March 2022 Baseline Study of WFP School-Feeding Programme for USDA McGovern-Dole Grant (FFE-388-2020-009-00) [FY 2020-23] Decentralized McGovern-Dole Baseline Evaluation Report World Food Programme Bangladesh Agreement Number: FFE-388-2020-009-00 Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2020-23 WFP EVALUATION March 2022 Key personnel for the evaluation NAME OF COMMISSIONING OFFICE: WFP BANGLADESH COUNTRY OFFICE EVALUATION MANAGER: ALLEN AMANYA PREPARED BY RAHUL AGRAWAL, TEAM LEADER MRINALINI, CO-TEAM LEAD AND GENDER EXPERT ADITI CHORDIA, RESEARCHER INSHA FATIMA, RESEARCHER March 2022 Acknowledgements The NRMC evaluation team wishes to acknowledge the guidance, support and cooperation received from all the participants in the evaluation. NRMC takes this opportunity to extend sincere thanks to the distinguished Government officials from Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) at National and District and Upazila level, Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC), Bangladesh Institute of Research and Training on Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture for their time and precious inputs. The NRMC Evaluation Team expresses its gratitude to Ms Anna Hamilton from WFP Office in Rome, Ms. Yumiko Kanemitsu, Mr. Stuart Coupe from Regional Evaluation Unit, WFP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok, Mr. Rezaul Karim, Mr. Takahiro UTSUMI, Ms. Allen Amanya, Ms. Katelyn Runyan-Gless, Mr. Md. Abdullah-Al-Mamun Patwary, Ms. Sneha Lata from WFP Country Office and Mr. George Suman Karmaker from WFP office in Cox’s Bazar for their valuable suggestions and guidance for the evaluation. We would also like to thank the staff of Room to Read, and RIC who took time out to speak to us and provide their views on the school feeding programme and facilitate the logistics during the survey. We are thankful to the team from Data Management Aid for their partnership with the NRMC team during the evaluation, particularly on data collection. Last but not the least, the evaluation team wishes to acknowledge the cooperation received from all informants, including school head teachers, teachers, parents, cooks, storekeepers, and SMC members, during the primary survey. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the evaluation team, and do not necessarily reflect those of USDA or the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by USDA or WFP of the opinions expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of USDA or WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers March 2022 Contents Key personnel for the evaluation................................................................................................. 2 Name of commissioning OFFICE: WFP Bangladesh Country office ............................................. 2 Prepared by ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Rahul Agrawal, Team Leader............................................................................................................. 2 Mrinalini, Co-Team Lead and Gender Expert.................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3 Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... 3 List of tables .................................................................................................................................. iv Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Evaluation features ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Purpose, Objectives and Rationale for the Evaluation......................................................... 1 1.1.2 Scope of the Evaluation............................................................................................................ 1 1.1.3 Main Stakeholders and Primary users of the Baseline Study Report ................................ 1 1.1.4 Gender dimensions of the study............................................................................................. 2 1.2. Context.......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Food Security and Nutrition..................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Health.......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.3 Education................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.4 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene................................................................................................ 4 1.2.5 School Feeding Needs............................................................................................................... 4 1.2.6 Gender Analysis......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.7 Government Policies and Programs ....................................................................................... 5 1.2.8 Development Assistance in Bangladesh ................................................................................ 6 1.2.9 COVID-19 Situation in Cox’s Bazar .......................................................................................... 7 2. Subject of the baseline, theory of change and baseline questions ...................................... 8 2.1 Subject of the baseline, theory of change, activities and intended outputs and outcomes ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1. Subject being evaluated .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Planned Outputs and Beneficiaries ..................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Activities and Intended Outputs and Outcomes.............................................................. 10 March 2022 2.1.4 Results Framework.................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5 Program Timeline, Resource Requirements and Funding of MCGOVERN-DOLE SFP.... 13 2.1.6 Gender Dimensions of the Intervention .............................................................................. 14 2.2. Evaluation Question and evaluation criteria ......................................................................... 14 3. Evaluation approach and methodology for baseline data collection................................. 16 3.1. Evaluation Approach and Methodology................................................................................. 16 Methodological Approach................................................................................................................ 16 Research Design................................................................................................................................ 16 Sampling............................................................................................................................................. 18 3.2. Baseline Data collection methods and tools ......................................................................... 19 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Data Triangulation ............................................................................................................................ 19 Integration of Gender into the Methodology................................................................................ 20 3.3. Limitations.................................................................................................................................. 20 3.4. Quality Assurance of the Baseline data collection................................................................ 20 3.5. Ethical considerations............................................................................................................... 21 3.6 Risks and Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 21 4. Baseline findings and discussion............................................................................................ 22 Part A: estimation of baseline values............................................................................................. 22 4.1. SETTING BASELINE VALUES................................................................................................. 22 Part b: findings on evaluation questions....................................................................................... 27 RELEVANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 Evaluation Question 1.......................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Evaluation Question 2.......................................................................................................... 29 4.4 Evaluation Question 3.......................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Evaluation Question 4.......................................................................................................... 31 4.6 Evaluation Question 5.......................................................................................................... 32 4.7 Evaluation Question 6.......................................................................................................... 33 EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................................................................................. 34 4.8 Evaluation Question 8.......................................................................................................... 34 SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 35 4.9 Evaluation Question 9.......................................................................................................... 35 4.10 Evaluation Question 10, 11 ................................................................................................. 35 March 2022 4.11 Evaluation Question 12, 13 ................................................................................................. 36 4.12 Evaluation Question 14........................................................................................................ 37 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 38 Annexes......................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex 1. Summary Terms of Reference..................................................................................... 40 Annex 2. Baseline and evaluation timeline............................................................................... 44 Annex 3. Data collection instruments ....................................................................................... 45 1. SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................... 52 2. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................. 70 3. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................. 75 4. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................ 86 5. SCHOOL STOREKEEPER QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................. 98 6. HEADMASTER QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................. 104 7. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: PARENTS..................................................................... 108 8. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (SMC)....110 9. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: STUDENTS (Grades 3, 4, 5)......................................... 112 10. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: LOCAL SMALLHOLDER FARMERS....................... 115 11. Checklist for Capacity Building Activities (GoB) ................................................................ 117 12. Checklist for Capacity Building Activities (WFP) ............................................................... 118 Annex 4. Methodology............................................................................................................... 119 Annex 5. Evaluation Matrix....................................................................................................... 125 Annex 6. Data collection Tools.................................................................................................. 132 Annex 7: Project Indicators/Results Framework .................................................................... 137 Annex 8: Confidentiality agreement and ethical pledge ....................................................... 153 Annex 9: List of people interviewed......................................................................................... 154 Annex 10: Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 155 Annex 11. List of sample schools.............................................................................................. 158 Annex 12: Detailed Stakeholder Analysis ................................................................................ 160 Annex 13: Updated Internal Reference Group Membership ................................................. 169 Annex 14: Training schedule of the data collection team ..................................................... 170 Annex 15: Team Composition and Specific Tasks ................................................................... 171 Annex 16: Baseline study schedule .......................................................................................... 173 March 2022 List of tables Table 1: Targeted Beneficiaries and Regions (2020-2023) ............................................................. 10 Table 2: Strategic objectives, expected outcomes, and activities under the McGovern-Dole SFP. 10 Table 3: McGovern-Dole FY17 end-term evaluation questions .......................................................... 14 Table 4: Evaluation Design....................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5: Sampling ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6: Enrolment in sample intervention and comparison schools ............................................... 22 Table 7: Evaluation Exercise Summary................................................................................................... 40 Table 8: Targeted Beneficiaries and Regions (2020-2023)................................................................... 43 Table 10: Mapping of the indicators with the type of tools and the questions .................................................. 45 Table 9: Mapping of the indicators with the type of tools and the questions ................................ 132 Table 10: Summary of Total Project Operating Budget (Includes Cost Share) .............................. 145 Table 11: Activity wise Project Operating Budget ............................................................................... 145 Table 12: Program targets and baseline values .................................................................................. 145 Table 13: List of documents used ......................................................................................................... 155 Table 14: List of internal and external stakeholders .......................................................................... 160 Table 15: Training Schedule................................................................................................................... 170 Table 16: Team composition and responsibilities .............................................................................. 171 March 2022 i Acronyms Acronym Explanation AUEOs Assistant Upazila Education Officers BANBEIS Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics BIRTAN Bangladesh Institute of Research, Training and Applied Nutrition BNNC Bangladesh National Nutrition Council BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee CAMPE Campaign for Popular Education COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease CPD Continuing Professional Development CWW Children Without Worms DAE Directorate of Agriculture Extension DEQAS Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System DGHS Directorate General of Health Services DHS Demography and Health Survey DID Difference-in-Difference DMA Data Management Aid DPE Directorate of Primary Education DPEd Diploma in Primary Education DPEOs District Primary Education Officers DPP Development Project Proforma DPHE Department of Public Health and Engineering DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ECNEC Executive Committee of the National Economic Council EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment EiE Education in Emergency March 2022 ii EQAS Evaluation Quality Assurance System FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FDMNs Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals FGD Focus Group Discussion FY Fiscal Year FYP Five Year Plan GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition GDI Gender Development Index GDP Gross Domestic Product GEEW Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women GHI Global Hunger Index GNI Gross National Index GoB Government of Bangladesh GPS Government Primary School HDI Human Development Index HDR Human Development Report HGSF Home Grown School Feeding HNP Health, Nutrition and Population IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILO International Labour Organization IQ Intelligent Quotient IR Inception Report J-MSNA Joint Multi-Sector Needs Assessment JRP Joint Response Plan KIIs Key Informant Interviews LGD Local Government Division March 2022 iii LRP Local and Regional Food Procurement M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoHFW Ministry of Health and Family Welfare MoPME Ministry of Primary and Mass Education MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index NCTB National Curriculum and Textbooks Board NER Net Enrolment Rate NFNSP National Food and Nutrition Security Policy NGO Non-Government Organization NPAN2 National Plan of Action for Nutrition – 2 NRMC NR Management Consultants India Pvt Ltd NSFPS National School Feeding Policy and Strategy NSSS National Social Security Strategy NSMA National School Meals Authority NSMP National School Meals Program OECD DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee OEV Office of Evaluation, WFP PEDP Primary Education Development Program PESP Primary Education Stipend Project PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PTA Parent Teacher Association PTI Primary Teachers Training Institute QLEAP Quality Learning for All Program RBB Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific RIC Resource Integration Centre March 2022 iv RRRC Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner RtR Room to Read SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results SBCC Social Behavior Change Communication SDG Sustainable Development Goals SFP School Feeding Program SFPPA School Feeding Programin Poverty Prone Areas SMC School Management Committee SOs Strategic Objectives STH Soil-transmitted helminth ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainer TSER Transforming Secondary Education for Results UEOs Upazila Education Officers UN United Nations UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund URC Upazila Resource Center USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA US Department of Agriculture VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFO HQ WFP Head Quarter WFP World Food Programme WFP-CO WFP Country Office WFP-RBB WFP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific WHO World Health Organization March 2022 v Executive Summary 1. This report is for the baseline study of the FY 2020-20231) US Department of Agriculture (USDA)- McGovern-Dole Grant (McGovern-Dole) in support of WFP School Feeding Program (SFP). The study is commissioned by the WFP Country Office Bangladesh (WFP CO) and assesses the baseline situation during the period January 2021- March 2021 for the FY2020-2023 grant (henceforth referred to as FY20). The study was scheduled during the period August 2021– December 2021. This has been extended until February 2022 due to Covid-19 related restrictions. 2. The project plans to reach 42,401 students in the Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts – or upazilas– of the Cox’s Bazar district, these areas are characterized by high nutritional needs and low educational attainment. Under this project, the school feeding program covers all Government of Bangladesh (GoB) primary schools of the two upazilas and includes an Essential Learning Package which delivers important health, nutrition, and WASH information to students, teachers, School Management Committee (SMC) members and parents. In the first year, each student receives a 75g packet of micronutrient fortified biscuits within the first hour of school on every school day. In the second and third year of the program, WFP will provide home-grown school feeding hot meals to students. Within the McGovern-Dole funded program, WFP also provides a complementary literacy program to improve the literacy outcomes of students, implemented in the Government primary schools. The project also aims at providing capacity strengthening support to the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME), the Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) and other related ministries for the implementation of the approved nutrition-sensitive “National School Meal Policy (NSMP) 2019” and for the implementation of the School Feeding Program in Poverty Prone Areas (SFPPPA). 3. The objectives of baseline study are to (i) establish benchmark values for all performance indicators included in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP); (ii) validate program design assumptions; (iii) provide program implementation analysis for the WFP on its role in establishing and implementing effective structures to support National School Feeding Policy. The findings of the study will be used as the basis for project’s ongoing monitoring activities to regularly measure activity outputs and performance indicators. The baseline will set values for comparison during the end-line evaluation. 4. In the context of COVID-19, the baseline study highlights changes in the needs of the stakeholders, examines its impact on school children’s return to school, delves into its effect on the potential achievement of project outcomes and outline lessons learnt that WFP needs to focus on in order to ensure that the transition to hot meals (from biscuit distribution) is contextually adapted. It also examines the influence of COVID-19 on the program’s implementation strategy. 5. The primary users of this study are (i) WFP-CO and implementing partners to plan and implement the interventions and inform evidence-based decision making (ii) USDA to understand how WFP’s work is contributing to USDA’s strategies and programs, (iii) Government of Bangladesh (GoB) to understand whether the program activities are aligned with its priorities and harmonized with the action of other partners, (iv) The WFP Regional Bureau to provide strategic guidance, program support, and oversight, (v) WFP HQ for wider organizational learning and accountability, (vi) Office of Evaluation to feed into evaluation syntheses and for annual reporting to the Executive Board ; (vii) other Country Offices may also benefit from the findings and learnings and; (viii) Academic and Research Institutes such as Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) who would be interested in school feeding program and its impact. 1 Start Date- October 2020, End Date- September 2023; Source: Project Agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Service And The World Food Programme for the donation of Agricultural Commodities and Related Assistance Under The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program March 2022 vi Methodology 6. The study followed a mixed-method approach to address the key information areas under the criteria of relevance, effectiveness and sustainability as articulated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) using primary data collected through the quantitative survey, Key Informant Interviews (KII), In-Depth Interviews (IDI), Observations, and secondary data collected through a desk review of secondary data. The baseline study was designed to compare the status of indicators in the planned intervention areas and comparison areas. The comparison schools were selected from Ramu upazila of Cox’s Bazar district as schools here were not receiving similar support as provided under the school feeding program or from other donors on improving literacy outcomes as in the case of other upazilas. 7. The identification of schools was based on (i) availability of internet connectivity; (ii) willingness of the school headmaster to participate in data collection process; (iii) prevalent categorization of location (affected by COVID-19) as green or high-risk red zones. Amongst the 50 sampled schools, 20 per cent of schools were identified for the purpose of conducting FGDs with mothers, SMC members and students. Overall, 30 FGDs were conducted (10 for each category from intervention and control schools). FGDs were conducted in open space following all COVID-19 protection measures. Additional one FGD with smallholder farmers in each upazila was conducted. 8. The limitations of the study are: i) Behavioral indicators were captured via interviews, not directly observed, making responses susceptible to social desirability bias and ii) Due to closure of schools on account of lockdown, the recorded values for indicator on 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 and nutritional intake might be reported differently than actual by respondents; (iv) Given that the sample schools were selected based on these criteria as articulated in the previous paragraph and not randomly selected, there is possibility of bias in observations on availability of education, water and sanitation facilities. Summary Findings 9. Relevance: The analysis of documents reveals that the program interventions are completely aligned with the GoB’s national and sectoral level policies and plans such as 8th Five-year plan, PEDP 4 and NPAN2. Interventions such as developing online training courses for teachers; conducting trainings for government officials at district and upazila levels, head teachers and school administrators on competencies in literacy, governance, transparency and monitoring and supervision with an objective of creating an enabling learning environment in schools directly aligns with the priorities of GoB. SFP, through its provision of fortified biscuits to students and complimentary education interventions, extends the development partners’ support to GoB. The SFP activities were therefore found to be complementing other donor-funded and government initiatives. 10. WFP will support MoPME in developing a Research and Development (R&D) Center that will contribute towards building evidence on the impact of school meals program and support its dissemination at the local and central level of government officials for informed decision making. WFP will also support in improving literacy outcomes by providing high quality supplementary reading materials for students and professional development of teachers. It will also promote adoption of improved nutrition and health practices by developing materials on appropriate healthy dietary behavior, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available foods and training cooks on safe food preparation and hygiene management. Creating an effective community mobilization strategy and developing Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) materials to showcase effective community engagement in managing school meals in Bangladesh is another important pillar of support from WFP. Evidently, the program design aims to support GoB on aspects related to policy, strategic planning, institutional capacity building, implementation and community engagement, thereby addressing the needs of Government with regard to transitioning to fully- owned national school feeding program. 11. The review of program design documents suggests that the capacity building interventions such as (i) training MoPME and DPE officials on procurement, effective program review, and planning for school meals; (ii) training officials at national , district and upazila level on food safety & quality (FSQ) and hygiene, safe food preparation and basic nutrition, warehouse and supply chain management; (iii) strengthening the capacity of agriculture extension workers to train small holder farmers on production of crops March 2022 vii considering the dietary diversity, establishing local supply chain for fresh produce, addresses the capacity needs of MoPME officials and other stakeholders at local level for transitioning towards national ownership of school feeding program. The discussions with representatives WFP and DPE highlighted that an action plan for capacity building of MoPME and DPE officials based on the capacity needs assessment undertaken by WFP using Systems Approach to Better Education Results (SABER) for School Feeding has been prepared and is ready for implementation. 12. Creating community mobilization strategy, creating mother groups and building their capacities, developing SBCC materials on aspects such as (i) managing school meals; (ii) minimum nutrition requirements therefore, emerged as one of the priority areas for the program. Supporting MoPME in developing systems and SOPs to operationalize the national school meal program therefore, emerged as another priority area for SFP and supporting MoPME in designing scope of work for national school meal authority (NSMA), its composition and plan of action for establishment would be immediate priority area for SFP. 13. The SMC members in the intervention schools during FGD expressed their willingness to support the school meals program. There appeared a consensus within the group that provisioning of hot meals would encourage parents to send their children to school, thereby increasing students’ attendance. The SMC members in the control schools cited examples of students shifting to schools outside their neighborhood to become part of biscuit distribution program (one of the interventions under SFP) and expressed that the school meal program would bring students back to schools in neighborhood area. 14. The analysis of discussions with GoB officials at national and district level and SMC members highlight that local level stakeholders and governance structures are in place to transition from biscuits distribution to national school meals program. They would, however, require interventions that can orient them about their responsibilities and strengthen their capacities to undertake assigned responsibilities. 15. Effectiveness: The findings of the survey indicate that all the intervention and comparison schools have separate toilets for boys and girls and drinking water facilities within the school. The majority of the parents were able to highlight three benefits of education and the majority of the students were aware about the health and nutrition practices. No teacher in the intervention schools reported receiving any training on teaching and learning techniques. 16. 33 percent of the students in the treatment schools and 25 percent in comparison schools were able to both read and comprehend grade-II level text. This difference, however, was not statistically significant. Analysis of data on the basis of gender suggests that 59 percent girls and 41 percent boys in intervention schools and 32 percent girls and 19 percent boys in comparison schools were able to fluently read and comprehend grade II level text. During FGDs in Ukhiya and Kutubdia, the parents proudly cited instances of children reading out stories to them and siblings. Findings at a disaggregated level suggest that despite multiple external challenges with regard to increase in food prices resulting from multiple shocks that included the refugee influx in 2017, the unavailability of diverse food items in the context of COVID-19, the dietary diversity score in Ukhiya was 4.98 (out of 7) as compared to Kutubdia (4.48). This clearly indicates better diversity in food consumption in the case of Ukhiya as compared to Kutubdia . The remoteness of the location and inadequate local production of diverse food items, owing to the salinity of water, are the primary reasons for lower dietary diversity score in Kutubdia. 17. Under the high-level capacity building component of the program (FY 20 grant), WFP with support from BIRTAN has conducted training on Safe Food Preparation and Basic Nutrition for the Cooks in GoB assisted school meals. The program is also providing technical assistance to Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED), Ministry of Planning, GoB and DPE on creation and operationalization of school meal database at the field level. 18. IDIs with officials representing the education and agriculture department suggest that meetings of the Nutrition Coordination Committees are held regularly (monthly). They further expressed that these meetings promote multi-sectoral coordination by ensuring participation of various line departments and facilitating discourse on nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. 19. While national and local level structures are adequately placed to successfully transition to the national school meal program and implement FY 20 grant, streamlining of joint monitoring would enhance the effectiveness and efficiency. March 2022 viii 20. There is clarity amongst the technical and implementing partners on their responsibilities during implementation of FY 2020 grant and support required in transitioning to and implementation of the national school meal program. 21. Sustainability- The current interventions under the school meal program and those proposed under the primary school meals project would be supported through the development fund (funded from combination of local and foreign resources) of GoB and not the revenue budget (primarily funded through local resources) . The funding through the development budget has so far ensured availability of adequate financial resources for implementation. However, from a sustainability perspective it is imperative that the allocation for the project is considered from the revenue budget of the Government. Funding through the revenue budget will ensure sustainable financing for the project. Further, it emerged during discussions that alternate fund raising efforts for school feeding or other innovative forms of resourcing school feeding are not being considered. 22. Engagement with the community and adequate capacity of the local level stakeholders to implement the interventions are the main tenets to ensure sustainability. However, there is limited engagement of the project with the community. Providing technical assistance to MoPME in formulation of community mobilization strategy (based on needs assessment) and guideline for implementation therefore, emerges as another priority area for WFP. Conclusions 23. The program is completely aligned with the GoB’s national and sectoral level policies and plans. The program also addresses the needs of the Government with regard to transitioning to a fully- owned national school feeding program. 24. While there is a one-year delay, due to delay in approval of Development Project Proforma (DPP), in implementation of the primary school meals project there is no change in the willingness of the Government to move forward with its plan to implement the National School Meals Policy. Considering the delay in implementation project can provide technical assistance to MoPME in conducting a feasibility study to assess if there is a requirement to scale down the targets (considering that the project (GoB supported primary schools meals project) will end in FY 2025-26) or following an alternate approach to achieve targets. 25. The FY 2020-2023 MGD school feeding project design addresses the needs of the Government with regard to transition to fully nationally owned school feeding program. However, owing to closure of schools, implementation of project (through alternate implementation modalities) was limited to undertaking interventions related to literacy and biscuits distribution. The interventions under other components were pushed to year 2 of the project. The delay in undertaking preparatory activities has led to rescheduling of timelines for rolling out the school meal distribution (planned from second year). Review of semiannual progress reports for the period April 2021- October 2021, also highlights limited or no progress across indicators. Considering the delay in implementation of planned activities, the project team may consider conducting a feasibility assessment on achievement of targets. 26. Local level stakeholders such as parents, teachers and SMC members expressed their willingness to support MoPME in implementation of the primary school meals project. They are, however, constrained by lack of awareness about the interventions and their role in supporting implementation. Developing community mobilization and SBCC strategy emerged as one of the priority areas for the project to ensure that the transition from biscuit distribution to hot meals is adapted to the local context. The project can consider providing technical assistance to MoPME in conducting (i) formative research to understand the current practices, motivators, and barriers related to desired behaviors for the community and;(ii) capacity needs assessment of the local level stakeholders to identify capacity gaps that need to be addressed in order to ensure their participation in the primary school meals program in a sustainable manner. The capacity needs assessment and formative research will also form the basis for developing community mobilization and SBCC strategy. 27. Supporting MoPME in revision of guidelines and SOPs based on recommendations of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) and designing scope of work for NSMA, its composition and plan of action for establishment emerged as other priority areas for the project. March 2022 ix 28. The program results framework, performance indicators and progress monitoring reports do not focus on collecting and reporting gender disaggregated data. The project can consider revising the program results framework and include indicators to include gender empowerment and gender equality. 29. MoPME under the draft DPP has articulated roles and responsibilities during implementation for itself, other line ministries/departments and development partners such as WFP. This demonstrates GoBs preparedness to transition to the national school meals program. 30. GoB has provided financial commitment to support implementation of national school meals program. It has also adequately allocated funds to continue biscuits distribution in upazilas other those supported under FY 20 grant till the primary school meals project is operationalized. However, the commitment/ allocation is made under the development fund of GoB. In order to ensure sustainable financing, it is important that the allocation for the project is considered from the revenue budget of the Government. The project can therefore, undertake advocacy with the Government for considering financing through revenue budget and providing technical assistance to MoPME on conducting national cost analysis, cost beneficial analysis and identifying alternate funding mechanisms. 31. While WFP aims to encourage equal participation of women and girls in all project activities the program by design, does not have a specific focus on gender related issues. The review of program results framework, performance indicators and progress monitoring reports highlight lack of focus on collecting and reporting gender disaggregated data. 32. The local level stakeholders and governance structures were found to be ready to transition from biscuits distribution to the school meals program. 33. The national and local level structures are adequately placed to successfully transition to the national school meal program. However, streamlining joint monitoring visits would ensure timely review of program activities and course correction. 34. Considering that the baseline study highlights adequate availability of water and sanitation facilities in schools, the end term evaluation may consider assessing extent of improvement in adoption of hygiene practices by the target group. Assessment of this indicator will help measure the impact of health and hygiene education related interventions undertaken by the project. March 2022 1 1 Introduction 1. This report is for the baseline study of the FY 2020-20232) US Department of Agriculture (USDA)- McGovern-Dole Grant (McGovern-Dole) in support of WFP School Feeding Program (SFP). The study is commissioned by the WFP Country Office Bangladesh (WFP CO) and assesses the baseline situation during the period January 2021- March 2021 for the FY2020-2023 grant (henceforth referred to as FY20). The study also provides answers to the evaluation questions for the baseline study as articulated in the Terms of Reference presented in Annex 1. The study was scheduled during the period August 2021– December 2021. This has been extended until February 2022 due to Covid-19 related restrictions. 1.1. EVALUATION FEATURES 1.1.1 Purpose, Objectives and Rationale for the Evaluation 2. The objectives of baseline study are to (i) establish benchmark values for all performance indicators included in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP); (ii) validate program design assumptions; (iii) provide program implementation analysis for the WFP on its role in establishing and implementing effective structures to support the approved “National School Meal Policy 2019”. The findings of the study will be used as the basis for project’s ongoing monitoring activities to regularly measure activity outputs and performance indicators. The baseline will set values for comparison during the end-line evaluation. 1.1.2 Scope of the Evaluation 3. The study covers WFP School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in two Upazilas of Bangladesh, namely Ukhiya and Kutubdia (both in Cox’s Bazar district) supported by the FY 20 grant. Additionally, it covers the capacity strengthening support to the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME), the Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) and other related ministries, for the implementation of the first nutrition-sensitive National School Meal Policy (NSMP) and for the implementation of the School Feeding Program in Poverty Prone Areas (SFPPPA). The baseline study is the first stage in the evaluation cycle to fulfil USDA McGovern-Dole program requirement to review project design, adjust programming and improve the project’s delivery for desired results. The findings of the baseline study are expected to help WFP and program partners in establishing baseline values for all performance indicators and providing important context necessary for the endline evaluation to assess the program’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. The study ensures that Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (GEEW) and equity are mainstreamed throughout the study. In the context of COVID-19, the baseline study highlights changes in the needs of the stakeholders, examines its impact on school children’s return to school, delves into its effect on the potential achievement of project outcomes and recommend the priority areas that WFP needs to focus on in order to ensure that the transition to hot meals (from biscuit distribution) is contextually adapted. It also examines the influence of COVID-19 on the program’s implementation strategy. 1.1.3 Main Stakeholders and Primary users of the Baseline Study Report 4. Several stakeholders, both internal and external, have interest in the results of this baseline study. The primary users of this study are (i) WFP-CO and implementing partners to plan and implement the interventions and inform evidence-based decision making (ii) USDA to understand how WFP’s work is contributing to USDA’s strategies and programs, (iii) Government of Bangladesh (GoB) to understand whether the program activities are aligned with its priorities and harmonized with the action of other partners, (iv) The WFP Regional Bureau to provide strategic guidance, program support, and oversight, (v) WFP HQ for wider organizational learning and accountability, (vi) Office of Evaluation to feed into 2 Start Date- October 2020, End Date- September 2023 March 2022 2 evaluation syntheses and for annual reporting to the Executive Board and (vii) other Country Offices may also benefit from the findings and learnings. The detailed stakeholder analysis and their involvement in the study is presented in Annex 11. 1.1.4 Gender dimensions of the study 5. The program by design, does not have a specific focus on gender related issues. However, WFP aims to encourage equal participation of women and girls in all project activities. Distribution of biscuits and school meals will be done in a gender equitable manner, wherein all boys and girls in the target schools will be provided biscuits and meals. GEEW and accountability to affected populations are part of guiding principles for WFP’s action. The study was guided by WFP’s latest Gender Policy 2015-20. Aligning with these principles, we understand that development programs affect women, men, boys, and girls differently. Hence, the study laid emphasis on testing the program’s relevance with GoB’s and WFP’s policies on gender. The study also focused on presenting findings disaggregated by sex and providing empirical insights that can be used and built upon by the users. 6. The evaluation (methodology, criteria, questions and the analytical framework) has taken into consideration the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) indicators, specifically relating to gender equality and human rights3. The data collection was conducted in a gender-sensitive manner. In addition to addressing gender dimensions throughout the study, the core team also explored any potential unintended impact that the project activities may have had on the existing gender roles and dynamics. 1.2. CONTEXT 7. Despite significant gains in macro-economic growth and human development over the past decade, Bangladesh’s Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.614 is below the average of 0.649 for countries in the medium human development group4. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)5 which includes education, health, and standard of living also highlights widespread income poverty in Bangladesh. The MPI i.e., the share of the population that is multi-dimensionally poor adjusted by the intensity of the deprivations, is 0.198. The contributions of deprivation from education, health, and standard of living to overall poverty are 28.4, 26.1, and 45.5 percentage points respectively. 1.2.1 Food Security and Nutrition 8. Poor nutritional status remains a concern with school-age children at risk of micronutrient deficiencies and undernutrition. As of 2019 data, 28 percent of children under 5 years are stunted6 in Bangladesh, signaling risks of negative long-term consequences on child growth and cognitive development. According to the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) carried out in 2019, chronic malnutrition as measured by stunting levels was 28 percent in Bangladesh. 9. Although having made impressive gains regarding improving the state of food security over the past few decades, there are 1.2 million people who are food insecure and in need of humanitarian food and livelihood assistance in Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh7. For the host community, 33 percent of households had unacceptable food consumption in 2020 as compared to 30 percent in 20178. The increased share of unacceptable food consumption may be driven by economic and operational 3 UNEG Indicators on Gender and Human Rights in UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports 4 United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development indices and indicators: 2018 Statistical update. 5 Human Development Report 2016-Human Development for Everyone: Briefing note for countries on the 2016 Human Development Report Note: The HDR 2019 Statistical Update does not contain the complete and updated MPI due to missing information on some indicators such as nutrition and will be available in due course. If made available, the same shall be updated in the evaluation report. 6 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.STNT.ZS?locations=BD 7 JRP. 2019. Joint response plan for Rohingya humanitarian crisis, January December 2021 8 WFP. 2021. Refugee influx Emergency Vulnerability Assessment (REVA 4) March 2022 3 contractions caused by COVID-19 lockdowns, whose residual effects continued to be felt even after restrictions were lifted9. Further, there also exist gender differences in access to food and related resources. 10. Although levels of extreme poverty have declined, nearly 32 percent people in Bangladesh still live below the national poverty line. Moreover, about 25 percent of the population in Bangladesh remains food insecure10. Moreover, existing household-level food insecurity is exacerbated by poor access to food and limited dietary diversity. 11. Concerns about food security and nutrition are emerging because of climate change. There exists a genuine concern that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increased salinity of groundwater will exacerbate the problem of micronutrient deficiencies in the population. 1.2.2 Health 12. While the Human Development Report (HDR) 2019, indicates improvement in life expectancy at birth from 58 to 72.3 years during 1990-2019, the under-five mortality rate per 1,000 live births is 32.411. In case of SFP intervention Upazilas (in Cox’s Bazar), the under-five mortality rate in 2015 was 47.4 and 5.6 for Kutubdia12 and Ukhiya respectively13. 13. All 64 districts in Bangladesh are endemic with parasitic diseases, with 78 million (55%) infected with roundworm14. The most vulnerable to such infections are the 5-14 years age group as roundworms cause impaired growth and cognition development among children. To address this, GoB’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) initiated a deworming program in 2010. It also initiated the “Little Doctor” initiative, with an aim to increase drug coverage (for deworming) as well as knowledge on important health matters among students, especially on personal hygiene. Deworming is now conducted for children aged 5-12 years in all primary level schools in the country. 1.2.3 Education 14. With over 2 percent of GDP and 18.8 percent of total government expenditure spent on education15, there has been a significant improvement in the status of children’s education. The country’s net enrolment rate (NER) at the primary school level has increased from 94.8 percent in 2016 to 97.83 percent in 201916. In 2019, NER in primary schools was 98.01 percent and 97.65 percent for girls. The findings from the World Development Report 2018 suggest schooling is not the same as learning. 35 percent of grade III students scored too low to even be tested on reading comprehension in Bangla, and only 25 percent of grade V students in the country passed the minimum threshold in mathematics17. In the case of Cox’s Bazar, NER in primary schools was 92.78 percent for girls and 89.96 percent for boys. 18. According to the World Development Report in 2018, 35 percent of grade III students scored too low to even be tested on reading comprehension in Bangla, and only 25 percent of grade V students in the country passed the minimum threshold in mathematics. Further, the Gender Development Index (GDI) indicates that the mean years of schooling for girls is lower (5.2) as compared to boys (6.7). 9 ibid 10 USAID, Food Assistance Factsheet-Bangladesh, March 12, 2020 11 United Nations Development Programme, Human development indices and indicators: 2018 Statistical update. 12 https://app.dghs.gov.bd/localhealthBulletin2016/publish/publish.php?org=10000924&year=2016&lvl=1 Page 6 13https://app.dghs.gov.bd/localhealthBulletin2016/publish/publish.php?org=10000939&year=2016&lvl=1 Page 6 14 Rahman, M. M. (2017). Biannually school-based deworming by Mebendazole 500mg has reduced the worm load drastically in Bangladesh. EC Bacteriology and Virology Research, 2, 113-114. 15 Bangladesh Education Statistics 2018; BANBEIS 16 Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Sector Performance Report 2020 17https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/02/27/more-focus-on-learning-key-to-skilled-bangladesh￾workforce 18 Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Primary School Census Report 2020 March 2022 4 15. Bangladesh and in particular, Cox’s Bazar has also been witnessing a major teacher shortage. Moreover, Cox’s Bazar has a literacy rate of 30.2 percent which is the lowest in the country. Among 64 districts, Cox’s Bazar has the lowest Gross Enrolment Rate (GER: 94.88%) and Net Enrolment Rate (NER: 91.39%)19. Further, the net attendance ratio for primary school age children was 85.9 percent20. Similarly, while the national average dropout rate for boys and girls is 19.2 percent and 15.7 percent respectively, it is 29.1 percent (for boys) and 18.3 percent (for girls) in Cox’s Bazar21. In addition, Cox’s Bazar is the most vulnerable district due to the influx of 1 million Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMNs) during 2017. This has caused additional living costs and contributed to engaging children in economic activities. 16. There are intra-district variations within Cox’s Bazar as well. The geographical remoteness of Kutubdia and the humanitarian refugee crisis in Ukhiya make these upazilas even more vulnerable. As a result, progress made on education and nutrition-related indicators are often inequitable for these areas. 1.2.4 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 17. According to the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) Report 2017, the proportion of population with access to safely managed water in Cox’s Bazar is 56 percent while the proportion of population with access to ‘at least basic’ sanitation is 48 percent. Furthermore, 1.05 million people in Cox’s Bazar are still in need of immediate WASH support (WASH Sector Cox’s Bazar Situation Report22, August 2018). 18. Regarding the WASH situation in schools, the WASH Watch report revealed that as of 2016, 73 percent of primary schools had access to ‘basic water service’ whereas 17 percent did not have access to a water service at all. Also, while 57 percent of primary schools had access to a ‘basic’ sanitation service, only 39 percent of primary schools had access to basic hygiene services (facility with water and soap). 1.2.5 School Feeding Needs 19. Malnutrition estimates from the Global Nutrition Report (2021) show that wasting in Bangladesh is at 9.8 percent among children under five years23. The preliminary findings of the National Micronutrient Survey (NMS 2019) reveal that the prevalence of anemia is 22.3 percent, Vitamin-A deficiency is 52.8 percent and zinc deficiency is 32.5 percent among children under 5 years of age. Similarly, about one out of three children (32.6%) under five years are underweight. In the case of Cox’s Bazar, Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) among refugee children under 5 years was 11.4 percent in 2020 and is still in the ‘high’ category, while stunting prevalence (34.1%) continues to be in the ‘very high’ category across refugee camps24. In Bangladesh, moderate and severe underweight prevalence was 22.6 percent in 2019, while the prevalence of moderate and severe stunting was 28 percent25. 20. There is therefore, a need to tackle the nutrient deficiencies of children in Bangladesh and school feeding serves as a great opportunity to take intervention to treat and prevent micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. 21. The WFP CO’s Vulnerability Assessment and Mapping (VAM) Unit assessed priority districts and sub￾districts by using a weighted index combining food insecurity, nutrition, poverty, and education indicators. The report pointed to a great need for intervention in Cox’s Bazar district. 19 Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Primary School Census Report 2020 20 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) 2018-19. 21 Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Sector Performance Report 2020 22https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/operation_presence_map_wash_sector_august_2018_ta_0.pdf 23 2021 Nutrition country profile accessed from www.globalnutritionreport.org Source: UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Group: Joint child malnutrition estimates. 24 UNHCR-WFP Joint Assessment Mission Report Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, July 2021. 25 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) 2019. March 2022 5 1.2.6 Gender Analysis 22. Although the constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equal rights, women and girls in Bangladesh still lag behind men in many aspects of life. Discrimination against women and male dominance is a prevalent feature of society, especially in the rural areas. The Global Gender Gap 2021 report revealed that Bangladesh ranked at the 65th position in terms of gender equality. The country is ranked 147 in labor force participation and 107 in wage equality. Significant disparities in employment and wage rates persist (female GNI 2,373; male GNI 5,700)26 which, combined with considerable gaps in asset ownership, limits women’s economic opportunities. With large population mostly engaged in informal labor, women are faced with lower income, greater insecurity, and unfavorable working conditions. 23. Gender-based capability poverty continues to be a key issue in the health and education sectors and is reflected in poor nutrition, maternal mortality, and child mortality indicators. For every 100,000 live births, 176 women die due to pregnancy-related causes. 1.2.7 Government Policies and Programs 24. The Government of Bangladesh envisioned transforming Bangladesh into a middle-income country by 2021 and a prosperous country by 2041. At the time of the survey, this had not been achieved. The government translated this vision into an actionable agenda by formulating the 8th Five Year Plans and integrating within the plan Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Given the comprehensiveness and cross-cutting nature of SDGs, policy coherence is very critical. School feeding has aligned with the Government 8th Five Year Plan. 25. The government’s Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2021-2041 which seeks to take the nation to the path of development will put particular emphasis to reach out to children in hard-to-reach areas, urban slums and rural poor families in this drive for completion of 12 years of compulsory education. Incentives in terms of stipends, free school meals, and free preventive health checkups for these children from poor families will also be emphasized. 26. The government has been implementing the National Education Policy since 2010. Efforts to increase educational participation (enrolment, attendance, persistence etc.) are being made through the Primary Education Stipend Project (PESP). The recent Fourth Primary Education Development Program (PEDP4), aims at providing children of pre-primary to grade V quality education with key emphasis on efficiency, inclusivity, and equity. The program aims at deploying quality teachers who would be provided with continuous professional development27. 27. GoB has also formulated a comprehensive National Social Security Strategy (NSSS) to integrate all safety net programs. The coverage of social safety net recipients is 27.80 percent, and the allocation has been increased from 1.9 percent of GDP in FY09 to 2.3 percent in FY17 (Household Income and Expenditure Survey, 2016) 2.5 percent of GDP in FY1928. 28. The GoB approved the “National School Meal Policy (NSMP)” in August 2019 which aims to ensure the minimum nutritional requirements in school meals for every primary school student by providing nutritious meals (five days a week) and fortified biscuits (one day of the week), the government aims to increase attendance and reduce dropout rates. The draft Development Project Proforma (DPP) for the national primary school meal program feeding project is being revised based on recommendations of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC). It is expected that the DPP will be approved by June 2022. The implementation of the national primary school meal program feeding project would commence post approval of DPP. 26 United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development indices and indicators: 2018 Statistical update. 27 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/857071529206219039/pdf/BANGLADESH-QLEAP-PAD-05252018.pdf 28https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/04/29/social-safety-nets-in-bangladesh-help-reduce-poverty-and￾improve-human-capital March 2022 6 29. The government has adopted the Second National Plan of Action for Nutrition (NPAN-2), an integrated and multi-sectoral framework for improving the nutritional status in the country. The Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC) also formulated the Bangladesh Advocacy Plan for Nutrition 2019- 2025 (in 2019) whose goal is to strengthen political and legal framework, increase commitment of stakeholders, change in organizational behavior towards nutrition agenda, and enhance resource mobilization for nutrition. Further, the GoB has developed a new National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (NFNSP) to cover the period 2020-2030 in synchronization with the target year for SDG. This policy is holistic and promotes use of a “nutrition lens” to design multi-sectoral inter-linked interventions aiming at improving nutritional outcomes. 1.2.8 Development Assistance in Bangladesh 30. Bangladesh receives development assistance from various sources. The World Bank is implementing a “Transforming Secondary Education for Results (TSER)” project to support the government’s Secondary Education Development Program, which is expected to benefit 13 million students from Grades VI-XII. Further, aiming to reach children studying in pre-primary level to grade V, the World Bank is implementing the Quality Learning for All Program (QLEAP) across the country. The program will help improve the quality of education and ensure equitable access to primary education. It will also build WASH blocks and safe water sources with special emphasis on facilities for girl students and female teachers. 31. WFP under the USDA McGovern-Dole FY-17 project (during the period January 2018-June 2021) targeted 47,689 schoolchildren of Grades I-V in 146 schools in two upazilas (Ukhiya and Kutubdia) of Cox’s Bazar by providing approximately 9.3 million micro-nutrient fortified biscuits per year and supporting complimentary education interventions. Further, WFP sensitized representatives of different ministries of GoB on the relevance of the school feeding program and its activities, and building consensus at the GoB level on a minimum nutritional requirement for school meals. These efforts contributed to the formulation and approval of the nutrition-sensitive National School Meal Policy 2019. 32. Towards mobilizing critically needed support for the humanitarian response for the Rohingya refugees29, GoB and national and internal development partners have formulated a Joint Response Plan (JRP). The JRP on an annual basis sets out a comprehensive program around three strategic objectives – deliver protection, provide life-saving assistance and foster social cohesion. The Plan covers all humanitarian sectors and addresses key cross-cutting issues, including protection and gender mainstreaming. The Plan also strengthens emergency preparedness and response for weather-related risks and natural disasters, with a focus on community engagement. Since 2017, at least US$415 million has been invested by development partners across Cox’s Bazar District. Since 2017, over US$ 970m of additional funds have been mobilized by international financial institutions to support the situation in Cox’s Bazar30. This is equivalent to 60 percent of the total humanitarian funds ($1.63bn) mobilized in support of the JRPs. This assistance supports all Upazilas in Cox’s Bazar district. 33. Additionally, the Feed the Future program (part of the US Government-funded Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative) helps more than 700,000 farmers to increase their production of food, commercial crops, fish, and livestock, gain access to markets, and improve the nutrition of their families31. 34. USAID is providing support to GoB towards enhancing agricultural productivity, diversifying production to improve nutrition, building capacities of farmers to upgrade to new technologies, improving market systems and contributing to women’s empowerment in agriculture32. 29 It is estimated that 855,000 Rohingya refugees currently reside in 34 extremely congested camps formally designated by the Government of Bangladesh in Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazilas of Cox’s Bazar District 30 JRP, 2020, Joint Response Plan for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, January-December 2020 31 https://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/bangladesh/ 32 https://www.usaid.gov/bangladesh/agriculture-and-food-security March 2022 7 35. US Government Foreign Assistance has also supported MaMoni Maternal and Newborn Care Strengthening Project that is implemented by Save the Children (for the period of 2018 – 2032). The project aims to contribute towards providing quality maternal and newborn health care and nutrition services33. 36. Towards education, USAID is assisting the GoB in improving reading skills amongst primary school students through teachers training, provision of supplementary reading materials and creation of community reading camps. Additionally, in collaboration with BRAC, it is also helping in increasing access to schooling among out-of-school children in urban slums34. 37. In the WASH sector, Water Aid has launched the WASH4UrbanPoor project to impact the lives of 450,000 staying in slums and low-income urban communities through provision of sustainable WASH services in slums, schools, healthcare centers and public places35. 38. The World Bank is implementing the Multipurpose Disaster Shelter Project in Bangladesh with the objective of reducing the vulnerability of the coastal population across selected districts of Bangladesh to natural disasters. These shelters will also serve as schools during non-disaster periods. 39. In addition, NGOs like BRAC are working on diverse areas like healthcare, education, and safe drinking water. UNICEF is also contributing to the development of Bangladesh in the sector of health, nutrition, education, and WASH. 40. The United Kingdom's Department for International Development has provided more than £80 million to UNOPS for addressing challenges related to the humanitarian context of Cox’s Bazar district. UNOPS is working closely with 15 implementing partners to extend support through improving access to food, education, health, sanitation, and jobs. 1.2.9 COVID-19 Situation in Cox’s Bazar 41. There were 1,386,742 confirmed COVID-19 confirmed cases in Bangladesh as on 11th August 202136. The area of Cox’s Bazar (especially islands like Kutubdia) is known to be seasonally prone to both landslides and flash flooding. However, this time the annual monsoon preparations were impacted as disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts were suspended and delivery of supplies through road transport was affected due to the COVID-19 related “lockdown”37. This also affected safe access to food items and nutrition which is critical to battle a crisis like the COVID-1938. 42. Findings from the Second Rapid Assessment of Food and Nutrition Security in the Context of COVID-19 in Bangladesh (May to July 2020) by FAO39 revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic increased hunger and malnutrition, with greater numbers of young people and their families facing food insecurity. The preliminary findings of the Joint Multi-Sector Needs Assessment Report (October 2020)40 suggest that while a vast majority of households reported using improved drinking water sources, 4 per cent of households experienced loss or diminished access to clean water and sanitation because of the COVID￾19 pandemic. 33 https://mamoni.info/ 34 https://www.usaid.gov/bangladesh/education 35 https://www.wateraid.org/bd/media/wateraid-launches-the-wash4urbanpoor-project-aiming-to-serve-450000-urban￾poor-with-water 36 http://dashboard.dghs.gov.bd/webportal/pages/covid19.php 37https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2020/4/5e9ea77e4/covid-19-unhcr-warns-severe-implications-annual-monsoon￾response-bangladesh.html 38https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000114547/download/?_ga=2.208620311.404038719.1588218681- 1607365947.1560326616 39 https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/cb1018en_compressed.pdf 40https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/bangladesh/document/j-msna-refugee-and-host-communities￾preliminary-findings-october-2020 March 2022 8 43. The Refugee influx Emergency Vulnerability Assessment- REVA 2020 findings reveal that economic vulnerability remains high in the camps and the host community. This may be driven by temporary employment or income losses experienced during the lockdown. Further, reduced income and increased prices have diminished household purchasing power and ability to afford the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) and increased food insecurity. Food consumption outcomes have also declined for host and Rohingya communities compared to 201941. This increased share of unacceptable food consumption may be driven by the economic and operational contractions by COVID-19 lockdowns, whose residual effects continued to be felt even after restrictions were lifted. 44. In Cox’s Bazaar refugee camps the factors for vulnerability include housing without potable and running water for toilets, lack of access to adequate healthcare, shortage in medical supplies and testing capabilities42 and restrictions on internet usage since September 2019 that has made it difficult to communicate credible information with the host communities and within refugee communities43. 45. During lockdown, the education sector closed nearly 6,000 education facilities across the camps, disrupting the learning of over 325,000 children (of which, 49 per cent are girls and adolescents aged 3 to 24 years). 46. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is monitoring for a potential outbreak and Bangladesh’s Health Ministry has completed and validated a national response plan to contain the virus. Humanitarian agencies working with the GoB’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner (RRRC) finalized a multi-sector plan that would focus on prevention and readiness, raising awareness around best-practices for hygiene, increasing facilities and supplies for hand washing, and increasing the water supply during this crucial period44. Moreover, a global network of aid agencies launched a new COVID￾19 aid fund to anticipate and respond to critical virus-related humanitarian needs in low-income countries. This fund is being used by local organizations to help vulnerable communities across Bangladesh45. Furthermore, GoB, UNICEF and Save the Children created Education Sector Strategy (for Cox’s Bazar)46 that aims at supporting Education in Emergency (EiE) partners with ongoing coordination and monitoring of activities to ensure efficiency, adequate reach to vulnerable children and to avoid duplication and to identify and pursue areas of advocacy and collaboration. 2. Subject of the baseline, theory of change and baseline questions 2.1 SUBJECT OF THE BASELINE, THEORY OF CHANGE, ACTIVITIES AND INTENDED OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES 2.1.1. Subject being evaluated 47. The subject of the study is the USDA-McGovern-Dole Grant FY20 in support of WFP School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in Bangladesh from October 2020- September 202347. The SFP activities are aligned to support the McGovern-Dole program’s highest-level Strategic Objectives (SO): SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children; SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices; and Local or 41 WFP. 2021. Refugee influx Emergency Vulnerability Assessment (REVA 4) 42 https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/rohingya-refugees-cox-s-bazar-brace-covid-19-pandemic 43 https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2020/4/5e9ead964/covid-19-arrives-camp-devastating.html 44 https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/rohingya-refugees-cox-s-bazar-brace-covid-19-pandemic 45https://ikeafoundation.org/press-release/new-covid-19-fund-launched-to-help-vulnerable-communities-in-low-income￾countries/ 46 Cox’ Bazar Education Sector- Cox’ Bazar-Bangladesh COVID-19 Response Strategy,2020 47 The interventions commenced from January 2021. March 2022 9 Regional Procurement (LRP): Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement and Agriculture Support Component. 48. The FY 20 grant has a strong focus on capacity building of officials at Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) and Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) on local purchase, transparent procurement, effective program review, and planning for school meals to enable them to take ownership of the national school meal program. Further, the program will provide technical support to MoPME in developing systems to operationalize the national school meal program, including development of standard operating procedures. WFP will also support DPE in establishing a national school meal authority (NSMA) with an effective research wing to build knowledge and provide technical assistance to relevant ministries. WFP will also conduct trainings and workshops for central level and local level stakeholders (government and school-based) on food safety and hygiene, warehouse management, supply chain mechanisms, smart fuel management, advanced computer literacy, and online database management for government officials. 49. Towards improving literacy and student enrolment, FY 20 grant will promote teacher attendance, provide relevant, appropriate, high-quality reading materials, develop and distribute improved literacy instructional materials to grade 1 and grade 2 teachers and build capacities of the school administrators, teachers, School Management Committees (SMC), and parents to enable learning environment in schools and increase community involvement in literacy. Further, WFP will also promote improved health and nutrition by conducting awareness sessions on nutrition and hygiene related messages. The program also focuses on increasing capacity at the school, district, sub-districts, and national levels so that the program can be transitioned to government management when the program ends. 50. WFP, through Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and in partnership with Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Ministry of Agriculture will also train local women growers on integrated agriculture and nutrition and strengthen linkages between local vegetable growers and McGovern-Dole￾supported schools. WFP will work with BIRTAN to provide training to cooks, develop materials on healthy dietary behavior, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available food, and use the materials to orient children and parents on healthy dietary practices. 51. The program targets primary school-aged children in two Upazilas in Cox’s Bazar district - Ukhiya and Kutubdia. The details of activities, results framework and indicators are highlighted in Annex 6. 2.1.2 Planned Outputs and Beneficiaries 52. The program aims to benefit 42,401 school children in 140 schools of Grades I-V, including the pre￾primary section by providing approximately 11 million micro-nutrient fortified biscuits and 12.6 million hot meals per year in two sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar. The implementing partner Room to Read (RtR) will be (i) implementing innovative and nationally aligned early grade literacy activities in the selected 137 schools; (ii) training Grade I and II teachers on reading instruction; (iii) establishing bookshelves for classroom libraries for the targeted government primary schools; (iv) ensure quality teaching-learning environment v) training all grade teachers on library activities with a goal of improving educational outcomes of children. Resource Integration Centre (RIC) the other implementing partner will be (i) supporting implementation and distribution of fortified biscuits to 140 program schools, (ii) organizing health and nutrition sessions for children, parents, SMC members; (iii) Implement little agriculturist activities in schools including establishing school vegetable garden; (iv) implement little doctor activity including deworming campaign; v) building capacity of schools on safe storage of food. Table 1 provides details on the targeted beneficiaries and regions. March 2022 10 Table 1: Targeted Beneficiaries and Regions (2020-2023)48 Participant Target (Approximate number) Number of Upazila/sub-district 2 Number of Schools 140 Student 42,401 Parents 84,802 School Administrators/Head Teacher 140 Teacher 853 Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance 1380 District & Upazila/ sub district level education officials 13 2.1.3 Activities and Intended Outputs and Outcomes 53. Table 2 presents the expected outcomes and key activities under each of the strategic objectives of the program. The details of activities and indicators are captured in the results framework attached in Annex 6. Table 2: Strategic objectives, expected outcomes, and activities under the McGovern-Dole SFP Strategic Objective Expected outcomes Activities McGovern-Dole SO 1: Improved Literacy of School-Age Children McGovern-Dole 1.1 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction • Orientation with Head Teachers and Government Staff on library, instruction, program, governance, transparency, management practice, school performance, quality improvement, monitoring and supervision. • Promote Teacher Attendance through incentive￾based systems • Develop and distribute teacher instruction materials, interactive pupil books, charts and posters to school administrators and teachers (WFP in collaboration with MoPME NCTB) • Establish school reading corners supplied with age-appropriate reading materials for primary students (WFP and RtR) • Organize events to promote literacy, social arts and cooking skills to improve the student learning environment such as quizzes and book fairs • Training of DPEOs, UEOs, AUEOs and school administrators in effective school management practices focusing on assessing teacher performance, quality instruction and planning to strengthen school governance • Provide training for school administrators in management and leadership, infrastructure management and planning, improving teacher 48 Project Agreement between the Foreign Agricultural Service and the World Food Programme for the donation of agricultural commodities and related assistance under the Mc Govern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program March 2022 11 Strategic Objective Expected outcomes Activities and learning materials within the classroom, coordination with local government education officials, SMCs and parent communities for improved learning environments and accountability and protocols for sustaining safe schools and providing inclusive education. • Provide training to primary school teachers and school administrators at the PTI and URC to address underperformance of teachers in relationship to classroom management, teaching instruction, library management and pedagogical approaches to engage students in active learning McGovern-Dole 1.2 Improved Attentiveness • Reduce short term hunger through the provision of school meals (including fortified high energy biscuits) on a daily basis McGovern-Dole 1.3 Improved Student Attendance • Organize awareness campaigns on the importance of education at the school and parent meetings • Organize literacy events (Read-play festival) and mobilization workshops with teachers, SMCs and parents • Provide learning sessions for community leaders and PTAs to increase their engagement in activities that improve the education and welfare of children • Improve water systems and latrine facilities • Activities such as Grade 1 reception day and student recognition to encourage enrolment and attendance McGovern-Dole SO 2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices McGovern-Dole 2.1 Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices • Review and improve existing learning materials on health and nutrition and provide refresher training • Educate SMCs about the importance of clean water and toilets, including hygiene education for children • Organize parent gathering sessions at the school level to discuss topics related to health, hygiene and nutrition awareness • Develop and disseminate information and educational material to children to help them visualize good hygiene practices • Facilitate the ‘Little Doctors’ mentoring program to disseminate health and hygiene messages in school assemblies and classrooms • Work with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure timely delivery of deworming tablets provided as part of GoB’s National School Deworming Program McGovern-Dole 2.2 Increased Knowledge of • Provide training to cooks on food safety and hygiene practices s • Work with BIRTAN to provide yearly training to cooks, develop materials on healthy dietary March 2022 12 Strategic Objective Expected outcomes Activities Safe Food Preparation and Storage Practices behavior, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available food, and use the materials to orient children and parents on healthy dietary practices. McGovern-Dole 2.3 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition • Promote vegetable gardens at schools and form groups of “Little Agriculturists” who will be trained and encouraged to exercise leadership in engaging students on the preparation and maintenance of school vegetable gardens • Provide training to SMCs, teachers and community members on the establishment and maintenance of school gardens McGovern-Dole 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services • Construct handwashing stations and provide soap at schools • Rehabilitation of latrines and waterpoints based on assessment. Train teachers and SMC members in the proper management of water systems and toilets McGovern-Dole 2.5 Increased Access to Preventive Health Interventions • Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices • Work with MoHFW to ensure the timely delivery of deworming tablets • Facilitate National Deworming week McGovern-Dole 2.6 Increased Access to Requisite Food Preparation and Storage Tools and Equipment • Establishment of kitchens and food storerooms Provision of gas burner stoves • Distribution of preparation, serving and eating utensils in schools Foundational Results McGovern-Dole 1.4.1/2.7.1 Increased Capacity of Government Institutions • Develop systems to operationalize the national school meal program, including the development of standard operating procedures • Advocate with the GoB to establish a regular revenue budget funding stream for school meal activities • Train MoPME and Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) officials on local purchase, transparent procurement, effective program review, and planning for school meals so that they can take ownership of the national school meal program • Support DPE in establishing a national school meal authority (NSMA) with an effective research wing to build knowledge and provide technical assistance to relevant ministries. • Conduct trainings and workshops for central level and local level stakeholders (government and school-based) on food safety and hygiene, warehouse management, supply chain mechanisms, smart fuel management, advanced computer literacy, and online database management for government officials. McGovern-Dole 1.4.2/2.7.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework McGovern-Dole 1.4.3/2.7.3 Increased Government Support March 2022 13 Strategic Objective Expected outcomes Activities McGovern-Dole 1.4.4/2.7.4 Increased Engagement of Local Organization and Community Groups • Improve Student Enrolment/ Attendance: Parent Gathering and Awareness Campaign • Develop a creative and effective community mobilization strategy and SBCC materials • Work with FAO to increase sustainable linkages between local vegetable growers and McGovern￾Dole supported schools • Provide training to local women farmers on integrated agriculture and nutrition, dietary diversity and connecting them to government systems • Build Capacity: Local regional and National Level Support 2.1.4 Results Framework 54. The design of the program can be understood from the McGovern-Dole project level results framework (Annex 6). The framework provides an understanding of the activities designed and the expected results. Moreover, building on gaps identified in the previous evaluations, the framework also considers some critical assumptions that may support the proposed causal linkages and ensure the achievement of the outcomes. 55. The foundational results cover activities related to enhancing the capacity of government institutions, improving policy and regulatory framework, increasing government support, and increasing the engagement of local organizations and community groups. However, this is based on certain assumptions that include i) continued national and economic stability; ii) strong GoB commitment to education, school feeding and handover; iii) GoB and partners are able to provide complementary resources; iv) availability of partners and technical experts to support implementation; v) stability of the food supply; vi) ability of GoB and partners to respond effectively to natural disasters; vii) adequate linkages to healthcare and social services; viii) sufficient GoB budget; ix) capacity of local community and WFP to leverage non- McGovern-Dole funds to support project implementation and local purchase and x) willingness and capacities of the community, including the SMC, to perform the roles envisaged by the program. The research team recognizes that such assumptions may affect the results of the program, not excluding the unforeseen changes due to COVID-19, which may also significantly impact the results of the program. 2.1.5 Program Timeline, Resource Requirements and Funding of MCGOVERN-DOLE SFP 56. The program will be implemented during the period January 2021 to September 2023. United States Department of Agriculture- Foreign Assistance Service (USDA- FAS), has allocated $19,000,000 49 for donation of commodities, transportation, and financial assistance under the MCGOVERN-DOLE 20 grant. This includes commodities ($1,912,600), freight ($1,257,500) and administrative costs (cash portion) ($15,829,700). The biscuits will be produced by the local biscuit manufacturers using the wheat donated under McGovern-Dole following a competitive tendering procedure. In addition, some quantity of biscuits also will be purchased locally from the enlisted suppliers, using the McGovern-Dole funds under the provision of ‘local and regional purchasing’ in year 1. Unprocessed fresh, seasonal local vegetables and local eggs will be locally produced and procured. Additionally, iodized salt and spice powders will be procured locally. A summary of the total project operating budget and activity wise project operating budget is attached in Annex 6. 49 Project Agreement between the FAS and WFP March 2022 14 2.1.6 Gender Dimensions of the Intervention 57. The program by design does not have a specific focus on gender-related issues. However, WFP aims to encourage the equal participation of women and girls in all project activities. The project follows a saturation approach, covering all the students in the Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar. These sub districts are characterized by high nutritional needs and low educational attainment. It will further emphasize the need for recognition and inclusion of specific needs of girls, ethnic and religious minorities, and children with disabilities, during the implementation of the program. In order to promote inclusion and equity in education, WFP has supported the Government’s efforts to increase enrolment and attendance of school girls. 58. WFP will encourage participation of women during parent gathering sessions at schools where topics related to creating awareness on health, hygiene and nutrition are discussed. It will also encourage participation of women in literacy events and workshops that aim to improve participation of parents in the education and welfare of children, specifically girls. Additionally, WFP will establish Mothers Groups at the school level that will help cooks in the preparation and distribution of hot meals. Mothers will be responsible for checking the quality of hot meals before they are served to the children and record feedback. 2.2. EVALUATION QUESTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 59. The baseline study was designed to compare the status of indicators in the planned intervention areas and the control areas. The schools in control areas were selected in a manner that none of the schools had received any support from the government or any other donor for improving children’s literacy or promoting nutrition and dietary diversity. 60. Gender equity and inclusion was mainstreamed throughout the study. The evaluation matrix (Annex 4) highlights the key information areas mapped with the baseline study questions, the approach for data collection and data sources. Wherever appropriate, gender dimensions have been factored into the sub￾questions/key information areas for each evaluation question. Table 3 presents the key questions examined through the baseline study. It must be noted that at the baseline stage, the research team explored all the components of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) criteria except impact as that would be measured during the end-line evaluation. Table 3: McGovern-Dole FY17 end-term evaluation questions Key Questions Relevance • To what extent is the program aligned to Government national and sectorial level policies and plans at the time of design? To what extent (if any) does the project complement other government and donor-funded initiatives? Is there any change in the readiness of the Government to move forward with these plans due to the COVID -19 pandemic? • To what extent does the project design address the needs of the Government with regards to transition to a fully nationally owned school feeding program (against the five policy goals/pathways17)? • To what extent the package of technical assistance activities/measures planned as part of the programme have been based on capacity needs assessment (focused on the Government’s capacity to transition towards national ownership of the school feeding programme against the five policy goals/pathways)? Have the capacity needs changed as a result of the COVID -19 pandemic? • What priority areas should WFP focus on to ensure that the transition from biscuit distribution to hot meals is adapted to the local context? • To what extent are local-level stakeholders and governance structures ready to transition from biscuits distribution to school meals? What needs to improve in how these entities work with each other to bring the most successful and effective school meal program? • What new factors influencing School Feeding have come into play as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic? What is the influence of these factors on the program’s planned approaches? What is the impact of COVID-19 on anticipated project outcomes with specific reference to impact of COVID 19 on school children’s return to school and contribution to achievement of project outcomes? March 2022 15 Key Questions Effectiveness and Efficiency • To what extent are the national and local-level structures in place adequate to successfully deliver a school meal program, in an efficient and effective manner? • What additional measures/adjustments to the project design, if any, should be undertaken in the early stages of intervention to enhance the efficiency of the intervention? Sustainability • To what extent are the financial and program implementation responsibilities clear for a transition of the WFP school feeding project to national school feeding ownership? • Have criteria for successful (minimum) handover been defined and established with the Government at the start of the intervention (to allow for comparison at the end of the intervention? What activities/measures need to be considered in the handover process to contribute to its success? • To what extent handover (transition plan, if available) reflects the measures aimed at institutionalization of the measures planned as part of the technical assistance to the Government that is expected to support the sustainability of the intervention (including policy work, support to systems, institutional capacity etc.)? What adjustments to the handover plan/strategy need to be made before the end of the intervention to ensure successful handover to the Government and stakeholders? • To what extent is the intervention planning to engage Government and local communities (PTAs, farmers etc.) towards school feeding and education activities? What is the engagement level of these stakeholders in the schools at the start of the intervention? Has the role of the communities and local stakeholders been institutionalized/is planned to be institutionalized (within Government’s policy, strategy and/or systems levels)? 61. To assess the relevance of the program, the study answers whether the project is aligned with the national priorities, strategies, and the national plans. Additionally, the study examined whether the design and interventions of the project are responsive to the local needs of the most vulnerable groups and gender inclusive. The study also examined the effect on the program design and activities regarding the challenges presented because of COVID-19. The study further assessed the complementarity of interventions with other donor funded and GoB initiatives. Through primary and secondary data, the study also assessed the readiness of the GoB to transition from biscuits distribution to school meals. 62. To assess the effectiveness of the program, the study examined the extent to which the national and local-level structures in place are adequate to successfully deliver a school meal program. 63. To assess sustainability, the study highlighted the criteria for successful handover to the GoB and the engagement level of all stakeholders including GoB officials, SMC members, PTA members and local small holder farmers. The study also understands if and how the exit strategy has been shaped with respect to the COVID-19. 64. The mid-term and end-term evaluations of the previous WFP Mc Govern Dole Grant FY 2017-20 had made recommendations that specifically related to designing and strengthening a community engagement strategy for improving community participation; supporting GoB to plan for implementation of National School Meal Policy and strengthening of local capacities. The baseline study also assessed the extent to which the programdesign incorporates the recommendations from the evaluations of the previous grant. March 2022 16 3. Evaluation approach and methodology for baseline data collection 3.1. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 65. This section details the methodology for baseline study. The baseline will be followed by end-line evaluation in 2023. The purpose of the baseline was to establish values for an agreed set of indicators and assess the Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability of the project. The impact of the project would be assessed during end line evaluation 66. Considering it’s a baseline study the focus has been on establishing baseline values on the performance indicators. In accordance with the ToR, the study also assessed the relevance and effectiveness of the program. In order to establish relevance, the study assessed the extent to which the program and its activities are aligned with the national policies and strategies of GoB around education, nutrition, health and WASH. Additionally, the study examined the extent to which local level stakeholders and the governance structures are prepared to transition from biscuit distribution to school meals and whether the design and interventions of the program are relevant to the local needs of most vulnerable groups and are gender-inclusive and sensitive. 67. At the baseline stage, the effectiveness of the program was assessed by capturing the current status on indicators such as enrolment, attendance, availability of school infrastructure, dietary diversity and adoption of better health and hygiene practices to establish baseline values across sampled schools. These values will be critical in determining the progress and impact of the program following implementation and consequent monitoring and evaluation. The study also examined the extent to which the national and local level structures are adequate to deliver the school meal program and highlights additional measures/adjustments to the project design, if any, that should be undertaken in the early stages of intervention to enhance the efficiency of the intervention. 68. Sustainability has been commented based on assessment of extent to which the financial and program implementation responsibilities are clear for a transition of the WFP school feeding project to national school feeding ownership. The study also highlights the engagement level of all stakeholders including GoB officials, SMC members, PTA members and local small holder farmers. 69. The progress made through the previous grant was also considered in order to understand the readiness of the community and other stakeholders to take ownership of the program to ensure sustainability. Methodological Approach 70. The baseline study was conducted during the period August 2021 – February 2022. The study covered the FY20 grant, including activities and processes related to its implementation, resourcing, monitoring, and reporting relevant to answer the evaluation questions for the baseline study. The quantitative and qualitative data collection was conducted during the period October 2021- January 2022. 71. The mapping of indicators with the data collection tools/ data sources has been presented in the table in Annex 5. Research Design 72. The study methodology is guided by the ToR underpinned by the results framework of the program under FY20 grant. The interventions were categorized under four domains: i) individuals (school going March 2022 17 children); ii) institutional (schoolteachers, school administrators, and store keepers); iii) social (parents, local women farmers and community); and iv) external environment (policy, government support, civil society). In light of the results framework, the conceptual framework aims to examine the outcomes and results of the program. This conceptual framework has been described in detail in Annex 3. The proposed conceptual framework for the baseline study is buttressed by the Socio-Ecological framework that will aid in understanding the project’s influence on gender roles. The study incorporated inputs from the Technical Note on Integrating Gender in WFP Evaluation, 2019 and the GEEW framework to adequately focus on gender dimensions within the program. 73. The study followed a mixed-method approach to address the key information areas under the five criteria of the OECD-DAC using primary data collected through the quantitative survey, Key Informant Interviews (KII), In-Depth Interviews (IDI), Observations, and secondary data collected through desk review of secondary data. The baseline study was designed to compare the status of indicators in the planned intervention areas and comparison areas. The comparison schools were selected from Ramu upazila of Cox’s Bazar district as schools here were not receiving similar support as provided under the school feeding program or from other donors on improving literacy outcomes as in case of other upazilas. Further, the literacy rate and student teacher ratio in the case of Ramu is relatively comparable to the treatment Upazilas. 74. The methodology entailed a desk review of relevant documents and a primary survey. The reliability and validity of the data were assessed by triangulating using secondary literature and discussions with officials from DPE, BIRTAN, DAE and WFP staff. The findings were synthesized to benchmark the values of the performance indicators, identify the enabling factors and foreseen challenges, examine contribution towards government’s agenda, and key considerations for scaling up. Complementary observations and comments made by Government officials and WFP staff were considered in the final analysis and the preparation of the baseline report 75. The table below presents a technical approach for the baseline study. Table 4: Evaluation Design Methods of data collection Target Group/ Source of Information Primary Survey Secondary Review Quantitative (Structured Interviews) • Parent Questionnaire • Student Questionnaire • EGRA Questionnaire • School Questionnaire • School Head Questionnaire • School Teacher Questionnaire • School Storekeeper Questionnaire • Mid-Term and End term evaluation of McGovern-Dole grant FY 2017 • 2019 SABER-SF assessment • Project design document, results framework, annual action plans • Approved National School Meals Policy (NSMP) • NPAN-2 • MIS and monitoring data • Any other relevant documents provided by WFP Qualitative (Focus Group Discussions and KIIs) • FGD with parents • FGD with SMC members • FGD with Smallholder Farmers • FGD with Students • Key informant interviews (KII) with WFP program officials, implementing partners and Government representatives including high-level officials from MoPME, DPE, BNNC, BIRTAN, and DAE. Indicative outputs of data collection March 2022 18 Methods of data collection Target Group/ Source of Information • Establish baseline values of key indicators • Establish the relevance of the program based on stakeholder perceptions • Identify key enablers and barriers (focus on COVID context) • Provide analysis for WFP on its role in establishing and implementing effective structures to support the school feeding policy Wherever appropriate sex disaggregated analysis has been provided • Establish relevance of the project and understand how the project activities were realigned to support GoB during COVID-19. • Establish alignment of the program with government priorities/initiatives and WFP’s country strategic plan • Explore readiness of the existing delivery structures for transitioning to national school meals program 76. The findings have been synthesized to benchmark the values of the performance indicators, identifying the enabling factors and foreseen challenges, examine contribution towards government’s agenda, innovations and good practices and key considerations for scaling up. Sampling 77. The sample size was calculated at the program level, using the ‘differences method’ formula with a finite population (confidence interval of 1.96, estimated difference set at 5%). The detailed sampling protocol and distribution of sample is presented in Annex 3. 12 schools in Kutubdia and 18 schools in Ukhiya were selected randomly as intervention schools. Similarly, 20 schools in Ramu were selected as comparison schools. The list of sample schools is provided in Annex 10. Two students in each grade were randomly selected from Grade I-V. For Grade III, the sample size was 5 students per school for quantitative survey. For administering EGRA tool, 14 students from Grade III were randomly selected (including five identified for quantitative survey). Overall, 650 students (excluding additional students for EGRA, 390 from intervention schools and 260 from control schools) from 50 schools were covered. 78. The identification of schools was based on (i) availability of internet connectivity; (ii) willingness of the school headmaster to participate in data collection process; (iii) prevalent categorization of location (affected by COVID-19) as green or high-risk red zones. 79. Amongst the 50 sampled schools, 20 per cent of schools were randomly identified for the purpose of conducting FGDs with mothers, SMC members and students. Overall, 30 FGDs were conducted (10 for each category from intervention and control schools). FGDs were conducted in open space following all COVID-19 protection measures. Additional one FGD with smallholder farmers (randomly identified) in each upazila (three in total) was conducted. 80. The table below summarizes the distribution of samples across target groups for the quantitative and qualitative surveys. Table 5: Sampling Quantitative (Structured questionnaires) Details Treatment Comparison No. of schools 30 20 Students* 13 per school 390 260 Parents (of selected students) 5 per school 150 100 Total 540 360 EGRA with Grade 3 students only* 14 per school 420 280 Qualitative (KII) School Head 1 per school 30 30 School Teacher 1 per school 30 20 Store keepers 1 per school 30 Total 90 50 March 2022 19 3.2. BASELINE DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND TOOLS 81. The primary data collection was through field visits conducted by local partner, Data management Aid (DMA) with technical oversight and regular supervision (virtual) from NRMC. The qualitative tools developed for the survey and the quantitative questionnaires are presented in Annex 5. All KIIs (at national, district and Upazila level) were virtually conducted by NRMC. The data collection team strictly adhered to guidelines issued by WHO and the local government and followed COVID-19 related safety protocols. 82. With regard to secondary data, a systematic review of literature was conducted to build the context of the program and its results. Combined with these, the desk review examined findings from the baseline, mid-term, and end-term evaluation for McGovern-Dole FY 17 grant, national-level secondary data as well as WFP monitoring data. Data Analysis 83. The analysis of quantitative data aimed to establish baseline values of key indicators as per the program framework across the comparison sub-groups. Raw data obtained from the field was checked by the data analyst for consistency errors, duplicity of cases and missing data (refer Annex 3 for detailed note on Data Cleaning and Analysis). 84. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis. The qualitative data from focused group discussions (FGDs) in-depth interviews (IDIs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) were documented, translated, coded and analyzed by the researchers. Finally, the analysis of primary data was triangulated and supported by secondary data. A detailed review of data cleaning and analysis plans has been provided in Annex 3. 85. Data obtained for gender-related questions was analyzed comprehensively to report on the gender dimensions of the study. Further, a cross-section analysis was applied to treat the baseline as a cross￾section. This technique helped the study team benchmark the key indicators of the intervention by comparing the intervention and comparison schools. Data Triangulation 86. The methodology entailed a desk review of the project and other related documents and the primary survey (both quantitative and qualitative). The study team triangulated data from the primary survey (comparison of perspectives of different stakeholders on the same issue) to assess the reliability and validity of the data. The findings were synthesized to determine the status of performance indicators, understand the expectations of beneficiaries towards the program interventions and transition to hot meals, examine program’s alignment with the government’s priorities and, key considerations for scaling up as well as taking over entire school feeding activity independently. Stakeholders at the National Level Representatives from MoPME, MoA, BIRTAN and WFP CO As per the requirement and availability during data collection 5+ Other stakeholders at district and program level (Cooperating partner NGOs, WFP Cox’s Bazar Team, Representatives from DPE, LGD, DPHE, Health and Family Welfare) As per the requirement and availability during data collection 15+ Total 20+ Qualitative- Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Details Total Mothers 6 4 SMC 6 4 Students 6 4 Smallholder farmers 2 1 Total 20 13 March 2022 20 Integration of Gender into the Methodology 87. Gender equity and inclusion was mainstreamed throughout the study. Wherever appropriate50, gender dimensions were factored into the sub-questions/key information areas for each evaluation question. The study focused on analyses of sex-disaggregated data in school feeding, literacy, and attendance. It also provides sex-disaggregated data (depending on availability) on the status of program outcomes related to enrolment, attendance and health and nutrition practices of the community. 88. Additionally, the study examined the gender roles envisaged in the design and implementation of the FY20 program with respect to enhancing participation and involvement of women in local community groups and school management committees, enhancing ownership of school feeding activities (preparation and distribution of hot meals) amongst mother groups, and building capacities of local women smallholder farmers responsible for food supplies to McGovern-Dole supported schools. 3.3. LIMITATIONS 89. Behavioral indicators were captured via interviews, not directly observed, making responses susceptible to social desirability bias; 90. Due to closure of schools on account of lockdown, attendance data during the period January 21-March 21 could not be collected. 91. Given that the sample schools were selected based on these criteria as articulated in the previous paragraph and not randomly selected, there is a possibility of bias in observations on availability of education, water and sanitation facilities 3.4. QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 92. WFP has developed a Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practices of the international evaluation community (the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) and the Development Assistance Commission (DAC)). It sets out process with in-built steps for quality assurance and templates for evaluation products. DEQAS standards and guidelines were systematically applied by the study team. 93. The study team ensured that prescribed quality protocols are integrated with the data collection process to obtain reliable data and ensure the quality of deliverables. Some of the key steps to ensure quality at various stages of the survey have been mentioned in Annex 3. 94. The study team developed a detailed field movement plan in advance, indicating daily movements and the number of interactions to be conducted. NRMC sought WFP’s support in contacting and scheduling meetings with government officials and partners in advance. A field plan for the field mission has been attached in Annex 15 for reference. 95. The data collection team was hired locally from Chittagong/Cox’s Bazar/Dhaka. NRMC provided the data collection team with a detailed explanation of tools (two-day class room training). The team was also trained in safe data collection during COVID-19. During training, specific sessions were conducted on ethical issues faced during data collection and data integrity. A training schedule highlighting the different aspects of training is provided in Annex 13. 96. A robust monitoring process was followed for quality assurance during data collection. At least one member of the core evaluation team of NRMC was in regular touch with the field teams during the entire period of data collection. 50 SFP by design does not have a specific focus on gender related issues and therefore the study will highlight gender dimensions wherever appropriate. March 2022 21 3.5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 97. The study team understands the UNEG norms, standards and ethical guidelines and adheres to ethical practice and code of conduct during all its evaluations following its own ethical guidelines and that of the clients. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring informed consent, protecting privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of participants, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of participants, ensuring fair recruitment of participants (including girls, women and socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the evaluation results in no harm to participants or their communities. The team especially catered to the engagement needs of sensitive population groups such as women and girls as-well-as social and religious minorities. The team for this assignment was guided by the UNEG ethical guidance principles and ensured that no violations such as collecting data without consent, collecting data not pertaining to this assignment, accessing areas within the institution premises for which approval has not been taken are committed during the data collection. Details of ethical issues, related risks, safeguards, and measures have been provided in Annex 3. 3.6 RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS 98. The methodology and team composition were accommodative of the potential risks that arose during the evaluation. Some of these (i) mobility restrictions and guidelines issued by the Government to contain the spread of COVID – 19 and; (ii) climate and weather-related limitations. To address these risks, mitigation measures in the form of adherence to safety protocols, adequate communication, and context sensitive planning with the CO were undertaken. Risks associated with data collection and mitigation measures adopted have been detailed in Annex 3. 99. In view of the COVID crisis, additional ethical guidelines pertaining to the behavior of enumerator during data collection were prepared. The entire data collection team strictly followed the guidelines issued by WHO and local government for safeguarding against contracting and spreading COVID-19. The team also ensured that any COVID-19 related information about any participant was not revealed publicly and was only used to re-plan or modify the data collection process to ensure safety for everyone. A detailed field manual was created in accordance with WHO norms and standards to carry out safe data collection, prioritizing the health of every individual. March 2022 22 4. Baseline findings and discussion PART A: ESTIMATION OF BASELINE VALUES 4.1. SETTING BASELINE VALUES Current status of learning outcomes, attendance, enrolment, awareness about child health and nutrition practices and availability of infrastructure in schools 100.The baseline values for each indicator are summarized in Annex 6. The indicator wise description on the status at the time of conducting baseline study is presented below. Support Improved Literacy and Improve Student Enrolment and Attendance 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 101.The findings of EGRA test revealed a significant difference51 between the number of students in the intervention schools (40 %) and comparison schools (31 %) who can read more than 45 words per minute (reading fluency test). No significant difference was observed between the number of students in in the intervention schools (33%) and comparison schools (33%) who can comprehend more than five questions (comprehension of grade-level text). At an overall level, 33 percent of the students in the treatment schools and 25 percent in comparison schools were able to both read and comprehend grade￾II level text. This difference, however, was not statistically significant. 102.Analysis of data on the basis of gender suggests that 59 percent girls and 41 percent boys in intervention schools and 32 percent girls and 19 percent boys in comparison schools were able to fluently read and comprehend grade II level text. Within the sample intervention schools, no significant difference between boys in Ukhiya and Kutubdia who were able to demonstrate proficiency in reading comprehension skills was observed. Similarly, for girls in Ukhiya and Kutubdia no significant difference was observed. During FGDs in Ukhiya and Kutubdia, the parents proudly cited instances of children reading out stories to them and siblings. Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools 103.Since the schools were closed till September 2021, due to COVID-19, the baseline values on attendance in both the sampled intervention and comparison schools cannot be established. Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance 104.The average enrolment per school disaggregated by sex in sample intervention and comparison schools is presented in Table below. Table 6: Enrolment in sample intervention and comparison schools Upazila Average enrolment per school (2021) Boys Girls Students Ukhiya 178 188 366 Kutubdia 155 174 329 Ramu 116 141 257 51 Significant difference at 95% confidence interval (2-tailed) March 2022 23 105.As can be observed in the above table, girls’ enrolment is higher in both the intervention and comparison schools. Discussions with parents revealed that they placed importance on a girl’s education as they believe that her being educated in the present would ensure that her children also get an education in the future. Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 106.Since the schools were closed no textbooks and learning materials were provided during the period January 2021- March 2021. However, Room to Read uploaded 10 read-aloud videos on the Government’s Education Hub website to expand the reach of the materials created under McGovern-Dole and to further institutionalize and mainstream their use. The links to these materials were shared with teachers, parents and local government officials through SMS. The review of semiannual progress report for the period October 2021- March 2022, highlights that these videos reached approximately 1,949,240 viewers per week. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 107.The findings from the teachers’ survey indicate that 70 percent (in 23 schools) of the teachers in the intervention schools have not received any training since January 2021, from WFP or implementing partners. Teachers in the remaining seven intervention schools reported receiving training on aspects related to storage practices, health, hygiene and nutrition under the current grant. No teacher in the intervention schools reported receiving any training on teaching and learning techniques. Similarly, none of the administrators and officials in the intervention schools have received training as a result of USDA assistance under FY20 grant. Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate the use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 108.In accordance with the safety guidelines prescribed for COVID-19, classroom observations were not conducted. As a result, it will be difficult for the baseline study to highlight the number of teachers and school administrators who demonstrate use of even those techniques acquired during the previous grant. As indicated earlier, since January 2021 none of the teachers, administrators have reported receiving training as part of the FY 20 grant52. 109.It is worth highlighting that as a response to question on how often in the last week did the teacher read a story or a poem which was not in the textbook, 34 percent of the sampled students in the intervention schools reported that teachers have never read a story or poem outside the textbook. 44 percent of the sampled students in intervention schools reported reading a story or poem by teachers once a week. Percentage of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education 52 For all the indicators were baseline values cannot be established, during the end term evaluation of FY 20 grant, WFP may consider comparison with the end term values of FY 17 grant. March 2022 24 110.All the sampled parents in intervention and comparison schools considered education as important and beneficial. 88 percent of the sampled parents of children studying in intervention schools and 82 percent of sampled parents in the comparison schools were able to highlight at least three benefits of primary education. The three most common reasons for parents in both types of schools to prioritize primary education were a) improves literacy rate, b) improves future opportunities of work for children, and c) helps break the cycle of poverty. Evidently, there is a high level of awareness regarding the value of education among parents. The FGDs with parents also highlighted similar perceptions on the benefits of education. 111.The analysis of FGDs with parents in both intervention and comparison schools highlights that both the father and mother jointly take decisions about their child’s education. However, in most cases, mothers would be the decision-maker since the fathers didn’t really stay at home as they are required to travel to the outstation for work. Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 112.80 percent (24 schools) of the sampled intervention schools and 95 percent (19 schools) of the sampled comparison schools reported having PTAs. Improving the quality of education in the school and promoting awareness on health, nutrition and hygiene emerged as the common agenda for discussion in all PTA meetings. 79 percent (19 schools) of the schools where PTA exists reported that they have not received any training as a result of USDA assistance. For 21 percent (5 schools in number) of PTAs, the training is limited to promoting awareness about health, hygiene and nutrition. 113.All the sample intervention and comparison schools have SMCs. The analysis of survey findings indicates that minutes of SMC meetings are maintained in all the schools. On an average, nine SMC meetings were reported on an annual basis in both intervention and comparison schools. Like PTA meetings, improving the quality of education in the school and promoting awareness on health, nutrition and hygiene emerged as the common agenda for discussion in all SMC meetings. With regard to composition of SMC, 63 percent of the intervention schools and 65 percent of the comparison schools have seven or more male members (out of 11) in the SMC. This low female to male ratio highlights the gender imbalance in the SMCs. 114.73 percent (22 schools) of the SMCs in the sampled intervention schools reported to have received training on SFP through USDA assistance. This was, however, received under the previous grant (FY17) 115.School administrators in all the sampled intervention and comparison schools reported the SMCs to be functional and useful. They also pointed out that SMCs provide a strong support to the school towards improving the quality of education and school infrastructure. 76 percent of the sampled parents in intervention schools and 71 percent in comparison schools reported being aware about the existence of SMCs. Of those aware, 90 percent of the parents in both types of schools reported usefulness of the SMCs in improving the quality of education and improving school infrastructure. 88 percent of the sampled parents in the sampled intervention schools reported satisfaction with the management of school feeding program by SMCs. Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) 116.All the sample intervention and comparison schools reported administering deworming tablets prior to the pandemic. The deworming campaigns in April 2020 and October 2020 were cancelled by the government due to the COVID-19. The data collected from the school records indicate that all the students in the sampled intervention schools have received deworming medication. Average number of school days missed by each student due to illness (for each school and in aggregate) March 2022 25 117.On an average, students in both intervention and comparison schools missed attending school by one day a week prior to the survey due to illness. Overall, in the treatment schools, 62 percent of students reported absent for at least one day in the last one week (from the date of the survey). This was higher in comparison schools (83%). Promote Improved Nutrition and Improved Health Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 118.No training under the FY 20 grant was organized due to school closure in response to COVID-19. Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance 119.83 percent of the sampled students in intervention schools identified at least three key health and nutrition practices as compared to 79 percent in comparison schools. During discussions with students, and as observed in school premises, children in intervention schools displayed a high awareness of handwashing practices. 120.Findings at a disaggregated level based on sex, indicates that almost equal proportion of boys and girls (82%) in the intervention schools were able to identify at least three practices. In comparison schools, a higher proportion of boys (81%) could identify at least three key health and nutrition practices as compared to girls (76%). Dietary Diversity 121.The quality of students’ diets was assessed in terms of dietary diversity. The study team collected detailed information on the food consumed by each child during the last 24 hours prior to the interview for 650 school children through interviews with parents. 122.The mean dietary diversity score (DDS) for students in intervention schools was higher (4.78 out of a maximum score of seven) as compared to 4.59 for students in comparison schools. This is higher than the mean dietary diversity score among children in comparison schools (4.59). Disaggregated by sex, the mean diversity score for girls was 4.82 as compared to 4.74 for boys in intervention schools. In the case of comparison schools, the mean diversity score was lower for girls (4.44) as compared to boys (4.76). Cereals, grains, roots, and tubers are the dominant food group that is consumed across both types of schools followed by meat, fish and eggs, vegetables, and fruits. 123.Findings at a disaggregated level suggest that despite multiple external challenges with regard to increase in food prices due to the Rohingya refugee influx and unavailability of diverse food items in the context of COVID-19, the dietary diversity score in Ukhiya was 4.98. The dietary diversity score in Kutubdia was 4.48. Remoteness of location and inadequate local production of diverse food items, owing to the salinity of water, are the primary reasons for lower dietary diversity score in Kutubdia. Number of educational materials and WASH facilities (i.e. water systems and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 124.All the sample schools have received bookshelves for classroom libraries, almirahs, school bags, water bottles and tiffin boxes through the previous grant FY 2017. No support in rehabilitation/construction of water systems and latrines have been provided under the current grant (FY 2020). 140 Handwashing stations were established under the FY 2017 grant. 125.63 percent (19 schools) of the sampled intervention schools reported existence of vegetable garden in the school. All 19 schools reported availability of water for irrigation of vegetable gardens. The tube well available within the school is the main source of water for irrigation. Of these 42 percent (8 out of 19 schools) reported utilization of vegetable gardens for growing fruits and/or vegetables. For the remaining eleven schools, space available for vegetable garden remains un-utilized. March 2022 26 Number of schools using an improved water source Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities 126.87 percent (23 schools) of the sampled intervention schools and 95 percent (19 schools) of the sampled comparison schools reported availability of drinking water facilities within the school premises. 90 percent of the sampled intervention schools and all the comparison schools reported tube wells as the main source of drinking water. With regard to adoption of practices such as boiling the water before drinking, 67 percent (20 schools) of the sampled intervention schools and 65 percent (13 schools) of the sampled comparison schools reported that they are not adopting any such practice. One in three sampled intervention and comparison schools reported that there is no need for adopting such practice as the water available through the tube well is safe for consumption. 127.The number of schools with improved sanitation facilities has been determined on the following three parameters: functionality of toilets, whether it is locked or not, and availability of water. Primary data from the survey indicates that 97 percent (29 schools) of the sampled intervention schools and all 20 sampled comparison schools have functional toilets. 87 percent (26 schools) of the sampled intervention schools and 85 percent (17 schools) of the sampled comparison schools reported having separate toilets for boys and girls. 28 sampled intervention schools and 17 comparison schools reported having handwashing facilities within the school, with continuous water supply. Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation, commodity management and storage as a result of USDA assistance 128.With technical coordination from BIRTAN, 100 individuals (training of trainers) in two batches were trained in 2019 under previous grant FY 17 on safe food preparation and commodity management as a result of USDA assistance. These trainers were expected to further train individuals at local level under the current grant FY 20. However, due to school closure in response to COVID-19, no training was organized till September 2021. Store keepers from all the schools reported receiving training on storage practices (for biscuit distribution) as part of the previous grant (FY2017). Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance 129.28 individuals from all the respondents in sample schools were able to identify at least three or more safe food preparation practices and reported adoption of these practices in their house. As the provisioning of school meals would commence from year 2 of implementation of this grant, the demonstration of safe food preparation practices at the school level cannot be established through the baseline study. Percent of storekeepers who can identify at least three safe storage practices 130.93 percent (from 28 schools) of store keepers from the sampled schools were able to identify three or more safe storage practices and reported adoption of these practices for biscuit distribution. Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance 131.The review of WFP semi-annual report (October 2020- March 2021) suggests that in order to meet the Government’s needs under the extension of the School Feeding Project in Poverty Prone Areas (SFPPPA), WFP provided micronutrient fortified biscuits to 49,162 pre and primary school students in 170 Government Primary Schools, NGO schools and Ebtedayee Madrasahs rather than only students in Government Public Schools (GPS) as originally planned. WFP received approval from USDA to support these additional students to align with the Government’s current implementation plan. From July 2021, WFP was supposed to return to the biscuit distribution in Government Primary Schools and Govt. (DPE) registered schools in Ukhiya and Kutubdia. March 2022 27 PART B: FINDINGS ON EVALUATION QUESTIONS RELEVANCE 4.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To what extent is the program aligned to Government national and sectorial level policies and plans at the time of design? To what extent (if any) does the project complement other government and donor-funded initiatives? Is there any change in the readiness of the Government to move forward with these plans due to the COVID pandemic? 132.The 8th Five year plan of GoB (2020-2025) focusses on (i) improving quality of education with emphasis on reading and numeracy skills; (ii) incorporating nutrition and hygiene education in curriculum and promoting school vegetable gardens and cooking demonstrations; (iii) promoting good dietary practices among children where there is school feeding program; (iv) improving sanitation facilities in school and; (v) improving the knowledge base and capacity of agriculture extension workers, school teachers and women farmers on nutrition. 133.GoB’s flagship program in the education sector, (PEDP4) aims at providing pre-primary to grade V students quality education, with key emphasis on efficiency, inclusivity and equity from 2019-2023. It also focuses on ensuring that the key stakeholders are empowered and informed to promote, support and advance the provision of quality primary education to all age-appropriate children 134.The NPAN-2 has highlighted the need to focus on (i) social protection programs that include school meals and school feeding, (ii) strengthening multi-sectoral programs towards ensuring nutrition and increasing coordination among ministries with regard to social safety nets, education, water, sanitation and hygiene, (iii) strengthening/integrating nutrition education in regular curricula of primary schools and scaling up school health, school feeding and school gardening programs. 135.The objectives of National Food and Nutrition Security Policy of Bangladesh (NFNSP) include engaging with the agriculture extension system to promote improved technologies for homestead production of nutrition dense crops and prevention of nutrient content loss through improved post-harvest technologies. 136.The National Social Security Strategy (NSSS) emphasizes strengthening supply side interventions for children related to quality of education, water supply and sanitation and nutrition outreach. 137.The National School Meal Policy focusses on (i) Increasing attendance, retention and the primary school completion rate of children in poverty prone areas of Bangladesh;(ii) Improving consumption of nutrient￾dense foods among primary school children; (iii) Increasing market participation of smallholder farmers with quality and diversified products. 138.The review of project design documents highlights SFP’s focus on i) training MoPME and DPE officials on local and transparent procurement, effective program review; ii) supporting MoPME and DPE in developing systems and standard operating procedures for operationalization of the GoB supported national school meal program; (iii) engaging with Directorate of Agriculture Extension (DAE) and BIRTAN for training smallholder farmers on adoption of agricultural practices for production of diverse food to increase dietary diversity; (iv) developing online training courses for teachers; (v) conducting trainings for government officials at district and upazila levels, head teachers and school administrators on competencies in literacy, governance, transparency and monitoring and supervision with an objective of creating an enabling learning environment in schools; (vi) awareness generation on cooking and consumption of nutritious food ; (vii) engaging with the communities and establishing Mothers Groups at the school level that will help cooks in the preparation and distribution of hot meals and; (viii) creating March 2022 28 awareness among students, teachers, School Management Committee (SMC) members and parents on importance of education, hygiene and nutrition; (ix) providing micronutrient fortified biscuits within the first hour of school on every school day in the first year and home-grown school feeding hot meals to students in the second and third year of the program; (x) providing need based financial to schools for maintenance / reconstruction of water and sanitation facilities. 139.In light with the analysis based on discussion with GoB representatives and review of project documents, it can be inferred that the program is completely aligned with the GoB’s national and sectoral level policies and plans such as 8th Five-year plan, NSMP, NSSS, NFNSP, PEDP 4 and NPAN2. 140.Besides WFP, other development partners such as UNICEF, UNHCR, USAID, BRAC and Save the Children are also implementing programs in Cox’s Bazar. These partners are working with Rohingya refugees and host communities on aspects such as food distribution, health, child protection, water and sanitation. For the host community, UNICEF is supporting the creation of child-friendly schools and early childhood development centers (for preschool children aged 3-6 years). The provision of nutrition support services is one of the important supports to early childhood development centers and primary schools. SFP, through provisioning of fortified biscuits to students, extends the development partners’ support to GoB. The SFP activities were therefore, found to be complementing other donor-funded and government initiatives. 141.Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the GoB closed all educational institutions, including primary schools, in Bangladesh during the period February 2021- September 2021. During this period, MoPME advised schools and teachers to conduct online classes. The discussions with the Assistant Project Director, SFP, DPE and District Primary Education Officer, Cox Bazar highlight that the classes were conducted through a dedicated channel on radio and television. The Ministry developed course content for online education and trained teachers on conducting online training. 142.WFP worked with the GoB and NGOs to minimize disruptions to students’ learning and nutrition. The activities proposed as part of the implementation plan were re-aligned to meet the needs of students and communities. New mechanisms for providing direct support to students’ homes were created and adaptations were made to respond to new challenges. This included home delivery of biscuits to address the nutritional needs of children, designing story cards and leveraging online platforms to ensure continuation in improvement of educational outcomes while also encouraging involvement of all the stakeholders to provide a supportive environment to the beneficiaries. Children were provided education materials that included worksheets, remedial packs, exercise books and story cards at home. 143.The review of the semi-annual progress report (April 2021- September 2021) further indicates that the project implementing partner, RtR liaised with a2i 53to upload 3 new read-alouds on the Government’s Education Hub to expand the reach of the materials created under McGovern-Dole project and to further institutionalize and mainstream their use. Project staff shared these links with teachers, parents and local GoB officials through SMS. During six months (April- September 2021), 204,298 messages were delivered to 38,145 households. 144.During the KII, representative DPE confirmed that measures such as distribution of reading materials, worksheets, and biscuits supported schools in addressing learning needs of the students during COVID￾19 and is being considered by the government for adoption and replication across other sub districts. The discussion further highlighted that operationalization of NSMP is still the priority for GoB and acknowledgement on the need for technical assistance from WFP in preparation of implementation plan for roll out of school meal program in the next 6-9 months. Clearly, there is no change in the readiness 53 This is flagship programme of GoB under the Digital Bangladesh agenda. The objective is to inspire developing and developed nations on public service innovation and transformation by sharing ground breaking insights supported by examples, lessons, and knowledge March 2022 29 and willingness of the GoB to move forward with its plan on implementing the National School Meal Policy. 4.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 To what extent does the project design address the needs of the Government with regard to transition to a fully nationally owned school feeding program? 145.The overall goal of GoB supported primary school meal project 54 is to contribute to achieving inclusive and equitable quality education and improved nutrition for primary school children (SDG 2 and 4) through a nutrition-sensitive school meal program. The program focusses on (i) increasing attendance, retention and the primary school completion rate of children in poverty prone areas of Bangladesh; (ii) improving consumption of nutrient-dense foods among primary school children; (iii) increasing market participation of smallholder farmers with quality and diversified products. The primary school meal project through a phased implementation approach, aims to cover 14.74 million primary school children across 513 upazilas (492 upazilas and 21 education-thana), during the fiscal year (July- June) 2021-22 to 2025-26. The existing 104 upazilas (87 biscuits and 17 school meals) under the school feeding program (SFPPPA) will be included in the first year of this project. 146.Towards the end of 2019, WFP supported MoPME in conducting Systems Approach to Better Education Results for School Feeding (SABER-SF) exercise with multiple national stakeholders. The exercise aimed at assessing the capacity gaps (based on existing capacities) of key officials at MoPME on aspects related to policy and regulatory framework, institutional mandate and coordination, sustainable finance, program design and delivery, and engagement with communities. In order to ensure smooth transition to fully national school feeding program, the exercise highlighted gaps/needs at the national level on aspects such as (i) availability of SBCC strategy and tools to promote health, hygiene and nutrition information; (ii) systematic assessment of the Government’s M&E system for school feeding and establish a medium-to-long term plan for support to M&E; (iii) availability of online monitoring system for the school meals program; (iv) availability of strategy for engagement between MoPME and Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) with respect to increased local purchases from women’s grower groups and smallholder farmers; (v) lack of availability of more food baskets or menus, and principles for menu composition – including adequate flexibility to adjust to local context and preferences, seasonal variations. 147. The review of project documents highlights that WFP will be providing micronutrient fortified biscuits within the first hour of school on every school day in the first year and home-grown school feeding hot meals to students in the second and third year of the program across 140 schools in Ukhiya and Kutubdia. The USDA hot meal commodities will be complemented with locally procured fresh vegetables, eggs, spices and salt using the government’s cost of meal calculations to create a sustainable standard, during years two and three of the project. 148.The IDI with representative DPE, highlighted that the draft Development Project Proforma (DPP) for the primary school feeding project is being revised based on recommendations of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) and rolling out of the program would commence post approval of DPP (expected by June 2022). Clearly, the roll out of primary school meal project is delayed by at least one year. 149.The review of project design documents further highlights that WFP will conduct a cost-benefit analysis and a national school meals baseline study that can serve as the basis for establishing a regular revenue 54 In 2019, Government approved the National School Meal Policy (NSMP), that envisages a gradual increase of the school feeding programme to reach universal coverage primary school children including pre-primary children and to gradually switch from providing fortified biscuits to nutritious hot meals (presently implemented in 16 sub-districts) in all government primary schools in Bangladesh. March 2022 30 budget funding stream for school meal activities. However, during the discussion with representatives from WFP and DPE it emerged that activities due to such as conducting national school meals baseline study, cost beneficial analysis have not yet been initiated. 150.Furthermore, WFP will support MoPME in developing a Research and Development (R&D) Center that will contribute towards building evidence on the impact of school meals program and support its dissemination at the local and central level of government officials for informed decision making. WFP will also support in improving literacy outcomes by providing high quality reading materials for students and professional development of teachers. It will also promote adoption of improved nutrition and health practices by developing materials on appropriate healthy dietary behavior, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available foods and training cooks on safe food preparation and hygiene management. 151.Creating an effective community mobilization strategy and developing Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) strategy and materials to showcase effective community engagement in managing school meals in Bangladesh is another important pillar of support from WFP. The strategy preparation would require conducting formative research to understand the current practices, motivators, and barriers related to desired behaviors for the community and capacity needs assessment (for active participation in the project) of the community. Discussions with representatives of WFP and DPE highlight that such research has not been initiated. 152.Evidently, the program design aims to support GoB on aspects related to policy, strategic planning, institutional capacity building, implementation and community engagement, thereby addressing the needs of Government with regard to technical assistance and capacity strengthening required to transition to fully- owned national school feeding program. However, there are delays (by at least one year) in approval of DPP and rolling out of interventions envisaged under the primary school meals project. 4.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 To what extent the package of technical assistance activities/measures planned as part of the program have been based on capacity needs assessment? (focused on the Government’s capacity to transition towards national ownership of the school feeding program against the five policy goals/pathways 153.Some of the identified capacity gaps include (i) ensuring community engagement; (ii) establishing a clear results and monitoring framework for effective monitoring and reporting on the program; (iii) generating evidence and documentation on the benefits of the school feeding / school meals program for different sectors; (iv) designing guidelines, standard operating procedures for program implementation. The review of program design documents suggests that the capacity building interventions such as (i) training MoPME and DPE officials on procurement, effective program review, and planning for school meals; (ii) training officials at national , district and upazila level on food safety and hygiene, warehouse and supply chain management; (iii) strengthening the capacity of agriculture extension workers to train small holder farmers on production of crops considering the dietary diversity, establishing local supply chain for fresh produce, addresses the capacity needs of MoPME officials and other stakeholders at local level for transitioning towards national ownership of school feeding program. The discussions with representatives WFP and DPE highlighted that an action plan for capacity building support has been prepared and is ready for implementation. 154.Review of SABER SF report suggest that the program is presently funded from the national development budget of the Government of Bangladesh; while from this budget, it can be expanded to nationwide universal coverage, eventually, it will be more suitable to move the program to the revenue budget. The discussions with representative DPE highlights that GoB is still considering funding the primary school meal project through development budget only. March 2022 31 155.Further, it emerged during discussions with GoB officials at the district and Upazila level that there has been limited dissemination and consultations on the objectives of National school Meal Policy at the district and upazila level. The discussions also highlighted that DPE adopts robust performance management systems and operationalized school feeding SF online database. However, using the monitoring data for evidence generation and documentation of learnings, best practices is not undertaken 156.During the discussion with representative DPE, it emerged that GoB would follow government’s guidelines and processes for procurement. Customization of the guidelines and process for the primary school meals project (incorporating learnings from processes supported by WFP under previous grants) is still being worked out. Furthermore, it was highlighted during KII that GoB would promote community participation in the implementation of primary schools' meals project and guidelines on community engagement would be prepared post approval of DPP. 4.5 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 What priority areas should WFP focus on to ensure that the transition from biscuit distribution to hot meals is adapted to the local context? 157.During FGDs with SMC members in the intervention schools, it emerged that parents and the community members are willing to actively engage with the implementation of SFP, especially preparation and distribution of school meals. They will, however, require training on management of school meals and safe food preparation. During the IDI with representative DPE, it emerged that one of the essential conditions for receiving support by the schools (under the national school meal program) is provisioning of infrastructure support (such as kitchen, utensils) by the SMC members. Developing community mobilization strategy, creating mother groups and building their capacities, developing SBCC materials on aspects such as (i) managing school meals; (ii) minimum nutrition requirements therefore, emerged as one of the priority areas for the program. From GoB’s perspective undertaking formative research on knowledge, attitudes and practices of community and identification of training needs of community and their capacity building for an effective participation in implementation would be an immediate priority as this will support formulation of community mobilization and SBCC strategy. 158.The IDI with representative DPE, further highlighted that the draft Development Project Proforma (DPP) for the primary school feeding project is being revised based on recommendations of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC). Supporting MoPME in revision of guidelines and SOPs based on recommendations of ECNEC therefore, emerged as immediate priority area (in next 3-6 months) for SFP. 159.The national school meal policy envisages establishing research and development center, National School Meal Authority (NSMA) for conducting evaluations, assessments and creating learning opportunities for the staff at MoPME and DPE on good practices for managing school meal program. However, MoPME’s capacity (through SABER exercise) to conduct research on school meals, including impact evaluation, program evaluation and document achievements, lessons learnt, and best practices emerged as latent 55 During the discussion, representative DPE validated the findings of SABER and articulated that while the DPP is prepared, MoPME would require support from WFP in designing scope of work for NSMA, its composition and plan of action for establishment. 55 Under the Policy Goal 2: Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability and sub component 2.3: Evidence-based approach March 2022 32 4.6 EVALUATION QUESTION 5 To what extent are local-level stakeholders and governance structures ready to transition from biscuits distribution to school meals? What needs to improve in how these entities work with each other to bring the most successful and effective school meal program? 160.The representative, Bangladesh Institute of Research and Training on Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN) during IDI, shared that the institute has divisional and regional offices across the county. It was informed that the institute is willing to extend infrastructure support to SFP in conducting training of cooks on safe food preparation. 100 officers at BIRTAN (across its offices) have been part of training of trainers (ToTs) exercise conducted by WFP. The trained staff has commenced training of cooks in 16 districts in 2019 and 2020. 161.During the discussion with representative DPE and Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC)44 it emerged that District Nutrition Coordination Committees (DNCC) and Upazila Nutrition Coordination Committees (UNCC) will be considered to architect multisectoral coordination and providing technical oversight during implementation of the national school meal program at the district and upazila level. 162.Review of findings of SABER exercise and other project documents indicates that in order to ensure effective implementation of school meals program, MoPME intends to establish dedicated school meal committees at the division, district, upazila and school level. The committees will have a comprehensive scope of work and clear articulation of reporting and coordination mechanisms between various line departments. The IDIs with DPE official at national, district and upazila level indicates that establishment of school meal committees at district and upazila level has been delayed. 163.The IDI with representative DAE highlighted that the GoB intends to establish 100 vegetable gardens in each school (currently 36 in each union). GoB will promote the supply of organic produce to schools through these vegetable gardens. GoB will also promote homestead gardening and supply of vegetables by local women growers. This will require building capacity of the government extension service system to adapt and produce training materials, key messaging packages on improved agricultural practices. Review of progress monitoring reports56 indicates that training of extension workers and women growers under FY20 grant has not commenced. 164.The parents and SMC members in the intervention schools during FGD expressed their willingness to support the school meals program. However, they are currently unaware of the modalities of implementation of the program. There appeared a consensus within the group that provisioning of hot meals would encourage parents to send their children to school, thereby increasing students’ attendance. The SMC members in the control schools cited examples of students shifting to schools outside their neighborhood to become part of biscuit distribution program (one of the interventions under SFP) and expressed that the school meal program would bring students back to schools in neighborhood area. 165.Evidently, the governance structures at the district and upazila levels required to transition from biscuits distribution to national school meals program are still not in place. With regard to participation of local level stakeholders such as parents, teachers and SMC members, while there is willingness to support implementation of the primary school meals program, there is lack of awareness on the program strategy and implementation plan. Formulation and roll out of community mobilization and SBCC strategy and capacity building of local level stakeholders such as parents, teachers, SMC members, and agriculture extension workers would make them ready for transition from biscuits distribution to school meals. 56 Semi Annual Report October 2020- March 2021 and April 2021- September 2021 March 2022 33 4.7 EVALUATION QUESTION 6 What new factors influencing School Feeding have come into play as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic? What is the influence of these factors on the program’s planned approaches? What is the impact of COVID-19 on anticipated project outcomes with specific reference to impact of COVID 19 on school children’s return to school and contribution to achievement of project outcomes? 166.The IDIs with representatives WFP and implementing partners highlight that the pandemic has caused a disruption in the planned approaches and activities of the program. The FGDs with parents in treatment schools revealed that no parent-teacher meeting was held during the pandemic. These meetings were appreciated by the parents as they used to apprise them about the child’s progress. The teachers during the meeting also used to provide information regarding teaching children at home and promote nutrition and hygiene related practices. The discussions also highlighted that since schools were closed no school levels events such as read play festival, healthy meal preparation day were organized. The SMC members in Ukhiya highlighted that they witnessed an increase in the drop out cases during COVID-19 as students took admission in the nearby Madrasas that were open during COVID-19. 167.The SMC members further articulated that while they didn’t meet regularly as per the government guidelines they connected over phone whenever any issue concerning the school was raised. They also gave their advice to teachers to continue communicating with the parents through phone calls. This was however implemented in a limited manner. 168.WFP along with GoB and implementing partners, collectively worked towards minimizing disruption to students’ learning and nutrition. As a result, the project witnessed realignment of literacy and food distribution approach and activities. Under the literacy component, the project changed its focus from classroom-based activities to community-based literacy activities. 35 community-based education hubs for 137 schools in Ukhiya and Kutubdia were established. Children and parents came to the education hubs and received instruction, including worksheets and storybooks. These education hubs were also used for conducting meetings with parents and the SMC, sharing digital materials (read-aloud videos, digital books on battery charged multi-media portable projectors) within the communities where access to digital tools or the Internet is limited. RTR distributed reading materials at home and conducted intensive follow-ups with the parents and learners to ensure proper utilization of the worksheets at home. Home-based assessment to evaluate the progress of students was also undertaken. The project also distributed biscuits at home during the period March 2021 to August 2021. The parents during FGDs in Ukhiya confirmed receipt of reading materials and biscuits at home and expressed that such interventions helped their children continue with education while schools were closed. 169.Under the component on promoting improved health and nutrition, activities were limited to awareness on COVID safety protocols and hygiene practice that needs to be adopted. No vegetable gardens were established. 170.Under the food safety and quality infrastructure, owing to closure of schools, kitchen and storeroom construction activities for school meals and on-site cooking demonstrations were kept on hold. 171.While alternate modalities were adopted, closure of schools for nine months has delayed implementation of activities. Delay in implementation of preparatory activities (such as establishment of kitchens, distribution of utensils, sensitization activities for cooks and teachers) was also observed. Additional time would be required to undertake preparatory activities as envisaged, thereby leading to rescheduling of timelines for rolling out the school meal distribution (planned from second year). Furthermore, the review of the semiannual progress report for the period, April 2021- October 2021 also highlighted limited progress across all indicators. Evidently, COVID-19 has affected project implementation and may impact realization of project outcomes. March 2022 34 172.The discussions with representatives WFP however, highlighted that the realignment of activities / change in implementation modalities has helped in ensuring that the interventions under the biscuits distribution and literacy component were least affected. The interventions under other components would be undertaken in year 2. All efforts would be made to ensure that the lost time is covered and the expected outcomes are achieved. EFFECTIVENESS 4.8 EVALUATION QUESTION 8 To what extent are the national and local-level structures in place adequate to successfully deliver a school meal program, in an efficient and effective manner? 173.As indicated earlier, the Nutrition Coordination Committees would be responsible for multisectoral coordination and providing technical oversight during implementation of the national school meal program at the district and upazila level. IDIs with officials representing the education and agriculture department suggest that meetings of these committees are held regularly (monthly). They further expressed that these meetings promote multi-sectoral coordination by ensuring participation of various line departments and facilitating discourse on nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. 174.The essential condition for receiving support by the schools (under the school meal program) is provisioning of infrastructure support (such as kitchen, utensils) by the SMC members. As indicated earlier, all the sampled schools have SMCs and conduct regular meetings with focus on improving the quality of education and ensuring availability of infrastructure support. 175.Furthermore, under the capacity building component of the program, WFP with support from BIRTAN has conducted training on Safe Food Preparation and Basic Nutrition for the Cooks in GoB in 2019 under McGD funds FY 17. The program is also providing technical assistance to Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED), Ministry of Planning, GoB and DPE on creation and operationalization of school meal database at the field level. 176.WFP also supported MoPME and DPE in developing guidelines for remote monitoring for biscuit distribution (home delivery of biscuits). Towards assessing the extent to which delivery of biscuits conforms to the guidelines, thereby generating evidence on effectiveness of guidelines, WFP independently conducted remote monitoring on a sample of 524 households. The literature review of findings of the remote monitoring suggests that in most distributions (65%), teachers and other school staff members were present during the distribution to physically hand over the biscuits to the household It further highlights that involvement of the school teachers and other school staff members in the distribution process helped implementing partners / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in sourcing the enrolment lists and finding the location of households. The review of distribution guidelines to include teachers’ participation was therefore one of the recommendations of remote monitoring. The revisions are being considered by MoPME/DPE. 177.The IDIs with officials at district and upazila level highlight that joint monitoring visits (by WFP staff, officials at district and upazila level and implementing partners) are conducted on a need basis. There is no defined frequency for conducting these visits. They expressed that regular joint monitoring visits would ensure timely review of program activities and course correction. 178.It can therefore be, inferred that the while national and local level structures are adequately placed to successfully transition to the national school meal program and implement FY 20 grant, streamlining of joint monitoring would enhance the effectiveness and efficiency. March 2022 35 SUSTAINABILITY 4.9 EVALUATION QUESTION 9 To what extent are the financial and programimplementation responsibilities clear for a transition of the WFP school feeding project to national school feeding ownership? 179.GoB has committed USD 3.7 billion under the development fund for implementation of the National School Meal Program over a period of 5 years. While the DPP is being revised based on the review from ECNEC, MoPME had allocated USD 19 million to support biscuits distribution during the period January 2021- March 2021. During IDI, the representative, DPE articulated that while the school meal program will be implemented directly by DPE, WFP would provide technical assistance on areas such as (i) Developing required standard operating procedures, guidelines and essential trainings to the core officials of relevant agencies (MoPME, DPE, DAE, BIRTAN) on relevant areas of school melas;(ii) establishing research and development center during the initial 2-3 years of implementation; (iii) Developing SBCC strategy and tools to promote community engagement in managing school meals in Bangladesh. The discussions with representatives of WFP suggest clarity (within the team) in understanding of GoB’s expectations with regard to supporting the government owned school feeding program. 180.BNNC has been assigned responsibility of multisectoral coordination and providing technical oversight during implementation at the district and upazila level. DAE through it cadre of extension workers will train farmers on production of diverse foods to increase dietary diversity. 181.Specifically, for the FY 2020 grant, discussions with representatives RtR and RIC suggest that implementing partners have been sensitized by WFP on their responsibilities during implementation. 182.It can therefore be inferred that there is clarity amongst the technical and implementing partners on their responsibilities during implementation of FY 2020 grant and support required in transitioning to and implementation of the national school meal program. 4.10 EVALUATION QUESTION 10, 11 Have criteria for successful (minimum) handover been defined and established with the Government at the start of the intervention? What activities/measures need to be considered in the handover process to contribute to its success? To what extent handover (transition plan, if available) reflects the measures aimed at institutionalization of the measures planned as part of the technical assistance to the Government that is expected to support the sustainability of the intervention (including policy work, support to systems, institutional capacity etc.)? What adjustments to the handover plan/strategy need to be made before the end of the intervention to ensure successful handover to the Government and stakeholders? 183.The revised draft of DPP that would provide operationalization and handover plan is still being prepared. The expected support from WFP in transitioning/ implementation of national school meals program, as stated earlier, has also been defined. In line with the expectations, WFP under the capacity building component of the program, is providing technical assistance to MoPME in creation and operationalization of national school meals online database. The database will have features such as (i) schools' registration; (ii) demand estimation for school meals, based on enrolment; (iii) online requisition; March 2022 36 (iv) generating report on monthly utilization; (iv) NGO progress monitoring and; (v) logistics management. As per the implementation plan, the handover of the database to GoB is planned by June 2022. 184.Further, the capacity building plan based on the SABER exercise has been prepared. Post relaxing of restrictions under COVID-19, this plan would be implemented by WFP. The capacity building interventions would enable MoPME/DPE and other officials at the district and upazila level in independently implementing the national school meals program. 185.WFP has also initiated discussions with GoB on establishing the research and development center. The scope of work for the center and linkages with WFPs global efforts on school meals program are being discussed. The research and development center would be an important contribution by the program as it would enable MoPME and DPE in generating evidence for policy advocacy and creating learning opportunities for multi sectoral stakeholders. It is expected that the center would undertake in-depth research, identify lessons learnt and assess the impact of the school meals program on school children, their households as well as wider community. Such information would support advocacy efforts for additional technical and financial support to the school meals program, and help improve implementation of program. Clearly, activities/measures that need to be considered in the handover process are defined and would be implemented during the implementation of SFP. There is however, a need for adequate capacity building of local level structures and the governance structures at the national, district and upazila level so that the handover process can be operationalized. 186.Due to COVID-19, the capacity building efforts and implementation of the handover process has been delayed. As such, the baseline study would not be able to reflect upon the adjustments that need to be need to be made before the end of the intervention to ensure successful handover to the Government and stakeholders. 4.11 EVALUATION QUESTION 12, 13 To what extent the intervention is planning to engage Government and local communities (PTAs, farmers etc.) towards school feeding and education activities? What is the engagement level of these stakeholders in the schools at the start of the intervention? Has the role of the communities and local stakeholders been institutionalized/is planned to be institutionalized (within Government’s policy, strategy and/or systems levels)? To what extent are the national and local-level structures adequate to ensure a sustainable transition from biscuit distributions to school meals within the program period? 187.IDI with representative DAE suggests that the department will leverage the cadre of agriculture extension workers to train farmers on production of diverse crops and establishing local marketing linkages. DPE will engage with the SMCs for provisioning of kitchen and sourcing raw materials for preparation of school meals. It will further engage with the community for identification of cooks who can be trained in safe food preparation by the officers available with BIRTAN at the local level. 188.The discussions with the representative DPE, highlighted that GoB envisages establishing school meal committees at district and upazila level to support implementation of government owned school meal program. However, the establishment of school meal committees at district and upazila level has been delayed. 189.The review of project design documents further indicates that building capacities of the government to engage with the community and local structures such as PTAs, SMCs is one of the focus areas under the capacity building component of the program. March 2022 37 190.However, the analysis of FGDs with SMCs and parents indicate that currently their engagement is limited to literacy and biscuit distribution activities undertaken by the project. The IDI with farmers also highlighted limited interaction with the extension workers. They do have a marketable surplus (15- 20 % of the produce) that is sold to nearby markets. They expressed their willingness to supply the produce directly to the schools and the need for training on improved production practices, reducing post-harvest losses so that productivity (thereby surplus) can be increased. 191.Evidently, while there are plans to leverage the existing delivery structures or establish new structures (such as school meal committee) and involve community and other local level stakeholders’ current engagement with the project interventions is limited. The delay in approval of DPP and a one-year delay in rolling out of primary school meals project has already been indicated in Evaluation Question 2. Sensitization and capacity building of community and local level stakeholders would be required for institutionalization and ensuring a sustainable transition from biscuits distributions to school meals. 4.12 EVALUATION QUESTION 14 What priority areas should WFP focus on to ensure sustainability of program beyond handover in 2023 and operationalization of the 2019 Government’s School Feeding policy? 192.The IDIs with DPE and WFP clearly highlight that the current interventions under the school meal program and those proposed under the primary school meals project would be supported through the development fund of GoB and not the revenue budget. The funding through the development budget has so far ensured availability of adequate financial resources for implementation. However, from a sustainability perspective it is imperative that the allocation for the project is considered from the revenue budget of the Government. Funding through the revenue budget will ensure sustainable financing for the project. Further, it emerged during discussions that alternate fund raising efforts for school feeding or other innovative forms of resourcing school feeding are not being considered. 193.Advocacy with the Government for considering financing through revenue budget and providing technical assistance to MoPME on conducting national cost analysis, cost beneficial analysis and identifying alternate funding mechanisms therefore emerges as the priority area for WFP. 194.Engagement with the community and adequate capacity of the local level stakeholders to implement the interventions are the main tenets to ensure sustainability. However, as indicated in the earlier section, there is limited engagement of the project with the community. Providing technical assistance to MoPME in formulation of community mobilization strategy (based on needs assessment) and guideline for implementation therefore, emerges as another priority area for WFP. March 2022 38 5 Conclusions 195.The project interventions are in complete alignment with the Government national and sectorial level policies and plans such as (i) improving quality of education, increasing attendance, retention and the primary school completion rate of children; (ii) strengthening multi-sectoral programs towards ensuring nutrition and increasing coordination among ministries with regard to social safety nets, education, water, sanitation and hygiene; (iii) engaging with the agriculture extension system to promote improved technologies for homestead production of nutrition dense crops. 196.The project interventions also complement other donor-funded initiatives in the areas of education, food distribution, nutrition, water and sanitation in Cox’s Bazar. Creation of digital versions of new library books (supplementary reading materials) and providing both traditional and e-book formats, as well as interactive formats with options to read text are examples of interventions that directly complements other donor funded initiatives. 197.While there is a one-year delay (due to delay in approval of DPP) in implementation of the primary school meals project there is no change in the willingness of the Government to move forward with its plan to implement the National School Meals Policy. Considering the delay in implementation, project can provide technical assistance to MoPME in conducting a feasibility study to assess if there is a requirement to scale down the targets (considering project (GoB supported primary school meals project) will end in FY 2025-26) or following an alternate approach to achieve targets. 198.The project design addresses the needs of the Government with regard to transition to fully nationally owned school feeding program. However, owing to closure of schools, implementation of project (through alternate implementation modalities) was limited to undertaking interventions related to literacy and biscuits distribution. The interventions under other components were pushed to year 2 of the project. The delay in undertaking preparatory activities has led to rescheduling of timelines for rolling out the school meal distribution (planned from second year). Review of semiannual progress reports for the period April 2021- October 2021, also highlights limited or no progress across indicators. Considering the delay in implementation of planned activities, the project team may consider conducting a feasibility assessment on achievement of targets. 199.Local level stakeholders such as parents, teachers and SMC members expressed their willingness to support MoPME in implementation of the primary school meals project. They are, however, constrained by lack of awareness about the interventions and their role in supporting implementation. Developing community mobilization and SBCC strategy emerged as one of the priority areas for the project to ensure that the transition from biscuit distribution to hot meals is adapted to the local context. The project can consider provide technical assistance to MoPME in conducting (i) formative research to understand the current practices, motivators, and barriers related to desired behaviors for the community and;(ii) capacity needs assessment of the local level stakeholders to identify capacity gaps that need to be addressed in order to ensure their participation in the primary school meals project in a sustainable manner. The capacity needs assessment and formative research will also form the basis for developing community mobilization and SBCC strategy. 200.Supporting MoPME in revision of guidelines and SOPs based on recommendations of ECNEC and designing scope of work for NSMA, its composition and plan of action for establishment emerged as other priority areas for the project. 201.WFP aims to encourage equal participation of women and girls in all project activities however, the program by design, does not have a specific focus on gender related issues. The program results framework, performance indicators and progress monitoring reports do not focus on collecting and reporting gender disaggregated data. The project can consider revising the program results framework and include indicators to include gender empowerment and gender equality. The implementing partners should also be encouraged to collect and report gender disaggregated data. WFP may also consider March 2022 39 conducting implementation research that uses the lens of intersectionality to understand how context has shaped individual decision-making and behavior. The barriers and facilitators identified therein would result in designing interventions that better reflect the realities of the target groups. 202.One in three students in intervention schools and one in four students in comparison schools were able to both read and comprehend grade-II level text. In order to ensure continuity in teaching during lockdown, the project shifted focus from school-based activities to community-based literacy activities by establishing education hubs. The parents have confirmed receipt of reading materials and biscuits at home and expressed that such interventions helped their children continue with education while schools were closed. GoB had created online content for the teachers. However, the survey findings indicate limited access to online teaching content through the website created by GoB in both the intervention and comparison schools. The project can support MoPME in the creation of digital content for teaching, training of teachers on digital teaching modules and techniques and ensuring ease of access of content especially in remote locations. 203.MoPME under the draft DPP has articulated roles and responsibilities during implementation for itself, other line ministries/departments and development partners such as WFP. This demonstrates GoBs preparedness to transition to the national school meals program. Clarity among the implementing partners on their roles and responsibilities during implementation of the FY 2020 grant was observed. The national and local level structures were also found to be adequately placed to successfully transition to the national school meal program. However, streamlining joint monitoring visits would ensure timely review of program activities and course correction. 204.GoB has provided financial commitment to support implementation of national school meals program. It has also adequately allocated funds to continue biscuits distribution in upazilas other those supported under FY 20 grant till the primary school meals project is operationalized. However, the commitment/ allocation is made under the development fund of GoB. In order to ensure sustainable financing, it is important that the allocation for the project is considered from the revenue budget of the Government. The project can therefore, undertake advocacy with the Government for considering financing through revenue budget and providing technical assistance to MoPME on conducting national cost analysis, cost beneficial analysis and identifying alternate funding mechanisms 205.The capacity building interventions planned under the program were found to be in alignment with the capacity needs identified (SABER) for the government functionaries at the national and local level considering transition to fully GoB owned national school meals program. The project should now commence rolling out of capacity building plan and conduct training of staff at DPE and DAE on aspects such as food and nutrition, waste management, local procurement, meals costing, storage management, record maintenance and basic accounting 206.All the sampled parents in intervention and comparison schools considered education as important and beneficial. Most of the parents in both the intervention and comparison schools were able to highlight at least three benefits of primary education 207.Almost all the sampled intervention and comparison schools reported availability of drinking water facility (tube well) within the premises. The tube well is the only source of water for irrigation of fruits and vegetables cultivated in the vegetable gardens. Further, all the sampled intervention and comparison schools have functional toilets. Handwashing facilities within the school were found in the majority of the schools. 208.Considering that the baseline study highlights adequate availability of water and sanitation facilities in schools, the end term evaluation may consider assessing extent of improvement in adoption of hygiene practices by the target group. Assessment of this indicator will help measure the impact of health and hygiene education related interventions undertaken by the project. March 2022 40 Annexes Annex 1. Summary Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference (TOR) are for the evaluation of the World Food Programme School Feeding USDA McGovern Dole Grant (FFE-388-2020-009-00) in Bangladesh. This evaluation is commissioned by WFP Bangladesh and will cover the period from November/2020 to October/2023. The Terms of Reference (TOR) presented cover Fiscal Year 2020 – 2023 for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Grant (McGovern-Dole) funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The evaluations will assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of this project. WFP will utilize findings from the evaluations to review performance, assess the effect that the interventions had on the expected results and outcomes, adjust programming, learn from experience, account for actions, and improve the project’s delivery of results. In accordance with both WFP and USDA’s Evaluation Policies, the baseline study and final evaluation will be conducted by third-party, independent evaluation teams. Table 7: Evaluation Exercise Summary Evaluation exercise Date Baseline study April 2021– August 2021 Rationale The WFP CO is commissioning the baseline study and end line evaluation for the FY 2020-2023 USDA￾McGovern-Dole grant in support of WFP School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in Bangladesh, to be evaluated from the period 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2023, to provide an objective assessment of the project’s performance and inform analysis of impact the interventions have had for learning and accountability to the project’s stakeholders. The baseline study is the first product of the evaluation and will serve several critical purposes. First, the baseline study will establish benchmark values for all performance indicators included in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), confirm indicator selection and targets. If appropriate, findings from the baseline study will be used to review project targets specified in the PMP. Second, the baseline study will be used as a basis for the project’s ongoing monitoring activities to regularly measure activity outputs and performance indicators for lower-level results. Third, the baseline will provide analysis and recommendations for the WFP on its role in establishing and implementing effective structures to support school feeding policy such as the NMSA. The end-term evaluation of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Grant FY 2017-2020 is currently ongoing. The evaluation is scheduled during the period June 2020– February 2021. The schools which the WFP implemented program will directly support under the new grant will be the same. Therefore, the quantitative performance data collected for the end term of the previous grant in December/January is sufficiently recent to be used for this baseline. It will be reviewed and complemented with additional survey work, if necessary, to cover any new indicators not common to both grants. The final evaluation will assess the impact of the project and its overall performance against established objectives. It will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the project for accountability and generate lessons learned. The final evaluation will in addition review the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project’s interventions and will be used to inform School Feeding initiatives. Evaluation Approach March 2022 41 The evaluations will cover WFP School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in Bangladesh supported by the FY 2020-2023 USDA Mc Govern Dole grant. The evaluations will cover all activities, processes, outputs, outcome and impact for the grant. Both evaluation exercises will inform the impact of the project and its contribution to McGovern-Dole SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children and McGovern-Dole SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices. The evaluations will be carried out in 2021 and 2023 for the baseline study and end term evaluation respectively. The baseline study and end term evaluation will employ methodology covering a representative sample of all schools in all intervention areas and a representative sample of schools in non- intervention comparison schools. The selection of the schools will ensure research rigor and will be done in consultation with WFP CO. In the case of the baseline, the recently collected (January 2021) end term data will be reviewed and incorporated into the baseline study. The baseline and end term exercises collect quantitative data on project indicators from a sample of project stakeholders including students, teachers, government officials, suppliers and local farmers. A comprehensive list of participants in both studies will be agreed on in consultation with WFP CO. Qualitative interviews will be conducted during each exercise with key government representatives, school personnel, suppliers and farmers, and other stakeholders as relevant. Sample sizes for both the baseline study and end term evaluation will be determined based on criteria that will take into account principles of scientific rigor and in consultation WFP CO. The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, Coverage, Coherence, and Connectedness. Gender Equality and empowerment of women (GEEW) should be mainstreamed throughout. Evaluation Questions allied to the evaluation criteria; the evaluation will address key questions which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the World Food Programme School Feeding USDA McGovern Dole Grant (FFE-388-2020-009-00) in Bangladesh, which could inform future strategic and operational decisions. The evaluation should analyze how GEEW objectives and GEEW mainstreaming principles were included in the intervention design, and whether the object has been guided by WFP and system- wide objectives on GEEW. The GEEW dimensions should be integrated into all evaluation criteria as appropriate. The evaluation team should critically assess data availability and take evaluability limitations into consideration in its choice of evaluation methods. An end term evaluation of the previous McGovern- Dole grant, Systems Approach for Better Educational Results School Feeding (SABER-SF) assessment, Performance Monitoring Plan, Project Theory of Change are key documents to include in the initial assessment of available data. The team should expand on the information provided and systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data Sampling and data- data collection tools and methods should be gender-sensitive ensuring that the voices of women, girls, men and boys are sufficiently heard and used. Further the team should critically review the evaluability of the gender aspects of the project, identify related challenges and mitigation measures and determine whether additional indicators are required to include gender empowerment and gender equality dimensions. Methodology The methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. It should: • Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, Coverage, Coherence, and Connectedness.15Gender Equality and empowerment of women should be mainstreamed throughout. • Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information sources (stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to demonstrate impartiality. • Use mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative) to ensure triangulation of information through a variety of means. The quantitative survey design, sampling frame and data collection methods will be informed by March 2022 42 program coverage, context and the list of indicators as per the PMP. The survey modules will include household and child questionnaires, suppliers and smallholder farmers as well as a school questionnaire (with teachers and school directors). The key respondents will include school directors and staff responsible for provision of school feeding; school children, parents, teachers, officials from government departments including, MoPME, Directorate of Primary Education (DPE), Local Government Division (LGD), Department of Public Health and Engineering (DPHE), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Cooperating Partner NGOs. The design will ensure pre-post comparisons between the baseline study and end term evaluation. The evaluation team should expand on the methodology presented in the TOR and develop an evaluation Matrix during the inception phase. • Key to the design of both studies will be the principle of counterfactual analysis that will serve as foundation to the quasi-experimental design for end-line evaluations. The difference in status of indicators will be examined through a comparison of the control schools (who do not receive support from the project and are located in sub districts outside the project coverage area) vis- a-vis schools supported by McGovern-Dole SFP. The control group will have similar characteristics to the treatment group, in terms of ethnicity, remoteness of the area, number of children in the school, wealth quintile and head of the household’s level of education. These groups (control and treatment groups) will then be matched based on the agreed characteristics • Data sources and key respondents for both exercises include: teachers, head teachers, students, records of the sampled schools, parents, School Management Committees, community members, relevant government officials, Cooperating partner NGO staff and WFP officials. • Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions taking into account the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints. • Ensure through the use of mixed methods that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholders' groups participate and their different voices are heard and used. • Include information from, provide analysis and update of the 2019 Systems Approach for Better Educational Results School Feeding (SABER-SF) assessment with a view of providing an updated situation analysis and impact on plans and recommendations made in the SABER following the COVID 19 pandemic outbreak. The sample size should be calculated at the program level using the ‘differences method’ formula with a finite population (confidence interval of 1.96 and estimated difference set at 5 percent) as per Cochran (1977)16. For each school, two students each will be randomly selected from Grade I-V, and 5 students for Grade III for interviews. One parent from each grade of the selected students will be covered. Also, from each school, one school head teacher, one schoolteacher, and one storekeeper will be interviewed. The sample size to administer the EGRA tool will be around 14 students from Grade III per school. The final sampling frame, methodology, and sample size calculations will be the responsibility of the evaluation team in consultation with the WFP CO. The methodology should be GEEW-sensitive, indicating what data collection methods are employed to seek information on GEEW issues and to ensure the inclusion of women and marginalized groups. The methodology should ensure that data collected is disaggregated by sex and age; an explanation should be provided if this is not possible. Triangulation of data should ensure that diverse perspectives and voices of both males and females are heard and taken into account. The evaluation team must have a clear and detailed plan for collecting data from women and men in gender- sensitive ways before fieldwork begins. The evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations must reflect gender analysis, and the report should provide lessons/ challenges/ recommendations for conducting gender responsive evaluation in the future. The following potential risks to the methodology have been identified: Due to school closures and restrictions on international travel, the data collection phase for the baseline study may have to be adjusted. Currently, schools in Bangladesh are due to reopen in March-April 2021 but depending on how the situation evolves the Government of Bangladesh may decide to maintain these measures beyond this deadline. WFP will be careful to adhere to government regulations on COVID 19 during the evaluations. Data on school-related indicators will be collected using remote means where appropriate and secondary sources including previous studies if schools remain closed. March 2022 43 5. Phases and Deliverables Table 8: Targeted Beneficiaries and Regions (2020-2023) Phase Deliverables 1. Preparation Fully executed contract and Terms of Reference 2. Inception Deliverable - Inception Report 3. Collect data Aide memoire / debriefing PPT 4. Analyze data and report Evaluation Report 5. Disseminate and follow up Final report and PPT presentation with final evaluation findings The inception report of the baseline study will define the evaluation design and methodology. It will detail quality assurance systems developed for the baseline and follow-on end-line evaluation. An activity plan and timeline should be included. The evaluation designs and proposed methodologies in the inception report should outline the extent to which the proposed methodology will lead to reliable data and analysis. Field Data Collection Baseline study: It is anticipated that the field data collection will take four weeks including visits to project sites. A debriefing session will be held upon completion of the fieldwork. Data Analysis and Reporting Phase: The evaluation team will analyze the data collected during the desk review and the field work, conduct additional consultations with stakeholders, as required, and draft the baseline study report. This will be submitted to the evaluation manager for quality assurance. Stakeholders will be invited to provide comments, which will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before report finalization. The reports must be finalized for WFP to transmit to the USDA FAD within 60 days following the evaluation fieldwork and no more than 15 days after the report has been completed. Quality assured final reports must be submitted to WFP for final comments and pre-approval one month before the USDA deadline. The report should outline the purpose, scope and rationale, and the survey methodologies applied including limitations. The report should detail the data collection process, findings and conclusions that the team has obtained. The timeline for the evaluations for both exercises is from April 2021 to September 2023, covering planning/preparation, inception, data collection, data processing and data analysis and report, and dissemination March 2022 44 Annex 2. Baseline and evaluation timeline S.No. Steps Key dates Inception Phase 1 Literature review, preparation of evaluation matrix, tools and inception report 2nd Aug – 11th Aug 2021 Deliverable: Draft Inception report 11th Aug 2021 2 Review of draft inception report by the WFP-CO 11th Aug 2021 – 7th Sep 2021 3 Incorporating comments from WFP -CO and submission to DEQAS and USDA Deliverable: Final Inception Report 7th Sep 2021 Training and Data Collection (data collection got delayed to COVID-19 restrictions) 4 Training of field enumerators (Virtual) and field practice During the period 23rd Nov 2021- 27th Jan 2022 5 Field Practice in Cox Bazar and debriefing with the data collection teams 6 Data Collection (Quantitative and Qualitative) Data Analysis, Report Writing and Dissemination 7 Data cleaning, analysis and report writing 15th Dec 2021 – 12th Feb 2022 8 Submission of first draft baseline report to WFP-CO 9 Incorporating comments from WFP- CO and submission of revised first draft report 13th Feb 2022 28th Feb 2022 10 Review of draft baseline study report by DEQS and USDA 1st Mar 2022 – 14th Mar 2022 11 Incorporating comments and submission of revised final baseline study report Deliverable: Final Baseline Study Report 28th Mar 2022 March 2022 45 Annex 3. Data collection instruments The table below maps the indicators with the type of tools and the questions. The quantitative and qualitative tools have also been presented in this annex. It is important to highlight that on account of schools being closed and students not being considered as a respondent category, it will be difficult to collect data on some of the indicators. For such indicators, it is proposed that data collection will only be undertaken once schools re-open. Since interactions with children may not be carried out during data collection, tools such as the student questionnaire, student FGD guide, EGRA tool and Classroom Observation will not be administered. In the case of telephonic data collection, FGD guide with SMC members, mothers and local women smallholder farmers will also not be possible to conduct. Table 9: Mapping of the indicators with the type of tools and the questions S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 1 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 82, 83 2 Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Questions 7,8 Question 11 3 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey School Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 86 Questions 5,6 4 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Questions 86 Questions 2,3,4 5 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 86 Questions 12, 13, 14 Questions 5,6 6 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 86 Questions 10, 11 Questions 5,6 March 2022 46 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 7 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 14, 20 21,55 8 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 81, 82 9 Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 61,62,74,75 10 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 11 Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 12 Number of educational policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance: Secondary; WFP monitoring reports Stage 1: Analyzed Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun 13 Quantity of take-home rations provided (in metric tons) as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 14 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Question 79, 80 Question 29 March 2022 47 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 15 Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch)57 provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Questions 79, 80 Question 29 16 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch)58 as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Questions 79, 80 Question 29 17 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Secondary WFP monitoring reports 18 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey WFP monitoring reports School Questionnaire Parents Questionnaire Questions 37,38,39,40,43,86 Questions 47, 48 19 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey Parent Questionnaire Questions 37,38,39,40,43,86 20 Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey WFP monitoring reports School Questionnaire Store Keeper Questionnaire Question 86 Questions 9,10 21 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey School Questionnaire Store Keeper Questionnaire Question 86 Questions 7,8,11 22 Number of schools using an improved water source WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 10 23 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities WFP monitoring reports School Questionnaire Question 21 57 School Feeding Programme in Bangladesh provides biscuits. Hence, data will be obtained is for number of biscuits provided to school age children as a result of USDA. 58 Data will be collected for number of children receiving biscuits as a result of USDA assistance. March 2022 48 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. Primary survey 24 Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 55 25 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that include an LRP component Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 26 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 Primary Survey Primary survey EGRA questionnaire Questions 1,2,3, 4 27 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions WFP monitoring reports 28 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions WFP monitoring reports 29 Number of schools reached with LRP activities as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 30 Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 31 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance Stage 1: Analyzed Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun WFP monitoring reports Custom 1 Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90 percent of N/A March 2022 49 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. scheduled school days per school year 2 Number of classroom libraries (book shelves with books) established as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 6,7,8 3 Percent of students in classrooms identified as attentive by their teachers Primary survey Teachers Questionnaire Question 16 4 Average number of school days missed by each student due to illness (for each school and in aggregate) Primary survey Student Questionnaire Question 9 5 Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education Primary survey Parent Questionnaire Question 12 6 Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices Primary survey Students Questionnaire Question 43, 7 Percent of storekeepers who can identify at least three safe storage practices Primary survey Storekeeper Questionnaire Question 11 10 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 11 Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 12 Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey (End term evaluation) FGDs with local small holder farmers 13 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance Primary survey (End term evaluation) FGDs with local small holder farmers March 2022 50 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 14 Number of 'Little Doctor' students supported by WFP WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 38 15 Number of meetings/workshops/training sessions held for institutional capacity to implement SF as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 16 Number of pilot initiatives supported to design SF modalities as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 17 Number of government staff trained as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 18 Number of technical training for system development for service/food procurement, quality control, supply chain, and strengthened online database system and gender mainstreaming in program as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 19 Number of schools supported by the Government with school feeding as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 20 Number of social mobilization/community meetings as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 21 Number of community mobilization workshops organized as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 22 Number of teachers, parents and school management committee members attended the community mobilization workshops Secondary; WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey Parents Questionnaire Teachers Questionnaire Question 46 Questions 25 23 Average number of school days per month on which multi￾fortified or at least 4 food groups Secondary; March 2022 51 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. were provided (nutrition-sensitive indicator) WFP monitoring reports 24 Number of individuals (Govt./stakeholder/NGO officials) trained or certified through capacity strengthening initiatives as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports 25 Number of high-level capacity￾strengthening initiatives (ToT/training/workshop/technical meetings) organized or facilitated as a result of USDA assistance Secondary; WFP monitoring reports March 2022 52 1. SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW INFORMATION A1. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 Ramu 3 A2. Name of the village A3. Name of the school A4. School code A5. Number of grades in the school Multiple responses possible Pre-school 1 Class 1 2 Class 2 3 Class 3 4 Class 4 5 Class 5 6 A6. Number of children in the school (Please note from school records) Boys Girls Pre-school Primary A7. Number of teachers Male Female Pre-school Primary A8. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A9. Time of survey (in am/pm) Morning 1 Afternoon 2 A10. Name of the supervisor A11. Name of the enumerator A12. Designation of the person being interviewed (Multiple responses possible) School principal/head master 1 School vice-principal 2 School teacher 3 A13. Name of the head master / teacher A14. Phone number of the headmaster A15. Area type Urban 1 Rural 2 Peri-urban 3 March 2022 53 SCHOOL FACILITIES S.No. Question Options Codes Skip For each facility that is present, OBSERVE the facility and code accordingly. Ask For Both Programme And Comparison Schools 1. Number of classrooms in the school 2. Does the school have a separate classroom for each grade? (considering 2 shifts separately) Yes 1 Go to 4 No 2 3. If no, then how many such grades are sharing their classroom with other grades? Morning ___No. Afternoon ___No. 4. Does the school have a Library? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 6 5. If yes, how many supplementary books does the school have in the library? (No. of books from the library records) 6. Does the school have Classroom Libraries? Yes 1 No 2 7. Has the school received books from any organization? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 9 8. If yes, what is the name of the organization? RtR/WFP/RIC59 1 Government 2 Institutes/Colleges 3 Donated by individuals/any other NGOs 4 Don’t Know 5 Others (specify) 9. Does the school have a source of drinking water for students near or at school? Inside school premises 1 Outside school premises 2 No drinking water facility 3 Go to 13 10. What is the main source of drinking water? Tap water 1 Bottled water 2 RO plant within school 3 Borehole 4 59 RtR: Room to Read, WFP: World Food Programme, Resource Integration Centre March 2022 54 SCHOOL FACILITIES Protected dug well 5 Unprotected well 6 Protected spring 7 Unprotected spring 8 Rainwater collection 9 Rivers or ponds 10 Vendor-provided water 11 Tanker truck water 12 Other (Specify) 11. Has the water been treated for drinking by boiling etc.? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 Not required 4 12. . Is this drinking water available during all times of the day as well? (Ask as well as observe by going to the drinking water facility) Only available during lunch hour 1 Available during all times of the day 2 13. If No, how do the majority of students get drinking water during school hours? Buy Bottled water from shops 1 Children carry water from home 2 Get water from neighbors 3 Other (Specify) 14. Have any water supply systems been rehabilitated / constructed with WFP/support? Yes 1 No 2 15. Does the school have a common Hand Washing facility? Yes 1 No 2 16. Do the students wash their hands using the Hand Washing facility at school? (as per your observation) Yes 1 No 2 17. Does the school have a functioning toilet for the students? Yes 1 No 2 18. Are there separate toilets for boys and girls? Yes 1 No 2 19. How many toilets are there? A. Total toilets / B. Functional toilets 20. Are there toilets which have been rehabilitated / constructed with WFP support? Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 55 SCHOOL FACILITIES 21. . Has the school been provided with the pumps and motors needed to improve water systems through WFP support? Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 56 22. For each functioning toilet, ask the following set of questions (WASH) Record through Observation Functioning Toilet Type of toilet 1. Flush or pour/flush facilities connected to a: (Piped sewer, septic, pit latrine) 2. pour/flush toilets without a sewer connection 3. Pit latrines with a slab 4. Pit latrines without slab/open pit 5. Ventilated improved pit latrines 6. Compostin g toilets 7. Bucket latrines 8. Hanging toilets/latri nes Is the toilet for boys or girls? Boys...1 Girls…2 Mixed…3 Is the toilet locked? Yes…1 No…2 Does the toilet have water inside for use? Yes, piped water connection…1 Yes, water kept in a container…2 No water inside the toilet…3 Does the toilet have a mug? Yes… 1 No…2 Is the toilet maintaine d? Yes: 1 No: 2 Do the toilets have hand washi ng faciliti es within the school ? Yes: 1 No: 2 Does the hand washing facility have continuo us water supply? Yes: 1 No: 2 Does the hand washi ng facilit y have soap? Yes: 1 No: 2 How often is it a challenge to have sufficient water for the hand washing facility? Never=1 Rarely=2 Sometimes =3 Always=4 1 2 March 2022 57 3 4 5 23Do the toilets have hand washing facilities within the school? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 27 24Does the handwashing facility have continuous water supply? Yes 1 No 2 25Does the hand washing facility have soap? Yes 1 No 2 26How often is it a challenge to have sufficient water for the hand washing facility? Never 1 Rarely 2 Sometimes 3 Always 4 March 2022 58 SCHOOL GARDEN and LITTLE DOCTORS S.No. Question Options Code s Skip Only Ask for Program Schools. Not to Be Asked in Comparison Schools 27. Does the school have a vegetable garden? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 41 28. Has there been any training on establishing and maintenance of vegetable gardens? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 30 29. If yes, who has provided the training? WFP/RIC 1 Government 2 Any other, please specify 30. Is there any vegetable/fruit grown or growing in the garden? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 32 31. Write the names of the vegetables/fruits that you see have planted in the school garden. 32. If no, what are the reasons? Soil is not fertile 1 Don’t have anyone to take care of the garden 2 Have not received any training 3 There was no protection from cattle 4 The training content was not enough to learn gardening 5 The trainer was not good 6 Any other, please specify March 2022 59 SCHOOL GARDEN and LITTLE DOCTORS 33. What is the source of water for irrigating the school garden? Water supply not available 1 River/stream/canal 2 Pond within the school 3 Pond outside of the school premises 4 Rainwater 5 Piped water from the district administration 6 Others (specify) 34. How often is it a challenge to have sufficient water for the garden? Never 1 Rarely 2 Sometimes 3 Always 4 35. Have any “Little Agriculturists” been identified for vegetable gardens? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 41 36. If yes, how many? (Specify number). Also capture the same for previous years Boys (in 2021) Girls (in 2021) 37. Has there been any training provided to the little agriculturists? Yes 1 No 2 38. Who has provided training to Little Agriculturists? WFP/RIC 1 Government 2 Any other, please specify 39. On what all aspects have they been provided training? Cultivation practices, setting up and maintenance of school garden 1 Nutritional value of fruits and vegetables 2 Healthy meal preparation 3 Awareness generation on health and nutrition practices 4 Any other, please specify 40. What are the activities that Little Agriculturists perform? (Multiple responses possible) Setting up and maintenance of the school garden 1 Taking leadership in disseminating information of nutritional value of fruits and vegetables 2 March 2022 60 SCHOOL GARDEN and LITTLE DOCTORS Supporting healthy meal preparation 3 Any other, please specify 41. Have any “Little Doctors” been identified in the school? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 48 42. If yes, how many? (Specify number). Also capture the same for previous years Boys (in 2021) Girls (in 2021) 43. Has there been any training provided to Little Doctors? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 46 44. Who has provided training to Little Doctors? WFP/RIC 1 Government 2 Any other, please specify 45. On what all aspects have they been provided training? (Multiple response possible) Health and hygiene practices 1 Delivery and administration of deworming tablets 2 Conducting health check ups 3 Awareness training and advocacy material 4 Any other, please specify 46. What are the activities that Little Doctors perform? (Multiple response possible) Support in delivery and administration of deworming tablets 1 Support in Health Check-ups 2 Delivery of health￾related messages in class and assemblies 3 Any other, please specify SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAMME S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Only Ask for Program Schools. Not To Be Asked to Comparison Schools. 47. Have you been receiving biscuits since January 2021? Yes 1 March 2022 61 No 2 48. Since January 2021, how many days were school biscuits provided to the students? ___Days 49. What are the main challenges your school has faced in regularly providing fortified biscuits? (During COVID-19) Multiple responses possible. No biscuits available due to delay in delivery of stock 1 No adequate supply of biscuits 2 Students do not like biscuits 3 Others (specify) 50. Does your school have a separate storage room/facility to store the fortified biscuits? Yes, within the school 1 Yes, outside the school premises 2 No 3 51. If no, then where are the biscuits stored? Multiple response possible In a class room 1 In teacher’s room 2 Open space 3 In the house of the school/ head/teacher 4 Neighbour’s house 5 Others (Specify) 6 52. Does the school have a Pest Management Plan for their food storage facilities? Yes 1 No 2 53. Does the storage room have wooden pallets above the ground for storage of commodities? (Through observation) Yes 1 No 2 Could not observe 3 54. Has the storage room/s been rehabilitated / constructed with WFP/USDA support? Yes 1 No 2 55. Since when is the school receiving support from the school feeding program supported by WFP? Ask for the year in which the WFP support started. Accordingly calculate the number of years till the time of survey (that is 2021). a. Mention the year and month when it started: ____ Year ___ Month e b. Duration: ___ Years ___ Months Put “99” for years and months, if the school have not received any support yet, but will receive 56. What type of support is the school receiving/has received from WFP/RtR/RIC in the last 1 year? March 2022 62 (Ask the Headmaster about all the options mentioned here, and at the end also check if there is any additional support) Type of support Yes=1 No=2 Source 1: Government 2: WFP/RtR/.RIC 3: Others 1. Fortified biscuits for the students 1 2 2. Textbooks 1 2 3. School gardening support 1 2 4. Infrastructure/rehabilitation support (toilet/store room etc.) 1 2 5. Infrastructure support (library/playground/classroom etc.) 1 2 6. Teaching materials / guidelines on a website 1 2 7. Water supply for drinking 1 2 8. Water supply for toilets 1 2 9. Water supply for school garden 1 2 10. Training for teachers / administrators / support staff (online training included) 1 2 11. Receiving deworming medication(s) 1 2 12. Training for students / parents / others 1 2 13. Any other, specify 57. Other than WFP/RtR/RIC is this school currently benefitting from any other project with a partner, for example an NGO, charity, private company or the government? Yes 1 No 2 58. If yes, then ask: What type of project or projects is the school participating in? Multiple responses possible Water, hygiene and sanitation (WASH)) 1 Education / enrolment (general) 2 Education / enrolment (girls) 3 Nutrition 4 Anti-malaria or anti￾Dengue (mosquito nets etc.) 5 Others (specify) March 2022 63 School Management Committee Ask For Both Program And Comparison Schools 59. Does the school have a School Management Committee (SMC)? Yes 1 No 2 60. How many members are there in the SMC? Male Female Total 61. Has the SMC received any form of training/workshop? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 67 62. If yes, who has provided the training/conducted the workshop? WFP/ RtR/RIC 1 Government 2 Others, please specify 3 63. S If provided by WFP/ RtR/RIC what were the aspects? Health, Hygiene and Nutrition awareness 1 School infrastructure 2 School Feeding Program 3 Quality of education 4 Environment Education 5 Gender 6 School Management 7 Any others, please specify 64. Does the SMC have plans for regular meetings? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 69 65. What is the frequency of planned meeting per academic year? No. of planned meeting s 66. How many times did the committee actually meet in the last one year? 67. How many members attended the last meeting? 68. How many female members attended the last meeting? 69. Do you maintain the minutes of the meeting? Please validate it by checking the minutes of the meeting from the record book and collect copy of the same Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 64 70. What are the topics discussed during SMC meetings? Health, Hygiene and Nutrition awareness 1 School infrastructure 2 School Feeding Program 3 Quality of education 4 Environment Education 5 Others (Specify) 71. In general, how would you describe the functionality of the SMC? Only one response Non-functional / Provides no support to the school. 1 Somewhat functional /Provides some support to the school 2 Highly functional / Provides strong support to the school 3 Only Ask For Program Schools. Not To Be Asked For Comparison Schools 72. What is the kind of support that the SMC provides to the school feeding program? Multiple responses possible Management of biscuits stock 1 Management of Parent Teacher Association/ (PTA) 2 Coordination with RtR to execute the activities streamlined under the program 3 Grievance redressal of provision of fortified biscuits related issues 4 Disseminate materials to visualize good hygiene practices 5 Improvement in School infrastructure 6 Community Engagement￾facilitating participation of community in school activities 7 No support 8 Others (specify) 73. Does the school have Parent Teacher Association (PTA)? Yes 1 No 2 74. How many members are there? _____Male(number) _____Female(number) March 2022 65 FOOD UTILISATION DATA ONLY FOR PROGRAMME SCHOOLS. NOT TO BE FILLED FOR COMPARISON SCHOOLS S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 80. Does the school have information for biscuit utilization at school level? Yes 1 No 2 If coded 2 in Q.78, then skip to Q80 Enter “888” if data is not available 75. Have the PTA members received any training from WFP/RtR/ RIC? Yes 1 No 2 76. If yes, on what aspects have PTA members received training Health, Hygiene and Nutrition awareness 1 School Feeding Program 2 Quality of education and regular school attendance 3 Environment Education 4 Gender 5 School Management 6 Community Engagement￾facilitating participation of community in school activities 7 Any others, please specify 77. What is the frequency of planned meeting per academic year? 78. How many times did the PTA actually meet in the last one year? 79. What are the topics discussed during PTA meetings? Health, Hygiene and Nutrition awareness 1 School infrastructure 2 School Feeding Program 3 Quality of education 4 Environment Education 5 Grievance redressal of provision of fortified biscuits related issues 6 Others (Specify) ¨ March 2022 66 S.No Months Number of students receiving daily school biscuits Number of days in the month when the school biscuits were provided Total Male Female # 81. 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 5 January 2021 6 February 2021/ 7 March 2021 STUDENT ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE Students Current Enrolment and Attendance Data To Be Asked to Both Program and Comparison Schools S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 82. Does the school have records of Student Enrolment for past academic years? Yes, complete records 1 Yes, partial records 2 No 3 If coded 3 in Q.80, then skip to the next section 83. ENROLMENT FOR 2020 AND 2021 ACADEMIC SCHOOL YEARS Complete for Pre-school and Primary only (Grades 1-5) Enter "999" if the class does not exist Enter "888" if data is not available Academic year Enrolment at start of academic school year Total number of students present (headcount) Total number of students absent Transfers or deceased Left without reason (dropout) Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls 2021 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Pre-school 1 2 3 4 5 Students Attendance Data in the last 1 year TO BE ASKED TO BOTH PROGRAMME AND COMPARISON SCHOOLS (when schools reopen) S.No. Question Options Code s Skip 84. Yes, complete records 1 March 2022 67 Students Attendance Data in the last 1 year TO BE ASKED TO BOTH PROGRAMME AND COMPARISON SCHOOLS (when schools reopen) Does the school have records of Student Attendance for last academic years? Yes, partial records 2 No 3 If coded 3 in Q.82 then skip to the next section If coded 1 or 2 in Q.82, then complete this section for Pre-school and Primary (grades 1-5) only Enter “999” if the class does not exist Enter “888” if data is not available First, enter the total number of school days for each month (not including holidays or school closures). Then, from the attendance records (2019) write the attendance for students selected for the survey. Enter the number of days the students attended school each month. 1 2 3 85. Number of schools days Grade Student code Sex (male=1 female=2) January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 a. b c d d e 1 2 3 4 5 March 2022 68 TEACHERS TRAINING 86. Teachers Training Data since January 2021 a. b. c. d. e. f. g h. i. j. k. l. m. Teachers training data (Have the teachers received training from WFP? If the answer is a no, enumerator to ask reason for the same and record the response separately. (Use of training received) Source Teacher ID Teacher’s Name (start with Head teacher’s information)) Sex 1. Male 2. Female Position in the school 1. Head teacher/ principal 2. Deputy head teacher 3. Teacher Full time/ Part time 1. Full￾time 2. Part￾time Which grade does the teacher teach? Storage practices Teaching / Learning techniques (at least 2 days or 16 hours) Hygiene and WASH Child health and nutrition If trained, whether the teacher is using storage practices? If trained, does s/he demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or improved literacy instruction identified by his/her supervisor/ head teacher? If trained, does he/she demonstrate the use of child health and nutrition practices? Code 1: Government 2: WFP 3: Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 March 2022 69 7 8 March 2022 70 2. TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Interview Information A1. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 Ramu 3 A2. Name of the village A3. Name of the school A4. School code A5. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A6. Time of survey (in am/pm) Morning 1 Afternoon 2 A7. Name of the supervisor A8. Name of the enumerator A9. Has the teacher given her/his consent to participate in the interview? Yes 1 No 2 If the teacher says no, then thank them and proceed to the next teacher on your list. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 1. What is your name? 2. Sex (Observe only) Male 1 Female 2 3. How many years have you been teaching? ________Number of years 4. For how many years have you been teaching in this school? ________Number of years 5. What position do you hold in this school? Head teacher/principal 1 Assistant/ Deputy head teacher 2 Senior Teacher 3 Teacher (permanent/regular) 4 Teacher (paid contract) 5 Teacher (volunteer) 6 Others 6. What is your highest educational qualification? MSc or higher 1 Bachelor 2 Diploma 3 Higher/Advanced diploma 4 March 2022 71 Technical/vocational 5 Secondary (G9-G11) 6 Middle (G6-G8) 7 Primary (G1-G5) 8 Untrained 9 Other 1 0 7. Which grades do you teach? Multiple responses possible Class/grade 1 1 Class/grade 2 2 Class/grade 3 3 Class/grade 4 4 Class/grade 5 5 8. What subject do you teach at school? Multiple responses possible/ Literature / Language (Bengali) 1 Literature / Language (English / other foreign language) 2 Science 3 Mathematics 4 Social science 5 History 6 Religion 7 Arts / Painting 8 Life skills 9 Others (specify) 9. Have you received any training from RtR/WFP? Yes 1 If coded 2, No skip to Q15 2 10. How has this training been provided? Online 1 In-person 2 Combination of both 3 11. On what all aspects have you received training and a manual? Teaching instruction training Library management Leadership and school management Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No March 2022 72 12. Do you find these trainings and manuals useful? Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No Traini ng 1 Yes 2 No Manu al 1 Yes 2 No 13. Do you apply the learnings (received from the trainings and manuals)? Yes 1 No 2 14. How often do you apply these learnings? All the time (for all students and all topics) 1 Only for certain topics 2 Only for some students 3 15. What proportion of students in your classroom have the required textbook/s for the class? None 1 Less than 25% 2 25-50% 3 50-75% 4 75-99% 5 100% 6 Don’t Know 7 16. Only to be asked for intervention schools. Do you think that the provision of biscuits will increase students’ attentiveness in class?? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know/Can’t say 3 17. Do you think that the provision of biscuits will increase the number of children attending school? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 18. For intervention schools, ask According to you, if the provision of biscuits stopped from today, what would be the impact on students’ attendance? For comparison schools where provision of biscuits is not going on ask, According to you, if the biscuits are provided from today, what would be the result on student attendance? No consequence, attendance will remain the same 1 Attendance will drop by 25% 2 Attendance will drop between 25% and 50% 3 Attendance will go up by more than 50% 4 Don’t Know 5 19. For intervention schools, ask According to you, if the provision of biscuits stopped from today, what would be the impact on student enrolment? No consequence, enrolment will remain the same 1 Enrolment will drop by 25% 2 Enrolment will drop between 25% and 50% 3 Enrolment goes up by more than 25% 4 March 2022 73 For comparison schools where provision of biscuits is not going on, ask According to you, if biscuits are provided from today, what would be the consequence on student enrolment? Don’t Know 5 20. Only to be asked to intervention schools What type of training have you received from WFP/RtR on the following Type of training No. of trainin gs Durat ion Utilizati on (Y/N) Teaching / Learning techniques (at least 2 days or 16 hours) Storage practices Hygiene and WASH Child health and nutrition 21. Has a website with training content and teaching and reading materials been made available to you? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 22. Have you had the chance to use this website? Yes 1 No 2 23. Ask only if Coded 1 in Q22 How would you rate your experience with the website (that has teacher training material, training videos and audios)? Highly satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 Neutral 3 Unsatisfactory 2 Highly unsatisfactory 1 24. Only to be asked to intervention schools Are you aware of any of these community mobilization initiatives? 1. Read Play Festival Yes 1 No 2 2. Grade-I Reception Day Yes 1 No 2 3. Healthy Meals Day Yes 1 No 2 4. Other, please specify 25. Have you attended any of the community mobilization initiatives? 1. Read Play Festival Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 74 2. Grade-I Reception Day Yes 1 No 2 3. Healthy Meals Day Yes 1 No 2 4. Other, please specify 26. Have you received any incentives to regularly attend school? Yes 1 No 2 27. If yes, from where have you received this incentive? WFP/RtR/RIC 1 Government 2 Any other (specify) 3 March 2022 75 3. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Interview Information A1. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 Ramu 3 A2. Name of the village A3. Name of the school in which the child is studying A4. School code A5. Student Code (Note the code from the code list of children provided for that school) A6. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A7. Time of survey (in am/pm) A8. Name of the enumerator A9. Name of the supervisor A10. Has the teacher given her/his consent to interview the student? Yes 1 No 2 Get permission from the teacher to interview the student. If the teacher says no, then thank them and proceed to the next student on your list. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 1. What is your name? 2. Gender (Observe only) Male 1 Female 2 3. What is your age? (in completed years) (Confirm age with teacher) 4. Class/grade in which the child is currently enrolled Class/grade 1 1 Class/grade 2 2 Class/grade 3 3 Class/grade 4 4 March 2022 76 S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Class/grade 5 5 5. How long does it take for you to get to school? (In minutes) 6. How do you commute to school? Walk 1 Motor-vehicle (private) 2 Motor-vehicle (public) 3 Bicycle 4 Motorbike 5 Others (Specify) 7. How did you manage your education while your school was closed due to COVID-19? Was taught by a family member or relative Taught by private tutor or local hujur Used an online platform Through radio/television broadcasts Did not continue studying as was not able to manage Absenteeism 8. Today is [Monday, Tuesday etc.]. Since last [Monday, Tuesday etc.] that is in the last 1 week, have you been absent from school? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 11 9. If yes, then how many days were you absent in the last one week? ____ Days If 0 then go to 11 10. What was the reason of this absence? (Do not prompt; probe for reasons) Multiple responses possible Reasons Code Number of days I fell sick/health issues 1 My parents asked me to stay at home to help them ou (with household chores 2 March 2022 77 S.No. Question Options Codes Skip farm work, taking care o siblings) My home is far away from school/ I did not feel like walking to school 3 Teacher was not in school 4 I was hungry and sufficien food was not available fo breakfast 5 Due to bad weathe conditions 6 There was a festival in my village/ family function a home 7 No particular reason 8 Don’t want to say 9 Others (Specify) 11. If coded 1 in para 9 then ask, You said that you were sick. So, what was wrong? Stomach ache 1 Fever 2 Headache 3 Tiredness 4 Cold and Cough 5 Vomiting 6 Diarrhea 7 Others (Specify) 12. In the last 24 hours, did you have…? Code Circle 1 for Yes, and 2 for No If Yes in column 2, ask if the food was enough? Circle 1 for Yes, and 2 for No If No in column 2, ask what was the main reason? Circle the code 1 2 3 4 Breakfast 1 2 1 2 Not hungry 1 March 2022 78 Food was not available 2 Illness 3 Not enough 4 Other (specify) Lunch 1 2 1 2 Not hungry 1 Food was not available 2 Illness 3 Not enough 4 Other (specify) Dinner 1 2 1 2 Not hungry 1 Food was not available 2 Illness 3 Not enough 4 Other (specify) Mid￾morning/late afternoon snacks 1 2 1 2 Not hungry 1 Food was not available 2 Illness 3 Not enough 4 Other (specify) School Feeding Program Only to be asked for project schools where school biscuits are provided. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 13. Since January 2021, did you receive any biscuits? Yes 1 No 2 14. If yes, where have you received these biscuits? At home 1 In school 2 March 2022 79 School Feeding Program Only to be asked for project schools where school biscuits are provided. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Common place in the village (Please specify) 3 15. How often were these biscuits provided? Weekly 1 Once in two weeks 2 Monthly 3 Once in two months 4 16. If yes, how many days did you receive the biscuits during the school hours? __Days 17. Have you eaten the biscuits received during school hours? Yes 1 No 2 18. If never eaten the biscuits at school during school hours, what were the reasons? Multiple response possible Was not hungry 1 Didn’t have time 2 Do not like the taste of the biscuits 3 Gave the biscuit to someone else 4 Ate lunch / snacks brought from home 5 Others (specify) 19. On an average in a school week, how many days does the school provide you biscuits in school? __Days 20. Do you ever feel hungry even after eating biscuits in school? Yes 1 No 2 21. On days when the biscuit is provided, do you bring your own lunch/ snacks from home to eat? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t remember 3 22. Yes 1 March 2022 80 School Feeding Program Only to be asked for project schools where school biscuits are provided. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Does the biscuit provided act as an incentive for going to school every day? It does not matter 2 Can’t say 3 23. What do you eat on days when the school does not provide biscuits? Get snacks from home 1 Go home and eat food 2 Stayed back at home 3 Get money from home to buy food from the canteen 4 Go hungry/skip meal 5 Eating with friends 6 Others (Specify) 24. If you become aware that tomorrow biscuits will not be available, will you go to school? Yes 1 No 2 School Facilities and Environment S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 25. What do you like about your school? Being with my friends 1 Participating in class/schoo activities 2 Working groups 3 Biscuits are provided 4 Physical education/ sports a school 5 Classroom Libraries 6 Learning new things 7 Others (Specify) 8 Can’t say 9 26. Do you like coming to school? Yes 1 March 2022 81 School Facilities and Environment S.No. Question Options Codes Skip No 2 Can’t say 3 27. Do you have a separate classroom for you class? Yes 1 No 2 28. If not, then with how many such grade are you sharing your class? 29. Do you have a library in your school? Yes 1 No 2 30. How often do you visit the library in a week? __Days 31. Does your school have story books other than textbooks for you to borrow? Yes 1 No 2 32. Do you have a separate classroom library? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 36 33. Do you like books available in the classroom library? Yes 1 No 2 34. Have you issued any books from the classroom library? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 34 35. If yes, how often do you issue books from the classroom library? Once a week 1 Once in two weeks 2 Once a month 3 36. Are you able to read these books comfortably on your own? Yes, always 1 No, I require help reading them every time 2 I only require help sometime but otherwise I can read on my own 3 37. Are you aware of Book Captains? Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 82 School Facilities and Environment S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 38. Do you have a Book Captain assigned to your class? Yes 1 No 2 39. How often in the last week did the teacher read a story or a poem which was not in the textbook? Every day 1 Few times 2 Once 3 Never 4 Can’t say 5 40. Has a website with digital storybooks been made available to you? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 41. Have you had the chance to use this website? Yes 1 No 2 42. Ask only if Coded 1 in Q22 How would you rate your experience with the website (that has digital storybooks)? Highly satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 Neutral 3 Unsatisfactory 2 Highly unsatisfactory 1 March 2022 83 Awareness on Health, Nutrition and Hygiene S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 43. Can you mention a few good nutrition and dietary practices? Hand washing with soap: before meal, after defecation, before preparing food etc. 1 Using sanitary latrine 2 Keeping food away from insects 3 Drinking water from a safe source (e.g., tube well, purified safe water from other source) 4 Should give enough food to both boys and girls 5 Eat vegetables and fruit every day to protect our body from diseases 6 Eat fish, meat, egg and drink milk every day for our physical growth 7 Eat rice, bread, potato etc. to get energy for our daily work 8 Eat dark color (green, yellow and red) vegetables, small fish for vitamin to prevent night blindness 9 Eat fortified biscuits in school to get vitamins, energy and minerals 10 Wash vegetables before cutting 11 Should not cook vegetables for longer duration or with excessive heat to preserve vitamins 12 Should not spill water while cooking rice 13 44. Are you aware of the Little Doctors program? Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 84 45. Do you have a Little Doctor in your class? Yes 1 No 2 46. What are the activities that Little Doctors perform? (Multiple response possible) Support in delivery and administration of deworming tablets 1 Support in Health Check￾ups 2 Any other, please specify 47. Do you have a vegetable garden in your school? 1 No 2 48. Are you aware of students being identified as “Little Agriculturists” for vegetable gardens? Yes 1 No 2 49. Are you aware of the Healthy Meal Preparation Day? Yes 1 No 2 50. Have you participated in/attended the Healthy Meal Preparation Day? Yes 1 No 2 51. Do you share the information received on Nutrition and Health practices at home? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 48 52. If yes, with who? Multiple response possible Parents 1 Siblings 2 Neighbours 3 Friends outside school 4 Other family members 5 March 2022 85 Household environment S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 53. Do you have anyone at home (family members / relatives / neighbors but not private teachers) to help you with reading or writing? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 54. How many days per week do you take extra lessons (paid tuition) after school? Put the number of days. Put “0” if doesn’t take extra lessons 55. During the last week, did anyone in your house encourage you to study? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 56. During the last week, did anyone in your house read you a story or poem from a book apart from your textbooks? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 No 2 Can’t say 3 57. Do you read any extracurricular books? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 58. If yes, did you read any story within the last 7 days? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 March 2022 86 4. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Interview Information A1. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 Ramu 3 A2. Name of the village A3. Name of the school in which the child is studying A4. School code A5. Student name, class and sex for which the parent is being interviewed. Options Codes Name Class 3 1 4 2 5 3 Sex Male 1 Female 2 A6. Respondents name A7. Household address A8. Household size A9. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A10. Time of survey (in am/pm) Morning 1 Afternoon 2 A11. Name of the supervisor A12. Name of the enumerator A13. Has the parent given consent for the interview? Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 87 If the parent says no, then thank them and proceed to the next parent on your list. Socio-Demographics Characteristics S. No. Question Options Codes Skip 1. Relationship of the respondent with the child Father 1 Mother 2 Both 3 Others (Specify) 2. What is the total number of school aged children in the household? (age 5-18 years) _______Boys _______Girls 3. Number of children in primary school in the household _______Boys _______Girls 4. Which of the following items do you have in your household? ITEMS Yes No Radio 1 2 Electricity 1 2 Refrigerator 1 2 Bicycle 1 2 Toilet 1 2 Mobile Phone 1 2 Television 1 2 Motorbike 1 2 Car 1 2 Tractor 1 2 5. What is the main source of drinking water? Tube well 1 Piped water into the house 2 Piped water to yard/plot of the house 3 March 2022 88 Socio-Demographics Characteristics S. No. Question Options Codes Skip Surface water (river, lake, stream, canal, etc.) 4 Protected well 5 Unprotected well 6 Protected spring 7 Unprotected spring 8 Bore well 9 Rainwater 10 Bottled water/water vendor 11 Tanker 12 Others (Specify) 13 6. What is your relationship to the head of the household? See code 7. What is the highest level of education of the household head? See code 8. What is the main occupation of the head of the household? See code 9. What is his/her average monthly income (either in cash or kind or both)? _______________Amount in taka 10. How many members in the household earn an income (including farming)? S.No. Member Relationship to the child Sex Education (Code) Main Occupation (Code) Monthly income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 March 2022 89 QUESTIONS CODES 9, 13 (3): Relationship: What is your relationship to the household head? 1= head, 2 = spouse, 3 = child, 4 = sibling, 5 = son/daughter –in-law, 6 = other (specify) 10, 13 (5): Education - What is the highest level of education? 0= no schooling, 1-12=last Grade passed, 13= higher diploma; 14= technical/ vocational diploma, 15= Bachelor or equivalent, 16= Master or equivalent, 17=Pre-primary/Just enrolled, 18= Don’t know, 19=Other (and specify) 11, 13 (6): Main Occupation What is your / their main occupation? 0 = Unemployed, 1=Farmer, 2=Casual, 3=Fishing, 4=Petty trade business, 5=Official employee (public /private service), 6=Livestock: Poultry rearing; 7=Cottage industry /handicraft 8=Domestic maid, 9=Rickshaw/van push cart, 10=Transport worker (e.g. bus/truck), 11=Housewife, 12=Student, 19 = Too old or too young to work, Other (and specify) Questions related to attitude/perspectives about the school/education S. No. Question Options Codes Skip 11. Do you think education is important and beneficial? Yes 1 No 2 12. If yes, what according to you are the benefits of primary education? Multiple responses possible Improves literacy rate 1 Improves future opportunities of work for children 2 Helps child’s skill development 3 Helps girls to remain in school and delay early marriage 4 Helps children from different social and ethnic groups to bond 5 Helps children learn more about the world 6 Helps break the cycle of poverty 7 Others 13. Yes 1 March 2022 90 Questions related to attitude/perspectives about the school/education S. No. Question Options Codes Skip Has your child been given textbooks from school? No 2 Go to 15 14. If yes, who provided these textbooks? WFP/RtR/RIC 1 Government 2 Other, please specify 15. If no, how do you manage? We buy 1 We borrow from others 2 Take used books from senior students 3 Other, please specify 16. At home, do you or someone in your family help (name of the child) with studies or completing school work? Yes 1 No 2 17. . At home, do you or someone in your family read stories to (name of the child)? Yes 1 No 2 18. Has a website with downloadable reading materials and digital books been made available to you? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 19. Have you had the chance to use this website? Yes 1 No 2 20. Ask only if Coded 1 in Q19 How would you rate your experience with the website (with reading material and digital books for reading at home)? Highly satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 Neutral 3 Unsatisfactory 2 Highly unsatisfactory 1 March 2022 91 Questions related to attitude/perspectives about the school/education S. No. Question Options Codes Skip 21. Is there an after-school reading forum for children? Yes No Don’t know 22. Are you part of an after-school reading forum for your child? Yes 1 No 2 Skip to 26 23. If yes, how often does this forum meet? Weekly 1 Bi-weekly 2 Once a month 3 Not fixed 4 24. How many such meetings have been conducted till date? _____ number Online _____ number Offline _______ number 25. Do you see a benefit of this forum in terms of enhancing your child’s reading abilities? Yes 1 No 2 26. Only to be asked for intervention schools Since January 2021, did your child receive any biscuits? Yes 1 No 2 27. If yes, where has the child received these biscuits? At home 1 In school 2 Common place in the village (Please specify) 3 28. How often were these biscuits provided? Weekly 1 Once in two weeks 2 Monthly 3 March 2022 92 Questions related to attitude/perspectives about the school/education S. No. Question Options Codes Skip Once in two months 4 29. Only to be asked for intervention schools According to you what are the benefits of the school feeding program? Multiple responses possible My child is getting nutritious food for lunch 1 My child stays in school all day/improves attendance 2 The child does not stay hungry in school 3 The child can pay more attention in class 4 Less expense on food 5 Others 30. How are you managing your child’s education while the schools are closed (due to COVID 19)? They are taught by family members/ relatives 1 Taught by private tutor/local hujur 2 Use of online platforms 3 Through radio/television broadcast 4 Not being able to manage 5 31. Is there a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) in your school? Yes 1 No 2 Can’t say 3 32. If yes, then are you a part of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA)? Yes 1 No 2 33. How many meetings have been conducted in the last one year? Number of meetings………… 34. How many meetings have you attended in the last one year? Number of meetings………… 35. Are you aware of the existence of the School Management Committee (SMC)? Yes 1 No 2 36. High 1 March 2022 93 Questions related to attitude/perspectives about the school/education S. No. Question Options Codes Skip If yes, what is your perception of the SMC’s involvement in the school activities? Medium 2 Low 3 37. Are you aware of the responsibilities of SMC? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 28 38. If yes, what all activities do they perform? (Do not prompt) Improving quality of education 1 Improving school infrastructure 2 Improving management of school 3 Improving school feeding program 4 Others, please specify 39. What is the perception on the role of SMC in…? Use code: 1 = Useful, 2 = Satisfactory 3 = Not useful Improving quality of education Improving school infrastructure Improving management of school Improving school feeding program Others 40. Only to be asked for intervention schools What are the existing avenues through which you can get information or make complaints about the school feeding program? Meetings with SMC 1 Meetings with School Administrators 2 Suggestion Box 3 Informal communication (verbal) with teachers / SMC members 4 My child (student) 5 None 6 Others March 2022 94 Questions related to health and hygiene S. No. Question Options Codes Skip 41. Do you have a toilet in your house? Yes inside the dwelling 1 Yes, inside the plot of the house 2 No 3 42. Do you have access to water inside the toilet? Yes, piped water 1 Yes, a container for water 2 No 3 43. Do the household members use the toilet? Yes, all members 1 Yes, but only some members 2 No 3 44. Do you have a hand washing facility inside your household/in the yard/plot? Yes, tube well 1 Yes, water in a bucket or a container 2 Yes, tippy tap 3 No 4 45. Do you use soap for hand washing in your household? Yes 1 No 2 46. Can you tell me when someone should wash their hands? Multiple responses possible Before eating a meal 1 After eating a meal 2 Before feeding a child 3 Before preparing/handling food 4 After using toilet 5 After handling farm work/animals 6 47. What are the times when you wash hands? (Ask with soap- yes or no for each coded option) Options Codes With soap yes-1 no￾2 March 2022 95 Questions related to health and hygiene S. No. Question Options Codes Skip Multiple responses possible Before eating a meal 1 After eating a meal 2 Before feeding a child 3 Before preparing/handling food 4 After using toilet 5 After handling farm work/animals 6 Others 48. Where do you get your information related to health, hygiene and nutrition? Local health clinic/hospital 1 School Health and hygiene Brochures 2 School teachers 3 Community meetings 4 School PTA meetings 5 NGO/GoB Community health workers 6 Poster and Pamphlet 7 Notice board/ wall magazine / Wal paintings/hording board 8 Radio / Television 9 Video/Documentary Street Drama Show 10 Newspaper / Magazine 11 Others March 2022 96 Questions related to the dietary diversity of the child 49. Food Items (In the last 24 hours (during the day and night), did (CHILD NAME) eat any of these food items? Ask about every single item and record the answer. If any items are consumed less than one tea spoon, record response “2. NO”; Only count them “1.YES” if consumed ≥1 teaspoon.) 1=Yes 2=No 9 = Don’t know 1 Cereals, grains, roots and tubers (Food made from grains such as bread, rice, noodles, biscuits, or any other foods made from millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, white potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, [other local root crops] or any other foods made from roots or tubers) 2 Legumes/nuts (any foods made from beans, peas, or lentils, or foods made from nuts or seeds such as pumpkin flower seed) 3 Milk and dairy products like cheese, yogurt 4 Meat, fish and eggs 5 Vegetables and leaves (any dark green leafy vegetables such as [local dark green leafy vegetables] 6 Fruits (ripe mangoes, ripe papayas or [other local vitamin A-rich fruits] guava 7 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm nut pulp sauce (Vitamin A rich oil), etc. Questions related to community mobilization initiatives (only for intervention school) S. No. Question Options Codes 50. Are you aware of any community mobilization initiatives/the following events? Read Play Festival Yes 1 No 2 Grade-I Reception Day Yes 1 No 2 Healthy Meals Day Yes 1 No 2 Other, please specify Yes 1 No 2 51. Have you attended any of the community mobilization initiatives/events? Read Play Festival Yes 1 No 2 Grade-I Reception Day Yes 1 No 2 March 2022 97 Questions related to the dietary diversity of the child Healthy Meals Day Yes 1 No 2 Other Yes 1 No 2 52. Have you received any training/workshop on health, hygiene and nutrition? Yes 1 No 2 53. If yes, who provided the training/conducted the workshop? WFP/RtR/ RIC 1 Government officials 2 CHWs 3 Any other, please specify March 2022 98 5. SCHOOL STOREKEEPER QUESTIONNAIRE Interview Information A1. Name of the district A2. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 A3. Name of the village A4. School Name A5. School Code A6. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A7. Time of survey (in am/pm) Morning 1 Afternoon 2 A8. Name of the supervisor A9. Name of the enumerator A10. Has the storekeeper given her/his consent to participate in the interview? Yes 1 No 2 If the storekeeper says no, then thank them and proceed to the next storekeeper on your list. S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 1. What is your name? 2. Gender (Observe only) Male 1 Female 2 3. Since when have you been appointed as the storekeeper? ________Number of Years and _______ number of months 4. As a store keeper, how much time do you spend on this role in a day? ________Number of hours 5. Yes 1 March 2022 99 S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Do you have a record book where you keep a stock of the food? (Request if you could see the record book.) No 2 If response is 2, Skip to Q7 6. When was the last time that the record book was updated? Verify from the record book This week 1 Last week 2 Last month 3 Two months back 4 More than 2 months back 5 Last year 6 No record found in the book 7 7. Does the school have a pest/insects management plan? Yes 1 No 2 8. Does the school carry out pest/insects control measures? Yes 1 9. Are you trained in safe food preparation and storage practices? Yes 1 If response is 2, Skip to Q11 No 2 10. If yes, who has provided training? WFP/RIC 1 Government 2 Any other, please specify 11. What according to you constitute safe storage practices? (Do not prompt) Keeping the storeroom properly ventilated? 1 Yes 2 No Pest Control 1 Yes 2 No 1 Yes March 2022 100 S.No. Question Options Codes Skip Keeping the room dry and free from moisture 2 No Stacking the stocks at an elevated level (using pallets) 1 Yes 2 No Others, please specify S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 12. How many such trainings did you receive in last one year? Write 99 if do not remember 13. Have you received a book about Warehouse management within the last one year? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t remember 3 14. Are you paid a salary for being a storekeeper here? Yes 1 No 2 15. Does your school have a dedicated store room for biscuits? Yes, within the school 1 Yes, outside the school 2 No 3 If response is 3, Skip to Q17 16. If the storeroom is outside the school, then how far is the distance to the store room? _____in km 17. If no, where are the biscuits stored? In a classroom 1 In teacher’s room 2 Open space 3 March 2022 101 In the house of head master/teacher 4 Neighbour’s home 5 Others 18. Can the food storage room be locked? Yes 1 No 2 19. When you are on leave who manages biscuit distribution? Head Master 1 Teacher 2 School Support Staff(non-teaching) 3 No one manages, room is locked 4 20. When do you receive new stock of biscuits Every week 1 Every 15 days 2 Every month 3 Once in two months 4 Any others please specify 21. How much time does it take to receive the biscuits, once the requisition is made? Delivered before any requisition 1 One week 2 15 days 3 One month 4 More than a month 5 22. Has there been an instance during the last one year when the stock delivered was less than the quantity demanded Yes 1 No 2 Go to 24 23. If yes, how many times has this happened in the last one year Once 1 2 times 2 March 2022 102 Enumerator to record reasons More than 2 times 3 S.No. Question Options Codes Skip 24. Has there been an instance of stock out since January 2021? Yes 1 No 2 Go to 27 25. If yes, how many times has this happened? Enumerator to record reasons Once 1 2 times 2 More than 2 times 3 26. What was the common reason for stock out Delayed supply from RIC//WFP despite timely requisition 1 Delay in requisition 2 Supply of stock not fit for consumption 3 27. Do you maintain buffer stock Yes 1 No 2 28. If yes, for how many days One week 1 15 days 2 One month 3 29. Where have the students been provided the biscuits? At home 1 In school 2 Common place in the village (Please specify) 3 March 2022 103 30. Biscuit Receipt Record (Demand and Supply) Month Quantity of biscuits required Quantity of biscuits received Date of request Actual delivery date Quantity of biscuits distributed to students* January 2021 February 2021/ March 2021 *Please verify from the consumption record book and click a picture of the page March 2022 104 6. HEADMASTER QUESTIONNAIRE Interview Information A1. Name of the sub-district/Upazila Ukhiya 1 Kutubdia 2 Ramu 3 A2. Name of the village A3. School Name A4. School code A5. Sex Male 1 Female 2 A6. Date of visit (dd/mm/yy) A7. Time of survey (in am/pm) Morning 1 Afternoon 2 A8. Name of the supervisor A9. Name of the enumerator 1. What does the school authority or administrator do to improve teaching/classroom environment? (Multiple Response) Nothing 1 Regular monitoring of teaching techniques of teachers 2 Provide feedback to teachers for improvement of the quality and techniques 3 Conduct and be involved in regular training for teachers 4 Other (Specify) 2. Have the teachers in your school received training from WFP/RtR in the last one year Yes No March 2022 105 (For Intervention Schools Only) 3. How has this training been provided? Online In-person Combination of both 4. If yes, on what aspects have the teachers received training (last one year) (Multiple Response) Teaching / Learning techniques (at least 2 days or 16 hours) 1 Storage practices 2 Hygiene and WASH 3 Child health and nutrition 4 5. How do you support adoption of new techniques by the teachers? (Multiple Response) Do nothing 1 Supplementary reading materials are made available to teachers 2 Encourage teachers to use audio￾visual aid during class 3 Encourage teachers to prepare handmade posters / locally made visual aids 4 Encourage teachers to adopt participatory teaching techniques (e.g. Role play / Story telling /Group Discussion / Problem solving) 5 Reward/recognition for teachers 6 Other (Specify) 6. How do you monitor adoption of new techniques by teachers (Multiple Response) Do nothing 1 Classroom observation 2 Feedback from students 3 Feedback from teachers 4 Feedback from parents 5 7. Has a website with training content and teaching and reading materials been made available to you? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3 8. Have you/teachers in your school had the chance to use this website? Yes 1 No 2 9. Ask only if Coded 1 in Q8 How would you rate your experience with the website (with teacher training material, training videos and audios)? Highly satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 Neutral 3 Unsatisfactory 2 Highly unsatisfactory 1 10. None 1 March 2022 106 What proportion of students in your school has the required textbook/s for the class? Less than 25% 2 25-50% 3 50-75% 4 75-99% 5 100% 6 Don’t Know 7 11. Only to be asked for intervention schools. Do you think that the provision of biscuits will increase the number of children attending school? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 12. For intervention schools, ask According to you, if the provision of biscuits stopped from today, what would be the impact on students’ attendance? For comparison schools where provision of biscuits is not going on ask, According to you, if the biscuits are provided from today, what would be the result on student attendance? No consequence, attendance will remain the same 1 Attendance will drop by 25% 2 Attendance will drop between 25% and 50% 3 Attendance will go up by more than 50% 4 13. For intervention schools, ask According to you, if the provision of biscuits stopped from today, what would be the impact on student enrolment? For comparison schools where provision of biscuits is not going on, ask According to you, if biscuits are provided from today, what would be the consequence on student enrolment? No consequence, enrolment will remain the same 1 Enrolment will drop by 25% 2 Enrolment will drop between 25% and 50% 3 Enrolment go up by more than 25% 4 14. Are there measures in place/functional for improvement and maintenance of school infrastructure? (Multiple Response) No 1 Cleanliness of the school surroundings 2 Regular cleaning of classrooms 3 Regular cleaning of teacher’s rooms 4 Proper maintenance of school latrines 5 March 2022 107 Proper maintenance of classroom and furniture 6 Availability of clean water for teachers and students 7 Other (specify) March 2022 108 7. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: PARENTS Name of the School: Name of the Village: Name of the Upazila: No. of Children in Primary School S. No Name of the Parent Age Gender Boy/s Girl/s Rapport Building 1. Do all children in your village go to school? Are there any households in your village where children do not go to school? If so, then why? 2. Why do you think it is important for children to go to school? (Probe for: different reasons like understanding the importance of education, or they want to keep them at school as they have to go to work, or they receive nutritious meals in the school, etc.) 3. Do you think the school is adequately addressing your expectations? If not, what more is required? 4. At home, who decides if a child should go to school or not? How many years of school would you like to see your own children complete and why? (Probe for differences between boys and girls) 5. How frequently have you attended parent-teacher meetings? Have there been any benefits? 6. Are you satisfied with the teaching quality in school? What more do you think can be done to benefit the children? 7. What according to you have been the benefits of the following activities? Please mention anything that you think could have been improved? • Biscuit distribution • Vegetable Gardens • Healthy Meals Day • Little Doctors • Deworming Program • Book Captains March 2022 109 • Library Corners • Remedial Classes in Bangla • Read Play Festival • Online education 8. Where do you get your information regarding these activities? How often? (Probe: any community mobilization activities like Read Play Festival, Healthy Meals Day, Grade 1 Reception Day) 9. Do you or anyone in the household help your child read storybooks and complete homework? Does your child ask to be read to? 10. How do you access the material to help your child read at home? (Probe for website with downloadable digital books and reading material, material provided in person by teachers, after-school reading forum) 11. Has the school conducted any training or activities for parents or the community? If yes, what are these and how do you think these training/activities have benefited the community. Please describe. (Probe: Read Play Festival, awareness on adequate nutrition and hygiene practices, Healthy Meals Day, After-school reading forum, sensitization workshops on importance of regular school attendance etc.) 12. How do you/would you like to contribute to these activities? 13. In order to do this, what additional support would you require? (Probe: training, workshops) 14. Do you think the training/activities initiated by the school has increased awareness on children’s health, nutrition, education and WASH related issues? How? Please give examples. 15. How have these trainings/activities helped you? Can you illustrate any daily practice you may have changed as a result of these trainings? 16. Has this change in practice caused a change in your environment? If yes, how? Where apart from schools do you/your child get information regarding adequate nutrition and healthy eating? (Probe: children’s school, family, teachers, television, internet, IEC material, community health workers, community programs etc.) 17. How have you been managing to continue your child’s education since the closure of schools due to COVID-19? March 2022 110 8. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (SMC) Name of the School/SMC: Name of the Village: Name of the Upazila: No. of members: S. No Name Age Gender Position A. APPOINTMENT, ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Details on formation, composition and frequency of meetings of SMCs to be collected from school administration and copy MoMs need to be collected. 2. How does the SMC conduct meetings during COVID-19? What effect does conducting meetings virtually have on the attendance of members and the quality of discussions held? 3. Have there been any instances where planned meetings have not been conducted? Kindly provide reasons. 4. How do you think the SMC training has benefited the functioning of SMCs or the schools? 5. What aspects would you like to receive additional training on? 6. Have you attended any literacy focused meetings organized by RtR? If yes, can you please elaborate on these meetings organized by RtR? What is discussed in these meetings? How often are they conducted? 7. What have been the various challenges faced in school? (Probe: lack of infrastructure, facilities, high drop outs, absenteeism etc.) How has the SMC contributed in addressing these? Please explain. 8. Has there been a change in the school’s environment through the SMC’s efforts? What has changed and how? 9. What measures have been taken to ensure the continuity in children’s education during the closure of schools? 10. What support has the SMC provided in implementing SFP activities? 11. Going forward, with the provision of hot meals by schools in the coming year, what role would you like to play in the implementation of the program? Please also elaborate on any support that you would need from RtR/RIC/WFP to support project implementation. 12. What challenges have you faced in the program’s implementation since January 2021? Please elaborate. What steps are being taken to address these? 13. How do you think the program has impacted the children? (Probe: improved health and nutrition, improved attendance, improved reading abilities, improved awareness with regard to health etc.) Please give examples. What has helped bring about this change? 14. Have you observed any change in the parent’s/community’s attitude in perceiving the importance of education and nutrition of their children? How? Please describe. What has helped bring about this change? 15. Do the parents/community support/participate in the program in any way? If yes, how and on which occasions? March 2022 111 March 2022 112 9. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: STUDENTS (Grades 3, 4, 5) Name of the School: Name of the Upazila: No. of boys: No. of girls: S. No Name Age Gender Grade Icebreaker 5 minutes Start with 3-5 minutes ice-breaker, children have to throw a ball at each other and say their name. After a minute throw another ball so that children have two balls being thrown around, which will create positive confusion and break the ice. Note: Ensure that all children feel comfortable and ask the questions in a conversational manner, without making them feel any pressure to answer. A. INTRODUCTION 1. Please tell us something about your school. What do you like most about your school/what is the favorite part of your day? 2. Which grade would you like to study till? Why? (Ask separately for girls and boys) 3. Do you know of anyone who has left (dropped out) the school? If yes, why? (ask separately for every class) 4. Was there any activity/ceremony held when new students joined? If yes, what happened as part of the activity? Can you describe it? 5. Do you eat anything before coming to school? If not, why? 6. When you come to school, do you feel hungry? If yes, what do you do? (Stay hungry or eat something?) 7. When else do you usually feel hungry? (Probe: ask class period wise to understand time) 8. Do you carry a tiffin to school? March 2022 113 Only Ask Treatment Schools (Q: 10-Q: 12) 9. Do you receive biscuits? If yes, • What time do you get them? When do you eat them? • Are you still hungry after eating them? • If yes, what do you do? (Probe: eat tiffin, stay hungry, go back home during recess) • Do you get these biscuits every day? • Do you like eating them? 10. If you stop receiving biscuits, would you continue coming to school? 11. Do your parents know you get these biscuits? What do they think/say about them? B. NUTRITION & HEALTH 12. Ideal diet vs. Actual diet There will be two pie charts presented to the participants with different categories of food items required to meet the nutritional requirements of children. From the first pie chart, the participants will choose food items which they perceive to be a part of an ideal on a daily basis. However, from the second pie chart the participants will choose food items that they consumed in the last 24 hours (representative of what they consume of a daily basis). Ask the following questions as part of the activity: 13. From the pie-chart, what should you eat and why? 14. How many meals have you had in the last 24 hours- 1 meal/ 2 meals/ 3 meals/more than 3? (Check for each respondent and note response) 15. From the pie chart, what have you eaten in the past 24 hrs. as part of all the meals? (To be marked as per the pie chart for each respondent) Nuts and seeds Dairy products (milk/ cheese/ yoghurt) Meat/ fish/ Vegetables eggs including green leafy ones Fruits (ripe mango/ papaya/ guava etc.) Grains/ roots/ tubers Legumes/ beans/ pulses March 2022 114 16. Who tells you about what to eat? (Probe: family, teachers, peers, television, IEC material, community health workers, others) 17. Are you aware of any vegetable garden? If yes, where is it? • Why do you have a vegetable garden? • Do you know what all is grown in these gardens? Do you like eating vegetables that are grown? • Do you help grow/maintain the vegetables in the garden? How often? • Have you talked about the vegetable garden at home? • Do you eat any of these vegetables at home? If not, do you then ask your parents to buy these vegetables? 18. Do you eat meals prepared from the vegetables grown in the garden? (Probe: Healthy meal preparation day) • How often? Do you like food? If not, why? • Is the food eaten as a part of this different from the food you get at home? How? • Is there any celebration/picnic around this activity? Who all participate? (Probe: mothers, teachers) • Do you talk to your parents about these meals and the celebration/picnic? • Do you ask your parents to prepare the same kind of meals at home? C. LITERACY 19. Do you have textbooks? • If yes, are these provided by the schools or purchased / borrowed? 20. Do you like reading books? Do you find it easy to read them? If not, why? 21. Does anyone help you read books/stories? Who? Do they read them out? 22. Does your school have a library? • If yes, is it stocked with books? • Do children borrow books from it? If not, why? • Do you like the books available in the library? Do you find them interesting? 23. Does your class have a library corner? • If yes, is it stocked with books? • Do children borrow books from it? If not, why? • Do you like the books available in the library? Do you find them interesting? 24. Do you have a ‘book captain’ in your class? • If yes, what does the captain do? • How does one become a book captain? • Would you like to be a book captain? Why/Why not? • If yes, what are you doing about it? 25. Have you heard about ‘Read Play Festival’? • If yes, what happened at this festival? • Who all participated? • Did you enjoy it? Why/why not? 26. Have these activities increased your desire to read more? 27. Do you know how to speak, read, and write Bangla? (Record for each student) If not, are you learning how to speak/read and write Bangla in school? 28. Who teaches you? What challenges do you face? 29. What more help do you require? 30. Amongst the options listed, have you seen the adoption of these by your teachers in the last 6 months (Probe for perceptions on use of the following) • Audio-visual tools • Chart papers • Role playing and asking questions • Story telling • Group discussion • Collective problem solving 31. Have these techniques helped you? How? • What other support would you require from the teacher to help you learn better? 32. How did you manage your education during COVID-19 when the school was closed? What did you like/dislike about online education at home? Why? D. WASH and Health 33. Do you carry a water bottle? Do you carry water from home? 34. Do you drink water in school? If yes, from where? March 2022 115 • Is it always available? Has there been a situation when drinking water has been unavailable? If yes, please tell us about it. What was done in such a situation? 35. Do you have access to toilets in school? Do you have a separate toilet for girls and boys? Do you use them? If no, why? (Probe: non-functional toilets (broken/ closed), not clean, not enough toilets, unavailability of water, unavailability of soap) 36. Who gives you information with regard to health and hygiene? (Probe: teachers, family, friends, school education programs, school education programs, community health workers etc.) • Do you find this information useful? Why/ why not? • Do you speak about these at home? 37. Do you have ‘Little Doctors’ in your school? Do you have one in your class? • If yes, what do they do? (Probe: checking height, weight, de-worming program). • How many Little Doctors are identified? How does one become a Little Doctor? • What information do you get from the ‘Little Doctors’? Do you find it useful? 10. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS: LOCAL SMALLHOLDER FARMERS *They have not been provided any support/training as of 10th August 2021. The following questions may be asked if this activity gets conducted by the time data collection takes place (i.e., post January 2022). Name of the Village: Name of the Upazila: S. No Name of the Farmer Age Gender 1. What are the kind of crops that are grown in this area? Which crops are grown in which season? 2. What is the amount of produce that you are generally able to cultivate? Out of this produce, what amount is used for self￾consumption and what amount is surplus that can be sold in the market? Generally, which crops are used for self-consumption and which crops are sold in the market? 3. What do you generally do with surplus produce? Where do you sell it, if you do? What price do you sell it for (ask for each of the crops produced) 4. What is the nature of your interaction with agricultural extension workers? How often do you interact with them? What are some of the topics that are discussed? 5. Have you received any training from the government? If yes, on what all topics has training been provided?(Probe: production, post harvesting, marketing, nutritious aspects of food etc.) a. How has this training helped you? Can you provide any examples of the benefits of these trainings? March 2022 116 6. Going forward, on what additional aspects will training be required? 7. Is there any other kind of support that you would require? If yes, what? March 2022 117 11. Checklist for Capacity Building Activities (GoB) 1. What has been the progress on the ‘National School Meal Policy 2019’ since its approval? Kindly elaborate on the following￾a) Has an implementation plan for the policy been prepared? b) What challenges are foreseen in the adoption and implementation of the same? c) What support would MoPME, MoHFW, MoA and other ministries require from WFP to address some of these challenges? 2. What is the nature of responsiveness and involvement demonstrated by inter-agency committee members at the national and sub-national level? 3. What kind of dissemination of the NSMP has been undertaken so far? Specify platforms. 4. Has the dissemination and wider sharing of NSMP led to any feedback/actions? Please elaborate. 5. How do you think the technical workshops and support provided by WFP has capacitated GoB to take up SFP independently? a) What more support is required for the government to be able to independently undertake such targeting for scale up? 6. Has the monitoring and reporting framework as well as a SOP for the scale up areas been created? If yes, has it been agreed upon the various ministries and departments? (Request documents for the same) 7. What has been the progress on establishing a revenue budget funding stream for school meal activities? How does the GoB propose to institutionalize the funding for school meal activities post WFP’s exit? 8. Have the GoB officials received any training from WFP? If yes, in what aspects? (Probe for: local purchasing, transparent procurement, program reviews, warehouse management, supply chain management, smart fuel management, computer literacy and online database management, community engagement techniques) a) How many such trainings have been conducted? b) How frequently are these trainings conducted? c) Who conducts these trainings? 9. What is the current status of the establishment of the National School Meal Authority and its R&D centre? According to you, what is the need for this intervention? How will the NSMA support the GoB in the undertaking the SFP activities independently post WFP’s exit? What kind of skill set or training is required by GoB for this intervention? 10. How has WFP supported the GoB in preparing training materials and key messaging packages for farmers and other community stakeholders? 11. What other initiatives/ activities have been undertaken to strengthen and enhance engagement of local organizations and community groups? (Probe: training manuals for community mobilization/advocacy materials/IEC and media coverage) 12. What efforts is the GoB taking/planning to take to ensure sustainable production and supply of nutritious local produce to the MGD supported schools? How are local women smallholder farmers being benefitted in this activity? What is the role of agricultural extension workers in this intervention? 13. Online Database and Monitoring a) How many districts are currently using online MIS? b) How has online monitoring helped improve the implementation of SFP? c) Are any challenges being faced in use of online MIS? d) What more is required to ensure its institutionalization? 14. What kind of support has WFP provided MoPME in ensuring selection of NGOs/implementing partners independently? 15. Has DPE begun identifying implementing partners on their own? If yes, what kind of orientation activities have been undertaken and by whom? 16. What has been the response of the communities as a result of the same? (Examples of engagement and involvement) 17. What have been some of the key learnings from the technical assistance provided by WFP to GoB/MoPME? a) Have these learnings been documented? b) How are these learnings being incorporated to inform future activities? 18. What changes (if any) have been made to the timelines and modalities for building capacity of GoB officials through the school feeding program? 19. What remains to be done to initiate the roll out of the implementation strategy of the National School Meals Program? March 2022 118 12. Checklist for Capacity Building Activities (WFP) 1. What has been the progress on the ‘National School Meal Policy 2019’ since its preparation? 2. What are the CB activities that have been undertaken/are planned for GoB officials across all levels? (Probe for: local purchasing, transparent procurement, program reviews, warehouse management, supply chain management, smart fuel management, computer literacy and online database management, community engagement techniques) 3. Do you think that the CB activities have led to increased ownership or a perception change of certain ministries? Kindly give examples 4. How have the findings/learnings of the SABER country report 2020 being incorporated in the operationalization of NSMP? 5. What has been the response of the Ministry of Finance to ensure sustainable financing of NSMP? What is the progress on its inclusion in the revenue budget? 6. What kind of challenges remain with regards to scale up and expansion of SFP? 7. What more support is required for the government to be able to independently implement the programme? 8. Has the monitoring and reporting framework for the scale up areas been created? If yes, has it been agreed upon by the various ministries and departments? (Request documents for the same) 9. What kind of support has WFP provided MoPME in ensuring selection of NGOs/implementing partners independently? Has MoPME begun identifying implementing partners on their own? 10. If yes, what kind of orientation activities have been undertaken and by whom? 11. How is the government integrating complementary components such as WASH, health, nutrition, dietary practices and literacy of school children in the hand-over areas? 12. How is the government working towards improving the learning environment for children? (Including feeding and nutrition support services for pre-school children and partnership with ECD network) Please provide details. 13. What initiatives/activities have been undertaken/are planned to strengthen and enhance engagement of local organizations and community groups? (Probe: involvement of mother groups in school meals preparation and distribution, capacity enhancement of women small holder farmers to provide nutrition rich local produce to the schools, circular of functioning of PTA, training manuals for community mobilization/advocacy materials/IEC and media coverage) 14. What have been some of the key learnings from the technical assistance provided by WFP to GoB/MoPME? a) Have these learnings been documented? b) How are these learnings being incorporated to inform future activities? 15. Is there an exit strategy for the CB activities for GoB? If yes, has it been implemented? 16. What changes (if any) have been made to the timelines and modalities for building capacity of GoB officials through the school feeding program? 17. How were the planned activities affected during COVID-19? What is the resultant change in the implementation strategy? 18. What remains to be done in order to achieve a full handover of the school feeding program? 19. How has this strategy been affected by COVID 19? In the context of a pandemic, how does WFP plan to ensure sustainability of the project? March 2022 119 Annex 4. Methodology Proposed Conceptual Framework for Baseline Study 1. The key envisaged impact of the programme is to improve the literacy of school going children and enhance their learning outcomes so as to advance their future health, productivity, and capabilities for overall well-being. The distribution of high energy biscuits has several foreseen outcomes which include alleviation of short-term hunger which is likely to improve the overall attentiveness of children during classes and school days; improved overall nutrition status of children through provision of calorific and fortified biscuits; and incentivise parents to send their children to school given the reduction in cost of schooling which is likely to translate into improved demand for education. 2. The programme also includes supporting interventions on the supply side that aim at building school teachers’ and school administrators’ skills and capacities and improve their attendance and performance in schools. Combined with better access to school supplies and materials, enhanced teaching capabilities create an enabling environment that is likely to augment regular attendance in school and improve learning outcomes for students. 3. Activities such as training on food preparation and storage practices and better access to water and sanitation services in school, promote safe health and dietary practices. Establishment of school gardens demonstrates to children and families how to diversify and improve their diet. 4. Through capacity development of the SMC and PTAs the programme also aims to engage community and strengthen their local capacities to demand improved education. 5. In this light, drawing upon our experience, we have used an evaluation framework that includes the key thematic and functional areas that the interventions work upon. These can be viewed as four domains: • Individual (school going children), • Institutional (school teachers, school administrators, cooks and store keepers), • Social (parents and community), and • External environment (policy, government support, civil society). 6. A schematic of the evaluation framework is presented below. March 2022 120 7. The external policy influence acts as the larger enabling environment which requires supportive Government policies. The cross-cutting factors act as triggers or barriers influencing each of the actors and structures in the three inner domains. For instance, the capacities of the teachers and the infrastructural support determine the quality of literacy instruction which has a key influence on the learning levels of the students. Similarly, the social and cultural norms often determine whether a girl child will go to school or stay at home and help with household chores. Likewise, boys may be pulled out of school for working in the fields especially during sowing and harvesting season or working as daily wage labour for contributing to household income. These cross-cutting factors will form an integral part of the study to understand the current status which would establish values during the assessment of the effectiveness of the programme during end-term evaluation. Sampling Protocol 1 The sample was spread across two sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar. Fifty Government Public Schools (GPS) were sampled. Out of these, 30 were intervention schools and the balance were comparison schools. The schools were selected randomly in the same proportion as the number of intervention schools in the districts, thus ensuring the statistical representation of the sample. 2 While sampling, the diversity of the geographical locations of the schools (i.e., schools that are easily accessible by road and those that are located in remote/ difficult-to-reach areas) was ensured. 3 The sample size was calculated at the program level using the ‘differences method’ formula with a finite population (confidence interval of 1.96 and estimated difference set at 5 percent) as per Cochran (1977)[1] using the following formula: (𝑧𝑧2)𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑2 p = estimated proportion of the population, set at 50% for maximum variance; q = 1 – p; z = standard score corresponding to the confidence interval (95%) set at 1.96; d = estimated difference, set at 5% for this initiative [1] Cochran, W. G. (1977) Sampling Techniques. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. March 2022 121 Accordingly, the sample size for treatment schools was 390 students and for comparison schools, it was 260. Sample Distribution in Ukhiya Quantitative Survey Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 18 Schools No. of Students 2 2 14 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 1 1 1 Headmaster 1 per school Store keeper 1 per school Teacher 1 per school Qualitative Survey (FGDs) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 4 Schools No. of Students 2 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 2 1 1 SMC 2-3 members per sample school (4) for FGDs Sample Distribution in Kutubdia Quantitative Survey Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 12 Schools No. of Students 2 2 14 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 1 1 1 Headmaster 1 per school Store keeper 1 per school Teacher 1 per school Qualitative Survey (FGDs) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 2 Schools No. of Students 2 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 2 1 1 SMC 2-3 members per sample school (2) for FGDs Sample Distribution in Ramu Quantitative Survey Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 20 Schools No. of Students 2 2 14 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 1 1 1 The staff on payroll or contract always demonstrates honesty, integrity, and professionalism at all times. The staff is aware of applicable statutes, regulations, practices, and ethical standards governing data collection and reporting. The team reports information accurately and without bias. The team is accountable and holds Integrity The team promotes data quality by adhering to best practices and operating standards. The team provides all relevant data, definitions, and documentation to promote comprehensive understanding and accurate analysis when releasing information. Data Quality The team treats data systems as valuable organizational assets and hence data backup is a mandatory affair. The team safeguards sensitive data to guarantee privacy and confidentiality as our servers are accessible to limited staff only. Data Security March 2022 122 Quantitative Survey Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Headmaster 1 per school Store keeper 1 per school Teacher 1 per school Qualitative Survey (FGDs) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Sample Size 4 Schools No. of Students 2 2 2 No. of parents 1 1 2 1 1 SMC 2-3 members per sample school ( 4 ) for FGDs Data Cleaning and Analysis Quantitative data was collected through Computer Aided Personal Interview (CAPI) using tablets. The software was programmed to minimize data entry errors using built-in constraints and skip-pattern logic. Data collection teams were trained to cross-check the data before it is uploaded to the server. Data was sent to a central server daily, and the study team conducted range and consistency checks on x % of the data daily during the first week and on x% of the data on a weekly basis for the duration of the data collection period to identify and address any errors in the data collection process. The raw data obtained from the field was checked by the data analyst for consistency errors, duplicity of cases and missing data. Most of these errors were expected to be already minimized at the stage of software development process for CAPI enabled data collection. Moreover, any outliers in the quantitative data were also triangulated with the qualitative information to assess the validity of the data point in the outlier. For the qualitative data, field notes along with the transcripts were used for analysis. Qualitative and Quantitative data analysis Primary quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using the questions set out as per the evaluation matrix and the relevant themes identified under the conceptual approach. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis. The content of the FGDs and the IDIs, were classified under the thematic areas of the baseline study. Within each category, sub-categories dependent on the qualitative information obtained from the field were generated. Emerging trends were noted from the analysis of the main and sub-categories and assessed in response to the baseline study questions. The quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS software post a rigorous review of any errors in the data. Based on the available key information parameters, a data tabulation plan was finalized in consultation with WFP-CO. In addition, secondary data from relevant sources and qualitative findings were used to validate the observations. Overall, a triangulation of the quantitative data, qualitative data and project documents was conducted to present conclusions on overall trends and patterns. Ethical Considerations 1. NRMC understands the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms, standards and ethical guidelines and strictly adhered to the same. 2. NRMC adheres to ethical practice and code of conduct during all its evaluations following its own ethical guidelines and that of the clients. Particularly, in relation to study/ evaluations that cater to sensitive population groups such as women and girls, social and religious minorities, disaster affected populations, migratory populations, elderly, disabled and pregnant women, we ensured extra care in the process. March 2022 123 3. Considering that the study engaged children (primary school students), special care was taken in ensuring ethical behavior and understanding during data collection. 4. The team for this assignment was guided by the UNEG ethical guidance principles and ensured that no violations, like collecting data without consent, collecting data not pertaining to this assignment, accessing areas within the institution premises for which approval has not been taken etc., are committed during the data collection. 5. For the interviews, verbal consent from the respondents was taken. Prior to the consent, the respondent was informed about their voluntary participation and confidentiality of information being collected. It was ensured that the data will be kept confidential and no personal identifiers will be mentioned in the report. 6. The evaluation team as well as the data collection team adhered to the following three categories of ethical norms: • Informed consent: All interviews were conducted with prior verbal consent of the respondents. The participants were briefed on the intent of the discussions and the use of the findings from the interviews for research purposes. The respondents were given right to decline their participation in the interview or not disclose any information that they do not want to reveal. • Right to safeguard integrity: No information obtained from the responses has been made public at any stage of the surveys and thereafter. The database does not have the name of the respondent or family members. All such information is encrypted. The complete privacy of the respondent has been maintained. • Protection from physical, mental and emotional harm: During the survey, enumerators did not ask any questions or posed any cross-questions that were personal or sensitive, or that might physically, mentally or emotionally harm the respondent. • Access to information regarding research: Data collectors provided all information related to the survey and its objectives to the respondents. They were explained that if more information is required, they can contact the senior team members for answers. • Protection of privacy and well-being: Personal information of the respondent has not been shared with anyone and is kept confidential. It has been used for study purposes only. NRMC’s Internal Protocols 1. NRMC’s Internal Quality Assurance procedures were adhered to the following three categories of norms as follows: 2. Our internal quality control measures were followed at each stage of study starting from design of tools, to hiring and training of field teams; from data collection in the field to monitoring of the process; from data analysis till the reporting stage. Some of the key measures undertaken to ensure data quality are as follows: a. A three-stage internal review process of key deliverables: Our study team was structured in a manner that all deliverables including data collection tools, inception report, data analysis plans, and reports were reviewed by the team leader and quality assurance expert. b. The core members of the evaluation teams were in constant touch with the enumerators to ensure that the data quality is excellent. We devised efficient and effective methods to deploy coordinators and supervisors to monitor the data collection process continuously. c. Assuring data quality during analysis: Using interactive checking, validation of sample data, and data cleaning by data analysts, the quality of data from qualitative or quantitative methods was ensured. It was ensured that transcripts of the qualitative interviews along with field notes, are made available to the core team for better analysis. d. Strong support teams: Trainings for field teams (three-day training) were conducted by core team members (from the study team). Our internal data processing team ensured that all errors are resolved quickly and thoroughly. NRMC ensured highest quality standards in terms of transparency, credibility, utility, efficacy and delivery of outputs. One of the foremost measures for ensuring quality is to create a detailed project implementation plan and embed the quality measures across the implementation phases. Field plans were prepared prior to the commencement of data collection exercise to ensure due consideration to sensitive local situation because of COVID-19. March 2022 124 Risks and assumptions 35. The risks envisaged during the evaluation and their mitigation measures are presented below. Risks envisaged Mitigation measures Exposure to risk from COVID-19 during data collection The data collection team shall ensure adherence to all safety protocols as advised by WHO and GoB. Sample respondents may refuse to participate (physically) in the survey, owing to the anxiety and fear associated with the COVID-19 pandemic An additional 25 percent of respondents would be identified during the sampling stage. This would provide us with back-up in the event of a respondent dropping out of the survey. The enumerators would carry COVID-19 protection kits during the data collection process and ensure all safety protocols are followed. The respondents shall be briefed on the same. Lack of availability of internet connectivity In such a scenario, the sample would be selected from an alternate location with better connectivity. Lack of (i) availability of smart phones and; (ii) understanding of respondents on medium of virtual engagement/telephonic survey DMA staff will carry smartphones/tablets with them and help connect the respondents with the NRMC team through these devices. They will also ensure minimum technical glitches during the survey. Gathering of respondents at one place for FGDs DMA staff will be responsible for facilitating the gathering of participants for FGDs, following COVID-19 protection norms. In case gathering of respondents is not possible, NRMC and DMA team will conduct 3-4 IDIs with the participants (parents and SMC members) instead of planned FGD. Data inconsistency Logical checks are in-built in the questionnaire. Back-checks with specific respondents shall be conducted to check for any apparent data inconsistency Remote data collection affecting the quality of evaluation The core team and the local team for data collection has prior experience in conducting telephonic surveys/surveys through virtual engagements. Prior experience and understanding of the local context, languages, norms, and culture will guide the data collection process to capture the necessary information irrespective of medium of communication. The core team would closely coordinate and monitor the data collection exercise and quality of data collected on a daily basis. 36. March 2022 125 Annex 5. Evaluation Matrix Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources RELEVANCE To what extent is the program aligned to Government national and sectorial level policies and plans at the time of design? To what extent (if any) does the project complement other government and donor-funded initiatives? Is there any change in the readiness of the Government to move forward with these plans due to the COVID pandemic? • Policy and program context of the Government of Bangladesh • Alignment of school feeding program priorities and interventions within GoB’s policy and planning frameworks such as, National School Meal policy, NPAN 2, Vision 2021, 7th five-year plan and the national COVID response strategy • Complementarity with interventions of other donors and actors and value addition of WFP interventions • The relevance of the design in addressing varied sector needs- education, WASH, health and nutrition, gender issues • Review of the program implementation design • Readiness of the GoB for handover, in the context of COVID-19 • Secondary review (program documents) • Review of WFPs country strategic plan • Review of NSMP • Key informant interviews (KII) with WFP program staff, parents, and school staff • Program documents (Theory of change) • WFP Program staff, Implementation partners, • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, BNNC, BIRTAN, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • Review of NSMP • SABER-SF assessment • WFP’s country strategy To what extent does the project design address the needs of the Government with regards to transition to a fully nationally owned school feeding program (against the five policy goals/pathways17)? • Alignment with Government’s preferred mode of local procurement; • Does the Capacity Building component (as planned) fully address the capacity needs of the functionaries at the MoPME to • Secondary review (program documents) • Review of WFPs country strategic plan • Review of NSMP • WFP Program staff, Implementation partners, March 2022 126 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources implement the School Feeding Program, from procurement to last mile delivery? • Key informant interviews (KII) with WFP program staff, parents, and school staff • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • Review of NSMP • SABER-SF assessment • WFP’s country strategy To what extent the package of technical assistance activities/measures planned as part of the program have been based on capacity needs assessment (focused on the Government’s capacity to transition towards national ownership of the school feeding program against the five policy goals/pathways)? Have the capacity needs changed as a result of the COVID pandemic? • Were any capacity needs assessments conducted? If yes, were the capacity enhancement interventions designed as per learnings from these assessments? • Change in capacity needs in the COVID-19 context • Have all capacity needs of the government been considered in the project design and planned activities for complete handover? (from procurement to last mile delivery) • Secondary review of documents • KIIs • SABER-SF assessment • Other capacity needs assessments (if available) • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, BNNC, BIRTAN, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. What priority areas should WFP focus on to ensure that the transition from biscuit distribution to hot meals is adapted to the local context? • Expected challenges in implementation of the program in the program context and also in the context of the pandemic • Foreseen potential risks of transitioning to hot meals • Measures in place to mitigate potential risks to transition to hot meals towards ensuring better adaptation • Secondary review of documents • KIIs and FGDs • SABER-SF assessment • Other capacity needs assessments (if available) • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, BNNC, BIRTAN, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. March 2022 127 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources • School questionnaires • FGDs with SMC members To what extent are local-level stakeholders and governance structures ready to transition from biscuits distribution to school meals? What needs to improve in how these entities work with each other to bring the most successful and effective school meal program? • Perception of the local level stakeholders and governance structures such as students, parents, farmers, SMCs, PTAs etc. about transition to hot school meals • Stakeholder perceptions regarding the degree to which the needs of different groups will be addressed appropriately as per existing plans • Stakeholder perceptions of relevance of the project in COVID-19 crisis • Their willingness and intent to support the transition’s implementation • Nature of interaction and preparedness for coordination between these local level institutions and structures (about the project) • Secondary review of documents • KIIs and FGDs • SABER-SF assessment • Other capacity needs assessments (if available) • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • School, farmers, student and parent questionnaires • FGDs with SMC members and mothers What new factors influencing School Feeding have come into play as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic? What is the influence of these factors on the program’s planned approaches? What is the impact of COVID-19 on anticipated project outcomes with specific reference to impact of COVID 19 • Analysis of significant COVID-19 related aspects that may have an effect on implementation of the project/program’s planned approaches • Potential impact of the pandemic on expected outcomes • Secondary review of documents • KIIs and FGDs • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners March 2022 128 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources on school children’s return to school and contribution to achievement of project outcomes? • Modifications made in the implementation strategy to make the activities more responsive during the pandemic and more relevant for the local context • Learnings from the previous program and its incorporation in the new program design/implementation plan • All structured questionnaires and FGDs • EFFECTIVENESS To what extent are the national and local-level structures in place adequate to successfully deliver a school meal program, in an efficient and effective manner? • Existing capacities of school personnel, upazila and district level officials as well as the community (including farmers, SMCs and parents) to undertake the school meals program independently • Existing capacities of representatives, GoB on: • Preparation of monitoring and reporting framework for scaling up national school feeding program • Use of online database for reporting on school feeding program for program strengthening • Integration of complementary components such as WASH, Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices and Literacy in program planning (at the govt. level) • Developing community participation strategy and plan for implementation • Secondary review of documents • Quantitative questionnaires, KIIs and FGDs • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners • FGDs with mothers and SMC members March 2022 129 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources EFFICIENCY What additional measures/adjustments to the project design, if any, should be undertaken in the early stages of intervention to enhance the efficiency of the intervention? • Challenges faced in previous program (including in the context of covid) and learnings from previous evaluations • Action taken on recommendations made in past evaluations • Mitigation measures in place keeping in mind the COVID-19 crisis on the plan for utilization of resources (financial as well as human capital) • Community perceptions about the procurement/distribution processes planned • Extent of program preparation to provide take-home food, if necessary (keeping in mind the pandemic) • Secondary review of documents • Quantitative questionnaires, KIIs and FGDs • Quantitative questionnaires with school heads, farmers, parents • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners • FGDs with mothers and SMC members SUSTAINABILITY To what extent are the financial and program implementation responsibilities clear for a transition of the WFP school feeding project to national school feeding ownership • Existence of a handing over plan and processes for adoption of the program by government agencies • Delineation of responsibilities planned for all stakeholders involved • Preparedness of the stakeholders to uphold their responsibilities as per the plan • Secondary desk review • KIIs • Review of handover plan (if available) and the NSMP implementation plan • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc March 2022 130 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners Have criteria for successful (minimum) handover been defined and established with the Government at the start of the intervention (to allow for comparison at the end of the intervention? What activities/measures need to be considered in the handover process to contribute to its success? • Extent to which stakeholders understand and plan to uphold their responsibilities as per the handover plan • Capacity needs and other requirements expressed by the GoB for ensuring smooth transition • Secondary desk review • KIIs • Review of handover plan (if available) and the NSMP implementation plan • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners To what extent handover (transition plan, if available) reflects the measures aimed at institutionalization of the measures planned as part of the technical assistance to the Government that is expected to support the sustainability of the intervention (including policy work, support to systems, institutional capacity etc.)? What adjustments to the handover plan/strategy need to be made before the end of the intervention to ensure successful handover to the Government and stakeholders? • Provisions for institutionalization of program processes and structures to be taken up by the GoB • Existing capacities of government stakeholders for full handover • Policy provisions for SFP developed as a result of WFP support (e.g. Roll out of NSMP) • Financial commitment by the GoB towards the program activities • System strengthening interventions planned to ensure continuation of program activities • Secondary review of documents • Quantitative questionnaires, KIIs and FGDs • Quantitative questionnaires with school heads, farmers, parents • KIIs with MoPME, DPE, MoA, MoHFW, MoLGRDC etc. • KIIs with WFP staff and implementing partners • FGDs with mothers and SMC members March 2022 131 Research Questions Key information areas (Indicative) Data Collection Method Target Groups/Sources To what extent the intervention is planning to engage Government and local communities (PTAs, farmers etc.) towards school feeding and education activities? What is the engagement level of these stakeholders in the schools at the start of the intervention? Has the role of the communities and local stakeholders been institutionalized/is planned to be institutionalized (within Government’s policy, strategy and/or systems levels)? • Community networks previously created and proposed to support program implementation and build ownership March 2022 132 Annex 6. Data collection Tools The tools are attached separately. The table below maps the indicators with the type of tools and the questions. The quantitative and qualitative tools have also been presented in this annex. Table 10: Mapping of the indicators with the type of tools and the questions S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 1 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 79 2 Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Questions 7,8 Question 15 3 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey School Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 87 Questions 5,6 4 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Questions 87 Questions 2,3,4 5 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate the use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 87 Questions 12, 13, 14 Questions 5,6 6 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey School Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Headmaster Questionnaire Question 87 Questions 10 11 Questions 5,6 7 Number of educational facilities (i.e., school buildings, classrooms, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 14 20, 21,55 8 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 80 81 9 Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 61,62,75,76 10 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 11 Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports March 2022 133 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 12 Number of educational policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance: WFP monitoring reports Stage 1: Analyzed Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun 13 Quantity of take-home rations provided (in metric tons) as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 14 Number of individuals receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Question 81 Question 29 15 Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch)60 provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Questions 81 Question 29 16 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch)61 as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Storekeeper Questionnaire Questions 81 Question 29 17 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 18 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Parents Questionnaire Questions 37,38,39,40,43, 87 Questions 46 ,47 19 Number of individuals who demonstrate the use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey Parent Questionnaire Questions 37,38,39,40,43, 87 20 Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Store Keeper Questionnaire Question 87 Questions 9,10 60 School Feeding Programme in Bangladesh provides biscuits. Hence, data will be obtained is for number of biscuits provided to school age children as a result of USDA. 61 Data will be collected for number of children receiving biscuits as a result of USDA assistance. March 2022 134 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 21 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance Primary Survey / Findings from ETE School Questionnaire Store Keeper Questionnaire Question 87 Questions 7,8,11 22 Number of schools using an improved water source WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 10 23 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Question 21 24 Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) WFP monitoring reports Primary survey School Questionnaire Questions 56 25 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that include an LRP component WFP monitoring reports 26 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 RtR report on EGRA Primary survey 27 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions WFP monitoring reports 28 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions WFP monitoring reports 29 Number of schools reached with LRP activities as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 30 Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 31 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance Stage 1: Analyzed Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun WFP monitoring reports Custo m March 2022 135 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 1 Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90 percent of scheduled school days per school year N/A 2 Number of classroom libraries (book shelves with books) established as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary survey / Findings from ETE School Questionnaire Question 6,7,8 3 Percent of students in classrooms identified as attentive by their teachers Primary survey/ Findings from ETE 4 Average number of school days missed by each student due to illness (for each school and in aggregate) Findings from ETE 5 Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education Primary survey / Findings from ETE Parent Questionnaire Question 12 6 Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices Primary survey/ Findings from ETE 7 Percent of storekeepers who can identify at least three safe storage practices Primary survey / Findings from ETE Storekeeper Questionnaire Question 11 10 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) WFP monitoring reports 11 Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) WFP monitoring reports 12 Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey FGDs with local small holder farmers 13 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance Primary survey - B FGDs with local small holder farmers 14 Number of 'Little Doctor' students supported by WFP WFP monitoring reports Primary survey - B School Questionnaire Question 38 15 Number of meetings/workshops/training sessions held for institutional capacity to implement SF as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 16 Number of pilot initiatives supported to design SF modalities as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports March 2022 136 S. No. Performance Indicator Source Type of Questionnaire Question No. 17 Number of government staff trained as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 18 Number of technical training for system development for service/food procurement, quality control, supply chain, and strengthened online database system and gender mainstreaming in program as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 19 Number of schools supported by the Government with school feeding as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 20 Number of social mobilization/community meetings as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 21 Number of community mobilization workshops organized as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 22 Number of teachers, parents and school management committee members attended the community mobilization workshops WFP monitoring reports Primary Survey Parents Questionnaire Teachers Questionnaire Question 46 Questions 25 23 Average number of school days per month on which multi-fortified or at least 4 food groups were provided (nutrition-sensitive indicator) WFP monitoring reports 24 Number of individuals (Govt./stakeholder/NGO officials) trained or certified through capacity strengthening initiatives as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports 25 Number of high-level capacity￾strengthening initiatives (ToT/training/workshop/technical meetings) organized or facilitated as a result of USDA assistance WFP monitoring reports March 2022 137 Annex 7: Project Indicators/Results Framewor March 2022 138 March 2022 139 ACTIVITY NARRATIVE Food Distribution Activity Overview Objective Increase student enrolment and student and teacher attendance through the provision of school meals and recognition of high performing teachers. Location Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh Beneficiaries Students in Government Public Schools Dates January 1-Sept 30, 2021 Micronutrient Fortified Biscuits: WFP, in alignment with the Government of Bangladesh, will supply fortified High Energy Biscuits to primary school age children in 138 schools in two regions of Cox’s Bazar, Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub districts, throughout the project period. The micronutrient fortified biscuits will be supplied every school day to all pre-primary and primary schoolchildren in year one, and one day per week in years in two and three. Home-Grown School Meals: WFP, in alignment with the Government of Bangladesh, WFP will transition from providing daily biscuits to providing a daily hot meal consisting of U.S. donated fortified rice, lentils and fortified vegetable oil to all 138 schools in two regions of Cox’s Bazar, Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub districts. Preparatory work for this transition will begin in year 1, and meals will be distributed in years 2 and 3. Planning for the creation of Mothers Groups at the school level to help cooks in the preparation and distribution of hot meals will begin in late September 2021. Mothers will be responsible for checking the quality of the hot meal before it is served to the children and will record their feedback in a register. Capacity Building Activity Overview March 2022 140 Capacity Building Objective Increase government ownership through capacity building activities. Location Dhaka, Cox’s Bazar, and other Government-funded school feeding areas as needed. Beneficiaries Government officials in central, divisional, and local levels. Policy Framework: WFP will advocate with the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) to develop and implement a National School Meal Implementation Strategy through which the directives of the new policies will be implemented. This implementation strategy, the Primary School Feeding Program (PSFP) Development Plan Proposal (DPP) will hopefully begin implementation in June 2021. WFP will continue to advocate for the national school meal program within the highest levels of government. WFP will facilitate high-level meetings and technical consultation sessions to support the nationwide roll-out of the new policy including events at the national, divisional and district levels to support dissemination of the policy, strategy and awareness raising around its contents. Stable Funding: WFP will advocate with the Government of Bangladesh to establish a regular revenue budget funding stream for school meal activities. WFP will work with the government to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and a national school meals baseline study which will serve as a basis for recommendations to the Government of Bangladesh for consistent and predictable funding to ensure the sustainability of the national school meal program. Institutional Capacity and Coordination: WFP will train MoPME and Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) officials on local purchase, transparent procurement, effective program review, and planning for school meals to enable them to take ownership of the national school meal program at the end of the proposed project. These trainings will be delivered annually in batches as the school meal program is rolled out. Additional trainings will be given as needed to ensure an effective and safe rollout of the school meal program. WFP will support the efforts of MoPME to develop systems to operationalize the national school meal program, including the development of standard operating procedures for management and oversight and establishing a monitoring framework and reporting system. WFP will support the DPE to take over the overall coordination of school feeding activities. This will be done through a series of activities, including establishing a national school meal authority (NSMA) with an effective research wing to build knowledge and provide technical assistance to relevant ministries. WFP will support MoPME to develop the Research and Development (R&D) Center, which WFP will support MoPME to establish, will contribute build the global knowledge on the impact and improvement of school meals and will be utilized by local and central level of government officials for decision making. Capacity Building and Training: WFP will conduct trainings and workshops for central level and local level stakeholders (government and school-based) on food safety and hygiene, warehouse management, supply chain mechanisms, smart fuel management, advanced computer literacy, and online database management for government officials. WFP will support MoPME to establish a transparent food procurement system, WFP will work with the U.N. Organization for Food and Agriculture (FAO) to increase sustainable linkages between local vegetable growers and McGovern-Dole-supported schools to ensure a regular supply of fresh seasonal vegetables and eggs. Preparatory work for trainings with local women growers will begin late September 2021. WFP, in conjunction with FAO, will develop a technical assistance package encompassing the agriculture value chain for government officials in the Directorate of Agricultural Extension, under the Ministry of Agriculture, and local women growers who supply food to schools. Activities under the technical assistance package will include training for smallholder farmers to grow more diverse food to increase dietary diversity, establishing local supply chains for fresh food, improving access to markets, especially for women farmers, and working with local extension services to ensure these smallholder farmers are connected to government systems to ensure sustainability. March 2022 141 WFP will work with the Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE) and FAO to expand menu options for Home￾Grown School Feeding (HGSF) through dietary assessments and recipe creation, considering local preferences and availability and cost to improve dietary diversity. Community Participation and Ownership: WFP will train MoPME district and sub district level officials across Bangladesh on improved techniques for engagement with communities. WFP will draft a creative and effective community mobilization strategy and develop Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) materials to showcase effective community engagement in managing school meals in Bangladesh. Support to Smallholder Farmers: WFP, through FAO and in partnership with Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Ministry of Agriculture and Bangladesh Institute for Research Training and Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN), will strengthen the capacity of and train local women growers on integrated agriculture and nutrition in order to improve market linkages, support the institutionalization of the school meal program provided by relevant Government agencies to ensure its sustainability, and increase sustainable linkages between local vegetable growers and McGovern-Dole-supported schools. WFP through FAO will strengthen the capacity of the government extension service system to adapt and produce training materials, develop key messaging packages adapted to the various site-specific challenges, and build a critical mass of extension services providers with the requisite capacity. Improve Literacy Activity Overview Objectives 1. Increase student enrollment and student and teacher attendance through the provision of school meals and recognition of high performing teachers. 2. Improve literacy of school-aged children and quality of education through early grade reading and other learning interventions. 3. Increase awareness of the importance of education by parents and community members through ongoing advocacy campaigns. Location Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh Beneficiaries Students in Government Public Schools Improve Teacher Attendance: WFP, through Room to Read (RtR), will promote teacher attendance by establishing incentives to increase teacher presence in schools, improve the engagement of parents in schools and, in collaboration with School Management Committees (SMCs), by increasing spot monitoring of teacher attendance. WFP, through RtR, will advocate for upazila education officers to visit schools more often. Room to Read will coach and mentor officials and support them to make effective plans to observe teachers in schools enabling them to fulfil their oversight roles, especially in remote schools, and to provide counselling for teachers with regular absences. Provide relevant, appropriate, high-quality reading materials: WFP, though RtR, will stock classroom libraries with between 200 and 400 story books per library over the life of the award. Grades 1-5 all have classroom libraries, and this will be done at all 138 project schools. RtR will create 20 digital versions of new library books and provide both traditional and e-book formats, as well as interactive formats with options to read text aloud. In 10 schools digital reading content will be rolled out through the distribution of tablets and electronic book readers in schools. WFP, through RtR, will promote school-based content creation led by children and community members including the development of “children’s magazines” in all project schools. RtR will distribute a yearly publication of these children’s magazines to each school, which will be added to class libraries. WFP, through RtR, will create and maintain a web page to provide early grade reading materials for download for teachers, students and parents, for classroom instruction or for reading to children at home. The website will include teacher training materials, digital books, training videos and audio files. March 2022 142 Develop Instructional Materials: WFP, through RtR, will develop and distribute improved literacy instructional materials to all grade 1 and grade 2 teachers in McGovern-Dole schools during each year of the program. RtR staff and government officials will jointly provide orientation trainings yearly for teachers on the use of instructional materials to improve Bangla instruction and student learning. RtR will distribute student stationary kits to children (including notebooks, pencils, sharpeners, rulers, and erasers for all students) every year. WFP will ensure that the materials produced by RtR will be able to be reproduced by WFP and the Government of Bangladesh. Train Teachers: WFP, through RtR, will provide semi-annual training to teachers to support their professional development in line with national teacher training guidelines. WFP, through RtR, will provide annual trainings for Primary Teacher Training Institute (PTI) instructors, Upazila Resource Centre (URC) instructors and Upazila Education Officers to address the underperformance of teachers in relationship to oral language, reading instruction, and pedagogical approaches to ensure the sustainability of the program. RtR will provide training to the project technical staff such that they can jointly facilitate the training with government officials and effectively coach teachers throughout the length of the project. WFP through RtR will develop online training courses that will be available for all teachers. These courses will support the government-led development of standardized e-learning resources for teacher training and allow delivery of the standard content to all teachers. WFP through RtR, along with government officials, will provide training on Bangla reading instruction to all grade 1 and grade 2 Bangla teachers twice per year. RtR will conduct trainings for teachers annually to help establish remedial classes to support students at different levels and underachieving students. To ensure the effective use of the libraries, RtR will provide an annual ToT training on the library program to WFP staff, Room to Read staff, and Government of Bangladesh staff so they can effectively monitor the program. Capacity building of School Administrators and government officials: WFP, through RtR, will conduct annual trainings for government officials’ (District Primary Education Officers (DPEOs), Upazila Education Officer (UPEO), Assistant Upazila Education Officers), head teachers and school administrators on competencies in literacy, governance, transparency and management best practice and monitoring and supervision to create an enabling learning environment in schools. RtR will ensure that government officials and head teachers participate in professional development training and practices designed primarily for teachers. In addition to in-person trainings, the project will deliver capacity building trainings to school administrators and government officials through online trainings. WFP, through RtR, will facilitate advocacy with government officials and school authorities, including bi￾annual and quarterly meetings on lessons learned, book launching events to create awareness about the importance of literacy, and reading fairs to promote a culture of reading through enabling a positive reading environment. Increase Student Attendance and Effective Use of Contact Time: WFP, through RtR, will support improved student attendance by organizing a reception day for pre-primary and grade one students. Students who have shown dedication and grit will receive an award. Additionally, a read play festival will be organized, and necessary learning materials will be distributed to increase students’ attendance. RtR will promote a print￾rich environment in each school. Improvements to the school environment will also be made to ensure students feel welcome and safe at school. Teacher desks will also be provided where needed to improve the classroom environment for teachers and to promote a better use of class time. Book Captains will be provided with training to effectively support the library checkout system and to encourage attendance in school. March 2022 143 Increased community involvement in literacy: WFP, through RtR, will engage parents, SMCs, and the wider community to improve children’s learning through the establishment of regular sessions with parents which will focus on the importance of regular school attendance. In addition, RtR will mobilize parents to establish an after-school reading forum which will be implemented on a weekly basis by project-trained community volunteers. WFP, through RtR, will engage with SMCs to promote increased engagement in schools and to increase accountability for quality of education. RtR will work with UNICEF to develop a revised SMC manual and provide trainings using the manual to SMCs in McGovern-Dole supported schools. Additional supporting activities: • Staff capacity Development: to ensure the project staff can effectively support the needs of teachers and government officials, Room to Read and WFP staff will undergo various trainings to ensure they have the necessary skills, knowledge and mindsets required. • Sustainability: to ensure the sustainability of the sub-activities various meetings, workshops and handover sessions will be held with various officials across all three years of the project. • Monitoring and Evaluation: to ensure the literacy program can accurately and effectively report on student progress, various monitoring and evaluation activities will be undertaken. Promote Improved Nutrition and Health Activity Overview Objectives 1. Improve health and dietary practices of students by improving water systems and latrine facilities and through water, sanitation, and hygiene education initiatives. 2. Increase government ownership through capacity building activities. 3. Increase awareness of the importance of education by parents and community members through ongoing advocacy campaigns. Location Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh Beneficiaries Students in Government Public Schools Improved Nutrition: WFP will work to review teacher training handbooks and advocate for revisions to the materials to be more practical, child-friendly and engaging, as well as to include practical nutrition lessons. The Government of Bangladesh’s existing essential learning package (ELP) will be revised through an extensive collaborative, consultative process with government agencies that have the necessary technical expertise. WFP will work with BIRTAN to provide yearly training to cooks, develop materials on healthy dietary behaviour, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available food, and use the materials to orient children and parents on healthy dietary practices. WFP through Resource Integration Center (RIC), will support the government in implementing key components of the government’s essential learning package at the school and community level. Implementation includes an overall orientation session on the revamped package as well as information sessions on dietary diversity, nutrition, health and hygiene education. RIC will host highly anticipated quiz competitions for students at the upazila and union level. School gardens: WFP will promote vegetable gardens at schools and form groups of “Little Agriculturists” who will be trained and encouraged to exercise leadership in engaging students on the preparation and maintenance of school vegetable gardens. A “Healthy Meals Day” will be observed in each school once per year to demonstrate how to prepare nutritious food with locally available produce. Development of a nutritious menu: In year 2 and year 3 of the project, WFP will work with Bangladesh Institute of Research, Training and Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN) to continue recipe development to provide a number of nutritious menu options. The cookbooks will include nutritional information and serving sizes for each meal. March 2022 144 Improved Health and WASH: WFP, in conjunction with RIC, will construct handwashing stations and provide soap at schools that require them, as determined by a rapid needs assessment at the start of the project. WFP will emphasize the importance of proper hygiene practices for both the school children and parents through the dissemination of hygiene messages in sessions with students and in parents’ meetings. WFP will provide awareness training for students in the “Little Doctors” program and provide advocacy materials. There will be two trainings in the first year and a refresher training in the second year. The “Little Doctors” will be encouraged to deliver health related messages to children in class and morning assemblies. They will also support students to test their vision and measure their height and weight. WFP will coordinate with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure timely delivery of de-worming tablets provided by the government. Food Safety and Quality Infrastructure Activity Overview Objective Improve health and dietary practices of students by improving water systems and latrine facilities and through water, sanitation, and hygiene education initiatives. Location Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh Beneficiaries Students in Government Public Schools Cooks Training: WFP, in partnership with the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA) and BIRTAN, will train cooks annually on safe food preparation, hygiene maintenance in the kitchen, how to properly disinfect dishes, cookware and utensils, maintain daily cleanliness of kitchen, waste management and storage of perishable and non-perishable commodities purchased locally. WFP will pay the cooks for their work before the Government of Bangladesh assumes the responsibility of paying for the cooks at the end of the project. Rehabilitation of latrines and waterpoints: WFP, in conjunction with RIC, will carry out an assessment at all McGovern-Dole supported schools to see where water sources and latrines are in disrepair. Following this needs assessment, construction work will be initiated to rehabilitate these water sources and latrines. Establishment of kitchens and food storerooms: WFP, through RIC, will construct kitchens and storerooms at all 138 McGovern-Dole supported schools. Each kitchen will be equipped with handwashing and dishwashing facilities, a supply of safe water for meal preparation and will be constructed following quality construction standards for kitchens in schools. Cooks will be trained yearly in the correct hygienic maintenance and upkeep of kitchens. Provision of gas burner stoves: WFP, through RIC, will provide and install Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) burner stoves in each McGovern-Dole supported school kitchen. After the stoves are constructed, cooks will be trained in the use, correct maintenance and upkeep. Distribution of preparation, serving and eating utensils: To ensure the safe consumption of hot meals, WFP, through RIC, will provide tiffin boxes and spoons for school age children, and food preparation and serving utensils for the kitchen for each McGovern-Dole supported school. WFP will work with RIC and BIRTAN to carry out sensitization trainings for cooks and teachers on the proper use and maintenance of equipment, putting in place standard operating procedures to ensure that all items provided are taken care of and stored safely. Resource Requirements and Funding of McGovern-Dole SFP The total Federal award amount is $19,000,000.00. This includes commodities ($1,912,600.00), freight ($1,257,500.00) and administrative costs (cash portion) ($15,829,700.00) March 2022 145 Table 11: Summary of Total Project Operating Budget (Includes Cost Share) 62 Administrative $ 1,582,259.52 Activities $ 8,969,229 Commodity and Food Purchase (LRP) $ 1,861,679.48 Internal Transportation, Storage and Handling $ 2,266,316.80 Total Indirect Costs $ 1,150,414.56 Total $ 15,829,900.00 Table 12: Activity wise Project Operating Budget63 Expense Type Approved Budget Building capacity $2,972,614 Distribute food $273,789 Food Safety and Quality Infrastructure $1,139,146 Support Improved Literacy $4,063,838 Promote Improved Nutrition and Health $519,840 Total $8,969,229 Program Targets and baseline values Table 13: Program targets and baseline values Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on Standar d 1 Outco me McGovern￾Dole SO 1 Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text Baseline Study 33% 28% 40% Standar d 2 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 1.3 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools Baseline Study Data not available as schools were closed from March 2020 to September 2021 Data not available as schools were closed from March 2020 to September 2021. 90% Standar d 3 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.1.3 Number of teaching and learning materials Progress Monitori 0 NA 1,64,036 62 Project agreement between the Foreign Agricultural Service and the World Food Programme March 2022 146 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on provided as a result of USDA assistance ng Report Standar d 4 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 1.1.4 Number of teachers/educators/teachi ng assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study 0 NA 792 Standar d 5 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.1.4 Number of teachers/educators/teachi ng assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 853 Standar d 6 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 1.1.5 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 110 Standar d 7 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.1.5 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 137 for literacy activities and 140 for biscuit distributi on Standar d 8 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.3.3 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 158 Standar d 9 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.3.4 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 49,162 NA 49,162 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.2 Number of educational policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 6 March 2022 147 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on assistance (Stage 1: Analyzed) Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.2 Number of educational policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation) Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 6 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.2 Number of educational policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree) Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 6 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.2 Number of educational policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 4: Passed/Approved) Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 2 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.2 Number of educational policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun) Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.7.2 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 1: Analyzed) Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 5 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.7.2 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 5 March 2022 148 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation) Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.7.2 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree) Progress Monitori ng Report 1 NA 2 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.7.2 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 4: Passed/Approved) Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 2 Standar d 10 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.7.2 Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun) Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1 Standar d 12 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.4 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1 Standar d 13 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.4 Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 140 Standar d 16 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.2.1.1 Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school￾age children as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 1,110,000 (Source: Semi Annual Progress Report Apr￾Sep 21) NA 23,786,9 33 March 2022 149 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on Standar d 17 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.2.1.1 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 49,162 NA 49,162 Standar d 18 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.2.1.1 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 42,401 Standar d 19 Outco me McGovern￾Dole SO 2 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 3,288 Standar d 20 Outco me McGovern￾Dole SO 2 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 696 Standar d 22 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.2 Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 870 Standar d 23 Output McGovern￾Dole SO 2 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 4,110 Standar d 27 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.1.1 Number of schools using an improved water source Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 121 NA 140 Standar d 28 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.1.1 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities Baseline Study and Progress Monitori 136 NA 140 March 2022 150 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on ng Report Standar d 29 Output McGovern￾Dole 2.5.1 Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 49,162 NA 49,162 Standar d 30 Output McGovern￾Dole SO 1 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 44,931 Standar d 31 Output McGovern￾Dole SO 1 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions Progress Monitori ng Report 1,47,486 (Source: Semi Annual Progress Report Apr￾Sep 21) NA 1,27,203 Standar d 32 Output McGovern￾Dole SO 1 Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance Baseline Study and Progress Monitori ng Report 140` NA 140 Custom 1 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.2.1.1/1.3. 1.1 Average number of school days per month on which multi-fortified or at least 4 food groups were provided (nutrition￾sensitive indicator) Progress Monitori ng Report 20 NA 20 Custom 2 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.1/2.7.1 Number of individuals (Govt./stakeholder/NGO officials) trained or certified through capacity strengthening initiatives as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 100 ( Quarter Jan- Mar 21) NA 3,514 Custom 3 Output McGovern￾Dole 1.4.1/2.7.1 Number of high-level capacity-strengthening initiatives (ToT/training/workshop/te chnical meetings) organized or facilitated as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 1( during quarter Jan￾Mar 21) NA 50 March 2022 151 Indicat or Numbe r Type Result Performance Indicator Data Source Baseline Life of project (Target) Interventi on Comparis on Custom 4 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 1.3 Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education Baseline Study 88% 82% 100% Custom 5 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 2.1 Percent of students who can identify at least three key health and hygiene practices Baseline Study 83% 79% 100% Custom 6 Outco me McGovern￾Dole 2.2 Percent of storekeepers who can identify at least three safe storage practices Baseline Study 93% NA 100% LRP 1 Output LRP SO1 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that include an LRP component Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 44,931 LRP 2 Output LRP SO1 Number of schools reached with LRP activities as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 170 NA 138 LRP 5 Output LRP 1.1.1 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Progress Monitori ng Report 4,61,471 (Source: Semi Annual Progress Report Apr￾Sep 21) NA 11,90,00 0 LRP 6 Output LRP 1.3.2 Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Progress Monitori ng Report 335 MT biscuits NA 265 LRP 11 Output LRP 1.4.3 Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1380 LRP 12 Outco me LRP 1.4.3 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1104 LRP 14 LRP 1.4.4. Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance Progress Monitori ng Report 0 NA 1104 March 2022 152 March 2022 153 Annex 8: Confidentiality agreement and ethical pledge Attached Separately March 2022 154 Annex 9: List of people interviewed Discussions were held with the following: 1. Assistant Project Director, School Feeding Project, Directorate of Primary Education, Government of Bangladesh 2. Senior Scientific Officer,Bangladesh Institute of Research and Training on Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN) 3. Director,Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC) 4. Director (FSW), Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) 5. District Education Officer, Cox Bazar 6. Upazila Education Officer, Kutubdia 7. Upazila Education Officer, Ramu 8. Head of Monitoring and Evaluation WFP-Cox’s Bazar 9. Programme Policy Officer School Feeding WFP-CO Bangladesh 10. Programme Policy Officer (SFCS), WFP-CO, Dhaka 11. Programme Policy Officer School Feeding WFP-CO, Dhaka 12. Programme Policy Officer School Feeding WFP-CO, Cox’s Bazar 13. Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Associate WFP-Cox’s Bazar 14. Consultant M&E Regional Bureau WFP Bangkok 15. Regional Evaluation Officer, WFP Bangkok 16. Evaluation Officer, WFP HQ 17. Evaluation Officer School Based Programmes 18. Officer, RtR 19. Officer, RIC March 2022 155 Annex 10: Bibliography Table 14: List of documents used Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received – Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix Project related documents Y Appraisal mission report N/A Project document (including Logical Framework in Annex F) Country Strategic Plan Donor Brief (2022-26), Project Agreement between the FAS and the WFP including the results framework Y Relevance Standard Project Reports Y Budget Revisions Financial report N/A Note for the record (NFR) from Program Review Committee meeting (for original operation and budget revisions if any) N/A Approved Excel budget (for original intervention and budget revisions if any) Project Agreement between the FAS and the WFP Y Relevance, Efficiency Intervention/Project Plan (breakdown of beneficiary figures and food requirements by region/activity/month and partners) Project Agreement between the FAS and the WFP Y Relevance, Effectiveness Country Office Strategic Documents (if applicable) N/A Country Strategy Document (if any) Country Strategic Plan Donor Brief (2022-26), Y Relevance, Sustainability Evaluation reports for FY 17 grant Baseline study, Mid Term Evaluation and End Term Evaluation Report for FY 17 grant, SABER Country Report Y Effectiveness and Sustainability Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessments N/A Emergency Food Security Assessments N/A Market Assessments and Bulletins N/A Joint Assessment Missions (UNHCR/WFP) N/A Inter-Agency Assessments N/A Rapid needs assessments N/A Cash and voucher feasibility studies N/A Monitoring & Reporting (if applicable) McGovern-Dole FY2021 semi-annual reports Y Efficiency, Effectiveness March 2022 156 Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received – Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix M&E Plan Performance Monitoring Plan and New Monitoring Frameworks Y Relevance, Effectiveness M&E Policy USDA Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Y Relevance M&E Indicators and Definitions USDA and McGovern￾Dole Indicators and Definitions Y Effectiveness Country Situation Report (SITREP) N Country Executive Brief WFP Bangladesh Country Strategic Plan 2022-26 Y Relevance Food Distribution and Post￾distribution Monitoring Reports COVID-19 Response: Door to Door Biscuit Distribution Remote Monitoring Report (Ukhiya and Kutubdia) N Effectiveness Monthly Monitoring Reports Semi-annual project reports till March 2021 Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Donor specific reports McGovern-Dole FY 17 Semi-annual project reports Y Effectiveness, Output monitoring reports (if applicable) • Quarterly and Monthly Monitoring Reports of RtR and RIC will be required • Periodic Early Grade Reading Assessments conducted by RtR Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Actual and Planned beneficiaries by activity and district/ location by year Actual and Planned beneficiaries location wise is not available, Actual and Planned beneficiaries activity wise available. Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Male vs. Female beneficiaries by activity and district/ location by year Not Available N Effectiveness Beneficiaries by age group N/A Actual and Planned tonnage distributed by activity by year FY2020 Semi-annual report Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Actual and Planned cash/voucher requirements (US$) by activity by year N/A Operational documents (if applicable) N/A Organogram for main office and sub-offices N/A Mission Reports N Partners (if applicable) Terms of Reference Y March 2022 157 Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received – Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix Annual reports from cooperating partners From RtR , RIC (Project completion report, if any) Y Effectiveness, Efficiency List of partners (Government, NGOs, UN agencies) by location/ activity/ role/ tonnage handled List of partners has been provided in ToR. Relevant documents have been shared for their roles. Y Effectiveness Field level agreements (FLAs), Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) Roles and Responsibilities of various partners Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Other Evaluations/ Reviews Assessment of reading and comprehension skills conducted by RtR will be required N Relevance, Effectiveness Evaluations/ reviews of past or on￾going operation Baseline study, Mid Term Evaluation and End Term Evaluation Report for FY 17 grant, Y Relevance, Effectiveness, Sustainability Resource mobilization (if applicable) Y Efficiency, Effectiveness Contribution statistics by month N/A Resource mobilization strategy This will be required. N Efficiency, Effectiveness Maps (if applicable) Y Relevance Operational Map BDCO McGovern Dole Annual Work Plan FY2021 Y Relevance Other documents collected by the team (including external ones) (if applicable) NPAN 2, End line evaluation of Reading Outcomes in Government Primary Schools (USAID’s Reading Enhancement for Advancing Development (READ) Activity Y Relevance Templates Y Work plans Y Effectiveness, Efficiency Norms and standards Y Annex 11. List of sample schools List of Schools in Ukhiya (Sample) SL# Union School 1 Rajapalong Rajapalong Government Primary School 2 Rajapalong R. Mohshin Ali Government Primary School 3 Rajapalong Dosory Government Primary School 4 Rajapalong Dargabil Government Primary School 5 Rajapalong Orbindha Baruah Government Primary School 6 Holodipalong Rumka Hatirghona Government Primary School 7 Holodipalong U.D.Mahajonpara Government Primary School 8 Holodipalong Morischapalong Government Primary School 9 Holdia palong Sabek Rumka Ebtedayee Madrasha 10 Ratnapalong Karaibunia Government Primary School 11 Ratnapalong Amtoli Government Primary School 12 Jaliapalong Sonaisory Government Primary School 13 Jaliapalong Inani Government Primary School 14 Jaliapalong Chapotkhali Government Primary School 15 Jaliapalong Dailpara Ebtedayee Madrasha 16 Palongkhali Telkhola Government Primary School 17 Palongkhali Palongkhali Government Primary School 18 Palongkhali Farirbill Ebtedayee Madrasha List of Schools in Kutubdia (Sample) SL# Union Name of School 1 Uttar Dhurong Musasiraj Government Primary School 2 Uttar Dhurong Samadia Government Primary School 3 Uttar Dhurong Afaz Uddin Government Primary School 4 Dakhin Dhurong South Dhurong Government Primary School 5 Lemsikhali Rajakhali Government Primary School 6 Lemsikhali Lemsikhali Peyarakata Government Primary School 7 Lemsikhali Zamal Uddin Ahmed Government Primary School 8 Koierbil K.S.Red Cresent Government Primary School 9 Borghop Monoharkhali Government Primary School 10 Borghop Borghop Arshad Government Primary School 11 Aliakbor Dail Takepara Government Primary School 12 Aliakbor Dail Khudier tag Government Primary School List of Schools in Ramu (Sample) S.No School Code School Name 1 91412041001 Akshin Chakmarkul Govt Primary School 2 91412040403 Dholirchodha Govt Primary School 3 91412040412 Paschim Chakmarkul Govt Primary School 4 91412040502 Merongloya Model Govt Primary School 5 91412040507 Mandalpada Govt Primary School 6 91412040601 Kauwarkhop Govt Primary School 7 91412040102 Shukmoniya Govt Primary School 8 91412040106 Douchori Govt Primary School 9 91412040204 Thoangakata Govt Primary School 10 91412040801 Dakshin Mithachodhi Govt Primary School 11 91412040901 Khuniapalang Govt Primary School+D48 12 91412040302 Eidgarh Badobil Govt Primary School 13 91412040409 Purbo Mohammedpura Govt Primary School 14 99412049011 Dhoyapalang Reg. Pvt. Primary School 15 99412049005 Sathghoriya Reg. Pvt. Primary School 16 99412049009 Purbo Nonachhadi Reg. Pvt. Primary School 17 99412049014 Bado Dholir Chhoda Haji Matiur Rehman Reg. Pvt. Primary School 18 99412049018 Lot Ukhia Ghona Reg. Pvt. Primary School 19 99412049201 Alhaj Fazal Ambia Pvt. Primary School 20 99412049017 Purba Jumchhadi Reg. Pvt. Primary School Annex 12: Detailed Stakeholder Analysis Table 15: List of internal and external stakeholders Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) Internal (WFP) Stakeholders WFP –CO Bangladesh • Responsible for overall management and provide support relating to logistics, procurement and finance. • Responsible for overall coordination, liaison with stakeholders, implementation oversight and capacity building. • Responsible for the coordination of the activity’s implementation. • Supervising the proper management of warehouses, establishing the supply chain for biscuits and providing capacity building support to the Government. • Overseeing the overall financial management. • Overseeing collection of data and maintaining data base; data analysis and reporting, capacity support in institutionalizing monitoring and reporting system in MoPME, DPE etc. • Central level coordination, planning, designing, guiding and training for implementation, progress tracking, demonstration of results including reporting • Providing field support, liaison with sub￾offices and providing M&E support • As the key informant and primary stakeholder, and users of this evaluation. • Initial briefing and overview of WFP work in Bangladesh, program documents, help evaluation team better understand the context of implementation and strategy for future; • Support the evaluation team through an introduction to key stakeholders; • Review Inception Report and Draft End – Term Evaluation Report • Involved in using evaluation findings of USDA Mc Govern Dole FY20-23 grant • As evidence to inform operational and strategic decision￾making • To understand the impact of interventions and explore the strength of the exit strategy with a focus on achieving programme sustainability • CD • DCD (Program) • DCD (Operations Support) • Head of Program Planning and Implementat ion Support • Activity Manager • Evaluation Manager • Program Policy Officer (SFCS) • Senior Program Officer (SF) • Senior Program Assistant • Senior Program Officer (Resource Managemen t) WFP Field Offices • Coordination with WFP-CO on school feeding program; management of overall project timeline; ensuring timely • As the key informant and primary stakeholder. • Senior Program Officer Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) Cox’s Bazaar submission of good quality deliverables; communication of program process to relevant stakeholders. • Providing overall program support for Ukhiya and Kutubdia sub-districts, ensuring communication flow to Senior Program Officer; maintaining timelines, reviewing deliverables for submission to donor • Providing support for pipeline management and assisting the implementing agencies in tracking supply and utilization of commodities • Overseeing the overall financial management of project, providing support at field level for biscuits delivery, meal distribution, warehouse management • Coordinating, supervising and guiding implementation, monitoring and reporting at the field level • Sharing feedback to improve program performance • As users of the evaluation findings to understand the extent to which needs of the targeted population have been met. • School Feeding Officer • Senior Program Assistant • Logistics Assistant RBB • Responsible for providing technical guidance and support. • The RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of the operational performance. • The Regional Evaluation Officer supports CO/RB • Key informant and primary stakeholder – involved in planning for next USDA Mc Govern Dole • Interested in the independent account of USDA McGovern￾Dole performance • Applying learning from evaluation to other country offices. No interviews will be conducted WFP Washingto n Office • Responsible for overall coordination with Country office and Focal officials of USDA • Regular and direct coordination with USDA • Organizing and facilitating regular meeting with the Country Office and USDA • Collect regular updates on the program implementation from Country Office • No interviews will be conducted WFP HQ Policy and Program WFP HQ technical units are responsible for issuing and overseeing the rollout of normative guidance on corporate program themes, activities and modalities, as well as of overarching corporate policies and strategies. HQ will be interested in the lessons that emerge from evaluation, as many may have relevance beyond the geographical area of focus. No interviews will be conducted WFP Executive Board (EB) The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations. The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the This evaluation will not be presented to Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) effectiveness of WFP operations. the EB but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning processes. Office of Evaluation (OEV) Provides indirect independent oversight DE Help Desk No interviews will be conducted External stakeholders SFP beneficiari es They are the ultimate recipients of WFP support and therefore have a stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the review of women, men, boys, and girls from different groups will be determined and their perspectives will be captured. Key informants and primary stakeholder – providing perspective on results, outcomes and emerging impact of WFP’s intervention A sample of schools to be selected and within each school, a sample of the following respondents will be interviewed: • School-going children in primary schools (equal number of boys and girls) • Teachers, Storekeeper, Headmaster • Small holder farmers • Parents, SMC members • Efforts would be made to ensure interviews with equal numbers of boys and girls • Individual (structured interviews) Government of Bangladesh Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) • Responsible for providing guidance on school meal program priorities and approaches. Key informant and primary stakeholder on government policy, priorities, views on support by WFP and on expanding Relevant officials Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) Directorat e of Primary Education (DPE) • Receiving capacity support for school meals program implementation at the national and sub national level • Management of program with adequate quality control measures by establishing supply chain, food storage facilities etc. • Establishing proper monitoring and reporting systems • Engaging and learning from community awareness activities to make school feeding nutrition sensitive • Independent procurement of biscuits school feeding, on GoB’s commitment to providing/mobilize resources, issues, and opportunities in handing over of the program, capacities, and convergence to be explored. Will have perspective on sustaining the —FY2020 programme. Departmen t of Agriculture (DAE), Ministry of Agriculture • Responsible for training local small holder farmers on nutrition sensitive agriculture • Ensuring food diversity in the produce supplied to McGovern-Dole supported schools • Improve market linkages Key informant and primary stakeholder on government policy, priorities, views on support by WFP and on expanding school feeding, on GoB’s commitment to providing/mobilize resources, issues, and opportunities in handing over of the program, capacities, and convergence to be explored. Will have perspective on sustaining the FY2020 program. Relevant officials Banglades h Institute for Research Training and Applied Nutrition (BIRTAN) • Responsible for training local small holder farmers on integrating nutrition and agriculture • Ensuring food diversity in the produce supplied to McGovern-Dole supported schools • Improve market linkages • provide yearly training to cooks, develop materials on healthy dietary 163leveling, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available food • Use the materials to orient children and parents on healthy dietary practices. • Development of a nutritious menu Key informant and primary stakeholder on government policy, priorities, views on support by WFP and on expanding school feeding, on GoB’s commitment to providing/mobilize resources, issues, and opportunities in handing over of the program, capacities, and convergence to be explored. Will have perspective on sustaining the FY2020 program. Relevant officials District & Upazila Level education authorities Responsible for overseeing education sector performance, including implementation of National School Meal Policy, and liaising with other government departments at a decentralized level Primary stakeholder and key informant – on the implementation of the school feeding components. • District Primary Education Officer • Upazila Education Officers Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) Will have perspective on challenges and achievements. (Ukhiya and Kutubdia) • Upazila Resource Centre Instructors Capacity Support Unit (in DPE) (WFP) • Leading the CSU’s team on development of a national school feeding program, supporting the Government’s scaling up school feeding and in the formulation of national school meal policy and implementation strategy • Administrating and program implementation support. Support and providing on the job training to the relevant GoB officials • Supporting MoPME for the operationalization of National School Meal Policy and action plan • Providing liaison and program support May be useful in mapping the assessing the existing capacities of MoPME and DPE. • Senior Program Officer • Senior Program Assistants • Consultant • Washington DRO UN country team UNICEF UNICEF is also contributing to the developmen of Bangladesh in the sectors of health, nutrition education and WASH. No interviews will be conducted FAO FAO will support WFP-CO in establishing sustainable linkages between local vegetable growers and McGovern-Dole-supported schools to ensure a regular supply of fresh seasonal vegetables and eggs No interviews will be conducted DONOR agency USDA Funder of WFP school feeding program Primary stakeholder and informant – on the relationship with WFP and the priorities moving forward No interviews will be conducted NGOs Room to Read • Procure bookshelves for libraries for 709 government primary school classes • Initiate Book Checkout Register, Supplementary Reading Material register, visitor Registrar to the schools • Distribute books to the library (both RtR and purchased) and Book 164leveling sticker • Conduct Library Rating System. RtR will introduce the rating tools but rating conducted by YPSA/MA Literacy Facilitator • Lead teacher training on Bangla • Lead training on Library Management for teachers, primary training institute and Upazila Resource Center The results of the evaluation might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations, and partnerships. • Program Operations Director • Literacy Director • Research Monitoring & Evaluation Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) • Conduct baseline and midline assessment on reading schools • Lead ToT on introduction at Primary Training Institute and Upazila Resource Center • Lead Quarterly Program review meeting with implementing partners (3 meetings); for key people from WFP to also attend at district level • Lead Annual Progress Sharing Meeting with WFP and MA/YPSA for key people from WFP to also attend at district level • Lead Progress Sharing Meeting with Government Officials twice a year in two Upazilas • Lead Technical Review Meetings with Literacy Program Officer Technical and Literacy Facilitators (literacy team) in two Upazilas Other Implement ing partners such as Resource Integration Centre • Support implementation and distribution of fortified biscuits to program schools. • Liaising with WFP on distribution of FAO designed health and hygiene posters (5 per school) • Liaise with Room to Read’s Literacy Project Officer on the implementation and facilitation of trainings, distribution of materials • Identify any potential issues with program implementation and communicate such issues with WFP • Participate, facilitate and encourage active engagement in program launch, distribution of program materials (books, pens, backpacks, library shelves) at the school level • Support student tracking on library usage for Grades I and II. • Creating literate environment in the school in grade 1 and 2 (budget classroom wise). This involves • Classroom coloring and decoration • setting display board (for display of students’ work) • Displaying materials (grade specific posters on rhymes and poems etc.) on as needed basis. • Initiate wall magazine development – once a year, school based; once a year, Upazila level • Initiate wall magazine competition • Initiate Upazila based recognition event for school teachers, SMCs Their respective perspectives will be sought as the engagement of these actors influences the effectiveness of the program as well as its sustainability. • Program Manager • Program Coordinato r • Literacy Facilitators • Field Monitors Stakeholde r Interest in the [Intervention/Project/Operation] Involvement in Study and likely use Who (specifically for the Study) • Organize Community Mobilizer orientations • Provide WFP with monitoring data such as amount of food distributed, average student attendance, and number of latrines and water systems rehabilitated Partners Role of Partners MoPME and DPE • Management of program with adequate quality control measures by establishing supply chain, food storage facilities etc. • Establishing proper monitoring and reporting systems • Designing and implementing pilots with various combinations of ingredients for the future • Engaging and learning from community awareness activities to make school feeding nutrition sensitive • Independent procurement of biscuits as well as local produce for hot meals • Implementation of NSMP • Generating evidence on best practices during implementation of National School Feeding Policy and Strategy MoPME, DPE • Provision of fortified biscuits and hot meals in grades 1-5 • Delivery and distribution of food using WFP’s extensive pipeline and supply chain management system • Monitoring distribution of food and it’s safe storing, tracking and reporting • Providing guidance to school administrators, monitor performance and providing feedback for further improvement RtR and RIC 1. RtR • Procure bookshelves for libraries for 709 government primary school classes • Initiate Book Checkout Register, Supplementary Reading Material register, visitor Registrar to the schools • Distribute books to library (both RtR and purchased) and Book levelling sticker • Conduct Library Rating System. RtR will introduce the rating tools but rating conducted by YPSA/MA Literacy Facilitators • Lead teacher training on Bangla • Lead training on Library Management for teachers, primary training institute and Upazila Resource Center • Conduct baseline and midline assessment on reading schools • Lead ToT on introduction at Primary Training Institute and Upazila Resource Center • Lead Quarterly Programme review meeting with implementing partners (3 meetings); for key people from WFP to also attend at district level • Lead Annual Progress Sharing Meeting with WFP and MA/YPSA for key people from WFP to also attend at district level • Lead Progress Sharing Meeting with Government Officials twice a year in two Upazilas Partners Role of Partners • Lead Technical Review Meetings with Literacy Programme Officer Technical and Literacy Facilitators (literacy team) in two Upazilas 2. 3. RIC • Support implementation and distribution of fortified biscuits and hot meals to programme schools. • Liaising with WFP on distribution of FAO designed health and hygiene posters (5 per school) • Liaise with Room to Read’s Literacy Project Officer on the implementation and facilitation of trainings, distribution of materials • Identify any potential issues with programme implementation and communicate such issues with WFP • Participate, facilitate and encourage active engagement in programme launch, distribution of programme materials (books, pens, backpacks, library shelves) at the school level • Support student tracking on library usage for grades 1 and 2. • Creating literate environment in the school in grade 1 and 2 (budget classroom wise). This involves o classroom colouring and decoration o setting display board (for display of students’ work) o providing wall clock o Displaying materials (grade specific posters on rhymes and poems etc.) on as needed basis. • Initiate wall magazine development – once a year, school based; once a year, Upazila level • Initiate wall magazine competition • Initiate Upazila based recognition event for school teachers, SMCs • Organize Community Mobilizer orientations • Provide WFP with monitoring data such as amount of food distributed, average student attendance, and number of latrines and water systems rehabilitated RIC • WFP will guide and monitor RIC in hygiene reconstruction and information communication messaging. The community will be engaged through monthly SMC meetings. • RIC will support rehabilitation of water systems and latrines. This will involve identifying what materials are needed for rehabilitation, procuring the materials and rehabilitating the water systems or toilets. • WFP will train RIC on the ‘Little Doctors’ activity which includes lessons on how to measure weight, height, vision test and assist in government distribution of deworming. • WFP will monitor this activity through field monitors and maintain consistent communication between government, schools and RIC. • RIC will be trained to provide on the spot guidance, as needed, to teachers and students during routine monitoring. RIC • WFP will monitor the project and train RIC in basic agriculture skills. Partners Role of Partners • RIC will implement this activity at the school level, training teachers and overseeing project performance. • RIC will be trained to provide on-the-spot guidance, as needed, to teachers and students during routine monitoring. • RIC will re-enforce “Little Agriculturalist” and the setting up of gardens RtR, RIC • RtR will develop the training package, provide ToT and co-facilitate the event with other government trainers at the Upazila level • RtR and WFP will liaise with government to obtain training approvals • RIC will facilitate school level trainings MoPME, RIC, DPEO • WFP will organize trainings to RIC and government officials (DPEO) on food storage practices and kitchen maintenance practices. • RIC will train school teachers, head administrator, storekeepers, cooks (mothers' groups) and SMC members at the local level. • MoPME officials will be trained in monitoring the biscuit manufacturers in food safety standards for safe preparation of biscuits and appropriate biscuit storage practices. • Government officials will be trained in monitoring the biscuit manufacturers as well as local smallholder farmers for fresh produce. FAO, DAE, BIRTAN, BNNC • Strengthening the capacity of and train local women growers on integrated agriculture and nutrition in order to improve market linkages, support the institutionalization of the school meal program • Providing yearly training to cooks, developing materials on healthy dietary behavior, balanced diets and the nutritional value of locally available food, and use the materials to orient children and parents on healthy dietary practices. Annex 13: Updated Internal Reference Group Membership • Representatives from MoPME, Directorate of Primary Education (DPE) • Representative from USDA • Yumiko Kanemitsu (Regional Evaluation Officer at RBB) • Geophrey Sikei (VAM Officer and Head MEAL): Chair • Allen Amanya (Head of Monitoring and Evaluation): Evaluation Manager • Sneha Lata (Programme Policy Officer) Annex 14: Training schedule of the data collection team Table 16: Training Schedule S. No. Time Topic Responsibility Day 1 1. 9:30 am–10:00 am Team Introductions NRMC and DMA 2. 10:00 am- 10:30 am Training on WHO norms and guidelines for COVID-19 NRMC 3. 10:30 am-11:30 am Training of data collection teams on context of the program, about the program and the various components of the evaluation. Overview of the tools. NRMC 4. 11:30 am-12:00 pm Ethical guidelines to be followed during the evaluation survey NRMC 5. 12:00 pm-1:30 pm Training on School Questionnaire NRMC and DMA 6. 1:30 pm-2:15 pm Lunch break 7. 2:15 pm–4:00 pm Training of school questionnaire contd. NRMC and DMA 8. 4:00 pm-4:15 pm Break 9. 4:00 pm-5:30 pm Questionnaire for Parents, Headmaster NRMC and DMA 10. 5:30pm-6:00 pm Formation of groups (4 groups) basis on the exercise conducted to assess their capabilities NRMC/DMA Day 2 1. 9:00 am-9:30 am Recap of last day NRMC and DMA 2. 9:30 am-11:00 am Questionnaires Teacher, Storekeeper NRMC and DMA 3. 11:00 am-11:15pm Break NRMC and DMA 4. 11:15 am-1:15pm Mock calls of all questionnaires using CAPI NRMC and DMA 5. 1:15 pm-2:00 pm Lunch Break 6. 2:00 pm-4:00 pm Training on FGDs NRMC and DMA 7. 4:00 pm-4:15 pm Break 8. 4:15 pm-5:30 pm Mock calls and Revision for the day NRMC and DMA Day 3 1. 7:30 am-12:30 pm Field Practice NRMC and DMA 2. 12:30 pm-1:00 pm Lunch 3. 1:00 pm-3:00 pm Field practice NRMC and DMA 4. 3:00 pm-4:00 pm Field enumerators share experiences, lessons and queries NRMC and DMA 5. 5:00 pm-6:00 pm De-briefing of the team and query resolution NRMC and DMA 6. 6:00 pm –6:30 pm Finalize field movement plan NRMC and DMA Annex 15: Team Composition and Specific Tasks Table 17: Team composition and responsibilities Core Team Members Primary Role Specific tasks within the Evaluation Deliverables Rahul Agrawal Team Leader and Evaluation Manager • Overall project backstopping and coordination of assignment including interaction with WFP CO • Technical inputs on research design, development of research tools and conceptual framework, sampling design analysis of data, and quality assurance of the inception, draft, and final report • Technical inputs on detailing results framework • Oversee quality of deliverables to WFP CO, DEQAS and USDA • Designing evaluation frameworks, key indicators and analytical frameworks • Technical inputs on evaluation methods and tools • Technical backstopping for research design implementation • Field work quality assurance • Training of data collection teams • Tabulation plan, validation of tables and indicators • Data analysis • Report Writing and presentation Inception report, Draft report and Final report Jayesh Bhatia Quality Assurance Expert • Defining quality assurance protocols for data collection, analysis and deliverables and ensuring its implementation Inception report, Draft report and Final report Mrinalini Qualitative and Gender Expert • Development of conceptual framework and evaluation design with a specific focus on gender • Development of evaluation indicators and tools • Development of tools with inclusion of equity and gender components • Contextual analysis of the data with a gender lens • Data collection and monitoring of field work • Tabulation plan, validation of tables and indicators • Development of analytical framework and data analysis • Report Writing Inception report, Draft report and Final report Animesh Sharma Quantitative and Evaluation Expert • Development of conceptual framework and evaluation design with a specific focus on gender • Development of evaluation indicators and tools • Data collection and monitoring of field work • Tabulation plan, validation of tables and indicators • Development of analytical framework and data analysis • Report Writing Inception report, Draft report and Final report Aditi Chordia and Insha Fatima Junior Evaluators • Development of evaluation indicators and tools • Training of data collection teams • Data collection and monitoring of field work (including quality assurance) • Tabulation plan, validation of tables and indicators • Development of analytical framework and data analysis Inception report, Draft report and Final report Core Team Members Primary Role Specific tasks within the Evaluation Deliverables • Report Writing Annex 16: Baseline study schedule S.No. Steps By whom Key dates Inception Phase 1 Literature review, preparation of evaluation matrix, tools and inception report NRMC 2nd Aug – 11th Aug 2021 Deliverable : Draft Inception report 11th Aug 2021 2 Review of draft inception report by the WFP-CO WFP-CO 11th Aug 2021 – 7th Sep 2021 3 Incorporating comments from WFP -CO and submission to DEQAS and USDA NRMC Deliverable: Final Inception Report 7th Sep 2021 Training and Data Collection 4 Training of field enumerators (Virtual) and field practice NRMC and DMA During the period 23rd Nov 2021- 26th Jan 2022 5 Field Practice in three schools in Cox Bazar and debriefing with the data collection teams NRMC and DMA 6 Data Collection (Quantitative and Qualitative) NRMC and DMA Data Analysis, Report Writing and Dissemination 7 Data cleaning, analysis and report writing NRMC 27th Jan 2022 – 14th Feb 2022 8 Submission of first draft baseline report (excluding survey findings from students) to WFP-CO NRMC 9 Incorporating comments from WFP- CO and submission of revised first draft report NRMC, WFP- CO 15th Feb 2022- 4th Mar 2022 10 Review of draft baseline study report by DEQS and USDA WFP-CO 17 Incorporating comments and submission of revised final baseline study report NRMC 5th Mar 2022- 29th Mar 2022