(2018) Rapport final d'évaluation de l'activité pilote d'alimentation scolaire par voucher (VSFP)

Photo 1 Source: Friends of Paradis des Indiens, Haiti VOUCHER SCHOOL FEEDING PILOT (VSFP) ACTIVITY FINAL EVALU ATION REPORT AUGUST 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Gladys Mayard (Team Lead), Amy Porter, Wesner Antoine, Louisena Louis, and Jennifer Mandel, for Social Impact’s Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services Project. DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF VOUCHER SCHOOL FEEDING PILOT (VSFP) ACTIVITY FINAL EVALUATION REPORT AUGUST 2018 Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-521-C-17-00002 Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services for USAID/Haiti USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | i ABSTRACT The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti Voucher School Feeding Pilot (VSFP) Activity supports school canteens in Abricot providing two nutritionally balanced meals daily at Fondation Paradis Des Indiens (FPDI) supported schools. This evaluation answers three evaluation questions (EQs), regarding VSFP’s influence on parents’ school enrollment decision (EQ1), the probable impacts of pilot discontinuity on enrollment (EQ2), and canteen sustainability after VSFP ends (EQ3). The evaluation team (ET) conducted a desk review, 17 key informant interviews, and 25 focus group discussions. Alongside school data on student enrollment, attendance, and performance, the ET used these multiple data sources to analyze and draw findings, conclusions, and recommendations about VSFP. For EQ1, the evaluation concluded that school canteens are closely connected to parents’ decision to enroll their children. Other motivating factors include low tuition and education quality. However, for the most vulnerable, canteens factor significantly into families’ economic and livelihood decisions. For EQ2, the ET concluded that the canteen has a clear impact on attendance. Whether or not a child eats at school factors strongly into parents’ decisions about how frequently children go to school, and motivates students to arrive before school, and stay throughout the day. Overall, the ET found that school attendance frequency would decline if VSFP ends. For EQ3, stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities after VSFP. FPDI is actively seeking support for VSFP’s continuation, however, area families face difficult economic situations, limiting most community stakeholders’ ability to materially contribute to ensure program continuity. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. i Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................................... ii List of tables and figures .................................................................................................................................................. iii Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Activity Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Purpose and Questions ........................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Design, Methods, and Challenges .......................................................................................................... 1 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Findings for EQ1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 ConclusionS for EQ1 ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Findings for EQ2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions for EQ2 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Findings for EQ3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions for EQ3 ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 5 VSFP Activity Background................................................................................................................................................ 7 Activity Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Theory of Change ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Background ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Purpose And audience ........................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Evaluation Team and Support Structure................................................................................................................ 10 Evaluation Methods and Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 11 Phase One: Planning ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Phase Two: Field Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 12 Key Informant Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Focus Group Discussions ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Phase Three: Data Processing and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 14 Challenges and Mitigation Strategies ...................................................................................................................... 15 Time and Geographical Challenges .................................................................................................................... 15 Behaviour Effect ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Overlap in respondent categories ...................................................................................................................... 15 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | iii Availability of Respondents .................................................................................................................................. 15 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 16 EQ1: To What Extent was the Decision to Send Children to School Influenced by VSFP? ..................... 16 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 EQ2: To What Extent Might the Frequency of School Attendance Change Once the Program Ends? 20 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 EQ3: Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the pilot’s period of performance? .......................................................................................................................... 22 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Annex A: Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Annex B: expected preliminary results .................................................................................................................. 30 Annex C: Documents consulted in Desk Review ............................................................................................... 31 Annex D: List of Schools ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Annex E: scope of work ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Evaluation Purpose and Questions .............................................................................................................................. 34 SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Description of the Problem and project background ............................................................................................. 34 EVALUATION QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................................ 35 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 35 DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 35 EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION .................................................................................................................... 36 EVALUATION SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................................................... 36 FINAL REPORT FORMAT ............................................................................................................................................ 37 CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ................................................... 37 Annex F: Evaluation Tools ........................................................................................................................................ 38 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: Overview of the VSFP Activity ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: VSFP Theory of Change .................................................................................................................................. 9 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | iv Figure 3: Data Collection Methods Used and Gender Breakdown ..................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Student Performance during Project Implementation ........................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Enrollment over the project life in sampled schools ............................................................................. 19 Figure 6: Attendance at VSFP Schools ........................................................................................................................ 20 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | v ACRONYMS ACRONYM MEANING ASEC Assemblée des Sections Communales CASEC Conseil Administration des Sections Communales DPSNAS Documents de Politique et Stratégie Nationales d'Alimentation Scolaire EQ Evaluation Question ESS Evaluation and Survey Services ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus Group Discussion FPDI Fondation Paradis des Indiens GOH Government of Haiti IFOS Institut de Formation du Sud IR Intermediary Results KII Key Informant Interview MENFP Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle NGO Non-Governmental Organization PNCS Programme National Cantine Scolaire PRRNU Plan Reduction des Risques Naturels en zone Urbaine SI Social Impact SOW Scope of Work TL Team Leader ToC Theory of Change UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund USAID United Agency for International Development VSFP Voucher School Feeding Pilot WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Program USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTIVITY SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti financed the Voucher School Feeding Pilot (VSFP) implemented by Fondation Paradis des Indiens (FPDI) under the contract amount of 1,767,145 US dollars to provide an alternative and improved approach to school feeding programs that minimizes the burden on school staff, while ensuring that poor students are provided with a nutritious snack and meal each school day. EVALUATION PURPOSE A ND QUESTIONS This final evaluation’s purpose is to inform future USAID/Haiti programing in school canteens. Specifically, the evaluation assessed to what extent VSFP made or is on a path to making positive contributions to students’ learning experience. The evaluation addressed the following evaluation questions (EQ’s): 1.To what extent was the decision to send children to school influenced by the VSFP activity? 2.To what extent might the frequency of school attendance change once the program ends? 3.Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? EVALUATION DESIGN, M ETHODS, AND CHALLENG ES To ensure the reliability and validity of findings, the evaluation used qualitative data collection methods to gather information from a diverse range of sources, providing strong evidence to answer the evaluation questions (EQ). The design included a desk review, 25 focus group discussions (FGDs), and 17 key informant interviews (KIIs). Data collection occurred within targeted schools across four communal sections of the municipality of Abricots. Seven out of nine schools operating the VSFP activity were selected using convenience sampling. The ET recorded responses from 209 individuals (98 women and 111 men). Respondents included key partners (FPDI), local governance authorities, Conseil de d'Administration de la Section Communale (CASEC), Assemblée de la Section Communale (ASEC), municipal officials; school staff (principals and teachers), local private food vendors, and parents. The primarily qualitative evaluation design meant that limitations were expected; such as, interviewer effects and the need to rely on informants’ availability and willingness to fully participate in KIIs and FGDs. To mitigate these limitations, the Evaluation Team (ET) applied a variety of methods (i.e., desk review; data on school enrollment, attendance, and performance; KIIs, and FGDs), to allow for data triangulation collection through the coding and analysis process, which increased the reliability and validity of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. FINDINGS AND CONCLUS IONS FINDINGS FOR EQ1 The ET found that school canteen presence contributes to parents’ motivation to enroll their children in school. Teachers and school principals confirmed that parents are attracted to the school canteen, stating that parents usually ask about the canteen while enrolling students. KIIs and FGDs with teachers, school principals, and parents all cited the correlation between the school’s feeding program and USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 2 parents’ decision to send their children to school. Substantiation of VSFP’s impact on enrollment decisions comes from school enrollment data collected throughout VSFP’s life cycle. The ET also drew on existing literature on VSFP to confirm the data collected during field work in Abricots. These multiple data sources triangulate our key finding that the VSFP activity had a significant impact on parents’ decision to send their children to school. Most parents interviewed in this study suffer economically, especially since Hurricane Matthew. Even knowing it is their duty to feed their children every morning before school, parents have limited economic capacity since Mathew destroyed the commune resources. They are forced to make difficult choices within their limited economic means. From FGDs, the ET found that appreciation for canteen increases with the number of children that parents have (up to four sometimes), and their poverty level. VSFP is well appreciated in this regard, and these benefits affect parents’ decision-making in terms of their children’s enrollment in school. For parents unable to feed their children, teachers and school directors described VSFP as being “like a gift from heaven” and “a relief.” The effect of VSFP’s nutritious and assorted meal provisions was recognized by many parents in their comments related to changes in their children’s health. Food quality has a positive impact on children’s health, according to parents. When a child receives a nutritious meal, there are positive outcomes in his or her health. Teachers and principals also reflected on VSFP’s contribution to student health, which they associated with student learning. It is important to note that the canteen was one of multiple reasons parents gave as to why they decided to enroll their children in a VSFP school. The FPDI schools also did not require parents to purchase school supplies (as other schools do) and charged fees that parents stated were lower than those at other schools. Additionally, FPDI schools were understood by parents to be of good quality. While teachers and school principals believe that school quality was parents’ primary motivation for school enrollment decisions, parents emphasized that the food provision could not be separated from quality education. To parents, food provision is a primary concern directly linked to any subsequent assumptions of educational quality. To a lesser extent, school proximity and extracurricular activities also factored into parents’ decision to enroll their children. These multiple factors must also be considered in school enrollment decisions. CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ1 The presence of a school canteen is closely connected to parents’ decision to enroll their children in school. Following Hurricane Mathew, parents in Abricots became more vulnerable and expressed appreciation for relief from the burden of feeding children before sending them to school. With the program, students eat regularly during school days, which improves their learning experience and school performance. There are several advantages of a school canteen, which influence parents’ enrollment decisions. The school canteen benefits parents, allowing them to save money on food, as well as students, allowing them to be fed and have a better day in school. Indirectly, VSFP also benefits teachers, whose classrooms are filled with more attentive students, and directors, who can proudly manage schools with improved student performance. School canteens are not the only factor that parents’ value when deciding to send their children to school. Other important factors include low tuition fees and education quality. However, for the most vulnerable parents, a school canteen factors significantly in their families’ economic and livelihood decisions. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 3 FINDINGS FOR EQ2 Multiple pieces of evidence assert both the impact that VSFP had on student attendance (and timeliness) and demonstrate how parents, teachers, principals, and others anticipate decreases in attendance frequency at VSFP’s end. Teachers and school principals confirmed that with VSFP, variation in the number of students attending class is greatly reduced. Regular attendance during VSFP is a marked difference from school attendance frequency before VSFP and, as will be detailed below, difficult to maintain without VSFP. As meals are served at a specific time, students arrive at school very early to avoid missing the first meal. The parents reported that the school canteen not only motivated students to go to school, but also to do so on time and stay for the anticipated second meal service. Parents are typically forced to choose between school and domestic or agricultural labor for their children. With VSFP, this equation shifts towards a preference for sending their children to school. Without VSFP, parents react differently, generally negatively, to sending their children to school if they will not be fed. Some parents reported that they would only send their children to school if food is available. Teachers concurred that students would only attend school when their parents have a way to feed them. Some male parents also reflected that without the assurance of food being provided, they would send their children to school irregularly. Finally, and relatedly, children’s health is expected to suffer if they are not able to receive food at school. This presents a cycle in which not having access to nutritious food increases the likelihood of a variety of illnesses, which, in turn, makes it less likely that a child (who is suffering) will attend school. Respondents described illnesses related to malnutrition suffered by their children prior to VSFP and anticipate these conditions may return if VSFP ends. CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ2 The canteen has a clear impact on attendance. It is a strong motivational factor for parents to send their children to school and for students to attend school on time and for the full duration. Overall, the ET found that school attendance frequency would decline if VSFP were to end. Additionally, benefits of timeliness, better student health, and academic improvements were expected to revert to their prior status. If the canteen ends, attendance frequency will be reduced, as parents may not send children to school on a regular basis and keep them home to help with domestic work or agricultural labor. Students’ performance at school will decrease and fewer students will advance to the next grade level. The ET concludes that there will be a significant decrease in school attendance frequency with VSFP’s end. FINDINGS FOR EQ3 The ET found that while FPDI leadership had successfully collaborated with international donors to ensure that the school feeding activity would continue, other stakeholders within the Abricots commune were not sure how to maintain the program: 21/25 FGDs with parents, teachers, vendors, and canteen supervisors found that stakeholders have not considered continuing school feeding activities beyond the program. At the time of fieldwork and analysis, the means to sustain VSFP beyond the period of performance was highly uncertain among those in the Abricots commune. The lack of action among parents, local authorities, teachers, and others reflects the current socio- economic situation in Abricots, rather than disinterest in seeing the program continue. Life in Abricots is very difficult, having worsened with Hurricane Mathew’s passage. The economic challenges respondents raised that led the ET to conclude that VSFP strongly impacts parents’ decision to send their children to school, and school attendance frequency, also means that parents and local community actors are generally unable to sustain VSFP without external support. Various stakeholders reflected on their capacity to support the Activity’s continuation and their suggestions for maintaining the program: USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 4 PARENTS While both male and female parents noted a willingness to support the program, offering, for example, to provide products from their own gardens, they also emphasized that they had little themselves and were materially unable to support the program. FPDI FPDI officials think that parents should work with them to see how to continue the program, due to the activity’s importance and impact on children’s education. Officials added that they also plan to contact various foundation partners, to see what other strategies they might be able to adopt to allow them to continue the meal program at its current level (a snack and a meal each school day). Securing FPDI partnerships outside the community Negotiations and activities intended to ensure continued program funding from outside the Abricots commune were undertaken by FPDI leadership, USAID, and several international donor organizations. The ET learned about these activities through USAID: stakeholders in the Abricots commune either did not know about, or chose not to disclose, these potential funding sources to the ET. After fieldwork and analysis, the ET learned from USAID that efforts to engage actors outside the Abricots community had been successful. FPDI received funds from Swiss NGO HEKS-EPER, to support its nine schools from February 2019 to June 2020. USAID will support a no cost extension bridge funding for FPDI school feeding activities through fall 2018, so that there will be no gap in services for students served by the school feeding activity. Additionally, HEKS-EPER will finance school feeding programs following the VSFP activity model in 16 remote localities across the communes of Jérémie and Roseaux, in addition to FPDI schools in the Abricots commune. SCHOOL PERSONNEL School personnel such as teachers, principals, and canteen supervisors declared that they could do nothing to materially support the Activity’s continuation. The ET also found that improving program sustainability will require that key stakeholders, including teachers, feel that their interests are being considered within the school feeding program’s design. CATERERS In line with other stakeholders’ comments, caterers believe that the activity is important and has contributed greatly to relieving the parents’ heavy burden and helping children progress in school. However, food vendors felt that local actors should not be relied upon to make this activity permanent. LOCAL AUTHORITIES Abricots’ local authorities shared parents’ and food vendors’ opinions as well. The only way for them to contribute to the activity’s sustainability is by offering technical support, such as advice during meetings aimed at highlighting new strategies to be adopted in VSFP. SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH IMPROVED EFFICIENCIES Parents and school officials noted that strengthening food distribution supervision, possibly through a committee of parents, students, teachers, and school directors would help to improve the current VSFP. Their responses point to potential inefficiencies in the pilot’s existing operational structure that could be resolved to reduce costs – making the program sustainable with lower funding requirements. Improving efficiencies might also increase stakeholder support for the activity, especially among teachers who seemed, at times, displeased at being left out of the pilot’s design and implementation. Multiple stakeholders suggested that raising awareness about VSFP and sharing successes with parents, agriculture producers, and the local community was also a potential way to build support for this type of activity. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 5 CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ3 Based on the above findings, FPDI staff, with the support of actors outside Abricot, including USAID and Swiss NGO HEKS_EPER were able to ensure that school feeding activities would continue beyond the pilot’s period of performance. However, Abricots commune members with whom the ET conducted research did not disclose or make statements to indicate that they were aware of the high-level efforts undertaken by USAID to secure funding from outside the commune. Financial support from outside the commune was critical, as other stakeholders within the Abricots commune believed that the difficult economic situation that families in the area were facing would not allow them to contribute to the continuation of the activity. RECOMMENDATIONS To build upon gains, address the shortcomings of VSFP performance, and ensure sustainability, the ET offers the following three recommendations: First, considering the successes of VSFP in Abricots, per the conclusions related to EQ1 and EQ2, the ET recommends that VSFP be continued in Abricots and possibly expanded to the Grande Anse and/or South departments. These neighboring communities, with similar demographics, would also benefit from this type of school canteen program. Hurricane Mathew exacerbated parents’ vulnerability in the Grande Anse and South departments, and they, like those in Abricots, are still in recovery mode. Specific recommendations on how to continue the program include: • USAID and others considering new or ongoing investment in school feeding programs should take into consideration EQ3 findings and conclusions regarding stakeholder engagement. While this pilot endeavored to reduce the burden on school staff, the result was that some (i.e. teachers) expressed frustration with being left out of the design and implementation of an activity, which was so closely connected to their responsibilities for the students in their classrooms. • EQ3 conclusions also noted potential areas for improving efficiencies and partnering to improve on the activity (e.g., sharing successes broadly within the local community and potential partnerships based on the program’s use of clean energy for food production). The ET learned that such activities had been introduced shortly before and after fieldwork and analysis for this report. For example, promotional efforts, including site visits to FPDI schools, attended by a variety of national and international actors, including the World Food Programme, elevated the visibility of the VSFP activity, which ultimately secured financial support for the activity beyond the pilot period of performance. • School feeding programs benefit all students, and play a significant role in students’ food security, especially among vulnerable parents with multiple children. School feeding programs should target vulnerable parents, who are most in need of a school canteen, to amplify the activity’s impact. This could be done by identifying schools in the most vulnerable areas and targeting those that are not at capacity, as the ET found that schools with canteens in Abricots experienced increased student enrollments. While finalizing the report, the ET learned that the project will be continued, with donor support (detailed below), under revised guidelines that cover all fees for very vulnerable parents (20-30% of parents) who cannot afford to pay for the canteen. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 6 • Continuing to work alongside the Programme Nationale de Cantines Scolaire (PNCS) will help to ensure that school feeding programs benefit local school communities across Haiti, and could be a strategy for sustainably expanding VSFP activities in the region more systematically. Second, given that school canteens were one of multiple factors parents considered in their decision to enroll children in school, the ET recommends considering interventions that touch on the multiple factors that influence enrollment. • The ET encourages future programming to consider additional benefits that would increase enrollment and attendance such as school materials (e.g. textbooks) and charging a low (or scaled) tuition rate. These additional advantages would make schools even more attractive to parents. Future programming could tailor support to schools based on neighborhoods’ and families’ vulnerability to maximize student attendance and performance. Third, VSFP has made notable positive impacts in the Abricots commune. However, the program’s forecasted closure was a source of concern among the local community whose limited means are not positioned to maintain the program without external support. Because of this, the ET recommends that greater emphasis on sustainability be integrated into school feeding programs at their inception. • Given the inability of the local community to financially support VSFP’s continuation beyond the pilot, future school feeding pilots should consider developing a sustainability plan and/or an exit strategy. As part of such a plan, partnerships and linkages to organizations that could increase the local capacity, efficacy, and quality of VSFP services should be identified and engaged from the pilot’s start. Even if pilots were not continued, these actions would positively stimulate community support and engagement, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation and sustainability beyond the pilot period. • Positively, the ET learned that FPDI received funds from Swiss NGO HEKS-EPER to support the continuation of its school feeding program from February 2019 to June 2020. USAID will support a no cost extension bridge funding for FPDI school feeding activities through fall 2018. The ET welcomes this support, which aligns with its recommendation to continue the pilot model, which at this point requires financial support from outside the Abricots commune. Additionally, news that HEKS-EPER will finance school feeding programs following the VSFP activity model in 16 remote localities across the communes of Jérémie and Roseaux, in addition to Abricots, aligns with the ET’s recommendation to consider expanding the program to neighboring vulnerable communities. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 7 VOUCHER SCHOOL FEEDI NG PILOT ACTIVITY BACKGROUND ACTIVITY SUMMARY Figure 1: Overview of the VSFP Activity To offer an alternative and improved approach to providing poor students with access to nutritious snacks and meals at school, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financed the Voucher School Feeding Pilot (VSFP) activity implemented by Fondation Paradis Des Indiens (FPDI) under the contract Amount: $1,767,145 USD, which was awarded with a period of performance from October 2015 to September 2018. VSFP, with support from the Government of Haiti (GOH), seeks to establish a safety net that builds demand for locally produced foods. This is done by building linkages and coherence with the Feed the Future initiative’s agricultural production activities. By institutionalizing a safety net system that recognizes and embraces GOH leadership and creates a platform for multi-donor investments, VSFP played an important cross-sectoral role in supporting rural Haitian communities. VSFP incorporated USAID forward principles in an innovative manner that forged non-traditional relationships with local partners, linked current social safety net programming gains, and integrated past learning in a novel design approach. School feeding is particularly important for the Haitian Government because it is located at the intersection of two of the nation’s economic and social development priority sectors: education and agriculture. 1 Defining a national school feeding policy is a sine qua non to unlocking the potential of both these sectors. 1 Programme National De Cantine Scolaire (PNCS), Document de Politique et de Stratégie Nationales d’Alimentation Scolaire (DPSNAS)- Janvier 2016 ; Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP) USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 8 The GOH recognizes school feeding as a top priority. Evidence of its prioritization is realized in the fact that the national school feeding program, Programme Nationale de Cantines Scolaire (PNCS), the Haitian Government’s implementation and oversight body for school feeding, receives an annual budget allocation of approximately eight million US dollars from the Haitian Treasury. 2 The fact that the government allocates resources to the PNCS sends a strong signal of political will and commitment to school feeding programs. The PNCS, which is supposed to have the capacity to coordinate and plan overall school feeding efforts, as well as to take the lead in the implementation of a national program as the “national coordination body” has no rules or regulations that mandate its status. As a result, there are significant variations from year to year in the numbers of school children who access school meals and there are no targeting criteria established regarding school selection, nor are there standards related to the quality, diversity, regularity, or timeliness of meals. Per national policies and priorities, the PNCS’ mandate is rooted in education, welfare, and agriculture- related objectives. Its objectives include: an intention to reach the greatest number of school children in the country, to increase the capacity of the government to manage and implement the program independently, and to increase the amount of local agricultural production purchased for the program. With the direct support received by PNCS, the number of children receiving meals in schools varies from year to year, falling between 600,000 and 1.1 million children, out of an estimated 2.3 million school aged children. 3 School feeding programs do not generally procure commodities in bulk, instead sourcing from local markets and relying heavily on imported in-kind food aid. Although school feeding programs are implemented throughout the world in both developed and developing countries, Haiti’s requires an approach that is tailored to its educational context. Several factors, described below, necessitate a unique approach. As noted above, although PNCS is seen as the “national coordination body,” there are no rules or regulations that mandate PNCS’ status, nor are there regulations or legislation framing the way school feeding programs are implemented. Most schools are private/non-public with widely differing standards, norms, and education quality. Despite the presence of PNCS, most of Haiti’s school meal programs are Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)/donor/international organization financed and implemented. Thus, school feeding activities include many implementers, each with their own objectives and rationales for school feeding programs, with no overarching national system of management or oversight. VSFP worked with PNCS to test the design of a developed approach, taking Haiti’s low education quality and overwhelmed teachers and school administrative personnel into consideration. The pilot eliminated the direct role of school personnel, including school directors and teachers, in commodity transportation and storage and in the preparation and delivery of meals. Private food preparers handled meal preparation in the targeted communities (traditionally, mostly women have this role) outside of the school and the prepared cost-effective meals were delivered to schools daily in the morning around 7:30 2 Voucher School Feeding Program, Project Design; USAID 2014 3 Document de Politique et Stratégie Nationales d’Alimentation Scolaire (DPSNAS), Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP), 2016 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 9 am and 11:30 am. Overall management of the transportation, storage, preparation, and delivery of meals to the schools was, therefore, part of the contracted food preparer’s responsibilities, as was the case for any restaurant or caterer. By removing this role from the school and placing it in the hands of existing community food preparers, the pilot relieved the burden of managing these processes from the school, while increasing and improving local community food preparers’ business opportunities. The contracted caterers, who prepared meals using fresh local products, received basic training in hygiene, nutrition, conservative energy (improved cook stove), micro-entrepreneurship and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH). They were community members, small restaurant owners, or street vendors in the targeted schools’ neighborhoods Figure 2: VSFP Theory of Change Contracted food vendors prepared and delivered daily meals to schools. Students ate a snack early in the morning and a hot meal over their lunch break. The project reached 2,350 students and 40 local food providers in 10 beneficiary schools in the commune of Abricots, department of Grand’Anse, Haiti. THEORY OF CHANGE The VSFP Theory of Change (ToC) posited that contracting local private vendors and training them on how to prepare and hygienically serve nutritious and balanced meals to school children would lead to school children consuming two nutritious meals per school day. In doing so, VSFP lead to improve student learning outcomes as students were enrolled in school and attended with greater frequency. VSFP operationalized this ToC through two Intermediate Results (IRs): 1. Ensure students have access to two meals each school day 2. Improve the nutritional quality of students’ meals As part of its effort to increase school attendance and improve achievements in the 10 VSFP schools in the targeted communes of Abricots, the pilot activity approached school feeding as a safety net activity. In addition, this pilot focused on reinforcing the linkages between the private-sector food providers and USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 10 the schools to reduce the operational burden that has fallen to school staff other school feeding programs. In the emergency resulting from the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, VSFP’s strategy was reviewed and adapted to the operating context. The local food service providers were given tools and financial resources from USAID, delivered through the implementing partner Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, to provide meals to the entire community, as all members of the community were in severe need after the region was destroyed by Hurricane Matthew. The local private food vendors were directed to support the community with community-wide food distributions from the time of the hurricane (September 2016), during which time the VSFP schools were used as community shelters. EVALUATION BACKGROUN D EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE At the request of USAID, the Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) project conducted the final performance evaluation of VSFP. The purpose of this final evaluation was to inform future USAID programs based on lessons learned. Specifically, the evaluation assessed to what extent VSFP made or is on a path to making positive contributions to students’ learning experience. The evaluation results are intended to inform USAID and implementers’ programs within the education sector in Haiti. The primary stakeholder for this evaluation is USAID/Haiti. As appropriate, the results may be shared with other stakeholders such as the GOH, PNCS, and World Food Program (WFP), among others. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The final performance evaluation of VSFP addressed the following evaluation questions (EQ’s): 1. To what extent was the decision to send children to school influenced by the VSFP activity? 2. To what extent might the frequency of school attendance change once the program ends? 3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the pilot’s period of performance? EVALUATION TEAM AND S UPPORT STRUCTURE Through a competitive bidding process, Haiti ESS hired the Institut de Formation du Sud (IFOS), a local research firm, to conduct the VSFP performance evaluation. To carry out the full breadth of the assignment, IFOS proposed a Haitian team qualified and experienced in project evaluation. The team’s experience is mainly in the evaluation of education projects and has worked in collaboration with IFOS in this domain for more than five years. The Team Lead (TL), Ms. Gladys Mayard, graduated in Social Sciences and Sciences Development at the State University of Haiti - Faculty of Ethnology. Ms. Mayard is an Anthropologist/Sociologist with a Master of Science in Development. She is a Lawyer with experience training in Human Rights. She has skills and strong experience in qualitative and quantitative research. She also has conceptual and methodological skills to develop action and development plans, either locally or regionally, from participatory approaches with communities in analyzing their own problems, the environment and USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 11 solutions proposed. Ms. Mayard has been part of the IFOS research team since 2009 and has led several socio-economic research studies for IFOS in nutrition, civil society participation, economy and violence against women across Haiti. Ms. Mayard prepared instruments and finalized them through pretesting, developed field staff manuals and data collection protocols, led qualitative data collectors’ training, and supervised data collection and quality assurance for all these processes. As a member of the Haitian research clearance body (Comité National de Bioéthique), Ms. Mayard submitted applications for local research clearances and obtained relevant authorization (as needed). Three focus group discussion (FGD) facilitators and three notetakers supported the TL to increase the efficiency and accuracy of data collection and analysis. IFOS hired three language experts and translators for the instruments and FGD transcript translation, who are highly qualified and experienced translators and interpreters in Haiti. They translated the data collection tools and training materials with the approach set out above and used in the past by IFOS, as requested in the Scope of Work (SOW). While many evaluation projects utilize local firms exclusively for data collection, as TL, Ms. Mayard was additionally responsible for data cleaning, analysis, and drafting all evaluation deliverables (i.e., work plan, interview guides, out briefing presentation, draft and final reports, etc.). She was supported in these efforts by ESS local staff who worked with her on the data analysis and SI HQ staff, specifically the Project Director, who provided extremely detailed feedback as part of the ESS typical quality assurance review and revision process. Thus, this evaluation was a unique collaboration designed to build local M&E capacity along the entire evaluation process. As such, there were many lessons learned along the way. EVALUATION METHODS A ND CHALLENGES The evaluation employed qualitative data collection methods from a diversity of sources to increase the reliability and validity of the findings and to provide a strong evidentiary base for answering the three EQs. Qualitative methods included desk review, FGDs, and key informant interviews (KII). Additionally, school-based records on enrollment and attendance were collected from VSFP schools. The ET collected data in VSFP schools throughout four communal sections of the municipality of Abricots, in both urban and rural areas. Seven out of nine schools in which VSFP operated were selected using convenience sampling. This sampling process resulted in data collection within one to two schools per communal section. Participants in FGDs and KIIs were mainly local stakeholders. The ET conducted FGDs with parents, school teachers, and restaurant owners/vendors in the communities near the schools. School principals/directors, school district inspectors, local authorities, supervisors, City Hall staff, and FPDI project staff participated in KIIs. The evaluation process was comprised of three phases: (1) planning, (2) data collection, and (3) analysis, reporting, and presentations. PHASE ONE: PLANNING The VSFP final performance evaluation began with a desk review of program reports and external documents. Reviewing these materials ensured that the ET had a good understanding of the program context and implementation process. Information gathered during the desk review was instrumental in designing the evaluation. The ET then drafted the design document, including interview protocols for USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 12 stakeholders identified as critical to the team’s ability to fully address the EQs. The evaluation design also elaborated a logistics plan that included training field agents, piloting data collection tools, recruiting informants, and field data collection. PHASE TWO: FIELD DATA COLLECTION Data was collected in the Abricots commune from June 11 to June 19, 2018. Overall, the ET collected school registration data and conducted 17 KIIs and 25 FGDs involving 209 respondents, 98 of whom were women. SCHOOL REGISTRATION DATA As part of the desk review, the ET learned that FPDI collected school-level monitoring data that captured enrollment, promotion, attendance, and school feeding numbers by year, and disaggregated by gender at each of the foundation’s schools. School-based data was regularly submitted by schools to FPDI, which stored this data across project years. During fieldwork, the ET used a designated tool (Annex F) to capture school-based data relevant to this evaluation from FPDI. The ET collected data on six of the seven schools in the sample, based on FPDI records. This secondary data (FPDI schools were the primary data collectors) was then triangulated with qualitative data collected from FGDs and KIIs to determine the contribution of the project to students’ learning experience. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Figure 3: Data Collection Methods Used and Gender Breakdown The ET conducted 17 KIIs with targeted persons deemed knowledgeable and/or involved in the project. Descriptions of each type of stakeholder are included below. The ET conducted KIIs using semi- structured interview guides that were conceived at the design phase (see: Annex F for complete guides for each stakeholder type). USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 13 Data collected through KIIs provided specific perspectives that were then analyzed with other data sources to provide the information necessary to fully address the EQs. Informants were encouraged to talk about their experience with the activity implementation at their school level, how the VSFP activity was implemented; on how the activity has contributed to students’ experience in and outside of school, questions that endeavored to deepen the ET’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations about VSFP and to broadly understand VSFP effects on students’ overall learning experience. KII SAMPLING The ET conducted KIIs with a wide range of stakeholder groups: seven with school principals (one in each of the selected schools), two with FPDI senior executive staff, two with educational school staff at FPDI, one with a general canteen supervisor, three with local authorities, and two with cooker assistants. These key informants were selected based on their involvement with the program and to provide a wide variety of perspectives on program activities. A description of each stakeholder types and the rationale for their inclusion follows: • School Directors: The main personnel responsible for the overall management of a school; as such, school directors provided a broader and more comprehensive view about key topics including student attendance and performance, cookers performance, feeding appreciation by both parents and students. • Program Director: Program directors have better insight into program implementation, activity strengths and weaknesses, and lessons learned. • FPDI General Educational Director: As key personnel monitoring the VSFP schools, they provided information about attendance and performance, key insights about program implementation and lessons learned. • General Educational Supervisor of the FPDI Schools: Regularly receive reports from schools and provided valuable feedback about program implementation. • General Canteen Supervisors: Supervised the caterers’ work and thus were able to provide valuable information about program implementation and sustainability. A supervisor’s job is to follow VFSP activities with food vendors and monitor the number of students who receive meals. • Cookers Assistants: Prepare meals and are community members. They provided valuable insights about the program implementation, lessons learned, and sustainability. • Local Authorities: Includes the General Director of City Hall, Conseil Administration des Sections Communales (CASEC), and Assemblée des Sections Communales (ASEC). Being development agents in their community, it was important to capture their perspectives on the program, especially concerning program sustainability. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS The ET conducted 25 FGDs at schools with school personnel and people in the communities around the schools. FGDs were structured to best address the EQs. Participants (parents, teachers, vendors and supervisors) were asked to give their opinions on how the project contributed to children’s learning experience, the factors that influenced their decision to send children to school, the importance of the VSFP activity while choosing schools, and how they saw activities continuing after VSFPs’ end. FGD data provided valuable informant perspectives that were then analyzed with KIIs and material from the desk review to triangulate findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 14 To identify participants, ET mobilizers visited field sites in advance of data collection to plan and organize the participant recruitment ahead of time. Focus groups included six to 10 participants and were conducted by two trained facilitators and two notetakers. Focus Group Discussion Sampling FGD participants were recruited around the seven schools selected for field data collection. These schools were randomly selected from the list of schools where the activity was implemented. FGDs were comprised of the following participants: six with school teachers, 12 with parents (six each with male and female parents), six with food vendors, and one FGD with canteen supervisors. • Female Parents: Female parents are positioned to provide insights into all three EQs but are especially well positioned to address EQ1. Female parents were included in female-exclusive FGDs for the following reasons: (1) Single female parents are often more vulnerable than male parents and would, therefore, tend to better appreciate the program, relatedly, students from such families are more susceptible to drop out with the end of VSFP, (2) they are less likely to speak in an FGD where male parents are present. • Male Parents: Male parents, like female parents, could provide valuable insights into all three EQs. Male-exclusive FGDs were conducted to ensure that gender dynamics did not skew their responses. • Teachers: Teachers interacted with the children even before the program’s period of performance. They were often the most keenly aware of students’ needs and able to provide information about students’ engagement in the classroom, their performance, and how they believed such performance is related to VFSP. • Foods Vendors and Canteen Supervisors: Food vendors and supervisors are a special beneficiary group who can provide insights into program implementation and sustainability. PHASE THREE: DATA PROCESSING AND A NALYSIS The ET followed a systematic data processing plan for each data collection event, including note revision, team debriefing, and drafting of detailed summary notes. The facilitator (interviewer) and notetakers took the lead to ensure that the notes were complete: first conducting a careful reading of all notes, and then discussing any issues during daily team debriefing. Reports were drafted based on the guide themes and topics discussed, as relevant to answering the EQs. Audio recordings were used for review to ensure that the briefing notes were complete and accurate. Upon completion of field work and reception of all the summary notes, the ET systematically coded the notes and captured the responses in tally sheets for analysis. The team used all recurrent themes that arose from the notes to develop a coding framework. The ET coded collected data in the tally sheet according to the coding framework. The tally sheet process ensured that notes were connected to stakeholder type and aggregated in a way that maintained individual participants’ confidentiality. Tallies were calculated and disaggregated by stakeholder group. The completed tally sheet was then used to analyze the data by identifying key findings and any relevant patterns in the data. The ET subsequently analyzed data collected and tallied from all sources (desk review, FGDs, KIIs, and school-based data) to ensure strong evidence-based findings, conclusions and recommendations on VSFP activities. School registration data was imported into excel to produce graphs that present trends in student enrollment, attendance, performance over the project lifespan. Data from different types of stakeholders and from different sources provided conclusive information on the activity’s USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 15 implementation, its contribution to school learning, the lessons learned, and the influence of the VSFP activity on parents' decision-making to send their children to the schools that offer a canteen. CHALLENGES AND MITIGA TION STRATEGIES The main challenges that the ET faced during data collection and the mitigation strategies adopted are described below: TIME AND GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES Distance from Schools: The distance between schools is far, which could have caused logistical challenges during fieldwork. Mitigation: As the distance to reach most schools from downtown Abricots is two hours by car plus 15 to 30 minutes of walking, the ET planned for both teams to work at the same time in adjoining schools and local communities. Using this plan, the two teams were able to complete all data collection for each school and community efficiently. BEHAVIOUR EFFECT The “Interviewer Effect:” An interview is a social interaction and the appearance or behavior of the interviewer can influence respondents’ answers. Mitigation: As the evaluation engaged a wide variety of respondents (e.g., in terms of their professional status, age, and education level), the team took great care to facilitate appropriately, without influencing participant responses. ET members carefully formulated interview questions for each of the different stakeholder types, encouraged all participants to actively engage in FGDs, and provided space for respondents to ask/answer questions or provide information privately if they so desired. OVERLAP IN RESPONDENT CATEGORIES Some school principals are also teachers, as such, some principals wanted to participate in the focus groups of teachers as well. Mitigation: For the principals, who are also teachers, the FGD facilitators explained that the questions and all data collection methods were tailored to solicit similar information, and that according to the methodology they could not participate in two data collection events as that would result in redundant information. Principals who fit into multiple stakeholder categories understood and accepted this arrangement. In the communal section of Bois Pagnol, the teacher FDGs were not recorded because respondents did not want their voice recorded. Mitigation: For teachers who did not want their voice recorded, the notetaking team was reinforced to ensure detailed responses were fully captured. AVAILABILITY OF RESPONDENTS The ET originally planned to collect data over a two-week period, however, data collection effectively began one week prior to the official end of the school year. There was high risk that professors and school staff would not to be available for the second week of data collection. Mitigation: The ET shortened the data collection period to one week and doubled the size of the data collection crew. The team was, therefore, able to mobilize respondents and collect all planned the data during the last official week of classes in Abricots. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 16 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSI ONS EQ1: TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE DECISION TO SEND CHILDREN TO SCHOOL INFLUENCED BY VSFP? FINDINGS School canteen has a substantial impact on school enrollment. The ET found that the presence of a school canteen contributed to parents’ motivation to enroll their children in school. Teachers and school principals confirmed that parents were attracted to the school canteen, stating that parents usually asked about the canteen while enrolling students at school. KIIs and FGDs with teachers, school principals, and parents all described the relationship between the school feeding program and the decision to send children to school. However, different categories of stakeholders approached the reasons and benefits of the school canteen differently. Parents’, teachers’, and school principals’ rationales are compared in the following sections to strengthen the rigor of the ET findings, rather than simply conceding our analysis to one group of stakeholders’ perspectives. Substantiation of the impact that VSFP had on enrollment decisions comes from school data that was collected on enrollment throughout VSFP’s life cycle. The ET also drew on existing literature on VSFP to confirm the data collected during field work in Abricots. These multiple data sources triangulate our key finding that VSFP had a significant impact on parents’ decision to send their children to school. VSFP economically incentivizes parents to send their children to school. The ET found that the VSFP activity eased many of the complex trade-offs that parents considered in their decision to send their children to school. Most parents interviewed suffer economically, especially since Hurricane Matthew. They are forced to make difficult choices within their limited economic means. For example, a parent described their choice between paying rent, paying school fees, and feeding their children. This parent noted that sometimes it is not fully possible to meet all three payments. In these cases, paying school fees in a VSFP school also means that children were fed; these twinned benefits made parents’ decision to enroll their child in school an easy one. In one FGD with female parents there was unanimous agreement that all parents were getting into debt to send their children to school. Parents valued their children’s education and strategized how they could send their child(ren) to school even before the program. They might have previously asked a neighbor to loan them money so that they could provide lunch for their child. 4 However, this type of economizing meant that parents were indebted to those around them. The introduction of VSFP reduced parents’ debt burden by eliminating one trade off that had otherwise resulted in debt arrangement for parents: sending their children to school or feeding their children. Parents who had managed their own economic activities or were otherwise employed were also able to better economize their time towards economic activities because of VSFP. One parent who sold in the market all day reflected that she had limited time to prepare food for her daughter. With VSFP, this mother was able to concentrate on her work, while being assured that her decision to send her child to school also meant that her child would be provided two healthy meals. Additionally, parents humbly recognized the nutritional quality and variety of foods that many parents were able to provide for their children was less than that provided by the VSFP. For example, one parent commented that “I was not going to find money to give him meat every week, fruits and the 4 The link between having means to feed one’s child and the frequency of sending one’s child to school is explored under EQ2 findings. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 17 like.” The benefit of high-quality meals provided at school could not otherwise be replicated by many parents. They understood that it is the parents’ “duty to feed their children every morning before sending them to school.” However, since Hurricane Mathew destroyed the resources of the commune, parents have seen their capacity to fully realize their responsibility for feeding their children reduced from the level they would have wanted in better circumstances. Some parents have three or four children in schools that have benefited from the school canteen and these parents testified that their children would spend the day without food if not for the program. VSFP is well appreciated in this regard, and these benefits affect parents’ decision-making process in terms of their children’s enrollment in school. Teachers and school principals similarly noted that parents’ decisions about whether to enroll their children in school was related to VSFP. However, the rationale underlying their perspectives was presented in slightly different ways than among parent respondents. There was widespread agreement among teachers and principals (as well as parents) that having a school canteen attracted parents to the school. VSFP was understood to be an economic benefit for parents, many of whom are suffering economically. Teachers and school directors described what they identified as two categories of parents, those who can feed and maintain their children, and poor parents who are unable to feed and maintain their children at the level they would want. Poor parents are the majority in Abricots at present. For poor parents, teachers and school directors described the benefit of VSFP as “like a gift from heaven” and “a relief.” They also directly associated the benefit of the school canteen with parents’ decision to enroll their children in the school. The economic situation described by parents, teachers, and principals is supported by the 2016 PNLC report and the latest household survey in 2012, which documented that more than six million Haitians (59 percent) live below the poverty line of two dollars and 42 cents per day and more than 2.5 million (24 percent) live below the extreme poverty line of one dollar and twenty-three cents per day. In Haiti, poverty is especially pronounced in rural areas, and parents in Abricots are expected to be among the poorest. From FGD dynamics, the ET perceived that appreciation for the canteen increases with the number of children that the parents have enrolled (up to four in some instances), and the level of parents’ poverty. VSFP is associated with improved health, which facilitates parents’ decision to send their children to school. The effect of VSFP’s provision of nutritious meals was recognized by many parents in their comments related to changes in their children’s health. Since parents enrolled their children in a VSFP school, they noted that, “my child does not fall sick anymore,” and, “my daughter was suffering from gastric pain, but since the arrival of the program she is no longer suffering this pain,” and finally, “my daughter has become a giraffe…she has become tall!” The food had a positive impact on the health of children. Parents decision to enroll their children in school, where they receive nutritious meals, was clearly reinforced by the positive outcomes they saw in their children’s health. Existing literature supports that school feeding programs can make an important contribution to student learning. Students who have eaten have better health and learn more easily at school. The PNCS, through its School Canteen Policy and Strategy Document (2016) recognizes that thanks to the universal provision of quality food in schools, school attendance is improved at the basic school level, cognitive ability is high, students’ nutrition is adequate, and in period of shocks, the students and their families benefited from food support, which strengthened their resilience. Teachers and principals reflected on VSFP’s contribution to student health, which they associated with student learning. Before the program, some teachers, principals, and parents all reported cases of students with signs of kwashiorkor (thin with red hair, belly fat), but say that these students have USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 18 recovered and are doing well thanks to the program. By receiving two meals every school day, students are not spending several days without food and are in better shape to improve school performance. Meals served under VSFP are considered healthy. According to project documents they have the three food groups: energetic foods (e.g., rice, millet corn, yams, etc.), food constructors (e.g., meat, fish, and egg), and protective foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables). Figure 4: Student Performance during Project Implementation School principals and teachers reported that some students had difficulty learning at school and slept in class because they were hungry. With the school canteen, students pay more attention and better understand the lessons taught in the classroom. One teacher cited an old Haitian proverb, “hungry belly does not have ears,” to emphasize the significance of good nutrition to students’ ability to concentrate in class. According to teachers and some school principals, with the pilot activity, students succeeded and advance to the upper classes without much difficulty. Additionally, according to school personnel, the pilot helped reduce school drop-out, prevented students from failing, and improved the rate of promotion to the next class. According to school registers, school performance went from 0.56 percent (percent of students promoted at base year) to 0.63 percent after the project started (Figure 4). Changes in school enrollment. Data from school registers suggest an increase in enrollment in the FPDI schools over the project period of performance. In fact, although we cannot attribute this result directly to the project, the ET found, after analysis of school registers data, that school enrollment went from 1,462 during the school year before the project, to 1,658 at the end of the project in the sampled schools, an increase of 13.4 percent over VSFP’s project life. 0.56 0.63 0.6 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Percent of promoted students in the sampled schools USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 19 Figure 5: Enrollment over the project life in sampled schools It is important to note that VSFP was one of multiple reasons parents gave as to why they decided to enroll their children in a VSFP school. The FPDI schools also did not require parents to purchase school supplies (as other schools do) and the fees charged were lower (according to parents) than school fees at other schools. Additionally, FPDI schools were understood by parents to be of good quality. While teachers and school principals stated that in their opinion, “parents in general enroll their children in FPDI first because of the schools’ recognized performance and secondarily for the canteen,” the ET heard from parents that, “we must enroll our children in a good school, there must be competent teachers, but without food we cannot talk about quality education either.” These statements highlight differences in how school officials, teachers, and parents, attribute different levels of significance to the presence of school canteens as a factor linked to school enrollment decisions. To parents, the provision of food is a primary concern directly linked to any subsequent assumptions of educational quality. To a lesser extent, proximity to school and para scholar activities also factored into parents’ decision to enroll their children in school. These multiple factors must also be considered in school enrollment decisions. CONCLUSIONS The presence of a school canteen is closely connected to parents’ decision to enroll their children in school. Following Hurricane Mathew, parents in Abricots became more vulnerable and expressed appreciation for the relief from the burden of feeding students before sending them to school. With VSFP, students regularly ate during school days and were in better shape to improve their learning experience and school performance. Parents’ enrollment decisions were influenced by the school canteen because of the many related advantages. The school canteen benefited parents, allowing them to save money on food, as well as students, allowing them to be fed and spend a better day in school. Indirectly, VSFP also benefited teachers, whose benches were filled with more attentive students, and directors who were able to proudly manage schools with improved student performance. School canteens are not the only factor that parents value when deciding to send children to school. Other important factors include low tuition fees and education quality. However, for the most 1462 1566 1587 1658 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Enrolled students by Year USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 20 vulnerable parents, a school canteen factors significantly in their families’ economic and livelihood decisions. EQ2: TO WHAT EXTENT MIGHT THE FREQUENCY OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE CHANGE ONCE THE PROGRAM ENDS? FINDINGS The ET found that attendance will change after the end of the VSFP. Multiple pieces of evidence assert both the impact that VSFP had on student attendance (and timeliness), and demonstrate how parents, teachers, principals, and others anticipate attendance frequency to decrease at VSFP’s end. The ET learned in the FPDI follow-up report that the average daily attendance rate at schools increased with the VSFP. Figure 6: Attendance at VSFP Schools The desk review showed that during the first year of VSFP, schools recorded an attendance rate of 84 percent, which surpassed the targeted rate by three percent. However, attendance decreased to 83 percent in the aftermath of Hurricane Mathew as schools were used as shelters. In the third year of the pilot, attendance rose to 88 percent. Given this fluctuation it is difficult to understand the full picture of VSFP’s impact on school attendance using only these data points. What follows is a view of VSFP’s impact on students’ attendance and perspectives from key stakeholders on how attendance will be negatively affected by the end of the VSFP activity. The ET learned from teachers and school principals that with VSFP, the variation in the number of students attending class reduced greatly. Students came to school every day and they no longer skipped school, except in the case of an emergency. Regular attendance during the pilot activity is a marked difference from the frequency of school attendance before VSFP and, as detailed below, will be difficult to maintain without the VSFP activity. Parents reported that the school canteen not only motivated students to come to school, but also to do so on time. As meals are served at specific times, students arrived at school very early to avoid missing the first meal, which was distributed by the vendors between 7:30 and 7:45 am. Those arriving after 7:45 Attendance at schools is based on the percentage of enrolled students receiving meals on an average school day. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 21 am were not served the meal. Some parents noted that younger students were so motivated that they often woke them up very early to be sure not to miss the first meal. Older students also scrambled to arrive on time. The ET found that the school canteen program triggered positive behaviors in both parents and students. Because of the anticipated second meal service, students chose to remain at school after the morning meal because they were motivated to stay to receive their lunch meal. Perspectives on why attendance rates would drop with the end of VSFP fall into a few different categories. First, parents choose between school and domestic or agricultural labor for their children; without VSFP this equation shifts. When children are at school without the canteen, parents see it as a loss of potential workforce. An informant stated: “parents who cannot feed their (older) children [so that they can] go to school, will prefer to send them to the markets to sell products to bring some money back home, or to the garden, or use them to take care of the house.” From the desk review, the ET learned that in Haitian communities, in general, children were deeply involved with parents’ domestic and agricultural work. Teachers supported this information, stating that, "if there is no more canteen many students will stay at home to help their parents in domestic or garden activities.” From these multiple sources, the ET found that if the activity were to be discontinued, many students would stay home to help their parents with domestic or agricultural work. Second, the ET found that children were facing acute food scarcity. Without VSFP, parents reacted differently, but generally negatively, to sending their children to school if they would not be fed. Some parents reported that they would only send their children to school if food was available at home (to send with the child). One female parent stated that, “if I do not know what I will give to my child as food, I will not send them to school.” Teachers concurred that students would only attend school when their parents had a way to feed them. Some male parents also reflected that without the assurance of food being provided, they would also send their children to school irregularly, one specifying that he would expect to send his children three out of five days each week. Parents stated that without VSFP they would not send the children to school every day. The explanation for this is that children only go to school when parents have money to feed them. One factor in attendance frequency was students’ own disinterest in attending school if there was no expectation of food. A parent stated during an FGD, “My daughter learned that there would be no canteen on a Friday, I do not know if it was true or if it was just a distasteful joke made by the other students at school, but she refused to go to school that day. She cried a lot when I forced her to go. I gave her a candy. When she came home from school, she told me there was a canteen that day too. Since then she’s never missed a school day.” The ET also heard from teachers about another rumor related to the VSFP canteen operating sporadically. In this case, the impact was not that students did not attend school, but rather reinforced the aforementioned finding that improved timeliness was related to the VSFP activity. One teacher stated that, “for example last month, there was a saleswoman who told the students that Tuesday and Friday there will be no meal prepared for them, actually that day I had 10 students who were late. I asked them why they were late; they told me that they had to find something to eat before coming to school because they already knew that there would be no food at school.” Teachers explained that those students would continue to arrive late. For example, in an FGD, several teachers agreed with one respondents’ statement: “as the economic situation of parents is weak there would be a lot of drop-outs and students late every day. The canteen program is a motivation for students and parents.” Tardiness, as explained by parents, is due to the scramble required to ensure that food would be available for their USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 22 child to attend school that day. Parents echo teachers in noting that children who do come to school would come to school late without the VSFP. Finally, and relatedly, children’s health was expected to suffer if they were not able to receive food at school. This presented a cycle in which not having access to nutritious food increased the likelihood of a variety of illnesses, which, in turn, made it less likely that a child (who was suffering) would attend school. Respondents described illnesses related to malnutrition suffered by their children prior to VSFP and anticipated these conditions may return without the VSFP activity. For example, one teacher believed that, “the children would return to the same condition (malnourished, famished) they were in before the program.” The above evidence from three different categories of stakeholders substantiated the ET’s finding that attendance would decline with no VSFP activity. Additionally, the number of students promoted to the next grade level was expected to decrease with the end of the VSFP. When the ET asked about the effect of VSFP close-out on school attendance, informants indicated that the number of students attending regularly as well as the number of students promoted to the next grade level would both decrease. Teachers noted that students’ motivation and performance at school would drop; students would not be able to focus, they would be sleepy and/or argumentative at school if they had not properly eaten. Parents likewise anticipated that students’ scores would fall because of the pilot ending. CONCLUSIONS The canteen had a clear impact on attendance. It was a strong motivational factor for parents to send their children to school and for students to attend school on time. Overall, the ET found that the frequency of school attendance would decline without the VSFP. Additionally, positive outcomes of timeliness, better student health, and academic improvements were expected to revert to their prior status. If the canteen ended. attendance frequency would be reduced as parents may not send children to school on a regular basis or might keep children home to help with domestic work or for agricultural labor. Student’s performance at school would decrease and fewer students would be promoted to the next grade level. The ET concluded that there would be a significant decrease in the frequency of school attendance with the end of the VSFP activity. EQ3: HAVE THE VSFP STAKEHOLDERS CONSIDERED WAYS TO CONTINUE THE SCHOOL FEEDING ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE PILOT’S PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ? FINDINGS The ET found that while the FPDI school staff had given thought to and initiated some preliminary actions towards sustaining VSFP beyond the period of performance, at the time of fieldwork and analysis, ongoing support for the activity was uncertain Apart from some FPDI staff, other stakeholders within the Abricots community were not sure how to maintain the program: 21/25 FGDs with parents, teachers, vendors, and canteen supervisors found that stakeholders have not considered continuing school feeding activities beyond the program. Through FGDs the ET, thus, found a lack of action among parents, local authorities, teachers and others that reflected the current challenging socio-economic situation in Abricots, rather than disinterest in seeing the pilot extended. Life in Abricots is very difficult now, having worsened after the passage of Hurricane Mathew. Agriculture and fishing, the main sources of economy for the population, have been severely affected. The population is still in recovery phase. "More than three quarters of the working population must be considered unemployed, with no fixed and continuous income." (PRRNU: Plan of Reduction of Risk Naturals in Urban Area, note of Presentation Commune Apricot, edition 2017). USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 23 The economic challenges that led the ET to conclude that VSFP strongly impacted parents’ decision to send their children to school, and the frequency of school attendance, also means that parents and local community actors are generally unable to sustain the VSFP activity without external support. The program was a buoy to parents because of their inability to source food for their children to the level they would ideally desire. According to a VSFP parent, "it would be a blow for the community because right now we have difficulties. The times are not what they were before, where we had food products in quantity that can allow us to feed our children.” While both male and female parents noted a willingness to support the activity, offering, for example, to provide products from their own gardens, they also emphasized that they had little themselves and were materially unable to support the program. The ET nonetheless examined how local stakeholders and FPDI staff were considering the longevity and sustainability of the program. FPDI Getting parents involved is key to sustainability FPDI officials, because of the activity’s importance and impact on children’s education, thought that parents should work with them to see how to continue the project. According to the foundation's leaders, even if parents think they cannot help, it is still imperative that they get involved and see how much they can contribute. Seeking partners in the community FPDI officials added that they also planned to contact various partners of the foundation, to see what other strategies they might be able to adopt to allow them to continue the meal program at its current level (two meals each school day). Securing partnerships outside the community Negotiations and activities intended to ensure continued program funding from outside the Abricot community were undertaken by FPDI leadership, USAID, and several international donor organizations. However, the ET learned about these activities through USAID: stakeholders in the Abricots commune either did not know about or chose not to discuss these potential sources of funding with the ET. The ET learned that activities and promotional efforts, including site visits to FPDI schools attended by a variety of national and international actors, including the World Food Programme, elevated the visibility of the VSFP activity, which ultimately secured financial support for the activity beyond the pilot period of performance. After fieldwork and analysis, the ET learned from USAID that their efforts had been successful. FPDI received funds from Swiss NGO HEKS-EPER, to support its nine schools from February 2019 to June 2020. USAID will support a no cost extension bridge FPDI school feeding activities through fall 2018, so that there will be no gap in services for students served by the school feeding activity. Additionally, HEKS-EPER will finance school feeding programs following the VSFP activity model in 16 remote localities across the communes of Jérémie and Roseaux, in addition to FPDI schools in the Abricots commune. SCHOOL PERSONNEL School personnel such as teachers, principals and canteen supervisors declared that they could do nothing to materially support the activity’s continuation. Some of them said they were waiting for FPDI's final decision and others said they have their eyes fixed on NGOs and international organizations with the hope that these institutions would be able to take over. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 24 Also, of note, and significance to this activity, as it was purposefully designed to relieve teachers and school staff of burdens associated with most school feeding programs, was that teachers expressed an interest in being more involved in the activity as they felt responsible for the students in their classes. One reason they desired to be included in the program was because it was currently left up to the vendors’ discretion as to whether to provide a meal to teachers. Additionally, teachers at times felt disrespected by vendors, who bypassed them only to engage directly with students. Teachers felt that vendors should respect them and the students because without the students they would not have work providing food for VSFP. CATERERS Food vendors shared parents’ opinions about the continuity of the program. They said it would be difficult to find people in the community of Abricots to contribute to the program. They elaborated on the difficulties associated with local families’ economic situations. Even if people would like to help, they would be unable to because of their own economic insecurity. Food vendors also took the opportunity to say that if the program was to be ongoing, rising food costs must be considered in the project budget. In line with other stakeholders’ comments, they believed that the program is important and has contributed greatly to relieving the heavy burden on parents and helping children to progress in school. However, food vendors felt that local actors should not be relied upon to make this program permanent. LOCAL AUTHORITIES Abricots’ local authorities shared parents’ and food vendors’ opinions as well. The only way for them to contribute to the activity’s sustainability is by offering technical support, such as giving advice during meetings aimed at highlighting new strategies to be adopted in the activity. Specifically, one local authority said, "Community authorities do not have the means to continue school feeding activities beyond the program's performance period. We, the local authorities, we have the will, but there are no means, we do not know what to do." SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH IMPROVED EFFICIENCIES Parents and school officials noted that strengthening supervision of food distribution, possibly through a committee of parents, students, teachers and school directors would help to improve VSFP. It would ensure all children were served in enough quantity and that food destined for children did not get sold to others who might pay more than the rate offered per student fed. These responses point to potential inefficiencies in the activity’s existing operational structure that could be resolved to reduce costs, making the program sustainable with lower funding. Improving efficiencies might also increase stakeholder support, especially among teachers who seemed, at times, displeased at being left out of program design and implementation. Multiple stakeholders suggested that raising awareness about VSFP and sharing successes with parents, agriculture producers, and the local community was also a potential way to build support for this type of program. Finally, the ET learned that VSFP encouraged sustainable results by encouraging the use of clean energy for cooking, and by emphasizing the use of local products. These local inputs allowed producers to increase their livelihoods and children to have access to hot meals made with fresh local produce. The use of propane gas in the VSFP activity was also a positive point of capacity building in the community, potentially inspiring others to take up this method over the use of charcoal, which has a very negative impact on the environment. There may be ways to attract external partners or stakeholders who might support VSFP based on its use of sustainable cooking means. CONCLUSIONS USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 25 Based on the above findings, FPDI staff, with the support of actors outside of the Abricot commune, including USAID and Swiss NGO HEKS_EPER were able to ensure that school feeding activities would continue beyond the pilot’s period of performance. Abricots commune members with whom the ET conducted research did not disclose or make statements to indicate that they were are of the high-level efforts undertaken by USAID to secure funding from outside the commune. Financial support from outside the commune was critical, as other stakeholders within the Abricots commune believed that the difficult economic situation that families were facing in the area would not allow them to contribute to the continuation of the activity. The ET found that external funding is central to ongoing school feeding operations, but making the program sustainable would also require that key stakeholders, including teachers, to feel that their interests are being considered within the school feeding program’s design. Overall, stakeholders recognized VSFP’s usefulness and impact on students' school life and were hopeful that the VSFP activity would continue. RECOMMENDATIONS To build upon gains and address the shortcomings of VSFP performance and sustainability, the ET offers the following three recommendations: First, considering the successes of VSFP in Abricots, per the conclusions related to EQ1 and EQ2, the ET recommends that VSFP be continued in Abricots and possibly expanded to the Grande Anse and/or South departments. These neighboring communities, with similar demographics would also benefit from this type of school canteen program. Hurricane Mathew exacerbated parents’ vulnerability in the Grande Anse and South departments, and they, like those in Abricots, are still in recovery mode. Specific recommendations on how to continue the program include: • USAID and others considering new or ongoing investment in school feeding programs should take into consideration EQ3 findings and conclusions regarding stakeholder engagement. While this pilot endeavored to reduce the burden on school staff, the result was that some (i.e. teachers) expressed frustration with being left out of the design and implementation of a activity, which was so closely connected to their responsibilities for the students in their classrooms. • EQ3 conclusions also noted potential areas for improving efficiencies and partnering to improve on the activity (e.g., sharing successes broadly within the local community and potential partnerships based on the program’s use of clean energy for food production). • School feeding programs play a significant role in students’ food security, especially among poor parents with multiple children. School feeding programs should target poor parents, who are most in need of a school canteen, to amplify the activity’s impact. This could be done by identifying schools in the most vulnerable areas and targeting those that are not at capacity, as the ET found that schools with canteens in Abricots experienced increased student enrollments. • Working alongside (or building capacity with) the Programme Nationale de Cantines Scolaire (PNCS) could be a strategy for sustainably expanding VSFP activities in the region more systematically. Second, given that school canteens were one of multiple factors parents considered in their decision to enroll children in school, the ET recommends considering interventions that touch on the multiple factors that influence enrollment. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 26 • The ET encourages future programming to consider additional benefits that would increase enrollment and attendance such as school materials (e.g. textbooks) and charging a low (or scaled) tuition rate. These additional advantages would make schools even more attractive to parents. Future programming could tailor support to schools based on neighborhoods’ and families’ vulnerability to maximize student attendance and performance. Third, VSFP has made notable positive impacts in the Abricots commune. However, the program’s forecasted closure is now a source of concern among the local community whose limited means are not positioned to maintain the program without external support. Because of this, the ET recommends that greater emphasis on sustainability be integrated into school feeding programs at their inception. • Given the inability of the local community to financially support VSFP’s continuation beyond the pilot without support from organizations outside the local commune, future school feeding pilots should develop a sustainability plan and/or an exit strategy that is clearly communicated at the local level. Undertaking and sharing sustainability plans with local implementing staff and the broader community would alleviate the type of concern that the ET found on the part of parents, students, and other stakeholders in the Abricots commune that a program of immense benefit might end with little warning. As part of such a plan, partnerships and linkages to organizations that could increase the local capacity, efficacy, and quality of VSFP services should be identified and engaged from the pilot’s start. Even if pilots were not continued, these actions would positively stimulate community support and engagement, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation and sustainability beyond the pilot period. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 27 ANNEXES USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 28 ANNEX A: EVALUATION MATRIX SUMMARY DESIGN MATRIX A summary of the planned evaluation methods and how they are linked with each of the evaluation questions, including specific methods is included in the matrix below: Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources Sample Questions Analysis 1.1. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by VSFP activity? • FGDs • Parents • From your perspective, how well was the program implemented? • Describe how has your decision (or parents’ decisions) to send children to school been influenced by the activities of the program? • What do you think about the fact that your child is eating at school? • What are the benefits? • Are there any drawbacks? If so, what? • What changes in the students have you observed as a result of the VSFP program? • From your perspective what is the contribution of the project in the learning experience of the students? Qualitative analysis the coded data of the focus groups will be grouped and classified according to the codes and research questions to reveal the relevant information and evidence KII information will be used to complement and compare with information collected from FGDs 1.2. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by VSFP activity? • KIIs • School director • Supervisors • Project stakeholders • From your perspective, how well was the program implemented? • How has the decision (or parents’ decisions) to send children to school been influenced by the activities of the program? • How the frequency of school attendance could change once the program is over? Information from coded KIIs will be grouped and classified according to codes and research questions, content analysis will highlight relevant ideas and evidence 1.3. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by VSFP activity? • School registration data collection tool • FPDI Schools • How many students attended this school in each of the past three academic years? • Of the total enrolled students, how many students were promoted to the next class each academic year? Graphs showing time series and trends over the project life. 2. To what extent could the frequency of school attendance change once the program is completed? • FGDs • KIIs • School registration data collection tool • Teachers • Directors • Supervisors • FPDI director • How has the attendance rate at school changed since the start of the program? • In your opinion, if the program is coming to an end and there is no more subsidy, how might that effect school attendance? • What could change? • How might registrations change? Why? Information from coded FGDs will be grouped and classified according to codes and research questions, content analysis will highlight relevant ideas and evidence USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 29 Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources Sample Questions Analysis • Received data on daily student attendance KII information will be used to complement and compare with information collected from FGDs Trends on attendance over project lifespan 3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? • FGDs with KIIs • Parents • Teachers • Vendors • Directors • Supervisors • Project FPDI staff • How do local stakeholders think the project activities might be continued after the end of the project? • How might the community take on the project activities? • Please describe what would it take for the community to take on the role of providing the canteen? Information from coded FGDs will be grouped and classified according to codes and research questions, content analysis will highlight relevant ideas and evidence KII information will be used to complement and compare with information collected from FGDs USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 30 ANNEX B: EXPECTED PRELIMINA RY RESULTS What do we expect to learn from focus groups and KIIs? FGDS FROM PARENTS The information obtained from the parents will show the perception on the implementation of the program in the municipality of Abricots, to what extent the program has provided a solution in the motivation of students to stay in school by offering them food. Parents will give information on the benefits for them that their children eat at school. Identifying factors that influence parents' decision to send their children to school. The preference of the parents has sent them to the schools of the VSFP activity. The changes observed in the children participating in the program, the difference in their academic success and their health. The contribution of the project in the student learning experience. The strengths of the project, what should be improved, and the means envisaged to continue after the project ends. FGDS/KIIS FROM TEACHERS, SUPERVISORS, RESTORERS AND SCHOOL DIRECTORS School teachers, school principals, supervisors and restorers will give information on changes that may occur in frequency and attendance once the program is completed. The project's contribution to the student learning experience, local development, challenges and lessons learned. Strategies and means envisaged to continue school feeding activities beyond the program performance period. Who are the people in the community who will commit to continuing the project activities and what they plan to do? KIIS FROM FPDI PROJECT STAFF With this specific group we will learn about the project implementation, its strengths and what will have to change for a new experience. Determining factors in the decision (or parents’ decisions) to send children to school. Changes that may occur in school attendance once the project ends. The project's contribution to the student learning experience, local development, challenges and lessons learned. SCHOOL AND STUDENT’S SOCIO DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FROM EACH SCHOOL With this information we will learn how the project contributes to improving the attendance of students at school and compare the presence of students for each year of the project and before the project, also the success rate of students before and during the project. 31 ANNEX C: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED IN DESK REVIEW • Project documents • Project & FPDI Final Report year two, 2017 • USAID documents • VSFP pilot program final • External document • PNCS-EPT visit abricots report, Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP), december 2016 • Document de politique et de strategie nationales d’alimentation scolaire (DPSNAS), PNCS/ MENFP, January 2016 32 ANNEX D: LIST OF SCHOOLS 1. AREA: DIGO 2eme Section ABRICOTS School PFDI 9 classes, 9 teachers, 8 food vendors, 1 supervisor KII School principal KII Director of City Hall KII FPDI staff KII cookers assistant KII FPDI staff FGD food vendors FGD supervisors FGD teachers FGD female parents FGD male parents 2. AREA: SAUT BALISIER, 1ere Section School ANTONY PIERRE 8 Classes, 7 teachers, 5 food vendors, 1 supervisor KII school principal KII ASEC FGD teachers FGD female parents FGD male parents FGD food vendors 3. AREA: BALISIER 1ere Section School DINETTE DURIN 7 Classes, 6 teachers, 4 food vendors, 1 supervisor KII school principal KII CASEC FGD female parents FGD male parents FGD teachers FGD food vendors 4. AREA: DEGERME / 4eme Section School SANEL MICHEL 8 classes, 8 teachers, 6 food vendors, 1 supervisor KII school principal FGD male parents FGD teachers FGD female parents FGD food vendors FGD food vendors 33 5. AREA: BOIS PAGNOL 4eme section School EDITH SONEL 8 Classes, 8 teachers, 5 food vendors, 1 supervisor KII school principal FGD male parents FGD teachers FGD female parents FGD food vendors KII ASEC FGD male parents 6. AREA: DECK / 3eme Section School JEUNE GERELAS 8 Classes, 8 teachers, 1 supervisor KII school principal FGD male parents FGD teachers FGD female parents FGD food vendors 7. AREA : CHAINAULT 3eme Section School AVOIR MICHEL 8 Classes, 8 teachers, 1 supervisor KII school principal 34 ANNEX E: SCOPE OF WORK EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is requesting that Social Impact’s (SI) Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) activity to implement an independent evaluation of the Vouchering School Feeding Pilot (VSFP) in Haiti. The purpose of this final evaluation of the pilot program is to inform future programming based on lessons learned. Specifically, the evaluation will assess to what extent the Food Voucher activity made or is on a path to making positive contributions to students’ learning experience. The evaluation results are expected to be used to inform USAID and various implementers programming within the education sector in Haiti. The primary stakeholder for this evaluation is USAID/Haiti. As appropriate the results may be shared with other stakeholders such as the GOH (Government of Haiti); PNCS (Programme National Cantine Scolaire (PNCS), World Food Program (WFP), and other donors. SUMMARY INFORMATION Option 1: For strategies, projects, or activities with one implementing partner Strategy/Project/Activity Combining educational objective by promoting students ‘attendance and performance with the empowerment of women from poor, food insecure communities to gain skills for expansion of their food production as well as enhancing the local economy Name VOUCHER SCHOLL FEEDING PILOT ACTIVITY Implementer Fondation Paradis Des Indiens (FPDI) Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-521-A-15-00013 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity(TEC) 1,767,145.00 Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity October 2015- September 2018 Active Geographic Regions Abricots, Grande Anse (10 schools at the beginning of project, 9 schools the last year of the project) Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO2. Economic and Food Security Advanced USAID Office Food for Peace/Haiti DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND PROJECT BACKGROUND Children living in very remote areas rarely remain in school due to multiple challenges teachers, parents and principals are facing. Besides scarcity of money for all parties, children usually walk one to two hours on an empty stomach to reach the nearest public school. Parents who cannot afford to feed their child breakfast for that long walk prefer to keep them home as an additional help in their gardens. The Vouchering School Feeding Pilot aims to increase Fondation Paradis des Indiens (FPDI) students’ school attendance and promotion of students to the next grade by providing a daily nutritious and balanced snack and hot meal. In addition, the program engages local food vendors to prepare the meals - increasing their livelihood opportunities and providing more nutritious and balanced food at school using local products and preparation. It considers the realities of the traditional schools’ challenges and eliminates the direct role of school personnel, including directors and teachers, in the transportation and storage of the required commodities, and in the preparation and delivery of meals. During the pilot, meals prepared using local products and fresh in season vegetables, are served by caterers (food vendors) who are contracted for this purpose. The caterers received basic training in hygiene, nutrition, conservative energy (improved cook stove), micro-entrepreneurship and WASH. They are restaurant owners 35 or street vendors in the targeted communities (traditionally, mostly women perform this task) outside of the schools. The contracted food vendors, who prepare these meals, deliver them to the schools every day. The students eat a snack early in the morning and a hot meal during break time. Overall management of the transportation, storage, preparation and delivery of the meals to the school is part of the contracted food vendors’ responsibilities. The fact that the food vendors handle all the logistics for the meal preparation and delivery to the school is important as it puts the burden of all these steps where the burden should be – that is on the caterers. The school personnel no longer have these responsibilities and can focus on their task: teaching. EVALUATION QUESTIONS To achieve its purpose, the evaluation will address the following questions: Q1. To what extent was the decision to send children to school influenced by the VRSP activity? Q2. To what extent might the frequency of school attendance change once the program ends? Q3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY It is expected that the evaluation team proposes an overall research design to address the evaluation questions and a plan for collecting and analyzing the data both qualitative and quantitative. The evaluation design should be based mainly on qualitative research methods to address the evaluation questions. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and in-depth review of projects reports are among the techniques that the evaluation team could consider when addressing the evaluation questions. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ESS will review the calendar of the school year and the timeline for this evaluation while considering the following requirements: 1. Evaluation Work Plan: Upon receipt of the final approved SOW, ESS shall submit within twenty working days a Work Plan to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), which will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; (2) a list of the members of the evaluation team, and a local firm with key personnel delineated by roles and responsibilities with their level of effort; (3) the deliverable schedule. 2. Evaluation Design: Within ten working days of the Work Plan approval, ESS must submit to the COR an Evaluation Design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation Report). The Evaluation Design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the evaluation questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and a data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) a list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited; (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. USAID/Haiti will take up to 10 business days to review and consolidate comments through the COR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated comments on the initial Evaluation Design and Work Plan, they are expected to revise the reports within five business days. A final budget should be attached to the evaluation design. 3. In-briefing: Prior to undertaking fieldwork, the evaluation team or research firm will have an in-briefing with the USAID/Food for Peace and ESS COR to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to clarify any questions or logistic needs. 4. Evaluation Briefing/Presentation: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation in person to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations with USAID within 20 business days after the conclusion of fieldwork. 36 5. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers having a bearing on the evaluation objective. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft Evaluation Report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the draft Evaluation Report is submitted, USAID/Haiti will have 10 business days to review and comment, after which the ESS COR will submit consolidated comments to ESS. The evaluation team or research firm will then submit the revised final report within five business days, and again USAID/Haiti will review and send comments within five business days of its submission. 6. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 15 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the ESS COR and Food for Peace Team. ESS will then submit the final report to the COR. All project data and records (FGD and KII summary reports) shall be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized, and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION Haiti ESS shall sub-partner with a local Haitian firm to conduct the VSFP final evaluation. The selected Haitian firm should mobilize an evaluation team comprised of two Key Personnel positions: (i) a Team Leader, and ii) an Assistant Team Leader. The firm should demonstrate proven capacity in collecting data in the relevant field and should have data analysis capabilities to perform all related data management and analysis functions. This approach is encouraged to build the local firm capacity and will also provide a Haitian perspective for the data collection and analysis. The Team Leader (TL) will be ultimately responsible for the overall management of the evaluation team, coordinating the evaluation implementation, assigning team members responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the final evaluation report in conformity with this SOW. The TL must be an experienced evaluation expert, with a documented track record of 5-10 years of experience. S/he should have a strong background in qualitative data analysis. . S/he should be fluent in French/Creole and conversant in English. S/he should have at least a university Degree in Social Science: Education, Political Science, or Public Administration. The Assistant Team Leader should be familiar with Food for Peace activity and have proven experience in designing and implementing qualitative research methods. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Timing (Anticipated Weeks or Duration) Scheduled Activities 4 weeks Preparation of the work plan, and evaluation design 2 Weeks USAID review of the work plan, inception report and evaluation design 1 Week Submission of the revised evaluation design, inception report and work plan; in- briefing 3 Weeks Data collection 2 Weeks Data analysis and Evaluation Briefing 2 Weeks Draft Report writing 2 Weeks USAID review of Draft Report 2 Weeks Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report 37 FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: ● The Evaluation SOW; ● Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; ● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; ● All sources of information, properly identified and listed; and ● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. ● Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. ● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report. 5 ● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. ● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. ● The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. ● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. ● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. 5 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 38 ● Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. ● Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. ANNEX F: EVALUATION TOOLS VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PROJECT HAITI ESS/IFOS GUIDE FOR SCHOOL PRINCIPAL Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good morning/good evening, My name is…………….…………... Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people: male and female parents, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right not to answer to a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? We would like to talk with you about the school canteen program in Abricots schools. 39 THEME 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1. Tell us about your experience with the implementation of the school canteen program in Abricots schools. Go deeper with the following questions: 2. What are the criteria to select your school? 3. How long has your school been enrolled in the program? 4. How many children participate to the program? 5. What is the group age for children who participates to the program? 6. Are all the students in the school enrolled in the program? a. If not, how do you proceed to select children that qualify to participate to the program? 7. Is there a parents’ committee that is part of the program? a. What is the role of the committee in the program? 8. Do you think that, with the school canteen, more children succeed to upper grade? a. In your opinion, does the school canteen program increase the number of students at school? Please explain. 9. Are there less children dropping out? 10. According to you, what work very well in the school canteen program? 11. Where do the student eat? a. Who distributes the food to the students? b. Are there awareness sessions with children before the meals? 12. Did the person who provide the food receive training enabling her/him to do this assignment? 13. Tell us about hygienic practices related to the preparation of the food and how it is organized. 14. Do the parents eat also the food prepared for the students? If yes, why? If no, why? Now, I would like you to share with us your opinion on the advantages of the school canteen on students’ learning, school attendance, lessons learned and other information you deem useful. THEME 2. IMPACT ON SCHOOL LEARNING/ENROLLMENT EQ1. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. What is the basis, usually, for parents to enroll their child in a school? a. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? b. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. c. How you can describe the project's contribution to the learning experience of students in school THEME 3. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHOOL CANTEEN EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think children eat at home before going to school? 2. What are the advantages when a child eats at school? 3. Are there any disadvantages for a child to eat at school? Explain your points of view. 4. According to you, what difference is there between a child who eats at school (participating to the program) and another child who does not eat at school (not participating to the program)? 5. Explain what differences you observed in terms of health and learning aptitude. 6. According to you, is there a relation between the food and the leaning capacity of children at school? 7. How do you see the link? Explain. 40 THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. What do you think could change? Give some examples. 2. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? 3. Would enrollments decrease? Why? THEME 5. MEANS THAT LOCAL STRUCTURES COULD CONSIDER CARRY ING ON WITH THE PROGRAM AFTER THE GRANT EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? 2. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. a. Whose responsibility could it be? (The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations?) Please explain. 3. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 4. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. Go deeper with the following points: a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 6. GOOD PRACTICES / LESSONS LEARNED EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities of the school canteen program in Abricots should be replicated? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? b. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. c. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 7. RECOMMENDATION 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? 41 Thank you for your participation. 42 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PROJECT HAITI ESS/IFOS GUIDE FGDS FOR FPDI STAFF Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good Morning/Afternoon, My name is……………..……………... Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people: mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right not to answer to a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? We would like to talk with you about the school canteen program in Abricots schools. 43 THEME 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1. Tell us about your experience with the implementation of the school canteen program in Abricots schools. Go deeper with the following questions: a. What are the criteria to select a school? b. How long has the project in Abricots ? c. How can yo describe the situation of children at school before the project. The project comes in response to what situation? What was the problem to solve? d. How many children participate to the program? e. What is the group age for children who participates to the program? f. Are all the students in the school enrolled in the program? 2. Do you think that, with the school canteen, more children succeed to upper grade? a. In your opinion, does the school canteen program increase the number of students at school? Please explain. 3. Are there less children dropping out? 4. According to you, what work very well in VSFP canteen program? 5. Did the person who work with VSFP project receive training enabling her/him to do this assignment? Please can give me some details? Now, I would like you to share with us your opinion on the advantages of the school canteen on students’ learning, school attendance, lessons learned and other information you deem useful. THEME 2. IMPACT ON SCHOOL LEARNING/ENROLLMENT EQ 1. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. What is the basis, usually, for parents to enroll their child in a school? a. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? b. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. c. How you can describe the project's contribution to the learning experience of students in school THEME 3. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHOOL CANTEEN EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 2. Do you think children eat at home before going to school? a. What are the advantages when a child eats at school? b. According to you, is there a relation between the food and the leaning capacity of children at school? 44 c. How do you see the link? Explain. THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? a. What do you think could change? Give some examples. b. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? c. Would enrollments decrease? Why? THEME 5. MEANS THAT LOCAL STRUCTURES COULD CONSIDER CARRY ING ON WITH THE PROGRAM AFTER THE GRANT EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. Do FPDI consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. How do you consider ways to continue with the program after. What is your planning to have the canteen program stay in school? Have you ever thought about b. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. Whose responsibility could it be? ( FPDI, The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations? Please explain. c. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 2. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. Go deeper with the following points: a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 6. GOOD PRACTICES / LESSONS LEARNED EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities of the school canteen program in Abricots should be replicated? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? 45 b. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. c. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 7. RECOMMENDATION 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. 46 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PROJECT HAITI ESS/IFOS GUIDE FGDS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good morning / Good afternoon, My name is……………..……………... Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people: mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right not to answer to a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? We would like to talk with you about the school canteen program in Abricots schools. 47 THEME 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM I MPLEMENTATION 1. Tell us about your experience with the implementation of the school canteen program in Abricots schools. 2. Do you think that, with the school canteen, more children succeed to upper grade? a. In your opinion, does the school canteen program increase the number of students at school? Please explain. 3. According to you, what work very well in the school canteen program? QUESTION FOR SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, SCHOOL TEACHERS, COMMUNITY LEADER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY Now, I would like you to share with us your opinion on the advantages of the school canteen on students’ learning, lessons learned and other information you deem useful. THEME 2. IMPACT ON SCHOOL LEARNING/ENROLLMENT EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. What is the basis, usually, for parents to enroll their child in a school? a. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? b. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. THEME 3. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHOOL CANTEEN EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think children eat at home before going to school? a. What are the advantages when a child eats at school? b. According to you, is there a relation between the food and the leaning capacity of children at school? c. How do you see the link? Explain. THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM 4. EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? a. What do you think could change? Give some examples. b. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? c. Would enrollments decrease? Why? 48 THEME 5. MEANS THAT LOCAL STRUCTURES COULD CONSIDER TO CARRY ON WITH THE PROGRAM AFTER THE GRANT EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. Whose responsibility could it be? (The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations?) Please explain. 2. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 3. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. Go deeper with the following points: a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 6. GOOD PRACTICES / LESSONS LEARNED EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities of the school canteen program in Abricots should be replicated? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? b. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. c. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 7. RECOMMENDATION 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. 49 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PRO JECT HAITI ESS/IFOS GUIDE FOR PARENTS’ FOCUS GROUP Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good Morning / Good afternoon My name is……….…………………… Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people, like mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right to refuse to answer a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? PARENTS’ GUIDE 50 THEME 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1. Do you have children enrolled in this school? Each participant will provide all information related to him/her a. How many? b. In what grade? How old are the children? c. How many children eat at this school? d. How often do children eat in this school? (Every day, not often? Why?) THEME 2. PERCEPTION OF THE PROGRAM EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Give us your opinions on the feeding program in this school. a. Have your children always been in that school? Explain your answers? b. How did you decide to enroll your children in that school? c. What is special about this school? d. Tell us your experiences through the program with your child eating at school? e. How did it start? THEME 2. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. How did you become aware of the school canteen program in the school? 2. Did the school canteen exist already at the time you enrolled your child in this school? a. What was there before the project? b. If the school canteen does not exist, what would happen? i. What would change? ii. Do you think children will continue to come to school each day? Explain iii. Would enrolments decrease or increase? Why? THEME 3. ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHOOL -CANTEEN PROGRAM EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think children eat at home before coming to school? 2. What are the advantages when a child eats at school? Go deeper with these questions: 51 a. Are there any disadvantages for a child to eat at school? Explain your points of view. b. According to you, what difference is there between a child who eats at school (participating to the program) and another child who does not eat at school (not participating to the program)? a. Explain what differences you observed in terms of health and learning aptitude. b. According to you, is there a relation between the food and the leaning capacity of children at school? c. How do you see the link? Explain. d. How you can describe the project's contribution to the learning experience of students in school THEME 4. IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON LEARNING AND ENROLMENT 1. Tell us about the differences you observed between a child who eats at school and another child who does not have access to a hot meal at school. Go deeper with these questions: a. What is different among these children (talking about health, learning at school, level of understanding)? b. Before the program, did they eat at school? Explain the previous situation. c. During the program do schools provide food for the children? Why? d. If a parent cannot provide food for their child to go to school, what happens? What does the child do? Please tell us. e. If a parent has nothing to give to a child to go to school, how long would they keep the child at home before sending him/her back to school? Go deeper with this information: 2. In your opinion, could the fact that a child eats at school solve the following problems: a. Repeated absences, lateness, dropping out, not advancing to upper grade, etc. Explain and give examples. THEME 5. DECIDING TO ENROLL A CHILD IN A SCHOOL 1. To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by VSFP activity? a. What is usually the basis for parents to enroll a child in a given school? b. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? c. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. d. In your opinion, could giving a hot meal to a child at school encourage a parent to send their child to this school? Explain. e. If they provide more food at this school, what will happen? What could change? Explain. 52 THEME 6. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM 4. EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. What do you think could change? Give some examples. 2. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? 3. Would enrollments decrease? Why? THEME 7. ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES OFFERED 1. How do you like the quality of the food served at school? Explain. 2. In your opinion, how do you prepare a plate of food that would keep you healthy? 3. What are the food products that one can find in this community to prepare this plate of food? a. What is the plate of food given at school made of? What do they give to the children? Explain. b. Are you okay with the amount of food given to children? c. Are you satisfied with the amount of meat or fish? d. Are you satisfied in general? Why? Please explain. e. How often do they provide meals (in the morning, at noon, what is the food made of?) 4. Name a few products that are part of the preparation of the food provided at school. 5. Are you somehow unsatisfied with the food program? Give us some details. THEME 8. MEANS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD CONSIDER TO CARRY ON WITH THE PROGRAM AFTER IT ENDS EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. i. Whose responsibility could it be? (The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations?) Please explain. ii. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 2. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs 53 c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 9. LES BONNES PRATIQUES/ LECONS APPRISES EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities should be replicated? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? b. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. c. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 10. RECOMMENDATION 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. 54 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PRO JECT HAITI ESS/IFOS FOCUS GROUP GUIDE FOR THE RESTAURATEURS Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good Morning/Afternoon, My name is ………………………………… Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people, like mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right to refuse to answer to a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? INTRODUCTION We would like to talk to you about the school canteen program in this community. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENT ATION THEME 1. PERCEPTION OF THE PROGRAM 1. Please tell us your experiences with the school canteen program. a. How did you get involved in the program? b. What were the selection criteria? 55 c. How did it work? Please give us some details. d. Tell us about the agreement and the proposal for preparing the meals for the school? e. What was the discussion about? f. How long have you been in the program? g. What is the duration of the agreement? h. Tell us about the income you were able to secure with this agreement? (per week or per month) i. Share with us what made you satisfied? What made you unsatisfied? THEME 2. ORGANIZING THE MEALS Now we would like to have some explanations about the way meals are organized. 1. Tell us about the way meals are organized. a. How many meals do you serve a day? b. For how many people? 2. How do you supply for food products? a. What types of products do you buy? b. What is the quantity of products you buy? c. How often do you buy products? d. Who is your supplier? 3. Tell us about the support you get to organize the meals. a. Helper, Cook b. Tell us about meals distribution at the school. c. Who attends the children? 4. Tell us about food transportation to the school. a. What type of transportation? b. How many times a day? THEME 3. FOOD STORAGE AND MEANS OF PRESERVATION 1. Tell us about food products storage. Go deeper with these points: a. Meat b. Fish c. Vegetable d. Water (where does the water come from? treatment methods, use of water) e. Hygiene and sanitation conditions 2. Tell us about the means of preservation for food products. 3. What are the difficulties you face in storing and preserving food? THEME 4. SOURCES OF ENERGY 1. Tell us about the sources of energy you use to cook the food. Go deeper with these points: a. How do sources or energy help you, besides cooking? b. Are the sources or energy you use adapted/suitable to your needs, under the project? If yes, why do you think so? If not, please explain. 2. Tell us about the obstacles you have in using energy sources. 3. What is, in your opinion, the level of satisfaction with sources of energy? a. If you are not satisfied, please explain why? 56 THEME 5. COST OF RESTAURATION / OF PRODUCTS 1. What is the cost of the meal per student? Go deeper with these points: a. Cost of products b. What is the average income you get (per week, per month)? c. Are you satisfied? If yes, why? If not, why? THEME 6. FOOD QUALITY AND QUANTITY 1. What quantity of food do you prepare every day? a. In your opinion, how do you prepare a plate of food that would keep you healthy? 2. What are the food products one can find in this community to prepare this plate of food? a. Are all products used in this program natural? Give some details. 3. What are the obstacles you face in cooking food for children at school? a. What works very well in this job? b. What does not work properly? THEME.7. ADVANTAGES OF THE PROGRAM IN TERMS OF SCHOOL LEARNING (APPLICABLE TO BOTH GROUPS) EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think this school canteen is an advantage for the students and their parents? Explain your answers. a. Tell us about the link that exist between the school canteen and school learning? THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. What do you think could change? Give some examples. 2. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? 3. Would enrollments decrease? Why? THEME 8. TRAINING RECEIVED UNDER THE PROGRAM 1. Tell us about the training you got before you start to work? Go deeper with the following points: a. What was/were the topic(s) of the training? b. What was the duration of the training? 2. Do you have other needs in terms of training? Explain. Go deeper with these points: a. What are the topics you are interested in? b. Explain how this training changed your ways of doing things? c. Give us some examples of behaviors or attitudes that have changed in the way you used to do things. 57 3. Do you usually participate in meetings concerning the program? Give some details. Go deeper with these questions: a. What is the purpose of these meetings? b. How often per week/month? c. What topics do they discuss? 4. Your reference people for the program a. Do you provide reports? Who do you report to? Why? THEME 9. IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON THE COMMUNITY 1. Tell us about the usefulness of the school canteen program within the community. a. For the vendors/local production b. Other people in the community. THEME 10. OTHER MEANS COMMUNITIES COULD CONSIDER TO CARRY ON WITH THE PROGRAM, AFTER IT ENDS Q3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance 1. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. b. Whose responsibility could it be? c. The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations? Please explain. d. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 2. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 11. GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED 1. In your opinion, what activities should be replicated under this project? a. What activities do you think should be changed? 2. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. 3. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain THEME 12. RECOMMANDATIONS 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. VSFP FINAL EVALUATION 58 Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services Project Haiti ESS/IFOS GUIDE FOR GROWERS FOCUS GROUP Introduction / Presentation / Required Behavior Good Morning/Afternoon, My name is……………………………… Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people: mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right to refuse to answer a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? INTRODUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENT ATION We would like to talk to you about the school canteen program in this community. 1. Tell us about your experiences with the school canteen program. Go deeper with the following questions: a. How did you get involved in the program? b. What were the selection criteria? 59 c. How did it work? Please give us some details. d. What was the discussion about? e. How long have you been in the program? f. What is the duration of the agreement? g. Tell us about your income in relation with this agreement? (per week or per month) h. Share with us what made you satisfied? What made you unsatisfied? i. Can you talk about the usefulness of this program in your life? Give examples? j. Share with us the positive aspects of the agreement you made with the project. k. What are the constraints you have faced under this agreement? THEME 1. IMPACT ON SCHOOL LEARNING/ENROLLMENT EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. What is the basis, usually, for parents to enroll their child in a school? a. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? b. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. c. How you can describe the project's contribution to the learning experience of students in school THEME 2. ADVANTAGES OF THE PROGRAM IN LEARNING AT SCHOOL EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think the school canteen is an advantage for the students and their parents? Explain your answers? a. Tell us about the relation between the school canteen and learning at school? b. What do you think would motivate a parent to enroll their child in a school? c. If the canteen no longer exists what could change in school attendance? d. Would the presence of students be the same? Why? e. Would registrations increase? or would they decrease? Why? THEME 3. TRAINING PROVIDED UNDER THE PROGRAM 1. Tell us about the training you were provided before starting this work? Go deeper with the following points: a. What was/were the topic(s) of the training? b. What was the duration of the training? 60 2. Do you have other needs in terms of training? Please explain. Go deeper with these questions: a. What are the topics interesting for you? b. Explain how this training has changed your way of doing things (your practices). c. Give us some examples of behavior and attitudes that have changed in the way you do things. 3. Do you usually participate in meetings about the program? Go deeper with these questions: a. What is the purpose of these meetings? b. How often do they meet in a week/month? c. What are the topics for discussion? d. What are you reference people for the program? e. Do you provide reports? Who do you report to? Why? THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ 2. To what extent school attendance frequency could change, once the program ends? 1. What do you think could change? Give some examples. a. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? b. Would enrollments decrease? Why? THEME 5. IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ON THE COMMUNITY 1. Tell us about how useful the school canteen is in the community? a. For the vendors/local production b. Other people in the community. THEME 6. OTHER MEANS COMMUNITIES COULD CONSIDER TO CARRY ON WITH THE PROGRAM, AFTER THIS PROJECT EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 2. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain. b. Whose responsibility could it be? (The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations?) Please explain. 61 c. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 3. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. Go deeper with these points: a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 7. GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities should be replicated in the work you do for the project? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? 2. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. 3. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 8. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES 1. In your opinion, what did work well under your agreement? 2. Before the project, how was your work? Explain. a. In your opinion, what has changed for you during the project? 3. According to you, what should be improved? THEME 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. 62 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PRO JECT SI/IFOS GUIDE FOR TEACHERS Introduction / Presentation / Behavior Good Morning/Afternoon, My name is……………..……………... Thank you for your availability to meet us today. We work for a research company called Social Impact; they work in research and evaluation in the areas of Education and food in schools in Haiti. The work we are doing today relate to project of ‘giving a hot meal’ to the students in the commune of Abricot. USAID is the organization that funded the project. We would like to speak with you to better understand the situation of the project. We would also like to talk to the concerned people: mothers, fathers, children and other members of the community to get their opinions on the project and their recommendations as part of an improvement for better services. In the invitations we told you that participation is voluntary, I thank you for agreeing to come to this meeting. The information we are going to discuss will be very important in the context of improved services in this project, so we ask your permission to record the information. The information you will give will remain confidential; we do not need your names, we will give you numbers to identify you. Avoid mentioning the names of others in the group, it is a way of keeping confidentiality. The information will be shared only with relevant people. You have the right not to answer to a specific question. We seek to understand your opinions on the project. There is no good or bad answer, it is not an examination, we want to give the opportunity to each of you to speak and to express your ideas. There is no risk to participate in this meeting. The duration of this meeting is approximately 1h00 to 1h30. After the meeting we will share a refreshing some fresh drinks. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate? We would like to talk with you about the school canteen program in Abricots schools. THEME 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EQ1.To what extent has the decision to send children to school been influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Tell us about your experience with the implementation of the school canteen program in Abricots schools. Go deeper with the following questions: 2. How long has your school been enrolled in the program? 3. How many children participate to the program? 63 4. What is the group age for children who participates to the program? 5. Are all the students in the school enrolled in the program? 6. Do you think that, with the school canteen, more children succeed to upper grade? a. In your opinion, does the school canteen program increase the number of students at school? Please explain. 7. Are there less children dropping out? 8. According to you, what work very well in the school canteen program? 9. Where do the student eat? a. Who distributes the food to the students? 10. Did the person who provide the food receive training enabling her/him to do this assignment? 11. Tell us about hygienic practices related to the preparation of the food and how it is organized. THEME 2. IMPACT ON SCHOOL LEARNING/ENROLLMENT EQ1. To what extent was the decision to send children to school influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. What is the basis, usually, for parents to enroll their child in a school? a. In your opinion, what are the advantages sought by parents? Why do you think so? b. Do you think the school canteen could attract some parents? Explain. THEME 3. THE ADVANTAGES OF THE SCHOOL CANTEEN EQ1. To what extent was the decision to send children to school influenced by the VSFP activity? 1. Do you think children eat at home before going to school? 2. What are the advantages when a child eats at school? a. Are there any disadvantages for a child to eat at school? Explain your points of view. b. According to you, what difference is there between a child who eats at school (participating to the program) and another child who does not eat at school (not participating to the program)? c. Explain what differences you observed in terms of health and learning aptitude. d. According to you, is there a relation between the food and the leaning capacity of children at school? e. How do you see the link? Explain. THEME 4. PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AFTER THE PROGRAM EQ2. To what extent might the frequency of school attendance change once the program ends? 1. What do you think could change? Give some examples. a. If the program comes to and end and there is no more grant, how would this situation impact daily school attendance of children? b. Would enrollments decrease? Why? 64 THEME 5. MEANS THAT LOCAL STRUCTURES COULD CONSIDER TO CARRY ON WITH THE PROGRAM AFTER THE GRANT EQ 3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. Do program stakeholders consider some other means to carry on with the school feeding activities, once the program is finished? a. If the program is completed and they do not renew the grant, how can the community take ownership of this project? Explain.Whose responsibility could it be?(The Haitian State (national/local)? The school principal? Parents’ committee? Local associations?) Please explain. b. According to you, how should the school canteen program be managed by the community? 2. According to you, what is to be done to ensure project survival and smooth running? Explain. Go deeper with the following points: a. Training of parents’ committee, school and community b. Integrate parents as vendors and restaurateurs c. Encourage local production d. Integrate local associations THEME 6. GOOD PRACTICES / LESSONS LEARNED EQ3. Have the VSFP stakeholders considered ways to continue the school feeding activities beyond the program’s period of performance? 1. In your opinion, what activities of the school canteen program in Abricots should be replicated? a. In your opinion, what activities should be changed? b. According to you, what activities work very well within the program? Explain. c. According to you, what activities do not work properly? Explain. THEME 7. RECOMMENDATION 18. What are your recommendations for a better school canteen project within this community? Thank you for your participation. 65 VSFP FINAL EVALUATION HAITI EVALUATION AND SURVEY SERVICES PRO JECT HAITI ESS/IFOS FORM TO COLLECT SCHO OL REGISTRATION DATA FOR STUDENTS To complete this form, you must: Meet with the school principal Fill one by school BASIC INFORMATION Date: _____________________________ Department: _____________________________ Name of the communal section: ___________________________________________________ Name of locality: ___________________________________________________________________ School name: _______________________________________________________________________ 1. Total student population for the year 2014 (before project): ____________________ 2. Total student population for the year 2015-2016: ____________________ 3. Total student population for the year 2017- 2018: ____________________ 4. Number of boys: ____________________ 5. Number of girls: ____________________ 6. Number of food vendors in this school: ____________________ 7. Number of supervisors for this school: ____________________ NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL 2014/15 Boys 2014/15 Girls 2015/16 Boys 2015/16 Girls 2016/17 Boys 2016/17 Girls Sources of Reference Number of students in this school Number of students promoted Average number of students in attendance each day* Number of students that eat in this school *The ET calculated average attendance from FPDI records of daily student attendance 66 ANNEX G: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM DISCLOSURE OF CONFLI CT OF INTEREST FOR T HE VSFP FINAL EVALUATION. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for the VSFP Final Evaluation Organization Name Evaluation Position ☐Service Provider ☒Team Leader ☐Team Member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) RFP #: SOL-HESS-2018-004 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) VSFP I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ☐Yes ☒No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing 67 Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for the VSFP Final Evaluation Organization Name organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 10-03-18