Funded by:

Strengthening the monitoring and evaluation of the Ghana School Feeding

Programme

Matilda Essandoh Laar

24th June, 2016Innovative Metrics and Methods for

Agriculture and Nutrition Actions

Outline

1) Background on Ghana

2) Introduction to the Ghana School Feeding Program (GSFP)

3) Study

4) Methods

5) Significance of study

Background on Ghana

• UNDP Human Development Index ranked Ghana as having a “medium human development” (2008)

• DHS 2008 - 2014: National reduction in anthropometric indices (stunting, wasting underweight)

• Low-income food deficit country according to the FAO definition (2008)

• Rural-urban and regional disparities in food security and nutrition outcomes

• Vulnerability to food insecurity and low household purchasing power among food crop farmers

The Ghana School Feeding Program

Government initiative started in 2005 under the CAADP and NEPAD

GSFP: Nationwide program focused on schools in poor communities

Modeled after the “home-grown” approach to link SFP to local agriculture

GSFP: Institutional Arrangement

GSFP NATIONAL SECRETARIAT

Ministry of Gender and Social Protection

COLLABORATING MINISTRIESMLGRD, MoE/GES, MoH/GHS,

MoFA

GSFP Regional CoordinationOffice (RCO)

Regional CoordinatingCouncil (RCC)

District Desk OfficerOffice (DDO)

District Implementation Committee (DIC)

Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies

(DA/MMDA)

SCHOOLSHead Teachers, Teachers,

Community Health Teachers, SHEP Coordinators)

COMMUNITY

DISTRICT

Development Partners

School Implementation Committee (SIC)

Local Farmers & Processors

Pupils

Caterers

PARLIAMENT

Community Groups

REGIONAL

NATIONAL

GSFP: Objectives

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Outcomes

Outputs

Inputs

Activities

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Regional Monitors

Regional Coordinators

District Desk Officer (DDO)

NATIONAL COORDINATOR

M&E Coordinator

SHEP CoordinatorCommunity Health Teachers

School Head TeacherCaterer

Organogram of M&E activities

GSFP: M&E tools

GSFP: M&E tools

GSFP: M&E tools

GSFP: M&E tools

GSFP: M&E tools

GSFP: M&E toolsUse of food scales for measures is not a common practice in Ghana

Study: IMMANA FellowshipObjective• To conduct a pilot study to assess the feasibility of using

the new GSFP tools in monitoring and evaluating the selected outputs and outcomes of the GSFP.

Specific objectives• To determine the feasibility of using the new tools in

monitoring and evaluating the nutritional quality of the meals.

• To determine the feasibility of using the new tools in monitoring and evaluating the link of the GSFP to local agriculture.

Study: Research Site

•2 districts per selected region

•3 communities per selected district

We obtained ethical clearance from NMIMR, University of Ghana

Permission: GSFP National Secretariat

Study: Ethical clearance

Tools: SummaryM&E personnel use new tools for

one school term:

• Daily monitoring tool for the headteacher

• Daily monitoring tool for the caterer

• Procurement tool for caterer (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.)

• School term monitoring tool (termly)

• Spot checks using the School Sanitation and Facilities monitoring tool

Study Design

Quantitative

• Use of daily M&E tools for a school term (trainings and implementation)

• Spot checks using sanitation tools

• School term monitoring tool

Qualitative

• Interviews to understand experiences with using the new tools for M&E

Statistical Analysis

• N=720 school days; 18 clusters (schools)

• Outcomes: meal diversity, nutrient content of meal

(protein, vit A, Iron)

• Independent variables: recent payment of caterers,

(%) of local procurement, school enrolment,

number of food vendors in school, presence of local

farmers in community, use of district menu,

number of SIC meetings, rural/periurban, student drop-out rates

• Linear mixed models (adjusted for cluster)

Key challenges1. Caterer labour strikes

2. Training: Challenges with the completion of the daily feeding monitoring tools.

• Caterer form: Tinned tomatoes, fresh vegetables (tomatoes, onions)

• Headteacher form: Impossible to report amount of fish powder used

Lessons learned

1. Tools need to be developed in consultation with the users to help address practical concerns earlier in the process.

2. It is important to address issues identified from pretests before implementation.

3. High respondent burden for caterers and headteachers

Significance• Inform the GSFP of the challenges

encountered in using forms for M&E before their national implementation

• Provide the GSFP with recommendations on how tools may be used for effective M&E

• Effective M&E can improve GSFP outcomes,

provide the needed information for policy

and promote program sustainability

Acknowledgement• Dr Grace Marquis- McGill University

• Dr Esi Colecraft- University of Ghana

• Ghana School Feeding National Secretariat

• Partnership for Child Development- Ghana Office