FOOD FOR EDUCATION
Feeling Minds Reduces Poverty
Background
In the developing world, 200
million children under five years of age are malnourished. Most
of these children live in abject poverty, have not had enough
to eat since birth, and will never complete primary school.
Sadly, without education, their future will undoubtedly be as
bleak as their past, and their children's future will be a distressing
echo of their own. The intergenerational transmission of poverty
is insidious and persistent. Governments in developing countries
strive to improve their national economies, but where a large
number of people are poor, food insecure, and uneducated, economic
development is difficult and slow.
For the food-insecure child, the pathway out of poverty is constricted.
From birth, poor children are often deprived of the basic nutritional
building blocks that they need in order to learn easily. And
poverty has kept generations of families from sending their
children to school. Because day-to-day survival has to be their
first priority, families often cannot provide children with
educational opportunities that could help lift them from destitution.
Even if schooling is free, costs such as books and other school
materials, clothes, shoes, and transportation can be a heavy
economic burden. In many poor families, children must contribute
to the household's livelihood. Children often have to work in
the fields or care for younger siblings so that their parents
can earn an income away from home. Some children even work themselves
as day laborers. In a nutshell, many children in developing
countries bring direct or indirect income into the household-income
that can make a difference between one or two meals a day for
the family.
Throughout the world, governments have used food subsidies to
improve the welfare of needy populations. Today, rather than
just handing out food, governments are increasingly using food
as an instrument for reaching development goals, such as education
for all, while also reducing hunger among the poor. They are
not only feeding people, they are feeding development.
Food for Education programs have been implemented in two basic
forms: children are fed in school (School Feeding Programs),
and families are given food if their children attend school
(Food for Schooling Programs). Both programs combine educational
opportunity with food-based incentives. And both programs use
food as an incentive for parents to send their children to school.
Food for Education programs provide immediate sustenance for
the hungry, but perhaps more importantly, they empower future
generations by educating today's children. In many countries
of the developing world, these programs are providing opportunity
where there once was none.
SCHOOL FEEDING: ENABLING CHILDREN TO LEARN
Hunger is a barrier to learning.
School Feeding programs throughout the world have successfully
attracted children to school and retained them by offering them
what they would probably not get elsewhere: hot food or nourishing
snacks. The primary objective of a School Feeding program is
to provide meals or snacks to alleviate short-term hunger, enabling
children to learn. A hungry child cannot concentrate. A hungry
child cannot perform. Hungry children are unlikely to stay in
school. School-based feeding programs have proven effective
in encouraging enrollment, increasing attention spans, and improving
attendance in school.
FOOD FOR SCHOOLING: REACHING OUT TO THE FAMILY
But what happens to a child's
hunger when he or she goes home? And what about family members
who are not fed at school? Or adolescent girls and pregnant
and lactating women whose nutrition directly affects the health
of their offspring? Or malnourished preschoolers? Can a Food
for Education program reduce hunger at home, while also encouraging
children to go to school? Can development assistance link education
to food to help address hunger at its root cause-poverty?
Food for Schooling was designed to develop long-term human capability
by making the transfer of resources to a household contingent
upon primary school enrollment of children. Food for Schooling
programs provide a free ration of food to poor households as
long as primary school-age children attend school. The free
Food for Schooling monthly foodgrain ration becomes an income
entitlement that enables poor families to release children from
household obligations so they can go to school. In effect, by
sending children to school, families earn grain that can be
used to feed all family members, young and old, or they can
sell the grain for cash to buy other needed goods such as clothing
or medicine. Instead of feeding a child at school, Food for
Schooling is designed to help feed the entire family.
| |
School
Feeding |
Food
for Schooling |
PROS |
- Focus: Reduces short-term
hunger and educates children.
- Increases child's learning capability
in the classroom.
- Provides incentive to send
children to school.
- Encourages children to stay
in school.
|
- Focus: Reduces long-term hunger and
educates children.
- Gives food to needy families.
- Transfers income to poor families:
food can be sold to purchase other critical needs or
family food budget can be reduced.
- Provides strong incentive to send
children to school.
- Encourages children to stay in school.
|
CONS |
- Doesn't benefit preschoolers and adults in the families
|
- May not alleviate short-term hunger so that a child
can learn in class.
|
A COMBINED APPROACH
Together, School Feeding and
Food for Schooling programs are powerful tools for alleviating
day-to-day hunger pains and reducing food shortages within households,
helping children learn while in school, and creating opportunities
for families to send children to school and to keep them there.
By combining the two programs, governments can alleviate hunger,
feed development, and reduce poverty in the long run. Children
need food to learn; families need food to make the most of education.
IFPRI'S WORK IN THIS AREA
For seven years IFPRI has
been working with the government of Bangladesh to design, implement,
monitor, and evaluate the world's first Food for Schooling program.
Using quantitative and qualitative research techniques and extensive
household surveys, IFPRI has evaluated the Food for Schooling
pilot program to determine how much it has improved the livelihoods
of poor households in Bangladesh.
Facts
on Hunger, Poverty, and Education
IN BANGLADESH:
-
In 1999, 71% of adult females were illiterate.
(World Bank World Development Indicators 2001 Report)
-
Between 1993 and 1999, 56% of children
were malnourished. (World Bank World Development Indicators
2001 Report)
-
In 2000, 55% of preschool-age children
suffered from stunted growth. Fifty-six percent were underweight
and more than 17% showed signs of wasting. (World Health
Organization)
-
In 1999, the average income was $370
per person. (World Bank World Development Indicators 2001
Report)
-
An estimated 7
million children under the age of 14 are forced to work.
(South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude)
AROUND THE WORLD:
-
Of school-age children in developing
countries, 55% of boys and 46% of girls are enrolled in
school. The gap is widest in South Asia, where 65% of boys
but only 50% of girls are enrolled in school. (UNICEF State
of the World's Children Report 2000)
-
Worldwide, more than 130 million children
ages six to eleven are not attending school. Nearly 60%
are girls. (UNICEF State of the World's Children Report
2000)
-
Educated females are more likely to have
smaller families and healthier, more educated children,
but two-thirds of the world's 855 million illiterate adults
are women. (UNICEF State of the World's Children Report
1999)
-
A child born in the developing world
has a 40% chance of living in extreme poverty. (UNICEF State
of the World's Children Report 2001)
-
Twenty-nine thousand children die every
day, mostly from causes related to poverty and malnutrition.
(UNICEF State of the World's Children Report 2001)
Results
of Evaluation: Food for Schooling in Bangladesh
Bangladesh has led the world
in creating innovative development programs that can be replicated
successfully in other developing countries: for example, the
renowned Grameen Bank, which lends small sums to poor women
to start up their own businesses. Bangladesh has also implemented
the first-ever Food for Schooling program, which may soon be
added to the list of successful anti-poverty interventions.
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
By 2000, the pilot program
covered 17,811 public and private primary schools, accounting
for about 27
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.
|
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.
