f Baseline evaluation of the second phase (2021–2026) of the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Cote d’Ivoire March 2022 WFP EVALUATION WFP Cote d’Ivoire Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2020 Project Duration: 2021–2026 March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) Key personnel for the evaluation WFP CÔTE D’IVOIRE Evaluation Manager Koné Seydou PREPARED BY AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH Michaela Gulemetova, Team Lead Hannah Ring, Qualitative Lead Mitchell Morey, Quantitative Lead Adam Taube, Quantitative Associate Andi Coombes, Qualitative Associate Anna Warren, Qualitative Associate March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the World Food Program (WFP) Country Office in Côte d'Ivoire and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for their financial support. The authors would also like to thank the Steering Committee and the Technical Committee of the project, 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 Programme or USDA. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP or USDA of the opinions expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP or USDA concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) i Contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... iii Context...................................................................................................................................................iii Evaluation Features..............................................................................................................................iii Methodology .........................................................................................................................................iv Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ v 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Evaluation features ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Context ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Subject of the evaluation ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Subject of the baseline, results framework, activities and intended outputs and outcomes............................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Evaluation questions and evaluation criteria............................................................................ 8 3 Evaluation approach and methodology for baseline data collection.................................. 12 3.1. Evaluation approach and methodology................................................................................... 12 3.2. Baseline data collection methods and tools ........................................................................... 16 3.3. Data analysis................................................................................................................................ 18 3.4. Limitations.................................................................................................................................... 19 3.5. Quality assurance of the baseline data collection.................................................................. 20 3.6. Ethical considerations................................................................................................................. 21 4 Baseline findings and discussion............................................................................................. 23 4.1. Baseline benchmarks ................................................................................................................. 23 4.2. Relevance ..................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.1. To what extent is the intervention design in line with the needs and priorities of the government, the targeted population, including vulnerable groups—women, girls, boys, and men? ................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.2. Is the intervention aligned with the policies and priorities of WFP, partners, and UN agencies? ............................................................................................................................................ 38 4.2.3. To what extent have the program design and objectives considered the social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental context and equity?...................................... 38 4.2.4. To what extent has the intervention design taken gender into account? ...................... 39 4.2.5. What are the synergies between this intervention and other WFP interventions?....... 39 4.2.6. To what extent is WFP’s intervention consistent with the policies and programs of other partners operating in the same context?............................................................................ 40 March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) ii 4.2.7. To what extent are the intervention design and implementation consistent with humanitarian principles? ................................................................................................................. 41 4.3. Sustainability................................................................................................................................ 41 4.3.1. To what extent has the intervention design considered sustainability, such as building the capacity of national and local government institutions, communities, and partners? .... 41 5 Conclusions and lessons learned............................................................................................. 43 5.1. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 43 5.2. Lessons learned .......................................................................................................................... 44 Annex 1. Summary terms of reference...................................................................................... 46 Annex 2. Baseline evaluation timeline ...................................................................................... 47 Annex 3. Performance indicators and results framework ...................................................... 49 Annex 4. DID methodology.......................................................................................................... 55 Annex 5. Equivalence results ...................................................................................................... 57 Treatment-Comparison Equivalence ............................................................................................... 57 Child/Parent-level Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 57 School-level Outcomes..................................................................................................................... 65 New-Old Treatment Equivalence ..................................................................................................... 70 Child/Parent-level Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 70 School-level Outcomes..................................................................................................................... 77 Canteen-level Outcomes.................................................................................................................. 83 Teacher-level Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 87 Annex 6. List of people interviewed........................................................................................... 91 Annex 7. Data collection tools .................................................................................................... 93 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW: USDA STAFF .............................................................................................. 93 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: WFP............................................................................................................ 95 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW: GOVERNMENT, PARTNERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ............................ 98 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: PARENTS................................................................................................... 101 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE........................................................ 103 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION: WOMEN’S AGRICULTURAL GROUP ............................................................ 105 Annex 8. Confidentiality agreement and ethical pledge ....................................................... 188 Annex 9. Bibliography................................................................................................................ 189 Annex 10. Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 190 March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) iii Executive summary 1 The American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a baseline evaluation of the second phase of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) Program (2021-2026) implemented by the World Food Program (WFP)/AVSI/Government of Côte d’Ivoire. This evaluation was commissioned by the WFP office in Côte d’Ivoire for the purposes of accountability and learning. The evaluation’s objectives are to 1) establish benchmarks against which future evaluations will assess the program’s effectiveness, efficiency, and impact, 2) assess the relevance and sustainability of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire for Phase II (2021-2026), and 3) conduct equivalence tests to determine the impact study validity. The evaluation was conducted concurrently with the endline evaluation of Phase I of the program. This report presents the baseline 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 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 implemented 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 2016 to 2021 (Phase I) and from 2021 to 2026 (Phase II). The program activities for the second phase are organized around four components: food distribution, health and nutrition, literacy, and capacity building. 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 meals they provide to schools and building local capacity to take over. EVALUATION FEATURES 4 The subject of the evaluation at hand is the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire, covering all seven regions of implementation (Poro, Bagoue, Tchologo, Bounkani, Gontougo, Bafing, and Cavally). The WFP Country Office, together with its implementing partners AVSI and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, aim to improve literacy of school age children and increase the use of health and dietary practices. While these overarching strategic objectives have not changed for Phase II, the results framework has been revised and adapted to reflect the shift in focus of the planned activities for the second phase. This shift in focus particularly aims to prepare for the end of McGovern-Dole program funding after Phase 2 by building up the Ivoirian government and local communities to sustain the school feeding program. 5 The program outputs and outcomes include improved literacy instruction quality, attentiveness, and student attendance; increased knowledge of health and hygiene, safe food prep, and nutrition; increased access to clean water and sanitation, preventative health interventions, and requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment; as well as the creation and maintenance of school gardens. These outputs and outcomes are expected to occur at the level of students, schools, and school staff. Importantly, the program includes an emphasis on gender equality, which is mainstreamed throughout the activities in mind of students, group members, and staff. 6 The program activities are intended for various beneficiaries at the primary school level including students in CP1 through CM2 (grades 1 through 6), teachers, directors, school canteen staff, March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) iv members of school management committees (COGES), members of women’s production groups (WPGs), and households. The WFP and its partners will select school level beneficiaries from the same 613 schools which participated in the first phase of the program. 7 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 ANADER, United Nations country team, Steering Committee, Technical Committee, Directorate of School Canteens (DCS), AVSI, the USDA, and other stakeholders. These stakeholders will utilize the baseline evaluation findings to inform decision making for Phase II of the McGovern-Dole program and the subsequent evaluation to assess the impact of the McGovern-Dole program and determine the needs going forward. The program implementers can also use the baseline benchmarks and criteria in the program monitoring going forward. By enabling more informed programming, the evaluation ultimately aims to benefit the targeted schoolchildren and communities. METHODOLOGY 8 AIR employed a mixed-methods approach for this baseline evaluation, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the relevance and sustainability of the McGovern-Dole program, as well as to establish baseline values for future evaluations. A mixed-methods approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of how the program works, and it enables the evaluators to delve more deeply into understanding the mechanisms of observed changes. The evaluation included both treatment schools (that receive McGovern-Dole program) and comparison schools (that have similar characteristics but do not receive McGovern-Dole program) in all seven regions of implementation to compare the outcomes and determine which are attributable to the program. During November-December 2021, the enumerators conducted surveys and student assessments with a total of 398 teachers, 120 school administrators, 84 canteen managers and 1,187 students and households. The qualitative component of the baseline evaluation included focus group discussions (FGDs) with male and female parents, COGES members, and WPG members at five schools, as well as FGDs and key informant interviews (KIIs) with the WFP, government, partners, and other program stakeholders. The team has 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. LIMITATIONS 9 While the AIR team took steps to mitigate the risks to the study validity, several factors were not avoidable. These include 1) the fact that the comparison schools were selected using school lists from 5 years ago before the roll out of the first phase of the program, 2) the length of the qualitative protocols, and 3) conducting the endline evaluation for Phase I and baseline evaluation of Phase II simultaneously. The team considered these limitations by 1) testing whether the comparison schools still represent a valid comparison group for the evaluation of the second phase of the program, 2) prioritizing the most important questions and in the case of the WFP focus groups, asking different questions to different groups, and 3) asking respondents to try to differentiate between the two phases in their responses. Key Findings 10 Baseline benchmarks. There is substantial variation in school enrolment across the seven regions but almost everywhere school enrolment drops off sharply for CM2 (or grade 6). Girls comprise slightly more than half of the school population with an average of 1.09 girls per boy in treatment schools. School records show that students only missed approximately 1.4 days of school and only 2 percent of children missed more than 10 days of school over the previous academic year due to illness. Children’s reading proficiency remains low across all grades and across all regions. Only 22.7 percent demonstrated proficiency at their grade level. Boys appear to score lower than girls in reading proficiency rates. March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) v 11 Most (89%) children reported having access to reading materials such as mobile libraries, reading boards, or illustrated boards in the classroom. Teachers generally utilized the reading materials when they were available to them. There were high rates of teacher presence, especially according to the records held by school principals (89% of them reported that teacher attendance was greater than 90 percent). Less than two-thirds of teachers (62%) received training from AVSI with large regional variations. 12 With the USDA McGovern-Dole support, the school canteens operated robustly, covering 88 percent of days that the school was open. Majority of canteen managers demonstrated knowledge in food preparation, food storage, and health and hygiene practices. However, school canteens often failed to provide sufficiently nutritious food to meet the minimum acceptable dietary requirements, as they only provided sufficiently nutritious meals on 66 percent of school days. Furthermore, a sizable proportion of households reported concerning levels of food insecurity indicators, with significant regional differences. In fact, 30 percent of households had a borderline or poor food consumption score. 13 Three-quarters of schools have suitable water and sanitations facilities available. Roughly 35 percent of teachers and 51 percent of canteen managers reported they have received hygiene training from AVSI. While almost all teachers and canteen managers reported that they use a handwashing station at their school, both teachers and canteen managers displayed a low understanding of hygiene practices when asked when and how a person should wash their hands. 14 Relevance. The second phase of the McGovern-Dole program continues to be 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 and School Canteen Management Strategy. 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. Because many respondents spoke about the needs for improved latrines and water points at schools and the negative effects of the take-home rations on boys’ enrolment, the addition of water, sanitation, and hygiene components and the removal of the take-home rations in Phase II also aligns well with community needs. 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. 15 Sustainability. Despite a plan in place for the sustainability of the program beyond Phase II, stakeholders emphasized the need for political leadership in terms of alignment and planning, especially regarding funding ongoing activities. Although the roadmap included in the transition plan identifies priority actions and actors for each element of the transition, respondents in the study echoed the importance of the challenges listed, indicating the need to establish more concrete steps to accomplish the priority actions laid out in the plan. In particular, local level respondents were less convinced about the ability to sustain the program, describing ongoing financial and training needs of the WPGs and citing a deficit of the political will that would be necessary to take them forward. CONCLUSIONS 16 As is, the McGovern-Dole program is highly relevant to beneficiary needs and aligned with government efforts in education and nutrition in Côte d’Ivoire. Respondents believed that providing school meals is an effective way to improve student attendance and articulated a great need for the WASH support in schools. School attendance rates are high for students and teachers, but student reading proficiency is low across all regions and grade levels. Most students reported having access to reading materials, although less than two-thirds of teachers reported having received training from AVSI. Communities are very committed to supporting schools through the COGES and WPGs. However, these community members face ongoing challenges such as financial and resource constraints. During the second phase of the program, program implementers will deploy significant March 2022 | Baseline Evaluation Report: McGovern-Dole Program in Cote d’Ivoire (2021–2026) vi efforts to ensure successful handover of program activities to government institutions and local communities. These sustainability efforts will be a subject of future evaluations. March 2022 1 1 Introduction 1 The American Institutes for Research (AIR)1 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 Food for Education and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) program in Côte d’Ivoire. The terms of reference (TOR) for the two evaluations are provided in Annex 1. Following AIR’s selection for the evaluation, AIR has communicated with the WFP about the direction of the evaluation and reviewed relevant program documents to prepare for the final approval of the work plan with the Evaluation Reference Group. AIR has engaged in regular meetings and ongoing communication with the WFP to inform the evaluation. This report serves to describe the research, present the findings, and offer conclusions from the baseline evaluation of the second phase. 1.1. EVALUATION FEATURES 2 The baseline evaluation of Phase II of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire is commissioned by the WFP Country Office in Côte d'Ivoire. The baseline evaluation for Phase II was conducted concurrently with the endline evaluation of Phase I, drawing on the same data set and indicators. The baseline evaluation at hand provides program benchmarks for the period from 2021 to 2026. The data collection, analysis, reporting, and dissemination for this evaluation took place from November 2021 to February 2022, with fieldwork taking place in November and December 2021. Figure 1 shows the evaluation timeline and more details are presented in Annex 2. Figure 2. Evaluation timeline for the McGovern-Dole school feeding program in Côte d’Ivoire 3 The evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach, comprised of surveys of students, teachers, school administrators, canteen managers, and households as well as interviews and focus groups with program implementers, parents, and local community groups. The methodology will allow for analysis over time, particularly considering differences in outcomes between treatment and comparison schools as the program activities are implemented. 4 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, Bagoue, 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. 5 The main components of the second phase of the program are: 1) providing school meals to primary school students; 2) distributing deworming tablets and micronutrients, 3) improving student literacy education; 4) training canteen management staff in the use of good health and food practices; 5) delivering water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) elements to schools; and 6) capacity building (both technical and financial) of agricultural groups to contribute production to the school canteens of their villages or communities. These components correspond with those in the first phase, expect that the provision of take-home rations for girls is replaced with WASH activities. The combination of program activities, which are implemented with support from local women’s production groups (WPGs) and school management committees (COGES), ultimately aim to improve literacy of school-aged children and build local capacity for nutrition support. 1 Initially, the baseline evaluation was awarded to IMPAQ International, a subsidiary of AIR. As of January 1, 2022, the two entities are fully integrated. March 2022 2 6 The two main objectives of the baseline evaluation are for accountability and for learning purposes: 7 Accountability. The baseline evaluation allows reporting to the national authorities of Côte d'Ivoire, donors, and partners, on the relevance and sustainability of the school feeding program so that implementers can make any necessary changes to the program going forward. By establishing benchmarks for future evaluations and monitoring, the baseline also creates a pathway for ongoing accountability in the future. 8 Learning. The evaluation draws lessons and good practices to inform operational and strategic decisions. Specifically, the baseline evaluation of the second phase will make it possible to establish baseline benchmarks on program indicators, all of which will be useful for assessing program effectiveness, efficiency, and impact during subsequent evaluations of the program. 9 The purpose of this report is to fulfil the accountability and learning objectives by assessing the relevance and sustainability of the second phase of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire and offering actionable steps for program improvement. 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, Ministry of National Education and Literacy (MENA), Ministry of Agriculture and 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. 10 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. 1.2. CONTEXT 11 Since the end of the post-electoral crisis of 2010, the economic recovery of Côte d'Ivoire has been notable, with 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. 12 One area with the notable progress has been 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. Figure 3. Class of CP2 Source: AIR March 2022 3 13 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 population of more than 26 million inhabitants (Source: World Bank, 2020), Côte d’Ivoire has an economy with over 40 percent 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, gender disparities, and gaps among income groups and 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).2 14 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; Bagoue 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, 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). 3 15 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).4 These northern regions have a more arid climate than the lusher southern regions that are more disposed for agricultural production (EROS USGS). 5 16 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 by identified the following challenges that will need to be addressed to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2 in Côte d'Ivoire: 17 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 such as a lack of coherence of programs promoting food security; lack of recognition of the role of small producers when formulating trade and budgetary policies; and insufficient collection, analysis, and use of data to identify vulnerable people. 18 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. 19 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 more nutritious, perishable foods (Picchioni, 2 https://www.gouv.ci/doc/DSRP_FINAL%20RCI_Def.pdf 3 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264257108-7- en.pdf?expires=1633447928&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=E0E88531B06990FC32ECF037C517769A 4 https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/cote-divoire/social-situation-48426 5 https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-land-cover-and-trends-cote-divoire March 2022 4 Goulao, & Roberfroid, 2021), while school closures globally led to learning loss among students (Hammerstain et al., 2021). 20 Social protection. The resources invested in social protection that take 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). 6 21 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 face the problem of midday hunger because their schools are located several kilometres from their family home. The adequate and complete response to this important problem required a school canteens policy. 22 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).7 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. 23 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. 24 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 6 https://data.unwomen.org/country/cote-divoire 7 https://www.bmz.de/en/countries/cote-divoire/social-situation-48426 Figure 4. School kitchen and storage Source: AIR March 2022 5 Nations Development Program, developed the strategy for the National School Feeding Program for the period 2012–2017. The priority areas of the intervention were defined through an analysis based on a composite indicator of food insecurity, the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, school enrolment 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, Bagoue, Tchologo, Bafing), priority 2 (Worodougou, Bere) and priority 3 (Gontougo and Bounkani). 25 From September 2013 to December 2016, WFP implemented a development project entitled: "Support for the Integrated Program for Sustainable School Feeding." 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. 26 Currently, 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. 27 To continue supporting the school feeding program in Côte d'Ivoire, WFP has mobilized McGovern-Dole funds from USDA. WFP has mobilized additional funds through LDS Charities and the Louis Dreyfus Foundation 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. March 2022 6 2 Subject of the evaluation 28 This section summarizes the subject of the evaluation. 2.1. SUBJECT OF THE BASELINE, RESULTS FRAMEWORK, ACTIVITIES AND INTENDED OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES 29 The subject of the baseline evaluation is the second phase of the WFP’s McGovern-Dole school feeding program in Côte d’Ivoire. In 2015, USDA awarded 35.7 million US dollars to the WFP to support the school canteens program in Poro, Bagoue, Tchologo, Bounkani, Gontougo, Bafing and Cavally between 2015 and 2021. These priority regions were selected based on levels of food insecurity, prevalence of chronic malnutrition, school attendance rates, and poverty rates. The funding provided school meals for 125,000 students from 613 rural primary schools. The USDA awarded WFP an additional 25 million US dollars in 2020 for the second phase of the program targeting an additional 125,000 students across the same 613 primary schools between 2021 and 2026. The program considers the needs of women and girls across all areas of the program but does not target other vulnerable populations within the targeted schools and communities. 30 The WFP Country Office, together with its implementing partners AVSI and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, aim to improve literacy of school age children (McGovern-Dole Strategic Objective 1) and increase the use of health and dietary practices (McGovern-Dole Strategic Objective 2). While these overarching strategic objectives have not changed for Phase II, the results framework has been revised and adapted to reflect a shift in focus of the planned activities for the second phase. Specifically, the program is no longer providing take-home rations to girls and is adding the WASH component, which could have potential implications for beneficiaries based on gender. The updated results framework clearly links the planned activities to expected outputs and outcomes in the goal to achieve the program’s objectives. The program outputs and outcomes include improved literacy instruction quality, attentiveness, and student attendance; increased knowledge of health and hygiene, safe food prep, and nutrition; and increased access to clean water and sanitation, preventative health interventions, and requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment. These outputs and outcomes are expected to occur at the level of students, schools, and school staff. Importantly, the program includes an emphasis on gender equality, which is mainstreamed throughout the activities in mind of students, group members, and staff. To achieve the two strategic objectives, Figure 4 presents key activities for the 2021-2026 program around four components: food distribution, health and nutrition, literacy, and capacity building. See Annex 3 for the performance indicators and results framework in detail. Figure 5. Key program activities Source: WFP Proposal for USDA/McGovern-Dole, 2020 Food distribution • Provide daily hot meals in 613 schools • Provide locally sourced rice and pulses • Train yearly on food preparation and storage • Provide 200 fule-efficient stoves • Equip 200 kitchens with non￾food items Health and nutrition • Train school staff on nutrition • Review and disseminate school feeding manual •Distribute annual deworming pills • Rehabilitate 150 hydraulic structures • Train 300 water point technicians • Provide hand washing stations • Construct 100 latrines • Train on WASH and on soap making Literacy •Undertake activities to improve teacher attendance • Provide textbooks, school supplies, and educational materials • Provide activities related to quality of teaching and reading and writing curriculum • Provide training tools for school staff • Conduct extracurricular activities and engage communities • Produce educational radio capsules Capacity building • Support MENA to strengthen national frameworks • Promote financial sustainability • Engage and sensitize communities in school feeding • Train and support 50 WPGs • Train central, regional, and school staff on program management and monitoring March 2022 7 31 The program activities are intended for various beneficiaries at the primary school level including students in CP1 through CM2 (grades 1 through 6), teachers, directors, school canteen staff, members of COGES, members of WPGs, and households. The WFP and its partners will select school level beneficiaries from the same 613 schools which participated in the first phase of the program. 32 During the first phase of the project, WFP supported 50 WPGs as shown in Figure 5. 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. During Phase II, the WFP will support again 50 WPGs. Figure 6. Map of Women Production Groups 33 In the second phase of the program, a special emphasis is given to the gradual handover of the program by focusing on local community and government capacity building and the introduction of new water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) activities such as rehabilitation and/or construction of latrines and water points, and training on soap making. With the goal of handover to the government, program beneficiaries also include government representatives at various national, reginal, and local levels including MENA, the DCS, the Direction of Pedagogy and Continuing Education (DPFC), ANADER, and the Regional Direction of National Education (DREN). The WFP and AVSI will select government level beneficiaries based on their roles and involvement with the program and depending on their institutions. 34 As responsibility for the program gradually transitions from the WFP to the Government of Côte d'Ivoire’s Directorate of School Canteens (DCS) team, the WFP will slowly reduce the number of days they provide school meals between the years of 2021 and 2026, while the DCS team with the support of women's production groups slowly increases the number of meals they provide (Table 1). Prior to the handover, the WFP and DCS will engage in a joint information and awareness campaign to minimize surprise or discourage students and their parents. Table 1. Retrocession plan of the school feeding program Year McGovern-Dole/WFP DCS with support from WPGs Year 1 120 days 0 days Year 2 95 days 25 days Year 3 70 days 50 days Year 4 45 days 75 days Year 5 20 days 100 days Source: Transition Plan of the School Feeding Project Financed by the USDA/McGovern-Dole, 2020 March 2022 8 35 To meet the complete handover goal, over the next five years, the WFP and the DCS will support WPGs to improve their productivity so that they can partially or totally supply school canteens for at least 40 to 50 days. In addition to boosting WPGs productivity, program activities will focus on promoting the consumption of local products in canteens and the reduction of canteen dependence on foodstuffs imported from abroad. 36 During the second phase of the program, several other McGovern-Dole activities are set to be transitioned over the Government of Côte d’Ivoire including the provision of deworming medicine and micro-nutrients for pupils to Ministry of Health, continuous professional development of teachers and provision of reading materials to the DPFC, building capacities for canteen managers and cooks, and the provision of canteen supplies and materials to DCS. 37 Another difference between the previous and the next phase of the program focus on the inclusion of WASH activities to rehabilitate school latrines and water stations in 150 schools, and support of women’s production groups (WPGs) in the production of soap and other related activities aimed to increase local support to primary schools. These WASH activities will build on efforts already put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic which necessitated adaptions to the program when school canteens adopted additional health and safety precautions such as handwashing and wearing masks. 2.2. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 38 As part of the second phase of the program, the implementing partners have drawn up an evaluation plan to assess the project’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. This evaluation plan includes a baseline evaluation (year 0), a mid-term evaluation (year 3) and a final evaluation (year 5). The baseline evaluation questions, as set in the TOR, focus on relevance and sustainability as related to the program design. Importantly, the baseline evaluation establishes program performance indicators across all criteria of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability) against which to measure progress during future midline and endline evaluations. 39 Similar to previous evaluations of the McGovern-Dole program, AIR has reviewed and analysed the results framework and the performance indicators (Annex 3). Because the baseline evaluation was conducted simultaneously with the endline evaluation for the first phase of the program, most performance indicators were set to allow rigorous evaluation of the first phase of the program (2016- 2021). To respond to program adaptations for the next phase, new performance indicators were added (e.g., new WASH indicators) to determine whether the program has been successful in achieving its targets. 40 The team compiled the evaluation questions outlined in the TOR into a comprehensive conceptual framework. Table 2 maps each evaluation question to their corresponding indicators or assessment criteria, required by USDA, based on the McGovern-Dole results framework. For example, the output indicators are listed under relevance (e.g., number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided with USDA assistance). In addition, for each evaluation question, the source of data, the data collection strategy, and analysis method are also listed. Because the research questions for the baseline evaluation are based on the program relevance and sustainability for phase 2, the matrix does not include indicators related to coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. However, baseline indicators were collected to enable evaluation of those factors in later iterations. 41 The evaluation questions for the baseline evaluation of the second phase of the program examine the status of literacy, health, and nutrition outcomes for various beneficiaries, including primary school students in CP1 through CM2 (grades 1 through 6), school canteen staff, members of COGES, members of WPGs, teachers, principals, and households. The evaluation also addressed gender issues in the relevance and sustainability of the design for both beneficiaries (boys and girls in March 2022 9 schools) and service providers (members of COGES, canteen managers, cooks, and agriculture producers) with an empowerment perspective. March 2022 10 Table 2. Evaluation matrix Evaluation Questions Illustrative Indicators or Assessment Criteria Data Sources Data Collection Relevance  To what extent is the intervention design in line with the needs and priorities of the government, the targeted population, including vulnerable groups—women, girls, boys, and men?  Is the intervention aligned with the policies and priorities of WFP, partners, and UN agencies?  To what extent have the program design and objectives considered the social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental context and equity?  To what extent has the intervention design taken gender into account?  What are the synergies between this intervention and other WFP interventions?  To what extent is WFP’s intervention consistent with the policies and programs of other partners operating in the same context?  To what extent are the intervention design and implementation consistent with humanitarian principles?  Beneficiaries’ perception of usefulness for individuals and households (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 of appropriateness of the program for the social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental context  Perceived synergies between WFP interventions  Alignment of the program with the human rights-based approach framework  Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided with USDA assistance  Number of target schools where students have additional reading material with USDA assistance  Proportion of students in target schools who regularly consumed a meal before or during the school day (by gender)  Proportion of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (by gender)  Proportion of schools with improved sanitation facilities  FGDs (parents, COGES members, women’s production groups)  KIIs (USDA staff, government officials, program staff, partners)  Document review  Teacher survey  School survey  Canteen manager survey  Qualitative  Quantitative  Desk review Sustainability  To what extent has the intervention design considered sustainability, such as building the capacity of national and local  Alignment of planned program activities with other national activities (e.g., ministry policies, other WFP initiatives)  Government stakeholders’ perception on capacity building  KIIs (USDA staff, government Qualitative March 2022 11 government institutions, communities, and partners?  Incorporation of capacity building and gender activities in program design  Incorporation of long-term commitments to the program in government’s and partner’s planning and policy officials, program staff, partners) March 2022 12 3 Evaluation approach and methodology for baseline data collection 42 The AIR team simultaneously conducted an endline evaluation of the first phase of the WFP/AVSI/ Government of Côte d’Ivoire McGovern-Dole 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 of the program. Data were collected for both evaluations at the same time, using the same sample8. AIR assessed the extent to which the WFP programs achieve their objectives based on the criteria defined by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The purpose of the baseline evaluation of the next program is to establish, in advance of program implementation, a context that will serve as the basis for assessing its performance and impact, and in so doing, clearly understand the success factors of the program. This section outlines the evaluation approach and methodology, then describes the tools used. 3.1. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 43 This section presents the mixed methods approach to the baseline evaluation for the second phase of the program (2021-2026). A mixed methods approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of how the program is working and what its outcomes are, and it enables the evaluators to delve more deeply into understanding the expected mechanisms of change for the new activities. The approach for the baseline evaluation builds on the methodology used at endline of Phase I of the McGovern-Dole program to ensure consistency. With measures comparable over time, the approach will enable a deeper dive into identifying the mechanisms of change and explicating why certain trends are observed in subsequent midline and endline evaluations of Phase II. 44 We employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the programs. AIR collaborated with WFP during the inception phase to finalize the approach so that it meets USDA requirements and provides relevant, actionable information that WFP can use to improve the current program and integrate into the next. To comply with tight timelines, minimize data collection cost, mitigate the risk of exposure to COVID-19, and optimize the operation capacity of the Country Office, AIR conducted the endline and baseline evaluations at the same time. 45 The baseline evaluation for the second phase of the program entailed data collection to facilitate a performance evaluation and an impact evaluation. AIR implemented a performance evaluation that measured the program’s baseline levels of key outcome variables and obtained reference data on the socio-demographic characteristics of the beneficiaries and households, project output indicators and other relevant indicators (food security). In future rounds, progress toward target goals related to literacy, health, and nutrition will be measured against this baseline. Quantitative data was collected from cross-sections of students (and their respective households) from CP2 through CM2 (grades 2 through 6), school administrators, teachers, and school canteen managers and cooks across the seven regions. Whenever possible, the team surveyed women respondents. Additional qualitative data consisting of focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) with 8 The difference between the endline sample for the Phase I evaluation and the baseline sample for the Phase II evaluation is the addition of 34 new treatment schools at baseline. March 2022 13 key stakeholders captured perceptions from key program beneficiaries regarding the program’s relevance and sustainability. 46 AIR also designed an impact evaluation using a difference-in-differences (DID) approach across the seven regions (Annex 4). The main objective of the impact evaluation is to assess the extent to which the program resulted in improved student and household outcomes. 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). This method enables the evaluators to account for any differences between the treatment and comparison groups that are constant over time (e.g., common trends assumption). The advantage of the DID approach is that the treatment and comparison groups do not necessarily need to have the same pre￾intervention conditions. However, for the DID to be valid, the comparison group must accurately represent the change in outcomes that would have been experienced by the treatment group in the absence of treatment. 47 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. Figure 31 in Annex 4 illustrates 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). 48 Our power analysis confirms the sample of 1,486 students across 120 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. To apply DID, AIR will collect student- and households-level outcomes related to literacy, food security, and WASH in the treatment group and the comparison group. The DID approach will allow the team to estimate the program’s causal impacts after five years of implementation of the second phase and the ten-year impacts of the combined first and second phases. 49 AIR studied whether the comparison group of schools from the evaluations of the previous phases was still comparable the second phase of the program. To determine this, the team compared outcomes that would not change over time, and gathered information on program implementation and fidelity to examine whether students or schools in the original comparison group have received any aspects of the programme. In other words, was the comparison group still purely operating “business as usual” and do they match the treatment sample on observable characteristics. Annex 5 presents the results of this analysis which shows the comparison group’s similarity. 50 Lastly, the evaluators supplemented primary data collected through the quantitative and qualitative methods with monitoring data and project records (including but not limited to project timelines, planned versus actual resource allocation, and mission reports) where feasible. This collation of data enabled the team to triangulate and validate stakeholders’ perceived outcomes with more concrete evidence from monitoring and project records. Site mapping 51 The baseline evaluation of the second phase of the program covered all seven regions where the program is being implemented. The sampling strategy for the baseline 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. March 2022 14 52 Schools. The baseline sample included a total of 120 schools – 84 program schools and 36 comparison schools. Figure 6 shows the locations of each of the 84 treatment schools in purple and the locations of each of the 36 comparison schools in green. Two of the seven regions comprise a larger share of the sample: Poro (33 schools) and Gontougo (28 schools) include just over half of the schools with the other five districts having 10-13 schools each. Within each region, roughly two-thirds of schools were treated. 53 Among the 84 program schools included in the baseline sample, 50 schools were sampled in previous evaluation rounds and 34 schools which had not been previously evaluated were added to the baseline sample. The 50 schools were selected as a random sample from the sample of 68 program schools selected in the 2018 midline evaluation while keeping the same regional distribution. Similarly, AIR drew a new random sample of 34 schools from the pool of beneficiary schools while maintaining the same regional distribution. The overall sample is sufficient to measure the prevalence of food security, the indicator of most interest to the WFP. 54 Directors, canteen managers, and teachers. When visiting each of the sampled schools, the enumerators surveyed the school director to obtain aggregate information about the school for a total of 120 directors. They also collected data from school canteen managers at each of the 84 treatment schools to gather information related to canteen functioning and school meal distribution as well as use of safe food preparation and storage practices. They also surveyed all present teachers in each treatment school, for a total of 398 teachers (both men and women). Teachers provided the data collectors with information on the type of trainings they have received and their instruction practices as a result of the program. 55 Students and parents. In each sampled school, AIR randomly selected 10 students who were present at school on the day of the data collection. In each grade from CP2 through CM2, one boy and one girl were selected to ensure a balanced sample of boys and girls. For each student, the enumerators 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 1187 students and their corresponding households. Selecting the households of the sampled students allowed the team to link their responses at the analysis stage. Although the household survey was intended to be completed by both male and female parents, most of the surveys were completed by the male head-of-household. Table 3 presents the sampling of schools, directors, canteen managers, teachers, students, and households by region and group. Figure 7. Baseline evaluation school sample Source: School Survey (N = 120) March 2022 15 Table 3. Quantitative sample Regions Schools / Directors Canteen managers Teachers Students / Households Treatment Group Poro 23 23 119 228 Bagoue 10 10 58 99 Tchologo 7 7 39 70 Bounkani 8 8 33 78 Gontougo 22 22 92 217 Bafing 7 7 30 70 Cavally 7 7 27 66 Total 84 84 398 828 Comparison Group Poro 10 0 0 100 Bagoue 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 59 Total 36 0 0 359 Overall Total 120 84 398 1,187 Qualitative data sampling 56 Our baseline qualitative sampling design builds on the qualitative sampling designed for the simultaneous endline evaluation of the first phase of the program. This sampling strategy increased the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the previous baseline evaluation for the first phase, while also ensuring data saturation—the point at which no new information can be gained from an additional interview. 57 National and regional level. Following the preliminary list of key program stakeholders in Table 1 from the TOR and in coordination with the concurrent endline evaluation, the enumerators 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. They 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, the team held an additional two internal stakeholder discussions with program staff, each covering different elements of the evaluation. From the midline evaluation of the first phase of the program, the evaluation team 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 6. 58 School level. Since there was little variation between geographic areas at the school level during the last evaluation at midline of the first phase, the enumerators conducted FGDs with parents, COGES members, and WPG members at five purposefully selected schools. Due to the small number of WPGs near treatment schools, AIR selected schools with WPGs that are actively participating in the program. Selecting schools with active WPGs allowed the researchers 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. AIR also chose schools whose canteens, latrines, and water sources were at varying degrees of functionality, according to WFP monitoring documents (Table 4). March 2022 16 Table 4. Qualitative site 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 Bagoue 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 59 For the parent/caregiver focus groups, separate FGDs took place for male and female parents at each school to allow respondents to speak more freely and to allow the researchers to compare mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. The COGES FGDs included both male and female participants. In previous rounds of data collection, there was a lack of representation of women in the COGES, which has since improved. Nonetheless, the FGDs ultimately included more men than women (Table 5). Table 5. School-level FGD participants by gender Region School WPGs COGES Parents Women Women Men Women Men Gontougo Yomian 5 0 4 4 6 Bagoue Katanra 5 0 4 8 5 Bafing Mandougou 5 1 3 5 4 Poro Kakologo 5 3 0 4 4 Tchologo Dielebele 3 1 4 5 4 Total 23 5 15 26 23 3.2. BASELINE DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND TOOLS 60 We next describe the different methods of data collection that were deployed. The specific tools and protocols are listed in Annex 7. The baseline data collection tools were developed based on the tools used at the evaluations of the first phase of the program to ensure that the same kind of information is gathered and to allow for meaningful comparisons over time. For example, the survey questionnaires are designed to have high reliability and consistent responses from respondents each time asked. All data collection tools were revised to gather necessary information for the construction of new performance indicators related to the second phase of the program. Surveys 61 To answer evaluation questions and measure key performance indicators at baseline, the evaluators built on and improved the survey tools used in previous evaluations, including school, household, student, teacher, and school canteen management surveys. This will enable the researchers to measure program outcomes in the same manner as the previous 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 implementers, AIR added new survey questions and updated existing survey questions to capture important aspects of program activities and focus. For example, new questions to the teacher survey were included related to additional trainings being received and visits from pedagogical advisors. Similarly, AIR 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. March 2022 17 Reading assessment 62 Importantly, to measure the impact on reading skills of school children and analyse the change in skills over time, the enumerators 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. Table 6 presents the structure of the ASER reading test, including the test levels, and corresponding grades and reading skills. Table 6. 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 63 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, AIR revised the version of the test by updating the test content together with MENA and AVSI representatives. The team 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. 64 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. AIR 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 through CM2. Key informant interviews 65 The enumerators collected primary data using KII protocols based on the protocols used for the previous rounds of data collection. AIR updated the existing protocols to include items related to project implementation, project management, perceived benefits of program activities, perceived capacity for sustainability, lessons learned, and recommendations for program improvement. The team collected information about changes to project implementation between midline and endline, focusing on questions related to effectiveness and sustainability. 66 AIR 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, the team 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 behaviours. 67 In terms of sequence, the team at the data collection partner, Sonet-CI, first conducted all field-level data collection. The team then carried out virtual interviews with program-level stakeholders from the USDA, government, and partners based on their availability. March 2022 18 Focus group discussions 68 AIR built on the protocols for FGDs from the most recent midline evaluation so that the team 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, AIR updated the protocols to ensure that the evaluation 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 AIR conducted both the endline and baseline evaluations concurrently, the protocols were very lengthy (especially for the FGDs, but for the KIIs as well). The team had to cut some questions to make the protocols more manageable and to respect the time of participants. Doing so limited the ability to gather data on all of the evaluation questions in as much depth as preferred. 69 For each category of FGD, AIR incorporated prompts relevant to the respondents’ 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. 70 Whereas FGDs with COGES members and parents complement the quantitative survey, FGDs are the primary source of data collection for WPGs. AIR 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 71 We reviewed available documentation provided by the WFP to gain a deep understanding of the context and current status of the program. AIR 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 the research. The updated information gave insights into whether there were any shocks or other circumstances affecting the program’s stakeholders since the midline evaluation. 3.3. DATA ANALYSIS Quantitative analysis 72 Performance analysis. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis by constructing means and percentages to present an initial snapshot of the findings at baseline using data from individual or multiple survey items. 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. The descriptive analysis is presented in tables, bar charts, histograms, and other visualizations to help convey the findings. 73 Impact analysis. We compared treatment and comparison group outcomes at baseline as required by the DID method. We conducted baseline equivalence tests for key variables pertaining to the impact evaluation of the program. The team used baseline equivalence tests to show that students in the comparison and treatment groups were similar on average, which enables the team to use the comparison group students as counterfactual, and represent the students who received the intervention, had they not received it. March 2022 19 Qualitative analysis 74 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. 75 Analysis. The research team coded and analysed 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 analyse 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. 3.4. LIMITATIONS 76 The collected baseline data meets expectations in terms of the analysis plan and the results are within the expected ranges. While the AIR team took every step possible to mitigate the risks to the study validity, there remain several factors that could not be avoided. These factors limited our ability to determine direct causes of some findings. The primary factors that limit the findings in this report include the following: 77 Comparison group: One limitation of the current design arises from the fact that the comparison schools were selected using school lists from 5 years ago before the roll out of the first phase of the program. At that time, the comparison schools were selected to be very similar to the treatment group of schools in terms of socio-economic and geographic characteristics. However, due to the first phase of the program, treatment schools which received a variety of canteen, nutrition, health, as well as literacy interventions, may now differ in considerable ways from the comparison group. AIR employed a mitigation strategy to test whether the comparison schools still represent a valid comparison group for the evaluation of the second phase of the program. The team concludes that the comparison group largely still resembles the treatment group, especially in terms of WASH outcomes (see Annex 5 for details). Any significant differences between treatment and comparison groups at baseline can be controlled for in future analyses. 78 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 with the in-country partner Sonet-CI, AIR still could not observe and verify the data collection process. In addition, data collectors conducted some FDGs and KIIs remotely, which, although it was sufficient, limited the ability to learn through direct contact. Nevertheless, the AIR team is confident in the ability to manage data collection remotely, despite this limitation. 79 Length of qualitative protocols: The comprehensive nature of the evaluation questions resulted in rather lengthy interview guides for the FDGs and KIIs. In order to make the tools more manageable, the team had to focus on the most important questions and in the case of the WFP focus groups, ask different questions to different groups. 80 Doing endline and baseline at the same: Combining endline and baseline data collection—and using the same qualitative respondents for both purposes—was another limitation of the study. Although the evaluation team mitigated this challenge as best as possible by repeatedly prompting respondents to distinguish between the two phases of the McGovern-Dole program in all of their responses, in reality it was often difficult for them to do so. Respondents naturally spoke of the March 2022 20 program in general, especially since many of the features remained the same across the two phases. The failure to distinguish between the two programs may have resulted in less nuanced findings. 3.5. QUALITY ASSURANCE OF THE BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 81 The WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System defines the quality standards expected from decentralized evaluations and reports. AIR followed the strict research protocols as well as WFP’s guidance to ensure high quality standards were applied for data collection, analysis, and reporting. During the inception phase, all tools were closely reviewed and approved by the WFP and AVSI as well as a wide range of program implementers to ensure that the tools are designed to collect relevant data of high quality and usability. Additionally, AIR conducted the school sampling in a transparent way and with approvals from WFP evaluation manager and team. 82 As part of the quality assurance mechanism for the baseline data collection, 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, the 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 (Figure 7). 83 As part of quantitative data collection training, AIR 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. 84 Separate trainings sessions were held for all qualitative data collection. The qualitative data training 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, enumerators also discussed any challenges encountered, such as stakeholder discomfort with questions or insufficient time to cover all the questions. The training also allowed the evaluators to adjust the protocols, if Figure 8. Data collection training Source: AIR March 2022 21 needed, for clarity, length, or context, and it assisted team members in strengthening their interviewing and summarizing skills in real time. 85 Sonet-CI deployed 32 enumerators and 10 supervisors between November 21 and December 10, 2021 to collect survey data. 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 sociologist travelled 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. 86 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, AIR programmed 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. The team also runs quality checks on data collected during the pilot test to ensure high-quality output from the field. 87 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. 88 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. 89 The team also provided regular updates to the evaluation manager and discussed any issues that may have arisen in the field. Finally, the evaluators conducted a debrief presentation and initial lessons learned on December 21. 90 Throughout the evaluation, AIR ensured that the evaluation was conducted with the highest level of quality possible. The management structure at AIR and with the data collection team ensures that oversight occurs at each level. AUR tested and piloted all instruments before data collection, conducted routine checks of data quality and assurance, then the data expert looked for missing data, abnormal values, skip patterns, and other anomalies. Three qualitative researchers coded and analysed data collected from KIIs and FGDs and three quantitative researchers analysed the survey data. Each deliverable underwent several phases of internal quality assurance monitoring before presented to the WFP to ensure the quality, impartiality, credibility, and utility of the data gathered and delivered. 91 Finally, the baseline report will be reviewed by the evaluation manager, regional evaluation officer, WFP school-based evaluation officer, Evaluation Reference Group, WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System, and by USDA. The USDA is the final approver of the Baseline Evaluation Report. 3.6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 92 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 March 2022 22 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. 93 During the inception phase the following ethical issues were considered for the preparation/design, data collection, data analysis, reporting and dissemination: providing sufficient information about the evaluation to participants, obtaining informed consent from participants, collecting confidential data from participants, assuring them that their identity will not be revealed, analysing, and presenting de-identified and aggregate findings. The following safeguards and measures to manage these issues were in place: submitting the research protocol and data collection instruments to AIR’s Institutional Review Board; training enumerators on respondents safety and confidentiality, with particular consideration given to safeguarding child respondents; obtaining informed consent from parents to survey their children along with each child’s individual assent; keeping the data in a secured place to protect respondents’ personal information; and active monitoring of data collection for compliance with AIR quality and ethical guidelines. AIR paid special attention to the vulnerabilities of different respondents and encouraged equitable participation among both genders to the extent possible throughout baseline data collection. 94 In collaboration with WFP, AIR received authorization to conduct the evaluation from MENA in Côte d’Ivoire before starting fieldwork to ensure that the evaluation study abides by standard local and international ethical review and approval processes. AIR ensured that the team, including enumerators and contractors working on the project, adhered to the ethical guidelines of the American Evaluation Association’s (AEA’s) Guiding Principles for Evaluators.9 Furthermore, all data collectors and people with access to raw data were required to sign a confidentiality pledge to protect participants (Annex 8). 9 https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles March 2022 23 4 Baseline findings and discussion 95 This section presents a snapshot of the performance indicators at baseline and discuss their values. It also presents the findings related to the phase II program relevance and sustainability. 4.1. BASELINE BENCHMARKS 96 First, the evaluation team presents the program benchmarks at the beginning of the second phase for intervention schools which will allow the evaluation team to measure progress over time as program activities are rolled out. Full list of program performance indicators is presented in Annex 3. 97 Girls comprise slightly more than half of the school population in treatment schools and enrolment drops off sharply for CM2. Table 7 provides the average number of students present in schools by grade level. Enrolment remains relatively consistent from CP1 through CM1 but is much lower for CM2. However, there is a relatively consistent ratio of girls/boys in each grade, with an overall average of 1.09 girls per boy in treatment schools. Table 7. Average student enrollment by grade Grade Girls Boys Overall Girls to boy ratio CP1 20.9 19.8 40.6 1.05 CP2 20.5 18.0 38.4 1.14 CE1 21.0 19.3 40.3 1.09 CE2 20.6 18.1 38.7 1.14 CM1 19.6 18.0 37.5 1.09 CM2 15.8 15.5 31.1 1.09 Total 113.1 104.0 217.1 1.09 Source: School Survey (N = 84). 98 There is substantial variation in school enrolment across the seven regions. As seen in Table 8, the baseline sample includes schools that look very different in size. Average school size ranges from a total of 285 students in Poro to 151 students in Gontougo. The implications of this variation suggest that the logistics of implementing the school feeding, literacy, and WASH activities in smaller schools will differ from the logistics in larger schools. On one hand, it may prove easier to change practices amongst a smaller number of children and teachers where a fixed pool of resources can be spread across a smaller group. On the other hand, there may be instances where having more individuals could improve outcomes if the resources available scale up accordingly. Table 8. Average student enrollment by region Grade Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo CP1 34.6 36.4 47.8 44.1 38.8 42.4 33.9 CP2 27.0 34.6 44.7 46.0 39.8 40.9 32.4 CE1 30.3 30.7 51.8 43.3 36.6 43.3 31.8 CE2 28.9 29.1 49.6 46.3 32.3 42.1 30.4 CM1 28.0 27.9 50.9 42.6 26.4 45.1 27.3 CM2 20.0 15.6 42.5 47.6 23.8 34.5 22.4 Total 168.7 174.3 285.2 269.9 197.5 248.3 151.0 Source: School Survey (N = 84). 99 Student attendance in treatment schools did not suffer due to student illnesses. With schools reporting that their students only missed approximately 1.4 days of school, attendance amongst enrolled children was high enough to not be a concern for most children. Further, only 2 percent of March 2022 24 children missed more than 10 days of school due to illness. So, most children do not miss too much school because they are sick. However, almost 10 percent of children in Tchologo and over 6 percent of children in Bounkani missed more than 10 days due to illness (Table 9). For these two regions, child health appears to be a big enough problem that it could affect schooling outcomes for children. However, there may be measurement error in these statistics to the extent that schools do not have clear information on why their students are absent. Table 9. Student absence due to illness by region Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo Average student days absent in 2020-21 1.6 days 1.7 days 1.0 days 3.4 days 1.6 days 1.0 days 1.7 days Students absent more than 10 days due to sickness 0.0% 2.2% 1.5% 9.4% 6.3% 0.6% 0.3% Source: School Survey (N = 84). 100 Children’s reading proficiency remain low across all grades and across all regions. Figure 8 shows the percentage of students at each reading level. Naturally, the majority of CP1 students demonstrate low reading levels, but students continue to read at the A, B, and C reading levels10 even through CM1 (see Table 6 for reading skills corresponding to each test level). These findings suggest that while there are some students who are only marginally not proficient, there is also a sizable group of students at the upper grade levels are far less literate than expected for their grade. Figure 9. Student reading levels by grade Source: Student Survey (N = 828). 101 Across all students completing the assessment, only 22.7% demonstrated proficiency at their grade level, measured by the percentage of students at or above grade level threshold (marked with a green line in Figure 8). Unsurprisingly, there are geographic differences with literacy higher, but still low, in regions such as Bounkani and much lower still in regions such as Poro (Table 10). Table 10. Student reading proficiency rates by gender and region Gender Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo Girls 23.8% 13.9% 32.3% 15.9% 25.7% 35.9% 16.3% 31.5% Boys 21.6% 14.7% 34.3% 9.6% 22.9% 35.9% 12.0% 31.2% Total 22.7% 14.3% 33.3% 12.7% 24.3% 35.9% 14.1% 31.3% Source: Student Survey (N = 828). 102 While there are no clear trends in reading proficiency rates as children progress through primary grades (Table 11), many children fail to progress in their reading level and fall far below the threshold for proficiency. Boys appear to score lower than girls in reading proficiency rates. 10 These reading levels become progressively more difficult. i.e. A is an easier level, while K is more difficult. March 2022 25 103 Most children have access to some kind of reading materials in the classroom. While 11 percent of children reported no resources, the remaining 89 percent reported benefitting from combinations of other resources such as mobile libraries, reading boards, or illustrated boards. Access to these resources will reinforce literacy efforts in the treatment schools. Nevertheless, access to materials varied by region. More than one in seven children in Bafing, Poro, Tchologo, and Bouknani have no reading materials. Unsurprisingly, these regions have some of the lower rates of reading proficiency in the sample. 104 Teachers generally utilized the reading materials when they were available to them. The overall percentages of teachers using the instructional tools roughly matched the percentage of classrooms with access to those resources (Table 12). This correspondence indicates that teachers employ educational aids when they are available to them, rather than having access but letting them sit idle. Table 12. Teachers’ usage of reading instructional tools Tools Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo Reading boards 66% 67% 84% 64% 57% 71% 66% 67% Mobile library 52% 46% 52% 45% 24% 35% 76% 63% Illustrated boards 57% 46% 72% 49% 59% 65% 62% 60% Junior dictionaries 22% 13% 32% 14% 16% 10% 50% 21% Sculpted plastic letters 24% 17% 48% 19% 8% 16% 22% 37% Other (specify) 23% 17% 24% 36% 51% 26% 5% 7% None 3% 8% 0% 4% 3% 0% 2% 4% Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). 105 We find high rates of teacher presence, especially according to the records held by school principals. In four of the regions, 95 percent or more of principals said that the teachers in their schools were present for work most of the time (measured by attendance greater than 90 percent). Teacher presence was lower in the other three districts, with Tchologo having the lowest rates at just 58 percent who were present most of the time (Figure 10). There is a sizable difference between the percentage of principals who reported their teachers were present most of the time compared to Table 11. Student reading proficiency rates by gender by grade Grade Girls Boys CP1 25.0% 20.8% CP2 24.3% 30.3% CE1 30.8% 25.8% CE2 16.3% 17.6% CM1 23.0% 14.7% Total 23.8% 21.6% Source: Student Survey (N = 828). Figure 10. Student access to reading materials in the classroom Source: Student Survey (N = 828). 11% 12% 19% 50% 58% 58% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100 None Sculpted plastic letters Junior dictionaries Illustrated boards Mobile library Reading board March 2022 26 teachers’ reporting of their own presence. Teachers were about 9 percentage points less likely to report that they had been present for greater than 90 percent of school days. This disconnect suggests that there may be problems with principals’ attendance record books or that they felt pressure to overreport teacher presence. 106 Students reports suggest that teacher attendance was a far greater issue than the principal or teacher reporting would indicate. Figure 10 shows that only 1 percent of students said that their teacher was present almost all the time. Roughly one third of students said their teacher was never present. So, roughly 65 percent of students said that their teachers were present sometimes. Since there is a high level of subjectivity between the categories in Figure 11, the evaluation team cannot definitively say that student reports are meaningfully different from principal or teacher. Furthermore, student’s reporting on teacher attendance is highly subject to recall bias since there are no written records like for school principals. However, this finding does suggest that teacher attendance may be lacking. 107 We find large regional variations in the rates of teachers who have received training from AVSI. In some regions, such as Bagoue, more than 80 percent of teachers in the sample reported that they had received trainings from AVSI whereas other regions such as Tchologo report that only 40 percent of teachers had benefitted (Table 13). These findings show very uneven penetration for AVSI’s efforts and the benefits that they provide for teacher skills and children’s learning outcomes. Further, these trainings are very gender imbalanced in certain regions. In Bafing and Cavally, no female teachers reported participating in AVSI trainings, which therefore suggests that they could be a possible target audience for increasing existing trainings or promoting future trainings. Table 13. Teachers trained by AVSI in reading pedagogy Gender Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo Male 65.5% 75.0% 66.7% 63.5% 33.3% 46.2% 82.5% 71.4% Female 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 41.2% 50.0% 40.0% 77.8% 58.3% Total 61.6% 62.5% 64.0% 56.5% 40.5% 45.2% 81.0% 69.5% Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). Figure 11. School Director vs. Teacher reporting on teachers attending at least 90% of school days by region Source: School Survey (N = 84). Teacher Survey (N = 365). 89% 100% 100% 96% 95% 85% 78% 58% 80% 69% 83% 81% 86% 73% 83% 82% Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Bagoue Gontougo Bounkani Tchologo 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Recorded in school records Self-reported in teacher surveys Figure 12. Student reporting on teacher attendance S : H h ld S (N 828) 34% 65% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Never Sometimes Almost all the time March 2022 27 108 Further, of the teachers who reported that they had received AVSI training, many had not received the trainings recently. Figure 12 shows the percentage of trained teachers who had received the AVSI training in the given years. For more than half the teachers in the sample who had been trained, three or more years had passed since they benefitted from that information. These data suggest that even the share of teachers who had received AVSI training should also have access to renewed training activities. 109 We find that schools generally had new textbooks available for their students. In the sample, 95 percent of schools reported that they had received student textbooks within the previous 1-2 years (Figure 13). These encouraging findings demonstrates that for this particular learning aid, schools receive the resources necessary to support child learning. However, as noted above, students’ literacy remains poor, demonstrating that textbooks are an important resource but that they do not guarantee child learning without the appropriate and necessary supporting activities. 110 We find that an important share of teachers can still incorporate new pedagogical techniques into their repertoire. Within Table 14, the lighter cells represent the cases where smaller shares of teachers use that reading activity. The darker cells represent the activities used by most teachers. The most common reading activity employed by teachers is to have children act out reading at their school. On the other hand, less than half of teachers participated in meetings with their colleagues to share their experiences. These findings clearly indicate that there is room for teachers to add pedagogical techniques and practices to what they currently do and for AVSI to re-evaluate how they train teachers to use these approaches. Table 14. Teachers reading activities Activities Overall Cavally Bagoue Gontougo Bounkani Tchologo Poro Bafing Used assessment tool “General Grid for Student Performance” 62% 38% 60% 56% 59% 65% 72% 70% Received a classroom visit from a pedagogical advisor 67% 58% 48% 64% 54% 71% 71% 79% Organized an animation 75% 75% 60% 76% 70% 55% 88% 79% Figure 13. Percentage of teachers who reported receiving training by AVSI on reading pedagogy by year Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). 56% 30% 21% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2018 or before 2019 2020 2021 Figure 14. Percentage of school directors who reported receiving school textbooks for students by year Source: School Survey (N = 84). 5% 0% 24% 71% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2018 or before 2019 2020 2021 March 2022 28 reading at school Organized a reading competition 58% 33% 93% 50% 69% 24% 65% 66% Participated in meeting with other teachers to share experiences 47% 33% 32% 44% 70% 39% 64% 40% Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). 111 A substantial share of teachers, directors, and canteen managers were trained on nutrition. School directors were the most likely to have received these trainings (62%), followed by canteen managers (58%) and teachers (44%). Even though canteen managers are the ones most directly involved in planning for meeting children’s nutritional needs, only a slight majority of them have received training. This low rate demonstrates that many individuals could benefit from nutritional training, especially among canteen managers who can most easily affect children’s nutrition. 112 113 According to canteen managers interviewed, canteen management committees generally had 5 to 6 members, with some having as few as 2 members and one with 15 members. This distribution is shown in Figure 14. Across these committees, there was relative gender parity with an almost equal number of male and female committee members, as shown in Figure 15. Regarding training, there is room for improvement; among the canteen management committees that received training, many committee members did not participate. As shown in Figure 16, 11.8% of canteen managers reported that all of the members of their committee received training, but 42.7% of canteen managers reported that only some members had received training. Figure 15. Size of school canteen management committees Source: Canteen Survey (N = 73). 11 53 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 4 or fewer 5 or 6 7 or more People per comittee March 2022 29 114 We find that school canteens were quite active in the month prior to data collection. The average school canteen operated for 16 days out of the month (roughly November 2021), which covered 88 percent of days that the school was open. This high figure demonstrates that school canteens already operate robustly, likely due in part to the Phase I intervention. The school canteen managers reported serving an average of 252 children over the preceding month. This figure actually exceeds the average number of students enrolled per school (217 students: Table 7). This disconnect indicates that canteen manager records may not carefully track students but that they may inadvertently double count the children they are serving. 115 Many schools received deworming medications, but teachers are often not trained on how to use them. Less than a quarter of schools have teachers trained on deworming (Table 15). To the extent that teachers need to be involved in administering deworming medications, this low rate of training will limit the nearly half of schools that have received medication for distribution. However, this difference between knowledge and resources may not pose as large of a problem if parents are familiar with deworming medications or if there are other members in the community who can assist children in properly taking deworming medications, although the survey does not capture deworming practices and knowledge amongst parents. The data suggest that the intensity of deworming efforts varies widely by region, with Bafing have no deworming efforts whatsoever underway in sample schools. Table 15. School roles in deworming Schools received … Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo … training on deworming 23.8% 0.0% 14.3% 39.1% 42.9% 25.0% 10.0% 18.2% … medication for distribution 46.4% 0.0% 57.1% 47.8% 71.4% 37.5% 90.0% 31.8% Source: School Survey (N = 84). 116 Food preparation knowledge is high amongst most canteen managers. Figure 17 shows the percentage of canteen managers who can cite health and food sanitation practices. Roughly 80 percent of canteen managers were able to cite at least three health and hygiene practices (out of 17 best practices in total) and 80 percent could cite at least three food storage practices (out of 12 best practices in total). Canteen managers were slightly less familiar with food preparation practices, with only 65 percent able to cite at least three (out of 7 best practices in total). The most well-known health and hygiene practices is washing hands with soap and water after going to the bathroom (87%) and washing dishes with soap and water (62%). The most well-known food storage practices were stacking food in pallets to separate food from non-food items (62%) and providing space for Figure 16. Canteen management committee member gender ratio Source: Canteen Survey (N = 73). 203 196 Total # Males on Committees Total # Females on Committees Figure 17. Have members of the canteen management committee received training? Source: Canteen Survey (N = 68). 45.6% 11.8% 42.7% No Yes Some March 2022 30 ventilation between items when stacking them (54%). The most well-known food preparation practices were washing vegetables, fruits, and cooking ingredients with potable water (86%) and keeping food preparation surfaces clean (65%). While most canteen managers are familiar with these practices, there remains a sizable minority of canteen managers that do not know these practices. Furthermore, just because most canteen managers know the practices, the evaluation team does not know whether they actually implement them, which is the more relevant outcome for children’s health. Figure 17. Canteen managers’ knowledge of best practices Source: Canteen Survey (N = 84). 117 School canteens often fail to provide sufficiently diverse food. Minimum dietary diversity in canteens 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. According to canteen managers reports of the foods served at canteens, only 66 percent of school days offered nutritious foods consisting of at least four food groups. Given that school canteens operated on approximately 88 percent of school days, the evaluation team concludes that school canteens served diverse food in nearly two out of three days and failed to do so in one out of every three days. 118 A sizable minority of households having borderline or poor food consumption scores (FCS). FCS measures the amount and diversity of food that a household consumes and aggregates it into a single score with higher scores indicative of better consumption. Scores are grouped into categories based on internationally validated and comparable standards. In this case, the FCS is acceptable for about 70% of the sample, borderline for about 20%, and poor for about 10% (Figure 18). However, there is considerable variation in FCS statuses across regions. Regions ranged from as little as 51 percent of households (Bafing) having acceptable FCS to as much as 91 percent of households (Bagoue) having acceptable FCS. Interestingly, as shown in Figure 19, male- and female￾headed households had similar FCS, even though female-headed households typically have worse outcomes because they often have only one adult present. 80% 80% 65% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% … three health and hygiene practices. … three food storage practices. … three food preparation practices. Canteen managers are able to cite at least … March 2022 31 119 Household dietary diversity is much higher in some regions (such as Bagoue) than others (such as Poro). The evaluation team measures dietary diversity using the Household Dietary Diversity Scale (HDDS) using a scale developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization that they describe as a “qualitative measure of food consumption that reflects household access to a variety of foods.” While the individual scores are not inherently meaningful, comparisons between two groups can help the evaluators understand which group has better access to diverse food types. Figure 20 and Figure 21 provide the HDDS by region and by household head gender, respectively. The first figure shows that scores range from 3.7 to 5.3, with an overall average of 4.5. While these scores by themselves do not indicate whether children have acceptable dietary diversity, they will provide benchmarks so that the treatment and comparison groups can be compared over time. So, programmatic efforts to improve dietary diversity should be concentrated in the regions with lower HDDS such as Poro. Whereas female-headed households had roughly similar FCS scores to male￾headed households, Figure 21 shows that female-headed households were consuming a more diverse collection of foods. Figure 18. FCS by region Source: Household Survey (N = 828). Figure 19. FCS by Household Head Source: Household Survey (N = 828). 10.1% 8.0% 18.0% 20.4% 71.9% 71.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Woman head Man head Poor Borderline Acceptable March 2022 32 120 We find that households in the sample are mostly using medium coping strategies. The reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)11 is a proxy indicator of household food insecurity where households indicate how often they had to use a coping strategy because they did not have enough food. Across all treatment households sampled, the overall rCSI score was 4.9. Five of the seven regions displayed in Figure 22 showed medium coping strategies, as defined by a score between 4 and 9. Only households in Cavally showed high coping strategies (average rCSI=10), indicating high levels of food insecurity. Paradoxically, Cavally had higher HDDS scores. Taken together with its rCSI score, that would suggest that households often had to resort to various coping strategies but would end up consuming a relatively diverse range of foods when they did eat. Gontougo was the only region with low coping (rCSI<2). Amongst the strategies used by households in the sample, the most common one was consuming less preferred, but cheaper food (Table 16). 11 The rCSI score has a range from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating that households make use of common coping strategies more frequently. Figure 20. HDDS by region Source: Household Survey (N = 828). Figure 21. HDDS by Household Head Source: Household Survey (N = 828). 4.5 4.1 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Woman head Man head March 2022 33 Table 16. Coping strategies used (days) Coping Strategy Overall Consuming less preferred or lower quality foods to save money 1.45 Depend on aid from relatives or friends 0.39 Decrease the amount of food during meals 0.53 Reduced quantities consumed by adult / parent for the benefit of young children 0.57 Reduce the number of meals per day (skipping one or two meals in the day) 0.40 Figure 22. rCSI by region Source: Household Survey (N = 828). Figure 23. rCSI by Household Head Source: Household Survey (N = 828). 4.7 4.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Woman head Man head March 2022 34 Source: Household Survey (N = 828). 121 Two-thirds of schools use an improved stove with a chimney. As shown in Figure 24, the most common source of cooking heat for schools was an improved stove (66%) while about a quarter of schools used a traditional fireplace (26%). Relatively few schools had a stove without a chimney (16%), which could pose respiratory risks to those involved in the cooking process. Given that roughly a third of schools are not using improved stoves with proper ventilation, there is an opportunity to improve this infrastructure to enable schools’ capacities to safely prepare nutritious and diverse foods. 122 Three-quarters of schools have suitable water and some kind of sanitations facilities available. Figure 24 shows that roughly 75 percent of schools have water at the school. However, with only 55 percent of schools with improved water, the value of the water itself and the sanitation facilities more broadly could become questionable. Similarly, while 73% of schools have access to latrines and they are functional for roughly three-quarters of those schools (or 54% of all schools), the value of those facilities declines as only 49% of schools have latrines separated by gender or between students and teachers. Separating latrine facilities is important for child safety, especially for girls. This deficit suggests that there is room to improve WASH facilities at these schools. Figure 24. School cooking and WASH facilities Source: School Survey (N = 84). 123 Too few canteen managers and teachers have received the AVSI hygiene training. Roughly 35 percent of teachers and 51 percent of canteen managers have received this training. It is likely more important for the canteen managers to learn the hygiene practices taught by AVSI since they directly handle the food that children will consume. However, this result shows that nearly half of canteen managers still haven’t received this training. As such, there remains room to increase the number of both canteen managers and teachers who receive this program. 124 Almost all teachers and canteen managers report that they use a handwashing station at their school. Bafing is the only region where less than 80 percent of teachers and canteen managers use handwashing stations (Table 17). Since nearly 100 percent of these school staff already report using handwashing stations in five of the regions, there remains little room for improvement over the course of Phase II of the program. Table 17. Teachers and Canteen managers WASH behaviors Use of handwashing stations by… Overall Bafing Cavally Poro Tchologo Bounkani Bagoue Gontougo … teachers 95% 63% 84% 99% 95% 94% 98% 100% … canteen managers 95% 57% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). Canteen Survey (N = 84). 66% 26% 16% 75% 55% 73% 54% 49% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% An improved stove with chimney Traditional fireplace A stove without chimney Water available at school Uses improved water source Access to sanitation facilities Functional sanitation facilities Gender-separated sanitation facilities Student/teacher separate sanitation facilities March 2022 35 125 When asked when a person should wash their hands, both teachers and canteen managers displayed a low understanding of hygiene practices. Over half of individuals knew to wash their hands before or after eating, after defecating, or after returning from school or the market (Figure 25). However, very few of them knew they should wash their hands before preparing food, after playing games, cleaning, caring for animals, or diapering a baby. So, despite reporting frequent use of handwashing stations, these school staff did not understand the activities that should necessitate handwashing. This confusion could be remedied through AVSI’s hygiene training, which had low take-up thus far, as mentioned above. 126 In addition to the low understanding of when a person should wash their hands, teachers and canteen managers also did not understand how or why a person should wash their hands. Less than half of these school staff were using proper practices of washing their hands under running water and using soap (Figure 27). While more than 90 percent of teachers and canteen managers knew that washing hands prevents illness, less than half of them were aware that washing their hands would remove dirt and could keep dirt out of their food (Figure 26). This confusion around the purpose and methods of washing one’s hands could similarly be resolved through additional AVSI trainings. Figure 27. Types of hands washing Figure 18. When do school staff wash their hands? Source: Teacher Survey (N = 340). Canteen Survey (N = 80). 96% 87% 74% 60% 17% 16% 10% 2% 1% 9% 100% 91% 70% 57% 19% 30% 8% 4% 6% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Before eating After having eaten After returning from school or the market After defecating After cleaning Before preparing food After playing games After cleaning/wiping a baby sibling After feeding or caring for animals Other, specify Teachers Canteen Managers Figure 26. Importance of washing hands Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). Canteen Survey (N = 84). Respondents could select multiple options. 96% 70% 51% 40% 26% 18% 9% 4% 90% 52% 60% 39% 26% 26% 4% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prevents getting sick Is good hygiene Kills germs Cleans hands/removes dirt Prevents dirt from entering the mouth Keeps dirt out of food Looks/smells clean Smells good Teachers Canteen Managers March 2022 36 Source: Teacher Survey (N = 340). Canteen Survey (N = 80). Respondents could select multiple options. 127 When prompted for sources of water for cooking, teachers and canteen managers gave similar replies (Figure 28). Almost half of both groups cited drilled water from a borehole as the most prominent source. 44 percent of teachers chose to further specify, with 42 percent of those teachers reporting using a “water pump” or “village pump” (18% of total) to obtain water for cooking at school. Similarly, among the 32 percent of canteen managers who opted to specify another response, 67 percent of those canteen managers reporting using a “water pump” (21% of total) for securing cooking water. 128 Sources of drinking water are shown in Figure 29. The largest share of teachers and canteen managers reported using running water from a tap as their source of drinking water, with 40 percent of teachers and 32 percent of canteen managers reporting this option. As with their source of cooking water, many respondents chose to specify other sources for their drinking water beyond the options presented in the questionnaire. Of the 52 percent of teachers who provided other responses, 43 percent of those teachers reported using “drilled water” (22% of total) and 33 percent said they used a “village hydraulic pump” (17% of total). Similarly, of the 50 percent of canteen managers who provided other responses, 31 percent of those canteen managers cited “drilled water” (15% of total) and 55 percent said they used a “village hydraulic pump” (27% of total) as their drinking water source. Given the widespread usage of boreholes and village resources for water for both cooking and drinking, there is room for improvement on school infrastructure to provide reliable water on-site for these purposes. 62% 46% 43% 29% 50% 44% 53% 35% 0% 50% 100% Wash hands with soap or ash Under running water - proper practice With someone pouring some clean water from a jug onto their hands Wash hands in a shared bowl of water Teachers Canteen Managers Figure 28. Sources of water for cooking Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). Canteen Survey (N = 84). Respondents could select multiple options. 49% 17% 11% 4% 44% 46% 15% 10% 2% 32% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Drilled water from a borehole Running water Water well Water tank Other, specify Teachers Canteen Managers March 2022 37 4.2. RELEVANCE 129 This section discusses the findings related to the relevance of the Phase II program. 4.2.1. To what extent is the intervention design in line with the needs and priorities of the government, the targeted population, including vulnerable groups—women, girls, boys, and men? 130 The McGovern-Dole program is well aligned to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s needs and priorities, specifically those reflected in the School Canteen Management Strategy and 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. 131 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 Yomian school explained, “If the child knows that if I come to school I will find food, he has the courage to come here.” In addition, the McGovern-Dole programme saves parents time and money to provide a mid-day meal. That said, some families still struggled to give children the 25 francs needed to eat in the canteen. Further, school canteens do not appear to operate every day. Respondents also indicated that children in McGovern-Dole schools have trouble with reading and schools lack 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, as they indicated ongoing financial, resource, and training needs (discussed further in Section 4.2). However, there are concerns about the profitability and self-sufficiency of these groups and the work remains very difficult for the women involved. 132 The second phase of the McGovern-Dole program—with its emphasis on the rehabilitation of WASH facilities—is also highly relevant to the needs of school communities. A COGES member Figure 29. Sources of water for drinking Source: Teacher Survey (N = 365). Canteen Survey (N = 84). Respondents could select multiple options. 40% 8% 5% 2% 1% 52% 32% 13% 8% 0% 1% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Running water Reservoir The sink They give us boiled water They give us unboiled water Other, specify Teachers Canteen Managers March 2022 38 from Dielebele commented on the lack of handwashing facilities, “Currently students have to fetch water more than 500 meters away to go to school to wash their hands,” a sentiment that was echoed by many other respondents who lamented the lack of access to running water at schools. Additionally, respondents noted the lack of functioning latrines at schools which forces children to go home to use the latrine or go in the bush. 4.2.2. Is the intervention aligned with the policies and priorities of WFP, partners, and UN agencies? 133 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 Plan12, 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). 134 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. 4.2.3. To what extent have the program design and objectives considered the social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental context and equity? 135 The current McGovern-Dole program is responsive to the socioeconomic context of households in its targeting of rural areas in north and north-western Côte d’Ivoire with high levels of food insecurity. Targeting these areas contributes to equity, as food insecurity and levels of child malnutrition are higher than elsewhere in the country. Additionally, the McGovern-Dole program has 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 supplying 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) 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.” Local ownership and the transition of responsibility for school canteens to communities are indeed a focus of the current phase of the McGovern-Dole program. 12 https://www.wfp.org/operations/ci02-cote-divoire-country-strategic-plan-2019-2023 March 2022 39 4.2.4. To what extent has the intervention design taken gender into account? 136 Gender was considered in the McGovern-Dole program primarily through the decision to provide targeted support to women’s production groups. In phase II of the McGovern-Dole program, there are plans to include soap-making activities for the WPGs to promote an income-generating activity (source: FY2020 McGovern-Dole Proposal). 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.” Women themselves, too, reported being able to help resolve shortages at the canteen and joining cooperatives: “We can help in the canteen if their rice is gone. We made a cooperative so we can go and buy the rice” (Yomian 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 such as gasoline and other resources to enable their donations and the profitability of the WPGs is unclear. 137 In the first phase of the McGovern-Dole program, take home rations were provided to girls to incentivize enrolment and attendance at school which was perceived to be lagging for girls. However, providing rations to girls alone appeared to have a detrimental effect on boys, whose enrolment declined and whose families reported being discouraged by the prioritization of girls. In the second phase of the program, take home rations were discontinued. 138 While the McGovern-Dole program makes 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. 139 Canteen managers generally served most of the meals that they planned, especially serving girls. Table 18 shows that the average canteen planned to serve 135 meals per month to girls and actually served 133 meals per month to girls (98.5%). Canteens planned to serve a similar number (133 meals) to boys but actually ended up serving only an average of 119 meals per month to boys (89.5%). This higher rate for girls could be due to better planning for girls or that girls were more likely to take advantage of the free meals available to them at school. Table 18. Average canteen meals planned vs. meals served in a month by student gender Gender Meals planned Meals Served Girls 135 meals 133 meals Boys 133 meals 119 meals Overall 268 meals 252 meals Source: Canteen Survey (N = 62). 4.2.5. What are the synergies between this intervention and other WFP interventions? 140 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 with funding from other donors 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 March 2022 40 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. Apart from the government, WFP is the only school feeding implementer in Côte d’Ivoire. 4.2.6. To what extent is WFP’s intervention consistent with the policies and programs of other partners operating in the same context? 141 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). A respondent from AVSI 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 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. 142 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. Not only was there a missed opportunity to coordinate with PAPSE, but there may have been confusion and time constraints on the part of teachers as a result of both programs running concurrently. Many teachers reported that they were unable to complete the curriculum due to additional content they were required to deliver as part of the PAPSE intervention (Figure 30). Overall, 52% of teachers reported finishing their programmed curriculums last year, with higher rates of completion observed among teachers of older grades. In addition, with high teacher turnover rates, teachers may have experienced some confusion if they relocated to schools with alternative methodologies. Figure 19. Share of teachers who finished the last year’s curriculum by grade Source: Teacher Survey (N = 364). 42% 38% 46% 54% 55% 78% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CP1 CP2 CE1 CE2 CM1 CM2 March 2022 41 4.2.7. To what extent are the intervention design and implementation consistent with humanitarian principles? 143 The design of the McGovern-Dole program is well aligned with the WFP’s four humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. In terms of humanity, the program delivery model respects the dignity of the people being served. The McGovern-Dole program delivers assistance impartially to the targeted recipients, with no evidence of deliberate discrimination. Therefore, the take home rations to girls at the expense of boys was removed in the second phase of the program to respect the impartial nature of the intervention. In terms of neutrality, these 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 independently based on the WFP’s Country Strategic Plan for Côte d’Ivoire, the needs of the population, and the governments priorities in terms of addressing those needs. 4.3. SUSTAINABILITY 144 This section discusses the extent to which sustainability has been considered in Phase II. 4.3.1. To what extent has the intervention design considered sustainability, such as building the capacity of national and local government institutions, communities, and partners? 145 The intervention design considered sustainability in the second phase, with a plan to gradually hand over management of canteens to the government. A regional representative from AVSI said, “It is a very good opportunity for Côte d'Ivoire because the project is a pure and simple project to support the transition. It is as if it is gradually giving the hand to the State, to take certain responsibilities, to be active, to learn lessons, to achieve things and to put success or to draw lessons and put on a national scale all the successes that we will have or that we have had with the project Phase I and Phase II.” However, a DREN cautioned that the handover required more details on implementation, “When we look at the various indicators, it is true that the process is underway, but it is not yet sufficiently implemented, so we must allow more time.” 146 The 2020 transition plan document identifies the elements of the program that WFP will transition to the government and DCS, including the provision of hot meals, dry rations, micronutrients, and equipment supplies; as well as the larger program goals, including improving reading and capacity reinforcement for women’s groups and COGES (Plan de transition, 2020, p. 17). However, the subsequent section lays out several challenges to the plan, including fundamental elements of planning such as budgeting, access to land, access to water, and the basic establishment of coordination bodies to continue the strategy (Plan de transition, 2020, p. 18). The document also mentions that these challenges have been previously identified multiple times in other documents. Although the roadmap included in the transition plan identifies priority actions and actors for each element of the transition, respondents in the study echoed the importance of the challenges listed, indicating the need to establish more concrete steps to accomplish the priority actions laid out in the plan. The AVSI representative recognized that the project is looking to align itself with the state strategy; however, this person also questioned the existence of a state strategy, indicating the need for discussion regarding the goals for alignment, “Is there a strategy on the in-service training of teachers? If there is the strategy, we align with this strategy so that the State can regularly train its teachers. If there is no strategy, it is an opportunity for the government or the Ministry of National Education to make a document of the continuing education strategy.” The AVSI representative also pointed to the need for state inputs regarding materials; he said, “We have given books, but at a certain point you have to renew the books. What are the State's commitments to renew books and textbooks? Are parents informed? What will be the involvement of parents? The level of information? What about teachers, pedagogical advisors?” March 2022 42 147 Generally, local level respondents were less convinced about the ability to sustain the program, citing a deficit of the political will that would be necessary to take them forward. A respondent from the Regional Center of Evaluation in Education, Environment, Health, and Accreditation in Africa (CRESAC) FGD said, “The government has not taken its thing in hand. And that I have always said, we were at the Estates General of Education where we had the privilege of exposing a little the strategies for the sustainability of school canteens.” Another participant added, “We need a bill, we need a law. We need real political will.” Finally, another respondent added, “I'll tell you the truth honestly, I remain convinced that the groups alone will never be able to perpetuate the canteen.” 148 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.” 149 WPGs seemed committed to continuing themselves but did not yet seem capable of taking on full responsibilities of the canteens. One reason to suppose that WPGs will continue into the future is that many of the groups who participated in the study 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 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.” 150 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 increasing need to support the canteens. 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. March 2022 43 5 Conclusions and lessons learned 5.1. CONCLUSIONS 151 AIR employed a mixed-methods approach for the baseline evaluation of the McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to assess its relevance and sustainability. The evaluation included data from both treatment and comparison schools in all seven regions of program implementation. During November-December 2021, the enumerators conducted surveys and student assessments from a total of 398 teachers, 120 school administrators, 84 canteen managers and 1,187 students and households. The qualitative component included FGDs with male and female parents, COGES members, and WPG members at five schools, as well as FGDs and KIIs with the WFP, government, partners, and other program stakeholders. The researchers 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. 152 The McGovern-Dole program in Côte d’Ivoire is relevant and well-aligned to the policies and priorities of the Ivorian government, the WFP, and partners. The program also aligns well with the needs of beneficiaries in the priority regions. According to participants in the study, 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. The emphasis on rehabilitation of WASH facilities in Phase II of the program is also highly relevant to schools, which have an expressed need for water points and improved latrines. The current McGovern-Dole program is responsive to the socioeconomic context of households in its targeting of rural areas in north and north-western Côte d’Ivoire with high levels of food insecurity. The program also considered gender primarily through the decision to provide targeted support to women’s production groups. Additionally, rehabilitating WASH facilities has the potential to benefit girls in particular, who need adequate facilities to practice proper menstrual hygiene management. 153 Baseline benchmarks were established for a range of performance indicators at the beginning of Phase II. Girls comprise slightly more than half of the school population in treatment schools and enrolment drops off sharply for CM2. The schools comprising the sample vary greatly in size across regions on average, with smaller schools in Gontougo (an average of 151 students), larger schools in Poro (an average of 285), and other regions in between. Overall, the children who enrol in these schools attend at a high rate. School records indicate that the average student was only absent for 1.4 days in the 2020-2021 school year and only 2 percent of children missed more than 10 days due to illness. Nevertheless, children in these schools demonstrate low literacy rates, with only 22.7 percent of students reaching the proficiency levels for their grade. These poor learning outcomes coupled with high levels of attendance suggest that the interventions have great scope to improve learning outcomes. 154 While most teachers reported having received pedagogical training from AVSI, an important minority (38.4%) had received none of those trainings and 86 percent of those who had received the training more than two years ago. Despite lacking access to useful pedagogical trainings, teachers generally reported having access to and using instructional tools, with reading boards (66%), mobile libraries (52%), and illustrated boards (57%) being the most common. Teachers generally reported (80%) that they were present for 90 percent or more of school days, but curiously, principals were even more likely (89%) to report that the teachers in their schools were present. 155 The sample covered a diverse set of 120 schools from across seven regions, 84 treatment schools and 36 comparison schools. In interviews with each of the treatment schools’ directors, 62 percent of them reported that they had received nutrition training, which is greater than either of canteen managers or teachers. School directors also reported their schools received textbooks recently, with 95 percent of schools having received textbooks within the last two years. March 2022 44 156 The research team found that there remains a substantial share of canteen managers (42%) who have not received nutrition trainings on how to feed children. These canteen managers have ample opportunity to influence students’ nutrition because canteens were active for roughly 88 percent of school days over the month preceding data collection. Seeing canteens operating as frequently as they do is a positive indicator for the level of canteen prevalence. However, the quality of canteen operations is lacking: only 66 percent of canteen meals met the MAD requirements. These findings suggest that canteen managers may benefit from additional trainings that could improve the quality of the programming they provide. The impact of these trainings could be particularly high given students’ high attendance rates. 157 The WASH infrastructure and practices in treatment schools demonstrate that Phase II of the program has room to improve outcomes. At least 65 percent of teachers and 49 percent canteen managers have received no AVSI hygiene trainings. Delivering these trainings could reduce the shares of teachers with low understanding of health and hygiene practices (20%), food storage practices (20%), and food preparation practices (35%). It could also improve the low levels of understanding on reasons for handwashing amongst teachers and canteen managers. 158 The intervention design considered sustainability in the second phase, with a plan to gradually hand over management of canteens to the government and local community groups. Generally, local level respondents expressed a need for political will and corresponding official policies that would be necessary to sustain the school feeding program. Respondents emphasized that lack of funding for the program would present a problem to the continuation of the canteens. WPGs seemed committed to continuing themselves but did not yet seem capable of taking on full responsibilities of the canteens. The dedication 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. 5.2. LESSONS LEARNED 159 In the Phase 1 final evaluation report, the evaluators included several recommendations based on lessons learned for Phase 2 of the USDA McGovern-Dole program. Some of the relevant lessons for this baseline report are included below: 160 Lesson learned 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. 161 Lesson learned 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. 162 Lesson learned 3: 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. 163 Lesson learned 4: 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 March 2022 45 education interventions could create confusion when teachers relocate to schools with alternative methodologies. March 2022 46 Annex 1. Summary terms of reference The terms of reference (TOR) for the final evaluation of the first phase and baseline evaluation of the second phase of McGovern-Dole program 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 March 2022 47 Annex 2. Baseline evaluation timeline Phases, Activities and Deliverables Key dates Phase I: 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 II: 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 March 4 Quality assurance by the evaluation manager and external independent quality support service March 18 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 April 1 (assuming 2 weeks to address comments) Sharing of the evaluation report to all stakeholders (evaluation reference group) Consolidation of comments, by the EG April 8 March 2022 48 Revision of the second draft of the evaluation report, by the evaluation team Submission of the final evaluation report to the Evaluation Manager April 15 (assuming 1 week to address final comments) 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 March 2022 49 Annex 3. Performance indicators and results framework Table 19. Performance Indicators Result Indicator Baseline Final Target Improved Effectivenessof Food Assistance Through Local and Regional Procurement Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that include a local and regional procurement (LRP) component 0.00 132,362 Number of schools reached with LRP activities as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 613 Improved Utilization of Nutritious and Culturally Acceptable Food that Meet Quality Standards Number of schools with Women Production Groups supporting the school canteens 0.00 50 Increased Agricultural Productivity Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (Women's Production Groups) 0.00 1,476,000 Volume of commodities (metric tons) produced by smallholder farmers 0.00 6,150 Volume of commodities sold by farms andfirms receiving USDA assistance (Women’s Production Groups 0.00 2,460 Increased Leverage of Private-Sector Resources Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs that includean LRP component 0.00 132,362 Number of Public Private Partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (LRP component) 0.00 50 Value of sales to WFP by Project Beneficiaries 0.00 552,000 Strengthened Local and Regional Food Market Systems Quantity (MT) of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 1,313 Improved Literacy of School-Age Children Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 0.00 625,000 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs 0.00 132,362 Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 613 Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text 34.00 60 Increased Government Support Value of new USG commitments, and new public and private sector investments leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition 0.00 46,288,453 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 613 March 2022 50 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 18 Increased Capacity of Government Institutions Number of people (national, WFP, partners) trained in needs assessment, targeting, food management, market analysis, information management, logistics 0.00 3,176 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Education) 0.00 2 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 3,678 More Consistent Teacher Attendance Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach in the school regularly (at least 90% of school days) per school year. 0.00 95 Better Access to School Supplies and Materials Number of primary students benefiting from the provision of supplemental reading materials 0.00 140,000 Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 42,910 Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials Number of assessment Tools for Teachers Improved by USDA assistance 0.00 10 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 3,678 Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators Number of school administrators (Directors) and officials (Mentors and Inspectors) trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 763 Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 725 Reduced Short-Term Hunger Volume of commodities (metric tons) given by smallholder farmers to school canteens 0.00 1,845 Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries to WFP 0.00 690 Increased Access to Food (School Feeding) Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 43,750,000 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 208,500 Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets 0.00 215,260 Improved Student Attendance Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools 80.00 98 Reduced Health- Related Absences Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) 0.00 132,000 Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 855 Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and storage practices as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 855 March 2022 51 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups Number of awareness raising sessions conducted by COGES and CSCS 0.00 6,130 Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 900 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 900 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services Number of schools using an improved water source 29.00 179 Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities 232.00 332 Number of Water-point technicians trained 0.00 300 Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools and Equipment Number of non-food items provided as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 60,000 Number of stoves rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 200 Improved School Infrastructure Number of educational facilities (improved water sources, and latrines, stoves stones and other school grounds) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 0.00 863 Increased Student Enrollment Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance 132,000.00 138,000 Table 20. Results Framework RESULTS INDICATOR Baseline 2021/2 McGovern-Dole SO1 Improved literacy of school-age children Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text (boys). CP1= 20.8% CP2=30.3% CE1=25.8% CE2=17.7% CM1=14.7% Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text (girls). CP1= 25.0% CP2=24.3% CE1=30.8% CE2=16.3% CM1=23.0% Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA￾funded interventions. 0 McGovern-Dole 1.1 Improved quality of literacy instruction 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. 89.0% 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 March 2022 52 McGovern-Dole 1.1.3 Improved literacy instructional materials 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 = 63% 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 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 = 67.8% Male = 72.2% Coping strategy index (average) per sex of the household head. Female = 4.7 Male = 4.9 Dietary diversity score per sex of the household. 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 March 2022 53 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). 99.7% Proportion of student regularly (80%) attending classes / schools supported by USDA (girls). 100.0% 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). 2.3% Proportion of school children who miss more than 10 days of school per year due to illness (girls). 0.0% McGovern-Dole 1.3.3 Improved School Infrastructure 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. 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 1.4.1 /1.4.2 /1.4.3 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 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. 0 McGovern-Dole SO2 Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices Proportion of school-aged children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (boys). 65.9% Proportion of school-aged children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (girls). 65.9% 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). 80.9% Proportion of School Management Committee members and canteen management staff who can identify at least three health and hygiene practices (women). 75.0% 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. 79.8% good food storage practice 65.5% good food preparation practices March 2022 54 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 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services McGovern-Dole 2.5 Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions Number of school children who received deworming. Proportion of schools using an improved water source. 75.0% have a water point 54.8% have an improved water source Proportion of schools with improved sanitation facilities. 72.6% 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 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 March 2022 55 Annex 4. DID methodology 164 The main objective of the impact evaluation is to assess the extent to which the program resulted in improved student and household outcomes. The research team will measure the program’s causal impacts on student and household outcomes after five and ten 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. 165 As illustrated in Figure 31, 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). Figure 31. Impact evaluation design 166 The DID approach computes the program impacts as follows: • (C–A) represents the difference in outcomes between 2021 and 2026 for the treatment group. • (D–B) represents the difference in outcomes between 2021 and 2026 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). 167 Power Calculations. The power analysis confirms the sample of 1,486 students across 120 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). March 2022 56 168 Data Analysis. The researchers estimated the program effects using DID analysis of student reading outcomes, as follows: 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑡𝑡1 + γ𝑇𝑇 + δ1𝑡𝑡1𝑇𝑇 + δ2𝑡𝑡2𝑇𝑇 + 𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + +𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 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 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is a set of student or household 𝑖𝑖 characteristics, such as gender, parents’ education, distance to school To account for the fact that students are nested within schools and grades, the researchers specified that the standard errors allow for intragroup correlation, strengthening the usual requirement that the observations be independent. Standard errors will be clustered within the school. In addition, as requested in the TOR, the researchers 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. March 2022 57 Annex 5. Equivalence results 1 The researchers conducted equivalence tests to determine the study validity and to further refine the study design. The team performed two separate tests: • Treatment-Comparison Equivalence: For this set of equivalence tables, the researchers compare the full set of 84 treatment schools to the full set of 36 comparison schools. These comparisons do not account for any changes that may have occurred to treatment schools due to the first phase of the program. This comparison captures the extent to which the comparison group is similar to the treatment group after Phase I but before Phase II. The DID methodology at endline should account for any pre-existing differences in outcomes observed at baseline. • New-Old Treatment Equivalence: For this set of equivalence tables, the researchers compare the 50 treatment schools that comprised the sample for Phase I to the 34 additional schools added for the Phase II study. The purpose of these equivalence tests is to ensure that adding the schools does not change the treatment sample from Phase I to Phase II in any meaningful way. TREATMENT-COMPARISON EQUIVALENCE Child/Parent-level Outcomes 2 The researchers find that the treatment and comparison group children and parents are broadly similar prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that only 7 out of 96 outcomes were statistically significantly different for child and parent outcomes, which is even fewer than would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. Table 21. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Select sex of student 1.50 359 1.50 828 -0.00 0.01 0.74 -0.00 Student age 9.96 359 10.02 828 0.06 0.16 0.73 0.03 Sex of HH head 1.09 359 1.11 828 0.02 0.03 0.43 0.07 Age of HH head 46.61 339 45.71 762 -0.90 0.92 0.33 -0.08 Household head completed primary 0.33 359 0.44 828 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.23 Total HH members 0- 5 years old 1.93 359 1.76 828 -0.17 0.16 0.29 -0.09 HH members male 0- 5 years old 1.03 359 0.89 828 -0.15 0.09 0.12 -0.13 HH members female 0-5 years old 0.90 359 0.87 828 -0.03 0.10 0.78 -0.02 Total HH members 6- 3.43 359 3.17 828 -0.27 0.18 0.15 -0.12 March 2022 58 14 years old HH members male 6-14 years old 1.83 359 1.57 828 -0.26 0.10 0.01 -0.18 HH members female 6-14 years old 1.61 359 1.59 828 -0.01 0.11 0.91 -0.01 Total HH members 15-59 years old 4.11 359 3.81 828 -0.30 0.24 0.22 -0.10 HH members male 15-59 years old 1.87 359 1.80 828 -0.07 0.12 0.56 -0.04 HH members female 15-59 years old 2.25 359 2.01 828 -0.23 0.14 0.09 -0.13 Total HH members 60+ years old 0.39 359 0.42 828 0.03 0.06 0.65 0.04 HH members male 60+ years old 0.19 359 0.17 828 -0.02 0.03 0.48 -0.06 HH members female 60+ years old 0.20 359 0.25 828 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.10 Total members 9.87 359 9.15 828 -0.72 0.53 0.18 -0.12 Total members male 4.92 359 4.42 828 -0.50 0.26 0.06 -0.16 Total members female 4.95 359 4.73 828 -0.22 0.30 0.45 -0.07 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 22. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Do you like reading? 0.78 357 0.82 825 0.04 0.03 0.23 0.10 Does your family have books at home? 0.61 359 0.64 825 0.03 0.05 0.59 0.06 Do you have books for kids at home other than school books? 0.12 357 0.16 827 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.11 Do you read with someone/your parents at home? 0.51 359 0.59 827 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.16 March 2022 59 Do you read alone at home? 0.66 359 0.62 828 -0.04 0.04 0.25 -0.09 Last year, did you like how the teacher taught in class? 0.85 356 0.86 814 0.01 0.02 0.73 0.02 Last year, could you talk to your teacher about the reading￾writing lessons you 0.48 359 0.53 825 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.11 Last year, did you participate in reading activities organized by the school or 0.16 357 0.38 825 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.46 Did you have school textbooks for French or reading-writing last year? 0.70 359 0.76 826 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.14 In class, do you sit on a table-bench? 0.99 359 0.99 828 0.00 0.01 0.79 0.03 Do you have a textbook? 0.75 359 0.78 827 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.07 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 23. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Are you aware of the school canteen program? 0.31 354 0.89 821 0.58 0.06 0.00 1.29 Last school year did [student name] eat at the school canteen? 0.28 353 0.94 822 0.66 0.07 0.00 1.50 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 24. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size March 2022 60 Has Sewing machine 0.04 341 0.04 779 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 Has Mill 0.02 337 0.02 778 -0.00 0.01 0.84 -0.01 Has Canoe 0.01 340 0.01 777 -0.00 0.01 0.87 -0.02 Has Bicycle/Bike 0.54 347 0.57 792 0.03 0.06 0.64 0.05 Has Cassava press 0.02 340 0.02 780 0.01 0.01 0.54 0.04 Has Tractor 0.01 338 0.01 773 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.06 Has Seed drill 0.12 339 0.12 775 -0.00 0.04 0.93 -0.01 Has Car 0.04 341 0.03 773 -0.01 0.01 0.50 -0.06 Has Grinder/chipper 0.01 338 0.01 769 -0.00 0.01 0.85 -0.01 Has Crop sprayer 0.54 348 0.47 801 -0.07 0.05 0.15 -0.14 Has Fishing net 0.02 339 0.01 765 -0.00 0.01 0.60 -0.04 Has Cultivator 0.02 338 0.01 768 -0.01 0.01 0.34 -0.08 Has Moped/Motorbike 0.71 346 0.66 795 -0.05 0.05 0.35 -0.11 Has Cart 0.13 339 0.09 771 -0.04 0.03 0.26 -0.13 Has Tricycle 0.19 341 0.16 777 -0.03 0.04 0.48 -0.08 Has Plough 0.13 336 0.09 771 -0.04 0.04 0.25 -0.14 Has Wheelbarrow 0.27 341 0.23 779 -0.03 0.04 0.33 -0.08 Has Irrigation system 0.01 335 0.01 764 -0.01 0.01 0.22 -0.11 Has Other to precise 0.02 316 0.02 713 -0.00 0.01 0.82 -0.02 Has no productive assets 0.04 328 0.06 722 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.11 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 25. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Yesterday, did your household eat rice 0.72 359 0.69 828 -0.03 0.06 0.55 -0.07 Yesterday, did your household eat pasta, 0.16 359 0.15 828 -0.01 0.03 0.68 -0.04 March 2022 61 bread/cake and/or donuts Yesterday, did your household eat other grains: Sorghum millet, maize, fonio 0.44 359 0.35 828 -0.09 0.07 0.17 -0.19 Yesterday, did your household eat roots, tubers, potato, yams, cassava, sweet po 0.29 359 0.38 828 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.19 Yesterday, did your household eat plantain banana 0.07 359 0.09 828 0.02 0.03 0.40 0.08 Yesterday, did your household eat legumes/nuts: beans, cowpeas, peanuts, lentils 0.40 359 0.36 828 -0.04 0.05 0.47 -0.08 Yesterday, did your household eat orange vegetables 0.02 359 0.01 828 -0.01 0.01 0.19 -0.12 Yesterday, did your household eat green leafy vegetables 0.62 359 0.64 828 0.02 0.05 0.62 0.05 Yesterday, did your household eat other vegetables 0.38 359 0.37 828 -0.01 0.04 0.83 -0.02 Yesterday, did your household eat orange fruits (except oranges) 0.02 359 0.02 828 -0.00 0.01 0.70 -0.03 Yesterday, did your household eat other fruits 0.05 359 0.04 828 -0.01 0.01 0.39 -0.06 Yesterday, did your household eat meat, chicken, goat, pork 0.17 359 0.17 828 -0.00 0.03 0.94 -0.01 Yesterday, did your household eat fish/shellfish 0.50 359 0.51 828 0.01 0.05 0.87 0.02 Yesterday, did your household eat eggs 0.03 359 0.02 828 -0.01 0.01 0.61 -0.04 Yesterday, did your household eat milk and other dairy 0.08 359 0.09 828 0.00 0.02 0.92 0.01 Yesterday, did your household eat oil/fat/butter 0.45 359 0.43 828 -0.03 0.05 0.57 -0.05 March 2022 62 Yesterday, did your household eat sugar or sugar products 0.24 359 0.19 828 -0.05 0.04 0.25 -0.12 Yesterday, did your household eat condiments/spices/alcoholic beverages 0.74 359 0.71 828 -0.03 0.05 0.55 -0.06 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 26. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Proficient at reading 0.19 359 0.22 828 0.03 0.04 0.47 0.07 Reading Level 3.52 359 3.87 828 0.35 0.26 0.18 0.11 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 27. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Student missed more than 10 school days due to illness 0.06 320 0.03 727 -0.02 0.02 0.11 -0.13 The household engaged in stress￾coping strategies 0.40 359 0.42 828 0.02 0.04 0.65 0.04 The household engaged in crisis￾coping strategies 0.08 359 0.10 828 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.08 The household engaged in emergency-coping strategies 0.06 359 0.08 828 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.10 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 28. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized March 2022 63 Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Household Dietary Diversity Score 4.65 359 4.51 828 -0.14 0.19 0.45 -0.08 FCS 51.45 359 51.64 828 0.19 2.08 0.93 0.01 Reduced Coping Strategies Index (CSI) 4.78 359 4.77 828 -0.01 0.67 0.99 -0.00 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 29. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell non￾productive assets 0.03 359 0.03 828 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.04 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell more animals than usual 0.12 359 0.16 828 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Spending savings 0.28 359 0.27 828 -0.01 0.04 0.74 -0.03 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Borrow money from a bank 0.13 359 0.15 828 0.01 0.03 0.61 0.04 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Reduce essential non-food expense 0.05 359 0.07 828 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.10 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell productive assets or means o 0.02 359 0.03 828 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.06 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Remove the children from school 0.01 359 0.02 828 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.04 March 2022 64 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell the house or land 0.00 359 0.01 828 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.05 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Beg 0.01 359 0.01 828 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.03 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell the last female animals 0.05 359 0.07 828 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.08 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 30. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Number of meals consumed on an avg day in April 2021 by children under 5 years 3.21 309 3.13 677 -0.08 0.08 0.30 -0.09 Number of meals consumed on an avg day in April 2021 by adults 2.88 356 2.84 820 -0.04 0.03 0.20 -0.10 Number of meals consumed yesterday by children of 5 years 3.15 311 3.09 680 -0.06 0.08 0.46 -0.07 Number of meals consumed yesterday by adults 2.85 357 2.84 825 -0.01 0.03 0.75 -0.03 Number of meals consumed on an avg day by children under 5 years 3.19 311 3.12 682 -0.07 0.07 0.35 -0.08 Number of meals consumed on an avg day by adults 2.88 359 2.84 827 -0.04 0.04 0.28 -0.09 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. March 2022 65 School-level Outcomes 3 The researchers find that the treatment and comparison group schools already have many differences prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that 27 out of 56 outcomes were statistically significantly different for school outcomes, which is much more than the 6 different outcomes that would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. Table 31. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Was there the CP1 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.92 36 0.93 84 0.01 0.05 0.83 0.05 Was there the CP2 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 1.00 36 0.99 84 -0.01 0.01 0.32 -0.13 Was there the CE1 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.92 36 0.95 84 0.04 0.05 0.49 0.15 Was there CE2 class in this school during the school year 2020- 2021? 0.92 36 0.95 84 0.04 0.05 0.49 0.15 Was there CM1 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.81 36 0.96 84 0.16 0.07 0.02 0.57 Was there the CM2 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.86 36 0.96 84 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.41 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 32. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Does the school have a ventilated food 0.63 8 0.84 82 0.22 0.18 0.23 0.56 March 2022 66 storage area? Does the school have pallets for food? 0.13 8 0.42 84 0.29 0.13 0.03 0.59 What is the place used to eat school meals? 0.88 8 0.86 84 -0.02 0.12 0.89 -0.05 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 33. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Is there water availability for school? 0.58 36 0.75 84 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.36 Are there school sanitation facilities (latrines, toilets, etc.)? 0.69 36 0.73 84 0.03 0.09 0.73 0.07 Are there separate sanitary facilities for girls and boys within the school? 0.52 25 0.67 61 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.31 Are there separate sanitary facilities for students and teachers within the school 0.60 25 0.39 61 -0.21 0.12 0.08 -0.41 Are these sanitary installations functional at the moment? 0.80 25 0.74 61 -0.06 0.10 0.53 -0.14 School using and improved water source 0.39 36 0.55 84 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.32 School with access to sanitation facilities 0.69 36 0.73 84 0.03 0.09 0.73 0.07 School with gender￾separated sanitation facilities 0.36 36 0.49 84 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.25 School separate sanitation facilities for students and teachers 0.42 36 0.29 84 -0.13 0.10 0.18 -0.28 March 2022 67 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 34. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Is there a school cooperative? 0.53 36 0.76 84 0.23 0.10 0.02 0.50 Is there a library in your school? 0.08 36 0.75 84 0.67 0.07 0.00 1.33 Is your school electrified? 0.11 36 0.27 84 0.16 0.07 0.03 0.39 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 35. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Training of teachers on health education based on the acquisition of know￾how an 0.19 36 0.37 84 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.37 Teacher training on deworming 0.08 36 0.24 84 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.39 Teacher training on the teaching of reading 0.67 36 0.92 84 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.68 Deworming treatments for students 0.53 36 0.46 84 -0.06 0.10 0.53 -0.13 Training sessions on the vegetable garden activities for students 0.03 36 0.06 84 0.03 0.04 0.40 0.15 Provision of school materials (books, school supplies, etc.) 0.69 36 0.92 84 0.22 0.08 0.01 0.62 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 36. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type March 2022 68 Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Has the school ever benefited from a school feeding program in the previous two 0.17 36 0.99 84 0.82 0.06 0.00 1.87 Does the school currently benefit from a school feeding program? 0.17 36 0.81 84 0.64 0.08 0.00 1.32 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 37. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Training of teachers on health education based on the acquisition 0.19 36 0.37 84 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.37 Teacher training on deworming 0.08 36 0.24 84 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.39 Teacher training on HIV / AIDS prevention 0.11 36 0.06 83 -0.05 0.06 0.39 -0.19 Teacher training on malaria prevention 0.06 36 0.01 83 -0.04 0.04 0.28 -0.28 Teacher training on nutrition education 0.17 36 0.59 83 0.42 0.08 0.00 0.85 Information sessions for students on nutrition education 0.14 36 0.29 82 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.36 Training sessions on the vegetable garden activities for student 0.03 36 0.06 84 0.03 0.04 0.40 0.15 Deworming treatments for students 0.53 36 0.46 84 -0.06 0.10 0.53 -0.13 Providing micronutrient 0.11 36 0.24 83 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.32 March 2022 69 supplements for students Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 38. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Control Treatment Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size CP1: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 35.33 33 40.62 78 5.28 2.97 0.08 0.37 Number of girls 2020-2021 17.12 33 20.85 78 3.72 1.89 0.05 0.39 Number of boys 2020-2021 18.21 33 19.77 78 1.56 1.57 0.32 0.21 CP2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 32.25 36 38.41 83 6.16 2.96 0.04 0.42 Number of girls 2020-2021 14.72 36 20.46 83 5.74 1.69 0.00 0.63 Number of boys 2020-2021 17.53 36 17.95 83 0.42 1.54 0.78 0.06 CE1: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 30.24 33 40.25 80 10.01 3.51 0.01 0.58 Number of girls 2020-2021 14.28 32 20.99 80 6.71 1.70 0.00 0.73 Number of boys 2020-2021 16.39 33 19.26 80 2.87 2.07 0.17 0.31 CE2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 32.06 33 38.71 80 6.65 3.79 0.08 0.39 Number of girls 2020-2021 16.18 33 20.59 80 4.41 1.98 0.03 0.45 Number of boys 2020-2021 15.88 33 18.13 80 2.25 2.10 0.29 0.26 CM1: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 31.48 29 37.54 81 6.06 3.65 0.10 0.36 March 2022 70 Number of girls 2020-2021 14.48 29 19.57 81 5.09 1.93 0.01 0.53 Number of boys 2020-2021 17.00 29 17.98 81 0.98 1.97 0.62 0.11 CM2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 27.00 31 31.12 81 4.12 3.34 0.22 0.27 Number of girls 2020- 2021 13.27 30 15.78 80 2.51 1.70 0.14 0.31 Number of boys 2020-2021 14.16 31 15.54 81 1.38 1.89 0.47 0.16 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. NEW-OLD TREATMENT EQUIVALENCE Child/Parent-level Outcomes 4 The researchers find that the new treatment observations and treatment observation are broadly similar prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that only 7 out of 96 outcomes were statistically significantly different for child and parent outcomes, which is even fewer than would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. These 7 outcomes, in bold below, show that expanding the treatment sample size does not alter the composition of the treatment group relative to the first phase of the study. Table 39. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Select sex of student 1.50 336 1.50 492 -0.00 0.01 0.87 -0.00 Student age 9.63 336 10.28 492 0.66 0.16 0.00 0.30 Sex of HH head 1.13 336 1.10 492 -0.03 0.03 0.43 -0.08 Age of HH head 44.95 310 46.22 452 1.27 1.14 0.27 0.11 Household head completed primary 0.47 336 0.42 492 -0.05 0.06 0.42 -0.09 Total HH members 0- 5 years old 1.67 336 1.82 492 0.15 0.19 0.43 0.08 HH members male 0- 5 years old 0.79 336 0.95 492 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.14 HH members female 0-5 years old 0.88 336 0.87 492 -0.00 0.11 0.98 -0.00 March 2022 71 Total HH members 6- 14 years old 3.21 336 3.14 492 -0.07 0.20 0.71 -0.03 HH members male 6- 14 years old 1.52 336 1.61 492 0.09 0.11 0.40 0.07 HH members female 6-14 years old 1.69 336 1.53 492 -0.16 0.12 0.17 -0.12 Total HH members 15-59 years old 3.74 336 3.86 492 0.12 0.29 0.68 0.04 HH members male 15-59 years old 1.75 336 1.83 492 0.08 0.14 0.56 0.05 HH members female 15-59 years old 1.99 336 2.03 492 0.04 0.17 0.82 0.02 Total HH members 60+ years old 0.37 336 0.45 492 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.11 HH members male 60+ years old 0.14 336 0.18 492 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.10 HH members female 60+ years old 0.23 336 0.26 492 0.04 0.04 0.29 0.08 Total members 8.99 336 9.26 492 0.28 0.61 0.65 0.05 Total members male 4.20 336 4.57 492 0.37 0.29 0.21 0.12 Total members female 4.78 336 4.69 492 -0.09 0.34 0.79 -0.03 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 40. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p-value Size Do you like reading? 0.79 335 0.84 490 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.15 Does your family have books at home? 0.60 335 0.67 490 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.15 Do you have books for kids at home other than school books? 0.15 336 0.17 491 0.02 0.03 0.55 0.04 Do you read with someone/your parents at home? 0.60 335 0.58 492 -0.02 0.05 0.75 -0.03 Do you read alone at home? 0.61 336 0.63 492 0.02 0.04 0.71 0.03 March 2022 72 Last year, did you like how the teacher taught in class? 0.86 329 0.86 485 -0.00 0.03 0.97 -0.00 Last year, could you talk to your teacher about the reading￾writing lessons you 0.49 334 0.56 491 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.15 Last year, did you participate in reading activities organized by the school or 0.30 334 0.43 491 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.28 Did you have school textbooks for French or reading-writing last year? 0.76 336 0.76 490 -0.01 0.04 0.89 -0.01 In class, do you sit on a table-bench? 0.99 336 0.99 492 -0.00 0.01 0.98 -0.00 Do you have a textbook? 0.78 336 0.78 491 -0.00 0.04 0.90 -0.01 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 41. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p-value Size Are you aware of the school canteen program? 0.85 331 0.91 490 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.18 Last school year did your child eat at the school canteen? 0.91 334 0.96 488 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.20 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 42. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p-value Size Has Sewing machine 0.05 313 0.04 466 -0.01 0.02 0.47 -0.06 Has Mill 0.02 314 0.02 464 0.00 0.01 0.66 0.03 Has Canoe 0.00 312 0.02 465 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.14 March 2022 73 Has Bicycle/Bike 0.56 321 0.58 471 0.01 0.07 0.86 0.02 Has Cassava press 0.03 311 0.02 469 -0.01 0.01 0.44 -0.06 Has Tractor 0.01 310 0.02 463 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.08 Has Seed drill 0.10 310 0.13 465 0.02 0.04 0.57 0.07 Has Car 0.03 307 0.02 466 -0.01 0.02 0.75 -0.04 Has Grinder/chipper 0.01 304 0.01 465 0.00 0.01 0.90 0.01 Has Crop sprayer 0.48 324 0.47 477 -0.00 0.05 0.97 -0.00 Has Fishing net 0.01 302 0.02 463 0.01 0.01 0.53 0.05 Has Cultivator 0.02 305 0.00 463 -0.02 0.01 0.04 -0.24 Has Moped/Motorbike 0.65 320 0.67 475 0.02 0.07 0.71 0.05 Has Cart 0.07 309 0.10 462 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.09 Has Tricycle 0.18 311 0.15 466 -0.03 0.04 0.44 -0.09 Has Plough 0.10 308 0.08 463 -0.02 0.03 0.52 -0.08 Has Wheelbarrow 0.27 312 0.21 467 -0.06 0.05 0.21 -0.13 Has Irrigation system 0.00 310 0.01 454 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.05 Has Other to precise 0.02 287 0.01 426 -0.01 0.01 0.52 -0.05 Has no productive assets 0.05 291 0.07 431 0.02 0.03 0.39 0.09 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 43. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Yesterday, did your household eat rice 0.67 336 0.70 492 0.03 0.06 0.64 0.07 Yesterday, did your household eat pasta, bread/cake and/or donuts 0.16 336 0.14 492 -0.02 0.03 0.62 -0.04 Yesterday, did your household eat other grains: Sorghum millet, maize, fonio 0.33 336 0.36 492 0.03 0.07 0.71 0.06 March 2022 74 Yesterday, did your household eat roots, tubers, potato, yams, cassava, sweet po 0.42 336 0.36 492 -0.05 0.08 0.47 -0.11 Yesterday, did your household eat plantain banana 0.13 336 0.07 492 -0.07 0.04 0.11 -0.23 Yesterday, did your household eat legumes/nuts: beans, cowpeas, peanuts, lentils 0.35 336 0.36 492 0.02 0.06 0.79 0.03 Yesterday, did your household eat orange vegetables 0.01 336 0.00 492 -0.01 0.01 0.18 -0.12 Yesterday, did your household eat green leafy vegetables 0.61 336 0.67 492 0.06 0.06 0.30 0.12 Yesterday, did your household eat other vegetables 0.35 336 0.38 492 0.02 0.05 0.68 0.05 Yesterday, did your household eat orange fruits (except oranges) 0.01 336 0.02 492 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.05 Yesterday, did your household eat other fruits 0.04 336 0.03 492 -0.00 0.02 0.95 -0.01 Yesterday, did your household eat meat, chicken, goat, pork 0.17 336 0.17 492 0.00 0.03 0.97 0.00 Yesterday, did your household eat fish/shellfish 0.48 336 0.52 492 0.04 0.06 0.48 0.08 Yesterday, did your household eat eggs 0.03 336 0.02 492 -0.01 0.01 0.47 -0.06 Yesterday, did your household eat milk and other dairy 0.07 336 0.09 492 0.02 0.03 0.50 0.07 Yesterday, did your household eat oil/fat/butter 0.42 336 0.43 492 0.00 0.05 0.94 0.01 Yesterday, did your household eat sugar or sugar products 0.19 336 0.19 492 -0.00 0.04 0.95 -0.01 Yesterday, did your household eat 0.72 336 0.70 492 -0.02 0.06 0.71 -0.05 March 2022 75 condiments/spices/alcoholic beverages Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 44. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p-value Size Proficient at reading 0.23 336 0.22 492 -0.01 0.05 0.89 -0.02 Reading Level 3.55 336 4.10 492 0.55 0.30 0.07 0.17 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 45. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Student missed more than 10 school days due to illness 0.04 285 0.03 442 -0.01 0.01 0.41 -0.07 The household engaged in stress￾coping strategies 0.43 336 0.40 492 -0.03 0.05 0.57 -0.05 The household engaged in crisis￾coping strategies 0.10 336 0.10 492 -0.01 0.03 0.75 -0.03 The household engaged in emergency-coping strategies 0.08 336 0.09 492 0.00 0.03 0.94 0.01 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 46. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Household Dietary Diversity Score 4.49 336 4.53 492 0.04 0.18 0.83 0.02 FCS 51.85 336 51.51 492 -0.34 1.97 0.86 -0.02 March 2022 76 reduced Coping Strategies Index (CSI) 4.84 336 4.73 492 -0.11 0.78 0.89 -0.01 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 47. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell non￾productive assets 0.02 336 0.04 492 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.10 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell more animals than usual 0.16 336 0.15 492 -0.01 0.03 0.78 -0.03 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Spending savings 0.29 336 0.26 492 -0.03 0.05 0.48 -0.07 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Borrow money from a bank 0.11 336 0.17 492 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.16 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Reduce essential non-food expense 0.08 336 0.07 492 -0.02 0.03 0.47 -0.07 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell productive assets or means o 0.03 336 0.03 492 -0.00 0.01 0.91 -0.01 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Remove the children from school 0.02 336 0.01 492 -0.00 0.01 0.70 -0.03 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell the house or land 0.00 336 0.01 492 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.07 Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 0.01 336 0.01 492 -0.00 0.01 0.91 -0.01 March 2022 77 days: Beg Behavior due to food scarcity in last 30 days: Sell the last female animals 0.08 336 0.07 492 -0.01 0.03 0.66 -0.04 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 48. Summary Statistics Household – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Number of meals consumed on an avg day in April 2021 by children under 5 years 3.08 267 3.17 410 0.08 0.10 0.39 0.09 Number of meals consumed on an avg day in April 2021 by adults 2.86 332 2.82 488 -0.05 0.05 0.32 -0.10 Number of meals consumed yesterday by children of 5 years 3.02 270 3.14 410 0.12 0.10 0.24 0.13 Number of meals consumed yesterday by adults 2.83 335 2.84 490 0.00 0.05 0.93 0.01 Number of meals consumed on an avg day by children under 5 years 3.04 269 3.17 413 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.14 Number of meals consumed on an avg day by adults 2.86 335 2.83 492 -0.04 0.05 0.49 -0.08 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. School-level Outcomes 5 The researchers find that the new treatment schools and original treatment schools are broadly similar prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that only 4 out of 56 outcomes were statistically significantly different for school outcomes, which is less than would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. Table 49. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type March 2022 78 Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Was there the CP1 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.94 34 0.92 50 -0.02 0.06 0.71 -0.08 Was there the CP2 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 1.00 34 0.98 50 -0.02 0.02 0.32 -0.18 Was there the CE1 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.91 34 0.98 50 0.07 0.05 0.20 0.32 Was there CE2 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 1.00 34 0.92 50 -0.08 0.04 0.04 -0.37 Was there CM1 class at the school during the school year 2020- 2021? 0.94 34 0.98 50 0.04 0.05 0.40 0.21 Was there the CM2 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.97 34 0.96 50 -0.01 0.04 0.79 -0.06 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 19. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Does the school have a ventilated food storage area? 0.76 33 0.90 49 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.38 Does the school have pallets for food? 0.41 34 0.42 50 0.01 0.11 0.94 0.02 What is the place used to eat school meals? 0.88 34 0.84 50 -0.04 0.08 0.58 -0.12 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. March 2022 79 Table 51. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Is there water availability for school? 0.85 34 0.68 50 -0.17 0.09 0.06 -0.40 Are there school sanitation facilities (latrines, toilets, etc.)? 0.76 34 0.70 50 -0.06 0.10 0.51 -0.14 Are there separate sanitary facilities for girls and boys within the school? 0.73 26 0.63 35 -0.10 0.12 0.40 -0.22 Are there separate sanitary facilities for students and teachers within the school 0.42 26 0.37 35 -0.05 0.13 0.69 -0.10 Are these sanitary installations functional at the moment? 0.73 26 0.74 35 0.01 0.12 0.92 0.03 School using and improved water source 0.68 34 0.46 50 -0.22 0.11 0.05 -0.43 School with access to sanitation facilities 0.76 34 0.70 50 -0.06 0.10 0.51 -0.14 School with gender￾separated sanitation facilities 0.56 34 0.44 50 -0.12 0.11 0.29 -0.24 School separate sanitation facilities for students and teachers 0.32 34 0.26 50 -0.06 0.10 0.54 -0.14 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 52. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Is there a school cooperative? 0.76 34 0.76 50 -0.00 0.10 0.96 -0.01 March 2022 80 Is there a library in your school? 0.68 34 0.80 50 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.28 Is your school electrified? 0.18 34 0.34 50 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.36 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 53. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Training of teachers on health education based on the acquisition of know￾how an 0.35 34 0.38 50 0.03 0.11 0.80 0.06 Teacher training on deworming 0.24 34 0.24 50 0.00 0.10 0.96 0.01 Teacher training on the teaching of reading 0.91 34 0.92 50 0.01 0.06 0.90 0.03 Deworming treatments for students 0.41 34 0.50 50 0.09 0.11 0.43 0.18 Training sessions on the vegetable garden activities for students 0.09 34 0.04 50 -0.05 0.06 0.40 -0.20 Provision of school materials (books, school supplies, etc.) 0.94 34 0.90 50 -0.04 0.06 0.49 -0.15 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 54. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Has the school ever benefited from a school feeding program in the previous two 1.00 34 0.98 50 -0.02 0.02 0.32 -0.18 Does the school currently benefit from 0.85 34 0.78 50 -0.07 0.09 0.40 -0.18 March 2022 81 a school feeding program (i.e., dry ratio Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 55. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Training of teachers on health education based on the acquisition 0.35 34 0.38 50 0.03 0.11 0.80 0.06 Teacher training on deworming 0.24 34 0.24 50 0.00 0.10 0.96 0.01 Teacher training on HIV / AIDS prevention 0.03 34 0.08 49 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.22 Teacher training on malaria prevention 0.03 34 0.00 49 -0.03 0.03 0.32 -0.27 Teacher training on nutrition education 0.58 33 0.60 50 0.02 0.11 0.83 0.05 Information sessions for students on nutrition education 0.30 33 0.29 49 -0.02 0.10 0.87 -0.04 Training sessions on the vegetable garden activities for student 0.09 34 0.04 50 -0.05 0.06 0.40 -0.20 Deworming treatments for students 0.41 34 0.50 50 0.09 0.11 0.43 0.18 Providing micronutrient supplements for students) 0.21 33 0.26 50 0.05 0.10 0.62 0.11 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 56. Summary Statistics School – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size CP1: Total enrolled 40.75 32 40.52 46 -0.23 3.26 0.94 -0.02 March 2022 82 pupils in 2020-2021 school year Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.59 32 20.33 46 -1.27 2.22 0.57 -0.13 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.16 32 20.20 46 1.04 1.63 0.53 0.15 CP2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 40.15 34 37.20 49 -2.94 3.13 0.35 -0.21 Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.74 34 19.57 49 -2.16 1.95 0.27 -0.24 Number of boys 2020-2021 18.41 34 17.63 49 -0.78 1.49 0.60 -0.11 CE1: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 40.81 31 39.90 49 -0.91 3.62 0.80 -0.06 Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.03 31 20.96 49 -0.07 1.94 0.97 -0.01 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.77 31 18.94 49 -0.84 2.03 0.68 -0.10 CE2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 39.79 34 37.91 46 -1.88 3.43 0.59 -0.12 Number of girls 2020- 2021 20.21 34 20.87 46 0.66 2.15 0.76 0.07 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.59 34 17.04 46 -2.54 1.67 0.13 -0.34 CM1: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 39.28 32 36.41 49 -2.87 3.58 0.42 -0.17 Number of girls 2020- 2021 20.03 32 19.27 49 -0.77 2.08 0.71 -0.08 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.25 32 17.14 49 -2.11 1.96 0.29 -0.23 CM2: Total enrolled pupils in 2020-2021 school year 32.15 33 30.42 48 -1.73 3.44 0.62 -0.11 Number of girls 2020- 2021 15.64 33 15.87 47 0.24 1.85 0.90 0.03 March 2022 83 Number of boys 2020-2021 16.52 33 14.88 48 -1.64 1.84 0.37 -0.20 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Canteen-level Outcomes 5 The researchers find that the new treatment canteens and original treatment canteens are broadly similar prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that only 2 out of 45 outcomes were statistically significantly different for school outcomes, which is less than would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. Table 57. Summary Statistics Canteen – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Is there a school canteen management committee? 0.79 33 0.94 50 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.46 Have you been trained? 0.68 34 0.92 50 0.24 0.09 0.01 0.63 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 58. Summary Statistics Canteen – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on children's nutrition 0.50 34 0.64 50 0.14 0.11 0.21 0.28 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on hygiene and sanitation 0.50 34 0.52 50 0.02 0.11 0.86 0.04 Was the training from AVSI used in your work in the last year? 1.00 17 0.96 26 -0.04 0.04 0.33 -0.25 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 59. Summary Statistics Canteen – Outcome Type March 2022 84 Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size The committee is composed of how many people? 5.23 26 5.60 47 0.36 0.50 0.47 0.19 How many men are in the committee? 2.50 26 2.94 47 0.44 0.31 0.17 0.31 How many women are in the committee? 2.73 26 2.66 47 -0.07 0.34 0.84 -0.05 What is the total number of planned ration recipients (I say planned!) for the m 781.88 33 784.04 48 2.16 354.98 1.00 0.00 What was the planned number of girls for March 2021 of school meals distributed? 100.52 25 158.31 36 57.79 34.11 0.10 0.37 What was the planned number of boys for March 2021 of school meals distributed? 99.32 25 156.25 36 56.93 31.52 0.08 0.39 Total children who actually ate in the canteen during the month of March 2021 207.48 25 281.97 37 74.49 60.57 0.22 0.27 What is the number of girls who effectively ate at the canteen in March 2021? 105.12 25 151.95 37 46.83 34.80 0.18 0.30 What is the number of boys who effectively ate at the canteen in March 2021? 102.36 25 130.03 37 27.67 26.33 0.30 0.24 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 60. Summary Statistics Canteen – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized March 2022 85 Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size What was the number of school days in March 2021? 18.38 34 18.90 48 0.51 0.52 0.32 0.23 What was the number of actual canteen days in March 2021? 16.44 34 15.96 50 -0.48 0.60 0.43 -0.18 What was the number of school days in March 2021 during which hot meals served t 11.27 11 12.40 30 1.13 1.85 0.55 0.21 How many days did the canteen serve cereals? 16.06 34 15.72 50 -0.34 0.69 0.62 -0.11 How many days did the canteen serve tubers / roots? 0.65 34 0.27 49 -0.38 0.62 0.54 -0.16 How many days did the canteen serve pulses and nuts? 11.74 34 10.73 49 -1.00 1.69 0.56 -0.13 How many days did the canteen serve dairy products? 0.15 34 0.10 49 -0.05 0.18 0.80 -0.06 How many days did the canteen serve meat, fish, or giblets? 4.55 33 7.04 49 2.50 1.60 0.12 0.34 How many days did the canteen serve eggs? 0.09 34 0.00 49 -0.09 0.09 0.32 -0.27 How many days did the canteen serve orange vegetables? 2.74 34 2.17 48 -0.57 1.15 0.62 -0.11 How many days did the canteen serve dark green leafy vegetables? 1.88 33 3.77 48 1.89 1.00 0.06 0.41 How many days did the canteen serve orange fruits (not including oranges)? 0.06 33 0.21 48 0.15 0.15 0.32 0.20 How many days did 2.33 33 2.13 48 -0.21 1.16 0.86 -0.04 March 2022 86 the canteen serve other fruits and vegetables? Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 61. Summary Statistics Canteen – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Total CP1 2020-2021 40.75 32 40.52 46 -0.23 3.26 0.94 -0.02 Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.59 32 20.33 46 -1.27 2.22 0.57 -0.13 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.16 32 20.20 46 1.04 1.63 0.53 0.15 Total CP2 year 2020- 2021 40.15 34 37.20 49 -2.94 3.13 0.35 -0.21 Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.74 34 19.57 49 -2.16 1.95 0.27 -0.24 Number of boys 2020-2021 18.41 34 17.63 49 -0.78 1.49 0.60 -0.11 Total CE1 year 2020- 2021 40.81 31 39.90 49 -0.91 3.62 0.80 -0.06 Number of girls 2020- 2021 21.03 31 20.96 49 -0.07 1.94 0.97 -0.01 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.77 31 18.94 49 -0.84 2.03 0.68 -0.10 Total CE2 year 2020- 2021 39.79 34 37.91 46 -1.88 3.43 0.59 -0.12 Number of girls 2020- 2021 20.21 34 20.87 46 0.66 2.15 0.76 0.07 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.59 34 17.04 46 -2.54 1.67 0.13 -0.34 Total CM1 year 2020- 2021 39.28 32 36.41 49 -2.87 3.58 0.42 -0.17 Number of girls 2020- 2021 20.03 32 19.27 49 -0.77 2.08 0.71 -0.08 Number of boys 2020-2021 19.25 32 17.14 49 -2.11 1.96 0.29 -0.23 March 2022 87 Total CM2 year 2020- 2021 32.15 33 30.42 48 -1.73 3.44 0.62 -0.11 Number of girls 2020- 2021 15.64 33 15.87 47 0.24 1.85 0.90 0.03 Number of boys 2020-2021 16.52 33 14.88 48 -1.64 1.84 0.37 -0.20 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Teacher-level Outcomes 6 The researchers find that the new treatment canteens and original treatment canteens are broadly similar prior to the Phase II of the intervention. In total, it was determined that 3 out of 31 outcomes were statistically significantly different for school outcomes, which is in line with what would be expected with the 10% of outcomes that would be expected to be statistically significantly different by chance. Table 62. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Was there the CP1 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.96 165 0.94 233 -0.02 0.04 0.57 -0.11 Was there the CP2 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 1.00 165 0.99 233 -0.01 0.01 0.32 -0.15 Was there the CE1 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.95 165 0.99 233 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.24 Was there CE2 class in this school during the school year 2020-2021? 1.00 165 0.95 233 -0.05 0.03 0.05 -0.30 Was there CM1 class at the school during the school year 2020- 2021? 0.96 165 0.99 233 0.02 0.03 0.42 0.16 Was there the CM2 class at the school during the school year 2020-2021? 0.98 165 0.97 233 -0.01 0.03 0.77 -0.05 March 2022 88 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 63. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI on the improvement of teaching 0.59 149 0.63 216 0.04 0.06 0.47 0.09 Found training very useful 0.45 87 0.48 137 0.03 0.08 0.66 0.07 Did you put into practice the learnings of training you received from AVSI? 0.90 88 0.97 137 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.31 Apart from AVSI, did you receive any other training on teaching reading-writing 0.44 149 0.46 216 0.02 0.07 0.82 0.03 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP/canteen mgmt on children? 0.45 149 0.43 215 -0.02 0.06 0.72 -0.04 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on hygiene and sanitation 0.35 147 0.35 216 -0.01 0.06 0.92 -0.01 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 64. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Last year, did a pedagogical advisor visit your classroom and provide an assessment? 0.62 149 0.69 216 0.07 0.06 0.27 0.15 How many times did a 2.00 93 2.06 150 0.06 0.14 0.68 0.06 March 2022 89 pedagogical advisor visit last year? Last year, did you and the teachers at your school organize any reading activities? 0.71 147 0.78 216 0.07 0.06 0.23 0.16 Last year, did you teach part of your class in your students' native language? 0.44 149 0.41 216 -0.02 0.06 0.68 -0.05 Did the teacher finished his or her program last year? 0.55 148 0.51 216 -0.04 0.06 0.53 -0.08 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 65. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Last year, have you participated in any meetings with other teachers to share expertise? 0.49 149 0.46 216 -0.03 0.06 0.62 -0.06 How many times? 3.58 73 3.09 97 -0.48 0.56 0.39 -0.15 Did you benefit from regular trainings organized by the Ministry? 0.29 149 0.26 216 -0.03 0.06 0.60 -0.07 Would you like to receive continued training? 0.99 149 0.99 216 0.00 0.01 0.72 0.04 Was the quantity of manuals distributed by the State sufficient? 0.30 118 0.34 127 0.04 0.07 0.52 0.09 Was the quantity of school manuals sufficient for the number of students? 0.35 146 0.39 211 0.04 0.06 0.48 0.09 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 66. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type March 2022 90 Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size What sex are you? 1.25 165 1.26 232 0.01 0.05 0.86 0.02 Are you a title holding, volunteer or trainee teacher? 1.27 165 1.18 232 -0.09 0.06 0.16 -0.15 How many years have you worked as a teacher? 6.39 165 6.25 232 -0.15 0.66 0.82 -0.03 How many years have you been assigned to this school? 5.36 149 4.71 219 -0.65 0.45 0.15 -0.18 On average, how many days did you attend AVSI’s training? 2.92 88 2.47 137 -0.45 0.18 0.02 -0.35 Do you use handwashing stations at school 0.91 147 0.96 215 0.05 0.04 0.27 0.19 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. Table 67. Summary Statistics Teacher – Outcome Type Added Original Mean Diff Standardized Variables Mean n1 Mean n2 Diff SE p￾value Size Last year, how many students were enrolled in your class? 40.41 149 39.43 216 -0.98 2.30 0.67 -0.07 On a typical day last year, how many students were present in your class? 39.09 149 38.23 216 -0.86 2.29 0.71 -0.06 Note: Standard errors clustered at school level. March 2022 91 Annex 6. List of people interviewed 1 The following table shows the key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) the enumerators conducted with program implementers as part of this evaluation. In addition to the following, the team also conducted 20 field-level FGDs among male parents/caregivers, female parents/caregivers, COGES, and WPGs at five schools in Poro, Gontougo, Bagoue, 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 (PIPCS)  Assistant Director of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Government and partners FGD  Energy Department  Communications Department  Accounting Department Government and partners FGD  Direction of Pedagogy and Continuing Education (DPFC) Government and partners FGD  Regional Coordinators of School Canteens (CRESAC) Government and partners FGD  Regional Direction of National Education (DREN)  Canteen Manager Government and partners FGD  Inspectors (4) Government and partners KII  ANADER Head Government and partners KII  Regional Director of ANADER Government and partners FGD  ANADER Zone Chiefs (4) Government and partners KII  BFCD Coordinator of SAMS Project USDA KII  McGovern-Dole Côte d’Ivoire Program Manager AVSI KII  AVSI Regional Representative March 2022 92 AVSI KII  AVSI Chief of Education Project AVSI KII  AVSI M&E Manager WFP FGD  School Feeding Officer  School Feeding Associate  Nutrition Specialist  Project Manager  Program Assistant  Head of Program Unit  Resilience Officer  Resilience Manager WFP 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 March 2022 93 Annex 7. 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 Côte d’Ivoire? 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: March 2022 94 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. March 2022 95 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 McGovern-Dole 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: March 2022 96 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. March 2022 97 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. March 2022 98 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 • McGovern-Dole adaptations and adjustments since midline • McGovern-Dole complementarity with other programs Organization: Title: Gender: March 2022 99 • Responsable de partenariats et du développement des affaires, basé aux États￾Unis (including coherence/coordination) • Government collaboration/capacity building 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 March 2022 100 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? 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. March 2022 101 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? School: Gender: Number of Participants: March 2022 102 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? 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! March 2022 103 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: March 2022 104 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! March 2022 105 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: March 2022 106 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! March 2022 107 School Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire) Field Question Answer enum date_i Date of interview Date heure_i Start time of interview Time chef Name of Team Lead chef chef enum_name Enumerator name enum_name enum_name enum_no Enumerator number enum_no_confirm Confirm your identifying number location region Select the region 1 Bafing 6 Bagoue 5 Bounkani 2 Cavally 7 Gontougo 3 Poro 4 Tchologo 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, Bagoue, 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. This interview March 2022 108 Field Question Answer 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? * Only ask if necessary Question relevant when: ${consent} =1 1 Male 2 Female - 999 Refuse to reply consent_section Group relevant when: ${consent} =1 consent_section > classes 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 March 2022 109 Field Question Answer - 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 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? *Enumerator, detail the number of boys and girls in each class in the following subsections. consent_section > CP1 Group relevant when: ${q11b} = '1' note_cp1 CP1 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. q122f Number of girls 2020- 2021 q122g Number of boys 2020- 2021 March 2022 110 Field Question Answer q122t Total CP1 2020-2021 consent_section > CP2 Group relevant when: ${q11c} = '1' note_cp2 CP2 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. 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 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. 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 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. q125f Number of girls 2020- 2021 March 2022 111 Field Question Answer q125g Number of boys 2020- 2021 q125t Total CE2 year 2020- 2021 consent_section > CM1 Group relevant when: ${q11f} = '1' note_cm1 CM1 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. 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 * If there are several classes of the same level, sum the classes of the same level. Choose the class with the largest number and survey the students and teachers in that class. 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 March 2022 112 Field Question Answer 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: ${q12a} !=1 q12a_why If not, why? *Give a detailed explanation 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 2 1, 2021 q122bg Number of boys present on April 2 1, 2021 q122bt Total present on April 21, 2021 consent_section > presence > CP2_april24 Group relevant when: ${q11c} = '1' note_cp2_apr CP2 q123bf Number of girls present on April 2 1, 2021 q123bg Number of boys present on April 2 1, 2021 q123bt Total present on April 21, 2021 consent_section > presence > CE1_april24 Group relevant when: ${q11d} = '1' note_ce1_apr CE1 q124bf Number of girls present on April 2 1, 2021 q124bg Number of boys present on April 2 1, 2021 March 2022 113 Field Question Answer q124bt Total present on April 21, 2021 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 21, 2021 q125bt Total present on April 21, 2021 consent_section > presence > CM1_april24 Group relevant when: ${q11f} = '1' note_cm1_apr CM1 q126bf Number of girls present on April 21, 2021 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? (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -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 March 2022 114 Field Question Answer 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 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? *Give a detailed explanation. 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 21, 2021? q13b1 Teachers (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) q13b2 Volunteer teachers (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) q22cantine Does your school have a canteen? 1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know - 999 Refuse to reply 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 March 2022 115 Field Question Answer q22a_autre Specify other location Question relevant when: ${q22a} =2 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 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 March 2022 116 Field Question Answer 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 - 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) 5 Surface water (creek, river, stream) March 2022 117 Field Question Answer 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? (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) Question relevant when: selected( ${q213} ,'1') or selected( ${q213} ,'2') or 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 1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know March 2022 118 Field Question Answer girls and boys within the school? - 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? *Select all that apply 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 - 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? *Clarify that this is indeed a “vegetable garden” 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 March 2022 119 Field Question Answer q220 Is there an association of parents (COGES)? 1 Yes 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? 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? Question relevant when: ${q31a} =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 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( 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 March 2022 120 Field Question Answer ${q31b} ,'3'))) or ${q31b} =4 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 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 March 2022 121 Field Question Answer 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 - 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 - 999 Refused/don't know q34b_aut If other, please specify Question relevant when: selected( ${q34b} , '5') q34b_2 Who was the government partner ? 1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) March 2022 122 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: (selected( ${q34b} ,'4') and (selected( ${q34b} ,'1') or selected( ${q34b} ,'2') or selected( ${q34b} ,'3'))) or ${q34b} =4 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 - 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 March 2022 123 Field Question Answer 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 - 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') consent_section > formations7 q356a Teacher training on proper hygiene and sanitation measures 1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know - 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 March 2022 124 Field Question Answer 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? 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} 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 March 2022 125 Field Question Answer ,'2') or selected( ${q37b} ,'3'))) or ${q37b} =4 q37b_2_aut If other, please specify 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 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 March 2022 126 Field Question Answer 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 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 ? 1 School Canteens Directorate (MENET/DCS) March 2022 127 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: (selected( ${q313b} ,'4') and (selected( ${q313b} ,'1') or selected( ${q313b} ,'2') or selected( ${q313b} ,'3'))) or ${q313b} =4 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 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 Question relevant when: selected( ${q314b_2} , '4') consent_section > informations10 March 2022 128 Field Question Answer 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 Question relevant when: selected( ${q315b_2} , '4') consent_section > Alimentation 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' March 2022 129 Field Question Answer 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? 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 5 CM1 6 CM2 q410 Indicate the planned number of official school days during the school March 2022 130 Field Question Answer year 2021 -2022 (October 2021 to June 2022) (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) q411 Indicate the actual number of school days during the school year 2020 -2021(October 2020 to June 2021) (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -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) (Don’t know = -777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -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) (Don’t know = -777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) 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) (Don’t know = -777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) March 2022 131 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: ${q22cantine} =1 consent_section > Absence 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? *Give a detailed explanation. 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. 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? March 2022 132 Field Question Answer * This figure should be 12, except in the regions of Poro, Bagoue and Tchologo where this figure should be 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 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? 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 can to get this document. Please review your answer to the previous question. March 2022 133 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: ${q13b} !=1 q13b_why If not, why? *Give a detailed explanation. Question relevant when: ${q13b} !=1 absences_enseignants Number of days of absence of teachers from October 2020 to June 2021 Question relevant when: ${q13b} =1 consent_section > - (1) Group relevant when: ${q13b} =1 (Repeated group) q56a Number of justified days of absence (permission) (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) q56b Number of days of absence not justified (Don’t know =-777; Not applicable = -888; Refused = -999) generated_note_name_318 Let's move now to the reasons of student absenteeism. q611 What is the 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 What is the second main reasons for boys' absenteeism? 1 Problem illness / health 2 Weather (rain, floods, storms) 3 Pastoral/rural household chores March 2022 134 Field Question Answer 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 q612_aut Specify if other Question relevant when: selected( ${q612} ,'8') q613 What is 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 What is 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 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 q621aut Specify if other March 2022 135 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: selected( ${q621} ,'8') q622 What is 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 What is 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 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 March 2022 136 Field Question Answer - 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 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 5 Distance to school March 2022 137 Field Question Answer 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 Question relevant when: ${q642} !=11 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 q643aut If other, please specify Question relevant when: selected( ${q643} ,'10') March 2022 138 Field Question Answer 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? Question relevant when: ${q11b} =1 1 Yes 0 No 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? 1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know March 2022 139 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: ${q11g} =1 - 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 4 5 2021 Other (specify) -999 Refused textbook1aut Other specify Question relevant when: ${texbook1} =5 textbook2 How many books were received by grade level? CP1 ______ CP2 ______ 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 - 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 CP1 ______ CP2 ______ CE1 ______ CE2 ______ CM1 ______ CM2 ______ -999 Refused teachtrain4 Have teachers ever received online training? 1 Yes 0 No 3 Don't know March 2022 140 Field Question Answer - 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") image_building1 Take a photo of the outside of the school image_building2 Take a photo of the outside of the school image_bath Take a photo of the bathroom of the school image_water Take a photo of the water station of the school GPS GPS coordinates note5 Thanks for your time! March 2022 141 Canteen Manager Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire) Field Question Answer 01. Identification date_i Date of interview Date heure_i Start time of interview Time Enqueteur chef Name of Team Lead chef chef enum_name Enumerator name enum_name enum_name enum_no Enumerator number enum_no_confirm Confirm your identifying number location region Select the region 1 Bafing 6 Bagoue 5 Bounkani 2 Cavally 7 Gontougo 3 Poro 4 Tchologo 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 (MENET) on the sustainability of school canteens and the enrolment level of children in the Bafing, Bagoue, 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 answers will in no way affect your access to support programs. Do you have any specific questions? Can we start now? consent Do you consent to this survey? 1 Yes 0 No canteen_management Group relevant when: ${consent} =1 March 2022 142 Field Question Answer note2 Great! Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the management of the school canteen… sex What sex are you? *Only ask if necessary 1 Male 2 Female 999 Refused/don't know q11 Is there a school canteen management committee? * May also be called COGES Canteen 1 Yes 0 No 999 Refused/don't know q12_size The committee is composed of how many people? Question relevant when: ${q11} =1 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 tot_comittee Calculation q12g+q12f note_comitee Alert! 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? Question relevant when: ${q11} =1 1 No member 2 A part of the members of the committee 3 All the members of the committee 999 Refused/don't know q14 In what areas have they been trained? *Do not suggest or read options Question relevant when: (${q11} =1 and ${q13} !=1) or (${q11} =1 and ${q13} !=-999) 1 Food Stock Management 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) q14b Have you been trained? 1 Yes 0 No 999 Refused/don't know q14c If so, what areas have you been trained on? Question relevant when: ${q14b} =1 1 Food Stock Management 2 Health and hygiene 3 Nutrition March 2022 143 Field Question Answer 4 Safe food preparation 5 Other (specify) 999 Refused/don't know q14caut Other (specify) Question relevant when: selected( ${q14c} , 5) q14d Who conducted the training? Question relevant when: ${q14b} =1 q15 Can you identify good health and hygiene practices? *Do not suggest or read the options 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 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 March 2022 144 Field Question Answer 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 March 2022 145 Field Question Answer - 999 Refused/don't know q16 Can you identify good food storage practices? *Do not suggest or read the options 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 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 March 2022 146 Field Question Answer 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? *Do not suggest or read the options 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? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if 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 March 2022 147 Field Question Answer 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 q21_why If not, why? 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? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q22_canteen_planned Do you have any idea of the number of boy and girl ration recipients that was planned? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. 1 Yes 0 No 999 Refused/don't know q22_canteen_planned_why If no, why? *Please give a detailed explanation why the canteen manager does not have this information in his management notebook or elsewhere. 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? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q22g What was the planned number of boys for March 2021 of school meals’ distribution at the school canteen? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q22 Total rations planned for the month of March 2021. *Verify your response. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q23_canteen What is the total number of students who actually ate at the canteen during the month of March 2021? March 2022 148 Field Question Answer Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q23f What is the number of girls who effectively ate at the canteen in March 2021? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 Question relevant when: ${q21} =1 q23g What is the number of boys who effectively ate at the canteen in March 2021? * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 Question relevant when: ${q21} =1 q23 Total actual rations for the month of March 2021. *Verify your response. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 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… * The enumerator should consult the management notebook if possible. Q31 What was the number of school days in March 2021? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32 What was the number of actual canteen days in March 2021? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 March 2022 149 Field Question Answer q32a How many days did the canteen serve cereals? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32b How many days did the canteen serve tubers / roots? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32c How many days did the canteen serve pulses and nuts? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32d How many days did the canteen serve dairy products? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32e How many days did the canteen serve meat, fish, or giblets? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32f How many days did the canteen serve eggs? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32g How many days did the canteen serve orange vegetables? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32h How many days did the canteen serve dark green leafy vegetables? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32i How many days did the canteen serve orange fruits (not including oranges)? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q32j How many days did the canteen serve other fruits and vegetables? Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q33 What was the number of school days in March 2021 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, 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. Do not know=-777; Not applicable= -888; Refuse to respond= -999 q34_why You have chosen "do not know", "not applicable" or "Refused to answer" to one of the previous questions. Why ? March 2022 150 Field Question Answer *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? *Choose only one 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 other_train2 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[train2]=4 train3 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on hygiene and sanitation measures? *Choose only one 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 3 999 2019 2020 2021 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 other_wash2 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash2]=9 March 2022 151 Field Question Answer 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 other_wash3 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash3]=10 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 practice 2 - With someone pouring a little clean water from a jug onto one’s hands — appropriate practice 3 - Under running water — appropriate practice 4 - Washes hands with soap or ashes 5 - Other, specify other_wash4 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash4]=5 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 – Don’t know other_wash5 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash5]=14 March 2022 152 Field Question Answer 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 water 7 - Borehole 8 - Water tank 9 - Roof catchment 10 – Running water 11 - Other, specify other_wash6 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash6]=11 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 6 - Other, specify other_wash7 Other, specify Question relevant when: $[wash7]=6 end heure_f End time of interview obs Observations/Comments (if nothing, put "RAS") gps GPS coordinates note5 Thanks for your time! March 2022 153 Teacher Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire) Field Question Answer Identification date_i Date of interview Date heure_i Start time of interview Time Enqueteur chef Name of Team Lead chef chef enum_name Enumerator name enum_name enum_name enum_no Enumerator number enum_no_conf Confirm your identifier location region Select the region 1 Bafing 6 Bagoue 5 Bounkani 2 Cavally 7 Gontougo 3 Poro 4 Tchologo 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, Bagoue, 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 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 March 2022 154 Field Question Answer note2 Excellent! Now I would like to ask a few questions about you… sex What sex are you? * Only ask if necessary 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? *Clarify the years worked could be at any school *If just started, enter 0. If started last year, score 1, etc. * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of years exp2 How many years have you been assigned to this school? *If just started, enter 0. If started last year, score 1, etc. * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of years Question relevant when: ${exp1} >0 class What class did you teach during the last school year? *If just started, enter 0. If started last year, score 1, etc. * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of years Question relevant when: ${exp1} >0 1 CP1 2 CP2 3 CE1 4 CE2 5 CM1 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? *Choose only one 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 March 2022 155 Field Question Answer 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 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? * Choose only one 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? * Choose only one 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? * Choose only one option Question relevant when: ${train1} =1 1 Yes 0 No 2 Don't know - 999 Refused train5a If yes, at what frequency? * Choose only one option Question relevant when: ${train5} =1 1 Rarely 2 Often 3 Always - 999 Refused train6 Apart from AVSI, did you receive any other training on teaching reading-writing from another organization over the last two years? * Choose only one option 1 Yes 0 No 2 Don't know - 999 Refused March 2022 156 Field Question Answer tools What tools and materials on teaching-learning of reading￾writing did you use at your school? * Do not read the response options * Select all that apply 0 None 1 Mobile library 2 Reading boards 3 Illustrated boards 4 Junior dictionaries 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? * Choose only one 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? * Choose only one 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? * Choose only one option 1 Yes 0 No 2 Don't know - 999 Refused ped2 How many times did a pedagogical advisor visit last year? * Choose only one option 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 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? * Choose only one option; * This includes animation-reading, reading promotion, reading contests, etc. 1 Yes 0 No 2 Don't know - 999 Refused March 2022 157 Field Question Answer read2 What reading activities did your school organize? * Do not read the response options * Select all that apply 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? * Choose only one option 1 Yes 0 No 2 Don't know - 999 Refused meet2 How many times? *Numeric response between 1 and 499 Question relevant when: ${meet1} =1 train7 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on children’s nutrition? *Choose only one 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 train8autre When did you attend this training? Specify Question relevant when: $[train8]=4 train9 Have you ever participated in a training from AVSI or WFP on hygiene and sanitation measures? *Choose only one 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 train10autre When did you attend this training? Specify. Question relevant when: $[train10]=4 March 2022 158 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. Question relevant when: $[wash1]=0 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 other_wash2 Other, specify. Question relevant when: $[wash2]=9 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 other_wash3 Other, specify. Question relevant when: $[wash3]=10 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 practice 2 - With someone pouring a little clean water from a jug onto one’s hands — appropriate practice 3 - Under running water — appropriate practice 4 - Washes hands with soap or ashes 5 - Other, specify other_wash4 Other, specify. March 2022 159 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: $[wash4]=5 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 - Don't know other_wash5 Other, specify. Question relevant when: $[wash5]=14 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 88 - Don't know other_wash6 Other, specify. Question relevant when: $[wash6]=10 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 other_wash7 Other, specify. Question relevant when: $[wash7]=6 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. attend1 Last year, how many students were enrolled in your class? March 2022 160 Field Question Answer * Numerical response * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of students *If the teacher teaches both classes, encourage him/her to give a total number of students attend2 On a typical day last year, how many students were present in your class? * Numerical response * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of students *If the teacher teaches both classes, encourage him/her to give a total number of students part1_f On a typical day last year, among 10 girl students, how many paid attention and participated during your lesson? * Select a number from 0-10. part1_m On a typical day last year, among 10 boy students, how many paid attention and participated during your lesson? Select a number from 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 - 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? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -99 Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '1') March 2022 161 Field Question Answer attend3_b How many school days did you lose because of travel to disburse salary? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -99 Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '2') attend3_c How many school days did you lose because of administrative procedures? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -99 Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '3') attend3_d How many school days did you lose because of social events? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -99 Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '4') attend3_e How many school days did you lose because of mandatory trainings / meetings ? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -99 Question relevant when: selected( ${attend3} , '5') 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? * If the respondent does not know, encourage him/her to give an approximate number of days. Otherwise, enter -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 March 2022 162 Field Question Answer - 999 Refused fini_programme_raisons If the teacher could not complete his program, ask why Question relevant when: ${fini_programme} =0 enseignant 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') ens1 Last year, how many students in your class had access to a textbook? 1 All of the students 2 The majority 3 Some students 4 None of the students - 999 Refused ens2 This year, how many students in your class had access to a textbook? 1 All of the students 2 The majority 3 Some students 4 None of the students - 999 Refused ens3 If not all students have textbooks, how do you teach? Question relevant when: selected( ${ens2} , '2') or selected( ${ens2} , '3') or selected( ${ens2} , '4') ens4 In your opinion, what negatively influences the level of reading skills in your class? 1 Student absenteeism 2 Lack of textbooks 3 Non-functioning school canteens 4 Teaching in French instead of the local language 5 Lack of follow-up from school authorities 6 Lack of suitable pedagogy 7 Lack of parental follow-up 8 Other - 999 Refused ens4_autre Other, specify. Question relevant when: selected( ${ens4} , '8') March 2022 163 Field Question Answer ens5 Do you benefit from regular training organized by the Ministry of Education? 1 Yes 0 No 2 Do not know - 999 Refused ens6 Would you like to receive continued training? 1 Yes 0 No 2 Do not know - 999 Refused ens7 Would you like to receive continued training online? 1 Yes 0 No 2 Do not know - 999 Refused ens8 How and by what means do they manage to have school textbooks? 1 The parents 2 The state 3 Private donors 4 Other - 999 Refused ens8_autre Other, specify. Question relevant when: selected( ${ens8} , '4') ens9 Is the quantity of textbooks distributed by the State sufficient? Question relevant when: selected( ${ens8} , '2') 1 Yes 0 No 2 Do not know - 999 Refused ens10 Do you know how often textbooks are distributed in your school? 1 Each year 2 Every two years 3 Every three years 4 More than every three years 5 Never 6 Other - 999 Refused ens10_autre Other, specify. Question relevant when: selected( ${ens10} , '6') ens11 Is the quantity of textbooks sufficient for the number of students? 1 Yes 0 No 2 Do not know March 2022 164 Field Question Answer - 999 Refused end heure_f End of interview time obs Observations/Comments (if nothing, put "RAS") *Do not read to respondent gps GPS coordinates GPS note5 Thank you for your time! March 2022 165 Student/Household Questionnaire (McGovern-Dole Cote d'Ivoire) Field Question Answer Identification date_i Date of interview Date heure_i Start time of interview Time Enqueteur chef Name of Team Lead chef chef enum_name Enumerator name enum_name enum_name enum_no Enumerator number enum_no_conf Confirm your identifier location region Select the region 1 Bafing 6 Bagoue 5 Bounkani 2 Cavally 7 Gontougo 3 Poro 4 Tchologo iep Select IEP iep iep ecole Select school ecole ecole studentinfo grade Select the grade 2 CP2 3 CE1 4 CE2 5 CM1 6 CM2 name What is the student's last name? fname What is the student's first name? uniqueid_filled Student's identification number. *Eight digits. Do not use dashes/hyphens uniqueid_refilled Re-enter student's identification number. *Eight digits. Do not use dashes/hyphens monname What is the students’ mother’s name? confirm Is this information correct? 1 Yes 0 No - 999 Refused/don't know correct_confirm Which information is incorrect? * If the class of the student is different than the class noted on your school sheet, please 1 The name of the student 3 The grade of the student March 2022 166 Field Question Answer confirm with the director the class of the student Question relevant when: ${confirm} =0 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( ${correct_confirm} , 1) correct_grade What is the student's grade? * If the class of the student is different than the class noted on your school sheet, please confirm with the director the class of the student Question relevant when: selected(${correct_confirm} , 3) 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, Bagoue, 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 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. March 2022 167 Field Question Answer 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. *Ask only if necessary 1 Male 2 Female l3 How old are you? *in years l4_time In what class were you when you started studying at this school? 1 CP1 2 CP2 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 - 999 Refused/don't know March 2022 168 Field Question Answer 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 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) 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 March 2022 169 Field Question Answer 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, 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 0 No - 999 Refused/don't know l22 For what reasons? Question relevant when: ${l21} =2 or ${l21} =3 or ${l21} =4 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 3 A parent - 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… * apply the ASER assessment l10 After assessment, indicate the corresponding reading level of the student *do not read to student. 0 0 1 A March 2022 170 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") *do not read to student. note4 Thanks for your time! Instructions note5 INTERVIEWER, you have just finished interviewing student %name% %fname% . You must now find his parents to continue the interview with them. It is very important to have the consent of the parents before proceeding with the interview. search_parent Were you able to find the parents of %name% %fname%? 1 Yes 0 No hparent Do the parents of %name% %fname% live in the village where their child is? 1 Yes 0 No Household Information q010a Surname of household head q010b First name of household head Respondent Information 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 March 2022 171 Field Question Answer Bafing, Bagoue, Bounkani, Cavally, Gontougo, Poro and Tchologo regions. Earlier today we collected surveys at your child’s school. We asked your child a few 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 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: ${q012b} =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: ${q012b} =1 qs11 Sex of the head of household 1 Male 2 Female March 2022 172 Field Question Answer qs12 Age of the head of household (age in completed years) Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs13 Level of education of the head of household 1 No level 2 Primary 3 Secondary 4 Superior qs14 Marital status of head of household 1 Married or living maritally 2 Divorced/Separated 3 Widowed 4 Single HH_members Attention Interviewer: now you are going to list household members by gender and age group. For each age group, please fill in the number of male and female persons t5 Total number of household members including short-term migrants (maximum 6 months) and who intend to return for the agricultural season Question relevant when: ${q012b} =1 consent > members1 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =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 t1_note Investigator! So the total number of members aged 0 to 5 is [t1]? Confirm with the respondent. Otherwise, review the numbers above. consent > members2 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =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 March 2022 173 Field Question Answer with the respondent. Otherwise, review the numbers above consent > members3 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 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 consent > members4 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =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 total_confirmation 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 %fname% %name% miss due to illness? Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs112 How distant is the school of %fname% %name% in km? Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs114 Are you aware of the school canteen program? 1 Yes 0 No - 999 Refused/don't know qs115 Last school year did %fname% %name% eat at the school canteen? 1 Yes 0 No March 2022 174 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, specify qs117autre If other to the previous question, please explain Question relevant when: ${qs117} =4 consent > Income and Assets Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 qs21 How many people of the household currently carry out economic activity? Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs22 Please tell us what are the four main sources of income for your household. *Choose a maximum of 4 activities 1 Production / sale of food crops 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) March 2022 175 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 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? Investigator! Warning! This is functional and undamaged equipment! 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 March 2022 176 Field Question Answer 13 Moped/Motorbike 14 Cart 15 Tricycle 16 Plough 17 Wheelbarrow 18 Irrigation system 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 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 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 Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs31b_apr Number of meals by adults Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 consent > Meal consumption > food_consump1 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 food_consump1note Now to the number of meals taken yesterday by the household. qs31a Number of meals yesterday by children under 5 years Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 qs31b Number of meals yesterday by adults Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 consent > Meal consumption > food_consump2 Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 food_consump2note Now to the number of meals usually taken on a typical day. * If confused, explain that "typical" is a non￾holiday or otherwise special day qs32a For children under 5 years Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 March 2022 177 Field Question Answer qs32b For adults Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 consent > foods_consumed Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 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 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. 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, March 2022 178 Field Question Answer 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, and other condiments including small amount of milk for tea/coffee. consent > frequency_consumed Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 princ11 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Cereals, grains, roots and tubers, such as: (Rice, pasta, bread, sorghum, millet, maize, fonio, potato, yam, cassava, white sweet potato; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ12 In the last 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, sweet potato blank; replace with locally relevant examples) Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ11} ,'0')) 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. princ21 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Legumes/nuts, such as (beans, cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, walnuts, soybeans, pigeon peas and/or other nuts; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ22 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Legumes/nuts, such as (beans, cowpeas, peanuts, lentils, walnuts, soybeans, pigeon peas and/or other nuts; replace with locally relevant examples)? 1 Own production (harvests, breeding) 2 Fishing / Hunting 3 Picking 4 Loans 5 Market (purchase with cash) March 2022 179 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ21} ,'0')) 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. princ31 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Milk and dairy products, such as: (fresh/sour milk, yoghurt, cheese, other dairy products; replace with locally relevant examples) except margarine/butter or small amounts of milk for tea/coffee? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ32 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Milk and dairy products, such as: (fresh/sour milk, yoghurt, cheese, other dairy products; replace with locally relevant examples) except margarine/butter or small amounts of milk for tea/coffee? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ31} ,'0')) 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. princ41 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Meat, fish, eggs, such as: (goat, beef, chicken, pork, blood, fish, including canned tuna, snail, and/or other seafood, eggs; replace with locally relevant examples) consumed in large quantity and not as a condiment? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ42 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Meat, fish, eggs, such as: (goat, beef, chicken, pork, blood, fish, including canned tuna, snail, and/or other seafood, eggs; replace with locally relevant examples) consumed in large quantity and not as a condiment? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ41} ,'0')) 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 March 2022 180 Field Question Answer 9 Donations (food) from family members or friends 10 Food aid from civil society, NGOs, government, WFP, etc. princ51 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Flesh/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? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ41} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ61 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Organ meat, such as: (liver, kidney, heart and/or other organ meats; replace with locally relevant examples) eaten in large quantities and not as a condiment? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ41} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ71 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Fish and shellfish, such as: (fish, including canned tuna, snails and/or other seafood; replace with locally relevant examples) eaten in large quantities and not as a condiment? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ41} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ81 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Eggs? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ41} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ91 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Vegetables and leaves, such as: (spinach, onions, tomatoes, carrots, peppers, green beans, lettuce, etc.; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days March 2022 181 Field Question Answer 6 6 days 7 7 days princ92 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Vegetables and leaves, such as: (spinach, onions, tomatoes, carrots, peppers, green beans, lettuce, etc.; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ91} ,'0')) 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. princ101 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Orange vegetables (vegetables rich in Vitamin A) such as: (carrot, red pepper, squash, orange sweet potato, etc.; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ91} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ111 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Green leafy vegetables, such as: (spinach, broccoli, amaranth and/or other dark green leaves, cassava leaves; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ91} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ121 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Fruit, such as: (banana, apple, lemon, mango, papaya, apricot, peach, etc.; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ122 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Fruit, such as: (banana, apple, lemon, mango, papaya, apricot, peach, etc.; replace with locally relevant examples)? 1 Own production (harvests, breeding) 2 Fishing / Hunting 3 Picking 4 Loans 5 Market (purchase with cash) March 2022 182 Field Question Answer Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ121} ,'0')) 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. princ131 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Orange fruits (Fruits rich in Vitamin A), such as: (mango, papaya, apricot, peach; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ121} ,'0')) 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ141 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Oil/fat/butter: such as (vegetable oil, palm oil, shea butter, margarine, other oils/fats; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ142 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Oil/fat/butter: such as (vegetable oil, palm oil, shea butter, margarine, other oils/fats; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ141} ,'0')) 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. princ151 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Sugar or sweets, such as (sugar, honey, jam, cake, candies, cookies, pastries and other sweet products (sweetened beverages); replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days March 2022 183 Field Question Answer princ152 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Sugar or sweets, such as (sugar, honey, jam, cake, candies, cookies, pastries and other sweet products (sweetened beverages); replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ151} ,'0')) 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. princ161 During the last 7 days, how many days did the members of your household eat: Condiments/spices: such as (tea, coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic, spices, yeast/baking powder, tomato/sauce, meat or fish as a condiment, condiments including small amounts of milk/tea, coffee. ; replace with locally relevant examples)? 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days princ162 In the last 7 days, what was the main source of Condiments/spices: such as (tea, coffee/cocoa, salt, garlic, spices, yeast/baking powder, tomato/sauce, meat or fish as a condiment, condiments including small amounts of milk/tea, coffee. ; replace with locally relevant examples)? Question relevant when: not(selected( ${princ121} ,'0')) 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. consent > water Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 qs43 What is the main source of water for your household? 1 SODECI tap 2 Hydrant 3 Well 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 March 2022 184 Field Question Answer 3 Cesspool 4 Bush 5 Other specify qs46autre Specify if Other Question relevant when: ${qs46} =5 consent > resilience Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 resilience In the past 7 days, on how many days did your household have to resort to the following strategies because you did not have enough food or money to buy food? qs511 Consuming less preferred and less expensive foods 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days qs512 Borrow food or rely on help from relatives/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 Reduce the amount consumed during meals 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days qs514 Restrict consumption by adults to feed children 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days March 2022 185 Field Question Answer qs515 Reduce the number of meals per day 0 Never 1 1 day 2 2 days 3 3 days 4 4 days 5 5 days 6 6 days 7 7 days consent > Livelihoods Group relevant when: ${q012b} =1 note7 In the past 30 days, has anyone in your household had to engage in any of the following behaviors because of a lack of food or money to buy food? qs521 Sell non-productive household assets/goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, television, jewelry etc.) 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs522 Sell more (non-productive) animals than usual 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs523 Spend savings 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs524 Borrow money/food from a formal lender/bank 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable March 2022 186 Field Question Answer qs525 Reduce essential non-food expenditure such as education, health (including medicines) 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs526 Sell productive goods or means of transport (sewing machine, wheelbarrow, bicycle, bus, etc.) 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs527 Remove children from school 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs528 Sell the house or land 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs529 Begging 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable qs5210 Sell the last female animals 1 No, I haven't faced a lack of food 2 No, because I have already sold these assets or conducted this activity in the last 12 months and I cannot continue to do so 3 Yes 0 No 4 Not applicable note8 We just have a few last questions March 2022 187 Field Question Answer q61 Do you have books at home? 1 Yes 0 No - 999 Refused/Do not 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/Do not know q63 Do you or someone in your household read the child's book has %name% %fname%? 1 Yes 0 No - 999 Refused/Do not know q64 In a typical week during the 2020-2021 school year, how many times per week did you or someone else in your household read children's books [newname]? Do not know=-777; Not applicable=-888; Refuse to respond=-999 observation observation Observations/comments on this survey. If there are no observations/comments, write "RAS" (Nothing to Report) consentphoto Do you agree to have a photo taken of your home? Question relevant when: ${q012b} =1 1 Yes 0 No photoh Take a photo of the household Question relevant when: ${consentphoto} =1 picture useconsent Can we use your photo in our report? Question relevant when: ${consentphoto} =1 1 Yes 0 No heure_end End time of interview GPS GPS coordinates note_end Thank you for your time! March 2022 188 Annex 8. Confidentiality agreement and ethical pledge All data collectors and people with access to raw data were required to sign the following confidentiality pledge out of protection for participants. March 2022 189 Annex 9. Bibliography 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 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 March 2022 190 Annex 10. Acronyms AIR American Institutes for Research ANADER National Agency for Support to Rural Development ASER Annual Status of Education Report BFCD Bureau of Training and Consulting for Development COGES School management committee 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 FCS Food consumption score FGD Focus group discussion HDDS Household dietary diversity scale KII Key informant interview LRP Local and regional procurement MAD Minimum acceptable diversity MENA Ministry of National Education and Literacy OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PAPSE Education Service Delivery Enhancement Project rCSI Reduced Coping Strategies Index TOR Terms of reference UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund March 2022 191 USDA United States Department of Agriculture WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene WFP World Food Program WPG Women’s production group World Food Programme Cote 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 World Food Programme Cote d’Ivoire