Government of Rwanda Rwanda School Feeding Programme Cost Analysis
Programme Implementa.on One Cup of Milk per Child 2 days per week (72 feeding days) Secondary School every day (245 feeding days) WFP 3 days, community 2 days (108 feeding days)
Mo.va.on for Cost Analysis Government is considering expansion of SF and absorbing WFP areas of coverage Cost analysis of running three programmes informs discussion of future programme implementa.on Iden.fy costs Evaluate efficiency Trade- offs in programme design Indica.ve cost of different scenarios for future
Methodology Calculate cost per child per meal in 2011 Five cost categories: commodi.es, logis.cs and storage, management and administra.on, staff costs, and capital costs Only include costs directly avributable to school feeding One Cup: central level costs Secondary School: interviews at 49 schools WFP: costs of WFP- assisted days (no community)
One Cup of Milk per Child Cost is 409 RwF for Providing one child with one serving per day (US$ 0.66). 12% 2% Total, Staff, 30.95, 0.1% 86% Commodity Logisi.cs Management and Administra.on Staff
Secondary School Cost is 122 RwF for providing one child with one meal per day (US$ 0.20) - 66 % MINEDUC - 34 % fees 85% 6% 7% 2% Capital Management & Administra.on Staff Commodity & Logis.cs
WFP Programme Cost is 122 RwF for providing one child with one meal per day (US$ 0.20). 26% 9% 5% 15% 45% Commodity External transport Landside transport, storage and handling Opera.onal costs Direct support costs
Nutri.onal Efficiency Nutrients per serving by programme Cost per serving/meal for nutrient delivered by programme Cost per 100 kcal ($US) Cost per gram of protein ($US) Cost per mg of iron ($US) One Cup 0.2000 0.0413 2.2000 Secondary School 0.0247 0.0049 0.0217 WFP 0.0365 0.0135 0.0387 Secondary School Programme is most cost- efficient
Value transfer Comparison of the value of meal / serving transferred by programme Income transfer of the programme per meal/serving (US$) Cost per day per meal/serving (US$) Cost per one $ of income transfer (US$) WFP programme "One Cup" programme "Secondary school" programme 0.11 0.24 0.10 0.20 0.66 0.13 1.81 2.74 1.33 Number of feeding days 98 72 245 Income transfer of the programme per year (US$) Percentage of yearly income per capita in the poorest quintile (%) 10.76 17.36 24.50 7% 11% 16% One Cup of Milk per Child Programme provides the highest value transfer per day. Secondary School Programme provides the highest value transfer per year and is most cost efficient transfer mechanism.
Cost saving opportuni.es One Cup of Milk per Child: regional targe.ng ra.onalise monitoring Secondary Programme: pool resources bulk purchase WFP: regional targe.ng switch to na.onal procurement eliminates interna.onal transport costs More thorough analysis to be conducted on most efficient level of centralisa.on/decentralisa.on of procurement.
Centralized model with local procurement: WFP Style Programme Cost per beneficiary per year Cost category Rationale US$ 19.2 5% 9% 26% 15% 14.4 6% 12% 14% 1% Support costs Other operating costs Logistics Higher commodity costs washed out by decrease in logistics costs 45% 67% Commodities Internationally sourced commodities Locally sourced commodities
Future Scenario Food Baskets Two nutri.onally equivalent food baskets considered: Food$Basket$ Ration$ Nutritional$Value$ Cost$(US$)$ Commodity$ g/person/day$ Energy$ Protein$ Iron$ (Kcal)$ (g)$ (mg)$ Cost/child/day$ MML# 120# # 432# 10.2# 1.3# Beans# 45# # 153# 9.4# 2.7# Oil# 10# # 88# 0# 0# 0.16# Salt# 3# # 0# 0# 0# Total$ 178$ $ 673$ 19.6$ 4.0$ # Food$Basket$ Ration$ Nutritional$Value$ Cost$(US$)$ Commodity$ g/person/day$ Energy$ Protein$ Iron$ (Kcal)$ (g)$ (mg)$ Cost/child/day$ MML# 100# # 360# 8.4# 1.1# Beans# 30# # 102# 6.2# 1.8# Oil# 8# # 71# 0# 0# Salt# 3# # 0# 0# 0# 0.47# Milk# 200# # 136# 6.3# 2.3# Total$ 341$ $ 669$ 20.9$ 5.2$ #
Draft For discussion only Example Targe[ng Strategy District Vulnerability Criteria 1. Food Consumption Score (FCS) Percentage of HH with unacceptable food consumption 2. Poverty (Pov) Percentage of HH within the poorest two national wealth quintiles 3. Stunting (Stunt) Percentage of HH having a stunted child Data Source: 2012 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis and Nutrition Survey 091215 Cost analysis report_v12.ppt 13
Draft For discussion only Targe[ng Scenario Vulnerability Indexing 091215 Cost analysis report_v12.ppt 14
Draft For discussion only Targe[ng Scenario Vulnerability Indexing 091215 Cost analysis report_v12.ppt 15
Future Cost of School Feeding Scenario 1. Focus on most vulnerable districts (Red and Orange) 2. Target all pre- primary and primary (P1- P6) students in these districts 3. Two nutri[onally equivalent food baskets considered MML, beans, oil, salt MML, beans, oil, salt, milk
Future Cost of Expanded Coverage Annual Cost (Millions) $100 $90 MML, beans, oil, salt, milk MML, beans, oil, salt $87.7m $80 $70 $60 $50 $46.2m $40 $30 $29.9m $20 $15.7m $10 $0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Districts included Expanded geographic coverage considered in Annex 2-3 of report
Income transfer Comparison of the value of meal / serving transferred by food basket Maize meal, beans, oil, and salt Maize meal, beans, oil, salt, and milk Income transfer of the programme per meal/ serving (US$) 0.137 0.206 Cost per meal/serving (US$) 0.16 0.47 Cost per one $ of income transfer (US$) 1.17 2.28 Number of feeding days 180 180 Income transfer of the programme per year (US $) Percentage of yearly income per capita in the poorest quin[le (%) 24.66 37.08 16% 24% The food basket including milk results in the higher income transfer. In terms of the cost of the transfer, the food basket without milk is a more cost efficient mechanism.
Conclusion Selec[on of the implementa[on process highly depends on the OBJECTIVES of the programme Thank You