• Press Release
• Background
• Facts on Hunger, Poverty, and Education
• Expert Bios
• Results of Evaluation: Food for Schooling in Bangladesh
• Photos and Stories from Bangladesh
• News Clips
• Issue Brief

Results of Evaluation: Food for Schooling in Bangladesh

Despite Bangladesh's innovative programs, pervasive poverty and undernutrition persist. About half of the country's 130 million people cannot afford an adequate diet. Although trends in the overall incidence of poverty show modest signs of improvement, the standard of living of those in extreme poverty has not improved. One-quarter of the population is chronically underfed and highly vulnerable to further hardship: their labor is often the only asset they have to stave off lean-season hunger or the crushing blows of illness, flooding, and other calamities.

Within poor households, pre-school-age children and pregnant and lactating women face the most acute nutritional risk. More than half of all children in Bangladesh under five are underweight for their age. About one-fifth die before their fifth birthday. Two-thirds of these deaths are related to malnutrition.

Although the need for assistance to the poor remains strong in Bangladesh, public resources are declining . Effective targeting of resources and program management have become critical. The government of Bangladesh has taken commendable actions to evaluate program effectiveness, confront short-comings, and discontinue or modify failing programs.

HISTORY OF IFPRI'S WORK IN FOOD FOR SCHOOLING

In 1992, at the request of the government of Bangladesh, IFPRI conducted a comprehensive study of a targeted national food subsidy program known as Rural Rationing. The study found that, at that time, the government was providing subsidies of $60 million per year to run the program, but about 70 percent of the subsidized food was going to those who were not poor. The costly program was simply not reaching the most vulnerable. As a result of these findings, the government decided to eliminate the program.

Following the abolition of Rural Rationing, the government commissioned a working group, chaired by IFPRI, to review the options for developing food programs that would reach the neediest people. In 1993, drawing on suggestions from the review, the government launched a large-scale pilot test of the innovative Food for Education program (now called Food for Schooling).

Many children from poor families in Bangladesh do not attend school either because their families cannot afford expenses such as tuition or supplies, or because the children contribute to their family's livelihood and cannot be spared. Under the Food for Schooling (FFS) program, a free monthly ration of foodgrains becomes an income entitlement enabling a child from a poor family to go to school. The family can consume the grain, thus reducing its food budget or it can sell the grain and use the cash to meet other expenses.

CURRENT STRUCTURE OF FOOD FOR SCHOOLING IN BANGLADESH

CRITERIA FOR BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS  To qualify for the Food for Schooling program, households must also meet one of the following criteria: The household is landless or near landless, owning less than half an acre of land. The household head is a day laborer. The household head is female (widowed, separated, or divorced or the husband is disabled). Wage earners are in low-income professions.

By 2000, the pilot program covered 17,811 public and private primary schools, accounting for about 27 percent of all primary schools in Bangladesh. Out of 5.2 million students enrolled in schools with FFS programs, about 40 percent (2.1 million students) receive foodgrains through FFS. About 2 million families benefit from FFS. In total, the FFS program distributes about 24,000 metric tons of grain-mostly wheat- per month. Each household is entitled to receive either 15 or 20 kilograms per month depending on the number of children attending primary school from the household. To maintain their eligibility, children must attend 85 percent of classes each month.

The headmaster of a school maintains the list of beneficiaries and provides monthly school attendance information to a School Managing Committee, whose members calculate the foodgrain requirement for the school for that month. The procurement request is certified and is then forwarded to local food officers and supply depots. Each school has a designated private grain dealer who receives the monthly supply of FFS foodgrains. Each student's parent or guardian picks up the ration from the dealer on a specified date of each month. Designated government officers supervise the grain distribution.

IFPRI'S EVALUATION OF FOOD FOR SCHOOLING

In September and October of 2000, IFPRI conducted a survey of a number of primary schools with and without the FFS program and collected information from FFS foodgrain dealers and program implementation officials. A cross section of households, including program beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries, were interviewed. IFPRI researchers used a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the program. Their findings can be used to improve the program in Bangladesh and to provide guidance for the design of similar programs in other countries.

On the plus side, the study found that FFS has been successful in increasing primary school enrollment, promoting school attendance, and reducing dropout rates. The enrollment increase was greater for girls than for boys.

	The Food for Schooling program has resulted in student enrollment increases of 35 percent.

Student enrollment in FFS schools increased by 35 percent during the period from before the start of the FFS program to immediately after the introduction of the program. Enrollment of girls increased by a remarkable 44 percent. For boys, the increase was 28 percent. In contrast, enrollment in non-FFS schools increased by about 7 percent during the period.

The overall rate of school attendance is 71 percent in FFS schools and only 58 percent in non-FFS schools.

FFS encourages children to stay in school. About 40 percent of the students in FFS schools receive FFS foodgrain. From 1999 to 2000, only 6 percent of the FFS beneficiary students dropped out, compared with 15 percent of the children who did not receive benefits.

On the downside, the quality of education is lower in FFS schools than in non-FFS schools, largely because enrollment is greater.

Because of increased enrollment and class attendance rates, FFS school classrooms are more crowded than non-FFS classrooms. By encouraging children to attend, participating schools have been victims of their own success. While there are 62 students per teacher in non-FFS schools, on average, FFS schools have 76 students per teacher.

As a part of IFPRI's survey, a standard achievement test was given to students in both FFS and non-FFS schools. The student achievement test scores were slightly lower in FFS schools. And merit-based primary school scholarships were obtained at a slightly higher rate in non-FFS schools than in FFS schools.

Targeting is generally effective, but it could be improved.

	Dropout rates for FFS students were nine percent lower than their non-FFS classmates.

Food for Schooling effectively targets poor households. Households receiving FFS benefits are poorer than nonbeneficiary households with children attending primary schools. However, there are still some eligible households in FFS villages who are not in the program. These households have primary school-age children who are not attending school at all. These nonbeneficiaries, constituting about 13 percent of all households in FFS villages, are often poorer than households receiving FFS benefits.

The geographic targeting of villages for the FFS program appears to be quite good. The average income of households living in FFS villages is lower than the average income of households who live in non-FFS villages.

FFS improves household food security.

The IFPRI evaluation finds that the program significantly increases calorie and protein consumption in the beneficiary households, even after controlling for effects of income and other factors.

FFS alone does not improve the nutritional status of vulnerable household members.

Beyond improving calorie and protein intake, FFS does not noticeably improve the nutritional status (as determined by anthropometric measurements) of the most vulnerable members of the beneficiary households-preschool-age children and women. These findings indicate that the increased access to food provided to the households, although necessary, is not sufficient to eradicate malnutrition in the most vulnerable individuals within those households.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Include complementary financial and technical assistance to improve the quality of education. The quality of education has deteriorated in the FFS-supported schools in Bangladesh, mainly because enrollment rates have increased. In order to improve the quality of education in the FFS schools, it is important that the program design include complementary financial and technical assistance to build more schools, improve school facilities, hire more and better qualified teachers, and provide proper training to teachers.

Combine FFS with school feeding to achieve better results.

FFS brings children to school, but it does not guarantee that their nutritional status will improve. Because undernutrition has been shown to reduce a child's ability to concentrate and retain what he or she has learned, school feeding, especially a light snack early in the day, improves performance. Distribution of nutrient-dense wafers or other precooked foods for school feeding avoids the costs of providing cooking facilities at the schools and diminishes teachers' involvement with food management and preparation. It seems likely that school feeding would be a valuable addition to the FFS program, but a combined program has not been evaluated.

Improve targeting criteria.

In Bangladesh, the official targeting criteria used for the FFS program are not capturing all of the poor. A means test should be developed for the program. IFPRI has developed inexpensive yet accurate mechanisms to measure household welfare effectively in other countries. These "proxy means tests" use readily available information as indicators to predict household income. A similar tool can be used to better target FFS resources to the poor.

FFS should be broadened to include a preschool feeding program.

There is considerable evidence that preschool malnutrition is associated with delayed enrollment and poor health and cognitive development. Neither FFS nor school feeding programs effectively reach children in the six-months to three-years-old bracket, the critical time when solid foods are introduced and begin providing the lion's share of nutrition for growth. Bangladesh and other governments need to consider shifting some resources to preschool feeding programs. The FFS program could be adapted to help younger children by providing nutrient-dense complementary foods, as well as foodgrains, to preschool-age children in participating households.