SABER School Feeding Nigeria CR Final 2015 - …wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting...years are senior secondary education, and the final four years are tertiary

THE WORLD BANK

Nigeria

SCHOOL FEEDINGSABER Country Report

2015

Policy Goals Status1. Policy Frameworks

School feeding is included in the PRSP. There is also a published national policy on school health that encompasses school feeding as well as other relevant documents.

2. Financial CapacitySchool feeding is included in the national planning process, yet only state budget lines exist.

3. Institutional Capacity and CoordinationThere is a multisectoral steering committee from at least three sectors that coordinates implementation. There is a fully staffed school feeding unit at the national level.

4. Design and ImplementationThere is an M&E plan that is integrated into a national monitoring system. This M&E plan is used to refine and update programs. There are national standards set on food modalities and the food basket. National standards on the procurement and logistics arrangements have also been developed.

5. Community Roles-Reaching Beyond SchoolsSchool feeding management committee comprises of teachers, parents, and community members, and there are mechanisms in place by which the community can hold the school feeding programs accountable at national, regional, and school levels.

NIGERIA SCHOOL FEEDING POLICIES SABER COUNTRY REPORT | 2015

SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR BETTER EDUCATION RESULTS 2

IntroductionThis report presents an assessment of school feedingpolicies and institutions that affect young children inNigeria. The analysis is based on a World Bank tooldeveloped as part of the Systems Approach for BetterEducation Results (SABER) initiative that aims tosystematically assess education systems againstevidence based global standards and good practice toassist countries reform their education systems forproper learning for all.

School feeding policies are a critical component of aneffective education system, given that children's healthand nutrition impact their school attendance, ability tolearn, and overall development. A school feedingprogram is a specific school based health service, whichcan be part of a country’s broader school health program,and often a large amount of resources is invested in aschool feeding program. SABER School Feeding collects,analyzes, and disseminates comprehensive informationon school feeding policies around the world. The overallobjective of the initiative is to help countries designeffective policies to improve their education systems,facilitate comparative policy analysis, identify key areasto focus investment, and assist in disseminating goodpractice.

Country Overview

Nigeria is a lower middle income country located on thewestern coast of Africa. It is one of most populouscountries in the world. In 2013, its population wasapproximately 173.6 million; children 14 years old oryounger accounted for 44 percent of the population.1Nigeria’s economy has experienced positive growth overthe past decade. In 2013, the growth rate was 7.3percent. 2 Despite possessing natural resources andexperiencing positive economic growth, Nigeria’s HumanDevelopment Index (HDI) value in 2012 was 0.471, whichplaces the country 154th out of 187 countries.3 Its Ginicoefficient in 2010 was 48.8, indicating unequal incomedistribution. 4

1 World Bank, 2014a.2 Ibid.3 UNDP, 2013.4 World Bank, 2014a.5 Ibid.6 Ibid.

Poverty remains a challenge since it affects the majorityof the country. In 2010, approximately 84 percent of thepopulation lived on $2 or less a day (2005 internationalprices). 5 In addition to more people falling below theinternational poverty standard of $2 a day in 2010 thanin 2004, people in Nigeria were poorer in 2010 than theywere in 2004. The poverty gap at $2 a day increased from46 percent to 50 percent.6 High unemployment ratesmay be one contributing factor to the high levels ofpoverty in Nigeria. 7 Inadequate access to improvedwater and sanitation facilities also exacerbates povertyconditions. In 2012, 31 percent of the urban populationhad access to improved sanitation facilities compared to25 percent of the rural population.8 In the same year, 79percent of the urban population had access to animproved water source compared to 49 percent of therural population. .9

Education and Health in Nigeria

Education in the Federal Republic of Nigeria has madesignificant progress and is seen as an important tool forthe country’s economic growth and poverty reduction.The structure of the Nigerian education system is knownas the 6 3 3 4 system, wherein the first nine years arebasic education composed of six years of primary andthree years of junior secondary education, the next threeyears are senior secondary education, and the final fouryears are tertiary education. Pre primary educationspans three years and is not compulsory. 10 Theresponsibility to provide the various levels of educationis divided between the federal, state, and localgovernments as outlined in the Constitution, althoughsome responsibilities are shared (concurrent), ratherthan exclusive. The average years of schooling for youths(ages 17–22 years) has been increasing, from 5.6 in 1990to 8.6 in 2010.

Nigeria implemented its National Policy on Education in1977 and updated it in 2004. The policy states that thegovernment should provide universal access to basiceducation, which includes primary and lower secondaryeducation.11 Access to education has not been equal for

7 Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2013.8 World Bank, 2014a.9 Ibid.10 UNESCO International Bureau of Education, 2011.11 Global Education First Initiative and Good Planet Foundation, 2013.



all. One in every three of primary school age children stilldoes not have access to primary education. To improveaccess, the government established the Universal BasicEducation Program in 2000 and later passed theUniversal Basic Education Policy in 2004 to expand thecentral government’s role in managing basic educationand to set the goal of providing free basic education toall children by 2015.12 The gross primary enrolment rateincreased from 98 percent in 2000 to 102 percent in2006, but the rate has been slowly declining. In 2010, thegross primary enrolment rate had decreased to 85percent.13

The majority of the children who have no access toprimary education are in the north, in rural areas andpoor households. The gross primary enrolment rate hasbeen declining since 2004, and in 2010, it was 85percent. 14 During the 1990s and early 2000s, Nigeriaexperienced a prolonged teachers’ strike whichcontributed to poor educational outcomes. Additionally,in 2007, the Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF)program was discontinued in a majority of states,thereby discouraging enrolment. 15 Some believe thatthis was related to governance issues. Many children arenot ready for school because they did not receiveadequate nutrition and pre primary cognitivestimulations. Half of all three year olds are stunted, andtwo thirds of children between four years to five yearsold are not enrolled in pre primary education. Nutritionalprograms are insufficient.

There is a relatively high promotion rate, with lowrepetition and low dropout within each school cyclethanks to automatic promotion, but the transition ratesbetween education levels are low as seen by theeffective transition rate from primary to secondary being53 percent in 2008. 16 For example, the primarycompletion rate in 2010 was 70 percent, which was anincrease from 41 percent in 2008.17 The dropout ratedecreased by almost half between 2007 and 2010, from52 percent to 21 percent. 18 Moreover, among studentsin grade 6—the last grade of primary school—11 percentdrop out and 3 percent repeat the grade. On average,only 37 percent of students finish primary school on timeby age 11, which may be due to late entry into primaryschool. The secondary completion rate is even lower, and

12 Ibid.13 World Bank, 2014b.14 Ibid.15 National Population Commission in Nigeria and RTI, 2011.

a high percentage of students never finish secondaryschool. Only 29 percent of those who started schoolgraduate from secondary school at the officialgraduating age of 17. Even if there is a delay up to age24, only 75 percent finish secondary school, and theremaining 25 percent never finish secondary school.

Education quality continues to be an issue in Nigeria. Atthe national level, 60 percent of students completinggrade 4 and 44 percent of students completing grade 6cannot read a complete sentence. About 10 percentcannot add numbers by the end of primary school. Poorlearning outcomes are most severe in the north. Morethan two thirds of students in the north remain illiterateeven after completing primary school (grade 6), ascompared to only 18 percent to 28 percent of studentsin the south. In some states such as Yobe, low learningoutcomes are extremely severe, with 92 percent ofstudents unable to read and 31 percent unable to addnumbers by the last grade of primary.

Poor learning outcomes from primary education havetranslated to low passing rates at the end of secondaryschool, particularly for students from public or federalschools in the north. English and mathematics passingrates from the West African Senior School CertificateExamination (WASSCE) have been below 40 percentbetween 2011 and 2013. Girls’ passing rate is better thanthe boys’ even though more boys took the exam. Girlsoutperforming boys on this exam may be a reflection ofthe large investment in girls’ education.

There is a dearth of qualified teachers in some areas ofNigeria, but even qualified teachers do not necessarilyhave the adequate professional knowledge andcompetency to teach. In some states, such as Jigawa,Kano and Bauchi, where about 90 percent or morestudents are unable to read after finishing primaryschool, only about 40 percent to 50 percent of primaryschool teachers are qualified. 19 Furthermore, schoolshave little autonomy over the management of theirbudgets, cannot hire and fire teachers, allow littleparticipation of parents and society in school finance,have inadequate systems to assess and monitorstudents, and have low accountability to parents andsociety.

16 World Bank, 2014a.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Universal Basic Education Commission, 2010.



Funds for education come from a diverse array of sourcesthat vary by government and education levels. Federalfunding for education comes from the FederationBudget, as well as several major funds, including theTertiary Education Fund (TETFund), the Universal BasicEducation (UBE) Intervention Fund, Science andTechnical Education Post Basic (STEP B) program, andthe Nigeria Information Technology DevelopmentAgency (NITDA), among others. The Virtual Poverty Fund,created frommoney saved through the Heavily IndebtedPoor Countries (HIPC) initiative, has resulted insubstantial funding for the Federal Ministry of Education.

Approximately 80 percent of public expenditure foreducation is sourced below the federal level from fourmain sources: state governments, local governments,direct allocations from the federal government (throughthe UBE Intervention Fund and the Education TrustFund), and private individuals and organizations,including NGOs and international donors in some states.

Besides federal allocation, the State Ministry ofEducation is directly responsible for the financing ofjunior and senior secondary education and state leveltertiary education, while local governments areresponsible for the management and financing ofprimary and pre primary education. With ratification ofthe UBE law in each state, local governments areexpected to finance junior secondary education, but fewstates have finished transferring their junior secondaryschools to local authorities. Local governments manageand finance pre primary and primary education althoughthey do not have budgetary discretion in the allocationof budgetary resources since the wage bill is deductedfrom their share of federal allocations.

Accurate estimates of total public expenditure oneducation in Nigeria are difficult to know because of alack of information on state government sectoralexpenditures. According to the 10 year strategic plan bythe Federal Ministry of Education, total educationexpenditure in 2006 was 5 percent of GDP. In 2007, totalfederal education spending, minus state and localgovernment area spending, accounted for 12.5 percentof the federal budget. Excluding direct federal spendingthrough Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC)and the Education Trust Fund (ETF), total state educationexpenditures in real terms declined significantly between

20 World Bank, 2014a.

2001 and 2005 in all but one of the nine states. Spendingon essentials, such as textbooks, instructional materials,in service training, and operations and maintenance, isinadequate. A large percentage, often around 90percent, of total public expenditure on education isabsorbed by salaries, although the benchmark is 67percent.

Constraints on school attendance include poverty, theneed to provide care for infant siblings or work on a farm,and gender—especially in the northern states, wheregirls’ schooling depends on family income to a greaterextent than boys’ schooling does. Even though there is anational policy of free basic education, 36 percent ofpublic primary school students and 61 percent of juniorsecondary school students still pay for school tuition.Total education expenditure for an average child fromthe poorest quintile to attend primary school—includingtuition, uniforms, textbooks, transportation, and otherrelated costs—accounts for one fifth of per capitaincome. That ratio is about one half for a child to attendjunior secondary school. In fact, households cited cost asone of the top reasons for never sending their childrento school or sending them late. Other serious constraintsin the northern states include cultural/traditionalpractices and religious barriers.

Health IssuesPoverty hinders the government’s efforts to improve thepopulation’s health conditions. In 2012, communicablediseases in addition to maternal, prenatal, and nutritionconditions accounted for 66 percent of deaths while 24percent of deaths were attributed to non communicablediseases. HIV in particular affects 3 percent of thepopulation between the ages of 15 to 49.

Moreover, malnutrition is a major problem in Nigeria. In2012, 7.3 percent of the population was undernourished.Children are especially impacted by poor nutrition.Among children aged five years old or younger, theprevalence of acute and chronic malnutrition (height forage) was 36 percent in 2011, a decrease from 2003.Following a similar decreasing trend, acute malnutrition(weight for age) among children of the same age groupwas 24 percent in 2011. Approximately 10 percent ofchildren under five years old were wasted, an indicationof recent nutritional deficiency.20



The Case for School Feeding

School feeding programs, defined here as the provisionof food to schoolchildren, can increase schoolenrolment 21 and attendance—especially for girls. 22

When combined with quality education, school feedingprograms can increase cognition 23 and educationalsuccess. 24 With appropriately designed rations, schoolfeeding programs can improve the nutrition status ofpreschool and primary school aged children byaddressing micronutrient deficiencies. Combined withlocal agricultural production, these programs can alsoprovide small scale farmers with a stable market. Schoolfeeding programs can provide short term benefits aftercrises, helping communities recover and build resilience,in addition to long term benefits by developing humancapital.25 School feeding programs can be classified intotwo main groups: in school feeding (when children arefed in school) and take home rations (when families aregiven food if their children attend school regularly). Amajor advantage of school feeding programs is that theyoffer the greatest benefit to the poorest children. Severalstudies26 have indicated that missing breakfast impairseducational performance.

Present data suggests that almost every country isseeking to provide food to its schoolchildren. Therefore,especially for low income countries where most foodinsecure regions are concentrated, the key issue is notwhether a country will implement school feedingprograms but rather how and with what objectives.

The social shocks of recent global crises have led to anenhanced demand for school feeding programs in lowincome countries as they can serve as a safety net forfood insecure households through an income transfer. Inresponse to this amplified request, the United NationsWorld Food Programme (WFP) and the World Bankjointly undertook an analysis titled Rethinking SchoolFeeding. 27 This initiative sought to better understandhow to develop and implement an effective schoolfeeding program as a productive safety net that is part ofthe response to the social shocks, as well as a fiscallysustainable investment in human capital. These efforts

21 Ahmed, 2004; Gelli, Meir, and Espejo, 2007.22 Jacoby, Cueto, and Pollitt, 1996; Powell et al., 1998; Kristjansson et al., 2007.23 Whaley et al., 2003; Kristjansson et al., 2007; Jukes et al., 2008.24 Tan, Lane, and Lassibille, 1999; Ahmed, 2004; Adelman et al., 2008.25 WFP, 2013

are part of a long term global goal to achieve EducationFor All and provide social protection to the poor.

Five Key Policy Goals to Promote SchoolFeeding

There are five core policy goals that form the basis of aneffective school feeding program. Figure 1 illustratesthese policy goals and outlines the respective policylevers and outcomes that fall under each goal.

The first goal is a national policy framework. A solidpolicy foundation strengthens a school feedingprogram’s sustainability and quality of implementation.National planning for school feeding as part of thecountry’s poverty reduction strategy (or other equivalentdevelopment strategies) conveys the importance thegovernment places on school feeding as part of itsdevelopment agenda. For most countries that areimplementing their own national programs, schoolfeeding is included in national policy frameworks.28

The second policy goal for school feeding is financialcapacity. Stable funding is a prerequisite forsustainability. However, where need is greatest,programs tend to be the smallest and themost reliant onexternal support. Funding for these programs can comefrom a combination of sources, such as nongovernmental organizations (i.e., WFP) and thegovernment. When a program becomes nationalized, itneeds a stable and independent funding source, eitherthrough government core resources or developmentfunding. In the long term, a national budget line forschool feeding is necessary for an effective and stableprogram.

The third policy goal is institutional capacity andcoordination. School feeding programs are betterexecuted when an institution is mandated andaccountable for the implementation of such a program.Effective programs also include multisectoralinvolvement from sectors such as education, health,agriculture, and local government, as well as acomprehensive link between school feeding and other

26 Simeon and Grantham McGregor, 1989; Pollitt, Cueto, and Jacoby, 1998;Simeon, 1998.27 Bundy et al. 2009.28 Bundy et al. 2009; WFP, 2012.



school health or social protection programs andestablished coordination mechanisms.

The fourth policy goal is sound design andimplementation. In order to maximize effectiveness,school feeding programs should clearly identify countryspecific problems, objectives, and expected outcomes.The country’s context and needs should determine theprogram’s beneficiaries, food basket (menus), foodmodalities and supply chain. Countries and partnersshould work towards creating a delicate balancebetween international, national, and local procurementof foods to support local economies without jeopardizingthe quality and stability of the food supply.

The last policy goal is community roles reaching beyondschools. School feeding programs that are locally owned,incorporate contributions from local communities, andrespond to specific community needs are often thestrongest. These programs are most likely to make asuccessful transition from donor assistance to nationalownership. Community participation should beconsidered at every stage, but without overburdeningcommunity members.

Use of Evidence Based Tools

The primary focus of the SABER School Feeding exerciseis gathering systematic and verifiable information aboutthe quality of a country’s policies through a SABERSchool Feeding Questionnaire. This data collectinginstrument helps to facilitate comparative policyanalysis, identify key areas to focus investment, anddisseminate good practice and knowledge sharing. Thisholistic and integrated assessment of how the overallpolicy in a country affects young children’s developmentis categorized into one of the following stages,representing the varying levels of policy developmentthat exist among different dimensions of school feeding:

1. Latent: No or very little policy development2. Emerging: Initial/some initiatives towards policy

development.3. Established: Some policy development4. Advanced: Development of a comprehensive

policy framework

Each policy goal and lever of school feeding ismethodically benchmarked through two SABER analysistools. The first is a scoring rubric that quantifies the

responses to selected questions from the SABER SchoolFeeding questionnaire by assigning point values to theanswers. The second tool is the SABER School FeedingFramework rubric that analyzes the responses, especiallythe written answers, based on the framework’s fivepolicy goals and levers. For more information, please visitthe World Bank’s website on SABER School Health andSchool Feeding and click on the “What Matters”Framework Paper under Methodology.



Figure 1: Policy goals and policy levers for school feeding



Findings

Policy Goal 1: PolicyFrameworks in Nigeria

Policy Lever:

Overarching policies for school feeding in alignmentwith national level policy

A policy foundation helps strengthen the sustainabilityand accountability of a school feeding program as well asthe quality of its implementation. Nearly all countrieswith national ownership of programs have wellarticulated national policies on the modalities andobjectives of school feeding.29

School feeding is included in Nigeria’s National Economic and Empowerment Strategy (NEEDS). The governmenthas also set milestones for school feeding programs inthe NEEDS. There are also published national policies anddocuments on school feeding.30 The development of thispolicy involved multiple sectors for a well rounded,collaborative approach. These sectors include theMinistry of Agriculture, Ministry of Information andCommunication, Ministry of Health, Ministry of WaterResources and Rural Development, Ministry of Finance,and National Planning Commission.

29 WFP, 2012.

1. Policy Frameworks is ADVANCED

Indicators Score Justification1A. National levelpoverty reductionstrategy or equivalentnational strategy aswell as sectoralpolicies and strategiesidentify schoolfeeding as aneducation and/orsocial protectionintervention, clearlydefining objectivesand sectoralresponsibilities

School feedingincluded in PRSP;accompanied bytargets bygovernment;strategies havedefined objectivesand sectoralresponsibilities

1B. An evidencebased technical policyrelated to schoolfeeding outlines theobjectives, rationale,scope, design, andfunding andsustainability of theprogram andcomprehensivelyaddresses all fourother policy goals

Published nationalpolicy on schoolfeeding as well asother relevantdocuments;multisectoralapproach coveringall four other policygoals

30 The National School Health Policy (2006) and Implementation Guidelineson National School Health Programme (2006) includes school feedingservices.



Policy Goal 2: FinancialCapacity in Nigeria

Policy Lever:

Governance of the national school feeding programthrough stable funding and budgeting

Stable funding is necessary for the long termsustainability of a school feeding program, especially onethat transitions from being donor funded to governmentfunded. School feeding programs supported by externalpartners generally rely on food aid, government in kinddonations, and/or government cash contributions. Inorder for the program to be sustainable and nationallyowned, the school feeding program should have a budgetline and be part of the government’s budgeting andplanning process.

School feeding is included in the national planningprocess yet is not funded through a national budget. InOsun state, the best practicing state, 100 percent of thetotal school feeding budget comes from the government,and nothing comes from external donors. The budgetedschool feeding cost per child per year is about 9,750naira.

Regions have the capacity to plan and budget their needsand request resources from the central level toimplement school feeding programs. Regions also havebudget lines for school feeding which cover food, eatingand cooking utensils, cooking fuel, cooks’ salaries, foodstorage, food transportation, and programmanagement.At the local level, neither schools nor the ministriesinvolved have budget lines for school feeding. The SaharaEnergy Group (NGO) funds one local school feedingprogram, and the government in Osun state also helpsfinance the school feeding program.

School feeding funds are currently being disbursed to theimplementers in a timely and effective manner in Osunstate. The bank releases money to food vendors basedon the MOU with the Osun state government. Tostrengthen mechanisms for fund disbursement, theMOU was signed with the first bank, settled monthly bythe Osun state government without delay.

2. Financial Capacity is EMERGING

Indicators Score Justification2A. National budgetline(s) and funding isallocated to schoolfeeding; funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levelsin a timely andeffective manner.

School feeding isincluded in nationalplanning process yetonly state budgetline exists; schoolfeeding programmainly functional inOsun state.



Policy Goal 3: InstitutionalCapacity and Coordinationin Nigeria

Policy Levers:

School feeding inter sectoral coordination andstrong partnershipsManagement and accountability structures, stronginstitutional frameworks, and monitoring andevaluation

Implementing a school feeding policy requires significantinstitutional capacity because the program is a complexschool health intervention. The policy should clearlydefine the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders andactors at all levels. Methodically increasing governmentcapacity to manage a school feeding program isimportant to the program’s long term sustainability. Anational institution that is mandated and accountable forthe implementation of the school feeding program isconsidered to be a best practice. This institution shouldhave a specific unit that has adequate resources andknowledgeable staff to manage the school feedingprogram. Moreover, policies that detail accountabilityand management mechanisms can help ensure programquality and efficiency, especially if the school feedingprogram is decentralized.

Nigeria has a multisectoral steering committeecoordinating the implementation of school feeding. TheMinistry of Education also carries the mandate ofmanaging and implementing the school feedingprogram. This concentrated leadership is a trait ofeffective implementation. Other sectors are also a partof this steering committee, including health, agriculture,social protection, local government, and water,conveying a multisectoral, strong approach toimplementation. However, school feeding was notdiscussed in any national level coordination body thatdeals with education, health, agriculture and nutrition.

At the national level, Nigeria has a specific unit that is incharge of the overall management of school feedingwithin the lead institution and is responsible forcoordination between the national, regional, and schoollevels. The unit in charge of implementing school feedinghas a sufficient amount of staff given the responsibilitiesthat the unit has been given. There are 10 peopleworking in this national unit, and all of them are fully

dedicated to school feeding. The staff of this unit is fullytrained and knowledgeable on school feeding issues.

There are also formal coordination mechanisms in placebetween cross government stakeholders: thesemechanisms include developing the national policy andguidelines, using monitoring and evaluation (M&E) toolsfor effective monitoring and oversight functions, andleading others in the implementation of school feeding.Although there is no pre and in service training programin place to train staff at each level on school feedingprogram management and implementation, regionaloffices have sufficient staff, knowledge and resources tofulfill their responsibilities. This inter level coordinationis a key component of effective implementation forschool feeding programs.

3. Institutional Capacity and Coordination isESTABLISHED

Indicators Score Justification3A. Multisectoralsteering committeecoordinatesimplementation of anational schoolfeeding policy

Multisectoralsteering committeefrom at least threesectors coordinateimplementation; nodiscussion of schoolfeeding in anynational levelcoordination body

3B. National schoolfeeding managementunit andaccountabilitystructures are inplace, coordinatingwith school levelstructures

Fully staffed schoolfeeding unit; nopre or –in servicetraining available;coordinationmechanismsbetween national,regional, and schoollevels are in place

3C. School levelmanagement andaccountabilitystructures are in place

Formal mechanismsin place but no preand in servicetraining program inplace to train staffat each level onschool feedingprogrammanagement andimplementation



Policy Goal 4: Design andImplementation in Nigeria

Policy Lever:

Quality assurance of programming and targeting,modalities, and procurement design, ensuringdesign that is both needs based and cost effective

A well designed school feeding policy that is based onevidence is critical to the implementation of a qualityschool feeding program. The policy can include details ontargeting the correct beneficiaries, selecting the propermodalities of food delivery, and choosing a quality foodbasket. Over time, the school feeding policy may beredesigned or modified according to reassessments ofthe school feeding program.

Nigeria has an M&E plan for the school feeding program.All important M&E components are covered except for asystematic impact evaluation, program baseline report,and situation analysis. These components are included inthe Education Management Information System (EMIS)in Nigeria. Experiences from the health sector conveythat program effectiveness is enhanced when theimplementation of a national school feeding strategy issupported by a national M&E strategy agreed upon by allcountry partners and stakeholders. The M&E system inNigeria is integrated into a national monitoring systemand is used to refine and update components of theprogram. Examples of this updating include rapidappraisal of implementing states in 2007 and themonitoring of climate change in pilot states in 2012 inNigeria and cross river states.

Nigeria has impact evaluations planned. The programalso has objectives that correspond to the context ofNigeria and the poverty reduction strategy. Theseobjectives, or targeting criteria, are important for tworeasons: first to keep the program within its budgetconstraints and maximize the effect of the spending linewith the objectives, and second to ensure equity byredistributing resources to poor, vulnerable children.

National standards on food modalities and the foodbasket have been set, which correspond to nutritionalcontent requirements, local habits and tastes, and the

31 Partnership for Child Development and Home Grown School Feeding, 2010.Pg. 23

availability of local food.31 The food modalities have alsobeen chosen based on the objectives of the program, theduration of the school day, and the feasibility ofimplementation.

Nigeria has national standards on food management,procurement and logistics. There have been discussionson possible procurement modalities for school feedingthat can be more locally appropriate, including thepossibility of linking procurement with agriculturerelated activities. This discussion involves encouragingsmallholder farmers to produce more, by giving softloans and by buying off these farmers’ produce. Therehave also been discussions on possible service provisionmodels for school feeding that could potentially createjobs for community members, including the formation ofcooperative farmers that would produce and sell to thegovernment for school feeding and the employment ofpeople by contractors to work at distribution centers.

The Ministry of Agriculture has been involved in makingthe connection between school feeding and nationalagricultural production. The involvement of governmentagencies aids a smooth implementation system alongnational, regional, and local levels. The private sector hasbeen involved in making the connection betweenfarmers and the school feeding market only in Osunstate. The private sector has been involved through theFarmers Association (poultry, and other products) as wellas contractors.32

At the school level, the requirements for the schoolfeeding program are not communicated to theagriculture sector, which negatively impacts the linksbetween food production and the school feedingmarket.However, there are complementary programs withbudgets that provide capacity building for smallholderfarmers and the community for food processing andpreparation. Thirty one local governments were coveredby the program, and 9,750 naira was the cost per childper year in the program.

Looking forward, specific attention must be given to thedevelopment of new ways for the agriculture andeducation sectors to work together, including theconstruction of a coherent evidence base from which to

32 Partnership for Child Development, 2014.



evaluate specific outcomes within each sphere (SABERFramework).

4. Design and Implementation is ADVANCEDIndicators Score Justification

4A. A functionalmonitoring andevaluation system is inplace as part of thestructure of the leadinstitution and usedfor implementationand feedback

M&E plan integratedinto nationalmonitoring system;M&E plan used torefine and updateprograms orcomponents of theprogram

4B. Program designidentifies appropriatetarget groups andtargeting criteriacorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and thesituation analysis

Targeting criteriathat corresponds tocontext of country isin place yet impactevaluations have notyet been carried out

4C. Food modalitiesand the food basketcorrespond to theobjectives, local habitsand tastes, availabilityof local food, foodsafety, and nutritioncontent requirements

National standardson food modalitiesand the food basketare set; standardscorrespond tonutritional contentrequirements, localhabits and tastes,and availability oflocal food

4D. Procurement andlogistics arrangementsare based on procuringas locally as possible,taking into account thecosts, the capacities ofimplementing parties,the productioncapacity in thecountry, the quality ofthe food, and thestability of the pipeline

National standardson procurement andlogisticsarrangements havebeen developed andare based onprocuring as locallyas possible



Policy Goal 5: CommunityRoles—Reaching BeyondSchools in Nigeria

Policy Lever:

Community participation and accountability

The role of the community should be clearly defined in aschool feeding policy because community participationand ownership improves the school feeding program’schances of long term sustainability. If the governmentplaces the responsibility of sustaining the school feedingprogram on the community, the school feeding policyshould detail the guidelines, minimum standards, andsupport for the community to implement the program.The school feeding policy can also include mechanismsfor the community to hold the government accountable.

At the school level, there may be a school managementcommittee composed of parents, teachers, and studentsthat acts as a liaison between the school and communityand that manages the school feeding program. Careshould be taken not to overburden the community,because in some cases the communitymay introduce feesto support the local school feeding program, which cannegatively impact enrolment rates. Community assistedschool feeding programs are usually most successful infood secure areas.

There is a school feeding management committee thatinvolves parents, teachers and local community in themanagement and implementation of the school feedingprogram. However, this committee is not involved in thedesign of the program. This committee acts as theinterface between the community and the school,manages and monitors the school feeding program, andensures appropriate utilization of the food in the school.There is also a reporting mechanism through SchoolBasedMonitoring Committee (SBMC) meetings by whichthe community can hold school feeding programsaccountable at the national, regional, and school levels.

Nigerian school feeding is school based and communitydriven. SBMC implements the school feeding program inschools, and members of the SBMC are from thecommunity. SBMC is the source for food, procurement,process, cooking, and serving. SBMC reports to localgovernment and communities. The main constraints in

terms of community involvement are inadequateknowledge of their roles and responsibilities. Keystakeholders can be involved to support communityengagement, including private sectors, civil societies,NGOs, technical partners, community leaders, youths,and women’s wings. The role of the community has beenaddressed in the national school health policy.

5. Community Roles Reaching Beyond Schools isESTABLISHED

Indicators Score Justification5A. Communityparticipates in schoolfeeding programmedesign,implementation,management andevaluation andcontributes resources

School feedingmanagementcommitteecomprises ofteachers, parents,and communitymembers, yet thiscommittee is notinvolved in designof program; thereare mechanisms inplace by whichcommunity canhold school feedingprogramsaccountable atnational, regional,and school level

To view the scores for all indicators and policy goals inone table, please refer to Appendix 1.



ConclusionBased on the above findings, school feeding in Nigeriacan be seen as relatively advanced. Still, there are areasthat could be strengthened moving forward. Thefollowing policy options represent possible areas whereschool feeding could be strengthened in Nigeria, basedon the conclusions of this report.

Policy Options:Create federal budget line for school feedingoversight and state budget lines for those withoutthem.Conduct impact evaluations of existing schoolfeeding efforts programs to improve and refinetargeting of activities.Explore new areas for the agriculture and educationsectors to work together, including the constructionof a coherent evidence base from which to evaluatespecific outcomes within each sphere



Appendix 1

Table 1. Levels of Development of SABER School Feeding Indicators and Policy Goals inNigeria

Latent Emerging Established Advanced

National-level povertyreduction strategy orequivalent nationalstrategy as w ell assectoral policies andstrategies (educationsector plan, nutritionpolicy, social protectionpolicy) identify schoolfeeding as aneducation and/or socialprotection intervention,clearly definingobjectives and sectoralresponsibilities

There is recognition ofschool feeding as aneducation and/or socialprotection intervention,but school feeding is notyet included in thepublished national-levelpoverty reductionstrategy, equivalentnational policy, orsectoral policies andstrategies

School feeding discussedby members and partnersduring preparation ofnational-level povertyreduction strategy,equivalent nationalpolicy, or sectoral policiesand strategies but not yetpublished

School feeding includedin published national-levelpoverty reduction strategyor equivalent nationalpolicy (includingspecif ications as to w hereschool feeding w ill beanchored and w ho w illimplement); publishedsectoral policies orstrategies have clearlydefined objectives andsectoral responsibilities

School feeding included inpublished national-levelpoverty reduction strategyor equivalent national policy(including specif ications asto w here school feeding w illbe anchored and w ho w illimplement andaccompanied by targetsand/or milestones set by thegovernment); publishedsectoral policies orstrategies have clearlydefined objectives andsectoral responsibilities,including w hat schoolfeeding can and cannotachieve, and aligned w iththe national-level povertyreduction strategy orequivalent national strategy

An evidence-basedtechnical policy relatedto school feedingoutlines the objectives,rationale, scope,design, and fundingand sustainability of theprogram andcomprehensivelyaddresses all four otherpolicy goals(institutional capacityand coordination,f inancial capacity,design andimplementation, andcommunityparticipation)

There is recognition ofthe need for a technicalpolicy related to schoolfeeding, but one has notyet been developed orpublished

A technical policy andsituation analysis underdevelopment by therelevant sectors thataddress school feeding

A technical policy relatedto school feeding ispublished, outlining theobjectives, rationale,scope, design, fundingand sustainability of theprogram and coveringsome aspects of all fourother policy goals,including links w ithagriculture development

A technical policy related to school feeding is published,outlining the objectives,rationale, scope, design,funding and sustainability ofthe program andcomprehensively coveringall four other policy goalsw ith a strategy for localproduction and sourcing,including links w ithagriculture development andsmall holder farmers; policyis informed by a situationanalysis of needs andaligned w ith national povertyreduction strategies andrelevant sectoral policiesand strategies

Governance of thenational schoolfeeding program -stable funding andbudgeting

National budget line(s)and funding areallocated to schoolfeeding; funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levels(national, district and/orschool) in a timely andeffective manner

There is recognition of theneed to include schoolfeeding in the nationalplanning process, but thishas not yet happened; thegovernment is fully relianton external funds anddoes not have provision inthe national budget toallocate resources toschool feeding; there isrecognition of the need formechanisms fordisbursing funds to theimplementation levels, butthese are not yet in place

School feeding isincluded in the nationalplanning process andnational funding isstable through a budgetline but unable to coverall needs; there is nobudget line at regionaland school levels;existing school feedingfunds are disbursed tothe implementationlevels intermittently

School feeding is includedin the national planningprocess and is fully fundedthrough a national budgetline; all ministries involvedin the programimplementation have abudget line or fundsallocated; budget linesalso exist at regional andschool levels; schoolfeeding funds aredisbursed to theimplementation levels in atimely and effectivemanner

School feeding is included inthe national planningprocess and is fully fundedthrough a national budgetline consistent w ith theschool feeding policy andsituation analysis includingoptions for engaging w iththe private sector; budgetlines and plans also exist atregional and school levels,suff icient to cover all theexpenses of running theprogram ; school feedingfunds are disbursed to theimplementation levels in atimely and effective mannerand implementers have thecapacity to plan and budgetas w ell as request resources from the central level

EMERGING

Policy Goal 1: Policy frameworks

Policy Goal 2: Financial Capacity

Overarching policiesfor school feeding -

sound alignmentw ith the national

policy

ADVANCED

Systems Approach for Better Education Results: School Feeding Policy Framework

POLICY LEVER INDICATORSTAGE OVERALL SCORE PER

DOMAIN



School feedingcoordination - strongpartnerships andinter-sectorcoordination

Multisectoral steeringcommittee coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Any multisectoral steeringcommittee coordinationefforts are currently nonsystematic

Sectoral steeringcommittee coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Multisectoral steeringcommittee from at leasttw o sectors (e.g.education, socialprotection, agriculture,health, local government,w ater) coordinatesimplementation of anational school feedingpolicy

Multisectoral steeringcommittee from at leastthree sectors (e.g.education, social protection,agriculture, health, localgovernment, w ater)coordinates implementationof a national school feedingpolicy; this government-ledcommittee providescomprehensive coordination(across internationalagencies, NGOs, the privatesector and local businessrepresentatives as w ell) andis part of a w ider committeeon school health and nutrition

National school feedingmanagement unit andaccountabilitystructures are in place,coordinating w ithschool level structures

A specif ic school feedingunit does not yet exist atthe national level;coordination betw een thenational, regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoolsis lacking

A school feeding unitexists at the nationallevel, but it has limitedresources and limitedstaff numbers and lacksa clear mandate; w hilecoordinationmechanisms betw eenthe national,regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoollevel are in place, theyare not fully functioning

A fully staffed schoolfeeding unit w ith a clearmandate exists at thenational level, based onan assessment of staff ingand resources needs;coordination mechanismsbetw een the national,regional/local (ifapplicable), and schoollevel are in place andfunctioning in mostinstances

A fully staffed schoolfeeding unit exists at thenational level, based on anassessment of staff ing andresources needs, w ith aclear mandate, and preandin-service training;coordination mechanismsbetw een the national,regional/local (if applicable),and school level are in placeand fully functioning

School levelmanagement andaccountabilitystructures are in place

Mechanisms formanaging school feedingat the school level arenon-uniform and nationalguidance on this islacking

National guidance onrequired mechanismsfor managing schoolfeeding are available atthe school level, butthese are not yetimplemented fully

Most schools have amechanism to manageschool feeding, based onnational guidance

All schools have amechanism to manageschool feeding, based onnational guidance, w ith preandin-service training forrelevant staff

A functional monitoringand evaluation (M&E)system is in place aspart of the structure ofthe lead institution andused forimplementation andfeedback

The importance of M&E isrecognised, butgovernment systems arenot yet in place for M&Eof school feedingimplementation

A government M&E planexists for school feedingw ith intermittent datacollection and reportingoccurring especially atthe national level

The M&E plan for schoolfeeding is integrated intonational monitoring orinformation managementsystems and datacollection and reportingoccurs recurrently atnational and regionallevels

The M&E plan for schoolfeeding is integrated intonational monitoring orinformation managementsystems and data collectionand reporting occursrecurrently at national,regional and school levels;analysed information isshared and used to refineand update programs;baseline is carried out andprogram evaluations occurperiodically

Program designidentif ies appropriatetarget groups andtargeting criteriacorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and the situationanalysis

The need for targeting isrecognised, but asituation analysis has notyet been undertaken thatassesses school feedingneeds and neithertargeting criteria nor atargeting methodologyhas been established asyet

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodology isbeing developedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy; a situationanalysis assessingneeds is incomplete asyet

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodologyexists and is implementedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and a situationanalysis assessing needs

Targeting criteria and atargeting methodologyexists and is implementedcorresponding to thenational school feedingpolicy and situation analysis(including costings forvarious targeting anddesigns); M&E informationis used to refine and updatetargeting and coverage on aperiodic basis

Food modalities andthe food basketcorrespond to theobjectives, local habitsand tastes, availabilityof local food, foodsafety (according toWHO guidelines), andnutrition contentrequirements

There is recognition of theneed for nationalstandards for foodmodalities and the foodbasket, but these do notexist yet

National standards onfood modalities and thefood basket have beendeveloped andcorrespond to tw o ormore of the follow ing:objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements

National standards onfood modalities and thefood basket have beendeveloped and correspondto objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements

National standards on foodmodalities and the foodbasket have beendeveloped and correspondto objectives, local habitsand tastes, availability oflocal food, food safety(according to WHOguidelines), and nutritioncontent requirements; M&Einformation is used to refineand update food modalitiesand food basket on aperiodic basis

Procurement andlogistics arrangementsare based on procuringas locally as possible,taking into account thecosts, the capacities ofimplementing parties,the production capacityin the country, thequality of the food, andthe stability of thepipeline

There is recognition of theneed for nationalstandards forprocurement and logisticsarrangements, but thesedo not exist yet

National standards onprocurement andlogistics arrangementshave been developedand are based on threeor more of the follow ing:procuring as locally aspossible, taking intoaccount the costs, thecapacities ofimplementing parties,the production capacityin the country, thequality of the food, andthe stability of thepipeline

National standards onprocurement and logisticsarrangements have beendeveloped and are basedon procuring as locally aspossible, taking intoaccount the costs, thecapacities of implementingparties, the productioncapacity in the country,the quality of the food, andthe stability of the pipeline

National standards onprocurement and logisticsarrangements have beendeveloped and are based onprocuring as locally aspossible, taking into accountthe costs, the capacities ofimplementing parties, theproduction capacity in thecountry, the quality of thefood, and the stability of thepipeline; M&E information isused to refine and updateprocurement and logisticsarrangements

Policy Goal 3: Institutional Capacity and Coordination

ESTABLISHED

Policy Goal 4: Design and Implementation

Management andaccountability

structures, includingstaff ing - strong

institutionalframew orks forimplementation

ADVANCED

Quality assurance ofprogramming and

targeting,modalities, and

procurement design,ensuring design thatis both needs-basedand cost-effective



Communityparticipation andaccountability -strong communityparticipation andow nership(teachers, parents,children)

Community participatesin school feedingprogram design,implementation,management andevaluation andcontributes resources(in-kind, cash or aslabor)

Systems andaccountabilitymechanisms are not yetin place for consultationw ith parents andcommunity members onthe design, monitoringand feedback of theschool feeding program

A school feedingmanagement committeeexists but parent andcommunity memberparticipation could bestrengthened andaw areness on theopportunity to monitorand feedback on theschool feeding program islacking

The school feedingmanagement committeecomprisesrepresentatives ofteachers, parents, andcommunity members andcommunities haveaccountabilitymechanisms to holdschool feeding programsaccountable at the schoollevel

The school feedingmanagement committeecomprises representativesof teachers, parents, andcommunity members andhas clearly definedresponsibilities and periodictraining. Accountabilitymechanisms are in place byw hich communities can holdschool feeding programsaccountable at the school,regional, and national levels

ESTABLISHED

Policy Goal 5: Community roles--reaching beyond schools



AcknowledgementsThis report was prepared from a SABER—School Feedingquestionnaire that was completed by staff of theMinistry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, UniversalBasic Education Commission, and Osun State ProgramOfficer.

We thank all the Nigerian participants at the schoolhealth and school feeding workshop that took place inBanjul, The Gambia from 4th to 6th June 2013; andparticularly, Dada J. Jospeh, National Desk Officer, SchoolHealth, Federal Ministry of Education; C. A. Ogu, SchoolFeeding Desk Officer, Federal Ministry of Education; C.Momeke, Deputy Director, Federal Ministry ofAgriculture; Fatima Usman, Desk Officer, Universal BasicEducation Commission; and A. J. Oketayo, ProgrammeManager, Osun State.

We also thank Paula Trepman and Angela Ha(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) for theirsignificant contributions to the data analysis andreporting. We thank the many people that have servedas reviewers including Donald Bundy, Janet Holt, AndyTembon, Olatunde Adetoyese Adekola, Michelle Louie,and Veronica Grigera (World Bank); Carmen Burbano(World Food Programme); Lesley Drake and KristieWatkins (Partnership for Child Development).

Finally, we thank the Federal Ministers of Education andAgriculture; the Commissioner, Universal BasicEducation Commission and the Governor of Osun State,Nigeria, for allowing their staff members to attend theBanjul meeting, and to the many others who contributedin one way or the other to the production of this report.

AcronymsFCUBE Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education

HGSF Home Grown School Feeding

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NECO National Examinations Council

NGO Non Governmental Organization

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan

SHN School Health and Nutrition

SBMC School Based Monitoring Committee

UPC Universal Primary Completion

WASSCEWest African Senior School Certificate Examination

WFP World Food Programme

ReferencesAdelman, S., H. Alderman, D. O. Gilligan, and K. Lehrer.

2008. “The Impact of Alternative Food for EducationPrograms on Learning Achievement and CognitiveDevelopment in Northern Uganda.” IFPRI,Washington, DC.

Ahmed, A. U. 2004. “Impact of Feeding Children inSchool: Evidence from Bangladesh.” InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Bundy, D. A. P., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes,M., and Drake, L. 2009. “Rethinking School Feeding:Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and theEducation Sector.” World Food

Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2013. “Nigeria MillenniumDevelopment Goals”. UNDP. Accessed fromhttp://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/MDG%20Country%20Reports/Nigeria/MDGs%20Country%20Report%20KN%20051213%20v2%200.pdf.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Federal Ministry ofEducation. 2006a. “National School Health Policy”.http://www.unicef.org/nigeria/School_Health_Policy.pdf.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Federal Ministry ofEducation. 2006b. “Implementation Guidelines onNational School Health Programme”.http://www.unicef.org/nigeria/Sch_Health_Prog.pdf.

Gelli, A., U. Meir, and F. Espejo. 2007. “Does Provision ofFood in School Increase Girls’ Enrollment? Evidencefrom Schools in Sub Saharan Africa.” Food andNutrition Bulletin. 28 (2): 149 55.

Global Education First Initiative and Good PlanetFoundation. 2013. “Accelerating Progress to 2015:Nigeria”. Accessed fromhttp://educationenvoy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/NIGERIA UNSEFINAL.pdf.



Jacoby, E., S. Cueto, and E. Pollitt. 1996. “Benefits of aSchool Breakfast Programme among AndeanChildren in Huaraz, Peru.” Food and NutritionBulletin 17 (1): 54 64.

Jukes, M. C. H., L. J. Drake, and D. A. P. Bundy. 2008.“School Health, Nutrition and Education for All:Levelling the Playing Field.” CABI Publishing,Wallingford, UK.

Kristjansson, E., V. Robinson, M. Petticrew, B.MacDonald, J. Krasevec, L. Janzen, T. Greenhalgh, G.Wells, J. MacGowan, A. Farmer, B. J. Shea, A.Mayhew, and P. Tugwell. 2007. “School Feeding forImproving the Physical and Psychosocial Health ofDisadvantaged Elementary School Children.”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1.

National Population Commission in Nigeria and RTI.2011. “Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey(DHS) EdData Profile 1990, 2003, and 2008:Education data for decision making. Washington,DC: National Population Commission in Nigeria andRTI.

Partnership for Child Development. 2014. “O’Meals SnapShot July 2014”. Accessed from http://hgsfglobal.org/en/bank/downloads/doc_details/433omeals snap shot july 2014.

Partnership for Child Development and Home GrownSchool Feeding. 2010. “Osun State Home GrownSchool Feeding and Health Programme Case Study.”Accessed from http://hgsfglobal.org/en/bank/downloads/doc_details/94osun state hgsf and health programme casestudy.

Politt, E., S. Cueto, and E. R. Jacoby. 1998. “Fasting andCognition in Well and Under nourishedSchoolchildren: A Review of Three ExperimentalStudies.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 67(4): 779s 784s.

Powell, C. A., S. P. Walker, S. M. Chang, and S. M.Grantham McGregor. 1998. “Nutrition andEducation: A Randomized Trial of the Effects ofBreakfast in Rural Primary School Children.”American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 68: 873 9.

Simeon, D. T., and S. M. Grantham McGregor. 1989.“Effects of Missing Breakfast on the CognitiveFunctions of School Children of Differing NutritionalStatus.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 49(4): 646 53.

Simeon, D. T. 1998. “School Feeding in Jamaica: A Reviewof its Evaluation.” American Journal of ClinicalNutrition 67 (4):790s 794s.

Tan, J. P., J. Lane, and G. Lassibille. 1999. “StudentOutcomes in Philippine Elementary Schools: AnEvaluation of Four Experiments.” World BankEconomic Review 13 (3): 493 502.

UNDP. 2013. “The Rise of the South: Human Progress ina Diverse World: Nigeria”. Human DevelopmentReport 2013. Accessed fromhttp://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/CountryProfiles/NGA.pdf.

UNESCO International Bureau of Education. 2011.“World Data on Education VII Ed. 2010/11: Nigeria”.UNESCO. Accessed fromhttp://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf versions/Nigeria.pdf.

Whaley, S. E., M. Sigman, C. Neumann, N. Bwibo, D.Guthrie, R. E. Weiss, S. Alber, and S. P. Murphy.2003. “The Impact of Dietary Intervention on theCognitive Development of Kenyan School Children.”Journal of Nutrition 133 (11): 3965S 71S.

World Bank. 2014a. World Development Indicators2000 2013 [statistics]. “Nigeria”. Available from theWorld Bank World Development Indicatorsdatabase.

World Bank. 2014b. Education Indicators 2000 2013[statistics]. “Nigeria”. Available from World BankEdStats database.

World Bank. Africa Region. Human Development III.2003. Nigeria. School Education in Nigeria:Preparing for Universal Basic Education).

World Health Organization (WHO). 2003. “Skills forHealth, Skills Based Health Education Including LifeSkills: An Important Component of a ChildFriendly/Health Promoting School.” InformationSeries on School Health. WHO, Geneva.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2013. ‘’WFP RevisedSchool Feeding Policy’’. World Food Programme,Rome.

World Food Programme (WFP). 2012. “Global SchoolFeeding Survey”. World Food Programme, Rome.



The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiativeproduces comparative data and knowledge on education policies andinstitutions, with the aim of helping countries systematically strengthentheir education systems. SABER evaluates the quality of educationpolicies against evidence based global standards, using new diagnostictools and detailed policy data. The SABER country reports give all partieswith a stake in educational results—from administrators, teachers, andparents to policymakers and business people—an accessible, objectivesnapshot showing how well the policies of their country's educationsystem are oriented toward ensuring that all children and youth learn.

This report focuses specifically on policies in the area of School Feeding.

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of TheWorld Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governmentsthey represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bankconcerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

www.worldbank.org/education/saber

Documents

SABER School Feeding Nigeria CR Final 2015 - …wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting...years are senior secondary education, and the final four years are tertiary