The Impact of DepED’S School-Based Feeding Program.pptx

The Impact of DepED’S School-
Based Feeding Program
1
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
www.pids.gov.ph
Jose Ramon Albert, Ph.D. , Senior Research Fellow, PIDS
Ana Maria L. Tabunda, Ph.D. , UPSS & Pulse Asia
Imelda Angeles-Agdeppa, FNRI
13th National Convention on Statistics
October 3-4, 2016, EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Mandaluyong City

Outline
1. Introduction : The School Based Feeding
Program (SBFP) and the PIDS Study
Evaluating the SBFP
2. Methodology & Results
3. Ways Forward
2

1. INTRODUCTION
3
www.pids.gov.ph

DepED’s in-school feeding program, initially called the
Breakfast Feeding program, was first launched in 1997 to
address short-term hunger among public school children.
◦ After SY 2008-2009, program shifted to addressing undernutrition or
malnutrition among elementary children enrolled in public schools.
◦ Starting SY 2012-2013, the program was called School Based Feeding Program
(SBFP) so as not limit the feeding to breakfast only.
◦ The SBFP provides food to severely wasted (SW) children (weight-for-height of
child is below minus 3 standard deviation cut-off established by WHO for well-
nourished populations) . The SBFP is conducted in schools over a period of 100
to 120 feeding days for a given batch of program beneficiaries.
4
1.1. The SBFP

Goals of the SBFP are :
1. To rehabilitate at least 70% of severely wasted beneficiaries to normal
nutritional status at end of 100 to 120 feeding days;
2. To increase classroom attendance by 85% to 100%
3. To improve the children's health and nutrition values and behavior.
To ensure effectiveness and sustainability of SBFP,
complementary activities are undertaken
◦ Deworming of beneficiary children
◦ Program implementers undertake waste segregation, management and composting;
and integrate the Essential Health Care Program (EHCP) in SBFP
◦ Schools grow vegetable gardens under Gulayan sa Paaralan Project (GPP)
5
1.1. The SBFP

◦ The SBFP involves feeding primary pupils for 100–120
feeding days, using a 20-day cycle of standardized recipes
with malunggay.
 SBFP’s feeding days are fewer compared to an average of 180 feeding days
in other developing countries (Bundy et al. 2009)
◦ Each meal has at least 300 calories.
 This is lower compared to other feeding programs that provide 876
calories per meal (Adelman et al. 2008).
◦ To implement SBFP, each school head establishes its SBFP
core group (CG) and involves volunteer parents in
preparation of meals and in feeding the children.
6
1.1. The SBFP

◦ In SY 2013–2014, the daily feeding budget for SBFP was PHP 16
per beneficiary, covering both the food (PHP 15 per beneficiary)
and the admin and monitoring expenses (PHP 1 per participant).
◦ In the same SY, DepED’s SBFP had a total budget of PHP 77.5
million to feed a fraction of the SW pupils in public primary
schools. The number of SBFP beneficiaries (40,361) was only 7.2
percent of the more than half a million (562,262) SW primary
school students across the Philippines
 In SY 2014-2015, SBFP was given a budget of over PHP 1B to target all
severely wasted students in this schoolyear. For SY 2015–2016, budget
was further increased to more PHP 2B, with the program targeting
532,752 severely wasted pupils, as well as about half (627,403) of the
total number (1,312,935) of wasted pupils in public primary schools
7
1.1. The SBFP

Objectives of Impact Evaluation of SBFP:
1. assess the outcomes and impact of the 2013-2014 SBFP in
terms of its stated educational and nutritional objectives; and
2. assess the complementary activities of 2013-2014 SBFP
namely, the GPP and integration of the EHCP in
implementation of the 2013-2014 SBFP.
3. identify changes needed, if any, to improve the design and
management of the program.
Significance: An IE of SBFP and complementary activities would serve to
determine whether SBFP is achieving its goals and may provide useful
insights to DepED that would help serve to strengthen future strategy or
improve the design of the program.
8
1.2. Impact Evaluation of SBFP

◦ In SY 2013-2014, DepED allocated funds for school-feeding of
40,361 SW pupils in 814 schools across the country
◦ Distribution of program beneficiaries was uneven across regions
 CAR, Region XII, Caraga and ARMM each had at most 600 beneficiaries
 Region IV-A had 8,893 beneficiaries.
◦ The distribution of program beneficiaries was also uneven across
schools.
 In NCR and Region IV-A, no school had fewer than 20 beneficiaries.
◦ Most of SY 2013-2014 beneficiaries were from rural areas (65.7%).
◦ Nearly half of the SBFP beneficiary schools in SY 2013-2014 were
located in first-class cities or municipalities.
9
1.3. SBFP for SY 2013-2014

2. Methodology & Results
10
www.pids.gov.ph

◦ The best approach for an impact evaluation is to conduct a
randomized controlled trial (RCT), which involves having a targeted
set of beneficiaries, and randomly assigned them into the program.
In practice, this is challenging to implement, so other approaches
are used, including matching beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries
meant to perform a counterfactual analysis and measure impact.
11
2.1. Study Design
Impact of
SBFP
Outcome
with SBFP
Outcome
without
SBFP

◦In practice, a RCT is challenging to implement, so other
approaches are used, including matching beneficiaries with
non-beneficiaries meant to perform a counterfactual
analysis. The design for the IE of SBFP involved a mixed
methods approach.
◦Quantitative surveys of program beneficiary pupils and
their parents, as well as matched non-program beneficiary
children and their parents (to generate a counterfactual
analysis)
◦Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) of school-heads and SBFP
implementors, as well as Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
with parents during process evaluation (initial phase of IE),
and main phase of the study.
12
2.1. Study Design

◦ A multi-stage stratified random sample with a target sample size of
1,210 SBFP beneficiaries was to be drawn from 44 randomly
sampled beneficiary schools in
Northern and Central Luzon (CAR, Regions I to III)
NCR and Region IV-A
Regions IV-B and V
◦ The schools were initially stratified into
stratum 1 : N ≤ 19 SW
stratum 2 : 20 ≤ N ≤ 29
◦ Samples of 15, 25 and 35 SW pupils were to be drawn from
collapsed strata 1-and-2, stratum 3 and stratum 4, respectively.
Allocation of the 44 beneficiary schools and target number of SW
beneficiaries per school was done in a manner that will yield an
approximately proportional sample.
13
2.1. Study Design
Visayas
Mindanao
stratum 3 : 30 ≤ N ≤ 99
stratum 4 : N ≥ 100

◦A sample of 1,210 (target sample size) SW non-beneficiary
(NB) pupils was to be selected from schools that were not
included in the SY 13-14 implementation of the SBFP.
NB pupils were to be matched to randomly selected beneficiary pupils in
terms of Nutrition Status (NS), Age in years, and Sex of pupil
◦Interviews of
Parent / guardian of sampled beneficiary pupils
Parent / guardian of sampled NB pupils
School Heads of 44 Beneficiary Schools
School Heads of NB Schools
An SBFP Core Group member per sampled beneficiary school
Teachers of sampled beneficiary pupils
◦FGDs involving Parents (beneficiary and NB), Teachers, Core
Group members
14
2.1. Study Design

1. The survey was conducted about a year after the implementation of the
SY 2013-2014 SBFP, the focus of the study. Survey responses may be
subject to recall bias.
2. Info needed for verifying nutrition status and school attendance of
beneficiary and NB children is missing or incomplete for many of the
sampled beneficiary children and NB children.
3. The expanded implementation of the SY 2014-2015 SBFP, which was
ongoing at the time of the survey, constrained the selection of non-
beneficiary SW children (counterfactual sample).
4. The analysis presented is an unweighted analysis.
5. Validation of information regarding list of beneficiary schools (as stated in
DepED Memo No. 74 s. 2013) was conducted during the field work.
15
2.2. Limitations of Study

◦Field work dates: 16 Feb to 27 Mar 2015
◦12 of the 44 beneficiary schools in the original sample had to
be replaced
◦Because of a lower number of SW pupils in many of the
sampled schools, only 1,151 beneficiary children (some of
whom are siblings) were interviewed.
◦Identifying 1 NB school per beneficiary school prior to field
work proved insufficient.
Some NB schools
• did not have SW pupils
• or did not have enough SW pupils
• or enough SW pupils that matched the sampled beneficiaries.
◦1,107 NB pupils (some of whom are siblings) from 119 NB
schools were interviewed.
16
2.3. Survey Implementation & Challenges

◦ Of the 44 sampled beneficiary schools, 30 schools or 68% are
located in rural barangays
◦ 68% implemented the SBFP for the first time in SY 13-14
◦ Of the 14 schools that are repeat-implementers, 11 had repeat
pupil beneficiaries
Number of repeat beneficiaries ranged from 1 to 28 for 9 schools
1 school reported having 100 repeat beneficiaries, another reported 134
◦ 12 School Heads said that they fed W pupils in SY 13-14.
◦ All but 5 of the schools had a school vegetable garden in
SY 13-14.
◦ All but 2 schools implemented the Essential Health Care Program
(EHCP) in SY 13-14.
17
2.4. Beneficiary Schools

Families
◦ About 67% of 1,081 beneficiary families reside in rural areas.
◦ Nearly half (49.4%) were CCT beneficiaries in SY 13-14.
◦ About 15% of the families have OFW relatives who send them money.
◦ Average family size of beneficiary families is 6, with size ranging from 2 to 16.
Children
◦ More than half of the beneficiary pupils are male (56%).
◦ Recorded ages of children range from 4 to 16, with a mean and median age
of about 10.
◦ About 1/3 of the children are below 8 years old.
◦ Nearly 39% of the children were repeat beneficiaries (acc. to parents).
◦ 36% were beneficiaries in SY 14-15 as well.
18
2.5. Beneficiary Families & Children

◦ Some inconsistencies in the descriptor for nutrition status
(e.g., SW, W, etc.) of beneficiary and NB children in SBFP forms
and nutrition status reports and the verified nutrition status
based on recorded birthdates and weight and height
measurements in these
same documents.
19
2.6. Main Findings (on Nutrition)
Fig. 3. Verification of pre-feed nutrition status of SY 13-14 SBFP beneficiary pupils
No Info / With
Incomplete Info on
Pre- Feed Date
With Complete Info
on Pre- Feed Date
1, 151
Beneficiary
Children
394 pupils or 34% 757 pupils or 66%

◦ Study was able to verify pre-feed and height of 753 beneficiary children.
20
Verfied to be
Severely Wasted
494 pupils or 43%
Verfied to be
Wasted
147 pupils or 13%
Verfied to be
Normal
111 pupils or 10%
Complete Info on
Pre- Feed Weight
and / or Height
753 pupils or 66%
With Complete Info
on Pre- Feed Date
No Info on Pre-
Feed Weight and /
or Height
757 pupils or 66%
4 pupils or 0.3%
• Some 494 pupils, or about 66%
of beneficiary children with
complete information on NS
variables were verified to be SW.
• Majority of the verified wasted
(W) beneficiaries may not be
considered borderline SW.
• In the case of NB children, 383
pupils or 61% of the 626 cases
with complete information on NS
variables were verified to be SW.

◦ 62% of the 287 verified SW beneficiary children attain at least
normal nutrition status at the end of the feeding program.
21
But 10% of Normal regress to
poorer nutrition status and 30%
of Wasted pupils either remain
Wasted or regress to SW.

◦ A comparison of the NS of beneficiary and non-beneficiary pupils
during the survey (Tables 2a and 2b) shows that more SBFP-fed
severely wasted pupils attained and maintained a normal NS or
better compared to non-beneficiary counterparts (48% vs 41%).
22

Attainment of Goal on School Attendance
◦ Of about 200 SBFP pupil beneficiaries verified to be severely wasted prior to
the feeding, and who had school attendance data, only about 3 percent
attended school for less than 85 percent of the total school days. The median
percentage attendance for the severely wasted children is 97.5 percent.
(School attendance of non-beneficiary pupils is comparable).
Assessment of complementary programs
◦ Nearly all beneficiary schools implemented GPP and EHCP. Some parents
mentioned that when school sometimes lacked food for SBFP, feeding
implementors added vegetables from school garden to make up for the lack.
◦ Children were taught importance of good grooming, of washing hands before
and after meals, of brushing their teeth, and of good nutrition. Nearly all
children say that they continue to wash their hands before and after eating,
both at school and at home. (But only 69 percent of the field interviewers
found children to be well-groomed at the time of the interview.)
23
2.7. Other Findings

Sustaining Nutritional Gains
◦ There are challenges sustaining nutritional gains in the case of many severely
wasted beneficiaries a year or more after the feeding.
In particular, of the 179 severely wasted beneficiaries whose nutrition
status had improved to normal at the end of feeding, and who had
consistent height measurements for pre-feeding and survey periods, about
half (48%) remained normal by the time of the survey, but some regressed
to wasted or severely wasted a year or more later.
◦ This suggests the need to continue feeding most of the severely wasted
beneficiaries beyond the 100- to 120-day feeding cycle, while simultaneously
introducing government interventions (not necessarily DepED-administered)
other than feeding programs to address the capacity of disadvantaged families
to provide for the nutritional needs of their members
24
2.7. Other Findings

Positive Feedback from Stakeholders
◦ Field interviews and FGDs suggest that the SY 2013–2014 SBFP was generally
implemented well, with majority of school heads, teachers, and parents
expressing appreciation for the program and with sizeable percentages of
heads and teachers expressing a desire to continue and expand it. The SBFP
also promoted a culture of care and active participation among stakeholders
◦ The SBFP also helped improve attentiveness and sociability of the beneficiary
pupils. Teachers reported that most of the beneficiaries enrolled in their
classes improved their level of attentiveness during (96%) and after (95%) the
feeding. The children also became more sociable during the feeding (97%)—a
development that was sustained after the feeding (96%).
◦ Improvement in class attendance was also reported by teachers for 94 percent
of the beneficiaries; 92 percent of the children sustained good attendance.
25
2.7. Other Findings

3. Ways Forward
26
www.pids.gov.ph

◦ Inaccuracies in recorded ages (to nearest month), and height and weight
measurements (recorded in school documents as well as those obtained
during the survey) constrain proper assessment of initial nutrition status of
would-be program beneficiaries, as well as improvement in such status.
RECOMMENDATION: DepED should provide all schools with standardized
equipment for weighing and height-measurement. (Nonbeneficiary schools
also need to submit accurate nutrition status reports, which serve as basis for
determining beneficiary schools).
 School heads, school nurses, and class advisers, if not all teachers, should be trained on
the proper use of such scales and on the importance of proper documentation of pre-
feeding, feeding, and post-feeding phases of SBFP to help in the proper selection of
beneficiary schools and beneficiary pupils, and in monitoring and evaluating program
outcomes
27
3. Ways Forward

◦ The target goal of having at least 70% of SW beneficiaries attain normal
nutrition status by the end of a 100 to 120-day one-meal feeding program
may have not been attained in SY 2013-2014.
 This may be due to
◦ problems in administration of program in some schools
◦ various factors beyond the control of program implementers
RECOMMENDATION: DepED should revisit targets. Note that new (higher)
nutrition targets have been set in the SBFP for SY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016
due to higher budgets.
28
3. Ways Forward

◦ Nutritional gains of the program are not sustained in the case of many of the
SW beneficiaries 12 months or more after the feeding program.
RECOMMENDATION: DepED should revisit implementation processes, e.g.,
100-120 days (why not whole SY???). It will help also to increase the food
budget allocation, and allow for inflation-adjusted increases in both program
administration and food budgets as warranted.
◦ The feeding program appears to have been implemented well. It also help
improve attentiveness in class and sociability of beneficiary pupils. The goal
of at least 85% school attendance is attained by the program beneficiaries for
entire SY (though even the NB children have good school attendance).
RECOMMENDATION: DepED needs to continue monitoring program, and
learn lessons from M&E, make adjustments as need be.
29
3. Ways Forward

PhilippineInstituteforDevelopmentStudies
Surian samga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
Service through
policy research
30
EMAIL: jalbert@mail.pids.gov.ph
Thank you
Special thanks to Sonny Domingo, Beverly Lumbera,
Martin Joseph Raymundo, Winnie Gerio and other
PIDS staff who helped us conduct some fieldwork
(FGDs & KIIs), troubleshoot, and encode data during
the course of this project. Thanks also to DepED for
the cooperation, and DBM for financial support.
/PIDS.PH
@PIDS_PH
http://www.pids.gov.ph

The Impact of DepED’S School-Based Feeding Program.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Impact of DepED’S School-Based Feeding Program.pptx

Similar to The Impact of DepED’S School-Based Feeding Program.pptx (20)

More from Anwaar Ahmed

More from Anwaar Ahmed (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Impact of DepED’S School-Based Feeding Program.pptx