:: Clacherty & Associates ::

Evaluation Research

National School Nutrition Programme

The National School Nutrition Programme was initiated in 1994 in all nine provinces in South Africa. The focus of the programme is on improving the nutritional status of South African children specifically to enhance learning capacity and improve school attendance in primary schools.

Many children are orphans and they are starving. Many children have been left by their parents with the grandmothers. Some of them were working in the farms instead of coming to school. Some of the parents are sick with the disease (AIDS). The feeding scheme plays a big part because it makes sure that the children have something to eat and therefore they are keen to come to school because they know they will have something to eat. The performance of the children has improved a great deal. Many children pass their grades because they are healthy and mentally alert. They now have interest in school. (School principal)

After the first ten years of operation a decision was taken to evaluate the Programme. In order to guide the planning being undertaken for that evaluation a qualitative study was commissioned that was to examine key themes and explore dynamics at a local level so that the larger-scale survey would be able to address such issues. This is an excellent example of mixed method evaluation, using the strengths of different approaches optimally. Clacherty & Associates was commissioned to undertake the qualitative study. A full copy of the report can be downloaded here.

The report presents an analysis of findings obtained from interviews and focus group discussions in four schools; two in the Eastern Cape and two in KwaZulu-Natal. In each province, one of the schools is in a rural setting (Butterworth and Mtunzini respectively) and the other in an urban setting (Duncan Village and Umlazi respectively). There were focus group discussions with learners, parents and teachers. Teachers and parents of children who participated in the feeding scheme were selected. Group size was generally around 6 teachers or parents. In most cases the parents were women. These adult focus groups followed a conventional discussion-based process.

The learners were selected from a range of grades that participate in the feeding scheme. In the Eastern Cape learners were from Grades 3 and 4, as the feeding scheme does not feed children in Grade 5 and above, while in KwaZulu-Natal it included learners in Grades 6 and 7 because all children up to Grade 7 are included. The group size was between 10 and 12 learners. The focus group discussions with learners were activity-based; a series of pictures representing aspects of the feeding scheme and children’s lived experiences were used to focus the discussion. The learner focus group discussion guidelines are attached to the report. The groups were conducted in the learners’ own languages. The ethics of child participatory research were carefully observed; children were given information about the purposes of the research, they were told that they did not have to answer a question if they did not wish to, and that the information they provided would remain confidential.

In addition to the focus group discussions, interviews with selected stakeholders were conducted. Interviewees were the school coordinator, the school principal, the feeding scheme service provider and the person who actually prepared the food.

Summary of findings

Note that what follows is based on 2006 work.

Quantity and quality of food
There are great discrepancies between the two provinces included in this research. KZN’s food seems good, varied and nutritious, while the Eastern Cape’s is minimal, poor nutritional status and intermittent.

Intra-household reallocation of resources
In KwaZulu-Natal the general picture was that the school meals were sufficient to displace a home meal. However, in the Eastern Cape where bread is the main meal, there was much less evidence of meal displacement. A more fundamental issue arises here because most homes, particularly in the rural school, are extremely poor. In many cases it was clear that there wasn’t a meal to displace, and that in some cases the only meal of the day was the slice of bread provided at school. This brings into sharper perspective the depth of poverty and issues of food security in (mainly) rural homes.

The children sometimes only eat this bread during lunch and their next meal will be this bread again tomorrow, so to some things are really bad. (Teacher)

Impacts of the feeding scheme
Generally, there are marked positive impacts – health, school performance, school attendance, improved behaviours, greater energy levels and so on, but with significant differences between the two provinces.

In the KwaZulu-Natal schools where a varied and balanced menu is provided the nutritional and health gains are more marked. Considering that the official menu in the Eastern Cape is so limited, the fact that nutritional and health gains have been reported at all suggests that the scheme is building on a very low base, that poor food security and low nutritional status characterise the lives of these children. In this context, the fact that the school slice of bread is the major meal of the day for many learners is a matter of major concern. A more varied and balanced diet needs to be provided.

Rural vs. urban
Although there is more that is similar among all children in the four schools included in this research, there were some important differences between the rural and urban children, for example the opportunity in towns for begging and doing odd jobs. In the rural schools where these opportunities do not exist, children literally go hungry when the feeding scheme is not operating.

I drink water with sugar (Child)

They are in the mercy of those who have something, the neighbours and they sometimes survive because of the government grant. (Teacher)

Somehow they survive but you can tell when they come back from the school holidays that their situation is more desperate. Some we have to take them to the clinic because they are too sick when they come back from the holidays, you can tell that they had not had enough to eat during the holidays. (Teacher)
Feeding / non-feeding groups and sharing of food
Sharing of food is common, especially in the Eastern Cape, but also in KwaZulu-Natal where children are reported to bring empty lunch boxes to school and take food home for younger and older siblings. In the Eastern Cape schools, where one slice of bread is provided, there are many who share their slice with a sibling (around half of the learners in the group said they shared their food).

I eat with my brother because he doesn’t get the bread. (Child)

Logistics of feeding
From evidence gathered it seems that the feeding scheme operates all five days of the week in both provinces and for the entire year, excluding the school holidays, with local variations. One of the important challenges that needs to be addressed is erratic or non-delivery of supplies to schools. In addition, the delivery of large quantities of perishable food only every 2 weeks or even monthly, where shorter intervals are the norm, needs attention.

It sometimes happens in the Eastern Cape schools that the bread simply doesn’t arrive on a certain day, with no warning.The impact of this on the children is immediately noticeable and is very disturbing to all concerned.

I once didn’t eat my lunch because I just couldn’t, seeing their eyes when I had to tell them there was no bread broke my heart that I couldn’t eat that day. (Teacher)

Use of pocket money and tuck shops
It seems that many children use tuck shops or informal sellers. Usually the amount of money mentioned per child is around R2.00, sometimes less, but seldom more. Regrettably, the food children buy is usually of very poor nutritional value. More than half of the children observed during break at one of the Eastern Cape schools had fat cakes. These are children in the higher grades who are not part of the feeding scheme, and they are using money from home to buy the food.

Stigma
Stigma was not as widely reported as might be expected. This is ascribed mainly to the fact that in the four schools concerned there are very few children who are not needy. In the urban Eastern Cape school there are children who come to school with sandwiches in Tupperware and R2.00 for the tuck shop where other children have nothing at home. There are some case of stigmatisation and mocking behaviour reported here, but this is apparently not widespread.

Local economic development
Although the feeding scheme presents major opportunities for local economic development, it seems that these opportunities are not fully exploited. It seems that the option of locally-based projects is feasible, although, of course, closer management and accountability will be required.

Are there possibilities of running this scheme from the community?
Well, there are no projects from this community, if there were projects such as a bakery then the parents would do it themselves. (Teacher)

It should be a community project, we can bake the bread and supply the schools, in that way we are able to pay school fees because we will be making money and feeding our children at the same time. (Parent)

Let the government empower us to feed our children because some of them are sick and they need proper food like vegetables, so let us grow food to feed them. (Parent)

The simplest way forward on this would be for schools to require a local purchasing policy, and to encourage parents to respond to this local economic opportunity. The main example of direct local job creation is in the employment of the cooks or ‘bread cutters’. In all four schools these people are local residents and even school parents. Their salaries are paid from the feeding scheme budget. Unfortunately, this money amounts to only R200 per month.

How much is she earning now?
Ohhh… R200.00(sounding embarrassed)
A month?
Yes, a month.

In some cases there are efforts by the schools or the suppliers to remedy this.

A full copy of the report can be downloaded here.

Links

to come

Clacherty & Associates
PO Box 613 Auckland Park 2006
Tel :+27 (0)11 482 4083, Fax: +27 (0)86 516 6935