Impact evaluation of HOME-GROWN SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAMMES Methodological guidelines
School feeding programmes (SFP) are among the most common forms of social protection, reaching about 368 million children daily, for a global investment of United States Dollars(USD) 70 billion per year (World Food Programme [WFP], 2013). SFPs, including school meals or food rations to take home, aim to increase human capital investments in school-agedchildren by improving educational outcomes such as school attendance, completion and learning, and enhancing health and nutritional status. Home-grown school feeding (HGSF) initiatives standout for linking SFP to agriculture development using food that is produced and purchased within the country. The overall goal of linking SFP to agriculture development – particularly to local smallscale production – is to reduce rural poverty by developing markets, generate a regular and reliable source of income for smallholder farmers, and provide support to overcoming barriers that prevent farmers from enhancing productivity.
In this note, we mostly focus on the agricultural goals, as this is the area where the largest knowledge gaps remain. Although we provide general indications for evaluating programme impact on all beneficiary groups involved, including schoolgoing children, we mostly focus on the methodological challenges related to the estimation of the effects of HGSF interventions on farmers. Specifically, for these guidelines, we emphasize practical differences in evaluation focusing on two main food procurement modalities: a decentralized model where each school procures food from (smallholder) producers living in school catchment areas, and a more centralized model in which procurement occurs centrally or at district level.1, 2 These are very common operating models for school food procurement. However, in practice, HGSF programmes can be implemented in many ways, and food procurement systems that combine elements from both schemes are frequently encountered.
The present guidelines provide practical answers to the following overarching questions:
What is the rationale behind HGSF programmes? What are the main challenges in designing
rigorous evaluations for HGSF programmes? What are the differences, when performing HGSF
evaluations, between decentralized and centralized food procurement models?
What is the theory of change behind HGSF? How do school meals and public food procurement
affect beneficiaries in terms of nutrition and education for school children, and in terms of
farm production, agricultural profits, and increased income for farmers? What is the role of
“supporting factors” and of “contexts or structural mechanisms” in understanding the success or
failure of the programmes?
How can an adequate research design be selected to conduct an impact evaluation of HGSF?
What are the most common experimental and non-experimental evaluation designs that can be
implemented? How can these techniques be adapted to specific characteristics and to the food
procurement model adopted by the HGSF programme?
What are the benefits of implementing a mixed method impact evaluation? How does qualitative
analysis enhance quantitative findings and strengthen impact evaluation findings?
What main principles, approaches, and methods are employed when undertaking qualitative
analysis as part of a mixed methods impact evaluation?
What are the most suitable sampling strategies in face of different food procurement models?
What are the outcomes to be measured to assess programme effects?
What are the implications of external validity for the results of the evaluation?
