A review of school feeding programmes 
in the Caribbean Community  

A driver for food and nutrition security   







Required citation:

FAO and The University of the West Indies. 2021. A review of school feeding programmes in the Caribbean Community. Saint Augustine. 
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4650en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or The University of the West Indies (UWI) 
concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of 
its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, 
does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO or UWI in preference to others of a similar nature that are not 
mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or 
UWI. 

ISBN 978-92-5-134397-5 [FAO]
© FAO, 2021

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence 
(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). 

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that 
the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, 
products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or 
equivalent Creative Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the 
required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not 
responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in 
Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World 
Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be in accordance with the 
Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, 
are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. 
The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be 
purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-
request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Cover photograph: © Afiya De Sormeaux
Cover design: Kavita Butkoon



iii

Tables vi
Figures viii
Abbreviations and acronyms ix
Currency codes xi
Acknowledgments xii
Executive summary xv

A - Introduction 1
1.   The study 2
1.1. School feeding 2 
1.2. Objectives of the study 2 
1.3. Background 2

2. Methodology 7
2.1. Transfer payments and the right to food 7 
2.2. Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle and 
 benefit-cost analysis 7
2.3. Empirical procedures of the study 8
2.4. Annual net benefit analysis 8

B – General findings and recommendations of the 
study 11

3.  General findings 12
3.1.   Introduction 12
3.2. Models of school feeding 12
3.3 Decentralized school kitchen (DSK) model  12
3.4.   Third party caterer based (CB) Model  12
3.5.   Centralized school feeding (CSF) Model  13

4.  Food and nutrition recommendations 15
4.1. Recommendations promoting healthy 
 eating 15
4.2.   Recommendations on food quality and 
 safety  16
4.3.  Recommendations on food and nutrition 

education 17
4.4. Recommendations on a national school 
 feeding or school nutrition policy 18

5. Other general recommendations 19
5.1.   Procurement recommendations 19
5.2. Governance recommendations 20 
5.3. Recommendations for monitoring and 
 evaluation (M&E) systems 20

C – Country case studies 22
6.  Antigua and Barbuda 23
6.1. Introduction 23
6.2. School feeding in Antigua and Barbuda 23

Contents

6.3. The national school meals programme 23
6.4.     Governance of  the national school meals 

programme 25
6.5.     Procurement arrangements 26
6.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 26
6.7.      Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation (M&E) 26
6.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the national 
 school meals programme 26
6.9.   Overall assessment of the national school 
 meals programme  27
6.10.    Specific recommendations  27

7.  Bahamas 29
7.1.  Introduction 29
7.2. School feeding in the Bahamas 29
7.3.      The national school lunch programme 29
7.4. Governance of the national school lunch 

programme 32
7.5.      Procurement arrangements 32
7.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 33
7.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 33
7.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the national 
 school lunch programme 33
7.9. Overall assessment of the national school 
 lunch programme 34
7.10. Specific recommendations 34

8.  Barbados 36
8.1.      Introduction 36
8.2.      School feeding in Barbados 36
8.3.      The school meals programme 36
8.4. Governance of the school meals programme 39
8.5. Procurement arrangements 39
8.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 40
8.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 40
8.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the school
 meals programme 40
8.9. Overall assessment of the school meals 
 programme of Barbados 42
8.10. Specific recommendation  42

9.   Belize 43
9.1.      Introduction 43
9.2.     School feeding in Belize 43
9.3.  The school feeding programme 45
9.4. Governance of the school feeding 
 programme 47
9.5. Procurement arrangements 47



iv

9.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 47
9.7.      Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 48
9.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programme 48
9.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 programme 48
9.10. Specific recommendations 49

10. Dominica 51
10.1.      Introduction 51
10.2. School feeding in Dominica 51
10.3. School feeding programme of Dominica  51
10.4.      Governance of the school feeding 
 programme 55
10.5.      Procurement arrangements 56
10.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 57
10.7      Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 57
10.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programme 57
10.9.   Overall assessment of the school feeding 

programme 58
10.10.   Specific recommendations 59

11.  Grenada 60
11.1 Introduction 60
11.2 School feeding in Grenada 60
11.3 The school feeding programme 60
11.4.      Governance of the school feeding 
 programme 62
11.5.      Procurement arrangements 63
11.6.     School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 64 
11.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 64
11.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programme 65
11.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 

programme 65
11.10.  Specific recommendations 65 

12.  Guyana 67
12.1.     Introduction 67
12.2. School Feeding in Guyana 67
12.3.      The school feeding programmes of Guyana 67
12.4.      Governance of the school feeding 
 programmes 72
12.5.      Procurement for the school feeding 
 programmes 73
12.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 74

12.7.      Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation  74
12.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programmes 75
12.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 

programmes 78
12.10.   Specific  recommendation 79

13.   Haiti 80
13.1.   Introduction 80
13.2.    School feeding in Haiti 80
13.3.  The school feeding programmes 80 
13.4.      Governance  of the school feeding 
 programmes 85
13.5.      Procurement arrangements 85
13.6.      School gardens, infrastructure and food and 

nutrition education 86
13.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 87
13.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the 
 Programme National de Cantine Scolaire 
 school feeding programme 87
13.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 programme  of the Programme National de 

Cantine Scolaire 88
13.10. Specific recommendations 89

14.  Jamaica 90
14.1.    Introduction 90 
14.2. School feeding in Jamaica 90
14.3.  The school feeding programmes 92
14.4. Governance of the school feeding 
 programmes 95
14.5.  Procurement arrangements 97
14.6.     School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education  99
14.7.     Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 99
14.8.     Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programmes 100
14.9.     Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 programmes 100
14.10.   Specific recommendation  101

15.  Saint Kitts and Nevis 103
15.1.    Introduction 103
15.2.    School feeding in Saint Kitts and Nevis 103
15.3. The school meals programmes in Saint Kitts 
 and Nevis 103
15.4.   Governance of the school meals 
 programmes 107
15.5. Procurement arrangements 107
15.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 108



v

15.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 108
15.8.      Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 meals programmes 109
15.9.    Overall assessment of the school meals 
 programmes in Saint Kitts and Nevis 111
15.10.  Specific recommendations 112

16.   Saint Lucia 114
16.1.     Introduction 114
16.2. School feeding in Saint Lucia 114
16.3. The school feeding programme 114
16.4.      Governance of the school feeding 
 programme 117
16.5.      Procurement arrangements 117
16.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 118
16.7.     Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 118
16.8.  Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programme 118
16.9.  Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 programme 119
16.10.   Specific recommendations 120

17.   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 122
17.1.      Introduction 122
17.2. School feeding in Saint Vincent and the 
 Grenadines 122
17.3. The school feeding programme  122
17.4. Governance of the school feeding 
 programme 126
17.5.     Procurement arrangements  126
17.6.     School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 127
17.7.      Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 127
17.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding  programme 127
17.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 programme 128

17.10.   Specific recommendation 129

18.   Suriname 130
18.1.     Introduction 130
18.2. School feeding in Suriname 130
18.3. School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 130
18.4. The after school child care project 132
18.5.      School feeding programme in Koewarasan 
 district of Wanica - The Brazil-Suriname 
 (ABC) project  132
18.6.     Annual net benefit analysis of the ABC 
 school feeding programme in Koewarasan 
 district of Wanica 134
18.7.   Overall assessment of the school feeding 
 system in Suriname 136
18.8.   Specific recommendations 137

19.   Trinidad and Tobago 138
19.1.     Introduction 138
19.2.     School feeding in Trinidad and Tobago 138
19.3.     The school feeding programmes of Trinidad 
 and Tobago 139
19.4.   Governance of the school nutrition 
 programme of Trinidad and the school 
 feeding programme of Tobago 144
19.5.    Procurement arrangements 145
19.6.      School gardens and aspects of food and 
 nutrition education 146
19.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
 evaluation 147
19.8. Annual net benefit analyses of the school 
 feeding programmes in Trinidad and 
 Tobago 148
19.9.  Overall assessment of the school feeding 

programmes in Trinidad and Tobago 149
19.14. Specific recommendations 150

Bibliography 152
Appendix 170



vi

Tables

1.1 Population, surface area, population density,  
GDP, GDP growth, exports and imports of goods 
and services for 14 CARICOM states. 3

1.2  Life expectancy at birth, fertility rate, school 
enrollment primary and secondary for 

 CARICOM countries, 2018. 4
1.3    The right to food for CARICOM countries 6
6.1    Operational costs of the NSMP 2016/17 28
6.2    Determination of the annual net benefit of 
 the NSMP, Antigua and Barbuda 2016/17 28
7.1 Geographical distribution and cost of 
 national school lunch programme, 2016 32
7.2 Determination of the annual net benefit for
 the national school lunch programme 34
8.1 Approximate meal production per day of the 

school meals department, Barbados 38
8.2 Operational costs of the school meals 
 programme 41
8.3 Determination of the annual net benefit for 
 the school meals programme  41
8.4 Simulation of benefit–cost ratio of the 
 school meals programme by number of    

students in the programme 42
9.1 Spatial distribution of the school feeding   

programme in Belize 45
9.2 Operational costs of the school feeding 
 programme  48
9.3 Determination of the annual net benefit for the 

state-sponsored school feeding programme  49
10.1 Operational costs of school feeding      

programme  58
10.2 Determination of the annual net benefit for the 

school feeding programme  58
11.1 Grenada – school population by levels 62
11.2 Emoluments of administrative staff of the 
 SFP 63
11.3 Typical monthly food allocation for schools 
 in school feeding programme  63
11.4 Total operational cost of the school feeding 

programme 65
11.5 Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
 feeding programme (2016/17) 66
12.1 Scale of operations of school feeding 
 programmes (2017) 70
12.2 Cost of the school feeding programmes in 
 Guyana (2017/18) 76
12.3 Determination of the annual net benefit for 
 all the programmes  77
12.4 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the community-based school feeding 

programme 77

12.5 Simulation analysis for all programmes 
and the community based school feeding                          
programme of Guyana 78

13.1 Operational costs of the school feeding 
 programme of the PNCS 88
13.2 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the school feeding programme of the         

PNCS 88
14.1 NPL production performance indicator
 2013/14 – 2016/17 94
14.2 Operational costs of the school feeding 
 programmes ’000 JMD 101
14.3 Determination of the annual net benefit for 
 the school feeding programmes 102
14.4 Simulation analysis for the school feeding 

programmes 102
15.1 Operational costs of the school meals 
 programme of Saint Kitts 110
15.2 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the school meals programme of Saint Kitts 110
15.3 Operational costs of the school meals 
 programme of Nevis 110
15.4 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the school meals programme of Nevis 111
15.5 Results of simulation analysis with respect 
 to the basic wage per annum – Saint Kitts 
 and Nevis 111
16.1 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the school feeding programme 119
16.2 Details of the total operational costs of the 
 school feeding programme  120
17.1 Status of beneficiaries of the school 
 feeding programme in primary schools with 
 respect to payment for meals - term three  
 2016/17 school year 125
17.2 Total operational costs of the school 
 feeding programme  128
17.3 Determination of the annual net benefit for the 

school feeding programme 128
18.1 Estimated operational cost of ABC pilot 
 school feeding programme 135
18.2 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the ABC pilot school feeding programme  135
18.3 Results of the simulation exercise 136
19.1 Production of meals by the School 
 Nutrition Company Trinidad 141
19.2 Operational costs of school nutrition 
 programme of Trinidad 148
19.3 Determination of the annual net benefit 
 for the school nutrition programme of        

Trinidad 149



vii

19.4 Determination of the annual net benefit for 
 the school feeding programme of Tobago 150
19.5 Simulation analyses for the “value of 

food” percentage for the school nutrition       

programme of Trinidad and the school feeding 
programme of Tobago and simulation analysis  
for the number of beneficiary students in the 
school feeding programme of Tobago 151



viii

Figures

2.1    Expected benefits and costs of a school 
 feeding programme (SFP) 10
6.1  Operating model of school feeding in  
 Antigua and Barbuda 24
7.1  Operating model of school feeding in the 

Bahamas 30
8.1 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Barbados 37
9.1 Operating model of school feeding in Belize 44
10.1 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Dominica 52
11.1 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Grenada 61
12.1 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Guyana - hinterland regions 68

12.2 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Guyana - coastal regions 69
13.1 Operating model of school feeding in Haiti 81
14.1 Operating model of school feeding in 
 Jamaica 91
15.1 Operating model of school feeding in 
 Saint Kitts 104
15.2 Operating model of school feeding in Nevis  105
16.1 Operating model of school feeding in  
 Saint Lucia 115
17.1 Operating model of school feeding in
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 123
18.1 Operating model of school feeding in 
 Suriname  131
19.1 Operating model of school feeding in 
 Trinidad and Tobago 140



ix

Abbreviations and acronyms

ABC Brazilian Cooperation Agency

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AMEXCID Mexican International Development 
Cooperation Agency

ASCC After-School Child Care

B&J biscuit and juice

BDU Book Distribution Unit

BMI Body Mass Index

BND Bureau of Nutrition and Development

CARE Cooperation for American Relief 
Everywhere

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CB Caterer based 

CBSFP Community based school feeding 
programme

CCT Conditional cash transfer

CDB Caribbean Development Bank

CEO Chief Education Officer

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIDA Canadian International Developmental 
Agency

CLP Cooked lunch programme

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

CSEC Caribbean Secondary Education 
Certificate

CSF Centralized School feeding

CWA Caribbean Week of Agriculture

CXC Caribbean Examination Council

DALYs Disability Adjusted Life Years

DOE Division of Education

DSK Decentralized School Kitchens

ECC Early Childhood Commission

ECCE early childhood care and education

ECI Early Childhood Institutions

EEC European Economic Community

EPT Education Pour Tous (Education for All)

ESD Education Services Division

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations

FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization 
Corporate Statistical Database

FFA Faculty of Food and Agriculture

GATE Garden-based Agriculture for Toledo’s 
Environment

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GOJ Government of Jamaica

HACCP Hazard analysis critical control points

HFLE Health and Family Life Education

HGSF Home Grown School Feeding

HYPE Healthy youth for positive energy

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, 
Social and Cultural Rights

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural 
Development

IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation 
on Agriculture

IMF International Monetary Fund

LESC Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Centre

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MALF Ministry of Agriculture Land and Fisheries

MAST Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor

MECD Ministry of Education and Community 
Development

MENFP Ministére de L’education Nationale de 
La Formation Professionnelle (Ministry 
of National Education and Vocational 
Training

MLSS Ministry of Labor and Social Services

MMIS Management and monitoring information 
system

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

MOE Ministry of Education

MoEYI Ministry of Education Youth and 
Information (Jamaica)

MOH Ministry of Health

MOU Memorandum of understanding

MPC Meal Production Centre

NAMDEVCO National Agricultural Marketing and 
Development Corporation



x

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPL Nutrition Products Limited

NPTA National Parent Teachers Association

NSDSL National Schools Dietary Services Ltd.

NSFC National school feeding committee

NSLP National school lunch programme

NSMP National school meals programme

OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States

PA Physical activity

PAA Food Purchase Programme

PAD Public Assistance Division

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

PATH Programme of Advancement Through 
Health and Education

PB&CB Peanut butter and cassava bread snack 
programme

PCD Partnership for Child Development

PIOJ Planning Institute of Jamaica

PNCS Programme National de Cantine Scolaire

PROMODEV Promotion for Development

PSNAS National school feeding policy and 
strategy

PTA Parent teacher association

QAOs Quality assurance officers

RADA Regional Agricultural Development 
Authority

RDA Recommended Daily Allowance

REAP Relevant Education on Agriculture and 
Production Programme

REDO Regional education division officers

RFNSP Regional food and nutrition security 
policy

ROPANIP Reseau des Producteurs Agricoles de 
Nippes

SEA Secondary Entrance Assessment

SFC School Feeding Programme Coordinator

SFMC School feeding management committee

SFP School feeding programme

SFS School feeding system

SFU School Feeding Unit

SHAPES School Health and Physical Education 
Services

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SMA School meal assistant

SMD School Meals Department

SMP School meals programme

SNP School Nutrition Programme

SNU School Nutrition Unit

SSBs Sugar sweetened beverages

SSFP Sustainable School Feeding Programme

SSMC School snack management committee

SVP School vendor programme

SWC School welfare coordinator

SWD School Welfare Division

SWU School Welfare Unit

THA Tobago House of Assembly

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International 
Development

UWI The University of the West Indies

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization



xi

Currency codes

ISO 4217 Alphabetic 
Currency Codes Currency name Country

XCD East Caribbean dollar Antigua and Barbuda

BSD Bahamian dollar Bahamas

BBD Barbados dollar Barbados

BZD Belize dollar Belize

XCD East Caribbean dollar Dominica

XCD East Caribbean dollar Grenada

GYD Guyana dollar Guyana

HTG Gourde Haiti

USD US Dollar Haiti

JMD Jamaican dollar Jamaica

XCD East Caribbean dollar Saint Kitts and Nevis

XCD East Caribbean dollar Saint Lucia

XCD East Caribbean dollar Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

SRD Surinam dollar Suriname

TTD Trinidad and Tobago dollar Trinidad and Tobago

USD US dollar United States of America
Source: (ISO, 2018)



xii

Acknowledgements

This book on the state of school feeding programmes (SFPs) in 14 Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member states 
is based on research carried out by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension (DAEE) of The University 
of the West Indies (UWI) in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and 
governments and agencies of the member states.  The main sources of information for this publication were from field 
trips and interviews held on the missions to the member states, technical working papers and official documents (mainly 
on-line) and analyses performed on data collected in the study. The design of this research was largely based on the 
global vision and conceptual framework for school feeding, developed mainly by FAO, World Food Programme (WFP) and 
the World Bank.

This book would not have been possible, without the invaluable support provided by the FAO sub-regional office in 
Bridgetown, Barbados and the Campus Principal, the Dean of the Faculty of Food and Agriculture and the Head, DAEE of 
the Saint Augustine Campus of UWI.

The responsible officers for the project were Dr Terri Raney on behalf of FAO and Dr Hazel Patterson-Andrews of DAEE on 
behalf of UWI.  Invaluable direction and assistance were provided to the project in its entire duration by Mr Fransen Jean 
of the sub-regional office of FAO in Barbados.

The Caribbean Agro-Economic Society based in DAEE provided the services of revision and final preparation of the 
publication.

The General Editor of this book was Professor Carlisle Pemberton.

We would like to thank the following authors and in-country collaborators for the following chapters of this book:

Chapter Authors In-country collaborators

Executive Summary Carlisle Pemberton

The Study Hazel Patterson-Andrews, 
Anil Seepersad

Methodology Carlisle Pemberton

Models of School Feeding Hazel Patterson-Andrews

Food and Nutrition Recommendations Dianne Buckmire

Other General Recommendations Hazel Patterson-Andrews

Antigua and Barbuda Dianne Buckmire Julie-Ann Laudat

Bahamas Carlisle Pemberton Patrice Green, Sharmaine Sinclaire, Carmelta 
Barnes, Benita Adderly

Barbados Dianne Buckmire Asha Pemberton-Gaskin, Dawn Brown

Belize Carlisle Pemberton Phillip Tate, Carol Babb, Yvonne Codd, Emilio 
Montero

Dominica Hazel Patterson-Andrews Pamela Guiste

Grenada Dianne Buckmire Malachy Dottin, Rachel Mathurine

Guyana Hazel Patterson-Andrews Carlisle Pemberton, Savita Maharajh, Sharon 
James, Edward Jarvis, Fazal Ali, Yvette 
Benjamin



xiii

FAO in collaboration with the Faculty of Food and Agriculture of UWI sponsored a Multi-Stakeholder Seminar in the 
Caribbean Week of Agriculture in Bridgetown, Barbados, from 8 to 9 October 2018. This Seminar served as the validation 
workshop for the results of the research. 

On the initiative of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Health Unit, two on-line validation sessions were 
held for the member states of the OECS on the 12 and 15 November 2018. 

On the initiative of the OECS Health Unit, a further validation workshop was held in Castries, Saint Lucia supported 
by UNICEF on 19 November 2018, attended by Chief Education Officers, Chief Medical Officers and Directors of Social 
Development from member states of the OECS.   We acknowledge the support of the OECS Health Unit and its head, Dr 
Carlene Radix.

We would like to thank the following experts who reviewed the publication: Mr Fransen Jean, Food Security Officer, FAO 
Sub-regional Office for the Caribbean, Barbados; Dr Andrea Polo Galante, Senior Nutrition Consultant, FAO, Rome; Dr 
Israel Rios, Senior Nutritionist from the FAO regional office for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in Panama; Dr Ruth 
Charrondiere, Senior Nutritionist from the FAO regional office for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in Santiago; Mr. 
Sandiford Edwards, CARICOM Secretariat; Dr Sharon Hutchinson, Head, DAEE; Professor Mattias Boman, Professor, DAEE; 
Dr Sa’eed Bawa, Senior Lecturer,  DAEE. Their valuable comments helped to ensure the quality of this publication.

Finally, we would like to thank our publishing/communications team. Versions of this publication were reviewed and 
proof-read by Savita Maharajh, Antoinette Brown, Kavita Butkoon and Ronald Noel.  The graphics were provided by Kavita 
Butkoon and Afiya De Sormeaux.  The bibliography was produced by Kishalla Floyd. Martha Jiminez-Spence provided the 
layout and formatting of the document in Adobe Indesign. Kavita Butkoon provided support throughout the publication 
process with respect to communications.

Haiti Hazel Patterson-Andrews, Carlisle 
Pemberton

Predner Duvivier, Phanese Laguerre, 
Nathanael Hishamunda, Walter de Oliveira, 
Harmel Cazeau, Jean Andre Jean-Baptiste

Jamaica Hazel Patterson-Andrews, Isabella 
Granderson

Sophia Gray, Dillette Hope-Webb, Traceloy 
Solomon, Gillian Smith

Saint Kitts and Nevis Isabella Granderson Earline Maynard, Leon Williams

Saint Lucia Hazel Patterson-Andrews Meriam Henville , Ejay George

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Isabella Granderson Currel Thompson

Suriname Carlisle Pemberton, Hazel Patterson-
Andrews

Rinia Doelahasori, Ashmie Jairam, Nalini 
Orie

Trinidad and Tobago Hazel Patterson-Andrews (Trinidad), 
Carlisle Pemberton (Tobago) 

Stacy Barran, Vanessa Martinez, Janice 
Walker, Jacqueline Job, Anil Seepersad, 
Verleen Bobb-Lewis



xiv



xv

1. Models of school feeding programmes in 
CARICOM member states 

This book presents the results of a study on the status 
of school feeding programmes (SFPs) in 14 CARICOM 
member states initiated in 2017.  The main finding of this 
study was the identification of three models of SFPs in 
CARICOM member states based on the classification of 
the main groups of home grown school feeding (HGSF) 
operating models (FAO and WFP, 2018). Table 1 provides 
an overview of the key characteristics of each of these 
three models.

Executive summary

Table 1. Summary of the key details and characteristics of models of CARICOM school feeding programmes 

SFP Model Decentralized school kitchen (DSK) model Caterer based (CB) model
Centralized school feeding 

(CSF) model

Countries Dominica, Grenada, Guyana (hinterland), Haiti, 
Jamaica, Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines, Suriname (proposed pilot 
programme), Belize (Toledo district).

Bahamas, Belize, Trinidad and 
Tobago, Suriname (now ended).

Antigua and Barbuda, 
Barbados, Guyana (coastal), 
Saint Kitts, Jamaica (NPL).

Managed by Ministry of Education, NGOs and international 
agencies (especially Haiti).

Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education.

Food Preparation In kitchens on the school premises. By caterers on their own premises. 
Prepared meals (or snacks) are 
transported to schools.

In large centralized industrial 
factories or meal production 
centers. Prepared meals (or 
snacks) are transported to 
schools. 

Inputs Higher level of incorporation into the SFPs from 
parents and local communities of: 

 y a limited range of food items (especially 
vegetables, seasoning herbs and root 
crops); and 

 y voluntary or paid labor for meal 
preparation and the procurement of food 
items. 

These inputs may lower the costs of the SFPs.

Low level of incorporation into the 
meals of inputs of food and labor 
from the local communities.

Very low level of 
incorporation into the meals 
of inputs of food and labor 
from the local communities.

Portion sizes Not fixed. 

Food is served by the cooks or their assistants. 
This allows for control of meal portions and 
students can be served the quantities that they 
would normally like to eat.   This reduces the 
problems of food rejection and food waste.

Fixed. Fixed.

Meal containers and 
cutlery

Meal containers (usually plates) and cutlery are 
usually washable and reusable, which avoids 
the use of styrofoam, plastic and other one-use 
types of material which may be detrimental to 
the physical environment.

Meal containers (usually boxes) 
and cutlery not usually re-usable.

Meal containers and cutlery 
not re-usable.

Monitoring of 
operations and food 
quality standards

Less monitoring. Variably intensive monitoring. Rigorous monitoring.

 The main feature of the decentralized school kitchen 
(DSK) Model is that the actual meal preparation is 
carried out in kitchens on the school premises. Then 
the meals are consumed in the same school or in 
neighboring schools. The in-school preparation allows 
the incorporation into the meals of substantial inputs 
from parents and the local communities. These inputs 
generally include labor (as cooks and their assistants) 
and a limited range of food items (especially vegetables, 
seasoning herbs and root crops) from small scale farmers.



xvi

for states to finance, therefore, higher income parents 
may be called upon to pay, at least partially, for the meals 
in the SFPs.

Expansion of SFPs should be accompanied by 
improvements in their operations and a strengthening of 
their financial sustainability. In particular, focus should be 
placed on:

 y the improvement of the nutritional quality of 
the meal offerings;

 y development of food and nutrition education 
programmes;

 y expansion and promotion of school gardens; 
 y  increased utilization of the food products and 

labor from local communities;
 y enhanced efficiency of operations; and
 y a reduction of risks by enhanced food safety and  

quality. 

3. Summary of the cost assessment of school 
feeding programmes in CARICOM member 
states

Table 2 provides another major finding of the study 
which is a summary of the cost assessment of the SFPs 
in the 14 CARICOM Member states.  First it can be seen 
that the SFPs vary considerably in size.   The largest 
programmes are in Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and 
Tobago, the countries with the largest populations.  
It should be noted that the SFP of the Programme 
National de Cantine Scolaire (PNCS) assessed for Haiti  
is not the largest programme in that state.  Indeed, the 
SFP of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Haiti, in 
2017 is reported to have served 363 000 students. The 
programmes in Belize, Bahamas and Dominica are fairly 
small for the size of their populations.  It should be noted 
also that currently Suriname does not have a SFP and the 
number of students in the table are simulated figures for 
a proposed SFP for one part of that country. 

It must be noted that this study did not determine the 
nutritional quality of any of the meals offered in the 
SFPs, so therefore the meals offered in the SFPs for 
the countries may vary in their nutritional adequacy. 
Within this context therefore, in Table 2, the programme 
annual total cost per student for Bahamas, Saint Kitts 
and Nevis and Barbados are relatively high (greater 
than USD 400 per student per year).  On the other hand, 
the programmes in Haiti, Guyana and the Windward 
Islands (Grenada, Dominica, Saint Lucia and Saint 

The main feature of the third party, caterer-based (CB) 
model is that the actual meal preparation takes place 
on the premises of caterers, who then package and 
transport the meals to the schools. Caterers operate 
within parameters defined and established by the 
Ministries of Education or their agents.  The larger scale 
operations of caterers usually require a greater level of 
pre-prepared or processed food items, which are often 
imported into the CARICOM states. Hence, in the CB 
model, the meals generally have little food ingredients 
and labor input from local communities.

The main feature of the centralized school feeding (CSF) 
model is that the actual meal preparation is carried out in 
large centralized industrial factories or meal production 
centers (MPCs) and the prepared meals (or snacks) are 
then transported to the schools. In the cases of Antigua 
and Barbuda and Barbados, the MPCs are operated by 
divisions of the Ministry of Education. In the case of 
Jamaica, the MPC is a state-owned company, Nutrition 
Products Limited (NPL), while in coastal Guyana, the 
MPCs are private firms contracted to produce the meals.

The larger scale operations of the MPCs in the CSF 
model require an even greater level of pre-prepared or 
processed food items, than is the case with the CB model. 
The centralized operations of the MPCs also mean that 
there is almost no opportunity to incorporate into the 
meal preparation, the inputs of food ingredients or labor 
from the local communities. The CSF model allows for 
the tightest administration by the Ministries of Education 
and the MPCs are usually subjected to the most rigorous 
and continuous monitoring.

In all three models of the SFPs, parents and vendors 
also provide meals and snacks to the students in the 
schools.  Some of these vendors may be located on the 
school premises, but they are mainly outside the school 
gates. Most schools also have tuck-shops, canteens or 
cafeterias, which also provide meals and snacks to the 
students and serve as sources of revenue to the schools.

2. Expansion of school feeding programmes in 
CARICOM

A major recommendation of the study is the expansion 
of the SFPs to benefit, not only students, but local food 
producers and the greater regional economy.  SFPs 
can create their greatest benefits if they cover all of 
the school population.  Such coverage will also help to 
reduce any snobbery or embarrassment of low-income 
beneficiaries of the SFPs.  However, SFPs are expensive 



xvii

Vincent and the Grenadines) based on the DSK model 
have relatively lower costs per student (less than USD 
250 per student per annum).  The results of the annual 
net benefit analyses carried out in this study, shown 
in Table 2, demonstrate that the SFPs in the CARICOM 
member states are generally performing useful functions, 
since the annual total economic benefits of the SFPs 
exceed their annual total economic costs.  The only 
possible exception is Saint Lucia, with a benefit–cost 

ratio of 0.92, largely because of its low national basic 
or minimum wage rate. Indeed, for seven of the SFPs in 
the 14 countries, the benefit–cost ratios exceeded 1.5, 
showing that the annual net economic benefits of these 
programmes were quite substantial. These seven SFPs 
included all three models of the SFPs. These results also 
confirm the importance of the SFPs as social protection 
mechanisms for the CARICOM member states and justify 
their continued existence and indeed their expansion.

Table 2.  Overall cost assessment of school feeding programmes in 14 CARICOM member states

Country
Programme  

annual total costs 
(Currency)

Programme 
annual  total 
costs (USD)

Number of 
students in 
programme

Programme  
annual total cost 

per student (USD)

Benefit – 
Cost ratio

Antigua & Barbuda+ 4 661 000 XCD             1 724 718        4 500 383.27 1.55

Bahamas˚  3 193 000 BSD             3 193 000         2 887 1 105.99 1.52

Barbados+ 19 765 789 BBD             9 882 894       20 418 484.03 1.37

Belize˚   866 800 BZD                431 225      1 147 375.96 1.13

Dominica*  1 316 776 XCD                487 337      2 169 224.68 1.64

Grenada*   5 463 797 XCD             2 021 778       10 000 202.18 1.59

Guyana (All Programmes)*+ 2 518 101 102 GYD          12 102 692          81 522 148.46 1.40

Guyana (Community Based)*  1 124 836 090 GYD             5 406 274        26 694 202.53 1.55

Haiti (PNCS)*   4 755 962 USD             4 755 962     107 000 44.45 1.23

Jamaica*+  5 061 170 000 JMD          38 209 122    248 000 154.07 1.67

Saint Kitts+   5 469 553 XCD             2 023 908     4 860 416.44 1.76

Nevis*    1 011 658 XCD                374 346     701 534.02 1.39

Saint Lucia*    3 059 002 XCD             1 131 976        5 100 221.96 0.92

Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines*

  4 365 035 XCD             1 615 202      7 493 215.56 1.60

Suriname (Proposed)* 13 342 106 SRD             1 789 544     2 471 724.22 1.47

Trinidad˚     234 410 494 TTD          31 440 908       86 714 362.58 1.41

Tobago˚      40 225 505 TTD             6 008 850     18 145 331.16 1.33

Note: * = Decentralized school kitchen (DSK); ˚ = Caterer based (CB); + = Centralized school feeding (CSF)



A review of school feeding programmes in the Caribbean Community

A driver for food and nutrition security

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados

Belize
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana

Haiti
Jamaica

Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago



Introduction

A



2

1.1. School feeding
School feeding has emerged globally, as a major food 
security strategy and safety net for children (FAO, 2019a).  
One approach to the provision of school meals is HGSF, 
which links school feeding to local small-holder farmers 
to provide children with safe, diverse, nutritious and 
culturally appropriate meals (FAO and WFP, 2018).  This 
approach has benefits to both local farmers in terms of 
increased demand for their products, as well as to the 
children, who can enjoy healthy meals that promote, 
among other things, higher educational performance 
and subsequently higher wages and salaries.  In Latin 
America and the Caribbean, this approach has been 
incorporated into a sustainable schools initiative, 
which has promoted sustainable school feeding 
programmes (SSFPs), with six main components for the 
implementation of these programmes as follows: 

 y intersectoral coordination and social 
participation;

 y food and nutrition education ; with emphasis on
 y educational school gardens;
 y improved school infrastructure;
 y adoption of healthy, adequate and culturally 

appropriate school meals; and
 y direct purchases of food from local family 

farmers (FAO, 2016a; FAO and WFP, 2019).

1.2. Objectives of the study
This book is a product of a study on school feeding 
in 14 member states of CARICOM. Within the general 
framework of SSFPs, this book outlines the status of 
school feeding in these states, with specific reference to 
the following indicators:

 y the scale and mechanisms of operation of the 
SFPs; 

 y menus and food quality and safety issues with 
respect to meal offerings;

 y the overall governance arrangements (including 
national laws, policies and strategies and inter-
sectoral coordination);

 y local governance arrangements at the school 
and community level, including the extent of 
community participation;

 y arrangements for procurement, storage and 
the management of food items used in the 
preparation of meals (including the level of local 
procurement);

 y school gardens, nutrition education and other 
measures to promote healthy eating among 

students, school administrators, cooks and 
parents;

 y quality assurance  and monitoring and 
evaluation methods being utilized; and

 y the analysis of economic benefits and costs.

General recommendations on school feeding are also 
presented in this publication for all 14 CARICOM member 
states and also specific recommendations for the 
individual states.  

Another product of the study is a separate document 
which presents general guidelines on:

 y the improvement of the nutritional quality of 
food served in schools, especially to enable  
these offerings to meet the requirements of the 
students;

 y more efficient and effective procurement of 
food items from small scale and family farms; 

 y improvement in the infrastructure related to the 
SFPs, including meal preparation and student 
eating areas; and

 y strengthening monitoring and evaluation 
systems. 

Chapter 2 of this book completes Section A and presents 
the methodological framework of the study.  Section 
B begins with Chapter 3, which presents the general 
findings of the study in terms of the models of the SFPs 
in the CARICOM member states that have emerged from 
this study.  General recommendations are then presented 
for the improvement of:

 y the nutritional quality of food served in schools 
in Chapter 4; and

 y the procurement of food items used in meal 
preparation and the monitoring and evaluation 
of the SFPs in Chapter 5.

Section C consists of case studies which present the 
specific findings on the status of school feeding  in the 
14 CARICOM member states, in terms of the indicators 
stated above. The specific recommendations for 
individual states are also provided in these country 
case studies.  These case studies summarize detailed 
individual country reports on the SFP for each member 
state which were also produced as part of this study.

1.3. Background
CARICOM is a grouping of 20 countries: 15 member 
states and five associate members. It is home to 
approximately 16 million citizens, 60 percent of whom 

1.  The study



3

are under the age of 30. The Community is multi-ethnic 
and multi-lingual; with English and Haitian Creole as the 
languages spoken by the largest numbers of persons.  
Other languages spoken include French and Dutch 
and variations of these, as well as African and Asian 
expressions. While CARICOM states are relatively small, 
both in terms of population and size, there is also great 
diversity with regards to geography, population, as well 
as levels of economic and social development (CARICOM, 
2016a).

CARICOM states are mainly islands bounded by the 
Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Caribbean Sea to 
the west and south in some cases. There are a few 
continental states: Belize in Central America and Guyana 
and Suriname in South America. These countries are also 
among the largest (in terms of land area), among the 
CARICOM countries. Variations among the countries pose 
a challenge in the design and application of any model 

geared toward alleviating hunger or over nutrition in the 
region (CARICOM, 2021).

Table 1.1 shows the latest data (2018) on the population, 
surface area,  gross domestic product (GDP), exports 
and imports of goods and services for the 14 CARICOM 
countries in this study (World Bank, 2020a).

The population in the CARICOM countries ranges from 
approximately 0.06 to 11.12 million people, with the 
average being 1.32 million. Countries with the largest 
populations include Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and 
Tobago, while the remaining eleven  countries all have 
small populations, below 1 million people .

All of the CARICOM countries have a tropical climate and 
have access to salt water bodies. The surface area (land) 
varies widely across the CARICOM countries, from 0.3 to 
215 thousand sq km. The smallest countries are Grenada 

Table 1.1:    Population, surface area, population density, GDP, GDP growth, exports and imports of goods and 
services for 14 CARICOM states.

Country Population 
(millions)

Surface 
area (km2) 

(thousands)

Population density 
(people/km2 of 

land area)

GDP (Current 
USD) (billions)

GDP growth 
(annual %)

Exports of goods 
and services as a % 

of GDP

Imports of goods 
and services as a 

% of GDP

Antigua and Barbuda 0.1 0.4 218.8 1.61 7.4 42 48

Bahamas 0.39 13.9 38.5 12.42 1.6 36 41

Barbados 0.29 0.4 666.6 5.09 -0.6 41 40

Belize 0.38 23 16.8 1.87 2.1 58 58

Dominica 0.07 0.8 95.5 0.55 2.3 30 80

Grenada 0.11 0.3 327.8 1.17 4.1 55 56

Guyana 0.78 215 4 3.88 4.1 47 37

Haiti 11.12 27.8 403.6 9.66 1.5 17 58

Jamaica 2.93 11 271 15.71 1.9 38 51

Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.05 0.3 201.7 1.01 2.9 59 57

Saint Lucia 0.18 0.6 298.2 2.07 2.6 N/A N/A

Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines

0.11 0.4 282.6 0.81 2.2 27 57

Suriname 0.58 163.8 3.7 3.46 2.6 53 38

Trinidad and Tobago 1.39 5.1 270.9 23.81 -0.2 N/A N/A

Average 1.32 33.06 221.41 5.94 2.46 41.92 51.75

Maximum 11.12 215 666.6 23.81 7.4 59 80

Minimum 0.05 0.3 3.7 0.55 -0.6 17 37

N/A – Not Available
Source: (World Bank, 2020a) 



4

Table 1.2:  Life expectancy at birth, fertility rate, school enrollment primary and secondary for CARICOM countries, 
2018.

CARICOM state Life 
expectancy 

at birth, total 
(years)

Fertility rate, 
total (births 
per woman)

Overweight (BMI-for-age 
>+1 SD) in school-age 

children and adolescents 
5-19 years (%)

Prevalence of 
underweight, 

weight for age (% of 
children under 5)

*School 
enrollment, 
primary (% 

Gross)

*School 
enrollment, 

secondary (% 
Gross)

Antigua and 
Barbuda

77 2 26.7 N/A 105 111.2

Bahamas 74 1.8 35.8 N/A 81.4 69

Barbados 79 1.6 27.6 3.5 99.4 104

Belize 74 2.3 28.5 4.6 111.7 85

Dominica 77 1.9 32.6 N/A 114.7 94

Grenada 72 2.1 26.4 N/A 106.9 120

Guyana 70 2.5 24.9 11 96.5 90

Haiti 64 2.9 27.6 9.5 113.6  N/A

Jamaica 74 2 29.8 3.4 91 82

Saint  Kitts and 
Nevis

71 2.1 27.9 N/A  108.7  107

Saint  Lucia 76 1.4 23.4 2.8 102.6 89

Saint  Vincent and 
the Grenadines

72 1.9 28.9 N/A 113.4 107

Suriname 72 2.4 31.1 5.8 108.8 82

Trinidad and 
Tobago

73 1.7 24.9 4.9 106.2 83

Average 73.21 2.04 28.29 5.69 104.28 94.09

Maximum 79 2.9 35.8 11 114.7 120

Minimum 64 1.4 23.4 2.8 81.4 69

* “The gross enrollment ratio is the ratio of total enrollment, regardless of age, to the population of the age group that 
officially corresponds to the level of education shown.”

Source: (World Bank, Group 2019) 

and Saint Kitts and Nevis, while the largest countries are 
Guyana, Suriname and Haiti.   

There is also substantial variation in the GDP across 
the 14 CARICOM states, which reflects to some extent 
the main sectors of their economies - for example high 
GDP is associated with oil and natural gas, in the case 
of Trinidad and Tobago, and tourism, in the case of  
Bahamas, Jamaica and Barbados.  The recent, general 
economic performance of the states has been weak, 
with an average annual growth of GDP of 2.46 percent.  
Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados recorded negative 
growth, while Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana and 
Grenada recorded the highest annual growth of GDP. 

Table 1.1 shows that exports of goods and services 
as a percentage of GDP ranged from 17 percent to 59 
percent (average 41.92 percent), which indicates the high 
dependence of the economies of CARICOM on exports. 
Imports as a percentage of GDP ranged from 37 percent 
to 80 percent (average 51.75 percent) which indicates 
an even higher dependence of CARICOM economies on 
imports, particularly the importation of food. 

From Table 1.2 below, it can be seen that the life 
expectancy at birth for all CARICOM countries was very 
similar, with the average for all countries being 73.21 
years, with only Haiti having a value below 70 years. A life 



5

expectancy above 70 suggests a fairly acceptable state of 
well-being of individuals in the CARICOM countries.

The fertility rates for the CARICOM countries showed 
very little variation. The average births/woman for the 
countries was 2.04, whilst the minimum and maximum 
values for the countries were 1.4 and 2.9 for Saint Lucia 
and Haiti. These low fertility rates are indicative of slow 
population growth among the countries, which would 
imply that the  percentage of the population that is 
elderly could be growing faster than the percentage of 
young people. 

“Overweight and obesity are defined as follows for 
children aged between 5 to 19 years:

 y Overweight is BMI-for-age greater than 1 
standard deviation (SD) above the WHO Growth 
Reference median

 y Obesity is greater than 2 SDs above the WHO 
Growth Reference median.” (WHO, 2020a)

Body mass index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-
height that is commonly used to classify overweight and 
obesity. It is defined as a person’s weight in kilograms 
divided by the square of his/her height in meters (kg/m2) 
(WHO, 2020a).

Table 1.2 indicates that approximately 28 percent of the 
children and adolescents between 5 to 19 years old in 
the CARICOM states are overweight, with the  highest 

values found in Bahamas (35.8 percent) and Suriname 
(31.1 percent) and the lowest value in Saint Lucia (23.4 
percent). 

As seen in Table 1.2, for all of the CARICOM countries, the 
percentages of children under the age of five, who are 
underweight were relatively lower than the percentages 
for overweight with an average of 5.9 percent.  The 
country with the highest underweight percentage was 
Haiti (11.0 percent) and the country with the lowest 
percentage was Saint Lucia (2.8 percent).  It should be 
noted that figures were not available for this indicator for 
six countries. 

The school enrollment at a level of education or “the  
gross enrollment ratio is the ratio of total enrollment, 
regardless of age, to the population of the age group that 
officially corresponds to the level of education shown” 
(World Bank, 2019).

In Table 1.2, Dominica, Haiti and Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines have the highest primary school enrollment 
percentage,  while Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis and 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have the highest 
secondary school enrollment percentage. 

As seen in Table 1.3, CARICOM states are parties to 
several international conventions that support the right 
to food for children.  Guyana, Haiti and Suriname also 
have constitutional provisions that explicitly guarantee 
the right to adequate food for their citizens. 



6

Table 1.3:   The right to food for CARICOM countries

Country I. II. III. IV. V.

Antigua and Barbuda  1989 
Accession

1993
Ratification

2007
Signature

Bahamas  2008 
Ratification

1993 
Accession

1991 
Ratification

2015 
Ratification

Barbados  1973 
Accession

1980 
Ratification

1990 
Ratification

2013 
Ratification

Belize  2015 
Ratification

1990 
Ratification

1990 
Ratification

2011 
Ratification

Dominica  1993 
Accession

1980 
Ratification

1991 
Ratification

2012 
Ratification

Grenada  1991 
Accession

1990 
Ratification

1990 
Ratification

2014 
Ratification

Guyana  1977 
Ratification

1980 
Ratification

1991 
Ratification

2014 
Ratification

Haiti  2013 
Accession

1981 
Ratification

1995 
Ratification

2009 
Ratification

Jamaica  1975 
Ratification

1984 
Ratification

1991 
Ratification

2007 
Ratification

Saint Kitts and Nevis  1985 
Accession

1990 
Ratification

Saint Lucia  1982 
Accession

1993 
Ratification

2011 
Signature

Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines

 1981 
Accession

1981 
Accession

1993 
Ratification

2010 
Accession

Suriname  1976 
Accession

1993 
Accession

1993 
Ratification

2007 
Signature

Trinidad and Tobago  1978 
Accession

1990 
Ratification

1991 
Ratification

2015 
Ratification

Source: (FAO, 2015a) 

KEY:

I. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – 1948 (Article 25 Recognized by all CARICOM countries)
II. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – 1966
III. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW ) – 1979
IV. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – 1989
V. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – 2006 



7

2.1. Transfer payments and the right to food
The general theoretical framework for this assessment 
is based on the concept of “transfer payments” or 
“transfers”, which are payments from the government to 
individuals, without anything, in return, being received 
or required from those individuals. Examples of transfer 
payments include student scholarship grants, welfare 
checks and free school meals provided by a state-run 
SFP.  Such transfers represent direct ways in which 
governments pursue policies of income redistribution 
(Johnson, 2019).

In the case of free school meals, the children, may be 
considered vulnerable because they are unable to 
afford the meals.  Two conditions are therefore normally  
required for receipt of these benefits: 

 y a financial assessment (or means test); and
 y permission of parents or guardians (US 

Department of Veterans Affairs, undated).

A major justification for transfers in the form of a SFP is 
the right to food by citizens. According to FAO (2009), the 
human right to food is firmly established in international 
law, including the International Covenant on Economic, 
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention 
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (Table 1.3) (FAO, 2009). 
States that ratify these legal instruments recognize 
the right to food and other rights contained in them.  
This right to food can be achieved by people feeding 
themselves, either by producing food or by earning a 
living, or by direct, state-supply of food, for people who 
are unable to care for themselves (e.g. because of age, 
sickness or times of crisis) (FAO, 2009). However, FAO 
recognizes that translating these rights into practice has 
remained largely elusive (FAO, 2009).

The “right to food”, where ratified adds a legal dimension 
to conventional economic strategies aimed at achieving 
food security (FAO, 2009). Also, in addition to the 
moral and the legal imperatives, there are a number of 
convincing arguments to tackle the “hunger problem” by 
a “right to food” approach:

 y From an economic viewpoint, it is a good 
investment, since food secure individuals are 
more productive and are less frequently sick. On 
the other hand, if the physical development and 
the mental development of a child are affected 
by hunger and malnutrition, that child stands 
to lose 5 to 10 percent of lifetime earnings (FAO, 
2009). 

 y From a community perspective, it empowers 
local communities to participate in decision-
making and reduces their dependence on state 
assistance (FAO, 2009).

Recently there has been an increasing focus on 
unhealthy eating and a growing interest in providing 
healthy foods in school (Mikkelsen, 2013). This has 
prompted consideration of whether children should 
enjoy the right to a nutritious meal and a balanced diet 
and whether they should be protected from harmful 
foods (Mikkelsen, 2013).

2.2. Kaldor–Hicks compensation principle and 
benefit–cost analysis

If a “right to food” policy results in additional state 
expenditure, is this additional expenditure socially 
justified? According to the Kaldor–Hicks compensation 
principle, transfers to achieve such a policy should get 
unanimous support, if the persons who benefit from the 
transfers (the winners) can compensate those who pay 
for them (the losers), so that after the transfer payments, 
all in society are as well off, as before the transfers, and 
some are better off. The rationale for this principle is that 
such transfers will be potential Pareto improvements and 
a Pareto optimal state has generally gained acceptance 
as the preferred social welfare status (Newman, 1998). 

Benefit–cost (or cost–benefit) analysis is the standard 
method for the application of the compensation 
principle to determine, if a policy of direct and indirect 
transfers to vulnerable groups is likely to increase the 
welfare of society. In general, if the benefits of a policy 
exceed the costs, then theoretically the beneficiaries of 
the policy could compensate those in the society that 
meet the costs and there would be net benefits still 
available to the beneficiaries.

In the case of a subsidized SFP, though the meals may 
be provided free or at subsidized costs to beneficiaries, 
there would be costs to the state to provide the meals, 
(for example, the cost of the food, payments to cooks, 
who prepare the meals etc.) which would have to be 
provided through taxes on other members of society. The 
beneficiaries will derive the benefits as outlined above. 

This study utilized an adaptation of the benefit–cost 
analysis of the WFP, termed annual net benefit analysis  
as its basic assessment framework (WFP, 2016, 2018).   
This involved the identification and measurement of the 
benefits and costs of the SFP for a specific year and a 

2.  Methodology



8

determination of its net benefits and benefit–cost ratio 
for that year.

2.3. Empirical procedures of the study
The study was initiated by a review of all available  
information on school feeding in the 14 CARICOM states. 
This was followed by missions by teams to each state, 
over the period mainly from November 2017 to May 
2018, with a further mission to Guyana in August 2019. 
The main focus of these missions was to obtain first hand, 
information on school feeding, with an emphasis on the 
state funded SFP. A questionnaire was devised to assist in 
this exercise, which was sent to the 14 countries prior to 
the visits and utilized in the interviews. 

Interviews were conducted with ministries of Education, 
Health, Agriculture and Social Services (where relevant), 
as well as to school feeding (or nutrition) units of 
ministries of Education, where these existed. Visits were 
also undertaken to schools to observe:

 y the nature of the meals supplied;
 y whether there were any contributions or 

payments by students;
 y the areas where meals were prepared and where 

children ate their meals;
 y school gardens;
 y the offerings of tuck shops, canteens, school 

cafeterias etc., and
 y the extent to which “healthy eating” policies 

were being implemented in the schools.

Visits were also undertaken to the premises of suppliers 
of meals for the SFPs, such as caterers and vendors to 
observe and discuss procurement mechanisms for food 
ingredients and the nature of the meals being provided. 
This activity was especially extensive in the missions 
of Trinidad and Tobago and Bahamas which had the 
caterer based (CB) model. School kitchens were visited in 
cases where meals are actually prepared on the school 
premises, in countries with the decentralized school 
kitchen (DSK) model. Particularly in Trinidad, visits were 
also made to food processing businesses and to farms, 
which were supplying ingredients to the caterers of the 
SFP.

Country case studies were then prepared for each of the 
14 states, which included detailed annual net benefit 
analyses. These case studies were then validated by a 
series of exercises.

FAO in collaboration with the FFA of UWI, sponsored 
a multi-stakeholder seminar titled: “School Feeding 
Programmes as a Policy Instrument for Food and 
Nutrition Security in the Caribbean”, in the Caribbean 
Week of Agriculture (CWA) at the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford 
Centre (LESC), Bridgetown, Barbados, from 8 to 9 
October 2018. This seminar served as the first validation 
workshop.

Participants in the seminar came from:

 y ministries of Education, Agriculture and Health 
from the 14 CARICOM Member States;

 y regional agencies (UWI, OECS Secretariat, IICA 
etc.);

 y agencies of the United Nations (FAO, WFP and 
UNICEF);

 y donor agencies;
 y civil society; and
 y private sector organizations, including farmers’ 

associations; 

At the seminar, group reports provided critical 
evaluations of the country case studies and suggested 
modifications and corrections to more accurately 
represent school feeding in the CARICOM states.

On the initiative of the OECS Health Unit, all of the OECS 
member states except Saint Kitts and Nevis took part 
in two on-line validation sessions on the 12 and 15 
November 2018.  Finally, again, on the initiative of the 
Health Unit of the OECS, a further Validation Workshop 
was held at the Marigot Bay Resort & Marina, Castries, 
Saint Lucia supported by UNICEF on 19 November 2018. 
At this workshop, the case studies for the OECS were 
considered by Chief Education Officers, Chief Medical 
Officers and Directors of Social Development (or Social 
Services) from all OECS member states. Participants 
also came from Martinique and the Associated States of 
the OECS. The output of these three sessions provided 
further comments and information, which were used to 
more accurately represent school feeding in the OECS.

2.4. Annual net benefit analysis 
Annual net benefit analysis was conducted using a 
modified template of Engineering Solutions On-Line 
(Cesarone, 2009). The modified template did not utilize 
discounted cash flow techniques, but measured the  
annual total benefits and annual total costs of the SFP 
to derive a benefit–cost ratio as the ratio of the two 



9

measures and an annual (as opposed to a discounted) 
net benefit as the difference between the two measures.

The basic framework for the measurement of the total 
benefits and total costs of a SFP is given in Figure 2.1. 
(WFP, 2016, 2018). The total costs is the sum of inter alia:

 y The cost of the meals distributed to the 
students, which may consist of the payments 
to caterers or the cost of food commodities 
supplied to central kitchens or to schools.

 y Costs of transportation of food commodities  
for meal preparation at schools or the  cost of 
transportation of meals from central kitchens;

 y Other operational costs, including the cost of 
cooking fuel (in the case of school kitchens), 
food boxes or plates, cutlery etc. and the wages 
paid to cooks; and

 y The administrative (or overhead) costs of 
operating the SFP.

Figure 2.1 also provides an overview of the total benefits 
of a SFP. In the analyses carried out only the direct 
benefits were summed, because of the difficulties of 
measurement of “externalities”. These direct benefits, also 
called “drivers” consist of:

1. Value transfer, which comprises two elements: the 
value of the food transferred to the students (1A) and  
the value of health care cost reduction attributed to 
the better nutrition under the SFP (1B). The health 
care reduction for each state is measured in terms 
of the reduction of the Disability Adjusted Life Years 
(DALYs) for the students on an annual basis, which is 
valued by the cost/year of healthcare (WHO, 2020b) 
(1. as in Figure 2.1).

2. Return on investment. This is the rate of return on 
both the wages received by cooks and other workers, 
and the “savings” to beneficiary households of the 
SFP, in terms of their reduction in health care costs. 
The rate of return on this investment is assumed to 
be five percent (2.).

3. Increased productivity. This consists of the benefits 
that accrue in terms of higher wages because of 
better educational levels attained through increased 
enrollment and attendance at school, a reduction of 
the drop-out rate and higher test scores. (3.)

4. Healthier and longer life. These benefits are derived 
from three sources:
a. Increased wages due to increased life 

expectancy of the student beneficiaries, 
because of better income and longer schooling, 
owing to the SFP. (4A)

b. Increased income due to a reduction in DALYs 
due to food supplied by the SFP. (4B)

c. Increased income due to a reduction in DALYs 
due to health interventions derived from the SFP 
such as micronutrient supplementation. (4C)

The measurement of the benefits of the SFPs is a case 
of the not-straight-forward art of non-market valuation 
(Pemberton, Harris-Charles and Patterson-Andrews, 
2010 and Hanley and Spash, 1998).  This  study followed 
the basic approach of the WFP (WFP 2016 and WFP, 
2018) An example of the calculation of the benefits is 
given in the Appendix, for the SFP of Dominica. Similar 
calculations of the benefits of the SFPs for all member 
states are provided in the detailed individual country 
reports, produced as part of this study. In the absence 
of empirical estimates for CARICOM states, relevant 
estimates from WFP were  adjusted and utilized  for  
factors such as the impact of the SFP on increasing 
school attendance and reducing school drop-out and so 
on. (WFP, 2016, 2019a). Where data on some factors like 
DALYs were not available for a country, figures were used 
for another similar country.

Simulation analyses were carried out, where appropriate, 
to determine the sensitivity of the benefit–cost ratio to 
different variables, for example the number of students 
in the SFP. A simulation analysis involved keeping all 
other data for the analysis the same and changing only 
the value of the variable (for example the number of 
students in the SFP) (ceteris paribus) and calculating the 
benefit–cost ratio for each value of the variable.



10

Figure 2.1:  Expected benefits and costs of a school feeding programme (SFP)

Source: (Adapted from WFP, 2016)

 

Benefits Costs

1. Value transfer
Value of food received by beneficiaries plus reduction 

in individual healthcare cost

Commodities
Cost to provide food to beneficiaries

2. Return on investment

Return on wages to employees of the SFP who would 
otherwise be unemployed plus return to reduced 

healthcare cost

Wages

Wages paid to employees of SFP, e.g. cooks

3. Increased productivity

Increased wages due to better education 

Transport

Cost incurred to transport food and food 
ingredients

4. Healthier and longer life

 y Increased wages from:
 y longer productive life (4A)
 y better health from food supplied through the 

SFP (4B) 
 y better health from health interventions (4C)

Other Operational costs

Other non-food and service costs

Externalities

Additional benefits to non-programme beneficiaries 
(e.g. community benefits and lower costs to the 

government)

Overhead

Administrative costs incurred in the SFP



SECTION B – GENERAL FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

General 
findings and 

recommendations 
of the study

B



12

3.1.  Introduction
The general findings of the study are presented in terms 
of the models of school feeding found in the SFPs in the 
14 CARICOM member states in this chapter.  The general 
recommendations from the study are then presented in 
the following two chapters (Chapters 4 and 5). Specific 
findings and recommendations for each member state 
are presented in the case studies in Section C.

3.2.  Models of School Feeding
In this study, the “school feeding system” (SFS) for 
a CARICOM member state is defined as the general 
arrangement of entities in the state that provide meals 
that are consumed by students in schools. Further, the 
“school feeding programme” (SFP) of a state is defined 
as the state administered structure or organization 
of entities (usually administered by the Ministry of 
Education (MOE) directly or through an agent of the MOE 
that provides meals to schools.

In this study of 14 CARICOM member states, three 
common models of SFPs emerged, based on the 
classification of the main groups of HGSF models (FAO 
and WFP, 2018).  These models and the countries having 
them are as follows:

(i)  decentralized school kitchen (DSK) model: 
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana (hinterland), Haiti, 
Jamaica, Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines and Suriname;

(ii) third party caterer based (CB) model: Bahamas, 
Belize and Trinidad and Tobago; and the

(iii) centralized school feeding (CSF) model: Antigua 
and Barbuda, Barbados, Guyana (coastal), Saint 
Kitts and Jamaica - Nutrition Products Limited 
(NPL).

General descriptions of the models are now presented 
and diagrams illustrating the models for the  countries 
are given in the respective country case studies in 
Section C.

3.3. Decentralized school kitchen (DSK) model 
The main feature of the DSK model is that the actual 
meal preparation is carried out in kitchens on the school 
premises. Then the meals are consumed in the same 
school or in neighboring schools. The latter situation 
exists for some schools that lie in close proximity to each 

other. The in-school preparation of the meals allows the 
incorporation into the meals of substantial inputs from 
parents and the local communities in which the schools 
are located. These inputs generally include a limited 
range of food items (especially vegetables, seasoning 
herbs and root crops) from small scale farmers located in 
the communities.  However, most of the food ingredients 
for the kitchens are procured by the state through 
purchasing arrangements by sections of ministries of 
Education or in a few cases ministries of Health.  In some 
other cases the state provides funds for the schools to 
make the purchases of food ingredients for the school 
kitchens.

Parents and other persons from the communities may 
also provide labor inputs for the procurement of food 
items and for meal preparation. This mainly voluntary 
labor lowers the costs of the SFPs using the DSK model, 
as compared to SFPs utilizing the other models. In several 
instances, however, where parents provide their labor 
or contribute food items to the SFP, their children may 
receive the school meals at no cost or at a reduced cost.

In the DSK model, the food is generally served by the 
cooks or their assistants, in utensils provided by the 
school. This allows for greater control of portion sizes for 
students, so that students can be served the quantities 
that they would normally like to eat. This reduces the 
problem of fixed portion sizes and food rejection and 
food waste in SFPs. The meal containers and cutlery used 
in the DSK model are usually washable and reusable, 
which avoids the use of styrofoam, plastic and other one-
use types of material, which may be detrimental to the 
physical environment (Environment America, 2018). 

The DSK model exists in combination with parents and 
outside vendors who also provide meals and snacks 
to the students in the schools.  Also, the schools may 
endorse the operations of private vendors on the school 
premises, who may offer snacks and meals for sale to 
students. Schools may themselves also operate cafeterias 
or tuck-shops, which may offer snacks, drinks and meals 
for sale to students, generally as fund-raising enterprises 
for the schools.

3.4.   Third party caterer based (CB) model 
The main feature of the CB model is that the actual 
procurement of food ingredients and the meal 
preparation are undertaken by caterers, who are 
contracted by the MOE or an agency of the Ministry.  
These caterers then package and transport the meals 

3.   General findings



13

to the schools, where the meals are consumed by the 
students. Students are not generally permitted to take 
the meals off the school compound, because of the risk 
of the spoilage and contamination of the food by the 
time the meal reaches the students’ homes.

In the CB model, there is fairly strict administration of the 
SFP by the MOE or its agent. Thus, the caterers usually  
operate within parameters defined and established by 
the MOE or its agent, which may include:

 (i) the amount of money paid by the state to the 
caterers for each meal;

(ii) the price paid by the students for each meal 
(where the students also pay for the meals);

(iii) the menus to be utilized by the caterers;

(iv) the limited use or non-use of SSBs as part of the 
meals;

(v) the nutritional standards of the meals especially 
in terms of the percentage of the estimated 
calories/day supplied by the meals (U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services and 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015, p. 77);

(vi) adherence to the national dietary guidelines of 
the state (FAO, 2019b);

(vii) the level of local or domestic content in terms of 
the food ingredients used to prepare the meals;

(viii) the boxes or other packaging materials used to 
contain the meals; and

(ix) the insulated or other containers utilized by the 
caterers for storage and the transportation of 
the meals to the schools.

The number of schools served by each caterer varies 
quite markedly across states and even within a state. 
Some caterers operate out of their homes, for example in 
the Bahamian islands, while in Trinidad and Tobago, some 
caterers operate industrial sized facilities. The CB model 
thus allows for economies of size in the preparation 
of the meals.  Because of the more concentrated food 
preparation by caterers, there is usually a greater level 
of monitoring of their operations and food quality 
standards in the CB model, as opposed to the more 
decentralized DSK model. One important consideration 
in the CB model, however, is the distances between the 
caterer and the schools served by the caterer and hence 
the elapsed time that may be necessary to transport 

the meals from the point of preparation at the caterers’ 
facilities to the schools.

The larger scale operations of caterers usually require a 
greater level of pre-prepared or processed food items (for 
example, frozen peas and beans and pre-cut vegetables 
etc.), which are often imported into CARICOM states. 
Hence, in the CB model, the meals prepared generally 
have a low level of incorporation of inputs of food and 
labor from the local communities, in which the schools 
are located. This generally represents a marked difference 
between the DSK model and the CB model.

Similar to the DSK model, the CB model, generally 
co-exists with parents, school cafeterias and outside 
vendors, who also provide meals and snacks to students.

3.5.   Centralized  school feeding (CSF) model
The main feature of the CSF model is that the actual 
meal preparation is carried out in large centralized, 
industrial factories or meal production centers (MPCs) 
and the prepared meals (or snacks) are then transported 
to schools for consumption by students. In the cases of 
Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Barbados, the food 
preparation centers are operated by divisions of the 
ministries of Education. In the case of Jamaica, the MPC is 
a state-owned company, the Nutrition Products Limited 
(NPL), while in coastal Guyana, the MPCs are private firms 
contracted to produce the meals.  The state provides 
the funds for the operation of these MPCs, including the 
procurement of food ingredients.  

The CSF model allows for the strictest administration 
and monitoring of the SFPs by ministries of Education, 
including the continuous monitoring of:

 y the cost of production of each meal;
 y the menus to be utilized;
 y meal preparation;
 y packaging materials used;
 y the extent of use of SSBs;
 y nutritional standards to be observed; 
 y the level of local content, with respect to the 

food ingredients used to prepare the meals; and 
 y food quality standards.

An important consideration in the CSF model, as in the 
CB model, is the distance between the MPC and the 
schools served by the MPC and hence, the time it takes 
to transport the meals to the schools. This is especially 
crucial, where hot-meals are transported to the schools 
for same-day consumption by the students.  Special care, 



14

therefore, has to be taken in maintaining the quality 
and safety of meals.  In the case of larger states, the 
meals prepared by the MPCs, usually have shelf lives of 
several days. These meal items include cakes, buns and 
packaged fruit juices.

The larger scale operations of the MPCs in the CSF 
model require an even greater level of pre-prepared or 
processed food items, than is the case with the CB model. 
These food items, as noted earlier, are largely imported 
into the CARICOM states. The centralized operations of 
the MPCs also mean that there is almost no opportunity 
to incorporate into the meal preparation, the inputs 
of food or labor from local communities.  Chapter 4, 
however, presents recommendations on:

 y increasing the procurement of local foods from 
small farmers; and

 y stimulating downstream private sector 
enterprises which can also increase production 
and income of small farmers.

Similar to the other models, the CSF model, generally 
exists alongside parents and outside vendors, who also 
provide meals and snacks to the students in the schools.  
Also, similar to the other two models, schools operating 
as part of the CSF model may themselves operate 
cafeterias or tuck-shops, which may offer snacks, drinks 
and other meals for sale to students, generally as fund 
raising enterprises for the schools. There was a tendency 
not to allow private vendors onto the premises of schools 
operating under the CSF model.



15

4.1. Recommendations promoting healthy eating

Background

Especially in the Latin America and the Caribbean 
region, among developing countries, school feeding 
has focused on “healthy eating” with the objective of 
the elimination of both malnutrition or undernutrition 
as well as over-nutrition, in terms of over-weight and 
obesity.  This focus is supported by scientific evidence 
which has established the effectiveness of school-based 
interventions to change eating patterns, which can 
prevent overweight and obesity (PAHO and WHO, 2014).  
Specific recommendations for SFPs in CARICOM states, 
arising from this study, in the area of healthy eating are 

as follows:

Use of healthy meal menus

Meals in the SFPs should be nutritionally balanced and 
nutrient–dense, with adequate amounts of protein, 
carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals and water; and 
not energy dense (high in sugar, saturated fat and 
ultra-processed protein). There should be a preference 
for more plant-based protein diets, to include at least 
one offering of plant protein with high biological value 
or complementary proteins per week. This practice 
will encourage the consumption of more vegetables, 
whole grains and legumes and by extension increased 
dietary fiber intake.  The emphasis should also be on the 
utilization of wholesome fresh or unprocessed produce. 

Greater use of traditional meals 

Traditional meals should be utilized in the menus of 
the SFP, as far as possible, which should be prepared 
using indigenous foods, especially staples, fruits and 
vegetables. Some of these meals have a high level of 
acceptance by students, which reduces the level of 
rejection of meals and food waste. These meals also 
influence tastes and preferences in young students 
towards more desirable local foods. Generally the 
utilization of local agriculture products can be 
increased in the SFPs through measures such as recipe 
development and testing using these local products.

Care should be taken to adjust traditional recipes with 
high salt, sugar and saturated fat content. A number of 
Caribbean fruits and vegetables are seasonal, so the use 
of these items should be integrated into the menu, when 
they are in season. The increased consumption of fresh 

4.  Food and nutrition recommendations

fruits and vegetables may have long term health benefits 
for the students.

Reduction in the use of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs)

Some CARICOM countries have already introduced 
policies to prevent or limit the sale of SSBs at schools 
(Trinidad and Tobago in 2017 and Jamaica in 2019) 
(Healthy Caribbean Coalition, 2017, section 3.3). 
It is recommended that these policies should be 
implemented in all CARICOM member states. The 
recommended amount of added sugar for adult women 
is no more than 100 calories per day or 6 teaspoons (25 
g) and 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons (36 g) 
for men (American Heart Association, 2018). If a child 
consumes 355 ml (12 ounces) of a sweetened beverage, 
he or she obtains about 8 teaspoons (32 g) of additional 
sugar (Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 2019). 
Such a child is in danger of over-nutrition. Children 
who over-consume these beverages and are physically 
inactive may eventually increase their risk for developing 
a number of negative health consequences (Gortmaker, 
Long and Wang, 2009).

Promotion of the consumption of water as a substitute to 
SSBs

Hector et al. (2009) discuss the replacement of soft drinks 
with water. They argue that this option “… overcomes the 
health issues associated with consumption of artificially-
sweetened beverages” because of the lower total energy 
intake. Water consumption also contributes to better re-
hydration, particularly after exercise or physical activity 
and may contribute to better oral care among children.

Increase in physical activity in schools

SFPs should support policies for increased physical 
activity (PA) for schools in the CARICOM member states. 
International experience suggests that such policies 
should be essential complements to healthy nutrition 
initiatives in schools (Healthy Schools, 2007).  The 
potential benefits of regular participation in moderate 
intensity PA include:

 y improved overall health, growth and 
development;

 y improved muscular strength, endurance and 
flexibility;

 y maintenance of energy balance (in order to 
encourage a healthy weight);



16

 y reduced risk of developing adult diseases and 
conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and 
high blood pressure;

 y development of a sense of well-being, enhanced 
self-esteem and a reduction in anxiety and 
stress;

 y increased opportunities for social interaction 
and improved social and moral development; 
and

 y improved cognitive functioning and academic 
achievement in school (Healthy Schools, 
undated).

Many jurisdictions therefore have developed policies 
on PA and a useful example of such a policy is from the 
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (ACT Government, 
2017). In CARICOM, the regional food and nutrition 
security action plan 2012-2026 (RFNSAP) calls for 
immediate action to encourage physical activity in 
schools, in line with WHO recommendations, including 
promotional campaigns to emphasize the benefits of 
PA and the design of suitable educational materials 
(CARICOM, 2011, p. 33).

Comprehensive assessment of the health status and food 
intake of students

The health status and food intake of the student 
population should be periodically assessed, to track 
their nutritional status  through their school life.  This will 
allow  the relevant health care professionals to address 
at-risk conditions (over-nutrition and under-nutrition). 
Such assessment of the food intake of students must 
consider their total food intake, including the meals 
eaten at home.  Such long-term, nutritional, monitoring  
of students would facilitate studies on the effects on 
nutritional status of factors such as:

 y School feeding
 y Physical exercise
 y Food and nutrition education.

Expansion of the coverage of school feeding programmes

SFPs can contribute their greatest benefits in terms of the 
promotion of healthy eating, if they are comprehensive, 
to cover 100 percent of the school population. It is 
recommended therefore that CARICOM states consider 
a policy of expansion of their SFPs to cater for at least 
the majority of the primary school populations. Such 
comprehensive coverage will also help to reduce 
any snobbery or embarrassment on the part of low-

income beneficiaries of the SFPs. However, payment 
arrangements can be considered for higher income 
parents, who are able to pay for the meals in the SFPs, as 
a mechanism to reduce the financial burden on the state 
for comprehensive SFPs.

4.2. Recommendations on food quality and safety
The following are the specific recommendations for the  
improvement of food quality and safety in the  SFPs of 
CARICOM states arising from this study:

Compliance with internationally recognized standards 

School meals should provide an adequate proportion of 
the nutrition requirements of children according to the 
averages for their age group including micronutrient 
requirements (FAO and WFP, 2018).

SFPs in CARICOM states should also comply with 
internationally recognized standards and codes of 
practice relating to foods, food production and food 
safety. These standards and codes of practice should be 
based on and harmonized with Codex Alimentarius and 
especially the “General Principles of Food Hygiene”, and 
they are summarized in FAO and WFP (2018).  

Improve certification of staff and premises 

All staff involved in food preparation, delivery, service 
or sale, as well as all premises where these activities 
take place should be certified. This certification should 
include, but not be limited to, certification by the 
public health authorities. Such certification should 
facilitate  high food safety standards, leading to less risk 
and liability in the SFPs.  In this regard, vendors, cooks, 
kitchen staff and caterers should be required to attend 
training courses annually, not only on public health, 
but also on healthy food preparation, with emphasis on 
taste, presentation, choice of ingredients and the use of 
standardized recipes.

Establishment  of a core team of dietitians and nutritionists 
to support the SFP

In each state, a core team of dietitians and nutritionists 
should be established to provide expertise on the 
nutritional needs of children and the healthy meals 
(menus) that can meet these needs. The core team of 
dietitians and nutritionists can also be involved in the 
following activities:



17

 y hosting training workshops to upgrade menu 
planning and recipe development, with respect 
to healthy meals in the SFP;

 y research on approaches to healthy eating within 
the social, agricultural, environmental and 
economic context of the state;

 y the utilization of new technologies in menu 
planning; and

 y the analysis of the nutritive content of the meals 
as a quality assurance measure.

Use of standardized menus and recipes in the SFPs

Standardized menus and recipes are being 
recommended for the SFPs  since they can yield the 
following  benefits (Montana Department of Public 
Health and Human Services, undated):

 y consistent food quality; 
 y predictable yield: Standardized recipes produce 

known quantities of food, which helps to 
prevent excess production and food waste or 
meal shortages.

 y accurate nutrient content: Standardized meals 
deliver pre-determined nutrient content, which 
assists in quality assurance of a SFP. 

 y food cost and inventory control: The utilization 
of fixed ingredients and quantities allows more 
efficient procurement of food ingredients, 
enhanced inventory control and easier 
determination of the costs of meals.

 y labor efficiency: Written food preparation 
procedures as part of standardized recipes allow 
staff to perform more efficiently.

 y employee confidence: Standardized recipes 
eliminate guesswork, decrease the likelihood 
of mistakes and poor food quality and thus 
increase employee confidence.

Formulation of policies on food sold in and around schools

Policies should be implemented or reinforced with regard 
to the quality of food sold in school cafeterias, canteens 
and tuckshops and in and around schools by vendors, in 
line with healthy eating objectives. Indeed the RFNSAP 
recommends the development of “regional standards 
and guidelines on meals served in school cafeterias and 
sold on school compounds” (CARICOM, 2011).  These 
standards should require mandatory, as opposed to 
voluntary, compliance and should focus on the nature of 
the meals and snacks offered for sale, especially:

 y  placing restrictions on the sale of unhealthy 
foods; and

 y mandating the sale of fruits, vegetables and 
healthier snack items, low in sugar, sodium and 
fat and high in dietary fiber.

4.3. Recommendations on food and nutrition 
education

The following are the specific recommendations with 
respect to food and nutrition education as an essential 
part of SFPs in CARICOM states:

Development of healthy food and nutrition education 
programmes 

Nutrition education programmes to promote healthy 
eating lifestyles should be implemented at all levels 
and for all stakeholders within the education system in 
CARICOM member states.  These stakeholders include 
students, teachers and other staff in schools, parents 
and the wider community.  Such education programmes 
should emphasize the importance of right-sized portions.  

Promotion of school gardens 

School gardens have proven to be very useful in the 
provision of healthy food and nutrition education in 
schools. In addition, school gardens should be used to 
demonstrate the utilization of local foods (especially 
vegetables and legumes) in the SFP, as well as in the 
meals of the homes of students. This demonstration can 
be achieved through arrangements, whereby food from 
school gardens is used in school kitchens and sold to 
parents. 

Other advantages of school gardens include:

 y They can provide limited supplies of healthy 
produce for SFPs, free from harmful chemical 
residues, especially in the DSK model.

 y They can be used as a vehicle for the teaching of 
Agricultural Science.

 y The gardens create an environmental education 
component for the primary schools.

 y They provide the incentive for students to start 
backyard gardens of their own, by teaching 
them gardening skills and an appreciation for 
fresh and healthy produce.

 y Students learn to rely more on locally produced 
foods, which will further encourage the general 



18

theme of the sustainability of livelihoods 
especially in rural areas.

 y The food from school gardens can be used to 
teach students basic and fundamental cooking 
skills, by designating the school kitchen 
or cafeteria as a classroom in and of itself  
(Tauranac, 2017).

 y Gardens and kitchens can be used as interactive 
classrooms for teaching of all academic subjects, 
as students need to better understand the 
connection between agriculture, cooking, 
culture and the community at large (Tauranac, 
2018)

4.4. Recommendations on a national school 
feeding or school nutrition policy

The ratification by the state of key international 
instruments with respect to the right to adequate 
healthy and nutritious food on behalf of children should  
form a strong basis for the enactment of a national 
school feeding or school nutrition policy (SNP). Of most 
relevance is the United Nations Convention on the Rights 
of the Child (CRC) – General Assembly Resolution 44/25 
of 20 November 1989 (United Nations Human Rights 
Office of the High Commissioner, 2019).

The CARICOM regional food and nutrition security policy 
(RFNSP) recognizes that early childhood learning centers, 
primary and secondary schools provide suitable points 
for interventions to prevent and control nutritional 
deficiencies and influence food tastes and preferences 
in children (CARICOM, 2010,  p. 17). Therefore, the RFNSP 
recommends the preparation, implementation and 
promotion of SNPs in member states with the following 
features:

 y the development of curricula at teacher training 
colleges, preschool, primary and secondary 
school levels that include nutrition and family 
education for good health and lifestyle choices;

 y regional guidelines on school health and 
nutrition including school meal preparation, the 

foods allowed to be sold in schools and manuals 
on recipes, food safety and food service etc.; 

 y a policy that the meals provided under national 
school feeding programmes should have at least 
a 50 percent regional food content;

 y strategic areas for intervention, including the 
provision of technical support and promotional 
materials, to strengthen school gardening 
programmes (CARICOM, 2010, p. 17).

The RFNSP also proposes that CARICOM should support 
member states in the implementation of campaigns in 
schools that will influence students to make nutritious 
food choices, through the promotion of competitions 
about food and nutrition in the region (CARICOM, 2010, 
p. 18).

 The scope of the SNP in the Seychelles is also 
recommended, especially the following features: 

 y  It incorporates measures for the evaluation and 
monitoring by the state of nutrition in schools. 

 y It is used as the framework for the coordination 
of school feeding, including:
o the provision of school meals by the SFP;
o the food offerings by the school tuck shops 

and cafeterias;
o the training of school nutrition personnel, 

including cooks etc.; and
o the establishment of linkages among 

families and school nutrition personnel 
(Ministry of Health and Social Development 
and Ministry of Education, 2008).

A SNP should also provide:

 y a clear legal framework for the operation of the 
SFP for the state. This legal framework should 
define the roles of the Ministry of Education and 
other cross-sectoral stakeholders, in improving 
nutrition for students in all schools ; and 

 y a manageable, and comprehensive structure for 
the operations of the SFP in the state.



19

5.1. Procurement recommendations 

Increase in procurement from small farmers 

In line with the focus on HGSF, it is recommended that 
SFPs in CARICOM increase the amount of local food items 
procured from small scale and family farms. One of the 
most compelling justifications for a state-funded SFP 
in the Caribbean, is its expected impact in increasing 
domestic agricultural production leading to a reduction 
in the food import bill and increased job creation and 
economic activity, especially in rural areas.

However, in most of the Caribbean countries, this impact 
has not taken place and in many countries, instead, the 
SFPs have been using increasing amounts of imported, as 
opposed to local foods. It is therefore recommended that 
policies and the necessary regulatory frameworks, be 
developed and implemented to facilitate the integration 
of small farmers into supply chains of the SFPs. 

Brazil provides a good example of a regulatory 
framework for local food procurement. According to 
Swensson (2015), in 2003, the Government of Brazil 
created the Food Purchase Programme (PAA), to procure 
food from small farmers. The PAA prioritized the most 
vulnerable producers and farmer organizations, such as 
women, land reform settlements, indigenous peoples 
and Quilombolas (communities of descendants of Afro 
Brazilian slaved people) (Swensson, 2015). Then in 2009, 
the Government instituted the national school feeding 
legislation (Law no. 11947/2009), which states that 
30 percent of food purchases for school feeding must 
be procured from family farmers.  Swensson (2015) 
reports that between 2003 and 2013, the “programmes” 
purchased 3 million tons of food from over 200 000 
smallholder farmers, making it one of the largest public 
food procurement initiatives, from smallholders, in the 
world.

For CARICOM member states, adopting the  policy that 
the local and regional content of the meals provided 
under the SFPs should be at a targeted figure of 50 
percent, will further link the SFPs to local markets 
and producers, especially small farmers and promote 
the SFPs, as a market for high quality, domestic food 
products (CARICOM, 2010,  p. 17). Success of such a 
policy will require an improvement in the capacity of 
farmers to supply adequate quantities of high quality 
food items, to the SFPs.  Local food procurement by SFPs 

could also emphasize culturally appropriate foods such 
as, fresh fruit and vegetables and root crops, which also 
enhance the nutritional quality of the meals and provide 
healthier options.

Tauranac (2018) however notes some of the constraints 
to the utilization of local food in SFPs. These include:

 y the transportation and scheduling logistics of 
obtaining food items from a large number of 
small farmers; and

 y the need to process raw food ingredients 
obtained from small farms, before they can be 
easily utilized in school kitchens or by caterers.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and farmers’ 
organizations like cooperatives can provide a regular and 
acceptable supply of local food items, by aggregating 
and streamlining of the production and supply of groups 
of farmers. For example, in Haiti, several international 
funding agencies contract NGOs to carry out the 
procurement and distribution of food items from local 
small farmers to schools.  

Stimulate the development of private sector, downstream 
enterprises 

 FAO and WFP (2018) suggest that while increasing 
the production and income of small farmers may be a 
primary focus of HGSF, SFPs can also play an important 
role in stimulating private sector entrepreneurship 
among other actors along the value chain. It is 
recommended therefore, that the SFPs in CARICOM 
through increased and targeted procurement, foster the 
development of the following enterprises:

 y primary food processors, who can stabilize food 
after harvest to extend shelf life and to convert 
food into more convenient forms for purchase 
and storage by the SFPs;

 y secondary processors who can turn the foods 
from primary processors into products that are 
attractive to students or may offer nutritional 
benefits, such as fortication of vitamins or 
minerals; and

 y distributors/wholesalers, who may be able 
to aggregate the production of primary 
and secondary processors and increase the 
availability and affordability of local foods to 
SFPs, by their emphasis on large scale operations 
and  low per unit cost.

5.  Other general recommendations



20

5.2. Governance recommendations

Establishment of national school feeding committees (NSFC)

It is recommended, where they do not exist, that a 
national school feeding committee (NSFC) be established 
in member states to provide leadership in the 
implementation of the SFP. The NSFC, which should meet 
at least once per term, should be multi-sectoral in nature 
and should have among others, representatives from the 
ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture and Social 
Protection or Social Welfare, civil society and the private 
sector. These NSFCs should be responsible for:

 y fostering the implementation of the national 
SNP and other policies relevant to school 
feeding in the state;

 y developing policy indicators to monitor and 
evaluate adherence to and effectiveness of these 
policies;

 y periodically reviewing the policies based 
on their evaluation and recommending 
modifications, alternatives etc.;

 y ensuring specifically, that cafeterias and vendors 
abide by the guidelines provided in the policies; 
and

 y submitting reports to the relevant authorities 
and Ministries.

Establishment of national school feeding units (NSFUs) 

It is recommended that, where they do not already 
exist, that NSFUs be established in the ministries of 
Education (MOE) to administer the SFPs in the CARICOM 
states. These NSFUs must have fully dedicated and 
trained staff, which should include nutritionists, quality 
assurance officers, statistical assistants, food service 
systems specialists and administrative staff. Care must 
be taken however not to allow these NSFUs to inflate 
unnecessarily, the costs of administering the SFPs.

These NSFUs should:

 y  ensure that the entire school feeding system is 
performing effectively;

 y ensure that SFPs are in compliance with all 
standards and procedures, especially with 
respect to nutrition (especially the provision of 
healthy wholesome and nutritious meals), food 
quality and safety;

 y be responsible for the planning and 
development of standardized menus providing 

healthy balanced meals in appropriate portion 
sizes;

 y  ensure that a stated and agreed minimum 
dietary intake of essential nutrients is achieved 
in each meal. 

In addition, the NSFUs should:

 y have the capacity to facilitate nutrition 
education at schools;

 y train the staff and other stakeholders of the 
SFPs, in areas such as food preparation, portion 
control, recipe development etc.;

 y become active members of the NSFCs, especially 
to foster linkages between small farmers and 
the SFPs, for a sustainable supply of small farm 
produce for the SFPs; and

 y be responsible for monitoring and evaluating 
the levels of performance of the SFPs and 
making relevant recommendations to the 
ministries of Education and the NSFCs for 
improvements.

5.3. Recommendations for monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) systems 

All aspects and activities of SFPs need effective M&E for 
their sustainable operations.  This includes the M&E of 
all aspects of food quality and safety.  Also, for the policy 
framework just outlined above, (especially with respect 
to increased procurement of local foods in the SFP) to 
have any long-term sustainable impact in the CARICOM 
member states, there must be adequate M&E of both the 
implementation of these policies and the performance of 
the SFP itself.

The Partnership for Child Development (PCD) in the 
context of HGSF has developed a “School Feeding 
Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit” which is “… 
intended for use by programme managers within 
national government, administrators, schools and other 
stakeholders” (PCD, 2011). The Toolkit was developed 
for use in “low and middle income settings”. The Toolkit 
describes the different components of the M&E system 
to monitor and evaluate the performance of SFPs and is 
highly recommended for the CARICOM member states.

According to PCD (2011), the key components of the 
overall M&E plan include:

 y Results, indicators, baselines and targets, 
including an M&E logical framework;



21

 y Data sources, including routine programme 
monitoring and surveys;

 y Quality assurance mechanisms, including data 
quality and quality of services;

 y M&E coordination plan;
 y Evaluation, reviews and special studies; and
 y M&E capacity building and system 

strengthening methods and procedures.

These components are then incorporated into a M&E 
work-plan and budget for a SFP, “ … which is a costed 
time-bound, activity-based tool which describes and 
budgets for all M&E activities and clarifies agreed 
roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in the 
programme” (PCD, 2011). The time-period covered by the 
work-plan  will be country specific, but the work-plan is 
typically revisited on an annual basis and may range for 
several years.

PCD (2011), states that the M&E work-plan generally 
includes the following:

1. A list of M&E activities planned for the year, 
including:

 y routine programme monitoring, including data 
collection, analysis and reporting;

 y surveys;
 y quality assurance mechanisms;
 y M&E coordination;
 y evaluation, reviews and other studies;
 y M&E capacity building and systems 

strengthening measures;

2. timeline for each of the activities;

3. responsible unit or implementing agency for each 
activity;

4. identification of the collaborating agencies who will 
help implement the activity;

5. budget requirement for each activity; and

6. sources of funding.

With respect to the coordination of the M&E activities, 
PCD (2011), states that this requires personnel at all 
levels of the implementation of the SFP. Thus, the specific 
institutional set-up for the M&E will vary from country 
to country. They suggest however that generally, “…at 
the national level, the staffing for M&E of the SFP would 
include a national M&E manager, a data officer, a research 
officer and routine monitoring system officer(s)” (PCD, 
2011). The national level staff will be complemented by 
staff at the regional/district (or local) government level, 
“who will coordinate activities and link with the service 
delivery/school level, where there would be a focal 
person/committee responsible for daily record keeping” 
(PCD, 2011). 

PCD (2011), also suggests that, in general, SFPs require 
inputs from different line ministries, including Education, 
Health and Agriculture, and therefore for an M&E 
system to function effectively “it is essential that there is 
coordination at all levels within and between ministries, 
local councils and schools”.

As noted above, the proposed NSFCs and the NSFUs 
should be charged with the responsibility for the M&E 
of the SFPs in the CARICOM member states. The NSFCs 
could serve as the coordinating and reporting agency 
and the NSFUs should function as the executing agency, 
directly responsible for the execution of the M&E work-
plan. In order to support the M&E of the SFPs, there must 
be:

 y additions of the relevant staff as indicated by 
PCD (2011) to the NSFUs; and

 y continued encouragement for increased 
community involvement in the SFPs.

Moreover, in keeping with global trends in effective 
communications, feedback on the performance of the 
SFPs should be encouraged. Such feedback, especially 
via social media, would assist greatly in the M&E and the 
improvement of the overall functioning of the SFPs.



Country              
case studies

C



23

6.1. Introduction
Antigua and Barbuda is a twin-island state located 
in the East Caribbean. Antigua is the larger of the 
two islands, 280 sq km with Barbuda, 161 sq km (The 
Commonwealth, 2021). On the morning of Wednesday 
6 September 2017, Barbuda was adversely affected  by 
Hurricane Irma which caused severe devastation of 
homes, buildings, infrastructure and trees. This disaster 
resulted in the relocation of citizens to Antigua and 
school age children were distributed within primary and 
secondary schools on that island. Residents have started 
to return to Barbuda, but after a year electricity had 
not been restored on the island and its developmental 
path is very uncertain (Boger & Perdikaris, 2019). The 
description of school feeding  is therefore restricted to 
the island of Antigua.

6.2. School feeding in Antigua and Barbuda
Figure 6.1 illustrates the structure of school feeding 
in Antigua. The Ministry of Education, Science and 
Technology (MOE) is responsible for the national school 
meals programme (NSMP). Parents prepare meals 
for most of the children, who do not receive lunches 
from the NSMP. Outside vendors offer snacks such as 
carbonated beverages, fried chicken, pies, patties, sweets 
(including chocolate) and salty snacks (commercial or 
home-made). Most of the vendors are located behind 
school fences, but in some cases, provisions are made for 
vendors to be located on the school compound. The food 
items supplied by the vendors compete with the NSMP 
lunch meals.

6.3. The national school meals programme

Overview 

School feeding was implemented in Antigua and 
Barbuda in 2005. In 2018, the NSMP was being 
conducted in 24 public primary schools and three 
pre-schools and plans were in place to extend the 
programme to all public primary  and pre-schools. Meals 
are provided Monday through Friday, from September to 
July,  The NSMP has adopted the CSF model and meals 
are prepared in a central kitchen or MPC located at the 
NSMP site.  Meals are stored in bulk containers then 
distributed to the schools by zones in six delivery trucks. 
Approximately 4 500 meals were prepared daily in 2018, 
therefore more than 48 percent of the children in public 
primary schools were receiving lunches daily.

Selection of students for the NSMP 

Any student who is enrolled in a public primary school is 
provided with the opportunity to register for the NSMP. 
The student is then provided with a daily hot meal at no 
cost.  A new system has been implemented referred to as 
a “Registry”.  Notably, parents are required to complete 
and sign a registration form, as an indication of their 
consent for their children to receive school meals. Parents 
will be accountable, thereafter, for the children who 
do not take the meal as requested on the Registry. The 
Registry has been put in place to reduce food wastage.  
The NSMP does not provide meals for private  schools.

Community participation

In line with the CSF model, there is very limited direct 
community involvement in the operations of the NSMP 
in terms of in-kind contributions of food or the voluntary 
provision of services for the preparation and distribution 
of meals and so on.  However, the NSMP created a 
Facebook page in September 2016 and through this 
medium, it has been able to maintain substantial 
outreach to the community (NSMP, 2016).  On this 
website, the lunches offered to students are displayed 
daily and parents and students are able to comment 
on these meals on the site. The site is also used to post 
up-coming cooking and other social events by the NSMP, 
on behalf of community initiatives, as well as educational 
material on food and nutrition.

Operations at the school level

Meals provided by the NSMP are delivered to feeding 
units in the schools, which are separate buildings on the 
school compound.  Cold foods are stored in a chiller and 
hot foods in a warmer until they are served. Meal service 
utilizes re-usable serving trays. Younger children and 
pre-schoolers receive their meals on pre-portioned trays. 
Older children are served on plates placed on serving 
trays.

One senior school meal assistant (SMA) is in charge of 
meal service at each school. The number of SMAs in each 
school varies from four to six, depending upon the size 
of the school. Each student completes a meal satisfaction 
form designed by the NSMP.  The SMAs use these forms 
to record daily, the number of meals served at each 
school, including those served to teachers. Children are 
required to provide their own water or beverages to have 
with their lunch.

6. Antigua and Barbuda



24

Figure 6.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in A
ntigua and Barbuda

M
inistry of Education

Cafeterias

School m
eal assistants 

and teachers

Sm
all farm

ers

N
ational School M

eals Program
m

e

Parents

W
holesalers, groceries 
and superm

arkets

Schools

Children

Vendors

Cash
Cash

Cash

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain



25

In schools with pre-schools, the SMA collects the 
trays and delivers the meals to pre-schoolers in their 
classrooms. The older children collect their meals at the 
feeding unit. When the children have finished eating, 
they empty the waste in a special bucket placed outside 
the feeding unit. The trays and plates are washed, 
sanitized, dried and stored. The storage containers are 
collected and returned to the NSMP’s kitchen by the 
drivers or loaders, who delivered the meals.

Operations at the national level

The operations manual (4th Edition) of the NSMP 
provides guidelines related to the NSMP in terms of:

 y operation, design and layout of the facilities; 
 y meal preparation and meal service;
 y kitchen safety and sanitation;
 y purchasing, receiving and storage;
 y relationship with the Board of Health;
 y national standards for food handlers; and
 y procedures to follow if unforeseen operational 

events occur.

The central kitchen of the NSMP prepares and distributes 
nutritionally balanced meals to the registered students  
and also to teachers who request meals. The staff is 
mandated to adhere to the menu cycle and to uphold 
quality and quantity standards set by the NSMP. 

Menus and nutrition 

A three-week menu cycle is utilized. The operations 
manual provides the serving sizes for a meal from the 
food groups: food from animals, legumes, vegetables 
and staples.  No serving sizes are provided for fruits, 
but the students receive fruits twice a week based on 
seasonality and availability. An example of a lunch on 
the menu is: baked chicken, rice and peas, coleslaw and 
fruit when served.  Most lunches provide one-third of 
the recommended daily nutrient requirements. Sample 
meals are analyzed for nutritional content.

Being sensitive to its clients’ religious and meal 
preferences, the NSMP also provides a vegetarian option 
daily for the approximately 100 vegetarians registered in 
the programme.  Examples of vegetarian protein options 
are as follows: stewed red beans, veggie lasagna and 
chunks of vegetarian meat in creole sauce (creole carves).

Like other SFPs in CARICOM, the  NSMP of Antigua faces 
challenges of the limited acceptance of vegetables 
and the greater preference for foreign foods over 

locally grown foods. The chefs have tried to introduce 
vegetables such as spinach in unique ways, but the 
children’s acceptance levels remain low. They mainly 
accept vegetables in the form of coleslaw and in 
a traditional dish called chop-up (steamed mixed 
vegetables such as pumpkin, spinach, and ochroes). The 
children also do not like ground provisions as a staple, 
but will consume it in soup. 

The meals “baked chicken or stewed pork with rice and 
peas”, “pasta with meat sauce” and “lasagna with green 
salad” enjoy high acceptance. With respect to fruits, 
students have a preference for bananas. However, there 
is generally positive acceptance of Caribbean fruit. Decor 
is utilized to positively influence acceptance of Caribbean 
fruits and vegetables, with attractive pictures and 
drapery. SMAs are also trained to encourage the children 
to try vegetables to improve their health. The food-
based dietary guidelines for Antigua and Barbuda also 
provide useful information, which is used by the SMAs to 
encourage better eating habits in the children.

6.4. Governance of the national school meals 
programme 

The general governance arrangements of the NSMP are 
illustrated in Figure 6.1. The NSMP is a large organization 
in the context of Antigua and Barbuda, with a staff 
complement of approximately 170. The NSMP is a 
department in the MOE. The NSMP is headed by a 
director of operations (manager) and the key personnel 
in the organization include the executive chef, chief 
stores manager, procurement manager, senior  field 
officer and an accounts manager.

 The NSMP is located in the National School Meals 
Complex, where also is located the central kitchen. 
The central kitchen prepares lunches, which are then 
distributed to schools by the drivers and stewards of the 
NSMP.

At the start of the NSMP in September 2005,  
“contributions”  were requested from students and 
teachers, for the heavily subsidized meals at XCD 1.00 
and XCD 2.00  per day respectively. From February 2016, 
however, the meals have been provided at no cost to 
the students, as the meals are now fully funded from the 
Consolidated Fund of the Government of Antigua and 
Barbuda.

Schools play an important role in the administration of 
the food service to the students, as has been detailed 



26

above. The responsibility for this food service at the 
schools lies with the school principal, who is assisted by 
the teaching staff and school meal assistants.

6.5. Procurement arrangements
The general procurement arrangements for the NSMP 
are illustrated in Figure 6.1. The NSMP has had a positive 
impact on the local economy and agricultural sector, 
since food items are procured from local farmers 
and wholesalers in keeping with the MOE’ s policy to 
purchase local as a first option (Government of Antigua 
and Barbuda, 2017,  p. 298). 

Bulk supplies of raw materials for the NSMP are obtained 
from local wholesalers.  The policy of supporting local 
farmers has been maintained, in spite of the challenges  
local farmers face from time to time to meet the 
requirements of the NSMP.   The NSMP considers itself as 
a strong supporter of local farmers (NSMP, 2020). It states 
that over 80 percent of the eggs and the vegetables 
and fresh produce used in school meals are produced 
locally, particularly:  lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet 
potatoes and pumpkins.

Approximately 120 farmers are linked through sales to 
the NSMP and there is also linkage to the Antigua and 
Barbuda Poultry Association for the supply of chicken. Six 
processors are also contracted to cut up this chicken for 
ease of use by the NSMP. 

6.6.   School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education 

The MOE has stated its intent to incorporate agricultural 
science into the science curriculum in primary schools 
with a practical, hands-on focus.  It states that this 
initiative is intended to enhance from the early years of 
students, an appreciation of growing one’s own food 
and  providing the knowledge and skills set so to do 
(Government of Antigua and Barbuda, 2017, p. 285).  The 
initiative also forms part of the vision of the country to 
achieve a higher level of food security. Towards this end,  
several primary schools had set up and were improving 
their school gardens (Government of Antigua and 
Barbuda, 2017,  p. 285).  As stated earlier, the Facebook 
page of the NSMP has been used to post educational 
material on food and nutrition.  

6.7.    Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E)

An M&E plan exists for the NSMP, which requires data 
collection, data analysis and the systematic reporting 
of data analyses. Programme indicators have been 
developed and meal guidelines have been drawn up.  
Nutrient analyses are also conducted on the lunches 
served. This M&E system is integrated into a national 
monitoring or information management system.  There 
are also plans to refine and update the NSMP.

Daily, drivers complete a meal service distribution form 
on which is recorded information on the schools served, 
meals delivered and the number of bulk serving utensils 
returned. SMAs also record their daily attendance. Other 
records include:

 y a daily food satisfaction log, which the school 
principal or teachers complete and add 
comments as necessary; and 

 y a menu evaluation form, which may be 
completed by the students, teachers, principal 
etc.

Daily, food temperatures are taken, when the food is 
delivered, and the record is collected at the end of a 
week. Likewise, the inventory control sheet is collected at 
the end of the week, even though the log is done daily. 
This latter document helps to track cutlery and reusable 
serving ware. Some children bring their cutlery from 
home and the NSMP fills the void for those who do not 
bring theirs. There is also a monthly inventory sheet.

The Ministry of Health, Central Board of Health conducts 
training in food safety for persons vending food and 
their assistants, including those in school cafeterias and 
community groups.

6.8.  Annual net benefit analysis of the national 
school meals programme 

The annual net benefit analysis for the NSMP in Antigua 
and Barbuda was carried out for 2016/17. Expenditure 
data were available for 2017/18, but this data may have 
been influenced upward, by disaster relief on account 
of the Hurricane Irma disaster on Barbuda in September 
2017.



27

The contributions of the four benefits of the NSMP are 
presented in percentage form in Table 6.2.  The major 
contributions to total benefits were from increased 
productivity (46.2 percent) followed by healthier and 
longer lives of the beneficiary students (32.6 percent); 
then value transfer (19.0 percent). The contribution 
of return on investment to the total benefits was not 
significant (2.2 percent), when compared to the other 
benefits.

The estimated total operational cost for the NSMP in 
Table 6.1 is XCD 4.3 million. The major components of 
this operational cost are the wages of cooks comprising 
approximately 71 percent of the costs and the purchase 
of food ingredients at approximately 28 percent of the 
total operational cost.

As seen in Table 6.2, the estimated economic costs of the 
programme (programme total cost) based on the figures 
supplied to the Mission were estimated at XCD 4 661,000 
with the major element of programme total costs being 
the total operational costs paid by the MOE, which 
comprise 92.7 percent of the programme total costs.

The programme total costs are XCD 4 661 000  XCD, 
but the programme total benefits of XCD 7 223 289 far 
outweigh these costs with an annual net benefit of  XCD 
2 562 289 and a benefit–cost ratio of 1.55. 

6.9. Overall assessment of the  national school 
meals programme 

Given that the overall benefit–cost ratio of the NSMP 
in Antigua and Barbuda is 1.55, the NSMP is currently 
very beneficial to Antigua and Barbuda and it can be 
justified on purely economic grounds.  Also, the NSMP 
has seen the nutritional benefits of its programme in the 
form of increased school attendance. This programme 
is therefore very socially desirable. Thus, the NSMP in 
Antigua and Barbuda may be a feasible model to adopt.

One factor influencing the high benefit–cost ratio for 
this country is the large number of children covered 

by the NSMP, resulting in the high percentage of the 
primary school population covered by the programme 
(48.3 percent). However, the high benefit–cost ratio was 
obtained inter alia, because of the high minimum wage 
in Antigua and Barbuda (USD 6 317 or XCD 17 055.90 
per annum) which inflated the benefits from “increased 
productivity” and “healthier and longer life”, in particular.

 The NSMP has been able to produce safe and nutritious 
lunches for its target group.  One of the major issues of 
the NSMP however, is its sustainability, in view of the 
high wage rates in the country and the current slow-
down in the global economy affecting tourism the major 
sector of the country.   This situation provides a rationale 
for a consideration of ways to reduce the  costs of the 
NSMP, to increase the likelihood of its sustainability. 
Other issues facing the NSMP are:

 y  The low community involvement in the 
programme; and 

 y The limited utilization of local food from the 
domestic agricultural sector.

6.10.   Specific recommendations  

Improved physical plant at the central kitchen
The general recommendations on procurement and 
monitoring and evaluation provided in Chapter 5 
are particularly relevant to Antigua and Barbuda.  In 
addition, the physical plant at the central kitchen of the 
NSMP has had to meet increased demand for meals in a 
relatively short space of time and is subject to daily wear 
and tear. Therefore, there is the need for the immediate 
upgrade and expansion of the kitchen area. This could 
include an upgrade of the building structure to include 
a proper cooling system. Also, the drainage system in 
the kitchen needs to meet specifications for drain-off 
using either point drainage or linear drainage to facilitate 
easy cleaning and, by extension, kitchen hygiene. On a 
positive note, it was reported that plans are already in 
place for an upgrade of the physical plant.



28

Table 6.1   Operational costs of the NSMP 2016/17

Operational item Cost XCD  %

Purchase of food ingredients 1 200000 27.77%

Wages 3 060 000 70.82%

Purchasing of utensils and equipment 40 000 0.93%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 21 000 0.49%

Total operational cost 4 321 000 100.00%

Table 6.2 :   Determination of the annual net benefit of the NSMP, Antigua and Barbuda 
2016/17

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 4 321 000 92.71%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 340 000 7.29%

Paid to state by parents Min. of Education 0 0.00%

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00%

Programme total costs 4 661 000 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 19.0% 1 372 674

Return on investment 2.2% 158 584

Increased productivity 46.2% 3 338 692

Healthier and longer life 32.6% 2 353 339

Programme total benefits 100.0% 7 223 289

Annual net benefit 2 562 289

Benefit–cost ratio 1.55



29

7.1.  Introduction
The Commonwealth of the Bahamas (Bahamas) is a 
nation comprised of 700 islands and over 2 000 rocks 
and cays (and) it straddles the Tropic of Cancer and 
it stretches 970 km (The Commonwealth, 2020a). 
Tourism contributes approximately 50 percent of GDP 
and employs directly or indirectly about half of the 
country’s labor force. Nassau is the political capital of the 
Bahamas. It is located on the island of New Providence.  
New Providence is 207 sq km in area and is the main 
commercial hub of the country and its hotels and port 
account for more than two-thirds of the four million-
plus tourists who visit the Bahamas annually (The 
Government of the Bahamas, 2011).  Grand Bahama 
Island, the northernmost island of the Bahamas, and the 
closest major island to the United States, is a popular 
vacation destination (Grand Bahama Island, 2020).  

The Bahamas Family of Islands comprise the other major 
populated islands of the archipelago. They comprise: 
The Abacos, Acklins, Andros, The Berry Islands, Bimini, 
Cat Island, Crooked Island and Long Cay, Eleuthera, The 
Exumas, Grand Bahama Island (east and west ends), 
Harbour Island and Spanish Wells, Inagua, Long Island, 
Mayaguana, Ragged Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador. 
They are the less populated of the Bahamian island chain. 

7.2. School feeding in the Bahamas
As seen in Figure 7.1, school feeding in the Bahamas is a 
combination of:

 y a state-sponsored programme officially called 
the "national lunch programme" but it is 
popularly known as the  “national school lunch 
programme” (NSLP);

 y private vendors who are allowed and approved 
or certified to sell lunches at the schools under 
a programme termed the school vendor 
programme (SVP);

 y tuck shops operated by the schools; and
 y parent supplied meals to students.

Most schools operate tuck-shops, generally as a revenue-
generating activity for the schools.  These tuck-shops 
generally sell snacks and juices and there is a general 
agreement that they do not sell hot meals, especially at 
lunchtime.  Tuck-shops are a major revenue source for 
the public schools. They carry the most popular and the 
widest range of snacks and drinks and clearly provide 

a fairly competitive alternative to the vendors in some 
schools. Breakfast may be sold through the tuck-shops. 
Food vending takes place outside of the perimeter of the 
schools in some areas, especially in New Providence, but 
attempts are made to limit this vending because of the 
dubious nutritional value of the foods served.

7.3. The national school lunch programme 

Selection of students

Families with insufficient income to provide their school-
aged children with lunch can access the NSLP.  To be 
eligible, an applicant must be:

 y earning the minimum wage or lower;
 y a Bahamian citizen  or permanent resident;
 y over 18 years of age; and 
 y head of their household.

The application is made to the School Welfare Division 
(SWD) of the Department of Social Services, by visiting 
the SWD or through guidance counselors or social 
workers attached to schools.   A school social worker 
then conducts a home investigation and interviews the 
applicant to assess the applicant's eligibility and make  
a recommendation.  If the application is successful, the 
SWD informs the guidance counselor of the names of the 
children of the applicant to be added to the NSLP. Each 
school semester, the families of children on the NSLP are 
re-assessed, to determine if they are still eligible for the 
NSLP.  Students on the NSLP receive their lunches free of 
charge.

Community participation 

A provision exists for members of the community to refer 
to the SWD, families they consider eligible for the NSLP. 
A few schools also provide breakfast for needy children 
through various types of initiatives of the community in 
which the school finds itself.  There were many reports 
that children not on the NSLP, if they appear deserving 
may actually be provided with lunches free of cost, by 
the schools or the vendors themselves, or by various 
charities, especially in some of the Family Islands. 

Particularly in the smaller family islands, the NSLP 
is considered a valuable source of employment and 
non-payment to caterers or vendors in the programme 
receives wide coverage in the popular media.  

7.  Bahamas



30

Figure 7.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in the Baham
as

M
inistry of Education

School cafeterias

Sm
all com

m
unity 

farm
ers

N
ational School Lunch Program

m
e U

nit

O
utside vendors 
and parents

Schools

Children

Cash

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain

Com
m

unities

Caterers

Island adm
inistrators

Cash

Cash
Cash

Beneficiaries

W
holesalers, groceries 
and superm

arkets

School vendors

G
roceries 

and superm
arkets

M
inistry of Social Services



31

Operations at the school level

The NSLP operates via designated caterers, specially 
certified by the state and paid by the MOE for the meals 
provided.  These caterers mainly prepare the meals in 
specially designed kitchens in the homes of the caterers.  
The caterers then deliver the meals to the schools in 
separate boxes and assist in the distribution of the meals 
to the students in the NSLP as directed by the teaching 
staff of the school.

In addition to these caterers, there are a larger number 
of private vendors, who are also approved or certified to 
sell lunches at the schools under the SVP. These vendors 
serve hot meals such as fried or baked chicken, potato 
chips, pasta, hamburgers and hot dogs, with limited 
use of fresh fruit and vegetables. Students pay between 
BSD 3 and BSD 5 for these lunches. These vendors 
manage their operations in the schools, with guidance 
of the teaching staff of the schools. Many schools have 
constructed special booths for the use of these vendors.

Most of the caterers on the NSLP are also allowed by 
the schools to sell additional lunches to students, to 
supplement their income from the NSLP and so the term 
"vendors" is popularly applied to caterers of the NSLP, as 
well as to the private vendors in the schools. 

Operations at the national level

As stated earlier, the Bahamas is made up of many 
islands and the NSLP caters for the islands and cays 
that have public schools on them. As seen in Table 7.1, 
approximately nine percent  of the students in public 
schools are on the NSLP.  However, the percentage 
of students on the NSLP in the islands with smaller 
populations is much higher than in New Providence and 
Grand Bahama, with larger populations.  As seen in Table 
7.1, approximately 69 percent of the students on the 
NSLP are in New Providence and Grand Bahama. Also, 60 
percent of these students are in primary schools. Table 
7.1 also indicates that the average cost of the NSLP per 
student was BSD 675.

Approximately 80 percent of the students in the public 
schools obtain their meals from the school vendors and 
school tuck shops. School vending is a major private 
food service enterprise on New Providence and on some 
of the Family Islands. Approximately 11 percent of the 
students bring their meals to schools from home or,  in 
some islands, their parents make private arrangements to 
supply their meals to the schools.  

Menus and nutrition

 A publication of the Ministry of Health contains very 
detailed nutritional standards for meal planning that 
are said to be compulsory in all public pre-school, 
kindergarten, primary and secondary schools and that 
apply to all free and paid lunches (Ministry of Health 
The Bahamas, 2011).  The document continues:  “It is 
mandatory that all school lunch vendors and all other 
relevant parties adhere to the standards at all times” 
(Ministry of Health The Bahamas,  2011).  However, it is 
not clear how adherence is being monitored or enforced 
and indeed, under what framework such enforcement 
can take place.

The MOE has also developed a “Healthy schools initiative 
programme for the Commonwealth of the Bahamas”, 
which sets out a detailed programme for “Healthy 
Schools”. The status and reach of this programme was not 
determined in the Mission.

The  “compulsory standards for healthy lunch meals” 
have been adopted in the formulation of “sample menus 
for the NSLP”, which are included in the document 
“National school lunch programme” produced by the 
National School Lunch Unit of the Ministry of Education 
(2016). The listing in this document provides detailed 
suggestions for menus for the 2017/18 school year on a 
4-week cycle.

With respect to “healthy eating”, only very minimal food 
supplies from local agriculture enter into the school 
meals in the Bahamas. Hence with the emphasis on 
imported foods, the “fresh” element is limited in the 
meals of vendors and caterers, especially with respect 
to fruit, vegetables and root crops.    However, there is 
evidence that when certain fruits are in season, they 
may be served as part of fruit cocktails, but again this is 
to a very limited extent.   Vendors and caterers did also 
indicate that the students did not like the local fruits 
because perhaps of their unfamiliarity with them (even 
though these students live on tropical islands). So, the 
main fruits that were served in school meals were apples 
and to a lesser extent grapes and pears, imported from 
the United States. There is thus considerable scope for 
school feeding in the Bahamas to be modified to attain 
healthy eating standards using healthy local foods, given 
the emerging problem of overweight and obesity in the 
Bahamas.



32

7.4. Governance of the national school lunch 
programme

The general governance arrangements of the NSLP 
are illustrated in Figure 7.1.  The human right to food 
is acknowledged by the Ministry of Education (MOE) 
however, there is no legislation governing school feeding 
in the Bahamas. 

In principle, the school vending programme is under 
the general administration of the MOE, through school 
principals and other designated administrators, but 
currently, there is little governance of their operations. 

The NSLP has been managed, funded and coordinated 
by the Ministry of Education, since around 2015.  It was 
formerly funded and managed through the Ministry 
of Social Services. Caterers for the programme are 
contracted and paid by the MOE.

The MOE is in the process of establishing a functional 
NSLP unit as a separate and dedicated unit within the 
MOE, to administer the programme.  At present, the 
administrative functions of the NSLP are being carried 
out through one designated officer in the MOE in 

Nassau, with support from other officers in the MOE in 
Nassau, as well as district education officers in some 
of the more populated Family Islands such as Grand 
Bahama and Exuma.  Island administrators in some of 
the smaller Family Islands also assist in administering the 
programme.  The Ministry of Social Services still handles 
the receipt and the approvals of applications to join the 
NSLP.  

7.5. Procurement  arrangements
The current arrangements for the procurement of food 
raw materials or supplies for the caterers of the NSLP and 
the private vendors appear to be similar as illustrated in 
Figure 7.1. Caterers and vendors obtain their supplies 
from supermarkets in all islands and wholesale food 
distributors in New Providence and Grand Bahama.  In 
the case of the other Family Islands, these supplies 
generally have to be purchased in Nassau and brought 
to the islands on private “mail boats” that service these 
islands.  However, the sailings of these mail boats do 
not follow a fixed schedule, so that there may be delays 
in sailings, leading to shortages of foodstuffs on the 
Family Islands and limiting the ability of the caterers and 
vendors to follow fixed menus.

Table 7.1:   Geographical distribution and cost of national school lunch programme, 2016

Location High school Primary school Total Cost BSD

New Providence 905 1 066 1 971 1 153 277

Abaco 50 71 121  126 540

Andros 246 290 536  399 525

Grand Bahamas 250 738 988  722 025

Cat Island 46 105 151  147 197

Long Island 23 53 76  60 336

MICAL* 54 64 118  87 637

Eleuthera 107 144 251  138 843

Exuma 43 51 94  70 380

Total 1 724 2 582 4 306  2 905 760

Total students in public schools 47 575

% of students on the NSLP 9.05%

Cost / Student BSD 674.87

*Mayaguana, Inagua, Crooked Island, Acklins and Long Cay

Source: Derived from data provided by the Ministry of Education



33

There is only very limited food supply from local farmers 
to the caterers of the NSLP and the school lunch vendors.  
It appears local farmers supply no more than about two 
percent to three percent of the total supply of foodstuffs 
used by the vendors and caterers in the Bahamas. This 
situation has arisen because of the general low level 
of food production in the Bahamas, as well as the high 
prices of the limited domestic food products.  The 
main items obtained from local farmers by the caterers 
and vendors appear to be seasoning herbs, fresh fruit 
(particularly cantaloupes, watermelon and bananas) and 
vegetables.  There is also evidence of local fish and shell 
foods (e.g. conch) being sourced from local fishermen in 
the Family Islands. However, these fish and shell-foods 
are only served in high schools and to a very limited 
extent, because of their high prices.

There was no evidence of school gardens currently 
supplying any foodstuffs for meals served in public 
schools. Where such school gardens (or farms) exist, the 
produce is sold to staff and nearby residents, as a means 
of raising funds for continued operations of the school 
gardens.

7.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education 

Few schools on the islands visited had operational school 
gardens, although most schools (especially high schools) 
have an area dedicated to such activity. 

The major education and training programmes that have 
been conducted in the context of the NSLP has been for 
the lunch vendors in the application of the compulsory 
standards for healthy lunches.  This training has included 
the following areas: 

 y basic nutrition concepts;
 y the food based dietary guidelines;
 y the role of lunch vendors in assuring food 

security in the school setting;
 y the identification of flavours that influence food 

selection;
 y understanding the ingredients and methods to 

develop flavor in nutritional cuisine; and 
 y planning and preparation of healthy menu 

options for school age children (Barnes, 2018).

7.7.     Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

There are compulsory standards for healthy lunch meals 
in Bahamian schools (Ministry of Health The  Bahamas, 
2011).  The adherence by private vendors to these sample 
menus appears to be purely voluntary. School vendors, 
as well as caterers, however, have to meet fairly stringent 
public health certification (Ministry of the Environment 
The Bahamas, undated). The kitchens that are used to 
prepare the meals by the caterers and vendors are also 
inspected by the Public Health Department.

At present the monitoring of the meals of caterers and 
vendors is done by the guidance officer in some schools, 
while in most schools it would appear that this role 
is assigned to a designated teacher.  In other schools 
particularly in the Family Islands, this monitoring role is 
performed by the principal or vice principal. At present, 
the monitoring of the meals of caterers and vendors is 
done by the “guidance officer” in some schools, while in 
most schools it would appear that this role is assigned to 
a designated teacher, while in other schools particularly 
in the Family Islands, the role is performed by the 
principal or vice principal. In the Family Islands, this is 
because perhaps the majority of the children in the 
schools may be on the NSLP.

7.8.    Annual net benefit analysis of the national 
school lunch programme

Annual net benefit analysis was conducted for fiscal 
year 2017/18. The contributions of the four individual 
benefits of the NSLP are presented in percentage form 
in Table 7.2.  Here it is seen that the major contribution 
to total benefits was from value transfers (48.8 percent) 
and increased productivity (28.3 percent). The other 
major contributor to the total benefits was the 
benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (14.6 percent). Return on investment made 
an insignificant contribution to the total benefits (3.3 
percent).

Table 7.2 also indicates that the major cost item in the 
NSLP is the cash paid to the caterers, which constitutes 
the total operational cost, which makes up 97.1 percent 
of the programme total cost.  This figure is slightly more 
than the figure for 2016 in Table 7.1. The administrative 
costs of the NSLP to the Ministry of Education were 



34

Table 7.2:    Determination of the annual net benefit for the national school lunch 
programme

Programme element Element manager BSD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 3 100 000 97.09%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 93 000 2.91%

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00%

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00%

Programme Total Cost 3 193 000 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits 

Value transfer 48.8% 2 361 544

Return on investment 3.2% 156 827

Increased productivity 28.3% 1 371 383

Healthier and longer life 19.6% 950 823

Programme total benefit 100.0% 4 840 577

Annual net benefit 1 647 577

Benefit–cost ratio 1.52

estimated at 2.91 percent of the programme total cost.  
Unaccounted for are the indirect cost to the NSLP of the 
administrative cost of the Ministry of Social Services. 
The annual net benefit of the NSLP was estimated at 
approximately BSD 1.65 million and the benefit–cost 
ratio was 1.52. 

7.9.   Overall assessment of the national school 
lunch programme 

The annual net benefit analysis carried out has 
demonstrated that the NSLP can justify its existence from 
a social welfare perspective with an annual net benefit of  
approximately BSD 1.65 million and a benefit–cost ratio 
of 1.52. 

The major issue facing the NSLP is its sustainability. 
Any reductions in the budgetary allocations to this 
programme would jeopardize the viability of those 
caterers who produce meals only for the programme, as 
the number of meals produced by individual caterers on 
some islands is already very small. Low meal production 
results in low total earnings of the caterers. There is 
also the need for the NSLP to increase its contribution 
to general economic and specifically agricultural 
development, which will increase the social desirability 
of the NSLP.

The general recommendations for the SFPs from this 
study in Chapters 4 and 5 are very much applicable to 
the Bahamas. In addition, however, there are specific 
recommendations for improved operations of school 
feeding in the Bahamas. These are presented next.

7.10. Specific recommendations

Better monitoring of the meals served by caterers and 
vendors 

A programme should be implemented to test the 
nutritional content of meals and snacks served in schools 
in the Bahamas, to determine the extent to which these 
meals and snacks meet the nutritional requirements 
of the students and the extent to which these meals 
and snacks contribute to overweight and obesity in 
the students.  Thereafter, a system of monitoring of 
the nutritional quality of meals and snacks served at 
Bahamian schools should be devised.  Caterers and 
vendors must become aware, through clear directives, 
of their responsibility to adhere to “healthy eating” 
guidelines and approved sample meal menus and in 
particular that they must exclude specifically designated 
“forbidden foods” from their meals. Such “forbidden 
foods” should be designated by the National School 



35

Feeding Unit of the MOE and must include foods high 
in sugar content, especially sugar sweetened beverages 
(SSBs) and ultra-processed foods. 

Implementation of a simplified school feeding system

The SVP is the mainstay of school feeding in the 
Bahamas, especially in the more populated islands 
of New Providence and Grand Bahama. As such, this 
programme should receive the care and attention 
that it deserves from the Ministry of Education and 
improvements to its operations should be a key objective 
of the proposed National School Feeding Unit of the 
Ministry of Education.

The major advantage of the SVP is its sustainability. This 
programme consists of private sector business operators, 
who must conduct their business with a level of 
efficiency to achieve profitable operations, without any 
direct support from the state. The vendors have shown 
their business acumen by: 

 y the profitability of their operations; 
 y their ability to stay in business;
 y providing meals (lunches mainly) at affordable 

prices to students (at or less than BSD 5 per 
meal); and 

 y sustaining a demand for their services.

However, the vendors must be closely monitored to 
ensure that they adhere to healthy eating guidelines. 
Also, the SVP must be more closely linked to agricultural 
development in the Bahamas. More local food products 
(especially fresh fruit and vegetables and root crops) in 
the SVP will not only ensure more healthy meals being 
prepared, but also create greater linkages with local 
farmers and food vendors and so stimulate agricultural 
development at the community and island levels.

Thus, the removal of the distinction between vendors 
and caterers is being recommended with the simplified 
school feeding system based on vendors because of 
their:

 y private sector business orientation;
 y more sustainable operations; and
 y more efficient and cost-effective production 

systems. 

The recommended school feeding system is an 
organizational framework that will:

 y promote monitoring and evaluation and 
emphasize feedback mechanisms;

 y prescribe clear, legal definitions of roles and 
responsibilities of its agencies; and

 y provide legislative or legal status for its 
operations, standards  and its goals through for 
example, a “school feeding act”;

 y allow the standards and procedures of the 
proposed National School Feeding Unit to be 
enforceable as “compulsory” standards; and

 y that would allow:
 continuous flow of information and services;
 adequate M&E and feedback mechanisms.

Other features of this simplified system should include:

 y All vendors must meet the strictest public 
health, food safety and nutrition standards.

 y The NSLP should be based on the issuance of 
vouchers to students, who can use them to 
purchase meals from any vendor in a school.

Establishment of Agricultural Science and 4-H programmes 
at all relevant levels of the school system

Agricultural Science programmes, as well as the 4-H 
programme in schools in the Bahamas, could serve to 
promote agricultural production in the Bahamas by:

 y being a vehicle for nutrition education, 
especially “a healthy eating initiative ”;

 y promoting early exposure of students to food 
production, especially small-scale farming; and

 y fostering the greater use of healthy foods, 
especially fresh fruit and vegetables and root 
crops in diets.



36

8.1.     Introduction
Barbados is the most easterly of the Caribbean islands.  
Bridgetown is the capital and the only seaport. Other 
small towns include Speightstown (2 400), Bathsheba 
(1 600), Holetown (1 500) and Oistins (1 500). There is 
an extensive spread of hotels and apartments along the 
coast. The country has a good road network of 1 600 
km (virtually all paved) over the entire island. As noted 
in Chapter 1, Barbados enjoys one of the highest per 
capita incomes in CARICOM.  Historically, the Barbadian 
economy depended on the sugar industry, but the 
economy has been driven by the tourism sector in recent 
years. 

8.2.     School feeding in Barbados
Figure 8.1 shows the structure of school feeding in 
Barbados. The SFP in Barbados is called the School 
Meals Programme (SMP) and it is run by a department 
of the Ministry of Education, Technological and Vocation 
Training (MOE), the School Meals Department (SMD).  
Most schools also have cafeterias, where students 
can purchase snacks.   In addition, there are road-side 
vendors, who are not under the control of the Ministry 
and who offer a wide range of snacks and other similar 
foods. Parents may provide home-cooked meals for 
those students, who do not consume the meals prepared 
by the SMD.

8.3.     The school meals programme

Overview

According to Husbands (2013), in March 1963, a pilot 
school feeding scheme was put into operation, under the 
administration of the MOE. It started with three kitchens 
providing meals for six schools in three parishes and it 
prepared and delivered approximately 1 600 meals each 
day.  This pilot programme gradually expanded into the 
current SMP (Husbands, 2013).

Selection of students for the school meals programme 

According to the Ministry of Education, Technology and 
Vocational Training (2015), the schools participating in 
the SMP include government primary schools “… as well 
as the lone senior school and private institutions such 
as the Learning Centre, the Challenor School and the St. 
Patrick’s Roman Catholic School”.  Lunches are also served 
to selected students at some secondary schools. The 
specific target school populations of the programme are 

8.   Barbados
the early childhood (nursery) centers and public primary 
schools. Students who attend private primary schools 
are not part of the programme, except where specific 
arrangements are made.

Community participation

Being based on the CSF model, there is limited scope 
for community participation in the SMP. Community 
members find employment in the SMP as cooks in the 
four central kitchens and also as food servers in the 
schools.

Operations at the school level

The meals are distributed in insulated bulk containers 
to the various schools by geographic districts. Food 
servers employed by the SMD, serve the meals; they 
are assigned in the ratio: one server per 100 students. 
The portions are served with standardized serving 
equipment (for example ladles and spoons). Children in 
the nursery and infant departments receive their meals 
on compartmentalized portioned serving trays. The 
meals for children seven years old and over are plated 
then placed on serving trays. This variation from food 
boxes has been adopted so that the children can develop 
food etiquette.

Upon completion of the meal service, drivers who 
would have distributed the lunches, return to collect 
the insulated containers, as well as the meal request 
quotations for the following day. The school principals 
calculate meal quotations based on historical data and 
the menu to be served on the following day. Secondary 
school children do not receive milk. The SMD does not 
deliver milk to schools. Suppliers deliver the powered 
milk directly to the nurseries and special schools and 
the pasteurized milk is delivered directly to the primary 
schools on Tuesdays.

Some schools are now engaged in fundraising activities 
to meet shortfalls in state funding, by selling food items.  
These sales may compete with the SMP offerings, as 
the two meal options are made available at lunch time. 
For example, pizza is not a menu item from the SMP, 
therefore, if pizza is sold as a fund-raising venture, the 
children who can afford it will buy this ‘novel’ food item 
and may not consume the lunch from the SMP, which 
may result in food wastage.

Each student voluntarily contributes BBD 1.00 per week 
towards the meal from the SMP and teachers can access 
these meals at a cost of BBD 8.00 per week.  Food servers 
are also entitled to meals. A child is not denied a meal if 



37

Fi
gu

re
 8

.1
: O

pe
ra

ti
ng

 m
od

el
 o

f s
ch

oo
l f

ee
di

ng
 in

 B
ar

ba
do

s

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n

Ve
nd

or
s

Sc
ho

ol
 s

er
ve

rs

M
ilk

 a
nd

 o
th

er
 lo

ca
l  

pr
oc

es
so

rs

Sc
ho

ol
 M

ea
ls

 D
ep

ar
tm

en
t

Sc
ho

ol
s

Pa
re

nt
s

Ch
ild

re
n

Ca
fe

te
ri

as

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

W
ho

le
sa

le
rs

, g
ro

ce
ri

es
 

an
d 

su
pe

rm
ar

ke
ts



38

he or she is unable to pay for it. Students have the option 
to pay for their meals monthly or weekly, but the majority 
of students pay weekly. The SMD gives each student a 
card on which payments are recorded. The food servers 
collect the money, record receipt on the students’ cards, 
and deposit the sums of money with the principal of the 
school.  Accounts officers from the SMD settle accounts 
with principals and the funds are then deposited to the 
Treasury and placed in a consolidated fund.

Operations at the national level

The SMP utilizes a centralized foodservice system.  There 
are four MPCs or sites for food preparation and delivery 
based on geographic zones. Two kitchens are in St 
Michael parish (Harbour Road and Country Road), one 
in St James (Lancaster Road) and one in Christ Church 
(St Christopher’s Road).   The SMD provides a mid-
morning item and a lunch meal.  Daily, 26 300 lunches 
are prepared from Monday to Friday and delivered to 
students, and this is 85 percent of the total number of 
early childhood, primary and special education students. 
A small percentage of secondary school students also 
participate in the programme, but detailed numbers 
were not available.

The approximate production of meals at each MPC is 
given in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1:  Approximate meal production per day of 
the school meals department, Barbados

Meal production 
centre

Quantity of meals 
produced per day

Harbour Road 7 400

Country Road 6 900

Lancaster Road 5 500

St. Christopher’s Road 6 500

Total 26 300

Menus and nutrition

The school meals officers of the SMD engage in menu 
planning, quality and food inspection, provide on-the-
job training and supervise school meals operations at 
schools.  The broad- based principles that are used to 
develop menu options include:

 y Menus should be balanced and include fruit and 
vegetable options for micronutrients.

 y Nutritional content of the meals should be in 
line with the national nutritional guidelines, so 
that some nutritional targets are being met.

The SMP indicated that the following benefits have been 
observed from the programme:

 y improvement in school enrollment, particularly 
in resource- limited families and communities; 
and 

 y social skills and interactions of students have 
improved, including etiquette.

The SMP provides milk as a mid-morning break item in 
two forms:

 y pasteurized milk for older children 170 g (6 
ounces); and 

 y powdered and pre-packaged dry milk (usually 
soy-based) for nurseries and early childhood 
education aged children 118 ml (4 ounces). 

Sometimes children may ask for another serving.

The lunch meal follows a five-week menu cycle and 
consists of one serving from the food groups:  food from 
animals; staples; vegetables (dark green leafy or Yellow, 
colorful) and fruits. The lunch menu was designed with 
input from nutritionists from the nutrition center, with 
serving sizes meeting the provision of one-third of the 
child’s recommended daily allowances (RDA). The food 
groups are supplied as follows: 

 y staples 170 g (6 ounces);

 y vegetables 170 g (6 ounces);

 y one piece of fruit (double portion for secondary 
school children); and 

 y 12.4 g of protein obtained from food from 
animals or legumes. For example, 57 g to 85  g 
(2 ounces to 3 ounces) is the recommended 
serving size for poultry, meat or fish.

Notably, the children have specific lunch preferences. 
There is high acceptance for burgers and mixed one-
pot lunches such as rice and peas or pelau. In contrast, 
vegetables served as single menu items, for example, 
carrots, salad greens or beets have low acceptance, but 
acceptance improves, when vegetables are incorporated 
into cooked meals e.g. chicken pelau. 



39

8.4. Governance of the school meals programme
The governance arrangements for the SMD are also 
illustrated in Figure 8.1. All planning, funding and the 
budget for the programme comes from the Government, 
through the MOE to the SMD. No private-public 
partnerships or charitable donations contribute to 
the programme. Children pay BBD 1.00 per week and 
teachers pay BBD 8.00 per week for meals. 

In Barbados, the current poverty reduction strategy in 
effect is the one funded by the World Bank which has 
been designed to ensure that children from resource-
poor backgrounds are supplied with appropriate 
nutrition. However, there is no specific target or 
milestone with respect to the poverty reduction strategy. 
School feeding while not specifically part of that funded 
project, has been identified as an ongoing strategy to 
support the elimination of child hunger. Barbados has a 
food and nutrition security action plan to implement its 
food and nutrition security policy.

The main ministries directly involved in school feeding 
are the MOE and the Ministry of Health and Wellness 
(MOH). The MOH focuses on food safety practices and 
procedures. Although the SMD employs food safety 
officers, the MOH also assigns health inspectors to the 
SMP. These inspectors:

 y check kitchens to ensure adherence to HACCP 
principles from receipt of goods to meal 
distribution and service;

 y collect and conduct random sampling of meals 
to determine acceptable microbial counts;

 y perform temperature testing; and
 y monitor overall food safety throughout the 

foodservice system.

The SMD does all the coordination and implementation 
of the SMP. This department also manages staff training 
as well as recruitment. The department has 560 full-
time employees, who are employed in the areas of 
management and administration, meal preparation and 
delivery, procurement of food ingredients and meal 
transportation. The SMD is headed by a manager whose 
duties and responsibilities were recently spelled out in 
an advertisement for the post (Ministry of Education, 
Science, Technology and Innovation, 2017).

8.5.     Procurement  arrangements
The food procurement arrangements for the SMP are 
also illustrated in Figure 8.1. Food commodities for the 

SMP for an academic year are procured by public tender 
through the MOE (Barbados Government Information 
Service, 2019).  Tenderers have to meet several conditions 
which tend to favor commercial firms as opposed to 
community or small scale enterprises.  These conditions 
include the following:

 y The tenderer must include with the tenders 
the company’s or institution’s articles of 
incorporation indicated that it is an existing 
registered company or statutory body.

 y Tenderers whose businesses or undertakings are 
required to be licensed under the health services 
(food hygiene) regulations must submit a copy 
of the relevant, valid license with their tenders.

 y The successful tenderer(s) will be required to 
enter into a contract drawn up by or in a form 
approved by the Solicitor General. 

 y A surety for the due performance of the 
contract will be required (Barbados Government 
Information Service, 2019).

There is collaboration between the SMP and the Ministry 
of Agriculture (MOA) with regards to the challenge of 
local procurement of fruit and vegetable items for the 
SMP. This challenge exists for a number of reasons. Firstly, 
there is not a structured programme or arrangement in 
place to mandate direct linkages between the SMP and 
farmers. Similarly, there is no inter-sectoral committee 
to spearhead the required collaboration and hence the 
linkages between the SFP and local food and agriculture 
are weak.

Officials of the MOA pointed out factors that limit the 
participation of local agriculture in the SMP, including the 
following:

 y Local farmers cannot compete with the lower 
cost of imported goods and the Barbadian tastes 
for these products.

 y The students in the SMP have not been 
amenable to new local products such as cassava 
blended products (e.g. cassava bread) which 
have been positively taste tested.

 y The SMP tends to request produce from farmers 
only when they are in crisis and unable to obtain 
their supply from imported sources. 

 y There seems to be an underlying cultural 
issue, almost a snob effect against the use of 
local products; a misconception that imported 
products are better and locally grown food are 
for “poor” people.



40

However, sales of milk to the SMP is a vital support to the 
dairy industry  in Barbados (Carter, 2013).

8.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education 

School meal officers of the SMP instruct children and 
parents through the PTA, about healthy eating and snack 
options. The SMP has also provided opportunities for 
etiquette training of children.

Areas of land dedicated to school gardens are a feature of 
most primary schools in Barbados, although the gardens 
are not  being operated in most schools.  Several projects 
have been initiated to promote the development of 
these school gardens. In 2013, “Slow Food” identified 
educational gardens and working with youth as a key 
to developing “good, clean and fair food systems” (Slow 
Food Barbados, 2020). The goal of the programme is to 
support schools and community volunteers to become 
more effective in creating and sustaining school gardens 
in their community (Slow Food Barbados, 2020).

This programme has grown to include 17 schools and 
institutions involving students ranging in age from 
three to 18 years (Slow Food Barbados, 2020).  This 
programme has also served to integrate school garden 
activities into the overall school curriculum, as well as 
to encourage school canteens to create menu options, 
to utilize produce from the school gardens.  Hotels and 
other institutions on the island have also initiated similar 
projects.

8.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation 

The operations of the SMD are guided by a policies 
and procedures manual, which includes an in-house 
monitoring and evaluation system. This includes progress 
reports and monitoring forms: (lunch order, meal census 
data, food wastage, stock tracking systems and log of 
drivers). 

The school meal officers monitor:

 y the standards for meals;

 y the level of consumption of local produce;

 y preparation methods; and 

 y portion sizes. 

The officers also monitor the operations and the quality 
of food offerings of school cafeterias and outside 

vendors. Some principals also monitor what is sold at the 
gates/fences by the outside vendors. Their reports are 
forwarded to the MOE for its response.

8.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
meals programme 

Data on the costs of operations of the SMD were 
made available to the study for 2017. In addition to 
the standard annual net benefit analysis, a simulation 
exercise was carried out to determine the effect of 
variations in the number of students receiving meals 
in the SMP. The initial position represented in Table 8.3 
assumes the number of students is 20 148, and this 
number is varied in the simulation analysis.

The results of the initial annual net benefit analysis are 
presented in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3. The contributions 
of the four individual sources of benefits of the SMP 
are presented in percentage form in Table 8.3. Here it is 
seen that the major contribution to programme total 
benefits was from increased productivity (42.7 percent). 
The other major contributor to the programme total 
benefits was the benefit from healthier and longer 
lives of the beneficiary students (29.4 percent).   Value 
transfer contributed 25.6 percent of the programme 
total benefits, while return on investment made an 
insignificant contribution of 2.4 percent.

Table 8.3 also contains the programme total costs of the 
SMP. The major cost item is the total operational cost, 
which accounts for approximately 98 percent of the costs 
of the SMP. Details of these operational costs are given in 
Table 8.2. Here it is seen that the wages including those 
for the cooks in the central kitchens account for about 
64 percent of the total operational cost. The other major 
operational cost is the cost of food ingredients which 
accounts for 33 percent of the total operational cost. The 
administrative costs of the programme to the Ministry 
of Education amounted to less than 1 percent of the 
programme total costs.

In Table 8.3, the annual net benefit of the SMP was 
estimated at BBD 7 289 671 and the benefit–cost ratio at 
1.37. 

A simulation exercise was carried out to determine the 
effect of the number of students receiving meals under 
the SMP and the benefit–cost ratio of the programme.  
This exercise was carried out to determine how much 
the social desirability of the SMP is influenced by the size 
of the programme. This simulation exercise was carried 
out by keeping all aspects of the cost of the programme 



41

Table 8.2:  Operational costs of the school meals programme

Operational item Cost BBD %

Food ingredients 6 411 210 33.12%

Wages 12 374 658 63.93%

Food transportation 132 876 0.69%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of 
equipment

408 746 2.11%

Eating and cooking utensils 30 000 0.15%

Total operational cost 19 357 489 100.00%

Table 8.3:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school meals programme 

Programme element Element manager  BBD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 19 357 489 97.83%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 88 300 0.45%

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00%

Paid to school by  parents Schools 320 000 1.62%

Programme total cost 19 765 789 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 25.6% 6 919 397 

Return on investment 2.4% 644 142 

Increased productivity 42.7% 11 546 379 

Healthier and longer Life 29.4% 7 945 542 

Programme total benefit 100.0% 27 055 460 

Annual net benefit  7 289 671

Benefit–cost ratio 1.37

constant, as in Table 8.2 and varying the number of 
students in the programme, as shown in Table 8.4. These 
variations alter the benefits of the SMP and the results 
of this simulation exercise in terms of the corresponding 
values of the benefit–cost ratio are also given in Table 8.4.

In Table 8.4, it is seen that as expected, ceteris paribus, 
the larger the number of students obtaining meals in 

the SMP, the greater will be social desirability of the 
programme, as given by the benefit–cost ratio. When 
the number of students is set at 20 418 as in Table 8.3, 
the benefit–cost  ratio is 1.37, but when the number of 
students is set at 26 300 which is the reported number 
of meals prepared at the four production centers of the 
SMD, then the benefit–cost ratio rises to a very high 
figure of 1.66.



42

Table 8.4:  Simulation of benefit–cost ratio of the 
school meals programme by number of students in 

the programme

Number of students in the 
SMP

Benefit–cost ratio

20 418 1.37

22 000 1.45

24 000 1.55

25 200 1.61

26 300 1.66

8.9.     Overall assessment of  the school meals 
programme of Barbados

The annual net benefit analysis carried out has 
demonstrated that the SMP can justify its existence 
from a social welfare perspective, with a benefit–cost 
ratio approaching 1.66 if all the meals produced at the 
production centers are actually eaten only by students.  
This means that the SMP of Barbados is one of the most 
socially desirable and successful SFPs in CARICOM. The 
annual net benefit analysis thus supports the continued 
operation of the SMP in Barbados. In addition, the lunch 
menu seems to meet the objectives of the nutrition 
guidelines for Barbados.

However clear challenges exist for the school feeding 
system in Barbados that were identified from this study. 
These are now detailed as follows:

 y The first challenge is that the SMP could increase 
its contribution to the reduction of overweight 
and obesity by the greater promotion of healthy 
eating lifestyles in Barbados.

 y The second challenge is the sustainability of the 
SMP in view of its high costs and the demands 
that are being placed on the public purse of 
Barbados. 

 y The third challenge is the limited linkages 
between the SMP with the islands food and food 

processing stakeholders and the lack of targets 
for local content of meals.

 y Another issue is that there are no major 
community participation or outreach aspects 
of the SMP, apart from invitations to the SMP to 
discuss nutrition at schools or PTA meetings.

 y Finally, there is no clearly defined role or policy 
with respect to in-school vendors or out of 
school vendors. Schools have cafeterias and 
many vendors set up stalls outside of school 
compounds.  It would appear that principals and 
PTAs attempt to manage these vendors on an 
individual school basis.

8.10. Specific recommendation 

More efficient meal production with enhanced local food 
input

In line with other SFPs in the CARICOM states, there is 
need for closer linkages between the SMP in Barbados 
and the local agricultural sector.  A realistic target 
of the local content in the meals of the SMP needs 
to be established and pursued with urgency. Meals 
incorporating local produce should be developed and 
farmers should be provided with incentives and the 
institutional support to be able to tender and supply the 
SMP with  produce of acceptable quality.  

There is also the need to improve the meal production 
system for the SMP by taking the following measures: 

 y A needs assessment should be conducted 
to determine the capacity of the existing 
equipment of the SMD, so as to either refurbish 
existing equipment and or purchase new 
equipment to meet the production demands.

 y Cooks, food preparation and other food 
production workers should receive additional 
training in the maintenance of the new 
equipment.

 y There should be continuous training for food 
preparation workers in food quality and safety, 
particularly the potential risks in a SFP using the 
CSF model. 



43

9.1.    Introduction
Belize is a democratic, upper middle-income country 
located on the Caribbean coast of Central America, 
with close cultural and other ties to Central America                                       
(European Commission, 2020).  After its original capital, 
Belize City was ravaged by a hurricane in 1961, a new 
capital, Belmopan, was built inland, about 80 km west of 
Belize City.  Belize City, however, remains the country’s 
commercial and cultural center, as well as its most 
populous town. The other main towns in the country 
are: San Ignacio (20 027), San Pedro (15,484), Orange 
Walk  (13 692), Corozal (11 427), Dangriga (10,002), 
Benque Viejo (6 497) and Punta Gorda (5 795) (The 
Commonwealth, 2020).

9.2.    School feeding in Belize
Overview

The non-governmental organization (NGO) CARE 
(Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere) attempted 
school feeding in Belize in the early 1970s (Paris-Lambert, 
2003). CARE provided primary schools in Belize with 
powdered milk, enriched white flour, and cooking oil, 
to address the problems of poor nutrition and promote 
healthy standards of living. “However, the overall 
effectiveness of the programme as well as the ultimate 
intentions of CARE were ambiguous” (Paris-Lambert, 
2003).

CARE later teamed up with the Ministry of Education 
to develop the Relevant Education on Agriculture and 
Production Programme (REAP).   Established in several 
rural schools in Belize, REAP provided students with the 
opportunity to learn about “animals, plants, weather, 
village studies, soils, health, and nutrition” (Paris-Lambert, 
2003). Schools often used the fruits and vegetables 
produced from REAP as a type of feeding programme.  
REAP was eventually phased out, however, due to the 
cost concerns surrounding the programme (Paris- 
Lambert, 2003).

School feeding on a sustained basis was started in Belize 
in the 1990s by Father (now Canon) Leroy Flowers at 
St. Mary’s Anglican Primary School in Belize City, who 
recognized the need for a healthy midday meal to 
improve the energy levels of the young students (Paris-
Lambert 2003). Eventually, the Ministry of Education 
(MOE) through SHAPES (School Health and Physical 
Education Services) helped set up the state-sponsored 
School Feeding Programme (SFP) (Paris-Lambert, 2003).

The Toledo District has been the most underdeveloped 
and rural of the districts in Belize, due partly to the 
“relative geographic isolation and inaccessibility of 
southern Belize to the rest of the country and its 
economic centers” (Paris-Lambert, 2003). This district’s 
underdevelopment has meant that it has had the highest 
rate of poverty and nutritional deficiencies among all the 
districts of Belize (Paris-Lambert, 2003). 

 The Toledo district has therefore been the target for SFPs 
to solve the problems of malnutrition, by the provision 
of healthy meal alternatives to traditional diets. Initially, 
the SHAPES feeding programme began in nine schools 
(Paris- Lambert, 2003).

The Toledo SFP of Plenty Belize was launched in 1998. 
Then in October 2001, Hurricane Iris caused severe 
damage to homes, crops (especially perennial food 
crops) and forest trees in the Toledo district.  According 
to Paris-Lambert (2003), “Plenty International seized 
the opportunity to replenish the local food source by 
initiating school-based gardens in order to offer longer-
term relief after the foreign disaster aid ran out”. Further 
collaboration between Plenty Belize and the PTAs of 
the participating schools led to the GATE Project. A key 
project strategy was to create organic school gardens 
that could be replicated by both village residents 
and other interested communities, demonstrating 
the methods and benefits of organic gardening and 
sustainable agriculture and their relationship to a healthy 
biosphere.”   (Plenty Belize, 2008)

The GATE Programme initially focused on communities 
where the school ran a voluntary lunch programme, in 
order to provide fresh produce to the schools. The vast 
majority of food from the school gardens of participating 
schools was used to help feed the school children (Plenty 
International, 2016). By the 2004/05 school year, 13 
primary schools and the district’s secondary school were 
participating in the GATE project (Toledo Ecotourism 
Association, 2008).

As seen in Figure 9.1, currently, school feeding in Belize is 
a combination of:

 y a state-sponsored SFP;

 y other state-supported programmes;

 y several community-based programmes 
operated by churches, clubs, NGOs etc.;

 y privately operated school meals programmes; 

9.   Belize



44

M
inistry of Education

M
inistry of H

um
an D

evelopm
ent

School feeding program

Sm
all farm

ers

Parents
Schools

G
roceries and superm

arkets

Vendors

Children

Cafeterias

Caterers

School principals and teachers

Com
m

unity-based program
m

es: 
N

G
O

s, churches, private individ-
uals etc.

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain Cash

Cash

Cash
Cash

Beneficiaries

Figure 9.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in Belize 



45

 y tuck-shops or cafeterias operated by the schools; 
and

 y parent supplied meals to students.

Several private individuals and organizations provide 
meals for school children in Belize. These operations 
vary in their structure and functioning.  One such 
private programme is Dara’s feeding programme.  In 
this programme, about 170 lunches are prepared by 
this private meal provider and served to students at his 
premises in Belize City.  The funds for this programme are 
obtained from concerts and other fund-raising efforts by 
the meal provider.

Edgell (2016) suggests that other private providers of 
meals may include:

 y “Social security board ride across Belize” 
(financed by fundraising);

 y “Together we can solve hunger”;

 y Cornerstone foundation feeding programme; 
and

 y the Belmopan police feeding programme.

Some schools operate cafeterias, cantinas or tuck-
shops, which generally sell snacks and juices etc. as 
revenue-generating activities for the schools. Because 
of this revenue generation, they carry the widest range 
of snacks and drinks, which may not always be the 
healthiest foods.

Where no organized school feeding is available, parents 
may provide meals for their children, who take these 
meals to the schools and consume them there.  Meals 
provided by parents are an important component of the 
school feeding in Belize.

9.3.  The School feeding programme 

Overview

Currently, the state sponsored SFP is concentrated in four 
areas and in 25 schools as indicated in Table 9.1.  Here it 
is seen that most of the students in the SFP are in Belize 
City and the Belize River Valley, with the remainder in 
the town of Dangriga in the Stann Creek District. The SFP 
operates for approximately 184 days per school year.

Selection of students for the school feeding programme

Children are selected for the SFP in two basic ways:

 y The Ministry of Human Development, Social 
Transformation and Poverty Alleviation submits 
a list of families on the BOOST social assistance 
programme. The BOOST programme targets 
poor families with children and it is designed 
to break the cycle of poverty that these families 
are caught in. All children from families on 
the BOOST list qualify to receive meals under 
the SFP.  It was reported in the Mission that 
the assessment of families for participation 
in BOOST has not been completed, so many 
other students may indeed be qualified for 
participation in the SFP.

 y Students are identified by the school principals 
as being in need and on that basis, they are 
selected for the SFP.

Community participation

The limited coverage of the state-sponsored SFP has led 
to a number of community based “feeding programmes” 

Table 9.1:   Spatial distribution of the school feeding programme in Belize

Area No. of schools No. of students % of students

Belize City 15 725 63.2%

Dangriga (Stann Creek District) 6 200 17.4%

Belize River Valley 4 222 19.4%

Total 25 1 147 100.0%



46

in Belize.  Many of these are run by service groups such 
as the Rotary Club and the Red Cross. For example, 
according to the Rotary Club of Belize (2008), the Club 
funds the feeding of students at Ebenezer Methodist 
Primary School and the St. Joseph Primary School in 
Belize City. The funds for this feeding are raised locally 
and also assistance to help fund this project is obtained 
from the Rotary Club of Dunedin and the Interact club of 
Athabasca, Canada.

Many churches also participate in school feeding in 
Belize. The case of St. Mary’s Primary School in Belize 
City has already been noted. A recent description of this 
school feeding states: 

St. Mary’s feeding programme benefitted from 
a very generous donation from Belize Electricity 
Limited, part of its ongoing outreach and support 
initiative. The feeding programme is generally 
funded through monies generated from the 
Church and through generous members and 
friends at home and abroad… with more than 
one hundred children fed daily. 
(Channel5Belize.com, 2015).

The case of Ebenezer Methodist Primary School has also 
been reported upon as follows: 

“The Ebenezer Methodist Primary School’s 
feeding programme has been running for the 
past 15 years. During that time, it has provided 
nutritious meals for its needy students and 
ensuring that no child fails to reach their 
maximum academic potential due to hunger.”    
(Breaking Belize News, 2015). 

The article continues:

“The feeding programme was born from the 
concept that a hungry child cannot learn and 
has been receiving financial aid from the Rotary 
Club to keep it afloat but recently, managers 
of this programme have had to search for 
additional donors to keep the programme 
running properly. Fortunately for the Ebenezer 
feeding programme and the 75 students that 
are currently benefiting from it, Speednet 
Communications stepped up to the plate.”   
(Breaking Belize News, 2015).

The article concludes: 

“Coordinators of the feeding programme said 
that they have seen academic improvement in 

the students that benefit from the programme, 
proving that children cannot focus and excel in 
school if they are not eating properly.”  (Breaking 
Belize News, 2015).

Another example of a community based SFP is in a 
rural Anglican school, St. Matthew’s. This school has a 
feeding programme, which is aided by Anglican friends 
in the UK.  Since the feeding programme started, it is 
reported that the school’s academic performance has 
steadily improved, and St. Matthew’s is now the school of 
preference for most parents in the area.

Operations at the school level

School principals are responsible for the administration 
of the SFP in their schools and they may also request 
assistance from their teaching staff. One of their main 
functions is to coordinate the delivery of meals by 
caterers and the return of the equipment of the caterers.  
In schools where cooking takes place, the school 
principals are also responsible for general operations in 
the preparation of the meals.

Operations at the national level 

The meals are prepared by contracted caterers, on-
site at the schools or off-site at approved premises. 
The contracts specify the terms and conditions of 
the caterers, including a cost-sharing arrangement 
with the administration of the SFP, with respect to the 
replacement of appliances. Caterers are paid monthly, 
based on the number of meals they have delivered. 

Recently, a new SFP was initiated in the Toledo district 
through the “Mesoamerica Hunger Free” (also referred 
to “Mesoamerica Without Hunger”) programme.  
This programme has received aid from the Mexican 
Government through the Mexican International 
Development Cooperation Agency (AMEXCID) and 
technical support from the FAO, and Belize has recently 
joined the programme. (Nunez, 2016).

In April 2016, this new SFP was launched in four Roman 
Catholic schools namely: San Francisco de Jeronimo, 
Santa Elena, Santa Cruz, and San Luis, following the 
model of a sustainable school feeding programme 
(Moody, 2017). Thus, the SFP incorporates school gardens 
and nutrition education as a way to promote lifelong 
healthy eating habits for the school children and by 
extension their families.  It also focuses on the utilization 
of local products, especially from family farms. Through 



47

this initiative, the consumption of fresh local and healthy 
foods should be promoted and local production and 
local job creation should be boosted (Government of 
Belize Press Office, 2016).

Menus and nutrition

The MOE has developed a detailed programme of 
suggested  menus on a 2-week cycle.  Caterers claimed 
to follow this menu plan and it was also reported to have 
been followed in the Toledo pilot project.  

9.4. Governance  of the school feeding 
programme

The general governance arrangements for the state-
sponsored SFP in Belize are illustrated in Figure 9.1. 
The SFP is administered by the MOE, directly under the 
office of the chief education officer. There is a functional 
SFP unit with two staff consisting of the director of 
education support services in her role as director of 
school feeding and a food and nutrition coordinator. 
As stated earlier, the Ministry of Human Development 
Social Transformation and Poverty Alleviation provides 
the names of families on the BOOST social assistance 
programme, whose children qualify for the SFP.

The Toledo SFP is administered by a committee, the 
Toledo Association for School Feeding Programmes 
made up of representatives of all the schools (teachers or 
principals) supporting an elected executive committee.  
This committee has assisted Plenty Belize in the 
planning, monitoring, and implementation of the GATE 
Programme. This voluntary committee is assisted by 
the district education manager on behalf of the MOE. 
Also, a representative of Plenty Belize sits as an ex-officio 
member of the committee. In addition to the committee, 
each school has a team which implements the feeding 
programme for that school.  This team may consist 
of several supportive parents and in many cases an 
additional supervising teacher.

The Ministry of Agriculture coordinates the National 
Food and Nutrition Security Commission, whose goal is 
to coordinate and act as an advocate “… with all sectors 
of the economy and other stakeholders on national food 
and nutrition security matters, in order to improve the 
well-being and quality of life for all Belizeans” (Ministry 
of Agriculture Belize, 2017). “The commission was 
established in 2001, to serve as an advisory body to 
Cabinet on matters related to food and nutrition security. 

Overall, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for 
chairing the commission and providing oversight powers 
for policy and programme implementation” (Ministry of 
Agriculture Belize, 2017).

One of the major area of activities of the commission 
has been the promotion of the expansion of sustainable 
SFPs throughout Belize, especially incorporating school 
gardens. Towards this end, the commission has played a 
key role in the launch of the “MesoAmerica Hunger Free” 
project in the Toledo District. 

9.5. Procurement arrangements  
As seen in Figure 9.1, caterers obtain their food supplies 
for the meals from commercial private food suppliers 
such as supermarkets. Caterers reported that only very 
limited food supplies are obtained from farmers in their 
local communities or districts.  It appears that no more 
than about 5 percent to 10 percent of the total supply 
of foodstuffs used by the caterers in the SFP are sourced 
from farmers in the communities, where the schools are 
located. 

The main items obtained appear to be seasoning herbs, 
fresh fruit (particularly watermelon, citrus and bananas) 
and vegetables (onions, sweet pepper, cilantro and 
garlic).  It has to be emphasized however that a very high 
percentage of total food consumption in Belize is derived 
from national (or domestic) food production.  Therefore, 
while the supply of produce from the immediate 
community or district to caterers may be low, the 
supply or input of domestic produce from national food 
production into the SFP could be considerably higher.

9.6.  School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

Many schools have operational school gardens and 
most schools (especially secondary schools) have an 
area dedicated to such activity.  Especially in the Toledo 
district, these school gardens supply produce for meals 
served in the schools.  Some produce may also be sold to 
staff and nearby residents, as a means of raising funds for 
continued operations of the school gardens.

The nutrition officer in the Ministry of Health also 
reported that she has held training sessions for cooks 
and caterers of the SFP, especially on food groups and 
healthy eating.



48

9.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

Caterers have to meet specific public health standards, 
before they are allowed to serve meals in the schools. 
Certification by the Public Health Department of the 
Ministry of Health is also necessary for the caterers to 
prepare meals.  The kitchens that are used to prepare the 
meals by the caterers and vendors are also inspected by 
the Public Health Department. Part of this certification 
involves training in food safety. However,  the 
enforcement of these food safety regulations may not be 
very stringent.

9.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programme 

In the case of the SFP of Belize, financial data for the SFP 
was only available for 2016/17 period. The contributions 
of the four individual benefits (or the drivers of benefits) 
of the SFP are presented in percentage form in Table 9.3.  
Here it is seen that the major contribution to programme 
total benefits was from value transfers (40.9 percent) and 
increased productivity (35.0 percent). The other major 
contributor to the  programme total benefits was the 
benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (23.3 percent). Return on investment made 
an insignificant contribution to the total benefits (0.9 
percent).

Details of the operational costs of the SFP in Belize are 
given in Table 9.2.  Here it is seen that the payment 
to contracted caterers is the major cost comprising 

approximately 83 percent of the total operational cost. 
The other major operational cost is the cost of eating and 
cooking utensils (16.5 percent).  It should be noted that 
the payments to caterers in their contracts include the 
cost of distributing the meals to the schools.

Table 9.3 also contains the programme total costs of 
the SFP. The major cost item is the total operational cost 
(91percent). The administrative costs of the programme 
to the MOE comprised the remaining nine percent of 
the programme total costs. Un-estimated are the lesser 
indirect costs to the SFP of the administrative costs of the 
Ministry of Human Development Social Transformation 
and Poverty Alleviation with respect to the provision of 
the list of beneficiaries from the BOOST social assistance 
programme.

In Table 9.3, the annual net benefit of the SFP was 
estimated at BZD 112 991 and the benefit–cost ratio of 
the SFP was estimated as 1.13.  

9.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programme

The annual net benefit  analysis  carried  out  has  
demonstrated  that  the  state-sponsored  SFP  of Belize 
can justify its existence from a social welfare perspective 
with a benefit–cost ratio of 1.13.  However, this is a small 
programme even by CARICOM standards, in terms of the 
number of children served by the SFP. In a simulation 
exercise, if the number of students served by the SFP at 
its current cost is increased to 1 500 (from the current 
1 147 students) the benefit–cost ratio of the SFP will 
increase to 1.33.

Table 9.2:   Operational costs of the school feeding programme 

Operational item Cost BZD %

Caterers’ contract payments 650 000 82.49%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 8 000 1.02%

Eating and cooking utensils 130 000 16.50%

Total operational cost 788 000 100.00%



49

A number of clear areas for the improvement of the 
SFP have been identified in this study.  The first area is 
increasing the contribution of the school feeding system 
to the reduction of under and over-nutrition and the 
promotion of healthy eating lifestyles in the Belizean 
society. Thus, the recommendations in this regard in 
Chapter 4 are particularly relevant to Belize.

The second area concerns the sustainability of the SFP.   
Any reductions in the budgetary allocations to this 
programme would jeopardize the viability of caterers, 
who produce meals for the programme. Thus, the specific  
recommendations detailed in the next section focus 
specifically on ways that can improve the sustainability of 
the SFP.  

9.10. Specific recommendations

The specific recommendations for Belize arising from this 
study are now presented. 

Expansion and consolidation of school feeding in Belize 

There is the immediate need to improve the 
sustainability of the SFP, by the consolidation and 
regularization of school feeding in Belize. This can best 

be achieved, in the first instance, by the enactment 
of legislation to govern school feeding in the country 
by way of a school feeding act of Parliament.  Such 
legislation should set out:

 y the goals of school feeding in the country;

 y the organizational structure under which such 
feeding should take place;

 y the role of the state in the provision and 
regulation of school feeding;

 y the parameters within which private 
programmes will be allowed to operate;

 y the standards that must be maintained in all 
school feeding in Belize; and

 y the institutions and agencies that will promote, 
monitor and enforce these standards.

Based on the provisions of such a school feeding act, 
the State should then proceed to expand the state-
sponsored SFP, by the incorporation and consolidation 
of the disparate and ad hoc programmes that currently 
exist, based on an appropriate model of school feeding 
for Belize. The recommended model should be along the 
lines of the Mesoamerica Hunger Free programme of 
Belize. Therefore, the pilot programme that is currently 
on the way should be carefully monitored and assessed, 

Table 9.3:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the state-sponsored school feeding programme 

Programme element Element manager BZD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 788 000 90.91%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 78 800 9.09%

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00%

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00%

Programme total cost 866 800 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 40.9% 400 273

Return on investment 0.9% 8 639

Increased productivity 35.0% 342 476

Healthier and longer life 23.3% 228 403

Programme total benefit 100.0% 979 791

Annual net benefit 112 991

Benefit–cost ratio 1.13



50

with a view to its eventual expansion to all districts of 
Belize.

This consolidated SFP in Belize must also be based 
on strict standards and enforcement. In particular, 
all kitchens that are being used in the SFP for meal 
preparation should be inspected and certified.

The certification of kitchens where the meals are 
prepared for students can yield several benefits 
including:

 y greater control over the meal preparation;

 y lesser liability of the state-subsidised SFP, as 
operations can be better monitored;

 y School kitchens can serve as “demonstration 
kitchens” for other caterers and students and 
centers for nutrition education. 

Establishment of Agricultural Science and 4-H programmes 
at all relevant levels of the school system

Agricultural Science programmes, as well as the 4-H 
programme in schools could serve to promote the SFP 
and agricultural production in Belize in many ways such 
as:

 y being a vehicle for nutrition education especially 
“a healthy eating initiative”, by fostering the 
greater use of healthy foods, especially fresh 
fruit and vegetables and root crops in diets; and

 y the promotion of school feeding programmes in 
the community;

 y the promotion and early exposure of students 
to food production and agribusiness, especially 
associated with small-scale farming.



51

10.1.     Introduction
The Commonwealth of Dominica (Dominica), the 
northernmost of the Windward Islands in the Caribbean 
Sea is a member of the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbean States (OECS). With a size of 750 sq km and an 
estimated population of 72 000, the country’s land mass 
consists primarily of luxuriantly wooded mountains and 
rugged and steep terrain (The Commonwealth, 2019). 

Dominica is vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes.  
This is evidenced by the losses sustained in the Category 
5 hurricane which devastated the island in September 
2017. The Government of Dominica Post-Disaster Needs 
Assessment (PDNA) document concluded that Hurricane 
Maria resulted in total damages XCD 2.51 billion (USD 
931 million) (Government of the Commonwealth 
of Dominica, 2017). The country was at the time of 
Hurricane Maria, recovering from the effects of Tropical 
Storm Erika, which hit the island in August 2015, and 
wreaked damage totaling more than USD 1 billion.

10.2. School feeding in Dominica
Figure 10.1 illustrates the school feeding system in 
Dominica, which comprises the following:

 y the Government sponsored SFP which provides 
free meals for needy students and meals for 
other students for a contribution of XCD 1.00 per 
meal;

 y vendors who sell snacks on or off the school 
compound;

 y meals prepared by parents and brought to 
school by the students; and

 y food supplied by school cafeterias.

Many infant and primary schools have school cafeterias, 
which provide mainly snack items for purchase by the 
students. These school cafeterias do not provide lunch 
for sale to students, so that there is no direct competition 
between the meals provided by the SFP and offerings 
from the school cafeterias. However, concerns were 
raised by some school teachers and administrators that 
students make the choice to purchase items from the 
school cafeterias rather than use the money to buy a 
healthy SFP meal. Some of the school cafeterias are 
managed by the schools themselves, as a means of 
raising funds.

Vendors can be found mainly outside school compounds, 
but school administrators are of the general view that 
these vendors fall outside of their remit. Generally, 

vendors are not allowed to sell lunches to the students. 
Parents provide home cooked meals for many students, 
which they consume in school, instead of meals prepared 
by the SFP.

10.3. School feeding programme of Dominica

Overview

The “Operations and procedures manual for the school 
feeding programme in Dominica” (Procedures manual) 
states that this SFP was established in 1991, with 
external funding from the United Nations World Food 
Programme (WFP) to provide a daily lunch to all primary 
school students, to ensure their nutritional development 
(Government of Dominica, undated a). In 1997, the 
Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 
assumed responsibility for the SFP, which is operated 
through the Ministry of Education and Human Resource 
Development (MOE) (Government of Dominica, undated 
a).

The SFP in Dominica, seeks to enhance the nutritional 
status of primary school children in Dominica, through 
an affordable lunch meal. Among the objectives of the 
programme are:

 y the reduction of the level of hunger being 
experienced by students in some primary 
schools, by ensuring that students have at least 
one nutritious meal per day;

 y increased school attendance particularly in the 
post lunch period;

 y fostering the development of good food choices 
and eating habits; and

 y encouraging the participation and involvement 
of the community in school activities 
(Government of the Commonwealth of 
Dominica, 2016).

According to the OECS Education Statistical Digest 2016, 
for Dominica, the total preschool (infant), primary and 
secondary school population in Dominica was 14 930 
of which 1 843 attended pre-schools, 7 526 attended 
primary schools and 5 561 students attended secondary 
schools (OECS, 2017). For the school year 2016/17, 
there were 2 169 beneficiaries of the SFP comprising 
approximately 23 percent of the infant and primary 
school population and approximately15 percent of 
the total student population of Dominica up to the 
secondary level.  Seventy-three secondary school 
students at two public secondary schools on the island 
are provided with breakfast daily.

10.   Dominica



52

Figure 10.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in D
om

inica 

M
inistry of Education

Cafeterias

School principals and staff

Sm
all farm

ers in the 
com

m
unity

School Feeding U
nit

W
holesalers, groceries 
and superm

arketsSchools

Children

Cash
Cash

Cash

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain School kitchens
School gardens

N
G

O
s

Local private sector 
firm

s

Vendors

Parents

Cash

Cash and labor

Cash



53

Selection of students 

The Procedures manual states that the main procedure 
for  identifying schools for inclusion in the SFP is through 
the poverty map derived from the country poverty 
assessment report and its updates (Government of 
Dominica, undated b).  The process is described as 
follows:

 y The School Feeding Programme Coordinator 
(SFC) consults the poverty map and its updates 
to identify communities in need. Ballini et al. 
(2009) describe in detail how these maps are 
derived.

 y Primary health care professionals then assess 
the nutritional status of the children in the 
identified communities and the distance they 
travel to school, especially in the cases of those 
communities not served by a school bus.

 y Principals of schools in the identified 
communities may be requested to provide their 
assessment of need and indigence among the 
students in the community.

 y Once a school has been included in the SFP, all 
children in that school are entitled to participate 
in the SFP.

Some of the children in the selected schools may also be 
entitled to a fee waiver, based on the inclusion of their 
households in the beneficiary list for social assistance 
(Government of Dominica, undated b).

School principals may also request inclusion of their 
schools in the SFP, once they can provide reasonable 
evidence of indigence or need among their student 
populations. Generally, the principal of the school makes 
a request to the SFC for students at the school to access 
the SFP. An assessment is done by the SFC, as to the 
readiness of the school to participate in the SFP. The 
SFC then sends the report, through the Senior Planning 
Officer, to the Chief Education Officer, who decides 
whether the school would be included in the SFP.

Before a given school becomes part of the SFP, the staff 
and parents are given an orientation, by the SFC on 
the requirements for their success in the SFP. Kitchen 
and storage facilities are also constructed in the school, 
“jointly by the Government and the community” 
(Government of Dominica, undated b).

Once a school is included in the SFP, all students can 
participate voluntarily in the programme at a cost (or 
financial contribution) of XCD 1.00 per meal per day.  

However, where parents cannot afford to pay for the 
meals, their children are provided with the meals, free of 
charge. All students from the indigenous population of 
Dominica (found mainly in the 15 sq km district of the 
Carib or Kalinago Territory), who so request, are provided 
with lunches free of charge.

Community participation 

Forty-two schools were participating in school feeding in 
Dominica:

 y 27 primary schools on the SFP, representing a 50 
percent coverage for primary schools;

 y breakfast to selected students in two secondary 
schools under the SFP;

 y The Swiss Agency provides assistance for 10 
schools; and 

 y a collaborative effort of Lamb’s Feast Outreach 
Ministry, a non-denominational ministry and 
“Care for the Elderly”, assists in the provision of 
meals to the three schools.

For 13 schools outside the SFP, lunch is provided with 
some assistance from the MOE. For schools in the SFP, 
communities provide in-kind contributions of vegetables, 
provisions and fish, as well as voluntary labor for the 
preparation of meals.  The SFC conducts an orientation 
session for parents and staff for all schools entering the 
SFP, where emphasis is placed on:

 y adherence to menus provided, which are based 
on nutritional and dietary guidelines; and

 y the need for community support for the 
successful participation of schools in the SFP.

According to the Procedures manual, before the 
beginning of the school year, the local school meals 
coordinator and the head cook estimate the weekly 
requirements of the food items for the school, to be 
obtained from the community, based on:

 y the menu;
 y the requirements per student; and 
 y the projected number of students in the SFP for 

the school. 

They also obtain the commitment of members of the 
community to supply various items of food, such as fish, 
ground provisions, vegetables and charcoal.  A roster 
is then kept of the suppliers and the projected items 
and quantities expected from them (Government of 
Dominica, undated b).The local coordinator, the head 
cook and local suppliers estimate the value of the weekly 



54

in-kind contributions of food items.   This information 
is recorded and submitted to the SFC for monitoring 
purposes (Government of Dominica, undated b).

Parents are rostered to assist with the meal preparation in 
the school kitchens, for the term. Parents who volunteer 
their services and have two or more children in the SFP 
are exempt from making the financial contributions 
on the days they are volunteering their services. Also, 
parents, when they make in-kind contributions may be 
exempt from making the financial contributions.   The 
SFP is an important social support service, as many 
parents tend to keep their children at home, if they do 
not have anything to give the children to eat, while they 
are at school.

Operations at the school level

The Procedures manual details the “…roles and 
responsibilities of personnel involved in the SFP” 
including the principal or senior teacher, cooks and 
assistant cooks in the schools (Government of Dominica, 
undated b). School principals are in charge of the 
operations of the SFP in their schools. They are permitted 
to utilize some of the funds collected from students’ 
payments for meals, to purchase items not provided by 
the MOE or to meet any shortfall in food supply for the 
SFP. These purchases are signed for in a receipt book, 
by the supplier of the locally purchased goods and the 
records of such purchases are presented to the MOE each 
month.

The number of students requesting lunch for any school 
day is sent to the cooks of the school, who together with 
the teacher responsible for school feeding would allocate 
from the stores, the amount of food ingredients needed 
to prepare the required number of meals.

The duties of the cooks,  include:

 y the receipt and storage of goods purchased;
 y the review of menus;
 y the pre-preparation and preparation of meals as 

specified in the menus;
 y the service of the meals as set by the “diet scale”; 

and 
 y maintenance of the cleanliness and sanitization 

of the production areas, wares, storage and 
service areas. 

In these duties, the cooks are assisted by assistant cooks 
(Government of Dominica, undated a).

Each school day, a list is compiled of students who 
obtained lunch. Teachers send the list to the school 
principal with the names of students who requested 
lunch, how many paid and how many were unable 
to pay. The school principal is required to complete 
a form each day recording the number of students 
in attendance, the number who received meals and 
the amount of cash collected.  Any funds used by the 
principal are also recorded.  These forms provide the 
basis for a financial report, which must be submitted on 
a monthly basis to the School Feeding Unit (SFU) of the 
MOE.

As stated earlier, private sector organizations and 
communities provide assistance to schools in Dominica.  
School principals may approach the private sector 
for assistance for the SFP in their schools in the form 
of construction of kitchens, providing equipment or 
sponsoring needy children, who cannot afford to pay for 
the lunch.

Operations at the national level

The MOE through the SFC purchases and distributes 
– with the aid of one driver – a standard list of items 
once per month to schools, which provide meals under 
the SFP. The supplies to be allocated to a given school 
are based on the menu plan and the school’s student 
population. On the days designated for the distribution 
of food supplies to the schools, the SFC receives 
assistance from a driver, who collects the food items from 
suppliers or the storeroom of the SFC, for distribution to 
participating schools.

Fifty-six cooks are employed in the SFP , through the 
National Employment Programme of the Ministry of 
Trade, Energy and Employment. Meals are prepared by 
the cooks in the school kitchens. The Dominica Bureau 
of Standards develops and enforces standards to govern 
the health and safety of consumers, as well as protecting 
the environment.  Schools, through the cooks, are 
expected to use these standards to maintain sanitary 
conditions in the school kitchen.

Funding for the SFP is provided through an annual 
budgetary allocation from the state, cash contributions 
from schools (through contributions by parents), and 
contributions from the community. The SFC orders 
food items for the SFP, based on the menu plan and the 
estimated total number of students in the SFP. The bills 
for the purchases are submitted to the accounts division 
of the MOE for payment. The SFC records all purchases 



55

in a computerized system. Receipts of all financial 
transactions are kept for record and auditing purposes. 
The Director of Audits in the Ministry of Finance audits 
the accounts of the SFP.

The funds collected from the schools for the state are 
placed in a checking account with the Accountant 
General and the Permanent Secretary of the MOE as 
signatories. Receipts of all financial transactions are 
kept by the accounts department of the MOE for record 
and auditing purposes. The average number of school-
days per year is approximately180 days, with a reported 
average of 160 school feeding days.

Menus and nutrition 

The menus (or the menu plan) used in the SFP are based 
on nutritional requirements provided by a nutritionist 
and a dietitian based in the Ministry of Health. The SFC 
also liaises with the nutritionist and dietitian at the 
Ministry of Health to develop these menus and they are 
then passed on to the cooks. However, based on the food 
items available at the schools and consultation between 
cooks and principals or teachers in charge of the school 
feeding, menus may be changed to make use of available 
items.

The recommended portions for the food items for meals 
are standardized for all schools in the SFP. In particular, a 
meal should have servings of:

 y meat protein, 57 g (2 ounces)
 y carbohydrates, 141 g (5 ounces)
 y legumes, 28 g to 57 g (1 ounce to 2 ounces ) 
 y vegetables, 28 g (1 ounce)

These meals are expected to provide approximately one-
third of the recommended dietary daily requirement for 
protein and energy for children.

10.4.   Governance of the school feeding programme
The Procedures manual states that the SFP has been 
mainstreamed by its inclusion as an education support 
programme in the National Education Sector Plan 
(Government of Dominica, undated b).  Dominica’s 
4th Medium Term Growth and Social Protection 
Strategy (GSPS) 2014 to 2018, on page 12 states that: 
“The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 
continues to operate a number of education support 
programmes (such as the education trust fund, school 
feeding, textbook scheme, transportation and school 

transition programmes), specifically targeted at the poor” 
(Commonwealth of Dominica, 2014). The Government 
of Dominica, through the MOE, also provides support 
to students from lower socio-economic groups through 
provision of safety net programmes, such as the SFP, as 
a measure “to guarantee access and permanence in the 
education system to the most vulnerable population” 
(Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica, 2017, 
p. 68).

The Procedures manual sets out the “… institutional 
framework for the management of the SFP” which 
involves the MOE, as well as a number of supporting 
entities (Government of Dominica, undated b). 

The management and coordination of the SFP is done 
through a School Feeding Unit (SFU) in the MOE headed 
by the SFC. The duties of the SFC include:

 y the procurement and distribution of food 
supplies;

 y monitoring of programme operations through 
school visits;

 y organizing training workshops for cooks in the 
SFP;

 y assessing the readiness of schools for 
commencement of the SFP; as well as

 y providing progress reports through the Senior 
Planning Officer to the MOE.

The SFC reports to the Senior Planning Officer who has 
responsibility for all education support programmes, 
administered through the MOE.

The Procedures manual list the supporting entities as:

 y the community as providing in-kind contribution 
and volunteering labor for meal preparation as 
discussed earlier;

 y the Ministry of Finance which provides a 
budgetary allocation and also performs 
evaluation of the SFP and through its central 
beneficiary registry is responsible for the proxy 
means test, which generates the beneficiary list 
for the SFP, as described earlier;

 y the Ministry of Health through visits by its 
environmental health officers and also the 
technical direction and advice of its nutritionist, 
who provides technical guidance on the 
development and implementation of nutrition 
standards for the programme; and

 y the Central Statistical Office which produces 
the country poverty assessment and poverty 



56

maps which are used to identify schools for 
participation in the SFP.

School principals play an important role at the local or 
school level in the management of the SFP and their 
roles and responsibilities are detailed in the Procedures 
manual (Government of Dominica, undated a). School 
principals or senior teachers assigned by the school 
principal oversee the SFP at the school level (Figure 10.1). 
In each school, the principal has the overall responsibility 
for the administration and management of the SFP in 
that school. The payments by parents are used by the 
school principals to purchase food items not provided 
by the MOE such as fish, ground provisions, fruits, 
vegetables, seasonings and so on from farmers and 
fishermen from the communities. Some of these same 
items are donated by parents or obtained from school 
gardens, where they exist.

School principals, using a financial record form, record 
the following for each day that students are fed:

 y the number of students provided with lunch;
 y the number of students paying for the meals;
 y the amount of money spent to purchase 

supplemental food supplies; and
 y the balance of funds retained by the school.

These balances retained by the schools are returned to 
the SFC at the end of the school term, who deposits them 
into a special MOE bank account, which is used, with 
the approval of the Permanent Secretary, to purchase 
equipment and other inputs for the SFP. School principals 
are encouraged to place a monetary value on the food 
items (e.g. ground provision or fish) donated each week 
by parents and members of the community to the school 
for use by the SFP. 

School principals play an important role in the receipt of 
staples from the SFU, as well as ensuring the inclusion of 
fresh fruits and vegetables in the school lunch menu. The 
School Principal keeps a record of the supplies issued to 
the school for the SFP and issues supplies to the cooks, 
based on the number of students to be fed daily.

The keys to the storage location of the food items 
in the school are kept by the school principal or the 
senior teacher in charge of school feeding or the cook 
depending on the school arrangement, while the school 
principal or senior teacher would keep an inventory of 
equipment and utensils. Storage locations for supplies 
issued to the school for the SFP range from boxes in 

the principal’s office, to locked cupboards in the school 
kitchen.

One constraint identified by the SFC was the need for 
better management of the balances of funds due to 
the MOE.  It was reported that there were difficulties 
obtaining these balances from some principals, while 
there were tardy monthly financial returns to the SFC by 
others.

10.5. Procurement arrangements 
The Procedures manual sets out details of the 
procurement of food items for the SFP (Government 
of Dominica, undated a). The SFU provides all bulk dry 
goods for the SFP in Dominica. The SFC orders supplies 
and submits the bills to the Accounts Division of the 
MOE.  The open market or informal system is preferred 
as the method of purchase with the utilization of local 
vendors and the local market system. The manual 
recommends that two or three vendors should provide 
price quotations for items, before purchases are made to 
help ensure that the best quality food items are obtained, 
for the least possible cost (Government of Dominica, 
undated a). 

Principals are responsible for the receipt and storage 
of goods supplied by the SFU. They are authorized to 
purchase ground provision, seasonings and fruits and 
vegetables from small farmers in the community, to 
encourage the production and consumption of local 
foods.  Schools are expected to make their own selection 
of vendors” (Government of Dominica, undated a).  
However, the supply of food items from these vendors 
at the local level was reported to be inconsistent and 
informal. As stated previously, before the beginning of 
the school year, the food items to be obtained from the 
community are estimated, based on the menu and the 
requirements per student and the projected number of 
students for the school.   Members of the community are 
then sought to supply various food items such as fish, 
ground provisions, vegetables and charcoal.  A roster 
is then kept of these community suppliers and their 
specific items and the projected quantities expected 
from them (Government of Dominica, undated b).

The Procedures manual sets out detailed procedures and 
guidelines for the following activities:

 y the actual purchase of food items;
 y the receipt of food items by the SFU and by 

schools; and



57

 y the storage of food items including dry and cold 
storage.

10.6.   School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education 

All schools were reported to have school gardens to 
encourage the teaching and learning of agriculture.  The 
SFPs at the schools utilize produce from these school 
gardens to supplement the supplies from the SFU.

Schools play an important role in promoting good diets 
and healthful eating habits in Dominica.  This can be seen 
by the measures that have been adopted to improve 
nutrition education in schools in Dominica such as:

 y the provision of nutrition education lectures and 
presentations at events such as World Health Day 
and World Food Day;

 y the use of school gardens as a pedagogical 
tool that links classroom learning with active 
participation;

 y the inclusion of nutrition education in the 
primary school curriculum under health and 
family life education; and

 y outreach programmes to show cooks in the SFP, 
new ways to use local ingredients in their menus.

The draft school nutrition policy of Dominica has as 
its goal the provision of a school environment that is 
conducive to the development of healthy lifelong eating 
and activity habits, through nutrition education, physical 
education and a school food service environment that 
supports and facilitates the adoption of healthy eating 
habits (Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica, 
2016). The draft policy is also supportive of school health 
and nutrition services and their role in monitoring trends 
in nutrition related problems. These services monitor: 

 y dietary and activity patterns of students;
 y parent and community involvement in 

supporting and reinforcing healthy eating; and 
 y physical activity in school and community 

settings.

The SFP is seen as an important facilitator for the 
consumption of healthy foods, which is important to 
Dominica especially because, overweight in school-age 
children and adolescents five to19 years of age was 
32.6 percent in 2016 (WHO, 2018). Dominica has also 
introduced taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, and 

energy drinks as another policy aimed at improving the 
nutrition of its citizens (Xuereb, 2017).

10.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

The Procedures manual states that the SFP should 
implement quality assurance measures to monitor and 
evaluate the food service process and the quality of the 
end product (Government of Dominica, undated a). It 
further states that monitoring procedures should inter 
alia indicate portion sizes, the extent of handling of food 
items and congruence with the menu.

The manual also speaks of training in monitoring and 
evaluation measures internally and the use of external 
monitors at least twice a term. Quality standards are then 
set out for the following activities:

 y menu planning
 y procurement
 y purchasing and receiving
 y storage
 y issuing
 y ordering and producing meals
 y service and delivery
 y sanitation
 y recording and reporting and
 y general procedures.

10.8.  Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programme 

Annual net benefit analysis of the SFP of Dominica was 
conducted for the year 2016/17.  The contributions of 
the four individual benefits to the SFP are presented in 
percentage form in Table 10.2. The major contribution to 
programme total benefits was from value transfer (37.3 
percent), increased productivity (35.4 percent) followed 
by healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary students 
(26.5 percent). The contribution  of return on investment 
to the programme total benefits was not significant (0.9 
percent), when compared to the other benefits.

As seen in Table 10.1, the estimated total operational cost 
for the SFP was XCD 737 910. Approximately 46 percent 
of these costs were incurred for the payment of cooks, 
who prepared the meals in the schools, through the 
Ministry of Trade, Energy and Employment.  The central 



58

Table 10.1:  Operational costs of school feeding programme 

Operational item Cost XCD %

Central purchase of food ingredients 192 333 31.70%

Wages for cooks 336 000 55.39%

Purchasing of cooking gas and utensils 47 366 7.81%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of 
equipment

30 942 5.10%

Total operational cost 606 641 100.00%

Table 10.2:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programme 

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 737 910 56.04%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 94 419 7.17%

Paid by the community Schools 153 787 11.68%

Paid to school by  parents Schools 330 660 25.11%

Programme total cost  1 316 776 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits  

Value transfer 37.3% 805  551  

Return on investment 0.9% 18  893  

Increased productivity 35.4% 764  247  

Healthier and longer life 26.5% 572 581  

Programme total benefit 100.0% 2 161 272  

Annual net benefit 844 496

Benefit–cost ratio 1.64   

purchase of food ingredients comprised 42.32 percent of 
the total operational cost.

The programme total cost was estimated at XCD 
1,316,776. The major element of the programme total 
cost was the total operational cost (56.04 percent).  
Payments by parents to the school comprised 25.11 
percent of programme total cost and this was the other 
major cost item in the total programme costs of the SFP. 
It is estimated that 86.4 percent of the students in the 
SFP pay (XCD 1) for their meals.

As seen in Table 10.2, the programme total cost is XCD 
1 316 776 but the programme total benefit of XCD  

2,161,272  far outweigh the programme total cost with 
an annual net  benefit of the programme of XCD 844 496 
and a benefit–cost ratio of 1.64.  

10.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programme

Given that the benefit–cost ratio of the SFP in Dominica 
was 1.64, the programme can be considered to be 
currently very beneficial to this country and thus the 
Dominican SFP can be justified on purely economic 
grounds. The value obtained for the benefit–cost ratio 
was in fact one of the highest values for the 14 CARICOM 



59

states in this study, Thus, the existing SFP in Dominica 
may be a feasible model.

One of the major issues in this SFP is the small 
percentage of the primary school population actually 
served by the programme (28.7 percent).   Given that 
around 86 percent of the parents of students receiving 
food in the SFP actually pay for the meals (although 
perhaps at a subsidized price), the reasons for this small 
percentage can be explored.  Like all public-sector 
programmes, the sustainability of the SFP is of concern, 
in view of the economic constraints of the Government 
of Dominica in the post-banana era (Harris, Pemberton 
and De Sormeaux, 2010). These realities provide a 
rationale for a consideration of ways by which the 
costs of the SFP may be reduced, so as to increase the 
likelihood of sustainability. Recommendations on these 
issues will be detailed in the next section.

10.10. Specific recommendations

Expansion of the school feeding programme

It is recommended that the SFP in Dominica be 
expanded to serve a greater number of primary schools, 
as well as secondary schools. Since a large percentage 
of parents currently pay for the school meals, expanding 
the SFP can be explored. Policies and strategies should 
be continued of:

 y targeting the most vulnerable students for free 
meals and the provision of meals at a subsidized 
cost for other vulnerable students; and

 y reducing food waste in all operations.

Sophisticated procedures are already in place for 
determining the schools to participate in the SFP and the 
students to be provided with free meals.  There is also a 
cost recovery element in the SFP. These features should 
form a sustainable basis for the expansion of the SFP 
throughout the school system, especially to pre-schools 
in Dominica.

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems for the 
school feeding programme

It is recommended that the monitoring and evaluation 
systems of the SFP should be strengthened. This 
strengthening will be particularly desirable for an 
expanded SFP. Monitoring and evaluation should 
especially focus on nutrition related indicators and 
studies that determine the impact of nutrition education 

and other health and nutrition initiatives linked to the 
SFP. 

Data collection and impact evaluations can also provide 
valuable feedback to policy makers for programme 
improvement and expansion. In a study to determine 
baseline anthropometrics and nutrient intakes among 
Commonwealth of Dominica primary school children, 
and investigate the possible contribution of school 
feeding programmes, Wall-Bassett et al. (2012) found that 
there were no significant differences between regions 
with respect to the presence of the SFP. Enhanced 
monitoring and evaluation and impact evaluation of the 
SFP can provide the information needed to find out, if 
this situation has changed over the intervening years. 
Increased monitoring is also necessary for the food 
preparation and food service activities in the schools.  
In addition, cooks involved in the preparation of school 
meals should receive more training and there is need for 
improved supervision of food preparation and service at 
the school level.

Refurbishment of school kitchens damaged by Hurricane 
Maria

The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica 
(2017) estimated that total damages and losses to 
the Education sector caused by Hurricane Maria, in 
September 2017 were XCD 208.4 million (USD 77.19 
million). Overall 83 percent of schools reported 
some level of damage, inclusive of the destruction 
of teaching materials, furniture and equipment and 
other educational resources. Several issues caused by 
the Hurricane have affected the provision of meals to 
students:

 y In some cases, where kitchens were not 
damaged, they were converted to classrooms.

 y Some schools were used as hurricane shelters.
 y Several schools in close proximity were merged 

into a single school, which had a physical 
structure that was deemed to be safe, which has 
stressed the available kitchen facilities.

 y Community centers and tents with limited or no 
kitchen facilities were used to house schools.

It is therefore being recommended that resources 
be provided, as soon as possible, to facilitate the full 
operations of the SFP, post-Hurricane Maria, especially 
to provide school meals to needy children, whose 
circumstances would have been further compromised 
because of the hurricane.



60

11.1. Introduction
Grenada is a tri-island state. The island of Grenada is the 
largest and is the world’s second largest producer of 
nutmeg after Indonesia (The Commonwealth, 2020c).  It 
is commonly known as the “Spice Isle”. It is followed in 
size by Carriacou and Petite Martinique and together 
they total 344 sq km (The Commonwealth, 2020c). Being 
a Caribbean island nation, it is subject to natural disasters 
such as hurricanes and environmental vagaries such as 
deforestation.

11.2. School feeding in Grenada
School feeding in Grenada is illustrated in Figure 11.1 and 
is made up of the following elements:

 y the government funded SFP, which  provides 
free meals for special cases and meals for sale;

 y vendors who sell snacks on the compound; and
 y parents who prepare meals for their children.

Parents may prepare meals for students, who do not 
receive lunches from the SFP. Children at times may 
exchange their home meals for the SFP offerings. Two 
categories of vendors sell snacks to students. These are:

 y vendors who sell outside of the school gates or 
“outside vendors”; and 

 y vendors who sell on the school compound 
authorized by the school or “school vendors”. 

The food offerings of outside vendors sometimes do 
not comply with the nutritional objectives of the SFP.  
Students also purchase food items (lunch or snacks) 
from vendors on the school compound. Assistant school 
officers sometimes give advice to the school vendors, 
about providing healthier snack options, because the 
items sold may seem more “attractive” to the students. 
The students enjoy the “roti meal” and fried snacks and 
may forgo the lunches from the SFP for these other 
meals.

11.3. The school feeding programme 

Overview 

School feeding in Grenada started in the late 1940s as 
a milk and biscuit programme through the European 
Union and the support of some churches.  The current 
SFP operated by the Ministry of Education and Human 
Resource Development (MOE) has been operational since 
1979, initially through funding by the WFP.

11.   Grenada

Selection of students for the school feeding programme 

The SFP is targeted to all primary and secondary schools, 
and selected pre-schools in Grenada. Several criteria 
are utilized for the selection of students to obtain free 
lunches under the SFP.  They include the following:

 y referral from the Grenada Food and Nutrition 
Council of children at nutritional risk;

 y referrals from the student truancy officers;
 y referrals from child guidance and counseling 

officers;
 y requests by parents; 
 y requests from the  community, including 

churches; 
 y requests from members of Parliament or other 

state officials; and
 y children who were born as low-birth weight 

babies get free meals for their entire school lives.

Community participation  

There is evidence of substantial community and NGO 
support to the SFP in Grenada (Campbell, 2018). This 
support is in the form of infrastructural works, as well as 
the provision of food items to schools.

Small farmers in the communities provide about 
ten percent of the produce used in the SFP.  Parents 
participate in meetings conducted by staff of the SFP and  
PTAs to reinforce the nutritional education their children 
receive at school. Likewise, some parents use social 
media to express their views and criticisms of the SFP.

Operations at the school level 

The SFP in Grenada utilizes the DSK model. Meals are 
prepared in a kitchen on the school premises and served 
on site. The cooks (approximately 164 in total) are 
hired by the MOE and paid out of the SFP budget. They  
prepare and serve the lunch meals at the school kitchens. 
The cooks follow menus provided by the MOE. 

School principals are responsible for the receipt and 
storage of goods supplied by the MOE. Periodic checks 
are done by the assistant school officers for quality 
assurance. The MOE also trains food preparation staff.

 Children consume the lunches in designated feeding 
areas and are provided with re- usable eating utensils. 
The children who can afford to pay for the meals, 
purchase at a cost of XCD 1.00. Every morning, food 
assistants from the cooking staff collect the money 
from each form or class teacher, as well as the number 



61

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n

Ca
fe

te
ri

as

Sc
ho

ol
 p

ri
nc

ip
al

s 
an

d 
st

aff

Sm
al

l f
ar

m
er

s 
in

 th
e 

co
m

m
un

it
y

St
ud

en
t S

up
po

rt
 S

er
vi

ce
s 

U
ni

t

G
ro

ce
ri

es
, 

su
pe

rm
ar

ke
ts

 a
nd

 M
N

IB

Sc
ho

ol
s

Ch
ild

re
n

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
inSc

ho
ol

 k
itc

he
ns

Sc
ho

ol
 g

ar
de

ns

N
G

O
s

Pr
iv

at
e 

se
ct

or
 fi

rm
s

Ve
nd

or
s

Pa
re

nt
s

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Fi
gu

re
 1

1.
1:

  O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 G

re
na

da



62

of paid and unpaid meals each class has to receive. This 
information is recorded. Some parents who can afford, 
may pay for the meals in advance, weekly or monthly. 

Operations at the national level

The SFP spans the three islands of Grenada, Carriacou 
and Petite Martinique. School enrollment in the tri-
island state is approximately 23 155, 54 percent of the 
students being in primary schools (Table 11.1). The SFP 
was operating in 99 schools and approximately10 000 
students received school lunches, which represented 
approximately 43 percent of the total student in all three 
islands, Grenada, Petite Martinique and Carriacou. 

On the small island of Petite Martinique, there is one 
school which is sub-divided into an early childhood and 
a primary school. Meals are offered to 100 students.  On 
the bigger isle of Carriacou, 130 meals are served daily 
at the two secondary schools but the number of meals 
served at the six primary schools on this island was 
undetermined.  

Menus and nutrition

A menu cycle of four weeks is utilized in the SFP. The 
school feeding manual guides the purchase of food 
based on standard serving sizes for each food item 
from the six Caribbean food groups. The recommended 
portions for the food items are also standardized. The 
meals are designed to meet the one-third standard for 
lunch meals. However, samples of these meals have not 
been analyzed for their nutritional content.

Despite the use of a standard menu, only four  schools in 
a FAO funded pilot project utilize standardized recipes. 
In particular, the servings of fruits and vegetables are 

not always met, because of unavailability (seasonal), 
cost, and sustainable supply. Nevertheless, the SFP may 
have  contributed to decreasing the food and nutrition 
problems among school aged children because:

 y The children are appreciating vegetable 
consumption, which is strongly supported by 
the Grenada Food and Nutrition Council.

 y In the government’s early childhood education 
programme (greater than 3 years old ) and day 
care centers (greater than  6 months old) the 
children are introduced to local foods- juices, 
fruits, vegetables and soups, thereby developing 
the taste and preference for local foods at 
an early stage in life, when food likes and 
associations are established.

11.4. Governance  of the school feeding 
programme

The SFP is a component of Grenada’s food and nutrition 
security policy, which “fully recognizes the right to food 
and to ensure that all Grenadians, at all times, have 
physical, economic, and social access to safe, nutritious, 
culturally acceptable, and affordable food in sufficient 
quantities to meet their dietary needs for an active and 
healthy life”  (Government of Grenada, 2013a, 2013b). 
Grenada has a food and nutrition security action plan to 
implement its food and nutrition security policy. 

The governance structure of the SFP is shown in Figure 
11.1. In the MOE, the SFP is managed by the Student 
Support Services Unit. The head of the SFP has the 
responsibility for:

 y site visits and monitoring the SFP throughout 
the three islands (Grenada, Carriacou and Petit 
Martinique) (Paterson, 2019); 

 y procurement of equipment and utensils; and 
 y other administrative duties. 

The SFP head works closely with the two assistant school 
officers, who visit schools to monitor operations of 
the SFP. The food aid coordinator orders the food and 
manages the finance.

The budget of the SFP covers the cost of food ingredients 
and the wages of cooks, but the emoluments of the 
other workers in administration of the SFP come from the 
budget of the MOE (Table 11.2).

Table 11.1:  Grenada – school population by levels

Level No. of schools Student 
enrollment

Pre-Primary 66 2 570

Primary 56 11 716

Secondary 21 8 679

Tertiary 3 190

Total 146 23 155

Source:  Ministry of Education and Human Resource 
Development, personal communication, 2017.



63

Table 11.2:  Emoluments of administrative staff of              
the SFP

Salaries and wages Total XCD

Officials 164 382

Driver and loader 38 822

Total Administrative Cost 203 204

Approximately 43 percent of Grenadian schoolchildren 
receive lunches from the SFP. Most students contribute 
XCD 1.00 for the lunch and 25 percent (XCD 0.25) of this 
payment goes to the state’s consolidated fund. School 
principals are responsible for paying these funds to the 
MOE. Some students receive free lunches as described 
above. 

11.5. Procurement arrangements 
The MOE is the sole provider of food ingredients for the 
SFP.  These ingredients consist of bulk goods, fish and 

Table 11.3:  Typical monthly food allocation for schools in school feeding programme 

Item Quantity 
purchased

Unit Unit price Cost XCD Percent of 
cost

Brown rice 82 100 lbs 129.34 10 605.88 7.4%

Brown sugar 100 100 lbs 140 14 000 9.8%

Milk 21 10  kg 140.75 2 955.75 2.1%

Macaroni or pasta 91 30 lbs case 85 7 735 5.4%

Split peas 81 10 kg 42.7 3 458.7 2.4%

Pigeon peas 16 100 lbs 500 8 000 5.6%

Lentil peas 84 10 kg 62.77 5 272.68 3.7%

Onions 19 50 lbs 70 1 330 0.9%

Cooking oil 26 1 gal. 42.5 1 105 0.8%

Ketchup 59 12 bottles 45 2 655 1.9%

Chicken legs 17 33 lbs case 91.5 1 555.5 1.1%

Chicken wings 178 30 lbs case 105 18 690 13.1%

Chicken leg quarters 75 33 lbs case 70.55 5 291.25 3.7%

Chicken drummettes 125 33 lbs case 115 14 375 10.1%

Local chicken 1 073 1 pound 4.75 5 096.75 3.6%

Turkey wings 34 33 lbs case 57 1 938 1.4%

Fish (frozen slices) 5 135 1 pound 7.5 38 512.5 27.0%

Total cost 142 577 100.0%

Source: Ministry of Education, Grenada, personal communication, 2017 

poultry. The schools receive this package (or food basket) 
on a monthly schedule.

There are four main sources of food ingredients for the 
SFP:

 y the Marketing and National Importing Board 
(MNIB)- this Board supplies rice, sugar and milk;

 y private entrepreneurs from Trinidad and Tobago 
who transport goods on Fridays to Grenada;

 y private merchants from Brazil and USA; these 
merchants supply imported poultry; and

 y local fisher-folk who supply fish.

An arrangement was made to purchase chicken from 
a local poultry farmer.  However, this supply of chicken 
is unreliable. On the other hand, all turkey meat is  
imported.  Table 11.3 illustrates the typical monthly food 
allocation for schools in the SFP.

Even though the main staple food ingredients are 
provided by the MOE, school principals have the 



64

authority to purchase fruits and vegetables from farmers 
in the community and other staples and food stuff, if 
the school’s allocation from the MOE is insufficient. 
However, the supplies of local fruits and vegetables 
are inconsistent. There has been no formal contractual 
arrangement for local farmers to supply fruits and 
vegetables to the schools on a consistent basis. If farmers 
have excess produce, they either give it to the schools 
or they offer the items for sale to the schools.  The 
MNIB aims to organize farmers to sell produce to the 
SFP.  However little progress has been made in this area 
and currently the local food input to the SFP has been 
estimated to be around ten percent. 

The purchase of equipment and utensils is challenging, 
because there are no stores in Grenada that specialize in 
industrial grade foodservice appliances. 

11.6.   School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

Some schools have gardens to supplement the supply 
of mainly vegetables and fruit to the school meals. 
These school gardens are the responsibility of the school 
principals who receive assistance from community 
members and parents. Proceeds from the sales of any 
excess produce are factored back into the farming 
initiative. In one of the schools visited, the school farm 
included livestock farming (goats), which has been a 
successful venture.

11.7.    Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

The SFP has a monitoring and evaluation plan that 
captures meal guidelines and the nutritional quality 
of meals. The MOE has not implemented systems to 
track the financial feasibility of the SFP or to conduct 
any other form of monitoring and evaluation. Also, the 
Student Support Services Unit does not have formal 
procedures to capture the data, perform data analysis, 
derive programme indicators and to prepare baseline or 
systematic impact evaluation reports.

School feeding committees in the schools facilitate the 
quality assurance of the SFP. These committees are multi- 
functional and they generally:

 y ensure adherence and compliance with the 
written menus;

 y give assistance to cooks and supervise the 
preparation and distribution of meals;

 y perform basic record keeping of meals;

 y maintain dining protocols for the students;

 y keep inventories of equipment and utensils; and

 y submit reports to the MOE.

As noted earlier, the head of the SFP works closely with 
the two assistant school officers, who visit schools and 
monitor the SFP. 

School principals along with assistant school officers 
provide documentation for daily feeding activities and 
procure emergency food supplies and non-food items.

In the school feeding manual,  guidelines are presented 
for the SFP including:

 y management of the programme;
 y accounting practices;
 y menu planning and meal preparation;
 y food purchasing; and
 y food storage; kitchen safety and sanitation. 

(Government of Grenada, 2005)

Objectives for the SFP are also presented that could form 
the basis of its evaluation.  The main objective of the SFP 
is stated to be “to enable selected pre-primary, primary 
and secondary schools to give better service through the 
provision of an improved, nutritionally-balanced meal to 
children requiring this form of assistance” (Government 
of Grenada, 2005) The Food and Nutrition Security 
Platform (n.d.) expands the objectives to include:

 y to improve the overall school enrollment and 
attendance and reduce dropout and failure 
rates;

 y to improve knowledge of the nutritional value of 
local foods, through their maximum use in the 
SFP;

 y to increase local food production by the 
utilization of local food items in the SFP; and

 y to expand, equip and upgrade school kitchens 
and  enhance the facilities, where students eat 
their meals.

Despite the lack of formal impact evaluation 
mechanisms, benefits of the SFP have been observed 
such as:

 y wide coverage of all schools with the limited 
budget;



65

 y very low reported instances of food safety issues 
from clients;

 y a very willing staff who go beyond the call of 
duty and are very committed to their jobs;

 y cooks are satisfied despite low wages; 

 y improvements in clients’ performance in sports; 
and

 y achievements in nutritional and educational 
milestones.

Milestones achieved, based on anecdotal evidence 
include:

 y improved performance of children who were 
underweight at birth;

 y vendors encouraged to provide healthier snack 
options for the students; 

 y principals reporting that children on the 
programme have demonstrated  improved 
behavior and have increased attention spans; 
and

 y students, after joining the programme,  have 
shown improved school attendance. 

11.8.  Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programme

The annual net benefit analysis of the SFP of Grenada 
was conducted for the year 2016/17.  The contributions 
of the four individual benefits to the SFP are presented 
in percentage form in Table 11.5. The major contribution 
to programme total benefits was from increased 
productivity (45.0 percent) followed by healthier and 
longer lives of the beneficiary students (31.4 percent) 
and then value transfer (22.6 percent). The contribution 
of return on investment to the programme total benefits 
was not significant (1.0 percent), when compared to the 
other benefits. As seen in Table 11.4, the total operational 
cost of the SFP was approximately XCD 2.9 million, 
which, as noted above, fed approximately 43 percent 
of the school population at the pre-school, primary and 
secondary levels. As seen in Table 11.4, the wages of 
cooks comprise 55.1 percent of total operational cost. 
The other element of total operational cost was the 
purchase of food ingredients at 44.9 percent.

Table 11.4:  Total operational cost of the school 
feeding programme

Operational item Cost XCD %

Purchase of food 
ingredients

1 283 193 44.90%

Wages of cooks 1 574 400 55.10%

Total operational cost 2 857 593 100.00%

As seen in Table 11.5, the estimated programme total 
cost was XCD 5 463 797, with the total operational cost 
paid by the MOE, comprising 52.3 percent of this cost. 
The other major item was the costs paid by the parents 
for the meals, which were estimated at 33 percent of the 
programme total cost. It is estimated that 90 percent of 
the students pay for their meals.  These funds are used to 
purchase food ingredients by the schools and also for the 
purchase and repairs of appliances and equipment.

As seen in Table 11.5, the programme total cost is XCD 
5 463 797 but the programme total benefits of XCD 
8,700,173 far outweigh these costs, resulting in an annual 
net benefit  for the SFP of XCD 3 236 376 and a benefit–
cost ratio of 1.59.

11.9. Overall  assessment of the school feeding 
programme

Given the substantial annual net benefit and the  
benefit–cost ratio of 1.59, the SFP is currently beneficial 
to the society of Grenada.  Thus, the SFP can be justified 
on purely economic grounds. Therefore, the existing SFP 
in Grenada may be a feasible model, despite the limited 
local agricultural input into the SFP. 

One of the major issues of the SFP is its sustainability. 
This provides a rationale for a consideration of ways 
by which the costs of the SFP may be reduced. These 
considerations led to specific recommendations for 
improvements of the SFP in Grenada, which are detailed 
in the next section.

11.10. Specific recommendations

More efficient delivery system

Currently, one vehicle serves to transport food 
ingredients to 99 schools across Grenada. This vehicle 



66

has not been fitted for standardized food transport 
and urgently needs an upgrade. As such, at least 
two transport vehicles should be purchased, with 
specifications inclusive of cold-storage capability and 
closed-back delivery to maintain the nutritional integrity 
and safety of food items. It is recommended that systems 
should be put in place to out-source the delivery of 
certain food items and to improve the efficiency of 
the transport of the food items to the other islands of 
Carriacou and Petite Martinique. 

More efficient programme monitoring and evaluation

There is need for more efficient monitoring and 
evaluation of the SFP, to provide timely feedback  on  
priority issues. In order to support the monitoring and 
evaluation of the SFP, there should be:

 y additions of relevant staff to the staff 
complement of the school feeding unit;

 y continued encouragement of community 
involvement in the SFP; and

 y implementation of a national-level coordination 
body to play a more visible role in the SFP.

Greater utilization of local foods in the school feeding 
programme

The nutritional recommendations in Chapter 4 are 
particularly relevant to Grenada.  Specifically, and 
perhaps surprisingly for Grenada, rice and pasta form 
the majority of the staple offering in the meals of the 
SFP. Given the high prevalence of childhood obesity in 
Grenada (Table 1.3), there should be greater utilization of 
locally grown ground provisions in the SFP. These ground 
provisions are nutrient dense in dietary fiber, vitamins 
and minerals and low in fat and will be a healthier food 
choice. The challenge will be to change food preferences 
among school-aged children to favor locally grown food 
and empower local farmers to provide a sustainable 
supply to the SFP. This will increase farmer incomes and 
reduce national unemployment. The revitalization of 
the agricultural sector was also recommended by the 
International Monetary Fund to stimulate the economy 
(IMF, 2017).

Table 11.5:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programme

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 2 857 593 52.3%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 203 204 3.7%

Paid to school by community School 600 750 11.0%

Paid to school by parents School 1 802 250 33.0%

Programme total costs 5 463 797 100.0%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 22.6% 1 965 841

Return on investment 1.0% 87 905

Increased productivity 45.0% 3 915 000

Healthier and longer life 31.4% 2 731 427

Programme total benefits 100.0% 8 700 173

Annual net benefit 3 236 376

Benefit–cost ratio 1.59



67

12.1. Introduction
The Co-operative Republic of Guyana (Guyana) is 
geographically the largest country in CARICOM with 
an area of about 215 000 square kilometers and a 
population of 747 884 (Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 
2017). It is the only English-speaking country located on 
the South American continent. Guyana is divided into 
ten administrative regions and eleven education districts. 
Ten of these education districts correspond with the ten 
administrative and geographical regions of the country, 
while the capital, Georgetown, is treated as a separate 
education district. The Chief Education Officer is the 
professional head of the education system. The Principal 
Education Officer (Georgetown) and regional education 
division officers (REDO) are responsible for monitoring 
and supervising all educational activities within their 
respective regional education departments. Guyana 
is roughly divided into coastal regions and hinterland 
regions.

The coastal administrative regions are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 
and include the capital city. These regions contain the 
higher percentage of the population (89.1 percent) of 
Guyana. The coastal plain represents the smaller physical 
geographic area of Guyana.  It is generally flat and lies 
approximately 1.5 meters below sea level. The population 
of the coastal regions consist of 666 261 persons, which 
is approximately 89 percent of the population (Bureau of 
Statistics Guyana, 2017). 

The hinterland administrative regions are 1, 7, 8, and 
9 and comprise about two-thirds (67.6 percent) of the 
land area of Guyana. The population of 81 623 persons, 
represents 10.9 percent of the total population. For the 
hinterland regions, only region 1 has a little more than 
one person per square kilometer, with the population 
density for the remaining three regions being less than 
one person per square kilometer. Compared to the 
coastland regions, hinterland residents are spread out 
in tiny clusters of population throughout the vast areas 
making up the hinterland (Bureau of Statistics Guyana, 
2017).

12.2.  School feeding in Guyana
As seen in Figures 12.1 and 12.2, currently there are four 
SFPs in Guyana. These programmes differ in their:

 y mechanisms of operation;
 y procurement practices;
 y monitoring and evaluation systems;

 y types of meals offered to students (e.g. 
breakfast, snack or hot meal);

 y the items making up the meal offerings (e.g. 
types of snacks that are offered);

 y targeted percentage of recommended dietary 
allowances; and 

 y geographic distribution – that is catering for 
hinterland or coastal regions.

Food vending takes place outside of the perimeter of 
the schools, especially in the coastal regions and is an 
important source of employment, especially for women. 
This vending continues to be a major concern, especially 
with respect to the nutritional content, safety and quality 
of the food sold to the students (Bates, 2017; Niles, 2019).  
Schools also operate canteens providing mainly light 
meals and drinks to students.  As well, some  parents 
provide meals for their children to take to school.

12.3.  The school feeding programmes of Guyana

Overview

The SFPs in the coastal regions in Figure 12.2 exemplify 
the CSF model and are:

 y the fortified biscuit and juice (B&J) snack 
programme; and

 y the breakfast programme.

The SFPs in the hinterland regions in Figure 12.1 
exemplify the DSK model and are:

 y the community-based school feeding 
programme (CBSFP), also referred to as the 
“community-based hot meal programme”; and

 y the peanut butter and cassava bread (PB&CB)
snack programme.

As seen in Table 12.1,  in the four SFPs in 2017, 
approximately 81 522 meals were served daily. Students 
in the PN&CB snack programme also benefit from the 
meals in the CBSFP, so the total number of children in 
the four SFPs is approximately 78 000 students, which 
represents about 41.01 percent of the total student 
enrollment at the nursery, primary and secondary levels. 

Selection of students for the school feeding programmes

Schools are selected for participation in the SFPs in 
Guyana and once a school is selected, all children in the  
specific grades of the school are eligible for the receipt of 
free meals as described for each SFP. 

12.  Guyana



68

M
inistry of Education

School canteens 
and cafeterias

Schools

Sm
all farm

ers

Regional D
em

ocratic Council, 
Region 9

School m
anagem

ent com
m

ittees

Children

Cash

School kitchens Schools
Coordinator peanut butter and 

cassava bread snack program
m

e

Vendors
Parents

School  Snack M
anagem

ent  
Com

m
ittees (SSM

Cs)

SSM
Cs Facilities

Coordinator com
m

unity based SFP, 
Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, 9G

roceries and superm
arkets

Com
m

unities

Cash
Cash

Cash

Cash

Labor

Com
m

unities

Cottage 
industries

Farm
ers

Cash

Cash

Cash
Labor

Labor

Labor

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain

Figure 12.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in G
uyana  - hinterland regions



69

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n

Sc
ho

ol
 c

an
te

en
s 

an
d 

ca
fe

te
ri

as
Sc

ho
ol

s
Sm

al
l f

ar
m

er
s

Co
or

di
na

to
r B

oo
k 

D
is

tr
ib

ut
io

n 
U

ni
t

W
ho

le
sa

le
rs

 a
nd

 in
du

st
ri

al
 

su
pp

lie
rs

Ch
ild

re
n

Ca
sh

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Sc
ho

ol
 p

re
pa

ra
tio

n 
ce

nt
er

s

Co
or

di
na

to
r  

br
ea

kf
as

t  
   

 
pr

og
ra

m
m

e
Fo

rt
ifi

ed
 b

is
cu

it 
an

d 
ju

ic
e 

sn
ac

k 
pr

og
ra

m
m

e

Ve
nd

or
s

Pa
re

nt
s

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

In
du

st
ri

al
 s

up
pl

ie
rs

Re
gi

on
al

 e
du

ca
tio

n 
de

pa
rt

m
en

ts

Ca
sh

(A
ll 

re
gi

on
s 

ex
ce

pt
 7

 a
nd

 9
)

Pr
oc

ur
em

en
t d

ep
ar

tm
en

t

Co
m

m
un

it
y 

ba
ke

ri
es

G
ro

ce
ri

es
 a

nd
 s

up
er

m
ar

ke
ts

Co
m

m
un

iti
es

Ca
sh

(R
eg

io
ns

3,
 4

, 
G

eo
rg

et
ow

n)

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

La
bo

r

Ca
sh

Fi
gu

re
 1

2.
2:

   O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 G

uy
an

a 
 - 

co
as

ta
l r

eg
io

ns



70

Table 12.1: Scale of operations of school feeding programmes (2017)

Fortified biscuit 
and juice snack

Breakfast Community- 
based school 

feeding

Peanut butter 
and cassava 
bread snack

Total

Education districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 
and Georgetown

3, 4 and 
Georgetown

1, 2 (Riverain) 
7, 8, 9

9

Number of schools 489 119 181 44 833

Number of meals/day 37 950 13 359 26 694 3 519 81 522

% total student 
population

19.66 6.92 13.83 1.82 41.01

The B&J snack programme was introduced as a policy 
initiative of the Government of Guyana in 2010, through 
the National School Feeding Programme 2010 Ministry 
of Education Circular No.1/ 2010, which sought to 
target students in nursery schools and primary schools 
in grades 1 and 2 in regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,10 and 
Georgetown. 

The breakfast programme which started in 2016, is 
intended to provide a nutritious breakfast in nursery 
schools and grades 1 and 2 of primary schools in 
the three coastal communities of regions 3, 4 and 
Georgetown. In 2017, 13 359 students in 119 schools 
were provided with breakfast, representing 6.91percent 
of the student population. Primary school students in 
grade 4 to grade 6 and secondary school students in 
public schools in the coastland regions are not included 
in any of the two coastal SFPs.

Under the CBSFP, children in the hinterland (regions 1, 2 
(riverain), 7, 8 and 9) in nursery and primary schools, are 
offered a hot lunch.

The PB&CB snack programme operates in region 9.  
Students in nursery and primary schools in Region 9 
are eligible for this programme. Also, where all-age 
schools exist, all secondary students of these schools are 
provided with the snack.

Community participation 

Community-based school feeding programme:

For the CBSFP, a detailed operational manual is provided 
to schools and communities with easy-to-use forms 
and procedures (Ministry of Education Guyana, 2016). 
Communities are required to prepare and submit 
their school feeding proposals to be eligible to receive 

funding. The approved proposals are formalized in an 
implementation funding agreement.  A school feeding 
management committee (SFMC) is established at each 
school, which is typically made up of members of the 
village council, the head teacher, parents, teachers, a 
health officer, and community members.  This committee 
is responsible for the implementation of the programme 
in the community, including the building of the kitchen 
facilities and in some cases, dining areas and the 
preparation and delivery of the meals to the students.

Peanut butter and cassava bread snack programme:

Under the PB&CB snack programme, cottage industries 
produce peanut butter and cassava bread as an 
economic activity, which they supply to this programme. 
Members of the community also make the juice that is 
supplied on a daily basis.

This programme is run in each village or community 
by a school snack management committee (SSMC).  
These SSMCs are mainly registered as friendly societies.  
They also carry out other activities to raise funds. The 
composition of the SSMCs is similar to the SFMCs of the 
CBSFP.  The SSMCs have buildings, where they prepare 
the peanut butter and cassava bread snacks from the 
products of the cottage industries. This programme, 
through the utilization of locally produced raw materials 
and their value-added products, provides economic 
benefits to the surrounding communities and is a 
significant source of employment for women, who 
mainly run the programme. 

Breakfast programme

For the breakfast programme, women from the 
community are trained and hired as cooks to prepare 
breakfast. Thus, the programme has resulted in job 



71

creation in food preparation, delivery services as well as 
in the community production of bread, vegetables, eggs 
and milk. 

Operations at the school level

The fortified biscuit and juice snack programme: 

In the B&J snack programme, each child is served with 
seven fortified biscuits and one box of juice in the 
timetabled break of the morning session of each school 
day. The distribution logistics stipulate that schools 
should receive school feeding supplies on a monthly 
or termly basis. Sealed boxes, each containing about 
365 biscuits are opened and seven biscuits along with 
a sealed pack of fruit juice are issued at no cost to each 
student as a mid-morning snack. Head teachers have the 
responsibility for the coordination of the programme in 
their respective schools. Staff of the school, especially 
authorized teachers, collect supplies for the school and 
distribute the snacks to the students. 

The breakfast programme:

The breakfast programme serves a sandwich and a 
milk-based drink to children.  The sandwich which may 
include eggs, cheese, peanut butter, or tuna is served 
daily between 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and on Friday, 
a locally produced rice-based cereal is served with 
the milk-based drink. Cooks prepare breakfast in the 
preparation centers in the schools and serve breakfast to 
the children. Some schools with functional preparation 
centers prepare breakfast, which is delivered by local 
drivers to other nursery and primary schools in the area, 
which lack these facilities. The head teacher performs a 
monitoring role at the school. 

Community-based school feeding programme:

Under the CBSFP, children in hinterland nursery and 
primary schools (most nursery schools in hinterland 
regions are attached to local primary schools), are 
offered hot lunches. These meals are prepared by trained 
community cooks in the specially constructed school 
kitchen facilities and are based, as far as possible, on 
foods produced by the community. To participate in the 
programme, schools and their associated communities 
are required to:

 y submit school feeding proposals;
 y undergo training in basic financial bookkeeping, 

food hygiene and nutritious meal preparation, 
using locally produced foods, whenever 
possible;

 y build school kitchen facilities in accordance with 
hygiene and safety standards and guidelines of 
the national health authorities; and 

 y utilize menus that are as nutritionally balanced 
as possible, given the availability and cost of 
food items.

The peanut butter and cassava bread snack programme:

Region 9 is a cassava and peanut producing area.  The 
core of the PB&CB snack programme in this region 
consists of seven pilot cottage industries, which buy 
cassava, peanuts, and fresh fruits from the farmers 
in the community, to use as food ingredients for this 
programme. Each school has a teacher liaison officer, 
who coordinates the operations of the programme, 
including the monitoring of the quality of the snacks 
and also the preparation and submission of reports to 
the coordinator of the programme. Students receive the 
snack during the morning break along with an 8-ounce 
serving of juice. 

Operations at the national level

The fortified biscuit and juice snack programme: 

The National School Feeding Programme 2010 Ministry 
of Education Circular No.1/ 2010, provides the regulatory 
framework for all schools participating in the B&J snack 
programme. The objectives of this programme are:

 y to improve the nutritional status of children;
 y to increase enrollment at schools;
 y to increase school attendance levels; and
 y to enhance students’ academic performance. 

Monitoring of this programme is done through a school 
report registry and school inspection by Ministry of 
Education officials.

The Book Distribution Unit (BDU) of the Ministry of 
Education, under which this programme falls, has overall 
responsibility for the distribution of fortified biscuits and 
fruit juice to 37 950 students in 489 schools comprising 
as follows:

 y students in 212 public nursery schools in 
Georgetown and in regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10;

 y students in grades 1 and 2 in 277 public primary 
schools in Georgetown and regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
and 10; and

 y students in grades 1 and 2 in 12 schools in 
regions 1 and 8, that are not benefiting from the 
CBSFP. 



72

This programme therefore operates, at varying levels, 
in nine of the eleven education districts in Guyana and 
serves 19.62 percent of the total student enrollment at 
the nursery and primary levels.

The breakfast programme

The breakfast programme, which started in 2016, is 
intended to provide a nutritious breakfast in nursery 
schools and grades 1 and 2 of primary schools in coastal 
communities of education districts 3, 4 and Georgetown. 
In 2017, 13 359 students in 119 schools were provided 
with breakfast, representing 6.91percent of the student 
population. 

Community-based school feeding programme: 

After external funding ended in 2012, the Government 
of Guyana has funded the CBSFP, through the Ministry 
of Education. Communities have been trained in the 
establishment of community based school feeding 
initiatives. The programme has also adopted a multi-
sectoral approach, involving the Ministries of Education, 
Health, Agriculture, and Amerindian Affairs, with each 
ministry contributing to the training of communities.

As seen in Table 12.1, approximately 23 694 nursery and 
primary school students in 181 schools in the hinterland 
regions were being provided with a hot meal, at the 
lunch hour in 2017, as follows: 55 schools in region 1, 37 
in region 7, 22 in region 8 , 54 in region 9 and 13 schools  
in the riverain areas of region 2.

This SFP was established in 2006 as one component of 
the Education for All–Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) for the 
hinterland regions of Guyana, supported by the World 
Bank Global Partnership for Education Catalytic Fund.  
The programme was designed to:

 y provide a nutritious balanced meal to each 
pupil, at the primary school level; and 

 y foster closer collaboration between the school 
and the community to enhance educational 
opportunities (Ministry of Education Guyana, 
2016).

The expected outcomes of the programme are:

 y increased student attendance;
 y enhanced student learning and academic 

achievement; and 
 y improved physical well-being of children in the 

key developmental years (Ministry of Education 
Guyana, 2016).

Operational funds for all schools participating in the 
programme are disbursed to schools by cash transfers, 
via commercial banks in the respective districts and 
through direct cash transfers, in districts where there are 
no commercial banks. The funds given to each school per 
month are based on student enrollment, cost per meal 
(GYD 175 in 2017) and the number of school days for 
the academic year (192 days). Under this programme, in 
2018, approximately 26 694 children in 214 schools in the 
hinterland regions of Guyana, received a daily meal at the 
lunch hour.

The peanut butter and cassava bread snack programme:

This SFP  is administered through the Regional 
Democratic Council of region 9 and it started in 2005.  
Approximately 3 519 students in nursery and primary 
schools in 44 villages in region 9 are in the programme.

12.4. Governance of the school feeding 
programmes

The human right to food is enshrined in the constitution 
of the Republic of Guyana, which explicitly guarantees 
the right to adequate food. Several national documents 
also promote school feeding in Guyana including the 
Poverty reduction strategy paper 2011-2015 (Ministry of 
Finance Guyana, 2011, p. 14), the Education sector plan 
2014 – 2018 (Ministry of Education Guyana, 2015) and 
the Food and nutrition security strategy for Guyana 2011-
2020, which speaks to the specific objectives of:

 y improving the nutritional status of school 
children; and

 y upgrading the school feeding programmes 
to include schools at the nursery and primary 
levels (Ministry of Agriculture Guyana, 2011, pp. 
29–30) .

 The  2018 Budget Speech also stated that the 
Government had boosted the SFP, to provide wider 
access to a larger cohort of students (Jordan, 2017, p. 60). 
The role and importance of school feeding is therefore 
well articulated in the national development agenda of 
Guyana.

The Ministry of Education currently administers 
the SFPs in Guyana. The Principal Education Officer 
(Georgetown) and regional education division officers 
(REDOs) are responsible for monitoring and supervising 
all educational activities within their respective regional 
education departments. The SFPs in the coastal regions 



73

are administered more directly through the Book 
Distribution Unit (BDU) of the Ministry of Education 
for the B&J snack programme and the school feeding 
coordinator (SFC) for the breakfast programme.  

The programmes in Guyana, are fully funded by 
the Government of Guyana through the Ministry of 
Education – since 2005 for the PB&CB snack programme, 
2010 for the B&J snack programme, 2012 for the CBSFP 
and 2016 for the breakfast programme. All snacks, hot 
meals and breakfasts are provided free of charge to 
participating students in nursery and grades 1 and 2 
in public primary schools in the coastal regions and all 
nursery and primary school students in the hinterland 
regions.

Operational funds for schools participating in the 
relevant programmes are disbursed to schools by 
cash transfers via commercial banks in the respective 
districts and through direct cash transfers in districts 
where there are no commercial banks. An issue with this 
disbursement process is the transfer of cash. To address 
this issue, discussions are in progress to form some level 
of collaboration with local business persons to eliminate 
these cash transfers. 

A national school feeding committee was reported to 
have been formed as a multi-sectoral committee with 
representatives from the Ministries of Education, Local 
Communities, Agriculture, Social Protection, Indigenous 
Peoples’ Affairs, and Public Health. The committee deals 
with issues associated with school feeding in Guyana.

As noted earlier, there is substantial community 
involvement in the administration of the hinterland 
programmes. For the CBSFP, there is a small programme 
implementation unit made up of a SFC and support staff. 
There is also for each school, a SFMC, which involves 
the village council, parents, teachers, and community 
members and a representative from the Ministry of 
Health which  manages and monitors the programme 
and ensure adequate utilization of food in each school.

For the PB&CB snack programme, there is a Regional 
Democratic Council that assists a SFC in the 
administration of the programme. At the community or 
school level, there are local SSMCs, which manage this 
snack programme. Communities provide members for 
the SFMCs and the SSMCs, cooks and food supplies. The 
main constraints reported to community involvement are 
the reluctance to hold key positions on the committees 
and inconsistent attendance at meetings.

 12.5. Procurement for the school feeding 
programmes

The fortified biscuit and juice snack programme: 

The Book Distribution Unit (BDU) of the Ministry 
of Education, has the overall responsibility for the 
distribution of fortified biscuits and fruit juice in this 
programme.  The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry 
of Education contracts suppliers for this programme 
under the direction of the cabinet of the Government 
of Guyana, by public tender.  There is a procurement 
unit under the Deputy Permanent Secretary- Finance at 
the Ministry of Education, which has responsibility for 
making the contractual arrangements with the selected 
suppliers for the B&J snack programme. The Department 
of Education in each region provides updated enrollment 
figures to the Deputy Permanent Secretary – Finance 
and these figures form the basis for the contracts. 
After contracts are finalized, correspondence is sent 
to suppliers indicating monthly purchase orders for all 
regions in the programme. A schedule of delivery is then 
drawn up.

Currently, fruit juice and fortified biscuits are supplied by 
Demerara Distillers Limited and Banks DIH respectively 
(Ministry of Education Guyana, 2014) .   The BDU itself 
does the distribution of the supplies, on a monthly basis, 
to individual nursery and primary schools in Georgetown. 
For schools in the other regions, the Department of 
Education for that region receives juice and biscuit from 
the depots of the suppliers, for distribution to all schools 
in their region. Monthly purchase orders are placed with 
the suppliers, usually two weeks in advance of delivery. 

Regional education departments are notified of the 
amount of juice and biscuits allocated to their respective 
regions and they are expected to collect and deliver 
the juice and biscuits, within the first two weeks of 
the month to schools in their respective regions. 
The regional education departments are required to 
maintain receipt books as well as dispatch books or 
distribution sheets, indicating the amount of juice and 
biscuits allocated to each named school for a given 
month.  Authorized teachers of the schools are required 
to sign the dispatch book or distribution sheet, when 
receiving supplies. Schools are required to submit 
reports at the end of each month to their respective 
regional education department. Each regional education 
department is also required to submit to the BDU, 
monthly, all delivery notes, original signed distribution 



74

sheets and a covering report detailing the amounts of 
juice and biscuits received, the amounts distributed, 
the amounts damaged, as well as the schools’ monthly 
consumption report. Disbursement of funds to suppliers 
is done through a centralized system, based on supplies 
obtained through the contractual arrangements. 

The proper functioning of this procurement process 
requires that the food supplies are nationally distributed 
in a timely manner, with the supplies delivered in good 
condition and that there is a system for monitoring the 
supply and receipt of food supplies.  Thus, collaboration 
and systems are in place between the BDU and each 
regional education department to ensure the collection, 
quality control, record keeping, and the smooth 
distribution of supplies.

The breakfast programme:

Procurement arrangements for the breakfast programme 
are done through the Ministry of Education. All food 
items (milk, Milo, tuna, cheese, peanut butter, eggs, 
bread and Morning Glory) are procured by tender 
by the procurement department within the Ministry 
of Education. The vegetables used in the breakfast 
sandwich are procured weekly by the head cook within 
the community and the bread and eggs are supplied by 
bakeries and small businesses respectively within the 
community. Milk and water are supplied by Demerara 
Distillers Limited.

The community-based school feeding programme: 

Procurement for the CBSFP is done through the SFMC 
at each school, which typically meets at least once per 
month and manages expenditure for the programme. 
Usually, the treasurer with the approval of the SFMC 
decides on the source and amount of inputs for the 
hot meals in this programme. As much as 70 percent 
of the total food requirements and support services 
of this programme are sourced from small farmers in 
the community or surrounding areas. Typically, the 
SFMC informs farmers of their needs for inputs into the 
programme, which farmers try to provide. The funds 
given to each school per month are based on student 
enrollment, cost per meal (GYD 175) and the number of 
school days for the academic year (192 days).

The peanut butter and cassava bread snack programme:

For the PB&CB snack programme, the community 
provides all the food products. The peanut butter and 
cassava bread are supplied through the established 
cottage industries. The community groups also provide 

fresh fruit juice from fruits available locally. Many women 
participate in this procurement process:

 y by buying farmers’ produce;
 y operating the cottage industries to produce 

peanut butter and cassava bread; and 
 y through membership in the SSMCs, which use 

these products to make snacks for the schools. 

This local purchase of agricultural produce from within 
the community also creates a steady market for farmers. 
The funds given to each school per month are based 
on student enrollment, cost per meal (GYD 85) and the 
number of school days for the academic year (192 days).

12.6.  School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

Proposals have been put forward for strengthening 
existing school gardens and the establishment of 
new ones in selected schools (Ministry of Agriculture 
Guyana, 2011, pp. 29–30). Currently, schools gardens are 
especially  prominent in secondary schools associated   
with the Caribbean Examinations Council ‘s CSEC, 
Agricultural Science syllabus (Chowbay, 2019).

Food and nutrition education has been offered largely as 
a small element of the health and family life education 
(HFLE) as a timetabled subject in Guyana. HFLE was 
introduced into the curriculum of primary schools in 
1998 and is stated to have achieved important successes  
(Ministry of Education Guyana, 2013).  This subject has 
also been offered at the secondary level (UNICEF and 
Guyana, 2013).  In addition, food and nutrition education 
is offered as a component of  the CSEC subjects in food 
and nutrition and agricultural science. 

With particular respect to the CBSFP, the Ministry of 
Agriculture has been training community members 
in improved agricultural practices.  The Ministry has 
also provided support for the establishment of school 
gardens through its extension officers.  These efforts 
especially in the hinterland have strengthened the 
linkages among school gardens, school feeding and 
national agricultural production.

12.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

Guyana has implemented a strategy and action plan 
for institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation (M&E 
Action Plan) in the Ministry of Education. In line with 



75

this development, the Planning Unit of the Ministry of 
Education has responsibility for the monitoring and 
evaluation of education policies and plans, inclusive of 
data collection and analysis.  The Ministry then produces 
reports based on the data analysis. 

The Ministry of Public Health routinely sends public 
health inspectors to visit school kitchens to ensure food 
quality and safety standards are maintained.  Regular 
progress reports are produced for the SFPs.  The Ministry 
of Public Health has also indicated its support in the 
development of policies with respect to school canteens, 
to ensure that safe meals are provided of acceptable 
quality, which will support the total health of the school 
children (Ministry of Health Guyana, 2013, p. 64).

The World Bank conducted an impact evaluation of 
the CBSFP (Ismali et al., 2012). This evaluation found 
several positive impacts on students’ nutritional 
status, enrollment, class participation and academic 
performance (Ismali et al., 2012). The evaluation noted 
that beneficiaries of the programme were primary school 
children, teachers, community and regional educational 
officers in the hinterland areas.  Ismali et al. (2012) also 
reported that outstanding challenges of this programme 
include:

 y increasing the use of local agricultural products;
 y greater access to safe water; and 
 y the extension of the programme to the most 

remote of Guyana’s hinterland communities.

In  this study, for the breakfast programme, the main 
constraints identified include:

 y inadequate staff to effectively administer the 
programme;

 y the locations of some schools with respect to 
the transport of goods and services; and 

 y the late delivery of breakfast to some schools.

The main constraints reported for the B&J snack 
programme were:

 y  the untimely submission of reports;
 y  late collection and distribution of the supplies; 

and
 y insufficient staff to conduct satisfactory 

monitoring and evaluation of the programme. 

One suggested improvement for quality assurance was 
for the seven fortified biscuits to be packaged as one unit 
for easier and more sanitary distribution to students.

12.8.   Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programmes 

Approach to the assessment

Two annual net benefit analyses were conducted 
for Guyana’s SFPs. The first was done for all four SFPs 
combined and the second was done separately for the 
CBSFP.  The latter programme was chosen for separate 
analysis, since it targets the provision of a healthy food 
option, which could provide a minimum nutritional 
requirement for students (e.g. 33 percent of the RDA for 
energy and protein).  Data were available and analyses 
conducted for 2017/18.  

 For the first analysis, two simulations were carried out. 
The first was determine the sensitivity of the benefit–
cost ratio to the variable – the percentage of the daily 
nutritional requirement provided by the programmes. 
This simulation was carried out, since there was no 
accurate estimation of the value of this variable for the 
varied meals that compose the snacks and hot meals 
provided by the four SFPs. The second simulation 
determined the sensitivity of the benefit–cost ratio 
to the amount of community support to the SFPs, 
estimated as a percentage of the total operational cost. 
As before, there was no accurate estimation of the value 
of this variable for the three SFPs that had significant 
community support - the two hinterland SFPs, as well as 
the coastal breakfast programme.

These simulations involved keeping all other data for the 
analyses the same and:

 y for the first simulation, varying only the 
percentage of the daily nutritional requirement 
provided by the programmes, with the amount 
of community support to the SFPs, maintained 
at a default value of ten percent of the total 
operational cost (ceteris paribus) and calculating 
the benefit–cost ratio for each percentage value 
of the daily nutritional requirement;  and

 y for the second simulation, varying only the level 
of community support to the SFPs, with the 
percentage of the daily nutritional requirement 
maintained at a default value of 19.2 percent 
(ceteris paribus) and then calculating the 
benefit–cost ratio for each level of community 
support to the SFPs, estimated as a percentage 
of the total operational cost.



76

Table 12.2:  Cost of the school feeding programmes in Guyana (2017/18)

School feeding 
programme

No. of 
schools  meals/day % of total 

meals/ day
Av. cost/meal

GYD
SFP cost 

GYD
% of total 
SFP cost

Fortified biscuit and 
juice snack

489 37 950 51.3 129.33 942 357 658 39.54

Breakfast 119 13 359 15.9 141.72 363 496 018 15.25

Community- based 
school feeding 

181 26 694 28.6 201.09 1 030 650 092 43.24

Peanut butter and 
cassava bread

44 3 519 4.2 69.57 47 002 343 1.97

Total 833 81 522 100.0 2 383 506 111 100

Total student 
enrollment Guyana

190 220 Av. cost/meal/
day for all SFPs

152.28

Source: Derived from figures provided by Ministry of Education 
Note:  USD 1.00 = GYD 207.733

contribution to total benefits was from value transfers 
(45.1 percent) and increased productivity (30.4 percent). 
The other major contributor to the total benefits was the 
benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (24.0 percent). Return on investment made 
an insignificant contribution to the programme total 
benefits.

Table 12.3 shows that the annual net benefit of the four 
SFPs was GYD 993 322 491, with a benefit–cost ratio of 
1.40, which indicates that the benefits from the four SFPs 
greatly exceed the estimated costs and should justify the 
continued existence and support of school feeding by 
the Republic of Guyana.

Community-based school feeding programmes

The contributions of the four individual benefits to 
the CBSFP are presented in percentage form in Table 
12.4.  Here it is seen that the major contribution to 
total benefits was from value transfers (45.4 percent) 
and increased productivity (34.4 percent). The other 
major contributor to the total benefits was the 

For the analysis of the CBSFP, a simulation was carried out 
to determine the sensitivity of the benefit–cost ratio  to 
the amount of community support to this programme, 
again estimated by a percentage of the total operational 
cost. This simulation was again carried out by varying 
only the level of community support to the CBSFP, with 
the percentage of the daily nutritional requirement 
maintained at a default value of 19.2 percent (ceteris 
paribus) and then calculating the benefit–cost ratio for 
each level of community support to the CBSFP, estimated 
as a percentage of the total operational cost.

As seen in Table 12.2, for 2017/18, the SFPs in Guyana 
cost the state approximately GYD 2.38 billion.  These 
students in the SFPs had access to either a snack, hot 
meal or breakfast at an average cost per student per day 
of GYD 152.28.

All programmes

The contributions of the four individual benefits (or 
drivers) to all four SFPs are presented in percentage 
form in Table 12.3. Here it is seen that the major 



77

Table 12.4:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the community-based school 
feeding programme

Programme element Element manager GYD

Total operational cost Min. of Education 941 859 989

Administrative costs Min. of Education 88 790 103

Paid to school by community Schools 94 185 999

Paid to school by  parents Schools 0

Programme total costs  1 124 836 090

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits 

Value transfer 45.4% 792 936 297 

Return on investment 0.4% 7 280 741 

Increased productivity 34.4%               601 681 692 

Healthier and longer life 19.7%              344 735 162 

Programme total benefits 100.0%         1 746 633 892 

Annual net benefit               621 797 801     

Benefit–cost ratio 1.55  

Table 12.3:  Determination of the annual net benefit for all the programmes 

Programme element Element manager GYD 

Total operational cost Min. of Education 1 810 316 083

Administrative costs Min. of Education 573 190 028

Paid to school by community Schools 134 594 991

Paid to school by parents Schools 0

Programme total cost  2 518 101 102

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits 

Value transfer 45.1% 1 584 906 933 

Return on investment 0.4% 13 216 465 

Increased productivity 30.4% 1 069 171 733

Healthier and longer life 24.0%    844 128 463

Programme total benefit 100.0%      3 511 423 594 

Annual net benefit          993 322 491

Benefit–cost ratio 1.40  



78

benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (19.7 percent).  As in the first case of the four 
SFPs combined, the return on investment made an 
insignificant contribution to the total benefits for the 
CBSFP.

Table 12.4 shows that the annual net benefit for the 
CBSFP was  GYD 621 797 801, with a  benefit–cost ratio 
of 1.55 which was higher than the figure for the four SFPs 
combined, which was 1.40 in Table 12.3.  A benefit–cost 
ratio of 1.55 indicates that the CBSFP is highly beneficial 
and justifies its continued existence.

12.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programmes 

The net benefit analyses carried out have demonstrated 
that the four SFPs in Guyana can justify their existence 
from a social welfare perspective, with a combined 
benefit–cost ratio of 1.40. Also, the CBSFP can be highly 
justified with its higher benefit–cost ratio of 1.55. This 
programme is therefore a good model for school feeding 
in Guyana, because of its significant social net benefits 
and high levels of community involvement.

However, it is clear that the SFPs in Guyana are limited 
in their scope and also in the nutritional contribution 
to the students, since the second largest programme 
(40 percent of the students in the four SFPs) only 
provides a snack of fortified biscuits and juice. The major 
recommendation for Guyana is therefore the expansion 
of the CBSFP.

The results of the simulation analysis carried out for the 
four SFPs combined in Guyana are given in Table 12.5.  In 
the simulation, for the percentage of the daily nutritional 

requirement of the programmes, the percentages were 
varied from 16.5 percent to 33 percent, with the level 
community support to the programmes maintained at 
a default value of ten percent of the total operational 
cost (ceteris paribus).  The benefit–cost ratios calculated 
ranged from 1.39 to 1.43 showing that the benefit–cost 
ratio was not sensitive to the percentage of the daily 
nutritional requirement for the SFPs. In the simulation for 
the four SFPs for the level of community support to the 
SFPs, the percentage of the daily nutritional requirement 
was maintained at a default value of 19.2 percent (ceteris 
paribus).  The values of level of community support 
to the SFPs, estimated as a percentage of the total 
operational cost ranged from five percent to 25 percent.  
The benefit–cost ratios calculated ranged from 1.43 to 
1.29, as the benefit–cost ratio decreases as the assumed 
level of community support as a percentage of the 
total operational cost increases. The results thus show 
that the benefit–cost ratio was fairly sensitive to the 
level of community support to all the programmes. It is 
important therefore that this level of community support 
is accurately estimated for a reliable estimate of the  
annual net benefit and the benefit–cost ratio. 

Table 12. 5 also gives the results of the simulation for 
the level of community support for the CBSFP.  Here 
it is seen that for the same range of values for the 
percentage of the total operational cost, the benefit–
cost ratios calculated ranged from 1.62 to 1.38, showing 
that the benefit–cost ratio was very sensitive to the 
level of community support for this programme.  This 
suggests that if the current support by the community 
to the SFP is of the order of say 20 percent of the total 
operational cost, then this programme has about the 
same net benefit to society as the four SFPs combined, 
as calculated with the default values in Table 12.3.  This 

Table 12.5:  Simulation analysis for all programmes and the community based school feeding 
programme of Guyana

% daily 
nutritional 

requirement 

Benefit–cost 
ratio all SFPs

Contribution of 
community (% of total 

operational cost)

Benefit–cost 
ratio - all 

programmes

Benefit–cost 
ratio - CBSFP

16.5% 1.39 5.0% 1.43 1.62

19.2% 1.40 10.0% 1.40 1.55

24.8% 1.41 20.0% 1.32 1.43

33.0% 1.43 25.0% 1.29 1.38



79

is because, as stated above, this community support is 
added, in this exercise, as an additional cost to the (state 
provided) total operational cost.  Care has therefore to 
be exercised to ensure that all costs for the CBSFP are 
kept in check. Also as stated before, it is important to 
accurately measure the level of community support to 
obtain reliable estimates of the annual net benefit and 
the benefit–cost ratio. 

A major issue with the programmes is their sustainability. 
In this regard, the CBSFP appears to be the most 
sustainable, since it is based on substantial inputs from 
the community especially in the form of food and labor 
inputs. In regard to the CBSFP therefore, the conclusions 
of a recent study are particularly relevant.  The study 
states that the programme has obvious educational 
and nutritional benefits and plays an important role 
in providing a safety net by addressing poverty in 
hinterland communities. Thus, for example, the CBSFP 
offers guaranteed markets to farmers for their produce 
and employment for women as cooks.  While the CBSFP 
is cost-effective, the Ministry may wish to consider ways 
by which costs may be reduced, so as to increase the 
likelihood of sustainability. These include:

 y establishing school gardens to provide produce 
for the meals;

 y encouraging home gardens;
 y seeking partnerships with the private sector; 

and 
 y finding ways in which the school kitchens 

could be used on weekends and during school 
holidays to raise funds through small business 
enterprises (Ismali et al., 2012).

12.10.     Specific recommendation  

Expansion of school feeding programmes  

It is recommended that the coastal programmes should 
be expanded on a phased basis to include all primary 
school grades. Currently, school feeding in the coastal 
regions target students in the nursery schools and 
grade 1 and grade 2 in the primary schools, while the 
hinterland programmes provide for all nursery and 
primary school students. 

It is also being recommended that emphasis should be 
placed on the expansion of the CBSFP, as the backbone 
of school feeding throughout Guyana. In this SFP, as 
noted earlier, most children in the hinterland are offered 
a hot lunch, prepared by trained community cooks, and 
incorporating locally produced foods in school meals. 
This programme has a well-established link with the 
community, which plays an important role in driving 
activities at the school, in relation to school feeding. It 
also provides an avenue to sustain and stimulate the 
agricultural sector and provide economic benefits to the 
community, by utilizing locally produced agricultural 
products in meals. This community ownership empowers 
parents and the community to work with the Ministry of 
Education to support their children’s nutritional health 
and education. This systematic development of links 
between the SFMCs and agricultural production, through 
community small farmers can foster greater community 
involvement in schools. Currently a large component 
of the food ingredients for the hot meals provided to 
students is sourced from the community.



80

13.1. Introduction
The nation of Haiti occupies the western third of the 
island of Hispaniola (the other two-thirds is the nation 
of the Dominican Republic). Haiti won independence 
from France in 1804, making it the second country in 
the Americas, after the United States, to free itself from 
colonial rule. Over the centuries, however, economic, 
political, and social difficulties, as well as natural 
disasters, have beset Haiti with chronic poverty and other 
problems (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018).

Haiti is extremely vulnerable to natural hazards with 
more than 90 percent of the population at risk (World 
Bank, 2020a). In January 2010, a catastrophic earthquake 
and its aftershocks resulted in severe damage to Port-
au-Prince and  the city of Léogâne near the epicenter 
of the earthquake  (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018). On 
4 October 2016, Hurricane Matthew battered Haiti’s 
southern peninsula, causing damage equivalent to 32 
percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).  (World 
Bank, 2020a).

According to CARICOM (2016b), Haiti was admitted to 
membership in CARICOM on the 1 July 2002.  However, 
some of the provisions of CARICOM do not as yet apply 
to Haiti. Agriculture is the mainstay of the economy. 
However, there are  very strong informal business and 
tourism sectors. Agriculture accounts for nearly a quarter 
of the GDP, about 50 percent of total employment, 
66 percent of rural jobs and 75 percent of jobs in low-
income households. Agricultural productivity is low 
and so most rural households, even those involved in 
agriculture, buy food products in rural marketplaces 
(Ministére de L’ éducation Nationale et de la Formation 
Profesionnelle (MENFP) (Ministry of National Education 
and Vocational Training Haiti) , 2016). However, very few 
countries in the world maintain agricultural prices as low 
as those of Haiti.

13.2. School feeding in Haiti
Figure 13.1 presents the general structure of school 
feeding in Haiti and here it is seen that the agencies 
involved in school feeding include: 

 y International agencies: According to MENFP 
(2016) school feeding in Haiti began in the 
post-war period of the 1950s with the food aid 
programmes of USAID and the Government 
of Canada. More organized SFPs began after 
the passage of Hurricane Hazel on 12 October 
1954, when the EU began to provide financial 

13.  Haiti

assistance for school feeding. Then the World 
Food Programme (WFP or PAM in French) began 
its activities in 1969 and the World Bank in 2004. 

 y Government of Haiti:  Programme National 
de Cantine Scolaire (PNCS) (National School 
Canteen Programme) became operational in 
1997 and has its own SFP. 

 y Non-governmental and religious organizations:  
These entities operate in several ways.

 y  Private firms and organizations: There are a 
number of private sector firms and agencies, 
who act as contractors to (in particular) 
international organizations and foreign 
governments in the provision of services to 
facilitate the importation, port clearance and 
delivery of food ingredients to the SFPs.

 y Parents: Parents supply a very limited amount of 
meals for children to take to school.  This supply 
is most prevalent, where there is no active SFP in 
the school.

 y Cafeterias: Many schools have cafeterias or 
canteens run by the school, which provide meals 
and snacks to the students.

 y Private vendors: Vendors are allowed to sell 
snacks on some school compounds. In most 
cases, these snacks consist of sweets, soft drinks, 
juices and sandwiches.

MENFP (2016) reports that during the school year 
2015/16, it was estimated that a total of 867 000 
children received  meals from organized SFPs of local 
and international institutions and agencies and non-
governmental, religious and other organizations. This 
total was said to represent almost a quarter of pupils 
of primary and secondary schools (3.7 million) and 30 
percent of primary school students. (MENFP, 2016)

13.3. The school feeding programmes
Overview

The following are the main agencies providing SFPs in 
Haiti:

 y PNCS as an agency of the state appears to 
have the overall coordinating role for school 
feeding in Haiti (MENFP, 2016).  However, in 
addition to its coordinating role, the PNCS is also 
directly involved as an agency providing food 
ingredients directly to schools.

 y Foreign governments: At least seven foreign 
governments assist in SFPs in Haiti.  Most of 
these governments provide their assistance 



81

In
te

rn
at

io
na

l f
un

di
ng

 s
ou

rc
es

 
an

d 
fo

re
ig

n 
go

ve
rn

m
en

ts
Pr

iv
at

e 
im

po
rt

in
g 

fir
m

s 
an

d 
    

  
lo

ca
l w

ho
le

sa
le

rs
Pr

iv
at

e 
di

st
ri

bu
tio

n 
fir

m
s

PN
CS

 a
nd

 E
PTG

ov
er

nm
en

t  
of

 H
ai

ti 
- M

in
is

tr
y 

of
 E

du
ca

tio
n 

 a
nd

 V
oc

at
io

na
l T

ra
in

in
g

Pr
in

ci
pa

ls
 a

nd
 te

ac
he

rs
N

G
O

s 
an

d 
lo

ca
l i

ns
tit

ut
io

ns
Lo

ca
l N

G
O

s

Lo
ca

l f
ar

m
er

s

Sc
ho

ol
 c

an
te

en
s 

 
(k

itc
he

ns
)

Co
m

m
un

iti
es

, p
ar

en
ts

, a
nd

 s
ch

oo
l 

m
an

ag
em

en
t c

om
m

itt
ee

s

Sc
ho

ol
 g

ar
de

ns

Lo
ca

l f
ar

m
er

s

Sc
ho

ol
 c

an
te

en
s

Sc
ho

ol
 v

en
do

rs

Pa
re

nt
s

Co
ok

s 
(c

at
er

er
s)

Su
pe

rm
ar

ke
ts

 a
nd

 
m

ar
ke

t  
pl

ac
es

Ch
ild

re
n

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

La
bo

r

Ca
sh

(U
SA

ID
)

(K
or

e 
La

vi
) (

W
FP

-N
ip

pe
s)

(F
re

nc
h 

sc
ho

ol
 

fe
ed

in
g 

pr
og

ra
m

m
e)

Fi
gu

re
 1

3.
1:

  O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 H

ai
ti

 



82

through agencies and organizations, such as the 
WFP and the PNCS. However, some countries 
provide their assistance through churches 
and ministries and other agencies of the 
Government of Haiti.  

 y International organizations: Several international 
organizations are directly involved in school 
feeding in Haiti. The main one is the WFP, but 
others include USAID and the World Bank Group.

 y Non-governmental and religious organizations:  
Several NGOs (non- governmental 
organizations) are involved in school feeding 
at various levels of the system.  They include 
churches and a wide range of other religious 
organizations.

Selection of students for the school feeding programmes 

In general, for the SFPs in Haiti, organizations and 
agencies select specific districts or departments for the 
implementation of their SFPs.  Once these districts are 
selected, typically schools are selected, which are located 
in food insecure areas. Therefore the targeted schools 
are serving vulnerable children and their families (WFP, 
2019a). Schools may be removed from the SFPs, if they 
fail to meet the rules for participation in the SFPs (WFP, 
2019b). In selected schools, students are chosen to 
actually receive meals, often in three cycles from the first 
to the ninth year. Priority  is given to younger children 
from the first and second cycles (WFP, 2019b).

The number of school feeding days for the year depends 
on the particular SFP.  Planned distribution varies from 
110 to 180 days and in a review of its SFPs, the WFP found 
the actual number of days school meals were distributed 
from “functioning canteens was around 120 days per 
year” (WFP, 2019b).

The SFPs of the PNCS target public schools and a selected 
number of private and community schools authorized by 
the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. Several 
smaller SFPs, especially of religious bodies and NGOs may 
also target private schools in addition to public schools. 
However, the SFPs of the WFP are reported to only target 
public schools (WFP, 2019b).

Community participation

The level of community participation in the SFPs varies 
greatly by the model of SFP adopted in the specific 
programme. In general in Haiti, programmes in rural 
communities have involved a greater level of community 
participation. 

For the larger SFPs of the WFP and the PNCS, the 
communities have organized school management 
committees (SMCs), which are responsible for the 
preparation and distribution of meals in the schools 
(WFP, 2017a, WFP, 2019). These SMCs  are composed of 
the principal, teachers, students, parents, and members 
of the community. 

The large majority of these committees were found to 
be functional in the WFP’s review of their programme 
(WFP, 2017).   However, they  reported that despite the 
activities of the SMCs, the level of food management and 
food preparation still needed substantial improvement. 
However, there was an active programme for training the 
members of these local school management committees, 
especially in the implementation of a school feeding 
programme, the use of local foods to enrich the diet of 
the students, as well as general hygiene (WFP, 2017).

A wide range of churches and other religious and non-
governmental organizations are involved in SFPs.  Many 
of the SFPs are actually funded by foreign governments, 
who use the churches and NGOs as executing agencies, 
as reported in the case of the government of Taiwan 
(Haiti Libre, 2019). As MENFP (2016) states, most of these 
organizations receive direct funding from foreign sources 
and they operate outside the direct purview of the state. 
Hence, they may vary widely in their modes of operation.

Operations at the school level 

For the SFPs of the international and state agencies, food 
commodities are generally distributed to schools by the 
use of private carriers or firms.  The schools store the food 
supplies in secure storerooms.  Food ingredients are then 
withdrawn daily to meet the requirements for the meals 
for the children for that day under the guidance of the 
SMCs and the authority of the school principal.

The meals are prepared by cooks, who are usually female 
parents and female members of the community.  The 
cooking is usually done outdoors, using open wood 
fires and very large iron pots. The cooks work six to 
seven hours a day under difficult conditions that may be 
detrimental to their health. 

The food is generally served in disposable plates by the 
cooks and their assistants.  Generally, infants are served 
in their classrooms, while the older children choose 
comfortable locations on the school compound to 
consume their meals.  Children generally drink water 
with or after their meals.



83

Parents are expected to contribute to the meals their 
children receive through payments of  cash or the in-
kind contribution of labor or food ingredients.  These 
payments assisted in the purchase of fuel for cooking, as 
well as the remuneration of cooks. These contributions 
were deemed by the WFP to be greatly insufficient to 
meet the school kitchens’ (canteens’) daily needs and 
ensure long-term sustainability of the SFPs (WFP, 2019b). 
WFP (2017) reported that the government’s policy on 
free education has created a disincentive for parents to 
pay for the meals their children receive, resulting in a 
decrease in parents’ contributions. 

Operations at the national level 

Programme National de Cantine Scolaire

MENFP (2016) reports that this organization was 
launched in July 1997 with the following initial 
implementation objectives:

 y to contribute to the expansion of the 
existing school feeding activities financed by 
international aid agencies;

 y to introduce new SFPs by service providers, 
contracted by the government;

 y to provide hot meals at schools; and
 y to establish a coordination and management 

structure, which would be responsible for 
regulating expenditure and monitoring and 
controlling the execution of contracts for SFPs.

The PNCS administers two SFPs funded by the 
governments of Haiti and France, with the assistance of 
the Government of Taiwan in the form of the provision 
of imported rice.  These SFPs fed approximately 107 000 
students in 295 schools in 2016. 

The French supported SFP focuses on the development 
of the agricultural sector and rural communities. Hence 
Haiti Libre (2018a) reports that this French supported 
SFP spent in 2017, USD 2 million for the purchase of 
930 tons of local agricultural products (cereals and 
legumes) to supply school kitchens or canteens. The 
article went on to report that “in accordance with its 
purchasing policy, all these purchases were made from 
producer organizations in Artibonite and North (Haiti) 
to guarantee their income and support family farming” 
(Haiti Libre, 2018a).

In  very  recent  developments,  Haiti Libre  (2018a)  
reported  the  establishment  of  the “PNCS in the South”, 
a new SFP, which will provide food for an additional 

35,000 children beneficiaries, bringing the total number 
of students that PNCS will fund for 2018/19 to 85,000. 
Then Belfort (2018) reported on 31 August 2018 that 
“Two days before the start of the school year, the 
coordinator of the PNCS,  presented her plan to allow 
school children to enjoy a hot meal.”  This plan includes:

 y the addition of 350 schools in its feeding 
programme bringing the total number of 
schools to 1 190 for the 2018/19 school year;

 y revitalizing and strengthening the capacity of 
the PNCS to provide quality food to children; 
and

 y the setting up of school gardens, so that children 
can consume more fruits and vegetables.

Belfort (2018) reported that this set of activities will be 
carried out by the PNCS, despite the damage that the 
institution had suffered during the civil disturbances of 6 
July and 8 July 2018.

World Food Programme 

The SFP of the WFP is the largest in Haiti. WFP (2017a) 
reports that the WFP collaborates with foreign country 
donors, UN agencies and NGOs to support the Haitian 
Government in developing sustainable solutions to 
hunger and malnutrition. With particular regard to school 
feeding, the foreign donor countries for the WFP are 
Canada, Brazil and France.

Recently, the main project for school feeding of the 
WFP was “DEV 200150 (2012 to 2017): Assistance to the 
National School Feeding Programme in Haiti, with an 
approved budget of USD 124 million aimed to distribute 
mid-day hot meals to 485 000 school aged children 
in Haitian public schools. (WFP, 2017). The second SFP 
followed the home-grown school feeding (HGSF) model  
funded by a trust fund which provided schools with 
foods produced locally by small farmers (WFP, 2017a). 
This HGSF programme is located in Nippes. 

WFP (2017a) stated that both projects supported the 
Government of Haiti in its vision of a national SFP linked 
almost exclusively to local agriculture by the year 2030.  
DEV 200150 (2012 to 2017) also provided significant 
support for the development of the national policy on 
school feeding.

WFP (2017) has provided a good review of the 
achievements of the its SFPs. The relevant objective, 
outcomes and the activity were:



84

 y objective: reduce undernutrition and break the 
intergenerational cycle of hunger;

 y outcome 1: increased access to education 
and greater priority given to human capital in 
schools receiving WFP assistance; 

 y outcome 2: nutritional status of the targeted 
boys and girls improved; and

 y activity: nutrition-sensitive SFPs in  nine out of 
ten departments of Haiti.

WFP (2017) reported that in 2016, its two SFPs “assisted 
almost half a million children in almost 1 800 schools 
all across Haiti, making the school meals programme 
the single largest safety net in Haiti”. For many families, 
school meals were the greatest incentive to keep their 
children in school. However, due to a lack of funding, 
WFP reduced the number of school children assisted 
for the school year 2016/17, by 26 percent to 363 000 
children in 1 403 schools (WFP, 2017).

 The WFP maintained these SFPs in schools “whose 
assessments showed satisfactory day-to-day functioning 
and governance of the school’s canteen” (WFP, 2017).

Education Pour Tous

Education Pour Tous (EPT) is a project and an institution 
with a specific developmental goal “to support the 
national education strategy of the Government of Haiti 
by implementing sustainable programmes to improve 
access, especially for disadvantaged populations, and the 
quality of basic education, while building institutional 
capacity” (EPT, 2016).

The objectives of the EPT are:

 y to support the enrollment of pupils in non-
public schools in disadvantaged areas;

 y to promote school attendance in selected non-
public schools in disadvantaged areas; and

 y to strengthen the management of the basic 
education sector (EPT, 2016).

The EPT administers a SFP for 459 schools and 140 000 
students, supported by the World Bank (BM), the Inter-
American Development Bank (IDB) and the Caribbean 
Development Bank (CDB).

The EPT however is not directly involved in the 
procurement or the distribution of food ingredients to 
schools.  These functions are performed by firms and in 
particular by the Bureau of Nutrition and Development 
(BND).  EPT selects the schools and the students to be 

included in its SFP, mainly through surveys of the rural 
areas of Haiti.

USAID 

USAID through the Kore Lavi SFP is reported to directly 
support “the Government of Haiti’s social protection 
efforts through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor 
(MAST )” (CARE, 2015). This SFP is being conducted 
in partnership with the WFP, World Vision and Action 
Against Hunger.  It is a safety net programme which 
is designed to improve access to locally produced 
foods among vulnerable households and so reduce 
malnutrition. A pilot SFP within the Kore Lavi SFP, utilized 
local food and environmentally conscious cooking 
methods, as part of the provision of improved food 
access to the vulnerable students (CARE, 2015).

According to CARE (2015) “distributing healthy and 
nutritious hot meals and snacks in some public primary 
schools promotes local entrepreneurship, improved 
production capacity and marketing practices”.  USAID 
(2018) states that the Kore Lavi programmes benefited 
nearly 86 000 food-insecure individuals, in 2018.  

Menus and nutrition 

The SFPs of the WFP  and the PNCS mainly utilized 
imported food ingredients for the school meals (WFP, 
2017).  These ingredients included:

 y rice
 y bulgur wheat (Hill, 2018)
 y maize meal
 y pulses (peas or beans)
 y fortified vegetable oil
 y iodized salt and
 y canned fish. 

The daily school meal portions based on these 
ingredients were designed to provide approximately 
40 percent of the recommended daily intake for school 
children (585 kcal/meal). WFP monitoring data showed 
that 53 percent of boys and girls think the portions 
served are too small, especially for older children 
attending primary school (WFP, 2019b).  Also, 73 percent 
of students consider that the meals were monotonous, 
especially those meals based on bulgur wheat and 
pulses. 

However, WFP (2017) reports that in the HGSF 
programme in the Nippes department, the children 
received more nutritious, diversified and seasonal menus, 



85

including cereals, pulses, fresh vegetables, tubers and 
milk, produced in nearby areas, by small farmers. These 
menus were also more typical of the smaller SFPs of 
NGOs and religious bodies, especially the SFPs in rural 
areas.

In 2017, micronutrient powders were also included in the 
food basket for distribution in three of the nine Haitian 
departments benefiting from the SFPs. This initiative was 
to fight the high levels of anemia and other nutritional 
deficiencies among the children (WFP, 2017).

In many schools, parents provide complementary items 
and condiments (such as tomato paste, garlic, dried fish 
and cloves), to improve the palatability of the meals.  
School gardens also provide seasoning herbs  for the 
meals and a growing trend, noted on the visits to schools 
in this study, is the addition to meals of the leaves of the 
moringa plant from school gardens.

13.4. Governance of the school feeding 
programmes

Programme National de Cantine Scolaire (PNCS)

PNCS sees itself as the coordinator of school feeding in 
Haiti. MENFP (2016) however admits as noted earlier 
that all of the activities in Figure 13.1 are not strictly 
coordinated.  In particular, as also noted earlier, PNCS 
admits that many NGOs and religious congregations 
are involved in school feeding, without reference to 
government entities.

WFP (2017) reports that “the Haitian Government has 
set up a national school meals working group (table 
sectorielle de l’alimentation scolaire), which includes 
representatives of the Government, donors, NGOs, 
international organizations and local communities, 
which … coordinates the support to the national school 
feeding programme to avoid duplication of efforts”.

PNCS directs its own SFP providing the food ingredients 
directly to the schools.  A general challenge to the 
PNCS with its limited funding is to maintain their SFP in 
the schools.  Hence WFP (2017) estimates that feeding 
takes place at these schools on average for 61 days of 
the school year.  On school visits in this study, it was 
reported by a school principal that when school feeding 
by the  PNCS stops in his school, many children leave that 
school and try to enter other schools, where feeding is 
taking place, which causes a dramatic drop in his school’s 
student population.

In 2016, the Government of Haiti adopted a National 
School Feeding Policy and Strategy (PSNAS) (MENFP, 
2016).  In its summary of this policy and strategy MENFP 
(2016) reports that the school feeding policy has a “vision 
of universal school feeding in 2030”, which ensures

“that all school children enjoy good health and 
nutrition necessary for learning, through the 
provision of safe, complementary and balanced 
school meals, prepared with almost exclusively 
local products and meeting nutritional 
standards, so that hunger is not a barrier to 
education.”

The policy is geared around three main strategic 
objectives and interventions:

1. The provision of quality food in schools 
(snacks and hot meals) with the participation 
of the private sector and other institutions, to 
generate educational benefits and foster the 
development of local communities. The hot 
meals will be expected to provide a greater 
contribution to social safety nets and food 
security.

2. Support for the local economy and local food 
production by requiring that local farmers and 
food processors provide almost exclusively, 
the basket of food ingredients that would be 
provided to the schools.

3. The development of national capabilities for 
the proper management of SFPs, specifically 
requiring institutional strengthening of the 
PNCS. 

13.5.   Procurement arrangements  
MENFP (2016) presented the different modalities that are 
being used to procure food ingredients for the SFPs in 
Haiti.

Centralized procurement by public tender

WFP (2017) reports that the PNCS uses this arrangement 
to purchase food commodities according to the 
procedures stated in the “law on general procurement 
rules”.   The food commodities are then distributed to 
schools by the use of private carriers or firms. WFP also 
uses centralized purchasing and  distribution, through 
contracted private  firms, the major one of which is BND 
(Bureau de Nutrition et Développement) (Nutrition 



86

and Development Office, 2007). BND has expertise 
in warehouse management and food commodity 
distribution and offers these services, especially for 
imported food commodities, to international and 
national organizations.

Decentralized procurement in the departments and municipalities 
implemented by NGOs and firms

In this modality, the agency responsible for the SFP 
contracts an NGO or firm to carry out the procurement 
and distribution of the food commodities at the level of 
the department or municipality of Haiti.

One case of the use of this modality is the EPT, which 
administers a SFP for 459 schools and 140 000 students 
making it the second largest SFP in Haiti. This SFP is 
supported by several institutions including the World 
Bank, the IDB and the CDB. The EPT utilizes at the 
municipal level the distribution services of BND, which  
directly supplies schools with food commodities from 
municipal sources, local farmers and food processors.

Decentralized procurement in the departments and municipalities by 
NGOs and school management committees

In this modality as in modality 2, the agency responsible 
for the SFP may contract an NGO or firm to carry out the 
procurement and distribution of the food commodities.  
This NGO or firm may itself further collaborate with 
another organization at the level of the department or 
municipality of Haiti. Then at the school level, there are 
SMCs, which comprise persons from the community 
including parents, which make the final decision on 
the commodities to be procured, in accordance with 
the menus that appeal to the students of the particular 
school. The meals are then prepared by cooks in the 
schools.

One case of this approach is the SFP of the WFP in the 
Nippes municipality, where the BND is the  national 
level agency associated with the project and the Reseau 
des Producteurs Agricoles de Nippes (ROPANIP) is the 
municipal level collaborating agency, which in turn 
collaborates with SMCs in the schools. 

Decentralized procurement by local communities

In this modality, the agency responsible for the SFP 
contracts groups or individuals at the school or 
community level to carry out the procurement of the 
food commodities for the school meals.  One example of 
this modality is the Kore Lavi project of the USAID. USAID 

collaborates with CARE in the execution of this project 
(CARE, 2015; USAID, 2018).

CARE has instituted a voucher system for the payment 
for food commodities from local farmers and merchants. 
These vouchers are paid to the cooks in the local 
communities, who are contracted to prepare the meals 
in the SFP.  With these vouchers, the cooks are able to 
purchase the food commodities for the school meals.  
The cooks are then able to use the left over or surplus 
vouchers to obtain food commodities for their own 
needs. Hence the cooks are paid in vouchers, which are 
also the means of food procurement.

This modality is said to highly favor the utilization of 
locally produced food, especially the highly favored 
fresh fruits and vegetables. The Kore Lavi SFP directly 
supports the Government of Haiti’s social protection 
efforts, through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor 
(MAST ) and is specifically targeted at the lowest income 
households (CARE, 2015).

13.6. School gardens, infrastructure and food and  
nutrition education 

Most schools in Haiti have an area on the school 
compound dedicated to a school garden.  However, the 
school gardens vary from a few leguminous and fruit 
trees to several cultivated plots.  Livestock are also reared  
in some school farms. 

There have been a number of initiatives however to 
promote school gardens in Haiti. The Haitian NGO 
“Promotion for Development” (PROMODEV), has 
encouraged principals, teachers and parents to 
implement school gardens and environmental education 
(Haiti Libre, 2018b). 

To promote the implementation of a school garden 
project, PROMODEV offers assistance with nurseries with 
fruit trees and forest trees and environmental education. 
Also, if a school carries out the school garden and an 
environmental education project, it becomes a member 
of the national school garden network (Haiti Libre, 
2018b).

WFP (2019b) reports that BND created 128 school 
gardens and it focused on the distribution and 
cultivation of moringa plants. Also, NGOs such as Hope 
for Haiti and Partners in Agriculture have also reported 
school garden projects.  These school gardens provide:



87

 y fresh vegetables to support the SFP in schools;  
 y the facility for students to learn about 

agriculture and protect their environment;
 y the framework for food and nutrition education 

to emphasize the critical role of nutrition for 
the health and well-being of students and their 
families (Duquais,  2018; Partners in Agriculture, 
2016, 2018).

 One major factor that could affect the nutrition of the 
students on the SFPs is the low quality of water available 
to the students. No school visited in this study had 
an acceptable water supply, as all the water supplies 
encountered were nonfiltered and were not tested on 
a regular basis. Even where filtration equipment was 
present at the school, it was non-functional.  In general, 
WFP (2017) reported that the infrastructure in most 
schools was sub-standard and the water supply, hygiene 
and sanitation were well below international standards.

13.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation 

Because of the diverse nature of the various SFPs in Haiti 
there are no overall quality assurance or monitoring 
and evaluation systems in place for school feeding.   
Even though the PNCS is slated to have overall quality 
assurance and monitoring and evaluation functions for 
SFPs in Haiti, as outlined in the PSNAS,  it has not started 
to perform these functions.   

However, it is recognized that the implementation 
and periodic updating of the PSNAS requires “well-
established monitoring and control mechanisms 
to ensure proper use of resources by operators and 
stakeholders” (MENFP, 2016). Such mechanisms 
require, the collection of data measuring the impact 
of SFPs on the education and  nutrition of students 
and the development of local communities.  Also, the 
measurement of this impact will be strengthened by 
studies and specific research (MENFP, 2016).

However, several SFPs have been subject to rigorous 
monitoring and evaluation, especially the SFPs of the 
WFP and the PNCS (WFP, 2017, 2019b). In general, an 
evaluation by the WFP of one of its SFPs, in 2019 found 
that this SFP is highly beneficial to school children, 
both boys and girls and their families, as it is being  
implemented in food insecure areas, particularly rural 

areas and in public schools. The evaluation also found 
that the SFP has been effective in achieving its projected 
outputs and outcomes.

13.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the 
Programme National de Cantine Scolaire  
school feeding programme 

Annual net benefit analysis was carried out for the SFP 
of the PNCS, for which data was available for 2016. The 
contributions of the four individual benefits of the SFP 
are presented in percentage form in Table 13.2.  Here 
it is seen that the major contribution to total benefits 
was from value transfers (47.4 percent) and increased 
productivity (32.6 percent). The other major contributor 
to the total benefits was the benefit of healthier and 
longer lives of the beneficiary students (19.1 percent). 
Return on investment made an insignificant contribution 
to the total benefits (0.8 percent). 

Table 13.1 presents the operational costs of the SFP.  
Here it is seen that the major element of the operational 
cost (49.5 percent) was the purchase of the produce 
of farmers associated with the French supported 
programme in rural Haiti. The other major operational 
cost item was the purchase of other food commodities, 
which comprised approximately 29 percent of the total 
operational cost. The wages of cooks were approximately 
nine percent  of the total operational cost, but some 
cooks are also compensated for their labor by obtaining 
meals from the SFP.  The cost (and benefits) associated 
with these meals for the cooks could not be estimated in 
this study. 

As seen in Table 13.2, the administrative costs of the SFP 
of the PNCS were four percent of the programme total 
cost.   The PNCS stressed that this percentage figure (of 
administrative cost to programme total cost) was very 
much lower for their programme than for the other major 
SFPs in Haiti.   Total operational cost comprised 76.5 
percent of the programme total cost while the payments 
by parents for meals comprised approximately 20 
percent of programme total cost.  The payments or cash 
contributions of the communities to the SFP of the PNCS 
could not be estimated.

The annual net benefit of the SFP was estimated at just 
under USD 1.08 million and the benefit–cost ratio was 
estimated as 1.23. 



88

Table 13.1:   Operational costs of the school feeding programme of the PNCS

Operational Item Cost USD %

Purchase of farmers’ produce 1 800 000 49.47%

Wages of cooks 340 385 9.36%

Purchase of other foods 1 013 815 27.86%

Other operational staff costs 484 300 13.31%

Total operational cost 3 638 500 100.00%

Table 13.2:   Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programme of the PNCS

Programme element Element manager USD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 3 638 500 76.50%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 191 500 4.03%

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00%

Paid to school by parents Schools 925 962 19.47%

Programme total cost 4 755 962 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 47.4% 2 767 400

Return on investment 0.8% 48 488

Increased productivity 32.6% 1 901 363

Healthier and longer life 19.1% 1 116 594

Programme total benefit 100.0% 5 833 845

Annual net benefit 1 077 885

Benefit–cost ratio 1.23

13.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programme of the Programme National de 
Cantine Scolaire

The annual net benefit analysis carried out on the SFP 
of the PNCS has demonstrated that the SFP of the PNCS 
in Haiti can justify its existence from a social welfare 
perspective with a benefit–cost ratio of 1.23.  However, 
this programme is limited in its coverage, both with 
respect to the Departments and municipalities where it 

exists and the number of days per year that food is given 
to an individual school. It is unclear, for example, as to 
the nutritional benefit of meals, if a student only receives 
these meals for 61 out of the 180 days of the school year.

In this study, it was estimated that the entire SFP of the 
PCNS provided meals for 50 percent of the school days 
because of the inclusion of the French supported project. 
In a simulation using the percentage of school days that 
meals were served as 75 percent, the benefit–cost ratio 
increased to 1.60.



89

There is thus the clear need for the improvement of 
the sustainability of the programme. The programme 
obviously needs a larger and steadier budgetary 
allocation, to allow it to offer a longer and steadier supply 
of meals to schools, especially in the main (state funded) 
SFP.

13.10.   Specific  recommendations
Implementation of the National School Feeding Policy and Strategy 
(PSNAS)

There is an obvious lack of control of the SFPs in Haiti 
with a large number of actors and agencies operating a 
wide variety of these SFPs. While this situation may have 
been the result of the natural disasters that have affected 
Haiti, this situation is far from ideal.

There is therefore the urgent need to have all 
organizations in Haiti recognize the PSNAS as the 
document to guide the future directions of school 
feeding in Haiti. All efforts must be made to ensure that 
the implementation of this strategy and policy proceeds 
along the three phase path set out in MENFP (2016) and 
wherever possible that these phases be implemented at 
a faster rate.

Establishment of the Programme National de Cantine Scolaire as the 
controlling agency for school feeding in Haiti

There is the urgent need to establish the PNCS as the 
agency to coordinate school feeding in Haiti. Thus, 
the PNCS must be given a clear legal status within the 
national governmental structure of Haiti. The PNCS 
would also have to be strengthened with a larger, 
dedicated staff comprised of nutritionists, logistic, 
administrative and statistical staff. The main tasks of the 
PNCS should be to:

 y ensure the implementation of the PSNAS;
 y monitor the performance of the SFPs to 

determine if they are performing effectively and 
meeting international standards and procedures 
with respect to food service;

 y obtain the necessary funds for the expansion 
and proper functioning of school feeding, 

especially with respect to the objective to have 
the majority of the system (80 percent) funded 
by 2030, from the Haitian Treasury (the State) 
and local sources including the parents of the 
students (MENFP, 2016); and

 y be responsible for and administer 80 percent 
of the school feeding system of Haiti (MENFP, 
2016).  This new and improved SFP of the 
PNCS should provide meals for students for 
the entire school year and utilize a targeted 
percentage (greater than 40 percent) of local 
food commodities.

The implementation of the PSNAS will be strengthened 
by the establishment of a strong inter-sectoral national 
technical school feeding committee with representation 
from the relevant government ministries, international 
organizations and agencies and NGOs.

Creation of improved canteen (kitchen) infrastructure in schools

It is recommended that the infrastructure of the school 
kitchens or canteens should be improved. Improvement 
to these facilities can yield several benefits:

 y greater control over the meal preparation;
 y lesser liability of the state-subsidized 

programmes; and 
 y improved, modern school kitchens can serve as 

centers for nutrition education for the students.

Currently most of the cooking in the SFPs is done in 
the open yards using wood and coals as the fuel.  The 
use of this fuel adds to the environmental pollution 
and the degradation of forests in Haiti.  It is therefore 
recommended that alternative greener sources of fuel be 
used in the SFPs.

 Improved water and sanitation

PNCS (2016) reports that only one-third of schools in 
Haiti have a source of drinking water and as observed in 
this study, much of this water is unfiltered and untested. 
Improved school feeding in Haiti should emphasize the 
use of soap and the availability of and use of only potable 
water, for the  good hygiene of the students at meal time 
and for cooks in the preparation of the meals.



90

14.1.  Introduction
Jamaica, part of the Greater Antilles, is the largest 
island of the English-speaking Caribbean and the 
fifth-largest island country in the Caribbean region.  

The operations and procedures manual of the SFP 
of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information 
(MoEYI), provides a very useful survey of the history 
of school feeding in Jamaica (MoEYI, 2017).  School 
feeding has been in existence in Jamaica since1926, 
when lunches were provided in schools through 
charitable efforts. In 1939, the Government of 
Jamaica (GOJ) participated in limited provision of 
school lunches and by 1955, the programme was 
expanded with the aid of food commodities from the 
United States of America.

In 1976, with assistance from the WFP, the patty 
and milk programme was introduced. This ended 
in the early 1980s. In 1984, the MoEYI with support 
from the WFP implemented the nutribun and milk 
programme pilot project. Under this agreement, 
supplementary food commodities were received 
from the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), as well as from other donors, 
such as European Economic Community (EEC) and 
Canadian International Developmental Agency 
(CIDA), until 1998. In 1998, when the participation 
of the WFP ended, the GOJ maintained the nutribun 
and milk pilot project, which gradually became an 
important part of school feeding, providing at least 
one meal per day to selected students in recognized 
basic, infant, primary, all-age and secondary schools 
in Jamaica. In 2014, breakfast was introduced into 
school feeding.

14.2.  School feeding in Jamaica
Overview

As seen in Figure 14.1, school feeding in Jamaica is a 
combination of:

 y Two state-funded SFPs consisting of:
o a cooked lunch SFP with lunches 

prepared in the kitchens of school 
canteens;

o a pre-packed snack SFP with products 
from the Nutrition Products Limited 
(NPL) (breakfast, nutribun snacks and 
drinks);

 y private vendors, including a system of 
concessionaires, who are allowed and approved 
or certified to prepare and sell lunches at the 
schools;

 y canteens and tuck shops operated by the 
schools; and

 y meals provided by parents.

A health promoting school survey was conducted in a 
sample of schools in Jamaica in 2011(Ministry of Health 
Jamaica, 2013). The survey targeted 5 800 students aged 
10 to17 years old and administrators in the 60 selected 
schools (Ministry of Health Jamaica, 2013).  Only 4 090 
students responded with respect to where they obtained 
their lunches and snacks. Students were allowed to give 
multiple responses. Students indicated that the primary 
sources were school canteens at 76 percent, followed 
by school tuck shops at 66 percent. Approximately two 
out of five students (39 percent) noted school vendors 
as a source of food, while 16 percent indicated that they 
brought their lunches and snacks from home.

Approximately one in eight students (13 percent) 
indicated a SFP as their source of food, while a few 
students (less than one percent) provided a response 
noting, that the Programme of Advancement Through 
Health and Education (PATH) was a source of their 
lunches and snacks (Ministry of Health Jamaica, 2013). 
The report noted that while a relatively low percentage 
(13 percent) of students reported a SFP as the source 
of their lunches and snacks, the vast majority of the 
responding administrators (91 percent) reported that 
a SFP was present at their school (Ministry of Health 
Jamaica, 2013).

Concessionaires

Concessionaires such as Juici Patties, Tastee Limited 
and Mother’s operate some school canteens, which 
provide cooked meals and snacks at appointed times 
during the school day. Concessionaires are present at 
secondary and primary schools. Administrators, canteen 
supervisors and canteen committees are required to 
ensure that concessionaires meet national standards 
for food preparation, storage, hygiene and safety. 
These concessionaires offer a variety of cooked meals 
for breakfast and lunch, as well as pastries, snacks and 
beverages. 

Tuck-shops and canteens

Schools supplement their income by having canteens 
or tuck-shops that offer students meal options. In the 

14.  Jamaica



91

Pa
re

nt
s

Sc
ho

ol
s

Pr
in

ci
pa

ls
 a

nd
 s

ta
ff

Pr
in

ci
pa

ls
 a

nd
 s

ta
ff

Sc
ho

ol
 k

itc
he

ns

Ch
ild

re
n

Ve
nd

or
s

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

  E
du

ca
tio

n
M

in
is

tr
y 

of
 L

ab
or

 a
nd

 S
oc

ia
l S

er
vi

ce
s

Sc
ho

ol
 F

ee
di

ng
 U

ni
t

Ea
rl

y 
Ch

ild
ho

od
 C

om
m

is
si

on

4H
 C

lu
bs

 a
nd

 s
ch

oo
l 

ga
rd

en
s

Ca
fe

te
ri

as
, t

uc
k-

sh
op

s 
an

d 
co

nc
es

si
on

ai
re

s

Sm
al

l f
ar

m
er

s 
an

d 
N

G
O

s
Co

ok
ed

 lu
nc

h 
pr

og
ra

m
m

e
Sc

ho
ol

 s
na

ck
  p

ro
gr

am
m

e 
- 

N
ut

ri
tio

n 
Pr

od
uc

ts
 L

im
ite

d

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

PA
TH

 
be

ne
fic

ia
ri

es

PA
TH

 
be

ne
fic

ia
ri

es

W
ho

le
sa

le
rs

, g
ro

ce
ri

es
 a

nd
 

su
pe

rm
ar

ke
ts

Fi
gu

re
 1

4.
1:

  O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 Ja

m
ai

ca



92

Ministry of Health Jamaica (2013) study of sources of 
lunches and snacks done in 2011, students were asked 
to indicate what food items were generally available at 
the tuck-shops.  Using a pre-determined list of items, 
over 80 percent of students reported that sodas, bag 
or box drinks, patties and fruit juices, were available at 
their school’s tuck shop. Sweets were listed by over 60 
percent of the students, while approximately 50 percent 
indicated that fried chicken, cooked meals and pastries 
were also available. The school determines the price 
students pay for meals prepared in school operated 
canteens on the school compound. Cooked lunch 
meals are generally available at the school canteens for 
approximately JMD 100.

Other vendors

Vending is a significant feature of the school feeding 
system of Jamaica. Most of this vending takes place on, 
or around school compounds, but mainly outside of 
the school gates.   Vending has been of concern to the 
MoEYI, which has considered policies and procedures 
to regulate this activity (Linton 2014).  The concern is 
mainly with respect to the lack of the required permits 
and the absence of proper facilities by vendors, which 
pose security and health hazards to the students (Linton, 
2014).  Linton (2014) also reported that attempts have 
been made to control vending on school premises, by 
the school providing an area for vendors inside the 
school, and imposing restrictions on what can be sold 
to students, and the time-frames in which this selling is 
allowed.

14.3.  The school feeding programmes 

Overview

The MoEYI has produced an excellent operations and 
procedures manual for the SFPs, which provided valuable 
information to this study (MoEYI, 2017). There are two  
state-funded SFPs, which provide meals for children in 
the public-school system and early childhood institutions 
(ECIs) in Jamaica. They are:

 y the cooked lunch programme (CLP) (referred 
to in the Jamaica Budget as the “school feeding 
programme”) providing lunches cooked in 
school canteens and kitchens.  This SFP follows 
along the lines of the DSK model; and

 y factory prepared and delivered pre-packaged 
nutribun snacks and breakfast products (referred 
to in the Jamaica Budget as the “school snack 

programme” (SSP)) This SFP follows along the 
lines of the CSF model (Ministry of Finance and 
the Public Service Jamaica, 2017; MoEYI, 2017).

Selection of students for the school feeding programme 

According to the (MoEYI, 2017), the Public Assistance 
Division (PAD) is responsible for the administration of all 
non-contributory social assistance programmes provided 
under the Social Security arm of the Ministry. The PAD 
provides assistance to the neediest Jamaicans through 
two programmes:

 y the rehabilitation programme, which targets 
“… immediate/emergency needs that may be 
successfully alleviated by one-off interventions”; 
and,

 y the PATH which targets “… longer term human 
capital developmental needs requiring 
sustained intervention” (Ministry of Labor and 
Social Security Jamaica, 2018).

The PATH is a nation-wide conditional cash transfer (CCT) 
programme created by the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) 
in 2001.  The beneficiary identification system (BIS) uses 
a proxy means test designed by the Planning Institute 
of Jamaica (PIOJ), to determine eligibility for benefits 
under PATH and thus, to select PATH beneficiaries. Each 
school day, students on the PATH programme received 
either cooked lunched or NPL meal items in basic, infant, 
primary, all-age and secondary schools in Jamaica. The 
CLP provided in 2017/18, a cooked meal at no cost to 
approximately 188 000 PATH beneficiaries. 

PATH also provides an education and social intervention 
(ESI) grant to assist children, who are affected by 
the inability of their parents or guardians to provide 
uniforms, school books and other basic needs.  Many of 
these children in the absence of the grant, cannot attend 
school or demonstrate irregular attendance (Ministry 
of Labor and Social Security Jamaica, 2018).   Parents or 
guardians of such children may simultaneously access 
rehabilitation grants, to establish income generating 
projects (Ministry of Labor and Social Security Jamaica, 
2018).   The ESI grant is contingent on children aged 6 to 
17 attending school, for at least 85 percent of the total 
number of school days each month.  

Community participation 

There is substantial community participation in the CLP 
as opposed to the more centralized SSP.  With respect 
to the CLP, cooks in the schools are drawn from the 



93

community and this provides an important source 
of employment of women. These females from the 
community are often given basic food and nutrition 
education and they are trained in the preparation of 
meals for children (The Gleaner, 2011). Parent Teacher’s 
Associations (PTA) form a useful forum for members 
of the community, especially parents to influence the 
nature of the meal option served in the CLP (The Gleaner, 
2018). 

Most schools are equipped with canteens with kitchen 
facilities and equipment, for on-site preparation of the 
cooked lunch meals. In some instances, NGOs and other 
corporate bodies may assist these schools directly by 
contributing products or other assistance.

Operations at the school level

Each school in the CLP receives a grant from the MoEYI, 
termed “a nutritional subsidy” for the provision of meals 
to students on the PATH programme, as registered by the 
Ministry of Labor and Social Security (MoEYI, 2017).  The 
grant is JMD 120 per child per day for five days per week 
for infants four to six years and children in grades 1 to 3 
and JMD 150  per child per day for five days per week for 
children in grades 4 to 11.  This grant is paid each school 
term and uploaded directly to the school’s account.

In the CLP, the number of students requesting lunch for 
any school day, as seen from the lunch register is sent to 
the kitchens of the school canteens, where cooks prepare 
the required number of meals.  The meal preparation 
system is the conventional method, i.e. all lunch meals 
are prepared from scratch, with few convenience 
foods utilized, and all items are prepared on site at the 
schools.  The meals are served in appropriate portions to 
students in designated dining areas, where available, or 
other available appropriate areas, such as classrooms or 
auditoriums.

The administrative requirements of schools in the CLP 
and the SSP are well set out in the Operations and 
Procedures Manual of the SFP (MoEYI, 2017).  These 
administrative requirements include the following:

 y A committee or an individual (the principal, or 
someone delegated by the principal) should be 
identified to have responsibility for the CLP or 
the SSP in the school.

 y For the CLP, every school day a record should 
be compiled, which gives details of the meals 
provided, the quantity of food ingredients used 
in meal preparation and the number of lunches 

served. These records are summarized and 
presented to the School Feeding Unit (SFU)  of 
the MoEYI each month.

 y The school should efficiently conduct the 
following functions:
o procurement of food and non-food supplies;
o maintenance of accurate records of use of 

funds on the stipulated forms including 
accurate financial records on the purchase 
and delivery of items used in the CLP (Form 
ME 260);

o daily recording for each eligible student 
enrolled in the school on:

o whether he/she receives a fully subsidized 
(completely free), partially subsidized or 
non-subsidized meal (fully paid for by the 
student), and

o whether he/she receives a cooked meal or a 
NPL snack.

 y The school should input data on the SFPs into 
the Ministry’s Management and Monitoring 
Information System (MMIS).

 y The school should endeavor to raise the 
standard of the meals served and encourage 
students to adopt healthy eating habits.

Schools on the SSP receive deliveries of pre-packaged 
snacks and drinks from Monday to Thursday and the 
schools are required to have adequate cold storage 
facilities to hold meal items from Thursday to Friday. 
Meal items are distributed from the schools’ canteens or 
tuck shops, since approximately 53 percent of the meals 
delivered by the NPL to schools are sold to students. 
Students purchasing meals contribute JMD 2 per snack. 
However, if a student is unable to pay, the student is 
provided with the snack free of charge. 

Schools on the SSP deposit the funds received from the 
sale of the snacks into the NPL, except for schools in 
some rural areas, where NPL officers collect the funds, 
which are then deposited into the NPL account.

Operations at  the national level 

According to the MoEYI, in 2017/18, approximately 
248,000 students or approximately 46.7 percent of 
students in the age group 3 to19 years benefited from 
this state-funded SFPs in Jamaica. The cooked lunch 
programme provided daily lunches for 188 110 students 
on the PATH programme. (grades 4 to13 or age 9 to18).  
Also, NPL delivered 81 444 snacks and 40 994 breakfast 
solutions to 553 schools daily in 2017/18 (ECI to grade 3 
or age eight). Students on the PATH programme received 



94

either cooked lunch or NPL meal items in basic, infant, 
primary, all-age and secondary schools in Jamaica. Under 
the Government’s social safety net programme, the 
MoEYI administers the SFP through:

 y the School Feeding Unit (SFU) which administers 
the programme for infant, primary and 
secondary schools in the public-school system;

 y the Early Childhood Commission (ECC), which 
partners with the SFU to administer the 
programme to all ECIs; and

 y Nutrition Products Limited (NPL), which 
manufactures and distributes meal items - the 
pre-packaged Nutribun snacks and breakfast 
items - to selected schools under the guidance 
of the SFU.

The document, “The School Feeding Programme” (MoEYI, 
2016) provides the following goals of the SFPs:

 y encourage greater and more regular school 
attendance;

 y alleviate hunger and enhance the learning 
capacity of the students;

 y serve as a source of income transfer for 
participating families;

 y educate the children on the value of food 
through nutrition education; and

 y encourage the children to grow their own food 
by establishing and supporting school gardens.

The Nutrition Products Limited (NPL), reported the 
production performance for the periods 2013/14 
until 2016/17 as reported in Table 14.1.  Table 14.1 
demonstrates a strategic shift in the production pattern, 
increasing the production of the more expensive 
breakfast meals from 2 781 284 (12 percent) in 2013 
to 2014 to 9 419 220 (38 percent) in 2016 to 2017 and 
reducing the proportion of lunch snacks, because of “the 
greater importance attached to breakfast as perhaps the 

most important meal of the day” (NPL, 2017). In 2016/17, 
these meals were distributed from the three production 
plants of the NPL, to 718 schools throughout Jamaica 
(NPL, 2017).

Based on data provided in its Annual Report 2016/17, 
approximately 53 percent of the products of the NPL are 
sold to generate revenue to the NPL (NPL, 2017).   Indeed 
NPL (2017) states that in 2017, sales to schools generated 
a gross revenue of JMD 26.027 million, compared to JMD 
24.552 million in 2016 (NPL, 2017). 

 Menus and nutrition 

The NPL meal items consist of muffins, breads, buns, 
bullas, porridges, milk and fruit juices.  The Nutribun 
snack consists of a 237 ml flavored drink and one of the 
following: a 100 g bulla cake, a rock cake, a spiced bun or 
a cheese bread (MoEYI, 2017).

The NPL breakfast meal includes pre-packaged 
carrot and banana bread, carrot and banana muffins, 
sandwiches (chicken, corned beef and cheese), and 
porridge (cornmeal, cream of wheat and oats) and 
comprises:

 y one 8 ounce cup of porridge and ½ slice of 
bread or muffin (50 g); or

 y one 237ml sachet of juice drink made from local 
seasonal fruits and a slice of bread or a 50 g 
muffin; or

 y one 237ml sachet of juice drink and a sandwich 
or wrap with either chicken, cheese, corned beef 
or vegetables (MoEYI, 2017).

Cooked lunches are offered five days per week using a 
menu and recipe manual suitable for the relevant age 
groups in the CLP. Meals served are intended to provide 
one third of the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) 
and 50 percent of the vitamin C and the iron requirement 
to address the problem of anemia. Thus, students are 

Table 14.1:  NPL production performance indicator 2013/14 – 2016/17

Description 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14

Breakfast 9 419 220 5 497 774 2 229 341 2 781 284

Lunch 15 379 588 16 549 226 20 721 730 20 206 551

Total 24 798 808 22 047 000 22 951 071 22 987 835

Source: (NPL, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). 



95

provided with an iron rich food, two to three times per 
week (MoEYI, 2017).  Meal standards for cooked lunches 
have been established based on the various food groups, 
along with appropriate weights and measurements for 
standardized portion size for the various age groups i.e. 
infant (3 to 6 years), small (7 to 9 years) and large (10 to18 
years) (MoEYI, 2017).

In 2016, new menus were developed for the CLP, in 
collaboration with the Ministry of Health’s Nutrition 
Unit. The menus include a variety of foods from the 
six Caribbean food groups and special emphasis is 
placed on the inclusion of foods indigenous to Jamaica 
and local fruits (MoEYI, 2017). Cooks and assistants in 
schools received training in meal preparation, portion 
control, meal service, safety and sanitation, before the 
implementation of the new menus. There are also two 
recipe manuals in the SFP, one for the ECC and the ECIs 
and the other for the other schools. The menus for the 
CLP are included as appendices in the Operations and 
Procedures Manual (MoEYI, 2017).

Properly designed SFPs can address nutrition and health 
problems of school aged children (FAO, et al. 2018, p. 
25).  Towards this end, the MoEYI has developed the 
draft national school feeding policy, which it intends to 
incorporate into a national school nutrition policy. This 
policy will provide guidelines for the implementation of 
the SFPs (MoEYI, 2015).

The MOH is also active in the area of attaining national 
nutritional goals.  In 2017, the MOH launched the 
national food industry task force to develop and 
implement strategies to improve the nutritional status 
and reduce the economic burden associated with 
an unhealthy population. The Ministry of Health, in 
collaboration with the MOE, has also implemented the 
national health promoting school programme – Healthy 
youth for positive energy (HYPE) (The Gleaner, 2018).

Pilot project

FAO (2015b) reports that the FAO has supported 
the Government of Jamaica in the establishment 
of a sustainable school feeding pilot project.  This 
project aims to show the benefits of an integrated, 
multidimensional model of school feeding. Rose (2018) 
reports that the pilot project has the following elements 
in its work-plan:

 y inter-sectoral coordination;
 y community involvement;
 y food and nutrition education;

 y nutrition plans;
 y infrastructural improvement; and
 y public procurement – linking local farmers to 

the SFP

Rose (2018) states that it started in 2016 and a cluster of 
six schools in the parish of Manchester are participating 
(comprising three primary and three secondary 
schools). Rose (2018) also reports that the project has 
brought about the procurement and installation of 
new equipment in the participating schools as well as 
enhanced nutrition education. 

14.4. Governance of the school feeding 
programmes

National commitments

Jamaica ratified the International Convention on 
the Rights of the Child in May 1991, as well as the 
Convention on the Rights of the Child, demonstrating 
its commitment to the protection and care of children 
in accordance with international standards regarding 
child rights and societal responsibilities. Nationally, these 
rights are protected in law, largely through the Child Care 
and Protection Act (2004) and supporting legislation, 
as well as the National Infant and Young Child Feeding 
Policy and the Jamaican Food and Nutrition Security 
Policy. There is currently no school feeding policy to 
provide the institutional and legal mechanism for the 
operation of the SFPs in Jamaica, although there was the 
stated intent to present a draft school nutrition policy to 
Cabinet for approval in 2018.

The country has achieved universal access at the early 
childhood, primary, and lower secondary levels of the 
education system (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2015).  
SFPs in public schools are included as an element of the 
social protection floor for Jamaica (Planning Institute of 
Jamaica, 2014). The social protection floor gives priority 
to the most vulnerable groups in the Jamaican society. 
(Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2014).

Currently, there is no national school feeding 
management committee involved in the management 
and implementation of the SFPs in Jamaica. However, 
in 2016, a multi-sector project steering committee was 
established by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 
to oversee the sustainable school feeding pilot project 
conducted at six schools in Jamaica. The Ministries 
signing the MOU were Education, Health, Agriculture and 
Planning (Rose, 2018).



96

The school feeding unit (SFU)

The SFPs in Jamaica are managed and administered by 
the SFU, a unit within the Education Services Division 
(ESD) of the MoEYI, in partnership with the ECC and 
the NPL (Figure 14.2).  The ESD division is headed by 
a Deputy Chief Education Officer who reports to the 
Chief Education Officer.  The SFU is staffed by a director, 
administrator, secretary and three records clerks.

The SFU provides operational and budget support 
and management oversight to the other two entities 
within the SFPs and therefore liaises with the ECC and 
NPL with regard to the administration of the SFPs, 
in keeping with policy guidelines laid down by the 
Government of Jamaica (GOJ) and the MoEYI. The SFU 
also liaises with the Ministry of Labor and Social Services 
(MLSS) to ensure accuracy of the submitted list of PATH 
beneficiaries.  The SFU also determines how much money 
each school should receive each term and implements 
measures for ensuring accountability in the use of 
funds and adherence by schools to the procedures and 
mechanisms contained in state policy guidelines.

The SFU also has responsibility for the development 
and dissemination of standards and menus to ensure 
the nutritional quality of meals within the SFPs. In 
collaboration with the Ministry of Health, a four-week 
cycle menu was established for the SFPs in 2017, as part 
of the modernization of the SFPs under component 
four of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)’s 
integrated social protection and labor project.

This SFU has as its main functions:

 y the implementation of the management and 
monitoring information system (MMIS) which is 
a web-based monitoring system for the SFPs;

 y the documentation of all data related to the 
SFPs, inclusive of the daily requirements for each 
school on the SSP, served by the NPL as well as 
food issue and utilization reports for each school 
on the CLP; and

 y compilation of programme historical reports 
specific to individual schools. These reports 
contain detailed analyses, which are prepared 
in-house to assist with programme analysis and 
evaluation.

The SFU is also responsible for:

 y monitoring and reporting on the use of the 
nutritional subsidy;

 y the development and dissemination of 
standards and menus used to provide meals 
with high nutritional quality;

 y ensuring the uniform adoption of procedures 
and mechanisms;

 y completion of financial forms to ensure 
accountability of the use of funds by schools;

 y the consolidation of receipts and invoices 
received from schools at the end of each school 
term; and

 y updating the list of PATH beneficiaries at each 
school.

The SFU has four officers with responsibility for recording 
the operations at all public schools in the six regions and 
14 parishes throughout the island. It was reported that 
the MoEYI has piloted the MMIS in some schools and 
provided training to some members of staff with the 
intention of expanding the number of trained staff.

The Early Childhood Commission 

The Early Childhood Commission (ECC) partners with the 
SFU and the NPL to administer the SFP in all ECIs. An Act 
of Parliament established the ECC in 2003, to improve 
the governance and operations of the early childhood 
sector (ECC, 2017).  The Early Childhood Act of 2005 and 
the Early Childhood Regulations of 2005 govern the 
functions of the ECC in relation to the development, 
care and protection of children (ECC, 2017).  They also 
“… describe the requirements that an ECI must meet in 
order to be registered by the ECC as a legally operating 
institution. The laws ensure that all ECIs provide the 
services that children need to grow and develop 
well” (ECC, 2017).  According to the MoEYI (2017), the 
operations of the SFPs relevant to the ECC fall under 
the purview of the institutional services unit, within the 
Finance Department of the ECC.

The ECC provides oversight for the SFPs within the 
early childhood sector, through such activities as 
policy planning, the development of standards and the 
monitoring of these standards.   “An ECI is defined as 
any place that cares for four or more children, under the 
age of six years, for up to six hours per day. This includes 
nurseries, day care centers, basic schools, kindergartens, 
infant schools and infant departments” (ECC, 2017).  The 
ECC states that ECIs “… provide children in their care with 
nutritious meals and model good nutritional practices for 
children and families” (ECC, 2017).  The ECIs are therefore 
equipped with kitchen and dining facilities for the 
preparation and service of a lunch meal to the children.  



97

The breakfast meals are provided by the NPL and hired 
and trained volunteer staff prepare the cooked lunch 
meals at the ECIs. Each ECI is required to have a nutrition 
plan, to follow recipe plans and to provide training for 
staff in food preparation and service. There is no charge 
for breakfast or lunch for 70 percent of the cohort of 
students in the ECIs and this cohort includes all PATH 
beneficiaries.

Nutrition Products Limited

Nutrition Products Limited (NPL) is a statutory body 
which operates under the portfolio of the MoEYI. It 
was established in 1973 and incorporated as a limited 
liability company in 1974.  It is owned by the Accountant 
General Department of Jamaica (MoEYI, 2017).  NPL 
operates three production plants in Kingston, St. Mary 
and Westmoreland. The operations undertaken at each 
location include the production and distribution of meals 
(breakfast and Nutribun snacks).

The board of directors sets policies for the company 
and the day-to-day operations are managed by a 
team headed by a Chief Executive Officer and his or 
her department managers.  It liaises with the SFU 
and the ECC to obtain a list of daily requirements for 
each school for the school term, and it produces and 
distributes snacks to designated schools.  It also collects 
contributions made for the Nutribun snacks from schools, 
either directly or via bank transfer. A nutritionist from the 
MOH sits on the board of the NPL to ensure compliance 
with nutritional standards of meal offerings.

NPL produces various baked products that are fortified 
with the necessary nutrients and vitamins to meet a 
third of the recommended daily caloric needs of school-
age children. Students are asked to contribute JMD 2 
for the Nutribun snacks supplied, but are not denied if 
they are unable to make that contribution. The actual 
cost of producing a Nutribun snack inclusive of a drink is 
approximately JMD 19.75, while the cost of breakfast is 
JMD 14.48.

Some of the challenges identified by the NPL in the 
field visit with respect to producing and delivering their 
breakfast and Nutribun snacks include:

 y old machinery at the production facilities, which 
affects efficiency of production; 

 y the underutilization of production facilities – 
more output can be produced if the number 
of students and schools serviced by the NPL is 
increased; and

 y difficulties associated with the collection of 
money from schools based on the number of 
students who pay.  Collection often requires 
the customer service department to interface 
directly with schools.

14.5.   Procurement arrangements
Funding for the school feeding programmes 

The MoEYI provides the funding for the CLP and the SSP 
through budgetary allocations (Ministry of Finance and 
the Public Service Jamaica, 2017). The SFU of the MoEYI 
collaborates with the ECC and the NPL with respect to 
these components.  The SFU proposes annual budget 
estimates for the SFP, through a discussion and feedback 
process with the NPL and the ECC and submits all 
documents to the school operations unit of the MoEYI. 
The documents are then sent to the Finance Division of 
the MoEYI, from where they are submitted to the Ministry 
of Finance and the Public Service for approval and 
dispersal of funds (MoEYI, 2017).

The SFU receives the list of PATH beneficiaries from the 
Ministry of Labor and Social Security. Upon approval 
of the budget and the number of beneficiaries, funds 
are allocated to schools. A formal letter of notification 
is sent to each participating school, outlining the funds 
constituting the nutritional subsidy that have been 
disbursed to the school by direct transfer to the school’s 
account, in commercial banks in the respective parishes, 
as well as the intended allocation of the funds. These 
funds provide cooked lunches to students on the PATH 
Programme, as registered by the Ministry of Labor and 
Social Security.

These grants are paid termly through a central 
management system. The responsible officer at the 
school completes the required forms, which are 
submitted to the MoEYI for reconciliation, along with 
payment vouchers and invoices. Contributions collected 
by schools for the Nutribun snack from the NPL are paid 
to the NPL.

Funding for the ECIs as part of the SFPs is also provided 
by the Government of Jamaica through the MoEYI. The 
ECC prepares the annual budget for the SFPs for the ECIs 
and submits this budget to the schools operations unit, 
which further submits same to the Finance Division of 
the MoEYI.  Upon approval of the ECC budget by the 
Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, a formal letter 
of notification is sent to all ECIs outlining the amount 



98

of money sent to the ECI’s account. The ECC has the 
responsibility to disburse all payments to ECIs in a timely 
manner and to consolidate the receipts and invoices 
from the ECIs at the end of the school term (MoEYI, 2017).

Approximately 80 percent of funds disbursed from 
the MoEYI through the SFU is used for the provision of 
cooked lunches for students, while the remaining 20 
percent is utilized to provide the NPL’s breakfast and 
lunch snacks.

Procurement by schools for the cooked lunch programme 

Schools themselves procure the raw materials or food 
items used in the preparation of cooked lunches. There 
is no centralized procurement system or tendering 
process to facilitate the purchasing process for schools 
in the CLP. Food items are usually purchased in keeping 
with the written menu provided to schools by the 
SFU. The suggested method of purchasing is the open 
market, which as far as possible should include the local 
vendors and the local market system (MoEYI, 2017). The 
Operations and Procedures Manual suggests that schools 
should request quotations from more than one vendor 
before goods are purchased, to ensure best quality and 
price for raw material input into the CLP (MoEYI, 2017).

Schools are also required to keep an inventory of raw 
materials bought on the records and forms specified 
for the SFP by the MoEYI.  The inventory records detail 
the stock received and issued, any spoilt or unusable 
items and provide the stock balance (MoEYI, 2017). 
Guidelines have been provided for the management of 
this inventory. They include very detailed guidelines for 
the receipt and storage of items in the Operations and 
Procedures Manual (MoEYI, 2017).  School employees 
responsible for receipt and use of stock are required to be 
trained to accept products that meet the specifications of 
the SFU.

Procurement by Nutrition Product Limited

The procurement policies and procedures of the 
Government of Jamaica are used by the NPL to acquire 
the raw materials necessary for the production of the 
pre-packaged breakfast and Nutribun snacks provided 
for the SSP. The procurement and contracts section of the 
Finance and Procurement Department of the NPL has the 
responsibility for all purchasing and contractual activities 
of the company, ensuring that quality goods, services 
and works are acquired on a timely basis and at the most 
economical cost (NPL, 2017).

According to the NPL (2017), the firm has introduced 
“tighter monitoring and sourcing of raw materials in an 
effort to be more economical in the purchasing of raw 
materials”. The NPL mainly sources major raw materials 
(flour, sugar, dried skimmed milk) directly from large 
suppliers at lower prices (or cost) instead of purchasing 
through third parties. This method of procurement 
was stated to achieve greater economies of scale. The 
company has also entered into long-term contracts 
with suppliers, selected on the basis of quotations, with 
the objective of holding these suppliers to the initially 
agreed prices for the raw materials (NPL, 2017). 

NPL, as an agency of the MoEYI, receives its funding 
from the MoEYI in support of the SFP, as well as from 
contributions from students for the Nutribun snacks. At 
the beginning of each school year, the MoEYI through 
its SFU submits to the NPL a listing outlining the daily 
requirement for each participating school and the 
number of students to benefit from the programme. NPL 
goes through a discussion and feedback process with the 
MoEYI when planning the budget for its operations. The 
SFU prepares and submits budget estimates on behalf of 
the NPL.

The Regional Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) 
has been instrumental in providing support to the NPL 
to increase the local content of its raw material input 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Jamaica, 2015). 
As an example, given by Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries Jamaica (2015), NPL has increased the use of 
locally produced liquid eggs in the production of its solid 
offerings since  2013, with local liquid eggs being added 
to four solid offerings:

 y carrot bread
 y carrot muffin
 y banana bread and 
 y banana muffin. 

According to its 2016/17 annual report, the NPL has 
sought to improve the “nutritional profile” of the 
breakfast meals and has increased the quantity of 
these meals provided, as a result of the expansion of 
the breakfast programme island-wide (NPL, 2017). The 
NPL has also sought to incorporate more costly local 
agricultural products as raw materials into its meals. 
With this expansion of its programme and in an effort 
to acquire these local raw materials at lower cost, the 
company has strengthened its collaboration with local 
agencies such as RADA and the Banana Board. The local 
agricultural items being sourced by the NPL include 



99

carrots, bananas, onions, lettuce, tomatoes, ginger 
powder and mixed spices (NPL, 2017).

14.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

The Jamaica 4-H Clubs was established in 1940. In 
accordance to the 4-H Act in 1966, it is the ministry’s 
youth training arm committed to developing 
outstanding leaders with marketable skills (Ministry 
of Agriculture and Fisheries Jamaica, 2019). The 4-H’s 
core function is to provide training in agriculture, home 
economics, social skills, entrepreneurship, environmental 
awareness and healthy lifestyles, to persons between 
the ages of five to 25 years (Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries Jamaica, 2019). 

The national school garden programme is managed 
by the Jamaica 4-H Clubs, with technical support from 
RADA, the Jamaica Agricultural Society and community 
volunteers (Jamaica 4-H Clubs, 2020). The programme 
teaches clubites agricultural and environmental practices 
and contributes to the SFPs (Ministry of Agriculture 
and Fisheries Jamaica, 2019). There are reportedly 
approximately 465 school gardens in Jamaica, with some 
schools having extensive crop acreage and livestock, 
while others with limited space using containers and 
vertical  gardening techniques (Jackson, 2020). Parish 
and national school garden competitions encourage 
excellence in agricultural practices among students.

Several national programmes and policies have been 
developed and initiated to improve nutrition, through 
food and nutrition education, in Jamaica. These include:

 y the National Operational Action Plan for the 
Prevention and Control of Obesity in Children 
and Adolescents in Jamaica 2016 to 2020;

 y the Draft National School Feeding Policy (2015);
 y the Healthy Lifestyle Policy and Strategic Plan 

(2004 to 2008);
 y the National Health Policy 2006 to 2015; and 
 y the food based dietary guidelines (Ministry of 

Health Jamaica, 2015). 

The MOH delivers school nutrition education, through 
programmes, strategies and policies, such as the “Jamaica 
Moves” programme, which targets schools, workplaces 
and the community, in order to encourage increased 
physical activity and improved nutritional status. In 
addition, there was extensive training done in schools 
with respect to use of menus through: compact discs, 

brochures, posters and fliers, as well as training of cooks 
involved in the CLP.

Other initiatives in nutrition education include the 
following:

 y the health and family life (HFLE) draft 
curriculum, which was revised to include 
nutrition education;

 y a school health enhancement committee and a 
nutrition sub-committee, which work with the 
SFU;

 y PATH beneficiaries are required to take part in 
compulsory community training in the area of 
nutrition;

 y activities in schools, which have included poster 
competitions, advertisement on TV and a well-
received YouTube presentation on “Are you 
drinking yourself sick”; and

 y nutrition education at the ECIs, which is done 
with the assistance of the MOH.

14.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

An operational assessment of school feeding carried 
out in 2012 found that guidelines and standardized 
procedures were lacking, leading to variations in the 
administration of the SFPs in schools, absence of 
enforced nutritional standards, insufficient use of local 
produce and a lack of fruits and vegetables in meals 
(Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2017).

In 2015, the “modernization of the SFP” initiative 
commenced under component four of the Inter-
American Development Bank (IDB)’s integrated social 
protection and labor project. Among its objectives were:

 y the improvement of the operations of 
school feeding through the strengthening of 
administrative and management systems;

 y the development and implementation of a 
school feeding policy; and

 y the creation and distribution of recipe manuals 
to all public schools.

Outputs from that exercise included an operations 
and procedures manual for school feeding, a manual 
of menus and recipes for the CLP, development of a 
management information system (MIS) for the SFPs, as 
well as a draft school feeding policy. However, the focus 
of the MoEYI and the SFU is now on the development 



100

of a national school nutrition policy, with the stated 
intention of subsuming the draft school feeding policy 
into one document, called the national school nutrition 
policy.

According to the operations and procedures manual 
of the SFPs, the SFU has established a management 
and monitoring information system (MMIS) website, 
aimed at supporting the management and monitoring 
of SFP activities, with special emphasis on tracking and 
managing the food subsidy provided to schools for 
students on PATH (MoEYI, 2017).  The website is designed 
to allow the SFU to efficiently exchange information 
with partner entities, especially schools and the Ministry 
of Labor and Social Security (MLSS) (MoEYI, 2017).  A 
detailed description of the MMIS is provided in MoEYI 
(2017).

The NPL has an internal audit department, which 
conducts monthly audits to test internal control systems. 
The objectives of this department are to “address the 
reliability of financial information, the efficiency and 
effectiveness of operations, and compliance with laws, 
regulations, and policies”. External auditors are used to 
audit the financial records of the company.  In addition, 
there is regular testing to meet the requirements of the 
MOH and the MoEYI.  The MoEYI also conducts audits of 
the NPL from time to time.

The school, through its principal, has responsibility and 
accountability for the MMIS in their school through a 
mandate from the MoEYI.  A trained responsible officer 
is expected to coordinate the MMIS in the school 
and capture information on all PATH and non-PATH 
beneficiaries from the nutritional subsidy received from 
the MoEYI, to finance the SFPs. The system is intended to 
capture:

 y expenses/finances related to the SFP at the 
school;

 y daily attendance; and 
 y whether the student received no meal or a fully 

or partially subsidized meal. 

As stated above, the operations and procedures manual 
provides very detailed instructions for schools on the 
implementation and operation of the MMIS (MoEYI, 
2017). The public health inspectors of the Ministry 
of Health, routinely conduct visits to the kitchens of 
school canteens, to ensure that food quality and safety 
standards are met.

14.8.  Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding  programmes

In the case of the SFPs of Jamaica, revised estimates were 
available for the 2016/17 fiscal year along with other 
relevant data in the Estimates of Expenditure 2017/18 
from the Jamaica Ministry of Finance and the Public 
Service, (Ministry of Finance and the Public Service 
Jamaica, 2017). Also, the Annual Report of the NPL for 
2016/17 provided detailed accounts for the NPL for this 
financial year (NPL, 2017).  This information was used in 
the annual net benefit analysis for fiscal year 2016/2017.

A simulation analysis was carried out to determine 
the sensitivity of the benefit–cost ratio for the SFPs in 
Jamaica to the number of students in the SFPs.  This 
simulation involved keeping all other data for the 
analysis the same and varying only the number of 
students in the SFPs (ceteris paribus) and calculating 
the benefit–cost ratio for each value of the number of 
students.

In the annual net benefit analysis, the contributions of 
the four individual benefits of the SFPs are presented in 
percentage form in Table 14.3. The major contribution to 
programme total benefit was from increased productivity 
(41.4 percent) and value transfers (30.4 percent).  The 
other major contributor to the programme total benefit 
was the benefit of healthier and longer lives of the 
beneficiary students (27.9 percent). Return on investment 
made an insignificant contribution to the programme 
total benefit (0.3 percent).

Table 14.2 presents the total operational cost of the SFPs 
of Jamaica. Here it is seen that the major operational cost 
items are the cost of food ingredients provided by funds 
from the State (74.13 percent) and the payment of wages 
to the cooks (8.18 percent). As seen in Table 14.3, these 
operational costs comprise about 78.02 percent of the 
programme total cost of the SFPs in Jamaica.

The annual net benefit of the SFPs in Jamaica was 
estimated at approximately ’000 JMD 3 366 327 and the 
benefit–cost  ratio of the SFPs was estimated in Table 14.4 
as 1.67. 

14.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programmes

The annual net benefit analysis carried out has 
demonstrated that the SFPs of Jamaica can be justified 



101

from a social welfare perspective with a benefit–cost 
ratio of 1.67. This high benefit–cost ratio indicates that 
this SFPs are making a substantial contribution to the 
economic well-being in Jamaica in terms of the economic 
benefits that are being derived from them, while the 
programme costs are being held at justifiable levels. 
Indeed, the benefit–cost ratio for Jamaica’s SFPs is one 
of the highest recorded for the CARICOM states in this 
study.

A major feature of the Jamaican SFPs is the sophistication 
of the monitoring and evaluation platform that is being 
implemented and its incorporation of advanced on-line 
record keeping and analysis systems in the form of the 
MMIS.  The SFPs in Jamaica are already practicing the 
most highly documented and recorded operations in 
CARICOM and the MMIS will allow the SFU to even more 
quickly and comprehensively monitor and evaluate the 
operations of the SFPs, so that changes can be made to 
improve its efficiency and net benefits to the Jamaican 
society.

The SFPs in Jamaica are the largest in the English-
speaking Caribbean and second only to the SFPs in Haiti 
in the CARICOM states. The large number of children 
served by the SFPs is one of the factors determining the 
high benefit–cost ratio for the SFPs.  In the simulation 
exercise in Table 14.4, if the total number of students in 

the SFPs is reduced to 202 000 (the number of students 
often stated to be receiving benefits as part of the PATH 
program), the benefit–cost ratio reduces to 1.45 as there 
are less beneficiaries. Increasing the number of students 
to 300 000 ceteris paribus increases the benefit–cost ratio 
for the SFPs to 1.91. This illustrates that the benefit–cost 
ratio for the SFPs is sensitive to the size of the SFPs.  This 
suggests that the total number of students benefitting 
from the SFPs should be accurately tracked including the 
number of students who may be benefitting from more 
than one SFP at the same time.

14.10.    Specific recommendation 
Improved staffing for the school feeding programmes 

The national policy on poverty and national poverty 
reduction programme produced by the PIOJ in 2017 
indicated that, an operational assessment of the SFPs in 
2012 identified insufficient staff  to monitor and manage 
operations at all levels, as a major constraint facing the 
SFPs (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2017, p. 85). This 
constraint still existed in 2018, with four officers at the 
SFU required to monitor all public schools throughout 
Jamaica, that is, a ratio of one officer to more than 
200 schools. There is therefore a need to increase the 
staff of the SFU and to strengthen the operations and 
procedures at all levels of the SFPs.

Table 14.2:  Operational costs of the school feeding programmes ’000 JMD

Operational Item Cost  ‘000 JMDMD %

Compensation of employees NPL 174 949 4.43%

Food ingredients paid directly by state 2 926 967 74.13%

Payment for cooks 323 000 8.18%

Infrastructure cost 306 600 7.76%

Distribution of products NPL 163 987 4.15%

Other operational costs 53 050 1.34%

Total operational cost 3 948 553 100.00%



102

Table 14.4:  Simulation analysis for the school feeding programmes

Total number of beneficiary students Benefit–cost ratio

175 000 1.43

190 000 1.50

202 000 1.55

248 000 1.75

300 000 1.97

Table 14.3:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programmes

Programme element Element manager ’000 JMD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 3 948 553 78.02%

Administrative costs Min. of Education and NPL 424 918 8.40%

Paid to state by parents Schools 423 198 8.36%

Paid to NPL by Parents NPL 26 027 0.51%

Factory Overhead Cost NPL 238 474 4.71%

Programme total costs  5 061 170 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits  

Value transfer 30.4% 2 560 588  

Return on investment 0.3% 25 268  

Increased productivity 41.4% 3 490 954  

Healthier and longer life 27.9% 2 350 687  

Programme total benefit 100.0% 8 427 497  

Annual net benefit 3 366 327

Benefit–cost ratio 1.67   



103

15.1. Introduction
Saint Kitts and Nevis is a twin-island nation in the 
Leeward Islands chain of the Lesser Antilles.  It is the 
smallest sovereign state in the Western Hemisphere, 
in both area and population.  Saint Kitts is the larger of 
the two islands, with Nevis located across a narrow and 
shallow channel just two miles southeast. Saint Kitts and 
Nevis is divided into 14 parishes: nine on Saint Kitts and 
five on Nevis.

15.2. School feeding in Saint Kitts and Nevis
School feeding differs on the two islands of Saint Kitts 
and Nevis, largely because of the differences in the state-
supported SFPs, termed the school meals programmes 
(SMPs). As seen in Figure 15.1, school feeding in Saint 
Kitts is a combination of: 

 y a state-funded SMP, based on centralized food 
preparation and distribution via a School Meals 
Centre (SMC);

 y a system of private vendors, who sell in the 
proximity of the schools; and

 y parent supplied meals to students.

In the case of Nevis, as seen in Figure 15.2, school feeding 
is a combination of:

 y a state-community-school based SMP;
 y a system of private vendors, who sell in the 

proximity of the schools; and
 y parent supplied meals to students.

15.3.  The school meals programmes of Saint Kitts 
and  Nevis

Selection of students for the school meals programmes of Saint 
Kitts and Nevis

In Saint Kitts, the SMP caters to the needs of all 
primary school children and disadvantaged students 
in secondary schools (Crawford, 2018). Approximately 
5000 students are served in 18 primary schools and 
approximately 200 deserving students in six secondary 
schools. The aim of the programme is to provide top 
quality balanced meals that promote healthy bodies.

In Nevis, the SMP is open to any child whose parents are 
willing to contribute XCD 25 per week (as fees) for the 
meals. The SMP started in the 1980s, feeding a few needy 
children.  However, the percentage of all school children 

in Nevis, receiving meals in the SMP has risen steadily 
over the years.

Community participation

The SMP in Nevis is based on a state-community-school 
linked initiative, in which the community’s contribution 
is substantial.  This community includes parents and 
local and overseas donors. Local and overseas donors 
make significant contributions to the SMP, estimated 
to be about five to 10 percent of the cost of the SMP.  
Contributions come in the form of:

 y sponsorship of children in the SMP;
 y donations for the construction of shade houses 

at schools to promote school gardens (The New 
Zealand High Commission in conjunction with 
IICA);

 y construction of the facilities, such as kitchens 
and lunchrooms;

 y acquisition of large and small equipment, 
utensils and tools;

 y provision of furniture at the schools; and
 y donations of locally grown foods, such as root 

crops (ground provisions), vegetables and fruits 
from the farming community.

The highly centralized SMP of Saint Kitts offers less 
opportunity for community participation, which is 
minimal for this SMP.  However, the local community 
provides the staff for the SMC. 

Operations at the school level

For the SMP in Saint Kitts, the food from the SMC is 
delivered to the schools, in bulk holding containers. At 
the schools, a pantry or holding area is designated for 
holding, plating and service of meals to the children.  
Meals are consumed in lunchrooms, or in classrooms, as 
all schools do not have designated lunchrooms. 

For the SMP of Nevis, hot lunch meals are prepared and 
served on site at each school and each primary school 
is outfitted with a clean and spacious lunchroom for 
eating.  Parents contribute XCD 100 per month or XCD 
25 per week per child for the purchase of food and 
non-food supplies at the schools. Strict record keeping is 
maintained at each school.  Bank accounts are used for 
the deposit of funds.

In Nevis, school principals play an important role in the 
management and operation of the SMP at their schools. 
They are responsible for:

15.  Saint Kitts and Nevis



104

M
inistry of Education

School M
eals Program

m
e

W
holesalers, groceries and 

superm
arkets

Parents

Vendors

Schools

Schools
Cafeterias

Sm
all farm

ers

Children

School m
eals center

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain Cash

Cash

Cash
Cash

Figure 15.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in Saint Kitts



105

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n/
N

ev
is

 Is
la

nd
 

A
dm

in
is

tr
at

io
n

Sc
ho

ol
 F

ee
di

ng
 U

ni
t

G
ro

ce
ri

es
 a

nd
 s

up
er

m
ar

ke
ts

Pa
re

nt
s

Ve
nd

or
s

Sc
ho

ol
s

Sc
ho

ol
s

Ca
fe

te
ri

as

Ch
ild

re
n

N
G

O
s

Sc
ho

ol
 k

itc
he

ns

Sm
al

l c
om

m
un

it
y 

fa
rm

er
s

Lo
ca

l p
ri

va
te

 s
ec

to
r 

fir
m

s

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Fi
gu

re
 1

5.
2:

   O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 N

ev
is

 



106

 y the collection of lunch fees;
 y purchasing of food and non-food supplies 

weekly (fresh vegetables, fruits, fish and or meat) 
or monthly (dry goods, other consumables and 
non-food supplies) from designated suppliers in 
the community;

 y planning the menus;
 y supervision of cooks in meal preparation and 

food service; and
 y preparation of reports to the Ministry of 

Education.

Operations at the national level

The SMP in Saint Kitts commenced in the early 1980s, 
with financial support from the WFP providing a hot 
lunch for primary school children. The support from the 
WFP ended around 1982.  Since then, the SMP has been 
funded entirely by Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis. 
The SMP is managed and coordinated by the Ministry of 
Education and the operations are located in the School 
Meals Centre (SMC) at Needmust Estate (Ministry of 
Education Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2020).  The Ministry 
provides to the SMP:

 y all food supplies;
 y large and small equipment and tools;
 y hot holding and serving utensils;
 y funds for the payment of salaries of all staff;
 y vehicles for transporting the prepared meals; 

and
 y funds for the maintenance and repairs to the 

SMC’s infrastructure.

In line with the CSF model, the SMP in Saint Kitts 
prepares all meals in the MPC at the SMC.  The meals are 
distributed by two designated vans to the schools. The 
food production system is conventional, in that all foods 
are prepared from their raw or natural state, with very 
few processed food items being used.  

The SMP is state-sponsored by the Ministry of Education 
of the Nevis Island Administration.  The model of the SFP 
is different from that of Saint Kitts and is the DSK model.  
Thus, the SMP is a decentralized, participatory school 
feeding model that is coordinated and managed by the 
Ministry of Education, with input from the Ministry of 
Health.  This SMP seeks to:

 y alleviate short term hunger;
 y improve school enrolment and attendance;
 y reduce dropout rates;

 y improve students’ learning and academic 
performance;

 y provide a vehicle for micro-nutrient 
supplementation;

 y contribute to the students’ psychological 
wellbeing; and

 y alleviate some of the costs of schooling for 
parents and guardians. 

 y provide meals to 100 percent of the school 
population.

The Ministry of Education in Nevis is identifying a site for 
the construction of a facility for the SMP.   The  performs 
the following functions for the SMP:

 y oversees the operations, through the director of 
the school meals programme (SMD);

 y pays the staff and the cooks who prepare the 
meals at the schools; and

 y funds maintenance and repairs to the cooking 
facilities at the schools.

Principals may delegate some or all of these 
responsibilities to designated teachers. There are seven 
primary schools in Nevis, with a school population of       
1 050.  Approximately 740 children (70 percent of the 
total school population) daily, consumed the meals of the 
SMP in 2017. In 2016, approximately 60 percent of the 
children consumed meals, and in 2015 the percentage 
was between 50 percent and 60 percent.   

Menus and nutrition

A one-week menu plan is utilized for the meals served 
by the SMP in Saint Kitts. This menu plan is developed 
in conjunction with the nutrition staff of the Ministry of 
Health.

In the more decentralized SMP in Nevis the executive 
chef of the Ministry of Health provides guidance to the 
schools, in menu planning. School cooks incorporate 
many local foods into the meals including meat from 
the island’s abattoir and many locally grown fruits and 
vegetables.

In a study conducted in 2013, Besso (2014) analyzed the 
average food waste in all the “intervention” schools for 
each meal served among 60 children in Saint Kitts.  She 
found a higher acceptance on the intervention menu and 
more than half of the students (37 out of 60) consumed 
76 to 100 percent of their meals, on average. In addition, 
eight out of 60 students did not receive a serving and 



107

seven out of 60 consumed zero to 25 percent of their 
meals. The other eight were found in the categories of 
those who consumed 26 to 75 percent of their meals.

15.4. Governance  of the school meal programmes
The human right to food is acknowledged by the Ministry 
of Education of the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis 
and it is reflected in the SMPs, where school children may 
receive meals financed by a distinct budgetary allocation 
by the State.  However, in Nevis, the state-supported 
school feeding model adopted, also engages directly, the 
financial and material support of parents and the wider 
community.

School feeding in Saint Kitts and Nevis is informed 
by several national documents including the Poverty 
Reduction Strategy Paper 2013-2016, The Ministry of 
Education Policy Review. Final Report, and the Education 
Sector Plan 2017 – 2021 (Ministry of Education Saint 
Kitts and Nevis, 2017), the Situation Analysis of Children 
in Saint Kitts and Nevis (UNICEF, 2017) and the Food 
and Nutrition Security Policy for Saint Kitts and Nevis 
which speak inter alia to the specific objectives of 
improving the nutritional status of school children and 
the establishment of school and backyard gardens.  The 
role and importance of school feeding is therefore well 
articulated in the national development agenda of Saint 
Kitts and Nevis.

The governance arrangements for the SMPs in Saint 
Kitts and Nevis are shown in Figure 15.1 and Figure 
15.2, The SMPs fall under the remit of the Ministries of 
Education. The administrative functions of the SMP are 
carried out through a coordinator, schools meals under 
the SMC in Saint Kitts, and by a director of the school 
meals programme in Nevis. The staff complement at the 
SMP in Saint Kitts is 85 and in Nevis, it is 21. Presently, 
there is no multi-sectoral committee that coordinates the 
implementation of the SMPs.

15.5. Procurement arrangements

Saint Kitts

As in a centralized SFP, the  SMC requires a large quantity 
of food items on a weekly basis to ensure effective 
operations. As a result, the SMP has built a trading 
relationship with the major wholesale stores in Saint 
Kitts. The procurement unit at the Ministry of Education, 
Saint Kitts, under the remit of the Permanent Secretary 
is the unit which has responsibility for sourcing the bulk 

rations for the SMP.  The unit selects the suppliers and 
makes the contractual arrangements.  After contracts 
are finalized, correspondence is sent to the successful 
suppliers, with respect to purchase orders for the 
specified items.

At the beginning of each week, a requisition of the 
food items for the SMC, from the wholesale stores is 
presented to the Ministry of Education. Financial officers 
of the Ministry review, approve or deny the requests and 
prepare purchase orders for the purchasing of these food 
items from the wholesalers. Food supplies (dry and fresh 
produce) are delivered weekly. Payments to suppliers and 
farmers are made by the Ministry of Education monthly.  
The SFD liaises directly with the approved suppliers and 
farmers should any issues arise.

Receipt of goods is carried out by the school feeding 
coordinator  or a senior cook at the SMC’s facility.  Items 
are checked upon receipt against the invoice and 
purchase order.  A first-in-first-out system of inventory is 
utilized. The senior staff-cook assigned to the storeroom 
is responsible for recording all supplies received and used 
on a daily basis.  All records (receipts and invoices) are 
submitted to the assistant secretary for verification, and 
are then submitted to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry 
of Education to authorize payment to the suppliers.

For the purchasing of fresh, local fruits and vegetables, 
a selection process is carried out weekly. During this 
process, farmers are contacted via telephone, to 
ensure the availability of the fruits and vegetables. 
The coordinator provides the farmers with a list of the 
items and quantities the SMP requires and there are 
negotiations to obtain the best prices. Farmers inform 
the SMC, when their produce are available to the SMP 
and they deliver the fresh produce weekly. Upon delivery 
of the fruits and vegetables, the items are weighed 
to ensure the weights correspond to the bills that are 
presented. The weights of the fruits and vegetables are 
then logged, along with the farmers’ names, invoice 
numbers and costs. Bills are then submitted by the SMC 
to the financial officers of the Ministry of Education, who 
review the bills before payments are made.

Nevis

The procurement unit at the Ministry of Education, 
Nevis, under the remit of the Permanent Secretary, works 
closely with the school principals, who play a pivotal 
role in the management of the SMP in Nevis.   Lunch fees 
are collected at the schools, weekly or monthly.  These 
funds are used to purchase food, fuel and conduct minor 



108

maintenance.  The procurement of food and non-food 
supplies is done by the principals or designated teachers.  
Teachers or head cooks  communicate to principals, 
the food supplies that are required. Most of the dry 
food items are purchased from supermarkets.  Schools 
have also established relationships with farmers and 
local delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables and meat is 
common.

Principals are required to keep accurate records of 
lunch fees received and expenditure.  Most transactions 
are done using checks.   Records are presented 
monthly to the school meals coordinator. The schools 
have commercial bank accounts to deposit fees and 
donations.  Credit lines have also been established with 
reputable supermarkets and farmers on the island.  Items 
that cannot be sourced on the island are obtained from 
Saint Kitts.    

Purchasing is carried out on a weekly basis for most 
items, except for the dry bulk items such as rice, flour, 
sugar, milk etc.   Meals prepared for students may also 
include fresh produce (for example tomatoes, spinach, 
sweet peppers, broccoli and seasonings) from school 
gardens and shade houses. Local food supplies, for 
example fresh vegetables and provisions, meats and fish 
contribute approximately 80 percent of the ingredients 
used in meals served in the SMP in Nevis.

15.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

School gardens play a prominent role in the SMP in Nevis 
and schools in Nevis were reported to have functioning 
school gardens.  As just stated, fresh produce such 
as tomatoes, spinach, sweet peppers, broccoli and 
seasonings from school gardens are utilized in the school 
kitchens to prepare the school meals.  The purposes of 
these gardens have  been stated to include:

 y  to provide organically grown vegetables and 
fruits for the SMP in such quantities so as to 
minimize or eliminate  the need to acquire the 
same items  from other sources;

 y to educate children in the propagation of 
healthy crops from germination to harvest, 
including soil cultivation, fertility, hydration 
and  pest and weed management as an outdoor 
active classroom;  and

 y to encourage a lifelong interest in agriculture 
(Gaskell, 2017).  

School gardens are also found in primary schools in Saint 
Kitts, though in this case they make minimal contribution 
to the supply of food to the SMC (St Paul’s Primary, 2014).

The Ministry of Agriculture has recently developed a 
curriculum to introduce agriculture at the primary school 
level and to promote school gardening among primary 
school children. Extension Officers of the Ministry of 
Agriculture will work with the schools to oversee the 
implementation of this project, which aims to improve 
the supply of fresh vegetables to the SMP, as well as to 
promote healthy eating among students.

15.7.   Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

In Nevis, the executive chef of the Ministry of Health 
provides guidance in menu planning, food preparation, 
training of cooks and the monitoring and evaluation of 
the meal service for wholesomeness and quality.  Public 
Health Officers of that Ministry inspect the meals and 
facilities (kitchens) to ensure that safety and sanitation 
standards are maintained.

The Assistant Secretary of Education (Saint Kitts) 
is responsible for monitoring and supervising all 
educational activities within the respective education 
departments. In Saint Kitts, at the end of each school 
term, a status report is prepared by the SMC that 
documents the number of students who received meals, 
the successes and challenges the SMP experienced 
during the school term and the recommendations for 
the way forward. The report is submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary of Education and the Permanent Secretary, 
Ministry of Education. At the end of each school term, all 
records of the number of students who received meals, 
statement of income and expenditure, together with 
receipts, invoices, bank balances etc. are prepared by 
schools and submitted to the Ministry of Education for 
processing. 

For the SMP of Saint Kitts, the Ministry of Education along 
with the Ministry of Health, through its nutrition unit, 
assists the SMP with menu planning, and training for the 
SMP staff in food preparation, food safety and sanitation 
(Crawford, 2018). Annually, the Ministry of Health 
through the public health inspectors or environmental 
staff:

 y verify and issue the annual food handler 
certification or food badge to the SMP staff at 
the SMC facility; and



109

 y conduct routine inspection of the meals and 
the SMC facility to ensure safety and sanitation 
practices are maintained.

In Nevis, the school meals coordinator visits all school 
kitchens daily to monitor the activities and suggest the 
necessary changes, as needed.  

There appears to be however, no formal and 
documented monitoring and evaluation plan for the 
SMPs in Saint Kitts and Nevis.

15.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
meals programmes 

Annual net benefit analysis was applied to the SMPs 
of Saint Kitts and of Nevis.  Since as described above, 
the SMPs on the two islands bear essential differences, 
separate annual net benefit analyses were conducted 
for the two islands. Data was available for the 2016/17 
school year, as well as the 2017 Budget Estimates 
Volumes 1 and 2 (Ministry of Finance Saint Kitts and 
Nevis, 2016a, 2016b).  Further estimations were based on 
these data to provide the comprehensive analyses.

Saint Kitts and Nevis has not only the highest minimum 
wage in the OECS, but also one of the highest minimum 
wages in the world.  Despite the high level of the 
minimum wage in Saint Kitts and Nevis, there is continual 
pressure on the state to raise this wage, which is XCD 360 
per week (Times Caribbean, 2019).

The annual net benefit analysis for this study requires 
the use of the “basic wage” of the country to value, 
especially, the increase in productivity that can arise from 
better health and educational or academic performance, 
because of the SFP.   The minimum wage is used as 
this “basic wage”. A simulation exercise was carried 
out for Saint Kitts and Nevis to vary this “basic wage” 
to determine the effect on the benefit–cost ratio.  This 
simulation exercise was carried out by using different 
values of the “basic wage”, holding all other values and 
calculations for the benefit–cost ratio the same (in other 
words, ceteris paribus) and calculating the benefit–cost 
ratio.  The simulation exercise, therefore, determined the 
partial effect of variations in the basic wage on this ratio. 

Saint Kitts

The contributions of the four individual benefits of the 
SMP are presented in percentage form in Table 15.2.  
Here it is seen that the major contribution to programme 
total benefit was from increased productivity (41.0 

percent) and value transfer (29.7 percent). The other 
major contributor to the programme total benefit 
was healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (28.6 percent). Return on investment made 
an insignificant contribution to the programme total 
benefits (0.6 percent).

Table 15.1 presents the total operational cost of the SMP 
of Saint Kitts. Here it seen that the major operational 
cost items are the purchase of food ingredients (63.24 
percent)  and the payment of wages to the cooks (25.79 
percent).  As seen in Table 15.2, these operational costs 
comprise about 79.61 percent of the total cost of the SMP 
in Saint Kitts.

The annual net benefit of the SMP in Saint Kitts was 
estimated in Table 15.2 at approximately XCD 4 181 832 
and  the benefit–cost ratio of the SMP was estimated in 
as 1.76.

Nevis

The contributions of the four individual benefits of the 
SMP are presented in percentage form in Table 15.4.  
Here it is seen that the major contribution to programme 
total benefit was from increased productivity (40.6 
percent) and value transfers (29.2 percent). The other 
major contributor to the programme total benefit was 
the benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (28.3 percent). Return on investment made an 
insignificant contribution to the programme total benefit 
(1.9 percent).

Table 15.3 presents the total operational cost of the 
SMP in Nevis.  Here it seen that the major operational 
cost items are the purchase of food ingredients (38.21 
percent) and the payment of wages to the cooks (57.5 
percent).  In Table 15.4, these operational costs total 
about 58.3 percent of the programme total cost of the 
SMP in Nevis.

In Table 15.4, the annual net benefit of the SMP was 
estimated at XCD 395 776 with a benefit–cost ratio of the 
1.39.

Simulation analysis with respect to the basic wage of Saint 
Kitts and Nevis

As indicated earlier, a simulation exercise was carried 
out for Saint Kitts and Nevis to vary the “basic wage”, to 
determine the effect of this wage on the benefit–cost 
ratio.  As seen in Table 15.5, the basic wage was increased 
from a low value of XCD 3 439 to the current minimum 
wage in Saint Kitts and Nevis of XCD 18 720 per annum. 



110

Table 15.3:   Operational costs of the school meals programme of Nevis

Operational Item Cost XCD %

Purchase of food ingredients 347 460 38.21%

Payment for cooks 522 960 57.50%

Cooking fuel 17 814 1.96%

Purchasing of utensils and equipment 1 688 0.19%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 19 536 2.15%

Total operational cost 909 458 100.00%

Table 15.2:   Determination of the annual net benefit for the school meals programme of Saint 
Kitts

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 4 354 465 79.61%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 1 115 088 20.39%

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00%

Programme total costs  5 469 553 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits   

Value transfer 29.7% 2 868 630  

Return on investment 0.6% 61 911  

Increased productivity 41.0% 3 957 595  

Healthier and longer life 28.6% 2 763 249  

Programme total benefits 100.0% 9 651 385  

Annual net benefit 4 181 832

Benefit–cost ratio 1.76   

Table 15.1:  Operational costs of the school meals programme of Saint Kitts

Operational Item Cost XCD %

Purchase of all food ingredients 2 753 613 63.24%

Payment for cooks 1 123 200 25.79%

Transportation of meals 88 640 2.04%

Purchasing of utensils and equipment 50 000 1.15%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 339 012 7.79%

Total operational cost 4 354 465 100.00%



111

Table 15.4:   Determination of the annual net benefit for the school meals programme of Nevis

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 909 458 89.90%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 55 200 5.46%

Paid by community Schools 47 000 4.65%

Programme total cost  1 011 658 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits  

Value transfer 29.2% 411 050  

Return on investment 1.9% 26 977  

Increased productivity 40.6% 570 838  

Healthier and longer life 28.3% 398 567  

Programme total benefit 100.0% 1 407 432  

Annual net benefit 395 776

Benefit–cost ratio 1.39   

Table 15.5:  Results of simulation analysis with respect to the basic wage per annum – 
Saint Kitts and Nevis

Basic wage XCD Benefit–cost ratio: Saint Kitts Benefit– cost ratio: Nevis

3 439 0.92 0.61

5 400 1.03 0.71

8 100 1.18 0.85

13 500 1.48 1.12

18 720 1.76 1.39

20 000 1.84 1.46

This is one of the highest values of the benefit–cost 
ratio calculated for the 14 countries of CARICOM in this 
study. This very high value for the benefit–cost ratio 
shows that the SFP in Saint Kitts has the highest levels 
of social desirability in CARICOM.  As demonstrated in 
the simulation analysis, this very high benefit–cost ratio 
partly results from the very high minimum wage in Saint 
Kitts and Nevis and the sensitivity of the benefit–cost 
ratio to the value of basic wage. However, it is also clear 
that the SFP in Saint Kitts has been able to benefit from 
scale economies because of the relatively large number 
of students, who are being fed, as well as the centralized 
nature and obvious cost efficiency in the operations of 
the SMC.

The results of this simulation exercise are also given in 
Table 15.5.  Here it is seen that the benefit–cost ratio was 
found to be very sensitive to the value of the basic wage, 
especially in the case of Saint Kitts. The benefit–cost ratio 
increased from 0.92 to 1.84 with the increase in the “basic 
wage”, in the case of Saint Kitts, while in the case of Nevis 
the benefit–cost ratio went from 0.61 to 1.46. 

15.9. Overall assessment of the school meals 
programmes in Saint Kitts and Nevis

The benefit–cost analysis carried out has demonstrated 
that the SMP of Saint Kitts can be justified from a social 
welfare perspective with a benefit–cost ratio of 1.76. 



112

However, this programme faces challenges with respect 
to:

 y meal distribution;
 y meal quality and food waste;
 y limited availability of some food supplies;
 y limited availability of appropriate and functional 

equipment; and
 y external vending.

These challenges are now discussed.

In an effort to achieve a timely and efficient delivery 
meal distribution service to schools especially in the rural 
areas, the current fleet of vehicles (two vans) has proven 
to be inadequate and as a result (the speed at which 
the vehicle travels) food spillage often occurs during 
the distribution of meals from the SMC’s facility to the 
schools.

Food quality was a major concern expressed by school 
personnel, who highlighted the high level of food waste 
that occurred daily at their schools. Seasonality of local 
food crops and lack of available food supplies result in 
frequent substitution and menu changes that impact the 
menu cycle. For example, local fruits and vegetables are 
only served based on their availability and seasonality.

Another concern that impacts meal quality and service at 
the SMC’s facility is the limited availability of functional 
equipment and tools for the preparation and distribution 
of meals. Because of limited equipment and tools, many 
methods of food preparation cannot be used. Thus, 
menu options and meal variety are limited. For example, 
the limited number of insulated food totes used by 
the SMP to transport food to the schools results in one 
pot (rice, peas and chicken or turkey) or two pots (rice 
and peas, and stewed chicken or turkey) meals being 
prepared frequently and there is the limited use of 
vegetables.

Private vending outside the school compounds also 
poses a major challenge for the SMP.   Concerns were 
raised with respect to the nutritional content and quality 
of the food items sold and consumed by children. Also, 
the consumption of food and snacks from vendors by 
students impacts their meal time, resulting in refusal of 
the meals of the SMP and food waste.  Finally, the lack of 
formal collaboration among the Ministries of Education, 
Health and Agriculture with regards to the SMP results in 
difficulties in decision making and operational efficiency.

The annual net benefit analysis carried out has 
demonstrated that the SMP of Nevis can be justified from 
a social welfare perspective with a benefit–cost ratio of 
1.39. However, the sustainability of the SMP in Nevis must 
be a matter of concern. Any reductions in the budgetary 
allocations to this programme would jeopardize its 
existence. The programme total cost per student per year 
of the SMP in Nevis was estimated to be approximately 
XCD1 443.16 as opposed to XCD 1 125.42 in Saint  Kitts.  
Hence, attention has to be placed on the reduction of the 
cost of the Nevisian SMP.

One major constraint highlighted for the SMP on Nevis 
was the non-payment of fees by some parents, which 
impacts the ability of the school principals to acquire 
adequate supplies of vegetables and other food supplies.  
This limits the variety in the meals that are offered to the 
students.

The costs of food supplies in Nevis are higher than in 
Saint Kitts, as many of the food ingredients are supplied 
from Saint Kitts.  The high costs of food supplies also 
result in limited food and menu options.   Vendors selling 
outside the schools also pose a major challenge for the 
SMP. There are concerns related to the nutritional content 
and quality of the food items bought and consumed by 
students. The time taken to purchase the items sold by 
vendors also impacts on the amount of time available 
for the consumption of the meals of the SMP, resulting in 
refusals of these meals and food waste.

In Nevis, due to limited nutrition personnel on the island, 
the nutrition education programme offered is minimal. 
In an attempt to bridge this gap, the school meals 
coordinator shares her nutrition knowledge with the 
students, but she suggests that more is needed to bring 
about changes in the eating habits of the students.

15.10.  Specific recommendations

Increased level of food production in Saint Kitts and Nevis.

To meet the needs of the SFP, the Ministry of Agriculture 
should introduce a programme to encourage higher 
levels of local food production, with an emphasis on 
fruits and vegetables and livestock production.  In 
addition, the menus of the SMP should include a higher 
input of local produce, thus strengthening the linkages 
with local farmers, who would view the SMP as another 
market for their local produce.



113

Improvement in the operations of the school meals 
programmes in Saint Kitts and Nevis

The following is recommended for the SMPs on both 
islands:

 y strengthen the monitoring and evaluation 
procedures for the SMPs including the 
strengthening of the reporting mechanism 
and documentation of activities between the 
schools, the SMPs and the Ministry of Education;

 y develop operations and procedures manuals; 
and

 y implement continuous in-service training in 
areas of meal preparation, recipe development 
and standardization, portion control, hazard 
analysis critical control points (HACCP), Servsafe 
principles and equipment care and use.

It is recommended that the SMP in Saint Kitts be 
improved in the following ways: 

 y The number of transport vehicles should be 
increased by two to improve meal distribution 
to the rural areas in Saint Kitts. The vehicles 
should be insulated for the transport of safe and 
wholesome meals.

 y The MPC of the SMC needs to be HACCP 
certified.

Greater community involvement in the school meals 
programmes especially in Saint Kitts

At the community level, school feeding committees 
can be established in all 14 parishes that could involve 
parents, teachers and members of the community. The 
parish committees could assist in:

 y monitoring of the SMP at schools;
 y advising on appropriate utilization of the food 

ingredients at schools in Nevis;
 y organizing activities around the “healthy school 

environment” initiative;
 y improving the communication between the 

SMP and parents and the wider community; and
 y promoting community participation and 

engagement in school feeding.

In Saint Kitts, the SMP is funded 100 percent by the 
Government with little input from the community.  
Consideration should be given to engaging parents, 
private stakeholders and the wider community to 
support this SMP, and so increase its sustainability.



114

16.1.     Introduction
Saint Lucia is a small island state with a land area of 
617 sq km. Tourism is Saint Lucia’s main source of jobs 
and income – accounting for 65 percent of GDP – and 
the island’s main source of foreign exchange earnings. 
Most of the population is found on the periphery of the 
island, with a large concentration in the north around the 
capital of Castries. Bananas are still exported, but  Saint 
Lucia’s dominant banana industry has suffered from the 
near collapse of the Windward Island banana trade to the 
United Kingdom. 

16.2. School feeding in Saint Lucia
Figure 16.1 illustrates school feeding in Saint Lucia. Meals 
are provided for students from the following sources:

 y government sponsored meals, from the SFP of 
the Ministry of Education (MOE) (Government of 
Saint Lucia (undated).  This SFP follows the DSK 
model;

 y vendors, who sell snacks on the school 
compound;

 y parents, who prepare meals for their children; 
and

 y school cafeterias.

In addition, two pilot projects have been in operation 
recently, one of which is the only SFP for secondary 
school students in the country. The state-wide SFP is 
available to all students attending infant and primary 
schools, in all eight education districts of Saint Lucia.

Many infants and primary schools have school cafeterias, 
which provide mainly snack items, which can be 
purchased by the students. These school cafeterias 
do not generally provide lunch for sale to students, so 
that there is no direct competition between the meals 
provided by the SFP and offerings from the school 
cafeterias. However, concerns were raised by some 
school teachers and administrators that students make 
the choice to purchase items from the school cafeterias, 
rather than use the money to buy a healthy meal for XCD 
1.  Some of the school cafeterias are managed by the 
schools themselves as a means of raising funds.

Vendors can also be found outside schools, but school 
administrators are of the general view that these vendors 
fall outside of their remit.

16.3. The school feeding programme

Overview

The SFP in Saint Lucia is a social assistance programme, 
which started in 1983 with external funding, through the 
WFP, with the stated goals of:

 y relieving hunger among primary school 
children;

 y increasing their nutritional intake; and
 y encouraging children to attend school. 

Students were provided with a milk and sandwich snack 
during the recess break. Later under the STABEX fund 
with the WFP, the mid-day lunch was introduced and 
the milk and sandwich snack was discontinued. The 
Government of Saint Lucia assumed responsibility for the 
SFP in 2000.

The Education Statistical Digest 2015 of Saint Lucia 
shows that the total population of students in public 
infant, primary and secondary school was 28 660, of 
which 15,799 attend 76 infant and primary schools and 
12 861 attend 23 secondary schools (Government of 
Saint Lucia 2016).  Approximately 5 100 students in 79 
schools – infant, primary, special education and two 
adolescent training centers are served daily in the SFP.

Selection of students for the school feeding programme

According to the Government of Saint Lucia (undated) for 
a student to receive meals on the SFP:

 y The parent is required to make a verbal request 
to the principal or teacher in charge of the SFP.

 y The child is then placed on the SFP and remains 
there until the end of the child’s attendance at 
the school, or as long as the parent wants the 
child to remain on the SFP.

 y The child should be a student at the school. 
 y The SFP is conducted on school premises. 
 y The child should be attending an infant or 

primary schools.

Community participation 

Communities across the island provide cooks for the SFP, 
as the DSK model adopted in the SFP requires meals to 
be prepared in school kitchens, located in the schools in 
the local communities. 

16.  Saint Lucia



115

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

  E
du

ca
tio

n

St
ud

en
t W

el
fa

re
 U

ni
t

Ca
sh

Sc
ho

ol
s

Pa
re

nt
s

Ve
nd

or
s

Ca
fe

te
ri

as
Sc

ho
ol

 k
itc

he
ns

Sc
ho

ol
 g

ar
de

ns

Ch
ild

re
n

Sm
al

l f
ar

m
er

s
W

ho
le

sa
le

rs
, g

ro
ce

ri
es

 a
nd

 
su

pe
rm

ar
ke

ts

Pr
in

ci
pa

ls
 a

nd
 te

ac
he

rs

Co
m

m
un

it
y

Pr
iv

at
e 

se
ct

or
 fi

rm
s 

an
d 

N
G

O
s

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Fu
nd

s

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Fi
gu

re
 1

6.
1:

   O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 S

ai
nt

 L
uc

ia



116

Many private sector organizations volunteer assistance to 
schools in:

 y the construction of kitchens;
 y providing kitchen equipment;
 y the establishment or expansion of school 

gardens, especially in greenhouses; and
 y sponsoring needy children, who cannot afford 

to pay for the lunch (Joseph, 2015).

School principals may also approach the private sector 
for assistance. This contribution of the private sector has 
been reported to be significant in Saint Lucia.

Operations at the school level

Each school day, the number of students requesting 
lunch is sent to the cooks, who together with the 
teacher responsible for school feeding utilize the food 
ingredients needed, to prepare the required number of 
meals. A list is then compiled of the names of students 
who obtained lunch, how many paid and how many 
were unable to pay. Teachers send this list to the school 
principal. These records are summarized and presented 
to the School Welfare Unit  (SWU) of the MOE each 
month.

Approximately 106 cooks serve in the SFP (Government 
of Saint Lucia, 2018). Cooks prepare meals in the school 
kitchens.  The kitchens vary in size, with the kitchen and 
equipment varying from very new and modern (provided 
by the private sector in some cases, for example, Vieux-
Fort Primary School) to older kitchens with equipment in 
need of repair or replacement. 

The hot meal is served at the lunch hour. Dining areas 
were observed in some primary schools, where students 
sat and ate their meals. The infants were often provided 
with their meals first, then the other students were 
provided with their meals.

 From the XCD 1 daily per meal, XCD 0.50 (50 percent) 
goes to the school to fund expenses related to:

 y the acquisition of fuel; and 
 y the purchase of food ingredients not provided 

by the MOE, such as seasonings, local fruits, 
vegetables, and ground provisions. 

The other 50 percent of the contributions is deposited 
monthly by the school to the state, through the 
Accountant General’s account at the Bank.

Operations at the national Level

The SFP is viewed as an important social support service, 
as many parents tend to keep their children at home, if 
they do not have anything to give the children to eat, 
while they are at school. The percentage of students 
who are unable to make the XCD 1 contribution towards 
the daily meal is estimated at 20 percent of the children 
receiving meals. 

The MOE purchases and distributes – with the aid 
of a driver and handymen – a standard list of items 
comprising dry goods (provided once per term) and 
frozen meats (provided once per month) to all schools 
providing meals under the SFP.  

Menus and nutrition

The school welfare coordinator (SWC) liaises with the 
chief nutritionist at the Ministry of Health to develop 
the menus used in the SFP and these menus are then 
passed on to the cooks. However, based on the food 
items available at the school, menus may be changed 
as a result of consultation between cooks and principals 
or teachers in charge of the SFP at the school, to make 
use of the available items. The meal composition is 
standardized for all schools in the SFP with respect to 
meat protein, carbohydrates, legumes, and vegetables as 
follows: 

 y meat protein - 57 g (two ounces)
 y carbohydrate - 85 g (three ounces)
 y legumes - 28 g to 57 g (one to two ounces)
 y vegetables - 28 g (one ounce).

These meals provide approximately one-third of the 
recommended dietary daily requirement for children.

Pilot project 1

The “Strengthening school feeding programmes in 
the framework of the hunger free Latin America and 
the Caribbean 2025 initiative” based on the “National 
school feeding programme of Brazil”, was piloted in four 
primary schools in Saint Lucia in 2013 (FAO, 2015b). With 
the assistance of the private sector, this number grew 
to 20 primary schools by 2017. This pilot project, based 
on the Brazilian model, focused on strengthening and 
coordinating school feeding policies with the support 
and participation of government, community, school 
administrators, parents, and other stakeholders.



117

Schools which participated in the pilot project were 
provided with school gardens, including irrigated green 
houses, which provided food items such as seasonings, 
tomatoes, cucumbers, and lettuce for the schools for 
example, the LUCELEC Trust contributed financially to the 
establishment of the school garden and construction of 
a new kitchen at the Vieux Fort Primary School (Joseph, 
2015). Any funds raised through the sale of excess 
produce from school gardens or green houses are also 
ploughed back into the school kitchens.

A committee consisting of technical officers from the 
Ministries of Education, Agriculture, Health, and Social 
Transformation, together with members of the private 
sector, and chaired by the Chief Agricultural Planning 
Officer, was constituted to oversee school feeding under 
this pilot project. This committee reported to a Ministerial 
sub-committee in the Cabinet made up of the Ministers 
of Education, Agriculture, and Health. 

Pilot project 2

A second pilot project to provide 50 lunches per day to 
students in four secondary schools started in February 
2017. Caterers using guidelines provided by the MOE, 
provide 50 lunches per day, and are paid XCD 8 per meal 
by the MOE. The school prepares the list of selected 
students. The caterer submits a claim form, through the 
school’s bursar, to the SWU and payment is deposited 
into the account of the caterer by the MOE. This 
programme was not included in the analysis for the SFP 
in Saint Lucia.

16.4. Governance of the school feeding programme 
The legal framework for the right to food in Saint Lucia 
is seen in its constitution of 1978, which implicitly 
recognizes, in the context of broader rights, the right to 
food. The constitution of Saint Lucia does not explicitly 
guarantee the right to adequate food and Saint Lucia is 
not yet a state party to the International Covenant on 
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (FAO, 2018).

The governance structure for the SFP in Saint Lucia is 
illustrated in Figure 16.1.   The MOE is the responsible, 
as well as the executing organization, for the SFP. The 
student welfare unit (SWU) (which functions as the 
school feeding unit, with additional responsibilities), falls 
under the student support services unit of the Ministry 
of Education and is headed by the coordinator, student 
welfare (SWC), who has as one of her responsibilities, 
the coordination of the SFP. The SWU is a small unit with 

other staff including one secretary, one storekeeper, two 
handymen, one driver and 106 cooks (Government of 
Saint Lucia, 2018). 

The SWC has overall responsibility for:

 y site visits and monitoring of the SFP throughout 
the island;

 y procurement of food supplies, equipment, and 
utensils;

 y the upgrade of school kitchens;
 y arranging training for cooks; and 
 y liaising with public health officials for assistance 

with school health supervision.

School principals play an important role at the local or 
school level in the management of the SFP. Principals 
are responsible for the receipt of staples from the SWU, 
as well as ensuring the inclusion of fresh fruits and 
vegetables in the school lunch menu. They also issue 
supplies to the cooks, based on the number of students 
to be fed daily.  They keep records of:

 y the supplies issued to the school for the SFP;
 y the money collected from the students for the 

lunches;
 y the deposits of money collected for lunches into 

the Accountant General’s account at the Bank of 
Saint Lucia; and 

 y the purchases of items not supplied by the MOE 
through the SWU. 

The school principals or teachers in charge of school 
feeding also keep inventories of equipment and utensils. 
Storage arrangements for supplies issued to the school 
for the SFP range from boxes in the principal’s office, to 
locked cupboards in the school kitchen, to offsite storage 
facilities.

There are eight districts in Saint Lucia and eight 
district bursars, who tally and reconcile the money 
collected by the schools on behalf of the MOE. One 
constraint identified by the SWC was the need for better 
management of monetary contributions, which are 
due to the MOE, especially the tardy monthly financial 
deposits by schools.

16.5. Procurement arrangements
The SWU through the MOE provides all bulk dry goods 
and frozen meats for the SFP in Saint Lucia. Dry goods 
provided include flour, rice, sugar, peas, chowmein, 
pasta, salt, oil, glow spread, oats, corn meal and canned 



118

tuna fish. The frozen food is made up of lamb neck, local 
chicken, turkey wings, cheese, mixed vegetables, corn, 
and Irish potatoes.

Goods are purchased by the SWU three times per term, 
with collection being done at different locations (Castries 
and Gros Islet) prior to delivery to the different school 
districts. The storekeeper attached to the SWU sources 
the food items. Quotations are obtained for goods from 
three to four suppliers. Selection of the supplier is often 
based on the best price being offered. A requisition is 
then made by the store keeper and sent to the SWC for 
signature. This is then sent to the procurement section 
of the MOE and then to the Permanent Secretary of the 
Ministry for final approval.

Purchase orders are done for business places, which 
provide invoices for goods received. Invoices then go 
to the Accounts Section of the Ministry of Finance to 
process payment. The goods are then collected and 
packaged for schools by two handymen and transported 
to schools by the SWU’s driver. One challenge identified 
by the SWC was the difficulty associated with the 
efficient and timely delivery of food items by the single 
driver to the 79 schools in the SFP, throughout the island.

Principals are responsible for the receipt and storage of 
goods supplied by the SWU. At the end of every term 
an inventory is conducted with respect to school food 
supplies. Any left-over food supplied to schools is carried 
over into the next school term. 

There is a mechanism in place for the purchase of locally 
grown produce from farmers.  Principals are authorized 
to purchase ground provision, seasonings and fruits and 
vegetables from small farmers in the community and 
they encourage the production and purchase of these 
local foods. However, this supply is inconsistent.

16.6.  School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education 

School gardens, many in the form of greenhouses or 
shadehouses have been established in many primary 
schools to encourage the teaching and learning of 
agriculture and to supplement the food supply to the 
SFP. Many of these initiatives have been supported by 
the members of local communities (The Saint Lucia Star, 
2014).

Several measures have been taken to promote good 
diets and healthy eating habits, through improved food 
and nutrition education in Saint Lucia, such as:

 y a nutrition campaign at the secondary 
school level in Saint Lucia to encourage the 
development of a slogan, to increase the 
adoption of low-sugar foods;

 y establishment of school gardens with irrigation 
systems to provide inputs to the SFP under the 
pilot project “Strengthening school feeding 
programmes in the framework of the hunger 
free Latin America and the Caribbean 2025 
initiative”;

 y the use of school gardens as a pedagogical 
tool, that links classroom learning with active 
participation; and

 y the inclusion of food and nutrition education 
in the primary school curriculum under  the  
“health and family life education” programme.

16.7.  Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation 

The SWC has overall responsibility for monitoring of the 
SFP, essentially through site visits to all schools in the 
SFP. The difficulty associated with the monitoring of all 
schools by the one SWC means that site visits are not 
made as often as may be necessary. The principal and the 
teacher in charge of school feeding monitor the SFP at 
each school. The school principals then provide feedback  
reports to the SWC.

The Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards develops and 
enforces standards to govern food quality and 
environmental health and these standards are expected 
to be used by schools, to maintain sanitary conditions in 
school kitchens.

The 2009 social safety net assessment, which included 
the SFP, found that the capacity for monitoring 
and evaluating the SFP needed to be strengthened 
(Blank, 2009). The monitoring system for the SFP is 
not entirely computerized and consists essentially of 
a list of beneficiaries, together with completed forms 
documenting school visits by the SWC, with little other 
information on beneficiary characteristics. There is no 
evidence of any recent evaluation being done on the SFP 
in Saint Lucia.  

16.8. Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programme 

In the case of the SFP in Saint Lucia, the annual net 
benefit analysis was conducted for fiscal year 2016/17. 
The contributions of the four individual benefits to the 



119

SFP are presented in percentage form in Table 16.2.  Here 
it is seen that the major contributions to programme 
total benefit were from value transfers (51.9 percent) and 
increased productivity (27.2 percent). The other major 
contributor to the programme total benefit was the 
benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (18.4 percent). Return on investment made an 
insignificant contribution to the programme total benefit 
(2.6 percent).

The total costs associated with the SFP of Saint Lucia 
are given in Table 16.1.  Here it is seen that the greatest 
costs (78.21 percent) are the total operational costs paid 
directly by the MOE. The details of these total operational 
cost are provided in Table 16.2, where it is seen that the 
largest percentage contribution to these costs (58.38 
percent) is the payments to the cooks, who prepare the 
meals in the schools. The other major operational cost 
item was the cost of food ingredients at about 36.36 
percent of the total operational cost.

The contributions  by parents and the community that 
are used to pay for items in the SFP were estimated to be 
about 17 percent of the programme total cost. The other 
major item of the programme total cost was the cost of 
administering the programme by the MOE, which was 
estimated as 5.26 percent of the programme total cost.

Table 16.1 shows that the annual net benefit of the SFP 
was XCD  -249 662 and the benefit–cost ratio was 0.92, 
which indicate that the programme total cost of the 

SFP exceed the programme total benefit and therefore, 
this analysis does not provide an economic justification 
for the SFP of Saint Lucia, as presently structured and 
operated.

16.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programme 

The net benefit analysis carried out has demonstrated 
that the SFP in Saint Lucia cannot be justified on purely 
economic grounds, with a benefit–cost ratio of 0.92.   
However, it was found in this study, that the benefit–
cost ratio of the SFP is very sensitive to the value of the 
basic wage used in the calculation of the ratio, which is 
assumed in the study to be the minimum wage of the 
country.  The minimum wage for Saint Lucia is a low 
value of USD 1 274 (XCD 3 439).  In a simulation exercise, 
if the minimum wage of St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
(USD 2 667.67 or XCD 7 200), is used as the basic wage,  
the benefit–cost ratio for the SFP in Saint Lucia rises to 
1.38.

Recommended areas for the improvement of the SFP 
will be detailed in the next section.  However, a major 
issue is the sustainability of the SFP. The MOE may wish 
to consider ways by which the costs of the SFP may be 
reduced so as to increase the likelihood of sustainability. 
The Government should also consider the important role 
of the SFP in providing a safety net for the lowest income 
segment of its population.

Table 16.1:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programme 

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Operational cost of meals Min. of Education 2 392 450 78.21%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 160 854 5.26%

Paid to school by parents and 
community 

Min. of Education 505 698 16.53%

Programme total cost  3 059 002 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 51.9% 1 456 770

Return on investment 2.6% 73 892

Increased productivity 27.2% 763 120

Healthier and longer life 18.4% 515 558

Programme total benefit 100.0% 2 809 340

Annual net benefit -249 662

Benefit–cost ratio 0.92



120

Simulation analyses suggest that a reduction of the 
number of cooks to 76 (approximately one cook per 
school) and the appropriate reduction in costs will 
increase the benefit–cost ratio to 1.05 (all other things 
remaining the same) and a reduction of the number of 
cooks to 50 will increase the benefit–cost ratio to 1.19.   
Thus, serious consideration can be given to a reduction in 
the number of cooks in the SFP, as a straightforward way 
of increasing its sustainability and the annual net benefit 
to the Saint Lucian society.

16.10.  Specific recommendations

Evaluation of the school feeding programme

A critical analysis of the SFP in Saint Lucia and its 
outcomes is crucial to ensure that the investments 
being made are yielding the desired results. Without 
an effective monitoring system in place, it is virtually 
impossible to determine whether the SFP is creating 
value for the education system by achieving the 
intended outcomes.  Effective monitoring requires a 
clear set of performance measures and indicators linked 
to the objectives of the programme and an efficient 
data collection system that will assist in measuring its 
progress, using key performance indicators. The 2009 
Social Safety Net Assessment, which included the SFP, 
found that there were less than adequate evaluations 
of programmes, leading to difficulties in carrying out 
evidenced based programme planning.  It recommended 
the development and strengthening of monitoring and 
evaluation systems to improve decision making (Blank, 
2009).

An evaluation of the effectiveness of programme 
processes and a measurement of programme 
performance is recommended for the SFP.  It is also 
further recommended that a database system be 
established to be used to monitor and evaluate the 

Table 16.2:  Details of the total operational costs of the school feeding programme 

Operation Cost XCD %

Purchase of food ingredients 869 936 36.36%

Payment for cooks 1 396 714 58.38%

Purchasing of utensils and equipment 94 612 3.95%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 31 188 1.30%

     Total operational cost 2 392 450 100.00%

impact of the SFP, as well as track students’ academic and 
anthropometric progress. 

Reduction of costs and expansion of the school feeding 
program

As stated earlier, serious consideration can be given 
to a reduction in the costs of the SFP to increase its 
sustainability.  Reduction in the number of cooks in the 
SFP suggests itself as a straightforward way of increasing 
the sustainability of the SFP and the annual net benefit 
to the Saint Lucian society, but the operational issues 
involved in such a reduction will have to be carefully 
examined.

The SFP could also be expanded to a larger cohort of 
students. More attractive meals and a reduction in the 
competition from vendors may be useful in this context.   
Reduction of vending around school compounds could 
also reduce the quantities of unhealthy meals and snacks 
consumed by students, which will contribute to a healthy 
eating initiative in Saint Lucia. The expansion of the SFP 
would lower the average cost per meal and per child 
for the SFP. Currently only 30 percent of the nursery and 
primary school student population is covered by the SFP.

Establish effective financial record keeping procedures

The collection and depositing of funds collected for 
meals by school principals should be overseen by district 
bursars to ensure timely payments, and for proper 
supervision and accountability for all funds.  This will 
also promote transparency and improved financial 
accountability. Proper procedures should also be 
established for the disposal of excess food stock provided 
to schools by the MOE. There is also the need to establish 
effective record keeping procedures at schools to ensure 
greater accountability for school feeding supplies by 



121

principals and cooks. Computerized record keeping can 
also contribute to effective monitoring of activities and 
processes associated with the SFP in Saint Lucia.

Construction of proper storage facilities

Construction of proper storage facilities for dry and 
frozen goods to allow for easy and more efficient 

movement of foodstuff to schools is recommended.  The 
mandatory distribution of goods to school three times 
per term should be replaced by a system which allows 
for the submission of requests for stocks by schools 
one week before they are to be used, which would also 
reduce the need to store school food items provided by 
the state, at facilities that are not on the school premises.



122

17.1.   Introduction
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a sovereign state 
in the Lesser Antilles located in the southern Windward 
Islands, which lie at the south-eastern end of the 
Caribbean Sea.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
together comprise a land mass of 389 sq km, with the 
largest island, Saint Vincent, accounting for 344 sq 
km and the Grenadines, accounting for 45 sq km. The 
Grenadines include seven inhabited islands namely, 
Young Island, Bequia, Mustique, Canouan, Union Island, 
Mayreau, Petit Saint Vincent and Palm Island, and 23 
uninhabited cays and islets. 

17.2. School feeding in Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines

As seen in Figure 17.1, school feeding in Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines is a combination of:

 y a state-sponsored school feeding programme 
(SFP);

 y local and external private donors who inter alia 
sponsor meals;

 y tuck-shops and canteens,
 y parent provided meals; and also
 y vendors outside the school compounds.

Food vending takes place outside of the perimeter of 
the schools in some areas, especially in Kingstown, the 
capital of the state. This vending continues to be a major 
concern, as the nutritional content of the meals served 
may often be of questionable quality.  Also, students may 
buy meals from vendors and refuse the meals provided 
by the SFP.

17.3.  The school feeding programme

 Overview

According to the Ministry of Education and National 
Reconciliation (2020), the SFP in Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines became operational on the 1st February 
1984.   During the period 1984 to 1996, the programme 
was fully funded by the WFP.  The WFP funding ended on 
the 31 December 1996 and from that date, the SFP has 
been established in the MOE and has been mainly state-
funded.

The objectives of the SFP are:

 y To provide a nutritional supplement to children 
attending primary and pre-primary schools.

 y To prevent malnutrition in children of 
disadvantaged or indigent parents enrolled in a 
primary school or pre-primary school (Ministry 
of Education and National Reconciliation, 2020).

Currently the SFP caters to approximately:

 y 2 478 beneficiaries in 68 pre-primary schools;
 y 7 500 beneficiaries in 61 primary schools; and 
 y 23 beneficiaries in three multi-purpose 

centers (Ministry of Education and National 
Reconciliation, 2020).

This study is focused on the state-funded SFP in the 
primary schools, which provides lunch meals, following 
the DSK model. 

Community participation

Women from the community are trained and hired as 
cooks and kitchen assistants to prepare and serve the 
lunch meals in the decentralized SFP in the primary 
schools. Parents and the farming community also 
donate local food items to the schools, especially on the 
island of Saint Vincent. Private cash donations are often 
deposited directly to the respective school accounts, at 
the commercial banks.

There are many cases of support to school feeding in 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines by private donors both 
local and overseas. Key local donors include churches 
and Tus–T Water.  Support is in the form of:

 y sponsorship of children on the SFP;
 y funding of infrastructural works; and
 y the provision of equipment at selected schools.

Zero Hunger/Dubai Cares, an overseas donor, provides 
financial assistance to twelve schools.  It has also 
provided coconut water, new appliances (such as 
refrigerator, deep freezer, stove, kettle, blender), eating 
utensils (plates, cups, bowls, cutlery) and refurbished 
kitchens.

With respect to local sponsorship, in the school year 
2015/16, “Start Bright – A Tus-T Water school breakfast 

17.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines



123

Sc
ho

ol
s

Pa
re

nt
s

Ve
nd

or
s

Sc
ho

ol
 k

itc
he

ns
Sc

ho
ol

 g
ar

de
ns Ch

ild
re

n

N
G

O
s

Sm
al

l f
ar

m
er

s
W

ho
le

sa
le

rs
, g

ro
ce

ri
es

 a
nd

 
su

pe
rm

ar
ke

ts

Pr
in

ci
pa

ls
 a

nd
 te

ac
he

rs

Lo
ca

l a
nd

 
ov

er
se

as
 d

on
or

s

Tu
ck

-s
ho

ps

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n
M

in
is

tr
y 

of
 H

ea
lth

Co
or

di
na

to
r S

ch
oo

l F
ee

di
ng

N
ut

ri
tio

n 
Su

pp
or

t P
ro

gr
am

m
e

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Fi
gu

re
 1

7.
1:

  O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 S

ai
nt

  V
in

ce
nt

 a
nd

 th
e 

G
re

na
di

ne
s



124

initiative” was piloted. In that year, 4 330 meals were 
served to 60 students at 12 schools in six districts.  In 
the following school year, more primary and secondary 
schools were added to the initiative and the number 
of breakfasts served was 47 400.  By 2017/18, a total 
of over 100 000 meals had been served in the three 
years of the initiative (Tus-T Water, 2017). The initiative 
includes funding the stipends paid to the cooks, for the 
preparation and service of the breakfast meals.  

The Zero Hunger Trust Fund Programme of the 
Ministry of Economic Planning commenced in 2016. 
This programme was designed to assist children from 
communities with the highest levels of poverty in Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines. Children were provided with 
meals and other basic necessities to ensure that they 
attend school regularly. The first phase of the programme 
targeted 195 kindergarten children from seven primary 
schools, (namely Chateaubelair, Barouallie Anglican, 
Barouallie Government, Fair Hall Primary School, Sandy 
Bay Government, Fancy Government School, Mayreau 
Primary school) to receive a hot lunch meal.  In 2017, 
five additional kindergarten classes were added to 
the sponsorship. These were Rose Hall Primary School, 
Clare Valley Government School, Calliaqua Anglican 
School, Lauders Primary School, Gomea Government 
School.   The annual value of the support to each child 
is approximately XCD 1 500. There is a state tax on every 
call from the service providers, Digicel and Flow, which 
goes to the Zero Hunger Trust Fund.

One local donor, the Basic Needs Trust Fund sponsored 
a new kitchen, including a pantry and lunchroom to the 
Diamonds Government School. 

Selection of students for the school feeding programme

Initially the SFP targeted needy students and in 
particular, those of a low socio-economic background 
and those who were nutritionally vulnerable. Those 
children were identified by the school teachers. However, 
presently any student can be enrolled in the SFP. 

Operations at the school level

School principals play an important role in the SFP in the 
primary schools.  In the  decentralized foodservice model 
that has been adopted, food preparation and service take 
place on site, at each school, with a conventional meal 
production system, where the  meals are prepared from 
scratch with the minimal use of processed foods. With 
this model, school principals have the responsibility for 

the coordination and management of the programme in 
their respective schools and are responsible for:

 y maintaining a register of all children on the SFP, 
at their schools; 

 y the collection of fees and donations;
 y daily record keeping of student attendance and 

fees to the SFP;
 y receipt of bulk food items;
 y implementation of accounting and banking 

procedures for funds received;
 y purchasing of vegetables, condiments, 

seasonings, ground provisions and other local 
produce, to complement the bulk rations 
received from the Nutrition Support Programme 
(NSP);

 y the preparation and service of meals to the 
children;

 y the supervision of the meal preparation staff;
 y reporting malfunctioning equipment; and
 y the preparation of reports to the MOE.

At some schools, a teacher is assigned by the school 
principal to coordinate and supervise the meal 
preparation and delivery. All schools are equipped with 
kitchens and at most schools, lunchrooms are attached 
to the kitchens, especially in the newly built schools.  At 
schools without a lunchroom, the children consume their 
meals in their respective classrooms.

During the lunch period, students assemble in the 
lunchroom to collect their meals. The younger students 
for example grades 1 and 2 are served before the older 
children.  Age-appropriate food portions are served.  
However, if students request a second offering, they 
are not denied.  The meal time is supervised by the 
designated teacher and the food preparation staff. If a 
primary school has a pre-school section, the primary and 
pre-primary sections have separate meal preparation 
facilities (or kitchens).

Bulk supplies of food items termed “food baskets” are 
delivered to schools at the beginning of each school 
term. If additional supplies are needed during the school 
term, requests are made by the school principal or 
designate, to the NSP.  School principals are required to 
manage their supplies prudently.

A contribution or fee payment of XCD 0.50 per meal 
is made by parents to the SFP. However, where no 
contribution is made, the child is not deprived of a meal.  
The money is collected by the class teachers daily, weekly 
and or on a monthly basis. This contribution goes toward 



125

the purchase of vegetables, condiments, seasonings 
etc. for the lunch meals. Untimely contributions of the 
funds by parents is a growing concern among the school 
administrators, as it impacts the quality of the meals 
provided by the SFP.

The distribution of primary school students with respect 
to their fee payment status for meals for term three of the 
2016/17 school year, is given in Table 17.1.  Here it is seen 
that about 60 percent of the students fully paid for their 
meals and approximately 18 percent made no payments 
at all.

Operations at the national level

The SFP is coordinated and managed by the MOE via 
a SFP coordinator (SFC), with substantial contributions 
from local and overseas donors, and parents, as noted 
earlier. 

For primary schools in the SFP, the MOE provides:

 y the relevant infrastructure (such as kitchens and 
lunchrooms);

 y a supply of basic food items as a “food basket”;
 y large and small equipment (for example, deep-

freezers, cookers, refrigerators and blenders) and 
it maintains this equipment;

 y a supply of kitchen tools, utensils and cutlery;
 y salaries for the cooks; and
 y monitoring and evaluation services.

The food basket is provided under the NSP of the 
Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the MOE.  

The SFP in Bequia mirrors the SFP on the main island of 
Saint Vincent.  There are five schools (three primary and 
two secondary) in Bequia.  Approximately 125 primary 
school children receive a hot lunch meal daily in Bequia, 
as part of the SFP. The schools are outfitted with kitchens 
and lunchrooms, where the children consume their 
lunches.

Food supplies to the SFP in Bequia are transported from 
the island of Saint Vincent.  There is a very limited food 
supply (about two percent of the total supply) from local 
farmers to the SFP in Bequia.  This situation has arisen 
because of the low level of food production in Bequia, as 
well as the high prices of this limited supply.  In addition, 
donations from parents and the farming community are 
not as forthcoming in Bequia, as on the island of Saint 
Vincent, as there are fewer farmers on this island, to 
contribute to the schools.

Menus and nutrition

The meals prepared in the SFP are based on a planned 
menu cycle. However, changes are made based on the 
availability of food items. Examples of meals served 
include:

 y rice and peas with stewed chicken;
 y beans soup with chicken, pumpkin, provision 

and dumpling; and
 y macaroni and cheese with stewed chicken 

served with water.

These meals are designed to supply approximately one-
third of the students’ recommended dietary allowance 
(RDA) (Ministry of Education and National Reconciliation, 
2020).

The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Food and Nutrition 
Security Action Plan (Government of Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines, 2014) provides the framework to 
strengthen the link between nutrition, agriculture and 
the SFP.  The Government has set out a programme to 
implement the priority actions necessary to enhance 
food production, which will contribute to household 
food and nutrition security in Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines and local food supply to the SFP. 

Local food items make up about ten percent of the total 
food items utilized in the SFP in Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines. Local food items include: seasonings, yam, 

Table 17.1:  Status of beneficiaries of the school feeding programme in primary schools with respect to 
payment for meals -term three  2016/17 school year

Status Full paying Partial paying Non-paying Total

Number 3 630 1 393 1 074 6 097

% 59.5% 22.8% 17.6% 100.0%



126

green banana, dasheen, sweet potato, eddoes, pumpkin, 
spinach and tomatoes.  

Efforts are being made to introduce more healthy eating 
into the SFP, through initiatives, such as the introduction 
of a water day and a fruit day and the use of more locally 
produced food items in the meals. In some districts, 
schools link with farmers to purchase their produce.   
Also, through the Zero Hunger/ Dubai project, contracts 
are signed with small farmers to provide coconut water 
and other fruits and vegetables. However, despite these 
initiatives, there are concerns with the availability of local 
food items, their cost and seasonality.

Pilot project

In 2016, a two-year pilot project titled “Sustainable 
School Feeding Pilot Project”, was implemented by the 
Ministry of Agriculture, through funding from FAO and 
the Brazilian Government. The project was implemented 
at three primary schools.  As part of this project, a cabinet 
committee was established in 2016, with members 
representing five core ministries: Agriculture, Economic 
Planning, Education, Health and National Mobilization. 
The committee’s responsibility was to oversee the 
implementation and ongoing activities of the project. 

To assist with the school gardening activities in 
the project, extension officers from the Ministry of 
Agriculture worked with schools upon request. In 
keeping with the project’s focus to improve the quality of 
the meals of the SFP, new menus were developed.  Prior 
to this project there was little or no involvement of the 
Ministry of Agriculture with the SFP.

17.4.  Governance of the school feeding programme
School feeding in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is 
informed by several national policies, including the Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines Interim Poverty Reduction 
Strategy Paper  (The Poverty Reduction Task Force of the 
National Economic and Social Development Council, 
2003). The 2018 Budget Speech also states that “…the 
Government expects to expand and deepen the impact 
of the Zero Hunger Trust Fund, as it is in the process of 
improving and upgrading the SFP nationwide, through 
improvements to food, nutrition and equipment.” 
(Ministry of Finance Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
2018).  The role and importance of school feeding is 
therefore articulated in the national development 
agenda of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

The general governance arrangements for the SFP 
in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are illustrated in 
Figure 17.1. The SFP in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
falls under the remit of the Ministry of Education.  The 
administrative functions are carried out through the 
SFC, who is responsible for monitoring and supervising 
the SFP at all pre-primary schools and primary schools.  
The SFC liaises with the NSP, regarding the procurement 
of bulk food items for the SFP.  The school principals 
play a key role in the management, coordination and 
supervision of the SFP at the schools. The contribution 
of parents of XCD 0.50 per meal greatly assists in the 
provision of the meals.   School feeding on the smaller 
islands such Mustique are managed by private entities.

Private donors - local and overseas make substantial 
contributions to the SFP, as discussed above. The 
relationships between the administration of the SFP, 
schools and private donors vary, in that for some donors, 
a formal relationship has been established with the MOE 
and for others the donors only interact with the schools 
and the principals.   Thus, information on donors may not 
be communicated on a timely basis to the MOE.

The statements of accounts from schools are submitted 
by the first week of each month to the SFC, including 
contributions to the SFP.  Receipts of purchase, invoices, 
financial and baseline reports, and bank balances are 
prepared and submitted to the MOE at the end of each 
school term for processing, verification and approval.

17.5. Procurement arrangements
The SFC is responsible for sourcing appliances and 
utensils for schools in the SFP. Requests for funds for the 
purchases are handled by the Accounts Department of 
the MOE.  

Procurement of bulk food items for the food baskets of 
the schools is carried out by the manager of the NSP, 
Ministry of Health.  The food basket for primary schools 
and multi-purpose centers comprises: full cream milk, 
juice, margarine, corned beef, hotdogs, cheese, macaroni, 
chicken, flour, rice and lentils. The food basket for pre-
primary schools comprises full cream milk, semolina, 
biscuits and sugar  (Ministry of Education and National 
Reconciliation, 2020).

The SFC submits information on the number of 
beneficiaries for each school to the manager of the 
NSP.  The manager then decides on the quantity of food 
supplies for the food basket for each school, based on 



127

the number of its beneficiaries. Requests for additional 
supplies during the school term are often facilitated, 
once supplies are available.

Procurement for the non-bulk food items, such 
as vegetables, ground provisions, seasonings 
and condiments takes place at the school level. 
Principals have established credit lines with reputable 
supermarkets and farmers for the purchase of these 
items weekly, using the fee contributions from the 
students.  Inadequate contributions or payments result 
in fewer purchases. The unavailability of some items 
(especially vegetables) has been described by the 
principals as a challenge, because substitutions of items 
on the menu would be required and few alternatives may 
be available.

17.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

School gardens are part of the school landscape in Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines. However, while some may 
have been dormant, recent support from FAO, via the 
Ministry of Agriculture has led to the revival of school 
gardening at some primary schools.  Of the five schools 
visited, only one had an operational school garden, while 
the others either had an area dedicated to this activity or 
the school was preparing land space for such activity.  It 
may be noted that the school with the garden sold most 
of the produce to staff and nearby residents, as a means 
of raising funds for continued operations of the school 
garden and only a few items, such as seasonings were 
utilized in the SFP in the school.

17.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

The Nutrition Unit at the Ministry of Health:

 y assists with the planning and development of 
the school menus;

 y monitors the meal quality and service at the 
schools; and

 y participates in the training of the SFP personnel.

The public health inspectors of the Ministry of Health 
monitor the SFP facilities at the schools, to ensure food 
safety practices and sanitation are maintained, and 
certify the food handlers employed at the schools.  

Prior to the implementation of the Sustainable School 
Feeding Pilot project in 2016, there was no formal 

monitoring and evaluation plan or committee to oversee 
the implementation and monitoring of the SFP in Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines.   A cabinet inter-ministerial 
committee was established in 2016 to support the 
successful implementation and  monitoring of the 
project.  The committee comprised representatives 
from five Ministries: Agriculture, Economic Planning, 
Education, Health and National Mobilization. 

Monitoring and evaluation  of the SFP is carried out by 
the MOE:

 y through a report registry (maintained at each 
school); and 

 y occasional visits to the schools and telephone 
conversations by the SFC, to investigate 
problems and constraints encountered by the 
school principals. 

17.8.    Annual net benefit analysis of the school 
feeding programme  

Annual net benefit analysis was conducted for the SFP of 
primary schools in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for 
the school year 2016/17. 

The contributions of the four individual benefits to the 
SFP are presented in percentage form in Table 17.3. The 
major contributions to programme total benefit were 
from value transfer (42.2 percent), increased productivity 
(33.6 percent), followed by healthier and longer lives of 
the beneficiary students (23.5 percent).  The contribution 
of return on investment was not significant (0.7 percent), 
when compared to the other benefits.

The estimated total operational cost for the SFP was 
XCD 2.04 million (Table 17.2). This expenditure feeds 
approximately 7 493 children or 60.3 percent of the 
school population at the primary level. More than half 
of this cost was incurred for the central purchase of food 
ingredients (55.31 percent) and 37.5 percent was paid to 
cooks and kitchen assistants, who prepared the meals in 
the schools.

As seen in Table 17.3, the estimated total economic 
costs of the programme (programme total cost) were 
estimated at XCD 4 365 035, with the major element of 
programme total cost being the total operational cost, 
which comprises 46.71 percent of the programme total 
cost. Payments by parents to the school comprised 
12.8 percent of programme total cost.  The other major 
item in the programme total costs of the SFP was the 
contributions by the community to the meals, which 



128

Table 17.2 :  Total operational costs of the school feeding programme 

Operational Item Cost XCD  %

Central purchase of food ingredients 1 127 709 55.31%

Payment for cooks 765 300 37.53%

Purchasing of utensils and equipment 109 816 5.39%

Repairs to kitchen and servicing of equipment 36 200 1.78%

Total operational cost 2 039 025 100.00%

Table 17.3:  Determination of the annual net benefit analysis for the school feeding programme

Programme element Element manager XCD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 2 039 025 46.71%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 337 196 7.72%

Paid to state by community Min. of Education 1 430 100 32.76%

Paid to school by parents Schools 558 714 12.80%

Programme total cost  4 365 035 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 42.2% 2 943 287

Return on investment 0.7% 45 854

Increased productivity 33.6% 2 346 808

Healthier and longer life 23.5% 1 642 591

Programme total benefit 100.0% 6 978 540

Annual net benefit 2 613 504

Benefit–cost ratio 1.60

were estimated at 32.76 percent of the programme total 
costs. Some of these funds were used to purchase food 
ingredients by the schools and also for the purchase and 
repairs of appliances and equipment.

 As seen in Table 17.3, the programme total cost of 
the SFP was XCD 4 365 035, but the programme total 
benefit of XCD 6 978 540 far outweighs the programme 
total cost, with an annual net benefit estimated at XCD 
2,613,504 and a benefit–cost ratio of 1.60. 

17.9. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programme 

The annual net benefit analysis carried out has 
demonstrated that the SFP for primary schools in Saint 

Vincent and the Grenadines can be justified from a 
social welfare perspective, with a benefit–cost ratio of 
1.60. This is a high value for the benefit–cost ratio and it 
shows that this SFP has one of the highest levels of social 
desirability in CARICOM. Simulation analysis carried out 
has demonstrated that the benefit–cost ratio is sensitive 
to the number of beneficiaries in this SFP.  For example, 
if the number of beneficiaries is restricted to 6 097 
students, the benefit–cost ratio falls to 1.46 and if the 
number of beneficiaries is further reduced to 5 000, the 
benefit–cost ratio falls to 1.34.

This SFP is therefore demonstrating a high degree of 
social value. The SFP is also commendable for:

 y the tight monitoring of food supplies by school 
principals;



129

 y the decentralized nature of the food preparation 
in the schools themselves, which allows for the 
inclusion of local food items in the menus; and

 y the use of cooks from the communities where 
the schools are located, which has meant that 
there seems to be a high degree of acceptability 
of the food by students, with a low level of food 
waste and the receipt of adequate portion sizes 
by the students.

 However, this programme faces challenges namely: 

 y the limited use of standardized menus, which 
guarantee the nutritional quality of meals 
served;

 y the limited availability of local food items, which 
restricts the use of fresh fruit and vegetables in 
the meals; and 

 y vending in close proximity to the school 
compounds which poses a major challenge 
for the SFP, with respect to the nutritional 

content and quality of the food items sold and 
consumed by children.  

17.10. Specific recommendation 

Improved operational efficiency 

The following areas have been identified to improve the 
operational efficiency of the SFP in Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines:

 y establish a framework for the coordination and 
collaboration between the MOE and private 
donors;

 y strengthen the reporting mechanisms and 
documentation of the schools;

 y establish a monitoring and evaluation plan for 
the SFP; and

 y develop an “operations and procedures manual” 
for the SFP.



130

18.1. Introduction
The Republic of Suriname (Suriname) is located on the 
South American continent. It is bordered by Guyana to 
the west, French Guiana to the east, Brazil to the south 
and the Atlantic Ocean to the north.  Suriname gained 
its independence from the Netherlands on 25 November 
1975. 

The capital of Suriname is Paramaribo which is located 
on the Suriname River. The country’s total land area is 
163 820 sq km. It is one of the smallest countries in South 
America. Most of its population (about 66 percent) reside 
in the urban areas (Menke, 2019). Suriname is divided 
into ten districts, each with a district commissioner. Each 
district is further divided into resorts, of which there are 
62 in total.  (World Bank, 2016).

Dutch is the official language of Suriname, however, 
many other languages are spoken by the different ethnic 
groups (Menke, 2019). Suriname became a member of 
CARICOM on 4 July 1995 (CARICOM, 2016b). 

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 
(MINOWC) serves the ten districts of the country. In 
Suriname, education is compulsory between ages 7 to 
12. The primary school population is the largest group 
consisting of approximately 50 percent of the school 
population. Enrolment drops at the secondary level, 
especially among boys. (World Bank, 2016).  

18.2. School feeding in Suriname
The general structure of school feeding in Suriname 
is depicted in Figure 18.1 and meals are provided to 
students through:

 y School arrangements: Schools have various 
types of arrangements for the provision of meals 
to students:

o private vendors: In some schools, vendors 
are allowed on the school premises.  There 
are also cases, where vendors rent the 
school canteen and pay the school a small 
fee.  In general, these vendors provide 
lunches for the children, but the menus 
and the offerings are not regulated nor 
monitored. Meals provided by these 
vendors are sold between SRD 5 to SRD 10 
depending on portion sizes and menu.

o canteens: Some schools have canteens or 
cafeterias, where snacks are sold to the 

18.  Suriname

students. A department or office of the state 
attempts to ensure that food quality and 
food safety standards are maintained at 
school canteens.

o NGOs: Several NGOs are involved in 
providing meals at schools. These NGOs 
include churches and other religious 
organizations and they generally provide 
light meals to students, such as porridge.

 y Private firms: Some schools reported that private 
food handlers, distributors and other businesses 
served meals to their students. The meals served 
varied and consist of packaged meals or take-
home snacks.

 y The Government of Suriname: The Government 
of Suriname provided meals to students under 
the Extra Curricular Care and Support Project 
for the period 2012 to 2014. Initiatives are now 
being planned for new school feeding pilot 
projects, especially the SFP in the Koewarasan 
District of Wanica, called the Brazil-Suriname 
(ABC) pilot project.  Figure 18.1 includes 
probable  governance and supply arrangements 
for this ABC pilot SFP, as well as the possible 
contributions of parents, the community and the 
foreign funding agency.

 y Parents: Many parents supply meals to their 
children, which the students bring to school and 
consume on the school premises.

Parents currently supply about 35 percent of the meals 
eaten by students.   The other major supplier of meals 
are private vendors, who supply about 35 percent of 
the meals. Canteens and other school operated outlets 
supply about ten percent of the meals consumed by 
students, while also providing light snacks, such as 
sweets and drinks. It is estimated that private firms 
and NGOs supply about five percent of the meals.  The 
remaining 15 percent of the students may eat nothing at 
school.

18.3.  School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

The Government of Suriname is committed to promote 
healthy eating habits in schools and communities 
through the preparation of food based dietary guidelines 
and the dissemination of information on improved local 
diets (FAO, 2015c).



131

A
BC

 p
ilo

t s
ch

oo
l f

ee
di

ng
 

pr
og

ra
m

m
e

M
in

is
tr

y 
of

 E
du

ca
tio

n

M
in

is
tr

ie
s 

of
 H

ea
lth

 a
nd

 S
oc

ia
l A

ff
ai

rs

Pa
re

nt
s

Sc
ho

ol
s

Ve
nd

or
s

Sc
ho

ol
 g

ar
de

ns
Sc

ho
ol

 k
itc

he
ns

Ca
nt

ee
ns

W
ho

le
sa

le
rs

, g
ro

ce
ri

es
 a

nd
 

su
pe

rm
ar

ke
ts

Ca
sh

Sm
al

l f
ar

m
er

s
Co

m
m

un
it

y 
an

d 
N

G
O

s
Br

az
ili

an
 fu

nd
in

g 
ag

en
cy

Lo
ca

l s
ch

oo
l c

om
m

itt
ee

s

Ch
ild

re
n

Co
nt

ri
bu

tio
n

Re
po

rt
in

g

Su
pp

ly
 C

ha
in

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

Ca
sh

 a
nd

 la
bo

r

La
bo

r

Fi
gu

re
 1

8.
1:

  O
pe

ra
ti

ng
 m

od
el

 o
f s

ch
oo

l f
ee

di
ng

 in
 S

ur
in

am
e 



132

School gardens are a regular feature of schools in 
Suriname. Several projects have also promoted school 
gardens, such as the one through the SUWAMA 
foundation, which has established organic school 
gardens and aquaponics systems at primary schools 
in different districts in Suriname (SUWAMA, 2018). 
This project has been financed by the ‘Japan’s Grant 
Assistance for Grassroots Human Security Projects (GGP)’. 
The objectives of this project are to introduce children to:

 y a safe and environmentally friendly way of 
growing food;

 y the concept of a healthier lifestyle; 
 y producing their own healthy food; 
 y farming as a vehicle to develop other 

competencies, such as cooperation, arithmetic 
and reading (SUWAMA, 2018).

18.4. The after school child care project
The Ministry of Education and Community Development  
(MECD) (2014) reporting on the period 2010-2013, stated 
that the After-School Child Care (ASCC) project was 
launched in 2012 at several schools. Activities included :

 y a SFP which provided a hot meal;
 y recreational activities;
 y assistance in doing homework; and 
 y other extra-curricular activities to support and 

guide children after school (MEDC, 2014). 

By 2013 or within Phase 3, the number of participating 
schools had grown to 200 nationwide. 

An evaluation of the ASCC project was carried out 
by a Working Group  (Ministerie Van Onderwijs 
Werenschappen En Cultuur (Ministry of Education, 
Science and Culture), 2015). The Report states that the 
project was carried out in four phases:

Phase 1:  Pilot Project: August to May 2012;
Phase 2:  First countrywide expansion: October 

2012 to October 2013;
Phase 3:  ASCC “New Style” project: October 2013 to 

May 2014;
Phase 4:  Institutionalizing the ASCC programme: 

May 2014 to August 2015.

Schools in Suriname end the school day at 1.00 p.m. 
and teachers were paid overtime to participate in the 
project after school hours. A total of 250 schools, 144 
kitchen owners or caterers, 28 suppliers, 65 transporters 
and 2,183 teachers participated in this project. The total 
project cost was SRD 162 million as of August 2015. 

Of this total, SRD 15 million was paid to teachers and 
coordinators and the remainder, SRD 147 million, was 
spent on food. Thus, food costs were approximately 91 
percent of the total costs. 

The SFP was implemented through the caterers, who had 
kitchens in the different areas. For example, one kitchen 
was assigned to prepare meals for almost 1 000 children 
distributed among four schools. Caterers were paid SRD 2 
per meal. The caterers also received food ingredients that 
were delivered through and paid for by the Government.

The Working Group Report presented a SWOT Analysis 
of the project. The strengths identified for the project 
included:

 y availability of nutritious food for the students 
through the SFP;

 y the promotion of public-private partnerships; 
 y the countrywide scale of the project, since 73 

percent of the primary schools in Suriname took 
part in this project; and 

 y the increase in the success rate of participating 
students.

The weaknesses associated with the project included:

 y there was neither a written plan nor a feasibility 
study for the project; 

 y there were no guides, instructions, responsible 
persons (managers and auditors etc.) nor 
controlling bodies with respect to financial 
accounting in the project;

 y the  MECD was  inadequately  equipped  to  
carry  out  the  preparation, implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation of a nationwide 
project; and

 y late payments to the caterers, so that some were 
not paid until December 2018.

18.5. School feeding programme in Koewarasan 
district of Wanica - The Brazil-Suriname (ABC) 
project

The Government of the Republic of Suriname and 
the Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC) have arrived 
at a Technical Cooperation Agreement on a SFP in 
Koewarasan, district of Wanica. This SFP is referred to 
in this document as the ABC SFP (or the ABC pilot SFP). 
Annual net benefit analysis is presented on this SFP 
in a later section of this report, as a simulation exercise 
that will be aimed at determining several parameters, 
which if they are adopted will increase the likelihood 



133

of success of the SFP. The MINOWC, the Ministry of 
Health and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing are 
collaborating in the implementation of this SFP.

Resort Koewarasan in the district of Wanica was chosen 
for the ABC pilot SFP, for several reasons:

 y The resort or area has a majority of highly 
vulnerable children, from the lower social and 
economic levels, and a high incidence of one-
parent households.

 y Most of the families in this area may not be  
aware of healthy lifestyles, including healthy 
eating.

 y Most of the children in the area attend school 
without having proper breakfast or lunch.

 y The schools in this area cannot provide healthy 
food for these children.

 y The children in this area suffer from:
o high school drop-out rates;
o absenteeism due to illness and headaches;
o sleeping in class; 
o low concentration spans; and 
o weak academic performance.

The objectives of the SFP are therefore to:

 y utilize an integrated approach of the 
collaboration of Ministries, to increase the level 
of healthy nutrition and lifestyle for pre-school, 
elementary and junior high school pupils;

 y nurture well-motivated children, who 
concentrate optimally at school;

 y foster improved school results;
 y increase the chance for children in this area to 

grow into competent adults who participate 
adequately in the society of Suriname; 

 y improve food security at family levels; and
 y develop awareness of healthy eating among 

parents, caregivers, service providers, teachers 
and students.

The SFP aims to provide each pupil with two meals: 
breakfast and lunch. The project document argues 
that breakfast is needed in order to get the students 
motivated to produce better results.   The lunch is 
needed after dismissal of school at 1.00 p.m., because the 
parents are often not at home to provide the pupils with 
proper healthy meals after school.

The ABC project emphasizes proper training of project 
staff. Towards this end, several project staff have already 
benefited from visits to Brazil, to observe the school 
feeding in that country.  The trained staff are then 

expected to be trainers of other persons in the project.  
Training is proposed for the following groups in the 
stated areas:

 y professionals of the collaborating Ministries in 
the Brazilian experience in school feeding;

 y nutritionists and health technicians in the 
preparation of school menus and procedures for 
the procurement of foodstuffs for schools; and

 y teachers and school principals in the 
management of a SFP and school gardens.

It is also proposed in the ABC project that two Brazilian 
experts would visit Suriname to discuss and give support 
to the preparation of draft legislation, to provide the 
legal status for the SFP.

The following activities are also planned for 
implementation, while the training of project staff is 
taking place:

 y The necessary physical infrastructure for the 
SFP will be put in place in the schools, including 
storage areas, kitchens and eating areas.

 y The necessary equipment will be acquired and 
distributed to schools, including kitchen utensils, 
cooking stoves and refrigeration facilities.

 y Budgets will be prepared to have the pilot 
project financed.

Once the physical infrastructure, the equipment and the 
financial arrangements are in place, the project proposes 
to organize meetings in the communities of the SFP, to 
inform the communities about the voluntary activities 
that must be performed by members of the community 
for the SFP to be successful. The following activities are 
then projected to take place:

 y selection and training of volunteers to provide 
their specific skills to the SFP;

 y preparation of weekly schedules for all the 
volunteers; and

 y preparation of documents for reporting the 
performance of activities under the SFP.

The ABC project document does not set out important 
details of the SFP, including: 

 y the proposed arrangements for the 
procurement of the food ingredients and other 
supplies such as cooking fuel; and 

 y the governance of the SFP at the community 
level.



134

 18.6. Annual net benefit analysis of the ABC school 
feeding programme in Koewarasan district of 
Wanica 

Approach

Annual net benefit analysis was undertaken to determine 
and propose the parameters that would increase 
the likelihood of success of the ABC pilot SFP.  In this 
simulation exercise, all the relevant variables from the 
project document were utilized, including the number 
of students receiving meals and the projected training 
costs. Other parameters are assumed (such as the 
nutritional contribution of the two proposed meals). The 
simulation then estimated the annual net benefit and 
the benefit–cost ratio of the SFP,  for different values of 
the simulation variables, with an emphasis on the wages 
of cooks, the number of children participating in the SFP 
and the cost per meal for the SFP.

The simulation exercise assumed that local committees 
for each school would procure the food ingredients 
from the local communities and prepare and serve 
the meals at the schools.  These committees would 
be paid for meals prepared and served on a per meal 
basis (for example  USD 1 for a breakfast meal and USD 
2 for a lunch meal etc.)  This approach is suggested as 
an alternative to  the procurement system of the After 
School Child Care project, where the state purchased 
the food ingredients and supplied them to the caterers, 
which turned out to be a very inefficient and financially 
risky arrangement.

Assumptions of the initial simulation

An initial simulation was carried out to determine the 
likely annual net benefit and the benefit–cost ratio of the 
ABC pilot SFP. Since information was not available on the 
actual operations of the SFP, a number of assumptions 
had to be made to be able to carry out the simulation. 
These assumptions and initial values are now detailed 
and the variables that were simulated are identified:

 y The   administrative   costs   were assumed at ten 
percent of   the   total   operational   cost.   These 
administrative costs were for the staff that are 
employed in the various Ministries to manage 
the SFP including clerical staff and staff in 
nutrition, accounts, etc. (Simulated variable)

 y The implementation costs of the SFP were 
estimated at five percent of the total operational 
cost and are associated with the purchase 

of cooking utensils, stoves, cooking fuel etc. 
and the infrastructural alterations, mainly to 
buildings, to facilitate the cooking of meals at 
schools.

 y Cooks are paid at the rate of SRD 52 485 per 
cook per year. (Simulated variable)

 y One cook is hired for every 100 students for a 
total of 25 cooks in the four schools of the pilot 
project.

 y Other operational level staff, largely associated 
with the purchase and delivery of the produce, 
(for example from farmers to schools) volunteer 
their services.

 y Students receive meals for 180 days of the 
school year.

 y The meals constitute breakfast costing USD 1 
and lunch costing USD 2 for a total meal cost 
per student per day of USD 3 or SRD 22.50.  The 
school committees are then paid at the rate of 
SRD 22.50 per student per day for each student, 
for whom meals are provided. (Simulated 
variable)

 y 100 percent of the total meal cost is used for the 
food ingredients, which are transferred to the 
benefit of the students; (Simulated variable)

 y The meals provide 30 percent of the required 
daily allowance of nutrients for the students; 
(Simulated variable)

 y The school committees do their own 
procurement of food ingredients using the 
assistance of community volunteers.

 y Proper accounting and monitoring take place to 
prevent the risk of fraud and wastage.

 y The number of student beneficiaries in the ABC 
pilot SFP is 2 147.

The initial values were changed in subsequent 
simulations as given in Table 18.3.

Results of the initial simulation

For the initial simulation, the contributions of the 
four individual benefits of the SFP are presented in 
percentage form in Table 18.2.  Here it is seen that the 
major contribution to programme total benefit is from 
value transfers (51.7 percent) and increased productivity 
(28.8 percent). The other major contributor to the 
programme total benefit is the benefit of healthier 
and longer lives of the beneficiary students (19.1 
percent). Return on investment makes an insignificant 
contribution to the programme total benefit (0.4 
percent). 



135

Table 18.1 presents the analysis of the operational 
costs of the ABC pilot SFP.  Here it is seen that the major 
element of the operational cost (88.41 percent) is the 
purchase of food ingredients for the meals. The other 
major operational cost item is the wages of cooks which 
is approximately 12 percent of the total operational cost.

As seen in Table 18.2, the administrative costs are 
8.5 percent of the programme total cost; also total 
operational cost comprise 84.84 percent of the 
programme total cost.

The annual net benefit of the SFP was estimated at over 
SRD 6.26 million and the benefit–cost ratio of the SFP is 
estimated in Table 18.2 as 1.47.

Results of the simulation exercise

In the simulation exercise, the values of each variable 
in Table 18.3 (for example the “cost of daily meals” or 
“percent daily nutritional requirement contributed by 
meals” were changed as indicated in the table and all 
other variables remained at the values in the initial 
simulation (in other words, the simulation was carried 
out under ceteris paribus conditions or under partial 
analysis). The variable whose value was being changed 
can be referred to as the “simulated variable”.   Then, for 
each value of the simulated variable, the benefit–cost 
ratio was calculated to provide an indication of the social 
desirability of the ABC pilot SFP, if it is carried out using 

Table 18.1: Estimated operational cost of ABC pilot school feeding programme
 

Operational Item Cost SRD %

Food ingredients for meals 10 007 550 88.41%

Payment to cooks 1 312 125 11.59%

Total operational cost 11 319 675 100.00%

Table 18.2:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the ABC pilot school feeding programme 

Programme element Element manager SRD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 11 319 674 84.84%

Administrative costs Min. of Education 1 131 968 8.48%

Implementation costs Min. of Education 565 984 4.24%

Project Initiation cost Min. of Education 324 480 2.43%

Programme total cost 13 342 106 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 51.7% 10 136 287

Return on investment 0.4% 72 043

Increased productivity 28.8% 5 641 534

Healthier and longer life 19.1% 3 754 003

Programme total benefit 100.0% 19 603 867

Annual net benefit 6 261 761

Benefit–cost ratio 1.47



136

that value of the simulated variable, along with the other 
variables and assumptions at their initial values. The 
ranges chosen for the variables were considered to be 
values that the variables could reasonably be expected 
to take, or in other words, the ranges that appear to have 
the highest probability of occurrence.

Table 18.3 presents the results of this simulation exercise.  
Here it is seen that the benefit–cost ratio or the social 
desirability of the ABC pilot SFP is most sensitive to the 
“meal cost per student per day” for which the benefit–
cost  ratio had a range of 0.38. For the other variables the 
ranges were all equal to 0.18 except the “percent daily 
nutritional requirement contributed by meals”  where the 
range was 0.04.

The sensitivity of the results to the cost of the meals 
is consistent with Table 18.1, where these meal costs 
represent 88.41percent of the total operational cost. The 
results show that the benefit–cost  ratio is not affected as 
much by the wage rate paid to the cooks, although the 
benefit–cost ratio does fall as the wage rate increases. 
This would suggest that the cooks should be properly 
trained and should be paid at the minimum wage for the 
country, rather than having them volunteer their services.  
This payment would enhance their professionalism, 
including the maintenance of a high standard of service.

The benefit–cost  ratio was highly insensitive to the 
“percent daily nutritional requirement contributed by 

meals”.  However, this variable greatly affects the quality 
of the SFP. Hence, the ABC pilot SFP should maintain the 
highest possible value for this variable, while ensuring 
that the meals are as healthy as possible, in terms of 
their utilization of fresh fruit, vegetables and root crops 
and the minimal use of unhealthy and highly processed 
foods, like sugar.

18.7. Overall assessment of the school feeding 
system in Suriname

The annual net benefit analysis, including the simulation 
analysis, of the ABC pilot SFP has demonstrated that this 
SFP has a high likelihood of success and it should be able 
to justify its existence from a social welfare perspective.  
However, this SFP is limited in its coverage of Suriname 
and in the number of students it caters for (about 3.56 
percent of the primary school population and 1.77 
percent of the total school student population).

There is an obvious need for a SFP in Suriname, to 
provide meals for a significant percentage of the student 
population.  Suriname is the only CARICOM member 
state, of the 14 studied, that does not have, at this time, 
a country wide SFP. The percentage of children under 
five years of age suffering from stunting is approximately 
nine percent.  If this is taken as an indicator of the level 
of under-nutrition in school aged children in Suriname, 

Table 18.3:  Results of the simulation exercise

Administrative cost as % 
of operational cost

Benefit–cost 
ratio

Wage of cook per 
month

Benefit–
cost ratio

Meal cost/ 
student / day

Benefit–
cost ratio

3 1.56 500 1.63 15.00 1.72

5 1.53 2 000 1.56 20.00 1.54

10 1.47 3 000 1.52 22.50 1.47

15 1.41 4 373 1.47 25.00 1.42

18 1.38 5 000 1.45 30.00 1.34

% of Meal payment for 
food

Benefit–cost 
ratio

% nutritional 
requirement of meals

Benefit–
cost ratio

75 1.29 25 1.46

80 1.32 30 1.47

85 1.36 40 1.47

90 1.40 50 1.48

100 1.47 75 1.50



137

then it would indicate that at least 13 000 students in 
schools could benefit from a SFP.

Approximately 15 percent of the students go to school 
without meals and cannot afford to buy anything in 
school, which suggests a nation-wide SFP in Suriname 
could cater to up to 21 000 students at both primary and 
secondary levels. This would mean expanding the SFP of 
the ABC pilot project about ten times.

18.8.     Specific recommendations

Expansion of the ABC pilot school feeding programme 

Arising from this study are recommendations for the 
improvement of school feeding in Suriname, based 
on a scaling up of the ABC pilot SFP. The ABC pilot SFP, 
once validated should be expanded to cover at least 
15 percent of the total school population. As stated 
previously, about 15 percent of the students go to school 
without meals and cannot afford to buy anything in 
school.  They should be the target of the expanded SFP at 
all levels of the school system.

A means test should be applied and only those students 
who cannot afford to buy meals should be supplied 
with free meals.  To improve the sustainability of this 
SFP, meals can be sold to other students at prices that 
will yield the school committees a small profit, to help to 
defray the expenses of the SFP.

Establishment of a school feeding unit

Consideration should be given to the establishment 
of a school feeding unit as the agency to coordinate 

school feeding in Suriname. This unit can begin by 
implementing the ABC pilot SFP.   The unit will have 
to be provided with the necessary nutrition, logistics, 
administrative and statistical staff. The main tasks of this 
unit should be to:

 y implement the ABC pilot SFP;
 y monitor the performance of school feeding in 

Suriname; and
 y ensure that international standards and 

procedures with respect to food quality 
and safety are being met in school feeding 
throughout the country, including the foods and 
snacks that are sold by vendors and canteens.

Promotion of food and nutrition education

There is a clear need for the improvement in food and 
nutrition education for all stakeholders in school feeding, 
including vendors, principals, teachers, cooks, students 
and their parents. This can be achieved by the inclusion 
of food and nutrition concepts in various areas of the 
school curriculum, as well as by having special training 
sessions in healthy eating for all stakeholders in school 
feeding. 

School gardens have proven to be very useful 
contributors to  food and nutrition education at schools. 
Hence, school gardens should be promoted for all 
schools in Suriname, utilizing the various technologies, 
given the land space available to the school.  The school 
gardens should as far as possible supply food items for 
the school kitchens, to demonstrate to students the “farm 
to fork “ concept of local food supply and healthy eating 
and to promote HGSF. 



138

19.1.  Introduction

The twin island state of Trinidad and Tobago is the most 
southerly island state in the Caribbean, merely 11.2 km 
northeast of Venezuela.  The economy depends heavily  
on natural gas and oil, which account for approximately 
40 percent of GDP and 80 percent of exports. 

Archie (2016) presents a brief overview of the history of 
the island of Tobago.  She reports that Tobago remained 
part of the unitary state of Trinidad and Tobago in 
1962, when the country became independent. On 30 
September 1963, Hurricane Flora struck Tobago, with 
winds estimated at 120 mph. The hurricane caused 
catastrophic damage to houses, roads, utilities and 
cocoa and coconut estates. The Government mounted 
a re-construction programme and within two to three 
years, most of the infrastructure was restored, but the 
agricultural sector never rebounded from this disaster.

On 24 November 1980, the Tobago House of Assembly 
(THA) held its first election. Since then there have been 
repeated attempts to consider increased autonomy for 
Tobago. However, the THA does continue to administer 
most of the governmental activity in Tobago, but it still 
lacks major income generating and taxation powers.

19.2. School feeding in Trinidad and Tobago

History

In the case of Trinidad, according to  Pemberton et al., 
(2018, p. 192), the first SFP was organized in 1926,  by 
the Coterie of Social Workers, created by Audrey Jeffers.  
This SFP provided free lunches for children in a building 
in Newtown, Port of Spain popularly known as “the 
Breakfast Shed”. By 1934, other “breakfast sheds” had 
been established in another location in Port of Spain, 
Barataria, San Fernando, Siparia and Tobago (Pemberton 
et al., 2018). 

According to Buckmire-Joseph et al., (2012) state 
sponsored school feeding in Trinidad (and Tobago) can 
be traced back to the 1940s, with the implementation 
of a programme by the World Health Organization, 
that provided needy children in primary schools with a 
meal of milk and biscuits, in order to improve student 
enrollment and encourage regular attendance. In 
1977, a school task force was convened to formulate 
proposals for the implementation of a SFP. However, the 
programme did not start until May 1979.

19.  Trinidad and Tobago

The School Nutrition Company was established in 1980 
and was responsible for the preparation and distribution 
of school lunches and milk drinks to children in primary 
schools throughout Trinidad. The company owned and 
managed 13 kitchens and supervised the operations of 
54 contracted caterers. This SFP was stopped in 1986 and 
later restarted in 1989 as the “Restructured” SFP). In 1993, 
pre-schools were integrated into the SFP. Then, in 1994, 
with funds provided by a loan from an international 
lending agency, secondary schools were included in the 
SFP. 

In 1996 the name of the SFP was changed to the School 
Nutrition Programme (SNP). In 2002, the National Schools 
Dietary Services Ltd. was incorporated as a limited 
liability company by the state to manage the SNP on 
behalf of the Ministry of Education (MOE). (Parliament of 
the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, 2012).

With respect to  Tobago, as a result of a renewed focus on 
the health of Tobago’s children and the quality of their 
meals, in the early 1980s, the THA decided to initiate its 
own SFP and in 1984, successfully created the School 
Feeding Unit (SFU). Three meal preparation units or 
kitchens were built to facilitate the distribution of lunch 
meals to schools throughout Tobago. These units were 
located at: Charlotteville in the east, Mason Hall in the 
north and Bon Accord in the west. Initially, 9 000 meals 
were prepared per day. The meals were served three days 
per week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday to primary 
schools. 

The THA eventually found that the operations of the 
three meal preparation units were not viable and the 
workers of the units formed a cooperative to take over 
the operations as a business entity. This cooperative 
the Tobago Nutrition Co-operative Society (the Coop.) 
then received a contract from the THA to cook and serve 
meals to the entire island, using the three kitchens.  The 
Coop. created substantial employment within the island’s 
communities.

In 1998, the THA hired five new caterers through 
advertisement.  The SFP was expanded to include 
secondary schools on Tuesdays and Thursdays of 
each week. Then early childhood care and education 
(ECCE) centers were added to the SFP.  In 2001, the THA 
increased the number of caterers and all schools and 
ECCE centers were provided with lunch meals for the five 
days of the school week. 



139

The breakfast SFP in Tobago had its origin in 2001, when 
a couple from the Buccoo community started serving 
breakfast to students at  Buccoo Government School. 
Because of the success of this community effort, other 
schools requested similar service from the THA. The THA 
approved a pilot project and advertised for breakfast 
caterers.  This SFP has been in operation for 17 years but 
remains a pilot project.

Structure

Figure 19.1 gives the structure of the school feeding in 
Trinidad and Tobago,  which is a combination of:

 y the state-funded SNP in Trinidad  and the SFP 
in Tobago. Both the SNP and the SFP follow the 
caterer-based (CB) model;

 y tuck-shops and cafeterias operated by the 
schools;

 y vendors; and
 y parent supplied meals to students.

Outside of the state funded SFPs, schools have in place 
various types of arrangements for the provision of meals 
to students. In some schools, vendors are allowed on the 
school premises to provide lunches and snacks for the 
students.  One school in Tobago had three such vendors, 
who were allowed on the school compound, so that 
their operations could be closely monitored.  However 
generally, a proliferation of vendors stay outside of the 
school premises and sell their goods mainly snacks, 
before and especially, after school to the students. Most 
of these snacks may be of an unhealthy nature. 

Most schools have canteens or cafeterias, (or tuck-shops), 
where food is sold to the students. In many cases, these 
are operated by the schools as revenue generating 
business units, with parent, teacher or student help.  In 
other cases, the canteen facility may be rented to and 
operated by private vendors.  These businesses usually 
concentrate on the selling of snacks, drinks and light 
meals, like pizzas and French fries. The MOE has issued a 
directive to ban the selling of SSBs from these facilities.

Many parents supply meals to their children, which they 
bring to school and consume on the school premises. In a 
growing trend, such meals may in fact consist of fast food 
offerings from commercial outlets, some of which may be 
delivered to the school premises.

19.3. The school feeding programmes of Trinidad 
and Tobago

The School Nutrition Programme of Trinidad

As noted above, the NSDSL manages the SNP of Trinidad.   
The overview of the SNP is based on a similarly named 
document of the NSDSL, which is one of the best, concise 
descriptions of a SFP and its economic and social benefits 
in the developing world (NSDSL, 2018). 

The NSDSL is a special purpose limited liability state 
company established to implement the SNP. The NSDSL 
is mandated to:

 y develop a strategic direction for the SNP and to 
oversee its implementation;

 y develop policy guidelines for the management 
and operation of the SNP in respect of meals 
to be served, to ensure that the meals cater for 
the nutritional needs and dietary differences of 
students;

 y establish criteria for the selection of caterers for 
the SNP;

 y develop quality control mechanisms to ensure 
the maintenance of the highest standards 
of food quality and safety and to facilitate  
monitoring enforcement; and to

 y plan new initiatives (NSDSL, 2018). 

The main objectives of the SNP are:

1. to provide, as a weekly average, approximately 
one-quarter (1/4) and one-third (1/3) of the 
recommended dietary allowance (RDAs) of 
nutrients for the child through breakfast and 
lunch respectively;

2. to contribute to the improvement of the 
nutritional status of the students and to enhance 
their learning abilities; and

3. to further stimulate the agricultural sector by 
utilizing local produce wherever possible in the 
meal plan.

The strategic direction of the NSDSL is embodied in its 
vision, mission and motto:

Vision: To become the region’s lead provider of the 
highest quality nutritious meals, engaging research and 
resources in food science and technology.



140

M
inistry of Education

D
ivision of Education, TH

A

M
inistry of Finance

School N
utrition U

nit
N

ational Schools D
ietary Services 

Ltd.

Parents
Schools

Vendors
Cafeterias and 

tuck-shops

School principals and 
teachers

Caterers

W
holesalers, superm

arkets 
and public m

arkets
Cash

Certified farm
ers and food 

processors

Children

Cash

Cash

Cash

Cash

Cash

Contribution

Reporting

Supply Chain

Figure 19.1:   O
perating m

odel of school feeding in Trinidad and Tobago  



141

Mission:  To give every child access to well-balanced 
nutritious meals through the effective and efficient 
delivery of the Schools Nutrition Programme (SNP).

 y Motto: Improving the quality of life with 
nutrition.  (NSDSL, 2018).

Recent details of the number of meals provided by the 
SNP in Trinidad are provided in Table 19.1. There it is 
seen that the number of meals has been decreasing and 
that lunches make up approximately 60 percent of the 
meals produced. The figures also indicate that the SNP 
produces approximately 25 million meals annually. These 
meals are provided to 218 pre-schools which receive 
lunches only, 455 primary schools and 138 secondary 
schools and also to 43 vocational or technical and special 
schools, where breakfast and lunch are provided to 
special needy students.

The school feeding programme of Tobago

The SFP of Tobago (its official name according to 
THA (2018) although it is also referred to as the SNP) 
is administered directly by the Division of Education 
Innovation and Energy (DOE) of the THA through its 
School Nutrition Unit (SNU). The SFP was reported to 
have the following vision, mission and objectives:

Vision: To be a complete provider of nutritional services 
to all school aged children”

Mission statement: To aspire to have a positive and 
enduring impact on the nation by providing nutritious 
meals of the highest quality to all school children, while 
seeking to promote healthy meal choices and lifestyles 
through nutrition education, thus stimulating local 
economic activity and growth in the agricultural sector.  

The objectives of the SFP are essentially similar to those 
of the SNP just stated above.  

Selection of students for the school feeding  programmes

School principals are responsible for selecting the 
students for the SNP in Trinidad and the SFP programme 
in Tobago. Parents may approach principals to have their 
children included and also, once a child is interested and 
obtains permission from the parent or guardian, that 
child can inform the class teacher, who then passes the 
request onto the principal. In addition, principals can 
seek permission of parents to have their children become 
beneficiaries.  Schools report that children of families 
who receive social assistance are generally selected. 

In Trinidad, principals then apply to the MOE to have the 
selected students included in the SNP.  The MOE gives the 
final approval.  

Beneficiaries of the SNP and the SFP may be students of 
ECCE centers (pre-schools), primary schools, secondary 
schools, vocational or technical schools and special 
schools. All meals are provided free of cost to the 
beneficiaries. For pre-schools and primary schools in 
lower socio-economic, rural areas, where the school 
population may be below 100 and the students are 
from the same catchment area, all students may be 
beneficiaries. 

Community participation

As expected in the CB model adopted by the SFPs in 
Trinidad and Tobago, there is limited direct community 
participation in these two SFPs.   The major community 
participation in the SFPs is in terms of the operations of 
the caterers.  The caterers are generally selected from the  
regions or districts in which the schools they serve are 
located. Hence these caterers provide employment for 
some residents in these communities (especially women), 
in small scale food processing and meal preparation.  
Tobago has a large number of caterers for the size of its 

Table 19.1:  Production of meals by the School Nutrition Company Trinidad

Academic year Breakfast Lunch Number serving days

2015 59 329 96 276 164

2016 58 324 88 341 167

2017 57 902 86 714 164

Source: NSDSL



142

SFP and many of these caterers are community groups 
and church organizations.  

There is minimal direct contribution of small farmers 
in the rural communities to the SFPs, even where 
the caterers may be operating from within the rural 
communities. There are however efforts being made 
to increase the participation of farmers and farmers 
groups and association in the SFPs. There is also minimal 
community participation in the governance of the SFPs.  
Usually, community members participate by giving 
comments and suggestions to the caterers and the 
principals, on the meals served and food wastage in the 
SFPs, at PTA and other school meetings.

Operations at the school level

Breakfast meals are usually delivered to schools from 
as early as 7.00 a.m. and lunch from around 11.00 a.m., 
in special containers to keep them at the required 
temperature.  The meals are delivered in individual 
boxes and these boxes are served to children in their 
classrooms, especially in pre-schools and primary 
schools, or given out to students at convenient locations, 
such as the offices of the schools, especially in secondary 
schools.  In some pre-schools in Tobago, the meals are 
delivered in bulk and the teachers serve the children in 
plates, to develop their etiquette and also to provide the 
children with their desired portion sizes.  Samples of the 
meals are provided for the principal or vice-principal of 
each school.

Principals often designate specific teachers to be in 
charge of school feeding in their schools. The designated 
teacher (or principal) in each school notes the number 
of meals delivered each day by the caterers and is thus 
able to certify the caterer’s record of the number of meals 
supplied.  The caterer presents a log book or sheet of the 
meals delivered weekly or monthly, to be signed off and 
stamped by the principal.  The caterer then makes out 
the claims to the NSDSL, in the case of Trinidad and the 
SNU in the case of Tobago. 

Meals are generally served for 165 days of the school 
term which may extend for another 10 days. On the days 
when no meals are received from the SFPs, schools may 
make internal arrangements to provide meals for the 
neediest children.

Operations at the national level

The SNU in Tobago has a very small staff complement 
and therefore very small administrative costs as 

presented in the Draft Estimates - Details of Recurrent 
Expenditure 2019 (THA, 2018).

The SFP provides over 12 000 lunches and 2 500 
breakfasts on a daily basis to students across the island 
of Tobago.  As in Trinidad, there is an emphasis on the 
provision of lunch meals.

There are  17 “lunch caterers” who serve lunch meals to 
110 schools at all levels, from pre-school to secondary 
schools in Tobago. These are the larger caterers in the 
SFP.  In addition, there are 38 caterers who supply (except 
in one case) meals to only one school.  In the exceptional 
case, the caterer serves three schools. 

The Coop. is an interesting feature of the SFP in Tobago.  
It  is the largest caterer and it operates a very modern 
facility.  The Coop. currently has 73 members.  It hires 60 
workers and serves 27 schools.  In addition to the Coop., 
as stated above, there are several community groups 
and church organizations who serve as caterers. Also 15 
schools are listed as caterers to their own students. 

The NSDSL provides its meals through a network 
of  approximately 75 contracted caterers throughout 
Trinidad.  The SNP has established zonal boundaries for 
caterers in Trinidad. There are 20 caterers in the North 
zone, 17 in Central, 20 in the East and 18 in the South 
zone. The boundaries for the zones were established on 
the basis of the population distribution of the country 
and the location of schools. The North zone includes the 
densely populated, capital city of Port of Spain. The East 
zone is the largest by area, and it contains some rural 
areas of the sparsest population density. Both the Central 
and South zones have approximately the same area 
and population.  However, accessibility in the Central 
zone is easier than in the South zone, where more rural 
communities exist. Each zone has a zonal manager who 
manages caterers in the zone.

Caterers are first selected by a tendering process. 
Before they are contracted, they go through a rigorous 
screening process that focuses inter alia on

 y their experience in catering;
 y their financial capability;
 y the design and layout of their food preparation 

facility; and 
 y the type and size of their production equipment.

The caterers’ contract contains two schedules:

 y schedule (i) details the nutritional requirements 
of the meals; and 



143

 y schedule (ii) provides details on food safety.  

Other parts of the contract provide mandatory 
requirements, such as the public health certification of 
the premises and the staff.

Table 19.1 shows that the number of meals per day 
served by the SNP has been declining.  Table 19.1 also 
shows that currently approximately 69 percent of the 
lunch meals are served each day to primary school 
students and approximately 21 percent to secondary 
school students.  It is estimated in Table 19.1 that the 
beneficiaries of free lunch meals in the SNP are as follows:

 y 80 percent of the pre-school student population;
 y 25 percent of the primary school population; 

and
 y 15 percent of the secondary school population. 

The MOE pays caterers TTD 6.63 for each breakfast meal, 
TTD 8.28 for each pre-school lunch and TTD 9.00 for each 
regular lunch provided to primary and secondary school 
students. Funding for the NSDSL is provided by the MOE. 
The SNP is responsible for the supply of disposables, such 
as sporks, spoons, napkins, boxes, and garbage bags, to 
the schools.

Menus and nutrition

School nutrition programme in Trinidad

The survey of caterers and suppliers of raw food items 
to caterers carried out as part of this study, provided 
interesting results, in terms of the opinion of these 
caterers and suppliers, with respect to the meals that are 
more popular among students. These meals included:

 y pizza
 y chicken and pigeon peas pelau with vegetable 

medley
 y chicken with callaloo and steamed rice
 y channa, potato, green paw-paw, pumpkin, 

mango amchar and paratha
 y mac (macaroni) and cheese.

In the opinion of these caterers and suppliers, some of 
the least accepted meals served to students included:

 y saltfish buljol with bake or whole wheat hops
 y most non-chicken or non-meat meals
 y whole wheat and white bread, peanut butter 

and jelly sandwich
 y cassava, pumpkin muffins.

It is interesting that some of the reported popular meals 
included some traditional home prepared meal items or 
dishes like callaloo, pelau and paratha.

However, the SNP in Trinidad has been criticized 
often (and perhaps unfairly branded), because of the 
supposedly high food waste, caused by students refusing 
and disposing of meals, for example, Ottley (2014).  
NSDSL (2018) reported on the measures that have been 
taken by the company to deal with this situation.  In the 
first instance, surveys were conducted over the period 
2012 to 2015, involving more than 5 000 students, across 
the SNP, to ascertain, especially for the primary school 
population:

 y the levels at which different meals were being 
consumed;

 y the items that were being poorly consumed;
 y the reasons for the poor consumption; and
 y possible solutions to minimize these outcomes.

Poor consumption was defined as “any edible portion 
of a food item or meal that was consumed less than 75 
percent, after it was presented to a child.”

The surveys found that:

 y Generally, meal consumption was influenced 
by age group, with the level of consumption 
increasing with age group for most meal items 
and wastage of staple items like rice, cassava 
and paratha, occurred mainly among the 
younger age group.

 y Among all meal items, “vegetables” had the 
lowest consumption levels.

 y Students were generally satisfied with the taste 
of most meals.

 y There was a preference for “fast food” type 
menus, when compared to local traditional 
dishes as usually prepared at homes in Trinidad 
and Tobago.

 y Students reported that they also purchased and 
consumed other meal items at school, including 
snacks that were high in sugar, salt and fat.

Based on the results of these surveys, the NSDSL has 
taken inter alia the following remedial measures:

 y continuous monitoring and adjustment of 
menus;

 y tailoring portion sizes to appetite and needs; 
and

 y recipe testing and development.



144

These measures are now briefly summarized, as they 
elaborate the approach to menus and nutrition in the 
SNP (NSDSL, 2018).

1. Continuous Monitoring and Adjustment of Menus

The quality assurance officers (QAOs) continuously 
monitor meal consumption and provide information 
that is used to adjust menu combinations. Menus in 
the SNP are adjusted each term, as necessary, for better 
meal consumption by students. However, all menus 
are planned by the nutrition professionals  to meet the 
internationally-benchmarked nutrient goal of a weekly 
average of one quarter to one third of the recommended 
dietary allowance (RDAs) of nutrients for the child 
through breakfast and lunch respectfully. The menus are 
presented to caterers in a 20-day 4-week cycle. These 
menus emphasize the use of local produce including 
fruits and vegetables. The ethnic and religious diversity of 
the student population is also taken into consideration. 
The Nutrition Department also completes computer-
based analyses of the menus, to estimate the nutrient 
content of the meals.

2. Tailoring Portion Sizes to Appetite and Needs

The consumption surveys determined that one of the 
reasons for the low consumption levels of younger 
children (ages five to seven years) was that the serving 
sizes of the staples were too large. The remedial action 
taken was to reduce the serving sizes of staples for 
this age group from 227 g (eight ounces) to 170 g (six 
ounces).

3. Recipe Testing and Development

As stated above, in the consumption surveys, there 
was a preference among students for “fast food” type 
menus, when compared to local traditional dishes, as 
usually prepared at home. Therefore, the four chefs in 
the recipe testing and development department have 
been  developing new recipes to utilize local agricultural 
products (NSDSL, 2018). These new recipes are expected 
to deliver new meals that enhance the taste, flavor and 
presentation of the local products.  The new meals are 
being sensory evaluated by the students in sample 
schools. This department also provides training for 
caterers in quantity food production of the improved 
meals.

The school feeding programme of Tobago

The SNU prepares a “notice” for its contracted caterers, 
providing a “five day week lunch menu” for the different 

weeks of the school term. This meal plan is approved and 
signed by the Administrator of the DOE and is sent out as 
a directive of the DOE. The notice in addition states that 
no item on the menu must be changed or substituted 
without the approval by the DOE.  Compliance with this 
notice or menu plan is monitored by the nutrition officers 
of the DOE.

It would appear also that certain caterers, perhaps 
because of religious or other particularities may be 
allowed to produce their own meal plan. For example, 
a different  “three weeks cycle menu”  was observed 
from the school feeding department of a “mission” of 
a religious group (Seventh Day Adventist), which is a 
caterer in the SFP.

Sugar sweetened beverages

Surveys confirmed that in 2007, 51.6 percent of students 
usually drank sugar sweetened carbonated soft drinks 
two or three times per day and by 2011, 74.6 percent of 
students drank sugar sweetened carbonated beverages 
“within the past 30 days” (Ministry of Health Trinidad and 
Tobago, 2017).  In response to this high consumption of 
sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) and the data on child 
obesity, the Ministry of Health introduced the “Nutrition 
Standards for Food Offered for Sale in Schools in Trinidad 
and Tobago”, which took effect in September 2017. This 
policy states that not permitted for sale in schools are 
foods that contain added sugars, which make up more 
than eight percent of the total calories. Among the SSBs 
banned are soft drinks, juice drinks, flavored water, sports 
and energy drinks and milk-based drinks with added 
sugars. Only water, 100 percent juices, low-fat milk and 
blended vegetable or fruit drinks should now be sold in 
schools in Trinidad and Tobago. 

19.4. Governance of the school nutrition 
programme of Trinidad and the school 
feeding programme of Tobago

The school nutrition programme in Trinidad

The governance structure of the SNP is presented in 
Figure 19.1. As stated previously, the NSDSL was set up 
as a limited liability company to manage the SNP on 
behalf of the MOE in Trinidad.  Oversight and strategic 
directing of the NSDSL is provided by a board of directors 
(NSDSL, 2018).  The company is also staffed by a “cadre 
of skilled employees with the expertise and professional 
qualifications in a variety of disciplines relevant to school 



145

meal service.” (NSDSL, 2018). The upper management 
consists of a chief executive officer and three programme 
managers in the following functional areas:

 y Operations - with direct responsibility for the 32 
quality assurance officers (QAOs), who oversee 
the operations of the 75 caterers in the SNP.

 y Nutrition  services  -  with  oversight  for  all  
departments  that  support  the operations of 
the SNP which are:
o nutrition
o agriculture
o information technology
o recipe testing and development 
o research
o training.

 y Accounts – with responsibility for the accounts 
department.

The NSDSL is funded through the MOE, but the company 
is responsible to this Ministry, as well as Ministry of 
Finance (Parliament of the Republic of  Trinidad and 
Tobago, 2012, p. 22).

The school feeding programme in Tobago

The governance structure of the SFP is also presented 
in Figure 19.1. As outlined above, the SFP in Tobago is 
governed directly by the DOE of the THA.  The DOE has 
a small SNU with a staff of 11 consisting of two nutrition 
officers, eight food service officers and a secretary.  This 
Unit is directed by the administrator of the DOE, with 
advice from a coordinator in the DOE.

Funding for the SFP is provided by the DOE as line items 
in its recurrent expenditure as presented in the Draft 
Estimates - Details of Recurrent Expenditure 2019 (THA, 
2018).  Food service officers function in a similar manner 
to the QAOs of the SNP in Trinidad, visiting caterers 
to ensure that their operations are in line with the 
policies and guidelines established by the DOE. They are 
supervised by the nutrition officers, who also give advice 
on menus and monitor compliance with these menus.

There is no school feeding management committee 
that involves parents, teachers and the local community 
in the management and implementation of the school 
feeding programmes in Trinidad and Tobago. 

19.5. Procurement arrangements 

Procurement for the school nutrition programme in Trinidad

For the SNP,  raw food items or ingredients are procured 
by the caterers, who purchase these food items directly 
from suppliers approved by the NSDSL and listed in the 
suppliers directory. The NSDSL has approximately 65 
approved suppliers (including farmers), who employ at 
least 6 000 persons (NSDSL, 2018).

Caterers are free to choose from any of the listed 
suppliers, who are located throughout the island. Three 
QAOs have the responsibility for visiting all the suppliers 
throughout the island. Visits are conducted at least three 
times per school term. These QAOs also ensure that 
caterers purchase supplies only from the listed suppliers.

Both local and imported foods are purchased by caterers. 
However, “local produce always takes precedence over 
imported produce, in line with the objective of the 
SNP” (NSDSL, 2018). An Agriculture Department was 
set up by the NSDSL in 2013.  Its mandate is to increase 
both the amount of local produce used in the SNP, and 
the quantities directly purchased from farmers. This 
department liaises with the Ministry of Agriculture Land 
and Fisheries (MALF) and agricultural organizations such 
as the National Agricultural Marketing and Development 
Corporation (NAMDEVCO) to source for the SNP, farmers 
and agro-processors, who adhere to good agricultural 
and food safety practices (NSDSL, 2018).

Listed farmers and agro-processors are provided with 
termly projected needs for agricultural produce by the 
SNP.  The NSDSL’s Agriculture Department also assists in 
connecting farmers to agro-processors. The department 
also collates information on the level of local produce 
used in the SNP.  For example, data collected for the 
period September 2017 to June 2018 indicate that over 
1.5 million pounds of local produce were used in the 
SNP, valued at approximately TTD 10 million, which is 
approximately 12 percent of the total value of raw food 
items purchased for the SNP.  Purchases of local produce  
represent a significant contribution of the SNP to the 
agricultural sector in Trinidad and Tobago.  Local produce 
is sourced from small-scale farmers, farmer groups 
or associations, community groups and small agro-
processors. 



146

An MOU exists between the NSDSL and the NAMDEVCO 
towards increased cassava production for use in the SNP. 
Caterers of the SNP are major clients of the NAMDEVCO 
packing house. Major challenges reported by the packing 
house in its business relationship with the caterers of the 
SNP included:

 y receiving funds and payments in a timely 
manner; and

 y lack of consistent demand for commodities.

Procurement for the school feeding programme in Tobago

As in the case of Trinidad, caterers in Tobago do their 
own procurement of raw food items for the meals 
they prepare.  In the case of Tobago, there is no list of 
approved suppliers (as in the case of Trinidad) and most 
of the food items for the meals are sourced through 
wholesalers in Trinidad. This pertains particularly to 
chicken, rice, other meats, cassava and white potato. The 
main food items obtained from sources in Tobago are 
lettuce, pak choi and seasonings. Even when fish is used 
by caterers, it was reported that it tends to be white fish 
sourced from Trinidad, though the fish itself is imported 
from foreign sources. Fish from Tobago was reported to 
be too expensive for the budgeted cost of a school meal.

One of the major concerns about procurement of 
food commodities for Tobago is the reliability of 
transportation between the two islands, Trinidad and 
Tobago. Caterers complained that there were frequent 
breakdowns and other factors affecting the vessels doing 
the transportation and hence there were very many 
cancellations of sailings.  Shortages therefore occurred 
for some food items, causing the caterers to pay higher 
prices for these food items, especially if they have to be 
sourced from supermarkets in Tobago. Shortages of food 
items in Tobago also meant that meal plans have to be 
changed to utilize available food items, which results 
in the inability of the caterers to follow the meal plans 
directed by the DOE.

19.6. School gardens and aspects of food and 
nutrition education

The Nutrition and Metabolism Division of the Ministry 
of Health (MOH) conducts visits to schools and provides 
lectures, food demonstrations and displays, geared 
towards encouraging healthy eating habits and lifestyles. 
These activities reflect the view that schools should play 
an integral part in educating students about healthy 

eating, making good food choices, as well as the long-
term consequences of bad food choices. Through the 
MOH also, there is the national primary school nutrition 
quiz and the school health education programme, 
“Healthy Me” (Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago, 
2017).

The nutrition education component of the NSDSL is 
executed by the Nutrition Department and it is targeted 
at schools “… where meal consumption is a challenge” 
(NSDSL, 2018). The sessions are held for students, 
school personnel and parents and the content covered 
is consistent with the MOE’s Health and Family Life 
Education (HFLE) curriculum. HFLE is the major food 
and nutrition education curriculum for primary schools 
(usually from first to fifth standard) and secondary 
schools (forms one to three) (Ministry of Education 
Trinidad and Tobago, 2006, 2009). HFLE incorporates a 
theme on “eating and fitness”. 

The NSDSL’s Nutrition Department also partners with the 
Health Education Unit of the MOH in health promotion 
activities, such as the National Primary School Nutrition 
Quiz (NSDSL, 2018). The NSDSL also conducts nutrition 
education for students through planned activities, such 
as school health fairs and workshops.  These activities can 
be requested by schools or by quality assurance officers 
or zonal managers of the NSDSL, especially where the 
consumption of meals presents challenges, that are 
being focused on by the NSDSL.

School gardens in Trinidad and Tobago are largely 
associated with the requirements for the Caribbean 
Examination Council (CXC) CSEC Agricultural Science 
curriculum.  Secondary schools with students taking this 
subject, usually have fully functional farms, with both 
crop and livestock enterprises.  However, most of the 
produce from these farms is sold to teachers and parents, 
to help to finance the operations of the farms, with little 
or no contribution to the meals served in the schools.  
4-H clubs may assist in the operations of these farms, 
with their emphasis on developing skills in farming and 
agribusiness entrepreneurship.

A relatively much smaller proportion of primary 
schools have functional school gardens as compared to 
secondary schools and most of these schools are in the 
rural areas.  Depending on the space available, these 
school gardens range from farms with crop and livestock 
enterprises to plantings in containers and troughs 
(Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, 
2018). An Agricultural Science subject area is included 



147

in the national curriculum of primary schools (Ministry 
of Education Trinidad and Tobago, 2013).  However, 
since this subject is not included in the Secondary 
Entrance Assessment (SEA) examination for placement of 
students in secondary schools, this subject area is usually 
neglected in primary schools, with an emphasis on the 
subject areas of Mathematics and English Language.

19.7. Quality assurance and monitoring and 
evaluation

The NSDSL is a core member of the Technical Working 
Committee responsible for developing nutrition 
standards for foods offered in schools. This multi-
sectoral committee which is chaired by the MOH also 
has representatives from the MOE, MALF the Trinidad 
and Tobago Association of Nutritionists and Dietitians, 
the National Parent Teachers Association (NPTA) and 
multinational institutions e.g., FAO. 

Detailed evaluations of the performance of the SNP 
in Trinidad are provided in the Report of the Auditor 
General on a special audit in Ottley (2014) and the 
Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2012).

The MOE is responsible for the national policy on school 
nutrition and therefore has responsibility for evaluating 
and enhancing the overall performance of the SNP. The 
NSDSL therefore works closely with the office of the 
Chief Education Officer (CEO), who monitors the SNP on 
behalf of the MOE. Further monitoring is carried out at 
the level of the seven education districts in Trinidad by 
the district school supervisors who are in regular contact 
with the schools. Schools provide information on the 
quality of the service received, to the MOE. Any issues 
to be addressed are forwarded to the NSDSL.  Similar 
monitoring of the SFP in Tobago is carried out by the SNU 
with the Administrator of the DOE having the general 
responsibility for the SFP in Tobago.

QAOs of the NSDSL and staff of the SNU in Tobago 
monitor the daily operations and the facilities of caterers 
to ensure that caterers are in compliance with the terms 
of their contracts and in particular, that they provide the 
meals that have been directed on the menus from the 
NSDSL in Trinidad and the SNU in Tobago.  They also visit 
schools to monitor the acceptance of meals by students. 
Efforts by the NSDSL to improve this acceptance and the 
levels of consumption of food items have already been 
described above.

In Trinidad, caterers must also abide by the rules and 
regulations outlined in the caterer’s manual supplied by 

the NSDSL. Reports are written daily by the QAOs and 
reviewed weekly by zonal managers. Written evaluations 
of kitchens are provided each term. Details of the 
monitoring system are provided by NSDSL (2018). The 
NSDSL also monitors the listed suppliers for the caterers 
in the SNP.  This monitoring provides the NSDSL with 
the assurance that the products and raw materials that 
caterers use for meals are of the highest food safety and 
sanitation standards (NSDSL, 2018).  Recommendations 
are given to suppliers and caterers to remedy any 
defects or deficiencies.  Failure to adhere or implement 
recommended corrective actions can result in the 
suspension of the caterer or the supplier.

The Public Health Department of the MOH is the 
regulatory body with respect to the safety of uncooked 
or cooked food offered for sale and therefore the NSDSL 
and the SNU work closely with this Department in their 
monitoring of the premises of caterers and suppliers.  
Joint visits are often undertaken and any corrective 
action recommended by the Public Health Department 
is monitored by the NSDSL and the SNU. The basic public 
health requirements for caterers and suppliers include 
the public health premises certificate and food badges 
for all staff.

As part of its monitoring procedures, meals prepared by 
the SNP and the SFP are sent for periodic, independent 
microbiological testing by approved laboratories. To 
assist in this process and as a precaution to allay any false 
claims, caterers are required to keep at least one sample 
box of each type of meal prepared each day, frozen for 
a period of at least 72 hours, for the purpose of (in most 
cases) random microbial testing.

Training of technical staff of the NSDSL, as well as 
caterers takes place on a regular basis in areas such as 
food safety and sanitation. The nature of the training for 
technical staff includes:

 y ServSafe certification
 y ISO 22 000 auditor course
 y a food safety and food microbiology course. 

Training for the caterers includes the following areas:

 y food safety
 y mastering cooking skills
 y GROEN foodservice equipment
 y management for caterers
 y establishing quality assurance systems
 y gas safety.



148

19.8.  Annual net benefit analyses of the school 
feeding programmes in Trinidad and Tobago

Approach to the annual net benefit analysis

The annual net benefit analysis utilized information for 
the SNP from the NSDSL and information for the SFP 
from the Draft Estimates of Expenditure (THA, 2018).  As 
well, the number of students receiving meals in Tobago 
had to be estimated from the available information. For 
both SFPs, since they were based on caterers supplying 
meals and the caterers are paid on a per meal basis, the 
percentage of the total payments to the caterers that is a 
direct transfer in terms of food to the beneficiaries of the 
SFP had to be estimated. This percentage is termed “the 
value of the food” percentage. In the case of the annual 
net benefit analysis for the SNP, “the value of the food” 
percentage initially was assumed to be 75 percent. For 
the SFP of Tobago the “value of the food” percentage was 
initially assumed to be 40 percent. 

Two sets of simulation analyses were carried out. The 
first was determine the sensitivity of the benefit–cost 
ratio for the SNP and the SFP to the “value of the food” 
percentage.  The second simulation determined the 
sensitivity of the benefit–cost ratio of the SFP of Tobago, 
to the number of students receiving meals in the SFP.  
These simulations involved keeping all other data for the 
analyses the same and:

 y varying only the number of students in the 
programme (ceteris paribus) in the case of 
the SFP in Tobago, keeping the “value of 
food” percentage constant at 40 percent and 
calculating the benefit–cost ratio for each value 
of the number of students; and

 y varying only the “value of the food” percentage 
for the SNP in Trinidad and the SFP in Tobago 
(ceteris paribus) keeping the number of 
beneficiary students in Tobago constant at 

18,145 and then calculating the benefit–cost 
ratios for each value of this percentage for the 
two SFPs.

The annual net benefit analyses were undertaken for the 
year 2017.

Annual net benefit analysis for the SNP of Trinidad

The contributions of the four individual benefits of the 
SNP are presented in percentage form in Table 19.3.  Here 
it is seen that the major contribution to programme 
total benefit is from value transfers (49.2 percent) and 
increased productivity (29.9 percent). The other major 
contributor to the programme total benefit is the 
benefit of healthier and longer lives of the beneficiary 
students (20.0 percent).  Return on investment makes an 
insignificant contribution to the programme total benefit 
(0.9 percent). 

Table 19.2 presents the operational costs of the SNP. 
Here it is seen that the major element of the operational 
cost (94.02 percent) is the payment to the caterers.  
As noted earlier, the caterers are then responsible for 
purchasing their food items, from which they prepare 
the meals and the cost of transporting the meals to the 
schools. In the initial analysis, it was assumed that the 
“value of the food” percentage (as the percentage of 
the total payments to the caterers, that was transferred 
to the beneficiaries as food) was 75 percent. Simulation 
analysis was then carried out, as described above, to vary 
this percentage, to gauge the sensitivity of the benefit–
cost ratio to changes in this variable. The other major 
operational cost item was for the acquisition of “Eating 
and cooking utensils” (5.9 percent). Noteworthy also is 
the expenditure on the “microbial testing of meals”.

As seen in Table 19.3, the administrative costs of the SNP 
project are 5.69 percent of the programme total cost. 
Total operational cost comprises 94.31 percent of the 
programme total cost.

Table 19.2:  Operational costs of school nutrition programme of Trinidad

Operational item Cost TTD  %

Payment to caterers 207 861 993 94.02%

Microbiological testing of meals 166 840 0.08%

Eating and cooking utensils 13 045 452 5.90%

Total Operational Cost 221 074 285 100.00%



149

In Table 19.3, the annual net benefit of the SNP was 
estimated at over TTD 97 million and the benefit–cost 
ratio was estimated as 1.41. It is noteworthy in Table 19.3, 
that no payments are made by parents or the community 
to support the SNP in Trinidad or indeed to support the 
SFP in Tobago.

Annual net benefit analysis for the SFP of Tobago

In this analysis, based on information given by caterers, 
the initial assumption was that the “value of the food” 
percentage was 40 percent. The lower percentage 
figure for Tobago was suggested because of the higher 
wage rates, transportation costs and smaller scale of 
operations.  As noted also in the case of the SNP of 
Trinidad, the caterers are responsible for purchasing their 
food items from which they prepare the meals and the 
cost of transporting the meals to the schools. In the initial 
analysis, it was assumed that 40 percent of this payment 
to the caterers was used to purchase food items to 
prepare the meals.  Simulation analysis was then carried 
out, as described above, to vary this percentage to gauge 
the sensitivity of the results to changes in this variable.

In the case of the SFP of Tobago, the contributions of 
the four individual benefits of the SFP are presented in 
percentage form in Table 19.4.  Here it is seen that the 
major contribution to programme total benefit is from 
increased productivity (38.9 percent). The other major 

contributors to the programme total benefit are the 
benefits of value transfers (32.7 percent) and healthier 
and longer lives of the beneficiary students (26.0 
percent).  Return on investment makes an insignificant 
contribution to the programme total benefit (2.4 
percent).

In Table 19.4, the annual net benefit of the SNP was 
estimated at over  TTD 13 million and the benefit–cost 
ratio was estimated as 1.33. It is noteworthy in Table 19.4, 
that no payments are made by parents or the community 
to support the SFP in Tobago.

19.9.  Overall assessment of the school feeding 
programmes in Trinidad and Tobago

The annual net benefit analyses carried out have 
demonstrated that both the SNP in Trinidad and the SFP 
in Tobago can justify their existence from a social welfare 
perspective with benefit–cost ratios of 1.33 in the case 
of the SFP in Tobago and 1.41 in the case of the SNP in 
Trinidad.

Based on the estimated number of beneficiaries (18 145 
for Tobago and 86 714 for Trinidad), the programme in 
Tobago was more cost effective in 2017, at an average 
cost per student of TTD 2 216.89, compared to TTD 
2 703.26 for Trinidad.  One major contributor to the 
higher average cost in Trinidad was the much higher 

Table 19.3 : Determination of the annual net benefit for the school nutrition programme of Trinidad

Programme element Element manager TTD %

Total operational cost Min. of Education 221 074 285 94.31

Administrative costs Min. of Education 13 336 209 5.69

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00

Programme total cost 234 410 494 100.00

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits

Value transfer 49.2% 163 165 130

Return on investment 0.9% 2 961 707

Increased productivity 29.9% 99 248 530

Healthier and longer life 20.0% 66 312 962

Programme total benefit 100.0% 331 688 329

Annual net benefit 97 277 835

Benefit–cost ratio 1.41



150

administrative cost, which could be attributed to much 
more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems 
of the NSDSL in Trinidad.

The lower benefit–cost ratio obtained for Tobago’s SFP 
(1.33) was obtained because it was assumed that the 
“value of the food” percentage was 40 percent.  In the 
simulation exercise in Table 19.5, if this percentage was 
raised to 75 percent, as in the initial case of Trinidad, the 
benefit–cost ratio of the Tobago’s SFP rises to 1.66, much 
higher than the equivalent figure for Trinidad. In general, 
therefore, the benefit–cost ratios of the state-funded 
SFPs in Trinidad and Tobago are very sensitive to the 
“value of the food” percentage.

The benefit–cost ratio of the SFP of Tobago is sensitive 
to the number of students who benefit from the 
programme, as seen in Table 19.5. The benefit–cost ratio 
increases with the increasing number of beneficiary 
students, holding all other factors fixed.  This simulation 
analysis was conducted with the “value of the food” 
percentage held at 40 percent.

Despite the positive performances of the SNP and 
the SFP in Trinidad and Tobago, there are areas for 
their improvement.  The first area is increasing the 
contribution of the SFPs to the reduction of overweight 
and obesity and the promotion of healthy eating 
lifestyles in Trinidad and Tobago. The second area is the 
sustainability of these two programmes, in view of the 

slower rates of economic growth in Trinidad and Tobago. 
Any reductions in the budgetary allocations to these 
programmes would jeopardize the viability of caterers, 
especially those in Trinidad, who depend on large scale 
operations to overcome their low percentage profit 
margins. Thus, the first specific  recommendation in the 
next section focuses on ways to improve the operations 
and sustainability of the SFP and the SNP.  

19.10.  Specific recommendations

Improvement of the operations and sustainability of the 
school feeding programmes

The measures that have been adopted by the NSDSL to 
increase the percentage of the meals actually consumed 
by the students in the SNP have been noted above.    
However, efforts must continue to increase these actual 
meal consumption percentages, because of the negative 
perceptions engendered by food wastage.  This is a 
complex problem because the caterers:

 y have definite budget limits for each meal;
 y have to maintain nutritional standards; and
 y have to follow set meal plans.

Caterers easily identified the meals that are favored by 
the students and those that they can expect lower actual 

Table 19.4:  Determination of the annual net benefit for the school feeding programme of Tobago

Programme element Element manager TTD %

Total operational cost THA 39 857 805 99.09%

Administrative costs THA 367 700 0.91%

Paid to school by community Schools 0 0.00%

Paid to school by parents Schools 0 0.00%

Programme total cost 40 225 505 100.00%

Benefit sources % of total benefits Benefits 

Value transfer 32.7% 17 464 092

Return on investment 2.4% 1 271 783

Increased productivity 38.9% 20 767 864

Healthier and longer life 26.0% 13 876 060

Programme total benefit 100.0% 53 379 799

Annual net benefit 13 154 294

Benefit–cost ratio 1.33



151

Table 19.5:    Simulation analyses for the “value of food” percentage for the school nutrition programme 
of Trinidad and the school feeding programme of Tobago and simulation analysis for the number of 

beneficiary students in the school feeding programme of Tobago

“Value of the 
food” %

Benefit–cost ratio  
Trinidad

Benefit–cost ratio  
Tobago

Number of beneficiary 
students Tobago

Benefit–cost 
ratio Tobago

40 1.12 1.33 16 000 1.22

60 1.29 1.52 17 000 1.27

75 1.41 1.66 18 145 1.33

80 1.46 1.70 19 000 1.37

85 1.50 1.75 20 000 1.42

meal consumption.  Therefore, the NSDSL and the SNU in 
Tobago should continue their efforts in:

 y improving the standard of meal preparation and 
presentation of caterers; and 

 y responding to the food preferences of students.

Caterers also suggested that there was the need to 
increase the awareness and education of both students 
and their parents on the various aspects of the state-
funded SFPs and the conditions and constraints under 
which caterers operate, so that students could have a 
greater appreciation for the meals being served and 
reduce wastage.

Other recommendations to improve the operations of 
the SFP in Tobago are: 

 y There is the need to strengthen the SNU in 
Tobago to enhance its monitoring capabilities.

 y There is the obvious need for greater 
collaboration and coordination between the SFP 
in Tobago and the SNP in Trinidad.

Promotion of the benefits to society of the state-funded 
school feeding programmes

There is the need for greater promotion of the benefits 
of the state-funded SFPs in Trinidad and Tobago, 

among the general population of the country.   As 
stated above, the NSDL’s publication, “Overview of the 
NSDSL”  is an excellent promotional tool (NSDSL, 2018).  
The recommendation is that it should be given wide 
circulation among the population.

It has already been noted that there is little that has 
been published on any aspect of school feeding in 
Tobago.   This situation should be immediately remedied 
and a similar promotional publication as the NSDSL’s 
“Overview” should be prepared and published for the 
SFP in Tobago.

Promotion of food and nutrition education and school 
gardens

There is need to strengthen food and nutrition 
education in schools in Trinidad and Tobago.  As argued 
in Chapter 4, school gardens are an excellent tool in 
this regard.  School gardens and 4-H clubs should 
therefore be promoted in schools in Trinidad and Tobago.  
There should also be greater implementation of the 
Agricultural Science subject area in primary schools, with 
perhaps elements of this subject being included in the 
SEA examination, to emphasize the importance of local 
food and agriculture to healthy eating and to national 
and household food and nutrition security.



152

Bibliography

ACT Government. 2017. Physical Education and Sport 
Policy [online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. https://www.
education.act.gov.au/publications_and_policies/
School-and-Corporate-Policies/school-activities/
physical-education,-sport-and-outdoor-activities/
physical-education-and-sport-policy

American Heart Association. 2018. Added sugars 
[online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. https://www.heart.
org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/
sugar/added-sugars

Archie, M. 2016. History of Tobago, the island of Tobago 
[online]. [Cited 25 July 2019]. https://www.
visittobago.gov.tt/ index.php/island-resources/
resources-government- ) contacts/history-of-tobago

Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS). 2018. 
Dominica: the impact of Hurricane Maria. Disaster 
profile - January 2018. In: ReliefWeb [online]. [Cited 
21 November 2019]. https://reliefweb.int/report/
dominica/dominica-impact-hurricane-maria-
disaster-profile-january-2018

Ayoya, M.A., Heidkamp, R., Ngnie-Teta, I., Pierre, J.M. 
& Stoltzfus, R.J. 2013. Child malnutrition in Haiti: 
progress despite disasters. Global Health: Science 
and Practice, 1(3): 389–396. https://doi.org/10.9745/
GHSP-D-13-00069

Bahamasgeotourism. 2013. About the region. In: 
Bahamasgeotourism [online]. [Cited 26 November 
2019]. http://www.bahamasgeotourism.com/about.
php

Ballini, F., Betti, G., Carrette, S. & Neri, L. 2009. Poverty 
and inequality mapping in the Commonwealth 
of Dominica. Estudios Economicos, 1(2). (also 
available at https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/28312670_Poverty_and_inequality_
mapping_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Dominica).

Banks DIH Ltd. 2018. About us. In: Banks DIH Ltd. 
[online]. [Cited 20 October 2020]. https://www.
banksdih.com/?q=about-us

Barefoot Services. 2017. The roads in Belize. In: Barefoot 
Services [online]. [Cited 29 November 2019]. 
https://barefootservicesbelize.com/the-roads-and-
highways-in-belize/

Barnes. 2018. School lunch standards in Bahamian 
schools. Presentation presented at the Healthy 
Caribbean Coalition aBarnes. 2018. School lunch 
standards in Bahamian schools. Presentation 

presented at the Healthy Caribbean Coalition 
and the Heart and Stroke Foundation . Nassau. 
https://www.healthycaribbean.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/11/HCC-HSFB-BEYOND-CTA-
NOVEMBER-20-2018-C-BARNES-TOWARDS-SCHOOL-
LUNCH-POLICY.pdf

Bates, S. 2017. Closer monitoring of school vendors 
needed. Guyana Times, 6 March 2017. (also available 
at https://guyanatimesgy.com/closer-monitoring-of-
school-vendors-needed/).

Beach, M. 2018. Bermuda healthy school policies 
Beyond. PowerPoint presented at the Healthy 
Caribbean Coalition and the Heart and Stroke 
Foundation of Barbados workshop “Beyond the Call 
to Action Event: Towards School Policies in Support 
of Childhood Obesity Prevention”,. Barbados. [Cited 
10 October 2020]. https://www.healthycaribbean.
org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HCC-HSFB-
BEYOND-CTA-NOVEMBER-20-2018-M-BEACHE-
BERMUDA-SCHOOL-POLICIES.pdf

Belfort, F. 2018. Back to school: The PNCS intends 
to accompany school children with a hot meal. 
Presslakay, 31 August 2018. (also available at https://
presslakay.net/rentree-scolaire-le-pncs-entend-
accompagner-les-ecoliers-avec-un-plat-chaud/).

Belize Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 2021. 
Labor force. In: Belize Chamber of Commerce & 
Industry [online]. [Cited 12 April 2021]. https://www.
belize.org/labor-force/

Besso, A. 2014. Process evaluation of the school meals 
programme as part of the farm to fork project 
in St. Kitts. McGill University. (also available 
at http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/
StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1572869143454~730).

Blank, L. 2009. St. Lucia social safety net assessment. 
https://www.unicef.org/St__Lucia_SSNA_Report.pdf

Boger, R. & Perdikaris, S. 2019. After Irma,disaster 
capitalism threatens cultural heritage in Barbuda. In: 
North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) 
[online]. [Cited 9 December 2019]. https://nacla.org/
news/2019/02/12/after-irma-disaster-capitalism-
threatens-cultural-heritage-barbuda

Breaking Belize News. 2015. Ebenezer Methodist 
Primary School receives donation from SMART. 
Breaking Belize News, 15 June 2015. (also available at 
https://www.breakingbelizenews.com/2015/06/15/



153

ebenezer-methodist-primary-school-receives-
donation-smart/).

Buckmire-Joseph, G., Huggins-Langtan, A., Smith-
Seifert, J. & Thomas, N. 2012. School feeding 
programme in Trinidad and Tobago then and now 
[online]. [Cited 5 October 2019]. https://www.
curriculumhistory.org/Subjects_in_Trinidad_and_
Tobagos_History_of_Education_files/Gail Buckmire-
Joseph, Alicia Huggins-Langtan, Jacqueline Smith-
Seifert, and Nisha Thomas.pdf

Bundy, D., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, 
M. & Drake, L. 2009. Rethinking school feeding: 
social safety nets, child development, and the 
education sector. Washington, D.C., World Bank. (also 
available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/bitstream/handle/10986/2634/48742.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y).

Bureau de Nutrition et Développement (BND) (Office 
of Nutrition and Development). 2007. Programmes. 
In: BND [online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. http://
bndhaiti.org/programsf.html

Bureau of Statistics Guyana. 2017. Population & 
housing census: final 2012 census compendium 
4. In: Bureau of Statistics [online]. [Cited 26 
August 2019]. https://statisticsguyana.gov.gy/
publications/#cen2012

Campbell, C. 2018. Aquaponics project: major boost 
for woburn methodist school feeding programme. 
NOW Grenada, 12 January 2018. (also available at 
https://www.nowgrenada.com/2018/01/aquaponics-
project-major-boost-for-woburn-methodist-school-
feeding-programme/).

CARE. 2015. Kore lavi: a new way to do food aid. In: CARE 
[online]. [Cited 8 October 2019]. https://www.care.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Kore-Lavi-Brief.
pdf

CARICOM. 2010. CARICOM Regional food and nutrition 
security policy [online]. [Cited 5 September 
2020]. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/
righttofood/documents/project_m/caricom/CA
RICOMRegionalFoodandNutritionSecurityPolicy-
5october2010.pdf

CARICOM. 2011. Regional food and nutrition security 
action plan [online]. [Cited 1 November 2020]. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-bs907e.pdf

CARICOM. 2016a. Who we are. In: CARICOM [online]. 
[Cited 29 October 2019]. https://caricom.org/ about-
caricom/who-we-are

CARICOM. 2016b. Suriname. In: CARICOM [online]. [Cited 
11 November 2019]. https://caricom.org/country_
profiles/suriname/

CARICOM. 2016c. Haiti. In: CARICOM [online]. [Cited 
19 November 2019]. https://caricom.org/country_
profiles/haiti/

CARICOM. 2016. Barbados. In: CARICOM [online]. [Cited 
27 November 2019]. https://caricom.org/country_
profiles/barbados/

CARICOM. 2016. Trinidad and Tobago. In: CARICOM 
[online]. [Cited 25 November 2019]. https://caricom.
org/country_profiles/trinidad-and-tobago/

CARICOM. 2020. Members states and associate 
members. In: CARICOM [online]. [Cited 25 March 
2021]. https://caricom.org/member-states-and-
associate-members/

Carter, G. 2013. Dairy dilemma. In: NationNews [online]. 
[Cited 5 January 2020]. https://www.nationnews.
com/2013/08/28/dairy-dilemma/

CDB. 2014. Country strategy paper St. Vincent and 
the Grenadines 2014-2018. In: CDB [online]. 
[Cited 16 August 2019]. https://www.caribank.
org/publications-and-resources/resource-library/
country-strategies/country-strategy-paper-st-
vincent-and-grenadines-2014-2018

Central Statistical Office Dominica. 2011. 2011 
population and housing census: preliminary results 
[online]. [Cited 5 June 2019]. https://stats.gov.dm/
wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Population_and_
Housing_Census_2011.pdf

Cesarone, J. 2019. Cost benefit analysis template. 
In: Engineering Solutions On-Line [online]. [Cited 
31 October 2019]. http://engineeringsolutions.
homestead.com/template_CBA.html

Channel5Belize.com. 2015. BEL donates generously to 
St. Mary’s feeding programme. Channel5Belize.com, 
26 November 2015. (also available at https://edition.
channel5belize.com/archives/121685).

Chowbay, Y. 2019. Regional school gardening 
competition launched. Guyana Chronicle, 9 
December 2019. (also available at https://



154

guyanachronicle.com/2019/12/09/regional-school-
gardening-competition-launched/).

CIA. 2021a. Saint Kitts and Nevis. In: CIA - The World 
Factbook [online]. [Cited 5 January 2021]. https://
www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/saint-
kitts-and-nevis

CIA. 2021b. Suriname. In: CIA - The World Factbook 
[online]. [Cited 5 January 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/
the-world-factbook/countries/suriname/

CIA. 2021. Antigua and Barbuda. In: CIA The World 
Factbook [online]. [Cited 30 March 2021]. https://
www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/antigua-
and-barbuda/

CIA. 2021. Bahamas, the. In: CIA The World Factbook 
[online]. [Cited 25 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/
the-world-factbook/countries/bahamas-the/

CIA. 2021. Barbados. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 25 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/barbados/

CIA. 2021. Belize. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 31 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bh.html

CIA. 2021. Dominica. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 29 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/dominica/

CIA. 2021. Grenada. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 25 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/grenada/

CIA. 2021. Guyana. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 29 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/guyana/

CIA. 2021. Haiti. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. [Cited 
26 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-
factbook/countries/haiti/

CIA. 2021. Jamaica. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 25 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/jamaica/

CIA. 2021. Saint Lucia. In: CIA The World Factbook [online]. 
[Cited 25 March 2021]. https://www.cia.gov/the-
world-factbook/countries/saint-lucia/

CIA. 2021. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. In: CIA 
The World Factbook [online]. [Cited 20 March 2021]. 

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/
saint-vincent-and-the-grenadines/

CIA. 2021. Trinidad and Tobago. In: CIA The World 
Factbook [online]. [Cited 18 March 2021]. https://
www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/trinidad-
and-tobago/

Commonwealth of Dominica. 2014. Fourth medium-
term growth and social protection strategy (GSPS) 2014 
- 2018 [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://www.
lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/
laws/8496.pdf

Crawford, M. 2018. Ministry conducts school meals 
feeding programme seminar and staff meeting. My 
Vue News, 9 April 2018. (also available at https://
www.myvuenews.com/ministry-conducts-school-
meals-feeding-programme-seminar-and-staff-
meeting/).

Damon, N. 2018. Revised food based dietary guidelines 
launched. In: Department of Public Information 
[online]. [Cited 20 November 2019]. https://dpi.gov.
gy/revised-food-based-dietary-guidelines-launched/

Drake, L., Woolnough, A., Burbano, C. & Bundy, D., 
eds. 2016. Global school feeding sourcebook. Lessons 
from 14 countries. London, UK, Imperial College 
Press. (also available at https://documents.wfp.org/
stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/
wfp284904.pdf).

Duquais, J.-M. 2018. From the field: an update on school 
gardens. In: Hope for Haiti [online]. [Cited 16 October 
2020]. https://hopeforhaiti.com/from-the-field-an-
update-on-school-gardens/

ECC. 2017. About us. In: ECC [online]. [Cited 2 January 
2020]. https://ecc.gov.jm/about-us/

Edgell, H. 2016. Belize: where food is everywhere and 
yet. In: HollyWorld [online]. [Cited 9 December 2019]. 
https://hollyedgell.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/
belize-where-food-is-everywhere-and-children-go-
hungry/

Encyclopedia Brittanica. 2018. Haiti in the 21st century 
[online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. https://www.
britannica.com/place/Haiti/Haiti-in-the-21st-century

Environment America. 2018. Wildlife over waste 
[online]. [Cited 5 November 2019]. https://
environmentamerica.org/feature/ame/wildlife-over-
waste



155

EPT. 2016. Projet éducation pour tous (Education for all 
project) [online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. http://
www.ept-menfp.ht/

European Commission. 2020. International partnerships 
- Belize [online]. [Cited 16 October 2019]. https://
ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/where-we-
work/belize_en

FAO. 2006. Dietary guidelines for St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines. In: FAO Food-based dietary guidelines 
[online]. [Cited 20 November 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/
regions/countries/saint-vincent-and-the-grenadines/
en/

FAO. 2007. Dietary guidelines for Saint Lucia. In: FAO 
Food-based dietary guidelines [online]. [Cited 4 
November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/
countries/saint-lucia/en/

FAO. 2007. Dominica food-based dietary guidelines. In: 
FAO Food-based dietary guidelines [online]. [Cited 
6 December 2019]. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/
countries/dominica/en/

FAO. 2009. Guide to conducting a right to food assessment 
[online]. [Cited 19 August 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/3/i0550e/i0550e.pdf

FAO. 2013. FAO study profiles benefits of school feeding 
programmes linked to family farms. In: FAO [online]. 
[Cited 22 November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/
news/story/en/item/195074/icode/

FAO. 2013. Food-based dietary guidelines - Antigua 
and Barbuda. In: FAO Food-based dietary guidelines 
[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/
regions/countries/antigua-and-barbuda/en/

FAO. 2015a. Strengthening school feeding programmes 
in the Caribbean. FAO sub-regional office for the 
caribbean Issue Brief #13. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 10 
October 2019]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5288e.pdf

FAO. 2015b. Suriname. In: FAO The Right to Food around 
the Globe [online]. [Cited 25 November 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/sur/en/

FAO. 2015. Antigua and Barbuda and FAO building 
sustainable food and nutrition security. In: FAO 

[online]. [Cited 20 October 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/3/a-au739e.pdf

FAO. 2015. Belize. In: FAO The Right to Food around the 
Globe. [online]. [Cited 9 December 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/blz/en

FAO. 2015. Country programming framework for St. 
Vincent and the Grenadines 2016 to 2019. In: 
FAO [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://
centreforapplieddevelopmentstudies.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/Country-Programming-
Framework-3.pdf

FAO. 2015. Dominica. In: FAO The Right to Food around 
the Globe. [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/ dma/en/

FAO. 2015. FAO collaborate with Caribbean and 
Brazilian governments to strengthen school feeding 
programmes in the Caribbean. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 
4 November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/americas/
noticias/ver/en/c/395907/

FAO. 2015. Haiti. In: FAO The Right to Food around the 
Globe [online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/hti/en/

FAO. 2015. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. In: FAO The 
Right to Food around the Globe [online]. [Cited 21 
November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/right-to-food-
around-the-globe/countries/vct/en/

FAO. 2015. Students and farmers benefit from school 
feeding programmes. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 12 
December 2019]. http://www.fao.org/in-action/
students-and-farmers-benefit-from-school-feeding-
programmes/en/

FAO. 2016a. Sustainable Schools. In: FAO Programme 
of Brazil-FAO International Cooperation [online]. 
[Cited 16 August 2020]. http://www.fao.org/in-
action/program-brazil-fao/projects/school-feeding/
sustainable-schools/en/

FAO. 2016b. Strengthening school feeding programmes 
in the framework of the zero hunger initiative in 
Latin America and the Caribbean 2025. In: FAO - 
Programme of Brazil-FAO International Cooperation 
[online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/in-action/program-brazil-fao/projects/school-
feeding/en/



156

FAO. 2016. Food and nutrition education for healthy 
diets. In: FAO Nutrition [online]. [Cited 10 November 
2019]. http://www.fao.org/3/c0064e/c0064e.pdf

FAO. 2017. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. In: FAOSTAT 
[online]. [Cited 21 November 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/faostat/en/#country/191

FAO. 2017. Strengthening sector policies for better food 
security and nutrition results: policy guidance series. 
In: FAO [online]. [Cited 26 November 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i7214e.pdf

FAO. 2018. Barbados. In: FAO The Right to Food around the 
Globe. [online]. [Cited 27 November 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/brb/en/

FAO. 2018. FAO country profiles: Jamaica. In: FAO [online]. 
[Cited 25 November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/
countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=JAM

FAO. 2018. Jamaica. In: FAOSTAT [online]. [Cited 25 
November 2019]. http://www.fao.org/faostat/
en/#country/109

FAO. 2018. Jamaica and FAO: Building resilience and 
sustainable food security and nutrition. In: FAO 
[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/3/ax917e/AX917E.pdf

FAO. 2018. Nutrition education and consumer awareness 
- nutrition education in schools. In: FAO [online]. 
[Cited 26 October 2019]. http://www.fao.org/ag/
humannutrition/nutritioneducation/49740/en/

FAO. 2018. Saint Lucia. In: FAO The Right to Food around 
the Globe. [online]. [Cited 4 November 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/
countries/lca/en/

FAO. 2018. Suite of food security indicators. In: FAOSTAT 
[online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. http://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/#data/FS

FAO. 2019a. School food and nutrition framework [online]. 
[Cited 22 March 2021]. http://www.fao.org/3/
ca4091en/ca4091en.pdf

FAO. 2019b. Latin America and the Caribbean. In: FAO 
Food-based dietary guidelines [online]. [Cited 29 
October 2019]. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/ 
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/latin-
america-caribbean/en/

FAO. 2020. Scaling-up Mesoamerica hunger free. In: 
FAO South-South Cooperation [online]. [Cited 10 July 
2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5657e.pdf

FAO. 2021. Countries. In: FAO The Right to Food around the 
Globe. [online]. [Cited 5 February 2021]. http://www.
fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/countries/
en/

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2018. The state of 
food security and nutrition in the world 2018. Building 
climate resilience for food security and nutrition. 
Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/
I9553EN/i9553en.pdf).

FAO & Ministry of Health Guyana. 2018. Food based 
dietary guidelines for Guyana. In: FAO Food-based 
dietary guidelines [online]. [Cited 5 July 2019]. http://
www.fao.org/3/I8055EN/i8055en.pdf

FAO & PAHO. 2017. Panorama of food and nutrition 
security in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago 
de Chile, FAO & PAHO. 116 pp. (also available at 
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7914e.pdf ).

FAO & The Government of St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines. 2011. Country programme framework 
(CPF) 2012 – 2015 for St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
agricultural sector. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 25 October 
2019]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bp528e.pdf

FAO & WFP. 2018. Home-grown school feeding. 
Resource framework. Technical document. Rome, 
FAO and WFP. 170 pp. (also available at https://
docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000074274/
download/?_ga=2.5109428.627697265.1616724134-
102702633.1564955497).

FAO & WFP. 2019. Strengthening school feeding 
programmes: FAO and WFP joint work in Latin America 
and the Caribbean. Panama City, FAO and WFP. 48 pp. 
(also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca4444en/
CA4444EN.pdf).

Food and Nutrition Security Platform. 2017. Grenada: 
school feeding programme. In: Food and Nutrition 
Security Platform [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. 
https://plataformacelac.org/en/programa/356

Food and Nutrition Security Platform. 2018. Antigua 
and Barbuda: national school meals programme. 
In: Food and Nutrition Security [online]. [Cited 26 
November 2019]. https://plataformacelac.org/en/
programa/5



157

Food and Nutrition Security Platform. 2018. Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines: school feeding 
programme. In: Food and Nutrition Security 
Platform [online]. [Cited 4 November 2019]. https://
plataformacelac.org/en/programa/341

Gaskell, J.M. 2017. Charlestown primary school garden. 
St. Kitts and Nevis Observer, 19 May 2017. (also 
available at https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.
com/charlestown-primary-school-garden/).

Gerald, A.-S. 2016. From field to table: follow the food 
in Haitian home-grown school meals in 10 Steps. 
In: ReliefWeb [online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. 
https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/field-table-follow-
food-haitian-home-grown-school-meals-10-steps

Global Nutrition Report. 2020. Country nutrition profile 
Dominica. In: Global Nutrition Profile [online]. [Cited 
31 March 2021]. https://globalnutritionreport.org/
resources/nutrition-profiles/latin-america-and-
caribbean/caribbean/dominica/

Gortmaker, S., Long, M. & Wang, Y.C. 2009. The 
negative impact of sugar-sweetened beverages 
on children’s health. In: Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation Healthy Eating Research [online]. [Cited 
31 March 2021]. https://healthyeatingresearch.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HER-SSB-
Synthesis-091116_FINAL.pdf

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. 2017. Antigua 
and Barbuda recurrent and development estimates 
[online]. [Cited 15 September 2020]. https://ab.gov.
ag/pdf/budget/2017_Antigua_Estimates.pdf

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. 2018. Recurrent 
and development estimates - estimates of revenue 
and expenditure 2018 [online]. [Cited 23 October 
2019]. https://ab.gov.ag/pdf/budget/2018_Antigua_
Estimates.pdf

Government of Belize Press Office. 2016. Press 
release - Belize joins Mesoamerica without Hunger. 
In: Facebook [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. 
https://www.facebook.com/GOBPressOffice/
posts/982468505121986/

Government of Dominica. undated. Operations 
and procedures manual for the school feeding 
programme in Dominica (unpublished)

Government of Dominica. undated. Procedures manual 
school feeding programme - Draft (unpublished)

Government of Grenada. 2005. Grenada’s school 
feeding manual (unpublished)

Government of Grenada. 2013a. Grenada food and 
nutrition security policy 2013. In: FAOLEX Database 
[online]. [Cited 10 November 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC144960

Government of Grenada. 2013b. Grenada food and 
nutrition security plan of action 2013-2018. In: 
FAOLEX Datase [online]. [Cited 10 November 2019]. 
http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-
FAOC144961/

Government of Jamaica. 2012. Government of Jamaica 
policy development programme as at 1 April 2012 
[online]. [Cited 18 November 2019]. https://
unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/workshops/
St_Lucia_2014/GOJ_Policy.pdf

Government of St. Kitts and Nevis. 2016. St. Kitts and 
Nevis food and nutrition security policy. In: WHO 
[online]. [Cited 12 November 2019]. https://extranet.
who.int/nutrition/gina/en/node/23539

Government of St. Lucia. undated. School feeding 
programme. In: Government of Saint Lucia [online]. 
[Cited 20 September 2020]. http://www.govt.lc/
services/school-feeding-programme#:~:text=The 
parent is required to,to remain on the programme.

Government of St. Lucia. 1999. Saint Lucia 
education act, 1999 (No. 41 of 1999) [online]. 
[Cited 2 October 2019]. http://www.unesco.
org/education/edurights/media/docs/
cc8deda54e8fc22b0ea96d3bc34760df95e34caf.pdf

Government of St. Lucia. 2015. Education sector 
development plan: priorities and strategies 2015 - 
2020, volume I [online]. [Cited 16 October 2020]. 
https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/
files/ressources/saint_lucia_education-sector-
development-plan-2015-2020.pdf

Government of St. Lucia. 2016. Education statistical 
digest 2015. Past trends, present position and 
projections up to 2017/18. In: Government of Saint 
Lucia [online]. [Cited 8 October 2020]. http://
www.govt.lc/publications/education-statistical-
digest-2015

Government of St. Lucia. 2018. Estimates of revenue and 
expenditure 2018-2019 [online]. [Cited 20 September 
2020]. https://www.finance.gov.lc/resources/
download/2078



158

Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 2014. 
Food and nutrition security policy and action plan. 
Final report. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 15 October 2020]. 
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/stv172922.pdf

Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica. 
2016. School Nutrition Policy Draft (unpublished)

Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica. 
2017. Post-disaster needs assessment hurricane Maraia 
September 18, 2017 [online]. [Cited 8 November 
2019]. https://www.gfdrr.org/en/publication/post-
disaster-needs-assessment-dominica

Government of the Republic of Trinidad and 
Tobago. 2018. School gardening and garden-
based education can play a role in improving 
the nutritional behaviour of young gardeners. In: 
Trinidad and Tobago Government News [online]. 
[Cited 15 September 2020]. http://www.news.gov.
tt/content/school-gardening-and-garden-based-
education-can-play-role-improving-nutritional-
behaviour#.X7rJ9WhKjIV

Grand Bahama Island. 2019. About Grand Bahama Island 
[online]. [Cited 26 November 2019]. http://www.
grandbahamavacations.com/ about-the-island/

Grantham-Mcgregor, S., Change, S. & Walker, S. 1998. 
Evaluation of school feeding programmes: some 
Jamaican examples. American Journal of Clinical 
Nutrition, 67(4): 785–789. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ajcn/67.4.785S

Gray-Donald, K., Webb, M., Patterson-Andrews, H. 
& Granderson, I. 2014. Caribbean health : healthy 
children, healthy nation; tackling the obesity 
problem. In: International Development Research 
Centre [online]. [Cited 20 November 2019]. https://
www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/sp/Documents EN/
idrc-healthy-children-healthy-nation.pdf

Haiti Libre. 2018a. Haiti - education : France supports 
the school canteens of the Great South. Haiti Libre, 
3 February 2018. (also available at https://www.
haitilibre.com/en/news-23461-haiti-education-
france-supports-the-school-canteens-of-the-great-
south.html).

Haiti Libre. 2018b. Haiti - environment : let’s grow the 
school garden. Haiti Libre, 22 August 2018. (also 
available at https://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-
25314-haiti-environment-let-s-grow-the-school-
garden.html).

Haiti Libre. 2019. Haiti - humanitarian : Taiwan will 
donate to Haiti more than 20,000 tonnes of rice. 
Haiti Libre, 17 December 2019. (also available at 
https://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-29539-haiti-
humanitarian-taiwan-will-donate-to-haiti-more-
than-20-000-tonnes-of-rice.html).

Halcrow Group Limited. 2003. Country poverty 
assessment final report volume 1 of 2: main report 
[online]. [Cited 6 June 2019]. https://www.dphu.org/
uploads/attachements/books/books_3121_0.pdf

Hanley, Nick and Spash, C.L. 1994. Cost-Benefit Analysis 
and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar 
Publishing. 

Harris, E., Pemberton, C. & DeSormeaux, A. 2010. 
The impact of the banana trade regime (BTR) and 
the banana war on Dominica’s banana industry. 
Tropical Agriculture, 87(4). (also available at 
https://journals.sta.uwi.edu/ta/index.asp?action= 
viewPastAbstract&articleId=1051&issueId=156).

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 2019. 
Sugary drinks [online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. 
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/
healthy-drinks/sugary-drinks/

Healthy Caribbean Coalition. 2017. Preventing 
childhood obesity in the Caribbean – Civil society 
action plan 2017-2021 [online]. [Cited 5 February 
2020]. https://www.healthycaribbean.org/
preventing-childhood-obesity-caribbean-civil-
society-action-plan-2017-2021/

Healthy Caribbean Coalition. 2019. Childhood 
obesity fact sheets. In: Healthy Caribbean Coalition 
[online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. https://www.
healthycaribbean.org/obesity-fact-sheets/

Healthy Caribbean Coalition. 2019. Preventing 
childhood obesity in the Caribbean Bahamas fact 
sheet. In: Healthy Caribbean Coalition [online]. [Cited 
20 November 2019]. https://www.healthycaribbean.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HCC-COP-Fact-
Sheet-Bahamas-Dec-2019.pdf

Healthy Schools. 2007. Physical activity booklet A 
[online]. [Cited 21 August 2019]. https://www.
london.gov.uk/what-we-do/health/healthy-schools-
london/awards/sites/default/files/Physical Activity 
- Booklet A.pdf

Hector, D., Rangan, A., Gill, T., Louie, K.C.Y. & Flood, 
V.M. 2009. Soft drinks, weight status & health [online]. 



159

[Cited 8 January 2020]. https://ro.uow.edu.au/
hbspapers/306/

Henry, F.J. 2016. Childhood obesity in the Caribbean: 
weighty challenges & opportunities. Obesities and 
Control Therapies, 3(1): 1–4. https://doi.org/http://
dx.doi.org/10.15226/2374-8354/2/2/00122

Hill, A. 2018. What is bulgur wheat? Everything you need 
to know. In: Healthline [online]. [Cited 18 October 
2020]. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/bulgur-
wheat

Husbands, H. 2013. The Growth and Development 
of the School Feeding Porgramme in 
Barbados. In: Facebook [online]. [Cited 27 
November 2019]. https://www.facebook.com/
SenatorHarryHusbandsDlpStJamesNorth/
posts/the-growth-and-development-of-the-
school-feeding-programme-in-barbadoslecture-
de/544703032249355/

IMF. 2006. Grenada: interim poverty reduction 
strategy paper. In: IMF [online]. [Cited 1 October 
2019]. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/
Issues/2016/12/31/Grenada-Interim-Poverty-
Reduction-Strategy-Paper-19493

IMF. 2017. Guyana : 2017 article IV consultation-
press release; staff report; and statement by the 
executive director for Guyana. In: IMF [online]. [Cited 
15 September 2019]. https://www.imf.org/en/
Publications/CR/Issues/2017/06/28/Guyana-2017-
Article-IV-Consultation-Press-Release-Staff-Report-
and-Statement-by-the-45010

IMF. 2017. Sixth review under the extended credit facilty 
arrangement and financing assurances review - press 
release; and staff report. In: IMF [online]. [Cited 20 
October 2019]. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/
CR/Issues/2017/05/23/Grenada-Sixth-review-Under-
the-Extended-Credit-Facility-Arrangement-and-
Financing-Assurances-44936

IMF. 2018. Jamaica : 2018 article IV consultation, third 
review under the stand-by arrangement and request 
for modification of performance criteria-press release 
and staff report. In: IMF [online]. [Cited 18 September 
2019]. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/
CR/Issues/2018/04/16/Jamaica-2018-Article-IV-
Consultation-Third-Review-Under-the-Stand-By-
Arrangement-and-Request-45801

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on 
Agriculture. 2015. Hunger and nutrition 
from belly-full to body-fuel. In: Inter-American 
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture [online]. 
[Cited 26 July 2019]. http://repositorio.iica.int/
bitstream/11324/2668/1/BVE17038746i.pdf

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. 
2015 nutrition country profile - Dominica fact 
sheet. In: International Food Policy Research Institute 
[online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. http://www.ifpri.org/
publication/2015-nutrition-country-profile-dominica

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). 
2018. Leveraging nutrition outcomes in schools: 
a synthesis of school feeding, school gardening 
and nutrition education experiences. Phillipines, 
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction 
(IIRR) and the International Development Research 
Centre (IDRC). (also available at https://idl-bnc-idrc.
dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/57228/
IDL-57228.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y).

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 
2018. ISO 4217 Currency Codes. In: ISO [online]. 
https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html 

Ismali, S., Borja-Vega, C., Demas, A. & Jarvis, E. 2012. 
Guyana’s Hinterland community-based school 
feeding programme. No. 89276. Washington, D.C.133 
pp. (also available at http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/690761468031534184/Guyanas-
Hinterland-Community-Based-School-Feeding-
Programme).

Jackson, L. 2020. School gardens bring joy to the 
agriculture ministry. The Gleaner, 11 March 2020. 
(also available at http://jamaica-gleaner.com/
article/news/20200311/school-gardens-bring-joy-
agriculture-ministry).

Jamaica 4-H Clubs. 2020. National school garden 
programme. In: Jamaica 4-H Clubs [online]. [Cited 
26 November 2020]. https://jamaica4hclubs.com/
school-gardening/

Jamaican Observer. 2016. More than 130,000 students 
to benefit from school feeding programme. 
Jamaican Observer, 3 September 2016. (also available 
at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/More-
than-130-000-students-to-benefit-from-school-
feeding-programme).



160

Johnson, P.M. 2019. A glossary of political economy terms 
[online]. [Cited 15 July 2019]. http://webhome.
auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/

Johnson, R.K., Appel, L.J., Brands, M., Howard, B. 
V., Lefevre, M., Lustig, R.H., Sacks, F., Steffen, 
L.M. & Wylie-Rosett, J. 2009. Dietary sugars intake 
and cardiovascular health. A scientific statement 
from the American heart association. Circulation, 
120(11): 1011–1020. https://doi.org/10.1161/
circulationaha.109.192627

Jordan, W.D. 2017. Budget speech 2017. In: Ministry of 
Finance Guyana [online]. [Cited 27 October 2019]. 
https://finance.gov.gy/budget/budget-speeches/

Joseph, C. 2015. LUCELEC gets school feeding 
programme at Vieux-Fort primary on its way. In: 
LUCELEC St. Lucia Electricity Services Ltd. [online]. 
[Cited 26 October 2019]. https://www.lucelec.com/
content/lucelec-gets-school-feeding-programme-
vieux-fort-primary-its-way

Kairi Consultants Limited. 2008. Country poverty 
assessment: Genada, Carriacou and Petit Martinique 
volume 1 main report [online]. [Cited 26 October 
2019]. https://www.gov.gd/egov/docs/reports/
Grenada_CPA_Vol_1_Main_Report_Submitted.pdf

Kairi Consultants Limited. 2008. St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines country poverty assessment 2007/2008: 
living conditions in a Caribbean small island 
developing state. In: Planipolis [online]. [Cited 
22 October 2019]. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.
org/en/2008/st-vincent-and-grenadines-country-
poverty-assessment-20072008-living-conditions-
caribbean-0

Kairi Consultants Limited. 2009. Country poverty 
assessment - Dominica: volume 1 - main report 
[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. https://prais.unccd.
int/sites/default/files/2018-08/Dominica CPA 2009 
Main Report Final.pdf

Krebs, N.F. & Jacobson, M.S. 2003. Prevention of 
pediatric overweight and obesity. Pediatrics, 112(2): 
424–430. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.112.2.424

Linton, L. 2014. Gov’t developing policy to regulate 
vending at schools. Jamaica Information Service, 2 
May 2014. (also available at https://jis.gov.jm/govt-
developing-policy-regulate-vending-schools/).

Mallonee, N., Streubel, J., Mersilus, M. & Heymsfield, 
G. 2015. The nutrition-sensitive potential of 
agricultural programmes in the context of school 
feeding: lessons from Haiti. In: Nutrition Exchange 
[online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. https://www.
ennonline.net/nex/6/nutritionsensitiveprogrammes

Marshall, W.K. 2021. Barbados. In: Brittanica [online]. 
[Cited 15 March 2021]. https://www.britannica.com/
place/Barbados

McIntosh, D. 2014. 300,000 students to benefit from 
school feeding project. In: Jamaica Information 
Service [online]. [Cited 25 November 2019]. https://
jis.gov.jm/300000-students-benefit-school-feeding-
project/

MEDC. 2014. Suriname: education for all 2015 national 
review. UNESCO. 93 pp. (also available at https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230019?
posInSet=1&queryId=f7c5c69b-9fd3-4c9d-abdf-
d1f946b6db5c).

Menke, J.K. 2019. Suriname. In: Encyclopedia Brittanica 
[online]. [Cited 11 November 2019]. https://www.
britannica.com/place/Suriname

Mikkelsen, B. 2013. Can healthy eating at school be 
considered a human right. The ethics of consumption, 
pp. 412–416. Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Minimum-Wage.org. 2018. Saint Kitts and Nevis 
minimum wage, labor law, and employment data 
sheet. In: Minimum-Wage.org [online]. [Cited 12 
November 2019]. https://www.minimum-wage.org/
international/saint-kitts-and-nevis

Minimum-Wage.org. 2018. Saint Lucia minimum wage, 
labor law, and employment data sheet. In: Minimum-
Wage.org [online]. [Cited 12 November 2019]. https://
www.minimum-wage.org/international/saint-lucia

Ministère de L’éducation Nationale et de La Formation 
Professionnelle (MENFP) (Ministry of National 
Education and Vocational Training Haiti). 2016. 
Programme national de cantine scolaire (PNCS) 
(National school feeding policy and strategy). In: 
UNESCO [online]. [Cited 5 January 2020]. https://
hivhealthclearinghouse.unesco.org/library/
documents/politique-et-strategie-nationales-
dalimentation-scolaire-psnas

Ministerie Van Onderwijs Werenschappen En 
Cultuur (Ministry of Education Science and 
Culture). 2015. Evaluatierapport project naschoolse 



161

opvang en begeleiding (Evaluation report project 
after-school care and guidance) [online]. [Cited 8 
February 2020]. https://parbode.com/download-het-
evaluatierapport-project-naschoolse-opvang-en-
begeleiding/

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Jamaica. 2015. 
Ministry paper 2015. Interventions in the school 
feeding programme. In: House of Parliament [online]. 
[Cited 15 October 2019]. https://japarliament.gov.jm/
index.php/publications/ministry-paper-new/2015-
ministry-paper/1467-2015-ministry-paper-81-
interventions-in-the-school-feeding-programme

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Jamaica. 2019. 
Jamaica 4-h clubs. In: Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries [online]. [Cited 26 November 2019]. https://
moa.gov.jm/content/jamaica-4-h-clubs

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries & Ministry of 
Health. 2013. Food and nutrition security policy. 
In: WHO Global database on the Implementation of 
Nutrition Action (GINA) [online]. [Cited 22 October 
2019]. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/
jam148770.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture Belize. 2017. The national 
food and nutrition security commission [online]. 
[Cited 6 December 2019]. https://www.agriculture.
gov.bz/the-national-food-and-nutrition-security-
commission/

Ministry of Agriculture Guyana. 2011. Food and 
nutrition security strategy for Guyana [online]. [Cited 
21 October 2019]. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/
pdf/guy166205.pdf

Ministry of Education and National Reconciliation. 
2020. History. In: Ministry of Education and National 
Reconciliation [online]. [Cited 5 November 2020]. 
http://education.gov.vc/education/index.php/sfp-
history

Ministry of Education Guyana. 2013. Health and 
family life education curriculum guides. In: UNESCO 
[online]. [Cited 5 September 2020]. https://
hivhealthclearinghouse.unesco.org/library/
documents/health-and-family-life-education-
curriculum-guides

Ministry of Education Guyana. 2014. National school 
feeding programme. In: Ministry of Education 
Guyana [online]. [Cited 12 April 2021]. https://www.
education.gov.gy/web/index.php/about-moe/

departments/item/855-national-school-feeding-
programme

Ministry of Education Guyana. 2015. Guyana Education 
Sector Plan 2014-2018. In: Global Partnership for 
Education [online]. [Cited 21 October 2019]. https://
www.globalpartnership.org/content/education-
sector-plan-guyana

Ministry of Education Guyana. 2016. Operational 
guidelines for the community-based school 
feeding programme of the ministry of education 
(unpublished)

Ministry of Education Guyana. 2017. Guyana education 
sector improvement project - indigenous peoples 
plan (English). In: World Bank [online]. [Cited 2 
October 2019]. http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/598821486463998272/Guyana-
Education-Sector-Improvement-Project-indigenous-
peoples-plan

Ministry of Education Jamaica. 2012. National 
education strategic plan: 2011 - 2020. In: Planipolis 
[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://planipolis.
iiep.unesco.org/en/2012/national-education-
strategic-plan-2011-2020-5530

Ministry of Education Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines. 2014. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
education for all 2015 review. In: UNESCO [online]. 
[Cited 6 July 2019]. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
ark:/48223/pf0000232118

Ministry of Education Science Technology 
and Innovation. 2017. Public sector reform: 
making Barbados work better [online]. [Cited 
29 October 2019]. https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/5462370ae4b016683bde92a1/t/58
da581a5016e1b24939d0b2/1490704411073/
Manager+School+Meals+Department.pdf

Ministry of Education St. Kitts and Nevis. 2009. White 
paper on education development and policy 2009-
201. Raising the standard, maximizing resources, 
aligning with best practices. Promoting success for 
all. In: UNESCO [online]. [Cited 17 October 2020]. 
http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2009/saint-
christopher-and-nevis-white-paper-education-
development-and-policy-2009-2019-raising

Ministry of Education St. Kitts and Nevis. 2017. 
2017/2021 Education sector plan education for all: 
embracing change, securing the future. In: UNESCO 



162

[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://planipolis.
iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/files/ressources/
st_kitts_education_sector_plan_2017-2021_0.pdf

Ministry of Education St. Kitts and Nevis. 2018. St. Kitts 
school feeding programme. In: Food and Nutrition 
Security Platform [online]. [Cited 31 October 2019]. 
https://plataformacelac.org/en/programa/939

Ministry of Education St. Kitts and Nevis. 2020. St. Kitts 
school feeding programme. In: Ministry of Education 
St. Kitts and Nevis [online]. [Cited 26 November 
2020]. http://54.208.88.67/st-kitts-school-feeding-
programme/

Ministry of Education Technological and Vocational 
Training. 2015. School meals. In: Ministry of 
Education Technological and Vocational Training 
[online]. [Cited 26 November 2019]. https://mes.gov.
bb/Departments/School-Meals/

Ministry of Education Technological and Vocational 
Training. 2019. Tender – supply of food commodities 
for school meals programme. In: Barbados 
Government Information Service [online]. [Cited 
26 October 2019]. https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/
download/tender-supply-of-food-commodities-for-
school-meals-programme/

Ministry of Education Trinidad and Tobago. 2006. 
Primary health and family life education (H.F.L.E.) 
curriculum. In: UNESCO [online]. [Cited 12 October 
2020]. https://hivhealthclearinghouse.unesco.org/
library/documents/primary-health-and-family-life-
education-hfle-curriculum

Ministry of Education Trinidad and Tobago. 2009. 
Secondary school curriculum: forms 1-3: health and 
family life education. In: UNESCO [online]. [Cited 
15 October 2020]. https://hivhealthclearinghouse.
unesco.org/library/documents/secondary-school-
curriculum-forms-1-3-health-and-family-life-
education

Ministry of Education Trinidad and Tobago. 2013. 
Curriculum guides agricultural science infants 1 
- standard 5. In: Ministry of Education Trinidad and 
Tobago [online]. [Cited 23 October 2020]. https://
www.moe.gov.tt/curriculum-guides/

Ministry of Education Youth Sports and Culture Belize. 
2017. Belize 2016-2017 education quick facts. In: 
Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology 

[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. https://www.
moe.gov.bz/resources/education-statistics/#66-
education-quick-facts

Ministry of Education Youth Sports and Culture 
Belize. 2018. Belize 2017-2018 education quick 
facts. In: Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and 
Technology [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://
www.moe.gov.bz/resources/education-statistics/#

Ministry of Finance and Investment Dominica. 2014. 
Economic and social review for the fiscal year 
2013 - 2014. In: Ministry of Finance and Investment 
[online]. [Cited 5 November 2019]. http://finance.
gov.dm/national-development-strategies/economic-
and-social-review/file/19-economic-social-
review-2013-2014

Ministry of Finance and Investment Dominica. 2015. 
Economic and social review for fiscal year 2014 - 
2015. In: Ministry of Finance and Investment [online]. 
[Cited 5 November 2019]. http://finance.gov.dm/
national-development-strategies/economic-and-
social-review/file/23-economic-and-social-review-
for-fiscal-year-2014-2015

Ministry of Finance and Investment Dominica. 2017. 
Economic and social review for fiscal year 2016 - 
2017. In: Ministry of Finance and Investment [online]. 
[Cited 5 November 2019]. http://finance.gov.dm/
national-development-strategies/economic-and-
social-review/file/26-economic-and-social-review-
for-fiscal-year-2016-2017

Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Jamaica. 
2017. Estimates of expenditure 2017/2018 for the 
financial year ending 31st March 2018. In: Ministry of 
Finance and the Public Service Jamaica [online]. [Cited 
20 October 2019]. https://mof.gov.jm/downloads/
budgets/eoe/Estimates_of_Expenditure_2017-2018.
pdf

Ministry of Finance Guyana. 2011. Guyana poverty 
reduction strategy Paper 2011-2015. In: Food and 
Nutrition Security Platform [online]. [Cited 26 October 
2019]. https://plataformacelac.org/en/politica/96

Ministry of Finance St. Kitts and Nevis. 2016a. St. 
Christopher and Nevis estimates for the year 2017 
volume II. Ministry expenditure plans. In: Ministry of 
Finance St. Kitts and Nevis [online]. [Cited 10 October 
2019]. https://www.mof.gov.kn/wp-content/
uploads/2016/02/Estimates-2017-Volume-II.pdf



163

Ministry of Finance St. Kitts and Nevis. 2016b. St. 
Christopher and Nevis Estimates for the year 2017 
Volume I. Ministry expenditure plans. In: Ministry of 
Finance St. Kitts and Nevis [online]. [Cited 23 October 
2019]. https://www.mof.gov.kn/wp-content/
uploads/2016/02/Estimates-2017-Volume-I.pdf

Ministry of Finance St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
2018. St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2018 budget 
address continuity and change: job creation, resilience, 
sustainable development and new opportunities in a 
rapidly changing global environment [online]. [Cited 
6 July 2019]. http://finance.gov.vc/finance/images/
PDF/budgetaddress/2018-budget-address.pdf

Ministry of Health and Social Development & Ministry 
of Education. 2008. National school nutrition policy. 
In: WHO [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. https://
extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/
filesstore/SEY2008 - School Nutrition Policy.pdf

Ministry of Health and the Environment St. Vincent 
and the Grenadines. 2007. Strategic plan for 
health 2007-2012 St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
In: Health Research Wealth [online]. [Cited 5 
November 2019]. https://healthresearchweb.
org/?action=download&file=National_Health_
Policies-St_Vincent_Grenadines_Strategic_
Plan_2007-2012.pdf

Ministry of Health Guyana. 2013. Guyana strategic plan 
for the integrated prevention and control of chronic 
non-communicable diseases and their risk 2013-
2020. In: WHO [online]. https://www.mindbank.info/
item/5339

Ministry of Health Jamaica. 2013. Health promoting 
school survey 2011 - final report. In: Ministry of Health 
& Wellness [online]. [Cited 20 October 2019]. https://
www.moh.gov.jm/data/health-promoting-school-
survey-2011-report/

Ministry of Health Jamaica. 2015. Food based dietary 
guidelines for Jamaica 2015. In: FAO [online]. [Cited 
20 October 2019]. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/
countries/jamaica/en/

Ministry of Health The Bahamas. 2011. Compulsory 
standards for healthy lunch meals in Bahamian schools 
[online]. [Cited 14 October 2020]. https://www.
healthycaribbean.org/cop/documents/GBL-SCHOOL-
LUNCH-Final-Document.pdf

Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago. 2014. Interim 
nutrition standard for food offered for sale in schools 
in Trinidad and Tobago (unpublished)

Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago. 2017. National 
strategic plan for the prevention and control of non 
communicable diseases: Trinidad and Tobago 2017 
- 2021. In: Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago 
[online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. https://health.gov.tt/
services/ncd

Ministry of Labour and Social Security Jamaica. 2018. 
Public assistance division (overview). In: Ministry 
of Labour and Social Security Jamaica [online]. 
[Cited 25 November 2019]. https://www.mlss.
gov.jm/departments/public-assistance-division-
overview/?artid=57

Ministry of Planning and Development. 2017. Public 
sector investment programme Tobago 2018. 
“Changing the paradigm: putting the economy on 
a sustainable path”. In: FAOLEX Database [online]. 
[Cited 5 October 2019]. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/
docs/pdf/tri183502.pdf

Ministry of the Environment The Bahamas. undated. 
Minimum standards for food vendors (unpublished)

MoEYI. 2015. Draft national school feeding policy 
(unpublished)

MoEYI. 2016. The school-feeding programme 
(unpublished)

MoEYI. 2017. Modernization of the school feeding 
programme: operations and procedures manual for 
the school-feeding programme (unpublished)

Montana Department of Public Health and Human 
Services. 2017. Standardized Recipes. In: Montana’s 
Official State Website [online]. https://dphhs.mt.gov/
Portals/85/ecfsd/documents/ChildCare/cacfp/
StandardizedRecipes.pdf

Moody, D. 2017. Food security programmes 
implemented in southern schools. In: Channel5Belize.
com [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. https://
edition.channel5belize.com/archives/156151

National Farm to School Network. 2014. About national 
farm to school network. In: National Farm to School 
Network [online]. [Cited 31 October 2019]. http://
www.farmtoschool.org/about



164

Newman, P., ed. 1998. The Kaldor-Hicks compensation. 
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the 
Law, p. Palgrace Macmillan.

Niles, M. 2019. 62 vendors receive food handlers’ 
certification. Guyana Chronicle, 12 September 
2019. (also available at https://guyanachronicle.
com/2019/09/12/62-vendors-receive-
food-handlers-certification/?fbclid=IwAR2-
RQfR3AzZksRWoAIwohSkFoxnVC5e1RB_
Rrdavzbi9e0MdA2KXEzKxV4).

NOW Grenada. 2015. Zero hunger challenge initiative. 
NOW Grenada, 19 April 2015. (also available at 
https://www.nowgrenada.com/2015/04/zero-
hunger-challenge-initiative/).

NPL. 2014. Nutrition products limited annual report 
2013- 2014. In: NPL [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. 
https://npl.gov.jm/ publications/

NPL. 2015. Nutrition products limited annual report 
2014/2015. In: NPL [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. 
https://npl.gov.jm/ publications/

NPL. 2016. Nutrition products limited annual report 
2015/2016. In: NPL [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. 
https://npl.gov.jm/ publications/

NPL. 2017. Nutrition products limited annual report 
2016-2017. In: NPL [online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. 
https://npl.gov.jm/ publications/

NSDSL. 2018. Overview of the NSDSL (unpublished)

NSMP. 2016. National School Meals Programme. In: 
Facebook [online]. [Cited 9 April 2021]. https://www.
facebook.com/AntiguaNSMP

NSMP. 2020. Support local. In: Facebook 
[online]. [Cited 5 July 2020]. https://
www.facebook.com/AntiguaNSMP/
photos/a.1922207368028731/2517196028529859

Nunez, D. 2016. Belize joins Mesoamerica without 
hunger school feeding programme. In: Ambergris 
Today Online [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. 
https://www.ambergristoday.com/content/
stories/2016/04/06/belize-joins-mesoamerica-
without-hunger-school-feeding-program

OECS. 2017. OECS education statistical digest 2016: 
statistics on education for the academic year 2014-15 
[online]. [Cited 5 July 2019]. https://www.oecs.org/

en/our-work/knowledge/library/education/oecs-
education-statistical-digest

OECS Commission & UNICEF Eastern Caribbean 
Area. 2017. Final report child poverty in the eastern 
Caribbean area. In: UNICEF Latin America and the 
Caribbean [online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. https://www.
unicef.org/easterncaribbean/media/1176/file/child-
poverty-in-the-eastern-caribbean-area-2017.pdf

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Human Rights (OHCHR). undated. Convention on 
the Rights of the Child. In: OOHCHR [online]. [Cited 
29 October 2019]. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD). 2019. Education database: 
enrolment by age. In: OECDiLibrary [online]. [Cited 5 
December 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1787/71c07338-
en

Ottley, S. 2014. Report of the auditor general of the 
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on a special audit 
of the school nutrition programme managed by 
the national schools dietary services limited. In: 
Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 
[online]. [Cited 26 October 2019]. http://www.
auditorgeneral.gov.tt/sites/default/files/FINAL SNP - 
Special Audit Report.pdf

PAHO & WHO. 2014. Plan of action for the prevention 
of obesity in children and adolescents [online]. 
[Cited 5 January 2020]. https://www.paho.org/hq/
dmdocuments/2015/Obesity-Plan-Of-Action-Child-
Eng-2015.pdf

PAHO & WHO. 2016. Guyana country cooperation 
strategy 2016-2020. In: PAHO [online]. [Cited 
25 October 2019]. https://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/handle/10665/258607/ccs-guy-2016-
2020-en.pdf;jsessionid=1DE7034C54290B1   
BEA3FEB8FC56FC4B3?sequence=1

Paris-Lambert, R. 2003. A local solution to child 
malnutrition: an assessment of school feeding 
programmes in the Toledo District, Belize. https://
dokumen.tips/documents/a-local-solution-to-child-
malnutrition-cornell-university-a-local-solution.html

Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. 
2012. Fourth report of the joint select committee on 
ministries, statutory authorities and state enterprises 
on the administration and methods of functioning of 
the national schools dietary services limited [online]. 



165

[Cited 5 July 2019]. http://www.ttparliament.org/
reports/P10-S2-J-20120605-JSC1-R4.pdf

Partners in Agriculture. 2016. School garden 
programmes: feeding the most needy and 
vulnerable. In: Partners in Agriculture [online]. [Cited 
19 September 2020]. https://partnersinag.org/
school-garden-programs-feeding-needy-vulnerable/

Partners in Agriculture. 2018. Growing school 
gardens. In: Partners in Agriculture [online]. [Cited 20 
September 2020]. https://partnersinag.org/growing-
school-gardens/

Paterson, R. 2019. “Disappointed with school feeding 
programme.” The Grenada Informer, 4 April 2019. 
(also available at https://www.thegrenadainformer.
com/carriacou/item/5153-disappointed-with-school-
feeding-program).

St. Paul’s Primary School. 2014. St. Paul’s primary 
school. In: Facebook [online]. [Cited 17 October 
2020]. https://www.facebook.com/StPauls-Primary-
School-567175179970045/

PCD. 2011. School feding monitoring and evaluation 
toolkit. In: Socialprotection.org [online]. [Cited 29 
October 2019]. https://socialprotection.org/discover/
publications/school-feeding-monitoring-and-
evaluation-toolkit

Pemberton, C., Harris-Charles, E. & Patterson-
Andrews, H. 2010. Cultural bias in contingent 
valuation of copper mining in the Commonwealth 
of Dominica. Ecological Economics, 70(1): 19–23. 
(also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2010.03.014).

Pemberton, R., McColling, D., Matthews, G. & 
Toussaint, M. 2018. Historical dictionary of Trinidad 
and Tobago. New edition. Lanham, Maryland, 
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Planning Institute of Jamaica. 2009. Vision 2030 
Jamaica national development plan. Education 
draft sector plan - final draft. In: Planipolis [online]. 
[Cited 26 October 2019]. http://planipolis.iiep.
unesco.org/en/2009/vision-2030-jamaica-national-
development-plan-education-draft-sector-plan-
plan-final-draft-5183

Planning Institute of Jamaica. 2014. Jamaica social 
protection strategy. In: Planning Institute of Jamaica 
[online]. [Cited 22 October 2019]. https://www.
pioj.gov.jm/product/jamaica-social-protection-

strategy/#:~:text=The Strategy is developed 
in,causes%2C proximate causes and symptoms.

Planning Institute of Jamaica. 2015. Vision 2030 
Jamaica medium term socio-economic policy 
framework 2015-2018. Achieving inclusive growth 
and sustainable development. In: Planning Institute 
of Jamaica [online]. [Cited 20 November 2019]. 
http://www.vision2030.gov.jm/Medium-Term-Socio-
Economic-Policy-Framework

Planning Institute of Jamaica. 2017. National policy on 
poverty and national poverty reduction programme. 
In: Planning Institute of Jamaica [online]. [Cited 10 
November 2019]. https://www.pioj.gov.jm/product/
national-policy-on-poverty-and-national-poverty-
reduction-programme/

Plenty Belize. 2008. Toledo District school feeding 
programme (SFP) [online]. [Cited 6 December 
2019]. https://plentybelize.wordpress.com/current-
projects/toledo-district-school-feeding-program-sfp/

Plenty International. 2016. GATE school gardens 
programme [online]. [Cited 28 November 2019]. 
https://plenty.org/programs/plenty-belize/ school-
gardens/

Rose, S. 2018. Analysis of Jamaica’s sustainable school 
feeding project (unpublished)

Rotary Club of Belize. 2008. Primary school feeding 
programme [online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. http://
www.rotarybelize.org/feeding-program/

Ruete, M. 2015. Investment in agriculture Policy brief #3. 
Financing for agriculture: how to boost opportunities 
in developing countries. In: International Institute 
for Sustainable Development [online]. [Cited 26 
October 2019]. https://www.iisd.org/system/
files/publications/financing-agriculture-boost-
opportunities-devloping-countries.pdf

Simeon, D.T. 1998. School feeding in Jamaica: a review 
of its evaluation. The American Journal of Clinical 
nutrition., 67(4): 790–794. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ajcn/67.4.790S

Slow Food Barbados. 2020. Educational gardens 
[online]. [Cited 5 October 2020]. https://www.
slowfoodbarbados.org/educational-gardens

St. Lucia News Online. 2015. Richfond combined 
benefits from First Citizens sponsored greenhouse. 
St. Lucia News Online, 13 March 2015. (also available 



166

at https://www.stlucianewsonline.com/richfond-
combined-benefits-from-first-citizens-sponsored-
greenhouse/).

Steele, E.M., Baraldi, L.G., Louzada, M.L. da C., 
Moubarac, J.-C., Mozaffarian, D. & Monteiro, C.A. 
2016. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the 
US diet: evidence from a nationally representative 
cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892

SUWAMA. 2018. Project: organic school gardens (phase 
1). Duration February 2017 - May 2018. In: SUWAMA 
[online]. [Cited 6 July 2020]. https://suwama.org/
en/portfolio-item/project-organische-schooltuin-
project-fase-1/

Swensson, L.F.J. 2015. Institutional procurement of food 
from smallholder farmers - The case of Brazil. In: FAO 
[online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. http://www.fao.
org/3/bc569e/bc569e.pdf

Tauranac, M. 2018. Five models for local school 
food procurement. In: The Good Food Purchasing 
Programme [online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. https://
goodfoodcities.org/five-models-for-local-school-
food-procurement/

THA. 2018. Tobago house of assembly draft estimates - 
details of recurrent expenditure 2019 [online]. [Cited 
29 October 2019]. http://fte.tha.gov.tt/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/Draft-Estimates-of-Recurrent-
Expenditure-2019.pdf

The Commonwealth. 2019. Dominica [online]. [Cited 15 
December 2019]. https://thecommonwealth.org/our-
member-countries/dominica

The Commonwealth. 2019. Trinidad and Tobago. In: 
The Commonwealth [online]. [Cited 25 November 
2019]. https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-
countries/trinidad-and-tobago

The Commonwealth. 2020a. Bahamas, The : Society 
[online]. [Cited 26 November 2019]. https://
thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/
bahamas/society

The Commonwealth. 2020b. Belize [online]. [Cited 27 
November 2019]. https://thecommonwealth.org/
our-member-countries/belize

The Commonwealth. 2020c. Grenada [online]. [Cited 15 
December 2019]. https://thecommonwealth.org/our-
member-countries/grenada

The Commonwealth. 2021. Antigua and Barbuda. In: 
The Commonwealth [online]. [Cited 5 March 2021]. 
https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-
countries/antigua-and-barbuda

The Gleaner. 2011. Healthy meals in school for children. 
The Gleaner, 10 February 2011. (also available at 
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110210/cook/
cook4.html).

The Gleaner. 2014. Tips for school lunch and snacks. The 
Gleaner, 10 September 2014. (also available at http://
jamaica-gleaner.com/article/health/20140910/tips-
school-lunch-snacks).

The Gleaner. 2018. ‘Jamaica moves’ to be launched in 
school’s island wide. The Gleaner, 25 February 2018. 
(also available at http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/
news/20180226/jamaica-moves-be-launched-
schools-island-wide).

The Government of The Bahamas. 2011. New 
Providence [online]. https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/
wps/portal/public/About The Bahamas/The Islands/
NEW PROVIDENCE/!ut/p/b1/vZTJbqNAGISfJQ-Q0Oz
NsVmMwew068XCxhCwWWwwGD_9MNIcMiNN5jJJ
96mlUn-q-n8VkRIxkbbZVJXZWHVtdvn5Trk9DVQTIQ
aaKgs4oAWOgRx-S9kkS0REjBPqIXfarGpe0btjHczLZp
RMSS0PorqzxUfx

The National School Lunch Unit of the Ministry of 
Education. 2016. National School Lunch Programme 
(unpublished)

The Poverty Reduction Task Force of the National 
Economic and Social Development Council. 
2003. St. Vincent and the Grenadines interim poverty 
reduction strategy paper [online]. [Cited 26 October 
2019]. https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/
ncsa-documents/IPRSP_for_St._Vincent.pdf

The St. Lucia STAR. 2014. Fighting the stigma attached 
to agriculture in St. Lucia. The St. Lucia STAR, 10 
March 2014. (also available at https://stluciastar.com/
fighting-the-stigma-attached-to-agriculture-in-st-
lucia/).

Thomas, L. 2018. The Bahamas remains out of 
the CARICOM single market and economy, 
PM confirms. In: The Official Website of the 
Government of The Bahamas. [online]. [Cited 26 
November 2019]. http://www.bahamas.gov.
bs/wps/portal/public/gov/government/news/
the bahamas remains out of the caricom single 



167

market and economy%2C pm confirms/!ut/p/b1/
vZTJjtpAEIafJQ_gcXvrto_eG_DWXgD7gsDAeN_
AYPP08UiRskhJLplUnUr6VZ_0lVR0Qu_ppDk-8vfjPW-
bY_UxJ_DAAdOWZV60RQ

Times Caribbean. 2019. St. Kitts-Nevis minimum wage 
increase maybe coming soon as advisory committee 
continues review [online]. [Cited 25 November 2019]. 
http://www.timescaribbeanonline.com/st-kitts-
nevis-minimum-wage-increase-maybe-coming-
soon-as-advisory-committee-continues-review/

Toledo Ecotourism Association. 2008. Beacon of hope: 
assessing the Toledo peoples’ eco park plan - a plan 
for human development and social transformation 
for the Toledo District of Belize. Ralpapajan. (also 
available at https://books.google.tt/books?id=
DTmTAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ral
papajan+beacon+of+hope&hl=es-419&sa=X&
ved=0ahUKEwipkO3UsafmAhXozVkKHbMED_
wQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Ralpapajan beacon of 
hope&f=false).

Turnbell, M. 2018. Republic of China (Taiwan), food for 
the poor sign agreement for rice donation to Haiti. 
In: Food for the Poor [online]. [Cited 19 November 
2019]. https://www.foodforthepoor.org/newsroom/
archive_18/republic-china-taiwan-rice-donation-
haiti-040518.html

Tus-T Water. 2017. Start bright - A Tus-t water school 
breakfast initiative - home. In: Facebook [online]. 
[Cited 4 November 2019]. https://www.facebook.
com/StartBrightSchoolBreakfast/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. 
Dietary guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. 8th 
edition. (also available at https://health.gov/
dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/).

UNESCO. 2016. Antigua and Barbuda. In: UNESCO 
Institute for Statistics [online]. [Cited 26 November 
2019]. http://uis.unesco.org/country/AG

UNESCO. 2016. Saint Kitts and Nevis education policy 
review, final report. In: UNESCO Digital Library 
[online]. [Cited 25 July 2019]. https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245170

UNESCO. 2016. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - 
universal periodic review 25th session. In: ARC 
International [online]. [Cited 5 July 2019]. http://

arc-international.net/global-advocacy/universal-
periodic-review/s/saint-vincent-and-the-grenadines-
cycle-2/

UNICEF. 2017. Situation analysis of children in Antigua 
and Barbuda. In: UNICEF Office for the Eastern 
Caribbean Area [online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. https://
www.unicef.org/ECA_A_and_B_SitAn.pdf

UNICEF. 2017. Situational analysis of children in 
Dominica. In: UNICEF Office for the Eastern Caribbean 
Area [online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. https://www.
unicef.org/easterncaribbean/reports/situation-
analysis-children-dominica

UNICEF. 2017. Situation analysis of children in Saint Kitts 
and Nevis. In: UNICEF [online]. [Cited 15 November 
2019]. https://www.unicef.org/ECAO_St._Kitts_
Sitan_2017.pdf

UNICEF. 2017. Situation analysis of children in Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines. In: UNICEF Office for the 
Eastern Caribbean Area [online]. [Cited 26 July 2019]. 
https://www.unicef.org/easterncaribbean/reports/
situation-analysis-children-saint-vincent-and-
grenadines

UNICEF. 2019. About us. In: UNICEF Belize [online]. [Cited 
27 November 2019]. https://www.unicef.org/belize/
about-us

UNICEF & Guyana, M. of E. 2013. Piloting health and 
family life education as a timetabled subject in 
Guyana. In: UNICEF [online]. [Cited 11 October 2020]. 
https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_81143.
html

United Nations Development Programme 
(UNDP). 2018. Human development index and 
its components. In: United Nations Development 
Programme - Human Development Reports [online]. 
[Cited 25 November 2019]. http://hdr.undp.org/en/
composite/HDI

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High 
Commisssioner. 2019. Convention on the rights of the 
child [online]. [Cited 29 October 2019]. https://www.
ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

US Department of Veterans Affairs. undated. Health 
Benefits [online]. [Cited 6 June 2019]. https://www.
va.gov/healthbenefits/cost/financial_ assessment.
asp



168

USAID. 2018. Food assistance fact sheet - Haiti. In: USAID 
[online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. https://www.
usaid.gov/haiti/food-assistance

VP Digital. 2015. Big boost for school feeding – LUCELEC 
kitchen, garden for VF primary school. The Voice, 3 
October 2015. (also available at https://thevoiceslu.
com/2015/10/big-boost-for-school-feeding-lucelec-
kitchen-garden-for-vf-primary-school/).

Wall-Bassett, E.D., Kunkel, E.M., Guiste, P., Gerard, 
P.D., Fang, X. & Prevost, J.L. 2012. Anthropometric 
status and nutrient intake of Dominican children 
in schools with and without school feeding 
programmes. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 27(2): 85–94. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/TIN.0b013e3182542139

WFP. 2016. School meals investment case cost-benefit 
analysis & national cost assessment [online]. 
[Cited 8 August 2019]. https://docs.wfp.org/api/
documents/3e9732b72e5b413e8b04cbd10e52495f/
download/

WFP. 2017. Assistance to the national school 
feeding programme in Haiti standard project 
report 2016. In: WFP [online]. [Cited 26 
October 2019]. https://docs.wfp.org/api/
documents/0e3f2b7107d348d78b80960ccb45e6cc/
download/

WFP. 2017. Smart school meals. Nutrition-sensitive 
national programmes in Latin America and the 
Caribbean: a review of 16 countries. In: WFP 
[online]. [Cited 5 July 2019]. https://www.wfp.org/
publications/smart-school-meals-nutrition-sensitive-
national-programmes-latin-america-and-caribbean

WFP. 2018. Cost benefit analysis of the school meals 
programme - Lao PDR. In: WFP [online]. [Cited 
15 September 2020]. https://www.wfp.org/
publications/cost-benefit-analysis-school-meals-
programme-lao-pdr

WFP. 2019a. School feeding in Ghana - investment 
case - cost benefit analysis report. In: WFP [online]. 
[Cited 26 October 2019]. https://www.wfp.org/
publications/school-feeding-ghana-investment-
case-cost-benefit-analysis-report

WFP. 2019b. Decentralized evaluation final evaluation 
of WFP Haiti’s food for education and child 
nutrition programme (2016-2019). In: WFP [online]. 
[Cited 8 October 2020]. https://docs.wfp.org/

api/documents/WFP-0000114311/download/?_
ga=2.245128773.1174197726.1602367013-
830125409.1515613442

WHO. 2010. Nutrition Landscape Information System (NLIS) 
country profile indicators interpretation guide. Geneva, 
WHO. 38 pp. (also available at https://apps.who.int/
iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44397/9789241599955_
eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y).

WHO. 2018. Global nutrition monitoring 
framework country profile: Dominica. In: 
WHO Nutrition Landscape Information System 
[online]. [Cited 6 December 2019]. https://
apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/report.
aspx?iso=DMA&rid=1620&goButton=Go

WHO. 2018. Global nutrition monitoring framework 
country profile: Jamaica. In: WHO Nutrition Landscape 
Information System [online]. [Cited 25 November 
2019]. http://apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/
global-monitoring-framework?ISO=JAM

WHO. 2018. Global nutrition monitoring framework 
country profile: Trinidad and Tobago. In: WHO - 
Nutrition Landscape Information System [online]. 
[Cited 25 November 2019]. http://apps.who.
int/nutrition/landscape/global-monitoring-
framework?iso=TTO

WHO. 2019. Countries. In: WHO [online]. [Cited 9 
November 2020]. https://www.who.int/countries/

WHO. 2020a. Obesity and overweight [online]. [Cited 25 
August 2020]. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/
fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

WHO. 2020b. Global health estimates: leading causes of 
DALYs. In: WHO The Global Health Estimates [online]. 
[Cited 3 March 2020]. https://www.who.int/data/
gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-
estimates/global-health-estimates-leading-causes-
of-dalys

Wilson, C. 2017. Obesity, malnutrition and hunger in 
Dominica. The Borgen Project, 23 March 2017. (also 
available at https://borgenproject.org/hunger-in-
dominica/).

World Bank. 2016. Suriname education management 
information systems : SABER country report 
2016. In: World Bank [online]. [Cited 5 July 
2019]. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/26514



169

World Bank. 2019. Countries and economies [online]. 
[Cited 29 October 2019]. https://data.worldbank.org/
country

World Bank. 2019. The world bank in Jamaica - overview. 
In: World Bank [online]. [Cited 25 November 2019]. 
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/jamaica/
overview

World Bank. 2020a. Countries and economies. In: World 
Bank Open Data [online]. [Cited 21 August 2020]. 
https://data.worldbank.org/

World Bank. 2020b. The world bank in Haiti - overview 
[online]. [Cited 19 November 2019]. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/country/haiti/overview#1

Xuereb, G. 2017. Sugar sweetened beverages taxed in 
the Caribbean - progress and challenges. Powerpoint 
presentation presented at the PAHO workshop 
“Caribbean Subregional Workshop on Alcohol, 
Tobacco and SugarSweetened Beverages Taxation”, 
16-17 May 2017, Barbados. PAHO. [Cited 26 October 
2019]. https://onecaribbeanhealth.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Sugar-Sweetened-Beverages-
taxes-in-the-Caribbean-Dr-Godfrey-Xuereb.pdf

Zephirin, M.P. 1990. Manual of nutrition and dietetic 
practice for the Caribbean. 3rd edition. Kingston, 
Jamaica, Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute.



170

Appendix
A

ppendix 1

Sam
ple calculation of benefits of school feeding program

m
e (D

om
inica)*

1A:  Direct transfer  of  food

•	
Value of food 
com

m
odities 

provided in SFP = 
XCD

 763 683.41

1B: Individual healthcare expenditure reduction

•	
D

isability adjusted life 
years (D

A
LYs) lost by all 

nutritional deficiencies/
capita = 0.0122 (Saint Lucia 
figure)

•	
N

um
ber of students in SFP 

= 2 169

•	
A

ll nutritional deficiencies 
D

A
LYs averted through SFP 

= 26.4165 years

•	
Cost /year/ individual for 
healthcare = XCD

 1 584.90

•	
Total health care reduction 
of SFP = XCD

 41 867.51

•	
Total value transfer =      
763 683.41 + 41 867.51 = 
XCD

 805 550.92 = 1A
 + 1B

2. Return on investment

•	
Total w

ages 
paid to cooks  =                
XCD

 336 000.00

•	
Total health 
care reduction =              
XCD

   41 867.51

•	
Total incom

e 
created/protected 
by the SFP =              
XCD

 377 867.51

•	
Rate of 
return=5.00%

•	
Return on 
investm

ent =             
XCD

 18 893.38

3: Increased wages from better jobs due to better  education

•	
A

nnual im
pact of the 

SFP on w
ages through 

increased enrollm
ent + 

increased attendance 
+ reduced dropout + 
increased test scores = 
4.35%

/year

•	
Average annual 
base (or m

inim
um

) 
w

age D
om

inica  =                    
XCD

 8 100.00/year

•	
N

um
ber of students in 

SFP = 2 169

•	
Productivity 
w

ages increase =                       
XCD

 764 247.15

•	
Total Increased 
Productivity =                
XCD

 764 247.15

*Calculations perform
ed in Excel and rounding errors m

ay be observed as presented.



171

4A: Increased wages from increased life expectancy from productivity increase  and more schooling (4A)

•	
Pr

od
uc

tiv
ity

 w
ag

es
 in

cr
ea

se
/s

tu
de

nt
 =

 
XC

D
 3

52
.3

5 

•	
Ad

ju
st

ed
 b

as
e 

w
ag

e 
af

te
r p

ro
du

ct
iv

ity
 

in
cr

ea
se

 =
 X

CD
 8

 4
52

.3
5/

ye
ar

•	
%

 a
dj

us
te

d 
ba

se
 w

ag
e 

fr
om

 p
ro

du
ct

iv
ity

 
in

cr
ea

se
 =

 4
.2

%

•	
Im

pa
ct

 o
f i

nc
re

as
e 

 in
 w

ag
e 

on
 li

fe
 

ex
pe

ct
an

cy
 =

 7
.4

%

•	
Li

fe
 e

xp
ec

ta
nc

y 
= 

77
.2

 y
ea

rs

•	
Ad

di
tio

na
l l

ife
 e

xp
ec

ta
nc

y 
fr

om
 

pr
od

uc
tiv

ity
 in

cr
ea

se
 =

 0
.4

2 
* 

0.
74

 *
 7

7.
2 

= 
0.

23
81

 y
ea

rs

•	
In

cr
ea

se
 in

 s
ch

oo
lin

g 
th

ro
ug

h 
SF

P 
= 

7.
0%

•	
Im

pa
ct

 o
n 

lif
e 

Ex
pe

ct
an

cy
 o

f 1
 m

or
e 

ye
ar

 
in

 s
ch

oo
l =

 5
.5

%

•	
Ad

di
tio

na
l l

ife
 e

xp
ec

ta
nc

y 
fr

om
 in

cr
ea

se
 

in
 s

ch
oo

lin
g 

= 
0.

07
 *

 0
.0

55
 *

 7
7.

2 
= 

0.
29

72
 

ye
ar

s

•	
To

ta
l a

dd
iti

on
al

 li
fe

 e
xp

ec
ta

nc
y 

= 
0.

53
53

 
ye

ar
s

•	
N

um
be

r o
f  

ad
di

tio
na

l y
ea

rs
 fo

r s
tu

de
nt

s 
in

 p
ro

gr
am

m
e 

= 
0.

53
5 

* 
2 

16
9 

= 
    

    
    

    
    

  
1 

16
1.

21
19

 y
ea

rs

•	
Im

pa
ct

 o
f a

dd
iti

on
al

 y
ea

r o
f l

ife
 

ex
pe

ct
an

cy
 o

n 
in

co
m

e 
= 

5.
0%

•	
In

cr
ea

se
d 

in
co

m
e 

fr
om

 in
cr

ea
se

d 
lif

e 
ex

pe
ct

an
cy

 =
 in

cr
ea

se
d 

w
ag

es
 *

im
pa

ct
 

of
 a

dd
iti

on
al

 y
ea

r o
n 

in
co

m
e*

nu
m

be
r o

f 
ad

di
tio

na
l y

ea
rs

 =
  X

CD
 4

90
 7

48
.4

55
7

4B: Increased wages from reduced DALYs due to food supplied by the SFP

•	
D

A
LY

s 
lo

st
 b

y 
al

l n
ut

rit
io

na
l 

de
fic

ie
nc

ie
s/

ca
pi

ta
 =

 0
.0

12
2 

ye
ar

s

•	
%

 o
f R

ec
om

m
en

de
d 

D
ai

ly
 

A
llo

w
an

ce
 fr

om
 S

FP
 =

 3
3.

0%

•	
Re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s/
ca

pi
ta

 
fr

om
 fo

od
 s

up
pl

ie
d 

by
 th

e 
SF

P 
= 

0.
01

22
 *

 0
.3

3 
= 

0.
00

40
 

ye
ar

s

•	
N

o.
 o

f s
tu

de
nt

s 
= 

2 
16

9

•	
Re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s 
fr

om
 fo

od
 

su
pp

lie
d 

by
 th

e 
SF

P 
= 

2 
16

9 
* 

0.
00

40
 =

 8
.7

17
4 

ye
ar

s

•	
In

cr
ea

se
d 

w
ag

es
 fr

om
 b

et
te

r 
he

al
th

 fr
om

 fo
od

 s
up

pl
ie

d 
by

 S
FP

 =
 A

dj
us

te
d 

ba
se

 
w

ag
e 

 *
 re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s 
 =

         
XC

D
 7

3 
68

2.
89

25

4C: Increased wages from reduced DALYs due to  health interventions as part of the SFP

•	
D

A
LY

s 
Av

er
te

d 
du

e 
to

 b
et

te
r 

nu
tr

iti
on

/c
ap

ita
 =

  0
.0

12
2 

ye
ar

s

•	
Re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s 
th

ro
ug

h 
he

al
th

 
In

te
rv

en
tio

ns
 =

 3
.7

%

•	
Re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s/
ca

pi
ta

 fr
om

 
he

al
th

 in
te

rv
en

tio
ns

 =
 0

.0
12

2 
* 

0.
03

7 
= 

0.
00

04

•	
Re

du
ct

io
n 

of
 D

A
LY

s 
fr

om
 h

ea
lth

 
in

te
rv

en
tio

ns
 fr

om
 S

FP
 =

 2
 1

69
 *

 
0.

00
04

 =
 0

.9
64

2 
ye

ar
s

•	
A

nn
ua

l a
dj

us
te

d 
ba

se
 w

ag
e 

= 
   

XC
D

 8
 4

52
.3

5/
ye

ar

•	
In

cr
ea

se
d 

w
ag

es
 fr

om
 h

ea
lth

 
in

te
rv

en
tio

ns
 fr

om
 S

FP
 =

 
re

du
ct

io
n 

in
 D

A
LY

s 
fr

om
 h

ea
lth

 
in

te
rv

en
tio

ns
*a

dj
us

te
d 

ba
se

 w
ag

e 
= 

 X
CD

 8
 1

49
.7

7

•	
To

ta
l b

en
efi

t f
ro

m
 h

ea
lth

ie
r a

nd
 

lo
ng

er
 li

fe
 =

 4
A

 +
 4

B 
+ 

4C
 =

   
 X

CD
 

57
2 

58
1.

12

•	
A

nn
ua

l t
ot

al
 b

en
efi

ts
 =

  8
05

 5
50

.9
2 

+ 
18

89
3.

38
 +

 7
64

 2
47

.1
5 

+ 
57

2 
58

1.
12

 =
 X

CD
 2

 1
61

 2
73

.5
7







A review of school feeding programmes in 
the Caribbean Community 

A driver for food and nutrition security 

This book is the first comprehensive study of school feeding in the Caribbean and specifically 
14 CARICOM member states: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, 
Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.  It explores the features of school feeding in 
each state, with an emphasis on the school feeding programmes. These programmes are 
classified, especially in terms of the centralization of operations with respect to the 
procurement of food ingredients and meal preparation. This book presents detailed 
evaluations of the annual net benefit of these programmes and surveys food and nutrition 
education in the states, including the roles of school gardens. It also provides general  
recommendations on school feeding, as well as specific recommendations for each CARICOM 
member state.  
 
 
 
For more information and comments: 
 
Dr.  Hazel Patterson-Andrews, 
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension,  
The University of the West Indies, 
St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.  
Hazel.patterson-andrews@sta.uwi.edu 
 
FAO Sub-regional Office for the Caribbean 
FAO-SLC@fao.org 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations  
Bridgetown, Barbados  
 
This book was made possible thanks to the generous support of the FAO Subregional Office in 
Barbados and school feeding agencies, as well as international, regional and local 
organizations in all of the member states. The research for this book was carried out by a team 
from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, The University of the West 
Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, with the support of the Caribbean Agro-Economic 
Society. 
 
 
 
This book is dedicated to the stalwart workers in school feeding.