1
Research and Learning of 
the McGovern-Dole School 
Meals Program in Africa
USDA-FAS Administered 
with funding from USAID
Recipient Organization: Mississippi 
State University- Social Science 
Research Center
This report was prepared by researchers from Mississippi State University in their research capacity. The opinions 
expressed in this report are the authors’ own and do not reflect the view of the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA)-Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID) , or the United States government. 
Cover Page
Research and Learning of the McGovern-Dole School Meals Program in Africa
Gina Rico Mendez, Ph.D. - Principal Investigator
Research Assistant Professor 
Social Science Research Center
Mississippi State University
Daniel Petrolia, Ph.D. – Co-Principal Investigator 
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Mississippi State University
Will Davis, Ph.D. – Co-Principal Investigator 
Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Mississippi State University
Terezie Tolar-Peterson, Ph.D. – Co-Principal Investigator 
Associate Professor
Department of Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion
Mississippi State University
Sheena Gardner, Ph.D. - Co-Principal Investigator 
Research Associate Professor 
Social Science Research Center
Mississippi State University
Contact Information:
Mailing Address: PO Box 5287
Mississippi State, MS 39762
P. 662.341.1149 – 662.325.7033
gina.mendez@ssrc.msstate.edu
Initial research study period: April 1, 2021 – September 30, 2021
Current research study period: April 1, 2021 – May 31, 2022 (No-Cost Extension period added)
United States Department of Agriculture – Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS)
Program Point of Contact: Abiola Adeyemi
abiola.adeyemi@usda.gov
May, 2022
Acknowledgements
The “Research and Learning of the McGovern-Dole School Meals Program in Africa” report was prepared 
by Mississippi State University, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Foreign 
Agricultural Service (FAS) with the support of the United States Agency for International Development 
Africa Bureau (USAID/AFR). Mississippi State University research effort was led by the Social Science 
Research Center, in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Economics, and the Department 
of Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion. All three units are affiliated with the Mississippi State 
University – Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) The report includes three 
sections developed by corresponding MSU research teams and units. We would also like to extend a special 
thanks to Mr. Abiola Adeyemi, Program Point of Contact, USDA-FAS, the McGovern-Dole team, and oth￾ers at USDA-FAS, and the USAID Africa Bureau team members for their support in these research efforts. 
Cross-sectional research efforts
Gina Rico Mendez, PhD, Principal Investigator - Social Science Research Center (SSRC). 
Sheena Gardner, PhD, Co-Principal Investigator – SSRC.
Sierra Nelson, MS, Graduate Research Assistant – SSRC.
Mary Read-Wahidi, PhD, Research Scientist – SSRC.
Section 1. Partnerships team members: 
Gina Rico Mendez, PhD, Principal Investigator and Team Lead– SSRC.
Anna Grace Tribble, MPH, Research Scientist - Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cul￾tures (AMEC).
Sierra Nelson, MS, Graduate Research Assistant - SSRC. 
Robert Kolbila, MS, Graduate Research Assistant - SSRC.
Yuliya Gluhova, BA, Undergraduate Research Assistant – SSRC.
Laura Alvarez Rios, Undergraduate Research Assistant – SSRC.
Aryonna Johnson, BS, Undergraduate Research Assistant – SSRC. 
Section 2. Procurement team members: 
Daniel Petrolia, PhD, Co-Principal Investigator and Team Lead - Department of Agricultural Economics.
Will Davis, PhD, Co-Principal Investigator and Co-leader - Department of Agricultural Economics. 
Mphatso Chinsinga, BS, Graduate Research Assistant - Department of Agricultural Economics.
Barbara Okai, BS, Graduate Research Assistant - Department of Agricultural Economics.
Section 3. Nutrition team members: 
Terezie Tolar-Peterson, EdD, RD, CLC, LDN, FAND, Co-Principal Investigator and Team Lead - De￾partment of Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion (FSNHP).
Nicole Reeder, PhD, Graduate Research Assistant – FSNHP.
Marina Roberts, MBA, MS, Graduate Research Assistant – FSNHP.
Abby Reynolds, MS, Graduate Research Assistant – FSNHP.
Caitlin Wall, BS, Undergraduate Research Assistant – FSNHP. 
Report Design:
Emile Creel. MBA, Copy Editor and Designer, SSRC.
Bethany Deuel, BA, Undergraduate Editorial Assistant, SSRC.
Addie Thompson, Undergraduate Editorial Assistant, SSRC.
Kinnadi Walker, Undergraduate Editorial Assistant, SSRC.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
RESEARCH COMPONENT 1. PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCHOOL FEEDING 7
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in Kenya 10
Institutional Framework for School Feeding 10
Socio-economic and Policy Context 10
Health and Nutrition Context 11
Agriculture and Food Security Situation 11
School Feeding and Educational Policy Environment 12
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program implementation in Kenya 13
WFP School feeding Efforts in Kenya 13
MGD Program Highlights 13
MGD Programmatic Components 14
Education and Literacy 14
Health and Nutrition 16
Value/Supply Chain 17
Partnerships for School Feeding in Kenya: The role of MGD forming alliances 18
Partnerships with the Public Sector 18
Partnerships with the Private Sector 20
Partnerships with the Non-profit Sector 21
Community-Based Partnerships 22
Partnership Sustainability in Kenya’s School Meals Program 23
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in Rwanda 25
Institutional Framework for School Feeding 25
Socio-economic and Policy Context 25
Nutrition and Food Security 25
Education 26
Policy Framework for School Feeding in Rwanda 28
National Plans and Sectoral Policies 28
School Feeding Policies: Cross-sector and cross-level collaborations 31
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program implementation in Rwanda 33
The WFP in Rwanda 33
Programmatic updates: From handing over to developing Model Schools 34
Programmatic Components and Outcomes 35
Education and Literacy 35
School Meals 37
Nutrition, Health, and Dietary Practices 38
Partnerships for School Feeding in Rwanda: The role of MGD 39
Partnerships with the Public Sector 39
Partnerships with the Private Sector 42
Community-Level Partnerships 45
Partnership and the Sustainability in Rwanda’s School Meals Program 47
Table of Contents
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in Sierra Leone 48
Institutional Framework for School Feeding 48
Socio-economic and Policy Context 48
Nutrition and Food Security 48
Education 49
Policy Framework for School Feeding in Sierra Leone 51
Sectorial Policies 51
Education 52
Health and Nutrition 53
Agriculture 53
2021 National School Feeding Policy 53
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program implementation in Sierra Leone 56
Donor-led School Feeding Efforts in Sierra Leone 56
MGD programmatic changes across different phases 57
MGD Programmatic Components and Outcomes in Sierra Leone 59
Education and Literacy 59
Nutrition and Health 60
WASH/SWASH 61
Partnerships for School Feeding in Sierra Leone 62
Partnerships with the Public Sector 63
Partnerships with the Private Sector 64
Partnerships with the Nonprofit Sector 65
Community-Based Partnerships 66
Sustainability 67
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in Tanzania 68
Institutional Framework for School Feeding 68
Socio-economic and Policy Context 68
School Feeding Policy Framework in Tanzania 68
Sectoral Policies 69
School Feeding Policies: Cross-sectorial and cross-level collaborations 73
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program implementation in Tanzania 74
Donor-led School Feeding Efforts in Tanzania 74
MGD programmatic changes across different phases 74
MGD Programmatic Components and Outcomes in Tanzania 75
Education and Literacy 75
Nutrition and Health 76
WASH 76
Supply Chain 77
Partnerships for School Feeding in Tanzania: The role of MGD 78
Partnerships with the Public Sector 78
Partnerships with the Private Sector 80
Partnerships with the Non-profit Sector 80
Community-Based Partnerships 82
Table of Contents
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2. ANALYSIS OF LOCAL PROCUREMENT 89
Introduction 84
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) in MGD Programming 85
Background 85
LRP Activities 86
Other LRP-Type Programs 87
Case Studies of Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda 88
Burkina Faso 89
Kenya 91
Rwanda 94
LRP Indicators 97
Discussion 114
Performance Data 114
Data Issues 114
Recommendations to Improve Future Research Efforts 114
Conclusion 115
RESEARCH COMPONENT 3. NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF MGD MEALS 
AND EFFECTS ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 116
Introduction 116
Sub-section 1: Compile and evaluate existing data and resources 118
Article #1: Which nutrients are important for cognitive development? 118
Article #2: What is the relative impact of school meal interventions in pre-schools on educational out￾comes? 119
Article #3: Which nutrients are important to prevent stunting? 120
Sub-section 2: Evaluation of School Meals 121
Evaluation of Meals: Senegal Case 121
Country Profile 121
Provided Meals 122
Methodology 122
Meals 122
Nutritional Adequacy of School Meals 126
Preschool meals 126
Primary school meals 129
School Meal Contributions of Dietary Diversity 133
Discussion And Conclusion 141
Limitations 141
Conclusion 141
Evaluation of Meals: Tanzania Case 142
Country Profile 142
Provided Meals 143
Materials and Methods 143
Nutritional Adequacy of School Meals 143
Results 143
Description of Food Provided in Meals 145
Contribution of School Meals to Dietary Diversity 147
Introduction 147
Material and Methods 147
Baseline Intervention Results 147
Midline Intervention Results 153
Discussion and Conclusion 160
Nutrition Adequacy 160
Dietary Diversity 160
Limitations 161
Impact of School Meal Programs in Senegal and Tanzania 162
Cognitive Development 162
Stunting 164
Educational Outcomes 165
Tanzania 165
Attendance 165
Enrollment 165
Academic Achievement 166
Senegal 166
Attendance 166
Enrollment 166
Academic Achievement 166
Appendix 168
Appendix -Introduction 168
Appendix 1.1 169
Appendix 1.2 170
Appendix 1.3 172
References 174
Evaluation Reports and other Sources by Country 174
Policy References by Country 179
Other References 184
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Section 1. Partnerships Page 
Table 1.1. Summary of interviews conducted under the MSU led research project 8
Table 1.2. Partnership typology (initiated by the implementing partner/PVO) 9
Table 1.3. Summary of partnerships with the public sector for school feeding under MGD 
Kenya
18
Table 1.4. Summary of partnerships with the non-profit sector for school feeding under 
MGD Kenya
21
Table 1.5 Rwanda – Number of students per Category 26
Table 1.6 Rwanda – Participation of nurseries and primary schools in School feeding initia￾tives, 2016-2019
27
Table 1.7. Rwanda - National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy objectives across time 32
Table 1.8. Rwanda-MGD: Provision of school meals during phase I of the program. 37
Table 1.9. Summary of public partnerships for school feeding under MGD Rwanda (please 
leave this table here)
39
Table 1.9A. Summary of public partnerships with inter-governmental organizations for 
school feeding under MGD Rwanda 
40
Table 1.10. Summary of partnerships with the private sector for school feeding under MGD 
Rwanda
43
Table 1.11. Summary of Public partnerships for school feeding under MGD Rwanda 45
Table 1.12. MGD in Sierra Leone: Scope of work from phases 1 to 4 58
Table 1.13. Summary of public partnerships for school feeding under MGD Sierra Leone 63
Table 1.14. Summary of nonprofit partnerships for school feeding under MGD Sierra 
Leone
65
Table 1.15. Summary of partnerships with the public sector for school feeding under MGD 
Tanzania
79
Table 1.16. Summary of partnerships with the non-profit sector for school feeding under 
MGD Tanzania
81
Table 1.17. Summary of partnerships with Community-based groups for school feeding 
under MGD Tanzania
82
Introduction Page
Table i.1. Summary of case selection per research question 2
List of Tables
Tables Section 3. Nutrition Page
Table 3.1. Provided foods and their macronutrient content, per 100 g of each ingredient* 123
Table 3.2. Provided foods and their key micronutrients, per 100 g of each ingredient* 124
Table 3.3. Composition of meals, preschools 125
Table 3.4. Composition of meals, primary schools 125
Table 3.5. Composition of preschool meals provided compared to WHO recommendations 
for carbohydrates, protein, and fat in school meals
127
Table 3.6. Composition of preschool meals compared to DRIs for children aged 4-8 y 
(vitamins)a
128
Table 3.7. Composition of preschool meals compared to DRIs for children aged 4-8 
(minerals)a
128
Table 3.8. Nutrition value of primary school meals compared to WHO recommendations for 
carbohydrates, protein, and fat
130
Table 3.9. Nutrition value of primary school meals compared to DRIs for children aged 9-13 
y (vitamins)
131
Table 3.10. Composition of primary school meals compared to DRIs for children aged 9-13 
y (minerals)
132
Table 3.11. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Provided to Preschool Students 134
Table 3.12. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Provided to Primary School Students 135
Table 3.13. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Including Community Donations 136
Table 3.14. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Including Community Donations 137
Table 3.15. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Including Community Donations 138
Table 3.16. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Including Community Donations 139
Table 3.17. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals Including Community Donations 140
Table 3.18. Contents of MGD Tanzania primary school ration 144
Table 3.19. Macronutrient content of Tanzania rations 144
Table 3.20. Meal Provided by Tanzania’s school district (New Ration). 144
Table 3.21. Nutrition value of ration compared to WHO recommendations for 
carbohydrates, protein, and fat 
145
Table 3.22. Nutrition value of ration compared to DRIs for children aged 9-13 y (vitamins) 145
Table 3.23. Nutrition value of ration compared to DRIs for children aged 9-13 y (minerals) 146
Table 3.24. Student baseline distribution based on location. 148
Section 2. Economic Analysis Page
Table 2.1. Annual Congressional Appropriations to MGD and LRP. 85
Table 2.2. LRP Project Recipients, Award Values, and Estimated Number of Beneficiaries 86
Table 2.3 LRP Standard Indicators, Type, and Baseline Values 97
Table 2.4 Custom Indicators Used by Burkina Faso and Rwanda (Kenya Used Only Standard 
Indicators.) 
98
Table 2.5. Count of Instances that FY Actual Performance Metric is Greater Than, Equal To, 
or Less Than Target Metric.
106
Table 2.6. Count of Instances that Project-Life Actual Performance Metric is Greater Than, 
Equal To, or Less Than Target Metric.
112
List of Figures
Section 1. Partnerships Page
Figure 1.1 World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey Results “Quality of Africa’s 
Education System”
10
Figure 1.2. Distribution of population attending primary schools (County level)- 2019 12
Figure 1.3. Kenya- Primary School Enrollment. National average compared to MGD partici￾pant schools (2017)
15
Figure 1.4. Educational outcomes in MGD schools 16
Figure 1.5 Rwanda – 2019 Student enrollment as proportion of population (Within official 
age range)
27
Figure 1.6 Rwanda - Policy Framework for School Feeding Programming 31
Figure 1.7 Rwanda- School Feeding efforts led by the WFP and supported by MGD 34
Figure 1.8 MGD implementation sites in Rwanda 35
Figure 1.9 Results for the MGD Standard Indicator #1 as reported by WFP-Rwanda. 36
Figure 1.10 Sierra Leone – Gross Enrollment Rates per educational level 49
Figure 1.11 Sierra Leone – Results of Standardized Testing in three different Educational 
Levels (NPSE, BECE and WASSCE)
50
Figure 1.12 Sierra Leone – Results of Standardized Testing at three different Educational Lev￾els (NPSE, BECE and WASSCE) in MGD implementation districts (Koinadugu and Falaba)
50
Figure 1.13 Sierra Leone- Policy Framework for School Feeding Programming 54
Figure 1.14 Timeline of MGD implementation in Sierra Leone 56
Figure 1.15 MGD School Feeding Literacy Outcomes 59
Figure 1.16 Teacher attendance rates at the endline of Phase 3 60
Figure 1.17 Tanzania – Policy Framework for School Feeding Programming 72
List of Figures
Figures Section 2. Economic Analysis Page
Figure 2.1. MGD awards by year for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda. 88
Figure 2.2. Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and 
Rwanda (Indicators 1-4).
99
Figure 2.3. Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and 
Rwanda (Indicators 5-8).
100
Figure 2.4. Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and 
Rwanda (Indicators 9-11).
101
Figure 2.5. Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and 
Rwanda (Indicators 14-16).
102
Figure 2.6. Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4).
103
Figure 2.7. Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8).
104
Figure 2.8. Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11).
105
Figure 2.9. Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 14-16).
105
Figure 2.10. Baseline and Fiscal Year Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 7-8).
107
Figure 2.11. Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4).
108
Figure 2.12. Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8).
109
Figure 2.13. Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11).
110
111
List of Figures
Figures Section 3. Nutrition Page
Figure 3.1. Percentage of children meeting minimum dietary diversity score (Food Groups 
consumed ≥ 4) in Intervention Schools
149
Figure 3.2. Percentage of children meeting minimum dietary diversity score (Food Groups 
consumed ≥ 4) in Control schools
149
Figure 3.3. Percentage of benefiting children consuming selected food groups in the past 
24-h.
150
Figure 3.4. Percentage of intervention students who reported not consuming selected food 
groups in the past 24-h.
150
Figure 3.5. Percentage of intervention and control students who reported consuming 
animal source foods in the past 24-h.
151
Figure 3.6. Percentage of intervention and control students who reported consuming roots 
and tubers or legumes and nuts in the past 24-h. 
151
Figure 3.7. Percentage of intervention and control students who reported consuming 
Vitamin A rich foods or other fruits and vegetables in the past 24-h. 
152
Figure 3.8. Percentage of intervention and control students who reported consuming 3 or 
more food groups in the Past 24-h. 
152
Figure 3.9. Percentage of Intervention Children Meeting the Minimum Dietary Diversity 
(Food Groups Consumed ≥ 4) 
154
Figure 3.10. Percentage of Control Children Meeting the Minimum Dietary Diversity 154
Figure 3.11. Selected Food Group Consumption in the Past 24-h 156
Figure 3.12. Selected Food Groups Not Consumed in the Past 24-h 156
Figure 3.13. Intervention and Control Students Animal Source Foods Consumption in the 
Past 24-h
157
Figure 3.14. Intervention Children from Musoma Rural District Meeting the Minimum 
Dietary Diversity Score
157
Figure 3.15. Intervention Children from Bunda District Meeting the Minimum Dietary 
Diversity Score 
158
Figure 3.16. Intervention Children from Butiama District Meeting the Minimum Dietary 
Diversity Score 
158
Figure 3.17. Serengeti District Children Meeting the Minimum Dietary Diversity Score 159
Acronyms
AAH......................................................Action Against Hunger
AGRA....................................................Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa
AIR........................................................Africa Improved Foods
ARED....................................................Associates in Research and Education for Development
CBNP.....................................................Community Based Nutrition Programs
CCD......................................................Cost per Child per Day
CFSVA...................................................Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
CPI........................................................Counterpart International
CRS.......................................................Catholic Relief Services
CSB+.....................................................Corn Soy Blend 
CVA.......................................................Citizen Voice and Action
DCAS....................................................The School Feeding Office
DEO......................................................District Education Officers
DER.......................................................Daily Energy Requirements
DRI........................................................Dietary Reference Intakes
ECCD....................................................Early Childhood Care and Development
ECD.......................................................Early Childhood Development Centers
EDPRS...................................................Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
EGRA.....................................................Early Grade Reading Activity
FAO.......................................................Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FBF.........................................................Fortified Blended Food
FDC.......................................................Forward Delivery Contracts
FFE........................................................Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
FO.........................................................Farmer Organizations
FR..........................................................Faso Riibo
FTC.......................................................Feed the Children
FTMA....................................................Farm to Market Alliance
GAP........................................................Good Agricultural Practices
GHI.......................................................Gardens for Health International
HGSF.....................................................Home Grown School Feeding
HGSMP.................................................Home Grown School Meals Programme
IOM......................................................Institute of Medicine
IYCF.......................................................Infant and Young Child Feeding
IYCN.....................................................Infant and Young Child Feeding Programs
KESSP....................................................Kenya Education Sector Support Program
LEAP......................................................Local Education Assistance and Procurement
LRP........................................................Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement
MAR......................................................Mean Adequacy Ratio
MC.........................................Municipal Council
MDD-W.................................Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women
MDD.....................................Minimum Dietary Diversity
MDDS....................................Minimum Dietary Diversity Score
MGD......................................McGovern-Dole
MIECOFIN............................Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
MINAGRI..............................Ministry of Agriculture
MINALOC.............................Ministry of Local Government
MINEDU...............................Ministry of Education
MINICOM.............................Ministry of Trade and Industry
MINIFRA...............................Ministry of Infrastructure
MoEVT...................................Ministry of Education and Vocational Training
MOH......................................Ministry of Health
MoHCDGEC.....................Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children
MSU.......................................Mississippi State University
NCD.......................................Non-communicable diseases
NCSFP....................................National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy
NECDP...................................National Early Childhood Development Programme
NISR.......................................National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda
NMNAP..................................National Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Action Plan
NNP........................................National Nutrition Policy
NOC.......................................Nutrition Oversight Committees
NSFSC....................................National School Feeding Steering Committee
NSGRP....................................National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty
NSGRP II................................National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II
NST.........................................National Strategy for Transformation
PCD........................................Partnership for Child Development
PCI..........................................Project Concern International
PHHS......................................Post-Harvest Handling and Storage
PMP.........................................Performance Management Plan
PPP..........................................Public-Private-Partnership 
RBC........................................Rwanda Biomedical Centre
RCC........................................Regional Consultative Committee
RDHS.....................................Rwanda Demographic and Health Surveys
RDA........................................Recommended Dietary Allowances
RDO.......................................Rwanda Development Organization
RUWASA................................Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency
RWARRI.................................Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative
S-WASH.................................School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
SAVE......................................Save the Children
SCDE.....................................Sub-County Director of Education
SGAC.....................................School General Assembly Committee
SHF.........................................Smallholder Farmer
SIDO......................................Small Industries Development Organization
SNV........................................Netherlands Development Organization
TAFSIP....................................Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan
TAMISEMI............................Office of the President Regional Administration and Local Government
Acronyms
TARI......................................Tanzania Agriculture Research Institute
ToT.........................................Training of Trainers
UN.........................................United Nations
UNDAP..................................United Nations Development Assistance Plan
UNESCO...............................United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
UNICEF.................................United Nations Children’s Fund
USA........................................United States of America
USAID...................................United States Agency for International Development
USDA.....................................United States Department of Agriculture
USDA-FAS.............................United States Department of Agriculture- Foreign Agricultural Service
VCA.......................................Value Chain Assessments
WASAC..................................Water and Sanitation Corporation
WASH....................................Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WFP.......................................World Food Programme
WHO.....................................World Health Organization
WRA......................................Women of Reproductive Age
WV..........................................World Vision
 Acronyms
1
Introduction
The benefits of School Feeding Programs
Many pre-school and school-age children living in low￾income, food-insecure countries are at risk of experiencing 
malnutrition, poor health, and poor sanitation, all 
of which impact their cognitive, motor, and social￾emotional development (Grantham-McGregor, 2007). 
Worldwide, there are 149 million children under 5 
years of age experiencing stunted growth and 45 million 
experiencing wasting (UNICEF, WHO & WB, 2021). 
These overlapping conditions arise from multiple factors 
with poor-quality diet being the most common among 
them. Investments in child and maternal nutrition are 
critical to reducing hunger and improving food security in 
developing countries. International financial institutions 
emphasize the importance of ending malnutrition as a 
means to improve economic and human development 
outcomes as they relate to better health, education, and 
overall long-term human capital (Shekar et al., 2017). 
Evidence also suggests a reduction in malnutrition not 
only improves individual health outcomes but also has 
the potential to increase economic productivity (Horton 
& Steckel, 2013) and yield high returns on investments 
for development activities (Shekar et al., 2017; Alderman 
et al., 2017; Horton and Hoddinott, 2014). Moreover, 
improving nutrition can contribute to improvements 
in other development targets like increasing school 
attendance and completion, enhancing cognitive 
development and learning, reducing poverty among 
children and adults, and increasing a country’s overall 
wealth (Shekar et al., 2017). Therefore, programs that aim 
to eradicate child and maternal malnutrition, including 
school feeding programs, are critical to improving health 
and education outcomes in developing countries and 
further increasing their human capital potential. School 
feeding programs in developing countries have become 
a tool to complement interventions that seek to address 
problems of malnutrition among school-age children. 
In many cases, school feeding programs also target the 
nutrition of mothers and children under age five as a means 
to ensure children achieve proper brain development 
before school enrollment. In 2020, 388 million children 
benefited from school feeding programs worldwide, 53 
million of those in Sub-Saharan Africa (WFP, 2021). 
Beyond improving child nutrition, school feeding also 
seeks to improve educational outcomes, including but not 
limited to enrollment, attendance, and literacy, to further 
improve national human capital. School feeding programs 
are also safety net tools critical to addressing, high levels 
of poverty and food insecurity in places that suffer from 
these problems. School feeding programs can rely on take￾home rations and cash-based transfers to improve the food 
security of disadvantaged households (Bundy et al., 2009). 
Another contribution of school feeding programs is the 
capacity to impact gender equality by creating incentives 
for families to encourage girls to attend school (e.g., meal 
provision; water, sanitation and hygiene [WASH] targeting 
girls). These incentives help minimize cultural barriers to 
female access to and retention in the educational system. 
At the community level, the use of the Home-Grown 
School Feeding (HGSF) framework (FAO & WFP, 2018) 
promotes the connection between the local agricultural 
system and school meal provision. According to the 
HGSF framework, adding smallholder capacity-building 
activities into comprehensive school feeding programs can 
expand the gains of school feeding beyond the educational 
sector and toward the well-being and economic 
prosperity of the communities. Globally, school feeding 
programs can contribute to ensuring gains on sustainable 
development goals (SDG) #2-ending hunger, #4-equitable 
access to quality education, and #5-gender equality. 
The US Government, through the McGovern-Dole Food 
for Education and Child Nutrition (MGD) program, 
has allocated resources to carry out comprehensive 
food for education programs in high poverty, high 
food-insecure countries. The goal of the program is,
To reduce hunger and improve literacy and primary 
2
education, especially for girls. By providing school meals, 
teacher training and related support, McGovern-Dole 
projects help boost school enrollment and academic 
performance. At the same time, the program also focuses on 
improving children’s health and learning capacity before 
they enter school by offering nutrition programs for pregnant 
and nursing women, infants and pre-schoolers. (USDA￾FAS, n.d). 
Research Approach
Given the relevance of school feeding programs 
worldwide and the need to improve learning about the 
MGD program, USDA-FAS has partnered with USAID 
Africa Bureau to award Mississippi State University (MSU) 
a cooperative agreement to conduct research and learning 
activities from the implementation of the MGD projects 
in Africa, revolving around three sets of questions from 
the MGD Learning Agenda (USDA, 2016), as follows: 
1. Partnerships: What kinds of partnerships 
with the private sector and/or host country 
governments are the most effective at ensuring 
program sustainability? Among successful 
partnerships, who are the key players, and what 
are their roles? In what contexts do private sector 
and/or government partnerships work best, 
1 LRP projects are complementary to MGD implementation and seek to implement field-based projects that pro￾vide development assistance and emergency relief using locally procured commodities. Starting in FY 2020, LRP compo￾nents were included in the MGD awards to allow for up to 10% of MGD funds to be allocated to LRP activities.
and which contexts may be more challenging? 
2. Economic analysis of MGD programs: How 
do the impacts of local procurement models and other 
community and nationally sourced models compare 
with those that rely on international food sources?
3. Nutrition effects on educational outcomes: 
How do school meal interventions and the nutritional 
aspects of these meals in pre-schools and primary 
schools influence educational outcomes in students? 
Researchers from MSU used existing performance data 
provided by USDA from active or recently completed 
MGD and Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
Program (LRP)1 1
project activities in six African countries: 
Burkina Faso, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and 
Tanzania. MSU also established communication with 
MGD and LRP implementing partners in each country 
of interest and was able to access and further analyze more 
detailed monitoring and evaluation datasets. In addition, 
MSU incorporated primary data collection procedures by 
conducting semi-structured interviews that helped inform 
the analysis of the research questions but were specifically 
used to address research question #1 on partnerships. 
In agreement with USDA and USAID, a sub-set 
of countries was selected to address each research 
question. Research question #1 used MGD and LRP 
implementation information from Kenya, Rwanda, 
Table i.1. Summary of case selection per research question
Kenya Rwanda Senegal Burkina Faso Sierra Leone Tanzania
Countries of Interest Research
Questions
Q1.
Partnerships
Implementer:
World Food
Programme
Implementer:
World Food
Programme
Implementer:
Catholic Relief
Services
Implementer:
Project Concern
International
now known as
Global
Communities
Q2.
Procurement
Analysis
Implementer:
World Food
Programme
Implementer:
World Food
Programme
Implementer:
Catholic Relief
Services
Q3.
Nutrition￾Educational
Outcomes
Implementer:
PCI/GC 
Implementer:
Project Concern
International
now known as
Global
Communities
Implementer:
Counterpart
International
3
Sierra Leone2
 , and Tanzania. Research question #2 
prioritized LRP implementation in Burkina Faso, 
Kenya, and Rwanda. MGD implementations in 
Senegal and Tanzania were selected to address research 
question #3. The table below summarizes the set of 
research questions and cases, as well as the name of 
the organization (i.e., Private Voluntary Organization 
(PVO); or the World Food Programme -WFP) leading 
MGD and LRP implementation in each country. 
The evolution and contributions of 
the MGD program to school feeding 
worldwide
Acknowledging the nutrition and education needs 
of people living in low-income and food-deficit 
countries and the potential impacts of investments 
to end malnutrition, the MGD fund has committed 
to promoting school feeding and child nutrition 
programs. The program helps support education, child 
development, food security, and nutrition by providing 
agricultural commodities from the US, locally and 
regionally procured commodities (nowadays known 
as the LRP component), and financial and technical 
assistance to support school feeding and maternal and 
child nutrition programs. The MGD program dates to 
the early 2000s, with the launch of the Global Food for 
Education Initiative (GFEI), announced by President 
Clinton at the 2000 G-8 Summit in Japan. The pilot 
program received strong support, most notably from 
Senator Bob Dole and George McGovern—a former 
senator and ambassador to the UN. GFEI was a pilot 
program meant to enhance nutrition and promote 
school enrollment among school-aged children in 
low-income and food-insecure countries. The US 
government committed $300 million in resources 
to this pilot program, which was expected to reach 
about 9 million children with school meals or take￾home rations in 38 countries across Africa, Asia, Latin 
America, and Eastern Europe (The White House, 
2000). The program was run by the USDA with the 
support of PVOs and the WFP. The main objective 
of this pilot was to provide in-kind commodities and 
transportation funding for school meal provision.
Lessons from the GFEI pilot were later incorporated 
2 At the time of analysis, Sierra Leone had not been awarded an LRP project component. But the most recent 
award, 2021-2025, included an LRP component.
into the design of the McGovern-Dole Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition program, named 
after Senators McGovern and Dole, in recognition of 
their support for school nutrition in food-insecure, 
low-income countries. The MGD program was first 
authorized in the 2002 farm bill and reauthorized 
in subsequent farm bills to provide commodities, 
financial, and technical assistance for foreign preschool 
and school feeding programs (Nair, 2022). The bill 
assigned USDA the role of program lead, and today 
MGD falls under the USDA-FAS strategic objective 
4.1. “Implement non trade-focused congressionally 
mandated programs.” The MGD efforts are relevant 
not only to alleviate short-term hunger, improve 
educational outcomes, and increase the use of health 
and dietary practices among groups benefiting from the 
program but also because the program’s presence in a 
country contributes to developing long-term capacity 
for school feeding programming, which ultimately 
feeds into human capital development. As this study 
will show in section 1, through program partnerships, 
implementing partners have become critical players 
in the design of school feeding policies and regulatory 
frameworks. These types of efforts are significant because 
they contribute to the sustainability of school feeding: 
“McGovern-Dole projects are built on the premise that 
USDA assistance is limited and that, to sustain progress, 
McGovern-Dole seeks to maintain the benefits to education, 
enrollment and attendance of children in schools in targeted 
communities, and bring other long-term benefits to targeted 
populations of the recipient country.” (USDA, 2020, p. 5)
Currently, the MGD programmatic structure is 
defined by its two strategic objectives that, in turn, 
are the program results frameworks: (1) to improve 
literacy of school age children with focus on early grade 
reading; and (2) to increase the use of health and dietary 
practices (see appendix 1: MGD results framework 1 
and 2). In the early 2010s, the USDA shifted toward 
a Results-Oriented Management approach which, in 
the case of MGD, led to the development of the two 
results frameworks/strategic objectives and 3-year 
awards. From this time forward, USDA-FAS requested 
that implementing partners provide semi-annual 
performance reports (using the results framework) and 
shifted from measuring outputs only to also measuring 
4
outcomes through baseline, midterm, and endline 
evaluation efforts. The two MGD results frameworks 
serve as an adaptable blueprint for implementers to 
develop program activities in each targeted geographic 
area within each target country. Derived from the results 
frameworks, the program has a series of measurements to 
track program outputs and outcomes (MGD indicators). 
Implementing partners adapt their programmatic 
activities to fit local needs, and track progress using the 
MGD standard indicators and custom measurements 
(when added by the implementer and approved by 
USDA-FAS). Implementers report program progress 
biannually using MGD and custom indicators as 
established in their Performance Management Plan 
(PMP). Additionally, the program must incorporate 
baseline, midterm, and endline evaluations to assess the 
state of program progress and ultimately capture changes 
produced by the implementation. Researchers from MSU 
used monitoring (MGD indicators) and evaluation data 
to address the three key research questions of this study. 
Between fiscal years (FY) 2004 and 2021, appropriations 
for MGD account for over $2.9 billion from Farm Bill 
funds and benefit 39 countries (Review of annual report to 
Congress – see Table 2.1 from section 2 for more details).
The landscape of School Feeding 
Programs worldwide
The USDA-FAS MGD is one of a series of school feeding 
programs in developing countries that receive donor 
support. Apart from the USDA, intergovernmental 
organizations like the WFP and PVOs also play a key 
role in the design and implementation of school feeding 
programs worldwide. The Global Child Nutrition 
Foundation (GCNF) continues its efforts to assess the 
state of school feeding by releasing a periodic report 
(i.e., Global Survey of School Meal Programs). In 
Africa, the African Union – New Partnership for Africa’s 
Development (AU-NEPAD) has become a champion of 
school feeding in the region. In 2016, the Heads of State 
and Governments of AU member countries signed the 
Agenda 2063, CESA 16-25, which adopted the HGSF 
decision. In 2017, the 31st Ordinary Session of the African 
Union Executive Council adopted the Sustainable School 
Food and Nutrition Initiative (SSFNI) as a means to 
address the goals of the Africa Regional Nutrition Strategy 
(2015-2025) (African Union, 2021). The AU-NEPAD 
has worked closely with partners like the WFP to design 
and promote the adoption of school feeding policies and 
regulatory frameworks among their associated countries.
In 2011, the WFP Center for Excellence against 
hunger located in Brazil (WFP Brazil CoE) emerged 
as a center providing school-feeding policy innovation 
and technical assistance to developing countries. First 
drawing on lessons from the Brazilian experience, the 
WFP Brazil CoE has become a key player in the design 
and implementation of government-led efforts on school 
feeding. The key element of the WFP Brazil CoE’s 
approach is the linking of “school feeding initiatives to 
local agricultural systems.” The Center accomplished 
this by incorporating the HGSF framework (FAO & 
WFP, 2018) into its policy and technical assistance 
efforts. Utilizing the HGSF framework, the WFP Brazil 
CoE helped obtain government commitments and aided 
in the design and implementation of school feeding 
programs across several countries. Overall, the WFP has 
become a significant player in school feeding worldwide. 
Lessons from the WFP work have been incorporated 
into MGD implementations as this organization is one 
of the implementers of MGD program projects. The 
intermingling of the WFP school feeding design framework 
and the presence of MGD and LRP funds continue to 
improve local capacity for school feeding sustainability.
The sustainability of school feeding activities is 
integral to ensuring that donor-led efforts do not end 
when programmatic efforts end. Bundy et al., (2009) 
developed a framework that suggests that there are five 
pre-conditions must be met in order for school programs 
to achieve sustainability. These are: [1] clear national 
and sectoral policy frameworks; [2] stable funding and 
budgeting; [3] institutional capacity to implement and 
coordinate programs; [4] ensure that the design and 
implementation is needs-based, cost-effective, well￾adapted, and contributes to the delivery of quality 
school feeding programs; and [5] strong community 
participation. Through the analyses presented in this 
work, we show that the implementation of MGD 
program projects in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Rwanda, 
Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania, have provided 
useful evidence that continues to inform sustainability 
frameworks that feed into school feeding programming.
The structure of this report
This report used data from the implementation 
of MGD projects in six African countries and is 
5
divided into three sections that address three research 
components: [1] partnerships for school feeding; [2] 
analysis of local procurement models; and [3] nutritional 
components and effects on educational outcomes. 
For research component 1, partnerships for school 
feeding, this report provides the case study results for the 
analyses of MGD and LRP related partnerships in four 
countries: Kenya (Case Study #1), Rwanda (Case Study 
#2), Sierra Leone (Case Study #3), and Tanzania (Case 
study #4). Each case study includes three sub-sections 
that provide an analysis of school meals partnerships, 
as leveraged by MGD implementation in each country. 
Each case study includes the following sections: [1] 
Institutional framework for school feeding which 
provides details about the socio-economic context in 
each country of interest, as well as the policy framework 
for school feeding; [2] a summary of the MGD 
implementation, targeting the key program outcomes to 
further connect outcomes with partnerships; and [3] the 
analysis of partnerships for school feeding as the effect of 
MGD presence in each country, using four partnership 
types: public, private, non-profit, and community-level. 
 
For research component 2, the report presents results 
from the analysis of the Local and Regional Procurement 
model under the MGD framework. The first part of 
this section presents program background information, 
including different LRP activities and mechanisms. The 
second part of this component includes a case study 
analysis of the three countries of interest for this research 
question: Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda. This is 
followed by a report of LRP performance indicators 
and comments about the LRP monitoring system. 
This section closes with a discussion of performance 
data and some recommendations for future research. 
To address the research question under component 
3, the MSU team first conducted three in-depth desk 
reviews of current literature (sub-section 1). These desk 
reviews examined nutrients associated with cognitive 
development3
, nutrients associated with stunting,4
 and 
the relative impact of school meal programs on educational 
outcomes for preschool-age children.5
 Sub-section 2 
of research component 3 then evaluates what specific 
3 Roberts, M.; Tolar-Peterson, T.; Reynolds, A.; Wall, C.; Reeder, N.; Rico Mendez, G. The Effects of Nutritional 
Interventions on the Cognitive Development of Preschool-Age Children: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 532. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030532
4 Manuscript is under review in a peer-reviewed journal.
5 Wall, C., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reeder, N., Roberts, M., Reynolds, A., Rico Mendez, G. The Impact of School Meal 
Programs on Educational Outcomes in African Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environ￾foods and nutrients are provided as part of the school 
meals, frequency of meals, and adequacy of nutrient 
content using data provided by the MGD implementing 
partners in Senegal and Tanzania. Sub-section 3 is an 
evaluation of the impact of school meal programs in 
Senegal and Tanzania as it relates to providing adequate 
nutrition for cognitive development, normal growth and 
development, and improving educational outcomes. To 
do this, results from component 3 sub-section 1 and 
component 3 sub-section 2 of this study were compared. 
6
7
Research Component 1: Partnerships for School Feeding
Introduction
Under MGD programming efforts, partnerships with 
a variety of actors are critical to building organizational, 
technical, and financial capacity to further ensure 
sustainable short-term and long-term school feeding 
outcomes. MGD project components offer opportunities 
for implementers to partner with local and non-local 
stakeholders to leverage existing school feeding program 
opportunities. The underlying assumption of each MGD 
implementation is that its school feeding activities will 
be handed off for leadership and management to local 
stakeholders, which is usually the national government 
with the support of local and regional authorities. In order 
to reach this point, and ensure sustainable school feeding 
programming, partnerships are critical. This section will 
present examples of MGD’s best practices in school 
feeding partnerships. Further, the following sections 
show that sustainability and handing off school feeding 
to local actors is mainly possible because of implementer 
commitment not only to the delivery of quality project 
implementation, but also because of its engagement in 
policymaking, contributions to developing regulatory 
frameworks, capacity to identify and secure of public 
and private funding opportunities, and the inclusion 
of programmatic efforts to ensure capacity building of 
public sector and civic society organizations. Therefore, 
partnerships with a variety of actors are important for 
the sustainability of school feeding efforts because 
they strengthen national, regional, and local capacity 
to carry out programming once development partners 
relinquish program ownership. Partnerships in this study 
are defined as any relationship—whether permanent 
or temporary—between groups, organizations, or 
persons where there is collaboration, that in cases 
includes the transfer of resources (e.g., technical, 
financial, organizational, human capital), in an effort 
to achieve shared or similar school feeding-related 
goals to gain mutually beneficial outcomes. In some 
cases, the collaboration can take a contractual form 
(i.e., subgrantees of MGD implementers), in which 
case, MGD implementing partners work directly with 
technical or expert organizations to implement project 
components. This study considers these as partnerships 
because of the capacity of the relationship and the nature 
of activities performed impact systemic change and long￾term sustainability. Partnerships for school feeding should 
support planning and implementation, contribute to 
developing sustainability strategies and tactics, and/or build 
capacity among the different actors engaged in processes.
The MGD learning agenda (USDA, 2016) emphasizes a 
need to conduct research on partnerships around school 
meal program implementation to identify what type of 
partnerships and institutions are better suited to ensure 
program sustainability. Framed by the gaps identified in 
Kenya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, & Tanzania
8
the MGD learning agenda, the research conducted by the 
MSU team seeks to address the following research question: 
What kinds of partnerships with the private sector and/or 
host country governments are the most effective at ensuring 
program sustainability? Among successful partnerships, 
who are the key players and what are their roles? In what 
contexts do private sector and/or government partnerships 
work best, and which contexts may be more challenging?
To address this research gap, the MSU team collaborated 
with USDA and USAID to select four countries of 
interest where MGD implementations exhibited 
potential learning opportunities around partnerships. 
The countries prioritized for the analysis are Kenya, 
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania. The research team 
developed analysis tools and examined the local contexts 
using secondary data sources, conducted national￾level policy analyses, carried out a remote qualitative 
data collection, and conducted qualitative data analysis 
and a systematic desk review of MGD program 
performance data provided by USDA and implementing 
partners. Table 1.1 summarizes semi-structured 
interviews conducted for the overall research project.
Using the sources indicated above, researchers conducted 
a case-by-case (one per each MGD implementation in 
the four selected countries) process tracing and outcome 
mapping project implementations and contexts to determine 
which processes, actors, and relationships led to specific 
program outcomes. This simultaneously allowed the team 
to further outline how certain partnerships contribute 
to program successes, how implementers managed 
implementation challenges under a collaborative model, 
and what knowledge emerged from each implementation 
site. Each of the four cases includes three broad sections: 
[1] The institutional framework includes contextual 
information about the socio-economic conditions of 
each country with particular emphasis on nutrition, food 
security, agriculture, and education, as those lay at the core 
of MGD programming implementation. The institutional 
framework also includes a policy analysis emphasizing 
how national policies have approached school feeding. 
Additionally, this section provides details on recent school 
feeding policies and regulatory developments (i.e., in the 
four cases, each country has at least a written National 
School Feeding Policy). The policy timeline varies 
according to each country’s contextual circumstances. 
[2] The MGD program description section depicts 
the role each implementing partner plays and their 
respective local contexts, including its role in school 
feeding policy formation; it also provides a summary of 
spatiotemporal programmatic changes; and it highlights 
high-level program outcomes per component (i.e., 
meal distribution, education and literacy, nutrition 
and health, and local procurement, where applicable). 
The purpose of this section is not only to inform the 
reader about the major MGD programmatic results but 
Table 1.1 Summary of Interviews Conducted Under the MSU-led Research Project
Country MGD implementing partner Number of
interviews
Number of
persons
interviewed
Kenya
Rwanda
Burkina Faso
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
USG and experts
WFP
WFP
CRS
CRS
PCI- Global Communities
---
9
8
17
8
11
9
62
9
12
17
8
11
9
Total 66
9
also to connect these with the variety of partners that 
participated in implementation and engaged in school 
feeding programming development in each country.
[3] The partnerships for school feeding section builds 
on findings from primary (interviews with staff from the 
implementing partners) and secondary data (program 
performance data and reports) analysis. Results are 
categorized into partnerships types as follows: (i) public; 
(ii) private; (iii) non-profit; and (iv) community-level. 
These categories are not mutually exclusive but served 
as analytic groupings to create a better understanding 
of the types of relationships that implementing 
partnerships entered into and developed during MGD 
implementation. This analysis shows the role that 
implementing partners play, thought the establishment 
of partnerships, in the development of alternatives for 
the sustainability of school feeding once the program is 
ready to be transferred to local actors for management and 
implementation. Table 1.2 summarizes the partnership 
categories used in this study; it includes the types of 
actors involved, specific participating actors, and the 
partnership priorities. This table will serve as a guide to 
reading the partnership sub-section within each case study.
Table 1.2 Partnership Typology (Initiated by the Implementing Partner/PVO)
Type of
Actors Involved Priorities
PUBLIC
Governmental institutions at
dierent levels of governance:
• National / Central
• Domestic / Regional
• Local
• International (Regional or 
 Global)
Actors
Policy Making and
Implementation Bodies:
 Central level of government
 (Executive)
 • Ministry of Education
 • Ministry of Health
 • Ministry of Agriculture
 • Treasury
 • Etc.
Legislative Bodies: (Legislative)
 Local and Regional Administration:
 • Secretary of Education
 • Extension Services
 • Secretary of Health
 • Etc.
• Ensure governmental commitment
 towards school feeding. Budget
 allocation.
• Policy making that contributes
 to capacity building: technical
 capacity at the school level.
• Develop national guidelines for
 school feeding.
• Cross-sector collaboration
• Accountability: Monitoring and
 Evaluation Systems
PRIVATE 
• Large enterprises
• Medium enterprises
• Small enterprises
Value Chain Actors:
 • Farmer / Producers
 • Food Industry
 • Fortification
 • Transportation
• Income generation activities
• Ensure access to markets
PUBLIC - PRIVATE (*) 
• Research and Development
 Institutions
 • Research Institutions
 • Universities
 • International Donors leading
 R&D activities
Research findings that contribute to:
• Improved productivity
• Enhance a socially pressing
 problem (e.g. nutrition)
NGOs
• Inter-governmental
 organizations
• International NGOs
• Domestic NGOs
 MGD Implementation
 • USDA-FAS and Implementing
 partner
 • Implementing partner and
 Subgrantees
 • Local NGOs collaborating in the
 implementation of MGD and
 LRP activities
 
• Ensure availability of funding for
 school feeding related activities.
• Develop capacity to ensure
 sustainability: transition / 
 Graduation / Handover.
• Identify key actors responsible for
 implementation of school feeding
 activities post award.
 • PTAs / School Management
 Committees
 • Farmer Organizations
 • SILC Groups / Women lending
 groups
 • Other local organizations 
 promoting school feeding like
 activities
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
• Individuals
• Civil society organizations
• Accountability
• Develop local capacities for
 school feeding
• Communitiy contributions (when
 feasible)
• Ensure a fair distribution of school-
 related activities within the 
 community / Avoid overburden
 of certain groups (e.g. women)
• Increase awareness about nutrition,
 health, and importance of education
 (local champions)
 (*) Depending on the lead partner, these types of partnerships were included under public or private categories.
10
Research Component 1: Partnerships for School Feeding
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in 
Kenya
Institutional Framework for School Feeding
Socio-economic and Policy 
Context
Over the most recent decade, Kenya has made economic 
progress that has led to sustained economic growth, social 
development, and political stability gains (World Bank, 
2021). Kenya experienced an approximate 5% GDP 
in 2021 and expects to see a decline in the poverty rate 
after pandemic conditions stabilize. World Bank 
data indicate the proportion of Kenyans below the 
national poverty line (US$1.90 per day in 2011 
PPP) has declined from 46.8% in 2005/06 to 
36.1% in 2015/16 (World Bank, 2018). Kenya’s 
poverty rate remains the lowest when compared 
to its East African neighbors. Further, Kenya’s 
labor force participation is comparably higher 
(71.89%) than its sub-region neighbors (64.47%). 
Regarding Kenya’s educational outcomes, in 
2015, approximately 84% of the population ages 
14 years and older could read and write, a high 
rate compared to countries like Ghana at 71%; 
however, only 58% of adults ages 24 and above 
have completed primary school (World Bank, 
2018). Kenya’s educational system is considered 
the strongest in Africa, reflecting the policy and 
material investments that have been made over the 
past decades. Kenya’s favorable policy environment 
has produced key educational outcomes which 
include a 99.0% enrollment at the primary 
school level before COVID-19 (UNICEF, n.d.-c). 
The World Economic Forum ranked Kenya’s 
educational system as the strongest in Africa (Figure 1.1), 
and Kenya’s Human Capital—the knowledge, skills, 
and health that people accumulate over their lives— has 
been described by the World Bank as the best in Africa 
(Andrews et al., 2021). When compared with other African 
nations, the current status of the Kenyan educational 
system suggests a correlation between educational 
outcomes and its contributive policy environment. 
Kenya
Rwanda
Mauritius
Cotê d’Ivoire
Zambia
Ghana
Lesotho
Botswana
Cameroon
Senegal
Ethiopia
Uganda
Namibia
Tanzania
Malawi
Mali
Madagascar
Gabon
Nigeria
Mozambique
Burundi
Chad
Benin
South Africa
Mauritania
Source: World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey
Figure 1.1 World Economic Forum executive opinion survey results “Quality of 
Africa’s education system”
WorldAverage: 3.8
Quality rating, 1-7 (best)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11
Kenya’s inclusive, multisector approach to policy 
formation has resulted in a policy environment favorable 
to socio-economic advancement. Kenya’s school meal 
program has not only shaped the formation of critical 
national policies but also has served as a platform 
for implementing these policies to improve health 
nutrition and protect vulnerable households. It’s worth 
noting that the nonprofit sector has been a significant 
player in Kenya’s policy evolution and remains a 
critical partner in the future of Kenya’s school meal 
program. The current role and position of nonprofits, 
such as the WFP, make them an important channel for 
navigating policy issues in development, as this report 
will inform later in the educational environment section.
Health and Nutrition Context
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates 
the national prevalence of stunting for children under age 
five as 26% and as much as 46% in Kitui and West Pokot 
counties. Similarly, 11.0% of children are underweight 
and 4.0% are experiencing wasting (UNICEF, n.d.-a). 
Under-five infant mortality is estimated at 42 per every 
1,000 live births. Similarly, the maternal mortality ratio 
is 342 per 100,000 live births. Regarding nutrition, 
consumption of iodized salt is at 95.0% among the 
population. Only 62% of Kenyans have access to 
improved drinking water, and even fewer (29%) 
have access to improved sanitation (USAID, 2022).
In 1994, the National Plan of Action for Nutrition 
was introduced to improve household food security and 
promote good dietary habits and infant feeding practices. 
Some of the most recent health policies adopted by the 
Kenyan government emphasize nutrition’s connection 
to educational outcomes. For example, the National 
School Health Policy and National School Health 
guidelines (2009) emphasize achieving health outcomes 
using the school environment and the fledgling Kenyan 
School Meals Program as the entry point. The National 
School Health policy uniquely stressed the role of the 
community in resource mobilization, planning, and 
implementation of the Kenyan School Meals Programs. 
Similarly, the National Social Protection Policy was 
passed in 2011 and aims to leverage school meals as a 
safety net for vulnerable households, further underscoring 
the role of school meals as a social protection measure 
in the arid and semi-arid parts of Kenya. In 2016, three 
key ministries, the Ministry of Education, Science and 
Technology, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, jointly developed 
the School Nutrition and Meals Strategy for Kenya. 
The policy’s objectives again reflect the multisector 
collaboration approach and include increasing intake and 
awareness of adequate, culturally appropriate, nutritious 
meals amongst school-age children while improving 
enrollment, attendance, retention, completion, and 
learning of school-age children. The policy also aimed 
to promote local economic, social, and agricultural 
development and partnership among relevant institutions.
Agriculture and Food Security Situation
Agriculture contributes an estimated 33% of Kenya’s 
gross domestic product. Approximately 40.0% of Kenyans 
are employed in the Agricultural sector; of those, 70.0% 
are rural dwellers (USAID, 2022). Kenya’s arid and semi￾arid counties, while home to a population of 10 million 
people, are prone to recurrent drought, human conflict, a 
legacy of marginalization by the government, and a lack 
of international investments (Ibid). The global hunger 
index in Kenya for 2021 was 23.0%, which is considered 
“serious” according to the index measurements. Similarly, 
the global food security for 2020 was 49.0%, raking 
Kenya in the 90th position worldwide (USAID, 2021).
Kenya’s vulnerability to drought and locust invasion 
poses some of the toughest challenges to agricultural 
productivity in the country. The Agriculture Sector 
Development Strategy (2010–2020) was introduced 
to ensure food and nutrition security for all Kenyans 
and generate higher incomes and create employment 
opportunities. In 2011, the agricultural ministry 
introduced the National Food and Nutrition Security 
Policy to further address the threat of food and nutrition 
insecurity in Kenya (National Food and Nutrition 
Policy, 2011). This policy similarly targets the school 
environment and School Meals Programs as platforms for 
promoting nutrition awareness. Specifically, the National 
Food and Nutrition Security Policy established standards 
and regulations for storage, preparation, handling, and 
quantity of food served to students under School Meals 
Programs. The policy also prioritized the dissemination 
of information about good nutrition and dietary practices 
in schools. Two years after introducing the National 
Food and Nutrition Security Policy, the Ministry of 
Agriculture introduced the Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries’ Strategic Plan (2013–2017) which fell in line 
12
with their prior objective to address food and nutrition 
insecurity. The strategic plan focused on establishing 
irrigation projects, fishponds, and water-harvesting 
infrastructure in schools. The Kenyan government has 
consistently approached policy formulation—over the 
past three decades—in a way that emphasizes use of 
inter-agency and sectoral collaboration in formulating 
policy; the school environment and the school meals 
programs have inspired and served as a platform for 
advancing almost all of the aforementioned policies. 
School feeding and Educational Policy 
Environment
The policy framework in Kenya has constantly adapted 
to create and support an environment favorable to social 
and economic development. In 1968, the Government 
of Kenya established the Education Act, which mandated 
that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 
be the institution responsible for education and set the 
foundation for Kenyan policy evolution (Eshiwani, 
1990). National policies seeking 
to increase access to health and 
universal basic education for 
Kenyan school children have 
featured prominently in the past 
few decades, especially at the 
government level. International 
donor community activities have 
significantly impacted the Kenyan 
policy environment. In 2002, the 
Kenyan government introduced 
the Free and Compulsory Primary 
Education policy (Kenya-Ministry 
of Education, 2021; Holland, 
2021), which was implemented 
in the 2003 academic period 
in response to millennium 
development goals 3 and 4. The 
introduction of the Free and 
Compulsory Primary Education 
policy resulted in nearly a 
million more students enrolling 
in primary school and increased 
the demand for school feeding in 
Kenya. In 2005, the government 
introduced the Kenya Education 
Sector Support Program 
(KESSP), which provided a 
comprehensive guide for education and made school 
feeding an integral part of the Kenyan educational system. 
In 2009, the Kenyan government adopted the National 
School Health Guideline, with a core objective of providing 
a balanced school meal for children in all Kenyan schools. 
By 2010, Kenya had declared education a fundamental 
human right and required basic education to be ‘free 
and compulsory.’ The Kenyan constitution declared 
food access a basic right. The WFP’s MGD mid-term 
project evaluation described Kenya’s “policy environment 
as a relatively well-developed, with policies that seek 
to promote advancement in education, health, and 
nutrition, as part of a comprehensive development plan 
(KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020). The WFP-led MGD 
project implementation, has had a significant impact in 
enhancing the education and school feeding policy and 
governance environment. For example, WFP participated 
in the design of Kenya’s first National School Meals and 
Nutrition Strategy which was approved and launched 
May 2018. These new policies have also increased the 
Kenyan government’s budgetary allocation for education, 
contributed to the establishment of a nationally owned 
Turkana
Marsabit
Mandera
West
Pokot
Samburu Isolo
0.3% - 0.8%
0.9% - 1.6%
Wajir
Garissa
Tana
River
Lamu
Kilifi
Kwale
Taita
Taveta
Kitui
Kajiado
Makueni
Narok
UGANDA
SOUTH
SUDAN
ETHIOPIA
SOMALIA
INDIAN
OCEAN
1.7% - 2.6% TANZANIA
2.7% - 3.8%
3.9% - 6.4%
Homa
Bay
Migori
Baringo
Laikipia Meru
Siaya Kisumu
Nandi
Nakuru
Embu
Machakos
Kiambu
Murang’a
Nyandarua
Nyeri
Trans
Nzola
1- Bungoma
2- Elgeyo-Marakwet
3- Busia
4- Kakamega
5- Uasin Gishu
6- Vihiga
7- Kericho
8- Kisii
9- Nyamira
10- Bomet
11- Nairobi
12- Kirinyaga
13- Tharaka-Nithi
1
4
2
5 3
6
7
8
9 10
11
13
12
Figure 1.2. Distribution of population attending primary schools (county level) - 2019
Source: Authors using data from Bondarenko, et al., 2022
13
school feeding program, and a framework that supports a 
multisectoral approach to achieving Kenyan educational 
goals. Figure 1.2 shows the geographic distribution 
of population attending primary school in Kenya.
The presence of nonprofit organizations, such as the 
WFP, UNICEF, and other UN agencies in the school 
feeding related activities, has strongly influenced Kenya’s 
policy evolution. The WFP’s HGSF framework aligns 
with recommendations for more sustainable school meal 
programs based on availability of national resources 
(KY.MGD. Baseline.2016-2020; Bundy et al., 2009). 
The creation of key policies and relevant supporting 
documents, such as the School Meals and Nutrition 
Strategy 2017-2022, and the National School Health 
Policy, have had nonprofit organizations such as the 
WFP playing a pivotal role in their development.
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program 
implementation in Kenya
WFP School Feeding Efforts in 
Kenya
The WFP has been in Kenya since the 1980s and has 
pioneered Kenya’s School Meals Programs in collaboration 
with government institutions, targeting children in 
arid and semi-arid areas of the country. Through donor 
support, the WFP has continued to provide hot school 
meals and take-home rations to school children (Holland, 
2021). The current WFP Kenya country strategic 
plan (2018-2023) prioritizes four strategic outcomes 
including: a) increasing access to food by refugees and 
populations affected by natural disasters; b) increasing 
access to an inclusive food system for smallholder farmers 
and food-insecure households; c) strengthening the 
capacity of national and county institutions to respond 
to food security needs; and d) facilitating government, 
humanitarian, and development partners access to 
effective and cost-efficient logistics services. The 2018-
2023 WFP Kenya country strategic plan has a budgetary 
allocation of US $169.4m for 2021 (WFP, 2021).
Since 2004, the WFP has received funding from the 
USDA-FAS for the implementation of the MGD program 
in Kenya, and since 2017 for the implementation of 
the LRP project. Two phases of the MGD program 
were successfully implemented between 2004 and 2016 
(which consist of six MGD awards), while the LRP 
project component was implemented between 2017 and 
2020. The third and final phase of the MGD project (the 
seventh MGD award) is underway and scheduled to end 
in 2023 because the WFP is set to fully hand over the 
school feeding program to the Government of Kenya.
Under the MGD school meal program, the WFP 
is dedicated to supporting the transition toward a 
government-owned and administered program; the WFP 
continues to provide technical training and support to 
Kenyan ministries and departments for procurement 
and monitoring, food distribution, food safety and 
storage, and management of the school feeding program 
at all levels. The school meal system, implemented 
by the WFP-Kenya, has been the most extensive and 
impactful intervention by the WFP in Kenya, due to its 
outcomes in terms of number of beneficiaries, duration, 
and effects on the national policy framework for school 
feeding, therefore, it provides valuable lessons for other 
African countries implementing school feeding programs.
MGD Program Highlights
Kenya is on the verge of completing a historic 
transition from a donor-led to a government-managed 
national school meal program. Under the leadership 
of the WFP and with financial support from USDA￾FAS through the MGD program, Kenya has gone 
through the development of a school feeding program 
cycle and now has installed the framework for the 
implementation of an HGSF program, named Home￾Grown School Meals Program by Government of Kenya). 
Kenya’s progress in transitioning from a donor-driven 
school meal program to a fully government-owned 
and administered national school feeding program 
creates a unique learning opportunity for the network 
14
of nations targeting school feeding activities in Africa.
In line with the WFP’s vision to reduce hunger and 
improve literacy and primary education, especially for 
girls, USDA-FAS extended MGD funding for school 
feeding to be implemented by the WFP-Kenya. USDA￾FAS’s support for the school meal program in Kenya 
spans three phases beginning in 2004, with seven 
different MGD awards and one LRP project. Phase 1 
started in 2004 and ended in 2006, it includes three one￾year awards; Phase 2 covers the 2007-2016 period, and 
implementation took place through three different awards 
(2007-2009; 2011-2013; and 2014-2016); the third and 
final phase of MGD in Kenya started in 2016 and is 
expected to be completed in 2022, it includes one MGD 
award (2016-2022) and one LRP award (2017-2020).
The first phase of the MGD program between 2004 
and 2006 provided in-kind food commodities, helping 
reach an estimated 1.2 million schoolchildren annually, 
of which 48 percent were girls (Holland, 2021). The 
MGD intervention was unique in that it provided 
“dedicated funding to support complementary school￾level interventions for health, nutrition, sanitation, and 
hygiene, as well as teacher training and child literacy. 
MGD also included robust funding to afford government 
capacity-building toward the intended, fully government￾administered program” (Holland, 2021). The immediate 
impact of Phase 1 provided a rationale for the USDA￾FAS to provide additional funds for Phase 2, which was 
implemented from 2007 through 2016. By the end of 2016, 
MGD’s support enabled school feeding to occur in 1,766 
schools across ten targeted arid counties and unplanned 
settlements in Nairobi. Project Phase 2 benefited a little 
over 1.8 million school children directly (KY.MGD.
Endline.2014-2016; KY.LRP.Endline.2017-2020).
Phase 2 significantly differed from Phase 1 because it 
marked the transition toward a Government of Kenya￾administered school meals program. In 2010, the Home￾Grown School Meals Program was introduced by the 
government with the support of the WFP in the Kenya 
school feeding program. This bold action by the Kenyan 
government signified a clear intention to shift away from 
a donor-led school meal program to a decentralized and 
integrated program that leverages the national agricultural 
and commodity markets (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016; 
KY.LRP.Endline.2017-2020). Phase 3 of MGD was also 
markedly different because this phase combined both 
the LRP project activities (2017-2020) and the MGD 
program model (2016-2022). This is the final stage of 
transfer from the MGD-funded WFP implemented 
school feeding program to the government of Kenya￾managed Home-Grown School Meals Program. Project 
Phase 3 prioritized providing technical and capacity￾building support to government agencies and institutions, 
especially in terms of procurement, food distribution, 
food storage, and activity monitoring in preparation for a 
complete government-administered school meal system.
Despite the welcome introduction of the LRP project, 
evaluation results suggest that the local economy, 
especially smallholder farmers, was highly vulnerable to 
erratic climatic conditions and financial delays by the 
government (KY.LRP.Endline.2017-2020). For example, 
the LRP final evaluation (2017) suggests that even though 
the LRP activities aligned with the strategies of the HGSF 
approach, the outbreak of drought in the 2017/18 growing 
season compelled the education ministry to delay the 
transition of schools from in-kind to cash-transfer until 
food prices and markets stabilized. Similarly, Phase 2’s 
final evaluation “found that school meals were provided 
only 65-70% of school days throughout the program in 
part due to funding constraints from other (non-USDA) 
donors, pipeline delays, and occasional insufficient 
firewood and water provision by the communities” 
(KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016). Lessons learned from 
the LRP project and the Home-Grown School Meals 
Program provide a helpful glimpse into the potential 
future challenges of the school feeding programs to be 
administered by the government of Kenya. A more detailed 
analysis of this issue is available in section 2 of this report. 
MGD Programmatic Components 
and Outcomes 
The MGD program and LRP project have multiple 
interlinked and interdependent outcomes, including 
school meal provision, education, child nutrition, health, 
sanitation and hygiene, and strengthening the local and 
regional supply chain. The impact of this programmatic 
activity across these multiple sectors is well-documented.
Education and Literacy 
The most visible and often cited impact of the MGD 
program in Kenya is the improved educational enrollment 
and retention, especially for girls and boys in Kenya’s 
arid and semi-arid areas. The WFP-Kenya’s MGD 
program Phase 2 evaluation results (2017) estimate the 
15
attendance rate as above 84.5% for the targeted schools. 
These results compare favorably to the national average 
of 76.2% for 2016 (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016) 
(Figure 1.3). Gender disaggregated data also indicate 
girls’ and boys’ enrollment significantly improved from 
Phase 2’s midterm to its end line, with boys recording 
3.8% and girls 6.1% at the close of that project period.
According to an interviewee in our study, the impact of 
MGD on education is significant:
Those are the major achievements of the program because, in 
terms of enrollment, it has increased enrollment in almost 
all the counties and even in terms of completion rates. And 
it has also helped the government to distribute educational 
services. It equitably extended education to some areas with 
very low demand for education. So that is something the 
government was able to achieve in those regions as a result 
of the McGovern-Dole program. (SEI with key informant, 
December 2021)
Another participant noted:
One of the big successes is retention and completion. Once 
you wait over a period of time, there is a big chance, a big 
likelihood that the child will complete their primary school 
education. School meals improve their nutritional status. 
When children have the ability to concentrate on their 
learning, their learning outcome is also improved; I am 
not thinking about whether l am going to have lunch or 
not. In school, there is going to be food today whether the 
teacher is going to teach or not. Learning outcomes is one 
great success of the school’s meals program. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
Despite the remarkable progress made in school 
enrollment and attendance, evaluation results 
suggest school attendance was inconsistent and often 
revolved around the availability of school meals. The 
increase in attendance did not translate into desired 
educational outcomes, as evaluation findings suggest 
reading comprehension/literacy among learners did 
not improve from baseline, especially in the arid areas 
in Phase 2 of the program. Additionally, national 
measures of learning outcomes, such as literacy 
(46.1%) and numeracy (47.1%) rates showed very 
small improvement, despite the introduction of school 
meals (both in MGD and non-MGD areas) (Figure 1.4-
bars #3 and #4). The primary completion rate remains 
similarly low at 54.0% (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016; 
Uwezo, 2016). Results of the final evaluation of MGD 
Phase 2, enlightened the government about the need 
to include additional programmatic efforts in the 
education sector if the improvement of educational 
outcomes was expected. School meal programs are one of 
the multiple pieces needed to improve learning outcomes.
The lowest literacy rates were seen in MGD targeted arid 
and semi-arid counties, with 24.5% in Marsabit and 9.9% 
in Wajir, both of which are far below the national average of 
30.0% (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016). In Home-Grown 
School Meals Program schools (government schools), 
gender-disaggregated data show a gender disparity in 
enrollment rates; girls’ enrollment rates in the program 
targeted counties fell below 50%, while boys maintain 
rates of 51%-63% (KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020). A 
comparison of baseline and midline data show a disconnect 
between higher enrollment, attendance, and improved 
attentiveness when comparing MGD schools with control 
schools and Home-Grown School Meals Program schools. 
Broadly, according to evaluation reports educational 
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
76.20%
National Program
Source: Authors using WFP information from the Final Evaluation
of the MGD-Phase 2 (2014-2016)
Figure 1.3 Kenya — Primary School Enrollment. 
National Average Compared to MGD Participant Schools (2017)
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Enrollment 84.50%
16
outcomes tend to decline when schools steadily transition 
to the HGSF model (KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020).
Health and Nutrition 
MGD Project Phase 1 provided in-kind food 
commodities from 2004 to 2006, reaching an estimated 
1.2 million learners annually during that time period--
of which 48.0% were girls (Holland, 2021). Phase 2 of 
MGD project implementation brought school meals 
to 1,766 schools across ten targeted arid counties and 
unplanned settlements in Nairobi. Phase 2 impacted a 
little over 1.8 million school children by directly providing 
nutritious, hot meals (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016). 
Food storage and safety are a high priority for the 
MGD program. To avoid food contamination, MGD 
leveraged its partnership with the Kenyan Ministry of 
Health to deploy public health officers who conducted 
health education in beneficiary schools. Public health 
officers also inspected commodity storage facilities 
and beneficiary school kitchens to ensure compliance. 
Organizations, like UNICEF, worked to increase access to 
safe water, build gender-sensitive sanitation facilities, and 
implement hygiene education. To improve attendance for 
girls, UNICEF included menstrual hygiene management 
in schools. Similarly, World Vision (WV) provided 
sanitary products for girls to ensure school attendance.
MGD projects further worked to increase appropriate 
health and dietary practices in beneficiary schools by 
training teachers, cooks, and 
storekeepers on proper food 
storage and safety practices. 
Evaluation results indicate that 
100% of food preparers in target 
schools achieved a passing score 
on a safe food preparation and 
storage test. Nevertheless, this 
did not translate into practice 
for all beneficiary schools as 
only 76.5% of schools in target 
communities store food off the 
ground as a food safety measure 
(KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016). 
An interview participant 
recounts the importance of 
school meals in reducing short￾term hunger and nutrition 
among school children.
One of the other experiences that l have seen while I was 
in government is that the food they are given for lunch 
they will not eat all of it, the remainder they put it in the 
container and they go eat it in the evening, or his siblings 
don’t remain hungry he goes and shares the little that he 
has with them at home. I was so shocked. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
Other interview participants reiterated:
So we can talk about the successes. I can say that at least 
the program has been able to meet the daily (nutritional) 
needs of a child by a third, you know, a third of what a 
child needs has been met by this program. And we can say 
the program has successfully managed to meet short-term 
hunger and nutritional needs. (SEI with key informant, 
December 2021)
Another participant emphasized the importance of 
training on WASH under the program: 
I told you we trained their school health patrons, and the 
school teacher feels it is part of the program to ensure that 
these WASH and nutrition information is actually taken 
up by the pupils. And of course, when the children go home, 
they replicate the good practices learned from school to 
engage their parents. Since as we all know, whatever the 
teacher says, takes precedence over what the parent says. 
(SEI with key informant, December 2021)
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
84.50%
Program
Enrollment Rate
Program
Attendance
Literacy Numeracy Primary School
Completion Rate
Source: Authors using WFP information from the Final Evaluation of the 2014-2016
Figure 1.4 Educational Outcomes in MGD Schools
86.40%
46.10% 47.10%
54.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
17
Value/Supply Chain
Target counties identified challenges with food storage 
and transportation to the schools as a prominent obstacle 
to achieving school feeding sustainability in beneficiary 
communities a. Interviews with stakeholders indicated 
that relying on the Sub-County Director of Education 
(SCDE) to transport food to schools frequently led 
to delays in delivery, reducing the number of days that 
the schools could provide meals. Some interviewees 
reported that head teachers have felt compelled to 
occasionally contribute their private funds to pay 
transporters to deliver the food products from the SCDE 
storage to the schools. Evaluation results revealed that 
“Sometimes when funds were low, payment was made 
by offering food products to the transporters instead 
of paying cash” (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016). 
Stakeholders, during an in-depth interview, shared 
their experience with supply chain challenges:
Some supply challenges arise when the government 
is handling the food deliveries. We would divide the 
quantities, WFP would deliver food in some areas up to the 
government warehouses in the counties, and the government 
would also deliver to other areas. So one of the challenges 
that we faced was a delay in the government counties where 
the government was to deliver food; there could be delays 
as they procure transporter services. WFP, of course, has 
a continuous transport register, but the government does 
not have that. So there would be delays. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
Another participant noted that:
Of late, I have seen the need for Kenya to be supported 
more because sometimes things are not happening the way 
we would want them to happen. For example, procurement 
of food, transportation of food, the quality of food. Those 
are aspects that need to be done for us to continue working 
and establishment of coordination structures and the 
partnership. Yeah. (SEI with key informant, December 
2021)
Another participant asserted that:
So my days in the field when we used to do the actual 
implementation. You know, logistics, road conditions, you 
know, like when it rains-no delivery of food. There is a 
challenge of security in some areas, and there are also issues 
of storage handling in terms of warehousing.
So for me the key challenge was roads it increases the costs 
of transport, in some areas getting reliable transporters, 
of course, that has improved a lot. The storage facilities 
would lead to some spoilage because even when we were 
implementing, remember we used to hand over the food to 
the government at the district level. The government used 
to transport from the district-level store. Now where they’re 
called the counties from the county-level store with their 
schools. (SEI with key informant, December 2021)
As the Home-Grown School Meals Program is 
gradually adopted, timely and efficient delivery of food 
commodities for an affordable price is key to program 
success and sustainability; however, our interviews 
suggest that challenges, such as delays in school meal 
commodity delivery, poor storage capacity in some 
places, and inadequate food supplies persist, especially 
in Home-Grown School Meals Program schools.
“MGD Project Phase 1 provided in-kind food commodi￾ties from 2004 to 2006, reaching an estimated 1.2 
million learners annually during that time period-- of which 
48.0% were girls (Holland, 2021).”
18
Partnerships for School Feeding in Kenya: The 
role of MGD in forming alliances
Since its inception, Kenya’s school meal program has 
been the joint responsibility of the Kenyan government, 
the WFP, and other implementing partners. The 
Kenya Education Sector Support Program of 2005 
(KESSP 2005) emphasizes the critical need to form and 
strengthen an active network of partnerships between 
the Kenyan government, UN agencies, and NGOs 
to support Kenya’s school feeding program (Holland, 
2021). The WFP-Kenya utilizes a multisector approach 
to program implementation and recognizes the vital 
role key government agencies must play in reaching 
project goals. The next section explores the different 
partnerships driving Kenya’s school feeding program.
Partnerships with the Public Sector
The leading public institutions directly engaged in 
implementing the MGD program in Kenya include 
the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture, and 
Livestock and Fisheries; the National Treasury, and 
relevant ministries at the county-level (KY.MGD.
Endline.2014-2016). Partnership networks and structures 
in the LRP project similarly emphasized relations with 
the Ministries of Education, Agriculture, Health and 
Industry, Trade, and Cooperatives. The inclusion of the 
Trade Ministry is an expansion of the network of partners 
engaged in the LRP project when compared to the 
partner networks mainly established by the WFP-Kenya 
during MGD program implementation. In Phase 3 of 
the program, the partnership structures and networks 
remained similar, with an emphasis on engaging and 
building the Kenyan government’s institutional capacity. 
As of the midline of Phase 3, the Ministry of Education 
continues to lead implementation of the Home-Grown 
School Meals Program and facilitating the transition of the 
remaining schools from MGD managed to government￾owned and administered. Further, other public agencies 
support this process with diverse contributions and roles 
(KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020, WFP, 2013). Table 1.3 
lists some of the key partners in the public sector, engaged in 
the implementation of school feeding activities in Kenya.
In-depth interviews conducted with stakeholders, 
including the WFP staff and government staff, 
suggest there is mutual recognition of the critical role 
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
Table 1.3 Summary of Partnerships With the Public Sector for School Feeding Under MGD Kenya 
Kenya Ministry of Education
Kenya Ministry of Health
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, 
and Fisheries
National Treasury
Ministry of Industry, Trade & 
Cooperatives
School Meals Committee
County Ocials
MGD/LRP PARTNERS FROM
THE PUBLIC SECTOR
They are responsible for the government-led HHome-grown School Meals Program. 
The ministry provides training, technical and financial support for the HGSM program.
They are responsible for the inspection of food quality, food safety, guide menu 
planning, and healthy dietary habits. The ministry of health is responsible for 
providing health education in beneficiary schools.
They are responsible for promoting smallholder farmer access to school markets. 
Under the LRP component, the agriculture ministry facilitated market linkage, forums
in the target area, introduced potential suppliers to the school meals procurement 
committees, and worked to enhance transparency
They worked to decentralize fund disbursement and allocation to the county-level.
They supported the implementation of the LRP component and conducted training 
on procurement for food traders and suppliers.
They are responsible for the administration and management of the HGSM program, 
including procurement, food preparation, and reporting school meal related outputs
at the school-level 
They are responsible for supporting the government in HGSM planning, oversight, 
and monitoring. 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
19
partnerships can play in enhancing the implementation 
of a HGSF model program. A participant noted:
So the collaboration with the Ministry of Education started 
way back in 1980 when the government requested the WFP 
to provide food to 240,000 children in very arid areas. 
Then from that time, we started working hand in hand 
with the government, closely working with the government. 
At the very first stages, the program’s design was WFP 
procuring and transporting food. But with time, it was 
realized that for purposes of sustainability, the government 
had to take more and more risk for the program. (SEI with 
key informant, December 2021)
The participant further noted: 
.... So our collaboration has been very strong in the sense 
that, every year, we would do a partnership agreement with 
the government that outlined the responsibilities of WFP 
and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education. This 
strong collaboration was very useful in ensuring that the 
transition in 2018 was successful. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Go on. 
(SEI with key informant, December 2021)
Another participant (the WFP-Kenya) reiterating 
the role of the health ministry in the HGSF model 
implementation noted:
Another key partner is the Ministry of Health. Because 
within the school, there are certainly complementary 
activities undertaken by the Ministry of Health, particularly 
checking the quality of food, which is done by public health 
officers, as well as the nutrition aspects by the Ministry 
of Health. There are other functions like fortification of 
food, supplementation, vitamin A supplementation, and 
deworming; the ministry of health does all these. (SEI with 
key informant, December 2021)
Similarly, another participant notes (the WFP-Kenya 
staff):
Actually for the LRP, Ministry of Agriculture was a 
stronger partner than the Ministry of Education, because 
all these farm organization groups, capacity building of 
farm organizations, checking on crops was mainly by the 
Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, even procurement and 
when McGovern-Dole staff came to Kenya, we had meetings 
with the agriculture ministry more than the Ministry 
of Education. Because the Ministry of Education was 
providing the platform, was providing the market. But then 
a lot of work was being done by the ministry of agriculture. 
(SEI with key informant, December 2021)
Another participant noted: 
Additionally, a key ministry has always been a Ministry 
of Agriculture because agriculture is the one that forms 
the link between the school and the smallholder farmers. 
Therefore, they would be responsible for capacity building 
farmers, establishing linkages with the smallholder farmers, 
establishing smallholder pharma organizations and 
continuous support to them. (SEI with key informant, 
December 2021)
Interviews with stakeholders further reveal that there 
have been efforts by project implementers to partner 
with higher research institutions; the respondent noted:
We also work with the university and research institutions 
like the universities, take part in testing about the 
fortification. So we have higher education… We have 
Kenyatta University. And also Jomo Kenyatta University. I 
think I know of those ones, and then in research institutions 
we work with KEMRI. (SEI with key informant, December 
2021)
The organizational and institutional culture surrounding 
partnerships among critical institutions, including 
government and private agencies, remains positive and 
enables long and short-term interagency collaboration, 
and there exists a strong working relationship across 
agencies and with the WFP-Kenya. The interagency 
network provides a strong foundation for a multisectoral 
approach to solving the challenges of HGSF sustainably 
and inclusivity. Nevertheless, the necessary government 
ministries face some challenges implementing the Home￾Grown School Meals Program; this includes delayed or 
inadequate funding and the unstable climate conditions, 
which cause fluctuation in the local availability and 
price of school feeding commodities. While the 
Ministry of Education plays a lead role in establishing 
and managing school feeding, which builds a strong 
foundation for sustainability, learning outcome data 
suggest that the Kenyan education ministry could face 
challenges to maintain current educational outcomes 
achieved by the WFP-Kenya under the MGD project 
implementation. Midline evaluation evidence points to 
a decline in literacy and numeracy rates and seven other 
key education outcomes monitored by MGD program 
projects (KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020, 2018). 
20
Partnerships with the Private Sector
Phases 2 and 3 of MGD prioritized increasing 
public-private sector engagement in school-feeding 
programmatic efforts in Kenya. These outcomes are 
seen in two indicators in the second and final phases 
of the program. MGD Indicator 11 “Value of new 
USG commitments, and new public and private sector 
investments leveraged by USDA to support food security 
and nutrition,” and MGD Indicator 12, “Number of 
public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance.” The broader aim of increasing public and 
private sector investments was to mobilize private 
sector support for food security and nutrition efforts.
While the shift toward increasing public-private 
partnerships in targeted school meal programs in Kenya 
showed remarkable promise in terms of sustainability, the 
limited conceptualization of what constitutes a public￾private partnership undermined the WFP’s potential to 
leverage private sector resources to benefit their projects. 
According to the MGD program, “Public-private 
partnership is interpreted as referring to the number 
of traders contracted to supply food commodities to 
schools.” This narrow conception inevitably restricted 
private-sector engagement to only refer to commodity 
traders (KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020). By Phase 3 
(Midline), the WFP-Kenya had involved 81 commodity 
traders/suppliers and is on course to achieve its target 
by the end of project implementation. Evaluation 
findings suggest that the WFP-Kenya’s partnerships 
with commodity suppliers were undermined by multiple 
internal and external challenges, including agroecological 
conditions, supply chain disruptions, and food 
transportation delays, uncertainty about the timing and 
volume of government disbursements, and limited local 
availability of commodities forcing traders to incur extra 
procurement (and overall food) costs by procuring from 
neighboring counties (KY.MGD.Midterm.2016-2020). 
Despite the narrow conceptualization of what 
defines a public-private partnership, field activities 
suggest that there is ongoing engagement with 
private enterprises. A participant, during an in-depth 
interview provided this answer when asked if project 
implementers engaged in public-private partnerships: 
Yeah, DSM, and they’re the ones who had supported the 
micronutrient powders, and I think when you talk to the 
nutrition team, they will inform you that they are actually 
willing to build the capacity of the small and medium 
enterprises to ensure that their capacity is built in order to 
adhere to regulations on fortification, food safety. (SEI with 
key informant, December 2021)
One sector that provides an opportunity for 
private sector participation is food fortification, 
a participant (from the Kenyan education 
ministry) noted during an in-depth interview:
We also did a pilot of a partnership with the private 
sector that is DSM, and they supported the provision of 
micronutrient powders. And, we really encourage the 
government to be able to provide these micronutrient 
powders because this is just a small sachet that can actually 
provide up to 15 micronutrients. And if introduced to 
schools that are in the dry areas, then they would be able to 
meet the micronutrient needs of the children. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
The transport and distribution sector is another 
sector that can be leveraged to enhance private sector 
participation in school feeding; a participant revealed:
And then also there are private sectors when it comes to 
the limited modality when the government procures the 
food and has to distribute to the schools. Of course, they 
don’t do it themselves. They bring on private sector actors to 
distribute the food to the schools. you know the transporters, 
the warehousing, and then also if they are procuring the 
food themselves in the cash transfer modality….the private 
people come in, so yes from that angle. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
Other key sectors rife with opportunities to create 
more private sector partnerships include smallholder 
farmers—the smallholder farming group—and traders 
active in the local supply chain; these local actors can 
help supply commodities required by the Home￾Grown School Meals Program. A participant revealed: 
For the meantime, I think we are not familiar with an 
initiative targeting the smallholder farmers as potential 
providers of this school meals program. (SEI with key 
informant, December 2021)
Private sector engagement can advance the Home￾Grown School Meals Program, but it remains an untapped 
resource. Home-Grown School Meals Program should 
consider developing a private sector engagement model 
21
that fosters public-private partnerships with financial 
and/or for-profit institutions and individuals and tailor 
these partnerships to help pre-finance school meals at the 
county-level and finance activities of relevant value chain 
actors. This is integral to resolving the supply challenges 
many school meal programs face. Even though school 
feeding programs have received financial support from 
private enterprises to the sum of $15,381,303 (USD) as 
captured by the MGD final evaluation of Phase 2 (KY.
MGD.Endline.2014-2016), there is little profit-based 
partnership with formal institutions in the program.
Partnerships with the Non-profit 
Sector
Not-for-profit organizations have always been key actors 
in implementing school meal programming in Kenya; 
these organizations provide support ranging from direct 
involvement with implementation to financial and 
technical support. Notable nonprofit organizations in 
the school feeding space in Kenya include international 
non-profits, international intergovernmental agencies, 
and foreign donors. The list includes the WFP, Catholic 
Relief Services, UNICEF, FAO, Partnerships for Child 
Development, Feed the Children, Caritas Makeni, Feed the 
Future (USAID), World Vision, and other UN agencies.
A participant discussing the role of nonprofits in MGD 
program projects noted:
In the Kenyan context, WFP had a very healthy relationship 
with the other partners because as a European organization, 
you know they were relying on the strength of other 
organizations like NGOs to provide certain specific services 
actually where they could not reach. For instance, WFP 
sometimes used organizations like Feed The Children to 
provide school feeding programs. And they help WFP upscale 
and provide food to all the schools within their beneficiary’s 
counties, especially in Nairobi because of the difficulty in 
reaching some of the slum schools. (SEI with key informant, 
December 2021)
The participant further noted:
So there are other partners that WFP was also using 
on the ground, like the Catholic Relief Services. I am 
proud that, actually, they were even using them in their 
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
Table 1.4 Summary of Partnerships With the Nonprofit Sector for School Feeding Under MGD Kenya 
UNICEF
UNESCO
Feed the Children (FTC) Kenya
Partnership for Child Development (PCD)
Netherlands Development Organization
(SNV)
World Vision (WV)
Feed Kenya (Feed the Children)
Welthungerhilfe (German Agro-Action)
Action Against Hunger/United States
(AAH/USA)
MGD/LRP NONPROFIT
PARTNERS
They support the development, review, and implementation of educational policies, including
disaster management, water, hygiene and sanitation, and education management information
systems. UNICEF also provided support to increase access to safe water, gender-sensitive
sanitation facilities, and hygiene education, including menstrual hygiene management in schools.
They work with government agencies to increase access to quality education.
FTC works in the informal settlements in Nairobi. FTC warehouses supplied food storage before
distribution in Nairobi in the early stages of the project.
PCD is a partner in Technical School Feeding Committee and provides advisory support to the
program. PCD provides capacity building and support to program projects and helped develop
the National School Health Policy.
SNV provides support in the areas of procurement and governance. They support farmers in
accessing school markets, ensuring that procurement procedures are farmer-friendly, and the
community is engaged. SNV is a member of the national-level Technical School Feeding Committee.
WV provides health education on food and nutrition, water, and sanitation. WV provided sanitary
products for girls to ensure school attendance.
They support food and nutrition education and health capacity building.
They support agricultural activities in the MGD program project target areas.
They donated water tanks, built water reservoirs for rainwater tapping, provided energy￾saving stoves, and drilled boreholes for the target schools and their communities.
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL MEALS PROGRAMS
22
arid areas. For example, when there was a problem of 
transportation of food, maybe from the sub-county to 
the schools, sometimes, as you know, the Catholic Relief 
Services would come in and actually even support the 
provision and the transportation of food all the way up to 
the schools. Because sometimes, maybe the resources from 
the government could delay before it comes. It means that 
children could go without food, but the food is out there 
in sub-county. Catholic church also supported several other 
schools as one of its sponsors. So WFP had a very healthy 
relationship with other local organizations which are more 
humanitarian. (SEI with key informant, December 2021)
Stakeholders assert that the partnership 
strategy adopted by the MGD program has 
largely been successful; a participant noted:
The partnership that has worked very well is the 
partnership that we have had with WFP. Since WFP is a 
humanitarian organization, and because of their calling 
and objective, whatever they stood for, I think that is 
largely attributed to its success. However, we also have 
some partnerships which have also worked but in a short 
while. You know from the partnership that we have done 
with UNICEF, not necessary for food but other programs 
supporting education including WASH, to improve 
sanitation in schools, to provide handwashing facilities 
and in most primary schools that one has also been very 
successful. (SEI with key informant, December 2021)
The presence and activities of nonprofit organizations 
have significantly shaped Kenya’s school meal program; 
these mutually reinforcing relationships have been 
sustained since the inception of MGD’s school meal 
program projects, and there are indications that these 
partnerships will continue. For example, the WFP-Kenya 
has already launched its 2018-2023 country strategic 
plan and has committed to strengthening national and 
institutional capacity to implement the SDGs. Similar 
steps and commitments have been taken by other UN 
agencies and international nonprofit organizations. 
Community-Based Partnerships
The shift from commodity distribution to cash transfers 
and the subsequent launch of Home-Grown School 
Meals Program modeled school feeding programs 
in 2009 highlighted an urgent need for community 
participation in two keyways: fostering accountability 
in how resources allocated to the programs are utilized; 
matching contributions from the government to support 
school feeding and as commodity suppliers/traders 
to the Home-Grown School Meals Program to enable 
local procurement. The WFP recognized the need for 
community-level partnerships and adopted measures 
to increase engagement with community leaders and 
farmer organizations. Community-level engagement 
is underpinned by the “Results indicator: Increased 
engagement of local organizations and community 
groups.” The WFP —community partnerships have 
yielded an impact as participating communities provide 
financial and materials resources to their school meal 
programs. For example, evaluation results suggest that 
“on average, parents provide more than 80% of the 
water, firewood, cooking and eating utensils, cleaning 
products, and cook’s salary; parents also made a daily 
financial contribution of between 5-30 KES” (KY.MGD.
Endline.2014-2016). Another key role community 
actors play is ensuring accountability in how school meal 
resources are allocated and utilized at the school-level. 
Participants during an in-depth interview asserted that:
In the homegrown school feeding design, the local 
communities are, one of the major roles that we look at is 
the provision of the food or the supply of food to the school. 
So we are looking at those farmers that organize small 
groups to bid and supply to the schools. That is one role. 
(SEI with key informant, December 2021)
The participant further noted:
The other role communities play is overseeing; overseeing 
that the project is implemented at the schools in the right 
way. I don’t want to call them whistleblowers, but for the 
lack of a better word, I feel like they are counted on to be 
whistleblowers should they see something going amiss, or 
should they see government teachers ganging up to bring 
down a school feeding, you know, by maybe probably 
destroying the food or allowing the food to be stolen and 
all that. So we expect them to be the people that raise the 
alarm that hey, something is happening here down at our 
school. (SEI with key informant, December 2021)
The role of community participation in the 
program permeates multiple sectors and includes 
the schools; community members are key 
23
members of their parent-teacher associations and 
have management responsibilities within the 
program. A participant during an interview noted: 
And also there is also the role of the PTA, like we have 
said, to ensure at the school-level the implementation 
is done rightly. And the issue of accountability and 
transparency comes in at that level because they are key/
major players in ensuring there is accountability and 
transparency of the food that is at that school. (SEI with 
key informant, December 2021)
A participant from the 
WFP-Kenya reveals that 
the WFP strategically 
developed interventions 
aimed at encouraging
community members and 
developing their capacity 
to participate in managing their respective 
school meal programs. The participant noted:
We also empower the community to manage the school 
feeding program or the school meals program, so we 
continue to have parent representatives. And we build their 
capacity on how to get involved in the implementation or 
management of the school meals program to ensure that 
the food is purchased. They look at the storage and all the 
accountability that goes with it; how much food should we 
expect? How much have we received? Yeah, that kind of a 
thing. (SEI with key informant, December 2021)
The co-production approach implemented in 
MGD projects succeeded in increasing community 
awareness, participation, and ownership of the Home￾Grown School Meals Program in Kenya. Nevertheless, 
community material and financial contribution could 
exacerbate household food insecurity, primarily because 
community contributions to the Home-Grown School 
Meals Program disproportionately demanded women￾controlled resources such as water, firewood, cooking 
skills, and utensils. Historically, women and girls are 
burdened with household labor and have limited access 
to economic resources. For example, FAO revealed 
that poor women in rural areas of developing countries 
generally experience time constraints compared to 
men due to their traditional socio-cultural roles. They 
spend long hours harvesting firewood and carrying 
water over long distances and cooking over smoky fires, 
jeopardizing their health in the process. The time and 
labor expended limits women’s ability to engage in other 
income-generating activities (Lambrou & Piana, 2006). 
Centering community contributions around essential 
material resources such as “water, firewood, cooking 
and eating utensils, cleaning products, and cook salaries 
deplete women-controlled resources that are necessary 
for household survival. The increasing possibility 
of depletion of women-controlled resources by the 
school meals programs could have a debilitating effect 
on household income and fiscal resiliency, adversely 
affecting school attendance 
for children from 
vulnerable households. 
The final evaluation 
results Phase 2 present 
evidence of the potential 
adverse effects of women￾centered contributions on school meal programs; 
for example, a key informant interview with 
teachers during Phase 2’s final evaluation reveals:
In many cases, parents ask their children to collect the 
water and firewood on the way to school. Teachers noted 
that this often adversely affects attendance, with students 
coming late to school. (KY.MGD.Endline.2014-2016)
While community contributions may produce 
immediate. short-term positive results, these contributions 
pose a challenge to school meal program sustainability 
and could further worsen women and household poverty. 
Partnership Sustainability in Kenya’s 
School Meals Program
The HGSF model, and associated school feeding 
program, is a bold step toward transferring the current 
donor-driven school meals program to the government 
of Kenya, and the multisectoral partnership approach 
witnessed during project implementation has been key to 
its success. Strong public sector engagement, the role of 
nonprofits, and the growing inclusion of the private sector 
in the implementation process are positive developments 
that continue to yield positive results in reducing short￾term hunger and improving child education. However, 
initial lessons drawn from the implementation of the 
LRP project and the Home-Grown School Meals 
Program provide a glimpse of the potential challenges 
“Centering community contributions around essential 
material resources such as “water, irewood, cooking 
and eating utensils, cleaning products, and cook 
salaries deplete women-controlled resources that are 
necessary for household survival.”
24
that government-owned and administered programs 
may face after full transition from donor-led structures. 
Public-private partnerships within the context of 
the MGD program remain underutilized and remain 
limited to partnerships between commodity traders and 
suppliers. The first step toward improving private sector 
participation is to broaden the definition of private￾sector partnership to encompass financial institutions, 
transporters, individuals, and/or formal businesses 
that are ready to pre-finance the provision of meals at 
the county-level for a profit. Potential areas to further 
facilitate public-private partnerships include food 
fortification, transportation, storage, and distribution. 
MGD, under the HGSF model, adopted a co￾production approach, especially at the community￾level. Boyle & Harris (2009) defined co-production as 
“ delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal 
relationship between professionals, people using services, 
their families and their neighbors. Where activities are co￾produced in this way, both services and neighborhoods 
become far more effective agents of change” (p. 11). The 
co-production approach adopted by the WFP-Kenya 
under the MGD program made communities more 
responsive and yielded almost immediate results for the 
Home-Grown School Meals Program. Nevertheless, co￾production as an approach has its own disadvantages. 
For example, Bovaird & Loeffler (2012) reveal that co￾production thrives on reciprocity, requires strong social 
networks, and is prone to issues related to funding barriers.
Furthermore, the WFP’s partnerships with 
communities often requires communities to make 
financial and material contributions to their respective 
school feeding programs; this approach, based on 
evaluation findings, is unsustainable. The financial and 
material contributions (of mostly women-centered 
resources) from participating households deplete vital 
household economic resources and can exacerbate 
household vulnerability to food insecurity, especially 
for more financially fragile households. This approach 
also burdens women by diverting time and resources 
critical to the survival of their households. Further, 
this diversion of resources could affect children’s 
school attendance, especially among girls, from poor 
households. Children from households who may not be 
able to meet the financial demands of the program could 
experience an increased risk of dropping out of school.
Kenya’s public agencies and their partnerships with the 
nonprofit community made it possible for the Kenyan 
government to access the needed financial and technical 
resources to shape policy and enable direct investment 
in school feeding. These types of partnerships have been 
adapted to support the creation of the Kenyan School 
Meals Program. The autonomous nature of nonprofit 
institutions has been integral in motivating and holding the 
government accountable for its commitment to their own 
school meal programming. Kenya’s school meal program 
and its partnerships with nonprofit organizations have 
been sustainable so far and are required for the transition 
into the next phase. Overall, in the WFP-Kenya through 
the MGD program and LRP project has successfully 
fostered and identified the right partners across sectors. 
Still, there remains a need to increase investment in 
and attraction of private enterprises for pre-financing 
Kenyan school meals programs at the county-level. As 
a social protection measure, the WFP should consider a 
selective application of the co-production approach at the 
community-level, especially in arid and semi-arid areas.
 
25
Research Component 1: Partnerships for School Feeding
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in 
Rwanda
Institutional Framework for School Feeding
Socio-economic and Policy 
Context
Nutrition and Food Security
Rwanda is a landlocked country located in East Africa 
with a population of 12,955,736 as of 2021, according 
to the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda-NISR 
population projections (NISR, 2014). Over the past 
decade, Rwanda has shown some improvement in the 
well-being of the general population. Data from the 
Rwanda Demographic and Health Surveys (RDHS) 
show that infant mortality decreased from 107 deaths 
per 1,000 live births in the year 2000 to 33 deaths in 
2019-20, and under-5 mortality decreased from 196 
deaths to 45 deaths in that same period (NISR, 2020). 
Similarly, the nutritional status of children under five 
shows some improvement, with stunting decreasing 
from 48% in 2000 to 33% in 2019-20, underweight 
from 20% in 2000 to 8% in 2019-20, and wasting 
from 8% in 2000 to 1% in 2019-20 (NISR, 2020). 
Despite improvements in child nutritional status in 
Rwanda, a disproportionately high percentage (37%) 
of anemic children are reported (WFP, 2019). Further, 
findings from the WFP’s Fill the Nutrient Gap report for 
Rwanda suggest that “despite significant improvements, 
malnutrition remains the number one risk factor for 
disease in Rwanda.” (WFP, 2019, p. 6) Aspects that 
raise concern include lack of dietary diversity due to 
high reliability on staple foods and limited access to 
animal protein sources; high levels of stunting and 
anemia among children; problematic water, sanitation 
and hygiene (WASH) conditions, mostly in rural areas; 
barriers to adequate infant and young child feeding 
(IYCF) due to limited availability and affordability of 
nutritious foods, limited income, cultural expectations 
around feeding; and the socio-economic status of 
mothers and caregivers (WFP, 2019). In addition, gender 
disparities remain a relevant problem that leads to poor 
population-level health outcomes. For instance, low 
female enrollment in secondary school remains high. 
This is problematic because of the linkage between 
maternal education levels and child nutritional outcomes 
(Negash, et al., 2015, Kabubo-Mariara, et al. 2009). 
In terms of economic development, agriculture in Rwanda 
is the most important economic sector, accounting for 
30% of the GDP and 70% of employment (RDB, 2022), 
using 60% of the country’s land (NISR, 2021). Seventy￾seven percent of agricultural land is devoted to seasonal 
crops, and the remaining is devoted to permanent crops. 
Rwanda has three agricultural seasons: Season A, from 
September to February; Season B, from March to June 
2021; and Season C, from July to September. Larger 
crops (by area and yield) include maize, sorghum, cassava, 
bananas, and beans (NISR, 2021). Despite improvements 
in productivity due to increased use of agricultural inputs 
supported by government initiatives, productivity levels 
remain low. This can be attributed to weak productive 
systems and value chains characterized by high reliance on 
rainfed systems, inefficient use of improved agricultural 
techniques, limited access to technologies and markets, and 
26
the limited capacity of smallholder farmers (e.g., poverty, 
limited access to credit, small plot sizes) (FAO, n.d., Semi￾structured interview with WFP-Rwanda staff, June 2021). 
According to WFP (2019), low crop yields and livestock 
production negatively impact farming income in Rwanda 
which, in turn, further hinder access to adequate 
nutrition. Data (2018) from the Comprehensive Food 
Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) shows 
44.3% (31.2% in urban areas and 47.2% in rural 
areas) of surveyed households were experiencing food 
insecurity. Survey results were even more concerning 
in districts where WFP is implementing the MGD 
program; the districts of Nyamagabe (71.1%), Burera 
(65.2%), Nyaruguru (61.5%), Rutsiro (56%), Karongi 
(50.4), and Kayonza (46.7%) reportedly experience 
higher than average food insecurity (WFP, 2018).
Education
Education in Rwanda improved in terms of student 
enrollment, as shown by data collected by the Rwandan 
Ministry of Education (2020). Between the years 2017 
and 2019, enrollment increased from 3.6 million students 
(2017) to 3.7 million (2019) at all educational categories. 
Nevertheless, enrollment in primary education (years 1-6) 
showed a slight decrease to 2,512,465 students (2019) 
from 2,540,374 (2017; see Table 1.15). Other indicators 
showed both improvement in areas such as promotion 
rate (increased from 80% in 2017 to 82.2% in 2018) and 
repetition rate (decreased from 13.4% in 2017 to 10% 
in 2018). Even so, the primary school dropout rate grew 
from 6.7% in 2017 to 7.8% in 2018. Both, repetition 
and dropout rates are higher among male students 
(10.9% in 2018/19) than female students (9.2% in 
2018/19) and while the transition from primary to lower 
secondary school rate has shown an overall improvement 
(from 71.1% in 2015/16 to 72.2% in 2018/19), 
improvements for female students are higher (from 
70.4% in 2015/16 to 72.4% in 2018/19) when compared 
to male students (from 72% in 2015/16 to 72.1% in 
2018/19; Ministry of Education of Rwanda, 2020). 
Ministry of Education data (2020) also show that 
participation rates for all educational categories are low, 
with the exception of primary education. While primary 
education enrollment is higher than its corresponding 
population age group (7 to 12 years old), official data 
include all students enrolled within that category 
regardless of their age (see Figure 1). This means that the 
proportion of the population between 1 and 6 years old 
and over 13 years old have educational deficits. Those 
under 6 years old could greatly benefit from enhanced 
access to early childhood education, which would improve 
child cognitive and social development and educational 
Table 1.5 Rwanda—Number of students per category
Source: Rwanda 2019 Education Statistics (Ministry of Education of Rwanda, 2020)
Category
Pre-nursery
Nursery
Primary
Lower secondary
General upper secondary
TVET level 1 to 5
TTC
TVET level 6 to 7
Higher education
TVET NEP
Adult literacy
Number of students enrolled
5,234
220,435
2,540,374
382,661
139,319
79,595
9,397
10,420
80,773
17,486
152,015
3,637,709
6,491
226,706
2,503,705
422,093
147,618
79,388
9,186
13,447
75,713
9,650
132,365
3,626,362
6,690
282,428
2,512,465
481,138
158,489
83,157
9,320
14,078
72,128
9,932
123,607
3,753,432
2017 2018 2019
TOTAL
27
and overall life outcomes (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). 
Efforts to improve the quality of education in the 
early stages also include school feeding programming.
Given the important role human development plays in 
the country’s well-being, the Government of Rwanda has 
increased efforts to support school feeding programs in 
nurseries and primary schools. Data available in Table 
1.6 shows a significant growth in the number of nurseries 
participating in school feeding initiatives (increased from 
273 in 2016 to 1,277 in 2019); important growth is also 
seen in primary school participation, which doubled 
between the same reporting period (from 231 to 504). 
The number of students from participating nurseries saw 
3,000,000
Source: Authors using WFP information from RW.MGD.Endline.2016-2021
Figure 1.5. Rwanda — 2019 Student Enrollment as proportion of population (Within official age range)
2,000,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
No. of students
0
Pre-nursery
(1-3 years)
Nursery
(4-6 years)
Primary* (7-12 years)
Lower
secondary
(13-15 years)
Upper
secondary
(16-18 years)
Tertiary
(19-23 years)
Population 1,350,751 947,252 1,810,665 908,132 812,637 1,168,850
Enrollment 6,690 282,428 2,512,465 481,138 250,966 0
[* ]The higher enrollment in primary education is higher than the official count for population under the 7-12 years age range. The 
report explains that the reported numer includes all students enrolled, regardless of the age. 
Table 1.6 Rwanda—Participation of nurseries and primary schools in School Feeding Initiatives, 2016-2019
Source: Rwanda 2019 Education Statistics (Ministry of Education of Rwanda, 2020)
273
9.9%
242
8%
24,948
INDICATOR/YEAR
Number of schools
participating in school feeding
% of schools participating
in school feeding
Number of schools with
nutrition garden
% of schools with nutrition
garden
Number of students fed
at school
Nurseries
2016 2017 2018 2019 
379
11.9%
314
9.9%
33,944
625
19.5%
440
13.7%
49,401
1,277
37.5%
528
15.5%
104,494
Primary Schools
231
8%
1,105
39%
104,944
2016 2017 2018 2019 
357
12%
1,173
41%
183,310
372
13%
1,173
40%
183,310
504
17%
1,123
41%
182,678
28
a fourfold increase between 2016 and 2019, while the 
number of primary students fed also steadily increased 
(see Table 1.6). Despite this growth, the percentage of 
students fed by government-funded programs in early 
childhood and primary schools remains comparatively 
low when considering enrollment and population size.
While the above sections suggest that the nutrition and 
educational context is integral to understanding school 
feeding, the following section examines the role Rwanda’s 
policy context plays in school feeding implementation.
Policy Framework for School 
Feeding in Rwanda
To understand the institutional framework for school 
feeding programs, we conducted a review of policies 
that impact school feeding programming in Rwanda. 
Our policy review includes an overview of 38 Rwandan 
policy documents formulated between 1998 and 
2021. Policies were classified by sector (depending 
on the lead entity that produced the policy) under 
the following categories: [1] National Strategic Plans, 
including intergovernmental organization country 
strategic plans, [2] Education, [3] Health and Nutrition, 
and [4] Agriculture. A total of 21 documents were 
identified as relevant for school feeding programming 
in Rwanda. This review is by no means an exhaustive 
list, but it does spotlight the many projects taking place.
Sectoral Policies
National Strategic Plans
The executives of Rwanda launched Rwanda Vision 2020 
in 2000 and Rwanda Vision 2050 in 2015 as long-term 
strategic plans to transform the country’s path toward 
human and economic development. Rwanda Vision 2020 
includes 3 objectives: [1] Macroeconomic stability and 
wealth creation to reduce aid dependency, [2] Structural 
economic transformation, and [3] Creating a productive 
middle class and fostering entrepreneurship. To achieve 
these goals, the plan included six pillars. Among those, 
pillar No. 2— Human Resource Development and 
a Knowledge-based Economy— includes education￾related actions. Under the education component, 
there are efforts to ensure Universal Education for all, 
following Millennium Development Goal 2. Some 
relevant targets under that component include “gross 
primary school enrollment (100%)” and “improve 
literacy rates (100%)”. Later in 2015, the government 
launched Rwanda Vision 2050, seeking to promote 
economic growth and high quality of life for Rwandans. 
The strategic plan includes five pillars, the most relevant 
being “Human Development”. This targets universal 
access to high-quality education and universal access to 
high-quality healthcare, which includes nutrition targets. 
In 2007, following the strategic direction of Rwanda 
Vision 2020, the government formulated the Economic 
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS, 
2008-2012). The EDPRS strives to reduce chronic 
and acute macronutrient malnutrition and prevalence 
of micronutrient deficiencies and achieve universal 
primary education, which included improvements in 
literacy, enrollment, and completion rates. Another 
related goal includes further decentralizing funds 
districts use to cover teachers’ salaries, school feeding, 
construction, and a capitation grant, because district 
implementation and M&E capacity has strengthened. 
The EDPRS, 2013-2018, released in 2013, includes 
a strategy to address poor maternal, infant, and child 
feeding practices through coordinated, strengthened, 
and scaled-up community-based nutrition programs and 
information campaigns across the country. This involves: 
[i] agriculture and social protection interventions that 
should reach the most vulnerable children through school 
feeding programs—like One Cup of Milk per Child; [ii] 
biofortification programs that will bio-fortify food; and 
[iii] strengthening the food security information system. 
Following the tenets of Rwanda Vision 2050, the 
National Strategy for Transformation 2017- 2024 
(NST 1) proposed a set of national medium-term 
development strategies. The NST1 includes three pillars 
of development, with the most important being social 
transformation. Under the social transformation pillar, 
priority area No. 2 seeks to eradicate malnutrition. 
Specific interventions under this priority area include: [i] 
Strengthening multi-sectoral coordination through the 
Nutrition Secretariat and strengthening the social cluster 
coordination at decentralized levels up to the village; [ii] 
Ensuring and sustaining food security (covered under 
the Economic Transformation pillar) and distributing 
food and vitamin supplements using Fortified Blended 
Food (FBF) and One Cup of Milk per Child to those 
already affected; and [iii] Promoting 1,000 days of good 
nutrition and antenatal care at the village level. This 
involves sensitizing households on good nutrition and 
29
hygiene practices at the household and community 
levels using Early Childhood Development Centers 
(ECDs), health centers, and family-based campaigns. 
In the intergovernmental sphere, the United Nations 
(UN) released the Rwanda United Nations Development 
Assistance Plan 2013–2018 (2013). According to this 
plan, the UN will support the design and delivery of social 
assistance programs for the most vulnerable through 
support of national social protection programs, such as 
Vision 2020, and through piloting an HGSF program. 
The UN is devoted to providing technical and financial 
assistance to prototype development, implementation, 
and scaling of HGSF. Following this global support, the 
WFP (2018) published the Rwanda Country Strategic 
Plan (2019-2023) which designed a series of strategic 
outcomes, including outcome No. 2 “vulnerable 
populations in food-insecure communities and areas 
have improved access to adequate and nutritious food 
all year.” Expected outcomes include [1] Pre-school and 
schoolchildren in targeted areas receiving a daily nutritious 
meal that contributes to basic food and nutrition needs, 
increased attendance, and retention, and [2] Pre-school 
and schoolchildren in targeted areas benefit from the 
government’s improved capacity to provide a nationally 
owned nutrition-sensitive school meals program.
Education
Rwanda’s education sector is led by the Ministry of 
Education. In 1998, four years after the end of the 
genocide, the Government of Rwanda adopted the 
Education Sector Policy with an emergency focus. 
Leveraging results from the 1998 policy, the 2003 
Education Sector Policy emphasized Universal Primary 
Education and Education for All. The policy follows 
the strategic principles established in Vision 2020 
and poverty reduction strategies. The 2003 policy 
emphasizes implementing strategies to enhance the 
availability of Early Childhood Care and Development 
(ECCD) through technical support and incentives 
provided to the private sector to then provide ECCD 
services; at that time, these services were not provided 
by the public sector. It also underlines the importance 
of access to quality primary education, with a focus 
on improving enrollment while reducing dropout 
and repetition rates; enhancing gender-balanced 
access to primary education; reviewing curriculum to 
improve learning outcomes; enhancing the teacher/
student ratio; and rehabilitating school infrastructure. 
Education policy efforts later turned to education 
sector strategic plans. Of these three plans, the latest 
version (Education Sector Strategic Plan (2018/2019-
2023/2024) includes as one of its cross-cutting issues 
“School health, hygiene, environmental protection, 
and climate change,” under which the government will 
develop a national school feeding/gardening program 
that is owned by communities and include the provision 
of milk to primary pupils. It states that these actions 
will be achieved in collaboration with the Ministry of 
Agriculture, development partners, and district-level 
governing bodies. In terms of budget, funds for school 
feeding should come from earmarked funds (earmarked 
on or after 2014/2015) in the central government’s budget. 
The Education Sector Strategic Plans also acknowledge 
that school feeding is a multi-sectoral and multi-level 
issue. The plans define ministry roles so that the Ministry 
of Agriculture is responsible for issues relating to school 
feeding and provision of milk to primary school students, 
the Ministry of Health for educational programs with 
health and nutrition components, and the Ministry of 
Gender and Family Promotion for education for girls. 
At the district level, the Strategic Plan describes the 
key roles and responsibilities of the District Education 
Officers (DEOs) (decentralized levels of government) as 
monitoring school financial reports, teachers’ salaries, 
and school feeding and usage of capitation grants.
In the early 2010s, interest in early childhood 
development increased leading to its renewed inclusion 
in the Rwandan policy agenda. In 2011, the Ministry 
of Education, on behalf of the Government of Rwanda, 
released the Early Childhood Development (ECD) 
Policy. One of its expected strategic outcomes states 
“Increase equitable access for all children aged 0-6 
to adequate early stimulation, effective and relevant 
education, sufficient nutrition, quality health care and 
protection.” Actions related to these strategic nutrition 
outcomes include support of an Early Childhood 
Nutrition Program. In terms of collaboration, the policy 
highlights partnerships with the UN, multilateral and 
bilateral donors, and international NGOs in aims to 
obtain support to create Integrated ECD centers across 
the country in anticipation of future support and capacity 
increase being supplied by government contributions. 
Types of support included, but was not limited to, 
financial and technical assistance, monetized food 
contributions, pre-primary school feeding services, and 
increases in education partnerships for teacher training.
30
Health and Nutrition
The Ministry of Health is the agency in charge of 
the health sector, and it has assumed a leadership role 
in nutrition policy design. In 2005, the Government 
of Rwanda launched the Health Sector Strategic Plan 
2005-2009. Regarding nutrition, the plan addressed 
governmental interests in designing and adopting a 
national nutrition policy to coordinate multisectoral 
efforts addressing nutrition in Rwanda. Under the 
Health Sector Strategic Plan framework, the Ministry 
of Health released the 2007 National Nutrition Policy 
(NNP). At the time, the NNP was considered as “the 
fundamental tool to guide the establishment of priority 
strategic directions in nutrition matters and to ensure 
effective advocacy to mobilize the human, material, and 
financial resources required for the program ’s realization 
of the government’s short-term and long-term nutrition” 
(p. 10). The general objective of the 2007 NNP was “to 
improve the nutritional status of the Rwandan people” (p. 
19). Major policy highlights include the call to develop 
and adopt protocols for managing malnutrition, the need 
to promote IYCNF, and 
the scaling up of district￾level, community-based 
nutrition programs 
(CBNP). For school 
feeding, the policy 
prioritized expanding 
food provision to more 
schools and opening 
school canteens. The 
policy also emphasized 
developing strategies 
to ensure access to supplementation of micronutrient 
fortified staples to reduce acute malnutrition.
The National Food and Nutrition Policy, 2013-2018 
was released by the Government of Rwanda in 2014. 
It includes seven strategic directions, of which Strategic 
Direction 5 is to “strengthen nutrition education in schools 
and higher learning institutions through curricular and 
extracurricular activities.” This direction is associated 
with and supports the food and nutrition elements of 
the Ministry of Education’s School Health Policy. This 
cross-sector collaboration continues supporting efforts to 
implement school feeding through the HGSF; sustains 
and expands existing school feeding programs (e.g. 
provision of meals to students in secondary schools, the 
Cup of Milk program for children in pre and primary 
schools, (described below) currently carried out in 
collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture); improves 
learning about food security and nutrition in schools 
by strengthening the curriculum and extracurricular 
activities like the use of gardening and small livestock 
as teaching and learning resources; and expands school￾based health and nutrition assessment and services 
(e.g., deworming and Vitamin A supplementation 
in collaboration with the Ministry of Health). 
Agriculture
The Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources is 
the lead agency for the agricultural sector in Rwanda. 
The Ministry launched the National Agriculture Policy 
in 2018, whose main goal is “to ensure food and nutrition 
security of Rwandans by using modern agribusiness 
technologies, professionalizing farmers in terms of 
production, commercialization outputs, and the creation 
a competitive agricultural sector” (p. 13). The policy 
is structured around four pillars. Pillar 4, “Inclusive 
Markets and Off-Farm Opportunities” seeks to “improve 
productivity and 
inclusiveness of 
agricultural market 
systems and
increase off-farm 
opportunities and 
c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s 
of diversified 
a g r i c u l t u r a l 
products for
domestic, regional, 
and international 
markets. Moreover, the objective is to promote reliable 
access to affordable and healthy diets for the Rwandan 
consumer and to meet national objectives on poverty 
reduction, food security, and nutrition.” The policy 
highlights the importance of local procurement of 
diversified nutritious foods for school meals to promote 
nutrition and healthy diets. Also relevant to school 
feeding programing is the policy’s focus on developing 
and strengthening public-private partnerships that 
focus on smallholder farmer capacity building.
Figure 1.6 summarizes the Rwandan 
policy framework for school feeding.
“Strategic Direction 5 (from the National Food and Nutrition 
Policy, 2013-18) is to “strengthen nutrition education in schools 
and higher learning institutions through curricular and extracur￾ricular activities.” This direction is associated with and supports 
the food and nutrition elements of the Ministry of Education’s 
School Health Policy. This cross-sector collaboration continues 
supporting efforts to implement school feeding through the 
HGSF”
31
School Feeding Policies: Cross-sector and 
cross-level collaborations
The previous section highlighted policy-level activities, 
from a sectoral standpoint, that include nutrition efforts 
targeting school-aged children in Rwanda. In this section, 
the report highlights recent accomplishments in the 
field of school feeding policy. Findings from the policy 
section undergird some of the information reported here. 
Two major school feeding programs are currently 
implemented in Rwanda: the One Cup of Milk per 
Child Program and the government-funded school 
feeding program for students in secondary schools. In 
2010, the Government of Rwanda, through the Ministry 
of Agriculture, established the One Cup of Milk per 
Child Program, a government-funded program that 
targets children attending school. This program aims 
to reduce malnutrition, promote retention of children 
Figure 1.6 Rwanda — Policy framework for School Feeding Programming
LONG-TERM STRATEGIC LEVEL PLANS
Government-led and collaboration with intergovernmental entities (e.g. UN, AU)
Rwanda Vision 2020 (2000) Rwanda Vision 2050 (2015) UN Development Assistance Plan (2013)
WFP Country Strategic Plan (2018)
MEDIUM AND SHORT-TERM STRATEGIC LEVEL PLANS
Government-led e†orts (with technical assistance from the World Bank and the IMF)
Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy 2008-2012
Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy 2013-2018
National Strategy for Transformation
NST | 2017-2024
SECTORAL EFFORTS
Government-led e†orts (with technical assistance from the World Bank and the IMF)
EDUCATION
• 1998: Education Sector Policy
• 2003: Education Sector Policy
• Early Childhood Development Policy
•Education Sector Strategic Plan
2010-2015
•Education Sector Strategic Plan
2013/14-2017/18
•Education Sector Strategic Plan
2018/2019-2023/2014
HEALTH & NUTRITION AGRICULTURE
• Health Sector Strategic Plan 2005-2009
• 2007 National Nutrition Policy
• National Food and Nutrition Policy
2013-2018
• 2018 National Agriculture Policy
• One Cup of Milk per Child Program
MULTI-SECTOR SCHOOL FEEDING EFFORTS
•Vision: “All school children in Rwanda shall achieve their
full development potential through a sustainable school
feeding programme that provides adequate and nutritious
meals at school.”
• Objective: School feeding shall be recognized as a
programme with multi-sectoral objectives, supporting
various priority areas of the Government of Rwanda.
2019 National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy
• GoR has scaled up the School Feeding Program from
pre-primary up to secondary schools, equipped schools
with kitchens and cooking stoves, and provided a subsidy
for each student’s meal to complement parents’
contributions.
• Supported by the UN WFP, the Ministry of Education has
developed School Feeding Operational Guidelines to
provide guidance to schools and other stakeholders
involved, to e†ectively implement a high quality and safe
School Feeding Program by leveraging food produced
from local farmers and cooperatives while improving the
local economy.
2021: Rwanda School Feeding Operational Guidelines
Source: Authors
32
attending pre and primary schools, and enhance brain 
development among school-aged children. Officially 
scaled up and implemented in 2011, the 2010 pilot of 
this program benefited 21,300 children. As of 2013, 
more than 83,575 children reportedly benefited from this 
program (One Cup of Milk per Child Program, 2013). 
Another school feeding effort is Rwanda’s Ministry of 
Education and parent-supported school feeding program 
implementing in public and government-aided secondary 
schools—also called the Secondary School Feeding 
Program. This program mostly relies on parents’ in-kind 
and cash contributions, but the Government of Rwanda 
does supplement parents’ contributions with their own 
funds. The two government programs are ongoing with 
plans to increase government funding and coverage 
(National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy, 2019).
The presence of WFP-Rwanda through the MGD and 
HGSF efforts has resulted in an important policy process 
with two relevant concrete outcomes: the 2019 National 
Comprehensive School Feeding Policy (NCSFP) and the 
2021 Rwanda School Feeding Operational Guidelines. 
With the advent of this policy framework, the national 
school feeding program began in late 2020. NCSFP 
envisions, “All school children in Rwanda shall achieve 
their full development potential through a sustainable 
school feeding program that provides adequate and 
nutritious meals at school” (p. 9). NCSFP targets 
students in pre-primary, primary, and secondary schools. 
The policy acknowledges that school feeding is a multi￾sector program that supports key development goals of 
the Rwandan government such as the Universal Primary 
School and School for All. The policy includes short, 
medium, and long-term objectives, as detailed in Table 1.7.
The policy identifies a series of actors and describes their 
responsibilities in the implementation of school feeding 
activities. The Ministry of Education leads the coordination, 
management, implementation, and monitoring of the 
school feeding program; it is also responsible for the 
provision of guidelines for the implementation and 
development of a structure for school feeding capacity 
building. Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance and 
Economic Planning is responsible for budgetary matters, 
including the identification of funding sources within 
the government budget, allocation of resources, and 
facilitation of resource mobilization from the private sector 
and international donors. The Ministry of Agriculture is 
responsible for creating the framework for the value chain 
for local farmers, contributing to the implementation of 
capacity building and financing local farmers, assisting 
with the extension of livestock resources in schools, and 
helping scale up the One Cup of Milk per Child Program 
by strengthening the supply chain of milk. The Ministry 
Table 1.7 Rwanda - National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy Objectives Across Time
• To provide nutritionally sucient
food complemented by health and
nutritional interventions to all 
school children;
• To enhance enrollment, reduce 
absenteeism and improve the 
concentration span of the school￾going children;
• To provide a stable and predict￾able market to local farmers through 
increased demand for local food 
commodities; and
• To improve skills and knowledge of
parents, teachers, students and 
smallholder farmers on food prod￾uctions,processing and preparation.
Source: National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy (2019, p. 9)
SHORT-TERM
OBJECTIVES
• To increase equitable access to 
education ensuring vulnerable 
children e.g. orphans and vulnerable 
children (OVCs) and children from 
poor households are targeted;
• To improve on learning capabilities,
cognition, performance and 
completion rates;
• To enhance productivity through 
improved food production, processing, 
storage, food quality and safety; and
• To reduce both parents’ and 
government spending on education 
and medical care costs.
MEDIUM-TERM
OBJECTIVES
• To have a healthier and better 
qualified workforce, and better 
parents for the next generations;
• To improve social equality and 
equity;
• To enhance high quality local 
economic productivity; and
• To break the intergenerational 
cycle of hunger.
LONG-TERM
OBJECTIVES
33
The WFP in Rwanda 
One of the earliest WFP-Rwanda-supported school 
feeding programmatic efforts in Rwanda began in 2002 
in response to drought occurring that same year—the 
Southern Africa Regional drought. Many areas already 
suffering with some of the highest levels of food insecurity 
and poverty (i.e., Nyaruguru, Nyamagabe, Karongi, and 
Rutsiro districts) experienced an increased need. To 
respond, the WFP-Rwanda funded and implemented 
a school feeding program in these regions (National 
Comprehensive School Feeding Policy, 2019). Efforts 
to establish a large-scale HGSF program continued in 
2015 with Phase 1 (2015-2021) of the MGD program 
implemented by the WFP-Rwanda. The WFP has 
provided technical expertise and knowledge derived from 
its own HGSF framework (FAO & WFP, 2018), which, 
along with MGD efforts, resulted in the development of a 
policy framework to implement a national school feeding 
program in Rwanda, as described in the previous section. 
The MGD program in Rwanda aims to improve 
the literacy of school-age children and increase the 
use of health, nutrition, and dietary practices in pre￾primary and primary school children. Broadly speaking, 
programmatic efforts include a comprehensive set of 
strategies for school feeding including the procurement 
of food from imported in-kind commodities, educational 
activities, and health and nutrition-related activities. 
MGD project implementation in Rwanda consists of 
two phases each comprising of 5-year awards for $25M; 
the implementation period for Phase 1 took place 
from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2021 (i.e., October 
FY2015- September FY2021), and Phase 2 is expected 
to be implemented between FY2020-FY2025. Under 
the MGD implementation framework, USDA-FAS 
(in 2016) added efforts to develop local school feeding 
capacity under an LRP program in Rwanda. In the long 
run, the implementation of MGD projects in Rwanda 
seeks to ensure capacity for school feeding through its 
main partner, the Government of Rwanda’s Ministry 
of Education. If local capacity is achieved, the WFP 
can “pass off” school feeding responsibilities to the 
government and “graduate” the program into their own, 
state-owned HGSF program (FAO & WFP, 2018). In 
2019, the Government of Rwanda officially named WFP 
as its primary partner in the development of government￾led school feeding. The first phase of the MGD school 
feeding project mainly focused on establishing the 
parameters for school feeding in Rwandan primary 
schools; the second (current) phase focuses on building 
HGSF capacity in those schools that serve as model schools 
for the national school feeding program (Figure 1.7).
of Health supports complementary health and nutrition 
interventions. Other government entities engaged in the 
implementation of the NCSFP include the Ministry of 
Infrastructure, Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, 
Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Trade and 
Industry, and development partners. Regarding the role 
of development partners, the policy states, “initiatives 
supported by development partners shall have a clear exit 
strategy with a program for handover to the government. 
Such a process shall ensure sustainability” (p. 25).
WFP has provided technical and financial assistance 
for school feeding program development in Rwanda. A 
significant outcome of this collaboration is the “Rwanda 
School Feeding Operational Guidelines” released in 
2021. According to the Ministry of Education, the 
document “provides guidance to schools and other 
stakeholders involved, to effectively implement a high 
quality and safe School Feeding Program by leveraging 
food produced from local farmers and cooperatives while 
improving the local economy” (Rwanda School Feeding 
Operational Guidelines, 2021, p. 2). Current school 
feeding policy objectives emphasize the need to both 
maintain and scale-up current school feeding efforts 
to increase program coverage and the overall amount 
of school children who have access to school meals. 
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program 
implementation in Rwanda
34
Programmatic updates: From 
handing over to developing Model 
Schools
Phase 1’s MGD project covers the FY2015-FY2021 
implementation period and targeted 108 schools in the 
four districts with the highest levels of poverty and food 
insecurity in Rwanda: Nyamagabe, Nyaruguru, Karongi, 
and Rutsiro (Figure 1.8). Consistent with the MGD 
program’s strategic objectives, [1] improved literacy of 
school-aged children and [2] increased use of health and 
dietary practices, the WFP-led implementation in Rwanda 
included school feeding, education, WASH, health and 
nutrition, and capacity-building activities during early 
project stages. According to the interviewees, the first few 
years of the project consisted of setting up agreements, 
building relationships with national, regional, and local 
stakeholders, and creating the foundations for handing 
over the school feeding activities to the Government of 
Rwanda. Two sub-grantees collaborated with the WFP in 
the implementation of program activities-- World Vision 
(WV) and Gardens for Health International (GHI). WV 
conducted literacy and WASH implementation activities 
while GHI performed nutrition education activities 
for project participants. According to one interviewee, 
“the focus of this phase was to make sure that MGD 
partners were not only looking at MGD but looking 
much broader and looking at where they could influence 
policy and strategies and give input based on their 
experience” (SEI with WFP-Rwanda Staff, June 2021). 
1 National School Feeding Program
WFP-Rwanda was granted a second five-year (FY2020 
to FY2025) MGD award ($25M) in 2020. This second 
phase seeks to develop model schools for the Government 
of Rwanda to embed lessons from these into its own 
school feeding programming efforts. “The focus of the 
Phase 1 programme, designed in 2015, has shifted from 
a handover of the programme to building the capacity of 
Phase 1 schools to serve as model schools for the national 
programme, and then to transition those schools into the 
national school feeding programme in 2023/24” (RW.
MGD.Endline.2016-2021, p. 10). This new phase will 
continue supporting the Government of Rwanda in two 
strategic areas [1] “Provision of direct support and creation 
of ‘model schools’ for the NSFP1
 ; and [2] Support to the 
sustainable NSFP, including the transition of the model 
schools into it” (WFP Plan of Operations and Activities). 
The first working area includes the following activities: [1] 
Provide Nutritious School Meals; [2] Promote Improved 
Health; [3] Promote Improved Nutrition and Dietary 
Practices; and [4] Support Improved Literacy. Activities 
under the second working area include building National 
School Feeding Program Management Capacity (activity 
5); and building farmer groups capacity to supply food 
to schools (activity 6). Regarding Phase 2 of MGD 
implementation in Rwanda, one interviewee stated:
In the next phase, WFP is trying to build “Model Schools”. 
To make sure that the home-grown school feeding MGD 
supported schools look like an example because of how they 
excel in terms of provision of meals, student performance 
and efficiency-like cutting costs in general. Making sure 
Figure 1.7 Rwanda — School Feeding E	orts Led by the WFP and Supported by MGD
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Source: Authors based on desk review of MGD program implementation in Rwanda
MGD Phase I: 5 Years
FY2015-FY2021 ($25M) MGD Phase II: 5 Years
FY2020-FY2025 ($25M)
LRP $2M: 2 Years
FY2017-FY2019 ($2M) GoR: National
Consolidated School
Feeding Policy (2019) GoR: Rwanda School
Feeding Operational
Guidelines (2021)
35
that every province has a Model School of which other 
districts and schools can learn from. This would be a 
legacy for MGD but also have lessons learned from 
previous practice. (SSI with WFP-Rwanda Staff, June 
2021) 
Another participant noted: 
The goal for this phase is to make sure that the 
different governance structures are in place, that the 
policies are understood and rolled out through the 
operational guidelines that have been developed, and 
to step forward and lead this national initiative of 
capacity strengthening. (SSI with WFP-Rwanda Staff, 
June 2021)
Activities from these two stages are expected 
to contribute to government-led school feeding 
sustainability. Capacity building and strengthening 
of “school models” are expected to lay the foundation 
for a Rwandan-managed school feeding program. 
Programmatic Components and 
Outcomes
This section highlights important project component 
outcomes. MGD implementation in Rwanda 
includes activities under the following components: 
education and literacy, nutrition and health, and 
WASH. Capacity-building efforts are cross-cutting.
Education and Literacy
Under MGD Results Framework No. 1, the high￾level expected result is to “Improve Literacy of 
School-Aged Children” (MGD SO1). Intermediate 
results include improved quality of literacy 
instruction, improved attentiveness, and improved 
student attendance. In addition to school meal 
provision as means to improve literacy, the WFP 
has implemented activities like promoting teacher 
attendance and recognition, distributing school 
supplies and materials, establishing libraries, 
producing books and supplementary reading 
materials, and conducting teacher and administrator 
training. Table A (available in the appendix 1.1) 
shows performance indicator results for education 
and literacy activities. Data for FY16-1st half is 
not reported here since implementation was at the 
Figure 1.8. MGD implementation sites in Rwanda
29°00'E 30°00'E
1°00'S 2°00'S
3°00'S
3°00'S
2°00'S 1°00'S
Source: Authors based on WFP-MGD documents and OCHA: shapefiles for Rwanda - Subnational
Administrative Boundaries (2017)
Burera
Kayonza
Rutsiro
Karongi
Nyamagabe
Nyaruguru
Gasabo
Rwanda Provinces
1°00'S 2°00'S
29°00'E
2°00'S 1°00'S
Source: Authors based on WFP-MGD documents and OCHA: shapefiles for Rwanda - Subnational
Administrative Boundaries (2017)
30°00'E 31°00'E
Eastern
Province
Northern
Province
Kigali
City
Southern
Province
Western
Province
36
early stages. According to the information available in 
Table A (available in the appendix1.1), during Phase 1 
of implementation, the number of students enrolled in 
MGD-funded schools peaked in FY17-1st half with 
94,572 students with the lowest enrollment reported in 
FY20-1st half. FY20-2nd half does not have data due to 
Covid-19-related school closures. Further, the average 
continuous student attendance recorded in FY19-2nd 
half was upwards of 77,000, which is an overall decrease 
from its highest average (89,887) in FY17-1st half. 
According to Phase 1’s final evaluation results, 
participants’ scores on literacy measures improved. 
Results are displayed under MGD 1 indicator 
“percentage of students who, by the end of two grades 
of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read 
and understand the meaning of grade-level text,” which 
shows a positive change of 36.2 percentage points 
(41.5% --baseline to 77.7%--endline). Girls’ literacy 
outcomes (43.3% –baseline to 85%--endline) were 
better than their male counterparts (39.8% --baseline 
to 70.2%--endline). According to qualitative interviews 
included in the final evaluation report, the difference 
in performance could be explained by higher female 
participation in program activities like reading clubs 
which report higher female student attendance. In one 
district, teachers explained that “boys spend more time 
playing games” (WFP-Final Evaluation, 2021, p. 22). 
Interviews conducted for this study indicate that 
program implementation targeted beneficiary schools 
in communities with higher levels of food insecurity 
and poverty. Improvements in enrollment, attendance, 
and literacy in participating schools located in 
these vulnerable areas emphasize the importance of 
comprehensive school feeding efforts. An interviewee 
from the school feeding partner organization noted: 
The other key achievement is that this project is that it is 
implemented in an area of our country with poor families 
and the one of the achievements is the improvement of 
enrollment of children. The project is implemented in 
food-insecure areas, so I believe that with the project 
intervention many children who have left school for 
different reasons, like to go to work with their families 
and look for food are now in school and are provided with 
food. (SSI with key informant, June 2021).
Sustained school meal provision has been fundamental 
to increasing enrollment and attendance as food is an 
incentive to attend school. Other contributing factors 
include awareness-raising activities meant to emphasize 
39.8
Boys
Source: RW.MGD.Endline.2016-2021
Results obtained from EGRA assessments performed at the baseline, midterm and endline of the program implementation 
Figure 1.9 Results for the MGD Standard Indicator #1 as reported by WFP-Rwanda
56.8
70.2
43.3
62.9
85
Percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade-level text.
41.5
59
77.7
Baseline (2016) Midterm (2019) Endline (2021)
Girls Total
37
the importance of school among parents and caregivers, 
teacher training with techniques that better facilitate 
student learning, and transitioning from teaching in the 
local language to teaching in English. The staff noted: 
In literacy for example, one of the things that we did in 
the first phase, was an activity where we were training 
teachers and school administrators on transitioning from 
using Kinyarwanda as a language of instruction to using 
English and we were doing this for senior primary schools. 
During this time those in senior primary schools (P4 to P6) 
would begin to learn in English. As we are starting Phase 
2, something that the government did about a year ago was 
to provide a directive that the language of instruction (even 
in lower primary schools) would be English. (SSI with key 
informant, June 2021).
School Meals
The core component of the MGD program is school 
meal provision utilizing U.S. government-donated in￾kind commodities. Under the MGD results framework, 
“increased access to food (School Feeding)” (MGD 
1.2.1.1, 1.3.1.1) is an expected outcome believed to lead 
to “reduced short-term hunger” (MGD 1.2.1). Through 
MGD projects, WFP has provided more than 60 MT 
daily school meals to about 84,000 school-aged children 
during Phase 1 of implementation (Table 5). During 
Project Phase 1, USDA provided Corn Soy Blend Plus 
(CSB+) and vegetable oil for project participants. In 
the Western province (Karongi and Rutsiro districts), 
3,103.53 NMT of CSB+ was distributed to schools to 
prepare a daily school meal consisting of CSB+ and sugar, 
while 626.60 NMT of vegetable oil was distributed to 
schools in the Southern provinces (Nyaruguru and 
Nyamagabe districts) to prepare a daily school meal of 
beans, salt, fortified maize meal, and fortified oil; funds 
from the Mastercard foundation covered the local 
purchase of beans, salt, and fortified maize meal. (SEI 
with WFP staff; WFP Final Evaluation) During Phase 
2, USDA has provided 3,790 MT of fortified rice, 
620 MT of vegetable oil, and under the LRP project 
component, 2,064 MT of maize meal and 20 MT of 
beans. (USDA, Food Assistance Fact Sheet, Rwanda)
The sources for school meals during Phase 2 include 
in-kind, imported commodities provided by USDA, 
LRP, and complementary funding from other donors. 
In addition to the initial four districts, the new phase 
includes three more districts that cover other high poverty, 
high food-insecure areas. The new areas allow WFP 
to have “model schools” in each province. Taking into 
consideration the importance of planning a successful 
program transmission at the end of Phase 2, the “number 
of WFP-managed school meals per year will be scaled back 
Table 1.8 Rwanda-MGD: Provision of school meals during phase I of the program
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
The “0” number on FY20- 2nd Half reflects school closures in Rwanda due to Covid-19
IMPLEMENTATION
PERIOD
FY 16- 2nd Half
FY 17- 1st Half
FY 17- 2nd Half
FY 18- 1st Half
FY 18- 2nd Half
FY 19- 1st Half
FY 19- 2nd Half
FY 20- 1st Half
FY 20- 2nd Half
FY 21- 1st Half
FY 21- 2nd Half
MGD Ind. Number of school-aged
children receiving daily school meals
(breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result
of USDA assistance
82,360
94,572
84,876
84,992
83,590
81,250
81,250
78,410
0
79,624
79,624
MGD Ind. Number of daily school meals
(breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
school-age children as a result 
of USDA assistance
2,824,482
9,143,934
8,487,600
6,526,756
7,539,818
6,987,500
7,695,855
5,880,750
0
4,906,782
5,662,071
38
in years 4 and 5, to 28,698 learners, until full transition 
to Government of Rwanda support at the end of the 
program.” (WFP Plan of Operations and Activities, p. 2) 
Nutrition, Health, and Dietary Practices
Along with the goals for increased food access and 
reduced short-term hunger, MGD utilizes a second 
Results Framework with an ultimate goal to “increase 
use of health nutrition and dietary practices.” (MGD 
SO2) Each project’s nutrition aspects include activities 
like deworming and health and nutrition training for 
participants. The nutrition and health component is a 
combined effort between GHI and the WFP. GHI works 
towards the improvement of participant nutrition status 
by implementing activities like nutrition education, 
shopping for nutritious foods, cooking demonstrations, 
and improvement of agricultural capacity through school 
gardens. In 2019, GHI started distributing seedlings 
to students and parents. GHI helped establish school 
gardens in 104 participant schools. The WFP performed 
many nutrition-related activities in schools that led to the 
improvement of food preparation and storage equipment 
(e.g., kitchens, cooking areas, storerooms, stoves, and 
kitchen utensils), contributed to the improvement of 
cooking infrastructure, and trained cooks and food 
keepers on proper food preparation and storage practices. 
These efforts at the school-level contributed to the 
development of national school feeding guidelines—
adopted by the Government of Rwanda in 2021. 
In addition, projects include WASH activities. According 
to one interviewee for this study, when the project began 
collaborating with participant schools, implementers 
noticed that there were issues with water availability 
at participating schools. When water is not available, 
implementers must identify a nearby water source. From 
there, implementers collaborated with the district level 
partners to construct pipelines from the identified water 
source to the participant school. The interviewee states: 
When we identify a school that does not have water, we 
look for a water source near a school. We work with district 
partners to construct a pipeline and then turn it over to a 
water purification organization. Because we use gravity 
fed water sources, you have to make sure the water is tested 
all the time and protected. After implementation is over, 
it is hard to keep up with the private water companies to 
make sure this is happening. We also try to make sure that 
the communities take responsibility here. (SSI with key 
informant, June 2021)
According to Phase 1’s endline evaluation, 104 
participating schools were using an improved water 
source. One interviewee reported that 20 schools had 
access to running water because of project efforts. 
During water shortages, the WFP and WV collaborate 
to install water tanks for school water storage. 
All schools participating in Phase 1 have established 
Food, Health, and Hygiene Clubs. These provide 
students with opportunities to learn about health and 
hygiene practices. Another project accomplishment is 
the construction of menstrual hygiene management 
rooms for girls in schools, which is believed to have 
increased female attendance in schools. According 
to one interviewee this initiative contributed to 
reduce student absenteeism among female students: 
During the final evaluation, the companies that evaluated 
the project indicated that student absentees due to illnesses 
has decreased from 8.00% in 2016 to 1.72% at the end 
of the project among female students, and from 7.00% in 
2016 to 2.30% at the end of the project among boys. (SSI 
with key informant, June 2021) 
39
Partnerships with the Public Sector
This section documents the partnerships started by the 
WFP as a result of its MGD-related work in Rwanda 
with special emphasis on public sector partnerships 
with the Rwandan government. Under the public sector 
category of partnerships, this study reflects on the WFP’s 
collaborative efforts with Rwanda’s central government 
through its multiple ministries, entities of the decentralized 
sector, and local level entities (i.e. district level). Table 
1.9 summarizes the school-feeding partnerships 
between the WFP and public entities in Rwanda.
The partners listed in the table reflect WFP’s efforts, 
Partnerships for School Feeding in Rwanda: 
The role of MGD
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from primary and secondary sources.
Table 1.9 Summary of public partnerships for school feeding under MGD Rwanda
Ministry of Education (MINEDUC)
Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI)
Ministry of Infrastructure (MINIFRA)
Water and Sanitation Corporation
(WASAC)
Ministry of Health (MOH)
Rwanda Biomedical Center (RBC)
National Early Childhood Develop￾ment Programme (NECDP)
Rwanda Educational Board (REB)
Ministry of Finance and Economic 
Planning (MINECOFIN)
Ministry of Local Government 
(MINALOC)
Ministry of Trade and Industry 
(MINICOM)
Rwanda Cooperative Agency 
(RCA)
District Education O…ces
PARTNER
MINEDUC is the lead entity for coordination, management, implementation, and 
monitoring of the school feeding program. MIEDUC and the WFP-MGD are key 
partners to implement e‰orts towards the strengthening of a sustainable national 
school feed work.
MINAGRI is responsible to develop the framework and guidelines for the functioning 
of the value chain for local farmer. This is a critical aspect for local procurement for 
school feeding of the HGSF model.
Collaborate with implementing partners (WFP and WV) in the development of water
 infrastructure in schools.
Collaborate with implementing partners (WFP and WV) in the development of water
infrastructure in schools.
MOH provides guidelines for maternal and child health interventions that provide 
the framework for GHI nutrition action.
RBC is “the nation’s central health implementation agency.” Under the MGD imple￾mentation, it supports complementary health and nutrition interventions.
NECDP provides guidelines for maternal and child health interventions that provide
the framework for GHI nutrition action.
World Vision and REB will collaborate to support the professional development of 
teachers through ongoing school-based professional development.
Collaborate with MINEDUC and other national level entities in the identification of 
budget sources to support the national school feeding program. MINECOFIN ensures 
allocation of resources and facilitates mobilization of resources from the private 
sector and international donors.
According to the NCSFP, MINALOC will provide oversight on the integration of the 
School Feeding Policy at the di‰erent levels of governance. For this, the WFP and 
MINALOC will collaborate to support districts in reflecting the NSF Policy and 
Strategy in their development and education plans.
According to the NCSFP, MINALOC will create an appropriate framework that will 
link the supply chain of farmer cooperatives produce to the school feeding program.
In collaboration with the WFP, MINAGRI and MINICOM, the RCA will develop and 
implement strategies to improve financial inclusion of smallholder farmers (SHFs).
Key local partners for implementation of MGD School feeding programming.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
40
in the context of MGD projects, to develop a strong 
collaboration with Rwandan government entities to 
create the conditions for the transitioning of school 
feeding efforts. Being a UN agency, the WFP has prior 
established recognition and credibility that allowed it to 
become a key player both inside and outside the realm of 
comprehensive school feeding program implementation. 
UN funds also allowed them to become a key player in 
school feeding policy design. Its presence in Rwanda and 
strong connections with that government, as well as the 
inclusion of specific activities to develop governmental 
capacity for school feeding, resulted in its recognition by 
the Government of Rwanda as a key partner in school 
feeding. Many of these efforts are the result of their 
long-term presence in the country and access to MGD 
funds. In addition, the WFP in Rwanda has been able 
to access resources from the WFP Brazil Center of 
Excellence (CoE). Collaboration with the WFP Brazil 
CoE has informed some of the WFP’s MGD work in 
Rwanda. The Center’s primary focus is to link school 
feeding initiatives to local agriculture systems, for which 
they provide technical assistance to governments in the 
design and deployment of HGSF programs. Rwanda’s 
government has benefited from technical and financial 
assistance from both the WFP Rwanda country office 
and the CoE, as well as funds for the implementation 
of comprehensive MGD program projects. Table 1.9A 
summarizes the key partnerships for school feeding 
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from primary and secondary sources.
Table 1.9A Summary of public partnerships with inter-governmental organizations for school feeding under MGD 
Rwanda
UNICEF
World Health Organization 
(WHO)
African Union and WFP 
Center of Excellence 
against hunger
USAID 
International Institute of 
Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
WFP
PARTNER
Collaborate with the WFP and Ministry of Education in the development 
and review of sectoral policies (Nutrition, Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture, 
education, WASH) to ensure consistency with the National School
Feeding Program. 
Provide deworming tablets to assist MGD programmatic efforts. 
• Provide a framework for action on the MGD Education and Literacy 
component.
• To ensure complementarity of US Government funding in Rwanda, 
the MGD literacy activities were designed to complement national 
literacy interventions implemented by USAID and aligned with the 
Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2020-2025 
development objectives “improved learning outcomes” and 
intermediate results: 
(1) improved inclusive and quality early grade literacy classroom 
instructions, 
(2) strengthened education system management, 
(3) strengthened community support for learning. 
• Proposed literacy interventions will complement USAID’s new 
LEARN project 2020-2025 which is expected to build off of current 
national initiatives and provide continued support to the GoR to 
improve literacy outcomes of primary students up to grade 3, to
improve school-based instruction and systems and to strengthen 
community structures to improve literacy learning.
Collaboration with GHI in the provision of seedlings for school gardens. 
In addition to its role as implementing partner of the MGD program in 
Rwanda, the presence of the WFP in country with a broader scope of work 
as outlined in the Rwanda Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023 in support of 
the efforts to ensure national nutrition and food security priorities. 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
Partnership for the promotion of the Home-Grown School Feeding 
model.
41
in Rwanda with international intergovernmental 
organizations mobilized by the WFP-Rwanda.
To date, the Government of Rwanda has shown 
commitment toward school feeding through the 
adoption of the National Comprehensive School Feeding 
Policy and the recent release, supported by the WFP 
country office in Rwanda, of national school feeding 
guidelines. Interviews for this study suggest that WFP 
implementation staff take deliberate action to maximize 
their collaborative efforts with the Government of Rwanda: 
WFP is still very much learning about this space and how 
it is specific to each country. WFP is talking and, in many 
places, making this shift from being an implementer to an 
enabler, so working much more closely with governments, 
providing technical assistance, not just providing food and 
so forth. That will be the transition completely in the years 
to come it seems. (SSI with key informant, June 2021)
WFP-Rwanda has instituted important endeavors to 
improve food security and school feeding in the country. 
WFP-Rwanda, supported by the US Government/
USDA-FAS MGD funds and leveraging its HGSF 
framework (FAO & WFP, 2018), has strengthened the 
Government of Rwanda’s commitment to and support 
of a national school feeding program. To date, the 
Rwandan national school feeding program feeds children 
in pre-primary, primary, and secondary schools with 
government (around 40%) and parent contributions 
(about 60%) (Interview with key informants, June 2021). 
According to the Rwanda School Feeding Operational 
Guidelines, the cost of the base meal per child is 150 
RWF; the government provides 56 RWF of the 150 RWF 
with the remaining is provided by parent contributions. 
A line item in the Ministry of Education’s budget will 
be allocated to fund the NCSFP’s core components; 
funding for complementary interventions will be added 
to the budget of the other government entities involved. 
The policy recognizes the importance of additional 
funding sources which include development partners 
like donor governments, UN Agencies (e.g., WFP, FAO, 
UNICEF), other governmental and non-governmental 
agencies, and the private sector and local communities. 
As previously detailed in this report’s policy section, the 
NCSFP identified important government entities and 
established their corresponding responsibilities in the 
deployment of the national school feeding program. These 
partners have been identified by the WFP as partners in the 
development of MGD school feeding-related initiatives 
that are expected to become the model for the national 
school feeding program. The relationship between the 
WFP and the Government of Rwanda, particularly 
with the Ministry of Education, is evidence of a strong 
collaboration between the two entities. The collaboration 
began by establishing a memorandum of understanding 
between the WFP and the Rwandan government and 
formalizing their partnership. Under MGD project Phase 
2, efforts toward strengthening this partnership will 
mainly focus on capacity development for the deployment 
and expansion of the national school feeding program. 
Phase 1 of MGD enabled a project-based steering 
committee for school feeding that will, in Phase 2, 
transition into the National School Feeding Steering 
Committee (NSFSC) and include government 
representatives and development partners (i.e., the WFP 
and WV). A Technical Working Group (TWG) led by 
the WFP will provide technical support to the decision 
process at the NSFSC. Under Phase 2’s collaborative 
efforts, model schools will become learning opportunities 
that will inform national school feeding program efforts. 
To track partnerships with the public sector, the WFP has 
included a new set of custom indicators in its performance 
management plan (PMP). These indicators will keep 
track of the activities related to capacity building among 
necessary governmental partners. These indicators include: 
• Percent increase in the budget allocated by the 
Government of Rwanda to Home-Grown School 
Feeding Program
• Number of government staff trained at the national 
level
• Number of government staff trained at the district 
level
• Number of HGSF Steering Committee and Technical 
Committee meetings held
• Number of government financing strategies developed
• Number of government monitoring and evaluation 
systems established
• Number of district and national-level Ministry of 
Education and Ministry of Agriculture staff supported 
by new HGSF policies
• Number of government staff trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance (female)
Analysis shows that two main risks to national school 
feeding program sustainability, once it’s handed over 
completely to the government, are budgetary constraints 
and a lack of full government commitment. Although the 
42
NCSFP gives the budgetary responsibility to the Ministry 
of Finance and Economic Planning to identify funds for 
the program and establish a budget line item under the 
Ministry of Education’s budget, there are still limited 
funds dedicated to school feeding in Rwanda. One clear 
example of this is that the government will only cover 
around 40% of the school meals in their national school 
feeding program; remaining meal costs should be covered 
by parent contributions. This may be problematic, 
especially in areas with persistent poverty and food 
insecurity. According to one participant in this study 
when discussing the 40/60 shared cost of school meals: 
It is really a challenge because of course there are some 
areas where parents can manage, but there are many other 
areas where it’s impossible for parents to contribute. And it’s 
even driving significant dropout for a lot of students. This is 
because that budget is so limited, and schools are all doing 
different things.” (SSI with key informant, June 2021)
Earlier in 2011, under another 
school feeding intervention 
led by the WFP, a 2+3 pilot of 
providing food only three days 
per week while the community 
was responsible for providing meals for the remaining two 
school days resulted in negative impacts on attendance 
and retention (see NCSFP). One of the interviewees stated 
in some government schools, they can only feed students 
whose parents contribute support for school meal provision, 
something that should not happen within a school feeding 
program. It is expected that the capacity-building effort 
led by the WFP under MGD project Phase 2 will provide 
an opportunity to explore funding alternatives that do 
not increasingly burden already food insecure households. 
Private Sector Partnerships
Partnerships with the private sector are important for 
school feeding programming because they can stimulate 
innovation in problem-solving, provide opportunities 
to access capital, and produce economic growth. Under 
the HGSF framework, linking the agricultural sector 
with school feeding programs creates opportunities for 
economic development and school feeding sustainability 
within the broader food system. One of the interviewees 
suggests that notions about the private sector tend to 
only consider larger enterprises; however, school feeding 
in Africa also presents opportunities for medium and 
small enterprises to engage at different points in the 
supply value chain for school meal provision. Therefore, 
opportunities for the expansion of partnerships with the 
private sector exist within the commodity value chain. The 
case of Rwanda, particularly under the implementation 
of the LRP component (see Section 2 of this report), 
provides evidence of the potential impact of local 
capacity building when implementing actions toward 
the strengthening of smallholder farmer enterprises.
The objective of the LRP project component in Rwanda 
was to improve the effectiveness of food assistance and 
the expected outcomes including increased value of sales 
by project beneficiaries. The final evaluation of the LRP 
project component indicates that 5,617 benefited from 
the program, which represents about 10% of farmers in 
the project implementation area. The project component 
has significantly contributed to private sector partnerships 
through the connection 
it created between 
smallholder farmer 
cooperatives and 
buyers from the Farm 
to Market Alliance 
(FTMA) in Rwanda. As a result, there were increases 
in output and sales, and enhancement of port-harvest 
practices. The Rwandan government documented the 
experience to show that collaboration with the private 
sector can greatly improve SHF output and capacity to 
perform in the value chain, driven by the market that 
school feeding can provide. Regarding the role of the 
alliance in Rwanda, RWARRI posted on their social media: 
The Alliance promotes the establishment of the sustainable 
pro-smallholder agricultural value chain intending 
to increase smallholder income and foster commercial 
viability for private sector actors engaged in the Alliance. 
RWARRI and RDO are currently assisting 207 cooperatives 
regrouping 72,039 smallholder farmers, in which 35,570 
are females. The farmers’ organizations are growing maize 
or beans in season A, B, and C. Six big formal buyers 
in Rwanda, such as MINIMEX, SARURA, EAX, AIF, 
RGCC, and Gorilla Feeds, are signing pre-harvest contracts 
with cooperatives at the beginning of the season. (RWARRI, 
2020)
“Partnerships with the private sector are important for 
school feeding programming because they can stimulate 
innovation in problem-solving, provide opportunities to 
access capital, and produce economic growth.”
43
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants.
Table 1.10 Summary of partnerships with the private sector for school feeding under MGD Rwanda
Farm to Market Alliance (FTMA)
Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation
Initiative (RWARRI) and Rwanda
Development Organization (RDO)
Farmer Organizations
Commodity Traders
Africa Improved Foods (AIF)
MINIMEX
Rockefeller Foundation
Vanguard Economics
PARTNER
FTMA is a collaborative e‚ort of six agri-focused organizations: The Alliance for 
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Bayer, Rabobank, Syngenta, the WFP, and 
Yara International that develops products and services tailored to the needs of 
farmers in conjunction with local private sector of participating countries 
including Rwanda. The WFP leveraged its participation in FTMA to engage farmers
from the LRP program in this e‚ort. FTMA is implemented in RWARRI and RDO 
in 18 districts. 
Participate in capacity building exercises led by the WFP to improve their ability to
produce commodities to supply schools for meal provision. 
Commodity traders aggregate food commodities and supply to School Feeding 
Program for a profit.
AIF is a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) formed by DSM, FMO, DFID, IFC, CDC, and
the Government of Rwanda. AIF leads the fortification sector in Rwanda (90% of 
the share). AIF produces fortified blended flours, that are later sold to the WFP to 
supply their mela provision programs including school feeding programs. 
For the school meals program, the WFP procures maize meal from MINIMEX. 
MINIMEX Ltd. “is the largest producer of fine maize products in Rwanda. “It is 
committed to play a central role as buyer of maize from Rwandan farmers, 
cooperatives and traders and as provider of healthy nutritional products to the 
population and institutions… [they] has gained a central position in the food value
chain in Rwanda as one of the larger buyers of local maize and as largest provider
of quality maize flour in the country.” (MINIMEX, n.d.)
Rockefeller foundation provided funds to carry out a pilot to test the usage of a 
nutritient-rich whole grain fortified flour among school aged children to reduce the
usage of highly refined flour in school meals. The pilot is implemented by a local 
organization called Vanguard Economics. 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
Participants in this PPP include: 
-Royal DSM, a Dutch multinational corporation active in the fields of health, nutrition and materials; 
-FMO, a Dutch development bank; 
-DFID, the British Department for International Development which was responsible for administering foreign aid; 
-IFC, the International Finance Corporation is an international financial institution that offers investment, advisory, and 
asset-management services to encourage private-sector development in less developed countries and a member of the 
World Bank Group; 
-CDC, which is UK’s development finance institution; 
-The Government of Rwanda. (Mugabekazi, 2021)
*This is a footnote that belongs to one of the parnters in the table: Africa Improved Foods.
44
 Another important area of work with the private sector is 
fortification. The Government of Rwanda has mandated 
fortification of maize flour, salt, and wheat flour since 2019 
(Global Fortification Data Exchange, n.d.). Fortification 
is concentrated in a few agro-processors centralized 
in Kigali, including AIF, MINIMEX, and SOSOMA 
Industries Ltd. AIF holds a 90% market share of the 
fortification industry in Rwanda; they supply WFP with 
fortified blended flours to use in their programs (WFP, 
2021). MINIMEX (another source of procurement for 
the WFP) is the largest producer of fine maize products 
in Rwanda and the only producer of fortified maize 
flour (WFP, 2021). It plays a key role in the agricultural 
value chain in Rwanda, purchasing maize from farmers, 
cooperatives, and traders. The connections created by 
the WFP through the LRP, and broadly speaking the 
HGSF in Rwanda, have contributed to a shortening 
of the supply chain while improving farmer capacity 
to deliver the expected produce agro-processors need. 
These collaborations are important to the continued 
improvement of quality inputs for school feeding. 
According to staff from the WFP working in the 
value chain, the LRP and FTAM efforts sought to 
shorten the supply chain which subsequently improved 
farmers’ capacity to meet buyers and agro-processors’ 
needs (i.e. higher quantities and meeting quality 
standards). This also created a win-win situation for 
participant farmers who then increased their income 
share by reducing the number of intermediators. One 
example demonstrating the importance of quality 
assurance in post-harvest capacity development is 
seen in issues surrounding maize quality: “Due to the 
lack of quality maize produce grown in Rwanda, AIF 
initially imported more than 80 percent (80%) of its 
annual maize requirements from Tanzania, Zambia, 
and Uganda because the local maize had unacceptable 
level of aflatoxins” (Mugabekazi, 2021). The LRP, and 
broadly the HGSF, have worked to enhance post-harvest 
farmer capacity. The value chain model implemented 
by the WFP consists of an assortment of buyers and 
agro-processors and smallholder farmers associated in 
farmer cooperatives that are later connected through 
initiative business forums to gain access to markets, 
provide the complementary services to farmers around 
access to inputs, post-harvest technology, and finance. 
Another instance of a private section partnership 
that benefits school feeding in Rwanda is the pilot for 
nutrition-rich wholegrain fortified flour. Under the 
WFP HGSF framework, the Rockefeller Foundation 
provided funds to carry out a pilot to test the usage of a 
nutrition-rich wholegrain fortified flour among school￾aged children to reduce the usage of highly refined flour 
in school meals. The pilot was implemented by a local 
organization called Vanguard Economics. “Nutrition￾rich wholegrain maize flour is replacing refined maize 
flour in school meals for 15,000 school children in 
the Southern Province of Rwanda under a 1-year pilot 
project. The pilot aimed to increase nutrition in primary 
school meal programs while educating children, their 
families, and the wider school communities about the 
nutritional benefits of consuming fortified wholegrain 
flours” (Rasmussen, 2021). The pilot took place in 
schools supported by the WFP and USDA-MGD. 
According to interviewees for this study, the goal of the 
pilot was to explore how the local private sector could 
play the role of maximizing school feeding as a platform 
for nutrition, optimizing supply and demand, and 
finding nutritious alternatives with local commodities. 
There are multiple opportunities for private sector 
engagement in school feeding programming, from 
locally sourced commodities to exploring collaboration 
for research and development. However, addressing key 
areas for improvement is needed for continued increases in 
private sector engagement for school feeding. There is an 
increasing need to expand on research opportunities that 
would allow implementers to have and utilize evidence￾based practices. One participant in this study stated,
Things like research, evaluation and building the evidence 
base are important to support private partnerships. To 
some extent they (referring to private partners) have 
analytical capacity in-house, they have an assessment and 
research team but there is a lot of work done with external 
providers. Building the external capacity when it comes 
to research related to school feeding and school-based 
programs is important. (SSI with key informant, June 
2021) 
Another interviewee added that there is a need to expand 
research and collaboration opportunities to add animal 
protein to school meals and to lower commodity costs. 
There is also a need to increase awareness about the 
importance of school feeding among private sector partners 
including showing the potential returns on investment in 
45
school-aged children’s nutrition. This is an area where the 
WFP, in collaboration with the public sector entities, can 
develop methods to continue communicating the benefits 
of school feeding for the overall well-being of the nation. 
Community-Level Partnerships
The HGSF framework emphasizes the need to involve 
communities in the school feeding process. In the 
case of Rwanda, communities get involved in MGD 
project implementation as beneficiaries and suppliers 
of food and labor. Communities benefited from the 
MGD school feeding program not only from the meals 
children receive and the potential ripple effects that 
this may have in long-term community development 
but also by engaging parents as cooks and storekeepers 
(mostly to receive meals in exchange for program 
participation) and participating in activities that 
lead to community empowerment to oversee other 
programmatic efforts carried out in the local areas. 
WV and GHI have led initiatives that are expected to 
greatly contribute to the sustainability of school feeding. 
WV is responsible for implementing WASH 
components within Rwanda’s MGD projects. One of 
their tasks is to identify water sources for schools both 
for meal preparation and sanitation. At the village and 
cell levels, staff from the WV work with the district 
partners to address issues of school water availability. 
Once that step is completed, it is up to the communities 
to ensure that private companies continue adequate 
service provision. In order to help communities acquire 
the necessary skills for determining water quality and 
availability, the WV implements the Citizens Voice and 
Action (CVA) model among community members:
CVA is an evidence-based, social accountability model 
that operationalises and strengthens relationships of direct 
accountability among citizens, policymakers and service 
providers. It tackles the root causes of poverty, vulnerability, 
marginalization, exclusion, inequality, and poor 
governance. (World Vision, 2020, p. 2)
The implementation of the CVA model is expected 
to contribute to the sustainability of school feeding 
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants.
Table 1.11 Summary of community-level partnerships for school feeding under MGD Rwanda
Local Communities & World Vision
Local Communities & GHI
PTAs
Nutrition Oversight Committees
(NOC)
WASH Committees
School General Assembly
Committee (SGAC)
PARTNER
The World Vision used its Citizen Voice and Action (CVA) model to train members 
of the community on ways to engage citizens in process of accountability on water 
issues, and other problems that may a‚ect the community at large. 
GHI implements Training of Trainers (ToT) modules for school gardens and nutrition
education as a strategy to contribute to the sustainability of school.
To help PCI perform teacher training, implement elements of school feeding, and 
aid in developing national school feeding guidelines. The starting No. of PTAs: 
104 (one per school after phase I of MGD)
To provide oversight of nutrition and agriculture trainings in WFP-MGD supported
schools. This will contribute to ensure sustainability. NOCs are by SGAC members
trained on the CVA model, head teachers, teachers, local leaders (village and cell), 
cooks and school owners.
“World Vision will facilitate the establishment of WASH committees and reinforce
Water User Committees, made up of teachers and community members (men, 
women, youth) to promote good health and hygiene practices in schools and 
communities surrounding the schools.” (WFP Plan of Operations and Activities)
SGACs were created by the Rwandan Law (Law 23/2012) as an organizational 
structure for school management. They consist of parents, head teacher, teachers, 
school administrative sta‚, 2 student representatives and the school owner or the 
representative for the government subsidized schools (Aziza, Williams & Akaliza, 
2016). 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
46
programming by empowering communities with 
knowledge and skills they can later put into play to advocate 
for prioritizing schools, especially during instances of 
water rationing. WV uses the CVA model through a 
Trainer of Trainers approach (ToT); this allows them to 
work closely with local leaders who can later ensure the 
diffusion of information throughout the community. WV 
uses ToT as a crosscutting tool to work with communities 
not only to develop accountability skills, but also to 
help with the dissemination of information under 
health promotion campaigns, soap making, and overall 
community participation in WASH related activities. 
GHI also works closely with communities under the 
nutrition education component through school gardens by 
providing seedlings to parents and students. At the end of 
Phase 1, 104 schools had gardens. The gardens are a GHI￾community collaborative effort. Using the ToT approach, 
GHI supported SGAC members to train parents and 
other community members in nutrition education and 
gardening techniques. Aiming at empowering community 
leaders to become nutrition champions, GHI leads annual 
nutrition and gardening refresher training for cell leaders 
and three SGAC members from MGD schools. GHI 
conducts an annual home 
garden survey to gather 
up-to-date information 
about the status of crops 
and harvest (RW.MGD.
E n d l i n e . 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 2 1 ) . 
For GHI, school 
feeding programming 
accountability is critical for 
project success and sustainability. Under MGD, and as a 
joint effort between the community and GHI, imihigos2
were developed to track school feeding performance: 
These contracts provide an outline of all nutrition 
and gardening activities to be implemented by GHI in 
addition to roles and responsibilities of both GHI and the 
schools. Schools were continuously encouraged to follow 
the performance contracts and ensure that activities were 
implemented according to plan. (WFP Plan of Operations 
and Activities, p. 7-8)
2 “To hold public officials accountable, the government chose to adapt the idea of performance contracts 
to a traditional practice of setting and achieving goals called Imihigo. First implemented with district mayors, 
Imihigo were later expanded across government ministries and agencies. The increased focus on performance 
of public officials helped Rwanda achieve impressive rates of economic growth, rapidly improve infrastructure, 
and increase health and education outcomes for its citizens.” (World Bank, 2018, p. 52)
Another important area of community engagement for 
school feeding is parent contributions for the provision 
of school meals. As explained earlier, the school feeding 
guidelines established that the national school feeding 
program would rely on parent contributions for meal 
provision (60% provided by parents and 40% by 
government subsidies). Despite the main improvements 
that this model can produce, it is associated with some 
overwhelming challenges according to implementation 
staff; these challenges include household poverty, the 
assumption that school feeding is the government’s sole 
responsibility, and decreased household income because 
of COVID-19. Having limited parent contributions 
has led to limited availability of resources to pay cooks 
and purchase wood and local vegetables (RW.MGD.
Endline.2016-2021). The NCSFP believes that school 
gardens can be leveraged to improve parent contributions 
to school feeding. However, GHI staff suggest that there 
is still much work to be done before school gardens can 
become a reliable source of commodities. Currently, they 
trying to create a community engagement and nutrition 
education activity to help remedy these challenges. 
Further, NCSFP recognizes how challenging it is to utilize 
school gardens as tool to ensure parent contributions:
The current status of 
school garden coverage in 
2018 is at 68.5%, from 
60.7% in 2014. The 
projects have however 
experienced challenges 
that include the short 
term nature of the school 
gardens initiatives 
without operational exit strategies for sustainability; 
training of teachers to build their capacity but no linkage 
with district agronomists to provide technical backstopping; 
availability of water particularly during the dry season; 
lack of land; lack of financial resources for the gardening 
activities, and exposure to external destructions as most of 
the schools are not fenced. (NCSFP, 2019, p. 13)
Another area of consideration for community engagement 
is the role of traditional gender roles in Rwandan 
communities benefiting from MGD school feeding 
“Another important area of community engagement for school 
feeding is parent contributions for the provision of school 
meals […] Despite the main improvements that this model 
can produce, it is associated with some overwhelming chal￾lenges according to implementation staff; these challenges 
include household poverty, the assumption that school feeding 
is the government’s sole responsibility, and decreased house￾hold income because of COVID-19”
47
program projects. Children’s education is traditionally a 
woman’s role. The push for community contributions, 
while important, needs to take into consideration that 
the overall distribution of domestic activities and burdens 
are mostly carried by women and how the requirement of 
parent contributions can increase this burden on women. 
Other gender-related barriers need to be considered 
when engaging women in school feeding programming. 
For instance, cultural perceptions about a woman’s role, 
strength, and safety. According to the WFP’s final report 
of Phase 1 of MGD, “73 percent of WFP-assisted schools 
have at least one female cook. Some barriers remain to 
women’s employment as cooks, including the attitude of 
many men that women are not strong enough to stir the 
large pots of food. Another barrier in the western region 
is the need for cooks to walk to school before sunrise, 
which is not safe for women, in order to prepare porridge 
in the morning.” (RW.MGD.Endline.2016-2021, p. 34). 
Partnerships and the Sustainability 
Rwanda’s School Meals Program
The implementation of the MGD program in Rwanda 
and the capacity of the WFP to reach multiple sectors 
and instances across the country has contributed not only 
to the achievement of important programmatic outcomes 
(i.e., literacy, meal provision, WASH, farmer capacity) 
but also to the design and implementation of a policy 
and regulatory framework for school feeding. Current 
programmatic efforts have gained not only strong public 
sector support for school feeding but also have enabled the 
participation of the private sector. The conjunction of the 
MGD results framework and availability of funds, along 
with the WFP capacity to leverage support, are important 
steps towards the building of a sustainability framework 
for a government-led school feeding program in Rwanda. 
There is still room for enhancing collaborations with local 
communities. Through the participation of collaborators 
like WV and GHI, there have been important efforts 
toward the inclusion of communities in the school feeding 
program. However, there is a need to raise awareness about 
the role of vulnerable households and demands to engage 
in the school feeding activity through the provision of 
resources. While community in-kind contributions are 
important, high reliability on those resources can create 
a risk of community disengagement and overburden, 
especially to vulnerable groups like rural women.
48
Research Component 1: Partnerships for School Feeding
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in 
Sierra Leone
Socio-economic and Policy 
Context
Nutrition and Food Security
Located in West Africa, Sierra Leone has an estimated 
population of 7.9 million people, of which, half are 
people under 18 years old (World Bank, 2022b; 
UNICEF, 2021). It has one of the lowest Human 
Development Index (HDI) rankings worldwide (0.452 
in 2019), ranking 182 out of 189 countries (UNDP, 
2021). The recent history of Sierra Leone featured more 
than a decade of civil conflict (1991-2002) and an Ebola 
outbreak (2014-2015). These events continue to affect 
the country’s Government and civil society’s capacity 
to implement actions to improve population wellbeing. 
Population-level poverty is at 59.2% according to the 
most current measures (UNICEF, 2021). Additionally, a 
2017 multidimensional measure of child poverty revealed 
that child poverty at 66%1
 (UNICEF, 2019), making 
children a highly vulnerable population. A recent district￾level analysis shows that the incidence of child poverty 
in the Koinadugu district (where MGD implementation 
takes place2
 ) is the highest in Sierra Leone, with 85.4%. 
Along with poverty, food insecurity remains a significant 
1 A measure of multidimensional poverty was used. According to the study, “a child is defined as poor if they are 
deprived in one or more of the following dimensions: health, nutrition, water, sanitation, education, shelter or informa￾tion” (UNICEF, 2019, p, 5).
2 McGovern-Dole implementation in Sierra Leone takes place in the Districts of Koinadugu and Falaba. Falaba Dis￾trict was created in 2016, out of the Koinadugu District. Therefore, district level data for Koinadugu includes information 
for Falaba.
problem among Sierra Leoneans. The WFP (2021a) 
reported that 57% of the population is food insecure, 
while 12% are severely food insecure. Food insecurity is 
even more acute among rural populations (3.3 million 
are food insecure), compared to their urban counterparts 
(WFP, 2021a). Disaggregating food insecurity analyses 
by gender illustrates that female headed households are 
more likely to be more severely food insecure (13%) 
than male headed households (11%; WFP, 2021b). The 
rise and spread of COVID-19 worsened the already 
precarious state of food insecurity in Sierra Leone. 
In addition, child malnutrition remains problematic; in 
2019, stunting among children under five was at 29.5%, 
under-five wasting was 5.4%, and infant mortality was 
at 108 deaths per 1,000 live births (UNICEF, 2021; 
2021 Global Nutrition Report). According to the 2021 
Global Nutrition Report, the numbers in indicators like 
minimum acceptable diet (MAD) (9%), minimum meal 
frequency (MMF) (32%), and minimum dietary diversity 
(MDD) (25.1%) among infants and young children 
ages 0 to 23 months, provide some insights about the 
persistence of food insecurity problems among this 
age group. Gender disaggregated information suggests 
that these indicators (MAD, MMF, and MDD) feature 
slightly better results among girls than boys. Estimates 
for thinness among children and adolescents (5 to 19 
Institutional Framework for School Feeding
49
years old) show that boys (9%) are twice as likely to 
be thin than girls (4.6%). In contrast, nutrition data 
for adults show a higher prevalence of obesity among 
women (15.6%), compared to men (4.7%); similarly, the 
population’s percentage of overweight women (38.1%) is 
almost 1.5 times higher than its population of overweight 
men (20.5%) (2021 Global Nutrition Report). 
The issues of food insecurity and malnutrition are 
closely related to the many weaknesses of Sierra Leone’s 
agricultural system, a system featured by low productivity 
and high reliance on food imports. Agriculture is one of 
the most important economic activities in the country, 
and about two thirds of the population derive their 
livelihoods from agriculture as smallholder farmers. It is 
reported that 60% of Sierra Leone’s GDP comes from 
agriculture yet agricultural production and productivity 
remain low resulting in a significantly large proportion 
of food imports and disproportionately high food 
prices (ITA, 2021). Data from the World Bank (2022a) 
indicates that for 2018, 32% of total imports correspond 
to food, and in general there is a high reliance on food 
imports making Sierra Leone a food deficit country 
(WFP, 2021a). Government led strategies to improve 
self-reliance of food production seek to increase rice 
self-sufficiency through private sector engagement 
and investments in research and development; crop 
diversification; livestock development; and improvement 
of forestry management Ministry of Agriculture, 
Forestry and Food Security of Sierra Leone, 2022). 
Education
In 2018, the Government of Sierra Leone launched 
the Free Quality School Education (FQSE) program 
aiming at increase access to quality pre-primary, primary, 
and secondary school. Over the years, enrollment 
in education has notably improved. The total Gross 
Enrollment Ratio (GER) in primary education for 2020 
was 141.33% (143.67% for females and 138.98% for 
males), an increase from 113.78% in 2011 (110.77% 
for females and 116.81% for males) (UNESCO, 2022). 
Nevertheless, junior and senior secondary enrollment 
rates are lower than primary school rates which suggests 
that fewer students continue seeking education beyond 
primary school. The 2019 primary school GER saw a 15% 
increase compared to 2018 (77% for males and 76.7% for 
females), and enrollment in senior secondary increased 
29.1% for males (from 29.4% in 2018 to 58.5% in 2019) 
and 28% for females (from 25.7% in 2018 to 54.5% in 
2019; Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, 
2019 & 2021). Figure 1.10 summarizes GER per 
educational level in Sierra Leone between 2018 and 2020. 
Although female participation in secondary education 
has increased, female enrollment rates in secondary 
school remain below male enrollment (UNESCO, 2022). 
Source: Authors using Sierra Leone’s School Census Reports (Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, 
2019 & 2021).
Figure 1.10 Sierra Leone — Gross Enrollment Rates Per Educational Level
20
GER (%)
0
Pre-primary Primary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary
12
2019
2020
2018
19.3
20.6
107.8
138.6
136.9
61.5
76.9
77.9
27.5
56.5
59.1
40
80
60
100
120
140
160
50
School performance in Sierra 
Leone is measured using 
standardized testing. In the final 
grade of primary school, students 
take the National Primary School 
Examination (NPSE); students 
that pass the NPSE move onto 
junior secondary school. In 
junior secondary, students take 
the Basic Education Certificate 
Examination (BECE) and go on 
to take the West African Senior 
School Certificate Examination 
(WASSCE) in senior secondary. 
NPSE pass rates between 2016 
and 2019 are above 70% with 
an average of 75.1%. BECE 
pass rates show an increase 
between 2016 (66.1%) and 2017 
(73.8%) and a significant decline 
between 2018 (72.6%) and 2019 (49.9%). Pass rates for 
WASSCE are consistently low and follow similar trends 
as the BECE with a slight increase from 2016 (19.1%) 
to 2017 (22%) followed by a drop in 2018 (17.3%) 
and 2019 (7.6%) (DTSI, n.d.). Figure 1.11 shows a 
summary of national average standardized tests for 
primary, junior secondary, and senior secondary levels.
Figure 1.12 shows standardized testing results for 
primary (NPSE), junior secondary (BESE), and senior 
secondary (WASSE) levels in the Koinadugu and Falaba 
districts, the implementation sites of the MGD program 
projects in Sierra Leone. Compared to the national scores 
for primary education, the Koinadugu district, students 
scored higher than the national average in 2016, 2017, 
and 2018, but scores dropped below the national average 
in 2019. Meanwhile, primary school students’ 2019 
scores are higher in the Falaba district than the national 
average for the same year (data for previous year on this 
indicator is not available for the Falaba district). BECE 
test scores are slightly higher than the national average 
in Koinadugu between 2016 and 2018 and almost the 
same in 2019. Interestingly, scores from the Falaba 
Source: Authors using data retrieved from DTSI, n.d.
Figure 1.11. Sierra Leone — Results of Standardized Testing in three 
different Educational Levels (NPSE, BECE and WASSCE)
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2016
72.7%
66.1%
72.6%
49.9%
2017 2018 2019
19.1% 22.0%
17.3%
7.6%
Primary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary
77.1% 77.7%
72.8%
73.8%
100%
90%
80%
Source: Authors using data retrieved from DTSI Education Data Hub, 2022
Figure 1.12 Sierra Leone — Results of Standardized Testing at Three Dierent Educational Levels (NPSE,
BECE and WASSCE) in MGD Implementation Districts (Koinadugu and Falaba)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Koinadugu Falaba Koinadugu Falaba Koinadugu Falaba Koinadugu Falaba
2016 2017 2018 2019
Primary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary
51
district are 37 points higher (87.6%) than the national 
average (49.9%). Although primary and junior secondary 
scores are, on average, better in Koinadugu and Falaba 
than the national average, WASSCE scores are lower 
than the national average in the Koinadugu district (data 
for this indicator is not available for Falaba district). 
Trends in education, as illustrated in this section, show 
that the higher the educational level, the lower the 
enrollment rates. Similarly, scores on standardized tests are 
better in primary schools and scores worsen as educational 
level increases. The next section will discuss how national 
level policies in Sierra Leone have contributed to increased 
access to education, particularly in primary schools.
Policy Framework for School 
Feeding in Sierra Leone
To understand the institutional framework for school 
feeding programs, we conducted a review of policies that 
include specific actions or mentions of school feeding 
programming in Sierra Leone. Our policy analysis includes 
a desk review of 30 policy documents formulated between 
2005 and 2021, of which 25 were identified as relevant 
to school feeding programming in Sierra Leone. Policies 
were classified by sector under the following categories: 
[1] National Strategic Plans, [2] Education, [3] Health 
and Nutrition, and [4] Agriculture. This review was 
thoroughly conducted. However, this is by no means an 
exhaustive list, but it does give an indication of the many 
programmatic and policy frameworks for school feeding. 
This report presents the main highlights per policy area. 
Sectoral Policies
National Strategic Plans
Sierra Leone faced human development and economic 
growth challenges in the transition period from a decade 
long civil conflict toward the rebuilding of a peaceful 
society. International donors and financial institutions 
provided a great deal of transitional support at that 
time. Institutions like the World Bank (WB) and the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF) collaborated with 
the Government of Sierra Leone to prepare the Poverty 
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), a mechanism to plan 
macroeconomic, structural, and social policies in support 
of economic growth and poverty reduction. Since 2005, 
there have been three PRSPs in Sierra Leone. The first 
PRSP, “A National Programme for Food Security, Job 
Creation and Good Governance (2005 – 2007)”, was 
published in 2005. This PRSP has six pillars, including 
one on human development, where actions on the 
education sector are detailed. According to PRSP I, the 
main policy objective of the education sector is to “expand 
access to basic education with focus on the girl child”, and 
it calls for action to expand the national school feeding 
program and support the development of school gardens. 
The PRSP II was launched in 2008 under the name 
“Agenda for Change (2008-2012)”. One of the 
strategic priorities under PRSP II is “Sustaining Human 
Development” which includes strategies for the education 
sector. Following the priorities in PRSP I, this paper 
seeks to increase access to and contribute to increasing 
completion rates of primary schooling, especially for 
girls and out-of-school children. One of the activities 
expected to contribute to achievement of this goal was the 
implementation of school feeding programming because 
it “is one of the interventions that can be used to ensure 
retention and completion.” This document acknowledges 
that donor led programs, like the ones supported by the 
WFP and the CRS, are limited to certain geographical 
areas and to a small proportion of children in need 
of access to school feeding. The Agenda for Change 
document expressed the government’s commitment 
to school feeding as a way to complement donor-led 
efforts. PRSP III was released in 2012 under the title 
“Agenda for Prosperity (2013-2018)”. Pillar 3 of this 
strategy calls for “Accelerating Human Development”, 
with the overall goal being “to reduce education-related 
inequalities toward universal education and provide high￾quality learning opportunities at all educational levels 
for all women and men”. Under this goal, the strategic 
objective “improved access, completion and equity of 
opportunities for education” makes references to school 
feeding. However, the document does not provide specific 
school feeding programming details and/or actions 
meant to achieve the described goals and objectives.
In 2019, the government of Sierra Leone launched the 
Medium-Term National Development Plan (MTND) 
(2019-2023) which has 6 pillars that focus on trying 
to “Strengthen Social Protection Systems”. This policy 
document states that malnutrition is a major factor 
in delayed learning capacity among children which 
ultimately affects the building of human capital. The 
MTNDP strategy for tackling nutrition related challenges 
includes the utilization of school feeding as part of an 
integrated social protection measure; thus, one of the 
52
proposed actions is to “provide cash and in-kind transfer 
packages as appropriate in education, health, nutrition, 
and shelter for disadvantaged children, women, girls.”
In the intergovernmental sphere, the United Nations 
(UN) released the Sierra Leone United Nations 
Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2015–
2018 in 2015. One of the pillars leading this effort is 
“strengthening social protection systems”. Under this 
pillar, the framework added two outcome indicators that 
impact nutrition of school aged children: Outcome A: 
“By 2018, vulnerable populations including adolescent 
girls have increased access to livelihoods, education 
and improved nutritional status.” The corresponding 
activity is: “Supplementary feeding performance 
rates among targeted children under 5”. The second 
outcome (Outcome B) is “by 2018, 20% of extremely 
poor households have access to social safety nets”; the 
corresponding action is “school attendance among children 
in beneficiary households of cash transfers and school 
feeding programme beneficiaries”. The WFP led these 
set of activities and is responsible for outcome tracking.
Education
Currently, the lead agency in the education sector 
in Sierra Leone is the Ministry of Basic and Senior 
Secondary Education (MBSSE). In the recent history of 
Sierra Leone, the passing of the Education Act of 2004, 
is significant for the education sector, as it declared basic 
education to be both free and compulsory. In 2007, the 
Government of Sierra Leone launched the Education 
Sector Plan: A Road Map to a Better Future 2007-2015. 
Its primary goal is “to provide six years of good quality 
universal primary education to all children of primary 
school-going age (6-11 years) and the over-aged who had 
missed out - including those with special needs for both 
categories specified and ensure that they all complete with 
necessary knowledge and skills.” The plan acknowledges 
that school completion is a challenge and considers that 
school feeding program expansion can help to improve 
school completion. The document states that, “There 
is a need to expand the school feeding programme to 
the other schools in the other districts which would 
not only encourage the children to access school but to 
stay without absenting themselves for lack of food. This 
would also help to improve primary completion”. This 
policy document states that, to expand school feeding, 
the government of Sierra Leone needs to continue its 
collaboration with international donors like the WFP. 
The National Education Policy of 2010 includes a 
section on crosscutting issues that impact school feeding 
action. The issue of “rights and protections” has a section 
focusing on health and nutrition. The goals of this focus 
area that pertain to school-aged children include: [1] 
extend and sustain school feeding programs for students 
in pre-schools and primary schools; [2] ensure linkage 
with Ministry of Health and other relevant government 
entities on matters related to school feeding and health; 
[3] encourage the establishment and maintenance of 
school gardens for food production and educational 
purposes; [4] include health and nutrition issues in the 
curricula for all children; [5] ensure that each school 
and educational institution has a source of safe drinking 
water and separate sanitation facilities for boys and girls. 
In the early 2010s, the government of Sierra Leone 
began developing sectorial plans. The first Education 
sector plan was released in 2013 and designed a strategic 
framework for the 2013-2018 period. Under the 2013 
education sector plan, school feeding is considered a 
mechanism that helps promote access to basic education 
in primary schools, improve education/quality of 
services, and provide a social safety net. Consistent with 
previous strategic plans, this document recognizes that 
school feeding programming has the capacity to increase 
enrollment and attendance as well as help to improve 
gender equality. From this moment on, the government 
of Sierra Leone began including the term “home-grown 
school feeding” as the preferred multisector approach to 
develop school feeding initiatives. A new education sector 
plan was released in 2018 and covers the 2018-2021 
time period. This sectorial plan takes into consideration 
the negative effects that Ebola had on student retention 
and grade repetition rates. Given this, school feeding 
efforts remain an important social protection tool 
according to this policy document. In this context, the 
2018 Education sector plan emphasizes the utilization of 
school feeding as a safety net mechanism for vulnerable 
families through activities like school meals provision but 
also take-home rations which contribute to alleviating 
food insecurity at the household level. For the first time, 
the education sector plan included indicators for school 
feeding: “An efficient community-based school feeding 
model linked to local production and procurement” with 
specific activities like “direct cash transfers to schools” 
(to be completed in 2016) and an “efficient model 
based on global best practice standard and in line with 
established national policy” (to be completed in 2020).
53
Along with this new education sector plan, the 
government launched the Free Quality School Education 
(FQSE) Program in 2018. This program is one of the 
flagship programs created under the leadership of President 
Julius Maada Bio. With the FQSE, the Government of 
Sierra Leone is committed to attaining universal primary 
education through activities that seek to increase enrollment 
in pre-primary educational institutions to 15% in 2020, 
increase enrollment 
and completion rates 
in primary schools 
to 85%, improve 
transition rates from 
primary to junior 
secondary schools to 
92%, and improve 
school feeding 
programming for 
government and government-assisted primary schools 
(Sierra Leone National School Feeding Policy, 2021).
Health and Nutrition
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation leads the 
health sector in Sierra Leone and has developed policies 
pertaining to nutrition as a major aspect of health. A 
national health policy was launched in 2002 that included 
nutrition related actions but did not mention school 
feeding actions. Similarly, the 2009 National Health 
Sector Strategic Plan (2010-2015) lists actions toward the 
improvement of population nutrition, but there are not 
specific mentions to school feeding. However, the same 
year, the Sierra Leone National Food and Nutrition Policy 
proposed a multisector approach to address problems of 
nutrition where the MBSSE is considered a key actor in 
the formulation of school feeding activities. This policy 
document establishes the following strategic objective: 
“To undertake advocacy for policy makers, policy advisors 
and programme designers at national and district levels 
at national and district levels on Nutrition issues and its 
relationship to development”. The 2012 National Food 
and Nutrition Security Policy follows the same line of 
focus as the previous policy documents in advocating 
for a multisector approach to food and nutrition issues 
and assign responsibilities to the different ministries—
like the ministries of Education and Agriculture. 
Agriculture
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security 
is the lead government agency in Sierra Leone’s agricultural 
sector. Under its leadership, the National Sustainable 
Agricultural Development Plan (NSADP) (2010-2030), 
a long-term strategic plan for improving the agriculture, 
forestry, and fisheries sector, created. The goal of this 
strategic sectorial plan 
is to develop Sierra 
Leone’s capacity 
to address growing 
population pressures 
and economic 
growth. Additionally, 
“NSADP serves as the 
CAADP Compact 
( C o m p r e h e n s i v e 
Africa Agriculture Development Programme) under 
the African Union’s New Partnership for Africa’s 
Development (AU/NEPAD) activities to assist countries 
and development partners to share a common vision for 
development” (NSADP, 2009, p. 8). Regarding school 
feeding, the NSADP highlights the need to use fruit and 
nut crops (e.g., Bananas, Mango, Pineapple, Coconut and 
Citrus) in school gardens. This type of work falls under sub￾program 1, Commodity Commercialization – component 
1, small holder commercialization scheme which 
includes smallholder farmer capacity building activities. 
Figure 1.13 summarizes the policy 
framework for school feeding in Sierra Leone.
2021 National School Feeding 
Policy
The section above references the series of comprehensive 
and sectoral strategic actions aiming at including school 
feeding programming into the government action to 
improve nutrition among school-aged students. School 
feeding in the national and sectoral policies is considered 
to be a mechanism or intermediate level action leading 
to educational outcomes improvement (e.g., attendance, 
enrollment, performance). Recently, the 2021 National 
School Feeding Policy (NSFP) incorporates efforts from 
previous policies into a cohesive and comprehensive 
policy document that provides details on the Government 
of Sierra Leone’s approach to and priorities on school 
“School feeding in the national and sectoral policies is considered to 
be a mechanism or intermediate level action leading to educational 
outcomes improvement (e.g., attendance, enrollment, performance). 
Recently, the 2021 National School Feeding Policy (NSFP) incorpo￾rates efforts from previous policies into a cohesive and comprehen￾sive policy document that provides details on the Government of 
Sierra Leone’s approach to and priorities on school feeding.”
54
Figure 1.13 Sierra Leone — Policy Framework for School Feeding Programming
LONG-TERM STRATEGIC LEVEL PLANS
Government-led and collaboration with intergovernmental entities (e.g. UN, AU)
Poverty
Reduction
Strategy
Papers I 
[2005]
MULTI-SECTOR SCHOOL FEEDING EFFORTS
SECTORAL EFFORTS
Government-led e€orts (with technical assistance from the World Bank and the IMF)
EDUCATION
• 2007: Sierra Leone Education Plan
• 2010: National Education Policy
• 2013: Education Sector Plan 
 (2013-2018)
• 2018: Education Sector Plan
 (2018-2020)
• 2018: Free Quality School 
 Education Program
HEALTH & NUTRITION AGRICULTURE
• Health Sector Strategic Plan 
 2005-2009
• 2007 National Nutrition Policy
• National Food and Nutrition 
 Policy 2013-2018
• 2009 National Sustainable
Agriculture Development 
Plan (NSADP) (2010-2013)
• EDUCATION POLICY GOAL: Enhanced access, 
 retention and learning
• HEALTH AND NUTRITION POLICY GOAL: 
 Enhanced access, retention and learning
2021: National School Feeding Policy: Integrated Home-Grown School Feeding Policy (IHGSFP)
Source: Authors
Poverty
Reduction
Strategy Papers III:
Agenda for
Prosperity
(2013-2021 
[2005]
Poverty
Reduction
Strategy Papers II:
Agenda for Change
(2008-2012)
[2008]
Medium-term
National
Development Plan
(MTND) (2019-
2023) [2019]
Sierra Leone UN
Development
Assistance
Framework
(UNDAF)
(2015-2018) 
[2015]
• AGRICULTURE POLICY GOAL: Enhance Farmer
 involvement in school feeding
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
 POLICY GOAL: Strengthening local ownership of
 school feeding program
 
55
feeding. The NSFP is the result of close collaboration 
between the Government of Sierra Leone, under 
the leaderships of the MBSSE, in collaboration with 
implementing organizations of donor led school feeding 
programs in the country—like the WFP and CRS. The 
goal of this policy is to develop “a decentralized and 
sustainable programme, based on the global home￾grown model, that promotes human capital development 
through increasing access to education and learning 
opportunities and enhanced health and nutrition, and 
linked to local agricultural productivity and community 
growth” (Government of Sierra Leone, 2021, p. 11). 
Its “Integrated National Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme” (IHGSFP) approach draws from the 
Home-Grown School Feeding Program (HGSF) model 
developed by the WFP and subsequently implemented in 
multiple countries across the globe. Given this IHGSFP 
approach, the government-led proposed school feeding 
model is expected to provide the following set of benefits:
1. Ensure national ownership of the school feeding 
program across different sectors and districts and 
communities.
2. Ensure efficient and reliable provision of healthy and 
nutritious school meals in pre-primary, primary, and 
junior secondary schools.
3. Ensure that school feeding increasingly generates 
benefits for smallholder farmers and local 
communities, and
4. Ensures that the Ministry of Basic and Senior 
Secondary Education continues to focus its resources 
on its core-responsibilities, including the promotion 
of free quality education while implementing the 
IHGSFP. (p. 10-11)
The policy document highlights the multisectoral aspects 
of school feeding efforts and expected outcomes. For this, 
there is a mention of the multiple governmental and non￾governmental entities expected to participate in addressing 
this policy issue; these entities include but are not limited 
to the Ministries of Education, Health and Sanitation, 
Agriculture, Finance, foreign donors, and international 
organizations. The NSFP emphasizes five key policy pillars: 
access to education, health and nutrition, agriculture, rural 
development, and social development. These policy pillars 
appear to influence which state agencies oversee specific 
activities under the government-led school feeding effort. 
The Sierra Leone’s NSFP is in its early stages, but it 
is expected that the use of the IHGSF approach in 
programming will yield positive outcomes in terms of 
the organizational structure, budgeting, multi-sector 
collaboration, and sustainable school meal provision. 
One of the elements that the policy highlights, is the 
need to continue collaborations with development 
partners while the Government of Sierra Leone develops 
capacity for ownership of the national program. Aside 
from the Catholic Relief Services’ (CRS) implementation 
of MGD program, available information suggests there 
exist other parallel school feeding programs being 
implemented by other nonprofit organizations including 
the WFP, Plan International, Joint Aid Management 
(JAM), and the Government of Sierra Leone. The 
next section will present the main features of school 
feeding program implementation led by one of these 
development partners, the Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS). CRS’s school feeding program obtained support 
from the USDA-FAS through the MGD program. 
56
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition (MGD) program implementation in 
Sierra Leone
Donor-led School Feeding Efforts in 
Sierra Leone
Because of poor nutritional, health, and educational 
outcomes among children (as described earlier in the 
institutional framework), private voluntary organizations 
(CRS and WFP) have been actively providing food 
aid, and related resources meant to target education, 
health, nutrition, and food insecurity in Sierra Leone, 
since the 1960s. CRS began working in Sierra Leone 
in 1963 with objectives that included the provision of 
both emergency aid and the promotion of education, 
health, agriculture, and urban resilience in Sierra Leone. 
The WFP came shortly after in 1968 to assist the Sierra 
Leonean government in battling malnutrition and food 
insecurity among vulnerable populations. Nevertheless, 
there are no early recorded attempts of school feeding 
program implementation in Sierra Leone. Given that 
Sierra Leone experienced a decade-long civil war, MGD 
project evaluation reports suggest that, despite inclusion 
in national and sectorial policies (see policy section above), 
school feeding programming did not begin until 2008 
under the USDA funded MGD program following the 
Government of Sierra Leone’s passage of the Education 
Act of 2004 that declared basic education to be both 
free and compulsory (SL.MGD.Baseline.2018-2022). 
Implemented by CRS, the MGD school feeding 
program has fully implemented three phases, is currently 
completing phase 4 and is beginning to implement phase 
5 of MDG. Phase 1 project was implemented from 
2008—2012 in the four chiefdoms of Sulima, Mongo, 
Neini, and Neya. Phase 2’s project was implemented 
from 2012—2016; this phase expanded project coverage 
into a fifth chiefdom—Dembelia Sinkunia. Phase 3 was 
implemented from 2016—2018 in the same 5 chiefdoms. 
The current phase, phase 4, began in September 2018 and 
will end in September 2022 (2018-2022) and seeks to 
double the program’s coverage to include 15 chiefdoms 
in the Koinadugu and Falaba districts (SL.MGD.
Baseline.2018-2022). As of 2021, CRS is implementing 
MGD project activities in approximately 192 primary 
schools in the Koinadugu and Falaba Districts of Sierra 
Leone (Sierra Leone Country Fact Sheet April 2021). 
According to CRS staff, project phase 4 now serves 218 
schools in Koinadugu and Falaba and seeks to serve 
up to 310 schools as the project moves into phase 5 
(Sierra Leone Interview 2021) (Figure 1.14, depicts a 
timeline of MGD implementation in Sierra Leone).
Figure 1.14 Timeline of MGD Implementation in Sierra Leone
2008 2020
MGD Phase I:
3 Years
FY2008-FY2012
($8.08M)
MGD Phase III:
3 Years
FY2016-FY2018 
($18.2M)
2010 2012
2009 2011 2013 2015
2014 2016
2017
2018 2022 2024
MGD Phase II:
3 Years
FY2012-FY2016
($11M)
2019 2021 2023 2025
MGD Phase IV:
5 Years
FY2018-FY2022
($25M)
MGD Phase V:
5 Years
FY2021-FY2025
($25M)
GoSL: National
School Feeding Policy
(2021)
57
MGD programmatic changes across 
different phases 
The MGD school feeding program’s main goal is to 
improve student literacy skills and nutritional and health 
status by providing school meals to pre-and primary school 
children. The provision of school meals is a mechanism 
through which the program is working to improve school 
enrollment, attendance, and student attentiveness while 
also addressing gender inequality by strongly emphasizing 
gendered programming. CRS has implemented all 4—
soon to be 5—phases of MGD school feeding projects 
in Sierra Leone. Throughout each phase, the program 
sought to increase coverage and establish a sustainability 
framework that would allow the Government of Sierra 
Leone to eventually implement school feeding in all of 
the government-owned primary schools without donor 
support. Phase 1’s (2008-2012) MGD project began by 
targeting school feeding project implementation in four 
chiefdoms in one of the most marginalized districts, 
Koinadugu. This first phase 
of implementation mainly 
emphasized the provision of 
school meals, with special 
emphasis on providing take￾home rations for girls in 
upper primary school, while 
also incorporating aspects of 
school feeding infrastructure 
and capacity building. These activities include providing 
training to school management committees, distributing 
teaching and learning materials and furniture for schools, 
and an overall improvement of school infrastructure. 
During these initial phases, food used to make school 
meals and other school-related material resources were 
fully supplied by the USDA and USDA’s commodity 
in-kind contributions. Students at targeted schools 
reportedly received two in-school meals per day and take￾home rations were provided for female students. In terms 
of the education component, most resources suggest that 
this initial phase mainly focused on food provision in 
an effort to greatly encourage student school attendance 
as school attendance rates were reportedly very low.
MGD Phase 2 (2012—2016) saw an expansion in 
the coverage of the MGD program, an increased focus 
on education and teaching methods, and an emphasis 
on student household food insecurity. The program 
expanded to include a 5tth chiefdom, Dembelia 
Sinkunia, and added an additional 75 schools from the 
existing chiefdoms already included in prior project 
phases. Teacher training, specifically in-service teacher 
training on Diagnostic Teaching Methods (DTM) meant 
to improve on literacy instruction and training some 
teachers to attain their Certificate General (TC General) 
so that they are certified instructors. Further, phase 2 
also saw the extension of the first Savings and Internal 
Lending Committees (SILC) which were created to 
help strengthen the financial status of households in the 
targeted school chiefdoms. In addition, an increase in the 
number of schools meals from one school meal to include 
two school meals occurred. Gendered programming, 
specifically take-home rations for upper primary school 
girls, continued with the stipulation that only girls who 
maintained a minimum of an 85% attendance rate could 
receive these rations (SL.MGD.Baseline.2015-2018).
Over the course of Phase 3 (2016—2018), the 
government of Sierra Leone elected a new president. 
This governmental change 
gave way to increased 
government prioritization 
of education. During this 
time, the government of 
Sierra Leone established 
the Free Quality Education 
program (2018) which 
not only sought to expand 
the national school 
feeding program but also provide textbooks, uniforms 
for students, and tuition-free education for qualifying 
government-approved primary and secondary schools. 
Major changes during this phase included a decrease in 
in-school meals provided daily—from two school meals 
to one school meal (a midday lunch)—and a change 
from bulgur to fortified rice as a staple school meal 
commodity. These changes were reportedly made to 
align the school meals component of phase 3’s MGD 
project with the Government of Sierra Leone’s proposed 
school feeding program (SL.MGD.Baseline.2015-2018). 
CRS staff also increased the number of literacy activities 
by increasing staff that primarily trained early grade 
teachers. Phase 3 also saw the establishment of reading 
clubs and the provision of solar lights so that reading 
clubs could meet at night. Lastly, because of the Ebola 
crisis, phase 3 included an increased focus on teaching 
better dietary practices and improving overall student 
and community member health at project schools. 
“CRS has implemented all 4—soon to be 5—phases of 
MGD school feeding projects in Sierra Leone. Throughout 
each phase, the program sought to increase coverage 
and establish a sustainability framework that would 
allow the Government of Sierra Leone to eventually 
implement school feeding in all of the govern￾ment-owned primary schools without donor support.”
58
The end of Phase 4 and the beginning of Phase 5 also 
included important changes in school feeding coverage, 
future sustainability, and project graduation. In phase 
4 (2018-2022), the project’s coverage increased from 
32,684 to include 69,731 primary school students (from 
192 schools to 310 schools) in the Koinadugu district; this 
increase also included an increase in geographic area as the 
project implementation area increased from 5 chiefdoms 
to 15 chiefdoms. Additionally, the Falaba district, a new 
administrative unit created from the current Koinadugu 
district in 2016, was included in Phase 4. Further, this 
phase pushed to prioritize activities and relationships 
from the prior phases to establish project sustainability 
with help from the MBSSE. Currently, the program is 
working with the MBSSE to slowly transfer the ownership 
of the school feeding programming to the government of 
Sierra Leone while also using a sustainability framework 
for program implementation to increase program 
effectiveness and efficiency. Some of these activities 
include using a call-in feedback service so that school 
feeding beneficiaries can provide project feedback to 
CRS, building school authorities and local community 
capacity by establishing and maintaining greenhouses 
and school gardens, providing WASH infrastructure via 
the construction of boreholes, and supplying classrooms 
with teaching and learning materials (CRS Sierra Leone 
PMP FFE-636-2018-007-00). Lastly, this phase and 
phase 5 (began in September 2021 and will run 2021—
2025) are focused on readying the Sierra Leone MGD 
school feeding program for graduation through other 
sustainability efforts like introducing the LRP component 
in Phase 5 (SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018). Table 1.12 
summarizes the scope of work of MGD in Sierra Leone.
While Sierra Leone’s MGD activity does not currently 
have an LRP component, CRS has been involved in 
many planning activities associated with the future LRP 
component in Phase 4 and 5. For example, Sierra Leonean 
schools under the current project do have school gardens. 
School gardens are expected to supplement school feeding 
program meals with diversified foods. As of phase 4, there 
were 50 school gardens and CRS plans to expand to upward 
of 100 school gardens throughout phase 5. WFP, World 
Vision, Plan International, and KIA are also working 
together to understand the utility of implementing an LRP 
component in Sierra Leone. Currently, communities do 
not play a large role in supplying food for their respective 
school feeding programs but will take on the responsibility 
of management of commodity transportation, food 
procurement, and school feeding food supply monitoring 
by utilizing the complaint reporting system that CRS is 
currently implementing. Additionally, in order to target 
smallholder and local farmers, CRS is using a consultant 
group to perform a market study (mapping assessment 
study) to determine market accessibility to identify 
potential smallholder farmer groups who will be able 
Table 1.12 MGD in Sierra Leone: Scope of Work from Phases 1 to 4
Project
Phases Timeline Geographic
 Area
I
II
III
IV
2008-12
2012-16
2016-18
2018-22
4 chiefdoms
5 chiefdoms
5 chiefdoms
15 chiefdoms
25,128
28,585
32,684
69,731
Pupils
Reached
Source: Adapted from Table 1 of the report: Timeline of All Pinkin for Learn Project Phases; SL.MGD
Baseline. 2018-2022
59
to produce food for school feeding. The commissioned 
study is trying to assess the cost implications of school 
feeding commodities when choosing to procure food 
locally. This market analysis will reportedly be completed 
a few months before LRP component implementation 
begins so that CRS has a better understanding of the 
current landscape of the food market before starting 
the LRP component in the later term of Phase 5. 
MGD Programmatic Components 
and Outcomes in Sierra Leone
McGovern-Dole school feeding project efforts in Sierra 
Leone include a set of programmatic and comprehensive 
activities seeking to mainly improve literacy and 
educational outcomes of school-aged children. These 
educational programmatic components target student 
and teacher attendance using the provision of school 
meals—a school lunch—and take-home rations (for 
female students; see Table A in appendix 1.2). Further, the 
MGD school feeding program has components 
that focus on improving nutrition and health 
outcomes and dietary practices among 
program participants. This section will report 
the main project outcomes classified under the 
following categories: education and literacy, 
nutrition and health, and WASH/SWASH.
Education and Literacy
The education component of MGD seeks to 
improve student literacy outcomes with a specific 
focus on reading and reading comprehension. 
MGD indicator “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” was used to 
capture education outcomes associated with 
student reading ability. This indicator shows an 
approximately 48% improvement (from 8.3% 
in 2016 to 56% in 2018) in female student 
performance and an approximate 53% (from 
7.9% to 61%) improvement in male student 
literacy performance among MGD project 
participants in Phase 3 of the program (see Figure 1.15). 
It is important to note that student literacy was measured 
using the Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA) tool until 
the middle of phase 3. Literacy at the end of Phase 3 and in 
Phase 4 was measured using a new literacy assessment tool 
adapted from the UNICEF national literacy assessment 
tool Dr. Johanna Kuyvenhoven, a literacy educator 
from Calvin College (SL.MGD.Baseline.2018-2022). 
Therefore, student literacy measurements in Phase 4 
(2018) are only 5.58%, but this is likely a factor of 
increased coverage of the MGD school feeding project.
Other sub-objectives of improved student literacy include 
improvements in the quality of literacy instruction, 
improvements in student classroom attentiveness, and 
improvements in student and teacher attendance in 
targeted schools. Some activities used to foster these 
improvements include teacher trainings, school feeding, 
and the provision of teaching and learning materials. 
For example, the MGD program trains teachers to make 
sure they are using the best teaching techniques and 
tools to facilitate student learning. As illustrated by the 
MGD indicator “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”, there was a consistent increase in 
the number of teachers utilizing new, quality teaching 
techniques or tools in MGD classrooms throughout 
Phase 3 (see Table A in appendix 1.2). CRS’s focus 
on teacher training has reportedly helped to address 
Figure 1.15 MGD School Feeding Literacy Outcomes
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
18%
Total Male
0%
Female
35%
53%
70%
8%
59%
8%
56%
8%
61%
2016 (Phase 3 Baseline) 2018 (Phase 4 Endline)
Source: Authors using MGD Sierra Leone program performance data 
provided by USDA-FAS.
60
the “gap between trained and qualified teachers and 
untrained and unqualified teachers in Sierra Leone” 
according to one Teach for Sierra Leone staff member. 
Improvements in student enrollment, attendance, and 
teacher attendance were achieved by providing students 
who attended school and teachers with access to daily 
school meals which increased MGD program satisfaction 
for teachers and incentivized students to attend school. 
For example, the average student attendance rate 
increased in Phase 4 from 68.1 to 77 (“Average student 
attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools”). 
Additionally, the average number of students enrolled 
increased throughout Phase 3 and Phase 4 (“Number of 
students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance”) 
(see Table A in appendix 1.2 ). According to the phase 
3 evaluation report, teacher attendance (a sample of 
164 teachers; 87% Male, 13% Female) increased in a 
consistent manner throughout phase implementation 
(see Figure 1.16; SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018, p. 35).
Subsequently, over the course of Phase 3, the number 
of daily school meals and take-home rations provided 
to school children and to teachers, on average, increased 
throughout Phase 3 for students and teachers and 
throughout Phase 4 for students only (see Table A in 
appendix 1.2). Additionally, evaluation reports suggest 
that most teachers in the final evaluation sample (N 
= 180) reported being very satisfied with the food 
supply/school meals component of the MGD school 
feeding project (SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018, p. 33).
According to MGD evaluation reports, classroom 
attentiveness was defined as “pupils asking questions, 
actively participating in lessons, and following 
instructions without distraction” and evaluation 
findings suggest that classrooms observed in the final 
evaluation of Phase 3 were more attentive than they 
were when measured at the baseline and midline 
Phase 3 evaluations (SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018, 
p. 44). Overall, findings suggest that on average “64 
percent of classrooms in the final evaluation [of phase 
3] showed moderate or extensive evidence of student 
attentiveness” (SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018, p. 44).
Nutrition and Health
Some activities meant to increase the use of health, 
nutrition, and dietary practices included training sessions 
meant to teach students, teachers, administrators, 
and community members about food, nutrition, and 
balanced meals. With a focus on executing nutrition 
based on the Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices 
(IYCF) which targets nutrition resources for pregnant and 
lactating mothers under age five, CRS used the nutrition 
component to hold both formal and informal child 
nutrition training sessions with follow-ups for pregnant 
and lactating women and women with infants under age 
100%
90%
80%
Figure 1.16 Teacher Attendance Rates at the Endline of Phase 3
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Male Female Total
87% 90%
95%
83%
88% 88% 87%
90% 92%
Baseline Interim
Source: Authors using WFP information from SL.MGD.Endline.2015-2018, p. 35
Final
61
5. While there is not consistent data on IYCF activities, 
data reported for the indicator “Percent of participants 
of community-level nutrition interventions who practice 
promoted infant and young child feeding behaviors” show 
that 50% of community-level participants in nutrition 
interventions practiced behaviors taught at the beginning 
of phase 4. Additionally, in Phase 4, approximately 80 
children under the age of five received nutrition-specific 
interventions as a result of the community health 
programs implemented within this MGD project and 60 
pregnant mothers received nutrition-specific interventions 
(“Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached 
with nutrition-specific interventions through USDA￾supported programs” and “Number of pregnant women 
reached with nutrition-specific interventions through 
USDA-supported programs”; see Table B in appendix 
1.2). While beneficiaries of interest in MGD projects are 
mainly school-aged children, IYCF practices are included 
in project implementation, and the measurements are 
established in these MGD indicators. CRS also worked 
with Mother Support Groups (MSGs)/Mothers Clubs in 
the targeted school communities, along with school health 
clubs, to train parents, administrators, and teachers on 
how to monitor the school feeding program and monitor 
child nutritional status. For example, results from Phase 3 
show an increase in the number of (MSGs) that received 
support as a result of the MGD program (“Number of 
Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” 
governance structures supported as a result of USDA 
assistance MSGs”). CRS engaged with parents, families, 
and the local communities in targeted areas to help improve 
community health and dietary practices and gather 
community feedback on current implementation of the 
school feeding program. These types of activities contributed 
to increase community ownership of school feeding. 
Other practices meant to target student health in an effort 
to reduce health related absences include the use of trained 
medical workers (~ 930 in 310 schools in phase 4) that 
go into the field to provide community health screenings 
wherein they screen children for malnutrition. Students 
found to suffer from malnutrition are then referred to 
Peripheral Health Units (PHUs)—or local government￾run clinics established and controlled by the Ministry of 
Health and Sanitation that provide everyday healthcare 
to the citizens of Sierra Leone—to be treated. PHUs 
also provide prenatal and postnatal care and childhood 
vaccinations, immunizations, and deworming to many of 
the communities targeted by MGD. There are 59 PHUs 
working in the 15 chiefdoms and, according to indicator 
data, the number of student deworming increased over 
the course of phase 3 (“Number of students receiving 
deworming medication(s)”; see Table B in appendix 1.2).
 
WASH/SWASH
The WASH component was used to improve student, 
school personnel, and community knowledge about health 
and hygiene practices, increase access to clean water and 
sanitation, improve food preparation, handling, storage, 
and cooking practices, and improve health and hygiene 
related infrastructure. WASH activities often consist of 
establishing school health clubs, creating menstrual and 
hygiene management systems, and training and teaching 
female teachers, parents, administrators, and children 
on health and hygiene practices. Training includes 
information on the proper use of menstrual management 
rooms, how to create reusable sanitary pads, social behavior 
change, and communications (SBCs) meant to increase 
the adoption of health and hygiene behaviors in schools. 
In Phase 5, CRS staff plan to increase sustainability of the 
WASH component activities by forming an infrastructure 
management committee at each school that will help with 
“the construction of a wash friendly schools in our different 
intervention areas” which places the responsibility of 
building and upkeep of WASH infrastructure in the 
hands of each targeted community. Indicators support the 
occurrence of these activities. For example, a total of 115 
latrines were constructed/rehabilitated throughout phase 
3 of MGD implementation (“Number of educational 
facilities (i.e., school buildings, classrooms, improved 
water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/ constructed as a 
result of USDA assistance (latrines)”) and a large number 
of schools were reportedly using an improved water 
source at the end of phase 3 and in phase 4 (“Number 
of schools using an improved water source”). Further, 
educational WASH related facilities have been constructed 
throughout phase 3 and 4 and a number of WASH 
clubs were formed in phase 3 (“Number of educational 
facilities (i.e., school buildings, classrooms, improved 
water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/ constructed as a 
result of USDA assistance” and “Number of WASH clubs 
formed”; see Table B in appendix 1.2 for a summary of 
performance indicator results on the WASH component).
62
There are ongoing efforts by MGD to forge partnerships 
with relevant government and non-government 
institutions working in the educational sector in 
Sierra Leone. From the programmatic standpoint, 
MGD acknowledges the critical role partnerships 
play in implementing the school feeding program and 
fulfilling project objectives, and further to develop 
a sustainable model for a government-owned school 
feeding program. This awareness is reflected in CRS’s 
implementation approach through the different set of 
activities, including capacity building and a collaborative 
mindset. For instance, there has been close collaborations 
with public institutions, mostly the MBSSE and the 
Ministry of Health and Sanitation, the major and 
often mentioned partners associated with MGD 
project implementation. But partnerships from MGD 
implementation in Sierra Leone expand the public 
sector and include other public institutions, local and 
international nonprofits, and community organizations. 
In Sierra Leone, nonprofit organizations are at the 
forefront of school feeding interventions; key actors 
include the WFP, CRS, JAM, UNICEF, CARITAS, 
Plan International, and Care International. These 
organizations perform diverse roles, not only on school 
meal provision but also providing teaching and learning 
materials, building relevant institutional capacity, training 
and policy support, and facilitating the certification and 
recruitment process for front-line staff in the education 
sector. These organizations had also played a critical role 
in policy formation, as shown by their participation in the 
policy making process of the Sierra Leone NSFP launched 
in 2021. This section will present the key findings of the 
analysis of key partnerships existing in the implementation 
of MGD in Sierra Leone and its potential connections 
with the larger Government of Sierra Leone’s NSFP. 
The NSFP suggests that the government is going through 
a transition state where development partners, including 
CRS, hold an important role in the implementation 
of school feeding programs throughout the country. 
Despite the relevance of development partners in school 
feeding programming, there must be efforts (from both 
development partners and the government) to build 
capacity among the government institutions to allow 
the phase out of current development-owned programs 
towards the government ownership of the school feeding 
activity. Therefore, a school feeding program like MGD 
has the possibility to embed capacity building efforts in 
its program activities. As detailed in the previous section, 
the first four stages of MGD focus on school meal 
provision, improvement of learner’s outcomes, health 
and nutrition, and WASH. Phase 5 of the program 
has a strong focus on building sustainability, which 
include efforts to develop capacity among government 
agencies, and strengthen collaborations across sectors 
and government and non-government institutions. 
Interview data collected for this study suggest that 
the current interpretations of partnership objectives 
under MGD prioritize gaining project implementation 
support from relevant government institutions with 
CRS playing a lead role in the direct implementation of 
the school feeding program. While this implementation 
approach has been much easier to manage due to 
reduced decision-making bureaucracy, just until recently, 
with the beginning of Phase 5 of MGD strategies to 
foster government ownership of the school feeding 
program and capacity development for the transition 
toward an IHGSF has been included in the program. A 
participant during an interview noted the main objective 
of the CRS’s partnerships under the MGD program:
The main aspect in terms of partnerships is to ensure that 
implementation is effective, efficient, and relevant to the 
people and that each and every partner has or the most 
developed a specific understanding between them and 
CRS. So like, for example, Caritas partnership is more on 
how to implement health-related activities in schools using 
life skills approach with the kids and then you have other 
partners who are also using some different approaches.
Given this context, MGD in Sierra Leone could adopt 
a co-implementation approach wherein all relevant state 
agencies assume a lead role in school feeding with respect 
to their relevant sectors. This strategy would further 
Partnerships for School Feeding in Sierra Leone
63
government ownership of the program and facilitate the 
transition toward a government-owned school feeding 
program. Relevant state institutions should be seen 
as co-implementers and not as a source of technical 
assistance for CRS in Sierra Leone, and the same should 
be communicated to the government of Sierra Leone’s 
institutions at all levels. This section presents the results 
of the analysis of partnerships for school feeding in 
the context of MGD implementation in Sierra Leone. 
Partnerships with the Public Sector
The NSPF (2021) is the official blueprint for the 
development of a government owned school feeding 
program in Sierra Leone; the NSFP policy prioritizes 
some key pillars as cited in the previous sections; these 
pillars align with the mandate of key state institutions, 
including the a) Ministry of Agriculture, b) Forestry and 
Food Security, c) Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender 
and Children’s Affairs, d) the Ministry of Health and 
Sanitation, and e) the Ministry of Local Government and 
Rural Development. The policy strategies outlined in the 
NSFP make partnerships with the above-listed public 
institutions key to the implementation of school feeding. 
Under the MGD program, CRS’s most frequently cited 
partners include the MBSSE and the Ministry of Health 
and Sanitation. There is evidence of an ongoing joint 
effort between CRS under MGD and these government 
institutions, especially in monitoring, school capacity 
building, and implementation of project activities. Table 
1.13 summarizes the key partnerships with the public 
sector under the MGD implementation in Sierra Leone.
Regarding the focus on the partnerships with the 
education and health public sectors, a CRS staff member 
noted during an interview: 
For example, training of cooks in different aspects, and 
then two we also trained the school management committee 
DMCs (District Management Committees) other related to 
ensure they take cognizance of food supply in schools. And 
then, like others, we train them on health and hygiene on 
critical time of washing their hands during preparing meals 
you know and Uhm, you mentioned them, you already 
mentioned them.
A different staff member noted the working relationship 
between CRS staff and the MBSSE within the MGD 
program projects:
I know there are close engagements within the two 
(education ministry and MGD), and they work together 
to target beneficiaries; they work together to implement the 
program.
The participant further noted: 
The Government provides their own monitoring mechanism 
and regulatory mechanism to ensure that the benefits of the 
program are reflected in the development of the children 
within the schools and a range. So you have the people 
within the ministry who also focused on school feeding, 
working with the CRS team in developing the programs, 
implementing the programs, being the targeting, providing 
the support, and also doing monitoring and supervising 
the case. Most of the activities are undertaken jointly; the 
Table 1.13 Summary of Public Partnerships for School Feeding Under MGD Sierra Leone
MBSSE - Ministry of Basic and Senior
Secondary School Education
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation
Ernest Bai Koroma University
Northern Polytechnic Teacher
Training College (NP)
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PARTNER
They have the overall responsibilty for the government-led IHGSF program. The 
ministry provides training, technical and financial, and supervisory support in the
implementation of the IHGSF program in Sierra Leone.
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation provides deworming and health education
services in schools and communities. The MoHS also provides community health
workers and school health facilitators to implement health and nutrition components
of MGD projects.
They provide training and certification resources to teachers to get them approved
by the government to teach in public schools.
NP provides teacher certification through a distance education program in the 
project areas.
This ministry provides technical support in setting up and managing school gardens
in beneficiary schools to complement the school feeding commodities.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
64
government has a staff within the communities, and so does 
CRS as well, so they complement each other. That is my 
understanding.”
Despite efforts to build relationships with relevant state 
agencies and adopt a multisector approach as emphasized 
by the NSFP, discussions with CRS staff suggests that 
MGD partnerships are mainly with the Education and 
Health ministries and intermittently with the Ministry of 
Agriculture. The complex nature of the social factors that 
hinder access to education makes multisector partnership 
in the education sector imperative to attaining the goal 
of universal primary education in Sierra Leone. There 
is a general willingness by government institutions to 
partner with MGD to implement the school feeding 
in Sierra Leone, even though actual engagement 
remains limited to few government institutions.
Besides the education and health ministries, CRS through 
MGD has partnered with other public institutions, such 
as the Northern Polytechnic Teacher Training College, 
to increase access to continuing education and teacher 
certification resources. For example, through the partnership 
with Northern Polytechnic Teacher Training College, CRS 
successfully implemented a remote educational program 
and certification pathway for primary teachers in the 
Koinadugu district. This partnership enabled teachers in 
rural and hard-to-reach areas to have access to additional 
educational hours and government teaching certification 
preparation which allows them to teach in public schools.
MGD’s readiness to work with public institutions has 
been demonstrated; identifying and forming working 
relationships relevant to the transition toward Sierra 
Leone’s IHGSFP is an ongoing process and is in its 
early stages. Forming the right partnerships require 
conscious guidance in building sustainable and mutually 
beneficial working relationships with government 
institutions as co-implementers, not only as a source 
for technical assistance in the implementation process. 
Despite the willingness of state institutions to engage 
and partner with MGD in the implementation of school 
feeding, these partnerships have been significantly shaped 
by the flow of resources-- logistical, and technical support 
mainly from MGD to these government institutions. The 
current partnership dynamics could create an overreliance 
on MGD and cause a potential delay in transitioning 
toward a fully government-owned school feeding program. 
Partnerships with the Private 
Sector
Private sector engagement in the implementation of MGD 
projects has the potential to mobilize financial and logistical 
resources to support the implementation of Sierra Leone’s 
IHGSFP and reduce dependence on the government 
and foreign donors for financial resources. For example, 
a component of the recently launched NSFP indicates 
that “the delivery of school feeding services is through 
contractors.” This policy strategy provides an opportunity 
for private sector engagement in the school feeding 
program. The use of private contractors could benefit the 
government because it allows for delayed payments for 
school meals and temporarily shifts financial responsibility 
for direct school meal provision to private sector actors.
Despite the government’s creation of bold NSFP 
initiatives meant to engage the private sector in the 
implementation of Sierra Leone’s school feeding program, 
this research effort found little evidence of private sector 
involvement in the MGD projects in Sierra Leone. 
The commodity transfer arrangement under the MGD 
program potentially limits private sector participation, 
especially in food procurement and supply, which is a 
significant component of each project’s budget. Business 
opportunities that enable private sector participation in 
MGD are expected to improve with the launch of the LRP 
component. One area that could provide more private 
sector participation opportunities for under MGD is food 
fortification. Despite the limited number of organizations 
in the fortification industry, there is some evidence 
of private organizations already working in the food 
fortification sectors in Sierra Leone. A participant noted: 
There are not many organizations in food fortification, but 
I believe there is at least Bennie Mix Company. They were 
doing some research around fortification.
A participant noted the process for food fortification in 
Sierra Leone: 
Uhm, if you want to fortify food, you have to go through 
the Standard Bureau. You go through the Standard Bureau, 
and then the standard Bureau will walk with some related 
agencies based on the food they want to fortify, and then 
yeah, they can tell you exactly what I think the Standard 
Bureau is responsible for. It is the agency that will support 
the process of fortifying food; this is my opinion.
65
In general, private sector participation in MGD in Sierra 
Leone is limited despite the government’s indication that 
private sector contractors are already providing school 
feeding services. Nonetheless, with the launch of the 
IHGSFP which emphasizes private sector engagement, 
and reliance on locally produced and processed nutritious 
foods, private sector participation is expected to improve. 
MGD in Sierra Leone could take steps to help government 
institutions build capacity to manage private sector 
engagement activities and relationships in the school 
feeding value chain. The addition of the LRP component 
will thus prioritize aligning with NFSP policy strategies 
and create business opportunities that enable private 
sector participation across the school feeding value chain.
Partnerships with the Nonprofit 
Sector
Sierra Leone’s school feeding program space has 
multiple nonprofit organizations implementing school 
feeding interventions. Organizations including WFP, 
CRS, and Plan International, have ongoing school 
feeding interventions in Sierra Leone. There is a mixture 
of local and international nonprofits working with 
CRS on MGD projects. Evidence suggests that local 
organizations in Sierra Leone could play a significant 
part in the transition toward a HGSF program if given 
the needed support. For example, Teach for Sierra Leone 
is a local nonprofit supporting the implementation 
of gender-sensitive programming within the MGD 
program. Their efforts have led to an increase in the 
number of female teachers in some MGD target schools. 
A participant noted the impact of the local organization: 
Teach for Sierra Leone helped “recruit all-female 
cohorts of over 100 fellows to work [schools] 
within those communities…and then we did 
another recruitment of mixed cohorts in which 
60% of the successful candidates were also women.” 
Teach for Sierra Leone also organizes mentoring 
classes that target current female students who 
dropped out of school; “these classes often help older 
female dropouts grasp foundational educational skills 
while also providing a “safe place for them to regain 
the confidence of schooling again before they are 
reintroduced back into the formal education system.” 
Additionally, CRS working with Teach for Sierra Leone 
enabled the recruitment and training of university graduates 
as teachers in poor and deprived schools; this partnership 
directly resulted in an overall increase in the number of 
trained or certified teachers in MGD targeted schools.
There is evidence of CRS’s partnership with other 
international nonprofits; for example, MGD’s 
collaboration with CARE International facilitated the 
mobilization and distribution of “early grade literacy 
instructional materials” to reading clubs in MGD 
beneficiary schools. Under this collaboration, computer 
tablets and digital books were distributed to beneficiary 
Table 1.14 Summary of Nonprofit Partnerships for School Feeding Under MGD Sierra Leone
The Association of Language and
Literacy Educators (TALLE)
Caritas, Sierra Leone
Helen Keller International
United Nations Children Emergency
Fund (UNICEF)
International Literacy Association
(ILA)
World Food Programme (WFP)
Teach for Sierra Leoni
PARTNER
They provide classroom-based coaching and supervision of teachers on literacy
instruction in beneficiary schools.
Caritas provides Life Skills Training and implements the WASH activities under
MGD program project phases.
Helen Keller International supported deworming services in beneficiary schools.
UNICEF provides learning and logistical support to school children. UNICEF also 
supports policy development on school feeding
ILA provides in-service training in Diagnostic Teaching Methods (DTM) for teachers
in beneficiary schools.
They implement school feeding in some parts of Sierra Leone.
They support training and recruitment of teachers in rural areas to support
teaching and learning in deprived communities.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
66
pupils to aid in teaching and learning. CRS’s partnership 
with CARE International increased the amount of 
available early grade literacy instructional material 
according to MGD project indicator on “improved 
early grade literacy instructional materials (include 
citation to a table here?) which demonstrates that CRS’s 
partnership with nonprofits has generally been productive 
and mutually beneficial. Table 1.14 lists the MGD 
partnerships with the non-profit sector in Sierra Leone.
Community-Based Partnerships
Central to the NSFP is the critical role of community 
members; the policy emphasizes the meaningful 
involvement and 
participation of 
communities as a key 
strategy in the IHGSF 
program. The policy aims 
to leverage community 
production and enhance 
community ownership to support the implementation 
of the home-grown school feeding. The policy 
further prioritizes a decentralized national program, 
structured to link school feeding with smallholder 
farmers, the community, and the private sector.
CRS prioritizes working with community organizations, 
and there is evidence suggesting that they work with 
mothers and other community members through 
MSGs and SILC. The school garden approach is 
another strategy used in the implementation of MGD 
projects to engage beneficiaries and foster partnership 
with community members; a participant noted:
Yes, people from the local communities are involved in 
working on the school gardens growing their own produce 
and supply in the school to be able to support the school 
feeding program; where we believe that is extremely helpful 
because it does not only provide high-quality organic food 
for the school feeding program is also helps to improve 
livelihood standards within those communities, and parents 
can also, families can also earn extra cash.
CRS’s partnership with community organizations has 
been beneficial; it enabled the mobilization of local support 
and facilitated the formation of accountability structures in 
beneficiary communities. Community organizations have 
also been essential in disseminating health information 
at the community level. A study participant noted:
within the community. You know the mother support 
groups have been selected from each community that we are 
implementing our activities, so the mother support group 
is one of the key structures that we are using within the 
Communities with regards to health and nutrition.
Another a participant noted:
Community members provide an oversight, they monitor, 
they support, they coordinate, they advise, and they provide 
feedback at different levels.
Evidence from the interviews suggests that partnering 
with communities has yielded 
material support for school 
feeding as communities are 
willingly making material 
donations to support school 
feeding in their communities. 
A participant explained the 
working relationship between communities and CRS:
Yeah, I think as of now. We are working in partnership. 
Although we have not started LRP processes, they are 
also giving us their own little support because we provide 
the rice, lentils, and vegetable oil; they also provide the 
condiments. The locals provide salt, onions and pepper…. 
Without this provision, there would not be meals in any 
of our schools, so we are in partnership, very close, and 
everybody understands his own role and responsibility 
during this process. We provide ABC, and they provide 
DEF.
Despite the positive community response to MGD 
program’s approach to school feeding, demanding material 
resources in the form of community contributions to 
the school feeding program could exclude vulnerable 
groups who can’t afford the required contributions 
from the program and exacerbate the school dropout 
rate. Similarly, community contributions to the school 
feeding program are gendered. Community contributions 
often demand women-controlled resources such as food 
ingredients, fuelwood, and water. It is noteworthy to 
mention that demanding women-controlled resources 
as community contributions could deplete household 
resources and exacerbate household food insecurity.
“The launch of the NSFP and its emphasis on the use 
of school gardens, local procurement, private sector 
engagement, and local community participation in the 
implementation of the school feeding program provides 
a permitting environment for sustainability.”
67
Sustainability 
The launch of the NSFP and its emphasis on the use of school 
gardens, local procurement, private sector engagement, 
and local community participation in the implementation 
of the school feeding program provides a permitting 
environment for sustainability. It is thus important that 
the LRP component is designed to align with current 
policy aims to enhance ownership and sustainability.
Community material contributions to the program, 
coupled with reports of financial expectations by project 
beneficiaries during training, suggest there is a need to 
sensitize communities and work to foster community 
ownership. For example, there are reports of community 
members expressing expectations of receiving financial 
incentives during trainings; this situation is exacerbated 
by the readiness of other nonprofit organizations 
working in the area to adhere to these financial 
demands. A participant noted their concerns regarding 
community financial expectations from the project.
Well, as I mentioned, we still face the handout syndrome, 
where project beneficiaries think that even though we are 
involved, let’s also have some money, and you know the 
program has budgeted for specific things…..
The LRP component should prioritize creating 
economic opportunities that empower communities 
to gainfully participate in the school feeding program 
and reduce financial expectations from the project. 
Shaping the mindset of communities to own the 
project is key to overall the program sustainability. 
68
Research Component 1: Partnerships for School Feeding
Analysis of School Feeding Partnerships in 
Tanzania
Institutional Framework for School Feeding
Socio-economic and Policy 
Context
Tanzania is in East Africa and is made up of a large 
mainland area and multiple offshore islands including 
Zanzibar, Pemba, and Mafia. It has a recorded population 
(2020) of approximately 59,734,213 (World Bank, 
2021). According to the World Bank, Tanzania has 
made great strides toward sustained growth and officially 
graduated from a low-income country to a lower￾middle-income country in 2020. This growth reflects 
the country’s macroeconomic stability and government 
commitments toward human capital development. 
Even though Tanzania has experienced improved 
economic stability, food insecurity continues to be 
a major problem. Data from the WFP suggests that 
nearly 20% of the population in 16 analyzed Tanzanian 
districts was estimated to be experiencing severe food 
insecurity (WFP, 2021). Further, food insecurity was 
found to be primarily driven by climate-based factors 
like prolonged dry spells, pest infestations, and erratic 
rainfall in the 2018 to 2019 growing/planting season. 
Additionally, malnutrition among children and women 
remains high in many areas. More specifically, households 
in rural areas were most impacted by malnutrition 
(Tanzania National Nutrition Survey, 2018). Moreover, 
Tanzanian children in poor households also tend to have 
disproportionately lower educational outcomes when 
compared to Tanzanian children in wealthier households.
Education has played an important role in Tanzania’s 
economic growth and development. Education’s role 
became especially apparent in 2014 with the introduction 
of the fee-free education policy by the Government of 
Tanzania. Since the introduction of this policy, primary 
school enrolment has increased and reached 99% in 2019 
(WFP,2021). Additionally, most schools in Tanzania 
have achieved gender parity in enrollment rates. Even 
so, school-aged children from the poorest households 
were still far less likely to attend school in comparison to 
children from wealthy households. Further, tertiary level 
enrolment rates for children aged 14-17 years remain low 
(3%). Given the impact of the fee-free education policy 
and the need to address food insecurity amongst children, 
school feeding, and tangential policies, were created to 
increase enrollment rates amongst Tanzanian children 
and increase school-aged children’s access to food. 
School Feeding Policy Framework in 
Tanzania
Researchers conducted a review of Tanzanian policies 
that impact school feeding. The review yielded school￾feeding-related policy documents published between 
1973 and 2021. These policies were classified according to 
the Tanzanian government entity leading the policy effort. 
Given this classification scheme, policies were categorized 
into the following sectors (numbers inside squared brackets 
indicate the number of policy documents under the 
corresponding category): National Strategic Plans [8], this 
category includes intergovernmental organization country 
strategic plans, Education [5], Health and Nutrition and 
Early Childhood Development [7], Agriculture [2], and 
Trade and Food Safety [1]. From a preliminary review, 
69
23 documents were identified as relevant for school 
feeding programming in Tanzania. While this review 
was thorough, this is not an exhaustive list of policies 
associated with school feeding programming in Tanzania. 
Nevertheless, this analysis will provide an overview of 
policies associated with school-feeding-related initiatives 
and projects that have or are occurring in Tanzania.
Sectoral Policies
National Strategic Plans
The Government of Tanzania released the Tanzania 
National Development Vision 2025 in 1999. Its primary 
focus was to improve the livelihood of Tanzanian citizens. 
In order to achieve its primary objectives of “achieving 
quality and good life for all”, “good governance and the 
rule of law”, and “building a strong and resilient economy 
that can effectively withstand global competition” it 
suggested the use of developmental strategies that include 
the establishment of universal primary education, the 
eradication of illiteracy, the attainment of a level of tertiary 
education, and training that is commensurate with a 
critical mass of high-quality human resources required 
to effectively respond to and master the development 
challenges that may hinder the implementation of the 
above objectives. Subsequently, in 2005, the National 
Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) 
was launched and continued to build on the primary 
goal of improving of quality of life and social well￾being of all citizens. In the context of woman and child 
nutrition, this strategic plan had the goals of 1) ensuring 
equitable access to quality primary and secondary 
education for boys and girls, universal literacy among 
men and women, and expansion of higher, technical, 
and vocational education, and 2) improving the survival, 
health, and well-being of all children and women and 
vulnerable groups. These goals sought to impact child 
nutrition and education by creating strategies to enhance 
the implementation of school feeding programs, which 
included improving current school feeding programs as 
well as developing more of these programs with plans 
to target areas where individuals were experiencing the 
highest poverty rates, poorest education outcomes, and 
highest rates of household insecurity more generally 
(i.e., citizens living in poorer rural areas of Tanzania). 
Following the release of the NSGRP, a basic agreement 
between the Government of Tanzania and the WFP was 
signed in 2006. The Agreement with the WFP helped 
the Government of Tanzania negotiate the terms under 
which they would receive assistance from the WFP 
which likely set the stage for future collaboration in the 
realm of development assistance to help with aspects 
such as the betterment of the education sector, childhood 
development, and other aspects of development both 
directly and indirectly related to school feeding. In 2010, 
the newest growth and poverty reduction strategy, the 
National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty 
II (NSGRP II), was launched with the same primary 
goal of improving quality of life and social well-being 
for Tanzanian citizens. Building on the objectives of the 
Tanzania National Development Vision 2025 and on 
the prior National Strategy for Growth and Reduction 
of Poverty strategic plan, the NSGRP II focused on 
increasing educational outcomes among citizens living 
in poorer, rural areas by allocating more resources to 
rural schools and children to increase school enrolment, 
school completion, and overall school performance. 
NSGRP II planned to increase school feeding program 
coverage meaning that more school feeding programs 
could feed more students and ideally all schools 
would eventually have school feeding programs 
wherein students would have access to school meals. 
Additionally, this plan includes a budget component 
under the Tanzanian Ministry of Finance and Economic 
Affairs and this ministry plans to implement measures 
aimed at enhancing capacity building in terms of 
coordination and budgeting for strategic plan objectives. 
In 2010, the United Nations Development Assistance 
Plan, 2011-2015 was created and sought to achieve 
similar objectives associated with quality of life and 
well-being and the extension of more social services 
in accordance with MDG goal 2—universal primary 
education and MDG goal 3—promote gender equality 
and empower women. Additionally, national goals of 1) 
ensuring equitable access to quality education at all levels 
for males and females, and universal literacy for adults, 
both men and women, and 2) ensuring gender responsive 
and equitable access to quality education were included in 
this plan. Overall, this strategic plan led to a major school 
feeding outcome wherein the UN promised to work with 
the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training to 
establish a national school feeding program that prioritizes 
school feeding in food insecure areas of Tanzania with the 
eventual transfer of said program from joint ownership 
and implementation (with the WFP) to a completely 
government-owned and implemented national school 
70
feeding program. Further, this plan included a budget 
line item meant to allocate funds to help the Government 
of Tanzania with school feeding implementation, 
school feeding capacity building, and with technical 
assistance to develop their own implementation 
strategies and guidelines for national school feeding. 
In 2016 the National Five-Year Development Plan, 
2016-2020, was launched. This plan set the stage for the 
implementation of other plans and initiatives such as 
the comprehensive plan for free education which would 
allow children to attend primary and secondary school 
without having to provide tuition-like payment. It also 
focused on sector-specific interventions associated with 
schools and school feeding programs and plans—like the 
school milk program and plans to increase rural school 
infrastructure (i.e., water, electricity, and health services, 
teacher training, and school curriculum improvement). 
In 2016, the second UN development assistance plan, 
the United Nations Development Assistance Plan, 
2016-2021 (UNDAP II), was created and mainly 
sought to achieve outcomes associated with increasing 
the coverage of nutrition services and access to safe and 
affordable water for women, children, and vulnerable 
populations. Lastly, in 2017, the WFP: Tanzania 
Country Strategic Plan (2017-2021) was initiated and 
used lessons learned from the WFP implemented home￾grown school feeding program pilot (budgeted for in 
the UN’s United Nations Development Assistance Plan, 
2011-2015) to share school feeding best practices with 
the Government of Tanzania. Additionally, the WFP 
agreed to provide future support at the government’s 
request with the eventual goal being a Tanzanian￾owned and operated national school feeding program.
Education Policies
School feeding programs primarily focus on education￾related activities; school meal programs are usually 
used as a method to enhance educational outcomes. In 
Tanzania, the earliest education policy that discusses 
school feeding is the 2001 Primary Education 
Development Plan (2002-2006). This plan mainly 
focused on financing school feeding. Essentially, this plan 
concluded that school feeding resources carried a large 
cost pushing the Government of Tanzania to continue 
to negotiate for higher financial contributions from 
donor communities to cover these costs. Additionally, 
at the community level, school feeding programs were 
expected to heavily rely on voluntary contributions 
from their respective communities for things like food 
provision and other school feeding materials. In 2004, 
the Secondary Education Development Program was 
created with specific educational objectives in mind. 
Most notably, one objective sought to maximize time￾on-tasks and provide incentives for students to learn in 
hopes of increasing educational outcomes. To achieve 
those educational objectives, this program utilized a 
school feeding strategy that established that schools 
would provide lunch using capitation grants and 
parental contributions with plans that all-day schools 
provide school lunch for students by the year 2005. In 
2010, a tangential program, the Secondary Education 
Development Plan 2010-2015 II, proposed to establish 
special feeding programs that would allow students and 
school personnel affected by HIV and AIDS and those 
suffering from these infections to receive school meals; it 
pushed to have these special feeding programs in place 
in secondary schools by 2010. In 2012, the Primary 
Education Development Programme III (2012-2016) 
launched and sought to increase access and equity at the 
pre-primary education level by using proposed strategies 
such as mobilizing community support to sustain school 
feeding programs for pre-primary children and eventually 
scaling up school feeding programs to the national level 
so that all primary schools had school feeding. With the 
help of Project Concern International (PCI), leveraging 
the MGD Program and the WFP, Tanzania finally 
launched its First National School Feeding Guidelines 
in November 2021 which is a giant step toward the 
establishment of its own national school feeding program.
Health and Nutrition and Early Childhood 
Development Policies
In 1992, the Food and Nutrition Policy for Tanzania, 
under the Ministry of Health, was launched. It focused 
on school-age children between ages seven and 14 years 
old and mainly sought to avoid malnutrition among this 
population. It proposed that providing nutritious meals 
at school may enhance student learning, given that most 
children did not eat breakfast before attending school and 
schools did not provide healthy lunches. To avoid learning 
difficulties and health problems associated with child 
undernutrition, this policy proposed that: [1] Parents 
and guardians should be educated on the importance of 
providing children with food before leaving for school. 
71
[2] Efforts to provide school children with proper lunch 
should be enhanced and strengthened. [3] The Health 
and Nutrition Programme in schools should be expanded 
in scope and improved. [4] There should be a follow￾up to ensure that improper foods are not sold in school 
compounds. By 1996, the Child Development Policy 
was launched to promote child survival using strategies 
such as 1) mobilizing and educating children, parents, 
and the community on good nutrition, adequacy of 
food intake, and preparation of various types of food; 
2) increasing the production, preservation, and proper 
utilization of food crops, and increasing the production 
of cash crops; 3) encouraging and educating parents 
and communities on breastfeeding and appropriate 
weaning foods for children under five; and 4) educating 
communities on environmental sanitation and mobilizing 
communities to construct and utilize improved 
latrines. These policies set the stage for more health 
and nutrition policies associated with school feeding. 
In 2005, the Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre 
Strategic Plan provided services to communities such 
as community awareness-raising interventions and the 
provision of skills to manage school feeding. This center 
also reviewed the current manuals on the management 
of school feeding programs. In 2008 the Zanzibar 
Food Security and Nutrition Policy was drafted to 
fulfill the objective of strengthening social protection 
and safety nets needed for vulnerable groups, mainly 
working with the Ministry of Education and Vocational 
Training (MoEVT). This meant establishing public 
assistance programs that included school feeding, school 
gardens and gardening programs, and home rationing 
and supplementary feeding programs to reduce 
malnutrition and related illnesses. The MoEVT was 
primarily responsible for ensuring that school feeding 
and gardening activities were effectively coordinated as 
these programs became a vital part of the social safety net 
established to address child malnutrition in Tanzania. The 
National Nutrition Strategy July 2011/12 - June 2015/16 
established policy trends for nutrition interventions in 
national and sectoral policies and plans. This policy’s 
key objective associated with school feeding established 
the trend for all government development policies to 
adequately incorporate nutrition as a priority area for 
achieving economic growth, stability, and prosperity. 
As a result, nutrition interventions were mainstreamed 
into national and sectoral policies, plans, and programs. 
The National Multisectoral Nutrition Action Plan 
(NMNAP) of 2016, following on the heels of the 
National Nutrition Strategy, included nutrition 
interventions with priority areas that included: scaling 
up multisectoral nutrition-sensitive interventions 
(agriculture and food security; health and HIV; WASH); 
education; social protection; and environment and 
climate change). Additionally, its key outputs include: 1) 
Communities have access to a diverse range of nutritious 
foods throughout the year; 2). Communities regularly 
use quality maternal health, family planning prevention 
services, treatment of HIV and malaria communities, 
and schools’ access to adequate WASH services. 3) Girls 
complete primary and secondary education; 4) Poorest 
households benefit from TASAF conditional cash 
transfers, cash for work, and nutrition education during 
the community sessions; and 5) vulnerable communities 
are able to cope with drought and climate change to 
avoid shortages of nutritious food during shocks. These 
outputs went a long way to highlight the need for key 
school feeding infrastructure that also often reflected 
their respective community’s infrastructural needs. 
Finally, the Mainland Nutrition Public Expenditure 
Review was created in 2018 with explicit strategies 
to analyze current government spending and make 
recommendations to establish, sustain, and implement 
early childhood education and development programs 
and policies, along with school feeding policies, and 
school capacity and infrastructure policies associated 
with WASH, nutrition, health education programs.
Agriculture and Trade and Food Safety 
Policies
In 2003, the Tanzania Food, Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act of 2003 established the Tanzania Food and Drugs 
Authority (TFDA) which works to govern food 
importation through regulation of food safety, quality, 
and effectiveness. In 2006, the Agricultural Sector 
Development Programme, 2006-2013 was released; it 
emphasized the need to create social safety nets for poorer 
citizens. Therefore, this program facilitated social safety 
nets with support from the WFP and the Tanzania Social 
Action Fund to complement current District Agricultural 
Development Plans that were based in food insecure 
communities (e.g., school feeding, food for work, cash 
for work, etc.). Lastly, in 2011, the Tanzania Agriculture 
and Food Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP) 2011-21 
to 2020-21 was created to attend to food security; its 
72
main objective, associated with school feeding, was to 
enhance household and nutritional food and nutrition 
security. To achieve this objective, this plan stated that 
a national school feeding program would be supported 
to improve food intake and improve school attendance 
among primary students in Tanzania. This plan 
proposed to improve school feeding policy by reviewing 
available policies and then incorporating education 
reform and lessons learned from educational program 
issues associated with current primary school feeding.
Figure 1.17 Tanzania — Policy Framework for School Feeding Programming
LONG-TERM STRATEGIC LEVEL PLANS
Government-led and collaboration with intergovernmental entities (e.g. UN, AU)
Tanzania National
Development Vision 2025
(1999)
National Five Year
Development Plan
2016-2020 (2016)
UN Development Assistance Plan (2016)
WFP Country Strategic Plan (2017)
MEDIUM AND SHORT-TERM STRATEGIC LEVEL PLANS
Government-led e‰orts
National Strategy for Growth and
Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)
National Strategy for Growth and Reduction
of Poverty II (NSGRP II)
SECTORAL EFFORTS
EDUCATION
• 2001: Primary Education Development
 Plan (2002-2006)
• 2004: Secondary Education Development
 Program
• 2010: Secondary Education Development 
 Plan (2010-2015)
• 2012: Primary Education Development
 Programme III (2012-2016)
AGRICULTURE
HEALTH &
NUTRITION
• Tanzania Food and Nutrition 
 Centre Strategic Plan 2007 
 National Nutrition Policy
• Zanzibar Food Security and
 Nutrition Policy
• Mainland Nutrition Public 
 Expenditure Review
• Agriculture Sector 
 Development Programme, 
 2006-2013
• Tanzania Agriculture and 
 Food Security Investment
 Plan (TAFSIP) 2011-21 to 
 2020-21
MULTI-SECTOR SCHOOL FEEDING EFFORTS
• GoT has not scaled up the School Feeding Programs implemented by PCI and WFP to the national level
• Supported by PCI and the UN WFP, the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training created the 
 National School Feeding Guideline to provide guidance to schools and other stakeholders involved, to 
 e‰ectively implement a high quality and safe School Feeding Program by leveraging food produced 
 from local farmers and cooperatives while improving the local economy.
2021: Tanzania School Feeding Operational Guidelines
Source: Authors
73
School Feeding Policies: Cross-sectorial 
and cross-level collaborations
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 
approved the National School Feeding Guidelines in 
March 2021 and continues to work toward creating a 
national school feeding policy. As demonstrated by tracing 
the above sectoral policies associated with school feeding, 
a large number of plans, strategies, and programs have 
been introduced. With the help of a pilot HGSF program 
executed by the WFP, a 
set of school feeding best 
practices was also identified. 
Similarly, the PCI-led MGD 
school feeding program has, 
since its beginning in 2010, 
contributed to forming and 
informing school feeding practices. Even so, Tanzania has 
made little progress toward establishing and maintaining 
a government-owned and led national school feeding 
program, though many localized HGSF programs exist. 
As the 2001 Primary Education Development Plan 
(2002-2006) stated, most funding for school feeding 
comes from donors, and programs are expected to 
mainly function using community contributions and 
community-level management. Prior research suggests 
that placing the functioning of school feeding in the hands 
of their respective local communities may be indicative of 
a larger issue. More specifically, for Tanzania to establish 
a national school feeding policy, its current HGSF model 
must be expanded to include more participation from the 
central government. In essence, efforts that include the 
provision of land and water by the government to increase 
food production are necessary. Similarly, the value chain 
needs to include more participation from multiple 
stakeholders, preferably more from the private sector. 
Further, the Government of Tanzania could take action to 
make participation in school feeding mandatory so that 
students in non-private schools, normally located in poorer 
areas, also benefit from 
school feeding like their 
private school counterparts. 
Lastly, the WFP’s and 
PCI’s best practices and 
implementation strategies 
should be used to develop a 
national school feeding policy that ensures school feeding 
programs receive funding from the Government of Tanzania 
so that the burden does not solely fall on community 
members and parents, and ultimately households that 
already suffer from food insecurity themselves. Lastly, 
policy development should occur in a multisectoral 
manner with clear delegations of fiscal and other 
responsibilities to ensure that resources for school feeding 
at the national level come from a variety of ministries, each 
with their own earmarked set of responsibilities and goals 
associated with school feeding (Roothaert et al., 2021).
“[…] in 2011, the Tanzania Agriculture and Food 
Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP) 2011-21 […] stated 
that a national school feeding program would be 
supported to improve food intake and improve school 
attendance among primary students in Tanzania.”
74
Donor-led School Feeding Efforts in 
Tanzania
Poverty rates among the rural population in Tanzania 
are especially high, resulting in child malnutrition (See 
the above section labeled Socio-economic context for 
school feeding in Tanzania). Because of these poor 
nutritional outcomes, school feeding, in some form or 
another, has been present in Tanzania for many years 
(Lukindo, 2018). Nevertheless, many early attempts at 
school feeding were eventually abandoned. It was not 
until the early 1980s that commitment to school feeding 
really took hold, with the establishment of community￾supported school feeding programs in the Dodoma and 
Singida regions of Tanzania. Even so, school feeding 
was not widespread or well-implemented. In 2000, the 
WFP began implementing school feeding programs in 
the Dodoma, Arusha, and Singida regions of Tanzania, 
and this laid the groundwork for other school feeding 
programs in the country. While the WFP continues to 
implement school feeding in some parts of Tanzania, by 
2010, other non-governmental organizations—mainly 
PCI—began implementing school feeding programs 
funded by USDA-FAS. While PCI’s implementation 
role began in 2010, this non-profit’s presence in 
Tanzania did not begin with its relationship with USDA.
PCI’s Tanzanian branch began working in Tanzania as 
early as 2008 on a separately funded water and sanitation 
improvement project. Working with local Tanzanian 
government officials and communities, PCI began 
implementing MGD projects in 2010. Phase 1 began at 
schools in Musoma Rural, Butiama, and Bunda districts 
in the Mara region of Tanzania. With funding from the 
USDA, PCI has gone on to implement two more project 
phases of the MGD school feeding program (Phase 2 from 
2013 to 2016 and the current Phase 3 from 2016 to 2021) 
and has simultaneously implemented an LRP component 
called Chakula Chetu (2017-2020). The multiple project 
phases reflect efforts not only to provide school meals, but 
also to implement a comprehensive approach to school 
feeding that includes work in the areas of education, 
nutrition, school WASH, health, and value chain/supply. 
MGD programmatic changes across 
different phases 
The MGD school feeding program provides school meals 
to children attending pre-school and primary school as an 
intermediate goal which is intended to improve literacy 
outcomes. The provision of school meals is a mechanism 
through which program projects can improve school 
enrollment, attendance, and student attentiveness. Each 
phase includes strategic and geographic programmatic 
modifications to increase the sustainability and capacity 
of the school feeding program in each targeted school, 
expecting that the government and communities of 
Tanzania will eventually have primary responsibility for 
school feeding in their country. Phase 1 began by targeting 
103 schools for school feeding project implementation 
in the Bunda and Musoma Rural districts in the Mara 
Region of Tanzania. Phase 1 emphasized the provision 
of school meals while also incorporating nutrition, 
health, and WASH efforts. During the initial phase, 
school meal commodities and resources were completely 
provided by the USDA’s in-kind contributions. Students 
at targeted schools received one morning snack and 
one meal for lunch each day of the school week. In 
terms of the education component, Phase 1 mainly 
focused on food provision in efforts to encourage 
attendance and the pursuit of gaining an education 
more generally. WASH programs were also introduced 
during this time which allowed for the construction of 
latrines and teachings about sanitation and water safety. 
Phase 2’s project saw an expansion in the coverage of 
the program, an increased focus on education, and an 
emphasis on school feeding sustainability and capacity 
building. Program objectives were solidified and focused 
on improving literacy through the provision of school 
meals which would then help increase student attendance, 
enrollment, and attentiveness. Additionally, a parallel 
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program 
implementation in Tanzania
75
component, the LRP component, began in 2017 as an 
effort to increase school feeding program sustainability in 
16 primary schools through funds dedicated to developing 
local capacities for local procurement of school meal 
commodities and resources. Phase 2 also saw the addition 
of 31 schools and the expansion of the program into the 
Butiama district. This resulted in the inclusion of 134 
schools in three districts into the program. Because of 
large increases in enrollment, some schools were split into 
A and B schools, which resulted in 156 schools overall. 
In terms of commodity supply, most commodities for 
school meals were still supplied by the USDA. Students 
were still fed five days per week, but instead of one snack 
and one meal, students were provided with two school 
meals per day. Porridge was provided for breakfast and 
rice, beans, and oil for lunch. By Phase 3, MGD and 
PCI began focusing on handing over the school feeding 
program to Tanzania and the target communities. 
Over the course of Phase 3, MGD decreased its 
contributions to the school meal program overall in effort 
to “graduate” or eventually hand over the ownership and 
responsibility of the school feeding program. Now active in 
231 schools, MGD began decreasing its contributions to 
beneficiary schools. Decreasing contributions allowed the 
local communities to increase their contributions of time, 
goods, and funds to their respective community school 
feeding programs. Eventually, MGD/USDA began only 
supplying food for school meals for three days per week, 
allowing the communities to contribute food and resources 
to feed school children for two days per week, which was a 
practice in building program sustainability in communities 
and schools. Conversion to a complete LRP/community￾supported school meal program in the 16 beneficiary 
schools was aided by the LRP component. This began with 
the LRP component providing 50% of food for school 
meals for two days per week, with the ultimate outcome 
being those schools no longer depending on food from 
USDA in-kind commodity contributions. Many other 
activities and achievements also occurred during Phase 3.
Phase 3 also included important changes in the other 
school feeding components. Further project changes 
included the introduction of new rainwater harvesting 
methods utilizing rainwater harvesting tanks, which 
helped provide water during dry seasons to the targeted 
schools. This phase also brought the introduction of the 
HGSF framework, introduced, and supported by the 
WFP, which cemented a working partnership between 
the WFP with PCI. The HGSF model emphasized 
the establishment of a Tanzanian-owned school 
feeding program fueled by a local supply chain. HGSF 
emphasized the idea that school-feeding commodities 
would eventually be provided because of strong 
partnerships with local actors, producers, and processors 
(i.e., smallholder farmers, local processors, and traders, 
and via government funding). By November 2019, 
school-feeding meals in most beneficiary schools were no 
longer supported by USDA-provided commodities, and 
each school’s community fully provided food for their 
respective school meal program. By January 2020, target 
schools were successfully implementing their community￾led school feeding models and were self-reliant in terms 
of school feeding food provision and resources. As of 
September 2021, some communities have contributed 
around 1,652 metric tons of rice and beans for their school 
feeding programs. Phase 3 also included activities that 
increased sustainability and capacity of school feeding; 
these activities include Savings and Internal Lending 
Communities (SILC) programs which allowed mothers of 
students to help fund school feeding in their schools, and 
the creation of a new, more sustainable water collection 
system (i.e., the borehole system). The borehole system 
collected groundwater used to supply water to schools, 
and it allowed schools to make money through the sale 
of water. This phase also saw the establishment of school 
gardens in several beneficiary schools, which have the 
dual purpose of supplementing school meals and teaching 
students how to grow their own food. Given the significant 
changes and the overall evolution of the MGD school 
feeding program projects, major school feeding outcomes 
and achievements can be observed among beneficiaries.
MGD Programmatic Components 
and Outcomes in Tanzania
MGD school feeding efforts are a set of programmatic 
and comprehensive activities seeking to mainly improve 
literacy of school-aged children and nutrition, health, and 
dietary practices among program participants. Activity 
categories include education and literacy, nutrition and 
health, WASH/SWASH, and with the introduction of 
the LRP programmatic effort, supply chain activities. 
Education and Literacy
The education component seeks to improve student 
literacy more broadly, which includes improvements 
in reading and writing. MGD indicator #1, “Percent 
76
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”, measures these 
improvements. This indicator shows an approximate 
four percent increase in student literacy among MGD 
program project beneficiaries between FY 2017 to FY 
2019 in Phase 3 (see Table A in appendix 1.3). Student 
literacy was measured using the Early Grade Reading 
Activity (EGRA) tool. To improve literacy, the program 
also includes subareas of focus like student classroom 
attentiveness, school attendance, and literacy education 
quality. Activities used to improve classroom attentiveness 
include reducing short-term hunger via increased access 
to food. This aspect of education is partially achieved by 
providing school meals to students and by campaigns 
to emphasize the importance of receiving an education. 
Phase 3 data reveals that school-aged children are 
receiving school meals throughout Phase 3. Additionally, 
indicator data show that average student attendance 
in McGovern-Dole supported schools and programs 
has increased over time (see Table A in appendix 1.3). 
One activity that targets quality of education is the 
provision of reward incentives given to those instructors 
that get nominated as “best teacher” which helped 
improve teacher attendance. Teachers also received 
training to learn more effective teaching techniques. 
Additionally, school administrators, education officers, 
school committee members, and head teachers received 
training on school management and leadership. Schools 
were also supplied with updated school supplies and 
instructional materials for their classrooms. New libraries 
were built and stocked with appropriate reading and 
learning materials. The indicator data show that these 
activities occurred in targeted schools, especially in Phase 
3 of project implementation. PCI staff observed that 
the addition of school infrastructure, mostly libraries, 
has not only increased student awareness of the utility 
of and engagement in educational activities, but also 
influenced community members to utilize educational 
infrastructure and resources. One PCI staff member 
closely involved with the educational components of 
MGD noted, “We have gone far as being the first NGO 
in Tanzania to construct libraries. Up to now we have ten 
(10) libraries that are being used by other people outside 
to come and learn how the library works.” (Interview 
with country-level key informant, November 2021)
Nutrition and Health
To improve student attendance, efforts to reduce 
health-related absences, improve school infrastructure, 
and increase student enrollment were undertaken. 
The second component, nutrition and health included 
activities meant to increase the use of health, nutrition, 
and dietary practices; students, teachers, administrators, 
and community members were included in the trainings. 
Project implementers taught proper dietary and nutrition 
practices to students and teachers, who then spread those 
practices to their communities by establishing school 
clubs where students could teach their parents and other 
community members the information they learned in 
school. For example, students readily engage in student 
health clubs where they meet outside of school to learn 
even more about health and nutrition and “share the 
knowledge with their fellow students and community 
members.” (Interview with country-level key informant, 
November 2021). Additionally, student health screenings 
occurred approximately twice a year, and government 
and implementing partners dewormed students. Relevant 
indicator data show that needed training in child health 
and nutrition took place because of the MGD project (see 
Table B in appendix 1.3). Training and the subsequent 
spreading of nutrition and health knowledge played a 
key part in the success of the nutrition campaigns created 
to impart the importance of good nutrition and healthy 
dietary practices upon students and their communities.
WASH
The WASH project component improved student and 
school personnel’s knowledge about health and hygiene 
practices; increased access to clean water and sanitation; 
and improved food preparation, handling, storage, 
and cooking practices. WASH activities consisted of 
constructing new latrines and other gendered WASH 
facilities. Both students and teachers were trained on 
how to operate these facilities. Further, water harvesting 
systems—borehole groundwater systems and rainwater 
harvesting tanks—provided schools with access to 
freshwater. The project also established school water 
committees. Students were taught proper handwashing 
techniques using their new WASH facilities. WASH 
programs also taught school cooks how to properly 
handle, store, and wash foods using hygienic practices; 
lastly, this component included training on commodity 
management and school meal preparation. Performance 
77
data in Table B (see appendix 1.3) show that more 
schools have improved water sources and sanitary 
facilities over the course of Phase 3 implementation.
Overall, the MGD school feeding program projects have 
provided many resources to targeted schools in Tanzania 
through the education, nutrition and health, and WASH 
project components. Some additional components 
include the gender component and agricultural activities 
associated with establishing school meal local procurement 
strategies and commodity production. For example, 
the gender component not only focused on creating 
a more inclusive learning environment for students 
but also meant that more teachers were female. Equal 
attention and efforts were made to maintain girls’ school 
enrollment, retention, and completion rates. Further, 
gendered programming in the WASH component 
allowed for the construction of menstrual management 
rooms for female menstruating students and the addition 
of urinals for male students. Women empowerment 
groups were also established. These groups allowed 
mothers and other women in school feeding communities 
to join SILC, which allowed women in targeted school 
feeding communities to make money at the household 
level (through business, farming, etc.). This subsequently 
allowed them to contribute food, money, and other 
resources to their respective school feeding programs. 
Performance data in Table C (available in appendix 1.3) 
shows that a large percentage of parents utilize these SILC 
groups, and overall parental participation in these groups 
has grown over the course of Phase 3 implementation. 
As for the supply chain component, most activities were 
associated with the LRP component, which mainly focuses 
on establishing partnerships and methods to provide food 
for school meals using local and regional procurement.
Supply Chain
Many of the activities associated with the supply chain 
and LRP components included agricultural activities that 
helped provide food for school feeding programs and 
for their respective communities and households. For 
example, schoolchildren learn how to grow gardens, and 
school gardens not only taught agricultural techniques 
to students but also provided food that supplemented 
the food already used in their school feeding programs. 
Performance data in Table C (available in the appendix 
1.3) also supports the use of school gardens, as they have 
produced a lot of commodities for project schools over 
the course of the most current project phase. School 
gardens also taught students to grow their own home 
gardens, which helped students create a food source to 
supplement their meals at home and make money for 
their households. These school feeding programs also 
established demonstration plots (demonstration gardens) 
to both provide local farmers with access to arable land 
and teach them modern farming techniques. These 
plots were also used to teach project beneficiaries, such 
as women in established women empowerment groups, 
agricultural techniques. Lastly, seeds were provided to 
schools and communities to produce food products and 
harvest them to give to schools to support school feeding 
and their households. These activities also afforded 
individual farms, group farms, and group farm unions 
the ability to contribute to food production in schools. 
Program project components have resulted in many 
achievements associated with school feeding. Nevertheless, 
these achievements could not have occurred without the 
creation of important partnerships that helped with the 
implementation of the many program project components.
The success of the MGD program is closely 
tied to the effectiveness of project component 
implementation. Even so, implementation could not 
occur without the creation and facilitation of the many, 
hopefully sustainable, multisectoral partnerships.
78
The success of the MGD program is closely tied to the 
effectiveness of project component implementation. 
Even so, implementation could not occur 
without the creation and facilitation of the many, 
hopefully sustainable, multisectoral partnerships.
Partnerships with the Public Sector
Public partnerships in the Tanzanian MGD Food for 
Education school feeding program mainly included 
partnerships between PCI and central government 
agencies. A summary of key partnerships with the public 
sector in Tanzania is available in Table 1.15 below. These 
include partnerships between PCI and the Rural Water 
Supply and Sanitation Agency (RUWASA), the Ministry 
of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT), 
Ministry of Health, Community Development, The 
Elderly, Gender, and Children (MOH), Ministry 
of Agriculture (MINAGRI), Tanzania Institute of 
Education, Tanzania Food and Nutrition Center (TFNC), 
Regional Consultative Committee, Tanzania Food 
and Drugs Authority, Tanzania Medicine and Medical 
Devices Authority, Office of the President Regional 
Administration and Local Government (TAMISEMI), 
Small Industries Development Organization (SIDO), 
Ministry of Finance and Planning, and the Tanzania 
Agriculture Research Institute (TARI). These government 
agencies contributed a variety of resources to the school 
feeding program. RUWASA played a vital role in the 
development of a sustainable solution for harvesting 
water subsequently used in WASH facilities. This 
agency aided PCI in developing its borehole system to 
gather groundwater. They successfully constructed 18 
borehole systems and used them, in conjunction with 
their rainwater harvesting tanks, to provide a sustainable 
source of water for school feeding programs year-round.
The Ministries of Education and Health provided school 
feeding programs with a variety of sources. For example, 
the Ministry of Education played an integral role in the 
implementation of education related components. Both 
ministries helped with teacher trainings by providing 
training personnel and supervision in the form of education 
officers to make sure that the elements of teacher trainings 
aligned with government expectations. The Tanzanian 
Institute of Education, an organization housed within the 
Ministry of Education, provided the materials for these 
teacher trainings. These agencies also provided extension 
workers and ward educational officers to help PCI with 
data collection and component monitoring. In return, PCI 
provided resources to the Ministry of Health in the form 
of funding and staffing. An example of this is when PCI 
provided funding to the Ministry of Education so that they 
could hold a National Educational Symposium Forum. 
Additionally, district government officials associated with 
the Ministry of Education are paid using MGD funds to 
help with the general implementation of school feeding. 
Further, PCI provided technical support to the Office 
of the President Regional Administration and Local 
Government (TAMISEMI) and to the Ministries of 
Education and of Health to draft their National School 
Feeding Guidelines. The TFNC helped draft the 
accompanying National School Feeding manuals that 
would be used to implement school feeding programs 
around the nation. Finally, PCI helped the Government 
of Tanzania establish their Regional Consultative 
Committee, whose primary focus is to help sustain current 
and future school feeding activities by helping establish 
and implement district-level school feeding budgets.
The Ministries of Agriculture and of Health used their 
partnership with PCI to provide personnel to help 
perform the baseline assessment that influenced the first 
draft of the current Tanzanian National School Feeding 
Guidelines. Additionally, PCI has a partnership with the 
Ministry of Finance wherein the ministry helps solve any 
importation and tax issues associated with importation 
of school feeding commodities. In terms of agricultural 
and food-related partnerships, PCI works with the 
Tanzania Bureau of Standards to ensure that all foods that 
require fortification are fortified before they are sent to 
Partnerships for School Feeding in Tanzania: 
The role of MGD
79
school feeding programs. Moreover, the Tanzania Food 
and Drugs Authority, Tanzania Medicine and Medical 
Devices Authority, Tanzania Atomic Energy, Ministry 
of Agriculture, and the Tanzania Revenue Authority 
all work together to perform quality assurance checks 
on food imports before USDA food commodities are 
sent to schools from storage warehouses. The SIDO 
is a government organization that works with PCI to 
train women on how to produce reusable sanitary pads, 
and train farmer groups on how to construct sunflower 
refinery machines as well how to process and package food 
following government standards; this organization was 
likely involved in building eight sunflower oil processing 
factories in council areas near the targeted communities. 
The TARI, a semi-autonomous body under the Ministry 
of Agriculture, works with PCI to provide the school 
feeding programs with beans that were then distributed to 
ten schools for their school garden plots; after harvesting, 
these beans were then distributed to other schools.
The relationships between Tanzanian government 
agencies and organizations and PCI provided a great 
deal of resources that helped implement school feeding. 
These resources included technical support, personnel, 
transportation, food processing infrastructure, and 
services that helped with program oversight and food 
quality. These resources, especially those flowing from 
the government to school feeding programs, helped 
lead to the sustainability of school feeding in Tanzania 
by ultimately placing the ownership and responsibility 
Table 1.15 Summary of public partnerships for school feeding under MGD Tanzania
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Agency (RUWASA)
Ministry of Education and
Vocational Training
Ministry of Health, Community
Development, The Elderly, Gender,
and Children
Minister of Agriculture
Tanzania Institute of Education
Tanzania Food and Nutrition Center
Regional Consultative Committee
Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority
Tanzania Medicine and Medical
Devices Authority
Oƒce of the President Regional
Administration and Local
Government (TAMISEMI)
Small Industries Development
Organization (SIDO)
Ministry of Finance and Planning
Tanzania Agriculture Research
Institute (TARI)
PARTNER
RUWASA helped PCI establish the bore hole system as a part of WASH infra￾structure like latrines, wells, and sanitation systems.
The MoEVT help PCI perform teacher training, implement elements of school
feeding, and aid in developing national school feeding guidelines.
They help PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing
national school feeding guidelines.
The MInister of Agriculture helps PCI implement elements of school feeding, and 
aid in developing national school feeding guidelines.
This institute helps PCI perform teacher training by providing training materials.
TFNC helps sustain McGovern-Dole school activities by helping create school
feeding nutritional manuals.
This committee helps sustain McGovern-Dole school feeding activities by helping
establish and implement district-level school feeding budgets.
They provide quality assurance feedback on USDA and locally procured foods
before they are sent to MGD schools.
They provide quality assurance feedback on USDA and locally procured foods
before they are sent to MGD schools.
TAMISEMI helps implement key school feeding elements in MGD schools and to
aid in the development of national school feeding guidelines.
SIDO helps PCI implement elements of the school feeding program such as helping
train women on how to produce reusable sanitary pads and train farmer groups on
how to process and package food.
The Ministry of Finance and Planning helps solve importation and tax issues
associated with importing food for the school feeding program.
TARI provides beans to be used in school gardens. 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
80
of school feeding in the hands of the Government of 
Tanzania. Further, partnerships with public entities, like 
the Ministries of Education, Health, and Agriculture, 
resulted in the creation of a national school feeding 
policy that can be utilized by all school feeding 
programs in Tanzania. Unfortunately, opportunities 
for partnerships between Tanzanian ministries and 
private companies (public-private partnerships) 
seemed scarce or nonexistent according to many of 
those involved in school feeding implementation.
Further, many school-feeding implementers expressed 
concerns over whether the government would adequately 
budget to establish long-term program sustainability. For 
example, some PCI staff mentioned the MGD funds are 
used to pay government officials for their participation 
in school feeding activities, but when there are no funds 
for these payments, those officials are not involved in 
school feeding. After the MGD hands the project over to 
Tanzania, the ministries and upper-level governing bodies 
will be responsible for paying government officials in the 
context of school feeding. Many individuals working 
for PCI suggested that a community-led school feeding 
program be scaled up and used in all schools, but they often 
expressed some doubt in terms of program sustainability, 
given that sustainability depended on the government’s 
willingness to continuously fund school feeding.
Partnerships with the Private 
Sector
Private partnerships are believed to be the driving 
force in fortification in many USDA-FAS MGD Food 
for Education school feeding program target countries. 
Nevertheless, Tanzania’s MGD effort has limited 
partnerships with the local private sector. Many PCI staff 
have observed that there is a lack of private partnerships 
associated with school feeding. Some members of PCI 
recommended more private companies be involved 
with school feeding, given that partnerships with 
private companies are viewed as greatly contributing to 
program sustainability in ways the government alone 
cannot. For example, some PCI staff expressed that 
Tanzanian government agencies halted the importation 
of the MGD commodities. Through interviews with 
some PCI staff members, we found most staff involved 
in implementation observed the Tanzanian government 
did not ensure local procurement could fill the void their 
actions created. Moreover, although private companies 
have the capacity to carry out fortification processes 
following government dictated standards, most school 
feeding programs lacked the necessary private sector 
partnerships to ensure they would be able to access 
fortified foods used to prepare school meals. Those 
school feeding programs that mentioned having private 
sector partnerships often found these partnerships 
were difficult to establish and were not sustainable 
over time. Recommendations for improvement often 
insisted more local organizations become subgrantees to 
increase the capacity of local communities to process and 
distribute local commodities to support school feeding. 
Therefore, access to fortified goods for the preparation 
of school meals is something that most MGD schools 
cannot accomplish alone, but there is a need to 
expand collaboration with the private sector to include 
fortification in school meals, which in turn, have to follow 
government regulations in the subject matter Working 
in tandem with NGOs, most fortification seems to be 
performed by organizations like Sanku (not an affiliate of 
MGD-PCI), a partner of the Government of Tanzania. 
Even so, these partnerships do not seem sustainable, and 
many of those implementing the MGD school feeding 
program projects believe that fortification should be 
performed by private companies to create a competitive 
market wherein these companies could compete for 
school feeding contracts, resulting in the best performing 
private companies receiving school feeding contracts. 
In a scenario that assumes multi-sector engagement in 
fortification, central governments would have the role of 
designing the regulatory framework, the private sector 
would be responsible for the fortification process, and 
communities, including schools, would have a larger 
role in enforcement. However, a larger-scale, centralized 
process of fortification is a more effective way to ensure 
quality assurance. Nevertheless, there are other areas 
where communities could be more engaged in the value 
chain process, especially in areas of smallholder capacity 
building, including areas that may impact fortification. 
Partnerships with the Non-profit 
Sector
Non-profit partnerships in the Tanzanian MGD 
program projects mainly included partnerships between 
PCI and other non-profit organizations like the Convoy 
81
of Hope, School to School International, the World 
Food Programme, Nutrition International, UNICEF, 
Save the Children, and FAO (Table 1.16). One of these 
organizations, the WFP, also implements USDA/FAS 
MGD school feeding programs in other countries as 
well. Cases from Kenya and Rwanda are highlighted in 
this report. These non-profit organizations contributed 
to the school feeding programs in Tanzania by helping 
with component implementation, development of 
National School Feeding Guidelines and related 
manuals, and provision of education, teaching, and 
training materials. The Arusha Convoy of Hope helped 
with general education and meal provision. School to 
School International was essential to the organization 
of teacher training and training teachers on how to use 
decodable books that helped students learn words and 
sentences; this was done in collaboration with local 
universities and the Ministry of Education. The WFP, 
Nutrition International, UNICEF, Save the Children, 
and FAO all assisted PCI in implementing some 
school feeding components and with the development 
and validation of the National School Feeding 
Guidelines using data from a survey collected by PCI. 
The relationships between these non-profit organizations 
and PCI provided a great deal of resources that aided 
in the implementation of school feeding education 
components and with the drafting national school 
feeding policy. These resources likely include technical 
assistance and support in the form of personnel. These 
resources flow from non-profit to non-profit (i.e., 
between PCI and these organizations). These non-profit 
organizations partner with Tanzanian school feeding 
programs, including their involvement with teacher 
training and policy drafting, and have aided in school 
feeding program sustainability. This was accomplished 
by each organization’s focus on increasing the capacity 
of teachers to both teach students and manage their 
classrooms. Additionally, these organizations helped the 
Tanzanian government establish policies that would allow 
the best practices learned from the MGD school feeding 
program to be scaled up and eventually used in all school 
feeding programs in Tanzania. While PCI and the listed 
non-profit organizations tend to work closely together 
on a variety of parallel implementations of differing 
school feeding and education programs in Tanzania, most 
possible partnerships already exist and likely do not need 
to be supplemented. Further, most of these non-profits, 
including PCI, already work closely with the Tanzanian 
government at the central, district, and regional level, 
as well as, at the community level. There does not 
seem to be any difficulty establishing and maintaining 
Table 1.16 Summary of Partnerships With the Nonprofit Sector for School Feeding Under MGD Tanzania
Convoy of Hope (Arusha)
School to School International
World Food Programme
Nutrition International
UNICEF
Save the Children
FAO
PARTNER
They help implement and sustain McGovern-Dole school feeding activities.
This organization helps increase the use of modern teaching methods in Tanzanian
classrooms by training teachers on how to use updated teaching materials 
(decodable books).
The WFP helps PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing
national school feeding guidelines.
They help PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing national
 school feeding guidelines.
UNICEF helps PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing 
national school feeding guidelines.
They help PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing national
 school feeding guidelines.
FAO helps PCI implement elements of school feeding, and aid in developing national
 school feeding guidelines.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
82
non-profit relationships within Tanzania, except in 
the case that some programs occur in different parts of 
Tanzania, and therefore do not cross paths or implement 
their programs within the same geographic areas.
Community-Based Partnerships
Community and Research and Development 
partnerships in the Tanzanian MGD program mainly 
included partnerships between PCI and community￾level groups, as well as between PCI and Tanzanian 
research universities. These include partnerships between 
PCI and Education Cascade Groups, the Government 
Parent Teacher Association, school committees, and 
women empowerment groups (Table 1.17). In terms of 
research and development, relationships were primarily 
with universities with research and development 
programs, like the National Institute of Transport. 
These community groups and universities contributed 
a variety of resources to the school feeding program in 
Tanzania. For example, the Government Parent Teacher 
Association meets and works with community members 
to draft an annual plan detailing how to implement key 
school feeding components. This may include plans for 
how food will be sourced, procured, or handled, and 
how much the community is expected to contribute 
to school feeding each year. School committees also 
provide their community school feeding programs with 
organizational strategies for school feeding programs. 
These organizational strategies include mobilization of 
communities in efforts to get community contributions 
to school feeding. This sometimes includes resources in 
the form of materials like sand, stones, labor, and water to 
help build school buildings and other capacity building. 
Further, these committees include teachers and other 
school administrators as well as parents. Everyone donates 
labor to build school feeding capacity, like the construction 
of sunflower processing machines. These committees also 
helped with monitoring and managing school feeding 
resources, helped maintain, store, and distribute food and 
school infrastructure for their school feeding programs, 
and kept records of food contribution, meals, and 
related school feeding data for their respective programs.
Women empowerment groups, established by the school 
feeding project, are groups of mostly women and mothers 
in school feeding communities that participate in SILC 
groups. These groups use their business acumen and 
financial information learned through their participation 
in SILC to acquire financial and material resources for 
their school feeding programs, as well as to improve their 
own income. They also donate their own labor, time, and 
food to support and aid their school feeding programs 
in achieving sustainability. Additionally, these women are 
involved in the building and maintaining of new school 
infrastructure, like WASH facilities. As for research and 
development partnerships, PCI worked with the National 
Institute of Transport to implement school feeding activities 
Table 1.17 Summary of Partnerships With Community-based Groups for School Feeding Under 
MGD Tanzania
Education Cascade Groups
(Mwalimu Wa Kwanza)
Government Parent Teacher
Association
School Committees
Women Empowerment Groups
National Institute of Transport
PARTNER
They helped increase child literacy in school children by teaching reading
techniques and practices in children ages 2 to 4.5 years in the community.
This association provides their community school feeding programs with annual
school feeding implementation plans on how to implement key school feeding
elements.
School committees provide their community’s school feeding program with
organizational strategies, material resources, monitoring and management
that will allow program sustainability.
These groups provide their community’s school feeding program with material and
financial resources that aid in program sustainability.
They help implement and sustain McGovern-Dole school feeding activities by
designing a freight manual.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL FEEDING
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
83
associated with the shipping and transportation of food 
commodities. This was achieved by the creation of a freight 
manual created to address school feeding program needs.
These research and community partnerships aid in 
program sustainability by creating a sense of community 
responsibility to support the school feeding program. 
Additionally, these partnerships place the ownership and 
everyday functioning of school feeding elements into the 
hands of school personnel and community members. 
Overall, these partnerships may lead to program 
sustainability because they have allowed the community 
to slowly take over the operation of the core elements of 
school feeding, like food procurement and production, 
funding, and program monitoring and organization. 
While these community groups seem to have produced 
some sustainability at present, there is no way to make 
community-led school feeding programs completely 
sustainable in their current forms. The programs will 
not be sustainable without more support from the 
central government in the form of budgeted funding, 
school feeding policy creation and implementation, and 
material support. In phase 3 of the Tanzanian school 
feeding program, PCI and its personnel were optimistic 
about school feeding program sustainability, and 
these partnerships, especially between the schools and 
communities, were somewhat easily formed. Nevertheless, 
women and mothers are oftentimes contributing the 
most material and immaterial resources compared to 
their male counterparts which may result in the undesired 
consequence of creating further food and financial 
insecurity in targeted communities at the household level.
In essence, public, private, non-profit, community, and 
research and development partnerships can all contribute 
to school feeding. As demonstrated in the prior sections, 
public partnerships often provide a great deal of school 
feeding oversight and ensure policy adherence. Public 
partnerships helped contribute to school feeding 
sustainability by allowing the Government of Tanzania 
to actively contribute to school feeding through the 
provision of both material and immaterial resources and 
by establishing their presence and dedication to program 
oversight and food quality. These resources are invaluable 
but need to be supplemented by purposeful efforts to build 
school feeding program funding into the government 
budget. Private partnerships, on the other hand, 
primarily provided access to food processing and other 
elements associated with the school feeding supply chain. 
Regrettably, school feeding programs have a noticeable 
lack of private partnerships, even though private 
partnerships are necessary to the sustainability of school 
feeding. The need for more of these partnerships is 
easily demonstrated by the government’s lack of ability 
to ensure all elements of the school feeding supply chain 
are consistently present, closely connected to school 
communities, and able to provide food in a timely manner 
that has been fortified with the necessary nutritional 
contents desperately needed by the food insecure 
students and communities targeted by school feeding 
programs. Non-profit relationships ensure that school 
feeding program components are properly implemented. 
These non-profits provide personnel and other resources 
that allow school feeding programs to continue 
implementing all the previously discussed components. 
Implementation resources are sorely needed as much of 
the local government is understaffed and cannot provide 
the amount of technical assistance needed by many of 
the school feeding programs during implementation. 
Community partnerships ensure each school feeding 
program is adequately supported, organized, and led 
by community members. Community partnerships 
also create a sense of ownership of each school’s feeding 
program. These partnerships are the most integral, outside 
of public and private partnerships, to the sustainability 
of school feeding because the community is expected to 
take on the lion’s share of food provision, organization, 
and future functioning of each community’s school 
feeding program. Many of the community groups, like 
the women empowerment groups and community farmer 
groups, provide the bulk of the funds, food, and labor 
to sustain their respective school feeding programs. 
Research and development partnerships mainly resulted 
in the creation of tools and techniques (e.g., the shipping 
freight manual) that streamlined the supply chain and 
shipping processes associated with school feeding. These 
partnerships help sustain school feeding by helping 
to modify the supply chain in ways that may result in 
a supply chain wherein freight and food transportation 
costs are more affordable when trying to import food from 
neighboring countries. Overall, all types of partnerships 
aid in the sustainability of school feeding, but there are 
some partnership gaps and the disproportionately female 
school feeding burden that need to be addressed to 
really stabilize school feeding sustainability in Tanzania.
84
Research Component 2: Analysis of Local Procurement
Burkina Faso, Kenya, & Rwanda
Introduction
One of MGD’s overarching program level goals is to 
successfully transfer the leadership and administration 
of the school feeding activity to each participating 
country’s government. To have a successful transfer of 
school feeding, MGD sought to establish and strengthen 
school feeding capacity and sustainability by ensuring 
that schools could procure locally school feeding 
resources. With a focus on establishing local and regional 
procurement, MGD funded parallel LRP projects to be 
implemented alongside prior established MGD school 
feeding project components. Overall, Local and Regional 
Procurement projects primarily seek to establish country 
specific procurement models that allow school feeding 
programs to provide food and resources for school 
feeding in a cost-effective, timely manner that utilize local 
markets, smallholder farmers, and other local actors and 
organizations present in the school feeding supply chain.
Research component 2 seeks to answer the question of 
“how do the impacts of local procurement models and 
other community and nationally sourced models compare 
with those that rely on international food sources related 
to farm productivity enhancement (including financial 
management, input efficiency, and profitability), 
employment, and agricultural markets?” While data 
limitations did not allow all parts of the above question 
to be addressed, this section of the report presents 
the results of the analysis of the Local and Regional 
Food Aid Procurement (LRP) model under MGD 
implementation. The first part presents background 
information about the program, and information about 
different LRP activities and mechanisms. The second 
part of this component includes a case study analysis of 
the three countries of interest for this research question: 
Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda. This is followed 
by a report of the LRP performance indicators, and 
comments about the LRP monitoring system. This 
section closes with a discussion about performance 
data and some recommendations for future research. 
85
Background
LRP refers to programmatic efforts that facilitate the 
acquisition of food from sources in the same community, 
country, region, and/or continent, rather than 
international sources. While LRP can generally refer to 
the act of procuring food as described above, it can also 
specifically refer to the USDA’s Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement project and since 2021, to the MGD 
component to carry out local procurement activities 
under the MGD program, often abbreviated as the 
LRP. LRP projects began as a pilot program authorized 
in the 2008 farm bill, with the first 
projects funded in FY 2009. USAID 
implemented its own LRP activities 
with funds appropriated in an FY 
2008 supplemental appropriations act 
(P.L. 110-252). The MGD program, 
authorized by the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, dictates 
that funds will be used for the purchase 
of US-produced commodities and for 
the provision of financial and technical 
assistance. The only explicitly LRP￾type activity sponsored by earlier 
iterations of the MGD program 
appears to have been school gardening 
and larger community farm programs 
in select projects. Congress established 
the USDA’s LRP (7 U.S.C. 1726c) 
through the Agricultural Act of 2014. 
The 2014 Farm Bill, Section 3206 of 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008, as amended by the 
Agricultural Act of 2014, stipulates 
that the Secretary of Agriculture 
will provide grants to, or enter into 
cooperative agreements with, eligible 
organizations to implement field-based 
projects that consist of local or regional 
procurements of eligible commodities 
in developing countries to provide 
development assistance and respond to 
food crises and disasters. The intended outcomes of USDA’s 
LRP projects are to enhance trade capacity of food-insecure 
developing countries and address the causes of chronic 
food insecurity. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 
2018 (signed December 20, 2018) revised the McGovern￾Dole authorizing statute to provide that no more than 
10% of MGD project funds shall be used for the local 
and regional procurement of commodities. For FY 2020-
2021, all new MGD projects grants must include an LRP 
“component” in addition to the traditional uses of MGD 
funds (personal communication with MGD staff, 2/4/22).
Table 2.1 reports the annual appropriations made to 
MGD and LRP from 2004 to 2021. Since 2010, MGD 
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) in 
MGD Programming
Table 2.1 Annual Congressional Appropriations to MGD and LRP
FY
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total
MGD
Source: Partnerships Assessment Tool developed by authors from 
MGD documentation and interviews with key informants
$50,000,000
$87,500,000
$100,000,000
$100,000,000
$100,000,000
$100,000,000
$209,500,000
$199,500,000
$184,000,000
$184,000,000
$185,000,000
$191,600,000
$196,600,000
$196,600,000
$205,000,000
$195,000,000
$220,000,000
$230,000,000
$2,934,400,000
LRP
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$0
$0
$35,000,000
86
has received approximately $200 million per year, whereas 
LRP, which was first funded in 2016 (not including 
expenditures on earlier pilot projects), received $5 
million per year for 2016 and 2017, $10 million in 2018, 
and $15 million in 2019, representing an expenditure 
increase of 200% over the funding period. The USDA’s 
LRP projects did not receive appropriated funds under 
the FY 2020 Further Consolidated Appropriations 
Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. 
Instead, Congress directed that LRP-type activities be 
embedded within MGD projects. The FY 2020 Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act specified that, of the 
$220,000,000 made available for MGD, no more than 
10% and no less than $20,000,000 (roughly 9% of 
total expenditures) shall remain available until expended 
for the local and regional procurement of agricultural 
commodities under MGD. In FY 2020, each of the 
nine MGD awards made included a local and regional 
agricultural commodity procurement component.
Table 2.2 reports the individual LRP projects funded 
during FY 2016-2019. Seven projects were funded in 
Africa, three in Latin America, and two in Asia. Four 
projects were implemented by the World Food Program 
(WFP), three by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), three 
by Project Concern International, one by Counterpart 
International, and one by World Vision. Over these 
four years, it is estimated that LRP efforts carried out 
in the seven countries benefited almost 300,000 people. 
The following list summarizes the types of 
activities carried out under LRP projects, as 
summarized in annual LRP Reports to Congress.
LRP Activities
• Procure locally grown agricultural commodities.
• Supplement and improve school feeding 
programs with locally procured eggs, fruits, and 
vegetables.
• Leverage ongoing local procurement programs.
• Contract with farmers to produce drought￾resistant crops.
• Work with farmers to grow and sell produce.
• Link local producers with schools.
• Establish local farmer groups.
• Train farmers on improved agricultural 
techniques and post-harvest handling and storage.
• Train farmers on business administration, 
including improved pricing and marketing 
techniques, managing forward contracts and 
agribusiness.
Table 2.2 LRP Project Recipients, Award Values, and Estimated Number of Beneficiaries
FY
2016
2016
2017
2017
2017
2017
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2019
Total
Country
Source: USDA-FAS
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,960,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,400,000
$3,599,772
$4,800,000
$4,700,000
$5,500,000
$34,959,772
Recipient PVO
Laos
Rwanda
Benin
Kenya
Mozambique
Tanzania
Guatemala
Honduras
Senegal
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Nicaragua
World Food Program
World Food Program
Catholic Relief Services
World Food Program
World Vision
Project Concern International
Project Concern International
Catholic Relief Services
Counterpart International
Catholic Relief Services
World Food Program
Project Concern International
Award Value Estimated
Beneficiaries
10,000
46,106
1,318
31,150
25,127
17,108
10,922
16,570
31,708
49,130
45,900
10,609
295,648
87
• Train school procurement committees on food 
quality, stock control, food preparation, and data 
collection.
• Train parent associations on quantifying food 
received, record-keeping, quality control, menu 
selection, and supplier selection.
• Train farm groups on purchasing processes and 
procedures.
• Train government officials to increase local 
procurement capacity, including budgeting, 
contracting, procurement, quality control, storage, 
monitoring, and evaluation.
• Organize online training sessions during 
Covid-19.
• Provide price information and conduct market 
analyses to inform procurement, mitigate potential 
negative impacts on local markets, and improve 
negotiating.
• Help governments assess local agricultural sectors 
to identify and map locally produced commodities.
• Provide low-cost storage equipment.
• Rehabilitate or construct kitchens with firewood￾saving stoves and storage rooms.
• Facilitate forward delivery contracts between 
private-sector off-takers and market-ready farmer 
organizations.
• Support cooperatives.
• Establish partnerships with financial institutions 
that support farmers’ access to loans.
• Demonstrate the importance of school meals and 
the feasibility of local procurement.
• Work with parent-teacher organizations to 
provide supplementary commodities from their 
own private production to promote community 
engagement.
• Strengthen and expand local garden production.
• Provide training, tools, and planting materials to 
support community demonstration farm production 
of fruits and vegetables.
• Distribute cash transfers to schools to buy fresh 
fruits and vegetables (using sources different from 
USDA-LRP).
• Arrange exchange visits for farmers from other 
districts and government officials.
• Plant fruit trees.
• Expand greenhouses.
• Start awareness campaigns about the production 
of new crops and their health benefits.
• Integrate health and nutrition education into 
school curricula and develop menus that use 
culturally acceptable, nutrient-rich foods.
Other LRP-Type Programs
The MGD’s LRP projects are specific examples of a 
mechanism that can contribute to the development 
of HGSF programs. Using the HGSF model, locally 
sourced meals are provided daily to children attending 
schools (FAO & WFP, 2018). The LRP program can 
work separately or synergistically with other HGSF 
programs. One of the stated goals of Kenya’s LRP project, 
for example, was to support the Government of Kenya’s 
existing HGSF program, called the HomeGrown School 
Meals Program (HGSMP), administered by the WFP. In 
2014, at least 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were 
implementing school feeding programs, of which at 
least 20 used HGSF or comparable models (Singh and 
Fernandes, 2018). Several studies have attempted to 
quantify the differential impacts of LRP/HGSF programs 
relative to alternative modalities (Clay and Benson, 
1990; Walker, Coulter, and Hodges, 2007; Garg, et 
al., 2013; Gelli, et al., 2016; Haggblade and Tschirley, 
2007; Hanrahan, 2010; Tschirley and del Castillo, 2007; 
Violette, et al., 2013; Walker and Wandschneider 2005). 
Lentz, Mercier, and Barret (2017) argue that LRP is 
more efficient in terms of both cost and delivery time, 
and less likely to hurt local markets than those requiring 
procurement from donor producers. Lentz, Passarelli, 
and Christopher (2013) found that procuring cereals, 
locally or regionally, provided savings of 53% relative to 
purchasing grains in the US, while procuring legumes and 
pulses locally and regionally saved 25%. The authors also 
reported, however, that procuring vegetable oil in Latin 
America provided no additional savings compared to 
purchasing US vegetable oil. Harou et al. (2013) found 
that local procurement was 38% cheaper than in-kind 
food delivered to school feeding programs in Burkina 
Faso, and that the local foods were more nutrient-dense. 
Regarding the impact of LRP on local agricultural 
markets, Garg et al. (2013) found that, with a few 
exceptions, local and regional procurement activities have 
no statistically significant relationship with either local 
price levels or volatility. Violette et al. (2013) found that 
recipients of locally procured foods were generally more 
satisfied with their meals relative to those who received 
US-sourced foods, especially among poorer recipients.
88
While the addition of an LRP component to MGD 
program projects represents a relatively recent change, 
LRP has become the norm internationally. The European 
Union and its member states, who combine to represent 
the second-largest food aid donor in the world, issued a 
regulation in 1996 favoring LRP over traditional food aid 
modalities; and Canada, also a leading food aid donor, 
provides nearly the entirety 
of its food aid in the form of 
cash for local procurement, 
vouchers, or cash distributions 
(Lentz, Barrett, and Gomez 
2012). LRP’s share of global 
food aid rose from 11% of 
global food aid in 1999 to 
39% by 2008, during which 
time the U.S. – accounting 
for more than half of all food 
aid globally – did not permit 
LRP (Barrett, Binder, and 
Steets 2011). Lentz, Barrett, 
and Gomez (2012) warn, 
however, that LRP should not 
be viewed as a perfect solution 
to the challenges of providing 
food aid. They point out food 
safety and quality standards are 
highly variable across countries, 
and local procurement could 
increase the delivery of unsafe or 
low-quality food. Additionally, 
Barrett and Maxwell (2005) 
warn that procuring food 
where local markets cannot 
respond adequately could 
drive up prices and volatility. 
They conclude, however, 
that the evidence is in favor 
of including LRP activities 
within the international 
food aid portfolio. Given the 
findings of previous research, 
local markets must be deemed 
adequately suited to the task 
of providing high-quality and 
sufficient quantities of food 
for an LRP program to thrive.
Case Studies of Burkina Faso, Kenya, 
and Rwanda
To understand the structure, role, and outcomes of 
USDA-funded LRP projects, this study focuses on three 
African countries: Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda. 
Figure 2.1 MGD awards by year for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
 Kenya
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Burkina Faso
0 10 20 30
$ Million
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rwanda
0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30
$ Million $ Million
Source: Authors based on information from MGD Annual Report to Congress Key Findings 
from Country LRP Evaluation Reports
89
Rwanda had one of the first LRP awards in FY 2016, 
receiving $2 million in funding. Kenya received a $1 
million award the following year, and Burkina Faso 
received a $4.8 million award in FY 2019, the last 
year of individual LRP awards prior to LRP’s complete 
integration into subsequent MGD program projects.
All three countries were prior recipients of MGD awards. 
Figure 2.1 reports the award amounts of each country by 
year, according to the MGD Annual Reports to Congress. 
Kenya received seven MGD awards between FY 2004 
and FY 2016, totaling $101.7 million. Burkina Faso 
received their $1 million LRP award one year after the last 
award in FY 2017. Rwanda received three MGD awards 
between FY 2010 and FY 2020, totaling $59.1 million, 
receiving their $2 million LRP award in-between MGD 
grant cycles in FY 2016. Note that their FY 2020 award 
contained the required 10% LRP component. Burkina 
Faso received three MGD awards between FY 2011 and 
FY 2021, totaling $70.6 million, receiving their $4.8 
million LRP award in FY 2019. Note that their FY 2021 
award contained the required 10 % LRP component.
Burkina Faso
In 2010, CRS began a one-year USDA-funded LRP pilot￾project called Local Education Assistance and Procurement 
(LEAP). In 2019, Burkina Faso implemented their second 
LRP project, Faso Riibo (FR). A report published by the 
USDA in October 2020 provides information regarding 
the FR program and results from a baseline evaluation 
of the project (USDA, 2020). The FR project was 
implemented by CRS with the goal of serving 191 schools 
in nine communes located in the North Central region of 
Burkina Faso from October 2019 to September 2023. The 
project was intended to reach 47,670 students and 1,433 
additional beneficiaries including teachers, producers, 
buyers, and transporters. The FR project focuses on 
the delivery and distribution of four commodities: rice, 
millet, cowpea, and cotton oil. The primary goals of the 
FR project include 1). Increasing the capacity of mayor’s 
offices, school communities, and producer groups to 
procure, market, deliver, and store local and culturally 
acceptable foods that can be used to supplement school 
feeding programs in an efficient and timely manner 
through training, provision of guidance materials, and 
the monitoring of food quality and management efforts; 
2). Strengthening market linkages through work with 
actors along the four selected commodity value chains; 
3). Improving Small Holder Farmer’s (SHF) access to 
school feeding purchasing markets by providing training 
in storage, delivery, and food quality/safety standards. The 
logic of the FR project was based on a theory of change 
that argued if the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of 
food provision and the use of culturally appropriate and 
nutritious foods improve, then the local and regional food 
supply will prove to be an effective and efficient method 
for providing school meals (BF.LRP.Baseline.2019-2023).
Data collection for the FR baseline report was conducted 
in June of 2020. The data collected included a survey 
of 259 students in 18 sample schools; a survey of 186 
producers; semi-structured interviews of mayors, canteen 
managers, buyers, transporters, teachers, cooks, and 
basic education district managers; and focus groups with 
producer groups, processor groups, and members of school 
management committees (BF.LRP.Baseline.2019-2023).
The purchase and ordering of food for the FR project 
is administered by Municipal Councils (MCs). These 
MCs select the food and proportions of each food type 
to purchase. After selection, a national call is made 
to identify tenders or local producer groups who will 
fill the MC’s order. This process terminates once the 
order is received. Upon initial receipt of food orders, 
the quality of the commodities must first be approved 
prior to sending the food to school canteens. One of the 
challenges identified for the efficient implementation of 
the FR project is significant delays in the receipt of food 
orders by canteens. Only 22% of communes were able 
to obtain food orders within the time limits specified by 
their MC procurement plans. On average, communes 
experienced a 90-day delay in the procurement of food 
orders. This delay was determined to be the result of 
three main factors: The lack of dedicated commune 
staff to administer orders, complexities of the local and 
regional procurement process, and the current quality 
control process used to vet commodities and approve 
them for consumption. A particularly important barrier 
to the timely delivery of LRP commodities in the FR 
project is Burkina Faso’s current quality control system. 
Specifically, the timely delivery of quality control tests 
conducted by contracted laboratories caused significant 
delays in the delivery of food orders to canteens. While 
food deliveries are undergoing the quality control testing 
process, commodities are stored without sufficient 
maintenance or treatment, leading to reductions in the 
quality of delivered commodities and commodity losses 
due to a share of the purchased foods being deemed unfit 
for consumption after experiencing improper storage 
conditions. The delays identified during the testing 
90
processes were sufficient to cause losses in the quantity 
and quality of the commodities received by canteens, 
representing a major limiting factor to the effectiveness 
of the FR project. If the number of testing firms and the 
timeliness of their quality control process was improved, 
the LRP project in Burkina Faso may operate more 
efficiently and effectively than their baseline levels indicate. 
Another issue identified in the baseline report is with 
the current LRP supply chain, particularly with regard 
to transportation and delivery in remote locations. Some 
transporters were found to lack sufficient knowledge 
of the challenges in delivering commodities to remote 
locations, and in most cases, their transportation vehicles 
and methods were found to be insufficient for delivery to 
such communities. Therefore, the baseline data identifies 
the need for improvements to local transportation and 
transporter knowledge for the FR project to prove effective. 
In the survey of individual producers conducted for the 
FR baseline report, 24% of local producers were found 
to be women, while the remaining 76% were men. All 
women in the sample were small producers, and 81% of 
producers had no formal education. In the 2018/2019 crop 
year, the average production per producer was 307 kg of 
millet, 26 kg of rice, and 146 kg of cowpea. The aggregate 
quantity of commodities sold by farmers receiving USDA 
assistance in the region was 183 tons. The baseline report 
found that local producers, cooperatives, and processors 
have the capacity to satisfy the annual commodity 
demand of the FR project over the 2021-2023 period. 
Therefore, the current agricultural system in the region 
is capable of meeting the gross quantity needs of Burkina 
Faso’s LRP project. At the time of the baseline report, 
however, only 22% of producer organizations complied 
with contracted delivery dates, commodity quantity 
stipulations, and commodity quality standards. The prices 
offered for commodities through the FR project were also 
seen as low according to producers, and some disruption 
to local agricultural markets from aid programs and 
subsidized grain purchases were identified in the baseline 
report. While all producers in the baseline were interested 
in participating in the FR project, they stated the need 
for improvements to technical capacity, equipment, and 
factors of production, conservation, and processing. 
Additionally, most wholesalers in the baseline communes 
purchased their commodities from local collectors rather 
than cooperatives. This is due to the relatively high 
prices of cooperative commodities compared to general 
market prices. Producer cooperatives and processors 
suggested the following changes to help ensure their 
ability to satisfy project needs: 1) Improved transparency 
and communication throughout the process; 2) Timely 
information provided to cooperatives regarding the needs 
of contract implementers; 3) Down payment offers on 
each order with the remainder of funds being distributed 
at the time of receipt, and 4) Commodity prices higher 
than the current market price. Taken together, these 
baseline results suggest that while the region’s agricultural 
sector was adequate to provide the desired quantities of 
commodities for the FR project, changes to agricultural 
production and commodity prices could prove beneficial 
in strengthening the program’s effectiveness. These 
changes are especially important to supporting SHFs and 
farmers participating in local cooperatives. With these 
changes, the share of commodity contracts that adequately 
meet the contracted delivery criteria may improve. 
In conclusion, the results of the FR baseline report 
identify substantial limitations to the timely delivery of 
LRP commodities to school canteens. These limitations 
largely stem from the slow nature of Burkina Faso’s current 
quality control process and issues with transportation to 
remote communities. Commodities arrive late in most 
cases and these slowdowns lead to a loss of stocks due 
to poor management and storage procedures. Decreasing 
the amount of time spent on quality control and 
transportation has the capacity to significantly improve 
the FR project’s efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally, 
while the local agricultural system produces a suitable 
volume of commodities to satisfy the FR project’s needs, 
improvements to technical capacity, communication, 
storage, and processing equipment are needed to meet 
the program’s quality standards. Improvements to these 
factors can be made through the direct efforts of the FR 
project, producing a stronger local agricultural system 
that has the capacity to sufficiently meet project needs. 
Furthermore, the means for commodity transport exist 
at the commune level, but the knowledge and equipment 
used by transporters should be improved to strengthen 
the program’s effectiveness. Three of the specific 
recommendations identified in the baseline report include: 
1) Creating a framework for CRS, educator, and supplier 
“town halls” to improve communication and the flow of 
information along the purchasing chain; 2) Establishing 
agreements with quality control testing laboratories 
to ensure the timely delivery of testing results, and 3) 
Providing measures to improve hygiene standards in schools 
and improving the equipment and facilities of canteens.
91
One of the key assumptions for the success of the FR 
project is that the security situation in Burkina Faso does 
not deteriorate from its baseline state. In January 2022, 
the nation experienced a military lead coup, which ousted 
the country’s democratically elected president. At the 
time of this report, it is unclear how this change to the 
nation’s security situation will impact the FR project’s 
capacity, capabilities, and efficiency. It is vital that the 
evolving security situation and its effects on LRP be 
monitored in future research to ensure that the program 
can satisfy its key objectives. Many of these impacts can 
be measured when the end line report for the FR project 
is published towards the end of the project period.
Kenya
The most recent USDA funded LRP project in Kenya 
was conducted by the WFP from 2017 to 2020. The 
LRP project was implemented in three arid counties 
in Kenya’s Northwestern region: Baringo, Turkana, 
and West Pokot. A baseline report for the project was 
released by the WFP in 2018, and an end line report was 
released in 2020 (KY.LRP.Baseline.2017-2020, KY. LRP.
End line.2017-2020). The LRP project included several 
key objectives including: 1) Improving the effectiveness 
of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and 
improving timeliness; 2) Increasing the capacity of 
suppliers and school meal procurement committees to 
effectively and efficiently procure local commodities for 
school meals which promotes sustainability of school 
feeding; 3) Strengthening local and regional food market 
systems, which improves access to culturally acceptable 
commodities and connecting them to Government of 
Kenya’s HGSMP; 4) Improving the nutrition of students 
by increasing access to and the use of various high quality, 
nutritious, and culturally appropriate foods in school meals. 
To meet the LRP project’s goals, the project implementers 
engaged in five major activities: 1) Assessment of local 
food systems; 2) Capacity building for national and county 
institutions; 3) Capacity strengthening for local traders 
and Farmer Organizations (FOs); 4) Develop school 
meal menus using local and nutritious commodities; 
5) Procure locally produced, drought-tolerant crops. 
For context, the Kenyan government started its 
HGSMP in 2009 (see “Partnerships section: Case 
Study #1: Institutional framework”). The HGSMP 
largely provides cash transfers to schools, allowing them 
to purchase commodities on local markets to offset 
food deficits. Schools in the arid Northern region of 
the country were added to the HGSMP last, with the 
three LRP counties being added to the project by 2018. 
These counties were added later in the HGSMP’s life 
due to concerns regarding local agricultural markets’ 
abilities to satisfy food requirements at an efficient price. 
Prior to their addition to the HGSMP, schools in the 
arid North were supported with in-kind commodity 
transfers. The LRP project was designed to transition 
LRP schools to the Kenyan government’s HGSMP, 
improving access to school meals and strengthening 
local agricultural markets by facilitating production and 
creating new agricultural jobs. With the cash transfers 
provided by the HGSMP, schools can purchase their 
own commodities on local markets with the goal of 
decreasing delivery times, reducing costs, and increasing 
the diversity of purchased commodities. This approach is 
notably different from the LRP projects in Burkina Faso 
discussed above and Rwanda discussed below, allowing 
this study to identify the impacts of a relatively unique 
set of project goals. Additionally, given the transitional 
nature of the LRP project, identifying the sustainability 
of the project’s impacts is of particular importance. 
To evaluate the LRP project’s impacts, the WFP 
collected mixed methods data which includes both 
quantitative and qualitative data from various 
stakeholder groups. The evaluation report also utilized 
the WFP’s own monitoring data used to construct 
the PMP. Data collected for the evaluation included 
three quantitative surveys from FOs, local traders, and 
schools. Qualitative field interviews and focus groups 
were also conducted to collect data for the evaluation.
The end line report identifies three primary beneficiaries 
of the LRP project: traders, FOs, and schools. At end 
line, 79 FOs were registered with the LRP project. 
These FOs included 39,682 farmer members. With 
regards to local traders, the report identified 28 traders 
participating in the LRP in Baringo and West Pokot. 
This number was down from 54 total traders included 
in the baseline data collection. Finally, 191 schools 
were included in the report’s end line data collection, 
including 96 LRP schools and 95 non-LRP schools. 
LRP project stakeholders reported that the program’s 
activities were highly relevant. Relevant activities included 
VCAs which were used to identify the minimum cost 
needed to supply school meals in each county, nutrition￾related activities that facilitated diversity in school meals, 
and the training of FOs and traders on the HGSMP 
92
procurement process. Alternatively, FDCs in Turkana 
which were used to facilitate direct commodity purchases 
were found to be less relevant as they ran contrary to the 
LRP project’s goals of allowing schools to conduct their 
own procurement with cash transfers. LRP project activities 
were also considered well linked by stakeholders, implying 
that the program’s activities worked synergistically to 
achieve its goals. The LRP project’s activities also aligned 
well with the Kenyan government’s goals of increasing 
schools’ local commodity procurement capacity and the 
ability of local agricultural systems to produce adequate 
quantities of commodities to support the program. 
WFP conducted multiple market assessments outlined in 
their end line report to establish the ability of local markets 
to satisfy HGSMP demand. These assessments found that 
local agricultural markets in the three LRP project counties 
were capable of producing enough aggregate quantities 
of commodities to satisfy the HGSMP. While the land 
was suitable for the program’s four drought-tolerant 
crops— sorghum, cowpeas, green grams, and millet— 
the consumption of these commodities was relatively low 
in the region. This low rate of consumption was found to 
be driven by low levels of current production and high 
market prices relative to maize and beans. To improve the 
local agricultural system, WFP was allowed to support 
the school meal program by purchasing 80 mt of cowpeas 
and 288 mt of sorghum from producers in Turkana. 
This effort was intended to stimulate local agricultural 
production and create connections between FOs and the 
HGSMP. Due to the high prices of both commodities 
in the county, farmers and FOs were contracted through 
FDCs. The WFP selected five FOs for their FDCs. FOs 
were chosen based on their production capacity, ability 
to meet the WFP’s price, and their ability to meet the 
WFP’s procurement requirements. Due to a concurrent 
drought, the WFP provided 1,275 farmers with maturing 
cowpea seeds to offset low sorghum production. This 
approach allowed FOs to largely satisfy the requirements 
of their FDCs in 2018 and additional contracts were 
created for the 2019 season. With WFP assistance, 
FOs delivered 95.5% of their contracted commodity 
volume. While the FDC approach ran counter to the 
HGSMP’s goals of allowing schools to purchase their own 
commodities with cash transfers, the effort did highlight 
the ability of local agricultural systems to satisfy LRP 
project requirements when offered adequate support. 
The FDCs provided by WFP also provided FOs with a 
guaranteed market for their commodities, strengthening 
the production of drought-resistant crops in the region.
Another goal of the LRP project was to increase 
school meal purchases from SHFs. To this end, the 
WFP worked with the Kenyan government to draft a 
proposal that 30% of all HGSMP commodities come 
from the country’s SHFs. This effort ultimately proved 
unsuccessful, but the WFP was able to estimate the 
potential benefits of purchasing more food from SHFs 
in a 2019 assessment. The assessment found that there 
was a viable market for SHFs in the country. Additionally, 
increasing the share of HGSMP commodities from SHFs 
was estimated to increase local economic wellbeing, 
increasing the program’s overall benefits. Stimulating 
production of local SHFs would also significantly 
strengthen the HGSMP’s local economic benefits. While 
the WFP’s efforts to increase SHFs’ share of HGSMP 
commodities were largely ineffective, the impact of LRP 
on SHFs in Rwanda discussed below further highlights 
the potential benefits of improving SHFs’ capabilities.
The LRP project was also intended to strengthen the 
capacities of local traders and FOs. To accomplish this 
goal, local traders and FOs were identified for HGSMP 
training which sought to increase awareness of the 
HGSMP procurement process and requirements and 
enable local traders and FOs to effectively and efficiently 
participate in the program. Specific training domains 
included training in post-harvest handling and storage, 
collective marketing, food safety and quality, and 
HGSMP bidding and contracting procedures. The end 
line report identified 3,099 FO members and traders who 
benefitted from trainings offered by the LRP project. This 
increase led to a significant improvement in the number 
of members FOs stated to having received training from 
roughly 36% at baseline to approximately 74% at end line. 
FOs also indicated that trained members would pass their 
knowledge along to untrained members, representing 
an educational spillover effect. FO members stated that 
these trainings were useful, but some material was seen 
as too difficult for trainees with low levels of education. 
The WFP also organized four market linkage forums 
that brought FO members, traders, teachers, and county 
education officers together in a formalized space. Forum 
participants stated that these methods were effective, 
increasing the share of foods purchased from local FOs. 
FOs in Turkana were also offered direct funding from 
the WFP to start flour milling operations which could 
process maize and sorghum. Additionally, certain FOs 
were given agricultural equipment meant to improve 
commodity quality, business training, and poultry. 
93
To measure the impact of LRP project investments in 
local agricultural markets, the end line report included 
several outcome analyses. Unfortunately, the number of 
FOs actively producing major HGSMP crops decreased 
from baseline to end line save for bean production. 
From qualitative interviews, the report indicates that 
this decrease is most likely the result of drought during 
the period, but FOs also cited a lack of demand after 
discovering that the HGSMP would no longer be directly 
purchasing commodities in their counties. While quantity 
decreased at end line, measures of quality had improved. 
The report identifies significant improvements in quality 
monitoring by FOs, including commodity sorting and 
cleaning. These changes were determined to largely 
be the result of trainings offered by the LRP project. 
Additionally, while the share of crops sold remained the 
same for FOs in Baringo and Turkana, West Pokot saw an 
increase in the percentage of production sold at end line 
relative to baseline. The end line report also identified a 
notable increase in the percentage of FOs aggregating and 
marketing member produced commodities. This change 
suggests that the business practices of FOs improved as 
a result of the LRP project’s efforts. According to FO 
representatives, the primary barriers to successfully selling 
FO member commodities were poor transportation 
infrastructure, volatile prices, and low demand from 
consumers. Even with these barriers, however, the LRP 
project produced a significant increase in the share of FOs 
who reported selling member commodities. Contrary to 
the program’s stated goals, fewer traders reported selling 
their commodities to schools at end line relative to 
baseline in Baringo. In West Pokot, however, the same 
share increased significantly from 32% at baseline to 72% 
at end line. Additionally, traders in Baringo reported an 
increase in the diversity of sold commodities, but the 
diversity of goods sold by traders in West Pokot remained 
unchanged from baseline. As a part of data collection for 
the end line report, traders were asked to identify major 
barriers to purchasing commodities from local farmers. 
Traders stated that transportation costs and low prices 
represented major barriers as well as the low volume of 
commodities produced by the local agricultural sector.
An additional goal of the LRP project was to improve the 
cost-effectiveness and efficiency of school meal provisions 
by allowing schools to directly purchase commodities 
from local sources. The CCD was determined at both 
baseline and end line, identifying the cost of providing 
food to schools in the three LRP counties. Due to 
programmatic and climatic issues, however, few LRP 
schools received their pre-determined cash transfers 
or commodities in the end line period. Therefore, the 
report was unable to identify the LRP project’s impact 
on CCD. Furthermore, these same issues prevented 
the execution of a sufficient end line evaluation of the 
timeliness of commodity procurement. Qualitative data 
from the end line report, does suggest that the Ministry 
of Education’s procurement process was challenging. Like 
Burkina Faso, Kenyan schools experienced significant 
delays in the delivery of commodities to schools. Delays 
were most prevalent after food had been delivered to 
counties due to transportation difficulties. County 
food storage facilities were also found to be inadequate, 
harming food quality and safety. Future work is needed 
to understand how Kenya’s HGSMP costs compare to 
the traditional per-student costs spent to provide school 
meals through non-local sources. Additionally, for the 18 
schools in West Pokot that received cash transfers through 
the LRP project, timeliness of food delivery decreased 
at end line relative to baseline, a change which the 
report identifies as being due to delays in cash transfers. 
Taken together, the results of the Kenyan LRP project’s 
end line report suggest that the project had some positive 
impacts on local agricultural sectors in the three counties. 
The project was unable to meet its goals of improving 
timeliness, cost-effectiveness, or improved nutrition of 
school meals as measured by the end line report’s outcomes 
of interest. The LRP project facilitated communication 
and partnerships between FOs and local traders, and both 
groups received a considerable amount of training as a result 
of the program. The transition to cash transfers under the 
HGSMP did produce some unintended negative effects, 
however, after FOs and traders realized that the Kenyan 
government would no longer be purchasing commodities 
directly. FOs planning to sell their commodities to 
HGSMP schools experienced a larger share of unsold stock 
when schools were unable to complete their purchases. 
With regards to the LRP project’s sustainable impacts, 
while the transition from in-kind to cash transfers reduced 
the effectiveness of LRP, it did not decrease the HGSMP’s 
ability to effectively provide school meals as stated by the 
end line report. Independent of the HGSMP’s modality, 
however, the improved relationships between FOs and 
traders will hopefully prove sustainable in the long run. 
The least sustainable aspect of the LRP project identified 
in the end line report is the use of drought-resistant crops. 
These commodities are less cost effective than traditional 
94
products, so schools will likely transition from drought￾resistant commodities to maize and beans once they are 
able to purchase food directly with cash transfers. Given 
the arid nature of the LRP counties, this change may leave 
the HGSMP susceptible to climatic shocks in the future. 
Future research is needed to monitor the ability of local 
purchases to sustain school meal programs in the region.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s LRP project was awarded in 2016 and 
implemented from 2017 to 2019. A baseline and end 
line report for Rwanda’s LRP project was conducted 
by the WFP in 2017 and 2019, respectively (RW.LRP.
Baseline.2017-2019, RW.LRP.End line.2017-2019). The 
LRP project’s primary goal in Rwanda was to improve 
food assistance effectiveness by procuring commodities 
for school meals from SHFs participating in local 
cooperatives. Of the $2 million awarded to the program, 
$1.36 million was used to purchase commodities from 
SHFs, representing the majority of all project spending. 
Rwanda’s LRP project was implemented by WFP and 
covered four districts (Nyamagabe, Nyamaguru, Huye, 
and Gisagara). Expected outcomes of the LRP project 
included: 1) Improving access to loans and agricultural 
markets; 2) Improving meal quality; 3) Enhancing 
cooperative capacities reflected by increased sales; 4) 
Reducing commodity losses. Data collected for the 
baseline report provided project relevant measures from 
the period before the LRP project’s introduction that 
were compared to end line measures collected at the end 
of the project life. These data can be used to evaluate 
the program’s impact on key outcomes of interest. 
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected for the 
baseline and end line, including secondary data review, 
survey, key informant interviews, and observation. 
The LRP project in Rwanda had several planned 
activities, including: 1) The purchase of beans and 
maize from SHFs in Rwanda and other regional markets 
(e.g., Tanzania and Uganda); 2) The training of SHFs 
in procurement of raw materials, processing, business 
management, and marketing; 3) The facilitation of trade 
and market relationships between milling cooperatives, 
factories, and 16 cooperatives producing unprocessed 
commodities; 4) The training of SHF cooperatives 
on post-harvest handling and storage, warehouse 
management, organizational governance, agricultural 
markets, business planning, microfinance, and production 
techniques; 5) Coaching cooperatives on business plan 
implementation; 6) Supplying market access for SHFs 
through facilitation of forward delivery contracts between 
private sector purchasers and farmer organizations; 7) 
Promotion of pro-SHFs procurement and widening of 
markets for SHFs by purchasing maize meal and beans 
through local and regional buyers; 8) Collaboration with 
superintendent agencies for food inspection and quality 
testing; 9) Advocating for SHF integration through 
agricultural working groups; and 10) Drafting a strategy 
for sustainable market access for SHFs and increasing 
procurement by national traders and institutional suppliers. 
There were 16 SHF cooperatives in the four regions 
covered by the LRP project. At end line, an estimated 
5,617 farmers directly benefited from participation in 
the LRP project, which accounts for roughly 10% of 
all farmers in the project regions. These SHFs and their 
cooperatives received benefits from capacity building 
efforts and direct support which included costs related 
to the management of the LRP project. Given the 
LRP project’s significant reach with regards to SHFs, 
it provides a notable case study in the impact of LRP 
on local, regional, and national agricultural systems. 
Data collected for the LRP project baseline and end line 
reports in Rwanda suggests that the program’s focus on 
agriculture and the promotion of staple commodities 
were relevant for the region. Specifically, at the district￾level, the LRP project’s focus on land use consolidation, 
increased use of agricultural inputs, private sector 
involvement, farmer capacity strengthening, improved 
post-harvest facilities, and increased productivity and 
production aligned with areas of importance to district 
administrators. Furthermore, the LRP project was 
found to have a significant impact on the success of 
SHF cooperatives in the country. The capacity of SHF 
cooperatives to sustain themselves increased across 
the board because of the program. The end line survey 
showed that 100% of SHF cooperative members paid 
dues to their cooperative relative to approximately 64% 
at baseline. There was a significant degree of variance in 
cooperatives’ capacities to continue operating, however, 
with certain cooperatives remaining in a fragile state 
even after the LRP project’s completion. The governance 
structure of SHF cooperatives was generally strong, with 
increases in interest and participation of cooperative 
members after the program’s completion. Cooperative 
organizations were found to have a clearer business 
structure at end line relative to baseline, suggesting that 
the LRP project’s efforts helped to improve the business 
95
practices of SHF cooperatives in the four regions. 
Production and sales of SHF cooperatives increased over 
the LRP project period. At end line, more than 58% 
of the cooperatives studied considered themselves to be 
more active than before the LRP project began. While 
improved, cooperatives’ abilities to organize and manage 
their activities remained low in some cases, specifically 
with regard to accounting and business planning practices. 
Furthermore, while cooperatives’ access to capital 
increased over the LRP project period, their relatively 
low level of access and aversion to credit represented a 
major limitation to their continued success. One of the 
primary achievements of the LRP project in Rwanda 
related to SHF cooperatives is the improved connection 
of cooperatives and FTMA buyers. This strengthened 
connection had a notable impact on the production, post￾harvest agricultural practices, and sales of cooperatives. 
However, cooperatives were found to rely on the LRP 
project to maintain their connection with FTMA buyers. 
This reliance brings the sustainability of the LRP project’s 
impact on local agricultural producer-to-buyer connections 
into question, highlighting the need for further study 
of the LRP project’s long-term impacts in this capacity.
The LRP project was also found to have significant 
impacts on SHF training and knowledge. In cooperation 
with the LRP project, SHF training was provided by 
RWARRI field officers. These trainings included GAP 
and PHHS. The primary goal of GAP training was to 
improve SHFs’ skills in maize production including how 
to select the right crop variety for their land, planting 
timing, proper agricultural input usage, and crop spacing. 
PHHS training focused on the proper use of post-harvest 
equipment to improve commodity quality and safety. 
During the LRP project period, 4,230 SHFs received GAP 
training from RWARRI officers and 5,310 were trained in 
PHHS practices. These numbers correspond to 89.9% of 
SHF cooperative members being trained in GAP and 96% 
receiving PHHS training. Additionally, the end line report 
identified a roughly 17% increase in the number of SHFs 
with an excellent score on PHHS skills. With regards to 
the training of SHFs in best agricultural production and 
processing methods, the LRP project proved extremely 
effective. The primary practices adopted by SHFs at the 
end line of the LRP project included planting crops in 
rows, increased use of organic and chemical fertilizer 
combinations, improved cob sorting, and increased 
avoidance of grain contamination. Alternatively, some 
practices including fertilizer dosage, protective equipment 
usage, and hermetically sealed storage containers were 
adopted less frequently due to input costs. More farmers 
planted maize as a result of the project and input 
investments were seen as a higher priority than before the 
project began. With regards to SHFs’ access to market 
information and credit, the end line report indicates 
that farmers had a better awareness of the Rwandan 
government’s floor price and quality specifications of 
primary buyer groups, but few farmers understood the 
minimum commodity price needed to generate a profit 
on their harvest. Cooperatives and SHFs were found 
to be reliant on the LRP project to provide market 
information. Furthermore, SHFs’ utilization of credit 
at end line remained unchanged relative to the baseline.
Another goal of the LRP project in Rwanda was to 
create new market opportunities for SHFs. Rwanda is a 
net importer of maize, and all domestic maize production 
comes from SHFs. Additionally, the buyer sector for maize 
is largely dominated by a small number of relatively large 
local buyers and agro-processors. All these buyer groups are 
part of the FTMA group that the LRP project supported 
access to among SHF cooperatives. At baseline, the report 
found that while buyer groups purchased commodities 
from SHF cooperatives, they were seen as unreliable trade 
partners who were only capable of delivering relatively 
small quantities of lower quality product. At end line, 
however, the three buyer groups included in the report’s 
data stated that the LRP project had a positive impact on 
SHF cooperatives with buyers purchasing a larger share 
of their commodities from cooperatives. Furthermore, 
at end line buyers stated that: 1) Cooperative mentality 
had changed and cooperatives performed in a much 
more business-oriented manner; 2) There was a greater 
degree of trust and fewer instances of conflict between 
SHF cooperatives and buyer groups; 3) Cooperatives 
were able to deliver a greater aggregate quantity of 
commodities; 4) The quality of commodities delivered 
by SHF cooperatives increased and fewer orders had to 
be rejected based on quality. Several SHF cooperatives 
also signed contracts with agricultural buyer groups as 
a result of the LRP project. On average, cooperatives 
delivered between 117% and 89.9% of their contracted 
commodity amounts. While promising, these contracts 
between SHF cooperatives and buyer groups were seen 
as fragile by buyers and the number of contracts varied 
significantly across years. From the SHF cooperatives’ 
perspective, the contracts with buyer groups were deemed 
satisfactory at end line. Buyer groups participating in the 
LRP project were able to adapt and facilitate contracts to 
96
meet the constraints of individual SHF cooperatives. The 
SHF cooperatives’ choice of buyer to contract with was 
largely driven by the quantity of maize they were willing 
to purchase, payment delays, transportation organization, 
on-site quality evaluations, and offered commodity price. 
SHFs were also found to be extremely cash constrained 
in the short term, so contracts with significant payment 
delays were unacceptable. SHF cooperatives participating 
in the LRP project reported improved business operation 
and quality management skills, allowing them to 
more readily satisfy their contractual obligations with 
buyers. The LRP project highlights the importance of 
facilitating communication between SHF cooperatives 
and buyer groups. While these contracts remained 
fragile at end line, the improved status of cooperatives 
from a business standpoint combined with the increased 
number of successful contracts between cooperatives 
and buyer groups highlights the LRP project’s capacity 
to improve market access for participating producers. 
With regards to the LRP project’s effect on SHFs’ ability 
to produce high quality and culturally appropriate foods, 
the end line report found that SHF cooperatives reported 
an increase in food security of their farmers through 
improved production. Both male and female headed SHFs 
withheld a smaller quantity of maize for own consumption 
at project end line relative to baseline, indicating that SHFs 
were able to sell a greater share of their commodities. This 
change led to an increase in SHF income, which was used 
to purchase household necessities. All cooperatives in the 
end line study also reported that maize quality increased 
as a result of the LRP project and farmers placed a greater 
emphasis on commodity quality at end line compared to 
baseline. The increased focus on commodity quality was 
reflected in the decreased order rejection rates of buyers 
at end line. Additionally, farmers reported consuming 
more maize at end line, which they deemed as a culturally 
appropriate crop. Taken together, these results suggest that 
the increased maize production that occurred as a result 
of the LRP project benefited the food security of SHFs in 
addition to the commodity’s usefulness in school meals.
Another goal of the LRP project was to increase SHF 
incomes. Given the short nature of the program, 
the report was not able to find a significant change in 
farmer income at end line. However, the end line data 
show that SHFs purchased lower quantities of maize 
and beans at end line, suggesting that SHFs required 
fewer expenditures to meet their own consumption 
needs. If the increased commodity production that 
occurred due to the LRP project was sufficient to satisfy 
a greater share of SHFs’ consumption needs, this finding 
may suggest that farmers were able to spend more of 
their income on other necessities. Additionally, selling 
commodities to FTMA buyers was found to be more 
profitable than selling to middlemen, which was the 
norm for SHFs prior to the LRP project’s introduction. 
The degree of price volatility remained relatively high, 
however, which hurt profitability. It will be important 
for future research to evaluate the programs’ long-run 
impact on SHF incomes as LRP develops in the region. 
Taken together, the results of the end line report 
suggest that the LRP project had a positive impact on 
Rwanda’s agricultural sector. The LRP project’s activities 
were well aligned with the Rwandan government’s 
goals, making the project a suitable fit for identified 
areas of improvement. Like Burkina Faso and Kenya, 
SHF cooperatives experienced an improvement in their 
organizational and business practices, and the quantity 
and quality of commodities produced by SHFs increased 
as a result of the program. Additionally, SHFs gained 
improved access to buyer groups participating in the 
LRP project, highlighting LRP’s capacity to facilitate new 
market connections. Buyer groups saw SHF cooperatives 
as a stronger business partner and cooperatives reported 
positive relationships with contracted buyers. However, 
these relationships were found to remain fragile in 
many cases, with heavy reliance on the LRP project to 
support trade. The fragility of these new relationships is a 
common trend in the LRP projects of our three countries. 
Additionally, more cooperatives and SHFs received training 
in GAP and PHHS, which may explain the increase in 
productivity identified at end line. There was also some 
evidence to suggest that SHFs were able to sell greater 
shares of their crops, potentially freeing up income for 
other vital uses. While beneficial, the LRP project’s long￾run effects are unclear. Future evaluation of the program’s 
impacts on Rwanda’s agricultural sector are needed to 
identify the sustainability of LRP’s beneficial effects.
97
Table 2.3 LRP Standard Indicators, Type, and Baseline Values
NO. 
Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive
safety nets as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of transport, storage, and handling of commodity procured as a result
of USDA assistance (by commodity)
Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity)
and source country)
Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by 
commodity and source country)
Value of anual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Value of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result
of USDA assistance
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in
specified stages of development as a result of USDA assistance
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance
Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
Number of trained in disaster preparedness as a result of USDA assistance
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector
investments leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition
Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance
0
0
0
0
0
0
sales value in year prior
to programming 
volume sold and reported as
sales in Indicator 7
0
0
0
0
number of participant
producers and other actors
applying improved manage￾ment practices or technologies
promoted by activity at start
of activity
0
0
0
0
INDICATOR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TYPE BASELINE
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Outcome
Outcome
Output
Output (Stages
1,2), Outcome
(Stages 3, 4, 5)
Output
Outcome
Output
Output
Output
Output
LRP Indicators
Performance monitoring is a key part of the USDA￾FAS’s implementation of results-oriented management. 
All MGD grant agreements must include a Performance 
Monitoring Plan (PMP) that identifies indicators for 
monitoring progress in achieving stated results and 
presents a strategy for collecting performance data. The 
PMP should include applicable standard indicators and 
custom (project-specific) indicators. Standard indicators 
are a common set of mandatory indicators identified by 
FAS that must be used by all MGD grant recipients, if 
applicable to the project. Applicants must use all applicable 
standard indicators in their PMPs. Custom indicators 
are additional project-specific performance indicators. 
In some cases, applicants may need to develop custom 
indicators when the FAS standard indicators alone do not 
adequately measure all of a project’s planned activities 
or intended results. Once applicants have identified 
the set of relevant standard and custom indicators, they 
establish numbers for their indicator baselines and targets.
The LRP project has 16 standard indicators, which 
are listed in Table 2.3. Thirteen of the 16 indicators are 
98
Table 2.4 Custom Indicators Used by Burkina Faso and Rwanda (Kenya Used Only Standard Indicators.)
NO. 
Number of local government sta and COGES trained in commodities managment: procurement, delivery
storage, and distribution
Cost of commodity delivery as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country)
Cost of commodity distribution as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country)
Percent of schools that receive timely food assistance according to criteria (date delivery, quantity and quality) 
Percent of commune and COGES implement their procurement plans as planned
Percent of producer organizations that comply with contracted delivery criteria (dates, quantity and quality)
Percent of commune with timely food distribution at school level
Percent of schools with culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards
Percent of children that report eating culturally acceptable foods at school
Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance
Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools
Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of Government
of USDA assistance
Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of Government
of Burkina Faso assistance
Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of community 
assistance
Number of farmer groups receiving dehulling machines
Percent
Percent of producer groups that sold millet, cowpea, or rice to a new buyer as a result of USDA assistance
Percentage of product sales transacted by new contracts
0
0
0
10
10
20
20
0
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
not reported
not reported
not reported
not reported
CUSTOM INDICATOR - BURKINA FASO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
BASELINE
NO. CUSTOM INDICATOR - RWANDA BASELINE
1
2
3
4
Percentage of default rate of WFP pro-smallholder farmer procurement contracts, disaggregated by reason and
aggregation system
Number of USDA-supported aggregation systems that have access to credit from formal financial institutions
Percentage of milling facility operators who demonstrate proper application of technologies and practices as a
result of USDA assistance
Percent of farmers that apply improved post-harvest practices as a result of USDA assistance
“output” indicators, that is, indicators that measure or 
quantify the products, goods, or services which directly 
result from implementation of programmatic activities. 
Three indicators are “outcome” activities, which include 
indicators measuring the intermediate effects of a project 
activity or set of activities. Outcome indicators directly 
relate to output indicators. All output indicators have a 
baseline value of zero, implying that they do not measure 
the impact of project activities relative to their pre-existing 
performance level before project activities have begun. 
Rather, these indicators simply measure project outputs 
rather than the program’s added value. In other words, 
there can be no measurable negative impacts associated 
with the set of output indicators since they are not 
measured relative to changes from a pre-project baseline. 
The three outcome indicators, #7, #8, and #12, do include 
non-zero baselines, however, relating to participating 
farms’ prior-year sales volumes and values. They use 
advanced management practices or technologies. Thus, 
these outcome indicators can provide a measure of the 
program’s added value relative to pre-project performance. 
Kenya did not use Indicator #9, Burkina Faso did not 
99
Figure 2.2 Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics
for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4)
20,000
40,000
60,000
LRP Indicator #1
No. individuals participating
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda Oct 19 - March 20 Apr 20 - Sep 20 Oct 20 - Mar 21 Apr 21 - Sep 21 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18- Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19 Apr 19 - Sep 19 Oct 19 - Mar 20 Apr 17 - Sep 17 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
LRP Indicator #2
No. individuals benefiting indirectly
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
200,000
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
20,000
40,000
60,000
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda Oct 19 - March 20 Apr 20 - Sep 20 Oct 20 - Mar 21 Apr 21 - Sep 21 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19 Apr 19 - Sep 19 Oct 19 - Mar 20 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19 Apr 19 - Sep 19 
0
LRP Indicator #3
No. social assistance beneficiaries
participating in productive safety nets
20,000
40,000
60,000
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
LRP Indicator #4
Cost of transport, storage, & handling
80,000
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
use Indicator #10, none of the three countries used 
Indicators #12 and #13, and Kenya and Rwanda did not 
use Indicator #16. Burkina Faso and Rwanda’s projects 
also relied on custom indicators. These are reported in 
Table 2.4. Rwanda had four custom indicators, whereas 
Burkina Faso had 17. Baseline values were not reported 
for any of Rwanda’s indicators (standard or custom).
Figures 2.2-2.5 report the semi-annual LRP Standard 
Indicator Performance metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, 
and Rwanda. Cases of missing data are left blank. These 
figures are provided to show the original data provided on a 
semi-annual basis. Interpretation is reserved for subsequent 
figures that aggregated data into annual measurements.
100
Figure 2.3 Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics
for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8)
100K
LRP Indicator #5
Cost of commodity procured
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda Oct 19 - March 20 Apr 20 - Sep 20 Oct 20 - Mar 21 Apr 21 - Sep 21 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19 Apr 19 - Sep 19 Oct 19 - Mar 20 Apr 17 - Sep 17 Oct 17 - Mar 18 Apr 18 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
0
200
400
600
LRP Indicator #6
Quantity of commodity procured
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
800
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
200K
300K
400K
500K
100K
LRP Indicator #7
Values of annual sales
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
200K
300K
400K
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
1,000
LRP Indicator #8
Volume of commodities sold
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
101
Figure 2.4. Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics
for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11).
2,000
LRP Indicator #9
Total increase in installed storage capacity
Burkina Faso Rwanda Oct 19 - March 20 Apr 20 - Sep 20 Oct 20 - Mar 21 Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
0
4,000
6,000
8,000
 2
.4
.6
LRP Indicator #10
No. policies, regulations, and/or admin procedures
Kenya Rwanda
0
.8
1
Oct 17 - March 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
1,000
LRP Indicator #11
No. individuals receiving short-term training
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
2,000
3,000
4,000
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
5,000
102
Figure 2.5 Semi-annual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, 
Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 14-16)
5
10
LRP Indicator #14
No. Public-private Partnerships
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
15
20
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18- Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Apr 17 - Sep 17
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18 - Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19 
5.0e+06
LRP Indicator #15
Value of New USG Commitments/Investments
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
Oct 17 - Mar 18
Apr 18- Sep 18
Oct 18 - Mar 19
Apr 19 - Sep 19
Oct 19 - Mar 20
Oct 17 - Mar 18 
1.0e+07
1.5e+07
2.0e+07
2.5e+07
LRP Indicator #16
No. Schools Reached
Burkina Faso
0
Oct 19 - March 20
Apr 20 - Sep 20
Oct 20 - Mar 21
Apr 21 - Sep 21
50
150
100
200
103
Figure 2.6 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics
for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4) Target Actual
20,000
40,000
60,000
LRP Indicator #1
No. individuals participating
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
80,000
100,000
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
Target
100,000
LRP Indicator #2
No. individuals benefiting indirectly
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
300,000
Target
Actual
200,000
Actual
Figure 2.6 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4)
20,000
40,000
60,000
LRP Indicator #3
No. social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
80,000
100,000
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
50,000
LRP Indicator #4
Cost of transport, storage, and handling
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
150,000
Target
Actual
100,000
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
300,000
Figures 2.6-2.9 report the aggregated fiscal year 
performance metrics compared to the fiscal year targets. 
The number of individuals participating generally exceeded 
targets; the number of individuals benefiting indirectly 
also generally exceeded targets; the number of social 
assistance beneficiaries was generally at the level of their 
targets in Burkina Faso and Rwanda and exceeded targets 
in Kenya; and the cost of transport, storage, and handling 
was generally below targets for Rwanda, at or near targets 
for Burkina Faso, and mixed for Kenya (Figure 2.6).
104
The actual cost of commodities procured was mixed 
relative to project targets; the quantity of commodities 
procured was generally at or near project targets, 
being slightly above targets for Burkina Faso and 
Kenya, and slightly below targets for Rwanda; the 
values of annual sales were generally greater than the 
targets, with one exception in Rwanda (FY 2018); the 
volume of commodities sold were either at or near 
targets, with the exception of Burkina Faso (FY 2021), 
where actual greatly exceeded target (Figure 2.7).
The total increase in installed storage capacity was 
initially below target in Burkina Faso in FY 2020, but 
then more than made up for it in FY 2021, whereas 
actuals were at or near targets in Rwanda; the number 
of policies, regulations, and administrative procedures is 
mixed; and the number of individuals receiving short￾term training was slightly below target in Burkina Faso, 
but above targets in Kenya and Rwanda (Figure 2.8).
The number of public-private partnerships was below 
target in Burkina Faso and Kenya, but at or near targets 
in Rwanda; the value of new USG commitments/
investments greatly exceeded the target in Burkina Faso, 
but was below targets for Kenya, with Rwanda having zero 
for both targets and actuals; the number of schools reached 
was slightly below target for Burkina Faso (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.7 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8)
1000,000
200,000
300,000
LRP Indicator #5
Cost of commodity procured
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
400,000
500,000
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
200
LRP Indicator #6
Quantity of commodity procured
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
600
Target
Actual
400
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
800
Actual
Figure 2.7 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8)
1000,000
200,000
300,000
LRP Indicator #7
Values of annual sales
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
400,000
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
1,000
LRP Indicator #8
Quantity of commodity procured
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda 20 
0
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 21 
 22 
 23
 18 
 19 
 20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Actual
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
105
Figure 2.7 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11)
2,000
4,000
6,000
LRP Indicator #9
Total increase in installed storage capacity
Burkina Faso Rwanda 20 
0
8,000
 21 
 22 
 23
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
.5
1
1.5
LRP Indicator #10
No. policies, regulations, and/or admin procedures
Kenya Rwanda
18 
0
2
 19 
20
 17 
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Figure 2.8 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11)
2,000
4,000
6,000
LRP Indicator #11
No. individuals receiving short-term training
Burkina Faso Rwanda 20 
0
8,000
 21 
 22 
 23
20 
17 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Actual
10,000
Kenya
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
 18 
 19
Actual
Target
Actual
18 
Figure 2.9 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics
for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 14-16).
50
LRP Indicator #16
No. schools reached
Burkina Faso
0
100
150
Target
Actual
200
20 21 22 23
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Figure 2.8 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11)
2,000
4,000
6,000
LRP Indicator #11
No. individuals receiving short-term training
Burkina Faso Rwanda 20 
0
8,000
 21 
 22 
 23
20 
17 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Actual
10,000
Kenya
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
 18 
 19
Actual
Target
Actual
18 
Figure 2.9 Fiscal Year Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 14-16)
50
100
150
LRP Indicator #14
No. public-private partnerships
Burkina Faso Rwanda 20 
0
200
 21 
 22 
 23
20 
17 
 19
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Actual
Kenya
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
 18 
 19
Target
Actual
18 
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
5.0e+06
LRP Indicator #15
Value of New USG Commitments/Investments
0
1.0e+07
1.5e+07
2.0e+07
2.5e+07
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Target
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Actual
Target
Target
Actual
Target
Burkina Faso Rwanda 20 21 22 2320 17 
 19
Kenya
 18 
 19
18 
106
Summarizing the above data, ignoring cases where 
data are missing or the target metric is zero, we find 
that, across all standard indicators, performance targets 
are slightly more likely to be met or exceeded (N = 34) 
relative to being below target (N = 28) (Table 2.5).
Indicators #7, #8, and #12 are the only LRP Standard 
Indicators with non-zero baselines. Figure 2.10 reports 
baselines against fiscal year actual performance metrics. 
Baseline data were missing for Rwanda. In all cases (N 
= 4), the baseline was eventually exceeded in subsequent 
years, implying an added value of the program.
Table 2.5 Count of Instances that FY Actual Performance Metric is 
Greater Than, Equal To, or Less Than Target Metric.
Indicator
1
2
3
4*
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
4
2
1
4
2
1
0
34
Actual > Target Actual < Target
TOTAL
-
2
3
2
0
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
28
*Indicators are measured as costs, so actual costs below targets are preferred, so we switch vlues 
in the columns to e consistent with other indicators.
107
Figures 2.11-2.14 report project life target and actual 
performance metrics. Target data were missing for Burkina 
Faso. Over the life of the project, the actual number of 
individuals participating exceeded the target in Kenya and 
was just slightly above target for Rwanda; the number of 
individuals benefiting indirectly exceed the target in Kenya 
and was nearly equal to the target in Rwanda; the number 
of social assistance beneficiaries exceeded the target in 
Kenya and just slightly exceeded the target in Rwanda; 
the cost of transportation, storage, and handling was 
below target for both Kenya and Rwanda (Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.10 Baseline and Fiscal Year Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda
(Indicators 7-8)
100K
LRP Indicator #7
Values of annual sales
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
200K
300K
400K
Baseline
20
21
Baseline
18
19
20
17
18
19
1,000
LRP Indicator #8
Volume of commodities sold
Burkina Faso Kenya Rwanda
0
Baseline
20
21
Baseline
18
19
20
17
18
19
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
108
Figure 2.11. Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance 
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 1-4).
50,000
LRP Indicator #1
No. individuals participating
Burkina Faso Rwanda Actual
0
100,000
150,000
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
100K
LRP Indicator #2
No. individuals benefiting indirectly
Burkina Faso Rwanda Actual
0
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
200K
300K
400K
500K
50,000
LRP Indicator #3
No. social assistance beneficiaries
participating in productive safety nets
Burkina Faso Rwanda Actual
0
100,000
150,000
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
100K
LRP Indicator #4
Cost of transport, storage, & handling
Burkina Faso Rwanda Actual
0
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
200K
300K
400K
The actual cost of commodities procured was above 
target for both Kenya and Rwanda; the quantity of 
commodities procured was above target for Kenya 
but below target for Rwanda; the value of sales, one of 
the few indicators with a non-zero baseline, increased 
during the life of the project for Burkina Faso and Kenya 
(baseline data not available for Rwanda), with the actual 
value also exceeding the target in Kenya, but coming 
up just short of the target in Rwanda; the volume of 
commodities sold increased relative to the baseline in 
Burkina Faso and Kenya, with actual volumes exceeding 
the targets in both Kenya and Rwanda (Figure 2.12).
109
Figure 2.12 Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, 
and Rwanda (Indicators 5-8).
200K
LRP Indicator #5
Cost of commodity procured
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
Actual
0
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
200
LRP Indicator #6
Quantity of commodity procured
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
Actual
0
Kenya Target Actual
Target
Actual
100K
LRP Indicator #7
Value of annual sales
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
0
Kenya
400K
600K
400
600
800
1,000
Baseline
Actual
200K
300K
400K
Baseline
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
1,000
LRP Indicator #8
Volume of commodities sold
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
0
Kenya
Baseline
Actual
Baseline
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
The actual total increase in installed storage 
capacity was right at the target level in Rwanda; the 
number of policies, regulations, and administrative 
procedures was below the target for Kenya and right 
at the target for Rwanda; the number of individuals 
receiving short-term training exceeded the target in 
Kenya and met the target in Rwanda (Figure 2.13).
110
Figure 2.13 Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance 
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 9-11).
2,000
LRP Indicator #9
Total increase in installed storage capacity
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
Actual
0
Target
Actual
4,000
6,000
8,000
1
LRP Indicator #10
No. policies, regulations, and/or admin procedures
Kenya Rwanda
0
Target
2
3
Actual
Target
Actual
2,000
LRP Indicator #11
No. individuals receiving short-term training
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
0
Kenya
Actual
Target
Actual Actual
Target
Target
Actual Actual
4,000
6,000
The number of public-private partnerships was 
short of the target in Kenya and met the target in 
Rwanda; the value of new USG commitments/
investments was below target for Kenya (target data 
were missing for Rwanda); no target data were available 
for the number of schools reached (Figure 2.14).
111
Figure 2.14. Project Life Target and Actual LRP Indicator Performance 
Metrics for Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda (Indicators 14-16).
LRP Indicator #14
No. public-private partnerships
LRP Indicator #15
Value of new USG commitments/investments
Kenya Rwanda
Actual
Target
Actual
50
Burkina
Faso
Rwanda
0
Kenya Target
Target
100
150
200
Actual
Actual
Actual
5.0e+06
1.0e+07
1.5e+07
0
2.0e+07
2.5e+07
Burkina
Faso
Actual
LRP Indicator #16
No. schools reached
50
Burkina
Faso
0
100
150
200
Actual
Summarizing the above data, ignoring cases where 
data are missing or the target metric is zero, we find 
that, across all standard indicators, performance targets 
were met or exceeded 17 out of 24 times (Table 2.6).
112
Table 2.6. Count of Instances that Project-Life Actual Performance 
Metric is Greater Than, Equal To, or Less Than Target Metric.
*Indicators are measured as costs, so actual costs below targets are preferred,
so we switch values in the columns to be consistent with other indicators.
Indicator
1
2
3
4*
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
-
17
Actual > Target Actual < Target
TOTAL
-
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
7
113
Discussion
Performance Data
In summary, we find that, across all standard indicators, 
individual-year performance targets are nearly equally likely 
to be met or exceeded relative to be below target (55% of the 
time they are met or exceed), but that over the full project 
lifetime, performance targets are met or exceeded 71% of 
the time. This implies that projects that may have some 
delays from year to year appear to be able to compensate 
in other years to meet project targets successfully.
Data Issues
Evaluation Data
• Evaluation surveys contain an abundance of data, 
but much of it is not readily useful because of a lack 
of pre- or post-project conditions.
• Many survey questions/responses are not relevant 
to gain insight into project impacts on say, local 
agricultural production, markets, etc. We recognize 
that these surveys are likely designed for other 
purposes.
• Performance Data
• Baseline data are missing from the available material 
for Rwanda’s FY 2016 LRP project, and MSU was 
informed that these data are likely not recoverable. 
The explanation given is that it is likely that the 
PVO forgot to update FAIS, and the analysts 
covering the project at the time did not notice the 
error. 
• Burkina Faso’s “Life of Project” values were missing.
• Three of the 17 standard indicators (#7, #8, #12) 
have non-zero baselines, which allow for insights 
into the extent to which LRP activities improved 
pre-project conditions. But none of our three case￾study countries used #12 (“Number of individuals 
in the agriculture system who have applied 
improved management practices or technologies 
with USDA assistance”), and Rwanda provided no 
baseline values for any indicators, leaving almost no 
basis for analysis in this regard.
• Standard Indicator #1 is described in the Indicator 
Handbook as “Number of individuals participating 
in USDA food security programs.” However, in 
Kenya and Rwanda’s semi-annual performance 
report tables, it is described as “Number of 
individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded 
intervention. This may be a minor issue but does 
present the possibility of misinterpretation and 
mismeasurement for this indicator.
• Kenya’s performance reports appear to have 
some conflicting data. In most cases, the values 
match across tables, though the indicators are in a 
different order. Indicator data are reported in two 
separate tables, “Activities” and “Results”.
o In the “FY18 Second Half” performance 
report Excel file, for the period April-September 
2018, Standard Indicator #11, Table 1 
(“Achievements”) reports a value of 300, but 
Table 2 (“Result Outcomes”) reports a value of 
2,535. 
• In Rwanda’s report, indicators are mis-numbered.
Cash Transfers
• Cash transfers are not allowed under LRP (personal 
communication with USDA-FAS Staff, 2/4/22), yet 
they are cited as having been used in LRP Reports 
to Congress:
 o FY 2018 LRP Report to Congress, p. 5 (Laos)
o FY 2019 LRP Report to Congress, p. 2 (Cambodia)
o FY 2020 LRP Report to Congress, p. 6 (Cambodia)
It may be that these cash transfers were made using 
separate funding, but as written, it gives the impression 
that they were in fact made using LRP funds.
Recommendations to Improve Future 
Research Efforts
• Standardization of reports and timely inspection 
by USDA personnel for completeness. For 
example, each semi-annual performance report 
(Excel spreadsheet) is in a different format; in 
some, indicators are numbered, but not in others; 
indicators are in different orders; in Rwanda’s 
report, indicators are misnumbered. Kenya’s report 
separates the values into two tables, much of which 
appears to be redundant, but in some cases has 
conflicting values across tables. Rwanda’s baseline 
values are missing entirely. Burkina Faso’s “Life of 
Project” values are missing.
• In the long-term, it may be beneficial to have more 
indicators with non-zero baselines so that a project’s 
impact on the pre-project conditions can be better 
ascertained.
114
Conclusion
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 revised the 
MGD, authorizing that no more than 10% of MGD 
program project funds go towards the procurement of LRP 
commodities. Starting in FY 2020-2021, all new MGD 
project grants are required to include an LRP component, 
highlighting the developing importance of LRP. Broadly 
speaking, LRP project activities include improving and 
increasing procurement of locally grown agricultural 
commodities to supplement and improve school feeding 
programs, strengthening local agricultural capacity and 
capabilities, training local farmers, and providing valuable 
market information to local producer and buyer groups. 
Since 2010, there has been a 200% increase in LRP 
project expenditures. Currently, LRP project expenditures 
represent a significant share of total MGD spending. 
During FYs 2016-2019, an estimated 300,000 individuals 
benefited from the LRP project. In light of LRP’s growing 
role in the MGD program and its potential impacts, 
understanding the effects of LRP efforts on local agricultural 
sectors is paramount to evaluating program success.
Since the initial introduction of LRP into the MGD 
program, the LRP project has taken various forms in 
various countries to meet specific country needs. For 
example, the LRP project of some countries focus more 
on increasing the productivity of SHFs while others are 
oriented more towards the establishment of agricultural 
producer/buyer group networks. While LRP projects 
are not standardized across countries, existing research 
suggests that LRP, and similarly, HGSF can be more 
efficient than alternative modalities in terms of both cost 
and delivery time. The programs are also estimated to 
be less likely to harm local markets than programs that 
rely more heavily on international commodities. LRP is 
not, however, a perfect solution. Existing research has 
shown that LRP projects lead to concerns regarding 
food safety and quality which are highly variable across 
countries. Local procurement could therefore increase the 
delivery of unsafe or low-quality foods which we observe 
in our case study of Burkina Faso. Similarly, in local 
markets with limited capacity, a greater reliance on local 
foods can drive up prices and increase price volatility.
Given the findings of previous research, understanding 
the impact of LRP projects operating through the MGD 
on school feeding programs and local agricultural sector 
outcomes is crucial to improving future LRP project design 
and building our understanding of LRP’s greater effects. 
To analyze the performance and effects of LRP, we 
conducted a case study of three African countries: Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda. These three countries represent 
valuable case studies on the effects of LRP under the MGD 
with the structure and goals of the programs varying 
across countries and time. By analyzing these countries 
of interest, we identified the various outcomes and 
limitations of each LRP project, providing results which 
can serve to inform future LRP programmatic efforts.
One of the primary goals shared across the LRP projects 
in Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda was improving the 
cost-effectiveness and timeliness of school food provisions. 
In theory, by supplementing international commodities 
with locally produced foods, school feeding programs 
have the capacity to provide meals at a lower cost with 
less delays in delivery of foods to schools. From baseline 
reports, we found that the local agricultural systems of 
each country were largely capable of satisfying LRP 
project commodity needs. While issues in each country 
prevented a thorough analysis of cost effectiveness, we 
found notable issues with the quality and timely delivery 
of LRP commodities to schools in each of the three 
countries consistent with the results of existing research. 
Generally, these issues were the result of slow internal 
systems of quality control and transportation which 
limited the ability of LRP projects to deliver commodities 
in a timely manner. In Burkina Faso, for example, we 
found that most deliveries to canteens were late, and a 
significant amount of commodity stocks were lost due to 
prolonged storage in inadequate facilities. The delivered 
commodities were also of lower quality than anticipated 
due to their prolonged storage. Additionally, countries in 
our case study illustrated the importance of climate and 
weather conditions to the efficiency and effectiveness of 
LRP projects. For example, we found that unanticipated 
weather events led to few LRP schools in Kenya receiving 
their pre-determined commodities. Therefore, since 
climate change may have short- and long-term effects on 
local weather conditions, we identify it as a significant 
threat to LRP project success, especially in arid climates 
and other areas highly susceptible to variations in climate. 
Taken together, our analysis of the three countries 
suggests that while local agricultural systems may 
have the capacity to produce enough commodities 
115
to satisfy LRP projects, limitations to transportation, 
quality control, and climate resilience may lead to an 
insufficient provision of food to schools. Therefore, 
identifying and addressing these potential limiting 
factors through project efforts is vital for the successful 
design and implementation of future LRP projects. 
While each of the three LRP projects included in 
our analysis faced challenges, we found evidence of 
significant benefits. The most readily apparent benefits of 
LRP projects identified in our case studies were to the 
countries’ local agricultural sectors. All three LRP projects 
considered in our analysis targeted improving the capacity 
of SHFs and local cooperatives. In each country, there 
is evidence to suggest that the programs successfully 
increased the capacity of SHFs through training, direct 
purchases/contracts, and the facilitation of proper business 
practices. Furthermore, the capacity and performance 
of SHF cooperatives improved as a result of LRP, with 
improvements to cooperatives’ organizational practices, 
and the quantity and quality of commodities produced. 
SHFs also gained improved access to buyer groups through 
the LRP projects, highlighting the capacity of LRP to build 
and facilitate new market connections. SHF cooperatives 
were viewed as stronger business partners by buyer groups, 
showing their newfound importance in the agricultural 
supply chain. These producer/buyer relationships were 
found to be tenuous in certain cases, however, suggesting 
that the sustainability of identified improvements 
may be limited. Additional research is needed to 
understand the long-term impacts of LRP projects on 
the capacity and efficiency of local agricultural systems. 
To further explore the outcomes of LRP in Burkina 
Faso, Kenya, and Rwanda, we conducted an analysis 
of LRP indicator data provided through the MGD’s 
PMP. Unfortunately, differences in available indicators 
and indicator structure across countries limited our 
ability to conduct rigorous cross-country analysis. 
Additionally, the limited number of indicators with 
non-zero baselines prevented us from evaluating the 
LRP projects’ added value in each country compared 
to the pre-LRP period. Nevertheless, we were 
able to identify several key outcomes that provide 
valuable information regarding the programs’ effects. 
Compared to their targeted values, we found that across 
all standard indicators with available data, the three 
countries met their year-specific targets in 55 percent of 
cases. Performance was better across the projects’ lifetimes, 
however, with 71 percent of final indicator values meeting 
or exceeding their targeted values. Taken together, our 
results suggest that there may be significant delays in 
effectiveness present in earlier years of the program. 
Given adequate time, however, the LRP projects were 
found to satisfy the majority of their goals. This finding 
highlights the importance of continually evaluating the 
performance of LRP projects across time to identify 
effectiveness as programs continue to develop. Therefore, 
while LRP projects may take some years to begin 
operating properly, they appear to achieve their goals, for 
the most part, by the end of their lifetime. If countries can 
continue to strengthen their LRP projects across time, the 
performance of later LRP project iterations will likely 
build on the activities conducted in earlier programmatic 
efforts. Therefore, comparing the results of new programs 
to older iterations of LRP within the same country would 
prove an effective way to identify prolonged effectiveness. 
As mentioned previously, major limiting factors in our 
analyses were data availability and standardization. While 
the evaluation data include a number of variables, they 
were generally not suited for our analysis due to the lack 
of pre- or post-project conditions. Therefore, we were not 
able to evaluate the LRP projects’ value added relative to 
a non-zero baseline. Additionally, many of the included 
questions were not suitable for assessing the impacts of LRP 
projects on local agricultural systems. While we recognize 
that these data were not intended for that purpose, 
additional information related to the performance of local 
agricultural systems would strengthen similar analysis of 
future LRP projects. The performance data provided for 
the three countries were also limited, particularly, that 
only a small number of indicators included non-zero 
baselines, preventing us from assessing the programs’ true 
added value. Furthermore, issues with standardization in 
the available data across countries limited our capacity to 
make across-country comparisons of LRP project effects. 
To address these limitations, we made some 
recommendations that can improve the capacity for 
future LRP project research. The first is improved 
standardization of reports and timely inspection 
by USDA personnel to ensure data completeness. 
Additionally, we recommend requiring that more 
questions include non-zero baselines so that the end line 
values can be compared to a starting point to estimate 
the programs’ added value. With the implementation 
of these changes, LRP project data could be used to 
evaluate the impacts of LRP on local agricultural system 
capacity, capabilities, and performance more rigorously.
116
Research Component 3: Nutrituional Content of MGD 
Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Introduction
Research component #3 focuses on the nutritional 
content of MGD meals and their effect on educational 
outcomes. To address research component #3, MSU 
divided the work into three broad sub-sections. 
Sub-section 1 consisted of compiling and evaluating 
existing data and resources. For this, the research 
team conducted three in-depth desk reviews of 
literature on current school meal programs and their 
benefit to educational achievements of children 
from sub-Saharan African countries. The desk 
review component evaluated existing evidence in 
the literature on the following three questions: 
• Which nutrients are important for cognitive 
1 Roberts, M.; Tolar-Peterson, T.; Reynolds, A.; Wall, C.; Reeder, N.; Rico Mendez, G. The Effects of Nutritional 
Interventions on the Cognitive Development of Preschool-Age Children: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 532. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030532
2 Wall, C., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reeder, N., Roberts, M., Reynolds, A., Rico Mendez, G. The Impact of School Meal 
Programs on Educational Outcomes in African Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environ￾mental Research and Public Health 2022, 19 (6), 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063666
3 Manuscript is under review in a peer-reviewed journal (Maternal and Child Nutrition).
development?1
• What is the relative impact of school meal 
interventions in preschools on educational 
outcomes? 2
• Which nutrients are associated with stunting 
among children ages 2 and older in sub-Saharan 
Africa? 3
 
A systematic review was conducted for each research 
question using the Preferred Reporting Items for 
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 
guidelines. The three articles were submitted for 
review to USDA-FAS team members, and all three 
have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
Senegal & Tanzania
117
Sub-section 2 of research component #3 evaluated the 
provided preschool meals for nutritional value, frequency 
of meals, adequacy of nutrient content, and dietary 
diversity. School food programs that are nutritionally 
adequate have been shown globally to improve the 
nutrition, education, and overall benefits of childhood 
growth and development (Agbozo et al., 2018). Adequate 
eating habits and the availability of adequate nutrition is 
essential for the optimal growth, development, health, 
disease prevention, and general well-being of children 
(Clark, 2012). Providing school meals to children is a well￾known strategy to reduce health inequalities in children. 
It is also a way to enhance the overall dietary adequacy 
and diversity of a child by providing quality ingredients 
they may not receive at home (Abizari et al., 2021). 
Guidelines have been set forth both nationally and 
internationally to regulate and develop school food 
programs that improve the school meal environment 
(Nogueira et al., 2021). THe World Health 
Organization (WHO), the European Commission, 
and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations (FAO) have all established policies and 
guidelines to improve the environment and well-being 
of children around the globe (WHO, 2006). Meals 
should be provided in the morning to ensure that the 
children start their day with a full stomach, aiding in their 
ability to focus and learn more quickly and efficiently. 
Half day meals should contain 30-45% of daily energy 
requirements (555-830kcal). A typical school meal 
provided for a half-day school for example, may offer 
150 grams (g) of cereal, 30g of pulses, 5g of oil, and 
4g of salt (about 695 kcal) (Bundy, et al. 2009). School 
lunches should contribute 30-35% of the daily energy 
requirements (DER) for a child. Based on American 
guidelines, the DER of 6-10-year-old children should 
be 1,640 calories per day. With this information, school 
meals should contribute 492-574 calories per meal. For 
macronutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrates) a school 
meal should contain 30% of the child’s daily needs. 
However, WHO suggests that the composition of each 
school meal should be 10-15% protein (12-18g), 55-
75% carbohydrates (68-92g), 15-30% fat (8-16g) and 
less than 10% saturated fat (<5.5 g) (WHO, 2006). These 
equate to a meal which would contain 392-584 calories. 
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 
that school lunches should contain fresh fruits and 
vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products 
(Turner et al. 2012). Having adequate variety in the 
diet helps ensure adequate intake of a broad spectrum 
of macro- and micronutrients, and increased dietary 
diversity is particularly important for populations 
where the diet is primarily focused on a few staple 
starch foods. Dietary diversity can be measured at either 
the household or the individual level, and different 
indicators exist for different measurement levels and 
different populations. Results from this analysis for the 
Senegal and Tanzania cases are included in this report. 
Sub-section 3 of research component #3 is an 
evaluation of the impact of school meal programs in 
Senegal and Tanzania as it relates to providing adequate 
nutrition for cognitive development, normal growth and 
development, and improving educational outcomes. 
To accomplish this, findings from component #3 
sub-section 1 and component #3 sub-section 2 were 
compared and suggestions for improvement provided. 
118
Research Component 3: Nutritional Content of 
MGD Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Sub-section 1: Compile and evaluate 
existing data and resources
Article #1
Which nutrients are important for cognitive 
development?
Abstract
The developing human brain requires all essential 
nutrients to form and to maintain its structure. Infant 
and child cognitive development is dependent on 
adequate nutrition. Children who do not receive 
sufficient nutrition are at high risk of exhibiting 
impaired cognitive skills. This systematic review aimed 
to examine the effects of nutritional interventions on 
cognitive outcomes of preschool-age children. PubMed, 
PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, and Cochrane 
Library electronic databases were searched to identify 
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published after 
the year 2000. Studies assessing the effects of food￾based, single, and multiple micronutrient interventions 
on the cognition of nourished and undernourished 
children aged 2–6 years were deemed eligible. A total of 
12 trials were identified. Eight out of the twelve studies 
found significant positive effects on cognitive outcomes. 
Iron and multiple-micronutrients supplementation 
yield improvements in the cognitive abilities of 
undernourished preschool-age children. Increased fish 
consumption was found to have a beneficial effect in 
the cognitive outcomes of nourished children. On the 
other hand, B-vitamin, iodized salt, and guava powder 
interventions failed to display significant results. 
Findings of this review highlight the importance of 
adequate nutrition during preschool years, and the 
crucial role sufficient nutrition plays in cognitive 
development.
Citation & Link
Roberts M, Tolar-Peterson T, Reynolds A, Wall C, Reeder N, & Rico Mendez G. (2022). The 
Effects of Nutritional Interventions on the Cognitive Development of Preschool-Age Children: A 
Systematic Review. Nutrients, 14(3), 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030532. PMID: 35276891. 
119
Research Component 3: Nutritional Content of 
MGD Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Compile and evaluate existing data and 
resources
Article #2
What is the relative impact of school meal 
interventions in pre-schools on educational 
outcomes
Abstract
Malnutrition and hunger can lower a child’s ability to 
learn effectively. Many countries in Africa experience 
high rates of childhood undernutrition, and school 
feeding programs are a common tool used to address 
this challenge. A systematic review was conducted 
to evaluate the effect of school-provided meals on 
educational outcomes in preschool and primary school 
children. Specific outcomes of interest in this review 
included test scores, attendance, and enrollment rates. 
PubMed and Scopus were used for an electronic search 
of relevant studies. Studies included in this review 
were randomized and non-randomized controlled 
trials, prospective cohort studies, controlled before￾after studies, and pre/post-test design studies published 
in the past 10 years in English in sub-Sahara Africa. 
Findings from the nine studies included in this review 
suggest a positive correlation between school feeding 
programs and educational outcomes. Although mealtime 
may reduce classroom time, the benefits of providing 
a meal outweigh the potential loss of learning time 
because hungry children may not learn as effectively. 
In conclusion, it is recommended that school meal 
programs be implemented and expanded. To improve 
general wellbeing and learning capabilities of children, 
school meals should be employed starting at a young 
age. More research on school feeding programs is needed 
concerning the preschool age group (2–5 years), as there 
is a limited amount of information in this area.
Citation & Link
Wall, C., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reeder, N., Roberts, M., Reynolds, A. & Rico Mendez, G. (2022). The Impact of School 
Meal Programs on Educational Outcomes in African Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review. International Journal of 
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063666. PMID: 35329356.
120
Research Component 3: Nutritional Content of 
MGD Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Compile and evaluate existing data and 
resources
Article #3
Which nutrients are important to prevent 
stunting? 
Abstract
Background: As a result of long-term undernutrition, 
children with stunting, or linear growth failure, face 
significant consequences to their neurocognitive 
development and future wellbeing. Objective: The 
purpose of this study was to identify specific nutrients 
or nutritional biomarkers of dietary intake that are 
associated with stunting among children ages 2 and 
older in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: This is a 
systematic review conducted in accordance with the 
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and 
Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: 12 studies from 
sub-Saharan Africa met the eligibility criteria. Eleven 
observational studies and one randomized control 
trial were included. Nine of the 12 studies assessed 
dietary intake of macronutrients. Four studies found a 
significant association between proteins and stunting. 
Four studies found that children with stunting had 
lower dietary fat intakes or lower blood or serum levels 
of certain fatty acids. Five studies assessed dietary 
intake of micronutrients or looked at serum levels of 
a micronutrient. Among those four studies, children 
with stunting had lower intakes of, or biomarkers for, 
calcium, phosphorous, vitamin D, vitamin B12, and 
choline. Conclusion: Children with stunting tend to 
consume a diet lower in nutrients commonly found 
in high-quality protein foods such as essential amino 
acids, essential fatty acids, and micronutrients such 
as calcium, phosphorous, vitamin D, vitamin B12, 
and choline. Results from this review may help guide 
recommendations for the inclusion of specific foods 
and nutrients in school feeding programs to reduce 
immediate hunger and promote healthy growth and 
development that supports learning for nutritionally 
vulnerable children.
Citation 
Reynolds, A., Tolar-Peterson, T., Roberts, M., Wall, C., Reeder, N., Pylate, L., Mathews, R., & Rico Mendez, G. 
(under review). Nutrients Associated with Stunting Among Children in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review
**At the time of this report’s publication this article was under review.**
121
Research Component 3: Nutritional Content of 
MGD Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Evaluate the provided pre-school meals 
for nutritional value, dietary diversity, 
frequency of meals, and adequancy 
of nutrient content to promote brain 
development and prevent stunting
Country Profile
The Republic of Senegal is a lower-middle income 
country in West Africa with a population of 15.9 million 
(USAID, 2021a; UNICEF, 2021). While the country 
is politically stable, it is still one of the least developed 
countries in the world at 168 of 185 countries in the 
human development index (United Nations Development 
Programme, 2020). The economy depends greatly on 
agriculture, so it is vulnerable to climate change and 
natural disasters such as drought (USAID, 2021b). The 
country is evenly split between rural and urban areas 
(51% and 49% respectively), but resources are more easily 
accessible to people living in urban areas (USAID 2021a, 
2021b). The main diet in Senegal is based on cereals like 
rice, millet, and sorghum mixed with vegetables and 
fish. Meals are typically prepared in one dish and served 
in portions (FAO 2010). Several factors contribute to 
food insecurity across the country, including a high 
fertility rate, young mothers, lack of dietary diversity, 
and inadequate food safety practices (USAID 2021). 
Malnutrition due to food insecurity can impair the 
development and growth of a child and can lead to 
learning difficulties (Grantham-McGregor,2007). 
As of 2019, 71% of children between the ages of 
6 and 56 months were affected by anemia, and 
18% of children under 5 years had stunted growth 
(ANSD/Sénégal & ICF, 2018; ANSD & ICF, 2020). 
The development of school food programs that are 
nutritionally adequate is essential for the success of a 
child. Guidelines have been set forth both nationally 
and internationally to regulate and develop school 
feeding programs that improve the school meal 
environment (Briggs et. al. 2010). The WHO, European 
Commission, and the FAO have all established policies 
and guidelines to improve the environment and well￾being of children around the globe (WHO, 2006). 
MGD aims to improve educational outcomes in low￾income countries around the world by providing school 
meals and financial and technical support (USDA, 2021). 
Currently, 270 schools are benefiting from the “Sukaabe 
Evaluation of Meals: Senegal Case
122
Janngo” (“Children of Tomorrow”) project implemented 
in the Saint Louis region of Senegal. Sukaabe Jango is the 
second phase of the USDA MGD project funded by the 
USDA-FAS (USDA, 2021). Counterpart International 
(CPI) is implementing Sukaabe Janngo in partnership 
with the Save the Children (Save) and the Associates 
in Research and Education for Development (ARED) 
organizations (USDA, 2021). The program is intended to 
reduce hunger and improve literacy of school-age children 
(USDA, 2021). Through the Sukaabe Janngo initiative, 
as many as 49,581 primary (6-12y) and preschool (3-
5y) students have been receiving daily meals to support 
adequate nutrition. A small portion of benefiting children 
(approximately 5%) are older than 12 years old. Preschool￾age children receive one meal per day five times per week. 
Primary-age children receive one meal on Mondays, 
Wednesdays, and Fridays, and two meals (breakfast and 
lunch) on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The meals provided to 
both primary and preschool children vary daily, as meals 
include staple foods and complementary foods provided 
by parents and community donations. The staple foods 
served to preschool children daily are fortified rice, or 
enriched flour, or bulgur with lentils or split green 
peas. Staple foods served to primary school children 
include fortified rice, or enriched flour, or millet, with 
cowpeas, or split green peas, or lentils. The same foods are 
served for breakfast and lunch, as staple foods provided 
to beneficiary children remain the same year-round. In 
contrast, community and parent meal contributions vary by 
region, season, and availability. Common daily donations 
include oil, onions, tomatoes, peppers, animal protein, 
mung bean, orange flesh sweet potatoes, and/or sugar. 
Each benefitting school adjusts their menu to provide 
children with the most nutritious meal based on which 
foods are available that day. Menu adjustments are made 
following a specific set guideline and a recipe booklet 
designed to maximize the nutritional value of meals, 
therefore contributing to increased variety and adequacy 
in the children’s diet. The “Guide to Setting Up and 
Managing School Canteens” was developed with the 
assistance of the School Feeding Office (DCAS) and in a 
collaborative work between the School Canteens Division, 
USAID, USDA, CPI, WFP, UNICEF, Plan International, 
Aide Action, and Helen Keller International. According 
to the guide, a balanced menu includes an energy staple 
food such as millet, rice, or corn, an additional food rich 
in energy such as vegetable oil, fat, or sugar, a food rich 
in protein such as milk, egg, fish, meat, peanut, cowpea, 
bean, lentil, and pea, and a food rich in micronutrients 
such as fruits and vegetable (USAID et al., 2011). 
The purpose of subsection 2 of research component 
#3 was to analyze the nutritional value of the meals 
served in USDA MGD schools. It is important to 
know exactly what is provided to the students in order 
to understand the impact of these nutritional provisions 
on children’s health and educational outcomes. This 
report does not contain contributions from LRP, 
as there are uncertainties and inconsistencies in 
what can be provided based on local market supply.
Provided Meals
Methodology
The nutrient analysis of this report is based on information 
extracted from a dataset provided by an in-country 
CPI representative. The dataset contains four recipes 
for preschool children and eight recipes for elementary 
school children. The recipes contained a combination of 
rice, flour, oil, bulgur, split peas, or lentils. The data are 
separated based on school level due to the difference in 
frequency of feeding. Children in the preschool receive a 
daily meal at breakfast five days per week. The elementary 
school provides meals at breakfast five days a week, but 
they also serve a meal at lunch on Tuesday and Thursday. 
The nutritional content analysis was conducted using the 
ingredient information provided in the dataset. Nutritics, 
a software that uses data from the USDA Nutrient 
Database and the Branded Food Products Database, was 
used to calculate nutrition values. As a protocol for this 
review, if an option for USDA commodity information 
was available it was used to create the analysis. Where 
USDA food aid commodity products were provided, but 
not available in Nutritics, nutrition values were calculated 
manually using the USAID Food Aid Product Information 
Guide. This analysis is based on the dry weight of the foods. 
Meals
In the Senegal school districts of Pondor and Dagana in 
the Saint Louis region, school is held five days a week for an 
average of 180 days a year. The children in the intervention 
schools are provided breakfast Monday - Friday on 
school days for both the primary school children aged 
7-12 years and the pre-primary school children aged 3-6 
years. Breakfast is the only meal provided to the primary 
school children on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and 
123
the only meal provided to the pre-primary aged children 
because there is only half a day of school. In addition to 
breakfast, primary school children are provided lunch 
two days of the week (Tuesday and Thursday). Lunch is 
provided on Tuesday and Thursday in these intervention 
schools, giving these children a second meal on the 
two days of the week they are in school for a full day. 
The foods provided by the MGD program include 
sources of carbohydrates, protein, and fat. There are two 
sets of menus, one for primary school students and one 
for preschool students. For primary school students, the 
main sources of carbohydrates are rice and flour, with 
lentils and split peas as the main protein sources, and 
fortified oil as the fat source (Table 3.4). The preschool 
meals contain rice or flour, lentils or split peas, bulgur, 
and oil (Table 3.1). The primary sources of carbohydrates 
from the foods provided are the dry split peas, dry lentils, 
bulgur, wheat flour, and rice. Dry peas are a source of 
complex carbohydrates, a source of plant-based protein, 
and provide iron, zinc, potassium, and folate. The dried 
peas may be provided along with a fortified flour, meal, 
or grain, and a fortified vegetable oil. Rice is a source of 
complex carbohydrates and B vitamins. Dry lentils are 
a source of complex carbohydrates, plant-based protein, 
iron, zinc, potassium, and folate. Lentils may be provided 
with fortified flour and fortified vegetable oil. All-purpose 
fortified wheat flour is a source of carbohydrates that is 
typically included with pulses and fortified vegetable oil. 
Bulgur is a wheat cereal grain that is parboiled and dried. 
Bulgur can be used with pulses and fortified vegetable oil 
in school feedings. The source of fat provided comes from 
fortified vegetable oil. This is a source of plant-based fat 
that has been fortified with vitamin A and vitamin D. 
The fortified oil increases the caloric density of the meals 
and aids in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. This oil 
may be provided with fortified blended foods, flour, meal 
or grains, or pulses in supplemental feeding programs.
Table 3.1 Provided Foods and Their Macronutrient 
Content, per 100g of Each Ingredient*
*Values are based on the nutritional values presented in the USAID Food Product
Information Guide
Ingredient
Flour
Rice
Split Peas
Lentils
Oil
Bulgur
Calories (kcal)
364
360
347
352
884
342
Protein (g)
10.33
6.6
22.5
24.6
0
12.3
Fat (g)
0.98
.58
2.04
1.06
0
1.33
Carbohydrate (g)
76.3
80
65.31
63.4
0
75.9
Four 115-gram meal options were provided during 
breakfast for children aged three to six years old. Each 
meal contained 20 grams of bulgur, 10 grams of oil, 
25 grams of lentils or split peas, and 60 grams of 
rice or flour. The specific composition of each meal 
is specified in Table 3.3. The average macronutrient 
percentages of the four meals is 65.3 percent 
carbohydrate, 11.6 percent protein, and 23.1 percent fat. 
124
Table 3.2 Provided foods and their key macronutrients, per 100 g of each 
ingredient*
*Values are based on the nutritional values presented in the USAID Food Product Information Guide.
Micronutrients listed are only those that are present at above 20% of the Daily Value, based on a
2,000 kcal intake.
Nutrient
Vitamin A (mg)
Vitamin D (mg)
Iron (mg)
Potassium (mg)
Magnesium (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Thiamin (mg)
Niacin (mg)
Riboflavin (mg)
Folate (mg)
Vitamin B6 (mg)
Vitamin B12 (mg)
Flour
--
--
5.17
--
--
3.1
0.52
--
0.44
180
0.44
11
Rice Split peas Lentils
--
--
0.77
--
--
1.09
0.15
3.55
--
--
0.6
--
--
--
1.58
816
--
3.55
--
--
--
274
--
--
--
--
6.51
577
--
3.27
0.87
--
--
479
0.54
--
Oil
2025
48.75
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Bulgur
--
--
2.46
--
164
4.33
0.63
9.11
0.52
181
0.74
11
For primary schools, there are eight different meal options 
for children aged 7-12 years, with all meals being 135 to 
155 grams (Table 3.4). The children in the elementary 
schools receive breakfast every day, and they also receive 
lunch two to three days a week, so these meal compositions 
could be for either time. The primary school meals differed 
from the preschool meals in that they did not contain 
bulgur, and instead contained different combinations of 
rice, flour, lentils, split peas, and oil. These meals average 
70% carbohydrates, 11.2% protein, and 18.9% fat.
125
Table 3.3 Composition of meals, Pre-schools
Meal
Meal 1
Meal 2
Meal 3
Meal 4
Foods
60 g rice
60 g rice
60 g flour
60 g flour
25 g lentils
25 g split peas
25 g lentils
25 g split peas
20 g bulgur
20 g bulgur
20 g bulgur
20 g bulgur
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
Table 3.4 Composition of meals, Primary Schools
Meal
Meal 1
Meal 2
Meal 3
Meal 4
Meal 5
Meal 6
Meal 7
Meal 8
Foods
100 g rice
100 g flour
100 g flour
100 g rice
100 g rice
100 g flour
100 g rice
100 g flour
40 g lentils
40 g lentils
45 g split peas
45 g split peas
25 g split peas
25 g split peas
25 g lentils
25 g lentils
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
10 g oil
126
Nutritional Adequacy of School 
Meals 
We next compared the macronutrient and 
micronutrient content of each school meal to WHO 
recommendations for energy and macronutrient content 
of school meals and to the Institute of Medicine’s Dietary 
Reference Intakes (DRIs) for micronutrient intake. 
For preschool meals, the 4-8 age range was used for standards 
of intake, and for primary school meals, the 9-12 age range 
was used for standards of intake. WHO recommends 
that school meals provide 68-92 g carbohydrate, 12-18 
g protein, and 8-16 g fat. The carbohydrate, protein, and 
fat recommendations 
would equate to 
a meal that is 392 
to 584 kcal. Table 
3.5 depicts how 
the nutritional 
value of the 
macronutrients provided in preschool meals in 
Senegal compares to these WHO recommendations, 
by comparing the macronutrients required to the 
mean of the WHO provided macronutrient ranges.
Preschool meals
Compared to the WHO recommendations for energy 
and macronutrient content of school meals, the preschool 
meals provided in Senegal contain slightly less energy, 
protein, and fat than recommended, and slightly higher 
carbohydrates than the minimum recommendation (Table 
5). Each of the four meals is under the recommendation 
for energy (kcals) by 6%, protein by 34%, and fat by 17%. 
Looking at micronutrients, the meals contain at least 20% 
of the RDA for children ages 4-8 for vitamin A, vitamin 
D, vitamin K, thiamin, niacin, folate, pantothenic acid, 
vitamin B6, vitamin B12, iron, magnesium, manganese, 
phosphorous, zinc, selenium, and copper (Table 3.6, 
Table 3.7). The meals contain less than 20% of the RDA 
for vitamin C, calcium, and sodium. Of note is that the 
meals all provide over 100% of the RDA for vitamin 
B12 due to the fortification of flour and bulgur with 
B12. The vitamin A and D content of the meals can be 
attributed to the fortified vegetable oil. The meals are 
generally a poor source of calcium, which is essential for 
bone health, providing 1.6-3.6% of the RDA. Iron was 
sufficient for each meal, 
with meals providing 
42-48% of the RDA. 
Overall, the preschool 
meals could potentially 
be improved by shifting 
their macronutrient 
distribution to contain slightly less carbohydrate and 
slightly more protein and fat to be closer in line to 
recommendations that WHO has published. The meals 
could also potentially be improved by increasing their 
vitamin C and calcium content. The meals generally 
contain an adequate amount of key nutrients for child 
growth and development such as iron, zinc, vitamin A, 
vitamin D, and B vitamins, assuming that these meals 
are a supplement to other sources of nutrition children 
may consume to help them reach RDAs. However, these 
meals fall short of the MGD requirement to provide at 
least 30% of the RDA of key micronutrients, and no 
analysis has been conducted to determine how children 
who receive school meals are eating outside of school.
“Compared to the WHO recommendations for energy and 
macronutrient content of school meals, the preschool meals 
provided in Senegal contain slightly less energy, protein, and fat 
than recommended, and slightly higher carbohydrates than the 
minimum recommendation”
127
Table 3.5 Composition of Pre-school meals provided, compared to WHO 
recommendations for carbohydrates, protein, and fat in School Meals
Target
Energy, kcal a
Carbohydrates, g b
Protein, g c
Fat, g d
 Saturated fat, g
 Monosaturated fat, g
 Polyunsaturated fat, g
 Omega-3 (ALA), g
 Omega-6 (LA), g
Meal e
Meal 1
460 (94%)
86 (107%)
10 (66%)
10 (83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 2
459 (94%)
87 (108%)
10 (66%)
10 (83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 3
463 (94%)
84 (105%)
10 (66%)
10 (83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 4
461 (94%)
85 (106%)
10 (83%)
10 (83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
a Reference of 488 kcal is used for energy intake. This was calculated based on the mean g
of carbohydrate, protein, and fat recommended per meal.
b Reference of 80 g of carbohydrate is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 
68-92 g.
c Reference of 15 g of protein is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 12-18 g.
d Reference of 12 g of fat is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 8-16 g. WHO 
does not have specific recommendations for types of fat provided in school meals, other than <10% 
of calories from saturated fat intake, but the breakdown of fat content is still provided here for 
informational purposes.
e Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of recommended 
nutrition value provided.
128
Table 3.6 Composition of Pre-school Meals Compared to DRIs for Children Aged 4-8y
(vitamins)a
Vitamin A (mg)
Vitamin D (mg)
Vitamin C (mg)
Vitamin E (mg)
Vitamin K (mg)
Thiamin (mg)
Niacin (mg)
Riboflavin (mg)
Folate (mg)
Pantothenic Acid (mg)
Vitamin B6 (mg)
Vitamin B12 (mg)
Meal 1
203 (50.8%)
4.9 (32.7%)
1.1 (4.4%)
1.1 (15.7%)
21.5 (39.0%)
0.61 (101%)
4.2 (52.5%)
0.1 (16.6%)
262 (131%)
1.3 (43.3%)
0.3 (50%)
2.2 (183%)
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of DRI provided.
Meal 2
203 (50.8%)
4.9 (32.7%)
0.45 (1.8%)
1.1 (15.7%)
23.4 (42.5%)
0.57 (95%)
4.2 (52.5%)
0.11 (18.3%)
211 (105%)
1.2 (40%)
0.21 (35%)
2.2 (183%)
Meal 3
203 (50.8%)
4.9 (32.7%)
1.1 (4.4%)
1.4 (20%)
22.6 (41.1%)
0.56 (93.3%)
4.6 (57.5%)
0.17 (28.3%)
150 (75%)
1.1 (36.6%)
0.44 (73.3%)
8.8 (733%)
Meal 4
203 (50.8%)
4.9 (32.7%)
.45 (1.8%)
.92 (13.1%)
23.8 (43.2%)
0.54 (90%)
4.9 (61.3%)
0.34 (56.6%)
182 (91%)
.64 (21.3%)
0.38 (63.3%)
8.8 (733%)
Table 3.7 Composition of Pre-school Meals Compared to DRIs for Children Aged 
4-8y (minerals)a
Calcium (mg)
Iron (mg)
Potassium (mg)
Magnesium (mg)
Manganese (mg)
Phosphorus (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Selenium (mg)
Copper (mg)
Meal 1
32.2 (3.2%)
4.7 (47%)
318 (13.8%)
59 (45.3%)
1.6 (106%)
198 (39.6%)
1.8 (36%)
7.8 (0.7%)
9.5 (31.6%)
0.38 (86.3%)
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of DRI provided.
Meal 2
32.8 (3.2%)
4.3 (43%)
354 (15.3%)
60 (46.1%)
1.6 (106%)
208 (41.6%)
1.9 (38%)
10.1 (1.0%)
10.5 (35%)
0.4 (90.9%)
Meal 3
35.9 (3.6%)
4.2 (42%)
466 (20.2%)
126 (96.9%)
3.4 (226%)
342 (68.4%)
2.7 (54%)
6.1 (0.6%)
37.3 (124%)
0.5 (113.6%)
Meal 4
16.1 (1.6%)
4.8 (48.0%)
286 (12.4%)
45 (34.6%)
0.91 (60.6%)
139 (27.8%)
3.1 (62%)
4.1 (0.4%)
1.5 (5%)
0.27 (61.4%)
129
Primary school meals
Compared to the WHO recommendations for energy 
and macronutrient content of school meals, the primary 
school meals provided in Senegal contain slightly less fat 
than recommended, and adequate energy, carbohydrate, 
and protein compared to recommendations (Table 3.8). 
Each of the four meals is under the recommendation for 
fat content by 17%. Looking at micronutrients, the meals 
contain at least 20% of the RDA for children ages 9-13 
for vitamin A, vitamin D, 
vitamin K, thiamin, niacin, 
riboflavin, folate, pantothenic 
acid, vitamin B6, vitamin 
B12, iron, zinc, selenium, 
and copper (Table 3.9, Table 
3.10). The meals contain less 
than 20% of the RDA for 
vitamin C, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, 
and sodium. Of note is that the meals that contain flour 
all provide over 100% of the RDA for vitamin B12 due to 
the fortification of flour with B12. While meals without 
flour do not have an adequate quantity of B12, the 
amount provided through other meals is high enough to 
average out to an adequate amount overall. The adequate 
vitamin A and D content of the meals can be attributed to 
the fortified vegetable oil, which is the sole source of fat in 
the meals and helps improve the absorption of fat-soluble 
vitamins. The meals are generally a poor source of calcium, 
which is essential for bone health, providing 0.67-3.3% 
of the RDA. Iron was sufficient for each meal, with meals 
providing 69-98% of the RDA. Overall, the primary 
school meals could potentially be improved by shifting 
their macronutrient distribution to contain slightly less 
carbohydrate and slightly more fat to be closer in line to 
recommendations that 
WHO has published. 
The meals could 
also potentially be 
improved by increasing 
their vitamin C and 
calcium content. 
The meals generally 
contain an adequate amount of key nutrients for child 
growth and development such as iron, zinc, vitamin 
A, vitamin D, and B vitamins, assuming that these 
meals are a supplement to other sources of nutrition 
children consume to help them reach RDAs. However, 
it must again be noted that data on what children are 
eating outside of school is not available, and children 
may not be receiving other sources of nutrition. 
“Overall, the primary school meals could potentially be 
improved by shifting their macronutrient distribution to 
contain slightly less carbohydrate and slightly more fat 
to be closer in line to recommendations that WHO has 
published. The meals could also potentially be improved 
by increasing their vitamin C and calcium content.”
130
Table 3.8 Nutrition Value of Primary School Meals Provided Compared to 
WHO Recommendations for Carbohydrates, Protein, and Fat
Target
Energy, kcal a
Carbohydrates, g b
Protein, g c
Fat, g d
 Saturated fat, g
 Monosaturated fat, g
 Polyunsaturated fat, g
 Omega-3 (ALA), g
 Omega-6 (LA), g
Meal e
Meal 1
589
(120%)
115
(143%)
16
(106%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
*This table uses WHO recommendations for carbohydrate, fat, and protein in school meals. The average of the
ranges for each macronutrient was taken and compared against the data provided by Senegal for the food baskets
provided to the school district.
a Reference of 488 kcal is used for energy intake. This was calculated based on the mean g
of carbohydrate, protein, and fat recommended per meal.
b Reference of 80 g of carbohydrate is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 68-92 g.
c Reference of 15 g of protein is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 12-18 g.
d Reference of 12 g of fat is used. This was calculated based on the mean of range of 8-16 g. WHO does 
not have specific recommendations for types of fat provided in school meals, other than <10% of calories 
from saturated fat intake, but the breakdown of fat content is still provided here for informational purposes.
e Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of recommended nutrition 
value provided.
Meal 2
583
(121%)
111
(138%)
20
(133%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 3
608
(124%)
116
(145%)
20
(133%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 8
540
(110%)
101
(126%)
16
(106%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 5
554
(109%)
105
(131%)
11
(73%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 6
539
(110%)
101
(126%)
15
(100%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 7
536
(109%)
105
(131%)
12
(80%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
Meal 4
604
(123%)
120
(150%)
16
(106%)
10
(83%)
1.49
2.21
5.76
0.7
5.1
131
Table 3.9 Nutrition Value of Primary School Meals Compared to DRIs for Children Ages 
9-13 (vitamins)
Target
Vitamin A (mg)
Vitamin D (mg)
Vitamin C (mg)
Vitamin E (mg)
Vitamin K (mg)
Thiamin (mg)
Niacin (mg)
Riboflavin (mg)
Folate (mg)
Pantothenic Acid (mg)
Vitamin B6 (mg)
Vitamin B12 (mg)
Meal a
Meal 1
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
0.6
(1.3%)
1.0
(9.1%)
20.7
(34.5%)
.64
(71.1%)
4.6
(38.3%)
0.08
(8.9%)
302
(101%)
1.3
(32.5%)
.23
(23%)
0
(0%)
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of DRI provided.
Meal 2
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
1.8
(4.0%)
1.1
(10%)
21.9
(36.5%)
.87
(96.6%)
6.3
(52.5%)
0.53
(58.9%)
371
(123%)
.85
(21.3%)
.66
(66%)
11
(611%)
Meal 3
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
.78
(1.7%)
.89
(10%)
25.5
(36.5%)
.82
(91.1%)
6.4
(53.3%)
0.52
(57.8%)
294
(98%)
.76
(19%)
0.5
(50%)
11
(611%)
Meal 4
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
.81
(1.1%)
1.0
(9.1%)
26.5
(44.1%)
0.9
(100%)
5.5
(45.8%)
0.14
(15.5%)
352
(117%)
1.8
(45%)
0.24
(24%)
0
(0%)
Meal 5
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
.45
(1.0%)
1.0
(9.1%)
23.6
(39.3%)
0.75
(83.3%)
4.9
(40.8%)
0.1
(11.1%)
298
(99.3%)
1.4
(35%)
0.21
(11.6%)
0
(0%)
Meal 6
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
.45
(1.0%)
0.91
(8.2%)
23.5
(39.1%)
0.7
(77.7%)
6.0
(50%)
0.5
(55.6%)
249
(83%)
.44
(11%)
0.48
(48%)
11
(611%)
Meal 7
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
1.1
(2.4%)
1.1
(10%)
21.2
(35.3%)
0.79
(87.7%)
4.8
(40%)
0.1
(11.1%)
349
(116%)
1.5
(37.5%)
0.3
(30%)
0
(0%)
Meal 8
203
(33.8%)
4.9
(32.6%)
1.1
(2.4%)
1.0
(9.1%)
21.1
(35.1%)
0.74
(82.2%)
5.9
(49.2%)
.49
(54.4%)
300
(100%)
.53
(13.3%)
0.58
(58%)
11
(611%)
132
Table 3.10 Composition of Primary School meals compared to DRIs for children aged 
9-13 (minerals)
Target Meal a
Meal 1
35.5
(2.7%)
5.6
(70%)
262
(10.9%)
39.2
(16.3%)
186
(14.9%)
1.6
(20%)
5.8
(.48%)
16.2
(40.5%)
.32
(30%)
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by percentage of DRI provided.
Meal 2
13.9
(1.1%)
7.8
(97.5%)
269
(11.2%)
18.7
(7.8%)
112
(9%)
4.4
(55%)
2.4
(.20%)
0.04
(1%)
.03
(42.9%)
Meal 3
16.0
(1.2%)
7.1
(88.8%)
356
(14.8%)
21.2
(8.8%)
139
(11.1%)
4.6
(57.5%)
6.5
(0.5%)
1.8
(4.5%)
.35
(50%)
Meal 4
44
(3.3%)
6.4
(80%)
483
(20.1%)
47
(19.6%)
258
(11.1%)
2.7
(33.8%)
11.7
(0.97%)
16.9
(42.3%)
.58
(82.9%)
Meal 5
37
(2.8%)
5.5
(68.8%)
319
(13.3%)
37
(15.4%)
194
(15.5%)
0.75
(83.3%)
4.9
(40.8%)
0.1
(2.5%)
0.2
(28.6%)
Meal 6
9.2
(0.7%)
6.4
(80%)
204
(8.5%)
12.2
(5.1%)
80
(6.4%)
4
(50%)
3.7
(0.31%)
1.0
(2.5%)
0.2
(28.6%)
Meal 7
36.5
(2.8%)
5.9
(73.8%)
282
(11.8%)
36.5
(15.2%)
184
(14.7%)
1.9
(23.8%)
6.5
(0.54%)
15
(37.5%)
.41
(58.6%)
Meal 8
8.7
(0.67%)
6.8
(85%)
168
(7%)
11.7
(4.9%)
70
(5.6%)
3.9
(48.8%)
1.5
(0.1%)
0.02
(0.05%)
0.19
(27.1%)
Calcium (mg)
Iron (mg)
Potassium (mg)
Magnesium (mg)
Phosphorus (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Selenium (mg)
Copper (mg)
133
School Meal Contributions to 
Dietary Diversity
For Senegal, no dietary recall data was available that 
would allow us to determine dietary diversity at the 
individual level. Therefore, this analysis takes into 
consideration only the meals that children are provided 
in the school setting, and all foods consumed outside the 
school were not considered. This approach was taken in 
efforts to understand how the MGD feeding initiative 
contributes to the dietary diversity of benefiting children, 
given the data that were 
available to the research 
team and feasible 
for collection by in￾country representatives. 
The foods provided in each school meal were compared 
to a list of 13 different food groups (the G13 food 
group indicator). Although all food indicators have 
revealed good correlations with mean adequacy ratio 
(MAR), the G13 version was found to be slightly 
better than other group indicators to classify the diet of 
children ages 1 to 9 years of age regarding micronutrient 
adequacy (Steyn, et al., 2014). A dietary diversity score 
of 4 or greater was considered to indicate micronutrient 
adequacy, as it is the recommended cut off for the 
selected food group indicator (Steyn, et al., 2014).
Based on the dietary diversity analysis, the school 
meals provided to both preschool and primary school 
age children are lacking in variety to ensure adequate 
micronutrient content. The meals do not provide enough 
variety of food groups to meet the minimum score of 
four food groups. Table 3.11 and Table 3.12 display the 
dietary diversity scores of meals provided to preschool 
and primary school students. The provided school meals 
are comprised of grains and legumes, providing only two 
out of the four minimum food groups desired for dietary 
adequacy. Grains provide fiber and calories to meals, as 
well as B vitamins (FAO & FHI, 2016). B vitamins such 
as thiamine, riboflavin, vitamin B3, vitamin B6, and 
pantothenic acid are directly involved in the metabolism of 
protein, carbohydrates, and fats (Huskisson et al., 2007). 
Legumes are protein rich, which is important since school 
meals lack animal-source foods (FAO & FHI, 2016). 
According to in-country implementers, the wheat flour 
and rice provided 
to children are 
iron and folate 
fortified. The oil 
and the orange￾flesh sweet 
potatoes donated 
by the community are fortified with vitamin A. Food 
fortification has been demonstrated to be a cost-effective 
strategy to reduce the burden of food insecurity and to 
provide health benefits, however the long-term effects of 
such strategies are not as established (Olson et al., 2021).
In comparison, school meals that are composed of staple 
foods in addition to parent and community donations help 
contribute to greater dietary diversity, providing at least 
four food groups. Such meals were developed following 
the “Guide to setting up and Managing School Canteens” 
and the Yaajeende recipe booklet. The Yaajeende recipe 
booklet provides schools with recipes that support adequate 
nutrition and facilitate the inclusion of regional foods and 
community donations into recipes. The recipe booklet 
was a resource developed by the Yaajeende Nutrition-Led 
Agriculture Program (USAID, 2017). Tables 3.13 through 
3.17 demonstrate the food groups provided to preschool 
and primary school students with community donations.
“The provided school meals are comprised of grains and legumes, 
providing only two out of the four minimum food groups desired for 
dietary adequacy. Grains provide fiber and calories to meals, as well 
as B vitamins (FAO & FHI, 2016).”
134
Table 3.11 Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of Meals provided to Pre-school students
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
roots, tubers, and plantains
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Vitamin A-rich dark green
leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Rice, flour, and bulgur
Lentils and split peas
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 2
135
Table 3.12 Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals provided to Primary School students
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
roots, tubers, and plantains
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Vitamin A-rich dark green
leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Rice and flour
Lentils and split peas
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 2
136
Table 3.13. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals including community donations
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
roots, tubers, and plantains
White roots, tubers, and plantains
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Rice, cassava, and bulgar
Beef and fillet
Lentils and cowpeas
Carrots, sweet potatoes,
and squash
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
137
Table 3.14. Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals including community donations
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains)
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Flour and millet
semolina
Guedj (dry fish)
Peanut flour and peas
Tamarind
Onions, cherries, and
tomatoes
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
138
Table 3.15 Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals including community donations
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
roots, tubers, and plantains
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Rice
Eggs
Chicken
Lentils
Moringa leaf
Orange flesh sweet 
potatoes, carrots
Tomatoes
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
7
139
Table 3.16 Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals including community donations
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Bulgur, wheat flour
Eggs
Chicken
Fish
Peas
Moringa leaves
Orange flesh sweet 
potatoes, carrots, squash
Tomatoes, onions and
garlic
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
6
140
Table 3.17 Minimum Dietary Diversity Score of meals including community donations
Question # Food Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
 Total number of food groups included
Cereals (food made from grains),
roots, tubers, and plantains
Milk and milk products
Eggs
Flesh meats
Fish
Legumes, nuts & seeds
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A-rich deep yellow/
orange/red vegetables
Vitamin A-rich fruits
Vitamin A-rich vegetables
Vitamin C-rich fruits
Other fruits
Other vegetables
Examples
Bulgar and rice
Fish
Lentils and peas
Turnip
Orange flesh sweet 
potatoes, carrots
Onions
YES=1 NO=0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
7
141
Discussion And Conclusion
The MGD Food for Education program school meals 
that are provided in Senegal are portioned to provide 
at least 20% of the RDA of many of the key nutrients 
that are essential for children to prevent malnutrition 
and enhance health and development. The meals for 
preschool and primary school children do contain 
slightly less fat than recommended, while still containing 
adequate (primary schools) or slightly less (preschools) 
calories than recommended. Meals for preschool and 
primary school students contain more than an adequate 
amount of carbohydrates, so one thing to consider may 
be whether meals could be better balanced by providing 
more beans and oil, which would increase the protein 
and fat content. The meals currently provide 10 g of oil 
which is important to note because the oil provided has 
been fortified with vitamin A and vitamin D. Without 
these vital fortified nutrients, there could be potential for 
a child to become deficient in either of these vitamins, 
especially if these meals are the primary or only source of 
food for that day. Each meal is designed to provide the 
most optimal nutrition for those receiving the food, by 
pairing carbohydrate, protein, and fat sources together. 
However, the ingredients also need to be portioned so 
that the children can maximally benefit from the meals 
provided at school. Finally, the foods provided are low 
in a few specific important nutrients, notably, vitamin 
C and calcium. One thing to look at may be whether 
the foods provided by the community are a good source 
of vitamin C, calcium, protein, or fat, to see whether 
or how much of the gap could be filled by these foods.
The community donations are added to meals in 
accordance with the school canteen guide and recipe 
booklet. Most of the recipes available to schools are 
nutritionally adequate, providing children with a 
minimum of four food groups. The addition of flesh 
meats, vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables, and other 
vegetables provide essential nutrients previously lacking 
in school meals that were comprised of only the staple 
foods. The flesh foods and the fish food groups provide all 
essential amino acids in addition to iron, zinc, and vitamin 
B12 (FAO & FHI, 2016). Vitamin B12 is essential for 
adequate brain development, protein synthesis, and for 
the metabolism of fats and carbohydrates (Huskisson 
et al., 2007). Iron is a nutrient of particular concern 
among school-age children, as iron deficiency and iron￾deficiency anemia are a prevalent problem worldwide 
impairing the cognitive development of children (Best et 
al., 2010). Africa displays the highest regional prevalence 
of iron deficiency anemia, which negatively impacts 
healthy development (Best et al., 2010; Halterman et 
al., 2001). Furthermore, animal-foods provide iron that 
is more bioavailable than plant-based foods, which can 
play a significant role in minimizing the prevalence of 
inadequate iron status among school age children (Best et 
al., 2010; FAO & FHI, 2016). Therefore, community and 
parent contributions have a direct positive effect on dietary 
diversity for students. Meals that incorporate the donations 
provide a minimum of four food groups, therefore 
increasing the nutritional value of meals and providing 
meals that support adequate nutrient consumption.
Limitations
A limitation of our Senegal case study is the limited data 
available on specific school feeding practices pertaining 
to exact recipes and serving sizes of meals. Although 
there is detailed data available on the food commodities 
provided by the USDA, recipes and menus that school 
districts are using cannot be precisely analyzed due 
to the lack of key information such as serving size and 
ingredient measurements. Finally, this report only 
considers foods consumed in school. Therefore, it does 
not consider daily diet variability, and it is not a direct 
reflection of the actual 24-hour intake of participants. 
Conclusion
The school meals provided in Senegal for preschool 
and primary school students are generally nutritionally 
adequate but could be improved with increased protein, 
fat, vitamin C, and calcium content. While the meals 
contain at least 20% of the RDA of a number of key 
nutrients, the meals are falling short of meeting the 
MGD requirement that 30% of the RDA of all key 
nutrients be provided. Additionally, the community 
and parent contributions have a clear positive effect on 
the dietary diversity of students. Meals that incorporate 
donations generally provide a minimum of four food 
groups, therefore increasing the nutritional value of meals 
and providing meals that support adequate nutrient 
consumption. Going forward, it is recommended that 
implementors collect data on food consumption outside 
of school and design rations to fill found nutrient gaps.
142
Evaluation of Meals: Senegal Case
Country Profile
The purpose of this report was to analyze the nutritional 
adequacy and dietary diversity of the meals provided in 
supported primary schools in Tanzania. It is important 
to understand exactly what is provided to the students 
in order to understand the impact of these nutritional 
provisions on children’s health and educational outcomes. 
This report highlights the need to improve the dietary 
diversity of school age children living in Tanzania. 
The United Republic of Tanzania is a coastal, lower￾middle income country in East Africa with a population 
of 56.3 million (UNICEF, 2019; USAID, 2021). 
Tanzania is the tenth largest economy in Africa and has 
a fast-growing economy (FAO, 2010). However, the 
population has been unevenly impacted by economic 
development (FAO, 2010). Only urban areas of Tanzania 
have been affected by economic advances, while the rural 
areas remain unaffected (FAO, 2010). The agriculture 
sector is the largest employer across the country with 63 
percent of the population living in rural areas. As a result, 
many children living in rural areas experience poverty 
and malnutrition (FAO, 2010). There are 9.3 million 
children under the age of 5 years in Tanzania, and 34% 
are stunted (MoHCDGEC, 2016; USAID, 2021). Sixty 
percent of children aged 6-59 months are suffering from 
anemia (MoHCDGEC, 2016). Among rural children, 
81% live in poverty (FAO, 2010). The prevalence of 
stunting among adolescents, ages ranging from 10 to 19 
years, living in rural areas is estimated to be 64.2% in 
comparison to 3.9% in urban areas (Ismail et al., 2019).
The diet of the rural and urban populations is based 
on cereals, roots, and tubers (FAO, 2008). Potatoes, 
rice, cassava, and sorghum are also staple items among 
the population (FAO, 2008). Stiff porridge is often the 
main food prepared for meals, and it is made of maize 
flour, sorghum, or cassava (FAO, 2008). Common side 
dishes include sardines, pulses, or various meats (FAO, 
2008). The rural population displays a higher frequency 
of vegetable consumption than the urban population, 
however the quantities of vegetables consumed are small 
and do not contribute significantly to nutritional intake 
(FAO, 2008). The population’s diet is not diversified, 
as the majority of households have limited income and 
give priority to bulky items such as maize and cassava, 
and other food items such as oils are considered a 
luxury item by most rural communities (FAO, 2008).
In the past decade, several initiatives have been 
implemented in Tanzania to reduce hunger and the 
percentage of children who are stunted or suffering 
from chronic malnutrition (MoHCDGEC et al., 2018). 
Between 2014 and 2018, the percentage of malnourished 
or stunted children decreased by 2.9% (34.7% to 31.8%) 
(MoHCDGEC et al., 2018). The National Multi-Sectoral 
Nutrition Action Plan (NMNAP) aimed to reduce the 
percentage of stunted children from 34.5% to 28% by 
2021 (UNICEF, 2016). According to a recent report, the 
mid-point target of 32% has been met (MoHCDGEC 
et al., 2018). Despite progress achieved to improve 
children’s nutrition in Tanzania, according to the Second 
National Nutrition Survey conducted in 2018, it is 
estimated that as many as three million children under 
five years of age are stunted (MoHCDGEC et al., 2018). 
It was projected that approximately 420,000 children 
under five years would suffer from acute malnutrition 
in 2019, and 85,000 from severe acute malnutrition 
with a high risk of death if appropriate interventions 
were not implemented (MoHCDGEC et al., 2018).
In efforts to reduce the burden of undernutrition and 
improve the health and literacy outcomes of primary 
school-age children affected by economic disparities 
in the Mara Region, Project Concern International 
(PCI) has been partnering with the USDA-FAS under 
the funding of MGD to implement the Food for 
Education initiative since 2010 (PCI, 2021). The 
ongoing partnership aims to improve the health and 
dietary practices of students attending 231 primary 
schools and to assist the Government of Tanzania in 
improving literacy outcomes and student attendance 
in participant schools (PCI, 2021). The project is 
implemented in the Mara region of Tanzania, specifically 
the districts of Bunda, Butiama, and Musoma Rural 
(PCI, 2021). Since the project’s implementation began, 
over 190,000 primary school students have been receiving 
143
daily school meals approximately five times a week 
from USDA-donated commodities. A total of 242,423 
students have benefited from meals since inception of the 
project (PCI, 2021). School meals benefiting children 
receive USDA-donated commodities including rice, 
beans, and cooking oil. This is a particularly significant 
contribution as many primary schools in Tanzania do 
not provide daily school meals. Approximately 9.5 
million students in the 20,000 schools of Tanzania are 
not supported by school meal initiatives (PCI, 2021).
In 2019, the Government of Tanzania stopped 
importations of USDA-commodities and changes 
were made to the FFE initiative. Starting in 2020, PCI 
accelerated the school feeding program to promote 
community led initiatives and diversify meals provided 
to students according to school location, availability of 
food items, and seasonality. In addition, community 
contributions including maize, corn, sorghum, millet, 
orange flesh sweet potatoes, and green vegetables have 
been collected daily to complement school meals. 
According to an in-country staff member from PCI, daily 
school meals are comprised of a cooked mixture of maize, 
beans, and oil. Some schools can provide porridge, sweet 
potatoes, rice and beans, vegetables, and fruits to students 
through the local assistance of community contributions 
and school gardens. Changes to the school meal menu 
were reported to occur often in efforts to adjust to food 
availability and seasonality. MGD and LRP supported 
schools provide an average of 1 to 5 meals per week, 
depending on availability of contributed commodities, 
and students only receive meals when schools are open.
Provided Meals
Introduction
School meals in Tanzania typically consist of grains, 
maize, legumes, and fortified oil previously provided 
by the MGD program. If fresh fruits, whole grains, or 
low-fat dairy is provided by parents or local vendors 
there is no evidence provided.1
 The government of 
Tanzania has taken various actions to create a healthy 
and sustainable environment for children to learn in 
by providing children with meals from local vendors; 
however, previously, USDA commodities were provided, 
which is the focus of this report. Data on school meals 
1 Parent or community contributions include labor, cash, materials for school rehabilitation, and in cases, foods like 
beans, vegetables, maize, millet, and salt.
in Tanzania is scarce and nutritional adequacy has not 
been amply assessed. This report aims to analyze the 
nutritional value and nutritional adequacy of the menus 
provided by MGD to the Tanzania school districts. 
Materials and Methods
Study Design Population and Sampling 
This is a secondary data analysis of data provided by 
the MGD program of a school meals program Tanzania. 
As of 2016, this project has provided meals for 318,000 
children from 33 million dollars from the USDA. Prior 
numbers on meals provided and students fed were not 
available prior to 2016. These meals are provided by 
PCI with funds from USDA, and in collaboration with 
the Government of Tanzania, and local organizations, 
like parent-teacher associations. Table 3.18 shows menu 
information prepared by PCI in Tanzania. This is the 
updated menu after the commodity changes in 2019.
Nutritional Adequacy of School 
Meals
To analyze the meal data provided by Tanzania, 
Nutritics, a nutrition analysis software was used 
to calculate the nutritional value of the menus for 
calories, macronutrient, and micronutrient content.
Results
In the Tanzanian school system, school is held five days 
a week for an average of 180 days a year. The children in 
the intervention schools are provided breakfast Monday - 
Friday on school days. The food provided by the MGD 
program can be found in Table 3.19 and includes sources 
for carbohydrate, a protein, and a fat. The foods included 
are maize, dried beans, and oil. These food products are 
grown and manufactured in the United States from 100% 
U.S. sourced ingredients. As of 2019, this practice has 
ended due to political changes in the country. Tanzania 
now receives funds from the LRP program in order to 
seek alternatives to increase food supply from local 
growers and producers (USDA, 2019; USDA, 2016). 
144
Table 3.18 Contents of MGD Tanzania Primary School Ration
Maize
Beans
Fortified Oil
Totals
% Required Daily Allowance
(Based on 1,842 kcal for average 5 - 13-year-old, per FAO)
Ration
grams (g) per person (pp) per day (pd)
438.0
103.3
44.2
584
32%
kcal
pp pd
5.6
0.426
5.0
11
37%
Fat
g pp pd
11.3
6.5
0.0
17.8
66%
Protein
g pp pd
120
30
5
155g
Table 3.19 Macronutrient Content of Tanzania Rations
Maize
Beans
Oil
Calories
0.58
2.04
0
Fat (g)
80
65.31
0
Protein (g)
360
347
884
Ingredient
*This table contains the USAID macronutrients contents of the USAID food basket per 100g of ingredient.
Carbohydrate (g)
6.6
22.5
0
Ingredient
Table 3.20 Meal Provided by Tanzania’s School District (New Ration)
Maize
Beans
Oil
Totals
5.6
0.426
5
11
Calories Fat (g)
438
102
44
484
Ingredient
80
65.31
0
145.3
Protein (g) Carbohydrate (g)
11.3
6.5
0
17.8
Ration
120g
30g
5g
155g
145
Description of Food Provided in Meals 
The main source of carbohydrates are dry split peas, dry 
lentils, bulgur, wheat flour, and rice. Dry beans are a source 
of complex carbohydrates, a source of plant-based protein, 
iron, zinc, potassium, and folate. These dried beans may 
be provided with a fortified flour, meal, or grain, and a 
fortified vegetable oil in a supplemental food basket. 
Maize is a cereal grain that is dried and fortified. Bulgur 
can be used with pulses and fortified vegetable oil in school 
feedings. The source of fat provided comes from fortified 
vegetable oil. This is a source of plant-based fat that has 
been fortified with vitamin A and vitamin D. The intent of 
the fortified oil is to increase the caloric density of the meal 
and aid in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. This oil 
may be provided with fortified blended foods, flour, meal 
or grains, or pulses in supplemental feeding programs. 
Table 3.21 Nutrition Value of Ration Compared
to WHO Recommendations for Carbohydrates, 
Protein, and Fat
Macronutrient
Energy, kcal a
Carbohydrates, g b
Protein, g c
Fat, g d
 Saturated fat, g
 Monosaturated fat, g
 Polyunsaturated fat, g
 Omega-3 (ALA), g
 Omega-6 (LA), g
Nutrition Value
Provided e
593 (121.5%)
106 (132.5%)
16.1 (107.3%)
5 (42%)
0.745
1.1
2.88
0.35
2.55
a Reference of 488 kcal is used for energy intake. This 
was calculated based on the mean g of carbohydrate, 
protein, and fat recommended per meal.
b Reference of 80 g of carbohydrate is used. This 
was calculated based on the mean of range of 68-92 g.
c Reference of 15 g of protein is used. This was 
calculated based on the mean of range of 12-18 g.
d Reference of 12 g of fat is used. This was calculated 
based on the mean of range of 8-16 g. WHO does not 
have specific recommendations for types of fat 
provided in school meals, other than <10% of calories 
from saturated fat intake, but the breakdown of fat 
content is still provided here for informational purposes.
e Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal,
followed by percentage of recommended nutrition 
value provided.
Micronutrient
Vitamin A (mg)
Vitamin D (mg)
Vitamin C (mg)
Vitamin E (mg)
Vitamin K (mg)
Thiamin (mg)
Niacin (mg)
Riboflavin (mg)
Folate (mg)
Pantothenic acid (mg)
Vitamin B6 (mg)
Vitamin B12 (mg)
Nutrition Value
Provided a
101.5 (25.4%)
2.5 (16.6%)
1.3 (2.9%)
0.51 (4.6%)
11.6 (19.3%)
0.56 (62.2%)
4.2 (35.0%)
0.27 (30.0%)
137 (45.7%)
0.23 (5.8%)
0.74 (74.0%)
0 (0%)
Table 3.22 Nutrition Value of Ration Compared
to DRI’s for Children Aged 9-13 (Vitamins)
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal,
followed by percentage of DRI provided.
146
Table 3.23. Nutrition Value of Ration Compared to DRIs for Children Aged 9-13 y (Minerals)
Micronutrient Nutrition Value Provided a
a Values are crude nutrition value provided by the meal, followed by
percentage of DRI provided.
Calcium (mg)
Iron (mg)
Potassium (mg)
Magnesium (mg)
Phosphorus (mg)
Zinc (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Selenium (mg)
Copper (mg)
24.8 (1.9%)
5.1 (63.8%)
711 (28.4%)
167 (69.6%)
1.3 (68.4%)
431 (34.5%)
3.0 (37.5%)
24.8 (1.9%)
0.38 (54.3%)
Compared to the WHO recommendations for energy and 
macronutrient content of school meals, the meal provided 
through the MGD program in Tanzania contains more 
energy, carbohydrates, and protein than the minimum 
recommendation, and less fat than recommended (Table 
3.21). The meal is under the recommendation for fat by 
58%. Looking at micronutrients, the meals contain at least 
20% of the RDA for children ages 9-13 for vitamin A, 
vitamin D, thiamin, niacin, riboflavin, folate, vitamin B6, 
iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, 
zinc, selenium, and copper (Table 3.22, Table 3.23). The 
meals contain less than 20% of the RDA for vitamin 
A, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, pantothenic acid, 
vitamin B12, calcium, and sodium. Of note is that these 
meals do not contain any vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is 
found in foods of animal origin such as beef, chicken, 
fish, milk and cheese. Plant-based foods such as cereals 
and grains can be fortified with vitamin B12, though, to 
the best of our knowledge, the maize provided in these 
meals is not fortified with vitamin B12. The vitamin A and 
D content of the meals can be attributed to the fortified 
vegetable oil. However, since these meals contained 
only 42% of the WHO recommended fat content of a 
school meal, and less than 20% of the RDA for vitamin 
D, increasing the oil content of the meals could prove 
beneficial. The meals contain minimal calcium, which is 
essential for bone health, providing 1.9% of the RDA. 
Iron was sufficient for each meal, with meals providing 
63.8% of the RDA. Overall, these meals could potentially 
be improved by shifting their macronutrient distribution 
to contain slightly less carbohydrate and slightly more fat 
to be closer in line to recommendations that WHO has 
published. The meals could also potentially be improved 
by increasing their vitamin C and calcium content. The 
meals do generally contain an adequate amount of key 
nutrients for child growth and development such as iron, 
zinc, vitamin A, and B vitamins, assuming that these meals 
are a supplement to other sources of nutrition children 
may consume to help them consistently reach RDAs.
147
Contribution of School Meals to 
Dietary Diversity
Introduction
In Tanzania, the in-country survey team prepared and 
administered a culturally adapted questionnaire that 
included questions about diet. The questionnaire included 
introductory text, instructions, and guidance for reporting 
to the survey team. The questionnaire implemented the 
list-based method in which an extensive food list was 
developed by the survey team and added in accordance 
with the dietary habits of the target audience, and available 
local foods. The questionnaire also included other health 
related questions in which participants were asked about 
hygiene practices and their perception of the importance 
of nutrition. The questionnaire included questions 
regarding food items consumed by students throughout 
the previous day (past 24-hours). As the population of 
interest were preschool and primary school-aged children, 
the questionnaire was conducted at the individual level. 
There is currently no dietary diversity tool available to 
assess diet quality that takes into consideration the unique 
nutritional needs of preschool and primary school age 
children. There is an 8-item minimum dietary diversity 
(MDD) tool designed to assess the diet quality of infants 
and children less than 2 years of age, and a 10-item 
indicator specifically targeted to women of reproductive 
age (WRA), the MDD-W (Solomon et al., 2017; FAO, 
2021). Since there is currently no validated tool to assess 
minimum dietary diversity among school-age children 
greater than two years of age, we considered a modified 
version of WHO’s 8-item MDD tool, utilizing all food 
groups except for the breast milk group. While this is 
far from ideal, it allowed us to utilize available data to 
synthesize survey responses into a general understanding 
of the diversity of children’s’ diets in intervention and 
control schools. Thus, we categorized responses to food 
item questions into seven major food groups: (i) grains, 
roots, and tubers; (ii) legumes and nuts; (iii) flesh 
foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats); (iv) 
eggs; (v) vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables; (vi) dairy 
products (milk, yogurt, cheese); and (vii) other fruits and 
vegetables. If a student consumed at least one food item 
from a food group throughout the previous day, the food 
group was assigned a value of one (1) for that student, 
and zero (0) if not consumed in the past 24-h. The food 
group scores were then summed up to obtain a dietary 
diversity score, which ranged from zero to seven, whereby 
zero represents non-consumption of any of the food 
items in the selected food groups, and seven represents 
the highest possible level of dietary diversification. 
Children were considered to have an adequately diverse 
diet if they consumed four or more food groups (FG ≥ 
4) out of the seven food groups over the previous day. 
A score of 4 was chosen as it is the recommended cut 
off for the selected food group indicator (Stylen, et al., 
2014). This report takes into consideration all foods 
consumed inside and outside the school setting. This 
approach was taken in efforts to better understand how 
MGD FFE initiative and the ‘Chakula Chetu’ Project 
Intervention is impacting the nutritional status of 
benefiting students and if the children are consuming an 
overall adequate diet that supplies all essential nutrients. 
Material and Methods 
The data used to evaluate the dietary diversity of 
primary school-age children were secondary data 
provided by an in-country PCI representative. A 
Tanzania firm, IPSOS Tanzania, was responsible for all 
quantitative and qualitative data collection processes. 
Quality control was supported by a consulting company, 
Trembley Consulting. A quasi-experimental, mixed￾methods approach was adopted to assess school feeding 
interventions performance and impact indicators. 
A total of 1600 students attending 100 primary schools 
in the Bunda, Musoma Rural, Butiama, and Serengeti 
districts were randomly selected to participate in the 
24-hour recall questionnaire. Students were asked to 
report all food items consumed yesterday (past 24-
h) inside and outside the school setting. Students were 
also asked to describe all foods (meals and snacks) eaten 
in addition to any beverages consumed during the 
day or night. A digital tablet tool available to the PCI 
and trained staff was used to record student responses 
and the results were presented in an excel spreadsheet. 
Baseline Intervention Results 
Student Characteristics 
Table 3.24 describes the baseline location distribution 
of the children who participated in the 24-h recall study. 
A total of 1600 children aged seven to seventeen years 
148
were included in the evaluation. Among the children, 
800 (49.9%) and 800 (49.9%) were boys and girls, 
respectively. The mean age of the children was 12 ± 2.8 
years, with 61% of children aged more than 12 years. 
Most children were enrolled in 2nd grade (37.5%) 
and 4th grade (37.7%) at the time of the study, and a 
smaller number of children attended 6th grade (12.5%) 
and 7th grade (12.5%). The majority of children 
were full day term students (79.6%), while 12.6% 
were morning only term, and 7.7% afternoon only.
The student’s household primary occupation was 
reported as Agriculture (88.1%) and Livestock (3.3%). 
Table 3.25 summarizes the occupation of student parents. 
Dietary Diversity 
Children from the intervention group who received an 
average of 5 school meals per week through the FFE or 
‘Chakula Chetu’ initiatives had greater dietary diversity 
than children from control schools. However, most 
children from both intervention and control groups are 
not currently getting the recommended minimum of 4 
food groups per day. As many as 84% of children, from 
both intervention and control groups, reported consuming 
3 or less food groups in the previous 24 hours. Only 
16% of students from the intervention group and 15% 
of control students reported consuming 4 or more food 
groups per day. As many as 45% of children consumed 2 
Table 3.24 Student Baseline Distribution Based on Location
District
Bunda
Butiama
Musoma Rural
Serengeti
Total
Number of Subjects
352
192
256
800
1600
Percent
22%
12%
16%
50%
100%
Table 3.25 Summary of Occupations Held by Parents of
Surveyed Students
Occupation
Agricultural Laborer
Agriculture
Large Business
Livestock
Pension
Petty Business
Salaried
Skilled Worker
Unemployed
Unknown
Other
Frequency
23
1411
2
53
1
35
42
12
4
2
15
Percent
1.5
88.1
.1
3.3
.1
2.2
2.6
.7
.2
.1
.9
149
or less food groups in the previous 24 hours. Figure 3.1 
and Figure 3.2 summarize the dietary diversity findings. 
The mean number of food groups consumed per day 
by survey participants, comprising both control and 
intervention schools, was 3.15 ± 1.4. Female students 
displayed a lower mean score (3.12 ± 1.41) than male 
students (3.18 ± 1.44). Children from Butiama district 
displayed the highest mean scores (3.37 ± 1.48), followed 
by Musoma Rural district (3.15 ± 1.63), and Serengeti 
(3.15 ± 1.33). Students from Bunda district exhibited the 
lowest mean average score (3.04 ± 1.422). The majority 
of intervention children reported consuming grains 
(98%) and legumes (44%). FFE and ‘Chakula Chetu’ 
benefiting children also reported having consumed flesh 
foods (62%) and other fruits and vegetables (36%) in the 
past 24-h. Roots were consumed by 21% of intervention 
Figure 3.1 Percentage of Children Who Consume Zero, One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six or
Seven Food Groups Per Day in Intervention Schools
MDDS Intervention Schools
Figure 3.2 Percentage of Children Who Consume Zero, One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six or
Seven Food Groups Per Day in Control Schools
0 1 2
1%
36%
31%
16%
3 4 5 6 7
8%
4%
2% 2%
MDDS Control Schools
0 1 2
1%
33% 32%
18%
3 4 5 6 7
9%
4%
2% 0%
150
children, followed by vitamin A foods (26%), dairy 
(24%), and eggs (5%). Figure 3.3 summarizes food 
group consumption of school meals benefiting children. 
On the other hand, 79% of benefiting students reported 
not consuming roots and tubers, 56% did not consume 
legumes, 64% reported no other fruits and vegetables 
eaten, and 38% did not consume any flesh foods in the 
past 24-h. Figure 3.4 summarizes the percentage of student 
who report not having consumed selected food groups.
The majority of children from both intervention (62%) 
and control (57%) schools reported consuming flesh 
foods in the past 24-h. Dairy consumption was higher 
among children attending control schools (42%) than 
children from intervention schools (24%). Only a 
small number of children reported having consumed 
eggs in the past 24-h, 4% of children from control 
schools and 5% from intervention schools. Figure 3.5 
summarizes the percentage of students who report 
having consumed animal source foods in the past 24-h.
Figure 3.3 Percentage of Benefiting Children Consuming Selected Food Groups in the Past 24-h.
Percentage of Children That Report Not Consuming Specific Food
Figure 3.4 Percentage of Intervention Students Who Reported Not Consuming Selected Food 
Groups in the Past 24-h.
98%
21%
44%
24%
62%
5%
26%
36%
Grains Roots
and
Tubers
Legumes Dairy Flesh
Foods
Eggs Vitamin A
Rich Foods
Other Fruits
and
Vegetables
2%
79%
56%
76%
38%
95%
74%
64%
Grains Roots
and
Tubers
Legumes Dairy Flesh
Foods
Eggs Vitamin A
Rich Foods
Other Fruits
and
Vegetables
151
A small percentage of intervention children (21%) 
reported intake of roots and tubers, followed by 15% 
of control children. A larger number of intervention 
students reported having consumed legumes (44%) 
followed by (34%) of control students. Figure 3.6 
summarizes the percentage of students who report 
having consumed roots, tubers, legumes, and nuts.
Figure 3.5 Percentage of Intervention and Control Students Who Reported Consuming Animal
Source Foods in the Past 24-h.
62%
57%
24%
42%
5% 4%
Flesh Foods Dairy Eggs
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
Figure 3.6 Percentage of Intervention and Control Students Who Reported Consuming Roots
and Tubers or Legumes and Nuts in the Past 24-h.
21%
15%
44%
34%
Roots and Tubers Legumes and Nuts
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
Most of the children (98%) reported grain consumption. 
On the other hand, only 28% of control students 
reported intake of vitamin A rich foods, followed by 26% 
of intervention children, and the majority of children did 
not consume any other fruits and vegetables. Figure 3.7 
summarizes the percentage of students who report having 
consumed vitamin A rich foods or other fruits and vegetables.
Lastly, Figure 3.8 summarizes the percentage of 
students from each group who reported having 
consumed at least 3 food groups in the past 24-h. 
Only 9% of control and 8% of intervention students 
reported consuming 4 food groups in the previous day.
152
Figure 3.7 Percentage of Intervention and Control Students Who Reported Consuming 
Vitamin A Rich Foods or Other Fruits and Vegetables in the Past 24-h. 
26%
28%
36%
38%
Vitamin A rich foods Other fruits and vegetables
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
Figure 3.8 Percentage of Intervention and Control Students Who Reported Consuming 
Three or More Food Groups in the Past 24-h.
16%
18%
8% 9%
4% 4%
3 4 5
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
6 7
2% 2% 2%
0%
MDDS > 3
153
Midline Intervention Results
Student Characteristics 
To monitor progress achieved and to make judgment 
of the effectiveness of the school meals intervention 
in improving the diet quality of beneficiary students, 
midline data was collected. A total of 2388 students were 
randomly selected to participate in the 24-hours recall 
minimum dietary diversity questionnaire. Although the 
same districts (Bunda, Musoma Rural, Butiama, and 
Serengeti) were chosen for the formative evaluation, only 
students from 6th and 7th grade participated in the study. 
A total of 1200 benefiting children were selected from 
Bunda, Butiama, and Musoma Rural districts, and 1188 
non-benefiting children from Serengeti district. Table 3.26 
shows the student midline distribution based on location.
Half of the students were enrolled in sixth grade 
and half in seventh grade (37.7%). There was an 
even distribution of boys (50%) and girls (50%).
Table 3.26 Student Distribution Based on Location
District
Bunda
Butiama
Musoma Rural
Serengeti
Total
Number of Subjects
Half of the subjects were enrolled in 6th grade and half in 7th grade. (37.7%).
There was an even distribution of boys (50%) and girls (50%) subjects.
288
528
384
1188
2388
Percent
12%
22%
16%
50%
100%
154
Figure 3.9 Percentage of Intervention Group Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups
Per Day
MDDS
Intervention Schools
Figure 3.10 Percentage of Control Group Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups
Per Day
0 1 2
0% 1%
11%
27%
3 4 5 6 7
26%
18%
11%
6%
MDDS Control Schools
0 1 2
0% 1%
16%
31%
3 4 5 6 7
25%
15%
8%
3%
Dietary Diversity
The majority of children, from both intervention and 
control schools, reported consuming at least four food 
groups in the past 24-h. As many as 58% of children 
reported adequate dietary diversity. In comparison, 
at baseline, as few as 19% of children had reported 
consuming four food groups in the past 24-h. This is a 
substantial increase in the number of school-age children 
that reported having adequate dietary diversity. A higher 
number of students (61%) of intervention children 
reported consuming four or more food groups per day, 
155
with 31% of students consuming five food groups or more. 
Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10 summarize these findings.
The mean number of food groups consumed per day for 
intervention group children was significantly higher than for 
control group children. Table 3.27 summarizes the findings.
When segregating the data at the district level, 
Musoma Rural had the highest mean number of food 
groups consumed per day, followed by the Butiama 
and Bunda districts. Children from the Serengeti 
district reported the lowest mean number of food 
groups consumed per day. Table 3.28 reveals findings.
When comparing the dietary diversity of boys and girls, we 
see that boys tended to have less dietary diversity than girls.
The majority of intervention group children reported 
consuming grains (99.7%), fish or meat (88%), legumes and 
nuts (67%), and other fruits and vegetables (61%). As many 
as 40% of benefiting children reported having consumed 
dairy in the past 24-h. Vitamin A rich foods were consumed 
by 37% of intervention children. Figure 3.11 summarizes 
food group consumption of school meal benefiting children.
When looking at food groups that were not consumed 
in the past 24-h, 85% of benefiting students reported 
not consuming eggs, 63% did not consume Vitamin A 
rich foods, and 60% reported no dairy products eaten. 
Table 3.27 Mean Number of Food Groups Consumed Per Day, Intervention vs Control Groups
District N Standard Deviation
Control
Intervention
3.75
4.07
1188
1200
1.351
1.403
No. of Food Groups
Table 3.28 Mean Number of Food Groups Consumed Per Day by District
District N Standard Deviation
Bunda
Butiama
Musoma Rural
Serengeti
Total
3.91
4.11
4.13
3.75
3.91
288
528
384
1188
2388
1.368
1.365
1.473
1.351
1,386
No. of Food Groups
Table 3.29 Mean Number of Food Groups Consumed Per Day, Boys vs Girls
District N Standard Deviation
Boys
Girls
3.85
3.96
1188
1200
1.364
1.406
Mean No. of Food Groups
156
Figure 3.12 summarizes the percentage of students 
who report not having consumed selected food groups.
A greater number of children from both intervention 
(88%) and control (74%) schools reported consuming 
fish or meat in the past 24-h. Egg consumption was 
higher among children attending control schools 
(54%) than children from intervention schools (40%). 
Few children reported having consumed dairy in the 
past 24-h, 15% of children from intervention schools 
followed by 14% from control schools. Figure 3.13 
summarizes the percentage of students who report 
having consumed animal source foods in the past 24-h.
Figure 3.11 Selected Food Group Consumption in the Past 24-h.
Figure 3.12 Selected Food Groups Not Consumed 
in the Past 24-h.
Percentage of Intervention
Children That Report Not
Consuming Specific Food Group
Percentage of Intervention
Children That Report Consuming 
Specific Food Group
99.7%
67%
40%
88%
15%
37%
61%
Grains,
Roots, and
Tubers
Legumes
and Nuts
Dairy
Products
Fish or
Meat
Eggs Vitamin A
Rich Foods
Other Fruits
and
Vegetables
0.3%
34%
60%
12%
85%
63%
40%
Grains,
Roots, and
Tubers
Legumes
and Nuts
Dairy
Products
Fish or
Meat
Eggs Vitamin A
Rich Foods
Other Fruits
and
Vegetables
157
When analyzing dietary diversity data by district, 
61% of intervention children attending schools in the 
Musoma Rural district reported four or more food groups 
consumed. As many as 63% of children attending schools 
in the Butiama district reported consuming four or more 
food groups, followed by 59% of children from Bunda 
district. Figures 3.14 through 3.16 summarize the number 
of food groups consumed by children each day by district.
Figure 3.13 Intervention and Control Students Who Reported Consuming Animal
Source Foods in the Past 24-h.
88%
74%
15% 14%
40%
54%
Flesh Foods Dairy Eggs
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
On the other hand, 51% of control children from 
Serengeti district reported having eaten a minimum 
of four food groups, with 31% of children having 
consumed only three food groups. Figure 3.17 displays 
the number of food groups consumed by control 
children attending schools in the Serengeti district.
Figure 3.14 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Intervention Children from Musoma Rural District
Figure 3.15 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day
Intervention Chlldren from Bunda District
0 1 2
0% 1%
12%
25%
3 4 5 6 7
23%
19%
11%
8%
0 1 2
0% 1%
11%
28%
3 4 5 6 7
28%
18%
7%
6%
158
Figure 3.14 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Intervention Children from Musoma Rural District
Figure 3.15 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day
Intervention Chlldren from Bunda District
0 1 2
0% 1%
12%
25%
3 4 5 6 7
23%
19%
11%
8%
0 1 2
0% 1%
11%
28%
3 4 5 6 7
28%
18%
7%
6%
0% 0%
10%
27% 27%
18%
0 2 3 4 7
12%
6%
1 5 6
Figure 3.16 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Intervention Children from Butiama District
0% 1%
16%
31%
25%
15%
0 2 3 4 7
8%
3%
1 5 6
Figure 3.17 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Serengeti District Control Group Children
159
Finally, Figure 3.18 summarizes the percentage of students 
from each group who reported having consumed at least 
four food groups in the past 24-h. A higher percentage of 
intervention children (61%) compared to control children 
(52%) reported consuming a minimum of four food groups.
When looking at children consuming foods 
from less than four food groups per day, 39% of 
intervention and 48% of control students reported 
having consumed three or less food groups. 
0% 0%
10%
27% 27%
18%
0 2 3 4 7
12%
6%
1 5 6
Figure 3.16 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Intervention Children from Butiama District
0% 1%
16%
31%
25%
15%
0 2 3 4 7
8%
3%
1 5 6
Figure 3.17 Percentage of Children Consuming Each Number of Food Groups Per Day,
Serengeti District Control Group Children
Figure 3.18 Intervention vs Control Students Consuming Four or More Food Groups
in the Past 24-h.
MDDS > 4
21%
15%
44%
34%
> 4 Food Groups < 4 Food Groups
Intervention Schools (n=800)
Control Schools (n=800)
160
Discussion and Conclusion 
Nutrition Adequacy 
The MGD program school meals that were provided 
in Tanzania are portioned to provide at least 20% of the 
RDA of many of the key nutrients that are essential for 
children to prevent malnutrition and enhance health 
and development. The meals do contain less fat than 
recommended based on the available information, 
though, they contain adequate calories, protein, and 
carbohydrates. It should be considered whether meals 
could be better balanced by providing more fortified 
oil, which would increase the vitamin D and fat 
content. Each meal is designed to provide the most 
optimal nutrition for those receiving the food, by 
pairing carbohydrate, protein, and fat sources together. 
However, the ingredients also need to be portioned so 
that the children can maximally benefit. Finally, the foods 
provided are low in a few important nutrients, notably, 
vitamin C and calcium, of which each meal would ideally 
provide 30% of the RDA of in order to meet MGD 
requirements. One thing to look at may be whether locally 
procured foods are a good source of vitamin C, vitamin 
B12, calcium, protein, or fat, to determine whether or 
how much of the gap could be filled by these foods. 
Dietary Diversity
The diet of students from both intervention and control 
groups is comprised of mostly grains, legumes, and flesh 
foods. Almost all students (99%) reported consuming 
grains in the past 24-h. Data findings are consistent with 
the results of the national nutrition profile report which 
states that the population of Tanzania follows a diet 
centered on cereals and pulses with minimal consumption 
of micronutrient dense foods such as fruits and vegetables 
(FAO, 2008). The dominant consumption of cereals is 
highly attributed to minimal levels of seasonal price 
variations among these longer shelf-life goods as opposed 
to high price variations of perishable fruits and vegetables 
(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020). This 
is not unique to the population of Tanzania, as lower￾middle income countries often lack sufficient supplies of 
fruits and vegetables for all individuals to meet the WHO 
recommendations of adequate dietary practices, which 
includes a minimum consumption of 400 g or more of 
fruits and vegetables each day (Siegel et al., 2014). This is 
a global scale matter as many people are unable to afford 
the lowest-cost form of nutritious diets as food items 
that are nutrient-dense are often more expensive and 
less readily available (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and 
WHO, 2020). This is concerning as a lower consumption 
of fruits, vegetables, and other nutrient-dense foods 
is associated with diminished health and increased risk 
of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) (FAO, IFAD, 
UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020). Recent data on the 
geographical distribution of seasonality in diet costs 
within Tanzania also reveals that animal-source foods had 
the least seasonality (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and 
WHO, 2020). These findings are important as including 
animal-source foods could contribute to improvements 
in overall dietary diversity scores of the population due 
to a relatively stable supply and lower-cost (FAO, IFAD, 
UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020). Additionally, animal 
source foods are a high-quality source of protein and several 
micronutrients. When investigating the consumption of 
animal-source foods among intervention and control 
students, we see that the majority of intervention (88%) 
and control (74%) children reported consuming animal￾source foods in the previous 24-h, therefore, further 
confirming the high availability of these food items. 
Findings on the dietary diversity of students, from 
both intervention and control groups, reveal that the 
majority of children reported consuming at least four 
food groups in the previous day, with as many as 61% of 
intervention and 51% of control students consuming four 
or more groups. At baseline, most children were at a high 
risk for nutrient deficiencies and likely to be consuming 
inadequate amounts of several micronutrients due to the 
reported mean number of food groups consumed per day 
of 3.15 ± 1.4. However, the midline data revealed that 
the percentage of at-risk students decreased substantially, 
as the majority of children from both groups reported 
increased food group consumption. Although the risk 
for nutritional deficiency is reduced with increased diet 
variety, consuming the minimum number of four food 
groups is not optimal. Currently, there is no established 
consensus and recommendations regarding the minimum 
number of food groups that school age children should 
consume (Allen et al., 2006). However, a larger number 
of food groups is desirable and more likely to meet 
daily nutrient requirements. (Arimond & Ruel, 2002) 
Children who consume a cereal-based diet that lacks 
fruits, vegetables, and dairy have been identified as having 
a low nutrient intake, with a probability of nutrient 
adequacy that falls below 75 % for all nutrients (Gewa 
et al., 2013). As many as 60% of intervention children 
161
reported no dairy consumption, and 40% stated no 
fruits or vegetables were consumed in the past 24-h. 
The midline data revealed the school meals intervention 
contributed to a one unit increase in the overall number 
of food groups consumed per day, therefore increasing the 
likelihood that benefiting children are receiving adequate 
nutrition. A one unit increase in each overall dietary 
diversity score has been associated with a significant 
increase in nutrient adequacy (Gewa et al., 2013). 
However, a dietary diversity score of 6 to 8 food groups 
has been associated with the lowest risk of micronutrient 
insufficiency (Zao et al., 2017). As few as 37% of 
benefiting children reported consuming Vitamin A-rich 
foods. A total of 61% of intervention students consumed 
other fruits and vegetables in the past 24-h. Dairy was 
consumed by 40% of benefiting students, and as little 
as 15% of students consumed eggs. Although significant 
improvements have been achieved with the school meals 
intervention, most children displayed less than optimal 
dietary diversity scores, and a diet based heavily on grains 
and flesh foods and lacking fruits, vegetables, and dairy. 
Limitations
A limitation of this report is the limited data available on 
specific school feeding practices pertaining to recipes and 
serving sizes of meals. Although there is detailed data on 
the food commodities provided by the USDA, there are no 
recipes and menus provided by the school district that can 
currently be assessed. The supplementary material provided 
by staff in Tanzania includes the findings of the nutritional 
analysis that includes the micronutrient and fiber content 
of one meal. If there is other food being provided to the 
children that information would be useful to best give 
an accurate analysis of the school meals in Tanzania. 
This report only considers foods consumed in the previous 
24-h. Therefore, it does not consider daily diet variability, 
and it is not a thorough representation of the actual intake 
of participants. One way to improve the assessment of 
the student’s nutritional intake would be to conduct 
three or more 24-h recalls on the same students over a 
period of several days (Sempos et al, 1985; FNB, 1986). 
Additionally, 24-h recall reports should be conducted in 
different seasons to account for the seasonality of food 
items (Sempos et al, 1985). Food insecurity in Tanzania 
has been reported to peak from the months of December 
through February and to be lower during the months of 
June through August (Rogawaski et al., 2019). The data 
to support this report were collected during the months 
of April and May, which might have contributed to the 
lower mean number of food groups consumed per day 
seen among students from both control and intervention 
groups. Moreover, at the time of the study, school 
meals were comprised of USDA-commodities only. 
Starting in 2020, the school feeding program shifted 
to a community led school feeding initiative in which 
benefiting students were able to receive a wider variety 
of foods from community contributions and the newly 
implemented school garden initiative. Contributions 
including orange flesh sweet potatoes, fruits, and 
green vegetables have been offered to benefit children. 
Therefore, increasing the dietary variety benefits children 
and contributing to potentially greater dietary diversity. 
On the other hand, COVID-19 has caused disruptions 
in the FFE program and will continue to have substantial 
effects on the availability of school meals to benefit 
children. Closures of schools have decreased children’s 
access to school meals and nutritious foods. In June-July 
2020, PCI conducted a rapid situational analysis on the 
impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the school feeding 
program, which revealed “a low yield of school gardens 
and farms. Currently, only 6 out of 28 extension officers 
reported to have school garden existing and 18 reported 
school farming existing. Only 6 schools are keeping seeds 
for the coming season. Furthermore, 10 parents out of 53 
reported that covid-19 pandemic has affected availability 
of food at household level now and will continue to 
have a negative effect in the future. Additionally, 36 
(68%) out of 53 reported observable changes in farmer 
group dynamics as a result of covid-19 pandemic in 
meeting frequency, attendance and group production.”
Overall, school meals provided for students in Tanzania are 
a source of calories and many key nutrients important for 
growth and development based on the meal data available. 
However, there is room for improvement in the supply 
of some nutrients to the students. Those improvements 
could include higher quantities of calcium, Vitamin C, 
vitamin B12, and calories from fat in the provided meals.
162
Research Component 3: Nutritional Content of 
MGD Meals and Effects on Educational Outcomes
Evaluate the impact of school meal 
programs
Cognitive Development
Sub-section 3 of component 3 is an evaluation of 
the impact of school meal programs in Senegal and 
Tanzania as it relates to providing adequate nutrition 
for cognitive development, normal growth and 
development, and improving educational outcomes. To 
do this, results from component 3 sub-section 1 and 
component 3 sub-section 2 of this study were compared. 
To address the research question under component 3, the 
MSU team first conducted three in-depth desk reviews of 
1 Roberts, M.; Tolar-Peterson, T.; Reynolds, A.; Wall, C.; Reeder, N.; Rico Mendez, G. The Effects of Nutritional Inter￾ventions on the Cognitive Development of Preschool-Age Children: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 532. https://
doi.org/10.3390/nu14030532
2 Wall, C., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reeder, N., Roberts, M., Reynolds, A., Rico Mendez, G. The Impact of School Meal 
Programs on Educational Outcomes in African Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental 
Research and Public Health 2022, 19 (6), 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063666
3 Manuscript is under review in a peer-reviewed journal.
current literature. These desk reviews examined nutrients 
associated with cognitive development1
, nutrients 
associated with stunting2
, and the relative impact of school 
meal programs on educational outcomes for preschool￾age children3
. Sub-section 2 of research component 3 
then entailed evaluating what specific foods and nutrients 
are provided as part of the school meals, as well as the 
frequency of meals and adequacy of nutrient content. 
Below, conclusions from this comparative 
evaluation are broken down by desk review topic. 
Adequate intake of energy, protein and certain 
micronutrients are essential for the cognitive development 
of preschool and primary school age children (Welsh, 
2010). Children who do not consume adequate amounts 
of calories display impaired brain development and are 
more likely to underachieve academically in later years 
(Welsh, 2010). Protein-energy malnutrition during 
preschool years can impair adequate brain development 
and growth (Grantham-McGregor). Furthermore, 
vitamin B12 deficiency has been linked to neurological 
disorders as vitamin B12 plays an important role in 
neurotransmitter synthesis and functioning (Dror, 2008; 
Winje, 2018). Additionally, nutrients such as iron and 
long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUPFAs) have 
been identified to be particularly relevant to the cognitive 
development of preschool and primary-school age 
children. Iron plays an essential role in the development 
of neurological pathways in the brain, and iron￾deficient children display impaired overall intelligence 
(Monk, 2013; Abbaspour, 2014). Docosahexaenoic acid 
(DHA) and Eicosatetraenoic acid (EPA) are essential 
LC-PUPFAs required for adequate brain development 
(Weiser, 2016). Inadequate intake of these essential 
fatty acids can negatively affect neurodevelopment and 
memory skills of children (Weiser, 2016; Bourre, 2004). 
163
The school meals given to beneficiary children in 
Tanzania and Senegal provide adequate calories, 
protein, and carbohydrates. Though, the meals 
are lacking certain nutrients important to support 
cognitive development such as the essential fatty acids 
DHA and EPA, vitamin B12, vitamin C, and iron. 
Recommendations to improve school 
meals based on research findings include:
Target nutrients of concern: Iron and vitamin B12
1. Optimize iron absorption by increasing 
the vitamin C content of meals
2. Soak foods high in phytic acid, such as beans, in 
water prior to cooking to reduce the phytic acid 
content and thus improve nutrient absorption.
3. Diversify school meals served to provide heme and 
non-heme iron food sources and adequate vitamin B12
Currently, non-heme iron makes up 100% of the iron 
content of school meals provided to children in Tanzania 
and Senegal. Non-heme iron is found in plant sources 
such as legumes and beans. Non-heme iron absorption is 
dependent on the composition of the meal provided and by 
the iron status of the person consuming the meal (Bourre, 
2004). Therefore, non-heme iron is less bioavailable to 
the body as its absorption is dependent on other food 
components (Bourre, 2004). On the other hand, the 
bioavailability of heme iron found in the hemoglobin and 
myoglobin of meats and other animal products is minimally 
influenced by food components and iron status (Bourre, 
2004). To optimize nonheme iron absorption, school 
meals require vitamin C, as vitamin C increases non-heme 
iron absorption. The following are examples of fruits and 
vegetables that could be added to daily school meals to 
promote increased iron absorption: oranges, grapefruit, 
peppers, kale, tangerines, limes, lemon, strawberries, 
pineapple, papaya, guava, honeydew, and tomatoes. 
It should be noted vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin 
that can be easily destroyed by heat and light (Lynch, 1980). 
Therefore, fruits and vegetables should be offered raw or 
after undergoing minimal cooking at low temperatures, as 
vitamin C is easily degraded during the cooking process 
and by elevated temperatures (Lynch, 1980). Cooking 
techniques such as boiling, blanching, steaming, and 
microwaving have been found to degrade the vitamin C 
content of foods (Lynch, 1980). Using minimal cooking 
water and cooking for shorter amounts of time can 
assist with the retention of vitamin C content of foods, 
and steaming has been found to be a superior cooking 
technique than boiling and blanching (Lynch, 1980). 
Another aspect of school meals that hinders iron 
absorption is the phytic acid content of cereals, legumes, 
and certain beans that are currently offered to children 
daily. Phytic acid is considered an antinutrient because it 
binds to certain minerals, therefore inhibiting absorption 
of these minerals by the body (Hurrell, 2004; Hallberg, 
1989). Phytic acid has been found to inhibit iron, zinc, 
calcium, magnesium, and manganese absorption (Reddy, 
1982; Bohn, 2004; Phillippy, 2006; Greiner, 2006; Gupta, 
2015; Lee, 2017). Though several methods have been 
found to be effective at reducing the phytic acid content in 
foods, therefore improving the nutritional value of foods 
high in phytic acid (Lynch, 1980; Gupta, 2015). When 
legumes and cereals are soaked in water overnight or for 
several hours, complete dephytinization occurs leading 
to increased iron and other mineral absorption (Bourre, 
2004). High phytic acid foods include lentils, peas, beans, 
millet, rice, barley, wheat, rye, sorghum, and nuts and seeds. 
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the cereals, 
legumes, and other foods high in phytic acid offered to 
beneficiary children in school meals to be soaked in water 
overnight or for several hours. The soaking method should 
involve the complete submergence of foods in water at 
temperatures between 45 and 65 °C and pH value between 
5 and 6 (Greiner, 2006). Sprouting and fermentation 
techniques are also effective at destroying phytates in foods 
and can be feasible alternative techniques (Lynch, 1980). 
Due to the increased bioavailability of heme iron found 
in red meat, poultry, and seafood, an alternative option 
would be to add animal foods to school meals. Meat 
and fish are good sources of heme iron, which is more 
bioavailable to the body (Lynch, 1980). Furthermore, 
meat and fish have been identified to have the same 
effects in non-heme iron absorption as vitamin C and 
found to also enhance iron absorption (Lynch, 1980). 
Additionally, adding animal foods to school meals would 
provide children with a reliable source of vitamin B12 
which is a nutrient currently lacking in meals. Another 
alternative option would be to fortify grains and flours 
served to children with vitamin B12 or to provide 
children with vitamin B12 supplementation if children 
do not consume any animal-sourced foods at home. The 
feasibility of such implementation can be challenging due 
to environmental, sustainability, and monetary concerns. 
164
Key nutrients of concern: Essential fatty acids 
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic acid 
(EPA)
1. Adjust meal composition to provide essential 
fatty acids
2. Diversify school meals 
School meals lack dietary omega-3 long-chain 
polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), eicosapentaenoic 
acid (EPA, 20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 
22:6n-3). These are essential fatty acids that play an 
important role in brain development and vision (Weiser, 
2016; Forsyth, 2016). DHA has been identified to play 
an essential role in the prevention of chronic diseases 
(Weiser, 2016; Colombo, 2020). Inadequate DHA 
intake has been associated with significant increase in 
the development of chronic disease leading to increased 
morbidity and mortality (Forsyth, 2016). According to 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), preschool 
and primary school age children should consume one to 
two fish meals per week or 250 mg of EPA plus DHA per 
day (Forsyth, 2016). However, fish intake is drastically 
lower in low-middle income countries in caparison 
to high income countries (Forsyth, 2016). Recent 
data showed that majority of the Tanzania population 
consume less than the recommended amounts of fish 
per week (Forsyth, 2016). The median intake of DHA 
in developing countries is estimated to be 96 mg/day in 
contrast to 184-473 mg/day intake in developed countries 
(Forsyth, 2016). There is a direct association between 
fish intake and the per capita gross national income 
(Forsyth, 2016). With the lowest income countries 
displaying the lowest DHA intake (Forsyth, 2016). 
Diversifying school meals to provide fish to beneficiary 
children at least twice a week would improve the 
nutritional profile of meals and further support cognitive 
development. Other alternative includes adding omega-3 
rich oils to the school meals during the cooking process or 
prior to serving. The following foods have been identified 
to be reliable sources of omega-3 fatty acids that could lead 
to improved nutritional profile of school meals. Omega-3 
rich foods include canola oil, sunflower oil, flaxseed oil, 
soybean oil, hemp oil, fish, salmon, mackerel, herring, 
sardines, cod, anchovies, chia seeds, flax seeds, walnuts. 
The availability of such items is dependent on 
seasonality and the location of schools. Therefore, the 
implementation of meal diversification and the addition 
of omega-3 rich foods to school meals will likely be 
challenging to implement as adequate DHA and 
EPA intake is a world-wide problem. Environmental, 
sustainability, and monetary barriers are likely to hinder 
the implementation of such efforts (Colombo, 2020).
Stunting
As part of our desk review, we examined macro- and 
micronutrient intake among children ages 2 and older 
with and without stunting in sub-Saharan Africa. The 
strongest nutrient-stunting associations found were with 
protein. The findings from this review indicate that 
children who are stunted consume less total protein, as 
well as essential, and conditionally essential amino acids 
in their diet. There was also evidence in the literature 
that dietary fat intake differs between children with and 
without stunting. Children with stunting had lower 
serum levels of ARA (a conditionally essential omega-6 
fatty acid), linoleic acid (an essential omega-6 fatty 
acid), total omega-6 fatty acid levels, and lower levels 
of the conditionally essential omega-3 fatty acid DHA. 
Micronutrients examined in the studies included in our 
systematic review were vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin 
B12, calcium, zinc, iron, and choline. The findings were 
mixed for micronutrient intake among children with 
and without stunting. Though, some of the conflicting 
findings are likely due to the heterogeneity of the articles 
included in the systematic review. This review found that 
children with stunting consumed less of many nutrients 
that are commonly found in animal-sourced foods such 
as meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs. These foods not 
only provide protein and each of the essential amino 
acids, but they also contain essential fatty acids, calcium, 
vitamin B12, choline, and riboflavin. 
In Senegal, the meals provided in primary schools contain 
100g of either rice or flour, 25g lentils or split peas, 20g 
of bulgur, and 10g of oil. In the pre-primary schools, 
the meals contain 60g of either rice or flour, 25g or 45g 
of lentils, or 25 or 45g of split peas, and 10g of oil. In 
Tanzania, the meals contain 120g of maize, 30g of beans, 
165
and 5g of oil. Of note is that these meals do not contain 
any vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is found in foods of animal 
origin such as beef, chicken, fish, milk and cheese. Plant￾based foods such as cereals and grains can be fortified 
with vitamin B12, though, to the best of our knowledge, 
no ingredients provided in these meals are fortified with 
vitamin B12. However, importantly, the oil provided in 
these meals is fortified with both vitamin A and vitamin D. 
In many LMIC communities, including those in 
Senegal and Tanzania, diets are largely plant-based and 
intakes of animal-sourced foods, particularly milk and 
meat, are limited. The large volume of a plant-based 
diet results in a lower energy intake and lower nutrient 
density intake. For young children who are unable 
to consume a large volume of food in a single meal, 
this can result in consuming an inadequate quantity 
of nutrients in a single meal. In order to best promote 
healthy growth and development throughout childhood 
and adolescence, children who are beneficiaries of the 
school feeding programs would benefit from increased 
intake of foods such as fish, meat, dairy, poultry, and 
eggs, as is culturally and economically appropriate. 
Educational Outcomes
Education is a key factor in developing skills needed 
to succeed in life. Millions of children are not enrolled 
in school, but even those who are in school are not 
learning sufficiently (World Bank, 2021). Attaining an 
education can lead to improvements in socioeconomic 
status and lower the prevalence of poverty (King, 
2015). School feeding programs are one method being 
used to motivate parents to enroll and encourage their 
children to attend school (Kazianga, 2012). School 
feeding programs also have the potential to improve 
cognitive abilities and educational outcomes by providing 
vital micronutrients (Roberts, 2022). Alleviating 
hunger during the school day may also increase a 
child’s capacity to concentrate (World Bank, 2012). 
Beneficiary programs like MGD FFE utilize defined 
indicators to measure the impact of the school meals 
on education and health outcomes. The indicators used 
by the McGovern Dole program are consistent with 
the indicators outlined in the broad literature (Wall, 
2022). The main outcomes of focus in the literature 
were academic achievement, attendance, and enrollment. 
This coincides with MGD S01, MGD 1.3, and MGD 
1.3.4 indicators. The main indicator for academic 
achievement (MGD S01) focuses on literacy outcomes. 
The indicator is defined as the percent of students that 
can understand grade level texts after two years of primary 
schooling. The broad literature does contain studies that 
look at literacy, but more often academic achievement is 
assessed by comparing graded assessments. The indicator 
for attendance (MGD 1.3) is defined as the number of 
students attending 80% or more of school days. In the 
literature, attendance rates are calculated using different 
parameters including days missed and average days 
attended. The indicator for enrollment (MGD 1.3.4) is 
defined by the number of students enrolled in supported 
schools. In the literature, enrollment is typically 
measured by the percent of eligible children enrolled in 
schools, or the number of students enrolled in school. 
Tanzania
Attendance
Data from a midline evaluation of the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education Program indicated that attendance 
improved in beneficiary schools compared to control 
schools (Trembley Consulting, 2019). The report shows 
that the number of children absent due to illness during 
a two-week period was 3.1% higher in the control 
schools (Trembley Consulting, 2019). Data collected 
in the 6-month period prior to the midterm assessment 
showed that attendance decreased in both treatment and 
control groups. Still, the treatment group showed 6.5% 
higher rate of attendance compared to the control group 
(Trembley Consulting, 2019). In the 2020 fiscal year 
(FY 2020) data prepared for MSU, attendance increased 
from baseline to the evaluation in the first half of the 
year but decreased by the second half (USDA dataset, 
2020). The decrease in the second half of the year is a 
suspected result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite 
the decrease from the first half of the year, the attendance 
rate in the second half of the year was still higher than 
166
the baseline number with an increase of 18,781 students 
reaching 80% attendance (USDA dataset, 2020). This 
data is consistent with the broad literature, as all five of 
the studies included in a systematic review found benefits 
to attendance for beneficiary students (Wall, 2022). 
Enrollment
According to FY 2020 data prepared for MSU, enrollment 
increased by 28,057 students from baseline to the second 
half of the year (USDA dataset, 2020). The measurement 
was taken at the beginning of March before the school 
closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic even though the 
enrollment period officially closed at the end of March. 
Although the assessment date was early, there was still 
a clear increase in the number of students enrolled in 
beneficiary schools. The midline report found that control 
schools had a greater increase enrollment, but the sample 
size was not large enough to declare statistical significance 
(Trembley consulting, 2019). These mixed results are 
consistent with the broad literature, as the results of the four 
studies assessing enrollment are inconsistent (Wall, 2022). 
Academic Achievement
In the Midterm Evaluation, Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EBRA) was used to measure literacy 
outcomes. This report shows that the percent of children 
meeting the benchmark was inconsistent. Among second 
graders, 14.6% more children met the benchmark in 
beneficiary schools. When comparing fourth grade 
students, both treatment and control groups saw a fall 
in the percentage of students meeting the benchmark 
with the treatment schools seeing a larger decrease. 
The inconsistency of the benefits to students is also 
observed in the literature. Indicator design and external 
factors may play a role in the discrepancies among data. 
Senegal
Attendance
Baseline attendance data was not available for the FY 2020 
evaluation, so this could not be used to assess changes in 
attendance (USDA dataset, 2020). The Final Evaluation 
of the program in 2018 supports the claim that student 
attendance has increased in beneficiary schools compared 
to the baseline study (MGD FFE Evaluation Report, 
2018). Teachers in the beneficiary schools noticed that 
children stayed longer at school during the day because 
they did not have to go home to eat (MGD FFE Evaluation 
Report, 2018). There was a concern that the data was 
unreliable due to the method used to track attendance 
and enrollment (MGD FFE Evaluation Report, 2018). 
A Baseline Evaluation of a new project in 2019 revaluates 
this claim and confirms that attendance is high in this 
area (MGD FFE Evaluation Report, 2019). The report 
claims that attendance has no relationship to whether 
a school has a feeding program (MGD FFE Evaluation 
Report, 2019). This claim is not consistent to the broad 
literature, as all studies included in a systematic review of 
the topic found that attendance increased in beneficiary 
schools when compared to control schools (Wall, 2022). 
Enrollment
According to the FY 2020 data, enrollment in beneficiary 
schools increased from baseline to the first half of the year 
by 2,561 students. Enrollment data was not collected for 
the second half of the year due to school closures because of 
the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is still a clear increase 
in enrollment from the baseline. At the end line evaluation, 
school officials stated that the treatment program had a 
positive effect on enrollment, but the evaluation found 
limited data to support this statement (MGD FFE 
Evaluation Report, 2018). As seen in the broad literature, 
enrollment is a difficult indicator to use for assessment, as 
the data can be unreliable or inconclusive (Wall, 2022). 
Academic Achievement
The Final Evaluation compared Annual Status of 
Education Report (ASER) literacy assessment scores 
at baseline midline, and final evaluation (MGD 
FFE Evaluation Report, 2018). This report shows 
that literacy rates improved from baseline to midline 
across all grade levels. The third grade (CE1) student 
scores increased by 1.57 levels. The fourth and fifth 
grade scores both increased by 1.5 levels (MGD FFE 
Evaluation Report, 2018). Indicators of academic 
achievement are the most heterogenous in the broad 
literature (Wall, 2022). Still, measuring improved 
academic outcomes is the most concrete evidence for 
the positive effect of school meal programs (Wall, 2022). 
167
168
Appendix
Improved Policy and
Regulatory Framework
(MGD 2.7.2)
Increased Capacity of
Government Institutions
(MGD 2.7.1)
Increased Government
Support
(MGD 2.7.3)
Increased Engagement of
Local Organizations and
Community Groups
(MGD 2.7.4)
Foundational
Results
Improved Knowledge
of Health and Hygiene
Practices
(MGD 2.1)
Increased Knowledge
of Safe Food Prep and
Storage Practices
(MGD 2.2)
Increased Knowledge
of Nutrition
(MGD 2.3)
Increased Access to
Clean Water and
Sanitation Services
(MGD 2.4)
Increased Access to
Preventative Health
Interventions
(MGD 2.5)
Increased Access to
Requisite Food Prep
and Storage Tools and
Equipment
(MGD 2.6)
Increased Use of Health,
Nutrition and Dietary
Practices (MGD SO2)
McGovern Dole 
Results Framework #2
Improved Policy and
Regulatory Framework
(MGD 1.4.2)
Increased Capacity of
Government Institutions
(MGD1.4.1)
Increased Government
Support
(MGD 1.4.3)
Increased Engagement of
Local Organizations and
Community Groups
(MGD 1.4.4)
Foundational
Results
Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
(MGD 1.2.1.1, 1.3.1.1)
Increased Use of Health,
Nutrition and Dietary Practices 
(See RF #2)
(MGD SO2)
Improved Literacy of
School-Aged Children
(MGD SO1)
Improved Quality of
Literacy Education
(MGD 1.1)
Improved Attentiveness
(MGD 1.2)
Improved Student
Attendance
(MGD 1.3)
Increased Skills
and Knowledge
of School
Teachers
(MGD 1.1.4)
More Consistent
Teacher
Attendance
(MGD 1.1.1)
Better Access to
School Supplies
& Materials
(MGD 1.1.2)
Improved
Literacy
Instructional
Materials 
(MGD 1.1.3)
Increased Skills
and Knowledge
of School
Administrators
(MGD 1.1.5)
Reduced Short￾Term Hunger
(MGD 1.2.1)
Increased
Economic and
Cultural Incentives
(Or Decreased
Disincentives)
(MGD 1.3.1)
Reduced Health￾Related
Absences 
(MGD 1.3.2)
Improved School
Infrastructure
(MGD 1.3.3)
Increased
Student
Enrolment 
(MGD 1.3.4)
Increased
Community
Understanding of
Benefits of
Education
(MGD 1.3.5)
McGovern Dole 
Results Framework #1
169
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report. N/A: Indicators is not available in the report. CI: Custom Indicator
Appendix 1.1 MGD Performance Indicators. Result for Rwanda
Table A. Rwanda-MGD: Selected Performance Indicators (Standard and Custom) for Education and Literacy Component
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR - RWANDA
FY 16
2nd Half
Number of students enrolled in school receiving 
USDA assistance
Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA
supported classroom/school
Percentage of students in classroom identified as 
attentive by their teachers (CI)
Number of school administrators and o‚cials in 
target schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
Number of school administrators and o‚cials trained 
or certified as a result of USDA assistance
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants in 
target schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants 
trained or certitied as a result of USDA assistance
Number of target schools with supplemental reading
materials available to students as a result of USDA 
assistance (CI)
Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning
materials provided as a result of USDA assistance
Number of teachers in target schools who attend and
teach school at least 90% of scheduled school days
 per school year (CI)
Number of teachers receiving awards to promote 
increased teacher attendance (CI)
Number of teachers in target schools who demon￾strate use of new and quality teaching techniques or
tools as a result of USDA assistance (CI)
Number of students benefiting from literacy starter
kits provided as a result of USDA assistance (CI)
Number of teaching and reading materials procured as
a result of USDA assistance to be used in schools (CI)
Number of books distributed in communities to
establish school and community libraries (CI)
Number of community-generated reading materials
(CI)
Number of students benefiting from libraries and new
reading materials as a result of USDA assistance (CI)
Number of parents trained on the importance of 
literacy
Percent of parents in target communities who can 
name at least three benefits of primary education
Number of reading clubs established as a result of 
USDA assistance
Number of student writing competitions facilitated 
as a result of USDA assistance
Number of students benefiting from the development
of reading clubs
82,360
77,272
60
0
0
0
0
34
35,238
1,344
117
0
23,465
4,080
28,560
0
23,465
0
69
102
0
0
FY 17
1st Half
94,572
89,887
60
0
0
841
1,039
69
39,313
1,322
0
841
15,573
4,633
0
290
31,625
3,897
69
0
0
12,473
FY 17
2nd Half
FY 18
1st Half
FY 18
2nd Half
FY 19
1st Half
FY 19
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
84,876
81,382
60
0
0
874
1,105
104
20,340
1,354
0
874
50,096
6,300
10,080
0
84,076
0
69
168
0
24,154
84,992
81,707
N/A
93
25
326
841
104
55,560
1,354
104
326
50,096
0
55,560
32,400
85,139
7,998
N/A
42
4
2.321
83,590
79,931
N/A
181
252
949
1,298
104
109,408
1,423
133
623
45,945
2,080
109,408
59,904
83,590
6,166
N/A
0
0
24,107
81,250
79,140
57.4
119
127
683
946
104
21,528
1,409
104
683
43,558
21,528
0
0
81,250
1,231
69.8
0
4
21,356
81,250
76,992
57.4
237
108
1,240
946
104
11,856
1,435
327
1,240
43,453
0
11,856
11,856
81,250
0
69.8
0
4
17,706
78,410
n.a.
57.4
239
0
1,195
250
104
0
1,558
0
1,195
41,877
0
0
0
75,973
0
69.8
0
0
20,734
0
0
57.4
0
262
0
575
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,166
4,038
69.8
0
0
26,166
170
Appendix 1.1 MGD Performance Indicators. Result for Rwanda
Table B. Rwanda-MGD: Selected Performance Indicators (Standard and Custom) for Nutrition and Health Component
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR - RWANDA
FY 16
2nd Half
Number of students receiving deworming
medication
Number of target schools with access to improved
food preparation and storage equipment (kitchens,
cook area, storerooms, stoves and kitchen utensils)
Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings,
classroom, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed
as a result of USDA assistance (latrines)
Percent of students who miss more than 10 school
days per year due to illness (female)
Percent of students who miss more than 10 school
days per year due to illness (male)
Number of cooks and storekeepers trained on food
preparation and storage practices
Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities
Number of rainwater catchment systems constructed
and/or enhanced
Number of students benefiting from newly 
constructed and/or enhanced rainwater catchment
systems
Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings,
classrooms and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed
as a result of USDA assistance (kitchens, cook areas)
72,858
0
0
0
0
159
93
61
62,887
21
FY 17
1st Half
87,963
21
12
2.2
1.8
159
95
36
21,095
21
FY 17
2nd Half
FY 18
1st Half
FY 18
2nd Half
FY 19
1st Half
FY 19
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
0
34
7
1.4
1.4
171
7
10
3,440
34
0
55
0
1.4
1.3
259
0
0
0
25
83,590
25
7
1.3
1.3
210
104
15
8,993
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.4
196
104
0
8,922
0
81,250
0
2
0.8
0.9
263
104
8
4,965
0
0
0
5
n.a.
n.a.
164
104
0
0
020,734
78,410
13
1
0
0
0
104
0
0
13
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
Appendix 1.2 MGD Performance Indicators. Results for Sierra Leone.
Table A. Sierra Leone Performance Data for Education and Literacy Component
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
FY 16
1st Half
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
Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA
supported classrooms/schools
Average student attendance rate in USDA supported
classrooms/schools
Number of students enrolled in schools receiving
USDA assistance (total)
Number of sets of improved early grade literacy
instructional materials
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants in 
target schools who demonstrate use of new and
quality techniques or tools as a result of USDA 
assistance
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants 
trained or certitied as a result of USDA assistance
0
0
0
0
0
0
FY 16
2nd Half
8
28,206
28,309
0
0
150
FY 17
1st Half
FY 17
2nd Half
FY 18
1st Half
FY 18
2nd Half
FY 19A
1st Half
FY 19A
2nd Half
8
31,380
32,042
723
701
0
36
28,745
32,522
0
954
293
36
9,443
28,304
n.a.
975
0
5.58
68.1
44,074
0
0
FY 19B
1st Half
0
0
0
0
0
FY 19B
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
59
31,315
32,684
2,171
1,292
392
59
28,501
29,083
0
1,008
164
5.58
77
50,294
0
711
5.58
77
51,753
0
730
171
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
Appendix1.2MGDPerformanceIndicators.ResultsforSierraLeone. Table B. Sierra Leone MGD Performance Data for School Meals, Nutrition, Health, and Wash
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
FY 16
1st Half
Number of daily school meals (breakfast,
snack, lunch) provided to school-age 
children as a result of USDA assistance
Number of daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) provided to teachers as a 
result of USDA assistance
Number of individuals receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA
assistance
Number of school-age children receiving
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
as a result of USDA assistance
Number of school-age children receiving
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
as a result of USDA assistance (female)
Number of school-age children receiving
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
as a result of USDA assistance (male) 
Number of take-home rations provided
(in metric tons) as a result of USDA 
assistance
Quantity of take-home rations provided
(in metric tons) as a result of USDA 
assistance
Number of teachers receiving daily school 
meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result 
of USDA assistance
Number of students receiving deworming
medication(s)
Number of children under five (0-59 months)
reached with nutrition-specific interventions
through USDA-supported programs
Number of children under two (0-23 months)
reached with community-level nutrition
interventions through USDA-supported 
programs
Number of pregnant women reached
with nutrition-specific interventions
through USDA-supported programs
Number of educational facilities 
(i.e. school buildings, classromms, water
sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/
constructed as a result of USDA assistance
(latrines)
Number of schools using an improved
water source
Number of schools with improved
sanitary facilities
Number of educational facilities, (i.e.
school buildings, classrooms, improved
water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/
constructed as result of USDA assistance
Number of WASH clubs formed
0
0
n.a
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FY 16
2nd Half
407,432
1,143
n.a.
9,448
4,563
4,880
641
281
0
0
0
0
0
30
FY 17
1st Half
FY 17
2nd Half
FY 18
1st Half
FY 18
2nd Half
FY 19A
1st Half
FY 19A
2nd Half
3,133,912
90,027
n.a.
32,042
15,553
16,489
52,404
937
26,698
61
0
61
0
55
32,391,655
61,213
533
32,522
15,749
16,773
34,150
954
0
1
0
1
123
30
1,916,125
67,558
6,402
28,304
13,594
14,710
40,570
975
0
1
0
1
14
22
251,405
2,745
29,703
5.82
0
0
0
0
161
47
0
FY 19B
1st Half
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
FY 19B
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
2,340,600
79,166
519
32,684
15,338
17,346
40,718
1,292
32,684
52
40
52
97
44
1,859,122
62,482
10,401
29,083
13,942
15,141
43,541
1,008
28,831
0
24
0
2
22
476,024
5,211
50,294
112.68
0
0
0
0
184
143
73
53,332
54,263
2,992
694.95
0
80
80
60
0
19
0
0
172
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
Appendix 1.3 MGD Performance Indicators. Results for Tanzania
Table A. Tanzania MGD Performance Data for Education and Literacy Component
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR - TANZANIA
FY 17B
1st Half
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
Percent of schools in which at least 80% of teachers
were present on 90% of school days (CI)
Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning
materials provided as a result of USDA assistance
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants in 
target schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
Number of teacher/educators/teaching assistants 
trained or certitied as a result of USDA assistance
Number of school administrators and oŠcials trained 
or certified as a result of USDA assistance
Number of school administrators and oŠcials in
target schools who demonstrate use of new
techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) provided to school-age children as a result 
of USDA assistance 
Number of school-age children receiving daily school
meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (total)
Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA
supported classrooms/schools (total)
Number of students enrolled in schools receiving
USDA assistance (total)
Total quantity of commodities (tons) provided for
school meals as a result of USDA assistance (CI)
Number of teachers receiving non-monetary
incentives (certificates and awards) (CI)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FY 17B
2nd Half
16
0
300
304
312
1,003
0
1,080,055
107,790
112,296
161,393
0
0
FY 18B
1st Half
FY 18B
2nd Half
FY 19
1st Half
FY 19
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
0
0
161,978
0
486
0
0
10,876,866
168,009
107,633
168,009
0
0
0
0
64,182
427
943
0
0
24,877,989
168,160
106,782
168,160
0
0
0
34
15,570
179
0
0
1,877
8,332,312
171,005
137,080
171,005
467
0
20.1
31.7
0
340
464
1,890
2007
6,172,181
171,005
123,123
171,005
0
0
0
29
157,796
0
0
45
2043
2,994,525
169,178
142,109
169,178
160
17
0
55
0
0
0
273
0
1,629,494
169,231
134,543
169,231
462
173
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
Appendix 1.3 MGD Performance Indicators. Results for Tanzania
Table B. Tanzania MGD Performance Data for Nutrition, Health and Wash
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR - TANZANIA
FY 17B
1st Half
Number of individuals trained in child health and
nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (total)
Number of people trained in child health and
nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (total)
Number of schools using an improved water source
Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities
0
0
0
0
FY 17B
2nd Half
569
0
85
114
FY 18B
1st Half
FY 18B
2nd Half
FY 19
1st Half
FY 19
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
238
0
119
224
0
0
23
22
230
34
149
183
284
31.7
165
203
227
29
165
205
45
55
167
205
Source: Authors from biannual performance indicator reports provided by USDA-FAS
n.a.: Data for indicator is not available in the report.
N/A: Indicators is not available in the report.
CI: Custom Indicator
*Incorrectly reported value
Appendix 1.3 MGD Performance Indicators. Results for Tanzania
Table C. Tanzania MGD Performance Data for Community Groups and School Gardens
MGD PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR - TANZANIA
FY 17B
1st Half
Number of parents, guardians, and other community
members participating in savings and lending group
(CI)
Percent of parents and/or guardians receiving a loan
through their savings and lending group (CI)
Total quantity of commodities (tons) grown in school
gardens and provided for school meals (CI)
n.a.
0
0
FY 17B
2nd Half
n.a.
0
0
FY 18B
1st Half
FY 18B
2nd Half
FY 19
1st Half
FY 19
2nd Half
FY 20
1st Half
FY 20
2nd Half
n.a.
0
0
n.a.
0
0
2687
9,936*
23
10,464
98
0
9,542
98
49
11,163
95
67
174
References
Burkina Faso
Evaluation Reports and Other Sources
by Country
175
Kenya
176
Rwanda
177
Senegal
178
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
179
Kenya
Government of Kenya, Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU). (2011). National Food and Nutrition Se￾curity Policy. https://repository.kippra.or.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/1620/2011%20National%20Food%20
and%20Nutrition%20Security%20Policy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health & Ministry of Health Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. 
(2018). National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy 2017–2022. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000070917/download/?_ga=2.185957281.903762890.1653654402-684918433.1637623108 
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2015a). National Education Sector Plan, 2013–2018.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2015b). National Education Sector Strategic Plan, 2018–2022.
Ministry of Health. (2018). Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health (NCAH) Policy.
Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation. (2007). National strategy on infant and young child feeding.
Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation. (2012a). National Nutrition Action Plan 2012–2017.
Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation/Ministry of Education. (2011). National School Health Strategy Implemen￾tation Plan 2010–2015.
National Council for Children’s Services. (2008). National Comprehensive School Health Policy.
National Council for Children’s Services. (2015). National Plan of Action for Children in Kenya.
Republic of Kenya. (2008). Food Security and Nutrition Strategy. https://repository.kippra.or.ke/bitstream/han￾dle/123456789/1285/Kenya_FSNS_finaldraft%202008%20%28003%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
Republic of Kenya. (2010). The Constitution of Kenya, 2010. http://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398 
United Nations – Kenya. (2014). United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Kenya 2014-2018. https://
www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Country%20Documents/Parties/UNDAF-Kenya-2014-2018.pdf
Rwanda
United Nations Rwanda. (2013). Rwanda United Nations Development Assistance Plan 2013–2018. https://extranet.
who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/RWE%202013%20UNDAP.pdf
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. (2021). Rwanda School Feeding Operational Guidelines Summary. 
https://www.mineduc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Mineduc/Publications/POLICIES/2021_Rwanda_School_
Feeding_Operational_Guidelines_Summary.pdf 
Government of Rwanda. (2005). Health Sector Policy. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filess￾Policy References by Country
180
tore/RWA%202005%20-Health%20sector%20policy%20of%20Rwanda%20.pdf
Government of Rwanda. (2013a). Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013–2018. https://ex￾tranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/RWA%202013%20Economic%20Development%20and%20
Poverty%20Reduction%20Strategy%202013-2018.pdf
Government of Rwanda. (2013b). National Food and Nutrition Policy 2013–2018. https://extranet.who.int/nutri￾tion/gina/sites/default/filesstore/RWA-2013-2018-National%20Nutrition%20Policy.pdf
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Health. (2005). National Nutrition Policy (2007). https://extranet.who.int/nutri￾tion/gina/sites/default/filesstore/RWA%202007%20-%20Nutrition%20Policy%20English%20.pdf 
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. (2007). Economic Development and Poverty 
Reduction Strategy, 2008 - 2012. https://www.statistics.gov.rw/file/267/download?token=rsPZ8CjE
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. (2018). Education Sector Strategic Plan (2018/19 to 2023/24).
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Re￾sources. (2014). Rwanda National Food and Nutrition Policy.
Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, Rwanda Agriculture Board. (2013). One Cup of Milk per Child 
Program. https://rab.gov.rw/index.php?id=131#:~:text=The%20General%20Objective%20of%20One,the%20
Dairy%20sector%20in%20Rwanda. 
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. (2009). Strategic Plan for the Transformation of 
Agriculture (Phase 2). http://scalingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/rwanda
Republic of Rwanda. (2017). 7 Years Government Programme: National Strategy for Transformation (NST 1) 2017 – 
2024. https://www.nirda.gov.rw/uploads/tx_dce/National_Strategy_For_Trsansformation_-NST1-min.pdf 
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. (2000). Rwanda Vision 2020. https://reposito￾ries.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/5071/4164.pdf 
Republic of Rwanda. (2015). Rwanda Vision 2050. https://www.nirda.gov.rw/uploads/tx_dce/Vision_English_Ver￾sion_2050_-31_Dec_2020.pdf 
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. (2019). National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy. https://planipo￾lis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/rwanda_school_feeding_policy.pdf 
Ministry of Gender and Family. (2005). National Social Protection Policy. http://scalingupnutrition.org/sun-coun￾tries/rwanda
Ministry of Health. (2005). National Nutrition Policy (2005). https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/
filesstore/RWA%202007%20-%20Nutrition%20Policy%20English%20.pdf
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Health. (2008). National Policy of Child Health. http://scalingupnutrition.org/
sun-countries/rwanda
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Health. (2010). National Multisectoral Strategy to Eliminate Malnutrition. http://
scalingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/rwanda
181
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Health. (2014). Third Health Sector Strategic Plan, July 2012-June 2018. https://
extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/RWA-2013-2018-National%20Nutrition%20Policy.pdf
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Education. (2014). Early Childhood Development Policy.
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. (2018). National Agriculture Policy.
World Food Programme. (2018, October). Rwanda country strategic plan (2019–2023). https://docs.wfp.org/api/
documents/53e2deb348c64401aeebda0cd5525df4/download/?_ga=2.165486519.903762890.1653654402-
684918433.1637623108 
Sierra Leone
Government of Sierra Leone. (2015). The Agenda for Prosperity; road to middle income status, Sierra Leone’s Third 
Generation Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2013–2018). http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FA￾OC149110/
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security Sierra Leone. (2010). The National Sustainable Agriculture 
Development Plan (NSADP). https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/SLE%202009%20Na￾tional%20Sustainable%20Agriculture%20Development%20Plan%20%28NSADP%29.pdf
Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education Sierra Leone. (2021). National School Feeding Policy. https://
mbsse.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/National-School-Feeding-Policy_May2021.pdf 
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Sierra Leone. (2007). Sierra Leone Education Sector Plan. https://
mbsse.gov.sl/policies/
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Sierra Leone. (2018a). 2018 – 2020 Implementation Plan. https://
mbsse.gov.sl/policies/
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Sierra Leone. (2018b). Education Sector Plan 2018–2020. https://
mbsse.gov.sl/policies/
Ministry of Education. (1995). New Education Policy for Sierra Leone. https://mbsse.gov.sl/policies/
Ministry of Energy and Water Resources Sierra Leone. (2008). National Water and Sanitation Policy. http://scalin￾gupnutrition.org/sun-countries/sierra-leone
Ministry of Energy and Water Resources Sierra Leone. (2010). National WASH implementation strategy. http://sca￾lingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/sierra-leone
Ministry of Health and Sanitation Sierra Leone. (2002). National Health Policy. http://scalingupnutrition.org/
sun-countries/sierra-leone
Ministry of Health and Sanitation Sierra Leone. (2009a). National Health Sector Strategic Plan. https://extranet.
who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/SLE%202010%20National%20Health%20Sector%20Strategic%20
Plan.pdf
182
Ministry of Health and Sanitation Sierra Leone. (2009b). Sierra Leone National Food and Nutrition Policy. https://
extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/SLE%202009%20National%20Food%20and%20Nutri￾tion%20Policy.pdf
Office of the President. (2008). Agenda for Change. http://scalingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/sierra-leone
Tanzania
Government of Tanzania. (2005). National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction (MKUKUTA).
Ministry of Community Development. Woman Affairs and Children Tanzania. (1996). Community Development 
Policy. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%201996%20Community%20Devel￾opment%20Policy.pdf
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Tanzania. (2004). Tanzania National Strategy on Infant and Young Child 
Nutrition. http://scalingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/tanzania
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Tanzania. (2007a). National Health Policy.
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Tanzania. (2007b). National Policy Guidelines on Infant and Young Child 
Nutrition. http://scalingupnutrition.org/sun-countries/tanzania
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Tanzania. (2008). The National Road Map Strategic Plan to Accelerate 
Reduction of Maternal, Newborn and Child Deaths in Tanzania. http://www.who.int/pmnch/countries/tanzania￾mapstrategic.pdf
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. (2015). Health sector policy, strategy or plan with nutrition components. 
http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/documents/dpg_internal/dpg_working_groups_clusters/cluster_2/health/
Key_Sector_Documents/Induction_Pack/Final_HSSP_IV_Vs1.0_260815.pdf
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Children and the Elders Tanzania. (2016). National food 
and nutrition policy.
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children Tanzania. (2016). Strategic and 
Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases in Tanzania 2016–2020.
Ministry of Health. (1992). The Food and Nutrition Policy for Tanzania. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/
sites/default/filesstore/TZA%201992%20Food%20and%20Nutrition%20Policy.pdf
Ministry of Planning Economy and Empowerment (Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs) Tanzania. 
(2006). National Population Policy. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%20
2006%20National%20Population%20Policy.pdf
Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. (2008). Zanzibar Food security and nutrition policy. https://extranet.who.
int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%202008%20Zanzibar%20Food%20security%20and%20nutri￾tion%20policy.pdf
The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. (2011). National Nutrition Implemen￾tation Plan. (2012). https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%202011%20Nation￾al%20Nutrition%20Strategy.pdf 
183
The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. (2011). National Strategy for Growth 
and Reduction of Poverty NSGRP II. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%20
2010%20NSGRP%20II.pdf
The United Republic of Tanzania, Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre. (2016). TFNC Strategic Plan 2016/21. 
https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%202016%20TFNC%20Strategic%20Plan.
pdf
The United Republic of Tanzania. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. (2008). Health Sector Strategic Plan III 
July 2009 – June 2015 “Partnership for Delivering the MDGs”. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/de￾fault/filesstore/TZA%202009%20Health%20Sector%20Strategic%20Plan%20III.pdf
United Nations - Tanzania. (2016). United Nations Development Assistance Plan. https://extranet.who.int/nutri￾tion/gina/sites/default/filesstore/TZA%202016%20UNDAP.pdf
United Republic of Tanzania, Prime Minister’s Office. (2016). National Multi-sectoral Nutrition Action Plan 
(NMNAP). From Evidence to Policy Action July 2016-June 2021. https://www.tfnc.go.tz/uploads/publications/
sw1556116940-NMNAP%202016%20-%202021.pdf 
184
Other References
 2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. (2021). Country Nutrition Profiles: Sierra Leone. 
https://globalnutritionreport.org/resources/nutrition-profiles/africa/western-africa/sierra-leone/ 
Abbaspour, N., Hurrell, R., & Kelishadi, R. (2014). Review on iron and its importance for human health. 
Journal of research in medical sciences: The official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 19(2), 164–174. 
PMID: 24778671 
Abizari, A.-R., Ali, Z., Abdulai, S. A., Issah, F., & Frimpomaa, N. A. (2021). Free Senior High School Lunch 
Contributes to Dietary Quality of Nonresidential Students in Ghana. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 42(1), 65–76. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120970828 
African Union. (2021). African Union Biennial Report on Home-Grown School Feeding (2019-2020). https://www.
nepad.org/publication/african-union-biennial-report-home-grown-school-feeding-2019-2020 
Agbozo, F., Atitto, P., Jahn, A., & Abubakari, A. (2018). Nutrient composition and dietary diversity of on-site 
lunch meals, and anthropometry of beneficiary children in private and public primary schools in Ghana. Nutrition 
and Health, 24(4), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0260106018793048 
Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD/Sénégal) & ICF. (2018). Senegal: Enquête 
Démoggraphique et de Santé Continue (EDS-Continue) 2017. http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR345/FR345.pdf 
Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD/Sénégal) & ICF. (2020). Senegal: Enquête Démo￾graphique et de Santé Continue (EDS- Continue) 2019. https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR368/FR368.pdf 
Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit- Kenya. (2011). National Food and Nutrition Security Policy. Government of 
Kenya. https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/en/node/8241
Alderman, H., Behrman, J.R., & Puett, C. (2017). Big numbers about small children: Estimating the economic 
benefits of addressing undernutrition. World Bank Res Obs, 32(1):107-125. 
Arimond M, & Ruel, M. T. (2000). Progress in developing an infant and child feeding index: an example using 
the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. Food Consumer Nutrition Division Discuss Pap. 2002,143-200. 
Aziza, N., Williams, D. & Akaliza, D.A. (2016). L3 School-Community Partnership. Achievements, Challenges 
and Opportunities. USAID Learning Paper. USAID. http://idd.edc.org/sites/idd.edc.org/files/USAID%20L3%20
SGAC%20Learning%20Paper.pdf 
Barrett, C. B. & D. G. Maxwell. (2005). Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting its role. Routledge, London.
Barrett, C.B., Binder, A., & Steets, J. (Eds.) (2011). Uniting on Food Assistance: The Case for Transatlantic Cooper￾ation. Routledge, London.
Best, C., Neufingerl, N., van Geel, L., van den Briel, T., & Osendarp, S. (2010). The nutritional sta￾tus of school-aged children: why should we care? Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 31(3), 400–417. https://doi.
org/10.1177/156482651003100303
185
Bohn, T., Davidsson, L., Walczyk, T., & Hurrell, R. F. (2004). Phytic acid added to white-wheat bread inhibits 
fractional apparent magnesium absorption in humans. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 79(3), 418–423. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/79.3.418
Bondarenko, M., Sorichetta, A., Vargas Mesa, G., Gagnon, A.A., Tatem, A.J. (2022). Gridded Sex-Disaggregated 
School-Age Population Datasets for Countries and Dependent Territories in Africa in 2020. doi:10.5258/SOTON/
WP00732 
Bourre J. M. (2004). Roles of unsaturated fatty acids (especially omega-3 fatty acids) in the brain at various ages 
and during ageing. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 8(3), 163–174. PMID: 15129302 
Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communi￾ties to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4),
1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production. How equal partnerships between professionals and 
the public are crucial to improving public services. NESTA, New Economics Foundation, The Lab. http://www.cam￾dencen.org.uk/Resources/Public%20services/The_Challenge_of_Co-production.pdf 
Bundy, D., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M., & Drake, L. (2009). Rethinking school feeding: Social 
safety nets, child development, and the education sector. World Bank, World Food Programme. https://docs.wfp.
org/api/documents/WFP-0000020650/download/ 
Clark, M. A. & Fox, M. K. (2009). Nutritional quality of the diets of US public school children and the role of 
the school meal programs. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2), S44-S56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jada.2008.10.060
Clay, E., & Benson, C. (1990). Acquisition of commodities in developing countries for food aid in the 1980s. 
Food Policy, 15(1): 27-43.
Colombo, S.M., Rodgers, T. F. M., Diamond, M. L., Bazinet, R. P., & Arts, M. T. (2020). Projected declines in 
global DHA availability for human consumption as a result of global warming. Ambio, 49, 865-880. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-019-01234-6 
Directorate of Science, Technology and Innovation Education Data Hub-DSTI. (n.d.). Government of Sierra 
Leone Education Data Hub. https://educationdatahub.dsti.gov.sl/overview 
Dror, D. K., & Allen, L. H. (2008). Effect of vitamin B12 deficiency on neurodevelopment in infants: cur￾rent knowledge and possible mechanisms. Nutrition reviews, 66(5), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-
4887.2008.00031.x
Eshiwani, G. S. (1990). Implementing educational policies in Kenya: World Bank discussion papers- Africa technical 
department series. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & World Food Programme (WFP). (2018). 
Home-Grown School Feeding. Resource Framework. Technical Document. Rome: FAO & WFP. https://www.wfp.org/
publications/home-grown-school-feeding-resource-framework 
186
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and FHI 360. (2016). Minimum Dietary Diver￾sity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. https://www.fao.org/3/i5486e/i5486e.pdf 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Develop￾ment (IFAD), UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP) and World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). In 
Brief to The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy 
diets. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9699en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2010). Nutrition Country Profiles: Senegal sum￾mary. FAO, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. https://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/sen_en.stm 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2010a). Nutrition Country Profiles: Tanza￾nia summary. FAO, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. https://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/
tza_en.stm 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2018). Tanzania Nutrition Profile. FAO, Nu￾trition and Consumer Protection Division. http://bvsper.paho.org/texcom/nutricion/tza.pdf 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2008). Tanzania Nutrition Profile. FAO, Nu￾trition and Consumer Protection Division. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/ec321075-ffe6-4729-a695-
41d25f05c68d/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Minimum dietary diversity for women. 
An updated guide for measurement: From collection to action https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3434en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Rwanda at a glance. https://www.fao.org/rwan￾da/our-office-in-rwanda/rwanda-at-a-glance/en/ 
Forsyth, S., Gautier, S., & Salem, N., Jr (2016). Global Estimates of Dietary Intake of Docosahexaenoic Acid and 
Arachidonic Acid in Developing and Developed Countries. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 68(4), 258–267. 
https://doi.org/10.1159/000446855
Garg, T., Barret, B. C., Gomez, M. I., Lentz, E. C., & Violette, W. J. (2013). Market Prices and Food Aid Local 
and Regional Procurement and Distribution: A Multi-Country Analysis. World Development, 49, 19-29. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.018 
Gelli, A., Masset, E., Folson, G. K., Arhninful, K. D., Ayi, I., Bosompem, M. K., . . . Drake. (2016). Evaluation 
of alternative school feeding models on nutrition, education, agriculture and other social outcomes in Ghana: 
rationale, randomised design and baseline data. Trials, 17(37), 1-19. 10.1186/s13063-015-1116-0 
 Gewa A., Murphy P., Weiss E., & Neumann G. (2014). Determining minimum food intake amounts for diet 
diversity scores to maximize associations with nutrient adequacy: an analysis of school children’s diets in rural 
Kenya. Public Health Nutr. Dec;17(12):2667-73. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014000469. Epub 2014 Apr 1. PMID: 
24690343.
Global Fortification Data Exchange. (n.d.). Dashboard: Rwanda Fortification Dashboard. https://fortificationdata.
org/country-fortification-dashboard/?alpha3_code=RWA&lang=en 
Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B., & International Child 
Development Steering Group. (2007). Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing 
187
countries. The Lancet, 369(9555), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60032-4 
Greiner, R., & Carlsson, N. G. (2006). myo-Inositol phosphate isomers generated by the action of a phytate-de￾grading enzyme from Klebsiella terrigena on phytate. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 52(8), 759–768. https://
doi.org/10.1139/w06-028
Gupta, R. K., Gangoliya, S. S., & Singh, N. K. (2015). Reduction of phytic acid and enhancement of bio￾available micronutrients in food grains. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(2), 676–684. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13197-013-0978-y
Haggblade, S., & Tschirley, D. (2007). Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement in Zambia. Food Security Re￾search Project Working Paper No. 28: 1-26. 
Hallberg, L., Brune, M., & Rossander, L. (1989). Iron absorption in man: ascorbic acid and dose-dependent 
inhibition by phytate. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 49(1), 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ajcn/49.1.140
Halterman, J.S., Kaczorowski, J.M., Aligne, C.A., Auinger, P., & Szilagyi P.G. (2001). Iron deficiency and cogni￾tive achievement among school-aged children and adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 107. 1381–6.
Hanrahan, E. C. (2010). Local and Regional Procurement for U.S. International Emergency Food Aid. Washington: 
Congressional Research Service. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R40759.pdf 
Harou, P. A., Upton, B. J., Lentz, C. E., Barret, B. C., & Gomez, I. M. (2013). Tradeoffs or Synergies? Assessing 
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement through Case Studies in Burkina Faso and Guatemala. World Develop￾ment, 49, 44-57.
Holland, N. (2021). The History of Kenya’s School Meals Programme 2021. An Insightful Journey of Africa’s Most 
Successful School Meals Programme. Ministry of Education, State Department of Early Learning and Basic Educa￾tion. [Unpublished Report] 
Horton, S., & Hoddinott, J. (2014). Benefits and Costs of the Food and Nutrition Targets for the Post-2015 
Development Agenda: Post-2015 Consensus. Food Security and Nutrition perspective paper. Copenhagen Consensus 
Center. 2014.
Horton, S., & Steckel, R. (2013). Malnutrition: Global Economic Losses Attributable to Malnutrition 1900–
2000 and Projections to 2050. In B. Lomborg (Ed.), How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?: A Scorecard 
from 1900 to 2050 (pp. 247-272). doi:10.1017/CBO9781139225793.010
Hurrell R. F. (2004). Phytic acid degradation as a means of improving iron absorption. International journal for 
vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal international 
de vitaminologie et de nutrition, 74(6), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831.74.6.445
Huskisson, E., Maggini, S., & Ruf, M. (2007). The role of vitamins and minerals in energy me￾tabolism and well-being. The Journal of International Medical Research, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.
org/10.1177/147323000703500301
Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2010). School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children. The National Acade￾mies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12751
188
International Trade Administration -ITA. (2021). Sierra Leone – Country Commercial Guide. Agriculture Sector. 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.trade.gov/country-commer￾cial-guides/sierra-leone-agriculture-sector#:~:text=The%20land%20is%20suitable%20for,and%20the%20rear￾ing%20of%20livestock.
Ismail, A., Darling, A. M., Mosha, D., Fawzi, W., Sudfeld, C., Sando, M. M., Abdallah Noor, R., Charles, J., 
& Vuai, S. (2019). Prevalence and risk factors associated with malnutrition among adolescents in rural Tanzania. 
Tropical Medicine & International Health, 25(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13331 
Kabubo-Mariara, J., Ndenge, G. K., & Mwabu, D. K. (2009). Determinants of children’s nutritional status in 
Kenya: Evidence from demographic and health surveys. Journal of African Economies, 18(3), 363-387. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jae/ejn024 
Kazianga, H.; de Walque, D. & Alderman, H. (2012). Educational and child labour impacts of two food-for-ed￾ucation schemes: Evidence from a randomized trial in rural Burkina Faso. J. Afr. Econ. 2012, 21, 723–760.
King, N.; Dewey, C.; Borish, D. (2015). Determinants of primary school non-enrollment and absenteeism: 
Results from a retrospective, convergent mixed methods, cohort study in rural western Kenya. PLoS ONE,10, 
e0138362. 
Lambrou, Y. & Piana, G. (2006). Energy and Gender in rural sustainable development. Food and Agriculture Orga￾nization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/ai021e/ai021e.pdf 
Lee, S., Choi, Y., Jeong, H. S., Lee, J., & Sung, J. (2017). Effect of different cooking methods on the content of 
vitamins and true retention in selected vegetables. Food Science and Biotechnology, 27(2), 333–342. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10068-017-0281-1
Lentz, C. E., Barret, B. C., & Gomez, I. M. (2012). The Impacts of Local and Regional Procurement of US Food 
Aid: Learning Alliance Synthesis Report. NY: Cornell University.
Lentz, C. E., Passarelli, S., & Christopher, B. B. (2013). The Timeliness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Local and 
Regional Procurement of Food Aid. World Development, 49, 9-18.
Lentz, E., Mercier, S., & Barret, C. (2017). International food aid and food assistance programs and the next farm 
bill. American Enterprise Unit. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/International-Food-Aid-and￾Food-Assistance-Programs-and-the-Next-Farm-Bill.pdf 
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program; 81 Fed. Reg. 127 (July 1, 2016) (to be codified at 7 CFR 
Part 1590)
Lukindo, J. (2018). Contribution of School Feeding Programmes (SFPs) in Enhancing Pupils’ Schooling in 
Primary Schools in Monduli District, Tanzania. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(8), 49-63. https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.1256206 
Lynch, S. R., & Cook, J. D. (1980). Interaction of vitamin C and iron. Annals of the New York Academy of Scienc￾es, 355, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb21325.x
MINIMEX. (n.d.). MINIMEX: About us. https://www.minimex.co.rw/en/about-us.php 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Sierra Leone. (2022). Leveraging Technology to Drive Agricultural Growth.
189
https://maf.gov.sl/about-us/ 
Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education. (2019, December). 2019 Annual School Census Report and 
Statistical Abstract. Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, Republic of Sierra Leone. https://mbsse.
gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2019-Annual-School-Census-Report.pdf 
Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education. (2021, March). 2020 Annual School Census Report. Min￾istry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education, Republic of Sierra Leone. https://www.dsti.gov.sl/2020-annu￾al-school-census-report/ 
Ministry of Education of Rwanda. (2020). 2019 Education Statistics. https://www.mineduc.gov.rw/fileadmin/
user_upload/Mineduc/Publications/EDUCATION_STATISTICS/Education_statistical_yearbook/01_Educa￾tion_Statistical_Yearbook_2019.pdf 
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children (MoHCDGEC) [Tanzania Main￾land], Ministry of Health (MoH) [Zanzibar], Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre (TFNC), National Bureau of 
Statistics (NBS), Office of the Chief Government Statistician (OCGS) [Zanzibar] and UNICEF. (2019). Tanzania 
National Nutrition Survey using SMART Methodology (TNNS) 2018. https://www.unicef.org/tanzania/reports/tan￾zania-national-nutrition-survey-2018 
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children (MoHCDGEC) [Tanzania Main￾land], Ministry of Health - MoH [Zanzibar], National Bureau of Statistics - NBS [Tanzania], Office of Chief Gov￾ernment Statistician – OCGS [Zanzibar], and ICF. (2016). Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria 
Indicator Survey 2015-2016. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/fr321/fr321.pdf
Monk, C., Georgieff, M. K., & Osterholm, E. A. (2013). Research review: maternal prenatal distress and poor 
nutrition - mutually influencing risk factors affecting infant neurocognitive development. Journal of child psycholo￾gy and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 54(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12000
Mugabekazi, S. (2021, October). The Role of AGRA in National Systems Development in Developing Coun￾tries: The Case of AIF’s ‘On Cob Model’ in Post-Harvest Handling and Marketing in Rwanda. Africa Improved 
Foods Blog. https://africaimprovedfoods.com/3764-2/ 
Nair, A.D. (2022, April). International Food Aid Programs: McGovern-Dole and Local and Regional Procure￾ment. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12081 
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). (2014). Fourth Population and Housing Census, Rwanda, 2012 
(Thematic Report: Population Projections). Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, National Institute of Statis￾tics of Rwanda. https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/rphc4-population-projections
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). (2020, October). Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 
2019-20 (Key Indicators Report). National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, The Demographic 
and Health Surveys (The DHS Program). https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/demographic-and-health-sur￾vey-20192020-key-indicators 
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). (2021, December). Seasonal Agricultural Survey (Annual Re￾port, 2021). National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. https://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/1754
National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board (NRC-FNB). (1986). Nutrient Adequacy: Assessment Using 
Food Consumption Surveys. The National Academy Press. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25032431/
190
Negash, C., Whiting, S. J., Henry, C. J., Belachew, T., & Hailemariam, T. G. (2015). Association between Ma￾ternal and Child Nutritional Status in Hula, Rural Southern Ethiopia: A Cross Sectional Study. PloS one, 10(11),
e0142301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142301
Nogueira, T., Ferreira, R. J., Dias da Silva, V., Liñan Pinto, M., Damas, C., & Sousa, J. (2021). Analytical As￾sessment and Nutritional Adequacy of School Lunches in Sintra’s Public Primary Schools. Nutrients, 13(6), 1946. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061946
Olson, R., Gavin-Smith, B., Ferraboschi, C., & Kraemer, K. (2021). Food fortification: The advantages, disad￾vantages and lessons from Sight and life programs. Nutrients, 13(4), 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041118
Phillippy, B.Q. (2006). Transport of calcium across Caco-2 cells in the presence of inositol hexakisphosphate. 
Nutr Res, 26, 146–149. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2006.02.008.
Prado, E. L., & Dewey, K. G. (2014). Nutrition and brain development in early life. Nutrition Reviews, 72(4), 
267–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12102
Project Concern International (PCI). (2021). PCI in Tanzania. PCI, a Global Communities Partner. https://
www.pciglobal.org/tanzania/ 
Rasmussen, S. (2021). Vanguard Economics is working to switch consumption of highly refined flours to nutrition-rich 
wholegrain fortified flour and deliver potentially massive nutritional gains for consumers in Rwanda. Vanguard Eco￾nomics. https://www.vanguardeconomics.com/s/Wholegrain-Pilot.pdf
Reddy, N.R., Sathe, S.K., & Salunkhe, D.K. (1982). Phytases in legumes and cereals. Adv Food Res, 82,1–92. doi: 
10.1016/S0065-2628(08)60110-X
Roberts, M., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reynolds, A., Wall, C., Reeder, N. & Rico Mendez, G. (2022). The Effects of 
Nutritional Interventions on the Cognitive Development of Preschool-Age Children: A Systematic Review. Nutri￾ents 2022, 14, 532. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fnu14030532 
Rogawski McQuade, E. T, Clark, S., Bayo, E., Scharf, R. J., DeBoer, M. D., Patil, C. L., Gratz, J. C., Houpt, 
E. R., Svensen, E., Mduma, E. R. & Platts-Mills, J. A. (2019). Seasonal food insecurity in Haydom, Tanzania, is 
associated with low birthweight and acute malnutrition: Results from the MAL-ED Study. Am J Trop Med Hyg., 
100(3), 681-687. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0547. PMID: 30608052; PMCID: PMC6402900.
Roothaert, R., Mpogole, H., Hunter, D., Ochieng, J., & Kejo, D. (2021). Policies, Multi-Stakeholder Approach￾es and Home-Grown School Feeding Programs for Improving Quality, Equity and Sustainability of School Meals 
in Northern Tanzania. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.621608 
Rwanda Development Board (RDB). (2022). Agriculture Overview. https://rdb.rw/investment-opportunities/agri￾culture/ 
Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative (RWARRI). (2020, September 15). Farm to Market Alliance (FtMA) is 
led by World Food Programme (WFP) in Rwanda and being implemented by Rwanda Rural [https://youtu.be/Xy￾tE44zF9Es] [Status Update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/100342888485338/posts/farm-to-market-alli￾ance-ftma-is-led-by-world-food-programme-wfp-in-rwanda-and-be/106326061220354/ 
Sempos, C. T., Johnson, N. E., Smith, E. L. & Gilligan, C. (1985). Effects of intraindividual and interindividual 
variation in repeated dietary records. American Journal of Epidemiology, 121(1), 120–130, https://doi.org/10.1093/
191
oxfordjournals.aje.a113974 
Shekar, M., Kakietek, J., Dayton Eberwein, J., & Walters, D. (2017). An investment framework for nutrition: 
reaching the global targets for stunting, anemia, breastfeeding, and wasting. The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.
net/10986/26069 
Shonkoff, J. P., Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood develop￾ment. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9824
Siegel, K. R., Ali, M. K., Srinivasiah, A., Nugent, R.A. & Narayan, K. M. V. (2014) Do We Produce Enough 
Fruits and Vegetables to Meet Global Health Need?. PLOS ONE 9(8): e104059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0104059 
Singh, S., & Fernandes. (2018). “Home-grown school feeding: promoting local production systems diversifica￾tion through nutrition sensitive agriculture.” Food Security, 10, 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-
0760-5 
Solomon, D., Aderaw, Z., & Tegegne, T. K. (2017). Minimum dietary diversity and associated factors among 
children aged 6–23 months in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Equity Health, 16, 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12939-017-0680-1 
Steyn, N. P., Nel J., Labadarios D., Maunder, E. M., Kruger, H.S. (2014). Which dietary diversity indi￾cator is best to assess micronutrient adequacy in children 1 to 9 y? Nutrition. (1), 55-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.
nut.2013.06.002. PMID: 24290599.
The White House. (2000). President Clinton Announces New Steps to Improve Nutrition and Education for 
Children in Developing Countries. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/textonly/WH/new/html/Fri_
Dec_29_140709_2000.html 
Tschirley, D., & del Castillo, A. M. (2007). Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement: An Assessment of Ex￾perience in Africa and Elements of Good Donor Practice. Food Security International Development Working Papers 
No.27, 1-71. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midiwp/54562.html
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Data Services. (2021). Country Dashboard: Senegal. IDEA. 
Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://idea.usaid.gov/cd/senegal?comparisonGroup=region
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Data Services. (2021a). Country Dashboard: Tanzania. 
IDEA. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://idea.usaid.gov/cd/tanzania/ 
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Counterpart 
International (CPI), World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF, Plan International, Aide Action, and Helen Keller 
International. (2011). Guide to setting up and managing School Canteens.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2012). Food product guide. -FY 2012. USDA Foreign 
Agricultural Service.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2012). Food Product guide. -FY 2012. USDA Foreign 
Agricultural Service.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2017). Yaajeende Final Impact Evaluation Report. https://
192
pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TZ2D.pdf
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2019, July 2). Inclusive economic growth: Senegal. U.S. 
Agency for International Development. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.usaid.gov/senegal/agricul￾ture-and-food-security
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2021, December 16). Senegal: Nutrition profile. U.S. 
Agency for International Development. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/
health-areas/nutrition/countries/senegal-nutrition-profile
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2022). Agriculture and food security in Kenya. USAID 
Kenya. https://www.usaid.gov/kenya/agriculture-and-food-security Agriculture and food security
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2022). International Data and Economic Analysis (IDEA): 
Kenya. USAID, IDEA. Retrieved February 25, 2022, from https://idea.usaid.gov/cd/kenya?comparisonGroup=re￾gion 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2019). Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program Report to ... 
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2020). Fiscal Year 2020, McGovern-Dole International Food for Edu￾cation and Child Nutrition Program. The Global Effort to Reduce Child Hunger and Increase School Attendance. 
Report to Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/McGovern-FY2020.pdf 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2020, October). Food Aid Factsheet Tanzania. USDA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2021). McGovern-dole food for education program. USDA Foreign Ag￾ricultural Service. https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (February, 2016). McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program. A Learning Agenda. Retrieved from: https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/
mgd_learning_agenda_final.pdf 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d.). Programs: McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. Re￾trieved from, https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program
UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Bank (WB). (2021). Joint child malnutrition es￾timates: Key findings of the 2021 edition. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/
joint-child-malnutrition-estimates-unicef-who-wb#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20globally%2C%20149.2%20mil￾lion,wasted%2C%20and%2038.9%20million%20overweight. 
UNICEF. (2016). National Multisectoral Nutrition Action Plan (NMNAP) for the period July 2016 
– June 2021. UNICEF Tanzania. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/tanzania/media/456/file/Tanza￾nia-2016-NMNAP.pdf 
UNICEF. (2019). Multidimensional Child Poverty in Sierra Leone. https://www.unicef.org/sierraleone/reports/
multidimensional-child-poverty-report 
UNICEF. (2019). The state of the world’s children 2019. UNICEF. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.
unicef.org/reports/state-of-worlds-children-2019 
193
UNICEF. (2021). Country Office Annual Report 2021 Sierra Leone. https://www.unicef.org/media/116391/file/
Sierra-Leone-2021-COAR.pdf 
UNICEF. (2021, October 1). The state of the world’s children 2021. UNICEF. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from 
https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2021
UNICEF. (n.d.-b). Preventing and treating maternal, adolescent and child malnutrition. UNICEF Kenya. Retrieved 
February 25, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org/kenya/nutrition
UNICEF. (n.d.-c). Providing inclusive and equitable quality education for every child. UNICEF Kenya. Retrieved 
February 24, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org/kenya/education
UNICEF. (n.d-a). Demographics, health & infant mortality. Data. UNICEF Kenya. Retrieved February 24, 2022, 
from https://data.unicef.org/country/ken/
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2021). Human Development Reports. UNDP Data Center. 
Viewed 21 Mar 2022. https://hdr.undp.org/en/content/download-data 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -UNESCO. (2022). Sierra Leone. Participation 
in Education. UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/sl 
Uwezo. (2016). Are Our Children Learning? Uwezo Kenya Sixth Learning Assessment Report. Uwezo, Twaweza East 
Africa. https://twaweza.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/UwezoKenya2015ALAReport-FINAL-EN-web.pdf 
Violette, J. W., Harou, P. A., Upton, B. J., Bell, D. S., Barret, B. C., Gomez, I. M., & Lentz, C. E. (2013). Recip￾ients’ Satisfaction with Locally Procured Food Aid Rations: Comparative Evidence from a Three Country Matched 
Survey. World Development, 49, 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.019 
Walker, J. D., & Wandschneider, T. (2005). Local Food Aid Procurement in Ethiopia: A case study report for EC￾PREP (UK Department for International Development). Natural Resources Institute. https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/media/57a08c5ae5274a27b2001143/LocalFoodAidEthiopiaReport.pdf 
Walker, J. D., Coulter, J., & Hodges, R. (2007). Local and Regional Procurement of Food Aid in Africa: Impact 
and Policy Issues. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1-15.
Wall, C., Tolar-Peterson, T., Reeder, N., Roberts, M., Reynolds, A., Rico Mendez, G. (2022). The Impact of 
School Meal Programs on Educational Outcomes in African Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. 
Res. Public Health, 19, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19063666
Weiser, M. J., Butt, C. M., & Mohajeri, M. H. (2016). Docosahexaenoic Acid and Cognition throughout the 
Lifespan. Nutrients, 8(2), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8020099
Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of cognitive skills 
and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 
102(1), 43–53. 
Winje, B. A., Kvestad, I., Krishnamachari, S., Manji, K., Taneja, S., Bellinger, D. C., Bhandari, N., Bisht, S., 
Darling, A. M., Duggan, C. P., Fawzi, W., Hysing, M., Kumar, T., Kurpad, A. V., Sudfeld, C. R., Svensen, E., 
Thomas, S., & Strand, T. A. (2018). Does early vitamin B12 supplementation improve neurodevelopment and 
194
cognitive function in childhood and into school age: a study protocol for extended follow-ups from randomised 
controlled trials in India and Tanzania. BMJ open, 8(2), e018962. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018962 
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2022b). Sierra Leone. Retrieved from Data Commons, viewed 21 
Mar 2022, <https://datacommons.org>. https://datacommons.org/place/country/SLE?category=Demographics 
World Bank, World Development Indicators. (2022a). Food imports (% of merchandise imports) - Sierra Leone. 
[Data file]. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
World Bank. (2018). Case Study 1. Fusing Tradition with Modernity: Imihigo Performance Contracts in Rwan￾da. In, R.P. Beschel, B.J. Cameron,Blair James, J. Kunicova & C.B. Myers,C. Improving Public Sector Performance: 
Through Innovation and Inter-Agency Coordination (pp. 52-56). The World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.
org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/833041539871513644/improving-public-sector-perfor￾mance-through-innovation-and-inter-agency-coordination 
World Bank. (2018). Poverty incidence in Kenya declined significantly, but unlikely to be eradicated by 2030. World￾Bank.Org. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kenya/publication/kenya-economic-update-poverty-inci￾dence-in-kenya-declined-significantly-but-unlikely-to-be-eradicated-by-2030 
World Bank. (2019). Ending Learning Poverty: What Will it Take? https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/han￾dle/10986/32553 
World Bank. (2012). Scaling up School Feeding: Keeping Children in School while Improving their Learning 
and Health. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/04/25/scaling-up-school-feeding-keeping-children￾in-school-while-improving-their-learning-and-health
World Bank. (2021). Overview of Kenya. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kenya/overview 
World Bank. (2021, October). Macro Poverty Outlook Tanzania. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/
macro-poverty-outlook/mpo_ssa 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2018, December). Rwanda Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis 
(CFSVA). WFP, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM). https://www.statistics.gov.rw/file/7671/download?to￾ken=SKqlhiXA 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2019, March). Fill the Nutrient Gap Rwanda. National Summary Report. WFP, 
National Early Child Development Program (NECDP), UNICEF. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000115861/download/ 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021). State of School Feeding Worldwide 2020. https://www.wfp.org/publica￾tions/state-school-feeding-worldwide-2020 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021, April). WFP Kenya Country Brief. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/
WFP-0000128982/download/?_ga=2.108736578.1519570684.1646002555-722161197.1644351123
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021, January). Rwanda Market Study FY20. Home-Grown School Feeding. Mc￾Govern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme. WFP 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021, March). United Republic of Tanzania: An Evaluation of WFP’s Coun￾try Strategic Plan (2017–2021). WFP Office of Evaluation. https://www.wfp.org/publications/evaluation-tanza-
195
nia-wfp-country-strategic-plan-2017-2021
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021a, May). State of Food Insecurity in Sierra Leone 2020. Comprehensive Food 
Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000129312/download/
World Food Programme (WFP). (2021b, December). WFP Sierra Leone Country Brief. https://docs.wfp.org/api/
documents/WFP-0000136084/download/?_ga=2.146493949.851551399.1647977451-722161197.1644351123 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2022, January). WFP Tanzania Country Brief. https://reliefweb.int/sites/relief￾web.int/files/resources/WFP%20Tanzania%20Country%20Brief%20-%20January%202022.pdf 
World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Food and nutrition policy for schools: A tool for the development of 
school nutrition programmes in the European Region. Programme for Nutrition and Food Security. Programme for 
Nutrition and Food Security, WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/107797 
World Vision - Middle East, Eastern Europe Region (MEER). (2018). Citizen Voice and Action (CVA) Model.
Evidence 4 Change Series, World Vision. https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/CVA%20with%20proofread￾ing%20final.pdf 
Zhao, W., Yu, K., Tan, S., Zheng, Y., Zhao, A., Wang, P. & Zhang, Y. (2017). Dietary diversity scores: An indi￾cator of micronutrient inadequacy instead of obesity for Chinese children. BMC Public Health, 17, 440. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4381-x