WFP 0000155796

WFP EVALUATION
Baseline Activity Study of USDA

McGovern-Dole Grant for WFP School
Feeding in Cambodia
October 2022 to September 2027
Decentralized Evaluation – Baseline Report
September 2023
Evaluation reference DE/KHCO/2023/016

WFP Cambodia Country Office
Agreement Number: FFE-442-2022-009-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2022
Project Duration: 5 years
Prepared by the KonTerra Group

Key personnel for the study
Evaluation Managers
Noah Makokha WFP Cambodia Country Office
Martin Fisher The KonTerra Group
Evaluation Team
Pierre Leguéné Team leader
Jeffery H. Marshall Education Specialist
Covadonga Canteli Statistician / Analyst
Chandara Gnim National Evaluator
Sovith Sin National Evaluator
Damayanti Soekarjo Advisor
Front page picture:
Children at a school in Kampong Thom province enjoying their school breakfast
(Photo: Chandara Gnim, June 2023)
September 2023 | McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016]
Acknowledgements
The Konterra Group's evaluation team would like to thank all the people and institutions that contributed to
the completion of this baseline study of the McGovern-Dole project in Cambodia, in particular the staff of the
WFP Country Office and the institutions of the Royal Government of Cambodia who agreed to meet remotely
with the evaluation team.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the evaluation team, and do not necessarily reflect those of
the World Food Programme or USDA. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with
the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP or USDA of the opinions
expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP or USDA concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country,
territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers.
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. v
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Evaluation features ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Context ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Subject of the baseline, theory of change and baseline questions .............................................. 8
2.1. Subject being evaluated ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Evaluation questions and evaluation criteria ..........................................................................................12
3. Evaluation approach and methodology for baseline data collection ....................................... 12
3.1. Evaluation approach and methodology ...................................................................................................12
3.2. Baseline data collection methods and tools............................................................................................13
3.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................14
3.4. Quality assurance of the baseline data collection and deliverables ....................................................15
3.5. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................................15
4. Baseline findings and discussion ........................................................................................................... 16
4.1. EVALUATION QUESTION (EQ) 1: What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all relevant evaluation
questions for the evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency and
coherence)? .................................................................................................................................................16
4.2. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: What are the contextual changes that occurred since the FY19 baseline
relevant to the programme and under each of the evaluation criteria, including GEWE aspects? ..34
4.3. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: Are the project indicators and targets appropriate in effectively
measuring and tracking project results for men, women, girls, boys and vulnerable groups based on
the results framework? ..............................................................................................................................35
4.4. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: To what extent are the midterm and endline evaluation questions
relevant in assessing the success of the programme under each criterion and for all categories of
participants including men, women, girls, boys, and vulnerable groups? ...........................................39
5. Conclusions and Lessons .......................................................................................................................... 43
5.1. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................43
5.2. Lessons ........................................................................................................................................................44
ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Annex 1: Summary Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................. 46
Annex 2: Timeline and Country Maps ..................................................................................................................... 64
Annex 3: McGovern-Dole 2019-2023 midterm evaluation brief............................................................................. 67
Annex 4: Project Theory of Change ......................................................................................................................... 69
Annex 5: Overall Results Framework ....................................................................................................................... 70
Annex 6: Results Framework 1 ................................................................................................................................ 71
Annex 7: Results Framework 2 ................................................................................................................................ 72
Annex 8: Foundational Results ................................................................................................................................ 73
Annex 9: Performance Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................. 74
Annex 10: Baseline study Matrix ............................................................................................................................. 78
Annex 11: Bibliography of consulted documents ................................................................................................... 82
Annex 12: Key Informants’ overview ....................................................................................................................... 83
Annex 13: Semi-structured Interview Guides .......................................................................................................... 84
Annex 14: Evaluation Reference Group................................................................................................................... 88
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] iii
Annex 15: Evaluation Committee ............................................................................................................................ 90
Annex 16: Proposed modifications to midterm and endline evaluation questions .............................................. 91
Annex 17: Methodological considerations for the FY22 cycle survey analyses ..................................................... 97
Annex 18: Acronyms................................................................................................................................................. 98
List of figures
Figure 1: Grade 2 student literacy levels at FY19 and FY22 baselines, by target province ..................................... 20
Figure 2: Percentage of students who were attentive at FY19 and FY22 baselines ................................................ 23
Figure 3: Percentage of children who do not experience hunger at school, according to teachers, at FY19 and
FY22 baselines ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Proportion of schools with vegetable gardens and/or rehabilitated vegetable gardens at FY19 and
FY22 baselines ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Percentage of schools with fixed or mobile hand washing stations, at FY19 and FY22 baselines ........ 26
Figure 6: Initial evaluation design .................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 7: Analysis Model as proposed by the evaluation team ................................................................................. 40
List of tables
Table 1: Beneficiaries, outputs and inputs per Strategic Objective (targets to be achieved by 2027) .................. 10
Table 2: Project Budget (in US dollars) .......................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Benefits of school feeding for the child, as perceived by parents of selected girls and boys ................. 18
Table 4: McGovern-Dole SO2 output and outcome indicators as per FY22 project PMP ....................................... 24
Table 5: Average number of functioning drilled wells/water catchment at FY19 and FY22 baselines.................. 26
Table 6: Percentage of schools with year-round access to a clean water source at FY19 and FY22 baselines.... 26
Table 7: Proportion of schools at FY19 and FY22 baselines with food preparation and storage tools and
equipment and their condition ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 8: Foundational results: expected outcomes and activities ............................................................................. 27
Table 9: Foundational results: output and outcome indicators as per project PMP ............................................... 28
Table 10: June 2023 SABER workshop scoring results (FY22 foundational results baseline) ................................. 29
Table 11: Regional procurement: output and outcome indicators as per project PMP ......................................... 29
Table 12: Sampling approach at school level ............................................................................................................... 41
Table 13: Household sample design parameters ........................................................................................................ 41
Table 14: Sampling error by group at student level .................................................................................................... 42
Table 15: Sampling error by group and gender at student level ............................................................................... 42
Table 16: Minimum detectable effects.......................................................................................................................... 42
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] iv

Executive Summary
Introduction
1. This report covers the baseline study of the World Food Programme (WFP) McGovern-Dole school feeding
project in Cambodia (FFE-442-2022-009-00) for the period from 01 October 2022 to 30 September 2027. This
project (hereafter referred to as FY22) is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
baseline study represents the first part of a process that will include midterm and endline evaluations, and has
been commissioned by the WFP Country Office (CO) in Cambodia.
2. The objectives of the evaluation are accountability and learning regarding the handover process of WFP
school feeding activities to the national Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (NHGSFP), with more
emphasis on the learning objective. USDA has supported school feeding in Cambodia since 2003 and the FY22
project is the final round. Full handover should be completed by 2028 and the best possible conditions for the
sustainability of the NHGSFP should be prepared by the end of the project.
3. The project aims to improve literacy amongst primary school children, through improvements to the
quality of teaching, distribution of daily school meals as an incentive to attend school, and interventions in
hygiene, health and nutrition practices to reduce absences due to illness. The project operates in 341 schools
in 12 districts of Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap provinces, and these schools will be
progressively handed over to the NHGSFP by 2028. The project targets over 100,000 children, 49 percent of
them girls. It has a budget of US$21 million provided by the USDA.
4. The principal stakeholders, and the likely main users, of the evaluation are the WFP CO and Regional
Bureau, the various ministries of the Royal Government of Cambodia associated with the project,1 WFP’s
cooperating partners,2 and the donor, USDA.
Methodology
5. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach to answer four principal questions defined in the baseline
Terms of Reference, to enable comparisons at midterm and endline and between schools directly assisted by
WFP and those already handed over. The baseline was largely founded on documentary research and
secondary data gathered (qualitative as well as a quantitative household and school-level survey) for the
endline of the previous McGovern-Dole project (FY19), which was run in parallel with the baseline and was the
subject of a separate report. Secondary data collection was completed by a limited number of qualitative key
informant interviews (KIIs), conducted remotely, at national level.3 Gender considerations were mainstreamed
in the baseline study through the inclusion of gender references in sub-questions and KIIs, the extraction of
gender specific information from literature and the production of gender disaggregated data from the FY19
endline survey.
6. A SABER exercise4 was conducted in June 2023 and informs the baseline for the project’s foundational
results, although the final SABER results are not yet available. Other limitations of the study were the late
availability of the data from the FY19 endline survey, and the lack of justification of the targets of the Project
Monitoring Plan (PMP) that were to be reviewed by this study.
Context
7. In Cambodia, short-term hunger is a key factor affecting educational results. WFP’s school feeding
programme started in Cambodia in 1999. In 2014, the MoEYS, in collaboration with WFP, piloted a home-grown
school feeding (HGSF) model. The Government’s NHGSFP has been subsequently developed with the
expectation that WFP-supported schools will be taken over by the national programme and be managed by the
1 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), National Social Protection Council (NSPC), Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA) and Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF).
2 World Education, World Vision and Plan International.
3 In total 32 persons participated in 16 interviews.
4 https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/systems-approach-for-better-education-results-saber
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] v

Government after transition. In March 2022, the MoEYS and WFP finalized a Joint School Feeding Transition
Strategy (JTS) outlining the handover of further schools and the remaining capacity strengthening to be done.
8. The COVID-19 pandemic had widespread impacts, especially amongst poor households, leading to
increased poverty, inequality, and unemployment. Schools were closed for 20 months, during which time
school meals were temporarily discontinued, but WFP support continued through take-home rations for the
most vulnerable households, the construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure in schools, increased
distribution of teaching and learning materials, and support to the development of the school feeding policy
framework.
Evaluation findings
Evaluation Question 1: What is the pre-cycle situation for all evaluation criteria (relevance,
effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency and coherence), and in terms of GEWE5 mainstreaming in the
project?
9. Relevance and coherence. The project is fully oriented to the objectives of achieving full handover to the
Government and creating the best possible conditions for the sustainability of the NHGSFP in all its
components. It was designed to support the implementation of the JTS, which identifies a clearer approach for
handover than during previous projects. WFP direct implementation will progressively decrease as schools are
handed over, and WFP resources will be increasingly dedicated to capacity strengthening and technical
assistance to the NHGSF programme.
10. School feeding is well integrated into government priorities within the National Social Protection Policy
Framework. The NHGSFP was endorsed in 2019, the development of its policy framework and regulations
progressed significantly under the FY19 project, and will continue to develop during the FY22 project. The
literacy component is fully integrated into the national Early Grade Reading (EGR) programme, and the
sanitation and hygiene component is designed to support the National Policy on School Health.
11. One concern is that local procurement of local food commodities for the meals is a key element of the
HGSF model, and schools must be experienced with the processes to be deemed ready for handover. There
will be no longer be any local purchase made within the McGovern-Dole project and WFP is expected to
mobilize additional resources, different from the case to date, which presents a threat to the handover
objectives.
12. Effectiveness. The review of intermediate and overall outcomes of the project showed that a few
elements deserve particular attention. The implementation of the literacy package by different partners at
different times and in different provinces with some variations, and the application of different protocols for
the early grade reading assessment affects the comparability of data gathered. Future efforts are required to
maintain the same approach as in the 2022 measurement. The FY22 baseline level of 20.4 percent highlights
the low levels of early grade literacy and the need to continue to improve this critical outcome.
13. The FY22 baseline showed a higher proportion of hungry students during class and a lower attendance
than in 2020. Both trends need to be further investigated so that appropriate measures can be taken. The Diet
Diversity Score calculated at baseline is already higher than the project life target, so the target needs to be
updated (if the recalculated value remains higher than the LoP target), and the indicator should be clearly
defined in the PMP to specify the exact food groups used in the calculation.
14. it would be necessary to clarify if the 24 hours recall includes the meal consumed at school or not, and
how the target was defined.6 Functioning water infrastructure has decreased in the FY22 baseline despite the
FY19 project building or rehabilitating a large number of facilities, and this evolution should also be further
investigated.
15. WFP’s complaints and feedback mechanism is adequate to collect and address comments on WFP direct
operations, including for this project. A possible adoption of a similar mechanism by the MoEYS is still under
discussion.
5 Gender equality and women’s empowerment

6 At baseline, using the data from the FY19 endline survey, the Diet Diversity Score has been calculated based on 10 food
groups.
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] vi

16. Sustainability. Institutional ownership and participation in the NHGSF programme have been strong for
MoEYS and NSPC, but remain weak for nine other institutions formally associated with the programme.
Clarifications on their roles were provided recently, though inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms are not
yet in place. This needs to be prioritised under this new project, in order to promote ownership and start
strengthening necessary capacities as soon as possible.
17. Efficiency. Under this criteria, WFP’s emphasis is on supporting a cost-efficient NHGSFP. The CO currently
supports the assessment and piloting of different procurement models for the HGSF programme. Regional
purchase included in the project is expected to be more cost-efficient than international imports.
18. The CO’s management structure for implementing the project is getting more appropriate to the project
needs. The FY19 evaluations highlighted the need for a mindset change and for staff to prioritise capacity
strengthening and technical assistance to their government counterparts. Internal capacities are considered
more appropriate to the FY22 project’s objectives than in the past.
Evaluation Question 2: What are the contextual changes that occurred since the FY19 baseline relevant
to the programme and under each evaluation criteria, including GEWE aspects?
19. The greatest external factor to affect the FY19 project was clearly the COVID-19 pandemic, and the country
continues to recover from that, but one key factor is the learning loss for the children affected by 20 months of
school closures. However, a repetition of such a situation in the future is unpredictable and cannot realistically
be factored into the new project design.
20. The FY19 evaluations highlighted the high-level government support as a key factor of success to date,
although there were identified challenges related to limited capacity and understanding of the programme and
how to implement it amongst MoEYS and sub-national staff. Baseline key informants confirmed that the
Minister of Education has been very supportive throughout the transition process, and that government will
remains strong and it is not expected that this will change in the coming years.
21. Ongoing Decentralization and Deconcentration reforms in Cambodia are planned to be rolled out in 2024
and could potentially modify key structures and processes related to the management of the school feeding
programme (SFP). WFP needs to assess the potential implication of the reforms on the SFP and factor it into
capacity strengthening activities for different audiences.
22. The macroeconomic context was cited during informant interviews as a key factor that could affect the
resourcing of the NHGSF plan.
23. The baseline study has not identified contextual changes specific to GEWE.
Evaluation Question 3: Are the project indicators and targets appropriate in effectively measuring and
tracking project results for men, women, girls, boys and vulnerable groups based on the results
framework?
24. The exhaustive review of the FY22 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) during this baseline allowed the
Evaluation Team (ET) to consider that the plan has improved in comparison with FY19, but there are still issues
that need to be addressed.
25. The overall set of indicators is found appropriate to measure project outputs and outcomes, and realistic
considering the coverage of the project and the achievements of the previous FY19 round. There is some
overlapping of indicators, and necessary adjustments to be made. Targets are often not documented and
justified, which needs to be improved in order to allow for the analysis of achievements in both the regular
monitoring system of the project and for the midterm and endline evaluations. Whenever it is relevant, the
PMP disaggregates indicators considering gender, but targets are not disaggregated.
26. National and sub-national capacities for monitoring the NHGSFP were also repeatedly mentioned in the
FY19 evaluation series. Difficulties such as lack of connectivity, lack of skills in digitalized system, and excessive
workloads, were again cited by interviewees. In April 2022, WFP carried out an assessment of the Monitoring
and Evaluation System for the NHGSF programme based on a desk review, and clear recommendations and
action points were proposed.
Evaluation Question 4: To what extent are the midterm and endline evaluation questions relevant in
assessing the success of the programme under each criterion and for all categories of participants
including men, women, girls, boys and vulnerable groups?
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] vii
27. Overall, the evaluation questions capture well the key focus on success and performance of the project,
and on the readiness and sustainability of the NHGSF programme. The ET proposes some adjustments that
respond to three objectives:
- Simplify the evaluation questions and provide more clarity as the questions are sometimes too
extensive and convoluted.
- Reduce overlapping and the number of questions.
- Strengthen the integration of GEWE with explicit references everywhere relevant.
Conclusions
28. This final McGovern-Dole FY22 aims towards achieving full handover to the Government by 2028 and
creating the best possible conditions for the sustainability of the NHGSFP. School handover was initiated in the
previous project, but this FY22 project goes further, intending to determine what will happen after the
handover.
29. The project is fully oriented towards this objective in all its components and it has been designed to
support the implementation of the JTS. School feeding is well integrated into the social protection policy
framework. It aligns with, and supports, a wide range of official policies and strategies. There is a strong
ownership and political will, particularly from the MoEYS and NSPC, that needs to be extended to other key
government institutions.
30. Removing local procurement from the project could potentially affect the readiness of schools for
handover and the HGSF model chosen by the Government. It will be essential to address this question in the
short term.
31. Overall, the analysis of the baseline situation shows that the project will build on a solid base from past
projects, although some elements need to be further investigated and some adjustments need to be made on
project targets and indicators. WFP has been adjusting and will continue to progressively improve its own
capacities to better support the capacity strengthening objectives of the project.
Lessons learned
32. The ET has proposed an evaluation model clearly focused on learning from the handover process. The
evaluation series will provide a good opportunity to assess the extent to which the handover (of an activity that
has been delivered by WFP over decades based on its own standards) to the Government, will result in an
evolution of the performance levels. It will also be an opportunity to observe how the Government adapts
standards and systems to be more in accordance with its own priorities and resources.
33. Implementing both the FY19 endline and FY22 baseline in parallel was well justified in terms of saving
resources, limiting stakeholder fatigue and allowing an analysis of the evolution of 10 years of McGovern-Dole
programming in the same schools. However, these two evaluations were done by different teams – albeit via
the same company7 – so they were by definition different exercises with separate reports, but it was ensured
that there were multiple phone discussions between the Team Leaders, some of the team members were the
same, and there was extensive sharing of information, data and reports between the teams. In future cases
several elements could be changed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the exercise. For instance,
undertaking the baseline study after the endline of the previous project is completed would allow enough time
to access the data, clean, prepare and analyse it, with sufficient interactions between both teams. Alternatively,
a more cost-efficient, coherent and appropriate approach would be to integrate both evaluations into a single
exercise conducted by the same team.
This baseline study was conducted remotely and primary data collection only included a few key informant
interviews at national level. National stakeholders interviewed remotely were mainly at higher levels and not
sufficiently aware of the McGovern-Dole projects. For future iterations it will be imperative to speak to sub-
national stakeholders, school personnel and communities.
7 The CO advised that they considered the approach selected offered more benefits because a new bidding process would allow additional
firms the opportunity to submit proposals for the FY22 evaluation series.
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] viii
September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] ix
1. Introduction
1. This report presents the findings and conclusions of the baseline study of the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole international Food for Education and Child Nutrition project,
implemented by the World Food Programme (WFP) in Cambodia as a key part of its School Feeding
Programme (SFP) activities. This project runs from 01 October 2022 to 30 September 2027 under the USDA
McGovern-Dole Grant number FFE-442-2022-009-00.8 The Terms of Reference (ToR) are attached as Annex 1.
1.1. Evaluation features

2. The full evaluation process comprises three distinct exercises (baseline, midterm and endline), with each
exercise having multiple deliverables, including inception and evaluation reports. The series will take place
over a five-year period, and has been commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (WFP CO). It will be
carried out by the KonTerra Group, with the same team of independent experts working on all three exercises.
The baseline study was undertaken remotely at the beginning of the project (July 2023), the midterm
evaluation is scheduled for 2025, and the final evaluation is scheduled for the end of the project in 2027.
3. The purpose of this baseline study is to establish the initial situation at the start of the project, in
particular the baseline values for all performance indicators. The midterm and endline evaluations will assess
the results achieved based on successive measurement of the same performance indicators. The ToR will
remain unchanged for the full series, unless changes to the scope occur which necessitate adjustments to the
budget or team composition for the later rounds.
4. Scope: The planned series of evaluations will cover all activities and processes of WFP Cambodia’s
McGovern-Dole-supported school feeding activities under the project FFE-442-2022-009-00, including the
formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation and reporting relevant to answer the
evaluation questions, in the three provinces covered by the project: Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom and
Siem Reap. The timelines for the baseline and overall evaluation series, as well as country maps showing the
project provinces, are available in Annex 2.
5. The specific objectives of the evaluation are:
- Learning is a critical objective of the evaluation series as it aims to assess the effects of the handover
of the school feeding programme (SFP) to the Royal Government of Cambodia, reporting on the
project performance and the extent to which the national Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF)
programme is sustainable. This is particularly important considering that this project will be the final
USDA support to school feeding in Cambodia. To this end, the evaluation processes will determine the
reasons why the handover produces certain results or not, to draw lessons, derive good practices and
pointers for learning. Findings will be actively disseminated, and lessons will be incorporated into
relevant lesson-sharing systems. The evaluation components will aim to critically and objectively
review and take stock of stakeholders’ implementation experience and the operating environment for
the McGovern-Dole project.
- Accountability: The evaluation processes will assess and report on the performance and results of
the McGovern-Dole activities during the grant period. For accountability, the evaluations will assess
whether targeted beneficiaries have received services as expected, if the project is on track to meet its
stated goals and objectives, and in alignment with the results frameworks and other assumptions.
6. The work will provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. The
expected users of the evaluation are the WFP Cambodia CO, the Regional Bureau in Bangkok (RBB), key
partner ministries within the Royal Government of Cambodia including the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport (MoEYS), National Social Protection Council (NSPC), Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA) and Ministry of Economy and Finance
(MEF). WFP has a particular interest in the evaluation series in order to ensure that the handover process is
progressing well and the perspectives of sustainability of the national home-grown school feeding programme
(NHGSFP) are optimal. Government institutions will also be primary users, as the evaluation series provides an
opportunity to identify elements requiring strengthening. Other stakeholders such as the donor and
8 Throughout this document this project (2022-2027) is denoted as FY22; the previous project (2019-2022) is denoted as FY19.
1
cooperating partners also have an interest. WFP’s partners in the project are World Education for the literacy
component, World Vision and Plan International on school feeding, and on the water/sanitation/hygiene
(WASH) and school garden components.
7. USDA has supported school feeding in Cambodia since 2013 through several grants. The McGovern-Dole
FY22 project is anticipated to be the final USDA grant and aims at completing the full handover of the SFP to
the Government. The emphasis of the project is therefore on capacity strengthening and sustainability through
the different components that have been supported by USDA in previous projects, particularly literacy, school
feeding, WASH and nutrition (see the project description in section 1.3).
8. This baseline study was conducted in parallel with the endline evaluation of the previous McGovern-Dole
FY19 round (2019-2023). To avoid stakeholder fatigue and the duplication of evaluation activities and
resources, as well as to allow to analysis of the evolution of 10 years of McGovern-Dole support in the same
schools, this baseline study was implemented remotely and uses secondary data to a large extent, particularly
the data collected in the FY19 endline evaluation (see section 1.4 for evaluation approach and methodology).
1.2. Context
General overview
9. Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy located in the southern region of the Indochinese peninsula in
Southeast Asia, with a landmass of 181,035 km2 dominated by broad central plains around the Tonle Sap Lake
and the Mekong River. The country has an estimated population of over 16.9 million (2023),9 49.5 percent male
and 50.5 percent female. With an annual growth rate of 1.2 percent, almost a third of the population is below 15
years of age, with only five percent aged over 65 years; the median age is 25 years. Average life expectancy at
birth is 70 years (72 for women and 67 for men), and the fertility rate is 2.34 births per woman. 10
10. Minority ethnic groups constitute six to 10 percent of the population, including the Cham, indigenous
highland communities, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Vietnamese, and smaller minority groups such as the Khmer
Krom and the Kuy people. The Government formally recognizes only the Cham and Khmer Loeu. 11
11. The Royal Government of Cambodia has established impressive economic growth over the past 20 years,
bringing the country to lower middle-income status in 2016 with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of
US$1,785 in 2022.12 The GDP per capita for 2023 is expected to be US$1,924.13 Annual economic growth in the
period before the COVID-19 pandemic was consistently above seven percent for over a decade,14 reaching 7.5
percent in 2018 and 7.1 percent in 2019,15 making Cambodia one of the fastest growing economies in the
world. However, economic growth was severely impacted by the pandemic, falling in 2020 to -3.1 percent, with
some recovery in 2022 (3.0 percent)16 and an expectation from the MEF that growth will increase to 5.5 percent
in 2023.17
12. In 2021, Cambodia ranked 146th in the global Human Development Index (HDI) out of 191 countries
reporting and was placed in the medium human development category.18 In general, Cambodia has one of the
world’s fastest rates of improved HDI, with increased equity between provinces.19 While the pandemic caused a
decline to 2018 levels, this compares favourably with the global average decline to 2016 levels, indicating the
country’s effective pandemic response.20 Indicators for education21 are also on a positive trend, but health and
education indicators both remain lower in comparison with neighbouring countries. The Government’s targets
on improved nutrition, ending stunting and increasing income (by 20 percent for the poorest) have not yet
9 https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/cambodia-population
10 All other data in this paragraph from the World Bank, 2022; World Development Indicators DataBank,
https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed on 07.06.23).
11 World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous People, https://minority rights.org/country/Cambodia/ (accessed on 07.06.23)
12 https://mef.gov.kh/documents-category/publication/budget-in-brief/ (in Khmer)
13 ibid.
14 https://www.adb.org/countries/cambodia/economy.
15 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23603Cambodia_VNR_PublishingHLPF.pdf
16 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?view=chart&locations=KH
17 https://www.adb.org/news/cambodia-economy-accelerate-tourism-recovery-adb
18 https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/KHM
19 https://www.kh.undp.org/content/cambodia/en/home/library/human_development/human-development-report-2019--sustaining-natural-
resources-for-.html
20 Doubling down on Cambodia’s investments in human development to manage uncertain times | United Nations Development Programme
(undp.org)
21 Education Index calculated using Mean Years of Schooling & Expected Years of Schooling. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index
2
been achieved.22 The country’s long-term development vision, the Rectangular Strategy for Growth,
Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase IV (2019–2023),23 emphasizing strong commitment to education and
children’s nutrition, is viewed as a priority for sustainable human resource development, economic growth and
social development.
13. Poverty: Cambodia’s fast economic growth has been accompanied by a significant reduction in poverty,
cutting poverty levels from 33.8 percent in 2009 to 17.8 percent in 2019,24 although the COVID-19 pandemic
reversed some of the progress made.25 The national poverty line in Cambodia was adjusted following the
Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey for 2019/20, based on the cost of basic needs and a common basket
approach,26 and is now Cambodian Riel (KHR) 10,951 or approximately US$2.7027 per person per day.28 The
poverty rate in rural areas is up to 22.8 percent in some places, compared with 4.2 percent in Phnom Penh. 29
The distribution of income in Cambodia’s economy shows a score of 48.9 on the Gini index for 2019.30
14. Three-quarters of the population resides in rural areas where approximately 90 percent of the country’s
poor live.31 These households mostly exist on small margins of poverty and are vulnerable to natural hazards,
environmental or individual shocks. Previous estimates suggest that a loss in daily income of US$0.30 per
capita would double the poverty rate.32 There remains a limited social safety net system in the country, but the
National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) 2016-2025 places a strong emphasis on human capital
development, and the collaboration with WFP on school feeding through the MoEYS and its planned
nationwide rollout is an integral part of the Government’s efforts.33
15. Food security and undernutrition remain important public health concerns in Cambodia.34 The national
objectives set for the Cambodia-specific Millennium Development Goals were not met35 and malnutrition rates
remain higher than in most countries in the region.36 The newer Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)
indicator for undernourishment (Goal 2) indicates that 6.2 percent of Cambodian households consume less
than the minimum dietary energy requirement.37 Some 39 percent of adult male Cambodians and 45.8
percent of women suffer from severe food insecurity,38 with undernutrition most prevalent in rural areas.
Dietary diversity remains relatively low: rice, meat and fish consumption are high, while fruit, vegetables and
consumption of other animal-source protein, like milk or eggs, fall below international guidelines. 39 The
Government has developed several policies and programmes to end hunger, including: a) the National Fast
Track Roadmap for Improving Nutrition (2014-2020);40 b) The Second National Strategy for Food Security and
Nutrition (NSFSN, 2019-2023);41 c) the National Action Plan for Zero Hunger Challenge in Cambodia (2016-
2025);42 and d) Cambodia’s Roadmap for Food Systems for Sustainable Development 2030. The most recent
(2021-22) Demographic Health Survey (DHS) reported that 22 percent of children under the age of five years
were stunted, 10 percent were wasted, 16 percent were underweight and four percent were overweight. 43
23 RS-IV 2019–2023 – Rectangle 1 including 1) Improving the quality of education, science, and technology; 2) Vocational training; 3) Improving
public healthcare and nutrition; and 4) Strengthening gender equality and social protection. Available at: http://cnv.org.kh/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Rectangular-Strategy-Phase-IV-of-the-Royal-Government-of-Cambodia-of-the-Sixth-Legislature-of-the-National-
Assembly-2018-2023.pdf
24 https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview
25 https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/publication/cambodia-poverty-assessment-2022-toward-a-more-inclusive-and-resilient-
cambodia
26 ibid
27 Exchange rate of KHR 4,000 = US$1.00
28 As reflected in the cost of a basic food basket, food prices have increased in recent years: in February 2023, the basket cost was the
equivalent of US$26.20 (+1.1 percent compared to the previous month and +6.6 percent compared to the same period in 2022). Source:
https://reliefweb.int/report/cambodia/cambodia-market-seasonal-monitoring-update-february-
2023#:~:text=Summary%20of%20Key%20Findings,year%2Donyear%2C%20YoY).
29 https://www.worldeconomics.com/Inequality/Cambodia.aspx
30 Ibid.
31 https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview
32 World Bank Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013.
33 http://inndec.com/library/docs/SPPF%20English%20-%20Final%20Ver.pdf
34 https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000112436/download/?_ga=2.113129794.71101732.1589421801-1848541966.1586381573
35 Cambodia had an objective of reducing the prevalence of undernourished people to <10%.
36 https://opendevelopmentcambodia.net/topics/sdg-2-zero-hunger//
37 SDG tracker data: https://sdg-tracker.org/zero-hunger
38 https://data.unwomen.org/country/cambodia
39 https://cambodia.un.org/en/198886-wfp-and-government-cambodia-launch-behaviour-change-campaign-improve-nutrition-among
41 http://njppp.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/10-2-Framework-NSFSN-19-23-TWG-for-RACHA-workshop-1.pdf
42 http://ocm.gov.kh/ocmwinwin20/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/6-National_Action_Plan_for_the_Zero.pdf
43 https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR377/FR377.pdf
3
Among women aged 20-49, seven percent were reported to be thin, while 33 percent were overweight or
obese.44 While rates of undernutrition are declining, an increase is seen in rates of overweight among both
children and women.
16. Gender inequality persists in Cambodia, which ranked 116 out of the 160 countries in the Gender
Inequality Index at 0.47545 and ranked 98 out of 146 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index 2022.46
Cambodia’s relative position in the latter index has been declining in recent years (from 89 th place of 153 in
202047), indicating its progress towards gender equality falls behind that of many other countries.
17. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Cambodia reported in 2015 that
70 percent of women in employment were engaged at lower levels and on less pay48 than men, with estimates
that on average women were paid 30 percent less for commensurate work. 49 Women are also
underrepresented in the public sector where 77 percent of employees and 85 percent of decision-making
positions are occupied by men.50 In 2022, 21 percent of parliamentary seats were held by women.51
Nationally, 25 percent of women were illiterate compared to 13.5 percent of men (2015).52
18. However, Cambodia’s Gender Development Index (GDI) results indicate progress in recent years53 - the
2021 female HDI value is 0.57054 in contrast with 0.615 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.926, placing it
into Group 3 (up from Group 4 (GDI 0.914 in 2017).55 Increasingly, more women are creating independent
sources of income within the private sector by starting small businesses, particularly in the clothing sector,56 or
through urban migration for work. Although most microenterprises in Cambodia are run by women, they are
largely concentrated in the informal sector and female entrepreneurs face additional challenges due to lack of
financial knowledge, and double responsibilities related to income-generation and caring for their families. The
SDG targets on gender equality in education and literacy (Goal 5) have been achieved at the primary school
level and the gender parity index of gross enrolment rate at both lower secondary and upper secondary levels
increased from 1.1 in 2015 to 1.2 in 2018.57
19. According to the MoEYS,58 social exclusion particularly affects disabled children and indigenous groups.
Cambodia has one of the highest rates of people with disabilities due to large numbers of residual land mines
and unexploded ordnance. In 2019, there were nearly 45,000 disabled children at primary school and 7,000 at
secondary school, but the majority of children with disabilities were either not enrolled or had dropped out. A
key concern regarding indigenous people is their physical well-being as they have a significantly poorer health
status than the rest of the population. Indigenous children often live long distances from schools, requiring
them to walk in often unsafe areas (especially for girls), and schools often do not provide education in their
mother tongue beyond grade 3, all resulting in limited academic performance.
20. Education: Cambodia has made positive strides in improving primary education and in reducing gender
disparity in schools, particularly in rural areas. The Education Strategic Plan (ESP) (2019-2023) and other
national strategies indicate a strong commitment to improving educational standards. Official (EMIS59) data
show that the primary completion rate has nearly doubled over the last two decades, reaching 91 percent in
2021 (95 percent for females, 87 percent for males), while the gross enrolment rate in lower secondary has
44 ibid
45 http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII; Ratio of women to men HDI values. Gender Development Index scores range from 0 to 1 with a
score of 1 indicating equality between men and women in reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market.
46 World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2022. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf; a composite index
considering equality in health, education, economy and politics
47 https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf
48 https://cambodia.ohchr.org/en/issues/gender-equality-and-human-rights
49 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009
50 https://cambodia.ohchr.org/en/issues/gender-equality-and-human-rights
51 https://data.worldbank.org/country/cambodia?view=chart
52 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html
53 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/KHM.pdf; index includes health, education and command over economic
resources
54 https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/specific-country-data#/countries/KHM
55 Gender Development Index groups: Countries are divided into five groups by absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI values. Group 5
comprises countries with the lowest equality in HDI achievements between women and men (absolute deviation from gender parity of more
than 10 percent).
56 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning
58 https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/cambodia_understanding_social_exclusion_in_the_cambodia_cantext
_and_planning_for_inclusive_education-2021.pdf
59 EMIS – the Education Management Information System of the MoEYS
4
increased from just 19 percent in 2001 to 58 percent in 2021 (62 percent for females, 53 percent for males). 60
Household survey data confirm the improvement trends, as the share of primary-aged children who were out
of school (at any level) had been reduced from 27 percent (2000) to just seven percent in the pre-COVID-19
pandemic period (5.9 percent for females, 8.7 percent for males), while the net enrolment rate in lower
secondary improved from 11 percent to nearly 47 percent over this same period (50.8 percent for females,
43.9 percent for males).61 Gender parity index trends consistently show that increases in participation have
been most notable for girls, as the combined primary/lower secondary gender parity index increased from
0.86 in 2000 to 1.0023 in 2019,62 (slightly more girls than boys).
21. Despite the improvement in overall participation and gender equity, and the decline in grade repetition
and dropout rates,63 inequality concerns are still relevant as indicators like primary school completion and
secondary enrolment lag significantly behind in rural areas.64 Pockets of educational exclusion also remain,
even at the primary level, for vulnerable populations such as ethnic minorities (non-Khmer speakers), remote
and very poor households and children with disabilities.65 The COVID-19 pandemic has likely exacerbated
existing inequalities in school participation, as official EMIS data from 2022 show declines in net enrolment
rates at primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels.66
22. Given the progress made in recent decades in getting children into school, with an increasing share
reaching secondary education, the central challenge facing the education system is quality. A 2019 regional
assessment (Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics, SEA-PLM67) found that 24 percent of Cambodian grade 5
students scored in the lowest proficiency level in reading, and only 11 percent reached the minimum “end of
primary” proficiency level as defined under the SDG 4.1.1b; in Writing, the share of students in the lowest
proficiency level was 50 percent.68 Girls performed significantly better than boys in all three test subjects in the
SEA-PLM assessment, but very large learning gaps were identified by location (rural/urban), socio-economic
quintile and language in the home.69 Results from national assessments not only confirm low levels of
achievement and significant gaps between different groups, but also suggest a significant decline as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the grade 6 national learning assessment conducted by MoEYS found
that the share of public-school grade 6 students in the lowest proficiency level (‘Below Basic’) increased from
34.2 percent in 2016 to 45.4 percent in 2021, while in mathematics this share increased from 49.2 percent to
nearly 75 percent.70 The share of grade 6 girls in the ‘Below Basic’ category increased from 26.8 percent to 34.2
percent in Khmer and 47.6 percent to 71.2 percent in mathematics between 2016 and 2021, while for grade 6
boys the shares increased from 40.6 to 55.3 percent (Khmer) and 49.0 to 75.1 percent (mathematics).71
23. School Meals. School feeding is a major component of WFP Cambodia’s Country Strategic Plan (CSP)
2019–2023 and a key part of the NSPPF 2016-2025, which represents an important policy tool to reduce and
prevent poverty, vulnerability and inequity. The NSPPF has been an opportunity to expand Cambodia’s social
protection programme, and particularly the home-grown school feeding (HGSF) programme.72 School feeding
is implemented in ten of Cambodia’s 25 provinces, with WFP’s support in five of them. 73 The SMP started in the
country in 1999; in 2014, the MoEYS in collaboration with WFP piloted an HGSF model and both parties signed
a ‘school feeding roadmap’ in May 2015. The Government’s national HGSF programme has been subsequently
developed with the expectation that WFP-supported schools will be added to the national programme. From
school year (SY) 2019-2020, WFP started reducing its operational coverage following the transition plan to
national ownership in managing and implementing the SFP, and the MoEYS took over the HGSF model to
become the national programme, with an official budget allocation from that school year.
60 UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) data (http://data.uis.unesco.org/#).

61 DHS 4 (2000), 7 (2014) and 8 (2021-22).
62 https://tradingeconomics.com/cambodia/ratio-of-female-to-male-primary-enrollment-percent-wb-data.html
63 Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023, MoEYS, May 2019
64 Heng, K. et al (2016) Research report. School Dropout in Cambodia: A case study of Phnom Penh and Kampong Speu. Korea International
Cooperation Agency, Cambodia Country Office. Royal University of Phnom Penh, Faculty of Education
65 UNESCO/UNICEF (2012) Asia Pacific: End of Decade Notes on Education for All – EFA Goal #5 Gender Equity. Bangkok: UNESCO & UNICEF
66 EMIS 2021-2022 data.
67 https://www.seaplm.org/index.php?lang=en
68 UNICEF & SEAMEO. (2020). SEA-PLM 2019 Main Regional Report, Children’s learning in 6 Southeast Asian countries. Bangkok, Thailand:
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) & Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) – SEA-PLM Secretariat.
69 ibid
70 UNICEF (2022). Learning loss in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Evidence from the 2016-2021 Grade 6 National Learning Assessment in
Cambodia. Phnom Penh: UNICEF.
71 Ibid
72 McGovern-Dole 2019-2023 Midterm evaluation report.
73 Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Oddar Meanchey, Kampong Chhnang and Pursat provinces
5
24. In March 2022, the MoEYS and WFP finalized a school feeding Joint Transition Strategy that outlines the
ongoing handover of schools and remaining capacity strengthening to be done. The transition to a nationally-
owned SFP is coherent with the 2019-2023 ESP and the 2016-2025 NSPPF. The Government absorbed WFP’s
food, cash and take-home ration (THR) beneficiaries into the national scholarship programme until it finalized
in 2019.
25. WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia are in alignment on their commitment to zero hunger and
their partnership is implemented through the social protection and education sectors. In Cambodia, short-
term hunger is a key factor affecting educational results, such as literacy, attendance, and concentration in
schools.74 The HGSF programme aims to encourage students’ enrolment, attendance, and the completion of
their primary education, as well as reduce short-term hunger and improve the children’s concentration in the
classroom. The programme also invests in community and school-based partnerships aimed at providing an
incentive for parents so that their children complete their primary schooling. 75 The McGovern-Dole project
provides a daily school meal (breakfast) to all morning class pre-primary and primary school children in
selected schools within the target areas. The selection criteria for schools are based on poverty, malnutrition
and education indicators.
26. Official international commitments and with development partners: The Royal Government of
Cambodia strives to take over initiatives of development partners that have demonstrated their positive
impact, to ensure their continuation to benefit the country. This is in alignment with its commitment to the
SDGs (Goal 17, in particular).76 The Development Cooperation and Partnership Strategy (DCPS, 2019-2023)77
provides a comprehensive framework for promoting development partnerships in Cambodia. Government
statistics indicate that official development assistance rose from US$1.7 billion in 2019 to US$1.9 billion in 2022
(US$2.1 billion in 2020; US$1.77 billion in 2021).78 Other relevant commitments to the evaluation subject are
the School Meals Coalition, Nutrition4Growth, the 2022 Transforming Education Summit and the 2021 Food
Systems Summit.
27. Recent Public Investment Programme data highlight a wide range of development partners supporting
the public education sector.79 Among ongoing projects and programmes, the USDA McGovern-Dole school
feeding project is the sixth largest disbursement for the 2021-2025 period. Other substantial commitments are
provided by the European Union via budget support for all levels, Asian Development Bank (upper secondary
education), USAID (teacher development, inclusive education and other areas across all levels) and the World
Bank (teachers, school-based management in Early Childhood Education, and at primary and secondary
levels).80
28. Under the ESP 2014-2018, the MoEYS developed a programme to support the improvement of students’
reading and assessment as part of Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), in partnership with USAID, WFP,
UNICEF, UNESCO and some national and international development actors, including World Education. The
new ESP 2019-2023 stresses that the MoEYS must further support students to improve reading and writing in
Khmer at the primary education level. As part of its main strategy, the MoEYS will implement training for
primary teachers on teaching and learning methodologies for early grade reading and mathematics, and
provide mentoring to them.
29. Under a newly-endorsed National Policy on School Health, the MoEYS school health department is
collaborating with WFP and the Ministry of Health (MoH) to support food safety and health within the
SMP/HGSF programme.81 Cooperating partners Plan International and World Vision play a role in promoting
the creation of an enabling environment for the provision of school meals, which includes the building and
rehabilitation of infrastructure and other interventions at both national and sub-national levels.
74 https://www.worldnomads.com/responsible-travel/footprints/projects/103/school-feeding-program-siem-reap-cambodia
75 https://www.wfp.org/publications/2015-wfp-gender-policy-2015-2020-0
76 https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-17-partnerships-for-the-goals.html
78 http://odacambodia.com/Reports/reports_by_updated.asp?status=0
79 GPE 2025 Cambodia Partnership Compact, March 2023. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
80 ibid.
81 Support to the HGSF is given under the LRP grant. Through the LRP, WFP utilized a USDA grant fund to complete the ongoing transition of
its SMP model to a national-led and -owned school feeding programme (the HGSF programme), and to complement activities under the
McGovern-Dole programme. The LRP aimed to support the creation of functional supply chain mechanisms and strengthen value chain
systems in the localized markets around SMP schools to ensure provision of locally procured commodities that meet the set food quality
standards.
6
30. National impacts from COVID-19. According to a July 2021 report,82 the pandemic had widespread
impacts on socio-economic indicators, especially among poorer households, and after a decade of steadily
declining poverty rates, the pandemic led to increased poverty and inequality. The Government’s scale-up of
social assistance to poor and vulnerable households (including THRs under the SMP), launched in June 2020,
moderated income losses due to the pandemic for some families. Thanks to this intervention, the poverty rate
increase in 2020 was limited to 2.8 percentage points, according to a July 2021 assessment.83 More than half of
respondents experienced loss of income, and 90 percent of those lost at least 50 percent of their income. Food
security decreased between August 2020 and February 2021, leading to increased utilization/reliance on
negative coping mechanisms such as consuming less-preferred foods, a reduction in portion sizes and the
number of daily meals. But the country responded and adapted well to COVID-19: approximately 83 percent of
the population received at least two doses of COVID vaccines, and travel restrictions were relaxed in the fourth
quarter of 2021. This has contributed to a strong recovery in the main economic sectors such as
manufacturing and agriculture,84 although the emergence of new variants still makes the country vulnerable to
potential economic disruptions. The war in Ukraine (from early 2022) also caused fuel and food prices to
increase, leading to higher rates of food insecurity and poverty.85
31. The pandemic response led to an extended closure of schools in Cambodia, and therefore the temporary
discontinuation of the school meals programme, between March 2020 and November 2021,86 which have
inevitably led to learning loss for school children, with potential long-term socio-economic consequences.
32. Humanitarian situation: Cambodia is very prone to natural disasters. It was classified the 15 th highest
risk country in the World Risk Report 202187 and ranked at the highest level of risk in the world risk index. This
is due to its exposure to natural hazards and to the limited adaptative and coping capacity of the population
and the national and local structures.88 The main hazard to regularly affect Cambodia is flooding, the severity
of which depends on seasonal rainfall from May to November. While annual flooding in some areas is
expected, in 2022 multiple floods occurred affecting approximately 85,000 households in 14 provinces.89 The
National Committee for Disaster Management is the leading government agency for disaster preparedness
and response. Humanitarian and development partners are coordinated in the Humanitarian Response Forum
(HRF) and since 2014 have developed a joint contingency plan to strengthen their preparedness. WFP is a key
member of the Food Security and Nutrition sector within the HRF.
33. WFP’s portfolio and alignment with other United Nations agencies: The World Food Programme has
been present in Cambodia since 1979. Current programming focuses on social protection (through the school
feeding programme), food security and nutrition, and integrated risk management. The WFP CSP 2019-2023
has allocated nearly US$100 million, with strategic results addressing access to food, food systems
sustainability, strengthened national and sub-national capacities and the sharing of knowledge and
expertise.90
34. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2019-2023 seeks to support the
Government’s Rectangular Strategy-Phase IV, which is the overall development plan for the country and the
Cambodian SDGs, through five interconnected outcomes: i) expanding social opportunities; ii) expanding
economic opportunities; iii) supporting sustainable living; iv) strengthening participation and accountability;
and v) managing urbanization.91 The main focus for WFP in the country is on SDGs 2 and 17.
35. Both the current WFP CSP and UNDAF end in 2023 and the McGovern-Dole FY22 project will mainly be
implemented under the new CSP (2024-2028) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation
Framework that will replace the UNDAF.
82 WFP-UNFPA-UN Women-UNAIDS-UNICEF. COVID-19 Socio-economic impact assessment. July 2021

83 https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview#1 Last Updated: Mar 29, 2022
84 ibid.
85 According to Ministry of Economic and Finance, fuel price increased by 49% in Q4 2021, while the price of pork and fish increased by 2.8
percent and 3.1 percent, respectively. In February 2022, the price of gasoline (regular) was +8% MoM and +33% YoY (Ministry of Commerce,
February 2022).
86 The MoEYS mandated reopening of the schools from 01 November 2021 using a hybrid method of instruction (online and face-to-face with
limited numbers of students on site). Schools reopened at full capacity nationwide starting the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year on 10
January 2022.
87 World Risk Report 2021, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/worldriskreport-2021-focus-social-protection
88 Humanitarian Response Forum. Contingency Plan, Focus on Floods, Droughts and Storms. November 2022.
89 Humanitarian Response Forum, Situation Report Nº 2 – Floods in Cambodia, 12 October 2022.
90 WFP Cambodia Country Brief, April 2023.
91 United Nations Development Assistance Framework 2019-2023 Cambodia. February 2019.
7
36. Alignment to the Sustainable Development Goals: Cambodia has made substantial progress in recent
decades on SDG 2 for ending hunger and achieving food security and improved nutrition. The share of the
population that is undernourished (SDG Indicator 2.1.1.) has declined from 23.6 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent
in 2019, although food insecurity (SDG Indicator 2.1.2.) remains a challenge affecting roughly half of the
population.92 Based on the Cambodian Demographic and Health Survey (CDHS) 2021/22 93 data and
Cambodia's CSDG targets, the country is on-track for its stunting target (current 22 percent with the 2020
target of 25 percent); but wasting has remained at around 10 percent for more than a decade and is off-track
compared to the 2020 CSDG target of six percent). The prevalence of overweight children under five between
2014 and 2021/22 doubled (CDHS data). While current prevalence is still less than the 2020 CSDG target of six
percent, the direction of the trend suggests that the 2030 target (below five percent) is unlikely to be met. Data
on the remaining SDG 2 goals are less complete, but also show improvement in agricultural labour production
efficiency (SDG 2.3.1.), and both government (SDG 2.A.1.) and official aid (SDG 2.A.2.) resource flows to the
agricultural sector.94
37. Trends are also generally positive for SDG 17 (“Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable
development”). Government revenue (SDG 17.1.1.) and tax collection (SDG 17.1.2.) have roughly doubled in the
last two decades, and the debt service ratio is below two percent (SDG 17.4.1).95 The total net official
development assistance (SDG 17.9.1) increased from US$480 million in 2000 to just over US$1 billion in 2019
(in constant 2018 United States dollar terms).96
2. Subject of the baseline, theory of

change and baseline questions
2.1. Subject being evaluated
38. The subject of this decentralised activity evaluation is the USDA McGovern-Dole School Feeding Project in
Cambodia, Agreement number FFE-442-2022-009-00, which was signed on 14 September 2022 for a period of
five years (01 October 2022 to 30 September 2027). This project aims at improving literacy levels for primary
school-aged children. To achieve this, it seeks to help improve the quality of teaching, distribute school meals
as an incentive for children to attend and stay in school, and intervene in hygiene, health and nutrition
practices to reduce absences from school due to illness. The project is a continuation of previous USDA grants
for 2013-2016, 2017-2019 and 2019-2023, and targets 341 schools already covered by the previous grant in 12
districts of Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap provinces (see maps in Annex 2). The project
sits within the WFP Cambodia CSP 2019-2023.
39. One of the key evolutions of the project compared to previous USDA grants is the emphasis put on the
handover to the Government-led national HGSF programme (NHGSFP), which should be completed by the end
of the project period, through country capacity strengthening and technical assistance to manage the national
programme and achieve sustainability of all activities supported by the project. The project is implemented by
WFP in partnership with the MoEYS, World Education, World Vision and Plan International.
40. The timing of the baseline study has been closely synchronized with the endline evaluation of the
previous McGovern-Dole grant (FY19) so that this study, and the subsequent midterm and final evaluations,
can present findings in a continuum from the FY19 baseline and endline results with a high degree of
coherence. This baseline study will present data from 2019, considered as the real baseline situation prior to
the previous cycle, thus allowing for the full series of evaluation to track change over a longer period.

93 https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/laws_record/cambodian-sustainable-development-goals-2016-2030-revised-list-of-targets-and-
indicators-by-goals/resource/2545717a-5e4e-4fba-992e-76dacb1a9d57
95 SDG tracker data: https://sdg-tracker.org/global-partnerships
96 ibid
8
41. The conclusions and recommendations at midterm and endline of the previous (FY19) have been taken
into account for this baseline. The FY19 cycle’s midterm evaluation brief presented the main conclusions and
lessons learnt (available in Annex 3), and the design of the McGovern-Dole FY22 project incorporates lessons
from this midterm evaluation. During the FY19 project cycle, several key assessments were conducted97 and
this baseline has determined the extent to which the FY22 project integrates findings from these assessments.
42. The long-term goal of the project is that the NHGSFP sustainably contributes towards the development of
human capital and the local economy. As defined in the Theory of Change of the project (Annex 4), to achieve
this goal the project is structured around two strategic objectives (SO) and foundational results, for which a
results framework was developed. Results frameworks for the overall project, for the two SOs and for the
foundational results are provided in Annexes 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Theory of Change provides clear pathways from
activities to the long-term vision with a link to the national priorities.
43. The overall results framework of the project (Annex 5) includes an additional SO on local purchase:
Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement (LRP). It includes three
activities: i) regional procurement of canned fish; ii) support to schools in procuring fresh vegetables and
sources of animal protein; and iii) develop the capacity of local farmers to supply the demand for safe,
nutritious and affordable food by schools. Only the first of these activities is part of the McGovern-Dole project;
the other two activities are supported by complementary funding and will not be assessed in this evaluation
series.98
44. Strategic Objective 1 (SO1): Improved literacy of school-age children (see results framework in Annex
6). This represents the main objective of the project and will be achieved through: i) the provision of school
meals, expected to contribute to increased enrolment, attendance and attentiveness in school, and reduced
drop-out; ii) school health promotion, expected to contribute to reduced health related absences; and iii)
literacy interventions, expected to contribute to improved quality of literacy. For school meals, the project
provides mostly food imported from the United States (fortified rice and vegetable oil), complemented by
canned fish purchased regionally.
45. Strategic Objective 2 (SO2): Increased use of health and dietary practices (see results framework in
Annex 7). This objective contributes to SO1 and aims to reduce health related absences through: i) the
promotion of children’s health and dietary practices in line with the National Policy on School Health, ii) the
promotion of safe food preparation and storage practices; iii) improved WASH infrastructure; and iv) the
provision of preventive health services.
46. The Foundational Results aim to ensure that the national SFP runs effectively and sustainably (results
framework in Annex 8). These results contribute to SO1 and SO2 with an emphasis on the sustainability of the
NHGSFP and the transfer of WFP-assisted schools to the Government at the end of the McGovern-Dole FY22
project in 2027. These results include four streams: i) increased capacity of government institutions; ii)
improved policy and regulatory frameworks; iii) increased development support; and iv) increased engagement
of local organizations and community groups.
47. Table 1 indicates the activities, beneficiaries, inputs and expected outputs in each of these three areas,
according to the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) (provided in Annex 9 with detailed planned outputs by
year and disaggregated by sex). The project targets were reviewed during the baseline study with
recommendations for their adjustments (see chapter 1.4.2).
97 Examples include a lessons learnt exercise on Take Home Rations conducted in 2020, NHGSF programme capacity assessments from 2021
and 2022, a school assessment from 2020, a gender action research from 2021 and a supplier assessment from 2020.
98 A separate LRP project (funded by USDA) ran from 2019 to 2023, with another year of no-cost extension to compensate for time lost during
the pandemic. This project is to be evaluated in early 2024; baseline and midterm evaluation reports for the LRP are available.
9
Table 1: Beneficiaries, outputs and inputs per Strategic Objective (targets to be achieved by 2027)
Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-age children
No. of No. of
Main Activities Beneficiaries Physical inputs
schools meals
3,290 MT rice and vegetable oil + 580 MT
Provision of school meals 341 109,261 children 26,946,360
canned fish
1,780 teachers
Literacy interventions 520 556 units of learning materials
577 school administrators
Strategic Objective 2: Increased used of health and dietary practices
Main Activities Beneficiaries

Promotion of adequate child, health and nutrition practices 2,786 trainees
Promotion of adequate hygiene, water and sanitation practices 900 trainees 406 infrastructures
Promotion of safe food preparation and storage practices 1,364 trainees
Provision of preventive health services
Foundational Results: The National School Feeding Programme runs effectively and sustainably
Main Activities Beneficiaries
Management and monitoring trainings 180 national level + 204 sub-national level government staff
Effective SM implementation training 656 community members
Nine technical assistance initiatives for the design, implementation and monitoring of the HGSF programme
One technical assistance initiative to strengthen the regulatory framework
One technical assistance initiative to support budgeting of the national programme
Support to 15 multi-stakeholder school feeding coordination meetings
Source: Evaluation ToR and USDA Performance Monitoring Plan.
48. This baseline study has established values for new indicators and evaluation questions, including for two
project components introduced under this new FY22 grant: i) strengthened technical assistance for the
national institutionalization of the SFP; and ii) expansion of the literacy intervention package from grades 1 and
2 to include grade 3 students.
49. Gender Considerations. WFP Cambodia is committed to gender equality and women’s empowerment
(GEWE) in line with the corporate principle that these are preconditions for effective and sustainable
development and the enjoyment of universal human rights.99 The CO’s CSP 2019-2023 demonstrates
meaningful engagement with GEWE throughout as a precondition, including the commitment “to embed
gender and disability analyses, including sex- and age-disaggregated data, in assessments, research, technical
assistance and knowledge and information management, as appropriate.” 100
50. The CO commitment is consistent with WFP’s global gender policy 2022 and aligned with the
Government’s Neary Rattanak V: Five Year National Strategic Plan for Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment (2019–2023),101 which emphasizes the importance of multi-sectoral action to improve gender
equity. The Government is also drafting its third National Action Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women
(NAPVAW III).
51. The McGovern-Dole FY22 project’s key objectives are to reduce hunger and improve literacy and nutrition
among primary school-aged pupils, particularly girls.102 The project acknowledges that the gap to access
education and/or health can be linked to gender-related issues depending on the context, and that equal
access to health and education must be given to both girls and boys. This is in line with the WFP School
Feeding Policy’s gender-related objectives to ensure that girls have equitable access to school and all school
feeding related activities.103 However, as noted in the last round’s baseline and midterm evaluations, the
results frameworks lack any gender focus.
99 WFP Gender Policy 2022. https://executiveboard.wfp.org/document_download/WFP-0000135898

100 WFP Cambodia Strategic Plan 2019-2023 (pp 9-10). https://www.wfp.org/operations/kh02-cambodia-country-strategic-plan-2019-2023
101https://www.mowa.gov.kh/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Neary-Rattanak-V-final-Eng.pdf
102 https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program
103 WFP 2013. School Feeding Policy.
10
52. Planned outcomes: The targets established for the main objective of improved literacy of school children
are respectively 29.2 percent of students at the end of two grades and 35 percent at the end of three grades
who demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text.
53. As part of SO1 it is expected that by the end of the project 85 percent of teachers receiving the Early
Grade Learning package reach Level 2 or higher, and 85 percent of teachers and 80 percent of administrators
in target schools demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools. The project is expected to
positively impact student attentiveness and short-term hunger, with 95 percent of students identified as
attentive and 92 percent reported as ‘not hungry’. Finally, the attendance rate in supported schools is expected
to rise from 90 percent to 95 percent.
54. For SO2, the mean number of days per month children are absent from school because of ill health is
planned to decrease from two days to one,104 and 2,655 people out of 2,786 (95 percent) to be trained in child
health and nutrition practices, and safe food preparation and storage practices, should be demonstrating the
use of the new knowledge. Project activities are expected to have an impact on dietary diversity, reaching an
individual dietary score of 4.5 for assisted school children by the end of the project. Finally, 100 percent of the
supported schools should meet the minimum requirements for handover to the Government based on an
agreed handover checklist.
55. The outcome targets for the foundational results are established in terms of the improvement of the
score of each of the five pillars of SABER105 by the end of the project: i) design and implementation, ii)
institutional capacity and coordination; iii) policy framework; iv) financial capacity; and v) community role. It is
noted that in the McGovern-Dole results framework, pillars i and ii are merged into the same result.
56. The budget provided by USDA to WFP for the project implementation is shown in Table 2. The resources
are entirely provided by USDA, but WFP has committed to mobilize additional resources to support local
procurement that is no longer supported by USDA.106
Table 2: Project Budget (in US dollars)

Budget Line US dollars sub-total US dollars
- Activity Cost 11,081,984
- Commodity Cost 2,347,975
- International transport (Freight Cost) 888,300
- Internal transportation, storage and
976,571
handling
- Indirect support costs 1,271,650
Sub-Total: Operational costs  16,566,480
Administrative costs 1,567,791
Evaluation costs 800,000
Local and regional procurement 2,065,728
Budget total 21,000,000107
Source: Project Agreement between USDA and WFP
57. Main cooperating partners of WFP for the project implementation are World Education, who are in charge
of the implementation of the literacy component of the project, and World Vision and Plan International who
are in charge of implementing activities related to the other components of the project in the three provinces
covered.
58. The project was designed based on lessons learnt from past McGovern-Dole rounds and evaluations,
notably the 2022 midterm evaluation of the FY19 round (see the related Evaluation Brief in Annex 3). To better
structure and clarify roles and responsibilities for the handover process, a Joint Transition Strategy (JTS) was
prepared by WFP and MoEYS in 2022, as well as a theory of change for the national HGSF programme. The
design of the project is fully aligned with the transition strategy and the theory of change.
104 This indicator is included in the SO1 performance table but actually measures the outcome of SO2.
105 SABER is a World Bank initiative to produce comparative data and knowledge on education policies and institutions, with the aim of
helping countries systematically strengthen their education systems and the ultimate goal of promoting Learning for All. More at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/systems-approach-for-better-education-results-saber
106 In addition, the Korea International Cooperation Agency has provided complementary funds for the same activities as McGovern-Dole
from 2020 to 2024.
11
59. As part of the management response of the FY19 midterm recommendations, WFP planned to conduct -
in partnership with MoEYS, MAFF and MoWA - a gender and inclusion analysis to seek to integrate increased
gender sensitivity into the school meals processes. According to WFP CO, this assessment is due to be
conducted in late 2023 or early 2024.
60. During this baseline study, the overall evaluation design was finalized with the full set of evaluation
questions, methodology, and sampling frame for the later midterm and final evaluations (see section 2.4). The
baseline has also been used to establish values for all performance indicators and the status of all evaluation
questions. The appropriateness of project indicators, targets and evaluation questions were reviewed during
the baseline, based on evaluability and relevance (see section 2.3.2. below).
2.2. Evaluation questions and evaluation criteria

61. This baseline study followed a utilization-focused, gender-responsive approach and used five of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC)
evaluation criteria as the basis for determining and reporting the evaluation findings.
62. The baseline study has answered four general questions:
- What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all relevant evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness,
sustainability, efficiency and coherence), and in terms of GEWE mainstreaming in the project?
- What are the contextual changes that occurred since the FY19 baseline that are relevant to the project
and under each evaluation criteria, including regarding GEWE aspects?
- Are the project indicators and targets appropriate in effectively measuring and tracking project results
for men, women, girls, boys and vulnerable groups based on the results framework?
- To what extent are the midterm and endline evaluation questions relevant in assessing the success of
the project under each criterion and for all categories of participants including men, women, girls,
boys and vulnerable groups?
63. In order to provide a more precise guidance for the baseline study, the ET developed 12 further sub-
questions that were integrated into the study matrix (presented in Annex 10). The matrix indicates how the
sub-questions relate to each of the evaluation criteria and have been answered considering the information
gathered, the source of information and method to collect and analyse it. Proposed sub-questions were
validated by WFP during the inception phase of the study and remained unchanged during the baseline.
3. Evaluation approach and

methodology for baseline data
collection
3.1. Evaluation approach and methodology
64. This evaluation series was conceived to systematically establish benchmarks against which to measure
progress and long-term effects of the project from the start of the previous FY19 cycle through to the end of
this new grant in 2027, with a particular focus on the handover of the HGSF programme to the Government.
This baseline for the series has established benchmarks in relation to each one of the expected outcomes and
performance indicators of this project. Based on these, the evaluation team (ET) has critically reviewed the
project targets and the existing PMP and determined whether targets are appropriate and realistic.
65. The FY22 evaluation plan stresses the key task of continued tracking of the two strategic objectives (SO1
and SO2) during the transition period, in which schools will be gradually handed over to the Government. The
ET has reviewed the outcome level indicators defined in the PMP and analysed their evolution since 2019 by
sourcing their values from the previous cycle’s PMP. As planned in the evaluation ToR, the main sources of
12
information to track outcome results are the quantitative survey carried out for the FY19 endline evaluation, 108
the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) surveys conducted by World Education in 2020 and 2022, and the
SABER workshop held in June 2023 that set the baseline for the foundational results. At the time of this report
preparation, only preliminary and incomplete SABER results were available. Baseline values for foundational
results will therefore have to be updated when final SABER results become available, tentatively in September
2023. In addition, the evaluation team found some comparability issues from EGRA surveys (see paragraphs 74
and 75).
66. Gender considerations were mainstreamed in the baseline study through the sub-questions, where
gender references have been made explicit to the presentation of the findings, integrating gender specificities.
Primary data collection was limited to a few remote key informant interviews (KIIs) for the baseline, but
gender-related questions were asked of these interviewees. Considering that primary data collection was
collected only through limited KIIs, it was not possible to design a gender balanced sample. Gender specific
information relevant to the evaluation questions has been extracted from literature and gender disaggregated
data has been produced from the FY19 endline evaluation survey.
3.2. Baseline data collection methods and tools

67. The full evaluation series is using a mixed-methods approach, using three main data collection
techniques: secondary data review, and the collection of qualitative and quantitative data, to derive evaluation
findings. The quantitative component of the evaluation follows a quasi-experimental approach which includes
several groups of schools depending on when they were transferred to the Government, so that the impact of
the intervention and the effect of the handover on project performance can be measured using comparisons.
The approach defined for the quantitative approach of the evaluation series is an output of this baseline study
and is presented in section 2.4.2.
68. Contrary to the midterm and final evaluations, quantitative primary data collection was not undertaken
specifically for the baseline, which has relied on the data produced by the quantitative survey of the FY19
endline evaluation (collected in June 2023). As established in the evaluation ToR, this approach was taken
because the FY19 endline survey was conducted contemporaneously with the baseline study, and the FY19
PMP indicators remain the same in the FY22 project. Using the same data from the FY19 endline survey
(collected in the same schools supported since 2019) will allow analysis, at the end of FY22 project, of the
evolution over 10 years of McGovern-Dole support to these schools. In addition, WFP wished to avoid
stakeholders’ fatigue that would result from two similar exercises being conducted at the same time.
69. Secondary data collection. A desk review of relevant documents was undertaken, which included the
following: i) baseline, midterm and endline evaluation reports of the McGovern-Dole FY19 project; ii) the June
2023 SABER workshop interactions and preliminary findings; iii) project design documents; iv) donor
agreements; v) assessment reports; vi) relevant national sector policies and strategies. A full list of
documentation consulted to date is given in Annex 11). Data from the endline survey from the FY19 project
was re-analysed by the evaluation team, with further information extracted from the draft endline evaluation
report.
70. Qualitative data collection: A limited number of remote KIIs were conducted with relevant stakeholders
at national level. These interactions were important for new team members (including the team leader) to hear
directly from stakeholders and get a better understanding of the context and the project itself. It also
contributed to triangulation of information gathered through document review and quantitative data. The list
of key informants consulted is provided in Annex 12.
71. Data collection tools: The ET members used semi-structured interview guidelines tailored to the
expertise and relevance of each respondent to ensure that all areas of interest were covered during an
interview. The interview guides (included in Annex 13) are based on the questions outlined in the Evaluation
Matrix.
72. Data analysis was based on the comparisons between quantitative data from the FY19 and FY22
baselines, as well as triangulation between data sources and methods, and between team members. Each
topic addressed in the study was assessed through different information sources and, to the extent possible,
collection methods (the study largely relied on secondary data; the limited primary qualitative data collection
was not intended to have a comprehensive coverage of all the topics, with the focus being on the most
important elements of the study). Quantitative data from the FY19 endline survey was reanalysed to extract
108 The FY19 endline evaluation report is being finalized but will eventually be available online.
13
data from six schools in Kampong Chhnang province that had already been handed over to the Government
(in early 2023). This is justified by the evaluation series model based on the comparison of schools with
different status regarding handover. At baseline, only schools not yet handed over were included in the sample
(see section 2.4.2). Quantitative data analysis based on the FY19 endline survey was done using R software,
and the data was cleaned and recoded for analysis. Results were disaggregated, as relevant and as possible, by
gender, province, and other important variables.
73. The majority of the evaluation questions had sufficient evidence to be able to answer using desk review of
previous evaluation reports of the project, especially the McGovern-Dole FY19 project endline findings. Areas
in need of further qualitative data collection were identified by the ET during inception.
74. There are variations in the literacy outcome measurement between the three project provinces that needs
to be taken into consideration for the FY22 analysis. In Kampong Chhnang, project partner World Education
applied Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) instruments in 2019 and 2022 in the same 13 McGovern-Dole
supported schools from three districts. Grade 2 students were randomly chosen in each year (96 total in 2019,
157 in 2022). However, different EGRA instruments were applied in the FY19 baseline and FY22 baseline (“EGRA
2015” for FY19, “EGRA 2017” for FY22), which means that student literacy results for several key indicators
(including the project indicator for reading comprehension) rely on an “adjustment factor” to make FY22
baseline averages comparable with FY19 baseline.109 In Kampong Thom province World Education conducted
the 2022 baseline in 31 McGovern-Dole supported schools using the same EGRA version (“2017 EGRA”) that
was used in the 2019 baseline. A total of 359 grade 2 students completed the EGRA at FY22 baseline. The 2019
baseline EGRA test application was conducted by a consortium of support partners (including World
Education), but the sample included both McGovern-Dole supported schools and non-project schools (sample
size not details not available).110 In Siem Reap the 2019 baseline was also conducted by a consortium that
included World Education using the EGRA 2017 tool in a sample that included both McGovern-Dole target and
non-target schools (details on sample size not available).
75. The FY22 baseline EGRA data were collected by a different partner (KAPE) from 48 grade 2 students drawn
from just seven schools in two districts.111 The FY22 baseline data for Siem Reap were collected in February
2022, compared with October-November for Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Thom. Additional details on the
EGRA version and makeup of schools (McGovern-Dole supported or not) in Siem Reap are not available at this
time. Given these differences the FY19 and FY22 project period baselines are not standardized across the three
project provinces. This in turn has implications going forward for establishing project impact and making
comparisons across the three provinces during the FY22 project period – as explained in para 78 below. It is
important to engage with other partners to discuss a coordinated approach to implementing EGRA data
collections during the FY22 project period to better facilitate both between and within provinces (i.e. baseline
versus endline) comparisons of the EGRA results.
3.3. Limitations
76. The FY19 endline evaluation process (including the survey), was done in parallel to the baseline study, and
data was only available at a late stage of the baseline process, which left limited time for the ET to review,
clean, reanalyse and triangulate the information. As a consequence, it was not possible to conduct a
presentation of preliminary findings to WFP before the presentation of the baseline draft report. In addition,
the two parallel evaluation teams had to face the more intense phase of data analysis and report writing at the
same time and within tight time constraints, which limited their interactions.
77. The results from the June 2023 SABER workshop were not available by the time this report was finalised.
Only preliminary and incomplete results were available, which affect the baseline assessment of foundational
results. The baseline assessment will have to be updated by WFP when final results become available, or as
part of the midterm evaluation.
78. As noted above, EGRA results present some comparability challenges between provinces. It is not possible
to definitively state how differences in the baseline FY22 project period data collections will impact later
comparisons, especially given the possibility of focusing on differences rather than levels (i.e. difference in
difference). Concerns about baseline comparability, combined with uncertainties about actual test content
109 World Education (2023). Literacy Endline Report: USDA-McGovern-Dole Food for Education (FFE) Project in Cambodia, 2019-2023. Phnom
Penh: World Education
110 World Education (2023). FFE EGRA Endline 2022 in Kampong Thom. Internal project document.
111 World Education (2023). FFE Baseline 2019 and Endline 2022 Comparisons Kampong Chhnang versus Siem Reap/Kampong Thom. Internal
project document.
14
(and sampling), simply mean that additional follow up on this topic is needed, with considerations for how the
different EGRA data collections can be coordinated in subsequent moments in order to best support project
impact evaluation objectives.
79. The baseline study had to assess whether the project targets were relevant and realistic. However, the
PMP does not explain how targets were determined, which makes it difficult to evaluate them. As a
consequence, the assessment of the targets is based to a large extent on the achievements of the previous
project. In addition, several indicators112 have not yet been integrated into the PMP and there was no target
value defined for them. As a result, the baseline study could not review those targets, but the PMP will be
updated after this report is approved.
3.4. Quality assurance of the baseline data collection and deliverables

80. The ET accessed the raw data of the FY19 endline survey and conducted re-analysis to adjust the sample
excluding schools already handed over, which allowed checking of the data quality. No significant issues were
found. Overall quality assurance of the baseline study was guided by the WFP decentralised evaluation quality
assurance system (DEQAS) that defines norms and processes for ensuring quality of all evaluation products.
DEQAS standards have been fully applied throughout the baseline process. The team leader was principally
responsible for conducting the study and producing high quality products based on factual and verifiable
primary data. KonTerra’s internal quality expert critically reviewed the draft Inception Report and draft
Evaluation Report and provided written comments to the team to improve the drafts, before submission of the
final versions to WFP. Draft reports were then reviewed by an independent external reviewer, the WFP CO,
RBB, the Evaluation Reference Group (see Annex 14) and USDA. Final approval is confirmed by the Evaluation
Committee (see Annex 15).
3.5. Ethical considerations

81. This baseline study is in compliance with WFP and the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) ethical
standards and norms. Key informants were informed that their privacy and the confidentiality of interviews
would be safeguarded. Interviews were conducted based on voluntary participation in line with the principles
of integrity, accountability, respect and beneficence. Interviewees were informed of the purpose of the
interview. The baseline report does not include personally identifiable information or detailed sources of
information, or the names of KII respondents. Interviews were conducted ensuring cultural sensitivity,
respecting the autonomy of respondents and assuring that the evaluation results do not harm participants. All
data is solely be used for the purpose of this evaluation, and all interview notes will remain confidential and
will not be turned over to public or private agencies, including WFP.
82. No unanticipated effects of the project on human rights or gender have been identified in the baseline
study findings.
112 Standard Indicator (SI) 8, SI 9, SI 18 and SI 27.
15
4. Baseline findings and discussion
4.1. EVALUATION QUESTION (EQ) 1: What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all
relevant evaluation questions for the evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness,
sustainability, efficiency and coherence)?
4.1.1. How relevant is the project design in contributing towards a sustainable, effective
implementation of the NHGSFP vis-à-vis the Government’s readiness and capacities to
manage the NHGSFP?
83. In March 2022, the MoEYS and WFP released a Joint Transition Strategy (JTS) towards a nationally owned
HGSF programme,113 based on the review of progress achieved until then, and any identified remaining gaps
on the five pillars of the SABER approach that define a sustainable national school feeding programme. 114 The
JTS includes a capacity strengthening action plan from 2022 to 2025 to support the transition. The McGovern-
Dole FY22 project is the last such school feeding intervention in Cambodia and has been designed to fully
support the transition strategy, with the objective by 2027 to complete the handover of all WFP assisted
schools to the national HGSP programme and to significantly progress towards the sustainability of the
programme.
84. The McGovern-Dole FY22 project is based on a theory of change that was developed with the support of
WFP for the NHGSFP. According to WFP officers interviewed during the baseline, both the transition strategy
and the theory of change provide a much clearer picture and pathway towards a sustainable national
programme managed by the Royal Government of Cambodia, and a clear identification of the support and
capacity strengthening that WFP will provide during the last round of the project. According to WFP the design
of the project is more relevant to the transition process and handover objectives than previous rounds.
85. The foundational results and corresponding intermediate outcomes and activities of the FY22 project
results framework are fully aligned with the transition strategy and its capacity strengthening action plan. The
project design is therefore highly relevant in contributing towards a sustainable, effective implementation of
the national HGSF programme vis-à-vis the Government’s readiness and capacities to manage the programme.
86. The project’s results framework for foundational results is in particular based on the five pillars of the
SABER approach, although it includes four intermediate outcomes (see Annex 8).115
87. The project design includes four objectives, out of five, that explicitly refer to ensuring the sustainability of
benefits related to the McGovern-Dole result framework:
- Objective 2: “To ensure a sustainable National School Feeding Programme through strengthening the
capacities of the Royal Government of Cambodia on programme design and implementation;
multisectoral coordination and policy; budget planning and management; and monitoring and
oversight”.
- Objective 3: “To enable the handover to the National School Feeding Programme by providing school
meals in McGovern-Dole target districts while preparing schools to meet the criteria for handover –
capacity, infrastructure and equipment”.
- Objective 4: “To ensure health and nutrition activities are sustained within the National Policy of
School Health through capacity strengthening on WASH, child nutrition, healthy dietary practices and
food safety”.
- Objective 5: “To ensure the benefits of Khmer literacy instruction are sustained within the National
Early Grade Learning Programme through capacity strengthening, training, mentoring and facilitation
of school-based management on implementation of the Khmer Early Grade Learning Package.
113 Joint Transition Strategy Towards a Nationally Owned Home-Grown-School Feeding Programme, Cambodia, Phase 1: 2022-2025, MoEYS
and WFP, March 2022.
114 The five pillars of the SABER approach are: 1. Policy Frameworks, 2. Financial Capacity, 3. Institutional Capacity and Coordination, 4.
Design and Implementation, 5. Community Roles – Reaching beyond schools.
115 Pillars 1. Policy and regulatory framework and 3. Institutional capacity and coordination of SABER are merged into MGD 1.4.2 Improved
Policy and Regulatory Framework.
16
88. Schools’ readiness criteria for their handover to the Government are based on the stakeholders’ capacity
to manage the programme, as well as available infrastructure and equipment to safely store and prepare food
(see details in chapter 4.1.3). The development and application of a HGSF model based on local purchase has
been supported by WFP and USDA through the Local and Regional Procurement project from 2019 to 2023,
through making cash transfers to schools so that they could purchase fresh produce locally to complement in-
kind food supplies.116
89. For the FY22 project, McGovern-Dole and LRP projects have been integrated and only regional purchase of
canned fish is planned, while local purchase through cash transfers to schools will no longer be supported with
USDA funds. WFP has committed to obtain complementary funding to continue supporting local purchase. To
date, no additional resources have been secured and the lack of continued support to local purchase is a
threat to the handover plan and school readiness. The midterm evaluation of the LRP project conducted in
June 2022117 found that by mid-2022 LRP activities had only been operational for six months, mainly due to the
closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the midterm evaluation recognized that the new
McGovern-Dole project would be a positive element to continue capacity strengthening on local purchase, in
particular in supporting linkages between farmers, suppliers and school stakeholders and strengthened inter-
ministerial coordination, it did raise the question of whether cash will still be available to support the HGSF
model and build school capacities to receive cash and implement local purchasing.
90. WFP interviewees for the baseline confirmed that it would have been much better to continue supporting
local purchase with USDA funds than to procure canned fish regionally, although local purchase does allow for
food ration diversification and is more cost-efficient than importation from outside of the region.
91. Interviews with WFP staff also showed that the model for food procurement within the national HGSF
programme has not been fully defined. While the priority was clearly on local purchase, the question of rice
fortification has not been addressed and seems to be a challenge for a model fully based on local purchase.
WFP is currently supporting MoEYS to assess and pilot several procurement models that could allow
addressing the issue of rice fortification, such as a model where sub-national millers produce fortified rice and
make it available at local level for purchase by schools.
92. Outcome 1.1.: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction. The literacy component of the McGovern-Dole
project is in the process of making the transition from a programme-defined intervention that emphasizes
quality and effectiveness to a more sustainable version that is harmonized with MoEYS capacity and
resources.118 The literacy component has always been aligned with MoEYS goals and addresses a core
challenge facing Cambodia (low early grade learning, see below), and has also been informed from the
beginning by both MoEYS and development partner (DP) experiences in this area.119 The MoEYS, in close
coordination with DPs (including World Education), has now developed a single set of Early Grade Reading
(EGR) interventions that include materials, teacher training and different teacher support mechanisms
(mentors and Literacy Coaches).120 The project’s literacy component partner (World Education) is in the process
of modifying some of the core functions, namely the teacher mentor and Literacy Coach selection and
recruitment and teacher training operations, in anticipation of full MoEYS ownership. For example, the
McGovern-Dole approach of hiring Literacy Coaches by selecting from a pool of applicants is being modified to
identify teachers and district/provincial staff who can perform this function locally without the financial burden
of hiring additional staff, and the added advantage of having better access to teachers in their districts, clusters
and schools.121
93. How the FY22 project navigates this transition in the coming years is a critical outcome. The overarching
goal is to find ways to deliver EGR interventions with sufficient quality that are sustainable both in terms of
capacity and resources.122 The project is well prepared to take on this challenge through World Education,
116 The LRP project (Grant number: LRP-442-2019-011-00) was planned to cover 163 schools out of the 599 assisted by the McGovern-Dole
FY19 project, and 40,000 schoolchildren out of the total of 151,000.
117 Midterm Activity Evaluation of USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Grant (LRP-442-2019-011-00) for WFP School Feeding in
Cambodia, 01 November 2019 to 30 September 2023, Decentralized Evaluation Report, WFP, November 2022.
118 KIIs with World Education, USAID and MoEYS.
119 WFP Cambodia, 2023. Endline Activity Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole Grant (FFE-442-2019-013-00) for WFP School Feeding in
Cambodia FY 2019-2023 Decentralized Evaluation Report.
120 KIIs with World Education, USAID and MoEYS. Additional details on Komar Rien Komar Cheh (KRKC) in
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/launching-komar-rien-komar-cheh-cambodias-national-early-grade-learning-programme; and additional
details for the Inclusive Primary Education Activity (IPEA) program specifics in: RTI International, 2022. USAID/Cambodia – Inclusive Primary
Education Activity (IPEA), Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter 2 Progress Report.
121 KIIs with World Education staff.
17
which has extensive experience in this area and is well aware of the imperative of an effective transition
towards sustainable interventions. Also, World Education is a partner with other DPs (such as USAID) active in
this area and who recognize their technical capacity and relevant experience.123 Furthermore, the lessons
learned during FY22 programming will contribute to the larger learning activity that is taking place in the early
grade learning space (comprising EGR and mathematics) as the MoEYS and other DPs concurrently implement
similar interventions in other districts and provinces. The evidence generated from this coordinated set of
early grade learning interventions will inform the MoEYS strategy for expanding these interventions to the
entire country in a sustainable and effective manner.
94. Outcomes 1.2.: Improved attentiveness and 1.3 Improved Attendance. Based on the results
framework for SO 1 (Improved Literacy) the improved attentiveness and attendance indicators are most
directly impacted through the SFP delivery of nutritious meals. There is a potential linkage between these
outcomes and literacy interventions that create a more stimulating learning environment (more interesting
materials, better teaching methods, etc.), but given the emphasis on nutrition the questions of how the project
design will lead to effective and sustainable outcomes are more related to the SFP component.
95. Outcome 2.: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices. Strategic Objective 2 is a contribution to
SO1, which is the overall objective of the project. It is aligned with the National Policy on School Meals, which
includes an objective of promotion of health and nutrition amongst schoolchildren. Table 3 shows that the
percentage of parents who consider that school feeding provides benefits in terms of reduction of illness-
related absences for their child at school has grown significantly between 2019 and 2023, thus confirming the
relevance of this component of the project, according to parents’ perceptions.
Table 3: Benefits of school feeding for the child, as perceived by parents of selected girls and boys
FY19 FY19 FY19 FY22 FY22 FY22
Parents’ perceptions of
Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline
benefits of the project
Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total
Gets food 80% 82% 81% 95% 91% 93%
Healthier 76% 77% 77% 87% 86% 87%
Learns better 55% 54% 55% 83% 84% 83%
More attentive in class 47% 44% 46% 81% 79% 80%
Has more opportunities 42% 36% 39% 76% 76% 76%
Illness-related absences
22% 17% 20% 63% 64% 64%
reduced
No benefit 1.00% 0.50% 0.70% 0% 0% 0%
Source: MGD FY19 baseline and endline surveys
96. The McGovern-Dole FY19 baseline and midterm evaluation reports do not provide additional
information on the relevance of Strategic Result 2, while the endline evaluation highlights that latrines,
handwashing stations, eating halls and storage facilities are essential for a healthy environment, and that
WASH facilities were key to reopen schools after COVID-19 pandemic. A study carried out by Helen Keller
International in June 2023124 showed that a high proportion of school children (87.2 percent) had consumed
unhealthy food the day before the survey, and that this food was most likely purchased by children near their
schools, thus justifying the emphasis put on this aspect in the new McGovern-Dole project.
97. The FY22 project design focuses on ensuring adequate school feeding infrastructure and equipment
(kitchen, storerooms, stoves, kitchen utensils for safe preparation, serving and eating of school meals) are
available at school level before handover,125 which is fully aligned with the handover readiness criteria.
98. Activities under the other intermediate outcomes of SO2126 focus on building capacities on improved
health, sanitation, hygiene and nutrition practices through cascade trainings, technical and mentoring support
to schools, production and distribution of WASH information, education and communication materials,
construction and rehabilitation of WASH infrastructure, support to the MoEYS to roll out the Health Education
Curriculum, enhanced health and safety of school environments and maintenance of school gardens.
123 ibid
124 Results from a Mixed Method Study: Understanding the Eating Practices and Consumption Patterns of Unhealthy Foods and Beverages by
Primary School Children in Cambodia, Helen Keller International, June 2023.
125 MGD 2.6: Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools and Equipment, activity 6.: Construct or Rehabilitate Infrastructure
and 6.2: Provide Equipment and Utensils.
126 MGD 2.2: Increased knowledge of Sage Food Prep and Storage Practices, MGD 2.1 Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices,
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition, MGD 2.5 Increased Access to Preventive Health Interventions, MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean
Water and Sanitation Services.
18
According to the project description annexed to the project agreement, all these activities are designed to
contribute to capacity strengthening of the national HGSF project stakeholders at national and local levels.
4.1.2. To what extent is the project aligned to the overall policies, strategies, including gender-
related, and normative guidance of institutions with supporting roles for the NHGSFP,
such as the MoEYS, NSPC, MAFF and MoH?
99. Both the FY19 baseline and endline evaluation reports highlight the clear alignment of school feeding
with national priorities in Cambodia. School feeding is embedded into the social protection system, as stated in
the country’s long-term development vision, the Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and
Efficiency Phase IV (2019-2023). As such, it is included into the National Social Protection Policy Framework
(NSPPF) 2016-2025.
100. This key policy framework for school feeding remains unchanged since 2019. According to the
National Social Protection Council (NSPC), an update of the NSPPF until 2030 is being prepared and it is
foreseen that school feeding will remain an important component of the social protection system.
101. The McGovern-Dole project is well aligned with the main objectives of the 2019-2023 Education
Strategic Plan (ESP) developed by the MoEYS, which was updated in 2021 with a Mid-Term Review giving
projections through 2025.127 Objective 1 of the ESP for primary schools is to improve primary school
participation and completion outcomes, and includes to “Strengthen the school feeding programme to ensure
its sustainability” as a specific strategy. There are other references to improving WASH, food safety, school
gardens and children’s health (ESP, 2019). Objective 2 (“Improve the availability of quality inputs in primary
education”) is connected to McGovern-Dole literacy programming with specific references to strengthening the
quality of in-service training of teachers, implementing EGR and mathematics training for teachers, developing
teaching manuals on specific subjects, and providing adequate teaching and learning materials for students
and teachers (ESP, 2019). These priorities from the original ESP were maintained in the updated ESP
projections that were developed in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.128
102. Other key national policies to which the McGovern-Dole project contributes are the National Strategy
for Food Security and Nutrition (2019-2023) and the National Policy on School Health. All the activities planned
under SO2 are aligned with the MoEYS School Health Department priorities outlined in the policy on school
health and its action plan.
103. The development of the school feeding policy framework progressed significantly during the FY19
project, and the national HGSF programme was officially endorsed by the Government in April 2019. WFP has
supported the Government to develop the draft National Policy on School Meals (still to be endorsed), and a
sub-decree on the HGSF programme implementation was signed in March 2023. The FY22 project is clearly
aligned with this policy framework, with the already mentioned exception of the lack of integration of local
purchase in the project. As discussed below, the main purpose of the FY22 project is to support the
implementation of the JTS towards a nationally-owned school feeding programme.
4.1.3. How relevant are the school readiness criteria in facilitating an effective handover of
schools?
104. The school readiness criteria for handover were defined in the 2022 JTS, and are:129
i. The capacity of implementers. This criterion refers to the experience and knowledge of
stakeholders (school directors, suppliers, the commune council, cooks, storekeepers, school
management committee members) to run the HGSF programme according to the national guidelines.
The capacity of implementers is strengthened through trainings, mentoring and coaching, and
experience running the programme.
ii. The infrastructure. This criterion refers to the necessary infrastructure required at school level to
safely prepare meals for children and ensure that adequate hygiene practices are adopted. It refers to
water systems, kitchens (with fuel-efficient stoves), storerooms and hand-washing stations.
127 MoEYS, 2019. Education Strategic Plan (ESP). Phnom Penh: MoEYS; MoEYS, 2021. Mid-Term Review Report in 2021 of the Education
Strategic Plan 2019-2023 and Projections to 2025. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
128 MoEYS, 2021. Mid-Term Review Report in 2021 of the Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023 and Projections to 2025. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
129 Extracted from the Joint Transition Strategy towards a Nationally Owned Home-Grown School Feeding Programme, Phase 1: 2022-2025,
March 2022.
19
iii. The equipment. Each school would be equipped with the necessary items for the safe preparation of
meals, including cool boxes, scales, and a set of kitchen utensils.
105. The JTS and the criteria were defined to clarify and organize a well-planned handover process, based
on lessons from the past where stakeholders were insufficiently prepared for school handover. The FY19
baseline report specifically highlights the need for further capacity strengthening in programme
implementation including monitoring and reporting, and the lack of infrastructure including kitchens, energy-
efficient stoves, functioning water and sanitation facilities and year-round access to clean water. The handover
readiness criteria fully take into account these factors.
106. The FY19 midterm evaluation, however, highlights that the capacity criteria refer to the experience of
sub-national stakeholders in managing the HGSF, expressed in years of experience, which does not necessarily
reflect their capacity. The FY22 baseline team did not collect evidence on the extent to which the capacity
criteria have been adjusted to reflect actual capacities.
4.1.4. What are the baseline values of the project indicators (since 2019)?
MGD SO1: Improved Literacy of School Age Children.
107. One of the key outcome indicators for the McGovern-Dole programming is student literacy, which is
defined as the percentage of students who can correctly answer at least four out of five reading
comprehension questions. Student literacy was measured during the 2019-2023 project phase through EGRA
instruments applied at FY19 and FY22 baselines, although these assessments were not standardized across
the three project provinces (see Section 1.4). The results for the FY22 baseline are higher than the FY19
baseline in all three provinces, which is inconsistent with national evidence showing learning loss during the
COVID-19 pandemic period.130
Figure 1: Grade 2 student literacy levels at FY19 and FY22 baselines, by target province
30
24.0
25
Percentage (0-100%)
20.4 20.8
20
15.0
15
11.0
10 6.3
5
0
Kampong Chhnang Kampong Thom Siem Reap
FY19 Baseline FY22 Baseline
Source: World Education EGRA report
108. The results in Figure 1 demonstrate that literacy levels among grade 2 students are generally quite
low, which in turn highlights the relevance of the McGovern-Dole project and the need for further support in
the EGR area. There are additional complicating factors for interpreting the student literacy indicator across
the three provinces during the FY22 period. As described in Section 1.4, these include different EGRA test
versions used at FY19 and FY22 baselines, test applications carried out by different partners at different times,
and in Kampong Thom and Siem Reap some of the reported averages in Figure 1 combine WFP and non-WFP
schools. There are also differences in the planned levels of literacy support across the three provinces for the
FY22 phase, which is discussed in more detail below. For the FY22 project phase it is imperative that the
measurement of the student literacy outcomes - which will be expanded to include grade 3 students - be
harmonized across different provinces to facilitate a more accurate interpretation of the results in later stages,
and that differences in literacy support activities between the three provinces be taken into account.
109. An additional source of evidence on student literacy is provided by World Education as part of their
school monitoring process. Throughout the 2021-22 school year (SY) the McGovern-Dole project Literacy
Coaches randomly chose four grade 2 students to complete a basic test of word knowledge (10 words in all)
130 UNICEF, 2022. Learning Loss in the Covid-19 Pandemic Era: Evidence from the 2016-2021 Grade 6 National Learning Assessment in
Cambodia. Phnom Penh: UNICEF.
20
during each of their school monitoring visits (where they also collected data on the teacher’s use of training
content and techniques, summarized below). The results show that students tested in January 2022 (the
beginning of the SY) were able to correctly read just over four words, compared with an average of roughly
seven words at the end of the SY 2021-22 school year (November).131 This continuous student testing was only
completed in McGovern-Dole-supported districts in Kampong Chhnang province, but does provide another
potential baseline for the FY22 phase.
110. The evidence of improvement in student literacy levels is consistent with the EGR evidence that is
accumulating in Cambodia,132 as well as evidence linking school feeding generally and better nutrition
specifically with better student performance.133 The literacy package components have been chosen on the
basis of extensive research in Cambodia and elsewhere, and World Education in Cambodia has been engaged
in these same activities (especially coaching) since before the McGovern-Dole project period.134 Nevertheless, it
is important to note that there is considerable variation in the EGR treatment that schools received during the
FY19 project period. The full EGR package (teacher training, local mentoring, Literacy Coaches and materials)
was provided by World Education for grades 1 and 2 in three of the four McGovern-Dole target districts in
Kampong Chhnang in SYs 2020-21 and 2021-22, and these same three districts are currently (SY 2022-23)
receiving the grade 3 teacher training and new materials components. In Kampong Thom, three of the six
McGovern-Dole target districts received the World Education teacher training, materials and Literacy Coach
support in SY 2020-21, while in the Siem Reap target districts the only component implemented by World
Education was the teacher mentoring. In addition to variations in the project’s provision of EGR support
components, the three provinces have also had different levels of engagement with other DPs working in early
grade literacy.135 For the FY22 period World Education will shift their support to Kampong Thom and Siem Reap
provinces, and no longer work in Kampong Chhnang. The overall level of literacy support activities will be
somewhat reduced compared with FY19 engagement. Differences between provinces in World Education
literacy support may be counterbalanced by support provided through other channels. It should also be noted
that all of the development partners working in this area are strengthening existing government support
channels (and capacities) as part of the national literacy programme (Komar Rien Komar Cheh) to further ensure
a standardized implementation model across all schools.
111. Despite the differences in EGR intervention experiences between provinces during the FY19 project
phase, the relevance and validity of the student literacy indicator as a key project evaluation outcome remains
high. Students in the McGovern-Dole target districts will continue to benefit from the two streams of project
intervention (nutrition and literacy support) that potentially affect intermediate outcomes (or mechanisms)
that are likely to impact student learning (for example, attendance, attentiveness, access to materials, quality
of teaching). The grade 2 student evidence from the FY19 phase is encouraging, and there is good reason to
expect that grade 2 and 3 student literacy levels will continue to improve in the project provinces even as
literacy project treatment intensity is likely to decline as the project transitions to more sustainable activities
provided through existing MoEYS channels.
Outcome 1.1: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction.
112. MGD 1.1.3.: Improved Literacy Instructional Materials. One area where the McGovern-Dole project
support for early grade literacy was especially impactful during the FY19 phase was the provision of teaching
and learning materials. The original project goal of 837 total ‘units’ was reported to have been surpassed
exponentially with 71,848 ‘pieces’, although there were variations in the way ‘units’ were counted, and in fact
only about half that number of ‘pieces’ was provided.136 The underlying reason for this massive target
overshoot was the transition from face-to-face instruction to remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic
school closures, which totalled more than 200 days during the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years, as well as
131 World Education monitoring report summary, 2023.

132 RTI International, 2022. USAID/Cambodia-All Children Learning, Final Report.
133 Jomaa, L.H., E. McDonnell and C. Probart (2011). School feeding programmes in developing countries: impacts on children’s health and
educational outcomes. Nutrition Reviews 69 (2) : 83-98.
135 World Education master summary of EGR programming during the McGovern-Dole FY19 phase.
136 An explanation from WFP indicated the initial target in the FY19 project was 827 G1 classes each receiving a Teacher Guide = 2 parts (2
books); Student Supplementary Book = 2 parts (2 books); Pattern Book = 1 set per class (30 titles); Sensory stories = 1 set per class (11 titles).
Therefore, the initial target was, in terms of units: (2 + 2 + 30 + 11) * 827 units = 37,215 pieces. During the project, lots of additional
supplementary books and materials were developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Home Learning Workbooks, Decodable Story
Pattern Books to Grade 1 and Grade 2 students and teachers, etc were developed and supplied during the school closure, so indeed more
teaching and learning materials for teachers and students were delivered than were originally planned.
21
poor monitoring and reporting.137 Partners provided critical support to the MoEYS in producing teaching and
learning packages for students to use at home. The FY19 endline also reported that McGovern-Dole-supported
schools were much more likely to report receiving learning materials and stationery during SY 2021-22 than
comparison schools.
113. For the FY22 project phase the goal for the provision of teaching and learning materials is similar to
the original FY19 goal: 556 total ‘learning materials’. World Education has been working to supplement teacher
and student materials with teacher teaching guides and student materials, including reading books with food
and nutrition themes. One important feature of the supplemental reading materials is that these titles are not
copyright protected, which means that they can be photocopied and shared in the communities to increase
the reach. This work will continue into the next phase, and given the experiences during FY19 it seems that the
partners are well placed to reach the new targets.
114. MGD 1.1.4.: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers; and MGD 1.1.5.: Increased skills and
knowledge of administrators. The McGovern-Dole literacy intervention includes teacher and administrator
training and support activities designed to change teaching behaviour in the classroom to provide more
effective literacy instruction in early grades. The challenges of Continuous Professional Development (CPD, or
in-service teacher training) are well known, and core project literacy components like face-to-face training,
coaching/mentoring and access to materials are well supported in the international CPD literature.138 For the
FY22 phase the target is to train (and certify) the 1,780 teachers (and teaching assistants and other
“educators”).
115. As part of the MoEYS focus on early grade learning, only accredited (or approved) teacher training
programmes are officially recognized as part of the teacher professionalization process. In other words, if
teachers want to get credit for training, they must attend trainings that are accredited by the MoEYS through a
process where training providers apply for accreditation. This dynamic is increasingly important in Cambodia
as more and more EGR (and early grade maths) trainings are being developed and supported in working
partnerships between DPs and the MoEYS.139 The teacher (and administrator) training programmes provided
by World Education are approved by the MoEYS, and as these trainings are implemented with increasing levels
of MoEYS ownership it is possible that individual districts, provinces and teacher training institutions will use
these examples to develop and offer their own (accredited) trainings. The provision of these additional
programmes is a potential McGovern-Dole project impact mechanism that will need to be further explored in
subsequent interviews and monitoring activities.
116. The FY22 indicators for teacher and administrator training include both raw numbers (Standard
Indicator 4) and percentages (Custom Indicator 1) for demonstrated use of the techniques learned. The FY22
phase has set an ambitious goal for use of techniques, with an expectation that 1,513 out of the expected
1,780 trained teachers (or 85 percent) will eventually demonstrate effective usage. The FY22 target is to train
577 administrators and eventually reach an 85 percent rate of effective use. For teachers, demonstrated use is
measured by an EGR classroom observation rubric developed by World Education that incorporates a scale
from 1-3. Level 1 refers to teachers who demonstrate little or no use of the prescribed teaching techniques,
while Level 3 refers to consistent and effective use of EGR materials and techniques. This observation rubric
was applied extensively as part of the periodic classroom visits conducted by project-hired and trained Literacy
Coaches in Kampong Chhnang province during the SY 2021-22 (see reference to the student reading scores
from these same monitoring visits in paragraph 107 above). The results show that virtually all of the teachers
began the school year (in January) at Level 1, but by the end of the school year 65 percent of teachers were
classified as Level 3, 29 percent were in Level 2, and just six percent still in Level 1.140 For school
administrators, demonstrated use will also be defined on the basis of observation, although it is unclear at this
point if an actual observation rubric (or checklist) has been developed.
117. For the FY22 phase the target for Custom Indicator 1 is for 85 percent of observed teachers to reach at
least Level 2 (i.e. Level 2 or 3). Based on the Kampong Chhnang data this target is certainly realistic. However,
with the anticipated changes in programme delivery in the next phase (the transition to a more sustainable
model) there will likely be some differences in this indicator monitoring. For example, instead of relying on
Literacy Coaches hired and paid by WFP and World Education, the classroom monitoring data will increasingly
137 According to the FY19 endline.

138 Popova, A., D.K. Evans, M.E. Breeding and V. Arancibia, 2022. Teacher Professional Development around the World: The Gap Between
Evidence and Practice. The World Bank Research Observer 37 (1):107-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab006
139 KIIs with WEI, USAID and MoEYS.
140 World Education Kampong Chhnang monitoring data summary document, July 2023.
22
be collected by district and provincial education staff who serve in the role of coaches. This could have
implications for both the quality of the coaching provided as well as the quality of the data collected. One
concern is that Literacy Coaches (or other staff involved in the project) are, to some degree, evaluating their
own work when applying this kind of rubric in classrooms they support. This is why ‘externally’ generated data -
such as the EGRA tests applied by outside enumerators - are important validity checks on project progress.
Outcome 1.2: Improved Attentiveness.
118. With better nutrition and more effective literacy teaching it is expected that students are more
attentive (or engaged) in class, as measured by teachers’ reports. Figure 2 shows that the overall student
attentiveness improved from 87 percent in the FY19 baseline to 91 percent at FY22 baseline, which is a
significant improvement. Girls realized larger improvements than boys, and they were already much more
engaged at the time of the baseline (90 percent versus 82 percent). For the FY22 phase, the target student
attentiveness rate is 95 percent, which will require substantial improvement among male students to attain.
Figure 2: Percentage of students who were attentive at FY19 and FY22 baselines
100.0 95.0
91.0 90.0
Percentage (0-
90.0 87.0 85.0

82.0
100%)
80.0
70.0
All students Boys Girls
FY19 Baseline FY22 Baseline
Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys
119. MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short-Term Hunger. One of the key expected outcomes of the provision of school
meals is to alleviate children’s hunger at school and to support their attentiveness. Figure 3 shows the
percentage of children in assisted schools who did not experience hunger at school, according to teachers.
McGovern-Dole schools are actually beginning the FY22 project period with higher levels of reported hunger
than the FY19 period, but this may be a result of lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is
definitely room for improvement during the FY22 project period, as the life-of-project target is 92 percent of
students in target schools reported as “not hungry”, which is a significant improvement from the baseline rate
of 84 percent (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Percentage of children who do not experience hunger at school, according to teachers, at
FY19 and FY22 baselines
100%
89% 91%
87%
90% 84% 84% 83%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All students Girls Boys
2019 Basel ine 2023 endline
Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys
Outcome 1.3.: Improved Attendance
120. Teachers in McGovern-Dole-supported districts indicated at FY22 baseline that only about 76 percent
of their students were in attendance on the day of the data collection. This attendance measure declined from
FY19 baseline when teachers reported 80 percent attendance (from survey data). The apparent decline in
student attendance rates between the two baselines may be a product of lingering effects of the COVID-19
pandemic, or could also result from differences in the months the data were collected. The FY19 endline team
noted that the comparison school communities reporting lower student absence rates at endline had relatively
higher levels of socioeconomic indicators or, in other words, the McGovern-Dole targeting of vulnerable
communities may complicate comparisons with other schools. It will be important to follow up on this
23
indicator with both quantitative monitoring and qualitative discussions to understand more about new
challenges that students may be facing in the post-COVID period, as well as potential programme impacts on
this key outcome.
121. MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices. Output and outcome indicators to measure
SO2 target and baseline values as per the project PMP are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4: McGovern-Dole SO2 output and outcome indicators as per FY22 project PMP
Standard/Custom FY19 FY22 End of
indicators Type Definition Baseline Baseline project
Number value value target
Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new
SI #19 Outcome child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA 0 0 1,782
assistance (by gender)
Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new
SI #20 Outcome safe food preparation and storage practices as a result 0 0 873
of USDA assistance (by gender)
Average dietary diversity score (DDS) for enrolled girls
CI #6 Outcome 5.8 4.5
and boys of target schools
No. of individuals trained in child health and nutrition
SI #23 Output 0 0 2,786
as a result of USDA assistance (by gender)
No. of individuals trained in hygiene and the minimum
CI #8 Output guidelines for water and sanitation in schools as a 0 0 900
result of USDA assistance (by gender)
Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation
SI #22 Output 0 0 1,364
and storage as a result of USDA assistance (by gender)
Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings,
classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines)
SI #8 Output 0 0 406
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA
assistance (WASH related facilities)
Percentage of target schools that meet the minimum
requirements for handover to the government based N/A (new
CI #11 Outcome 100% 100%
on agreed handover checklist (by the time of indicator)
handover)
Mean number of days school-children are absent from
CI #5 Outcome school because of ill-health per month (by gender and 7,141 1.7 1
for children with disability)
Source: McGovern-Dole FY22 PMP
Outcome 2.1.: Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene practices
122. As for Outcome 2.2, the PMP indicator to measure achievement for this outcome (SI 19) is the number
of people trained on hygiene and the minimum guidelines for water and sanitation in schools. The assumption
that 65 percent of trainees improve their practices will be tested at endline. As for SI 19, the baseline value for
this indicator is 0.
Outcome 2.2.: Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Preparation and Storage Practices
123. All baseline output indicator values are zero, as new activities are initiated with new target
beneficiaries and deliveries (see the assessment of proposed targets in section 2.3.2.).
124. Outcome Standard Indicator (SI) 20 reflects the increased knowledge of safe food preparation and
storage practices and the target was set based on the assumption that 65 percent of the training participants
will be able to demonstrate the use of new practices. It is assumed that 80 percent of trainees will have
adopted the new knowledge and 80 percent of those with knowledge will be able to demonstrate practices. It
is planned that the assumption will be validated with direct observations on a sample of trained staff. The
baseline value of these indicators is zero as it is a percentage of new participants to trainings.
125. WFP and the MoEYS will continue to strengthen the capacities of school level stakeholders for the safe
storage of food and preparation of school meals during the new project. In addition, the project will support
the implementation of MoEYS Directive Noº 18: Strengthening the Implementation Rules for Promoting Food Safety
141 No baseline value is available in the FY19 baseline evaluation report. The 2019 baseline figures reported here correspond to the 2020
target of the FY19 project.
24
and Wellbeing at Public and Private General Education Facilities working with school-based vendors to reduce
children’s consumption of unhealthy snacks and drinks on school grounds.
126. The FY19 endline reported that 1,509 males and 1,189 females attended trainings on food preparation
and storage. Paradoxically, WFP CO interviewees mentioned that promoting the participation of males in the
school meals’ preparation is a challenge, notably because the incentive provided in WFP assisted schools is
very limited. In WFP assisted schools, incentives to cooks are provided by the community, whereas cooks in
government-managed schools receive a higher incentive from the local authority budget. This may result in
more participation of men to meal preparation after school handover. In any case, the data on male and
female training participants suggests that many of the participants do not actually put their new knowledge
into practice, at least in school canteens, and that targeting of participants could be improved.
Outcome 2.3.: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
127. The proportion of assisted schools that had received training on nutrition practices was 91 percent at
FY19 baseline and 97 percent at FY22 baseline. WFP will be doing dedicated training on the health education
curriculum as well as for the school food environment activity (focused on unhealthy snacking in schools); and
cooks/other stakeholders will receive training on food safety through the HGSF operations training package
during the new FY22 round in order to promote MoEYS ownership and sustainability.
128. One of the key expected outcomes of increased nutrition knowledge, as well as of school meals, is the
increase of dietary diversity among assisted children. In the previous phase, Diet Diversity Score (DDS)
increased from 5.1 food groups at the FY19 baseline to 5.8 groups in the endline survey. 142 It reflects an
already diversified diet and the new project target is lower than the current value for assisted children (4.5),
which suggests that the target should be reviewed. Both FY19 and FY 22 baselines measured the minimum diet
diversity but data is not comparable, as the food groups used to calculate the indicator have been revised to
better reflect children’s consumption of micronutrient-rich foods.
129. School gardens are expected at first to contribute to children’s capacity strengthening on a diversified
diet. Figure 4 indicates the proportion of schools with vegetable gardens, and with rehabilitated vegetable
gardens, at FY19 and FY22 baselines. The emphasis for the new project is on the maintenance of existing
gardens through technical assistance and the provision of agricultural inputs, which can be considered
relevant to the nature and objectives of the project.
Figure 4: Proportion of schools with vegetable gardens and/or rehabilitated vegetable gardens at FY19
and FY22 baselines
100% 83%
77% 75%
64%
50%
0%
FY19 baseline FY22 baseline
Schools with vegetable garden Schools with rehabilitated vegetable gardens
Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys.
Outcome 2.5: Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions
130. This intermediate outcome refers to the participation of WFP assisted school children in deworming,
oral health and immunization campaigns. According to WFP CO, it is a complementary activity led by MoEYS
with no direct engagement from WFP and there is no PMP indicator to measure it.
131. MGD 2.4.: Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services: This intermediate outcome is key
for the handover process as it directly relates to readiness criteria. Tables 5 and 6 show the average number of
drilled wells and water catchments per school, and the school access to year-round clean water at FY19 and
FY22 baselines. Despite 79 water facilities having been built or rehabilitated during the FY19 project, access to
142 DDS at FY22 baseline is calculated based on 10 food groups as asked in the questionnaire: 1. Cereals, grains, roots and tubers; 2. Pulses,
legumes, nuts; 3. Dairy products; 4. Meat, fish, eggs; 5. Vegetables; 6. Fruits; 7. Fats; 8. Sugars; 9. Condiments; 10 Prahok.
25
clean water seems to have decreased between 2019 and 2023. This finding should be assessed in more detail
to determine the reason for this evolution and to promote more sustainability of water systems.
Table 5: Average number of functioning drilled wells/water catchment at FY19 and FY22 baselines
Average number of drilled wells per school 1.7 1.3

Average number of water catchments per school 1.6 1.8
Average percentage of functioning drilled wells 72% 84%
Average percentage of functioning water catchments 80% 96%
Source: 2019 baseline and 2023 endline surveys.
Table 6: Percentage of schools with year-round access to a clean water source at FY19 and FY22
baselines
Yes (all school year) 81% 72%
No (some months not available) 16% 17%
No (no water) 3% 11%
Source: 2019 baseline and 2023 endline surveys.
132. Figure 5 presents the availability of hand washing stations at FY19 and FY22 baselines. All schools
currently have a hand washing station though it would be important to put more emphasis in the new project
on sustainability rather than the direct provision of new facilities.143 According to WFP staff, trainings are
planned on hygiene and minimum guidelines for water and sanitation in schools with a focus on operations
and maintenance.
Figure 5: Percentage of schools with fixed or mobile hand washing stations, at FY19 and FY22 baselines
100% 97% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 56%
49%
50% 44%
40%
40%
30%
20% 9%
10% 3% 0% 0%
0%
No hand washing Hand washing station Hand washing Station Hand washing Station: Hand washing Station:
station type: fixed only mobile only both
Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys.
Outcome 2.6: Increased Access to Requisite Food Preparation and Storage Tools and Equipment.
133. Table 7 presents the proportion of schools with food preparation and storage facilities and their
condition at FY19 and FY22 baselines. The FY22 project has a clear target for food preparation and storage
facilities and equipment that is to meet the readiness criteria for school handover based on the JTS. According
to WFP staff, specific targets have been defined by the cooperating partners based on their knowledge of
schools. It is not clear to the ET if a clear inventory of existing facilities and equipment is available, and in case
one does not exist, it is highly recommended to establish it in order to guide project activities.
143 Neither the Project Agreement nor the PMP provide a specific target for handwashing stations. An overall figure of 406 is proposed for
“educational facilities”.
26
Table 7: Proportion of schools at FY19 and FY22 baselines with food preparation and storage tools and
equipment and their condition
Percentage of assisted schools with Percentage of assisted schools
Facility
facility at FY19 baseline with facility at FY22 baseline
Kitchen 100% Not available
Good condition 47.1% 89.7%
Clean cooking and eating equipment 32.9% 63.2%
Lack utensils 64.3% 27.9%
Leaking roof 38.6% 22.1%
Flooded during rainy season 11.4% 11.8%
Using rocks as stove 7.1% 5.9%
No wall 5.7% 1.5%
Use of energy efficient stove 46% Not available
Storeroom 66% 86%
Food stored on pallets off the ground 67.4% 80.0%
Clean 73.9% 86.7%
Dry floor 87.0% 93.3%
Can be locked 89.1% 93.3%
Well ventilated 44% Not available
Source: FY19 Baseline and endline reports
Foundational results
134. The higher-level outcome for foundational results is the ‘National School Feeding Programme runs
effectively and sustainably’. It is disaggregated into four intermediary outcomes, each one with one activity, as
presented in Table 8 (and in Annex 8). As indicated in section 4.1.1, the four intermediary outcomes are aligned
with the five pillars of the SABER approach.
Table 8: Foundational results: expected outcomes and activities

Intermediary outcomes Activities
MGD 1.4.1/2.7.1 Increased capacity of government #1: Strengthen National Home-Grown School Feeding Design and
institutions Implementation Capacity
MGD 1.4.2/2.7.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory #2 Strengthen the National Capacities around Multisectoral
Framework Coordination and Policy for Home-Grown School Feeding
MGD 1.4.3/2.7.3 Increased Government Support #3 Strengthen National Budget Planning and Management
Capacity
MGD 1.4./2.7.4 Increased Engagement of Local #4 Strengthen National Monitoring and Oversight Capacity
Organizations and Community Groups
135. Output and outcome indicators to measure foundational results’ target and baseline values, as per the
project Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), are presented in Table 9 below.
27
Table 9: Foundational results: output and outcome indicators as per project PMP
Standard/
End of FY19 FY22
Custom
Type Definition project Baseline baseline
indicators
target value value
Number
Number of relevant SABER-SF pillars with improved score N/A (new
CI #15 Outcome 2 0
by the final SABER workshop in 2026 (by pillar) indicator)
Number of technical assistance initiatives provided by
WFP to the National Home-Grown School Feeding N/A (new
CI #16 Output 9 0
Programme (Specific for MGD 1.4.1/2.7.1, 1.4.2/2.7.2, indicator)
1.4.3/2.7.3)
Number of government staff that received training on
N/A (new
CI #17 Output National School Feeding Programme operation as a result 180 0
indicator)
of USDA assistance (by gender)
Number of multi-stakeholder school feeding Coordination
N/A (new
CI #18 Output Committee meeting conducted (as a result of USDA 15 0
indicator)
assistance) to implement the national programme.
CI #19 Output Number of sub-national level government staff who 204 N/A (new 0
received training on National School Feeding Programme indicator)
monitoring (by gender)
Standard/
End of FY19 FY22
Custom
Type Definition project Baseline baseline
indicators
target value value
Number
Value of new US Government commitments, and new
public and private sector investments leveraged by USDA US$
SI #11 Output 0 0
to support food security and nutrition (for community 417,250
contributions and CPs contributions)
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar
SI #13 Output school governance structures supported as a result of 656 0 0
USDA assistance
Source: MGD FY22 PMP
136. Custom Outcome Indicator 15 is the core indicator to measure progress on foundational results and it
relates to the progress achieved on the SABER pillars, measured during the June 2023 and the planned 2026
SABER workshops, representing respectively the baseline and endline values.
137. The final results of the June 2023 SABER workshop are not yet available. As per the pillar scoring, only
detailed indicator scores are available, as presented in Table 10. Scores will be aggregated by pillar and within
an overall score for the national HGSF programme later. Available SABER results at the time of this baseline
study do not include targets to be achieved by 2027 for each pillar. According to WFP CO, the final report
(expected by September 2023) should include detailed targets as well as a workplan. The final SABER results
with 2027 targets should be added as an addendum to this baseline report when available.
28
Table 10: June 2023 SABER workshop scoring results (FY22 foundational results baseline)
Pillars Indicators Latent Emergent Established Advanced
1.1 Status of development, embeddedness and
1. Policy and 66.88
dissemination of national policy, strategy or law
regulatory
1.2 Extent to which the content of the national
framework 83.33
policy, strategy or law is complete
2.1 Status of budget development, sources,
59.82
2. Financial disbursement and use of funds
capacity 2.2 Extent of cost coverage and inclusiveness of
46.09
budget plans
3.1 Extent to which a national, government-led
entity (at central or sub-national level, as relevant)
57.99
is mandated, recognized and capacitated to
provide adequate leadership for school feeding
3. Institutional 3.2 Extent to which school-level committees
capacity and ensure adequate adherence to programme 61.88
coordination standards and plans
3.3 Extent to which mechanisms are established
and functioning at the relevant (central, sub-
55.21
national and community) levels to ensure the
coordination of relevant sectors and actors
4.1 Extent to which (written or de facto)
programme design corresponds to identified 73.30
needs and established standards
4.2 Extent to which programme implementation
4. Programme
(based on a written programme document or de
design and 69.44
facto activity) corresponds to design and
implementation
standards
4.3 Extent to which monitoring ensures systematic
collection, analysis and use of up-to-date 42.86
information
5.1 Level of community awareness, engagement
5. Community 36.46
and feedback
roles-reaching
5.2 Level of involvement and extent of benefits for
beyond schools 29.17
local private sector actors
Source: Draft results of the SABER June 2023 workshop
138. Regional procurement of canned fish. As mentioned in chapter 4.1.1, local purchases at school level
thanks to cash-based transfers to schools are not included in the FY22 project and only regional purchase is
included. Output and outcomes indicators with their targets and baseline values are presented in Table 11.
Table 11: Regional procurement: output and outcome indicators as per project PMP
FY19 FY22 End of
Standard / Custom
Type Definition baseline baseline project
indicator Number
value value target
Number of individuals participating in
LRP SI #1 Output 0 0 Not set
USDA food security programs (by gender)
Cost of commodity procured as a result of
LRP SI #5 Output USDA assistance (by commodity and 0 0 1,682,00
source country)
Cost of transport, storage and handling of
commodity procured as a result of USDA N/A (new
LRP SI #4 Output 0 US$634,743
assistance (by commodity and source indicator)
country)
Quantity of commodity procured as a result
N/A (new
LRP SI#6 Output of USDA assistance (by commodity and 0 580 mt
indicator)
source country)
Source: McGovern-Dole FY22 PMP
29
4.1.5. To what extent is the project monitoring, evaluation and complaint feedback mechanism
designed for the project adequate to improve project relevance throughout the project? To
what extent does it allow specifically for feedback from women and vulnerable groups,
such as the disabled or ethnic minorities?
139. The McGovern-Dole FY19 baseline and midterm evaluation reports do not make reference to the
feedback and complaint mechanism. According to the endline evaluation report, the feedback and complaint
mechanism set up by WFP has been increasingly used by stakeholders, although the report does not provide
information on the extent to which it is effective to allow specific feedback from women or vulnerable groups.
140. The FY22 project document states that the community feedback and complaints mechanism will be
continued and monitored (activity 5.2), and will be complemented by monitoring visits, mentoring and
coaching support, as well an engagement with local communities to ensure they continue to provide an
oversight role and promote the use of the mechanism.
141. Interviews with WFP CO staff during the baseline study showed that the feedback and complaint
mechanism is not specific to the SFP but covers all WFP activities. It works well and beneficiary feedback is
addressed by each activity focal point if actions have to be taken. The mechanism is being reviewed for its
improvement thanks to the engagement of an Accountability to Affected Populations Officer within the CO.
142. The possibility to transfer, or establish, a similar system to MoEYS within the national HGSF programme is
still under discussion.
4.1.6. What is the level of ownership of the programme in schools, communities, and relevant
government departments involved in the implementation of the NHGSFP and to what
extent does the project design provide for appropriate actions to strengthen ownership
and readiness?
143. The overall WFP support to school feeding in Cambodia through both McGovern-Dole FY19 and FY22
projects aims to enable effective national ownership. The FY19 baseline highlighted that the Royal Government
of Cambodia was highly committed to a national school feeding programme in 2019. The report, however,
indicated that senior officials stressed the need to transition from a ‘donorship’ via ‘partnership’ to ‘ownership’
mindset. Similarly, the role of WFP also needed to switch from direct implementation to technical assistance,
capacity strengthening and mentoring, but this was still considered as a challenge in 2020. Interviews with WFP
staff during this FY22 baseline showed that the engagement of their personnel has progressively changed and
this new role is better understood, although staff still show direct implementation reflexes.
144. Other challenges found at FY19 baseline were the lack of stakeholders’ self-confidence in their own
capacity to implement and manage the programme, as well as high staff turnover, especially at school level.
Also, the short time frame to make the transition from donorship to ownership, further affected by the COVID-
19 pandemic, was found to be a significant challenge.
145. Both FY19 baseline and endline evaluations pointed out that increased decision-making power at sub-
national levels contributed to strengthening local participation and ownership. The baseline study mentions
budget programming at the commune council level, while the endline evaluation found that the transition to
the HGSF model with local purchase has offered an opportunity for more community involvement and
ownership. The withdrawal of local purchase in the FY22 project may affect the growing ownership process at
community level.
146. According to stakeholder interviews, the MoEYS and NSPC are deeply involved at both strategic
piloting and implementation levels, while the participation and ownership of other institutions remain limited.
The sub-decree on HGSF Programme Implementation (March 2023) mandates nine national institutions 144 and
clearly defines their roles and responsibilities in the programme implementation. Before the sub-decree there
was no clearly defined role for each institution involved. In addition, intersectoral coordination mechanisms
had yet to be established, further limiting the participation of other institutions beyond the MoEYS and NSPC.
The creation of an inter-ministerial committee is considered essential for promoting ownership among all
institutions. According to WFP CO, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health
have already been involved at activity level, for instance in the preparation of a new cookbook.
144 The nine institutions are the MoEYS, NSPC, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Women’s Affairs,
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Council for Agricultural and Rural Development, Ministry of Economy and Finance.
30
147. WFP plans several activities within the FY22 project to promote more participation and ownership
from all institutions involved in the national programme, such as the participation at the recent SABER
workshop, and an exchange visit to Korea in the near future. The ET considers these activities relevant. In
addition, WFP interviewees mentioned that there may still be further constraints for effective participation of
all the institutions concerned, such as procedures for transferring funds allocated to the HGSF programme.
These issues should be assessed in detail, and actions taken to address all potential factors limiting
participation.
148. Additional elements that either support or limit ownership, identified at FY19 midterm and endline,
were the:
- Availability of complete costing analysis for the HGSF programme implementation, thereby restricting
the Government from making realistic budget allocations and reducing dependence on external
sources of funding. Within the McGovern-Dole FY22 project, a cost assessment of the national
programme is planned.
- Perception of MoEYS officials identified at midterm that they needed more time to take full ownership
of the programme and the need to continue WFP’s technical assistance after the handover. According
to WFP interviewees, technical assistance is planned for two years after handover.
- The additional workload for school stakeholders after handover had not been factored into existing
school and government systems at midterm. Interviews with implementing partners and WFP CO staff
confirmed that this is an issue that has not yet been addressed.
- Sub-national departments will take over schools at different levels of readiness due to the handover of
entire districts.
- The work done during the pandemic on transition to national ownership has been accelerated during
the past year. Several policy documents have been drafted and gone through multiple rounds of
consultations that engaged a wide range of stakeholders.
149. During the FY19 project phase the literacy component took important steps in the process of
establishing ownership of the programme, along two general pathways. Firstly, at the policy level the literacy
component is already integrated into a larger systemic effort to harmonize EGR programming among DPs and
the MoEYS, and uses the different project experiences to further strengthen EGR policy to facilitate the
eventual national scale up of early grade reading and maths interventions. Secondly, at the local
implementation level, the literacy component is working closely with teachers, school principals, school
clusters, districts and provinces to undertake trainings, distribute materials and support schools through
mentors and Literacy Coaches. The cooperating partners (World Education and Bandos Komar) have
conducted extensive field visits at all levels of implementation in Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom and (to a
lesser degree) Siem Reap provinces to oversee activities, build capacity and collect monitoring data. These are
important initial steps in the process of transferring full ownership of activities to local entities.
150. The project design features for the FY22 phase will build on the experiences of the preceding project
in order to further strengthen ownership and readiness. As noted in the discussion on sustainability, the
literacy component is entering a critical phase where the EGR programme activities will be more completely
integrated into existing provincial, district, cluster and school action plans with the goal of maintaining an
acceptable level of quality to ensure that teachers are effectively implementing the new teaching approach in
the classroom. For example, teacher trainings will increasingly rely on district and provincial staff with less
oversight from national teams, and school (and classroom) support functions will be taken over by school,
school cluster and district staff instead of World Education staff (or their representatives). World Education
counterparts are aware of the inherent challenges in this full handover process, but it is again important to
note that this process is not being solely managed by WFP and World Education, but is instead part of a multi-
actor implementation of the harmonized EGR methodology (generally referred to as Komar Rien Komar Cheh
(KRKC).145 This learning phase will continue the process of slowly ensuring local responsibility for programme
functions, while at the same time building capacity and identifying mechanisms to strengthen local ownership
and readiness.
145 More details on the Komar Rien Komar Cheh (KRKC) in https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/launching-komar-rien-komar-cheh-cambodias-
national-early-grade-learning-programme; and additional details for the Inclusive Primary Education Activity (IPEA) program specifics in: RTI
International, 2022. USAID/Cambodia – Inclusive Primary Education Activity (IPEA), Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter 2 Progress Report.
31
4.1.7. What roles have the different stakeholders of the NHGSFP played to date in the
institutionalization of the programme, and to what extent do they play the correct role
considering the national school feeding policy?
151. The official creation of the national HGSF programme is recent and the process was interrupted
during the pandemic period. As mentioned earlier, until very recently there was no clear definition of which
institutions should be involved and what role they would play. In this context, MoEYS is the key stakeholder
and has been at the centre of the institutionalization of the programme at all level and on all its components.
The NSPC plays also an important role in the strategic piloting and monitoring of the programme, as it is
embedded into the NSPPF. This role is aligned with the 2023 sub-decree on program implementation and the
draft National School Meals Policy. Other government institutions have not yet developed the role that has
been defined for them. As mentioned above, the issuing of the sub-decree, the creation of an inter-ministerial
committee to coordinate the programme and the expected endorsement of the school meals policy, should
represent a starting point for the participation of other institutions.
152. World Education is deeply engaged in the overall policy institutionalization process for EGR through its
working relationship with MoEYS and partnerships with other DPs (like USAID). This is work in progress as the
McGovern-Dole project - like others working in early grade learning - is continuing the work of institutionalizing
the programme and building up ownership while still maintaining acceptable levels of quality. In terms of this
being the correct role, the overall strategy employed through World Education is closely coordinated with the
larger EGR policy and specific goals related to quality and sustainability. There is no evidence that the literacy
component of the McGovern-Dole project is diverging from the larger national policy in a way that threatens
institutionalization.
4.1.8. What factors identified at baseline may impact the cost efficiency of the McGovern-Dole
2022-2027 project?
153. While the FY19 baseline study did not assess the project efficiency, it concluded that the project
benefitted from an enabling human, material and institutional environment established during previous
rounds of the project. Efficiency was not addressed at all in the midterm evaluation.
154. The FY19 endline was not able to draw final conclusions on the cost-efficiency of the FY19 project due
to insufficient available data. The endline report highlights that budgeting and expenditure reporting have
been made difficult because of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, floods and the ASEAN Games
in May 2023. Those factors are no longer present and are therefore not expected to affect the new project. The
evaluation team has not identified other external factors that could affect the efficiency of the project.
155. Interviews with WFP CO staff showed that the emphasis for the FY22 project in the area of cost
efficiency is more general, and considers implications for the national HGSF programme rather than the
project itself. One of the key elements of the cost-efficiency of the HGSF programme is the procurement
model. WFP is currently supporting studies and pilots on the programme's supply models and on the definition
of balanced rations, which incorporate the issue of rice fortification. These studies take into account cost
analysis so that the most cost-efficient possible model can be adopted for the national HGSF programme.
4.1.9. Is the project management structure suitable to deliver the project effectively?
156. The FY19 baseline report highlighted that WFP was widely recognized as a strong partner in school
feeding programmes, with strong programme management and technical capacity at CO level and with the
access to additional technical support from the Regional Bureau in Bangkok (RBB) and the headquarters in
Rome.
157. The midterm evaluation confirmed that technical resources provided by the RBB have been of great
importance to support the transition process. In addition, while the COVID-19 pandemic restricted field visits
for WFP staff, it offered an opportunity to put more emphasis into the transition process.
158. The management of all school feeding activities under one programme unit has allowed for alignment
and complementarity of the various contributions to school feeding activities, and for lessons and experience
to be drawn and shared from each.
159. As far as the CO structure is concerned, several issues were found in the previous evaluation series
and discussed with WFP interviewees:
- Great attention from the CO has continued to be put on direct WFP operations and logistics, leaving
the responsibility to strategically and operationally support the transition and handover process on a
32
few staff members of the CO. The CO institutional memory has been also affected by international
and national staff turnover. However, the workload for direct operations will decrease progressively
with the handover of schools and more resources will be dedicated to capacity strengthening
activities. According to WFP informants, several key staff (including the leader of the school feeding
unit) are already fully dedicated to capacity strengthening and technical assistance to the
Government.
- Key sectoral expertise among the CO is distributed in the different strategic outcome responsibilities
under the CSP, which brings difficulties for internal collaboration and limits the opportunities to
optimize capacities.
- At the field level in operations, the staffing and configuration of the sub-national structure did not
always reflect the complexity of a shift to a country capacity strengthening approach for handover and
transition.
- The level of understanding of the transition process was unequal among WFP staff.
160. The FY19 endline evaluation assessed the extent to which the findings and recommendations of the
baseline and midterm evaluations had been addressed. It found that the CO had continued to review its
staffing profile and fill gaps. A new position is being created for technical assistance to MoEYS, to be based at
the ministry, which is considered a relevant approach to strengthen WFP capacity to accompany the MoEYS on
a permanent basis.
161. The CO management also continues to work on changing the mindset of the staff towards their
revised capacity strengthening role, but there are still differences in attitude towards these tasks. Nevertheless,
many of the WFP CO staff have been working for years on capacity strengthening and have progressively
acquired skills and experience in this type of work.
162. On the literacy component, WFP does not have particular expertise, but evidence suggests that the
project management structure is suitable for effectively delivering the literacy component of the project. There
are three relevant management structure levels: first, the working relationship between WFP and World
Education is positive, with WFP satisfied with World Education’s engagement and recognizing their capacity in
this programme area (which WFP staff are less able to cover). 146 Second, World Education has a good working
relationship with the central level MoEYS counterparts and other partners in the general programming area of
EGR, which is important for coordinating activities and collectively learning from the different EGR
programmes.147 And third, based on the progress of programme activities to date it does appear that World
Education has an effective working relationship with sub-national MoEYS entities, including schools.148
4.1.10. To what extent does the McGovern-Dole 2022-2027 project design provide reinforced
complementarities, synergies and linkages with systems of different governing bodies
relevant to the NHGSFP and other humanitarian and development initiatives?
163. The integration of the literacy component with the larger sphere of MoEYS and DP programming in
early grade learning has been referenced above, and stands out as a project design feature that reinforces
complementarities, synergies and linkages with larger systems.
164. WFP interviewees mentioned that WFP permanently looks for new synergies and collaborations.
Several initiatives have been recently initiated, such as collaborations with local non-government organizations
on food systems in relation to local purchase, with Helen Keller International, UNICEF and FAO on research on
snacking in school grounds, and with FAO and MoEYS to develop revised nutrition guidelines and standards for
school meals.
165. Like the FY19 project, the new FY22 project is fully complementary with the contributions of the Korea
International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). The two grants are managed by the same team in the WFP CO and
include similar activities.
146 KII interviews with WFP and World Education.

147 KII interviews with World Education, MoEYS and USAID.
148 KII interviews with World Education: note that sub-national entities were not interviewed as part of the literacy component evaluation for
this baseline report.
33
4.2. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: What are the contextual changes that occurred since the
FY19 baseline relevant to the programme and under each of the evaluation criteria,
including GEWE aspects?
4.2.1. What are the contextual factors identified at baseline that may affect (negatively or
positively) the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence of the
McGovern-Dole FY22 project, and achievements regarding GEWE?
166. The FY19 baseline, midterm and endline evaluations all identified the COVID-19 pandemic as the
external factor that most influenced the implementation and achievements of the previous round. A repetition
of a crisis of this scale during the FY22 implementation period is unpredictable, and its effects would be
difficult to mitigate with contingency planning in the design of the new project. However, WFP and its partners
in Cambodia showed a great capacity to adapt to cope with the situation and reorient their programmes to
maintain a high level of relevance, for instance through the shift to take-home rations when schools were
closed, and to remain effective.
167. The FY19 evaluation series highlighted the high-level government support as a key factor of success to
date, although the three evaluation rounds mentioned the challenges related to limited capacity and
understanding of the programme, and how to implement it amongst MoEYS and sub-national staff. The KIIs
confirmed that the senior officials have been very supportive throughout the transition process. Government
will remains strong and it is not expected that this will change in the next years. The policy framework is being
updated, but it is expected that school feeding will remain an important programme within the social
protection system.
168. The ongoing Decentralization and Deconcentration reform in Cambodia is planned to be rolled-out in
2024 and could potentially modify key structures and processes related to the SFP management. The FY19
endline evaluation indicates that none of the stakeholders interviewed was able to predict how it would affect
the future of the SFP. WFP should carefully assess the potential implication of the reforms on the SFP and
factor it into capacity strengthening activities.
169. The macroeconomic context was cited during KIIs as a key factor that could affect the resourcing of
the national HGSF plan, and therefore the continuity of activities supported by the McGovern-Dole project and
their benefits.
170. Specific to the literacy component of the project, relevant contextual factors are primarily related to
the larger context of early grade learning interventions in Cambodia given the goal of harmonizing the
McGovern-Dole literacy work with the national programme to better ensure sustainability. In terms of
relevance, the contextual situation for the literacy component is more positive compared with the previous
phase of the project. Early grade learning has become even more central to the MoEYS sector planning and
priorities,149 and as the rollout of KRKC continues there is more coordination between development partners
and the MoEYS to learn as much as possible about effective early grade learning strategies.
171. Contextual features that could potentially impact effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability are mainly
related to MoEYS counterparts, who will become increasingly responsible for the implementation of the
literacy component. Strengthening capacity at provincial, district, cluster and school levels is imperative for
ensuring effectiveness and efficiency in the FY22 project phase and beyond, but this process depends on
MoEYS capacity, engagement and internal dynamics that cannot be controlled by external partners. Possible
residual effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may continue to affect students and their families, as well as MoEYS
counterparts, although the current phase is clearly in a better situation compared with the extreme measures
that were in place during the pandemic over two consecutive school years (2020-2022).
149 MoEYS, 2023. GPE 2025 Partnership Compact.
34
4.3. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: Are the project indicators and targets appropriate in
effectively measuring and tracking project results for men, women, girls, boys and
vulnerable groups based on the results framework?
4.3.1. To what extent does WFP have the systems and capacity at baseline to appropriately
monitor and provide sufficient information to measure progress, including on GEWE? What
changes should be made, if any?
172. The FY19 endline evaluation found significant issues in the WFP monitoring system. Clean and valid
monitoring data was not readily available for the evaluation and when it was provided, it contained multiple
errors and discrepancies. The exhaustive review of the PMP of the new project during this baseline suggests
that the monitoring plan has improved but there are still issues that need to be addressed. They are presented
with suggestions for improvement in section 2.3.2: “Are the targets proposed for the project relevant and realistic
and is gender sufficiently considered in the targets?”
173. Overall, a number of PMP indicators are disaggregated by gender but annual and project life targets
are not disaggregated.
174. National and sub-national capacities for monitoring the national HGSF programme is an aspect that is
repeatedly mentioned in the FY19 evaluation series, highlighting difficulties (especially in the more rural
locations) such as lack of internet connectivity, lack of skills in digitalized systems and excessive work.
175. Monitoring readiness is included in the transition strategy. In April 2022, WFP carried out an
assessment of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for the national HGSF programme, and clear
recommendations and action points were proposed, though the ET did not assess the extent to which they are
being implemented. In addition, an M&E capacity assessment of the NHGSF programme is ongoing and WFP
will provide technical assistance to the programme based on the findings of this assessment.
4.3.2. Are the targets proposed for the project relevant and realistic and is gender sufficiently
considered in targets?
176. The PMP integrates 25 USDA standard indicators (SI), four indicators to measure achievements of
regional procurement (LRP SI) and 18 custom indicators (CI). The overall set of indicators is found relevant to
measure project outputs and outcomes, and realistic considering the coverage of the project and the
achievements of the previous McGovern-Dole round. There is some overlapping of indicators, and necessary
adjustments to be made, and some practical recommendations are provided to specific indicators below.
Targets are often not documented and justified and difficult to assess. A better documentation/justification of
targets is necessary in order to allow for the analysis of achievements in both the regular monitoring system of
the project and at midterm and endline evaluations.
177. SI 1: Student literacy. This is the key overall outcome measure given the Strategic Objective of
improving student literacy. Based on the trajectory of student literacy levels in the FY19 phase, the FY22 targets
for grades 2 and 3 are realistic, and are essentially a linear continuation of the current improvement trend.
Separate targets by gender would be useful given the significant differences in performance to date.
178. SI 2: Student attendance. Student attendance is highly relevant given the potential for school feeding
programming to directly affect attendance, and the potential impact of attendance on outcomes like literacy.
The FY22 endline goal of 95 percent attendance is ambitious given the FY19 endline values, and the evidence
from two different attendance measures of a decline in student attendance during that project. It will be
important during the FY22 phase to monitor this outcome with different data sources to better understand the
underlying causes of student absences and the potential impact of literacy and school feeding programming to
address these issues. This is another indicator that should have separate targets by gender given the
significant differences in earlier data collected.
179. SI 3: Number of teaching and learning materials provided. This is a relevant indicator but it needs
to be further specified given the adaptations in materials provision that have taken place in the FY19 phase,
specifically the pivot to providing schools and students with remote learning materials. The current goal of 556
materials is hard to interpret since the project was apparently able to provide over 35,000 materials in the
FY19 phase (responding to remote teaching demands during the pandemic). The project has supported the
production of different teaching and learning materials, such as teacher and student guides that are linked
with the new curriculum, and student readers that cover school feeding-related topics (like foods). More details
are required for this indicator with specific references to the kinds of materials that will be produced, how they
35
compare with materials provision from the FY19 phase, and how the indicator should be measured (e.g. units,
materials, packages) with clear definitions. This indicator does not have a gender component in terms of
numbers, but it is important to review gender-related content and themes in the materials themselves (if
applicable).
180. SI 4, 5, 6 and 7: Teacher and administrator training participation and use of techniques. The
training targets (1,780 teachers, 577 administrators) are realistic based on the previous phase training
activities, although the FY22 phase will be more dependent on MoEYS staff for carrying out the trainings, which
could impact the total numbers. The 85 percent ‘takeup’ rate (the percentage of trained participants who
demonstrate use of the techniques) is also realistic given the experiences from the FY19 phase. However,
several modifications should be considered for the use of the techniques indicator. First, more details are
required about the standards which are used to judge this outcome, and how this information is obtained, for
both teachers as well as administrators. Second, for teachers it may be possible to replace Standard Indicator 4
with Custom Indicator 1 below, and rely on the classroom monitoring tool that has been developed by World
Education for measuring teacher use of KRKC techniques in the classroom. This seems to be a more
empirically valid and useful measurement tool, but given the limited evidence on the current measurement of
SI 4 (and 6) this topic can be discussed further. Finally, there is not a strong gender component to this indicator
since the relevant teachers from programme district schools should participate, and the programme should
simply ensure that female and male teachers are adequately represented.
181. SI 8: Education facilities built/rehabilitated. 2,230 educational facilities were rehabilitated or built
during the previous FY19 phase, representing 197 percent of the target. The target for the new project is 406
‘facilities’ (school buildings, classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines) built or rehabilitated, and has
been set based on the needs identified by cooperating partners at school level. It therefore seems relevant and
reasonable considering the achievement of the previous project.
182. SI 9, 17, 18: Children enrolled and assisted: these three indicators measure the same population:
primary school-age children enrolled in WFP supported schools and who therefore receive daily school meals.
Annual targets decrease progressively with the school handover to the Government as the PMP only monitors
WFP directly-supported children, and are based on the achievements of the previous rounds, but they can be
considered relevant and realistic.
183. SI 10: Policy processes supported: It has been removed considering that new custom indicators
based on SABER pillars have been introduced to measure progresses on foundational results. This is relevant
considering the nature of the project.
184. SI 11: Community contributions: relates to the financial contribution of communities to school
feeding activities. Some US$2,775,430 of contributions were reported in the FY19 phase, representing 1,334
percent of the target. The new project target is US$417,250 for both WFP supported and handed over schools,
which seems very conservative considering the achievement of the previous round. Recommendation: adjust
to the level of contributions achieved in the last round.
185. SI 12: Public-private partnerships: as for Standard Indicator #10, it has been removed due to the
adoption of the SABER pillars to measure foundational results. This is found relevant.
186. SI 13: Local committees supported: Regarding the number of local school feeding committees or
school management committees supported by the project through capacity strengthening, the FY19 project
supported 522 committees reaching 87 percent of the target. The target for the FY22 project is 656. The PMP
does not provide a justification of the target that seems over-estimated considering the achievement of the
previous round and the number of supported schools planned (341). Recommendation: adjust the target to
the number of supported schools and/or document the estimation of the target.
187. SI 14: Quantity of Take-Home rations delivered: This indicator is removed from the PMP as take-
home rations would only be considered in the event of school closure. Such a circumstance is unpredictable
and no target can be defined.
188. SI 15: Beneficiaries of Take-Home Rations. The same comments as for Standard Indicator #14.
189. SI 16: Daily school meals. 24,783,174 daily school meals were reportedly delivered in the previous
round,150 representing 39 percent of the target. This level of achievement was largely because of the school
150 Up to March 2023. Note that the FY19 project will continue under a no-cost extension until April 2024, and therefore this number of
school meals delivered will increase by the end of the project.
36
closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The FY22 life-of-project target is 26,946,360 school meals, only
including the schools directly assisted by WFP, and annual targets decrease progressively with the handover of
schools, which is relevant.
190. SI 19 and 20: Individuals who apply improved practices. As described above, these outcome indicators
that measure the effect of capacity strengthening activities on child health and nutrition practices, as well as
safe food preparation and storage practices, result from the application of 65 percent of trainees putting their
new skills to use. It is based on an assumption that will be tested at endline, reflected by a sample of
participants who have attended trainings. Recommendations for better measurement of SI 19 & SI 20: a)
revise the PMP target & indicator definition for SI19 to include: i) number of vendors compliant with
Directive No 18; and ii) number of school directors monitoring and enforcing compliance with Directive
No 18. For SI 19, update baseline value to include an estimate of the percentage of directors/vendors
already doing the above (based on the sample from the SBCC KAP baseline, extrapolated to the number
of schools and vendors), and c) incorporate questions on vendor/director practices related to Directive
18 into the FY22 midterm and endline evaluation questionnaires. For SI 20, the CO should identify an
opportunity to collect baseline data on current use of safe food preparation and storage practices; and
update the PMP with the baseline, and incorporate these same questions integrate these same
questions into the FY22 midterm and endline evaluation questionnaires.
191. SI 22: Individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage. The previous project round trained
2,698 individuals, representing 220 percent of the target. The new target is 1,364 individuals to be achieved in
three years and seems relevant considering the lower number of schools covered in the new project, although
the way the new target is set is not documented.
192. SI 23: Individuals trained in child health and nutrition. The previous project round trained 2,396
individuals, representing 2,215 percent of the target. The new project target (2,786 individuals) has been well
justified by WFP and seems appropriate.
193. SI 27: schools using an improved water source. Initially removed from the PMP by WFP, USDA
requested to add it back at baseline, though no target has been defined so far. Recommendation: define a
target based on an assessment of the current number of schools using an improved water source and
the gap to be realistically filled during the project.
194. SI 28: Schools with improved sanitation facilities. Same as Standard Indicator #27.
195. SI 30: Beneficiaries of USDA food security programmes. Accounts for the total participants to the
project (children receiving school meals, and participants in capacity strengthening activities). Annual targets
decrease as it only includes WFP directly assisted schools.
196. SI 31: Indirect beneficiaries. Accounts for family members of those children receiving school meals
from WFP. As a result, annual targets decrease progressively as schools are handed over. It is calculated
automatically from the number of children assisted. The ET does not have a particular comment on this
indicator.
197. SI 32: Number of schools assisted. Includes the number of schools assisted by WFP for school
feeding and schools assisted by World Education for literacy programming. Targets are aligned to the
handover plan, which is relevant.
198. CI 1: Trained teachers implement early grade learning methodology at Level 2 or higher. This is
a very relevant indicator given the importance of demonstrating effective use of the new teaching
methodology in the classroom, and not relying solely on participation measures to monitor training impacts.
The 85 percent goal in this outcome is consistent with the results for SI 4, and is also realistic based on the
classroom monitoring data collected by World Education during the SY 2021-22 in Kampong Chhnang. 151 As
noted above it may make sense to use this indicator instead of SI 4 for monitoring teachers’ use of the
methodology, or at least further specify the differences between the indicators and their distinct
purposes. There is not a strong gender component in this indicator, so there does not appear to be a
need to specify programme targets by gender.
199. CI 3: Student attentiveness in class. This is a relevant indicator given the potential linkages between
school feeding and attentiveness, in addition to the possibility that the new teaching methodology will enhance
student engagement. The 95 percent target for FY22 is realistic, and perhaps is a little low given the results
151 World Education Kampong Chhnang monitoring data summary document, July 2023.
37
from the FY19 endline (94.8 overall average). It is reasonable to expect some improvement in this indicator as
the programme continues to develop.
200. CI 4: Student reported as “not hungry” during class time. It is a relevant indicator of school meals
considering that hunger at school can affect attentiveness and result in dropout or low attendance. The
baseline value from the FY19 endline survey is 84 percent (although the value in the PMP is 89.3 percent) and
the FY22 project life target is 92 percent. This seems realistic although the proportion of school children
experiencing hunger at school has increased between the FY19 baseline in 2020 and the endline in 2023.
201. CI 5: Illness related absences at school. This is a key indicator to measure Strategic Result 2
achievements and contributions to the overall literacy objective of the project. The previous round over-
achieved the target of an average of four monthly school days missed by a student due to illness (actual value
of 1.7 missed school days). The new project target is one average missed day per month in the last year of
project implementation. It may be over-ambitious, but a lot has already been done for improving school
facilities and promoting improved practices, resulting in significant achievements.
202. CI 6: Diet Diversity Score (DDS). As mentioned above, the project life target is 4.3 while the DDS of
assisted children measured at the FY19 endline was 6.3. It is not clear to the ET if the target includes school
meals only or also food consumed at home. Recommendations: align target measurement with the 2023
endline survey methodology (with or without a school meal) and/or revise the target accordingly.
Update the PMP indicator definition to specify exactly which food groups should be used in future
rounds (as well as possibly revising the target if the baseline value is still higher after the calculation is
re-done).
203. CI 8: individuals trained in hygiene and the minimum guidelines for water and sanitation. This
new custom indicator is found relevant as it allows monitoring of the application of the standards developed
by the School Health Department of MoEYS. There is no reference from the previous round to appreciate the
target of 900 individuals trained and, as this target is not documented, the ET cannot make a statement on its
realism.
204. CI 11: Schools that meet the infrastructure and equipment handover criteria. This new indicator
is key, as it is the only one that measures the readiness of schools for handover based on the defined criteria.
It will allow identification of the achievements of targets in terms of school handover. Recommendations:
several adjustments could be made to the indicator: 1. Ideally annual targets should be in number
(instead of percentage) of schools and aligned with the annual target for school handover; 2. It should
be measured in the regular project M&E system instead of on a sample of schools at the midterm and
endline evaluations; 3. A similar indicator should be developed for the third readiness criteria on
capacity; 4. An additional outcome indicator should monitor the actual number of schools handed over
annually, aligned with the target of the handover plan.
205. CI 14: SABER school feeding Index. This new indicator is aligned with the approach proposed to
measure achievements on foundational results, based on the SABER approach, and is therefore very relevant
to the project. The FY22 project life target is 3 (‘Established’) but it should be revised when an aggregated index
is available from the final report of the June 2023 SABER workshop, which was not available at the time of this
baseline study. The final report should also include a target to be achieved by 2027.
206. CI 15: increase of SABER score by pillars. As for CI 14, this indicator is very relevant as it is aligned
with the approach to measure progress on foundational results. The indicator measures the increase of score
for each pillar, and targets only capture any increase achieved during the project. An alternative, more
informative, approach would be to align the target with pillar targets that should be proposed in the
final SABER workshop report. Alternatively, pillar targets could be to progress by one status level by
the end of the project.
207. CI 16, CI 17, CI 18, CI 19 are output Indicators aligned with the activities planned for each intermediate
outcome of foundational results.
208. LRP SI 1: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programmes. This indicator is
confusing for three reasons. It has the same formulation as SI 30 but it measures only school age beneficiaries,
whereas SI 30 accounts for all the participants to the project (school children, participants to trainings and
technical assistance). It also overlaps with SI 9, 17 and 18, and it is not relevant to measure a specific output of
regional purchase. Recommendation: consider removing LRP SI 1.
38
209. LRP SI 4 and 5: Procurement costs for regionally purchased commodities. These two indicators
that reflect respectively the procurement costs (transport, storage) and the commodity costs, are aimed to
measure the cost effectiveness of food assistance. In the absence of any documentation of the targets, the ET
cannot assess the relevance of the indicators and realism of targets.
210. LRP SI 6: Quantity of canned fish regionally purchased. No particular comment on this indicator.
4.4. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: To what extent are the midterm and endline evaluation
questions relevant in assessing the success of the programme under each criterion
and for all categories of participants including men, women, girls, boys, and
vulnerable groups?
4.4.1. To what extent are the key elements of success and performance well-captured in the
midterm and endline evaluation questions, and is there sufficient consideration given to
gender in these questions?
211. The ET team carefully reviewed the evaluation questions proposed in the ToR for the midterm and
endline evaluations. The proposed adjustments are presented in Annex 16.
212. Overall, the evaluation questions capture well the key element of success and performance of the
project, and the principal questions of readiness and sustainability of the NHGSF programme. Proposed
modifications respond to three objectives:
- Simplify the questions and provide more clarity: evaluation questions are sometimes too extensive
and lack clarity. Proposed formulations are shorter and more general given that during midterm and
endline inception phases, the ET will disaggregate evaluation questions into sub-questions and
indicators, which will provide the space for more details.
- Reduce overlap and the number of questions: several overlapping questions have been removed or
merged. This reduced the number of questions from 15 to 11 for the midterm evaluation, and from 20
to 14 for the endline. This will help to provide more fluidity to the evaluation report structures based
around evaluation questions.
- Strengthen the integration of GEWE, with explicit references wherever relevant. Evaluation questions
do not always explicitly consider gender dimensions, which should be reviewed to explicitly mention
such considerations.
4.4.2. Midterm and endline quantitative approach

213. The evaluation design follows the evolution of key programme outcomes in 448 schools through the
five-year cycle (Year 1 through Year 5), with assessment exercises conducted after Year (Y) 1 (baseline), after Y3
(midterm) and after Y5 (endline). As shown in Figure 6 below, in Y1 (i.e. the most recent school year, SY22-23),
all the schools included in the evaluation series are under WFP management (C0). At the end of Y1, 107 schools
assisted previously will be transferred to the Government (C1). A further 89 schools will be transferred at the
end of Y3 (C2), 130 schools will be transferred at the end of Y4 (C3), and the remaining 122 schools will be
transferred at the end of Y5 (C4).
Figure 6: Initial evaluation design
Source: Developed by the ET based on the WFP CO Terms of Reference
39
214. Analysis model. In order to address the learning objective of the evaluation and particularly to assess
the effect of the handover process on project performance, the analysis model summarised in Figure 7 is
proposed and has been agreed with the WFP CO. The four school cohorts are put into two groups presenting
similarities considering the time elapsed since their handover to the Government. The benefit of this approach
will be to simplify the analysis between only two groups in the midterm and endline evaluations (‘schools not
yet handed over or handed over a year ago’ versus ‘schools handed over two years ago or more’). These two
groups have been defined based on discussions with WFP CO and RBB on which groups would be more
homogenous. The other alternative was ‘schools not handed over’ and ‘schools handed over’ but this last
group would have grouped together more heterogenous situations with schools very recently handed over
and schools handed over more than three years ago. The proposed approach will increase the confidence level
of the survey, thanks to larger samples for each comparison group.
Figure 7: Analysis Model as proposed by the evaluation team
Source: Developed by the evaluation team
215. School and household sample. The sample of schools of this baseline study is drawn from the FY19
endline evaluation. Kampong Chhnang schools are analysed separately, as all sampled schools in that province
were handed over to the Government at the end of the SY21-22.
216. All Kampong Chhnang schools in the evaluation design belong to C2, as they are planned to be
transitioned at the end of Year 3. At midline and endline, they will always be on one side of the quasi-
experimental design only (in the group “C0+C2” at midterm and on the group “C1+C2+C3” at endline), meaning
that the two groups of schools in the analysis model will not be balanced by province. To overcome this
constraint, the ET proposes to analyze schools in Kampong Chhnang separately, looking at their evolution
through time specifically. In this province, qualitative data collection in the midterm evaluation will be key to
reconstruct the evolution of the performance since the beginning of the project.
217. As per the ToR, the evaluation series will look for continuity with the FY19 project in order to analyze
the long-term effects over two cycles. For comparability purposes, the series will retain the previous approach
with household surveys administered to the caregivers of targeted students, and school surveys conducted
with directors and teachers.
218. The quantitative survey design for the students’ household survey will continue to follow a two-step
cluster sample where schools will be the primary sampling units. This is a standard sampling method for
household surveys as it maximizes data collection efficiency. The overall sampling approach is outlined in
Table 12 with an estimated sampling error defined at school level. The quantitative survey design for teachers
will follow the same logic. For each primary sampling unit or school, the household survey will target six
students and the teacher survey will target three teachers.
40
Table 12: Sampling approach at school level
“Schools not “Schools
Total
yet handed handed Sample size by Sampling error Total sampling
All groups sample
Phase over or over two group by group at error at school
(schools) size
handed over years ago (schools) school level level
(schools)
a year ago” or more”
Baseline C0: 448 448 C0: 64 64 +/- 11% +/- 11%
CO+C2: 85
Midline C0+C2:341 C1: 107 448 140 +/- 9% +/- 7%
C1: 55
C1+C2+C3: C4: 58
Endline C4: 122 448 140 +/- 9% +/- 7%
326 C1+C2+C3: 82
Source: prepared by the evaluation team
219. Sampling error at household level. While it maximizes data collection efficiency, cluster sampling
has a price in terms of sampling error, due to intra-cluster correlation, which inflates sample variance,
increasing the margin of error. The ET has taken this design effect into account when estimating the student
level sampling error presented in Table 13 below. In order to estimate it, the ET used the baseline sample data
for WFP supported schools, the prevalence of students that had a 10-group-DDS of value 5 or above, and the R
software. Table 13 below includes some key parameters for the estimations.
Table 13: Household sample design parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value
Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) 0.133 Design Effect (DEFF) 1.665
Prevalence of outcome variable Variance of outcome variable (perc. of

(perc. of students with a 10- 81.7% students with a 10-group-DDS of value 15.0%
group-DDS of value 5 or above) 5 or above)
Cluster size 6 Cluster size by gender 3 girls and 3 boys
Power 80% Confidence level 95%
Average number of students of Average number of girl students of

175 87
ages 6 to 11 per school ages 6 to 11 per school
Source: Prepared by the evaluation team
220. The proposed sample design for midterm targets 140 sample schools (55 and 85 by group) and six
children per school, for a total of 840 students (420 girls and 420 boys). This will imply a sampling error of +/-
5.4 and 4.3 percent respectively by group of schools, and a minimum detectable effect of 9.9 percent for the
outcome variable.
221. The endline sample design is very similar. It targets 140 sample schools (58 and 82 by group) and six
children per school, for a total of 840 students (420 girls and 420 boys). This will imply a sampling error of +/-
5.2 and 4.4 percent respectively by group of schools, and a minimum detectable effect of 9.8 percent for the
outcome variable. These figures are presented in Tables 14 and 15 below. At both midterm and endline,
independent samples will be drawn for each group of the analysis model, stratified by province. More
considerations on survey methods related to stratification and weighting are summarized in Annex 17.
41
Table 14: Sampling error by group at student level
Minimum
Estimated School Student detectable
Sampling
Phase Group Cohort number of Sample Sample effect
error (+/-)
students Size Size among
groups
Schools handed over two
Midline C1 18,725 55 330 5.4% 9.9%
years ago or more
Schools not yet handed over

Midline C0+C2 59,675 85 510 4.3% 9.9%
or handed over a year ago

Endline C4 21,350 58 348 5.2% 9.8%
Schools handed over two C1+C2

Endline 57,050 82 492 4.4% 9.8%
years ago or more +C3
Table 15: Sampling error by group and gender at student level

Minimum
Estimated Girl
School detectable
number of Student Sampling
Phase Group Cohort Sample effect
girls Sample error (+/-)
Size among
students Size
groups
Midline C1 27,392 55 165 7.6% 12.2%
years ago or more

Midline C0+C2 87,296 85 255 6.1% 12.2%

Endline C4 31,232 58 174 7.4% 12.1%

Endline C1+C2+C3 83,456 82 246 6.2% 12.1%
years ago or more
222. Minimum detectable effects. In summary, the household sample design is geared to detecting a 9.9
percent effect on the percentage of students who yield a Diet Diversity Score of 5 or more, as a consequence
of the programme handover to the Government.
223. The ET has also estimated the minimum effect that would be detected for the outcome indicators
“Percentage of attentive students” and “Percentage of students reported as not hungry”, issued from the
teachers’ survey (targeting three teachers per school). These effects are 3.18 and 9.72 percentage points
respectively (see Table 16)
Table 16: Minimum detectable effects

Minimum
Intra- detectable
Cluster Design Baseline
Outcome Indicator Survey Cluster Variance effect (at
size Effect value
Correlation midline and
endline)
Percent of students who
yield a DDS score of Household 6 0.133 1.665 81.7% 15.0% 9.9%
value 5 or more
Percent of students in
target schools identified
Teacher 3 0.320 1.640 90.3 78.7 3.18
as attentive by their
teachers (0-100 scale)
Percent of students in
target schools reported
Teacher 3 0.312 1.625 82.4 742.0 9.72
as 'not hungry' during
class (0-100 scale)
Source: Developed by the evaluation team
42
5. Conclusions and Lessons
5.1. Conclusions
224. The McGovern-Dole FY22 project is the fourth USDA supported school feeding project in Cambodia
since 2013 and has the heavy responsibility of being the final one, aiming to achieve full handover to the
Government and to create the best possible conditions for the sustainability of the national HGSF programme.
School handover was initiated in the FY19 project, but the FY22 project goes further, intending to answer the
question of what comes next, after the handover.
225. The FY22 project is fully oriented to this handover and sustainability objective in all its components:
school meals, literacy, health, nutrition and WASH. It has been designed to support the implementation of the
joint WFP and Government Joint Transition Strategy, which provides a much clearer picture and pathways
towards a sustainable national programme than in previous projects. While there is still direct implementation
of assistance by WFP, it will progressively decrease as schools are handed over, and WFP resources will be
increasingly dedicated to capacity strengthening and technical assistance towards the national HGSF
programme. The project objectives and activities are found relevant to this context and to the objectives set in
the JTS (EQ1).
226. School feeding is well integrated into Government priorities within the National Social Protection
Policy Framework and it is expected that this level of integration will continue until midterm at least. The
national HGSF programme was officially endorsed in 2019, the development of its policy framework and
regulations have progressed significantly under the FY19 project and will continue to progress under the FY22
project. The literacy component is fully integrated into the National Early Grade Reading Programme and the
WASH component is designed to support the National Policy on School Health (EQ1).
227. The key issue regarding the relevance of the project is the resource situation to continue supporting
local purchase. Local purchase is a key element of the HGSF model and school experience with it is one of the
three readiness criteria for handover. USDA no longer supports local purchase and WFP is expected to
mobilize additional resources, which has not been the case to date. It represents a considerable threat to the
handover objectives. In case insufficient funds are mobilized, the criteria of local purchase experience would
be hardly met (EQ1).
228. This evaluation has set the baseline values and situation for the outcomes and intermediate outcomes
of the project. It has also reviewed the targets of the new project and indicators. A few elements that deserve
particular attention have been found (EQ3):
- Overall, the PMP provides gender disaggregation where relevant. It could be further strengthened in a
few areas as listed below. Life of project and annual targets are not disaggregated.
- Several factors affect the comparability between 2020 and 2022 EGRA data and between provinces.
Efforts should be made to keep the same approach (the 2022 measurement) for future
measurements.
- Student literacy and student attendance indicators should have separate targets by gender.
- The FY19 project did not show a positive effect on alleviating hunger at school; on the contrary,
numbers of hungry children have increased. The reasons for this need to be further investigated so
that appropriate adjustments to school meals can be done, if relevant.
- Similarly, the FY19 project did not have a positive effect on attendance. Potential external factors
affecting attendance should be investigated.
- More males that females participate in trainings on safe food preparation and storage, but men do
not participate in the preparation of meals. This suggests that trainings do not target the right
participants.
- The DDS calculated at baseline is higher than the project life target. It would be necessary to clarify if
the 24-hour recall includes the meal consumed at school or not, and how it was calculated at baseline.
- Functioning WASH infrastructure has decreased despite the previous project which built or
rehabilitated a number of facilities. This finding suggests that more emphasis should be put on
43
sustainability of existing facilities. The effect of climate change on access to year-round clean water
should also be investigated.
- Final results from the SABER workshop were not available by the time of this study. Baseline values
and targets should be updated in accordance with final results when they become available (expected
in September 2023).
229. WFP maintains a complaint and feedback mechanism which is adequate to collect and address
feedback on WFP direct operations, although the baseline could not determine if the mechanism allows for
specific feedback from women and/or vulnerable groups. The possible adoption of a similar mechanism by the
MoEYS is still under discussion (EQ1).
230. Institutional ownership and participation in the national HGSF programme have been strong for
MoEYS and NSPC, but remain weak for other key institutions formally designated to contribute to the
programme. Clarifications on their roles have only been provided recently and inter-ministerial coordination
mechanisms are not yet in place. This is really needed for the new project in order to promote ownership and
start strengthening capacities accordingly as soon as possible (EQ1).
231. WFP’s emphasis on cost-efficiency focuses on the broader national HGSF programme, of which the
McGovern-Dole project is a part. However, one of the most important considerations for the project is regional
purchase, expected to be more cost-efficient than international imports, and WFP is supporting the
assessment and piloting of different procurement models, focusing on cost-efficiency, for the HGSF
programme (EQ1).
232. WFP’s project management structure is getting more appropriate to the project needs. The FY19
evaluation series mentioned several times about the need for a mindset change, as well as resource allocation
between direct operations and the support to the national HGSF programme, through capacity strengthening
and technical assistance. While this process is still ongoing, internal capacities now seem more appropriate for
the project needs (EQ 3).
233. The COVID-19 pandemic was the most important external factor to have influenced the previous
project implementation and achievements; a repetition is not predictable and cannot be factored into the FY22
design. Other factors that could support or affect the implementation and results of the FY22 project identified
at baseline are the high level of political will that is a great supporting factor, the implications for the HGSF
programme of the Decentralization and Deconcentration process that are yet to be assessed, the evolution of
the macro-economic context, and the higher integration of the literacy component in MoEYS priorities (EQ 2).
234. Midterm and endline evaluation questions included in the baseline ToRs have been reviewed in detail
in order to increase their clarity, reduce overlap and strengthen the explicit integration of GEWE dimensions
into the questions (EQ4).
5.2. Lessons
235. The initial design of the evaluation model presented in the ToR provided less opportunity for learning
on the handover process than the model proposed by the evaluation team. The evaluation series provides a
good opportunity to assess the extent to which the handover to the Government will result in an evolution of
the performance of the activity - one that has been delivered by WFP over several decades based on its own
standards. It will also be an opportunity to observe how the Government adapts standards and systems
initially designed by WFP to address its own priorities and resources. The proposed design should allow
assessment of these elements and potentially draw lessons that go beyond the Cambodia experience.
236. Implementing the FY19 endline and the FY22 baseline of the new project simultaneously is well
justified by a wish to save resources, allow analysis of the evolution in schools after almost 10 yeas of
McGovern-Dole support, and to limit stakeholder fatigue. However, several elements could be improved to
further strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of a similar parallel exercise in the future. Conducting both
evaluations at the same time and with the same data led to time constraints and affected the baseline process.
If one set of quantitative data is to be collected for both evaluations, undertaking the new baseline after the
old endline would allow sufficient time to access, clean, prepare and re-analyse the data, with sufficient
interactions between both teams. Even better, and a more cost-efficient, coherent and appropriate method
would be to integrate both into a single exercise conducted by the same team. Lessons learnt from the
previous project would be much better factored into the new project, particularly – as in this case – because
the new project is a continuation of the previous one.
44
237. Obtaining literacy data and information requires speaking with partners who are most directly
involved in that work (World Education in this instance), but also development partners like USAID. MoEYS
counterparts - at least senior staff - are generally aware of the McGovern-Dole literacy components but they
tend to respond in general terms to questions about this component, which are not always specific to
McGovern-Dole but rather to the broader MoEYS work on improving literacy (in coordination with several other
partners).
238. The remote baseline study interviews did not include sub-national MoEYS staff or school personnel
(principals, teachers, etc.). For future iterations it will be imperative to speak with these stakeholders to
understand more about programme implementation and sustainability dynamics.
45
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Summary Terms of Reference
Note: References to annexes in the ToR have been removed as they appear as part of the main document.
1. Background
1.1. Introduction
1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are to guide an evaluation process comprising three distinct evaluation
exercises (baseline, midterm, and endline), with each exercise having multiple deliverables, including
inception and evaluation reports. The evaluations, which will take place over a five-year period, are
commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (WFP CO) for the activity evaluations of Home Grown
School Feeding Program (HGSFP) activities in Cambodia supported by United States Department of
Agriculture McGovern-Dole (USDA-McGovern-Dole) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition for
fiscal years (FY) 2022-2027 under the grant (USDA McGovern Dole Grants FFE-442-2022-009-00). The TOR
covers three deliverables: a baseline, a mid-term and an endline evaluation for USDA-McGovern-Dole. All
deliverables will preferably be undertaken in a single assignment/contract. The specific deliverables
(timeframes mentioned are subject to change) are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Evaluation exercise for McGovern-Dole
Evaluation exercises for USDA-McGovern-Dole project Date
Baseline Study March – December 2023
Mid-term evaluation March – December 2025
End line Evaluation March – December 2027
2. This TOR was prepared by the WFP CO based upon an initial document review and consultation with
stakeholders. It outlines the evaluation requirements for USDA-McGovern-Dole (US$21 million budget) grant
supporting implementation of a Home-Grown School Feeding program (HGSF-hybrid) for the period 2022-
2027 and associated interventions in 341 schools in Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Kampong Chhnang
provinces. The TOR aims to 1) provide key learning themes, program scope, and other key information to
guide the evaluation team on the conducting the evaluations; and 2) to involve stakeholders early on,
keeping them informed of progress, and providing opportunities for inputs to secure their support and
commitment.
3. The evaluation process within WFP will be managed by an evaluation manager who will be the main
focal point for day-to-day contact during the evaluation period. An external independent firm (evaluation
team) will be contracted to carry out the actual evaluation and will appoint their own evaluation team leader
and managers, based on the proposal approved by WFP.
4. This evaluation will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the results of the learning
to feed into the government led and managed National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (NHGSFP)
while also making it possible to quantify the impacts of the program.
5. To commemorate the milestone of the end of 25 years of McGovern-Dole programme, the evaluation
team will plan to conduct extensive dissemination events with NHGSFP stakeholders and suggest additional
evidence products to be produced.
46
1.2. Context
6. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has established impressive economic growth over the past
20 years, bringing the country to lower middle-income status in 2016, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
per capita of US$1,561 in 2018, up from US$1,043 in 2013. The high economic growth rate has been
sustained above seven percent for over a decade, most recently at 7.5 percent in 2018 and 7.1 percent in
2019, making Cambodia one of the fastest growing economies in the world. However, this economic growth
rate was seriously impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic, although the Ministry of Economy and
Finance (MEF) projects that it should reach 2.4 percent in 2022.
7. Despite economic growth and current development in urban areas, rural development lags behind.
Nearly three-quarters of the population resides in rural areas where approximately 90 percent of the
country’s poor live. These households mostly live on a small margin of poverty and are vulnerable to natural
hazards, environmental or individual shocks. Estimates suggest that a loss in daily income of US$0.30 per
capita would double the poverty rate. There remains a very limited social safety net system in the country.
8. Food security and undernutrition remain important public health concerns in Cambodia. The national
objectives set for the Cambodia-specific Millennium Development Goals were not met and malnutrition
rates remain higher than most countries in the region. The SDG indicator for undernourishment (Goal 2)
indicates that 14 percent of households continue to consume less than the minimum dietary energy
requirement. In addition, dietary quality remains sub-optimal, with 11.6 percent of households estimated
to have inadequate dietary diversity.
9. Gender inequality persists in Cambodia, ranked 116 out of the 160 countries in the Gender Inequality
Index (GII = 0.474) and ranked 93 out of 149 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index (GGI) 2018. The
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Cambodia reported (2015) that 70
percent of women in employment were engaged at lower levels and on less pay than men, with estimates
that on average, women are paid 30 percent less for commensurate work. Women are also
underrepresented in the public sector where 77 percent of employees and 85 percent of decision-making
positions are occupied by men. Nationally, 25 percent of women are illiterate compared to 13.5 percent of
men (2015). In contrast, in 2019, women owned 61 percent of businesses in the country, significantly higher
than in many ASEAN countries.
10. The RGC is committed to improving educational standards while aiming to embed programs supported
by development partners, such as the SFP and scholarship programs, within its national strategies. The
national decentralization and deconcentration reforms place greater responsibility on subnational
authorities to take ownership of planning and delivery of basic services, including education. In education,
Cambodia has made good strides in improving primary education programs and reducing gender
disparity152 in education in rural areas. The net primary school enrolment figure increased from 81 percent
in 2001 to 98 percent in school year 2018-19. Although there is still a need to expand enrolment in primary
schools and pre-schools in some locations, sustained efforts to globally expand access to school are less
relevant than they once were. The main challenge now for primary school education is completion. Even
though both repetition and dropout rates have steadily declined in the last five years,153 they remain a key
concern. School dropout is most problematic at the end of the primary school cycle as students are more
likely to leave school rather than repeat a year. School dropout is also more likely to happen in rural
areas.154
11. In education, Cambodia has made positive strides in improving primary education and in reducing
gender disparity in schools, particularly in rural areas. The Education Strategic Plan (ESP) (2019-2023) and
other national strategies indicate a strong commitment to improving educational standards. Over the last
two decades, the net primary school enrolment has risen from 81 percent (2001) to 98 percent (2019). The
school completion rate is the bigger challenge for primary education today, and more so in rural areas.
Poverty as well as (in urban areas) family mobility, lack of access to religious schools, low academic
152 Gender considerations, and principles of inclusion, participation and non-discrimination will be included in the design, questioning, data
collection and reporting in line with UNEG Guidance on Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation.
153 Final Draft Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023, MoEYS, May 2019.
154 Heng, K. et al (2016) Research report. School Dropout in Cambodia: A case study of Phnom Penh and Kampong Speu. Korea International
Cooperation Agency, Cambodia Country Office. Royal University of Phnom Penh, Faculty of Education
47
achievement, and (in rural areas) community values and low parental education are among the main reason
for drop out.
12. School feeding is a major component of the WFP Cambodia's Country Strategic Plan (CSP) 2019-2023
and is implemented in five of Cambodia's 25 provinces. The school meals programme (SMP) started in
Cambodia in 1999. In 2014, the MoEYS in collaboration with WFP piloted a 'Home Grown School Feeding'
(HGSF) model and both parties signed a 'school feeding roadmap' in May 2015.
13. From school year (SY) 2019-2020, WFP started reducing its operational coverage following the transition
plan to national ownership in managing and implementing the School Feeding Programme (SFP), and MoEYS
took over the HGSF model to become the national programme with an official budget allocation from school
year (SY) 2019-2020. In 2020, Cambodia launched the National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme
(NHGSFP) and today the Government plans, funds, and manages school meals in 290 schools, or 26 percent
of the country’s schools with school feeding programmes.
14. Signed in early 2022, the MoEYS, with WFP’s technical assistance, developed the Joint School Feeding
Transition Strategy (JTS) 2022-2028 that outlines the remaining handover of schools and remaining capacity
building to be done. Handover is projected to be completed by 2028. It commits the Government to
gradually take-over the remaining 823 schools from WFP by 2028, including all schools currently supported
by USDA by 2026, while capacity is strengthened where gaps remain at institutional and school level to
ensure the robustness of the programme, which is key for continued national investment and sustainability.
15. WFP implements the programme and complementary activities under grant support of USDA
McGovern-Dole FFE Programme in partnership with key ministries of the Royal Government of Cambodia
and NGOs. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) is the key partner, although the
decentralization and deconcentration reforms have placed greater responsibility on subnational authorities
for planning and delivery of basic services, including education, so WFP also works closely with the Provincial
and District Offices of Education, Youth and Sport (PoEYS/DoEYS). Other ministries involved under the JTS
include the National Social Protection Council (NSPC), the MEF, the Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of
Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA),
the Ministry of Planning (MoP), and the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD).
16. Other partners in this programme include NGOs Plan International (PLAN), World Vision International
(WVI) and World Education, who play a role in promoting the creation of an enabling environment for the
provision of school meals, including the building and rehabilitation of infrastructure and other interventions
at both national and sub-national levels supporting the provision of school meals.
2. Reasons for the evaluation
2.1. Rationale
17. The WFP CO is commissioning baseline, mid-term and endline evaluation for the 2022-2027 USDA-
McGovern-Dole grants in support of WFP’s School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in Cambodia, to be
evaluated from the period 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2027, to critically and objectively assess
performance of the programs and associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and learning
and to fulfil a requirement of the USDA. The primary user of this evaluation is WFP CO, USDA, RGC and
Implementing Partners.
18. The USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program is the
continuation of the USDA grants 2019-2023, 2017-2019 and 2013-2016. While the target area and the
implementation design have expanded and evolved throughout the awards, the current 2022-2027
McGovern-Dole program targets the same schools with continued activities from the 2019-2023 grant; with
a stronger focus on institutionalization and transition of the program to full government ownership.
19. Therefore, the three evaluations will build on the 2019-2023 evaluation results, rather than be
conducted in isolation, to capture change over the course of the two programs. The evaluation design will
need to reflect this continuation, especially in the baseline study. The aim is to enable the evaluation to
produce more insightful understanding on the project’s progress and results as it tracks a longer timeframe
of change.
48
2.2. Objectives
20. The evaluation will serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
The evaluation will collect evidence that demonstrates the extent to which WFP, together with partners, is
attaining the project objectives and outcomes. The evaluation will be utilised to inform the design and
implementation of the NHGSFP and further the evidence-base for USDA’s learning agenda.
 Accountability – The evaluation processes will assess and report on the performance and
results of the USDA McGovern-Dole activities during the funding period. For accountability, the
evaluations assess whether targeted beneficiaries have received services as expected, if the programs
are on track to meeting their stated goals and objectives aligned with the results frameworks and
assumptions.
 Learning – The evaluation processes will determine the reasons why certain results occurred
or not to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. They will provide evidence-
based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively
disseminated, and lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems. For learning, the
evaluation components will aim at critically and objectively reviewing and taking stock of participant’s
implementation experience and the implementation environment for McGovern-Dole.
2.3 Stakeholders Analysis

21. As a utilization-focused evaluation, the results of this evaluation will inform and benefit all relevant
government ministries that implement and contribute towards the National School Feeding programme.
This includes Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS), National Social Protection Council (NSPC),
Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Ministry of Women Affairs
(MoWA) and Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), among others. Particularly, WFP will work with MoEYS
and NSPC as the bodies implementing and overseeing the National Home-Grown School Feeding
Programme, to utilize the evidence collected from the mid-term evaluation to adaptively manage the
national programme and use the endline evaluation results to improve the programme design to enhance
sustainability and effectiveness.
22. WFP will ensure timely communication with USDA and key stakeholders throughout the evaluation. All
evaluation questions included in the evaluation design are aligned with key stakeholders’ evidence needs
identified through bilateral consultation, including factors that contribute to the effectiveness and
sustainability. Utilization of evaluation results will be effectively facilitated using existing communication
platforms, such as the Programme Coordination Committee meetings, to disseminate evaluation findings
and lesson learned to facilitate actions on identified mid-course corrections on policy, funding, design and
implementation at the national level. At the subnational level, WFP and MoEYS will also be accountable to
the beneficiaries by conducting consultation meetings with the Local School Feeding Committees to share
the evaluation results and receive feedback on the mid-course corrections.
23. Internally within WFP, the evaluation results will be used by the Cambodia Country Office, Regional
Bureau, and WFP Washington Office, as well as key headquarters Divisions (School Based Programmes
Division, the Performance Management and Monitoring Division, and the Office of Evaluation among others)
for learning purposes.
24. Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key
stakeholders in WFP’s work. WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality, equity, and inclusion in the
evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation of women, men, boys, and girls
from different groups (including persons with disabilities, the elderly, and persons with other diversities
such as ethnic and linguistic).
49
Table 1: Preliminary stakeholder analysis 155
Stakeholders Interest and involvement in the evaluation
Internal (WFP) stakeholders
WFP Cambodia The WFP Cambodia country office has a direct stake in decision-making, notably
Country Office (CO) related to program implementation and design, partnerships, adjustments required
for the Country Strategic Plan and advocacy efforts with Government and other
national stakeholders.
Regional Bureau Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, the RB
(RB) Bangkok management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of the
operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation findings to
provide strategic guidance, program support, and oversight, as well as sharing
successes and lessons learnt across the region. The Regional Evaluation Officer
supports CO/RB management to ensure quality, credible and useful decentralized
evaluations.
WFP HQ technical WFP HQ technical units (including School Feeding, nutrition, SAMS/P4P156) are
units responsible for issuing and overseeing the rollout of normative guidance on
corporate program themes, activities and modalities, as well as of overarching
corporate policies and strategies. They also have an interest in the lessons and may
use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability, as many may
have relevance beyond the geographical area of focus. Relevant HQ units should be
consulted from the planning phase to ensure that key policy, strategic and
programmatic considerations are understood from the onset of the evaluation.
Office of Evaluation OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, credible
(OEV) and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well as roles and
accountabilities of various decentralised evaluation stakeholders as identified in the
evaluation policy. The office may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to
feed into evaluation syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive
Board.
WFP Executive The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness
Board (EB) of WFP programs. This evaluation will not be presented to the Board, but its
findings may feed into thematic and/or regional syntheses and corporate learning
processes.
External stakeholders
Beneficiaries The ultimate recipients of direct and indirect food assistance, school children and
their parents, have a stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is
appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the evaluation of
women, men, boys and girls from different groups will be determined and their
perspectives will be sought.
Government The Government has a direct interest in knowing whether WFP activities in the
(MoEYS, MEF, MAFF, country are aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the action of other partners
MoH and others) and meet the expected results. Issues related to capacity development, handover
and sustainability will be of particular interest. Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport (MoEYS) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) might use evaluation
155 The evaluation team will be expected to further investigate and refine the stakeholder analysis.
156 Smallholder Agricultural Market Support (SAMS) is a demand side market access support to smallholder farmers. Purchase for Progress
(P4P) links WFP’s demand for staple food commodities with technical expertise.
50
findings for decision making related to program implementation and/or design,
country strategy and partnerships, as well as to inform the planning of transition
from externally supported to nationally owned school feeding program. Ministry of
Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Council for
Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) and Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans
and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSAVY) might also use these findings for their learning
and implementation of programs in the future.
UN Country team The UNCT’s harmonized action should contribute to the realisation of the
government developmental objectives. It has therefore an interest in ensuring that
WFP programs are effective in contributing to the UN concerted efforts. Various
agencies are also direct partners of WFP at policy and activity level.
Partners: WV, Plan, NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while having
World Education, their own interventions. The results of the evaluation might affect future
and FAO implementation modalities, strategic orientations and partnerships.
Donors: USDA WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. They have an
interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s
work has been effective and contributed to their own strategies and programs.
USDA will use evaluation findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks,
and critical assumptions.
Other education, Results from this evaluation will be used to inform the direction of government and
nutrition and social WFP work on school meals moving forward. As part of the baseline, a reference
protection partners groups comprising key stakeholders in country was formed to provide inputs and
in Cambodia contribute to the related evaluation processes.
(USAID, UNICEF,
NGOs, etc)
3. Subject of the evaluation
3.1. Subject of the Evaluation

25. The USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program is
implemented by WFP in partnership with World Education, Plan International, World Vision and relevant
Government ministries. The USDA 2022-2027 McGovern-Dole (US$21 million) program supports the
implementation of the Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) in 341 schools in Kampong Chhnang,
Kampong Thom and Siem Reap provinces (12 districts) while preparing the schools for handover to the
national programme. The project will benefit approximately 92,618 schoolchildren (45,382 girls)157. Other
programme target groups include school staff and government officials relevant to the NHGSFP at the
national and sub-national level.
Estimated number of school children in target schools158

Province Number of targeted Total number of Number of girls
schools (SY 2023-24) school children
Kampong Chhnang (4 districts) 43 11,871 5,817
Kampong Thom (6 districts) 96 19,646 9,626
Siem Reap (8 districts) 202 61,101 29,939
Total 341 92,618 45,382
157 The estimated number of school children is based on the number of students enrolled for school year 2021-2022. Student enrolled for school year 2022-2023 is
not available as of March 2023.
158 As above
51
26. A key element of the USDA 2022-2027 McGovern-Dole program is that it is a continuation of the
previous McGovern-Dole award (2019-2023) in the same target schools with a similar set of activities. The
Program will continue contributing towards the three strategic objectives; (1) improved literacy of school-
aged children (2) increased use of health and dietary practices; and (3) improved effectiveness of food
assistance in all target schools to identify the factors that influenced the project outcomes either positively
or negatively post school handover.
27. The first strategic objective will be achieved through; the results of the school feeding, school health
promotion in line with national priorities, and literacy interventions implemented directly by WFP and NGO
partners in schools until handover.
28. The second strategic objective will be achieved through the increased efficiency and effectiveness of
the government owned National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme, as a result of WFP’s technical
assistance on enhancing programme design, financing, monitoring, accountability, and governance of the
NHGSFP.
29. The third objective will be achieved through strengthening local food systems and economies by
providing technical assistance and capacity strengthening to schools, suppliers and farmers for the
production and supply of fresh products for the meals.
30. The Program also has a component of USDA LocalRegional Procurement (LRP). While 2019-2023 LRP
grant supported cash to schools, this was not possible anymore under the FY22 grant. Under the current
award, WFP will procure canned fish regionally, which will be complemented by purchases of fresh food
commodities from local farmers and suppliers. Through complementary funds in the same target areas,
WFP will strengthen local food systems and economies by providing technical assistance and capacity
strengthening provided to schools, suppliers and farmers for the production and supply of fresh products
for the meals. Schools may procure all commodities locally (full HGSF modality) or as a combination of
local and regional procurement (Hybrid modality).
31. Combined, these activities aim to contribute towards the long-term impact of enhanced human capital
for pre-primary and primary schoolchildren in Cambodia and strengthened local economies. The project
results-framework can be seen in Annex X. Error! Reference source not found.
32. The project’s Theory of Change assumes that if daily nutritious school meals, typically consisting of
rice, vegetable oil, animal protein, iodized salt, and vegetables, are provided as a warm breakfast,
schoolchildren will be incentive to attend schools from the start of the class, reduce short-term hunger
and to support attentiveness in class. As upper-primary students rotate between morning and afternoon
sessions, students attending the afternoon session will not receive breakfast. Around 70 percent of all
primary and pre-primary students are present in the morning shift and can eat breakfast through the
school meals programme on each school day159.
33. the 2022-2027 USDA McGovern-Dole also require undertaking a baseline study, a mid-term and final
evaluation. The baseline study, mid-term evaluation and the final evaluation will be conducted in 2023,
2025 and 2027 respectively with indicative dates for each evaluation activities highlighted in Annex X.
3.2. Scope of the Evaluation

34. Commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, the 2022-2027 USDA McGovern-Dole also
require undertaking a baseline study (2023), a mid-term (2025) and final evaluation (2027) 160. The planned
evaluations will cover all activities and process of the WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program FFE-442-2022/009-00, including the
formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting relevant to answer the
evaluation questions.
35. The timing of the baseline study will be synchronized with the endline of the McGovern-Dole 2019-
2023 award so that the baseline study, and the subsequent midterm and final evaluations, can present
findings in continuum to the 2019 baseline and 2023 endline results with coherence.
159 Based on the calculation of WFP Cambodia’s primary data on number of students enrolled in target schools
160 The three evaluations will cover five years of implementation of McGovern-Dole 2022-202. The indicative dates for each evaluation
activities highlighted in Error! Reference source not found.
52
36. The McGovern-Dole 2022-2027 baseline will not collect primary quantitative data for indicators that
remain the same with the previous award and measure change from the same groups. These indicators
mainly include education, health, nutrition outcomes of school-going children in the targeted schools, such
as the attentiveness, attendance, and literacy rate, etc. The baseline study will present the 2019 baseline
and the updated values for these indicators gathered through the 2023 endline, which will constitute as
the baseline values for the new award.
37. The benefit of measuring project-related change starting from the 2019 values is the following:
1) Data collected in 2023 will show the raised value as a result of the effects of the
implementation from the previous award. The 2019 values are closer to the ‘true baseline’ or the pre-
intervention state of the outcomes
2) Evaluation fatigue of stakeholders can be reduced as the baseline can be established primarily
through desk review. The baseline will be established through desk review and primary data
collection from the 2017 endline. Conducting primary quantitative data collection through the
baseline study would cause beneficiaries to be surveyed twice in rapid succession; once for the
endline of the 2019-2023 award (June 2023) and again for the 2022-2027 award baseline (July 2023).
This approach would expend additional resources without the benefit of new insights (i.e., values are
unlikely to have changed in a matter of months)
3) Comparing the 2019 baseline values allows the evaluation to track change with a longer
timeframe, which will enable more insightful evidence on the progress and sustainability of the
results.
38. The baseline study (April-September 2023) is the first product of the evaluation plan and will serve
several critical purposes:
1) Establishing baseline values for new indicators and evaluation questions. There are two
project components that are unique to the Program vis-à-vis the previous award, where primary
baseline data will be collected. The first is the strengthened technical assistance for the national
institutionalization of the school feeding programme. The relevant four outcomes for the
Foundational Results will be gathered during the Year 1 Systems Approach to Better Education
Results-School Feeding (SABER-SF) workshop161. The second is the expansion of the literacy
intervention package from grades 1 and 2 to include grade 3 students. Grade 3 literacy outcomes will
be collected separately by WFP’s NGO partner, World Education. A detailed description of literacy
outcome data collection method can be found in 4.2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology. A
detailed list of indicators can be found on Annex X.
2) The baseline study will present the changes made by the project from 2019 to present, in view
of the current context, supplemented by primary qualitative data, and framed in the evaluation
questions of the McGovern-Dole 2022-2027 award. The baseline report will be a document that
systematically presents the progress made from 2019 onwards so that the upcoming evaluations
from this project will be able to present results in continuum with coherence.
3) The baselines established will be used to review the Program targets for 2028 and the
relevance of evaluation questions.
39. At baseline inception stage, the overall evaluation design will be finalized with the full set of evaluation
questions, methodology, sampling frame for mid-term and final evaluations. The baseline study will also
be used to establish baseline values for all performance indicators and revisit project targets.
40. The midterm evaluation (April-September 2025) will be conducted at the end of FY25162 to assess
the progress towards project objectives and targets and inform course correction for the remainder of the
project, as necessary. Specifically, the mid-term evaluation will: (1) review the project’s relevance,
effectiveness and efficiency, sustainability, and coherence, (2) collect follow-up data for performance
161 Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) School Feeding framework (SABER-SF) is a useful approach to
assessing the school feeding policy situation and systems in any country to identify the gaps and plan appropriate capacity
development plans and/or road maps with the government and other stakeholders. It helps countries strengthen their national
school feeding programs and/or transition to national school feeding programs with solid policies and systems when applicable,
and assess progress of implementing each indicator
162 End of project year 3 (April-Sept 2025), after two full years of activity implementation (there are no activities in project year 1).
53
indicators (both new and continued indicators from the FY19 award) for strategic objectives and outcomes,
(3) assess whether the project is on track to meeting the results and targets, (4) review the results
frameworks and theory of change, and (5) identify any necessary mid-course corrections and learning.
41. The midterm evaluation data will be gathered using multiple sources, such as primary quantitative,
qualitative and participatory data, including results from Systems Approach to Better Education Results-
School Feeding (SABER-SF) annual reviews163, to explore the evaluation questions outlined in Section 4.
The methodology and sampling approach will be carefully designed to ensure comparability with the
McGovern-Dole 2022-2027 baseline results, which is outlined in detail in Section 4. Methodology for the
Evaluation. The findings from the midterm evaluation will provide preliminary learning on the key factors
that contribute positively and/or negatively to facilitate a successful national ownership of the programme,
which will be used for adaptive management of the project.
42. The objective of the final evaluation (April-September 2027) is to provide an evidence-based,
independent assessment of performance of the project to evaluate its success, ensure accountability, and
generate lessons learned. Specifically, it will: (1) review the relevance, effectiveness, sustainability,
efficiency and coherence of the project, (2) collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives and
higher-level results, (3) assess if the project has succeeded in achieving McGovern-Dole’s two strategic
objectives, (4) investigate the project’s overall impact, (5) identify the likelihood for the benefits of the
NHGSFP to sustain beyond the project timeline and expand in geographic coverage. It will analyse the
factors that contributed to the success or challenges in the transition to national ownership and in
strengthening the effectiveness and sustainability of the NHGSFP. The final evaluation will contribute to
the learning of Royal Government of Cambodia, WFP and partners and further the evidence-base of
USDA’s learning agenda. The detailed utilization plan by all relevant stakeholders is presented in Section
2.3.
43. Gender equity and women empowerment (GEWE) considerations: HGSFP’s gender entry-points are
threefold: 1) By mainstreaming gender-sensitive approaches to tackle stereo-typical, negative gender
norms in target area, especially around cooking and domestic work 2) By ensuring equal opportunities to
men and women in the participation of the local HGSFP value-chain (Outcome 2) 3) By encouraging equal
gender representation in leadership positions of relevant groups, such as school committees,
procurement committees and agriculture cooperatives.
4. Evaluation approach, methodology and ethical considerations
4.1. Evaluation Questions and Criteria

44. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluations will apply the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) evaluation criteria of impact,
effectiveness, sustainability, relevance, efficiency and coherence164. The selected criteria are well aligned
with criteria agreed for the McGovern-Dole funded program and set in the approved evaluation plan. The
evaluation should analyse how gender, equity and wider inclusion objectives and GEWE mainstreaming
principles were included in the intervention design, and whether the evaluation subject has been guided
by WFP and system-wide objectives on GEWE. The gender, equity and wider inclusion dimensions should
be integrated into all evaluation criteria as appropriate. The criteria in the approved evaluation plan are
the OECD-DAC criteria listed above.
45. Evaluation Questions: While the evaluation questions need to be developed in detail by the
evaluation team during the inception stage, the key evaluation questions that addresses the evidence
needs for the main end-users for this evaluation results are outlined in the included in Annex X. Key
stakeholders’ evidence needs identified through bilateral consultation, including factors that contribute to
the effectiveness, sustainability, and cost efficiency of HGSFP.
163 SABER-SF workshops and annual reviews inform the progress in the NHGSFP institutionalization as anticipated under the project’s
Foundational Results, which also mirrors the five pillars of Joint Transition Strategy (FY22 McGovern-Dole Proposal; WFP Cambodia)
164 For more detail see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm and
http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha
54
46. Key stakeholders and users are outlined in detail in Section 2.3. Collectively, the questions aim at
highlighting the existing circumstances, performance of the Program during the period and key lessons
learnt, which could inform future strategic and operational decisions of the NHGSFP and WFP’s technical
assistance to the NHGSFP.
47. Furthermore, the initial evaluation questions are designed to further the knowledge base within the
school meals literature through the application of USDA’s McGovern-Dole Learning Agenda to learn on the
effective design of capacity strengthening. As the proposed project design focuses on the transition to a
nationally owned school feeding programme and on ensuring the sustainability and effectiveness of the
NHGSFP, the evaluation will mainly contribute towards the following three Learning Agenda questions
regarding the governance and institutionalization of the school feeding programme:
a. What are the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively deliver,
implement, and sustain school meal interventions? What relationship structures among these
institutions yield the most successful and effective school meal programmes?
b. What are the most successful policies affecting the success of school meal programmes?
What are the necessary conditions for these policies to be implemented and to be effective?
c. What types of incentives (and in which contexts) are the most effective at securing local or
national government investment into school meal programmes? What are the barriers and
challenges in securing investment?
4.2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

48. The methodology for the evaluations will be designed in accordance with the WFP Decentralized
Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) as well as USDA’s Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. Based
on the requirements described in the TORs, further analysis done at inception phase and consultations
with key stakeholders, the Evaluation Team will formulate an appropriate evaluation design, sampling
strategy, and methodological approach for each stage of evaluation process. The Inception reports will be
produced, and the detailed methodology defined in the inception reports should be guided by the
following principles:
1) Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above.

2) Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information
sources (stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.). The selection of field visit sites will also need
to demonstrate impartiality.
3) Using mixed methods, ensure that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholder
groups participate and that their different voices are heard and used. Quantitative and qualitative data
from different methods and sources will be triangulated to enhance the validity, reliability and
credibility of the findings. The method to get qualitative data will include focus group discussions and
key informant interviews while the method to get quantitative data will include reviewing and
collecting quantitative data from the monitoring data from on-going program implementation and a
cross-sectional survey of a sub-sample of school feeding schools visited in the previous baseline
survey. The methods to get qualitative data such as focus group discussions and key informant
interviews, will be used where relevant to highlight lessons learned and case studies representative of
the interventions.
4) Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions
considering the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints.
5) Partnership with local research firms is encouraged. This includes the use of local
enumerators for any survey work, ensuring that cultural and political sensitivities are addressed and
that the enumeration teams have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from
beneficiaries and others; and
6) To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced, geographically
and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess gender dimensions of the subject as
specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections of the Terms of Reference (ToR).
49. The activity evaluation design will follow a mixed-methods approach, which will maximize the
strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods and complement the results to gain a holistic, in-depth
understanding on the evaluation questions. Quantitative methods will be utilized to collect data on the
performance indicators for McGovern-Dole Strategic Objectives. The evaluation will take advantage of the
55
project design, which hands over different cohorts of schools to government ownership at different points
in time and adopt a stratified-sampling approach. The four different cohorts are seen in the Error!
Reference source not found.. Cohort 1 (C1) are schools that are still supported by WFP and partners with
direct implementations (activities 5-10) prior to hand over. Cohort 2 (C2) are the 89 schools to be handed
over at the end of year 2, cohort 3 (C3) 130 schools to be handed over at the end of year 3), and cohort 4
(C4) the 122 schools to be handed over at the end of year 5165.
Figure 4. Phased-in
1. : Sampling Approach for quantitative data collection under MGD
50. A representative sample, statistically powered for comparison with 2019 baseline166, will be selected
per strata for comparison, which will result in a rich analysis of factors that may have positively and
negatively influenced the outcome results based on school hand-over timing. Variables, such as socio-
demographic factors, quality of implementation and other external factors, will be comprehensively and
systematically reviewed using multiple data sources to explain the variation in results between cohorts. The
analysis will further be enhanced by disaggregation of all relevant indicators by gender to evaluate whether
the project addresses the needs of boys, girls, men, women and other vulnerable groups.
51. The sample size will be determined based on the degree of change that is expected amongst the
performance indicators, levels of statistical significance desired and acceptable levels of statistical error. The
sample size calculations will be the responsibility of the Evaluation Team in consultation with the WFP CO.
52. Specific to the literacy indicators, the Program’s cooperating partner, World Education will be
responsible of collecting the quantitative data. The full list of indicators, which World Education is in charge
of can be found in Annex X. The Strategic Objective 1 indicator on students’ ability to demonstrate reading,
“Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read
and understand the meaning of grade level text (grade 2 by gender)” will be evaluated using the globally
recognised Early Grade Reading Assessment tool contextualized to the new Komar Rien Komar Cheh early
grade reading package. As the use of the instrument requires specific training and training package, World
Education, together with MoEYS, will manage the data collection through specially trained external
assessors. Data collection cycle will differ from the rest of the monitoring and evaluation cycle, which is
detailed in Annex X,
165 The school handover criteria agreed in the Joint-Transition Strategy are: 1) adequate capacity to implement the HGSF programme, (2)
adequate infrastructure to safely prepare meals for children, and (3) schools have adequate kitchen equipment and utensils to ensure hygiene
practices are adopted (FY22 McGovern-Dole Proposal; WFP Cambodia)
166 The sampling universe (N=304) will be identical to the evaluations conducted in FY19-23. In case the handover of schools does not follow
planned timeline, each stratum will be oversampled by 10% to ensure representativeness. In case there are wide variation in the actual
number of schools handed over, the sampling strategy will adjust adaptively.
56
53. A wealth of qualitative data will be collected using focus group discussions and key informant interviews
from a multitude of stakeholders; students, teachers, parents, cooks, storekeepers, village leaders and a
range of government stakeholders at the district, provincial and national level. Qualitative data will be crucial
to answer numerous important evaluation questions and to explore the reasons behind the numbers, such
as the factors that affected the performance of the results. Primary qualitative data will also be critical
informing the changes to the context occurred since FY19 baseline.
54. Specific data collection methods are expected to include: a desk review, quantitative survey, semi-
structured interviews and focus groups (to ensure that a cross-section of stakeholders is able to participate
so that a diversity of views is gathered) and observation during field visits. The survey modules utilized will
include household and child questionnaires as well as school questionnaire (with teachers and school
directors).
55. Data on the Foundational Results will be largely informed by the two participatory Systems
Approach to Better Education Results-School Feeding (SABER-SF) workshops, which will produce
comparative data and knowledge across five pillars (Policy Frameworks, Financial Capacity, Institutional
Capacity and Coordination, Design and Implementation, Community Roles) in support of governments
implementing national school feeding programmes. The first SABER-SF workshop will be conducted in year
1 of the project ahead of implementation to provide baseline information on government capacity to run
the NHGSFP. Every year, a review of the progress of SABER pillars will be conducted while a follow-up
SABER-SF workshop will be conducted in year 4 of project implementation.
56. The rich information drawn from the SABER exercises is expected to be extensively triangulated with
monitoring data, quantitative, qualitative primary data for an in-depth evaluation of the Foundational
Results. Furthermore, to strengthen the independence and impartiality of SABER results, which in essence
is a self-assessed, participatory exercise, the evaluation team is expected to participate in the SABER-SF
workshops and annual reviews to gain a robust understanding on the strengths and weaknesses of the
workshop results and minimise biases in the final analysis.
57. The main strengths of this evaluation design is threefold; 1) the evaluation results can be measured
against the FY19 baseline and see the ten-year change in the target areas; 2) the stratified sampling design
is tailored towards identifying the factors that positively or negative influence the sustainability of the
home-grown school feeding programme under national ownership; 3) measure the strengths and gaps of
national stakeholders capacity to implement the NHGSFP according to the five pillars of capacities agreed
under the Joint-Transition Strategy, which mirrors the SABER-SF pillars as well as this project’s
Foundational Results Framework. The main limitation of the evaluation is that it will not be able to
measure attribution of project activities towards impact as there is no comparison with the counterfactual.
An impact evaluation design was not possible due to a lack of valid comparison group.
58. The methodology should be sensitive in terms of GEWE, equity and inclusion, indicating how the
perspectives and voices of diverse groups (men and women, boys, girls, the elderly, people living with
disabilities and other marginalized groups) will be sought and considered. The methodology should
ensure that primary data collected is disaggregated by sex and age; an explanation should be provided if
this is not possible.
59. The following potential risks to the methodology have been identified. The start and end of the school
year is subject to change since the disruptions due to COVID-19 pandemic; hence, the timeline should
remain flexible and concreted during inception period. Some indicators, such as extent of school children
being hungry at school or attentiveness in class, are heavily dependent on the time of data collection,
therefore, the data collection method should be carefully curated to these risks. Language and culture are
also barriers for the evaluation; hence, the evaluation team should be aware of and take pre-emptive
action before going down to the filed.
60. The evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations must reflect gender and equity analysis.
The findings should include a discussion on intended and unintended effects of the intervention on
gender equality and equity dimensions. The report should provide lessons/ challenges/recommendations
for conducting gender and equity-responsive evaluations in the future.
4.3. Evaluability assessment

61. Evaluability is the extent to which an activity or a program can be evaluated in a reliable and credible
fashion. A preliminary evaluability assessment will be done by the Country Office at the initial stage of
57
project cycle, which will be deepened by the evaluation team in each inception package relating to
deliverables.
62. The evaluation team shall critically assess data availability and take evaluability limitations into
consideration in its choice of evaluation methods. In doing so, the team will also critically review the
evaluability of the gender aspects of the programs, identify related challenges and mitigation measures
and determine whether additional indicators are required to include gender empowerment and gender
equality dimensions.
63. The evaluations will take a program theory approach based on the results framework. It will draw on
the existing body of documented data as far as possible and complement and triangulate this with
information to be collected in the field.
64. Concerning the quality of data and information, the Evaluation Team should assess data reliability as
part of the inception phase expanding on the information provided in section 4.3 to inform the data
collection. In addition, the Evaluation team should systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity
of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using
the data.
4.4. Ethical Considerations

65. WFP's decentralised evaluations must conform to WFP and UNEG ethical standards and norms. The
contractors undertaking the evaluations are responsible for safeguarding and ensuring ethics at all stages
of the evaluation cycle (preparation and design, data collection, data analysis, reporting and
dissemination). This should include, but is not limited to, ensuring informed consent, protecting privacy,
confidentiality and anonymity of participants, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of
participants, ensuring fair recruitment of participants (including women and socially excluded groups) and
ensuring that the evaluation results in no harm to participants or their communities.
66. Contractors are responsible for managing any potential ethical risks and issues and must put in place
in consultation with the Evaluation Manager, processes and systems to identify, report and resolve any
ethical issues that might arise during the implementation of the evaluation. Ethical approvals and reviews
by relevant national and institutional review boards must be sought where required.
67. The team and evaluation manager will not have been involved in the design, implementation or
monitoring of the WFP HGSFP nor have any other potential or perceived conflicts of interest. All members
of the evaluation team will abide by the 2020 UNEG Ethical Guidelines, including the Pledge of Ethical
Conduct as well as the WFP technical note on gender. The evaluation team and individuals who participate
directly in the evaluation at the time of issuance of the purchase order are expected to sign a
confidentiality agreement and a commitment to ethical conduct. These templates will be provided by the
country office when signing the contract.
4.5. Quality Assurance

68. The WFP evaluation quality assurance system sets out processes with steps for quality assurance and
templates for evaluation products based on a set of Quality Assurance Checklists. The quality assurance
will be systematically applied during this evaluation and relevant documents will be provided to the
evaluation team. This includes checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The
relevant checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and
outputs.
69. The WFP Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) is based on the UNEG norms
and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the
evaluation process and products conform to best practice. This quality assurance process does not
interfere with the views or independence of the evaluation team but ensures that the report provides
credible evidence and analysis in a clear and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
70. The WFP evaluation manager will be responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per
the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead
of their finalization.
71. To enhance the quality and credibility of decentralized evaluations, an outsourced quality support (QS)
service directly managed by the WFP Office of Evaluation reviews the draft ToR, the draft inception and the
58
evaluation reports, and provides a systematic assessment of their quality from an evaluation perspective,
along with recommendations.
72. The evaluation manager will share the assessment and recommendations from the quality support
service with the team leader, who will address the recommendations when finalizing the inception and
evaluation reports. To ensure transparency and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and
standards,[1] a rationale should be provided for comments that the team does not take into account when
finalizing the report.
73. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (reliability, consistency and
accuracy) throughout the data collection, synthesis, analysis and reporting phases.
74. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the
provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is available in the WFP Directive CP2010/001
on information disclosure.
75. WFP expects that all deliverables from the evaluation team are subject to a thorough quality
assurance review by the evaluation firm in line with the WFP evaluation quality assurance
system prior to submission of the deliverables to WFP.
76. All final evaluation reports will be subject to a post hoc quality assessment (PHQA) by an
independent entity through a process that is managed by the Office of Evaluation. The overall
PHQA results will be published on the WFP website alongside the evaluation report.
5. Organization of the evaluation
5.1. Phases and Deliverables

77. The main phase for each evaluation is as follows:
McGovern-Dole
2022-2027
Baseline Mid-line Evaluation Endline evaluation
1. Preparation Terms of Reference Terms of Reference Terms of Reference
2. Inception Inception Report Inception Report Inception Report
3. Collect data Debriefing with Debriefing with Debriefing with

PowerPoint PowerPoint PowerPoint
4. Analyse data and

Evaluation Report Evaluation Report Evaluation Report
Report167
5. Validate, Combined Management

Disseminate and follow- Response,
up Dissemination
product168, (only at
endline) presentation at
[1] UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, enhances stakeholder
ownership and increases public accountability”
167 In addition to the standard list of Annexes to the Evaluation Reports, during the Inception phase WFP CO and Evaluation Team will
elaborate the type of practicable deliverables to be used for further program adjustments and decision making, as well as for effective
communication with key stakeholders. These may include – Aide Memoire, Technical Summary of lessons learnt and recommendations based
on feedback from Key stakeholders (aimed at SF practitioners), thematic briefs on topics identified jointly with the WFP CO (such as gender,
nutrition, transition and handover, etc).
168 WFP CO will explore with stakeholders most effective ways to disseminate the evaluation results for accountability, effective learning and
advocacy with critical stakeholders of the program to increase the utility function of the evaluations. The final dissemination product may
include case studies, briefs, synthesis, PowerPoint presentation, etc.
59
the external
dissemination workshop
78. Timeline: The timeline for the evaluations for the Program is from October 2022 to
September 2027, covering planning/preparation, inception, data collection, data processing and
data analysis and report, and dissemination. The key list of deliverables and timelines for those
is outlined in Annex X. The list of deliverables and timelines will be further reviewed and
adjusted as required when the methodology and Inception report are finalized and agreed
between the parties.
5.2. Evaluation Team Composition
79. The evaluation team will be comprised of a team leader and other national and
international team members, as necessary, to ensure a complementary mix of technical
expertise in the evaluation’s focus areas (i.e., education, nutrition and food security, gender,
etc.). The team comprised of 3-4 members will have experience in evaluation, research, and
survey design in addition to individual technical expertise in the thematic areas, such as
education/school feeding programme, Institutional capacity development (including experience
with the SABER method) and gender. A dedicated Quality Assurance person as part of the team
composition is preferred.
80. The team leader must have a track-record of strong leadership experience in complex
evaluations and have expertise in one of the key competencies listed above. The team leader is
expected to be the communication point-person, thus, have in-depth technical expertise in
designing the methodology, sampling and data collection tools. Her/his primary responsibilities
will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the
team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation team; iv) drafting and
revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work (i.e., exit) debriefing
presentation and evaluation report in line with DEQAS.
81. The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical
expertise required and have a track record of written work on similar assignments. Team
members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document
review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders;
iv) contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s). All
team members are expected to demonstrate the ability to be culturally sensitive and respectful
in the communication and attitude throughout the evaluations towards WFP’s internal and
external stakeholders.
82. To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced,
geographically and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess gender dimensions
of the subject as specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections of the TOR. At least
two team members should have experience in conducting evaluation exercises for WFP-
implemented programs funded by McGovern-Dole.
83. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and
in close communication with the WFP evaluation manager. The team will be hired following
agreement with WFP on its composition
5.3. Roles and Responsibilities
84. The WFP CO Management
 Assign an evaluation manager for the evaluation for the McGovern-Dole 2022-2027 program
evaluations
 Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation reference group (see below)
60
 Approve the final ToR, inception and evaluation reports
 Approve the evaluation team selection
 Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including
establishment of an evaluation committee and a reference group
 Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation
subject, its performance and results with the evaluation manager and the evaluation team
 Organize and participate in two separate debriefings per evaluation, one internal and one with
external stakeholders
 Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a management
response to the evaluation recommendations.
85. The evaluation manager manages the evaluation process through all phases including:
drafting this ToR; identifying the evaluation team; preparing and managing the budget; setting
up the evaluation committee and evaluation reference group; ensuring quality assurance
mechanisms are operational and effectively used; consolidating and sharing comments on draft
inception and evaluation reports with the evaluation team; ensuring that the team has access to
all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation; facilitating the introduction of
the ET to local stakeholders in support of field work preparation; arrange meetings with WFP
internal stakeholders; organise security briefings for the evaluation team and supporting with
additional logistics as necessary; and conducting the first level quality assurance of the
evaluation products. The evaluation manager will be the main interlocutor between the team,
represented by the team leader and WFP counterparts to ensure a smooth implementation
process.
86. An internal evaluation committee is formed to help ensure the independence and
impartiality of the evaluation. The role and responsibility of committee members will be
detailed in Annex X. An internal evaluation committee chaired by the Country Director will
approve Terms of Reference, budget, evaluation team, inception and evaluation reports, which
helps to maintain distance from influence by program implementers.
87. An evaluation reference group (ERG) has been formed, as appropriate, with
representation from WFP country office, Regional Bureau, WFP Headquarters divisions, USDA,
Government partners, UN agencies and NGO partners. Please refer to Annex X where list of
members is available. The ERG members will review and comment on the draft evaluation
products and act as key informants in order to further safeguard against bias and influence.
88. The regional bureau will take responsibility to:
 Advise the evaluation manager and provide support to the evaluation process where
appropriate
 Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the
evaluation subject as required
 Provide comments on the draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports
 Support the preparation of a management response to the evaluation and track the
implementation of the recommendations.
 While the regional evaluation officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other
regional bureau-relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or
comment on evaluation products as appropriate.
89. Other Stakeholders (National Government including relevant ministries, implementing

partners / NGOs, partner UN agencies) will perform the roles and responsibilities of evaluation
reference group since they are members of the group.
90. The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV is responsible for overseeing WFP decentralized
evaluation function, defining evaluation norms and standards, managing the outsourced quality
support service, publishing as well submitting the final evaluation report to the PHQA. OEV also
ensures a help desk function and advises the Regional Evaluation Officer, the Evaluation
Manager and Evaluation teams when required. Internal and external stakeholders and/or the
61
evaluators are encouraged to reach out to the regional evaluation officer and the Office of
Evaluation helpdesk ([email protected]) in case of potential impartiality
breaches or non-adherence to UNEG ethical guidelines.
91. The Evaluation Team will be expected to deliver the three evaluations as outlined by the ToR
and agreed during inception. The Evaluation Team is expected to hire a local point-person that
will be able to schedule and set up all necessary meetings needed for data collection and
arrange all necessary logistics independently.
5.4. Security Considerations
92. Security clearance Security is not necessarily a significant concern in Cambodia, beyond
some incidence of theft and other opportunistic crimes. Security clearance where required is to
be obtained from the Cambodia CO, through UNDSS. As an independent supplier’ of evaluation
services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for ensuring the security of all persons
contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational reasons.
The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN Department of
Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. The evaluation team must observe
applicable United Nations Department of Safety and Security rules and regulations including
taking security training (BSAFE) available at
https://training.dss.un.org/thematicarea/category?id=6
However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure:
 The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a
security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
 The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations –e.g., curfews etc
5.5. Communication
93. To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation,
the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key
stakeholders. These will be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on the communication
channels, timeline and frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders
92. Should translators be required for fieldwork, the evaluation firm will make
arrangements and include the cost in the budget proposal.
93. Based on the stakeholder analysis, the communication and knowledge management
plan (in Annex X) identifies the users of the evaluation to involve in the process and to whom
the report should be disseminated. The communication and knowledge management plan
indicates how findings including gender, equity and wider inclusion issues will be disseminated
and how stakeholders interested in, or affected by, gender, equity and wider inclusion issues
will be engaged.
94. As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all
evaluations are made publicly available. It is important that evaluation reports are accessible
to a wide audience, thereby contributing to the credibility of WFP – through transparent
reporting – and the use of evaluation. Following the approval of the final evaluation report, a
dissemination workshop will be arranged with the donor, government stakeholders and other
members of the ERG with the purpose of learning. Response to the evaluation
recommendation will be co-developed during the dissemination workshop.
5.6. Budget
95. Funding Source: The baseline study, mid-term evaluation and endline evaluation will be funded
by the WFP Cambodia Country Office using the M&E budget allocation in the McGovern-Dole 2022-2027
grant.
62
96. The service provider will outline their budget in a financial proposal to WFP as part of their
response to the Request for Proposals (RfP) (Annex X indicates the anticipated number of days which help
evaluation team to estimate the budget). For the purpose of this evaluation, the service provider will:
 Include budget for international and domestic travel and for all relevant in-country data
collection (both qualitative and quantitative)
 Hire and supervise any and all technical and administrative assistance required (including in-
country).
 The final budget and handling will be determined by the option of contracting that will be used
and the rates that will apply at the time of contracting.
 Follow the agreed rates for decentralized evaluations as provided for in the Long-Term
Agreement (LTA) with WFP
97. Please send any queries to Sunwoo Julie Byun, M&E officer: [email protected]
63
Annex 2: Timeline and Country Maps
The overall timeline of the series of evaluation is shown here:
Baseline study Mid-Term Evaluation Final Evaluation

June-September April-September April-September
2023 2025 2027
2024 2026
2023 2025 2027
The detailed timeline for the baseline is shown in here:
Indicative timeline Phases Led by

BASELINE STUDY
INCEPTION PHASE FOR OVERALL EVALUATION
Provision of the data/electronic library to the Evaluation Team; team
May 2023 EM
orientation
29 May – 09 June Draft and submission of inception report ET
09 –26 June Review by DEQs, ERG, EC EM
By 05 July Revision and submission of final inception report ET
DATA COLLECTION169
26 & 27 June 2023 SABER-SF initial workshop ET
05 -21 July 170 171 ET
Desk Review and qualitative data collection
21 July Debrief with WFP on preliminary findings ET
ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING
31 July Prepare and submit baseline study report (draft zero) ET

01 – 18 August Review by DEQs, ERG, EC EM
25 August Revision and submission of second draft ET
01 September Review and approval by EC EC
08 September Submission to USDA for review EM
06 October Comments received from USDA USDA
13 October Finalization and submission of final Evaluation Report to USDA ET
169 The data collection stage for the baseline study may be conducted remotely, depending on the final agreed design at inception
170 The quantitative results from the McGovern-Dole 2019-2023 endline only became available by the second week of July
64
Cambodia country maps showing project locations by school year
65
66
Annex 3: McGovern-Dole 2019-2023 midterm evaluation brief
Midterm Activity Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole Grant (FFE-442-

2019-013-00) for WFP School Feeding in Cambodia
Introduction and Background

This document summarizes the findings from the midterm evaluation of the United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) McGovern-Dole School Feeding Programme172 for World Food Programme (WFP) School
Feeding activities in Cambodia, covering the period 01 November 2019 to 30 October 2023. The current
McGovern-Dole programme is a continuation of two earlier phases (2013-2016 and 2017-2019) and is being
implemented in three central provinces of Cambodia
This evaluation is the second of a series of three linked pieces of work173 considering the USDA support to the
WFP programme in the country. The series has been commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, with
updated Terms of Reference to take account of the effects of the pandemic on implementation. The evaluation
focused on three evaluation criteria: relevance (especially of pandemic mitigation adaptations), effectiveness,
and sustainability (with a focus on steps yet to be taken to ensure a smooth handover and transition by the
end of the cycle). Information was collected in mid-2022 through interviews and group meetings, visits to
provincial departments and schools (425 persons were interviewed (58 percent women), but no quantitative
data was collected in this round.
In Cambodia, short-term hunger is a key factor affecting educational results, such as literacy, attendance, and
concentration in schools.174 The USDA McGovern-Dole programme is a major component of the WFP school
feeding activities in Cambodia set up to address these issues through the provision of quality education;
promotion of good nutrition practices. It is also designed to support the school feeding programme’s transition
to national funding, management, and overall ownership.175
The USDA McGovern-Dole programme aims to encourage students’ enrolment, attendance, and completion of
their primary education, as well as reduce short-term hunger and improve the children’s concentration in the
classroom. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Cambodian schools were closed for almost two years, which
severely curtailed the planned activities, though different ways of delivering food assistance and trainings were
developed. Schools fully reopened in January 2022.
Was it relevant?
The McGovern-Dole SFP provides an avenue for the WFP school meals programme to work with and support
the change from a traditional food delivery approach to the ‘home-grown school feeding’ approach adopted by
the Government. This is done through a combination of direct engagement at school and district level, as well
as through building official capacity to enable strong national leadership. This is outlined in a new Joint
Transition Strategy agreed between the parties.
The programme appropriately prioritizes schools in areas with high poverty and low education outcomes.
During the school closures, the repurposing of the activities to support the distribution of take-home rations
was relevant to the Government’s emergency response approach to support the most vulnerable populations.
The overall school feeding programme – of which the McGovern-Dole component is a major part - is well
aligned with Government priorities, with trainings and capacity building activities conducted jointly. Technical
assistance support at school level has contributed to increased clarity of benefits, roles, responsibilities, and
management of the programme.
The programme design assumes that the school feeding programme equally impacts girls and boys, though a
more proactive focus on gender considerations would be beneficial.
Was it effective?
There are good policies and structures in place, but continued rollout of the national school feeding
programme still depends on the support of high-level advocates. There is more clarity and structure related to
172 USDA McGovern-Dole programme FFE-442-2019-013-00

173 The evaluation consists of a baseline (2020), midterm (originally planned for 2021) and endline assessment (2023).
174 WFP/USDA LRP Proposal FY2019.
175 WFP/USDA McGovern-Dole Proposal
67
the programme at different levels compared to the baseline, and school feeding committees at school,
commune, district, and provincial levels have been established. Staffing issues and turnover have had a more
negative impact.
A significant percentage (65 percent) of the pre-set targets have been met (or are on track to be met). Over-
achievements were most common regarding trainings and production of improved teaching materials. The
number of meals provided is only at 15 percent of end of cycle target, due to the school closures. Although the
take-home rations were not foreseen in the programme design, 72 percent of the revised target numbers were
reached, and WFP monitoring found that over 95 percent of the recipient households reported acceptable
levels of food consumption after distributions.
Can it be sustained?
The overall school feeding programme is planned to be handed over to the Government over the coming six
years, and continued as a key component of the national social protection policy. It is very likely that the work
will be satisfactorily continued by the authorities, not least as school feeding enjoys high-level support within
the Ministry of Education.
The development of a Joint Transition Strategy between the Government and WFP will serve to guide this
process, despite some known challenges such as the need for enhanced technical assistance at different levels.
It clarifies roles and responsibilities of national stakeholders to enable ongoing implementation. The
programme has made progress towards handover, but the timeframe of the current cycle is too short to
sufficiently prepare the Government to continue the programme – since the evaluation, USDA has confirmed a
new programme phase to succeed the current one.
The current McGovern-Dole programme cycle has prioritized the more concrete components of handover of
schools, but there needs to be further emphasis on supporting the school systems and other institutions in
other areas – policy development, monitoring and reporting, programme management, and resourcing.
Communities are supportive of the programme, but the success of the work is still highly dependent on the
cooperating partners and volunteers at community and school levels. A stronger degree of institutional
support is still needed, which will require further technical assistance from WFP as schools transition to
government management.
Lessons Learned
Applicable lessons learned fall into three categories: handover, project management, and monitoring and
evaluation.
 WFP should integrate increased staffing for national staff with expertise in Government procedures.
 Government management systems need to be developed prior to school handover.
 The Government requires a complete costing analysis for supporting school meals that integrates all
ancillary management costs.
 Continuous socialization: there is a need for a standardized training and orientation approach to incoming
personnel at different levels of Government, from schools and suppliers up to the Ministry level, given
frequent staff turnover.
 Management training for school principals will directly contribute to better results.
 Better availability and understanding of monitoring and reporting systems, particularly in remote settings,
is required.
 Repurposing school meals to take-home rations was shown to be feasible and improved the food security
of the most vulnerable households.
 Gender indicators: more proactively ensuring women’s participation and empowerment in the
programming would be beneficial.
68
Annex 4: Project Theory of Change
69
Annex 5: Overall Results Framework
70
Annex 6: Results Framework 1
71
Annex 7: Results Framework 2
72
Annex 8: Foundational Results
73
Annex 9: Performance Monitoring Plan
Strategic Objective 1
Logical Framework and Performance Indicator Table
Planned Targets
USDA McGovern-Dole: World Food Programme Cambodia FY 2022 - SO1
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
10/22 10/25 10/26
Impact/ Outcome/ Output/ Standard/ Life of 10/23 to 10/24 to
Indicator Type Baseline to to to
Activity Custom Project 09/24 09/25
09/23 09/26 09/27
Percent of students who, by the end of two
grades of primary schooling, demonstrate
Grade 2:
that they can read and understand the 29.2% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 29.2% 29.2%
14.2%
meaning of grade level text (grade 2 by
gender) Standard
Indicator Outcome
Percent of students who, by the end of three
#1
grades of primary schooling, demonstrate
Grade 3:
that they can read and understand the 35.0% 20% 20% 20% 35% 35%
20%
meaning of grade level text (grade 3 by
gender)
Long- MGD SO 1: Improved
term Literacy of School-Age
Standard
Outcome Children Output 0 111,618 0 94,975 72,383 29,830 0
Indicator #30
Number of individuals participating in USDA
Standard
food security programs (By Sex; Age; and Output 0 2,354 0 1,535 913 653 -
Indicator #30
type of individual)
Standard
Output 0 204 0 144 168 180 204
Indicator #30
Number of schools reached as a result of
Standard
USDA assistance (By prrimary schools, Output 0 510 0 510 467 122 0
Indicator #32
primary and pre-primary schools)
Percentage of observed teachers, receiving

MGD 1.1: Improved Quality of Custom
Outcome the early grade learning intervention, who Outcome 0 85% 0 80 85 85 85
Literacy Instruction Indicator #1
reach Level 2 or higher
Activity #9: Assist MoEYS to

develop and roll-out the Number of teaching and learning materials Standard
Activity Output 0 556 0 556 0 0 0
Khmer Early Grade Learning provided as a result of USDA assistance Indicator #3
package
74
Number of teachers/educators/teaching
assistants in target schools who demonstrate Standard
MGD 1.1.4: Increased Skills
Outcome use of new and quality teaching techniques Indicator Outcome 0 1,513 0 1,424 1,513 1,513 1,513
and Knowledge of Teachers
or tools as a result of USDA assistance (by #4
gender)
Activity #9: Assist MoEYS to

Number of teachers/educators/teaching Standard
develop and roll-out the
Activity assistants trained or certified as a result of Indicator Output 0 1,780 0 1,780 1,780 0 0
Khmer Early Grade Learning
USDA assistance (by gender) #5
package
Number of school administrators and officials
MGD 1.1.5: Increased Skills Standard
in target schools who demonstrate use of
Outcome and Knowledge of Indicator Outcome 0 462 0 289 462 462 462*
new techniques or tools as a result of USDA
Administrators #6
Activity 10: Build the capacity
Number of school administrators and officials Standard
of administrators and
Activity trained or certified as a result of USDA Indicator Output 0 577 0 577 577 0 0
strengthen the school-based
assistance (by gender) #7
mentoring system
MGD 1.2: Improved Percent of students in target schools Custom

Outcome Outcome 94.8% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Attentiveness identified as attentive by their teachers Indicator #3
Percent of students in target schools reported
MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short- Custom
Outcome as 'not hungry' during class time according to Outcome 89.3% 92% 89% 89% 91% 91% 92%
Term Hunger Indicator #4
a hunger scale
Number of school-age children receiving
daily school meals (breakfast) as a result of Standard
Output 0 109,261 0 92,618 70,026 29,830 0
MGD 1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1: USDA assistance (by gender, new/continuing Indicator #17
Outcome Increased Access to Food students)
(School Feeding)
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly Standard
Output 0 139,059 0 117,877 89,124 37,965 0
from USDA funded interventions Indicator #31
12,966,520
Activity #5: Provide nutritious
9,803,640
4,176,200
Number of daily school meals (breakfast,
school meals and prepare Standard
Activity snack, lunch) provided to school-age children Output 0 0 0
USDA-supported schools for Indicator #16 26,946,360
as a result of USDA assistance
handover
MGD 1.3: Improved Student Average student attendance rate in USDA Standard
Outcome Outcome 90% 95% 1 1 1 1 1
Attendance supported classrooms/schools (by gender) Indicator #2
Mean number of days school-children are
MGD 1.3.2: Reduced Health- Custom
Outcome absent from school because of ill-health per Outcome 2.0 1.0 2 2 2 2 1
Related Absences Indicator #5
month
75
Strategic Objective 2
Planned Target
USDA McGovern-Dole: World Food Programme Cambodia FY 2022 - SO2
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26
Impact/ Outcome/ Output/ Standard/ Life of
Indicator Type Baseline to to to to to
Activity Custom Project
09/23 09/24 09/25 09/26 09/27
Number of individuals who demonstrate
use of new child health and nutrition Standard
Outcome 0 1,782 0 910 1,346 1,782 1,782
practices as a result of USDA assistance Indicator #19
(by gender)
Long-term MGD SO2: Increased Use of Number of individuals who demonstrate
Outcome Health and Dietary Practices use of new safe food preparation and Standard
Outcome 0 873 0 873 645 312 873
storage practices as a result of USDA Indicator #20
Average dietary diversity score (DDS) for Custom
Outcome 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5
enrolled girls and boys of target schools Indicator #6
Activity 8: Promote improved
child health, nutrition, and Number of individuals trained in child
Standard
dietary practices in line with health and nutrition as a result of USDA Output 0 2,786 - 1,422 682 682 -
Indicator #23
National Policy on School assistance (by gender)
Activity Health
Number of individuals trained in hygiene
Activity #7: Ensure adequate
and the minimum guidelines for water and Custom
WASH infrastructure and Output 0 900 - 900 840 - -
sanitation in schools as a result of USDA indicator #8
practices in schools
Activity #5: Provide nutritious Number of individuals trained in safe food
school meals to prepare preparation Standard
Activity Output 0 1,364 - 1,364 1,008 488 -
USDA-supported schools for and storage as a result of USDA Indicator #22
handover assistance (by gender)
Number of educational facilities (i.e. school
Activity #7: Ensure adequate buildings, classrooms, improved water
Standard
Activity WASH infrastructure and sources, and latrines) Output 0 406 - 228 130 48 -
Indicator #8
practices in schools rehabilitated/constructed as a result of
USDA assistance
Percentage of target schools that meet the
MGD 2.6: Increased Access
minimum requirements for handover to the Custom
Outcome to Requisite Food Prep and Outcome 0% 100% - - 100% 100% 100%
government based on agreed handover indicator #11
Storage Tools and Equipment
checklist (by the time of handover)
76
Foundational results
Planned Targets
USDA McGovern-Dole: World Food Programme Cambodia FY 2022 - Foundational Results
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25
Standard/ Base Life of 10/26 to
Impact/ Outcome/ Output/ Activity Indicator Type to to to to
Custom line Project 09/27
09/23 09/24 09/25 09/26
National School Feeding
Long-term SABER–School Feeding (SABER-SF) Custom
Programme runs effectively and Outcome 0 3 1 1 1 3 3
Outcome Index indicator #14
sustainably
Number of relevant SABER-SF pillars
MGD 1.4.1/2.7.1: Increased with improved score by the final SABER
Custom
Outcome Capacity of Government workshop in 2026 (Design and Outcome 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
indicator #15
Institutions Implementation, Institutional Capacity
pillars)
Number of technical assistance
initiatives provided by WFP to the
National Home-Grown School Feeding Custom
Activity 1: Provide technical output 0 9 1 2 2 2 2
Programme (include Design, indicator #16
assistance to the government on
implementation and M&E TA) (by
Activity the design and implementation of
technical assistance type)
the National Home-Grown School
Number of government staff that
Feeding Programme
received training on National School Custom
output 0 180 144 40 16 0
Feeding Programme operation as a indicator #17
result of USDA assistance
Activity #2: Support the Number of multi-stakeholder school
government to strengthen the feeding Coordination Committee
Custom
Activity institutional framework and meeting conducted (as a result of USDA output 0 15 3 3 3 3 3
indicator #18
multisectoral coordination assistance) to implement the national
mechanisms for school feeding programme.
Number of sub-national level
Activity #4: Strengthen national
government staff who received training Custom
Activity monitoring and oversight capacity output 0 204 0 144 168 180 204
on National School Feeding Programme indicator #19
for school feeding
monitoring
Number of relevant SABER-SF pillars
MGD 1.4.2/2.7.2: Improved Policy with improved score by the final SABER Custom
Outcome Outcome 1 0 0 0 1 1
and Regulatory Framework workshop in 2026 (policy framework indicator #15
pillar)
Activity #2: Support the
Number of technical assistance
government to strengthen the
activities provided by WFP to the Custom
Activity institutional framework and output 1 1
National Home-Grown School Feeding indicator #16
multisectoral coordination
Programme (for policy)
mechanisms for school feeding
77
Annex 10: Baseline study Matrix
Evaluation Question 1: What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all relevant evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency and
coherence), and in terms of GEWE mainstreaming in the project?
Data analysis
Evidence availability
Sub-questions Indicators Data collection methods Sources of data/information methods/
and Reliability
triangulation
1.1: How relevant is the project design in Appropriateness of project Participation at SABER SABER workshop, June 2023 Comparison between SABER is a self-
contributing towards a sustainable, objectives and activities with workshop MGD FY19 endline evaluation the assessments’ assessment and
effective implementation of the NHGSFP the assessment of the Literature review results and the project results may include
WFP country office
vis-à-vis the government’s readiness and Government’s readiness and design bias. Results will be
Key informant interviews Relevant ministries (MoEYS, MEF)
capacities to manage the NHGSFP capacities Triangulation of triangulated with
UNICEF other sources of
(relevance) evidence
information
1.2: To what extent is the project aligned Level of alignment the Literature review Education, health and nutrition Comparison between OK to the extent that
to the overall policies, strategies, project objectives and Key informant interviews policies the project design and the endline evaluation
including gender-related, and normative activities with key national MGD 2019-2023 baseline and key policies’ priorities provides sufficient
guidance of institutions with supporting policies and strategies of endline evaluations Triangulation of information
role for the NHGSFP, such MoEYS, NSPC, relevant sectors Relevant ministries (MoEYS, MEF) evidence
MAFF and MoH? (relevance)
1.3: How relevant are the school Perceptions of key Key informant interviews WFP country office Triangulation of OK to the extent that
readiness criteria in facilitating an stakeholders on the MoEYS evidence the endline evaluation
effective handover of schools? relevance of the school provides sufficient
(relevance) readiness criteria information
1.4: What are the baseline values of the All project indicators Literature review MGD FY19 baseline, midline and Presentation of data OK to the extent that
project indicators (since 2019) baseline value endline evaluations from 2019 to 2023 the endline evaluation
effectiveness)? World Education EGRA test provides sufficient
information
2023 SABER results
78
Evaluation Question 1 (continued): What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all relevant evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency
and coherence), and in terms of GEWE mainstreaming in the project?
Data analysis
and Reliability
triangulation
1.5: To what extent is the project Adequacy of the mechanism Literature review WFP country office Triangulation of OK to the extent that
monitoring, evaluation and complaint used in the MGD FY19 Key informant interviews Cooperating partners evidence the endline evaluation
feedback mechanism designed for the project provides sufficient
MGD FY19 endline evaluation
project adequate to improve project Changes introduced in the information
relevance throughout the project? To FY22 project
what extent does it allow specifically for
feedback from women and vulnerable
groups such as the disabled or ethnic
minorities? (effectiveness)
1.6: What is the level of ownership of the Level of ownership and Literature review MGD FY19 endline evaluation Triangulation of OK to the extent that
programme in schools, communities, readiness Key informant interviews WFP country office evidence the endline evaluation
and relevant government departments Appropriateness of project provides sufficient
Relevant ministries (MoEYS, MEF)
involved in the implementation of the design to strengthen information
Cooperating partners
NHGSFP and to what extent the project ownership and readiness
design provides for appropriate actions
to strengthen ownership and readiness?
(sustainability)
1.7: What roles have the different Role played by each key Literature review MGD FY19 endline evaluation Comparison between OK to the extent that
stakeholders of the NHGSFP played to actor Key informants’ interviews School feeding regulatory framework effective role played the endline evaluation
date in the institutionalization of the Alignment with the school and regulatory provides sufficient
WFP country office
programme, and to what extent do they feeding regulatory framework information
play the correct role considering the framework Triangulation of
national school feeding policy? Cooperating partners evidence
(sustainability)
1.8: What factors identified at baseline Lessons learnt on cost- Literature review MGD 2019-2023 endline evaluation Triangulation of OK to the extent that
may impact the cost efficiency of the efficiency from MGD FY19 Key informants’ interviews WFP country office evidence the endline evaluation
MGD 2022-2027 project? (efficiency) endline provides sufficient
Appropriateness of new information
implementation
arrangements
79
Evaluation Question 1 (continued): What is the pre-cycle (FY22-27) situation for all relevant evaluation criteria
(relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency and coherence), and in terms of GEWE mainstreaming in the
project?
Data analysis
and Reliability
triangulation
1.9: Is the project management structure Lessons learnt from MGD Literature review MGD 2019-2023 endline evaluation Triangulation of OK to the extent that
suitable to deliver the project effectively FY19 Key informants’ interviews WFP country office evidence the endline evaluation
(efficiency) provides sufficient
information
1.10: To what extent does the MGD Lessons learnt on Literature review MGD FY19 endline evaluation Triangulation of OK to the extent that
2022-2027 project design provide complementarities, Key informants’ interviews WFP country office evidence the endline evaluation
reinforced complementarities, synergies synergies and linkages from provides sufficient
and linkages with systems of different MGD FY19 endline information
United Nations development
governing bodies relevant to the Likely evolution considering
agencies (UNICEF, World Bank)
NHGSFP and other humanitarian and project design and evolution
of the relevant governing Non-governmental organizations
development initiatives? (coherence)
bodies and humanitarian (Plan International, World Education,
and development initiatives. World Vision)
Evaluation Question 2: What are the contextual changes that occurred since the FY19 baseline relevant to the
programme and under each evaluation criteria, including regarding GEWE aspects?
Data analysis
Data collection Evidence availability
Sub-questions Indicators Sources of data/information methods/
methods and Reliability
triangulation
2.1: What are the contextual factors Lessons learnt on factors Literature review WFP country office Triangulation of OK
identified at baseline that may affect that have affected the Key informant interviews Relevant ministries (MoEYS, MEF) evidence
negatively or positively the relevance, previous project drawn from
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability MGD FY19 endline
MGD FY19 endline evaluation
and coherence of the MGD FY22 project, Likelihood of these factors to
and achievements regarding GEWE? affect the MGD FY22 project
80
Evaluation Question 3: Are the project indicators and targets appropriate in effectively measuring and tracking
project results for men, women, girls, boys and vulnerable groups based on the results framework?
Data analysis
Data collection Evidence availability
Sub-questions Indicators Sources of data/information methods/
methods and Reliability
triangulation
3.1: To what extent does WFP have Appropriateness of PMP Literature review WFP country office Triangulation of OK
the systems and capacity at baseline indicators to sufficiently and Key informant MGD FY19 baseline and endline evidence
to appropriately monitor and comprehensively inform on interviews evaluations
provide sufficient information to project progress regarding the
World Education EGRA assessment
measure progress, including on results framework
reports
GEWE? What changes should be
made, if any?
3.2: Are the targets proposed for Appropriateness considering the Literature review WFP country office Triangulation of OK
the project relevant and realistic and effectiveness of MGD FY19 and Key informant MGD FY19 baseline and endline evidence
is gender sufficiently considered in the key evolution of the interviews evaluations
targets? objectives of MGD FY22
World Education EGRA assessment
reports
Evaluation Question 4: To what extent are the midterm and endline evaluation questions relevant in assessing the
success of the programme under each criteria and for all categories of participants including men, women, girls, boys
and vulnerable groups?
Data analysis Evidence availability
Data collection
Sub-questions Indicators Sources of data/information methods/ and Reliability
methods
triangulation
4.1: To what extent are the key Extent to which the key design Literature review WFP country office Triangulation of OK
elements of success and and contextual elements Key informant MGD FY19 baseline and endline evidence
performance well-captured in the identified in previous questions interviews evaluations
midterm and final evaluation are captured in the evaluation Relevant ministries (MoEYS, MEF)
questions, and is there sufficient questions
consideration given on gender in Perception of project
these questions? stakeholders on the
appropriateness of the
evaluation questions
81
Annex 11: Bibliography of consulted documents
Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023, MoEYS, May 2019

GPE 2025 Cambodia Partnership Compact, March 2023. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
Kingdom of Cambodia, 2022. National Action Plan on School Health.
Lim. L., 2021. Home-Grown School Feeding - Gender Action Research in Cambodia
WFP Cambodia, baseline study report of the McGovern-Dole School Feeding project, 2019-2023
WFP Cambodia, midterm evaluation report of the McGovern-Dole School Feeding project, 2019-2023
WFP Cambodia, draft endline evaluation report of the McGovern-Dole School Feeding project, 2019-2023
WFP/USDA Project Agreement and annexes for McGovern-Dole school feeding project 2023-2027
MoEYS, 2021. Mid-Term Review Report in 2021 of the Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023 and Projections to
2025. Phnom Penh: MoEYS.
MoEYS, WFP, 2022. Joint Transition Strategy Towards a Nationally Owned Home-Grown School Feeding
Programme, Cambodia, Phase 1: 2022-2025.
MoEYS, WFP, 2022. Joint Assessment on National Homre-Grown School Feeding Programme.
Popova, A., D.K. Evans, M.E. Breeding and V. Arancibia, 2022. Teacher Professional Development around the
World: The Gap Between Evidence and Practice. The World Bank Research Observer 37 (1):107
136. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab006
RTI International, 2022. USAID/Cambodia – Inclusive Primary Education Activity (IPEA), Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter
2 Progress Report.
RTI International, 2022. USAID/Cambodia-All Children Learning, Final Report.
Royal Government of Cambodia, 2023. Sub-Decree on Home-Grown School Feeding Implementation
Royal Government of Cambodia, Draft National Policy on School Meals
WFP Cambodia, 2023. Endline Activity Evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole Grant (FFE-442-2019-013-00) for WFP
School Feeding in Cambodia FY 2019-2023 Decentralized Evaluation Report.
Summary of Komar Rien Komar Cheh methodology at http://www.unesco.org/en/articles/launching-komar-
rien-komar-cheh-cambodias-national-early-grade-learning-programme
UNICEF (2022). Learning loss in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Evidence from the 2016-2021 Grade 6 National
Learning Assessment in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: UNICEF.
UNICEF & SEAMEO. (2020). SEA-PLM 2019 Main Regional Report, Children’s learning in 6 Southeast Asian
countries. Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) & Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organization (SEAMEO) – SEA-PLM Secretariat.
World Education, 2020. Baseline Report Food for Education 2019-2023
World Education, 2022. Literacy Endline Report, Food for Education 2019-2023
World Education, Kampong Chhnang monitoring data summary document, July 2023.
World Education, monitoring report summary, 2023.
World Education, master summary of EGR programming during the 2019-2023 MGD phase.
World Food Programme. March 2023. Midterm Activity Evaluation of the KOICA supported Home- Grown
School Feeding Programme in Cambodia in Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhnang and Pursat Provinces
1st January 2020 – 31st October 2024
World Food Programme, 2022. Assessment of the monitoring and Evaluation System for Cambodia’s National
Home-Grown School Feeding Programme.
World Food Programme, 2020. School Assessment Report 2012-2020, Final Draft
WFP Cambodia, Country Strategic Plan 2022-2025.
82
Annex 12: Key Informants’ overview
A total of 32 key informants from the following organizations were interviewed as part of this baseline study.
Organization Number of interviewees
1 World Food Programme, Country Office 8 officers interviewed
2 WFP Regional Bureau in Bangkok 1 officer interviewed
3 World Education 2 officers interviewed
4 World Vision Country Office 2 officers interviewed
5 PLAN International 4 officers interviewed
6 USAID 2 officers interviewed
7 UNICEF 2 officers interviewed
8 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) 7 officers interviewed
9 Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) 4 officers interviewed
TOTAL 32 key informants interviewed
83
Annex 13: Semi-structured Interview Guides
WFP Country Office

OPENING AND ROLE
First of all, what is your relationship to, or the way you are connected to, this McGovern-Dole SFP? What is your role? How long
have you been involved?
RELEVANCE
1. In your opinion, and considering the progress achieved in the HGSF programme to date, how relevant is the new
McGovern-Dole project in contributing towards a sustainable and effective national HGSF programme vis a vis the
government readiness and capacities to manage the NHGSF programme?
2. To what extent the new McGovern-Dole project has evolved to adapt to the context evolution since 2019, including
policy and institutional changes?
3. What are the criteria used to assess the readiness of schools for their hand-over to the government? Have those
criteria been applied to date? How relevant are those criteria?
4. Please describe the monitoring and complaint feedback mechanism of the project. Has this mechanism been fully
implemented? If not, why? Is it adequate to improve project relevance?
5. What are the objectives and approach of the project to progress towards GEWE objectives?
EFFECTIVENESS
1. In your opinion, what key lessons for the effectiveness of the implementation of MGD FY22 project can be drawn from
the previous cycle?
2. Considering these lessons, to what extent the targets of the new McGovern-Dole project for outputs and outcomes
relevant and realistic
3. What are the key internal and external factors that will likely influence the performance of the project?
4. What lessons can be drawn on the performance of the previous cycle regarding GEWE, which are relevant to the new
project?
EFFICIENCY
1. What factors will likely impact the cost efficiency of the McGovern-Dole FY19 project?
2. What change have been introduced in the new project to improve the efficiency?
SUSTAINABILITY
1. What is the level of ownership and readiness in schools, communities, and relevant government departments involved
in the implementation of the NHGSFP and to what extent the project design provides for appropriate actions to
strengthen ownership and readiness?
2. What roles have the different stakeholders of the NHGSFP played to date in the institutionalization of the programme,
and to what extent do they play the correct role considering the national school feeding policy?
3. What are the key contextual factors that could support or affect the hand-over and sustainability of the HGSF
programme?
4. What are the perspectives of sustainability of the progresses achieved on GEWE?

COHERENCE
1. To what extent has the SFP sought complementarities, collaborations with other programs? Can you give some
examples?
Appropriateness of indicators and targets
2. To what extent can the indicators of McGovern-Dole FY22 project be appropriately monitored and provide sufficient
information to measure progress? If not, why and what changes should be proposed?
3. What is your perception of the targets of the new project? Do you think they will be achieved? If not, why?
4. To what extent gender disaggregation has been possible and if not, why and how it could be improved in the new
project?
RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
1. In your opinion, what would you suggest for corrections to improve the SMP for the next cycle?
a. Sustainability and transition factors and gaps
b. Key bottlenecks for transition and handover
c. GEWE objectives
d. Other
84
Government
OPENING AND ROLE
First of all, what is your relationship to, or the way you are connected to, this McGovern-Dole SFP? What is your role? How
long have you been involved?
RELEVANCE
1. What have been the main changes in the policy framework since 2019, regarding school feeding, primary education,
health and nutrition and gender?
2. What have been the main institutional changes since 2019, regarding school feeding, primary education, health and
nutrition and gender?
3. To what extent the new McGovern-Dole project has evolved to adapt to the context evolution since 2019, including
policy and institutional changes? How the project could be better aligned to the government priorities, including on
gender?
4. Do you know what are the criteria to determine the readiness of schools for their hand-over to the government? If
yes, are those criteria relevant?
EFFECTIVENESS
1. Based on lessons learnt from the previous project, what are the key internal and external factors that will likely affect
the performance of the project, including on GEWE?
SUSTAINABILITY
1. What is the level of ownership and readiness in schools, communities, and relevant government departments
involved in the implementation of the NHGSFP and to what extent the project design provides for appropriate actions
to strengthen ownership and readiness?
2. What roles have the different stakeholders of the NHGSFP played to date in the institutionalization of the
programme, and to what extent do they play the correct role considering the national school feeding policy?
programme?

COHERENCE
1. To what extent has the SFP sought complementarities, collaborations with other programs? Can you give some
examples?
1. In your opinion, what would you suggest for corrections to improve the SMP for the next cycle?
c. GEWE objectives
d. Other
85
OPENING AND ROLE
First of all, what is your relationship to, or the way you are connected to, this McGovern-Dole SFP? What is your role?
How long have you been involved?
RELEVANCE
1. To what extent is the project monitoring and complaint feedback mechanism designed for the project
adequate to improve project relevance throughout the project?
EFFECTIVENESS
1. In your opinion, what key lessons can be drawn on the effectiveness of project implementation from the
previous cycle?
2. Considering these lessons, to what extent the targets of the new McGovern-Dole project for outputs and
outcomes relevant and realistic
3. What are the key internal and external factors that will likely influence the performance of the project?
4. What lessons can be drawn on the performance of the previous cycle regarding GEWE, which are relevant to
the new project?
EFFICIENCY
1. What factors will likely impact the cost efficiency of the McGovern-Dole FY22 project?
SUSTAINABILITY
involved in the implementation of the NHGSFP and to what extent the project design provides for appropriate
actions to strengthen ownership and readiness?
programme?
COHERENCE
1. To what extent has the SFP sought complementarities, collaborations with other programmes? Can you give
some examples?
Appropriateness of indicators and targets
1. To what extent the indicators of McGovern-Dole 2023-2027 can be appropriately monitored and provide
sufficient information to measure progress? If not, why and what changes should be proposed?
2. What is your perception of the targets of the new project? Do you think they will be achieved? If not, why?
1. In your opinion, what would you suggest for corrections to improve the SfP for the next cycle?
c. GEWE objectives
d. Other
86
United Nations Agencies
OPENING AND ROLE
First of all, what is your relationship to, or the way you are connected to, this McGovern-Dole SFP? What is your role?
How long have you been involved?
RELEVANCE
1. What have been the main changes in the policy framework since 2019, regarding school feeding, primary
education, health and nutrition and gender?
2. What have been the main institutional changes since 2019, regarding school feeding, primary education,
health and nutrition, and gender?
3. To what extent the new McGovern-Dole project has evolved to adapt to the context evolution since 2019,
including policy and institutional changes? How the project could be better aligned to the government
priorities?
SUSTAINABILITY
involved in the implementation of the NHGSFP and to what extent the project design provides for appropriate
actions to strengthen ownership and readiness?
programme?

COHERENCE
1. What is your agency’s involvement in school feeding, primary education, health and nutrition? Are there any
complementarities/synergies of this work with WFP and/or the HGSF programme?
2. How complementarities/synergies could be further developed?
1. In your opinion, what would you suggest for corrections to improve the SFP for the next cycle?
c. GEWE objectives
d. Other
87
Annex 14: Evaluation Reference Group
Purpose and role: The evaluation reference group (ERG) is an advisory group providing advice and feedback to
the evaluation manager and the evaluation team at key moments during the evaluation process. It is established
during the preparatory stage of the evaluation and is mandatory for all decentralized evaluations.
The overall purpose of the evaluation reference group is to contribute to the credibility, utility and impartiality
of the evaluation. For this purpose, its composition and role are guided by the following principles:
 Transparency: Keeping relevant stakeholders engaged and informed during key steps ensures
transparency throughout the evaluation process
 Ownership and Use: Stakeholders’ participation enhances ownership of the evaluation process and
products, which in turn may impact on its use
 Accuracy: Feedback from stakeholders at key steps of the preparatory, data collection and reporting
phases contributes to accuracy of the facts and figures reported in the evaluation and of its analysis.
Members are expected to review and comment on draft evaluation deliverables and share relevant insights at
key consultation points of the evaluation process.
The main roles of the evaluation reference group are as follows:
 Review and comment on the draft ToR
 Suggest key references and data sources in their area of expertise
 Participate in face-to-face or virtual briefings to the evaluation team during the inception phase and/or
evaluation phase
 Review and comment on the draft inception report
 Participate in field debriefings (optional)
 Review and comment on the draft evaluation report and related annexes, with a particular focus on: a)
factual errors and/or omissions that could invalidate the findings or change the conclusions; b) issues of
political sensitivity that need to be refined in the way they are addressed or in the language used; c)
recommendations
 Participate in learning workshops to validate findings and discuss recommendations
 Provide guidance on suggested communications products to disseminate learning from the evaluation.
88
Membership of the ERG (May 2023)
Country Office
 Fumitsugu Tosu, Head of Programme (SO Lead): Chair, at [email protected]
 Bunthang Chhe, Programme Policy Officer (M&E); as technical officer; at [email protected]
 Benjamin Scholz, Head of RAM; at [email protected]
 Noah Makokha, M&E officer; as Evaluation Manager; at [email protected]
 Yohan Chambaud, Programme Officer (education); at [email protected]
 Sokunvatanak Sek, Programme Support Assistant; at [email protected]
 Nisith Um, head of Field Operations at [email protected]
 Yav Long, Programme Policy Officer (VAM); at [email protected]
 Jyoti Felix, Programme Policy Officer (Nutrition); at [email protected]
 Sanramith Sam, Accountability and Inclusion officer; at [email protected]
Regional Bureau (RBB)
 Mari Honjo; Regional Evaluation Officer at [email protected]
 Sophia Dunn; Regional School Feeding Programme Policy Consultant; at [email protected]
 Stuart Coupe; Regional Evaluation Officer at [email protected]
Headquarters (HQ)
 Anna Hamilton, Evaluation Officer - School based Programme, [email protected]
Royal Government of Cambodia
 H.E. San Vathana, Under Secretary of State, MoEYS; at san.vathana @MoEYS.gov.kh
 H.E. Put Samith, Director General, MoEYS; at [email protected]
 H.E. Chan Sophea, Director, MoEYS; at [email protected]
 Mr. Ven Thol, Deputy Director, MoEYS; at [email protected]
Cooperating Partners
 World Vision: Ravuth at [email protected]
 Plan International: Hang Hybunna at [email protected]
 World Education: Chanmony Ung at [email protected]
Donor – USDA
 Ellie Morefield ([email protected])
 Bobbi Kraham ([email protected]).
89
Annex 15: Evaluation Committee
Purpose and role: The purpose of the evaluation committee (EC) is to ensure a credible, transparent, impartial
and quality evaluation in accordance with WFP evaluation policy. It will achieve this by supporting the
evaluation manager in making decisions, reviewing draft deliverables (ToR, inception report and evaluation
report) and submitting them for approval by the Country Director/Deputy Country Director (CD/DCD) who will
be the chair of the committee.
According to the Country Office Memorandum (WFP/CAM/21), “Evaluation Committee for Decentralised
Evaluations”, the following are the members of the Evaluation Committee for the McGovern-Dole 2022-2027
Project.
USDA McGovern-Dole project:
1. Claire Conan, Country Director: Chair, at [email protected]

2. Noah Makokha, M&E officer; as Evaluation Manager; at [email protected]
3. Benjamin Scholz, Head of RAM; [email protected]
4. Bunthang Chhe, Programme Policy Officer (M&E); as technical officer; at [email protected]
5. Kannitha Kong, Programme Policy Officer (education); at [email protected]
6. Annalisa Noak, Programme Policy Officer (nutrition and foods systems); at [email protected]
7. Nisith Um, head of Field Operations at [email protected]
8. Sokheng Leng, Procurement officer; [email protected]
WFP Regional Bureau and Headquarters
9. Mari Honjo; Regional Evaluation Officer; at [email protected]
90
Annex 16: Proposed modifications to midterm and endline evaluation questions
Midterm ToR Questions Midterm proposed adjustments Endline ToR questions Endline proposed adjustments
Relevance
1. How relevant is the project design in 1. To what extent the project design has 1. How is relevant is the project design in 1. To what extent the project design has
contributing towards a sustainable, remained relevant in contributing towards a contributing towards a sustainable, effective remained relevant in contributing towards a
effective implementation of the sustainable, effective implementation of the implementation of the NHGSFP vis à vis the sustainable, effective implementation of the
NHGSFP vis à vis the government NHGSFP vis à vis the government readiness government readiness and capacities to NHGSFP vis à vis the government readiness
readiness and capacities to manage and capacities to manage the NHGSFP? manage the NHGSFP? and capacities to manage the NHGSFP?
the NHGSFP? Already covered at baseline. Focus on Already covered at baseline. Focus on
changes since baseline. changes since baseline and midterm
2. To what extent was the project 2. What have been the main policy changes 2. To what extent was the project aligned to the 2. What have been the main policy changes
aligned to the overall policies, relevant to the project since baseline and to overall policies, strategies and normative relevant to the project since baseline and
strategies and normative guidance of what extent the project has remained aligned guidance of institutions with supporting role for midterm evaluation and to what extent the
institutions with supporting role for with key policies and strategies, including on the NHGSFP, such as MAFF and MoH? project has remained aligned with key policies
the NHGSFP, such as MAFF and MoH? gender? and strategies, including on gender?
Already covered at baseline. Focus on Already covered at baseline. Focus on
changes since baseline. changes since baseline and midterm.
3. How relevant were the school 3. How relevant were the school readiness 3. How relevant were the school readiness 3. How relevant were the school readiness
readiness criteria in facilitating an criteria in facilitating an effective handover of criteria in facilitating an effective handover of criteria in facilitating an effective handover of
effective handover of schools? schools? schools? schools?
No change No change
4. To what extent has data from Removed: as it is conceived to date, the 4. How relevant is the project’s complaint Removed and replaced by a question on
project monitoring and complaint complaint and feedback mechanism only feedback mechanism in sustainably ensuring WFP effectiveness to promote the inclusion
feedback mechanism been utilized to applies to WFP direct assistance and is not that the needs of the target beneficiaries (girls, of a gender approach in the NHGSF
improve project relevance throughout relevant to the transition process boys, men, women in target areas) are met? programme.
the project?
91
Midterm ToR Questions Midterm proposed Endline ToR questions Endline proposed
adjustments adjustments
Effectiveness
1. To what extent did the project in target 1. What are the performances of the 1. To what extent did the project in target schools, which 1. What are the performances of
schools, including both the schools receiving project in both WFP managed and were all progressively transitioned into the NHGSFP over the the project in handed over
WFP and NGO partners’ direct implementation already handed over schools in project timeframe, enhance the literacy and school schools in enhancing the literacy
(cohort 1) and 85 schools that were handed enhancing the literacy and health/nutrition outcomes (MGD Strategic Objectives 1 and and health/nutrition outcomes
over in year 2 (cohort 2), enhance the literacy health/nutrition outcomes (MG SO1 2)? (MG SO1 and 2)? Are there any
and school health/nutrition outcomes (MGD SO and 2)? Are there any differences - How did the results differ across all four cohorts and why? differences between the schools
1 and 2) between the schools assisted by How did the schools’ readiness level according to the handed over at different
- How did the results differ between cohort 1 WFP and already handed over and handover criteria as defined by WFP (experience in running moments and among girls, boys,
and 2 and why? among girls, boys, men, women and HGSF, infrastructure, equipment) influence results, if at all? men, women and vulnerable
- What were the differences in results for vulnerable groups, and why? What were other variables (socio-demographic, quality of groups, and why?
various beneficiary groups and by type of Modified for more clarity. implementation, external factors, etc.) that influenced the Modified for more clarity.
activity? How did gender GEWE outcomes vary results either positively or negatively?
by stakeholder group? - What were the difference in results for various beneficiary
groups and by type of activity? How did GEWE outcomes vary
by stakeholder group?
2. To what extent did the transition to the 2. What are the performances of the 2. To what extent did the transition to the NHGSFP, including 2. What are the performances of
NHGSFP, including the activities to enhance the project in supporting the transition the activities to enhance the five SABER pillars through WFP the project in supporting the
five SABER pillars through WFP technical strategy? Have schools been handed technical assistance implemented under the project’s transition strategy? Have schools
assistance implemented under the project’s over as planned and if not, why? Foundational Results, contribute to the government’s capacity been handed over as planned
Foundational Results, contribute to the What are the results achieved on the to run the national programme effectively and sustainably? and if not, why? What are the
government’s capacity to run the national five pillars of SABER? To what extent Review the effectiveness of all five pillars of SABER, including: results achieved on the five
programme effectively and sustainably? GEWE is mainstreamed in the - Capacity for design and implementation of NHGSFP: To pillars of SABER? To what extent
In view of the SABER assessment findings, what NHGSF programme? what extent do stakeholders at national, subnational level GEWE is mainstreamed in the
preliminary results were achieved in each of the Modified for more clarity. have the capacities to manage, supervise and monitor the NHGSF programme?
five dimensions? NHGSFP after handover? Modified for more clarity.
What factors influenced the results positively or - Inter-ministerial coordination: To what extent is there
negatively? cooperation between necessary government ministries and
public programmes to successfully run and sustain the
NHGSFP?
- Policy and budget: Are there a national-level policy and
budget to effectively run the NHGSFP? Why or why not?
- Community engagement: To what extent has NHGSFP been
successful in engaging national stakeholders and local
communities (PTAs, farmers groups, etc) towards school
feeding activities? Has the role of the communities and local
stakeholders been institutionalized?
92
Midterm ToR Questions Midterm proposed adjustments Endline ToR questions Endline proposed
adjustments
Effectiveness (continued)
3. To what extent has progress been Removed as already covered by question 2
made on the overall handover process
against the project plan and Transition
Strategy agreed with and endorsed by
the Government? Were the capacity
needs, gaps and priorities at the
national and sub-national levels clearly
identified and addressed by the
project’s Capacity Strengthening
activities?
4. What are the mid-course Removed: the identification of necessary 3. What implementing and
corrections to improve project corrections to improve the project context factors have supported
effectiveness in terms of i) activities effectiveness is included in the or affected the implementation
that provide support directly to evaluation’s objectives and applied to all and achievements of the project
schools, ii) handover process, iii) evaluation criteria. Replaced by a question for the 2 SOs and foundational
technical assistance to the NHGSFP? on the factors that have supported or results, including the
affected the effectiveness. achievements on GEWE??
3. What implementing and context factors
have supported or affected the
implementation and achievements of the
project for the 2 SOs and foundational results,
including the achievements on GEWE?
Efficiency
1. Were the activities undertaken as 1. Were the activities undertaken as part of 1. Were the activities undertaken as part of 1. Were the activities undertaken as part of
part of Local Regional Procurement Local Regional Procurement cost-efficient Local Regional Procurement cost-efficient Local Regional Procurement cost-efficient
cost-efficient compared to compared to international procurement of compared to international procurement of compared to international procurement of
international procurement of commodities? commodities? commodities?
commodities? No change No change
2. What factors impacted the cost 2. What factors impacted the cost efficiency of 2. What factors impacted the cost efficiency of 2. What factors impacted the cost efficiency of
efficiency of the project the project implementation? the project implementation? What are the the project implementation? To what extent
implementation? What measures can Removed the second question as the lessons learned that can be applied to improve the NHGSFP is based on a cost-efficient
improve the efficiency for the identifications of measures/corrections is the efficiency of NHGSFP in the future? procurement model?
remaining implementation period? included in the objectives of the Reformulated the second question for
evaluation. more clarity.
93
Coherence
1. To what extent has the project Removed: The issue of participation of 1. How coherent were the interventions carried Removed: The issue of participation of
sought complementarities with the government institutions in the MHGSFP is out by the different ministries that contributed government institutions in the MHGSFP is
priorities and systems of different addressed under effectiveness question 2. towards a successful NHGSFP? What are the addressed under effectiveness question 2.
governing bodies relevant to the factors that influenced positively and negatively
NHGSFP? What are the factors that the synergies and interlinkages?
influenced positively and negatively
the synergies and interlinkages?
2. To what extent has the project 1. To what extent has the project sought 2. To what extent has the project sought 1. To what extent has the project sought
sought complementarities with other complementarities with other donor-funded complementarities with other donor-funded complementarities with other donor-funded
donor-funded initiatives, as well as initiatives, as well as initiatives of initiatives, as well as initiatives of humanitarian initiatives, as well as initiatives of
initiatives of humanitarian and humanitarian and development partners and development partners operational in the humanitarian and development partners
development partners operational in operational in the country? country? operational in the country?
the country? No change No change
Impact
NA No change 1. To what extent has the project achieved the intended 1. What is the expected or already observed impact, intended
and unintended impacts, both positive and negative? and unintended, positive and negative of MGD projects and
What effect has the project made on beneficiaries, the NHGSF programme on beneficiaries, schools,
schools, communities, and government partners in communities, institutions, in particular on the development
target areas? What were the particular features of the of human capital, on the local economy and on GEWE?
program and context that made a difference? Integrated the three questions on impact in one as it
would be difficult to isolate the impact of the project
from the impact of the NHGSF programme. Added impact
in GEWE,
2. What is the potential future impact of a sustained Integrated to question 1
National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme
(NHGSFP) to the development of human capital and the
local economy of Cambodia based on evidence so far?
Which particular features of this project should be
incorporated/strengthened in the NHGSFP to ensure
sustainability?
3. To what extent has the project had an effect on the Integrated to question 1
local economy and the development of human capital
in Cambodia?
94
Sustainability
1. What were the key factors that contributed to 1. What is the level of ownership and 1. Based on available evidence, to what 1. What are the perspectives of continuity
or hindered a successful ownership and participation of all relevant stakeholders extent were the benefits (literacy, school after the full hand over to the government of
readiness in schools, communities, and relevant (government, communities, schools, health, nutrition and others) of the NHGSFP the activities and processes supported by the
government departments involved in the farmer, etc.) vis à vis the NHGSF likely to continue beyond the scope of the project, and their respective benefit, including
implementation of the NHGSFP (MoEYS, MoH, programme? project timeline? Which particular features on GEWE?
MAFF, etc.)? Rather than starting with the factors of this project should be Simplified the question for more clarity
that have influenced the ownership, incorporated/strengthened in the National
it is proposed to first assess the level Home-Grown School Feeding Programme
of ownership. (NHGSFP) to ensure sustainability?
2. What roles did the different stakeholders of 2. What other factors may affect the 2. What are the prospects of the national 2. What achievements have been made on the
the NHGSFP (students, teachers, school staff, sustainability of the NHGSF programme school feeding programme expanding to 5 pillars of SABER? What are the remaining
communities, relevant ministries at national and and the achievements of the project? nationwide coverage? capacity gaps for each pillar and to what
subnational level) play in the institutionalization Broader question on the factors that extent they can affect the sustainability of the
of NHGSFP? may affect the sustainability instead NHGSF programme?
of two questions (1 and 3) Added this question as there was no
question on the progress on SABER pillars
despite them defining a sustainable school
feeding programme
3. What factors influenced the results positively No change 3. What were the key factors that 3. What are the prospects of the national
or negatively? (USDA Learning Agenda questions contributed to or hindered a successful school feeding programme expanding to
will be explored as below): readiness and ownership in schools, nationwide coverage?
- What were the key institutions and governance communities, and relevant government No change
structures required to effectively deliver, departments involved in the
implement, and sustain school meal implementation of the NHGSFP (MoEYS,
interventions? What relationship structures MoH, MAFF, etc.)?
among these institutions yielded the most
successful and effective school meal
programmes?
- What were the most successful policies
affecting the success of school meal
programmes? What were the necessary
conditions for these policies to be implemented
and to be effective?
- What types of incentives were the most
effective at securing local or national
government investment into school meal
programmes? What were the barriers and
challenges in securing investment?
95
Sustainability (continued)
4. What roles did students, teachers, school 4. What is the level of ownership and
staff and the communities play in participation of all relevant stakeholders
institutionalization of NHGSFP? (government, communities, schools, farmer,
etc.) vis à vis the NHGSF programme? What
other factors can affect the sustainability of
the NHGSF programme?
5. For the NHGSFP to run sustainably, is Removed: this is an implied
there a continued need for WFP’s technical recommendation. Recommendations will
assistance to the Government beyond the come naturally from the findings on
project timeline? In which areas is the sustainability of the NHGSF programme
support needed?
6. To what extent does the home-grown Removed: this question lacks clarity
school feeding model contribute towards
the sustainability of the NHGSFP?
7. What factors influenced the results 7. What factors influenced the results
positively or negatively? (USDA Learning positively or negatively? (USDA Learning
Agenda questions will be explored as Agenda questions will be explored as below):
As above No change below): - What were the key institutions and
- What were the key institutions and governance structures required to effectively
governance structures required to deliver, implement, and sustain school meal
effectively deliver, implement, and sustain interventions? What relationship structures
school meal interventions? What among these institutions yielded the most
relationship structures among these successful and effective school meal
institutions yielded the most successful and programmes?
effective school meal programmes? - What were the most successful policies
- What were the most successful policies affecting the success of school meal
affecting the success of school meal programmes? What were the necessary
programmes? What were the necessary conditions for these policies to be
conditions for these policies to be implemented and to be effective?
implemented and to be effective? What types of incentives were the most
What types of incentives were the most effective at securing local or national
effective at securing local or national government investment into school meal
government investment into school meal programmes? What were the barriers and
programmes? What were the barriers and challenges in securing investment?
challenges in securing investment? No change
96
Annex 17: Methodological considerations for the FY22 cycle survey analyses
In order to maximize the simplicity and comparability with the evaluation results from the previous cycle, the
survey analysis conducted for this baseline did not use cluster weights (i.e. schools were not weighted
depending on their size). Nevertheless, the analysis did take into account the fact that the sample design is a 2-
step cluster design and not just a simple random household sample. Other methodological considerations are
summarized in the below table.
Methodological considerations for FY22 cycle survey analyses

ISSUE UNDERTAKEN MEASURES CONSEQUENCES
Sample design is a 2-step We use the R Survey Package (and srvyr This might lead to slightly
cluster sample design and wrapper) to produce survey estimates different results between the
not a simple random 2019-2023 endline and the 2023-
sample 2028 baseline.
School sizes vary from one School sizes will not be used as Small schools will be as likely to
another weighting for the probability to select be drawn in midline and endline
schools samples as big schools will. This
ensures smaller and more
isolated schools are just as likely
to be drawn in the sample as any
other school
School sizes vary from one School sizes are not used as weighting This may affect the accuracy of
another for calculation of survey estimates certain survey estimates, but they
will be comparable with estimates
from the previous cycle, as the
same methodology is applied in
this sense
Province sizes vary from This is already considered at baseline Each group sample will be
one another and in the previous cycle, because balanced by province, following
sampling is proportional to province the same methodology as in the
size. This will also be taken into account previous cycle.
in the new cycle. A sample that is
stratified by province and proportional
to province size will be applied drawn
separately for each group of the analysis
model (namely, “handed over more than
2 years ago” vs “not handed over or
handed over a year ago”
97
Annex 18: Acronyms
ACR Annual country report

CARD Council for Agricultural and Rural Development
COVID-19 Coronavirus disease
CO Country Office
CCS Country capacity strengthening
CSP Country Strategic Plan
DCPS Development Cooperation and Partnership Strategy
DEQAS Decentralized evaluation quality assurance system
DHS Demographic Health Survey
DOE District office of education
EC Evaluation Committee
EGL Early grade literacy
EGR(A) Early grade reading (assessment)
EMIS Education Management Information System
EoC End of cycle
ER Evaluation report
ERG Evaluation reference group
ESP Education strategic plan
ET Evaluation team
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FFE Food for education
FY Fiscal year
FGD Focus group discussion
GDI Gender development index
GDP Gross domestic product
GEWE Gender equality and women’s empowerment
GII Gender inequality index
HDI Human Development Index
HGSF Home-grown school feeding
HQ Headquarters
IR Inception Report
JTS Joint Transition Strategy
kg kilogramme
KCG Kampong Chhnang province
KHR Cambodian riel (currency)
KII Key informant interviews
KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency
KRKC Komar Rien Komar Cheh (“Students Learn, Students Know”)
KTM Kampong Thom province
LoP Life of project
LRP Local and Regional Procurement
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MDG(s) Millennium Development Goals
MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MoH Ministry of Health
98
MoI Ministry of Interior
MoM month-on-month
MoP Ministry of Planning
MoSAVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation
MoWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs
mt metric tonne
NGO Non-governmental organization
NHGSFP National home-grown school feeding programme
NSFSN The National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition
NSPC National Social Protection Council
NSPPF National Social Protection Policy Framework
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance
Committee
OEV Office of Evaluation (WFP)
PDM post-distribution monitoring
POE Provincial Office of Education
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
QA Quality assurance
RBB Regional Bureau Bangkok (WFP)
RF Results framework
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SABER-SF Systems Approach for Better Education Results - School Feeding
SDG(s) Sustainable development goal(s)
SF(P) School feeding (programme)
SFIS School Feeding Information System
SFTF School feeding task force
SMP School meals programme
SO Strategic objective
SRP Siem Reap province
SY School year
THR Take home ration
ToC Theory of change
ToR Terms of reference
UNDP The United Nations Development Programme
UNEG The United Nations Evaluation Group
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF The United Nations Children's Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
US$ United States Dollar (currency)
WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
YoY year-on-year
99
https://www.wfp.org/countries/cambodia
World Food Programme

Via Cesare Giulio Viola 68/70
00148 Rome, Italy
T +39 06 65131 wfp.org

WFP 0000155796

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WFP 0000155796

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

WFP 0000155796

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WFP EVALUATION

Baseline Activity Study of USDA

Decentralized Evaluation – Baseline Report

Evaluation reference DE/KHCO/2023/016

Prepared by the KonTerra Group

Martin Fisher The KonTerra Group

Jeffery H. Marshall Education Specialist

Covadonga Canteli Statistician / Analyst

Chandara Gnim National Evaluator

Sovith Sin National Evaluator

Damayanti Soekarjo Advisor

Front page picture:

Children at a school in Kampong Thom province enjoying their school breakfast

(Photo: Chandara Gnim, June 2023)

September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] iv

September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] v

5 Gender equality and women’s empowerment

September 2023|McGovern-Dole SFP Cambodia – FY22 Baseline study Report [DE/KHCO/2023/016] vi

- Strengthen the integration of GEWE with explicit references everywhere relevant.

1.1. Evaluation features

5. The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

60 UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) data (http://data.uis.unesco.org/#).

82 WFP-UNFPA-UN Women-UNAIDS-UNICEF. COVID-19 Socio-economic impact assessment. July 2021

2. Subject of the baseline, theory of

92 SDG tracker data: https://sdg-tracker.org/zero-hunger

Main Activities Beneficiaries

99 WFP Gender Policy 2022. https://executiveboard.wfp.org/document_download/WFP-0000135898

Table 2: Project Budget (in US dollars)

2.2. Evaluation questions and evaluation criteria

62. The baseline study has answered four general questions:

3. Evaluation approach and

3.2. Baseline data collection methods and tools

3.4. Quality assurance of the baseline data collection and deliverables

3.5. Ethical considerations

112 Standard Indicator (SI) 8, SI 9, SI 18 and SI 27.

FY19 Baseline FY22 Baseline

Source: World Education EGRA report

Outcome 1.1: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction.

131 World Education monitoring report summary, 2023.

137 According to the FY19 endline.

Outcome 1.2: Improved Attentiveness.

90.0 87.0 85.0

FY19 Baseline FY22 Baseline

Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys

2019 Basel ine 2023 endline

Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys

Outcome 1.3.: Improved Attendance

Outcome 2.1.: Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene practices

Outcome 2.3.: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition

Schools with vegetable garden Schools with rehabilitated vegetable gardens

Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys.

Outcome 2.5: Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions

Average number of drilled wells per school 1.7 1.3

FY19 baseline FY22 baseline

Source: FY19 baseline and endline surveys.

Table 8: Foundational results: expected outcomes and activities

146 KII interviews with WFP and World Education.

149 MoEYS, 2023. GPE 2025 Partnership Compact.

4.4.2. Midterm and endline quantitative approach