USDA

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Project

Midterm Evaluation
Cameroon – 2021
Submitted by Submitted to
Isabelle McMahon Patrick Gallagher

Et4d, LLC Nascent Solutions Inc.
708 Montrose Ave. 85 S. Bragg St., Suite 500
Charlottesville, VA 22903 Alexandria, VA 22312
Midterm Evaluation Report – Nascent Solutions Project in
Cameroon, McGovern-Dole Program
Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition

Agreement Number: FFE-631-2018/011-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2018
Project Duration: 5 years (2018-2023)
Implemented by: Nascent Solutions, Inc.
Evaluation Authored by: Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d)

Karla Giuliano Sarr, Isabelle McMahon, Michel Rousseau, Noreen Mucha,
Alice Michelazzi
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of
Agriculture or the United States Government.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... viii
Project Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................... viii
Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations ...................................................................... viii
Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... ix
Performance Measurement Plan Update—Key Indicator Review ...................................................... ix
Relevance .............................................................................................................................................. x
Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................ xi
Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................. xi
Impact .................................................................................................................................................. xi
Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... xii
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. xii
1. Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Project Context ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Project Description........................................................................................................................ 2
Project Activities ................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Disruptions................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3. Results Framework........................................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 4
2. Evaluation Design and Methodology .................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Evaluation Design .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3. Sampling Methods ........................................................................................................................ 6
Quantitative Sample ............................................................................................................................. 7
Qualitative Sample ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4. Data-Collection Methods .............................................................................................................. 9
Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 11
Evaluation Team.................................................................................................................................. 11
Quality Control and Ethical Approach..................................................................................................... 12
Ensuring an Ethical Approach ............................................................................................................. 12
Field Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 12
Data Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 12
i
2.5. Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................... 13
Quantitative Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 13
Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.6. Evaluation Limitations ................................................................................................................. 14
3. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Performance Measurement Plan Update—Indicator Review ................................................................ 14
Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................................... 16
Relevance ............................................................................................................................................ 16
2. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 24
3. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 38
4. Impact ......................................................................................................................................... 42
5. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 64
4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 78
Annex 1: Results Framework ...................................................................................................................... 81
Annex 2: Details of the Quantitative Sample .............................................................................................. 84
Annex 3: Details of Qualitative Sample....................................................................................................... 91
Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed........................................................................................................ 92
Annex 5: Evaluation Matrix ......................................................................................................................... 94
Annex 6: Data Collection Tools ................................................................................................................... 99
EGRA Instrument................................................................................................................................. 99
Student Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 101
Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women and Parent Survey ................................................................ 109
Head Teacher Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 122
Teacher and Head Teacher Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 132
Stallings Observation ........................................................................................................................ 146
Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory ........................................................................... 147
Cook and Storekeeper Questionnaire............................................................................................... 150
Annex 7: Et4d Team Members for Midterm Evaluation ........................................................................... 157
Annex 8: Statistical Weighting and Adjustment Factors........................................................................... 160
Annex 9: Detailed Challenges and Mitigation Strategies .......................................................................... 162
Annex 10: Comprehensive EGRA Results .................................................................................................. 165
Annex 11: Terms of Reference (TOR)........................................................................................................ 171
Annex 12: Additional figures ..................................................................................................................... 180
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the four regions and 240 schools 2
Figure 2: Project activities 3
Figure 3: Data collection methods used in midterm evaluation 9
Figure 4: Teacher and principal awareness of Nascent COVID response 23
Figure 5: Proportion of time that storage volunteers follow hygiene rules 38
Figure 6: Teacher and principals' level of satisfaction with students' reading performance 44
Figure 7: Average literacy index comparison between baseline and midline (by school type) 45
Figure 8: Teachers' agreement that students are more attentive due to the school canteen & reasons
teachers identify as to why the canteens lead to increased attentiveness 47
Figure 9: Comparison of MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 results (baseline and midline) 48
Figure 10: Concepts teachers report learning in Nascent trainings and applying in practice 49
Figure 11: Difference in change in observed portion of lesson with active pedagogy between baseline
and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms 50
Figure 12: Proportion of school principals reporting satisfaction with observed reading instruction 51
Figure 13: Lessons learned from trainings as identified by principals 51
Figure 14: Mid Upper Arm Circumference Tape (MUAC) 54
Figure 15: Comparison of principals' perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on students' food supply 61
Figure 16: Proportion of parents reporting sending their child to school with meals (by school type) 62
Figure 17: Nascent's approach to sustainability by component 65
Figure 18: Reasons reported for volunteers to be satisfied with their involvement in Nascent activities 71
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of midterm evaluation participants viii
Table 2: Distribution of comparison and treatment schools by zone and region 7
Table 3: Midterm quantitative sample broken down by activity (includes project and comparison
schools) 8
Table 4: Summary of key informant interviews by category and gender 9
Table 5: Summary of focus group discussions by category and gender 9
Table 6: Detailed overview of instruments 10
Table 7: Key Nascent indicators with baseline and midterm measures 15
Table 8: Indicator status at midterm 31
Table 9: Hygiene practices presented within Nascent facilitation guide 33
Table 10: Availability of a handwashing stations at school by group, timepoint and region 35
Table 11: Kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers’ roles and responsibilities 36
Table 12: Infrastructure burn-rate breakdown as of March 31, 2021 41
Table 12: Percentage of parents reporting their children’s handwashing with soap habits by region;
comparison of midterm and baseline results 52
Table 13: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times by group, timepoint and region 53
comparison of midterm and baseline results 54
Table 15: Minimum dietary diversity for women (5 out of 10) 56
Table 16: Sampling design and power per instrument 83
Table 17: Summary statistics for students participating in EGRA sample 84
Table 18: Summary statistics for students 85
Table 19: Summary statistics for mothers sample 85
Table 20: Summary statistics for teachers sample 86
Table 21: Summary statistics for principals sample 86
Table 22: Summary statistics for schools 87
Table 23: Summary statistics for teachers in schools 87
Table 24: Summary statistics for principals interviewed 87
Table 25: Summary statistics for teachers interviewed 88
Table 26: Summary statistics for interviewed parents (mothers) 88
Table 27: Summary statistics for interviewed students 89
Table 28: Reading category definitions 165
iv
Table 29: Reading category by school type 165
Table 30: Reading category by gender 166
Table 31: Reading category by region 166
Table 32: Reading category by zone 167
Table 33: Literacy achievement index point scale 167
Table 34: Average literacy index score by school type, gender, region, and zone 168
Table 35: Average scores for each subtask with 95% confidence interval 168
Table 36: Average scores for each subtask by school type 169
Table 37: Average score for each subtask by gender 169
Table 38: Average Score for each subtask by region 170
Table 39: Average score for each subtask by zone 170
List of Images
Image 1: Child receiving take-home ration 22
Image 2: Students wearing face masks 25
Image 3: School garden 42
Image 4: Students engaged in learning in a crowded classroom 46
Image 5: Teacher ensuring children wash their hands before entering the classroom 52
Image 6: Student reading at a blackboard 67
v
List of Acronyms
Acronym Full Term
AME Students’ Mothers’ Association (Association des Mères d'Élèves)
APE Students’ Parents’ Association (Association des Parents d'Élèves)
CLSPM Correct Letter Sound per Minute
CWPM Correct Words per Minute
DDS Dietary Diversity Score
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
Et4d Evaluation Technology for Development
FTF Feed the Future
FY Fiscal Year
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FFE Food for Education
FFP Food for Progress
KII Key Informant Interview
MCGOVERN-DOLE McGovern-Dole
MDD-W Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women
MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MINEDUB Ministry of Basic Education
MINEE Ministry of Water and Energy
MINSANTE Ministry of Public Health
ORF Oral Reading Fluency
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PPS Probability Proportion Sample
vi
Acronym Full Term
PSM Propensity Score Matching
RECAMEF Cameroon National Network of Mothers' Associations for Girls' Education
(Réseau Camerounais des Associations des Mères pour l'Éducation de la

Fille)
SO Specific Objective
SOW Statement of Work
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
THR Take Home Rations
TOR Terms of Reference
TOC Theory of Change
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WRA Women of Reproductive Age
vii
Executive Summary
Project Background and Purpose
Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent) is implementing a McGovern-Dole (MCGOVERN-DOLE) International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition project in Cameroon, funded by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This five-year (2018–2023), $27M project is designed to improve the literacy of
primary-level children through improved literacy instruction, student attentiveness, and student
attendance. The main activity of the project is the provision of a daily lunch and periodic take-home
rations. Educators receive training and support to improve school management and teaching practice.
The project also aims to increase positive health, nutrition and dietary practices for target students and
the community, including pregnant and lactating women at risk of malnutrition, through sanitation and
hygiene interventions, as well as through food distribution at community health centers. The project
benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, their family members, teachers, administrators, civil servants,
parent-teacher association members, and others associated with 240 primary schools in four regions
(Adamaoua, East, North, and North West); more than half of schools are in Francophone regions. The
project has faced significant disruptions. Schools in the English-speaking North West region were closed
at the time the project began in 2019 due to a secessionist movement; a portion reopened in late 2020.
Schools countrywide closed between March and October 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
preparation of and serving of hot meals on school premises remained suspended at the time of the
evaluation.
The midterm evaluation took place in February-March 2021. Its audience is Nascent, USDA,
implementation partners, beneficiary participants, and various stakeholders within Cameroon. Nascent
intends to use its content to 1) assess progress; 2) provide a signal of the effectiveness of interventions;
3) reassess the project’s theory of change; 4) make midcourse corrections; 5) document lessons learned;
and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths.
Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations

The midterm study is an impact evaluation with a quasi-experimental design using a difference-in-
differences analysis to evaluate impact. Five OECD-DAC criteria guide the evaluation: relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, along with 23 evaluation questions. The
methodology is consistent with the mixed-methods approach used at baseline and combines key
informant interviews, focus group discussions, and document review with the Early Grade Reading
Assessment (EGRA), surveys, school observations, and attendance data. A total of 120 schools (60
project schools and 60 comparison schools), selected via two-stage cluster sampling, made up the
quantitative sample. Purposeful selection guided the qualitative sample. Table 1 provides an overview.
Table 1: Overview of midterm evaluation participants

Quantitative Sample Qualitative Sample
• 5,024 students • 582 teachers • 38 parents • 5 health workers
• 1,198 parents • 282 cooks • 24 teachers • 39 Nascent staff
• 117 head teachers • 65 storekeepers • 1 Hygiene Champion • 2 Nascent partners
• 30 government officials • 2 USDA staff
viii
Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d), an evaluation firm based in the United States, led both
the baseline and midterm studies. The evaluation team was able to mitigate certain study limitations
through the triangulation of multiple data sources and methods, nuanced analysis, as well as a close
relationship with Nascent developed at baseline. These limitations included possible response bias and
recall bias. The evaluation also took place earlier than anticipated to address Ramadan fasting and the
rainy season, which meant that students were assessed midyear (March 2021) instead of at the end of
the school year (May 2021). This timing may lead to small underestimates of pupil literacy performance
in some measurements, as indicator targets anticipated evaluations would occur at the end of the 2020-
21 school year Findings from qualitative data are also not strictly representative, but they may be
transferable. The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges to both the evaluation and project
implementation.
Findings and Conclusions

Performance Measurement Plan Update—Key Indicator Review
Green highlighting in Table 7 shows meaningful improvement for two key project indicators. The
percentage of teachers engaged in active instruction increased from 51.0 percent at baseline to 78.2
percent at midline. School-age children observed correctly washing their hands increased by a similar
margin (from 23.0% to 58.8%). No significant improvement is observed in students who demonstrate
reading and understanding of grade-level text, average student attendance rate, the prevalence of
women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity, or for the literacy achievement
index. Midline results demonstrate a notable increase in the proportion of class time where more than
five students were off task, an increase from 16.9 to 33.4 percent.
Green indicates improved performance relative to baseline; red indicates underperformance relative to baseline; gold indicates
nearly the same performance as baseline.
Indicators Baseline Midline p-value

MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the All: 1.7% (0.7%; 4.2%) All: 0.3% (0.1%;1.1%) 0.032
percentage of students who, by the end
Girls: 1.1% (0.3%; 4.7%) Girls: 0.1% (0.1%;1.9%) 0.070
of two grades of primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can read and Boys: 2.3% (0.9%; 5.9%) Boys:0.5% (0.1%; 0.9%) 0.068
understand the meaning of grade level
text?
Benchmark: 60% (3/5 correct answers)
Literacy Achievement Index 2 25.53 (22.3; 29.1) 24.76 (22.1; 27.4) 0.709
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the 51.0% (42.8%; 60.5%) 78.2% (70.2%; 84.5%) <0.000
percentage of teachers engaged in
“active instruction” for 50%+ of
classroom time?
1
Cell coloring is green when results are improving as expected. Yellow indicates positive movement but less than
expected. Red indicates a decrease since baseline or that results are moving in the wrong direction (e.g.,
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2).
2
This indicator gives a global indication of students’ performance distribution on letter reading, reading fluency, and
reading comprehension subtasks, providing a broader picture of reading competence.
ix
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the 16.9% (12.2%; 23,1%) 33.4% (29.8%; 37.0%) <0.000
percentage of classroom time in which
>5 students are “off-task”?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the All: 69.4% (63.6%; 76.3%) All: 69.5% (65.8%; 73.2%) 0.914
average student attendance rate in
Girls: 69.8% (63.5%; 76.3%) Girls: 69.4% (65.4%; 73.4%) 0.879
USDA-supported classrooms/schools?
Boys: 69.3% (62.6%; 75.3%) Boys: 69.7% (66.1%; 73.3%) 0.934
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the All: 1.4% (0.0%; 4.3%) All: 58.8% (49.5%; 68.1%) <0.000
percentage of school-age children
Girls: 1.8% (0.0%; 5.5%) Girls: 61.9% (51.1%; 71.7%) <0.000
observed correctly washing their hands?
Boys: 1.3% (0.0%; 3.8%) Boys: 55.4% (45.9%; 65.0%) <0.000
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the All: 38.9% (29.3%; 46.4%) All: 39.5% (31.5%; 48.1%) 0.750
prevalence of women of reproductive
age consuming a diet of minimum
diversity? 3
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons 1. Low parental awareness of 1. Health issues N/A
for student absences the importance of education 2. Teacher is absent
2. Helping the family with 3. Late or no payment of
chores or farm work at home school fees
3. Health issues
Relevance
Findings show that stakeholders and beneficiaries share Nascent’s understanding of the problems and
solutions that inform the project design, and they unanimously indicate that the Nascent project
addresses these issues. Nascent’s strategies unequivocally support the government’s priorities at the
local, regional, and national levels through efforts to strengthen access and quality to the educational
system. Nascent supports Cameroon’s National Strategic Development Plan and provides critical support
in the absence of an active national school feeding policy. The provision of school lunches stands out,
but also other components, including school and community gardens and efforts to mediate women’s
and children’s acute or moderate malnutrition. Nascent’s provision of handwashing stations, soap, face
masks, and sensitization efforts, as well as take-home rations to address COVID-19 complications also
proved important. The evaluation concludes that capacity-building, stakeholder participation, and
partnerships with government officials were generally seen as critical to successful implementation.
That at least 10 mayors in two regions intend to integrate budget line items for school canteens in their
operating budgets gives a powerful illustration of the project’s relevance to stakeholders.
“I told you that we have a council-level development plan. All of this incorporates
what we want and what is planned, our strategic planning. It’s about nutrition and
education issues. It’s directly in line with the Nascent project.” (Mayor, East Region,
Interview)
3
The number of respondents under 19 years-old is 7, which does not allow for proper disaggregation of data.
x
Effectiveness
In addition to the key outcome indicators discussed above, Et4d reviewed progress toward 10 randomly
selected output indicators. Despite considerable obstacles, Nascent has largely performed well in terms
of both results and finances and has reached six of these ten targets. Unmet targets have been most
affected by COVID-19 and disruptions related to insecurity in the North West. Nascent has
demonstrated nimbleness and ingenuity in the face of disruption and higher-than-anticipated
enrollment. As may be expected, the government’s continued COVID-19-related suspension of school
meals has had a negative impact on project implementation, but findings show that Nascent is doing
what it can to distribute take-home rations and urge children to bring lunch to school. Findings suggest
that Nascent has clearly upgraded school availability and use of handwashing stations, moving from 3
percent at baseline to 88 percent at midline. Additionally, students have increased their overall use of
latrines. While Nascent has little control over hindering external factors, findings show that coordination
with the government counterparts merits additional attention. The project should also consider
reinforcing advocacy efforts to reinitiate school feeding in the COVID-19 context, based on Et4d’s
positive experiences from other McGovern-Dole countries in the region, including Benin and Mali.
Efficiency
Overall, the project has efficiently used time and resources in the face of considerable challenges.
Despite delays in implementation, the project’s approach to training, especially its modular approach,
can serve as a model for other development efforts. The same holds true for the implementation of the
DHIS2 system and community farms. Project efficiencies also demonstrate ongoing project learning and
the ability to improve processes. At the same time, Nascent’s infrastructure activities have ambitious
goals, showing less efficiency in this area. Yet Nascent’s infrastructure implementation is exemplary
compared to other MCGOVERN-DOLE projects evaluated by Et4d. The use of contractor fines and the
close supervision of a coordinating engineer may be recommendable practices for elsewhere. Nascent’s
activities in the North West may warrant a review, as challenging infrastructure and insecurity demand
significant efforts with arguably lower returns on investment.
Impact
The midterm evaluation provides promising results for improvements in some areas. While results
require careful interpretation due to the short time span between teacher trainings and midterm data
collection, external observation shows that project teachers have increased their use of active pedagogy
by 27.2 percentage points, as indicated in Figure 11.
and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms
100% 78.2%
60.6%
50% 51.0% 61.9%
0%
Baseline Midline
Comparison Project
As expected, students’ literacy results as measured by EGRA are not as positive. Students’ reading
comprehension results remain quite low, as only 0.3 percent of students obtained a passing score.
Analysis of more basic subtasks using a literacy index shows a positive gain for project schools, and even
the decrease in comprehension scores from baseline seems to be less for project schools than for
xi
comparison schools, indicating that Nascent activities may provide some protection against COVID
shocks.
On the other hand, analysis of survey and interview data shows that the suspension of school feeding
may have negatively affected project performance. At the same time, as indicated above, Nascent’s
continued provision of food in the form of take-home rations seems to be making a difference, as the
proportion of parents who report “always” providing lunches to their children in Nascent schools
surpasses the portion of parents doing the same in comparison schools by 23 percentage points. While
unintended effects are generally minor, some reported inappropriate practices of PTAs leveraging the
project for monetary gains require addressing.
Sustainability
It is still too early in the project’s life cycle to make any definitive determinations about sustaining
project elements after project close. The disruptions of COVID-19 have further compressed the
implementation timeline. Nonetheless, findings show a coherent vision of sustainability among
stakeholders. Some promising signs of sustainability exist at midterm already, including community
ownership for the maintenance of new infrastructure, indications of an organic spread of project
teaching and administrative practices to non-Nascent schools, and community participation with
meager or nonexistent incentives. Nascent’s pilot of 36 graduation schools, a subset of schools with
community farms, also shows promise and elicits enthusiasm. At the same time, the model requires
significant external support. In general, there is great variation in potential across the project areas, and
contextual factors, including high teacher mobility, the high proportion of community-paid teachers, and
an unpredictable climate which threatens sustainability efforts.
“I want to respond to my colleagues who say that if schools do not receive inputs they
will not work the community fields. In my area, for example, there are two schools
that haven’t received anything but have worked fields. It all depends on their
determination and their willingness.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Recommendations
The findings and conclusions lead to the following abridged recommendations. A more comprehensive
list can be found within the main report. Parentheses indicate responsible parties.
Remaining project time:
1. Plan in advance, so the reinstated school feeding program will meet challenges and be prepared
to run refresher trainings for volunteers to reinvigorate and further enhance community
engagement. (Nascent Leadership, Field Coordinators, Field Agents)
2. Leverage positive experiences and gains in integrating Nascent’s literacy strategies within
Cameroon’s pre-service and in-service teacher training. Develop additional advocacy strategies
to include champions (teaching coaches) already spreading Nascent strategies. (Nascent
Leadership/Literacy Team)
3. Continue plan to use dry rations to motivate children to come to school; receipt should be
conditioned by regular attendance. (Nascent Leadership)
4. Strengthen advocacy efforts with the government to 1) reopen school canteens based on
positive experiences from the subregion (Benin, Mali); 2) finalize and implement Cameroon’s
national school feeding policy with a dedicated directorate. (Nascent Leadership)
xii
5. Develop an advocacy strategy with MINEDUB to reduce teacher mobility within the project
intervention zone. (Nascent Leadership)
6. Further develop capacity-building for good governance at the council level, with a focus on the
payment of PTA teachers. (Nascent Field Coordinators)
7. Develop a Student WASH Club strategy to promote and amplify hygiene efforts at the school
level. (WASH Team)
8. Closely follow the graduation school initiative with strong monitoring and special studies. Be
sure to capture community farm’s production and accounting records to see which farm actually
turns a profit. (M&E Team)
Future projects:
1. Continue to advocate for funding of the national school feeding policy and the establishment of
a dedicated directorate a central element of future MCGOVERN-DOLE programming in
Cameroon. (USDA)
2. Reconsider the intervention zones for future programs so as to reduce distance between target
schools. Also revisit whether or not it makes sense to continue programming in the North West
given ongoing security challenges and the implication for overall project logistics and resources.
Should programming continue in the North West, it should be deliberately framed as crisis
response. (Nascent Leadership/USDA)
xiii
1. Introduction and Purpose
1.1. Project Context
Cameroon is a lower middle-income country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a gross domestic product (GDP)
per capita of $1,518. 4 Cameroon is the largest economy in the Central African Economic and Monetary
Community (CEMAC), a region experiencing an economic crisis triggered by the steep fall in oil prices. 5
Cameroon has 24 major languages, with both English and French serving as official languages. Located
along the Atlantic Ocean, the country shares borders with Chad, the Central African Republic, Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, and Nigeria. Two of its regions (North West and Southwest) are Anglophone, while the
rest of the country is Francophone.
Cameroon ranks 150 out of 189 in the Human Development Index and 39 percent of the population lives
under the poverty line. According to the World Food Programme (2019), poverty is most concentrated
in the northernmost and eastern regions. The Far North, North, Adamaoua and Eastern regions
frequently experience food crises and climate shocks. Political disruption in the North West region since
the teacher strikes of November 2016 has led to unrest, insecurity, and the closure of schools.
Additional strains on vulnerable communities arise from the arrival of refugees fleeing conflicts in
northeastern Nigeria and the Central African Republic, as well as from internal displacement due to
Boko Haram activities in the Far North Region and armed conflict in the North West and South West
regions. Chronic malnutrition is a serious issue in Cameroon, with 29 percent of children under the age
of five suffering from stunting. Rural areas demonstrate a higher percentage of stunting (36%) than
urban areas (20%). Stunting is 41 percent in the North, 37 percent in the Far North and in the East, and
35 percent in Adamaoua, according to the latest demographic health survey (DHS) published in 2020. 6
Stunting prevalence thresholds above 30 percent are very high and considered an emergency for
immediate attention. 7 Decreased access to food is pushing poor households in the North West and
Southwest regions to adopt crisis-coping strategies such as reducing the number of meals per day and
limiting food portions, 8 a situation further exacerbated by lack of school meals. The limited consumption
of nutritious food, diarrheal disease reducing the absorption of nutrients, and restricted access to clean
water, sanitation, and health services contribute to high malnutrition rates. These realities are
compounded by a lack of community and household knowledge of hygiene practices (handwashing with
soap, safe food preparation, etc.), which leads to poor health and nutritional outcomes.
Access to quality education and health and social services is weak or nonexistent. With regard to
education, the primary school adjusted net enrollment rate for both sexes was 91 percent in 2019, with
4
World Bank Global Indicators. (2019). GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) – Cameroon.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2019&locations=CM&start=1960&view=chart
5
World Bank. (2019). The World Bank in Cameroon: Overview.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cameroon/overview
6
Institut National de la Statistique (INS) et ICF. (2018 [2020]). Enquête Démographique et de Santé [Demographic
Health Survey], pp. 224–25. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR360/FR360.pdf
7
de Onis, M., Borghi, E., Arimond, M., Webb, P., Croft, T., Saha, K., De-Regil, L. M., Thuita, F., Heidkamp, R.,
Krasevec, J., Hayashi, C., & Flores-Ayala, R. (2019). Prevalence thresholds for wasting, overweight and stunting in
children under 5 years. Public Health Nutrition, 22(1), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018002434
8
Cameroon—Key Message Update: Fri, 2021-01-29 | Famine Early Warning Systems Network. (n.d.). Retrieved
May 3, 2021, from https://fews.net/west-africa/cameroon/key-message-update/january-2021
1
girls trailing boys (87% compared to 96%). The year 2018 saw a 64 percent primary school completion
rate (both sexes), with girls leading boys by less than one percentage point. 9 The educational system
suffers from inadequately trained teachers and administrators, underfunded schools, dilapidated
infrastructure, a lack of school feeding projects, insufficient teaching materials, teacher absenteeism,
and a policy environment slow to change—all factors that hinder an enabling environment.
1.2. Project Description

Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent) is implementing a McGovern-Dole (MCGOVERN-DOLE) International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition project in Cameroon, funded by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This five-year (October 2018 to September 2023), $27M project is designed to
improve the literacy of primary-level children through improved literacy instruction, student
attentiveness, and student attendance. The project also aims to increase positive health, nutrition and
dietary practices for target students and the community, including pregnant and lactating women
suffering from malnutrition.
This project follows a 2015 MCGOVERN-DOLE Figure 1: Map of the four regions and 240 schools
project, Advancing Literacy through Good Nutrition
(ALIGN), implemented in the North West region
from October 2015 to June 2018. The project
benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, their family
members, teachers, administrators, civil servants,
parent-teacher association members, and others
associated with 240 primary schools in Cameroon.
The 240 schools have more than 90,000 enrolled
students and more than 1,000 teachers. Schools
are located in four regions (Adamaoua, East, North,
and North West) of Cameroon. About 62 percent
of the schools (148) are located in three French-
speaking regions of Cameroon, with the remainder
(92) in one English-speaking region, the North
West. 10 The target schools include government-
operated public schools, as well as private schools
affiliated with the Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, and
Presbyterian faiths. The schooling regions under
investigation are predominantly rural, with
agriculture-based economies that produce mostly
staple foods, particularly millet, although maize
and cassava are also prominent. Schools in the
North West have largely remained closed due to
ongoing political unrest since 2016. As a result, the
9
UNESCO Institute of Statistics. (2021). Cameroon. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/cm
10
Nascent Solutions. (2020). TOR midterm evaluation. Note that the number of schools was reduced from the
original 265 (215 in Adamaoua, East, North, and 50 in the North West) after baseline results showed student
enrollment to be higher than expected.
2
midterm evaluation did not include activities in this area. 11
While the project’s primary objective is improving literacy, the staple activity is the provision of a daily
lunch using food commodities provided by the USDA. Nascent seeks to improve
• Quality of literacy instruction, through more consistent teacher attendance, provision of better
teaching and materials, and training of teachers and administrators;
• Student attentiveness, through the daily lunch program and extracurricular activities;
• Student attendance, through school infrastructure improvements, enrollment outreaches, an
increased community understanding of education benefits, and reducing health related
absences;
• Use of positive health and dietary practices, through increased knowledge of hygiene, safe food
preparation, and nutrition, as well as increased access to clean water and sanitation and
preventative health interventions;
• Education systems, through enhancing the capacity of government and civil society, as well as
improving local education- and nutrition-related policies.
Nascent has developed relationships with local partners and stakeholders to support project
implementation, namely, the Ministry of Basic Education, the titular government agency for the
program, and the municipal authorities who are directly responsible for primary education. Other key
partners include the Ministry of Public Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the
Ministry of Water and Energy, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (AgReach Program),
which supports the project’s learning agenda.
Project Activities
In total, the project implements 17 activities to achieve McGovern-Dole’s project objectives, of which
the staple activity is the provision of a daily lunch and periodic take-home rations (THR) using food
commodities provided by the USDA. Figure 2 provides a list of activities.
Figure 2: Project activities
1. 2.
3. 4. Capacity Building:
Building/Rehabilitation: Building/Rehabilitation: 5. Distribution: School 6. Establish Activities to
Building/Rehabilitation: Local, Regional,
Kitchens and Wells and Water Supplies and Material Promote Literacy
Latrines National Level
Storerooms Systems
10. Production of
7. Establish and Train 8. Establish School 9. Facilitate Student
Books and 11. Promote Teacher 12. Provide School
Parent-Teacher Gardens and Access to Preventive
Supplementary Attendance Meals
Associations Community Farms Health Interventions
Reading Material
14. Raise Awareness on 16. Training: Food 17. Training: Teachers

13. Provide Take-Home 15. Training: Health
the Importance of Preparation and and School
Rations (THR) and Nutrition Practices
Education Storage Practice Administrators
11
At the time of writing, 38 of the 92 schools had reopened, though enrollment is down from 2016 levels at most
of them (Correspondence with M&E team, May 2, 2021; October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual report).
3
Project Disruptions
Nascent’s project has faced significant disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and political
developments.
Due to COVID-19, the Government of Cameroon (GoC) mandated school closures on March 18, 2020,
along with prohibiting gatherings of more than 50 people and requiring physical distancing and mask
wearing to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The government also closed national borders and limited
urban and inter-urban travel. Schools resumed on October 5, 2020, though school feeding remained
suspended through the time of writing the evaluation report. As a result, Nascent shifted to distributing
commodities as dry take-home rations (THR) to pupils, cooks, teachers, and mobile reading
participants 12.
The 92 target schools in the North West region had been closed since a teacher strike in November
2016, with 38 of the schools reopening in early 2021. At the time of writing, these schools were
operating temporarily from church buildings and community halls. 13
1.3. Results Framework

The project’s results framework identifies the various pathways between activities, outcomes, and the
attainment of strategic objectives. Annex 1 reproduces the three-page document. According to
correspondence with Nascent, the results framework closely aligns with the larger MCGOVERN-DOLE
program results framework; as such, no separate theory of change is required. The results framework
contains critical assumptions necessary for achieving targeted outcomes and impacts. Critical
assumptions address the larger environment of project implementation, including that macroeconomic,
climatic and security conditions remain stable, that local communities are receptive to the project, and
that trainings manage to positively change behaviors and attitudes. At the school level, the project
requires that school meals do not displace instructional time or feeding at home and, similarly, that the
provision of school supplies does not displace household educational spending. It is also important that
turnover for key stakeholders remain modest, including for teachers, and that critical individuals within
the Government of Cameroon continue to champion the project and are able to mobilize political will
and resources. A specific evaluation question further explores the relevancy of the results framework to
stakeholders.
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation

The midterm evaluation informs Nascent, USDA, and implementation partners of the project’s impact
and progress. Nascent intends to use its content to 1) assess progress in project implementation; 2)
provide a signal of the effectiveness of interventions; 3) reassess the project’s theory of change in light
of the graduation model and its prospect for promoting sustainability; 4) make mid-course corrections;
5) document lessons learned; and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths to stakeholders. The
midterm evaluation builds on the quasi-experimental design that characterized the baseline evaluation.
Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d), an evaluation firm based in the United States, led both
evaluations.
As indicated above, the audience for the evaluation includes implementing partners, the donor, USDA,
as well as government partners at the local, regional, and national levels. The evaluation contributes to
informing USDA’s learning agenda in that results address noted gaps in the evidence of high-level
12
Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report, p. 4.
13
Nascent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report, p. 4.
4
impacts of school-meal programs on student learning and cognition. Given the longer duration of
Nascent programming in Cameroon, findings also offer insights into longer-term measures. Finally, the
evaluation provides valuable information to other organizations and donors active or interested in
becoming active in supporting holistic approaches to improved learning, namely, school feeding
programs.
2. Evaluation Design and Methodology

The evaluation questions and sub-questions are based on the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria. The midterm
evaluation addresses five categories: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The
detailed evaluation questions that guide the process are presented below, with definitions of each
criterion provided as additional context. 14 The questions address various facets of Nascent’s results
framework, and the associated findings provide an indication of the project’s progress toward achieving
its strategic objectives of improved literacy in school-age children and an increased use of positive
health and dietary practices.
2.1. Evaluation Questions

1. Relevance — The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’,
global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if
circumstances change.
1.1. Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Do
beneficiaries understand the problem and the solution to the problem in the same way as the
project?
1.2. Is implementation design consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and
national levels?
1.3. Did the support provided by Nascent during the COVID-19 pandemic address the needs of
beneficiaries?
2. Effectiveness — The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its
objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups.
2.1. Are the program’s activities implemented according to plan? (infrastructure, training,
distributing school meals, distributing take-home rations, distributing materials, improving
curricula, school garden)
2.2. Have there been internal and/or external factors that have hindered the effective
implementation of project activities? Are these obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the
Government of Cameroon, or other partners?
2.3. Are program products and outcome targets achieved (see list of 10 output indicators)? And if
not, why?
2.4. To what extent are students following best practices in the schools regarding hygiene?
2.5. To what extent are kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers implementing organizational
and hygiene skills acquired through the training?
3. Efficiency — The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic
and timely way.
14
See OECD Home: Evaluation Criteria:
https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm
5
3.1. Which outputs were obtained most cost-efficiently in the most timely manner?
3.2. Which were obtained least cost-efficiently in the least timely manner?
3.3. Should the project allocate resources differently in the future?
4. Impact — The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant
positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
4.1. To what extent have students (boys and girls) increased their reading comprehension
compared to baseline?
4.2. To what extent have students improved their attentiveness?
4.3. To what extent have teachers improved the quality of their teaching? And to what extend have
head teachers improved their capacity to manage the school?
4.4. To what extent have students improved their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices?
4.5. To what extent has the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum
diversity improved?
4.6. Is the project causing any unintended effects?
4.7. To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance? What measures
were taken to mitigate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic?
5. Sustainability — The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to
continue.
5.1. Do stakeholders have the same vision of sustainability?
5.2. Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed?
5.3. Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes?
5.4. How is the local community engaged and or contributing to sustain project activities, especially
school feeding?
5.5. To what extent is the graduation model more likely to be sustainable?
2.2. Evaluation Design

The evaluation design is a quasi-experimental impact study design using a difference-in-differences
analysis to evaluate impact. The study also benefits from a convergent mixed-methods approach in
which qualitative data from key informant interviews (KIIs), focus-group discussions (FGDs), and
document review simultaneously join with quantitative data to respond to the above evaluation
questions. The baseline data was collected in March 2019, while midterm data collection took place two
years later, between March 9 and March 23, 2021. The diverse methods, as well as the range of
stakeholders who participated in the evaluation, allow for triangulation, enhancing the reliability and
comprehensiveness of the findings. The design also follows a two-pronged methodology that addresses
both the assessment of midterm indicators and the exploration of evaluation questions.
2.3. Sampling Methods

This section describes the basic sampling strategy employed by the evaluation team. We provide an
overview of both quantitative and qualitative samples. As the evaluation matrix details in Annex 5, both
quantitative and qualitative methods informed the calculation of indicator values as well as responses to
the evaluation questions.
6
Quantitative Sample
Like at baseline, the midterm evaluation used probability-proportionate-to-size (PPS) sampling to
randomly select target and comparison schools from the Nascent project implementation area. 15 Et4D
used a two-stage cluster sampling with project and comparison schools as the primary sampling unit, 16
and students as the secondary unit. Schools were represented proportionally in the sample, as they are
in the student population, as demonstrated in Table 2. We excluded schools with fewer than 150
enrolled students enrolled as it appeared unlikely that the number of students present would meet
sampling requirements. The sampling process also considered regions as a stratification variable, as well
as the type of location (urban vs. rural). Schools within 30 kilometers of a subdivisional headquarters
were categorized as urban, the remainder categorized as rural.
A different cohort of students than at baseline was used for the analysis, while the schools remained the
same whenever possible. Due to changes in the selection of project schools and in the subdivisions
covered by the project, which happened after the baseline evaluation, 24 new treatment schools and 16
new comparison schools were included in the final sample of 120 schools.
The baseline study demonstrated that the comparison and treatment schools were a suitable match on
several metrics, including: student enrollment (total and per class), proportion of female students,
student age and language background, proportion of female teachers, pupil/teacher ratio, teaching
experience, age, and formal education level of teachers, and teacher language background (see tables
16-21 of baseline survey report).
Table 2: Distribution of comparison and treatment schools by zone and region
Region Rural Urban Total

Comparison Schools 49 11 60
Adamaoua 5 1 6
East 8 2 10
North 36 8 44
Project Schools 49 11 60
Adamaoua 4 1 5
East 8 1 9
North 37 9 46
Total 98 22 120
A randomly selected group of 16 Grade 2 students (8 girls and 8 boys) per school took part in the Early
Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). To better assess the Nascent project’s teacher-training initiatives
15
Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) is a sampling method in which the probability of selecting a unit is directly
proportional to the unit's measure of size.
16
Cluster sampling is defined as a sampling method where multiple clusters of people are created from a
population where they are indicative of homogeneous characteristics and have an equal chance of being a part of
the sample.
7
through classroom observation, all classes from each of the Grades 1, 2, and 3 were observed using the
Stallings Classroom Observation system. To assess the impact of hygiene initiatives, selection prioritized
Grade 5 and 6 students and, in case of their absence, any other grade within the school. After drawing
the classroom and assigning a number to every child, eight children were randomly sampled using
numbers from the register at each school. The design privileged older students, as they were most likely
to be able to respond to questions concerning hygiene and nutrition. Data collectors also randomly
chose 15 Grade 2 students and asked them to bring their mothers to school for the MDD-W (Minimum
Dietary Diversity for Women) to ensure that at least 10 mothers would take part per school. Head
teachers (also described as “school directors”) also participated in the midterm data collection. Lastly,
where possible, Et4d data collectors surveyed all cooks and storekeepers supporting the Nascent
project. Due to the suspension of the canteens at the time of data collection, cooks and storekeepers
came to the schools to meet with evaluators. Annex 2 provides additional details of the quantitative
sample.
Table 3: Midterm quantitative sample broken down by activity (includes project and comparison
schools)
Questionnaire Male Female Total

Head teacher 108 9 117
Teacher 434 148 582
Parent N/A 1,198 1,198
EGRA + child survey 922 887 1,809
Attention + child survey 1,512 1,703 3,215
Cooks 4 278 282
Storekeepers 62 3 65
School observation N/A N/A 120
Attendance N/A N/A 120
Qualitative Sample
The evaluation team selected from among project schools for the qualitative sample taking into account
region as well as rural/urban location. Because of the predominance of project schools within the North,
the qualitative sample included two schools from this region and one school each from Adamaoua and
the East. One of the schools chosen also happened to be bilingual. One school also had a farm and was
selected because it came from the graduation school sample. At the school level, the sampling of
qualitative participants was purposeful and focused both on beneficiaries and implementers. To the
extent possible, selection criteria emphasized that individuals participating in interviews and focus
groups should be knowledgeable stakeholders who have actively taken part in the project and could
best contribute valuable input. Head teachers selected parents for interviews. All teachers present
participated in FGDs.
At the beneficiary level, the evaluation team also sought representativeness in terms of geography,
ethnicity, gender, and age. A parent’s level of engagement in the school also made for an important
criterion for selection. When recruiting parents for focus groups, the evaluation team considered
whether parents took part in the parents’ association (APE), the mothers’ association (AME), or the
school-management committee; whether they were a hygiene champion, and/or active in the project
8
farm and/or the school canteen as cooks or storekeepers. The qualitative data collection included focus
groups with parents and teachers, and key informant interviews with the local government authorities
and Nascent staff. Since most of the parents did not speak French, the evaluation team used local
languages, with the assistance of a translator. Notes were taken in French. In total, 140 participants (63
females and 77 males) took part in eight FGDs and 35 KIIs.
Table 4: Summary of key informant interviews by category and gender
Category Number Female Male Participant

KIIs Total Total Total
National Officials (MINEDUB, MINREX) 2 2 2
Regional Officials (MINEDUB, MINEE, MINADER,MISANTE) 13 3 17 20
Local Officials (Mayors) 4 2 6 8
Community Health Center 2 4 1 5
Hygiene Champion 1 1 1
Program Staff (Nascent) 10 15 24 39
Program partners (RECAMEC, Engineer) 2 1 1 2
Donor 1 1 1
Grand Total 35 25 53 78
Table 5: Summary of focus group discussions by category and gender
Category Number Female Male Participant

of FGDs Total Total Total
Parent (APE/AME; Cooks) 4 28 10 38
Teachers 4 10 14 24
The next section provides more details of the data-collection methods used.
2.4. Data-Collection Methods

To provide updated midterm measures for the selected 10 indicators, as well as to answer the
evaluation questions, the evaluation employed a variety of methods as identified in Figure 3.
9
Figure 3: Data collection methods used in midterm evaluation
Women's
Early Grade Stallings Hand- Key
Document Minimum Focus Group
Reading Surveys Classroom washing Informant
Review Dietary Discussions
Assessment Observation Observation Interviews
Survey
Figure 3 provides an overview of the instruments used for the midterm evaluation of the Nascent
project. Full copies of evaluation tools are included in Annex 6.
Table 6: Detailed overview of instruments
Name of Instrument Description

Early Grade Reading Assessment Subtasks include oral comprehension, phonemic awareness,
(EGRA) letter sound knowledge, familiar words reading, invented
words reading, story reading, comprehension
Student Questionnaire (EGRA) Survey questions on demography, absenteeism, homework,
nutrition, socioeconomic status (SES)
Student Questionnaire (Hygiene) Survey questions on absenteeism, hygiene, nutrition,
socioeconomic status (SES)
Head Teacher Questionnaire Survey questions on demography, school characteristics,
parent associations, teacher absenteeism, training and
participation in MCGOVERN-DOLE-FFE, COVID-19
Teacher Questionnaire (SIL, CP, CE1) Survey questions on demography, class characteristics, literacy
training, coaching support, COVID-19
Teacher Questionnaire (CE2, CM1, Survey questions on demography, class characteristics, hygiene
CM2) instruction, COVID-19
Cook or Storekeeper Questionnaire Survey questions on demography, participation in school
feeding program activities (cooking or food storage), and
training
Stallings Classroom Observation Measures 1) the percentage of teachers in Grades 1-6 spending
at least 50% of their classroom time on active instruction and 2)
percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off
task” 17
Hand washing observation and Observation of 20 students per school to assess if children are
school inventory washing their hands after going to the latrine, inventory of
school sanitary equipment and access to water
Women Minimum Dietary Survey MDD-W survey and survey questions on demography, child
and parent survey characteristics, child health, hygiene and nutrition practices,
child absenteeism, socioeconomic status (SES)
17
Evidence from Stallings shows that teachers spending at least 50 percent of time engaged in “active instruction”
is associated with high-achieving students.
10
Name of Instrument Description
Attendance Head count
KII Guide for Implementing Partners Semi-structured interview guide with questions
FGD Guide for Parents related to the DAC criteria: 1) relevance, 2)
FGD Guide for Teachers or KII Head effectiveness, 3) efficiency, 4) impact, and 5)
teacher sustainability
FGD Guide for government partners
Fieldwork
Data collection took place over a period of five weeks from February 18 to March 31, 2021 and included
in-person activities as well as remote communications. Prior to in-country data collection, Et4d held an
enumerator training workshop in Garoua from March 1 to March 6, 2021. The workshop was attended
by 17 Nascent staff, and 59 enumerators who had been preselected to participate in the training by
Nascent. At the end of training, 52 enumerators were selected to continue on to data collection, among
them 15 females (29%). In addition, 13 enumerators and 12 supervisors who had participated in the
baseline evaluation took part in the midterm process, allowing for continuity between data points. The
selection of data collectors was made taking into account gender, language spoken, previous
experience, and familiarity with technology. Once in the field, Nascent Field Agents acted as team
leaders for four enumerators.
Training covered an introduction to the project and to data-collection tools and methods, practical
application among trainees, field practice, debriefing and quiz sessions, constructive feedback and
logistics. Training also allowed data collectors to become familiar with two data-collection applications:
Tangerine (for EGRA) and SurveyCTO (for all other survey tools). 18
The evaluation team implemented COVID-19 prevention measures for the duration of the training.
During training sessions, trainees and trainers were required to wear face masks at all times and a
handwashing station was placed outside the training venue. During school-based practical exercises,
enumerators were required to practice implementing the COVID-19 protocol that they would follow
during data collection.
Qualitative and quantitative data collection occurred simultaneously, although quantitative data
collection was more intensive. The evaluation team beganconducted KIIs with critical stakeholders
onfrom February 18 to March 31, 2021, prior to deployment, and continued on international colleagues’
departure from Cameroon until March 31.. In addition to taking notes, evaluators recorded interviews,
which they later uploaded to Trint, a subscription-based transcription service. Evaluators then reviewed
and corrected the interview transcripts. The evaluation team later carefully reviewed and refined
transcripts. School-level data collection began on March 9 and continued through March 23, lasting two
weeks. Data collectors were expected to upload data daily to SurveyCTO’s and Tangerine’s servers as
internet connectivity allowed. Enumerators continued to practice COVID-19 protocols throughout in-
person data collection.
Evaluation Team
The Et4d evaluation team comprised six team members, four of whom took part in the MCGOVERN-
DOLE2018 Cameroon baseline evaluation and therefore had an excellent understanding of the program
and its context. Ms. Isabelle McMahon acted as Project Director and served as the point of contact
18
Tangerine® is a mobile data-collection app developed by RTI; it is used to collect EGRA data.
11
between Nascent and the Et4d team of consultants. She coordinated the activities of the key
consultants and monitored project deliverables and timelines. She also led the development of data-
collection tools and the training for the survey tools. She performed a selection of key informant
interviews and focus groups. Dr. Michel Rousseau, an experienced psychometrician, served as the
Technical Lead for the evaluation. He oversaw all sampling and statistical aspects of the project.
Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr served as the Research Lead and advised the project team on education-specific
requirements and research methods. She also led the mixed-methods analysis and report writing. The
Senior Expert Advisor for Nutrition and WASH was Ms. Noreen Mucha. This technical expert advised the
project team regarding instrument design and wrote the relevant sections of the final project report. In
addition, Ms. Alice Michelazzi led the enumerator training, overseeing data collection and quality
control throughout, in addition to leading focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Ms.
Félicité Djoukouo managed the enumerators, did focus group discussions and key informant interviews
with the Et4d team, and performed quality control during data collection as well as administrative and
organizational tasks. Drs. Rousseau and Giuliano Sarr provided remote support throughout the
evaluation. (For complete backgrounds of team members, see Annex 7.)
Quality Control and Ethical Approach

Ensuring an Ethical Approach
The midterm evaluation ensured utmost adherence to international ethical standards for research
involving human subjects through several mechanisms. Et4d ensured that provisions were made to
protect the confidentiality of the people involved through a consistently applied informed-consent
process. Et4d was also attentive to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the
confidentiality of the data in its storage and disposal. In the written report, identities of individuals are
masked
Et4d also carefully trained enumerators to ensure compliance with the Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans, including respect for human dignity, respect for free and informed consent, respect
for vulnerable persons, respect for privacy and confidentiality, and respect for justice and inclusiveness,
recognizing the potential for harm and maximizing benefits for all involved. Nascent sought permission
from head teachers for the Et4d team to visit the schools, and enumerators received permission from
the head teachers to conduct interviews with students. The enumerator training reviewed appropriate
ethical conduct. Enumerators also worked in pairs to ensure accountability.
Nascent inquired with Cameroon’s national research ethics committee about the necessity of obtaining
approval for the evaluation. Nascent was told that a project evaluation is exempt from approval.
Field Quality Control

Enumerators were observed only during the first day of data collection. Et4d ensured that the sampling
strategy defined by Et4d and Nascent was enforced, and that quality assurance processes described in
training manuals were followed. Et4d assisted the teams remotely throughout the data-collection
process to ensure a smooth process and to address any issues the teams encountered, especially issues
related to the adjustment of the data-collection schedule due to unplanned school closings.
Data Quality Control

Et4d also enacted a number of techniques throughout the evaluation process to ensure data quality
control. For example, Tangerine data were downloaded daily and analyzed to ensure respect for the
12
three-second rule. 19 Data from SurveyCTO were also downloaded daily for quality checks, including
questionnaires, classroom observations, and MDD. This process sought to guarantee that no data went
missing by comparing the school summary sheet, which showed all surveys and assessments completed
by the team, and the actual data available on the server. Other quality checks included cross-checking
attendance with sampling sheets and verifying that the data from school observation sheets matched
the data from each survey. Similarly, Tangerine IDs were checked to confirm matches between EGRA
and student questionnaire data. Qualitative data quality was ensured as team members listened to
audio recordings from interviews alongside transcripts to ensure fidelity. Et4d also reviewed the
uploading of qualitative data to SurveyCTO and subsequently into an Excel database to assure
conformity with transcripts.
2.5. Data Analysis Methods

The convergent mixed-methods design of the evaluation permitted the simultaneous analysis of
quantitative and qualitative data. The sections below lay out these distinct processes. It is also worth
noting that the evaluation team paid close attention to instances in which findings from the two strands
seemed to contradict each other. As applicable, analysis within the later findings section explores such
cases, providing possible explanations. The team also paid close attention to gender disaggregation for
both strands of analyses.
Quantitative Analysis
Before conducting statistical analysis, survey weights were computed and added to the datasets, and all
analysis took into consideration the survey design when running all statistical analysis. While two-thirds
of the schools remained the same from baseline, a different cohort of students was used for the
analysis. Impact analysis using a difference-in-differences approach (DiD) was conducted at the school
level. Covariates were added to the regression analysis so as to control for characteristics that could
influence students’ learning. For performing comparisons between comparison and program schools, an
independent sample t-test was performed with continuous outcome, and a chi-square test with
categorical outcome. For the comparisons between two groups for indicators, linear regression was
used for continuous outcome and logistic regression for dichotomous outcome. (See Annex 8 for more
details on statistical weighting.)
Qualitative Analysis
All qualitative interviews and focus groups were first transcribed, then the data were input into
SurveyCTO, and finally they were transferred to Excel for a thematic analysis guided by evaluation
questions. This process allowed for the rapid sorting of the data by interview question as well as by
stakeholder profile (type of stakeholder, gender, location, etc.) The evaluation team next generated
preliminary findings that informed the creation of formal codes. Columns were inserted within the Excel
workbook to capture coding, also making it possible to see trends across stakeholder profiles. This
approach allowed data collected from each source to be analyzed separately and then examined in
relation to other sources to determine convergence and divergence, as well as general trend trajectories.
The evaluation team also took into account outliers, recognizing that the qualitative sample was not
representative and, moreover, that outlying cases may provide important insights for the larger
population. Finally, illustrative quotes were identified to provide further context for report findings and
to take full advantage of the thick description that a mixed-methods analysis makes possible.
19
The three-second rule refers to enumerators moving on to the next question item after a child is not able to
answer within three seconds.
13
2.6. Evaluation Limitations
The midterm evaluation process encountered a number of challenges and limitations. Many of them are
common for the type of assessment performed. The COVID-19 pandemic context presents the
exception, as it led to substantial programmatic and evaluation process changes. Nonetheless, team
members felt well equipped to mitigate. Possibilities of response bias, for example, the chance that
respondents connected to the project would wish to see it succeed and therefore answer queries
accordingly, were countered by the use of multiple data sources and triangulation for findings.
Evaluators also required specific examples from respondents and stressed the strict confidentiality of all
responses to participants. Triangulation—combined with an expanded sample size at midterm when
compared to baseline—also served to mitigate the limited sample size characteristic of the purposive
qualitative approach (which also needed to take into account resource constraints, including time). The
evaluation team strongly felt that despite its limitations stemming from a lack of strict
representativeness, the qualitative component of the midterm assessment offered valuable and
transferable insights into the Nascent project. Likewise, evaluators in their analyses and reporting
narratives explicitly took into account possible sample bias and the impact of the evaluation’s relatively
early timing in March. The evaluation was scheduled for this time period to avoid April-May Ramadan
fasting and the rainy season, yet doing so meant that the evaluation assessed student literacy levels at
mid-year rather than at the end of the school year, which may influence assessment results. The team
responded to the challenges of remote data collection necessitated by the safety protocols of COVID-19
with an abundance of flexibility, making use of a variety of applications—including the widely available
Zoom and phone calls—to reach some of the stakeholders at times convenient for them as much as
possible. Detailed questions and guidelines created by the evaluation team meant to counter possible
recall bias when assessing the nutritional intake of women of reproductive age. And finally, the last-
minute resignation of a Field Agent post training had little effect on evaluation proceedings as the
team’s M&E Officer took on the resigned colleague’s tasks. (See Annex 9 for a more detailed description
of challenges and mitigation strategies.)
3. Findings
The findings section is informed by both an update of critical project indicators from baseline and
responses to evaluation questions. The first, indicators section provides a skeletal overview of project
developments. The second, evaluation-question section provides a more comprehensive treatment,
including a greater contextualization of findings that may help explain indicator results.
Performance Measurement Plan Update—Indicator Review

The mid-term evaluation report provides an update to eight key indicators from baseline. As applicable,
the analysis draws on findings from related indicators to contextualize results. Table 7 provides an
overview of these indicators and their baseline and midline values. (For more information about the
data-collection tools that informed the various sources, see Annex 6.)
14
Green indicates improved performance relative to baseline; red indicates underperformance relative to baseline; gold indicates nearly the same
performance as baseline.
Indicators Baseline Midline p-value

MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the All: 1.7% (0.7%; 4.2%) All: 0.3% (0.1%;1.1%) 0.032
percentage of students who, by the end
Girls: 1.1% (0.3%; 4.7%) Girls: 0.1% (0.1%;1.9%) 0.070
of two grades of primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can read and Boys: 2.3% (0.9%; 5.9%) Boys:0.5% (0.1%; 0.9%) 0.068
understand the meaning of grade level
text?
Benchmark: 60% (3/5 correct answers)
Literacy Achievement Index 21 25.53 (22.3; 29.1) 24.76 (22.1; 27.4) 0.709
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the 51.0% (42.8%; 60.5%) 78.2% (70.2%; 84.5%) <0.000
percentage of teachers engaged in
“active instruction” for 50%+ of
classroom time?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the 16.9% (12.2%; 23,1%) 33.4% (29.8%; 37.0%) <0.000
percentage of classroom time in which
>5 students are “off-task”?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the All: 69.4% (63.6%; 76.3%) All: 69.5% (65.8%; 73.2%) 0.914
average student attendance rate in
Girls: 69.8% (63.5%; 76.3%) Girls: 69.4% (65.4%; 73.4%) 0.879
USDA-supported classrooms/schools?
Boys: 69.3% (62.6%; 75.3%) Boys: 69.7% (66.1%; 73.3%) 0.934
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the All: 1.4% (0.0%; 4.3%) All: 58.8% (49.5%; 68.1%) <0.000
percentage of school-age children
Girls: 1.8% (0.0%; 5.5%) Girls: 61.9% (51.1%; 71.7%) <0.000
Boys: 1.3% (0.0%; 3.8%) Boys: 55.4% (45.9%; 65.0%) <0.000
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the All: 38.9% (29.3%; 46.4%) All: 39.5% (31.5%; 48.1%) 0.750
prevalence of women of reproductive
age consuming a diet of minimum
diversity? 22
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons 1. Low parental awareness of 1. Health issues N/A
for student absences the importance of education 2. Teacher is absent
2. Helping the family with 3. Late or no payment of
chores or farm work at home school fees
3. Health issues
Meaningful improvement is observed for two project indicators as conveyed by the green highlighting in
Table 7. First, the percentage of teachers engaged in active instruction for 50 percent or more of
20
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2)
21
This indicator gives a global indication of students’ performance distribution on letter reading, reading fluency,
and reading comprehension subtasks, providing a broader picture of reading competence.
22
The number of respondents under 19 years-old is 7, which does not allow for proper disaggregation of data.
15
classroom time went from 51.0 percent at baseline to 78.2 percent at midline. Second, the percentage
of school-age children observed correctly washing their hands increased from 23.0 percent to 58.8
percent between baseline and midline, perhaps driven by COVID-19 prevention messaging. No
significant improvement is observed for the percentage of students who demonstrate that they can read
and understand the meaning of grade-level text, average student attendance rate, prevalence of women
of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity, or for the literacy achievement index. In
addition, midline results demonstrate a notable increase in the proportion of classroom time where
more than five students were off-task during classroom observations. The midline proportion is 33.4
percent, compared to 16.9 percent observed at baseline. Lastly, the results for the MCGOVERN-DOLE
SO2 indicator, ranked reasons for student absences, are inconclusive. While low parental awareness of
the importance of education and children needing to help with chores or farm work are not reported as
reasons for missing school—a positive sign—these seem to be replaced by two other common
challenges: teacher absences and difficulties paying school fees. Health issues make for a justified
reason for absenteeism, so it may be a good sign that it appears among the top-ranked reasons.
This section provided an overview of midterm indicator values and changes to these key outcome
indicators since the baseline evaluation. The next section addresses a series of evaluation questions and
will provide greater context for understanding this variation in indicators.
Evaluation Questions
Relevance
According to the OECD, the criterion of relevance addresses the “extent to which the intervention
objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies,
and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.” 23 Three evaluation questions comprise
this section.
1.1. Is the project’s results framework consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? Do
beneficiaries understand the problem and the solution to the problem in the same way as the
project?
As indicated above, the overall project design focuses on improving the literacy of primary-level
children. The underlying project theory posits that existing reading instruction, as well as students’
health, nutrition, and dietary habits must be ameliorated to support increased attentiveness and
attendance necessary to foster literacy development. To answer this evaluation question, we rely largely
on qualitative data from interviews across stakeholder groups including Nascent staff, the donor,
parents, teachers, and government partners.
Interviews with USDA as well as project staff demonstrated their familiarity with the project’s strategic
framework and the interconnectivity between program components. Analysis of staff interviews also
demonstrates staff’s understanding that the Nascent project ranks above all as an education initiative
that relies on a multidisciplinary approach. Staff also emphasized the importance of a participatory
approach that allows for capacity development. Staff interviews also highlighted Nascent’s focus on
capacity-building. They shared examples of trainings with community members, as well as of those
meant to support head teachers in improving their management skills.
We next turn to beneficiary views. All four parent focus groups noted a problem with under-enrollment
and school attendance. They attributed this problem to children not having money for food, or food
itself, as well as waiting for food to be prepared at home before leaving for school. Unanimously,
23
This definition and susbsequent definitions were informed by the following resource: OECD Home: Evaluation
Criteria, https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm
16
parents indicated that these problems have been addressed and that school attendance has improved.
Parents largely attribute these changes for the better to the school feeding component. Survey data also
underscores that parents are most aware of school canteen efforts, as 90 percent of parents identified
Nascent’s provision of foodstuffs. In focus groups, parents also noted that the provision of school
materials and school gardens have helped alleviate the problem. A parent shared:
“The problem was that, first of all, kids would arrive late to school or they were
absent because they waited until their mothers could prepare something for them to
eat before going to school. Now, kids, when they eat, they can spend the whole day
at school. Many problems have been solved and kids come to school regularly.
Nascent’s arrival has really improved our children’s education.” (Parent, FGD, Rural
Adamaoua Region School)
Three of four teacher focus groups discussed the issue and agreed with parents that hunger had proved
a persistent problem that kept children from attending school. 24 One group also specified that girls were
particularly affected. In addition, teachers pointed to professional development trainings as well as the
provision of school materials as highly helpful in addressing the problem.
Local, regional, and national government officials from the ministries involved in Nascent’s project
(Agriculture, Basic Education, Water and Energy, External Relations and Health) as well as mayors also
shared their views about the underlying problems that Nascent seeks to address. Respondents in over
three-quarters of the interviews identified hunger as the issue, followed by low school attendance and
enrollment. Respondents tended to identify issues related to their own purview, as agricultural officials
focused on Nascent’s work to support school and community gardens and health officials spoke about
women and children’s acute or moderate malnutrition.
Analysis of government responses provides additional insights into the project’s relevance. First, some
officials pointed to the project’s intervention zone aligning with the needs of the population, citing how
these regions are prone to climatic events and famine. 25 Second, three officials underlined Nascent’s
participatory approach as appropriate and well-founded. One spoke about how it allowed mothers to
better understand principles of good nutrition and act to support their own and their families’ health.
An education official, different from the one quoted above, focused on school gardens:
“Our communities must understand that Nascent has opened the door, and now it’s
up to us to assure the follow-through. So, through this project, the school gardens will
make up for Nascent's departure, when the time comes. Nascent is not there to give
us rice all the time. As the proverb says: ‘Teach me to fish, don't give me fish.’”
(Regional Education Delegate, Interview)
24
Some responses to focus group questions were not covered in all groups due to time. The one group that did not
respond varies by question. This issue is consistent throughout the findings section and applies below as well.
25
Nascent’s October 2019-March 2020 Seminannual Report provides detailed descriptions of challenges in each of
these regions, adding security concerns and malnutrition.
17
Finally, another official specified Nascent’s holistic approach and praised the organization’s recognition
of the project components’ interconnected nature. This view supports staff comments above.
Lastly, stakeholders also pointed to persistent gaps, including a lack of teachers to respond to demand.
One parent group noted that the majority of teachers at the school were compensated by the
community rather than the government. Similarly, one teacher’s FGD expressed the need for more
school materials. This was counter-balanced by another group that praised the materials already
provided. In addition, local officials are investigating how communities might contribute local foods,
rather than having to rely on imports.
1.2. Is implementation design consistent with the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and
national levels?
Answers to this question rely on document review as well as qualitative data and depict multiple ways
Nascent’s design supports government priorities. To begin, Cameroon’s National Development Strategy
2020-2030 emphasizes human capital development and articulates as a goal an education system that
produces young people who are “integrated, bilingual, competent,” and able to contribute to the
country’s development. 26 One of the strategic objectives supporting this goal is to guarantee school
access at the primary level, clearly in alignment with Nascent’s implementation design. Further, the
government identifies three key strategic components: access and equity; quality and employability;
strengthening of the education system. The document also indicates out-of-school youth as its major
concern and notes girls’ heightened vulnerability. Finally, the strategy also identifies the provision of
school canteens within primary schools, especially in rural areas, as one of the key actions of its social
security strategy. The document also includes a policy to promote the production and distribution of
low-cost school textbooks throughout the country. Again, these strategies align with Nascent’s
approach.
In addition, Nascent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Basic
Education in February 2016 that clearly demonstrates the government’s support of Nascent’s project
and approach. That document reaffirms the Government of Cameroon’s commitment to the
Sustainability Development Goals as well as to four Ministry of Basic Education programs under which
Nascent and the ministry will collaborate:
o Promotion of Universal Primary Education
o Promotion of Literacy, Formal and Informal Basic Education, and of National Languages;
o The Support to Preschool Development; and
o Governance and Institutional Support.
In discussions with USDA and Nascent staff, participants emphasized that Nascent’s objectives and
strategies aligned with the priorities of the various partner ministries. They pointed out that if their
efforts did not align with government priorities, they would not be allowed to operate. Staff also
provided examples of particular government efforts that resemble Nascent’s implementation, including
promoting enrollment, capacity-building for educators, school construction, access to clean water, and
promoting a personal-hygiene–focused curriculum. While the MOU cited above refers to a National
School Feeding policy developed in 2015, Nascent staff noted that while it has not yet gone into effect,
homegrown school feeding was promoted at the continent level. Staff also emphasized how their
ongoing close collaboration with government officials for agricultural, health, WASH, and education
trainings further demonstrates the relevance of Nascent’s implementation design to government
priorities. Nascent staff work with government officials to prepare the trainings, develop manuals
together, and co-facilitate. In some cases, including in agriculture, government officials take direct next
26
République du Cameroun. (2020). Stratégie nationale de développement 2020-2030, p. 73.
18
steps with communities in overseeing their practical work in the fields. In addition, technical staff
supporting infrastructure projects confirmed that implementation followed technical specifications
required by Cameroonian government.
Analyses of interviews with Cameroonian government officials from the various relevant ministries
further triangulate findings of relevancy. All officials interviewed spoke of synergy between Nascent’s
implementation design and national-level priorities. Like staff, they accentuated that alignment with
government strategy was required for projects to operate. A Ministry of Basic Education official further
emphasized that Nascent’s work aligns with the National Strategic Development Plan, describing it as a
“very useful” project for the country. Two other education officials, regional Education Delegates,
stressed Nascent’s alignment with the national curriculum, particularly its emphasis on quality, while
another emphasized the importance of Nascent’s work with regional inspectors. In addition, Ministry of
Agriculture representatives expressed synergy, though one also lamented that the Government of
Cameroon has not yet implemented its own school feeding policy. Health officials similarly pointed out
Nascent’s ability to fill a void in providing nutritional support to children under five, as stated in the
quote below.
“We were very, very happy when Nascent arrived. Indeed, we are responsible for
addressing children’s food and nutrition up to the age of five years old. . . . Nascent is
very welcome because it’s a continuation of our work.” (Regional Authority, Ministry
of Health, Interview)
A Regional Focal Point emphasized how important Nascent’s work was in providing products and
services to children with acute and moderate malnutrition. Only one official of the 20 interviewed on
this topic expressed concerns about Nascent’s approach. A Ministry of Water and Energy official noted a
desire to be more involved in choosing schools, an issue that may be internal to the particular ministry.
Local and Regional Priorities
When asked specifically about how the Nascent project may align with local or regional priorities, both
project staff and government officials across all four ministries explained how local and regional
priorities echo national priorities—and are thus complementary. Many officials used the phrase “in
sync” to describe their relationship. At the national level, an education official explained how national-
level strategies translate seamlessly to the local level, while another official indicated that Nascent’s
approach also agrees with regional realties, in particular in the North. The same held true for the four
agriculture officials interviewed. All of them underlined the importance of seed distribution and the
support Nascent provides. Similarly, all three Ministry of Water and Energy officials described a close
relationship with the Nascent project and their willingness to support project activities. Ministry of
Health officials at the regional level equally expressed how Nascent addresses their priorities.
Some of Nascent’s school feeding staff underlined how certain mayors have pledged to include line
items for school canteens in their budgets, notably six mayors in the North and four mayors in the East.
One of these staff interviewed explained how a mayor had integrated 1 million Francs CFA in their
budget to support school canteens at two schools. All four mayors interviewed during data collection
further described Nascent’s approach as complementary to their efforts. Two mayors proved
particularly emphatic when asked about relevancy, as demonstrated by the quotes below:
19
“I told you that we have a council-level development plan. All of this incorporates
what we want and what is planned, our strategic planning. It’s about nutrition and
education issues. It’s directly in line with the Nascent project.” (Mayor, East Region,
Interview)
“Absolutely! It’s because of that that we have integrated it in our council-level

budget. Nascent’s implementation activities are completely in tune with our vision.”
(Mayor, North Region, Interview)
Mother-Tongue Instruction
The issue of mother-tongue instruction provides the only exception. Despite a positive interview with
the National Focal Point at the Ministry of Basic Education who reiterated the government’s
commitment to mother-tongue languages and awareness of their benefit as languages of instruction,
interviews with Nascent staff and document review reveal weaker alignment with national priorities on
this issue. Nascent had originally planned to pilot Lamnso and Fulfulde as the languages of instruction in
20 schools (10 in Anglophone regions, 10 in Francophone regions). Given security issues in Anglophone
regions, Nascent revised its plan to focus on the other 10 schools. 27 The project also planned to develop
mother-tongue literacy materials. Interviews with Nascent staff, including project leadership, question
the government’s commitment, while also acknowledging the challenging political and linguistic
environment of Cameroon. Based on the results of an evaluation from an earlier pilot project, 28 Nascent
has been waiting for the government to make a decision about piloting since December 2019. With
piloting paused, Nascent moved forward with the development of literacy materials in mother
tongues. 29 The project’s most recent semiannual report details important progress, as Nascent gained
approval from authorities in the North region to pilot after-school mother-tongue literacy activities in
the Fulfulde language starting in September 2021. Four teachers will be trained to support the activity. 30
27
Nascent Solutions. (2019). Year 2 Workplan, October 2019-September 2020.
28
The Ministry of Basic Education piloted the National Languages Initiative in Africa (ELAN) beginning in 2013.
(Source: Nascent Solutions. (2019). Year 2 Workplan, October 2019-September 2020).
29
Nascent Solutions. (2020). Year 3 Workplan, October 2020-September 2021.
30
Nacent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report.
20
1.3. Did the support provided by Nascent during the COVID-19 pandemic address the needs of
beneficiaries?
This question focuses specifically on how the project may have met beneficiaries’ needs during the
COVID-19 pandemic and the relevance of Nascent’s response. A later question (Impact 4.5) explores in
more depth project adaptations and their possible mitigation of COVID-19’s impact. The answer to the
present relevance question draws largely on qualitative data.
Initiatives the project developed to address
beneficiary needs include the conversion of Image 1: Child receiving take-home ration
school meals into take-home rations (THR)
during school closures and up to the
present as the Government of Cameroon
continues to maintain the suspension of
meals at schools out of an abundance of
caution. According to school feeding staff,
the distribution of THRs began in June 2020
to empty school reserves prior to the end
of the school year, and it continued when
schools reopened. Staff also noted that this
created a major change for the project,
requiring significant adaptation from
parents. The project also provided sensitizations to 220,000 people on COVID-19 preventions through
radio and door-to-door social behavior–change messages in local languages. In interviews, multiple
Nascent staff members underlined the importance—and innovation—of using a well-understood local
language for COVID messaging. 31 The project trained 224 community health workers to sensitize
communities on COVID-19 safety measures and referrals and sensitized 1,140 teachers and 8,333
students of examination classes on good hygiene and COVID-19 prevention measures. Nascent also set
up 74 handwashing units at schools to encourage proper hand hygiene; these included buckets and
soap. 32 The project required employees, especially Field Agents, to follow COVID-19 safety protocols to
demonstrate a good example. Nascent also provided masks and hand sanitizer to participants during
trainings, as well as masks to all teachers. 33 Lastly, through its partner, School-to-School International
(STS), the project also provided six Master Trainers with virtual support for innovative strategies to aid in
reading instruction (originally planned for in-person support).
Direct discussions with beneficiaries further emphasize that Nascent’s response to the pandemic met
their needs. All three teacher focus groups identified ways in which Nascent provided support to school
communities. All cited the distribution of soap as important, while two groups mentioned the
distribution of face masks. One of these groups, from a rural community in the North, expressed
gratitude, noting that they had hoped all students would also receive masks, though they understood
that this may not have been possible. Figure 4 depicts the awareness of teachers and head teachers of
Nascent’s COVID response efforts and shows that around three-quarters of educators knew of Nascent’s
distribution of soap, handwashing stations, and masks. As expected, they were less aware of
community-level efforts 34. All three parent groups also gave very positive responses, although they were
31
Interview with M&E staff, Nutrition-WASH staff, and a Nascent Field Agent.
32
Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual report.
33
Interview with Nutrition WASH staff and Nascent Field Agent.
34
Results may reflect purposeful sampling that privileged those with project awareness.
21
not always as clear. One group, from a rural community in the East, emphasized how Nascent had
helped reduce the burden on parents of buying protective gear.
Figure 4: Teacher and head teacher awareness of Nascent COVID response
Soap distribution 64%

80%
Face mask distribution to teachers 76%

76%
Handwashing station distribution 82%

73%
THR distribution 60%

71%
Good hygiene training 37%

63%
Distribution of posters and flyiers 14%

34%
Radio messages on hygiene 5%

12%
Other 8%
5%
Remote training for pedagogical instructors 7%

2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Teachers Head teachers
In complement, analysis of interviews with government officials also point to how Nascent’s support
aligned with the needs of beneficiaries. Officials from the agriculture, health, and education sectors
underlined Nascent’s support of the government’s prevention strategy, including social distancing,
mask-wearing, and handwashing. All four education officials interviewed found awareness-raising
efforts and the distribution of materials immensely important, saying that they had helped extend the
government’s reach. They emphasized handwashing, in particular. One national-level Pedagogical
Inspector proved particularly articulate:
“Nascent seriously helped the communities. They received messages about how to
treat COVID-19 within schools, as well as the provision of sanitation kits to help
prepare able children to go back to school. So, I think that it is very noteworthy, and
we consider that it has definitely helped the government, because we have around
12,000 schools and the government can’t intervene in all the schools, can’t provide
hand sanitizer and soap and sanitation equipment used to fight COVID.” (Pedagogical
Instructor, Interview)
22
Despite these efforts, the extent of school closures and concerns about learning loss require
investigation into how Nascent responded to these needs. More than three-quarters of teachers (78%)
and head teachers (80%) surveyed reported that none of their students had access to remote learning
activities during school closures. As EQ 4.7 presents in detail below, while the project had examined
possibilities, it was decided that the level of resources needed proved high and that, based on previous
studies, the impact was likely to be too low to make developing a remote program viable.
1.4. Conclusion: Relevance
Findings show that stakeholders and beneficiaries share Nascent’s understanding of the problems and
solutions that inform the project design. Direct and indirect beneficiaries clearly share the project’s view
of the various challenges to enrollment and attendance, and they unanimously indicate that the Nascent
project addresses these issues. The provision of school lunches stands out, but also other components,
including school and community gardens and efforts to mediate women’s and children’s acute or
moderate malnutrition. Pathways that accentuate capacity-building as well as stakeholder participation
are also generally seen as critical to successful implementation.
Nascent’s strategies unequivocally support the government’s priorities at the local, regional, and
national levels through efforts to strengthen access and quality to the educational system. Nascent
supports Cameroon’s National Strategic Development Plan and provides critical support in the absence
of an active national school feeding policy. Partnerships with government officials, particularly at the
local and regional levels, exemplify this synergy. It is significant that at least 10 mayors in two regions
intend to integrate budget line items for school canteens in their operating budgets. The mother-tongue
pilot is the only area that may exhibit a slight tension between Nascent’s approach and government
strategies, likely the result of ambiguous government messaging and indecision.
Nascent’s support to beneficiaries during the ongoing pandemic responds to their needs while also
aiding in government prevention measures. The provision of handwashing stations, soap, and face
masks, as well as sensitization efforts, appear most noteworthy. The months during which the provision
of meals halted between school closure in March and the distribution of THR in June demonstrate a gap
in service that may have been unavoidable due to the crisis situation. Similarly, while it is
understandable that Nascent may not have been able to provide students with learning opportunities
during school closures, more than three-quarters of teachers and head teachers lamented that almost
none of their students had access to distance-learning programming. This finding requires revisiting
during planning for future projects in anticipation of similar crises, as efforts from the government,
UNICEF, and UNESCO faced enormous challenges regarding delivery and accessibility.
23
Image 2: Students wearing face masks
2. Effectiveness
The DAC criteria of effectiveness is defined as “the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is
expected to achieve, its objectives and its results, including any differential results across groups.”
Effectiveness focuses more closely on outputs and attributable results than impact. Five questions
inform the response to this criterion and address implementation challenges, the achievement of
project targets, and the integration of best practices.
2.1. Are the program’s activities implemented according to plan? (infrastructure, training, distributing
school meals, distributing take-home rations, distributing materials, improving curricula, school
garden)
Despite major disturbances, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic and unrest in the North West region,
discussions with project stakeholders and document review show that activities have largely been
implemented according to plan. The response to this question outlines how activities have shifted, while
EQ 2.2 addresses the internal and external factors underlying these changes in greater depth. Regarding
COVID-19, the pandemic has significantly disrupted activities. Not only were schools closed beginning in
March 2020, but since they reopened in October 2020, the Government of Cameroon has also
continued its suspension of the preparation and serving of hot meals on the school premises, making
Nascent pivot to provide students with THRs instead. Interviews with the project leadership, USDA and
M&E Specialists as well as the project’s April-September semiannual report, underscored the magnitude
of this disruption. While a monthly home distribution obviously proves less targeted than daily hot
school meals, the USDA and some ministerial colleagues point out that Nascent has managed the
difficult situation commendably.
“It wasn’t easy because, as you know, everything is calculated, and to now
recalculate so that a child from Family X consumes the prescribed number of calories
hasn’t been easy. They have had a hard time, but they have succeeded in being sure
that children are able to benefit from the rations.” (Inspector, Ministry of Basic
Education, Interview)
24
“There is always an ongoing effort by Nascent to be dynamic and to change based on
the circumstances, and they have always been amenable to any regulations or
circumstances that USDA has to dictate given the implications of the program.”
(USDA staff, Interview)
COVID-related restrictions on large gatherings also prevented the implementation of some trainings,
including those on child health and nutrition, safe food preparation/storage, commodity management,
and educator trainings. The sessions were converted to virtual modalities where possible, but others
were pushed back from early 2020 to the final quarter of 2020, according to two senior leadership
officials. Similarly, efforts to provide students with deworming medications, the rollout of library
activities, community information sessions on the importance of education, and efforts to promote
public-private partnerships and cooperatives/savings and loan entities were all delayed.
The project has also faced notable continued political disruption in the North West region, an upheaval
that originated with teacher strikes in November 2016 and transformed into a secessionist movement.
Unrest closed all 92 project schools in that region from the beginning of the project. As of June 2021, 38
schools had reopened, operating temporarily from church buildings and community halls. 35 Nascent has
again adapted programming by providing THRs in that area and operating its mobile reading project to
keep children connected with texts during school closures. 36 The political situation also resulted in a
modification of the evaluation scope to focus only on the North, East and Adamaoua regions and not to
include the North West due to a lack of activities.
The project baseline also found that enrollment was higher than expected in originally targeted schools,
which led to an adjustment in school selection and a decrease from 265 to 240 target schools. The
evaluation team notes that this significant change did not affect the implementation schedule.
Nonetheless, high enrollments continued to have an effect on programming, as it was impossible to
distribute THRs to Grade 5 and Grade 6 pupils for the first and second terms of the 2019-2020 academic
year, since available commodities could not cover both extensive THR distribution and school meals. 37
Technical staff, in an interview, confirmed that about 15,000 more students were enrolled in project
schools than had been originally expected during the proposal stage in 2018.
The implementation of infrastructure activities has also changed, according to interviews with project
leadership, technical staff and a government Regional WASH Focal Point. Modifications include a
reduction in the number of boreholes (from 10 to 7) to respond to adjustments in market prices and
delays, particularly in the Adamaoua region. At the same time, the project indicates managing these
delays, in part due to a strategy of fining contractors for delayed services. The COVID-19 pandemic
seems not have had an effect on infrastructure activities.
Other notable project delays include a two-week delay in food distribution at the beginning of the
project and the development of a video-based nutrition education study with the University of Illinois.
Nascent staff noted short delays in food delivery, both at the beginning of the project and due to COVID-
19. At the same time, they indicate that the project’s efficient coordination of in-country logistics has
allowed them to make up lost time during distribution. The video-based study is now on schedule for
September 2021 according to the project’s leadership.
35
Nascent Solutions. (2021). October 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report.
36
Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report. Interviews touching on this aspect include
the interview with the Country Director as well as USDA.
37
Nascent Solutions (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual Report.
25
Despite major impediments, the project is on track in terms of its installation of school gardens, as well
as for nutrition activities. Staff also pointed out that they have adjusted WASH activities, as indicated
above, to incorporate sensitization and behavior change communications related to COVID-19. Finally, in
regard to the project budget, interview data indicate that the project is doing well despite disruptions.
Two members of project leadership shared that the budget remained as planned, though the spending
plan had to shift to accommodate the pandemic, with spending concentrated in the final quarter of Year
2 and the first quarter of Year 3. At the time of writing, the project was working on budget reallocations.
2.2. Have there been internal and/or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation
of project activities? Are these obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the Government of
Cameroon, or other partners?
The response to this question builds on EQ 2.1 and provides additional information about hindering
external and internal factors. Analysis draws on document review and interview data.
External factors
The COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on project implementation (see above) and the political situation in
the North West represent by far the most prominent and significant challenges.
Additional insecurity challenges: Nascent staff explained that the crisis in the North West has caused
logistical challenges, such as a complex transportation strategy involving different sets of trucks as well
as motorbikes, which are necessary to carry commodities to schools. Similarly, according to the
Nutrition-WASH Field Coordination team, the project experienced difficulties fully targeting THR
distribution to children from project schools, as other children also attended the Mobile Reading
Program. In addition, complications occurred in other geographical intervention areas, notably in
Adamaoua and the East, where spillover from the crisis in the Central African Republic (CAR) and the
presence of refugees, as well as ongoing micro-conflicts between agriculturalist and pastoralist
communities in Adamaoua, require constant vigilance and adaptation. Staff shared how CAR rebels
blocked transportation for a couple weeks in Adamaoua.
Government-level challenges: In some instances, there is a lack of coordination among government
partners. The government’s stalled school feeding policy makes for a major impediment, and no
particular entity oversees school feeding within the government. As a result, Nascent must work with
four different ministries (Basic Education, Water and Energy, Agriculture, and Health) to coordinate and
get all the delegations involved and engaged to support school feeding in target zones. The geographic
spread of the project’s intervention further complicates coordination in Adamaoua and the East, making
it difficult for Nascent to establish itself as an important partner with local authorities. A representative
from the Ministry of Water and Energy made a related observation:
“Maybe I should say that Nascent, according to me, is not sufficiently known in the
region. For an activity like this that wants to lead such major activities . . .I don’t
know if it’s due to internal methods, but communications are not that far-reaching.
People really don’t know it except for those who have worked with them. If the
Ministry of Water and Energy or the Ministry of Basic Education do what they should,
it’s very important that it is publicized, so that it can be known by the larger public
and relayed by the administrative authorities and the different group leaders and
traditional leaders and all the rest. You see this sort of activity can’t be led only
26
through state support. It should be well known at the community level.” (Water &
Energy Regional Delegate, Interview)
Challenges with the government manifest in many ways, including the cumbersome clearance process
for commodities to leave Douala to regional warehouses. While the project has signed an establishment
agreement with the Government of Cameroon, which grants Nascent total customs exoneration for the
importation of commodities and project materials and should alleviate the issue, 38 the M&E team and
the Commodities Coordinator identified persistent misunderstandings between the different
government departments responsible for the implementation of the provision of the agreement and
delays. A national Ministry of External Relations official concurred that the agreement did not entirely
solve the issue, despite Nascent’s dynamism and continued efforts to serve targeted areas. Other
Nascent staff cited challenges with weak communication among government officials. For example, in
the East, there was an incident in which authorities refused to allow Nascent food to enter the
community as they doubted its legitimacy and quality. This led to a delay of a couple of months as
Nascent worked to obtain necessary verifications.
In addition, both Nascent staff and government partners identified other coordination issues, including
challenges to scheduled activities requiring government presence (e.g., trainings and other meetings)
given the government’s solicitation by other partners as well as some gaps in communication. Two
Agricultural Delegates as well as a national-level education official expressed a desire for more inputs
into project operations. The agricultural officials indicated wanting to be more involved in school
selection, so as to align with zones that had a greater presence of agricultural agents – though Nascent
staff note this is outside their purview. More important, the national-level education official indicated
wanting more communication from Nascent, so that they could be aware of the project’s lessons
learned, good practices, and conclusions to inform the government’s work across the country. The
official specifically asked to have access to the midterm evaluation report, for example. At the same
time, other officials indicated that they felt they worked very well already with Nascent and had no
issues to report. These individuals included an Education Delegate/Inspector, a WASH Regional Focal
Point, and a Water and Energy Official.
Poor infrastructure: Poor roads in certain areas impact the delivery of commodities and materials for
infrastructure projects. As noted earlier, poor roads in the North West region negatively impact an
already challenging operating environment. Similarly, Nascent has learned to contact authorities in the
East close to the CAR border to appraise the situation prior to sending goods. They cited a bridge
collapsing, which elicited schedule changes. A project staff member providing technical infrastructure
assistance also spoke of a site where the contractor could not deliver materials because of surrounding
road conditions.
Climate challenges: Both excess and lack of rain have complicated project implementation despite
strong efforts, as indicated by the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team and the Commodities team, as
well as regional delegates from various ministries. The rainy season paired with poor roads complicates
delivery to project schools in more remote locations. At the same time, a lack of precipitation in the
North, attributed to climate change, stymies the best of agricultural efforts.
Lack of capacity: The issue of weak capacity arose most notably in discussion with project technical
staff, but it is also relevant for teachers, many of whom lack training, particularly community recruits. A
38
Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual Report.
27
technical staff member reported that some of the contractors and workers did not have required
technical capacity, which has led to multiple revisions of installations and the dismissal of some workers.
Limitations of the educational system: Analysis points to poor learning conditions at many schools,
including makeshift classrooms with high enrollment, particularly in more urban areas, as well as the
complex teacher mobility issue as underlying systemic challenges to Nascent’s interventions.
“Another one is the teacher transfer—teachers are always in transfer. The

government—you know we are not able to request that a teacher be transferred—
when a teacher is transferred, this affects the project. Finally, we came to realize that
over 65 percent of teachers are recruited by the PTA. Their transfer is already in their
pocket. They can leave at any time if they see something elsewhere. So, imagine
training such teachers and realizing that they disappeared.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
M&E colleagues further insisted that the regions in which the project operates proved challenging in
terms of climatic conditions, combined with insecurity that further exacerbated teacher-mobility
challenges.
Operating environment favors assistance without participation: Analysis also points to how Nascent’s
development-based approach differs from the humanitarian approach implemented by other
organizations in many of the same intervention zones. Field Agents, for instance, explain how
beneficiaries, namely parents and other community members, have come to expect the provision of
supplies or materials without demonstrating engagement. Nascent, on the other hand, espouses a
participatory approach that requires accountability from community partners, demonstrating an
underlying philosophical tension. Nonetheless, discussions with Field Agents, the School Feeding and the
Nutrition-WASH Coordination team reveal that the project has managed to surmount these challenges
by rallying community participation over time and with persistence.
Internal Factors
Analysis of project documents and interviews reveals only three internal challenges. Indeed, the USDA
Program Analyst, a small number of Nascent staff, and the majority of government officials from the
agricultural and health sectors were not able to identify any challenges.
Staff turnover: In addition to the transition of the Country Director that took place in March 2019 (but
seems to have had no negative impact on the project 39), repeated changes in staffing occurred at the
Field Coordinator level. The April-September 2019 semiannual report identifies a period of active
recruitment as the project ramped up, as well as reassignments. An interview with the Nutrition-WASH
Field Coordination team evidenced frustration about minor turnover among Field Agents. The
challenging operating environments of these zones, as well as the unique skill set required for a
successful Field Agent, may contribute.
Disparate placement of target schools: As indicated in the baseline report, the fact that the number of
project schools in the East and Adamaoua are limited, while there is a great concentration of schools in
the North makes it difficult to establish synergy of implementation and between communities. The
project slightly revised school selection after baseline (as identified above). It is worth noting that this
39
Project leadership also suggest that an overlap period of one month between the out-going and incoming COPs
as well as the consistent presence of the Program Manager helped assure a smooth transition.
28
factor did not arise in interviews with stakeholders, indicating that most may consider the dispersed
intervention zone a manageable challenge. In addition, when questioned on this topic, program
leadership explained that working in the four regions was a USDA requirement during the proposal stage
in 2018 – USDA desired to continue building on previous projects which focused in the North and North
West regions. In addition, the choice of schools also takes into account real political pressures to spread
target schools out among districts.
2.3. Are program products and outcome targets achieved (see list of 10 indicators)? And if not, why?
The response to this question relies on Nascent’s monitoring data and performance reports as well as
information from interviews and other correspondence between the evaluation team and project staff.
As indicated in Table 8, at the time of writing the project had achieved six of its 10 Year 2 targets,
surpassing each one by a wide margin.
29
Table 8: Indicator status at midterm 40
Green indicates overperformance relative to target; red indicates underperformance relative to target.
Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Relationship

# Result/Performance Indicator
Target Achieved Target Achieved to target
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1.2: Number of

grade 1-3 students receiving new
6 0 0 23,850 48,892 +105%
literacy materials as a result of USDA
assistance
teachers/educators/teaching
9 0 0 444 0 -100%
assistants trained or certified as a
result of USDA assistance
schools organizing after-school
11 0 92 80 132 +180%
literacy activities as a result of USDA
assistance
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2.1.1: Number
of daily school meals that include
15 fruits, vegetables, and/or animal- 0 0 539,156 387,671 -28%
sourced proteins in addition to USDA
commodities
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3.3/2.4:
Number of educational facilities (i.e.
school buildings, classrooms,
19 10 56 35 55 +147%
improved water sources, and
latrines) rehabilitated/constructed
as a result of USDA assistance
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.4.1/2.7.1:
Number of government civil servants
21 0 0 90 151 +68%
receiving capacity building training
as a result of USDA assistance
MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.1: Number of
25 individuals trained in hygiene as a 170 0 8,800 14,971 +67%
result of USDA assistance
individuals trained in commodity
27 1,200 435 740 329 -61%
management as a result of USDA
assistance
pregnant women reached with
31 0 0 4,771 8,536 +79%
nutrition-specific interventions
through USG-supported programs
40
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2)
30
Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Relationship
# Result/Performance Indicator
Target Achieved Target Achieved to target

individuals trained on improved
33 55 958 8,490 4,021 -42%
gardening methods as a result of
USDA assistance
While the proportion of targets achieved remains the same between Year 1 and Year 2, in Year 2,
Nascent has managed to address each of the relevant activities as the project life cycle has evolved.
Analysis of progress by MCGOVERN-DOLE result shows that Nascent reached its Year 2 target for four of
the six literacy-focused indicators and two of the four WASH-focused targets. Further analysis by result
follows.
Results 1 indicators
The project met two-thirds of Result 1 indicators by the end of Year 2. According to discussions with the
M&E and Literacy team, the project was able to surpass the Indicator 6 target due to a combination of
higher-than-expected enrollment and a lower-than-expected market price of school supplies. Similarly,
the project surpassed its Indicator 19 target by 147 percent. Project staff indicated that the high
attainment resulted from after-school activities already taking place in some schools, including in the
North West, where schools have not yet fully resumed. The project also surpassed its education
infrastructure target by 147 percent. (Efficiency EQs below will provide more detailed explanation.) As
the M&E team indicated, Nascent managed to build on its previous experiences to succeed. Timing also
proved advantageous, as Nascent’s efficiency allowed for handwashing stations to be in place prior to
the urgency of COVID-19. Nascent staff further explained,
“We learned a lot from Kumbo [previous Nascent project in the North West] about
how to conduct efficient recruitment procedures for contractors (better procurement
practices), and we knew we needed to start early. Some infrastructure is easier to
build than others—handwashing stations are very easy to build and cheap. We were
able to move very quickly on handwashing stations, and there is a great interest in
that, even before the Covid-19 pandemic.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Finally, the project exceeded its target for training with government civil servants by 68 percent. This
training took place before the COVID lockdown. According to the M&E team, more government officials
expressed interest in the training than originally expected, and the original target may well have
underestimated beneficiary needs.
In terms of the two results not achieved, it was not possible for the project to fulfill its education-
training objectives (Indicator 9) during the COVID-19 lockdown. Both Literacy and M&E teams felt
confident that the project would be able to catch up during Year 3. Nascent also failed to reach its Year 2
target for Indicator 15, the number of daily school meals that include fruits, vegetables, and/or animal-
sourced proteins in addition to USDA commodities. Project performance was 28 percent below target.
All sector teams provided explanations for these results, including how, in some schools, particularly in
the East and Adamaoua regions, school feeding started two months late, in part because some
communities needed more time to fully understand and buy into the project. The School Feeding team
further stipulated that the initial targets included the North West, where only dry rations have been
distributed, and that dry rations do not include fruits, vegetables, and/or animal-sourced proteins. More
31
importantly school shutdown in March 2020 due to COVID hampered attainment of results. Through
further discussion with Nascent M&E staff, the evaluation team learned that, in accordance with
guidance from USDA, targets are not distinct for the North West region, despite the latter’s unique and
challenging operating context.
Results 2 indicators
The project managed to meet two of four Year 2 targets related to improving students’ health, nutrition,
and dietary practices. The number of individuals trained in hygiene as a result of USDA assistance
(Indicator 25) exceeded the two-year cumulative target by 67 percent. The number of pregnant women
reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USG-supported programs exceeded the two-year
cumulative target by 79 percent. The WASH-Nutrition team pointed to heightened awareness of hygiene
during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as health centers maintaining function during lockdown, as
reasons for the project’s success.
Two Results 2 indicators concern school-based trainings: Indicator 27 (individuals trained in commodity
management) and Indicator 33 (gardening methods). School-based trainings did not take place during
COVID-related school closures, meaning that the project could not meet these targets as a result. The
M&E team also pointed out that the Indicator 27 target included schools in the North West, where
training activities did not take place in Year 2. In addition, other coordination teams commented that
they felt certain trainings were not adequately covered within the targets and that results may prove
misleading. Both the Commodity and the School Feeding teams questioned the calculations for Indicator
27 that concerns training in commodity management. The Commodity team felt that the calculation
may not have included refresher trainings, while the School Feeding team suggested that the target
should have been reached because all cooks were trained, either directly or via outreach. Similarly, for
Indicator 33, the Agriculture Coordination team pointed to how trainings related to the creation of
cooperatives had not been included in project counts. These findings suggest that relevant project staff
have gaps in understanding how project indicators are computed.
2.4. To what extent are students following best practices in the schools regarding hygiene?
The response to this question focuses on Nascent’s materials, as well as survey and interview data. We
begin the section with an overview of Nascent’s approach to hygiene education.
Nascent’s Approach to Hygiene in Schools
Document review shows that Nascent developed the Hygiene and Sanitation Facilitators Guide in
collaboration with the Ministry of Health’s Department of Health and Nutrition. 41 In total, Nascent
trained 14,971 Hygiene and Health Champions (HHC). 42 These individuals are members of the
government health personnel system meant to raise community awareness of the dangers of water- and
sanitation-related diseases. Parents and teachers in selected schools served as HHC to promote
improved hygiene practices in the project intervention zones. Parents’ participation complemented
what children learned in school about hygiene. The guide also details how daily hygiene and sanitation
practices promoted at school, in health centers, and in the community focus on 1) handwashing with
clean water and soap at critical times, 2) personal hygiene, 3) environmental hygiene, and 4) food
hygiene. Table 9 details practices indicated within the guide.
41
Nascent Solutions. (2019). GUIDE DU FACILITATEUR: Hygiène et assainissement [FACILITATOR’S GUIDE: Hygiene
and Sanitation].
42
From years 1 and 2. Informed from results of USDA indicator: MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.1: Number of individuals
trained in hygiene as a result of USDA assistance.
32
Table 9: Hygiene practices presented within Nascent facilitation guide
Handwashing with Soap Personal hygiene Environmental hygiene Food hygiene

practices
• Before preparing • Brushing teeth at least • Daily latrine cleaning • Cleaning fruits and
meals twice a day with • Defecating in latrine vegetables before
• Before and after toothbrush and and not in open consumption
meals toothpaste • Building latrines with • Cleaning vegetables
• Before breastfeeding • Bathing at least once a local materials before preparation
• After toileting day • Cleaning house yard, with clean water
• After defecation • Washing hair at least school yard and • Avoiding preparation
• After handling once a week community daily of spoiled foods
children’s stools • Changing clothes daily • Use and daily cleaning • Cleaning utensils
• After visits to public with clean clothes of animal pens with clean water and
places, markets, • Menstrual hygiene • Cleaning water corner soap
events, ceremonies, • Disposing of clothes of daily
hospital sick and deceased • Avoiding waste disposal
people in water corner
Nascent also developed the Teacher’s Guide for Teaching in Hygiene, Health and Nutrition for teachers
to help with instruction in hygiene and health practices. 43
Nascent assigns an HHC to each project school to help reinforce WASH practices in schools s. 44
Champions also work to reinforce practice while helping the committees raise awareness about hygiene
and health in their communities. Champions cascade trainings by organizing subsequent sessions and
work with schools and households to improve latrines, teaching them how to use latrines and
emphasizing good hygiene practices. The Champions are responsible for conducting school-cleanliness
inspections using an Inspection Checklist, as well as for organizing inter-school and inter-class hygiene
competitions in partnership with the committees. The 2021 work plan foresees such competitions for
May and June 2021. Project teachers are responsible for WASH activities in schools.
Hygiene Practice in Schools
Global best practices for school hygiene include handwashing with soap (HWWS), improved
environmental hygiene including sanitation practices, the safe disposal of child feces, the safe handling
and storage of drinking water, and menstrual hygiene. 45 The midterm data evaluation looked specifically
at HWWS, as well as environmental hygiene practices and school handwashing-station use using the
Handwashing Observation and School Inventory tool (see Annex 6).
School Handwashing-Station Use
The midterm evaluation conducted handwashing observation using the Handwashing Observation and
School Inventory tool (see Annex 6) to determine the presence of a basic minimum level of service for
hygiene within visited schools. This criterion aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
indicator for WASH in schools and is defined as “handwashing facilities with water and soap available at
43
Nascent Solutions. (2020). Guide du Maitre pour L’enseignement des Notions en Hygiène, Santé et Nutrition
[Teacher’s Guide for Teaching in Hygiene, Health and Nutrition].
44
Student health clubs (Clubs d’Enfants) align with the National Strategy for the Promotion of Drinking Water
Supply, Hygiene and Sanitation in the Environment for Schools in Cameroon as part of the 2017 Promotion of the
Clean School for All strategy (Stratégie nationale de promotion de l’approvisionnement en eau potable, l’hygiène
et l’assainissement en milieu scolaire au Cameroun. See Ministry of Basic Education:
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cmr197627.pdf
45
UNICEF. (n.d). “Hygiene.” https://www.unicef.org/wash/hygiene.
33
the school at the time of the survey.” 46 Results from the evaluation’s student questionnaire indicate that
88 percent of schools boasted a basic hygiene service, usually defined as a handwashing facility with
water and soap available, compared to the initial 2 percent at baseline. At the same time, it is important
to note that, due to COVID-19 protocol, the evaluator had to stay at a distance, leaving them unable to
check the availability of soap. Still, observation data shows that 6 percent of schools had a limited
hygiene service at baseline, compared to 0 percent at midterm, defined as a handwashing facility with
water but no soap. While nearly all schools (91%) at baseline had no hygiene service, only about one-
tenth (12%) of project schools did so at midterm, defined as no facility or water available. Figure 19
presents these findings, while Table 10 disaggregates these findings by region. Results demonstrate a
significant improvement in the availability of handwashing stations, the research limitation
notwithstanding. (See Annex 12 for related additional figure.)
Figure 19: Availability of a handwashing stations at school (%)
Comparison - Midterm 65% 8% 28%
Project - Midterm 12% 88%
Comparison - Baseline 92% 6% 2%
Project - Baseline 91% 6% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Hygiene Service Limited Hygiene Service Basic Hygiene Service
Table 10: Availability of a handwashing stations at school by group, timepoint and region
Group/Timepoint Region No Limited Basic

Hygiene Hygiene Hygiene
Service Service Service
Comparison/Baseline
Adamawa 83.3% 16.7% 0%
East 100% 0% 0%
North 90.3% 6.5% 3.2%
Project/Baseline
Adamawa 100% 0% 0%
East 80% 20% 0%
North 92.6% 3.7% 3.7%
Comparison/Midterm
46
WHO/UNICEF. (2018). Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools: Global Baseline Report 2018.
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/jmp-wash-in-schools-en.pdf
34
Adamawa 33.3% 16.7% 50%
East 90% 0% 10%
North 68.2% 6.8% 25%
Project/Midterm
Adamawa 0% 0% 100%
East 33.3% 0% 66.7%
North 8.7% 0% 91.3%
Regional analysis also shows important differences, with Adamaoua making the most gains as it shifted
from a total absence of basic service to full compliance. The North region also experienced a large gain
(from 4% to 91%), followed by the East (from 0% to 67%).
Student-reported availability of soap and ash at school handwashing stations does allow for some
triangulation in the absence of more robust observation data. Students surveyed reported that 95.8
percent of schools had soap or ash available. Similarly, students indicated using the soap at the school
handwashing stations at least sometimes (98.6%), with nearly two-thirds of students reporting they
always did so. Availability proved much lower near the latrines, however, as only a quarter (26.7%) of
students reported soap and water always available there, with 20.3 percent of students reporting
availability sometimes.
Environmental Hygiene Practices
Cameroon’s National Strategy for the Promotion of Drinking Water Supply, Hygiene, and Sanitation in
the Environment School in Cameroon calls for support to improve school access to WASH infrastructure
including water points, drinking water and latrines with hand washing device, hygiene kits, garbage,
etc.). 47 Nascent’s Hygiene and Sanitation Facilitators guide also touches on sanitation and reviews
different types: 1) on-site sanitation; 2) semi-collective sanitation; 48 and 3) collective sanitation with
sewer networks, and then the types of latrines. 49 The manual also explains the consequences of open
defecation, contamination routes, and describes the simple management of latrines.
Midterm survey data provide insights into students’ environmental hygiene practices to support healthy
strategies. When parents were asked if they thought their children used the latrine at school, nearly half
(45%) answered “yes, always,” followed by a quarter (27%) who responded “yes, sometimes.” Only 2.5
percent indicated, “no, never.” Similarly, data collectors at midterm found that nearly all school latrines
(97.9%) were functional, compared to slightly less (87.5%) at baseline. Common student perceptions for
the conditions of the latrines at midterm included 16.8 percent liked to use them, 16.9 percent felt they
were clean, and 14.6 percent answered, “Sometimes I hold back so I don't have to use the latrine.”
47
Ministry of Basic Education. (2017). Stratégie nationale de promotion de l’approvisionnement en eau potable,
l’hygiène et l’assainissement en milieu scolaire au Cameroun. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cmr197627.pdf
48
Per the manual, onsite sanitation usually refers to a system of latrines or flush toilets for urine and excreta, and a
sump to collect domestic water (kitchen, shower, dishes). Latrines consist of a simple plank or slab laid across a pit.
Once filled, simple pits should be emptied regularly. Semicollective sanitation is suitable for a small group of
dwellings, it includes a small-diameter sewer system buried at a shallow depth associated with a decentralized
summary treatment system.
49
Types of latrines include: Single-pit family latrines with SanPlat slabs; Improved Ventilated Latrines (VIP); Manual
Flush Toilets (TCM); and ECOSAN latrines.
35
In addition, in terms of the disposal of feces, when parents were asked where their child’s feces were
disposed of when not in school, well over the majority (90.9%) answered that children used the latrine
at home. Midterm data also show that 81.5 percent of students report using the latrine, compared to
78.1 percent at baseline, avoiding open defecation. Students’ survey responses indicate that the main
reasons for not using latrines were children not wanting to (21.6%) and that they were not clean (11.4%)
and smelled bad (10.4%). According to the KIIs, the use of latrines remained problematic for some, as it
is not common practice within the communities. This finding contradicts the quantitative data
suggesting the need for further investigation on latrine use.
2.5. To what extent are kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers implementing organizational and
hygiene skills acquired through the training?
Kitchen and commodity-storage Volunteers have an important role to play in the functioning of school
canteens. According to updated project indicators (see MCGOVERN-DOLE 2.2 in Table 8 above), Nascent
trained 435 volunteers in Year 1 and 329 in Year 2, a decrease of 61 percent between years. Table 11
highlights their roles and responsibilities. No baseline measures exist for the kitchen and commodity-
storage volunteers.
Table 11: Kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers’ roles and responsibilities 50
 Participate fully in the preparation of school meals according  Make sure students wash their hands before eating
to the planned cooking schedule  Make sure students eat in peace and order
 Be punctual in the kitchen in the morning  Clean all the utensils, sort them, and prepare the area for
 Cook meals according to nutritional principles cooking the next day
 Put the food in the wash basins and bring and distribute it to  Make sure the firewood is ready for the next day
the pupils  Align with the Food Management Committee
 Distribute cups to the students and serve them drinking water
At the beginning of the project, Nascent also provided support to build commodity storerooms and
kitchens (see EQ 3.2 below for more information). At first a lot of schools did not have these kitchens or
storerooms, so food commodities and supplies needed to be temporarily stored in parents’ homes.
Hygiene Rules Followed for Preparing Meals and Maintaining the Kitchen
In terms of implementing organizational and hygiene skills acquired through Nascent trainings, 81
percent of volunteers reported cleaning utensils daily. However, in the qualitative interviews, volunteers
identify the maintenance and cleanliness of utensils as the most challenging practice to enforce. Survey
data also show that three-quarters of volunteers (77%) said they cleaned the pans daily, while less than
half (46%) of them use soap to clean. Perhaps even more concerning, only 47 percent of volunteers
report regularly washing their hands, only 35 percent manage the garbage, and only a quarter (25%)
report using (safe) drinking water. Similarly, only 17 percent of respondents report not leaving food on
the ground, and only 1.4 percent used a source of water purification. Volunteers thought the following
top five things could be adjusted to improve school-canteen operations: provide more utensils (47%),
increase compensation (40%), diversify compensation (40%), provide more condiments (38%), and
improve access to water (32%). (Question 5.4 below provides an additional exploration of kitchen
volunteers’ experiences.)
Storage Organizational Skills and Hygiene Habits
50
Nascent Solutions. (2019). Sécurité Alimentaire et Préparation des Aliments A Grande Echelle: Guide du
Facilitateur.
36
In terms of school-inventory management, before the COVID-19 crisis resulted in the suspension of
school feeding, more than half (59%) of commodity-management volunteers reported organizing
storage daily, under one-tenth (7%) of volunteers did so four times a week, 17 percent did it one to
three times a week, and the same proportion (17%) reported doing so one to three times a month.
Nascent provided volunteers with the manual, Food Management Training: Food Storage and Handling,
as part of the commodities management training. When surveyed, nearly all the volunteers (99%) found
it useful, with 85 percent describing it as “very useful.” In terms of satisfaction with the current state of
storeroom organization and inventory management, volunteers also unanimously expressed
satisfaction, with 31 percent saying they were “very satisfied.” 51 When asked about possible
storeroom/kitchen improvements, one-third (34%) of commodity-management volunteers felt that their
compensation could be improved, followed by pest control for rodents (26%), and equal proportions
(17%) felt more attention needed to be paid either to the size of the room or to shelf space and training.
In response to a question about the lessons learned
Figure 5: Proportion of time that storage
from training, three-quarters of commodities-
volunteers follow hygiene rules
management volunteers (75%) mentioned the
importance of cleaning the floor, while two-thirds (62%)
mentioned avoiding leaving food on the ground, half
(51%) remembered the need to eliminate rodents, and Rarely
over a third (40%) remembered that it is not good to mix All the 5% Quite
food commodities with cleaning/fertilizer products. The time often
least mentioned concepts from the training were to 29% 18%
remove expired products (28%) and to use the oldest
stock first (22%). As Figure 5 indicates, in terms of
adherence to hygiene rules for stock management, a
high percentage (78%) of storage volunteers indicated Most of
following the rules at least most of the time, with nearly the time
one-third (29%) asserting that they do so all of the time. 48%
Storage volunteers also identified some solid reasons
why kitchen/storeroom hygiene rules might not be
followed, including the need for a bigger storeroom
(28%), the excessive time required for cleaning (23%),
the lack of products to help with pest control (14%), an
inability to determine the products’ expiration (12%), a lack of storekeepers (11%), an ill-trained food
manager (9%), and damage to the storeroom (8%).
2.6. Conclusion: Effectiveness
Overall, findings show that despite considerable obstacles, Nascent has largely performed well in terms
of both results and finances. Nascent has demonstrated nimbleness in the face of disruption. Of course,
the government’s continued COVID-19-related suspension of school meals has had a negative impact on
project implementation, but findings show that Nascent is doing what it can to distribute THRs and urge
children to bring lunch to school.
Unrest in the North West has also proven highly disruptive, requiring ingenuity and modifications from
project staff. Although beyond the scope of this evaluation, findings show that Nascent has adapted
51
The distribution of responses is worth noting for this question. Results show that 31 percent of volunteers
responded “very satisfied,” 58 percent indicated “more or less satisfied,” and 11 percent responded only
“moderately satisfied.”
37
through the provision of take-home rations as well as services offered through the Mobile Reading
Program. The organization also sought to make up for time lost at the time of data collection.
While Nascent has little control over external factors that hinder implementation, it might consider
doubling down on advocacy efforts with the Government of Cameroon to reinitiate school feeding
based on positive experiences from countries in the region as witnessed by Et4d’s other McGovern-Dole
evaluation work. The only internal factor that Nascent may wish to consider for future programming is
the disparate placement of target schools, which puts stress on project response in an already
challenging environment.
Nascent has achieved six of its ten targets. Those that remain elusive have been most affected by
COVID-19 and disruptions related to insecurity in the North West. Findings also show that targets met
have been surpassed by a wide margin, which suggests they may have not been sufficiently calibrated at
the start. Similarly, staff remain somewhat unclear on the computation of targets, which requires
attention. Nascent may also wish to revisit the separation of targets for the North West to be better
equipped to understand change.
Nascent’s support clearly upgraded schools’ availability and use of handwashing stations and helped
upgrade many schools from providing no or limited hygiene service to basic hygiene service since
baseline. Students also increased the overall use of latrines, avoiding open defecation. In addition, an
increase of functional school latrines indicates an improvement in the overall management of latrines at
midterm. Since COVID restrictions did not allow for a robust observation of the use of soap, and because
students reported sometimes lacking soap or ash near latrines at the majority of schools, additional
investigation of these matters is needed.
Overall, there was an increase in the training of kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers from
baseline to midterm, though volunteers still find hygiene practices in the school storerooms and
kitchens lagging behind. Reasons include a lack of incentives and the burdens of time and rodents.
3. Efficiency
The midterm evaluation also sought to assess the efficiency of the Nascent project, that is, “the extent
to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.” Three
evaluation questions address efficiency, and answers rely on qualitative data from document review as
well as interviews.
3.1. Which outputs were obtained most cost-efficiently in the best timely manner?
The project faced major delays due to COVID-19 school closures and restrictions, though some project
components were affected less than others. Interviews with project staff largely inform these findings,
since project beneficiaries have little awareness of the project’s work plan. Nonetheless, when asked if
project activities seem to have taken place as scheduled, feedback from focus groups with parents and
teachers was highly positive. Similarly, comments in the two teachers’ focus groups indicate that the
teachers consulted felt the project calendar had been respected and that timing was appropriate.
Four project activities emerge from analysis as being efficiently implemented: 1) trainings, 2) project
monitoring and record-keeping system, 3) commodities delivery, and 4) community farms.
Trainings: While the pandemic delayed trainings and led to adjustments, including virtual delivery, as
indicated above in response to EQ 2.1, stakeholder interview responses also indicated that trainings,
once held, were conducted efficiently. For example, the project uses a cascade training or training-of-
trainers approach. For education, the project provided a virtual training through School-to-School
International (STS) to Master Trainers in Year 2 who, in turn, trained literacy coaches who would be able
38
to reach classrooms. 52 Similarly, a member of the Nutrition team shared how the project also relied on
Hygiene Champions who they train and who, in turn, perform community outreach. Moreover, Nascent
also uses a modular training approach in which they convene participants for multiple simultaneous
trainings, rotating staff. As a staff member explained,
“So, what we do is that we organize, we choose the location. And we choose

participants, let's say it could involve three technical staff, so we all move to the field
at the same time. We organize those three trainings in the same location in just one
particular school. So, we start with one team, having this training in one room. I’m in
the next room having my training. At another point, we switch teams, and what it
means is both technical staffs touch the different participants in the same day, so it
becomes cost-effective for us to do trainings like that. Otherwise that would have
been two different trainings on two separate occasions where we are supposed to go
to the field.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Cost-effective project-monitoring system: Interviews with the project’s M&E team also showcased that
Nascent is using District Health Information Software 2 (DHIS2) for project monitoring. DHIS2 is an open-
source, web-based system that applies to multiple sectors, including education. 53 The M&E team felt
very excited about its use with colleagues across project components, as the quote below illustrates.
They emphasized that it constituted a low-cost solution they wished they had begun implementing with
other colleagues, specifically commodity management, much earlier.
“The DHIS2 system itself, the initial setup, costs about $10,000, and annually, after
that, years two, three, four or five, we will spend less than $2,000 per year, that's for
server hosting and for some outside technical assistance to maintain it. And then the
tablets are quite cheap . . . and they allow the Field Agents to upload information
from the field as long as they have a mobile connection or Wi-Fi connection, so that
that saves money on fuel and coming to a town. . . . That's an example of a system
that was originally intended only for M&E and is now being expanded to track
commodities and literacy coaching data.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Commodities delivery: Interviews with the Commodities Coordination team as well as Field Agents
indicate that commodities delivery has become more efficient as the project has evolved. The project
can anticipate delays in the transit of goods from the United States to Cameroon and prepares
accordingly. A more efficient on-the-ground logistics organization allows for catch-up once materials
have arrived. Nascent is also working more closely with customs and the Ministry of External Relations
to unblock the release of commodities, as described above.
Community farms: The project established 36 rather than the originally targeted 20 farms, according to
the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team as well as the April-September 2020 semiannual report. The
52
Nascent Solutions. (2020). Year 3 Workplan, October 2020-September 2021. It indicates that trainings will
continue through June 2021.
53
See https://dhis2.org for more information.
39
team identified its awareness-raising efforts as particularly effective for fostering interest. While
surpassing the target represents a project success, data also point to factors that complicate farm
establishment and may make it more difficult in some areas. For example, the Nutrition-WASH
Coordination team reports that obtaining land for farming in the East proves highly challenging, while
poor precipitation greatly complicates production in the North region. Field Agents further detailed that
schools opening at the end of the dry season (September) made it very difficult to find water for school
gardens at the start of the academic year.
3.2. Which were obtained least cost-efficiently in the least timely manner?
In contrast to EQ 3.1, the present question investigates least cost-efficient project activities. Again, four
key project components emerge from analysis: 1) infrastructure activities; 2) general Nascent activities
in the North West region; 3) school gardens; and 4) library and MTE (mother-tongue education)
activities.
Infrastructure: While infrastructure projects continued on schedule despite COVID-19-related delays
elsewhere, they encountered challenges due to poor roads and some contractors not able to respond to
the project timeline. Data also revealed an overall burn rate of 134 percent for the infrastructure project
as of March 31, 2021, indicative of Nascent’s recognition that more infrastructure was needed than
originally anticipated. As Table 12 demonstrates, the project has far exceeded the burn rate, and indeed
its budget, for kitchens, food stores, and classrooms, as well as latrines. A project memo from the
Country Director details that while 45 kitchens, 45 stores, and 25 latrines (115 structures in all), had
been budgeted, the project needed to build 48 kitchens, 47 stores, 32 latrines (127 structures in total),
12 more than anticipated. 54 This is because it became clear after project launch that more schools
needed kitchens than originally anticipated. At the same time, the cost of borehole construction was
more expensive than thought, leading to a higher burn rate. Technical staff also specified that materials
cost much more in the East than in the other regions, despite previous cost investigations. Nonetheless,
these additional costs have not had a major impact on Nascent’s overall budget.
Table 12: Infrastructure burn-rate breakdown as of March 31, 2021 55
Infrastructure type Burn rate (%)

Kitchens, Food stores, Classrooms 242.48
Latrines 110.52
Boreholes 50.20
Global rate 134.40
Activities in the North West: As indicated above, the security situation in the North West has resulted in
major project adaptations. Interviews with project staff, including a member of the project leadership
and the M&E team, underline that the distribution of commodities and other project materials cost
more than anticipated. Some activities in the North West have proven inefficient. Recall from EQ 2.2
above that the project has resorted to multiple transporters so that commodities can reach their
destinations. This is a necessary adaptation to realities on the ground, but also less cost-efficient than
anticipated. The quote below provides additional detail.
54
Nascent Solutions. (June 2, 2020). Memorandum from Country Director: Over run of MCGOVERN-DOLE budget
for the construction of kitchens, stores, latrines.
55
Source: Communication with the Program Manager, April 27, 2021.
40
“You know, it's not a fully operating project in the North West, of course, because
most of the schools aren't open, but we were struggling to get mobile reading data
on time from them, and we made several visits . . . several phone calls, several follow-
ups, and we struggled to get information on time. So, if you think about the resources
used to get what is a small amount of information compared to the North,
Adamaoua, and East, the ratio there was quite bad.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
The M&E team also emphasized that they had to use more resources relative to the other intervention
regions to obtain necessary monitoring data from colleagues in the North West. As mentioned earlier,
they cited poor communications as well as blocked roads as causes for inefficiencies.
School gardens: Lastly, school-garden production has also lacked in efficiency. According to Field Agents
and the Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, many communities have been reluctant to participate in
the project in general, and it has taken a long time for staff to help communities engage. At the time of
data collection, the project had succeeded in establishing 148 school gardens, though not within the
original timeframe due to sensitization and outreach efforts.
Image 3: School garden
Library and MTE activities: While education activities seem largely efficient in their use of resources and
time, a staff member did point to challenges in identifying appropriate French books for libraries, which
has led to their delayed implementation. As described above, the project’s mother-tongue education
pilot has remained stalled due to ambiguities from government partners.
3.3. Should the project allocate resources differently in the future?
Data collection fell at a time when the Nascent project was holding internal discussions about budget
reallocation, making it challenging to obtain a full picture of how the organization might allocate
resources differently in the future. At the same time, several project staff described resource allocation
as adequate, including USDA and the Nutrition-WASH and School Feeding Coordination teams. A
41
member of project leadership indicated that the budget would need “slight realignments.” Nonetheless,
findings emerged that point to some ways that the project might redistribute its resources and include:
- Additional emphasis on COVID-19 sensitizations — These activities were unexpected but have
become an important feature of project implementation.
- Revisions to the infrastructure budget and activities to reflect challenges explored above.
- Reconsideration of the budget for activities in the North West region — A member of project
leadership reiterated how the project was distributing smaller rations than had originally been
planned as more students have been participating in the mobile reading activity. (See EQ 2.2 for
more details.)
- Redistribution of funds for the mother-tongue initiative — Project staff, namely the Literacy team,
expressed the desire to repurpose the funds allocated for the mother-tongue initiative to other
activities if the government is not enthusiastic about the activity.
In addition, interview data indicate that some budget-line items are not burning as fast as others. A
senior project staff shared that budget lines for agricultural components related to school gardens,
transportation and administration, and professional services have not been burning very quickly. On the
other hand, the senior project staff member argued that budget lines supporting PTA, teacher training,
and activities promoting literacy are burning fast. The Literacy team similarly signaled a need for
increased funding for school-supply distribution. Finally, the Nutrition Coordinator indicated the need
for the deployment of more corn soy blend plus commodities for moderately malnourished children,
though other staff note the needs will always exceed the resources. The Country Director expressed
confidence at the possibility of realigning project funds to other activities because Nascent had been
efficient in its implementation and likely had savings.
3.4. Conclusion: Efficiency
Investigations demonstrate that the project has largely employed an efficient use of time and resources
despite the considerable challenges of political insecurity and the COVID-19 pandemic. The project’s
approach to training, especially its modular approach, may serve as a model for other development
efforts. The same holds true for the implementation of the DHIS2 system. Project efficiencies also
demonstrate ongoing project learning and the ability to improve processes as project implementation
evolves.
At the same time, Nascent’s infrastructure activities have ambitious goals and the project has proven
less efficient in this area. Nonetheless, Nascent’s infrastructure implementation stands out as exemplary
compared to other MCGOVERN-DOLE projects. The use of contractor fines may stand as a promising
practice to be recommended elsewhere. Nascent’s activities in the North West may merit adjustments,
however. Efforts required for that region surpass those of other intervention regions, even though the
return on investment is arguably lower. The evaluation team urges Nascent to frame North West
interventions more deliberately as crisis response.
The evaluation team felt that project resources were generally well allocated and that the project was
working thoughtfully to realign funds as needed.
4. Impact
Impact — DAC definition: The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate
significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
42
4.1. To what extent have students (boys and girls) increased their reading comprehension compared
to baseline?
This question draws upon data collected using the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). The EGRA is
a collection of highly valid literacy assessments developed by RTI in 2006 with financial support from
USAID and the World Bank. EGRA is a comprehensive measure of literacy, with tools spanning phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, all of which are considered to be essential
components of effective reading instruction. 56
The indicator review above illustrated that the percentage of students with passing reading
comprehension scores decreased from 1.7 percent (95% CI : 0.7%; 4.2%) at baseline to 0.3 (95% CI:
0.1%; 1.1% percent at midline. 57 In addition to examining students’ reading comprehension abilities, the
evaluation sought to understand more holistically how students may have increased their overall
literacy performance since baseline. When surveyed, both teachers and head teachers at Nascent
schools responded much more positively about their satisfaction with their students’ reading
performance. Figure 6 shows how more than three-quarters of teachers (79%) and nearly nine-tenths of
head teachers (89%) at Nascent schools express being at least “more or less” satisfied. 58 Further analysis
of teacher responses shows that teachers at Nascent schools in the North expressed particular
satisfaction (79.8% compared to 58.4% and 41.7% for Adamaoua and the East regions, respectively). 59
Figure 6: Teacher and head teachers' satisfaction with students' reading performance (school type)
Teachers Teachers
Project 3% 9% 76% 13%

Head
Comparison 15% 46% 35% 4%

Project 3% 18% 55% 24%
Comparison 9% 40% 43% 8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No, not at all No, not really Yes, more or less Yes, very
In addition, all respondents interviewed agreed that project activities had helped improve literacy.
Project staff, however, proved most conservative in their responses and most often deferred to EGRA
scores. The M&E and Literacy Coordination teams as well as a member of the project leadership pointed
to some of the challenges that they felt constituted barriers to improved comprehension scores. They
56 Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit: Second Edition, RTI International, Mar 2016.
57
A nationwide early-grade mathematics assessment (EGMA) and EGRA study provides some contextualization and
confirms that reading comprehension scores are likely to be low for the Grade 2 students who took part in the
Nascent midterm study. The Unité des Acquis Scolaires (UAS) (2019) study found that 14 percent of third-graders in
French-speaking schools scored a passing score, increasing from 8 percent at an earlier time period. Still, 70
percent of students were not able to respond to any comprehension questions. This study was conducted in 2019
and did not include students in the North West or Southwest regions due to insecurity. Source: Unité des Acquis
Scolaires (UAS). (2019). Rapport de l’évaluation des acquis scolaires EGRA/EGMA dans les classes de cours
élémentaire 1 et class 3 du cycle primaire.
58
The differences for both teachers and head teachers are statistically significant (p<0.000).
59
Differences are significant between Adamaoua and the North Region (p=0.004) and between the East and North
regions (p<0.000). The sample size of principals per region does not allow for regional analysis.
43
cited COVID- related school closures as well as the low comprehension levels that students had at
baseline. As an M&E Officer shared,
“I’m more optimistic about the second goal—positive health and dietary practices. I am less
optimistic that we will make a significant impact on the literacy piece. This is because what we
have seen in the previous McGovern-Dole project in Cameroon and because it’s a much more
complex issue, especially when starting with 75 to 80 percent non-readers. Harder to move the
needle when it’s at zero.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
In addition, the above sections outline how teacher training and coaching activities were implemented
later than planned due to COVID-19. These delays may also have contributed to weakened
improvements in students’ literacy results.
Additional EGRA Results
While the EGRA results do not demonstrate reading gains for students at Nascent schools, they do
demonstrate less of a reduction in scores than at comparison schools. Annex 10 presents a
comprehensive review of EGRA results. Here, we present the most salient findings from a difference-in-
differences analysis that investigated possible significant change between baseline and midline
measures comparing comparison and project schools. Results show that there is significant change only
for the literacy index, where we see that project school scores are 4.523 points higher than what we
observe in comparison schools. 60 Moreover, all difference-in-differences estimators are positive, which
indicates that students in project schools have made more “gains” than students in comparison schools,
but the only significant differences are overall and for girls.
In addition, descriptive results show that at baseline, students in comparison schools present an average
literacy index of 28.595, which goes down to 23.174 at midline (see Figure 7). For the project schools,
students present an average of 25.658 at baseline, and this goes down only to 24.760. This lower
performance at midline can probably be attributed to COVID-19, and students in project schools show
significantly fewer differences between midline and baseline. These results suggest that Nascent schools
largely maintained their gains, while comparison schools dropped more significantly.
60
Results are statistically significant at p=0.004.
44
Figure 7: Average literacy index comparison between baseline and midline (by school type)
35
30
28.595
24.76
25 25.658
23.174
20
15
10
0
Baseline Midline
Comparison Project
4.2. To what extent have students improved their attentiveness?

The response to this question draws on interview data, survey results, and classroom observations.
Classroom observations relied upon the Stallings Observation System. The Stallings Observation System
(Stallings) provides a quantitative measure of key classroom variables influencing the efficacy of
teaching and learning, including use of instructional time, use of materials, core pedagogical practices,
and student engagement.61 Stallings includes a classroom observation composed of a series of ten 15-
second snapshots spread evenly throughout a class period. During each snapshot, the teacher and pupils
are placed on a matrix indicating the activities in which they are engaged, and any materials being used.
To begin, interviews demonstrate that key stakeholders feel that Nascent’s interventions have increased
student attentiveness. All three teacher focus groups that responded to this question affirmed that the
school feeding program helped students be more attentive. Two of the groups indicated that some
students now bring food with them to school, a non-extant practice before. A teacher in one group
explained how the practice has evolved during the pandemic canteen closure.
“The children have slowly begun to bring food to school. But here, they thought they could only
bring Nascent-provided food. We sensitized them by letting them know they can bring what
was prepared at home. There were difficulties, but now things have changed a bit. Yesterday
during recess, we found that they came with food and shared amongst themselves. It was very
interesting.“ (Teacher, Rural School in the Adamaoua Region, FGD)
61Conducting classroom observations: analyzing classrooms dynamics and instructional time - using the Stallings 'classroom
snapshot' observation system: user guide. World Bank Group, 2015.
45
Image 4: Students engaged in learning in a crowded classroom
Participants in all four parent focus groups agreed, whether it concerned food provided at the school or
the dry take-home rations. Parents generally stressed how the functioning school canteen helped
motivate students to go to school. Two groups also indicated that children were now more attentive to
their schoolwork at home, as they no longer returned home hungry. Regional ministry officials from
both education and agriculture were also supportive, though limited in their comments due to their
distance from students. In general, they agreed that students receiving food at school, and particularly if
they did not have to leave school to return after lunch, would have positive effects on attentiveness. An
Education Delegate as well as a Field Agent further pointed to overcrowded classrooms as challenging
environments, even for the most well-fed student and the best trained teacher. The same Field Agent
also called attention to how younger children (preschool and Grade 1) may fall asleep after eating. This
comment reminds us that school feeding alone cannot address all schooling challenges in Cameroon.
Survey results also suggest that Nascent’s activities may increase student attentiveness. When surveyed,
94 percent of teachers indicated that they thought that students were more attentive due to the school
canteens, with over two-thirds of teachers (69.4%) indicating, “yes, very.” When asked why, teachers
pointed to students being satiated, more awake, and less tired (see Figure 8).
46
Figure 8: Left: Teachers' agreement that students are more attentive due to the school canteen;
Right: Reasons teachers identify as to why the canteens lead to increased attentiveness
I don't No, not

know/No really
Satiated 65.1%
response 5%
2% Yes, more More awake 61.8%
or less
24% Less tired 44.4%
Yes, very
69% Other 6.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
In addition, the midline evaluation compared average student attendance rates with baseline data in
accordance with the MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3 indicator. Results show no change between the two time
periods (69.5% at midline, compared with 69.4% at baseline; see Table 7 for more information). Gender
disaggregation also showed no change. At the same time, the midline followed up with parents about
their perceived reasons for student absences (MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2 indicator). Results ranked reasons
as 1) health issues, 2) teacher is absent, and 3) late or no payment of school fees. In comparison,
baseline results were 1) low parental awareness of the importance of education, 2) helping the family
with chores or farm work at home, and 3) health issues. The changes in these reasons and their ranking
seems to suggest that demand for schooling has increased since baseline and that parents may have
gained a greater appreciation for the importance of education. Because the results for MCGOVERN-
DOLE 1.3 show no change however, it is not possible to say that these perceptions have translated to
improved attendance. The absence of the school feeding line at midline may offer a partial explanation
but more specific investigation is warranted during the endline evaluation.
At the same time, however, midline results for indicator MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 (see indicator review
above) demonstrate that nearly twice the proportion of students were off task at midterm compared to
baseline (33.4% versus 16.9%). These results, depicted in Figure 9, derive from the Stallings Classroom
Observation tool. Additional difference-in-differences analysis, however, indicates no significant
difference between comparison and project schools, suggesting that the difference observed between
baseline and midline happened in both groups 62.
62
Upon review of evaluation, Nascent staff suggested that the results may reflect increases in class sizes. The
evaluation team suggests that additional investigation is needed to confirm this suggestion.
47
Figure 9: Comparison of MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 results (baseline and midline)
100%
80%
60%
40% 3.6%
16.9% 33.4%
20%
16.9
0%
Baseline Midterm
Comparison Project
4.3. To what extent have teachers improved the quality of their teaching? And to what extent have
head teachers improved their capacity to manage the school?
Nascent has developed an approach for improving teaching quality that includes training and coaching
support. In-service training targets head teachers, instructional coaches, and teachers. Training took
place in two phases between September 2020 and January 2021. 63 A review of training materials shows
that coach and teacher materials focus on effective reading strategies, with an emphasis on the five
components of reading, while the Year 3 work plan adds that training will also focus on creating child-
centered classrooms and planning effective reading and writing lessons. Training for head teachers
focused on leadership, school development plans, identifying school and student needs. At the time of
data collection, head teachers had been trained on the first two of six modules. Nascent also contracted
with School-to-School International (STS) to lead a training session for Master Trainers that took place
virtually in Year 2. 64 To understand how these practices may have contributed to improving the quality
of teachers’ practice, we look largely to survey and observation results, with additional reference to
interview data.
Teacher Practice Improvements
When surveyed, two-thirds of teachers (66.9%) at Nascent schools indicated having attended a Nascent
training. All 121 teachers who indicated having attended a training judged them useful, with 95.2
percent responding, “very useful.” Similarly, these same teachers reported that the methods covered
could improve students’ reading, with 91.1 percent responding “yes, very.” Moreover, Figure 10 displays
teachers’ self-reporting of lessons learned from trainings, as well as those they apply to their teaching
63
Nascent. (no date). Liste des formations.
64
Documents reviewed include the Nascent Solutions (2020) Year 3 Workplan, as well as training manuals: Nascent
Solutions. (2020). Piste 1 : Manuel de formation au leadership des chefs d'établissement; Nascent Solutions.
(2020). Guide du facilitateur pour les formateurs des coaches en lecture; Nascent Solutions. (2020). Guide du
facilitateur pour les formateurs des enseignants en lecture.
48
practice. Phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, and decoding ranked as the three concepts teachers
identified most. Teachers also indicated the concepts they found most difficult. The top three responses
were decoding (23.4% of teachers), comprehension (23.1%), and teaching vocabulary (21.5%).
Figure 10: Concepts teachers report learning in Nascent trainings and applying in practice
Phonemic awareness
Alphabetic principle
Decoding
Teaching vocabulary
Reading fluency
Comprehension
Annual planning: Program
Weekly planning
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Apply to practice Lessons learned
Interview data provides additional nuance to understand teachers’ experiences during training and in
their classrooms. All three teacher focus groups that addressed Nascent trainings gave overwhelmingly
positive reviews. They appreciated the concepts taught and felt that they were made aware of both
new, positive practices and ineffective ones that they needed to change. The quotes below, though
similar to utterances from other teachers, are particularly poignant:
“It went a long way to help me to know how to handle my class, especially in English
language sound and word building. Yes, because the seminar was all about reading
and teaching the pupils how to read, reading them on how to break words into
syllables, to decode in a way that when you try to teach them to read, you do not just
teach the word they are reading, but you teach the sound of the letter and the word,
so they know the letter of the word and the sound that that letter gives, they will
know how to pronounce it. . . . So in that sense, you surely know a way to help us, to
help me in particular, how to teach reading, and it was not only reading, it was also
grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension. So that was a very great thing. I
appreciate that.” (Teacher, Rural School in the East Region, FGD)
“Me, specifically, I’ve had a new experience. They showed us a strategy that I hadn’t
seen before, and back in the classroom, I tried to put it into practice. I hope this will
work, because it has really helped me. I didn’t know that we could teach reading
through games and through song.” (Teacher, Rural School in the Adamaoua Region,
FGD)
Perhaps even more notable, external observation using the Stalling Classroom observation tool also
shows that project teachers have greatly improved their use of active pedagogy. As the indicator review
section above reported, the MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1 indicator that measures the percentage of teachers
engaged in “active instruction” for at least half of the classroom time increased by 27.2 points at midline
49
(from 51.0% to 78.2%). In addition, a comparison of the change in comparison and project schools
during this period shows that project schools made significantly more improvement during that time
period. Figure 11 displays the change and shows how the difference-in-differences estimator of effect
calculates to 25.9 percent and is statistically significant (p=0.001).
and midterm comparing comparison and project classrooms
100%
78.2%
80% 60.6%
60%
61.9%
51.0%
40%
20%
0%
Baseline Midline
Comparison Project
Coaching and Head teacher’s Support

Responses from stakeholders also indicate the effectiveness of coaching and head teachers’ support to
teachers. Education delegates interviewed indicate that teaching coaches (animateurs pédagogiques)
regularly visit both comparison and project schools. Survey data confirmed that all project school head
teachers reported that their teachers received a visit from a pedagogical advisor, as compared to 48.8
percent in comparison schools. More than half of head teachers (53.7%) indicated that they had
received at least three visits. 65 A teaching coach who sat for an interview indicated her excitement
about Nascent’s approach, especially the emphasis on phonics and decoding, and how she has shared it
with teachers from non-Nascent schools as well. At the school level, 85.4 percent of project and 95.1
percent of comparison school head teachers report having observed their Grade 1 and Grade 2 teachers
during a reading lesson 66. More than one and a half times more project school head teachers (21.5
points more) expressed satisfaction with observed teaching quality than head teachers in comparison
schools, 67 as Figure 12 depicts.
65
These results are not statistically significant. Note that significance cannot be computed for the difference
reported in schools receiving visits from teaching coaches, as one of the responses was 100 percent.
66
While the proportion of comparison teachers reporting having conducted a teacher observation is higher, this
result is not statistically significant.
67
The difference is statistically significant (p<0.000).
50
Figure 12: Proportion of head teachers reporting satisfaction with observed reading instruction (by
school type)
Project 2.8% 64.4% 32.8%
2.5%
Comparison 43.8% 42.9% 10.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not at all Not very More or less Yes very
Head Teachers Improve Management Capacity

All surveyed head teachers in project schools indicated having participated in a Nascent training. Like
teachers, the head teachers also all described the training as useful, with 96.3 percent (all but 2 of 59
head teachers) saying “very useful.” Head teachers also provided an indication of the lessons they recall
learning most from trainings. As Figure 13 illustrates, the top three responses were the implementation
of school development plans, head teachers’ roles and responsibilities, and what makes an effective
school.
Figure 13: Lessons learned from trainings as identified by head teachers 68
Implementation of school development plans 75.9%
Head teacher's role and responsibilities 64.1%
What is an effective school 62.5%
Working better with teachers and conducting… 51.0%
Community engagement and improving… 48.5%
School self-assessment of the implementation of… 35.9%
Working better with students to account for self-… 23.3%
Understand and manage improvement cycle 8.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

As with teachers above, qualitative data provides additional nuance and confirms head teachers’
appreciation of Nascent trainings. The head teachers within each of the three teaching staff focus
groups that responded to this question expressed their satisfaction. Head teachers spoke of how they
felt more confident in their leadership roles and responsibilities, and how they were also clearer on the
roles of other stakeholders, including teachers, the dean of studies, and community members. A head
teacher from a rural school in the region of Adamaoua stated the following:
68
Note that the evaluation team has translated plans de développement scolaire (PDS) to “school development
plans” in English and auto-évaluation scolaire (AES) to “school self-assessment.”
51
“If all people in leadership received this training, things would change in this country.
With adults, we must not impose anything. It is through discussion that we solve
problems. Together you find the solution. Before this training, we were called
“dictators,” because you made your decision, and you must implement. But when you
examine the problem together, you find the solution.” (Head teacher, Rural School in
the Adamaoua Region, FGD)
In addition, one Education Delegate commented enthusiastically that Nascent head teachers stand out
from others, because they take reporting seriously and provide strong monitoring and follow-up.
Timing Suggests Cautious Interpretation of Results
While the results above are positive, the recent delivery of Nascent trainings requires a cautious
interpretation of results. Stakeholders urge a similar approach. An education official, for instance,
cautioned that it may be too early for the effects of Nascent trainings to be visible. Similarly, some
Nascent staff expressed satisfaction with current progress yet advised restraint due to the recent
administration of trainings. The M&E team insisted that time may be too short to see a change in
practice, and in students’ test results, in particular.
4.4. To what extent have students improved their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices?
This question builds on findings from EQ 2.4 above and makes comparisons with baseline data using
both survey and interview data. Recall that Nascent support teaches Health and Hygiene Champions to
promote hygiene topics for children that emphasize handwashing with soap, proper fecal and menstrual
sanitation, bathing, clothes washing, and teeth bushing. 69
Image 5: Teacher ensuring children wash their hands before entering the classroom
69
Nascent Solutions. (November 2018). McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program:
Performance Monitoring Plan, FY 2018–FY 2023.
52
Handwashing with Soap
The midterm evaluation assessed the extent to which students have improved hygiene practices
through its Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory tool. Data collectors observed 20 students
per school to assess if children are washing their hands after using the latrine, and they also performed
an inventory of school sanitary equipment and access to water. The parent survey asked about hygiene
and nutrition practices as reported above for EQ 2.4. Figure 20 illustrates student survey responses
when asked to report “handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times”, while Table 13 disaggregates
responses by region. As indicated, the rates of student HWWS as reported by both parents and students
have increased at midterm for all critical times. Washing after defecation has made the largest gain (51%
at midterm, from 21% at baseline, according to students). Reporting is still very low for ahead of
preparing a meal, at only 10 percent by students and 13 percent by parents at midterm. This number
might be low if students do not yet help their parents with meal preparations. Gender may also affect
this result and requires additional scrutiny.
Figure 20: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times
11%
After Playing 23%
20%
31%
21%
After Defecation 51%
37%
52%
5%
Before Preparing a Meal 10%
7%
13%
85%
Before Eating 87%
95%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Project Student Baseline Project Student Midline Project Parents Baseline Project Parent Midlne
Table 13: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times by group, timepoint and region
Time/Group Region Before Before After After
Eating preparing Defecation Playing
meal
Comparison/Baseline
Adamawa 93.3% 11.9% 40.7% 11.9%
53
East 95% 5% 30% 10%
North 96.7% 11.1% 24.2% 14.4%
Project/Baseline
Adamawa 100% 9.5% 38.1% 19.0%
East 80.6% 6.5% 33.9% 9.7%
North 98.5% 7.8% 37.2% 21.6%
Comparison/Midterm
Adamawa 100% 18.3% 46.7% 51.7%
East 100% 1.0% 36.5% 11.5%
North 92.3% 11.1% 47% 26.6%
Project/Midterm
Adamawa 94% 30% 64% 56%
East 95.6% 1.1% 31.1% 22.2%
North 94.8% 11.8% 56% 25.5%
Regional analysis shows variation in results. In the Adamaoua region, handwashing before eating
actually decreased from 100 percent to 94 percent at midterm, while handwashing for all other time
points increased by at least 20 points, as Table 14 displays. In the North region, handwashing before
eating also decreased by nearly 4 points, while handwashing before preparing a meal and after playing
increased modestly. Washing after defecation increased in the North by nearly 20 points. In the East
region, on the other hand, handwashing before eating increased by nearly 15 points, and washing after
playing increased by 10 percentage points. At the same time, reported rates of handwashing before
preparing a meal decreased, and after defecation it decreased slightly. It is concerning that handwashing
with soap before eating decreased in two regions (Adamaoua and North), and it requires investigation
and response by the project.
comparison of midterm and baseline results
Adamaoua East North Adamaoua East North Adamaoua East North
Midterm Midterm Midterm Baseline Baseline Baseline Change Change Change
Before
94.0% 95.6% 94.8% 100.0% 80.8% 98.5% -6.0% 14.8% -3.7%
eating
Before
Preparing 30.0% 1.1% 11.8% 9.5% 1.9% 7.8% 20.5% -0.8% 4.0%
a meal
54
After
64.0% 31.1% 56.0% 38.1% 34.6% 37.2% 25.9% -3.5% 18.8%
defecation
After
56.0% 22.2% 25.5% 19.0% 11.5% 21.6% 37.0% 10.7% 3.9%
playing
Across the sample, students generally report using the handwashing stations. Survey results indicate
that well over half (59.9%) of students report using stations “always,” while over a third of students
(36.7%) report using them “sometimes.” Students also reported on reasons for not using the school
handwashing stations. While few students (175, or 6.3%) indicate not using them, the most common
reason they provide is that they don’t want to (19.2%), followed by students not having time to wash
their hands (4.2%) and that there are too many people using them (2.9%). 70
Students’ Reported Attitudes toward Latrine Use
Survey data also indicate that students largely find school latrines clean and safe, which may indicate an
improvement in hygiene habits. When asked if latrines were clean, nearly one-quarter (24.9%) replied
“always” and more than half of respondents (55.5%) said “sometimes.” One-fifth of students (19.6%)
still reported “never,” which requires additional attention. In terms of safety, students also reported the
following about feeling safe in the latrine—always (34.9%), sometimes (43.2%), never (21.9%). Gender
disaggregation of the data shows little distinction between girls and boys, however. Again, the high
proportion of students never feeling safe requires reflection on the part of the project. 71
Interview Data Supports Improved Practice
Qualitative data indicate that stakeholders believe children are washing hands more frequently,
supporting the trend for the overall sample above. Nascent field staff indicated in interviews that
students were washing hands more often and that, at the same time, more handwashing stations were
available. As far as improved nutrition practices—such as consuming a more diverse diet and eating
more frequent meals—it was hard for Nascent field staff to evaluate these practices because of the
suspension of school-prepared meals resulting from COVID-19 preventative measures. While Nascent
has trained parents on safe food preparation and handling, so that children can safely bring meals to
school, field staff cannot qualify these practices.
4.5. To what extent has the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum
diversity improved?
Nascent activities that contribute to improving the dietary diversity for women of a reproductive age (15
to 49 years of age) include: trainings for
community health workers in 1)
Improving their knowledge on nutrition
on food groups, how to constitute
healthy balanced diets using local foods
and best infant and young child feeding Figure 14:Mid
A yellow MidUpper
UpperArmArm Circumference
Circumference TapeTape (MUAC)
(MUAC)
practices, and 2) increasing access to (less than 230mm or 23cm) qualifies pregnant and
lactating women for a THR, as they are designated as
nutrient and calorie rich foods as take-
malnourished.
home rations, specifically malnourished
pregnant and lactating women. Nascent
trains local health workers (community
70
Note that 26 percent of respondents did not answer this question, while 16.8 percent responded “other.”
71
Note that these questions were not asked at baseline so cannot be compared across time.
55
health workers) established in each community who intend sensitize these women and also carry out
culinary demonstrations. They are equally trained on how to adequately screen and identify
malnourished women in the communities. Screening uses a Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tape
(see Figure 14), to determine if women are malnourished and therefore, qualify for take-home rations.
In addition, Nascent has worked with schools to develop or improve community farms and school
gardens. This section addresses Nascent’s direct activities with women and the organization’s
agricultural activities.
Activities Targeting Women of Reproductive Age
To support efforts with community health workers, Nascent has developed the Health & Nutrition
Facilitator’s Guide. 72 As indicated above in response to EQ 2.3, Nascent reached 8,536 pregnant and
lactating women through health centers with take-home rations (based on indicator MCGOVERN-DOLE
2.3). Pregnant and lactating women with MAM who assess at the yellow level of MUAC tape, indicated
by having less than 230 mm, qualify for Nascent take-home rations. Packages include 8 kg of U.S. white
long grain rice, 3 kg of U.S. pinto beans, and 4 liters of U.S. vitamin A–fortified oil; they are distributed
four times a year in line with women’s antenatal care attendance and vaccination campaigns at health
centers.
The evaluation team largely measured women’s diets through the Women’s Minimum Dietary Diversity
(MDD-W) Survey, 73 a validated, easy-to-use, quick, and low-cost indicator to measure the women’s
consumption/uptake of a diverse diet by counting the food groups consumed the previous day using 24-
hour recall. 74 The survey provides a dichotomous indicator (returning a yes or no value) of whether or
not the women have consumed at least five out of ten defined food groups the previous day or night
and proves useful for assessing diet quality. Table 15 identifies the various food groups assessed by the
survey. In accordance with guidance, the midterm and baseline MDD-W assessments took place in the
same season and focused on the same food groups and methodology. Seasonality is important here,
because the relationship between food group diversity and micronutrient intakes and adequacy can vary
by season. It is also important to note that the global guidance for the MDD-W changed in March
2021, 75 but since evaluators used the older 2016 guidance for baseline, they used the same one for this
midterm. 76 Two required categories were added for Cameroon: 1) condiments and seasonings; and 2)
other beverages and food. The evaluating team also recorded optional categories, including red palm oil,
other oils and fats, savory and fried snacks, sweets, and insects and other small proteins. The two
additional required and five optional categories did not form part of the indicator calculation.
Table 15: Minimum dietary diversity for women (5 out of 10)
1. Foods made from grains, white roots and tubers and plantains (white flesh)
72
Nascent Solutions. (August 2019). Santé & Nutrition Guide du facilitateur.
73
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Minimum Dietary Diversity Women.”
http://www.fao.org/nutrition/assessment/tools/minimum-dietary-diversity-women/en/.
74
It is a population-level indicator based on a 24-hour recall period of a single day and night, so although data are
collected from individual women, the indicator cannot be used to describe diet quality for an individual woman.
This is because of normal day-to-day variability in individual intakes.
75
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Minimum Dietary Diversity Women.” Accessed March
3, 2021. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/assessment/tools/minimum-dietary-diversity-women/en/
76
Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. (2016). [Technical Brief]. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations USAID’s Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA),
managed by FHI 360. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf
56
2. Legumes/Pulses (beans, peas and lentils): Mature beans or peas
3. Nuts and Seeds
4. Dairy: Milk (NOT SOY) and milk products
5. 5.1. Meat and Poultry, 5.2. Organ Meat, 5.3 Fish/Seafood
6. Eggs
7. Dark Green Leafy Vegetables (exclude herbs eaten in small amounts)
8. Other Vitamin A-Rich Fruits and Vegetables
9. Other Vegetables
10. Other Fruits
The evaluation team noted some important limitations in the approach to measuring dietary diversity
for women of reproductive age (WRA) as the evaluation questioned all parents who were also WRA
about women’s dietary diversity. These parents were not necessarily directly targeted for the THR
interventions at the local community health facilities. The results therefore have limited meaning aside
from possible spillover effects. Field Agents similarly noted this limitation but underlined that they felt
the project was having an impact on the diets of women of reproductive age.
Analysis shows that in the project regions, MDD-W stayed the same between baseline and midterm, at
39 percent. Regional analysis, however, shows variation as it increased from 29 percent at baseline to 56
percent at midline in Adamaoua, stayed about the same in the North region (from 43% to 44%), and
decreased from 25 percent to 10 percent in the East region. Without knowing if these parents also
received the direct intervention at the health centers, a direct correlation between these results and
Nascent’s activities remains impossible. The mean number of food groups consumed by the women also
stayed the same for the baseline and midterm—an average of 4.21 food groups. The regional mean
number of food groups identifies a meaningful difference only between time points for Adamaoua, as
the average number of food groups increased from 3.6 to 4.6. This result suggests that women ate a
more diverse diet at midterm than they did at baseline in that region. 77 In all regions, the mean number
of food groups consumed was better in the urban areas at baseline, yet the mean decreased from 4.7 to
4.2 for urban respondents at midterm. As we might expect from this result, the proportion of women
consuming low-nutrient-dense food groups increased from 44 percent to just under half of respondents
(49%). Low-nutrient-dense food groups include other oils and fats (12), 78 seasonings and spices (13), 79
other drinks and foods (14), 80 savory and fried snacks (15), 81 and sweets (16). 82 Although “insects and
other small proteins” (17) was added as an additional food group at midterm, only 1 percent of women
reported consuming foods from this group. 83 By region it changed from 43 percent to 68 percent
(Adamaoua), from 39 percent to 30 percent (East region), and from 45 percent to 49 percent (North
77
The other regions showed little change. The East stayed the same at 3.5 groups, while the North experienced a
slight decrease from 4.5 to 4.3, signifying no real improvements.
78
Numbers indicate food group numbers according to the FAO. Group 12 indicates Other oils and fats such as
Butter, pork fat, chicken fat, palm, soybean, sunflower oil, and margarine.
79
Food group-13: Seasonings and spices (garlic, lemon, ginger, fresh herbs, Maggi, onion, chili, fish sauce, salt).
80
Food group-14: Other drinks and foods (energy drinks, coffee, coke, Fanta, fruit juice (processed), soda, tea).
81
Food group-15: Savory and fried snacks (fried donuts, banana, cassava, corn, sweet potato, potato chips, fried
snacks).
82
Food group-16: Sweets (sugarcane, ice cream, cakes, sweetened condensed milk, honey, pastries, small cake).
83
Food group-17: Insects and other small proteins (caterpillars, cicadas, dragonflies, fish eggs, grasshoppers, insect
larvae, cricket, termites).
57
region), which might be explained by adapting coping mechanisms to eat less nutrient-dense food or the
opposite, where the women might have more money to buy sweets and snacks.
Interviews with health center workers and volunteer community health workers indicated no relapses
for women participating in Nascent activities. Once they had received the take-home rations and
education about how to eat a balanced meal, the women did not return to the health center. This could
also indicate that women were simply not following up, since no mechanism existed for following up
after the initial assessment. The Northern Regional Nutrition Focal Point expressed satisfaction about
the quality of the training, suggesting that he could see some impact. Some parents also seem to
demonstrate some lessons learned, especially in relation to vitamin A intake.
Community Gardens
Nascent supports targeted inputs and training for the development of school gardens and community
farms, working with the Ministry of Agriculture to conduct trainings for community members. In Year 1,
Nascent trained 958 individuals, followed by 4,021 individuals in Year 2, as reported for indicator MDG
2.3 above (see EQ 2.3). Trainings focused on improved gardening methods. In addition, Nascent provides
improved agricultural inputs such as seeds (celery, parsley, tomatoes, spices, plantains, cassava, maize,
okra) and organic fertilizers. EQs 4.7, 5.2, and 5.5 provide additional information about the impact of
school gardens.
4.6. Is the project causing any unintended effects?

Data from interviews with various stakeholders indicate that about two-thirds of discussions did not
identify any unintended effects of Nascent programming. Stakeholders that commented on unintended
effects include the USDA, Nascent staff, teaching staff, parents, local administrators (mayors), and
ministerial officials. Those who identified unintended consequences generally articulated two issues: 1)
shifting demands for services, namely, higher enrollments in project schools; and 2) lunch service
encroaching on learning. Stakeholders also identified additional effects that include the enrollment of
underage children, an inappropriate leveraging of the project by PTAs, and tensions between the
community and the school. These effects seem less common but require attention.
Systems Strained by Participation
Across stakeholders interviewed, the most cited unintended effect of programming was that project
schools with school feeding programs may contribute in drawing students away from schools that did
not offer this service. This contributes to over-enrollment at project schools, while non-project schools
face lower student numbers, though school feeding is not the only driver involved. Two of four teachers
focus groups point to increased student enrollment as a negative effect, while the third group did not.
Only some educational and agricultural officials saw enrollment shifts as a consequence, whereas Water
and Energy and Health officials did not agree. The following quotes from teachers as well as a regional
Agricultural Delegate provide further description:
“Maybe in the way that surrounding schools have emptied because we have the
project here at our school and that attracts outside students. We might say that this
is a negative effect like that.” (Teacher, Rural School in North Region, FGD)
“Schools without the project have been abandoned for schools with the project, so we
observe a shift. . . .Now, Nascent has come next door with a project-assisted school.
Progressively, you’ll see that a previously good school has been depopulated for this
58
one. . . . it’s a negative effect for this school. And this also leads to project teachers
being overloaded.” (Agricultural Delegate, Interview)
While shifting enrollment may be unintended, Nascent staff interviewed made clear that they had
anticipated this effect common to many school feeding initiatives throughout the world. The School
Feeding Coordination team clarified that they had asked head teachers to review new enrollments and
to have a discussion with families when children enroll who live more than three kilometers from the
school. At the same time, a member of project leadership pointed to monitoring challenges, which were
further complicated by COVID-related school closures. This staff member shared,
“Unfortunately, COVID kind of interrupted the last school year and this school year
and prevented us from monitoring enrollment trends consistently for that period. So,
we are not even able to clearly point out that the school feeding, which was
suspended, which is not ongoing, has pulled children out of neighboring schools. Also
because in the Francophone regions, with the number of schools and the
geographical spread of the project, and also the geography of the area, we hardly
have the kind of proximity of school project or non-project that we had in the North
West.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
In addition to schools becoming over-solicited, the Nutrition Coordination team explained that some
health centers also strained to meet increased demand. The extent of the issue was not clear, but the
team provided an example of a health center used to serving 50 women at a time that found itself with
200 seeking services on the days of Nascent distributions. While this made for a positive development, it
also overwhelmed the staff who could not attend to everyone seeking assistance.
Encroaching on Class Schedules
To a lesser extent, stakeholders indicated that school meals may encroach on learning time. An
Education Focal Point noted that lunches were not included within time schedules and that the feeding
program could therefore impact lesson time. The Commodity Management Coordination team further
stipulated that when water sources are not readily available at schools, the preparation of hot lunches
requires that cooks, commodity management committee members, and sometimes students travel long
distances to fetch water. This causes food to be served late and for some children to miss out on class
time. The lack of water also complicates good hygiene efforts. In addition, one teacher focus group
indicated that teachers lost time in class because they needed to help organize school meals. The
teachers clarified that this had only happened at the beginning of the program, and that the school and
Nascent had found a solution. This issue did not surface in the remaining teacher three focus groups.
Other Unintended Effects
Some other effects, though not as widely reported by stakeholders also, bear mention:
- Enrollment of underage children: Some parents seem to be enrolling children in schools to take
advantage of the school meals even though they aren’t yet of school-going age (Education Focal
Point)
- Inappropriate leveraging of project by PTAs: Field Agents report that parents’ organizations in some
schools use dry-ration distribution as leverage to get children and families to pay PTA dues. Worse,
59
Field Agents report observing that some schools have increased the cost of PTA dues, using the
project as a pretext for the increase. Project staff deemed the increase inappropriate.
- Tensions between schools and communities: Field agents also raised the issue of tensions in some
schools between the head teacher and the community because of the project. The discussion cited
an example in one school where the community falsely accused the head teacher of profiting from
the unfounded sale of land to the project without the community’s knowledge. They shared that the
head teacher was no longer on speaking terms with the community for this reason.
4.7. To what extent did COVID-19 affect project implementation and performance? What measures
were taken to mitigate the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Question 4.7 addresses the impact of COVID-19 on project implementation and its possible mitigation.
This question complements relevance EQ 1.3 and effectiveness EQ 2.1 above. As indicated in response
to these questions, COVID-19 forced school closures between March and October 2020, limited the size
of gatherings, and suspended school feeding. This question further investigates the effect that COVID
may have had on the project’s overall performance and more closely investigates the project’s
mitigation response.
Nascent’s COVID-19 Mitigation Efforts
Recall from above that, at the school level, Nascent distributed soap and installed handwashing stations.
Nascent also distributed masks to teachers and front-line health workers. Discussions with various
stakeholders, including project leadership, coordination teams, field staff, government officials, and
parents underline how Nascent also applied social distancing measures, reduced the number of
participants at trainings and other gatherings, and distributed hand sanitizer. Interviews indicate how,
where possible, staff worked from home while Field Agents continued to maintain a presence in the
field while respecting social distancing and other prevention measures. Counterparts in the various
ministries as well as project staff reported how Nascent employed preventative measures. Document
review illuminates further how Nascent adapted its operations to support the government’s
preventative measures. Some Nascent activities continued to function during the pandemic, including
infrastructure, health center activities, and school gardening. The main changes to project
implementation are as follows:
- Distribution of commodities as dry take-home rations (THR) to pupils, cooks, and teachers, as
mandated by Cameroon’s Ministry of Basic Education. USDA approved this shift. 84
- Continued monitoring of the management of produce from school gardens to ensure money
from sales contributed to PTA funds
- Relocation of books from mobile libraries to the homes of Library Managers to prevent crowding
and training for Library Managers on COVID-19 prevention
- Dissemination of messages on hygiene and sanitation through local radio stations, posters, and
door-to-door sensitization including awareness messages specific to COVID-19 in eight local
languages in intervention regions
- Training of community health workers, teachers, and students of examination classes on good
hygiene and COVID-19 prevention measures
- Greater emphasis on establishing handwashing units at schools
- Use of radio and social media platforms to mobilize parents to enroll children for the 2020-2021
academic year
84
Note that Nascent was already employing its mobile reading program in the North West region. This initiative
distributes take-home rations.
60
- Volunteer cultivation of school gardens and community farms. 85
The absence of an alternative or distance-learning strategy on this list also merits mention. Interviews
with Nascent staff indicate that after studying possibilities and low rates of connection for intervention
areas, and seeing that schools would reopen in October, Nascent made the informed decision not to
develop a separate distance-learning strategy. While they indicate that they did develop a proposal for
tablet-based learning for rural areas, it was discarded after an internal review on its feasibility. Instead,
the response seems to have been varied, with some examples of teachers working with students in
small groups to provide them with exercises at home.
Lastly, another senior project staff member made clear that COVID adaptations had little impact on the
project budget. The project managed to incorporate changes within existing activities. For instance,
radio messages were already within the budget, so that Nascent simply added messages related to
hygiene and COVID-19. The additional distribution of soap, hand sanitizer, and masks did not prove very
expensive.
Effects of COVID-19 on Project Performance
Interview and survey data reveal that COVID-19 has heavily impacted two areas of project performance:
hygiene efforts and school feeding. We discuss each in depth below. In addition, Water and Energy
Delegates and Agricultural Delegates called attention to how ministerial agents were less likely to
perform visits and monitoring due to COVID-19 lockdowns. Water and Energy officials also indicated
that material costs, like water pump equipment, had increased due to pandemic complications.
Similarly, the Commodities Coordination team also noted a slowing in terms of the government’s ability
to process arrivals through customs due to fewer agents working. At the same time, according to the
Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, school gardens and community farm efforts continued to work well
to support community support of schools. It is unclear if support can be sustained during a prolonged
suspension of the school feeding program, however.
Regarding overall project performance and the project’s first strategic objective related to literacy,
interviewees and survey data provide insights. Education officials spoke about the disruption that
COVID-19 has caused to the school year and children’s learning. Two education officials as well as Field
Agents underlined the limited number of children per class due to COVID-19 prevention measures,
leaving schools to resort to double-shift administration, requiring teachers to teach twice. One official
underlined the dramatic increase in teachers’ workload. Another expressed concern for students during
the suspension of in-school feeding given that students had grown accustomed to receiving food at
school. Similarly, survey results show that across both comparison and project schools, nearly all
teachers (93.9%) and head teachers (92.6%) responded that COVID-19 had a negative impact on
students’ learning, with more than a third of teachers (39.1%) and nearly half of head teachers (46.3%)
declaring it “very negative.” Differences between the perceptions of comparison and project schools are
negligible, however. Next, we turn more precisely to hygiene and school feeding.
Positive Effect on Hygiene Efforts
Mixed-methods sources support that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced hygiene efforts.
When asked to qualify the impact of the pandemic on school hygiene activities, head teachers and
teachers (97.5% and 87.4%, respectively) overwhelmingly responded that the impact had been positive.
Interviews support the same finding. As a member of the M&E team indicated,
85
List compiled from Nascent Solutions (2020). COVID-19 Updates; Nascent Solutions (2020) April-September 2020
Semiannual Report.
61
“Providing means for people to be able to wash their hands in some public places, I
think that the effect is not something that we can overemphasize. In fact, I think that
because of COVID and the measures that we took, we have basically achieved more
than we would have achieved, especially in the WASH component, if COVID wasn't
here.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Negative Effect on school Feeding

On the other hand, analysis of survey and interview data shows that the suspension of school feeding
and the project’s pivot to THR may have negatively affected project performance. Figure 15
demonstrates how project school head teachers were 33.5 points more likely to report that COVID-19
had negatively impacted students’ food supply than head teachers in comparison schools. This is likely
because head teachers recognize the disruption that the suspension of the school feeding program has
caused for their students.
Figure 15: Comparison of head teachers' perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on students' food
supply (%)
4.1%
Project 6.5% 8.1% 61.1% 20.2%
Comparison 7.3% 36.8% 15.3% 31.7% 8.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive No impact A little negative Somewhat negative Very negative
A diversity of stakeholders interviewed expressed concerns about the project’s shift to take-home
rations, while at the same time acknowledging no other logical recourse. A WASH Focal Point
interviewed lamented that THRs did not have the same targeted impact as a school meal because the
dry ration benefited the whole family. He stated,
”From the information I’ve learned about the crisis, there has been a policy change
such that now they provide foodstuffs to families, so that they can prepare meals for
the children. But this hasn’t always happened the way it is intended. Once the food is
given directly to the family, it becomes the family’s meal and no longer the child’s
meal. Whereas at school, it is the child’s meal. And that creates a monitoring
problem—how to assure that the meal that is provided is actually prepared for the
child. . . . It’s a matter of resilience that has its constraints, but there is no other
solution.” (WASH Focal Point, Interview)
At the same time, parents’ survey responses indicate that the THR may be making a difference. While
close to half of parents (44.5%) from Nascent schools reported that they never provided their child with
food from home for lunch, as Figure 16 indicates, this is less than the more than three-quarters (78%) of
62
parents in comparison schools who report the same. In addition, the proportion of parents who report
“always” providing lunches to their children in Nascent schools surpasses the portion of parents doing
the same in comparison schools by 23 percentage points. 86
Figure 16: Proportion of parents reporting sending their child to school with meals (by school type)
Comparison 78% 16% 6%
Project 45% 27% 29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Never Sometimes Always
At the same time, Field Agents expressed skepticism, noting that even when families were asked to
prepare meals for the child to bring to school, not all of them did. In addition, Field Agents and the
School Feeding Coordination team noted that without school meals, children’s attendance at school had
decreased. The two quotes below provide further details:
”During COVID we’ve seen students go home at break to get something to eat and
then they come back late or they don’t come back at all.” (Field Agent, Interview)
“We’ve noticed that children came more often to school when there was food, and
now that the canteens have been suspended, we observe a certain abandoning. For
example, the last time, when we announced the food distribution, there were a lot of
children who came only to get the foodstuffs, even though the previous days there
weren’t as many students at school. It’s something that is going to negatively impact
the project.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Nascent Remains Confident

Despite the many challenges, Nascent staff largely indicate confidence about their ability to make up
some of the lost progress before project end should school feeding resume soon. Two members of
project leadership and Literacy Coordination team all expressed this sentiment. As illustration, a Nascent
staff member offered the following:
"Thinking of measuring impact in two years’ time, most definitely we will be able to
reach the expected final performance. This is because we already have the resources
needed to make an impact: teachers have the capacity, school feeding is available as
well as libraries and Bloom [software.] The circumstances will be perfect for the
desired impact." (Nascent staff, Interview)
86
Differences are statistically significant (p<0.000).
63
Nascent program and M&E staff indicated that the project revised targets as part of a routine post-
baseline revision as required by USDA. The revision took place during July-September 2020, but the
project did not account for COVID’s impact on targets at that time, per guidance from USDA. At the time
of writing, the suspension of school meals was still in effect, however, and if the suspension continues, it
will prove nearly impossible to maintain project performance at the same level.
4.8. Conclusion: Impact
The midterm evaluation provides promising results for improvements in teaching quality despite the
short lapse in time between trainings and data collection. Not only do teachers and head teachers
express satisfaction with trainings and positive changes in their practice but observation also shows that
project teachers made meaningful gains in their use of active instructional strategies. These results are
impressive but also require cautious interpretation and further investigation at end line.
As expected, students’ literacy results as measured by EGRA are not as positive. Students’ reading
comprehension results remain quite low, as only 0.3 percent of students obtained a passing score.
Analysis that includes more basic subtasks using the literacy index does show a positive gain for project
schools, however, and indicates that more children learned letters and used decoding than in
comparison schools. In addition, given the unique and intense disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic and
resulting school closures, the decrease in comprehension scores for project schools seems to be less
than that of comparison schools. These results may indicate that Nascent’s intervention has provided
some protection against COVID shocks. Similarly, while findings are mixed concerning the effects of
THRs, a significantly higher proportion of Nascent parents indicate sending their children to school with
lunch when compared to parents in the comparison group.
The impact that Nascent may have on student attentiveness is more difficult to ascertain, especially
given that evaluators could not observe school feeding in practice due to the COVID-related suspension.
Stakeholder perspectives are overwhelmingly positive that school feeding and other efforts contribute
to students’ satiation and alertness. However, observation results using the Stallings classroom
observation tool show a large decrease in attentiveness common to both comparison and project
groups. Results warrant further investigation.
Findings demonstrate that Nascent’s project has unintended effects, including the expected transfer of
some students to project schools from neighboring institutions to take part in school meals. More
unexpected, however, are some reported inappropriate practices by some PTAs that may leverage the
project for monetary gains. The project should investigate and mitigate as needed, being careful to also
recognize that the project holds the potential to create tensions between schools and communities.
Results for students’ nutrition, health, and hygiene-related practices varied, but all students increased
their handwashing-with-soap practice at all critical times from baseline to midterm. Findings reveal that
soap is available at school handwashing stations but may not be as prominent near latrines. Students
still do not always use soap to wash their hands, and in some cases, children report just not wanting to
wash their hands, indicating a need for a communication intervention on behavioral change.
It is difficult to determine if women’s’ dietary diversity changed between baseline and midterm, as
reported results stayed the same across the sample. Qualitative data may suggest some progress.
5. Sustainability
The final DAC criterion this midterm evaluation addresses is sustainability, defined by the OECD as “the
extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.” Five evaluation
questions guide findings and cover various aspects of sustainability.
64
5.1. Do stakeholders have the same vision of sustainability?
This midterm evaluation explored the extent to which stakeholders’ visions of sustainability align.
Findings show a general agreement among stakeholders. Analysis of interview data as well as the design
outlined within the Cooperative Agreement clarify that Nascent implements a holistic and multilevel
approach to sustainability. According to project leadership as well as the USDA, Nascent MCGOVERN-
DOLE understands sustainability as necessary in two directions: bottom-up from within the community
and top-down from the government. USDA and two key members of project staff all spoke about the
importance of efforts to address both levels, indicating alignment between project leadership and
donor. A member of project leadership underlined how the project envisions communities producing
their own food commodities for use in school feeding. At the same time, Nascent would like to see the
Government of Cameroon develop a national school-feeding policy and to take responsibility for buying
some of the inputs necessary for school feeding. She underlined the critical nature of government
engagement at the national level:
“But the implementation of the national school feeding policy is essential to sustain
school feeding countrywide because one community can only do as much as they can
do within their community and one municipality can only do as much as they can do
within their municipality. That's where we are. Sustaining the school feeding is
possible, but a lot depends on how much engagement the government takes.”
(Member of project leadership, Interview)
In the absence of a dedicated school feeding directorate, national-level efforts focus on building
coordination between four ministries, which findings above have demonstrated as challenging at times
(see EQ 2.2). At the local level, Nascent aims to engage with local councils, which through
decentralization have come to manage primary schools. Nascent works to empower local councils
through their capacity-building efforts, so that they can take on activities and recruit parental support.
Close collaboration with government counterparts and awareness-raising and sensitization efforts ,make
for two key features of Nascent’s approach that support sustainability. Not only did discussions with
Nascent staff across the various project components demonstrate their understanding of the linkages of
these features with sustainability but discussions with government officials also did. For example,
Education and Nutrition Focal Points, two interviews with Agricultural Delegates, an interview with
Water and Energy Delegates, health officials and discussions with four local councils emphasized the
need for early community involvement in programming to begin to the process of taking ownership of
efforts. As illustration, a Health Delegate interviewed stated,
“You see communities where productivity has increased. If the project ensures that
the meals served to the children come from home-produced food items, from the
community . . . so the community will continuously improve their production because
they know that there will always be a market for that and then they will eventually
improve their livelihoods and the livelihood of their community. So, for the project to
be sustainable, the community must appropriate it, they must own it, they must learn
about the good practices that the project is bringing about.” (Education Focal Point,
Interview)
65
Nascent has defined approaches to sustainability for each of its project components. Figure 17 presents
descriptions that draw from the Cooperative Agreement and interviews. The coordination teams for
each component affirmed each of these strategies, again, demonstrating cohesion of Nascent’s vision.
Figure 17: Nascent's approach to sustainability by component
School Literacy Agriculture Health & Water

feeding •Provision of in- •Community Nutrition •Developing
•Progressing service trainings farms and •Community committees to
handing off to to school gardens health workers handle repairs
schools. Years 1 administrators support provide •Integrating
& 2: Nascent will and teachers. sustainability; trainings for maintenance in
provide meals •Advocacy for •Strengthen pregnant and development
every day. integration and/or establish lactating plans for new
•Year 3: Phasing within national farmers mothers water systems.
down: Locally education cooperatives •How to maintain
produced food policy. a diverse diet
from school while using local
gardens & food
parent
donations
At the same time, stakeholders, government counterparts, in particular, emphasized the precariousness
of sustainability. As an agricultural delegate pointed out, they have seen school feeding programs fail
before after a project ended. The next question investigates the likelihood of success.
5.2. Are efforts at sustainability likely to succeed?
Here, we focus on early signs that the sustainability of Nascent interventions may be possible after
project close, as well as on obstacles that may prevent or dampen the project’s lasting effects. The
evaluation team acknowledges overlap with the subsequent EQ 5.3, which focuses on activities that may
continue.
Emerging Signs of Sustainability
Analysis of interview data reveal possible signs that stakeholders are taking ownership of Nascent
activities and outcomes. They include:
Infrastructure upkeep: Field Agents, a Water and Energy Delegate, and technical staff indicate that
certain communities have identified volunteers to help with infrastructure maintenance. Project
technical staff further pointed out that, at the seven sites with constructed boreholes, Nascent has
formed water-management committees trained to do light repairs on the structures. Some of these
individuals have been associated with the project since construction and had helped the contractors.
Technical staff underlined the development of ownership:
66
“We have the local authorities like the mayor, the inspectors of Basic Education. We
made it clear to them that as we are handling this project, as from today, they are
the ones to continue to take care of this project. So the projects are under their care,
and just for this one-year period that we are monitoring, I will tell you, without any
fear, that the projects will be sustainable. And given also the importance the people
attached to the project, I can assure you that they will take care of the project . . . .”
(Nascent staff, Interview)
Enthusiasm about agricultural activities: Nearly all stakeholders who spoke about school gardens and
community farms expressed great interest. As EQ 5.5 will further explore, the project already surpassed
its target for communities participating in the graduation program with focus on community farms.
Thirty-six rather than 20 schools participate in the program, according to a member of project
leadership. In addition, farmers’ cooperatives seem to generate a lot of interest from government
counterparts. Their enthusiasm suggests this as a project element that can be sustained and that,
moreover, may fortify school feeding efforts in the future.
Education practices spreading beyond Nascent schools: Stakeholders also provide indication that new
education practices are spreading beyond Nascent targets. As indicated in EQ 4.3 above, at least one
Teaching Coach interviewed mentioned sharing Nascent strategies with teachers from non-project
schools. The next question (EQ 5.3) will also explore this issue in greater detail.
Image 6: Student reading at a blackboard
Participation achieved without incentives or with modest remuneration: Few of Nascent’s activities
involve direct incentives, with the exception of those which involve project kitchen and commodity-
storage volunteers. They receive modest in-kind remuneration, including six kilograms of rice per
trimester and hot school meals. In the original design, students with attendance exceeding 85 percent
also receive six kilograms of rice per trimester. 87 In comparison with other projects offering in-kind
87
It seems that actual school enrollments exceeding planned enrollment required more provisions for canteens
and may not have enabled Nascent to follow through with this activity.
67
incentives, such as a 50 kilogram bag of rice as an incentive for high-achieving students in a girls’
education project in Guinea, 88 or how cooks receive a monthly five-liter bottle of oil in an MCGOVERN-
DOLE project in Benin, 89 Nascent’s incentives are modest yet still seem to stimulate participation.
Local council ownership: As indicated above, including in EQ 1.2, multiple stakeholders report that
certain local councils (mayors) are already signaling a commitment to support school feeding efforts. A
variety of stakeholders noted the critical role mayors have to play in sustaining project activities,
including the School Feeding and Nutrition-WASH Coordination team, Field Agents, Agricultural
Delegates and two members of project leadership. In particular, a senior staff member expressed that
local councils have the potential to take on Nascent activities at the end of the project, though a
definitive prediction was impossible. Moreover, in addition to the numerous local councils identified
above in EQ 1.2, field staff provided a concrete example of a mayor’s office providing in-kind support, as
well as fully supporting non-project schools emulating Nascent’s approach:
“There are mayors’ offices that are engaged, even if their achievements aren’t fully
realized because it’s recent. Others have even brought materials in addition to what
Nascent provides. The materials are made available to the community, who then gets
involved. They come on workdays because just recently there is a mayor . . . who even
visited the plot of land. He said, ‘the tractor is going to come work here.’ And
moreover, he has committed to supporting two schools. The is engagement at the
local level. These give hope for the entire community. They’ll be able to pick up the
baton.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Persistent Reticence
While findings are largely positive for initial progress toward sustainability, as can be expected at
midterm, analysis also indicates some reticence to fully appropriate project activities. Key project staff
(members of the M&E team, a member of project leadership) as well as the USDA Program Analyst
emphasized remaining gaps in achieving sustainability. Notable among them is the lack of progress
toward a national school feeding policy. In addition, an Education Delegate also felt skeptical that school
feeding activities would continue and reiterated the importance of dedicated budget line items.
Moreover, the three mayors’ offices interviewed did not signal direct support for project initiatives.
Rather, one mayor’s office suggested that they were considering providing financial assistance to
personnel involved with school farms and school canteens, while another reiterated their support for
school canteens and for women of childbearing age. The exact nature of the support remained unclear.
Similarly, a parent focus group indicated that local council support, though offered, had proven
inadequate; in this case, they were unable to meet the demands of the school canteen for potable
water. These findings suggest work remaining to be done to further promote ownership within local
councils across Nascent’s intervention zone.
88
Lynd, M., Sarr, K. G., Thukral, H., Kpokomou, M., Koulibaly, A., Harrington, L., Gandara, F. & Denauw, M. (2016).
A Holistic Approach to Girls’ Education — School-to-School International’s Whole Child Model in Guinea. UNGEI.
https://www.ungei.org/publication/holistic-approach-girls-education-school-school-internationals-whole-child-
model-guinea
89
Data collected during midterm evaluation of Catholic Relief Services Keun Faaba project by evaluation team.
68
Potential Obstacles to Sustainability
In addition to the challenges that have hindered project implementation (see EQ 2.2 above),
stakeholders cited challenges specific to sustainability. These include:
• Lack of land: Education Delegates cite lack of land for school agricultural efforts as an obstacle.
An Agricultural Delegate suggested that involving only Education Delegates in the choice of
schools may have exacerbated this issue. As remedy, officials suggests that Nascent assist with
advocacy with traditional leaders.
• Teacher and health worker mobility: The M&E team cited turnover of teacher and health
workers as an impediment to sustainability, as the project may lose trained personnel to other
non-project locations.
• COVID suspension of hot meal distribution: As education and health delegates signaled, the
moratorium on school meals inflicted by COVID-19 may create additional challenges for
sustainability. Certainly, the interruption is a departure from Nascent’s original timeline, which
imagined schools beginning to phase down in Year 3.
• Burden on PTAs to pay teachers: According to the M&E team, more than 60 percent of teachers
within the intervention zone are PTA teachers. This burden may act as an obstacle for the PTAs
being able to use the funds raised from the school gardens and community farms for the
provision of foodstuffs to their own school feeding program.
• Limited coverage: An Education Delegate from the East region also pointed to Nascent’s
coverage area, suggesting that with such few schools in a region, talk of sustainability seemed
inappropriate.
5.3. Which activities are likely to continue as the project closes?
This question builds on findings from earlier questions and focuses at the activity level. Here, findings
touch on infrastructure, school feeding, agriculture, and training activities.
Infrastructure Support
Indications that infrastructure maintenance committees and volunteers exist in some communities
suggests that infrastructure projects may continue operating into the future, an idea supported by Field
Agents and the project technical staff, among others.
School Feeding
There is limited evidence that school feeding can continue in some cases beyond project close. Evidence
above pointed to instances in which mayors’ offices have taken up the provision of school feeding
programs, though time must allow for further scrutiny of those efforts. Similarly, a member of project
leadership shared a prediction that around one-third of schools may be self-sufficient with support from
local councils for a period of time after the end of the project. She specified,
“Communities on their own will be able to provide—not all the 148 schools in the
Francophone region for sure—but I'm confident that at least 30 percent or so of
schools will be able to provide meals for their children two to three school days within
a week at the end of the project. For how long this would last? We hope that the
councils can really be able to continue to include an increase in their budget support
for school feeding to sustain that effort from the community.” (Nascent staff,
Interview)
69
Community Farms and Gardens
As indicated above, community, government, and project staff have all expressed great enthusiasm for
the potential of community farms and gardens. The USDA also indicated that these project activities
may be the most likely to endure after project end. In addition, as the last EQ (5.5) will address,
community agricultural efforts constitute the focus of Nascent’s graduation model. Additional evidence
from parent focus groups and from regional agricultural officials add to the already compelling support
for these efforts. Among the four parent focus groups, three indicated interest in continuing the school
gardens and farms. Two quotes in particular stand out:
“Also, the garden may continue, but we have problems with water, and it doesn’t
always function. Now the garden has started to produce something, and we think
that we’ll start to sell the produce in order to have a little money for the kitchen.”
(Parent, Rural School in the East Region, FGD)
“The garden offers a lot of possibilities to continue after the project. We are waiting
for the right season to also start a field not far from the school.” (Parent, Rural School
in the North Region, FGD)
At the same time, as the first quote indicates, water supply constitutes a persistent issue for this
community. A lack of reliable water source could hinder the continuation of agricultural efforts for
communities in similar situations. In addition, two sets of regional agricultural government officials who
sat for separate interviews agreed with the potential for the continuity of school gardens and the
community farms. One group made the point that the work will need to intensify and, as stated
elsewhere, that communities will need to appropriate the work. They added that the benefit of farms
and gardens will need to emerge very clearly, and also be visible to other communities to inspire them
to replicate.
Continued Use of Newly Acquired Practices
Nascent’s M&E team as well as some community-based stakeholders insist that practices learned in
trainings may continue past project close. While practices cited included local production and the use of
corn-soy blend, as well as new hygiene practices, emphasis was largely on education-related strategies.
For example, two of four teacher focus groups strongly emphasized that they planned to continue the
use of newly learned teaching techniques. Findings also indicate that regional delegations have asked to
use the materials developed by Nascent for training non-Nascent teachers. As indicated earlier, this
finding aligns with data relating how teaching coaches are already sharing strategies with non-Nascent
schools. Moreover, an Education Focal Point also waxed enthusiastic about teachers’ newly learned
practices to support literacy, but sagely pointed out that sustainability will require integration within
teacher pre-service and in-service training and collaboration with teaching colleges. An Education
Delegate expressed similar enthusiasm but pointed out the need for continued support.
Nascent leadership appears to also recognize this constraint, as the Cooperative Agreement notes the
importance of advocating for inclusion within the national education strategy (see EQ 5.1). Indeed, the
Literacy team spoke of actions to institutionalize Nascent content. Efforts included Nascent training
coaches who worked with leadership at the education inspectors’ training school, who reported back to
the training school and adopted portions of Nascent training. The Literacy team further clarified,
70
“Whatever activity we are implementing is in partnership with all the different
services of the ministry, so we have made the training content available to the
inspector general of education, in the service of pedagogy. So, they have the content.
We actually even reviewed the content together, and they validated it. So, we are
expecting that the feedback from the regional delegates and regional inspectors
should also be a motivation for this content to be adopted nationwide.” (Nascent
staff, Interview)
5.4. How is the local community engaged and/or contributing to sustain project activities, especially
school feeding?
Survey data and qualitative interviews inform the response to this question. Survey data provide insights
about the experiences of kitchen and commodity-storage volunteers, arguably the community members
most directly involved in Nascent activities, while interview data address engagement more broadly.
Kitchen and Commodity-Storage Volunteer Engagement
Recall that 282 kitchen volunteers and 65 commodity-storage volunteers responded to survey questions
about their engagement prior to COVID-19 disruptions as part of the midterm evaluation. Nearly all
kitchen volunteers (94.3%) and more than three-quarters of storage volunteers (84.6%) indicate having
participated in the school canteen since the beginning of the project. Just under two-thirds of storage
volunteers report participating at least four times a week (61.6%). Nearly nine in ten (88.9%) kitchen
volunteers report participating in the canteen once a week. This is to be expected, as the project
stablishes five teams of five cooks at each school, with each team providing a meal once a week. When
asked about their motivation for supporting school feeding, most kitchen volunteers (83.0%) responded
so that children could have meals. Nearly two-thirds of storage volunteers (64.2%) shared this
motivation, while the same proportion (65.4%) found motivation in the desire to participate in the
development of their community. Nearly all kitchen volunteers (94.8%) report having received
compensation for their work, while the opposite holds true for storage volunteers, as 93.0 percent
indicate not receiving compensation. Nearly all kitchen volunteers (97.8%) identified compensation as 6
kilograms of rice per trimester. Data show that while nearly three-quarters of kitchen volunteers (73.3%)
report satisfaction with this compensation, more than a quarter of respondents (26.1%) feel dissatisfied.
Disaggregation shows that a higher proportion of kitchen volunteers in the North expressed
dissatisfaction when compared to other regions. 90 The existence of the previous McGovern-Dole project
run by Counterpart International in the North may further complicate the situation. 91
Overall, however, nearly all kitchen and storage volunteers (93.6% and 93.0%, respectively) indicated
satisfaction with their engagement in the Nascent project. Storage volunteers show a slightly higher
level of intense satisfaction than kitchen volunteers, as 64.2 percent of storage volunteers answered
“yes, really,” compared to 52.8 percent of kitchen volunteers.
90
The combined result of cooks who identified “no, not at all” and “no, not really” was 35.8 percent for the North,
compared to 25.6 percent for the East and 4 percent for Adamaoua. These results are not statistically significant
(p=0.1798).
91
Despite efforts to identify evaluation reports, the team did not have information about how Counterpart
handled compensation.
71
Figure 18: Reasons reported for volunteers to be satisfied with their involvement in Nascent activities
I'm happy to help
To support school canteen
Other
Meal we are given
I like being with other parents
I like getting out of the house
I don't know/No response
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Storage volunteers Kitchen volunteers
As Figure 18 indicates, the top two reasons volunteers provide for their satisfaction are that they are
happy to help and because they wish to lend their support to the school feeding project. Interestingly,
about one-tenth of kitchen volunteers (9.5%) cited the meal they are provided as a reason for
satisfaction, particularly because kitchen volunteers work only one day a week. No one cited oil rations
or monetary incentives.
More General Community Engagement
Analysis of interview data reveals enthusiasm as well as variation in community engagement. In general,
parents and teachers felt positive about their involvement. Teachers in all three focus groups, for
example, expressed that parents were engaged, while also stressing that parents had limited resources
and capacities. For their own part, parents who sat for focus groups indicated their enthusiasm for
taking on more responsibility for school feeding, as expressed in three of four focus groups. As
illustration, one group from an urban school in the North recalled that community participation in the
school field had been “massive.” Parents noted that cooks readily participated even before learning
about compensation. Parents in another group from a rural school in Adamaoua expressed their
eagerness to continue:
”Nascent trained parents, and we’ve already identified a plot for the community field.
We are going to cultivate corn and vegetables, so that we can continue the school
canteen.” (Parent, Rural School in Adamaoua Region, Focus Group)
At the same time, another parent in the focus group stressed the need for continued project
accompaniment. The fourth parents’ group, from a rural school in the East, showed greater reticence
and expressed needing more support from local authorities, in particular, the reliable supply of sufficient
water for the canteen, to continue to function in the future. Discussions with members of local councils
also provided examples of community engagement. Notably, two councils referred to how local
traditional leaders provided land for school use. Another council described that the community had
72
created a cooperative to support the project, likely in reference to Nascent’s emphasis on cooperative
formation.
Analysis indicates the possibility of significant regional differences in how communities respond to
Nascent programming. Both Nascent staff and government stakeholders relayed that Nascent
encountered more difficulties in the East and Adamaoua, where communities are used to receiving
assistance from large NGOs without any community participation. A mayor from the East region
provided confirmation:
“To say that communities will engage is difficult. It’s a mentality issue. They are used
to receiving assistance. Well! Now, there’s a new paradigm that is being developed,
and time is needed to bring targeted stakeholders to understand this new reality.”
(Mayor, East Region, Interview)
A technical staff member similarly lamented the difficulties for communities in the East to support
infrastructure maintenance. At the same time, a School Feeding team member described communities
in the East that were highly participatory, noting the need for a nuanced understanding of variations in
participation. Findings indicate that engagement in the North has been less complicated and that
inhabitants seem to participate more regularly. The evaluation team also noted that the Counterpart
project operated in the North beginning in 2012, so that many communities already understand the
benefits for their children in a school feeding project.
5.5. To what extent, is the graduation model likely to be sustainable?
As part of the midterm evaluation, Nascent requested that the evaluation team assess its school feeding
sustainability model theory of change specific to its graduation school model. 92
Overview of Graduation Model
The graduation school approach promotes local ownership and oversight of school meals. Target schools
“benefit from increased support and follow-up to produce yearly estimated higher quantities of food
crops to progressively replace USDA-donated commodities in school meals.” 93 Nascent staff also point
out that the graduation schools serve to demonstrate to the government what is possible, particularly as
the government remains reticent to fully engage in school feeding. Schools receive inputs from Nascent
in addition to enhanced support. The April-September 2020 semiannual report notes that within that
period Nascent distributed 5 metric tons of seeds and 20 metric tons of fertilizer to participant schools.
Enhanced agricultural support includes additional trainings for PTA members in topics such as improved
cropping techniques and harvest management. At the time of writing, Nascent had trained 2,616 PTA
members. 94 Schools also received additional financial assistance.
According to document review and discussions with Nascent staff, criteria for selection included:
- Active PTAs that would engage in project activities, particularly school gardening
- At least one hectare of land available to the school for a community farm
92
It is worth noting that the overall theory of change is fairly standardized across USDA McGovern-Dole projects.
93
Nascent Solutions. (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual report, p. 34. Also see Nascent Solutions.
(2019). Termes de référence pour le programme d’accompagnement des écoles sélectionnées en vue de
pérenniser le fonctionnement des cantines scolaires, p. 2., for a list of objectives.
94
Nascent Solutions. (2021). September 2020-March 2021 Semiannual Report.
73
- A minimum of 50 square meters set aside for a garden
In addition, field agents emphasized that chosen communities needed to be dynamic, a point of pride
for many of these communities. Nascent has selected 36 schools to participate in the program, well
beyond the originally planned 20 schools and reflective of high levels of community interest. Of these
schools, 25 are located in the North, 6 in the East, and 5 in the Adamaoua region. It is expected that the
garden and community farm will produce some percentage of the school’s meals by Years 4 and 5 of the
project. (Indeed, the 36 community farms produced 64 tons of food by December 2020, which would
have covered some percentage of school feeding needs in program year 3 had the COVID pandemic not
brought about the closure of schools and suspension of school feeding. Instead, the food was sold at
school level and the proceeds saved for later use in school feeding.) Communities acquired land with the
help of traditional authorities. Nascent began trainings to PTAs and materials distribution in March
2020, with the first cropping season scheduled for April 2020. 95
According to Field Agents and a member of project leadership, Nascent has developed a tailored
approach to each school appropriate for the local climate and ecosystem. The technical work plan and
the terms of reference show calculations for each school relevant to overall production, school needs,
production targets, expected surplus, and anticipated quantity for sale. Field Agents also emphasized
how calculations take into account anticipated population growth. The quote below from a member of
project leadership provides further indication of the many considerations involved in the graduation
school model.
“Our Agriculture team has developed a graduation plan which has targets in terms of
production of different main crops by region, based on the current ration for daily
school meals that we are providing using USDA commodities. So, they worked with
the Nutrition team to look at what the nutritional value 100 grams of rice and 30
grams of beans brings to a child daily and how that could be generated from local
means and what that translates into in terms of metric tons of maize, beans,
soybeans, and groundnuts produced from the school. Also, we understand that
everything that will be consumed in school may not be produced by the school farm
depending on the specificities of each locality. Some graduation schools actually
expanded, for example, melon production, not because it would feed children with
melon, but because they will sell melon to buy corn and soybeans when they would
need some to serve one or two or three school meals per week.” (Nascent staff,
Interview)
Enthusiasm for Graduation Schools Program

Overall, stakeholders sampled expressed great enthusiasm for the graduation model. The extra schools
participating in the graduation model give a major indication of interest in the program. In addition, all
four local council representatives interviewed expressed their support for the pilot schools. A member
of a mayor’s office in the East also accentuated how the pilot schools can serve as an inspiration to other
schools, in alignment with Nascent views, as indicated above. Similarly, all teachers’ groups responded
positively to questions about the model. Discussion in one of these groups, with teachers from a rural
community in the East region, indicated pride in how the community farm allowed them to sell some
95
Nascent Solutions. (2020). October 2019-March 2020 Semiannual Report; April-September Semiannual Report.
74
products and to use the money to buy fish to supplement students’ meals. Another group, this time
from a rural community in the North, similarly expressed satisfaction and noted how with teacher and
community engagement, as well as with support from the local government, they managed to succeed.
One parents’ group, from an urban school community in the North, boasted of having cultivated 14 bags
of corn and feeling that the capital earned helped their efforts at sustainability. Similarly, a subdivisional
delegate in the East expressed great excitement for what growing efforts may produce and indicated
that communities are moving toward ownership for the effort. The Nutrition-WASH Coordination team
also commented on growing enthusiasm within communities, and found that techniques requiring
minimal manufactured fertilizers proved promising.
Challenges Remain Considerable
While enthusiasm is strong, findings also reveal numerous challenges that confront the potential success
of the graduation school model. They include:
Community engagement precarious: Findings demonstrate that community engagement is critical for
community farms to succeed. While some Agricultural Delegates addressed this issue, Field Agents, in
particular, emphasized how communities may not be able to provide the attention and effort necessary
for agricultural efforts to meet expectations for supporting school feeding. They pointed to competing
obligations for their time, including their own farms. Community members find it particularly difficult
during the harvest and seeding seasons when high levels of effort are needed.
PTA teachers also require compensation: School communities may wish to dedicate funds to other
objectives, in particular, for supporting teachers paid by PTAs rather than government salaries. Field
Agents described how PTAs might consider prioritizing payment of PTA teachers over school feeding:
“The needs are enormous. For example, there are schools that have two state-
provided teachers, or maybe it’s just the head teacher who is paid by the state. There
are, for example, three or four other teachers who are not paid, and it’s the PTA who
pays them. If they have this harvest, I don’t see how they will, for instance, feed
children but leave teachers unpaid. So, there are all these factors to consider.
Sometimes it’s difficult if there are other priority needs.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Survey results confirm a high prevalence of PTA teachers within sampled zones. Nearly all schools (115
of 120, 95.8%) report having at least one grade with a PTA-supported teacher, while six schools (5.0%)
report that all grades rely on PTA teachers. 96 In interviews, Field Agents recommended advocacy at the
local government level to provide a long-term solution for teacher salaries.
Canteens remain closed during COVID: The suspension of the school feeding program has also slowed
down community farm efforts. A member of project leadership and Field Agents indicated how the
intended use of production was halted and that it proved challenging to identify alternatives. In many
cases, the crops were currently stored and would likely be sold when market prices increase. A member
of project leadership also pointed to a school that managed to purchase a printer and a water pump
during the COVID shutdown, saying this would not have been possible with an operational school
canteen.
96
The difference between project and comparison schools was not statistically significant. {Please confirm my
change here. Is this what you meant?}
75
Climatic conditions threaten consistent production: Field Agents, in particular, but also an Agricultural
Delegate from the East, cited how challenging climatic environments can hinder the regularity of school
agricultural production. The unpredictable nature of the crop yield leads some stakeholders to question
the viability of the model.
“I’m a little jealous when I listen to you [other Field Agents], because we’ve launched
community farms in my pilot schools, but the lack of rain in my zone has been really
discouraging. My school that did the most only produced 14 bags on a hectare. It was
catastrophic for the others because of the rains.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
Emerging yet Fragile Signs of Sustainability

Despite the challenges, there are some emerging signs that the graduation model is gaining traction.
Most significant may be how 20 non-graduation project schools have emulated the model in developing
their own community farms. 97 A Field Agent provided additional details:
“I want to respond to my colleagues who say that if schools do not receive inputs
they will not work the community fields. In my area, for example, there are two
schools that haven’t received anything but have worked fields. It all depends on their
determination and their willingness.” (Nascent staff, Interview)
At the same time, a number of key stakeholders expressed concern that graduation schools will have
difficulties sustaining school-feeding efforts in the future, including some members of Nascent’s
leadership as well as Field Agents. One such staff member echoed the concern that communities may
not be able to generate sufficient income to regularly purchase items such as oil and salt, while also
providing the food necessary for the school canteen. Another key staff member pointed to
unpredictable operating conditions. Nonetheless, recall that graduation-model activities only began less
than a year before mid-term evaluation data collection took place and how the design calls for a gradual
transition to schools committing to greater responsibility for the production of school meals. Some
stakeholders, including Field Agents, subscribe to this argument.
5.6. Conclusion: Sustainability
The midterm evaluation allowed for an in-depth investigation of the possibility of sustaining project
elements after project close. In Year 3, it is still too early in the project’s life cycle to make any definitive
determinations, and the COVID-19 pandemic has further compressed the timeline for implementation,
especially as school feeding has been suspended for at least a year at the time of writing. Yet findings
show coherence in the vision of sustainability that stakeholders possess, from the donor and project
leadership to field staff and beneficiaries. The model, while multifaceted, remains largely premised on
beneficiary appropriation of new practices and strategies, as well as government buy-in at the local,
regional, and national levels. Nascent has developed clear objectives for sustainability for each of its
project components, and staff at all levels can articulate them, again demonstrating alignment of vision.
97
Nascent Solutions. (2020). April-September 2020 Semiannual report, p. 11.
76
While the evaluation team can only conjecture at how the project and the operating context will evolve
in the remaining project time, some promising signs of sustainability exist at midterm already. These
include community ownership for the maintenance of new infrastructure, indications of an organic
spread of project teaching and administrative practices to non-Nascent schools, and community
participation with meager or non-existent incentives. Findings demonstrate great enthusiasm at all
levels for agricultural activities, and there are strong indications of local councils demonstrating
commitment to school feeding through in-kind and monetary contributions, the gold standard for
sustainability. At the same time, these efforts are sporadic, and more widespread adherence will likely
require much effort, advocacy, and favorable operating conditions possibly beyond Nascent’s control.
The project would do well to closely monitor the situation of all these developments to be able to share
lessons learned and mediate as needed. Nascent should also focus on advocacy efforts at the national
level that can address the integration of MCGOVERN-DOLE literacy strategies within pre-service and in-
service training, as well as identify a solution for teacher mobility. Literacy-focused programs in other
countries, like the USAID-supported Mali SIRA early-grade reading project implemented by EDC, have
had success in negotiating with the Ministry of Education for project teachers to remain at post, which
has benefited the project, though at the cost of some ill-will among teachers.
As may be expected given hindering factors noted in the effectiveness section above, findings
demonstrate that community participation is strong in some cases but also sporadic and regionally
dependent, with the North allowing for greater community responsiveness than the other two regions.
Contextual factors beyond Nascent’s control seem largely to blame for this situation, and extended
implementation may help foster greater participation. Findings show that the engagement of kitchen
and commodity-storage volunteers has largely proven successful.
While the graduation model elicits great enthusiasm, it also requires a high level of external support.
Findings demonstrate impressive developments, such as non-graduation schools initiating community
farms. At the same time, there is reason to be wary and express some skepticism for long-term
prospects, due to both considerable challenges (unpredictable climate as well as the structural issue of
PTA teachers) and the relatively short implementation history of this component. Field Agents
demonstrated great enthusiasm for sharing experiences, and Nascent should seek out similar future
opportunities.
77
4. Recommendations
The recommendations below draw on the findings and conclusions of the midterm evaluation report to
provide direction for midcourse corrections and future projects. The table indicates the stakeholder
most likely able to address the recommendation, as well as the appropriate timeframe for
implementation. The evaluation team also reiterates that Nascent should continue to emphasize
strategies that have so far proven effective, as well as those with potential that, due to various
circumstances cited earlier, have not yet had sufficient time to demonstrate any effect. These include
teacher training and support strategies, as well as graduation model programming.
# RECOMMENDATION ACTOR TIMEFRAME
1 The unexpected pandemic situation and extensive closures to school Nascent Immediate
canteens have proven a major disruption to the Nascent project. There Leadership;
is a risk that Nascent will encounter difficulties when school canteens Field
restart. Plan in advance for this eventuality and be prepared to do Coordinators;
refresher trainings for volunteers to reinvigorate and further enhance Field Agents
community engagement efforts. Focus specifically on hygiene practices
for kitchen volunteers and storekeepers.
2 Further investigate student attentiveness through special studies. Nascent M&E Immediate
Findings showed a decrease in student attentiveness at midterm, an Team
unexpected finding, but perhaps related to school closures, the
absence of active school feeding, and other disruptions.
3 Analysis of project indicators shows little change in student attendance Nascent Immediate
since baseline. Nascent should reinstate its plan to use dry rations to Leadership
motivate children to come to school, and receipt should be
conditioned on regular attendance. Investigate if six kilograms is
enough of an incentive and, if not, modify.
4 Leverage positive experiences and gains in integrating Nascent’s Nascent Immediate
literacy strategies within Cameroon’s pre-service and in-service Leadership;
teacher training. Develop additional advocacy strategies to include Literacy Team
champions (teaching coaches) who are already spreading Nascent
strategies to non-project schools.
5 Develop a Student WASH Club strategy to promote and amplify WASH Team; Immediate
hygiene efforts at the school level. Simultaneously conduct a short M&E Team
study to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of hygiene
champions.
6 Develop an advocacy strategy with the MINEDUB that aims to reduce Nascent Immediate
teacher mobility within the project intervention zone. Investigate how Leadership
development partners in other contexts, such as EDC’s SIRA in Mali,
were able to successfully negotiate with the Ministry of Education.
7 Very few students had access to distance-learning opportunities during Nascent Immediate/
the COVID-19 school lockdown. Identify possible solutions for future Leadership; Future
lockdowns that may include connecting students to radio programming USDA; projects
offered by other development partners. Investigate how alternative Cameroon
education programs within intervention zones handled the lockdownto
78
see if they developed useful strategies. In addition to other resources, Min of Basic
refer to USAID’s COVID paper Delivering Distance Learning in Education
Emergencies.
8 Further strengthen advocacy efforts with the government to 1) reopen Nascent Immediate
school canteens based on positive experiences from the subregion Leadership
(Benin, Mali, etc.) and 2) finalize and implement Cameroon’s national
school-feeding policy and establish a dedicated directorate.
For future projects, this advocacy element should be even more Future
prominent, as Cameroon has demonstrated interest. USDA projects
9 Consider developing separate targets for activities in the North West Nascent M&E Immediate
given the specificity of implementation in that region. This will not only Team;
allow for better visibility of results within the North West but reduce Leadership
skewing of results for other intervention zones.
10 Findings demonstrate internal confusion about how indicators are Nascent M&E Immediate
calculated among some Nascent staff. Integrate clarification and Team
refresher sessions in meetings and internal trainings and discuss the
results.
11 Local government partners at the council level, particularly local Nascent Field Immediate
councils, were generally enthusiastic about Nascent. Within the Coordinator
context of decentralization, they also have increased power to oversee
education including budgets. Further develop capacity building for
good governance at the council level. A focal point of this work should
include payment of PTA teachers.
Also help local councils share experiences of how they have integrated
budget line items for school canteens within their operating budgets.
12 Given beginning but positive outcomes of the graduation school Nascent M&E Immediate
model, closely follow the initiative with strong monitoring and special Team
studies. Be sure to capture community farms’ production and
accounting records to see which farm actually turns a profit.
13 Discussions with Field Agents proved very generative and they seemed Nascent Immediate
to benefit from sharing their experiences. Regularly provide Field
Agents with the opportunity to meet with other colleagues to share
their successes and challenges.
14 Findings indicate some confusion about how schools can use produce Nascent Immediate
from school gardens and community farms, but, more concerning, that Leadership
some PTAs may leverage Nascent participation to generate higher
contributions from parents, etc. Define and communicate clear
guidelines to schools and communities (including PTAs).
15 Implement regular regional meetings with all the sectoral stakeholders, Field Immediate
share the work plan, and discuss progress to further increase buy-in at Coordinators
the regional level. This effort will also address sentiments expressed
during the midterm evaluation that some officials wish to be more
79
involved and consulted regarding Nascent’s school feeding program. Nascent M&E
For example, establish/revive a project steering committee at the Team with
regional level where the project shares updates with all stakeholders Leadership
once or twice a year. Share reports with regional stakeholders more
frequently. The midterm evaluation report offers an opportunity to
share information and keep regional officials engaged. Nascent should
prioritize short products for dissemination, either the executive
summary or a concise briefing document.
16 Reconsider the intervention zone for future programs so as to reduce Nascent Future
distance between target schools. Deliberately frame programming in Leadership; programs
the North West region as crisis response, given ongoing security USDA
challenges and the implication for overall project logistics and
resources.
17 If the security situation allows, include schools in the North West Nascent M&E
within the final evaluation to better understand how they may have Team
benefited from Nascent programming during heightened periods of
crisis. It will be helpful to map services available to beneficiaries and to
understand how Nascent’s model might be further enhanced to
respond to fragile contexts.
18 Investigate opportunities to showcase Nascent’s successes for other Nascent Immediate
McGovern-Dole recipients and beyond. Successful practices include Leadership;
Nascent’s modular training approach, widespread use of the DHIS2 USDA
system, its approach to infrastructure programming, and the
graduation model.
80
Annex 1: Results Framework
The MCGOVERN-DOLE 2018 project has developed the following results framework. Each diagram is specific to one of the two strategic
objectives. The third page addresses critical assumptions necessary for successful implementation and attainment of expected results.
81
82
83
Annex 2: Details of the Quantitative Sample
Sampling Design and Power per instrument
Table 16 presents the confidence interval and the power of each sample for each of the instruments
used to calculate some of the indicators.
Table 16: Sampling design and power per instrument
Instrument Sample Size Sampling method Confidence Interval and Power
EGRA 1,878 • 16 students (8 boys/8 ME of 3.2% with 95% confidence

girls) randomly interval and power to detect a
selected from one 5.7% change in improved literacy
level, Grade 2 outcome
Hygiene 3,215 • 16 students (EGRA) ME of 3.3% with 95% confidence

questionnaire interval and power to detect a
• 6 Grade 5, 6 Grade 6
9.2% change in improved literacy
outcome
Stallings 288 • All teachers present For the improved quality of
from levels 1-3 instruction outcome, ME of 13.4%
with 95% confidence interval and
power to detect a difference
of 10.2%. For the improved
student attentiveness outcome,
ME of 8.4% with 95% confidence
interval and power to detect a
difference of 14.3%
MDD-W 1,231 • 15 students randomly ME of 3.4% with 95% confidence

selected in grade 2 and interval and power to detect an
asked to bring their 8.4% change in health and dietary
mothers in order to practices outcome
ensure that 10
mothers could be
interviewed.
Handwashing 360 • 20 students were ME of 11.6% with 95% confidence

observed in each interval and power to detect a
school where a 15.4% change in handwashing
handwashing station outcome
was available
84
Summary statistics
For the schools, the teachers, the parents, and the students, we checked for any difference between the
comparison and the project schools. If the groups were significantly different, it could explain some of
the differences in the outcome indicators.
As illustrated in Table 17, the main differences between the two groups of schools are that (1) the
project schools are 38 percent larger than the comparison schools (555 vs. 397 students), and (2) the
average number of students per class is higher in project schools by 25 percent (90 vs. 72 students).
On the other hand, the proportion of multigrade classrooms is higher in comparison schools (51% vs.
36%), which is logical since multigrade classrooms are more prevalent in smaller schools.
Table 17: Summary statistics for students participating in EGRA sample
Comparison Project Total

Gender:
Boys 435 (50.7%) 487 (51.2%) 922 (51.0%)
Girls 423 (49.3%) 464 (48.8%) 951 (49.0%)
Zone:
Rural 691 (80.5%) 760 (79.9%) 1,451 (80.2%)
Urban 167 (19.5%) 191 (20.1%) 358 (19.8%)
Region:
Adamaoua 93 (10.84%) 78 (8.2%) 171 (9.5%)
East Region 119 (13.9%) 140 (14.7%) 259 (14.3%)
North Region 646 (75.3%) 733 (77.1%) 1,379 (76.2%)
Overall 858 (100%) 951 (100%) 1,809 (100%)
85
Table 18: Summary statistics for students

Gender
Boys 726 (46.0%) 786 (48,0%) 1,512 (47.0%)
Girls 851 (54.0%) 852 (52.0%) 1,703 (53.0%)
Zone
Rural 1,285 (81.5%) 1,314 (80.2%) 2,599 (80.8%)
Urban 292 (18.5%) 324 (19.8%) 616 (19.2%)
Region
Adamaoua 182 (11.5%) 143 (8.7%) 325 (10.1%)
East Region 238 (15.1%) 240 (14.7%) 478 (14.9%)
North Region 1,157 (73.4%) 1,255 (76.6%) 2,412 (75.0%)
Overall 1,577 (100%) 1,638 (100%) 3,215 (100%)
Table 19: Summary statistics for mothers sample

Zone:
Rural 489 (81.6%) 480 (80.1%) 969 (80.9%)
Urban 110 (18.4%) 119 (19.9%) 229 (19.1%)
Region:
Adamaoua 60 (10.0%) 50 (8.4%) 110 (9.2%)
East Region 96 (16.0%) 90 (15.0%) 186 (15.5%)
North Region 443 (74.0%) 459 (76.6%) 902 (75.3%)
Overall 599 599 1,198
86
Table 20: Summary statistics for teachers sample

Gender:
Female 55 (22.1%) 93 (27.9%) 148 (25.4%)
Male 194 (77.9%) 240 (72.1%) 434 (74.6%)
Zone:
Rural 195 (78.3%) 263 (79.0%) 458 (78.7%)
Urban 54 (21.%) 70 (21.0%) 124 (21.3%)
Region:
Adamaoua 18 (7.2%) 19 (5.7%) 37 (6.4%)
East Region 43 (17.3%) 49 (14.7%) 92 (15.8%)
North Region 188 (75.5%) 265 (79.6%) 453 (77.8%)
Overall 249 (100%) 333(100%) 582 (100%)
Table 21: Summary statistics for principle sample

Zone:
Rural 47 (81.0%) 48 (81.4%) 95 (81.2%)
Urban 11 (19.0%) 11 (18.6%) 22 (18.8%)
Region:
Adamaoua 6 (10.3%) 5 (8.5%) 11 (9.4%)
East Region 10 (17.2%) 9 (15.3%) 19 (16.2%)
North Region 42 (72.4%) 45 (76.3%) 87 (74.4%)
Overall 58 (100%) 59 (100%) 117 (100%)
87
Table 22: Summary statistics for schools
Comparison Project Difference

Number of total enrolled students 392.0 571.8 179.8***
Students enrolled in grade 1 (SIL) 94.5 132.1 37.7**
Students enrolled in grade 2 (CP) 71.2 99.5 28.3***
Students enrolled in grade 3 (Ce1) 64.7 89.6 24.8**
Students enrolled in grade 4 (Ce2) 59.5 83.3 23.7**
Students enrolled in grade 5 (Cm1) 54.8 84.8 30.0***
Students enrolled in grade 6 (Cm2) 49.0 82.6 33.6***
Number of levels in the school 5.9 6.0 -0.1
Average number of students per classroom 65.8 95.3 29.5***
Proportion of female students in % 43.2% 46.1% 0.3%**
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 23: Summary statistics for teachers in schools

Proportion of male teachers in % 78.7% 74.4% -4.3%
Proportion of female teachers in % 21.3% 25.6% 4.3%
Pupil/Teacher ratio 81.7 81.5 -0.2
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 24: Summary statistics for principals interviewed

Average age 43.5 45.2 1.6
Average years of experience 6.2 8.2 2.0*
Proportion of female directors in % 6.9% 8.5% 1.6%
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
88
Table 25: Summary statistics for teachers interviewed

Total number of teachers observed 110 160 50
Teachers in grade 1 (SIL) 1 1 0
Teachers in grade 2 (CP) 1 0 -1
Teachers in grade 3 (Ce1) 5 2 -3
Teachers in grade 4 (Ce2) 28 48 20
Teachers in grade 5 (Cm1) 35 54 15
Teachers in grade 6 (Cm2) 33 48 15
Average years of experience 9.9 9.4 -0.5
Proportion of female teachers in % 12.7% 15.0% 2.3%
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 26: Summary statistics for interviewed parents (mothers)

Total number of women surveyed 599 599 0
Language at home***
Other 51,7% 48,1% -3.6%
Fulfulde 33.9% 30.1% -3.8%
Gbaya 3.8% 9.5% 5,7%
Français 4.8% 4.8% 0.0%
Maka 2.3% 2.7% 0.4%
Mbum 3.5% 4.8% 1.3%
Level of Literacy
Spoke French 35.4% 49.1% 13.7%***
Read French 32.4% 42.2% 9.8%***
Level of Education ***
None 50.1% 38.1% -12.0%
Primary school 33.6% 39.6% 6.0%
Secondary school or above 16.3% 22.3% 6.0%
Simple Poverty Score Card 26.4 27.5 1.2
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
89
Table 27: Summary statistics for interviewed students

Total number of students assessed 1,569 1,646 77
Student Gender
Female 46.0% 48.0% -2.0%
Male 54.0% 52.0% -2.0%
Language at home ***
Other 56.5% 57.5% 1.0%
Fulfulde (6) 31.2% 26.4% -4.8%
Gbaya (8) 3.2% 6.7% 3.5%
Français (7) 1.0% 2.1% 1.1%
Maka (13) 3.3% 2.4% -0.9%
Mbum (14) 4.8% 4.9% 0.1%
Simple Poverty Score Card 36.5 37.3 -0.8
*p<0.05; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
90
Annex 3: Details of Qualitative Sample
Category Stakeholder Number Female Male Participant
KII/FGD Total Total Total
Donor USDA 1 1 1
Authority-National MINEDUB 1 1 1
MINREX 1 1 1
Authority-Region MINADER 3 5 5
MINEDUB 4 2 4 6
MINEE 3 6 6
MISANTE 3 1 2 3
Authority-Local Mayor 4 2 6 8
Community Health Center 2 4 1 5
Community-Parent AME-APE 4 28 10 38
Hygiene Champion 1 1 1
Program Nascent Commodity 1 2 2 4

Nascent Field Agents 1 3 10 13
Nascent Field Coordinators 1 1 2 3
Nascent Finance 1 1 1 2
Nascent Literacy 1 4 4
Nascent M&E 1 0 3 3
Nascent Management 1 1 1 2
Nascent Nutrition 1 1 1 2
Nascent Nutrition-WASH 1 1 2 3
Nascent School Feeding 1 1 2 3
Program-Partner Nascent Engineer 1 1 1

RECAMEC 1 1 1
School Teachers 4 10 14 24
91
Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed
CODE DESCRIPTION TYPE
D01 Agreement USDA-Nascent Contract
D02 Agreement USDA-Nascent - Executed Contract
D03 Contract with partner Contract
D04 Result Framework Report
D05 Performance Monitoring Plan-Narrative Report
D06 Performance Monitoring Plan Report
D07 COVID Contingency Plan Report
D10 Performance report - Semi Annual - Oct 18/Mar 19 Performance report
D11 Performance report - Semi Annual - April 19/Sept 19 Performance report
D13 Performance report - Semi Annual - April 20/Sept 20 Performance report
D15 Evidence behind MCGOVERN-DOLE Report
D16 Work plan Year - All Work plan
D17 Work plan Year 1 - Oct 19-Sept 20 Work plan
D18 Work plan Year 2 - Oct 20-Sept 21 Work plan
D19 Pilot school strategy Report
D20 Current list of school List
D21 List of pilot schools List
D22 List of field agents List
D23 Staff list List
D24 List of government partners contact List
D25 List of training List
D26 Sample TOR- Training replication Memo
D27 Memo on over run budget Kitchens Memo
D28 Indicator breakdown by region and disaggregated Memo
D29 Project Burn rate as March 2021 Memo
D30 Training Manual - Nutrition Training
D31 Training Manual - Hygiene Training
D32 Training Manual - Facilitator Health & Nutrition Training
92
CODE DESCRIPTION TYPE
D33 Curriculum Health & Nutrition Curriculum
D34 Training Manual - PTA Training
D35 Manual for creation of GIC and Cooperatives Training
D36 Training Manual - Seed selection technics Training
Training Manual - Agriculture technics for school garden and
D37
community farms Training
D40 Training Manual - Literacy Coach Training
D41 Training Manual - Teachers Training
D42 Training Manual - Head Teachers Training
D43 Literacy Technics - Training Manual - Teachers Training
D44 Teacher Observation Form Other
D45 MOU with MINEDUB Contract
D46 MOU with pilot schools Contract
D47 Reading test Other
D48 Store inspection check list Other
D50 Agreement Nascent and Cameroon Government Contract
D51 Engineer Infrastructure reports Report
D52 National School Feeding Policy of Cameroon (French) Policy
D53 National School Feeding Policy of Cameroon (English) Policy
D60 Cameroon EGRA-EGMA Report Report
D61 Minimum Dietary Diversity For Women Reference
D62 Cameroon Nation development strategy 2020-2030 Report
D63 Poverty Index Reference
D64 UNICEF WASH in schools monitoring Reference
D65 UNICEF handwashing Reference
D66 National Hygiene Promotion Strategy in Schools (2017) Policy
D67 National Hygiene Promotion Strategy in Schools (2014) Policy
93
Annex 5: Evaluation Matrix
INDEX EVALUATION SECTION & QUESTIONS DESK REVIEW QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE
R01 Relevance: Is the project’s results framework D01-02-Agreement USDA-Nascent KII - Nascent Parent survey
consistent with stakeholder and beneficiary views? D04-Results Framework KII - Ministries National [QP601-604]
Do beneficiaries understand the problem and the D45-MOU with MINEDUB KII - Ministries Region
solutions to the problem in the same way as the FGD - Teachers
project? [1.1] FGD - Parents (PTA)
R02 Relevance: Is implementation design consistent D45-MOU with MINEDUB KII - Nascent
with the government’s priorities at the local, D62-Cameroon Nation KII - USDA
regional, and national levels? [1.2] development strategy 2020-2030 KII - Ministries National
KII - Ministries Region
R03 Relevance: Did the support provided by Nascent D07-Covid Contingency Plan KII - Nascent Head teacher
during the Covid-19 pandemic address the needs D13-Performance report KII - USDA Survey [QD501-
of beneficiaries? [1.3] KII - Ministries National 505]
KII - Ministries Region Teacher Survey
FGD - Teachers [QT401-403]
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R04 Effectiveness: Are the program’s activities D10-D11-D12-D13-Performance KII - Nascent
implemented according to plan ? (Infrastructure, reports KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
training, distributing school meals, distributing D16-D17-D18-Workplans KII - Ministries National
take home rations, distributing materials, D25-List of training KII - Ministries Region
improving curricula, school garden) [2.1] D51-Engineer Infrastructure FGD - Teachers
Report FGD - Parents (PTA)
R05 Effectiveness: Have there been internal and/or D10-D11-D12-D13-Performance KII - Nascent
external factors that have hindered the effective reports KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
implementation of project activities? Are these D05-D06-PMP KII - Ministries National
obstacles attributable to Nascent, USDA, the KII - Ministries Region
Government or other partners?[2.2] FGD - Teachers
FGD - Parents (PTA)
94
R06 Effectiveness: Are program products and outcome D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 KII - Nascent
targets achieved? (See list of 10 indicators) and if Performance reports
not why? [2.3] D28- Indicator breakdown by
region and disaggregated
R07 Effectiveness: To what extent are students D08-Baseline Evaluation KII - Nascent Parent survey
following best practices in the schools regarding D33-Curiculum - Hygiene and KII - Ministries Region [QP507-511]
hygiene? [2.4] Nutrition FGD - Teachers Student survey
D64-UNICEF WASH in schools FGD - Parents (PTA) [QE401-417]
monitoring Teacher survey
D65-UNICEF Handwashing [QT301-308]
D66-Cameroon national policy Hand washing
WASH in schools
R08 Effectiveness: To what extent are kitchen and D30-Training Manual - Nutrition KII - Nascent Head teacher
commodity storage volunteers implementing D31-Training Manual - Hygiene KII - Ministries Region Survey [QD215-
organizational and hygiene skills acquired through D32-Training Manual Facilitator - FGD - Teachers 218]
the training? [2.5] Hygiene and Nutrition FGD - Parents (PTA) Cook Survey
D34- Training Manual - PTA [QC211-217 /
D48- Store inspection checklist QC311-317]
School Inventory
R09 Efficiency: Which outputs were obtained most D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 KII - Nascent
cost-efficiently in a timely manner? [3.1] Performance reports FGD Teachers
D51-Engineer Infrastructure FGD Parents
Report
R10 Efficiency: Which were obtained least cost- D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 KII - Nascent
efficiently in a timely manner? [3.2] Performance reports FGD Teachers
D51-Engineer Infrastructure FGD Parents
Report
R11 Efficiency: Should the project allocate resources D27- Memo on over run budget KII - Nascent
differently in the future? [3.3] Kitchens KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
95
D29- Project Burn rate as March
2021
R12 Impact: To what extent have students (boys and D08-Base Line Evaluation KII - Nascent EGRA
girls) increased their reading comprehension D60-EGRA Cameroon KII - Ministries Region Teacher survey
compared to baseline? [4.1] D47-Test de lecture FGD - Teachers [QT204-210]
R13 Impact: To what extent have students improved KII - Nascent Stallings Classroom
their attentiveness ? [4.2] KII - Ministries Region Observation
FGD - Teachers Teacher survey
FGD - Parents (PTA) [QT309-311]
R14 Impact: To what extent have teachers improved D08-Baseline Evaluation KII - Nascent Stallings Classroom
the quality of their teaching? To what extend have D25-List of Trainings KII - Ministries Region Observation
Head teachers improved their capacity to manage D40-Training Manual -Literacy FGD - Teachers Head teacher
the school ?[4.3] Coach Survey [Q301-312]
D41-Training Manual -Teachers Teacher survey
D42-Training Manual -Head [QT204-210]
Teachers
D43-Training Manual -Additional
techniques
D44-Teacher observation Form
D49-Report on teacher
observation
R15 Impact: To what extent have students improved D08-Base Line Evaluation KII - Nascent Student survey
their nutrition, health, and hygiene-related D33-Curriculum Health & KII - Ministries Region [QE401-417]
practices? [4.4] Nutrition FGD - Teachers Head teacher
D66- National Hygiene Promotion FGD - Parents (PTA) Survey [QD401-
Strategy in Schools (2017) 433]
Teacher Survey
[QT301-308]
96
R16 Impact: To what extent has the prevalence of D08-Base Line Evaluation KII - Nascent Parent survey-
women of reproductive age consuming a diet of D61-Minimum Dietary Diversity KII - Ministries Region MDDW [QP301-
minimum diversity improved? [4.5] For Women FGD - Teachers 329]
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R17 Impact: Is the project causing any unintended KII - Nascent
effects? [4.6] KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
KII - Ministries National
FGD - Teachers
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R18 Impact: To what extent did COVID-19 affect D07-Covid Contingency Plan KII - Nascent Head teacher
project implementation and performance? What KII - USDA/USA-Embassy Survey [QD501-
measures were taken to mitigate the negative KII - Ministries National 505]
effects of COVID-19 pandemic? [4.7] KII - Ministries Region Teacher Survey
FGD - Teachers [QT401-403]
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R19 Sustainability: Do stakeholders have the same D19-Pilot School Strategy KII - Nascent
vision of sustainability? [5.1] D46-MOU with Graduation KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
Schools KII - Ministries National
FGD - Teachers
R20 Sustainability: Are efforts at sustainability likely to KII - Nascent
succeed? [5.2] KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
FGD - Teachers
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R21 Sustainability: Which activities are likely to KII - Nascent
continue as the project closes? [5.3] KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
97
FGD - Teachers
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R22 Sustainability: How is the local community KII - Nascent Cook survey
engaged and or contributing to sustain project KII - USDA/USA-Embassy [QC201-
activities, especially school feeding? [5.4] KII - Ministries National 210/QC301-310]
FGD - Teachers
FGD - Parents (PTA)
R23 Sustainability: To what extent, is the graduation D10-D11-D12-D13-D14 KII - Nascent
model more likely to be sustainable? [5.5] Performance reports KII - USDA/USA-Embassy
D19-Pilot School Strategy KII - Ministries National
D46-MOU with Graduation KII - Ministries Region
Schools
D21-List of graduation schools
98
Annex 6: Data Collection Tools
EGRA Instrument
Section 1. Compréhension orale
Amina a très faim. Elle pose un plat de riz et de poulet sur la table. Amina va se laver les mains. Le chat
grimpe sur la table et emporte le morceau de poulet. Elle trouve le chat qui mange son poulet. Elle
pleure. Sa mère revient et lui donne un autre morceau. Elle sourit et remercie sa mère.
1. Qu’est-ce que Amina pose sur la table ? Un plat de riz et de poulet.
2. Que fait le chat quand Amina va se laver Le chat grimpe sur la table, le chat emporte le
les mains ? morceau du poulet -
3. Pourquoi Amina pleure-t-elle ? Le chat a mangé son poulet.
4. Qui donne à Amina un autre morceau de Sa mere
poulet ?
5. Pourquoi Amina sourit-elle ? Elle a un autre morceau de viande.
Section 2. Identification du son initial

Jus – Ami – Nuit – Vélo – Ballon – Odeur - Dormir - Etat - Feuille – Zéro
Section 3. Identification des sons

i A f O s é p D z ou
Q N on f i m L E G t
b O v ou L T j c b m
V K a R u f é J s r
b s c an p k f ch a e
ch u S i M g oi T n P
Z P e g in F d o T v
d é b A m on t C o L
R L q B e n i a p ou
gn E ch V d U ç oi M G
99
Section 4. Lecture de mots familiers
il tu sa ma vol
lire ami on car ou
papa sol bébé peur sage
cri blé carte fleur vache
chaise bleu vole sur peau
clé mil monde table mur
fin date tour posé kilo
ronde maman arbre faire porter
été beau pain rougir moto
mal douze bol vélo vide
Section 5. Lecture de mots inventés
ol tal zopé lapa chane
sar beya ciko ja raite
bige osi ja tipa osi
flir donré toche iro neul
nur bair pro mouli vor
bape clo doupé ima duse
voul ul dop blu dreu
ibrau zi lorpe til oti
moud loso lota moro vaf
fero lépa dola résa tipa
Section 6a. Lecture du texte (petite histoire) et compréhension
Baba aime aller au champ avec sa mère. [8] 1- Qu’est-ce que Baba aime faire ?
[aller au champ ; ou aller au champ avec sa mère]
Un jour en allant au champ, sa mère tombe. Elle se [22] 2- Comment la jambe de sa mère s’est-elle cassée ?
casse une jambe [elle est tombée]
Il court au village appeler son oncle. Baba et son [36] 3- Qui amènent sa mère au dispensaire ?
oncle l’amènent au dispensaire [Baba et son oncle]
Le docteur soigne la jambe de mère. [43] 4- Qui a soigné la jambe de sa mère ?
[le docteur]
Baba sourit. Il est content du docteur. [50] 5- Pourquoi est-ce que Baba est content du docteur ?
[Il a soigné sa mère]
100
Student Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE – ELEVE
Cette section doit être remplie par l’intervieweur
Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Nom de l’intervieweur : (Spécifier)
Numéro d’énumérateur : (Spécifier)
Département : (Spécifier)
Arrondissement : (Spécifier)
Numéro d’identification unique de l’école : (Spécifier)
Nom de l’école : (Spécifier)
École de Contrôle ou de Traitement : (Spécifier)
Elèves CP
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle ________. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation qui aide les enfants. Je fais des tests
de lecture en français pour en savoir plus sur la façon d'aider les élèves à mieux travailler et à lire.
Si tu acceptes de participer, tu seras invité à faire quelques petits jeux avec des lettres, des mots et des histoires en
français. Je vais aussi te poser quelques questions sur ta famille et la langue que tu parles à la maison. Cela prendra
environ 20 minutes. À tout moment, tu peux décider d’arrêter.
Ce que tu fais avec moi ne changera pas tes notes de classe. Tes résultats seront gardés secrets. Ton enseignant et
ta famille savent que tu participes, mais ils ne connaitront pas tes résultats. Tu ne recevras rien en échange de ta
participation, mais ce que tu fais nous aidera à améliorer l’enseignement de la lecture.
Encore une fois, tu n’es pas obligé de participer si tu ne le veux pas. Si tu arrives à une question à laquelle tu
préfères ne pas répondre, ce n’est pas grave, on peut passer.
As-tu des questions ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et répondre au besoin]
Est-ce que tu es d’accord pour participer ? Peut-on commencer ?
Elèves Cm1, Cm2
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle ________. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation qui aide les enfants. Je vais te poser
des questions sur ce que tu penses de l’hygiène dans ton école et sur tes absences.
Ce que tu fais avec moi ne changera pas tes notes de classe. Tes réponses seront gardées secrètes. Ton enseignant
et ta famille savent que tu participes, mais ils ne connaitront pas tes réponses. Tu ne recevras rien en échange de
ta participation, mais ce que tu fais nous aidera à améliorer les pratiques dans les écoles du Cameroun.
Encore une fois, tu n’es pas obligé de participer si tu ne le veux pas. Si tu arrives à une question à laquelle tu
préfères ne pas répondre, ce n’est pas grave, on peut passer.
101
Nº Question Réponse
1. Information sur l’élève
101 Genre (regardez l’enfant et cochez) o Masculin
o Féminin
102 Quel âge as-tu ? ______
103 Quelle langue parles-tu en général à la maison ? o Anglais o Gbaya
o Baka o Guidar
o Daba o Kako
o Dii o Mafa
o Fali o Mbum
o Fulfulde o Mpumpong
o Français o Vonvon
o Autre
104 En quelle classe es-tu cette année ? o SIL
o CP
NB : Pour le test EGRA, si l'enfant n'est pas en CP, o CE1
mettre fin à l'entretien (Revenir au consentement), o CE2
indiquer le problème en commentaire et aviser le o CM1
chef d'équipe o CM2
105 En quelle classe étais-tu l’année dernière ? o SIL

o CP
NB : Uniquement EGRA o CE1
o CE2
o CM1
o CM2
106 As-tu fréquenté une école maternelle ? o Oui
o Non
NB : Uniquement EGRA o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
2. Repas et Absence
201 As-tu mangé aujourd'hui avant de venir à l'école ? o Oui
o Non
o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
202 As-tu amené de la nourriture avec toi pour manger à o Oui
l’école ? o Non
203 [oui Q202] De l’argent pour acheter quelque chose
Qu’est-ce que tu as amené ? Riz
Beignets
Bouillie
Couscous
Chips
Arachides grillées
Kossam / Yaourt / Lait
Igname
Haricot
Patates / Frites
Spaghetti / Talia
Snack : Bakou
Légumes préparés
102
Pain chargé
Fruits
Autre, préciser
204 Est-ce que tu as été absent à l’école la semaine o Oui
dernière ? o Non
205 [Q202=Oui] o Distance de l’école
o Problèmes de santé
Si Oui, pour quelle raison as-tu été absent ?
o Retard ou non-paiement des frais de scolarité
(NB : Ne pas lire les réponses) o Manque de matériel ou d’uniforme scolaire
o Aider la famille avec les corvées ou le travail
agricole à la maison
o Participation aux funérailles ou aux festivités
traditionnelles
o La famille manque de moyens pour se procurer
de la nourriture
o Les enfants ont faim
o Pression négative des camarades pour manquer
l'école
o Faible conscience parentale sur l’importance de
l'éducation
o L’enseignant est absent
o École fermée
o Autre, spécifier
3. Pratique de la lecture (Uniquement EGRA)
301 Est-ce que tu as un livre de français à la maison ? o Oui
o Non
302 Est-ce que tu as un livre de mathématique à la o Oui
maison ? o Non
303 En dehors des livres de texte, est-ce qu’il y a d’autres o Oui
livres ou des journaux chez toi ? o Non
304 Y-a-t’il des personnes dans ta famille qui savent lire ? o Oui
o Non
305 En dehors de l’école, combien de fois t’exerces-tu à o Tous les jours
lire des lettres et des mots ? o Plusieurs fois par semaine
o Une ou deux fois par semaine
o Jamais
306 En dehors de l’école, combien de fois lis-tu des o Tous les jours
livres ? o Plusieurs fois par semaine
o Moins d’une fois par semaine
o Jamais
307 Est-ce que ton papa parle Français ? o Oui
o Non
308 Est-ce que ton papa sait lire ? o Oui
103
o Non
309 Est-ce que ta maman parle Français ? o Oui
o Non
310 Est-ce que ta maman sait lire ? o Oui
o Non
311 Combien de fois reçois-tu de l’aide pour tes devoirs à o Tous les jours
la maison ? o Plusieurs fois par semaine
o Moins d’une fois par semaine
o Jamais
312 Qui t’aide le plus pour faire tes devoirs à la maison Père et/ou Mère Frères et/ou Sœur
Autre personne Personne
Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
4. Pratique de l’hygiène
401 Y-a-t’il des stations de lavage dans l’école o Oui
o Non
[L’énumérateur peut répondre à cette question]
402 Y-a-t’il des latrines fonctionnelles dans l’école o Oui
o Non
403 [Q402 = Oui] o Oui
o Non
Est-ce que tu utilises les latrines de l’école ?
404 [Q404 = Non] and [Q402 = Oui] Je ne me sens pas en sécurité
Elles ne sont pas propres
Pourquoi n’utilises-tu pas les latrines de l’école ?
Elles sentent mauvais
Il n’y a pas d’eau ou elles ne fonctionnent pas
Il n’y a trop de gens qui les utilisent
Elles sont trop loin
Je n’ai pas le temps
Je ne veux pas/Je n’ai pas envie
Les toilettes sont fermées
Les toilettes sont insuffisantes
Je ne sais pas les utiliser
Les toilettes sont mixtes
Mes parents me l’ont interdit
405 [Q401 = Oui] o Oui, toujours
Quand tu es à l'école, te laves tu les mains après être o Oui, parfois
allé(e) aux latrines ? o Non, jamais

Quand tu manges à l'école, te laves-tu les mains o Oui, parfois
avant de manger ? o Non, jamais
o Je ne mange pas à l’école
407 [Q401 = Oui] - [Q402 = Oui] o Oui, toujours
104
Près des latrines de ton école y a-t’il de l’eau et du o Oui, parfois
savon ? o Non, jamais
o Oui, parfois
Les latrines de ton école sont-elles toujours propres ?
o Non, jamais
o Oui, parfois
Te sens tu en sécurité dans les latrines de ton école ?
o Non, jamais
410 [Q402 = Oui] Ça sent bon !
Parfois cela ne sent pas bon mais en général
Peux-tu me décrire l’odeur des latrines ?
cela va
Cela sent mauvais, je rentre et je sors aussi vite
que je peux
J’arrête de respirer
Cela sent tellement mauvais que je n’y vais pas,
j’attends d’être à la maison
Cela sent tellement mauvais que je n’y vais pas,
je fais à l’extérieur
411 [Q402 = Oui] J’aime bien les utiliser
Que penses-tu des latrines de ton école ? Elles sont propres
Elles ont tout ce dont j’ai besoin, du savon, de
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] l’eau
Parfois je me retiens pour ne pas avoir à utiliser
les latrines
Je suis dégoûté par les latrines de mon école
Je déteste y aller
Les latrines sont cassées/ne fonctionnent pas
Elles sont fermées je ne peux pas y aller
Elles sont mixtes, je ne veux pas y aller
Je ne m’y sens pas en sécurité
Je ne sais pas/pas de réponse
Autre, spécifier
412 Quand te laves-tu les mains ? Avant de manger
Avant de préparer le repas
Avant de donner à manger aux enfants
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses, insister sur sa pratique] Après avoir nettoyé un enfant qui a déféqué
Après le repas
Après défécation
Après avoir touché un animal
Après mon réveil
Quand m’être mouché ou si j’éternue
Après avoir joué
Après avoir travaillé aux champs
Avant de venir à l’école
En arrivant à la maison après la classe
À tout moment à cause du Covid 19
Autre, spécifier
105
413 [Q401= Oui] o Oui, toujours
o Oui, parfois
Utilises-tu les stations de lavage de mains de l’école ?
o Non, jamais
414 [Q414= Non] Il n’y a pas de savon ni de cendre
Elles ne sont pas propres
Pourquoi n’utilises-tu pas les stations de lavage de
Il n’y a pas d’eau
l’école ?
Elles sont cassées et fonctionnent pas
Il n’y a trop de gens qui les utilisent
Elles sont trop loin
Je n’ai pas le temps
Je ne veux pas / Je n’ai pas envie
L’eau est sale
Autre, spécifier
415 [Q401= Oui] o Oui
Y-a-il de savon ou des cendres aux stations de lavage o Non
de mains de l’école ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse

416 [Q401= Oui] - [Q414= Oui] - [Q415= Oui] o Oui, toujours
o Oui, parfois
Utilises-tu le savon/cendre aux les stations de lavage
o Non, jamais
de mains de l’école ?
417 Comment peut-on éviter d’attraper la diarrhée ? Se laver les mains après défécation
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Se laver les mains avant de manger
Se laver les mains après avoir touché un animal
Se laver les mains après avoir joué
Utiliser de l’eau propre
Boire de l’eau potable ou purifiée
Utiliser des latrines propres
Nettoyer les toilettes après utilisation
Ne pas manger de nourriture avariée
Laver les fruits et les légumes avant de les
manger
Comprimés de déparasitage
Feuilles de goyaves
Charbon dans l’eau
Ne pas manger des fruits qui ne sont pas mûrs
Ne pas manger de sucrerie
Ne pas s’approcher des personnes malades
Ne pas manger le diner (Mangue acide avec du
piment)
Autre, spécifier
5. Information Socio-économique
Question Réponse Valeur
501 Combien de personnes vivent dans ta maison ? o Huit ou plus 0
o Sept 6
(Une maison est une unité socio-économique d'une
o Six 8
ou plusieurs personnes — indépendamment du sang
o Cinq 11
106
ou de la relation conjugale — qui ont vécu (ou o Quatre 16
prévoient de vivre) ensemble pendant au moins six o Trois 19
mois des douze précédents dans le même composé, o Deux 24
qui partagent des ressources, qui mangent o Un 34
habituellement ensemble, et qui reconnaissent la o Pas de réponse N/A
même tête.)
502 Est-ce que la (plus âgée) femme chef du foyer ou o Non 0
épouse sait lire et écrire une phrase simple en o Seulement en anglais 1
Français et/ou en Anglais ? o Pas de femme chef du foyer ou 3
conjointe
o Français 6
N/A
o Pas de réponse
503 Quel type sol y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? o Terre 0
o Bois, ciment, autre 5
(Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour aider 9
o Carrelage, marbre
l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer les N/A
o Pas de réponse
images à l'enfant)
504 Quel type de latrines ta famille utilise-t-elle ? o Défécation à l’air 98 0
o Latrines non améliorée 99 4
o Latrines améliorée 100 6
o Pas de réponse N/A
505 Quel type de combustible ta maman utilise-t-elle o Bois ramassé ou donné 0
principalement pour la cuisine ? o Pétrole 2
o Bois acheté 3
o Charbon, électricité, sciures,
copeau de bois. Ne cuisine pas, 8
(Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour aider
l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer les autre
images à l'enfant) o Gaz 16
506 Y-a-t ’il un fer à repasser électrique dans ta maison ? o Non 0
o Oui 6
507 Y-a-t ’il une télévision dans ta maison ? o Non 0
o Oui 4
508 Y-a-t ’il une radio ou une stéréo (chaine musicale) o Non 0
dans ta maison ? o Seulement une radio 3
o Stéréo 7
509 Y-a-t ’il un meuble ou une armoire dans ta maison o Non 0
o Oui 3
510 Combien de téléphone portable y-a-t’il dans ta o Zéro 0
maison ? o Un 4
98
Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre
99
Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou ouvert
100
Latrines latrine avec dalle ou améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec ou sans réservoir
107
o Deux 6
o Trois ou plus 9
108
Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women and Parent Survey
Consommation alimentaire 24 heures

Si nécessaire compléter la fiche ci-dessous avec les aliments listés par la personne interviewée.
Heure Type d’aliment Quantité Groupe
Nombre de repas :
Consommation exceptionnelle : oui - non
109
Analyse de la consommation alimentaire
Numéro Groupe Exemples Norme quantité Consommé Quantité OK

Oui/Non Oui/Non
1 Céréales, racines Banane plantain, blé, 1 cuil. Service
blanches, ignames, racine de cassave,
1 moyenne, 1
tubercules et maïs, pommes de terre,
tranche.
bananes plantains manioc, taro, riz-blanc, pain,
pâtes, autres aliments
fabriqués à partir de grains
2 Légumes sec Haricots noirs-blanc-rouge, 1 cuil. Service
lentilles, niébé, pois,
1 paquet
produits à base de soja
2 ptt cuil.
Soupe : 1 tasse
3 Noix et graines Arachides, noix de cajou, 1 paquet
graine de melon
2 ptt cuil.
Beurre d'arachide, pâte de
sésame
4 Lait et produits Lait ou lait en poudre Liquide : 8 gde cuil.
laitiers Yaourt
En poudre : 1 gde
Fromage
cuil.
Crémeux : 1 tasse
5 Viandes de chair et Bœuf 1/2 poignée
de poisson et de Poulet, canard, dinde
abats Cochon
Abats (fois, poumons,
intestin)
Poisson, coquillage
6 Œuf Œuf de n’importe quel 2 œufs
oiseau
7 Légumes feuilles Amarante verte, chou des 1 cuil. Service

vert foncé marais Épinard
1/2 tasse.
Feuilles de cassave, de
citrouille, de manioc, de Soupe : 1 tasse
niébé, de patate douce, de
tamarin
Kale
8 Fruits et légumes Légumes 1 cuil. Service
riches en vitamine Carottes, citrouille, courge
1 moyen
A (orange ou jaune foncé),
patates douces, poivron 1/2 tasse
rouge, pastèque
Soupe : 1 tasse
Fruit
110
Numéro Groupe Exemples Norme quantité Consommé Quantité OK
Oui/Non Oui/Non
Fruit de la passion, kaki
mangue, melon cantaloup
papaye, pêches,
9 Autres légumes Aubergine, carotte blanche, 2 cuil. Service
chou, christophine,
1 moyen
concombre, gombo, haricots
verts, maïs frais, napier, 1/2 tasse
oignon, tomate. Soupe :
Soupe : 1 tasse
mélange de légumes – Sauce
Tomate
10 Autres fruits Ananas, banane, noix de 1 cuil. Service
coco, figue, fruit étoilé,
1 moyen
goyave, orange, mandarine,
poire, pomme, prune, 1/2 tasse
tamarin
Soupe : 1 tasse
11 Huile de palme 1 ptt cuil.
12 Autres huiles et Beurre, graisse de porc, de N/A N/A

graisses poulet, huile de palme, de
soja, de tournesol,
margarine
13 Assaisonnements Ail, citron, gingembre, N/A N/A
et épices herbes fraiches, Maggi,
oignon, piment, sauce de
poisson, sel
14 Autres boissons et Boissons énergétiques, café, N/A N/A
aliments coke, Fanta, jus de fruits
(traité), soda, thé
15 Snacks salés et Beignets frits, chips de N/A N/A
frits banane, de cassave, de maïs,
de patates douces, de
pomme de terre, snacks frits
16 Bonbons Bonbons, canne à sucre, N/A N/A
crème glacée, gâteaux, lait
concentré sucré, miel,
pâtisseries, petit gâteau
17 Insectes et autres Chenille, cigales, libellules, N/A N/A
petites protéines œufs de poisson, sauterelles,
larves d'insectes, cricket,
termites
111
QUESTIONNAIRE – PARENT (mère)
Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à
Yaoundé. Je fais une étude pour évaluer les habitudes alimentaires des mamans au Cameroun et l’hygiène des
enfants et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Les informations serviront à évaluer le projet de cantine scolaire
et à améliorer le programme. Le sondage normalement prendra environ 20 minutes.
Les informations recueillies seront strictement confidentielles et ne seront montrées à personne. Je ne vais pas
enregistrer votre nom ou les noms de vos enfants.
La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Décider de ne pas
participer ou de choisir d’arrêter l'interview en cours n'entraînera aucun résultat négatif ni pour vos enfants ou
dans votre relation avec Nascent Solutions. Nous espérons que vous participerez à cette enquête puisque votre
opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les femmes et les enfants du Cameroun.
1. Information sur l’élève
101 Connaissez-vous votre date de naissance ? Jour____
[NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas Mois___
répondre] Année____
102 [Q101 NE 99] ______ ans
Si, non connaissez-vous votre âge approximatif ?
[NB : Si nécessaire, l’enumérateur estime
approximativement l’âge de la femme]
103 L’âge de la femme n’est pas entre 15 et 49 ans, o Oui

confirmer que vous souhaitez mettre fin à o Non
l’entretien.
2. Caractéristique du parent ou gardienne (Femme en âge de procréer 15-49)
201 Combien de grossesses avez-vous eu ? ____ grossesses
202 Combien d’enfant avez-vous ? ____ enfants
112
203 Quel âge a votre enfant le plus âgé ? ____ ans
204 Quel âge a votre enfant le plus jeune ? ____ ans
NB : si moins d’un an indiquer 1.

205 Quelles langues parlez-vous le plus souvent à la o Anglais o Gbaya
maison ? o Baka o Guidar
o Daba o Kako
o Dii o Mafa
o Fali o Mbum
o Fulfulde o Mpumpong
o Français o Autre
206 Quel est votre niveau en français ? o Je parle couramment
o Je comprends et je parle assez bien
o Je comprends et je parle un peu
o Je comprends un peu mais je ne parle pas
o Je ne parle pas le français
207 Quel est votre niveau en lecture en français (ou o Je sais lire parfaitement
en langue locale)? o Je sais lire assez bien
o Je sais lire un peu
o Je ne sais pas lire
208 Quel est votre niveau d’éducation ? o Supérieur
o Secondaire -Cycle 2
[NB : Cycle commencé, Si école Coranique indiquer
o Secondaire -Cycle 1
Aucun)
o Primaire
o Aucun
o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
209 Quelle est votre occupation principale ? o Sans emploi / femme au foyer
o Femme de ménage
o Travail agricole
o Propriétaire foncier
o Journalier(ière)
o Commerçant(e)
o Travailleur(euse) de bureau
o Artisan(e)
o Retraité(e)
o Autre
3. Consommation du jour précédent
301 Combien de repas avez-vous pris hier ? _______
302 Votre consommation d’hier, peut-elle être o Oui
considérée comme « normale » ? o Non
[Nous voulons nous assurer que cette prise de o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
nourriture était comme n'importe quel jour
typique-pas célébration de vacances, mariage, ou
le jeûne]
Maintenant, nous allons parler de ce que vous avez mangé durant la journée d’hier à la maison ou bien en dehors ?
Merci d’inclure tout ce que vous avez mangé ou bu, comme snack ou repas principal.
113
Pouvez-vous penser à ce que vous avez mangé ? Je vais vous poser quelques questions. Si vous ne vous souvenez pas
je vais vous aider.
Exemple de questions :
1) Quelle a été la première chose que vous avez mangé hier ?
a. Pouvez-vous me montrer la taille ? [Montrer sur les mesures de volume et de taille approximative.]
b. Quelle heure était-il ? [Matin, midi, après-midi, soir]
c. Avez-vous quelque chose à boire ? un fruit ? [Pensez à tous les aliments qui n'ont pas été
mentionnés mais sont couramment consommé pour ce repas.] ?
2) Quand avez-vous mangé la fois suivante ?
3) Avez-vous eu d'autres collations au cours de la journée ? [Mangues cueillies sur un arbre, arachides, etc.]
4) Avez-vous acheté de la nourriture dans la rue ?
L’enquêteur répond à ces questions sur papier, et il fait ensuite les calculs permettant de répondre aux questions ci-
dessous
301 Groupe 1 consommé ? o Oui
o Non
[Céréales, racines blanches, tubercules et bananes plantains]
302 [si oui Q303] - Groupe 1 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui
o Non
o Non
[Légumes secs]
o Non
o Non
[Noix et graines]
o Non
o Non
[Lait et produits laitiers]
o Non
o Non
[Viandes de chair et de poisson et de abats]
310 [si oui Q311] - Groupe 5 en quantité suffisante o Oui
o Non
o Non
[Œufs]
312 [Q313=Oui] - Groupe 6 en quantité suffisante ? o Oui
o Non
o Non
[Légumes feuilles vert foncé]
o Non
114
o Non
[Fruits et légumes riches en vitamine A]
o Non
o Non
[Autres légumes]
o Non
o Non
[Autres fruits]
o Non
321 Groupe 11 : Huile de palme consommée ? o Oui
o Non
322 [Q324=Oui] - Huile de palme en quantité suffisante ? o Oui
o Non
323 Groupe 12 : Autre huiles et matière grasse consommées, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
324 Groupe 13 : Assaisonnements et épices, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
325 Groupe 14 : Autres boissons et aliments, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
326 Groupe 15 : Snacks salés et frits, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
327 Groupe 16 : Bonbons, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
328 Groupe 17 : Insectes, consommé ? o Oui
o Non
o N/A
4. Connaissance des concepts de la diététique
401 Selon vous, qu’est ce qui constitue une Inclure les cinq grandes familles d’aliment
alimentation équilibrée pour une femme, (Légumes, fruits, céréales/féculant,
particulièrement si elle est enceinte ou allaite ? viande/poisson/œuf/noix, produits laitiers)
Inclure des aliments contenant des vitamines
[NB : Ne pas proposer les réponses, si la personne Inclure des aliments contenant de la vitamine A
ne sait pas, cocher ‘pas de réponse’ sans insister] (huile de palme)
Inclure des aliments variés
Inclure des fruits et légumes
Inclure des aliments riches en fer
Autre, spécifier
115
402 Combien de repas prenez-vous en moyenne ________ repas
chaque jour ?
403 Avez-vous un régime alimentaire équilibré ? o Oui, toujours
o Oui, la plupart du temps
o Non, rarement
o Non, jamais
404 [Q403 = Non] Je ne sais pas ce qu’est un régime alimentaire
équilibré
Pourquoi, ne suivez-vous pas un régime Cela ne m’intéresse pas
alimentaire équilibré ? Je ne pense pas que cela soit important
Ma famille n'a pas les moyens d'acheter
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] certains aliments
Nous n’avons accès aux fruits et légumes quand
cela n’est pas la saison
La priorité c’est d’avoir le ventre plein
Cela prend trop de temps
J’oublie /Je n’y pense pas
Autre, préciser
405 Lorsque vous étiez enceinte, avez-vous modifié o Oui
votre régime alimentaire ? o Non
406 [Q405 = Oui] Je mange plus de viande
En quoi avez-vous modifié votre alimentation ? Je mange plus d’aliments riche en fer
Je mange plus de fruit
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Je mange plus de légumes
J’évite certains aliments
Je mange une plus grande quantité
Ce dont j’ai envie
Autre, spécifier
407 Avez-vous évité certains aliments quand vous o Oui
étiez enceinte ? o Non
408 Avez-vous évité certains aliments quand vous Boisson alcoolisée
étiez enceinte ? Viande crue
Poisson cru
[NB : Proposer les réponses si nécessaire] Légumes et fruits non lavés
Produits laitiers non pasteurisés
Autre, spécifier
409 Au cours des 3 dernières années, avez-vous reçu o Oui
une formation ou assisté à une présentation sur o Non
la diététique (nutrition) ou l’hygiène ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
410 [Q409 = Oui] Projet Nascent
Comment avez-vous reçu ces informations cette École
formation/instruction ? Agent de santé communautaire
Hôpital
Membre de ma famille
Voisins ou amis
Radio
[NB : Si agent de santé ou école demandé si à leur Télévision / vidéo
connaissance Nascent était impliqué] Internet
116
Mobile / SMS
Autre, spécifier
411 [Q409 = Oui] o Oui
Avez-vous mis en œuvre certains des conseils o Non
/stratégies proposées ?
412 [Q409 = Oui] and [Q411 = Oui] Je fais confiance à la personne qui m’a donné ce
Qu’est-ce qui vous a convaincu d’essayer ? conseil
J’ai assisté à une démonstration et cela m’a
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] convaincu
J’ai vu d’autre personnes mettre en place ces
conseils/stratégies
J’ai entendu des gens dire ce c’était bien. Alors
j’ai fait la même chose
J’essaye tout ce qui semble améliorer la santé
et le développement de mes enfants
J'ai reçu quelque-chose pour essayer
C’est ma religion
Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
Autre, spécifier
413 [Q409 = Oui] and [Q411 = Non] Je n’étais pas convaincue de leur valeur
Pour quelles raisons n’avez-vous pas souhaité C’était trop cher
d’essayer ? Ce n’était pas disponible
D’autres membres de ma famille n’étaient pas
d’accord
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] J'ai oublié ce que j'ai appris
Je n’ai pas une vie assez régulière
Autre, spécifier
5. Enfant et hygiène
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les pratiques d’hygiène de vos enfants, qui sont à l’école
primaire, si vous avez plusieurs enfants, merci de donner les réponses pour votre enfant scolarisé au primaire le
plus âge
501 Votre maison dispose-elle d’un endroit spécifique o Oui
pour se laver les mains ? o Non
502 Q501=Oui] Près des toilettes
Où se trouve cet endroit dans votre maison ? Près de l’endroit où on prépare les repas
Dehors
Autre
503 [Q501=Oui] o Oui, toujours
Y-a-t’il du savon, où vous vous laver les mains ? o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
504 Votre enfant se lave-il les mains ? o Oui, toujours
o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
505 [Q504=Oui] Avant de manger
A quelle occasion votre enfant se lave-t-il les Avant de préparer le repas
mains ? Avant de donner à manger aux enfants
Après avoir nettoyé un enfant qui a déféqué
Après le repas
Après défécation
NB : Ne pas lire les réponses Après avoir touché un animal
Après son réveil
117
Après se moucher ou éternuer
Après avoir joué
Après avoir travaillé aux champs
Autre
506 [Q504=Oui] o Uniquement de l’eau
Le plus souvent, qu’utilise votre enfant pour se o Eau + savon
laver les mains ? o Eau + Liquide vaisselle
o Eau + Cendre
o Eau + Feuilles de citronnier
507 Pensez-vous que votre enfant se lave les mains o Oui, toujours
régulièrement quand il est à l’école ? o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
508 [Projet] o Oui, vraiment
[Q507=Oui] o Oui, plus ou moins
Pensez-vous que la sensibilisation mis en œuvre o Non, pas vraiment
par le projet a amené vos enfants à changer de o Non, pas du tout
comportement vis-à-vis du lavage des mains ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
509 Quand votre enfant n’est pas à l’école, où vont Dans la brousse
ses excréments ? Dans le jardin ou la cour de la maison
Dans les latrines de ma maison
NB : Proposer les options si nécessaire Dans les latrines de l’école
Dans les latrines partagées avec le voisin
Dans les latrines communautaires
Dans les poubelles
Enterrées
510 Pensez-vous que votre enfant utilise o Oui, toujours
régulièrement les latrines lorsqu’il est à l’école ? o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
Pensez-vous que la sensibilisation mis en œuvre o Oui, plus ou moins
par le projet Nascent a amené vos enfants à o Non, pas vraiment
changer de comportement vis-à-vis de o Non, pas du tout
l’utilisation des latrines ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
NB : Diminution de la défécation l’air libre

6. Projet Cantine Scolaire
601 Votre enfant le plus jeune, scolarisé à l’école o Oui
primaire a-t’il été absent la semaine dernière ? o Non
602 Pour quelle raison ? o Distance de l’école
o Problèmes de santé
o Retard ou non-paiement des frais de scolarité
o Manque de matériel ou d’uniforme scolaire
o Aider la famille avec les corvées ou le travail
agricole à la maison
o Participation aux funérailles ou aux festivités
traditionnelles
118
o La famille manque de moyens pour se procurer
de la nourriture
o Les enfants ont faim
o Pression négative des camarades pour manquer
l'école
o Faible conscience parentale sur l’importance de
l'éducation
o Autre, spécifier
603 [Projet] Fournir des vivres pour la cantine
A votre connaissance que fait l’organisation Former les cuisinières et le magasinier
Nascent dans votre école ? Mettre en place un comité de gestion pour la
cantine
Donner des fournitures scolaires aux enfants
Donner des manuels de lecture aux enfants
Former les enseignants
Former les membres de l’APE/AME
Former les volontaires pour le jardin
Sensibiliser les mamans pour une meilleur
nutrition
Mettre en place des dispositifs de lavage de
mains
Mettre en place un accès à l’eau
Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse
Autre, préciser
604 [Projet] o Oui vraiment
Les interventions de l’organisation Nascent dans o Oui plus ou moins
votre école correspondent-elles à vos attentes ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non Pas de tout
605 [Projet] Grâce à la cantine, les enfants sont plus assidus
Si oui #602 Grâce à la cantine, les enfants sont plus
Pourquoi ? attentifs en classe
Grâce aux formations, les parents d’élèves ont
appris à gérer la cantine scolaire
Grâce aux formations, les enseignants utilisent
de meilleures méthodes pour enseigner la
lecture
Grâce aux formations et au support du projet, le
jardin produit des légumes
Grâce à la sensibilisation, les mamans se
nourrissent mieux
Grâce à la sensibilisation les enfants se lavent
mieux les mains
Grâce à la sensibilisation les enfants ne
défèquent pas à l’air libre
Grace au projet, nous avons de l’eau dans
l’école
Autre, spécifier
606 [Projet] Cela ne sert à rien car à la fin du projet tout
[Q602=Non] s’arrêtera
Pourquoi ?
119
Le projet ne rémunère pas les cuisinières et
magasiniers
Les parents n’ont pas le temps de s’implique
dans la cuisine ou le jardinage
L’école n’a toujours pas accès à l’eau
Autre, spécifier
607 [Projet] o 3 fois
Combien de fois vos enfants ont-ils reçu des o 2 fois
rations sèches depuis le début de l’année o 1 fois
scolaire ? o Jamais
608 Projet o Uniquement pour nourrir les enfants scolarisés
Comment les rations sèches sont-elles utilisées dans l’école
dans votre famille ? o Principalement pour nourrir les enfants
scolarisés dans l’école
o Pour nourrir tous les enfants de la famille et les
parents
o Pour nourrir principalement les adultes de la
famille
o Pour nourrir la famille élargie (inclue grands-
parents, voisins.)
609 Préparez-vous un repas le midi pour vos enfants ? o Oui, toujours
o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
610 La semaine dernière votre enfant le plus jeune a- o 4 à 5 fois
t’il emmener à manger à l’école : o 3 fois
o 2 fois
o 1 fois
o Aucune fois
7. Information Socio-économique
Question Réponse Valeur
701 Combien de personnes vivent dans ta maison ? o Huit ou plus 0
o Sept 6
(Une maison est une unité socio-économique d'une ou
plusieurs personnes — indépendamment du sang ou de la o Six 8
relation conjugale — qui ont vécu (ou prévoient de vivre) o Cinq 11
ensemble pendant au moins six mois des douze précédents o Quatre 16
dans le même composé, qui partagent des ressources, qui 19
o Trois
mangent habituellement ensemble, et qui reconnaissent la
même tête.) o Deux 24
o Un 34
702 Est-ce que la (plus âgée) femme chef du foyer ou o Non 0
épouse sait lire et écrire une phrase simple en o Seulement en anglais 1
Français et/ou en Anglais ? o Pas de femme chef du foyer ou 3
conjointe
o Français 6
N/A
o Pas de réponse
703 Quel type sol y-a-t’il dans ta maison ? o Terre 0
o Bois, ciment, autre 5
[NB : Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse] 9
o Carrelage, marbre
120
704 Quel type de latrines ta famille utilise-t-elle ? o Défécation à l’air 101 0
o Latrines non améliorée 102 4
o Latrines améliorée 103 6
705 Quel type de combustible ta maman utilise-t-elle o Bois ramassé ou donné 0
principalement pour la cuisine ? o Pétrole 2
o Bois acheté 3
o Charbon, électricité, sciures,
copeau de bois. Ne cuisine pas, 8
(Vous pouvez lire les options de réponse pour
aider l'élève à se rappeler, si nécessaire, montrer autre
les images à l'enfant) o Gaz
16
706 Y-a-t ’il un fer à repasser électrique dans ta o Non 0
maison ? o Oui 6
707 Y-a-t ’il une télévision dans ta maison ? o Non 0
o Oui 4
708 Y-a-t ’il une radio ou une stéréo (chaine musicale) o Non 0
dans ta maison ? o Seulement une radio 3
o Stéréo 7
709 Y-a-t ’il un meuble ou une armoire dans ta maison o Non 0
o Oui 3
710 Combien de téléphone portable y-a-t’il dans ta o Zéro 0
maison ? o Un 4
o Deux 6
o Trois ou plus 9
711 Votre famille possède-t’elle un vélo ? o Oui
o Non
712 Votre famille possède-t’elle une mobylette ou une o Oui
moto ? o Non
713 Votre famille possède-t’elle une charrette tirée o Oui
par un animal ? o Non
8. Commentaires
801 Faites-nous part de vos commentaires, si vous en avez éventuellement ?
802 En tant que l’intervieweur, veuillez fournir des commentaires supplémentaires (par exemple, problèmes,
clarifications, commentaires).
101
Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre
102
Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou ouvert
103
Latrines latrine avec dalle ou améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec ou sans réservoir
121
Head Teacher Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE – DIRECTEUR
Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille pour Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude
et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre école et le corps
enseignant. Cette information nous aidera à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les
services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage
prend normalement 40 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne
seront pas montrées à d’autres personnes.
La participation à cette étude est volontaire et vous pouvez choisir de ne pas répondre. Votre participation à de
futurs programmes Nascent ne dépend pas de vos réponses à cette enquête. Nous espérons que vous participerez
à cette enquête puisque votre opinion est importante, cela nous permettra de mieux comprendre les enjeux de
l’éducation primaire au Cameroun.
NB : Proposer au répondant de lui fournir les contacts de Nascent Solution s’il le désire.
Maintenant, avez-vous des questions à poser sur le sondage ? [Laisser le temps pour poser des questions et
répondre au besoin]
Me donnez-vous la permission de poursuivre l’interview ? Oui / Non
1. Caractéristiques du directeur et capacités
Je vais commencer par vous poser quelques questions vous même
101 Êtes-vous le directeur en titre de l'école ? o Oui
o Non
102 Genre (regardez l’interlocuteur et cochez) o Masculin
o Féminin
103 Quel âge avez-vous ? _______ ans
[NB : mettre 99 si la personne ne veut pas
répondre]
104 Quelle(s) classe(s) enseignez-vous ? SIL
CP
Ce1
122
Ce2
Cm1
Cm2
Aucune (Seulement directeur)
105 Quel type de contrat avez-vous ? o Fonctionnaire (Publique)
o Permanent (Privé)
o Contractuel
o Maitre des parents (APE)
o Maitre communal
o Maitre bénévole
o Autre (Stagiaire…)
106 Quel est votre niveau d’étude ? o Master I
o License
o Baccalauréat
o Probatoire
o BEPC
o CEP
107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEM
o CAPIA
o Aucun
o Autre
108 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous ? _______ années
109 [Q100 = Directeur] _______ années
Depuis combien d’années êtes-vous directeur
d’établissement ?
[NB : Dans cette école ou une autre école]
110 Avez-vous reçu une formation professionnelle o Oui
(Formation continue) au cours des 3 dernières o Non
années o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
[NB : Ne pas prendre en considération les réunions
pédagogiques, inclure les formations de Nascent]
2. Information sur l’école
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur votre école et les enseignants
201 Quelles classes sont enseignées au sein de votre SIL
établissement ? Cours préparatoire (CP)
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
Tous
202 Combien y a-t’il de salles de classe utilisées dans
votre école ?
_______
NB Compter même en matériaux provisoires
203 Votre école fait-il parti d’un groupe scolaire ? o Oui
o Non
204 Votre établissement a-t’il deux sessions
o Oui
NB : une le matin et une l’après-midi ou 3 jours/3 o Non
jours
123
205 Combien d’enseignants de sexe masculin y-a-t’il dans ______
votre école ?
[NB : Inclure le directeur]
206 Combien d’enseignants de sexe féminin y-a-t’il dans ______
votre école ?
[Inclure la directrice]
207 Dans quelles classes y a-t'il un maître des parents SIL
(APE) dans votre école ? Cours préparatoire (CP)
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
Aucun
208 Les maîtres titulaires ont-ils été assidus à l’école o Oui vraiment
T depuis le début de l’année ? o Oui plus ou moins
(NB : Oui vraiment = moins de 2 jours d’absence, o Non, pas vraiment
pas du tout =plus 20 jours d’absence) o Non Pas de tout
208 Les maîtres des parents ont-ils été assidus à l’école o Oui vraiment
P depuis le début de l’année ? o Oui plus ou moins
(NB : Oui vraiment = moins de 2 jours d’absence, o Non, pas vraiment
pas du tout =plus 20 jours d’absence) o Non Pas de tout
209 Les maîtres titulaires sont-ils ponctuels depuis le o Oui vraiment

T début de l’année ? o Oui plus ou moins
(NB : Oui vraiment = pas de retard, pas du tout = o Non, pas vraiment
plus de 2 heures de retard) o Non Pas de tout
209 Les maîtres des parents ont-ils été ponctuels o Oui vraiment
P depuis le début de l’année ? o Oui plus ou moins
(NB : Oui vraiment = pas de retard, pas du tout = o Non, pas vraiment
plus de 2 heures de retard) o Non Pas de tout
210 Votre école a-t-elle une association de parents o Oui

d’élèves (APE) ? o Non
211 [Si oui 210] o Très active
o Modérément active
Comment qualifiez-vous le niveau d’activité de
o Pas du tout active
l’APE ?
[NB : Très active : Organise des réunions
mensuellement et tient des procès-verbaux,
Modérément active : se réunit une fois par trimestre]
212 Votre école a-t-elle une cantine fonctionnelle ? o Oui
o Non
124
NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid
213 Votre école a-t-elle des vendeurs de snack et/ou o Oui
repas ? o Non
214 Votre école dispose-t’elle d’un club d’hygiène ? o Oui
o Non
215 [Projet] o Oui
o Non
Les cuisinières et les gestionnaires de vivres ont-ils
bénéficiés d’une formation ?
o Oui plus ou moins
Pensez-vous que les cuisinières soient bien
o Non, pas vraiment
organisées ?
o Non Pas de tout
NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
o Oui plus ou moins
Pensez-vous que les cuisinières respectent les règles
o Non, pas vraiment
d’hygiène ?
o Non Pas de tout
NB : En dehors des périodes de restriction Covid o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
218 [Projet] Difficultés d’organisation
La communauté juge la ration sèche distribué
A votre connaissance, à quels types de difficultés le
insignifiante
comité de gestion de la cantine doit-il parfois faire
Difficulté dans la gestion du temps
face ?
Recrutement des cuisinières
[NB : Lister chaque option et cocher si oui] Recrutement du parent gestionnaire de vivres
Assiduité des cuisinières
Assiduité du parent gestionnaire de vivres
Difficulté pour achat des condiments
Approvisionnement en bois
Insuffisance de vaisselle
Insuffisance d’ustensiles
Vol de vivres
Pas d’accès à l’eau à proximité
Retard dans la livraison des vivres
Cuisine en mauvais état ou inexistante
Magasin en mauvais état ou inexistant
Difficulté pour le respect des règles d’hygiène
Autre, spécifier
219 Votre école a-t’elle bénéficié de programme d’aide o Oui
d’une ONG internationale (Autre que Nascent) dans o Non
les 3 dernières années ? Depuis l’année académique o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
2017-2018 ?
125
NB : Autre que Nascent
220 Forage ou puit
De quels types d’aide votre école a-t’elle bénéficié ?
Latrines
Salle de classe
Formation des enseignants
Établissement des actes de naissance
Distribution de matériel scolaire
Dispositif de lavage de main
Autre, spécifier
3. Pratique des enseignants – Formation - Absence
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les formations, l’observation des enseignants et
l’évaluation des élèves
301 [Projet] o Oui
Avez- vous reçu une formation dans la cadre du o Non
projet Nascent ?
302 [Projet] Nord - Phase 1 - Sept 2020
[Si oui 301] Nord - Phase 2 - Jan 2021
Adamaoua - Phase 1 - Sept 2020
A quelle formation avez-vous participé ?
Adamaoua - Phase 2 - Jan 2021
Est - Phase 1 - Sept 2020
Est - Phase 2 - Jan 2021
303 [Projet] o Très utile
[Si oui 301] o Assez utile
o Pas vraiment utile
Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ?
o Pas du tout utile
o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse
304 [Projet] Qu’est-ce qu’une école efficace
[Si oui 301] Le rôle et les responsabilités du chef
d’établissement
Quels sont les principaux enseignements que vous
Mieux travailler avec les enseignants et faire
avez tiré de cette formation ?
des observations
Mieux travailler avec les élèves en tenant
compte de l’estime de soi
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses.]
Comprendre en gérer le changement et le cycle
d’amélioration
Mise en œuvre des plans de développement
scolaire (PDS)
Auto-évaluation scolaire (AES) pour la mise en
œuvre des PDS
Implication de la communauté et amélioration
des relations avec la communauté
Autre, spécifier
305 [Projet] o Oui, tous
Vos enseignants de SIL, CP et CE1 ont-ils reçu une o Oui, certains
formation dans la cadre du projet Nascent depuis o Non, aucun
septembre 2019 ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
126
Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de la formation reçue
o Pas du tout utile
par les enseignants ?
307 Depuis le début de l’année, les enseignants de SIL et o Oui
CP ont-ils reçu la visite d’un animateur o Non
pédagogique ? o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse
308 Depuis le début de l’année, avez-vous observé des o Oui
enseignants de SIL et CP enseigner la lecture ? o Non
309 [Si oui 308] o Trois fois ou plus

o Deux fois
Combien de fois avez-vous mené une observation ?
o Une fois
o Jamais
310 [Si oui 309] o Oui vraiment
Sur la base de vos observations, êtes-vous satisfait o Oui plus ou moins
de la qualité de l’enseignement de la lecture ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas de tout
311 Êtes-vous satisfait des performances des élèves de o Oui vraiment
votre école en lecture en fin de CP ? o Oui plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas de tout
312 Comment contrôlez-vous les progrès scolaires de J’examine les résultats des élèves aux tests
des élèves au cours de l'année scolaire ? donnés par enseignants
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses.] Les enseignants m’informent des progrès
J’effectue des observations de classe
J'utilise les courbes de performance
Autre, spécifier
313 Quelles langues les enseignants utilisent-ils le plus Anglais Gbaya
souvent pour enseigner la lecture dans votre école Baka Guidar
en SIL et CP ? Daba Kako
Dii Mafa
Fali Maka
Fulfulde Mbum
Français Mpumpong
Autre
4. Infrastructure sanitaire de l’école
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur les infrastructures sanitaires de l’école
401 Qu'utilisent les élèves pour faire leurs besoins dans Défécation à l’air (Pas de latrines)
votre école ? Trou ouvert, fosse sans dalle
[NB : Défécation à l’air libre : Pas de toilettes, Latrines à dalle
brousse, champ, seaux toilettes/latrines Latrines améliorée
suspendues, toilettes à compostage, ou autre Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
127
Latrines non améliorée : à fosses sans dalle/trou
ouvert
Latrines améliorée : Latrines à fosses avec dalle
latrines améliorées ventilées, ou chasse d’eau avec
ou sans réservoir]
402 De combien de latrines fonctionnelles dispose votre ____
école ?
[NB : Exclure les latrines des enseignants, indiquer
« 0 » si pas de latrines, si latrine partage avec une
autre école, diviser par le nombre d’écoles]
403 [Q402 > 0] o Oui
Y a-t’il des latrines pour garçons et des latrines o Non
pour filles ?
404 [Oui 403] o Oui vraiment
La séparation fille/garçon est-elle respectée ? o Oui plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas de tout
405 [Q402 > 0] o Oui
Les latrines sont-elles à usage exclusif pour l'école ? o Non
[Utilisées uniquement par les élèves ou les o Ne sait Pas / Pas de réponse
enseignants] ?
406 [Q402 > 0] o Oui vraiment
Les latrines sont-elles sûres ? o Oui plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
[Les latrines ferment, on ne peut pas voir à l’intérieur, la o Non Pas de tout
dalle est en bon état] o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
407 Votre école dispose-t-elle d'une procédure de o Oui
routine pour le nettoyage et d'entretien des latrines, o Non
qui garantit que des latrines propres et o Ne sait Pas / Pas de réponse
fonctionnelles sont disponibles à tout moment ?
408 Comment qualifieriez-vous l’état des latrines ? En bon état
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Facile d’utilisation
Propres
Il n’y en a pas assez
Cassées ou en mauvais état
Besoin d’amélioration
Sentent mauvais
Sales
Pleines (besoin d’être vidangée]
Autre, précisez
409 De combien de dispositifs de lavage de main dispose _____
votre école ?
[Un seau dans la classe peut être considéré comme une
station de lavage]
128
410 Les stations de lavages disposent-elles o Oui, toujours
généralement de savon ou de cendre ? o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
411 Comment qualifiez-vous l’état des dispositifs de o Parfait
lavages ? o Assez bon
o Besoins d’amélioration
o Mauvais
412 Existent-ils des systèmes de lavage de mains à côté o Oui
des latrines ? o Non
413 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une o Oui vraiment
modification des comportements des enfants o Oui plus ou moins
relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non Pas de tout
414 Votre école a-t’elle reçu des dispositifs de lavage de o Oui
main supplémentaire afin de prévenir la Covid-19 ? o Non
415 [Oui Q414] ______
Combien
416 [Oui Q414] Le gouvernement
Qui vous a fourni les dispositifs de lavage de main Les élus
supplémentaire ? Les communes
Nascent
UNICEF
Associations
Autre NGO
Autre bienfaiteur ; à spécifier
417 Votre école dispose-t-elle d’un accès à l’eau ? o Oui, dans l’école
o Oui, à proximité de l’école
o Oui, mais loin de l’école
o Non
418 [Oui Q417] o Puit fermé
De quel est le type d’accès à l’eau l’école dispose-t- o Puit ouvert
elle ? o Forage à pompe solaire
o Forage à pompe manuelle ou à pied
o Forage à pompe à moteur
o Eau de pluie
o Eau en bouteille
o Eau courante (SCE)
o Eau livrée par camion-citerne
o Autre
419 L’approvisionnement en eau fonctionne-il ? o Oui, toujours
o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
420 Y-a-il assez d’eau à l’école pour mener à bien les Boire
activités suivantes : Faire la cuisine
NB : lister les activités et cocher Se laver les mains
129
Faire du jardinage
Approvisionner la communauté
421 [Q418 NE ‘SCE’] o Oui, toujours
L’eau est-elle traité avant d’être bue ? o Oui, parfois
o Non, jamais
422 Quelle méthode est utilisée pour le traitement de Bouillir l’eau
l’eau ? Filtrer l’eau
[Q418 NE ‘Non’] Acheter l’eau
Ajouter de l’eau de Javel, solution chlorée ou
des comprimés de chlore
Ajouter de l’alun (Aluminium Sulfate)
Autre, spécifier
423 Comment l’eau pour boire est-elle stockée ? Seau ou bassine en plastique
Seau ou bassine en tôle galvanisée ou
céramique
Bidon avec bouchon
Dans le réservoir de collecte des eaux de pluie
Il n’y a pas de stockage
Autre, spécifier
5. Covid
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions La crise de la Covid
501 Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du o Positif

Covid sur les apprentissages des élèves ? o Aucun impact
o Faiblement négatif
o Plutôt négatif
o Très négatif
502 Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du o Positif
Covid sur l’alimentation des enfants ? o Aucun impact
o Plutôt négatif
o Très négatif
503 Projet o Positif
Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du o Aucun impact
Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités de o Assez négatif
jardinage ? o Plutôt négatif
o Très négatif
504 Projet o Positif
Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités liées à o Faiblement négatif
l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Plutôt négatif
o Très négatif
505 Projet Distribution de rations sèches
Émissions de radio pour les enfants
130
A votre connaissance quelles actions ont été mises Formation à distance des animateurs
en place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la pédagogique
crise de la Covid ? Message radio sur l’hygiène
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Distribution de poster/affiches
Distribution de cache-nez pour les enseignants
Distribution de dispositif de lavage des mains
Distribution de savon
Formation sur l’hygiène
Autre, spécifier
506 Dans quelles proportions vos élèves ont-ils eu o Oui, tous
recours à l’apprentissage à distance pendant les o Oui, une grande partie
fermetures dû à la Covid ? o Oui, mais très peu
[NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs o Non, aucun
radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
distribution des matériels par l’école.]
6. Commentaires
131
Teacher and Head Teacher Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE – ENSEIGNANT
Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Enseignant SIL-CP-Ce1
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle _____ Je travaille avec Et4d une société mandatée par Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à
Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions
sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture. Si vous acceptez de participer, vous n'avez pas
besoin de faire quelque chose de spécial. Vous pouvez poursuivre votre cours comme si je n’étais pas dans la
classe. Veuillez également encourager vos élèves à continuer comme si je n’étais pas dans la classe. L'observation
prendra environ 50 minutes.
Ces informations nous aideront à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les services
d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage prend
normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne
Enseignant Ce2-Cm1-Cm2
Bonjour !
sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture.
132
Classe observée
01 Quelles classes sont observées ? SIL
Cours préparatoire (CP)
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
02 S’agit-il d’une classe multi-niveau o Oui
o Non
03 Nombre d’élèves inscrits Filles ______ Garçons______
04 Nombre d’élèves présents Filles ______ Garçons______
05 Pour la leçon que vous observez, quel pourcentage o 90 % ou plus
d'élèves ont des manuels ou d'autres documents o +/- 70%
imprimés ? o +/- 50%
[NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de o +/- 30%
montrer leur manuel] o 10 % ou moins
d'élèves ont des cahiers ou des feuilles pour écrire o +/- 70%
et un crayon ou un stylo ? o +/- 50%
[NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de o +/- 30%
montrer leur cahier] o 10 % ou moins
07 Quelles matières sont enseignées pendant o Lecture
l’observation ? o Mathématique
o Sciences sociales
[NB : Dans la mesure du possible, demander à o Autre
l’enseignant d’enseigner les la lecture]
1. Caractéristiques de l’enseignant et capacités
o Féminin
102 Êtes-vous le directeur de cette école o Oui
o Non
CP
Ce1
Ce2
Cm1
Cm2
133
répondre]
o Contractuel
o Maitre des parents (APE)
o Maitre communal
o Maitre bénévole
o License
o Baccalauréat
o Probatoire
o BEPC
o CEP
107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEMP
o CAPIA
o Aucun
o Autre
pédagogiques, inclure les formations de Nascent]
109 Quelles langues parlez-vous ? Anglais Gbaya
Baka Guidar
Daba Kako
Dii Mafa
Fali Mbum
Fulfulde Mpumpong
Français Autre
111 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous dans _______ années
cette école ?
112 Depuis combien d’années enseigner vous dans le _______ années
même cycle ?
Préparatoire (SIL-CP)
Élémentaire (Ce1-Ce2)
Moyen (Cm1-Cm2)
113 Si vous en aviez la possibilité, souhaiteriez-vous être o Oui
transféré dans une autre école ? o Non
114 Si oui, pour quelles raisons ? Pour être plus proche de ma famille
NB : Ne pas lire les réponses Pour être dans une zone urbaine
Pour être dans ma région d’origine
Pour être dans une école plus petite
Pour être dans une école plus grande
Pour être mieux payé
Pour travailler avec une autre équipe
134
A cause des problèmes d'insécurité
A cause de problèmes de santé
A cause la charge de travail
Pour changer
Autre, préciser
2. Information sur le suivi pédagogique et la formation (uniquement enseignants de SIL, CP,Ce1)
Je vais maintenant vous poser quelques questions sur le suivi pédagogique et la formation
201 [Q102 = non] o Trois fois ou plus
Depuis le début de l’année scolaire, combien de fois o Deux fois
le directeur (trice) est-il/elle venu vous observer o Une fois
dans votre classe ? o Jamais
202 Depuis le début de l’année scolaire, combien de o Trois fois ou plus
fois l’animateur pédagogique est-il venu vous o Deux fois
observer dans votre classe o Une fois
o Jamais
203 Êtes-vous satisfait des performances des élèves de o Oui vraiment
votre classe en lecture ? o Oui plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas de tout
204 Quelle méthode d'évaluation utilisez-vous pour Évaluation écrite
vérifier si les élèves ont assimilé votre leçon de Évaluation orale individuelle
lecture ? Évaluation orale collective
[NB : Ne pas proposer les réponses] Vérification du cahier d’exercice
Vérification des devoirs à la maison
Ardoise
Pas d’évaluation
205 [Projet] o Oui
Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du o Non
projet cantine (Nascent) ? o Ne sait pas /Pas de réponse
206 [Projet] Nord - Phase 1 - Oct 2020
A quelles formations avez-vous participé Nord - Phase 2 - Nov. 2020
Adamaoua - Phase 1 - Oct 2020
Adamaoua - Phase 2 - Nov. 2020
Est - Phase 1 - Oct 2020
Est - Phase 2 - Nov 2020
Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ?
o Pas du tout utile
208 [Projet] La conscience phonémique
[Si oui 204] Le principe alphabétique
Le décodage
Quels sont les principaux enseignements que vous
L’enseignement du vocabulaire
avez tiré de cette formation ?
La fluidité
[NB : Ne pas lister les options] La compréhension
135
Le programme de lecture : planification
annuelle
Planification hebdomadaire
Autre, spécifier
Le décodage
Quelles méthodes avez-vous mis en pratique pour
l’enseignement de la lecture ou la préparation de
La fluidité
vos cours ?
La compréhension
[NB : lister les techniques et cocher si oui]
annuelle
Autre, spécifier
Le décodage
Quelles méthodes vous semblent difficiles à
mettre en œuvre ?
La fluidité
La compréhension
[NB : lister les techniques et cocher si oui]
annuelle
Autre, spécifier
[Si oui 204] o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
Pensez-vous que ces méthodes permettront
o Non Pas de tout
d’améliorer le niveau des élèves en lecture ?
3. Hygiène (Uniquement enseignant de ce2-cm1-cm2)
301 À quelle fréquence enseignez-vous l'hygiène en o Une fois par semaine ou plus
classe ? o Une fois par mois
o Quelques fois par an
o Une fois par an
o Jamais
302 [Q301 NE ‘jamais]’ Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
Quels sujets relatifs à l'hygiène enseignez-vous dans moments critiques 104
votre classe ? Hygiène alimentaire
Utiliser des latrines améliorées 105
[NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui] Boire de l’eau potable 106
Se brosser les dents
104
Critical times include critical times (1) before eating, 2) before preparing food, 3) before feeding children, 4) after defecating, 5) after
attending to a child that has defecated), use of improved latrines, and use of quality water source facilities and household water treatment.
105
Private facility of the following types: flush or pour-flush to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine,
pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet.
106
Source of drinking water is piped water, public tap or standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected spring, protected dug well, or rainwater
collection.
136
Se laver le corps
Se laver les cheveux et se nettoyer les ongles
Laver ses habits
Se couvrir la bouche quand on tousse
La prévention des maladies
Règles liées à la prévention de la Covid
Autre, spécifier
303 Selon vous, dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
enfants ont-ils le plus besoin de s'améliorer ? moments critiques
Hygiène alimentaire
[NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui] Utiliser des latrines améliorées
Boire de l’eau potable
Se laver le corps
Laver ses habits
Autre, spécifier
304 Dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont- Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
ils le plus de difficultés à respecter par manque de moments critiques
moyens ou d’accès à l’eau ? Hygiène alimentaire
Utiliser des latrines améliorées
[NB : Lister les réponses et cocher si oui] Boire de l’eau potable
Se laver le corps
Laver ses habits
Autre, spécifier
305 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une o Oui, vraiment
modification positive des comportements des o Oui, plus ou moins
enfants relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non Pas de tout
306 [Projet]
[Q305 =Oui] o Oui, vraiment
o Oui, plus ou moins
Pensez-vous que les changements de o Non, pas vraiment
comportement vis-à-vis du lavage de mains soit le o Non, pas du tout
résultat de la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
projet ?
307 Pensez-vous que vos élèves filles utilisent o Oui, vraiment
F régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
137
307 Pensez-vous que vos élèves garçons utilisent o Oui, vraiment
M régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
Pensez-vous que l’usage des latrines a augmenté
o Non, pas vraiment
suite à la prise en place du projet de Nascent ?
o Non, pas du tout
Pensez-vous que grâce la cantine scolaire les enfants
sont plus attentifs ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
310 [Projet] Ils ne peuvent pas se concentrer
[Q309 = Non] Ils sont fatigués
Si non, Pourquoi ? Ils ont mal au ventre
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Autre, préciser ___________
311 [Projet] Ils sont plus éveillés
[Q309 = Oui] Ils sont rassasiés
Si oui, Pourquoi ? Ils sont moins fatigués car ils n’ont pas besoin
de rentrer chez eux pour manger
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
Autre, préciser : _________
4. L’impact de la crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages
401 [Q102 = non] o Positif
Covid a affecté les apprentissages de vos élèves ? o Faiblement négatif
o Assez négatif
o Très négatif
[Projet] o Aucun impact
Comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la crise du o Assez négatif
Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités liées à o Très négatif
l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
403 [Q102 = non] Distribution de rations sèches
[Projet] Émissions de radio pour les enfants
Formation à distance des animateurs
A votre connaissance quelles action ont été mises pédagogique
en place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la Message radio sur l’hygiène
crise de la Covid ? Distribution de poster/affiches
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Distribution de cache-nez pour les enseignants
Distribution de dispositif de lavage des mains
Distribution de savon
Formation sur l’hygiène
138
Autre, spécifier
404 [Q102 = non] o Oui, tous
Dans votre classe, dans quelles proportions vos o Oui, une grande partie
élèves ont-ils eu recours à l’apprentissage à o Oui, très peu
distance pendant les fermetures dû à la Covid ? o Non, aucun
[NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs
radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la
5. Commentaires
139
QUESTIONNAIRE – ENSEIGNANT (Ce2 – Cm1 – Cm2)
Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Bonjour !
sur votre classe et procéder à l’observation d’une séance de lecture.
1. Caractéristiques de l’enseignant et capacités
o Féminin
102 Êtes-vous le directeur de cette école o Oui
o Non
CP
Ce1
Ce2
Cm1
Cm2
140
répondre]
o Contractuel (Privé ex : Banque Mondiale)
o Enseignant communautaire (APE)
o License
o Baccalauréat
o Probatoire
o BEPC
o CEP
107 Quel est votre niveau de formation d’enseignant ? o CAPIEM
o CAPIA
o Aucun
o Autre
pédagogiques]
109 Quelles langues parlez-vous ? Anglais Gbaya
Baka Guidar
Daba Kako
Dii Mafa
Fali Mbum
Fulfulde Mpumpong
Français Autre
111 Depuis combien d’années enseignez-vous dans _______ années
cette école ?
112 Depuis combien d’années enseigner vous dans le _______ années
même cycle ?
Préparatoire (SIL-CP)
Élémentaire (Ce1-Ce2)
Moyen (Cm1-Cm2)
113 Si vous en aviez la possibilité, souhaiteriez-vous être o Oui
transféré dans une autre école ? o Non
114 Si oui, pour quelles raisons ? Pour être plus proche de ma famille
Pour être dans une zone urbaine
Pour être dans ma région d’origine
Pour être dans une école plus petite
Pour être dans une école plus grande
Pour être mieux payé
Pour travailler avec une autre équipe
141
Pour changer
Autre, préciser
2. Information sur le suivi pédagogique, la formation et les enseignants
3. Hygiène
301 À quelle fréquence enseignez-vous l'hygiène en o Une fois par semaine ou plus
classe ? o Une fois par mois
o Quelques fois par an
o Une fois par an
o Jamais
302 [Q301 NE ‘jamais]’ Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
Quels sujets relatifs à l'hygiène enseignez-vous dans moments critiques 107
votre classe ? Hygiène alimentaire
Utiliser des latrines améliorées 108
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Boire de l’eau potable 109
Se laver le corps
Laver ses habits
Autre, spécifier
303 Selon vous, dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
enfants ont-ils le plus besoin de s'améliorer ? moments critiques
Hygiène alimentaire
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Utiliser des latrines améliorées
Boire de l’eau potable
Se laver le corps
Laver ses habits
Autre, spécifier
304 Dans quels domaines de l’hygiène les enfants ont- Se laver les mains avec de l’eau et du savon au
ils le plus de difficultés à respecter par manque de moments critiques
moyens ou d’accès à l’eau ? Hygiène alimentaire
Utiliser des latrines améliorées
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Boire de l’eau potable
Se laver le corps
107
Critical times include critical times (1) before eating, 2) before preparing food, 3) before feeding children, 4) after defecating, 5) after
attending to a child that has defecated), use of improved latrines, and use of quality water source facilities and household water treatment.
108
Private facility of the following types: flush or pour-flush to piped sewer system, septic tank, pit latrine, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine,
pit latrine with slab, or composting toilet.
109
Source of drinking water is piped water, public tap or standpipe, tube well or borehole, protected spring, protected dug well, or rainwater
collection.
142
Laver ses habits
Autre, spécifier
305 La crise de la Covid a-t’elle engendré une o Oui, vraiment
modification positive des comportements des o Oui, plus ou moins
enfants relatifs au lavage de mains ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non Pas de tout
306 [Projet]
[Q305 =Oui] o Oui, vraiment
Pensez-vous que les changements de o Non, pas vraiment
comportement vis-à-vis du lavage de mains soit le o Non, pas du tout
résultat de la sensibilisation mis en œuvre par le o Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
projet ?
307 Pensez-vous que vos élèves filles utilisent o Oui, vraiment
F régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
307 Pensez-vous que vos élèves garçons utilisent o Oui, vraiment
M régulièrement les latrines de l’école ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
Pensez-vous que l’usage des latrines a augmenté
o Non, pas vraiment
suite à la mise en place du projet de Nascent ?
o Non, pas du tout
Pensez-vous que grâce à la cantine scolaire les
enfants sont plus attentifs ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
310 [Projet] Ils ne peuvent pas se concentrer
[Q309 = Non] Ils sont fatigués
Si non, Pourquoi ? Ils ont mal au ventre
Chez les jeunes enfants, manger donne envie de
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] dormir
Autre, préciser ___________
311 [Projet] Ils sont plus éveillés
[Q309 = Oui] Ils sont rassasiés
Si oui, Pourquoi ? Ils sont moins fatigués car ils n’ont pas besoin
de rentrer chez eux pour manger
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Ne sait pas / Pas de réponse
143
4. L’impact de la crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages

Selon vous, comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la o Aucun impact
crise de la Covid sur les apprentissages de vos o Faiblement négatif
élèves ? o Assez négatif
o Très négatif
402 [Projet] o Positif
[Q102 = non] o Aucun impact
Selon vous, comment qualifiez-vous l’impact de la o Faiblement négatif
crise du Covid sur la mise en œuvre des activités o Assez négatif
liées à l’hygiène au sein de l’école ? o Très négatif
403 [Projet] Distribution de rations sèches
[Q102 = non] Émissions de radio pour les enfants
A votre connaissance quelles action ont été mises en Formation à distance des animateurs
place par Nascent pour limiter l’impact de la crise de pédagogique
la Covid ? Message radio sur l’hygiène
Distribution de poster
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses]
Autre, spécifier
404 [Q102 = non] o Oui, tous
A votre connaissance, vos élèves ont-ils eu recours o Oui, une grande partie
à l’apprentissage à distance pendant les fermetures o Oui, très peu
dû à la Covid ? o Non, aucun
[NB : Ceci comprend les enseignements interactifs
radios/audio, les enseignements par télévision, et la
5. Classe observée
501 Quelles classes sont observées ? SIL
Cours préparatoire (CP)
CE1
CE2
CM1
CM2
502 S’agit-il d’une classe multi-niveau o Oui
o Non
503 Nombre d’élèves inscrits Filles ______ Garçons______
504 Nombre d’élèves présents Filles ______ Garçons______
d'élèves ont des manuels ou d'autres documents o +/- 70%
imprimés ? o +/- 50%
[NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer o +/- 30%
leur manuel] o 10 % ou moins
144
d'élèves ont des cahiers ou des feuilles pour écrire et o +/- 70%
un crayon ou un stylo ? o +/- 50%
[NB : Si nécessaire demander aux élèves de montrer o +/- 30%
leur cahier] o 10 % ou moins
507 Quelles matières sont enseignées pendant o Lecture
l’observation ? o Mathématique
o Sciences sociales
o Autre
[NB : Dans la mesure du possible, demander à
l’enseignant d’enseigner les la lecture]
6. Commentaires
145
Stallings Observation
Nombre : ___ Observation de classe Heure :
Localisez l’enseignant, identifier ce qu'il/elle fait, quelles ressources sont utilisée, et la participation des élèves. Continuez à
observer la salle de classe en commençant par la droite, en notant l'activité des élèves jusqu'à ce que vous reveniez à
l'enseignant. L'observation devrait prendre environ 15 secondes. Entourez les codes appropriés ci-dessous. Notez tout ce qui
sort de l'ordinaire dans commentaires supplémentaires.
N = Nombreux
M = Maitre E = Élève 1 = Un T= Tous
(plusieurs)
Ressources
Pas de Cahier/Outils Aides

Activité Livre/Manuel Tableau noir
ressources pour écrire didactiques
1. Lecture à haute voix M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
2. Démonstration / M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
Cours magistral
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
3. Discussion / Débat M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
Question - réponse
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
4. Pratique – exercices M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
5. Devoir en classe M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
6. Copier M 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T 1 N T
E 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 N
P = Petit groupe G = Grand groupe
M = Maitre E = Élève 1 = Un T= Tous
(5 ou moins) (6 or more)
Activité Participation
8. Discipline [10] M 1 P G T
9. Gestion de classe avec les élèves [11] M 1 P G T
E 1 P G
10. Gestion de classe sans les élèves [12] M
11. Interaction sociale entre l’enseignant et les élèves ou entre les élèves M 1 P G T
[8]
E 1 P G
12. Interaction sociale entre l’enseignant et une personne extérieure ou M
enseignant non impliqué [13]
13. Enseignant en dehors de la classe [14] M
146
14. Élèves non impliqués [9] E 1 P G
Hand Washing Observation and School Inventory
OBSERVATIONS DE LAVAGE DE MAINS/LATRINES

Jour Mois Année Heure Minute
Date Heure
Nom de l’école Code :

Enumérateur Équipe #
Question Réponse
1. Hygiène dans l’école
100 Combien y-a-t’il de latrine dans cette école ? ____ Filles uniquement
____ Garçons uniquement
[NB : Si les latrines sont partagées avec une autre école du groupe,
____ Élèves indifférenciés
diviser par le nombre d’écoles]
____ Enseignants
uniquement
101 Y a-t’il au moins une station de lavage des mains dans cette école ? o Oui
o Non
102 [Q101 = Oui] o Oui
o Non
Y a-t’il de l'eau aux stations de lavage ?
103 [Q101 = Oui] Savon
Que trouve-t’on à proximité des stations de lavage pour se laver les Cendre
mains ? Sable
Rien
104 Les stations de lavage sont-elles utilisées à d’autres fins que le lavage o Oui
des mains ? o Non
105 [Q104 = Oui] Laver le linge
Nettoyer les plats
Lesquelles ?
Prendre une douche
Cuisiner
Ablutions
Lavage de la tête
Lavage des pieds
Boire (les enfants)
Faire boire les animaux
Autre
106 [Q101 = Oui] o Oui
Les stations de lavage des mains semblent-elles être couramment o Non
utilisées (y a-t’il de l'eau sur le sol ?)
107 [Q101 = Oui] _______ mètres

Quelle est la distance approximative entre les stations de lavage des
mains et les latrines ?
147
Question Réponse
108 [Q101 = Oui] _______ mètres
Quelle est la distance approximative entre les stations de lavage des
mains et la classe la plus éloignée ?
109 Y-a-t’il des animaux dans la cour de l’école ? o Oui
o Non
110 Avez-vous vu des enfants faire pipi dans la cour de l’école ? o Oui
o Non
4. Le magasin et les cuisine [Projet]

401 L’école a-t’elle une cuisine ? o Oui
o Non
402 [Q401 = Oui] o Oui, très bien
o Oui, plutôt bien
La cuisine est-elle bien équipée ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
o Je n’ai pas pu accéder
o Oui, plutôt bien
La cuisine est-elle propre ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
o Oui, plutôt bien
La cuisine est-elle bien rangée ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
o Oui, plutôt bien
Les ustensiles de cuisine sont-ils bien rangés ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
406 L’école a-t’elle un magasin ? o Oui
o Non

Le magasin est-il propre ? o Oui, plutôt bien
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
o Oui, plutôt bien
Le magasin est-il bien rangé ? o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
148
Observation du lavage des mains
Les superviseurs observent si les élèves se lavent les mains après avoir utilisé les toilettes. Ils doivent se
tenir debout ou s'asseoir dans un endroit assez proche des latrines et de la station de lavage des mains
afin qu'ils puissent voir si un étudiant se lave les mains après avoir utilisé les toilettes. Mais ils ne
devraient pas s'asseoir trop près de sorte qu'il est évident ce qu'ils font (si d'autres élèves savent que
vous regardez si oui ou non ils se lavent les mains, ils se laveront probablement leurs mains). Pour
chaque élève que vous voyez en utilisant les toilettes, marquez sur la feuille ci-dessous si oui ou non ils
se lavent les mains. N'enregistrez pas les noms des élèves.
Sélectionner de préférence les classe de Cm1 et Cm2, ou à défaut les classe de Ce1 ou Ce2.
S’il n’est pas possible d’identifier une classe, spécifier la classe au niveau de l’élève ou indiquer indéfini.
Courte pause (lavage après utilisation des latrines)
Classe Genre Lavage des mains ? Classe Genre Lavage des mains ?
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
Oui Non Oui Non
149
Cook and Storekeeper Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE – CUISINIER / MAGASINIER

Date : (JJ-MM-AAAA)
Bonjour !
Je m’appelle _____. Je travaille avec Nascent Solutions, une organisation basée à Yaoundé. Nous faisons une étude
et nous aimerions que vous y participiez. Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur votre école et le corps
enseignant. Cette information nous aidera à évaluer les activités mises en œuvre par Nascent pour améliorer les
services d’éducation, fournir plus de nourriture et de médicaments, et améliorer la santé et l’hygiène. Le sondage
prend normalement 20 minutes. Les informations que vous nous donnerez seront strictement confidentielles et ne
1. Caractéristiques du parent
o Féminin
répondre]
103 Combien d’enfants avez-vous dans l’école primaire ______ enfants
(ou le groupe) dans lequel vous êtes volontaire ?
104 Quel est votre rôle au sein du programme de Cuisinier

Cantine Scolaire ? Parent gestionnaire de vivre
105 Quel est votre niveau en Français ? o Je parle couramment
150
o Je comprends et je parle assez bien
o Je comprends et je parle un peu
o Je comprends un peu mais je ne parle pas
o Je ne parle pas le français
106 Quel est votre niveau en lecture en Français ? o Je sais lire parfaitement
o Je sais lire assez bien
o Je sais lire un peu
o Je ne sais pas lire
107 Quel est votre niveau en calcul ? o Je sais très bien faire des calculs
o Je sais assez bien faire des calculs
o Je sais un peu faire des calculs
o Je ne sais pas faire des calculs
2. Information sur la cuisine Q104 = Cuisinier
201 Depuis combien de temps participez-vous à la o Depuis le démarrage du projet
préparation des repas ? o Moins d’un an
202 Avec quelle fréquence interveniez-vous avant la o 4 à 5 fois par semaine
crise Covid pour préparer les repas ? o 2 à 3 fois par semaine
o 1 fois par semaine
o 1 à 3 fois par mois
203 Pourquoi prenez-vous part à cette activité Pour permettre aux enfants d’avoir un repas
bénévole ? Parce que le directeur me l’a demandé
Pour être avec d’autres parents
[NB : Ne pas donner les réponses] Pour être proche de mes enfants
Pour recevoir une compensation
Pour participer au développement de ma
communauté
Je remplace un autre parent
204 Avez-vous reçu une forme de compensation pour o Oui
votre travail ? o Non
205 [Oui 204] Compensation financière
Quelle est la nature de cette compensation ? 6 kg de riz par trimestre
Repas (Chaque jour travaillé)
Autre, préciser_______
206 [Si Oui 204] Êtes-vous satisfait de cette o Oui, vraiment
compensation ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
207 [Si Oui 204] Seriez-vous prêts à continuer sans o Oui
cette compensation ? o Non
151
208 Êtes-vous satisfait de votre engagement dans le o Oui, vraiment
projet de Nascent ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
209 [Si oui, 208], Si oui. Pourquoi ? Je suis content(e) d’aider
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] J’aime être avec d’autres parents
Pour le riz que l’on nous donne
Pour les repas que l’on nous donne
Pour l’argent que l’on nous donne
Parce que j’aime sortir de chez moi
Pour apporter mon soutien au projet de cantine
210 [Si non, 208], Si non. Pourquoi ? Cela prend trop de temps
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] C'est fatiguant
Parce que les autres ne participent pas
Parce que mon mari s'en plaint
Nous ne recevons pas de compensation
Nous ne recevons pas assez de compensation
Je dois toujours remplacer les absents
211 Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du o Oui
projet ? o Non
(NB : Directe ou réplication]
212 [Si oui, 211] Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette o Très utile
formation ? o Assez utile
o Pas du tout utile
213 Êtes-vous satisfait de l’organisation de la cuisine ? o Très satisfait
o Plutôt Satisfait
o Moyennement satisfait
o Peu satisfait
o Pas du tout satisfait
214 Quel sont les points qui selon vous pourraient être Meilleurs d’ustensiles pour cuisiner
améliorés ? Plus d’ustensiles
Meilleure organisation de la cuisine
(NB : Ne pas mentionner les options) Cuisine plus grande
Cuisine plus propre
Améliorer l'accès à l'eau
Avoir plus de condiments
Installer / réparer des foyers améliorés
Construire une cuisine couverte
Augmenter le nombre de cuisinières actives
Améliorer la relation avec l’administration de
l’école
Améliorer la formation des cuisinières
152
Améliorer la répartition des tâches entre les
parents
Augmenter la compensation
Diversifier les compensations
Rien, tout est parfait
Ne sais pas / Pas de réponse
Autre, spécifier
215 Pouvez-vous nous lister les règles d’hygiène à Nettoyage quotidien ustensiles
respecter pour la préparation des repas et Nettoyage quotidien des casseroles
l’entretien de la cuisine ? Utilisation de savon pour nettoyer
Utilisation d’eau potable
[NB : Ne pas lister les options] Purification de l’eau
Couvrir les aliments
Ne pas laisser les animaux s’approcher
Se laver les mains régulièrement
Utiliser du savon
Se couvrir la tête
Mettre un tablier
Se couper les ongles courts
Gérer les ordures
Ne pas laisser les enfants au sol
Ne pas laisser les aliments au sol
Ne sais pas / Pas de réponse
Autre, spécifier
216 Pensez-vous que dans votre cuisine les règles o Tout le temps
d’hygiène sont appliquées : o La plupart du temps
o Assez souvent
[NB : Nettoyage des ustensile, nettoyage de la o Rarement
cuisine, purification de l’eau…] o Jamais
217 Selon vous qu’est ce qui rend difficile la mise en Le nettoyage prend trop de temps
œuvre systématique des règles d’hygiène ? Les cuisiniers ne sont pas bien formés
[Ne donner pas les options] Il n’y a pas assez de cuisiniers
La cuisine n’est pas assez grande
L’accès à l'eau est trop loin de la cuisine
Nous devons amener nos jeunes enfants
Moi j’applique les règles, mais les autres non
Autre spécifier_____
3. Information sur le magasin Q104 = Magasinier
301 Avant la crise Covid, pendant combien de temps o Depuis le démarrage du projet
avez-vous participé à la gestion du magasin ? o Moins d’un an
302 Avant la crise COVID Avec quelle fréquence o Tous les jours (5 jours sur 5)
interveniez-vous pour la gestion des stocks ? o Presque tous les jours (4 jours sur 5)
o 1 à 3 fois par semaine
o 1 à 3 fois par mois
303 Pourquoi prenez-vous part à cette activité Pour permettre aux enfants d’avoir un repas
bénévole ? Parce que le directeur me l’a demandé
Pour être avec d’autres parents
153
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Pour être proche de mes enfants
Pour recevoir une compensation
Pour participer au développement de ma
communauté
Je remplace un autre parent
304 Avez-vous reçu une forme de compensation pour o Oui
votre travail ? o Non
305 [Oui 304], quelle est la nature de cette Compensation financière
compensation ? 6 kg de riz par trimestre
Repas (Chaque jour travaillé)
Autre, préciser_______
306 [Si Oui 304] êtes-vous satisfait par cette o Oui, vraiment
compensation ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
307 [Si Oui 304] seriez-vous prêts à continuer sans o Oui
cette compensation ? o Non
308 Êtes-vous satisfait de votre engagement dans le o Oui, vraiment
projet de Nascent ? o Oui, plus ou moins
o Non, pas vraiment
o Non, pas du tout
309 [Si oui, 308], Si oui. Pourquoi ? Je suis content(e) d’aider
J’aime être avec d’autres parents
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Pour le riz que l’on nous donne
Pour les repas que l’on nous donne
Pour l’argent que l’on nous donne
Parce que j’aime sortir de chez moi
Pour apporter mon soutien au projet de cantine
Autre, spécifier
310 [Si non, 309], Si non. Pourquoi ? Cela prend trop de temps
Nous ne recevons pas de compensation
[NB : Ne pas lire les réponses] Nous ne recevons pas assez de compensation
Je dois toujours remplacer les absents
Autre, spécifier
311 Avez-vous reçu une formation dans le cadre du o Oui
projet ? o Non
312 Que pensez-vous de l’utilité de cette formation ? o Très utile
o Assez utile
o Pas du tout utile
154
313 Êtes-vous satisfait de l’organisation du magasin et o Très satisfait
de la gestion des stocks ? o Plutôt satisfait
o Moyennement satisfait
o Peu satisfait
o Pas du tout satisfait
314 Quel sont les points qui selon vous pourraient être La taille du local
améliorés ? L'espace des étagères
L’organisation du stockage
(NB : ne pas mentionner les options) La propreté
La sécurité
Améliorer l'état du magasin
Augmenter le nombre de personnes actives
Améliorer la relation avec l’administration de
l’école
Améliorer la formation du parent gestionnaire
de vivres
Améliorer les traitements contre les rongeurs
Améliorer la protection du magasin contre la
pluie
Fournir une compensation au parent
gestionnaire de vivres

Autre, spécifier
315 Pouvez-vous nous lister les règles d’hygiène et de Enlever les produits périmés
bonne gestion à respecter pour le magasin ? Utiliser d'abord les stocks les plus anciens (FIFO)
Ne pas laisser les vivres à même le sol
[NB : Ne pas lister les options] Nettoyer le sol
Éliminer les rongeurs (fumigène)
Reconditionner les sacs percés
Ne pas mélanger les denrées alimentaires avec
les produits phytosanitaires
Autre, spécifier
316 Pensez-vous que dans le magasin les règles o Tout le temps
d’hygiène pour la gestion des stocks sont o La plupart du temps
appliquées : o Assez souvent
o Rarement
[NB : Enlever les produits périmés, ne pas laisser les o Jamais
denrées à même le sol, nettoyer le sol, éliminer les o Ne sait pas / pas de réponse
rongeurs]
317 Selon vous qu’est ce qui empêche une mise en Le nettoyage prend trop de temps
œuvre systématique de ces règles ? Le gestionnaire de vivres n’est pas bien formé
Il n'y a pas assez de magasiniers
[NB : Ne donner pas les options] Il faudrait une plus grand magasin
Non n'avons pas de produits pour éliminer les
rongeurs
Le magasin est endommagé
Nous ne savons pas quand les produits sont
périmés
155
Manque de courage, laisser-faire
Moi j’applique les règles, mais les autres non
Autre, spécifier
4. Commentaires
156
Annex 7: Et4d Team Members for Midterm
Evaluation
Project Director and Evaluation Lead
Isabelle McMahon, MBA & Measurement and Evaluation Master
Ms. Isabelle McMahon is an international, multilingual development professional with more than 25
years of experience. She is an evaluation expert with vast experience in qualitative and mixed-methods
design and analysis, applied research, and in promoting the use of evidence-based findings for
organizational learning and project improvement. Additionally, Ms. McMahon is highly experienced with
the planning, management, and monitoring of data-collection processes, the integration of technology
where effective, as well quality-assurance procedures. Ms. McMahon has led three USDA McGovern-
Dole impact evaluations. She has also led six EGRA-focused World Bank evaluations and recently headed
the evaluation of the USAID reading program in Mali (SIRA). She is a skilled strategic planner with a great
ability to conceptualize, innovate, plan, and execute ideas and systems even under stressful conditions,
all while meeting deadlines. She is an excellent communicator, expressing her ideas clearly and concisely
in written, oral, and visual form. She has worked for USAID, the World Bank, and other international
foundations, organizations, and donors. For Nascent, Ms. McMahon acted as Project Director and
served as the main point of contact. She personally led the enumerator training for the survey tools, the
data collection in the Francophone region, and the qualitative component.
Senior Evaluation Expert and Education Lead
Karla Giuliano Sarr, PhD
Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr is fluent in French and has more than 10 years of experience conducting research
and evaluation, technical assistance and capacity-building in international education. Dr. Sarr has
worked on programs focusing on basic education, youth programming, multilingual education,
education in crisis and conflict, community-school relationships, reading, girls' education, as well as
training and curriculum development. Dr. Sarr has lived and worked in West Africa in addition to
conducting applied research and evaluation projects in the region as an international consultant. Dr.
Sarr currently serves as Team Leader for an independent evaluation of Nigeria’s progress toward
Sustainable Development Goal 4 with UNICEF, as well as for a baseline evaluation for a FCDO-funded
Girls’ Education Challenge program in Sierra Leone. She has led studies for four USAID early-grade
reading programs in Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, and Senegal. She also served as the Principal Investigator for
the endline evaluation of a French-funded program to end school-related gender-based violence in
Cameroon, Senegal and Togo. In addition, Dr. Sarr has taught at both the middle school and graduate
school levels, first as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Gabon and then full-time at the School for International
Training Graduate Institute, where she continues to work as an adjunct professor. Dr. Sarr has an MA
and EdD in Educational Policy and Leadership from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and a BS
from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
For Nascent’s midterm evaluation, Dr. Karla Giuliano Sarr, as Senior Evaluation and Education Specialist,
advised the team in regard to instrument development and led the writing of the final evaluation report,
working closely with all team members.
Senior Nutrition and WASH Expert
Noreen Mucha, MPA
Ms. Noreen Mucha has more than 17 years of experience working in international development,
primarily focusing on the public health sector yet also working in the agriculture and education sectors.
157
Her experience includes working with multiple donors, the United Nations, host country governments,
international non-governmental organizations, think tanks, the U.S. military, research institutions, and
universities. Her technical areas of expertise include nutrition (both specific and sensitive) to reduce
stunting and acute malnutrition, infectious disease (including HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis), as
well as programming for orphans and vulnerable children. Ms. Mucha has experience with both
qualitative and quantitative research and evaluations, including performance evaluations, impact
evaluations, and household surveys. Ms. Mucha served as the on-team nutrition expert to conduct a
performance evaluation for the USG/USAID Feed the Future “Malawi Integrating Nutrition into Value
Chains,” which included the development of data-collection tools, key informant interviews, and focus
group discussions for women of reproductive-age smallholder farmers. Ms. Mucha is currently working
for a USAID-funded project in Zambia to assist the national government (the Zambia National Food and
Nutrition Commission) to develop its national nutrition common results framework. Ms. Mucha has
worked with Et4d on several USDA-FFE evaluations and recently provided technical assistance to an
NGO to develop the nutrition components for the MCGOVERN-DOLE FFE program design for
Mozambique. For the Nascent program, as the Senior Nutrition and WASH expert, Ms. Mucha advised
the team in regard to the instrument development and wrote the evaluation report sections related to
hygiene and nutrition.
Data Analysis Lead
Michel Rousseau, PhD
Professor Michel Rousseau, a native French speaker, has been a university professor since 2005. He
teaches psychometrics, quantitative methods, and classroom assessment. Parallel to his academic work,
he has also served as a consultant for international development projects in many countries, mainly in
Africa (Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Morocco, and Zambia). In those projects, he has worked on the
development of assessment tests for impact evaluation and conducted test equating and other
statistical analyses.
With Et4d, he performed the data analysis for the PEARL project in the South Pacific for the early-grade
reading evaluations, Nascent’s endline and baseline evaluations in Cameroon, and the CRS FFE baseline
and midterm evaluation in Benin. Additionally, he is the founder of GAUSS, a consultant company in
Quebec that offers services in the fields of research and psychometrics. Dr. Rousseau guided the Et4d
team on all issues related to sampling, and he conducted the quantitative analysis.
EGRA Trainer, Quality Assurance and Survey Coordinator Lead
Alice Michelazzi
Ms. Alice Michelazzi is a fluent French speaker. She has led numerous data-collection projects using
technology in several African countries with leading firms such as Et4d, Chemonics, Edintersect, School-
to-School International (STS), and Montrose. With STS, she led qualitative instrument design workshops
and headed the qualitative data collection using focus groups. In Tanzania, she formed part of the
baseline data collection for the first phase of the USDA FFE intervention in Mara Region, implemented
by PCI (2014). She also carried out the midline evaluation (2015). For Et4d, Ms. Michelazzi performed
three EGRA-enumerator training sessions for the PEARL project and coordinated the data collection in
two countries. She was also the EGRA trainer for Nascent’s endline and baseline evaluation in Cameroon
and for the CRS FFE baseline and midterm evaluation in Benin. Ms. Michelazzi worked with Ms.
McMahon, Dr. Sarr, and the Nascent M&E team to develop or adapt the questionnaires and interview
protocols. She also rendered the questionnaires for digital devices. As the lead trainer, she selected and
trained the EGRA enumerators in Cameroon in collaboration with Ms. McMahon. As the survey
coordinator, she also defined the quality-assurance protocols to be followed by the survey coordinator
during data collection and supervised the data collection for EGRA, as well as the focus groups.
158
Survey Trainer and Field Coordinator
Félicité Djoukouo
Ms. Djoukouo is Et4d’s local partner in Cameroon. Ms. Djoukouo graduated with a master’s degree in
Sociology, with a specialization in Population and Development from the University of Yaoundé in
Cameroon. She has experience in various kinds of empirical work as well as in impact-evaluation
surveys. For the Global Mapping of Organizations and Experts Working on Gender and Migration
in Americas, Europe, Africa (MENA), and Asia and the Pacific, implemented by the Women in Migration
Network, she successfully mapped organizations and experts in Africa and MENA. She has conducted
various studies in Cameroon as a research assistant, including the study of out-of-school children in
Cameroon assigned to the Institut de formation et de recherche démographiques and McDonald Limited
of the University of Cambridge, financed by UNICEF. She also collaborated with the Nascent Solutions
Yaoundé office, supervising the project mapping internally displaced persons from Southwest and North
West regions of Cameroon to assist humanitarian actions financed by UNICEF and Plan International
Cameroon. Ms. Djoukouo speaks at least five Cameroonian languages and is well-versed in techniques
required for the management of enumerators for quality data collection. She also has working
experience in all 10 regions of Cameroon.
M. Djoukouo’s role for the project included the management of the enumerators, performing focus
group discussions and key informant interviews with the Et4d team, providing quality control during
data collection, and performing administrative and organizational tasks.
159
Annex 8: Statistical Weighting and Adjustment
Factors
Sampling weights
In order to correct estimates for unequal probability of selection caused by clustering of the sample, we
applied a two-step procedure for weighting the data. In the first step, base weights were computed for
each dataset; and, in the second step, adjustment factors were applied to correct for non-participation
of the selected subjects as well as selection within school.
The probability of inclusion of each student in strata s = {comparison urban, comparison rural, program
urban, program rural} is:
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠
π𝑠𝑠 = � � ∗ � � =
𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀 𝑠𝑠
Where
- g ab
l is the total enrollment of school i in strata s
- 𝑀𝑀 𝑠𝑠 is the total enrollment of all schools in strata s
- 𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠 is the total number of schools sampled in strata s
- 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 is the number of students sampled per school in strata s
Thus, the school weight (inverse probability of selection) for strata s is:
1 𝑀𝑀 𝑠𝑠
𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 = �𝜋𝜋 𝑠𝑠 = 𝑠𝑠
𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠
Adjustment factors
The probability of inclusion of participant type k = {teacher, parent, student (Grades 4-6)} in the teacher,
parent, student attentiveness and WASH surveys, respectively is:
𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖
𝜋𝜋 𝑘𝑘 =
𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖
Where
- 𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 is the number of participant type k sampled in school i

- 𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖 is the total number of all participant type k in school i
Thus, the adjustment factor (inverse probability of selection) for participant type k is:
𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖
𝐴𝐴𝑘𝑘 = 1� 𝑘𝑘 = 𝑘𝑘,𝑖𝑖
𝜋𝜋 𝑠𝑠
Finally, for the EGRA reading assessment, the probability of selecting a non-repeating student of gender
g = {male, female} from the 3rd grade of school i is:
160
𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖
𝜋𝜋 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 =
𝑀𝑀 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖
Where
- 𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 is the number of non-repeating students of gender g sampled from the 2nd grade of
school i
- 𝑀𝑀 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 is the total number of non-repeating students of gender g in school i
Thus, the adjustment factor (inverse probability of selection) for EGRA reading scores are:
𝑀𝑀 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖
𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 = 1� 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖 = 𝑔𝑔,𝑖𝑖
𝜋𝜋 𝑠𝑠
Adjustment factors are multiplied by the respective school weight when weighting each observation.
161
Annex 9: Detailed Challenges and Mitigation
Strategies
Limitation/Challenge Mitigation Strategy
Response bias: Many stakeholders participating Elicit explicit examples from evaluation
in the evaluation have an interest in seeing the participants, stressing confidentiality and the
program succeed. Those most engaged with importance of objectivity to improving the
Nascent may be positively biased toward the program as a whole. Additionally, the evaluation
programming, particularly if they are currently team drew on multiple data sources,
receiving financial support. triangulating findings to answer EQs.
Remote data collection, timeframe, and access: Ensuring as much flexibility as possible within
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the the process. The team utilized Zoom, an online
remote conduct of 14 interviews (through Skype, platform easily accessible to all respondents, and
Google, Zoom, WhatsApp, or telephone, as shared clear instructions for navigating the
appropriate) Stakeholder participation platform with all participants in advance of the
depended on availability and access to session. Phone calls were also made.
technology.
Timing of the data collection: Data collection Analysis and reporting take these constraints
took place in March to avoid the rainy season into account, as indicated in narrative below.
and Ramadan fasting. This schedule contradicted
the suggested timing of MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1
indicator, “by the end of two grades of primary
schooling”(May/June). The March data
collection may thus underestimate students’
literacy levels. Additionally, the seasonality of
dietary diversity means that data collection here
only represents that point in time, not the full
year.
Staff turnover during data collection: A Field Nascent’s M&E Officer took this individual’s
Agent training to provide supervision in the field place and assured continuity throughout the
resigned from the project on the last day of data collection process.
training.
162
Limited qualitative sample: Purposive sampling This limitation is characteristic of a qualitative

means that results are not generalizable. In approach. Analysis accentuates that qualitative
addition, the small size of the qualitative sample findings, while not strictly representative, may
may not reflect a broad representation of be transferable and connect to the experiences
viewpoints. The size of the sample is informed of others, thereby providing valuable insights
by resource constraints, including time. applicable to other stakeholders.
Timeframes and risk factors meant the
evaluation team could not access hard-to-reach Moreover, Et4d made additional efforts at
rural areas. midterm to expand its sample, visiting four
rather than three communities. Triangulation
with other data sources and mixed-methods
analysis further helps address limitations.
Design does not allow measurement of impact Limitation is acknowledged within analysis
at health facilities: Parents sample is focused at
school-level, not necessarily target beneficiaries
for health intervention (pregnant and
breastfeeding mothers)
Selection / Sampling bias for students and Et4d addressed this limitation by using post-
parents: Students present at school may stratification weighting to correct for any
represent those more committed to schooling, underrepresentation. Analysis of students
as well as students with more support at home, sampled pays close attention to gender and
those who live closer to the school, and those socioeconomic status to help address these
who have less additional demands on their time. concerns. Analysis of dietary diversity made note
Girls also often carry more of a household of these limitations and proposed suggestions
burden, leading to the greater likelihood of their for end line.
absence.
In addition, parents responded to questions

about dietary intake but may not have directly
benefited from Nascent services within health
centers.
163
Inter-rater reliability: Inter-rater reliability (IRR) The evaluation team paid special attention to
can be a concern when gathering data as a team IRR during training and frequent answers were
of data collectors. precoded for questionnaires. Assessor Accuracy
Measurement (AAM) was performed for EGRA.
Enumerators scoring above 90% in the AAM
exercise were retained for data collection.
Recall bias: Dietary diversity is assessed based
on participant responses relying on memory and The team provided guidance to enumerators
accurate recall. The 24-hour dietary recall during the training on how to help students
exercises may not truly represent their usual remember what they ate and convert their food
intake. intake into food categories.
Differences in school size between project and
control schools: Project schools were larger in When combined, these effects may mitigate
size (school enrollment) compared to each other as the first might underestimate
comparison schools. Class sizes were also larger. Nascents’ performance and the second might
overestimate it. The team triangulated data from
multiple sources whenever possible.
164
Annex 10: Comprehensive EGRA Results
EGRA scores by Reading category
To get a better sense of students’ actual reading levels, we developed a scale that measures progress
across five levels: non-reader, emerging pre-reader, beginning reader, intermediate reader, and fluent
reader. As illustrated in Table 28, we calculated student scores for each level based on EGRA results for
three subtasks: letter sound, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
Table 28: Reading category definitions
Level Category Definition EGRA Subtasks

1 Non-Reader The child does not read any letters. Letter Sound
2 Emerging Pre-Reader The child reads letters but no Letter Sound
words.
3 Beginning Reader The child reads less than 20 words Oral Reading Fluency
per minute.
4 Intermediate Reader The child reads more than 20 Oral Reading Fluency
words per minute but does not Reading Comprehension
meet the 60% reading
comprehension threshold
5 Fluent Reader The child reaches 60% for reading Reading Comprehension
comprehension.
Next, we present the results from the midterm evaluation.

Table 29: Reading category by school type
Non-Reader 21.9% 18.2% 19.8%
Emerging Pre-reader 65.6% 67.0% 66.4%
Novice reader 10.4% 12.4% 11.6%
Intermediate reader 2.0% 2.4% 2.3%
Fluent 0.01% 0% 0.001%

Comprehending
reader
The difference between groups is not statistically significant (p=0.363)
165
Table 30: Reading category by gender
Boys Girls
Non-Reader 19.7% 19.9%
Emerging Pre-reader 66.2% 66.6%
Novice reader 11.7% 11.4%
Intermediate reader 2.4% 2.1%
Fluent 0.01% 0%
Comprehending
reader
The difference between genders is not statistically significant (p=0.831)
Table 31: Reading category by region
Adamaoua East Region North Region
Non-Reader 16.9% 34.9% 15.8%
Emerging Pre-reader 76.9% 62.9% 64.2%
Novice reader 5.3% 2.1% 16.6%
Intermediate reader 0.8% 0.1% 3.4%
Fluent 0% 0% 0.01%
Comprehending
reader
The difference between regions is statistically significant (p=0.002)
166
Table 32: Reading category by zone
Rural Urban
Non-Reader 20.8% 16.6%
Emerging Pre-reader 66.4% 66.4%
Novice reader 10.7% 14.4%
Intermediate reader 2.1% 2.7%
Fluent 0.01% 0%
Comprehending
reader
The difference between zones is not statistically significant (p=0.241)
Literacy Index
Apart from tracking reading performance using the MCGOVERN-DOLE Strategic indicators and reading
categories, a literacy achievement index provides an aggregate score that measures children’s
cumulative reading performance. In the literacy index below, each level is assigned points based on a
scale ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the fluent reader (60% correct in Reading
Comprehension) and 0 representing the non-reader. Et4d suggests this index may be used by Nascent in
parallel with its preexisting SO1 indicator.
Table 33: Literacy achievement index point scale
Level Category Points

1 Non-Reader 0
2 Emerging Pre-Reader 25
3 Beginning Reader 50
4 Intermediate Reader 75
5 Fluent Comprehending Reader 100
To determine the literacy achievement index of a given sample, each student’s score is calculated
according to the highest reading level they achieved in any subtask, and then a weighted average is
computed for the entire sample. For instance, if a child could not read any letters and were in the non-
reader category, he or she would receive a score of zero. Conversely, if a student met the reading
comprehension benchmark of 60%, the score value would be 100. The literacy index for the midterm
sample has been calculated below by school type, gender, region and zone.
167
Table 34: Average literacy index score by school type, gender, region, and zone
Average 95% CI p-value
School type
Comparison 23.17 20.95-25.40 0.365
Project 24.76 22.12-27.40
Gender
Boy 24.20 22.34-26.06 0.766
Girl 23.95 21.91-26.00
Region
Adamaoua 22.51 19.63-25.39 0.010
East Region 16.84 13.68-20.01
North Region 26.96 25.15-28.76
Zone
Rural 23.55 21.49-25.62 0.252
Urban 25.79 22.54-29.04
Overall 24.09 22.32-25.86
Results by subtask
This next section presents midterm results by EGRA subtask.
Table 35: Average scores for each subtask with 95% confidence interval
Average 95% CI
Listening comprehension – Percent correct 22.56 18.12-26.98
Initial sound – Percent correct 22.30 19.22-25.38
Correct letter name per minute 8.57 7.34-9.80

Correct familiar words per minute 1.64 1.26-2.01
Correct non-words per minute 0.79 0.53-1.04
Oral reading fluency 1.33 0.88-1.78
Reading comprehension – Percent correct 0.31 0.13-0.48
168
Table 36: Average scores for each subtask by school type
Comparison Project p-value
Listening comprehension – Percent 20.67 23.94 0.468

correct
Initial sound – Percent correct 19.81 24.13 0.186
Correct letter name per minute 7.97 9.02 0.421
Correct familiar words per minute 1.35 1.84 0.192
Correct non-words per minute 0.75 0.82 0.715
Oral reading fluency 1.40 1.28 0.788
Reading comprehension – Percent 0.21 0.38 0.310

correct
Table 37: Average score for each subtask by gender
Boy Girl p-value

correct

correct
169
Table 38: Average Score for each subtask by region
Adamaoua East North p-value
Listening comprehension – 30.33 46.67 12.10 0.045

Percent correct
Initial sound – Percent correct 23.56 14.81 24.38 0.113
Correct letter name per 8.49 3.52 10.27 0.002

minute
Correct familiar words per 1.18 0.26 2.24 0.015

minute
Correct non-words per minute 0.39 0.11 1.13 0.005
Oral reading fluency 0.41 0.08 2.03 <0.000
Reading comprehension – 0.25 0.02 0.42 0296

Percent correct
Table 39: Average score for each subtask by zone
Rural Urban p-value

correct

correct
170
Annex 11: Terms of Reference (TOR)
Terms of Reference
Midterm Evaluation of a 5-year McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Project in Cameroon
Implementer: Nascent Solutions Inc. (Nascent)
Funder: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Location: Adamawa, East, and North regions of Cameroon
Duration: Around January-July 2021. A mix of home-based and field-based work required.
Purpose of this ToR: To solicit bids for a midterm evaluation for Nascent’s McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Project in Cameroon. This will continue a quasi-experimental
evaluation setup at baseline by an external evaluation firm.
Project Description
This is a five-year project funded under USDA’s McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program. Implemented by Nascent, the project is designed to improve the literacy of
school-age children through improved literacy instruction, student attentiveness, and student
attendance. Secondarily, the project intends to increase the use of positive health and dietary practices.
The project runs from October 2018 to September 2023.
While the primary objective is improving literacy, the staple activity is the provision of a daily lunch using
food commodities provided by USDA. Nascent seeks to improve:
• Quality of literacy instruction, through more consistent teacher attendance, provision of better
teaching and materials, and training of teachers and administrators;
• Student attentiveness, through the daily lunch program and extracurricular activities;
• Student attendance, through school infrastructure improvements, enrollment outreaches, an

increased community understanding of education benefits, and reducing health related
absences;
• Use of positive health and dietary practices, through increased knowledge of hygiene, safe food
preparation, and nutrition, as well as increased access to clean water and sanitation and
preventative health interventions;
171
• Education systems, through enhancing the capacity of government and civil society, as well as
improving local education- and nutrition-related policies.
The project benefits 180,000 primary-level pupils, family members, teachers, administrators, civil
servants, parent-teacher association members, and others associated with 240 primary schools in
Cameroon.
The 240 schools have more than 90,000 enrolled students and more than 1,000 teachers. Approximately
62% of the schools are in three French-speaking regions of Cameroon, with the remainder in one
English-speaking region. Due to ongoing socio-political unrest in the English-speaking North West region
and subsequent indefinite closure of schools, this midterm evaluation will focus only on the French-
speaking Adamawa, East, and North regions, which contain 148 project schools.
Partners include the Ministry of Basic Education, Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development, Ministry of Water and Energy, Ministry of Social Affairs, and the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign (AgReach program).
Purpose and Use
The midterm evaluation will inform Nascent, USDA, and implementation partners of the project’s impact
and progress. We will use its content to 1) assess progress in project implementation; 2) provide a signal
of the effectiveness of interventions; 3) reassess our theory of change; 4) make mid-course corrections;
5) document lessons learned; and 6) emphasize the most viable sustainability paths to stakeholders. This
will continue a quasi-experimental evaluation setup at baseline by an external evaluation firm.
Research Questions
Nascent is primarily interested in understanding Nascent’s impact on the project’s Key Questions. Which
changes are attributable to the project? What is the magnitude of those changes?
Key Questions
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the end of two grades of
primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in “active instruction” for 50%+
of classroom time?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which >5 students are “off-
task”?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in USDA supported
classrooms/schools?
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children observed correctly washing
their hands?
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of
minimum diversity?
172
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences
Several of these Key Questions require disaggregation by sex and/or age.
Additionally, evaluators will address two additional KAP questions via surveys:
1. What are the nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practices of women of reproductive age (15-49
years)?
2. What are the students’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in terms of hygiene?
Figures for student enrollment and teacher attendance will be reached via secondary data analysis.
In addition to the impact questions above, the midterm evaluation will also investigate effectiveness,
relevance, efficiency, and sustainability:
Question Suggested Methodology, pending evaluator advice
For a sample of approximately 10 Conduct a desk review of baseline report, target figures, and
randomly selected indicators, what level of semi-annual reports as of Sept 2020.
progress has been made against the
baseline and against targets?
Is the project’s results framework 1. Conduct key informant interviews

consistent with stakeholder and and semi-structured focus group
beneficiary views? Is implementation discussions among teachers, school
consistent with the government’s administrators, parents, trainers from
priorities at the local, regional, and local teacher training colleges, and
national levels? Is the project causing any education and school feeding officials
unintended effects? in local and national government.
2. Conduct key informant interviews

among Nascent staff and partners.
Which outputs were obtained most cost- Conduct key informant interviews among Nascent staff.
efficiently? Which were obtained least
cost-efficiently? Should the project
allocate resources differently in the
future?
Are efforts at sustainability likely to Conduct key informant interviews and semi-structured focus
succeed? Which activities are likely to group discussions among teachers, school administrators,
continue as the project closes? How is the parents, trainers from local teacher training colleges, and
local community engaged and or education and school feeding officials in local and national
contributing to sustain project activities, government. Employ typical case sampling and critical case
especially school feeding? sampling.
Did the support provided by Nascent 1. Conduct key informant interviews

during the COVID-19 pandemic address and semi-structured focus group
the needs of beneficiaries? discussions among teachers, school
administrators, PTA members,
173
Question Suggested Methodology, pending evaluator advice
trainers from local teacher training

colleges, and education and school
feeding officials in local and national
government.
2. Conduct key informant interviews among Nascent staff and

partners.
Study Design
The evaluators will continue to use a quasi-experimental impact study design setup during the baseline
survey, preferably using school-level propensity score matching, principal component analysis, and/or a
difference-in-differences analysis method, as appropriate.
The evaluators will mimic the cluster sampling strategy and size of the baseline survey (see “How to
Apply” section below), with schools as the primary sampling unit, and students/classrooms/parents as
the secondary sampling unit, depending on the key indicator. Stratification must occur at the regional
level.
The midterm evaluation will utilize data collection tools in the same manner as the baseline survey.
Qualitative data will be collected at project schools only, in a continuation of data collection initiated at
baseline.
Qualitative sampling will be purposive, seeking a broad representation of viewpoints. Data will be
collected using focus groups and/or key informant interviews targeting local stakeholders such as
parents, head teachers, teachers, older students, and education and other government officers.
Tools
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1 – Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA)
The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) is a collection of highly valid literacy assessments
developed by RTI in 2006 with financial support from USAID and the World Bank. EGRA is a
comprehensive measure of literacy, with tools spanning phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension, all of which are considered to be essential components of effective
reading instruction. 110 The evaluator will collect data through Android tablets.
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1 and 1.2 – Stallings Observation System
The Stallings Observation System (Stallings) provides a quantitative measure of key classroom variables
influencing the efficacy of teaching and learning, including use of instructional time, use of materials,
core pedagogical practices, and student engagement. 111 Stallings includes a classroom observation
composed of a series of ten 15-second snapshots spread evenly throughout a class period. During each
110Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit: Second Edition, RTI International, Mar 2016.
111Conducting classroom observations: analyzing classrooms dynamics and instructional time - using the Stallings 'classroom
snapshot' observation system: user guide. World Bank Group, 2015.
174
snapshot, the teacher and pupils are placed on a matrix indicating the activities in which they are
engaged, and any materials being used. Stallings assessments will be collected through Android tablets.
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2 – Handwashing observations and dietary diversity surveys
UNICEF’s WASH in Schools Monitoring Package includes a hygiene survey module - a set of questions,
observations and focus group discussion guidelines for use in national WASH in Schools surveys. 112 The
module also includes questions on water sources and sanitation facilities.
The Feed the Future (FtF) indicator handbook provides guidance on measuring minimum dietary
diversity for women of reproductive age (MDD-W). 113 A woman of reproductive age is considered to
consume a diet of minimum diversity if she consumed at least 5 of 10 specific food groups during the
previous day and night.
Estimated timeline
Item Started Completed
Design January 2021 March 2021
Logistical arrangements February 2021 April 2021
Training on tools April 2021 April 2021
Data collection April 2021 May 2021
Data cleaning May 2021 June 2021
Data analysis and visualization May 2021 June 2021
Report writing June 2021 July 2021
Reviews of drafts by Nascent July 2021 August 2021
Submit report to USDA August 2021 August 2021
Deliverables
Deliverable Deadline (negotiable)
Evaluation work plan / inception report, explaining how evaluators March 2021
will operationalize the evaluation in question (design, methodology,
ethics plan, quality assurance plan, training agendas, etc.), to be
submitted after a desk review and consultations with Nascent. This
inception report will include the survey tools, focus group discussion
protocols and/or key informant interview questions.
Report: A concise written narrative. August 2021
112 UNICEF WASH in Schools Monitoring Package, April 2011.

113 Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, updated Sept 2019.
175
Stand-alone 3-page briefing on the evaluation in question. This is August 2021
viewed as a polished and widely accessible executive summary. It will
allow Nascent and USDA to easily disseminate content. This should be
in English and French.
Presentation: Maximum of 30 PowerPoint slides highlighting key August 2021

themes of the report. No oral presentation required; slide deck only.
Outline for Reports
1. Cover Page
2. Table of Contents
3. List of Acronyms
4. Executive summary including the background, key findings, conclusions and recommendations
5. Introduction and objectives of the evaluation
6. Research design including key indicators
7. Methodology including data sources, data limitations, and timeline of evaluation

implementation
8. Study findings
9. Conclusion based on the findings
10. Limitations includes any constraints of the evaluation
11. Recommendations based on the conclusions
12. References
13. Annexes (list of data sources including interviews, data collection tools etc.)
Existing Data and Performance Information
Nascent will make the following available to the evaluators:
• Baseline survey report and datasets
• Evaluation Plan
• Performance Monitoring Plan
• Results Framework
• Work plans
• Semi-annual reports
176
Profile of Evaluation Team
Evaluators are welcome to assemble a team as they see fit (not including field level data collectors, who
will be recruited separately). Their skills should be complementary, with one identified as the Team
Lead, who will bear responsibility for all work products and processes. Firms and groups of independent
consultants are welcome to apply. Combined, the team should have the following skills and attributes:
• Demonstrated experience leading complex impact evaluations.
• Demonstrated expertise in study design and sampling.
• Demonstrated experience in the development of quantitative data collection tools and

managing field data collection (including mobile).
• Demonstrated experience in using qualitative methods such as focus group discussions and key
informant interviews.
• Demonstrated experience in data management and analysis using statistical software, including
analyzing complex (multi-stage cluster samples) surveys.
• Demonstrated experience using propensity score matching, principal component analysis, and
difference-in-differences analysis techniques.
• Demonstrated experience in concise, illuminating report writing, including data visualization.
• Demonstrated experience in training and managing field data collectors and complex logistics.
• Subject matter expertise in literacy and education.
• Subject matter expertise in maternal nutrition, child nutrition, and hygiene.
• Strong teamwork ability across cultures and time zones.
• Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate with a variety of stakeholders, ranging from

young students to government officials.
• Experience with EGRA.
• Experience with the Stallings Classroom Observation system.
• Experience with dietary diversity surveys.
• Experience with USDA McGovern-Dole projects.
• Experience in Cameroon. If other criteria are met, preference is given to Cameroon-based

teams.
• High proficiency in written and verbal French and English.
How to Apply
177
Interested evaluators should apply by submitting the following documents in a single PDF no later
than 16 October 2020. Submissions must be made via e-mail to [email protected] with the subject
line “Cameroon midterm evaluation bid”.
1. Organizational/team capacity statement outlining relevant evaluation experience and ability to

perform the evaluation with methodological rigor. This should be a maximum of 5 pages.
2. CV of each proposed evaluator with his/her role clearly identified. Please limit CVs to no more
than 4 pages per person.
3. Financial proposal that includes (in US dollars only):
1. Daily fee and days required for each team member
2. Estimated expenses attributable to each team member (as noted below, several
expenses are paid for directly by Nascent. Do not include them in this financial
proposal). This might include, for example, airfare for team members travelling to
Cameroon.
These parameters may be useful when constructing your financial proposal:
• The baseline reached 61 intervention schools and 60 comparison schools. 71 of those

121 schools were in the North, 28 in Adamawa, and 22 in the East region.
• See below the sample sizes achieved during the baseline.
r Total sample
(intervention +
comparison)
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO1: What is the percentage of students who, by the 1,880 grade 2 students
end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read
and understand the meaning of grade level text?
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.1: What is the percentage of teachers engaged in 290 grade 1-3
“active instruction” for 50%+ of classroom time? classrooms
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2: What is the percentage of classroom time in which 290 grade 1-3
>5 students are “off-task”? classrooms
MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.3: What is the average student attendance rate in 121 schools (grade 1-6)
USDA supported classrooms/schools?
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the percentage of school-age children 720 students

MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: What is the prevalence of women of reproductive 1,230 women

age consuming a diet of minimum diversity?
MCGOVERN-DOLE SO2: Ranked reasons for student absences 290 grade 1-3
classrooms; 53 focus
178
r Total sample
(intervention +
comparison)
group participants
(parents and teachers)
• The baseline conducted 25 key informant interviews of government staff, Nascent staff,
and other stakeholders.
• Nascent requires the sampling strategy to allow for comparisons between male and
female students, as well as two age categories for some Key Questions.
• Data collection will occur in French and perhaps some local languages when necessary.
Deliverables are in English, with the exception of a 3-page briefing, which should be in
English and French.
• Nascent will arrange and directly pay for the items below. These should not be included
in the proposed budget.
o Ground transport during evaluation activities
o Accommodation during evaluation activities
o Per diem for meals and incidentals
o Printing, copying, and routine office supplies
o Internet and other communications during evaluation activities
o Field-level data collectors/enumerators and supervisors (to be discussed further

with evaluators)
o Venues and food at trainings/meetings
o Nascent possesses 30 Android tablets which can be used for data collection (and
mostly eliminate the need for data entry)
o Mobile data collection subscriptions
179
Annex 12: Additional figures
Figure 19: Availability of a handwashing stations at school (%)
Comparison - Midterm 65% 8% 28%
Project - Midterm 12% 88%
Comparison - Baseline 92% 6% 2%
Project - Baseline 91% 6% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No Hygiene Service Limited Hygiene Service Basic Hygiene Service
Figure 20: Handwashing with soap (HWWS) at critical times
11%
After Playing 23%
20%
31%
21%
After Defecation 51%
37%
52%
5%
Before Preparing a Meal 10%
7%
13%
85%
Before Eating 87%
95%
95%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Project Student Baseline Project Student Midline Project Parents Baseline Project Parent Midlne
180

USDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

and Child Nutrition Project

Isabelle McMahon Patrick Gallagher

Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition

Evaluation Authored by: Evaluation Technology for Development (Et4d)

Figure 2: Project activities 3

Figure 3: Data collection methods used in midterm evaluation 9

Figure 4: Teacher and principal awareness of Nascent COVID response 23

Figure 5: Proportion of time that storage volunteers follow hygiene rules 38

Figure 9: Comparison of MCGOVERN-DOLE 1.2 results (baseline and midline) 48

Figure 13: Lessons learned from trainings as identified by principals 51

Figure 14: Mid Upper Arm Circumference Tape (MUAC) 54

Figure 17: Nascent's approach to sustainability by component 65

AME Students’ Mothers’ Association (Association des Mères d'Élèves)

APE Students’ Parents’ Association (Association des Parents d'Élèves)

CLSPM Correct Letter Sound per Minute

CWPM Correct Words per Minute

DDS Dietary Diversity Score

EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment

Et4d Evaluation Technology for Development

FTF Feed the Future

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FFE Food for Education

FFP Food for Progress

KII Key Informant Interview

MDD-W Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women

MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MINEDUB Ministry of Basic Education

MINEE Ministry of Water and Energy

MINSANTE Ministry of Public Health

ORF Oral Reading Fluency

PMP Performance Monitoring Plan

PPS Probability Proportion Sample

PSM Propensity Score Matching

RECAMEF Cameroon National Network of Mothers' Associations for Girls' Education

(Réseau Camerounais des Associations des Mères pour l'Éducation de la

SOW Statement of Work

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

THR Take Home Rations

TOR Terms of Reference

TOC Theory of Change

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

WRA Women of Reproductive Age

Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations

Table 1: Overview of midterm evaluation participants

Findings and Conclusions

Table 7: Key Nascent indicators with baseline and midterm measures 1

Indicators Baseline Midline p-value

1.2. Project Description

14. Raise Awareness on 16. Training: Food 17. Training: Teachers

1.3. Results Framework

1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation

2. Evaluation Design and Methodology

2.1. Evaluation Questions

2.2. Evaluation Design

2.3. Sampling Methods

Table 2: Distribution of comparison and treatment schools by zone and region

Region Rural Urban Total

Questionnaire Male Female Total