Foreign Agricultural 
Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture
Honduras McGovern-Dole 
Project 
Midterm Evaluation 
May 2019 
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It 
was prepared independently by individual authors.
A mother of a student answers survey questions
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program (MGD) Phase II Project – USDA 
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole (MGD) project in 
Honduras was implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) from 2015 to 2020. It is a school
feeding project focused on the strategic objective to improve the literacy of school-age children 
in 17 municipalities in the department of Intibucá.
Agreement Number: No. FFE-522-2015/013-00 
Project Duration: 2015-2020
Implemented by: CRS 
Evaluation Authored by: 
Thomas M. Crea, PhD 
Andrew Reynolds, PhD 
Anayeli Lopez, PhD 
Antonia Diaz-Valdes, MSW 
José Acevedo, PhD 
DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of 
the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. 
1
 
MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT
MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND 
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM (MGD)
PHASE II PROJECT – USDA
CRS HONDURAS
Prepared by: 
Thomas M. Crea, PhD
Andrew Reynolds, PhD
Anayeli Lopez, PhD
Antonia Diaz-Valdes, MSW
José Acevedo, PhD
November 2018
REVISED – May 2019
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices.............................................................................................................4
Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................6
Midterm Evaluation Report ........................................................................................................................16
 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................16
 Background...............................................................................................................................................16
 MGD II Baseline Study Report ..................................................................................................................17
Midterm Evaluation Purpose and Objectives .............................................................................................17
 Overall Purpose and Objectives.............................................................................................................17
 Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................................18
 Baseline Recommendations (2016).......................................................................................................20
Methods......................................................................................................................................................20
 Target Population and Sampling Plan ......................................................................................................20
 Measures and Data Collection Tools........................................................................................................21
Results.........................................................................................................................................................26
Explanation of Midterm Evaluation Indicators and Means of Verification.................................................26
 Result 1.0 – Improved Literacy of School-Age Children ...........................................................................26
 Result 2.0 – Increased Government Support ...........................................................................................29
 Result 3.0 – Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups .............................30
 Result 4.0 – Increased Capacity of Government Institutions...................................................................31
 Result 5.0 – Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework .......................................................................32
 Result 6.0 – More Consistent Teacher Attendance..................................................................................34
 Result 7.0 – Better Access to School Supplies and Materials...................................................................36
 Result 8.0 – Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials.......................................................................38
 Result 9.0 – Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers........................................................................39
 Result 10.0 – Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators.................................................41
 Result 11.0 – Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)........................................................................44
 Result 12.0 – Improved Student Attendance ...........................................................................................47
 Result 13.0 – Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (or Decreased Disincentives).......................48
 Result 14.0 – Improved School Infrastructure..........................................................................................49
 Result 15.0 – Increased Student Enrollment............................................................................................53
 Result 16.0 – Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education ........................................55
Key Criteria..................................................................................................................................................59
 Relevance................................................................................................................................................59
 Effectiveness...........................................................................................................................................61
 Efficiency.................................................................................................................................................61
 Impact.....................................................................................................................................................61
 Sustainability...........................................................................................................................................63
3
Progress Made on Baseline Recommendations..........................................................................................72
Midterm Recommendations.......................................................................................................................75
References...................................................................................................................................................78
APPENDIX A: MGD Phase II Midterm Evaluation Indicators.......................................................................80
APPENDIX B: Means of Verifying CRS MEAL Results Indicators..................................................................86
APPENDIX C: Income, Expenses, and Decision-Making among Parents.....................................................87
APPENDIX D: Measurement Instruments Used in the Midterm Evaluation...............................................94
APPENDIX E: Terms of Reference, MGD II Midterm Evaluation – USDA ....................................................95
APPENDIX F: Datasets from Midterm Evaluation........................................................................................96
4
List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices
Table 1. Critical MGD II Outcomes and Related Evaluation Questions.......................................................18
Table 2. Key Criteria and Related Evaluation Questions.............................................................................19
Table 3. Target Population and Sample ......................................................................................................20
Table 4: Child Survey Sample ......................................................................................................................22
Table 5: Parent Survey Sample....................................................................................................................22
Table 6: School Principal Survey Sample.....................................................................................................23
Table 7: Teacher Survey Sample .................................................................................................................24
Table 8. 2017 MIDEH Scores by Grade and Gender (n=2,568) ...................................................................27
Table 9. Parent’s Use of Information on Child Academic Achievement .....................................................29
Table 10. School Type Disaggregated by Gender........................................................................................34
Table 11. Results from SOE Teacher Observations (n=1,458).....................................................................39
Table 12. Results from SOE Educational Administrator Observations (n=668) ..........................................41
Table 13. Child Food Intake Type and Amount...........................................................................................46
Table 14. Food Received by Children at School (Parent-Reported)............................................................46
Table 15. Students Receiving Transportation to Schools by Grade ............................................................48
Table 16. Factors Driving Family Investment Decisions..............................................................................49
Table 17. State of Cleanliness in the Kitchen ..............................................................................................52
Table 18. Cleanliness while Preparing Food................................................................................................52
Table 19. Student Enrollment by Gender....................................................................................................54
Table 20. Why Parents Believe their Child’s Education is Important..........................................................56
Figure 1. Baseline and Midterm MIDEH Scores by Gender.........................................................................28
Figure 2. Principal Reports of Community Needs for Successful Municipal Strategic Plan ........................31
Figure 3. Methodologies Used by Teachers................................................................................................40
Figure 4. Principals’ Teaching Responsibilities by Grade Level...................................................................42
Figure 5. Teachers’ Top Priorities for Improving School Infrastructure......................................................51
Figure 6. Enrollment and Attendance, by Gender (Baseline vs. Midterm).................................................54
Figure 7. Regular School Attendees Compared to Total Enrollment Students...........................................55
Figure 8. Frequency of Parent Visits to the School .....................................................................................56
Matrix 1. Mandatory Policy for School Enrollment.....................................................................................33
Matrix 2. Teacher Absences........................................................................................................................35
Matrix 3. Increase Access of School Supplies and Materials ......................................................................38
Matrix 4. Teacher and School Principal Trainings.......................................................................................43
Matrix 5. Importance of Education .............................................................................................................58
Matrix 6. Parental Involvement in the Education of their Children............................................................60
Matrix 7. How has the Program Impacted the Educational Achievement of Children?.............................62
Matrix 8. Sustainability of Project Effects...................................................................................................65
Matrix 9. Interagency Relationships ...........................................................................................................68
Matrix 10. Community Responsibility and Local Ownership ......................................................................71
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the staff of CRS Honduras, and their implementing partners 
Caritas and COCEPRADII, for assistance in the successful execution of this project, particularly Olga 
Canelas, Brenda Hernandez, Wilson Zelaya, and Denis García. We also thank the many participants 
who contributed their time to this study.
5
Acronyms
APF Asociación de Padres de Familia
Caritas SRC Social Ministry of the Dioceses of Santa Rosa de Copán (Caritas de la Diócesis de 
Copán)
CCEPREB Community Center of Pre-primary Education (Centro Comunitario de Educación 
Pre-Básica)
COCEPRADII Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development of Intibucá 
(Comité Central pro Agua y Desarrollo Integral de Intibucá)
CEB Centro de Educación Básica
CED El Consejo Escolar de Desarrollo (Comité Escolar)
COMDE El Consejo Municipal Desarrollo Educativo
CRS Catholic Relief Services
EPRED Dropout Prevention Team
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning System
MGD McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
MoE Ministry of Education
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
PASE Safety Patrol
PEC School Educational Project
POA Annual Operational Plan
PROHECO Honduran Community Education Programs (Programa Hondureño de Educación 
Comunitaria), a type of primary school in Honduras
SACE School Administration System (Sistema de Administración de Centros Educativos)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
6
Executive Summary
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD), 
implemented by CRS Honduras and funded by USDA, is a school feeding project focused on the 
strategic objective to improve the literacy of school-age children in 17 municipalities in the 
Department of Intibucá. The first phase of the three-year project ended in December 2015. A new 
five-year (2016-2020) project (MGD II) was approved in November 2015, and began 
implementation in February 2016. As with the previous three years, the MGD II project in 
Honduras continues to benefit more than 50,000 children and over 2,000 teachers in the 17 
municipalities of Intibucá. MGD II provides school meals to all students enrolled in 1,047 schools 
(509 schools and basic education centers, 308 kindergartens and 230 preschool centers and non￾formal basic CCEPREBs). The purpose of this study is examine how MGD II is progressing towards 
meeting final targets for all Results Indicators, and to explore the need for any mid-course 
corrections in order to meet these final targets through the end of the project in 2020. 
For the Midterm Evaluation, a random sample of 182 schools was selected, and surveys were 
conducted with parents (n=1,720), students (n=3,464), teachers (n=524), and principals (n=171). 
One school from each municipality was randomly selected prior to data collection, and parents at 
this school were invited to participate in a focus group (n=17 focus groups). Researchers also 
interviewed municipality mayors, the education district director, the departmental district 
director, and USDA staff. In addition, CRS MEAL data and records from Caritas and COCEPRADII 
were reviewed to supply indicators.
All Results Indicators are displayed in Appendix A, and a summary of these indicators is provided 
below. For ease of interpretation, a three-tiered color code is used to denote progress towards 
final indicator targets, as follows:
GREEN: Good progress (50.0%+) towards final target (45 of 52 indicators)
YELLOW: Moderate progress (21.0%-49.0%) towards final target (2 of 52 indicators) 
RED: Slow or concerning progress (<21.0%) towards final target (5 of 52 indicators)
Results show that 45 of the 52 results indicators are showing good progress towards meeting final 
targets, and in many cases have already met or exceeded final targets. Two of 52 indicators are 
showing moderate progress, and five of 52 are showing slow or concerning progress. Results 
indicators are summarized in the table below, and a more detailed table is provided in Appendix A.
RESULTS INDICATORS
Result 1.0 - Improved Literacy of School-Age Children
Result Indicator 1.1 - Number of 
individuals benefiting directly from USDA￾funded interventions.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
71,838 individuals directly benefited from USDA￾funded interventions. This number represents 
98.3% of the final target of 73,076.
7
Result Indicator 1.1.b - female.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
38,465 female individuals were direct 
beneficiaries, representing 108.0% of the final 
target of 35,609.
Result Indicator 1.1.c - male.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
33,373 male individuals were direct beneficiaries, 
representing 104.6% of the final target of 31,900.
Result Indicator 1.2 - Number of 
individuals benefiting indirectly from 
USDA-funded interventions.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
163,791 individuals indirectly benefited from 
USDA-funded interventions. This number 
represents 224.8% of the final target of 72,874.
Result Indicator 1.3 - Percent of students 
who, by the end of two grades of primary 
schooling, demonstrate that they can read 
and understand the meaning of grade 
level text.
(SOURCE=MIDEH data)
Proficiency in reading comprehension is calculated 
as the percent of 2nd and 3rd grade children who 
score a 3 or 4 on the MIDEH test. For 2nd graders,
67.1% of children scored in the proficient range, 
an increase from 59.7% proficiency for 2nd
graders at Baseline and on track to reach target 
of 72.0%.
Result Indicator 1.3.a - female. 
(SOURCE=MIDEH data)
Of all female students taking the MIDEH test in 2
nd
grade, 66.6% scored in the proficient range. This 
number represents an increase compared to the 
Baseline proficiency of 61.0%, and on track to 
reach the final target of 72.0%.
Result Indicator 1.3.b - male. 
(SOURCE=MIDEH data)
Of all male students taking the MIDEH test in 2nd 
and 3rd grade, 67.7% scored in the proficient 
range. This number represents an increase 
compared to the Baseline proficiency of 58.4% 
and on track to reach the final target of 72.0%.
Result 2.0 - Increased Government Support
Result Indicator 2.1 - Value of public and 
private sector investments leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance (Other Public).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
$77,637.00 of public funds have been invested 
since baseline as a result of USDA assistance. This 
number represents 87.1% of the final target of 
$95,001.00.
Result Indicator 2.2 - Value of public and 
private sector investments leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
$644,693.00 of public and private funds have been 
leveraged since baseline as a result of USDA 
assistance representing 192.5% of the final target 
of $335,000.00.
Result Indicator 2.3 - Value of public and 
private sector investments leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance (Host 
Government). (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
The host government has invested $560,101.00 
since baseline related to USDA assistance. This 
figure represents 233.4% of the final target of 
$239,999.00.
8
Result 3.0 - Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Result Indicator 3.1 - Number of Parent￾Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar 
"school" governance structures supported 
as a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
574 PTAs or other school governance structures 
have been supported since baseline as a result of 
USDA assistance. This number represents 112.8% 
of the final target of 509.
Result Indicator 3.2 - Number of public￾private partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Two public-private partnerships have been 
formed since baseline as a result of USDA 
assistance, representing 20.0% of the final target 
of 10.
Result Indicator 3.3 - Number of public￾private partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Multi-focus).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Two multi-focus public-private partnerships have 
been formed since baseline as a result of USDA 
assistance, representing 40.0% of the final target 
of five.
Result Indicator 3.4 - Number of public￾private partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Education).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Zero public-private partnerships around 
education have been established, representing 
0.0% of the final target of 5 and no improvement 
since baseline
Result 4.0 - Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Result Indicator 4.1 - Number of Honduran 
government authorities that have been 
trained to implement activities in 
accordance with their roles.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
134 Honduran government authorities have been 
trained since baseline to implement activities in 
accordance with their roles. This figure represents 
335.0% of the final target of 40.
Result 5.0 - Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Indicator 5.1 STAGE 1: Underwent the first 
stage of the policy reform process i.e. 
analysis (review of existing policy/ 
regulation/ administrative procedure 
and/or proposal of new policy/ 
regulations/ administrative procedures).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Since baseline three policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures have achieved Stage 
One, representing 100.0% of the final target of 
three.
9
Indicator 5.2 STAGE 2: Underwent the 
second stage of the policy reform process. 
The second stage includes public debate 
and/or consultation with stakeholders on 
the proposed new or revised 
policy/regulation/administrative 
procedure. (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Since baseline three policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures have achieved Stage 
Two, representing 100.0% of the final target of 
three.
Indicator 5.3 STAGE 3: Underwent the 
third stage of the policy reform process 
(policies were presented for legislation/ 
decree to improve the policy environment 
for education). (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Zero regulations or administrative procedures 
have achieved Stage Three, representing 0.0% of 
the final target of three, which indicates no 
improvement since baseline
Indicator 5.4 STAGE 4: Underwent the 
fourth stage of the policy reform process 
[official approval (legislation/decree) of 
new or revised 
policy/regulation/administrative 
procedure by relevant authority].
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Zero regulations or administrative procedures 
have achieved Stage Four, representing 0.0% of 
the final target of three, which indicates no 
improvement since baseline
Indicator 5.5 STAGE 5: Completed the 
policy reform process (implementation of 
new or revised policy/ 
regulation/administrative procedure by 
relevant authority).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Zero regulations or administrative procedures 
have achieved Stage Five, representing 0.0% of 
the final target of three, which indicates no 
improvement since baseline
Result 6.0 - More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Result Indicator 6.1. Percent of teachers in 
target schools who attend and teach 
school at least 90% of scheduled school 
days per school year.
(SOURCE=SOE data)
96.7% teachers attended more than 90% of 
school days.
Result 7.0 - Better Access to School Supplies and Materials
Result Indicator 7.1 - Number of textbooks 
and other teaching and learning materials 
provided as a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
5,317 textbooks and other materials were 
provided since baseline as a result of USDA 
assistance. This number represents 166.2% of the 
final target of 3,200.
10
Result 8.0 - Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials
Result Indicator 8.1. Number of schools 
receiving literacy instruction materials 
(materials from the Basic National 
Curriculum Design - DCNB) and/or 
unpublished texts produced by school 
children. (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
The number of schools receiving materials at 
midterm, since baseline, evaluation totals 936,
representing 90% attainment of the final target of 
1,040 schools.
Result 9.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Result Indicator 9.1. Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching assistants in 
target schools who demonstrate use of 
new and quality teaching techniques or 
tools as a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=SOE data)
SOE data showed that since baseline the number 
of teachers demonstrating all three techniques 
totaled 807, representing 55.3% of the final target 
of 1,509.
Result 10.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
Result Indicator 10.1 - Number of school 
administrators and officials in target 
schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools as a result of USDA 
assistance. (SOURCE=SOE data)
SOE data showed that since baseline the number 
of educational administrators demonstrating all 
three techniques totaled 315, representing 49.5% 
of the final target of 637.
Result Indicator 10.2 - Number of school 
administrators and officials trained or 
certified as a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 790 school administrators trained. This
number represents 112.4% of the final target of 
703 school administrators trained, and a 
significant improvement from the baseline 
number of 0.
Result 11.0 - Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Result Indicator 11.1. Number of school￾aged children receiving daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of 
USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Since baseline, 54,627 school-aged children 
received daily schoolmeals as a result of USDA 
assistance. This number represents 99.3% of the 
final target of 55,035 children.
Result Indicator 11.4 - female.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 26,073 female students were recorded 
for 2018, representing 97.2% of the final target of 
26,814 female students and indicating a slight 
decrease of 332 female students since baseline.
11
Result Indicator 11.5 - male.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 28,554 male students were recorded for 
2018, representing 101.2% of the final target of 
28,221 male students and indicating an increase 
of 764 male students since baseline.
Result Indicator 11.6 - Number of daily 
school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
provided to school-age children as a result 
of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 10,318,451 daily school meals were 
provided in 2018, 10,556,400 in 2017, and 
4,960,980 in 2016, totaling 25,835,531. This 
number represents 55.0% of the final target of 
47,000,000 daily school meals provided over the 
course of the project. 
Result Indicator 11.7 - Number of 
individuals receiving take-home rations as 
a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 17,211 individuals received take-home 
rations in 2018, representing 96.3% of the final 
target of 17,866 individuals.
Result Indicator 11.11 - Number of 
individuals trained in child health and 
nutrition as a result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 13,311 individuals were trained in child 
health and nutrition in 2018, representing nearly 
1,300.0% of the final target of 1,040 individuals. 
Result Indicator 11.12 - female.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 11,969 female individuals were trained 
in child health and nutrition 2018, representing 
nearly 1,700.0% of the final target of 724 female 
individuals. 
Result Indicator 11.13 - male.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 1,342 male individuals were trained in 
child health and nutrition 2018, representing 
approximately 425.0% of the final target of 316 
male individuals.
Result Indicator 11.14 - Number of social 
assistance beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets as a result of USDA 
assistance. (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 71,838 social assistance beneficiaries 
participated in productive safety nets (calculated 
as the number of children receiving school meals, 
plus the number of individuals receiving take￾home rations). 
Result Indicator 11.16 - female.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 77,259 female beneficiaries were 
recorded in 2018, representing 240.0% of the final 
target of 35,609 female beneficiaries. 
Result Indicator 11.17 - male.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 67,064 male beneficiaries were recorded 
in 2018, representing 209.6% of the final target of 
31,990 male beneficiaries.
Result Indicator 11.19 - Number of take￾home rations provided as a result of USDA 
assistance. (SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
A total of 68,933 take-home rations were provided 
in 2018, representing 41.0% of the final target of 
168,056 take-home rations provided.
12
Result 12.0 - Improved Student Attendance
Result Indicator 12.1 - Number of students 
regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
50,165 students attended USDA supported classes 
at least 80.0% of the 200 school days, indicating a 
decrease of 2,595 students since baseline. This 
number represents 105.2% of the final target of 
47,700 students attending 80% of school days. 
Result Indicator 12.2 - female.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
23,988 female students attended 80.0% or more 
of school days, representing 102.6% of the final 
target of 23,373 female students attending 80% 
of school days and indicating a decrease of 1,974 
female students since baseline. 
Result Indicator 12.3 - male.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
26,177 male students attended 80.0% or more of 
school days, representing 107.6% of the final 
target of 24,327 male students attending 80% of 
school days and indicating a decrease of 621 male 
students since baseline.
Result 13.0 - Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased Disincentives)
Result Indicator 13.1 - Number of students 
receiving transportation to schools as a 
result of USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
3,517 children received transportation to school 
as a result of USDA assistance, since baseline. This 
number represents 117.2% of the final target of 
3,000.
Result 14.0 - Improved School Infrastructure
Result Indicator 14.1 - Number of 
educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, 
classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
333 educational facilities were rehabilitated or 
constructed as a result of USDA assistance, since 
baseline This number represents 102.5% of the 
final target of 325.
Result Indicator 14.2 - Number of 
educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, 
classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
44 kitchens and cook areas have been built or 
rehabilitated, since baseline, representing 61.1% 
of the final target of 72.
Result Indicator 14.3 - Number of 
educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, 
classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
199 latrines have been built or rehabilitated, since 
baseline, representing 110.0% of the final target 
of 181. 
13
USDA assistance (Latrines).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
Result Indicator 14.4 - Number of 
educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, 
classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Wells and water 
stations/systems).
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
44 wells and water stations/systems have been 
built or rehabilitated, since baseline, representing 
61.1% of the final target of 72.
Result Indicator 14.5 - Number of schools 
using an improved water source.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
44 schools are using an improved water source, 
representing 61.1% of the final target of 72.
Result Indicator 14.6 - Number of schools 
with improved sanitary facilities.
(SOURCE=CRS MEAL data)
46 schools have improved sanitary facilities, 
representing 63.9% of the final target of 72.
Result 15.0 - Increased Student Enrollment
Result Indicator 15.1 - Number of students 
enrolled in school receiving USDA 
assistance. 
(SOURCE=Caritas and COCEPRADII 
records)
The number of students enrolled in school 
receiving USDA assistance totaled 53,678, 
representing 97.5% of the final total of 55,035
and indicating a reduction of 517 students since 
baseline.
Result Indicator 15.2 - female.
(SOURCE=Caritas and COCEPRADII 
records)
25,723 female students were enrolled in 2018, 
representing 95.9% of the final target of 26,814
and indicating a reduction of 682 female students 
since baseline.
Result Indicator 15.3 - male.
(SOURCE=Caritas and COCEPRADII 
records)
27,955 male students were enrolled in 2018, 
representing 99.1% of the final target of 28,221
and indicating an increase of 165 male students 
since baseline.
Result 16.0 - Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
Result Indicator 16.1 - Percent of parents 
in target communities who can name at 
least three benefits of primary education 
(collected through a survey)
(SOURCE=Midterm Evaluation Data)
72.6% of parents named at least three benefits,
an increase from 20.8% at baseline, and 
representing 161.3% of the final target of 45.0%.
14
Conclusion and Recommendations
CRS has made significant gains in achieving targeted results for MGD Phase II. The majority of 
indicators (42 of 52, or 80.8%) have already met or exceeded their final targets. In addition, CRS 
has also followed recommendations from the Baseline Evaluation and advanced community buy-in 
to the project. Yet, some challenges emerged from the Midterm Evaluation, related to slower than 
expected gains in reading comprehension, issues around the sustainability of project activities, 
meeting the needs of students with learning and other disabilities, problems around health and 
hygiene, and issues related to financial decision-making among parents. 
Recommendations are listed below, with descriptions related to each recommendation provided 
in the body of the report.
1. Sustain and Increase Efforts to Improve Reading Comprehension through Continued 
Trainings and More Frequent Child Assessments
CRS has already made additional efforts since baseline to support greater literacy, specifically 
through development of parent manuals and related trainings for both parents and teachers. CRS 
should continue these activities, but supplement them with increased in-class assessment of 
student reading comprehension, particularly for 4th grade children who are comparatively lagging.
2. Sustain and Increase Advocacy and Training Efforts to Ensure Sustainability of Project 
Activities
CRS should focus their advocacy efforts on these three areas to ensure governmental and 
community support for the sustainability of project activities over the long term.
3. Increase the Focus on Meeting the Needs of Students with Learning and Other Disabilities
CRS therefore should increase efforts in two areas: (a) providing more trainings on meeting 
children’s special educational needs to both principals and teachers; and (b) conducting a special 
study on accessibility of school infrastructure and the numbers of children excluded from 
attending school because of a disability.
4. Increase the Focus on Health and Hygiene in Relation to Infrastructure Improvements at 
Schools
CRS should continue their efforts on training parents on health and hygiene in food preparation, 
but should expand the focus of trainings to include the importance of handwashing and personal 
hygiene. MGD II should require that schools provide toilet paper in each latrine and soap at each 
sink. 
15
5. Develop a Training on Financial Decision-Making for Parents, and Rigorously Evaluate its 
Effectiveness
CRS should develop a training for community members on basic financial health with the goal of 
increasing participants’ ability to save money and spend wisely. This type of project activity and
evaluation may be of interest to USDA as part of their Learning Agenda and researchers could 
work with CRS staff to develop a proposal to USDA to fund this project independently of current 
MGD activities.
6. Conduct a Study to Examine the Reasons Behind Decreases in School Enrollment and 
Attendance, Especially for Girls
Patterns of enrollment and attendance suggest a gender disparity where an unknown factor 
seems to be preventing girls from attending school at a higher rate than would be expected based 
on their enrollment and on the experience of boys. A special study should be conducted to 
determine the causal factors behind (a) drops in enrollment for girls, (b) drops in attendance for 
boys and girls, and (c) why girls’ attendance rates have decreased at a higher rate than for boys.
16
MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT
USDA FOOD FOR EDUCATION PHASE II PROJECT – CRS HONDURAS
Introduction
Food insecurity worldwide has increased since the economic crisis of 2008, especially for the 
world’s most vulnerable populations (Vilar-Compte et al., 2015), and food insecurity poses 
significant negative implications for children’s health and education (Jyoti et al., 2005). In this 
context, school feeding programs such as MGD that provide agricultural commodities as well as 
technical assistance and financial support (WFP, 2007; United States Department of Agriculture 
[USDA], 2016), gain increased importance (Bundy et al., 2009). 
School feeding programs in low- and middle-income countries focus on the promotion of 
household investment in the human capital of their children, through engagement in education 
that in turn encourages children’s school enrollment and attendance (Alderman & Bundy, 2012; 
Cheung & Perrota, 2010; WFP, 2007). Investing in human capital through school feeding is 
typically considered a long-term economic goal to reduce poverty and alleviate hunger among 
school children (Alderman & Bundy, 2012), and to promote larger scale economic growth through 
the promotion of nutrition and health (Martorell, 1999).
School feeding programs also demonstrate immediate and practical benefits for families and 
communities. Parents are more likely to send their children to school when the direct costs of 
sending them, in terms of their contributions to the household, are lower than the benefit 
received in terms of food provision and prospects for the future (Alderman et al., 2012). For 
example, in-school programs typically provide children with a meal or snack served in school, 
which literature shows to be effective incentives to enrollment and attendance (Alderman et al., 
2012; Bundy et al., 2009; Cheung & Perrotta, 2010). There is mounting evidence suggesting that 
school feeding programs help children enroll in school and remain there, and alleviate hunger, as 
well as avoid short-term cognitive impairment, and improve cognitive performance (Kristjansson 
et al., 2009).
The purpose of this study is to conduct a midterm evaluation of Phase II of MGD in Honduras, 
concurrent with its implementation through 2020.
Background
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD), 
implemented by CRS Honduras and funded by USDA, is a school feeding project focused on the 
strategic objective to improve the literacy of school-age children in 17 municipalities in the 
department of Intibucá. Since 2012, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the Social Pastoral of the 
Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán (CARITAS) and the Central Committee for Comprehensive 
Development of Water and Intibucá (COCEPRADII, for its acronym in Spanish), in coordination with 
the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and the Ministry of Social 
Development through its School Feeding Programme has been implementing the MGD project.
This project is funded by the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America (USDA) 
and provides, through CRS, complementary foods for school meals, as well all the financial 
17
resources required to implement each of the technical components of the project. The MGD
project’s strategic goal is to improve the literacy of school age children in the 17 municipalities of 
Intibucá, Honduras. 
The first phase of the three-year project ended in December 2015. A five-year (2016-2020) project 
(MGD II) was approved in November 2015, and began implementation in February 2016. As with 
the previous three years, the MGD II project in Honduras benefits more than 50,000 children and 
over 2,000 teachers in the 17 municipalities in the Department of Intibucá. It continues to provide 
school meals to all students enrolled in 1,047 schools (509 schools and basic education centers, 
308 kindergartens and 230 pre-school centers and non-formal basic CCEPREBs).
MGD II Baseline Study Report
The Baseline Evaluation of Phase II began in August of 2016 and used a mixed-methods approach 
in 180 randomly selected schools, with interviews and focus groups targeted to parents only 
(n=1,269). National MIDEH data specific to Intibucá were also compared with EGRA data collected 
from the Final Evaluation of MGD Phase I. Results from both EGRA and MIDEH assessments show 
boys and girls well below the project’s final target of 75.0% literacy. On average across the three 
grades (2-4), children showed higher scores on MIDEH assessments (44.5%) compared with EGRA 
assessments (42.1%). Average MIDEH scores are well below the final MGD II target of 75.0% 
literacy for boys and girls, with 43.6% for boys, 45.5% for girls, and 44.5% overall.
1 Parents 
believed that the greatest impact of MGD was related to the food provided to children at school. 
Parents and teachers also believed that these food provisions helped children be more attentive in 
the classroom and also improved their academic performance and confidence. In addition, being 
fed at school allowed children to spend more time at school and not have to travel to home and 
back for lunch. In general, the hypothesized effects of MGD, according to the theory of change, 
seem to be operating as conceptualized by USDA and CRS Honduras. The issue of project 
sustainability remained a concern especially related to a lack of inter-agency coordination among 
government, municipal, and international organizations, such that important MGD-related 
activities may disappear. An additional barrier to sustainability is the high level of poverty 
experienced by most parents and the seasonal variation incomes that impacts the ability to 
provide school meals and other materials. 
Midterm Evaluation Purpose and Objectives
Overall Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the midterm evaluation process is to use scientific, evidence-based 
measurement of project indicators to conduct evaluations to assess changes that have taken place 
as a result of project activities. The main objective of the project is assess and analyze the project’s 
progress and performance at midterm in order to provide lessons learned and recommendations 
for USDA, program participants, and other key stakeholders with the goal of improving project 
implementation and supporting the development of future food assistance and early grade 
reading programs. Specific objectives are as follows:
 
1
It should be noted that MGD resulted in significant gains in literacy during Phase I of implementation.
18
(1) Conduct a critical and objective analysis, utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques, 
to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of the strategies used in the project.
(2) Generate data for accountability on behalf of the people CRS serves (beneficiaries), 
stakeholders, and the program donor.
(3) Provide recommendations for program mid-course corrections and the adaptation of the 
monitoring plan and project evaluation plan based on the data obtained from the mid￾term evaluation.
(4) Document best practices, share lessons learned, and evaluate sustainability efforts.
Evaluation Questions
The midterm evaluation is guided by questions that directly relate to the critical outcomes 
outlined in the theory of change as well as key evaluation criteria such as relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Critical outcomes are outlined below in Table 1 with their 
associated evaluation questions.
Table 1: Critical MGD II Outcomes and Related Evaluation Questions
Critical outcomes Evaluation questions related to project design 
assumptions
More knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated teachers
who consistently attend classes and continuously improve 
their teaching methods and techniques on the basis of 
career development plans and effective human resources 
management practices.
● What changes can be observed in the quality of 
education? To what extent did the training provided to 
teachers and the adoption of improved human resource 
management practices contribute to this? How? 
More knowledgeable, skilled and motivated school 
administrators who effectively and efficiently manage 
schools to provide consistent, quality education and 
incentives for school-age children enrollment and 
attendance, and who motivate teachers using good human 
resource management practices. 
● What changes can be observed in the effectiveness and 
efficiency in schools’ management and in the 
management of human resources? To what extent did 
the training provided to school administrators 
contribute to this? How?
Improved instructional materials for literacy that 
incorporate quality content to support children´s 
education and are broadly accessible; and, improved 
access for children to school supplies and materials.
● What instructional materials have had the highest 
impact on education quality? Why? How could they be 
further improved? 
Parents are motivated to send their children to school
because they understand the value of and prioritize their 
child’s education, they are certain that their children have 
safe transportation, schools are in good condition and 
have appropriate, well-maintained sanitary facilities, and 
children receive a nutritious meal
● What is the effectiveness of different incentives to 
promote children’s enrollment and regular attendance? 
Which are the most important? What other barriers for 
children’s enrollment and attendance were not 
addressed by the project?
Children are motivated to attend school because they 
have teachers who use innovative methods and age￾appropriate techniques to ensure a quality education; and, 
extracurricular activities are available which help develop 
life competencies and are suitable to the context.
● What role do teachers’ knowledge, skills and 
commitment play in promoting children’s enrollment 
and attendance? How do innovative education methods 
and techniques contribute? What has helped most to 
motivate children to attend school?
19
Families have the financial resources, including savings, 
and management skills to support their children´s 
education and are aware of the importance of education
for their children.
● How do SILC groups contribute to improved financial 
management for families? To what extent have SILC 
participants been able to save and how much of these 
savings have they invested in the education of their 
children? What is the contribution of these savings to 
children’s enrollment and school attendance?
Communities have the motivation and competencies to 
support education activities, prevent school drop-outs, 
maintain a safe passage for children to and from school, 
and advocate for public investment in education.
● What has helped most to motivate communities to 
support education? What skills and competencies have 
best enabled communities to advocate for children´s 
education needs? What gaps remain? 
The midterm evaluation is also guided by a set of key program criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability. These are outlined in Table 2 below, along with associated 
evaluation questions to be included in the qualitative component of the evaluation methodology.
Table 2. Key Criteria and Related Evaluation Questions
Key Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance ● Do project stakeholders (students, teachers, PTAs, parents, and local officials) feel the project has 
met their needs? Why or why not? 
● How well does the project design align with the Secretariat of Education and the Secretariat of 
Development and Social Inclusion´s goals, objectives and strategies?
● How appropriate are project interventions for Intibucá’s local culture and context?
Effectiveness ● To what extent have project interventions been effective in meeting output and outcome targets?
● What factors have inhibited or facilitated the achievement of project goals, objectives and 
expected results?
● Do any project interventions need to be adjusted to achieve project targets? If so, which 
interventions and why?
Efficiency ● What instructional materials have had the highest impact on education quality? Why? How could 
they be further improved? 
Impact ● What interventions are the most cost-effective? Are there other interventions which would be 
more cost-effective while still achieving the same results? If so, what are these?
● What results were accomplished using community inputs/support? What were the critical factors 
that allowed you to provide those inputs?
Sustainability ● Are the effects, both intended and unintended, of the project likely to be sustained in the absence 
of support from USDA and CRS? What evidence is there that suggests this?
● What are the major barriers to achieving sustainability benchmarks? Can any action be taken (or 
could have been taken) to address these barriers? 
● What strategies have most contributed to local ownership of the project? How? Why?
● Did the project build the necessary capacity among multiple participants to continue with project’s 
activities after it ends? If not, what further support is needed?
● Do the target groups have sufficient financial resources to continue the project’s activities after it 
has ended? If not, what further support is needed?
20
An important aspect of the midterm evaluation is to establish continuity of program activities and 
their relationships with prior evaluation recommendations. Below are the recommendations that 
emerged from the baseline evaluation study conducted in 2016 – the extent to which these 
recommendations have been implemented will be assessed in the midterm evaluation. 
Baseline Recommendations (2016)
(1) Reinforce to parents, through additional trainings and outreach, the importance of 
education for children.
(2) Provide additional support to parents and communities to improve literacy, outside of the 
school environment.
(3) Promote greater parent participation in school committees.
(4) Reinforce the importance of hygiene and proper food storage and handling with parents.
(5) Establish a series of workshops for communities to begin planning for post-USDA school 
feeding and the sustainability of the project.
(6) Begin building linkages between MGD II and existing agricultural programs currently being 
implemented by CRS and other organizations in the region.
(7) Examine the prevalence of violence against children in more detail, and provide further 
training on child protection to communities.
(8) Identify barriers to social inclusion for Lenca families and identify strategies for 
empowering these families in educational decision-making within the school, community 
and municipality.
Methods
Target Population and Sampling Plan
The study sites for both the midterm and final evaluations include all schools participating in the 
MGD program across the 17 municipalities of Intibucá. The target number of schools to be 
selected were n=180, in keeping with the methodology followed in the Phase I midterm and final 
evaluations, and the Phase II baseline evaluation. Given a population of N=1,047 schools, assuming 
a 95% response rate from schools, with a 95% confidence interval, a sample size of 180 schools 
provides a margin of error of 2.9%. Schools were randomly selected based on the proportion of 
children represented within each municipality (see Table 3; student population data taken from 
the Baseline Evaluation report). 
Table 3: Target Population and Sample
Municipality # Students
Population
# Students 
(%)
# Schools
Sampled
# Parents
Sampled
Teachers 
Sampled
Principals 
Sampled
Camasca 1,669 176 (5%) 7 59 14 6
Colomoncagua 4,223 249 (7%) 12 107 34 12
Concepcion 2,045 124 (4%) 11 80 21 10
Dolores 1,509 136 (4%) 7 73 23 6
21
Intibucá 11,310 608 (18%) 28 277 130 27
Jesus de Otoro 6,697 322 (9%) 16 183 50 15
La Esperanza 3,195 111(3%) 6 72 38 6
Magdalena 993 63 (2%) 5 36 7 5
Masaguara 3,302 249 (7%) 20 181 18 16
San Antonio 1,429 94 (3%) 8 51 7 7
San Francisco de Opalaca 2,917 259 (7%) 12 123 19 12
San Isidro 1,154 52 (2%) 2 21 9 2
San Juan 3,066 186 (5%) 8 80 31 8
San Marcos de la Sierra 2,501 132 (4%) 8 69 30 8
San Miguelito 1,871 145 (4%) 8 74 17 8
Santa Lucia 1,290 94 (3%) 7 48 8 7
Yamaranguila 5,449 464 (13%) 17 186 68 16
Total 54,620 3,464 (100%) 182 1,720 524 171
For quantitative data, a two-stage sampling approach was employed: (1) a simple random sample 
of 182 schools, surpassing the initial target of 180 schools; and (2) purposive sampling of teachers 
and randomly sampled parents of all children within each school, as well as the school principal at 
each school. Parents were randomly sampled by researchers prior to data collection based on 
school census lists. Researchers sent these lists of parents to school principals, who invited parents 
to participate on the day of data collection. For qualitative data, one school from each municipality 
was randomly selected prior to data collection, and parents at this school were invited to 
participate in a focus group (n=17 focus groups). Researchers also interviewed municipality 
mayors, the education district director, the departmental district director, and USDA staff. All 
participants underwent informed consent before participating. The study protocol was reviewed 
and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Boston College.
Measures and Data Collection Tools
Consultants developed the data collection tools with input from MGD II project staff. Data 
collection instruments were pre-tested in 2 schools in the municipality of REDACTED prior to data 
collection. All measurement instruments were collected electronically using iPads, with data 
uploaded on a daily basis into the iFormBuilder platform. Measurement instruments and related 
samples included: 
i. Child Survey 
In n=147 randomly selected schools, all children (n=3,464) in grades two, three and four were 
given a survey that asks whether they had eaten on the day of data collection, and where they had 
eaten the food. The questionnaire also included an index of food ingested during the past 24 
hours, used previously in the MGD Phase I Honduras final evaluation and based on the UN Food 
and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Dietary Diversity Index. All child surveys were completed at 
22
elementary schools, 87.7% of which were located in rural areas and 12.3% in urban areas. The 
grade level distribution of children was as follows: 31.4% second grade, 32.5% third grade, 35.9% 
fourth grade, and .2% fifth grade. The sample includes 52.3% female students and 47.7% male 
students. Prior to data collection, we used a child assent procedure approved by the Boston 
College IRB, to ensure children understood the purpose of the survey prior to agreeing to 
participate.
Table 4: Child Survey Sample
n %
Location
 Rural 3,038 87.7%
 Urban 426 12.3%
Grade Level
 Second 1,088 31.4%
 Third 1,127 32.5%
 Fourth 1,243 35.9%
Sex 
 Male 1,456 47.7%
 Female 1,597 52.3%
ii. Parent Survey
Parents of primary school children (n=1,720) participated in individual survey interviews. The 
content of the interviews focused on parents’ perceptions of the importance of education, issues 
related to program implementation and sustainability, and the extent to which MGD helps support 
the larger community. Because the program was targeted to parents of children in grades 2 
through 4, the majority of parent respondents were parents of children at the elementary level 
(86.8%), though some parents reported having (likely sibling) children at preschool (11.2%) and 
middle school (2.0%) levels. The majority of parents were mothers (71.1%), while fathers (20.6%) 
and guardians (8.2%) were also represented in the sample. Taken together, over three-quarters 
(77.0%) of respondents were women. Parent respondents were 88.0% rural and 12.0% urban. 
Most parents reported low levels of educational achievement: 40.2% did not finish elementary 
school, 37.6% finished elementary school, 7.5% started but did not finish high school, and 8.8% 
had a high school degree or higher. Roughly 6.0% of respondents never attended formal schooling.
Table 5: Parent Survey Sample
n %
Location
 Rural 1,514 88.0%
 Urban 206 12.0%
23
Parent’s occupation 
was primarily as a 
homemaker (73.7%) or 
as a farmer (19.9%). 
Parental marital status 
was 41.5% married, 
36.9% widowed, and 
17.1% not-married 
living with partner, 
with the remaining 
separated or divorced 
(2.4%). The median 
age of parent 
respondents and their 
partners were 37 and 
38 years, respectively. 
The median number of children in the household under 18 years was three. 
iii. School Principal Interviews 
Survey interviews were completed with principals in most schools (n=171). These interviews 
assessed principals’ perceptions of the program’s relevance, effectiveness, adequacy, and gender 
equity, as well as estimates of student and teacher attendance and teaching quality. Principals 
were in majority rural schools (89.5%), some of which had multiple teachers (53.8%) though others 
were single (21.1%) or dual-teacher (25.5%) school environments. Most principals were in primary 
schools (84.2%) while some were in secondary school (2.3%) or preschool or kindergarten (13.5%).
Table 6: School Principal Survey Sample
n %
Location
 Rural 153 89.5%
 Urban 18 10.5%
School Type
 Single-teacher 43 25.2%
 Dual-teacher 36 21.1%
 Multiple teachers 92 53.8%
School Level
 Preschool / Kindergarten 23 13.5%
 Primary School 144 84.2%
 Secondary School 4 2.3%
Relation to child
 Mother 1,223 71.1%
 Father 355 20.6%
 Guardian/Other 142 8.3%
Sex
 Male 395 23.0%
 Female 1,325 77.0%
Education Level
 No formal schooling 103 6.0%
 Less than elementary 691 40.2%
 Elementary school 646 37.6%
 Less than high school 129 7.5%
 High school degree or higher 151 8.8%
24
iv. Teacher Interviews
Survey interviews were completed with teachers at each school (n=525 teachers across 126 
schools; many schools in the overall sample were unitary, so that teachers also served as school 
principals and were therefore interviewed as principals, not teachers). Interview questions 
assessed teachers’ perceptions of the quality of teaching and training, student assistance and 
attendance, student hygiene, and infrastructure. Teachers were in majority rural schools (85.9%), 
the majority of which had multiple teachers (91.4%) though some were single or dual-teacher 
school environments. Most teachers taught at the elementary level (92.4%) while some taught in 
exclusively middle school (5.7%) or preschool (1.9%) settings. 
Table 7: Teacher Survey Sample
The sample of teachers was 31.6% 
female and 68.4% male, with a 
median age of 39 years old. 
Teachers reported the following 
levels of education: 3.4% had a 
Master’s degree, 70.1% had an 
undergraduate college degree, 
14.9% had completed technical 
college, and 11.6% were high 
school graduates. Most 
respondents fulfilled teaching 
roles at their schools (81.9%), 
while some served as assistant 
directors (13.4%) or served in 
other roles (5.0%, e.g. counselor, 
librarian, administrative 
assistant). The majority taught in 
one school (93.9%) while some 
taught in two or more schools 
(6.1%). Many teachers taught 
multiple grade levels across the 
elementary grades. 
n %
Location
 Rural 450 85.9%
 Urban 74 14.1%
School Type
 Single-teacher 4 0.8%
 Dual-teacher 41 7.8%
 Multiple teachers 479 91.4%
School Level
 Preschool 19 1.9%
 Elementary 485 92.4%
 Middle School 30 5.7%
Sex
 Male 166 31.6%
 Female 359 68.4%
Age (Median) 39 years
Education Level
 High school degree 61 11.6%
 Technical degree 78 14.9%
 College degree 368 70.1%
 Master’s degree 18 3.4%
Role
 Teacher 430 81.9%
 Assistant Director 69 13.4%
 Other (e.g. counselor, 
 director, librarian)
26 5.0%
25
v. School Infrastructure Observations
A questionnaire on school infrastructure was used by data collection supervisors, related to water 
usage, hygiene, and cleanliness of the school environments. Observations were conducted in 27 
schools located in 27 different communities within 14 Municipalities. Most school were located in 
rural areas (82.2%).
vi. Parent Focus Groups
One school was randomly selected from each municipality, and parents of children grades two, 
three and four were invited to participate in a focus group (total of 17 focus groups). Included in 
this number are a series of six focus groups conducted with parents to examine expenditure 
patterns and decision-making. Focus group questions were developed in consultation with CRS 
and implementing partner staff, and focused on the importance of education and MGD program 
implementation.
vii. Interviews with Key Implementation Stakeholders
Semi-structured interviews were completed with six mayors (alcaldes), seven district directors, 
seven CCPREB volunteers, the departmental director, and two USDA staff. A total of 14 interviews 
were conducted.
viii. Administrative Data
Data from CRS project monitoring and evaluation reports, and the Honduras Secretariat of 
Education (SOE), were used to establish most midterm evaluation indicators. Data on program 
implementation were obtained from CRS project reports, as well as electronic and physical records 
from Caritas and COCEPRADII. Data on teacher attendance, teacher pedagogical techniques, and 
school principal administrative techniques were obtained from the SOE. Literacy data for children 
in 2nd and 3
rd grade were obtained from the USAID MIDEH project.
ix. Validation of CRS MEAL Indicators
A validation protocol was developed to compare results indicators obtained from the CRS MEAL 
system. First, researchers checked the calculations of existing CRS documentation related to each 
indicator. Second, using these indicators, researchers visited the headquarters of COCEPRADII and 
Caritas, respectively, to examine hard copies of documentation for each indicator (for example, 
receipts related to infrastructure delivery, or delivery of instructional materials, where relevant). 
26
Results
Explanation of Midterm Evaluation Indicators and Means of Verification
As displayed in Appendix A, this study measured all Results Indicators according to the 
Performance Improvement Plan (PMP) established between CRS and USDA. Data for most 
indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records. Wherever possible, these data were verified 
by crosschecking with electronic records collected by Caritas and COCEPRADII, and these 
verifications are reported along with the relevant indicators below. 
In addition, two researchers from the evaluation team, along with CRS staff, visited Caritas and 
COCEPRADII main offices in REDACTED and REDACTED, respectively. Following a pre-established 
protocol, researchers pulled documents related to relevant indicators to verify that the relevant 
activities had occurred. Importantly, data collected by the Secretariat of Education (SOE), and 
reading comprehension data collected as part of the MIDEH project, were not able to be verified 
independently. As such, these data are of unknown reliability and validity.
These verification protocols are described for each indicator, where relevant; a full description of 
verification protocols and related documents are presented in Appendix B.
Result 1.0 - Improved Literacy of School-Age Children
Data for Results Indicators 1.1 through 1.2 were obtained through CRS MEAL records. All 
indicators showed good progress towards the final targets, with the exception of Result Indicator 
1.1a – continuing which showed slower progress. Data for Result Indicator 1.3 – Reading 
Comprehension were obtained by the USAID and GoH MIDEH project, with results showing 
moderate progress towards final targets.
Result Indicator 1.1 - Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions. 
According to CRS MEAL records, as of 2018, 71,838 individuals directly benefited from USDA￾funded interventions. This number represents 98.3% of the final target of 73,076.
Result Indicator 1.1.b - female. CRS MEAL records show 38,465 female direct beneficiaries, 
representing 108.0% of the final target of 35,609.
Result Indicator 1.1.c - male. CRS MEAL records show 33,373 male direct beneficiaries, 
representing 89.8% of the final target of 31,900.
Result Indicator 1.2 - Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions. CRS MEAL records show a total of 163,791 individuals indirectly benefiting from 
USDA-funded interventions. This number represents 224.8% of the final target of 72,874.
27
Result Indicator 1.3 - Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text. Reading 
comprehension data were obtained from the MIDEH project, sponsored by USAID and the 
Government of Honduras, and collected in 2017. MIDEH scores are calculated on a 4 point scale, 
as follows: 1=Unsatisfactory (100-199); 2=Needs Improvement (200-299); 3=Satisfactory (300-
399); and 4=Advanced (400-500). Proficiency in reading comprehension is calculated as the 
percent of 2nd and 3rd
grade children who score a 3 or 4 on the MIDEH test. For 2nd graders, 67.1% 
of children scored in the proficient range (see Table 8), an increase from 59.7% proficiency for 
2
nd graders at Baseline and on track to reach target of 72.0% (see Figure 1).
Table 8. 2017 MIDEH Scores by Grade and Gender (n=3,908)
Fail Pass
Score=1
n=345
Score=2
n=1,680
Score=3
n=1,601
Score=4
n=282
Grade ***
 Two (n=1,253) 4.2% 28.7% 57.2% 9.9%
 Three (n=1,315) 15.4% 49.0% 29.4% 6.2%
 Four (n=1,340) 6.7% 50.4% 37.2% 5.7%
Gender (Grade 2)
 Male (n=631) 4.3% 28.1% 58.6% 9.0%
 Female (n=622) 4.0% 29.4% 55.8% 10.8%
Gender (Grade 3)
 Male (n=640) 14.5% 49.9% 29.2% 6.4%
 Female (n=675) 16.3% 48.3% 29.5% 5.9%
Gender (Grade 4)
 Male (n=699) 7.4% 50.9% 37.2% 4.4%
 Female (n=641) 5.9% 49.8% 37.1% 7.2%
Gender Totals (Grade 2)
 Male (n=631) n=204 (32.3%) n=427 (67.7%)
 Female (n=622) n=208 (33.4%) n=414 (66.6%)
 TOTAL n=412 (32.9%) n=841 (67.1%)
Gender Totals (Grade 3)
 Male (n=640) n=412 (64.4%) n=228 (35.6%)
 Female (n=675) n=436 (64.6%) n=239 (35.4%)
 TOTAL n=848 (64.5%) n=467 (35.5%)
Gender Totals (Grade 4)
 Male (n=699) n=408 (58.4%) n=291 (41.6%)
 Female (n=641) n=357 (55.7%) n= 284 (44.3%)
 TOTAL n=765 (57.1%) n=575 (42.9%)
Overall Totals n=2,025 n=1,883
51.8% 48.2%
*** p<.001 for Grade x Score
28
Result Indicator 1.3.a - female. Of all female students taking the MIDEH test in 2ndgrade, 66.6% 
scored in the proficient range (see Table 8). This number represents an increase compared to the 
Baseline proficiency of 61.0%, and on track to reach the final target of 72.0%.
Result Indicator 1.3.b - male. Of all male students taking the MIDEH test in 2nd grade, 67.7% 
scored in the proficient range (see Table 8). This number represents an increase compared to the 
Baseline proficiency of 58.4% and on track to reach the final target of 72.0%.
Figure 1. Baseline and Midterm MIDEH Scores by Gender (2015-2017)
As displayed in Figure 1, 3rd grade girls and boys made progress in literacy since baseline, with 
males making slightly greater gains than females. Literacy for 4th graders declined since baseline, 
however, with females losing 0.4% literacy and males losing 1.8%. These patterns contrast with 
the significantly higher literacy among 2nd graders, and the gains made between baseline and 
midterm particularly for 2nd grade boys (see Figure 1 and Table 8).
Results from the parent survey information also provide insight into the ways in which parents 
interact with their children to support their learning and development of literacy skills. A large 
majority of parents indicated that they read to their children (86.1%), and of those 36.6% read 
every day and 60.7% read between one and four times a week. Parents generally have access to 
books (91.5%) but also newspapers (23.5%), the Bible (26.9%), and other literacy materials in the 
home. Most parents (88.3%) help their children with homework, and of those 51.2% help daily and 
61.0% 66.6%
58.4%
67.7%
30.9% 35.4%
28.6%
35.6%
44.7% 44.3%
43.4% 41.6%
72.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Baseline Midterm
GRADE 2 Female GRADE 2 Male GRADE 3 Female
GRADE 3 Male GRADE 4 Female GRADE 4 Male
TARGET
29
20.0% help at least three times a week. When asked to identify ways in which they help their 
children, 99.7% identified at least one way, 94.8% two ways, and 84.5% three ways. Most parents 
also reported receiving information about their child’s academic achievement (84.5%). Of these, 
parents reported receiving midterm grades (90.9%, an improve since baseline - 60.4%), end-of￾year standardized test scores (80.6%, an improvement since baseline - less than 1%), and monthly 
updates on academic progress (65.5%, an improvement since baseline - 16%). Table 9 reports how 
parents reported using the information they received to support their child’s learning: 
Table 9: Parent’s Use of Information on Child Academic Achievement
Baseline Midterm
Take positive actions to help my child succeed 57.2% 96.00%
To help your child with homework 18.6% 90.60%
To participate actively in the activities of the center 5.8% 87.30%
To have a positive impact on other parents 1.8% 61.40%
Result 2.0 - Increased Government Support
Data for Result 2.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL data and verified with physical 
records pulled at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. All indicators show good progress towards 
achieving and surpassing final targets.
Result Indicator 2.1 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Other Public). According to CRS MEAL records, $77,637.00 of public funds have 
been invested as a result of USDA assistance. This number represents 87.1% of the final target of 
$95,001.00.
Result Indicator 2.2 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that $644,693.00 of public and private funds have been 
leveraged as a result of USDA assistance representing 192.5% of the final target of $335,000.00.
Result Indicator 2.3 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Host Government). CRS records show that the host government has invested 
$560,101.00 related to USDA assistance. This figure represents 233.4% of the final target of 
$239,999.00.
● Verification. Three records were pulled each for 2017 and 2018 for each of the following: 
Infrastructure; Warehouse (Siguatepeque); Kitchens, Cook Areas; Latrines; and Wells and
Water Stations/Systems. A combined total of 60 records were pulled (30 for Caritas, 30 for 
COCEPRADII) (also see Result 14).
30
Result 3.0 - Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Data for Result 3.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records and verified through 
physical records related to governance structures at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. One indicator 
surpassed the final target, one indicator showed moderate progress, and two indicators showed 
slow or concerning progress.
Result Indicator 3.1 - Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar "school" 
governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that 
574 PTAs or other school governance structures have been supported as a result of USDA 
assistance. This number represents 112.8% of the final target of 509.
Result Indicator 3.2 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance. CRS MEAL records show that two public-private partnerships have been formed as a 
result of USDA assistance, representing 20.0% of the final target of 10.
Result Indicator 3.3 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (Multi-focus). CRS MEAL records show that two multi-focus public-private 
partnerships have been formed as a result of USDA assistance, representing 40.0% of the final 
target of 5.
Result Indicator 3.4 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (Education). CRS MEAL records show that zero public-private partnerships around 
education have been established, representing 0.0% of the final target of five.
● Verification. Five records of governance structures were pulled each at COCEPRADII and 
Caritas.
Principals. Principals reported on family and community engagement in the school. 97.7% of 
principals stated that parents are involved in the School Educational Project. 
Parents. Parents also shared information about their involvement in the school. Of parent survey 
respondents, 43.7% reported belonging to the school food committee. On the committee, 58.5% 
of parents reported being involved in serving the food (e.g. ensuring everyone gets a snack), 51.1% 
prepare food, and 10.1% train mothers in food service. 9.7% of parents reported engaging in other 
activities, including serving in administrative roles (president, treasurer, etc.), participating in 
home visits, and cleaning. 
Teachers. Of teachers, 98.5% indicated that parents are involved in the School Educational Project. 
Of those, 67.5% reported that parents were very involved in the School Educational Project while 
32.5% reported that parents were not very involved. 
31
Result 4.0 - Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Result Indicator 4.1 - Number of Honduran government authorities that have been trained to 
implement activities in accordance with their roles. CRS MEAL records show that 134 Honduran 
government authorities have been trained to implement activities in accordance with their roles. 
This figure represents 335.0% of the final target of 40.
● Verification. Lists of government authorities trained in 2017 and 2018 were identified 
each for COCEPRADII and Caritas.
Principals. Principals also reported on their knowledge of the capacity of government institutions 
with respect to education. Most principals (91.8%) indicated that they were aware of EFA goals 
and education indicators. 70.2% were aware of a strategic plan for municipal development. When 
asked about how these plans could be sustainable, principals offered many suggestions, the top 
two being the need for all people to be involved and for the coordination of efforts across existing 
organizations in the community. Figure 2 presents these results:
Figure 2: Principal Reports of Community Needs for Successful Municipal Strategic Plan 
Principals were also asked about factors that would contribute to the development and 
implementation of a long-term municipal plan. Factors included the support from different
community actors (authorities, teachers, parents, family) (95.5%), the availability of financial 
resources (87.6%), good communication and relationships (93.3%), and having a good organization 
(95.5%). Principals also identified the following stakeholders as important to this work: the central 
government (83.2%), parents (95.5%), teachers (94.4%), NGOs (89.9%), mayor’s office / city hall 
(92.1%), communities (92.1%), or another stakeholder (7.9%) (e.g. students, the church). Principals 
indicated that the capacities of these actors could be strengthened through trainings (97.8%), 
meetings among the actors (92.1%), conscientization (action/process of helping others become 
32
aware of political or social realities.) (92.1%), facilitation of participation (87.6%), regular meetings 
(95.5%), and other by methods (7.9%) (e.g. communication, commitments/agreements, incentives 
for participation). 
Result 5.0 - Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Result Indicators 5.1 - 5.5 all refer to the number of educational policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance. Below are the definitions of each stage, and the extent to which these stages have 
been achieved according to CRS MEAL records. 
Indicator 5.1 STAGE 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis 
(review of existing policy/ regulation/ administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy/ 
regulations/ administrative procedures). CRS records show that three policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures have achieved Stage One, representing 100.0% of the final target of 
three.
Indicator 5.2 STAGE 2: Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second 
stage includes public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or 
revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure. CRS records show that three policies, 
regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Two, representing 100.0% of the 
final target of three.
Indicator 5.3 STAGE 3: Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were 
presented for legislation/ decree to improve the policy environment for education). CRS records 
show that zero regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Three, 
representing 0.0% of the final target of three.
Indicator 5.4 STAGE 4: Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval 
(legislation/decree) of new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant 
authority]. CRS records show that zero regulations or administrative procedures have achieved 
Stage Four, representing 0.0% of the final target of three.
Indicator 5.5 STAGE 5: Completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised 
policy/ regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority). CRS records show that zero 
regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Five, representing 0.0% of the 
final target of three.
● Verification. Three activities strategy documents were pulled each for COCEPRADII and 
Caritas.
33
Have municipalities approved a mandatory policy for all children to be enrolled in school?
The education system in Honduras is organized into pre-basic (pre-k or kindergarten), basic
(primary), and middle or secondary education. The fundamental law of 2012, which establishes 
when a child must begin school and when they can legally drop out, states that children must 
complete at least one year of pre-basic education and must be enrolled until 9th grade of 
education. Present efforts by the federal government are underway to broaden coverage of pre￾basic and the third cycle of education (7th to 9th grade).
The Mayors who were interviewed discussed their efforts to increase children’s enrollment and to 
protect their right to education at the municipal level. 50% of the comments related to mandatory 
enrollment, discussed the ordinances that have been approved to ensure compliance of the 
fundamental law. Similar to the fundamental law, these ordinances require children to be 
enrolled in school from the pre-basic level up to the 9th grade. However, none of the mayors 
discussed how they enforce the ordinances, and whether the ordinances have had had an impact 
on the school enrollment.
In another 50% of the comments, mayors discussed that they have not yet approved a mandatory 
enrollment ordinance and acknowledged that it is a weakness in their municipality that must be 
addressed. They also perceived the lack of ordinance as an issue of children’s rights and are 
working with the Ministry of Education and Municipal Office of Children and Youth to develop a 
policy to address this problem. The objective of approving these ordinances is to protect and 
promote the right to basic education (see Matrix 1).
Matrix 1. Mandatory Policy for School Enrollment
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Mandatory policy had 
been approved
Municipal Mayor: “Municipal ordinances have 
been established through a corporation session 
agreement. These ordinances establish that every 
child, who meets the age requirement, must be 
enrolled in school.”
50%
(3 comments)
Lacking mandatory 
policy or policy is in 
progress
Municipal Mayor: “Municipal ordinances have 
been proposed that would require parents to 
enroll their children in schools. We are working 
on this children’ rights issue, together with the 
Ministry of Education.”
50%
(3 comments)
34
Result 6.0 - More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Result Indicator 6.1. Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 
90% of scheduled school days per school year. Official teacher attendance data were obtained 
from the Honduras Secretariat of Education. These data were only available for the first two 
trimesters of 2018. Attendance reports were not verified by the evaluators as these data 
represent official government statistics.
Table 10. School Type Disaggregated by Gender
Female Male Total
Pre-K and K (Prebasica) 130 3 133
Primary (Basica) 1086 613 1,699
Secondary (Media) 262 175 437
TOTAL 1,478 791 2,269
As displayed in Table 10, there are 2,269 teachers across all municipalities: 133 for Pre-K and K
(97.7% female teachers), 1,699 for Primary (63.9% female teachers) and 437 for Secondary (60.6% 
female teachers). Over the two trimesters, the average number of days attended by teachers 
totaled 105 days for Pre-K and K schools, 106 days for Primary schools, and 105 for Secondary
schools (data were only available aggregated at the municipality level). NOTE: Two municipalities 
(REDACTED) did not provide teacher attendance records for trimester one, so these municipalities 
are excluded from the analysis. 
According to official SOE calendars, there were 101 schools days during this period for Pre-K and K
and Primary schools, and 95 school days for Secondary schools, so that SOE data appear to 
overreport attendance during this time period. For Pre-K and K and Primary schools, 90% 
attendance equals 91 school days. For Secondary schools, 90% attendance equals 86 school days. 
According to SOE data, all municipalities exceeded 91 school days for Pre-K and K and Primary on 
average, except for REDACTED which averaged 90 school days (the indicator for this result is thus 
calculated as 14 out of 15 municipalities exceeding 90% school days, for a total of 93.3%). For 
Secondary schools, all municipalities exceeded 86 school days (100%). Result Indicator 6.1 is 
therefore 96.7% teachers attending more than 80% of school days (93.3%+100.0%, divided by 
two).
How Have Districts Managed Teacher Absences?
In 59% of comments related to teacher absences, the department and district directors reported 
that they have addressed the issue of teacher absenteeism by enforcing the teacher attendance 
policies established by the Ministry of Education. While the district directors enforced the policies 
before, they improved the strategies to ensure compliance with policies and procedures (29% of 
comments). For example, now districts have a digital monitoring system to have a better control of 
35
teacher absences. Both district directors and school principals must monitor and keep track of 
teacher absences. The school principals develop a monthly report, which is then delivered to the 
district directors.
In 71% of the comments, district directors reported that the support from voluntary committees, 
parents, and teacher support volunteers has also been critical in managing teacher attendance. 
The CED (Consejo Escolar de Desarrollo) or School Development Council, a committee made up of 
volunteers, visit schools on a weekly basis to monitor attendance. They record and submit 
teacher’s attendance through a digital form that goes directly to the Ministry of Education. Thus, 
the CED plays a critical role in controlling and monitoring teacher absences. 
According to the department director, while it is crucial to monitor attendance, sometimes 
teachers must miss a day of work as result of inevitable life events such as an illness, personal 
issues, and even work-related trainings. With the support of MDG, the school districts have been 
able to address the problem of teacher absenteeism with the VADs, or teacher support volunteers. 
VADs are a group of volunteers that are prepared to step into the classroom when a teacher is 
absent. Therefore, with the support of the VADs, children are still supervised when a teacher must 
miss a day of work. 
It is important to note that one of the key sustainability activities of CRS is to promote teacher 
attendance by providing trainings to the CED on monitoring attendance. The findings from the 
interviews with district directors suggest that the trainings offered to the CED have played an 
important role in monitoring attendance. In addition, the district directors value the work of the 
VADs in addressing the important need in the schools of providing support when teachers are 
absent (see Matrix 2).
Matrix 2. Teacher Absences
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Enforcement of 
policies on teacher 
attendance
& management of 
teacher absences 
District director: “We manage teacher absenteeism 
by following the policies that are in place. We provide 
an explanation to the teachers of when they can have 
excused absences. They know the policies perfectly 
and they know when they can be absent from school 
and when they cannot.”
59%
(10 comments)
New mechanism to 
manage teacher 
absences 
District director: “The school principals record and 
notify us of each teacher’s absences. We also monitor 
absences through the daily attendance book when 
we go out to supervise the schools.”
29%
(5 comments)
Support from 
committees, 
parents, and 
volunteers
Department director: “Teachers have absences for 
different reasons including due to an illness, the zone 
where we live, or for personal reasons. Others are 
absent due to job requirements such as having to 
71%
(12 comments)
36
A mother of a student answers survey questions
attend trainings and meetings. We have addressed 
this issue with the help of the program. The teacher 
support volunteers are a team of volunteers who are 
prepared to substitute the teacher in their absences. 
The teachers are entitled to participate in trainings, 
but now with the support of the volunteers, the 
students are always supervised.”
Result 7.0 - Better Access to School Supplies and Materials
Result Indicator 7.1 - Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided 
as a result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that 5,317 textbooks and other materials 
were provided as a result of USDA assistance. This number represents 166.2% of the final target 
of 3,200.
● Verification. Three records were pulled each for 2016, 2017, and 2018 for both Caritas 
and COCEPRADII (total 18 records pulled).
Parents. The parent survey included questions related to use of libraries and access to learning 
materials. Overall, 39.3% of parents reported having access to a library in their community or at 
their child’s school / education center. Of those (39.3%) who have access to a library, 29.2% 
indicated that they use it. Of all parents taking the survey, less than 2 in 10 (15.9%) indicated they 
had ever used a library.
A little more than two thirds (69.7%) of 
parents indicated that they have observed 
learning materials when they have visited 
their child’s school. When asked what they do 
when no materials are available2
, 44.9% of 
parents said they would work to obtain more 
resources, 48.5% said they would contribute 
financial resources to support obtaining 
learning materials, 5.2% said they would help 
construct/make more learning materials with 
available resources, 3.2 % said they were not 
sure, and 7.0% said they would do nothing. 
Teachers. Data from teacher surveys indicate that 78.6% of teachers received an education kit 
from the MGD program. Of these, 99.2% reported that the kit is used in the school setting, and 
93.5% of teachers reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that these materials have helped 
improve education. Teachers also reported that the following sources had contributed to access of 
 
2 Parents could select more than one option.
37
school materials3
: actions of local government (17.7%), school management (36.2%), NGOs 
(67.2%), civil society organizations (10.3%), and other groups (17.1%). Conversely, the following 
items were cited by teachers as responsible for limited access to school materials: lack of 
resources (49.9%), school location (15.4%), lack of sufficient materials for all students (23.8%), and 
other reasons (35.1%). Examination of qualitative responses to other reasons suggest that poor 
government investment and management, coupled with infrastructure and organizational 
problems alongside cultural challenges working in the community and with parents may be 
contributing factors to low access to resources. 
Principals. Roughly 3 in 4 principals (74.9%) indicated that their school has the tools of the basic 
national curriculum (BNC), and 68.4% stated that they received a school materials kit. When asked 
about specific materials, 90.6% of principals indicated they have access to teaching curricula, 
99.4% have an annual operating plan, 74.9% have access to didactic teaching materials, 62.0% 
have access to workbooks, and 96.5% have a School Educational Project. Principals were mixed 
when reporting about the availability of these resources - 45.0% indicated that resources were 
“sufficient” or “very abundant.”
Who Provides School Supplies (Books, Notebooks, Didactic Material), to Whom Are They Awarded, 
and Under What Criteria?
A large percentage of the interviews of district directors and municipal mayors (84%) mentioned 
that the majority of school supplies and materials are provided by the MDG program. While other 
actors, such as the Ministry of Education, Vision Mundial, and the mayor’s office also provide 
some supplies, resources, and school textbooks, the MDG program provides educational materials 
that no one else does (e.g., didactic materials for teachers) (see Matrix 3 for summary).
One of the concerns reported by some informants was that while MDG provides the majority of 
the aid, not all schools receive all of the materials. In another question, district directors were 
asked what was one of the major challenges that teachers face in fulfilling their duties and 53% of 
the interviews identified the lack of textbooks and didactic materials. The data from CRS shows 
that 90% of the target schools receive school materials. However, while almost all of the schools 
receive materials, not all of the materials may be sufficient (e.g., didactic materials, workbooks). 
This is what some respondents may be referring to when they mention that there are insufficient 
materials. In addition, the Ministry of Educations supplies textbooks, but not all of the schools 
have access to them. 
According to respondents, the criteria for distribution of materials that are not sufficient for all of 
the schools differ across municipalities. Some district directors focus on the schools with greater 
financial need. Other directors distribute the supplies and materials to the schools who have 
better indicators as an incentive, while others distribute to the schools who have worse indicators 
to give them an opportunity to improve. Some of the mayors reported that they award the aid to 
schools depending on the school needs (see Matrix 3).
 
3 Note that because teachers could select multiple sources, cumulative percentages are greater than 100%.
38
Matrix 3. Increase Access of School Supplies and Materials
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Supplies and 
materials from
Food for 
Education
District Director: “The only organization that provides us 
educational materials and supplies is COCEPRADII.”
Municipal Mayor: “The Food for Education Program has 
been providing us backpacks, scholarships, and some 
other types of support.”
84%
(21 comments)
Supplies and 
materials from
other 
organizations
District Director: “The textbooks are provided by the 
Ministry of Education, including those for the subjects of 
Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences.”
48%
(12 comments)
Need for greater 
coverage
CCEPREB: “We would like for every school to receive 
materials, but they always only select a few schools.”
36%
(9 comments)
Criteria for 
awarding the 
supplies and 
materials
District Director: “We provide materials to schools where 
there is a great need; where we see schools in rural areas 
with many needs. We also take into account the poverty.”
District Director: “We also consider other criteria such as 
good indicators, but it is also possible to give to the 
schools who don’t have good indicators so that they can 
raise them.”
48%
(12 comments)
Result 8.0 - Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials
Result Indicator 8.1. Number of schools receiving literacy instruction materials (materials from 
the Basic National Curriculum Design - DCNB) and/or unpublished texts produced by school 
children. CRS MEAL records show that no schools received materials in FY2016. In first quarter of 
FY2017, materials were sent to 328 schools, and to 608 schools in the second quarter of FY2018. 
The number of schools receiving materials at midterm evaluation thus totals 936, a number which 
represents 90% attainment of the final target of 1,040 schools.
● Verification: Caritas data show 499 schools receiving materials in FY2017. COCEPRADII 
data show 142 schools receiving materials in FY2016 and 295 schools receiving materials 
in FY2017. These numbers combined total 936 schools. Three physical records were also 
pulled each for 2016, 2017, and 2018 for both Caritas and COCEPRADII (total 18 records 
pulled).
39
Result 9.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Result Indicator 9.1. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance.
According the CRS MGD Project Monitoring Plan (PMP), Indicator 9.1 should be measured 
externally by the Honduras SOE to examine the extent to which teachers demonstrate use of new 
and quality teaching techniques or tools. The SOE measured three indicators for Pre-K and K, 
Primary, and Secondary teachers: (1) Planning aligned to the DCNB (standards-schedules); (2) Use 
and management of textbooks; and (3) Application of monthly formative tests, answer sheets, and 
summary tables of monthly achievements. For each teacher, answers are scores as “incomplete”, 
“no”, or “yes”.
As displayed in Table 11, a total of 1,458 teachers were observed. Among these, 80 teachers 
(39.6%) from Pre-K and K demonstrated all three techniques, as did 663 from Primary (59.2%) and 
64 from Secondary (47.1%). Combined, the number of teachers demonstrating all three 
techniques totaled 807, representing 55.3% of the final target of 1,509.
Table 11. Results from SOE Teacher Observations (n=1,458)
Pre-K and K
(n=202)
Primary
(n=1,120)
Secondary
(n=136)
Planning aligned to the DCNB (yes) 184 (91.1%) 1,014 (90.5%) 123 (90.4%)
Use and management of textbooks (yes) 191 (94.6%) 1,005 (89.7%) 123 (90.4%)
Application of monthly formative tests, answer sheets, and 
summary tables of monthly achievements (yes)
86 (42.6%) 741 (66.2%) 70 (51.5%)
ALL THREE 80 (39.6%) 663 (59.2%) 64 (47.1%)
TOTAL = 807 (55.3%)
Result Indicator 9.2. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that 1,214 teachers were trained or certified 
as a result of USDA assistance in FY2017. This number represents 80.5% achievement of the final 
target of 1,509 teachers. 
● Verification: Caritas records show 610 teachers trained and COCEPRADII records show 604 
teachers trained during FY2017, for a combined total of 1,214, Caritas records show that 
78% of trainees were female and 22% were male, and COCEPRADII records show that 68% 
were female and 32% were male. The overall gender disaggregation is therefore 73% 
female trainees and 27% male trainees. Physical lists of teachers trained in 2017 and 2018 
were also identified each for Caritas and COCEPRADII.
40
Teachers. Teachers were trained in a variety of course subjects, including mathematics (68.4%), 
Spanish (78.5%), oral expression (4.2%), creative reading and writing (10.7%), information 
technology (8.8%), health and hygiene (7.1%), child tutoring (1.5%) and parent education (2.3%). 
Some teachers also reported receiving training in standards-based teaching (5.3%) and formative 
evaluation (2.9%). Nearly all teachers reported using a technique/methodology to inform their 
teaching (99.6%), and 
reported using the 
following 
techniques/methodologies 
(see Figure 3).
Teachers also reported that 
78.3% work with students 
who have learning 
difficulties, 49.9% have 
special needs, and 32.8% 
come from diverse ethnic 
backgrounds. When asked 
about their knowledge in identifying learning disabilities, 57.1% of teachers reported their 
knowledge as “good” or “very good”, while 42.9% reported having insufficient, regular, or 
acceptable knowledge. Many teachers (58.0%) reported having participated in training sessions to 
help them support students with learning and literacy problems. Of those who received training, 
37.4% came from the Secretary of Education, 69.5% came from an NGO, 9.8% came from a 
cooperative, and 18.4% came from another source. Additionally, 51.2% of teachers reported 
participating in MGD trainings.
Teachers also identified areas where they receive pedagogical assistance/guidance from their 
principals. Most teachers reported receiving assistance either bimonthly (20.3%) or quarterly 
(55.5%), while the remainder received less frequent support throughout the year. Only 1% of 
teachers reported never receiving assistance. Teachers also reported that their schools use the 
following teaching supports: curriculum (88.4%), annual operating plan (99.1%), didactic materials 
(61.7%), workbooks (64.4%), School Educational Projects and materials (98.5%), and formative 
tests (92.2%).
The majority of teachers indicated that their administrators use a specific technique or approach 
to school administration (96.1%), specifically in the areas of education management (68.6%), 
school management (31.0%), teacher evaluation (44.6%), using the SACE (23.8%), dropout 
prevention (13.4%), annual operating plans (34.4%), teacher monitoring and support (38.9%), and 
other strategies (25.9%). 
Principals. Principals were also asked to report on increased knowledge of teachers. Four in five 
(80.1%) of principals have organized training sessions for teachers, some of which included 
partnerships with the Secretary of Education (35.0%), NGOs (89.8%), or other organizations 
(27.0%). Of those who offered trainings, 69.3% reported offering training in mathematics, 71.5% 
in Spanish, 20.4% in oral expression, 43.8% in reading and creative writing, 16.8% in course 
planning based on educational standards, 10.2% on formative evaluation, 4.3% on technology, 
10.2% on tutoring, 9.5% on health and hygiene, and 48.2% on another topic. These other topics
included English, social and emotional skill building, communication, arts, sciences, among other 
Figure 3. Methodologies Used by Teachers
41
specific teacher training topics. Nearly all (98.2%) stated that they believed that the techniques 
and methodologies used by teachers were appropriate to enhance the teaching-learning process 
of the students.
Many principals (61.2%) offered training sessions specifically to address learning disabilities in 
students. Similar to other trainings, 38.5% of principals reported working with the Secretary of 
Education, 80.1% reported working with an NGO, 10.6% worked with a cooperative, 26.0% worked 
with other groups. Many principals (82.4%) reported that they personally offer pedagogical 
assistance to their teachers - 13.6% said they do so monthly 17.1% bimonthly, 53.6% quarterly, 
and 15.7% every four months or more. Principals were also asked to share if they offer training 
specific to vulnerable student populations. 55.6% of principals reported offering trainings on 
learning disabilities, 53.8% on special education needs, and 18.1% offered trainings on the specific 
needs of various ethnic groups. Principals reported that most teachers had some knowledge of 
identifying learning problems in students - 57.0% were good/very good, 40.6% were 
regular/acceptable, and 2.4% were insufficient. 
Result 10.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
Result Indicator 10.1 - Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. Similar to Result 
Indicator 9, Indicator 10.1 was measured externally by the Honduras SOE to examine the extent to 
which educational administrators demonstrate use of new or tools as a result of USDA assistance. 
The SOE measured three indicators for Pre-K and K and Primary teachers: (1) School education 
plan (PEC) elaborated; (2) There is a school curriculum project (for Primary); Authorization and 
monitoring of Teacher Planning (for Pre-K and K); and (3) School applies diagnostic and training 
assessments. For each teacher, answers are scores as “incomplete”, “no”, or “yes”.
As displayed in Table 12, 668 educational administrators were observed using these three 
indicators (n=234 for Pre-K and K and n=434 for Primary). The number of educational 
administrators demonstrating all three techniques totaled 119 (50.9%) for Pre-K and K and 196 
(45.2%) for Primary. Combined, the number of educational administrators demonstrating all 
three techniques totaled 315, representing 49.5% of the final target of 637.
Table 12. Results from SOE Educational Administrator Observations (n=668)
Pre-K and K
(n=234)
Primary
(n=434)
School education plan (PEC) elaborated (yes) 179 (76.5%) 347 (80.0%)
There is a school curriculum project [Authorization and 
monitoring of Teacher Planning for Pre-K and K] (yes)
180 (76.9%) 251 (57.8%)
School applies diagnostic and training assessments (yes) 163 (69.7%) 329 (75.8%)
ALL THREE 119 (50.9%) 196 (45.2%)
TOTAL = 315 (49.5%)
42
Result Indicator 10.2 - Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance. Data obtained from CRS MEAL records show that 584 school 
administrators were trained from October 2016 to March 2017, and 206 were trained from April 
to September 2017 for a total of 790 school administrators trained. This number represents 
112.4% of the final target of 703 school administrators trained.
● Verification: According to COCEPRADII partner records, 166 school administrators were 
trained from October 2016 to March 2017, and 383 were trained from April to September 
2017 for a total of 549. According to Caritas records, 402 school administrators were 
trained in March 2017 and 17 were trained in April 2017 for a total of 419. The total 
number of school administrators thus totals 968, a number greater than that reported in 
CRS MEAL records. Physical lists of school administrators trained in 2017 and 2018 were 
also identified each for Caritas and COCEPRADII.
School Principals. Drawing from data in the school principals survey, he characteristics of school 
principals are as follows: most are women (55.6%) with a median age of 40 years (M=39.8, 
SD=10.5). The median average number of years worked in the school is 6 (M=8.2, SD=7.2). Most 
had either completed college (69.0%) or attended some college/obtained a technical degree 
(15.8%). A smaller proportion had only a high school degree (13.5%) or attended a technical school 
(1.8%). Most principals were responsible for at least one grade level, as displayed in Figure 4: 
Figure 4: Principals’ Teaching Responsibilities by Grade Level
Nearly all principals (97.7%) used tools and techniques related to school administration. These 
tools and techniques included educational management (77.8%), administration of education 
centers (71.3%), teaching evaluations (73.7%), using the school administration system 
(SACE)(64.7%), information technology (29.9%), dropout prevention (61.1%), annual operating 
plans (82.0%), teacher supervision (73.1%), and others (20.1%). Many of the “other” techniques 
related to working with parents and guiding parent organizations. 
43
Teachers. When teachers were asked about their school administrator, 96.1% reported that the 
administrator uses administrative techniques and methods to run the education center. These 
methods, according to teachers, included education management (68.6%), management of 
schools (31.0%), teacher’s evaluations (44.6%), using the school administration system (SACE) 
(23.8%), dropout prevention (13.4%), annual operating plans (34.4%), teacher supervision and 
support (38.9%), or other (25.9%) strategies. 
Teacher and School Principals Trainings and Capacity Building 
One of the sustainability strategies of CRS is to develop technical, methodological, supervision, 
administrative and administrative capabilities. Therefore, to achieve this goal, has provided 
support for training for teachers, school principals, and school committees such as the COMDE. 
According to the department and district directors, the teacher trainings and capacity building has 
been effective. Teachers receive training primarily in Spanish and Mathematics, the subject areas 
with the most need. Teachers also receive supervision and coaching to help them apply what they 
learn through the trainings. School principals receive training in educational administration and 
management, and how to provide educational coaching to teachers. COMDE members are trained 
in the areas of legal framework and about the function as members of the organization. 
The interviews with the department and district directors suggests that CRS strategy in this area 
has been effective. They perceive that teacher training has had positive effect on their teaching, 
which they believe is reflected on the quality of education children receive (see Matrix 4).
Matrix 4. Teacher and School Principal Trainings
Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Teacher training District Directors: “The teachers’ training in Reading, 
Writing, Spanish, Mathematics and other subject areas, 
has been done in collaboration with the department 
directors and other NGOs.”
45%
(18 comments)
Administrative 
training
District Director: “We have done internships and 
exchanges, and supervision, teacher support, 
monitoring.”
Department director: “Caritas is supporting us with 
administrative training for administrators. Some of the 
areas of training include: planning, administrative 
portfolio, and teacher support.”
45%
(18 comments)
COMDE and Other 
Organizations
District director: “We have also trained those who are 
members of COMDE. CARITAS has trained them to help 
them understand the legal framework and function of 
each member of the organization.”
District director: “They have help us to improve the 
organization of the APF and they have trained the 
CED.”
10%
(4 comments)
44
Result 11.0 - Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
All data for Result 11.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records and verified using 
physical records pulled at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. All results indicators met or exceeded 
their final targets, with the exception of 11.9 which showed moderate progress.
Result Indicator 11.1. Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance. According to CRS MEAL data, 54,627 school-aged 
children received daily schools meals as a result of USDA assistance. This number represents
99.3% of the final target of 55,035 children.
Result Indicator 11.4 - female. A total of 26,073 female students were recorded for 2018, 
representing 97.2% of the final target of 26,814 female students.
Result Indicator 11.5 - male. A total of 28,554 male students were recorded for 2018, 
representing 101.2% of the final target of 28,221 male students.
Result Indicator 11.6 - Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
school-age children as a result of USDA assistance. A total of 10,318,451 daily school meals were 
provided in 2018, 10,556,400 in 2017, and 4,960,980 in 2016, totaling 25,835,531. This number 
represents 55.0% of the final target of 47,000,000 daily school meals provided over the course of 
the project. Assuming this number remains constant for 2019 and 2020, the project is on schedule 
to achieve the final target.
● Verification (11.1 - 11.6). Three food delivery receipts were pulled each for 2017 and 2018 
at Caritas and COCEPRADII.
Result Indicator 11.7 - Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance. A total of 17,211 individuals received take-home rations in 2018, representing 96.3% 
of the final target of 17,866 individuals.
Result Indicator 11.8 - continuing. A total of 17,211 continuing individuals received take-home 
rations in 2018, representing 96.3% of the final target of 17,866 individuals.
Result Indicator 11.9 - new. A total of 6,616 new individuals received take-home rations in 2018, 
representing 55.1% of the final target of 12,012 new individuals.
Result Indicator 11.10 - others. A total of 17,211 other individuals received take-home rations in 
2018, representing 96.3% of the final target of 17,866 individuals.
● Verification (11.7 - 11.10). Three home ration delivery lists were pulled each for 2017 and 
2018 for Caritas and COCEPRADII.
Result Indicator 11.11 - Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of 
USDA assistance. A total of 13,311 individuals were trained in child health and nutrition in 2018, 
representing nearly 1,300.0% of the final target of 1,040 individuals. 
45
Result Indicator 11.12 - female. A total of 11,969 female individuals were trained in child health 
and nutrition 2018, representing nearly 1,700.0% of the final target of 724 female individuals. 
Result Indicator 11.13 - male. A total of 1,342 male individuals were trained in child health and 
nutrition 2018, representing approximately 425.0% of the final target of 316 male individuals.
● Verification (11.11 - 11.13). Lists of people trained in health and nutrition in 2017 and 
2018 were pulled at Caritas and COCEPRADII.
Result Indicator 11.14 - Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive 
safety nets as a result of USDA assistance. A total of 71,838 social assistance beneficiaries 
participated in productive safety nets (calculated as the number of children receiving school 
meals, plus the number of individuals receiving take-home rations). 
Result Indicator 11.16 - female. A total of 77,259 female beneficiaries were recorded in 2018, 
representing 217.0% of the final target of 35,609 female beneficiaries. 
Result Indicator 11.17 - male. A total of 67,064 male beneficiaries were recorded in 2018, 
representing 210.0% of the final target of 31,990 male beneficiaries.
Result Indicator 11.19 - Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance. A 
total of 68,933 take-home rations were provided in 2018, representing 41.0% of the final target of 
168,056 take-home rations provided.
● Verification (11.19). Three home ration delivery lists were pulled each for 2017 and 2018 
for Caritas and COCEPRADII.
Child Food Intake Survey
The majority of students (97.1%) ate food in their home in the morning, and a large percentage 
reported receiving food (77.8%) reported receiving food the day of the survey (see Table 13). Most 
students report receiving food once a day at school (73.9%) and a smaller portion twice a day 
(25.0%). Less than a quarter (22.8%) reported being hungry. When asked how they liked food, the 
majority of children said they liked it a lot (82.7%) while some said a little (16.4%) and few said not 
at all (0.8%). Table 13 displays the type and amount of food consumed by children, at home and 
at school, and whether children believed they received enough food. Students who responded 
“other” included write-in responses of other food types consumed at home, which included 
butter, water, pastelitos (meat pies), salt, and other grain/pastry items (see Table 13).
46
Table 13: Child Food Intake Type and Amount 
Food Did you eat 
__?
At home Did you think 
it was 
enough?
At school Did you think 
it was 
enough?
Beans 75.10% 86.60% 96.80% 32.80% 97.80%
Tortillas/pupusas 70.30% 91.30% 97.60% 28.80% 98.20%
Rice 48.80% 64.60% 96.70% 52.40% 97.90%
Coffee/tea 34.30% 97.20% 97.20% 3.70% 91.70%
Milk 20.10% 22.10% 96.30% 80.60% 97.20%
Eggs 18.90% 98.20% 97.70% 2.40% 100.00%
Corn-soy blend 
(CSB)
16.50% 0.90% 100.00% 99.30% 98.10%
Cheese 15.30% 71.80% 96.90% 33.50% 98.30%
Cereal 12.90% 14.50% 89.60% 86.30% 97.40%
Cottage Cheese 11.80% 99.50% 96.30% 1.00% 75.00%
Bread 7.10% 92.30% 95.60% 6.90% 94.40%
Noodles/pasta 6.70% 73.40% 94.80% 26.20% 98.40%
Juice 6.30% 43.60% 91.60% 59.20% 98.50%
Fruit 6.10% 80.60% 94.10% 38.30% 96.00%
Soup/Broth 5.40% 32.60% 92.80% 67.90% 99.20%
Other vegetables 5.30% 76.10% 97.90% 35.40% 97.80%
Chicken 5.10% 82.30% 95.30% 18.40% 94.10%
Tamalitos 4.80% 53.30% 95.60% 50.60% 98.80%
Green leafy 
vegetables
4.20% 54.10% 91.70% 46.20% 98.50%
Avocado 2.10% 98.60% 97.10% 1.40% 100.00%
Meat 1.00% 80.60% 17.20% 18.90% 100.00%
Porridge/oatmeal 0.20% 60.00% 87.50% 20% 100.00%
Otro NA 10.9% 93.3% 13.8% 95.6%
Parent Survey. Parents were also asked to report on the 
food their child receives at school (see Table 14). Among 
“other” responses, parents also indicated that their child 
receives milk, cheese (cuajada) spaghetti/noodles, 
juices/horchata, pupusas, tamales/tamalitos, tajadas, and 
tortillas. 56.9% of parents also reported receiving dry 
rations. When asked how it is used, 99.4% reported 
consuming it at home, and 7.6% share it with other 
families. Fewer than 0.5% of families reported selling or 
donating their rations to others. 
Table 14: Food Received by Children at 
School (Parent-Reported)
Food %
CSB 96.2%
Beans 98.0%
Rice 98.0%
Corn 86.7%
Oil 75.9%
Vegetables 13.7%
Other 9.6%
Chicken 4.4%
Drinks 0.2%
47
Result 12.0 - Improved Student Attendance
Data for Result 12.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records and verified through 
physical attendance lists pulled at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. All results indicators exceeded 
their final targets.
Result Indicator 12.1 - Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools. According to CRS MEAL records, 50,165 students attended USDA supported 
classes at least 80.0% of the 200 school days. This number represents 105.2% of the final target of 
47,700 students attending 80% of school days. Students who regularly attend school account for 
93.5% of the 53,678 students enrolled at midterm (see Result Indicator 15.1). Compared to 
baseline, however, this number is also a decrease of 2,595 (4.9%) students from the 52,760
students previously attending 80% of school days.
Result Indicator 12.2 - female. A total of 23,988 female students attended 80.0% or more of 
school days, representing 102.6% of the final target of 23,373 female students attending 80% of 
school days. Female students who regularly attend school account for 93.3% of the female 25,723
students enrolled at midterm (see Result Indicator 15.2). However, this number is also a decrease 
of 1,974 (7.6%) of female students from the 25,962 female students at the baseline evaluation 
attending 80% of school days.
Result Indicator 12.3 - male. A total of 26,177 male students attended 80.0% or more of school 
days, representing 107.6% of the final target of 24,327 male students attending 80% of school 
days. Male students who regularly attend school account for 93.6% of the 27,955 male students 
enrolled at midterm (see Result Indicator 15.3). However, this number is also a decrease of 621
(2.3%) of male students from the 26,798 male students at the baseline evaluation attending 80% 
of school days.
● Verification. Five attendance lists each for 2017 and 2018 were pulled at Caritas and 
COCEPRADII.
Parents. Parents were asked to respond how they would act if their community had children who 
were not attending school. Parents indicated that they would make home visits (85.3%), inform 
the principal of the school (9.4%), obtain resources to help motivate the parent to send the child 
to school (8.4%), and inform local authorities (4.5%). Only 4.7% of parents said they would do 
nothing. Of those who responded other (8.2%), most strategies involved having a conversation 
with the parents of the child not attending school about the importance of school attendance and 
strategies to support the family in sending their child to school. 
Teachers. When asked about contributing factors to student absences, teachers reported that 
absences were due to sickness (62.0%), transportation difficulties (18.1%), safety/security 
concerns (3.6%), the need to work outside the home (23.9%), vacation/spending time with family 
(5.0%), rain (5.3%), flooding (5.2%), muddy roads (3.4%), or a variety of other reasons (46.6%). 
48
Result 13.0 - Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased Disincentives)
Result Indicator 13.1 - Number of students receiving transportation to schools as a result of 
USDA assistance. According to transportation records collected by implementing partners, 3,517 
children received transportation to school as a result of USDA assistance. This number 
represents 117.2% of the final target of 3,000. As displayed in Table 15, Caritas provided 
transportation to 1,895 students and COCEPRADII provided transportation to 1,622 students. 
Students’ grades range from Pre-K and K to Grade 9. The largest subset of students receiving 
transportation from both implementing partners were those in Grades 7, 8, and 9 (see Table 15).
Table 15. Students Receiving Transportation to Schools by Grade
CARITAS COCEPRADII TOTAL
Pre-K and K -- 20 20
Grade 1 172 61 233
Grade 2 157 99 256
Grade 3 161 87 248
Grade 4 202 95 297
Grade 5 164 108 272
Grade 6 190 97 287
Grade 7 358 374 732
Grade 8 284 368 652
Grade 9 207 313 520
TOTAL 1,895 1,622 3,517
● Verification. Three transportation lists each for 2017 and 2018 were pulled at Caritas and 
COCEPRADII.
Parent Survey. Fewer than 1 in 10 parents (8.0%) reported that their children have access 
transportation services. Of those that did, most received transportation for one (61.6%) or two 
(23.9%) children. Among families receiving transportation services, close to two in three (63.0%) of 
parents worked to ensure the child arrives on time to the transportation stop, 42.8% monitor the 
child’s safety until they board, 16.2% monitor the safety of the means of transportation, 3.6% are 
engaged in administrative tasks related to transportation, and 4.4% manage the resources for 
transportation. In open-ended responses (22.5%), the majority of parents indicated that they pay 
for transportation services for their children.
What are the Factors Influencing Family’s Investment Decisions?
Parents were asked in surveys about the factors influencing their decisions around investing 
money. As displayed in Table 16, the primary factors include food, medical bills, education costs, 
goods, savings, and asset-building.
49
Table 16. Factors Driving Family Investment Decisions
Factor %
Pay for food not produced by family 89.9%
Produce food 88.2%
Pay medical bills 84.9%
Pay education costs 80.7%
Pay for goods in the home 69.8%
Need to build savings for urgent needs 60.5%
Need to build assets to sell in event of urgent needs 65.6%
Family Investment Decision-Making. As part of the midterm evaluation data collection activities, a 
special qualitative study was conducted using six focus groups (three with men only, three with 
women only) to examine how parents decide on household expenditures. The findings presented 
in Table 16 above were supported, but additional dynamics emerged from the qualitative data 
(see a full report on this exercise in Appendix C). In the framework of the CRS strategic plan 
(2014-2018), CRS Honduras designed its learning agenda since 2015 in two key sectors of its 
programming, one of which is Education and Youth. For this sector, CRS Honduras has prepared 
the following learning question: What are the factors that influence the economic and 
participatory investment priorities of families and local authorities in marginal urban and rural 
areas of Honduras with a focus on the rights of NNJA? The answer to that question will help CRS 
design projects that are more focused on the factors that determine the spending priorities of 
families, to ensure that those priorities align with the rights of children and youth. It will also 
facilitate effective advocacy on international cooperation organizations, partners, local and central 
government; In addition, it will contribute to making adjustments to ongoing projects.
Results from this special study showed that spending priorities varied between men and women, 
with women tending to focus more on food, health and education. Men, meanwhile, focused on 
food, agriculture production, and land acquisition, purchase of animals, and finally health and 
education. These differences likely reflect the division of labor between men and women, which, 
in turn, is related to existing gender gaps in the communities. 
Importantly, focus groups revealed that family income is often used to purchase goods considered 
"luxury" in the communities. This dynamic affects the availability of monetary income for the 
purchase of essential goods, reducing the possibility of meeting basic needs. Spending on alcohol, 
drugs, tobacco and gambling (expenses mainly for men), also affects the availability of money to 
spend on education, food, and health (see Appendix C).
Result 14.0 - Improved School Infrastructure
Data for Result 14.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records and verified through 
pulling physical records at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. All indicators showed good progress, 
having met or exceeded their final targets.
50
Result Indicator 14.1 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that a total of 
333 educational facilities were rehabilitated or constructed as a result of USDA assistance. This 
number represents 102.5% of the final target of 325.
Result Indicator 14.2 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas). CRS MEAL 
records show that 44 kitchens and cook areas have been built or rehabilitated, representing 
61.1% of the final target of 72.
Result Indicator 14.3 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Latrines). CRS MEAL records show that 
199 latrines have been built or rehabilitated, representing 110.0% of the final target of 181. 
Result Indicator 14.4 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Wells and water stations/systems).
CRS MEAL records show that 44 wells and water stations/systems have been built or 
rehabilitated, representing 61.1% of the final target of 72.
Result Indicator 14.5 - Number of schools using an improved water source. CRS MEAL records 
show that 44 schools are using an improved water source, representing 61.1% of the final target 
of 72.
Result Indicator 14.6 - Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities. CRS MEAL records 
show that 46 schools have improved sanitary facilities, representing 63.9% of the final target of 
72.
● Verification. Three records were pulled each for 2017 and 2018 for each of the following: 
Infrastructure; Warehouse (Siguatepeque); Kitchens, cook areas; Latrines; and Wells and 
water stations/systems. A combined total of 60 records were pulled (30 for Caritas, 30 for 
COCEPRADII) (also see Result 2).
Principals. Principals reported on the state of the facilities of the school building. They indicated in 
general that their building facilities were regular (40.4%) or good (45.6%), though a small group 
said the facilities were bad/poor (14.0%). Most indicated that their school building was not 
accessible for children with disabilities (74.3%). 
51
A sink next to a latrine, built during MGD Phase II
A sink next to a latrine, built during MGD Phase II
Figure 5: Teachers’ Top Priorities for 
Improving School Infrastructure
Many principals indicated their preferences for 
improvement areas for school infrastructure. When 
asked what areas they would like to see improved, 
24.6% said that classrooms should be improved, 
8.7% said latrines/toilets should be improved, and 
1.2% said sinks should be improved. In addition, 
32.2% said construction on classrooms should 
occur, 11.1% said construction on latrines/toilets 
should occur, and 1.8% said sinks should be built. 
Finally, 24.0% indicated that a perimeter fence 
should be built. Write-in responses indicated that 
principals value construction projects on libraries, 
kitchens, event and activity spaces, gymnasiums, 
and other buildings. 
Children. Children reported that toilet paper was 
available with some variance. Roughly one third (33.3%) 
said that it was available every day, 6.4% said almost 
every day, 26.8 said some days, and 33.5% indicated 
that toilet paper was never available. 
Parents. Over two-thirds (67.9%) of parents indicated 
that there had been improvements in school 
infrastructure. When asked what areas were improved, 
32.3% said that kitchens were improved, 40.0% said 
cleaning areas were improved, 6.5% said well and water 
systems were improved, 46.7% said repairs were made 
to roofs, walls, windows, doors, and floors, and 27.3% indicated that there were other 
improvements. Write-in responses indicated that these included building improvements such as 
new libraries, auditoriums, sports fields, fencing, food storage/kitchens, painting, and other 
improvements. 
Parents also shared information related to their ongoing maintenance activities. Over two-thirds 
(67.0%) indicated that there were cleaning services, 36.4% reported ongoing supervision of the 
physical state of the building, 30.3% that supervision to ensure that repairs were done adequately, 
14.8% indicated that ongoing repairs (e.g. leaks, key 
replacement) were occurring at their school, and 
6.1% stated that school communities received 
contributions for repair parts.
Teachers. Data from the teacher’s survey indicate 
that teachers had mixed opinions about the physical 
condition of their schools: 10.7% reported poor 
condition, 53.0% reported fair/regular condition, and 
36.4% reported good condition. When asked to 
report the top two priorities for improving school 
infrastructure, the teachers ranked them as 
presented in Figure 5.
52
Infrastructure Observations
Of the 27 schools observed for infrastructure support, 74% of schools received support from MGD 
for its bathrooms/restrooms, 70% received support for its kitchen, and 30% received support for 
its water system. Additionally, 22% of schools mentioned they received support for other 
components of the school’s infrastructure, such as classrooms (34%), pantry/storage space (50%), 
dining (34%), and water filter (17%).
Most schools (93%) have a kitchen, and over 90% of those schools use the kitchen to prepare food 
and store food and cooking tools. As depicted in Table 17, overall, the cleanliness of the kitchens 
were clean to very clean - over 60% for all evaluated items. The floor has the lowest cleanliness 
average of 3.80, and the equipment and kitchen tools had the highest cleanliness average of 4.28. 
There were animals in the kitchen in 16% of schools (n=4), there were dogs in two schools, flies in 
one and chickens in one (see Table 17).
Table 17. State of Cleanliness in the Kitchen
Very clean Clean Neutral Dirty Very Dirty Average (SD) Range
Stove 44% (11) 28% (7) 16% (4) 8% (2) 4% (1) 4.00 (1.15) [1,5]
Floor 36% (9) 32% (8) 16% (4) 8% (2) 8% (2) 3.80 (1.26) [1,5]
Equipment 44% (11) 40% (10) 16% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4.28 (0.74) [3,5]
Walls 44% (11) 20% (5) 20% (5) 12% (3) 4% (1) 3.88 (1.24) [1,5]
Sink 36% (9) 36% (9) 12% (3) 16% (4) 0% (0) 3.92 (1.08) [2,5]
Kitchen tools 48% (12) 40% (10) 4% (1) 8% (2) 16% (4) 4.28 (0.89) [2,5]
Counter tops 
and seats
32% (8) 40% (10) 16% (4) 8% (2) 4% (1) 3.88 (1.09) [1,5]
Of the schools that had a kitchen (n=25), food was being prepared in 92% of schools at the 
moment of the observation. As depicted in Table 18, the hygiene protocol followed by the 
preparers of food was good - over 80% of agreement for almost all items. The use of hairnets had 
the lowest average score (3.00), while the use of gloves had the highest average (4.35) (see Table 
18).
Table 18. Cleanliness while Preparing Food
Strongly 
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 
disagree
n Average 
(SD)
Range
The kitchen tables, floors 
and tools are clean
46% (10) 36% (8) 5% (1) 9% (2) 5% (1) 22 4.09 (1.15) [1,5]
Preparers wash their 
hands
33% (5) 53% (8) 7% (1) 7% (1) 0% (0) 15 4.13 (0.83) [2,5]
Food preparers wear 
clean clothes
45% (9) 45% (9) 10% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 20 4.35 (0.67) [3,5]
Preparers use hair nets to 
keep their hair up
30% (6) 15% (3) 0% (0) 35% (7) 20% (4) 20 3.00 (1.62) [1,5]
Preparers use aprons. 55% (11) 25% (5) 0% (0) 15% (3) 5% (1) 20 4.10 (1.29) [1,5]
53
There were children in the kitchen at 12% of schools (n=3). The motive of having the children 
under age 7 in the kitchen was because the parents do not have anyone who could take care of 
the child at home. 
There was water available at 89% (n=24) of the schools. Additionally, 88% of schools (n=22) had a 
functioning water system. The water system was provided by the program in 36% of the schools 
(n=9). Additionally, water leaks were not observed in 93% of schools. In 59% of schools, water was 
used for consumption, in 100% of schools the water was used to wash hands and dishes, in 91% of 
schools the water was used to wash the mop, and in 73% of schools the water was used to wash 
the floor. Additionally, in 18% of schools (n=4) the water was used for other purposes, such as 
gardening (n=3). 
Children drank water at the school in 79% of the schools. Children drank water from: a water jet in 
25% of schools, from pipe in 15% of schools, from a fountain in 11% of schools, from filter in 79% 
of schools. In other 3 schools (16%) kids brought water for their own consumption. 
The Sawyer filter is used in 88% of schools (n=21), and all schools stated the filter is useful and it 
does not need to be changed, among the reasons they provided for this statement they say that 
the filter prevented diseases, it was easy to use, safe, among others. 
There was a bathroom in 93% of schools (n=25), and 92% of those used separate bathrooms. In 
91% of schools there were separate bathrooms for boys and girls, and in 91% of schools there 
were separate bathrooms for teachers and children. The cleanliness of bathrooms was reported to 
be good. 
There were clean walls in 72% of schools, clean toilets, and handwash in 64% of the schools. 
Among the schools that did not meet the minimal standards, observers stated that there were no 
toilets in two schools, there was no handwash (or did not have water) in other two schools, and 
the smells or overall condition was bad in other two schools. In addition, none of the schools had a 
towel, 8% of the schools had soap, 80% of schools had water in the bathroom, 64% of schools had 
a trash can, 76% of schools had ventilation, and 56% of schools had lights in the bathroom. Finally, 
there was toilet paper in only 10% of the bathrooms (n=2). 
Qualitative responses related to “other” improvements emphasized new or improved kitchen and 
cafeterias, school furniture, libraries, auditoriums, science and technology labs, sports fields, 
roofing, and electric and sanitation systems. 
Result 15.0 - Increased Student Enrollment
Result Indicator 15.1 - Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance. Student 
enrollment data were obtained by Caritas and COCEPRADII, and disaggregated by gender (see 
Table 19). Overall, the number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance totaled 
53,678. This number represents 97.5% of the final total of 55,035 but decrease of 517 (1.0%)
from the 54,195 students enrolled at baseline.
54
Result Indicator 15.2 - female. According to Caritas and COCEPRADII records, 25,723 female 
students were enrolled in 2018, representing 95.9% of the final target of 26,814 but a decrease 
of 682 female students (2.6%) than the 26,405 students enrolled at baseline.
Result Indicator 15.3 - male. According to Caritas and COCEPRADII records, 27,955 male students 
were enrolled in 2018, representing 99.1% of the final target of 28,221 and an increase of 165 
male students (0.6%) compared to the 27,790 male students enrolled at baseline.
Table 19. Student Enrollment by Gender
Caritas COCEPRADII TOTAL
Female Students 13,983 11,740 25,723
Male Students 15,183 12,772 27,955
Overall 29,166 24,512 53,678 
Enrollment and attendance numbers are presented in Figure 6 below, comparing boys and girls at 
baseline and midterm. Boys’ enrollment increased slightly at midterm, but attendance dropped. 
Girls’ enrollment was lower than boys at baseline, and dropped further at midterm. Girls’ 
attendance also dropped at midterm at a steeper rate than for boys.
Figure 6. Enrollment and Attendance, by Gender (Baseline vs. Midterm)
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
BASELINE MIDTERM
GIRLS ENROLLED
GIRLS ATTENDED
BOYS ENROLLED
BOYS ATTENDED
55
To make a more direct comparison between boys’ and girls’ enrollment and attendance rates, we 
calculated the percentage of students attending school 80% time out of the total number of 
students enrolled at baseline and midterm (see Figure 7). The proportion of both boys and girls 
who regularly attended school declined at midterm compared to baseline. However, attendance 
dropped more significantly for girls (5.0% of the population) compared to boys (1.4% of the 
population).
Figure 7. Regular School Attendees Compared to Total Enrollment Students
Result 16.0 - Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
Result Indicator 16.1 - Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three 
benefits of primary education. 72.6% of parents named at least three benefits, an increase from 
20.8% at baseline, and representing 161.3% of the final target of 45.0%.
All parents (100% of n=1,720) indicated that they believed their child’s education is important. 
Table 20 displays the top reasons provided by parents.
98.30%
93.30%
96.40%
93.60%
90.00%
91.00%
92.00%
93.00%
94.00%
95.00%
96.00%
97.00%
98.00%
99.00%
BASELINE MIDTERM
% Girls 80% attendance/enrolled
% Boys 80% attendance/enrolled
56
Parents provided many additional reasons 
for why they believe their child’s education is 
important, including developing literacy and 
reading skills, the development of social and 
emotional skills as well as a moral/decision￾making framework, and a broader 
understanding of the role of education in a 
child’s formation into adulthood. 
Parents also reported on their frequency of visits to the school. Figure 8 provides these results. 
Most parents attended at least once a week or more (67.9%). 
Figure 8: Frequency of Parent Visits to the School
When parents come to school, 61.3% report having meetings with the parents association (APF), 
35.9% meet with teachers, 50.2% help with food preparation and serving, 29.9% monitor (the 
safety of) the children and materials of the school, 8.8% report monitoring the good use of school 
materials, 30.4% indicated that they come to school when the teacher calls them, and 18.2% said 
they engaged in other activities at the school. 
Regarding volunteer activities, 55.1% of parents indicated that at least one person in their home
volunteers at the school, while 24.0% indicated that more than one person in their home 
volunteers at the school. When volunteering, parents serve as teacher’s aids (16.8%), work on 
Table 20: Why Parents Believe their Child’s 
Education is Important
To have a better future 81.2%
To have a better quality of life 69.5%
To reach higher social status 22.3%
To get a higher income 52.2%
To contribute to local development and 
to Honduras
18.7%
57
dropout prevention (EPRED) (9.2%), work with PASE (14.2%), participate with the parents 
association (APF) (30.7%), work with the school committee (CED) (4.8%), volunteer with the 
education development board (COMDE) (0.7%), serve on the food committee (43.7%), or serve in 
other capacities (6.9%). 
Parents also discussed the role of the School for Parents (Escuela Para Padres). Most parents 
(88.3%) either participate or have an interest in participating in the parent school. Parents also 
indicated that the desire to learn more (90.7%), to help their children with homework (32.4%), and 
to meet other people (17.2%) were all motivations to attend. Write-in responses also emphasized 
parents’ desires for assistance in learning parenting skills that focus on social and emotional skill 
building and moral development. 
Why Do Parents Believe Education is Important for Their Children?
The MDG program has focus on promoting the importance of education among parents and it is 
evident through the focus groups responses that parents understand the importance of education 
for their children. In particular, their statements show that they understand that education has a 
positive impact their children’s future as it prepares them to become successful and productive 
adults (see Matrix 4). The overwhelmingly majority of focus groups (82%) stated that education 
helps children have a better future by providing better job opportunities compared to someone 
with less education. Parents seem to be aware that education serves as a means to acquire new 
abilities and skills, increasing their children’s opportunities of obtaining a better job with good 
earning potential.
Similarly, 45% of focus groups perceive education as a mean to improve quality of life. Some 
parents stated that they did not have the opportunity to complete their education, which limited 
their employment and financial opportunities as adults. Their desire is for their children to have a 
better life than they had. They perceive education as a way for their children to improve their 
quality of life. Parents in 45% of focus groups also stated that education is very important in 
preparing children fend for themselves since education helps children to develop abilities and skills 
that will help them to become independent and compete for jobs. Education also teaches children 
how to fight for their rights.
Another pattern that emerge in 27% of the focus groups was that education promotes positive 
behaviors and prepares individuals to make better life decisions. Parents perceive those who have 
higher levels of education as less likely to engage in criminal behavior and make bad life decisions. 
Education is perceived to be associated with having higher critical thinking skills and being able to 
make wiser choices. In addition to acknowledging that education is important for the future well￾being of their children, in 55% of the focus groups, parents also noted that education is a way for 
their children to contribute to the well-being of their municipalities or communities and their 
country. Formally educated individuals are perceived as the foundation for a community and 
country.
58
Matrix 5. Importance of Education
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
To have a 
better future -
better job 
opportunities
with more 
skills or a 
professional 
job
Parent: “Education give us opportunities. For example, if 
we go to a company seeking a job and we do not have a 
degree, they may ask us if we speak English and if we 
know how to use a computer. If we say that we don’t, they 
will tell us that we cannot get the job because they need 
someone who can communicate with people from 
abroad.”
82%
(9 comments)
To have a 
better quality 
of life than 
their parents
Parent: “Education is important so that children can have a 
different life than their parents. They should study so that 
their lives can be different. So that there is change and 
they are not like me who only completed the third grade. 
My goal is for my children to be better than me.”
45%
(5 comments)
Fend for 
themselves
Parent: “Education is very important, specially in this day 
and age. For me it’s very important for the future of our 
children so that they know how to fend for themselves.”
45%
(5 comments)
Promotes 
positive 
behaviors and 
life decision￾making
Parent: “I say that education is the most important thing 
for me because someone who is educated thinks before 
committing a crime or joining a gang. A teacher, a lawyer, 
or a politician, will avoid it because they know what they 
are getting into. The one who doesn’t have an education 
will most likely join a gang or another place because he or 
she did not study.”
27%
(3 comments)
Contributes to 
the 
development 
of their 
communities 
and their 
country.
Parent: “I believe that education can contribute to the 
development of communities, the development of the 
municipalities, and the development of their country. It is 
of great importance.”
55%
(6 comments)
59
Key Criteria
Relevance
Project stakeholders largely feel that MGD is meeting significant needs in their communities, and 
both parents and community organizations participate to foster the success of the program. All of 
the parent focus groups (100%) identified that parents participate in various forms in their 
children’s education (see Matrix 6 for summary). Parents reported that they participate in 
different committees, trainings, and projects, such as in the school feeding program, the school for 
parents, parent-teacher meetings, dropout prevention and homework committees, and the school 
garden and new construction projects. 
Parents contribute in the committees and projects by supplying volunteer labor, donating food 
items or materials, visiting parents of children with chronic absences. While parents participate in 
various activities, it was frequently mentioned that parents participate in the training and 
preparation of the school feeding program. It became apparent through the parent focus groups 
that the MGD program has contributed significantly to the development of the community social 
fabric, through the promotion and support of different forms of organization.
In addition to participating in the school programs, parents also provide support in their children’s 
learning process. In 45% of the focus groups, parents stated that they provide learning support to 
their children in ways such as: going to the school to ask the teacher about their children’s 
academic progress and behavior; reinforcing behavior rules at home; giving children time to work 
on homework; prioritizing homework before chores; helping child to read; working on homework 
with child; checking their homework; and seeking help for child when homework is complicated if 
parents do not know how to read and write. Therefore, the findings suggest that children receive 
mutual support from teachers and parents in their learning process.
Parents in 36% of the focus groups also stated that they send their children to school and make 
sure that they are arriving at the school. It was mentioned by participants that some parents 
assume that their children are going to school, but they stay somewhere along the way so it is 
important to check whether they are arriving at the school. 
60
Matrix 6. Parental Involvement in the Education of their Children
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Providing learning 
Support
Parent: “I always go to ask about my children’s 
academic progress because I believe that, as a 
responsible parent, we have to ask about their 
progress. It is one thing just to send the child to 
school and another thing to find out how our 
children are doing.”
Parent: “I look for help because I cannot read. 
When they assign them difficult homework, I 
look for help with people who may know. I ask 
them if they can help my children.”
Parent: “I give my children time so that they 
can do their homework. Because if they come 
home and I ask them to make the tortillas or to 
bring the firewood, they will not have time to
do on their homework.”
45%
(5 comments)
Participating in 
committees, 
meetings, and 
school projects
Parent: “It is our responsibility to attend 
meetings and trainings. We receive training 
and are asked to take leadership positions in 
the schools such as in the parent association 
and other committees available in the school. 
We need to collaborate with all of those 
committees because by participating we 
support the school and our children.”
Parent: “Well, I personally have been involved 
in many activities because all of my children 
have all attended school here. We have 
learned to cook because they have brought us 
a project to learn to cook.”
100%
(11 comments)
Sending children to 
school
“Sometimes there are children that we send to 
school from home, but they may not arrive to 
school. They may stay hiding somewhere and 
we think that they are in school. So, we need to 
check if our children are in school.”
36%
(4 comments)
61
Effectiveness
With 48 of 61 indicators already having met or exceeded their final targets at midterm (78.9%), 
MGD II has been largely effective in meeting output and outcome targets. CRS has also effectively 
followed recommendations from the Baseline Evaluation report and the project has made 
significant gains in community support and buy-in. Yet, some challenges emerged from the 
Midterm Evaluation, related to slower than expected gains in reading comprehension, and 
ongoing issues around the sustainability of project activities. New concerns arose around meeting 
the needs of students with learning and other disabilities, as did potential problems around health 
and hygiene, and issues related to financial decision-making among parents. These concerns are 
each addressed in the Midterm Recommendations.
Efficiency
Qualitative data revealed frustration on the part of district directors, around the centralization of 
spending authority at the municipal level. Specifically, district directors are constrained in their 
abilities to prioritize funding for textbooks and other learning materials, while municipal mayors 
are said to prioritize infrastructure support and furniture. Qualitative data also suggested that 
inconsistent strategies are in place across municipalities to ensure mandatory school enrollment. 
In addition, municipalities vary in the extent to which they have engaged in planning for project 
sustainability post-USDA support, including how funds will be allocated to continue specific project 
activities after conclusion of MGD II. These concerns are addressed in the Midterm 
Recommendations.
Impact
The overwhelmingly majority of parents (65% of the comments) agreed that school feeding was 
the component that program that had the greatest impact on their child’s education. They also 
identified other components of the program such as transportation, school supplies, and parent 
trainings. However, they emphasized that while that while other components are important and 
impact the educational achievement of children in different ways, the school feeding is critical 
since it is one of the main reasons some children go to school.
The majority of informants perceive that the MDG program has positively affected the academic
achievement of children (see Matrix 7). According to the different actors who were interviewed, 
the problems of absenteeism and school dropout have been considerably reduced. 74% of the 
interviews with district, departmental directors, and municipal mayors reported that the MDG 
program has reduced absenteeism. The actor’s perception about improved attendance is 
consistent with data that shows the number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA 
supported schools consists of 50,165, which is above the CRS targeted number of 47,700 students.
Actors consider that the impact of the program is more evident in the reduction of absenteeism, 
especially in those children who come from homes in extreme poverty. An important part of this 
project is the constant motivation that children receive. There are multiple reasons now to 
encourage them to continue going to school. For example, district directors affirm that since the 
school feeding intervention is in place children are motivated to come to school since that may be 
the only meal they may have in a day. 
62
In 59% of the interviews, actors also reported that the MDG program has reduced dropout rates. 
However, some of the actors interviewed stated that they cannot affirm that the program has 
reduced dropout rates since there are various reasons why children dropout from school that are 
beyond the control of the school and of the MGD program. For example, while the researchers 
visited the schools, some of the school principals and parents informally discussed how there has 
been an increase in student dropouts related to more families immigrating to the U.S. in recent 
months.
The perception of stakeholders must also be balanced with the quantitative findings for student 
enrollment and attendance. While all of these indicators are near the final targets for the MGD 
program, all have declined since baseline with the exception of boys’ attendance which increased 
slightly at midterm. Most concerning is that girls’ attendance has dropped at a steeper rate than 
their enrollment, and at a steeper rate than boys’ attendance – suggesting that unknown factors 
are preventing these girls from coming to school even when they have enrolled (see Figure 7).
Another one of the positive effects of the program, reported by informants, is that the food 
children receive leads to greater academic performance. The program supports children who 
come from homes with limited economic resources, and the school feeding program generates 
progress in the learning of these children. In addition, according to district directors, the school 
feeding program has indirectly impacted academic indicators through children improved academic 
performance. They believe that a child who is well fed is able to pay more attention than a child 
who is hungry, and this helps them to do better academically (see Matrix 7).
Matrix 7. How has the Program Impacted the Educational Achievement of Children?
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Decrease in 
student 
attrition
Municipal Mayor: “The program has helped us to reduce student 
drop-out and absenteeism. Drop-out and absenteeism occurs 
not only because of school expulsion, because the family does 
not have the economic conditions to support the child, or 
because the child does not want to continue studying. The child
may drop out because he or she may have a degree of 
malnutrition, because the child does not have something to eat
at home. To our knowledge, the school meals motivate children
to come to school because they know they will have a meal at 
school that may not have at home.”
74%
(20 comments)
Decrease in 
student 
absenteeism
District director: “If we did not have the meals at the school, it 
would be quite difficult to maintain attendance. There are 
communities where I can say that the children go to school 
because of the meals.”
Department director: “Let me tell you that the biggest impact is 
that the children have a more consistent attendance. We have 
less absenteeism. I could not say the same about attrition 
because children drop out from school for various reasons.
59%
(16 comments)
63
Before the school feeding program, many of the children did not 
go to school because going to school without eating was terrible. 
Now some children arrive to school to learn and some to eat a 
meal because they know that it may be the only meal they will 
eat that day. This has reduced absenteeism and the academic 
performance of children has also improved since a well-fed child 
learns better. 
Improved 
academic 
performance
District director: “In the long run, it may also help us with the 
academic performance; a child who knows that he or she will 
receive a meal and a glass of milk, is more likely to pay attention. 
Then his performance will be better.”
District director: “Of course it is important; a well-nourished child 
performs better in school; poor nourishment generates 
developmental delays and has a negative impact on school 
performance.”
41%
(11 comments)
Improved 
academic 
indicators
District director: “We raised the academic indicators; we are in 
third place at department level. The positive outlook of the 
parents and the support of the teachers has made an impact.”
33%
(9 comments)
Sustainability
Perspectives of CRS Staff. CRS Honduras has engaged in a number of strategies to foster the 
sustainability of MGD activities post-USDA support. These activities include intensive parent 
trainings, government partnerships, and interagency coordination. Descriptions of these activities 
are provided in the section of this report entitled, “Progress Made on Baseline Recommendations 
from 2016.” To assess the sustainability of project interventions, this midterm evaluation also 
investigated the extent to which the different MGD program components are sustainable.
According to CRS actors, the sustainability plan for the MDG program was created in 2016 by CRS 
representatives, in collaboration with coordinating technicians and other key stakeholders in the 
department of Intibucá, including department and municipal directors. 
The school feeding intervention will be sustainable to some extent. The Honduran government has 
the obligation by law to provide school meals to children and school feeding programs have 
already been implemented in other departments. A collaboration agreement was recently signed 
by CRS with the Honduran government to support the school feeding program through local 
purchases, which means that this intervention will be gradually transferred to the Ministry of 
Education after the MDG program ends. The funding that the program will receive can be utilized 
to purchase basic grains (e.g., corn, beans and rice) from local small-scale farmers. Although this 
intervention will remain sustainable, the quantity and quality of food products will likely be 
reduced, which can have an impact on the outcomes of the program. 
64
Other sustainable components include the school feeding committees, the tutoring intervention,
self-savings groups, and trainings for teachers and principals. CRS also discussed how the change in 
participants’ behaviors is also a critical aspect of sustainability. They emphasized the importance 
of identifying the key actors that can promote program sustainability. For example, if the school 
principals believe in the program interventions and they feel empowered, they will continue to 
promote the program activities even without the presence of CRS.
Infrastructure is one of the activities that CRS has identified as unsustainable given that these 
activities are costly and require ongoing financial support. Although the municipal government 
currently provides 25% of the financial support for infrastructure, this would not be enough to 
sustain this intervention. In addition, CRS has had conversations with representatives of the 
Honduran government to secure funds for infrastructure. While the government has strategic line 
for infrastructure, they do not have financial resources available at this time for infrastructure. CRS 
also discussed that one of the activities that could potentially phased out is the supply of 
educational materials for children and teachers (e.g. book bags with school supplies for children 
and educational materials for teachers). CRS is currently exploring the possibility of whether a 
private funder could contribute to this aspect of the program. 
One of the greatest challenges for sustainability is that there may not be financial support from 
the municipalities. COMDEs need some funding in order to conduct social audits. CRS has trained 
the COMDE members so that they can understand their roles and functions as a municipal 
structure. They have also offered training in the topic of legal framework and policies. CRS reports 
that most COMDEs are at a point where they are functioning and making important decisions and 
they taking action. CRS is also working to create a committee at the department level that will
focus on resource planning and management. This committee will be trained in resource 
management keeping in mind that there are different program components that could be funded 
through organizations or private businesses through in-kind or financial support. The constitution 
of this committee has already been developed and it is composed of eight members from of the 
representatives of the association of the municipalities, the department director, COCEPRADII, 
CARITAS, and CRS. This committee will identify representatives from private businesses that can 
serve on the committee. 
Perspectives of Key Stakeholders. Several interviews and focus group were also conducted with 
different actors including the department director, municipal directors, mayors, and parents to 
explore their views on the sustainability of the different components of the MGD program. The 
main findings of these interviews and focus groups will be examined in the following section. It is 
important to keep in mind that each one of the actors may have a different perspective on the 
sustainability of the program depending on their own priorities and needs. 
Sustainability of Program Effects
For the most part, parents considered that the program in its current form is not sustainable, 
particularly the school feeding program and the transportation for students (see Matrix 8). This 
perspective may be influenced by the fact they are only looking at the financial sustainability 
aspect of the program. Parents note that sometimes they do not have enough financial resources
even for the basic needs of their household, much less could they contribute economically to 
sustain the program. According to the parents who participated in the focus groups, if the program 
ends, they would be responsible for feeding their own children at home again. Some families may 
65
have the resources to feed their children and others may not. Conversely, some parents believe 
that a possible solution to help sustain the program in absence of USDA and CRS funding would be 
to seek new resources from other organizations including the municipal government. Participants 
also believe they could contribute their human capital to help continue the program activities 
since the different trainings that project offers has developed necessary skills for running the 
school feed program. 
Another pattern that emerged from the data was the current and suggested future actions of the 
municipal government that can contribute to the sustainability of program activities. The 
municipal governments have provided greater support for projects of improvements in 
infrastructure (kitchens, water and sanitation works) as well as transportation for students, but 
have not been as involved in the school feeding program.
Moreover, the district directors expressed frustration that the municipal government has not 
ensured appropriate allocations to education in the budget. They believe that municipal 
government must make a sustainability plan to ensure that some components of the MDG 
program are maintained once CRS funding runs out. These directors plan to meet with the 
municipal government to ask them to consider finding new ways to fund the program such as by 
requesting funding from national programs originated in SEDIS (Secretaría de Desarrollo e 
Inclusión Social, i.e., the Secretary of Development and Social Inclusion), shifting budget priorities, 
and also by helping the community to produce their own crops.
The municipal mayors also expressed interest in findings ways to make the program sustainable. 
For example, one of the mayors stated that for him the school feedings program was a priority and 
he hoped it could be sustained. He talked about investing less in unproductive programs and 
giving more priority to programs that benefit the students and school more such as the school 
feeds program. Although one of the municipal mayors did raise the issue that the municipal 
government already has a limited budget and he cannot allocate money for anything else. 
Based on the responses from these interviews and focus groups, it appears that some of the actors 
may not be fully aware of the progress of the sustainability plan that CRS has developed and how 
they could be part of it. 
Matrix 8. Sustainability of Project Effects
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Program effects 
to be sustained
District Director: “I can tell you with certainty that the 
meals, have increased the permanence of the students 
in the schools. We have improved the enrollment, and 
the children are more willing to go to the schools 
because of the meals they receive; there are less 
dropouts, less absenteeism.”
85%
(14 comments)
66
Sustainability of 
program 
components
District Director: “In regards to food issues, I think not 
because they (the municipalities) have not directly been 
involved; however, in the area of infrastructure they 
give a portion when the program works on some 
infrastructure project, but they are very detached from 
the school feeding, but if we need them, I think they 
would help us.”
Parent: “The school feeding program would be 
unsustainable because we barely has enough for our 
children. It is not possible to feed everyone.”
38%
(13 comments)
Actions from the 
Municipal 
government that 
can contribute 
the sustainability 
of services such 
as meals, 
transportation, 
and 
infrastructure 
improvement
Municipal Mayor: “Primarily, we would need to follow 
up on the program so that it doesn’t end. We all have 
the obligation to invest more into the program. I am 
trying to invest less in unproductive initiatives and 
invest more in initiatives that will have an impact. 
Therefore, the school feeding program is one of the 
initiatives we must sustain and strengthen.”
Municipal Mayor: “At this time the greatest 
contribution we have made is in infrastructure and 
very little in the feeding program. The contribution of 
CARITAS is powerful; they almost support the program 
entirely. We only help sometimes with the fertilizers, 
insecticides, seeds, technical support, advice, 
operational assistance, or financing the crops.”
58%
(10 comments)
Actors that 
could contribute
Department Director: “There will be a time when CRS 
leaves. Therefore, the municipal government should 
sustain these programs. How? They should help the 
same communities to produce the food that the child 
will consume, with the support of someone like me 
who can coordinate these projects.”
Department Director: “As municipal mayor, they first 
have request funds through PMA. Others who have 
school feedings go with CDIS (Secretaria de Inclusion 
Social), Secretary of Social Inclusion to request funds 
and as a municipality they should leave a budget to 
support school feedings.”
Parent: “I think we could request funds from 
municipalities, that can help us feed the children in the 
schools because there are always funds for education 
in the transfers of the municipality. As parents, we 
70%
(12 comments)
67
should also focus on making a contribution to 
maintaining the corn, beans, and rice, the most basic 
items. All parents should reach an agreement to make 
a small contribution to sustain the school feeding 
program and make requests to other organizations 
that can support it.”
Parent: “I believe that we can put into practice the 
trainings we have received. If the institution said they 
are going stop the funding for the program, we could 
use the training we have received to brainstorm new 
ideas. There is no other option if there is no more 
flour, no rice; if there is nothing left. We would have to 
work to generate funds. The problem is that we rely 
only on the institution. I believe that the objective of 
the institution is to train us so that we put into 
practice what we have learned.”
Interagency Relationships
Sustainability requires change in the institutionalization of processes. Informants, including, 
municipalities, department and district directors reported some progress as well as some barriers 
that still exist in interagency relationships. One of the factors that could either hinder or support 
the sustainability of the program is the relationship and coordination between the mayor and 
educational entities. 43% of the comments from district suggest that the district has a positive 
relationship with mayors. In particular, district directors report that they are able to present 
proposals to the mayor and find ways to collaborate. However, 57% of the respondents discussed
challenges in the relationship. They report that some mayors are not willing to sit down with 
district directors to discuss the needs of the district. Other times, even when the mayors are 
willing to consider the needs of the districts, they are not able to provide financial support due to 
limited transfers. 
Another important area related to the institutionalization of processes is the functioning of the 
COMDE. 23% of informants reported that they notice an improvement in the functioning of the 
COMDEs. The trainings have strengthened the capacities of COMDE members and they are now 
able to work together with the ministry of education on proposing educational policies. However, 
77% of the comments related to the functioning of the COMDEs still report barriers. One of the 
challenges reported is that because the COMDEs are made up of volunteers, sometime is difficult 
to get groups to participate in the meeting and to take action. Another major barrier for the 
COMDEs is the lack of independence in being able to make decisions and being able to have an 
input on how the funds are allocated. 
68
Matrix 9. Interagency Relationships
Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Interagency 
Coordination
(Relationship 
between mayor 
and educational 
entities)
District director: We do have a good relationship; we 
have a new municipal government right now, and we 
have a good relationship. We come to agreements; we 
present plans; we discuss them and we see where we 
can collaborate; sometimes we have to seek other 
funders.
District Director: We coordinate activities with the 
mayor; if anything is needed to bring to a municipality, 
such as food, transportation and some other funds to 
develop some activities. 
43%
(9 comments) 
Interagency 
Coordination 
Challenges 
Department director: “That depends on the mayor 
involved. Because the biggest problem I see with the 
mayor's coordination is that many mayors do not like 
and do not sit down to talk with the municipal 
directors and do not collaborate either. Sometimes the 
municipal directors present needs, because the 
secretary of education does not give anything. Then 
they present some needs. Look, we need ink, we
occupy things like that. And they say they are going to 
help. But they do not help. So, what I would like to see 
improved would be the coordination that should 
between the municipal mayor's office with the 
municipal administrations in terms of the management 
of the resources that they have destined for the 
education sector.
District director: “Because of the limited transfers to 
the municipal mayor's office, they cannot provide any 
support, and what we always request is economic 
support, because it is the resource with which we do 
not have.”
Mayor: “A little bit more of coordination and 
institutional communication. For example, in regards 
to resources, if they come to demand resources and 
suddenly one does not have a response, then they get 
upuse. I just had a problem with the transfer that 
didn’t come on time and I had to deliver the materials 
late.”
Mayor: “Lack of human resources in both institutions. 
The municipal administration does not have human or 
57%
(12 comments)
69
logistical resources. That is one of the biggest 
obstacles.”
Improvement in 
the functioning of 
COMDE
Department Director: “Look now we have a deputy 
minister that is giving enough importance to the 
participating agencies. He is ensuring that the COMDEs 
are well trained and functioning. I told them days ago 
in a meeting that in Intibucá we have many successful 
COMDEs. Because the operation of the COMDEs will 
also depend on the ability to dialogue and the 
management of the municipal director. So, we have 
many successful COMDEs, whether they are 
REDACTED, and so on. I could list you many. But here 
with educational levels, we working a lot on training 
organisms.”
Department Director: “The department is 
strengthening capacities in the COMDE members. They 
already handle the public policies of the education 
ministry. The head of the COMDE is the municipal 
director and a representative of the mayor. Then, 
through the same COMDES, the capacities are 
strengthened. The mayor's offices help with the 
logistics for the meetings or for other activities.’
23%
(7 comments)
Limitations of 
COMDE
District Director “The COMDE is composed by 
voluntary participation. That is a limitation. The public 
policy that strengthens public education, outlines the 
functions and powers of the COMDE, yet it has been 
difficult for different groups to participate. For 
example, the Catholic Church and the Evangelical 
Church have not been present. We have invited them. 
The participation has started to go down. One, it has 
been due to the workload we have and they evaluate 
us more on other things. The meetings are very 
difficult. We have planned them once a month, but 
they do not take place. To analyze quick things to 
elaborate planning. We have the operational and 
strategic planning of COMDE, but it is hard for us to 
take action.”
District Director: “The mayor’s office should give 
COMDEs more independence, because I have heard 
that in other places that the fund for education is 
managed by the COMDE, then it would be a more 
decentralized way of channeling funds, and that the 
COMDE can distribute according to the needs of the 
77%
(23 comments)
70
schools and this would be a more equitable way of 
how to help schools, and not only in the help of schools 
but in other improvements that help the municipality.”
Community Responsibility and Local Ownership 
The interviews revealed that different actors are contributing to the functioning and sustainability 
of the school feeding program in various ways. For example, the mayors and department and 
district directors reported that their role in the school feeding program is to oversee and supervise 
the food distribution process and proper management of the food in the schools. Overall, district 
directors perceive COCEPRADII and CARITAS as being in charge of running the program and 
managing the implementation of the program.
The district directors and mayors also highlighted that the program would not be as effective, 
without the commitment of different actors in the schools including the school principals, 
teachers, and parents. Each of these fulfills different responsibilities. For example, parents who 
are part of the school feeding committee transport the food from the municipal warehouse to the 
schools and they also prepare the meals. The school principals oversee the administration of the 
school feedings and they assign teachers to work together with the parent committee to develop 
the weekly menu. Finally, the various actors acknowledged that the successful functioning of the 
school feeding program could not have been possible without the different trainings the school 
feeding committees and other school personnel has received from CRS to increase their capacity. 
Thus, the findings from the different interviews shows that there has been progress in the 
sustainability goals for the school feeding program. One of the key strategies of CRS was to 
establish school feeding committees and strengthen key capacities of these committees through 
trainings on topics related to food preparation, hygiene, and the importance of adequate 
nutrition. The interviews reveal that this strategy has been effective. Another goal of CRS was 
developed a standardized curriculum at the country level for training mothers and fathers about 
the school feeding program. However, it seems that that activity is still in progress. 
Informants also discuss some ways in which the strategies have proven effective in building local 
ownership of the program. One district director stated that “there has been an improvement in 
the commitment of teachers, parents, and local authorities.” In general, district directors see that 
there has been a change in mentality and greater commitment and sense of responsibility to 
promote social change among different stakeholders. 
In particular, the involvement of parents in various committees or organizations supported by the 
project, such as school feeding committee or parents’ association has empowered parents and 
promoted responsibility and social change. As a result, parents are more involved in school 
activities and there is also a closer relationship between teacher, parents, and the child. Also, as 
discussed in another section of the report, the training that parents have received, as well as their 
involvement in the program has led to an increased awareness of the importance of education.
71
Matrix 10: Community Responsibility and Local Ownership
Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Role of school 
principals, 
teachers, and 
parents
District Director: “Everyone is fulfilling their 
responsibilities. The parents are bringing the food from 
the municipal warehouse to the schools. The parent 
committee, who is responsible for the food 
preparation, is also fulfilling their obligations. And the 
educational school principals that are monitoring the 
administration of the program are also fulfilling their 
responsibilities.”
Mayor: “The school principal is the one who signs. 
Then, the he or she assigns a teacher to be in charge 
and then the Parent Association works with the 
mothers to schedule a weekly menu”
28%
(15 comments)
Role of department 
director and 
district directors 
District Director: “We always monitor the program. We 
go to the schools and monitor everything; sometimes 
we even go with the technicians. When they see 
something wrong in the management of the food in 
one of the schools, they communicate it to us and we 
go together.”
Department director: “We have the unit of programs 
and projects. This unit meets monthly. They meet and 
conduct monitoring, weekly and monthly. They 
monitor the amounts of food that is distributed. They 
also monitor how food is prepared in the different
schools.” 
28% (15 
comments)
Role of CRS 
(COSEPRADII, 
Caritas)
District Director: “COCEPRADII is coordinating the food 
program. COCEPRADII has trained mothers, has trained 
parent committees, the CED, and teachers so that 
together we can make the school feeding program 
work well.”
52% (28 
comments)
Sustainability Conclusion
Analysis of qualitative data revealed different challenges and opportunities to the sustainability of 
MGD. One foreseeable challenge is that even though the school feeding program will be sustained 
in some form, the quality and quantity of the food products that will be received from the 
government may be lesser than those received by MGD. According to reports of school feeding 
programs implemented in other departments, the quantity of the food products may not be 
enough to feed the children on a daily basis, the portions given to each child may be smaller than 
the current portions given by MGD, and the diversity of food products available may be limited. 
This suggests that the impact of the program could decrease since lower calorie intake of children 
72
may have negative repercussions on the nutrition of the children. There is also a risk that it could 
negatively affect the current outcomes of the program including school attendance and 
performance. 
An opportunity for future MGD activities is that the different program strategies have proven 
effective in building capacity, developing local ownership, and enhancing the social fabric of the 
communities. One benefit is the involvement of parents in organizations promoted by the project 
that has provided more and better interactions between parents and other actors. According to 
different actors, parents were involved school feeding committees, parent associations, and the 
CED. Parents will be able to continue to use their built capacities when the school feeding program 
is phased over to the Ministry of Education. CRS has also identified the school principals as key 
actors in promoting and managing the school feedings in absence of the MGD program. 
Another important opportunity is that the attitudes and behaviors of different actors have shifted 
after their participation in the different program interventions. For example, are more aware of 
the importance of education and are therefore more committed to participating in different
educational processes. According to CRS, school principals are more empowered and committed 
to promoting and managing the different components of the program (e.g., school feeding 
program, teacher trainings, and teacher assistance/guidance, even without the presence of CRS). 
The department and municipal governments also see the benefit of the different program 
components and are interested in institutionalizing some of the components. CRS is currently 
working to develop and train a committee at the department level that can focus on resource 
planning and management. Their goal is that this committee will seek funds and contribute to the 
development of some of the program components.
Progress Made on Baseline Recommendations from 2016
CRS Honduras staff provided information on the extent to which recommendations from the MGD
II Baseline Evaluation report have been implemented. These responses are lightly edited and 
include below next to the relevant recommendations.
(1) Reinforce to parents, through additional trainings and outreach, the importance of 
education for children.
The project team, in coordination with Municipal Education Committees (or COMDEs, in Spanish) 
developed school attendance and school enrollment campaigns to promote the importance of 
education. The campaigns were designed specifically for each municipality based on the results of 
surveys conducted that asked parents about barriers preventing their children from attending 
school. The educational committees in the 17 municipalities analyzed the results of the 
educational indicators alongside results of the municipal census. The campaigns shared messages 
about the benefits of education, especially for students at the preschool level. These messages 
were disseminated through both traditional and non-traditional outlets including radio, TV, water 
management committees, using theater, among others. The campaign promoted the idea that 
“Each school year is a step towards a better future.” This message was also included in all of the 
program’s trainings for parents and volunteers. Also, MGD staff helped to convene 509 community 
meetings each year to promote the importance of education.
73
(2) Provide additional support to parents and communities to improve literacy, outside of the 
school environment.
MGD staff developed one parent manual that included practical, age-appropriate activities to 
promote reading and reading comprehension at home. Facilitators demonstrated these activities 
with the support of community volunteers at community meetings and trainings for 938 Parent 
Teacher Association members, 75 Safety Patrol Teams, and 84 Dropout Prevention Response 
Teams. MGD staff also added a training module for teachers on how to promote reading both at 
home and in the community. Teachers are now better prepared to support parents in promoting 
reading and language development at home.
(3) Promote greater parent participation in school committees.
MGD staff sought to promote greater male participation in project activities. Activities such as 
food preparation are more female-oriented, so the program will be analyzing the gender 
breakdown of volunteers more closely to determine how best to encourage males to participate. 
The program offers a diploma course for community leaders who then train parent facilitators in 
hygiene and food preparation. Previously all participants were all female, but some males 
participated in the course in both 2017 and 2018. In addition, approximately 5000 community 
volunteers participated in Phase I in the different committees. During Phase II, there are now 
more than 17,000 volunteers participating, of which 1/3rd are male.
(4) Reinforce the importance of hygiene and proper food storage and handling with parents.
Seventy mothers who completed the diploma course also participated in a two-day workshop on 
food preparation and preservation. A fieldtrip to an agricultural university is planned for 
September 2018 where these same participants will learn about hygiene and proper food storage. 
Facilitators were also hired by CRS to provide trainings in schools to parent volunteers who are 
members of the food and warehouse monitoring and management committees. These trainings 
focus on hygiene and proper food storage and handling. NOTE: the interview with the 
departmental director also revealed that the Ministry of Education is conducting a health 
education program in communities called “Clean and Happy”.
(5) Establish a series of workshops for communities to begin planning for post-USDA school 
feeding and the sustainability of the project.
The project is building capacity for post-USDA school feeding activities through the following 
activities: 
(a) The mothers “monitoras” (n=70) receive a certificate course from the National 
Pedagogical University in Child Nutrition and Food Preparation. The lead mother “madre 
guias” in each school is also trained and in turn trains their school food committee 
(completed in each school). MGD Phase II will therefore leave trained individuals in 
nutrition and food preparation at each level of the community and school structures. Their 
participation in their course allows them to continue providing trainings even after the 
program is finished. These activities have proven to be very popular among parents. 
Project staff planned to train 1,040 mothers and fathers in nutrition, hygiene, and 
74
preparation of diverse recipes, but given the high demand, more than 10,000 members of 
the school feeding committees were trained. 
(b) For 2016 and 2017, the government signed an agreement and contributed approximately 
$355,556.00USD ($8 million Lempiras) to support local governments and producers. 
Mayors and municipal associations work together to ensure that locally produced food is 
purchased and distributed to schools on a regular basis. In 2018, the government 
promised to allocate funds to continue this initiative, but an official agreement is still in 
process. NOTE: an interview with a USDA representative revealed that the government is 
now providing school feeding in other departments of Honduras, and plans to begin 
school feeding in the Department of Intibucá once MGD Phase II concludes in 2020. 
(c) Several NGOs and government groups formed a cross-sector committee to develop 
consistent standards and regulations for food preparation and distribution, as well as a 
standardized curriculum for parents. Members of the committee include FAO, WFP, World 
Vision, CRS, and the Ministries of Education and Social Inclusion.
(6) Intensify efforts to establish larger scale gardens at school, and at parents’ homes, which 
may be a source of school feeding in the future.
Phase I of MGD included efforts to establish school gardens. Unfortunately, this activity was found 
to be unsustainable because of a lack of participation from teachers and school principals. 
Therefore, it has not been included as an activity in Phase II. 
(7) Examine the prevalence of violence against children in more detail, and provide further 
training on child protection to communities.
MGD II promotes activities for students, teachers, and mothers that address the topic of violence. 
MGD staff also participate in a Child Protection Committee (Comite Institucional de la Protección 
de la Ninez) alongside other NGOs, local schools, and government entities (including the Human 
Rights office). 
NOTE: our research team noted that gangs are increasingly infiltrating the south of the 
Department, particularly REDACTED. Given the escalating violence in these communities, we were 
forced to change our data collection plans several times by eliminating schools from our sample 
that were at risk for experiencing gang violence. In one case, a youth from a school we had 
planned on visiting was killed by gang members the day before we were supposed to visit. 
(8) Identify barriers to social inclusion for Lenca families and identify strategies for 
empowering these families in educational decision-making within the school, community 
and municipality.
The MGD II team acknowledges that the indigenous population, particularly Lenca families, need 
additional consideration. The recently created satellite campus of the Pedagogical University 
75
located in Intibucá will train teachers as specialists in Intercultural and Bilingual education (EIB). 
This is an opportunity to work with teachers and teacher trainers to identify needs specific to the 
Lenca community, especially regarding barriers to education and their participation in decision￾making. To strengthen initiatives within the Lenca communities, MGD II staff are seeking to 
collaborate with the Department of Education’s representative working specifically with 
indigenous populations. The team has been working to plan intercultural education activities for 
2018-2019. Also, MGD II promoted activities in which students designed books that included 
stories about their communities, and which often featured indigenous characters. These 
storybooks have now been printed and published. 
Midterm Recommendations
1. Sustain and Increase Efforts to Improve Reading Comprehension through Continued 
Trainings and More Frequent Child Assessments
2
nd and 3rd grade boys and girls demonstrated gains in reading comprehension at midterm 
compared with baseline. 2nd grade children are quite close to reaching the final target of 75.0% 
proficiency by endline in 2010. Yet, 4th grade boys and girls each experienced slight declines in 
literacy since baseline. CRS has already made additional efforts since baseline to support greater 
literacy, specifically through development of parent manuals and related trainings for both 
parents and teachers. CRS should continue these activities, but supplement them with increased 
in-class assessment of student reading comprehension, particularly for 4th grade children. These 
additional data could provide more detailed information on the barriers to achieving greater 
literacy rates. CRS could then use this information to develop more targeted trainings to address 
these specific barriers before the next round of MIDEH data collection.
2. Sustain and Increase Advocacy and Training Efforts to Ensure Sustainability of Project 
Activities
Many respondents expressed their concern over the sustainability of MGD II project activities once 
USDA and CRS support ends in 2020. Parents expressed willingness to contribute their efforts to 
sustaining the project activities, and municipal governments have also provided greater support in 
terms of infrastructure and transportation, highlighting the effective advocacy efforts already 
made by CRS. Yet, this evaluation detected a need for improvement in three areas: (a) use of 
government funds, centralized at mayors’ offices, which prevents COMDE from making 
independent decisions and investing in textbooks and other teaching materials; (b) inconsistent 
strategies across municipalities to ensure mandatory school enrollment; and (c) inconsistent plans 
across municipalities related to sustainability, including how funds will be allocated to continue 
specific project activities after conclusion of MGD II. CRS should focus their advocacy efforts on 
these three areas to ensure governmental and community support for the sustainability of project 
activities over the long term.
76
3. Increase the Focus on Meeting the Needs of Students with Learning and Other Disabilities
The results of the midterm evaluation suggest that more needs to be done to support children 
with learning and other disabilities in the community. Over half of teachers (58.0%) reported 
having participated in trainings on students’ learning and literacy problems, but 42.9% of teachers 
and 43.0% of principals said that teachers had insufficient, regular, or acceptable knowledge in 
identifying learning disabilities. Over half of principals (61.2%) reported offering trainings to help 
teachers address learning and literacy disabilities to students, but both principals and teachers 
need extra support in this area. In addition, most principals (74.3%) stated that their school 
building was not accessible for children with disabilities. CRS therefore should increase efforts in 
two areas: (a) providing more trainings on meeting children’s special educational needs to both 
principals and teachers; and (b) conducting a special study on accessibility of school infrastructure 
and the numbers of children excluded from attending school because of a disability.
4. Increase the Focus on Health and Hygiene in Relation to Infrastructure Improvements at 
Schools
During school site visits, members of the research team (TC and JA) noted that toilet paper and 
soap were missing from latrines and sinks built during MGD Phase II. Results from surveys 
supported these observations, with 2/3rd of children reporting that toilet paper was never 
available or only sometimes available. Infrastructure observations revealed that only 10% of 
bathrooms had toilet paper and only 8% of schools had soap. In the case of the site visit 
mentioned above, antibacterial soap was present in a teacher’s classroom but apparently unused 
and far away from the sink and latrines. CRS should continue their efforts on training parents on 
health and hygiene in food preparation, but should expand the focus of trainings to include the 
importance of handwashing and personal hygiene. MGD II should require that schools provide 
toilet paper in each latrine and soap at each sink. 
5. Develop a Training on Financial Decision-Making for Parents, and Rigorously Evaluate its 
Effectiveness
Sustainability of MGD II project gains depends largely on the extent to which parents will prioritize 
education for their children. Parent focus groups revealed important patterns of financial decision￾making that differed between men and women. Women in particular tended to prioritize food, 
health and education expenses whereas men tended to prioritize food, and land and asset 
acquisition. Both men and women also admitted that they spend on unnecessary items such as 
expensive cell phones, and particularly for men, alcohol, drugs, tobacco and gambling. CRS should 
develop a training for community members on basic financial health with the goal of increasing 
participants’ ability to save money and spend wisely. Researchers could help CRS randomly assign 
the training so that the effectiveness of training activities could be rigorously assessed. This type of 
project activity and evaluation may be of interest to USDA as part of their Learning Agenda and 
researchers could work with CRS staff to develop a proposal to USDA to fund this project 
independently of current MGD activities.
77
6. Conduct a Study to Examine the Reasons Behind Decreases in School Enrollment and 
Attendance, Especially for Girls
Enrollment for boys rose slightly at midterm, but their attendance rates dropped. Enrollment for 
girls dropped at midterm, and their attendance dropped more steeply than their drop in 
enrollment and when compared to boys. These patterns suggest a gender disparity where an 
unknown factor seems to be preventing girls from attending school at a higher rate than would be 
expected based on their enrollment and on the experience of boys. A special study should be 
conducted to determine the causal factors behind (a) drops in enrollment for girls, (b) drops in 
attendance for boys and girls, and (c) why girls’ attendance rates have decreased at a higher rate 
than for boys.
78
References
Adams, J. W., Snowling, M. J., Hennessy, S. M., & Kind, P. (1999). Problems of behavior, reading 
and arithmetic: Assessments of comorbidity using the Strengths and Difficulties 
Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571-585.
Alderman, H., & Bundy, D. (2012). School feeding programs and development: Are we framing the 
question correctly? World Bank Research Observer, 27(2), 204-221. 
Bundy, D., Burrbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M., & Drake, L. (2009) Rethinking school 
feeding: Social safety nets, child development, and the education sector. Available from: 
https://www.wfp.org/content/rethinking-school-feeding-social-safety-nets-child￾development-and-education-sector.
Cheung, M. & Perrotta, M. (2010) The Impact of Food For Education Program On Schooling in 
Cambodia. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies (APPS). Available from http://ssrn.com/ 
abstract=2507055.
Cortina, M. A., Fazel, M., Hlungwani, T. M., Kahn, K., Tollman, S., & Cortina-Borja, M. (2013). 
Childhood psychological problems in school settings in rural Southern Africa. PLOS ONE, 
8(6): e65041.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A research note. Journal 
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.
Goodman, R. (2001).Psychometric properties of the Strengths snd Difficulties Questionnaire. 
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Goodman, A., & Goodman, R. (2009). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a dimensional 
measure of child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 
Psychiatry, 48, 400–403.
Goodman, R., Neves dos Santos, D., Robatto Nunes, A. P., Pereira de Miranda, D., Fleitlich-Bilyk, & 
Almeida Filho, N. (2005). The Ilha de Maré study: A survey of child mental health problems 
in a predominantly African-Brazilian rural community. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric 
Epidemiology, 40, 11-17. 
Goodman, A., Heiervang, E., Fleitlich-Bilyk, B., Alyahri, A., Patel, V., Mullick, M. S. I., Slobodskaya, 
H., Neves dos Santos, D., & Goodman, R. (2012). Cross-national differences in 
questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence. 
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 1321-1331.
Jyoti, D., Frongillo, E., & Jones, S. (2005). Food Insecurity Affects School Children's Academic 
Performance, Weight Gain, and Social Skills. Journal of Nutrition, 135(12), 2831-2839.
79
Kristjansson B., Petticrew M., MacDonald B., Krasevec J., Janzen L., Greenhalgh T., Wells G. A., 
MacGowan J., Farmer A. P., Shea B., Mayhew A., Tugwell P., & Welch V. (2009) School 
Feeding For Improving The Physical And Psychosocial Health Of Disadvantaged Students 
(Review). The Cochrane Library (1), 1-74.
Martorell, R. (1999) The nature of child malnutrition and its long-term implications. Food and 
Nutrition Bulletin, 20(3), 288-292.
USDA (2016). McGovern-Dole Food for Education program. Available from: http://www.fas.usda. 
gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program.
Valdez, C. R., Padilla, B., Moore, S., & Magana, S. (2013). Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary 
outcomes of the Fortalezas Familiares intervention for Latino families facing maternal 
depression. Family Process, 52(3), 394-410.
Vilar-Compte, M., Sandoval-Olascoaga, S., Bernal-Stuart, A., Shimoga, S., & Vargas-Bustamante, A. 
(2015). The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on food security and food expenditures in 
Mexico: A disproportionate effect on the vulnerable. Public Health Nutrition, 18(16), 2934 
– 2942.
WFP (2007) Full Report of the Thematic Evaluation of the WFP School Feeding in Emergency 
Situations. (A Report from the Office of Evaluation No. OEDE/2007/06). Retrieved from 
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/ documents/reports/wfp127463.pdf?_ 
ga=1.8013938.1583969398.1468935841. 
80
APPENDIX A: MGD Phase II Midterm Evaluation Indicators
Language from Attachment E -
verbatim
Target Baseline Midterm
Result 1
Improved Literacy of School-Age 
Children
Result Indicator 1.1
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions
73,076 0 71,838
Result Indicator 1.1.b female 35,609 0 38,465
Result Indicator 1.1.c male 31,900 0 33,373
Result Indicator 1.2
Number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions
72,874 0 163,791
Result Indicator 1.3
Percent of students who, by the end of 
two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and 
understand the meaning of grade level 
text (GRADE 2 ONLY)
72.0% 59.7% 67.1%
Result Indicator 1.3.a Female (GRADE 2 ONLY) 72.0% 61.0% 66.6%
Result Indicator 1.3.b Male (GRADE 2 ONLY) 72.0% 58.4% 67.7%
Result 2 Increased Government Support
Result Indicator 2.1
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Other Public)
95,001 0 77,637
Result Indicator 2.2
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
335,000 0 644,693
Result Indicator 2.3
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Host Government)
239,999 0 560,101
81
Result 3
Increased Engagement of Local 
Organizations and Community Groups
Result Indicator 3.1
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations 
(PTAs) or similar "school" governance 
structures supported as a result of 
USDA assistance
509 0 574
Result Indicator 3.2
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance
10 0 2
Result Indicator 3.3
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 
(Multi-focus)
5 0 2
Result Indicator 3.4
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 
(Education)
5 0 0
Result 4
Increased Capacity of Government 
Institutions
Result Indicator 4.1
Number of Honduran government 
authorities that have been trained to 
implement activities in accordance with 
their roles.
40 0 134
Result 5
Improved Policy and Regulatory 
Framework
Result Indicator 5.1
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 1)
3 0 3
Result Indicator 5.2
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 2)
3 0 3
Result Indicator 5.3
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
3 0 0
82
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 3)
Result Indicator 5.4
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 4)
3 0 0
Result Indicator 5.5
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 5)
3 0 0
Result 6 More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Result Indicator 6.1
Percent of teachers in target schools 
who attend and teach school at least 
90% of scheduled school days per 
school year
80% 0% 96.2%
Result 7
Better Access to School Supplies and 
Materials
Result Indicator 7.1
Number of textbooks and other 
teaching and learning materials 
provided as a result of USDA assistance
3,200 0 5,317
Result 8
Improved Literacy of Instructional 
Materials
Result Indicator 8.1
Number of schools receiving literacy 
instruction materials (materials from 
the Basic National Curriculum Design -
DCNB) and/or unpublished texts 
produced by school children
1,040 0 936
83
Result 9
Increased Skills and Knowledge of 
Teachers
Result Indicator 9.1
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching assistants 
in target schools who demonstrate use 
of new and quality teaching techniques 
or tools as a result of USDA assistance
1,509 0 807
Result Indicator 9.2
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching assistants 
trained or certified as a result of USDA 
assistance
400 0 1,214
Result 10
Increased Skills and Knowledge of 
School Administrators
Result Indicator 10.1
Number of school administrators and 
officials in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques or 
tools as a result of USDA assistance
637 0 315
Result Indicator 10.2
Number of school administrators and 
officials trained or certified as a result 
of USDA assistance
703 0 790
Result 11
Increased Access to Food (School 
Feeding)
Result Indicator 11.1
Number of school-aged children 
receiving daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance
55,035 0 54,627
Result Indicator 11.4 female
26,814 0 26,073
Result Indicator 11.5 male 28,221 0 28,554
Result Indicator 11.6
Number of daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
school-age children as a result of USDA 
assistance
47,000,000 0 25,835,531
84
Result Indicator 11.7
Number of individuals receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance
17,866 0 17,211
Result Indicator 11.11
Number of individuals trained in child 
health and nutrition as a result of USDA 
assistance
1,040 0 13,311
Result Indicator 11.12 female 724 0 11,969
Result Indicator 11.13 male 316 0 1,342
Result Indicator 11.14
Number of social assistance 
beneficiaries participating in productive 
safety nets as a result of USDA 
assistance
71,838
Result Indicator 11.16 female 35,609 0 77,259
Result Indicator 11.17 male 31,990 0 67,064
Result Indicator 11.19
Number of take-home rations provided 
as a result of USDA assistance
168,056 0 68,933
Result 12 Improved Student Attendance
Result Indicator 12.1
Number of students regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
53,384 52,760 50,165
Result Indicator 12.2 female 26,010 25,962 23,988
Result Indicator 12.3 male 27,374 26,798 26,177
Result 13
Increased Economic and Cultural 
Incentives (Or Decreased 
Disincentives)
Result Indicator 13.1
Number of students receiving 
transportation to schools as a result of 
USDA assistance
3,000 0 3,517
85
Result 14 Improved School Infrastructure
Result Indicator 14.1
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance
325 0 333
Result Indicator 14.2
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas)
72 0 44
Result Indicator 14.3
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Latrines)
181 0 199
Result Indicator 14.4
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Wells and water 
stations/systems)
72 0 44
Result Indicator 14.5
Number of schools using an improved 
water source
72 0 44
Result Indicator 14.6 Number of schools with improved 
sanitary facilities
72 0 46
Result 15 Increased Student Enrollment
Result Indicator 15.1
Number of students enrolled in school 
receiving USDA assistance
55,035 54,195 53,678 
Result Indicator 15.2 female 26,814 26,405 25,723 
Result Indicator 15.3 male 28,221 27,790 27,955 
Result 16
Increased Community Understanding 
of Benefits of Education
Result Indicator 16.1
Percent of parents in target 
communities who can name at least 
three benefits of primary education 
(collected through a survey)
45.0% 20.8% 72.6%
86
APPENDIX B: Means of Verifying CRS MEAL Results Indicators
As part of the midterm evaluation of the MGD program, on August 22, 23 and 24, the selection 
and review of a sample of means of verification of some project indicators was carried out. The 
review was carried out in the offices of COCEPRADII and Caritas, with the support of the MEAL 
staff of both organizations and of the person responsible for the MEAL program in CRS. The 
sample was selected from the databases of means of verification. The table inserted in the 
annexes shows the means of verification by indicator, as well as the quantities of documents 
selected and the comments related to the search process.
Once the documents were identified, they were scanned and organized into folders, by 
organization and indicator.
From the review of the mentioned media, it is concluded that the printed media are very well 
organized by folder and by activity, which facilitates its location. It was also noted that verification 
means are available for the different indicators, except in those cases in which the activity is in 
process. For example, in indicator 2.1., relating to school infrastructure works; in 2018 not all the 
works are finished. For this reason, it was decided to complete the requested documentation with 
documents of the works carried out in 2016. Another example is indicator 12.1, which has as a 
means of verification the attendance lists of the students. Since these are obtained from schools, 
those of 2018 are not yet available.
As far as possible, in the review and selection of documents, an attempt was made to achieve 
geographical representation, so that there was no concentration of means of verification of a 
single municipality.
ANNEXES:
MEANS OF VERIFICATION TABLE (see attached)
DIGITAL COPY OF DOCUMENTS BY INDICATOR (see attached)
87
APPENDIX C: Income, Expenses, and Decision-Making Among Parents
Background
In the framework of the CRS strategic plan (2014-2018), CRS Honduras designed its learning 
agenda since 2015 in two key sectors of its programming, one of which is Education and Youth. For 
this sector, CRS Honduras has prepared the following learning question: What are the factors that 
influence the economic and participatory investment priorities of families and local authorities in 
marginal urban and rural areas of Honduras with a focus on the rights of NNJA? The answer to that 
question will help CRS design projects that are more focused on the factors that determine the 
spending priorities of families, to ensure that those priorities align with the rights of children and 
youth. It will also facilitate effective advocacy on international cooperation organizations, 
partners, local and central government; In addition, it will contribute to making adjustments to 
ongoing projects.
As part of the midterm evaluation of the MGD program, the evaluation team collected information 
from July 26 to August 17. During this period, it was decided that six focus groups with 
representatives of rural communities, 3 of men and 3 of women, were to respond, in part, that 
learning question, but targeting only the determinants of expenditure of families participating in 
the program, especially those destined to the rights of children, related to food, education and 
health. In total, 32 women and 31 parents participated.
Three of the focus groups were organized in the municipalities of REDACTED whose territory is 
mostly located on the La Esperanza plateau, which has an approximate height of 1700 meters 
above sea level. According to the interviewees' statements, the quality of the land varies along the 
plateau; however, it allows the cultivation of corn, which is intended for subsistence; also, 
products destined for the market, such as coffee, potatoes and vegetables, are grown. Two groups 
were organized in municipalities whose territory is characterized, mainly, by its hot climate, which 
is why corn and beans are grown for subsistence. One of them, REDACTED, is located in the south 
of the department. The other is REDACTED, located in the north of the department, with an 
important commercial and agricultural development and one of the main urban centers of the 
department. The last group was organized with women from REDACTED, the poorest municipality 
in the department, whose territory is mountainous. The municipalities of REDACTED have an 
important Lenca population.
The organization of groups of men and women separately was carried out to capture more clearly 
information about the effect that male-female power relations have on spending decisions and 
the variations in the priorities that men and women have. In addition, to improve the quality of 
the information, the groups were divided into two days. The first day was dedicated to a focus 
group, which served as a kind of pilot experience. The second one was dedicated to carry out the 
five remaining focus groups.
The focus groups included, in addition to the questions on income and expenses, the following 
exercises:
88
1. Elaboration of an annual timeline of the income and expenses of the families.
2. Prioritization of family spending, identifying the priorities of men and women.
3. Identification of inappropriate expenses or misspending, from the perspective of men and 
women.
When designing the questions for the focus groups, it was decided to talk about spending, instead 
of investment since this is a specific type of expense in the maintenance or development of the 
productive capacity of a person or a company. Meanwhile, income is equal to all inflows of money 
or goods and services. For example, a food donation is part of the income. The expense, on the 
other hand, is equal to all the outflows of money. Consumption is equal to all expenditures on 
goods and services. What remains of the income after deducting the consumption is the saving, 
which does not necessarily have to be transformed into monetary savings.
Results
Variations of income and expenses in the family throughout the year: Changes in spending 
between times of crisis and times of relative abundance.
The origin of the income
In the communities of origin of the interviewees, the income varies throughout the year, given 
that most of the members of the economically active population do not have a permanent job, 
which generates periods of relative stability and periods of income crisis. The most difficult 
months, from the economic point of view, are June, July and August, known in Honduras as "the 
Junes". In these months, the monetary income tends to be diminished and, in addition, the corn 
harvest is still not available. To this, it must be added that if the canicula is prolonged, the corn 
plants are dried, which causes the food of the next months to be lost, as well as the seeds sown. 
The situation is particularly serious for communities that are dedicated exclusively to subsistence 
crops. In communities dedicated to crops destined for the market, income can be more 
sustainable throughout the year, although it depends on access to irrigation. If this is not available, 
crops can only be cultivated during the rainy season.
October, November, December, January, February and March are the months in which there is 
more monetary income for those families who have their coffee plot or, in most cases, who move 
to cut coffee on the farms of the municipalities of the department of Intibucá. All members of the 
family, including children, participate in this activity, which implies that some may leave the school 
before the end of the school year or arrive late at the start of the next school year. One of the 
municipalities from which more workers come is REDACTED, particularly for coffee cutting: 
"Parents and children who are already 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 years old. Given that classes end in 
November, in December they leave for REDACTED because the coffee cutting season begins" (GF 
women, REDACTED, 2018).
Another source of income is wage employment in other farmers’ crops in the community or 
nearby communities, which tends to be very precarious because it is short-lived and extremely low 
salary, since it ranges from $ 3.33 to $ 6.25 per day. Working for wages in agriculture in the area is 
not exclusive to men, since women also work, especially those who are heads of households.
Additionally, a source of income is masonry in urban centers close to the communities of origin of 
the interviewees. They get jobs as masonry helpers, especially during the months of February and 
89
March. In addition, they can work in other months, as long as they do not coincide with the 
periods of cultivation or harvest of their agricultural products. This is generally an activity for 
young people.
Eventually, men who have learned skills as a bricklayer or carpenter can also earn income through 
casual jobs in communities or in nearby urban centers. Women, too, can obtain eventual income 
by practicing trades like seamstress. Women can also obtain more sustained income from 
activities as domestic workers in urban centers close to their communities. In addition, they can 
earn income by selling products such as bread or tamales in their communities. Another source of 
income for women is the harvest of some fruits, which are sold in the market of neighboring 
communities or municipalities. These sources are added to the occasional sale of food, handicrafts 
and raising domestic animals.
Expenses throughout the year
The priority expenses in families are food, education, health and those required for production. 
However, the main expense during the year is in food, which represents the most important item. 
Banerjee and Duflo (2007, p. 143), in one study of various countries, affirm that the poor 
population that lives with less than a dollar a day in rural areas of 13 countries, spend between 56 
and 78% of their income on food purchases, while in Mexico the rural poor spend 49.6%.
Spending on education has a high level of priority, but mainly in the months of January and 
February when the school year is beginning. The fathers and the mothers indicate that the main 
expenses are made in the purchase of school materials, notebooks and school uniforms. Another 
important month for school spending is September, the so-called month of the country, when 
families must buy uniforms so that children can participate in the parades held by the schools.
Crops represent an important expense in family budget. In the months of March, April and May 
there is an expense to prepare the land for sowing, purchase of inputs such as fertilizer, seed and 
"poison" (insecticide, fungicide, etc.). In June and July, there is also an expense for cleaning 
cornfield, and the purchase of fertilizer. In addition, in the high zones there are some expenses on 
inputs for coffee, but in the months of July, August, September and October.
In the month of December, there is an increase in spending on food and clothing, and other items 
related to the Christmas and end of the year party. Health expenditures are intermittent 
throughout the year, although the mothers of REDACTED stated that in the months of April, May, 
June, and July and August, more is spent on medicines, since children get sick more frequently 
because of the change of climate. Transportation costs are important for those who move to work 
or sell products to cities, so the amount depends on the frequency of use of means of transport.
Expenses, crisis, indebtedness and sale of assets
Crises can be at the level of the family or more generalized, for example, when droughts occur. At 
the family level, a severe illness can occur, which requires more spending. In these cases, families 
must resort to the sale of assets, for example, animals. They may also be forced to apply for loans. 
Other situations that can occur frequently can be the need to pay a loan when the available funds 
are insufficient to pay it: "If I have raised pigs, I sell a pig to pay interest and the loan" (Special 
90
group with women, REDACTED, 2018). Other situation that is common to families is seeking 
medical care for a health problem of one of the family members.
Loans can also be obtained to invest in crops or buy an asset, such as a piece of land or an animal. 
Household debt is something that happens with a certain frequency and causes vary. If the woman 
acquires the indebtedness, she is indebted mainly for food or, cases of emergency, for illness of a 
family member and, in certain occasions, to start a business. In most cases, the debt is informal 
since the loan is obtained from relatives or neighbors; only in the case of a business, the debt is 
obtained from banks or cooperatives. The man acquires debts for investment in agriculture, 
purchase of land or animals. The man has more access to cooperatives, banks or microfinance.
An increase in health expenses can also lead to the sale of assets or the request for loans: 
"Sometimes that happens, that one in the worst need, will ask for a loan from a neighbor, but he 
does not get it, then, one has to sell some possession. I have had to sell my assets when my 
children have become ill “(GF Special with Women in REDACTED 17-08-18). In addition, it may 
happen that there is not enough food in the house or that it is necessary to pay for public services.
Gender and spending
The analysis of the relationship between gender, income and expenditure in the home is very 
important, since the asymmetry in power relations between men and women allows men to have 
a greater capacity for decision-making. In addition, the perspectives of men and women may differ 
on the priority of expenditures, as noted by Björkman, Nyqvist & Jayachandran (2017, p. 496), who 
suggest that fathers have more power to decide, although mothers are more focused on the well￾being of children.
The spending priorities vary between men and women, since women tend to focus more on food, 
health and education. Men, meanwhile, focus on food, agriculture production, and land 
acquisition, purchase of animals, and finally health and education. This is probably a reflection of 
the division of labor between men and women, which, in turn, is a result of the existing gender 
gaps in the communities. These differences in priorities imply that women are more committed to 
the exercise of children's rights to food, health and education. However, according to Monsoon, 
Jungle and Soar (2011, p. 48), the transformation of these priorities into expenditure depends on 
the bargaining power of women, which can influence the effect of the increase in women's income 
on the well-being of children. That power relies on the control of resources in the home.
When analyzing the ownership of the main resources of the family, through the statements of the 
people interviewed, a significant gap between men and women emerges. Men, generally, own the 
house, animals and land, as well as other valuables such as tools. Meanwhile, women have assets 
of lower value, such as hens and pigs. This does not mean, according to these statements, that in 
the decision to purchase important assets, women are not consulted. According to a group of 
women from the municipality of REDACTED "To buy an animal you have to agree, because if there 
is no money I can help you” (Special group with women, REDACTED, 2018).
The only cases in which women have the power to decide is when they are heads of the 
household. Naturally, they are forced to work more, which may involve doing some activities that 
men do, such as jobs in agriculture. Other ways to earn income are informal business activities 
such as collecting and selling fruits, or working in urban households. "She works cutting 
91
strawberries. She works like a man. She works from seven to two in the afternoon. Nevertheless, 
the child does not lack anything. In the house, she is the one who contributes the most. I tell her 
that she is an example for single mothers" (Special group with women, REDACTED, 2018).
Income of children and expenditure
The children work inside and outside the home. Coffee cutting is one of the income generating 
activities in which children participate directly. These incomes are administered, in the great 
majority of cases, by the parents, who consider them as family income and not as individual 
income of the children: "Sometimes the parents decide because a child does not know what is 
needed in the kitchen to eat" (GF Special with Women, REDACTED, 2018). However, there are 
other mothers who argue that parents are merely counselors for children when they have income: 
"It is that one also has to teach their children what to spend it on. My son, during a week of 
holidays worked. He told me that in that occasion he was not going to give me anything because 
he was going to buy a pair of shoes. You have to teach them how to spend it" (Special group with 
women, REDACTED, 2018).
Unnecessary expenses
In the analysis of misspending, it is necessary to distinguish categories. On the one hand, there are 
those expenses that in a context of poverty people consider as a luxury (e.g. a cellular phone of 
higher quality). In addition, this depends on the perspective, male or female. A second category is 
that of expenses that, although harmful to health, are socially accepted, such as alcohol or 
tobacco. Finally, there are those that are subject to greater social sanctions such as drug 
consumption.
Beyond the cultural perspective on these issues, it is obvious that investment in these areas 
reduces the availability of income for essential expenses, in addition to the risks they represent for 
health. Traditionally, the consumption of alcohol and tobacco has been considered a problem that 
is more important in men than women, but there is a conviction among women of the increase in 
female consumption of these substances.
The six focus groups reported spending money on items that are not important for the household, 
although as noted above, gender mediates the perception of misspending. In the case of women, 
mainly, the purchase of items to improve their personal appearance, such as makeup, clothing, 
footwear and cell phones with better quality than those worn by men are considered like 
misspending. They also stated that the number of women in rural areas who spend money on 
alcohol and tobacco consumption has increased. "There are women who smoke and drink. In our 
community, there is always one or another that gets drunk" (Special Group with women, 
REDACTED, 2018). In the case of men, the purchase of cell phones and recharges for their use, 
gambling, alcoholic beverages and smoking are considered wasteful spending. In addition, the 
groups mentioned an increase in drug spending, especially by men.
The spending of money in poor households in the purchase of alcohol and tobacco has been 
documented in research in other countries, although there are important variations in the 
percentages of income devoted to these items:
92
Of course, these people could be spending the rest of their money on other commodities 
they greatly need. Yet among the nonfood items that the poor spend significant amounts 
of money on, alcohol and tobacco show up prominently. The extremely poor in rural areas 
spent 4.1 percent of their budget on tobacco and alcohol in Papua New Guinea; 5.0 
percent in Udaipur, India; 6.0 percent in Indonesia; and 8.1 percent in Mexico. However, in 
Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru, no more than 1 percent of the budget gets spent on 
these goods (possibly, because the poor in these countries prefer other intoxicants) 
(Banerjee & Duflo, 2007, p. 143).
Conclusion
The main determining factors for the prioritization of the family expenses, who live in poverty and 
extreme poverty, are:
1. Satisfaction of their basic needs: food, health and education of children.
2. Investment for production: both for subsistence and for the market.
The interviews show that families prioritize expenses related to children's rights. However, the 
prioritization of spending on food is not exclusively for children, but for all members of the family. 
Something similar happens with health expenditures, although in a focus group a mother reported 
that during some months of the year, expenses in the care of children's illnesses are important. 
The only prioritized expense that is exclusive for children is education. Another important 
prioritized expense is that necessary for the realization of crops, which are relevant for food and 
for the generation of monetary income.
The gender gaps in the communities mediate the level of priority that expenditures relative to 
children's rights have. These are reflected in the unequal distribution of ownership of resources 
between men and women, which reduces the bargaining power of women, who are more inclined 
to prioritize spending on goods to enforce the rights of children.
The portion of the family income that is destined to the purchase of goods considered "luxury" in 
the communities, affects the availability of monetary income for the purchase of essential goods, 
reducing the possibility of satisfaction of basic needs. The spending on alcohol, drugs, tobacco and 
gambling, expenses that is mainly for men, also, affects the availability of money to spend on 
education, food, and health.
Given that the research for this document is based on a small group of interviews and, 
furthermore, considering the complexity of the decision processes that lead to the prioritization of 
expenditures, which are determined by economic and cultural factors, it can be very useful for CRS 
to carry out a deeper investigation to better understand these decision processes. In such an 
investigation, the weight of spending on alcohol and drug consumption in the department should 
be explored, since it not only reduces the disposable income for the satisfaction of basic needs, 
but also increases the insecurity of children and girls on the way to school.
93
Bibliography
Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2007). The Economic Lives of the Poor. J Econ Perspect, 141–167.
BjÖrkman Nyqvist, M., & Jayachandran, S. (2017). Maternal and Child Health in Developing 
Countries. Mothers Care More, But Fathers Decide: Educating Parents about Child Health 
in Uganda. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 496–500.
Minsoo, P., Jeungil, O., & Sora, L. (2011). Women’s Bargaining Power and Educational 
Expenditures: Implications for Subsidy Policy. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 26, 
No. 3, 37-51.
94
APPENDIX D: Measurement Instruments Used in the Midterm Evaluation
See attached.
95
APPENDIX E: Terms of Reference, MGD II Baseline Evaluation – USDA
See attached.
96
APPENDIX F: Datasets from Midterm Evaluation
See attached.2