Measuring the social value of school feeding

A school feeding program creates value that extends beyond the meal served. Regular access to nutritious food can support attendance, concentration, learning, household resilience, and healthier development. For a global food company, measuring these effects provides a disciplined way to understand whether resources are reaching children and communities effectively.

How We Measure the Social Return on Investment of Our School Feeding Program begins with a clear definition of value. The assessment should connect financial inputs with verified social, educational, health, and community outcomes. It should also explain which benefits are attributable to the program, which would have happened without it, and how long those benefits are likely to last.

This approach complements the broader work presented through our sustainability strategy, where responsible operations, community development, healthy food choices, and environmental stewardship are considered together. A credible social impact assessment makes the community benefit visible while encouraging better program decisions.

Defining the change we seek

The first step is to describe the program’s theory of change. Inputs may include funding, food, transportation, staff time, kitchen equipment, training, and partnerships with schools or local organizations. Activities include preparing and distributing meals, educating families about nutrition, and monitoring food safety and participation.

These activities are expected to produce immediate outputs, such as meals served, students reached, schools supported, and local workers trained. Outputs are important for accountability, but they are not the same as impact. The deeper question is whether children attend school more consistently, participate more fully in lessons, and experience improved dietary adequacy.

A practical impact framework should therefore include several outcome levels:

• Nutrition: changes in meal frequency, dietary diversity, or reported food insecurity
• Education: attendance, punctuality, classroom engagement, and progression
• Well-being: concentration, energy, self-reported health, and emotional comfort
• Household resilience: reduced pressure on family food budgets and caregivers’ time
• Community value: local employment, supplier participation, and strengthened school partnerships

Defining these pathways at the start prevents the evaluation from treating the number of meals distributed as the final result.

Establishing a reliable baseline

Social return is calculated by comparing the situation after an intervention with a reasonable estimate of what would have happened without it. That estimate is known as the counterfactual. Without a baseline and comparison point, improvements may be attributed to school feeding even when they were caused by another program, seasonal changes, or broader economic conditions.

Before implementation, data can be collected from participating schools and, where practical, similar schools that are not yet receiving support. Useful baseline indicators include attendance records, enrollment, dropout rates, school performance, household food access, and basic nutrition measures. The data should be disaggregated by age, gender, location, disability, and other relevant characteristics so that average results do not conceal unequal benefits.

Measurement methods should suit the local context. Administrative school records can provide reliable attendance information, while student, caregiver, and teacher surveys can capture experiences that records cannot show. Interviews and focus groups add qualitative evidence about dignity, food preferences, cultural suitability, and barriers to participation.

Data protection is part of responsible measurement. Children’s information should be collected only when necessary, stored securely, and reported in aggregate. Consent procedures, safeguarding protocols, and clear roles for schools and delivery partners help protect participants and improve trust in the findings.

Turning outcomes into social value

Social Return on Investment, or SROI, assigns financial proxies to outcomes that do not have a direct market price. The purpose is not to suggest that a child’s well-being can be reduced to a currency figure. Monetary valuation provides a common analytical language for comparing different types of benefit and understanding the scale of value created.

For example, improved attendance may be valued using research on the long-term economic benefit of additional schooling. Reduced household food insecurity may use the avoided cost of coping strategies or the value of comparable social support. Local employment can be assessed through wages, skills gained, and the share of income retained in the community.

The calculation should include several adjustments:

• Deadweight: the portion of the outcome that would have occurred without the program
• Attribution: the contribution made by governments, schools, families, and other partners
• Displacement: any benefit that shifts activity or resources away from another group
• Drop-off: the expected reduction in benefits over time
• Duration: the period for which each outcome is expected to continue

A simplified formula is:

SROI ratio = Present value of adjusted benefits ÷ Total investment

The result should be accompanied by assumptions, evidence quality, and sensitivity analysis. A ratio is meaningful only when stakeholders can see how it was produced and how much it changes under conservative or optimistic assumptions.

Combining numbers with lived experience

Quantitative data shows scale, while qualitative evidence explains meaning. A student may attend school more regularly because meals reduce morning hunger, but a teacher may also report greater participation during lessons. A caregiver may describe how the program releases money for medicine or school supplies. These accounts help interpret the indicators and identify unintended effects.

Stakeholder involvement should occur throughout the measurement cycle, not only during final reporting. Students, families, teachers, community leaders, implementation partners, and public authorities can help identify relevant outcomes and test whether the selected financial proxies are fair. Their participation strengthens the legitimacy of the assessment.

The evaluation should also look for negative effects. Meals that do not reflect local tastes may be wasted. Distribution may create unequal access between schools. Packaging may increase waste if no recovery system exists. Time spent collecting meals could impose a burden on students or caregivers. Recording these issues gives the program a fuller social and environmental picture.

Results should be shared in plain language alongside technical calculations. Reporting can include the number of beneficiaries, outcome changes, beneficiary perspectives, limitations, and actions taken in response. Transparent disclosure is more valuable than presenting an impressive ratio without context.

Connecting impact to responsible operations

A school feeding program does not operate separately from the food system that supports it. Procurement decisions influence farmer livelihoods, food quality, transport emissions, packaging waste, and the stability of local supply. Connecting social impact measurement with responsible sourcing and environmental monitoring helps identify trade-offs before they become material risks.

For example, locally purchased ingredients may strengthen smallholder incomes and reduce transport distances, while regional sourcing may be necessary to maintain consistent nutrition or food safety. The assessment can compare these choices using both social and operational indicators. It can also track whether suppliers meet ethical labor, traceability, and quality expectations.

This broader view aligns community investment with the principles described across Fresh Del Monte’s sustainability work, including healthy food access, ethical business conduct, and protection of natural resources. The goal is to create durable value rather than count isolated activities. A meal has greater long-term significance when it is safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate, and supported by a resilient supply chain.

Repeated measurement is essential. Annual or periodic reviews can show whether outcomes are improving, remaining stable, or declining. Findings may lead to changes in menus, delivery schedules, school selection, nutrition education, partner training, or resource allocation.

Strengthening the measurement process

A strong evaluation is proportionate to the program’s scale and risk. Small pilot projects may use a focused set of indicators and a practical comparison group. Larger programs should consider independent verification, longitudinal tracking, and more rigorous evaluation designs. In every case, the method should be consistent enough to show trends and flexible enough to reflect local conditions.

The following practices support credible social impact reporting:

• Set measurable objectives before distributing meals and document the theory of change.
• Combine school records, surveys, interviews, observation, and partner data.
• Involve children, caregivers, educators, and local organizations in selecting outcomes.
• Use conservative financial proxies and publish deadweight, attribution, and duration assumptions.
• Review unintended effects, data quality, safeguarding, and equity alongside positive results.

The strongest evidence is not necessarily the most complex. It is evidence that is relevant, repeatable, independently challenged when appropriate, and used to improve decisions. When communities can recognize their experiences in the findings, SROI becomes a tool for accountability rather than a purely financial exercise.

Measuring the social return of a school feeding program helps show how investment translates into healthier children, stronger educational participation, and more resilient communities. By combining transparent valuation with direct stakeholder insight, Fresh Del Monte can track both the reach of its support and the quality of the change it helps create. Continued monitoring, open reporting, and collaboration with schools and community partners can turn each evaluation into a practical step toward greater social value.