight 6 of districts to the Government-led national school meals program. Over the past three cycles, WFP has established itself as the Government’s partner of choice and has helped strengthen the Ministry of Education’s institutional capacity as it scales the national program. Building on the success of the McGovern￾Dole FY17, WFP has put together a comprehensive integrated package of services that will benefit an initial 246755 pre-primary and primary school children covering all schools in the six districts of two provinces, which will be delivered through a solid partnership with World Education, Integrated Development Society, and Mercy Corps. The education component to be implemented by World Education in McGovern-Dole FY20 provides literacy support in 939 schools of 27 municipalities in three selected districts. This programme will align with and complement U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) education efforts in Nepal. As a part of its holistic approach to supporting improvement in literacy and ensuring schools provide an enabling environment for learning, the programme also implements other complimentary activities related to literacy, health and nutrition, local and regional procurement, capacity building on homegrown school feeding (HGSF) approach, and others. 76. COVID-19 pandemic: The pandemic has adversely impacted the service sector, tourism, hospitality industry, revenue, remittances, and transportation. This will make it difficult for the country to make smooth and sustainable graduation from the LDC category 32. Daily wage laborers have been under the brunt of the pandemic due to job losses and disruption in the food supply chain. With the COVID-induced lockdowns and job losses, 16.8 percent of households had inadequate food consumption and 2.5 percent of households had poor dietary diversity in December 2020. The unique “income shock” which is an aftermath of the pandemic will worsen the household food insecurity issues. 77. The pandemic has undoubtedly had a severe impact on education systems and school feeding programmes worldwide including Nepal. In Nepal, schools were closed most of the time for two academic years which also affected the initiation of programme. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent school closure have significantly impacted students’ access to learning in Nepal, it also nudged the GoN to expand its cash-based SMP to all 77 districts in Nepal by 2024. Therefore, the programme must develop strategies to mitigate the loss and achieve the expected results which requires significant support, dedication from the communities and local governments to have the positive spillover effects of the holistic school meals program, and the benefits it has on socio-economic development. 2. Subject of the Baseline, Theory of Change, and Baseline Questions 2.1 SUBJECT OF THE BASELINE, THEORY OF CHANGE, ACTIVITIES, AND INTENDED OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES 78. The subject of the BLS is the USDA McGovern-Dole International FFECN programme FY20. The start date was 1st November 2020, with an end date of 30th September 2024. The programme is implemented in six selected districts of Karnali, and Sudurpashchim Province. The McGovern-Dole FY20 is a continuation of FY17 and covers all schools in the selected six districts of these two provinces. About 54 percent of the schools in FY20 are continued from FY17. 79. The programme aims to achieve three strategic outcomes i.e., McGovern-Dole SO1, McGovern-Dole SO2, and LRPSO1 through six inter-related interventions. The LRPSO1 is new in FY20. 32 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, Knowledge Platform: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/nepal 7 80. Beginning with a caseload of 241,621 students in 2,297 schools ranging from pre-primary (Early Childhood Development) to grade 5 in all six districts, WFP will provide a mid-day meal consisting of various commodities, on 180 days per year, six days per week. School choices, the number of feeding days per year, as well as universal coverage in each district are in line with government policy. Besides students, the GoN, the local community, schools, farmers groups/local cooperatives are the intermediaries of the programme. These six districts will be gradually transitioned to government owned NSMP according to the transition plan. Table 2.1 outlines the students and districts to be handed over annually. It is to be noted that the cash-based SMP has been scaled up by the GoN across the remaining 71 districts. Table 2.2 provides detailed information on the planned beneficiaries by activities. As seen in Table 2.2, Literacy and SHN activities are implemented in selected three and four districts respectively. SHN and literacy are both national programme that requires a minimum of three years to implement according to national guideline. As per the transition plan, WFP has the opportunity to implement programme for three years only in four districts. Literacy is not implemented in Achham as the government is implementing the programme. Table 2.2: Programme Coverage District Activity Schools Boys Girls Total Bajhang Food+HGSF+Literacy+SHN+LRP 448 22821 24712 47533 Darchula Food+HGSF+Literacy+SHN+LRP 344 12279 12585 24864 Bajura Food+HGSF+Literacy+SHN+LRP 247 13490 14857 28347 Achham Food+HGSF+SHN+LRP 475 26924 29065 55989 Doti Food+HGSF+LRP 443 23117 21563 44680 Jajarkot Food+HGSF+LRP 458 22270 23072 45342 Total 2415 120901 125854 246755 Source: Resource Allocation Plan FY 2078/207933 81. Based on the learnings of the FY17 cycle, the McGovern-Dole FY20 has a robust technical assistance strategy at all tiers of government to ensure sustainable, efficient, and effective programme are transitioned. In addition, the FY20 cycle has been inbuilt in its design to capacitate local government for their engagement from the beginning of the project implementation to enable smooth transition post-handover. WFP has incorporated a strong focus on capacity strengthening to ensure sustainability by targeting four McGovern￾Dole Foundational Results. 82. The BLS has assessed the current situation of the project indicators (PIs) detailed in Annex 4 and provides a situation analysis of the McGovern-Dole FY20. The indicators assessed are literacy status of school-age children; use of new and quality techniques and tools by school teachers and administrators; attendance and health-related absences of students; use of health and dietary practices among children; knowledge and practice related to WaSH including menstrual hygiene; awareness on the importance of SMP among parents and students; safe food preparation and storage practices; availability of school WaSH facilities; use of new techniques and tools by farmers groups and cooperatives and local and provincial capability for the transition of the in-kind based school meal modality into home-grown school feeding, among others. 83. The program budget is roughly USD 25 million out of which about five percent is budgeted for monitoring and evaluation activities. Table 2.3 provides a summary budget showing how resources are allocated by activity. 33 2022 AD Table 2.1: Annual Beneficiary Figures School Year/Fiscal Year Beneficiaries Handover Date Transition July – Districts December January - June July 2021 – June 2022 246,755 246,755 June 2022 Jajarkot Doti July 2022 – June 2023 156,733 156,733 June 2023 Darchula Bajhang July 2023 – June 2024 84,336 84,336 June 2024 Achham Bajura 8 Table 2.3: Resources allocated by activities Activity 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total USD Activity 1 In-kind Support Activity 2 228,439.00 197,328.00 41,078.00 15,556.00 482,401.00 Activity 3 158,296.34 480,032.67 353,790.15 48,911.04 1,041,030.20 Activity 4 327,392.77 410,267.82 455,070.24 155,179.15 1,347,909.98 Activity 5 526,185.00 668,877.00 667,928.00 330,026.00 2,193,016.00 Activity 6 85,583.00 186,417.00 130,583.00 82,250.00 484,833.00 Total CS 1,325,896.11 1,942,922.49 1,648,449.39 631,922.19 5,549,190.18 Local Regional Procurement 183,527.44 129,054.15 300,000.00 563,730.00 1,176,311.59 Grand Total 1,509,423.55 2,071,976.64 1,948,449.39 1,195,652.19 6,725,501.77 Results Frameworks and the Foundational Results of the Programme 84. The McGovern-Dole FY20 RF helps in understanding the activities designed and the expected results from implementing those activities. The outcomes in the RF are used to measure the achievements of the programme. The RF provides the detailed and systematic linkages of the overarching programme objectives and planned activities. All the results in the RF are captured through indicators (standard and custom). 85. The McGovern-Dole FY20 aims to achieve the McGovern-Dole SO1 and McGovern-Dole SO2 with similar higher-level outcome results and foundational results as in FY17. The key objective of the McGovern-Dole FY20 is to improve the literacy of school-age children through the two interrelated strategic outcomes (SOs). These two SOs are interrelated because the increased use of health and dietary practices leads to improved literacy of school children via improved school attendance, one of the SO1 Intermediate Results. Increased use of health and dietary practices improves student attendance (and therefore literacy) via reduced health￾related absences. Please refer to Annex 4 for the programme theory of change. 86. The only addition to the McGovern-Dole FY20 is Activity 5: Promote improved nutrition: sustainable transition to homegrown school meals contributing to improved effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional procurement (LRP SO1). The purpose of this component is to build the capacity of LGs and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably and ensure the menu is properly diversified for improved nutrition. 87. McGovern-Dole SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children is aimed to be achieved via three necessary and sufficient intermediate results (IRs): Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction (McGovern-Dole IR 1.1), Improved Attentiveness (McGovern-Dole IR 1.2); and Improved Student Attendance (McGovern-Dole IR 1.3). 88. WFP through World Education will support the development and institutionalizing of an effective mentoring and coaching system and include provision for teacher preparation and support to improve teacher attendance. These activities along with support to expand the large-scale use of the continuous assessment system for early grade reading pioneered during FY17 will lead to improved knowledge and skills among the teachers. World Education will supplement the government’s minimum package with existing and tested materials such as the Read-Learn-Know package, as well as support teachers and parents to develop their materials by creatively using local resources and promoting extra practice at home and community to improve access to school supplies. Supporting government to develop and strengthen national standards for EGR and improve literacy instructional material along with support to produce and distribute text and materials will lead to improved literacy instructional materials. Capacitating school administrators to focus on learning and effective management, and support to improve outcomes using self-assessment tools to identify areas where they want to improve their capacity will contribute to increasing the knowledge and skills of school administrators. 89. McGovern-Dole IR 1.2: Improved attentiveness and McGovern-Dole IR 1.3: Improved student attendance: The provision of healthy and nutritious school meals will improve students’ attendance and 9 attentiveness during class by reducing short-term hunger. WFP will do this by providing a mid-day meal, 180 days per year, six days per week. 90. McGovern-Dole SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices: This SO aims to improve the overall education environment by establishing complementary health and sanitation activities. WFP through Integrated Development Society (IDS) will produce and print Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) and behavior change communication packages endorsed by the GoN and distribute to each school to improve knowledge of nutrition, health, and hygiene practices (McGovern-Dole IR 2.1 & McGovern-Dole IR 2.3). The behavioral change effort will be reinforced by supporting schools to celebrate national campaigns like national sanitation week and promote child-to-child learning by mobilizing child clubs. Provision of integrated school health and nutrition package by providing support to coordinate government school health and nutrition programme will increase access to clean water and sanitation services (McGovern-Dole IR 2.4). WFP will provide district-level training on food safety, storage, handling, and preparation of school meals to all people involved in food selection, handling, storage, preparation, and serving to improve knowledge on safe food preparation and storage practices (McGovern-Dole IR 2.2). Strengthening school and LG support system on health and nutrition, to ensure that activities under school health and nutrition package like annual health screening, deworming campaign, Iron and Folic acid distribution to adolescent girls through the national program are implemented timely, will improve student’s access to preventive health interventions (McGovern-Dole IR 2.5). WFP will provide non-food items, to all new schools and replenish for current schools on a need basis to increase the access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment (McGovern-Dole IR 2.6). 91. LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through LRP: The LRP SO aims to build the capacity of LG and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably, and ensure the menu is properly diversified for improved nutrition. The capacity development of LG and school management committees to manage the procurement of locally purchased goods will improve the cost-effectiveness of food assistance (LRP 1.1). The ability to purchase locally will improve the timeliness of procurement and thus the timeliness of food assistance (LRP 1.2). Additional capacity development on forwarding contracting, procurement, logistics management will contribute to improving transaction efficiency which will strengthen local and regional food market systems. The creation of locally relevant and available, nutritious food baskets leveraging the established school meals menu planner will improve the utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable food that meets quality standards (LRP 1.3) by improving access to culturally acceptable and nutritious food. 92. Foundational Results: The project has four foundational results each of which is critical to national ownership. WFP will facilitate to development of a need-based plan for school meals at the provincial and local level contributing to the increased capacity of government institutions (McGovern-Dole 1.4.1/2.7.1) and increased government support (McGovern-Dole 1.4.3/2.7.3). WFP will provide institutional and policy capacity strengthening to improve policy and regulatory framework (McGovern-Dole 1.4.2/2.7.2). The establishment of school meals management mechanism at the municipal level including relevant stakeholders will contribute to increased engagement of local organizations and community groups (McGovern-Dole 1.4.4/2.7.4). Programme Activities 93. WFP has continued the holistic approach to programming with interventions grouped into the following six major activities with the addition of home-grown school feeding (activity 5) in the current cycle to support the three programme objectives. 94. Activity 1: Food Distribution: Building on the progress and successes of the McGovern-Dole FY17, WFP and MoEST’s Food for Education Program will continue the provision of nutritious school meals in the six districts that are all slated to be handed over into the cash-based NSMP. 10 95. WFP and Mercy Corps will complement the food basket with up to 40g of fresh, locally purchased vegetables in Jajarkot and Doti in the first year. Working with SHF and cooperatives (further covered in activity 4) in the year ahead of the planned handover is meant to start up supply chains for local purchasing at scale and prepare LGs as they plan to take over. The same addition of locally purchased vegetables will occur in the second year in Bajhang and Darchula, and the third year in Achham and Bajura. Additionally, to find cost efficiencies and work with SHF on a larger scale, WFP, through its sub-recipient will purchase the lentils and Rice in Nepal locally in the third year. See table 3 for a breakdown of commodities by origin and program district. 96. Activity 2: Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage: At the beginning of each school year, and with the distribution of commodities, WFP will provide, district-level training on food safety, storage, handling, and preparation of school meals across six programme districts. The training helps ensure all people involved in food selection, handling, storage preparation, and serving, i.e., community members, school staff, and LG, are aware of appropriate practices to serve safe and nutritious school meals. Non-food items will be provided to schools, including spoons, bowls, and drinking cups as well as cooking and measuring utensils for the meal preparation, ensuring that all new schools receive them and that those current schools need to be replenished, are covered. 97. Activity 3: Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions: WFP’s sub￾recipient, IDS Nepal, in four districts, will focus on improving access to health and nutrition interventions, as well as work on the construction of WaSH infrastructure. IDS will implement the integrated package, which also focuses on supporting girls to continue their education through menstrual hygiene support. The project will mainly facilitate government health resources and logistics to operate the services. To improve WaSH related behavior and practices of programme participants IDS will produce and print IEC, and behavior change communication packages endorsed by GoN. 98. Activity 4: Promote Improved Literacy: WFP’s sub-recipient, World Education, implements literacy intervention. The literacy model resembles what World Education used in the McGovern-Dole FY17 and aligns with USAID’s Reading MATTERS framework and National Early Grade Reading Program (NEGRP). The project will use a blended approach and initially maintain project-supported mobilizers and link these to LG education units while simultaneously training and supporting headteachers and education focal persons and other education unit staff to mentor teachers. The project will ensure children have better access to school supplies and materials by supplementing the government’s minimum package with existing, tested materials such as the Read-Learn-Know package, materials developed by the MoEST, as well as by supporting teachers and parents to develop their materials by creatively using local resources. Table 2.3: Commodity Purchase Breakdown by Commodity and Origin Fortified Rice Lentils Fortified Oil Fresh Vegetables Salt 2021/2022 (Year 1) Doti IK IK IK LP LP Jajarkot IK IK IK LP LP Bajhang IK IK IK LP Darchula IK IK IK LP Achham IK IK IK LP Bajura IK IK IK LP 2022/2023 (Year 2) Bajhang IK IK IK LP LP Darchula IK IK IK LP LP Achham IK IK IK LP Bajura IK IK IK LP 2023/2024 (Year 3) Achham IK LP IK LP LP Bajura IK LP IK LP LP Legend: IK= US in-kind commodity; LP=locally purchased commodity; LP=locally purchased (complementary) 11 99. Activity 5: Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals: WFP’s sub-recipient, Mercy Corps, implements HGSF intervention across six districts according to the transition plan presented in Table 2.1. The purpose of the HGSF component is to assist LGs and schools to best use funds of the government’s cash-based SMP to deliver nutritious meals which are locally sourced and help meet the government guideline for nutritional standards. Under this component, there are two essential sub-activities, which include the local purchase of commodities to complement a hybrid food basket; and the HGSF component and technical assistance post-handover. The local purchase sub-activity is the introduction, on a small scale, of a few locally procured foods and the capacity development of LG and school management committees to manage procurement. Along with the introduction of locally purchased commodities, home￾grown school meal menus established under FY17 will be used to support coordinated planning of school meals once the handover has occurred. This component phases out before the end of the programme, to transition to the LG and schools fully managing the procurement and management of school meals themselves once officially within the NSMP. The HGSF second sub-activity begins with the beginning of the program, to start early in identifying local cooperatives and their farmer groups and lead farmers, to ensure they can begin to supply, and later increase production, as well as community and LG engagement in the process. Once the local purchase component is completed and the procurement of school meals food is handed over entirely to the LG and schools, Mercy Corps will remain to provide technical assistance and coaching to ensure the systems in place are fully functional and will remain sustainable. Mercy Corps will also lead the process in setting up, managing, and handing over local accountability and monitoring systems. 100. Activity 6: Capacity Building - Supporting Transition through Local and Provincial Capacitation: WFP will work to strengthen capacity across local, provincial, and national levels, with varying levels of effort across each, focusing increasingly on the local level. Through a robust graduation and sustainability plan, WFP has taken steps to gear up its efforts toward specialized technical assistance, including the following: (1) secondment of a school meals specialist in MoEST’s Center of Education and Human Resource Development; (2) secondment of a school meals specialist at the provincial government; and (3) WFP field coordinator placed at the district level who are responsible to provide frontline technical assistance and coordination of activities at field level, closely collaborating with the LG. 101. Like the district level, WFP will support the establishment of needs-based plans in the two provinces and will work to advocate for policy mainstreaming and aligning national policies with provincial needs, thus contextualizing the strategy set forth by the national government. WFP will support the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system that integrates all government tiers. At the national level in Kathmandu, WFP will work to strengthen institutional and policy environments by establishing a five-year action plan based on the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) results. With a view of WFP’s transition to sole technical assistance after this award, it will work with the Government to establish a meaningful, longer-term capacity strengthening strategy that will outline work beyond McGovern-Dole FY20. 102. Gender Dimensions of the Intervention: The WFP School Feeding Policy (2013), WFP School Feeding Strategy (2020), and Gender Policy for 2015-2020 emphasize recognizing and including specific needs of young girls, ethnic and religious minorities, and boys and girls with disabilities. To promote inclusion and equity in education, WFP has integrated gender components in the McGovern-Dole FY20. In Activity 2, school staff involved in cooking and delivering school meals is trained to avoid any gender or disability-related prejudice/discrimination. In Activity 3, to address the gender-related barriers to attending schools, the project will allocate USDA resources to ensure that the LG is setting up annual funds to continue establishing latrines with separate toilets for boys and girls, coordinate with local health facility for weekly iron and folic acid tablet supplementation for school adolescent girls, increase awareness about menstrual health and hygiene and ensure government-supplied sanitary pads are available for adolescent girls and female teachers as planned and endorsed by the GoN. Activity 5 has made the provision to encourage female farmers and cooperatives led by farmers, or including many female farmers, to participate in the supply chain. Hence, the current survey would focus on drawing a larger gender analysis for McGovern-Dole FY20. 103. The ET has ensured that GEWE is integrated into the survey process where relevant, for which specific data on gender, disability, ethnicity, and socio-economic status have been collected. The Washington classification has been used to identify the number of beneficiaries and intermediaries with disabilities. Based on evidence collected, the BLS provides insights on how the McGovern-Dole FY20 has included women, men, girls, boys, and disabled and marginalized groups. The findings have been presented as per the disaggregation 12 requirements in the PMP. Thus, the BLS has used GEWE as an integral lens to assess the inclusion dimensions of the subject evaluated. 104. Though the survey timeline is affected by the COVID-related school closures, there have been no external or internal changes since the development of ToR that affects the scope of the BLS. 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 105. The BLS is the first stage in the evaluation series to fulfill the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 requirement to provide information about the pre-project situation. The BLS has focused on examining the present situation of the activities proposed in the six districts i.e., one (Jajarkot) from Karnali Province and five (Doti, Bajhang, Darchula, Achham, and Bajura) from Sudurpashchim Province. The overall evaluation series aims to answer the evaluation questions of all the six evaluation criteria (Annex 6) as listed in the Terms of Reference. Annex 6 will be further elaborated to revise the evaluation questions, data sources and add areas of inquiry and methods of triangulation during midterm and end-line evaluation. The baseline survey focused on three evaluation criteria and questions identified during the inception phase (see table 2.4 and Annex 7). The BLS based itself on the programme RF and performance indicators in the PMP (Annex 8). The PMP includes at least one output or outcome indicator per result envisioned in the RF and includes a method of data collection for each identified indicator. The baseline survey has done the disaggregation as per USDA endorsed PMP. Additional disaggregation by districts, ethnicity, gender, disability is done where relevant. The findings of the BLS are expected to provide the important context necessary for the midterm and end-line evaluations to assess the project’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. In this regard, the BLS has assessed if the activities of the McGovern-Dole FY20 is coherent to government plans and priority programme, and other programmes implemented by development partners in those areas and have assessed the relevance and sustainability aspects of the programme. Table 2.4: Evaluation Questions for the Baseline Survey Evaluation Criteria Key Questions Coherence To what extent are the McGovern-Dole FY20 programme activities aligned with government policies, and with WFP guidelines and policies? Relevance How the McGovern-Dole FY20 programme goals and design are aligned with the beneficiary and stakeholder’s needs? Sustainability The extent to which the programme has been designed to sustain the benefits generated by the project. 106. Given that the programme has a gender-specific output, the BLS has ensured that GEWE and equity are mainstreamed throughout the evaluation as appropriate. The ET has assessed the extent to which GEWE objectives were mainstreamed during the intervention design and has done a detailed gender analysis to assess the extent to which different voices, vulnerabilities, capacities, and priorities of women, men, girls, and boys are reflected in the programme design and how these distinct groups might benefit from the programme. The ET has ensured that the data collection process included the active participation of women, men, girls, and boys to inform a better understanding of the programme from their distinct perspectives at individual and institutional levels. This information has been gathered through interviews and discussions with representatives from LG, the school management committee, students, parents, and other key stakeholders. PI (Annex 4) and Evaluation matrix (Annex 7) identify the tools and data sources for mainstreaming GEWE in the BLS. The findings on girls/women, boys/men, and on different ethnicities have been reported to the extent possible based on the availability of the data. 107. Special study: The special study (available in a separate document) aimed to explore the factors besides school meals and standard academic curriculum that may contribute to the literacy achievement of school￾age children. The special study covered 272 schools from the BLS sample schools in five districts of Sudurpashchim province. The tools for the special study were integrated with BLS tools (Annex 9). Data from EGR assessment, interview with parents of grade three students, head teacher, EGR teacher, and classroom and school environment observation were used in the analysis. 13 3. Evaluation Approach and Methodology for Baseline Data Collection 3.1 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 108. The BLS used a non-experimental cross-sectional design covering the programme areas. This will enable the assessment of the temporal changes over the course of midterm and end-line evaluations. The BLS has presented a good opportunity for assessing the situation before the programme implementation. A mixed￾method approach with both quantitative and qualitative components including review of secondary data and on-site observation was employed. 109. Any changes that are observed (or not observed for that matter) during BLS, MT, and EL cannot be directly attributed to the programme. To contribute to the evidence generated, information from different sources, continuous close observations of various activities, and well-placed judgment are planned to link the outcomes with the programme. Another challenge is posed by the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected all individuals and entities across the globe, including the programme areas. Also, due to the COVID pandemic, limited studies/surveys are being conducted in the last two years, limiting the opportunity to triangulate the findings. 110. Based on the ToR, the BLS has mainly focused on assessing the coherence, relevance, and sustainability of the programme design, and these initial findings will be elaborated and deepened during the MT and EL. Effectiveness, efficiency, and impact will be assessed during midterm and end-line evaluation. The evaluation matrix including evaluation criteria, questions, and sub-questions (Annex 7), data collection methodology (Annex 10), and analysis methods for the performance indicators (Annex 4) provide further details. 111. To assess the coherence of the programme, the BLS has attempted to determine the alignment of the McGovern-Dole FY20 activities with government policies, and with WFP’s guidelines and policies. Similarly, it has assessed the synergies of the project intervention with other WFP operations in Nepal. The survey has also explored whether the intervention design and delivery aim to reduce exclusion, reach marginalized and vulnerable groups, and transform gender inequalities. 112. To assess the relevance of the programme, the BLS has examined how the McGovern-Dole FY20 goals and design are aligned with the need of the beneficiary and stakeholders. This allows evaluators to understand gaps in programme design that may have undermined an intervention’s overall relevance. It investigates whether the beneficiaries and target stakeholders view the intervention as useful and valuable in the present context. 113. From the sustainability perspective, the BLS has assessed the extent to which learnings from the past programmes have been incorporated while designing the McGovern-Dole FY20 to increase government and beneficiaries' interest, participation, capacities, and commitment to take forward various interventions of the programme. The survey has explored the sustainability of the McGovern-Dole FY20 design. It has further reviewed the handover and transition strategy, and preparedness. 114. Availability and reliability of data: As this is a BLS, limited data on actual programme implementation was available at this point, and the school closures due to COVID-19 have led to further challenges with data availability. Keeping school records on necessary enrollment and health and nutrition-related aspects were found to be a challenge on the part of the school administration. Similarly, local festivals and plantation periods of wheat had led to the closure of schools or less attendance of the students during the survey time. 115. Revisiting the schools, requesting the school administration to call upon students and other respondents for the interview even on the local holidays, contacting the school management before school visit through a telephone call and asking them to make the school records ready, seeking help from the WFP field coordinators for necessary coordination with school and other respondents, etc. were some of the measured used, which helped to mitigate some of the data limitation issues. 14 3.2 BASELINE DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND TOOLS 116. A mixed-method approach with both quantitative and qualitative components including review of records, on-site observation, and Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) of grade three students were employed for the data collection. 117. Quantitative data collection included a survey with the school Head Teacher, SHN focal teacher, Nepali teacher teaching Nepali language in grade three, students, parents, school cook, farmer groups, and storekeeper. School records were reviewed for information on attendance, retention school meal distribution, and SHN related topics such as deworming medications, iron-folic acid supplementation, and health-related absenteeism. On-site observation of the school environment, Nepali class observation of grade three, and adoption of farming technology of the farmers provided other necessary information. 118. The sample size for the schools was calculated using a 95 percent confidence level, 50 percent prevalence rate, five percent margin of error, and 2,297 population size (number of programme schools in the six districts), which gives 330 as the number of schools required. About 15 percent of additional schools had been selected to address possible non-response. A proportionate stratified random sampling was used to select the required number of schools and students from the six districts. Details about the methodology for BLS and special study are included in Annex 10. 119. The school respondents (teachers, students, parents, and cooks) were selected from the sampled schools. Survey with the SHN teacher, Nepali teacher, and Nepali class observation was done only in the districts where the respective SHN and EGR programmers are being implemented. For the EGR assessment, all or maximum of 20 students from grade three were sampled. For the student survey, two students per school (preferably boy and girl) were randomly sampled from each of the available grades from four to eight. For the parent survey, five parents per school (one each from grades four, five, six, seven, and eight) from all 330 surveyed schools and three parents of grade three students from 272 schools from five districts of Sudurpashchim province (for the special study) were selected. These parents were the parents of the students who were surveyed or who participated in EGR assessment. Availability was also considered while deciding which parents to include in the survey from a given grade. For observation of farmers group, eighteen farmers groups were selected (three per programme district) based on their accessibility, and availability in consultation with implementing partners and field coordinators. Altogether 54 farmers (three from each of the eighteen farmers group surveyed) were observed to assess their adoption of new and improved farming techniques. For EGRA of grade three students and Nepali class observation, the national EGR tool and standard classroom observation tool prepared by Education Review Office (ERO) were used (Annex 9). 120. Qualitative data collection included Key Informant Interviews (KII), Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and half￾day Organizational Performance Index (OPI) workshops at selected municipalities (which was for assessing the performance of the municipality about their capability in driving the school meal programme sustainably). KII and FGD were done with a range of stakeholders at the federal, provincial, district, local level, and school/community. 121. The participants for KII were identified purposively in consultation with programme unit, sub-office, and field coordinators. For qualitative data collection at the municipality level, two municipalities per district were selected purposively from the list of municipalities randomly selected for the quantitative survey. Purposive selection of municipalities enabled to include new municipalities where WFP has not had programme in FY17 and municipalities where WFP had programme in FY17. Within the selected municipalities, the key informants from the LG were selected purposively in consultation with field coordinators based on their programmatic knowledge. The OPI workshops were done in twelve municipalities (two each from the six programme districts) which were selected for the qualitative data collection. The participants for the OPI workshop were selected purposively based on their programmatic knowledge in consultation with field coordinators. For FGD with adolescent girls, basic schools from the sample list (from a list of 330 schools selected) were identified from each of the twelve municipalities selected for the qualitative survey. If there were more than one basic school, one basic school was selected randomly and about seven/eight adolescent girls from grades six to eight were selected randomly. Similarly, around seven/eight parents/community members were selected for FGDs from the same twelve communities where the FGDs with the adolescent girls were conducted. KII with the SMCs were done in the same twelve schools where the FGDs with the adolescent girls were conducted. 15 122. The table below provides information on the details of qualitative components used in the BLS. Table 3.1: Qualitative Data Collection Method, Levels and Type of Study Participants Method Level Participants/Institutions Number Key Informant Interviews Federal Food for Education Project 1 Center for Education and Human Resource Development 1 Implementing Partners 3 WFP 2 Provincial Ministry of Social Development, one per province 2 District Education Development and Coordination Unit, one per district 6 Municipal Mayor or Deputy Mayor, one per twelve selected municipalities 12 School School Management Committee members, one per selected twelve municipalities 12 Total 39 Focus group discussions School Adolescent girls from class 6-8, one per twelve schools from selected twelve municipalities 12 Community Parents/Community Members, one per twelve schools from selected twelve municipalities 12 Total 24 OPI Municipality Municipal level staff, one workshop per twelve selected municipalities 12 123. The BLS also aimed to explore the relevance, coherence, and sustainability of the McGovern-Dole FY20. The evaluation matrix attached in Annex 6 presents detailed information on evaluation questions, sub-questions, lines of inquiry, data sources, and analysis methods for these evaluation criteria. The key evaluation questions for BLS are presented in Annex 6. 124. The qualitative and quantitative tools prepared by the New ERA were thoroughly reviewed by WFP as well as by ERO, and the tools were finalized after incorporating their feedback. Necessary few changes were made during the training of the field staff which were agreed by the thematic experts and WFP. Apart from providing the national EGRA tool and the tool for classroom observation, resource persons from ERO were available to contribute to the training and provide feedback based on their observation. Representatives from the partner organizations also observed the training and provided their feedback. As a part of the training, the field staff had an opportunity to conduct EGRA with the students from grade three in two nearby schools in Kathmandu. These all contributed to ensuring the validity of the tools and data collection. 125. The data sent by the field team were received in the New ERA server. The supervisors checked the data collected by the enumerators on the same day the data was collected and sent the data on daily basis (to the extent they could give the availability of internet). The supervisors observed the data collection including the EGRA of grade three students, class observation, and interview sessions of the enumerators. WFP field coordinators closely observed the data collection process throughout the fieldwork and provided necessary assistance. The core team from the research firm and WFP staff from the center also paid the monitoring visit to the field to observe the data collection and provide immediate feedback to the field staff. 126. The core team of the research firm regularly checked the validity and consistency of the data and provided necessary feedback to the field team. The research firm updated WFP about the data collection status weekly. The collected data were analyzed by the thematic experts following the data analysis plan agreed between WFP and the research firm. The draft report was prepared as per the template provided. The collected data have been safely stored and will be used as part of the midline and end-line evaluation. 127. The findings of the BLS were synthesized to benchmark the values of the performance indicators, identify the enabling factors and foreseen challenges, and examine the alignment towards governments and WFP policies and guidelines. To mainstream GEWE, data gathered from both the quantitative and qualitative components 16 have been disaggregated by gender, age, caste, and ethnicity based on data availability and relevance. The process was intended to facilitate the assessment using the intersectionality lens. 3.3 LIMITATIONS 128. The ET had several limitations and risks in implementing this BLS. Firstly, data were collected in November￾December 2021, nearly one and half years after school closures due to the pandemic. In some instances, school records were not available, many interviews were required to recall information, introducing potential recall bias, which may have affected data quality, and some respondents were not available for the interview. Also, the dropout of a few field staff was observed. Being exposed to Covid-19 and infecting others was another risk. 129. These limitations were mitigated as much as possible in several ways. Timely communication with the schools enabled them to make the school records and respondents available at the time of data collection helped to some extent. During interviews and discussions, respondents were provided adequate time to think and recall the information. A contingency plan that was prepared with the provision of extra enumerators and supervisors helped to address the dropouts of the field staff. Following a sound health protocol (vaccination, PCR tests, physical distancing, sanitizing, wearing masks, etc.) and favourable timing in terms of low cases of infection throughout the nation all helped in avoiding the Covid-19 related risks Following are the key limitations on the findings of this survey - • The average attendance rate was calculated only for the reference period of a month (Bhadra 16 - Ashoj 14, 2078 B. S34) for grades 1, 3, and 8 in the surveyed schools. The average attendance rate for the entire year could not be calculated as the schools were open only for one month due to prolonged closure due to COVID-19. Students who might have moved to other places during the lockdown might not have returned and attended the school when schools reopened, which might have underestimated the attendance rate. • Many schools were closed during the time of the survey due to the local festivals, and many students were absent even in the schools that were open during or right after/before the festival time. This might have an impact on the low rate of attendance based on headcount on the day the school was surveyed. • Some indicators related to school health and nutrition such as health-related absenteeism, students receiving deworming medications, and adolescent girls receiving iron-folic acid supplementation could not be measured using the school records due to the unavailability of the records. These were measured using the surveys with a parent, SHN teachers, or student. • The percentage of students receiving school meals on all school days was measured only in 90 schools (out of 188 USDA/WFP supported continuing schools) due to the unavailability of records and only for Chaitra 207735. Besides, the measure disregards the students that were absent on any days during the month as this information was not available. Therefore, the reported value should be interpreted cautiously, and a better plan should be put in place to overcome these limitations. • Only 78 cooks assigned specifically for cooking the school meal were available, which is much smaller a sample size than expected. • As the farmers were selected based on availability and accessibility, this could have introduced some bias. Same thing may have applied with the parents but the bias is presumed to be much lower as the parents interviewed were the parents of the randomly selected students (although availability of the parents was also considered while deciding which parent to include). • As per the plan, the organization performance index (OPI) and municipalities recognizing and rewarding teachers and developing contextualized instructional materials were assessed in the twelve municipalities where the qualitative study was conducted. Therefore, the results obtained should be taken only as indicative, and may not be generalized across the entire program area. • The BLS explored only the three evaluation criteria (coherence, relevance, and sustainability) out of the six criteria. These results will be further deepened along with assessing the other three remaining criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, and impact) during MT and EL. 34 September 2021 35 March/April 2021 17 • With the non-experimental cross-sectional design used in the evaluation, the MT and EL will be able to measure only the temporal changes. The observed outcomes of interest cannot therefore be simply attributed to the WFP programmes, nor will it be easy to isolate the contribution of the WFP programme alone in the backdrop of similar other programmes possibly being supported in the programme districts. 130. Most of these data limitations were expected. For example, unavailability of records at school for IFA, deworming, and health-related school absenteeism was identified while selecting indicators during the development of PMP. The challenge and mitigation measures are mentioned in the USDA endorsed PMP. Similarly, other challenges related to COVID were also expected. These challenges experienced during baseline are not expected during midterm and end-line if no such unanticipated challenges are contributing to school closures. Therefore, the same methodology can be continued during mid-term and end-line. 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 131. WFP had applied a Decentralized Evaluation approach based on the UN evaluation principles of independence, credibility, and utility. Application of these principles ensures evaluation quality, enhancing accountability and learning throughout the survey by increasing confidence in the findings, recommendations, and lessons for continual improvement of WFP’s performance and results. 132. This BLS had followed the DEQAS approach which ensures the quality standards throughout the process. DEQAS was closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) and was based on the UNEG norms and standards. The DEQAS was also coherent with the USDA’s Food Assistance Division’s Monitoring & Evaluation Policy. 133. Under the DEQAS, WFP had developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This included checklists on the quality of each of the evaluation products. The relevant checklist was applied at each stage to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs. Each evaluation deliverable underwent the following process, (1) The ET had checked all data for accuracy and reliability and noted any limitations; (2) The Evaluation Team Leader ensured that the report met the DEQAS standards; (3) The WFP Evaluation Manager supported by the REO and OEV, had conducted a rigorous quality check of all deliverables; (4) The evaluation reports were reviewed by an outsourced quality support (QS) service managed by WFP’s OEV; (5) The WFP Evaluation Manager reviewed the feedback from QS and shared with the Team Leader, who was expected to use them to finalize the BLS report. 134. In particular, the quality of the report is assured by a thorough review by the WFP team at the country office, Evaluation Reference Group, regional evaluation officer, WFP’s quality support service (DEQS), and final review by USDA and USDA is the final approver of the Baseline Evaluation Report. 135. The ET ensured that the necessary measures were taken throughout the survey starting from the initial stage until the reporting phase. The key steps for the quality assurance was assignment of key personnel and enumerators (with some backups for contingency), developing the rigorous survey methodology, study tools in line with the indicators to measure; well defined and unambiguous terms and questions used in the tools; logical flow of questions with consistent programming for data collection; appropriate training and training materials to enumerators; developing and following of proper data collection protocols; strong monitoring and supervision mechanism where supervisor had reviewed the collected data by enumerators each day before transferring the data to central office, developing data editing programme to detect possible errors in some key variables once the data were received in the server; checking of raw dataset to detect outliers and inconsistencies; providing immediate feedback to the field team as and when needed; maintaining appropriate variable name, storage type, display format, variable label and value label in the collected data; and analysis of the data and presentation of the results consistent with the agreed methodology. 136. Qualitative data were collected through KIIs and FGD with a range of stakeholders at the national and sub￾national and school/community levels. A team of two trained qualitative researchers facilitated the qualitative data collection. The interview and discussions were audio-recorded with extensive note-taking with the consent of the participants. The audio records were transcribed in the Nepali language and translated into English. Codes were derived from the translations, which were later categorized, and thematic analysis was done. 137. All evidence collected has been verified and corroborated through systematic triangulation by comparing information collected by different methods and sources. The evaluation team also ensured the data integrity 18 and factual accuracy with regular team discussions. Triangulation of data was conducted using the method and source triangulation, including comparing qualitative and quantitative findings within the baseline survey. 3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 138. The BLS including the special study had conformed to the 2020 UNEG Ethical Guidelines. The research firm was responsible for safeguarding and ensuring ethics at all stages of the BLS. This included, but was not limited to, ensuring informed consent before the interview, protecting privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of participants, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of participants, ensuring fair recruitment of participants, and ensuring that the survey results do not harm participants or their communities. 139. The BLS was conducted in compliance with both ethical and human rights standards. Survey procedures were designed to protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality and allow for voluntary participation. It was ensured that the protocols were as per the ethical research standard applied in Nepal and as per the four ethical principles of evaluation: integrity, accountability, respect, and beneficence. The BLS team had adhered to moral values and professional standards and was accountable for all decisions made and actions are taken. The BLS had respected and honored stakeholders’ dignity, well-being, and personal agency and strived to do good for people while minimizing the harms arising from the survey. 140. Before interview/observation at the schools and communities, the participants were presented with the letter and a consent form was read out to them, explaining the purpose of the BLS. In the case of students, the consent of their teacher was obtained before the interview. The verbal consent process used ensured that the participants were well-informed about the organization and the interviewer, the purpose of the survey, their voluntary participation and valued contribution through their participation, the confidentiality of information, anonymity of the informants, time duration, and risk and benefits of their participation in the survey. 141. The field notes are kept confidential and will not be turned over to public or private agencies. In addition, steps were taken to ensure that men, women, boys, and girls felt that interviews were conducted in appropriate locations so that they were able to freely express their views and concerns without fear of reprisal. Schools were notified in advance that they would be part of the survey. Permission to interview children at school was sought from their teachers, and from parents during household interviews. 142. Participants were also allowed to ask any questions about the survey that help them decide whether to participate. Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained in all documents. The Personnel identifiable information (PII) was not revealed to anyone. The ET thus protected the privacy, confidentiality, and personal interest of all respondents including those who were at risk, defenceless, vulnerable, and disabled. All PII was used only for analysis and destroyed after the analysis. 19 4. Baseline Findings and Discussions 143. This chapter has been divided into two parts – A. Findings on the Indicator Values for the Baseline, and B. Findings on the Evaluation Questions. The first part discusses the overall findings of the baseline survey in relation to the baseline values of the standard and custom indicators set in PMP and the evaluation questions. The indicators are discussed in the order of five activities of the USDA-supported McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme 2020-2024, which are being implemented in the six districts of Karnali and Sudurpashchim regions. The methods used to measure the respective indicators have been touched upon only briefly for the reader’s convenience in this chapter, and a separate section in Annex 4 details them. This is followed by the second part which attempts to explore the relevance, coherence, and sustainability aspects of the programme. A. Findings on the Indicators Values for the Baseline Activity 1 - Food Distribution Indicator 1: Number of school-age children receiving school meals on all school days (Custom 7) 144. As the schools remained mostly closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the last academic year (2020/21) and the current academic year (2021/22), the school meal could not be distributed regularly. As reported by the headteachers, there was however take-home food ration distributed a couple of times in bulk to the parents of the students during that period. Based on the information that cooked meal was distributed by the school to the students in the month of Chaitra, 207736, the records on the school meal distribution for this period was used to establish the baseline values for this indicator. In particular, records were reviewed on the number of days the school was open in Chaitra 2077, the number of enrolled students, and the number of students who received school meals on each of the school days during that period. The percentage of school children (ECD to grade five) receiving school meals on all school days was then computed for the specified period. The computations were done at the school level (Figure 4.1 below indicates the number of schools with available records used in the analysis). The number of days the school was open, and the number of boys and girls enrolled in ECD to grade 5 were used to compute the weighted percentage. 145. All together 90 USDA/WFP supported continuing schools (with a maximum of 27 in Bajhang and a minimum of 7 in Doti) had the necessary records available for the analysis. The majority of these schools were primary, i.e. running up to grade five (72%) followed by basic, i.e. running up to grade eight (24%), while only three 36 March/April 2021 78 71 78 81 77 77 78 76 83 70 78 78 (n=90) Doti (n=7) Jajarkot (n=17) Bajhang (n=27) Darchula (n=15) Achham (n=15) Bajura (n=9) Primary (n=65) Basic (n=22) Secondary (n=3) Female (n=90) Male (n=90) Total District School Level Gender Figure 4.1: Students receiving school meal on all school days (%) 20 percent were secondary, i. e. running grade nine or above. Based on the results, 78 percent of the students received school meals on all school days, with the highest in Bajhang (81%) and lowest in Doti (71%). Basic schools had a higher percentage of students receiving school meals on all school days than the primary and secondary. Also, there was no difference seen between girls and boys in terms of receiving school meals. Further details are presented in Annex 11 (Table I1). 146. Apart from the small sample size and only one month’s record that could be used in the analysis (the reference time itself being far from a normal time in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic), there is another caveat to these results. In particular, the information on how many students were present on each of the school days considered in the analysis was missing (only how many students received the meal was recorded). As a result of this, the proportions as presented in Table I1 ignores those who were absent and counts them as those not receiving the meal, thereby underestimating the true proportions. 147. Different concerned bodies emphasized the importance of school meals during the survey. For instance, a municipal official at Jajarkot said that – 148. “School meals program has helped a lot in students' health. Students can eat food in time. Students get various nutrients and vitamins. They also develop a habit of washing their hands before and after eating food. Students are more focused on their health.” -KII with Municipality Official, Jajarkot 149. The officials from EDCU in Achham and Jajarkot think that providing school meals to the students has dual benefits in terms of better nutrition of the students and the latter’s ability to concentrate on the study. But they think that transportation of food from the distribution centers is a problem in managing the school meal smoothly – 150. “Due to food at the school, children can concentrate more on their study and their health will also be improved. ….. A school meal management committee is formed and the main bodies from the municipal level are used to bring the food from the distribution center. The EDCU also had a role in the transportation of foods up to the local level. ….. We must think about how we can manage this and how many times we have to call a meeting for it. School management and meal management committees need a commitment. With this reference, we will know what work is performed by these two committees and what work is pending. We can also give them suggestions and tell them to manage. As I mentioned before we have a big challenge with transportation.” -KII with EDCU, Achham 151. Some SMCs were found to understand well that the meal provided at the school becomes more crucial for the girls during their menstruation – 152. “Science says that during menstruation women get weaker, they might want to eat more often, if they get to eat food on time, they will feel easier. Technically, females during these days are kind of weak so if they get proper nutritious food in proper time then that will not make them feel very sick.” -KII with SMCs, Doti Indicator 2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools (Standard 2) 153. Assessment of students’ attendance during the reference period of a month (Bhadra 16 - Asoj 14, 2078 or September 2021) was conducted to determine the average attendance rate of grades 1, 3, and 8 students in the surveyed schools. The sampled schools were reportedly open during the chosen period after the lockdown due to COVID-19, which was the reason for choosing this time. Data were collected by reviewing the school/classroom registers. Analysis was conducted to determine the average attendance rate of the students during the reference period. Because of the unavailability of records in two schools (both continuing), the analysis could be done only of 328 schools. Overall findings are presented in Table I2 (a) in Annex 11. 21 154. On average, the students in the surveyed schools attended 61 percent of the school days during the reference period. School closures lasting until days before the data collection may also have impacted this lower-than￾the targeted rate of 80 percent. Of the 6 six districts, students in Darchula and Bajhang had a higher attendance rate while Jajarkot and Achham had the lowest. Continuing schools had a slightly higher attendance rate, by 3 percentage point difference (PPD), than new schools. Schools with all three programs (SMP+EGR+SHN) had a higher attendance rate (72%) than those with only SMP (55%) followed by those with SMP and SHN (47%). Attendance rates were slightly higher in grades 3 and 8 compared to grade 1 by about 6 to 7 PPD. The average attendance rate was somewhat similar in terms of grades operated in the school and between the genders of the students. 155. In addition to the average attendance rate, an assessment was also made of the attendance rate by a headcount of the students on the day of a school visit by the survey team. Enrolment of students as mentioned in school/classroom registers of grades 1, 3, and 8 and headcount of the students present on the day were compared to derive the attendance rate. Table I2 (b) in Annex 11 presents the overall findings. 61 63 44 73 75 47 67 62 59 55 47 72 57 64 63 (n=328) Doti (n=56) Jajarkot (n=56) Bajhang (n=64) Darchula (n=49) Achham (n=69) Bajura (n=34) Continuing (n=186) New (n=142) Only SMP (n=112) SMP+SHN (n=69) SMP+EGR+SHN (n=147) G1 (n=326) G3 (n=328) G8 (n=154) Total District Type Program Grade Figure 4.2 (a): Average attendance rate (%) 61 54 52 68 79 56 66 55 66 53 56 70 56 59 66 53 66 68 (n=330) Doti (n=56) Jajarkot (n=58) Bajhang (n=64) Darchula (n=49) Achham (n=69) Bajura (n=34) Continuing (n=188) New (n=142) Only SMP (n=114) SMP+SHN (n=69) SMP+EGR+SHN (n=147) Primary (n=175) Basic (n=57) Secondary (n=98) G1 (n=330) G3 (n=330) G8 (n=155) Total District Type Program School Level Grade Figure 4.2 (b): Attendance rate based on headcount (%) 22 156. As Figure 4.2 (b) suggests, the findings on average student attendance by headcount and review of attendance register are consistent. Of the six districts, students in Darchula (79%) followed by Bajhang (68%) had higher attendance, while Jajarkot, Doi, and Achham had much lower attendance rates (52% to 56%). Of the total enrolled students, students in new schools had a higher attendance rate than continuing USDA intervened schools by 11 PPD. Similarly, students from the districts with all three programs had a much higher attendance rate (70%) compared to the other three districts by 14 to 17 PPD. With respect to the grades operated, students from Secondary (9+) schools had a slightly higher attendance rate (66%) than basic and primary schools (by 7 to 10 PPD). Students in grades 3 and 8 had higher attendance rates than grade 1 by more than 12 PPD. No difference was observed in the attendance rate of the students based on gender (Table 2 (b), Annex 11). Indicator 3: Average retention rate (Custom 1) 157. The assessment was conducted to determine the retention rate for grades 1, 3, and 8 to gauge the sample schools’ capacity to retain the students in successive operating grades in the schools. Data were collected by reviewing the records of the schools on enrolment registers of the years 2077 B.S37. and 2078 B.S.. The retention rate was calculated as the proportion of the students enrolled in the Year 2077 who completed the school year by passing to the next grade or repeating the same grade in the school in the Year 2078. Due to the unavailability of required information in two schools (one each in continuous and new), the retention rate could be estimated only in 328 schools. Table I3 (Annex 11) presents the details of the findings, and Figure 4.3 presents the key findings. 158. The average retention rate for the sample schools was 92 percent, which is somewhat higher than 82 percent for up to grade 8 as reported in Economic Survey (2021). The rates are not so different across all categories with Bajura (94%), schools with SHN and EGR (93%), basic and secondary schools (93%), and grades three and eight (94%) having a couple of percentage points higher than the rest. The retention rates are practically similar across the continuing and new school types and between boys and girls. Indicator 4: Minimum diet diversity of school-age children (Custom 11) 159. A child consuming 4 or more food groups out of 7 in the past 24 hours was considered as meeting the minimum dietary diversity (MDD). A 24-hour recall method was used, where parents were asked to recall all the meals that the child ate during the past 24 hours. As the parents of only 1849 students, which is a subset of the total 6066 students covered by the survey (2087 students from grades 4 to 8 who were interviewed and 3979 students from grade 3 whose EGR competency was assessed) were interviewed by design, the results are based on a sample size that is about 30% of the students covered. 37 2020/21 AD 92 91 91 92 93 93 94 91 93 93 91 93 93 90 94 94 (n=330) Doti (n=56) Jajarkot (n=58) Bajhang (n=64) Darchula (n=49) Achham (n=69) Bajura (n=34) Only SMP (n=114) SMP+SHN (n=69) SMP+EGR+SHN (n=147) Primary (n=175) Basic (n=57) Secondary (n=98) G1 (n=330) G3 (n=330) G8 (n=155) Total District Program School Level Grade Figure 4.3: Average retention rate (%) 23 160. The mean dietary diversity score for children, as reported by their parents, was 4.8 (range 2 to 7), which indicates that a child on average consumed food items from 5 (out of 7) food groups (Figure 4.4). Almost 93 percent of children met the MDD requirement (ate food items from at least 4 food groups). The proportion of children meeting MDD was lower in the Bajura district compared to other districts. The proportion of children that met the MDD requirement was higher among Brahmin/Chhetri (94%) than among Dalit (91%). There were no remarkable differences in the percentage of school children meeting MDD across school type (by cycle, by program, and by grade), and by gender and age of the child (Table I4, Annex 11). Indicator 5: Percentage of parents aware of the importance of school meal programme (Custom 12) 161. Parents who could tell any five out of the ten listed benefits of the school meal programme were considered as aware of the benefits of SMP (see Annex 11 for the details). Around 16 percent of the parents having school-going children were aware of the benefits of the school meal program, indicating a low level of awareness among the parents (Table 4.1). Awareness level was lowest among parents from Dalit ethnicity (11%), followed by Brahmin/Chhetri (17%), and Janajati (25%). Awareness level was particularly low in Bajura (5%), Doti (11%), and Achham (13%), while it was comparatively better in Jajarkot (34%). The awareness level was higher in WFP program continuing schools (19%), compared to new schools (13%). Male parents were found relatively more aware of the benefits of SMP than females by 5 PPD. Better awareness of male parents was observed in all districts except Bajura, in both new and continuing schools, and among Brahmin/Chhetri and Dalit ethnicity. In the case of Janajati, there was no gender-wise difference among parents in the awareness level of the benefits of SMP. 93 95 95 93 93 90 95 Total (n = 1849) Doti (n = 325) Jajarkot (n = 181) Achham (412) Bajhang (n = 400) Bajura (n = 222) Darchula (n = 309) Figure 4.4: Percentage of school age children meeting minimum diet diversity 24 Table 4.1: Percentage of parents and school-going children aware of the benefits of SMP Categories Parents Students Sample Size Frequency Percentage Sample Size Frequency Percentage (N) (n) % (N) (n) % Total 1849 296 16.0 2087 270 12.9 District Doti 335 35 10.8 314 27 8.6 Jajarkot 181 61 33.7 360 125 34.7 Bajhang 400 79 19.8 422 66 15.6 Bajura 222 12 5.4 240 5 2.1 Achham 412 52 12.6 412 23 5.6 Darchula 309 57 18.4 339 24 7.1 School type Continuing 899 169 18.8 904 154 17 New 950 127 13.4 1,183 116 9.8 School program Only SMP 500 90 18 674 152 22.6 SMP+SHN 411 51 12.4 412 23 5.6 SMP+SHN+EGR 931 148 15.9 1,001 95 9.5 School level Primary (Up to 5) 689 128 18.6 539 90 16.7 Basic (Up to 8) 423 71 16.8 569 89 15.6 Secondary (9+) 737 97 13.2 979 91 9.3 Gender of parents or students Female 1,087 153 14.1 1,054 130 12.3 Male 762 143 18.8 1,033 140 13.6 Indicator 6: Percentage of students aware of the importance of school meal program (Custom 14) 162. Students who could tell any five out of the ten listed benefits of the school meal program were considered as aware of the benefits of SMP. The awareness of the importance of SMP was even lower among students (13%) (Table 4.1). The awareness level is much lower among students in Bajura (2%) and Darchula (7%), while it was relatively better in Jajarkot (35%). Students from the WFP program continuing schools had a higher level of awareness (17%) compared to new schools (10%), while it was high in ‘only’ SMP schools. Students interviewed in primary level schools (not primary school students) were found to have better knowledge compared to basic and secondary schools. Students aged 10 – 14 years more frequently identified the benefits of SMP. A slightly higher proportion of male students (14%) compared to female students (12%) were aware of the importance of SMP and a somewhat similar gender-wise difference (about 2-3 PPD) was observed in Bajhang, Doti, and Jajarkot; and in continuing schools. In terms of age of the students, males were better aware in the younger (5 – 9 years) age group (13% male vs. 7% female), while females were better aware in the older (15 – 17 years) age group (7% male vs. 15% female) (Table I6, Annex 11). 25 163. A higher proportion of parents identified ‘motivates children to go to school’ (68%), and ‘motivates to stay longer at school’ (53%) as the benefits of SMP. Other benefits such as the use of locally made EGR materials, promoting girl child enrolment, improving learning outcomes of children, improving the nutritional status of children were less often mentioned. Among the benefits mentioned by students, ‘motivates to go to school’ (51%), and ‘motivates to stay longer at school’ (43%) are listed more often. Compared to parents, a lower proportion of students mentioned the benefits of SMP, with 17 percent of students did not know any of the benefits of SMP (compared to 9% among parents). A higher proportion of students, however, were aware of benefits such as improved learning outcomes and improved health hand hygiene behavior (Figure 4.5). 164. Some students were found to be aware of various vitamins that can be obtained from nutritious food. 165. “Nutrition is that element that protects and develops our body. We need to eat nutritious food which also has vitamins. There are again different types of vitamins- vitamin A, vitamin B, vitamin C, etc.” -FGD with adolescent girls, Doti 166. Gender-wise summary for activity 1: There was no difference across the gender of students in terms of receiving school meals, attendance rate (average rate and headcount), retention rate, and MDD score. Male parents, as well as male students, were found relatively better aware of the importance of SMP compared to female parents and female students, with the difference larger in the case of parents. 68 53 16 22 18 20 16 27 39 3 12 2 9 50 43 10 20 24 31 12 19 29 1 1 17 Motivates children to go to school Motivates to stay longer at school Promotes girl child’s enrolment Improves children’s ability to learn Improves learning outcomes Improves good health and hygiene behavior Improves awareness about nutrition Provides nutritional benefits Saves money of household Improves awareness about the use of local foods Increases the student admission rate Awareness about the usefulness of locally made textbooks Don't know Figure 4.5: Awareness on benefits of school meal program among parents and students (%) Students Parents 26 Activity 2 - Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage Indicator 7: Number of individuals who demonstrate the use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 20) 167. A composite index with the total score ranging from 0 to 12 was created including questions related to safe food preparation and storage, which was administered to the school cook and observation of the cooking procedure. Scores of 8 or above (70% or above) were considered as demonstrating the use of safe food preparation and storage practices (see Table I7 in Annex 11 for the details). 168. School cooks in 30 percent of schools reported safe food preparation and storage practice. The majority of the kitchen at schools did not have a window, almost half did not have an improved cooking stove, and 19 percent of the kitchen were not clean at the time of observation. Schools were also found poor in terms of having any measures in place to prevent food from contamination from pests and rodents and ensuring prevention of nutrient loss of fortified food. There was variation in the proportion of school cooks demonstrating safe food preparation and storage practice across the study district; highest in Darchula (44%) and lowest in Jajarkot (22%). There was also variation by school type, and gender of the cook as shown in Table 4.2, however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the low sample size in some of the sub-groups. Table 4.2: Percentage of school cooks demonstrating safe food preparation and storage practices Categories Sample size (N) Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Total 78 23 29.5 District Doti 13 4 30.8 Jajarkot 9 2 22.2 Bajhang 23 6 26.1 Darchula 9 4 44.4 Achham 16 5 31.3 Bajura 8 2 25.0 School program Only SMP 22 6 27.3 SMP+SHN 16 5 31.3 SMP+SHN+EGR 40 12 30.0 School level Primary (Up to 5) 61 20 32.8 Basic (Up to 8) 14 2 14.3 Secondary (9+) 3 1 33.3 Gender of the cook Female 8 4 50.0 Male 70 19 27.1 169. Municipal officials from Bajhang and Bajura expressed concerns about the necessary facilities at the school for the effective implementation of the school meal programme – 170. “For effective execution of the school meal programme, we have to have good infrastructure, proper water facility, and also kitchen cleanliness. Also, we have to give priority to the cleanliness of the cook as well.” -KII with Municipal Officials, Bajura 171. “I think one of the main problems is sitting facility, drinking water and toilets in those schools which have a high number of students like “JANAKARI” which have 1300 students. Sometimes it's difficult for students to even use toilets and drinking water due to the lack of pipeline facilities. Some schools don’t even have fences.” -KII with Municipal Officials, Bajhang 172. Gender-wise summary for activity 2: A higher proportion of female cooks demonstrated safe food preparation and storage practice (50%) compared to male cooks (27%). 27 Activity 3 - Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions Indicator 8: Number of schools using an improved water source (Standard 27) 173. Questions related to the source of drinking water at school were included in both school environment observation and interviews with SHN focal teacher. Findings from school observation and SHN focal teacher have been reported separately. Drinking water from piped water; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; and protected spring were considered as the improved water sources. 174. The school observation showed that 93 percent of the schools were using an improved drinking water source (Table 4.3). The improved drinking water source was almost universal at schools in Bajhang district (98.4%), and all the other districts had improved water sources for more than 80 percent of schools. The proportion of schools having improved drinking water was slightly lower in WFP project continuing schools (91%) compared to the new schools (95%). Primary schools (up to 5 grades) had lower access to improved water sources compared to basic and secondary schools. Around five percent of schools reported students bring water from home, while around 2% did not have any reliable source of drinking water. Table 4.3: Percentage of schools using an improved drinking water source Categories Frequency (n) Proportion (%) Total (n = 216) 200 92.6 District Bajhang (n = 64) 63 98.4 Darchula (n = 49) 47 95.9 Achham (n = 69) 62 89.9 Bajura (n = 34) 28 82.4 School type Continuing (n = 122) 111 91.0 New (n = 94) 89 94.7 School level Primary (Up to 5) (n = 107) 93 86.9 Basic (Up to 8) (n = 43) 42 97.7 Secondary (9+) (n = 66) 65 98.5 175. Interview of SHN focal teacher showed similar results that almost 94 percent of schools had an improved drinking water source, with Bajhang district having the highest proportion of schools with an improved drinking water source, and primary level schools having a lower proportion (see Tables I8 (a) and (b) in Annex 11 for the details). Indicator 9: Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities (Toilet specified) (Standard 28) 176. If the school had at least one toilet which was observed to be flush or pour/flush toilet connected to a piped sewer connection, septic tank or pit latrine; VIP latrine; pit latrine with a slab; composting toilet; and bio-gas toilet, then the school was categorized as having improved sanitation facilities. 28 177. The majority of the schools (94%) had at least one improved toilet with Darchula district having almost all (98%), while Bajura had only 85 percent of the schools with improved toilets (Figure 4.6). Also, continuing, primary and basic schools had slightly lower percentages than the new and secondary schools with improved toilets. 178. Based on the reporting of the SHN teacher (who was asked about only the “main” toilet at the school), about 96 percent of the schools had improved toilets (Table I9 (b) in Annex 11). The majority of the schools (81%) had flush latrine (to a septic tank or a closed pit), while nine percent had flush latrine to the piped sewer system. The data shows that (not included in this report) five schools (out of 212 schools where SHN teachers could be interviewed) did not have any toilets. Almost half of the schools did not have a gender-separate toilet, and more than one-third did not have a toilet with water available at the time of observation. 179. The inadequacy of the necessary facilities related to water, sanitation, and others at the school was expressed by some respondents – 180. “The foremost problem that needs to be solved is managed drinking water facility in every school. Along with that, there must be the proper facility of toilets, physical infrastructure, and a desk bench for the students to sit in the classroom. These are all problems that we are not being able to cope with.” -KII with municipality official, Jajarkot 181. “The infrastructure of the school is not good as it must be according to national guidelines. We have a low number of students, so we are not being prioritized in development matters. We also don’t have the political reach, so we don’t have proper infrastructure. As you can see, we don’t have buildings according to new guidelines. We also didn’t have a transportation facility while building the school.” -KII with SMC, Darchula Indicator 10: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) (Standard 29) 182. The government of Nepal has been implementing the deworming component under the school health and nutrition program, in which anti-helminthic tablets are provided to school students twice a year. This indicator was measured by using the information collected from the students. Information from the school records could not be used as only 34 schools were found to be keeping the necessary records, which is too small a sample size to obtain any useful results. 183. The survey with students showed that 82 percent of schoolchildren received deworming tablets at least once at the school, while 53 percent received it twice in the last academic year (Table 4.4). WFP program continuing schools had a higher proportion of students receiving deworming at school, compared to new schools. Girl students as well as students from younger age groups more often reported receiving the deworming medications at school. The gender-wise difference with a higher proportion of female children receiving 94 95 98 94 85 93 96 92 93 99 (n=216) Bajhang (n=64) Darchula (n=49) Achham (n=69) Bajura (n=34) Continuing (n=122) New (n=94) Primary (n=107) Basic (n=43) Secondary (n=66) Total District Type School Level Figure 4.6: Percentage of schools having an improved toilet 29 deworming medications was observed in Bajhang (50% male vs. 62% female), and Darchula (60% male vs. 66% female), but not in Achham (56% male vs. 55% female) and Bajura (30% for both male and female). Female students received deworming medications in both WFP program continuing schools and new schools, with the difference more prominent in WFP program continuing schools. Further, a higher proportion of female students aged ≥ 10 years consumed deworming medications, while a higher proportion of male students aged < 10 years consumed it. Table 4.4: Percentage of School Children Receiving Deworming Medication(s) at School Categories Deworming at least once at school Deworming twice at school n % n % Total (n = 1413) 1159 82.0 750 53.1 District Bajhang (n = 422) 355 84.1 236 55.9 Darchula (n = 339) 269 79.4 214 63.1 Achham (n = 412) 358 86.9 228 55.3 Bajura (n = 240) 176 73.3 73 30.4 School type Continuing (n = 601) 525 87.4 325 54.1 New (n = 812) 633 78.0 426 52.5 School level Primary (Up to 5) (n = 324) 281 86.7 183 56.5 Basic (Up to 8) (n = 429) 334 77.9 197 45.9 Secondary (9+) (n = 660) 543 82.3 371 56.2 Gender of student Female (n = 709) 592 83.5 393 55.4 Male (n = 704) 566 80.4 358 50.9 Age, years 5 to 9 (n = 152) 127 83.6 84 55.3 10 to 14 (n = 1183) 972 82.2 634 53.6 15 or above (n = 78) 59 75.6 33 42.3 184. According to the survey with SHN focal teachers, nearly three-fourths (72%) of schools had provided deworming medications twice during the previous academic year. See Tables I10 (a), (b), and (c) in Annex 11 for the details. 185. As to who provided the deworming medicines, some students said that – 186. “Deworming medicines are not provided by the school but are provided by the health post” -FGD with adolescent girls, Bajura 187. Integrated Development Society on deworming programme at the school – 188. “We form clubs in the schools for organizing awareness programmes for water, cleanliness, and health. Like deworming program running from the year 2007 to 2008 AD, it’s a collaborative program with education and health ministry, but it was lost in coming up to 2013 to 2014 AD. We started this program here in 207238, we found that the deworming program was not conducted at the schools so, from 2073, we then collaborated with health post and started this program. Now we have 100 percent achievement in this program. We also molded those guidelines in the year 2076. We also manufactured some products for Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) training. At this time, we are conducting programs to develop a good habit in children.” -KII with a representative from Integrated Development Society, Darchula 38 2015/16 AD 30 Indicator 11: Number of adolescent girls aged 10-19 years receiving weekly Iron Folic Acid (IFA) supplementation (Custom 4) 189. This indicator has been measured by using the information collected from the adolescent students from grades 6-8 in the sample schools from the four districts where the SHN program has been implemented. Adolescent girls who reported receiving a full dose (26 tablets in a year) of IFA tablets were considered as receiving biannual IFA supplementation. Information from the school records could not be used as only 29 schools were found to be keeping the necessary records, which is too small a sample size to obtain any useful results. 190. More than two-thirds (68%) of adolescent girl students (10 – 19 years from grade 6 – 8) reported receiving iron and folic acid supplementation once at school during the previous academic year. Although more than two-thirds of girl students mentioned receiving iron and folic acid supplementation tablets at school, only nine percent (n = 11) reported receiving full dose (i.e., 26 tablets in a year), while 14 percent received 13 tablets. None of the adolescent girls from the Bajura district reported a full dose of Iron Folic Acid supplementation. Girls from new program schools (11%), compared to old schools (5%) more often received the supplementation. Further, a higher proportion of girls from secondary schools, as well as a higher age group, reported receiving the Iron Folic Acid supplementation (Figure 4.7 and Table I11 in Annex 11). 191. Adolescent girls of Doti on iron-folic acid supplementation – 192. “Yes, we have Iron Folic Acid Supplementation. We have had before but not now. We must have to take folic acid supplementation for three months continuously and then take a gap for three months, and again start for three months and the cycle goes on.” - FGD with adolescent schoolgirls, Doti Indicator 12: Number of schools with provision of sanitary pads (Custom 5) 193. Based on the school observation, schools that provided sanitary pads to adolescent girls at school were considered as having provision of sanitary pads. This indicator has been reported only for basic and secondary schools. 194. Around 83 percent of the basic and secondary schools (N = 109) in four SHN program districts had the availability of sanitary pads for girls (Figure 4.8). The proportion of schools with the provision of sanitary pads ranged from 59 percent in Bajhang to 97 percent in Achham. A lower proportion of schools where the WFP program was being implemented (75%) reported the provision of sanitary pads to adolescent girls, compared to new schools (87%). Please see Table I12 in Annex 11 for details. 9 12 9 11 0 5 11 7 13 (n = 127) Bajhang (n = 33) Darchula (n = 35) Achham (n = 25) Bajura (n = 34) Continuing (n = 44) New (n = 83) 10 – 14 (n = 95) 15 – 17 (n = 32) Total District School type Age of girls, years Figure 4.7: Percentage of adolescent girls receiving weekely Iron Folic Acid supplementation 31 Indicator 13: Number of schools toilet with sanitary pads disposal bins (Custom 6) 195. The school environment observation included a checklist related to the availability of containers in the toilet for storage/disposal of used sanitary pads in basic and secondary schools. Less than half (45%) of schools (among the basic and secondary schools) had a toilet with containers/bins for storing/disposing of the used sanitary pads (Table 4.5). Provision of such bins was more often observed in new schools (51%) compared to WFP program continuing schools (31%). The proportion of schools having sanitary pads disposal bins was higher in secondary level schools (50%), compared to the basic schools (37%). Please see Table I13 in Annex 11 for the details. Table 4.5: Percentage of schools having toilet with sanitary pads disposal bin Categories Number of Schools (N) Schools with Sanitary Pads Disposal Bin (%) Total (n = 109) 49 45.0 District Bajhang (n = 32) 15 46.9 Darchula (n = 27) 13 48.1 Achham (n = 30) 13 43.3 Bajura (n = 20) 8 40.0 School type Continuing (n = 32) 10 31.3 New (n = 77) 39 50.6 School level Basic (Up to 8) (n = 43) 16 37.2 Secondary (9+) (n = 66) 33 50.0 196. The unavailability of a proper place to dispose of the sanitary pads was expressed by the girls and the school management committees – 197. “No, there is not a separate toilet for girls in our school to change the sanitary pads. Yes, we have dust bins available for sanitary pad disposal.” -FGD with adolescent girls, Achham 83 59 96 97 85 75 87 81 85 (n = 109) Bajhang (n = 32) Darchula (n = 27) Achham (n = 30) Bajura (n = 20) Continuing (n = 32) New (n = 77) Basic (Up to 8) (n = 43) Secondary (9+) (n = 66) Total District School type School grade Figure 4.8: Percentage of schools with provision of sanitary pads 32 198. “In our school, we don’t have a separate toilet, we share the same toilet. We are planning to make one. We have one land pit to dispose of the pads.” -KII with SMC, Bajura, and KII with SMC Achham Indicator 14: Number of schools with at least one set of information education and communication and behavior change package (SBCC Custom 5) 199. Headteachers at the surveyed schools were asked about the availability of information education and communication and behavior change package related to health, hygiene, nutrition, etc. Schools, where at least one set of IEC/BCC packages could be observed, were considered as having the package. 200. Only 14 percent of schools had at least one set of IEC and BCC packages available at school. In the Bajura district, around one-third of schools (35%) had IEC and BCC packages available, while six percent of schools in the Darchula district had such packages. A slightly higher percentage of schools where the WFP has been working (old schools) had IEC/BCC package available (16%), compared to new schools (13%). A higher proportion of schools with the female headteacher (28%) were observed having IEC/BCC package, compared to schools with the male headteacher (12%), which was more prominent in Achham and Bajhang districts, and in continuing schools (Figure 4.9 and Table I14 in Annex 11). Indicator 15: Number of schools celebrating national sanitation-related campaign at the community level (SBCC Custom 6) 201. The survey with SHN focal teachers showed that 41 percent of schools were celebrating national sanitation￾related campaigns at the community level (Table 4.6), with the proportion highest in Achham (57%) and lowest in Bajhang (22%). New program schools were found better in conducting such sanitation campaigns at the community level (53%), compared to WFP working old schools (32%). Also, secondary level schools were more actively implementing such campaigns (60%), compared to primary (30%) and basic (40%) schools. 14 11 6 13 35 16 13 (n = 216) Bajhang (n = 64) Darchula (n = 49) Achham (n = 69) Bajura (n = 34) Continuing (n = 122) New (n = 94) Total District School type Figure 4.9: Percentage of schools with IEC/BCC package 33 Table 4.6: Percentage of schools celebrating national sanitation-related campaign at the community level Categories Schools Celebrating Number (N) Percentage (%) Total (n = 212) 87 41.0 District Bajhang (n = 64) 14 21.9 Darchula (n = 45) 21 46.7 Achham (n = 69) 39 56.5 Bajura (n = 34) 13 38.2 School type Continuing (n =121) 39 32.2 New (n = 91) 48 52.7 School level Primary (n = 104) 31 29.8 Basic (n = 43) 17 39.5 Secondary (n = 65) 39 60.0 Indicator 16: Number of schools conducting one annual health screening (Custom 3) 202. Based on the interview with SHN focal teacher, only about nine percent of the schools reported conducting annual health screening with all the five components which included screening for height, weight, vision, hearing, and dental. More than one-third (38%) of schools had conducted at least one health screening for measuring weight during the last academic year, while one-fourth (25%) had conducted height measurement for students, and 22 percent conducted vision screening. A relatively fewer proportion of schools conducted other annual health screenings such as hearing tests and dental check-ups (12% each; Figure 4.10). 203. Table 4.7 shows that 22% of schools in Achham and 5% of schools in Bajhang districts conducted annual health screening on all the five components measured during the past academic year, while none of the schools in Darchula and Bajura had conducted health screening on all the five components. A higher proportion of schools from Bajhang district (45%), followed by Achham district (41%) conducted weight measurements of students, while only 18 percent of schools in Bajura reported weight measurement. Schools in Achham district more often conducted height measurement, vision tests, hearing tests, as well as a dental check-up of students. None of the schools in the Darchula district reported conducting the hearing test, while none of the schools in Bajura conducted dental check-ups during the previous academic year. A 25 38 22 12 12 Height Weight Vision Hearing Dental Figure 4.10: Percentage of schools conducting annual health screening 34 higher proportion of secondary schools (14%) reported conducting all types of health screening as reported in Table 4.7. Further details are presented in Table I16 in Annex 11. Table 4.7: Percentage of schools conducting annual health screening, by different categories Categories All Five Categories (%) Height (%) Weight (%) Vision (%) Hearing (%) Dental (%) District Bajhang (n = 64) 4.7 15.6 45.3 17.2 9.4 6.3 Darchula (n = 45) 0 31.1 37.8 17.8 0.0 4.4 Achham (n = 69) 21.7 37.7 40.6 37.7 27.5 27.5 Bajura (n = 34) 0 11.8 17.6 5.9 2.9 0.0 School type Continuing 7.4 24.8 43.8 19.0 10.7 9.9 New 9.9 26.4 29.7 26.4 14.3 14.3 School level Primary 6.7 23.1 23.1 15.4 10.6 8.7 Basic 4.7 20.9 20.9 23.3 4.7 7.0 Secondary 13.8 32.3 32.3 32.3 20.0 20.0 Indicator 17: Number of individuals who demonstrate the use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 19) 204. A composite index with the possible value ranging from 0 to 10 was created including students’ behavior such as water purification before drinking, waste disposal practice, eating snacks at home during school days, hand washing practice, and personal hygiene. School students who demonstrate health and nutrition practices were defined as those who scored 7 or more (70% or more). 205. Around half (49%) of the school students demonstrated child health and nutrition practices (Figure 4.11), which was highest in Darchula (55%), followed by Bajhang (54%), Achham (46%), and lowest in Bajura (37%). Students from the WFP project continuation schools reported better health and nutrition practices (52%) 49 54 55 46 37 52 47 (n = 1412) Bajhang (n = 421) Darchula (n = 339) Achham (n = 412) Bajura (n = 240) Continuing (n = 600) New (n = 812) Total District School type Figure 4.11: Percentage of school children demonstrating child health and nutrition practices 35 compared to students from new schools (47%). Similarly, students from basic (up to grade 8) level schools were found to demonstrate better practices (52%) compared to primary (47%) and secondary (49%) levels. There was a significant difference in the proportion of students demonstrating proper health and nutrition practices by sex of the children, with a higher proportion of female students demonstrating better practices (55%) compared to male students (44%). Female students (55%) showed better health and nutrition practices compared to male students (44%), which was observed in all districts except Achham where health and nutrition practices between male and female students were almost similar. Better health and nutrition practices among female students were observed in both WHP existing program schools and new schools, as well as across all age groups of students. In terms of the age of students, health and nutrition practices were better among older age students (Table I17 in Annex 11). 206. Students, in general, showed good practice on waste disposal, eating tiffin39/snacks on school days after returning from school in the afternoon, and handwashing before eating and after using the toilet, while the practice of drinking water purification, personal hygiene, and handwashing with soap and water on critical moments such as before food preparation, after coughing/sneezing and after touching waste was found poor. Indicator 18: Number of schools practicing segregated waste management practice (Custom 8) 207. Around 32 percent of schools were found to be practicing waste segregation, with separate dustbins/pits at the school premises to dump trash according to the nature of waste. Such separate bins were observed in only one-fourth (25%) of schools in Bajhang, and 41 percent of schools in Achham. As Figure 4.12 shows, a higher proportion of the WFP program continuing schools (35%) was found practicing segregated waste management, compared to new schools (29%). Indicator 19: Health-related absenteeism among school-age children (SBCC Custom 1) 208. The parent’s questionnaire included questions related to health-related absenteeism among their children. Although the plan was to triangulate this information by reviewing the school record, only three schools were found to be keeping the necessary record. 39 A light midday meal 32 25 33 41 29 35 29 (n = 216) Bajhang (n = 64) Darchula (n = 49) Achham (n = 69) Bajura (n = 34) Continuing (n = 122) New (n = 94) Total District School type Figure 4.12: Percentage of schools practicing segregated waste management 36 209. Around 19 percent of the parents reported that their children had missed at least one school day in the past month due to health-related causes (Figure 4.13). When compared across the study districts, health-related absenteeism was highest (24%) in Bajhang and lowest (11%) in Doti. Such absenteeism was observed more often in new schools (22%) compared to WFP project continuing schools (16%). A higher proportion of students from Dalit ethnicity had health-related absenteeism (25%). Further, children aged 15 years or above had a higher proportion of absenteeism. A slightly higher proportion of female students (20%), compared to male students (18%) were found absent due to health-related reasons. Female students in Achham, Bajhang, Bajura, and Darchula more often missed school compared to male students. Both continuing and new schools had a higher proportion of female students being absent due to health-related reasons. When analyzed across the ethnicity, the gender-wise difference was most prominent in Dalit groups where 18% of male and 29% of female students were absent due to illness during the previous month. Among the students who had health-related absenteeism (n = 345), the mean number of days the school was missed was 3.6 (SD = 3.1, range: 1 to 25) per month. The major reason for health-related absenteeism was fever (84%), with other reasons included diarrhoea (9%), injury (7%), running nose/cough (6%), headache (2%), and stomach-ache (2%). Indicator 20: Percent of school-age children with good personal hygiene (SBCC Custom 2) 210. School students (grades 4 to 8) were observed for their personal hygiene practice which included the maintenance of trimmed nails, groomed hair, clean teeth, clean dress, and clean shoes/slipper. Each of these aspects was scored as 0 (poor), 1 (good), and very good (2), with a summative score ranging from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicating better personal hygiene. Students scoring 7 or more (70% or more) were considered as maintaining good personal hygiene. 211. Table 4.8 shows that one-third (33%) of students were with good personal hygiene, with the proportion of students maintaining good personal hygiene higher in Darchula (53%), followed by Bajhang (32%), Bajura (29%), and Achham (20%). When compared across school type by cycle, students from the WFP project continuing schools showed better personal hygiene (37%) compared to students from new schools (30%). A higher proportion of female students, as well as students aged 10 to 14 years, had good personal hygiene. Female students practicing better personal hygiene compared to male students was more prominent in Bajhang, Darchula, and Bajura districts, as well as WFP program continuing schools. 19 11 22 24 17 17 24 16 22 20 23 16 20 18 18 25 4 18 20 26 (n=1849) Doti (n=325) Jajarkot (n=181) Bajhang (n=400) Bajura (n=222) Achham (n=412) Darchula (n=309) Continuing (n=899) New (n=950) Primary (n=689) Basic (n=423) Secondary (n=737) Female (n=974) Male (n=875) Brahmin/Chhetri (n=1385) Dalit (n=434) Other Janajati (n=24) 5-9 (n=716) 10-14 (n=1079) 15+ (n=54) Total District Type School Level Gender Ethnicity Age Figure 4.13: Percentage of absent students due to illness 37 Table 4.8: Percentage of school-age children with good personal hygiene Categories Total Students (N) Students Maintaining Good Personal Hygiene (%) Total 1,413 33.1 District Bajhang 422 32.2 Darchula 339 52.8 Achham 412 19.9 Bajura 240 29.2 School type Continuing 601 37.1 New 812 30.0 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 29.3 Basic (Up to 8) 429 38.2 Secondary (9+) 660 31.5 Gender Female 709 37.1 Male 704 29.0 Age, years 5 - 9 152 27.0 10 – 14 1,183 34.1 15 or above 78 29.5 Indicator 21: Percent of adolescent girls reporting practice of hygienic menstrual behavior (SBCC Custom 3) 212. School adolescent girls were asked whether they were aware of menstrual hygiene, speak about menstrual hygiene to anybody, use sanitary pads during menstruation, change the pad every six hours, safe disposal of the menstrual pad, and handwashing before and after changing the pads. A composite index of a total possible score of 6 was created, whereby scoring 4 or above was categorized as having hygienic menstrual behavior. 79 76 83 80 75 75 81 78 81 (n = 127) Bajhang (n = 33) Darchula (n = 35) Achham (n = 25) Bajura (n = 34) Continuing (n = 44) New (n = 83) 10 – 14 (n = 95) 15 – 17 (n = 32) Total District School type Age of girls, years Figure 4.14: Percentage of adolescent girls practicing hygienic menstrual behavior 38 213. More than three-fourths (79%) of adolescent girls reported practicing good menstrual hygiene, with a higher proportion of girls from Darchula (83%), followed by Achham (80%) district practicing hygienic menstrual behavior. A higher proportion of adolescent girls from new schools (81%), compared to old (WFP program continuing) schools practiced hygienic menstrual hygiene (Figure 4.14). 214. Some girls and parents expressed an improvement on the societal perception about menstruation-related matters - 215. “Previously, the women were forced to live in the cow shed but now they are just kept in a separate place in the same house. The women stay in a separate room during menstruation. The women enter the kitchen after 3 days of menstruation. Previously they used to stay in the cowshed for 5 days. Our daughters teach us how to maintain menstrual hygiene. My daughter uses sanitary napkins during mensuration.” -FGD with parents, Achham 216. “We never know if they are on periods or not. They sit together and eat food, drink water. Like bathing, they need to change pads frequently. They will be there in the school for 4 hours. The blood may smell.” -FGD with Parents, Bajura 217. “We have to bath regularly and change the sanitary pads during periods. We have to wash our private parts. Not everyone can afford sanitary pads, in that case, they can use soft and clean cotton cloths. Chaupadi is not followed here. In past, the girls were sent to cow shed but now those practices are not followed” -FGD with Parents, Achham Indicator 22: Percent of school-age children reporting handwashing practice at critical times (SBCC Custom 4) 218. Around nine percent of the students reported handwashing at five or more critical moments (Figure 4.15), which was highest in Bajhang (17%), and lowest in Bajura (3%) district. A higher proportion of female students (13%) reported handwashing at critical moments compared to male students (6%). Handwashing practice increased with the increase in age of the students. Students from schools having secondary grades showed better handwashing practice at critical times. A higher proportion of female students (13%) reported handwashing at critical moments compared to male students (6%). Female students in all four districts, except Bajura, reported better handwashing practice at critical times. Such gender-wise difference was observed across all the age groups and in both WFP, program continuing (6% male vs. 13% female) and new (5% male vs. 13% female) schools (Table I22 in Annex 11). 9 17 6 8 3 13 6 (n = 1413) Bajhang (n = 422) Darchula (n = 339) Achham (n = 412) Bajura (n = 240) Female (n = 709) Male (n = 704) Total District Gender of student Figure 4.15: Percentage of children reporting handwashing at critical times 39 219. Figure 4.16 shows the percentage of students reporting handwashing at specific critical moments. Almost all the children reported washing their hands before eating while 82 percent reported washing their hands after using the toilet. Similarly, the proportion of children washing their hands after touching garbage was 69 percent. A fewer proportion of children mentioned washing their hands before food preparation, after coughing/sneezing, and after touching animal waste. 220. Parents’ perception of the benefit of students’ knowledge on sanitation – 221. “If the child learns about it then he can also educate his family about clean and healthy sanitation measures. We can be healthy and save ourselves from falling ill.” -FGD with Parents, Achham 222. Municipality officials take on how the WASH programme is being implemented – 223. “WASH program has taught us to wash our hands before and after eating food. They also teach students to wash their hands after going to the toilet. They have learned everything, but WASH taught them practically. Even I sometimes ask children how we can wash our hands, and they have a proper answer for that.” -KII with Municipality official, Jajarkot 224. Gender-wise summary for activity 3: Female students (84% vs. 80% for boys) more often reported receiving the deworming medications at school. Female students also showed better health and nutrition practices (55% vs. 44%), handwashing practice at critical moments (13% vs. 6%), as well as personal hygiene (37% vs. 29%), compared to male students. A slightly higher proportion of female students (20%) compared to male students (18%) were found absent due to health-related reasons in the previous month. Activity 4 - Promoting Improved Literacy Indicator 23: Number of local governments recognizing and rewarding teachers making changes or taking special initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes (Custom 9) 225. The key informant interviews with six municipalities (two from each of the three districts) the municipality officials gathered information with respect to recognizing and rewarding teachers making changes or taking initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes. The practice is largely intended to motivate the teachers to perform better. All together thre municipalities (two from Darchula and one from Bajhang) and 97 82 69 24 17 15 7 Before eating After using the toilet After touching garbage Before preparing food After blowing nose, coughing or sneezing After touching an animal waste After helping someone who used the toilet Figure 4.16: Percentage of students reporting hand washing practice at critical moments (n = 1413) 40 none from Bajura (non EGR districts of 2017 cycle) were found to have the practice of recognizing and rewarding teachers. Indicator 24: Number of local governments developing contextualized instructional materials (Custom 13) 226. Additionally, the key informant interviews also explored the number of local governments developing contextualized instructional materials. The contextualized materials are aimed at engaging students in active learning while assisting them to make meaning out of the information they obtain. Of the six municipalities visited in the baseline, only two (one each from Bajhang and Darchula) were found to have developed or developing contextualized instructional materials, while the municipalities visited in Bajura did not have such practice. Indicator 25: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of a grade-level text (Standard 1) 227. Standard assessment tools developed for Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) by the Education Review Office (ERO), Ministry of Science and Technology (MoEST) was used to assess the early grade reading skills of grade three students in the sampled schools. The tool has six subtasks – Listening comprehension (3 questions), Letter decoding (100 letters), Matra decoding (100 matras), non-word reading (50 non-words), Oral reading fluency (60 words), and Oral reading comprehension (5 questions). Each task was timed to be assessed within a minute (60 seconds), except for comprehension. 228. A composite index was prepared to assess the overall reading and comprehension skills of grade three students following the guideline of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MoEST, 2018). Based on this, 45 CWPM (correct words per minute) in subtask 5 and 80 percent of the correct responses on the comprehension questions (which is 4 out of 5 questions) in subtask 6 were used as the benchmark for early grade reading. 229. Out of the 3979 students assessed, only one percent demonstrated the necessary grade-level skills (Table I25 (a) in Annex 11). Students from the three districts where EGR is implemented have performed marginally better, but the result is far from satisfactory against the benchmark used. The prolonged closure of the schools in the past due to Covid-19 related reasons may have contributed to the poor performance of the students, among others. 230. Analysis was also conducted to ensure that the foundation skills are evaluated separately on the six subtasks. Tables I25 (b, c, d, e, f, and g) in Annex 11 presents the detailed findings on individual subtasks disaggregated by relevant categories. Table 4.9 below summarises the main findings. Table 4.9: Scores of the grade three students on individual six subtasks of EGRA Categories Number (N) Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Confidence Interval (L) Confidence Interval (U) Zero Score (%) Listening comprehension (*1) 3979 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 17.2 Letter decoding (*2) 3979 30.0 20.3 0.3 29.4 30.7 6.5 Matra decoding (*3) 3979 16.5 18.1 0.3 16.0 17.1 24.2 Non-word reading (*4) 3979 6.7 6.9 0.1 6.5 6.9 25.1 Oral reading fluency (*5) 3979 11.4 12.7 0.2 11.0 11.8 18.4 Oral reading comprehension (*6) 3979 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 42.3 *1. Correct answers out of 3 questions. *2. Correct letters/min. *3. Correct matras/min. *4. Correct non-words/min. *5. Correct words/min. *6. Correct answers out of 5 questions. 231. The average correct response on listening comprehension was 1.5 out of 3 questions with the majority (83%) of the students giving at least one correct response and 19 percent giving all three correct responses (not shown in the table), while 17 percent could not provide a single correct response. 41 232. The percentage of those who scored zero on this subtask was particularly lower among new schools (14%), in the three districts where EGR is implemented (13%), in secondary schools (13%), and among male students 14%), and students with mother tongue Nepali (14%). 40 233. Students decoded an average of 30 letters correctly in a minute, and about seven percent scored zero on this subtask. Those from EGR districts have comparatively better correct letters on this subtask than the other 40 Note: The disaggregation by school level in the figures simply means - grade three students of primary schools, grade three students of basic schools and grade three students of secondary schools 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.4 20 14 19 22 13 18 21 13 20 14 14 24 Continuing New Only SMP SMP+SHN SMP+EGR+SHN Primary Basic Secondary Female Male L1 L2 Type Program School Level Gender L-type Figure 4.17: Scores on listening comprehension Mean Zero (%) 30 31 27 24 36 30 28 31 30 31 31 29 8 5 6 10 5 8 6 5 6 7 6 8 Continuing New Only SMP SMP+SHN SMP+EGR+SHN Primary Basic Secondary Female Male L1 L2 Type Program School Level Gender L-type Figure 4.18: Scores on letter decoding Mean Zero (%) 42 three districts. Students from primary schools scored slightly higher percentage of zero than those from basic and secondary schools. Similarly L2 type students (having mother tongue other than Nepali) scored slightly higher percentage of zero than L1 type students (having mother tongue Nepali). 234. Analysis suggests that a gradually decreasing proportion of students decoded Matras and non-words correctly (16% and 7% respectively) with about a quarter of the students not decoding a single Matra or non-word correctly. As in the earlier two subtasks, students from the three EGR districts and those with mother tongue Nepali scored less zero (about 22% and 21% respectively) than the rest in the Matras decoding and non-word reading subtasks. 235. The average score on oral reading fluency was about 11 CWPM, which is higher in EGR districts (14) by 5 points than the other three districts. About 18 percent scored zero on this subtask, which is particularly lower among students with mother tongue Nepali by 9 PPD. Scores on reading fluency were similar between girls and boys, but the percentage of those who scored zero was about three percentage points higher among females. 236. Analysis was also conducted to categorize the fluency levels following MoEST (2018) as: Non-readers: The students who could not read a single word correctly in one minute. Initial readers: The students who can read up to 1-15 words correctly in one minute. Emergent readers: The students who can read 16 to 44 words correctly in one minute. Fluent readers: The students who can read more than 45 words correctly in one minute. 237. Analysis based on this classification suggests that the majority (51%) of the sampled students fell into the initial readers followed by emergent readers (29%) and non-readers (18%), while only about two percent were fluent readers. Table 4.10: Fluency Category of Students Fluency Category Number Proportion Non- readers (ORF = 0) 731 18.4 Initial readers (ORF: 1 to 15) 2021 50.8 11 12 9 9 14 12 10 11 11 12 12 11 20 17 17 19 19 18 20 18 20 17 16 25 Continuing New Only SMP SMP+SHN SMP+EGR+SHN Primary Basic Secondary Female Male L1 L2 Type Program School Level Gender L-type Figure 4.19: Scores on oral reading fluency Mean Zero (%) 43 Emergent readers (ORF: 16- 44) 1158 29.1 Fluent readers (ORF: 45 or above) 69 1.7 Total 3979 100.0 238. The average correct response in the reading comprehension was 1.5 out of five, and more than two-fifths (42%) scored zero indicating that they could not correctly respond to a single comprehension question (see Table I25 (g.1) in Annex 11). The scores were similar between girls and boys but those who scored zero were slightly higher (3 PPD) among females. As Figure 4.20 shows, the percentage of students scoring zero in comprehension is relatively higher in non-EGR implementing districts, in basic schools, among student type L2, and female students. 239. As Figure 4.21 shows, only three percent gave correct answers to all five questions and only 12 percent of the students demonstrated comprehension of the passage with 80 percent or above (4 or 5) scores (national benchmark). 240. Based on the nature of comprehension, a higher proportion of students correctly responded to the questions which required explicit understanding of the text and obtained a mean score of 1.3 out of 3, compared to 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 43 41 47 52 35 41 51 40 44 41 41 46 Continuing New Only SMP SMP+SHN SMP+EGR+SHN Primary (Up to 5) Basic (Up to 8) Secondary (9+) Female Male L1 L2 Type Program School Level Gender L-type Figure 4.20: Scores on reading comprehension Mean Zero (%) 42 13 15 18 9 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4.21: Distribution of the scores of the students in reading comprehension (%) 44 inferential understanding in which they obtained a mean score of 0.2 out of 2 (Tables I25 (g.2) and I25 (g.3) in Annex 11). Also, the performance of students in explicit understanding is slightly better (both in terms of mean score and fewer students scoring zero) in EGR implementing districts and among L1-type students. A similar advantage in inferential understanding is however not so prominent. 241. Analysis targeted to gauge the relationship between fluency and comprehension showed that there was a positive relationship between the students’ fluency level and their ability to comprehend the passage (Table 4.11). Table 4.11: Relation between Fluency and Comprehension Categories Number of Students (N) Reading Comprehension (Mean) Std. Dev. Std. Error CI (L) CI (U) Total 3979 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 Non-readers 731 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 Initial Readers 2021 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.0 Emergent Readers 1158 3.0 1.1 0.0 2.9 3.0 Fluent Readers 69 3.6 1.0 0.1 3.4 3.9 242. The mean scoring on comprehension increased along with the fluency of reading. The findings are consistent with the assumption that reading fluency is critical for transitioning the early grade students from the stage of decoding to focusing on comprehension, and that fluent word recognition skill frees up processing time that can be used to focus on comprehension (The National Reading Panel, 2000). Figure 4.22 Relationship between fluency and comprehension by gender and mother tongue 0 1 2 3 4 5 Comprehension Male Female NR IR ER FR NR IR ER FR NR: Non-Reader; IR: Initial Reader; ER: Emergent Reader; FR: Fluent Reader Reading Comprehension by Fluency and Gender 45 243. As can be seen in the box and whiskers plot shown in Figure 4.22, the more fluent the readers are, the better tends to be the reading comprehension. This is true irrespective of the gender and mother tongue of the students, although the comprehension and fluency are relatively better among the males and the students with mother tongue Nepali. Indicator 26: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 4) 244. Assessment of Nepali subject teachers from 136 schools of 3 districts (Bajhang, Darchula, and Bajura where literacy program is being implemented) was carried out to determine the number of teachers who demonstrated the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools. Data from the Nepali Teacher Survey, which contained 25 indicators with possible sores of 0 or 1, and the Class Observation tool developed by the Education Review Office, Ministry of Education and Science, which contained 44 indicators with possible scores of 0 or 1, were used to create a composite index of a total possible score of 69. These indicators consisted of items that captured the essential elements of the use of new and quality teaching techniques. Out of the total possible score of 69, a score of 48 or above (70% or above) was used as a benchmark to decide that the teacher demonstrated the use of new and quality teaching. The overall findings are presented in Table I26 in Annex 11. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Comprehension Nepali Other NR IR ER FR NR IR ER FR NR: Non-Reader; IR: Initial Reader; ER: Emergent Reader; FR: Fluent Reader Reading Comprehension by Fluency and Mother Tongue 46 245. The proportion of Nepali subject teachers who demonstrated the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools was low at 18 percent. Of the 3 districts, Nepali teachers in Bajhang (24%) demonstrated better performance than in Darchula and Bajura by 11 and 9 PPD respectively. Although both this section of inquiry and that of the head teacher were targeted to the EGR programme, the findings are not consistent across the districts, which may be the result of different nature of the inquiry involving different evidence (only related to the teaching of Nepali in early grades in this indicator while related to various other aspects in the case of headteachers). 246. A higher proportion of teachers from continuing schools (25%) demonstrated distinctly better performance than from the new schools by 16 PPD indicating some evidence of the effectiveness of EGR intervention. The performance of Nepali teachers in the primary (23%) and basic (21%) schools is better than in the secondary schools by more than 10 PPD. On a gender basis, a visible difference was identified wherein the male Nepali teachers (who are 62% of the total in the sample) performed better than the female by about 10 PPD. Better performances of male teachers than female teachers is prominent particularly in Bajhang and Darchula, in continuing schools and primary and basic schools by about 15 to 17 PPD. On the other hand, the difference is negligible (less than 3 PPD) in Bajura, new schools, and secondary schools (not shown in the table/figure). 247. EDCU, Jajarkot on the importance of early grade reading – 248. “EGR program is related to education. EGR has helped a lot. It has taught us what techniques we can use while teaching our small children. Previously, teachers did not have the habit of preparing the lesson plan. Now, they make a proper plan of action.” -KII with EDCU, Jajarkot 249. The Nepali teacher was also asked if there are special needs students in his/her grade 3 class. The presence of special needs children was reported by 25 Nepali teachers (18%) from 136 schools of three districts. A total of thirty-three children with special needs were reported from 25 school in Bajhang (15), Bajura (7), and Darchula (3). Among 33 students, all of them have problem with understanding; twenty students have hearing problem; eighteen have communicating problem; six have vision problem; four have dressing/washing problem; and one has difficulty in walking/climbing stairs. Indicator 27: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate the use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 6) 250. The assessment team administered the Head Teacher Survey among 330 headteachers of the sample districts against 19 indicators (each with 1 or 0 possible scores) that assessed their use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance for instructional leadership and management of school activities. Obtaining a total score of 13 or above on these 19 indicators (68% or above) was used as the benchmark to 18 24 13 15 25 9 23 21 10 12 22 (n=136) Bajhang (n=62) Darchula (n=47) Bajura (n=27) Continuing (n=79) New (n=57) Primary (n=60) Basic (n=34) Secondary (n=42) Female (n=51) Male (n=85) Total District Type School Level Gender Figure 4.23: Percentage of Nepali teachers using new and quality teaching 47 decide that the Head Teacher demonstrated the use of new techniques or tools. Overall findings are presented in Table I27 in Annex 11. 251. On average, 35 percent of headteachers from among 330 schools demonstrated the use of new techniques or tools. Across districts, Darchula (51%) followed by Bajura (47%) demonstrated the best performance while Jajarkot (26%) followed by Achham (29%) demonstrated the poorest performance, where Doti (30%) and Bajhang (33%) remained in the middle. Schools where EGR is implemented (42%) performed better than those without, and secondary schools (44%) followed by basic schools (40%) performed better than primary schools by more than 17 and 13 PPD respectively. Thus, the data indicate a leap increment in the execution of techniques and tools by headteachers along with the increase of school grades. This may be the result of a possibly higher level of education and skills of the headteachers as well as possibly more resources in the basic and secondary schools and overall higher stakeholder and community mobility in school activities thereby leading to the observed performance differences as regards the assessment explored. Similarly, the performance of male headteachers (88% of the sample) seemed better than female headteachers (12% of the sample) by 22 PPD, which may be because the majority (85%) of the female headteachers belonged to primary schools and only 15 percent belonged to basic and secondary schools (while similar percentages for male headteachers were 48 percent and 52 percent respectively). Continuing schools seemed to perform similarly to the new schools (with 2 percentage points lower), but it may again be because the majority (76%) of the continuing schools were primary schools while only 23 percent of the new schools were primary schools. 252. It is noteworthy that while Head Teachers seem to be performing better in basic and secondary schools compared to primary schools, the EGRA results are found to be better in primary schools. Whether this is because of early grade literacy being given less priority by the secondary schools is however something that needs to be further explored. 253. Gender-wise summary for activity 4: The overall competency of grade three students in reading and understanding the grade level text was extremely poor for both boys and girls, although the boys were found to be slightly better in terms of fewer proportions of them scoring zero than the girls in individual subtasks. A higher percentage of male teachers teaching Nepali in grade three demonstrated using new and quality teaching techniques or tools than the female counterparts (by 10 PPD). A similarly higher percentage of male headteachers demonstrated using new techniques or tools than female headteachers (by 22 PPD). Activity 5 - Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals Indicator 28: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance (Local and Regional Procurement (LRP￾12) 35 30 26 33 51 29 47 34 36 28 29 42 27 40 44 15 37 (n=330) Doti (n=56) Jajarkot (n=58) Bajhang (n=64) Darchula (n=49) Achham (n=69) Bajura (n=34) Continuing (n=188) New (n=142) Only SMP (n=114) SMP+SHN (n=69) SMP+EGR+SHN (n=147) Primary (n=175) Basic (n=57) Secondary (n=98) Female (n=41) Male (n=289) Total District Type Program School Level Gender Figure 4.24: Percentage of Head Teachers demonstrating use of new techniques or tools 48 254. Altogether 18 farmers groups (three per programme districts) were surveyed, after which farming practices of a total of 52 farmers (three from each farmers group attempted but two were not available) were observed. Farmers adopting at least 7 (out of 10) improved agricultural management practices and technologies were considered as having applied improved agricultural management practices or technologies. 255. Around 29 percent of farmers were found adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies (Table I28 in Annex 11). None of the farmers observed in Doti, Achham, and Bajura districts met the criteria for adopting improved agricultural practices. Almost 43 percent of farmers aged 30 years or above were found to practice improved agriculture management, while none of the farmers below 30 years practiced improved agriculture. When compared across gender, a higher proportion of male farmers (31%) were adopting improved agricultural practices compared to female farmers (28%). In terms of the specific agricultural practices, a higher proportion of farmers was found to be practicing local cultural practices such as mulching, line sowing, weeding, etc. (65%); soil conservation and fertilizer management (62%); and improved seed varieties (60%) (Figure 4.25). Indicator 29: Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance (FFPr 12) Method: 256. The organizational Performance Index (OPI) tool was administered at 12 municipalities41. The overarching goal of the OPI was to establish baseline values about the performance of the municipalities visited. The focus was geared towards the Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) component of the project. The tool was largely intended to measure performance rather than the capacity of the local government per se and took into account the performance holistically, tracking the performance of the municipality across multiple areas of 41 Achham: a) Kamalbazar municipality; and b) Chaurpati rural municipality; a) Bithadchir rural municipality; and b) JayaPrithivi municipality; Bajura: a) Badimalika municipality; and b) Budinanda municipality; Darchula: a) Naugad rural municipality; and b) Mahakali municipality; Doti: a) Jorayal rural municipality; b) Shikar municipality; Jajarkot: a) Bheri municipality; and b) Barekot rural municipality. 13% 60% 65% 31% 62% 35% 33% 44% 37% 44% 42% None of the above Crop genetics (use of improved seed varieties) Cultural practices (mulching, line sowing, weeding) Disease and pest management Soil conservation and fertilizer management Climate smart technology Water management and water technology Practice of input purchase Marketing, Collection and Distribution Center Post-harvest handling Record keeping of any activities performed Figure 4.25: Percentage of farmers practicing improved agricultural practice 49 work both in terms of more immediate aspects of effectiveness and efficiency, and longer-term aspects of relevance and sustainability. 257. The OPI tool contained seven key themes: i) Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures on HGSF component; ii) National and international standards (develop food menu in the local context); iii) Written operational guideline, standard operating procedures, strategy, and plan; iv) Target population (identify school’s students, local cooperatives and farmers’ groups); v) Participatory planning and decision￾making process; vi) Successes and challenges analysis (functional school meal management committees, regular meetings, etc.); and vii) Networking and partnerships. To facilitate the collection of information, each theme included evidence that the participants had to present. The tool was jointly developed by WFP and its implementing partner (Mercy Corps). Approach: 258. The participants (mainly the local government officials and the school meal management committee members) were presented with the background and purpose of the OPI. The scoring process is a crucial part of the OPI was thoroughly discussed (Table 4.12). The participants were provided with ample time to discuss the themes and arrive at a consensus. 259. A Likert scale was used to measure the performance of all the municipalities. There were four different responses included in the Likert scale: i) extremely low performing (scored as 1); ii) low performing (scored as 2); iii) medium performing (scored as 3); and iv) high performing (scored as 4). For the analysis purpose, frequency distribution (number of municipalities against each theme) was used to summarize the data obtained and also the averages of responses42. 260. Figure 4.26 below shows either extremely low or low performance for all OPI-related themes. Very few of the responses were ‘medium preforming’ or ‘high performing’. Being a baseline survey and considering HGSF at the very initial stage, it was to some extent anticipated that the responses would either be ‘extremely low performing’ or ‘low performing’. Figure 4.26: OPI related results in radar chart 42 The scores were added from each theme to the get total score and then followed by calculating the mean or average score. 0 2 4 6 8 Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures on HGSF component National and international standards (develop food menu in the local context) Written operational guideline, standard operating procedures, strategy and plan Target population (identify school’s students, local cooperatives and farmers’ groups) Participatory planning and decision-making process Successes and challenges analysis (functional school meal management committees, regular… Networking and partnerships Extremely low performing Low Performing Medium Performing High Performing Table 4.12: Scoring process in the calculation of OPI Response Score Extremely low performing 1 Low performing 2 Medium performing 3 High performing 4 50 About the chart: i) numbers 0-7 in the middle indicate the number of municipalities against each theme; and ii) results will appear if the cursor hovers over the marks. 261. Table I29 in Annex 11 presents OPI scores by themes and district. There were a few important steps taken to compute the overall score. The first step was the calculation of the average for each district (average score of two municipalities per district) followed by the calculation of average scores for all the districts. The resulting scores for each theme for each district then were added and an average was calculated. Based on the aforementioned approach, the average score computed was 1.8 or 2 (round figure). Simply put, the majority of the responses were ‘low performing’ which is scored as 2. Theme 4 which is [Target population (identify school’s students, local cooperatives, and farmers’ groups)] had the highest average score (2.3) and theme 7 (Networking and partnerships) the lowest average (1.4). Across the districts, Doti had the highest average score (2.1) and Jajarkot had the lowest (1.4). 262. Gender-wise summary for activity 5: Slightly higher proportion of male farmers (31%) were found adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies compared to female farmers (28%). B. Findings on the Evaluation Questions 263. This section focuses on the baseline findings on three aspects of the evaluation, namely relevance, coherence, and sustainability. The evaluation matrix used for this study accommodated sub-questions in relation to these three aspects (see Annex 7 for more details). The findings, as outlined below based on the sub￾questions, will be further elaborated and strengthened during the MT and the EL, during when the other evaluation aspects namely effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of the programme will also be assessed. a. Relevance 264. The relevance of the project ascertained if the McGovern-Dole FY 20 program’s overarching goal aligns with the beneficiary and stakeholders’ needs. The component broadly focused on: i) the extent to which stakeholders’ needs and priorities are included in the intervention’s objectives; ii) intended beneficiaries; iii) usefulness of the intervention (beneficiaries’ perception). According to both primary and secondary data, it appears that the program design was largely built on understanding beneficiaries’ needs and priorities. Stakeholders’ Needs and Priorities in Design 265. The midday meal is considered a crucial component of the School Health and Nutrition initiatives. Over 2.2 million children in the country are currently benefiting from the midday meal provided at the schools43. The state spends over NPR 550 million in community school midday meal program which has to some extent contributed to increased children’s enrolment and reduced dropout rates among children. 266. The key informant interviews conducted with a number of individuals mainly including government officials, experts, and WFP officials at the central level indicate that the midday meal program is innovative in its whole cycle particularly aimed at improving children’s attendance in public schools. 267. One government official commented on one of the key benefits of having a midday meal program in place: 268. “The midday meal program definitely has improved the attendance of the children along with the reduction in dropout rates. Children all over the country whether urban or rural are motivated to go to schools due to the program. The program has helped the children in improving health and education of the children” -KII with MoEST official, Kathmandu. 269. The implementing partners held a similar view when asked about the benefits of a midday meal. One official at the implementing partner agency: 270. “The attendance of the marginalized children has improved quite significantly over the last one decade. One of the reasons is the midday meal program or in other words, these children to a large extent are encouraged to attend schools due to the meal.” -KII with an official at implementing partner agency Intended Beneficiaries 43 https://kathmandupost.com/national/2019/08/14/government-prepares-diet-plan-for-community-school-midday-meal￾programme 51 271. Girls and the socially disadvantaged appear to be clear beneficiaries of the project. The midday meal financially and technically supported by WFP appears to be benefited particularly by those living in remote areas of the two provinces under study. The majority of the people in remote areas lead a socio-economically vulnerable life, combatting mass poverty and livelihood challenges. Marginalized communities including Dalits live in remote areas in vulnerable circumstances and are often unemployed and rely heavily on their indigenous knowledge and skills for livelihood44. 272. A WFP official at the central level held a view that the WFP has targeted the marginalized children from Sudurpashchim and Karnali provinces. 273. “Children at the provinces (Karnali and Sudurpashchim) that we are currently operating midday meal program are relatively marginalized and vulnerable. Midday meal for some of these children is the only source of good nutritious food. It not only improves their nutritional status but also has a considerable positive impact on their attendance. This, as a result, will have an impact on their learning outcomes.” -KII with WFP official at the central level. 274. The Health and Nutrition status of students is a crucial factor affecting the learning and development of children belonging including those belonging to marginalized communities at the public schools. The school management committee members in the schools considered for the baseline study were aware of the importance of home-prepared food as opposed to junk food. However, in practice, it seems that there is an inadequate state’s effective monitoring mechanism which is an opportunity for the WFP to improve the situation. 275. A School Management Committee member on the midday meal provided at the state-funded schools: 276. “National government has been considering school meal guidelines for the schools to ensure that children get a healthy and nutritious diet. The government has announced the cutting down of junk food from the meal. However, there is limited access to nutritious and diversified food and to this end, WFP’s program can play a significant role in bridging the gap. In addition to this, the monitoring mechanism of the mid-day meal programme should be strengthened to ensure a healthy nutritious diet for the children. I consider it as an opportunity for WFP to improve the situation.” -KII with SMC Member, Karnali Province 277. An overarching goal of the midday meal program is to provide nutritious food to all children. The federal government provides Rs. 15 per day to each studying up to grade five through local government. The budget is transferred directly to the bank account of schools. Stakeholders’ however raised concerns about the likely misuse of cash that is provided on a lump sum basis to the schools and thus suggested having a proper monitoring mechanism in place to fully address key beneficiaries’ needs and priorities: 278. “Although a few there have been cases of schools in misusing the funds provided as a part of the midday meal. They have been using the funds for purposes other than midday meals. It is crucial for WFP and the state to work jointly to introduce an effective mechanism such as keeping records jointly by the schools and local units that prevent such misuse from happening.” -KII with a Government Official, Sudurpashchim Province Beneficiaries’ Perceptions 279. Guardians of children in state-funded schools largely belong to low-income groups mainly engaged as daily wage laborers45. The guardians’ perceptions towards the midday meal were to a reasonable extent consistent with other key informants. In almost all the FGDs undertaken, guardians expressed that midday meal has encouraged them to send children to the schools. 280. “We are aware of the midday meal provided by the local schools. This has encouraged us considerably to send our children to school. The children themselves feel motivated to attend the school. We feel that children going to the school will help them to learn different things” -FGD with parents of adolescent children, Bajhang district. 44 Pasa, Rajan Binayek, and Lila Bahadur Bishwokarma. "A Dalit Mainstreaming in Rural Development: An Alternative Approach for Combating Poverty." Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 14 (2020): 61-68. 45 https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-province/2021/12/21/mid-day-meal-programme-ineffective-in-myagdi 52 281. Adolescent girls during the FGDs when asked about the benefits of the midday meal program: 282. “One of the reasons we try to come to the school is midday meal provided to us. We will not get hungry in the afternoon. If we stay home, it is likely that we spend a day without having a meal or spend money on junk food such as instant noodles and biscuits.” -FGD with adolescent girls, Jajarkot district. b. Coherence 283. The coherence ascertained if the McGovern-Dole FY20 program aligned with government plans and policies and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Further, it was examined from a duplication of services perspective or in other words harmonization between the WFP funded project and similar state or NGO￾funded projects. Alignment with SDGs 284. The USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 programme appears primarily to be guided by clear intention to contribute towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 which is ‘ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. As also been discussed earlier (context section), quality education sets the stage for achievements of other SDGs such as SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation). 285. Some of the key informant interviews conducted revealed that the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 aligns with the SDGs. Nevertheless, the interviews at the same time also indicated that there are a number of areas that need to be taken into account to achieve the goals. An official at WFP, central level: 286. “The program does align with the SDGs. However, to achieve all the relevant goals, certain important aspects should be considered such as the effective implementation of a mechanism that monitors the nutrition value of the food provided to the children. It is the responsibility of either the local government or the schools that should be undertaking the monitoring. All we can do is sensitize the local government officials and school representatives. To this end, we have been putting effort to instill awareness.” -KII with WFP official, central level. Alignment of Government Plans and Policies 287. The USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 programme based on both the primary and secondary data appears to align with the Nepal government’s commitments towards improvements in children’s enrolment in public schools and reduction in repetition and dropout rates. There exist various education-related national-level plans, policies, and programmes that the state has been implementing such as Education for All (EFA), School Sector Development Plan (SSDP). The Education Sector Plan (2021-2030) which has been endorsed by Nepal Government covers the mid-day meal programme as one of the key components that largely intends to improve children’s enrolment at state-funded schools. 288. A government official at the MoEST commenting on the benefits of the midday meal and inclusion of the same in the ESP: 289. “Midday meal has helped improve the children’s attendance and enrollment. The state acknowledging the importance of having the programme in place has been accommodated in the ESP. Now it is the question of effective implementation of the plan.” -KII with an official at MoEST, Kathmandu 290. The implementation of plans, policies and strategies often faces a number of challenges. Some of the challenges emerged from this study: i) lack of effective coordination among the three tiers of the government; ii) lack of capacity among the officials, particularly at the local government units; and iii) lack of clarity of roles among all tiers of government. This has an overall bearing on the implementation of the USDA McGovern￾Dole FY20. 291. “Acknowledging the challenges such as lack of capacity among the officials at all three tiers of the government, the WFP has prioritized capacitating the officials, particularly at the local level. Capacitating the officials will facilitate the implementation of the programme.” -KII with WFP official at the central level. 53 292. The health of the children has often been contended as a key determinant in school enrolment and continued active participation and educational attainment of students in schools46. The School Health and Nutrition (SHN) programme that largely intends to contribute towards improvement in the health of the school children is associated with their cognitive development, learning, and academic performance. The government has prioritized the SHN programme in the ESP in light of the significant role that the programme has been playing towards improvement in children’s enrolment. Alignment with Programmes Implemented by Other Actors 293. The WFP has engaged itself in effective communication with the relevant state entities particularly to avoid duplication of the programme in the same location. To put in another way, there is no state intervention in the locations where the WFP has been operating its midday meals programme. Nepal's government started the programme in all districts except those where the program was already running by WFP. The state further has committed to administering the meals in all the districts following the completion of WFP led initiative. 294. The key informant interviews with the government officials indicate that there is no duplication of the programme. A comment from one government official. 295. “I don’t think there is any duplication in relation to the administering of the midday meal. Simply put, the state is running the midday meal in the districts where the WFP is not. It is the result of effective communication between the relevant state entities and the WFP. This has helped considerably to avoid the duplication.” -KII with Provincial level official, Sudurpashchim 296. The state has its own priorities and strategies in relation to the midday meals programme. The WFP has been complementing and supplementing these priorities and strategies mainly by providing technical and financial support. The collaboration between the WFP’s midday meal and the state’s ‘shiksha ko lagi khaja karyakram (food for education programme) is apparent with the former providing financial support to the latter. Additionally, WFP has been providing technical assistance and capacity strengthening support to local government units. 297. “Yes. In fact, the partnership exists because of the similarity between the state’s Paustik Khaja Karyakram (nutritious meal programme) and WFP’s School Midday Meals Programme. This programme is running under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Since its beginning, WFP has been providing financial support for this.” -KII with WFP official, Karnali 298. It is not only with the state but the WFP has forged partnerships with I/NGOs such as Integrated Development Society Nepal (IDS) and World Education. In addition, the WFP has a plan to build partnerships with local community entities including local farmers groups, cooperatives women groups, and local communities to ensure the smooth operation of the project. The implementation plan of HGSF has already been designed which includes three phases of transition47. Although there are multiple opportunities in relation to the HGSF mainly including fostering the local economy, stimulating agriculture growth, and equitable access to education, there exist challenges such as climate change, low level of agricultural technology, inconsistency in the supply of food to schools, and frequent rise of food prices affecting household food access. 299. The key informant interviews with the government officials suggest that there is a need for the state to put in place a set of mechanisms that aims at supporting smallholder farmers in relation to the application of good agricultural practices. 300. “The provinces Karnali and Sudur Paschim are quite backward in terms of education. One of the key challenges is the rugged landscape. To implement the programme effectively it is absolutely necessary to introduce new farming technology, particularly to the smallholder farmers. There is also a need for a proper mechanism to deal with the climate change.” -KII with Provincial level Government official, Karnali 46 http://dohs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/chd/Nutrition/School_Health_and_Nutrition_Strategy_2006_EN.pdf 47 Phase I: transition to Jajarkot and Doti districts; Phase II: transition to Darchula and Bajhang; and Phase III: Achham and Bajura. 54 Gender Empowerment 301. To effectively implement strategies accommodated in the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 design in relation to gender equality and empowerment, one of the areas that need to be taken into account is the systemic social transformation. Nepali society still being predominantly patriarchal, women are often tasked to care for their children and do household chores that keeps them away from income-generating activities. It is often argued that financial independence is a critical aspect of women’s empowerment48. 302. “The midday meal provides an opportunity to the mother of school-going children to engage in income-generating activities as they do not have to prepare snacks for their children.” -FGD with parents of adolescent girls, Bajhang c. Sustainability 303. The sustainability of the programme is intended to assess: i) learnings from the past program, and ii) strategies particularly to sustain benefits generated by the programme and preparedness for the handover. 304. The results framework of FY 20 is more comprehensive when compared to the result framework designed for FY 17. A set of foundational results included in the results framework of the FY0 cycle common to both SOs increases the likelihood of achieving the results and sustaining them. It does to a large extent suggest that the FY 20 result framework is built on the learnings of FY17 and aims at strengthening the ongoing interventions. 305. The government’s policies, plans, and programmes to improve attendance and reduction in repetitions and dropout rates particularly among the marginalized children heralds a significant increase in investment. The model in relation to the midday meal is a good basis for both public and private investments upon completion of the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 programme. With the commitments of ownerships from the local governments and other community entities such as farmers’ groups, women’s groups, cooperatives, etc. the project can be considered sustainable. A comment below from one municipality official: 306. “The midday meals programme has been considered helpful in improving enrolment among the children in this municipality. We are aware that the education sector is one of the key development sectors without which overall development is impossible. We will do whatever we can to continue what has already been started even following the phasing out of the midday meal programme.” -KII with Municipality official, Bajhang 307. Notably, WFP and its implementing partners have been effectively coordinating with MoEST’s stakeholders to ensure sustainability. 308. “Government decided for universalization of the NSMP in all 77 districts. As WFP programme was there in six districts through FY20 cycle, government expanded in 71 districts and have agreed to take over two districts annually in order to have the cash-based programme in all 77 districts by JULY 2024.” -KII with WFP official at the central level. 309. A potential challenge to the project’s sustainability is the move to the devolved system of government. In 2015, the Constitution established Nepal the Federal Democratic Republic with three tiers of government namely federal, provincial and local. The midday meal programme will have to compete for resources with the rest of provincial education. However, given the current government policies prioritizing the education sector and the anticipated financing of the education sector in the federal context, the project can be rated as likely sustainable. 310. One key area that the project has to focus on in terms of sustainability is continued communications and collaborations with all the stakeholders at all levels. The WFP has been to a large extent successful in building collaboration with the stakeholders. However, there is a need for continued effort to that end to ensure sustainability. 48 Shakoor, Aqil, Muhammad Asad, and Shabib Hassan. "Women Empowerment Through Financial Independence (A Case Study of Rural Areas of Sindh)." Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences12, no. 2 (2021): 1-12. 55 311. A comment from one government official: 312. “The WFP has been quite effectively communicating with us. We also know that without communicating and building a partnership with us it will be challenging for the WFP to successfully implement the programme. The practice should thus be continued.” -KII with Municipality official, Darchula 313. There is also a need of advocating for federal and provincial ministries (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development), local governments for more investments, particularly in relation to homegrown school meals for the sustainability of the school meal programme. It seems that the more the investments, the more it is likely the project to be sustainable. 314. “All three levels of governments should think about increasing the investments in a homegrown school meal. There should be effective strategies to allocate more budget. The strategies will help considerably to continue what is already in place even after phasing out of the financial and technical support from the WFP. Till now the WFP has been pushing to increasing the investments.’” -KII with WFP official at central level 315. Since the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20 entails a number of sectors such as education, health, and agriculture, it appears, it is crucial for all the sectors to contribute and work collaboratively. A WFP official at the central level: 316. “To successfully implement the programme, it is important for related sectors to collaborate and contribute equally. The collaboration is crucial to ensure sustainability.” -KII with WFP officials at the central level 317. One of the key areas that the government has prioritized is the investments in capacity strengthening in all levels of government. The government announced the Provincial and Local Governance Support Programme (PLGSP) in 2019 which aims at institutional capacity development of all levels of governments more specifically sub-national governments. For the purpose, a budget of US $ 130 million is allocated49. It is an opportunity for the WFP to provide technical assistance to programme associated local government units that can help ensure effective outcomes and programme sustainability. 318. Based on the learnings from the FY17 cycle, preparatory actions for handover and continued support post￾handover for smooth transition have been prioritized in the FY20 cycle. FY17 cycle was implemented as a parallel to a government system, however, the FY20 cycle has inbuilt in its design to capacitate local government for their engagement from the beginning of the project implementation. They are expected to have their own policy/guideline based on the national guideline for the continuation of the programme after the transition. 49 https://www.mofaga.gov.np/uploads/notices/Notices-20200506153437737.pdf 56 5. Conclusions and Lessons 319. Conclusions and lessons learned/recommendations are discussed in the order of the five activities and the findings on the evaluation questions. Activity 1 - Food Distribution 320. 1. School Meal Distribution: The finding that only 78 percent of the students received school meals on all school days on average indicates a dire need to address the situation. The result was however based on the 90 continuing schools and only for the reference period of a month (September 2021). Therefore, these results might not reflect what would have happened in a normal situation, and what the findings would be had there not been a pandemic affecting all involved in executing the meal programme, and had there been necessary records for the entire year in all participating schools. Lessons: • The programme should support the schools in keeping the records in a scientific, convenient, and unambiguous way (may apply to other SHN related indicators as well). • The lesson currently taught by the COVID-19 pandemic should be internalized into the programme and its operating modalities so as to ensure the nutritional intake of the students in a similar situation in the future. 321. 2. Attendance Rate: Students are attending schools on fewer school days (61%) than the targeted days (above 80%) of school days, which poses them a high risk of missing the expected learning outcomes. Comparatively, students are more regular in schools with EGR concentrated interventions. The schools being closed due to the pandemic prior to the reference period used for the calculation of attendance rate may have partly contributed to the lower attendance rate. Lessons: • Lower average attendance rate and higher absenteeism on a random day of headcount in grade 1 compared to grades 3 and 8 imply that more concentrated interventions need to be targeted to junior grade students • Regular interaction between the parents and the teachers may help to improve attendance of the students. 322. 3. Retention Rate: The performance of the schools in retaining their students to the completion of school grades is satisfactory (92%). Lessons: • Maintain a conducive school environment to retain all enrolled students. 323. 4. Minimum Diet Diversity: Almost 93 percent of children met the minimum diet diversity (MDD) requirement (who ate food items from at least 4 food groups during the past 24 hours). The mean dietary diversity score for children, as reported by their parents, was 4.8 (range 2 to 7), which indicates that a randomly chosen child on average consumed food items from 5 food groups. Lessons: • Although the results look satisfactory, there is room for improvement among the students that have lower MDD scores such as Dalit castes (91% of whom met the MDD requirement). • The method used in this analysis is typically used for assessing infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices among children 6 – 23 months of age. Anthropometric measurement methods such as measuring body mass index, measuring calorie intake, and micronutrient assessment can be more appropriate to consider in the future to assess the nutritional status of school-going children. 324. 5. Awareness of the Importance of SMP among the Parents and the Students: A low proportion of students (13%) and parents (16%) were found to be aware of the importance of SMP. Both parents and 57 students from WFP programme continuing districts had better awareness on the importance compared to new schools. Lessons: • In particular, benefits of SMP such as improving learning outcomes of children, improving the nutritional status of children, promoting girls’ enrolment, improving health and hygienic behavior among the students, and the possibility of using fresh and locally grown food items should be emphasized among students and parents through appropriate operational modalities. Activity 2 - Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage 325. 6. Safe Food Preparation and Storage at the School: Less than one-third (30%) of the schools had a school cook who demonstrated safe food preparation and storage practice. The majority of the kitchen at schools did not have a window, almost half did not have an improved cooking stove, and 19 percent of the kitchen were not clean at the time of observation. Schools were also found poor in terms of having any measures in place to prevent food from contamination from pests and rodents and ensuring prevention of nutrient loss of fortified food. Lessons: • Cleanliness of school kitchen, proper ventilation, and installation of improved cooking stove need to be ensured across the schools. • Schools should have proper measures in place to prevent food from contamination from pests and rodents and ensure the prevention of nutrient loss of fortified food. Activity 3 - Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions 326. 7. Health and Nutrition Practices by the Students: Less than half (49%) of the school students demonstrated adequate child health and nutrition practices. Only one-third (33%) of students maintained good personal hygiene. Students, in general, showed good practice on waste disposal (82% reported throwing waste either in the dust bin or waste/manure pit), eating tiffin/snacks after returning from school￾on-school days (most students reported eating snacks for all the six school days), and handwashing before eating (97%) and after using the toilet (82%), while the practice of water purification before drinking (36%), personal hygiene, and handwashing with soap and water on critical moments such as before food preparation (24%), after coughing/sneezing (17%) and after touching waste (15%) were found poor. Around 19 percent of the parents reported that their children had missed a school day due to health-related reasons in the past month, with the mean number of days a child missed school being 3.6 days per month. The majority of the adolescent girls (79%) reported practice of hygienic menstrual behavior. IEC and BCC packages could be observed only in nine percent of schools, while 41 percent of schools reported celebrating national sanitation-related campaigns at the community level. Lessons: • Aspects such as drinking water purification at point of use, waste segregation, personal hygiene, and handwashing with soap and water on critical moments such as before food preparation, after coughing/sneezing and after touching waste should be emphasized. • Adequate availability and use of health, nutrition, and WASH-related IEC and BCC packages should be ensured in all schools. 327. 8. Drinking Water and Sanitation at the School: The majority of the schools were using an improved source of drinking water (93%) and had at least one improved sanitation facility (94%). However, school WASH status, in general, was found below satisfactory. Almost half of the schools did not have a gender-separate toilet, and more than one-third did not have a toilet with water available at the time of observation. One-third (33%) did not have a handwashing station in the school premises, while around 60 percent of the schools having a handwashing facility did not have soap available in the handwashing facility. The majority of the basic and secondary schools (83%) had provision of sanitary pads for girls, while only 45 percent had a toilet with containers/bins for storing/disposing of the used sanitary pads. Around 32 percent of schools were found to be practicing waste segregation, with separate dustbins/pits at the school premises to dump trash according to the nature of waste. 58 Lessons: • Schools in all districts need support in installing handwashing stations ensuring availability of water and soap, construction of gender-separate toilet facilities, waste management, and menstrual hygiene management facilities. 328. 9. Deworming, Health Screening, and Iron Folic Acid Distribution at the School: The survey with students showed that 82 percent of schoolchildren received deworming tablets at least once at the school, while 53 percent received it twice in the last academic year. The practice of conducting annual health screening at school was quite low. Although more than two-thirds of girl students mentioned receiving iron and folic acid supplementation tablets at school, only nine percent reported receiving full dose (i.e., 26 tablets in a year). Lessons: • School health programme needs to be strengthened, ensuring the proper implementation of deworming to school students, iron and folic acid supplementation to adolescent girls, and annual health screening • The project should strengthen the record-keeping practices for SHN related indicators. Activity 4 - Promoting Improved Literacy 329. 10. Local Governments Rewarding Teachers and Developing Contextualized Tools: All together five municipalities out of twelve visited by the qualitative survey team were found to have the practice of recognizing and rewarding teachers for making changes or taking initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes. Similarly, only four were found to have developed or developed contextualized instructional materials. Lessons: • The observation that none of the municipalities visited in Bajura had the practice of rewarding teachers, and none of the municipalities visited in Doti and Bajura developed contextualized instructional materials indicates that there are opportunities for improvement to this end. • WFP and its implementing partners and the local government units should work jointly to coordinate with the public schools. This is achievable by instilling awareness on the importance of recognizing and rewarding teachers among the relevant school representatives, and on the importance of developing contextualized instructional materials. 330. 11. Early Grade Reading Outcomes: The overall EGR outcomes of the students are very low and demonstration of expected fluency and comprehension skills are also far behind the national target (45 CWPM in reading fluency and 80 percent in reading comprehension). Students have very low competence in the foundation skills of reading. Findings pertinent to decoding skills are not satisfactory at all. Further, the proportion of the zero scores on all subtasks is formidable. A significant proportion of students (18%) lacks the skills to read the text with an appropriate level of speed and expression and almost half the students (42%) are not able to comprehend the text presented to them. Among other possible factors leading to this situation, it is reasonable to assume that the prolonged closure of schools in the last two subsequent years due to the pandemic affected the most. Therefore, appropriate measures should be put in place so that the learning opportunity of the students is not significantly compromised in a similar situation that the future might have to witness. Lessons: • Intervene with effective integrated measures of reading instruction on a regular basis which is applicable both inside and outside the classrooms. • Make sure that there are better instruction methods in place, the time allocated for language instruction is adequate, there is coaching and mentoring support to the students and there is the provision of continuous assessment and additional academic support. 331. 12. Demonstration of Quality Teaching by Nepali Teachers in Early Grade: Translation of the new and quality teaching techniques and tools in the actual classroom pedagogical practices of Nepali subject (literacy) teachers is fairly low (18%). Teachers from primary schools and male teachers have comparatively better 59 early grade literacy enhancement practices as evidenced in their use of available teaching and learning materials and techniques of lesson delivery. Lessons: • Focused interventions should be put in place targeting female teachers and teachers from higher school levels. • Make sure that the teachers will improve their pedagogical skills and effectively utilize the available tools and skills to build a better literacy foundation among early grade learners. 332. 13. Application of New Techniques and Tools by Headmasters: The application of applying new techniques or tools in the management and administration of school activities is effective among only about one-third (35%) of the headteachers. Although intervention measures in districts where all three programmes (SMP, SHN, and EGR) seem comparatively effective, headteachers from primary schools lag far behind headteachers from basic and secondary schools concerning the application of new techniques or tools. This situation is prominent for female headteachers. Lessons: • Capacity building of headteachers to apply effective new techniques and tools should be accorded a priority. • Greater participation of female headteachers and those from primary schools should be ensured in such interventions. • Make sure school management is equally concerned with activities for the access, quality, and efficiency of teaching-learning activities. Activity 5 - Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals 333. 14. Adoption of Improvement Agricultural Management by Farmers: Less than one-third (29%) of farmers were found adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies. Lessons: • Practices that should be promoted among the farmers may include integrated disease and pest management, adopting climate-smart technologies, water management, capacity building on marketing and supply chain management, post-harvest handling, record keeping of agricultural activities, etc. 334. 15. Municipalities with Increased Performance: There were seven indicators used to assess the performance of twelve municipalities using a tool called Organization Performance Index (OPI). For all the indicators, the responses from the local government units considered were either ‘extremely low performance’ or ‘low performance’. From the responses, the total average was computed as 1.7 or 2 (round figure). Simply put, the majority of the responses were ‘low performing’ which is scored as 2. Being a baseline survey and no specific interventions were introduced to this end, the responses to some extent were anticipated, but the results at the same time indicate an opportunity for the WFP and its implementing partners to improve the situation. Lessons: • The programme should place a more effective mechanism that enables continued coordination efforts with the local government units. Conclusions and Lessons on the Evaluation Questions a. Relevance: The programme to a large extent aligns with beneficiaries’ and stakeholders’ needs and thus can be considered relevant. Girls and socially disadvantaged section of the population being the clear beneficiaries of the programme, it can be argued that the program design is built on understanding beneficiaries’ needs and priorities. The innovative approach that programme entails is largely intended to improve children’s attendance and enrollment in public schools. However, some areas need to be taken into account to improve the overall relevance of the programme. To address the beneficiaries’ needs and priorities, it was revealed that there is a need of introducing effective mechanisms such as keeping records rigorously distributed for the midday meal. To this end, the WFP can work jointly with the local government 60 units to monitor the school meals programme. To put it another way, the WFP can help build the capacity of the local government officials in maintaining records. Likewise, for the continued programme’s alignment to the beneficiaries’ needs and priorities, it appears that it is essential for the WFP and its implementing partners to coordinate effectively with all levels of the government namely federal, provincial and local. b. Coherence: Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education being one of the overarching programme goals, it can be contended that it is aligned with SDG 4 which paves the way for the achievement of other SDGs such as SDG 3 (good health and well-being). Further, the programme design is aligned with the commitments towards improvements in children’s enrolment in public schools and reduction in repetition and dropout rates. There exist various education-related plans, policies, and programs that the state has been implementing such as Education for All (EFA) and School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) that largely are aimed at improving the situation of children in terms of enrolment and reduction in dropout rates. Further, the Education Sector Plan (ESP, 2021-2030) which has been endorsed by the government accommodates mid-day meals as one of the key components. Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider that the implementation of plans, policies, and strategies often accompany challenges such as i) lack of effective coordination among the three tiers of the government; ii) lack of capacity among the officials, particularly at the local government units; and iii) lack of clarity of roles among all tiers of government. This has an overall bearing on the implementation of the USDA McGovern-Dole FY20. It may be advisable to include a few pertinent questions in the MT and the EL to assess the extent to which this situation will have improved on the part of the three tiers of the governments and the officials by then. c. Sustainability: The government of Nepal is highly invested in a national school-feeding programme as evidenced by various documents like ESP, development of national school meals guidelines, and rapid expansion of the school meals programme across the nation. The current cycle has a well-planned transition strategy with national ownership where two districts per year will be transitioned to the national school meals programme. The FY20 grant has incorporated learnings from the previous cycle to sustain the benefits generated by the programme like capacity strengthening of local government, preparatory work before the transition, and continued support to facilitate a smooth transition. 61 Annexes Annex 1: Summary Terms of Reference 1. Background The Terms of Reference (TOR) was prepared by World Food Programme (WFP) Nepal Country Office based upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is threefold. First, it outlines how WFP will implement the Baseline survey (BLS) including special study as approved in the Evaluation Plan; secondly, it provides key information to the survey team and helps guide them throughout the survey process and thirdly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed BLS survey and special study. 2. Reasons for the Baseline survey including Special Study A baseline survey including special study is a part of the contractual obligations between the USDA and WFP. A baseline survey provides situational analysis before the programme begins and establishes baseline values for project standard and custom outcome indicators which will help to define targets to be achieved through the project period. A special study explores the factors consistently affecting students learning and estimating its magnitude of effect in province seven during BLS and assess the progress on action taken based on the recommendation generated during MT and EL evaluation. 3. The Subject of the Baseline Survey and Special Study The current FY20 cycle spans the period from November 2020 to October 2024 and covers six districts - one (Jajarkot) from Karnali Province and five (Doti, Bajhang, Darchula, Achham, and Bajura) from Sudurpashchim Province. Special study will be nested along with the baseline survey and will cover five districts of Sudurpashchim province. The FY20 cycle interventions are grouped into six major activities – (1) Food Distribution (all six districts); (2) Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling, and Storage (all six districts); (3) Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions (Achham, Bajhang, Bajura, and Darchula); (4) Promoting Improved Literacy (Darchula, Bajhang, and Bajura); (5) Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals (all six districts according to transition plan); and (6) Capacity Building - Supporting Transition through Local and Provincial Capacitation (all six districts). During the four-year implementation period, the programme plans to achieve the three strategic outcomes of the FFECN programme, McGovern-Dole SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children, McGovern-Dole SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices, and LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance Through Local and Regional Procurement. The programme targets 241621 students from 2297 schools of the six districts. The Programme budget is roughly USD 25 million out of which about five percent is budgeted for monitoring and evaluation. The baseline survey will assess the current situation relating to the performance indicators and provide a situation analysis of FY20 programme cycle. The activities and interventions of the FY20 results frameworks (McGovern-Dole SO1 and McGovern-Dole SO2) have built upon and further strengthened the ongoing activities and interventions under the FY17 grant to move the Government closer to a fully owned and managed NSMP. The McGovern-Dole FY 20 programme aims to achieve the McGovern-Dole SO1 and McGovern-Dole SO2 with similar higher-level outcome results and foundational results as in FY17. The only 62 addition to the FY20 programme cycle is Activity 5: Promote improved nutrition: sustainable transition to homegrown school meals contributing to LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance Through Local and Regional Procurement. The purpose of this overall component is to help build the capacity of LG and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably and ensure the menu is properly diversified for improved nutrition. WFP’s partner Mercy Corps will implement this activity in 6 districts in a phased manner according to the transition plan. 4. Evaluation Approach, Methodology and Ethical Considerations 4.1 Evaluation Approach A key requirement for the baseline survey is to ensure that GEWE is integrated into the whole survey process and that specific data on gender is collected during the survey (e.g., data collected from male and female beneficiaries of the different socio-economic status of existing ethnicity/castes/ethnic groups, data disaggregated by gender, caste/ethnic and disable groups). The data collection tools, therefore, need to be GEWE sensitive, to specifically examine the gender and equity aspects of the programme. The baseline survey will focus on examining the present circumstances of the activities proposed in this McGovern-Dole project cycle. The baseline survey will assess if the activities of the FFECN programme is coherent to government plans and priority Programme, and other Programmes implemented by development partners in those areas. It will further assess the integration of other activities implemented by WFP with FFECN. The survey will cover all six programme districts. 4.2 Methodology A non-experimental design is proposed that enables the comparison of the findings before and after the intervention scenarios to assess the temporal changes during midterm and endline. The baseline study will cover the entire programme districts and Schools will be selected through a stratified random sampling method. The baseline survey will cover the entire programme area50. Schools will be selected through a stratified random sampling method. The survey team, in consultation with WFP, will develop an appropriate evaluation design, sampling strategy, and methodological approach based on the requirements described in the TORs, during the inception phase in consultation with key stakeholders. The sample size will be calculated using a 95 percent confidence level, five percent margin of error, the prevalence rate of 50 percent, and the non-response rate of 15 percent. The design and methodology for the baseline survey will be developed following the WFP DEQAS process as well as USDA’s Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. Mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative) will be used to ensure triangulation of information through a variety of means such as previous evaluation results, existing regular monitoring data both from WFP and implementing partners, and the government Integrated Education Management Information System (IEMIS). The survey will employ diverse data collection tools and techniques based on the type of information required example (interview, key informant interview, focus group discussion, observation, and secondary data review). The baseline survey findings, conclusions, and recommendations must reflect gender analysis, and the report will provide lessons/ challenges/ recommendations for conducting gender-responsive evaluation in the future. This survey timeline and methodology can be impacted by any emergencies such as COVID 19. If the COVID 19 situation gets deteriorated and the government announces travel restrictions, this evaluation will either be delayed, or the methodology will be changed. Special study: A mixed-method Action Research Methodology will be used as the study will focus on exploring the factors affecting students learning across programme districts in Sudur Paschim Province and will bring stakeholders together to improve students learning. The study protocol detailing the methodology will be developed during the inception phase in close consultation with WFP. The study aims to use its findings to develop actionable items to inform the literacy Programme of McGovern-Dole and recommend to the policymakers to design contextual evidence-based learning approaches. The study will be nested in all three 50Achham, Bajura, Bajhang, Darchula, Doti, and Jajarkot 63 evaluations and limited additional data will be collected. The early grade reading assessment (EGRA) at the end of grade two students using Government Standard EGRA method and tool, interviews with students, in￾depth interviews with EGRA trained teachers/ headmasters, and observation of schools/classroom methods will be used for quantitative and qualitative data collection. 4.3 Ethical Considerations WFP's decentralized evaluations must conform to WFP and UNEG ethical standards and norms. The contractors undertaking the evaluations are responsible for safeguarding and ensuring ethics at all stages of the evaluation cycle (preparation and design, data collection, data analysis, reporting, and dissemination). This will include but is not limited to, 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. 4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment WFP’s 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 WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms and standards, as well as the good practice of the international evaluation community to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to best practiced will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization. Concerning the quality of data and information, the survey team will systematically check the accuracy, consistency, and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in concluding using the data. The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality will be employed: an external independent evaluation team will be hired to conduct the evaluation; WFP has appointed a dedicated evaluation manager to manage the evaluation process internally; an internal WFP Evaluation Committee (EC), led by CO management, will make key decisions on the evaluation; an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) (including WFP and external stakeholders) will be set up to steer the evaluation process and further strengthen the independence of the evaluation. All feedback generated by these groups will be shared with the evaluation team. The evaluation team will be required to critically review the submissions and provide feedback on actions taken/or not taken as well as the associated rationale. The members of the ERG are provided in Annex 13. To enhance the quality and credibility of this survey, an outsourced quality support service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter provides a review of the draft inception and survey report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and provide: • systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft inception and evaluation report. • recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/evaluation report. 5. Organization of the Baseline Survey and Special Study The baseline survey will proceed through these key five phases – Preparation Phase; Inception Phase; Field Data Collection Phase; Data Analysis and Reporting Phase; and Dissemination and Follow-up Phase. Inception Report, Debriefing PPT, and Baseline survey report are three key deliverables, among others. The special study follows the same timeline as baseline survey. 64 Annex 2: Baseline Timeline Activities Aug. 2021 Sept. 2021 Oct. 2021 Nov. 2021 Dec. 2021 Jan. 2022 Feb. 2022 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 Preparatory/Inception Phase 1. Contract signing and team orientation 2. Desk review and tools drafting in English 3. Finalize the English tools and translate it into Nepali 4. Preparation of manual and guideline for supervisors and enumerators 5. Submission of quality assured draft inception report and organize inception workshop 6. Finalize and approve inception report 7. Preparation of computer data entry programming 9. Finalization of training schedule 10. Recruit supervisors and enumerators 11. Conduct Training of Trainers (ToT) and beta test; incorporate changes in tools and digital program 12. Enumerators’ Training, pre testing of the tools and review 13. Obtain support letter from concerned Ministry through WFP 17. Incorporate changes in the tools and digital programming Field Data Collection Phase 1. Data collection 2. Field work supervision and data monitoring at central office 3. Present end of fieldwork debriefing Data Analysis and Reporting Phase 1. Data editing and preliminary data analysis 2. Assuring quality on the draft evaluation report 3. Preparing draft report and submission 4. Circulate the draft evaluation report to stakeholders for feedback 5. Incorporating feedbacks and finalization 6. Submission of final baseline and special study report and dataset 7. Organize dissemination workshop 65 Annex 3: FY20 Programme Districts 66 Annex 4: Project Indicators Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method Activity 1-Food Distribution SBCC Custom 7 Number of school age children receiving school meal on all school days School record review Based on information that cooked meal was distributed by the sampled schools to the students in the month of Chaitra, 2077 (March/April 2021), this reference period was used to establish the baseline value on this indicator. School meal register was reviewed on the number of days the school was open in Chaitra 2077, number of enrolled students, and number students who received school meal on each of the days the school was open in that period. The percentage of school children (ECD to grade five) receiving school meal on all school days (for the specified period) was then computed for the specified period. The number of days the school was open and the number of students were used to compute the weighted percentage, and the results were disaggregated by the gender of the students. Standard 2 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools School record review and headcount of students Average attendance rate of grades 1, 3, and 8 students was assessed for the reference period of a month (Bhadra 16 - Asoj 14, 2078 or September 2021). Data were collected by reviewing the school/classroom registers. Because of unavailability of records in two schools (both continuing), the analysis could be done only of 328 schools. While attendance rate based on headcount was measured as the proportion of students that were physically present in school on the day of school visit, the average attendance rate was calculated accounting for the number of school days during the reference period and actual number of days each of the students was present in the school on those days. Custom 1 Average retention rate ( by all activities) School record review Assessment was conducted to determine the retention rate for grades 1, 3, and 8 so as to gauge the sample schools’ capacity to retain the students in successive operating grades in schools. Data were collected by reviewing the records of the schools on enrolment registers of Year 2077 and 2078. The retention rate was calculated as the proportion of the students enrolled in Year 2077 who completed the school year by passing to the next grade or repeating the same grade in the school in Year 2078. Table 4.5 below presents the retention 67 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method rates of the students in the surveyed schools by some key disaggregates. Custom 11 Minimum diet diversity of school age children Parents survey A child consuming 4 or more food groups out of 7 in the past 24 hours was considered as meeting the minimum dietary diversity (MDD). A 24-hour recall method was used, where parents were asked to recall all the meals that the child ate during past 24 hours. The seven food groups are: (1) Grains, roots, and tubers; (2) Legumes/pulses and nuts/oils; (3) Dairy products; (4) Flesh food/meat; (5) Eggs; (6) Vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables; and (7) Other fruits and vegetables. Children who achieve MDD are more likely to have a higher (more appropriate) micronutrient intake than those who do not. Custom 12 Percentage of parents having school going children aware about the benefits of school meal program Parents survey Parents who can tell any five of the listed benefits of school meal program were considered as aware about the benefits of SMP. The listed benefits were: (1) Motivates children to go school consistently; (2) Motivates children to stay longer at school; (3) Promote girl child’s enrolment; (4) Improves children’s ability to learn or concentrate in class; (5) Improves learning outcomes; (6) Improves good health and hygiene behavior of children; (7) Improves awareness about nutrition among school age children; (8) Provides nutritional benefits/improves nutritional status of school age children; (9) Saves money of household to provide lunch to school children; and (10) Improves awareness about the use of locally made textbooks/EGR materials. Custom 14 Percentage of students aware about the importance of school meal program Students survey Students who can tell any five of the listed benefits of school meal program were considered as aware about the benefits of SMP. The listed benefits were: (1) Motivates children to go school consistently; (2) Motivates children to stay longer at school; (3) Promote girl child’s enrolment; (4) Improves children’s ability to learn or concentrate in class; (5) Improves learning outcomes; (6) Improves good health and hygiene behavior of children; (7) Improves awareness about nutrition among school age children; (8) Provides nutritional benefits/improves nutritional status of school age children; (9) Saves money of household to provide lunch to school children; and (10) Improves awareness about the use of locally made textbooks/EGR materials. Activity 2-Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling and Storage Standard 20 Number of individuals who School cooks survey This indicator related to the use of safe food preparation and storage practices was 68 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance measured by interview with school cook and observation of cooking procedure. A composite index with the total score ranging from 0 to 12 was created including questions related to cleanliness of the kitchen; whether the kitchen has amenities like window, chimneys, and improved cooking stove; handwashing practice of cook; cooking utensils washing practice; cleaning the food items before cooking; food storage practice; measures to prevent food contamination; and practice for preventing nutrient loss. Scores of 8 or above (70% or above) was considered as demonstrating use of safe food preparation and storage practices. As many schools either did not have cook or cooking practice at the time of survey, the findings of this indicator have been reported from only 78 schools where there was a cook available with cooking practice in place at the time of survey. Activity 3- Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions Standard 27 Number of schools using an improved water source School observation and SHN focal teachers survey Questions related to the source of drinking water at school has been included in both school environment observation and interview with SHN focal teacher. Findings from school observation and SHN focal teacher has been reported separately. Drinking water from piped water; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; and protected spring were considered as the improved water sources. Standard 28 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities School observation and SHN focal teachers survey This indicator has been reported mainly from the school observation. If the school had at least one improved toilet (defined as flush or pour/flush toilet connected to a piped sewer connection, septic tank or pit latrine; VIP latrine, pit latrine with a slab; composting toilet; and bio-gas toilet), then the school was categorized as having improved sanitation facilities. Findings from the information from the interview with SHN focal teacher (who was asked about the main toilet at the school) was also analyzed and reported separately. Standard 29 Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) Students survey Government of Nepal has been implementing deworming program under the school health and nutrition program, in which anti￾helminthic tablets are provided to school students twice a year. This indicator has been measured by using the information collected from the students. The plan was to use the school records as well, but only 34 schools were found to be keeping the necessary records on deworming at the school, which is 69 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method too small a sample size to obtain any useful results. Custom 4 Number of adolescent girls aged 10-19 years receiving biannual weekly Iron Folic Acid supplementation Students survey This indicator has been measured by using the information collected from the adolescent students from grades 6-8 in the sample schools from the four districts where SHN program has been implemented. Adolescent girls who reported receiving a full dose (26 tablets in a year) of IFA tablets were considered as receiving biannual IFA supplementation. Although the plan was to use the information from school record as well, only 29 schools were found to be keeping the necessary record which is too small a sample size to get useful information. Custom 5 Number of schools with provision of sanitary pads School observation Based on the school observation, schools which provided sanitary pads to adolescent girls at school were considered as having provision of sanitary pads. This indicator has been reported only for basic (up to 8 grade) and (secondary (9+ grade schools). Custom 6 Number of schools with toilet with sanitary pads disposal bins School observation The school environment observation included checklist related to availability of container in the toilet for storage/disposal of used sanitary pad. Schools having at least one (girls or shared) toilet with the provision of used pads disposal/collection bins were reported in basic (up to 8 grade) and (secondary (9+ grade schools). SBCC Custom 5 Number of schools with at least one set of information education and communication and behavior change package Head Teachers survey and observation Head teachers at the schools were asked about the availability of information education and communication and behavior change package related to health, hygiene, nutrition, etc. Schools where at least one set of IEC/BCC package could be observed were considered as schools with at least one set of information education and communication and behavior change package. SBCC Custom 6 Number of schools celebrating national sanitation related campaign at the community level SHN focal teachers survey SHN focal teacher were asked whether the school had celebrated national sanitation related campaign at the community level during the year prior to the survey. Custom 3 Number of schools conducting at least one annual health screening SHN focal teachers survey This indicator was measured based on the interview with SHN focal teacher. Health screening related to measurement of height and weight, vision and hearing test, and dental check-up were assessed, and reported separately. Standard 19 Number of individuals who demonstrate use Students survey A composite index with the possible value ranging from 0 to 10 was created including students’ behaviour such as water purification 70 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance before drinking, waste disposal practice, eating snacks at home during school days, hand washing practice, and personal hygiene. School students who demonstrate health and nutrition practices were defined as those who scored 7 (70%) or more. Custom 8 Number of schools practicing segregated waste management School observation Based on the school environment observation, schools having separate bins for collecting different types of wastes were considered as schools practicing segregated waste management. SBCC Custom 1 Health related absenteeism among school age children Parents survey Parent’s questionnaire included questions related to health-related absenteeism among their children. The plan was to triangulate this information by reviewing the school record, but only three schools were found to have kept the necessary record. SBCC Custom 2 Percent of school age children with good personal hygiene Observation of students School students were observed for their personal hygiene practice which included the maintenance of personal hygiene related to trimmed nail, groomed hair, clean teeth, clean dress, and clean shoes/slipper. Each of these aspects were sored as 0 (poor), 1 (good), and very good (2), with a summative score ranging from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicating better personal hygiene. Students scoring 7 or more (70% or more) were considered has having maintained good personal hygiene. SBCC Custom 3 Percent of adolescent girls reporting practice of hygienic menstrual behavior Students survey School adolescent girls were asked whether they were aware about the menstrual hygiene, speak about menstrual hygiene to anybody, use sanitary pad during menstruation, change pad every six hours, safe disposal of the menstrual pad, and handwashing before and after changing the pads. Scores (1 if positive response and 0 otherwise) were assigned to the students for each of the variables, with the total possible score of 0 to 6, with a higher score representing better menstrual hygiene. A score of 4 or more (70%) was considered as hygienic menstrual behaviour. SBCC Custom 4 Percent of school age children reporting hand washing practice at critical times Students survey Students were asked about their handwashing practice at critical moments: before, during, and after preparing food; before eating; after using the toilet (for urination, defecation, menstrual hygiene); after helping someone who just used the toilet; after blowing one's nose, or coughing or sneezing; after touching an animal, animal feed or animal waste; and after touching garbage. Students reporting handwashing for five or more critical times were considered as appropriate handwashing practice at critical times. 71 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method Activity 4- Promoting Improved Literacy Custom 9 Number of local governments recognizing and rewarding teachers making changes or taking special initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes KII with municipalities KII with the municipality officials was done to gather the necessary information on this indicator. Custom 13 Percentage (Number) of local government developing contextualized instructional materials. KII with municipalities KII with the municipality officials was done to gather the necessary information on this indicator. Standard 1 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 Early grade reading assessment (EGRA) of grade three students Considering the need to ensure reliability and validity of the tested tool, WFP requested the Education Review Office (ERO), Ministry of Science and Technology Nepal and obtained the standard assessment tools developed for Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). A total of 3,979 students from grade 3 (all those who were present on the day of school visit or maximum 20 randomly selected) from the sampled 330 schools were assessed. The training of enumerators for EGRA was conducted intensively for 5 days. Enumerators already having EGRA experience were given priority as the assessors. The trainee also had an opportunity to experience the administration process through mock EGRA with real students during the training. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST, 2018), Nepal has defined 45 cwpm (correct words per minute) and 80% of the correct responses on the comprehension questions (which is 4 out of 5 questions in the test used) as the benchmark for early grade reading. This benchmark was used in the analysis. Standard 4 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 Nepali teachers survey and class observation Assessment of Nepali subject teachers from 136 schools of 3 EGR implemented districts (Bajhang, Darchula and Bajura was carried out using a composite index with a total possible score of 69. Data collected from Nepali Teacher Survey (questions NT37 and NT43), which contained 25 indicators, and the Class Observation tool (modules 1, 2 and 3) developed by the ERO which contained 44 indicators were used. These indicators consisted of items that captured the essential 72 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method elements of the use of new and quality teaching technique. Out of the total possible score of 69, a score of 48 or above (70% or above) was used as a benchmark to decide that the teacher demonstrated the use of new and quality teaching. Standard 6 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Head Teachers survey and observation A total of 19 questions from the questionnaire administered to the Head Teacher Survey was used to create a composite index with a total possible score of 19 (1 or 0 for each question). These questions were finalized mutually by WFP and the research firm, and captured the head teacher’s practice of using new techniques or tools for instructional leadership and management of school activities. Oral reports as well as document observation was used as evidence for the use of tools/techniques. Obtaining a total score of 13 or above on these 19 indicators (68% or above) was used as the benchmark to decide that the Head Teacher demonstrated the use of new techniques or tools. [A score of 1 was given for each of these questions on the following basis - HT 30 (≥ 6 meetings); HT 30a (≥ 3 contents); HT32 ( ≥ 3 meetings); HT32A ( ≥ 3 contents); HT35 (record of meetings observed); HT35a (≥ 3 agendas discussed); HT37 (updated SIP observed); HT37a (≥ 5 contents observed); HT42 (review and feedback on lesson plans reported); HT43 (classroom activities monitored); HT47 (meeting held); HT47a (≥6 meetings); HT47b (≥ 4 issues discussed); HT48a (≥ 2 meetings observed); HT51 (≥ 2 policies reported); HT 52 (use of results reported); HT52A (≥ 3 indicators reported); HT54 (parents mobilization reported); and HT54a (≥5 indicators reported).] Activity 5- Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals LRP 12 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance Observation of farming practices of a sample of member farmers from the surveyed farmer groups Farmers adopting at least 7 (out of 10) improved agricultural management practices and technologies were considered as having applied improved agricultural management practices or technologies. The ten practices included: crop genetics (use of improved seed varieties); improved cultural practices (such as mulching, staking, line sowing weeding, etc.); integrated pest management; adopted soil conservation and fertilizer management techniques (such as use of compost manure, organic fertilizer, inter cropping, relay cropping, etc.); climate smart technology (e.g., plastic tunnel, adopted cultivation calendar, drought tolerant varieties); improved water 73 Indicator Number Indicator Description Data Collection Methods/Sources of Data Measurement Method management (e.g., drip irrigation, cement pond, rainwater harvesting); practicing input purchase; practice of products sale with market price information/access to collection and distribution center; post-harvest handling; and record keeping of agricultural activities. FFPr 12 Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance Workshop at municipalities using Organization Performance Index (OPI) tool Organizational Performance Index (OPI) tool was administered at 12 municipalities (2 from each of the six program districts) to establish baseline values in relation to the performance of the municipalities visited. The focus was geared towards the Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) component of the project. The tool was largely intended to measure performance rather the capacity of the local government per say and took into account the performance holistically, tracking performance of the municipality across multiple areas of work both in terms of more immediate aspects of effectiveness and efficiency, and longer-term aspects of relevance and sustainability. The OPI tool contained seven key themes: i) number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures on HGSF component; ii) National and international standards (develop food menu in the local context); iii) written operational guideline, standard operating procedures, strategy and plan; iv) target population (identify school’s students, local cooperatives and farmers’ groups); v)participatory planning and decision making process; vi) successes and challenges analysis (functional school meal management committees, regular meetings etc.); and vii) networking and partnerships. To facilitate the collection of information, each theme included evidences that the participants had to present. 74 Annex 5: Theory of Change 75 Annex 6: Evaluation Criteria and Questions for Midterm and End-line Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Key Questions – Mid-term Evaluation Key Questions - End line Evaluation Data Source Coherence How the FFECN project and its specific components complementing the already existing efforts and programs of the GoN and/or other organizations working in the region? How the FFECN project and its specific components complemented the already existing efforts and programs of the GoN and/or other organizations working in the region? Quantitative surveys, Key stakeholder focus groups, Secondary Data Review To what extent the FFECN intervention is adding value without duplicating the efforts of other projects in the education sector in Nepal? To what extent the FFECN intervention added value without duplicating the efforts of other projects in the education sector in Nepal? How were the FFECN project synergetic with other WFP operations and with what other actors were doing to contribute to WFP’s overriding educational objectives in Nepal? How is the FFECN project synergetic with other WFP operations and with what other actors are doing to contribute to WFP’s overriding educational objectives in Nepal? To what extent was the intervention design and delivery in line with human rights principles and standards, including gender equality and women empowerment and wider equity issues? To what extent was the intervention design and delivery in line with human rights principles and standards, including gender equality and women empowerment and wider equity issues? Relevance To what extent the project’s strategy and plan is relevant to the need of beneficiaries, men, women, boys, and girls in the Nepalese context? To what extent the project’s strategy and plan was relevant to the need of beneficiaries, men, women, boys, and girls in the Nepalese context? Secondary data/document review, qualitative data collected through this evaluation How well is the project aligned with the Nepal government’s education and school feeding policies and strategies? How well was the project aligned with the Nepal government’s education and school feeding policies and strategies? To what extent do the programme’s interventions reach the right people (men, women, boys, and girls) at the right time, with the right type of assistance at this stage? To what extent did the programme’s interventions reach the right people (men, women, boys, and girls) at the right time, with the right type of assistance? How well the programme is designed to address the Gender Equality Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) issues in the Nepalese context? How well the programme was designed to address the GEDSI issues in the Nepalese context? 76 Evaluation Criteria Key Questions – Mid-term Evaluation Key Questions - End line Evaluation Data Source Effectiveness How effective school meal operation (all components) is with regards to results (output, outcome, and impact) achieved by the project at this stage? How effective school meal operation (all components) was with regards to results (output, outcome, and impact) achieved by the project at this stage? Quantitative surveys, Key informant interview, focus groups, review Monitoring reports, and COMET, partners reports Were (are) the outputs and outcomes for men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories achieved (likely to be achieved)? Were (are) the outputs and outcomes for men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories achieved (likely to be achieved)? Is the project on track to reach the set targets? If yes, what are the best practices that contribute to it? If no, what are the challenges and mitigation measures? Were the set targets met by the project? If yes, what were the best practices that contribute to it? If no, what were the challenges and lessons learned? Efficiency How is the efficiency of the programme, in terms of transfer cost, cost per beneficiary, logistics, timeliness of delivery at this stage? How was the efficiency of the programme, in terms of transfer cost, cost per beneficiary, logistics, timeliness of delivery? Financial report and COMET, expenditure analysis How are the processes, systems, analysis, and tools been put in place to support the FFECN design, implementation, monitoring & evaluation, and reporting, including the specific arrangements (e.g. third-party monitoring to complement WFP Nepal field monitoring)? How were the processes, systems, analysis, and tools been put in place to support the FFECN design, implementation, monitoring & evaluation, and reporting, including the specific arrangements (e.g. third-party monitoring to complement WFP Nepal field monitoring)? Did the targeting of the intervention considered need of different marginalized groups (men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories)? Did the targeting of the intervention considered need of different marginalized groups (men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories)? How is the efficiency of the programme, in terms of timeliness of delivery at this stage? How was the efficiency of the programme, in terms of timeliness of delivery? Impact To what degree has the FFECN project made progress towards the results in the project-level framework? To what degree had the project made progress towards the results in the project-level framework? Special study report, Quantitative surveys, groups, Monitoring reports What were the effects of the intervention on different marginalized groups (men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories)? What were the effects of the intervention on different marginalized groups (men, women, boys and girls, and other relevant socio-economic categories)? Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? What are they? What Had there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? What were they? What 77 Evaluation Criteria Key Questions – Mid-term Evaluation Key Questions - End line Evaluation Data Source are the areas that the result directly affected? were the areas that the result directly affected? What are the internal and external factors affecting the FFECN project’s ability to deliver a midterm impact? How WFP Nepal exercises to mitigate these challenges? What were the internal and external factors affecting the project’s ability to deliver impact? How WFP Nepal worked out to mitigate these challenges? How are the intermediate effects of the project among direct beneficiaries (students, teachers, cook) and indirect beneficiaries (parents, community) of the FFECN project? How was the impact of the project among direct beneficiaries (students, teachers, cook) and indirect beneficiaries (parents, community) of the FFECN project? How effective were the project interventions in changing cultural taboos in the community related to girl’s education, menstruation and hygiene, caste discrimination, and early marriage” How effective were the project interventions in changing cultural taboos in the community related to girl’s education, menstruation and hygiene, caste discrimination, and early marriage” Sustainability To what extent the programme is sustainable in the following areas: a strategy for sustainability; sound policy alignment; stable funding and budgeting; quality programme design; institutional arrangements; local production and sourcing; partnership and coordination; community participation, equity, and ownership? To what extent the programme was sustainable in the following areas: a strategy for sustainability; sound policy alignment; stable funding and budgeting; quality programme design; institutional arrangements; local production and sourcing; partnership and coordination; community participation, equity, and ownership? Quantitative surveys, Key stakeholder focus groups, Secondary Data Review How has the Nepal government progressed towards developing a nationally owned school feeding programme? How had the Nepal government progressed toward developing a nationally owned school feeding programme? To what degree the local communities (PTAs, farmers groups, etc.) of Nepal are involved in and contributing towards the school feeding? To what degree the local communities (PTAs, farmers groups, etc.) of Nepal were involved in and contributing towards the school feeding? What needs are remaining to achieve a full handover to the Nepal government and implement a nationally owned school feeding programme? What was the level of readiness of GoN to take full handover and implement a nationally owned school feeding programme? What community-level government systems and management are required for the successful implementation and sustainability of school meal programs? What community-level governance systems and management put in place/strengthened for the successful implementation and 78 Evaluation Criteria Key Questions – Mid-term Evaluation Key Questions - End line Evaluation Data Source sustainability of school meal programs? How are the operational and maintenance mechanisms developed for the sustainability of this programme? How were the operational and maintenance mechanisms developed for the sustainability of this programme? Note: The research company will incorporate more questions to reflect lessons learned for the transition of School Feeding. 79 Annex 7: Evaluation Matrix for Baseline Baseline survey will explore the relevance, coherence, and sustainability aspects of the programme only. Evaluation Questions Evaluation sub-questions Areas of Inquiry Method of data collection Method of data analyses/ triangulation Data quality Coherence To what extent are the McGovern￾Dole FY20 programme activities aligned with government policies, and with WFP guidelines and policies? How do the programme activities align with institutions' commitment to SDG? How do the programme activities align with those implemented by other actors? How do the programme activities align with WFP’s policy framework? How are the programme activities synergistic with other WFP operations in Nepal? How well the programme design aims to reach marginalized and vulnerable groups and transform gender inequities The extent to which the policies support or undermine the program activities. The extent of synergy between the programme activities and other WFP operations as well as other actors contributing to educational objectives in Nepal. Additionality of the McGovern-Dole FY20 intervention to existing initiatives by WFP or the government without duplicating the efforts of other projects in the education sector in Nepal. Alignment of the McGovern-Dole FY20 intervention design and delivery with human rights principles and standards, including gender equality and women empowerment, and wider equity issues. Review of national policy documents Review of WFP country strategic plan, project proposal including results framework and theory of change Key informant interview with MoEST, CHERD, FFEP, WFP programme staff, and implementing partners Narrative review of secondary data Analyzing programme design in line with goals and objectives of GoN and WFP Analysis of qualitative data (KIIs). Triangulation: Comparing views of different stakeholders and secondary data Strong Relevance How the McGovern-Dole FY20 programme goals and design are aligned with To what extent the stakeholders’ priorities and needs are articulated in the intervention’s objectives, its underlying theory of change? Issues an intervention address and why? The extent to which the priorities and needs of stakeholder’s Review of project proposal including results framework and theory of change. A structured interview with the headteacher, teacher, Narrative review of secondary data Analysing programme design Strong 80 Evaluation Questions Evaluation sub-questions Areas of Inquiry Method of data collection Method of data analyses/ triangulation Data quality the beneficiary and stakeholder’s needs? To what extent do the programme’s interventions aim to reach the right people (men, women, boys, and girls) at the right time, with the right type of assistance at this stage? To what extent the beneficiaries and target stakeholders view the intervention as useful and valuable? beneficiaries are included in program design Perception of stakeholders and beneficiaries about the importance of programme intervention student, and KII with different tiers of government (federal, provincial, and local level), WFP officials and implementing partners, FGD with the school management committee, and adolescent girls Record review of schools Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Triangulation: Comparing views of different stakeholders, primary and secondary data Sustainability To what extent the programme has inbuilt activities to sustain the benefits generated by the project. To what extent the learnings from the past programme has been incorporated while designing the McGovern-Dole FY20 programme interventions? What strategies are in place in programme design to sustain the benefits generated by the programme? What is the preparedness for the handover of the programme? Learnings from the past programme incorporated in McGovern-Dole FY20. Strategies designed to sustain the benefits post programme Preparedness for handover Review of a project proposal. KII with different tiers of government, WFP officials, and implementing partners Narrative review of secondary data Analysing programme design Analysis of qualitative data Triangulation: Comparing views of different stakeholders, and secondary data Strong 81 Annex 8: Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) McGovern-Dole - World Food Programme Nepal Targets Indicator Number Performance Indicator Data Source Disaggregation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 2021 2022 2023 2024 Standard 1 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 Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation Total (fluency and comprehension) 2 4.5 7 12 Female - 4.5 7 12 Male 2 4.5 7 12 Total (Oral reading fluency) 19.9 22 24 26 Female - 22 24 26 Male - 22 24 26 Standard 2 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools Headcount and review of attendance register during routine process monitoring Total 70% 75% 80% 85% Baseline Survey, Midterm evaluation Endline evaluation Female 70% 75% 80% 85% Male 70% 75% 80% 85% Standard 3 Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring n/a 904,506 77,680 291,150 0 82 Standard 4 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Baseline survey, midterm evaluation and endline evaluation Total 0 652 746 839 Female 0 217 248 279 Male 0 435 498 560 Standard 5 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Total 932 318 614 0 Female 310 106 205 - Male 622 212 409 - Standard 6 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate the use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Baseline survey, midterm and endline evaluation Total 0 617 645 645 Female 0 206 215 215 Male 0 411 430 430 Standard 7 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Total 921 921 921 0 Female 307 307 307 0 Male 614 614 614 0 Standard 8 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Total 400 700 600 108 Improved Water Sources (hand washing station) 200 350 300 54 Latrines (maintenance) 200 350 300 54 Standard 9 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance Resource Allocation Plan/Integrated Education Management Information System (IEMIS) Total 276,314 312,380 232,875 133,133 Pre -Primary Female 21,100 21,100 13,336 7,511 Pre -Primary Male 19,763 19,763 12,491 7,035 Primary Female 106,805 106,805 67,506 38,020 83 Primary Male 93,953 93,953 59,383 33,445 Secondary Female 34,693 39,650 44,606 23,966 Secondary Male 26,665 31,109 35,553 23,156 Standard 10 Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance Documentation of the development of guidelines routinely during project implementation.School meal/School Health and Nutrition (SHN) policy at different tiers of government Total 16 21 19 5 Education (Stage 1-2) 16 26 19 0 Education (Stage 3-5) 0 16 21 24 Standard 12 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Education 142 150 160 3 Standard 13 Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance Process Monitoring n/a 2,297 2,297 1,506 718 Standard 16 Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring n/a 17,396,712 28,392,336 17,188,416 6,192,792 Standard 17 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Total 241,621 241,621 152,717 86,011 New, Female 127,906 21,100 13,336 7,511 Continuing, Female 0 106,805 67,506 38,020 New, Male 113,715 19,763 12,491 7,035 Continuing, Male 0 93,953 59,383 33,445 Standard 18 Total 322,754 325,190 259,191 198,065 84 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Input Output Monitoring Human Assets/Capital, Female, New 162,599 26,057 18,292 7,511 Human Assets/Capital, Female, Continuing 0 141,498 107,155 61,986 Human Assets/Capital, Male, New 140,380 24,207 16,935 37,698 Human Assets/Capital, Male, Continuing 0 93,953 59,383 33,445 Household Assets/Capital, Female, New 3,955 3,940 3,590 0 Household Assets/Capital, Female, Continuing 0 3,955 7,895 11,485 Household Assets/Capital, Male, New 15,820 15,760 14,360 0 Household Assets/Capital, Male, Continuing 0 15,820 31,580 45,940 Standard 19 Number of individuals who demonstrate the use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation Total 0 5,678 11,086 16,003 Female 0 1,847 4,093 6,240 Male 0 3,831 6,993 9,763 Standard 20 Number of individuals who demonstrate the use of new safe food preparation and Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation Total 0 1,378 1,493 1,608 Female 0 1,103 1,195 1,287 Male 0 275 298 321 85 storage practices as a result of USDA assistance Standard 22 Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of USDA assistance Input-Output Monitoring Total #REF! 2,577 2,577 0 Female #REF! 515 515 0 Male #REF! 2,062 2,062 0 Standard 23 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance Input- Output Monitoring Total 9,464 8,320 7,024 0 Female 3,079 3,455 3,067 0 Male 6,385 4,865 3,957 0 Standard 27 Number of schools using an improved water source Input and Output monitoring Routine process monitoring Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation n/a 408 758 1,058 1,112 Standard 28 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities Input and Output monitoring Routine process monitoring Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation n/a 248 548 848 902 Standard 29 Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) Input and Output monitoring n/a 148,032 172,704 197,376 133,543 Standard 30 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs Input and Output Monitoring Total 334,600 272,357 194,153 185,505 Students Female 162,599 167,556 116,479 64,445 Students Male 140,380 144,824 107,426 63,635 School administrators and officials Female 153 153 153 0 86 School administrators and officials Male 613 613 613 0 Teachers Female 575 293 205 0 Teachers Male 1,239 649 409 0 Cook Female 191 191 191 0 Cook Male 575 574 574 0 Producers Female 15,820 31,580 45,940 45,940 Producers Male 3,955 7,895 11,485 11,485 School governance structure member Female (SMP and SWASH CC) 2505 2,347 2,348 0 School governance structure member Male (SMP_SWASH CC) 5709 3,877 3,877 0 Government official’s female 58 56 55 0 Government official’s male 228 224 223 0 Standard 30 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that include an LRP component Input and Output Monitoring Total 334,600 272,357 194,153 185,505 Students Female 162,599 167,556 116,479 64,445 Students Male 140,380 144,824 107,426 63,635 School administrators and officials Female 153 153 153 0 School administrators and officials Male 613 613 613 0 Teachers Female 575 293 205 0 87 Teachers Male 1,239 649 409 0 Cook Female 191 191 191 0 Cook Male 575 574 574 0 Producers Female 15,820 31,580 45,940 45,940 Producers Male 3,955 7,895 11,485 11,485 School governance structure member Female (SMP and SWASH CC) 2505 2,347 2,348 0 School governance structure member Male (SMP_SWASH CC) 5709 3,877 3,877 0 Government official’s female 58 56 55 0 Government official’s male 228 224 223 0 Standard 31 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions Input and Output Monitoring n/a 1,271,480 1,034,956 737,781 704,919 Standard 32 Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance Input and Output Monitoring Total 2,297 2,297 1,506 708 Pre-Primary 1,783 1,783 1,121 556 Primary 1,474 1,474 957 453 Secondary 823 823 549 265 Standard 33 Number of schools reached with LRP activities as a result of USDA assistance Input and Output Monitoring n/a 791 1,579 1,506 708 LRP 5 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA Input and Output Monitoring Total (USD) 405,306 300,000 953,700 0 88 assistance (by commodity and source country) Vegetables (USD) 405,306 300,000 389,970 0 Rice (USD) 0 0 172,200 Lentils (USD) 0 0 391,530 0 LRP 6 Quantity of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Input and Output Monitoring Total (MT) 640 480 1,349 0 Vegetables (MT) 640 480 619 0 Rice (USD) 0 0 420 Lentils (MT) 0 0 310 0 FFPr 21 Number of individuals who have received short -term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance Input and Output Monitoirng Total 19,775 39,475 57,425 57,425 Producers Female New 15,820 15,760 14,360 0 Producers Male New 3,955 3,940 3,590 0 Producers Female Continuing 0 15,820 31,580 45,940 Producers Male Continuing 0 3,955 7,895 11,485 LRP 12 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation Total - 11,865 27,633 45,940 Smallholder producers Female; age 15 - 29 - 2,848 6,632 11,026 Smallholder producers Male; age 15 -29 - 712 1,658 2,756 Smallholder producers Female; age 30+ - 6,644 15,474 25,726 Smallholder producers Male; age 30+ - 1,661 3,869 6,432 89 FFPr 12 Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline evaluation Government agencies - 158 171 179 Note: Custom indicators targets will be finalized after the baseline survey, deleted as per suggestion of USDA comment in Attachment D ver 1 Custom 1 Average retention rate Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Female Male Custom 2 Number of schools receiving food commodities for school meal program on a timely basis Input and Output Monitoring n/a Custom 3 Number of schools conducting at least one annual health screening. Input and Output monitoring Total Pre-Primary Primary Secondary Custom 4 Number of adolescent girls aged 10-19 years receiving biannual weekly Iron Folic Acid supplementation Input and Output monitoring n/a Custom 5 Number of schools with provision of sanitary pads. Routine process monitoring n/a Custom 6 Number of schools with toilets with sanitary pads disposal bins. Routine process monitoring n/a Custom 7 Number of schools supported for segregated waste management pit. Input and Output monitoring n/a 90 Custom 8 Number of schools practicing segregated waste management practice. Routine process monitoring Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation n/a Custom 9 Number of local governments recognizing and rewarding teachers making changes or taking special initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes Input and Output Monitoring n/a Custom 10 Number of school meals committee established at the municipal level as per the standard guideline. Input and Output Monitoring n/a Custom 11 Minimum diet diversity of school -age children Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Boys Girls Custom 12 Percentage of parents having school -going children aware about the benefits of school meal program. Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Male Female Custom 13 Percentage of local government developing contextualized instructional materials. Input and Output Monitoring n/a Custom 14 Percentage of students aware of the importance of school meal program Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Boys Girls SBCC Custom Indicators SBCC Custom 1 Health -related absenteeism among school age children Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluaiton Total Boys Girls 91 SBCC Custom 2 Percent of school -age children with good personal hygiene. Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Boys Girls SBCC Custom 3 Percent of adolescent girls reporting practice of hygienic menstrual behavior. Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation n/a SBCC Custom 4 Percent of school -age children reporting handwashing practice at critical times. Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Boys Girls SBCC Custom 5 Number of schools with at least one set of Information Education and Communication and behavior change package. Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation n/a SBCC Custom 6 Number of schools celebrating national sanitation -related campaign s at the community level. Input and Output Monitoring n/a SBCC Custom 7 Number of school -age children receiving school meal s on all school days Baseline Survey Midterm Evaluation Endline Evaluation Total Boys Girls 92 Annex 9: Data Collections Tools A: Quantitative Tools Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Head Teacher Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to your school in general, EGR components and mid-day meal program. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 1 hour of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603). Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 93 Section 1: Interview Information Q. No Question HT1 Name of School: ___________________________________ HT2 Name of Village: ___________________________________ HT3 Province name and number ________________________________ HT4 District name and code number ___________________________________ HT5 Name and code of Rural/Urban Municipality: ____________________________ HT6 Ward no.: HT7 Sampled school EMIS #: HT8 Type of School School receiving continuing WFP support................ 1 New School.................................................................. 2 H9 Up to which grade the school functions Basic (ECD- 3)............................................................... 1 Basic (ECD- 5)............................................................... 2 Basic (ECD-8) ............................................................... 3 Secondary (ECD-10).................................................... 4 Secondary (ECD-12).................................................... 5 HT10 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ HT11 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ HT12 Date of Interview DD MM YYYY HT13 Interview Start Time: Hour Minute HT14 Is the school benefitting from any other light touch intervention? SIDP ............................................................................ 1 Digital learning (DL)................................................... 2 HGSF ........................................................................... 3 GPS coordinates of School HT15 Latitude • HT16 Longitude • HT17 Altitude (m) • 94 Section 2: Questions related to school’s general information Q.No. Question Responses Skip to HT18 Code of the respondent / ID ____________________________ HT18a Is the respondent the school Head teacher? Yes .....................................................................1 No ...................................................................... 2 HT18b If no, then probe his/her designation. _________________________________________ HT19 What is your gender? Male................................................................... 1 Female............................................................... 2 Other ................................................................. 3 Not willing to express......................................4 HT20 What is your ethnicity? Brahmin/Chhetri..............................................1 Dalit ................................................................... 2 Newar ................................................................3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) ..................... 4 Madhesi ............................................................ 5 Muslim ..............................................................6 Other (Specify)________________.....................96 HT21 Do you have any disability? Yes ..................................................................... 1 No ...................................................................... 2 HT22 HT21a If ‘Yes’, what type of disability do you have? Hearing deficiency ..........................................1 Visual impairment ........................................... 2 Speech impairment ........................................ 3 Physical disability............................................. 4 Other (Specify)_______________ ......................96 HT22 Years of experience as Teacher A. Overall: ______________................... B. In this school: _________................. HT23 Years of experience as Head Teacher A. Overall: ______________................... B. In this school: _________................. HT24 Number of teachers by gender a. Male ................................................ b. Female ........................................... c. Other (Specify) ________ ................. HT25 Number of teachers by ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri ........................... 1 Dalit ................................................. 2 Newar .............................................. 3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) ... 4 Madhesi .......................................... 5 Muslim ............................................ 6 Other (Specify)________ ................96 95 Q.No. Question Responses Skip to HT26 Is the number of teachers adequate according to the grades school is operating Yes ...............................................................1 No ................................................................2 HT27 How is the availability of classrooms for early grades? Adequate ....................................................1 Not Adequate .............................................2 Module 3: School and Community Relation Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT28 When was the current School Management Committee formed? (Review record) DD / MM / YYYY HT28a Number of SMC members by gender (Review record) a. Male ............................................... b. Female ........................................... . c. Other ............................................... HT28b Number of SMC members by ethnicity (Review record) Brahmin/Chhetri ........................... 1 Dalit................................................. 2 Newar.............................................. 3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar). 4 Madhesi .......................................... 5 Muslim ............................................ 6 Other (Specify)___________...........96 HT29 Have the SMC members received any orientation or training on school management? Yes .................................................................... 1 No..................................................................... 2 HT30 HT 29a If ‘Yes’, by whom? (Mention the agency/organization) _______________________________ _______________________________ HT29b If ‘Yes’, what were core contents of the training ? (Multiple response possible) Roles and responsibilities of SMC members .......................................................................A Generating support for school development ................................................B Strengthening of community participation in school activities ...........................................C Development and administration of School Improvement Plan .................... D Creating a learning-environment in school E Budgeting for school activities...................... F School good governance.............................. G Monitoring and supervision......................... H Other (Specify) _______________ ...................... X Don’t know......................................................Z HT30 How many meetings of SMC were held in the year of 2076 ? ________________________. If “0”, go to HT 31 96 Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT30a Did the meeting discuss about the following……….? Topic Yes= 1 No= 2 Activities to promote reading skills in early grades Mid-day Meal School Health and Nutrition (WaSH in school) Other (Specify) ___________ HT31 Has the Executive Committee of the Parent- Teachers’ Association been formed? Yes ................................................................... 1 No.................................................................... 2 HT33 HT32 How many meetings of the Executive Committee were held in the last year? ______________________....... HT32a Did the meeting discuss about the following……….? Topic Yes= 1 No= 2 Activities to promote reading skills in early grades Regular attendance of students Parents engagement Students’ performance Other (Specify) ______________ HT33 Has Child Club been formed? Yes ................................................................... 1 No.................................................................... 2 HT35 HT34 If ‘Yes’, what is the number of members in Child Club by gender? a. Male ............................................. b. Female ......................................... HT34a If ‘Yes’, what is the number of Child Club members by ethnicity? a. Dalits ............................................. b. Non- Dalits ................................... HT34b If ‘Yes’, how many meetings were held in the last year? No. of meetings ............................... Don’t know................................................... 98 HT35 Does your school organize meetings with parents regularly? Yes, for all grades .......................................... 1 Yes, for early grades only (Grade 1 to 3)............................................................. 2 No ................................................................... 3 HT36 HT35a If ‘Yes’, what are the agendas discussed in parents meeting? (Multiple response possible) Students performance.................................. A Regular attendance of students .................. B Parent’s support to children’s at home ...... C Others (Specify)_______________ ................... X HT35b If ‘Yes’, what is the frequency of meeting with parents? Monthly........................................................... 1 Quarterly ........................................................ 2 Semi-annually ................................................ 3 Annually.......................................................... 4 Others (Specify)_______________ ................. 96 HT35c If ‘Yes’, who usually attend the meetings? Father.............................................................. 1 Mother ............................................................ 2 Male guardian................................................ 3 Female guardian............................................ 4 HT35d How many parents’ meeting were conducted in last academic session? (Observe the record) Grade 1: ___times .......................................... 1 Grade 2: ___times .......................................... 2 Grade 3: ___times .......................................... 3 97 Module 4: Internal Efficiency Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT36 Is there School Operation Calendar (school routine)? (Observe) Yes, observed...................................................1 Yes, not observed............................................2 No......................................................................3 HT37 Do you have the updated School Improvement Plan? (Observe) Yes, observed...................................................1 Yes, not observed............................................2 No......................................................................3 HT38 HT37a If ‘Yes’, does it include the following: S.N. Needs Yes No 1. Early Grade Reading 2. Use of mother tongue in early grades 3. School Meal Management 4. SHN/WASH 5. Inclusive education 6. Co- curricular activities 7. Increase instructional time HT38 How is the regularity of students in early grades? 90% and above .................................................. 1 80-90%................................................................ 2 70-80%................................................................ 3 60-70%................................................................ 4 Below 60%.......................................................... 5 HT39 HT38a If below 70% (codes 4 or 5), what are the main reasons for the absence? (Multiple response possible) Because of sickness .......................................... A Because of long distance from home to school............................................................. B Because of adverse climate ............................ C Because of festivals ..........................................D Because of involvement in household works/farm works ....................................... E Because of financial crisis ................................ F Lack of students awareness/or interest.........G Lack of parental awareness .............................H Lack of parental support................................... I As the students above grade 5 do not get midday meal .................................................. J Mensuration (for girls)...................................... K Other (Specify) _________________ ..................... X HT39 How is the regularity of the Nepali language teachers for early grades? 90 % and above ................................................. 1 80-90%................................................................ 2 70-80%................................................................ 3 60-70%................................................................ 4 Below 60%.......................................................... 5 HT41 HT39a If below 70% (codes 4 or 5), what are the main reasons for the irregularity? (Multiple response possible) Lack of motivation .............................................A Transfer of teachers ..........................................B Teachers attending trainings............................C Long distance .................................................... D Climatic conditions............................................. E Frequent replacement of teachers etc. ........... F Others (Specify)________________ ...................... X HT40 If below 60-70%, has the school taken any action to increase the attendance? Yes........................................................................1 No......................................................................... 2 HT41 98 Q. No. Question Options Skip to HT40a If yes, what actions does the school usually take to increase the attendance? (Multiple response possible) Strictly follows the school guidelines/ protocol ....................................................... A Encourages those who attend regularly ........ B Properly evaluates the teacher ....................... C Marks the teacher as absentee....................... D Asks justification from the teacher ..................E Stops the promotion of the teacher................F Other (Specify)__________________ .....................X HT41 Do teachers prepare lesson plans in advance? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 Don’t know........................................................98 HT43 HT42 Do you review and provide feedback on lesson plans prepared by teachers? _________________________________ HT43 Do you monitor the classroom activities of the early grade Nepali language teachers? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT44 HT43a If ‘Yes’, how frequently? Daily.....................................................................1 Weekly .................................................................2 Every 15 days......................................................3 Monthly ..............................................................4 Quarterly.............................................................5 Others ...............................................................96 HT44 As per your observation, do the early grade teachers need further support? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 Don’t know........................................................98 HT45 HT44a If ‘Yes’, in which area? __________________________________ __________________________________ HT45 Did local municipality officials monitor your school activities in the last year? (Please record top two priority areas) Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 Don’t know........................................................98 HT46 HT45a If ‘Yes’, how many times did they monitor your school activities during education calendar year of 2076? One time ............................................................ 1 Two times ..........................................................2 Three times ........................................................3 Four times ..........................................................4 More than four times .......................................5 HT46 What is the allocated time for Nepali language class for early grades? (G1 - G3) 45 minutes a day................................................1 90 minutes a day................................................2 Others (Specify)_______________.......................96 HT47 Were monthly meeting with teachers conducted in the last academic year/ 2076? (Pls check the meeting minutes) Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT48 HT47a If yes, how many times were the meeting conducted in the last academic year? (Review record) ..... times Record not available for review.....................98 99 Q. No. Question Options Skip to HT47b If ‘Yes’, what are the common issues discussed during the meeting? (Choose all that apply) Early grade Students’ performance.................1 Challenges faced during teaching/learning activities.........................................................2 Mitigation measures for the challenges .........3 Support needed from school management.................................................4 Involvement of parents.....................................5 Status on implementation of SIP .....................6 Other (Specify)___________________ .................96 HT48 Did the school participate in mobile meeting in last academic year? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT50 HT48a If yes, how many times were the mobile meeting conducted in the last academic year? (Observe the record) Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT50 In your opinion, how is the overall learning achievement of grade 2 students? Excellent..............................................................1 Satisfactory .........................................................2 Poor.....................................................................3 HT51 HT50a If ‘Poor’, why? (Multiple response possible) Frequent absence of subject teachers ........... A Frequent absence of students ........................ B Lack of parental support.................................. C Lack of teaching-learning materials ............... D Less effective teaching methods......................E Lack of trained teachers ...................................F Less effective teaching-learning activities ..... G Different mother tongues of the students .... H Other (Specify) ___________________...................X HT51 How is the student’s assessment performed? (Multiple response possible) Internal evaluation ........................................... A Exams ................................................................. B Continuous Assessment System..................... C Other (Specify) __________________ ....................X HT52 Do you use the student evaluation to improve their performance? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT53 HT52A How do you use the results of assessment? (Multiple response possible) To promote students ....................................... A To plan for remedial teaching ........................ B To improve overall instruction ....................... C To support individually .................................... D Other (Specify) __________________ ....................X HT53 Are there any school-going age children in your catchment area not admitted to school? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 Don’t know........................................................98 HT54 HT53a If ‘Yes’, why are they not admitted? (Multiple response possible) Involvement in household chores.................. A Socio cultural factor ......................................... B Lack of parental awareness/Illiteracy............. C To support the family financially ................... D Feeling less importance of education by children........................................................E Child marriage ...................................................F Sickness.............................................................. G Disability ............................................................ H Other (Specify)__________________ ....................X 100 Q. No. Question Options Skip to HT54 Does the school help the parents to help improve student learning? Yes .......................................................................1 No ........................................................................2 HT55 HT54a How does school mobilize parents for improving students’ learning achievement? (Multiple response possible) Awareness programme for the parents ........ A Regular meetings/ interactions with parents B Involving parents in volunteer activities in school ........................................................... C Involving parents in developing learning materials ...................................................... D Organizing reading melas ................................E Involving parents in developing school plans/SIP .......................................................F Requesting parents to support learning at home ............................................................ G Awarding supportive parents..........................H Other (Specify)___________________ ...................X Module 5: Targeted Intervention Specific Inquiry (Ask HT55-HT59a questions only in EGRA districts) Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT55 Has your school received assistance of teaching materials through WEP or its partners? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 HT57 HT55a If ‘Yes’, what types of materials have you received? (Multiple response possible) Digital resources and materials (audio-video, e-library, online materials, laptops etc.) ...... A Levelled reading materials ............................ B Book corner/ library ....................................... C Flash cards/ charts ......................................... D Locally made materials ...................................E Other (Specify)______________ .........................X HT57 HT56 If the assistance of ‘Digital resources and materials’ received, how is the use of such resources? Regular .............................................................1 Occasional ........................................................2 Never ................................................................ 3 Don’t know .......................................................4 HT57 Has any teachers/staff member of your school received new knowledge and skills through WFP or its partners in the last 12 months? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 HT58 HT57a If yes, what new knowledge/skills were learnt by the teachers/staff members through these programme/trainings? (Multiple response possible) On improving literacy skills of the early grade students,............................................ A On improving the quality of teaching/ instruction by the teachers ....................... B On school health, hygiene and nutrition...... C On safe food preparation and storage......... D On school management .................................E On financial management ..............................F On school community relation...................... G Other (Specify) _________________ ....................X 101 Q. No. Question Options Skip to HT58 Have all early grade teachers (teaching Nepali subject) been trained in EGR instruction? Yes, all early grade Nepali subject teachers are trained ...................................1 Yes, but only one or some Nepali subject teachers are trained......................2 No, none of the Nepali subject teachers are trained ..................................................3 HT60 HT59 Have the EGR trained teachers demonstrated improved teaching skills after the training? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 HT60 HT59a If ‘Yes’, in what ways? (Multiple response possible) Application of enhanced teaching methods ...................................................... A Preparation and use of additional teaching materials besides textbooks............. B Better organization and management of classroom arrangement ........................... C Better communication with parents ............ D Better communication with students ...........E Preparation and use of teaching plans ........F Use of continuous assessment chart .......... G Better support based on student learning skills and personalized learning .............. H Better record keeping and follow-up on lessons...........................................................I Better access and use of technological equipment ....................................................J Provision of instructions to children in mother tongue .......................................... K More interactive class delivery ......................L Use of integrated curriculum ....................... M Other (Specify) _________________ ...................X HT60 Is the school getting the right amount of ration (80g of fortified rice, 20g of lentils, and 10g of fortified vegetable oil, 2gram iodized salt) for all students of grades 1-5 for entire 180 school days? Received entire amounts for all days ............1 Received between 80%-99% of the days.......2 Received between 60%-79% of the days.......3 Received between 50%-59% of the days…....4 Received between 40%-49% of the days.......5 Received between 20%-39% of the days...... 6 Received less than 20% of the days ...............7 Not received at all ............................................8 Don’t know......................................................98 HT60A Since school reopened as the covid cases lessened, has the school provided mid-day meal every day the school is open? Every day the school is open..........................1 Every day the school is open (except Friday)2 Every day the school is open (except on exam days) ...................................................3 Every day the school is open (except on Fridays and exam days)..............................4 Only sometimes ...............................................5 Never .................................................................6 102 Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT61B If never, then why? School distributes the food for the children to take home ...............................................1 The school is open for a short duration and it’s impossible to provide mid-day meal..............................................................2 Other (specify)_________________....................96 HT61 HT60C If the school distributes the food for the children to take home, then what are the advantages of such a process? (Please mention 3 advantages) 1._______________________________ 2._______________________________ 3._______________________________ HT61 Has the school, in collaboration with WFP/Partner Organization, initiated any actions towards exploring availability of locally produced food in view of transition of current kind-based mid￾day meal into cash-based home-grown school feeding in the future? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 Don’t know......................................................98 HT62 Has the school adopted home-grown school meal menus developed and circulated by CEHRD? (Observe) Yes, observed....................................................1 Yes, could not be observed.............................2 No.......................................................................3 Don’t know......................................................98 HT63 Is the school receiving fresh, locally purchased vegetables from WFP/Partner Organization for the mid￾day meal? (Observe) Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 Don’t know......................................................98 HT64 Are you receiving lentils (Daal) from WFP/Partner Organization for the students? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 Don’t know......................................................98 HT65 How confident are you about ensuring adequate dietary diversity in school meals by the use of locally produced food items once the current kind-based support transitions into cash-based Home-Grown School Feeding? Very confident..................................................1 Somewhat confident........................................2 Not so confident...............................................3 Don’t know......................................................98 HT66 What community feedback mechanisms are in practice regarding School Meal Programme? (Multiple response possible) Report to SMC/FMC ........................................ A Report to headteacher/teacher ..................... B Telephonic contact with the concerned ....... C Emails ............................................................... D Report to partners...........................................E Toll Free Helpline/Namaste WFP....................F Suggestion box................................................ G Complaint handling teacher... ....................... H Report to WFP staff...........................................I Report to distribution centre staff..................J Report to local government........................... K Other (Specify) __________________...................X HT67 Have you ever used Namaste WFP to provide suggestions or feedback about the program? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 Don’t know......................................................98 HT69 103 Q.No. Question Options Skip to HT68 If ‘Yes’, how satisfied are you with the redressal process of ‘Namaste WFP’ in terms of ease of use, timeliness of the redressal and quality of the redressal? Very satisfied ....................................................1 Somewhat satisfied..........................................2 Not so satisfied.................................................3 Don’t know .....................................................98 HT69 HT69 HT68a If somewhat or not satisfied, why? (Record the top reason) _________________________________ HT69 What would be the best option for school children, parents and others to communicate their issues to WFP? Through SMC/FMC...........................................1 Report to school/headteacher/teacher .........2 Logbook.............................................................3 School complaint/suggestion box..................4 WFP toll free hotlines.......................................5 Report to WFP staff..........................................6 Report to partner staff....................................7 Report to local government............................8 Report to distribution centre staff.................9 SMS to WFP.....................................................10 Viber/ Facebook messenger to WFP............11 Other (Specify)__________________..................96 HT70 Does your school receive any support for midday meal from Local Government/community/any organisation other than WFP/its partner? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 HT71 HT70a If ‘Yes’, what kind of support? In-kind................................................................1 Cash ...................................................................2 Other (Specify)__________________..................96 HT71 Does your school have a designated cook? Yes......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 Not applicable (Not prepare meal ...............97 HT72 HT72 HT71a If ‘No’, how is it managed? __________________________________ HT72 Do you have a set of Information Education and Communication and Behaviour Change package? (Observe) Yes, observed....................................................1 Yes, could not be observed.............................2 No.......................................................................3 Don’t know......................................................98 HT73 How do you rate your overall perceptions on the following? S.N. (Ask this question’s 7-15 items only in EGR districts) Items 1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neither agree nor disagree 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree 97= Not applicable 1 School Meal Programme has increased students’ enrolment. 2 School Meal Programme has increased students’ attendance. 3 School Meal Programme has decreased students’ dropouts. 4 School Meal Programme has increased students’ attentiveness in class. 5 School Meal Programme has increased students’ interest in studying. 104 6 School Meal Programme has increased overall students learning outcome. 7 WFP’s intervention (midday meal, EGR, SHN) has contributed to increased Grade 1-3 students learning outcome for Nepali subject. 8 The Mobile Meetings of Head teachers and EGR teachers are focused on the pertinent activities of early grade reading. 9 Reading Motivator is supporting the teachers for material preparation. 10 Reading Motivator is supporting the teachers for use of teaching/learning materials. 11 Reading Motivator is supporting the teachers by providing feedback based on classroom observation. 12 Reading Motivator is supporting the teachers for demonstrating education activities. 13 There are grade appropriate reading materials in the early grades. 14 School has adopted an inclusive pedagogy. 15 Students get additional support for enhancing their reading skills when required. Thank you for your time. HT74 Interview End Time: Hour Minute 105 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Nepali Subject Teacher Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to your experiences in Early Grade Reading instructions, related trainings/supports that you might have received and your use of EGR tools and techniques in teaching Nepali in early grades. Besides, we would like to sit in one of your classes and have real time experience of the methods that you use. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603). Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning International FFECN Programme. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 106 Module 1: Background Characteristics of Survey Area Module 2: Background Information of Respondent Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT13 Identification code of the respondent NT14 What is your gender? Male............................................................ 1 Female........................................................ 2 Other .......................................................... 3 Prefer not to respond...............................4 NT15 What is your age? Below 25 years ..........................................1 26-35 years ................................................ 2 36- 45 years ............................................... 3 46- 55 years ............................................... 4 Above 55 years .........................................5 NT16 What is your formal education? Under SLC................................................. 1 SLC/SEE ..................................................... 2 +2/Intermediate ....................................... 3 Bachelor .................................................... 4 Master’s or above .................................... 5 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 Q.N. Questions /Response Category NT1 Name of School: ___________________________________ NT2 Name of Village: ___________________________________ NT3 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ NT4 District: ___________________________________ NT5 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ NT6 Ward no.: NT7 Sampled school EMIS #: NT7a Type of School School receiving continuing WFP support.........1 New School...........................................................2 NT8 Up to which grade the school functions Basic (ECD- 3)........................................................1 Basic (ECD- 5)........................................................ 2 Basic (ECD-8)......................................................... 3 Secondary (ECD- 10)............................................. 4 Secondary (ECD-12).............................................. 5 NT9 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ NT10 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ NT11 Interview Start Time: Hour Minute NT12 Date of Interview DD MM YYYY 107 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT17 Type of appointment Permanent................................................ 1 Temporary (Fixed source)....................... 2 Temporary (Niji shrowt).......................... 3 Voluntary teacher……………………….….4 Rahat teacher………………………………...5 NT18 How long have you been teaching in total? Less than a year ....................................... 1 1-5 years ................................................... 2 6-10 years ................................................. 3 More than 10 years ................................. 4 NT19 How long have you been teaching in this school? Less than a year ....................................... 1 1-5 years ................................................... 2 6-10 years ................................................. 3 More than 10 years ................................. 4 NT20 What is the total number of students in grade 3? (Check attendance register) Male ............................................ Female ........................................ NT21 (If total number of students is greater than 45) What is the total number of sections in grade 3? Number of sections ................... NT22 What mother tongues do the majority of students in your class speak? (Multiple response possible) Nepali ........................................................ A Doteli......................................................... B Tharu......................................................... C Acchami.....................................................D Baitedi ....................................................... E Bajhangi .................................................... F Magar ........................................................G Bajureli .....................................................H Darchuleli .................................................. I Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X NT22a What mother tongues do you mainly use while teaching Nepali subject? Nepali ........................................................ 1 Doteli......................................................... 2 Tharu......................................................... 3 Acchami..................................................... 4 Baitedi ....................................................... 5 Bajhangi .................................................... 6 Magar ........................................................ 7 Bajureli ..................................................... 8 Darchuleli ................................................. 9 Other (Specify) _______________ ............. 96 NT23 Do you have regular meeting with the head-teacher to discuss on teaching learning achievements and challenges? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT26 NT24 If ‘Yes’, how frequently? In less than a month................................ 1 Monthly .................................................... 2 Bimonthly ................................................. 3 Quarterly................................................... 4 Half- yearly................................................ 5 Yearly......................................................... 6 108 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT25 If ‘Yes’, what is the focus of the meeting? (Multiple response possible) Pedagogy ..................................................A Class management .................................. B School administration............................. C Management of daily activities .............D Student’s performance .......................... E Regularity of students ............................ F Parent- teacher meetings ......................G Extra-curricular activities .......................H Infrastructure management.................... I Other (Specify)________________............... X NT26 How supportive is the school management in mitigating the challenges shared? Very supportive........................................ 1 Supportive................................................ 2 Not supportive......................................... 3 Don’t know................................................ 4 Module 3: Literacy Support and Trainings Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT27 As a Nepali EGRA teacher have you received any training or support from WFP/ partner organizations? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT31 NT27a What type of support did you receive (or currently receiving) being a Nepali language teacher, from WFP or its partners? (Multiple response possible) Response Content/Materials 1 = Yes 2 = No a) Training on Early Grade Reading instruction 1 2 NT31 b) Training on general pedagogy and assessment 1 2 NT31 c) Teacher’s Guide 1 2 d) Integrated Curriculum 1 2 e) Teaching materials (audio-video, CD/DVD, online materials, laptops etc.) 1 2 f) Print materials (Charts/Pictures, Word cards, Flash cards, milestone stone chart or continuous assessment chart, etc.) 1 2 g) Classroom based game materials (e.g. chamatkari ball) 1 2 h) Book corner 1 2 i) Book corner with leveled readers 1 2 j) Supplementary reading materials 1 2 NT28 If ‘Training received’, when did you receive it last? Year.............................. NT28a If ‘Training received’, how long was the last training? Months.. or days........ 109 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT29 If any training(s) was/were received, what were the contents of the training(s)? (Multiple response possible) Letter reading...........................................A Matra reading........................................... B Word reading .......................................... C Reading fluency........................................D Listening comprehension ....................... E Reading comprehension......................... F Writing skills .............................................G Classroom management ........................H Assessment and evaluation..................... I Communicating with parents.................. J Materials preparation and use...............K Raising parental awareness on EGR ...... L Conducting digital learning activities ... M Use of integrated curriculum .................N Inclusion of children with disability in classroom ................................................ O Other (Specify)_________________ ............. X NT30 How effective was the training regarding following components? Response Component Highly Effective=1 Somewhat Effective=2 Not Effective=3 a. Teaching letter reading b. Teaching matra reading c. Teaching vocabulary d. Teaching reading fluency e. Teaching listening comprehension f. Teaching reading comprehension g. Teaching writing skills h. Classroom management i. Assessment and evaluation j. Communicating with parents k. Materials preparation and use l. Raising parental awareness on EGR m. Implementing digital teaching actitivites n. Use of integrated curriculum o. Inclusion of differently abledstudents in class x. Other (Specify) ____________ 110 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT31 If ‘Training not received’, what type of contents would you like to be included in the training? (Multiple response possible) (Ask all teacher) Teaching methods ..................................A Early grade reading skills ....................... B Use of additional teaching materials besides textbook .................................. C Classroom management ........................D Communicating with parents ................ E Communicating with teachers .............. F Prepare and use lesson plans ...............G Use of continuous assessment charts......................................................H Support to students based on the capacity .................................................. I Record keeping and follow-up on lessons ................................................... J Use of technological equipment ........... K Dealing with children with different mother tongues ................................... L Dealing with children with special needs .................................................... M Making class interactive .........................N Use of integrated curriculum ............... O Others (Specify)_______________ .............. X NT32 Do you receive any support from reading motivators? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT33 NT32a If ‘Yes’, what type of support have you received? (Multiple response possible) Materials preparation ............................. A Activity demonstration............................ B Classroom observation and feedback ................................................... C Others (Specify)_____________ .................. X NT33 What kind of support do you expect from reading motivators? (Multiple responses possible) Additional materials preparation...........A Activity demonstration............................ B Classroom observation and feedback .............................................. C Support to teach early grade reading skills .......................................D Provide support to children who are lagging behind .................................... E Support for classroom arrangement ...................................... F Support for communicating with parents ................................................G Development of sample lessons plan ...H Use of continuous assessment charts .. I Record keeping and follow-up on lessons ................................................. J Use of technological equipment ........... K Dealing with children with different mother tongues ................................. L Dealing with children with special needs .................................................. M Others (Specify)_______________............... X NT34 Are you satisfied with the support received from reading motivators? (Ask only if NT32 response is ‘Yes’ ) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 111 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT34a Why? Give reasons. (Please specify top two reasons) 1._____________________________ 2._____________________________ NT35 Do you participate in the mobile meeting regularly? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT36 NT35a If ‘No’, why? (Please specify top two reasons) 1._____________________________ 2._____________________________ NT36 If yes, how do you get benefit from the mobile meetings? (Multiple response possible) Develop new materials ........................... A Learn new techniques............................. B Networking............................................... C Discuss issues during teaching and its mitigation strategies...........................D Others (Specify)______________ ................ X NT37 What materials in general do you use to teach early grade reading/ literacy? (Multiple response possible) Response Materials Reported Yes….1 No…..2 Observed Yes…1 No….2 a. Textbooks b. Teacher’s Guide c. Curriculum d. Lesson plan e. Charts/ Pictures f. Word cards/ Flash cards g. Electronic audio- video materials h. Online materials i. Book corner j. Levelled readers k. Supplementary reading materials l. Locally available materials x. Other (Specify) ________________ NT38 (If Book Corner mentioned in NT37), What types of supplementary reading materials are available in the book corner? (Multiple responses possible) (Observe) Grade appropriate books……………...A Story books.........……………………………B Informative books…………….............C Others (Specify)____________.... .........…X NT39 (If Supplementary Reading Materials mentioned in NT37) What is your perception about the benefit of the supplementary reading materials on the development of literacy and overall learning outcomes of the children? (Multiple response possible) Improves children’s exposure to reading materials ................................................... A Improves children’s footfall to library/Book Corner................................. B Improves children’s interest in reading.................................................. C Improves children motivation to go to school consistently ..................................D Motivates children to stay longer at school........................................................ E Improves child’s attentiveness in class . F Improves children’s learning outcomesG Other (Specify)________________ .............. X No benefits ............................................... Y NT40 How do you rate the sufficiency of available teaching learning materials? Sufficient................................................... 1 Not sufficient ........................................... 2 112 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT41 How regularly are these materials used? Regularly ................................................... 1 Often ........................................................ 2 Sometimes................................................ 3 Never ......................................................... 4 NT42 Do you encourage other subject teachers to use these resources while teaching? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Module 4: Learning support Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT43 Has the training on EGR instruction or pedagogy helped you to improve your teaching skills? (Don’t ask this question if EGR training is not taken) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT44 NT43a If yes, how have the trainings contributed to improve teaching methods? Category Regularly Often Seldom a. Apply enhanced teaching methods b. Started to develop and use additional teaching materials besides textbooks c. Better organization and management of classroom arrangement d. Better communication with parents e. Better communication with students f. Helped prepare and use teaching plans g. Use of continuous assessment chart h. Provide better support based on student learning skills and personalized learning i. Better record keeping and follow-up on lessons j. Better access and use to technological equipment k. Started to provide instructions to children in mother tongue l. Started to make the class more interactive m. Use of integrated curriculum x. Others (Sepcify) _________________ NT44 What is the allocated time for Nepali language class for early grades? 45 minutes a day...................................... 1 90 minutes a day...................................... 2 Others (Specify) ______________ ............. 96 NT45 Do you prepare a lesson plan for teaching? Yes, observed ........................................... 1 Yes, not observed .................................... 2 No .............................................................. 3 NT46 What method of teaching do you usually apply? (Multiple response possible) Lecture ......................................................A Reading the text aloud and explanation of the text ............................................ B Oral questions.......................................... C Asking the students to read individually...........................................D Asking the students to read in peers and groups .......................................... E Written question-answer ........................ F Discussion ................................................G Display.......................................................H Game .......................................................... I Others (Specify) ________________ ............ X 113 Module 5: Student assessment and facilitation Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT47 How do you assess the students’ performance? (Multiple response possible) Written exams ..........................................A Oral exams ............................................... B Portfolio assessment...............................C Use of continuous assessment chart ..........................................................D No assessment at all ............................... E NT50 NT50 NT49 NT49 NT48 (If ‘Portfolio assessment’ is mentioned) Please specify the contents of the portfolio. Response Contents Yes No a. Class participation b. Regularity c. Homework d. Class tests e. Oral presentations f. Performances x. Other (Specify) ________________ NT49 How are the findings of portfolio assessment or continuous assessment used? (Multiple responses possible) Support for struggling readers...............A Giving extra time to needy children...... B Group work during classroom ............... C Simplifying the text during class room.....................................................D Other (Specify) ______________ ................. X NT50 What do you do for the low performing students? (Multiple responses possible) Additional support class .........................A Separate grouping and support............. B More attention in the regular class ....... C Counselling to students ..........................D Calling parents for meeting.................... E Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X No any special support ........................... Y NT51 Do you prepare report cards on students reading progress and discuss with parents/ students? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT53 NT52 If ‘Yes’, in what intervals? Monthly..................................................... 1 Quarterly................................................... 2 Half- annually ........................................... 3 Annually .................................................... 4 NT53 What difficulties do children mostly face in their learning? (Multiple response possible) Distance problem ....................................A Language barrier ..................................... B Financial barriers..................................... C Traditional norms (Gender biased, Early marriage, chaupaddi, household responsibilities .....................D Lack of required textbooks..................... E Lack of adequate stationery ................... F Lack of supplementary reading materials ..............................................G Not conducive class/school environment.............................................H Lack of family support.............................. I Ineffective teaching methodology .......... J Teachers’ behavior/corporal punishment ......................................... K 114 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To Bullying ..................................................... L Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X NT54 Are there any Special Need children in your class? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 NT59 NT55 If ‘Yes’, what type of Special Need children are there? Type Number a. Children with hearing deficiency _______ b. Children with visual impairment _______ c. Children with learning disability _______ d. Children with speech impairment _______ e. Children with physical disability _______ X. Other (Specify) _________________ _______ NT56 If ‘Yes’, what strategy of learning facilitation do you implement to the children with Special Learning Needs? (Multiple response possible) Keeping them in the front benches.......A Using audio- visual aids more................ B Giving assistive devices ........................... C Use of individualized education plan (IEP) ..............................................D Others (Specify)_______________............... X No special facilitation strategy in place ......................................................... Y NT57 How are the children with special need (hidden disability) identified? Assessment .............................................. 1 Others (Specify) _____________ ............... 96 NT58 Did your school provide any trainings to facilitate the class for special needs children? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Module 6: Parental Involvement Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To NT59 What do you do to involve the parents for the improvement in learning outcomes of the children? (Multiple response possible) By rewarding certificates to the children ................................................................... A By sending letters to parents ................. B By telephoning parents........................... C By arranging parents meetings..............D Other (Specify)________________............... X Do nothing................................................ Y Thank you for your time and cooperation. NT60 Interview End Time: Hour Minute 115 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme in Nepal WFP/New ERA – 2021 Questionnaire for School Health and Nutrition Focal Teacher Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are collecting data about education, school meal programme activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents, and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to school health and nutrition in this school in relation to the School Meal Programme being implemented by WFP. We value your opinion, and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this study at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603). Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 116 Section 2: Background information of SHN teacher Q.N. Questions/Response Category Skip To SHT13 Name of respondent and ID ______________________ SHT14 What is your gender? Male................................................................1 Female............................................................2 Other ..............................................................3 Not willing to express...................................4 SHT15 Number of years of experience in teaching profession SHT16 Number of years of experience as SNH teacher SHT17 Have you received any training on SHN provided by WFP and partner organization? Yes ..................................................................1 No ...................................................................2 SHT19 Section 1: Interview Information Q.N. Questions/Response Category SHT1 Name of the school: ____________________________________ SHT2 Name of the village: ____________________________________ SHT3 Province name and number: _________________________________ SHT4 District: ____________________________________ SHT5 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: _____________________________ SHT6 Ward no.: SHT7 Sampled school EMIS #: SHT8 Name and code of the Interviewer: __________________________ SHT9 Name and code of the Supervisor: __________________________ SHT10 Interview start time: Hour Minute SHT11 Date of interview DD MM YYYY 117 Q.No. Question Responses Skip to SHT18 What major topics were covered during the training related to SHN? (Multiple response possible) Yes No Food preparation safety Health, hygiene and nutrition Mensuration hygiene Waste management Pest management Communication for behaviour change Not included those topics Other (Specify) _____ Module 3: SCHOOL WASH INFRASTUCTURE AND HYGIENE Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT19 What is the main source of DRINKING water in this school? Piped water .................................................. 1 Tube well....................................................... 2 Protected dug well....................................... 3 Cart with small tank/drum.......................... 4 Tanker truck ................................................. 5 Bottled/jar water ......................................... 6 Children carry water from home............... 7 Spring water ................................................. 8 Other (specify) ________________ ................96 SHT20 Is there a provision of purifying water before drinking in school? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SHT22 SHT21 What are the methods school have been using to purify water before drinking? (Multiple answers possible. Probe, but don’t read possible answers) Let it stand and settle/sedimentation .......A Strain it through cloth.................................B Boil it .............................................................C Add bleach/chlorine ................................... D Use a water filter..........................................E Solar disinfection (Sodis method).............. F Warm it ........................................................ G Other (Specify) ________________..................X SHT22 Is there a provision of dustbins, in each of the following places, in school? A. Classrooms Yes ................................................................. 1 No ..................................................................2 B. Toilets Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 C. Kitchen Yes ................................................................. 1 No ..................................................................2 D. Teachers/staff room Yes ................................................................. 1 No ..................................................................2 E. Playing ground/School premises Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 118 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT23 Do school staff and students use the dustbins to dispose waste? (Ask only if 1 in either SHT22A or SHT22B or SHT22C). A. School staff and teachers Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 B. Students Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 SHT24 Does school have separate dustbins to dispose waste for different types of waste? A. (Ask only if 1 in SHT22A) Classrooms Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 B. (Ask only if 1 in SHT22B) Toilets Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 C. (Ask only if 1 in SHT22C) Kitchen Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 SHT25 What type of toilets does the school have? (Observe and record) (Multiple answer possible) Flush to piped sewer system. ....................A Flush to septic tank ..................................... B Flush to pit latrine ....................................... C Flush to somewhere else............................D Flush, don't know where ............................ E Ventilated improved pit latrine.................. F Pit latrine with slab........................... ..........G Pit latrine without slab/Open pit.............. H Composting toilet/Eco-san ......................... I Bio-gas toilet ................................................. J No facility at school.................................... K Other (Specify) _______________. .................. X SHT26 During school hours, where do children typically go for relieving themselves? Toilet in school only ................................... 1 Toilet at home.............................................. 2 Open fields/grounds................................... 3 Both toilet and fields................................... 4 SHT27 A. Does the school have separate toilet for boys? Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 B. Does the school have separate toilet for girls? Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 C. Does the school have common toilet for both boys and girls? Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 D. Does the school have separate toilet for teachers/staff? Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 E. Does the school have toilet for people with disability? Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 SHT28 Do the toilets have regular supply of water? Yes, in all toilets ........................................... 1 Yes, in some of them........................... 2 No.................................................................. 3 SHT29 Does the school have handwashing facility? (Reported only) Yes ................................................................. 1 No.................................................................. 2 SHT30 What do the students mainly use to wash hand? Water only .................................................... 1 Both soap and water................................... 2 Other things................................................. 3 Do not wash hands ..................................... 4 119 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT31 Is there availability of water and soap in the handwashing facility? (Observe and record) Yes, water only............................................. 1 Yes, both water and soap .......................... 2 None.............................................................. 3 SHT32 What changes have you observed in school dropouts and absenteeism since the implementation of WASH program? (Multiple response possible) Less male student dropouts ...................... A Less male student absenteeism due to sickness......................................................... B Less girl student absenteeism due to sickness ........................................................ C Less girl student dropouts ......................... D WASH program is not implemented ..........E Other (Specify)_________________ .................X No change .....................................................E SHT33 On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is least satisfied and 5 is most satisfied, what is your perception of the school toilets in terms of: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor￾disagree Agree Strongly Agree a. Availability: can use when necessary without having to wait 1 2 3 4 5 b. Accessibility: easy to reach, easy to use 1 2 3 4 5 c. Cleanliness: facility is kept clean 1 2 3 4 5 d. Adequacy of water: there is adequate water in the toilet 1 2 3 4 5 e. Safety: door can be latched, adequate lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Module 4: Health and Menstrual Hygiene Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT34 Were there any of the following health screening program conducted in school during last academic year? Health screening Yes No 1 Height measurement 2 Weight measurement 3 Vision test 4 Hearing test 5 Dental hygiene 96 Others(specify) SHT35 Were the children given deworming tablets twice in the last year to prevent from worm infestation? Yes, twice a year .............................................. 1 Yes, but only once a year ............................... 2 No ..................................................................... 2 SHT36 Were the adolescent girls given iron and folic acid supplementation tablet weekly in the last year? Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 SHT37 Is there a Health and Nutrition Register maintained in the school, and can you show it to me? (Observe and record) Yes, observed .................................................. 1 Yes, not observed .......................................... 2 No .................................................................... 3 120 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT38 Has the school received first aid tool kit boxes from the government? (Observe and record) Yes, observed .................................................. 1 Yes, not observed .......................................... 2 No ....................................................................3 SHT40 SHT39 Does the school refill the free items for the first aid kit from any local health facilities? Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 SHT40 Have there been any trainings on menstrual hygiene for girls conducted in your school? (Only for basic schools) Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 Not applicable ...............................................97 SHT42 SHT41 In what ways did these trainings benefit the girls? (Multiple response possible) Fewer girl absenteeism..... ............................A Lesser reported health problems.................B Increased practice of using sanitary pads...............................................................C Observed changes in community behaviour..................................................... D Others (Specify) ________________ ................... X Not applicable .................................................Z SHT42 What are the changes you have observed in the hygiene knowledge and practices of the students since the implementation of WASH? (Multiple response possible) Regular use of latrine at home......................A Regular use of latrine at school ....................B Hand washing with soap after using latrine, before eating food......................................C Clean drinking water from a safe source (e.g. tube well, or treated water collected from river/lake).......................................... D Maintain a waste disposal system (Water drainage, garbage pits, waste basket/dust bins) ........................................ E Keep the School building and compounds clean ....................................... F Maintaining hygienic environment while eating food................................................. G Use and disposal of sanitary pads by adolescent girls during menstruation..... H WASH program is not implemented ............. I Other (Specify)___________________................ X Don’t Know...................................................... Z SHT43 Are menstrual pads/sanitary napkins adequately available at school? Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 Don’t know.......................................................3 SHT44 Do the students regularly attend school during menstruation? Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 SHT45 What facilities are available in the school toilet to properly dispose of sanitary pads? (Multiple response possible) Dustbin.............................................................A Shoot/Burning chamber/Incinerator............B Other (Specify) __________________ ................. X No more facility/throw haphazardly ............ Z 121 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SHT46 What is the provision of disposing sanitary napkin/pad at the school? (Multiple response possible) Burn/ Incinerator ...........................................A Dig a hole and throw and cover....................B Drop in toilet...................................................C Throw it in dustbin......................................... D Throw haphazardly without covering. ......... E Other (Specify) __________________ ................. X No more practice of above............................ Z SHT47 Has this school celebrated national sanitation related campaign at the community level? Yes .................................................................... 1 No ..................................................................... 2 Thank you for your valuable time and information. 122 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme in Nepal WFP/New ERA – 2021 Questionnaire for Student Interview Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to health, hygiene, sanitation facilities, school meal, and study materials etc. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603). Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 123 Module 1: Background Characteristics Module 2: Respondent Characteristics (For grades 4-8) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SC15 Code of respondent? SC16 What is your gender? Male............................................................... 1 Female........................................................... 2 Other ............................................................. 3 Not willing to express.................................. 4 SC17 What is your age? Completed age ............................... SC18 Which grade do you study? Grade............................................... SC19 What is the name of your guardian? (Record only one name) _____________________________ Q. No, Questions Response SC1 Name of School: ___________________________________ SC2 Name of Village: ___________________________________ SC3 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ SC4 District: ___________________________________ SC5 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ SC6 Ward no.: SC7 Sampled school EMIS #: SC8 Type of School School receiving continuing WFP support........1 New School..........................................................2 SC9 Up to which grade the school functions Basic (ECD- 3).......................................................1 Basic (ECD- 5).......................................................2 Basic (ECD-8)........................................................3 Secondary (ECD-10).............................................4 Secondary (ECD-12).............................................5 SC10 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ SC11 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ SC12 Date of Interview DD MM YYYY SC13 Interview Start Time: Hour Minute SC14 UID of selected student ________________________ 124 Module 4: School Meal Related Questions Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SC45a (Only in SHN districts) Do you usually purify your drinking water? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 Don’t know.................................................. 98 SC45c SC45b (Only in SHN districts) If yes, then how do you purify your drinking water? (Multiple response possible) Boiling ...........................................................A Filtering........................................................ .B Through Chlorination..................................C Sodis..............................................................D Others (Specify)_____________ ...................... X Don’t know.................................................... Z SC45c Where do you dispose your waste? Anywhere (no fixed place) .......................... 1 In a waste bin/container ............................. 2 In a pit dug to collect waste/manure pit . ..3 Other (Specify)_______________ .................. 96 SC46 (For grades 4-8) On an average, how many school days in a week do you eat tiffin/ snacks after returning from school? No. of days.............................................. SC47 (For grades 4-8) On an average, how many school days in a week do you eat dinner? No. of days...................................... SC49 (For grades 4-8) In your opinion, what are the advantages of School Meal Programme for the students? (Multiple response possible) Motivates children to go to school consistently .............................................. A Motivates children to stay longer at school........................................................B Promote girl child’s enrolment................... C Improves children’s ability to learn or concentrate once they are in class .......D Improves learning outcomes ..................... E Improves good health and hygiene behavior of school age children............ F Improves awareness about nutrition among school age children....................G Provides nutritional benefits/ improves nutritional status of school age children ...................................................................H Saves money of household to provide lunch to school children.......................... I Improves awareness about the use of locally available fresh foods.................... J Other (Specify)______________ ...................... X Don’t know.................................................... Z 125 Module 5: WASH/Personal Hygiene/Menstruation Related Questions (Ask SC50-SC71 only in SHN districts-Bajura, Bajhang, Darchula and Achham) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SC50 (For grades 4-8) How often or at what times do you wash your hands? Multiple response, probe but don’t read out options. Before, during, and after preparing food............................................................. A Before eating................................................B After using the toilet (for urination, defecation, menstrual hygiene ...............C After helping someone who just used the toilet ...........................................D After blowing one's nose, or coughing or sneezing ............................... E After touching an animal, animal feed or animal waste................................ F After touching garbage ...............................G Do not wash hands..................................... H Other (Specify)_______________ .................... X SC53 SC51 What do you mostly use to wash your hand? Water only .................................................... 1 Both soap and water ................................... 2 Other (Specify) _____________..................... 96 SC53 SC52 (If student does not mention soap), What is the main reason that you don’t use soap to wash your hand? There is no soap available .......................... 1 There is no enough water to rinse the soap away .................................................. 2 It takes longer time...................................... 3 Not necessary............................................... 4 Other (Specify)_______________ .................. 96 SC53 (For all grades 4-8) On a scale of 1-3, how well the students￾maintained personnel hygiene? 1=Very good, 2= Good, and 3=Poor (Observe and record) Very good (1) Good (2) Poor (3) B G B G B G a. Trimmed nail b. Groomed hair c. Clean teeth d. Clean dress e. Clean shoes/Slipper SC54 (For grades 4-8) Did you take deworming tablet in the school in the last academic year? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 Don’t know.................................................. 98 SC56 SC55 If yes, how many times in last academic year? __________________times SC56 (Only for grade 6-8 girls) Has your menstruation started? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC68 SC57 If ‘yes’, are you aware about menstrual hygiene? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC58 If ‘yes’, do you speak about menstrual hygiene to anybody? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC60 SC59 Who do you usually speak to about menstrual hygiene? Grandmother/Mother/Aunt ....................... 1 Sister.............................................................. 2 Relative.......................................................... 3 126 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To Friend Female............................................... 4 Friend Male SHN Focal Teacher ....................................... 5 Head Teacher ............................................... 6 Other teachers ............................................. 7 Any Healthcare related person .................. 8 Male members of the family ...................... 9 Other (Specify) _______________ ................. 96 SC60 What do you mostly use to manage your blood flow during menstruation? Nothing ......................................................... 1 Commercial/disposable sanitary pad........ 2 Old cloths clean............................................ 3 Old cloths dirty............................................. 4 Reusable/Homemade pad.......................... 5 Other (Specify)______________ .................... 96 SC61 What hygienic practices do you do during your menstruation period? (Multiple response, probe but don’t read out options) Change of menstrual pad every six hoursA Safe disposal of the menstrual pad........... B Hand washing before and after changing the pads ..................................................... C Changing sanitary pad every 6 hours........D Others (Specify)_______________................... X SC62 Are menstrual pads/sanitary napkins adequately available at school? Yes ................................................................ .1 No .................................................................. 2 Don’t know.................................................... 3 SC65 SC63 If yes, have you ever used sanitary pads from the school during your menstruation? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC65 SC64 If ‘No’, why? Not needed................................................... 1 Feeling uncomfortable to ask for............... 2 Others (Specify) ______________ ................. 96 SC65 Do you regularly attend school during your menstruation period? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC66 SC65a If ‘No’, why? Religious belief............................................. 1 Ill health ........................................................ 2 Embarresment/shyness .............................. 3 School environment not conducive to changing sanitary pads ............................... 4 School does not have appropriate toilet ............................................................ 5 Other (specify) _______________................. 96 SC66 Does the toilet have regular supply of water? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC67 Did you take biannual weekly iron and folic acid supplementation tablet in the school? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC68 SC67a If yes, then how many tablets did you take? Tablet number................................ 127 Module 6: School Health Facilities (For grades 4-8) Q.N. Question /Response Category Skip To SC68 Do you get First Aid in school when required? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 Don’t know.................................................. 98 SC70 Does school measure your height and weight Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 SC71 Do you have your eyes, ears, teeth, heart, etc. checked at school? Yes ................................................................. 1 No .................................................................. 2 Module 7: Community Feedback Mechanism (For grades 4-5) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SC72 When you have any queries or have any feedbacks on school meals, how would you like to share it to WFP? (Multiple response possible) Namaste WFP toll Free numbers ............... A Report to Child Club.................................... B Report to teacher/s...................................... C Report to Reading Motivator......................D WFP/ CP staff................................................ E SMC/FMC ...................................................... F School Principal/teacher .............................G Parents….......................................................H Others (Specify)______________ .................... X Don’t know.................................................... Y SC73 How would you like to receive information on WFP related activities? SMC/FMC ...................................................... 1 Teacher/principal......................................... 2 Child club...................................................... 3 Reading motivator ....................................... 4 WFP staff....................................................... 5 WFP partner staff (NGO) ............................. 6 Radio ............................................................. 7 Printed materials ......................................... 8 Parents ......................................................... 9 Others (Specify)______________ ................. .96 Don’t know.................................................. 98 SC74 (Only for class 4-8 students) Does your school have comments/ suggestion box? Yes ................................................................ .1 No .................................................................. 2 Don’t know.................................................... 3 SC75 Interview End Time: Hour Minute Thank you for your valuable time and information. 128 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Parent Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this survey. During this study, I will ask you questions related to you and your household’s background characteristics, your child’s study activities, and the mid-day meal that your child is receiving at school as a beneficiary of School Meal Programme. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the survey. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603). Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning food for education and child nutrition program and services. Are you willing to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 129 Module 1: Background Characteristics of Survey Area Module 2: Household’s General Information Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT11 Code of reference child Code ............................................ PT11a Name of reference child ______________________________ PT12 Grade of reference child Code ............................................ PT13 Age of reference child Age............................................... PT14 Code of parent Code ............................................ PT15 Gender of respondent (observe)? Male........................................................... 1 Female....................................................... 2 Other (Specify)_______________ .............. 96 Not willing to express.............................. 3 PT16 What is your relation to the child? Father ........................................................ 1 Mother ...................................................... 2 Brother...................................................... 3 Sister.......................................................... 4 Other (Specify)________________............. 96 PT17 What is your household size? (Only who are living currently together at home) Total no. of family members .... PT18 Is there any member of your household that needs help due to long term difficulties or any type of disability? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 PT21 Q. No Question PT1 Name of School: ___________________________________ PT2 Type of school WFP continuing programme school..................1 New school...........................................................2 PT3 Sampled school EMIS #: PT4 Province Name and Number: 6 7 PT5 District: ___________________________________ PT6 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ PT7 Ward no.: Ward no.................................................. PT8 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ PT9 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ PT10 Interview Start Time: Hour Minute 130 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT20 If ‘Yes’, what type of disability do these members have? (Multiple responses possible) Seeing........................................................A Hearing...................................................... B Communicating........................................ C Understanding .........................................D Walking and or climbing stairs............... E Dressing and or washing ........................ F Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X PT21 What is the ethnicity of household head? Brahmin/Chhetri...................................... 1 Newar ........................................................ 2 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) ............. 3 Dalit ........................................................... 4 Muslim ...................................................... 5 Madhesi .................................................... 6 Other (Specify)________________............. 96 PT22 How many school-going age children (Year 5-16 or less) are there in the family? No. of children............................ PT23 Among them, currently, how many children are going to school? No. of children............................ PT24 What is your formal education? No formal schooling................................ 0 Grade___ completed ........................... 1-10 SEE/ SLC .................................................. 11 Intermediate/ +2 .................................... 12 Bachelor ................................................. 13 Master or above..................................... 14 PT25 (Skip if the respondent is child’s mother) What is the child’s mother’s formal education? No formal schooling................................ 0 Grade___ completed ........................... 1-10 SEE/ SLC .................................................. 11 Intermediate/ +2 .................................... 12 Bachelor ................................................. 13 Master or above..................................... 14 Other (Specify)________________............. 96 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT26 (Skip if the respondent is child’s father) What is the child’s father’s formal education? No formal schooling................................ 0 Grade___ completed ........................... 1-10 SEE/ SLC .................................................. 11 Intermediate/ +2 .................................... 12 Bachelor ................................................. 13 Master or above..................................... 14 Other (Specify)________________............. 96 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT27 Which language is mostly spoken at home? Nepali ........................................................ 1 Doteli......................................................... 2 Tharu......................................................... 3 Acchami..................................................... 4 Baitedi ....................................................... 5 Bajhangi .................................................... 6 Bajureli ..................................................... 7 Darchuleli ................................................. 8 Magar/Kham............................................. 9 Other (Specify)______________ ................ 96 Don’t know.............................................. 98 131 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT28 What is the main source of income of your family? Agriculture/Livestock/Poultry/ Aquaculture ............................................. 1 Wage employment .................................. 2 Salaried worker........................................ 3 Migrant labour ......................................... 4 Self-employment/business ..................... 5 Retired/pension ....................................... 6 Social security allowance ...................... 7 Traditional occupation ........................... 8 Other (Specify)_______________ .............. 96 PT29 What is the secondary source of income of your family? Agriculture/Livestock/Poultry/ Aquaculture ........................................... 1 Wage employment .................................. 2 Salaried worker........................................ 3 Migrant labour ......................................... 4 Self-employment/business ..................... 5 Retired/pension ....................................... 6 Social security allowance ...................... 7 Traditional occupation............................ 8 No secondary source ............................. 9 Other (Specify)_______________ .............. 96 PT30 Do you produce staple crops like rice, wheat, corn, millet etc. for your family? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 PT32 PT31 If ‘Yes’, how many months of the year do your produces fulfill your family’s need? Whole year................................................ 1 About 10 months ..................................... 2 About 8 months ....................................... 3 About 6 months ....................................... 4 Less than 6 months ................................. 5 PT32 Including your household’s farm and off-farm incomes and without selling of fixed assets and borrowing, how many months of the year do your resources fulfill your family’s basic need? Whole year................................................ 1 About 10 months ..................................... 2 About 8 months ....................................... 3 About 6 months ....................................... 4 Less than 6 months ................................. 5 PT33 How long does it take (by walking) for your child to reach school from home? Minute PT34 How far is the nearest health post/ hospital from home? Minute PT35 How far is the nearest marketplace from home? Minute PT36 Do you have_____ at home? (Ask one by one) Yes No a. Electricity 1 2 b. Television 1 2 c. Radio 1 2 d. Computer/ laptop/Tablet 1 2 e. Internet 1 2 g. Supplementary reading materials 1 2 h. Telephone/mobile (Android/Smart) 1 2 i. Toilet 1 2 j. A separate room/spot for child to study 1 2 k. Vehicle (Motorbike/Car/Jeep etc.) 1 2 l. Solar light 1 2 132 Module 3: Dietary Diversity Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT37 Was yesterday a special day, like a celebration or feast day or a fast day where you ate special foods or more or less than usual or did not eat because of fasting? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SC39 PT38 Was the day before yesterday a special day, like a celebration or feast day or a fast day where you ate special foods or more or less than usual or did not eat because of fasting? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Direction: If “yes” in PT38, then ask about yesterday in PT39. If “no” in PT38, then ask about day before yesterday in PT39. Enumerator Instructions: Now I would like you to describe everything (meals and snacks) that your child ate or drank yesterday during the day and night, whether are home or outside the home. Please include all foods and drinks, any snacks or small meals, as well as any main meals. Start with the first food or drink of the morning. Write down all foods and drinks mentioned. When composite dishes (like porridge, sauce or stew) are mentioned, ask for the list of ingredients. When the respondent has finished, please probe for meals and snacks not mentioned. PT39 Did your child eat following food items yesterday (or the day before if yesterday was unusual)? (Ask one by one) Food Group Examples Response 1=Yes 2=No 1. Grains, White Roots and Tubers Rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, millet, barley, potato, cassava. Roti, bread 1 2 2. Pulses Beans, peas, lentils (daal), soy products, chickpeas. 1 2 3. Nuts and Seeds Peanuts, tree nuts (ex. almonds, walnuts), pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, ground nuts, sunflower seeds 1 2 4. Dairy Products Milk, Cheese, Yogurt or other milk products (does not include butter, ghee, ice cream) 1 2 5. Meat, Poultry and Fish Goat, buff, chicken, pigeon, pork, duck, dried or fresh fish 1 2 6. Eggs Eggs from Chicken, Duck, or any other bird 1 2 7. Dark Green Leafy Vegetables Including wild forms (ex. nettle/shishnu) + locally available vitamin A rich leaves such as spinach, pumpkin leaves, kale, chinese cabbage 1 2 8. Other Vitamin Rich Fruits and Vegetables Pumpkin, Carrot, Squash, or Sweet Potato, persimmon, ripe mango or papaya that are orange inside + other locally available vitamin A rich vegetables and fruits 1 2 9. Other Vegetables Other vegetables (e.g. Tomato, Onion, Eggplant, Green Beans, Cauliflower, Okra) 1 2 10. Other Fruits Other fruits, including wild fruits and 100% fruit juice made from these 1 2 11. Small Protein Foods Snails (Ghungi), Insect Larvae (Barula, Aringal, Mahuree), Grubs (Khumlikira), Fish Eggs 1 2 12. Oils and Fats Ghee, butter, vegetable oil added to food or used for cooking including oil extracted from nuts 1 2 13. Spices, Condiments and Seasoning Spices (Black Pepper, Salt, cumin), Condiments (Ketchup), flavoring pastes used in small amounts (ginger, garlic, tomato) 1 2 14. Other Foods and Beverages Savory and friend snacks (crisps, samosa, Tea, coffee, alcohol, thin broth or soup, pickles (achar), sugary snacks (ex. biscuits, crisps), candy, fried snacks (ex. samosa) 1 2 133 Module 4: Child Studies Related Questions Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT40 Currently, does your child go to school regularly? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 PT42 PT41 If ‘No’, why? (Multiple response possible) Child’s frequent sickness ........................A Long distance from home to school..................................................... B Sickness of family members................... C Child’s involvement in household works......................................................D Child’s involvement in agricultural/ livestock activities ................................. E Road blockage due to natural calamities (flooded river on way, road blockage due to landslide) ................................... F No study materials available ..................G School closed due to Covid-19 pandemic ...............................................H Child not interested.................................. I Other (Specify)______________ .................. X PT42 How often does the child study at home in recent times? Everyday/Regularly (as required)........... 1 Few days a week ...................................... 2 Never ......................................................... 3 PT44 PT43 If ‘few days a week’ or ‘Never’, why? (Multiple response possible) Child’s involvement in taking care of siblings ...................................................A Child’s frequent sickness ........................ B Sickness of family members................... C Child’s involvement in household works......................................................D Child’s involvement in activities related to farming/ livestock............................. E No study materials available .................. F Child do not have interest on study ......G Child gives more interest to watch TV and play games in gadgets ............H Child engaged in livelihood activities ... I No one to guide/help with lessons......... J Other (Specify)________________............... X PT44 If every day or regularly, on average how long does the child study at home in a day? 3 hours or more....................................... 1 1-2 hours................................................... 2 Less than 1 hour ...................................... 3 PT45 Does the child have the complete set of textbooks? Yes, all books are available..................... 1 Yes, but only few books are available... 2 No books are available............................ 3 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT47 PT46 If ‘no, why? School has not distributed the textbooks.................................................. 1 School distributed only few books........ 2 Obtained books are torn or lost............ 3 Other (Specify)___________ ................... 96 134 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT47 Other than textbooks, what reading materials are available for the child at home? (Multiple response possible) Story books...............................................A Newspapers.............................................. B Flashcards/Charts .................................... C Online learning materials .......................D Dictionary.................................................. E Reference books ...................................... F No other materials available ..................G Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X PT47a Does the reference child have necessary stationaries? Yes ............................................................1 No .............................................................2 PT48 PT47b If no, then what are the reasons? School doesn’t provide...........................1 Lack of money .........................................2 Distributed stationary is torn/ broken or lost .....................................3 Stationary shop is far away ...................4 Don’t know...............................................5 PT48 Does anyone at your home guides/ helps child to study or do homework? Yes ............................................................. 1 No one helps ............................................ 2 PT50 PT49 If ‘Yes’, who helps the child to study or do homework at home? (Multiple response possible) Father/Mother..........................................A Sister/Brother........................................... B Relatives.................................................... C Neighbors .................................................D Tuition....................................................... E Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X PT51 PT50 If ‘No one helps’, why? (Multiple response possible) Child does quite well in studies (does not require help) ........................... A Lack of family members’ capacity to support the child...................................... B Too busy to help...................................... C No relatives/neighbors are available to help.......................................................D Child not interested................................. E It is not our responsibility....................... F Others (Specify)_______________............... X PT51 (Ask if answer is yes in PT48) How is the child helped for the studies? (Multiple response possible) Managing study time for the child.........A Observing child’s study related activities .................................................. B Managing reading materials................... C Explaining things .....................................D Arranging tuition...................................... E Checking homework ............................... F Help children to complete homework .G Other (Specify)______________ .................. X PT52 What types of activities does the child mostly engage at home? (Multiple response possible) Helps in household works......................A Takes care of young siblings ..................B Takes care of cattle.................................. C Helps in the farm .....................................D Self-study .................................................. E Takes additional tuition classes ............. F Engaged in livelihood activities………G Not involved in any activities..................H Sports ........................................................ I Other (Specify)______________ .................. X 135 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT53 How satisfied are you with your child’s performance in studies? Highly satisfied......................................... 1 Somewhat satisfied ................................. 2 Not satisfied ............................................. 3 PT55 PT54 If ‘highly/ partially satisfied’, why? (Multiple response possible) Child is getting good results...................A Attends school regularly ......................... B Does homework well............................... C Engages in co-curricular activities..........D Child is overall smart............................... E Other (Specify)______________ .................. X PT55 If not satisfied why? (Multiple response possible) Child is not getting good results............A Child does not attend school regularly . B Child does not do homework well......... C Child does not engage in co- curricular activities................................................D Child is not overall smart........................ E Child is not interested in study…........... F Child spend most of the time in playing/entertainment …....................G Other (Specify)________________............... X PT56 Do you talk to the teachers about the child’s performance ? Yes ............................................................. 1 No ............................................................. 2 PT58 PT57 If ‘Yes’, how frequently? (Select the closest option) Every month............................................. 1 Every two months.................................... 2 Every three months................................. 3 On a half-yearly basis.............................. 4 On a yearly basis...................................... 5 PT59 PT58 If ‘No’, why? (Multiple response possible) No time .....................................................A Not aware ................................................ B Don’t think it is important....................... C Not invited ...............................................D Feel shy/not confident ............................ E Do not know what to talk........................ F Teacher do not give time ........................G Other (Specify)________________............... X PT59 Do you talk to child about his/her studies? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 PT61 PT60 If yes, when Everyday.................................................... 1 Weekly ....................................................... 2 Occasionally.............................................. 3 At the time of result only ........................ 4 Never ......................................................... 5 PT62 PT61 If ‘Never’, why? (Multiple response possible) No time .................................................... A Not aware ................................................. B Cannot support in studies...................... C Do not think it is important....................D Do not think it is my role......................... E Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X 136 Module 5: Child Health and School Meal Programme Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT62 Has your child been absent in the school in the last month due to health-related reason/ illnesses? (Record the number of days absent. Record zero if no absent) Days absent ................................ Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT63 (Ask only if a number greater than 0 is recorded in PT62) Can you please elaborate the symptoms of the illness of the child Fever.......................................................... A Diarrhea.................................................... B Injury ......................................................... C Don’t know................................................D Other (Specify)__________..................... 96 PT64 Has your child been absent in the school in the last 30 days due to reasons other than health? (Record the number of days absent. Record zero if no absent) Days............................................. Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT65 On average, how many days in a week does the child eat morning meal/ breakfast at home? Everyday.................................................... 1 3-4 days a week........................................ 2 1-2 days a week........................................ 3 Only occasionally/Never ......................... 4 PT69 PT66 If ‘1-2 days a week or occasionally/ Never’, why? There is shortage of food ....................... 1 No one is there to cook meal ................. 2 Other (Specify)_______________ .............. 96 PT69 (For all parents) On average, how many school days in a week does the child eat lunch or mid-day snacks at home (after returning from school)? Everyday.................................................... 1 3-4 days a week........................................ 2 1-2 days a week........................................ 3 Only occasionally/Never ......................... 4 PT71 PT70 If ‘1-2 days a week or occasionally/Never’, why? There is shortage of food ....................... 1 No one is there to cook meal ................. 2 Other (Specify)______________ ................ 96 PT71 (For all parents) In your opinion, what are the advantages of School Meal Programme for the child? (Multiple response, probe but don’t read out options) Motivates children to go to school consistently............................................ A Motivates children to stay longer at school.................................................... B Promotes girl child’s enrolment............. C Improves children’s ability to learn or concentrate once they are in class .....D Improves learning outcomes ................. E Improves good health and hygiene behavior of school age children.......... F Improves awareness about nutrition among school age children .................G Provides nutritional benefits/ improves nutritional status of school age children..................................................H Saves money of household to provide lunch to school children......... I Improves awareness about the use of locally available fresh foods...... J Increases the student admission rate ......................................................... K Increases awareness about the usefulness of textbooks made locally L Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X Don’t know................................................ Z 137 Module 6: Effects of Covid-19 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To PT73 (Only for parents of grade 4-5 students) Did your child receive any take home ration distributed by WFP/ School since Baisakh 2077 during the pandemic? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t Know............................................. 98 PT75 PT74 If ‘Yes’, how many times did your child receive take home ration distributed by WFP/ School since Baishakh 2077? ________ times .......................................... 1 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT75 (For all parents) Were you informed about alternative school teaching arrangements (like on-line teaching, radio-based teaching, television￾based teaching, or community teaching￾Tole Sikai) when the school was closed because of COVID-19? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT77 PT76 If yes, did the child participate in alternative school arrangement? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT77 Do you know about Namaste WFP Toll Free number to register any complaint, queries or provide suggestion? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 PT80 PT78 If yes, have you/family member ever used /Call Namaste WFP Toll Free number to register any complaint, queries or provide suggestion? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT80 PT79 If ‘Yes’, was the issue reported at Namaste WFP solved? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t know.............................................. 98 PT80 When you have any feedbacks or complaints about school meal, how would you like to voice your feedback or complaint or whom do you feel comfortable to share it with? Report to SMC/FMC................................. 1 Report to school Principal/teacher ........ 2 Use school complaint/suggestion box........................................................ 3 Call through WFP toll free hotlines........ 4 Report to WFP staff.................................. 5 Report to cooperating partner staff...... 6 Report to local government.................... 7 Report to distribution center staff......... 8 Do not want to share with anyone........ 9 Other (specify) ______________ ............... 96 Thank you for your time and information. PT81 Interview End Time: Hour Minute 138 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Farmer Group/Co-operative Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to your farmer group/cooperative characteristics, activities, prospects including future potentiality of partnership with local government/school/WFP for the school meal program. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603) Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 139 Module 1: Background Characteristics Q.No Question FC0 Is this a Farmer’s group or Cooperative? Farmer’s group..................................................... 1 Cooperative.......................................................... 2 FC1 Name of Farmer's Group/Cooperative: ___________________________________ FC2 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ FC3 District Name and code: ____________________________ FC4 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ FC5 Ward no.: FC6 Serial No.: FC7 Name of Respondent ___________________________________ FC8 Position of Respondent ___________________________________ FC9 Caste/Ethnicity of respondent: Brahmin/Chhetri..................................................1 Dalit .......................................................................2 Newar ....................................................................3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) .........................4 Madhesi ................................................................5 Muslim ..................................................................6 Other (Specify)________________.........................96 FC10 Disability status of the respondent : Hearing deficiency ...............................................1 Visual impairment................................................2 Learning disability................................................3 Speech impairment ............................................4 Physical disability.................................................5 Multiple disability.................................................6 Other (Specify) ___________________...................96 None....................................................................97 FC11 How far is the nearest public school from here? (Ask KM, if less than 1 KM then write down 1 in box) Kilometer ................................................ FC12 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ FC13 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ 140 Module 2: Questions Related to Establishment of Farmer Group/Cooperative Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC14 When was your farmer group / cooperative established? Year .............................. FC15 How many members are there in your farmer group/cooperative? Male .................................... . Female ................................. Total No. ............................. FC15a How many members are there in your farmer group/cooperative by ethnicity? Brahmin/Chhetri ................ Dalit...................................... Newar .................................. Other Janajati (excluding Newar) ............................. Madhesi............................... Muslim................................. Other (Specify)_______ ........ Don’t know..............................................98 FC16 Is your farmer group/cooperative registered? Yes..............................................................1 No...............................................................2 FC18 FC17 If yes, where? Palika/Ward office.................................... 1 Farmer group network............................ 2 District Cooperative Federation Ltd....... 3 District Administration Office................. 4 Co-operative division Office................... 5 District Agriculture Office....................... 6 Other (Specify)_______________...............96 FC18 What are the key activities of your farmer group/cooperative? (Multiple response possible) Organize local farmers ............................A Encourage and mobilize savings by the members ................................................B Provide credit/loan services to the members ................................................C Support member farmers to grow diverse crops and vegetables ............. D Engage members in income generation activities ................................................. E Provide seeds/agri-equipment to the members ......................................... F Participate in home grown school feeding program .................................. G Support in local development activitiesH Capacity development of women farmer members on leadership and technical skills .........................................................I Other (Specify)_______________................. X 141 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC19 Please tell me the total capital of the FG/Coop based on last audit Rs. _______________ Don’t know..............................................98 FC20 What is the figure of last year’s turnover? Rs. _______________ Don’t know..............................................98 FC21 Does your farmer group/ cooperative have own building? Yes.............................................................. 1 No............................................................... 2 FC22 Does your farmer group/ cooperative have following physical assets? (Ask one by one) Yes No a) Furniture b) Computer/laptop c) Tent/cooking utensils d) Meeting/training hall e) Store room/storage facility f) Child care space g) Drinking water facilities h) Wash room /toilets i) Farming tools j) Pests and manure k) Seeds and seedling l) Other (Specify)__________________ FC23 How many schools are there in the catchment area of the farmer group/cooperative? No. of schools............................. Don’t know..............................................98 Module 3: Functions of Farmer Group/Cooperative Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC24 Does your farmer group/ cooperative have executive committee? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC31 FC25 How many members are in the executive committee? Total no. of members................ FC26 Among them, how many are male and females in the committee? Male............................................. Female......................................... FC27 How may female members are there in leadership position (chair, co-chair, secretary and treasurer) Total no. of Female leadership......... FC29 Does your farmer group/ cooperative hold executive committee meeting regularly? Yes ............................................................. 1 No ............................................................. .2 FC30 How often do your farmer group/ cooperative hold executive committee meetings? Fortnightly................................................. 1 Monthly..................................................... 2 Bio-monthly.............................................. 3 Other (Specify)_______________ .............. 96 142 Module 4: Benefitting activities Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC31 How many members are currently benefited from the farmer group/ cooperative as loan holders? No. of loan holders ........... Don’t know.............................................. 98 FC32 No. of loan holders by gender? Male loan holders.............. Female loan holders.......... Don’t know.............................................. 98 FC33 What kinds of IGAs are being carried out by the loan holders? (Multiple response possible) Cereal crop farming.................................A Pulse/legumes farming ........................... B Vegetable farming ................................... C Mustard/Oil seed farming.......................D Fruit production....................................... E Cow/Goat/Sheep raising ......................... F Poultry farming........................................G Fishery.......................................................H Seed production ....................................... I Seeding production and Nursery establishment......................................... J Being used for non-agriculture purpose.................................................. K Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X No IGAs are being carried out/loan used for other purposes ............................... Y FC34 Do you have members who are involved in IGAs as a group (such as in farming, grocery, etc.)? Yes ............................................................. 1 No ............................................................. .2 FC36 FC35 What sorts of IGAs are these group/s involved in? (Multiple answer possible) Vegetable farming ...................................A Poultry farming........................................ B Goat raising .............................................. C Grocery shop............................................D Nursery establishment............................ E Other (Specify)______________ ................. .X FC36 Where do you/members sell the products? (Multiple response possible) Sell to members .......................................A Sell in local market................................... B Sell to vendor ........................................... C Sell in district HQ .....................................D Sell in outside district.............................. E Sell to the co-operative . ....................... F Sell to schools ..........................................G Don’t sell. .................................................. Y Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X FC39 FC39 FC37 If you/members sell product to the schools, what product do you usually sell? ______________________________ ______________________________ FC38 If you sell product to the schools, what was your total sales in the last month? Amount (RS): __________________ Don’t know.............................................. 98 Module 5: Training Exposures Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC39 Has any member of your farmer group/ cooperative received training/s in the last 12 months? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Don’t know ............................................. 98 FC42A 143 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC40 What were the training/s that were received? (Multiple response possible) Climate-resilient improved technologies/varieties .......................... A Crop diversity .......................................... B Cereals, legumes, pulses farming .......... C Seasonal/off season vegetable farmingD Fruits farming........................................... E Integrated Pest management ................ F Trico-compositing ...................................G Micro-irrigation technology ...................H Land management ................................... I Improving the quality of farm products .................................................. J Standardising the farm products .......... K Food safety .............................................. L Food procurement.................................. M Store handling..........................................N Improved linkages to input suppliers ................................................ O Communication & Facilitation................ P Social mobilization.................................. Q Leadership................................................ R Gender equality and social inclusion ................................................................ S Record keeping ........................................ T Other (specify)_______________..... X FC41 Are the knowledge and skills imparted through the training helpful for the members other farmer members to improve produces from the farm ? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC42 Are the knowledge and skills imparted through the training helpful for the members to improve market linkages? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC42A Have any farmer members of this institution applied following improved agriculture technologies? (Multiple response possible, Read the options one by one) Crop genetics (use of improved seed varities) ......................................... A Cultural practices (mulching, staking, improved nusery practices, line sowing, weeding) ................................. B Disease and pest managment: (integrated pest management practices- jhol mal, traps, bio￾pesticides) ............................................. C Soil conservation and fertilizer management: use of compost/ manure, use of lime, use of organic fertilizer, inter cropping of pulses and legumes..................................................D Climate smart technology (Drought￾tolerant varieties, plastic house/ plastic high tunnel, plastic tunnel) ..... E Water management and water technology (drip irrigation, sprinkler 144 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To irrigation, plastic pond/recharge pond, cement pond/thai jar) ......................... F Practice of input purchase (seeds, bio￾pesticides, micro-nutrients, sprinkler, dip-irrigation set, hermatic bags)........G Marketing, Collection and Distribution Center (Practice of produce sale with market price Information, use of collection center) H Post harvest handling (packing technology, improved transportation, improved handling, use of local made bamboo basket (DOKO), use of hermatic bag) ........................................ I Record keeping of any activities performed (use of improved varieties, use of bio-pesticides, mulching etc.) ... J Do nothing/none...................................... Y FC43 Altogether how many farmer members of this institution have applied above improved agriculture technologies? Total no. of farmers .......... Don’t know.............................................. 98 FC46 FC44 No. of farmer members who applied improved agriculture technologies by gender? Male farmers ...................... Female farmers .................. Don’t know.............................................. 98 FC45 No. of farmer members who applied improved agriculture technologies by ethnicity? Brahmin/Chhetri........................ Dalit ............................................. Newar .......................................... Other Janajati (excluding Newar) ..................................... Madhesi ...................................... Muslim ........................................ Other (Specify)________..... ........ Don’t know.............................................. 98 145 Module 6: Current/Future Partnership for School Feeding FC50 If yes, what food commodities do you usually supply? (Multiple response possible) Vegetables/beans .................................... A Pulse/Lentils ............................................. B Mustard/oil seeds .................................... C Paddy/rice.................................................D Wheat ........................................................ E Corn........................................................... F Barley ........................................................G Millet..........................................................H Buckwheat ................................................. I Egg .......................................................... ..J Other (Specify)________________............... X Don’t know................................................ Z FC51 How do you determine price of the food items (vegetables, cereals, fruits and others)? (Multiple response possible) Price similar to local market value......... A A bit lesser than local market value ...... B On the basis of negotiation....................C Consulting with local bodies...................D Based on farmer group/cooperative member suggestion ................................ E Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To FC46 Have you heard about the school feeding programme which is running in your localities? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC47 Has WFP/Palika/school or any organization approached you to talk about the possibility of producing and supplying food items (vegetables, cereals, legumes, fruits etc.) for the school feeding? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC49 FC48 What topics were discussed during the meeting(s)? (Multiple response possible) Menu of potential food items ................A Volume of food items (vegetables, cereals, fruits etc.)............................ ....... B Quality of food items............................... C Pricing of food items ...............................D Storing of food items............................... E Procurement/supply chain..................... F Partnership modality...............................G About potential schools for the possible partnership...............................................H Economic empowerment of women and marginalized group .................................. I Other (specify) _________________ ............ X FC49 Are you currently collaborating with/ or participating in any school feeding programme in your area? (The collaboration can be directly with school or via Palika) Yes ............................................................. 1 No ............................................................. .2 FC55 146 FC52 What advantages are the members and the community getting because of this collaboration? (Multiple response possible) Higher income for the farmers .............. A Secured income for the farmers............ B Empowerment of women....................... C Contribution in employment of local people .........................................D Promotion of local farming..................... E Better nutrition for the students ........... F Nutritional status of the local community improved.........................G Others (Specify)______________ ................ X No benefits ............................................... Y Don’t know................................................ Z FC53 What challenges are you facing for the success of this collaboration? (Multiple response possible) Problem in contract pricing....................A Fluctuation of market price.................... B Uncertain harvest .................................... C Poor quality of produces ........................D Poor storage for perishable goods........ E Lack of extension programs................... F Lack of fertilizers......................................G Lack of irrigation facilities.......................H Problem of supply chain.......................... I Problem of record keeping...................... J Socio cultural behaviors and norms against women.................................... K Covid/lockdown....................................... L Natural calamities/Disasters ................. M Unable to procure essential food ........N Others (Specify)_______________............... X No challenges ........................................... Y Don’t know................................................ Z FC54 How optimistic are you about the sustainability of the collaboration? Very optimistic ......................................... 1 Somewhat Optimistic .............................. 2 Not optimistic........................................... 3 Don’t know.............................................. 98 End of interview FC55 If you are not currently collaborating with any school, are you willing to collaborate for school feeding in the future? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 End of Interview FC56 If you wished, would your farmer group/ cooperative be able to collaborate for school meal programme ? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 End of Interview Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To 147 FC57 What makes you think that your farmer group/ cooperative is able for this? (Multiple response possible) Well organized and reputed...................A Availability of storage.............................. B Availability of farming tools ................... C Availability of seeds and seedlings .......D Availability of fertilizers/manures.......... E Irrigation facilities.................................... F Fertile land parcels with member farmers...................................................G Transportation facilities .........................H Can sell food on credit for several months ................................................. I Skilled human resource to manage store ...................................................... J Workers skilled in supplying food......... K Better farming experience of member farmers................................................. L Similar previous experience.................. M Trained farmers .......................................N Motivation among farmers.................... O Group/cooperative led by skilled women farmers .................................. P Other (Specify) _______________ ............... X FC58 What are the food items that you could supply for the school meal programme in the future? (Multiple response possible) Paddy/rice................................................. A Pulse/Legumes......................................... B Green vegetables ..................................... C Other Vegetables (onion, tomato, radish) ....................................................D Potato/Root Vegetables/Tuber Vegetables ............................................. E Sunflower/oil............................................ F Wheat ........................................................G Corn...........................................................H Barley ......................................................... I Millet........................................................... J Buckwheat ................................................ K Fresh fruits ............................................... L Dry fruits ................................................. M Milk/Dairy products ................................N Egg .......................................................... ..O Other (Specify) _______________ .... X FC59 If you collaborate for the school feeding, how would you determine the price of food items? (Multiple response possible) Price similar to local market value.........A A bit lesser than local market value ...... B On the basis of negotiation....................C Consulting with local bodies...................D Based on farmer group/cooperative member suggestion ................................ E Other (Specify) ______________ ................. X FC60 How would you ensure the quality of foods? (Multiple response possible) Well packing ............................................. A Fully weighing........................................... B Stick label and expiry date...................... C Well storing...............................................D Supplying fresh and organic crops/ vegetables.............................................. E Other (Specify)__________........................ .X Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To 148 FC61 What advantages do you think you and the community will get because of the collaboration? (Multiple response possible) Higher income for the farmers ..............A Secured income for the farmers............ B Empowerment of women....................... C Contribution in employment of local people ....................................................D Promotion of local farming..................... E Better nutrition for the students ........... F Community’s nutrition improved..........G Others (Specify)_______________............... X No benefits ............................................... Y Don’t know................................................ Z FC62 If you collaborate for the school feeding in the future, what challenges do you foresee that may affect your success? (Multiple response possible) Problem in contract pricing....................A Fluctuation of market price.................... B Uncertain harvest .................................... C Poor quality of produces ........................D Poor storage for perishable goods........ E Lack of extension programs................... F Lack of fertilizers......................................G Lack of irrigation facilities.......................H Problem of supply chain.......................... I Problem of record keeping...................... J Socio cultural behaviors and norms against women......................................... K Covid/lockdown....................................... L Natural calamities/Disasters ................. M Others (Specify)_______________............... X No challenges ........................................... Y Don’t know................................................ Z FC63 Does your farmer group/ cooperative have an adequate human resource to manage store and deliver foods to the schools? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC64 Does your farmer group/ cooperative have transporatation facility? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC65 Can your farmer group/ cooperative provide food commodities in credit to the schools? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 FC66 For you to be able to collaborate for the school feeding, what sorts of supports from Palika/WFP/ Programme could be useful? (Multiple response possible) Improved agricultural extension programs ............................................... A Enhanced food processing know- how.......................................................... B Supply chain know-how.......................... C Familiar with collaborative approach................................................D Ensure economic opportunities to small-landholder farmers.................... E Ensure economic opportunities to women led farmer groups/ cooperatives.......................................... F Linkage establish with local governing bodies.....................................................G Planning and organizing trainings.........H Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X Thank you for your valuable time and Information. Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To 149 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Cook Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this study, I will ask you questions related to school meal program and your jobs such as cooking and distributing mid-day meal and related activities. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 30 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603) Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 150 Module 1: Background Characteristics Module 2: Background Information of Respondent Q.N. Questions /Response Category CS11 Disability status of the respondent: Hearing deficiency ...............................................1 Visual impairment................................................2 Learning disability................................................3 Speech impairment ............................................4 Physical disability.................................................5 Multiple disability.................................................6 Other (Specify) ___________________...................96 None....................................................................97 CS12 Sex of the respondent: Male.......................................................................1 Female...................................................................2 Other .....................................................................3 CS13 Age of the respondent (Choose the right age group code) 15-19 year ............................................................ 1 20-24 year ............................................................ 2 25-29 year .............................................................3 30-34 year ............................................................ 4 35-39 year ............................................................ 5 40-44 year ............................................................ 6 45-49 year ............................................................ 7 50-54 year ............................................................ 8 55-59 year ............................................................ 9 60 Above ............................................................ 10 Q.No Question Response CS1 Name of School and EMIS no. ___________________________________ CS2 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ CS3 Name and Code of District: ____________________________ CS4 Name and code of Rural / Urban Municipality: ____________________________ CS5 Ward no.: CS6 Name of the village ___________________________________ CS7 Type of School School receiving continuing WFP Support.........1 New School........................................................... 2 CS8 Name and code of the Interviewer: ________________________ CS9 Name and code of the Supervisor: ________________________ CS10 Interview start time: Hour Minute 151 Q.N. Questions /Response Category CS14 Caste/ethnicity of the respondent: Brahmin/Chhetri..................................................1 Dalit .......................................................................2 Newar ....................................................................3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) .........................4 Madhesi ................................................................5 Muslim ..................................................................6 Other (Specify)________________.........................96 CS15 Number of years working as a cook in the school (Write ‘0’ if less than 1 year) Complete year ........................................ Module 3: Training Exposure Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS16 Have you received any training related to cooking? Yes. ............................................................ 1 No..............................................................2 CS21 CS17 How many times have you received training? No. of times........................................ CS18 What all topics were discussed during the training? (Multiple response possible) Commodity management ......................A Record keeping........................................B Storage type and utilization...................C Health and hygiene ................................ D Food preparation and items required.. E Checking food items before cooking.................................................. F Measuring food before cooking........... G Ensuring personal health and hygieneH Ensuring cleanliness of food commodities before cooking............... I Checking of cooked food......................... J Prevention of nutrient loss.....................K Storage equipment ................................. L Other (Specify)_______________ ................ X CS19 In your opinion, was the training useful? Yes .............................................................1 No..............................................................2 CS21 CS20 If not, why? (Write up to two major reasons) 1. ___________________________ 2. ___________________________ Module 4: Kitchen Safety and Availability of Equipment/Resources (Observe) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS21 Does your school have a separate kitchen? (Observe) Yes ............................................................ 1 No............................................................. 2 CS23 CS22 If no separate kitchen, where do you prepare food? Inside school premise ............................ 1 Outside school premise......................... 2 At own home........................................... 3 Other (Specify) _____________ ............... 96 CS23 Is the kitchen/place where you cook food clean? (Observe) Very clean................................................ 1 Satisfactory.............................................. 2 Not clean ................................................. 3 Not applicable....................................... 97 152 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS24 Does the kitchen/place where meal is cooked have following amenities? (Ask if CS21=1) Yes No a) Window b) Chimneys c) Improved cooking stove/ Cylinder coking stove and Heater CS25 Is the place where students eat food clean? (Observe) Very clean................................................ 1 Satisfactory.............................................. 2 Not clean ................................................. 3 No separate place for students to eat . 4 Module 5: Personal Hygiene of the Cook (Observe) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS26 Clothes worn by the cook are clean Yes. ...........................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS27 Well-trimmed nails Yes. ...........................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS28 Well groomed beard (Only for male cook) Yes. ...........................................................1 No.............................................................2 Not applicable.......................................97 CS29 Well groomed hair Yes. ...........................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS30 Washes his/her hand with soap and water as appropriate Yes. ...........................................................1 No.............................................................2 Not applicable.......................................97 Module 6: Knowledge/Practice of Cook Related to Hygiene, Cooking, Storing and Distribution of Food Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS31 What are the occasions you wash your hand? (Multiple response possible) Before handling food and often during food preparation.............................. …..A After using the latrine.................... …....B After finishing food preparation. C After storing foods................................D After serving food...................................E Don’t wash hands with soap.................F Other (Specify)_____________ ..................X CS32 When do you wash the utensils (cooking pot, lids, scoops, knives, plates etc.) with clean water and soap? (Multiple response possible) Before food preparation...................... A After food preparation.......................... B Before serving food............................... C After eating food.................................... D At the end of the day .............................E Not using water and soap ....................F Other (Specify) ______________................X CS33 Generally when do you clean the kitchen? (Multiple response possible) Before food preparation...................... A After food preparation.......................... B At the morning ...................................... C At the end of the day ............................ D At the end of the week...........................E Other (Specify)_______________ ...............X 153 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS34 How do you get the number of students (who eat meal) present on the day? (Multiple response possible) Doing a manual headcount of the students during class..................... A Checking the attendance register for the day............................................. B Confirming with the Head teacher or the teacher in charge..................... C Do not count.......................................... D Other (Specify) ______________................X CS35 How do you measure the quantity of various food items (rice, lentil, oil, spices) on the basis of student head count? Using standard measuring weights/containers ...........................1 Use roughly estimated measurements ..................................2 Other (Specify)_____________ ...............96 CS36 What do you check for, in the food item, to determine if it is fit for cooking or not? (Multiple response possible) Expiry date ............................................. A Packaging .......................................... .....B Color of the food................................... C Presence of pests .................................. D Color of the package ..............................E Do not check ...........................................F Other (Specify) ______________................X CS37 Do you clean the food items before cooking? Always......................................................1 Clean depending on the food items.....2 Occasionally ............................................3 Do not clean............................................4 CS38 How do you ensure that food is clean before cooking? (Multiple response possible) Rinse it in water and cook.................... A Remove unwanted food matters then cook ..................................................... B Remove foreign matters and then wash it with clean water thoroughly before cooking ................................... C Use clean containers to collect it from the store..................................... D Other (Specify) _____________ .................X CS39 Do you check the food after cooking? Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS41 CS40 How do you check the food after cooking? (Can also be observed) (Multiple response possible) Taste the food....................................... .A Look for the presence of foreign particles .............................................. B Smell the food....................................... .C Other (Specify)_______________ ...............X CS41 How do you store cooked food prior to serving the students? (Observe) Store cooked food in covered cooking pots in a clean, safe place before serving..................................................1 Store cooked food in open containers inside the kitchen................................2 Store cooked food outside the kitchen without covers.....................................3 Other......................................................96 CS42 Are the food hot/warm when the students get them? (Observe) Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 Not applicable.......................................97 154 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS43 On what basis do you serve the cooked food to the students? Equal distribution of food for all students.............................................1 Different quantities according to grade of the students ....................................2 Different quantities according to gender of the students ………............3 Different quantities according to the age/need of the students ..................4 Based on experience………………............5 Other (Specify) _____________ ...............96 CS44 Are there any measures in place to prevent food from contamination from pests and rodents? Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS46 CS45 What are the measures taken? (Observe and record up to three measures) Measure 1 _________ Measure 2 _________ Measure 3 _________ CS46 How do you ensure the proper food storage and safety? (Multiple response possible) Proper lock system................................ A No more water spillage ........................ B Proper ventilation.................................. C Food stacked using palates .................. D Food placed in dry, high places to avoid soggy/humidity.............................E Other (Specify)_______________ ...............X CS47 Do you ensure prevention of nutrient loss of fortified food? Yes ............................................................1 No.......................................................…...2 CS49 CS48 How do you ensure the nutrient loss of fortified food? 1. For rice: 2. For salt: 3. For oil: 1._________________________ 2._________________________ 3. ________________________ CS49 Do students wash their hands before eating the meal? (Observe) Yes (all/mostly do) ..................................1 No (all/mostly don’t do) .........................2 Don’t know............................................98 CS50 How do they wash your hands most of the time? Only with water.......................................1 Water with soap......................................2 Water with mud......................................3 Water with Ash........................................4 Never........................................................5 Other (Specify)____________ ..................96 CS51 Is there any wastage of food in your school? Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 Don’t know............................................98 CS52 Does your school have FMC (Food Management Committee)/SMP (School Management Committee)? Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS55 CS53 Do they provide feedback to You? Yes ............................................................1 No.............................................................2 CS55 155 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To CS54 What are the feedbacks they provide to you? (Multiple response possible) Kitchen cleanliness ........................... .....A Preparation and distribution of food on time.................................. .....B Storing food items properly............ .....C Waste food management.....................D Cleanliness of kitchen utensils..............E Proper counting of students number.................................................F Other (Specify) _____________ .................X CS55 What are the common problems you encounter while fulfilling your role and responsibilities? (Multiple response possible) Not getting foods on time due to bad weather ............................................... A Not getting food due to lockdown...... B Lack of proper kitchen......................... .C Lack of cooking amenities .................... D Lack of storeroom..................................E No budget for store room maintenance.. ......................................F No incentives/Not getting salary on time......................................................G Overburdened -Too many responsibilities ................................... H Discriminatory treatment by students and staff (only for Dalits).....................I Other (Specify)___________......................X CS56 When you have any feedbacks or complaints about your work or school meal, whom do you share it with? SMC/ FMC ................................................1 School Principal......................................2 School Complaint/suggestion box........3 WFP toll free hotlines.............................4 WFP staff..................................................5 Implementing partners..........................6 Distribution center staff ........................7 I don’t share it with anyone...................8 Other (Specify)______________...............96 CS57 How would you like to voice your feedbacks, queries or suggestions about school meal? SMC/ FMC ................................................1 School Principal......................................2 School Complaint/suggestion box........3 WFP toll free hotlines.............................4 WFP staff..................................................5 Implementing partners..........................6 Distribution center staff ........................7 Other (Specify)______________...............96 CS58 Interview End time Hour Minute Thank you for your valuable time and Information. 156 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Questionnaire for Food for Education Staff/Store-keeper Survey Informed Consent Namaste! My name is………………. I am here from New ERA, a research organization based in Kathmandu. Now, we are conducting a baseline Survey of USDA McGovern Dole International FFECN Programme managed by World Food Programme. For this purpose, we are collecting data about education, school meal program activities, personal hygiene, school infrastructures, and health and nutrition from 330 schools in 6 districts of Nepal. We will collect these data interviewing with head teacher, Literacy teacher, SHN focal teacher, cook, students, parents and other concerned local stakeholders. We are inviting you to participate in this study. During this interview, I will ask you questions related to school meal program and your jobs as a manager/store keeper and activities related to managing/safe storing of foods received, distribution of foods to the schools and keeping the records. We value your opinion and there are no wrong answers to the questions. We will use approximately 20 minutes of your time. There will be no risk as a result of your participation in the study. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this survey at any time. All information gathered will be strictly treated as confidential and will be used only for the study purposes. If you need further information, you can contact Udbodh Rijal (Kalopul, Kathmandu; email: udbodh@newera.com.np; Ph. No. 01-4413603. Your participation will be highly appreciated. The answers you give will be used for planning school meal related programs and services. Are you willing to participate in the study? 1 = Yes 2 = No (End interview) Date: ____/_____/2078 157 Module 1: Background Characteristics Module 2: Introduction of Respondent Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK10 What is your position? _________________________ SK11 What is your gender? Male ...............................................................1 Female ...........................................................2 Other .............................................................3 Prefer not to respond..................................4 SK12 What is your ethnicity? Brahmin/Chhetri ..........................................1 Dalit................................................................2 Newar ............................................................3 Other Janjati (excluding Newar) .................4 Madhesi.........................................................5 Muslim...........................................................6 Other (Specify)_________ ............................96 SK13 How many years have you been working as a FFEP staff? No. of year ...................................... (complete year) Module 3: Condition of Warehouse (Observe and Record) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK14 Is the warehouse lockable? Yes. ................................................................1 No.................................................................. 2 SK15 Does the warehouse have windows for ventilation? Yes. ................................................................1 No.................................................................. 2 SK16 Is there any evidence of the presence of rodents in the store during the last working month? Yes. ................................................................ 1 No.................................................................. 2 SK17 Is there any evidence of the presence of insects (weevil and others) during the last working month? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 SK18 Is there any evidence of mold and excess of humidity? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 SK19 Is there any evidence of spillage or leakage? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 Q.No Questions /Response Category SK1 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ SK2 Name and Code of District: ____________________________ SK3 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ SK4 Ward no.: SK5 Name of the village: ____________________________ SK6 Code of the FDP/EDP/Warehouse: ____________________________ SK7 Name and code of the Interviewer: _________________________ SK8 Name and code of the Supervisor: _________________________ SK9 Interview start time: Hour Minutes 158 Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK20 Is the food stored on the ground? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 SK22 SK21 If yes, does the EDP use pallets for commodities’ storage? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 SK22 Does the EDP have a pest/insects’ management plan? Yes. ................................................................1 No......................................................……......2 SK23 Does EDP carry out pest/ insects control measures? Yes. ................................................................ 1 No......................................................……......2 SK24 SK23a What pest/insect control measures are being used? (Record up to 3 measures) 1. _____________________________ 2. _____________________________ 3. _____________________________ Module 4: Training on Store-keeping (If possible, observe and record the response) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK24 Are you trained in safe food storage practices? Yes. ...............................................................1 No................................................................. 2 SK29 SK25 When was the last time that you received the training? months before SK26 What were the topics discussed during the training? (Multiple response possible) Commodity management ..........................A Record keeping............................................B Storage type and utilization.......................C Health and hygiene .................................... D Food preparation and items required...... E Food measurement..................................... F Storage equipment .................................... G Others (Specify) ______________ ...................X SK27 In your opinion, was the training useful? Yes .................................................................1 No..................................................................2 SK28 Why was it/was it not useful? Please explain. (Record up to three points). 1. _____________________________ 2. _____________________________ 3. _____________________________ SK29 Do you maintain proper record of the food items that you receive from WFP? (to be observed for verification) Yes. ................................................................1 No................................................................. .2 SK30 Do you review records from school while providing foods to the schools? Yes. ...............................................................1 No.....................................................…….......2 SK31 Do you maintain proper records while distributing food to schools? (To be observed for verification) Yes. ...............................................................1 No....................................................…….......2 SK32 How do you keep a record of the food items? (Multiple options) Issue waybills ..............................................A Record stack cards .....................................B Maintain manual records ..........................C Maintain digital records............................ D Other (Specify)__________ ........................... X Don’t know..................................................Z SK33 How many schools are you working with currently? No. of schools .............................. . SK34 What are the challenges do you face in record keeping? (Record up to two challenges) 1. _____________________________ 2. _____________________________ 159 Module 5: Warehouse Management Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK35 What steps are taken by you as soon as the food commodities arrive at the EDP? (Multiple response possible) Check waybills.............................................. A Unload the food commodities................... B Carry to the warehouse.............................. C Stack food commodities correctly ............. D Record stack card .........................................E Other (Specify) ___________...........................X Don’t know....................................................Z SK36 What precautions do you take while carrying food and storing it in the warehouse? (Multiple response possible) Check the warehouse before storing food bags................................................. A Protect food commodities from rain....... .B Not using hooks to pull/move food bags.................................................... C Handling food bags with care (avoiding stepping, throwing)................................ D Store in a cool and dry place.......................E No specific actions taken.............................F Other (Specify) __________ ............................X Don’t know....................................................Z SK37 What are the steps taken by you to ensure that the food items are of good quality and fit for storing in the warehouse? (Multiple response possible) Check lumps/damp/mold........................... A Check the pest ............................................ .B Check the smell............................................ C Check for damaged food packets.............. D Check expiry date.........................................E No specific actions taken.............................F Other (Specify) ___________...........................X Don’t know....................................................Z SK38 What steps do you take before storing the food in the warehouse? (Multiple response possible) Clean the warehouse .................................. A Check the pest ............................................ .B Check the smell............................................ C Check for lumps/damp/mould .................. D Remove weevils ............................................E Store according to LIFO/FIFO/ FEFO as applicable ......................................................F No specific actions taken............................ G Other (Specify) ___________...........................X Don’t know....................................................Z SK39 Once the food is stored in the warehouse, what precautions do you take to ensure its safety? (Multiple response possible) Check for holes and leakage in the food bags/packets .......................... A Check for hole and leakage in the warehouse roof and walls ...................... B Use pallets to keep food stacks ................. C Use tarpaulins/plastic sheet to cover the food stacks. ............................................... D Protect from condensation drips...............E Allow ventilation in the warehouse............F Inspect the stacks from time-to-time........ G Use of FIFO technique (first in first out) to deliver food .............................................. H Check expiry date ........................................I Other (specify) ___________ ...........................X Don’t know....................................................Z 160 Module 6: Coordination with the Schools (Questions related to FMC/SMC) Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK40 Are you satisfied with the way food is stored safely and hygienically at school? Very satisfactory .........................................1 Satisfactory.................................................. 2 Not satisfied ................................................ 3 Don’t know................................................98 SK42 SK42 SK41 Why are you not satisfied with the way food is stored at school? (Record up to 3 points) 1._________________________ 2._________________________ 3._________________________ SK42 Do you provide feedback to school for proper food storage? Yes ................................................................1 No.................................................................2 SK45 SK43 Generally what sorts of feedback do you provide? (Multiple response possible) Proper handling and distribution of foods...................................................... A Proper store keeping................................ B Proper record keeping.............................. C Preparation of hygienic foods.................. D Food measurement....................................E Proper management of cooking spot......F Arrangement of cooking amenities......... G Other (Specify) ________..............................X SK44 Does the school follow the feedback provided by you? Yes ................................................................1 No.................................................................2 Don’t know................................................98 SK45 What are the common problems you encounter while fulfilling your role? (Multiple response possible) Food commodities not arrived on time...................................................... A Lack of proper warehouse ...................... .B Lack of supporting staff............................ C Lack of budget for warehouse maintenance.. ......................................... D No incentives ..............................................E Overburdened -Too many responsibilities.........................................F Other (Specify)___________..........................X Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK46 How has the COVID pandemic impacted your work? (Please mention up to three points) 1.________________________ 2.________________________ 3.________________________ SK47 Did you experience any challenges while managing Take Home Rations? Yes. ...............................................................1 No.................................................................2 SK49 SK48 If yes, can you please specify? (Up to five points) 1.________________________ 2.________________________ 3.________________________ 4.________________________ 5.________________________ 161 Module 7: Community Feedback Mechanism Q.N. Questions /Response Category Skip To SK49 When you face any problem or have any feedbacks, who/how would you like to share it? Local government..................................... 1 SMC/FMC ................................................... 2 School Principal/teachers........................ 3 Namaste WFP toll free numbers ............ 4 WFP ............................................................ 5 CP staff....................................................... 6 Viber/Facebook Messenger ..................... 7 Suggestion box ......................................... 8 Email .......................................................... 9 SMS .......................................................... 10 Others (Specify)_______________ ............. 96 SK50 How/from whom would you like to receive information related to your Job? WFP staff.................................................... 1 WFP partner staff (NGO........................... 2 Government leader (Ward Chair, Gaupalika/Nagarpalika member ............ 3 Viber/Facebook messenger..................... 4 Radio.......................................................... 5 Printed materials...................................... 6 SMC/FMC ................................................... 7 Others (Specify)______________ ............... 96 SK51 Interview end time: Hour Minutes Thank you for your valuable time and information. 162 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 WFP/New ERA Record Review Tools 1. Indicator: Average retention rate In the following table, record last year’s (Academic year 2077) enrollment of students, those who are repeaters from last year (studying in the same grade in the current year), those who were promoted and are studying in the higher grades, and those who are dropouts from the school. Disaggregate the number of students by gender and grade. Record 9997 for “Not Available/Applicable”. Last year's grade Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 8 Last year's enrollment (Observe 2077 register) Boys Girls Total Repeaters from last year's enrollment (Observe 2078 register) Boys Girls Total Promoted to higher grades from last year's enrollment (Observe 2078 register) Boys Girls Total Dropouts (Observe 2078 register) Boys Girls Total Supervisor’s Note (if any):_____________________ Q. No. Questions Response 1 Cluster number _ _ _ 2 Name of School: ___________________________________ 3 Sampled school EMIS #: 4 Name and code of the Supervisor: ____________________ 5 Date DD MM YYYY 6 Interview Start Time: Hour Minute 163 2. Indicator: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools a. Head-count on the day of school visit. Record 9997 for “Not Available/Applicable”. Number of enrolled students in the current year (2078) Number of students present on the day of school visit Grade Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total 1 3 8 Supervisor’s Note (if any):_____________________ b. Average attendance rate in the last month. Please look at the attendance register for Bhadra 16 to Ashoj 14 and fill up the following table separately for each of the grades (1, 3 and 8) to collect the information for the calculation of average attendance rate. Record 9997 for “Not Available/Applicable”. Grade: 1 Roll Number Gender M = Male; F = Female Number of school days in the last month Number of days attended (If male) Number of days attended (If female) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 164 Roll Number Gender M = Male; F = Female Number of school days in the last month Number of days attended (If male) Number of days attended (If female) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Supervisor’s Note (if any):_____________________ Grade: 3 Roll Number Gender M= Male; F= Female Number of school days in the last month Number of days attended (If male) Number of days attended (If female) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 165 Roll Number Gender M= Male; F= Female Number of school days in the last month Number of days attended (If male) Number of days attended (If female) 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Supervisor’s Note (if any):_____________________ 166 Grade: 8 Roll Number Gender M= Male; F = Female Number of school days in the last month Number of days attended (If male) Number of days attended (If female) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 167 Supervisor’s Note (if any):_____________________ 3. Indicator: Number of Students Receiving De-worming Medications Does the school have maintained School Health and Nutrition Register having the required information on number of students receiving de-worming medications in the academic year (2076)? 1. Yes-> Record the necessary information 2. No -> Go to next module. Please record the number of students receiving de-worming medications in the academic year (2076) in the following table. Record 9997 for “Not Available/Applicable”. Grade Boys Girls Total Enrolled Number receiving deworming Enrolled Number receiving deworming Enrolled Number receiving deworming 1 3 8 Total 4. Indicator: Health Related Absenteeism Among School Age Children Does the school have maintained School Health and Nutrition Register having the required information on number of students absent due to sickness in the month of Falgun, 2076? 1. Yes-> Record the necessary information 2. No -> Go to next module. Please record the number of students who were absent due to sickness in the month of Falgun, 2076. Record 9997 for “Not Available/Applicable”. Grade Boys Girls Total 1 3 8 Total 5. Indicator: Number of adolescent girls aged 10-19 years receiving biannual weekly Iron Folic Acid supplementation Instruction: Please ask following questions and also check the health and nutrition register. 1. Is record/information about iron folic acid distribution in the year 2076 available? Yes.......................................................... 1 No........................................................... 2 (If No, go to next module) 2. What is the number of total adolescent girls in 2076? …….. 3. How many adolescent girls received iron folic acid in 2076? ……… 4. How is iron folic acid typically distributed? Weekly ................................................... 1 Biweekly ................................................ 2 Monthly ................................................. 3 Quarterly............................................... 4 Biannually ............................................. 5 Other (Specify)____________.................. 6 168 6. Indicator: Number of school age children receiving school meal on all school days. a. Does the school have maintained school meal register? (Observe) 1. Yes 2. No  Stop b. Does the school meal register have record of number of school meal received by the students disaggregated by school days for the month of Chaitra, 2077? 1. Yes 2. No -> Stop c. Please record the number of school meal received by the students (ECD to grade 5) disaggregated by school days in Chaitra, 2077 in the following table. Note: First day is Sunday. There are four Saturdays (7, 14, 21, 28) and Falgu Purnima (15) have been dropped. School days (Gate) Was it a school day? 1. Yes 2. No-> Go to next row Number of boys receiving school meal Number… 9997 NA Number of girls receiving school meal Number… 9997 NA Number of students receiving school meal Number… 9997 NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 d. Record the number of eligible students (ECD-grade 5) for school meal from the attendance register of Chaitra, 2077. Number of eligible boys: ............................... Number of eligible girls: ................................. Total number of eligible students: ................ 169 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme in Nepal WFP/New ERA – 2021 School Environment Observation Record Form Instruction to the observer: Observe and choose the option about the school environment focusing the material and facility aspects in school. Q.N. Questions/Response Category Skip To SO8 Is there an open space/playground for students? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO9 Is there a wall/ fence surrounding school compound? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO10 Are there adequate number of classrooms? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO11 Are benches/desks adequate for students? (Observe grades 1, 3 and 5) Grade 1: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 3: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 5: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO12 Is the ventilation adequate in classrooms? (Observe grades 1, 3 and 5) Grade 1: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 3: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 5: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO13 Is the light adequate in classrooms? (Observe grades 1, 3 and 5) Grade 1: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 3: Yes ............................................................. 1 Q.N. Questions/Response Category SO1 Name of School: ___________________________________ SO2 Name of Village: ___________________________________ SO3 Province Name and Number: ________________________________ SO4 District: ___________________________________ SO5 Name and code of Rural /Urban Municipality: ____________________________ SO6 Ward no.: SO7 Sampled school EMIS #: 170 Q.N. Questions/Response Category Skip To No .............................................................. 2 Grade 5: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO14 Are there dustbins in classrooms? (Observe grades 1, 3 and 5) Grade 1: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 3: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Grade 5: Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO15 Are there separate dustbin/pits to dump trash according to the nature of waste? (Observe in school premises) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO16 Is the school premise clean? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO17 Is there a separate teachers’ office/working station? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO18 Is there telephone (landline) facility? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO19 Is there electricity facility? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO19a Is there solar energy facility? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO20 Is there Internet facility? (should be in functional condition) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO21 Is there computer lab? (should be in functional condition) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO22 Is there a science laboratory? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO23 Is there a library? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO24 Digital Library Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO25 Audio-Visual room Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO26 Book corners Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO27 First aid box Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO28 Dispensary Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO29 Kitchen Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO30 Canteen Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO31 Complaint/suggestion box Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO32 What is the main source of drinking water? Piped water .............................................. 1 Tube well................................................... 2 Protected dug well................................... 3 Tanker /truck............................................ 4 171 Q.N. Questions/Response Category Skip To Bottle water .............................................. 5 Students brings water from home ........ 6 Spring water ............................................. 7 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 SO33 What is the drinking water purifying technique in use? Let it stand and settle/sedimentation ... 1 Strain it through cloth............................. 2 Boil it ......................................................... 3 Add bleach/chlorine ................................ 4 Use a water filter...................................... 5 Solar disinfection (Sodis method) ......... 6 Boil to lukewarm...................................... 7 Don’t purify water.................................... 8 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 SO34 Are there separate toilets for boys students? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO35 SO34a What is the type of boys’ toilet? (Observe the main/common toilet if there is no more separate boys toilet) Flush to piped sewer system.................. 1 Flush to septic tank.................................. 2 Flush to pit latrine.................................... 3 Flush to somewhere else ........................ 4 Flush, don't know where......................... 5 Ventilated improved pit latrine.............. 6 Pit latrine with slab.................................. 7 Pit latrine without slab/Open pit............ 8 Composting toilet/Eco-san ..................... 9 Bio-gas toilet........................................... 10 School does not have any toilet........... 11 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 SO34b Is there water available in boys’ toilet? (Observe the main toilet if no more separate toilet for boys) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO35 Are there separate toilets for girls students? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO36 SO35a What is the type of girls’ toilet? (Observe the main toilet if more than one girls toilets.) Flush to piped sewer system.................. 1 Flush to septic tank.................................. 2 Flush to pit latrine.................................... 3 Flush to somewhere else ........................ 4 Flush, don't know where......................... 5 Ventilated improved pit latrine.............. 6 Pit latrine with slab.................................. 7 Pit latrine without slab/Open pit............ 8 Composting toilet/Eco-san ..................... 9 Bio-gas toilet........................................... 10 School does not have any toilet........... 11 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 SO35b Is there water available in girls’ toilet? (Observe the main toilet if more than one girls toilet) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO36 Are there shared toilets for both boys and girls? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO39 SO37 What is the type of shared toilet? (Observe the main toilet if more than one shared toilets) Flush to piped sewer system.................. 1 Flush to septic tank.................................. 2 Flush to pit latrine.................................... 3 Flush to somewhere else ........................ 4 Flush, don't know where......................... 5 Ventilated improved pit latrine.............. 6 172 Q.N. Questions/Response Category Skip To Pit latrine with slab.................................. 7 Pit latrine without slab/Open pit............ 8 Composting toilet/Eco-san ..................... 9 Bio-gas toilet........................................... 10 School does not have any toilet........... 11 Other (Specify) ______________ ............... 96 SO38 Is there water available in the shared toilet? (Observe the main toilet if more than one shared toilet) Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO39 Are there handwashing station in the school premise? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO42 SO40 Is there soap or other liquid based hand wash available in handwashing station? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO41 Is there water available in handwashing station? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO42 Are menstrual pads/sanitary napkins available at school? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO43 Is there a facility within the girls’ toilet (separate or shared) to collect/dispose sanitary pads? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 SO44 Is there facility to safely dispose the collected sanitary napkins/pads at the school? Yes ............................................................. 1 No .............................................................. 2 Thank you. 173 Baseline Study of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme-2021 Field Observation Sheet for Farmer’s Improved Farming Technologies A. Background Information B. Observe the Following Improved Farming Technologies (Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ options for all components) Improved Farming Technologies Yes No 1. Crop genetics (use of improved seed varieties) 2. Cultural practices (mulching, staking, improved nursery practices, line sowing, weeding) 3. Disease and pest management: integrated pest management practices- Jhol mol, traps, bio-pesticides 4. Soil conservation and fertilizer management: use of compost/ manure, use of lime, use of organic fertilizer, inter cropping of pulses and legumes 5. Climate smart technology (Drought-tolerant varieties, plastic house/ plastic high tunnel, plastic tunnel, adopted cultivation calendar) 6. Water management and water technology (drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, plastic pond/recharge pond, cement pond/thai jar, rainwater harvesting) 7. Practice of input purchase (seeds, bio-pesticides, micro-nutrients, sprinkler, drip-irrigation set, hermatic bags) 8. Marketing, Collection and Distribution Center (Practice of produce sale with market price Information, access to and use of collection center) 9. Post-harvest handling (packing technology, improved transportation, improved handling, use of local made bamboo basket (DOKO), use of hermatic bag) 10. Record keeping of any activities performed (use of improved varieties, use of bio-pesticides, mulching etc.) 1. Name of Farmer's Group/Cooperative: _______________________________ 2. Serial number of Farmer's Group/Cooperative: ________________________ 3. Province Name and Number: ______________________________________ 4. Name and Code of District: ________________________________________ 5. Name and Code of Rural /Urban Municipality: _________________________ 6. Ward no.:………… 7. Code of farmer: ………. 8. Name of Farmer (Respondent): _________________________________ 9. Contact number of Farmer (Respondent): 10. Distance of the field from Farmer group/cooperative: ______________________ 174 3. Observer’s note (if any): (If practices such as local crop promotion, nutrition garden, mixed cropping, relay cropping are observed, please include them as well) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 175 Classroom Observation Form 1. Name of School: __________________________________ 2. School EMIS Code: 3. Cluster No.: _____________________ 4. Class: __________________________ 5. Teaching subject: ______________________ 6. Teaching lesson/course: _____________________ 7. Date of observation: _____/_______/_2078 DD MM YY 8. Observation starting time: ______: _____ Hour Minute (Please mention the system of 24 hours) 9. Observer’s Name and Code: _______________________________ 10. Province: __________________________ 11. District and Code Number: ________________________________ 12. Municipality: ____________________________________Ward No.: _________ 13. Supervisor's code: Module 1: Reading Skill Development (Tick the correct alternative based on your observation.) Dimensions Questions Yes (1) No (0) 1.1 Phonological Awareness a. Did the teacher let the students listen to the letters or syllables related to the lesson by accurately pronouncing them? b. Did the students accurately pronounce the letters or syllables related to the lesson? 1.2 Graphophonemic Awareness a. Did the students practice letter or word segmentation? b. Did the students practice blending letters or words by reading aloud or pronouncing them? 1.3 Reading Fluency a. Did the teacher present a model reading with proper tempo, rhyme, and rhythm audible to the students? b. Did the students get a chance to read in pairs or individually with proper tempo, rhyme, and rhythm? 1.4 Vocabulary a. Did the teacher identify unfamiliar words or discuss the difficult words in the text with their meanings? b. Did the teacher involve the students in written or oral activities such as using the words in sentences or matching/ segmenting activities? 1.5 Comprehension a. Did the teacher ask the students questions related to guessing the topic of the lesson or about prior 176 Dimensions Questions Yes (1) No (0) knowledge of the lesson before or while reading or listening? b. Did the teacher ask questions related to the lesson after the students have heard or read it? c. Was one answer at least to the questions asked by the teacher unanswerable by lifting information directly from the text? d. Did the teacher ask the students to read the lesson by themselves? e. Did the majority of the students answer the questions based on the text read? 1.6 Writing a. Did the students practice writing with accuracy such as writing letters with spelling, combining spellings and sentences, etc.? b. Did the students get a chance to practice original writing such as answering questions in their own way, or writing a paragraph, or writing an original story, etc.? (This does not include copying from the board.) Module 2: Early Grade Reading Pedagogy Based on the class observation, tick the correct alternative after the observation. Statement No. Statement Fully agree (3) Partially agree (2) Disagree (1) Irrelevant (0) 2.1 Teacher involved all/ most students. 2.2a Teacher created equal opportunity to involve for both girl and boy students. 2.2b Teacher arranged activities in small groups or pairs. 2.3 Most students were following the teacher’s instructions during the lesson. 2.4 During the lesson, more than half of the students responded to the questions willingly (by raising hands or asking to respond) 2.5a While reading individually or in groups, most students were attending to the text. 2.5b Teacher offered positive feedback to the correct responses of the students. 2.6 Teacher offered feedback to improve when students responded incorrectly? (Feedback should not be understood for scolding students or neglecting incorrect responses or demanding only correct responses or making negative remarks only) 2.7 Teacher use the required teaching materials. 2.8a Teacher monitored students’ individual or group activities walking around the class. 2.8b Teacher followed the ‘I do’, ‘We do’ and ‘You do’ method? 177 Statement No. Statement Fully agree (3) Partially agree (2) Disagree (1) Irrelevant (0) 2.8c.1 Teacher supported the struggling students while the students were working individually? 2.8c.2 Teacher supported the struggling students while the students were working in groups. 2.8d Did the teacher evaluate the understanding of the students during the lesson? 2.8e Teacher provided an opportunity by allocating time for asking questions or discussing in groups so as to be clear on the matters not understood. 2.9. Comment on the lesson based on overall class observation. Statement No. Dimension Excellent (3) Average (2) Needs improvement (1) 2.9a Teacher’s planning 2.9b Teacher motivating the students to the lesson 2.9c Active participation of the students 2.9d Use of learner centric techniques 2.9e.1 Feedback 2.9e.2 Evaluation Module 3: Classroom Environment and Management of Teaching- Learning Materials Based on the class observation, tick the correct alternative. Statement No. Statement Fully agree (3) Partially agree (2) Disagree (1) Irrelevant (0) 3.1 There were posters, drawings, paintings or paintings related to reading- writing hung on the wall of the classroom. 3.2 Student's works were displayed visibly on the wall. 3.3 Additional reading materials such as book corner, classroom library, etc. in the classroom were accessible to the students. 3.4 Desks/ benches/ mats were available adequately for all students. 3.5 Cleanliness of the classroom was adequate. 3.6 Light was adequate in the classroom. 3.7 Temperature was adequate (not too hot or cold) in the classroom. 3.8 Classroom was spacious enough for students to carry out different activities. Observation ending time: _______: ______ Hour Minute (Please mention the system of 24 hours) _______________________ _______________________ Signature of the Observer Signature of Head Teacher 178 EGRA Assessment Tool �वध्याथ� प्र�त�क्रया फाराम २०७३ पर��कका ला�ग �नद�शनहरूः क ृ पया सबैभन्दा प�हले�वद्याथ�सँग छोटो क ुराकानी गर� रमाइलो र सहज वातावरण बनाउनु होस्। त्यसका ला�ग तपाइ�तल बाकसमा �दइएका जस्ता क ुराकानीमा आधा�रत �क्रयाकलाप अपनाउन सक्नु हु न्छ । यो प्रश्नावल�लाई �वद्याथ�लेपर��ाको रूपमा न�लई एउटा खेलको रूपमा रमाइलोका ला�ग�लऊन्भन्नेध्यान �दनु होस्। यह� क्रममा बच्चालाई कसर� क ुराकानी गदार्बढ� सहज हु न्छ भन्नेक ुरामा प�न ध्यान �दनु होस्। तल बाकसमा �दइएका जानकार� आफ ूलेब ु झ्नका ला�ग मात्रै�वस्तारैपढ्नु होस्र �वद्याथ�लाईआफ्नैभाषामा �मलाएरभन्न ु होस्। म �तमीलाई मेरो बारेमा के ह� क ुरा भन्न चाहन्छु। मेरो नाम _____ हो । म _____ मा बस्छु। (उमेर, बच्चाहरूको सङ्ख्या, मनपन�खेल, रे�डयो, �टभी कायर्व्रmम आ�द प्रसङ्ग प�न समावेश गनर्स�कने) अब �तम्रो बारेमा प�न के ह� क ुरा गर� ल ! (१) �तमीलाई �वद्यालयनआएको बेला केगनर्मन पछर्? (�वद्याथ�को प्र�त�क्रयाका ला�ग पखर्न ु होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�लेउ�र �दन इच्छा नगरेमा प्रश्ननं. २ सोध्नु होस्। उनीहरूलेसहजरूपमाउ�र �दनेदे�खएमा मौ�खक सहम�त �लई अगा�ड बढाउनु होस्।) (२) �तमीलाई क ु न-क ु न खेलहरू खेल्न मन पछर्? डाटा बेस 179 मौ�खक सहम�तः बाकसमा �दइएको जानकार� �वद्याथ�हरूलाई प्रस्टसँग पढेर सु नाइ�दनु होस्वा मौ�खक रूपमा ब ु झाइ�दनु होस्। म .....................कायार्लय/संस्थाका तफर् बाट �तमीहरूलेपढेर क��को �सके का छौ भनी ब ु झ्न आएको हु ँ। यस कायर्मा हामीलाई �तम्रो सहयोगचा�हन्छ । य�द �तमीलाई यस कायर्मा भाग �लन मन नलागेमा भाग �लन्न भन्न सक्नेछौ । हामी एउटा पठन खेल खेल्न थाल्दैछ� । म �तमीलाई के ह� अ�रहरू र शब्दहरू पढ्न लगाउनेछु। साथैएउटा छोटो कथा सु नाउनेछुर एउटा कथा पढ्न प�न लगाउनेछु। म कतैप�न �तम्रो नाम ले�ेछैन । तसथर्कसैलाई प�न यी �तम्रा उ�रहरू हु न्भन्ने थाहा हु नेछैन । यो जाँच होइन। त्यसैले�तमीलेजेजान्दछौ त्यह� उ�र देऊ । मैलेसोधेको वा �दएका पाठ क�त समयमा प�ढसक्दा रहेछौ भनी ख्याल रा�ेछु। म �तमीलाई �तम्रो प�रवारका बारेमा के ह� प्रश्नहरू प�न सोध्नेछु । जस्तैः �तम्रो प�रवारमा कोको हु न ु हु न्छ ? �तम्रो आमा के गन ुर्हु न्छ ? �तम्रो ब ु बा के गन ुर्हु न्छ ? �तम्रो प�रवारलेघरमा प्रयोग गन�भाषा क ु न हो ? �तम्रो घरमा के के सामानहरू छन् आ�द । सो�धएका प्रश्नहरूमध्ये�तमीलेक ु नैप्रश्नको उ�र �दन नचाहेमा वा नसके मा प�न फरक पन�छैन । �तमीलेमसँग के ह� सोध्न चाहन्छौ भनेसोध्न सक्छौ ... । के �तमी अब खेल खेल्न तयार छौ ? सु रु गर� त ? 180 मौ�खक सहम�त भएको हो ? हो य�द मौ�खक सहम�त नभएमा उक्त �वद्याथ�लाई धन्यवाद �दनु होस् र अक� �वद्याथ�लाईबोलाई यह� फारामकोप्रयोग गर� उिल्ल�खत �नद�शनहरूदोहोयार्उनु होस्। A. पर��ण �म�तः गतेः म�हनाः सालः J. क�ा क�ा १ क�ा २ क�ा ३ B. कायर्क्रम िजल्ला समू ह (EGRP लागूभएका िजल्लाका सन्दभर्मा मात्र) िजल्ला समू ह 1 िजल्ला समू ह 2 K. सेक्सन/वगर् C. अनु सन्धान समू ह उपचारात्मक समू ह �नयिन्त्रत समू ह L. �वद्याथ�को रोल नं. D. भाषा (घर प�रवारमा बढ� बो�लनेभाषालाई{ L1 र त्यसप�छ बो�लनेदोस्रो भाषालाई L2 रा�े) L1 L2 M. �लङ्ग छात्र छात्रा E. पर��कको नाम F. पर��कको कोड G. �वद्यालयको नाम H. �वद्यालयEMIS कोड I. �नय�मत �वद्यालय सञ्चालनहु नेसमय प ू रा �दनः �बहानः पर��ण गदार्को समयः प ू वार्ह्नः अपराह्नः 181 अपराह्नः (एउटामा �चनो लगाउनु होस् ।) उप-खण्ड १: श्र ु�तबोध  ६० सेके न्ड अब म �तमीलाई एउटा सानो कथा पढेर सु नाउँछु। मैले पढेको ध्यानप ू वर्क सु न । त्यसप�छ म �तमीलाई के ह� प्रश्नहरू सोध्छु। सके सम्म राम्रोसँग उ�र देऊ । स�वता र गीता चौरमा खे�लरहेका �थए । त्यहाँ गाईवस्तुच�ररहेका �थए । एउटा गोरुले उनीहरूलाई लखेट्यो । गोठालालेत्यस गोरुलाई हकाद� रोके । उनीहरूलेगोठालालाई धन्यवाद �दएरगए । �वद्याथ�लेकथा नदे�े गर� वाचनगन ुर्होस्। �वद्याथ�लाई प्रश्नहरू प�न हेनर्न�दनु होस्। ( √ ) १ = �ठक ( √ ) ) = बे�ठक ( √ )  = उ�र न�दएको य�द �वद्याथ�ले जािन्दनँ भनेर भनेदे�ख उ�र न�दएको कोठामा �चनो लगाउनु होस्। प्रश्नहरूः �ठक (१) बे�ठक (०) उ�र न�दएको] -_ १) स�वता र गीता कहाँखे�लरहेका �थए ? उ�रः चौरमा २) स�वता र गीतालाई केलेलखेट्यो ? 182 उ�र: गोरुले। ३) गोठालालाई �कन धन्यवाद �दए ? उ�र : गोरुलाई रोके कोले। * धेरैराम्रो प्रयास, धन्यवाद ! अब अक� उपखण्डमा जाऔँहै। उप-खण्ड २: अ�र प�हचान  ६० सेके न्ड यस पानामा नेपाल� वणर्मालाका अ�रहरू रा�खएका छन्। क ृ पया �तमीलेजानेसम्म यी अ�रहरू पढ्नु पन�छ । (सु रुमा तल �दएअनु सारयी �तनअ�रहरू (अ, ग, न) को अभ्यास गराउनु होस्।) [उक्त पानामा “अ” सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्, उदाहरणकोला�ग, यो / अ / हो ।] [त्यसैगर� उक्त पानामा “ग” सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्र यो क ु न अ�र हो भनी सोध्नु होस्।] (�ठक उ�र भएमा) √ �ठक, यो /ग / हो । (बे�ठक उ�र भएमा)  यो त /ग / पो हो त । [उक्त पानामा "न" सङ्के तगन ुर्होस्र यो क ु न अ�र हो भनी सोध्नु होस्।] (�ठक उ�र भएमा) √ �ठक, यो / न / हो । (बे�ठक उ�र भएमा )  यो त / न/ पो हो त । - जब म "सु रु" भन्छु, �तमीले पढ्न सु रु गर । प्रत्येक अ�रलाई देखाउँदैत्यो अ�रलाई उच्चारण गर । - �तमीलेसके सम्म चाँडो तर ध्यानप ू वर्क पढ्नेप्रयास गर । - य�द �तमीलाई थाहा नभएको क ु नैअ�र आएमा �तमी अक� अ�र पढ्न सक्छौ । �तम्रो औँला प�हलो अ�रमा जब �वद्याथ�ले प�हलो अ�र पढ्न सु रु गछर्न्, घडी हेनर् सु रु गन ुर्होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले सङ्कोच मानेमा वा एउटैअ�रमा �तन सेके न्डसम्म पढ्न रो�कएमा अक� अ�र पढ्न सङ्के त गन ुर्होस् । घडीमा १ �मनेट प ु गेप�छ रो�कन भन्न ु होस्।  य�द �वद्याथ�ले प�हलो हरफमा (१० अ�रहरू) सह� रूपमा 183 राख त । राख्यौ ? राख्यौ भनेल अब पढ्न सु रु गर त । "सु रु" - �वद्याथ�लेगलत पढेका अ�रहरूलाई " / " �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। - तपाइ�ले अगा�ड नै गलत भनी �चह्न लगाएका अ�रहरू सच्याउनुपरेमा "∅" �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। - �वद्याथ�लेपढेको अिन्तम अ�रप�छ " / " �चह्न �दनु होस्। फ र ए औ ध ह ए ज अ: क थ ण इ अं उ झ स ध र ठ म ब ख � ष ई ब इ ङ क ञ ष भ ऐ ढ झ ओ त्र न ए व इ ल न ध ढ द त श ड ण प त भ � थ घ ग ट ड ठ ट आ अ ए ङ ख � अ: व ग � स ञ म च अं ऋ फ त ऋ श अ: य ऐ अ ल छ ओ प च ए द ज आ ग औ छ ह इ नपढेमा धन्यवाद भन्न ु होस्र यो उपकायर्बन्द गन ुर्होस् । तल अन्त्यमा �दएको बाकसमा �चनो -√_ लगाई अक� उप￾खण्डमा जान ु होस्। यस कायर्को अन्त्यमा बाँक� रहेको समय (सेके न्डमा) ले�होस् ु । �वद्याथ�लेप�हलो हरफमा क ु नैसह� उ�र न�दएकालेपठन कायर्रो�कएको । * धेरैराम्रो प्रयास, धन्यवाद ! अब अक� उप-खण्डमा जाऔँहै। उप-खण्ड ३: मात्रा प�हचान 184  ६० सेके न्ड यस पानामा नेपाल� वणर्मालाका मात्रा रा�खएका छन्। क ृ पया �तमीलेजानेसम्म यी मात्राहरू पढ्नु पन�छ । सु रुमा तल �दएअनु सारयी �तन मात्राहरू ◌ा, ि◌ , ◌ु (का, �घ, हु) को अभ्यास गराउनु होस्। [उक्त पानामा "का" औँलालेसङ्के त गन ुर्होस्, उदाहरणका ला�ग, यो / का / हो । यसमा ( ◌ा ) मात्रा लागेको छ भन्न ु होस्। [उक्त पानामा "�घ" सङ्के तगन ुर्होस्, अबयसमा क ु न मात्रा लागेको छ भनी सोध्नु होस्।] (�ठक उ�र आएमा ) √ �ठक, यो र�घर हो । यसमा ( ि◌) मात्रा लागेको छ भन्न ु होस्। (बे�ठक उ�र आएमा )  यो त / �घ/ पो हो त । यसमा ( ि◌) मात्रा लागेको छ भन्न ु होस्। [उक्त पानामा "हु" सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्र यसमा क ु न मात्रा लागेको छ भनी सोध्नु होस्।] (�ठक उ�र आएमा) √ �ठक, यो रहु र हो । यसमा ( ◌ु) मात्रा लागेको छ भन्न ु होस्। (बे�ठक उ�र आएमा)  यो त / हु / पो हो त । यसमा ( ◌ु) मात्रा लागेको छ भन्न ु होस्। - जब म "सु रु" भन्छु, �तमीलेपढ्न सु रु गर । प्रत्येक मात्रा लागेको अ�रलाई देखाउँदैत्यो मात्रा लागेको अ�रलाई उच्चारण गर । - �तमीलेसके सम्म चाँडो तर ध्यानप ू वर्क पढ्नेप्रयास गर । जब �वद्याथ�ले प�हलो अ�र पढ्न सु रु गछर्न्, घडी हेनर्सु रु गन ुर्होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले सङ्कोच मानेमा वा एउटै अ�रमा �तन सेके न्डसम्म पढ्न रो�कएमा अक� अ�र पढ्न सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्। घडीमा १ �मनेट प ु गेप�छ रो�कन भन्न ु होस्।  य�द �वद्याथ�लेप�हलो हरफमा (१० मात्राहरू) सह� रूपमा नपढेमा धन्यवाद भन्न ु होस्र यो उपकायर् बन्द गन ुर्होस्। तल अन्त्यमा �दएको बाकसमा �चनो -√_ लगाई अक� उप￾खण्डमा जान ु होस्। 185 - य�द �तमीलाई थाहा नभएको क ु नैमात्रा आएमा �तमी अक� मात्रा लागेको अ�र पढ्न सक्छौ । �तम्रो औँला मात्रा लागेको प�हलो अ�रमा राख त । राख्यौ ? राख्यौ भनेल अब पढ्न सु रु गर त । "सु रु" - �वद्याथ�लेगलत पढेका मात्रा लागेका अ�रहरूलाई " / " �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। - तपाइ�लेअगा�ड नैगलत भनी �चह्न लगाएका मात्र उक्त अ�रहरू सच्याउनुपरेमा " ∅ " �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। - �वद्याथ�लेपढेको अिन्तम मात्रा य ु क्त अ�र प�छ "]" �चह्न �दनु होस्। यो लौ ख ू ध ु दं ढो भे खे भ ू रु मै धौ �ा थी ख ु नौ घो �े घ ू का शै फ ु पो दु थै छो भै लु बो झौ ची ढौ खी त्र ू �ड गै के पै �च शू ढौ �त छै चौ झो पौ छो ने रो नौ ले घौ थै �क �ड व ु धो ठे वो हे दे कौ मा हौ त्रा तू ग ृ �ब फ ू छू मो ठू चो बा गै प ृ झू �ा टो मे मे ना सा डौ ज ु सै दौ तो ध ू फे से जा लू टू जौ रु षो दै ढा वे यस कायर्को अन्त्यमा बाँक� रहेको समय (सेके न्डमा) ले�ु होस्। �वद्याथ�लेप�हलो हरफमा क ु नैसह� उ�र न�दएकोले पठन कायर्रो�कएको । 186 * धेरैराम्रो प्रयास, धन्यवाद ! अब अक� उप-खण्डमा जाऔँहै। 187 उप-खण्ड ४: �नरथर्क शब्द प�हचान  ६० सेके न्ड यस पानामा केह� �नरथर्क शब्दहरू रा�खएका छन्। क ृ पया �तमीलेजानेसम्म यी शब्दहरू पढ्नु पन�छ । (सु रुमा तल �दएअनु सारयी �तन �नरथर्क शब्दहरू (शा�खनै, छद्कु, फामो) को अभ्यास गराउनु होस्।) [उक्त पानामा "शा�खनै" सङ्के तगन ुर्होस्, उदाहरणका ला�ग, यो "शा�खनै" हो भन्न ु होस्।] [उक्त पानामा "छद्कु" सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्, अब यसलाई उच्चारण गर भन्न ु होस्।] (�ठक उ�र आएमा) √ �ठक, यो "छद्कु " हो । (बे�ठक उ�र आएमा)  यो त "छद्कु" पो हो त । [उक्त पानामा "फामो" सङ्के तगन ुर्होस्, एक पटक फे �र प्रयास गर । यसलाई उच्चारण गर ।] (�ठक उ�र आएमा) √ �ठक, यो "फामो" हो । (बे�ठक उ�र आएमा)  यो त "फामो" पो हो त । - जब म "सु रु" भन्छु, �तमीलेपढ्न सु रु गर । प्रत्येक शब्दलाई देखाउँदैत्यो शब्दलाई उच्चारण गर । - �तमीलेसके सम्म चाँडो तर ध्यानप ू वर्क पढ्नेप्रयास गर । - य�द �तमीलाई थाहा नभएको क ु नैशब्द आएमा �तमी अक� शब्द पढ्न सक्छौ । �तम्रो औँला प�हलो शब्दमा राख त । राख्यौ ? राख्यौ भनेल अब पढ्न सु रु गर त । "सु रु" - �वद्याथ�लेगलत पढेका शब्दहरुलाई " / " �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। - तपाइ�लेअगा�ड नैगलत भनी �चह्न लगाएका शब्दहरु सच्याउनुपरेमा गोलो �चह्न" ∅ " लगाउनु होस्। जब �वद्याथ�लेप�हलो शब्द पढ्न सु रु गछर्न्, घडी हेनर्सु रु गन ुर्होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले सङ्कोच मानेमा वा एउटैबाकसमा �तन सेके न्डसम्म पढ्न रो�कएमा अक� पढ्न सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्। घडीमा १ �मनेट प ु गेप�छ रो�कन भन्न ु होस्।  य�द �वद्याथ�ले प�हलो हरफमा (५ �नरथर्क शब्दहरू) सह� रूपमा नपढेमा धन्यवाद भन्न ु होस्र यो उपखण्ड बन्द गन ुर्होस्। तल अन्त्यमा �दएको बाकसमा �चनो (√) गर� अक� उप-खण्डमा जान ु होस्। 188 - �वद्याथ�लेपढेको अिन्तम शब्दप�छ "]" �चह्न �दनु होस्। साएचु �कढ लफ जाग्सा �कफर् जाऔर होनाका ऐकुलो यार्प जान्पा नोक� पाल्का रे�लजु नाफे ��च ष�व पिन्दस थ�फ �बत्रे डडारो ऐचाछ लु पासे हु दाभी �ाप्रा घोनरु झथो चैउगो उँ�ा साप्घु शणौ �लभो रेधै ग ृ म चषौ आल�व वातावे सम्पला लवोत ताछा नारझ जनाखे कम ृ श अंक्र ईनाज चङ्शा यामौ टोछौ मलक गोथ्रो चस्ठा  यस कायर्को अन्त्यमा बाँक� रहेको समय (सेकन्डमा) ले�ु होस्|  �वद्याथ�लेप�हलो हरफमा क ु नैस�ह उ�र न�दएकोलेपठन कायर्रो�कएको | * धेरैराम्रो प्रयास, धन्यवाद ! अब अक� उप-खण्डमा जाऔँहै। उप-खण्ड ५: मौ�खक पठन अन ु च्छेद उप-खण्ड ५ (क): मौ�खक पठनअन ु च्छेद  ६० सेके न्ड तपाइ�ले�नद�शनहरू पढ्दैगदार्�वद्याथ�लाईकथा ले�खएको उद्धारण (अनु च्छेद) �दनु होस्। यहाँएउटा सानो कथा छ । म �तमीलाई यो कथा पढ्न �दन्छु। �तमीलेठूलो स्वरमा ध्यानप ू वर्क �छटो पढ है। �तमीलेप�ढसके प�छ म �तमीलाई त्यह� कथासँग सम्बिन्धत के ह� प्रश्नहरू सोध्नेछु। जब म सु रु गनर् य�द �वद्याथ�लेसङ्कोच मानेमा वा एउटैशब्दमा �तन सेके न्डसम्म पढ्न 189 भन्छुत्यसप�छ �तमी कथा पढ्न सु रु गर । य�द कथा पढ्दा �तमीलेनजानेको क ु नैशब्द आएमा �तमी अक� शब्द पढ्न सक्छौ । �तम्रो औँला प�हलो शब्दमा राख त । राख्यौ ? राख्यौ भनेल अब पढ्न सु रु गर । "सु रु" रमा �वद्यालयबाटघर फ�कर्दै�थइन ्। उनलेपसलमा मा�नसहरूको �भड दे�खन ्। �भडमा साथीहरूले बालकथाको �कताब�कनेको दे�खन ्। रमा घरमा प ु�गन्। उनलेआमालाई बालकथाको �कताब�क�न�दन भ�नन ्। आमाले�कताब �क�न�दनु भयो । रमालेकथाको �कताब पढेर आमालाई सु नाइन ्। शु क्रबार �वद्यालयमा कथा भन्नेप्र�तयो�गता भयो । त्यो प्र�तयो�गतामा रमा प्रथम भइन ्। आफ ू प्रथम भएको क ुरा आमालाई सु नाइन ्। आमालेख ु सी भएर अक� �कताब प�न �क�न�दनु भयो । रो�कएमा अक� शब्दमा जान सङ्के त गन ुर्होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�लेपाठको प�हलो हरफबाटक ु नैप�न शब्दहरू सह� रूपमा नपढेमा बोधसँग सम्बिन्धत क ु नैप�न प्रश्नहरू नसोध्नु होला ।  य�द �वद्याथ�लेआफूले नजानेको बताएमा त्यसलाई उ�र न�दएको भनी �चनो (√ ) लगाउनु होस् । �वद्याथ�लेपढेकामध्येगलत शब्दलाई " / " �चह्न लगाउनु होस्। य�द तपाइ�लेअगा�ड नैगलत " / " �चह्न लगाएका शब्दहरू सच्याउनुपरेमा सकर् ल " ∅ " गन ुर्होस्। �वद्याथ�ले६० सेके न्डसम्म कथा पढ्न सके न भनेपढेका अिन्तम शब्दप�छ " ] " �चह्न�दनु होस्। ६० सेके न्डसम्ममा पढेको भए अिन्तम शब्दप�छ " ] " �चह्न�दनु होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले६० सेके न्डसम्ममा प�न कथा प�ढसके न भनेउसलाई प�ढरहन �दनु होस् य�द �वद्याथ�ले३ �मनेटसम्ममा प�न पठन कायर्प ू रा गनर्सके न भने �वद्याथ�लाईधन्यवाद �दई उक्त कायर्बन्द गन ुर्होस्। त्यसप�छ �वद्याथ�लेप�ढसके को अंशबाट मात्र बोध प्रश्नहरू सोध्नु होस्। 190 र �वद्याथ�लेप ू रा कथा पढ्न लगाएको समयलाई �टपोट गन ुर्होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले६० सेके न्ड�भत्रमा कथा प�ढसक्छ भने बाँक� रहेको समय �टपोट गन ुर्होस्। उप-खण्ड ५ (ख): पठन बोधका ला�ग पर��कलाई �नद�शन �वद्याथ�ले कथा प�ढसके प�छ उसलाई �दइएको अनु च्छेदको पाना �लनु होस् । �वद्याथ�लाई उसलेपढेको कथासंग सम्बिन्धत प्रश्नहरू मात्र सोध्नु होस्। �वद्याथ�ले १८० सेके न्ड (३ �मनेट) �भत्रमा ज�त कथा प�ढसक्छ त्यहाँसम्मका प्रश्नहरू मात्र सोध्नु होस्। तर प्रश्न नदोहोयार्उनु होस्। य�द �वद्याथ�ले१० सेके न्डसम्म प�न सो�धएको प्रश्नको उ�र न�दएमा उ�र न�दएको भनी �चनो () लगाउनु होस्। त्यसप�छ अक� प्रश्न सोध्नु होस्। अब म �तमीलाई �तमीलेभखर्रपढेको कथाबाटके ह� प्रश्नहरू सोध्नेछु। प्रश्नहरूको उ�र सके सम्म सह� �दनेप्रयास गर । ( √ ) १ = �ठक ( √ ) ) = बे�ठक ( √ )  = उ�र न�दएको प्रश्नहरूः �ठक (१) बे�ठक (०) उ�र न�दएको] - _ १) रमा कहाँबाटघर फ�कर् दै�थइन्? उ�र : �वद्यालयबाट २) उनका साथीहरूलेके�कनेका �थए ? उ�र: बाल कथाको �कताब ३) रमालेकथा पढेर कसलाई सु नाइन्? उ�रः आमालाई 191 ४) रमाको �वद्यालयमा केको प्र�तयो�गता भयो ? उ�रः कथा वाचन ५) आमाले रमालाई �कन अक� �कताब �क�न�दनु भयो ? उ�रः रमा प्रथम भएक�ले * धेरैराम्रो प्रयास, धन्यवाद ! हाम्रो काम स�कयो । अब जाऊ है। 192 B: Qualitative Tools Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with MOEST/CEHRD Officials Name: ………………………………………… Position: ……………………………………… Institution: ……………………………………. Province: …………………………………….. District: ……………………………………… Municipality: ………………………………… Ward/ Old VDC name: ………………………. Location: ………………………………........... Date: ………………………………… Start time: …………………………… End time: …………………………...... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in Karnali and Sudur Paschim Provinces? • We would like to understand your perspective on the status of primary education at the national level. Is the situation different for Karnali and Sudhur Paschim Province? How? What are the key problems in education standards in this region? [Probe points: General overview of attendance and enrolment in schools; How is it varied across gender?] • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] 2 What is your understanding of the structural changes brought about by the SMP? • How do you think has the situation changed over the last three years? Why do you feel there has been a change and what has led to it? GoN has scaled up the NSMP in 71 districts of Nepal. Has the introduction of NSMP (cash based) affected the enrollment, attendance and dropout and repetition rates? How the USDA McDole FFECN program has contributed? 3 What is your understanding of the program and its activities? • What is your understanding on the Government of Nepal’s School Meal Programme? It will also be helpful if you could share your perspective on the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN programme? Do you feel that there is a need for intervention such as McGovern Dole FFECN? Do you think the intervention supports the already existing initiative on SMP? [Probe points: What are individual features? What are the synergies and linkages between them? What are the mechanisms of provision of school meals? How are the provisions linked?] 193 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • To what extent does the programme complement other donor-funded initiatives and Nepal government programs? (Probe: presence of similar interventions in the region, how has the program added value without duplicating the efforts of similar interventions) • Have there been any other interventions in the past that have contributed to achieving the outcomes51? • What is your take on the anticipated outreach of the programme? Do you feel that the intervention will adequately be able to reach out to the intended beneficiaries? With respect to reaching out to the beneficiaries, are there any gaps that need to be urgently addressed? (Probe: Demographic, geographic and gender outreach of the program; Gaps in the target outreach; suggestions for increasing outreach) • What do you think the contribution of the intervention on the equity strategies for school sector developed by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology? • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? 4 What is your view on the Program design? • How the SMP has been reflected in the new education sector development plan? • What are some of the areas that the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle should focus on to ensure sustainability (particularly following the completion of the program)? • What is your perception about the overall program design? [further probes: benefits to the intended beneficiaries; stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening (focus: education, nutrition, hygiene components, and management, national school meals programs and contextualize national policy to local need)] 2. Anticipated Challenges 5 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in Implementation of the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 3. COVID-19 and its effects 51 Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates; improved dietary diversity; improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students; improved learning and teaching environment; strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments; strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably; improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition; food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities; and strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 194 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 6 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure 4. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 7 How is MOEST/CEHRD managing school level community (complaints) and feedbacks mechanism? • What mechanisms are set up by MoEST/CEHRD? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s community feedback mechanism? 5. Suggestions 8 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • This is the last cycle of the USDA, McDole programme, after this cycle, the program will be handed over to government, what process should be followed for this and what would be the role for WFP and its implementing partners for successful transition? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 2 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 195 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY21) KII with Food for Education Project (FFEP) Official Name: …………………………………….… Position: ………………………………….… Institution: ……………………………….… Province: …………………………………… District: …………………………………… Municipality: ……………………………… Ward/ Old VDC name: …………………… Location: …………………………………. Date: ………………………………… Start time: …………………………… End time: ……………………………. Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1 General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in Karnali and Sudur Paschim Provinces? • We would like to understand your perspective on the status of primary education at the national level. Is the situation different for Karnali and Sudhur Paschim Province? How? What are the key problems in education standards in this region? [Probe points: General overview of attendance and enrolment in schools; How is it varied across gender?] • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] 2 What is your understanding of the structural changes brought about by the SMP? • How do you think has the situation changed over the last three years? Why do you feel there has been a change and what has led to it? GoN has scaled up the NSMP in 71 districts of Nepal. Has the introduction of NSMP (cash based) affected the enrollment, attendance and dropout and repetition rates? How the USDA McDole FFECN program has contributed? 3 What is your understanding of the program and its activities ? • What is your understanding on the Government of Nepal’s School Meal Programme? It will also be helpful if you could share your perspective on the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN programme? Do you feel that there is a need for intervention such as McGovern Dole FFECN? Do you think the intervention supports the already existing initiative on SMP? [Probe points: What are individual features? What are the synergies and linkages between them? What are the mechanisms of provision of school meals? How are the provisions linked?] 196 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • To what extent does the programme complement other donor￾funded initiatives and Nepal government programs? (Probe: presence of similar interventions in the region, how has the program added value without duplicating the efforts of similar interventions) • Have there been any interventions in the past that have contributed to achieving the outcomes52? • What is your take on the anticipated outreach of the programme? Do you feel that the intervention will adequately be able to reach out to the intended beneficiaries? With respect to reaching out to the beneficiaries, are there any gaps that need to be urgently addressed? (Probe: Demographic, geographic and gender outreach of the program; Gaps in the target outreach; suggestions for increasing outreach) • What do you think the contribution of the intervention on the equity strategies for school sector developed by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology? • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? What is your view on the Program design? • How the SMP has been reflected in the new education sector development plan? • What are some of the areas that the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle should focus on to ensure sustainability (particularly following the completion of the program)? • What is your perception about the overall program design? [further probes: benefits to the intended beneficiaries; stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening (focus: education, nutrition, hygiene components, and management, national school meals programs and contextualize national policy to local need)] 3 Anticipated Challenges 2 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in Implementation of the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 4 COVID-19 and its effects 3 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? 52 Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates; improved dietary diversity; improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students; improved learning and teaching environment; strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments; strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably; improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition; food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities; and strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 197 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure. 5 Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 4 How is MOEST/CEHRD managing school level community (complaints) and feedbacks mechanism? • What mechanisms are set up by MoEST/CEHRD? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s community feedback mechanism? 6 Suggestions 5 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • This is the last cycle of the USDA, McDole programme, after this cycle, the program will be handed over to government, what process should be followed for this and what would be the role for WFP and its implementing partners for successful transition? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 6 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 198 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with Provincial Level Government Officials Name: ………………………………………… Position: ……………………………………… Institution: …………………………………… Province: …………………………………….. District: ……………………………………… Municipality: ………………………………… Ward/ Old VDC name: ……………………… Location: …………………………….............. Date: ……………………………… Start time: ………………………… End time: ………………………..... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in your Province? • What is your view on attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions? (in addition, focus on barriers and facilitators in relation to attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions). How does the situation of primary education differ from another Province? Does the situation of primary education vary in terms of districts in the Province? Please elaborate. • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] • Do you think the structural changes will influence the execution of the project? Please elaborate. • have effects on the project? What do you think will be the effects? 2. Program 2 Are you aware of the USDA McGD FFECN program? If no, have you heard about WFP’s school meals program (Vishwo Khadya Karyakram, litho pitho karyakram)? • What is your understanding on the Government of Nepal’s School Meal Programme? It will also be helpful if you could share your perspective on the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN programme? Do you feel that there is a need for intervention such as McGovern Dole FFECN? Do you think the intervention supports the already existing initiative on SMP? [Probe points: What are individual features? What are the synergies and linkages between them? What are the mechanisms of provision of school meals? How are the provisions linked?] • To what extent does the programme complement other donor-funded initiatives and Nepal government programs? (Probe: presence of similar interventions in the region, how has the program added value without duplicating the efforts of similar interventions) • What is your take on the anticipated outreach of the programme? Do you feel that the intervention will adequately 199 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions be able to reach out to the intended beneficiaries? With respect to reaching out to the beneficiaries, are there any gaps that need to be urgently addressed? (Probe: Demographic, geographic and gender outreach of the program; Gaps in the target outreach; suggestions for increasing outreach) • What do you think the contribution of the intervention on the equity strategies for school sector developed by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology? • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? 3. Anticipated Challenges 3 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in execution of the program (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/ religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 4. COVID-19 and its effects 4 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID￾19 pandemic? • What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] 5. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 5 How is Provincial office managing school level community (complaints) and feedback mechanism? • What mechanisms are set up by Provincial office, if any? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s community feedback mechanism? • How would you like to collaborate for establishing joint community feedback mechanism to support smooth execution of this programme? 6. Suggestions 6 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 7 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 200 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with EDCU Officials Name: ……………………………………………… Position: …………………………………………… Institution: …………………………………………. Province: ………………………..…………………. District: ……………………………………………. Municipality: ………………………………………. Ward/Old VDC name: ……………………………. Location: …………………………………………… Date: ……………………………..…… Start time: …………………….………… End time: ……………………………... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in Karnali and Sudur Paschim Provinces? • We would like to understand your perspective on the status of primary education at the national level. Is the situation different for Karnali and Sudhur Paschim Province? How? What are the key problems in education standards in this region? [Probe points: General overview of attendance and enrolment in schools; How is it varied across gender?] • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] 2 What is your understanding of the structural changes brought about by the SMP? • How do you think has the situation changed over the last three years? Why do you feel there has been a change and what has led to it? GoN has scaled up the NSMP in 71 districts of Nepal. Has the introduction of NSMP (cash based) affected the enrollment, attendance and dropout and repetition rates? How the USDA McDole FFECN program has contributed? 3 What is your understanding of the program and its activities? • What is your understanding on the Government of Nepal’s School Meal Programme? It will also be helpful if you could share your perspective on the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN programme? Do you feel that there is a need for intervention such as McGovern Dole FFECN? Do you think the intervention supports the already existing initiative on SMP? [Probe points: What are individual features? What are the synergies and linkages between them? What are the mechanisms of provision of school meals? How are the provisions linked?] • To what extent does the programme complement other donor￾funded initiatives and Nepal government programs? (Probe: presence of similar interventions in the region, how has the 201 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions program added value without duplicating the efforts of similar interventions) • Have there been any interventions in the past that have contributed to achieving the outcomes53? • What is your take on the anticipated outreach of the programme? Do you feel that the intervention will adequately be able to reach out to the intended beneficiaries? With respect to reaching out to the beneficiaries, are there any gaps that need to be urgently addressed? (Probe: Demographic, geographic and gender outreach of the program; Gaps in the target outreach; suggestions for increasing outreach) • What do you think the contribution of the intervention on the equity strategies for school sector developed by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology? • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? 4 What is your view on the Program design? • How the SMP has been reflected in the new education sector development plan? • What are some of the areas that the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle should focus on to ensure sustainability (particularly following the completion of the program)? • What is your perception about the overall program design? [further probes: benefits to the intended beneficiaries; stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening (focus: education, nutrition, hygiene components, and management, national school meals programs and contextualize national policy to local need)] 2. Anticipated Challenges 8 3 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in Implementation of the USDA McGovern Dole FFECN FY20 program cycle (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 3. COVID-19 and its effects 9 4 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] 53 Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates; improved dietary diversity; improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students; improved learning and teaching environment; strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments; strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably; improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition; food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities; and strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 202 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure 4. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 10 5 How is MOEST/CEHRD managing school level community (complaints) and feedbacks mechanism? • What mechanisms are set up by MoEST/CEHRD? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s community feedback mechanism? 5. Suggestions 11 6 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • This is the last cycle of the USDA, McDole programme, after this cycle, the program will be handed over to government, what process should be followed for this and what would be the role for WFP and its implementing partners for successful transition? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 12 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. In the past that has contributed to the outcome or in your opinion what other factors /programs have contributed to the program outcome? Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates. Improved dietary diversity. Improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students. Improved learning and teaching environment. Strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments. Strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably. Improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition. Food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities. Strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 203 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with Municipality Officials Name: …………………………………………… Position: ………………………………………… Institution: ……………………………………… Province: ……………………………………….. District: ………………………………………… Municipality: …………………………………… Type of Municipality: New, continuing Ward/ Old VDC name: ………………………… Location: ………………………………………. Date: …………………….………… Start time: ……………….………… End time: …………………………... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in your Municipality? • What is your view on attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions situation in your municipality? (in addition, focus on barriers and facilitators in relation to attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions), We need to probe for general barriers at the municipality as well as specific barriers by gender, caste/ethnicity, different socio economic groups. • What are your views on attendance and enrollment from GESI perspective? [follow up questions: What is the ratio of boys and girls on enrollment, attendance and dropout trends? If negative, how can the situation be improved? [How is the trend on enrollment, attendance and dropout from diverse caste and ethnicity (Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis etc.) perspectives? If negative, how can the situation be improved?] • In your opinion, what do you about the participation of school age children in education system by different social and economic groups of your municipality? Is it the same among the marginalized caste/ethnic groups? • Does your municipality have local education plan? If yes, how and when was it developed? Can you please elaborate some of the priorities of the education plan. If education plan is not developed, probe for reasons. • What is the mother tongue used by majority in this municipality? • Do you think that different mother tongue will affect the learning of early grade children? Is there any mechanism to support the children in school with different mother tongues? • What is your perception about school infrastructure (WASH facilities including girl’s separate toilets, disabled friendliness, classrooms, playfields, school buildings in general etc.)? 204 2. Program 2 Are you aware of the USDA McGD FFECN program implemented by WFP and its implementing partners? If no, have you heard about WFP’s school meals program (Vishwo Khadya Karyakram, litho pitho karyakram)? • If yes, what are some of the program activities? Do you think the activities are beneficial to the students and community in general, if yes how (further investigate: Mid- day meal, school health and nutrition/WaSH, early grade reading activities)? • How relevant do you think is the program particularly in terms of alignment with the government’s policies/ initiatives (education policy, school meal implementation guideline, school health and nutrition strategy)? [follow up probes: midday meal, EGR, SHN/WASH, nutrition among others]. • Have there been any interventions in the past that have contributed to achieving the outcomes54? • What is your opinion that the program builds on the need of the community? • What is your opinion about the inclusion and coverage of programme in terms of gender, caste/ethnicity and different socio￾economic groups? • Were you engaged in designing process of the program with implementing agencies (WE, IDS)? What were some of your roles? • What is the existing practice for regular coordination for planning, monitoring and feedback of the program activities. • What should be done to have better collaboration with the WFP and its local partners during implementation stage? • Do you think the program has contributed to learning during design, implementation and monitoring of the programme through WFP and its partners? Do you expect your capacities enhanced due to the program? How? What are some of the key areas that should be taken into account while building Municipality officials’ capacity? • What is your opinion about the ownership of the program among different stakeholders? How do you think the ownership program will be ensured? • What will be the role of local government for effective implementation of the programme? • What are the key enablers and barriers for the sustainability of the program? • What will be the role of local government for the sustainability of the program? • How do you think the changed structure (shift to federalism) will value add for effective implementation of the program? • Have your municipality received any other interventions from others including the government other than the WFP? If yes, how these interventions contributed to the outcomes? 3. Anticipated Challenges 3 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in execution of the program (ownership, coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio￾cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security, of the staff, sustainability, COVID and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 54 Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates; improved dietary diversity; improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students; improved learning and teaching environment; strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments; strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably; improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition; food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities; and strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 205 4. COVID-19 and its effects 4 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What do you think are some of the effects of COVID-19 on the education of children in your municipality? • What activities were done by the municipality to overcome the challenges in education of school age children posed by the COVID.in the municipality? • Due to school closure, the students were deceived of school health and nutrition activities provided through school, (e.g. awareness on personal hygiene and sanitation, menstural hygiene, deworming, IFA), what do you think are some of its effects. Was there any activity initiated by local government to supplement these activities during school closure? • Due to school closure, the students were deceived of hot cooked meals provided through school, though take home rations were provided. What do you think about some of its effect? Was there any activity initiated by local government to complement? • What are other effects of COVID-19?: (Other probes: i) school closure on children; ii) economic effects on households; iii)changes in household employment patterns: and iv) health and nutrition status) • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure • What do you think are some of the anticipated effects of pandemic on the program? • What can be done at the municipal level to tackle the challenges that may surface due to COVID pandemic. 5. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 5 How is Municipal office managing school level community (complaints) and feedback mechanism? • Are you aware of national complaint and feedback guideline (u'gf;f] ;'GjfO{ sfo{ljlw_. • How is its implementation status at your municipality? • What mechanisms are set up by Municipal office, if any? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s complaint and feedback mechanism (Namaste WFP)? • How would you like to collaborate for establishing joint community feedback mechanism to support smooth execution of this programme? 6. Additional Questions 6 a 6 b Does your municipality recognize and reward teachers? Has your municipality developed contextualized instruction materials? • If yes to 6 a, could you please elaborate on the process? • what do you think are the effects of students’ reading outcomes achievements? • If yes to 6 b, could you please elaborate on the process? How it is done? Who is engaged in the process? 206 7. Suggestions 7. Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • This is the last cycle of the USDA, McDole programme, after this cycle, the program will be handed over to government, how can this be done successfully? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 13 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. Have your school or municipality or district received any other interventions from others including government besides WFP and its partners that might have contributed to the outcome of interest? If yes how have they contributed. 207 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with SMC Members Name: ………………………………………….. Position: ………………………………………… Institution: ……………………………………… Province: ………………………………………. District: ………………………………………… Municipality: …………………………………… Ward/ Old VDC name: ………………………… Location: ……………………………….............. Date: ………………………………… Start time: ………………….………… End time: ……………………………... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in the school that you represent? • We would like to understand your perspective on the status of primary education at the national level. Is the situation different for Karnali and Sudhur Paschim Province? How? What are the key problems in education standards in this region? [Probe points: General overview of attendance and enrolment in schools; How is it varied across gender?] • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] 2. Program Design 2 Are you aware of the USDA McGD FFECN program? If no, have you heard about WFP’s school meals program (Vishwo Khadya Karyakram, litho pitho karyakram)? • Are you aware about the complementary activities of the school meal programme (school health and nutrition or WASH, Early Grade Reading). If yes, what do you think are some of the benefits of the programme? (Improvements in terms of menstrual hygiene awareness and separate toilets for girls and boys) • What is your opinion about the contribution of school meals program including different complementary activities in improving the enrollment, attendance, retention, literacy performance of the students, improving health and hygiene practices, etc.? Have you seen any gaps? How can it be further strengthened? • Are you engaged in monitoring of the school meals program including the complementary activities? If yes, please elaborate. If no, please specify the reasons. • What are some of the benefits on WASH activity? (further probes: handwashing practices, clean toilets, availability of disposable bins, washing and drying station and any other) 208 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • What is your perception about the ownership of the program by local community? How do you think the sense of ownership be built among different local stakeholder including your committee of the program? • What is your opinion about the sustainability of the program? How do you think the sustainability (focus on human and financial resources following completion of the program) of the program can be ensured? • Is your school receiving any support from local government? If yes, can you please elaborate? What kind of further support do you expect from local government? • What do you think are the factors that will motivate the GON (particularly at local level) to implement the program effectively)? 3. Program activities 3 Could you please tell us about activities associated with the USDA McGD FFECN program? • Are you aware of some of the key related program activities to be carried out? • How do you think the community members will support to the program activities? • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects of program in terms of gender equality and women’s empowerment (equal and meaningful participation of women in implementing the School Feeding program,) impact on the performance of girls, menstrual hygiene awareness and separate and toilets for girls and boys and children with disabilities) • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? (caste/ethnicity and economic status) • Have your municipality received any other interventions from others including the government other than the WFP? If yes, how these interventions contributed to the outcomes? 4. Anticipated Challenges 4 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in execution of the program (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 5. COVID-19 and its effects 5 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure) • What will be role of SMC to tackle challenges that may surface to pandemic? 209 6. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 6 How is the SMC managing school complaints and feedback mechanism? • Are you aware of national complaint and feedback guideline? • How is its implementation status at your municipality? • What mechanisms are set up by Municipal office, if any? Are they active? • How are the complaints and feedbacks managed? • Are you aware of WFP’s complaint and feedback mechanism (Namaste WFP)? • How would you like to collaborate for establishing joint community feedback mechanism to support smooth execution of the project? 7. Suggestions 7 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 14 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 210 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with Program Implementers Name: …………………………………………… Position: ………………………………………… Institution: ………………………………………. Province: ………………………………………… District: ………………………………………….. Municipality: ……………………………………. Ward/ Old VDC name: …………………………. Location: ………………………………………... Date: ………………………………… Start time: …………………………… End time: …………………….……... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in your project location? • What is your view on attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions in the project location? (in addition, focus on barriers and facilitators in relation to attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions) • Do the boys and girls both attend school? If no, why do you think it is not the case? • How does the local community perceive sending girls to schools? Do they feel it is necessary for girls to go to school? • What is your perspective on the type of infrastructure present in the basic grade schools in Karnali and Sudhur Paschim? Do you feel that the infrastructure provided to schools is adequate or needs to be improved? If so, what are the gaps that you feel are there? [Probe points: What are the sanitation measures (WASH) being provided and if those are sufficient?] 2. Program Design 2 Could you tell us about the USDA McGD FFECN program? • Do you think the USDA McGD FFECN program supports the already existing government’s national school meal program? • Do you think effective partnership between WFP and GoN will be built during the course of implementation? Any anticipated challenges working with the GoN? • What activities are carried out by WFP and other project implementers? Do the activities compliment and cohere (further investivation: duplication) • What is your perception about the overall program design? [further probes: benefits to the intended beneficiaries; stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening (focus: education, nutrition, hygiene components, and management, national school meals programs and contextualize national policy to local need)] • What will be the anticipated effects in changes of governance structure on each project component? (further investigation: policy 211 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions level changes and implications, response of stakeholders/beneficiaries towards these changes, capacity of government institutions, policy framework, government support etc.) 3. Program activities 3 Could you please tell us about activities associated with the USDA McGD FFECN program? • What are some of the activities do you think will work well? • Are the activities consistent/in-line with the needs of the beneficiaries in the project location? Those not in-line, how do you think they can be improved? (further investigate: school meal, SHN/WASH, school infrastructure, early grade reading program etc.) • Have there been any interventions in the past that have contributed to achieving the outcomes55? • In your opinion, do the activities address gender specific objectives (further investigate: equal participation by women in implementation of the School Feeding programme, improvements in enrolment and attendance rate for girls, impact on the performance of girls, improvements in terms of girl friendly learning spaces, menstrual hygiene awareness and separate toilets for girls and boys) 4 What is opinion towards various project components? Only for WE & OLE: • Do you think the project will have effects on the teaching quality and improved engagement of the teachers? [Further investigate: training to teachers, teaching methods, participation, effect on motivation of teachers, achievement of the planned literacy outputs and outcomes (targets), achievement of output and outcome targets?] Only for IDS: • How do you feel about the effects of the project on the SHN/WASH habits and practices of school going children in the community? (Availability of toilets and water connection at schools, use of toilets at schools, practicing hand wash, increase in female student enrolment in classes 6-8, reduced absenteeism due to medical reasons) • What are some of the direct and indirect impact of the project on the local community? [community perception/receptivity, more footfall in schools, change in mindsets of community towards education especially in case of girls, voluntary community involvement and responsibility in the program through SMCs FMCs and PTAs.) • What is your perception about the overall program design? [further probes: benefits to the intended beneficiaries; stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening (focus: education, nutrition, hygiene components, and management, national school meals programs and contextualize national policy to local need)] For Mercy Corps • What are some of the strategies included in the design that deal with the transition of kind-based to home-grown school feeding? [further probes: what has been done so far and what remains? What are 55 Increased enrollment and reduced dropout rates; improved dietary diversity; improved healthy knowledge, attitudes and behaviors among the students; improved learning and teaching environment; strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels of governments; strengthened capacity of local government and schools to procure foods independently and sustainably; improved diversification of menu diversified for improved nutrition; food safety promoted and improved understanding of handling, preparation, and storage of commodities; and strengthened capacity of local and provincial levels to tackle the challenges associated with shift to federalism. 212 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions some of the anticipated barriers and facilitators in relation to the transition (focus on policy and institutional barriers? How can the barriers be tackled? What factors will be most significant for successful implementation of the HGSF?) 4. Anticipated Challenges 5 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in execution of the program (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 5. COVID-19 and its effects 6 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the community in the intervention regions? How has the pandemic affected the education status in the region? Who (students, or school staff) are the worst affected by the pandemic? How has the pandemic affected students’ learning and development? Are there policy initiatives to encourage alternative learning arrangements? [Probe: impact of School closure on children, Economic impact on households; changes in household employment patterns] • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure 6. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 7 What are some of the complaints and feedback mechanisms that are established by the program? • How are the complaints and feedback managed? • How effective do you think is WFP’s community feedback mechanism? How will it be used to ensure effective implementation? 7. Suggestions 8 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 15 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 213 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) KII with WFP Officials Name: …………………………………………. Position: ……………………………………… Institution: ……………………………………… Province: ………………………………………. District: ………………………………………… Municipality: …………………………………… Ward/ Old VDC name: ………………………… Location: ………………………………............. Date: ………………………………… Start time: …………………………… End time: ……………….…………... Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. General Perception about overall status of education 1 Could you please shed some lights on the overall situation of primary education in Karnali and Sudur Paschim Provinces? • What is your view on attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions? (in addition, focus on barriers and facilitators in relation to attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions) • What are your views on attendance and enrollment from GESI perspective? [follow up questions: What is the ratio of boys and girls on enrollment, attendance and dropout trends? If negative, how can the situation be improved? How is the trend on enrollment, attendance and dropout from diverse caste and ethnicity (Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis etc.)] perspectives? If negative, how can it be improved?] • What is the economic status of diverse group of children from caste/ethnicity perspective attending schools? Is it the same among the marginalized caste/ethnic groups? • What is your perception about school infrastructure (WASH facilities including girl’s separate toilets, disabled friendliness, classrooms, playfields, school buildings in general etc.)? • What are some of the benefits of mid-day meal? (focus on its anticipated effects on education (enrollment, attentiveness, regularity, health, sanitation and nutritional benefits) • What is your perception towards student performance and literacy? 2. Program Design 2 Could you tell us about the USDA McGD FFECN program? • Who were involved in designing the program (intended beneficiaries, government officials, community leaders and any other) [to understand the level of consultations in development process] 214 • In terms of relevance, do the program’s goals and objectives align with the government’s policies/initiatives? (focus on midday meal, food and cash transfer modality, GESI, WASH, nutrition among others)] • Does the program include robust strategies in relation to stakeholders’ coordination, collaboration and engagement; monitoring and evaluation; and capacity strengthening of the PNGOs? If yes, could you please elaborate? • Are there clear strategies included in the design that ensure ownership and sustainability? What are those strategies, please elaborate? • What is the motivation to implement the program within the GON at different levels? • Are there clear strategies to tackle the challenges associated to changed structure (shift to federalism)? • How do you think the challenges associated with changed structure (shift to federalism) be better tackled for effective implementation of the program? • Are there any clear strategies in the design to tackle the challenges that may surface due to COVID pandemic? 3. Program activities 3 Could you please tell us about activities associated with the USDA McGD FFECN program? • What are some of the key related activities to be carried out and modalities that will be adopted as a part of the execution? (take into account the changed structure; barriers and facilitators in executing activities; and tackling barriers) • How do you think will the community members respond to the program activities? (anticipated responses) • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects of program in terms of gender equality and women’s empowerment (equal and meaningful participation of women in implementing the School Feeding program, prevention and mitigation of any forms of protection risks against women and girls, etc) impact on the performance of girls, improvements in terms of girl friendly learning spaces, menstrual hygiene awareness and separate and disabled friendly toilets for girls and boys and children with disabilities) • What do you think are some of the key anticipated effects on other aspects of inclusion with regards to programme impacts on diverse caste and ethnicity particularly on marginalized Dalits, Janajati and children from poor economic status? (caste/ethnicity and economic status) • What do you think are anticipated effects on WASH? (further probes: handwashing practices, clean toilets, separate toilets for girls and boys, clean drinking water facilities, availability of disposable bins, its use and management particularly by girls students and any other) • What are the effects of programme on menstrual health and hygiene? • [Focus on small holders] What is your Opinion towards anticipated changes due to improved management farming practices? [improved farming techniques- tricho-composting and micro￾irrigation technology for nutritious, locally suitable crops (vegetables, fruits, cereals, legumes and pulses), Use of climate￾resilient improved varieties/adopted traditional improved varieties and micronutrients in the soil, linkages to input suppliers etc.] • Do you anticipate any change in mindset (all the activities) of the community members due to the program? 215 • What are some of the strategies included in the design that deal with the transition of kind-based to home-grown school feeding? [further probes: what has been done so far and what remains? What are some of the anticipated barriers and facilitators in relation to the transition (focus on policy and institutional barriers? How can the barriers be tackled? What factors will be most significant for successful implementation of the HGSF?) 4. Anticipated Challenges 4 What are some of the potential challenges do you anticipate in execution of the program (coordination among various stakeholders, community challenges, socio-cultural/religious barriers, terrain, school infrastructure, safety and security of the staff and any other) What are the ways to tackle the barriers, if any? 5. COVID-19 and its effects 5 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What do you think are some of the effects of COVID-19 on the community in the district? (effects on students, teachers, head teachers, parents, cook and storekeeper) • What are other effects of COVID-19?: (Other probes: i) school closure on children; ii) economic effects on households; iii)changes in household employment patterns: and iv) health and nutrition status) • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest?(Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure • What do you think are some of the anticipated effects of the pandemic on the program? 6. Complaints and Feedback Mechanism 6 What are some of the complaints and feedback mechanisms that are established by the program? • How are the complaints and feedback managed? • How effective do you think is WFP’s community feedback mechanism? How will it be used to ensure effective implementation of the program? 7. Suggestions 7 Do you have any suggestions in relation to the program? • Are there any suggestions you would want to provide for smooth execution of the program? 16 Any questions before concluding the interview Thank you for your time. 216 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) FGD with Parents/Guardians/Community Members Province: ………………………………………… District: ………………………………………….. Municipality/ ward: ……………………………… Old VDC name: …………………………………. Location: ………………………………………… Date: …………………………………. Start time: ……………………………. End time: …………………………….. Participants’ Characteristics Table S.N. Gender Age Education Family type (Nuclear/Joint) Caste/ Ethnicity Disability status (if any) Yes/No Questions Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1. In your opinion, what is the situation of primary education in the location? • What is your view on attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions in the location? (in addition, focus on barriers and facilitators in relation to attendance, enrollment, dropouts and repetitions) • What are your views on attendance and enrollment from GESI perspective? If negative, how can the situation be improved? [How is the trend on enrollment, attendance and dropout from diverse caste and ethnicity (Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, etc.) perspectives? If negative, how can the situation be improved?] • Do you think education is important? [further investigate: better opportunities, compete in the labor market, gain socio-emotional and life skills necessary to navigate and adapt to a changing world, make decisions on important matters, contribution to the communities etc.? 2. What do you think are some of the facilitators and barriers education? probe further to explore if there are differences in facilitators and barriers for boys, girls, different ethnic groups and socio-economic status. Topics to be covered: • Financial reasons, household chores, parents and community’s attitudes, menstruation and menstrual hygiene and traditional practices. 3a. Financial reasons Are the following some of the key financial barriers? 217 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • Cost of transportation, textbooks and uniforms • Reliance on girl’s income to support the household • Girls spending less time to support the household chores (including care for younger siblings) if enrolled in school 3b Household chores • How common is it in the community that girls get engaged in household chores (probe cleaning home, cleaning dishes, looking after younger siblings, looking after livestock, fetching firewood and water and any other)? • Do you think the girls’ engagement in household chores affect their education? Do they remain out of school due to household chores? • Do the parents in the community put pressure on the girls to engage in household chores? What do you feel about it? 3c Parents and community members’ attitudes • How willing are you or other community members in sending girls to the school? Why? • How reluctant are you or other community members in sending girls to the school? Why? • Are you or other community members less interested in investing in girls’ education as compared to boys? If yes, any examples? 3d. Menstruation and menstrual hygiene • Are there any stigmas attached to menstruation in the community? If yes can you, please elaborate (e.g. girls during menstruation should not: take bath, go to school, cook, touch plants, enter temple and any other) • Have your daughter/s or any other girls in the community been missing classes due to periods? If yes why? (Probe: lack of pad, no place in the school to change pad, no place to dispose and any other) • Have you heard of any form of harassment that your daughter/s face at school due to the blood stain in the clothes caused by the periods? • What do you understand by menstrual hygiene? What are some of the consequences of poor menstrual hygiene? • What types of reusable cloths (if no use of sanitary pads) are commonly used by your daughter/s? How do they clean, dry and store? • Are sanitary pads easily available in the school? How do your daughter/s access the sanitary pads from your school? Are there any focal teachers specifically focusing on menstrual hygiene? • Is there a separate toilet for girls to change their sanitary pad? • Are disposable bins available dispose the sanitary pads in the community? 3e Traditional practices (Chaupadi and other such practices) • Have the practices such as Chaupadi impacted your daughter/s’ (or other girls in the community) education? If yes, how? • Are there other (other than Chaupadi) such practices in your community that have hindered girls’ education? If yes, how? 4 Are you aware of the USDA McGD FFECN program? If no, have you heard about WFP’s school meals program (Vishwo Khadya Karyakram, litho pitho karyakram)? • If yes, are you aware about its different components? what do you think are some of the benefits of the programme for the children, parents and community? menstrual hygiene awareness and separate toilets for girls and boys) • What are some of the benefits on SHN/WASH activity? (further probes: handwashing practices, clean toilets, availability of disposable bins, washing and drying station and any other). • What are some of the benefits of EGR program (instruction to interviewers: implemented only in three districts) 218 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 5 What is your opinion towards girls’ personal hygiene? • Do your daughter/s or girls in the community share their problems with respect to menstrual hygiene? If yes, how do you respond? • Have there been any positive changes in girls’ behavior lately in relation to menstrual hygiene? If yes, could you please provide some examples? If yes, what factors are responsible for the positive changes? 6 Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What have been some of the effects of COVID-19 on the education of your child or the children in your community? • Were the children from your community able to access any forms of alternative learning practices during school closure. Can you please elaborate • What are some of the other effects of COVID-19?: i) school closure on children; ii) economic effects on households; iii) changes in household employment patterns: and iv) health and nutrition status. • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure. 7 How do you think as a community member you can contribute to the project (ownership and sustainability)? • Do you think the community will own the project? Are you willing to contribute to the successful implementation of the project? If yes, how would you like to contribute? • Will you still be involved in the project following the completion of the project (only activities that are intended to continue)? How would you like to involve yourself? 8 Anything else to add! Thank you for your time. 219 Baseline Study-USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FY20) FGD with Adolescent Girls (Class 6-8) Province: ……………………………………… District: ……………………………………….. Municipality/ ward: …………………………… Old VDC name: ………………………………. Location: ……………………………………… Date: ………………………………… Start time: …………………………… End time: ……………………………. Participants’ Characteristics Table S.N. Name Age (in completed years) Grade Family type (Nuclear/Joint) Caste/ Ethnicity Disability Status (If any) Yes/No Questions Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions 1 What is your opinion towards mid￾day meal or school health and nutrition activities? • Are you aware about the school meals program or school health and nutrition activities? Are you aware about its different components like SHN, mid-day meal, EGR? If yes, what do you think are some of the benefits of SHN, midday meal and EGR (PROBE individually)? • Have there been any effects in your attitude/behavior due to the SHN, mid-day meal, EGR? If yes, any examples. • Who generally prepares/cooks the mid-day meal? Are girls and boys provided with equal portion of meal? 2 What do you think are some of the barriers to girls’ education? Topics to be covered • Financial barriers, household chores, parents’ attitudes, traditional practices and menstrual hygiene 2a. What are some of the financial barriers? Are the following some of the key financial barriers? • Cost of transportation, textbooks and uniforms • Reliance on girl’s income to support the household 2b. How do you perceive your roles/ responsibilities in carrying out household chores? • What are some of the household chores that you are engaged in? (probe cleaning home, cleaning dishes, looking after younger siblings, looking after livestock, fetching firewood and water etc.). • Does your engagement in household chores affect your education? Do you remain out of school due to household chores? 220 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • Do your parents put pressure on you to engage in household chores? If yes, how do you feel about it? 2c. How do your parents feel about your education? • How willing are your parents in sending you to the school? • How reluctant are your parents in sending you to the school? • Are the parents in the community less interested in investing in daughter’s education as compared to sons? If yes, why? If yes, any examples? 2d. Are the traditional practices a barrier to education? • Have the traditional practices such as Chaupadi impacted your education? If yes, how? • Do you know of any other (other than Chaupadi) such practices in your community that have hindered your education? If yes, how? 2e. What is your opinion on menstruation and menstrual hygiene? • What do you understand by menstruation? (probe for age at which most girls usually get their first period, duration of normal menstruation days, interval between two menstrual cycles and any other) • Are there any stigmas attached to menstruation in the community? If yes can you, please elaborate (eg. girls during menstruation should not: take bath, go to school, cook, touch plants, enter temple and any other) • Have you or anyone you know of face harassment in the school due to the blood stain in the clothes caused by the periods? • Are you missing classes due to periods or do you know anyone who are missing classes for the same reason? If yes, can you please elaborate why did you or someone you know missed the classes during menstruation (eg, lack of pad, no place in school to change pad, no place to dispose pad, I feel sick during menstruation) • What type of reusable/cloths, use and throw napkins do you or your friends commonly use? What do you or other girls at school/community understand by menstrual hygiene? What are the consequences of poor menstrual hygiene? • How frequently you change the pad? If you are using reusable/cloth napkins (non-sanitary pads), how do you clean, dry and store? • Are sanitary pads available in the school? How do you access the sanitary pads from your school? Do you feel comfortable going and asking for the sanitary pads at the school? Are there any focal teachers specifically focusing on menstruation hygiene? Are you able to get sufficient pads required at school and at home? If not, why? If yes, how many is provided? • Is there a separate toilet for girls to change their sanitary pad? • Is disposable bin available dispose the sanitary pads in the school toilet? 3. What is your opinion toward personal hygiene at your school? • Is there anyone at your school who impart the knowledge about personal hygiene at your school. What is the topic discussed? 221 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • Is there anyone at school stationed who would hear to your problems in relation to menstrual hygiene? • Does your health and population teacher impart knowledge and discuss about menstruation and menstrual hygiene? If yes, please elaborate, what are the topics discussed? How frequently it is done? • Have there been any effects in your attitude/behavior due to the knowledge imparted by health and population teacher? If yes, any examples. 4. What is your opinion towards School sanitation? • Does your health and population teacher impart knowledge and discuss about school sanitation? How frequently it is done? • Have there been any effects in your behavior/attitude due to the knowledge that is imparted by health and population teacher? If yes, any examples. 5. First Aid Kit • What you normally do when you feel sick at school? (Probe; headache, fever, vomiting, cut injury) • Is there first aid kit/service in your school? • Have you ever used? 6. Iron folic acid tablet (iron chakki) • Have you heard about iron folic acid tablet (iron chakki) If no, move to the next question. • How often is the iron folic acid (iron chakki) distributed at your school? • Who distributes the iron folic acid (iron chakki) in your school? (health and population teacher, Female Community Health Volunteers etc.) • In the past year, how many times IFA was distributed in your school? If it was not distributed biannually, have you taken IFA? If it was not distributed biannually, did you receive it through nearest health facility or FCHVs? 7. Deworming tablets • Have you heard about deworming tablets? If no, move to the next question • How often are the deworming tablets distributed at your school? • Who distributes deworming tablets in your school? (Health and population teacher, Female Community Health Volunteers etc.) • In the past year, how many times deworming tablets were distributed in your school? If it was not distributed biannually, did you receive it through nearest health facility or FCHVs? 8. Are you aware of the USDA McGD FFECN program? If no, have you heard about WFP’s school meals program (Vishwo Khadya Karyakram, litho pitho karyakram)? • If yes, what do you think are some of the benefits of the programme? (improvements in terms of girl friendly learning spaces, menstrual hygiene awareness and separate toilets for girls and boys) • What are some of the benefits on WASH activity? (Further probes: handwashing practices, clean toilets, availability of disposable bins, washing and drying station and any other). 9. Could you please tell us about effects of the COVID-19 pandemic? • What have been some of the effects of COVID-19 on your studies? • How have you been managing your studies? (Alternate way of learning medium) 222 Q.N. Main Question Probe Questions • What are some of the other effects of COVID-19?: i) access to classroom teaching or alternative education (like radio/television, online classes; change in their household responsibilities during school closure ii) economic effects on households; iii) changes in household employment patterns; iv) increased workloads on women and girls in particular; and (v) health and nutrition status. • How has the Covid and covid related school closure affected the outcome of interest? (Literacy achievement and health and nutrition status of school aged children ) Probe: further learning loss due to Covid related school closure 10. Could you tell us your preferred channels to communicate/receive information on WFP current/ future project (s)? • How do you communicate with your friends? • Are you engaged in child club? If yes, what kind of activities are performed by child club? Is there is a equal participation of girls and boys in the activities conducted by child club? • What can be the barriers for the girls to have equal participation in the child club? • Are there female members in the leadership position? • Whom do you share your complaints/queries in relation to school activities? How do you share the complaints and queries? • What are the barriers to voice out your queries or provide feedbacks? Anything else to add! Thank you for your time. 223 Organizational Performance Index (OPI) Tool Introduction: Organizational Performance Index (OPI) tool will be administered at the municipality level (at least two municipalities per district totaling twelve municipalities). The overarching goal of the OPI is to establish baseline values through which the change in organizational performance will be measured. It is largely intended to measure performance rather than capacity per se and takes into account the performance holistically, tracking the performance of the organization across multiple areas of work, both in terms of more immediate aspects of effectiveness and efficiency, and longer-term aspects of relevance and sustainability56. Approach: The municipality officials will be presented with the background and purpose of the OPI. In addition, being a crucial part of the OPI, the scoring process will be thoroughly discussed. The officials will be provided with ample time to discuss the themes and arrive at a consensus. The calculation of OPI will follow two steps: i) average score for each theme, and ii) overall average score. Organization Performance Index Scoring Sheet Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score Outcome level targets Number of policies, regulations, or administrativ e procedures on HGSF component in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e., analysis (review of existing policy/regulation/administrat ive procedure and/or proposal of new policy/regulations/administra tive procedures. (Maximum Score: 1) Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process which includes public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy/regulation/administra tive procedure. (Maximum Score: 2) Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for education). (Maximum Score: 3) Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval (legislation/decree) of new or revised policy/regulation/ administrative procedure by relevant authority] (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence List of documents collected (example of the documents Education plan, Day Meal Guidelines, Food Menu, any other SoPs) Meeting minutes/notes and attendance (Maximum Score: 2) Meeting minutes/note (Maximum Score 1.5) Approved policy/ regulation as approved by relevant authority (LG) (Maximum Score: 2) 56https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/opi_slides.pdf. 224 Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score (Maximum Score: 0.5) Review of the document and synthesizing the findings (Maximum Score: 0.5) Draft policy/guideline (either contextualized form of national school meals guideline or 2-3 pager guideline/document (Maximum Score: 1.5) Evidence such as meeting minutes/notes (Maximum Score: 2) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) National and international standards Develop food menu in local context The local government is building awareness of national and int’l standards and/or is in the process of developing internal standards that govern their programs and services. (Maximum Score: 1) The local government is taking clear steps towards achievement of local standards that govern their HGSF programs and services. (Maximum Score: 2) The local government has achieved and consistently strives to implement local food menu standards that govern their programs and services. (Maximum Score: 3) The local government consistently meets existing standards. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence School Meal management mechanisms or similar structure members participate in building understanding on standard food menu recommended in national guideline. Local Food menu developed. (Maximum Score:1) At least 50% of the schools are applying for a food menu developed by the LG and use it in daily practice. (Maximum Score:1.5) At least 75% of the schools are applying a food menu developed by the LG and use it in daily practice. (Maximum Score: 2) Meeting minutes of school meal management mechanisms or similar structure. (Maximum Score: 1) Evidence of orientation to LG on seasonal calendar for local vegetable production. (Maximum Score: 1) meeting minutes/notes, monitoring reports, etc. that the local government consistently strives to implement relevant standards. (Maximum Score: 1.5) Evidence such as meeting minutes/notes, monitoring visit, feedback from Schools. (Maximum Score: 2) 225 Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) Written operational guideline, SoPs, strategy and plan where applicable. The local government is developing a written SoPs or guideline that describes how HGSF programs and services will be delivered. (Maximum Score: 1) The School meal management mechanism has a draft SoPs, guideline or Education plan that includes School Meal Component. (Maximum Score: 2) The local government has final SOPs, guideline to be endorsed by Local Government (Maximum Score: 3) The local government has endorsed SOPs, guideline or integrate SoPs under Education plan. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Meeting minute of school meal management mechanism is in the process of developing SOP/Guidelines (procurement plan or supply chain guideline) (Maximum Score: 1) Copy of draft SOP available (Maximum Score: 2) Copy of final SOPs, available to be endorsed by Local Government (Maximum Score: 3) SOP endorsed by LG or integrated with Education Plan (Maximum Score: 4) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) Target population (Identify school’s students, local cooperatives and farmer groups) The local government is in the process of identifying and delineating a target population for its program and services. (Maximum Score: 1) The local government has clearly identified and delineated a target population for its programs and services and is collecting output data to track service delivery to the target population. (Maximum Score: 2) The local government has started to update target population annually. (Maximum Score: 3) The local government has updated data for target population maintained in spreadsheet. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Local government is in the process of identifying all the program schools of the catchment area. (Maximum Score: 0.5) Local government with support of project has identified the List of schools with student details, list of cooperatives and farmers Target population in Spreadsheet being updated (Maximum Score: 3) Updated target population in spreadsheet maintained by local government. (Maximum Score: 4) 226 Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score groups in their catchment area. (Maximum Score: 2) Local government is in the process of identifying the major stakeholders for the HGSF component. (Maximum Score: 0.5) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) Participatory planning and decision￾making process The local government is considering engaging in participatory planning and decision-making processes that involve their target population and other stakeholders. (Maximum Score: 1) The local government engages in participatory planning and decision￾making processes that involve their target population and other stakeholders. (Maximum Score: 2) The results of participatory planning and decision-making have been used to inform the design and implementation of programs and services. (Maximum Score: 3) The results of participatory planning and decision￾making processes are consistently used to inform the design and implementation of programs and services. Members of the target population are engaged in the delivery of programs and services. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Formation of school meal management mechanism or similar structure with the involvement of relevant stakeholders and target groups (SMC, head teacher, agriculture officer of LG, cooperatives/ farmers group, education committee members). Minutes /notes s from participatory planning meetings. (Maximum Score: 1) Joint decision made based on the participatory meeting (meeting includes Food menu development, SoPs finalization, seasonal calendar for vegetable production or any related with HGSF components) (Maximum Score: 3) An example of a Food menu planning, SOP developments and guideline preparation that incorporates the conclusions from participatory decisions/recommendations. (Maximum Score: 4) Attendance lists showing involvement of multi stakeholders. (Maximum Score: 1) 227 Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score (Maximum Score: 1) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information Successes and challenges analysis (functional School Meal Management Committees, Regular meetings) The local government include agenda in SMC meeting to discuss successes and challenges analysis. (Maximum Score: 1) The local government has designed the process for analyzing the successes and challenges arising from their program and services. (Maximum Score: 2) The local government has institutionalized a process for analyzing the successes and challenges arising from their programs and services (Maximum Score: 3) The local government uses its analyses to adapt the programs at local level if required. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Organization self identifies as Level 1. (Maximum Score: 1) Orient LG about use of School complaint handling mechanism or complaint/suggestion box at local level for collecting information or feedback (Maximum Score: 2) Minutes from meetings or similar proof where local governmental has discussed about issues, successes and challenges. (Maximum Score: 3) Revision of guideline/seasonal food calendar/SOPs if required. (Maximum Score: 4) Assign focal persons at LG to report any issues or complaints related to school meals programme/HGSF. (Maximum Score: 2) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) Networking and partnerships The local government/SMC is learning about the value of networking, and considering potential partnerships. (Maximum Score: 1) The local government participates in recognized local networks that are relevant to its programs and services. (Maximum Score: 2) The local government/SMC is in the process of developing partnership with farmers group/cooperative. (Maximum Score: 3) The local government has developed committed partnership with farmers group/cooperatives. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Organization self-identifies as Level 1. LG starts interaction with cooperatives. farmers Networking event (interaction of LG with MOU or letter of commitment between 228 Indicators Level 1 Score Level 2 Score Level 3 Score Level 4 Score (Maximum Score: 0.5) groups who have potential to join the SMC. (Maximum Score: 1) cooperatives/farmers group) held and minutes (Maximum Score: 1.5) municipality and cooperatives/farmers group. (Maximum Score: 4) Evidence of orientation to LG Minute/note where the discussion would be around networking and partnership. (Maximum Score: 0.5) LG members participates in different meetings organized. (Maximum Score: 1) Minute showing local government participating in agreement with HGSF supply chain actors (cooperatives/farmers group). (Maximum Score: 1.5) Qualitative details (why the response was selected and any additional information) For each indicator, there is only one possible response (level). The score from the evidence will be added and the total mentioned in the indicator score box. Levels of performance (for analysis purpose) Level 1: Extremely low Performance Level 2: Low Performance Level 3: Medium Performance Leve 4: High Performance 229 Annex 10: Methodology A. Study Design A cross sectional non-experimental design covering the programme areas without similar comparison areas was followed in the baseline. Temporal changes relative to the baseline could be measured in the mid-term and end-line. B. Study Approach The baseline survey was focused on examining the present circumstances of the activities proposed in this McGovern-Dole project cycle. The BLS had assessed the activities of the McGovern-Dole FY20 is coherent to government plans and priority program, and other programs implemented by development partners in those areas. It had further assessed the integration of other activities implemented by WFP with McGovern-Dole FY20. A mixed-method approach with both quantitative and qualitative components were used. The results were triangulated using a review of monitoring reports, on-site observation, and other available relevant reports. Quantitative and qualitative data collection tools and analysis methods were developed in line with the data requirements as spelled out in the PMP and was finalized in collaboration with WFP. National EGRA tool and other structured questionnaires were used as the quantitative tools. KIIs, Focus Group FGDs, secondary data review, and observation checklists including the classroom observation checklist developed by Education Review Office, Nepal Government were the major qualitative tools. OPI tool was used to assess the performance of LG in managing the home-grown school feeding programme. The data collection tools were GEWE sensitive and was help examine gender and equity aspects of the programme and aspects about different socio-economic status, castes/ethnicities, and disabled groups. The baseline survey had covered all six programme districts. C. Sampling The Sample size calculation was done using a five percent confidence interval, 50 percent prevalence rate, five percent margin of error, and 2297 population size (number of schools). This resulted in 330 schools as a sample. This was calculated using the following formula￾n = Nx/(N+x), where n = Required overall minimum sample size. N = Population size = 2297 schools. x = Sample size that would be required for infinite population, given by x = [(Z1-α/2)2× P(1-P)] /(ME)2]. α = Significance level, chosen as 0.05 for 95% confidence interval. Z = Z-score corresponding to the selected value of α. P = Prevalence proportion of key indicators in the population (conservative rate of 0.5 is assumed); and ME = Margin of error, taken to be 0.05 To address possible non-response, an additional 15 percent of schools ere sampled. A proportionate stratified random sampling method was used to select the required number of schools and school-level respondents from the six districts. The total number of schools from six program districts was used as a sampling frame. The number of schools per district was selected by probability proportional to the number of schools per district. Number of Total Schools and Sample Schools Per District 230 Districts Total Schools Required Sample Schools Doti 388 56 Jajarkot 403 58 Bajhang 446 64 Darchula 342 49 Achham 484 69 Bajura 234 34 Total 2,297 330 Stage I- Selection of school The required number of schools per district are selected by PPS taking the number of students from grade 1-5 as the size. Table 2 in the main body shows the distribution of these schools across the six districts. Stage II: Selection of students • EGR assessment: All students of grade three or a maximum of 20 students (10 boys and 10 girls) were selected randomly. • Students from other grades: Simple random sampling was done to select the required number of students by grade. D. Selection of Respondents Most of the participants like students, teachers, school administrators, cooks, and parents are selected from the sampled schools. Other participants particularly for KII, FGD, and OPI was selected mainly from 12 municipalities where qualitative data were collected. The matrix below shows the types of respondents, data collection techniques, and objective of data collection. 231 Critical Assumptions • The start-up of the project and its progression largely depend on how school re-opening post-COVID-19 occurs. The successful start-up and subsequent implementation of the project requires good control of COVID-19 and ability for human mobility • No severe natural calamities (drought/ flood/earthquake/landslide/fire) in the project area affecting the ability of farmers to complement the food basket as envisioned by the project and causing access blockages to the program area. • No pandemic crop disease affecting the ability of farmers to complement the food basket • Stable environment/ no political conflict affecting the mobility of the people • Continued support from the federal, provincial, and local government • Stable markets that won’t affect the ability to complement the US in-kind commodities Annex 11: Tables of Baseline Findings on Performance Indicators Activity 1 - Food Distribution Indicator 1: Number of school age children receiving school meal on all school days (SBCC Custom 7) Table I1: Percentage of school children receiving school meal on all school days Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 90 77.7 14.8 1.8 74.1 81.3 District Doti 7 71.3 16.2 5.9 59.7 82.9 Jajarkot 17 78.3 11.9 3.0 72.4 84.3 Bajhang 27 80.9 15.1 3.3 74.4 87.3 Darchula 15 76.8 16.0 4.5 68.0 85.7 Achham 15 76.5 17.3 5.3 66.0 86.9 Bajura 9 77.6 13.5 4.1 69.4 85.9 School type Continuing 90 77.7 14.8 1.8 74.1 81.3 New 0 - - - - - School level Primary (Up to 5) 65 76.3 15.4 2.3 71.8 80.8 Basic (Up to 8) 22 82.7 13.4 3.1 76.5 88.9 Secondary (9+) 3 69.7 7.3 3.5 62.8 76.6 Gender of student Female 90 77.7 15.3 1.8 74.1 81.4 Male 90 77.7 14.9 1.8 74.0 81.3 Data Source: Review of School Meal Register 232 Indicator 2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools (Standard 2) Table I2 (a): Average student attendance rate for Bhadra 16-Ashoj 16 2078 (September 2021) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 328 60.7 19.1 1.2 58.3 63.2 District Doti 56 62.5 11.1 1.5 59.4 65.5 Jajarkot 56 43.7 18.0 2.8 38.3 49.1 Bajhang 64 73.0 12.2 1.6 69.8 76.3 Darchula 49 75.2 13.6 2.3 70.8 79.7 Achham 69 46.7 18.8 2.6 41.6 51.7 Bajura 34 67.2 13.0 2.4 62.5 71.9 School type Continuing 186 62.3 18.8 1.6 59.2 65.4 New 142 59.3 19.3 1.9 55.6 63.0 School type by program Only SMP 112 54.7 17.0 1.8 51.2 58.3 SMP+SHN 69 46.7 18.8 2.6 41.6 51.7 SMP+EGR+SHN 147 71.9 13.0 1.2 69.5 74.3 School level Primary (Up to 5) 174 62.0 18.9 1.7 58.7 65.3 Basic (Up to 8) 56 61.1 18.8 2.7 55.8 66.4 Secondary (9+) 98 59.5 19.4 2.2 55.2 63.7 Grade 1 326 56.6 21.6 1.4 53.9 59.3 3 328 64.0 19.5 1.3 61.4 66.6 8 154 63.2 20.2 1.8 59.6 66.8 Gender of student Female 328 61.4 19.3 1.2 58.9 63.9 Male 328 60.0 19.6 1.3 57.5 62.6 Data Source: School Record Review 233 Table I2 (b): Attendance rate of students based on headcount on the day of school visit Categories Schools (N) Mean (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 330 61.2 20.4 1.4 58.4 64.0 District Doti 56 54.1 19.5 3.0 48.2 60.0 Jajarkot 58 52.4 18.9 2.7 47.0 57.7 Bajhang 64 67.9 18.5 2.6 62.7 73.1 Darchula 49 78.7 15.2 2.6 73.6 83.8 Achham 69 56.0 20.7 3.2 49.6 62.4 Bajura 34 66.2 15.4 3.1 60.1 72.3 School type Continuing 188 55.3 20.5 1.7 51.9 58.6 New 142 66.3 19.0 2.1 62.3 70.4 School type by program Only SMP 114 53.3 19.2 2.0 49.3 57.2 SMP+SHN 69 56.0 20.7 3.2 49.6 62.4 SMP+EGR+SHN 147 70.4 17.5 1.8 66.9 73.8 School level Primary (Up to 5) 175 56.4 19.5 1.7 53.0 59.8 Basic (Up to 8) 57 58.9 19.6 2.8 53.4 64.4 Secondary (9+) 98 65.8 20.6 2.5 60.9 70.6 Grade 1 330 53.3 22.8 1.5 50.2 56.3 3 330 65.6 19.8 1.3 63.1 68.2 8 155 67.8 24.2 2.5 63.0 72.7 Gender of student Female 330 61.2 21.9 1.5 58.4 64.1 Male 330 61.2 21.0 1.5 58.1 64.2 Data Source: Headcount of Students and School Record Review 234 Indicator 3: Average retention rate of students (Custom 1) Table I3: Average retention rate of students in year 2078 Categories Schools (N) Mean (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 328 92.1 9.1 0.6 91.0 93.2 District Doti 56 90.8 9.6 1.4 87.9 93.6 Jajarkot 58 91.0 9.6 1.3 88.4 93.6 Bajhang 64 91.9 10.4 1.6 88.8 95.0 Darchula 49 93.2 7.3 1.0 91.2 95.2 Achham 67 92.8 8.6 1.0 90.9 94.7 Bajura 34 93.5 7.7 1.6 90.4 96.6 School type Continuing 187 91.7 10.5 0.9 90.0 93.5 New 141 92.4 7.7 0.7 91.0 93.8 School type by program Only SMP 114 90.9 9.5 1.0 88.9 92.8 SMP+SHN 67 92.8 8.6 1.0 90.9 94.7 SMP+EGR+SHN 147 92.7 9.0 0.9 90.9 94.5 School level Primary (Up to 5) 175 90.8 11.7 1.1 88.7 93.0 Basic (Up to 8) 56 93.3 8.4 1.1 91.1 95.5 Secondary (9+) 97 92.7 6.7 0.7 91.3 94.1 Grade 1 328 90.1 13.5 0.9 88.3 91.9 3 291 94.2 9.2 0.6 93.0 95.3 8 104 93.7 7.4 0.8 92.2 95.2 Gender of student Female 328 92.4 10.2 0.6 91.2 93.6 Male 327 91.7 9.6 0.6 90.5 92.9 Data Source: School Record Review 235 Indicator 4: Minimum diet diversity of school age children (Custom 11) Table I4: Percentage of school age children meeting minimum diet diversity Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1849 93.4 24.8 0.6 92.3 94.5 District Doti 325 94.5 22.9 1.3 92.0 97.0 Jajarkot 181 94.5 22.9 1.7 91.1 97.8 Bajhang 400 93.3 25.1 1.3 90.8 95.7 Darchula 309 95.1 21.5 1.2 92.7 97.5 Achham 412 93.0 25.6 1.3 90.5 95.4 Bajura 222 89.6 30.5 2.0 85.6 93.7 School type Continuing 899 93.7 24.4 0.8 91.6 94.8 New 950 93.2 25.3 0.8 92.1 95.3 School type by program Only SMP 506 94.5 22.9 1.0 92.5 96.5 SMP+SHN 412 93.0 25.6 1.3 90.5 95.4 SMP+EGR+SHN 931 93.0 25.5 0.8 91.4 94.7 School level Primary (Up to 5) 689 93.8 24.2 0.9 92.0 95.6 Basic (Up to 8) 423 92.7 26.1 1.3 90.2 95.2 Secondary (9+) 737 93.5 24.7 0.9 91.7 95.3 Gender of student Female 974 93.4 24.8 0.8 91.9 95.0 Male 875 93.4 24.9 0.8 91.7 95.0 Ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 1,385 94.1 23.6 0.6 92.8 95.3 Dalit 434 91.0 28.6 1.4 88.3 93.7 Other Janajati 1 100.0 - - - - Madhesi 1 100.0 - - - - Others 3 66.7 57.7 33.3 1.3 100.0 Age, years 5-9 716 95.1 21.6 0.8 93.5 96.7 10-14 1,079 92.2 26.8 0.8 90.6 93.8 15 or above 54 94.4 23.1 3.1 88.3 100.0 Data Source: Parents Survey 236 Indicator 5: Percentage of parents aware about the importance of school meal program (Custom 12) Table I5: Percentage of parents of school going children aware of the benefits of SMP Categories Parents (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1849 16.0 36.7 0.9 14.3 17.7 District Doti 325 10.8 31.0 1.7 7.4 14.1 Jajarkot 181 33.7 47.4 3.5 26.8 40.6 Bajhang 400 19.8 39.9 2.0 15.8 23.7 Bajura 222 5.4 22.7 1.5 2.4 8.4 Achham 412 12.6 33.2 1.6 9.4 15.8 Darchula 309 18.4 38.8 2.2 14.1 22.8 School type Continuing 899 18.8 39.1 1.3 16.2 21.4 New 950 13.4 34.0 1.1 11.2 15.5 School type by program Only SMP 506 19.0 39.2 1.7 15.6 22.4 SMP+SHN 412 12.6 33.2 1.6 9.4 15.8 SMP+SHN+EGR 931 15.9 36.6 1.2 13.5 18.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 689 18.6 38.9 1.5 15.7 21.5 Basic (Up to 8) 423 16.8 37.4 1.8 13.2 20.4 Secondary (9+) 737 13.2 33.8 1.2 10.7 15.6 Gender of parent Female 1,087 14.1 34.8 1.1 12.0 16.1 Male 762 18.8 39.1 1.4 16.0 21.5 Ethnicity Brahmin/ Chhetri 1,385 17.4 37.9 1.0 15.4 19.4 Dalit 434 11.1 31.4 1.5 8.1 14.0 Other Janajati 24 25.0 44.2 9.0 7.3 42.7 Madeshi 2 0.0 - - - - Data Source: Parents Survey 237 Indicator 6: Percentage of students aware about the importance of school meal program (Custom 14) Table I6: Percentage of school going children aware of the benefits of SMP Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 2087 12.9 33.0 0.7 11.5 14.4 District Doti 314 8.6 28.1 1.6 5.5 11.7 Jajarkot 360 34.7 47.7 2.5 29.8 39.6 Bajhang 422 15.6 36.4 1.8 12.2 19.1 Bajura 240 2.1 14.3 0.9 0.3 3.9 Achham 412 5.6 23.0 1.1 3.4 7.8 Darchula 339 7.1 25.7 1.4 4.3 9.8 School type Continuing 904 17.0 37.6 1.3 14.6 19.5 New 1,183 9.8 29.8 0.9 8.1 11.5 School type by program Only SMP 674 22.6 41.8 1.6 19.4 25.7 SMP+SHN 412 5.6 23.0 1.1 3.4 7.8 SMP+ SHN+EGR 1,001 9.5 29.3 0.9 7.7 11.3 School level Primary (Up to 5) 539 16.7 37.3 1.6 13.5 19.9 Basic (Up to 8) 569 15.6 36.4 1.5 12.7 18.6 Secondary (9+) 979 9.3 29.1 0.9 7.5 11.1 Gender of student Female 1,054 12.3 32.9 1.0 10.3 14.3 Male 1,033 13.6 34.2 1.1 11.5 15.6 Age 5-9 262 9.9 30.0 1.9 6.3 13.6 10-14 1,710 13.6 34.3 0.8 11.9 15.2 15 or above 115 10.4 30.7 2.9 4.8 16.0 Data Source: Students Survey 238 Activity 2 - Support Improved Safe Food Preparation, Handling and Storage Indicator 7: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 20) Table I7: Percentage of school cook demonstrating safe food preparation and storage practices Categories Cooks (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 78 29.5 45.9 5.2 19.1 39.8 District Doti 13 30.8 48.0 13.3 4.2 57.3 Jajarkot 9 22.2 44.1 14.7 0.0 51.5 Bajhang 23 26.1 44.9 9.4 7.4 44.7 Darchula 9 44.4 52.7 17.6 9.5 79.4 Achham 16 31.3 47.9 12.0 7.4 55.1 Bajura 8 25.0 46.3 16.4 0.0 57.6 School type Continuing 77 29.9 46.1 5.3 19.4 40.3 New 1 100.0 - - - - School type by program Only SMP 22 27.3 45.6 9.7 7.9 46.6 SMP+SHN 16 31.3 47.9 12.0 7.4 55.1 SMP+SHN+EGR 40 30.0 46.4 7.3 15.4 44.6 School level Primary (Up to 5) 61 32.8 47.3 6.1 20.7 44.9 Basic (Up to 8) 14 14.3 36.3 9.7 0.0 33.6 Secondary (9+) 3 33.3 57.7 33.3 0.0 99.7 Gender of cook Female 8 50.0 53.5 18.9 12.4 87.6 Male 70 27.1 44.8 5.4 16.5 37.8 Ethnicity of the cook Brahmin/Chhetri 70 27.1 44.8 5.4 16.5 37.8 Dalit 7 57.1 53.5 20.2 16.9 97.4 Other Janajati 1 0.0 - - - - Data Source: Cooks Survey 239 Activity 3 - Provide an Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions Indicator 8: Number of schools using an improved water source (Standard 27) Table I8 (a): Percentage of schools using an improved drinking water source (observed) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 216 92.6 26.2 1.8 89.1 96.1 District Bajhang 64 98.4 12.5 1.6 95.4 100.0 Darchula 49 95.9 20.0 2.9 90.3 100.0 Achham 69 89.9 30.4 3.7 82.6 97.1 Bajura 34 82.4 38.7 6.6 69.3 95.4 School type Continuing 122 91.0 28.8 2.6 85.9 96.1 New 94 94.7 22.6 2.3 90.1 99.3 School level Primary (Up to 5) 107 86.9 33.9 3.3 80.5 93.4 Basic (Up to 8) 43 97.7 15.2 2.3 93.1 100.0 Secondary (9+) 66 98.5 12.3 1.5 95.5 100.0 Data Source: School Observation Table I8 (b): Percentage of schools using an improved drinking water source (reported) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 212 93.9 24.0 1.7 90.6 97.1 District Bajhang 64 96.9 12.6 2.2 92.6 100.0 Darchula 45 95.6 20.8 3.1 89.4 100.0 Achham 69 91.3 21.0 3.4 84.6 98.0 Bajura 34 91.2 28.8 4.9 81.4 100.0 School type Continuing 121 95.0 21.8 2.0 91.1 98.9 New 91 92.3 26.8 2.8 86.8 97.8 School level Primary (Up to 5) 104 89.4 30.9 3.0 83.4 95.4 Basic (Up to 8) 43 100.0 - - - - Secondary (9+) 65 96.9 17.4 2.2 92.7 100.0 Data Source: SHN Teachers Survey 240 Indicator 9: Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities (Standard 28) Table I9 (a): Percentage of schools using improved sanitation facilities (observed) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 216 94.0 23.8 1.6 90.8 97.2 District Bajhang 64 95.3 21.3 2.7 90.1 100.0 Darchula 49 98.0 14.3 2.0 93.9 100.0 Achham 69 94.2 23.5 2.8 88.6 99.8 Bajura 34 85.3 35.9 6.2 73.1 97.4 School type Continuing 122 92.6 26.2 2.4 87.9 97.3 New 94 95.7 20.3 2.1 91.6 99.9 School level Primary (Up to 5) 107 91.6 27.9 2.7 86.3 96.9 Basic (Up to 8) 43 93.0 25.8 3.9 85.3 100.0 Secondary (9+) 66 98.5 12.3 1.5 95.5 100.0 Data Source: School Observation Table I9 (b): Percentage of schools using improved sanitation facilities (reported) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 212 96.2 19.1 1.3 93.6 98.8 District Bajhang 64 93.8 24.4 3.0 87.7 99.8 Darchula 45 100.0 - - - - Achham 69 98.6 12.0 1.4 95.7 100.0 Bajura 34 91.2 28.8 4.9 81.4 100.0 School type Continuing 121 94.2 23.4 2.1 90.0 98.4 New 91 98.9 10.5 1.1 96.7 100.0 School level Primary (Up to 5) 104 95.2 21.5 2.1 91.0 99.3 Basic (Up to 8) 43 95.3 21.3 3.2 88.9 100.0 Secondary (9+) 65 98.5 12.4 1.5 95.4 100.0 Data Source: SHN Focal Teacher Survey 241 Indicator 10: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) (Standard 29) Table I10 (a): Percentage of school children receiving deworming medication(s) at least once at school Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (U, L) Total 1413 82.0 38.5 1.0 79.9 83.0 District Achham 412 86.9 33.8 1.7 83.6 90.2 Bajhang 422 84.1 36.6 1.8 80.6 87.6 Bajura 240 73.3 44.3 2.9 67.7 78.9 Darchula 339 79.4 40.5 2.2 75.0 83.7 School type New 812 78.0 41.5 1.5 75.2 80.9 Continuing 601 87.4 33.3 1.4 84.6 90.0 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 86.7 34.0 1.9 83.0 90.4 Basic (Up to 8) 429 77.9 41.2 2.0 73.9 81.8 Secondary (9+) 660 82.3 38.2 1.5 79.4 85.2 Gender of student Male 704 80.4 39.7 1.5 77.5 83.3 Female 709 83.5 37.1 1.4 80.8 86.2 Age, years 5-9 152 83.6 37.0 3.0 77.6 89.5 10-14 1183 82.2 38.3 1.1 80.0 84.3 15 or above 78 75.6 43.6 4.9 66.0 85.2 Data Source: Students Survey 242 Table I10 (b): Percentage of school children receiving deworming medication(s) twice at school Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1413 53.1 49.9 1.3 50.5 55.8 District Achham 412 55.3 49.8 2.5 50.5 60.2 Bajhang 422 55.9 49.7 2.4 51.2 60.7 Bajura 240 30.4 46.1 3.0 24.6 36.3 Darchula 339 63.1 48.3 2.6 58.0 68.3 School type New 812 52.5 50.0 1.8 49.0 55.9 Continuing 601 54.1 49.9 2.0 50.1 58.1 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 56.5 49.7 2.8 51.1 61.9 Basic (Up to 8) 429 45.9 49.9 2.4 41.2 50.6 Secondary (9+) 660 56.2 49.7 1.9 52.4 60.0 Gender of student Male 704 50.9 50.0 1.9 47.2 54.6 Female 709 55.4 49.7 1.9 51.8 59.1 Age, years 5-9 152 55.3 49.9 4.0 47.3 63.2 10-14 1183 53.6 49.9 1.5 50.7 56.4 15 or above 78 42.3 49.7 5.6 31.3 53.4 Data Source: Students Survey Table I10 (c): Percentage of schools providing deworming medication(s) twice a year Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 212 72.2 44.9 3.1 66.1 78.3 District Achham 69 79.7 40.5 4.9 70.1 89.3 Bajhang 64 64.1 48.4 6.0 52.1 76.0 Bajura 34 50.0 50.8 8.7 32.8 67.2 Darchula 45 88.9 31.8 4.7 79.5 98.2 School type New 91 75.8 43.1 4.5 66.9 84.7 Continuing 121 69.4 46.3 4.2 61.1 77.7 Gender of SHN teacher Male 148 70.3 45.9 3.8 62.8 77.7 Female 64 76.6 42.7 5.3 66.0 87.1 School level Primary (Up to 5) 104 65.4 47.8 4.7 56.1 74.6 Basic (Up to 8) 43 76.7 42.7 6.5 63.9 89.6 Secondary (9+) 65 80.0 40.3 5.0 70.1 89.9 Data Source: SHN Teacher Survey 243 Indicator 11: Number of adolescent girls aged 10-19 years receiving biannual weekly Iron Folic Acid supplementation (Custom 4) Table I11: Percentage of adolescent girls receiving biannual weekly (full dose) Iron Folic Acid supplementation Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 127 8.7 28.2 2.5 3.7 13.6 District Bajhang 33 12.1 33.1 5.8 0.7 23.5 Darchula 35 8.6 28.4 4.8 0.0 18.1 Achham 35 11.4 32.2 5.5 0.6 22.2 Bajura 24 0.0 - - - - School type Continuing 44 4.5 21.1 3.2 0.0 10.8 New 83 10.8 31.3 3.4 4.1 17.6 School level Basic (Up to 8) 52 5.8 23.5 3.2 0.0 12.2 Secondary (9+) 74 10.8 31.2 3.6 3.6 18.0 Age of the student, years 10 – 14 95 7.4 26.3 2.7 2.0 12.7 15 – 17 32 12.5 33.6 5.9 0.7 24.3 Data Source: Student Survey Indicator 12: Number of schools with provision of sanitary pads (Custom 5) Table I12: Percentage of schools with provision of sanitary pads among basic and secondary schools (excluding primary level schools) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 109 83.5 37.3 3.6 76.4 90.6 District Bajhang 32 59.4 49.9 8.8 41.9 76.9 Darchula 27 96.3 19.2 3.7 89.0 100.0 Achham 30 96.7 18.3 3.3 90.1 100.0 Bajura 20 85.0 36.6 8.2 68.8 100.0 School type Continuing 32 75.0 44.0 7.8 59.6 90.4 New 77 87.0 33.8 3.9 79.4 94.7 School level Basic (Up to 8) 43 81.4 39.4 6.0 69.5 93.3 Secondary (9+) 66 84.8 36.1 4.4 76.0 93.7 Data Source: School Observation 244 Indicator 13: Number of schools with toilet with sanitary pads disposal bins (Custom 6) Table I13: Percentage of schools with a toilet with sanitary pads disposal bins among basic and secondary schools (excluding primary level schools) Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 109 45.0 50.0 4.8 35.5 54.4 District Bajhang 32 46.9 50.7 9.0 29.1 64.6 Darchula 27 48.1 50.9 9.8 28.7 67.6 Achham 30 43.3 50.4 9.2 25.1 61.6 Bajura 20 40.0 50.3 11.2 17.7 62.3 School type Continuing 32 31.3 47.1 8.3 14.7 47.8 New 77 50.6 50.3 5.7 39.3 62.0 School level Basic (Up to 8) 43 37.2 48.9 7.5 22.4 52.0 Secondary (9+) 66 50.0 50.4 6.2 37.7 62.3 Data Source: School Observation Indicator 14: Number of schools with at least one set of information education and communication and behavior change package (SBCC Custom 5) Table I14: Percentage of schools with availability of IEC/BCC package Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 216 14.4 35.1 1.6 6.2 12.6 District Bajhang 64 10.9 31.5 3.9 3.2 18.7 Darchula 49 6.1 24.2 3.5 0.0 12.9 Achham 69 13.0 33.9 4.1 5.0 21.1 Bajura 34 35.3 48.5 8.3 18.9 51.7 School type Continuing 122 15.6 36.4 3.3 9.1 22.1 New 94 12.8 33.5 3.5 5.9 19.6 School type by program SMP+SHN 69 13.0 33.9 4.1 5.0 21.1 SMP+SHN+EGR 147 15.0 35.8 3.0 9.2 20.8 School level Primary (Up to 5) 107 16.8 37.6 3.6 9.7 24.0 Basic (Up to 8) 43 11.6 32.4 4.9 1.9 21.4 Secondary (9+) 66 12.1 32.9 4.1 4.1 20.1 Gender of the head teacher Female 29 27.6 45.5 8.4 10.9 44.2 Male 187 12.3 32.9 2.4 7.6 17.0 Data Source: Head Teacher Survey/School observation 245 Indicator 15: Number of schools celebrating national sanitation related campaign at the community level (SBCC Custom 6) Table I15: Percentage of schools celebrating national sanitation related campaign at the community level Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 212 41.0 49.3 3.4 34.4 47.7 District Bajhang 64 21.9 41.7 5.2 11.6 32.1 Darchula 45 46.7 50.5 7.5 31.8 61.5 Achham 69 56.5 49.9 6.0 44.7 68.4 Bajura 34 38.2 49.3 8.5 21.6 54.9 School type Continuing 121 32.2 46.9 5.3 42.4 63.1 New 91 52.7 50.2 4.3 23.8 40.6 School level Primary (Up to 5) 104 29.8 46.0 4.5 20.9 38.7 Basic (Up to 8) 43 39.5 49.5 7.5 24.7 54.4 Secondary (9+) 65 60.0 49.4 6.1 47.9 72.1 Data Source: SHN Teacher Survey 246 Indicator 16: Number of schools conducting at least one annual health screening (Custom 3) Table I16a: Percentage of schools conducting at least one annual health screening Categories N Height Weight Vision Hearing Dental % SD SE CIL CIU % SD SE CIL CIU % SD SE CIL CIU % SD SE CIL CIU % SD SE CIL CIU Total 212 25.0 43.7 3.0 19.6 31.4 37.7 48.6 3.3 31.2 44.3 22.2 41.6 2.9 16.5 27.8 12.3 32.9 2.3 7.8 16.7 11.8 32.3 2.2 7.4 16.2 District Bajhang 64 15.6 36.6 4.6 6.6 24.6 45.3 50.2 6.3 32.9 57.7 17.2 38.0 4.8 7.8 26.6 9.4 29.4 3.7 2.1 16.6 6.3 24.4 3.0 0.2 12.3 Darchula 45 31.1 46.8 7.0 17.4 44.9 37.8 49.0 7.3 23.4 52.2 17.8 38.7 5.8 6.4 29.1 0.0 - - - - 4.4 20.8 3.1 0.0 10.6 Achham 69 37.7 48.8 5.9 26.1 49.3 40.6 49.5 6.0 28.8 52.3 37.7 48.8 5.9 26.1 49.3 27.5 45.0 5.4 16.9 38.2 27.5 45.0 5.4 16.9 38.2 Bajura 34 11.8 32.7 5.6 0.7 22.8 17.6 38.7 6.6 4.6 30.7 5.9 23.9 4.1 0.0 14.0 2.9 17.1 2.9 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School type Continuing 121 24.8 43.4 3.9 17.0 32.6 43.8 49.8 4.5 34.9 52.7 19.0 39.4 4.6 17.2 35.5 10.7 31.1 3.7 7.0 21.6 9.9 30.0 3.7 7.0 21.6 New 91 26.4 44.3 4.6 17.2 35.5 29.7 45.9 4.8 20.2 39.2 26.4 44.3 3.6 11.9 26.1 14.3 35.2 2.8 5.2 16.3 14.3 35.2 2.7 4.5 15.3 School level Primary 104 23.1 42.3 4.2 14.9 31.3 23.1 42.3 4.9 31.8 50.9 15.4 36.3 3.6 8.4 22.4 10.6 30.9 3.0 4.6 16.6 8.7 28.3 2.8 3.2 14.1 Basic 43 20.9 41.2 6.3 8.6 33.3 20.9 41.2 7.1 16.3 44.2 23.3 42.7 6.5 10.4 36.1 4.7 21.3 3.2 0.0 11.1 7.0 25.8 3.9 0.0 14.7 Secondary 65 32.3 47.1 5.8 20.8 43.8 32.3 47.1 6.0 25.0 48.8 32.3 47.1 5.8 20.8 43.8 20.0 40.3 5.0 10.1 29.9 20.0 40.3 5.0 10.1 29.9 Data Source: SHN Teacher Survey 247 Table I16b: Percentage of schools conducting all five (height, weight, vision, hearing, and dental) health screening Categories Schools (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error CI (%) (L, U) Total 212 8.5 27.9 1.9 5.4 13.1 District Bajhang 64 4.7 21.3 2.7 0 9.9 Darchula 45 0 - - - - Achham 69 21.7 41.5 5 11.9 31.6 Bajura 34 0 - - - - School type Continuing 121 7.4 26.3 2.4 2.7 12.2 New 91 9.9 30 3.1 3.7 16.1 School level Primary 104 6.7 25.2 2.5 1.9 11.6 Basic 43 4.7 21.3 3.2 0 11.1 Secondary 65 13.8 34.8 4.3 5.3 22.4 Data Source: SHN Teacher Survey 248 Indicator 17: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance (Standard 19) Table I17: Percentage of school children demonstrating child health and nutrition practices Categories Students (N) Proportion (P) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1412 49.2 50.0 1.3 46.5 51.8 District Bajhang 421 53.9 49.9 2.4 49.1 58.7 Darchula 339 55.5 49.8 2.7 50.2 60.8 Achham 412 46.4 49.9 2.5 41.5 51.2 Bajura 240 36.7 48.3 3.1 30.6 42.8 School type Continuing 600 52.0 50.0 2.0 48.0 56.0 New 812 47.0 49.9 1.8 43.6 50.5 School type by program SMP+SHN 412 46.4 49.9 2.6 41.5 51.2 SMP+SHN+EGR 1000 50.5 50.0 1.6 47.2 53.4 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 46.6 50.0 2.8 41.2 52.0 Basic (Up to 8) 428 51.6 50.0 2.4 46.9 56.4 Secondary (9+) 660 48.8 50.0 1.9 45.0 52.6 Gender Female 709 55.2 49.9 18.0 40.4 47.8 Male 703 44.4 49.7 1.9 50.5 57.8 Age, years 5-9 152 42.8 49.6 4.0 34.9 50.7 10-14 1182 49.6 50.0 1.5 46.7 52.4 15 or above 78 55.1 50.1 5.7 44.0 66.2 Data Source: Students Survey Indicator 18: Number of schools practicing segregated waste management practice (Custom 8) Table I18: Percentage of schools practicing segregated waste management Categories School (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 216 32.4 46.9 3.2 26.1 38.7 District Bajhang 64 25.0 43.6 5.5 14.2 35.8 Darchula 49 32.7 47.4 6.8 19.3 46.0 Achham 69 40.6 49.5 6.0 28.8 52.3 Bajura 34 29.4 46.2 7.9 13.8 45.0 School type Continuing 122 35.2 48.0 4.3 26.7 43.8 New 94 28.7 45.5 4.7 19.5 38.0 School level Primary (Up to 5) 107 29.0 45.6 4.4 20.3 37.7 Basic (Up to 8) 43 39.5 49.5 7.5 24.7 54.4 Secondary (9+) 66 33.3 47.5 5.8 21.8 44.9 Data Source: School Observation Indicator 19: Health related absenteeism among school age children (SBCC Custom 1) 249 Table I19: Percentage of absent students due to illness Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1849 19.1 39.4 0.9 17.4 20.9 District Doti 325 10.8 31.0 1.7 7.4 14.1 Jajarkot 181 22.1 41.6 3.1 16.0 28.2 Bajhang 400 24.0 42.8 2.1 19.8 28.2 Bajura 222 17.1 37.8 2.5 12.1 22.1 Achham 412 17.2 37.8 1.9 13.6 20.9 Darchula 309 23.9 42.7 2.4 19.2 28.7 School type Continuing 899 16.3 37.0 1.2 14.0 18.7 New 950 22.1 41.5 1.4 19.4 24.9 School level Primary (Up to 5) 689 20.0 40.1 1.5 17.0 23.0 Basic (Up to 8) 423 23.2 42.2 2.1 19.1 27.2 Secondary (9+) 737 16.0 36.7 1.4 13.4 18.7 Gender of student Female 974 20.0 40.0 1.3 17.5 22.5 Male 875 18.2 38.6 1.3 15.6 20.7 Ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 1385 17.5 38.0 1.0 15.5 19.5 Dalit 434 25.1 2.1 2.1 21.0 29.2 Other Janajati 24 4.1 20.4 4.2 -4.0 12.3 Age, years 5-9 716 18.2 38.6 1.4 15.3 21.0 10-14 1079 19.5 39.6 1.2 17.1 21.8 15 or above 54 25.9 44.2 6.0 14.1 37.7 Data Source: Parents Survey 250 Indicator 20: Percent of school age children with good personal hygiene (SBCC Custom 2) Table I20: Percentage of school age children with good personal hygiene Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1,413 33.1 47.1 1.3 30.6 35.5 District Bajhang 422 32.2 46.8 2.3 27.8 36.7 Darchula 339 52.8 50.0 2.7 47.5 58.1 Achham 412 19.9 40.0 2.0 16.0 23.8 Bajura 240 29.2 45.5 2.9 23.4 34.9 School type Continuing 601 37.1 48.3 2.0 33.2 41.0 New 812 30.0 45.9 1.6 26.9 33.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 29.3 45.6 2.5 24.4 34.3 Basic (Up to 8) 429 38.2 48.7 2.3 33.6 42.8 Secondary (9+) 660 31.5 46.5 1.8 28.0 35.1 Gender Female 709 37.1 48.3 1.8 33.5 40.7 Male 704 29.0 45.4 1.7 25.6 32.3 Age, years 5-9 152 27.0 44.5 3.6 19.9 34.1 10-14 1,183 34.1 47.4 1.4 31.4 36.8 15 or above 78 29.5 45.9 5.2 19.3 39.7 Data Source: Students Survey Indicator 21: Percent of adolescent girls reporting practice of hygienic menstrual behavior (SBCC Custom 3) Table I21: Percentage of adolescent girls practicing hygienic menstrual behavior Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 127 78.7 41.1 3.6 70.6 85.1 District Bajhang 33 75.8 43.5 7.6 60.8 90.7 Darchula 35 82.9 38.2 6.5 70.1 95.6 Achham 25 80.0 40.6 6.9 66.4 93.6 Bajura 24 75.0 44.2 9.0 57.1 92.9 School type Continuing 44 75.0 43.8 6.6 61.9 88.1 New 83 80.7 39.7 4.4 72.1 89.3 Age of girls 10 – 14 years 95 77.9 41.7 4.3 69.4 86.3 15 – 17 years 32 81.2 39.7 7.0 67.4 95.1 Data Source: Students Survey 251 Indicator 22: Percent of school age children reporting hand washing practice at critical times (SBCC Custom 4) Table I22: Percentage of children reporting hand washing practice at critical moments Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 1413 9.4 29.2 0.8 7.9 10.9 District Bajhang 422 17.3 37.9 1.8 13.7 20.9 Darchula 339 6.5 24.7 1.3 3.9 9.1 Achham 412 7.8 26.8 1.3 5.2 10.4 Bajura 240 2.5 15.6 1.0 0.5 4.5 School type Continuing 601 9.7 29.6 1.2 7.3 12.0 New 812 9.2 29.0 1.0 7.2 11.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 324 9.0 28.6 1.6 5.8 12.1 Basic (Up to 8) 429 7.2 25.9 1.3 4.8 9.7 Secondary (9+) 660 11.1 31.4 1.2 8.7 13.5 Gender Female 709 13.0 33.6 1.3 10.5 15.5 Male 704 5.8 23.4 0.9 4.1 7.6 Age, years 5 – 9 152 7.2 26.0 2.1 3.1 11.4 10 – 14 1,183 9.6 29.5 0.9 8.0 11.3 15 or above 78 10.3 30.5 3.5 3.5 17.0 Data Source: Students Survey 252 Activity 4 - Promoting Improved Literacy Indicator 23: Number of local governments recognizing and rewarding teachers making changes or taking special initiatives for their students to achieve reading outcomes (Custom 9) Table I23: Number of municipalities with practice of recognizing and rewarding teachers Districts Municipalities (N) Municipalities Recognizing and Rewarding Teachers (n) Total 12 5 Doti 2 1 Jajarkot 2 1 Bajhang 2 1 Darchula 2 2 Achham 2 0 Bajura 2 0 Data Source: KII with Municipalities Indicator A24: Number of local government developing contextualized instructional materials (Custom 13) Table I24: Number of municipalities with practice of recognizing and rewarding teachers Districts Municipalities (N) Municipalities Developing Contextualized Instructional Materials (n) Total 12 4 Doti 2 0 Jajarkot 2 1 Bajhang 2 1 Darchula 2 1 Achham 2 1 Bajura 2 0 Data Source: KII with Municipalities 253 Indicator 25: 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 (Standard 1) Table I25 (a): Percent of grade three students who can read and understand the meaning of grade level text Categories Students (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 3979 1.0 9.7 0.2 0.7 1.3 District Doti 644 0.6 7.9 0.3 0.0 1.2 Jajarkot 628 0.2 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Bajhang 849 1.6 12.7 0.4 0.8 2.5 Darchula 491 1.6 12.7 0.6 0.5 2.8 Achham 919 0.3 5.7 0.2 0.0 0.7 Bajura 448 1.8 13.3 0.6 0.6 3.0 School type Continuing 2175 1.0 10.0 0.2 0.6 1.4 New 1804 0.9 9.4 0.2 0.5 1.3 School type by program Only SMP 1272 0.4 6.3 0.2 0.0 0.7 SMP+SHN 919 0.3 5.7 0.2 0.0 0.7 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 1.7 12.8 0.3 1.1 2.3 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 1.2 10.7 0.2 0.7 1.7 Basic (Up to 8) 745 0.4 6.3 0.2 0.0 0.9 Secondary (9+) 1349 1.0 9.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 Gender Female 1928 0.7 8.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 Male 2051 1.2 10.9 0.2 0.7 1.7 Student type L1 2733 1.1 10.2 0.2 0.7 1.4 L2 1246 0.7 8.5 0.2 0.3 1.2 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 254 Table I25 (b): Subtask 1-Listening Comprehension (correct answers out of 3 questions) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (l, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 17.2 District Doti 644 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 18.8 Jajarkot 628 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 18.8 Bajhang 849 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 15.0 Darchula 491 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 15.9 Achham 919 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 22.4 Bajura 448 1.6 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.7 7.8 School type Continuing 2175 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 19.7 New 1804 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 14.2 School type by program Only SMP 1272 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 18.8 SMP+SHN 919 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 22.4 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.6 1.6 13.4 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 18.4 Basic (Up to 8) 745 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.4 21.2 Secondary (9+) 1349 1.7 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 13.4 Gender Female 2051 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 20.1 Male 1928 1.7 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 14.2 Student type L1 2733 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 14.2 L2 1246 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.4 23.8 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 255 Table I25 (c): Subtask 2-Letter Decoding (Correct letters/min) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 30.0 20.3 0.3 29.4 30.7 6.5 District Doti 644 30.4 20.0 0.8 28.8 31.9 5.7 Jajarkot 628 22.9 16.3 0.7 21.6 24.2 5.4 Bajhang 849 33.7 19.7 0.7 32.4 35.1 5.8 Darchula 491 40.9 22.0 1.0 38.9 42.8 3.1 Achham 919 24.2 19.3 0.6 22.9 25.4 10.4 Bajura 448 32.8 19.9 0.9 31.0 34.6 6.3 School type Continuing 2175 29.5 20.7 0.4 28.6 30.4 7.8 New 1804 30.7 19.9 0.5 29.8 31.6 5.0 School type by program Only SMP 1272 26.7 18.6 0.5 25.7 27.7 5.6 SMP+SHN 919 24.2 19.3 0.6 22.9 25.4 10.4 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 35.5 20.7 0.5 34.5 36.4 5.1 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 30.0 21.0 0.5 29.1 31.0 7.7 Basic (Up to 8) 745 28.3 19.8 0.7 26.9 29.7 5.6 Secondary (9+) 1349 31.0 19.6 0.5 30.0 32.1 5.3 Gender Female 2051 29.5 20.2 0.4 28.6 30.4 6.2 Male 1928 30.6 20.5 0.5 29.7 31.5 6.8 Student type L1 2733 30.5 20.4 0.4 29.7 31.2 5.7 L2 1246 29.1 20.3 0.6 28.0 30.3 8.3 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 256 Table I25 (d): Subtask 3-Matra Decoding (Correct matras/min) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 16.5 18.1 0.3 16.0 17.1 24.2 District Doti 644 17.5 18.5 0.7 16.1 19.0 21.4 Jajarkot 628 10.4 13.6 0.5 9.4 11.5 30.7 Bajhang 849 18.1 18.7 0.6 16.8 19.3 27.4 Darchula 491 24.3 20.7 0.9 22.4 26.1 8.8 Achham 919 13.6 16.5 0.5 12.5 14.7 26.3 Bajura 448 18.4 18.4 0.9 16.7 20.1 25.4 School type Continuing 2175 16.3 18.1 0.4 15.6 17.1 25.7 New 1804 16.8 18.1 0.4 16.0 17.6 22.3 School type by program Only SMP 1272 14.0 16.7 0.5 13.1 14.9 26.0 SMP+SHN 919 13.6 16.5 0.5 12.5 14.7 26.3 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 19.9 19.3 0.5 19.0 20.8 21.8 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 17.0 18.4 0.4 16.2 17.9 24.2 Basic (Up to 8) 745 14.6 17.1 0.6 13.3 15.8 27.1 Secondary (9+) 1349 16.9 18.2 0.5 16.0 17.9 22.6 Gender Female 2051 15.9 17.8 0.4 15.2 16.7 24.9 Male 1928 17.2 18.4 0.4 16.4 18.0 23.4 Student type L1 2733 17.2 18.2 0.3 16.5 17.9 20.6 L2 1246 15.1 17.8 0.5 14.1 16.1 32.1 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 257 Table I25 (e): Subtask 4-Non-word Reading (Correct non-words/min) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 6.7 6.9 0.1 6.5 6.9 25.1 District Doti 644 6.6 6.7 0.3 6.1 7.1 23.4 Jajarkot 628 4.3 5.1 0.2 3.9 4.7 28.8 Bajhang 849 7.6 7.4 0.3 7.1 8.0 26.7 Darchula 491 9.5 7.1 0.3 8.8 10.1 6.9 Achham 919 5.5 6.5 0.2 5.0 5.9 30.6 Bajura 448 7.9 7.4 0.3 7.2 8.6 27.7 School type Continuing 2175 6.5 6.9 0.1 6.2 6.8 27.1 New 1804 6.9 6.9 0.2 6.5 7.2 22.6 School type by program Only SMP 1272 5.5 6.1 0.2 5.1 5.8 26.1 SMP+SHN 919 5.5 6.5 0.2 5.0 5.9 30.6 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 8.2 7.3 0.2 7.8 8.5 21.5 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 6.8 7.0 0.2 6.5 7.1 25.4 Basic (Up to 8) 745 6.1 6.7 0.2 5.6 6.5 27.7 Secondary (9+) 1349 6.8 6.8 0.2 6.5 7.2 23.3 Gender Female 2051 6.5 6.8 0.2 6.2 6.8 25.6 Male 1928 6.8 7.0 0.2 6.5 7.1 24.5 Student type L1 2733 7.0 7.0 0.1 6.7 7.3 21.8 L2 1246 6.0 6.7 0.2 5.6 6.3 32.3 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 258 Table I25 (f): Subtask 5-Oral Reading Fluency (Correct words/min) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 11.4 12.7 0.2 11.0 11.8 18.4 District Doti 644 11.1 12.2 0.5 10.2 12.1 14.0 Jajarkot 628 7.1 9.5 0.4 6.3 7.8 20.4 Bajhang 849 12.5 13.2 0.5 11.6 13.3 23.8 Darchula 491 17.2 14.4 0.6 15.9 18.5 6.5 Achham 919 9.4 11.5 0.4 8.6 10.1 19.2 Bajura 448 13.4 13.8 0.7 12.1 14.7 23.0 School type Continuing 2175 11.2 12.7 0.3 10.7 11.8 19.5 New 1804 11.6 12.7 0.3 11.0 12.1 17.0 School type by program Only SMP 1272 9.1 11.1 0.3 8.5 9.7 17.1 SMP+SHN 919 9.4 11.5 0.4 8.6 10.1 19.2 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 14.0 13.8 0.3 13.4 14.6 18.8 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 12.0 13.1 0.3 11.4 12.6 17.8 Basic (Up to 8) 745 9.7 11.8 0.4 8.9 10.6 20.4 Secondary (9+) 1349 11.4 12.5 0.3 10.8 12.1 18.1 Gender Female 2051 11.2 12.9 0.3 10.6 11.7 19.6 Male 1928 11.6 12.5 0.3 11.0 12.1 17.0 Student type L1 2733 11.8 12.7 0.2 11.3 12.3 15.6 L2 1246 10.5 12.6 0.4 9.8 11.2 24.5 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 259 Table I25 (g.1): Subtask 6-Oral Reading Comprehension (Correct answers out of 5 questions) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 42.3 District Doti 644 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.4 1.7 39.8 Jajarkot 628 1.0 1.3 0.1 0.9 1.1 53.5 Bajhang 849 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.5 1.7 35.8 Darchula 491 2.0 1.6 0.1 1.9 2.2 26.5 Achham 919 1.2 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.3 51.9 Bajura 448 1.7 1.6 0.1 1.6 1.9 40.6 School type Continuing 2175 1.4 1.5 0.0 1.3 1.4 43.4 New 1804 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.6 41.0 School type by program Only SMP 1272 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 1.3 46.5 SMP+SHN 919 1.2 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.3 51.9 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 1.8 1.6 0.0 1.7 1.8 34.5 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 40.8 Basic (Up to 8) 745 1.2 1.5 0.1 1.1 1.3 50.7 Secondary (9+) 1349 1.6 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.7 39.8 Gender Female 2051 1.4 1.5 0.0 1.3 1.5 43.6 Male 1928 1.5 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.6 41.0 Student type L1 2733 1.5 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.6 40.6 L2 1246 1.3 1.5 0.0 1.2 1.4 46.2 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 260 Table I25 (g.2): Disaggregated scores of children on reading comprehension Subtask 6- Explicit Comprehension (correct answers out of first 3 questions) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (l, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 1.27 1.3 0.0 1.2 1.3 42.6 District Doti 644 1.4 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.5 39.8 Jajarkot 628 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.8 1.0 54.5 Bajhang 849 1.4 1.2 0.0 1.3 1.5 35.9 Darchula 491 1.7 1.2 0.1 1.6 1.8 26.7 Achham 919 1.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 52.1 Bajura 448 1.5 1.4 0.1 1.4 1.6 40.6 School type Continuing 2175 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 43.7 New 1804 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.4 41.2 School type by program Only SMP 1272 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.2 47.0 SMP+SHN 919 1.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 52.1 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 1.5 1.3 0.0 1.4 1.6 34.6 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.4 41.1 Basic (Up to 8) 745 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 51.0 Secondary (9+) 1349 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.3 1.4 40.0 Gender Female 2051 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.3 43.8 Male 1928 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.4 41.3 Student type L1 2733 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.4 40.8 L2 1246 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.2 46.5 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 261 Table I25 (g.3): Disaggregated scores of children on reading comprehension Subtask 6- Inferential Comprehension (correct answers out of last 2 questions) Categories Students (N) Mean Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (l, U) Zero Score (%) Total 3979 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 83.6 District Doti 644 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 81.5 Jajarkot 628 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 91.9 Bajhang 849 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 81.0 Darchula 491 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 72.7 Achham 919 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 87.9 Bajura 448 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 82.8 School type Continuing 2175 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 86.1 New 1804 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 80.5 School type by program Only SMP 1272 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 86.6 SMP+SHN 919 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 87.9 SMP+EGR+SHN 1788 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.3 79.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 1885 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 85.2 Basic (Up to 8) 745 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 86.2 Secondary (9+) 1349 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 79.9 Gender Female 2051 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 85.4 Male 1928 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 81.7 Student type L1 2733 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 82.7 L2 1246 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 85.6 Data Source: EGRA of Grade 3 Students 262 Indicator 26: 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 (Standard 4) Table I26: Number of Nepali subject teachers who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching Categories Nepali Teachers (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 136 18.4 38.9 3.3 11.8 25.0 District Bajhang 62 24.2 43.2 5.5 13.3 35.0 Darchula 47 12.8 33.7 4.9 3.0 22.5 Bajura 27 14.8 36.2 7.0 1.0 28.6 School type Continuing 79 25.3 43.8 4.9 15.6 35.1 New 57 8.8 28.5 3.8 1.3 16.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 60 23.3 42.7 5.5 12.4 34.2 Basic (Up to 8) 34 20.6 41.0 7.0 6.7 34.5 Secondary (9+) 42 9.5 29.7 4.6 0.5 18.6 Gender Female 51 11.8 32.5 4.6 2.8 20.8 Male 85 22.4 41.9 4.5 13.4 31.3 Data Source: Survey of Nepali Teachers and Class Observation 263 Indicator 27: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Table I27: Percentage of Head Teachers Who Demonstrate Use of New Techniques/Tools Categories Head Teachers (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 330 34.5 47.6 2.6 29.4 39.7 District Doti 56 30.4 46.4 6.2 18.2 42.6 Jajarkot 58 25.9 44.2 5.8 14.5 37.3 Bajhang 64 32.8 47.3 5.9 21.2 44.4 Darchula 49 51.0 50.5 7.2 36.8 65.2 Achham 69 29.0 45.7 5.5 18.2 39.8 Bajura 34 47.1 50.7 8.7 30.0 64.2 School type Continuing 188 33.5 47.3 3.5 26.7 40.3 New 142 35.9 48.1 4.0 28.0 43.9 School type by program Only SMP 114 28.1 45.1 4.2 19.8 36.4 SMP+SHN 69 29.0 45.7 5.5 18.2 39.8 SMP+EGR+SHN 147 42.2 49.6 4.1 34.1 50.2 School level Primary (Up to 5) 175 27.4 44.7 3.4 20.8 34.1 Basic (Up to 8) 57 40.4 49.5 6.6 27.5 53.2 Secondary (9+) 98 43.9 49.9 5.0 34.0 53.8 Gender Female 41 14.6 35.8 5.6 3.6 25.6 Male 289 37.4 48.5 2.9 31.8 43.0 Data Source: Survey of Head Teachers and School Records Observation 264 Activity 5- Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals Indicator 28: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance (LRP 12) Table I28: Percentage of farmers adopting improved agricultural management practices and technologies Categories Farmers (N) Proportion (%) Std. Dev. (%) Std. Error (%) CI (%) (L, U) Total 52 28.8 45.7 6.3 17.9 43 District Doti 9 0 - - - - Jajarkot 9 44.4 52.7 17.6 9.2 79.7 Bajhang 7 28.6 48.8 18.4 0 65.6 Darchula 9 100 - - - - Achham 9 0 - - - - Bajura 9 0 - - - - Farmer’s sex Female 36 27.8 45.4 7.6 12.6 43 Male 16 31.3 47.9 12 7.2 55.3 Farmer’s age Less than 30 years 17 0 - - - - 30 years or above 35 42.9 50.2 8.5 25.8 60 Farmer’s age and sex Female < 30 years 10 0 - - - - Male < 30 years 7 0 - - - - Females ≥ 30 years 26 38.4 49.6 9.7 18.4 58.5 Male ≥ 30 years 9 55.6 52.7 17.6 15 96.1 Data Source: Farm Observation of Selected Farmers Indicator 29: Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance (FFPr 12) Table I29: Score of the municipalities by indicator themes Districts Theme I Theme II Theme III Theme IV Theme V Theme VI Theme VII Average Score Doti 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.1 Jajarkot 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 Bajhang 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 Darchula 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 1.7 Achham 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.7 Bajura 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.9 Total 9.0 10.5 10.0 13.5 11.0 11.5 8.5 10.6 Average 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.8 Notes: Theme I: No. of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures on HGSF component Theme II: National and International Standards Theme III: Written operational guideline, SOPs, strategies and plans Theme IV: Target population (identify school’s students, local cooperatives and farmers’ groups) Theme V: Participatory planning and decision-making process Theme VI: Successes and challenges analysis (functional school meal management committees, regular meetings etc.) Theme VII: Networking and partnerships Data source: OPI Workshop with Municipality Officials 265 Annex 12: Baseline Value and Annual Targets McGovern-Dole - World Food Programme Nepal Baseline Targets Life of project Indicator Number Performance Indicator Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 2021 2022 2023 2024 Standard 1 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 1 2 4.5 7 12 12 Standard 1 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools 61.2 70% 75% 80% 85% 85% Standard 4 Number of teachers/educators/teachin g assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 154 (18.4%) 0 652 746 839 839 Standard 6 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 272 (42.2%) 0 617 645 645 645 Standard 9 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance 246,755 276,31 4 312,38 0 232,87 5 133,13 3 326,03 3 Standard 19 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance 7873 (49.2%) 0 5,678 11,086 16,003 16,003 Standard 20 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance 474(29.5% ) 0 1,378 1,493 1,608 1,608 LRP 12 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who 13231 (28.8%) - 11,865 27,633 45,940 45,940 266 have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance FFPr 12 Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance 0 - 158 171 179 508 Custom 1 Average retention rate 92.1 Custom 8 Number of schools practicing segregated waste management practice. 491 (32.4%) - Custom 11 Minimum diet diversity of school age children 93.4 - Custom 12 Percentage of parents having school going children aware about the benefits of school meal program. 16 - Custom 13 Percentage of local government developing contextualized instructional materials. 33 Custom 14 Percentage of students aware about the importance of school meal program 12.9 - 267 Annex 13: Detailed Stakeholders Analysis Stakeholders Interest in the programme Involvement in Evaluation INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS WFP Country Office (CO) Nepal Responsible for the planning and implementation of WFP interventions at the country level. The CO has a direct stake in the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience to inform decision￾making. The CO is also called upon to account internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for the performance and results of its programmes. Disaggregated evaluation results and their analysis will serve WFP interventions to be more responsive to gender equality and inclusion in the future. Development of the ToR Selection of the research firms involved in the initial briefing and overview of WFP work as well as providing support in terms of providing programme documents, helping the evaluation team better understand the context of implementation and participating in strategizing for the future. Support the ET to obtain an introduction to key stakeholders. Act as a key informant interviewee Participate in debriefings and provide feedback on preliminary findings and conclusions Review of IR, draft Baseline, and special study report. WFP Regional Bureau (RB) Bangkok Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, the RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country offices. Support CO management to ensure quality, credible and useful decentralized evaluations. As a primary stakeholder, the RBB may also be involved in assessing learnings from the evaluation and planning for future programmes. WFP HQ school feeding unit Responsible for issuing and overseeing the rollout of normative guidance on corporate programme themes, activities, and modalities, as well as overarching corporate policies and strategies. They also have an interest in the lessons that emerge from evaluations, as many may have relevance beyond the geographical area of focus. Relevant HQ units would be consulted across phases to ensure that key policy, strategic and programmatic considerations are understood from the onset of the evaluation. Evaluation will provide strategic guidance, programme support, oversight, and to extract lessons for sharing globally Office of Evaluation in Rome (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. OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses. WFP Executive Board (EB) The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP programmes. This evaluation will not be presented to the Board, but its findings may feed into 268 Stakeholders Interest in the programme Involvement in Evaluation thematic and/or regional syntheses and corporate learning processes. EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation of schoolboys and girls, their parents, teachers, farmers groups, cooks and cooperatives, and community members from different groups disaggregated by male and female will be determined, and their respective perspectives will be sought in the evaluation. The evaluation should explore the perceived benefits of the program and implications of its absence to various groups of beneficiaries disaggregated by gender. As the participant of the study (as respondent for quantitative assessment or participant for KII or FGD) for the baseline survey. Grade three students, trained teachers and headteachers, and parents will act as a participant in the special study Government of Nepal The Government has a direct interest in knowing whether WFP activities in the country are aligned with its priorities, harmonized with the action of other partners, and meet the expected results. The Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST) will have an interest in issues related to capacity development and transition, sustainability of the programme as well as lessons learned as the direct institutional beneficiary. The project is implemented under the aegis of the Center for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD). The federal-level government plays a key role in the design and implementation of the programme. The provincial, district, and local level government institutions play a key role at the implementation level. Member of the evaluation reference group. National-level government institutions review and provide feedback on ToR, Inception Report, baseline survey report, and special study report Key informants on programme strategy, context, and performance Officials would be interviewed to gain insight on government policy, priorities, views on support by WFP, and on expanding school feeding In the context of COVID especially, the government bodies would be crucial to provide inputs on GoN’s overall commitment to providing/mobilize resources, issues, and opportunities in handing over of the program, capacities, and convergence to be explored. Their perspectives would be taken to identify contextual gaps and plan the way forward for future programmes. Officials at the sub-national level would be interviewed to learn about the implementation of the international FFECN components. They will provide perspectives on challenges and achievements faced in implementation and help identify barriers. UN Country Team (UNCT) The UNCT’s harmonized action will contribute to the realization of the government’s developmental objectives. It has therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP programmes are effective in The UN Country team would be involved as a secondary stakeholder with an interest in the evaluation findings They would be consulted to ascertain knowledge and information on the overall 269 Stakeholders Interest in the programme Involvement in Evaluation contributing to the United Nation’s concerted efforts. Various agencies are also direct partners of WFP at the policy and activity level. context and as well as specific delivering of the programme components They would also be engaged in future planning processes. NGOs (WFP Nepal’s implementing Partners) WFP’s implementing partners – Integrated Development Society (IDS), World Education Inc., and Mercy Corps implement the Integrated Package of School Health and Nutrition Interventions, Literacy and Promote Improved Nutrition: Sustainable Transition to Home-Grown School Meals respectively for the McGovern￾Dole FY20 grant cycle, at the same time, having their interventions. They will be keen to know the findings of the evaluation; the results directly reflect the efficacy of their work and through that, open opportunities for continued collaboration. The results of the evaluation might therefore affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations, and partnerships. World Education will be keen to know the findings of the special study to develop actionable items to inform the literacy program The results of the evaluation might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations, and partnerships. Thus, the partner NGOs would be involved in the study as key informants Officials responsible for different programme components and activities would be interviewed to gain insight into the program processes, progress, implementation barriers, and best practices. USDA Food Assistance Division (FAD) USDA has a specific interest in ensuring that operational performance reflects USDA standards and accountability requirements, as well as an interest in learning to inform changes in project strategy, results framework, and critical assumptions. Donors like USDA would be involved as the primary stakeholders for the evaluation. They will be involved in reviewing the TOR, Inception report, and evaluation report. They are also member of the Evaluation Reference Group. They would be updated on the study’s evaluation status, progress, challenges, and mitigation measures. Local Education Development Partner Group (LEDPG) The LEDPG includes the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Civil Society, and others under the School Sector Development Plan (SSDP) supporting the GoN’s education sector plan and programmes. Would be involved as a secondary stakeholder with an interest in the evaluation findings They would be consulted to ascertain knowledge and information on the overall context and as well as specific delivering of the programme components They would also be engaged for future planning processes Others A wide range of actors, such as local suppliers, farmers, and cooperatives groups, school administrators, school management committee, and local communities are involved in the provision of school meals and are Respective perspectives of these stakeholders would be sought in the form of interviews and interactions with key informants With these stakeholders having a significant influence on the effectiveness and sustainability of the programme, their inputs 270 Stakeholders Interest in the programme Involvement in Evaluation expected to benefit from some of the capacity development activities on the programme would be used to identify gaps and provide adequate recommendations for the future. 271 Annex 14: Conflict of Interest forms 272 273 274 \ 275 276 277 Annex 15: List of People Interviewed S.N People Interviewed Total Number Data collection method Key information sought 1 Head teacher/Acting head teacher 330 Semi structured interview and observation of documents Overall school level information 2 Nepali teacher teaching in Grade 3 136 Semi structured interview and observation of tools/teaching method Use of new and quality teaching techniques and tools 3 Sanitation, health and nutrition focal teacher 212 Semi structured interview and observation of documents School health and nutrition related information 4 Students from Grade 3 3979 Early Grade Assessment (EGRA) Tests Literacy performance of early grade students 5 Students from Grades 4-8 2,087 Structured interview and observation knowledge and practices of health and hygiene, awareness about importance of SMP etc. 6 Parents of the students 1,849 Semi structured interview Household level background information, perception about SMP and student related information 7 Cooks 78 Semi structured interview and observation of kitchen/cooking practices Safe food preparation and storage practices 8 Storekeepers 12 Semi structured interview and observation of warehouses Storekeeper’s knowledge and practice related to storing of foods and warehouse management 9 Farmer groups/ Cooperatives 18 Semi structured interview and observation of documents Situation of farmer groups/cooperatives to participate in HGSF 10 Farmers 52 Farm Observation Tool Adoption of new improved farming technology 11 Center for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHHRD) official, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 1 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools GoN’s perspectives on the relevance, coherence and sustainability aspects of the program and current situation of education sector. 12 Food For Education Project (FFEP) official, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 1 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools GoN’s perspectives on the relevance, coherence and sustainability aspects of the program and current situation of education sector. 278 S.N People Interviewed Total Number Data collection method Key information sought 13 Ministry of Social Development officials, Provincial Ministry of Karnali and Sudur Paschim 2 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools Provincial’s perspectives on the relevance, coherence and sustainability aspects of the program and current situation of education sector. 14 Education Development and Coordination Unit (EDCU) officials of program districts 6 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools District level situation of education sector, relevance, coherence and sustainability of the programme 15 School Management Committee 12 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools Awareness about WFP managed school meals programme and complementary activities, perceived benefits of the program, their engagement in monitoring school activities, gaps, experiences and the challenges 16 Implementing partner NGO’s 5 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools Significance and challenges of the program implementation at the local level 17 Mayor or Deputy Mayor of Municipalities 12 Key Informant Interview/ Qualitative tools Municipalities level perception on WFP managed school meals programme and complementary activities, perceived benefits of the program, their engagement in monitoring school activities, gaps, experiences and the challenges 18 Municipality officials for OPI workshop 12 groups, 4/5 in each group Organizational Performance Index (OPI) workshops Assess performance of the municipalities in relation to school meal programme 19 WFP Programme Officials from Country Office 2 KII Broader level information about WFP activities, program designing, implementation, vision and experiences 20 Parents for FGDs 12 groups, 7/8 in each group Focus Group Discussion Parents’ perception about overall school feeding programme, its contribution in student learning, strengths, weaknesses etc. 21 Adolescent Girls for FGDs 12 groups, 7/8 in each group Focus Group Discussion Perception of school meals program, facilitators and barriers of girls education in the community, Knowledge and practice on personal hygiene including menstrual hygiene and sanitation 279 Annex 16: Bibliography Bundy, Donald; Burbano, Carmen; Grosh, Margaret; Gelli, Aulo; Jukes, Matthew; Drake, Lesley. Rethinking School Feeding Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector, World Bank. 2009. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2634 Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of business ethics, 116(2), 433-440, 2013. Domański, P. D. Business Key Performance Indicators—KPIs. In Control Performance Assessment: Theoretical Analyses and Industrial Practice (pp. 119-124). Springer, Cham, 2020 Global Food Security Index Data. Available at: https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com Global Hunger Index. Available at: https://www.globalhungerindex.org/nepal.html Global Nutrition Report 2021. Available at: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2021-global-nutrition￾report/ Gyanwali, G. P. Provincial Poverty in Nepal. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3126/pragya.v7il.35170 International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3 ie). The impact of education programmes on learning and school participation in low- and middle-income countries. Systematic Review Summary 7. Available at: https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/srs7-education-report.pdf Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2021. Women in Parliament in 2020. Available at: https://www.ipu.org/women-in￾parliament-2020 Margaret M. Dubeck, Amber Gove. The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA): Its Theoretical Foundation, Purpose, and Limitations, International Journal of Educational Development (40): RTI International, United States. 2015 McGovern-Dole International. Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Nutrition interventions and their educational and nutrition outcomes for pre-school and primary school-age children in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Available at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 03/systematic_review_school_feeding_final.pdf Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, World Food Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization. SDGs and food insecurity in Karnali, Results from food insecurity experience scale, 2018. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Centre for Education and Human Resource Development, Government of Nepal. Flash II Report, 2019/ 20. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Education Review Office, Government of Nepal. National Assessment for Reading and Numeracy 2020 (Grade 3). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Education Review Office, Government of Nepal. Classroom Based Early Grade Reading Assessment: A Framework, 2017. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal. School Sector Development Plan, FY2016/17-2022/23. 280 Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal. Education Sector Analysis, 2021. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal. National Early Grade Reading Program 2014/15- 2019/20 Program Document. 2014. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal. National Education Policy 2019. Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal. Economic Survey 2021. Ministry of Health and Population. Department of Health Services. (2006). National School Health and Nutrition Strategy, Nepal, 2006. Available at: http://dohs.gov.np/wp￾content/uploads/chd/Nutrition/School_Health_and_Nutrition_Strategy_2006_EN.pdf Ministry of Health, Government of Nepal. Demographic and Health Survey, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016 National Planning Commission. Nepal Multidimensional Poverty Index 2018. Available at: https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/Nepal_MPI.pdf Nepal Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Development Plan (2016 – 2030). Available at: https://www.fsmtoolbox.com/assets/pdf/25._SDP_-_Final-_Eng.pdf Pasa, Rajan Binayek, and Lila Bahadur Bishwokarma. A Dalit Mainstreaming in Rural Development, An Alternative Approach for Combating Poverty. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 14 61-68, 2020. Shakoor, Aqil, Muhammad Asad, and Shabib Hassan. "Women Empowerment Through Financial Independence (A Case Study Of Rural Areas Of Sindh)." Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences 12, no. 2 (2021): 1-12. The Kathmandu Post. Government prepares diet plan for community school midday meal programme, 2019, August 14. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/gandaki-province/2021/12/21/mid-day-meal￾programme-ineffective-in-myagdi The World Bank. Capacity Needs Assessment for Transition to Federalism, 2019. UNDP. Human Development Report 2020, Nepal, Briefing note for countries on the 2020. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/NPL.pdf UNDP. Human Development Report, 2020. Available at: https://www.np.undp.org/content/nepal/en/home/library/Nepal-Human-Development-Report￾2020.html UNICEF/Nepal. Education Data. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/nepal/education UNICEF. Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children: Nepal Country Study 2016 United States Department of Agriculture, Outcome Monitoring of McGovern Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Nepal, 2018 – 2021. USAID, Nepal Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) Study, Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II), Data for Education Programming in Asia and Middle East (DEP/AME), 2014. 281 USAID. Early Grade Reading Programme in Nepal. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/fact￾sheets/usaid-early-grade-reading-program-egrp-nepal USAID. Learning Lab. https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/opi_slides.pdf. USAID. Pakistan Early Grade Reading Assessment, Methodology Report 2017. USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme in Nepal. Baseline Study Report 2018-2021 USDA. Food Assistance Indicators and Definitions. USDA. Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. WFP. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the School Meals Programmes in Nepal, 2018. WFP. Technical Note Integrating Gender in Evaluations, Version April 2019. WHO. Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices: definitions and measurement methods. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/340706 World Food Programme, Decentralized Evaluation, USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Program in Nepal 2014-2017. End-line Evaluation Report, 2019. World Food Programme, Decentralized Evaluation, USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme in Nepal, 2018-2021, Final Baseline Study Report, 2019. िश�ा, िव�ान तथा प्रिविध म�ालय, िव�ालय खानेपानी, सर-सफाई तथा ��ता स��� काय�िवधी, २०७४. 282 Annex 17: Acronyms BLS – Baseline Study CAPI – Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing CEHRD – Center for Education and Human Resource Development DEQAS – Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System DHS – Demographic Health Survey EDCU – District Education Coordination Unit EFA – Education for All EGR – Early Grade Reading EGRA – Early Grade Reading Assessment EL – End Line EQAS – Evaluation Quality Assurance System ERG – Evaluation Reference Group ERO – Education Review Office ESP – Education Sector Plan ET – Evaluation Team FFECN – Food for Education and Child Nutrition FFEP – Food for Education Programme FGD – Focus Group Discussion FY – Fiscal Year GDI – Gender Development Index GEDSI – Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion GEWE – Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment GII – Gender Inequality Index GoN – Government of Nepal HDI – Human Development Index HGSF – Home Grown School Feeding I/NGO – International/Non-Governmental Organization IDS – Integrated Development Society IEC – Information, Education, and Communication IEMIS – Integrated Education Management Information System IRs – intermediate results IYCF – Infant and Young Child Feeding KIIs – key informant interviews LDC – Least-Developed Country LG – Local Government LRP – Local and Regional Procurement MC – Mercy Corps MDD – Minimum Dietary Diversity MoEST – Ministry of Education, Science and Technology MREKM – Monitoring Evaluation Review and Knowledge Management MSD – Ministry of Social Development MT – Mid-Term NPC – National Planning Commission NSMP – National School Meals Programme OPI – Organization Performance Index ORF – Oral Reading Fluency PCR – Polymerase Chain Reaction PII – Personnel Identifiable Information PLGSP – Provincial and Local Governance Support Program PMP – Program Monitoring Performance PPD – Percentage Point Difference RF – Result Framework 283 SABER - Systems Approach for Better Education Results SBCC – Social and Behavior Change Communication SDG – Sustainable Development Goal SHF – Smallholder Farmers SHN – School Health and Nutrition SMC – School Management Committee SMP – School Meals Programme SO – Strategic Outcome SSDP – School Sector Development Plan SSRP – School Sector Reform Program ToR – Terms of Reference UN – United Nation UNEG – United Nations Evaluation Group USAID – United States Agency for International Development USDA – United State Department of Agriculture WaSH – Water, Sanitation and Health WEI – World Education International WFP – World Food Programme