This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was 
prepared independently by Juan Alberto Molina, Roger Sanchez, Marlon Medina, Marlon Garcia, Wilson 
Zelaya, Elvin Sosa and Glenda Hernandez.
Foreign Agricultural 
Foreign Agricultural Service, 
United States Department of 
Agriculture
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
Program (LRP) Honduras
Baseline Evaluation
August, 2019
 Photograph 1. Mothers preparing school meals, in Magdalena, Intibucá.
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.
Baseline Evaluation Report of Local and Regional Food Aid 
Procurement Program (LRP) – 
This report details the baseline results developed through surveys, focus groups and interviews 
with producers, students, school feeding committees and actors from different organizations and 
institutions in the coverage area of the project, in the department of Intibucá, Honduras. The 
baseline evaluation assesses the pre-implementation state of the strategic objective and outcome￾level indicators, to test the theory of change, and to consider the questions regarding relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the program. 
Agreement Number: LRP-522-2018/016-00
Project Duration: 2018-2020
Implemented by: Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 
Evaluation Authored by: CRS staff members - Juan Alberto Molina, Roger 
Sanchez, Marlon Medina, Marlon Garcia, Wilson Zelaya, Elvin Sosa and Glenda 
Hernandez.
3
 
Content 
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Project Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. Theory of Change................................................................................................................................ 10
1.2. Results Framework............................................................................................................................ 11
2. Purpose of the Baseline Study........................................................................................................... 14
3. Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Study Design and Key Indicators..................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Sampling Strategy.............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3 Data Collection and Quality Assurance ........................................................................................... 19
3.4 Limitations............................................................................................................................................ 21
3.5 Ethical Considerations......................................................................................................................... 22
4. Results................................................................................................................................................. 22
4.1 Quantitative Results........................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1Percentage of schools with a School Feeding Committee with varied and culturally acceptable 
foods.................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.2Percentage of children that report eating varied food in school.................................................... 24
4.1.3Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance........................................... 26
4.1.4Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance; desegregated by 
service type, producer type, sex and age.......................................................................................... 28
4.1.5Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management 
practices or techniques with USDA assistance. ............................................................................... 30
4.1.6Number of producer organizations registered in official government entities to be able to sell 
their production. ................................................................................................................................ 32
4.2 Qualitative Results............................................................................................................................. 33
5. Findings, Recommendations and Action Points.............................................................................. 37
Annex 1 - Survey for Producers................................................................................................................ 43
Annex 2 – Survey for Students.................................................................................................................. 52
Annex 3 – Survey for Members of School Feeding Committees............................................................ 54
Annex 4 – Focus Group with Members of School Feeding Committee ................................................. 58
Annex 5 – Focus Group – Leaders of the School Networks ................................................................... 60
Annex 6 – Focus Group - Students........................................................................................................... 61
Annex 6 – Key Informant Interviews – Municipal Mayors.................................................................... 63
Annex 7 – Key Informant Interviews – School Directors....................................................................... 65
Annex 8 – Key Informant Interviews – Representatives of Institutions................................................ 67
Annex 9 List of illustrative comments...................................................................................................... 69
Annex 10 – Pictures.................................................................................................................................... 71
5
 
List of tables 
Table 1 - Indicator Baseline Values
Table 2 - Project Results Framework
Table 3 - Indicator & Data Source 
Table 4 - Quantitative Sampling Size
Table 5 -Qualitative sampling size
Table 6 - Data Collection Tools
Table 7 - Percentage of schools with a School Feeding Committee with varied and 
culturally acceptable foods.
Table 8 – Structures that support the School Feeding program within the School system 
Table 9 - Percentage of children that report eating varied food in school 
Table 10 - Standard Indicator #7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance
Table 11 – Disaggregation by firm type, age and sex. For Value of annual sales of farms 
and firms receiving USDA assistance 
Table 12 - Standard Indicator #12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who 
have applied improved management practices or techniques with USDA assistance. 
Table 13 – Disaggregation for Standard Indicator #8, by service type, producer type, sex 
and age.
Table 14 - Standard Indicator #12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who 
have applied improved management practices or techniques with USDA assistance. 
Table 15- Disaggregation for Standard Indicator # 12, by service type, producer type, sex 
and age.
Table 16 - Custom Indicator: Number of producer organizations registered in official 
government entities to be able to sell their production. 
Table 17- Training received by producers
6
 
List of Abbreviations 
LRP Local and Regional Procurement 
AMFI Association of Municipalities of Southern Intibucá - Asociación de 
Municipios Fronterizos de Intibucá 
SEDIS Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion - Secretaría de 
Desarrollo e Inclusion Social
MGD McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program 
PRONAGRO National Program for Agri-food Development – Programa Nacional 
de Desarrollo Agroalimentario 
SAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock – Secretaría de Agricultura y 
Ganadería 
PNAE National School Feeding Program - Programa Nacional de 
Alimentación Escolar 
SENASA National Agri-Food Safety Service - Servicio Nacional de Sanidad e 
Inocuidad Alimentaria 
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning – Monitoreo, 
Evaluación, Rendiccion de Cuentas y Aprendizaje. 
CAE School Feeding Committee - Comité de Alimentación Escolar 
APF Parents’ Teachers Association - Asociación de Padres de Familia
PASE School Safety Patrol - Patrulla de Seguridad Escolar
EPRED School Dropout Prevention and Response Team - Equipo de 
Prevención y Respuesta a la Deserción Escolar
COCEPRADII Central Committee for Water and Integral Development of Intibucá - 
Comité Central Proagua y Desarrollo de Intibucá
CED School Development Council - Consejo Escolar de Desarrollo 
ASA Water, Soil, and Agriculture - Agua, Suelo y Agricultura
SEAN System of Nutritional and Agricultural Extension - Sistema de 
Extensión Agrícola y Nutricional
CEB Center of Basic Education - Centro de Educación Básica
UPNFM National Pedagogical University Francisco Morazan - Universidad 
Pedagógica Nacional Francisco Morazán 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations -
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la 
Agricultura
SAR Income Management System - Sistema de Administración de Rentas
ACS-USAID Alliance for the Dry Corridor – Alianza para el Corredor Seco 
7
 
AMHON Association of Municipalities of Honduras - Asociación de 
Municipios de Honduras 
CSB Corn Soy Blend 
8
 
Executive Summary
The USDA-funded Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (LRP) is a two-year 
intervention to improve the effectiveness of food assistance for 15,351 students in eight 
municipalities of the Intibucá department in western Honduras, seven of which are in the 
Asociación de Municipios Fronterizos de Intibucá (AMFI) commonwealth and one is 
Dolores municipality. 
CRS is partnering with local authorities to provide technical assistance to egg and vegetable 
producer organizations in production, postharvest, and delivery management, for a 
successfully integrated School Feeding program, reaching a total of 16,555 direct 
beneficiaries, including 30 local officials, 64 local producers, 8 educative authorities, 15,351 
students and 1,098 community members associated with their local School Feeding program. 
The main objectives of this baseline study are to assess the pre-implementation state of the 
strategic objective and outcome-level indicators, to test the theory of change, and to consider 
the questions regarding relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the 
program. 
CRS’ MEAL Manager from the CRS/Nicaragua Country Program led the baseline study 
process. The baseline survey used mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) utilizing a 
non-experimental, pre-post design. The baseline study used a set of quantitative and 
qualitative techniques to capture, process and triangulate information relevant to the 
measurement of the indicators. 
Surveys were applied to members of producer organizations, members of the School Feeding 
Committees and students. Focus groups were developed with leaders of school networks, 
members of the School Feeding committees, and students. Key Informant Interviews were 
also conducted with representatives of institutions present in the municipalities, municipal 
mayors, and representatives of AMFI. 
Six indicators of 30 were evaluated during the baseline study, using both quantitative and 
qualitative data collection methods. The remaining indicators assume a baseline value of 
zero. Table 1 shows the values established during the baseline survey. 
The results of the baseline study, as presented in this report, demonstrate a need for the LRP 
program team to conduct a rapid assessment of current production forecast for the next three 
months, due to the low production in the municipalities attended. The baseline results also 
identify opportunities to strengthen coordination with other CRS programming in Honduras, 
including the MGD School Feeding program (for school menu planning and working with 
School Feeding Committees), and with the Water Smart Agriculture program (ASA, by its 
acronym in Spanish) for identifying strategies to increase female and youth participation in 
agricultural activities. The full engagement of key local institutions (municipal mayors, 
education network leaders, and education directors) as well as engagement with the private 
sector will be paramount to the success of this project. 
9
 
Table 1 - Indicator Baseline Values
Target Indicator Baseline Value
1.3. Custom Indicator: Percentage of schools with a 
School Feeding Committee with varied and culturally 
acceptable foods.
45% 
1.3.1 and 1.3.3 Custom Indicator: Percentage of 
children that report eating diversified food in school. 29% 
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator #7: Value of annual sales 
of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance USD 48,281
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator # 8: Volume of 
commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance.
51 MT
1.4.3 Standard Indicator # 12: Number of individuals 
in the agriculture system who have applied improved 
management practices or technologies with USDA 
assistance
30
Activity 4 Custom indicator: Number of producer 
organizations registered in official government entities 
to be able to sell their production.
0 
The principal findings found are: Local producers’ annual sales from vegetables and eggs 
was $48,281 (cumulative for all producers surveyed), 99% of local producers surveyed via 
the baseline were smallholder farmers (holdings less than 0.4 hectares), the pool of local 
producers in target municipalities is predominately middle-aged males, the average age is 47 
years old, while only 15% are women and 12% are youth aged 15-29. The participant roles 
within the School Lunch Committees (CAE, in its Spanish acronym) are well defined and 
determined predominately by sex. Females are responsible for preparing foods, while men 
oversee transport, distribution, stock control and collecting firewood. The School Feeding 
Committees are organized, trained, and supply basic rations provided by MGD. Less than 
half (45%) of committees reported they were already using vegetables in School Feeding. At 
baseline, only 29% of students consumed vegetables at least three times a week, while only 
20% consumed at least 2 eggs per week. The student participation in the current school meal 
process is limited. Less than half of producers surveyed (44%) implement at least one best 
practice agriculture technology or method (of the 10 practices/technologies LRP will 
promote). 
The main barriers to sustainability identified by respondents include harsh local weather 
conditions for vegetable (drought and consistent water shortages), high levels of poverty that 
prevent parents, schools and civil society to contribute resources to partially fund vegetable
and eggs for School Feeding, the absence of a law or bylaw that mandates constant provision 
of commodities for School Feeding, as well as a permanent budget line for this in municipal 
budgets. For this, action points and recommendations were identified that are mentioned at 
the end of this document. 
10
 
1. Project Summary 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is implementing the USDA-funded LRP project to improve 
the effectiveness of food assistance for 15,351 students in eight municipalities of the Intibucá 
department in western Honduras (seven of which are in the Asociación de Municipios 
Fronterizos de Intibucá (AMFI) mancomunidad and one is Dolores municipality), over the 
course of two years. 
CRS is partnering with local authorities to provide technical assistance to egg and vegetable 
producer organizations in production, postharvest, and delivery management for an 
integrated School Feeding program that aims to reach a total of 16,555 direct beneficiaries, 
including 30 local officials, 64 local producers, 8 educative authorities, 15,351 students and 
1,098 community members. CRS is facilitating the organization of local producers into two 
value chain specific committees within the National Program for Agri-food Development 
(Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Agroalimentario, PRONAGRO) of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Livestock (SAG), to connect producers with one another, as well as with 
other value chain actors. CRS and municipal authorities are also working with School Leader 
Networks, School Feeding Committees, School Feeding Monitors, and Community Health 
Volunteers to reduce distribution costs and increase the utilization of eggs and vegetables in 
School Feeding. By working through, linking, and strengthening community-based 
structures, local governments, and local producer organizations, CRS will develop a School 
Feeding program model that meets the needs of students and that strengthens local production 
and local supply chains. 
1.1. Theory of Change 
The LRP project’s Theory of Change (ToC) is that: 
IF the LRP project builds on previous local purchase experience for the National School 
Feeding Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentación Escolar, PNAE) to build 
commonwealth and municipal officials’ capacity to design, implement, and monitor locally 
procured food assistance in coordination with: (1) School Leader Networks, School Feeding
Committees and Monitors, and Community Health Volunteers in commodity receipt, 
distribution, storage, preparation, and monitoring, and (2) local producer organizations in 
supply chain management, post-harvest, and production, including access to finance and 
technology through strategic alliances, 
THEN the LRP project will facilitate strengthened market linkages between municipal 
structures, producer organizations, and schools so that the PNAE incentivizes and 
operationalizes the efficiency of food assistance, 
BECAUSE, in concert with existing platforms, LRP will increase egg and vegetable supply 
and demand, thereby stimulating the local market and enabling supply chain actors to work 
together to improve nutritional outcomes for students while sustainably dynamizing the local 
economy. 
11
 
CRS’ approach is based on the success of the PNAE model in Honduras, which was founded 
in Brazil and successfully replicated in 12 other countries in the region. PNAE research 
shows that buying locally from family farms led to lower school meal costs and an increase 
in the availability and consumption of fruits and vegetables1
. Direct purchases of locally 
procured food increase cost-effectiveness and producer margins by cutting out 
intermediaries. Developing supply chain processes with the commonwealth and 
municipalities and increasing their capacity to implement and monitor them locally will 
improve utilization as well as timeliness of procurement, delivery, and distribution. Finally, 
studies show that school meal programs like PNAE benefit local smallholder farmers by 
leading to increased and varied production, higher income, and stronger farmer 
organizations2 3
. Procurement-linked technical assistance for producer organizations will 
increase quality and yields while stimulating new investment in technology through strategic 
alliances with the private sector and other donor-funded programs4
. 
The LRP project’s Critical Assumptions are: 
Natural disasters will not extensively impact the availability or price of commodities. The 
Global Climate Risk Index 2018 placed Honduras in the top three countries in the world most 
affected by climate change. Intibucá is part of the Dry Corridor, where natural disasters such 
as drought, excess rain, and landslides can lead to crop failure and disease. 
Political, economic, and security conditions will not devolve. Although Honduras enjoys 
relative political and economic stability, regional strife could spill over, which may adversely 
affect the availability of personnel and resources for School Feeding programs. 
National government regulations on prices will not change significantly. The LRP project 
assumes that national government regulations on prices for commodities will not change 
significantly and the LRP project will be able to use market prices for eggs and vegetables 
(not included in the price regulations) to determine procurement prices. 
1.2. Results Framework
In order to achieve the strategic objective and intermediate results of the project. CRS will 
implement activities under the following major activity categories: 
1 State of School Meals Worldwide 2013. World Food Programme. Rome, Italy: 2013
2 Schools as a System to Improve Nutrition. UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition. September 2017.
3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Swensson LFJ (2015). Institutional 
Procurement of Food from Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Brazil. FAO: Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a￾bc569e.pdf.
4 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Alimentación escolar y las posibilidades de 
compra directa de la agricultura familiar: Estudio nacional de Honduras,” (2013, p. 109-111)
12
 
1. Procurement Management
CRS will provide training and technical assistance to AMFI to develop vendor procurement 
contracts and to implement and monitor the procurement process. CRS will also train AMFI 
to use required competitive bidding processes to select local producer vendors. CRS will train 
participants on the development of contracts and invoices, cost-effective practices in food 
assistance administration and supply-chain management.
2. Capacity Building to Improve Delivery and Commodity Management 
CRS will work with municipal officials and with the Honduran Ministry of Development and 
Social Inclusion (SEDIS) to advocate for the codification of administrative processes and 
procedures that increase cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food assistance beyond the life 
of the project. CRS and AMFI will work with schools, municipal officials and producer 
organizations to design the delivery system, monitor and inspect food quality, packaging, 
handling, and improve timeliness of delivery. 
3. Distribution Management 
CRS will facilitate meetings among AMFI staff, municipal officials, and school 
representatives to develop efficient distribution plans in line with the delivery locations. 
4. Producer Capacity Building
CRS will conduct Train-the-Trainer sessions with producer leaders on topics including 
delivery planning, logistics, and fumigation, as well as the legal, administrative, and financial 
requirements for producer organizations. CRS will provide technical assistance producer 
organizations on vegetable and egg production, including national certification requirements, 
climate-smart practices, basic technologies and post-harvest management. CRS will work 
with producer leaders to build the capacity of other producers through the establishment of 
Farmer Field Schools and demonstration plots. 
The table below presents the project level results framework, including the strategic objective 
(SO), the intermediate results (IR), and the specific activities (A). 
Table 2 - Project Results Framework
SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional 
Procurement
IR 1.1 Improved 
Cost-Effectiveness 
of Food Assistance 
IR 1.2 Improved 
Timeliness of Food 
Assistance
IR 1.3 Improved 
Utilization of 
Nutritious and 
Culturally 
Acceptable Food 
that Meet Quality 
Standards
Foundational 
Results
13
 
1.1.1: Improved 
Cost-Effectiveness 
of Procurement 
1.1.2: Improved 
Cost-Effectiveness 
of Delivery
1.1.3: Improved 
Cost-Effectiveness 
of Distribution
1.2.1: Improved 
Timeliness of 
Procurement 
1.2.2: Improved 
Timeliness of 
Deliver
1.2.3: Improved 
Timeliness of 
Distribution
1.3.1 Improved 
Access to Culturally 
Acceptable Foods
1.3.2 Strengthened 
Local and Regional 
Food Market 
Systems
• 1.3.2.1 Increased 
Agricultural 
Productivity
• 1.3.2.2 Increased 
Value Added to 
Post Production 
Agricultural 
Products 
• 1.3.2.3 Increased 
Access to 
Markets to Sell 
Agricultural 
Products 
• 1.3.2.4 Improved 
Transaction 
Efficiency
1.3.3 Improved 
Access to Nutritious 
Foods
1.4.1: Increased 
Capacity of 
Government 
Institutions
1.4.2: Improved 
Policy and 
Regulatory 
Framework
1.4.3: Improved 
Capacity of 
Relevant 
Organizations 
1.4.4: Increased 
Leverage of Private 
Sector Resources
A 1.1.1: 
Procurement 
Management 
(develop 
procurement plans) 
 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(procurement cost￾effectiveness)
A 1.1.2: 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(design delivery 
system)
A 1.2.1: 
Procurement 
Management
(implement and 
monitor 
procurement plans) 
 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(procurement 
processes)
A 1.2.2: 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(monitor delivery) 
A 1.3.1: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (producer 
organization) 
A 1.3.2.1: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (access to 
finance; production) 
A 1.3.2.2: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (basic tech; 
post-harvest)
A 1.3.2.3: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (School 
Feeding) 
A 1.4.1: 
Capacity Building 
for municipalities / 
AMFI
A 1.4.2: 
Capacity Building 
(promote 
administrative 
procedures) 
A 1.4.3: 
Capacity Building 
(School Feeding and 
producer 
organizations) 
A 1.4.4: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (financing
14
 
A 1.1.3: 
Distribution 
Management 
(develop 
distribution plans) 
Producer Capacity 
Building (ToT for 
producers) 
A 1.2.3: 
Distribution 
Management 
(monitor 
distribution 
systems) 
 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(distribution; 
contingency 
planning for 
disaster)
A 1.3.2.4: 
Producer Capacity 
Building (provider 
certification)
A 1.3.3: 
Capacity building to 
improve delivery & 
commodity 
management 
(School Feeding) 
2. Purpose of the Baseline Study
The purpose of the baseline study is to assess the pre-implementation state of the strategic 
objective and outcome-level indicators and to establish questions to test the theory of 
change. Using a participatory approach, the baseline study will: 
• Conduct a critical and objective analysis, utilizing quantitative and qualitative 
techniques, to establish and verify baseline targets, which will permit CRS to assess 
the effectiveness and adequacy of the strategies used in the project at the final
evaluation. 
• Generate data for accountability on behalf of the people CRS serves (beneficiaries), 
stakeholders, and the program donor. 
• Provide recommendations for corrections and the adaptation of strategies, the 
monitoring plan and project evaluation plan. 
The findings from the Baseline Study will be used to: 
• Identify and recommend adjustments in the original goals outlined in the 
project; (changes in the goals originally planned with the project) 
• Provide a participatory platform for improved capacity strengthening of CRS, 
partners and other stakeholders; 
• Ensure accountability to project beneficiaries; and, 
• Provide important information to government and other key stakeholders to aid 
in policy decisions and advocacy efforts. 
15
 
3. Methodology 
CRS conducted the baseline study internally. CRS’ MEAL Manager from Nicaragua 
assumed the position of baseline study coordinator, and one external research consultant was
contracted locally to lead and monitor the data collection process. 
3.1 Study Design and Key Indicators 
The baseline survey used mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) utilizing a non￾experimental, pre-post design. While more rigorous designs were considered (i.e., quasi￾experimental), CRS decided to use a simple pre-post methodology, because of the high 
likelihood that a comparison population would be compromised by similar programming in 
the same geographic area (government and European Union agricultural extension 
programs). Given that the baseline study design did not include a comparison group, the 
evaluation will not be able to causally attribute changes directly to the project, nonetheless, 
the pre-post design will allow CRS to determine whether a significant change has occurred 
in results-level indicators, by measuring and comparing baseline values to those same 
indicator values at the end line. 
The LRP team, under the guidance of CRS’ MEAL staff, participated in the design of the 
baseline survey, including the creation of the forms, the field tests, and managing logistical 
aspects of the survey. The evaluation team held coordination meetings, to draft the 
methodology and outline the specific data collection processes and statistical analyses 
required (sub-group analysis, as well as survey design and field logistics for data collection). 
The evaluation team also conducted a stakeholder mapping activity to confirm they had 
identified appropriate quantitative and qualitative tools for the survey. 
The baseline survey was designed considering the following five key evaluation criteria 
(which will be referred to throughout the project life cycle, to guide the project’s monitoring 
and evaluation plan):
Key evaluation criteria:
 Relevance: To what extent have the actions of the project contributed to improve the 
effectiveness of food assistance? How well does the project complement and link to 
activities and other donors at the local level? How does the LRP project affect dietary 
consumption patterns (quality/diversity as well as quantity)?
 Effectiveness: Did the project meet its anticipated (or intended) targets? Were 
contractual obligations respected by umbrella organizations and producer groups 
supplying commodities? Why/why not? Were quality requirements met? Are there 
interventions that did not achieve the desired results? What are the reasons for this?
 Efficiency: Is there a relationship between level of investment and changes in income 
for producer associations and cooperatives? 
16
 
 Sustainability: How do changes in the government’s capacities, policies, procedures 
and priorities facilitate (or impede) sustainability? How will the private sector 
participate actively in the vegetable and egg supply chain to ensure the delivery of 
safe food to school-age children at LRP level?
 Impact: Were local procurements cost-effective and timely? What are the key 
success factors of the project? What are the main limiting factors? What has been the 
impact of the engagement of the private sector in the project? How does LRP project 
affect educational participation? How does the LRP project affect the smallholder 
farmers in terms of income/production, knowledge and behavior in food 
standards/quality, etc.? 
The LRP project also has the following learning questions, which were not considered during 
the baseline study, but rather will be analyzed during project implementation through a 
separate study using: 
 What are the key institutions (i.e. international, national, provincial/district and local 
stakeholders) and governance structures required to effectively deliver, implement, 
and sustain school meal interventions? 
 What relationship structures among these institutions yield the most successful and 
effective school meal programs?
 What differences exist between the delivery model of local purchases by CRS and 
other similar interventions?
The table below presents the indicators that were measured during the baseline study and 
their respective data sources: 
Table 3 - Indicator & Data Source
Target Indicator Data Source
1.3. Custom Indicator: Percentage of 
schools with a School Feeding 
Committee with varied and culturally 
acceptable foods.
Survey with members of School Feeding
Committee (Annex 3), survey of students, 
questions 3.1 and 3.2. The analysis found that 
80% of students from each school eat vegetables 
more than three times per week. There will be 
another survey regarding this indicator. 
1.3.1 and 1.3.3 Custom Indicator: 
Percentage of children that report eating 
varied food in school. 
Survey with students (Annex 2). Section III. 
School Feeding, questions 3.1 and 3.2. The 
analysis was performed with the students who 
manifest that: eat vegetables, more than three
times per week, and eat three vegetables per day, 
minimum. 
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator #7: Value of 
annual sales of farms and firms receiving 
USDA assistance
Survey with members of producer organizations 
(Annex 1). Section 4. Production and 
commercialization, question 4.6. Clauses f and j 
for vegetables and Question 4.9, clauses d,f, and 
i for eggs. The analysis was carried out by 
17
 
multiplying the annual output of vegetables per 
Manzana (unit of measurement equivalent to 0.7 
hectare) per average price on the market in that 
year. For eggs, the annual output per farm per 
average price on the market in that year. The sum 
of both gives us total annual sales. 
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator # 8: Volume 
of commodities sold by farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance.
Survey with members of producer organizations 
(Annex 1). Section 4. Production and 
commercialization, question 4.6, clauses a, c, d, 
e, and f for vegetables and question 4.9, clauses 
a, d, f, and i, for eggs. The analysis was 
performed by adding the annual output (per Mz) 
of all the producers of vegetables and per farm 
for eggs.
1.4.3 Standard Indicator # 12: Number 
of individuals in the agriculture system 
who have applied improved management 
practices or technologies with USDA 
assistance
Survey with members of producer organizations 
(Annex 1). Section 4. Production and 
commercialization, question 4.17. Assessment of 
the number of producers that apply practices 
following the disintegration of the indicator. 
Activity 4 Custom indicator: Number 
of producer organizations registered in 
official government entities to be able to 
sell their production. 
Survey with members of producer organizations 
(Annex 1). Section VII. Financing and 
Legislation, subsection 7.2 Legislation, clause d. 
Assessment of whether they are registered in at 
least one entity.
The other indicators of the project results framework are establishing a starting point of zero 
for the baseline, since they will be assessed throughout the project intervention, either in the 
final evaluation or annually. 
3.2 Sampling Strategy
Quantitative sample 
A two-stage cluster sampling approach was used to select students and producers. For the 
students, in the first stage, schools were randomly selected as clusters and then students 
within schools selected at the second stage. The sample size for students was computed using 
the indicator “Percentage of children that report eating varied food in school.” The outcome 
is binary (taking the value 1 if a child reports eating varied food at school, and 0 otherwise). 
We used an academically accepted equation5 to calculate sample sizes for a binary outcome. 
We set m = 10, the number of students sampled per school. We anticipated a baseline value 
of 50% to 65%, with a life-of-project target of 80%. For z_β, we used the one-tailed value of 
5 McConnell, b.; Vera Hernandez, M. Going beyond simple sample size calculations: a practitioner's guide. 
Institute for Fiscal Studies. 2015.
18
 
the normal distribution at (1-0.80), which is the sample’s power. For z_α, we used the two￾tailed value of the normal distribution at 0.05, which is our significance level. Finally, for ρ, 
we used the value 0.26, or the intracluster correlation (ICC) for similar nutrition-based binary 
outcomes in schools6
. Assuming that 65% of school students at baseline will report eating 
varied meals, we surveyed 20 schools at minimum, with 11 students surveyed per school;
this is 221 students in total. Students were randomly selected based on the enrollment register 
using a random number generator. 
For the remaining indicators, we used equation nineteen in McConnell and Vera-Hernandez 
(2015), which measures a binary outcome under individual (not clustered) randomization. To 
answer indicator “Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied 
improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance”, we used z_β and 
z_α, the same as above. We spoke with 64 producers, which represents 100% of potential 
treated producer, and we spoke with 5 producer groups to measure an 83% effect size.
To answer the indicator “Percentage of schools with a School Feeding Committee with varied
and culturally acceptable foods.” We assumed that 50% of School Meal Committees already 
have varied and culturally acceptable foods. With a target of 80%, we needed to survey 36 
School Feeding Committees. We surveyed 51 School Feeding Committees, surpassing the 
figure originally planned. 
Table 4 - Quantitative Sampling Size
Group # of 
Clusters
Total Sample 
Size Surveyed
% of Male 
Respondents
% of Female 
Respondents
Students 20 221 51% 49%
Producer 
Organizations/Firms 5 64 81% 19% 
School Feeding
Committees 51 136 20% 80% 
Qualitative sample
In addition to quantitative methods to measure progress against indicators, CRS used 
complementary qualitative methods, including focus group discussions and Key 
Information Interviews, to triangulate data and ensure that all segments of the 
beneficiary population provided feedback and input. 
The table below summarizes which project stakeholder groups participated in the 
qualitative data collection process, the sample size of each group, and a brief description 
of activity. 
6 Juras, R. Estimates of Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and Other Design Parameters for Studies of 
School-Based Nutritional Interventions Evaluation Review, v. 40, n. 4, p. 19, 2016.
19
 
Table 5- Qualitative sampling size
Group Size 
Surveyed
Total 
Participants Description of the Activity
School Feeding 
Committee. 8 FGs 99 
1 Focus Group (FG) was carried out in 
each municipality (8 municipalities). The 
School Feeding Committee groups are 
comprised mostly of women, so the 
representation in the FGs was women. 
Students 8 FGs 134 
1 FG was carried out in each municipality 
(8 municipalities), using random selection 
to select the schools and students from 
fourth to ninth grade, with equitable 
representation of both boys and girls. 
Leader of 
School 
networks 
8 FGs 112 
1 FG was carried out in each municipality 
(8 municipalities), with the leaders of 
school networks. The groups maintained 
the gender balance.
Representatives 
of organizations 
in the area of 
intervention. 
10 KIIs 11 
Key Informant Interviews (KII) were 
conducted with representatives from the 
Ministry of Education, at the school level 
(with school principals), municipal, and 
departmental level, with organizations 
implementing projects in the area, and with 
the National School Feeding Program 
(PNAE).
Officials of the 
municipalities
and AMFI 
9 KIIs 8 
At least one person from each municipality 
(8), 6 mayors, 1 AMFI-FAO technician 
and 1 technician from the commonwealth
were interviewed.
3.3 Data Collection and Quality Assurance 
The baseline study used a set of quantitative and qualitative techniques to capture, process 
and triangulate information relevant to the measure of indicators. Data was gathered using 
tools designed by the LRP team, then reviewed internally by CRS’ MEAL experts locally 
and regionally. The questionnaires were developed in compliance with standard indicator 
guidance. LRP requires baseline data to establish baseline values for six indicators. This 
necessitated the collection of data related to agricultural productivity, School Feeding
practices, and compliance with local tax authorities. Baseline data was also collected to 
inform other indicators that may not require a specific baseline value but will be used to 
inform implementation. Sources of data and a summary of their content include:
20
 
Table 6 - Data Collection Tools
Study Tool Content Overview
Quantitative forms
1. Survey for Students Frequency and type of food consumed, 
satisfaction and participation in food assistance 
activities.
2. Survey for School Feeding
Committee
Capacity strengthening, frequency and type of 
food received, frequency of delivery and 
distribution of food products, individuals 
involved in the process, costs. 
3. Survey for Producers/Firms Types of assistance received; production, delivery 
and distribution costs; Value and volume of 
annual sales of farms; application improved 
management practices or technologies benefits 
obtained. The evaluator will collect baseline 
value and volume of sales data. 
Qualitative forms
1. Focus Groups - School Feeding
Committee
Capacity strengthening (food handling, nutritional 
content), timeliness of distribution, access to food 
with high nutritional value. 
2. Focus Groups – Students Participation, satisfaction with food, challenges, 
food preferences.
3. Focus Groups – Leaders of School 
Networks
Challenges for distribution and on-time delivery, 
members participation, organizational 
strengthening needs, challenges for sustainability. 
4. Interviews – Representatives of 
Institutions
The LRP intervention strategy and its potential 
effectiveness in improving the costs of 
procurement, delivery, and distribution of food, 
considering local market conditions; 
sustainability.
5. Interviews – School Directors 
6. Interviews – Municipal Mayors
Data Collection Team & Challenges 
The baseline study was coordinated by CRS’ MEAL Manager from CRS/Nicaragua, a 
MEAL professional with demonstrated experience, analytical skills, language skills and 
experience in conducting evaluations for programs related to agriculture, nutrition and supply 
chain. In addition, one qualified research consultant was contracted locally to lead the data 
collection and data validation process, in close coordinator with the CRS team. The research 
consultants contracted 8 enumerators, all of whom participated in a two-day training (May 
13-14, 2019), to fully understand the project context and the purpose of the baseline study, 
and to receive training on the baseline survey questionnaires and interview guides, as well as 
training on CRS’ data collection system, the CommCare. A practical pre-test was carried out 
prior to field implementation. 
21
 
The data collection process encountered one major challenge, which is that at the start of the 
data collection process, a nationwide protest was launched by government health and 
education workers, which resulted in delays in data collection, and required the baseline 
coordination team to be flexible and to find solutions for conducting surveys, focus groups 
and interviews based on changing availability of the study participants. Despite this 
challenge, the baseline study was completed. 
Managing the Data Collection and Ensuring Quality Control 
Under the direction of the Baseline Study Coordinator, the LRP Program Manager, the LRP 
Technical Expert, and the LRP MEAL Officer supervised the quality control of the data 
collection process, and provided administrative, logistic and technical support to the 
research consultant, enumerators and the qualitative research team, and conducted routine 
spot checks for data quality. The CRS MEAL Manager and LRP Meal Officer oversaw the 
downloading of the quantitative data and generated quality control tables to be used by the 
Baseline Study Coordinator for data analysis. In addition, periodic reviews of the baseline 
questionnaires were carried out, in conjunction with CRS’ Information, Communication & 
Technology Officer, to ensure they were in line with the assessment methodology. And 
lastly, the LRP MEAL Officer performed data cleaning and converted the datasets from 
CommCare into PowerBI. 
The data collection process adhered to the following quality assurance guidelines: 
• Define the criteria for selecting enumerators; e.g., professional profile, experience, and 
competencies. 
• Recruit and train support staff (enumerators) to implement the instruments designed for 
data collection as well as in the different techniques that are established to ensure 
quality. 
• Define the use of Information and Communication Technology for data collection once 
the instruments for data collection are defined. CRS used mobile devices with 
CommCare software for collecting data.
• Conduct field tests for the validation of the instruments to be used for the collection of 
information and change them if necessary. 
• Collect survey information qualitative and quantitative, in accordance with the units 
defined in the study and research design techniques. 
• Supervise the data collection process through daily quality control checks. 
• Review and clean the database, to ensure data quality follows the established criteria 
of: punctuality, integrity, reliability, validity, and precision. 
 3.4 Limitations
The CRS MEAL team strove to ensure data reliability and limit bias as much as possible. 
However, minor limitations arose to keep in mind when considering the results reported in 
the following sections. As is common to all surveys of rural populations, enumerators must 
rely on recall data to derive baseline values as reliable records are limited. To address this 
reality, the team used enumerators experienced in agricultural data collection and at the 
22
 
onset undertook training covering agricultural terminology, school terminology, common 
ranges for outcomes, and administration of the data collection instruments. After 
completing data collection, extensive data cleaning identified outlier data and follow up 
with producers confirmed reported figures. The team then made any necessary corrections. 
After an analysis of the indicators about the percentage of schools with a School Meal 
Committee with varied and culturally acceptable food, it was determined that it was 
necessary to apply a new survey to the CAE since there was not enough information yet to 
measure. 
3.4 Ethical Considerations 
The baseline study was carried out following the ethical considerations, especially in the 
compilation of information with the children. The principles that were implemented in this 
baseline process are the following: 
• The informed consent form was read to the children who were surveyed before 
starting the survey, making sure that they understand that their participation in the 
process is voluntary. 
• Queries were made to students through focus groups, and ethical standards such as 
respect and inclusion were maintained during the compilation of information. All the 
activities performed with the students were coordinated with educational authorities 
beforehand. 
• The school principals were informed about all the activities of the process, who also 
approved of the process. 
• For the purposes of the analysis, all the data was kept confidential, and all the personal 
indicators were eliminated.
4. Results
The baseline evaluation collected data for six indicators. The other indicators of the project 
consider a baseline value of zero, and CRS will track progress throughout project 
intervention (in the final evaluation or annually). The pre-post design of the baseline survey 
will allow CRS to determine whether a significant change has occurred in results-level 
indicators, by measuring and comparing baseline values to those same indicator values at 
final evaluation. 
The obtained results are presented in four sections:
- 4.1 Quantitative results 
- 4.2 Qualitative results 
- 4.3 Advance of results to questions of the criteria of the evaluation 
- 4.4 Revision to the theory of change 
23
 
4.1 Quantitative Results
4.1.1 Custom Indicator 1.3: Percentage of schools with a School Feeding Committee 
with varied and culturally acceptable foods
Table 7 – Custom Indicator 1.3 Percentage of schools with a School Feeding Committee with varied and 
culturally acceptable foods.
Indicator Baseline 
Actual
Target 
year 1
Target 
year 2
Life of 
Project
1.3. Custom Indicator: Percentage of schools 
with a School Feeding Committee with varied
and culturally acceptable foods. 
Disaggregation: None
45% 70% 80% 80% 
This indicator measures the percentage of target schools that have a School Feeding
Committee that has a varied weekly menu that includes products supplied through LRP 
(vegetables, others seasonal vegetables and eggs) at least three times a week. Initially, the 
method for data collection included an onsite revision of the School Feeding Committee 
logs to verify the existence of school menus and the type of foods included in the recipes. 
During baseline data collection, enumerators were unable to obtain access to these logs, or 
they were nonexistent because this type of control will not be established until the project 
begins, therefore this form of measurement will not be used until the final evaluation. In the 
absence of this source, it was necessary to create an instrument that would allow us to 
collect the necessary information for this indicator; CRS decided to use a survey of cooks 
and individuals responsible for making the school meals. The survey was accompanied by 
direct observation to verify the fidelity of their statements (e.g. existence of a menu, inputs, 
produce, resources, etc.). While the data source differs to the method approved in the PMP; 
CRS feels the new method has strong construct validity and removes bias. Baseline results 
report that 45% of schools meet the criteria to be considered a School Feeding Committee 
with varied and culturally acceptable foods. 
Figure 1
24
 
Relevant Information
Surveys were applied to 38 members of CAE, of which 24% are men and 76% are women, 
of 36 different schools. With them, key aspects related to the School Feeding process were 
investigated. 
The involvement of different community stakeholders is necessary for the School Feeding
program to be effective. Therefore, the baseline collected information on the number of
community structures that collaborate in this process. Focus group discussions highlighted 
that Parents’ Associations are one of the strongest support groups, especially regarding 
transportation of food. Table 8 describes the most common entities currently supporting 
CAEs. 
Table 8 – Structures that currently support School Feeding Programs in target schools
Entity Percentage of Respondents 
that mentioned each entity
Parents’ Association (APF) 30%
School Feeding Committee (CAE) 28%
Safety Patrol Group (PASE) 18%
Dropout Prevention Response Team
(EPRED) 14% 
According to the CAE members, the main topics where they need strengthening include 
developing recipes with nutritional value (28%), general nutrition (27%), hygiene and food 
handling (20%), and organization (9%) including items such as report writing and 
administration of funds. 
42% of School Feeding Committees had previous experience with food delivery and supply 
chains, including vegetables, cheeses, poultry and meat. Regarding challenges with supply 
chains, 45% stated that the primary difficulties in the past were related with purchasing and 
maintaining quality produce during delivery. 
4.1.2 Custom Indicator 1.3.1 and 1.3.3: Percentage of children that report eating 
varied food in school 
Table 9 –Custom Indicator Percentage of children that report eating varied food in school.
Indicator Current 
Baseline 
Target 
year 1
Target 
year 2
Life of 
Project
1.3.1 and 1.3.3 Custom Indicator Percentage of 
children that report eating diversified food in 
school. 
Disaggregation: None
29% 70% 80% 80% 
25
 
The indicator reports the percentage of children who attend target schools that self-report 
having eaten varied foods delivered by the project, at least three times a week. Of the 221 
students surveyed, 29% report eating varied food at least three times a week. The most 
frequent vegetables consumed by students include potatoes, carrots, tomatoes and cabbage. 
Figure 2
 
Figure 3
 
26
 
Relevant Information
221 students of 20 schools were surveyed. 49% were female and 51% were male, all of whom
were between fourth and seventh grades. Students from these grades were selected 
considering that they have a higher analytical capability and can offer objective responses to 
the interview. Among other aspects, they were consulted about the type of food and 
frequency of meals, satisfaction and participation of students in the process of nourishment. 
The types of vegetables that the students consume at school are potatoes (21%), carrots 
(19%), and tomatoes (15%) which, according to members of the Student Meals Committee 
(CAE) are the foods that are most accessible to parents both economically and 
geographically. As for the consumption of eggs, 80% of students consume eggs. For those 
that do not consume eggs, 79% stated that the main reason they did not consume eggs is that 
the item is not included on school menus. 
54% of the students responded that there is a menu in their school, and of them 53% 
responded that they do like the food available on the menu. It is important to consider that 
the McGovern-Dole program has provided recipes to the schools, and from that 14 recipes
are used in most school menus. When inquired about their favorite meals on the menu, 
students identified five top choices: Casamiento (rice and beans) with 20%, rice with 
vegetables with 18%, bean tamales with 15%, Catrachas (toasted tortillas with beans and
grated cheese) with 12%, and bean soup with 6%. Of these meals, only two contain a portion 
of vegetables in the original recipe. 
Regarding meal preparation, 78% reported that meals are prepared at school, while 16% are 
prepared at parent’s homes. 
4.1.3 Standard Indicator #7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving 
USDA assistance
Table 10 – Standard Indicator Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance.
Indicator Baseline 
Actual
Target 
year 1
Target 
year 2
Life of 
Project
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator #7: Value of 
annual sales of farms and firms receiving 
USDA assistance.
USD 
48,281
USD 
109,236 
USD 
112,513. 
USD 
221,749 
Table 11 describes the value of sales of the 64 producers surveyed. Of these, 64 are 
vegetable producers representing 36% of the total value of sales; 10% represent women's 
sales, and 90% are men's sales; 12% of sales are between 15 and 29 years-old and 88% are 
for those over 30 years. 
The percentage of total sales is higher for egg producers with 61% of total sales; Of these, 
79% of sales belong to small producers and 21% are non-smallholder producers. 
27
 
Table 11 - Disaggregation by Value chain actor type, age and sex
Disaggregate Value from 
report
Number of 
participants
A. Vegetables $18,665.00 52
a.1 Smallholder 
producers $18,665.00 52 
By Gender
• Female $1,793.00 11
• Male $16,872.00 41
By Age
• 15-29 $2,285.00 4
• 30+ $16,380.00 48
B. Eggs $29,616.00 12
b.1 Smallholder 
producers $23,445.00 11 
By Gender
• Female $5,916.00 6
• Male $17,529.00 5
By Age
• 30+ $23,445.00 11
b.2 Non-smallholder $6,171.00 1
By Gender
• Male $6,171.00 1
By Age
• 30+ $6,171.00 1
TOTAL $48,281.00 64
Figure 4
28
 
Of the producers surveyed, nearly 84 percent of total producer income derived primarily 
from sales of crop and livestock products; the remainder came from off-farm sources such 
as salaries, pensions, remittances, rental income, daily wages, and other businesses. Within 
the crop and livestock income categories, 21 percent is derived from vegetables, 32 percent 
eggs and 47 percent from basic grains. For reporting this indicator, only sales from 
vegetable and egg production were counted (64 producers). 
4.1.4 Standard Indicator #8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance; desegregated by service type, producer type, sex 
and age. 
Table 12 – Standard Indicator #8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance. 
Indicator Baseline 
Actual
Target 
year 1
Target 
year 2
Life of 
Project
1.3.2.1 Standard Indicator # 8: Volume of 
commodities sold by farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance; disaggregated by 
service type, producer type, sex and age.
51 MT 284.5 
MT
284.5 
MT
569 
MT
This indicator was calculated for 64 participants identified as active producers in target 
municipalities. The baseline survey is reporting that the volume of commodities sold by 
farms and firms surveyed totaled at 51 MT; however, it is important to note that this rises to 
140 MT when basic grains are included. Vegetables and egg production combined 
represent 26% of the total volume of commodities sold by producers and firms included in 
the baseline, compared to 64% for basic grains. 
Of the total volume of commodities sold, approximately 94% were from smallholder 
7
farmers. Non-smallholder represents 6% of total volume of commodities sold. Regarding 
characteristics of producers and firms, 74% the total volume of commodities sold were 
produced by men, and 26% by women. Only 10% of commodities sold were derived from 
youth (15-30). 
Table 13- Disaggregation for Standard Indicator #8, by service type, Value chain actor type, sex and age.
Disaggregate Value from 
report
Number of 
participants
A. Vegetables 35 52
a.1 Smallholder 
producers 35 52 
By Gender
7 Definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or equivalent units of 
livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats: five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: 
five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20 layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or 
livestock.
29
 
• Female 7 11
• Male 28 41
By Age
• 15-29 2 4
• 30+ 33 48
B. Eggs 16 12
b.1 Smallholder 
producers 12 11 
By Gender
• Female 3 6
• Male 9 5
By Age
• 30+ 12 11
b.2 Non￾Smallholder 4 1 
By Gender
• Male 4 1
By Age
• 30+ 4 1
TOTAL 51 64
Figure 5
 
30
 
4.1.5 Standard Indicator #12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who 
have applied improved management practices or techniques with USDA 
assistance. 
Table 14 Standard Indicator #12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved 
management practices or techniques with USDA assistance.
Indicator Baseline 
Actual
Target 
year 1
Target 
year 2
Life of 
Project
1.4.3 Standard Indicator # 12: Number 
of individuals in the agriculture system 
who have applied improved 
management practices or technologies
with USDA assistance
30 48 48 48 
This indicator measures the total number of agriculture system actors participating in 
USDA-funded activities who have applied improved management practices and/or 
technologies promoted by USDA anywhere within the food and agriculture system. Data 
was collected on a range of targeted technologies and management practices deemed 
important to agricultural productivity, which included technologies at the farm level 
(production; postharvest; and environmentally friendly practices) and at the household level 
(renewable energy and business skills). 30 of the 64 producers surveyed apply at least one 
practice of the 10 that were measured as a part of the practice packet to promote that are in 
6 categories. 
To obtain the disaggregation, the LRP has defined a packet of 10 practices to be considered 
with the producers in 6 categories. In the disaggregation, CRS counted the number of 
producers per practice and in the categories the total number of producers that have fulfilled 
at least one practice. 
Table 15- Disaggregation for Standard Indicator # 12, by service type Value chain actor type, sex, age, and 
practice. 
Disaggregate Value
A. Vegetables 30
A.1 Smallholder producers 30
By Gender
• Female 6
• Male 24
By Age
• 15-29 4
• 30+ 26
By Practice
• Cultural Practices 11
• Pest and disease 
management 23 
31
 
• Soil related fertility 
and conservation 17 
• Irrigation 18
• Marketing and 
distribution 26 
• Postharvest handling
and storage 30 
Total 30
Figure 6
32
 
4.1.6 Activity 4 Custom Indicator: Number of producer organizations registered in 
official government entities to be able to sell their production. 
Table 16 Custom Indicator: Number of producer organizations registered in official government entities to be 
able to sell their production. 
Indicator Baseline 
Actual
Targets 
year 1
Targets 
year 2
Life of 
Project
Activity 4 Custom indicator: Number of 
producer organizations registered in official 
governmental departments to be able to sell 
their production.
0 4 6 6 
For reporting on this indicator, producers must be enlisted with three government entities to 
be considered as ‘registered’. At baseline, none of the producers surveyed complied with 
these requirements. Of the 6 producers, only 2 were registered with one institution, and 62 
with none. Most producers recognized this as a significant weakness and a barrier in 
accessing market opportunities, 92 percent of respondents stated they would welcome 
training on how to register and comply with the local tax authority, as well as other official 
government registries for producers. 
Figure 7
 
33
 
Relevant Information 
For the previous 4 indicators, information obtained from 64 producers was considered. Of 
the men and women who were interviewed, the average age is 47 years old, and in terms of 
education level, an outstanding 74% of interviewers did not finish their primary education. 
Of them, 78% of surveyed producers are a part of a producer organization. 
According to the surveys, 78% of producers belong to a producer organization, the most 
frequent being the village bank (50%). Another relevant aspect is that 62% of producers 
stated that their organizations have a work plan. However, 26% do not know if a plan exists, 
which can be a key aspect for the project in the process of strengthening organizational and 
administrative capacities in these groups. The producers indicated that the benefits that they 
receive while being a part of an organization is technical assistance (67%) and access to credit 
(24%). 
One of the main challenges for the LRP project, relating to the implementation of good 
agricultural practices that are environmentally friendly, is that 33.82% of the producers rent 
the land that they harvest and they don’t have a sense of ownership to warrant investing in 
soil development and other ecological practices that are more expensive but provide long￾term gain. 
All 64 producers are willing to participate in the training process emphasizing the following 
topics: Productivity, postharvest management, food management, disaster management, 
basic marketing concepts, business plans, sales contracts, delivery and logistics. The 
producers were asked if they had received previous training regarding these topics, and the 
answers are reflected in the following table: 
Table 17- Training received by producers
Topic % Trained
Productivity 65%
Postharvest management 50%
Food management 41%
Disaster management 24%
Basic marketing concepts 18%
Business plans 13%
Sales contracts 70%
Delivery and logistics 4%
4.2 Qualitative Results 
34
 
As aforementioned, a qualitative study was conducted to follow up on findings from 
quantitative data to better understand what the figures mean. The following actions were 
executed:
• Focus groups with: students, members of CAE and members of educational networks. 
• Interviews with key informants: school principals, representatives of other 
organizations, and municipal mayors. 
Below is a summary of the qualitative results prearranged by analytical category. 
Key actors in the school meal network
The role of the CAE: The organizations main role is to coordinate the reception of food in 
the schools. Via the McGovern-Dole program, CAE’s receive food every three months. Next, 
they perform different tasks such as: weighing, storage, rationing, and distributing food to
participants that prepare School Feeding. They also keep track of the quality of the food and 
in some cases, they purchase food with additional funds that parents contribute. Usually, the 
tasks are assigned to different members each month, with a new rotation determined every 
15 days. 
The role of the Parents Association: They help with the transfer of food products from the 
reception center to the school as not every school has access to a vehicle, collaborates with 
the care and management of food to avoid damage. 
The role of students: Most of the students stated that overall, they consider that their 
participation in school nutrition is limited. They expressed that they felt excluded during the 
decision-making process and their opinions were not taken into consideration, especially 
when determining the menu. 
The role of Health volunteers: They make sure that all food is in good conditions, supervise 
that the food is prepared with good hygiene and make sure that mothers adhere to safety 
procedures. 
Role of local authorities and Mayors: interviews with the municipal mayors revealed that, 
although they are informed of the schools’ nutritional activity and they recognize its benefits
they have not been directly involved in these types of activities as their main input has been
supporting school infrastructure that support nutrition and hygiene (e.g. kitchens, bathrooms, 
and other sanitary modules). 
School Networks: As part of a national decentralization initiative, Honduras has organized 
all schools into small networks made up of 3 to 10 schools, ranging from preschool to 
primary and lower secondary. Schools are located within approximately a 5 km radius of 
each other. Networks share teachers, resources, and learning to improve the quality and 
equity of education (a complete definition is available at the Secretary of Education 
(SIARED) website). The network structure has implications for LRP, each network has a 
Leader School (usually the largest school). Within the context of school feeding, the Leader 
School receive the commodities and manage direct delivery to schools within their 
35
 
network, in cases when producers are not be able to make the delivery directly due to 
schools due to geographical access. 
Capacity building needs
According to the interviewees and focus groups, the majority stated that they have received 
training in school meal management and preparation via the McGovern-Dole program. 
These topics have focused on recipe preparation, general nutrition, hygiene and food 
management. 
CAE´s expressed an interest in additional capacity building related to menu design, 
preparing nutritious meals, general nutrition and organizational capacity. 
Some school principals stated that the training process for mothers must be a continuous 
effort, as each year mothers end their support to the school because their children graduate 
or transfer to other schools, likewise there are new mothers joining. 
Patterns of food consumption and satisfaction 
Students mentioned that they consume daily meals at school provided by McGovern-Dole
that are mostly carbohydrate based, in addition, some Parent Associations donate vegetables 
to compliment the McGovern-Dole rations. Most students perceive vegetable consumption 
as something positive and acknowledge that it is beneficial to their physical and cognitive 
growth. Students mentioned that vegetables will make them smarter, give them more energy, 
are healthy and contain vitamins. For the most part students stated that they eat vegetables at 
home and that the most common meal that contains vegetables is soup. This supports what 
CAE members reported, in that school children consume most of the vegetables offered to 
them (i.e. they don’t reject vegetables). 
Regarding types of vegetables that students eat at school, again responses from students and 
CAE members coincided. The top five most consumed vegetables by students are potatoes, 
tomatoes, carrots, green beans, mirliton squash, and cabbage. The vegetables that students 
find hard to accept include broccoli, peppers, onion, cilantro, and tomato, but that mothers 
find ways to include these vegetables in recipes anyways. 
In general, students mentioned that they were happy with their School Feeding, but that 
they suggest improving them by diversifying with more vegetables, eggs, dairy products, 
and chicken. 
Parent contribution to School Feeding. 
Students, members of the CAE and educational networks recognize that the McGovern-Dole 
project provides food to all the schools in the Intibucá department. However, they express 
that these meals are not enough to provide a varied diet to the students. Parents try to provide 
vegetables and other foods that will fulfill the menu, but this varies according to the parent’s
36
 
ability to provide said food. Therefore, although there may be a varied menu, the food is not 
always available to fulfill it. According to the survey results, when asked about what food 
the students ate in the last three days, most said that they ate rice and beans and tortillas every 
day, which matches the rations provided by MGD. 
The focus groups highlighted that parents often contribute vegetables such as onions, 
potatoes, peppers, carrots, tomatoes and beans. To a lesser extent, some CAEs also buy 
sugar, milk, eggs, and seasoning. At some schools’ parents also contribute cash payments 
between USD $0.81 and $8.16 per month, which is used for purchasing snacks and, in 
some cases, salaries for people to prepare the School Feeding. A key item that parents often 
supply is firewood for cooking. In some cases, they pay up to USD $20.41 to transport the 
food to the school. 
Previous experience in local food delivery
Many CAEs have previous experience in food delivery as they participated in some small￾scale government led initiatives, one of the main concerns they highlighted from this 
experience was poor produce quality. It was unclear though, whether this was due to the 
produce itself or because of damage during transportation and storage. Further, produce was
bought weekly, with distribution starting Saturday and Sunday, leading to these products 
being consumed early in the week, with little available for the remaining days. 
Gender
Gender gaps are well differentiated, as the cooking falls on the mothers of the families who 
take turns to cook, generally in the school kitchen. The fathers, on the other hand, help with 
managing firewood, transportation and storage of food. 
See annex 9 for an illustrative list of participant citations and statements. 
37
 
5. Findings, Recommendations and Action Points 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
1 Local producers’ annual sales 
from vegetables and eggs was 
$48,281 (cumulative for all 
producers surveyed). This 
represents 53% of total agriculture 
related sales. In addition to 
vegetables and eggs, most 
producers in target municipalities 
also grow basic grains, these 
represent approximately 47% of 
annual agriculture sales. 
To obtain the volume of vegetables and 
eggs LRP will demand, the project 
must encourage increased vegetable
and egg farming amongst producers in 
target municipalities. At current 
production rates, it is unlikely local 
producers will be able to supply the 
required volume of commodities. At 
the same time, the project should 
consider including producers from 
neighboring municipalities to 
complement the supply. 
With USDA approval, adjust targets 
related to expected sales per producer, as 
the baseline established that vegetable and 
egg farming from producers in target 
municipalities is less prevalent than 
anticipated. 
Expand the geographic focus from which 
producers and producer organizations can 
be selected from, to include neighboring 
municipalities in Intibucá. 
Classify producers by skill level and 
develop a tailored menu of 
interventions/support based on this 
classification. 
August 
2019 
2 98.5% of local producers surveyed 
via the baseline were smallholder 
farmers (holdings less than 0.4 
hectares, and less than 100 heads 
of poultry), with very few semi￾medium farmers or cooperatives. 
Further, the previous year’s 
vegetable production was 
particularly low at approximately 
35.00 MT. These findings were 
Incorporate the local producer makeup 
into the LRP risk analysis and 
contingency plan and include 
additional strategies to ensure supply of 
the volume of commodities required by 
the project. 
Implement a rapid assessment of 
current production forecasted for the 
Next three months, for AMFI and CRS 
Update the risk framework and 
contingency plan. 
Prepare a monitoring plan to monitor 
production, water shortages and other risks 
that may affect implementation.
October 
2019 
38
 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
unexpected, as secondary data 
from institutions working in target 
municipalities (e.g. USAID, FAO, 
among others) suggested that farm 
sizes and vegetable production 
were larger. One possible 
explanation to account for low 
production is drought and water 
shortages that severely affected the 
region in 2018. 
to begin procurement of commodities 
and disseminate LRP’s needs, so 
producers can ramp up vegetable and 
egg production based to cover demand. 
3 The pool of local producers in 
target municipalities is 
predominately middle-aged males. 
The average age is 47 years old, 
while only 15% are women and 
12% are youth aged 15-29. 
Identify strategies to increase female 
and youth participation in project 
activities and agricultural production. 
Using a combination of secondary data, 
literature review, and baseline data, 
conduct an analysis to identify 
opportunities for increased female and 
youth participation in production. 
Consult with stakeholders in the region 
who can identify female and youth 
producers in target municipalities or 
neighboring municipalities that can 
participate in the project. 
October 
2019 
4 Participant roles within the School 
Lunch Committees (CAE, in its 
Spanish acronym) are well defined 
and determined predominately by 
sex. Females are responsible for 
preparing foods, while men 
Respect cultural norms and the current 
structure, while at the same time taking 
a responsible and gentle approach to 
challenging existing norms that exclude 
participation based on sex or other 
typecasts. 
Identify role models and document success 
stories of CAE’s that have embraced 
nontraditional structures and participation 
(e.g. men participating in preparing foods 
or females transporting commodities) and 
disseminate these cases across school 
August -
November 
2019 
39
 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
oversee transport, distribution, 
stock control and collecting 
firewood. 
networks. CRS will share cases studies 
with USDA . 
Coordinate capacity building activities 
with MGD, as they have a large school 
meal capacity building component. 
5 The School Feeding Committees 
are organized, trained, and supply 
basic rations provided by MGD. A 
small percentage (45%) of 
committees reported they were 
already using vegetables in School 
Feeding. 
LRP should build on the strong base 
established by MGD, as well as a clear 
desire for CAE’s to complement 
existing School Feeding with 
vegetables and eggs. 
Hold a reflection workshop with MGD 
staff to identify additional leverage points 
that can build sustainable CAEs. 
August 
2019 
6 School Feeding Committee access 
to vegetables and eggs are limited. 
Parents donate produce, or 
resources to procure produce, on 
occasion. At baseline, only 29% of 
students consumed vegetables at 
least three times a week, while only 
16% consumed at least 2 eggs per 
week. 
Baseline findings validate the project 
purpose and theory of change. The 
project should be implemented as 
intended. As baseline data suggests a 
large gap in in access to varied School 
Feeding. Increased consumption of 
vegetables (from approximately 1 per 
meal to 3 per meal) and eggs (from 
approximately 0-1 per week to at least 
3 per week) will support positive child 
development in the short-term. 
Update school meal menus to incorporate 
increased quantities of vegetables and eggs 
provided by LRP. 
Life of 
project
7 Student participation in the current 
school meal process is limited. 
Student opinions on menus, food 
preparation, quality, and 
Promote student participation in the 
school meal process by engaging with 
student councils. 
In coordination with MGD, define 
strategies for increasing student 
participation by raising awareness with 
School Lunch Committees, school 
Life of 
project
40
 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
schedules, among others, are not 
considered. This is important, as 
only 54% students reported they 
were satisfied with the School 
Feeding provided. 
officials, and other stakeholders. Specific 
roles and feedback loops should be 
defined. 
8 Only 44% of the producers apply 
at least one of the better practices 
in farming production (as per the 
packet of 10 improved 
technologies contemplated by 
LRP). These practices are 
considered important for 
agricultural productivity and 
include technologies for 
production, post-production and 
environmentally friendly practices. 
Establish alliances with institutions and 
projects that offer technical support to 
producers. 
Increase the number of technicians 
employed by LRP that will provide 
assistance to producers. 
Leverage support from existing CRS 
projects (ASA) and partners 
(COCEPRADII) who promote water-smart 
agriculture practices in neighboring 
municipalities. 
Formalize alliances with external 
stakeholders promoting use of production 
technologies, environmentally friendly 
practices, and business skills practices. 
Life of 
project
9 The main barriers to sustainability 
identified by respondents include: 
- Harsh local weather conditions 
for vegetable (drought and 
consistent water shortages);
- High levels of poverty that 
prevent parents, schools and 
civil society to contribute 
resources to partially fund 
+ Ensure holistic and meaningful 
participation from key local institutions 
from the get-go (municipal council, 
education networks, and municipal
education and health authorities). In 
order to achieve some form of 
sustainability, LRP and others must 
clearly show the market, economic, 
health and education benefits of this 
initiative. 
Co-create implementation strategies 
alongside municipal actors. 
Throughout the project the team should 
seek to involve mayors, congressman, and 
influential council members that can lobby 
the central government for permanent 
funding streams for School Feeding. 
Life of 
project
Life of 
project
41
 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
vegetable and eggs for School 
Feeding; 
- The absence of a law or bylaw 
that mandates constant 
provision of commodities for 
School Feeding, as well as a 
permanent budget line for this 
in municipal budgets. 
- The main challenge faced by 
the educational networks is the 
transportation of the food and 
the high costs of food which is 
due to the poor condition of 
the roads for urban transport 
and the lack of adequate 
structures for safe storage of 
fresh food in dry conditions. 
This is true in the majority of 
the Schools.
- SEDIS does not have but 
recognizes the importance of a 
monitoring system to evaluate 
the school meal program.
Establish a short-term and a long-term 
strategy. 
Socialize the Monitoring, Evaluating, 
Accountability and Learning (MEAL) 
system that CRS uses for the planning, 
implementation and evaluation of the 
project, and carry out training and 
learning sessions. 
Support existing efforts led by MGD to 
transfer School Feeding responsibilities in 
Intibucá to the Departmental Education 
Office.
Search for providers with delivery greater 
capability, to reduce costs by volume. 
Involve SEDIS in monitoring visits, 
accountability events, and trainings with 
the educational networks. 
Life of 
project
10 Engagement between School 
Feeding Committees and the 
private sector is non-existent.
Respondents stated that the private 
sector in target municipalities are 
Consult and develop strategizes with 
the private sector to obtain greater 
scale, sustainability, and 
effectiveness. 
Develop and implement a private sector 
engagement plan. 
Life of 
project
42
 
No. Findings Recommendations Action Points
Target 
Date for 
Completion
weak and difficult to work with.
Nevertheless, there was openness 
towards pursuing improved 
collaboration. 
Socialize the process of School Feeding
with the private sector
43
 
Annex 1 - Survey for Producers
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) 
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT (LRP) PROJECT HONDURAS
BASELINE SURVEY FOR PRODUCERS
Instructions 
1. Read the consent form 
2. Self-introduction (name) and introduce other team members (in case there are several 
people) 
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial status of the project"
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Initiate the questions 
I. General Data
1. Name of the interviewer: _________________________________ 
3. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
II. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
2.1. Name of the municipality: _________________________ 
2.2. Community______________________ 
2.3. Producer's name: _________________________ 2.6. Identity 
________________________ 2.7. Sex: ______ 2.8. How old are you? _________ 2.9 Cell 
Phone __________ 
2.10. In addition to you, how many adults live in your home? Total___ 
2.11. How many children are studying at school (pre-basic-9th grade)? _____ Total 
2.12. Education level: 
a. Complete primary ___ b. Incomplete Elementary ___ b. Secondary complete ___ c. 
Incomplete Secondary d. Full university___ d. Incomplete University ____d. None ____ 
2.13. What is your main source of income? [Indicate the most important activity] 
a. Horticultural production ___ b. Production of basic grains ___ c. Egg production ___ d. 
Dairy production ___ 
2.14. What is your second source of income for your family? [Indicate the most important 
activity]
a. Agriculture___ b. Livestock ___ c. Trade ___ d. Fishing ____e. Housewife ____f. Public 
employee ___ g. Private employee ____ h. hourly_____ i. Remittances ______ J. None 
2.15. How do you spend your money monthly? 
44
 
a. Food ____ b. wardrobe_____ c. Housing___ d. Health___ e. Education ____ f. Vacation 
and travel ____ g. Purchase toys for your children ____ h. Savings ___ 
III. Organization data 
3.1 Do you belong to any organization as a producer? yes_______ No_______ 
3.2 Indicate the type of organization to which it belongs: 
a. Association of producers_____ b. Cooperative_____ c. Rural Savings_____ d. 
None_______ e. Other___________________________ Multiple selection 
3.3 Does that organization have Work Plans : 
a. Yes ___ b. No___ c. Do not know ___ [If it is No or Do not know, go to 4.1 
3.4 Have you participated in the preparation of these plans? 
to. Yes___ b. No ___ 
3.5 Do you receive any type of benefit? 
a. technical assistance____ b. Credit___ c. Marketing Support ___ d. Price information ___ 
e. None _____ 
IV. Production and marketing data 
4.1 The land where you produce is your own or family based? Yes ____ No ____ 
4.2 What is the area in Mz that you own or family land? area Mz _______ 
4.3 Rent land for production? Yes ____ No ____ 
4.4 If the answer above is yes What is the area of the land you rent? area Mz _________ 
4.5 Do you have production records? Yes____ No ____ 
4.6 Vegetable Production 
Do you produce vegetables? a. Yes___ b. No___ 
b. If the answer is no, go to question 4.8 
c. How many types of vegetables do you produce per year? For the annual sales indicator, 
multiply the destination of the production (sales option) and by the sale price. Standard 
indicator 07. 
d. What is the area of vegetables (in “tareas”- a local measurement of land) for each type? 
e. How many crops per year do you produce vegetables (for each type)? 
f. What is the yield in pounds of vegetables (for each type) throughout the year? 
g. What is the destination of the production? Consumption ___ b. Sale ___ c. Both ___ 
i. If the destination of production is sales, how many pounds did you sell vegetables (for 
each type) all year?
j. What is the average selling price of vegetables (for each type) throughout the year? 
k. What are the Costs of vegetable production (for each type) in Lps of the whole year 
(labor, supplies, equipment and machinery, transportation? 
45
 
l. How do you prepare the vegetables (by type) for sale? a. Bulk in your vehicle ____ b 
Plastic boxes ____ c. Nylon sacks ____ d. Plastic bag _____ e. Cardboard boxes f. Other 
________________________ 
m. Do you have a storage room for the vegetables after harvesting? Yes ____ No ___, if the 
answer is no, go to subsection f. 
n. What type of storage do you have? a. Dry ____ b. Cold ____ 
o. Where do you store vegetables? a. Outside the production area _____ b. Within the 
production area ______ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
p. What type of installation do you have? a. New___ b. Repaired ____ c. Existing in good 
condition ____ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
q. How much is the storage area you have in M3? a. ______ Long _____ b. wide_______ c. 
high ______ L * A * A M3 this will measure Standard Indicator # 9. 
For part (b) insert a field to convert to Ha. 
4.8 Production of basic grains 
a. Are you a producer of basic grains? a. Yes____ b. No____ 
b. If the answer is no, continue to section 4.9. 
c. What are basic grains that you produce? a. Corn__ b. Beans__ c. local sorghum ___For 
annual sales indicator multiply destination of production (sales option) and ob x the sale 
price. Standard indicator 07. 
d. What is the area in Mz?
e. How many crops do you make a year of basic grains (for each type)?
f. What is the yield in “quintales” (a local measure = 100 lbs.) of basic grains (for each 
type) throughout the year? 
g. What is the final destination of the production of basic grains? 
a. Consumption ___ b. Sale ___ c. Both 
i. If the destination of the production is sales, how many “quintales” did you sell of basic 
grains (for each type) throughout the year? 
j. What is the selling price in average lps of basic grains (for each type) throughout the 
year?
k. What are the production costs of basic grains (for each type) in Lps of the whole year 
(labor, supplies, equipment and machinery, transportation)? 
l. Do you have a storage room for basic grains after harvesting? a. Yes ____ b. No ___, if 
the answer is no, go to subsection 4.9. 
m. Where do you store basic grains? a. Outside the production area _____ b. Within the 
production area ______ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
n. What type of installation do you have? a. New___ b. Repaired ____ c. Existing in good 
condition ___ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
46
 
o. How much is the area in m3 of storage that you have? a. ______ Long _____ b. 
wide_______ c. high ______ d. Total m3 ____ L * A * A M3 this will measure Standard 
Indicator # 9. 
4.9 Egg production 
a. Are you an egg producer? a. Yes____ b. No___ 
b. If the answer is No to go to section 4.10 
c. How many hens do you have? ____ # of units____ 
d. How many eggs do they produce weekly? # of units ____ 
e. What is the average sale price per unit in Lps? Lps per unit _____ 
f. How many weeks does it produce per year? _____ 
g. What is the destination of the production? a. Consumption ___ b. Sale ___ c. Both ____ 
h. If the destination of the production is sales, how many units did you sell eggs all year? 
______ 
i. What is the average sale price in Lps of eggs throughout the year? Lps ____ 
j. What are the production costs of egg production in Lps throughout the year (labor, 
supplies, equipment and machinery, transportation)? 
k. Do you have an egg storage room after the harvest? Yes ____ No ___, if the answer is 
no, go to subsection 4.10. 
l. What type of storage do you have? a. Dry ____ b. Cold ____ 
m. Where do you store eggs? a. Outside the production area _____ b. Within the production 
area ______ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
n. What type of installation do you have? a. New___ b. Repaired ____ c. Existing in good 
condition _____ disaggregation of the Standard Indicator # 9 
or. How much is the storage area you have? a. ______ Long _____ b. wide_______ c. high 
______ L * A * A m3 this will measure Standard Indicator # 9. 
With the sum of the two tables the producer will be categorized. 
4.10 Do you receive technical assistance from a governmental or non-governmental 
institution? Yes _____ No ________, If the answer is no, go to subsection 4.13 
4.11 What institution provides technical assistance? 
a. CRS ___ b. USAID__ c. FAO ____ d. Dicta ___ e. Prolenca ____ f. Prolempa ____ g. 
World Vision ______, h. CARE ___ i. WFP ___ j. COCEPRADII ___ k. AMFI ___ l. Save 
the Children ____ Ll. Other ___________ 
4.12 In which category do you receive technical assistance?
a. Vegetable production ___ b. Egg production ___ c. Production of basic grains 
4.13 How often do they visit? 
a. Weekly__ b. Biweekly___ c. Monthly___ d. Bimonthly___ e. Quarterly___ 
f. Semiannual___ g. Annual ____ 
47
 
4.14 USE OF IRRIGATION WATER.
a. From what source does the water with which you irrigate your plot come from? 
1. River ___ 2. Creek ___ 3. Laguna ___ 4. Well drilled. ____ 5. Others: __________ 
6. Rainwater (winter only) 7. None___ 
b. How often do you irrigate your plot? 
a. Daily ____ b. Every three days ___ c. Every week ____ d. Every 15 days ____ e. Any 
c. Would you be willing to invest part of your economic resources in the installation of a 
drip irrigation? If not: _____ 
d. What would be the maximum contribution you would give? a. Less than Lps 1,000 __ b. 
From Lps 1000 to 1,999 c. from Lps. 2000 to 2,999 ___ d. Lps. 3,000 or more ____f. None 
____ 
No No Type of practice Yes/No
1 Do you practice cultural practices?
1.1 Production and transplant of seedlings
1.2 Cultivation practices such as planting distances
1.3 Crop rotation
2 Management of pests and diseases:
2.1 Integrated pest management
Do you have pests and diseases in your crops?
a. How do you calculate the dose of pesticides to 
apply to crops? 
b. Use recommendations according to label 
c. Level of presence of the plague 
d. Technical recommendation
e. According to experience
f. Others
Multiple section
2.2 Adequate application of fungicides
2.3 Use of cultural, physical, biological and chemical 
insecticides and pesticides friendly to environment. 
Do you use natural insecticides and fungicides? What 
are the pesticides used? If the answer is No, go to 
subsection 2.4 
a. Natural
b. Chemicals
c. Both of them 
d. None
2.4 Crop rotation
48
 
3 Fertility and conservation related to the soil
Do you perform soil analysis? a. Yes b. No
Do you fertilize based on technical recommendation? 
a. Yes b. No
Do you whitewash the soil based on technical 
recommendation? a. Yes b. No
Do you incorporate organic matter into the soil? a. 
Yes b. No
What type of fertilizer do you use for vegetables? 
a. Conventional (e.g. 12-24-12, urea, 18-46-0? 
b. Organic 
c. Soluble in water
d. Everyone 
e. None 
How do you control soil erosion? 
a. Live barriers
b. Dead barriers
c. Soil coverage 
d. Outline sowing 
e. none
4 Watering: 
4.1 Do you have an irrigation system? a. Yes b. No
What type of irrigation system do you have? 
a. Drip
b. Gravity 
c. Aspersion 
Do you have an irrigation plan? a. Yes b. No
4.2 Surface
4.3 Sprinkles
4.4 Irrigation designs.
5 Water management in agriculture
5.1 Water collection (storage tanks, dams, etc.)
5.2 Sustainable practices of water use (knowledge of the 
amount of water to use, time and turns).
5.3 What practices do you use to improve water quality?
a. washing areas.
b. filters.
c. Management of chemical waste.
d. All above 
e. Any
6 • Climate mitigation:
6.1 Do you use minimum tillage? a. Yes b. No
49
 
6.2 Restoration of organic soils and degraded lands (use 
of mulches, organic fertilizers, incorporation of 
organic matter, use of legumes for incorporation of 
nitrogen).
6.3 Efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers (use of nitrogen 
according to analysis).
6.4 Do you use burning in the preparation of the soil? a. 
Yes b. No
Practices that promote the reduction of methane (no 
burning, natural regeneration of the forest, 
agroforestry system, incorporation of stubble).
6.5 Agroforestry introduction / expansion of perennial 
plants
6.6 Drip irrigation
7 Improvements in agricultural infrastructure and 
supply chains.
7.1 Do you lease machinery for the production of 
vegetables?
7.2 How do you buy agricultural supplies?
a. Experience
b. Technical recommendation
c. Investment plan 
Improved technologies and practices for purchasing 
inputs (the producer knows what to buy, dose 
management, knowledge of families of active 
ingredients)
7.3 How do you determine the sale price of the 
vegetables?
a. Market monitoring 
b. Production costs 
c. Local prices
d. Electronic information system and media 
F. Others 
g. None
7.4 Improved technologies and practices of the market 
information system. (market monitoring, permanent 
update of the information system)
8 Postharvest handling and storage:
8.1 How do you transport the harvested products?
a. Use of closed vehicles
b. Pick up vehicle covered with awning 
c. Vehicle without protection 
d. Others
50
 
e. None
8.2 ¿ Do you use vegetable quality standards? a.Yes b. No
8.3 Classification (use of quality standards for product 
classification)
VI. Training
6.1 Which of the following topics have you received training on? 
Which topic have you received 
training on? 
What was the duration 
(in days)?
Production
Post-Harvest
Logistics and Delivery 
Food Management 
Sanitary regulations 
Basic marketing concepts
Sale contracts
Disaster management
Business plans 
a. Less than 1 day
b. 1 day 
c. 2 days 
d. 3 days 
e. 4 days 
f. 5 days or more 
6.2 Would you like to receive training on these topics? Yes ______ No ______ 
6.3 Have you participated in field schools? Yes ______ No ______, in case the answer is 
no, go to 7.1 
6.4 What was your role? a. Participant _____ b. Lead producer ______ 
VII. Financing and Legalization 
7.1 Financial 
a. Has received some financing for agricultural production Yes ____ No _____, if it is No, 
go to question c. 
b. What organization received the funding? 
a. Rural bank, b. Private bank, c. Bank of government, c. Cooperative, d. Commercial 
house, e. Other _____________________ 
c. Would you be interested in acquiring credit for the production? Yes ____ No___, in case 
of No, proceed to question 7.5 
d. Which organization would you prefer to apply for a loan? 
 a. Rural bank, b. Private bank, c. Bank of government, c. Credit Union, d. Commercial 
house, e. Other _____________________. 
 Do you have billing for the sale of your products? Yes ____ No___ 
f. Do you have any contract to sell products? a. vegetables ____ b. eggs ____c. none ____ 
If the answer is none proceed to question 7.2 
g. With whom you have a sales contract: a. commonwealth ____ b. city hall ____ 
51
 
c. Educational network_____ d. Other __________ to respond to the Custom Indicator 
Number of supply contracts established between Commonwealth / municipality and local 
producers or producer organization. 
7.2 Legalization 
to. Have you received training in the process of obtaining invoices for the Revenue 
Administration System (SAR)? Yes ____ No___ 
a. Would you be interested in selling your products, using billing? Yes ___ No____ 
I do not know____ 
b. Would you like to receive training to obtain billing? Yes ___ No_____ 
I do not know ____ 
e. Are you registered in government entities such as: this points to the Custom indicator 
Number of producers registered with official governmental entities to produce their 
products. 
a. PRONAGRO-SAG ____ b. SENASA ____ c. SEDIS ____ d. SAR _____ e. Any 
52
 
Annex 2 – Survey for Students 
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
PROJECT LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASES HONDURAS LRP
BASE LINE SURVEY FOR STUDENTS
Instructions
1. Read the consent form. 
2. Start with a personal presentation (name) and introduce other team members (in case 
there are several people).
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial state of the project".
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Start the questions 
I. General Data
1.1 Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
1.2 Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
II. Identification of the center and the student
2.1. Name of the Center: _____________________________ 2.2. Community 
____________________ 2.3 Name of the center______________ 2.4 Center 
code____________ 
2.5. Student name: _________________________ 
2.6. Grade: _________________ 2.7. Sex: a. Male ___ b. Female ___ 
III. School Feeding
3.1 Do you consume vegetables (for each type) provide them in the school? 
a. Yes___ b. No____ 
3.2 If the answer is yes, how often do you consume these vegetables? 
a. Every day _____ b. Twice a week _______ c. Three times a week _______ d. 4 times a 
week____ e. None ____ 
3.3 In case you do not consume vegetables at the school any day, what is the reason? 
a. Does not like ____ b. It is not included in the menu ___ c. Other _____ 
3.4 Do you eat eggs in the food provided at the school? a. Yes___ b. NO____ 
3.5 If the answer is yes, how often do you consume eggs? 
53
 
a. Every day _____ b. Twice a week _______ c. Three times a week d. _______ 4 times a 
week____ e. None ____ 
3.6 In case you do not consume eggs at the school any day, what is the reason? 
a. Does not like ____ b. It is not included in the menu ___ c. Other _____ 
3.7 Do you have a menu at the school? a.Yes___ b. No____ 
3.8 Do you like the menu that the school has? a. Yes___ b. No____ 
3.9 If the answer is no, why? 
_________________________________________________________________________ 
3.10 What is the favorite food on the menu? 
a. Soup with corn & cheese dumplings ____ b. Bean soup with vegetables _____ c. Fried 
pastries_ d. Bean tamales ___ e. Sausage _____ f. Vegetable salad ___ g. Chicken soup 
____ h. Beef Soup ____ i. Tomato soup ___, j. Tostadas with refried beans and grated 
cheese____ k. Steamed vegetables_____, l. Bean soup with eggs ____, Rice with 
vegetables _____, rice & beans ____ Other_______ 
3.11 Where do they cook the school meal? 
a. School kitchen _____ b. Private homes ______ c. Others ___________________ 
54
 
Annex 3 – Survey for Members of School Feeding Committees
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
BASE LINE SURVEY FOR SCHOOL FEEDING COMMITTEE
Instructions 
1. Read the consent form. 
2. Start with a personal presentation (name) and introduce other team members (in case 
there are several people).
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial state of the project".
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Start the questions. 
I. General Data
1.1 Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
1.2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
II. ID
2.1 Municipality _____ 2.2 Community _______ 2.3 Name of Center: 
_____________________________ 2.4 Center code____________ 
2.4. Name of the interviewee: _________________________ 
2.5. Position: a. Coordinator (a) CAE_ b. Mother or Father guide ___ c. Mother Monitor 
___ d. CAE Director ____ e. Parent or family member ___ f. Warehouse monitor (a) ____ 
2.6. Sex: a. Male ___ b. Female ___ 
III. School organization 
3.1 Which school structures support School Feeding? 
a. Society of parents APF___ b. School Feeding committee____ c. School Development 
Council CED___ d. (EPRED) dropout prevention and response team _____ e. School 
Safety Patrol (PASE)_____ 
3.2 Do health volunteers participate in activities related to the School Feeding of the 
School? 
a. Yes ____ b. No______ 
3.3 What would be the strengthening required by the school meal committee?
55
 
a. Training in organizational aspects _______, b. Training in nutrition aspects _____, 
c. Training in food purchase quality standards ______, d. Training in handling food storage 
documents ______, e. Training in hygiene and food handling ____, f. training in calculation 
of rations ______, g. training in nutritious recipes _______ 
IV. School Feeding
From item 4.1 to 4.4 and 4.12 information will be obtained for: 
Custom Indicator 
Percentage of schools with a School Meal Committee with varied and culturally acceptable 
foods. 
4.1 Provide daily School Feeding to students? a. Yes _______ b. No ______ in case of no 
how much is provided ____________ 
4.2 Who provides School Feeding? 
a. FFE OR MGD _________ b. Parents ________ c. Government __________ d. Other 
_____________ 
4.3 What kind of foods are provided? 
a. corn ____ b. beans _____ c. rice ______ c. CSB _____ d. oil ______ e. vegetables 
_______ f. eggs ________, g. condiments _______ h. dairy _______ i. fruits _________ j. 
Meats ________ k. Others________________________ 
4.4 Do you have a menu at the school? 
a. Yes ____ b. No _______ 
4.5 Who is responsible for updating the menu? 
a. director ____ b. Teacher in charge ______ c. Mother monitor ______ d. Mother guide 
_____ e. APF _____ f. Food committee _______ g. other ______________________ 
4.6 How often do they update the menu? 
a. Monthly ____ b. Bimonthly______ c. Quarterly ____ d. Semiannual ____ e. Annual 
________ 
4.7 Who is responsible for the preparation of School Feeding? 
a. Mothers in the center ______ b. Food committee _________ c. Person paid __________ 
d. Other ______________ 
4.8 Have you had experience in the delivery of vegetables from a producer or producer 
organization? a. Yes______ b. No______ 
4.9 If the answer is yes, in case you have had problems, what have been the problems 
faced?
a. Non-compliance of the delivery date ____, b. Non-compliance with the quality of the 
products delivered ______, c. Non-compliance of agreed products _______, d. 
Others________________________________________ 
4.10 Where is the most appropriate place to pick-up products? 
a. headquarters Centers of the network ______, b. Community________, c. Producer's plot 
_____, d. Municipal office ______, e. Other ____________________________ 
56
 
4.11 Who is responsible for hauling the products to the school? 
a. Members of APF ______, b. Members of the School Feeding committee ______, c. 
Members of CED_____, d. Teacher ________, e. 
Others_______________________________________ 
4.12 What are the vegetables that students consume the most? 
Type of food
a. Carrot _____
b. Winter Squash_____ 
c. Mirliton squash _____ 
d. Cabbage ____ 
e. Cucumber ____ 
f. Tomato_____ 
g. Cassava _____ 
h. Green beans____ 
i. Lettuce_____ 
j. Radish_____ 
k. Cabbage______ 
l. Broccoli_____ 
ll. Potatoes___ 
m. Green banana____ 
n. Corn ____ 
o. Beans _____ 
p. Rice ______ 
q. CSB _____ 
r. Oil ______ 
s. Vegetables _______ 
t. Eggs
4.13 Do you have conditions to store vegetables and eggs for the week? 
a. Yes___ b. No___ 
4.14 What would be the most important need to store the products in your center? 
a. plastic baskets ___ b. Scales ___ c. Bags for packaging ____ d. Other 
_________________ 
4.15 Who distributes the food for cooking? 
a. Teachers _____ b. Food committee _____ c. APF______ d. Others ________ 
4.16 Where the food is prepared? 
a. School kitchen _____ b. Private homes ______ c. Others ___________________ 
4.17 What type of food did students receive in the last 3 days? 
a. Soup with corn & cheese dumplings ____ b. Bean soup with vegetables _____ c. Fried 
pastries_ d. Bean tamales ___ e. Sausage _____ f. Vegetable salad ___ g. Chicken soup 
____ h. Beef Soup ____ i. Tomato soup ___, j. Tostadas with refried beans and grated 
57
 
cheese____ k. Steamed vegetables_____, l. Bean soup with eggs ____, Rice with 
vegetables _____, rice & beans ____ Other_______ 
58
 
Annex 4 – Focus Group with Members of School Feeding Committee
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
FOCUS GROUP SCHOOL FEEDING COMMITTEE
Audience: from 8 to 10 mothers or fathers of the School Feeding Committees, 8 groups in 
total 4 men and 4 women. 
a) Welcome: (10 minutes before formally starting the session). Greetings, thanks. 
b) Introduction: (3 minutes). Presentation of facilitator and members of the group. Request 
the collaboration of the group. 
c) Objectives: (4 minutes). Objectives of the focus group and permits for photographs or 
recording. 
d) General Information (3 minutes). Rules and mechanics of the session. Confidentiality of 
information
e) Development of the session (2 hours and 30 minutes). 
 Open questions guide: We will share your opinions and experiences about what they know, 
what they think and what they do regarding School Feeding. 
General data
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
I. Identification of the interviewee
1. Name of the municipality: _________________________2. Municipality 
code____________ 
3. Number of participants_______ a. Male _____ b. Female _______ 
General inquiries
1. Can you tell us, what is the role you play in the school? 
2. How many members does the School Feeding committee have, and how do all the 
members get involved? 
3. What is the frequency of meetings and do all members attend? 
Coordination 
1. What are the community organizations that are involved in the topic of School Feeding? 
2. What are the roles of the organizations involved in School Feeding? 
59
 
3. What contributions do parents make to School Feeding and how are these activities 
coordinated? 
Management of the School Feeding committee
Actions
1. What is the process of work they do in the subject of meals in schools? 
2. What has been the experience with School Feeding in previous years and what are the 
positive factors and limitations that they had from that experience? 
Capacities
3. Have you received training in the subject of School Feeding, which ones and in what 
way has helped them strengthen the school meal issue?
4. What are the strengthening needs that you currently have for the development of your 
duties? 
Expectations of children
5. What is the response of children in the subject of School Feeding, likes vegetables and 
prepare these in your home? 
6. What vegetables do you consider that are difficult for students to accept and why? 
Sustainability
1. What are the barriers they face in School Feeding and what do you think the solution 
should be? 
• From their perspectives that factors would limit the supply of local products to schools? 
• Do you consider that the resources are sufficient for the subject of School Feeding or what 
is missing?
• What are the main challenges that educational networks and schools have in terms of 
School Feeding? 
2. With what private companies and government, could alliances be made about School 
Feeding? And how do you consider the participation of the private company in the topic of 
School Feeding? 
3. From your perspective, what actions should be done to ensure that schools have a 
permanent supply of local food? 
60
 
Annex 5 – Focus Group – Leaders of the School Networks 
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
FOCUS GROUP - LEADERS OF SCHOOL NETWORKS
Audience: from 8 to 10 mothers or parents of the committees of the educational network. 
 
a) Welcome: (10 minutes before formally starting the session). Greetings, thanks. 
b) Introduction: (3 minutes). Presentation of facilitator, and members of the group. Request 
the collaboration of the group. 
c) Objectives: (4 minutes). Objectives of the focus group and permits for photographs or 
recording. 
d) General Information (3 minutes). Rules and mechanics of the session. Confidentiality of 
information. 
e) Development of the session (2 hours and 30 minutes). 
General data
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
I. Identification of the interviewee
1. Name of the municipality: _________________________2. Municipality 
code____________ 
3. Number of participants_______ a. Male _____ b. Female _______ 
General inquiries
1. Please tell us, what is your role in the educational network? 
2. How many members does the education network committee have, and how do all the 
members get involved? 
3. What is the frequency of meetings and all members attended?
Coordination 
1. What are the community organizations that are involved in School Feeding and how do 
they coordinate activities?
2. What are the roles of the organizations involved in School Feeding? 
3. What contributions do parents make to School Feeding and how are these activities 
coordinated? 
4. What is the School or the appropriate place to deliver the food to the educational 
networks and then distribute? 
Leadership management of educational networks
61
 
Actions of the educational network committee
1. What do you do in the field of School Feeding in the educational networks? 
2. What has been the experience with School Feeding in previous years and what are the 
positive factors and limitations that had from that experience?
Capacities
3. Have you receive training in the subject of School Feeding, which one? and how has 
fortify your ability to strength the School Feeding program? 
4. What are the strengthening needs that you currently have for the development of your 
duties? 
Expectations of children
5. What is the response of children about School Feeding, do they like vegetables? and 
prepare these in their homes?
6. What vegetables do you think should not be provided to students and why? 
Sustainability
1. What are the challenges for the delivery, distribution and handling of foods that you have 
in the educational network and what do you think should be the solution? 
• From your perspectives, that factors would limit the supply of local products to schools? 
• Do you consider that the resources are sufficient for the subject of School Feeding or what 
is missing?
2. With what private companies and government, could alliances be made about School 
Feeding? And how do you consider the participation of the private company in the topic of 
School Feeding? 
3. From your perspective, what actions should be done to ensure that schools have a 
permanent supply of local food? 
4. What support do the educational networks provide to the School Feeding Committees?
Annex 6 – Focus Group - Students 
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
FOCUS GROUP FOR STUDENTS
Audience: from 8 to 10 students from the selected Schools. 8 groups in total 4 children and 
4 girls. 
 a) Welcome: (10 minutes before formally starting the session). Greetings, thanks. 
b) Introduction: (3 minutes). Presentation of facilitator, rapporteur and members of the 
group. Request the collaboration of the group. 
62
 
c) Objectives: (4 minutes). Objectives of the focus group and permits for photographs or 
recording. 
d) General Information (3 minutes). Rules and mechanics of the session. Confidentiality of 
information
e) Development of the session (1 hour and 20 minutes). 
 Open questions guide: We will share your opinions and experiences about what they know, 
what they think and what they do regarding the School Feeding that they provide daily 
from schools. 
General data
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
3. Name of the municipality: _____________________________ 
4. Number of students ____ a. Male ____ b. Female _____ 
II. School Feeding
Participation and consumption 
2.1 How do you participate in the School Feeding in your school? 
2.2 Do you eat School Feeding daily in the school, what types of food and who provides 
School Feeding? 
2.3 Who is responsible for the preparation of School Feeding and what improvements do 
you recommend? 
2.4 What type of menu did they give you in your School Feeding in the last 3 days and 
what did they contain? 
2.5 Are you satisfied in how they prepare meals at your school, what do you like best and 
what would you like to change in your School Feeding? 
2.6 Is it important for you to eat vegetables and eggs, and what are the ones that you least 
like?
2.7 Do you consume vegetables and eggs in your home and how are they prepared? 
Sustainability
1. How could students be involved in School Feeding? 
2. What factors would limit the school meal program? 
3. What actions should be taken to improve School Feeding? 
63
 
Annex 6 – Key Informant Interviews – Municipal Mayors
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
INTERVIEW FOR MUNICIPAL MAYORS
Instructions 
1. Read the consent form. 
2. Start with a personal presentation (name) and introduce other team members (in case 
there are several people)
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial state of the project".
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Start the questions 
GENERAL DATA
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
I. Identification of the interviewee
1. Name of the municipality: _________________________2. Municipality 
code____________ 
3. Name of the respondent: _________________________ 4. Sex: ________________ 
5. Period (s) as Mayor: ____________________________ 
General question
1. Tell us. What are the initiatives in education that you have planned during your 
administration?
2. What type of support (monetary or in kind) does it provide for School Feeding in the 
municipality? What is the value in USD?
Coordination 
1. What is the existing coordination with other government entities, about School Feeding 
in the municipality and in the department and how is it linked to them? 
2. What knowledge do you have of the school meal programs that are implemented in your 
municipality?
Actions
1. Have you had experience with School Feeding in previous years and what positive 
aspects and limitations could you mention about that experience? 
64
 
2. What policy, regulation or administrative procedure related to School Feeding is being 
implemented in the municipality?
Capacities
1. What are the capacity building needs of the different organizations involved in School 
Feeding? 
Sustainability
1. How can the municipality collaborate so that meals are permanent in schools? 
to. Have you considered staff support to coordinate with the LRP and in what way? 
2. What organizations and institutions could provide support at the municipality level to 
strengthen meals in schools? 
3. What factors would facilitate the support of the municipality to sustain School Feeding? 
4. What would be the factors or conditions that would limit the support of the municipality 
to support School Feeding? 
5. How do you consider that the participation of the private company in the topic of School 
Feeding should be and in what way would it seek to make alliances?
6. What kind of support could the mayor's office offer to the producers who will supply 
local foods to the schools in their municipality? 
65
 
Annex 7 – Key Informant Interviews – School Directors 
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
INTERVIEW FOR DIRECTORS OF SCHOOLS 
Instructions
1. Read the consent form 
This is a survey for the CRS Honduras LRP local and regional purchases project, this 
information is confidential and will be used only for the decision making of the project. 
2. Introduce yourself (name) and introduce other team members (in case there are several 
people) 
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial state of the project".
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Initiate the questions 
General data
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
I. Identification of the interviewee
1. Name of the municipality: _________________________ 2. Community: 
_______________ 3. Name of the School: _________________________ 
4. Name of the respondent: _________________________ 5. Sex: ________________ 
General inquiries
1. Please tell us, what are the educational initiatives you have planned in the school? 
2. What type of support (monetary or in kind) does it provide for School Feeding at the 
school? 
Coordination 
1. What is the existing coordination with other governmental bodies, about School Feeding 
in the School and how is it linked to them? 
2. What knowledge do you have of the school meal programs that are implemented in your 
municipality?
Actions
66
 
3. Have you had experience with School Feeding in previous years and what positive 
aspects and limitations could you mention about that experience? 
4. What policy, regulation or administrative procedure related to School Feeding is being 
implemented in the municipality? 
Capacities
1. What are the capacity building needs of the different community organizations (school 
meal committee, APF, others) involved in School Feeding? 
Sustainability
1. How can the school collaborate so that school meal program would be sustainable?
2. What organizations and institutions could provide support at the municipal level to have 
School Feeding in schools? 
3. What factors would facilitate the support of the school to sustain School Feeding? 
4. What would be the factors or conditions that would limit the support of the School to 
support School Feeding? 
5. How do you consider that the participation of the private company in the school meal
program should be and in what way would you seek to make alliances? 
67
 
Annex 8 – Key Informant Interviews – Representatives of Institutions 
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES CRS
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASE (LRP) HONDURAS 
BASE LINE SURVEY FOR INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES
Instructions
1. Read the consent form. 
2. Start with a personal presentation (name) and introduce other team members (in case 
there are several people).
3. Indicate the objective of the study: "Evaluate the initial state of the project".
4. Mention that the survey will not contain information that will personally identify the 
interviewee. And it will be treated as confidential.
5. Start the questions 
General data
1. Name of the interviewer: ___________________ 
2. Date of the survey: ____________________________________ 
I. Identification of the interviewee
1. Name of the municipality: _________________________ 
3. Name of the interviewee: _________________________ 3. Sex: ________________ 
4. Institution you work for: ____________________________ 
General inquiries
1. Please tell us, what is your role in the organization or institution? 
2. Please describe us, what are the initiatives that your organization or institution has on the 
subject of School Feeding? 
3. What type of support (monetary or in kind) does your organization or institution provide 
to School Feeding? 
Coordination 
1. What is the existing coordination with government entities, in the subject of School 
Feeding in the municipality and in the department and how is it linked to them? 
2. What knowledge do you have of the school meal programs that are implemented in the 
municipalities covered by your organization or institution? 
Actions
3. Have you had experience with School Feeding and what are the positive aspects and 
limitations that you could mention of that experience? 
68
 
4. What policy, regulation or administrative procedure related to School Feeding is being 
implemented in the coverage area of your organization or institution?
Capacities
1. What are the capacity building needs of the different organizations involved in School 
Feeding? 
Sustainability
1. How can your organization or institution collaborate so that meals are permanent in 
schools? 
2. What organizations and institutions could provide support at the municipal level to have 
meals in schools? 
3. What factors would facilitate the support of your institution to sustain School Feeding? 
4. What would be the factors or conditions that would limit the support of your institution 
to support School Feeding? 
5. How do you consider that the participation of the private company in the topic of School 
Feeding should be and in what way would it seek to make alliances? 
6. What kind of support could your institution provide to producers who will supply local 
foods to schools in your municipality? 
69
 
Annex 9 List of illustrative comments
Community contributions “For the improvement of food, we would be willing to make a 
similar effort to bring eggs and vegetables.” 
“We are willing to work more time for complementing the 
School Feeding.”
Strengthening the CAE “We have received training for some recipes, such as banana 
pudding, tortillas of different colors, etc. What they do is that 
one of the mothers teaches the rest of us, but we can keep 
learning.” 
“I am a father who does not have children in the school, but 
support the welfare of the community. We would like to 
receive pastry training to make desserts for snacks.”
“There are people who have grown through trainings, there 
have even been diplomas from the UPNFM for the mothers 
and other people who support the operation of nutrition.” She 
also emphasized, “It’s important that this support through 
trainings be permanent, because of the constant generational 
shift of motherhood.” 
Children’s expectations “We need the complement to be able to eat the food so we 
don’t get bored of eating the same thing.”
 “Knowing how to prepare meals for children, because they 
will eat whatever is given to them.” 
Children’s participation “One of the ways to participate in school nutrition is by 
consuming the food, not throwing it away, bringing firewood 
for the stove, helping mothers to distribute the food, and at 
home helping with food preparation.” 
“Doing sales, such as selling tamales, to obtain money to buy 
eggs.” 
Contributions to the school 
meal program by the mayor. 
“There is no coordination with other institutions regarding 
school snacks, rather it goes directly from COCEPRADII to 
schools; we only help with transportation.” 
“We do not directly donate food, but we do donate 
transportation for snacks. We do not have the capacity to give 
food to schools.” 
Coordination with other 
institutions
“Support could come from the Mesoamerica Without Hunger 
project, sponsored by the FAO, through technical assistance, 
trainings, new agricultural technology, and promoting 
harvesting vegetables.” 
70
 
“The Ministry of Education doesn’t have a budget, but 
supports by following through with teachers and equipment 
from the departmental office for coordination and 
management.” 
“For SEDIS, the methodology of monitoring and evaluating 
and the technical aspects, the improvement of knowledge of 
CRS that, because of its methods of supervision, compromise 
with local people, and monitoring data, is very important and 
would really appreciate that experience.” 
Sustainability “Involving municipal structures, so that they are the ones that 
form and guide public and private alliances so that school 
nutrition is sustainable.” 
“The School Feeding law has been approved and published 
since July 2017. Its operative regulations are lacking so it 
would be very valuable to have CRS support that would 
provide manuals, procedures, and criteria.” 
“Private companies such as banks, companies and 
supermarkets can collaborate. There are some that already 
do so and only develop a strategy where results are presented 
as well as CRS management meetings with these companies 
and field days.” 
71
 
Annex 10 – Pictures
Illustration 2. Dialogue with Focus group with students 
Illustration1 Training to the consultancy Team
72
 
Illustration 3. Dialogue with Focal Group Leaders of Schools Networks. 
Illustration 4. Review of lessons learned with the consulting team.