Beyond Budget Cuts: What Should the MBG Evaluation Actually Measure?

The leadership transition at Indonesia’s National Nutrition Agency (BGN) has brought renewed scrutiny to the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program. Discussions on reducing costs, adjusting beneficiary coverage, and revising implementation arrangements suggest that changes may be underway.

However, the key question is not whether the program will change, but whether the current evaluation is addressing the right issues.

Much of the public discussion so far has focused on fiscal considerations. Debates over budget allocations, operational efficiency, and the number of beneficiaries are understandable given the scale of the program and its implications for public spending.

However, budget efficiency alone cannot determine whether a policy is successful. A programn can spend less money and still fail to achieve its objectives. Conversely, a larger budget is difficult to justify if its intended outcomes remain unclear.

The government has consistently presented MBG as a strategy to improve nutritional outcomes and reduce stunting while contributing to broader human capital development. If these are indeed the program’s primary objectives, then the evaluation should focus on whether its design, implementation, and governance are effectively supporting those goals.

This is where the current changes risk missing a more fundamental issue. Much of the discussion has centered on how many beneficiaries should be covered and how much the program should cost. Yet there has been far less attention on whether the program is reaching the populations most vulnerable to poor nutrition, whether delivery mechanisms are functioning effectively, and whether implementation arrangements are helping translate spending into measurable nutritional outcomes.

A recent CIPS study on the governance of school meal programs found that countries such as Brazil, India, China, and Japan have generally aligned program design with clearly defined

policy objectives, while also establishing governance arrangements that support effective implementation. Although these countries adopted different approaches, they shared a common principle: program success was measured by outcomes rather than by the scale of spending alone.

The same study also highlights the importance of prioritizing vulnerable populations and underserved regions, particularly during the early stages of implementation. This is particularly relevant as Indonesia reassesses the future direction of MBG.

If improving nutrition is the central objective, then targeting, delivery effectiveness, food quality, and monitoring systems deserve at least as much attention as questions of budget efficiency.

The current review therefore presents an opportunity to move beyond discussions about

expenditure and coverage.

Rather than focusing solely on how much the program costs, policymakers should assess whether its governance structure, implementation model, and beneficiary targeting are aligned with its intended outcomes. This includes considering how schools, local governments, and other local stakeholders can play a greater role in implementation, monitoring, and feedback mechanisms to ensure the program remains responsive to local needs.

Ultimately, the success of MBG should not be measured by the number of kitchens established or the size of its budget. It should be measured by whether the program is improving nutritional outcomes for those who need it most.