Abstract:
Background: The rural and food insecure population is mostly affected by hunger, poverty and malnutrition. The young and school-going children are the mostly affected individuals due to their vulnerability. The home grown school feeding programme (HGSFP) has been recognised in hunger and poverty eradication.
Aim: To explore and describe the functioning of the HGSFP at school and community levels; perceptions on the HGSFP within schools, households, and communities and how it might have affected education, well-being and its sustainability in schools, as well as household food security.
Research design: A cross sectional descriptive survey using a comparative approach in the quantitative and qualitative domains was implemented.
Setting: Government primary schools located in the southern part of the Lubombo region of Swaziland.
Sample: Thirty schools (conveniently sampled) were grouped into two (n=15: HGSFP group; n=15: non-HGSFP group). Informed consent was obtained from participants (school principals, teachers, learners, heads of the households of learners, farmers supplying food products to schools.
Methodology: Structured interview schedules were used in the quantitative domain. School registers, stock books and academic record books were used. MS Excel 2007 and SPSS 20 programmes, descriptive statistics, the Fishers test, independent-samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for analysis (quantitative data). Four focus group discussions were conducted for the qualitative data. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria (Ref no EC 130110-102). Research permission was also granted by the Ministry of Education in Swaziland through the Regional Education Office.
Main findings: The HGSFP and non-HGSFP increased school enrolments as indicated by school principals (53.3% and 46.7% respectively). The school principals (86.6%) and teachers (100%) (HGSFP) had good and excellent school attendance versus 66% of school principals and teachers in the non-HGSFP group. The school principals (73%) (HGSFP) had low rates of learners’ dropout versus only 40% in the non-HGSFP group. Participants (HGSFP) (73%) had no hunger illnesses amongst their learners versus 54.4% in the non-HGSFP group. Learners (HGSFP group) had higher mean scores on recorded class performance scores versus learners in non-HGSFP group. The HGSFP group had enhanced food security status, a better sustained FP through procuring from the local farmers which was cost effective versus the non-HGSFP group which bought from retailers. The HGSFP group (60%) was food secured versus 53.3% (non-HGSFP group) which was slightly food secured. The HGSFP had a poverty reduction potential within households; 33.3%: school principals, 46.7%: teachers indicated that jobs were created within communities. Heads of the households (40.5%) observed a reduction in food consumption versus the non-HGSFP group.
Conclusion: The HGSFP and non-HGSFP increased the school enrolment. However, the HGSFP group had better attendance and retention; learners’ health status and academic performance; sustained FP, enhanced food security, and better poverty reduction potential within households versus the non-HGSFP group.
Recommendations: Currently used SFP policies in Swaziland should be reviewed to adopt the HGSFP approach. The Ministry of Education, relevant ministries and organisations should conduct more studies on the HGSFP.
