Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya

Modou Musa Sowe; Benjamin Mutai; Job Hilary Bett

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya

Modou Musa Sowe^*, Benjamin Mutai

, Job Hilary Bett

Published in International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 11, Issue 5)

Received: 30 July 2026 Accepted: 13 August 2026 Published: 22 September 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) provides a link between smallholder farmers and institutional markets, possibly for enhancing household productivity and income. However, empirical evidence on farmers’ engagement decisions and the programme's effect on income remains unknown. This study evaluates the determinants of HGSFP participation and its impact on smallholder farmers' household income. Survey data were collected from 384 households (200 participants and 184 non-participants in HGSFP) in the 2025 cropping production year. An Endogenous Switching Regression model was used to account for non-randomness in programme engagement and to evaluate counterfactual treatment effects. Participation was positively and statistically significantly influenced by awareness of school tendering procedures, farmer-group membership, land size owned, radio ownership, distance to extension services, and children currently attending public primary schools, but had a negative effect with herd ownership and off-farm income. The evaluated Average Treatment effect on Treated (ATE) was [ATE=2.1519, p<0.01], while the Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated (ATU) was [ATU=2.7762, p<0.01], showing significant probable income gains amongst currently excluded from HGSFP. The findings illustrate that HGSFP can work not only as a school-feeding intervention but also as an institutional market system for enhancing smallholder farmers’ welfare. The policy framework should combine programme expansion with enhanced access to farmer organizations, credit, extension services, and procurement information. The ATU estimates offer a basis for targeted programme expansion in terms of socioeconomic, institutional, and agroecological criteria, mainly for eligible non-participant households with higher potential income gains.

Published in	International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 11, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
Page(s)	153-168
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Institutional Food Procurement, Homegrown School Feeding, Livelihood Outcome, Household Income, Smallholder Farmers

References

[1]	S. K. Lowder, M. V. Sánchez, R. Bertini, Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated?, World Development 142 (2021) 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
[2]	T. A. Desalegn, S. Gebremedhin, B. J. Stoecker, Successes and challenges of the Home-grown School Feeding Program in Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia: a qualitative study, J Nutr Sci 11 (2022) e87. https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2022.77
[3]	S. Di Prima, D. Nguyen Dinh, D. D. Reurings, E. P. Wright, D. Essink, J. E. W. Broerse, Home-Grown School Feeding: Implementation Lessons From a Pilot in a Poor Ethnic Minority Community in Vietnam, Food Nutr Bull 43 (2022) 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/03795721221088962
[4]	V. Bitzer, F. Kruijssen, J. Mugisha, L. Waswa, J. Aliso, B. Nakazzi, Vulnerability and resilience among farmers and market actors in local agri-food value chains in the face of COVID-19 disruptions: findings from Uganda and Kenya, Food Sec. 16 (2024) 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01414-z
[5]	J. Kamau, C. Okoyo, T. Kanyui, C. Mwandawiro, S. Singh, L. Drake, Exploring smallholder farmers’ access and participation in the Home Grown School Feeding Programme in selected counties of Kenya, Front. Public Health 12 (2025) 1476888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1476888
[6]	E. Kangogo, D. J. Otieno, J. Okello, O. Mwenye, E. Kapalasa, Effect of uptake of improved seed potato and donor‐funded training on smallholder farmers’ market participation, Crop Science 64 (2024) 1432–1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21118
[7]	Z. Shitaye, B. Tadesse, K. Enkuahone, Sources and intensity of access to agricultural information technologies by smallholder farmers: evidence from Northwest Ethiopia, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8 (2024) 1455037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1455037
[8]	A. Gupta, M. K. Doan, H. Zhu, E. Whitney, M. Filipski, E. Gonzalez-Estrada, D. Ryckembusch, J. Edward Taylor, Rural Economy-wide Impacts of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Program, Food Policy 134 (2025) 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102887
[9]	J. Liguori, H. A. Osei-Kwasi, M. Savy, S. Nanema, A. Laar, M. Holdsworth, How do publicly procured school meals programmes in sub-Saharan Africa improve nutritional outcomes for children and adolescents: a mixed-methods systematic review, Public Health Nutr. 27 (2024) e213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939
[10]	B. Barnabas, S. Agyemang, E. Zhllima, M. Bavorova, Impact of Homegrown School Feeding Program on Smallholders’ Farmer Household Food Security in Northeastern Nigeria, Foods 12 (2023) 2408. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122408
[11]	M. Lokshin, Z. Sajaia, Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Endogenous Switching Regression Models, The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata 4 (2004) 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0400400306
[12]	S. Di Falco, M. Veronesi, M. Yesuf, Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro‐Perspective from Ethiopia, American J Agri Economics 93 (2011) 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar006
[13]	N. Singh, J. Wang’ombe, N. Okanga, T. Zelenska, J. Repishti, J. G. K, S. Mishra, R. Manokaran, V. Singh, M. I. Rafiq, R. Gandhi, A. Nambi, Farmer. Chat: Scaling AI-Powered Agricultural Services for Smallholder Farmers, (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2409.08916
[14]	C. B. Barrett, T. Benton, J. Fanzo, M. Herrero, R. J. Nelson, E. Bageant, E. Buckler, K. Cooper, I. Culotta, S. Fan, R. Gandhi, S. James, M. Kahn, L. Lawson-Lartego, J. Liu, Q. Marshall, D. Mason-D’Croz, A. Mathys, C. Mathys, V. Mazariegos-Anastassiou, A. Miller, K. Misra, A. Mude, J. Shen, L. M. Sibanda, C. Song, R. Steiner, P. Thornton, S. Wood, Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation, in: Socio-Technical Innovation Bundles for Agri-Food Systems Transformation, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022: pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_1
[15]	S. Fan, C. Rue, The Role of Smallholder Farms in a Changing World, in: S. Gomez Y Paloma, L. Riesgo, K. Louhichi (Eds.), The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020: pp. 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9_2
[16]	V. Ricciardi, N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis, B. Chookolingo, How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce?, Global Food Security 17 (2018) 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002
[17]	CIDP, Bomet County Integrated Development Plan 2023-2027., 2023. https://bomet.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/APPROVED-CIDP-2023.27-Monday-24-july-2023.pdf
[18]	T. Yamane, Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row., 1967. https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/Statistics.html?id=KTYkvgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
[19]	N. W. Wanyonyi, K. A. Anangwe, Is The Participation of Women Smallholder Farmers in a Food Production Program The Panacea to Household Food Security?, AWSC Journal 8 (2024) 84–96. https://doi.org/10.66563/awscjournal.v8i1.2057
[20]	G. A. Abiye, S. Svizzero, D. B. Tenessa, The Impact of a Homegrown School-Feeding Intervention on Children’s Educational Outcomes in Low-Income Countries, Sage Open 16 (2026) 21582440261418862. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440261418862
[21]	K. N. Addai, J. N. Ng’ombe, O. Temoso, Can farmer organization membership improve household food security and nutrition? Evidence from Northern Ghana, World Food Policy 10 (2024) 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfp2.12076
[22]	J. Ayarkwa, R. A. Atanga, D. Osei-Asibey, I. M. A. Abu, S. Osei-Tutu, Level of awareness and knowledge of procurement practitioners on green public procurement: a systematic review, Journal of Public Procurement 25 (2025) 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-05-2024-0060
[23]	M. Mainje, L. Matumba, J. J. W. Harvey, H. Phiri, A. P. Gama, A. Phiri, I. Phangaphanga, R. Chizimba, B. Wamey, P. Gallagher, E. Rutto, J. F. Leslie, Long-term sustainability of African school feeding programs, a review, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8 (2024) 1424354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1424354
[24]	Y. Tamiru, A. Mulugeta, A. Ayelign, D. Jara, E. Melaku, S. Gebremedhin, Perceived benefits and challenges of school feeding program in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a qualitative study, J Nutr Sci 13 (2024) e32. https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2024.42
[25]	A. Wineman, M. C. Ekwueme, L. Bigayimpunzi, A. Martin-Daihirou, E. L. De Gois V. N. Rodrigues, P. Etuge, Y. Warner, H. Kessler, A. Mitchell, School Meal Programs in Africa: Regional Results From the 2019 Global Survey of School Meal Programs, Front. Public Health 10 (2022) 871866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.871866
[26]	S. G. Adjognon, L. S. O. Liverpool-Tasie, T. A. Reardon, Agricultural input credit in Sub-Saharan Africa: Telling myth from facts, Food Policy 67 (2017) 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.014
[27]	I. Baltenweck, D. Cherney, A. Duncan, E. Eldermire, E. T. Lwoga, R. Labarta, E. J. O. Rao, S. Staal, N. Teufel, A scoping review of feed interventions and livelihoods of small-scale livestock keepers, Nat. Plants 6 (2020) 1242–1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00786-w
[28]	T. K. Nganga, R. Kara, F. K. Donkor, E. Mkuna, Nexus between agriculture and livestock sectors in Kenya and Tanzania, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 44 (2026) 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2026.2635739
[29]	D. J. M. Braamhaar, B. Van Selm, J. Van Der Lee, S. J. Oosting, Circular food systems in Kenya: Exploring the role of livestock, Agricultural Systems 231 (2026) 104536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104536
[30]	Y. Tilahun, B. Tadesse, E. Gebre, K. Haile, M. Bayu, Z. Adimasu, Z. Tolera, B. Zegeye, A. Bayu, Factors influencing the intensity of market participation of smallholder livestock producers in southwest Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance 11 (2023) 2258672. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2258672
[31]	G. T. Abate, K. A. Abay, J. Chamberlin, Y. Kassim, D. J. Spielman, M. Paul Jr Tabe-Ojong, Digital tools and agricultural market transformation in Africa: Why are they not at scale yet, and what will it take to get there?, Food Policy 116 (2023) 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102439
[32]	B. B. Balana, M. A. Oyeyemi, Agricultural credit constraints in smallholder farming in developing countries: Evidence from Nigeria, World Development Sustainability 1 (2022) 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2022.100012
[33]	K. Haile, E. Gebre, A. Workye, Determinants of market participation among smallholder farmers in Southwest Ethiopia: double-hurdle model approach, Agric & Food Secur 11 (2022) 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00358-5
[34]	P. K. Nkegbe, A. Araar, B. M. Abu, H. Alhassan, Y. Ustarz, E. D. Setsoafia, S. Abdul-Wahab, Nonfarm activity and market participation by farmers in Ghana, Agric Econ 10 (2022) 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00210-1
[35]	J. D. Bonilla, A. Coombes, D. Romney, P. C. Winters, Changing the logic in agricultural extension: evidence from a demand-driven extension programme in Kenya, Journal of Development Effectiveness 16 (2024) 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2023.2181848
[36]	R. Fabregas, M. Kremer, F. Schilbach, Realizing the potential of digital development: The case of agricultural advice, Science 366 (2019) eaay3038. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3038
[37]	H. M. Mwololo, J. M. Nzuma, C. N. Ritho, A. Aseta, Is the type of agricultural extension services a determinant of farm diversity? Evidence from Kenya, Development Studies Research 6 (2019) 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2019.1580596
[38]	C. Ayim, A. Kassahun, B. Tekinerdogan, C. Addison, Adoption of ICT innovations in the agriculture sector in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review, (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.13831
[39]	I. Koomson, K. Amakye, P. L. Kodom, D. K. Ampah, Relative effect of digital financial inclusion on financial resilience across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda: exploring linkages and potential pathways, Journal of Financial Economic Policy (2026) 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFEP-08-2025-0329
[40]	J. Van Der Lee, S. Oosting, L. Klerkx, F. Opinya, B. O. Bebe, Effects of proximity to markets on dairy farming intensity and market participation in Kenya and Ethiopia, Agricultural Systems 184 (2020) 102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102891
[41]	M. Ngubane, V. Mbewana, I. Kaseeram, The effect of household head education on household income: evidence from quantile regression model, Cogent Economics & Finance 14 (2026) 2662711. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2026.2662711
[42]	M. Giger, A. Reys, W. Anseeuw, E. Mutea, B. Kiteme, Smallholders’ livelihoods in the presence of commercial farms in central Kenya, Journal of Rural Studies 96 (2022) 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.11.004
[43]	E. W. Kamau, R. Gitau, H. K. Bett, Effects of adoption of ecological farming practices on farm income in rural households: Evidence from Central Kenya, Heliyon 10 (2024) e34610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34610
[44]	M. J. Ogada, E. J. O. Rao, M. Radeny, J. W. Recha, D. Solomon, Climate-smart agriculture, household income and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers in the Nyando basin of Kenya, World Development Perspectives 18 (2020) 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100203
[45]	B. W. Gitonga, A. W. Odek, Socio-Economic Determinants of Livelihoods: A Case of Female-Headed Households in Kiambu, Kenya, OALib 12 (2025) 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1114217
[46]	E. Vimefall, J. Levin, Income Diversification Among Farming Households Headed by Women in Rural Kenya, Feminist Economics 29 (2023) 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2022.2159056
[47]	J. Huang, L. M. Neufeld, O. Badiane, P. Caron, L. S. Forsse, Equitable livelihoods must underpin food systems transformation, Nat Food 3 (2022) 394–396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00529-4
[48]	C. Kubitza, S. Hackfort, A. Opiyo, C. Rauh, C. S. Stokes, S. Huyskens-Keil, The effects of market-oriented farming on living standards, nutrition, and informal sharing arrangements of smallholder farmers: the case of African indigenous vegetables in Kenya, Food Sec. 16 (2024) 1363–1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-024-01480-x
[49]	C. N. Maindi, W. N. Nyarindo, S. N. Ndirangu, H. N. Isaboke, Collective action typologies and their implications for policy targeting: The case of smallholder households from the central region of Kenya, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 18 (2024) 101288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101288
[50]	A. T. W. Kangethe, F. E. K. Mukabi, D. N. Simiyu, Primacy of Awareness Raising on Uptake of Access To Government Procurement Opportunities by The Youth A Study of Isiolo County, IJARBSS 11 (2021) Pages 230-247. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i4/9665
[51]	R. Lupapa, P. Silwimba, The Impact of Household Size on Economic Welfare: A Case Study of Lilayi Township, Lusaka, Zambia, J. Econ. Bus. Com. 2 (2025) 361–368. https://doi.org/10.69739/jebc.v2i2.1122
[52]	Y. Zou, Q. Wang, Impacts of farmer cooperative membership on household income and inequality: Evidence from a household survey in China, Agric Econ 10 (2022) 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00222-x
[53]	W. N. Nyarindo, A. Mugera, What determines market participation and trade intensity? The case of smallholders in Kenya, Scientific African 30 (2025) e03057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e03057
[54]	V. A. Onyango, G. Owuor, E. J. Rao, D. J. Otieno, Impact of cooperatives on smallholder dairy farmers’ income in Kenya, Cogent Food & Agriculture 9 (2023) 2291225. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2291225
[55]	M. J. Ali, G. Qianqian, G. Wenguang, Measuring the impacts of cooperative membership on household income: A case study of Zanzibar, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 27 (2024) a5329. https://doi.org/10.4102/SAJEMS.v27i1.5329
[56]	M. K. Kansiime, I. Mugambi, H. Rware, C. Alokit, C. Aliamo, F. Zhang, J. Latzko, P. Yang, D. Karanja, D. Romney, CHALLENGES AND CAPACITY GAPS IN SMALLHOLDER ACCESS TO DIGITAL EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES IN KENYA AND UGANDA, Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 9 (2022) 642. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021423
[57]	M. E. Marwa, J. Mburu, R. E. J. Oburu, O. Mwai, S. Kahumbu, Impact of ICT Based Extension Services on Dairy Production and Household Welfare: The Case of iCow Service in Kenya, JAS 12 (2020) 141. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v12n3p141
[58]	P. A. Ogola, F. Ngesa, D. L. Makanji, Influence of access to extension services on milk productivity among smallholder dairy farmers in Njoro Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya, Heliyon 9 (2023) e20210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20210
[59]	W. Ongachi, I. Belinder, B. Bhat, S. Hussain, R. Dub, Strengthening agricultural extension services to enhance farmers’ capacity and resilience for sustainable development; a systematic review, BMC Agric. 2 (2026) 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44399-026-00039-9
[60]	H. Wang, Z. Cheng, Kids eat free: School feeding and family spending on education, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 193 (2022) 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.11.023
[61]	A. M. Eyasu, T. Zewotir, Z. G. Dessie, The role of household savings in linking crop commercialization and multidimensional poverty for sustainable rural development in Ethiopia, Discov Sustain 7 (2026) 1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03530-0
[62]	E. Mutea, J. Jacobi, S. Rist, B. Kiteme, M. S. Hossain, Agricultural commercialization and food security: Evidence and policy implications for smallholder farmers in Kenya, World Development Sustainability 6 (2025) 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2025.100214
[63]	A. Acosta, F. Nicolli, W. Tirkaso, Cattle ownership and households’ welfare: Evidence from Southern Africa, Global Food Security 42 (2024) 100772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100772
[64]	H. A. Awiti, E. O. Gido, G. A. Obare, Smallholder Farmers Climate-Smart Crop Diversification Cost Structure: Empirical Evidence From Western Kenya, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6 (2022) 842987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.842987
[65]	M. E. Musyoki, J. R. Busienei, J. K. Gathiaka, G. N. Karuku, Linking farmers’ risk attitudes, livelihood diversification and adoption of climate smart agriculture technologies in the Nyando basin, South-Western Kenya, Heliyon 8 (2022) e09305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09305
[66]	M. Musumba, C. A. Palm, A. M. Komarek, P. K. Mutuo, B. Kaya, Household livelihood diversification in rural Africa, Agricultural Economics 53 (2022) 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12694
[67]	M. A. Otitoju, A. Q. Olaiya, Do Farmer-Based Organizations Shape Welfare? Evidence from Rice-Farming Households in Niger and Nasarawa States, Nigeria, East Afr. j. Bus. Econ. 7 (2024) 251–265. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajbe.7.2.2554
[68]	S. Kipkogei, J. Han, G. Mwalupaso, J. Tanui, R. Brenya, The synergistic effects of microcredit access and agricultural technology adoption on maize farmer’s income in Kenya, PLoS ONE 20 (2025) e0316014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316014
[69]	A. E. Lelisho, M. E. Lelisho, Impact of credit use on crop productivity and gross income of smallholder farmers: a propensity score matching approach, Discov Agric 2 (2024) 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00058-7

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sowe, M. M., Mutai, B., Bett, J. H. (2026). Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(5), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sowe, M. M.; Mutai, B.; Bett, J. H. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. Int. J. Agric. Econ. 2026, 11(5), 153-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sowe MM, Mutai B, Bett JH. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. Int J Agric Econ. 2026;11(5):153-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11,
  author = {Modou Musa Sowe and Benjamin Mutai and Job Hilary Bett},
  title = {Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Economics},
  volume = {11},
  number = {5},
  pages = {153-168},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijae.20261105.11},
  abstract = {The Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) provides a link between smallholder farmers and institutional markets, possibly for enhancing household productivity and income. However, empirical evidence on farmers’ engagement decisions and the programme's effect on income remains unknown. This study evaluates the determinants of HGSFP participation and its impact on smallholder farmers' household income. Survey data were collected from 384 households (200 participants and 184 non-participants in HGSFP) in the 2025 cropping production year. An Endogenous Switching Regression model was used to account for non-randomness in programme engagement and to evaluate counterfactual treatment effects. Participation was positively and statistically significantly influenced by awareness of school tendering procedures, farmer-group membership, land size owned, radio ownership, distance to extension services, and children currently attending public primary schools, but had a negative effect with herd ownership and off-farm income. The evaluated Average Treatment effect on Treated (ATE) was [ATE=2.1519, p<0.01], while the Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated (ATU) was [ATU=2.7762, p<0.01], showing significant probable income gains amongst currently excluded from HGSFP. The findings illustrate that HGSFP can work not only as a school-feeding intervention but also as an institutional market system for enhancing smallholder farmers’ welfare. The policy framework should combine programme expansion with enhanced access to farmer organizations, credit, extension services, and procurement information. The ATU estimates offer a basis for targeted programme expansion in terms of socioeconomic, institutional, and agroecological criteria, mainly for eligible non-participant households with higher potential income gains.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya
AU  - Modou Musa Sowe
AU  - Benjamin Mutai
AU  - Job Hilary Bett
Y1  - 2026/09/22
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
T2  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JF  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JO  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
SP  - 153
EP  - 168
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3843
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
AB  - The Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) provides a link between smallholder farmers and institutional markets, possibly for enhancing household productivity and income. However, empirical evidence on farmers’ engagement decisions and the programme's effect on income remains unknown. This study evaluates the determinants of HGSFP participation and its impact on smallholder farmers' household income. Survey data were collected from 384 households (200 participants and 184 non-participants in HGSFP) in the 2025 cropping production year. An Endogenous Switching Regression model was used to account for non-randomness in programme engagement and to evaluate counterfactual treatment effects. Participation was positively and statistically significantly influenced by awareness of school tendering procedures, farmer-group membership, land size owned, radio ownership, distance to extension services, and children currently attending public primary schools, but had a negative effect with herd ownership and off-farm income. The evaluated Average Treatment effect on Treated (ATE) was [ATE=2.1519, p<0.01], while the Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated (ATU) was [ATU=2.7762, p<0.01], showing significant probable income gains amongst currently excluded from HGSFP. The findings illustrate that HGSFP can work not only as a school-feeding intervention but also as an institutional market system for enhancing smallholder farmers’ welfare. The policy framework should combine programme expansion with enhanced access to farmer organizations, credit, extension services, and procurement information. The ATU estimates offer a basis for targeted programme expansion in terms of socioeconomic, institutional, and agroecological criteria, mainly for eligible non-participant households with higher potential income gains.
VL  - 11
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Modou Musa Sowe

Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Egerton University, Nakuru City, Kenya

Contact Email
Benjamin Mutai

Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Egerton University, Nakuru City, Kenya

http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3207-0113
Job Hilary Bett

Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Egerton University, Nakuru City, Kenya

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4541-3354

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sowe, M. M., Mutai, B., Bett, J. H. (2026). Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(5), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sowe, M. M.; Mutai, B.; Bett, J. H. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. Int. J. Agric. Econ. 2026, 11(5), 153-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sowe MM, Mutai B, Bett JH. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya. Int J Agric Econ. 2026;11(5):153-168. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11,
  author = {Modou Musa Sowe and Benjamin Mutai and Job Hilary Bett},
  title = {Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Economics},
  volume = {11},
  number = {5},
  pages = {153-168},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijae.20261105.11},
  abstract = {The Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) provides a link between smallholder farmers and institutional markets, possibly for enhancing household productivity and income. However, empirical evidence on farmers’ engagement decisions and the programme's effect on income remains unknown. This study evaluates the determinants of HGSFP participation and its impact on smallholder farmers' household income. Survey data were collected from 384 households (200 participants and 184 non-participants in HGSFP) in the 2025 cropping production year. An Endogenous Switching Regression model was used to account for non-randomness in programme engagement and to evaluate counterfactual treatment effects. Participation was positively and statistically significantly influenced by awareness of school tendering procedures, farmer-group membership, land size owned, radio ownership, distance to extension services, and children currently attending public primary schools, but had a negative effect with herd ownership and off-farm income. The evaluated Average Treatment effect on Treated (ATE) was [ATE=2.1519, p<0.01], while the Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated (ATU) was [ATU=2.7762, p<0.01], showing significant probable income gains amongst currently excluded from HGSFP. The findings illustrate that HGSFP can work not only as a school-feeding intervention but also as an institutional market system for enhancing smallholder farmers’ welfare. The policy framework should combine programme expansion with enhanced access to farmer organizations, credit, extension services, and procurement information. The ATU estimates offer a basis for targeted programme expansion in terms of socioeconomic, institutional, and agroecological criteria, mainly for eligible non-participant households with higher potential income gains.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Participation and Income Effects of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Kenya
AU  - Modou Musa Sowe
AU  - Benjamin Mutai
AU  - Job Hilary Bett
Y1  - 2026/09/22
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
T2  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JF  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
JO  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
SP  - 153
EP  - 168
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3843
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.11
AB  - The Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) provides a link between smallholder farmers and institutional markets, possibly for enhancing household productivity and income. However, empirical evidence on farmers’ engagement decisions and the programme's effect on income remains unknown. This study evaluates the determinants of HGSFP participation and its impact on smallholder farmers' household income. Survey data were collected from 384 households (200 participants and 184 non-participants in HGSFP) in the 2025 cropping production year. An Endogenous Switching Regression model was used to account for non-randomness in programme engagement and to evaluate counterfactual treatment effects. Participation was positively and statistically significantly influenced by awareness of school tendering procedures, farmer-group membership, land size owned, radio ownership, distance to extension services, and children currently attending public primary schools, but had a negative effect with herd ownership and off-farm income. The evaluated Average Treatment effect on Treated (ATE) was [ATE=2.1519, p<0.01], while the Average Treatment Effect on the Untreated (ATU) was [ATU=2.7762, p<0.01], showing significant probable income gains amongst currently excluded from HGSFP. The findings illustrate that HGSFP can work not only as a school-feeding intervention but also as an institutional market system for enhancing smallholder farmers’ welfare. The policy framework should combine programme expansion with enhanced access to farmer organizations, credit, extension services, and procurement information. The ATU estimates offer a basis for targeted programme expansion in terms of socioeconomic, institutional, and agroecological criteria, mainly for eligible non-participant households with higher potential income gains.
VL  - 11
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download