Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture Lao – PDR McGovern-Dole Food for Education Project Final Evaluation October 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared independently by NRMC. Decentralized Evaluation for USDA McGovern Dole FY14 End- Line Evaluation in Lao PDR (FY14-16) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program in Lao PDR was implemented by World Food Programme from 2014-2018. The aim of the program is to improve the literacy, health, and dietary practices of primary-school-aged children. Agreement Number: FFE-439-2014/049-00 Project Duration: 2014-2018 Implemented by: World Food Programme Evaluation Authored by: NRMC Evaluation Manager: Utomo Tjipto Team Leader: Bhaskar Goswami Team Members: Malay Das, Ankita Singh, Prapti Barooah DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. based decisionbased making - Decentralized Evaluation Decentralized evidence evaluation for USDA Mc-GOVERN DOLE FY14END-LINE EVALUATION IN LAO PDR [FY 14-16] Report of End line Evaluation October 2018 WFP Country Office Lao PDR Mr. Utomo Tjipto, WFP Lao PDR Evaluation Manager Prepared by Team Leader: Bhaskar Goswami Team Member: Malay Das, Ankita Singh, Prapti Barooah Acknowledgements The NRMC evaluation team wishes to acknowledge the guidance, support, and cooperation received from all the participants in the evaluation. NRMC takes this opportunity to extend sincere thanks to the distinguished Government officials at the Ministries, provincial level and district level for their time and precious inputs. The NRMC Evaluation Team expresses its gratitude to Ada Ihenachor and Tracy Johnson from USDA for their valuable suggestions and guidance for the evaluation. We would like to thank the members of RBB, Felicity Chard and Yumiko Kanemitsu, for sharing their useful insights. Their suggestions have immensely helped in enhancing the design of the evaluation. We would also like to thank the staff of international development agencies (The World Bank, UNICEF, UNFPA, Australian DFAT, Plan International, Big Brother Mouse, SNV, and GIZ) who kindly took the time to meet us and give us their views on the school feeding programme in Lao PDR. NRMC wishes to sincerely acknowledge the support and guidance received from the staff of the WFP Lao PDR Country Office, for assisting with the planning of and facilitating the evaluation mission, and for supplying documentation, especially to Sarah Gordon Gibson, Nanna Skau, Utomo Tjipto, Yangxia Lee, Serena Mithbaokar, Air Sensomphone, Khizar Ashraf, OuthaiSihalath, Phetsamone Southalack, Kevin Howley, Thai Thao, and the WFP staff from the Pakse and LuangNamtha sub-offices. We are grateful to the team from Geo-Sys for their partnership with the NRMC evaluation team throughout the period of evaluation, particularly for their untiring efforts for data collection. Last but not the least, the evaluation team wishes to acknowledge the cooperation received from all informants, including school children, school head, teachers, parents, cooks, storekeepers and VEDC members, during the primary survey. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. USDA Mc-Govern Dole FY 14 End-line Evaluation in Lao PDR Final Report Table of Contents Acknowledgements List of Acronyms Executive Summary 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. The subject of the Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Evaluation Findings ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. The relevance of MGD SFP FY14 in Lao PDR ....................................................................................... 10 2.2. The effectiveness of MGD-SFP FY14 (based on performance indicators) ........................... 12 2.3. Impact of MGD-SFP FY14 .............................................................................................................................. 26 2.4. The efficiency of MGD-SFP FY14 ............................................................................................................... 28 2.5. Sustainability of MGD-SFP FY14 ................................................................................................................ 30 2.6. Theory of Change for MGD-SFP FY14 ..................................................................................................... 33 3. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 33 3.1. Overall Assessment/ Conclusions............................................................................................................. 33 3.2. Good practices and Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 36 3.3. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................... 42 Annex A: Scope of Work for End-Line Evaluation ...................................................................................... 42 Annex B: Stakeholders and Report Users ....................................................................................................... 44 Annex C: Map of the Intervention Area .......................................................................................................... 48 Annex D: List of Districts under MGD FY14 ................................................................................................... 49 Annex E: Planned Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 50 Annex F: Break-up of Contribution from Non-USDA Funding for WFP School Feeding Programme .......................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Annex G: Project-Level Results Framework .................................................................................................. 60 Annex H: Theory of Change .................................................................................................................................... 64 i USDA Mc-Govern Dole FY 14 End-line Evaluation in Lao PDR Final Report Annex I: Role of WFP's partners in MGD SFP .............................................................................................. 70 Annex J: Status of Poverty, Nutrition and Education in Lao PDR, 2012 ........................................ 71 Annex K: ODA Assistance to Lao PDR ............................................................................................................... 74 Annex L: Evaluation Mission Schedule ............................................................................................................ 78 Annex M: Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................................................... 85 Annex N: Evaluation Approach and Methodology ...................................................................................... 98 Annex O: Documents Gathered ......................................................................................................................... 107 Annex P: List of Sample Schools ....................................................................................................................... 111 Annex Q: End-line Values of Key Indicators ............................................................................................... 115 Annex R: End-line Values of Other Key Performance Indicators .................................................... 121 Annex S: Results from EGRA sub-tests ......................................................................................................... 131 Annex T: Baseline and MTE recommendations and follow up ......................................................... 134 List of Tables Table 1: Target beneficiaries disaggregated by sex ................................................................................................