Final evaluation of the first phase 
(2015–2021) of the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program in Côte d’Ivoire
February 2022 
WFP EVALUATION
Decentralized Evaluation Report
WFP Côte d’Ivoire
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 
Key personnel for the evaluation
WFP Côte d’Ivoire
Evaluation Manager Kone Seydou
PREPARED BY
Michaela Gulemetova, Team Lead
Hannah Ring, Qualitative Lead
Mitchell Morey, Quantitative Lead
Adam Taube, Quantitative Associate
Andi Coombes, Qualitative Associate
Anna Warren, Qualitative Associate
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the World Food Program (WFP) Country Office in Côte d'Ivoire and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for their financial support. The authors would also like to thank the 
Steering Committee and the Technical Committee of the evaluation, as well as AVSI, the Ministry of National 
Education and Literacy (MENA), the Directorate of School Canteens (DCS), the Regional Center of Evaluation 
in Education, Environment, Health, and Accreditation in Africa (CRESAC), and the National Agency for Support 
to Rural Development (ANADER) for supporting and facilitating the rollout of data collection.
The authors have very much enjoyed our collaboration with WFP and would especially like to thank Kone 
Seydou, Alti Bema, and Bidio Kouassi. The authors also highly appreciated the support provided by Elly Bahati, 
Jean-Paul Esmel, and the whole team at AVSI. The authors thank Sonet-CI for their professionalism and 
flexibility with data collection. The authors acknowledge Adou Bini Kouassi, Yves Trazie, Richard Motchian, 
and Wilfried Koffi from Sonet-CI, for providing technical insights on the instruments, programming the 
questionnaires, conducting data collection training, and managing the fieldwork team. The authors also thank 
all the enumerators for their excellent work in the field. The authors thank Thierry Dan, Mariame Tata, and 
Romeo Abe for their extensive support and expertise conducting and transcribing the qualitative interviews 
with the utmost quality. Finally, the authors thank Diomande Maferma for her devotion to the project and 
support on the ground.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the evaluation team, and do not necessarily reflect those 
of the World Food Program or the United States Department of Agriculture. Responsibility for the opinions 
expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply 
endorsement by 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 World Food Program nor the United States Department of Agriculture
concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory, or sea area, or concerning the 
delimitation of frontiers.
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 
Contents
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................................ii
Disclaimer .........................................................................................................................................................ii
List of exhibits .....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................vi
Context ........................................................................................................................................................... vi
Evaluation Features..................................................................................................................................... vi
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. vi
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................. vii
Relevance and Coherence ........................................................................................................................ vii
Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................. vii
Efficiency........................................................................................................................................................viii
Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................................viii
Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................viii
Limitations ........................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Evaluation features...............................................................................................................................1
1.2. Context ....................................................................................................................................................1
1.3. Subject being evaluated......................................................................................................................4
1.4. Scope of the evaluation.......................................................................................................................6
1.5. Evaluation methodology, limitations and ethical considerations ............................................7
1.6. Data collection methods ...................................................................................................................13
1.7. Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................16
1.8. Sample description.............................................................................................................................17
2. Evaluation findings .................................................................................................................................... 19
2.1. Relevance and coherence.................................................................................................................19
To what extent was the intervention’s design in line with the needs and priorities of the 
government, the targeted population, including vulnerable groups—women, girls, boys, and 
men? ...............................................................................................................................................................19
Was the intervention aligned with the policies and priorities of WFP, partners, and UN 
agencies? .......................................................................................................................................................20
To what extent have the program design and objectives taken into account the social, 
economic, cultural, political, and environmental context and equity?..........................................20
To what extent was the intervention able to adapt throughout the project to new needs or 
changing circumstances? ..........................................................................................................................20
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 
To what extent have the intervention design and implementation taken gender into 
account?.........................................................................................................................................................21
What were the synergies between the intervention and other WFP interventions?.................22
To what extent was WFP’s intervention consistent with the policies and programs of other 
partners operating in the same context?..............................................................................................22
To what extent were the intervention design and implementation consistent with 
humanitarian principles? ..........................................................................................................................23
2.2. Effectiveness.........................................................................................................................................23
To what extent have the outputs and outcomes been achieved (are they likely to be 
achieved)? What are the factors that have influenced the achievement or not? .......................23
Has the achievement of results led, or is it likely to lead, to the achievement of the 
intervention objectives? What major factors have influenced this? ..............................................35
Have the results been achieved for men, women, boys, and girls?...............................................39
Have the standards of assistance been met? ......................................................................................40
To what extent have the recommendations formulated during the midline evaluation been 
implemented and what were the results and effects, the hindering or supporting factors? .41
2.3. Efficiency ...............................................................................................................................................43
To what extent were the activities “profitable” in terms of cost and efficiency? ........................43
Was the intervention implemented in a timely manner? .................................................................43
Was the intervention carried out in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? ..........44
How efficient is targeting?.........................................................................................................................44
What are the external and internal factors influencing efficiency? ...............................................45
2.4. Impact....................................................................................................................................................46
What were the program effects on participants in terms of: a) Improving educational 
indicators; b) Improving student reading; c) strengthening the capacity of groups? What are 
the reasons for these observed effects?...............................................................................................46
Are there any unintended effects (negative and/or positive) on beneficiaries? What have 
been the gender-specific impacts, in particular with regard to the education of girls and 
empowerment of women in the program delivery? What are the main drivers of positive 
impacts?.........................................................................................................................................................49
To what extent have the results of the program progressed toward positive long-term 
effects on the targeted beneficiaries (girls, boys, men, and women), households, 
communities, and institutions? ...............................................................................................................51
2.5. Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................51
To what extent are the benefits of the intervention likely to continue after the end of WFP 
activities? .......................................................................................................................................................52
What are the key factors affecting the sustainability of the program? .........................................52
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 
How can groups of farmers contribute to the supply of the canteens, and is there any 
evidence that their contribution will continue after the project ends?.........................................52
Did the intervention change gender relations in the medium to long term?..............................53
3. Conclusions and recommendations......................................................................................................... 54
3.1. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................54
3.2. Recommendations..............................................................................................................................55
Annex 1. Summary Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................... 58
Annex 2. Timeline...........................................................................................................................................59
Annex 3. Evaluation Matrix........................................................................................................................... 61
Annex 4. DID Methodology............................................................................................................................ 67
Annex 5. List of People Interviewed............................................................................................................. 69
Annex 6. Data collection Tools...................................................................................................................... 71
Annex 7. Fieldwork Agenda......................................................................................................................... 202
Annex 8. McGovern-Dole Indicators........................................................................................................... 203
Annex 9. Findings Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 210
Annex 10. Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 212
Annex 11. Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 213
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) vi 
Executive Summary
1 The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted an endline evaluation of the first phase of the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) program support in Cote d’Ivoire (2015-2021) implemented by 
the World Food Program (WFP)/AVSI/Government of Côte d’Ivoire. This evaluation was 
commissioned by the WFP office in Cote d’Ivoire for the purposes of accountability and learning. The 
evaluation’s objectives are to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and 
sustainability of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire and offer actionable steps for program 
improvement. This report presents the evaluation findings and conclusions. 
CONTEXT 
2 To improve food security and access to quality education, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire has been 
implementing a school feeding program in partnership with the WFP since 1989 in priority regions 
of the country. Beginning in 1998, program implementers asked local communities to contribute to 
the functioning of the school canteens in order to continue providing students with hot mid-day 
meals. This sustainability component sought to build capacity of local agricultural groups, the 
majority of whom are women, and link their production to school canteens. Currently, the school 
canteens program is being piloted by the Ministry of National Education and Literacy (MENA) through 
the Directorate of School Canteens which carries out the program activities in the various regional 
directorates of National Education. The National Agency for Support to Rural Development (ANADER) 
provides technical support for the agricultural groups contributing food to the school canteens. 
3 To continue supporting the school feeding program in Côte d'Ivoire, the WFP has mobilized 
McGovern-Dole funds from the USDA for the years from 2015 to 2021 (Phase 1) and from 2021 to 
2025 (Phase 2). The first phase of the McGovern-Dole program has six components: 1) provision of 
hot meals to students; 2) take-home rations; 3) deworming of pupils; 4) literacy and reading activities 
in the form of improved reading materials, teacher trainings, and capacity building; 5) training of 
canteen managers in the use of health and food practices; and 6) capacity building of farm groups 
around the canteens in schools. Over the two phases, the WFP will be transitioning responsibility of 
the program to the Ivorian government and local communities by reducing the number of days they 
provide to schools and building local capacity to take over. The objectives of the McGovern-Dole 
school feeding program consist of increasing student enrollment, alleviating short-term hunger 
through school meals, improving student health and nutrition, improving literacy, and increasing 
capacity of communities and smallholder farmers to support schools. The program also includes an 
emphasis on gender equality, which is mainstreamed throughout the activities. 
EVALUATION FEATURES
4 The subject of the evaluation at hand is Phase 1 of the McGovern-Dole program in Cote d’Ivoire, 
covering all seven regions of implementation (Poro, Bagoué, Tchologo, Bounkani, Gontougo, Bafing, 
and Cavally). AIR conducted a baseline evaluation of Phase 2 of the program concurrently, producing 
a separate, but complementary report. The expected users for this report are the WFP Country Office 
and its decision-making partners, the Regional Bureau, WFP Headquarters in Rome, Evaluation 
Bureau, WFP Executive Board, MENA, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and ANADER, 
United Nations country team, Steering Committee, Technical Committee, Directorate of School 
Canteens (DCS), AVSI, the USDA, and other stakeholders. By offering insight into the positive impacts 
and providing recommendations for program improvement, the evaluation ultimately aims to 
benefit the targeted schoolchildren and communities. 
METHODOLOGY
5 The endline evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and 
qualitative methods to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and 
impact of the McGovern-Dole program. A mixed-methods approach provides a more comprehensive 
understanding of how the program worked and what its outcomes were, and it enabled us to delve 
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) vii 
more deeply into understanding the mechanisms of observed changes. The evaluation included
both treatment schools (that had received McGovern-Dole programming) and comparison schools 
(that had similar characteristics but did not receive McGovern-Dole programming) in all seven 
regions of implementation in order to compare the outcomes and determine which are attributable 
to the program. The quantitative component included surveys and student assessments from a total 
of 233 teachers, 86 school administrators, 50 canteen managers and 1,142 students and households. 
With the resulting data, we analyzed and compared outcomes at the treatment and comparison 
schools over time. The qualitative component included focus group discussions (FGDs) with male 
and female parents, school management committee (COGES) members, and women’s production 
group (WPG) members at five schools, as well as FGDs and key informant interviews (KIIs) with the 
WFP, government, partners, and other program stakeholders. We integrated the findings from both 
the quantitative and qualitative components, along with information from existing program 
documents and monitoring data provided by the WFP, to comprehensively address all research
questions and provide recommendations for Phase 2 of the program.
LIMITATIONS
6 While the AIR team took steps to mitigate the risks to the study validity, we could not avoid several 
factors. These include 1) differences in the Ministry’s selection of treatment schools, which could bias 
our impact results, 2) seasonal differences between the baseline and endline surveys, and 3) changes 
in the surveys tools over time1
. We considered these limitations by 1) observing differences over 
time, as well as between treatment and comparison groups; 2) considering seasonal differences in 
our analyses and utilizing proxy indicators, and 3) focusing on available data. 
KEY FINDINGS
Relevance and Coherence
7 The McGovern-Dole program is highly relevant to the needs of the target population and is well 
aligned to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s priorities as specified in the National School Feeding 
Policy. Respondents agreed that providing school meals in rural areas with high levels of food 
insecurity encourages children to attend school regularly, remain at school through the lunch hour, 
and be able to learn free from the distraction of hunger. The McGovern-Dole program is consistent 
with the policies and programs of key partners, including United Nations (UN) agencies, and adheres 
to the WFP’s humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence.
Effectiveness
8 Our evaluation shows that many outcomes improved since baseline but many of these 
improvements have stagnated or even deteriorated since midline. Part of these trends can be 
explained by the large improvements between baseline and midline, such as the availability of school 
canteens reaching nearly 100% by midline. Over the course of the program, we see a steady increase 
in the girl/boy enrollment ratio, with the older grades seeing the largest increase coming from CM1 
and CM2 (the equivalent of grades 5 and 6). These ratios have increased from 0.76 to 1.07. This trend 
toward higher proportion of girls in school was driven by an increase in girls’ enrollment and a 
decrease in boys’ enrollment, which may be driven by the provision of take-home rations for girls 
only.
9 Regarding literacy, we found that children were reading at lower levels than at midline. However, we 
found that 41 percent of teachers were delivering reading instruction in their local language, an 
increase from past iterations of the evaluation. Although this increase is promising, considering the 
proven benefits of mother tongue education, it could explain the lower literacy scores at endline, 
since assessments were conducted in French. Lower literacy scores at the end of the program could 
also be explained by school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic or the turnover of teachers who 
1 Changes to the survey tools include the adjustment of question series used to create index indicators to align the question text used with 
standard WFP language. Examples include the household food diversity score, food consumption score, and coping strategies index. These 
changes limit the validity of tracking these index indicators directly against the index indicators used in prior survey rounds. Additional 
questions were added at the request of AVSI to capture classroom access to textbooks and teacher trainings. 
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) viii 
AVSI had already trained in the syllabic teaching method. In addition, the rotation of teachers leads 
to the arrival of new teachers who are not trained in the syllabic method of reading and therefore 
will not be able to provide them to students or retrain them. Teachers generally were present to 
deliver instruction and had received the necessary training: directors’ records indicated that teachers 
showed up for their classes 95 percent of the time and 92 percent of school directors reported that 
the teachers in their school have received an AVSI training on reading instruction. However, teachers 
reported being visited by pedagogical advisors only once or twice per year, and only 26 percent of 
teachers reported receiving regular trainings organized by MENA. These low levels of support from 
MENA and the pedagogical advisors are not necessarily sufficient for teacher development, 
particularly considering that only half of teachers reported being able to finish their curriculum.
10 Furthermore, stakeholders reported high levels of teacher turnover and competing educational 
interventions, which may have inadvertently caused confusion when teachers relocate to schools
with alternative methodologies.
11 In terms of school feeding, quality of canteen services appeared to have declined. Households 
reported that canteen quality decreased, and the number of canteens serving the minimum dietary 
diversity standards decreased from 82.5 percent at midline to only 66.8 percent at endline.
Efficiency
12 Overall, the WFP carried out the McGovern-Dole program efficiently. The program has a tight budget, 
which required the WFP to work as cost-efficiently as possible. Stakeholders claimed that the WFP 
managed the McGovern-Dole program with sufficient technical expertise and systems in place to 
help activities take place smoothly in the event of unexpected issues. The partners also claimed to 
experience efficient collaboration.
13 Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises such as insecurity in the north of Côte d’Ivoire, 
most often the McGovern-Dole activities took place in a timely manner. However, the program did 
experience some delays in the distribution of literacy materials and a lack of deworming tablets. 
14 Targeting rural areas with high levels of food insecurity allowed the program to reach areas of most 
need. In addition, targeting girls to receive dry rations helped promote girls’ school enrollment, 
although it may have created negative side effects for boys. Targeting women in the WPGs also had 
unintended consequences because it inadvertently caused women to bear additional costs and 
workload while it failed to generate income for women.
Impacts
15 We detect few causal impacts of the program on key child learning or nutrition outcomes. We find 
that children’s reading levels and proficiency in treated schools had not improved relative to the 
children in comparison schools. These findings may relate to implementation challenges, such as 
our findings that communities struggled to maintain nutritional quality. However, we did find 
positive impacts of the program on children’s enjoyment of reading, which can be an important 
precursor to reading practices. 
16 Children’s exposure to school canteens also did not increase. However, school canteens already 
existed in roughly 90 percent of treatment schools at baseline, so there was little room for the 
program to improve that outcome. Lastly, while we find no overall impacts for dietary diversity or 
coping strategies, we do find that households of the girls in our sample were more likely to eat 
certain nutritious foods, such as leafy green vegetables, fruit, and dairy.
Sustainability
17 The key factors affecting the sustainability of the program are funding and government commitment
to activities and policies. Although WPGs and COGES were committed to continuing their ongoing 
contributions to the schools, the program’s ability to continue without some continued financial 
assistance and ongoing training is weak. Program data did not clearly delineate how many canteen 
days were supported through McGovern-Dole and how much the community contributed 
independently, thus making it difficult to assess whether any gradual handover to the community 
occurred. With the decreases in the quality and quantity of food served in the canteens, groups 
February 2022 | Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) ix 
demonstrated a need for more tailored support in order to maintain the same level of canteen 
functioning without inputs from the WFP. Our data suggests that WPGs face numerous obstacles 
and may not be self-sufficient or profitable on their own.
CONCLUSIONS
18 Student experience and performance. Providing school meals continued to encourage children to 
attend school and remain in school throughout the day. Students have maintained the positive 
reading practices and attitudes reported at midline but reading proficiency rates declined between 
midline and endline. A number of factors may have contributed to the decline, including prolonged 
school closures due to COVID-19. Access to potable water and latrines at schools improved between 
midline and endline, although roughly a quarter of schools still had non-functional latrines.
19 Teacher experience and performance. As was the case at midline, teachers continued to use a 
variety of activities and tools to teach reading. The percentage of teachers trained by AVSI declined 
from 92% at midline to 63% at endline, perhaps due in part to high rates of teacher turnover.
RECOMMENDATIONS
20 As a result of the evaluation findings, we provide seven evidence-based recommendations 
pertaining to data collection and record keeping, programmatic adjustments, and collaboration and 
coordination.
Recommendation 1: Track and report on the number days and number of canteen meals in all 
schools that are supported by WFP and those that are supported by community contributions by 
using information gathered in canteen management documentation.
Recommendation 2: Consider the potential unintended consequences of gender-specific 
interventions and supports, such as providing take-home rations to girls only.
Recommendation 3: Provide tailored support to WPGs based on their specific needs. For example, 
different groups require different productive inputs and equipment, different types of training, and 
so forth.
Recommendation 4: Work with WPGs to track their crop yields, production, and profitability margin
more closely.
Recommendation 5: Work with MENA to reinforce teacher professional development and supports, 
including through more active involvement of the pedagogical advisors.
21 Recommendation 6: Consider potential synergies with programs such as the Education Service 
Delivery Enhancement Project (PAPSE) which are working towards similar objectives in some of the 
same areas WFP is operating.
22 Recommendation 7: Work with MENA to determine the feasibility of assessing early reading skills in 
mother tongue rather than French in schools where teachers are teaching early reading in mother 
tongue.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 1 
1. Introduction
1 The American Institutes for Research (AIR)2 has been contracted by the World Food Program (WFP) 
Country Office in Côte d'Ivoire to conduct concurrently a final evaluation of the first phase and a 
baseline evaluation of the second phase of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) Program’s 
support in Cote d’Ivoire (2015-2021). The terms of reference (TOR) for the two evaluations are 
provided in Annex 1. AIR prepared for this evaluation through regular meetings and ongoing 
communication with the WFP evaluation team. Other advisors and government representatives also 
offered input. This report serves to describe the research, present the findings, and offer conclusions 
from the final evaluation of the first phase.
1.1. CONTEXT
2 Since the end of the post-electoral crisis of 2010, the economic recovery of Côte d'Ivoire has been 
notable, the country experiencing one of the highest growth rates in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Ivorian 
economy recorded real growth in gross domestic product rates, as rates ranged from 6.2 to 10.8 
percent between 2012 and 2019 and then decreased in 2020 due to the adverse effects of the COVID￾19 health crisis on the economy (World Bank). As Côte d'Ivoire maintained economic growth above 
7 percent (Sustainable Development Goal target), progress has been made in several areas. 
3 One area with the notable progress has been in education. The primary completion rate increased 
overall from 63.9 percent to 80.5 percent between 2014 and 2019. Among girls, this rate rose from 
58.8 percent to 79.80 percent. The primary completion rate of boys increased from 68.5 percent to 
81.2 percent (Sources: The 2018-2019 statistical yearbooks of the Direction of Strategies, Planning, 
and Statistics, MENA). The Government of Côte d’Ivoire aims to make further progress in the 
education sector, particularly taking gender into account through its 2021 Gender in Education Policy 
and Action Plan. Various international actors, such as the Jacobs Foundation and the World Bank,
are also helping to support education goals in the country.
Exhibit 1. Class of CP2
Source: AIR
4 Poverty fell from 46.3 percent in 2015 to 39.4 percent in 2020, but this decline was confined to urban 
areas as rural poverty levels rose by 2.4 percent over the same period (Source: World Bank). With a 
2 Initially, the final evaluation was awarded to IMPAQ International, a subsidiary of AIR. As of January 1, 2022, the two entities are fully 
integrated.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 2 
population of more than 26 million inhabitants (Source: World Bank, 2020), over 40 percent of the 
Côte d'Ivoire economy is supported by a dynamic agricultural sector focused mainly on coffee and 
cocoa. Poverty in Côte d’Ivoire manifests itself in inequalities in access to essential services and in 
gender disparities and which feeds gaps between income groups but also between urban and rural 
populations. For instance, in 2008, the poverty rate was 62 percent in rural areas, compared to 21
percent in the capital of Abidjan (Source: Strategy Document for Reducing Poverty [DSRP], 2009). 
Regional disparities exist as well, with the North of Côte d’Ivoire experiencing a poverty rate of nearly 
80 percent in 2008, compared to the 49 percent national average (Source: DSRP, 2009).3
5 The national food insecurity rate is 11 percent, with pronounced disparities between the regions: 
Bafing, 15.7 percent, Tchologo 4.2 percent; Poro 14.7 percent; Gontougo 9.1 percent; Cavally 9
percent; Bagoué 13.8 percent; and Bounkani 12.6 percent. (Source: SAVA August 2018). 
Approximately 21.6 percent of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition. The northern 
regions of the country suffer the most, with chronic malnutrition rates of 39.3 percent in the North 
and Northeast, 34.5 percent in the West, and 31.8 percent in the Northwest (Source: Organization 
for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], Food and Agricultural Organization, and 
United Nations Capital Development Fund, 2016).4
6 The increased food insecurity in the north of Cote d’Ivoire corresponds with other regional 
disparities. The northern regions of the countries suffer from much higher rates of poverty, along 
with a weaker economy and weaker institutions (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, 2022)5
. These northern regions have a more arid climate than the lusher southern 
regions that are more disposed for agricultural production (EROS USGS)
6
. 
7 Progress toward Agenda 2030 shows that the prevalence of undernourishment and childhood 
stunting are stagnant and that major challenges remain (SDG Report, 2018). The 2018 Zero Hunger 
Strategic Review identified the following challenges that will need to be addressed to achieve 
Sustainable Development Goal 2 in Côte d'Ivoire: 
8 Access to food. The lack of data disaggregated by sex and age makes it difficult to pinpoint the 
respective difficulties of women and men, or girls and boys, in terms of access to food. Various 
problems arise lack of coherence of programs in favor of food security; lack of recognition of the 
role of small producers in food security when formulating trade and budgetary policies; and 
insufficient collection, analysis, and use of data to identify vulnerable people.
9 Nutrition. There are many sectors–including agriculture and social protection–that could contribute 
to the achievement of nutrition outcomes through nutrition-sensitive initiatives, but this potential 
remains untapped. To address the issue, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire developed the National 
Multisectoral Plan for Nutrition 2016-2020 and joined the Scaling Up Nutrition movement. 
International organizations are also involved in nutrition programming in Côte d’Ivoire. Projects 
include the World Bank and Helen Keller International’s Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture and Capacity 
Development of Small and Marginal Farmers project from 2018 to 2022 as well as the World Bank’s 
$60 million grant to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s Multisectoral Nutrition and Child Development 
project.
10 However, several obstacles are hampering progress: siloed action by ministries working on 
interrelated issues such as food security, nutrition, health, and education; low scale of food 
fortification initiatives; insufficient scope of communication initiatives aimed at changing society and 
behavior on issues relating to dietary diversity, hygiene, and food safety; and lack of attention to 
adolescent girls. The COVID-19 pandemic may have also negatively impacted nutrition and food 
security as well as student achievement in Côte d’Ivoire (Hammerstain et al., 2021; Picchioni, Goulao, 
& Roberfroid, 2021). For instance, the pandemic harmed food security in low- and middle-income 
countries around the world in various ways, such as through reduced income and reduced access to 
3 https://www.gouv.ci/doc/DSRP_FINAL%20RCI_Def.pdf
4 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264257108-7-
en.pdf?expires=1633447928&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E0E88531B06990FC32ECF037C517769A
5 https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/cote-divoire/social-situation-48426 
6 https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-land-cover-and-trends-cote-divoire 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 3 
more nutritious, perishable foods (Picchioni, Goulao, & Roberfroid, 2021), while school closures 
globally led to learning loss among students (Hammerstain et al., 2021).
11 Social protection. The resources invested in social protection taking gender into account are 
insufficient. Coverage of the national school meals program and safety net programs is limited, and 
synergies between safety net programs are weak. Other obstacles include the challenges of 
implementing a strategy to extend safety nets to rural populations and the need for more inclusive 
and equitable safety net policies, including for school meals. Correspondingly, women in Cote 
d’Ivoire suffer from high rates of gender inequality, including higher rates of illiteracy and lower rates 
of school enrollemnt than males (UN Women, 2020)
7
. 
12 While Côte d'Ivoire set itself a goal of 100 percent schooling and made education a priority by 
allocating more than 40 percent of the budget to it, several factors inhibited this desire. Many 
children experience midday hunger very early on because their schools are located several 
kilometers from their family home. The adequate and complete response to this important problem 
required a school canteens policy. 
13 For this reason, the State embarked in 1989 with WFP on an ambitious school feeding program. This 
program aligns with the WFP’s work in Cote d’Ivoire that began in 1968 and has since focused on 
improving food security, reducing malnutrition, enhancing education, and minimizing gender 
disparities, particularly in the northern parts of the country (WFP, 2022).8 The School Feeding 
Program achieved a promising development, resulting in the opening of 5,575 school canteens 
across the country in 2012–2013 providing hot and balanced meals to 1,005,884 elementary school 
children. This corresponds to a canteen coverage rate of 44 percent. 
14 However, the inadequacy between the resources allocated and the increasing demand for school 
canteens led to a downgraded level of service. The number of beneficiaries reached and the number 
of days of provision of hot meals to children dropped. To fill this gap, local communities were asked 
to contribute to the functioning of school canteens. From 1998, the school canteens program
integrated a sustainability component through capacity building of agricultural groups and by linking 
their production to school canteens. These agricultural groups, the majority of whom are women, 
engage in agricultural and livestock activities, and allocate a third of their harvest or food production 
to a school canteen in their village, thus largely contributing to feeding the children, in complement 
to resources made available by the Government and its partners. Much of the other food used for 
the school feeding program is produced internationally and imported to Côte d’Ivoire, thus 
increasing the necessity for local agricultural inputs. The agricultural groups component of the 
McGovern-Dole program is the Government’s vision of sustaining the national school meals program 
with the support of local communities. In April 2012, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, through the 
DCS, with the technical assistance of the WFP and the United Nations Development Program, 
developed the National School Feeding Policy for the period 2012–2017. The priority areas of the 
7 https://data.unwomen.org/country/cote-divoire 
8 https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/cote-divoire/social-situation-48426 
Exhibit 2. School kitchen and storage
Source: AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 4 
intervention were defined through an analysis 
based on a composite indicator of food insecurity, 
the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, school 
enrollment and poverty rates in different regions 
of the country. Thus, the following regions have 
been identified as priority areas for school feeding 
interventions: priority 1 (Cavally, Guémon, Poro, 
Bagoué, Tchologo, Bafing), priority 2 
(Worodougou, Bere) and priority 3 (Gontougo and 
Bounkani).
15 From September 2013 to December 2016, WFP 
implemented a development project entitled: 
"Support for the Integrated Program for the 
Sustainability of School Canteens.” With an 
expected number of 571,000 beneficiaries, this 
project targeted 29 percent of all school canteens 
and 15 percent of all public primary schools 
nationally. This project covered 1,634 school 
canteens in the 10 priority regions.
16 The school canteens program is implemented by the MENA through the DCS which carries out the 
various activities of this program in the various regional directorates of National Education. The 
ANADER provides technical support for the supervision of agricultural groups mobilized around 
school canteens, while AVSI, an NGO doing education work in Cote d’Ivoire, provides technical 
support for education activities.
17 To continue supporting the school feeding program in Côte d'Ivoire, WFP has mobilized McGovern￾Dole funds from USDA and additional funds through LDS Charities to support women's groups of 
smallholder farmers in northern communities. As part of the sustainability of the school meals 
program, the WFP used these funds to provide agricultural inputs, tools, equipment, and training 
designed for the adoption of improved agricultural techniques to increase the production of 
diversified and nutritious foods intended in part for school canteens.
1.2. SUBJECT BEING EVALUATED
18 The objectives of the WFP Country Office in the McGovern Dole program in Côte d'Ivoire consist of 
improving schooling, retention of students at school, primary education, literacy, food security, 
nutrition, and the health of schoolchildren. The program also includes an emphasis on gender 
equality, which is mainstreamed throughout the activities. In the midline evaluation, AIR made 
several recommendations to improve sustainability, coordination, and women’s empowerment, 
such as increasing the presence of women in the school management committees (COGES)
9 and 
building up national and local management. As responsibility for the program gradually transitions 
from the WFP to the Government of Côte d'Ivoire’s Directorate of School Canteens team, the WFP 
will slowly reduce the number of days they provide school meals between the years of 2020 and 
2025, while the Directorate of School Canteens team slowly increases the number of meals they 
provide.
19 As part of the support to the McGovern-Dole school feeding program in Côte d'Ivoire, WFP received 
35.7 million US dollars from the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America in 2015. 
This funding helped to support the school canteens program between 2015 and 2021 in seven 
priority areas: Poro, Bagoué, Tchologo, Bounkani, Gontougo, Bafing and Cavally. The funding 
covered school meals for 125,000 students from 613 rural primary schools. In addition, 50,000 
female pupils in Poro, Bagoué and Tchologo received dry rations (or 10,000 girls per year for five 
years). The USDA awarded WFP an additional 25 million US dollars in 2020 for the second phase of 
9 COGES are local community bodies responsible for providing leadership and oversight for the school canteens and to the Canteen 
Management Staff that administer the program. The five-member committee is typically selected by the local community, and they typically 
include teachers, cooks, parents, and/or local leaders.
Exhibit 3. Class of CP2
Source: AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 5 
the project which targets another 125,000 students across the same 613 primary schools between 
2021 and 2025. 
20 According to the logical framework of the program, the McGovern-Dole strategic objectives are 
improving the reading skills of students and the increase of the use of good practices in terms of 
health and nutritional food. 
21 The school canteen sustainability program has six components: 1) provision of hot meals to 
students; 2) take-home rations; 3) deworming of pupils; 4) learning to read; 5) training of canteen 
managers in the use of health and food practices; and 6) capacity building of farm groups around 
the canteens in schools. Exhibit 4 presents key activities for the 2015-2021 program. 
22 Through these activities, the program 
implementers hope to achieve the following 
objectives: 1) Increase student enrollment and 
alleviate short-term hunger through the 
provision of school meals ; 2) Improve the 
health and nutrition of students by supporting 
national health and nutrition policies and 
programs, community mobilization and 
sensitization, as well as improving sanitation 
practices and access to drinking water ; 3) 
Improve the literacy of school-aged children 
and the quality of education through better 
access to materials and capacity building for 
school administrators and teachers ; 4)
Increase the capacity of smallholder farmer 
groups to create supply chain links and 
promote community contribution to the school 
meals program for sustainable transfer to 
government. 
23 In 2016, a baseline evaluation of the program 
found that both boys and girls had very week 
reading skills; in the second year of primary 
school (CP2), 13 percent of girls and 16 percent 
of boys were able to read. In all grades, girls 
met fewer of the prerequisites than boys. 62.2 
percent of canteen managers had received 
training and 74.1 percent of them were able to 
at least three best practices for storage and conservation of foods. 72 percent were aware of best 
practices in healthy food preparation. In addition, schools and communities had poor water, 
sanitation, and hygiene facilities. Less than half of the sampled schools (47%) had latrines, and for 
42% of schools, the water point was located a distance from the school. 
24 Since the inception of the McGovern-Dole program in 2015, the program has undergone several 
strategic changes. A midline evaluation was conducted in 2018, which resulting in the following 
recommendations: 1) Strategically reduce the proportion of canteen days covered in McGovern-Dole
schools; 2) Strengthen the monitoring and evaluation capacities of the DCS and DPFC at national and 
local level; 3) Improve the presence in the field and the interaction of beneficiaries; 4) Increase 
coordination, communication and planning with DCS; 5) Strengthen girls' education; 6) Increase 
female representation in COGES; and 7) Strengthen the capacities of COGES to support McGovern￾Dole activities. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic also necessitated adaptions to the program. 
After schools closed because of the public health situation, follow-up missions were organized to 
assess the state of the school canteens. Upon reopening, many schools began rotating the number 
of students in the classrooms, which therefore resulted in fewer students at the school during 
mealtimes. School canteens have also adopted additional health and safety precautions such as 
handwashing and wearing masks. Program administrators have adapted to the pandemic by 
conducting their work at a distance when possible. 
Exhibit 4. Key program activities
Nutrition and Health Activities
 Provide school meals
 Distribute take-home rations
 Train canteen management staff and school 
management committees
 Provide food preparation and storage tools 
and equipment
 Develop local capacity to supply food to 
schools
 Distribute deworming tablets
 Support implementation of a nationally 
owned school feeding program
Literacy Activities
 Develop and distribute reading 
improvement toolkits and mobile libraries 
 Distribute textbooks and provide 
supplementary reading materials
 Improve use of government’s existing 
literacy materials
 Train trainers to conduct continuous 
professional development
 Support teacher professional development
 Conduct literacy instruction workshops
 Build government and community capacity 
to improve literacy instruction
 Conduct extracurricular activities like book 
clubs and reading competitions
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 6 
25 The USDA has awarded funding for a second phase of the McGovern-Dole program in Cote d’Ivoire 
from 2021 to 2026. Phase 2 will build upon Phase 1 of the program, add a water, sanitation, and 
hygiene (WASH) component to construct and rehabilitate school water points and latrines, remove 
the take-home rations for girls, and focus on sustainability through transferring responsibilities of 
the school feeding program to the government and communities. 
1.3. EVALUATION FEATURES
26 The final evaluation of Phase 1 of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire is commissioned by 
the WFP Country Office in Côte d’Ivoire. The final evaluation covers the period from 2015 to 2021. 
The data collection, analysis, and reporting of the evaluation took place from November 2021 to 
February 2022, with fieldwork specifically taking place in November and December 2021. Evaluation 
timeline is listed in Annex 2.
27 In support of the school feeding program in Côte d’Ivoire, WFP was awarded funding in 2015 from 
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program of the USDA. This 
funding supported the school feeding program in seven regions (Poro, Bagoué, Tchologo, Bounkani, 
Gontougo, Bafing, and Cavally), with the goal of improving nutrition and health outcomes and 
increasing the literacy of school aged children in these high-priority rural areas.
28 The main components of the first phase of the program are: 1) providing school meals to primary 
school students; 2) providing take-home rations for girls in upper grades (CM1/CM2); 3) distributing 
deworming tablets, 4) improving student literacy education; 5) training canteen management staff 
in the use of good health and food practices; and 6) capacity building (both technical and financial) 
of agricultural groups to contribute production to the school canteens of their villages or 
communities. 
29 The two main objectives of the final evaluation are for accountability and for learning purposes:
30 Accountability. The final evaluation allows reporting to the national authorities of Côte d’Ivoire, 
donors, and partners, on the performance and results of the school feeding program supported by 
the USDA. The impact assessment of the first phase is a key element for the accountability of this 
phase. 
31 Learning. The evaluation draws lessons and good practices to inform operational and strategic 
decisions. Specifically, the final evaluation of the first phase makes it possible to assess the results 
achieved at the end of the program with regard to the initially established objectives and to take 
stock of the implementation and the scope of the recommendations made during the mid-term 
evaluation. According to the McGovern-Dole learning agenda, a collective effort to generate 
knowledge on the impact of school canteen programs will improve their design and 
operationalization and ultimately achieve significant results for improving education, nutrition, and 
the sustainability of these programs.
32 The purpose of this report is to fulfill the accountability and learning objectives by assessing the 
McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire based on criteria defined by the Development Assistance 
Committee of the OECD: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. 
and offering actionable steps for program improvement. Gender and human rights considerations 
are mainstreamed throughout the evaluation. The AIR team simultaneously conducted an endline 
evaluation of the first phase of the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program
(2015-2021) and a baseline evaluation of the next phase of the program (2021-2026) which aims to 
build and expand upon the successes of the first phase. 
33 The purpose of the endline evaluation of the first phase is to assess program outcomes in relation 
to results after its full implementation. The endline evaluation captures the knowledge of various 
key stakeholders to identify program strengths and weaknesses, determine factors that have 
affected the results, and identify lessons learned and best practices. The evaluation also documents 
program challenges and whether and how they were overcome. We highlight areas that may need 
improvement and offer recommendations for integration into the next program. Our approach is to 
provide useful and actionable information at endline to enable WFP to make more informed 
programmatic and strategic decisions for the program’s next phase. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 7 
34 The expected users for this report are the WFP Country Office and its decision-making partners, 
Regional Bureau, WFP Headquarters in Rome, Evaluation Bureau, WFP Executive Board, the Ministry 
of National Education and Literacy (MENA), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the 
National Rural Development Support Agency (ANADER), United Nations country team, Steering 
Committee, Technical Committee, Directorate of School Canteens (DCS), AVSI, the USDA, and other 
stakeholders. 
35 The evaluation team is composed of leaders from the WFP including Kone Seydou, Alti Bema, and 
Bidio Kouassi, staff from AIR, who led the design, analysis, and reporting of the evaluation, and from 
Sonet-CI, who led data collection. The team from AIR includes Michaela Gulemetova (team lead), 
Mitchell Morey (quantitative lead), Hannah Ring (qualitative lead), Adam Taube (quantitative analyst), 
and Anna Warren (qualitative associate). The team from Sonet-CI includes Adou Bini Kouassi, Yves 
Trazie, Richard Motchian, Wilfried Koffi, Thierry Dan, Mariame Tata, and Romeo Abe.
36 The evaluation questions for the endline evaluation of the current program focus on literacy, health, 
and nutrition outcomes for various beneficiaries, including primary school students in grades 1 
through 6, school canteen staff, members of COGES, members of women’s production groups 
(WPGs), teachers, directors, and households. The evaluation also addresses gender issues both for 
beneficiaries (boys and girls in schools) but also for service providers (members of COGES, canteen 
managers, cooks, and agriculture producers) with an empowerment perspective. 
1.4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, LIMITATIONS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
37 The endline evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and 
qualitative methods to evaluate the McGovern-Dole program. A mixed-methods approach provides 
a more comprehensive understanding of how the program worked and what its outcomes were, and 
it enabled us to delve more deeply into understanding the mechanisms of observed changes. We 
mapped the evaluation questions by their program relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, 
impact, and sustainability. Gender equality and the empowerment of women were addressed 
through these five criteria, with specific evaluation questions and data disaggregated by gender 
when appropriate. AIR used quantitative measures in the form of surveys for school administrators, 
teachers, canteen managers and student households, as well as a student learning assessment. 
Qualitative methods included key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) 
with parents, members of COGES and WPGs, and program implementers. In Annex 3, we map each 
evaluation question to its corresponding indicators or assessment criteria, based on the McGovern￾Dole results framework. Exhibit 5 presents a summary of the evaluation matrix. 
Exhibit 5. Evaluation matrix summary
Evaluation Question Categories
Relevance and 
coherence
Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability 
Endline data sources
• FGDs with 
parents, COGES
members, WPG 
members
• KIIs with USDA 
staff, government 
officials, program 
staff, partners
• Document review
• Monitoring data
• Teacher survey 
• School survey
• Student/ 
Household survey
• Canteen manager 
survey
• KIIs with program 
staff, partners
• FGDs with parents, 
COGES members, 
WPG members
• Monitoring data
• FGDs with 
parents, COGES
members, WPG 
members
• KIIs with 
government 
officials, 
program staff, 
partners
• Monitoring 
data
• School 
survey
• Student/ 
Household 
survey
• WFP 
monitoring 
records
• KIIs with USDA 
staff, 
government 
officials, 
program staff, 
partners
• FGDs with 
parents, COGES
members, WPG 
members
• WFP monitoring 
data
38 Similarly to what we did during the midline evaluation, we have reviewed and analyzed the results 
framework and the McGovern-Dole indicators which were reported during baseline and midline. At 
midline, we made corrections to how data is collected for the performance indicators and addressed 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 8 
shortcomings of baseline measure. For the endline, we collected data to assess the same 
performance indicators to determine whether the program has been successful in achieving its 
targets. In response to feedback from program stakeholders, we updated and revised some of the 
data collection tools to correspond to request for nuanced data.
39 Furthermore, the evaluation matrix (Annex 3) is aligned with the project results framework. The 
project results framework provided in the TOR links the various program activities with the intended 
results. Our evaluation matrix links project results with USDA indicators to help us assess the 
program impact (e.g., to show improved learning of school age children, we examined the following 
indicators using survey data: percentage of teachers attending school regularly, percentage of 
teachers demonstrating use of new tools and techniques, percentage of student attentiveness, and 
percentage of students demonstrating grade level skills).
40 In addition, for each evaluation question, we also listed the data collection strategy, data analysis 
method, and the responsible party for collecting and measuring them. Guided by the evaluation 
questions, we studied the impact of the intervention on outcomes such as food security, adoption 
of healthy and hygienic practices, and reading skills. Lastly, we supplemented primary data collected 
through our quantitative and qualitative methods with monitoring data and project records 
(including but not limited to project timelines, planned versus actual resource allocation, and training 
attendance lists) where feasible. This collation of data enabled us to triangulate and validate 
stakeholders’ perceived outcomes with more concrete evidence from monitoring and project 
records. 
41 For the endline evaluation, the quantitative component built on the methodology used at baseline 
and midline to ensure consistency in the approach and to minimize the introduction of new biases. 
The quantitative data enabled us to construct the relevant USDA performance indicators to measure 
the program’s progress in reaching its target goals. Furthermore, we used the quantitative data to 
measure the program’s causal impacts after five years of implementation using a difference-in￾differences (DID) methodology (Annex 4).
42 The DID method compares the changes in outcome over time between the population of 
beneficiaries (the treatment group) and the population that is not benefiting from the program (the 
comparison group). It requires that we collect the same outcomes from both the treatment and 
comparison groups at endline in a similar fashion as was done at baseline and midline. This method 
was not feasible for some core outcomes, due to inaccurate or missing data from baseline. For these 
outcomes, we used descriptive statistics to compare the treatment and comparison groups at 
endline. We also conducted subgroup analysis by gender and by region.
43 The main objective of the impact evaluation using DID method is to assess the extent to which the 
program resulted in improved student and household outcomes. We sampled a repeated cross￾section of students at endline, following the approach at midline. This was preferable when there is 
a substantial probability of student attrition from school. In addition, having independent samples 
surveyed every period minimizes the probability that the act of measurement itself influences 
subject behavior (e.g., children may score better in a test when they take the same type of test 
multiple times, not because they know more, but because they are more used to taking that test). 
44 Our power analysis confirmed the sample of 1,486 students across 84 schools is adequate to detect 
a relatively small effect size of 0.27 standard deviations for the estimation of the five-year impact on 
literacy outcomes. We estimated the average intent-to-treat effect of the intervention at endline 
using regression analysis of student reading outcomes. To account for the fact that students are 
nested within schools and grades, we specified that the standard errors allow for intragroup 
correlation, strengthening the usual requirement that the observations be independent. Standard 
errors were clustered within the school. In addition, as requested in the TOR, we conducted 
subgroup analysis by gender to determine whether boys or girls are responding differently to the 
program. 
45 As at midline, we added KIIs and FGDs to enhance the endline evaluation. The qualitative data 
provided rich context to help us interpret the quantitative findings and shed light into the processes 
and mechanisms of change and the factors that may have affected implementation, such as 
unforeseen challenges or gender dynamics. The qualitative study complemented the quantitative 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 9 
analysis and enabled us to present project effects in perspective. In addition, the qualitative study 
helped contextualize and fill in gaps from the baseline and midline, as several of the McGovern-Dole
indicators may not be directly comparable. 
Quantitative data sampling
46 The final evaluation of the first phase of the program covered all seven regions where the program 
was implemented. The sampling strategy for the endline was based on the revised requirements in 
the TOR, the WFP desire for updated sample, and built on sampling that was used for the previous 
evaluation rounds to ensure consistency and comparability of results and minimize any bias 
stemming from a new, alternative sampling strategy. While the endline sample followed the 
sampling approach used at midline in 2018, we reduced the treatment sample from 68 to 50 
treatment schools.10 
47 As initially designed by the National Statistics Institute of Cote d’Ivoire, the sample size of students 
and households to be surveyed was determined using the following formula 
𝑛𝑛 = 𝑍𝑍2 𝑝𝑝(1 − 𝑝𝑝)
𝑑𝑑2 𝑘𝑘
where
• n is the sample size 
• Z = 1.96 is the probability statistic associated with a confidence level of 95% 
• p = 0.13 is the baseline estimator of prevalence of food security provided in the TOR from
2016
• k = 1.5 is the cluster parameter allowing adjustment since households of students from the 
same schools share similar characteristics 
• d = 0.05 is the tolerated margin of error. 
48 We multiplied n, the sample size obtained by the above formula, by 2 to ensure sufficient precision 
by gender (boys and girls). Additionally, we adjusted the sample size to allow for 95% response rate. 
We further increased the final sample size to 1,128 students and their corresponding households to 
ensure proportional representation of respondents within 86 schools across the seven regions. We 
surveyed 10 students (2 from each grade CP2, CE1, CE2, CM1 and CM2) and their corresponding 
households from each school, and an 
additional 12 students from upper grades
from treatment schools in Poro, Bagoué
and Tchologo regions. Additional 
adaptations to the endline sampling were 
done as explained below. 
49 Schools. As requested in the revised TOR 
and in compliance with the requirement for 
consistent DID methodology, the endline 
sampling for the surveys was as close to the 
original baseline sampling as possible. At 
baseline in 2016, the National Statistics 
Institute collected student, school, and 
household outcomes from a sample of CP1-
CM2 students (equivalent to Grades 1-6) 
from 99 schools (59 treatment and 40 
comparison schools), which was 
determined to provide a regionally 
representative sample. At midline in 2018, 
10 This reduction enabled us to include an additional 34 treatment schools to the endline sample to create an updated new sample for the 
baseline evaluation.
Exhibit 2. Final evaluation school sample
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 10 
we included a few additional schools to reach 104 schools. For the endline, we selected 50 schools 
out of the 104 schools sampled at midline for the estimation of the five-year impact on student and 
household outcomes. We also sampled the same 36 comparison schools as in previous rounds of 
evaluations. The overall sample of 86 schools is sufficient to measure the prevalence of food security, 
the indicator of most interest to the WFP. Exhibit 6 shows the final evaluation sample of 86 schools. 
50 Directors, canteen managers, and teachers. When visiting each of the sampled schools, we 
surveyed the school director to obtain aggregate information about the school for a total of 86 
directors. Including the directors gave us an appropriate sample size to compare school level 
outcomes from endline to baseline. As at midline, we collected data from school canteen managers 
at each of the 50 treatment schools to gather information related to canteen functioning and school 
meal distribution as well as use of safe food preparation and storage practices. We also surveyed all 
present teachers in each treatment school, for a total of 233 teachers (both men and women).
Teachers provided us with information on the type of trainings they have received and their 
instruction practices as a result of the program. 
51 Students and parents. In each sampled school, we surveyed a randomly selected cross-section of 
CP2-CM2 students who were present at school on the day of the data collection. We sampled an 
even number of boys and girls in each grade. In treatment schools in Poro, Bagoué and Tchologo, 
we selected 22 students per school. In all other schools, we selected 10 students per school. For each 
student, we also surveyed their caregiver to collect further information on their household, such as 
acceptable food consumption, coping strategy index, and dietary diversity score, reaching a total of 
1,142 students and their corresponding households. Selecting the households of the sampled 
students allowed us to link their responses at the analysis stage. Although we intended the 
household survey to be completed by both male and female parents, the majority of the surveys 
were completed by the male head-of-household. Exhibit 7 presents the sampling of schools, 
students, and households by region and group. 
Exhibit 3. Quantitative sample
Regions Schools / Directors Canteen managers Teachers Students / Households 
Treatment Group
Poro 14 14 72 297
Bagoué 6 6 35 131
Tchologo 4 4 21 88
Bounkani 5 5 20 49
Gontougo 13 13 55 130
Bafing 4 4 17 40
Cavally 4 4 13 36
Total 50 50 233 771
Comparison Group
Poro 10 0 0 111
Bagoué 3 0 0 30
Tchologo 4 0 0 40
Bounkani 2 0 0 20
Gontougo 6 0 0 60
Bafing 5 0 0 50
Cavally 6 0 0 60
Total 36 0 0 371
Overall Total 86 50 233 1,142
Qualitative data sampling
52 Our qualitative sampling design at endline also built on the qualitative sampling at midline. This 
sampling strategy increased the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the endline evaluation, while 
also ensuring we reached saturation—the point at which no new information can be gained from an 
additional interview. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 11 
53 National and regional level. Following the midline design as well as the preliminary list of key 
program stakeholders in Table 1 from the TOR, we conducted 7 KIIs and 7 FGDs with male and female 
stakeholders at the national level, including USDA, AVSI, and government partners at MENA and the 
DCS. We also interviewed national and regional program team members and partners, including 
technical committee members and other stakeholders involved in designing the intervention. For 
the WFP, we held an additional two internal stakeholder discussions with program staff, each 
covering different elements of the evaluation. From the midline evaluation, we learned that tasks 
concerning the management and support of the program are divided among a wide range of WFP 
staff. The group dynamics in a joint interview enabled staff members to provide complementary 
information and create a more holistic picture of coordination, communication, and planning 
processes. A full list of national-level interview participants is presented in Annex 5. 
54 School level. Since we found little variation between geographic areas at the school level during 
midline, we conducted FGDs with parents, COGES members, and WPG members at five purposefully 
selected schools. Due to the small number of beneficiary WPGs near treatment schools, we selected
schools with WPGs that are currently actively participating in the program.11 Selecting schools with 
active WPGs allowed us to examine the relationship between agricultural producers, schools, 
children, and parents. In addition, having the three types of FGDs in one place was not only more 
efficient in terms of logistics but also facilitated a deeper dive into places of interest. We also chose 
schools whose canteens, latrines, and water sources were at varying degrees of functionality, 
according to WFP monitoring documents (Exhibit 8). 
Exhibit 4. Qualitative sample characteristics
Region School Percentage of school days 
with canteen meals
Quality of latrine 
infrastructure
Water source
Poro Kakologo 63% Good Non-existent
Gontougo Yomian 100% Not functional Functioning
Bagoué Katanra 100% Not functional Non-existent 
Tchologo Dielebele 100% Good Functioning
Bafing Mandougou 14% Good Functioning
Summary/notes 3 high performers, 2 low 3 good latrines, 2 
poor
3 functional water 
sources, 2 non-existent 
55 For the parent/caregiver focus groups, we had separate FGDs for male and female parents at each 
school to allow respondents to speak more freely and to allow us to compare mothers’ and fathers’ 
perceptions. Our COGES FGDs included both male and female participants, although they ultimately 
included more men (Exhibit 9). 
Exhibit 5. School-level FGD participants by gender
Type of 
Participant
Region School Number of 
male 
participants
Number of 
female 
participants
COGES
Gontougo Yomian 4 0
Bagoué Katanra 4 0
Bafing Mandougou 3 1
 Poro Kakologo 0 3
Tchologo Dielebele 4 1
Total 15 5
Women’s 
Production 
Groups
Gontougo Yomian - 5
Bagoué Katanra - 5
Bafing Mandougou - 5
Poro Kakologo - 5
Tchologo Dielebele - 3
11 WFP provided assistance to 10 WPGs per year or 50 groups total over the duration of the program.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 12 
Total - 23
Male parents
Gontougo Yomian 6 -
Bagoué Katanra 5 -
Bafing Mandougou 4 -
Poro Kakologo 4 -
Tchologo Dielebele 4 -
Total 23 -
Female parents
Gontougo Yomian - 4
Bagoué Katanra - 8
Bafing Mandougou - 5
Poro Kakologo - 4
Tchologo Dielebele - 5
Total - 26
GRAND TOTAL 38 54
Limitations
56 While the AIR team took every step possible to mitigate the risks to the study validity, there remain 
several factors that we could not avoid. The primary factors that limit the findings in this report 
include the following: 
57 Unobservable differences: Given that McGovern-Dole beneficiary schools were selected based on 
need and feasibility of implementing literacy and nutrition programming, there may be time-varying 
differences between the treatment and comparison groups that would bias our impact results. 
Example of time-varying differences is changing levels of parental involvement in children’s 
education (where parents in treatment schools are becoming increasingly engaged with their 
children’s schools while parents in comparison schools maintain a relatively constant level of 
engagement with their children’s schools). Example of time-invariant differences is highest level of 
education completed by the household head (the highest level of education completed by the 
household head is assumed constant during the five-year study). To the extent that differences 
between children in the communities predate the evaluation, then the 2016 baseline data would 
capture those time-invariant differences. However, the impact model would be unable to account 
for different time trends across the two groups. 
58 Seasonality/timing: We were unable to collect data at the same time of year for each iteration of the 
evaluation; data were collected in April and May at baseline, September and October at midline, and 
November and December at endline. This difference implies that the baseline and endline findings 
are not directly comparable because some outcomes vary systematically over the year. For example, 
if baseline took place during the lean season and endline during the post-harvest season, then 
nutrition outcomes would vary for reasons unrelated to the program. To mitigate that challenge, we 
conducted comparisons with midline data only and considered seasonal differences throughout our 
data analysis. Student reading assessments were affected by a similar timing issue (for example, 
reading assessments were collected at the end of the school year at baseline but they were collected 
at the beginning of the school year at endline). To mitigate this challenge and provide meaningful 
comparisons over time, we used the reading skill information in the beginning of the school year as 
a proxy for what the reading skills were during the end of the previous school year. Seasonality is 
less of a concern for our impact results since they rely on the differences between treatment and 
comparison schools which should be equally affected by seasonality. But it is not possible to 
separate seasonality from impacts of the program when comparing baseline to midline to endline. 
59 Survey changes: The survey tools changed over the course of the study, which means that certain 
outcomes were not comparable over time. For example, no teacher surveys were administered at 
baseline. In these cases, we could not test for impacts nor could we provide descriptive analysis of 
changes between rounds. 
60 COVID-19 and remote work: Due to travel restrictions following from the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIR 
team was unable to travel to support data collection. While AIR coordinated closely and frequently 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 13 
with our in-country partner Sonet-CI, AIR still could not observe and verify the data collection 
process. In addition, data collectors conducted some GDs and KIIs remotely, which, although it was 
sufficient, limited our ability to learn through direct contact. 
61 Length of qualitative protocols: The comprehensive nature of the evaluation questions resulted in 
rather lengthy interview guides for the FGDs and KIIs. In order to make the tools more manageable, 
we had to focus on the most important questions and in the case of the WFP focus groups, ask 
different questions to different groups. 
62 Monitoring documents: The monitoring data used for the desk review component of this evaluation 
did not always differentiate between the support from the McGovern-Dole program and the support 
from the communities. Therefore, some of the findings from these data must be used with caution 
in relation to impact and sustainability.
Ethical Considerations
63 WFP decentralized evaluations must conform to WFP and United National Evaluation Group ethical 
standards and norms. The contractors undertaking the evaluations are responsible for safeguarding 
and ensuring ethics at all stages of the evaluation cycle. 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 women and socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the evaluation results in no harm 
to participants or their communities. AIR trained the data enumerators on ethical considerations
before the data collection took place and all participants were asked for their consent before 
engaging in the study. To ensure safety of enumerators and study participants in light of the COVID￾19 pandemic, AIR encouraged Sonet-CI to follow best practices such as wearing masks, washing 
hands, and restricting groups size of FGDs to a maximum of five participants.
1.5. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
64 We next describe the different methods of data collection that were deployed. The specific tools and 
protocols are listed in Annex 6.
Surveys
65 To answer evaluation questions and measure 
key performance indicators at endline, we built
on and improved the midline survey tools, 
including school, household, student, and 
school canteen management surveys. We 
measured program outcomes in the same 
manner as the baseline and midline evaluations 
to capture program impact over time. 
Measuring progress on performance indicators 
requires comparing the same survey questions 
and collecting the same information from 
individuals with similar characteristics (e.g., age, 
grade, gender, etc.) as in previous rounds. Based 
on feedback from WFP and AVSI program 
implemented, we added new survey questions 
and updated existing survey questions to 
capture important aspects of program activities 
and focus. For example, we included new 
questions to the teacher survey related to additional trainings being received and visits from 
pedagogical advisors. Similarly, we updated household survey questions related food insecurity 
based on WFP guidance to measure core indicators such as food consumption score, household 
dietary diversity score, and reduced coping strategy index.
Exhibit 6. Surveying a student
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 14 
Reading assessment
66 Importantly, to measure the impact on reading skills of school children and analyze the change in 
skills over time, we administered the same French-language reading assessment tool, Annual Status 
of Education Report (ASER), to provide meaningful comparisons over time. The ASER test includes 
11 levels (A-K) corresponding to the practical reading standards for each grade. Exhibit 11 presents 
the structure of the ASER reading test, including the test levels, and corresponding grades and 
reading skills. 
Exhibit 7. ASER test structure
Level Corresponding Grade Reading Skill 
Level 0 None None 
Level A CP1 – Lower level Identify letters 
Level B CP1 – Upper level Read simple sounds 
Level C CP2 – Lower level Read complex sounds 
Level D CP2 – Upper level Decode simple words (1-2 syllables) 
Level E CE1 – Lower level Decode complex words (2-3 syllables) 
Level F CE1 – Upper level Read simple sentences 
Level G CE2 – Lower level Read complex sentences 
Level H CE2 – Upper level Read simple stories 
Level I CM1 – Lower level Answer reading comprehension questions on simple stories 
Level J CM1 – Upper level Read complex stories 
Level K CM2 Answer reading comprehension questions on complex stories
67 Because of the possibility that either students have access to the test from their older cohorts or 
teachers have become aware of the assessment and started preparing students for the test, we 
revised the version of the test by updating the test content together with MENA and AVSI 
representatives. We ensured that the updated test has the same level of complexity as the ones used 
at baseline and midline, respectively, to be able to compare students’ reading skills between baseline 
and endline. 
68 Before data collection, on October 20 and October 25, the AIR team conducted a two-day calibration 
and adaptation workshop with a group of local reading, curriculum, and assessment experts from 
MENA with support from AVSI. We further engaged the local experts to ensure that the updated 
ASER test is still culturally appropriate and consistent with Côte d’Ivoire’s learning standards for 
grades CP1–CM2. 
Key informant interviews
69 AIR collected primary data using KII protocols based on the protocols used for midline data 
collection. We updated the existing protocols to include items related to project implementation to 
date, project management, perceived benefits of program activities, perceived capacity for 
sustainability, lessons learned, promising practices, and recommendations for program 
improvement. We collected information about changes to project implementation between midline 
and endline, focusing on questions related to effectiveness and sustainability. We followed up on 
good practices and recommendations from the midline report, such as strengthening monitoring 
and evaluation capacity at the DCS and improving coordination and communication with the 
government. 
70 We developed separate protocols depending on the role and involvement of the stakeholders, such 
as a protocol for USDA, for program staff and partners, and for government counterparts. For 
example, we learned about what types of support COGES receive, frequency of member turnover,
the gender dynamics of the committees, and barriers to coordinating with women’s groups and 
other suppliers, all of which have potential to impact how the program is implemented and 
performs. Similarly, interviewing parents yielded additional contextual data, such as perceptions of 
student attendance, reading outcomes, and health behaviors. 
71 In terms of sequence, the team at our data collection partner, Sonet-CI, first conducted all field-level 
data collection. We then carried out virtual interviews with program-level stakeholders from the 
USDA, government, and partners based on their availability. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 15 
Focus group discussions
72 We built on the protocols for FGDs from the midline evaluation so that we could determine whether 
similar themes emerged. All FGD protocols included questions related to relevance, coherence, 
effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, as well as questions targeted to each respondent’s 
particular role. In addition, we updated the protocols to ensure that we specifically revisited some 
of the successes and bottlenecks that were highlighted in previous evaluation rounds. FGD protocols 
were adjusted to capture questions on changes since the midline evaluation, new responsibilities, 
and new activities for group members and caretakers. Because this evaluation sought to answer 
many evaluation questions, in addition to the fact that we conducted both the endline and baseline 
evaluations concurrently, the protocols were very lengthy (especially for the FGDs, but for the KIIs as 
well). We had to cut some questions to make the protocols more manageable and to respect the 
time of participants. Doing so limited our ability to gather data on all of the evaluation questions in 
as much depth as we would prefer.
73 For each category of FGD, we incorporated prompts relevant to the respondent’s involvement in the 
McGovern-Dole program. For example, the parent focus groups included questions on perceived 
quality of education, parental involvement, attendance, aspirations for their children, and the 
different perceived impacts for boys and girls. COGES members received prompts on what recent 
activities they organized at the school, their responsibilities, and their coordination with program 
staff. 
74 Whereas FGDs with COGES members and parents are complementary to the quantitative survey, 
FGDs for WPGs are the primary source of data collection. We ensured the WPG protocol included
questions on all relevant evaluation criteria. Questions included whether and how the groups 
improved individual financial capacity/household conditions and school/canteen conditions, how 
they coordinate with the schools, and what factors contribute to their longevity.
Document review
75 We reviewed available documentation provided by the WFP to gain a deep understanding of the 
context and current status of the program. We also reviewed additional documents such as the WFP 
country program, reports on national strategy for the school feeding program in Côte d’Ivoire,
monitoring reports, and previous evaluation reports to situate the current program with respect to 
beneficiary needs and assess the program’s relevance in meeting those needs as well as to 
triangulate the findings from our research. The updated information gave insights into whether 
there were any shocks or other circumstances affecting the program’s stakeholders since the midline 
evaluation. 
Data collection training and field testing
76 The AIR team conducted intensive training sessions for the field team between November 6 and 
November 19. Since the U.S.-based AIR team was unable to travel due to COVID-19, Sonet-CI, our 
local data collection partner, led the in-person enumerator training, with members of the AIR team
joining remotely via Zoom. Prior to the training, AIR held hold intensive sessions and meeting with 
the Sonet-CI team to prepare them for leading the training. The enumerators received all training 
materials and learning proceeded even when there were technology issues (Exhibit 12).
77 As part of quantitative data collection training, we trained data collection supervisors and 
enumerators to use tablets to administer in-person surveys offline, without the need for a Wi-Fi 
connection. After three days of “classroom” training, the enumerator team had an opportunity to
practice with real respondents on November 11. The enumerator team, in collaboration with WFP, 
AVSI and MENA, conducted a pilot in two schools that were not participating in the evaluation. After 
the pilot, all enumerators met with the AIR team, WFP, and AVSI to debrief and review the issues that 
were encountered. Based on pilot feedback, enumerators returned for two additional days of 
classroom training before field activities can begin. Final revisions were made to the programmed 
questionnaires in response to pilot feedback as well.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 16 
78 Separate trainings sessions were held for all qualitative data collection. As part of qualitative data 
training, we included role playing, during which the qualitative lead provided feedback to 
interviewers and note takers to ensure high-quality and complete data collection. During the 
training, we also discussed any challenges encountered, such as stakeholder discomfort with 
questions or insufficient time to cover all the questions. The training also allowed us to adjust our 
protocols, if needed, for clarity, length, or context, and it assisted team members in strengthening 
their interviewing and summarizing skills in real time.
Data collection and data quality checks
79 Sonet-CI deployed 32 enumerators and 10 supervisors between November 21 and December 10, 
2021 to collect survey data. Detailed fieldwork agenda is presented in Annex 7. The 10 mixed-gender
teams were supported by two senior teams of coordinators with two vehicles so that they can quickly 
access the teams in the field. A 
separate team of three sociologists
traveled in the field to conduct 
interviews and focus group 
discussions. AVSI field staff 
facilitated introductions with local 
authorities and assisted enumerator 
teams to locate schools and conduct 
surveys with participants.
80 We collected data electronically on 
tablets to enhance the quality of 
collected data by reducing human 
errors in transferring the data. 
Together with Sonet-CI, we 
programed the survey instruments 
for use in the field using Survey
Solutions software for all surveys. 
Sonet-CI ensured that all the tablets 
were equipped with the software and were ready to be tested and used in the field. An AIR fieldwork 
consultant tested the instruments in the programmed tablets to ensure that questions and answers 
display properly. We also run quality checks on data collected during the pilot test to ensure high￾quality output from the field.
81 During the data collection process, AIR provided oversight and support and one fieldwork consultant 
accompanied the enumerator teams in the field. At the end of each day, the AIR fieldwork consultant
met with the enumerators to debrief, inspect their daily data collection logs, ensure that all 
completed surveys stored on tablets are electronically submitted, and review and plan for the next 
day’s data collection. In the meantime, the AIR data expert downloaded the data through the secure 
Survey Solutions server to run quality assurance checks. The data expert looked for irregularities in
missing data, abnormal values, skip pattern issues, and other anomalies. They also verified the GPS 
coordinates survey submissions to confirm that data collection teams were traveling to different 
sites.
1.6. DATA ANALYSIS
Quantitative analysis
82 Performance analysis. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis by constructing means and 
percentages to present an initial snapshot of the findings at endline using data from individual or 
multiple survey items. Using descriptive analyses, we compared mean outcomes at the McGovern￾Dole schools with those at the comparison schools by running t-tests and using p-values. We also 
conducted subgroup analyses by gender and region, highlighting emerging patterns. These 
highlighted patterns, especially the gender differences, helped us provide WFP with the right 
recommendations to adjust the program design and assumptions to ensure gender responsiveness. 
Where possible, we compared mean outcomes at baseline to midline to endline to show progress 
Exhibit 8. Data collection training
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 17 
over time. The descriptive analysis is presented in tables, bar charts, histograms, and other 
visualizations to help convey the findings. 
83 Impact analysis. We compared treatment and comparison group outcomes at endline using a DID 
method. The DID method compares the changes in treatment schools to the changes in comparison 
schools to determine what impacts we can attribute directly to the intervention. While the DID 
analysis as part of the impact study is not powered to estimate differential impacts by gender, we 
conducted subgroup analyses by gender to determine whether boys and girls separately see 
impacts, but not whether the impacts themselves differ by gender. 
Qualitative analysis
84 Recording, transcription and translation. All interviews were digitally recorded (after obtaining 
consent to record) and transcribed. Before recording, all participants were asked to give their 
consent to be audio-recorded in a language that they understand, worded at an appropriate level 
for their educational background. Interviews and focus group discussions conducted in French were 
translated into English prior to analysis of all documents in NVivo. The evaluation team carefully 
reviewed all transcripts to ensure the completeness and clarity.
85 Analysis. The research team coded and analyzed all data from interviews and focus group 
discussions using the NVivo qualitative software program. The evaluation team created a preliminary 
coding structure based on the research questions, interview, and focus group protocols. This coding 
outline was used to organize and subsequently analyze the information gathered through interviews
and focus groups. The outline was then modified as new themes and findings emerged during data 
analysis. After inputting the raw data into NVivo, coders selected a sample of interviews to double 
code to ensure interrater reliability. The team then inputted the data into the thematic structure. 
During this process of data reduction, researchers characterized the prevalence of responses, 
examined differences by region and gender, 
and identified key findings and themes related 
to the research questions.
1.7. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 
86 Our data collection process involved collecting 
data from multiple stakeholders in each 
community. The team would make contact 
with school leaders and conduct a series of 
interviews including school directors, teachers, 
canteen managers, household heads, and 
students. Exhibit 7 shows the number of 
surveys completed with each group at endline.
87 Among teachers, 89 percent were title holders,
3 percent were volunteers and 7 percent were 
trainees or interns. They have worked as 
teachers for 6.25 years on average and had 
been assigned to their current school for 4.71 
years.12 Female teachers were more likely to be 
trainees or interns (4% vs. 16%) and had less 
years of experience that their male 
counterparts (6.88 vs. 4.48 years). Most 
teachers taught a single grade.
88 While our sample of treatment school students 
was about equally female and male,
respondents of other survey tools were much 
12 Teacher tenure varies between 0 and 31 years of experience with an average of 6.25 and median of 5 years. This suggest that the teacher 
workforce is relatively inexperienced. Among sampled teachers, 9.5 percent have been teaching for 2 or fewer years and 25.9 percent have 
been a teacher for 3 or less years.
Exhibit 9. Percentage of female respondents
Note: Data on sex of respondent was not captured at baseline for 
the Teacher, Canteen, and School surveys.
Source: School Survey (N = 44 at midline, N = 50 at endline), 
Household Survey (N = 681 at baseline, N = 1,149 at midline, N = 
771 at endline), Canteen Survey (N = 43 at midline, N = 50 at 
endline), Teacher Survey (N = 216 at midline, N = 232 at endline).
49.9%
26.3%
20.0%
10.1%
8.0%
61.2%
24.5%
27.9%
7.6%
9.1%
49.1%
n.a.
n.a.
11.6%
n.a.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Students
Teachers
Canteen managers
Household Heads
School/Directors
Baseline Midline Endline
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 18 
more likely to be male (Exhibit 13). About a quarter of teachers interviewed were female, as well as 
a fifth of canteen managers were female. Few household heads from the Household Survey were 
female, and similarly few directors from the School Survey were female. The percentage of female 
respondents across the different surveys has remained similar since midline.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 19 
2. Evaluation findings
89 The evaluation findings and the evidence to substantiate them are presented below. They are 
structured as a response to each evaluation criteria and subsequent evaluation questions in turn.
2.1. RELEVANCE AND COHERENCE
90 In the sections below, we answer all evaluation questions related to relevance and coherence.
2.1.1 To what extent was the intervention’s design in line with the needs and priorities 
of the government, the targeted population, including vulnerable groups—women, girls, 
boys, and men?
91 The McGovern-Dole program is well aligned to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s needs and 
priorities, specifically those reflected in the National School Feeding Policy. One government 
informant said the McGovern-Dole program is “in line with the national education policy” and with 
MENA’s educational objectives, both in terms of improving access to education and supporting 
children once they are in school. Speaking of the close alignment between the McGovern-Dole
program’s objectives and those of the government, a MENA official commented, “The objectives of the 
McGovern-Dole project, I think they are no different from the objectives of the Government of Côte d'Ivoire 
through the Ministry of National Education, and therefore from the objectives of the school canteen 
management. The McGovern-Dole project is a project to support what we are already doing.” Specific 
components of the McGovern-Dole program such as the school meals, deworming, and support for 
local production groups are part of the School Canteen Management Strategy as well. Lastly, the 
National School Feeding Policy has four core objectives in education, health/nutrition, environmental 
protection, and the promotion of local production—all four of which are addressed through the 
McGovern-Dole program.
92 In terms of responding to the needs of the targeted population, qualitative respondents 
overwhelmingly agreed that providing school meals—especially in rural areas with high levels of 
food insecurity—encourages children to attend school regularly, remain at school through the lunch 
hour, and be able to learn free from the distraction of hunger. As one male parent at the Gontougo
school explained, “If the child knows that if I come to school I will find food, he has the courage to come 
here.” That said, some families still struggled to give children the 25 francs needed to eat in the 
canteen. School canteens also do not appear to operate every day. In addition, many informants 
reported that the dry rations for girls did lead to increases in girls’ school attendance, although there 
were some negative consequences for boys, as discussed later in this report. Respondents also 
indicated that children in McGovern-Dole schools have trouble with reading and schools lack 
sufficient resources to help children learn to read, suggesting that the literacy component of 
McGovern-Dole is highly relevant to local needs. Finally, the women’s production groups are clearly 
in need of the support provided by the McGovern-Dole program, however there were concerns 
about the profitability and self-sufficiency of these groups and the work remained arduous for the 
women involved.
93 The WFP intentionally considered the priorities of the government of Cote d’Ivoire and the needs of 
the targeted population in the program design presented in the WFP’s McGovern-Dole proposal for 
FY2015. The WFP specifically considered the National Development Plan (2013-2015), Social 
Protection Strategy (2013-2015), Medium Term Action Plan for the Education Sector (2012-2014), and 
National School Feeding Policy in its program design. Namely, the WFP ensured that the McGovern￾Dole activities “do not duplicate the efforts of any existing efforts but will seek to complement them 
wherever possible” (FY2015 McGovern-Dole Proposal). In developing the program design, the WFP 
also considered the rates of food security and poverty in the northern and western regions of Cote 
d’Ivoire, the context of the 2010-2011 post-election crisis in the regions, the nutritional needs of 
children in Cote d’Ivoire, as well as the literacy and educational needs in the country. The program 
strategy did not include any qualitative data on the views of the targeted population, although the 
WFP has incorporated those views in the ongoing adaptation of the program, as informed through 
monitoring mechanisms and evaluation. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 20 
2.1.2 Was the intervention aligned with the policies and priorities of WFP, partners, and 
UN agencies?
94 The McGovern-Dole program is closely aligned with the WFP’s policies and priorities in Côte d’Ivoire. 
According to the WFP’s Country Strategic Plan13, the WFP’s main goals in Côte d’Ivoire are to work 
with the government to achieve food and nutrition security which are two objectives the McGovern￾Dole interventions contribute to directly. The WFP is also prioritizing the sustainability of community￾based initiatives to address food security and nutrition challenges, and therefore the support to the 
women’s production groups under the McGovern-Dole is aligned with this priority. The plan asserts 
that the WFP’s strategy is “fully aligned with national development plan for 2016-2020 and the United 
Nations development assistance framework for 2017-2020,” suggesting harmonization with United 
Nations (UN) agency objectives and highlighting the need to “harness the comparative advantages of 
the various United Nations agencies operating in Côte d’Ivoire to provide a holistic response to food 
security and nutrition needs” (Country Strategic Plan).
95 In terms of alignment with the policies and priorities of partners, the WFP’s proposal highlights the 
McGovern-Dole program’s support of USDA’s Strategic Goal 3, Objective 3.1 to ensure U.S. 
agricultural resources contribute to enhance global food security. The literacy component of the 
McGovern-Dole program also aligns with the United States Agency for International Development’s
Education Strategy Goal 1 for Early Grade Reading, and the school feeding component “provides a 
productive safety net that aligns with the objectives and goals of the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future 
Initiative” (source: FY2015 McGovern-Dole Proposal). Respondents from AVSI and ANADER also 
viewed the McGovern-Dole program to align with their respective policies and priorities. AVSI 
emphasized their focus on education with “institutional anchoring” through the government, and 
ANADER noted their goal of enhancing the sustainability of school canteens through support to local 
agricultural production groups.
2.1.3 To what extent have the program design and objectives taken into account the 
social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental context and equity?
96 The McGovern-Dole program was responsive to the socioeconomic context of households by 
targeting rural areas in north and northwestern Côte d’Ivoire with high levels of food insecurity. 
Targeting these areas contributes to equity, as did targeting female students with take-home rations 
in response to the underrepresentation of girls in schools and the reluctance of families to send 
female children to school. Additionally, the McGovern-Dole program considered the environmental 
context by working to provide stoves that consume less firewood than traditional stoves and using 
organic manure made from beef digestion and plant debris. Finally, in acknowledgement of the finite 
resources available to support school canteens over the long term, the McGovern-Dole program has 
worked to supply canteens with local, sustainable products; promote the livelihood of women 
through production groups; and empower communities to take greater ownership of school 
canteens. Speaking of environmental and sustainability considerations, a respondent from the
Bureau of Training and Consulting for Development (BFCD)
14 said of McGovern-Dole: “It's a project 
that I like so much because it takes care of the social, economic and environmental side. Because we don't 
just produce to produce, we bring in everything necessary for good production and sustainable 
production.”
2.1.4 To what extent was the intervention able to adapt throughout the project to new 
needs or changing circumstances?
97 The COVID-19 pandemic required several adaptations to the McGovern-Dole program. By necessity, 
McGovern-Dole activities in schools were temporarily halted because of the pandemic, but the 
program was able to reallocate resources to focus on raising awareness about wearing masks, the 
importance of social distancing, and improved sanitation practices. Additionally, the McGovern-Dole
partner AVSI made other adaptations to the literacy program by establishing relationships with local 
radio stations to broadcast courses while children were forced to stay at home due to COVID-19, 
13 https://www.wfp.org/operations/ci02-cote-divoire-country-strategic-plan-2019-2023
14 Bureau de Formation et de Conseil en Développement
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 21 
mobilizing communities to promote reading, and providing remedial courses, among others. COGES 
members who participated in our qualitative study also described responding by providing 
handwashing stations in schools and masks for students. Ultimately, the WFP reported that the
COVID-19 pandemic did not cause any gaps in school feeding. 
Exhibit 10. Eating school lunch 
Source: PAM
98 Apart from COVID-19, one informant from ANADER said the McGovern-Dole program was able to 
adapt to climate change by slightly shifting the agricultural calendar for production groups. Other 
changes in the program occurred in relation to the plan to transition responsibilities for the program
to the government and communities. Originally, the WFP planned to train 50 WPGs each year and 
transition responsibilities for school feeding to those groups. The WFP conducted a contextual 
analysis and, based on their understanding of the preparedness of stakeholders, decided to adapt 
the plan to support 50 groups during the five-year period of Phase 1 and delay the transition of 
responsibilities until Phase 2.
2.1.5 To what extent have the intervention design and implementation taken gender 
into account?
99 The design and implementation of the first phase of the McGovern-Dole program considered 
gender—and support for women and girls in particular—in several important ways. First, the 
program provided dry food rations for girls to take home to their families (conditional on regular 
attendance) to incentivize girls’ attendance. According to a MENA official, “We had noticed at one point 
that there was a low enthusiasm of parents to send the girls to school. It may have taken the arrival of the 
McGovern-Dole project, which in one of its components provided for the provision of dry food for young 
girls to take home. And as the condition to have these foodstuffs, it was necessary that the child reached 
the CM and also reached a certain number of attendance rates in class before being able to benefit, so 
this is what allowed the parents to be able to understand and let the girls go to school. “
100 A second way in which gender was considered in the McGovern-Dole program is the targeted 
support to women’s production groups. While women were not directly paid through the McGovern￾Dole program, WPGs were provided with inputs such as seed and fertilizer, they were given 
agricultural training and extension support, and the DCS committed to purchasing at least 30
percent of the groups’ production to supply other schools. Several respondents reported that 
women have been socioeconomically empowered through their involvement in WPGs and with the 
support of the McGovern-Dole program. For example, a representative from the BFCD said, “…here 
in the north it is the men who have the monopoly, they take all decisions. But with this project, we lived 
this in village where men approached us to say that because of your project, our women have money now.” 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 22 
Women themselves, too, reported being able to help resolve shortages at the canteen and joining 
cooperatives: “We can help in the canteen if we say that their rice is finished, we can help. We made a 
cooperative so we can go and buy the rice” (Gontougo WPG). Despite these encouraging reports of 
women being supported and empowered through involvement in WPGs, respondents also noted 
the serious time constraints women face that may be exacerbated by their work for WPGs. 
Additionally, women said they are asked to contribute and to pay for things in some situations and 
the profitability of the WPGs is unclear.
101 While the McGovern-Dole program has made commendable efforts to support women and girls, 
there remain structural and systemic barriers to gender equity and sustainability in the context of 
the program. Firstly, respondents largely noted that men are less engaged in matters related to 
school feeding and canteens in particular. As one WFP respondent put it, “There is also what I would 
call the disinterest of men at first for the program of school canteens. That, too, is something cultural 
because in our culture we say everything that is eaten there is for women you see and so that too is a 
cultural gravity that can have an impact on the sustainability of school canteens.” Secondly, there are 
land rights issues that prevent WPGs from having true ownership of their plots and the program has 
had to request “temporary concessions” from land chiefs to allow WPGs to maintain control their land.
2.1.6 What were the synergies between the intervention and other WFP interventions?
102 Respondents from WFP agreed that the McGovern-Dole program is well aligned and complementary 
to their other work in Côte d’Ivoire. According to the FY15 WFP proposal to USDA, the WFP also 
provides school meals in six additional regions: Guemon, Tonkpi, Worodougou, Bere, Kabadougou, 
and Folon. As one respondent put it, “the McGovern-Dole fits perfectly into the objectives of the WFP,” 
while others mentioned WFP’s portfolio of work in Côte d’Ivoire to support partnerships towards 
their ultimate goal of eliminating hunger. Specifically, WFP also supported the Integrated Program 
for Sustainable School Feeding which aims to help rural communities support school feeding 
programs. Through this program, the DCS has taken over responsibility for school feeding in 3,000 
schools (source: FY2015 McGovern-Dole Proposal). This prior school feeding intervention—with its 
emphasis on handover to government—served as a building block and directly complemented the 
subsequent McGovern-Dole program. 
2.1.7 To what extent was WFP’s intervention consistent with the policies and programs 
of other partners operating in the same context?
103 The WFP participates in both the Global Partnership 
for Education and the Education Sector Group in Côte 
d’Ivoire to share information about the McGovern￾Dole program and learn what fellow education and 
school feeding partners are doing. The WFP’s 
partners AVSI and ANADER viewed the McGovern￾Dole program as consistent and complementary to 
their other programming in Côte d’Ivoire (see also 
section 2.1.2). AVSI designed McGovern-Dole literacy 
activities according to the USAID MATTERS 
framework15 (see Exhibit 15) to meet the needs of
teachers and students in the program and to build on 
recent government efforts to strengthen instruction 
at the primary school level. For example, in 2016, the 
government increased from four to five school days 
(from 26 to 30 hours of instruction16). A respondent 
from AVSI also described the McGovern-Dole
consortium’s ability to leverage relationships with 
other partners (the United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], in this case) to secure access to 
15https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/sites/default/files/media/file/Reading%20MATTERS%20Conceptual%20Framework_v7_October%
2026%20%281%29_final.pdf
16 https://www.gouv.ci/_actualite-article.php?recordID=6901&d=6 
Exhibit 15. Reading MATTERS 
Conceptual Framework
Source: USAID, 2019
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 23 
sensitive areas: “We worked in collaboration with UNICEF to facilitate access to schools in areas where 
there were political crises. We set up a platform with all the structures such as UNICEF, WFP…there are 
other structures, Save the Children to name but three… we set up a platform during the political crisis 
where we facilitated, then we also intervened in remote areas, so we participated to allow that where it 
was areas really hot politically, we facilitated access to school.“ This example is illustrative of the 
collaboration and consistency between the WFP and other partners operating in the same contexts 
within Côte d’Ivoire, as confirmed by multiple respondents. 
104 For the literacy component, AVSI reported being actively involved in the Local Group of Education 
Partners. However, during the course of our study, the evaluation team learned of an education 
intervention funded by the World Bank called The Côte d’Ivoire Education Service Delivery 
Enhancement Project (PAPSE), which began in 2018 and operates in some of the same areas as the 
McGovern-Dole project. While the PAPSE program has complementary objectives (improving 
learning outcomes at the primary school level), respondents did not mention any linkages between 
the McGovern-Dole and PAPSE programs which could reflect a missed opportunity in terms of 
potential synergy and coordination across the two programs. 
2.1.8 To what extent were the intervention design and implementation consistent with 
humanitarian principles?
105 The design and implementation of the McGovern-Dole program are well aligned with the WFP’s four 
humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. In terms of 
humanity, the program appears to have been delivered in a way that respected the dignity of the 
people being served and the quality of the services was perceived to be good. The McGovern-Dole
program delivered assistance impartially to the targeted recipients, with no evidence of deliberate 
discrimination. In terms of neutrality, there is no evidence that the McGovern-Dole program or its 
staff took sides in any conflict or prioritized resources for certain groups over others. Finally, the 
McGovern-Dole program was designed and delivered independently based on the WFP’s Country 
Strategic Plan for Côte d’Ivoire, the needs of the population, and the government’s priorities in terms 
of addressing those needs.
2.2. EFFECTIVENESS
106 This section summarizes results on program effectiveness. We next provide descriptive statistics 
related to outputs and outcomes in terms of enrollment, student learning, teacher practices, food
and nutrition, and health for treatment schools based on data collected from school, teacher,
canteen, student, and household surveys. Wherever possible we present findings contrasted with 
findings at baseline and at midline and we show regional differences. We complement findings with
evidence from qualitative data. A full list of McGovern-Dole indicators is presented Annex 8.
2.2.1 To what extent have the outputs and outcomes been achieved (are they likely to 
be achieved)? What are the factors that have influenced the achievement or not?
107 The program largely achieved its immediate 
outputs of providing direct support to increase 
the frequency and availability of school canteen
programs as well as support to teachers. 
108 School records showed a continued decline in 
overall student enrollment during the five￾year period of program activities. As seen in
Exhibit 16, the average number of enrolled 
students in program schools was 212.6 at 
endline, which represent a decline from midline 
and baseline (228.0 and 236.0, respectively). By 
contrast, enrollment in comparison schools rose 
from 149.6 students at baseline to 170.0 at 
midline, and 170.4 at endline, on average.
Exhibit 16. Average student enrollment by 
grade
Grade Baseline Midline Endline
CP1 58.0 43.9 40.5
CP2 52.1 43.0 37.2
CE1 44.5 42.4 39.9
CE2 39.4 40.6 37.9
CM1 35.2 36.4 36.4
CM2 30.1 34.1 30.4
All 236.0 228.0 212.6
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 50 at 
endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 24 
Moreover, recent MENA report showed that nationally student enrollment increased by 2.5 percent
annually between 2016 and 2020.17
109 The decline in enrollment is most prominent in the lowest grades which had the largest class sizes. 
At baseline, there were 58 students in CP1 on average but only 40.5 at endline. Similarly, there were 
52.1 students in CP2 on average at baseline but only 37.2 at endline. Possible explanations for these 
findings can be that parents may be choosing to enroll them in other nearby schools benefiting from 
other programs such as the PAPSE program. A 
concerted effort to increase school and 
classroom availability partially explains this 
result.18 
110 On the other hand, the average number of 
students in the upper grades remains stable, 
suggesting that parents may be keeping their 
children enrolled in school at the same rates 
once they start. It appears that roughly the same 
net numbers of children are remaining in school 
through CM2 as in earlier rounds. As we see later 
in the report, the decline in student enrollment 
appears driven by boys who were discouraged 
to enroll and attend schools and were also 
pulled out of school to work in the fields and 
support their families. Additionally, this decline 
could have also been influenced by the opening 
of other schools close to students’ villages, 
where parents chose to enroll their students 
instead. 
111 At baseline, some schools did not have enough 
teachers for each grade and students were 
combined into bigger multi-grade classrooms 
which resulted in large class sizes. This problem 
persisted from baseline through endline. In fact, 
the average number of full-time teachers per 
school has slightly declined from 5.5 at baseline
to 5.4 at midline and 5.3 at endline.19 Exhibit 17 
shows the ratio of students per teacher 
remained consistent in most with regions, with 
Bafing seeing an increase from 27.7 students per 
teacher at midline to 35.1 students per teacher 
at endline, and Cavally seeing a similar increase 
from 51.0 students per teacher at midline to 58.4
students per teacher at endline. 
112 We detected steady increases in the ratio of 
girls to boys over the course of the program.
Exhibit 18 shows schools reported a higher ratio 
of girls to boys in each of the six grades at 
endline compared to midline. CP1 was the only 
grade that saw a decrease from midline to 
endline, but it still remained above the baseline 
17 https://www.men-dpes.org/static/docs/annuels/rap_ana_20192020.pdf
18 The PAPSE project includes a range of preschool and primary school interventions including construction of 113 new preschools and 
primary schools in Bagoue, Poro, Bounkani, and Tchologo between 2018 and 2020. The MENA report also shows that the number of primary 
schools in Cote d’Ivoire has increased by 3.3 percent annually between 2016 and 2020.
19 When considering full-time and volunteer teachers, the average number of teachers per school declined from 5.8 at baseline to 5.6 at 
midline to 5.5 at endline.
Exhibit 17. Trends in student teacher ratios
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 84 at 
endline).
Exhibit 18. Trends in girls-to-boys ratios
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 50 at 
endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 25 
ratio. This trend appears to be driven by the take-home rations encouraging girls to enroll and 
remain in school whereas boys become discouraged. Indeed, the ratio increased the most for 
children in CM1 and CM2. These trends suggest that girls are increasingly enrolled in school, to the 
point that they are more likely to enroll in school than their male counterparts. 
113 We find that students missed only a small number of classes due to illness. Exhibit 19 shows 
that the average student only missed 1.4 days of school over the course of the 2020-2021 school 
year. With this small number of days absent, we see that children were generally present at school 
and able to access all school lessons and school feeding programs. The percentage of students who 
missed more than 10 days of school due to illness remained low at endline, although this share 
increased by 1 percentage points relative to midline. This endline result continues to meet the 
baseline target of fewer than 10 percent of students. Despite reports that school closures due to 
COVID-19 were rare, some of the increase in absence could be related to children contracting COVID￾19 or due to those limited closures. 
Exhibit 19. Student absence due to illness
Midline Endline
Average student days absent in 
2020-2021 school year
1.3 days 1.4 days
Percentage of students absent more 
than 10 days due to sickness
0.7% 1.7%
Source: School Survey (N = 704 at midline, N = 607 at endline). 
114 Students remained attentive in class. Similar to midline, teachers said that more than 6 in 10 of 
their students were attentive on a typical day. On average, 6.3 students out of 10 were attentive at 
endline vs. 6.7 out of 10 at midline. Girls were slightly more attentive than boys according to teachers
with some regional differences (Exhibit 20). Despite some regional variance, all of the regions fell 
short of the 9 out of 10 target set at baseline. 
Exhibit 20. Student attentiveness by gender and by region
Gender Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoué Gontougo
Girls 5.21 6.69 6.12 6.24 7.05 6.83 6.35
Boys 5.29 5.92 6.07 5.19 6.79 6.8 6.52
All 5.25 6.31 6.1 5.71 6.92 6.81 6.43
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216).
115 Significant efforts were made to provide students 
with regular instructional materials and 
government-mandated textbooks.20 According of 
school directors, since 2016, the MENA and the 
McGovern-Dole program have provided 90 percent 
of schools with instructional materials. Three out of 
four directors said they received a new textbook as 
recently as 2021. In line with rollout of the national 
reformed curriculum for early grades, the CP1 and 
CP2 textbooks appear to be newest while the 
textbooks for the other grades are older. 
116 On average, 67 percent of teachers reported that all 
or almost all of their students had access to a 
textbook during last school year and 69 percent of 
teachers reported that all or almost all of their 
students have access to a textbook during the 
current school year, with large regional 
discrepancies (Exhibit 21). 
20 Specific reading materials and teaching supports developed by AVSI are discussed below and shown in Exhibits 27 and 28. 
Exhibit 21. Percentage of teachers 
reporting that all or almost all their 
students have access to a textbook
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 26 
117 Teachers reported that students get their textbooks from their parents (62%), the government (59%), 
private donors (16%), or other sources such as PAPSE and AVSI (13%). Most teachers said that 
textbooks are distributed every year (66%).
118 However, despite high access rates to textbooks and frequent distribution of textbooks mentioned 
above, 61 percent of teachers find that the quantity of available textbooks in their classrooms is 
currently insufficient. This may reflect a perception that every child needs a textbook.
119 Program implementers echoed these findings; several people said that the McGovern-Dole program 
helped to increase the availability of reading materials to schools, but even so, schools still had 
insufficient access to such materials. One representative from the Direction of Pedagogy and 
Continuing Education (DPFC) explained, “I can say that the project responds [to the needs] because at 
the beginning […], we said that the teachers do not have materials in the field and the project did not 
hesitate to make the material available to the teachers.” In the same vein, several people described 
libraries that the program helped provide to schools. Yet, like the teachers, other participants in the 
qualitative study concurrently claimed that the materials were not sufficient. The AVSI Chief of the 
Education Project explained: “Teaching conditions are generally not good. Teachers do not have a 
dedicated textbook to follow the curricula and the children they teach do not have access to textbooks. 
Especially where we are in the villages, access to the 
textbook is not easy. Parents are forced to buy, but 
for the most part, they do not have the 
means.” Although the libraries may have 
increased the number of books available, 
teachers and students still struggled to access
classroom textbooks.
120 Student attitudes toward reading and reading 
practices at home remain high. Exhibit 22
shows that, like at midline, most students said 
they liked reading (83%), they read at home with 
a parent or someone (58%), or alone (62%). 
Interestingly, unlike at midline, fewer students 
reported their family had books at home (64%), 
but 15 percent of students reported having 
children’s books at home.
121 Teachers maintained high rates of school 
attendance. Like midline, based on records kept 
by the school director, teachers attended on 
average 95 percent of school days during the 2020–
2021 school year and 92 percent of teachers 
attended at least 90 percent of the time. These high 
attendance rates were confirmed by the data from 
the teacher survey, although teachers self-reported
slightly lower attendance. Teachers reported that 
they attended on average 93 percent of the school 
days during the previous school year and 82
percent of teachers attended at least 90 percent of 
the school days (Exhibit 23). The gap in attendance 
between the school records and the teacher self￾reports can be explained by a combination of 1) 
inflation of attendance in the school records where 
teacher attendance is recorded at higher rates; 2) 
difference in the teachers being recorded in the 
previous year and the teachers reporting in the 
surveys; 3) recall bias where teachers do not 
correctly remember the exact number of days they 
have missed in the previous year; or a combination 
Exhibit 22. Trends for reading practices
Source: Student Survey (N = 573 at baseline; N = 1,130 at midline; 
N = 771 at endline). 
Exhibit 23. Percentage of teachers 
attending at least 90% of days by region
Source: School Survey (N = 50), Teacher Survey (N = 216).
98%
93%
92%
91%
89%
85%
75%
83%
86%
82%
76%
90%
85%
84%
Poro
Bounkani
Bagoue
Bafing
Cavally
Tchologo
Gontougo
0% 50% 100%
Recorded in school records
Self-reported in teacher surveys
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 27 
of the three. Despite improvement in these metrics from baseline, they still do not meet the baseline 
target of 95 percent of teachers attending school at least 90 percent of the time.
122 When teachers missed school, they were absent 
mainly for mandatory trainings, administrative
meetings, salary disbursements or sickness.
Teacher absences ranged from just a few days to 
more extended periods of time. Overall, 18
percent of teachers reported missing more than 
10 percent of school days which likely negatively 
affected their students. 
123 While students were not able to provide specific 
information on their teachers’ attendance, two 
thirds of students reported that sometimes they 
were prevented from having class because their 
teachers were absent. Only 1 percent of students 
reported that their teacher was absent almost all 
the time. These findings are very similar to 
findings during midline (Exhibit 24).
124 The proportion of AVSI trained teachers has 
dropped. While 92 percent of school directors 
reported that the teachers in their school have 
received a training on reading instruction, only 63
percent of teachers said that they had participated 
in the AVSI training on improving teaching in 
reading, with significant regional variation (Exhibit 
25). This represents a big decline since midline 
when a vast majority of teachers (90%) reported 
so. This decline is mainly due to teachers not 
correctly remembering the training or AVSI 
trained teachers leaving the schools and newer 
teachers having few opportunities to receive the 
training. Among the reasons for not receiving the 
AVSI training, teachers reported they had recently 
transferred from a school where the training was 
not offered, they did not know about the training,
or thought it was only for directors.
125 Teachers who received the AVSI training on 
teaching literacy attended on average two and a 
half days, mostly a few years ago. As shown in 
Exhibit 26, most teachers reported attending the 
training in 2018 or earlier (58%).
21 All trained 
teachers found the training was useful and 98
percent of teachers reported applying it into 
practice “often” or “always”. 
126 Pedagogical advisors are visiting teachers in their
classroom, but teachers would like more 
continuous professional development. Directors 
reported that in 84 percent of schools a 
pedagogical advisor visited each teacher and 
classroom once or twice in the previous year. This 
21 There may be some recall bias in teacher responses to this question as they may not remember exactly when the training happened or 
may be confusing the AVSI training with other profession development training provided. In fact, AVSI has not conducted trainings in 2021.
Exhibit 25. Percentage of teachers 
participating in AVSI training on reading
instruction, by region
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216).
Exhibit 24. Student reporting on teacher 
attendance 
Source: Student Survey (N = 1,149 at midline; N = 771 at 
endline).
37% 35%
62% 64%
0% 1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Midline Endline
Never Sometimes Almost all the time
Exhibit 26. Timing of AVSI training 
attendance
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 137).
58%
29%
21%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2018 or
before
2019 2020 2021
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 28 
finding was confirmed by 69% of teachers who said they received two visits on average. 
127 In terms of continuous professional development, practically all teachers said they would like to 
receive it (99%), but some are not yet getting it. According to directors, 42 percent of schools received 
continuous professional development for teachers but only 26 percent of teachers reported that 
they have received regular trainings organized by MENA. This finding contradicts reports from a 
program implementor that all teachers benefited from continuous professional development 
between 2016 and 2020 provided by the pedagogical advisors and school inspectors. Majority of 
teachers are interested in receiving online courses (84%) but so far, only 18 percent of directors said 
that teachers have received an online training. 
128 Teachers engaged in a variety of reading activities designed by AVSI. During the previous school 
year, 61 percent of teachers of grades CP1 and CP2 used a student assessment tool “General Grid 
for Student Performance.” The majority of teachers organized reading activities at their school such 
as animation reading (70%) and reading competition (59%). About half (45%) of teachers reported 
meeting on average three times with other teachers to share experiences and discuss reading 
activities. These percentages are particularly low as these activities are included in the work plan for 
all teachers, all teachers participate in pedagogical days organized by regional inspectors, and they 
attend school meetings organized by their director to facilitate sharing of experiences. One possible 
explanation is that teachers did not recall engaging in all of these activities but remembered just one 
or two. Exhibit 27 shows the regional differences in the percentage of teachers engaging in additional 
reading activities. 
Exhibit 27. Percentage of teachers engaging in additional reading activities
Reading activities Cavally Bagoué Gontougo Bounkani Tchologo Poro Bafing
Used assessment tool 
“General Grid for 
Student Performance” 
*
75% 69% 62% 66% 71% 52% 33%
Received a classroom 
visit from a 
pedagogical advisor
54% 80% 76% 79% 43% 71% 57%
Organized an 
animation reading at 
school
17% 88% 66% 91% 40% 77% 60%
Organized a reading 
competition 83% 63% 66% 36% 75% 54% 30%
Participated in meeting 
with other teachers to 
share experiences
23% 57% 41% 42% 57% 44% 36%
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216). 
*This assessment tool was only prescribed to teachers of grades CP1 and CP2 (N = 69). 
129 Teachers used AVSI reading instructional tools and materials consistently. The use of reading 
instruction materials remained at very similar levels between midline and endline. Among the AVSI￾provided reading and writing materials, teachers used mostly reading boards (69%), illustrated 
boards (60%), and mobile libraries (56%), followed by sculpted plastic letters (24%) and junior 
dictionaries (23%). While almost all teachers reported using the tools and materials “often” or 
“always”, they seemed to use just a few of the tools in their classroom. 39 percent of AVSI trained 
teachers reported using at least three of the tools and only 21 percent reported using at least four 
of the tools. The use of instructional tools and materials was also confirmed in student surveys where 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 29 
students reported having similar access to these materials in their classroom since midline (Exhibit 
28).
130 Teachers were increasingly teaching using
students’ local language. At midline, only 27 percent of 
teachers reported that they were teaching part of their 
class in their students’ native language to help convey 
certain lessons to students. The percentage of teachers 
doing so increased to 41 percent at endline with a 
substantial variation across regions (Exhibit 29). While 
this is an encouraging development given evidence of 
the importance of teaching using students’ mother 
tongue, this suggests that reading assessments may 
need to be adapted to the language of instruction to 
capture realistic reading proficiency levels (Nakamura & 
de Hoop, 2014; Pflepsen et al, 2015). To the extent that 
teachers were increasingly focusing on reading using
local languages, that change could partially explain 
decreases in reading levels from midline to endline since
we conducted our reading assessment in French (see 
other possibilities below).
131 Half of teachers reported they were not able to 
complete the curriculum. Only 51 percent reported 
that they were able to complete their curriculum for the 
2020-2021 academic year. Exhibit 30 maps the 
percentage of teachers who completed last year’s 
curriculum by region. These findings were confirmed 
by the school directors who were able to show their 
curriculum registries. The problem of curriculum 
completion affected all grades and seemed to be 
particularly severe for the CP and CE grades (Exhibit 
31).
132 Teachers said they were not able to finish the curriculum because of COVID and the need to do 
revisions over content from previous year, had to do revisions as students are behind with the 
Exhibit 30. Percentage of teachers who 
competed the last year’s curriculum, by 
region
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216).
Exhibit 31. Curriculum completion by 
grade
Source: School Survey (N = 39).
49%
34% 46% 42%
64%
84%
0%
50%
100%
CP1 CP2 CE1 CE2 CM1 CM2
Exhibit 29. Percentage of teachers teaching in 
local language
Source: Teacher Survey (N = 216).
Exhibit 28. Student access to reading materials 
in classroom
Source: Student Survey (N = 1149 at midline; N = 771 at endline).
11%
10%
20%
43%
54%
61%
14%
15%
18%
43%
47%
67%
0% 50% 100%
None
Sculpted plastic letters
Junior dictionaries
Illustrated board
Reading boards
Mobile library
Midline Endline
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 30 
program, curriculum change and training due to competing PAPSE intervention22, teacher strikes, 
interruptions due to elections and security threats. 
133 To quantify the number of days students missed during the school year because schools were not 
open due to outside factors such as COVID, teacher strikes, election interruptions and security 
threads, we compared the reported number of planned days and the number of actual days of 
school during the previous school year. The average difference between planned vs. actual days in 
program schools was 5.7 days at baseline, 7.0 days at midline, and 14.9 days at endline (after 
removing outliers of more than 50 days). The comparison schools had similar gap between planned 
and actual days of school at baseline and slightly higher gap at midline and endline (3 more days 
and 1.5 more days, respectively). 
134 The focus in the health and hygiene training for teachers is shifting. Besides professional
development aimed to improve teaching practices, teachers, and sometimes students, receive
health and hygiene related trainings as well. The status of received trainings since 2016 on various
health practices at endline was somewhat similar to what it was at midline with some shifts in focus
(Exhibit 32). The percentage of schools where skill-based health education and HIV/AIDS prevention
trainings were provided remained mostly unchanged. While 50 percent of directors reported that 
schools received deworming treatments for students, the number of schools where the director
reported a deworming training for teachers was provided dropped from 63 percent to 24 percent, 
though a majority of directors reported this was a government provided training. According to a 
program implementer, the DCS was unable to distribute deworming tablets due to a shortage of the 
medication and the only tablets distributed were from the Ministry of Health. There appears to be
more of a shift towards training focused on nutrition education and hygiene and sanitation best
practices. In fact, directors reported that information sessions on nutrition education (34%) and
micronutrient supplements (26%) are provided for their students as well as sessions on hygiene and
sanitation best practices (26%). Only 4 percent of directors said that the students from their school
have received a training session on vegetable garden activities. 
Exhibit 32. Type of health-related teacher trainings
Type of Training Baseline Midline Endline
Nutrition Education 25.0% 54.4% 60.0%
Skills-based Health Education 35.3% 38.8% 38.0%
Hygiene and Sanitation Best Practices n.a. n.a. 30.6%
Deworming 67.6% 62.7% 24.0%
HIV/AIDS Prevention 22.1% 11.8% 8.2%
Malaria Prevention 10.6% 4.8% 2.0%
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 50 at endline).
135 Distribution of deworming tablets occurred inconsistently. Several parents reported that their 
children received deworming tablets at school and claimed that having the tablets allowed children 
to stay healthy and remain in school. However, as stated above, a program implementer explained 
that a shortage of tablets led to the inability of the DCS to distribute the medications. Some program 
staff and parents supported this claim by stating that the distributions did not always occur. For 
instance, the AVSI M&E Manager said that distributing the deworming tablets required the Ministry 
of Health, which may have impeded efficiency: “Even the vitamin intake requires that this be done 
[according to] the standards and then that they must be deployed within the departmental health 
directorate. As part of this project […], the [tablets] were distributed not all the time.” As stated above, 50
percent of directors in McGovern-Dole schools said that their students received deworming 
treatments. These findings paralleled those in the midterm evaluation in which students in 
McGovern-Dole schools were more likely to have received deworming tablets, but they did not 
receive them 100 percent of the time. 
22 The Côte d’Ivoire Education Service Delivery Enhancement Project (PAPSE), funded by the World Bank, was launched in 2018.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 31 
136 All program schools had a canteen and a kitchen to prepare food. Unsurprisingly, according to
directors, 98 percent of schools benefited from a school feeding program provided by the WFP in 
the last two years and 97 percent of schools benefited from a school feeding program during the
2020-2021 school year.
23 Lunch meals were always served to both boys and girls. Take-home rations 
were provided to girls from CM1 and CM2 in most schools in Poro, Tchologo, and Bagoué as well as 
in a small number of schools in Bounkani and Gontougo which may be an error on the part of the 
school directors. Take-home rations for boys were not reported in any school.
137 Parental awareness and use of school canteens remained very high. Similar to midline, almost
all parents (90%) of children enrolled in program schools were aware of the school canteen program,
and almost all (95%) reported that their children ate at the canteen in the previous school year. On
average, students ate 3.8 days a week at the canteen. While most children ate at the canteen
regularly (three days a week or more), less than half (41%) of children at the canteen every school
day. The main reasons for not sending their children to eat at the canteen were because parents
preferred that they ate at home or because of the canteen cost of 25 francs.
138 We find that schools maintained the
frequency canteen feeding that we
saw at midline. At endline, Exhibit 33
shows that treatment schools held
canteens in roughly 88 percent of
school days. This rate is only slightly
down from the 94 percent of schools
that administered canteens at midline.
Importantly, at endline, schools made
canteens available much more
regularly than they did at baseline.
When the McGovern-Dole program 
started, there was a very wide range of
school canteen availability, from being
held 6.1 percent of school days in
Gontougo to 71.1 percent of school
days in Bounkani. By endline, the rates
for each of the seven regions
converged to the high overall average
rates. Taken together, this finding
suggests that school canteen programs had very different implementation rates prior to the
intervention but that programmatic support successfully yielded regular school canteen
implementation across all seven regions.
139 The McGovern-Dole program developed local capacity to supply food to schools, although 
incompletely. Through our focus groups and interviews, parents and other stakeholders also 
observed that the school canteen provided healthy meals to students, thanks to the support of the 
WPGs and wider community. As one WPG member in Tchologo said, “The donation of the women’s 
group comes. There is also the village that comes to help. The village meets, everyone gives something, […] 
and together we give to the canteen.” Some boys in the communities also helped the women with 
weeding and other manual labor, while COGES would follow up to make sure the canteen was 
functioning well. Overall, the structure of the WPGs helped to produce locally grown foods for the 
school canteens.
140 However, the women faced some challenges. According to the members’ reports, many of the WPGs 
had grown significantly in recent years. For instance, the group in Poro started with 26 members and 
now has nearly 60. The one in Bagoué has also increased from 15 to 60 members and has acquired 
two additional hectares for production. Doing the agricultural work with the group allowed the 
women to produce food efficiently. As one group member stated, “It’s good because by going to the 
23 Among comparison schools, 17 percent of directors reported that their school has also benefited from a school feeding program mainly 
provided by the Government of Côte d’Ivoire.
Exhibit 33. Percentage of school days with canteens 
by region
Source: Canteen Survey (N = 69 at baseline; N = 67 at midline; N = 50 at 
endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 32 
field, we want to do a job. If it’s [in the] grouping, we can do in in two hours and it’s over, but if you’re 
alone, you can’t do that.” Groups did not always experience this positive workflow, however. In 
contrast to the Poro and Bagoué groups, the WPG in Gontougo has decreased in size and the women 
are aging, resulting in a less vigorous workforce. WPG members also expressed needs for additional 
equipment, tools, and training. They often had to pay for materials such as gasoline out-of-pocket. 
The women also faced some challenges with land rights and irrigation. As a result, the women’s 
production did not sufficiently meet the needs of the school canteens, and the groups have 
requested additional support from program implementers.
141 The percentage of school days when
canteens served minimum dietary
diversity meals decreased. Minimum
dietary diversity is defined as a day’s
meals consisting of at least four of the
following food groupings: 1) cereals, 2)
tubers and root vegetables, 3) legumes
and nuts, 4) dairy products, 5) meat,
fish, and giblets, 6) eggs, 7) high vitamin
A fruit and vegetables, and 8) other
fruit and vegetables. After a strong
increase between baseline (41.3%) and
midline (82.5%), only 66.8 percent of
schools served minimum dietary 
diversity at endline. These findings are 
particularly surprising considering that 
endline data were collected in 
November and December, when we 
would expect food security to be 
greatest during harvest season, as 
opposed to April and May (as at baseline) or September and October (as at midline). Exhibit 34 shows 
an upward trend in Cavally, Bagoué, and Bounkani and a hump shape trend in the other regions. 
Serving adequately diverse food on fewer days may lead to reduced intake of energy and nutrients,
which can lead to weaker nutritional status. Given the finding in Exhibit 33 that schools hold canteens 
on roughly equally often at midline and endline, then it suggests that the canteens more frequently 
serve food that do not satisfy minimum dietary standards.
142 The quality and quantity of food in the canteens were inconsistent. Despite the community 
support to the canteens, participants in our interviews and focus groups held differing views about 
the quality and quantity of food in the school canteens, and many felt that the canteens were not as 
consistent as the past. Paralleling the quantitative findings about decreased dietary diversity in 
schools, several people reported that the quality and quantity of food in the canteens had recently 
decreased. Parents noted that as a result, children are not as full after eating in the canteens as they 
used to be. For instance, one father in Tchologo stated, “There is indeed a change. Before with the sum 
of 25 [FCFA], the children could eat properly, but currently with 50 francs they are not satisfied. At 10 am, 
they drank milk, at noon there was sardine, rice—all that. Today you will [give your child] 50 francs, the 
child is not full.” Another claimed, “Now some children, after eating the dish of the canteen, can go to eat 
again at home which was not the case before.” Parents said that the amount of food in their local school
canteen varied—sometimes it was enough, other times, not. Accounts of the meal quality varied as 
well—some claimed the meals were nutritious, while others claimed they were not nutritious 
enough. Contrary to the quantitative findings, some people also reported that the canteens at their 
local schools were open fewer days than before. One parent noticed, “The school canteen is not there 
at all times. They had started, now it stopped. It's this change there—it’s not regular as before. [...] I don't 
know what makes that.
143 Reported decreases in food quality and quantity at the canteens may have resulted from the inability 
of the WPGs to meet all the needs of the school canteens that are not met by the McGovern-Dole
program. As a BFCD coordinator claimed, “Even though WFP gives food to distribute, not all children eat 
in the canteen; it is not enough. Also, what we do with the ladies, we have not yet reached the desired level.” 
Exhibit 34. Trends in minimum dietary diversity by 
region
 
Source: Canteen Survey (N = 69 at baseline; N = 67 at midline; N = 50 at 
endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 33 
The WPGs reported that the support they give to the school is not sufficient; one group reported 
being able to support the canteen 7-9 months of the year, while another was able to support 4-5 
months, and another only 2 months. 
144 The WPGs inability to meet all needs of the school canteens may have been impacted by a lack of 
relevant training and support. Although some women reported receiving training on topics related 
to agriculture, cooking, and nutrition, these trainings do not appear to be sufficient. In some cases, 
only the president of the groups received training. Many women claimed that the topics of the 
trainings they did attend were not relevant to them, since they already know how to do agricultural 
work. As one WPG member said, “The training does not suit us because where we are in our country, in 
our region we do not need training. If they gave us three-wheel machine and then wheelbarrow we can 
work on that, but the training—we do not need training.” With the women’s many responsibilities, they 
do not have time to attend such trainings. What the women really need are equipment such as 
freight tricycles and rice threshers, and trainings for things like group administration and income￾generating activities24. 
145 For the dry rations, the number of 
planned rations aligned more closely 
with the number of actual 
distributions. We also detected that the 
disconnect between planned food rations 
that we observed at midline narrowed so 
that the actual food rations distributed 
drew closer to the planned rations (Exhibit 
35). This finding suggests that school 
canteens were better prepared to manage 
the quantity of rations needed for girls in 
those schools. As described in Section 
2.3.4., canteens may also have managed 
to refine the targeting for girls receiving 
the dry rations in a way that more 
realistically aligns with the resources 
available.
146 Canteen managers demonstrated
similar levels of knowledge as at 
midline. Almost all canteen managers (92%) reported that they personally had received training, 
achieving the 90 percent target from baseline for canteen managers receiving at least one training. 
Most of them received training in management of food storage (96%), health and hygiene (54%), 
nutrition (48%) and food preparation (43%). Two-thirds of canteen managers (64%) participated in a 
training from WFP or AVSI on children’s nutrition, most of them within the previous 2-3 years.
Exhibit 36. Canteen managers’ knowledge and skills
Canteen managers are able to cite at least … Baseline Midline Endline
… three health and hygiene practices. 93% 88% 84%
… three food storage practices. 76% 83% 82%
… three food preparation practices. 70% 82% 66%
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 50 at endline).
147 All canteen managers maintained a canteen management book. Their skills and knowledge
have remained the same or slightly deteriorated (Exhibit 36). At endline, most canteen managers
were able to identify three or more health and hygiene practices (84%) and three or more food
storage best practices (82%). The percentage of canteen managers who were able cite at least three 
food preparation practices has decreased to 66 percent. All three of these indicators fell short of the 
target from baseline of 90 percent of canteen managers being able to at least 3 of these best 
24 As previously described, the WPGs did not help women generate income. Rather, women incurred costs for things such as gasoline to 
transport goods, fertilizer, and other supplies. One woman suggested trainings on soap-making to help generate income.
Exhibit 35. Food distribution – planned vs. 
actual rations distributed
Source: Canteen Survey (N = 69 at baseline; N = 67 at midline; N = 50
at endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 34 
practices. Since canteen managers also serve as teachers, these results could potentially be
explained by teacher turnover in these schools.
148 Few canteen management committee and COGES members25 have received trainings. Almost all
schools had a school canteen management committee (94%) consisting of 5.6 members, on average.
The committee members were evenly split by gender (2.9 men and 2.7 women). However, other than 
themselves, 40 percent of canteen managers reported that none of the school canteen management
committee members had received any trainings and 46 percent said that some committee members
had received some training. All committee members were trained in only 14 percent of schools. In 
addition to the canteen managers, program implementers had also planned to train the COGES. Yet, 
according to our qualitative data, this outcome was only partially achieved. 
149 Many COGES members claimed to have received no or insufficient training, while some said 
that only the president of their group was trained. Several COGES members expressed a desire for 
more training on the functioning of the school canteens. For example, one COGES member in 
Bagoué said, “WFP could train us on how to maintain and manage the canteens to see how it works. The 
WFP has never trained us on this. […] It is also necessary that the members of the COGES are trained on 
the canteen.” On the contrary, members of other COGES in Poro and Gontougo, for example, stated 
that they received training on supporting the school and canteens and that this training was 
sufficient. Based on responses from the COGES members, it appears that the success of the school 
management trainings varied by region.
150 Schools had increased access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment.
At endline, 60 percent of canteen managers said they were provided with enough food preparation
equipment, an improvement from midline, where only 32 percent said so. Access to ventilated food 
storage increased from 59 percent at midline to 90 percent at endline. At the same time, access to 
improved pallets doubled from 24 to 42 percent. All school canteen managers reported having stock 
cards available to them. That being said, canteen managers’ perception of having enough food 
storage equipment grew modestly from 38 percent at midline to 42 percent at endline.
151 Schools had improved access to safe
drinking water. According to directors, water 
was available at 68 percent of schools, mainly 
tap or running water, improved village water 
supply or village pump. Access to improved 
water source has improved between midline 
and endline, (from 32% to 46%). Importantly, 
the distance to water source appears to have 
decreased in many schools between midline 
and endline (Exhibit 37). At endline, 47 percent
of schools with access had water source on the 
school groups, while 44 percent were less than 
a 15-minute walk to a water source, and 9
percent were 15 minutes or further from a 
water source. Three-quarters of directors did 
not report any current problems accessing 
drinking water (74%). When problems 
preventing access to water were reported, 
most often they were due to broken water 
pumps.
25 COGES are composed of about a dozen members, while canteen management committees are composed of about five members, some 
of which are also members of the COGES. Therefore, there is some overlap between these two structures.
Exhibit 37. Distance to water source, where 
available
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at midline; N = 50 at endline).
32%
47%
42%
44%
26%
9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Midline Endline
In the school grounds
Less than 15 min. walk
Over 15 min. walk
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 35 
152 Schools had increased access to 
latrines. At endline, 70 percent of 
schools had sanitary facilities, an 
increase from 59 percent of schools at 
midline (Exhibit 38). Less than half of 
these had separate facilities for boys and 
girls (44%) and a quarter had separate 
facilities for teachers and students (26%).
The most common type of sanitary 
installation was pit latrines with a slap
(71%). In the schools with sanitary 
installations, directors reported that 74
percent were functional. Despite the 
progress in improved access to latrine
over time, these findings imply that half 
of the schools still did not have sanitary 
installations, or they were not functional.
153 Over the life of the project, WFP 
supported 50 women production 
groups across five regions as shown in 
Exhibit 39. WPGs are community-based
groups of students’ mothers that jointly 
raise and harvest food commodities to 
contribute to the school canteens. WFP 
supported WPGs to produce local food 
including iron-rich green leafy 
vegetables, tomatoes, onions, okra, 
eggplants, peanuts, etc. WPGs received 
trainings and agricultural inputs like 
seeds and fertilizers.
154 Several factors may have influenced 
the achievement of project outputs 
and outcomes. According to qualitative 
data, active community support and 
efficient partnerships have played a role 
in enabling the functioning of the schools 
and school canteens. Communities were 
very supportive of the school feeding and 
literacy activities and played an important role in the school functioning by providing food, labor, 
contributions of money and supplies, and other encouragement and support to students and 
teachers. The McGovern-Dole program also maintained effective multi-sectoral partnerships with 
USDA, ANADER, AVSI, and DPFC, which all contributed skills, resources, and knowledge to benefit the 
program activities.
155 Some additional factors that may have slowed the achievement of project outcomes include the 
COVID-19 pandemic, which interrupted schooling and created needs for masks and handwashing 
stations (which many COGES helped provide). Several WPG members reported that the pandemic 
caused their groups not to meet, which slowed production and caused one group to lose part of 
their cassava crop and consequently the 300,000 FCFA investment they put into it. Resource and 
time constraints of the COGES, WGPs, and other community members additionally inhibited the 
community-led aspects of the McGovern-Dole program. 
2.2.2 Has the achievement of results led, or is it likely to lead, to the achievement of the 
intervention objectives? What major factors have influenced this?
156 Next, we present findings related to the achievement of program objectives. The first strategic 
objective is to improve literacy of school aged children and the second objective is to increase use 
Exhibit 38. Access to and quality of sanitary facilities
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at midline; N = 50 at endline).
59%
31%
26%
70%
44%
Sanitary facilities
Gender-separated 
sanitary facilities
Separate facilities for 
teachers and students
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midline Endline
Exhibit 39. WPGs supported by the program
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 36 
of health and dietary practices. Our findings suggest that progress toward delivering healthy and 
nutritious food to children stalled due to challenges with local communities assuming ownership. 
Learning outcomes also drew no closer to attaining their objectives, which could be related to COVID￾driven interruptions, although there is little evidence that COVID caused widespread disruption.
Exhibit 40. Reading scores with thresholds by grade
Source: Student Survey (N = 771 at endline).
157 Students had low reading scores at endline. Exhibit 40 shows the distribution of the ASER literacy 
assessment’s results and the acceptable thresholds by grade level. The threshold for each grade is 
represented with a vertical green line. We determined the thresholds for an acceptable reading level 
at each primary school grade according to Côte d'Ivoire’s curriculum guidelines and the calibration 
workshop that AIR and AVSI held in October 2021 (refer to Exhibit 11 for the structure of the 
assessment levels). The five panels 
show that most students showed 
limited basic reading skills that were 
below the thresholds for their grade 
levels.26 
158 Average student reading levels 
and percentage of students who 
are proficient declined since 
midline, with roughly 21 percent of 
treated students demonstrating 
proficiency for their grade level. 
Converting the ASER reading levels A 
– K on a numeric scale from 1 to 11, 
allows us to construct the average 
student reading level by grade. 
Exhibit 41 shows the trends in 
average reading scores by grade. 
While the endline average scores are 
still higher than baseline, they have 
stagnated or even declined somewhat 
since midline.
159 The proficiency rates are determined 
as the percentage of students who 
score above the minimum threshold 
for their grade. Exhibit 42 shows the 
trends proficiency rates by grade. 
Similarly as above, proficiency rates 
have stagnated or declined since 
midline demonstrating that majority of 
students read below grade-level.
160 Several factors can be contributing to 
a challenging learning environment 
related to this finding. First, like most 
26 Student reading assessments were administered to student from grades CP2, CE1, CE2, CM1 and CM2. As reading scores were collected 
in the beginning of the school year, we present the average reading findings as proxies for student reading skills corresponding to the 
previous grade, that is for grades CP1, CP2, CE1, CE2, and CM1.
Exhibit 41. Student reading levels by grade
Source: Student Survey (N = 573 at baseline; N = 1,141 at midline; N = 
771 at endline).
Exhibit 42. Student proficiency rates by grade 
Source: Student Survey (N = 573 at baseline; N = 1,141 at midline; N = 
771 at endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 37 
countries around the world, Côte d’Ivoire closed schools because of the virus for two months during 
spring 2020.27,28 Growing evidence from around the world shows that school closures due to COVID 
pandemic have lasting detrimental effects on students, specifically in younger students and students 
from poor families (Hammerstein et al., 2021). Second, high teacher turnover rates negatively impact 
student achievement as AVSI trained experienced teachers are replaced with novice sometimes 
unexperienced teachers. Among all teachers in program schools, 15.1 percent have been teaching 
at their current school for two or fewer years and 42.5 percent had been teaching in their schools 
for three or fewer years. Lastly, over the last couple of years, schools in Côte d’Ivoire have 
experienced further disruptions due to teachers strikes29, election unrests, and security threats in 
the Northern border region. In fact, we estimated that during the previous year, schools were 
opened for 14.9 fewer days on average which correspond to about three weeks. All of these factors 
may have contributed to a learning loss due to the reduced time that students spent in school after 
midline. (See Section 2.3.5 for more information on factors that have influenced program efficiency.) 
161 According to teachers, the main factor that negatively influences their student reading levels are lack 
of parent engagement (85%), lack of textbooks (37%), the fact that French is the language of 
instruction rather than local language (19%). Among other factors, teachers also listed student lack 
of motivation and student speaking local languages. 
162 Households have become 
increasingly more food insecure. We 
calculated a food consumption score as 
a proxy for food insecurity using WFP 
guidelines. The food consumption score
is a composite indicator simultaneously 
reflecting food diversity, the frequency 
and relative nutritional contribution of 
each food group consumed by a 
household over the seven days 
preceding the survey. Based on their 
food consumption score, households 
are classified into three categories: 
poor, borderline, and acceptable 
consumption. At endline, the 
proportion of households with 
acceptable food consumption has fallen 
to 71 percent from 90 percent at midline 
and 96 percent at baseline. This no 
longer meets the target set at baseline 
of 80 percent of households having 
acceptable food consumption scores. Some of this finding can be explained by a change in how the 
indicator is calculated and corresponding changes in the survey questions. Still, the proportion of 
households with poor and borderline food consumption exceeds the target of 20 percent and is a 
cause for concern (Exhibit 43). 
163 Households are consuming increasingly less diverse foods. The complementary indicator, 
household dietary diversity score measures the quality of households’ diets. The average household 
dietary diversity has fallen from 7.5 at baseline to 5.1 at midline to 4.46 at endline, slightly under the 
target of 4.5, with regional differences (Exhibit 44). 
164 This decrease in dietary diversity occurred among households from both treatment and comparison 
schools, which suggests that the decrease in households from treatment schools did not occur due 
27 https://www.gouv.ci/_actualite-article.php?recordID=10959 
28 https://www.gouv.ci/_actualite-article.php?recordID=11143&d=6
29 While we are unable to quantify the prevalence of teacher strikes in McGovern-Dole schools, MENA statistical report on the education 
system lists that 16.6% of rural schools were affected by teacher strikes during 2019-2020 school year.
Exhibit 43. Food consumption score by region
Source: Household Survey (N = 771 at endline).
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 38 
to decreases in the diversity of foods served in the school canteens, but rather due to a more 
widespread issue such as climate change or economic recession. 
Exhibit 44. Household dietary diversity score by region
 Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoué Gontougo
Baseline 5.52 6.44 8.19 8.38 7.26 7.85 7.37
Midline 4.86 5.23 5.08 4.74 5.02 5.37 5.18
Endline 4.7 5 3.81 4.22 4.31 5.41 4.86
Source: Household Survey (N = 681 at baseline, N = 1149 at midline, N = 771 at endline). 
165 Household food security has been slowly declining. The reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) is 
yet another proxy indicator for food insecurity based on the frequency and severity of five food￾related coping strategies. While it is still in the medium range, the rCSI has increased from 3.8 at 
baseline, to 4.4 at midline, and to 5.3 at endline.30Among the different regions at endline, we observe 
households in Poro, Bagoué, and Cavally to have higher rCSI scores than the overall average, with 
averages of 5.7, 7.7, and 7.9, respectively. Exhibit 45 shows the average number of days per week
that households use various coping strategies. Like the findings for dietary diversity in the school 
canteens, these declines in household food security and dietary diversity are particularly surprising 
considering that endline data were collected in November and December, when we would expect 
food security to be greatest during harvest season, as opposed to April and May (as at baseline) or 
September and October (as at midline).
Exhibit 45. Coping strategies used 
Coping Strategy Baseline Midline Endline 
Consuming less preferred foods for cheaper 0.8 1 1.6
Depend on aid from relatives or friends 0.3 0.2 0.5
Decrease the amount of food during meals 0.6 0.6 0.6
Reduced quantities consumed by adult / parent 
for the benefit of young children 0.5 0.7 0.6 
Reduce the number of meals per day (skipping 
one or two meals in the day) 0.3 0.4 0.4 
Source: Household Survey (N = 1149 at baseline; N = 681 at midline; N = 771 at endline). Households could report using more than one strategy. 
166 Lack of community support for nutrition and literacy does not appear to be a contributing 
factor to the declines. According to program- and community-level participants in interviews and 
focus groups, the community strongly supports school feeding and literacy. Community members
sacrificed time and money through the COGES and WPGs to contribute to the school functioning and 
to meet the needs of students and teachers. Many parents who participated in our evaluation also 
actively encourage their children’s school attendance and incite them to study at home. As previously 
explained, student attitudes toward reading and reading practices at home are also high. 
167 The school canteens also do not appear to be a factor in the literacy and nutrition indicators declines, 
although waning support from the McGovern-Dole program could be. When asked what motivates 
children’s attendance, parents claimed that the school canteen plays an important role. Children 
liked the food in the canteen and enjoyed eating there. As one parent said, “They like the canteen—
the food they make here—because in the morning before going to school, [children ask about] the canteen 
money. That is why they love school.” Because the school canteen prevented them from having to 
return home for lunch, students were less likely to skip class in the afternoons and retained some of 
the energy from traveling for their schoolwork. Yet, with the McGovern-Dole program transitioning 
the responsibility for the school canteens to the government and communities, many people have 
reported that the school canteens seem to be functioning less well than in the past. The government 
and community members have limited resources, which may have impeded their ability to scale up 
30 The rCSI is prone to significant seasonal differences. Because baseline data were collected in the spring, while the midline and endline 
were both collected in the fall after harvest, so the timing of data collection may explain some of the differences in values. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 39 
their contributions to schools and canteens. As a result, many people have expressed needs for 
more support from the program implementers. 
2.2.3 Have the results been achieved for men, women, boys, and girls?
168 The decline in student enrollment appears to be driven by boys. Exhibit 46 shows that girls’
enrollment has largely remained stable over the life of the project, but the average number of boys 
per schools declined from 123.0 at baseline to 114.0 at midline and 101.2 at endline. While the take￾home rations may have supported girls’ attendance, some boys and their families felt discouraged 
that they did not receive them. There were even accounts of boys being held back from school to 
work in the fields because of not receiving the rations, as explained by this COGES member from 
Katanra: “When they started sending the dry food, we can say that it favored the increase in the rate of 
schooling of the girl because they could have a bag of rice every quarter. But it also had its consequences 
because parents started sending more girls to school and removing young boys to leave them in the fields.” 
Thus, while the take-home rations may indeed have served their purpose in promoting girls’ 
attendance, they appear to have had the unanticipated consequence of demotivating some boys 
and their families. 
Exhibit 46. Average student enrollment by gender and grade
Girls Boys
Grade Baseline Midline Endline Baseline Midline Endline
CP1 29.0 23.1 20.3 29.0 20.8 20.2
CP2 25.2 21.8 19.6 26.9 21.2 17.6
CE1 21.3 21.6 21.0 23.1 20.8 18.9
CE2 18.9 19.9 20.9 20.5 20.7 17.0
CM1 16.4 17.7 19.3 18.8 18.7 17.1
CM2 12.8 15.8 15.9 17.3 18.3 14.9
All 113.0 114.0 111.4 123.0 114.0 101.2
Source: School Survey (N = 68 at baseline and midline; N = 50 at endline). 
169 Both boys and girls show similar declines in reading proficiency. At endline, the percentage of 
girls who read at or above grade level are slightly higher than the percentage of boys who read at or 
above grade level. This appears to hold for all grades except CP2 (Exhibit 47). 
Exhibit 47. Reading proficiency by grade and gender 
 Girls Boys
Grade Baseline Midline Endline Baseline Midline Endline
CP1 5.7% 46.8% 20.4% 3.6% 43.8% 14.8%
CP2 15.0% 35.8% 25.0% 12.9% 39.7% 25.0%
CE1 23.2% 45.7% 33.3% 24.6% 51.1% 18.4%
CE2 13.5% 27.3% 16.9% 6.9% 45.6% 12.4%
CM1 5.0% 17.4% 18.4% 10.0% 30.2% 14.4%
Total 12.5% 26.6% 22.9% 11.6% 41.0% 16.3%
Source: Student Survey (N = 604 at baseline; N = 1,149 at midline; N = 771 at endline). 
170 Throughout our focus group discussions, parents and COGES members said that boys and girls 
received program components related to the school canteen and literacy in the same way. In 
response to the question about any differences between boys and girls, one parent said, “No! I don't 
think so. They are the same things. That it is the same food that we serve to all.” Another said, “No 
difference, we put all children at the same level whether it's a girl or boy.” Our data does not definitively 
explain the cause of reduced reading proficiency, although some possible explanations could be
interruptions in schooling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, high rates of teacher turnover, or 
the inability of teachers to complete the school curriculum, discussed later in this report. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 40 
171 Gender of household head do not appear to influence the severity of food insecurity. At 
endline, we find that households report similar food consumption score regardless of gender of 
household head (Exhibit 48). 
 
Source: Household Survey (N = 1106 at baseline; N = 1752 at midline; N = 771 at endline). 
172 In terms of the community-level groups, the McGovern-Dole program did successfully reach 
men and women as intended. Although our COGES interviews had a higher proportion of men 
than women, both female and male participants claimed that they participate equally. A group 
member in Bagoué claimed: “Women and men participate equally in the activities of COGES because 
everyone plays the role that has assigned to him. When what we have to do concerns men, they will 
participate and when it is women, they will participate. Men and women therefore participate equally in 
COGES activities.” For the WPGs, the women did receive resources and support for group 
organization, although they face ongoing needs. 
2.2.4 Have the standards of assistance been met? 
173 The WFP has implemented the McGovern-Dole program in a way that aligns with the Sphere 
Core Humanitarian Standard.
31 The Sphere outlines nine core standards, which overlap with areas 
of this evaluation. As outlined throughout this report, the WFP’s response in Côte d’Ivoire has been 
1) appropriate and relevant (See Section 2.1), as well as 2) effective (See Section 2.2) and timely (See 
Section 2.3). The WFP has 3) strengthened local capacities through the COGES and WPGs and avoided 
negative effects (other than the drop in boys’ school enrollment, which the WFP is addressing in 
Phase 2 of the program). The McGovern-Dole program is 4) based on communication, participation, 
and feedback, considering that the WFP has sought to engage local communities and has a regular 
M&E system set up. Our data did not find evidence of any feedback mechanisms to address the 
extent to which the WFP 5) welcomes and addresses complaints from beneficiaries, but the changes 
to the program in Phase 2 (WASH component and eliminating the take-home rations) aligns greatly 
with the expressed needs of our evaluation participants and demonstrates that the WFP has listened 
to their needs. With effective partnerships with bodies such as MENA, the DPFC, AVSI, and ANADER, 
the McGovern-Dole program has been 6) coordinated and timely. The fact that the WFP is conducting 
this evaluation and has made needed changes to the Phase 2 of the program indicated that the 
McGovern-Dole response is 7) based on continual learning and improvement. Although the human 
resources system is beyond the scope of this study, no complaints about staff pay, inequity, or lack 
of support occurred in our interviews or focus groups with program implementers, thus suggesting 
that 8) staff are supported to do their job effectively and are treated fairly and equitably. As described 
31 https://spherestandards.org/humanitarian-standards/core-humanitarian-standard/ 
Exhibit 48. Food consumption score group by gender of household head
0.0% 3.5% 10.4% 3.8% 12.6%
19.1%
96.2%
83.9%
70.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baseline Midline Endline
Man
Poor Borderline Acceptable
0.8% 2.1%
2.8% 10.3% 7.9%
19.2%
96.4% 90.0%
70.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baseline Midline Endline
Woman
Poor Borderline Acceptable
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 41 
in Section 2.3.1, the McGovern-Dole program’s limited budget has required the WFP to carry out the
program as cost efficiently as possible with little waste. Therefore, 9) resources are managed and 
use responsibly for their intended purpose.
2.2.5 To what extent have the recommendations formulated during the midline 
evaluation been implemented and what were the results and effects, the hindering or 
supporting factors?
174 The findings from the midline evaluation resulted in recommendations for the WFP to a) reduce the 
proportion of canteen days that they contribute to McGovern-Dole schools, while increasing the 
proportion of days supported by the local community, b) reinforce DCS and DPFC M&E capacity, c) 
improve communication with the government, d) increase the presence of the WFP on the ground, 
e) reinforce girls’ education, f) increase female representation in COGES, g) strengthen COGES 
capacity to support McGovern-Dole activities, and h) estimate a graduation date for WPGs. Our 
endline evaluation shows that the WFP has carried out some, but not all, of these recommendations.
175 The WFP has reduced the proportion of school canteen days supported by the McGovern-Dole
program. Reports from local community members show that the WFP has in fact reduced the 
proportion of canteen days. In preparation for the McGovern-Dole program cessation, the WFP has 
alerted government officials and communities that over the next five years the WFP will transfer the 
responsibilities for school feeding to them and subsequently began taper off the school canteen 
support. Although the WFP intended for the government and communities to pick up the days that 
the McGovern-Dole program is no longer supporting, evidence shows an overall decrease in the total 
number of canteen days. In treatment schools, the average proportion of school days that the 
canteens were open decreased from 93.1 percent at midline to 86.8 percent at endline. (See Section 
2.5 for more information on the success of the program sustainability efforts.) 
176 The WFP took steps to reinforce DCS and DPFC M&E capacity. At midline, several government 
informants requested that WFP provide them with additional M&E training and capacity building to 
help them better support the McGovern-Dole program and other school feeding related projects. To
meet this stated need, we recommended that the WFP host a workshop with M&E personnel to 
assess training needs. According to monitoring data, the WFP organized a training workshop July 29 
- August 1, 2019 to develop the capacity of 69 M&E personnel from the WFP, DCS, AVSI, the DPFC, 
and COGES to determine the needs for training, develop a training plan, and review existing M&E 
tools.
177 Communication with the government could further improve. Regarding the recommendation 
to improve communication with the government, our qualitative data does not bear any indications 
that government engagement has improved. Although the WFP has discussed its plan to transfer 
responsibility to the government, the government still seems unclear about its role in the school 
canteens. For instance, a school canteen coordinator from the Regional Center of Evaluation in 
Education, Environment, Health, and Accreditation in Africa (CRESAC) claimed that when he first 
heard about the intention to transfer responsibilities to the government two years ago, no one could 
tell him if the plan had been discussed with the government. More recently, he saw that government 
understanding had not improved. He said: “[Two years ago,] I asked [a program consultant] the question 
to know if they and the government understood each other? No one was able to give me a follow-up. You 
say you want to withdraw; you say the government must now take charge of the canteens, but have you 
discussed with the government? Unfortunately, this is what I found. Last year I had the chance to meet 
with the sub-prefect of Napié, two senators and two deputies, and I posed the problem. They said, ‘It is a 
good project. Come and talk to us about it in parliament because we ourselves do not know what it is.’ […] 
We have to involve everyone. We have to go and explain. We need someone to write a bill and then we will 
submit this to the decision-makers so that the government [will be] in charge of these canteens.”
178 A MENA Director also explained that the government and communities lack clarity about the division 
of responsibilities: “There is a problem at this level; the communities often find that they do not have 
enough means to take charge of the school. Because it is often said that it is the business of the 
communities, and the community says that it is the business of the government. Well, where are we 
going? Government says it's for you, you think it's for us, how do we do it? Everyone throws the ball 
at each other.” Informants not only felt that the government did not understand its responsibility in 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 42 
the school canteen program, but several also expressed uncertainty about the government’s 
capacity to sustain the program. Further communication with the government, including problem￾solving how the transfer of responsibility can take place, could help the transition occur more 
smoothly.
179 Our data does not indicate any increased field presence of program implementers. In fact, 
communities seem to need more on-the-ground assistance in the form of trainings and resources
to maintain their support to the schools and canteens. Informants also described a need for program 
implementers to improve their communication and collaboration with the groups. However, 
according to one of the MENA Directors from the DCS, there are some restrictions in place for the 
WFP to make visits to the field: “The WFP says that it can go at any time on the ground—unexpectedly to 
go and make canteen visits. That's right, but the [school] administration has procedures. You can't go to a 
school like that and say you've come to visit. The director will tell you, “Where is your mission order? Where 
is the paper that allows you to have access to the school?” But you don't have that. For courtesy, they want
you to give a call. But [the WFP says] that when they warn, people have time to arrange.” Such 
administrative restrictions may have prevented the WFP from increasing its field presence in the 
schools. Therefore, cooperation with school administrators and improved communication with the 
community groups are needed for the WFP to increase its presence in the field.
180 The McGovern-Dole program succeeded in reinforcing girls’ education. The midline evaluation
showed that male student reading scores improved twice as much as girls’ reading scores. As a 
result, we suggested that AVSI and the DPFC conduct a study to figure out why those findings 
occurred and to consider integrating or reinforcing a gender focus in their teacher training 
curriculum. Although we don’t have information about whether AVSI and DPFC conducted such a 
study, the endline evaluation showed that with the McGovern-Dole program’s inclusion of take￾home rations, girls’ enrollment improved, which could ultimately lead to improved academic 
outcomes. As later described in Section 2.4.2, results for reading outcomes were broadly the same 
for boys and girls, thus suggesting that the program was successful at encouraging literacy for both 
genders. These positive educational outcomes for girls are important for achieving gender equity
and supporting the WFP’s focus on gender.
181 Women’s participation in the school management committees seems to have improved. At 
midline, the COGES sample did not include many women, and in fact, some COGES were exclusively 
male. At endline, the majority of participants in the COGES FGDs were again male, although COGES 
members claimed that men and women participate equally in their groups. The survey data from
canteen managers showed that canteen management committees32 were evenly split by gender; the 
average composition was 2.9 men to every 2.7 women. These findings therefore suggest 
improvements in women’s participation in the committee. 
182 The McGovern-Dole program partially strengthened the capacity of the COGES. The midline 
evaluation recommended that the WFP enhance training and support to COGES in areas such as 
accounting, infrastructure development, commercial farming, and fundraising. However, as 
previously described, the endline evaluation found that few COGES members had received trainings. 
In most cases, usually only the president or a couple members of the COGES received training.
Several COGES members claimed to have received sufficient training and said that their involvement 
with the COGES helped them learn about school management. However, others claimed to have 
received no or insufficient training. Although group membership was an enriching experience for 
most people and helped them serve their local schools, some COGES members continued to express 
a desire for more training on the functioning of the school canteens. 
183 The limited budget for the McGovern-Dole program may be one factor hindering the WFP and 
partners from increasing their support to the COGES. As explained in Section 2.3.1, the WFP has a 
tight budget for the program, and therefore may not have been able to increase their support due 
to fiscal constraints. 
184 Our data does not indicate if the WFP has been able to set a graduation date for the WPGs.
Considering the critical importance of WPGs in the McGovern-Dole program’s sustainability plan, we 
32 In many schools, COGES members perform the duties of canteen management committees.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 43 
recommended at midline that the WFP perform an assessment to estimate the time needed for the 
WFP-supported WPGs to fully support a school canteen and determine when WPGs could realistically 
be expected to graduate from the project and under what conditions. However, our endline data 
show that the WPGs do not have the necessary supports to increase their production. The reported 
declines in canteen meal quality and quantity as the McGovern-Dole support wanes suggest that the 
WPGs do not have the capacity to fully support a school canteen. We did not find any data to indicate 
that the WFP has conducted an assessment to determine a graduation date for the WPGs, but we do 
know that the McGovern-Dole support will end in 2025. Program implementers expect the Ivoirian 
government to take over the school feeding program at that time. As indicated above, 
communication with the government could further improve, including discussions about meeting 
the ongoing needs of the WPGs to ensure further program sustainability. 
2.3. EFFICIENCY
185 In the sections below, we answer all evaluation questions related to efficiency.
2.3.1 To what extent were the activities “profitable” in terms of cost and efficiency?
186 The WFP has a tight budget for the McGovern-Dole program, which required the organization 
to work as efficiently as possible. In terms of cost and efficiency, many program staff reported 
that the WFP was stretched to meet its budget for Phase 1. In fact, the organization reportedly had 
to carry out an “emergency budget review” when they overspent for the last year of Phase 1. However, 
the WFP was able to manage expenses without having to request additional funds from the USDA. 
Such a tight budget thus impelled the WFP to carry out the school feeding program as efficiently as 
possible in the face of unexpected challenges. As one staff member explained: “The difficulties we 
have are mainly the operations—the receipt of food until the distribution. Often, we have unforeseen 
events such as penalties that are beyond our control, but since the [budget] is really limited and there is 
no margin to be able to help us, […] we are obliged at times to plead or negotiate with the carriers [shipping 
companies] or the government so that we can be exempted from the taxes and penalties.” In addition to 
negotiating for reduced costs, the WFP also had management systems in place to maintain program 
efficiency. Another staff member stated: “We put in place tools that will facilitate our management. […] 
Maybe until the end of the first year we will be comfortable. But one thing is certain: it does not increase 
our [available funds]. So the big challenge is always this gap there (laughs) between the real needs and the 
available resources. “ Although the limited budget has not allowed the WFP to meet all needs in the 
area, the implementing staff have utilized the funds it has with utmost efficiency.
187 However, one program component that was not as profitable as planned is that of the WPGs.
These women’s agricultural groups were intended to generate income for the groups. Originally, 
groups were to give a third of their production to the schools, and then sell or use the remaining 
harvest. However, each group in our sample reported that they did not make any money from their 
production, since they gave all of it to the schools as a donation. As the translator for one group said, 
“They are helping the school so that the school, the children can move forward. They do this because they 
are their children. They are not paid. It is a donation, so it is to help the school for free.” Another group 
even reported that the program staff told them not to sell the production. As the translator
explained, “[The participant] says it’s a donation. They don’t get any money in return because the project 
that came to support them to help the canteen told them it's not something to sell.” Women reported
that they often instead spent money out-of-pocket to pay for things such as gasoline, fertilizer, and 
other supplies. Members of both the WPGs and the COGES requested training on income-generating 
activities so that they could have the financial means to continue supporting the schools.
2.3.2 Was the intervention implemented in a timely manner?
188 Overall, the WFP implemented the McGovern-Dole program in a timely manner, despite the 
COVID-19 pandemic and other crises. According to several informants in our qualitative study, the 
McGovern-Dole program suffered few interruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, 
many COGES intervened on the ground by sending face coverings, soap, and handwashing stations 
to students in the schools. Schools closed for a time and some WPGs did not meet for a while, but 
according to the USDA, the school feeding program experienced no interruption. A staff member 
from AVSI said that the crisis management system in McGovern-Dole schools also facilitated timely 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 44 
responses to school closures and health crises: “Talking about crisis management around schools with 
UNICEF, WFP, and other organizations, it was effective because we set up a data collection system. There 
was an alert system in some areas, [and] inspectors could report when children were not going to school 
[…] It was effective because when it's like that—the inspections where there were 2, 3 schools that were 
closed, the other inspections had information in terms of the number of students to receive in the nearest 
schools. It was really effective.” The evaluation systems set up by the WFP seemed to have additional 
benefits in allowing schools to address issues in a timely manner.
189 However, one issue with efficiency resulted from delayed distribution of the literacy 
materials33. One parent claimed that the literacy kits often did not arrive until February or March in 
some schools and the resulting lack of supplies may have affected children’s access to school: “Often 
the kits arrive here February. There are schools on the same day that already have their kits. We, at our 
level, so far there are no kits to say that we will give to children. If there is a parent who does not have 
money for a notebook or Bic [pen] to give to his child, it is for that reason his child will not attend.” A 
member of the MENA DPFC said that the late arrival of literacy materials causes misalignment with 
the curriculum and negatively impacts the students’ learning: “It is at the beginning that the basic skills 
are acquired. When we have to start a program in the middle of the year, it is difficult because the children 
will have lost a lot of time. […] It is also a deficiency for us because a school year is from September to June,
and we must really take that into account for the realization of the activities.” He claimed that the pattern 
of delayed literacy activities has already carried over into Phase 2 of the McGovern-Dole program, 
as a trimester of school has already passed without implementation.
2.3.3 Was the intervention carried out in the most efficient way compared to 
alternatives?
190 Overall, program stakeholders claimed that the WFP managed the McGovern-Dole program quite 
efficiently and the partners collaborated well. The WFP and its partners have staff with sufficient 
technical expertise and systems in place to help activities take place smoothly in the event of 
unexpected issues. For instance, a USDA representative praised the WFP for its ability to easily 
transition during periods of staff turnover. In another example, a CRESAC officer described an issue 
in which a misplaced comma in the computer system showed that they had moved an additional 
eight tons of materials out of storage than had occurred in reality. However, the staff were able to 
verify written records to quickly correct the error. 
191 In terms of collaboration, the partners appear to communicate and organize themselves well. 
According to our interview data, each implementer has a sense of ownership over the program’s 
success. An AVSI officer explained: “Often each structure thinks that it is the master of the project, that 
it must do this, that it must do that, but we manage to collaborate with each direction whenever necessary. 
And to avoid confusion we have created what is called the focal team. The focal team is composed of the 
focal points of the different structures and different directorates and there each one is responding at home. 
So every time we think, we plan, we plan together, we execute together.”
192 Largely, program staff expressed pleasant communication with other partners without problems. As 
one informant stated: “The collaboration is good. Undoubtedly, we are in the same schools, we are 
in the same place, we try to share the same system of monitoring and evaluation, and to address all 
the problems in an integrated way since the purpose is the same--that the child develops in a positive 
way.” A few program stakeholders expressed needs for better communication among partners but 
demonstrated that they had learned from past mistakes. “When it comes to the management of the 
project,” a CRESAC officer stated, “I think that we can rate ourselves at 18 out of 20.” Although it is 
impossible to do everything perfectly, McGovern-Dole implementers appeared to manage the 
project quite competently.
2.3.4 How efficient is targeting?
193 The McGovern-Dole targeting reached beneficiaries who are most in need. As described in 
Section 1.2, the McGovern-Dole program targeted seven priority regions (Poro, Bagoué, Tchologo, 
Bounkani, Gontougo, Bafing, and Cavally), based on rates of food insecurity, chronic malnutrition, 
33 It is unclear whether informants were discussing the literacy materials provided by AVSI or those provided by the government. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 45 
school enrollment, and poverty rates. As previously stated, respondents agreed that targeting rural 
areas with high levels of food insecurity effectively and efficiently encourages children to attend 
school regularly and be able to learn free from the distraction of hunger. The program initially 
targeted 125,000 students in those regions, but, according to an AVSI M&E Manager and 
corroborated in the document review, the program ultimately reached over 136,000 students with 
school meals and/or literacy interventions. The program not only targeted regions of need, but, as 
described in Section 2.1.1, also focused specifically on women and girls to benefit from the WPGs 
and take-home rations. The program did not specifically target other vulnerable groups within the 
targeted communities.
194 The targeting of women and girls had some unintended consequences. While the program 
effectively mobilized women into the WPGs and encouraged girls’ school enrollment through the 
take-home rations, this targeting experienced some negative side effects. According to program 
implementers, the WPGs intended to benefit women by offering them an opportunity to generate 
income, some of which they can keep for themselves. However, our interview data showed that 
women instead incurred additional costs from buying needed supplies and experienced some 
difficulties with the labor of gardening, which required additional support from boys and men. 
195 For the dry rations, the distribution encouraged so many families to send girls to school that the 
program did not have enough inputs for everyone. According to one program implementer: “A choice 
had to be made now and it was from that moment that criteria were defined to select the beneficiaries. 
Not only at the beginning, it was the classes of CM1 and CM2, the girls who were not in these classes felt a 
little wronged, a little marginalized. … For more than 8,000 girls CM1 and CM2, we received only 5,214 
bags. And so it was absolutely necessary to define the criteria and not everyone could benefit.” Although 
the targeting of girls succeeded in increasing girls’ enrollment, it overall created frustration and 
criticism from community members, particularly families of boys, and may have caused boys’
enrollment to decrease as a result.
2.3.5 What are the external and internal factors influencing efficiency?
196 Several factors helped to facilitate program efficiency, including supportive communities, effective 
partnerships, and existing resources. As previously described, community members, particularly 
participants in the COGES and WPGs, shared a commitment to supporting schools and worked hard 
to realize the McGovern-Dole objectives. Community leaders were also instrumental in realizing the 
program goals. As one of the MENA DCS directors explained: “When you go to a village, if the sub￾prefect is with you, everything he says is gospel word. […] Often there are also DRENs [Regional Directors 
of National Education] who are very dynamic. When they come to speak, immediately the population 
adheres. So we mobilized all the leaders to make the project a success.”
197 In addition to the support of communities, effective partnerships with bodies such as ANADER, AVSI, 
DCS, and the DPFC enabled program success through cross-sectoral collaboration. 
198 The McGovern-Dole program was therefore able to build on existing resources both in the 
communities and among partners. As one of the MENA Inspectors noted, “It was the schools 
themselves and the villages themselves that tried to build these canteens, and they supported us with the 
food. So we can say that these are already existing structures, and the McGovern-Dole has come, it has 
used this potential.” The WFP was also able to build on its own existing management strengths. One 
officer described, “We are lucky to have a team that is technically developed, so at this level I think the 
implementation will be done effectively […] We have the necessary elements in terms of human resources 
and competence.” According to the USDA, existing resources such as government support and usable 
infrastructure are also prerequisites for McGovern-Dole implementation. Therefore, the existing 
strengths of communities and program implementers in Côte d’Ivoire played a crucial role in the 
McGovern-Dole program efficiency.
199 However, several other factors hindered the McGovern-Dole program’s efficiency, including teacher 
mobility and competing projects. As previously mentioned, the high teacher turnover rates may have 
contributed to decreases in student achievement and in canteen managers’ knowledge of food 
preparation practices. Often, after teachers have received the professional development in teaching 
reading, they move schools. One MENA inspector described the problem: “The AVSI method teaching 
is fine but the part that has not really worked is the training side, the supervision of teachers. We must 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 46 
review because we are in an area where the number of teachers is renewed every year; teachers move. 
Those who were trained 3 years ago are not in our schools and it is new teachers that we send to the 
schools. They are told that they are in an AVSI school, and you have to use the AVSI method, but they have 
not had training.” 
200 An education officer from the DPFC also noticed this problem and suggested that in the future, 
teachers who participate in the program should commit to stay at the school for a specified number 
of years.
201 Another factor that the evaluation team learned may impede McGovern-Dole program efficiency is 
that some schools have multiple ongoing literacy projects. An AVSI staff member explained: “One of 
the problems at the level of the projects is the fact that there are several projects. There are pawns that 
are powerful but since they are not pedagogues, they think that if all the projects are in their village, this 
is where their children will succeed. They don't know that several projects in a classroom have the opposite 
effect.” Many teachers also reported in the surveys that they have not been able to complete their 
curriculum last year because they attended new trainings and their curriculum changed due to a 
competing PAPSE intervention. One of the PAPSE objectives is to improve learning outcomes in 
beneficiary primary schools in participating regions (Bagoué, Bere, Bounkani, Kabadougou, Poro, 
and Tchologo).34 The project introduced new teaching and learning practices in several McGovern￾Dole program schools,
35 which may have interfered with the McGovern-Dole intervention and 
contributed to the decreased literacy outcomes of students. 
2.4. IMPACT
202 In this section, we present the statistical results of the impact directly attributable to the McGovern￾Dole program. There results were obtained using a difference-in-difference estimation 
methodology. Each of the tables presents results for a particular domain. For a given outcome, we
present the impact estimate in the first numeric column and then summarize the mean and sample
size for the treatment group and the mean and sample size for the comparison group. See Annex 4 
for details on methodological notes on difference-in-difference methods.
2.4.1 What were the program effects on participants in terms of: a) Improving 
educational indicators; b) Improving student reading; c) strengthening the capacity of 
groups? What are the reasons for these observed effects?
203 We find that the WFP/AVSI interventions succeeded in changing children’s attitudes toward reading 
but these impacts did not translate into changes in reading practices at home (Exhibit 49). The 
interventions increased the share of children who stated that they like reading by 19 percentage 
points. However, the program did not generate any significant improvements for children’s reading 
proficiency or access to books at home. 
Exhibit 49. Impacts on reading outcomes
Outcome Impact
Estimate
Treatment 
Mean
Treatment 
N
Comparison
Mean
Comparison
N
Proficient at reading 0.01 0.21 1115 0.19 371
Reading level 0.04 3.88 1115 3.46 371
Child likes reading 0.19*** 0.82 1112 0.77 369
Has books at home -0.35 0.64 1112 0.60 371
Has books for kids at home 
other than schoolbooks
-0.01 0.15 1114 0.12 369
Child reads with someone at 
home
-0.01 0.58 1114 0.51 371
Reads alone at home -0.03 0.62 1115 0.66 371
34 World Bank Group. (2019). Côte d’Ivoire: Education Service Delivery Enhancement Project (P163218) Implementation Status and Results 
Report. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/153921576612142430/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Cote￾dIvoire-Education-Service-Delivery-Enhancement-Project-P163218-Sequence-No-03.pdf. 
35 As part of this evaluation, we administered surveys to teacher from program schools only and not to teachers from comparison schools.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 47 
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
204 Our results show that canteen programs were quite common in treatment schools prior to this 
intervention so that there were limited opportunities to improve awareness of or participation in 
these canteens (Exhibit 50). At baseline, 92.8 percent of parents reported that their children had 
eaten at the school canteen provided by the WFP, although the quality and frequency of availability 
was lacking. This percentage only increased to 93.4 percent at endline. Thus, there were likely ceiling 
effects for this outcome because there were too few children who could start eating at a canteen. 
This limitation, coupled with broader efforts to implement canteen programs in comparison schools, 
led to the negative 17 percentage point effect of the interventions. Rather than interpreting this 
impact as the program reducing the likelihood that children would eat at canteens, a more likely 
interpretation would be that nearly all youth in the treatment group continued to eat at canteens 
(no change for treatment group) whereas the presence of canteens increased in comparison schools
due to unrelated interventions (increase for comparison group). Our impact estimates rely on 
comparing the changes among treatment students to the change among comparison group. Then, 
the DID estimator would calculate that that the treatment group increased by less than the 
comparison group, which would manifest as a negative impact estimate. 
Exhibit 50. Impacts on experience with canteen
Outcome Impact 
Estimate
Treatment 
Mean
Treatment 
N
Comparison
Mean
Comparison
N
Aware of the school canteen 
program
0.02 0.89 1108 0.31 366
Child ate at the school canteen -0.17*** 0.93 1106 0.28 365
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
205 School canteen awareness was similarly very high at baseline, especially in treatment schools. 
Awareness of school canteen programs decreased from baseline to endline in both treatment and 
comparison schools, however the difference was small and not likely indicative of changes in 
parental familiarity canteens. Interestingly, more parents reported that their children ate at a school 
canteen than said they were aware of a school canteen program. This comparison suggests that 
parents knew their child was eating at a school canteen but did not know who was providing the 
food. 
206 We also test for impacts on the volume of food consumed through the number of meals consumed
at home either by children or by adults but detect no significant results for either group (Exhibit 51). 
This result is unsurprising given that both treatment and comparison children (2.7) and adults (2.6)
were both already consuming nearly three full meals per day at baseline. 
Exhibit 51. Impacts on food access
Outcome Impact
Estimate
Treatment
Mean
Treatment
N
Comparison
Mean
Comparison
N
Reduced Coping Strategy Index -0.57 5.15 1115 4.72 371
Number of meals consumed
yesterday by children under 5 
years
-0.03 3.15 925 3.15 322
Number of meals consumed
yesterday by adults
0.08 2.86 1111 2.85 369
Number of meals consumed on
an average day by children
under 5 years
-0.12 3.18 927 3.19 322
Number of meals consumed on
an average day by adults
-0.01 2.87 1113 2.88 371
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
207 We find little evidence that households of students from treatment schools increased their dietary
diversity (Exhibit 52). Treated households were 10 percentage points less likely to consume pasta or 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 48 
breads but we detected no impacts on the likelihood that households would consume any other 
kind of food. We also tested the impacts of the program on a consolidated measure of food 
consumption, known as the Household Dietary Diversity Score. This measure did not show any 
impacts either, which is unsurprising given that the various categories of foods that comprise the 
scale showed no impacts on their own. 
Exhibit 52. Impacts on food consumption
Outcome Impact 
Estimate
Treatment 
Mean
Treatment 
N
Comparison
Mean
Comparison
N
Household Dietary Diversity 
Score
-0.09 4.47 1115 4.61 371
Ate rice -0.03 0.72 1115 0.72 371
Ate pasta, bread/cake and/or 
donuts
-0.10* 0.15 1115 0.16 371
Ate other grains: Sorghum 
millet, maize, fonio
0.04 0.39 1115 0.45 371
Ate roots, tubers, potato, yams, 
cassava, sweet pot
-0.01 0.31 1115 0.29 371
Ate plantain banana 0.03 0.07 1115 0.07 371
Ate legumes/nuts: beans, 
cowpeas, peanuts, lentils,
0.03 0.41 1115 0.40 371
Ate orange vegetables -0.01 0.01 1115 0.02 371
Ate green leafy vegetables 0.07 0.61 1115 0.61 371
Ate other vegetables -0.07 0.33 1115 0.37 371
Ate orange fruits (except 
oranges)
0.05 0.01 1115 0.02 371
Ate other fruits -0.02 0.03 1115 0.05 371
Ate meat, chicken, goat, pork -0.02 0.17 1115 0.17 371
Ate liver, kidney, heart, and/or 
other organ meats
-0.01 0.00 1115 0.01 371
Ate fish/shellfish -0.07 0.48 1115 0.49 371
Ate eggs 0.01 0.02 1115 0.03 371
Ate milk and other dairy 0.07 0.10 1115 0.08 371
Ate oil/fat/butter -0.04 0.41 1115 0.45 371
Ate sugar or sugar products -0.03 0.22 1115 0.23 371
Ate 
condiments/spices/alcoholic 
beverages
-0.01 0.69 1115 0.72 371
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01; Measures food consumption the day prior to the survey.
Source: Household Survey
208 Qualitative data indicated that the program strengthened the capacity of women’s groups and 
COGES, although both have expressed a desire for more training and support. Several respondents 
in trained groups said they felt the skills they gained through the program could continue to be used. 
Female parents from Gontougo indicated their commitment to using funding through their 
cooperative, “We can help in the canteen if we say that their rice is finished, we can help. We made a 
cooperative so we can go and buy the rice. At the level of the toilets if we were told to contribute, we can 
do it.” Qualitative data also indicated that members of COGES felt their capacity had increased. A 
member of a COGES FGD in Bagoué said, “As a member of COGES how to manage a canteen, how to 
manage a management committee everyone has learned something or? And even how to run a school. 
Did we know all this before us? We didn't know.” Often, members of WPGs and COGES claimed that 
participating in the groups gave them new skills to help them serve their communities. 
209 However, many group members of the WPGs and COGES expressed a desire for more support, 
particularly additional training on topics such as income generation and school canteen 
management and additional resources. Many people claimed to have received no trainings, and in 
many cases, only the group presidents were trained. Some of the WPG members, in particular, said 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 49 
that the trainings they received were irrelevant to them because they already know how to farm and 
do not have the time for such trainings. They instead could benefit from training on topics such 
income-generating activities, but most importantly they needed new productive inputs. For instance, 
one WPG respondent in Bafing said, “The training does not suit us because where we are there in our 
country, our region we do not need training. If they gave us three-wheel machine and then wheelbarrow 
we can work on that, but the training we do not need training.” Another WPG respondent in Gontougo 
said, “The machine we received cannot pound and crush the corn. We were told that the machine could 
crush all kinds of grain, but this is not the case. The motorcycles and all the pumps are out of service. We 
are obliged to always clean the field with a machete, which is why we also ask for more of the machetes.”
Overall, group participation was an enriching experience for most COGES and WPG members, and 
there are opportunities for McGovern-Dole implementers to continue increasing group capacity. 
2.4.2 Are there any unintended effects (negative and/or positive) on beneficiaries? What 
have been the gender-specific impacts, in particular with regard to the education of 
girls and empowerment of women in the program delivery? What are the main drivers 
of positive impacts?
210 We find that the results for reading outcomes were broadly the same for boys and girls (Exhibit 53). 
This similarity suggests that the program was successful at encouraging both girls and boys to enjoy 
reading but that the program had no effect on either boys or girls increasing their access to books
or their actual reading proficiency. Given that we generally see similar impacts for both boys and 
girls, this observation suggests that the program did not inadvertently promote education more 
strongly for boys than girls, or vice versa. Rather the challenges the program faces in promoting 
literacy is unrelated to gender. 
Exhibit 53. Gender-specific impacts on reading outcomes
Outcome Girls 
Impact
Boys 
Impact
Girls
Mean
Girls
N
Boys
Mean
Boys
N
Proficient at reading -0.01 0.03 0.22 555 0.19 560
Reading level 0.10 -0.05 3.97 555 3.79 560
Child likes reading 0.23*** 0.16** 0.83 553 0.81 559
Has books at home -0.34 -0.36 0.65 553 0.64 559
Has books for kids at home other 
than schoolbooks
-0.03 0.02 0.17 555 0.13 559
Child reads with someone at 
home
0.00 -0.02 0.58 555 0.58 559
Reads alone at home -0.01 -0.04 0.63 555 0.61 560
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
211 We find some effects on parents’ experience with the canteen that differ by gender (Exhibit 54). We 
detect a negative impact on the likelihood that children ate at the school canteen for both boys and 
for girls. Given the high rates of canteen availability at baseline, both boys and girls appear to have 
little opportunity to increase access to canteens since nearly all children already attended a canteen 
at baseline. Both families of girls and families of boys report high levels of school canteen awareness. 
Further, according to qualitative interviews, the parents were quite aware of the food available to 
the children in their communities. 
Exhibit 54. Gender-specific impacts on experience with canteen
Outcome Girls 
Impact
Boys 
Impact
Girls 
Mean
Girls
N
Boys 
Mean
Boys
N
Aware of the school canteen 
program
-0.04 0.08 0.88 552 0.89 556
Child ate at the school canteen -0.19*** -0.15* 0.92 550 0.95 556
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
212 We find limited evidence of gender-specific impacts for the number of meals that children or adults 
consume (Exhibit 55). We detect a negative impact on the number of meals that children under five 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 50 
eat in households with boys. When facing food deficits, a common coping mechanism is to shift food 
consumptions from lower priority household members to higher priority household members. 
However, this impact does not appear to be of meaningful magnitude given that the mean difference 
between households of girls and households of boys is only 0.06 meals per day (3.21 versus 3.15). 
In some cases, girls may consume fewer meals than their male counterparts to provide boys with
the energy needed for manual labor. However, these differences may not appear until later, when
children can contribute more to household activities. 
Exhibit 5511. Gender-specific impacts on food access
Outcome Girls
Impact
Boys
Impact
Girls
Mean
Girls
N
Boys
Mean
Boys
N
Number of meals consumed
yesterday by children under 5 
years
0.00 -0.06 3.18 467 3.13 458
Number of meals consumed
yesterday by adults
0.07 0.08 2.86 555 2.86 556
Number of meals consumed on an
average day by children under 5 
years
-0.02 -0.22* 3.21 467 3.15 460
Number of meals consumed on an
average day by adults
0.05 -0.07 2.87 554 2.86 559
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
213 When breaking up the food consumption results by gender, we find that the overall impacts we see 
above are largely driven by girls (Exhibit 56). Households with girls increased consumption of other 
grains (11 pp), green leafy vegetables (9 pp), orange fruits (9 pp), and milk/dairy (10 pp). Households 
with boys reported were no more likely to consume any of these food categories. Instead, they were 
less likely to have reported consume rice (3 pp), pasta/breads (20 pp), other grains (3 pp), tubers (1 
pp), and fish (13 pp). The only thing they were more likely to consume was legumes/nuts. These 
gender-specific findings suggest that any improvements in household dietary diversity likely accrued 
only to households with girls. We tested whether this trend could be due to households with girls 
being more likely to receive take-home rations but found no significant improvements in likelihood 
of consuming a food category for households of girls receiving or not receiving the rations. Another 
possible explanation for these findings is that more households with girls are able to direct money
freed up by a child receiving canteen meals to increase their dietary diversity since girls increased 
enrolment more than boys. 
Exhibit 56. Gender-specific impacts on food consumption
Outcome Girls 
Impact
Boys 
Impact
Girls 
Mean
Girls
N
Boys 
Mean
Boys
N
Ate rice -0.04 -0.03 0.73 555 0.72 560
Ate pasta, bread/cake and/or 
donuts
0.00 -0.20*** 0.17 555 0.13 560
Ate other grains: Sorghum millet, 
maize, fonio
0.11* -0.03 0.38 555 0.40 560
Ate roots, tubers, potato, yams, 
cassava, sweet pot
0.00 -0.01 0.31 555 0.32 560
Ate plantain banana 0.05 0.02 0.07 555 0.08 560
Ate legumes/nuts: beans, 
cowpeas, peanuts, lentils,
0.00 0.07 0.42 555 0.40 560
Ate orange vegetables -0.01 -0.01 0.01 555 0.01 560
Ate green leafy vegetables 0.09* 0.05 0.61 555 0.60 560
Ate other vegetables -0.05 -0.08 0.33 555 0.32 560
Ate orange fruits (except oranges) 0.09* 0.03 0.01 555 0.02 560
Ate other fruits -0.02 -0.01 0.03 555 0.04 560
Ate meat, chicken, goat, pork 0.02 -0.06 0.18 555 0.17 560
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 51 
Ate liver, kidney, heart, and/or 
other organ meats
-0.03* 0.01 0.00 555 0.00 560
Ate fish/shellfish -0.01 -0.13** 0.50 555 0.46 560
Ate eggs 0.01 0.01 0.03 555 0.02 560
Ate milk and other dairy 0.10* 0.04 0.09 555 0.11 560
Ate oil/fat/butter -0.05 -0.02 0.42 555 0.41 560
Ate sugar or sugar products 0.01 -0.08 0.24 555 0.20 560
Ate condiments/spices/alcoholic 
beverages
0.01 -0.03 0.68 555 0.69 560
Note: Standard errors clustered at the school level; * 0.10, ** 0.05, *** 0.01
Source: Household Survey
2.4.3 To what extent have the results of the program progressed toward positive long￾term effects on the targeted beneficiaries (girls, boys, men, and women), households, 
communities, and institutions?
214 The McGovern-Dole program made parents feel that they were better able to keep their children 
enrolled in school. Qualitative data indicated that the program influenced students and families 
most saliently by encouraging children to remain at school through the lunch hour, enabling them 
to learn free from the distraction of hunger, and motivating school attendance, specifically for girls. 
One of the ANADER chiefs of zone said, “I think the project responds to the improvement of schooling in 
that it allows children to stay in school at noon while parents are outside, in the field. It must be said that 
the second aspect is that beyond the school canteen aspect, there is the distribution of dry food to the girls' 
parents. This action has made it possible to keep the children in the school curriculum.” Parents reiterated 
the fact that the school canteens allowed students to stay at school during the day, which helped 
them save the energy of traveling back and forth from home, discouraged skipping class in the 
afternoons, and motivated them to attend because they enjoyed eating in the canteens. Although
the dry rations seemed to reduce the number of boys in school, the increased rates of girls’ 
enrollment in addition to other impacts of the school canteens will have a lasting impact for those 
children by developing their human capital. Increased girls’ school attendance is likely to have lasting 
positive impacts on this generation of girls and their future families. Despite these positive findings 
about parental perceptions of schooling and increased girls’ enrollment, we cannot attribute any of 
the changes directly to the program itself. 
215 The results discussed in Section 2.4.1 suggest that there has been some long-term progress toward 
achieving the goals of the program. The DID model that we use to identify the program impacts 
compares the five-year changes for the treated children to the five-year changes for the comparison 
children. These impacts covering the 2016-2021 timeframe are, by themselves, relatively long-term 
impacts. So, we can conclude that the program did not have long-term impacts on reading levels and 
key nutrition outcomes. However, these results will not be the final set of results. During the second 
phase of the study, we will continue to focus on these literacy and nutrition outcomes, ultimately 
providing ten-year impacts for these outcomes.
216 By supporting the COGES and WPGs, the McGovern-Dole program has built up structures that could 
enable continued community mobilization. As previously described, many of the community groups 
have grown in size and vitality in recent years. “Our level of commitment has really improved,” one 
COGES member stated. The translator for one WPG member explained, “What she likes is the 
atmosphere and the joy that resides in the fields. She is impatient that the day of the work in the field 
arrives.” Group members also described their contributions to the schools with pride. Although 
groups did face financial, time, and resource constraints that hindered the groups’ ability to meet all 
needs of the schools, the high level of commitment and the intrinsic motivation that the group 
members indicated suggests that they will continue supporting the schools in the future. 
2.5. SUSTAINABILITY
217 This section summarizes results on sustainability, including key factors that affect the likelihood of 
continuation of program activities. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 52 
2.5.1 To what extent are the benefits of the intervention likely to continue after the end 
of WFP activities?
218 Respondents discussed program sustainability in terms of the second phase of the program (2021-
2025); that is, most stakeholders referenced sustainability planning for the second phase, and said 
that because those plans are currently in place, sustainability seems likely at least in the short term. 
At the same time, respondents in the qualitative sample pointed to gaps in the sustainability plan 
for the second phase that may hinder long-term sustainability, even with the phased transition plan. 
Such gaps centered mainly around the availability of funding and government commitment.
2.5.2 What are the key factors affecting the sustainability of the program?
219 The key factors affecting the sustainability of the program are funding and government 
commitment. Local respondents of all types, including those from local government posts, were 
doubtful of the ability of government to take up the program financially. The MENA DCS director 
referenced having gone through a similar transition, saying, “We have lived experiences of ration 
transfer to the government. And we have set up mechanisms: as soon as we are transferred, we have 
procedures that we put in place so in relation to that we are still a little equipped. Now the question is, will 
the budget that the government will put in actually make it possible to take charge of school canteens?”
Respondents advocated the need for official policy so that program activities continue beyond the 
transition period as a demonstration of government commitment. Policy seemed especially 
important to solidify a plan for continuation of training provision for beneficiaries. A COGES FGD 
respondent in Tchologo said, “For me it is to give more training to parents so that they understand that 
after the departure of WFP. They are the ones who will be there for their children.” Likewise, MENA DPFC 
emphasized the need for policy that will ensure continuing education for teachers, “It is continuing 
training that is not done as we want, but today the project is to write a policy for continuing education.”
2.5.3 How can groups of farmers contribute to the supply of the canteens, and is there 
any evidence that their contribution will continue after the project ends?
220 Government respondents emphasized the importance of community mobilization to continue to 
supply the school canteens and seemed to have already been sensitizing groups for that. DCS 
directors indicated they were already using the community mobilization guide. In addition, a MENA
CRESAC officer said, “All directors have been asked to collect. To ask the children that everyone comes 
with a kilogram of rice we will start working with that. There are a few schools that have started working. 
So you can't sit down and wait like that. We carry out activities, so if tomorrow even the WFP withdraws, 
and we stay there, we will be forced to go to the field request and continue the awareness, talk to the 
parents so that they can understand that they really must take ownership of the supply of their canteen.” 
221 Respondents emphasized that lack of funding for the program would present a problem to 
the continuation of the canteens. One ANADER Zone Director said, “If the community mobilization 
is strong and everyone becomes aware that it is necessary to have a whole set of people around the school 
canteens, we go without fear. It is also necessary to integrate perennial crops in the direction of 
sustainability.” However, a respondent in a WFP FGD was hopeful about continuing contributions, “I 
think that all these entities are on the right track to be able to ensure sustainability, even if they still need 
additional support that we will provide them in the second phase of the project through the 
implementation of the transition plan to allow them to be really able to ensure the supply of school 
canteens.”
222 WPGs seemed committed to continuing to support school canteens but did not yet seem capable of 
taking on full responsibilities without external support. One reason to suppose that WPGs will 
continue into the future is that many of the groups we spoke with had established their groups 
before the start of the program. In recent years, several of the WPGs had trended toward growth in 
the numbers of active women and had the support of other community members. One respondent 
said, “If our strength is less, we will inform the population so that they help us plough to make a large plot 
to be able to support the canteen.” Implementing partners also seem willing to continue support of 
the women’s groups. The ANADER Regional Director said, “So it is now to tell them [producers …] to 
organize the village in such a way that the canteen is supplied from the beginning to the end, [according 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 53 
to] our traditional role. Without funding from WFP, we can always accompany our parents, producers, 
provide support of course the support of our ministry through all the projects we lead.”
223 Although communities are dedicated to continuing support of the school feeding program, the 
findings of this evaluation have shown that the women’s groups are not capable of fully supporting 
the canteens. The WPGs face ongoing needs related to equipment (e.g., transportation vehicles and 
gasoline, fertilizer, and agricultural machinery), training (e.g., for group administration and income 
generation), land rights, and irrigation. Declines in the quantity and quality of foods in the canteens 
suggest that the women have not been fully able to make up for the waning support of the WFP. The 
commitment of the WPGs and communities implies that they will continue to supply food to the 
canteens in the future but will not be able to provide the same quantity and quality of foods without 
the WFP’s support.
2.5.4 Did the intervention change gender relations in the medium to long term?
224 In addition to increasing the capacity of women’s groups, qualitative data indicated that canteens 
enabled women to save money and freed up time for preparing food at home during the day. 
A mother from Tchologo said, “The canteen helps me save. If I prepare at home at noon, it could cost me 
at least five hundred francs… The fact that the child eats in the canteen makes me less expenses at home 
at noon, at the level of eating we no longer prepare much at noon at home.” Female parents from Poro
also described similar benefits of canteens on women’s time and livelihood. Yet, while the canteens 
help reduce women’s workload to prepare midday meals in the home, women are meanwhile taking 
on labor-intensive agricultural activities through the WPGs disproportionately to men. While 
households may save some money with the low cost of school meals, women in the WPGs reported 
spending additional money to support agricultural activities.
225 Many stakeholders were not happy with just girls receiving rations, indicating there may not 
have been adequate communication about the purpose of doing so. Many respondents said 
providing bags of rice only to families of girl students was not equitable and recommended also 
providing bags of rice to families of boy students. A member of the COGES group in Bagoué said, “If 
it continued, they only have to settle the sharing girl boy because it began to create frustrations. There are 
parents who only have boys when the other parents come to get rice.” Another respondent in the same 
group said, “Why give food to young girls and leave young boys. There are parents who have no girls at 
school than boys and while his friends have at least three bags of rice every year he what has 4 boys at 
school is left with nothing. If they can help us with this it would be good because it frustrates.”
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 54 
3. Conclusions and recommendations
226 Below we present the main conclusions and recommendations based on our evaluation findings. A 
summary of these is included Annex 9.
3.1. CONCLUSIONS
227 We categorize our conclusions thematically, related to the school canteen performance, student 
experience and performance, teacher experience and performance, and WPG experience and 
performance.
3.1.1. Canteen performance
228 All McGovern-Dole schools visited have a kitchen and a functioning canteen, and the McGovern-Dole
program has supported schools in all regions to achieve a high and stable number of canteen days.
Treatment schools offered canteen days on 88 percent of school days, which is a slight drop from 94
percent at midline. Qualitatively, respondents overwhelmingly agreed that providing school meals 
encourages children to attend school and remain in school throughout the day. That said, some 
qualitative respondents indicated food quality has declined and that children often return home 
from school hungry. Quantitative data corroborate this finding somewhat, and the percentage of 
school days that meet the minimum dietary diversity standards declined from 82.5 percent at 
midline to 66.8 percent at endline. The government and community members have limited 
resources, which may have caused a decline in the school canteen functioning as the McGovern￾Dole program reduces its level of support.
229 Usage of equipment and proper food storage improved since midline, and canteen managers 
demonstrated a steady high performance in terms of knowledge, planning, and use of monitoring 
books. However, while canteen managers themselves are consistently trained, 40 percent of canteen 
management committees reported than no other committee members had been trained, suggesting 
a top-heavy approach to training.
3.1.2. Student experience and performance
230 While students have largely maintained the positive reading practices and attitudes reported at 
midline (81% of children said they liked reading at endline, and most read at home either alone or 
with a parent), reading proficiency rates have declined (from 32.2% at midline to 19.6% at endline). 
Several external factors may have contributed to the decline in reading proficiency rates, including 
the extended school closures due to COVID-19, teacher turnover, and the fact that more teachers 
reported teaching in local languages (up from 27% at midline to 41% at endline) but children are still 
formally assessed in French, meaning that there is a potential mismatch in their learning language 
and their assessment language.
231 While the McGovern-Dole program made a commendable effort to incentivize girls’ attendance by 
providing take-home rations to their families, some community members felt that it was unfair to 
provide the dry rations only for girls. Additionally, some families of boy children felt discouraged,
and we saw a decline in boys’ enrollment that may have been an unintended consequence of the 
gendered distribution of take-home rations. Indeed, boys’ average enrollment fell steadily from an 
average of 123 students per school at baseline to 114 students at midline to 101 students at endline.
By comparison, girls’ average enrollment stayed relatively consistent, with an average of 113 
students per school at baseline, 114 students at midline, and 111 students at endline.
232 While there were improvements in access to potable water and latrines since midline, there remains 
room for improvement in the status of WASH facilities at schools. At endline, 70 percent of schools 
reported having sanitary facilities, compared to 59 percent at midline. Additionally, the share of 
schools with gender-separated facilities rose from 31 percent at midline to 44 percent at endline. 
Still, in schools that had sanitary facilities, about a quarter of them were non-functional, suggesting 
progress can still be made in the reliability of sanitary facilities. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 55 
233 Paralleling declines in the diversity of foods served at school canteens, our data indicated that 
students’ households also experienced declines in food security and dietary diversity. Because 
declines in household dietary diversity occurred in households from comparison schools as well, it 
is likely that the declines did not result from the McGovern-Dole program, but from a more 
widespread issues such as climate change or economic recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
conflict, or other factors could be affecting food security in the region.
3.1.3. Teacher experience and performance
234 Potentially related to the decline in student reading proficiency, the percentage of teachers trained 
by AVSI declined from 92 percent at midline to 63 percent at endline. More than half of teachers 
(51%) reported being unable to complete the curriculum and only 26 percent reported receiving 
regular teacher trainings. Despite these challenges, teachers continue to use a variety of activities 
and tools to teach reading at similar rates to midline. Of the AVSI-provided reading and writing 
materials, teachers used mostly reading boards (69%), illustrated boards (60%), and mobile libraries 
(56%). Some factors that have reportedly influenced the effectiveness of the McGovern-Dole teacher 
training intervention were high rates of teacher turnover and competing interventions such as 
PAPSE.
3.1.4. WPG experience and performance
235 Qualitative data indicated that the program strengthened the capacity of women’s groups, with 
several respondents saying they felt the skills they gained through program-supported trainings 
could continue to be used. However, problems persisted, particularly regarding sustainability, as 
women’s groups still needed productive inputs, seemed to take on disproportionate work and 
responsibility to men, and likely would require additional funding beyond the project period.
3.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
236 Evidence-based recommendations are presented below and grouped in three thematic categories: 
data collection and record keeping; programmatic adjustments; and collaboration and coordination. 
Each of these recommendations has been assessed for potential risk. It is important to consider the 
set of recommendations as a package to be taken forward collectively and considered in conjunction 
with the separate, but complementary baseline report. Exhibit 57 provides further information on 
who is responsible for each recommendation, the priority level, and the timeframe for implementing 
each recommendation.
237 In terms of data collection and record-keeping, evaluation findings suggest that two potential 
improvements to how McGovern-Dole performance is tracked at the school and community levels:
238 Recommendation 1: We suggest that WFP track and report on the number days and number of 
canteen meals in all schools that are supported by WFP and those that are supported by community 
contributions by using information gathered in canteen management documentation. This will 
enable M&E staff at WFP and future evaluations to determine how many canteen days were 
supported through McGovern-Dole and how much the community contributed independently, thus 
allowing to assess whether any gradual handover to the community occurred as intended. 
239 Recommendation 2: WFP should consider working with WPGs to track their crop yields, production, 
and profitability margin more closely. Qualitative data suggests that WPGs face numerous obstacles 
and may not be self-sufficient or profitable on their own, which has implications for the program’s 
long-term sustainability.
240 Evaluation findings also suggest that certain programmatic adjustments should be considered, 
particularly in terms of the support provided to WPGs and students and their families:
241 Recommendation 3: Moving forward, we suggest that WFP carefully considers the potential 
unintended consequences of gender-specific interventions and supports, such as providing take￾home rations to girls only. In the first phase of the McGovern-Dole program, the take-home rations 
for girls only appears to have discouraged some boys and their families and may have contributed 
to the decline in boys’ enrollment between midline and endline.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 56 
242 Recommendation 4: WFP should consider the individual needs and capacities of WPGs and provide 
tailored support to WPGs based on these specific needs. Qualitatively, we learned that not all 
trainings are directly relevant to WPGs (for example, agricultural trainings may teach them things 
they already know) and the types of equipment or productive inputs each WPG needs vary. 
Recommendation #2 above could also help determine which WPGs are in need of most support.
243 Lastly, we identified several recommendations for improved coordination and collaboration that 
could be considered in the current phase of the McGovern-Dole program:
244 Recommendation 5: WFP should work with MENA to reinforce teacher professional development 
and supports, including through more active involvement of the pedagogical advisors. Teachers 
reported being visited by pedagogical advisors only once or twice per year, which is not necessarily 
sufficient to support their development. Only 26 percent of teachers reported receiving regular
trainings organized by MENA. Teachers may require additional support in the wake of the COVID-19 
pandemic as they struggle to address student learning loss resulting from prolonged school 
closures.
245 Recommendation 6: Consider potential synergies with programs such as PAPSE which are working 
towards similar objectives in some of the same areas McGovern-Dole is operating. Given that more 
than half of teachers reported being unable to finish their curriculum, it would seem important to 
ensure that interventions are not inadvertently competing for teachers’ time and potentially 
confusing lesson delivery. Furthermore, with the high rates of teacher transfer, the use of differing 
education interventions could create confusion when teachers relocate to schools with alternative 
methodologies.
246 Recommendation 7: Given that more teachers are teaching reading in mother tongue rather than 
in French, we suggest that WFP collaborates with MENA to determine the feasibility of assessing early 
reading skills in mother tongue rather than French in schools where teachers are teaching early 
reading in mother tongue.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 57 
Exhibit 5712. Evaluation recommendations
# Recommendation Recommendation 
grouping: 
By theme
Responsibility 
(one lead 
office/entity)
Other 
contributing 
entities (if 
applicable)
Priority: 
High/medium
By when
1 Clearly differentiate between canteen meals that are 
supported by WFP and those that are supported by 
community contributions, including tracking both for M&E 
purposes.
Data collection/record 
keeping
WFP Cote d’Ivoire DCS and ANADER High As soon as 
possible
2 Consider the potential unintended consequences of gender￾specific interventions and supports, such as providing take￾home rations to girls only.
Programmatic adjustments WFP Cote d’Ivoire N/A Medium Throughout 
Phase 2
3 Provide tailored support to WPGs based on their specific 
needs. For example, different groups require different 
productive inputs and equipment, different types of training, 
and so forth.
Programmatic adjustments WFP Cote d’Ivoire ANADER High Throughout 
Phase 2
4 Work with WPGs to track their crop yields, production, and 
profitability margin more closely.
Data collection/record 
keeping
WFP Cote 
d’Ivoire 
ANADER High As soon as 
possible
5 Work with MENA to reinforce teacher professional 
development and supports, including through more active 
involvement of the pedagogical advisors.
Collaboration and 
coordination 
WFP Cote d’Ivoire 
/AVSI 
MENA High Throughout 
Phase 2
6 Consider potential synergies with programs such as PAPSE 
which are working towards similar objectives in some of the 
same areas McGovern-Dole is operating. 
Collaboration and 
coordination 
WFP Cote d’Ivoire / 
AVSI
World Bank, other 
development 
partners in Côte 
d’Ivoire
Medium Throughout 
Phase 2
7 Work with MENA to determine the feasibility of assessing 
early reading skills in mother tongue rather than French in 
schools where teachers are teaching early reading in mother 
tongue. 
Collaboration and 
coordination 
WFP Cote d’Ivoire MENA Medium Throughout 
Phase 2
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 58 
Annex 1. Summary Terms of
Reference 
247 The terms of reference for the final evaluation of the first phase and baseline evaluation of the 
second phase of McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition project are available in 
English on WFP’s website using the following link: https://www.wfp.org/publications/cote-divoire￾support-integrated-school-feeding-programme-final-and-baseline
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 59 
Annex 2. Timeline 
Phases, Activities and Deliverables Key dates
Phase 1: Preparation December 2020–May 2021
Preparation of the draft evaluation TOR 
Circulation of TOR with stakeholders for review
Quality assurance of RDTs
Appointment of an evaluation manager (EG)
Final TOR
Identification and recruitment of the evaluation team
Phase 2: Start-up June–October 2021
Briefing of the evaluation team Week of July 19
Document review 
Preparation of the draft of the inception report including the methodology
Submission of the first draft of the inception report Week of September 6
Quality assurance by the evaluation manager and external independent 
quality support service
Consolidation of comments on the report, by the EG September 30
Review of the inception report by the evaluation team
Submission of the second draft of the inception report to the EG October 7
Share the inception report to all stakeholders (Evaluation Reference Group)
Consolidation of comments on the report, by the EG October 21
Review of the inception report by the evaluation team
Submission of revised inception report to EG October 29
Approval of the final inception report by the evaluation committee
Phase 3: Data collection and analysis November–December 2021
Organization of the evaluation mission: Finalization of the planning of the 
field visits 
Field data collection November
Debriefing
Checklist / PowerPoint presentation of the first results
Phase 4: Reporting January–March 2022
Preparation of the first draft of the evaluation report
Submission of the first draft of the evaluation report February 25
Quality assurance by the evaluation manager and external independent 
quality support service
March 11
Review of the first draft of the evaluation report by the evaluation team
Submission of the second draft of the evaluation report to the EG March 25 (assuming 2 weeks 
to address comments)
Sharing of the evaluation report to all stakeholders (evaluation reference 
group) 
Consolidation of comments, by the EG April 1
Revision of the second draft of the evaluation report, by the evaluation team
Submission of the final evaluation report to the Evaluation Manager April 8 (assuming 1 week to 
address final comments)
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 60 
Approval of the final assessment report by the assessment committee 
including the USDA
Submit final report to USDA for approval
Phase 5: Dissemination and monitoring April–May 2022
Development of a management response plan
Dissemination of the final report to all stakeholders 
Organization of an internal restitution with the members of Reference
Group in Abidjan 
Publication of the report on the WFP website 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 61 
Annex 3. Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
I. Relevance and coherence
• To what extent was the intervention’s 
design in line with the needs and 
priorities of the government, the 
targeted population, including 
vulnerable groups —women, girls, 
boys, and men?
• Was the intervention aligned with the 
policies and priorities of WFP, 
partners, and UN agencies?
• To what extent have the program 
design and objectives taken into 
account the social, economic, cultural, 
political, and environmental context 
and equity? 
• To what extent was the intervention 
able to adapt throughout the project 
to new needs or changing 
circumstances?
• To what extent have the intervention 
design and implementation taken 
gender into account? 
• What were the synergies between the 
intervention and other WFP 
interventions? 
• To what extent was WFP’s 
intervention consistent with the 
policies and programs of other 
partners operating in the same 
context? 
• Beneficiaries’ perception of usefulness for themselves and other household 
members (by gender)
• Beneficiaries’ perception of the relevance of the McGovern-Dole program for 
gender equality
• Perception of the program activities in alignment with other national activities 
(e.g., ministry policies, other WFP initiatives) 
• Beneficiaries’ perception of applicability 
• Alignment of strategic plans and documented changes in the program with 
needs and priorities of the targeted population 
• Alignment of program objectives with objectives of other education and 
nutrition interventions 
• Perception appropriateness of the program for the social, economic, cultural, 
political, and environmental context 
• Perceived synergies between WFP interventions
• Focus group 
interviews 
(parents, 
COGES
members, 
women’s 
production 
groups)
• Key informant 
interviews 
(USDA staff, 
government 
officials, 
program staff, 
partners)
• Document 
review
• Monitoring 
data
• Qualitative
• Desk review
• AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 62 
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
• To what extent were the intervention 
design and implementation 
consistent with humanitarian 
principles?
II. Effectiveness
• To what extent have the outputs and 
outcomes been achieved (are they 
likely to be achieved)? What are the 
factors that have influenced the 
achievement or not? 
• Has the achievement of results led, or 
is it likely to lead, to the achievement 
of the intervention objectives? What 
major factors have influenced this? 
• Have the results been achieved for 
men, women, boys, and girls? 
• Have the standards of assistance 
been met?
• To what extent have the 
recommendations formulated during 
• Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided 
with USDA help 
• Number of target schools where students have additional reading material 
with USDA help 
• Proportion of students in target schools who regularly consumed a meal 
before or during the school day (by gender)
• Number of girls receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance 
(by new/continuing) 
• Number of teachers/ educators /teaching assistants trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance (by type, by gender)
• Number of target schools with access to better food preparation and storage 
equipment 
• Perception of the program’s effectiveness on beneficiaries and providers
• Perceived changes in process and implementation activities since midline
evaluation 
• Teacher survey 
• School survey
• Key informant 
interviews 
(program staff, 
partners)
• Focus group 
discussions 
(parents, 
COGES
members, 
women’s 
production 
groups)
• Qualitative
• Quantitative 
• AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 63 
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
the midline evaluation been 
implemented and what were the 
results and effects, the hindering or 
supporting factors? 
• Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance (by 
gender)
• Gender ratio, primary
• Number of people who received health education and child nutrition as a 
result of USDA assistance (by gender)
• Number of students who received deworming (by gender)
• Number of school-age children receiving school meals daily (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) as a result of USDA assistance (by gender; new and continuing) 
• Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school 
children as a result of USDA assistance 
• Number of rations provided following USDA assistance 
• Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) offered to school 
children as a result of USDA assistance 
• WFP 
monitoring 
records
• WFP
III. Efficiency
• To what extent were the activities 
“profitable” in terms of cost and 
efficiency? 
• Was the intervention implemented in 
a timely manner? 
• Was the intervention carried out in 
the most efficient way compared to 
alternatives? 
• How efficient is targeting? 
• What are the external and internal 
factors influencing efficiency? 
• Stakeholders’ perceptions of cost-effectiveness
• Beneficiary/stakeholders’ perceptions of timely implementation and 
adequate responsiveness (by gender) 
• Stakeholders’ perceptions of experienced bottlenecks to efficiency 
• Focus group 
discussions 
(parents, 
COGES
members, 
women’s 
production 
groups)
• Key informant 
interviews 
(government 
officials, 
program staff, 
partners)
• Monitoring 
data
• Qualitative • AIR
IV. Impact
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 64 
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
• What were the program effects on 
participants in terms of: a) Improving 
educational indicators; b) Improving 
student reading; c) strengthening the 
capacity of groups? What are the 
reasons for these observed effects?
• Are there any unintended effects 
(negative and/or positive) on 
beneficiaries? What have been the 
gender-specific impacts, in particular 
with regard to the education of girls 
and empowerment of women in the 
program delivery? What are the main 
drivers of positive impacts?
• To what extent have the results of the 
program progressed toward positive 
long-term effects on the targeted 
beneficiaries (girls, boys, men, and 
women), households, communities, 
and institutions? 
• Proportion of students at the end of two years of elementary school who 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level 
text (by gender)
• Number of teachers in the target schools who demonstrate the use of new 
techniques and educational tools after USDA assistance 
• Proportion of teachers in the target schools attending school regularly (at 
least 90% of school days) per school year
• Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate the use of new and good technical and pedagogical tools (by 
type, by gender)
• Proportion of pupils identified as attentive in classrooms by their teachers (by 
gender, grade)
• Proportion of households with acceptable food consumption (by gender of 
household head) 
• Index of survival strategies (average) (by gender of household head)
• Dietary Diversity Score (by gender of household head)
• Proportion of pupils regularly (80%) in classes/schools supported by USDA 
(by gender)
• Proportion of students who miss more than 10 school days a year due to 
illness (by gender)
• Number of members of the management committees and members of 
women’s production groups who are aware of the importance of education 
• Proportion of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (by 
gender)
• Proportion of members of the school management committee and canteen 
management staff who can identify at least three health and hygiene 
practices (by gender)
• Proportion of members of the school management committee and the 
canteen management staff who can identify at least three practices for safe 
preparation and storage of food 
• Proportion of schools using an improved water source
• Proportion of schools with improved sanitation facilities
• Student survey 
and ASER 
• Teacher survey
• School￾Director 
survey
• Household 
survey
• Canteen 
manager 
survey
• Quantitative • AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 65 
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
• Number of people benefiting directly from interventions financed by USDA 
(by gender and date)
• Number of people indirectly benefiting from interventions financed by USDA
• Number of target school leaders that demonstrate new and good technical 
and pedagogical tools (by type, by gender)
• Number of school officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 
(by gender)
• Number of beneficiaries of social safety nets who participate in productive 
safety nets following USDA assistance (by gender; new and continuing) 
• WFP 
monitoring 
records
• WFP
V. Sustainability
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 66 
Evaluation Questions Indicators
Sources of 
data/
information
Data analysis 
methods
Responsib
le party
• To what extent are the benefits of the 
intervention likely to continue after 
the end of WFP activities? 
• What are the key factors affecting the 
sustainability of the program? 
• How can groups of farmers 
contribute to the supply of the 
canteens, and is there any evidence 
that their contribution will continue 
after the project ends? 
• Did the intervention change gender 
relations in the medium to long term?
• Value of public and private investment leveraged as a result of USDA 
assistance (host government) 
• Annual growth rate of the budget allocated by the government to the 
National Directorate of School Canteens 
• Number of policies in the areas of health and nutrition of children, 
regulations, and administrative procedures, according to their level of 
development, due to USDA assistance (for stage)
• Number of policies in the education sector, regulations, and administrative 
procedures, according to their level of development, due to USDA assistance 
(for stage)
• Number of parent–teacher associations or similar governance structures 
“school” sustained as a result of USDA assistance
• Number of public–private partnerships set up as a result of USDA assistance 
(nutrition, education, health, multi-sectoral, and other) 
• Number of government staff who are trained in management of food and 
monitoring and evaluation 
• Number of policies in the areas of health and nutrition of children, 
regulations, and administrative procedures, according to their level of 
development, due to USDA assistance (from steps 1, 2, and 5) 
• Number of public–private partnerships set up as a result of USDA assistance 
(female producing groupings) 
• Beneficiaries’ perception of sustainability of groups and committees without 
further support (by gender)
• Perception of WPG members’ access to credit, productive inputs, and 
livelihoods 
• WFP 
monitoring 
data
• Key informant 
interviews 
(USDA staff, 
government 
officials, 
program staff, 
partners)
• Focus group 
discussions 
(parents, 
COGES
members, 
women’s 
production 
groups)
• Qualitative • WFP
• AIR
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 67 
Annex 4. DID Methodology
248 The main objective of the 
impact evaluation is to 
assess the extent to which 
the program resulted in 
improved student and 
household outcomes. We
measured the program’s 
causal impacts on student 
and household outcomes 
after five years of 
implementation using a DID 
approach. The DID 
approach provides a valid 
estimate of the 
counterfactual when 
program operational rules 
prevent random 
assignment to select 
schools receiving the program and when comparison schools have already been selected from 
nearby schools with similar socioeconomic and geographic characteristics.
249 We sampled a repeated cross-section of students at endline, following the approach at midline. This 
was preferable when there is a substantial probability of student attrition from school. In addition, 
having independent samples surveyed every period minimizes the probability that the act of 
measurement itself influences subject behavior (e.g., children may score better in a test when they 
take the same type of test multiple times, not because they know more, but because they are more 
used to taking that test). As illustrated in Exhibit 58, the DID approach compares the changes in 
outcomes (e.g., reading scores) over time between the students from treatment schools and 
students from comparison schools that are not benefiting from the program (the comparison 
group). The DID approach computes the program impacts as follows:
 (C–A) represents the difference in outcomes between 2016 and 2021 for the treatment group.
 (D–B) represents the difference in outcomes between 2016 and 2021 for the comparison group.
 (C–A) – (D–B) represents the five-year impact measured by the difference between the 
differences in outcomes for the treatment group (C–A) and the difference for the comparison 
group (D–B).
250 Power Calculations. Our power analysis confirms the sample of 1,486 students across 84 schools 
is adequate to detect a relatively small effect size of 0.27 standard deviations for the estimation of 
the five-year impact on literacy outcomes under the following assumptions: power (β) of 0.80, intra￾cluster correlation of 0.25, correlation of other covariates with the measured outcomes of 0.50, and 
a 95 percent level of confidence. The assumed intra-cluster correlation of 0.25 is consistent with 
what has been found in related studies in India, Kenya, and Madagascar (Duflo, Glennerster, & 
Kremer, 2008; French & Kingdon, 2010).
251 Data Analysis. We estimated the program effects using DID analysis of student reading outcomes, 
as follows:
252 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑡𝑡1 + γ𝑇𝑇 + δ1𝑡𝑡1𝑇𝑇 + δ2𝑡𝑡2𝑇𝑇 + 𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + +𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
253 where
 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the student level outcome variable of student 𝑖𝑖 from school 𝑠𝑠 at time 𝑡𝑡
 𝑡𝑡1 is an indicator variable with 𝑡𝑡1 = 0 at baseline and 𝑡𝑡1 = 1 at endline
 𝑇𝑇 is an indicator variable with 𝑇𝑇 = 0 at comparison and 𝑇𝑇 = 1 at treatment school
Exhibit 58. Endline impact evaluation design 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 68 
 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is a set of student or household 𝑖𝑖 characteristics, such as gender, parents’ education, distance 
to school 
254 To account for the fact that students are nested within schools and grades, we specified that the 
standard errors allow for intragroup correlation, strengthening the usual requirement that the 
observations be independent. Standard errors were clustered within the school. In addition, as 
requested in the TOR, we conducted subgroup analysis by gender to determine whether boys or 
girls are responding differently to the program. The parameter of interest in this model is δ1, which 
is the regression-adjusted average intent-to-treat effect of the intervention at endline. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 69 
Annex 5. List of People Interviewed
255 The following table shows the key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) we 
conducted with program implementers as part of this evaluation. In addition to the following, we 
also conducted 20 field-level FGDs among male parents/caregivers, female parents/caregivers, 
COGES, and WPGs at five schools in Poro, Gontougo, Bagoué, Tchologo, and Bafing. See the 
Qualitative Data Collection sub-section of section 1.5 for more details. 
Category Type of 
Interview Respondents 
Government 
and partners
FGD
 Director of School Canteens 
 Assistant Director of School Canteens 
 Supplier 
 Assistant Director of the Integrated Program for Sustainability of 
School Canteens 
 Assistant Director of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 
FGD
 Energy Department
 Communications Department 
 Accounting Department 
FGD  Direction of Pedagogy and Continuing Education (DPFC) 
FGD  Regional Coordinators of School Canteens (CRESAC)
FGD
 Regional Directors of National Education (DREN) 
 Canteen Manager
FGD  Inspectors (4)
KII  ANADER Head
KII  Regional Director of ANADER
FGD  ANADER Zone Chiefs (4)
KII  BFCD Coordinator of SAMS Project
USDA KII  McGovern-Dole Côte d’Ivoire Program Manager
AVSI
KII  AVSI Regional Representative
KII  AVSI Chief of Education Project 
KII  AVSI M&E Manager
WFP FGD
 School Feeding Officer
 School Feeding Associate 
 Nutrition Specialist 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 70 
 Project Manager
 Program Assistant
 Head of Program Unit
 Resilience Officer
 Resilience Manager
FGD
 M&E Officer
 M&E Assistant
 Monitor
 Sub-Office Heads
 Program Assistant
 Shipping Manager
 Budget Program Officer
 Head of Finance Unit
 Head of Supply Chain
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 71 
Annex 6. Data collection Tools
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW: USDA STAFF
1. Can you tell me about what your role has been with the McGovern-Dole program in Ivory Coast? 
2. From your perspective, what are the most critical aspects for WFP to focus on to make sure that this 
project is a success? 
3. Based on your knowledge of the McGovern-Dole project in Ivory Coast as well as other McGovern-Dole
projects, what are the strengths and weaknesses of WFP’s design? Remind respondent to differentiate 
between current and previous program.
4. How well and in what ways does the program align with USDA’s priorities and trends? Are there any ways 
that the program does not align with USDA’s priorities? If yes, how so? Remind respondent to differentiate 
between current and previous program.
5. How effective/efficient do the management structures seem to be? (Probe for specific examples, if possible, 
and differentiate between operational management and technical management) How has the program been 
able to adapt to changing circumstances? (Probe: for example, circumstances such as covid-19, political or 
organizational changes, environmental/contextual changes.)
6. Are you familiar with the specific outputs and outcomes of the program? (If no, say that program objectives 
consist of improving schooling, retention, primary education, literacy capacities, food security, nutrition, and 
the health of schoolchildren.) Remind respondent to differentiate between current and previous program.
a. To what extent do you think they’ve been achieved (are they likely to be achieved)? 
b. What are the factors that have influenced the achievement or not?
7. Do you believe that the program’s results have led (or are likely to lead) to achieving the intervention 
objectives? What major factors have influenced this? Probe for specific intervention objectives: improved 
primary schooling/retention, literacy, food security, nutrition, and health. Remind respondent to differentiate 
between current and previous program.
8. Do you think the current program will be successful in increasing government capacity and improving 
school-level WASH infrastructure? Please explain.
9. To what extent have the recommendations from the midline evaluation been implemented? For 
example, the recommendation to reduce the proportion of canteen days covered in McGovern-Dole
schools, to enhance communication with the government, and to increase WFP’s field presence)? For the 
recommendations that were adopted, did it lead to program improvements? For the recommendations 
that were not adopted, why not?
10. Has the program adapted since its inception in response to changing circumstances? If yes, how has it 
changed and have those changes been effective? Are there any further changes you believe should be 
made? Remind respondent to differentiate between current and previous program.
11. Why was the decision made to add a WASH component and remove the home rations component in the 
current program?
Organization:
Title:
Gender:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 72 
12. How efficient do you believe activities were in terms of costs and benefits? Remind respondent to 
differentiate between current and previous program.
13. Was the program implemented in a timely manner? Were any activities delayed? Are there any ways the 
intervention could have been more efficient? Remind respondent to differentiate between current and 
previous program.
14. Do you believe the McGovern-Dole program is reaching the neediest schools/households? Why or why 
not? Remind respondent to differentiate between current and previous program.
15. What influenced the program’s efficiency? (probe: internal/organizational factors and 
external/environmental factors)
16. To what extent do you believe the program has or has not made progress toward its gender goals, in 
support of girls’ education and food security in particular? Remind respondent to differentiate between 
current and previous program.
17. We understand that the McGovern-Dole program is in a transition phase to transfer more responsibility 
of the program to the government. What is your impression of the success of this transition?
a. Please tell me about any specific factors that you think might affect the program’s chances to 
succeed, now and in the future. Please explain why and how you think this factor/these factors 
could influence the program in the future. 
18. Do you have any recommendations to help ensure sustainability of the project?
19. Is there anything else that you’d like to share with me today?
Thank you for your time and comments.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 73 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: WFP
• Here as researchers for the McGovern-Dole project. We are not funding any programs, we are 
providing feedback to program implementers
• Everything is confidential, we will not record anyone’s name or share anything they say with 
teachers, principals, or any other community members. Respect each other and do not repeat 
this conversation outside of here
• No right or wrong answers – it’s ok to disagree because we want everyone’s opinion. Everyone 
should speak freely, and respect each other
• We will be here for one hour
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not want
• Can we record the discussion for notes?
• Do you have any questions for us before we begin?
Background
1. Could you all briefly introduce yourselves and share how long you’ve been involved with the McGovern￾Dole project and what your role is? 
Relevance
2. What is the main goal of the Food for Education project? What, specifically, is it trying to achieve? (Probe 
on short-term versus long-term goals) Do you think these are reasonable goals? Why/why not? Ask 
respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
3. How many of you were involved in the design phase? If so, in what ways? What are the strengths of the 
project’s design? What are its weaknesses? Ask respondents to differentiate between current and previous 
program.
4. In what ways/how well do you think the McGovern-Dole program’s goals fit with the government’s 
educational and health priorities goals? (national/regional/local) What about WFP’s goals? Remind 
respondent to differentiate between current and previous program.
5. To what extent do you believe the MDG program has taken gender into account? (probe for examples) To 
what extent has it taken other equity issues into consideration? Ask respondents to differentiate between 
current and previous program.
6. Since the project began, have beneficiaries’ needs changed over time in a way that has affected the 
project? If so, how has the project responded to changing needs? Ask respondents to differentiate between 
current and previous program.
7. How has the program been able to adapt to changing circumstances? (Probe: for example, circumstances 
such as covid-19, political or organizational changes, environmental/contextual changes.) Have those changes 
been effective? Are there any further changes you believe should be made? Ask respondents to 
differentiate between current and previous program.
Number of participants:
Titles:
Genders:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 74 
8. Why was the decision made to add a WASH component and remove the home rations component in the 
current program?
9. To what extent have the recommendations formulated during the midline evaluation been 
implemented? For example, the recommendation to reduce the proportion of canteen days covered in 
McGovern-Dole schools, to enhance communication with the government, and to increase WFP’s field 
presence)? What were the results of making these changes? What hindered or supported the changes 
from being achieved? 
Effectiveness
10. Are the project’s planned activities proceeding on schedule? What has helped stay on schedule and what 
has made it difficult? Was the same true for the previous program?
11. What outputs or outcomes has the project achieved so far? (probe for outcomes related to improving 
schooling, retention, primary education, literacy capacities, food security, nutrition, and the health of 
schoolchildren) 
a. Are expected results occurring as planned? 
b. To what extent will the objectives be achieved?
c. How would you compare the achievements of the previous versus the current program?
12. Is the implementation of some activities more successful than others? If so, which ones? Why? Ask 
respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
13. Can you tell me a little about the program’s M&E system? Is it effective in collecting regular, reliable data 
about program’s progress?
14. Overall, what are the successes and challenges experienced in the implementation process? How can 
they be addressed for better achievements in the future? Ask respondents to differentiate between current 
and previous program.
Efficiency
15. Are the project’s planned activities proceeding on schedule? What has helped stay on schedule and what 
has made it difficult? How does this differ from the previous project?
16. To your knowledge, to what extent are the planned activities being implemented according to the 
budget? Was the previous project able to stay within budget?
17. What obstacles in allocating budget resources have arisen? How were they overcome and at what cost? 
Ask respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
18. Do you think the project is implemented in the most efficient way? In what ways can it be more efficient? 
Are objectives being achieved on time? Why or why not? Ask respondents to differentiate between current 
and previous program.
19. What influenced the program’s efficiency? (probe: internal/organizational factors and 
external/environmental factors) Has this changed from the previous project?
Impact
20. What are the impacts, if any so far, of the activities on communities where the McGovern-Dole project is 
being implemented? Which activities do you think have the greatest impacts? Why? Ask respondents to 
differentiate between current and previous program.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 75 
21. Is there a difference in the way that the activities are affecting boys and girls? Ask respondents to 
differentiate between current and previous program.
22. What has been impact of the project’s activities on the communities in terms of
a. Building organizational capacities (SMC, Women’s Agricultural Groups)
b. Raising awareness in parents /teachers/students (for example, on the importance of 
education, promoting attendance for students and teachers)
Remind respondent to differentiate between current and previous program.
23. How are community-based structures (e.g., schools, SMC, Women’s Agricultural Groups) supporting 
project implementation? Are they on track to assume ownership of key activities beyond the life of the 
project? Are they satisfied with their participation? How might they be encouraged and/or supported to 
participate more? Ask respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
24. How have capacity building activities for SMC improved their capacities? What obstacles persist? What 
more should be done to ensure they will have the capacity to manage the school canteens beyond the 
life of the project? Ask respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
25. What innovations, lessons learned, and good practices can be documented so far? Ask respondents to 
differentiate between current and previous program.
Sustainability 
26. We understand that the McGovern-Dole program is in a transition phase to transfer more responsibility 
of the program to the government. What is your impression on the success of this transition?
27. From your perspective, which activities and processes will be sustainable beyond project funding, and 
which will not be sustainable? Please explain. What are the biggest challenges to sustainability? Is the 
project prepared to overcome these challenges?
28. Do you believe the government and other local organizations have the capacity to sustain the project 
activities and outcomes after the project funding ends? (probe for national, district, and community levels) 
Why or why not?
29. Do any socio-cultural or political aspects endanger the sustainability of the project and what actions are 
being taken to sensitize local institutions and target groups to these issues? 
30. What measures, and which specific efforts, have been undertaken already to prepare for the phase out 
of the project’s funding?
31. Do you have any recommendations to help ensure sustainability of the project?
Conclusion
32. Is there anything that I did not ask about that you would like to share with me, or do you have any 
additional thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you all for your time and comments. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 76 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW: GOVERNMENT, PARTNERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Organization Individual(s) Key Topics to Focus on During 
Interview
MENA • Directeur des Stratégies 
de la Planification et des 
Statistiques
• Directeur du Centre 
National de Formation et 
de Production de Matériel 
Didactique (CNFPM)
• Chef du Département des 
Programmes au Centre 
d'Animation et de 
Formation Pédagogique
• Direction de l’Animation 
et de Promotion des 
COGES (MEN/DAP￾COGES)
• Direction de la Vie Scolaire 
(DVS) (Responsable de la 
Vie Scolaire)
• Other MENA employees, 
as needed
• McGovern-Dole
complementarity with 
other programs (including 
coherence/coordination)
• Government 
collaboration (with other 
ministries and partners)
• Sustainability of school 
canteens
Ministere de l’Agriculture et du 
Développement Rural
• Responsable de 
l'Alimentation Scolaire et 
de l'Eau
• Other ministry 
employees, as needed
• Efficiency/effectiveness of 
school feeding
• WASH-related 
challenges/successes in 
current program
• Sustainability of school 
canteens
Direction des Cantines Scolaires • Directeur de 
l'Alimentation Scolaire
• Other direction 
employees, as needed
• Efficiency/effectiveness of 
school feeding
• Sustainability of school 
canteens
AVSI • Régional Manager basé à 
Abidjan
• Chef Projet Education 
basé à Bouaké
• Responsable M&E basé à 
Abidjan
• Chargé d’évaluation suivi 
basé à Bouaké
• Responsable de 
partenariats et du 
• McGovern-Dole
adaptations and 
adjustments since midline
• McGovern-Dole
complementarity with 
other programs (including 
coherence/coordination)
• Government 
collaboration/capacity 
building
Organization:
Title:
Gender:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 77 
développement des 
affaires, basé aux États￾Unis
Background
1. What is your title? How long have you been with [government agency/organization]? Can you tell me 
about what your role has been related to the McGovern-Dole project? How long have you been involved 
with this project? 
Relevance
2. How do you understand the McGovern-Dole project? What are its main goals? (Probe on short-term versus 
long-term goals) Do you think these are reasonable goals? Why/why not? Remind respondent to differentiate 
between current and previous program. 
3. Were you involved or consulted in the design phase of the current or previous program? What about 
during the activities planning process? Please describe your involvement and whether or not it was 
sufficient. Remind respondent to differentiate between current and previous program. 
4. What are the barriers to education in Cote d’Ivoire (or region, if talking to regional official)? Are there 
different barriers for boys and girls? In what ways do you think the McGovern-Dole project took these 
socio-economic, cultural, political, and environmental situations into consideration? How well do you 
believe the project has incorporated issues related to gender? Remind respondent to differentiate between 
current and previous program. 
5. How well do you think that the McGovern-Dole project is aligned with Cote d’Ivoire (or the region’s) 
priorities, policies, programs, and laws? (for partners and other stakeholders) What about your 
organization’s priorities and programs? 
6. How has the program been able to adapt to changing circumstances? (Probe: for example, circumstances 
such as covid-19, political or organizational changes, environmental/contextual changes.) Have those changes 
been effective? Are there any further changes you believe should be made?
7. To what extent have the recommendations formulated during the midline evaluation been 
implemented? For example, the recommendation to reduce the proportion of canteen days covered in 
McGovern-Dole schools, to enhance communication with the government, and to increase WFP’s field 
presence)? What were the results and effects? What hindered or supported those changes from being 
achieved? 
Effectiveness
8.
a. To what extent do you think the McGovern-Dole project is meeting its goals? (probe for outcomes 
related to improving schooling, retention, primary education, literacy capacities, food security, 
nutrition, and the health of schoolchildren) In what ways, if any, does it fall short? How can it be 
improved? Probe for specific intervention objectives: improved primary schooling/retention, literacy, 
food security, nutrition, and health. Do you think the previous McGovern-Dole project met its 
goals? Why or why not?
b. b. Do you think the current program will be successful in increasing government capacity and 
improving school-level WASH infrastructure? Please explain.
Efficiency 
9. To what extent does the McGovern-Dole project collaborate with your government 
department/organization? Is this an adequate level of collaboration? Why or why not? How can it be 
improved?
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 78 
10. In what ways do you think the McGovern-Dole project used existing capacity or structures to address the 
educational and health needs of students?
Impact
11. What impact do you think the McGovern-Dole project has had so far, if any, in the communities where it 
is implemented? Which activities have had the greatest impacts so far?
12. In your opinion, is there anything about the project that could be strengthened or done differently? What 
were the overall challenges you see? What are the overall successes of the McGovern-Dole project? How 
can they be taken into account for future projects?
Sustainability 
13. We understand that the McGovern-Dole program is in a transition phase to transfer more responsibility 
of the program to the government. What is your impression on the success of this transition?
14. From your perspective, which activities and processes will be sustainable beyond grant funding, and 
which will not be sustainable? Please explain. What are the biggest challenges to sustainability? Is the 
project prepared to overcome these challenges?
15. What role, if any, will your agency/department have in ensuring sustainability of the outcomes?
Conclusion
16. Is there anything that I did not ask about that you would like to share with me, or do you have any 
additional thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you for your time and comments.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 79 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: PARENTS
• Here as researchers for the McGovern-Dole project. We are not funding any programs or 
school, we are providing feedback to program implementers
• Everything is confidential, we will not record anyone’s name or share anything they say with 
teachers, principals, or any other community members. Respect each other and do not repeat 
this conversation outside of here
• No right or wrong answers – it’s ok to disagree because we want everyone’s opinion. Everyone 
should speak freely, and respect each other
• We will be here for one hour
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not want
• Can we record the discussion for notes?
• Do you have any questions for us before we begin?
1. How many children do you have at this school? What are their ages and genders? Do you have any older 
children who attended this school in the past?
2. Do your children go willingly and look forward to attending school? What do they like/dislike about going 
to school? (Probe for specific examples of their own children and what they like/dislike)
3. What do you like about the school your child attends? What, if anything, could be better?
4. Do you think your school does a good job helping your child learn to read? Why or why not? What has 
been most helpful to your child’s literacy? What would help children’s reading to improve? (probe for 
specific activities/materials)
a. (For parents of older children) Have you noticed any changes in how your school supports 
literacy in recent years? If so, what changes have you observed?
5. What does the community do to support the school and children’s education? How helpful are those 
activities? (probe for supporting the school canteen, donating time and agricultural products/wood/etc.)
6. What do you think would encourage children in your community to go to school more often? What would 
help them learn to read better? Are those things different for girls and boys?
7. Do you know about the program McGovern-Dole? What do you know about it?
If parents do not know about the program, tell them that it provides the school canteen, plans to rehabilitate school 
latrines and water stations in some schools, distributed deworming tablets, helped communities to support school 
feeding and sanitation, provided reading materials, and tried to improve literacy instruction.
8. Do you think daily hot meals support children to go to school? Do they support children’s ability to learn? 
Why or why not? 
a. (For parents of older children) Have you noticed any changes in the school canteen in recent 
years? If so, what changes have you observed?
School:
Gender:
Number of Participants:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 80 
b. If your children did not have the school canteen, would they eat a midday meal? If so, where 
would that meal come from? 
c. Does the school canteen make any difference in the amount or quality of food your child 
receives? Please describe.
d. Has the school canteen helped your household save any money? Has it made any impact on 
food security for your household?
9. What do you know about the latrines at your child’s school? Has your child ever talked to you about the 
latrines at school? If so, what did they say?
a. Do you think access to quality latrines makes a difference in children’s school attendance? What 
about their ability to learn? Why or why not? Probe for differences between boys and girls.
10. What do you know about the water stations at your child’s school? Do you think access to water supports 
children to go to school? Does it impact their ability to learn? Why or why not? Without the water stations, 
what would happen?
11. Has your child received deworming tablets? Do you believe deworming tablets support children’s ability 
to go to school? Does it impact their ability to learn? Why or why not?
12. From your perspective, does the McGovern-Dole program adequately address the needs of children and 
their families? Why or why not? What would you do differently to better support children and their 
families?
13. Is there anything that I did not ask about that you would like to share with me, or do you have any 
additional thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 81 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 
• Here as researchers for the McGovern-Dole project. We are not funding any programs or 
school, we are providing feedback to program implementers
• Everything is confidential, we will not record anyone’s name or share anything they say with 
teachers, principals, or any other community members. Respect each other and do not repeat 
this conversation outside of here
• No right or wrong answers – it’s ok to disagree because we want everyone’s opinion. Everyone 
should speak freely, and respect each other
• We will be here for one hour
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not want
• Can we record the discussion for notes?
• Do you have any questions for us before we begin?
1. First, can you tell me about the roles and responsibilities of the School Management Committee as 
they relate to the McGovern-Dole program? What activities are you responsible for? Remind 
respondents to differentiate between current and previous program.
2. What kind of training did your group receive? What did you like about your training? Are there any 
areas where you need more support? (Probe: Who provided the training? What language was the 
training delivered in? Were the training content and the tools used appropriate? Was the training 
sufficient? Would you be able to lead a similar training yourselves?) Remind respondents to 
differentiate between now (current) and previous program.
3. Were there any changes to SMC activities or initiatives following the trainings from WFP? Please 
explain. (Probe for whether initiatives/activities were more or less successful following WFP 
trainings). Remind respondents to differentiate between now (current) and previous program.
4. Do you think the activities of your SMC support children in your community to go to school or 
improve their studying/learning conditions? Why or why not? 
a. Are there any differences in the effects for boys and girls? If so, please describe.
5. How active are parents in this community in supporting their children’s education? Do they donate 
to the school canteens? Do they support SMC activities? Do they support their children’s education 
in other ways? (Probe for differences in support for male and female children.)
6. What challenges have you faced? (probe for challenges related to COVID-19.) Are there ways that 
your group or the McGovern-Dole program has changed in response to those challenges? If yes, 
what changes were made and how helpful were those changes? What needs do you think are still 
unmet? 
7. Do men and women participate equally in your SMC? Who in your group is primarily responsible for 
decision-making?
School: 
Gender:
Number of Participants:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 82 
8. In general, do you think that children in your community have access to quality education? What 
about healthy food? Why or why not? (Probe for differences by gender) What would you do 
differently to better support children and their families? (Probe: what other needs do children and 
families have regarding education and healthy food that are currently not met?) 
9. In what ways, if any, has the McGovern-Dole project improved your community? What about the 
capacities of your SMC? Remind respondents to differentiate between now (current) and previous 
program.
10. In your opinion, is there anything about the project that could be strengthened or done differently? 
Remind respondents to differentiate between now (current) and previous program.
11. Has your level of engagement in the SMC changed in recent years? How so? 
12. What are the biggest challenges to sustainability for your SMC? 
13. What support does your SMC need to manage activities in the future? Do you have any 
recommendations to help ensure sustainability of the project? 
14. Have you learned anything from participating in the SMC? Overall, has it been a positive or negative 
experience? Why?
15. Is there anything that I did not ask about that you would like to share with me, or do you have any 
additional thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 83 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: WOMEN’S AGRICULTURAL GROUP
• Here as researchers for the McGovern-Dole project. We are not funding any programs or 
school, we are providing feedback to program implementers
• Everything is confidential, we will not record anyone’s name or share anything they say with 
teachers, principals, or any other community members. Respect each other and do not repeat 
this conversation outside of here
• No right or wrong answers – it’s ok to disagree because we want everyone’s opinion. Everyone 
should speak freely, and respect each other
• We will be here for one hour
• You do not have to answer a question if you do not want
• Can we record the discussion for notes?
• Do you have any questions for us before we begin?
1. First, I’d like to learn about your group. When was this group formed? How did it start? When did you 
start working with McGovern-Dole? How many members do you currently have? 
2. I’d like for you to describe the activities that you participate in as part of the agricultural group. What 
activities particularly relate to school feeding/the McGovern-Dole project? If not mentioned: Do you 
participate in or lead any activities related to mobilizing the community around the school canteen? If 
yes, please describe.
3. How does your agricultural group currently support the school canteen? How many schools are you 
currently supporting? Would you have the capacity (time, land access, etc.) to support more school days 
and/or more schools? Please explain.
4. What type of crop are you providing to the school canteen? Do you think students like eating this crop, 
or would they prefer to eat something else? Please explain.
5. How much of your annual production are you able to currently contribute? How is it delivered to the 
school canteen, and at what cost? Do you know how many days of school feeding this contribution is 
able to cover? 
6. Why did you join the agricultural group?
7. Are you paid for the food that you provide to the school, or do you donate it? If you are paid, are you 
paid a fair price for the food? Is the price you are paid above, below, or equal to market costs? If you are 
not paid, do you receive any other compensation?
8. What kind of resources does your group receive? (Probe for tools, fertilizer, etc.) Who provided it, and 
when? What did you like about this? Are these resources sufficient? Are there any areas where you need 
more support?
9. What kind of technical assistance/training does your group receive? (Probe for financial literacy training, 
management training, community mobilization training, etc.) Who provided it, and when? What did you 
like about this technical assistance? What have you learned? Are there any areas where you need more 
support?
School/Region:
Number of Participants:
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 84 
10. Do you think the activities of your agricultural group support children in your community to go to school? 
Why or why not? 
a. Are there any differences in the effects for boys and girls? If so, please describe.
11. Do you believe the activities of your group help children have access to more or better food? Why or why 
not?
12. Have you been a part of or seen any successful activities through your work as a member of the 
agricultural group? How did it make you feel? What aspects of the activity (ies) do you feel were the most 
successful? (Probe: were there any successful outcomes that were surprising to you?) Probe: specific to 
McGovern-Dole
13. Were there any activities the agricultural group tried to do this year or last year which were not 
successful? Which were the least successful? (Probe: were there any negative outcomes that were 
surprising to you?) 
14. What challenges have you faced? (probe for effects of COVID-19) Are there ways that your group or the 
McGovern-Dole program has changed in response to those challenges? Is yes, what changes were made 
and how helpful were those changes? What needs do you think are still unmet? 
15. How many women are in your group, and how many men? What are some of the advantages of being 
part of a women’s agricultural group? In what ways do you benefit from having women in the group? How 
do the men support the group?
16. Has your participation in a women’s agricultural group increased your access to resources, skills, and 
equipment? How? What about your power to make decisions or your control of resources? Probe: specific 
to McGovern-Dole
17. From your perspective, does the overall McGovern-Dole program adequately address the needs of 
children and their families? Do you think that children in your community have access to quality 
education and healthy food? Why or why not? What would you do differently to better support children 
and their families?
18. In your opinion, is there anything about the project that could be strengthened or done differently?
19. What role, if any, will your agricultural group have in ensuring sustainability of the outcomes? Will your 
group be able to fully support the school canteen? If so, at what point? What measures, and which 
specific efforts, have been undertaken already to prepare for the phase out of the project’s funding? 
What support does your group need to manage activities in the future? Do you have any 
recommendations to help ensure sustainability of the project?
20. From your perspective, which activities and processes will be sustainable beyond the end of the 
McGovern-Dole program and which will not be sustainable? Please explain. What are the biggest 
challenges to sustainability? Is your group prepared to overcome these challenges? 
21. Overall, has participating in a women’s group been a positive or negative experience? Why? Probe: 
specific to McGovern-Dole
22. Is there anything that I did not ask about that you would like to share with me, or do you have any 
additional thoughts about what we have discussed today?
Thank you for your time!
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 85
 
School Questionnaire (McGovern
-Dole Cote d'Ivoire)
Field Question Answer
enum 
chef Name of Team Lead
enum_name Enumerator name
enum_no Enumerator number
enum_no_confirm 
Confirm the number of the 
enumerator.
location 
region Select the region region region 
iep Select IEP iep iep 
ecole Select school ecole ecole 
note1 
My name is [enum_name]. 
We are conducting a study on 
behalf of the World Food 
Programme (WFP) and the 
Ministry of National Education 
(MENET) on the sustainability 
of the school canteens and the 
enrolment level of children in 
the Bafing, Bagoué, Bounkani, 
Cavally, Gontougo, Poro and 
Tchologo regions. We would 
like school principals to take 
part in this interview. We would 
like to ask you questions about 
your students, your teachers, 
and your school infrastructure. 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 86
 
Field Question Answer
This interview approximately 
lasts one hour (1h). The 
information that you will 
provide are strictly confidential 
and will not be disclosed to any 
other person for any reason 
whatsoever. Participation is 
voluntary, however we hope 
that you will participate in this 
interview because your points 
of view will allow us to better 
appreciate the food situation in 
your region. Your answers will 
in no way affect your access to 
the food aid programs. Do you 
have any specific questions? 
Can we start now?
consent Do you consent to this survey?
1 Yes 0 No 9 Not found 
sex 
What sex are you? 
*Demandez seulement si c'est 
nécessaire
Question relevant when: 
${consent} =1
1 Male 2 Female -
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
consent_section > classes 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 87
 
Field Question Answer
note_classes In this section, consider the 
academic year 2020
-2021
q11b 
Was there the CP1 class in this 
school during the school year 
2020
-2021
?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q11c 
Was there the CP2 class in this 
school during the school year 
2020
-2021
?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q11d 
Was there the CE1 class at the 
school during the school year 
2020
-2021
?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q11e 
Was there CE2 class in this 
school during the school year 
2020
-2021
?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q11f 
Was there CM1 class at the 
school during the school year 
2020
-2021
?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 88
 
Field Question Answer
q11g 
Was there the CM2 class at the 
school during the school year 
2020-2021? 
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
note_effectif 
What was the enrollment of 
students enrolled by level and 
gender for the 2020-2021 
school year? 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
consent_section > CP1 
Group relevant when: ${q11b} = '1'
note_cp1 
CP1 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q122f Number of girls 2020
-2021
q122g Number of boys 2020
-2021
q122t Total CP1 2020
-2021
consent_section > CP2 
Group relevant when: ${q11c} = '1'
note_cp2 
CP2 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 89
 
Field Question Answer
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q123f Number of girls 2020
-2021
q123g Number of boys 2020
-2021
q123t Total CP2 year 2020
-2021
consent_section > CE1 
Group relevant when: ${q11d} = '1'
note_ce1 
CE1 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q124f Number of girls 2020
-2021
q124g Number of boys 2020
-2021
q124t Total CE1 year 2020
-2021
consent_section > CE2 
Group relevant when: ${q11e} = '1'
note_ce2 
CE2 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q125f Number of girls 2020
-2021
q125g Number of boys 2020
-2021
q125t Total CE2 year 2020
-2021
consent_section > CM1 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 90 
Field Question Answer
Group relevant when: ${q11f} = '1'
note_cm1 
CM1 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q126f Number of girls 2020-2021
q126g Number of boys 2020-2021
q126t Total CM1 year 2020-2021
consent_section > CM2 
Group relevant when: ${q11g} = '1'
note_cm2 
CM2 
* Si il y a plusieurs classes du 
même niveau, choisir la classe 
avec le plus grand effectif et 
enquêtez les élèves et 
enseignants de la même classe.
q127f Number of girls 2020-2021
q127g Number of boys 2020-2021
q127t Total CM2 year 2020-2021
q12a 
Investigator! Ask the school 
principal the following 
question: "Can you show me 
the attendance register for April 
21, 2021?"
1 Investigator saw records 
2 Investigator has not seen the records because it does not exist 
3 Investigator has not seen the records but according to the director they exist 
q12a_warning 
Investigator! The information 
contained in the school's 
attendance register is of critical 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 91
 
Field Question Answer
importance to our investigation. 
Do not select this option 
without doing everything you 
can to get this document. 
Question relevant when: 
${q12a} !=1
q12a_why 
If not, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication 
détaillée.
Question relevant when: 
${q12a} !=1
consent_section > presence 
Group relevant when: ${q12a} =1
note_presence 
Investigator for each class you 
will ask the students' 
attendance on April 2
1, 2021 
consent_section > presence > CP1_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11b} = '1'
note_cp1_apr CP1
q122bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
q122bg Number of boys present on 
April 2
1, 2021 
q122bt Total present on April 2
1, 20
2
1
consent_section > presence > CP2_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11c} = '1'
note_cp2_apr CP2
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 92
 
Field Question Answer
q123bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
q123bg Number of boys present on 
April 2
1, 2021 
q123bt Total present on April 2
1, 20
2
1
consent_section > presence > CE1_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11d} = '1'
note_ce1_apr CE1
q124bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
q124bg Number of boys present on 
April 2
1, 2021 
q124bt Total present on April 2
1, 20
2
1
consent_section > presence > CE2_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11e} = '1'
note_ce2_apr CE2
q125bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
q125bg 
Number of boys present on 
April 2
1, 2021 
q125bt Total present on April 2
1, 20
2
1
consent_section > presence > CM1_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11f} = '1'
note_cm1_apr CM1
q126bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 93 
Field Question Answer
q126bg Number of boys present on 
April 21, 2021 
q126bt Total present on April 21, 2021
consent_section > presence > CM2_april24 
Group relevant when: ${q11g} = '1'
note_cm2_apr CM2
q127bf Number of girls present on April 
21, 2021 
q127bg Number of boys present on 
April 21, 2021 
q127bt Total present on April 21, 2021
consent_section > presence_enseignants 
note_teach_pres 
How many teachers were in 
your school during the school 
year 2020-2021? 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = -888; Refuse= -999)
q13_1 Teachers
q13_2 Volunteer teachers
replacement Do you have a substitute 
teacher available?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q13a 
Investigator! Ask the principal 
question: "Can you show me 
the records of teacher 
attendance for April 21, 2021? 
1 Investigator saw records 
2 Investigator has not seen the records because it does not exist 
3 Investigator has not seen the records but according to the director they exist 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 94
 
Field Question Answer
q13a_warning 
Investigator! The information 
contained in the school's 
attendance register is of critical 
importance to our investigation. 
Do not select this option 
without doing everything you 
can to get this document. 
Question relevant when: 
${q13a} !=1
q13a_why 
If not, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication 
détaillée.
Question relevant when: 
${q13a} !=1
consent_section > presence_enseignants_apr 
Group relevant when: ${q13a} =1
note_teach_pres_apr How many teachers attended 
school on April 2
1, 20
21?
q13b1 
Teachers 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
q13b2 
Volunteer teachers 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
q22cantine Does your school have a 
canteen?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 95
 
Field Question Answer
consent_section > cantine_group 
Group relevant when: ${q22cantine} =1
q22a 
Does the school have a food 
storage area?
1 Yes a store 2 Yes another room 3 No 
q22 
Does the school have a 
ventilated food storage area? 
Question relevant when: 
${q22a} =1 or ${q22a} =2
1 Yes a ventilated store 2 Yes a ventilated room 3 No 
q23 Does the school have pallets for 
food?
1 Yes modern pallet 2 Yes traditional pallet 3 No 
q24 
Are there stock cards available 
for the management of food?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q25 
Is the food for the school 
canteen prepared at the school 
level?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q26 What is the place used to eat 
school meals?
1 Refectory materials to final 2 Refectory provisional materials 3 Classroom 4 Outside 
q27 Is there a kitchen in the school?
1 Yes 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 96 
Field Question Answer
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section > cantine_group > combustibles 
Group relevant when: ${q27} =1
q28intro What fuels are (or can be) used 
to prepare meals at school?
q28a Wood
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q28b Coal
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q28c Gas
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q28d Electricity
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 97 
Field Question Answer
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q28e Cow dung
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q28f Sawdust
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q29 
If coal or wood are (or can be) 
used as fuel, what type of 
furnace is in the school? 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q28a} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q28b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q28f} ,'1')
1 Traditional stove 
2 A furnace without chimney in satisfactory condition (metal bowl with 2 or 3 homes) 
3 A stove with chimney in satisfactory condition (improved stoves) 
q210 Is there water availability for 
school?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q211 
If so, what is the main source of 
water available to school? 
Question relevant when: 
${q210} =1
1 Tap / Running Water, SODECI or HVA (improved village hydraulics) 
2 Drilling / Pump Village 
3 Wells improved (protected) 
4 Traditional well (Not protected) 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 98 
Field Question Answer
5 Surface water (creek, river, stream) 
6 Rainwater 
7 Other specify 
q211aut 
If another source of water to the 
previous question, please 
specify 
Question relevant when: 
${q211} =7
q212 
How far is the main water 
source from the school?
1 In the school grounds 
2 Less than 15 min walk 
3 Over 15 min walk 
q213 Do you currently have problems 
accessing drinking water?
1 Yes broken pump 
2 Yes water points occupied by animals 
3 Yes drying up of the water point 
4 Yes no water used for agriculture 
5 Yes, other specify 
6 Not now 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q213aut 
If other water problems specify 
Question relevant when: 
${q213} =5
q214 
If so, how long in months? 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = -888; Refuse= -999)
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q213} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q213} ,'2') or 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 99 
Field Question Answer
selected( ${q213} ,'3') or 
selected( ${q213} ,'4') or 
selected( ${q213} ,'5')
q215 
Are there school sanitation 
facilities (latrines, toilets, etc.)?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section > toilettes 
Group relevant when: ${q215} =1
q216 
Is there separate sanitary 
facilities for girls and boys 
within the school?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q217 
Is there separate sanitary 
facilities for students and 
teachers within the school?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q215_san 
What are the sanitary 
installations available for girls 
and boys?
1 Mechanical or manual flush installation connected to a sewer or septic system or pit 
2 Ventilated latrine 
3 Pit latrine with slab 
4 Pit latrine without slab 
5 Latrine bucket 
6 Composting toilets 
7 Other 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 100
 
Field Question Answer -
999
Refuse 
q215_funct Are these sanitary installations 
functional at the moment?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q218 
Do the students wash their 
hands before meals?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
Q218b Is there a handwashing station 
in the school?
1 Yes
0 No
3 Don’t know -999 Refuse to reply
q219 
Is there a vegetable garden in 
the school? 
*Clarifier qu
’il s
’agit bien d
’un « 
jardin potager »
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q219a Is there a school cooperative?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q220 
Is there an association of 
parents (COGES)?
1 Yes 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 101 
Field Question Answer
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q221 Is there a library in your school?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q222 Is your school electrified?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
note_formation 
For each of the following 
courses, which ones were held 
in 2016 to today 
*Ceci ne s’agit pas d’enseignants 
de l’école
consent_section > formations1 
q31a 
Training of teachers on health 
education based on the 
acquisition of know-how and 
skills
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q31b Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 102 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q31a} =1
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q31b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q31b} , '5')
q31b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q31b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q31b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q31b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q31b} ,'3'))) or 
${q31b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q31b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q31b_2} , '4')
consent_section > formations2 
q32a Teacher training on nutrition 
education
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q32b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q32a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 103 
Field Question Answer
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q32b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q32b} , '5')
q32b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q32b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q32b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q32b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q32b} ,'3'))) or 
${q32b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q32b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q32b_2} , '4')
consent_section > formations3 
q33a Teacher training on deworming
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q33b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q33a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 104 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q33b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q33b} , '5')
q33b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q33b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q33b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q33b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q33b} ,'3'))) or 
${q33b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q33b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q33b_2} , '4')
consent_section > formations4 
q34a Teacher training on HIV / AIDS 
prevention
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q34b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q34a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 105 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q34b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q34b} , '5')
q34b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q34b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q34b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q34b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q34b} ,'3'))) or 
${q34b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q34b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q34b_2} , '4')
consent_section > formations5 
q35a Teacher training on malaria 
prevention
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q35b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q35a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 106 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q35b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q35b} , '5')
q35b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q35b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q35b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q35b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q35b} ,'3'))) or 
${q35b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q35b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q35b_2} , '4')
consent_section > formations6 
q355a Teacher training on the 
teaching of reading
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q355b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q355a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 107 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q355b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q355b} , '5')
q355b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q355b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q355b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q355b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q355b} ,'3'))) or 
${q355b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q355b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q355b_2} , '4')
generated_note_name_237 
Among the information 
sessions and / or supply of the 
following services for students, 
which ones were held from 
2016 to date? 
*Ceci ne s’agit pas d’enseignants 
de l’école
consent_section > 
formations7 
q356a 
Teacher training on proper 
hygiene and sanitation 
measures
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 108 
Field Question Answer
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q356b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q356a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q356b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q356b} , '5')
q356b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q356b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q356b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q356b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q356b} ,'3'))) or 
${q356b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q356b_2_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q356b_2} , '4')
generated_note_name_237 
Among the information 
sessions and / or supply of the 
following services for students, 
which ones were held from 
2016 to date? 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 109 
Field Question Answer
*Ceci ne s’agit pas d’
enseignants de l’école
consent_section > informations2 
q37a 
Information sessions for 
students on nutrition education
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q37b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q37a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q37b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q37b} , '5')
q37b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q37b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q37b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q37b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q37b} ,'3'))) or 
${q37b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q37b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 110 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q37b_2} , '4')
consent_section > informations3 
q38a Deworming treatments for 
students
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q38b 
Who was the partner who 
provided the deworming 
treatments for the students? 
Question relevant when: 
${q38a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q38b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q38b} , '5')
q38b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q38b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q38b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q38b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q38b} ,'3'))) or 
${q38b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q38b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 111 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q38b_2} , '4')
consent_section > informations7 
q312a 
Training sessions on the 
vegetable garden activities for 
students
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q312b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q312a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q312b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q312b} , '5')
q312b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q312b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q312b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q312b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q312b} ,'3'))) or 
${q312b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q312b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 112 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q312b_2} , '4')
consent_section > informations8 
q313a Providing micronutrient 
supplements for students
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q313b 
Who was the partner who 
provided micronutrient 
supplements for students? 
Question relevant when: 
${q313a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q313b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q313b} , '5')
q313b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q313b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q313b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q313b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q313b} ,'3'))) or 
${q313b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q313b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 113 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q313b_2} , '4')
consent_section > informations9 
q314a 
Provision of school materials 
(books, school supplies, etc.)
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q314b 
Who was the partner who 
provided school materials 
(books, school supplies, etc.)? 
Question relevant when: 
${q314a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q314b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q314b} , '5')
q314b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q314b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q314b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q314b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q314b} ,'3'))) or 
${q314b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q314b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 114 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q314b_2} , '4')
consent_section > 
informations10 
q315a 
Training sessions on hygiene 
and sanitation for students
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q315b 
Who was the partner who 
conducted the training? 
Question relevant when: 
${q315a} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q315b_aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q315b} , '5')
q315b_2 
Who was the government 
partner ? 
Question relevant when: 
(selected( ${q315b} ,'4') and 
(selected( ${q315b} ,'1') or 
selected( ${q315b} ,'2') or 
selected( ${q315b} ,'3'))) or 
${q315b} =4
1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) 
2 Primary and Continuing Education Directorate (MENET/DPFC) 
3 Ministry of Health 
4 Other government institution 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q315b_2_aut If other, please specify 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 115 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q315b_2} , '4')
q41 
Has the school ever benefited 
from a school feeding program 
in the previous two years (i.e., 
dry rations and / or on-site 
school meals)?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q42 
If so, who was the main donor 
Question relevant when: 
${q41} =1
1 WFP/AVSI McGovern-Dole Program 
2 Other WFP/AVSI project 
3 Local NGO 
4 Government Institution 
5 Other external organization 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q42autre 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
${q42} ='5'
q43 
Does the school currently 
benefit from a school feeding 
program (i.e., dry rations and / 
or on-site school meals)?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section > aliment 
Group relevant when: ${q43} =1
note_programme_alimentaire 
What kind of school feeding 
program was offered to the 
school in 2020-2021? 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 116
 
Field Question Answer
q44 
Meals served on site at the 
school for boys and girls
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q45 dry rations for girls
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q45a 
If so, what classes did you give 
dry rations to girls? 
Question relevant when: 
${q45} =1
0 Kindergarten 1 CP1 2 CP2 3 CE1 4 CE2 5 CM1 6 CM2 
q46 dry rations for boys
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q46a 
If so, what classes did you give 
dry rations to boys? 
Question relevant when: 
${q46} =1
0 Kindergarten 1 CP1 2 CP2 3 CE1 4 CE2 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 117
 
Field Question Answer 5 CM1 6 CM2 
q410 
Indicate the planned number of 
official school days during the 
school year 2021
-2022
(October 2021 to June 2022) 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
q411 
Indicate the actual number of 
school days during the school 
year 2020
-2021(October 2020 
to June 2021)
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
q412 
Indicate the actual number of 
days of school feeding place for 
children during the school year 
2020
-2021(October 2020 to 
June 2021)
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
Question relevant when: 
${q22cantine} =1
q413 
Indicate the actual number of 
take
-home rations for boys 
during the school year 2020
-
2021(October 2020 to June 
2021)
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 118 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q22cantine} =1
q414 
Indicate the actual number of 
take-home rations for girls in 
the school year 2020-
2021(October 2020 to June 
2021)
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = -888; Refuse= -999)
Question relevant when: 
${q22cantine} =1
q12b 
Investigator! Ask the school 
principal the following 
question: "Can you show me 
the attendance register for the 
2020-2021 school year?"
1 Investigator saw records 
2 Investigator has not seen the records because it does not exist 
3 Investigator has not seen the records but according to the director they exist 
q12b_warning 
Investigator! The information 
contained in the school's 
attendance register is of critical 
importance to our investigation. 
Do not select this option 
without doing everything you 
can to get this document. 
Please review your answer to 
the previous question.
Question relevant when: 
${q12b} !=1
q12b_why 
If not, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication 
détaillée.
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 119
 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q12b} !=1
note_absences 
Enumerator, for each student 
surveyed in this school, you will 
note the number of absences 
they accumulated and if they 
missed more than 10 days of 
school due to health reasons 
from October 2020 to June 
2021. 
*Consulter le cahier d
’appel
Question relevant when: 
${q12b} =1
consent_section > absences_eleves_no 
Group relevant when: ${q12b} =1
q12c 
For how many students are you 
checking attendance records? 
*Ce chiffre devrait être 12, sauf 
dans les régions de Poro, Bagoué
et Tchologo où ce chiffre devrait 
être 24.
consent_section > 
- (1) 
Group relevant when: ${q12b} =1 (Repeated group)
q54_absence_name 
Surname and first name of 
student (in capital letters 
please!)
q54_absence_grade Their grade
2 CP2 3 CE1 4 CE2 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 120 
Field Question Answer
5 CM1 
6 CM2 
q54_absence_Id Their unique identifier
q54_absence_Id_confirm Confirm the student's unique 
identifier
q54_absence 
How many days of absence did 
this student accumulate over 
the 2020-2021 school year? 
* Entrer la réponse en jours, pas 
en demi-jours. Par exemple, pour 
5 demi-jours d’absences, 
inscrivez 2.5 (jours). Pour 6 demi￾jours, inscrivez 3 (jours).
q54_absence_sick 
Did this student accumulate 
more than 10 days of absences 
for health reasons or sickness 
over the 2020-2021 school 
year?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
q13b 
Investigator! Ask the principal 
question: "Can you show me 
the records of teacher 
attendance for the 2020-2021
school year?
1 Investigator saw records 
2 Investigator has not seen the records because it does not exist 
3 Investigator has not seen the records but according to the director they exist 
q13b_warning 
Investigator! The information 
contained in the school's 
attendance register is of critical 
importance to our investigation. 
Do not select this option 
without doing everything you 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 121
 
Field Question Answer
can to get this document. 
Please review your answer to 
the previous question. 
Question relevant when: 
${q13b} !=1
q13b_why 
If not, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication 
détaillée.
Question relevant when: 
${q13b} !=1
absences_enseignants 
Number of days of absence of 
teachers from October 2020 to 
June 2021 
Ajoutez un autre groupe de 
répétition pour chaque 
enseignant.<br/><br/>*Clarifier 
que le nom de l
’enseignant ne 
sera pas entré sur la tablette et 
que les informations récoltés sur l’école (incluant les jours d’
absences des enseignants) ne 
seront pas identifiables par école.
Question relevant when: 
${q13b} =1
consent_section > 
- (1) 
Group relevant when: ${q13b} =1 (Repeated group)
q56a 
Number of justified days of 
absence (permission) 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = 
-888; Refuse= 
-999)
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 122 
Field Question Answer
q56b 
Number of days of absence not 
justified 
(Ne sait pas =-777; Non 
applicable = -888; Refuse= -999)
generated_note_name_318 
Let's move now to the reasons 
of student absenteeism. 
Donnez trois raisons principales 
selon l'ordre d'importance
q611 
Select the first main reasons for 
boys' absenteeism
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
7 Cannot eat in the canteen 
8 Other specify 
9 None 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q611_aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q611} ,'8')
q612 
Select the second main reasons 
for boys' absenteeism
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 123 
Field Question Answer
7 Cannot eat in the canteen 
8 Other specify 
9 None 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q612_aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q612} ,'8')
q613 
Select the third main reasons 
for boys' absenteeism 
Question relevant when: 
${q612} !=9
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
7 Cannot eat in the canteen 
8 Other specify 
9 None 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q613_aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q613} ,'8')
generated_note_name_325 
Give the main reasons for 
absenteeism for GIRLS
q621 
Select the first main reasons for 
girls' absenteeism
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 124 
Field Question Answer
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
7 Can not eat in the canteen 
8 Other specify 
q621aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q621} ,'8')
q622 
Select the second main reasons 
for girls' absenteeism
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
7 Cannot eat in the canteen 
8 Other specify 
9 None 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q622aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q622} ,'8')
q623 
Select the third main reasons 
for girls' absenteeism 
Question relevant when: 
${q622} !=9
1 Problem illness / health 
2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Lack of teachers 
6 Socio-cultural beliefs and practices 
7 Cannot eat in the canteen 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 125 
Field Question Answer
8 Other specify 
9 None 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q623aut 
Specify if other 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q623} ,'8')
generated_note_name_332 Give the main reasons for boys 
dropping out of school
q631 
Select the first main reasons for 
boys dropping out
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Difficulties for feeding-self at lunch in school 
8 Other 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q631aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q631} ,'8')
q632 
Select the second main reasons 
for boys dropping out
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 126 
Field Question Answer
7 Difficulties for food at lunch in school 
8 Other 
9 None 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q632aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q632} ,'8')
q633 
Select the third main reasons 
for boys dropping out 
Question relevant when: 
${q632} !=9
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Difficulties for food at lunch in school 
8 Other 
9 None 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q633aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q633} ,'8')
generated_note_name_339 Give the main reasons for girls 
dropping out of school
q641 
Select the first main reasons for 
girls dropping out
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 127 
Field Question Answer
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Early marriage 
8 Pregnancy 
9 Difficulties for food for lunch at school 
10 Other specify 
q641aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q641} ,'10')
q642 
Select the second main reasons 
for girls dropping out
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Early marriage 
8 Pregnancy 
9 Difficulties for food for lunch at school 
10 Other specify 
11 None 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q64a2ut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q642} ,'10')
q643 
Select the third main reasons 
for girls dropping out 
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Pastoral/rural household chores 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 128 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q642} !=11
4 Seasonal work or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Early marriage 
8 Pregnancy 
9 Difficulties for food for lunch at school 
10 Other specify 
11 None 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q643aut 
If other, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${q643} ,'10')
teacher_programme 
Mr. Director, do you have a 
register or notebook / 
document that indicates 
whether each teacher was able 
to complete his teaching 
program last year?
1 Yes 
0 No 
3 Don't know 
-
999 Refuse to reply 
registre_programme 
If yes, can I consult this 
document / notebook / 
register? 
Question relevant when: 
${teacher_programme} =1
1 Enumerator you have consulted the register / notebook / document 
2 Enumerator you were not able to consult the register / notebook / document 
consent_section > termine_programme 
Group relevant when: ${registre_programme} =1
q80 Last year, did the CP1 teacher 
finish his program? 
1 Yes 
0 No 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 129
 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q11b} =1
3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q81 
Last year, did the CP2 teacher 
finish his program? 
Question relevant when: 
${q11c} =1
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q82 
Last year, did the CE1 teacher 
finish his program? 
Question relevant when: 
${q11d} =1
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q83 
Last year, did the CE2 teacher 
finish his program? 
Question relevant when: 
${q11e} =1
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q84 
Last year, did the CM1 teacher 
finish his program? 
Question relevant when: 
${q11f} =1
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
q85 
Last year, did the CM2 teacher 
finish his program? 
Question relevant when: 
${q11g} =1
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 130
 
Field Question Answer -
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section > textbooks
textbook1 When was the last year the 
school received new textbooks?
1 2018 or earlier 2 2019 3 2020 45
2021
Other (specify) 
-
999
Refused 
textbook2 How many books were received 
by grade level?
CP
1 _______
CP
2 _______
CE1 _______
CE2 _______
CM1 ______
CM2_______ -
999
Refused 
textbooks3
Does the school receive 
teachers’ books?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
consent_section > teacher_training
teachtrain1
Do teachers at this school 
receive in
-service training?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 131
 
Field Question Answer -
999 Refuse to reply 
teachtrain2
Have teachers and classes 
been visited by the CPPP?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
teachtrain3
If yes, how many times by grade 
level?
Question relevant when: 
$[teachtrain2]=1
CP
1 _______
CP
2 _______
CE1 _______
CE2 _______
CM1 ______
CM2_______ -
999
Refused 
teachtrain4
Have teachers ever received 
online training?
1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know -
999 Refuse to reply 
teachtrain5
Do teachers like online 
training?
Question relevant when: 
$[teachtrain4]=1
1 Like 2 Neutral 3 Don’t like -
999 Refuse to reply 
obs 
Observations/Comments (if 
nothing, put "RAS") 
*Ne pas lire à l'enquêté
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 132 
Field Question Answer
note5 Thanks for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 133 
Household Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire)
Field Question Answer
enum 
chef Name of Team Lead
enum_name Enumerator name
enum_no Enumerator number
enum_no_conf Confirm your identifier
location 
region Select the region region region 
iep Select IEP iep iep 
ecole Select school ecole ecole 
studentinfo 
grade Select the grade
CP2 CP2 
CE1 CE1 
CE2 CE2 
CM1 CM1 
CM2 CM2 
name 
What is the student's last 
name? 
fname 
What is the student's first 
name? 
correct_sex What is the student's sex? 
1 Male 
2 Female 
uniqueid_filled 
Student's identification 
number. 
uniqueid_refilled 
Re-enter student's 
identification number. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 134 
Field Question Answer
momname What is the student’s 
mother’s name?
household_informations 
q010a Surname of household head
q010b First name of household head
respondent_informations 
q011a Surname of respondent
q011b First name of respondent
q011 Relationship of respondent to 
head of household
1 Household head 
2 Spouse 
3 Son/Daughter 
4 Other relative 
5 Without family relationship 
Intro 
My name is [enum_name]. 
We are conducting a study on 
behalf of the World Food 
Program (WFP) and the 
Ministry of National 
Education (MENET) on the 
sustainability of school 
canteens and the enrolment 
level of children in the Bafing, 
Bagoué, Bounkani, Cavally, 
Gontougo, Poro and Tchologo 
regions. 
Earlier today we collected 
surveys at your child’s school. 
We asked your child a few 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 135 
Field Question Answer
questions related to their 
experience in school and we 
administered a reading 
assessment. Your child’s 
responses will be kept 
confidential and their names
will not be reported. Next, we 
would like to ask you some 
questions about your 
household. We will ask 
questions to the head of the 
household, women in the 
household, and the person 
who prepares the meals in the 
household. The interview will 
take approximately 1h. 
All information collected will 
be kept strictly confidential. 
Participation in this study is 
voluntary and you may refuse 
to answer any or all of the 
questions. We hope, however, 
that you will agree to 
participate in this study as 
your opinion will allow us to 
better appreciate the food 
situation in your department. 
Your answers will in no way 
affect your access to support 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 136 
Field Question Answer
programs. Do you have any 
specific questions?
q012a 
Do we have your permission 
to use your child’s data in our 
study? 
1 Yes 
0 No 
99 Not found 
q012b 
Do you agree to be 
interviewed?
1 Yes 
0 No 
99 Not found 
consent 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
q014 Language of interview
1 French 
2 Traditional language 
q015 Presence of an interpreter
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
consent > demographic_information 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
qs11 Sex of the head of household
1 Male 
2 Female 
qs12 
Age of the head of household 
(age in completed years) 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs13 
Level of education of the head 
of household
1 No level 
2 Primary 
3 Secondary 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 137 
Field Question Answer
4 Superior 
qs14 
Marital status of head of 
household
1 Married or living maritally 
2 Divorced/Separated 
3 Widowed 
4 Single 
HH_members 
Interviewer: Now, you will list 
the household members by 
sex and age group. For each 
age group, please fill in the 
number of males and females 
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
t5 
Total number of household 
members including short￾term migrants (maximum 6 
months) and who intend to 
return for the crop year 
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
consent > members1 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
m1 
Among these members, how 
many boys are between 0 and 
5 years old (5 years included)
f1 
Among these members how 
many girls are between 0 and 
5 years old (5 years included)
total_t1 Total members under 5 years 
old
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 138 
Field Question Answer
t1_note 
Investigator! So the total 
number of members aged 0 to 
5 is [t1]? Confirm with the 
respondent. Otherwise, 
review the numbers above 
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
consent > members2 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
m2 
Among these members, how 
many boys are between 6 to 
14 years old (14 years old 
included)
f2 
Among these members, how 
many girls are between 6 to 
14 years old (including 14 
years old)?
total_t2 Total members aged 6 to 14 
(inclusive)
t2_note 
Investigator! So the total 
number of members aged 6 to 
14 is [t2]? Confirm with the 
respondent. Otherwise, 
review the numbers above 
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
consent > members3 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 139 
Field Question Answer
m3 
Among these members, how 
many men are between 15 to 
59 years old (including 59 
years old)?
f3 
Among these members, how 
many women are between 15 
to 59 years old (including 59 
years old)?
total_t3 Total members aged 15 to 59
t3_note 
Investigator! So the total 
number of members aged 15 
to 59 is [t3]? Confirm with the 
respondent. If not review the 
numbers above 
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
consent > members4 
Group relevant when: ${q012} =1
m4 Among these members, how 
many men are 60 or older?
f4 Among these members, how 
many women are 60 or older?
total_t4 Total members more than 60
generated_note_name_99 
Investigator! So the total 
number of members over 60 
(inclusive) is [t4]? Confirm 
with the respondent. If no, 
review the numbers above 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 140 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: 
${q012} =1
generated_note_name_103 
Investigator! The total 
number of members of this 
household does not match the 
total household size you 
entered at the beginning of 
the list of members 
Question relevant when: 
not( ${t5}_confirmation = 
${t5} )
qs17 
Last school year, about how 
many days of school did 
[newname] miss due to 
illness? 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs112 
How distant is the school of 
[newname] in km? 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs114 Are you aware of the school 
canteen program?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
qs115 
Last school year did 
[newname] eat at the school 
canteen?
1 Yes 
0 No 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 141 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
qs116 
If yes, how often? 
Question relevant when: 
${qs115} =1
1 One day a week 
2 Two days a week 
3 Three days a week 
4 Fours days a week 
5 Every day of the school week 
qs117 
If not why? 
Question relevant when: 
${qs115} =0
1 Payment of 25 CFA Franc 
2
Prefer that children eat at 
home 
3
Children do not like the food 
served at the canteen 
4 Other to explain 
qs117autre 
If other to the previous 
question, please explain 
Question relevant when: 
${qs117} =4
note_section2 
Now we will go to the section 
on household income and 
assets
qs21 
How many people of the 
household currently carry out 
economic activity? 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs22 
Please tell us what are the 
four main sources of income 
for your household. 
1
Production / sale of food 
crops 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 142 
Field Question Answer
Choisissez au maximum 4 
activités! 2 Production / sale of cash 
crops 
3 Fishery / sale of fishing 
products 
4
Production / Sales of market 
gardening products 
5
Cassava processing / Sale of 
steamed ground cassava 
(attiéké) / Cassava paste 
6 Processing / Sale of shea 
butter 
7 Extraction and sale of palm 
oil 
8
Breeding / sale of breeding 
products (milk, eggs, 
poultry) 
9 Hunting / Picking / Sale of 
hunting / picking products 
10 Breeding / Sale of animals 
(cows, goats, sheeps) 
11 Cane-rats’ breeding and sale 
12
Bees’ breeding and sale of 
honey ( beekeeping) 
13 Collection and marketing of 
food products 
14 Purchaser of agricultural 
products (tracker) 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 143 
Field Question Answer
15
Production / Sale of local 
beverage (palm wine, millet 
drink (tchapalo), etc.) 
16 Small business (vendor in 
the stall or street vendor) 
17 Trade (shops) 
18 Businessman / Big retailers 
19 Transporter 
20 Transfer of money (from 
friends, relatives, others) 
21 Food aid (from friends, 
relatives, others) 
22 Food aid (from NGOs or 
United Nations Agencies) 
23 Credit, loan 
24 Daily work with cash 
payment (cash) 
25 Daily work with payment in 
kind (food) 
26 Small trades (mason, 
carpenter, shoemakers, etc.) 
27 Civil servant (including 
retirement pension) 
28
Contract with NGOs or UN 
Agencies 
29 Begging (in kind / food / 
nonfood) 
30 Rentier 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 144 
Field Question Answer
31 Call box manager 
32 Other to specify 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
qs22autre 
If other to the previous 
question, please precise 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${qs22} ,'32')
equipments Now let's go to the equipment 
that your household has
qs26 
Does your household have 
any of the following functional 
productive assets? 
Enqueteur! Attention! Il s'agit 
d'équipements fonctionnels et 
non endommagés!
1 Sewing machine 
2 Mill 
3 Canoe 
4 Bicycle/Bike 
5 Cassava press 
6 Tractor 
7 Seed drill 
8 Car 
9 Grinder/chipper 
10 Crop sprayer 
11 Fishing net 
12 Cultivator 
13 Moped/Motorbike 
14 Cart 
15 Tricycle 
16 Plough 
17 Wheelbarrow 
18 Irrigation system 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 145 
Field Question Answer
19 Other to precise 
20 None 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
qs26autre 
If other productive equipment 
or assets, please specify 
Question relevant when: 
selected( ${qs26} ,'19')
consent > meal_consumption 
consent > meal_consumption > food_consump0 
food_consump0note 
Now to the number of meals 
taken on an ordinary day in 
April 2021 by the household.
qs31a_apr 
Number of meals by children 
under 5 years 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs31b_apr 
Number of meals by adults 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
consent > meal_consumption > food_consump1 
food_consump1note 
Now to the number of meals 
taken yesterday by the 
household.
qs31a Number of meals yesterday 
by children under 5 years 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 146 
Field Question Answer
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs31b 
Number of meals yesterday 
by adults 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
consent > meal_consumption > food_consump2 
food_consump2note 
Now to the number of meals 
usually taken on a typical day. 
* Si confus, expliquer que 
"typique" s'agit d'une journée 
non-fériée ni autrement 
spéciale
qs32a 
For children under 5 years 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs32b 
For adults 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
consent > foods_consumed 
food_consumption 
For each of the following food 
products, you will tell me if 
your household has 
consumed yesterday
qs33 Yesterday, did your household 
eat the following foods ...?
1 Rice 
2 Pasta, bread/cake and/or 
donuts 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 147 
Field Question Answer
3 Other grains: Sorghum, millet, 
maize, fonio 
4
Roots, tubers: Potato, yams, 
cassava, sweet potato, taro 
and / or other tubers 
5 Plantain banana 
6
Legumes / nuts: Beans, 
cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, 
Shoveler, soybeans, pigeon 
peas and / or other nuts 
7
Orange vegetables 
(Vegetables rich in Vitamin 
A): carrot, red pepper etc. 
8
Green leafy vegetables: Okra, 
eggplant, gboman, fiddles, 
amaranth and / or other dark 
green leaves, cassava leaves, 
etc. 
9
Other vegetables: onion, 
tomatoes, cucumber, 
radishes, green beans, peas, 
mushroom etc. 
10
Orange fruits, EXCEPT 
oranges (Fruits rich in Vitamin 
A): mango, papaya, apricot, 
peach 
11 Other fruits: banana, apple, 
lemon, tangerine, orange, etc. 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 148 
Field Question Answer
12
Meat: goat, beef, chicken, 
pork (meat in large quantities 
and not condiment) 
13 Liver, kidney, heart and / or 
other organ meats 
14
Fish / Shellfish: fish, including 
canned tuna, snail, and / or 
other seafood 
15 Eggs 
16
Milk and other dairy products: 
Fresh milk / sour, yogurt, 
cheese and other dairy 
products EXCEPT margarine / 
butter or small amounts of 
milk for tea / coffee 
17
Oil / fat / butter: Vegetable 
oil, palm oil, shea butter, 
margarine, other fats / oil 
18
Sugar or sugar products 
Sugar, honey, jam, cakes, 
candy, cookies, pastries, 
cakes and other sweet 
products (soft drinks) 
19
Condiments/Spices/Alcoholic 
Beverages: Tea, 
coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic, 
spices, yeast/baking powder, 
lanwin, tomato / hot sauce, 
meat or fish as condiments, 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 149 
Field Question Answer
and other condiments 
including small amount of 
milk for tea/coffee. 
consent > frequency_consumed 
generated_note_name_142 
For each of the following food 
products, tell me the number 
of times your household has 
consumed it during the week. 
It means here the total 
number of days of 
consumption during the last 7 
days. 
Notez bien: Il s'agit du nombre 
de jours dans la semaine et pas 
du nombre de fois
qs33b 
Rice 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs34b 
Pasta, bread/cake and/or 
donuts 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs35b 
Other grains: Sorghum, millet, 
maize, fonio 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 150 
Field Question Answer
qs36b 
Roots, tubers: Potato, yams, 
cassava, sweet potato, taro 
and / or other tubers 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs37b 
Plantain banana 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ1
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of
Cereals, grains, roots and 
tubers, such as: (Rice, pasta, 
bread, sorghum, millet, maize, 
fonio, potato, yam, cassava, 
white sweet potato, or 
plantain banana?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs38b 
Legumes / nuts: Beans, 
cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, 
Shoveler, soybeans, pigeon 
peas and / or other nuts 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ2
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of
Legumes / nuts: Beans, 
cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, 
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 151 
Field Question Answer
Shoveler, soybeans, pigeon 
peas and / or other nuts 
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs39b 
Orange vegetables 
(Vegetables rich in Vitamin 
A): carrot, red pepper etc. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
qs311b 
Other vegetables: onion, 
tomatoes, cucumber, 
radishes, green beans, peas, 
mushroom etc. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non applicable=-
888; Refuse de repondre=-999
Princ3
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of
orange vegetables (carrot, red 
pepper, etc or other 
vegetables (onion, tomatoes, 
cucumber, radishes, green 
beans, peas, mushrooms, 
etc.?)
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs310b 
Green leafy vegetables: Okra, 
eggplant, gboman, fiddles, 
amaranth and / or other dark 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 152 
Field Question Answer
green leaves, cassava leaves, 
etc. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ4
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Green 
leafy vegetables: Okra, 
eggplant, gboman, fiddles, 
amaranth and / or other dark 
green leaves, cassava leaves, 
etc.?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs312b 
Orange fruits, EXCEPT 
oranges (Fruits rich in Vitamin 
A): mango, papaya, apricot, 
peach 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ5
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of
Orange fruits, EXCEPT 
oranges (Fruits rich in Vitamin 
A): mango, papaya, apricot, 
peach?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 153 
Field Question Answer
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs313b 
Other fruits: banana, apple, 
lemon, tangerine, orange, etc. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ6
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Other 
fruits: banana, apple, lemon, 
tangerine, orange, etc. ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs314b 
Meat: goat, beef, chicken, 
pork (meat in large quantities 
and not condiment) 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ7
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Meat: 
goat, beef, chicken, pork 
(meat in large quantities and 
not condiment)?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 154 
Field Question Answer
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs314c
Meat / red meat, such as: 
(beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, 
chicken, duck, other birds, 
insects replace with locally 
relevant examples) consumed 
in large quantities and not as 
a condiment?
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ8
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Meat 
/ red meat, such as: (beef, 
pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, 
chicken, duck, other birds, 
insects replace with locally 
relevant examples) consumed 
in large quantities and not as 
a condiment?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs315b 
Liver, kidney, heart and / or 
other organ meats 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 155 
Field Question Answer
Princ9
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Liver, 
kidney, heart and / or other 
organ meats ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs316b 
Fish / Shellfish: fish, including 
canned tuna, snail, and / or 
other seafood 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ10
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Fish / 
Shellfish: fish, including 
canned tuna, snail, and / or 
other seafood ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs317b 
Eggs 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 156 
Field Question Answer
Princ11
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of eggs?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs318b 
Milk and other dairy products: 
Fresh milk / sour, yogurt, 
cheese and other dairy 
products EXCEPT margarine / 
butter or small amounts of 
milk for tea / coffee 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ12
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Milk 
and other dairy products: 
Fresh milk / sour, yogurt, 
cheese and other dairy 
products EXCEPT margarine / 
butter or small amounts of 
milk for tea / coffee?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 157 
Field Question Answer
qs319b 
Oil / fat / butter: Vegetable 
oil, palm oil, shea butter, 
margarine, other fats / oil 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ13
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Oil / 
fat / butter: Vegetable oil, 
palm oil, shea butter, 
margarine, other fats / oil ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs320b 
Sugar or sugar products 
Sugar, honey, jam, cakes, 
candy, cookies, pastries, 
cakes and other sweet 
products (soft drinks) 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ14
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of Sugar 
or sugar products Sugar, 
honey, jam, cakes, candy, 
cookies, pastries, cakes and 
other sweet products (soft 
drinks) ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 158 
Field Question Answer
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs321b 
Condiments/Spices/Alcoholic 
Beverages: Tea, 
coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic, 
spices, yeast/baking powder, 
lanwin, tomato / hot sauce, 
meat or fish as condiments, 
and other condiments 
including small amount of 
milk for tea/coffee. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-999
Princ15
During the past 7 days, what 
was the main source of 
Condiments/Spices/Alcoholic 
Beverages: Tea, 
coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic, 
spices, yeast/baking powder, 
lanwin, tomato / hot sauce, 
meat or fish as condiments, 
and other condiments 
including small amount of 
milk for tea/coffee. ?
1 = Own production (harvests, breeding)
2 = Fishing / Hunting
3 = Picking
4 = Loans
5 = Market (purchase with cash)
6 = Market (purchase on credit)
7 = Begging
8 = Barter labor or goods for food
9 = Donations (food) from family members 
or friends
10 = Food aid from civil society, NGOs, 
government, WFP, etc.
qs43 
What is the main source of 
water for your household?
1 SODECI tap 
2 Hydrant 
3 Well 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 159 
Field Question Answer
4 River, pond 
5 Other specify 
qs43autre 
If another source, please 
specify 
Question relevant when: 
${qs43} =5
qs46 
What is the type of sanitary 
installation in your 
household?
1 Flush toilets 
2 Improved latrine 
3 Cesspool 
4 Bush 
5 Other specify 
qs46autre 
Specify if Other 
Question relevant when: 
${qs46} =5
consent > resilience 
resilience 
Last 7 days, how often he has 
the household had to use the 
following strategies to get 
food? (to suggest)
qs511 Consuming less preferred 
foods for cheaper
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 160 
Field Question Answer
qs512 Depend on aid from relatives 
or friends
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs513 Buying food on credit
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs514 Eating wild foods / Culturally 
not allowed
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs515 
Decrease the amount of food 
during meals
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 161 
Field Question Answer
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs516 Consuming seeds
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs517 Begging for food or money to 
buy food
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs518 
Send household members to 
eat elsewhere or to live with 
relatives or friends
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 162 
Field Question Answer
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs519 
Reduced quantities 
consumed by adult / parent 
for the benefit of young 
children
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5110 
Reduce the number of meals 
per day (skipping one or two 
meals in the day)
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5111 Spend 1 or more days without 
eating
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 163 
Field Question Answer
qs5112 
Have the children work / take 
the children out of school
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5113
Sell non-productive 
household assets/goods 
(radio, furniture, refrigerator, 
television, jewelry, etc.)
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5114 Sell more (non-productive) 
animals than usual
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5115 Spend savings
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 164 
Field Question Answer
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5116 Borrowed money/food from a 
formal lender/bank
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5117
Reduced essential non-food 
expenses such as education, 
health (including drugs)
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5118 Sell the house or land
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 165 
Field Question Answer
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
qs5119 Sell the last female animals
0 Never 
1 1 day 
2 2 days 
3 3 days 
4 4 days 
5 5 days 
6 6 days 
7 7 days 
q61 Do you have books at home?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
q62 
Not including textbooks, do 
you have children's books or 
books to stories at home? 
Question relevant when: 
${q61} =1
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q63 
Do you or someone in your 
household read the child's 
book has [newname]?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
q64 
In a typical week during the 
2020-2021 school year, how 
many times per week did you 
or someone else in your 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 166 
Field Question Answer
household read children's 
books [newname]? 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non 
applicable=-888; Refuse de 
repondre=-1017
observation 
Observations/comments on 
this survey. 
S'il n'y a aucune observation/ 
commentaire , écrivez "RAS" 
(Rien à Signaler)
note5 Thanks for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 167 
Canteen Manager Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire)
Field Question Answer
enum 
chef Name of Team Lead
enum_name Enumerator name
enum_no Enumerator number
enum_no_confirm Confirm the enumerator's number
location 
region Select the region region region 
iep Select IEP iep iep 
ecole Select school ecole ecole 
participation 
note1 
My name is [enum_name]. 
We are conducting a study on behalf of the World Food Program 
(WFP) and the Ministry of National Education on the 
sustainability of school canteens and the enrolment level of 
children in the Bafing, Bagoué, Bounkani, Cavally, Gontougo, Poro 
and Tchologo regions. We would like to ask you some questions 
about you, the school canteen, and the school canteen 
management committee. The interview will take approximately 
1h. 
All information collected will be kept strictly confidential. 
Participation in this study is voluntary and you may refuse to 
answer any or all of the questions. We hope, however, that you 
will agree to participate in this study as your opinion will allow us 
to better appreciate the food situation in your department. Your 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 168 
Field Question Answer
answers will in no way affect your access to support programs. 
Do you have any specific questions?
consent Do you consent to this survey?
1 Yes 
0 No 
canteen_management 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
note2 Great! Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the 
management of the school canteen… 
sex 
What sex are you? 
*Demandez seulement si c'est nécessaire
1 Male 
2 Female 
999 Refused 
q11 Is there a school canteen management committee? 
*Peut aussi s'appeler COGES Cantine
1 Yes 
0 No 
999 Refused/don't know 
q12_size The committee is composed of how many people?
q12g How many men are in the committee? 
Question relevant when: ${q11} =1
q12f How many women are in the committee? 
Question relevant when: ${q11} =1
note_comitee 
The total does not match the number of people entered at the 
beginning. Please review. 
Question relevant when: ${tot_comittee} != ${q12_size}
q13 Have the members of the committee been trained?
1 No member 
2 A part of the members of the committee 
3 All the members of the committee 
999 Refused/don't know 
q14 In what areas have they been trained? 1 Food Stock Management 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 169 
Field Question Answer
*Ne pas suggerer ou lire les réponses
Question relevant when: ${q13} !=1 and ${q13} !=-999
2 Health and hygiene 
3 Nutrition 
4 Safe food preparation 
5 Other (specify) 
999 Refused/don't know 
q14aut Other (specify) 
Question relevant when: selected( ${q14} , 5)
Have you been trained?
1 Yes 
0 No 
999 Refused/don't know 
If so, what areas have you been trained on?
1 Food Stock Management 
2 Health and hygiene 
3 Nutrition 
4 Safe food preparation 
5 Other (specify) 
999 Refused/don't know 
Other (specify) 
Question relevant when: selected( ${q14} , 5)
Who conducted the training?
q15 Can you identify good health and hygiene practices? 
*Ne pas suggerer ou lire les réponses
1 Dry one’s hands by rubbing them against each other or using a clean 
appropriate towel 
2 Have hand nails short and clean and with a bandage in case of injury 
3 Wash one’s hands with soap and clean water (including after using the toilet) 
4 Do not cough or blow your nose near food or water 
5 Do not dry one’s hands on clothes or serve the meals with the hands 
6 Immediately interrupt the work in case of disease (diarrhea, vomiting, boil, 
wound, ulceration on the exposed parts of the skin) and inform the colleagues 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 170 
Field Question Answer
7 Buy fresh milk, meat and fish the day of consumption and keep them cool 
and covered 
8 Keep food in a clean place out of reach of animals, insects, rodents and other 
pest 
9 Have a regulatory handwashing station and keep the latrines clean 
10 Use water adduction and water pump 
11 Keep drinking water in a clean and covered container 
12 In case of lack of drinking water, boil the water for 15 minutes and disinfect 
it with bleach 
13 Have clean clothes, clean and well-covered hair 
14 Regularly cut the grass that grows around the canteen buildings and prune 
the surrounding trees 
15
Collect the waste in an adapted trash can and keep it at least 5-10 meters 
from the canteen. Place the waste in a pit at least 20 meters from the kitchen 
and from the water supply 
16 Clean dishes immediately after eating with soap and water, rinse with clean 
water and dry 
17 Burn garbage in pits or cover with sand and soil 
999 Refused/don't know 
q16 Can you identify good food storage practices? 
*Ne pas suggerer ou lire les réponses
1 Secure food against theft, fire and accidents at work 
2 Ensure that there are no rodents or insects on a regular basis. In case of 
presence, take measures to destroy these pests 
3 Handle products with care to avoid damage 
4 When stacking, allow required space for ventilation and circulation 
5 Stack products on pallets by separating food from non-food and hazardous 
products 
6 Keep the warehouse and stocks clean and in good condition 
7 Have enough space and prepare it before receiving food 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 171 
Field Question Answer
8 Make regular inventories to check the quantities of products and take the 
necessary corrective measures in case of discrepancies 
9 Limit losses by timely reconditioning damaged food 
10 Make management reports and update documents whenever stocks are 
moved 
11 Move stocks only if authorized by the empowered person 
12 Apply the FIFO method for a good rotation of food taking into account the 
condition of food and the best before use date 
999 Refused/don't know 
q17 Can you identify safe food preparation practices? 
*Ne pas suggerer ou lire les réponses
1 Maintain surfaces used to prepare food clean 
2 Wash vegetables, fruits and ingredients with potable water 
3 Meat, fish and giblets must be well cooked 
4 Follow the food preparation steps 
5 Never mix raw and prepared food 
6 Never store meals in order to warm them and consume them the next day 
7 Serve warm daily meals 
999 Refused/don't know 
note3 Thanks! Now, I would like to ask you a few questions on the 
students and equipment of the canteen…
q21 Is there a management book? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.
1 Yes, enumerator saw the book 
2 Enumerator did not see management book, it does not exist 
3 Enumerator did not see student management book, although it exists according 
to school canteen manager 
q21_warning 
Investigator! The information contained in the management book 
is of critical importance to our investigation. Do not select this 
option without doing everything you can to get this document. 
Please review your answer to the previous question. 
Question relevant when: ${q21} !=1
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 172 
Field Question Answer
q21_why 
If not, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication détaillée.
Question relevant when: ${q21} !=1
avoir_canteen 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1 and ${q21} =1
q22_canteen 
What is the total number of planned ration recipients (I say 
planned!) for the month of March 2021 of distribution of the 
canteen? 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
q22_canteen_planned 
Do you have any idea of the number of boy and girl ration 
recipients that was planned? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.
1 Yes 
0 No 
999 Refused/don't know 
q22_canteen_planned_why 
If no, why? 
*Veuillez donner une explication détaillée pourquoi le gestionnaire de la 
cantine n'a pas ces informations dans son cahier de gestion ou autre 
part.
Question relevant when: ${q22_canteen_planned} !=1
avoir_canteen > canteen_plan 
Group relevant when: ${q22_canteen_planned} =1
q22f 
What was the planned number of girls for March 2021 of school 
meals’ distribution at the school canteen? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible. <br/>Ne 
sait pas= -777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
q22g 
What was the planned number of boys for March 2021 of school 
meals’ distribution at the school canteen? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.<br/>Ne 
sait pas= -777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
q23_canteen 
What is the total number of students who actually ate at the 
canteen during the month of March 2021? 
Ne sait pas= -777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 173 
Field Question Answer
q23f 
What is the number of girls who effectively ate at the canteen in 
March 2021? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.<br/>Ne 
sait pas= -777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
Question relevant when: ${q21} =1
q23g 
What is the number of boys who effectively ate at the canteen in 
March 2021? 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.<br/>Ne 
sait pas= -777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
Question relevant when: ${q21} =1
avoir_canteen_2 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
q24 Are you provided with enough food preparation equipment?
1 Not at all 
2 Little 
3 Enough 
4 Very 
999 Refused/don't know 
q25 Are you provided with enough food storage equipment?
1 Not at all 
2 Little 
3 Enough 
4 Very 
999 Refused/don't know 
securitee_alimentaire 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1 and ${q21} =1
note4 
Thanks! Now, I would like to ask you a few questions on the diet 
diversity of the students, as indicated in your management book 
for the month of March 2021… 
*L’enquêteur devrait consulter le cahier de gestion si possible.
q31 What was the number of school days in March 2021? 
February 2022| Final
 Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire
 (2015
-2021)
 174
 
Field Question Answer
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32 What was the number of actual canteen days in March 20
21? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32a How many days did the canteen serve cereals? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32b How many days did the canteen serve tubers / roots? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32c How many days did the canteen serve pulses and nuts? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32d How many days did the canteen serve dairy products? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32e How many days did the canteen serve meat, fish, or giblets? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32f How many days did the canteen serve eggs? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32g How many days did the canteen serve orange vegetables? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32h 
How many days did the canteen serve dark green leafy 
vegetables? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32i 
How many days did the canteen serve orange fruits (not including 
oranges)? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q32j 
How many days did the canteen serve other fruits and 
vegetables? 
Ne sait pas=
-777; Non applicable= 
-888; Refuse de repondre= 
-999
q33 
What was the number of school days in March 20
21 during which 
hot meals served to students contained at least four food groups? 
The food groups considered are 1) cereals, tubers, and root 
vegetables, 2) legumes and nuts, 3) dairy products, 4) meat, fish, 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 175 
Field Question Answer
and offal, 5) eggs, 6) high vitamin A fruit and vegetables (orange 
fruit [save oranges], orange vegetables, and dark green leafy 
vegetables), and 7) other fruit and vegetables. 
Ne sait pas=-777; Non applicable= -888; Refuse de repondre= -999
q34_why 
You have chosen "do not know", "not applicable" or "Refused to 
answer" to one of the previous questions. Why ? 
*Veuillez donner une explication détaillée pourquoi le gestionnaire de la 
cantine n'a pas ces informations dans son cahier de gestion ou autre 
part.
Question relevant when: ${q31} <0 or ${q32} <0 or ${q32a} <0 
or ${q32b} <0 or ${q32c} <0 or ${q32d} <0 or ${q32e} <0 or 
${q32f} <0 or ${q32g} <0 or ${q32h} <0 or ${q32i} <0 or ${q32j} 
<0 or ${q33} <0
Train1
Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on 
children’s nutrition? 
*Choisir seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
999 Refused 
Train2 When did you attend this training?
Question relevant when: $[train1]=1
1
2
3
4
2019
2020
2021
Other (specify)
999 Refused 
Train3
Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on 
hygiene and sanitation measures? 
*Choisir seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
999 Refused 
Train4 When did you attend this training?
Question relevant when: $[train3]=1
1
2
3
2019
2020
2021
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 176 
Field Question Answer
4 Other (specify)
999 Refused 
Wash1 Do you use handwashing stations at school? 
0 - No
1 - Yes
2 - There are no handwashing stations at school
Wash2 If “No”, Why not?
Select all that apply. 
1 - Soap not available
2 - Wash basins not clean
3 - Mixed with students of opposite gender
4 - Out of order
5 - Crowded
6 - Little water
7 - Far from class rooms
8 - Too high to reach
9 - Other, specify 
Wash3 At what moments do you wash your hands?
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
1 - Before eating 
2 - After eating
3 - After defecation
4 - After playing games
5 - After throwing out the garbage or cleaning
6 - After coming home from school or market
7 - After feeding or caring for animals
8 - After cleaning/wiping baby brother or sister 
9 - Before preparing food
10 - Other, specify
Wash4 Describe how you wash your hands.
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
1 - Washes hands in a bowl of water (sharing with other people) — poor practise
2 - With someone pouring a little clean water from a jug onto one’s hands —
appropriate practise
3 - Under running water — appropriate practise
4 - Washes hands with soap or ashes
5 - Other, specify
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 177 
Field Question Answer
Wash5
Why is it important to wash hands?
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
If they say “because they are dirty” probe – why what is wrong 
with dirty hands?
1 - Prevents from getting sick
3 - Cleans hands/removes dirt
4 - Is good hygiene
5 - Prevents dirt from getting into mouth
6 - Prevents dirt from getting into food
7 - Removes germs
12 - Smells good
13 - Looks/feels clean 
14 - Other, specify
88 - DK
Wash6 Where do you get water for cooking at school?
Select all that apply.
1 - Pond, lake
2 - Dam
3 - Stream/river
4 - Unprotected spring
5 - Protected spring
6 - Well
7 - Borehole
8 - Water tank
9 - Roof catchment
10 - Other, specify
Wash7 Where do you get your water for drinking at school? 
Select all that apply.
1 - They give us boiled water
2 - They give us unboiled water
3 - Piped water
4 - Tank
5 - Well
5 - Other, specify
end 
obs Observations/Comments (if nothing, put "RAS") 
*Ne pas lire à l'enquêté
note5 Thanks for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 178 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 179 
Teacher Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire)
Field Question Answer
enum 
chef Name of Team Lead
enum_name Enumerator name
enum_no Enumerator number
enum_no_conf Confirm your indentifier
location 
region Select the region region region 
iep Select IEP iep iep 
ecole Select school ecole ecole 
participation 
note1 
Dear Teacher : 
We are conducting a study on behalf of the World Food 
Programme (WFP) and the Ministry of National Education 
(MENET) on the sustainability of the school canteens and the 
enrollment level of children in the Bafing, Bagoué, Bounkani, 
Cavally, Gontougo, Poro and Tchologo regions. We would like 
school teachers who teach elementary grades to take part in this 
interview. We would like to ask you questions about your 
background, training, and students. 
This interview approximately lasts approximately 30 minutes. The 
information that you will provide is strictly confidential and will not 
be disclosed to any other person for any reason whatsoever. 
Participation is voluntary, however we hope that you will 
participate in this interview because your points of view will allow 
us to better appreciate the food and teaching situation in your 
region. Your answers will in no way affect you or your school’s 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 180 
Field Question Answer
access to the food or teaching aid programs. Do you have any 
specific questions? Can we start now?
consent Do you accept participation in this survey?
1 Yes 
0 No 
personal_info 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
note2 Excellent! Now I would like to ask a few questions about you…
sex 
What sex are you? 
*Demandez seulement si c'est nécessaire
1 Male 
2 Female 
-
999
Refused 
teacher_cat Are you a title holding, volunteer or trainee teacher?
1 Title Holder 
2 Volunteer 
3 Trainee/intern 
exp1 
How many years have you worked as a teacher? 
*Clarifier dans n’importe quelle école <br/>*Si juste commencé, 
marquer 0. Si a commencé l’an dernier, marquer 1, etc. <br/>* Si le 
répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif d’années
exp2 
How many years have you been assigned to this school? 
*Si juste commencé, marquer 0. Si a commencé l’an dernier, marquer 1, 
etc. <br/>* Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un 
nombre approximatif d’années
Question relevant when: ${exp1} >0
class 
What class did you teach during the last school year? 
* Sélectionner tout ce qui s’applique<br/>* Si ils n’ont pas enseigné 
dans cette école particulière l’an dernier, leur demander à propos de leur 
ancienne école
Question relevant when: ${exp1} >0
1 CP1 
2 CP2 
3 CE1 
4 CE2 
5 CM1 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 181 
Field Question Answer
6 CM2 
8 School Principal 
7 Other 
-
999
Refused 
other_class Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${class} , '7')
training_and_knowledge 
Group relevant when: selected( ${class} , '1') or selected( ${class} , '2') or selected( ${class} , '3') or selected( ${class} , '4') or selected( ${class} , '5') or selected( ${class} , '6')
note3 Thank you! Now, I would like to ask a few questions on the type 
of training and professional development you have received.
train1 
Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI on the 
improvement of teaching-learning of reading-writing? 
*Choisir seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
train1a What kept you from participating in it? 
Question relevant when: ${train1} =0
1 Disease 
2 Permission 
3 Absence 
4 Other training 
5 Distant to training site 
6 Conditions of cost reimbursement 
7 Other (specify) 
other_train1a Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${train1a} ,'7')
train2 When did you attend an AVSI training? 
Question relevant when: ${train1} =1
1 2018 or earlier
2 2019
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 182 
Field Question Answer
3 2020
4
5
2021
Other (specify) 
-
999
Refused 
other_train2 Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${train2} ,'4')
train3 
On average, how many days did you attend AVSI’s training? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
Question relevant when: ${train1} =1
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
4 4 
5 More than 4 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
train4 
Was the AVSI training useful in your teaching work last year? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
Question relevant when: ${train1} =1
1 Not useful 
2 Useful 
3 Very useful 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
train5 
Did you put into practice the learnings of training you received 
from AVSI in your class last year? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
Question relevant when: ${train1} =1
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
train5a 
If yes, at what frequency? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
Question relevant when: ${train5} =1
1 Rarely 
2 Often 
3 Always 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 183 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused 
train6 
Apart from AVSI, did you receive any other training on teaching 
reading-writing from another organization over the last two years?
* Sélectionner seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
Train7
Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP and 
school canteen management on children’s nutrition? 
*Choisir seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
Train8 When did you attend this training?
Question relevant when: $[train7]=1
1
2
3
4
2019
2020
2021
Other (specify)
-999 Refused 
Train9
Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on 
hygiene and sanitation measures? 
*Choisir seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
Train10 When did you attend this training?
Question relevant when: $[train9]=1
1
2
3
4
2019
2020
2021
Other (specify)
-999 Refused 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 184 
Field Question Answer
Wash1 Do you use handwashing stations at school?
0 - No
1 - Yes
2 – There are no handwashing stations at school
Wash2
If “No:, why not ?
Select all that apply. 
1 - Soap not available
2 - Wash basins not clean
3 - Mixed with students of opposite gender
4 - Out of order
5 - Crowded
6 - Little water
7 - Far from class rooms
8 - Too high to reach
9 - Other, specify 
Wash3 At what moments do you wash your hands?
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
1 - Before eating 
2 - After eating
3 - After defecation
4 - After playing games
5 - After throwing out the garbage or cleaning
6 - After coming home from school or market
7 - After feeding or caring for animals
8 - After cleaning/wiping baby brother or sister 
9 - Before preparing food
10 - Other, specify
Wash4 Describe how you wash your hands.
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
1 - Washes hands in a bowl of water (sharing with other people) — poor practise
2 - With someone pouring a little clean water from a jug onto one’s hands —
appropriate practise
3 - Under running water — appropriate practise
4 - Washes hands with soap or ashes
5 - Other, specify
Wash5 Why is it important to wash hands?
Select all that apply. Do not read responses.
1 - Prevents from getting sick
3 - Cleans hands/removes dirt
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 185 
Field Question Answer
If they say “because they are dirty” probe – why? what is wrong 
with dirty hands?
4 - Is good hygiene
5 - Prevents dirt from getting into mouth
6 - Prevents dirt from getting into food
7 - Removes germs
12 - Smells good
13 - Looks/feels clean 
14 - Other, specify
88 - DK
Wash6 Where do you get water for cooking at school?
Select all that apply.
1 - Pond, lake
2 - Dam
3 - Stream/river
4 - Unprotected spring
5 - Protected spring
6 - Well
7 - Borehole
8 - Water tank
9 - Roof catchment
10 - Other, specify
Wash7 Where do you get your water for drinking from at school? 
Select all that apply.
1 - They give us boiled water
2 - They give us unboiled water
3 - Piped water
4 - Tank
5 - Well
6 - Other, specify
tools 
What tools and materials on teaching-learning of reading-writing 
did you use at your school? 
* Ne pas lire les options de réponse<br/>* Sélectionner tout ce qui s’
applique
0 None 
1 Mobile library 
2 Reading boards 
3 Illustrated boards 
4 Junior dictionaries 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 186 
Field Question Answer
5 Records for Material Management 
6 Sculpted plastic letters 
7 Megaphone 
8 Other (specify) 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
other_tools Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${tools} ,'8')
tools2 
At what frequency do you use the tools and materials for the 
teaching-learning of reading-writing? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
Question relevant when: ${tools} !=0 or ${tools} !=-999
1 Rarely 
2 Often 
3 Always 
-
999
Refused 
assess 
Last year, did you use the assessment tool “General Grid for 
Student Performance Evaluation” to progressively evaluate your 
students? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
ped1 
Last year, did a pedagogical advisor visit your classroom and 
provide an assessment of your techniques in reading-writing? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
ped2 How many times did a pedagogical advisor visit last year? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
0 0 
1 1 
2 2 
3 3 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 187 
Field Question Answer
4 More than 3 times 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
read1 
Last year, did you and the teachers at your school organize any 
reading activities for your students? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option; *Cela inclu l'animation-lecture, la 
promotion de la lecture, les concours de lecture, etc.)
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
read2 
What reading activities did your school organize? 
*Ne pas lire les options de réponse <br/>*Sélectionner tout ce qui s’
applique
Question relevant when: ${read1} =1
1 Animation reading 
2 Reading promotion activities
3 Reading competition 
4 Other (specify) 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
other_read2 Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${read2} , '4')
meet1 
Last year, have you participated in any meetings with other 
teachers to share experiences and discuss reading activities? 
* Sélectionner seulement une option
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
meet2 
How many times? 
*Réponse numérique
Question relevant when: ${meet1} =1
presence_and_participation 
Group relevant when: selected( ${class} , '1') or selected( ${class} , '2') or selected( ${class} , '3') or selected( ${class} , '4') or selected( ${class} , '5') or selected( ${class} , '6')
note4 Thanks! My last series of questions is on the presence et 
participation of students… 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 188 
Field Question Answer
attend1 
Last year, how many students were enrolled in your class? 
* Réponse numérique<br/>* Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager 
le/la de donner un nombre approximatif d’élèves<br/>*Si l’enseignant 
enseigne les deux classes, encourager le/la de donner un nombre total 
d’élèves
attend2 
On a typical day last year, how many students were present in 
your class? 
*Réponse numérique<br/>* Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager 
le/la de donner un nombre approximatif d’élèves<br/>* Si l’enseignant 
enseigne les deux classes, encourager le/la de donner un nombre total 
d’élèves
part1_f 
On a typical day last year, among 10 girl students, how many paid 
attention and participated during your lesson? 
*Sélectionner un chiffre de 0-10.
part1_m 
On a typical day last year, among 10 boy students, how many paid 
attention and participated during your lesson? 
*Sélectionner un chiffre de 0-10.
part2 On a typical day last year, did boys and girls participate equally in 
class activities?
1 Boys participate more 
2 Girls participate more 
3 Both girls and boys participate equally 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
attend3 Last year, what difficulties did you encounter which kept you from 
holding your class?
0 None 
1 Sickness 
2 Travel to disburse salary 
3 Administrative procedures 
4 Social events 
5 Obligatory trainings / meetings 
6 Other 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 189 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused 
other_attend3 Other: Specify 
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '6')
attendance 
Group relevant when: selected( ${class} , '1') or selected( ${class} , '2') or selected( ${class} , '3') or selected( ${class} , '4') or selected( ${class} , '5') or selected( ${class} , '6')
attend3_a 
How many school days did you lose because of sickness? 
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '1')
attend3_b 
How many school days did you lose because of travel to disburse 
salary? 
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '2')
attend3_c 
How many school days did you lose because of administrative 
procedures? 
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '3')
attend3_d 
How many school days did you lose because of social events? 
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '4')
attend3_e 
How many school days did you lose because of mandatory 
trainings / meetings ? 
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '5')
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 190 
Field Question Answer
attend3_f 
How many school days did you lose for other reasons? At the start 
of the school year or on the eve of holidays or eve of composition?
*Si le répondant ne sait pas, encourager le/la de donner un nombre 
approximatif de jours. Autrement, insérer -99
Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '6')
language 
Group relevant when: selected( ${class} , '1') or selected( ${class} , '2') or selected( ${class} , '3') or selected( ${class} , '4') or selected( ${class} , '5') or selected( ${class} , '6')
language Last year, did you teach part of your class in your students' native 
language?
1 Yes 
0 No 
2 Don't know 
-
999
Refused 
program 
Group relevant when: selected( ${class} , '1') or selected( ${class} , '2') or selected( ${class} , '3') or selected( ${class} , '4') or selected( ${class} , '5') or selected( ${class} , '6')
& ${exp2]>0
consulter_programme Investigator! Ask the teacher to show you his or her program from
last year to see if he or she has completed his / her program
1 Enumerator, you were able to consult the teacher's program 
2 Enumerator, you were not able to consult the teacher's program 
raisons_consulter If not why? 
Question relevant when: ${consulter_programme} =2
fini_programme Did the teacher finished his or her program last year?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
fini_programme_raisons If the teacher could not complete his program, ask why 
Question relevant when: ${fini_programme} =0
Textbook1 Does the state give you textbooks?
1 Yes 
0 No 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 191 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused 
Textbook2 If so, is the amount they provide sufficient?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
Textbook3 Do you know how often textbooks are distributed in your school?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
Textbook4 If so, how often?
Question relevant when: $[Textbook3]=1
1 Every year
2 Every two years
3 Every three years
4 Never
-
999
Refused 
Textbook5 How many students in your class this year have access to 
textbooks?
0 No students
1 A few students
2 The majority of students
3 All students
-
999
Refused 
Textbook6 How many students in your class last year had access to 
textbooks? 
0 No students
1 A few students
2 The majority of students
3 All students
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 192 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused 
Textbook7 Who are old textbooks given to?
1 Parents
2 The state
3 Private donors
4 Other, specify
-
999
Refused 
Textbook8 What are you doing to teach in the classroom?
Question relevant when: $[Textbook5]!=3
Read What do you think negatively affects children’s reading skills in 
your classroom?
1 Student absenteeism
2 Lack of textbooks
3 Non-functioning school canteens
4 Teaching in French rather than the local language
5 Lack of follow-up from school authorities
6 Lack of suitable pedagogy
7 Lack of follow-up from parents
8 Other, specify
-999 Refused 
Training Do you benefit from regular training organized by the Ministry of 
Education?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
Training2 Would you like to benefit from continuous training?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 193 
Field Question Answer
Training3 Would you like to benefit from continuing education online?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused 
end 
obs Observations/Comments (if nothing, put "RAS") 
*Ne pas lire à l'enquêté
note5 Thank you for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 194 
Student Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire)
Field Question Answer
enum 
chef Name of Team Lead
enum_name Enumerator name
enum_no Enumerator number
enum_no_conf Confirm your identifier
location 
region Select the region region region 
iep Select IEP iep iep 
ecole Select school ecole ecole 
studentinfo 
grade Select the grade
CP1 CP1
CP2 CP2 
CE1 CE1 
CE2 CE2 
CM1 CM1 
CM2 CM2 
name What is the student's last name? 
fname What is the student's first name? 
uniqueid_filled Student's identification number. 
uniqueid_refilled Re-enter student's identification number. 
Momname What is the students’ mother’s name?
confirm Is this information correct?
1 Yes 
0 No 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 195 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
correct_confirm 
Which information is incorrect? 
*Si la classe de l’élève est différente que la classe notée sur votre fiche d’école, veuillez 
confirmer avec le directeur la classe de l’élève
Question relevant when: ${confirm} =0
1 The name of the student 
2 The gender of the student 
3 The grade of the student 
correction 
Group relevant when: ${confirm} =0
correct_firstname 
Write the correct first name of the student 
Question relevant when: selected( ${correct_confirm} , 1)
correct_lastname 
Write the correct last name of the student 
Question relevant when: selected( ${correct_confirm} , 1)
correct_sex What is the student's gender? 
Question relevant when: selected( ${correct_confirm} , 2)
1 Male 
2 Female 
correct_grade 
What is the student's grade? 
*Si la classe de l’élève est différente que la classe notée sur votre fiche d’école, veuillez 
confirmer avec le directeur la classe de l’élève
Question relevant when: selected( ${correct_confirm} , 3)
CP1 CP1
CP2 CP2 
CE1 CE1 
CE2 CE2 
CM1 CM1 
CM2 CM2 
consent_section 
note1 
My name is [enum_name], and we are conducting a study on behalf of the World 
Food Program (WFP) and the Ministry of National Education. 
I am here asking some questions from children like you to evaluate the level of 
reading of students of all levels in the Bafing, Bagoué, Bounkani, Cavally, 
Gontougo, Poro and Tchologo regions. Nothing you say here will be repeated to 
your parents or teacher and will be kept a secret. I want you to answer honestly 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 196 
Field Question Answer
and as best as you can. Do you have any questions for me? You can interrupt 
me to ask a question at any time. 
Also, if you don't know the answer to a question or don't want to answer it, just 
let me know and we can skip it. Participation in this study is voluntary and you 
may refuse to answer any or all of the questions. We hope, however, that you 
will agree to participate in this study as your opinion will allow us to better 
understand reading levels in your region. Your answers will in no way affect your 
access to support programs.
consent Do you accept if I ask you some questions?
1 Yes 
0 No 
student_survey 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
note2 Thanks a lot! I would now like some information about you…
l1a What is your last name?
l1b What are your first names?
l2 Select the sex of the student. 
*demander seulement si nécessaire.
1 Male 
2 Female 
l4 In which class are you?
1 CP1 
2 CP2 
3 CE1 
4 CE2 
5 CM1 
6 CM2 
l3 How old are you? 
*en années révolues.
l4_time In what class were you when you started studying at this school?
1 CP1 
2 CP2 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 197 
Field Question Answer
3 CE1 
4 CE2 
5 CM1 
6 CM2 
l9 Do you like reading?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l5 Does your family have books at home?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l6 Do you have books for kids at home other than school books?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l7 Do you read with someone/your parents at home?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l8 Do you read alone at home?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l12 Last year, did you like how the teacher taught in the class?
1 Yes 
0 No 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 198 
Field Question Answer
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l13 Last year, could you talk to your teacher about the reading-writing lessons you 
did not understand?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l14 Last year, did you participate in reading activities organized by the school or by 
the teacher outside the classroom?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l15 Did you have school textbooks for French or reading-writing last year?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l16 Last year, did you have access to the following reading materials at school?
0 None 
1 Mobile library 
2 Reading board 
3 Illustrated boards (pagne / didactic bache) 
4 Junior dictionaries 
5 Sculpted plastic letters 
l17 If not why ? 
Question relevant when: ${l16} =0
1 We do not have the right to use the material 
2 We do not have the equipment 
3 We do not have time to use the material 
4 Other 
-
999 Refused / do not know 
l17_aut Other (specify) 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 199 
Field Question Answer
Question relevant when: selected( ${l17} , '4')
l18_pre In class, do you sit on a table-bench?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999 Refused/don't know 
l18 
Last year, including you, how many people were sitting on the table-bench with 
you? (How many of you were on the same table-bench?)
Question relevant when: ${l18_pre} =1
l19 Were you prevented from going to school last year?
0 Never 
1 Sometimes 
2 Almost all the time 
l19_reasons If yes, for what reason mainly? 
Question relevant when: ${l19} =1 or ${l19} =2
1 Health problems / disability 
2 Personal security 
3 Household farm work 
4 Seasonal jobs or housework 
5 Distance to school 
6 School fees 
7 Early marriage 
8 Pregnancy 
9 Difficulty eating lunch at school 
10 Other to specify 
l19_reasons_others If Other reason, specify. 
Question relevant when: ${l19_reasons} =10
l20 Last year, did you arrive and find that you could not (could) have class because 
of the absence of your teacher?
0 Never 
1 Sometimes 
2 Almost all the time 
l21 Last year, did it happen that you did not eat in the canteen? 1 Yes 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 200 
Field Question Answer
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l22 
For what reasons? 
Question relevant when: ${l21} =1
0 No canteen 
1 Lack of money (25 FCFA) 
2 No food served 
3 Sick student 
4 Absence of the pupil 
5 Other 
l22_autre If Other reason, specify. 
Question relevant when: ${l22} =5
l23 Do you have a textbook?
1 Yes 
0 No 
-
999
Refused/don't know 
l24 Who gave you the textbook?
Question relevant when: ${l23}=1
1 The teacher
2 Another adult at the school
-
999
Refused /don’t know
l24_autre If other, specify
Question relevant when: ${l24}=2
reading_assessment 
Group relevant when: ${consent} =1
note3 Here is the last series of questions! I would like to play a little game with you…
*appliquer l'evaluation ASER
l10 After assessment, indicate the corresponding reading level of the student 
*ne pas lire a l'élève.
0 0 
1 A 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 201 
Field Question Answer
2 B 
3 C 
4 D 
5 E 
6 F 
7 G 
8 H 
9 I 
10 J 
11 K 
l11a Observations/Comments (if nothing, put "RAS") 
*ne pas lire a l'élève.
note4 Thanks for your time!
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 202 
Annex 7. Fieldwork Agenda 
Days/dates Team member Locations/sites Stakeholders
October 20, October 25
Adaptation Workshop / 
ASER Tool Validation 
Michaela 
Gulemetova
DPFC (MENA)
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Representatives from WFP, AVSI 
and MENA 
November 6-19 
Enumerator Training
Michaela 
Gulemetova
Hannah Ring 
Sonet-CI
Sonet-CI
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Sonet-CI enumerators, 
representatives from AVSI and 
WFP
November 15-
December 10 
Data Collection
Sonet-CI Poro, Bagoué, Tchologo, 
Bounkani, Gontougo, 
Bafing, and Cavally, Côte 
d’Ivoire
Schools; Parents; Teachers; 
Students; School management 
committees; Women’s 
agricultural groups 
November 15-19
Focus groups for 
Stakeholder Analysis
Hannah Ring; 
Anna Warren; 
and Sonet-CI
WFP Office and Remote
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire 
Representatives from WFP, 
including program 
coordination/business support; 
nutrition, market access/ 
resilience/ livelihoods; national 
programs; M&E; education; 
accounting; and supply chain 
November 30–
December 8
Interviews and focus 
groups for Stakeholder 
Analysis 
Sonet-CI DCS (MENA) and 
Remote
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire
Representatives from DCS, 
DPFC, ANADER, AVSI, CRESAC, 
and other impelementing 
partners
December 15
Interview
Hannah Ring; 
Anna Warren
Remote USDA Côte d’Ivoire Program 
Officer
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 203 
Annex 8. McGovern-Dole Indicators 
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE MIDLINE ENDLINE 
McGovern-Dole 
SO1
Literacy Learning 
of school 
children is 
improved
Proportion of children who, at the 
end of two years of primary school, 
demonstrate that they can read and 
understand the meaning of the 
school grade text (boys).
CP1= 5%
CP2=16%
CE1=25%
CE2=11%
CM1=8%
CM2=8%
CP1= 44%
CP2=40%
CE1=51%
CE2=46%
CM1=30%
CP1=15% 
CP2=25% 
CE1=18% 
CE2=12% 
CM1=14% 
Proportion of children who, at the 
end of two years of primary school, 
demonstrate that they can read and 
understand the meaning of the 
school grade text (girls).
CP1= 4%
CP2=13%
CE1=19%
CE2=11%
CM1=6%
CM2=7%
CP1= 47%
CP2=36%
CE1=46%
CE2=27%
CM1=17%
CP1=20% 
CP2=25% 
CE1=33% 
CE2=17% 
CM1=18% 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions (new). 
0 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions (old).
0 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions (men).
0 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions (women).
0 
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions. 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1
Improved quality 
of literacy 
instruction of 
school children
Number of teachers in target 
schools demonstrating the use of 
new techniques or quality teaching 
tools as a result of USDA assistance.
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1.1
More consistent 
teacher 
attendance 
Proportion of teachers in target 
schools who attend and teach at 
school regularly (at least 90% of 
school days) per school year.
94.2% 94.4% 93.4% 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 204 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1.2
Better access to 
school supplies 
and materials 
Number of textbooks and other 
teaching and learning materials 
provided with USDA assistance.
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1.3
Improved access 
to learning 
materials for 
reading 
Number of target schools in which 
school children have additional 
reading materials with USDA 
support. 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1.4
Increased skills 
and knowledge 
of teachers 
Number of teachers / teachers’
aides in targeted schools 
demonstrating the use of new and 
good techniques or teaching tools 
(per type, per gender).
0 
Number of teachers / teachers’
aides trained or certified as a result 
of USDA assistance (per type, per 
sex).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.1.5
Increased skills 
and knowledge 
of school 
administrators 
Number of targeted school 
administrators demonstrating new 
and good techniques or teaching 
tools (per type, per gender).
0 
Number of leaders trained or 
certified as a result of USDA 
assistance (by gender). 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.2
Improved school 
children 
attentiveness
Proportion of school children 
identified as being attentive in class 
by their teachers (per sex, per 
class).
Girls = 78%
Boys = 78%
Girls = 68%
Boys = 67%
Girls = 64% 
Boys = 62% 
McGovern-Dole 
1.2.1
Reduced short￾term hunger 
Number of school lunches 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) offered to 
school children following USDA 
assistance.
0 
Proportion of school children in 
targeted schools who ate a meal 
regularly before or during the 
school day (per gender).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.2.1.1 /1.3.1.1
Increased access 
to school feeding
Number of take-home rations 
provided as a result of USDA 
assistance.
0 
Number of girls having received 
take-home rations as a result of 
USDA assistance.
0 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 205 
Number of girls having received 
take-home rations as a result of 
USDA assistance (new).
0 
Number of girls having received 
take-home rations as a result of 
USDA assistance (continue). 
0 
Number of school children receiving 
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (girls).
0 
Number of school children receiving 
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (boys).
0 
Number of school children receiving 
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (new).
0 
Number of school children receiving 
daily school meals (breakfast, snack, 
lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance (continue).
0 
Number of daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
schoolchildren following USDA 
assistance.
0 
Proportion of households with 
acceptable food consumption per 
sex of the household head. 
Female = 
96.2%
Male = 96.3%
Female = 
83.9%
Male = 90.0%
Female = 
70.5% 
Male = 70.6% 
Coping strategy index (average) per 
sex of the household head. 
Female = 4.1
Male = 2.9
Female = 5.4
Male = 4.4
Female = 5.7 
Male = 5.2 
Dietary diversity score per sex of 
the household. 
Female = 5.8
Male = 6
Female = 5.0
Male = 5.1
Female = 4.1
Male = 4.5
Number of social safety net 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets operations as 
a result of USDA assistance 
(ongoing).
0 
Number of social safety net 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets operations as 
a result of USDA assistance (new). 
0 
Number of social safety net 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets operations as 
a result of USDA assistance (men).
0 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 206 
Number of social safety net 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets operations as 
a result of USDA assistance 
(women).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.3
Improved
Student 
attendance 
Proportion of students regularly 
(80%) attending classes / schools 
supported by USDA (boys).
98% 100% 99.8% 
Proportion of student regularly 
(80%) attending classes / schools 
supported by USDA (girls).
98.3% 100% 100%
McGovern-Dole 
1.3.1
Increased 
Economic and 
Cultural 
Incentives (Or 
Decreased 
Disincentives)
Number of girls receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance (new).
0 
Number of girls receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance (ongoing). 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.3.2
Reduced Health 
Related
Absences
Proportion of school children who 
miss more than 10 days of school 
per year due to illness (boys).
2% 2.9% 4.4% 
Proportion of school children who 
miss more than 10 days of school 
per year due to illness (girls).
1.7% 2.8% 1.7% 
McGovern-Dole 
1.3.4
Increased 
Student 
Enrollment 
Number of school children enrolled 
in schools receiving USDA 
assistance (boys).
0 
Number of school children enrolled 
in schools receiving USDA 
assistance (girls).
0 
Gender Ratio in elementary school. 0.85 0.99 1.09
McGovern-Dole 
1.3.5
Increased 
Community 
Understanding 
of Benefits of 
Education
Number of members of 
management committees and 
members of women production 
groups sensitized on the 
importance of education. 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.3 
Increased 
government 
support
Value of Public and Private 
Investments creating a leverage 
effect due to USDA Assistance (Host 
Government).
0 
Annual increase rate of the budget 
allocated by the Government to the 
Directorate of School Canteens.
0 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 207 
Number of policies in the child 
health and nutrition sectors, 
regulations, and administrative 
procedures, by level of 
development, due to USDA support 
(per stage).
0 
Number of education sector 
policies, regulations, and 
administrative procedures, by level 
of development, due to USDA 
assistance (per stage).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.4
Increased 
Engagement of 
Local 
Organizations 
and Community 
Groups
Number of parent-teacher 
associations or similar "school" 
governance structures supported as 
a result of USDA assistance.
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships put in place as a result 
of USDA assistance (nutrition).
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships put in place as a result 
of USDA assistance (education).
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships put in place as a result 
of USDA assistance (health).
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships put in place as a result 
of USDA assistance (multi sectoral).
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships put in place as a result 
of USDA assistance (other).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
SO2
Increased Use of 
Health and 
Dietary Practices 
Proportion of school-aged children 
receiving a minimum acceptable 
diet (boys).
47% 83% 67%
Proportion of school-aged children 
receiving a minimum acceptable 
diet (girls).
47% 83% 67%
McGovern-Dole 
2.1
Improved 
Knowledge of 
Health and 
Hygiene 
Practices
Proportion of School Management 
Committee members and canteen 
management staff who can identify 
at least three health and hygiene 
practices (men).
89.6% 88% 85%
Proportion of School Management 
Committee members and canteen 
management staff who can identify 
at least three health and hygiene 
practices (women).
89.6% 88% 80%
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 208 
McGovern-Dole 
2.2
Increased 
Knowledge of 
Safe Food 
Preparation and 
Storage Practices
Proportion of school management 
committee members and canteen 
management staff who can identify 
at least three safe food preparation 
and storage practices.
76% good 
food storage 
practice
72% good 
food 
preparation 
practices
83% good 
food storage 
practice
82% good 
food 
preparation 
practices
82% good
food storage
practice
66% good
food
preparation
practices
McGovern-Dole 
2.3
Increased 
Knowledge of 
Nutrition 
Number of individuals receiving 
training in child health and nutrition 
as a result of USDA assistance 
(men).
0 
Number of individuals receiving 
training in child health and nutrition 
as a result of USDA assistance 
(women).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
2.5
Access to 
Preventative 
Health 
Interventions 
Number of school children who 
received deworming.
Number of school children who 
received deworming (boys).
Number of school children who 
received deworming (girls).
Proportion of schools using an 
improved water source.
50% have a 
water point 
32% have an 
improved 
water source
47% have a 
water point 
32% have an 
improved 
water source
68% have a 
water point 
46% have an
improved
water source
Proportion of schools with 
improved sanitation facilities. 
54% 59% 70%
McGovern-Dole 
2.6
Increased Access 
to Requisite Food 
Prep and Storage 
Tools and 
Equipment
Number of targeted schools with 
access to improved food 
preparation and storage 
equipment. 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.1 /2.7.1
Increased 
Capacity of 
Government 
Institutions
Number of government staff 
trained in food management, 
monitoring and evaluation. 
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.2 /2.7.2
Improved Policy 
and regulatory 
framework
Number of policies, regulations, 
and/or administrative procedures in 
the child health and nutrition 
sectors in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 1).
0 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 209 
Number of child health and 
nutrition policies, regulations, 
and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA 
assistance (stage 2).
0 
Number of child health and 
nutrition policies, regulations, 
and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA 
assistance (stage 5).
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.3
Increased 
government 
support
Value of Public and Private 
Investments creating a leverage 
effect due to USDA Assistance (Host 
Government).
0 
Annual increase rate of the budget 
allocated by the Government to the 
Directorate of School Canteens.
0 
McGovern-Dole 
1.4.4
Increased 
Engagement of 
Local of Local 
Organizations 
and Community 
Group
Number of parent-teacher 
associations or similar "school" 
governance structures supported as 
a result of USDA assistance. 
0 
Number of public-private 
partnerships set up as a result of 
USDA assistance (women 
production groups).
0 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 210 
Annex 9. Recommendations Mapping
Recommendation Conclusions Findings (by section) 
Recommendation 1: Clearly 
differentiate between canteen 
meals that are supported by WFP 
and those that are supported by 
community contributions, 
including tracking both for M&E 
purposes.
Conclusion 1 (Canteen 
performance)
2.2.1 To what extent have the 
outputs and outcomes been 
achieved (are they likely to be 
achieved)? What are the factors 
that have influenced the 
achievement or not? 
Conclusion 4 (WPG experience 
and performance)
2.5.3 How can groups of farmers 
contribute to the supply of the 
canteens, and is there any 
evidence that their contribution 
will continue after the project 
ends?
Recommendation 2: Consider the 
potential unintended 
consequences of gender-specific 
interventions and supports, such 
as providing take-home rations to 
girls only.
Conclusion 2 (Student 
experience and performance)
2.3.4 How efficient is targeting? 
2.4.2 Are there any unintended 
effects (negative and/or positive) 
on beneficiaries? What have been 
the gender-specific impacts, in 
particular with regard to the 
education of girls and 
empowerment of women in the 
program delivery? What are the 
main drivers of positive impacts? 
2.5.4 Did the intervention change 
gender relations in the medium to 
long term?
Recommendation 3: Provide 
tailored support to WPGs based on 
their specific needs. For example, 
different groups require different 
productive inputs and equipment, 
different types of training, and so 
forth.
Conclusion 4 (WPG experience 
and performance)
2.2.1 To what extent have the 
outputs and outcomes been 
achieved (are they likely to be 
achieved)? What are the factors 
that have influenced the 
achievement or not?
Recommendation 4: Work with 
WPGs to track their crop yields, 
production, and profitability 
margin more closely.
Conclusion 4 (WPG experience 
and performance)
2.5.3 How can groups of farmers 
contribute to the supply of the 
canteens, and is there any 
evidence that their contribution 
will continue after the project 
ends?
Recommendation 5: Work with 
MENA to reinforce teacher 
Conclusion 3 (Teacher 
experience and performance)
2.2.1 To what extent have the 
outputs and outcomes been 
achieved (are they likely to be 
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 211 
professional development and 
supports, including through more 
active involvement of the 
pedagogical advisors.
achieved)? What are the factors 
that have influenced the 
achievement or not?
Recommendation 6: Consider 
potential synergies with programs 
such as PAPSE which are working 
towards similar objectives in some 
of the same areas McGovern-Dole
is operating.
Conclusion 4 (Teacher 
experience and performance)
2.1.7 To what extent was WFP’s 
intervention consistent with the 
policies and programs of other 
partners operating in the same 
context?
2.3.5 What are the external and 
internal factors influencing 
efficiency?
Recommendation 7: Work with 
MENA to determine the feasibility 
of assessing early reading skills in 
L1 (mother tongue) rather than 
French in schools where teachers 
are teaching early reading in L1.
Conclusion 2 (Student 
experience and performance)
2.2.1 To what extent have the 
outputs and outcomes been 
achieved (are they likely to be 
achieved)? What are the factors 
that have influenced the 
achievement or not?
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 212 
Annex 10. Bibliography 
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. & Kremer, M. 2008. Using randomization in development economics research: A 
toolkit. In T. Schultz & J. Strauss, Eds., Handbook of development economics. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: North 
Holland. Accessed here: https://economics.mit.edu/files/806
French, R. J., & Kingdon, G. 2010. The relative effectiveness of private and government schools in Rural 
India: Evidence from ASER data. London: Institute of Education.
Hammerstein, S., König, C., Dreisörner, T., & Frey, A. 2021. Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on 
Student Achievement-A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. 
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289
MENA. Rapport d’analyse statistique. Système Educatif Ivoirien 2020. Impact de la politique de 
scolarisation obligatoire sure le système éducatif https://www.men￾dpes.org/static/docs/annuels/rap_ana_20192020.pdf
Nakamura, P., & De Hoop, T. 2014. Facilitating Reading Acquisition in Multilingual Environments in India 
(FRAME-India). Final Report. American Institutes for Research.
Pflepsen, A., Benson, C., Chabbott, C., & van Ginkel, A. 2015. Planning for language use in education: 
best practices and practical steps to improve learning outcomes. Washington, DC: USAID Africa Bureau.
Picchioni, F., Goulao, L. F., & Roberfroid, D. 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on diet quality, food security and 
nutrition in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of the evidence. Clinical Nutrition. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.08.015
USAID. 2019. Reading MATTERS Conceptual Framework. Office of Education Brief. 
https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/sites/default/files/media/file/Reading%20MATTERS%20Conceptual
%20Framework_v7_October%2026%20%281%29_final.pdf
February 2022| Final Evaluation Report: MGD Program in Côte d’Ivoire (2015-2021) 213 
Annex 11. Acronyms
AIR American Institutes for Research
ANADER Agency for Support to Rural Development
ASER Annual Status of Education Report
BFCD Bureau of Training and Consulting for Development
COGES School Management Committees
CRESAC Regional Center of Evaluation in Education, Environment, Health, and Accreditation in Africa
DCS Directorate of School Canteens
DID Difference-in-differences
DPFC Direction of Pedagogy and Continuing Education
DREN Regional Direction of National Education
DSRP Strategy Document for Reducing Poverty
EG Evaluation Manager
FGD Focus group discussion
KII Key informant interview
MENA Ministry of National Education and Literacy
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEV Office of Evaluation
PAPSE Education Service Delivery Enhancement Project
TOR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USDA United Stated Department of Agriculture
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
WFP World Food Program
WPG Women’s Production Group
 
World Food Program Côte d’Ivoire
https://www.wfp.org/countries/cote-divoire
World Food Programme
Via Cesare Giulio Viola 68/70 
00148 Rome, Italy 
T +39 06 65131 wfp.org