This report is the endline evaluation of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
McGovern-Dole Grant Food for Education programme implemented by World Food Programme (WFP) and partners in Cambodia (FY 2017-2019) (FFE-442-2016/015-00). This activity evaluation is commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) and is based on the Terms of Reference provided by WFP Cambodia (Annex 1). The endline evaluation covers the period from September 2016 to August 2019. The McGovern-Dole programme is a continuation of the previous phase (2013-2016), which was itself a continuation of support from 2010. The programme is implemented in three provinces of Cambodia: Battambang (BTB), Siem Reap (SRP) and Kampong Thom (KTM) all of which received support in the previous phase of the programme.
The purpose of the endline evaluation is to critically and objectively review the programme implementation since the 2017 baseline to assess whether targeted beneficiaries received services as expected, while assessing whether the project met its stated goals and objectives. The main objectives of the evaluation are:
• Accountability: To assess and report on the performance and results of all the McGovern-Dole grant funded activities as per the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).
• Learning: To determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not, to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will also provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making.
The main expected users for this evaluation report include USDA, the CO, its main implementing partner the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) and the other implementing partners World Vision (WV), Plan International (Plan), World Education Incorporated (WEI) and Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE).
As per the original design of the programme, during 2017-2019 WFP has continued to hand over the McGovern-Dole programme to the MoEYS as per the Roadmap of 2015, with a view to ensuring national ownership of the programme by 2021. This transition included moving away from the traditional school meals comprised mainly of USDA donated commodities, to a Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model, including using a HGSF-hybrid model, using both locally purchased and externally sourced food. WFP is also reducing WFP’s THR activities as planned as the government takes them over.
Cambodia has improved primary school enrolment and attendance in recent years and reducing gender disparities in education. The main challenge now is primary school completion.
Although both repetition and dropout rates have steadily declined in the last five years,1 they remain a key concern to MoEYS. Food security and undernutrition also remain important public health concerns, with a recent study finding that the overall dietary intake of school children did not meet the local recommended dietary allowances.
Methodology 6. The evaluation was designed to assess the 2017-2019 McGovern-Dole programme against each of the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, with a focus on effectiveness, impact and sustainability since this is an endline evaluation. The planned transition to government ownership means that this evaluation has a strong focus on the sustainability aspect to see whether the plans for government ownership are feasible. Similarly, the evaluation is interested in assessing the impact of the programme to provide evidence to the government that school feeding is a worthwhile investment.
The evaluation was designed to answer four main questions: How appropriate is the programme?
What are the results of the programme? How and why has the programme achieved its results? And how sustainable is the programme?
- In order to respond to these questions, the evaluation used a theory-based, gender-responsive and participatory approach, the same as used during the 2017 baseline. The evaluation design is quasi-experimental case-control (comparison) as per the baseline. The evaluation methodology used mixed methods, including secondary document review, qualitative interviews and focus group discussions with a range of stakeholders, and a quantitative endline survey to enable comparison of results against the baseline. The evaluation was conducted during July-August 2019