TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MIDTERM – EVALUATION OF THE LISHA KWA MAARIFA PROJECT IN KENYA

1. Introduction

The Rural Family Hope Foundation (RFH), in partnership with Rise Against Hunger, is implementing a transformative school feeding program named Lisha Kwa Maarifa (LKM), or Feed for Knowledge in Southwestern Kenya, to address multidimensional poverty. RFH is a nonprofit organization committed to tackling poverty through integrated education, health, food and nutrition security, and economic development interventions. Rise Against Hunger, a global hunger relief organization, brings its expertise in combating food insecurity to this collaborative initiative, enhancing its reach and impact.

Launched in September 2022, the school feeding program targets undernourished children in four counties— Kisii, Nyamira, Homabay, and Migori—selected for their high prevalence of child food poverty, poor school attendance, and low educational outcomes. This initiative provides pupils in selected schools with a daily nutritious breakfast and lunch to reduce short-term hunger, improve attendance and retention, and enhance cognitive performance.

The program also incorporates a “homegrown school feeding” approach, sourcing locally available food from local smallholder farmers to stimulate rural economic development. School garden initiatives and strong community partnerships are key to its sustainability strategy.

As the program approaches its fourth year of implementation in 2026, midterm evaluation is a crucial milestone for assessing progress toward its objectives, identifying challenges, and guiding necessary adaptations. This evaluation will help ensure the program achieves its intended impact during its remaining period, strengthening its contribution to child nutrition, education, and rural livelihoods.

2. Purpose of the Midterm Evaluation

The midterm evaluation of the LKM School Feeding Program serves as a critical learning and accountability exercise. As the program reaches its halfway point, the review will provide stakeholders with an in-depth understanding of its progress, successes, and challenges. The findings will guide the remainder of the project’s implementation and inform broader strategies for addressing hunger, education, and community development in Kenya’s rural and underserved regions.

Key Objectives of the Evaluation

1. Assess Relevance:
   1. Examine how well the program aligns with the needs of the target population, particularly undernourished children and underperforming schools in Kisii, Nyamira, Homabay, and Migori counties.
   1. Evaluate the program’s alignment with national education and nutrition policies, as well as global goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 4 (Quality Education).
   1. Review the alignment of the homegrown school feeding model with local economic and agricultural development goals.
2. Evaluate Progress and Effectiveness: ● Measure progress toward achieving the program’s objectives, including improved school enrolment, attendance, retention, and performance, as well as reductions in short-term hunger.
   1. Assess the extent to which the program meets its target of providing over 576,600 meals annually and achieving measurable nutritional improvements among pupils.
3. Analyze Efficiency:
   1. Evaluate the use of financial, human, and material resources to determine whether the program is cost-effective and achieving maximum value for money.
   1. Identify any bottlenecks in program implementation, including procurement, logistics, and meal delivery, and recommend solutions to improve operational efficiency.
4. Determine Impact:
   1. Assess the feeding program’s impact on education outcomes, including changes in enrolment, attendance, and graduation rates (disaggregated by sex).
   1. Analyze the nutritional and cognitive benefits of children receiving regular meals.
   1. Explore the broader economic impact on local communities, particularly smallholder farmers supplying food to the program.
5. Assess Sustainability:
   1. Evaluate the progress of sustainability initiatives, including homegrown school gardens and partnerships with county governments and parents for resource mobilization.
   1. Identify challenges and opportunities for sustaining the program beyond its donor-funded period, ensuring long-term benefits for schools and communities. The midterm evaluation will serve several key purposes:
   1. Accountability: Demonstrating progress and impact on donors, partners, and stakeholders.
   1. Learning and Adaptation: Identifying successes, gaps, and areas for improvement to refine the program’s implementation strategy.
   1. Evidence Generation: Establishing a strong evidence base for the program’s outcomes to support advocacy for scale-up and sustainability.
   1. Sustainability Planning: Assessing the feasibility of long-term strategies, such as homegrown school gardens and community contributions.
   1. The findings from this evaluation will directly influence the program’s trajectory, ensuring that it not only meets but exceeds its goals while providing sustainable solutions to hunger and educational challenges in the target communities. Guiding Principles

The following principles will guide the evaluation:

1. Participatory Approach: Engage a diverse range of stakeholders, including school administrators, teachers, students, parents, local farmers, government representatives, and donors, to ensure the evaluation reflects a holistic understanding of the program’s performance.
2. Utilization-Focused: Ensure the findings and recommendations are practical, actionable, and tailored to inform decision-making for program improvement and sustainability planning.
3. Gender and Equity Lens: The program’s impact on vulnerable groups, particularly girls disproportionately affected by food insecurity and educational barriers, should be considered.
4. Evidence-Based: Use robust qualitative and quantitative methods to generate credible evidence of the program’s outcomes and impact.

Key Audiences for the Evaluation Findings

The findings of the midterm evaluation will serve multiple stakeholders, including:

• RFH Foundation Management and Staff: To refine implementation strategies, address challenges, and build on successes for the remaining program period.
• Donors: To demonstrate accountability and the program’s contribution to their funding priorities.
• Local Governments (County Authorities): To advocate for more significant public investment and policy support for school feeding programs.
• School Administrators and Parents: To build confidence in the program’s benefits and foster collaboration for sustainability efforts.
• Development Partners: To share lessons learned and best practices for scaling up homegrown school feeding models.

3. Scope of Work

The scope of the midterm evaluation defines the geographic, thematic, and methodological boundaries within which the assessment will be conducted. This section outlines what will be evaluated, where, and how, ensuring the evaluation comprehensively addresses the program’s progress and performance.

3.1 Geographic Coverage

The evaluation will focus on the three target counties in Southwestern Kenya:  Nyamira, Homabay, and Migori, covering 6 schools. These counties were selected for the program due to their high rates of child food poverty, low school feeding participation, and significant barriers to educational attainment. Specifically, the evaluation will target the six schools where the feeding program is being implemented, assessing how the program has impacted educational outcomes.

3.2 Thematic Focus

The evaluation will examine the program across five key areas:

Relevance

The assessment will explore how well the program meets the needs of its target population and aligns with broader national and global goals. Key questions include:

1. Target Population Needs:
   1. How well does the school feeding program address child food poverty, low school enrolment, and high dropout rates in Nyamira, Homabay, and Migori counties?
   1. Are the program’s interventions (e.g., daily meals, homegrown school feeding approach) culturally and contextually appropriate for the target communities?
2. Alignment with Policies and Goals: ● How does the program align with Kenya’s national priorities, such as Vision 2030, national education and nutrition policies, and school feeding strategies?
   1. To what extent does the program contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 4 (Quality Education)?
3. Stakeholder Perception:
   1. How do pupils, parents, teachers, local farmers, and community leaders perceive the program’s relevance to their needs and aspirations?

Effectiveness

The evaluation will assess how much the program has achieved its intended objectives and outcomes. Key questions include:

1. Progress Toward Objectives:
   1. Has the program effectively reduced short-term hunger and improved attention spans and learning capacity among pupils?
2. Monitoring and Data Utilization:
   1. Are monitoring and reporting systems effectively capturing key data to measure progress and inform program adjustments?
   1. How well are the baseline data and other evidence used to track changes in education and nutrition outcomes?
3. Gender and Equity Considerations:
   1. Are the program’s benefits equitably distributed among different social groups, including vulnerable children? Efficiency

The evaluation will examine how resources have been utilized to achieve results. Key questions include:

1. Resource Allocation:
   1. Are financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to deliver program outputs?
   1. Are there any inefficiencies or bottlenecks in procurement, food delivery, or program management that must be addressed?
2. Cost-Effectiveness:
   1. How does the cost per meal compare to similar school feeding programs in Kenya or the region?
   1. What is the nutritional value of meals served as compared to similar school feeding programs?
   1. What is the quality of meals as compared to cost?
   1. Is the local procurement model (homegrown school feeding) cost-effective compared to alternative sourcing methods?
3. Partnerships and Collaboration:
   1. How effectively can partnerships with local farmers, suppliers, and government entities be leveraged to optimize efficiency?
   1. Are there opportunities to strengthen collaboration with stakeholders to improve operational efficiency? Impact The evaluation will assess the program’s direct and indirect effects on the target population and communities. Key questions include:
4. Educational Outcomes:
   1. What measurable changes have occurred in school enrolment, attendance, progression, and retention rates (disaggregated by sex)?
   1. How has the feeding program influenced classroom performance, attention, and cognitive development?
5. Nutritional Outcomes:
   1. What impact has the program had on children’s nutritional status, as measured by indicators such as weight-for-age, BMI, and micronutrient levels?
6. Economic Impact:
   1. How has the local procurement model contributed to the livelihoods and income of smallholder farmers and local suppliers?
   1. What economic benefits, if there are any, have communities experienced due to the program’s implementation?
7. Unintended Effects:
   1. Are there any unintended positive or negative effects of the program on pupils, schools, or communities? Sustainability

The evaluation will explore the long-term viability of the program’s interventions and its potential to continue delivering benefits post-closure. Key questions include:

1. Sustainability Initiatives:
   1. What progress has been made in establishing homegrown school gardens as a sustainability strategy?
   1. Are there functional 4-K Clubs in the targeted schools, and how effectively are they supporting food production?
2. Stakeholder Contributions:
   1. To what extent are county governments, parents, and local communities contributing resources or support to sustain the feeding program?
   1. Are there indications of increased ownership and commitment among stakeholders to sustain the program?
3. Challenges and Opportunities:
   1. What are the key challenges to achieving sustainability, and how can they be addressed?
   1. What opportunities exist to scale up or replicate the program in other underserved areas?

Cross-Cutting Considerations

Throughout these evaluation domains, the following cross-cutting considerations will inform the analysis:

1. Gender Equity:
   1. How effectively is the program addressing gender disparities in education access and outcomes?
2. Inclusion:
   1. Is the program reaching the most vulnerable children, including those with disabilities or from extremely poor households?
3. Environmental Sustainability:
   1. Are the program’s activities, such as establishing school gardens, environmentally sustainable?

3.4 Key Stakeholders

The evaluation will engage a diverse range of stakeholders, including:

1. Primary Stakeholders:
   1. Pupils receiving meals through the program.
   1. Teachers, school administrators, and support staff involved in program implementation.
2. Secondary Stakeholders:
   1. Parents and caregivers of pupils benefiting from the program.
   1. Local farmers and suppliers participate in the food procurement system.
   1. Local government officials and policymakers in the education and agriculture sectors.
3. Tertiary Stakeholders:
   1. Donor organizations (e.g., Rise Against Hunger) fund the program.
   1. Development partners supporting similar initiatives.
4. Methodology

The midterm evaluation will adopt a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to comprehensively understand the program’s performance. This methodology will be participatory and inclusive and designed to generate actionable insights to improve the program’s implementation and sustainability.

4.1 Evaluation Design

The evaluation will use a concurrent triangulation design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure the reliability and validity of findings. Data will be collected from multiple sources and stakeholders to address the evaluation questions comprehensively and provide both breadth and depth of analysis. 4.2 Data Collection Methods

1. Document Review:
   1. Review project documents, including the proposal, work plans, budgets, baseline data, monitoring reports, and previous evaluations or assessments.
   1. Analyze key national and local policies on school feeding and nutrition to assess alignment with broader priorities.
2. Quantitative Data Collection:

Surveys: Conduct structured surveys with pupils, parents, and teachers to gather data on enrolment, attendance, retention, nutritional improvements, and perceptions of the program’s effectiveness. To assess equity and inclusion, disaggregate data by sex, and age.

 School Records Analysis: Collect and analyze school records to track changes in enrolment,   attendance, graduation rates, and academic performance since the program’s inception.

• Qualitative Data Collection:

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Organize FGDs with key stakeholder groups, such as pupils, parents, teachers, school administrators, and local farmers. These discussions will provide insights into the program’s experiences, challenges, and perceived impacts.

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Conduct interviews with local government officials, RFH staff, donor representatives, and community leaders to gather insights on program implementation, partnerships, and sustainability.

Case Studies: Develop in-depth case studies of selected schools to showcase the program’s impact on pupils and communities, highlighting successes and challenges.

• Field Observations:

Visit program sites to observe school feeding activities, infrastructure (e.g., kitchens, storage facilities, water sources), and homegrown school gardens.

Document operational processes, including meal preparation and distribution, to identify potential inefficiencies or bottlenecks.

• Economic and Financial Analysis:

Assess the program’s cost-effectiveness by comparing expenditures (e.g., cost per meal, cost per beneficiary) to outcomes achieved.

Analyze the economic impact of local food procurement on smallholder farmers and suppliers.

4.3 Sampling Strategy

1. School Selection: Include all six schools participating in the program to ensure a comprehensive understanding of its implementation across different geographic and demographic contexts.
2. Stakeholder Selection:

Pupils: Stratified random sampling to ensure representation across grades and sex.

Parents: Random sampling to capture diverse perspectives from households benefiting from the program.

Teachers and School Staff: Purposive sampling to select those directly involved in program delivery.

Local Farmers: Stratified sampling to include smallholder farmers supplying food to the program.

• Sample Size: Determine sample sizes for quantitative data collection based on the total number of beneficiaries and stakeholders, ensuring statistical significance while balancing logistical feasibility. 4.4 Data Analysis
• Quantitative Analysis:
  • Use statistical methods to analyze survey and school record data, including descriptive and inferential statistics.
  • Compare baseline and midterm data to identify trends and progress toward key indicators.
• Qualitative Analysis:
  • Transcribe and code qualitative data from FGDs, KIIs, and observations using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns and themes.
  • Integrate qualitative findings with quantitative results to provide context and deeper insights.
• Economic Analysis:
  • Calculate cost-efficiency metrics (e.g., cost per meal and outcome achieved).
  • Analyze the economic benefits of local procurement on household incomes and community livelihoods.

4.5 Ethical Considerations

The evaluation will adhere to the highest ethical standards to ensure the dignity, rights, and well-being of participants are respected:

1. Informed Consent:
   1. Obtain informed consent from all participants, including parents or guardians of minors.
   1. Clearly explain the purpose of the evaluation, data collection methods, and how findings will be used.
2. Confidentiality: Ensure all data is anonymized and stored securely to protect participant privacy.
3. Voluntary Participation: Participation in the evaluation is voluntary, and participants can withdraw at any time without consequences.
4. Cultural Sensitivity: Engage local stakeholders to ensure evaluation tools and approaches are culturally appropriate and sensitive to local norms.

4.6 Quality Assurance

• Pretesting: Pilot data collection tools to ensure clarity, reliability, and appropriateness before full-scale data collection.
• Triangulation: Use multiple data sources and methods to validate findings and ensure accuracy.
• Peer Review: Submit draft findings to key stakeholders and experts for review and validation before finalizing the report.

6. Deliverables

1. Inception Report (due 2 weeks after contract signing): Detailed methodology, work plan, and data collection tools.
2. Interim Report (due mid-evaluation): Preliminary findings and any identified challenges.
3. Draft Evaluation Report (due 6 weeks after fieldwork): Comprehensive analysis with recommendations.
4. Final Evaluation Report (due 2 weeks after feedback on the draft): Incorporating stakeholder comments.

7. Timeframe

The evaluation will commence in June 2025 and should be completed within 3 months.

8. Evaluator Qualifications

Technical Expertise:

• Advanced degree in Agriculture, Nutrition, Development Studies, Monitoring & Evaluation, or a related field.
• Proven experience evaluating development programs, particularly in school feeding, education, and nutrition sectors.
• Expertise in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, with a solid understanding of their application in development contexts.
• Strong experience in designing, conducting, and analyzing evaluations in agriculture and nutrition interventions, particularly those with a focus on food security and school feeding programs.
• Expertise in mixed-methods evaluations, including survey design, data collection, and statistical analysis, alongside qualitative methods like Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).

Relevant Experience:

• At least 5–7 years of experience in conducting evaluations for development programs, particularly those related to school feeding, education, or nutrition.
• Familiarity with nutrition-sensitive and agriculture-based interventions, including conservation agriculture, Behavior Change Communication (BCC), and integrated school feeding models.
• Proven ability to assess the sustainability, scalability, and cost-effectiveness of development projects, particularly those aimed at improving food security, nutrition, and education.
• Agriculture and Nutrition thematic experts must be part of the evaluation team, ensuring comprehensive expertise in these areas.

Contextual Knowledge:

• Strong understanding of the Kenyan socio-political, cultural, and geographical context, particularly in the target counties where the evaluation is conducted.
• Experience working with vulnerable populations, including children, women, and marginalized communities, particularly within the school and nutrition sectors.
• Operational presence in Kenya is essential, as travel to all schools within the target counties is mandatory for data collection and stakeholder engagement.

Methodological Competence:

• Proficiency in designing and implementing surveys, including working with large datasets, statistical analysis, and the ability to translate data into actionable insights.
• Strong qualitative research skills, including designing and facilitating KIIs and FGDs, ensuring the collection of comprehensive, contextually rich data.

Soft Skills and Professionalism:

• Excellent communication and facilitation skills, with the ability to engage and collaborate with a diverse range of stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, school officials, and partner organizations.
• Strong analytical and report-writing skills, with the ability to present findings in a clear, concise, and actionable format for diverse audiences, including donors and program implementers.
• Fluency in English (required), with knowledge of local languages or dialects in the target counties (e.g., Swahili, Kikuyu, or Maasai) is an advantage.

Desired Qualifications:

• Prior experience in conducting evaluations for donors or implementing agencies, particularly those aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2: Zero Hunger.
• Familiarity with global frameworks, such as the UN’s SDGs, and local government structures in Kenya, and their relevance to school feeding and nutrition interventions.

9. Budget

The evaluator is expected to provide a detailed financial proposal (in USD) that includes:

Budget Categories:

1. Professional Fees 
2. Fieldwork Expenses
3. Data Collection Costs
4. Data Analysis and Reporting
5. Miscellaneous Costs
6. Others

10. Application Process

Required Application Materials:

Interested consultants or firms should submit the following documents:

Technical Proposal:

• Understanding of the Terms of Reference and the LKM project.
• Proposed evaluation methodology and approach, including tools, sampling strategy, and ethical considerations.
• Detailed work plan with timelines.

Financial Proposal:

• Comprehensive budget breakdown, aligned with the scope of work. ● Explanation of budget assumptions and any additional costs.

Curriculum Vitae (CV):

• CVs of all team members, highlighting relevant experience and qualifications.

Previous Work Samples:

• Examples of past evaluation reports or relevant assignments completed within the last five years.

References:

• Contact information for at least three professional references who can verify the evaluator’s experience and quality of work.

Selection Process:

The selection committee will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria:

• Relevance and quality of the proposed methodology.
• Demonstrated experience and qualifications of the evaluator(s).
• Cost-effectiveness and clarity of the financial proposal.
• Quality of previous work samples.

Shortlisted candidates may be invited for an interview or presentation of their approach.

Submission Process:

Applications must be submitted electronically to [email protected] with the subject line: “Application for LKM Midterm Evaluation.”

The deadline for submission is March 15th, 2025. Late submissions will not be considered