Evidence and data
Why this page exists
Charitable money often stops not because it disappears, but because nobody can see where it went. When delivery cannot be checked, donors give less, and they give to whoever shouts loudest rather than whoever delivers.
So we publish the evidence.
What we publish
For each stage of funded work. Every record below is published and open to checking, and none of it carries a coordinate or a child’s personal data, because neither is needed to show that the work happened.
- Dated photographs of the work, published with the location metadata removed
- Itemised receipts for expenditure
- Portions served and the dates they were served, counted and signed off by the school
- Budget against actual spend
How releases work
The work is divided into stages defined at the outset. Funds are released in stages against them. The first release is made when the project reaches its funding goal. The evidence we publish for one stage unlocks the release for the next.
That means work which has not been evidenced does not proceed to the next stage of funding.
Terrain like this is what makes the six kilometre service radius the decisive measure in our siting analysis.
School survey: the aggregate analysis
We publish our own analysis of the national school registry for one sub district in Kabupaten Sumba Timur. That sub district lies between two existing kitchen sites and outside the 6 kilometre service radius of both, so the best point we tested duplicates neither. The argument is a coverage gap, not a judgement on anyone’s kitchen.
- State schools surveyed
- 14
- Reachable within 6 km
- 8
- With confirmed grid power
- 5
- Not reachable from any point tested
- 4
Road corridor
- 8 schools within 6 km
- 2 schools, 6 to 7 km
- 4 schools, 8 to 12 km
Kitchen site, one side
Kitchen site, other side
6 km service radius
Number of schools
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| All state schools | 14 |
| Primary schools | 10 |
| Junior secondary schools | 4 |
| Villages covered | 8 |
Power availability
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| Grid (PLN), confirmed | 5 |
| Solar, confirmed | 1 |
| Recorded as none | 2 |
| Not recorded | 6 |
Land area
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| Up to 10,000 m² | 7 |
| 10,001 to 50,000 m² | 5 |
| Above 50,000 m² | 2 |
All 14 schools have land above the 800 m² minimum for a full central kitchen, and the smallest of them by several times over, so land is not the binding constraint on where a kitchen could go. Exact areas for the smallest and largest sites are not published: a single square metre figure is unique enough in the national registry to identify one school, which is why the distribution above is given in bands.
Accreditation
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| Accreditation B | 6 |
| Accreditation C | 8 |
Distance modelling
We tested four candidate kitchen points. The best point reaches 8 of the 14 schools within 6 kilometres, which is the service radius the government standard uses. Five of those eight have confirmed grid power, and power supply is the single hardest cold chain constraint at a remote site.
The cluster of schools in the south of the sub district sits 8 to 12 kilometres from every point we tested, and is not reachable from any of them. That cluster needs its own answer later, and we mention it precisely because this plan does not reach it.
The point in question is a modelled point. It is not a chosen site and it is not a school.
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| Within 6 km | 8 |
| Within 6 km, with confirmed grid power | 5 |
| 6 to 7 km | 2 |
| 8 to 12 km, not reachable | 4 |
Caveats that travel with this data
Caveat
The registry distinguishes "Tidak Ada" (explicitly none) from a blank field (not recorded). A blank may mean no supply, or it may mean nobody filled it in. Only the five PLN entries and the one solar entry are positively confirmed. All of it must be verified on the ground before anything is decided on it.
Caveat
Distances are great circle, not road distance. Actual travel will be longer.
Caveat
The national registry does not carry enrolment. That sits in Dapodik, school by school. The size of the child catchment is therefore modelled and unproven.
Source: Kemendikdasmen national school registry, referensi.data.kemendikdasmen.go.id. Retrieved 7 August 2026.
What we can and cannot prove
The outcome we claim is one thing: a safely prepared meal, served inside a controlled time and temperature window, from a kitchen built to the national standard and sited close enough to the schools it serves to hold that window. Better attendance and better learning are what the work is aiming for, and we will publish those figures when we hold them rather than assert them now.
One kitchen at one school cannot prove an outcome at population level. What can be proved is which controls were run, the records that go with them, what it actually cost, and whether the kitchen ran every school day.
Under Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection, no measurement of any child, including attendance records and body measurements, is taken before written consent from a parent or guardian. Those consent forms have not yet been drafted, so no child’s data has been collected.