T.14 Feeding days as percentage of total school days

T.14 Feeding days as percentage of total school days

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

T.14

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-S (SBP)

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Output Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is recommended against the following sub-activities in CSP logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. School meals programme on-site (SF_ONS)

2. School meals programme take home incentives (SF_THI)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of days

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the percentage of feeding days of total school days within a reporting year.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

Feeding days: Number of days where school feeding was provided through on-site meal and/or snacks.

Total school days: Total number of days in which schools were open and operational during the school year.

RATIONALE

For schoolchildren to benefit from school feeding and for the programme to yield its intended outcomes (i.e., access to education, food security, etc.), the provision of meals and/or snacks should be done in a regular and sustainable way. Feeding days as percentage of total school days will inform to which extent schoolchildren had regular access to food in schools, which can in turn, inform programme performance, design and/or improvements.

DATA SOURCE

Data on this indicator can be extracted from the following sources:

• WFP/ cooperating partners’ distribution reports

• Programme tracking sheets triangulated with process monitoring reports

• COMET data if applicable

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated through the following formula:

Feeding days as percentage of total school days = (X/Y) x 100

Where:

X = Total number of days in which WFP provided school feeding

Y = Total number of days in which schools were operational

Note: If WFP implements two or more types of School Feeding Programmes in one country (for example, in two different geographical areas), the indicator should be calculated and reported separately for each programme or activity.

The total number of school days is estimated at the beginning of the programme and/or the school year, and then established as final at the end, taking into consideration any unforeseen school closures (events that are not related to WFP’s own logistics or programme implementation).

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

The output indicator consists of one detailed indicator. Country Offices (COs) should select this detailed indicator:

• T14.1 Feeding days as percentage of total school days

In addition to this, values for the detailed indicator can be collected in COMET by:

• Geographical location

• Sub-activity

N.B. Planned/Actual values cannot be aggregated across different locations and/or activity tags.

PLANNED FIGURES

The planned value will depend on context and programme design. Ideally, school-children should be able to access food in school every day, especially in more vulnerable contexts.

Planned values for the reporting year are set annually the detailed indicator, along with the other years of the CSP/ICSP. These values should be planned in the COMET Other Output Plan (OOP) and must be established during the first quarter of the first year of CSP/ICSP implementation. Additionally, planned values are captured in the partnership and/or field‑level agreements, with a focus on the reporting year.

For subsequent years of the CSP/ICSP, planned values can either be marked as ‘no data’ or, if initially planned, should be reviewed and updated during the first quarter of the current reporting year.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

It is recommended that the actual number of feeding days is collected and calculated on a yearly basis and entered in COMET completion reports, in one partnership in case there is more than one partnership in the year.

INTERPRETATION

When interpreting results, a comparison between planned and actual figures must be done. The closer actual figures are to planned, the better t2he performance for this output, which means WFP managed to reach children for the whole planned period. This should indicate how likely WFP is to see strong results at other levels of the results chain, like outcome education indicators (e.g., retention rate), or nutrition-sensitive indicators. If feeding days as percentage of total school days is 100%, it means schoolchildren could access food provided by WFP in schools every school day that school was operational (or every day that the programme was planned).

It’s also crucial to report and explain underperformance, always using planned figures as a basis to determine performance. If results are considerably below planned values, please explain why this happened and how WFP plans to address this in the upcoming year, or what assumptions need to hold true for WFP to be able to achieve its targets. For example, underperforming may be due to pipeline or operational issues that WFP can improve on, but it can also be due to funding constraints or challenges related to security or access issues that WFP cannot control.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Example

The school year is about to begin in country A, where WFP has been implementing school feeding in the south region for the past 5 years. This year, a new programme is also being established in the north region upon a government request.

Step 1 = WFP estimates total number of school days in both areas. The school year is usually 180-190 days in the country, but because the north region is known to be affected by seasonal heavy rainfall and related school closures, WFP estimates that schools will only be operational for about 160-170 days in the north.

The yearly planned value for feeding days was established at 90% in the South region, as it was 85% in the previous year, and 70% in the North region.

Step 2 = WFP gathers monthly data (number of feeding days) in each area.

South

North

Feeding days in North region = (132 / 145) x 100 = 91%

WFP provided school meals in the South region for 91% of days in which school was

operational in the area, which is 21 percentage points higher than planned. While WFP

considered the possibility that the implementation of the programme in the North would be impacted by the seasonal rains and other access constraints, WFP implemented effective preparedness mechanisms and managed to make strong progress. In addition, the collaboration between WFP and the government in the North area allowed WFP to

distribute the food effectively throughout the year. Enrolment rate in the North region

increased substantially compared to baseline – by 10 percentage points – which was the main objective of the programme and suggests that the provision of school meals served as an incentive for parents to re-enroll children in schools.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• T.1 Number of people (Tier 1) receiving direct food/cash-based/commodity vouchers/individual capacity strengthening transfers (disaggregated by sex, age group, residence status, modality and activity)

• T.3 Quantity of food (mt) provided to people assisted by WFP (including specialized nutritious food and fortified food)

• T.9 Number of schools or institutional sites reached through school-based programming

• T.15 Average number of school days per month on which multi-fortified or at least 4 food groups were provided

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

Feeding days is useful to measure programme performance. It can also suggest progress in areas like access to food for schoolchildren, and nutrition (if the programme is nutrition-sensitive). If children get to eat every day, the programme should, in theory, yield intended outcomes and results. However, analysis should not rely only on feeding days to explain changes in outcome indicators or higher-level results. Feeding days is an output indicator and further substantial analysis and contextual information is necessary to determine why the programme underachieved or overachieved at other result levels; for example, information like supply chain challenges, access and security constraints, etc.

FURTHER INFORMATION

COMET Manual

How to include indicators, activity tags & markers in I/CSP logframes

Other Outputs Package (pending update)