TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MIDTERM
EVALUATION OF THE LISHA KWA MAARIFA PROJECT IN
KENYA
- 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. - 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 - Assess Relevance:
● 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.
● 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).
● Review the alignment of the homegrown school feeding model with local economic and
agricultural development goals.
- 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.
● Assess the extent to which the program meets its target of providing over 576,600 meals
annually and achieving measurable nutritional improvements among pupils. - Analyze Efficiency:
● Evaluate the use of financial, human, and material resources to determine whether the
program is cost-effective and achieving maximum value for money.
● Identify any bottlenecks in program implementation, including procurement, logistics,
and meal delivery, and recommend solutions to improve operational efficiency. - Determine Impact:
● Assess the feeding program’s impact on education outcomes, including changes in
enrolment, attendance, and graduation rates (disaggregated by sex).
● Analyze the nutritional and cognitive benefits of children receiving regular meals.
● Explore the broader economic impact on local communities, particularly smallholder
farmers supplying food to the program. - Assess Sustainability:
● Evaluate the progress of sustainability initiatives, including homegrown school gardens
and partnerships with county governments and parents for resource mobilization.
● 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:
● Accountability: Demonstrating progress and impact on donors, partners, and
stakeholders.
● Learning and Adaptation: Identifying successes, gaps, and areas for improvement to
refine the program’s implementation strategy.
● Evidence Generation: Establishing a strong evidence base for the program’s outcomes
to support advocacy for scale-up and sustainability.
● Sustainability Planning: Assessing the feasibility of long-term strategies, such as
homegrown school gardens and community contributions.
● 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.
- Utilization-Focused: Ensure the findings and recommendations are practical, actionable, and tailored to
inform decision-making for program improvement and sustainability planning. - Gender and Equity Lens: The program’s impact on vulnerable groups, particularly girls disproportionately
affected by food insecurity and educational barriers, should be considered. - 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. - 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:
- Target Population Needs:
● How well does the school feeding program address child food poverty, low school
enrolment, and high dropout rates in Nyamira, Homabay, and Migori counties?
● Are the program’s interventions (e.g., daily meals, homegrown school feeding approach)
culturally and contextually appropriate for the target communities? - 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?
● To what extent does the program contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 4 (Quality Education)? - Stakeholder Perception:
● 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: - Progress Toward Objectives:
● Has the program effectively reduced short-term hunger and improved attention spans
and learning capacity among pupils? - Monitoring and Data Utilization:
● Are monitoring and reporting systems effectively capturing key data to measure progress
and inform program adjustments?
● How well are the baseline data and other evidence used to track changes in education
and nutrition outcomes? - Gender and Equity Considerations:
● 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:
- Resource Allocation:
● Are financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to deliver program outputs?
● Are there any inefficiencies or bottlenecks in procurement, food delivery, or program
management that must be addressed? - Cost-Effectiveness:
● How does the cost per meal compare to similar school feeding programs in Kenya or the
region?
● What is the nutritional value of meals served as compared to similar school feeding
programs?
● What is the quality of meals as compared to cost?
● Is the local procurement model (homegrown school feeding) cost-effective compared to
alternative sourcing methods? - Partnerships and Collaboration:
● How effectively can partnerships with local farmers, suppliers, and government entities
be leveraged to optimize efficiency?
● 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: - Educational Outcomes:
● What measurable changes have occurred in school enrolment, attendance, progression,
and retention rates (disaggregated by sex)?
● How has the feeding program influenced classroom performance, attention, and
cognitive development? - Nutritional Outcomes:
● What impact has the program had on children’s nutritional status, as measured by
indicators such as weight-for-age, BMI, and micronutrient levels? - Economic Impact:
● How has the local procurement model contributed to the livelihoods and income of
smallholder farmers and local suppliers?
● What economic benefits, if there are any, have communities experienced due to the
program’s implementation?
- Unintended Effects:
● 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: - Sustainability Initiatives:
● What progress has been made in establishing homegrown school gardens as a
sustainability strategy?
● Are there functional 4-K Clubs in the targeted schools, and how effectively are they
supporting food production? - Stakeholder Contributions:
● To what extent are county governments, parents, and local communities contributing
resources or support to sustain the feeding program?
● Are there indications of increased ownership and commitment among stakeholders to
sustain the program? - Challenges and Opportunities:
● What are the key challenges to achieving sustainability, and how can they be
addressed?
● 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: - Gender Equity:
● How effectively is the program addressing gender disparities in education access and
outcomes? - Inclusion:
● Is the program reaching the most vulnerable children, including those with disabilities or
from extremely poor households? - Environmental Sustainability:
● 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:
- Primary Stakeholders:
● Pupils receiving meals through the program.
● Teachers, school administrators, and support staff involved in program implementation. - Secondary Stakeholders:
● Parents and caregivers of pupils benefiting from the program.
● Local farmers and suppliers participate in the food procurement system.
● Local government officials and policymakers in the education and agriculture sectors. - Tertiary Stakeholders:
● Donor organizations (e.g., Rise Against Hunger) fund the program.
● Development partners supporting similar initiatives. - 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 - Document Review:
● Review project documents, including the proposal, work plans, budgets, baseline data,
monitoring reports, and previous evaluations or assessments.
● Analyze key national and local policies on school feeding and nutrition to assess
alignment with broader priorities. - 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 - School Selection: Include all six schools participating in the program to ensure a comprehensive
understanding of its implementation across different geographic and demographic contexts. - 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: - Informed Consent:
● Obtain informed consent from all participants, including parents or guardians of minors.
● Clearly explain the purpose of the evaluation, data collection methods, and how findings
will be used. - Confidentiality: Ensure all data is anonymized and stored securely to protect participant privacy.
- Voluntary Participation: Participation in the evaluation is voluntary, and participants can withdraw at any
time without consequences. - 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. - Deliverables
- Inception Report (due 2 weeks after contract signing): Detailed methodology, work plan, and data collection
tools. - Interim Report (due mid-evaluation): Preliminary findings and any identified challenges.
- Draft Evaluation Report (due 6 weeks after fieldwork): Comprehensive analysis with recommendations.
- Final Evaluation Report (due 2 weeks after feedback on the draft): Incorporating stakeholder comments.
- Timeframe
The evaluation will commence in June 2025 and should be completed within 3 months. - 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.
- Budget
The evaluator is expected to provide a detailed financial proposal (in USD) that includes:
Budget Categories: - Professional Fees
- Fieldwork Expenses
- Data Collection Costs
- Data Analysis and Reporting
- Miscellaneous Costs
- Others
- 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
