BASELINE REPORT
EVALUATION OF THE SAVE THE 
CHILDREN’ LENS PROGRAM
DATE: 
OCTOBER 31, 2019
PRESENTED TO:
SAVE THE CHILDREN
FEDERATION, INC.
ATTN: CLARA PAVA
501 KINGS HIGHWAY EAST
SUITE 400
FAIRFIELD, CT 06825
PRESENTED BY:
NORC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 
CHICAGO
ATTN: ALEJANDRO OME
4350 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY
SUITE 800
BETHESDA, MD 20184
Baseline Evaluation of the Save the Children’ FY 2018 
McGovern-Dole LENS Program in Guatemala
Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Agreement Number: FFE-520-2018/012-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2018
Project Duration: 2018 - 2023 
Implemented by: Save the Children 
Evaluation Authored by: NORC and the University of Chicago 
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. 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. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | i 
Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... i
Table of Tables............................................................................................................................ii
Table of Figures .........................................................................................................................iv
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................vi
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 1
Program Background............................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions..................................................................... 1
Impact Evaluation Design and Findings ............................................................................... 1
Design 1
Findings....................................................................................................................... 2
Program Evaluation Design and Findings ............................................................................ 2
Design 2
Findings....................................................................................................................... 3
Programmatic recommendations.......................................................................................... 6
Evaluation Limitations and Recommendations..................................................................... 7
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 9
2. Program Background......................................................................................................... 9
3. Objectives and Research Questions ..............................................................................11
4. Data Collection..................................................................................................................14
4.1 Quantitative Data..........................................................................................................14
4.2 Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................16
4.3 Training.........................................................................................................................16
4.4 Fieldwork and quality control.....................................................................................17
5. Impact evaluation .............................................................................................................18
5.1 Research design overview............................................................................................18
5.2 Sample and Data Collection .........................................................................................19
5.3 Baseline results ............................................................................................................24
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | ii
5.4 Balance.........................................................................................................................29
5.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................31
6. Program evaluation ..........................................................................................................32
6.1 Research design overview............................................................................................32
6.2 Sample and data collection...........................................................................................32
6.3 Baseline results ............................................................................................................34
Student background and reading skills .....................................................................34
Teachers’ surveys and interviews .............................................................................42
School Observations ................................................................................................. 64
Local producers .........................................................................................................73
6.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................75
7. Programmatic recommendations....................................................................................78
8. Limitations and recommendations for the evaluation ..................................................79
Annex I. Instruments ................................................................................................................81
Annex II. Results for all ELI subtasks .....................................................................................89
Annex III. Average reading fluency and reading comprehension, by language most 
spoken at home.......................................................................................................................130
Table of Tables
Table 1. ELI Assessment Overview............................................................................................................ 15
Table 2. Parent FGD Gender Breakdown ................................................................................................... 17
Table 3. Target and surveyed treatment schools by municipality............................................................... 24
Table 4. Target and surveyed comparison schools by municipality ........................................................... 24
Table 5. Sociodemographic characteristics – IE ......................................................................................... 25
Table 6. Nutrition – IE ................................................................................................................................ 26
Table 7. PSM results - Balanced characteristics at baseline ....................................................................... 30
Table 8. Number of samples schools by municipality ................................................................................ 33
Table 9. Program Evaluation Data Collection ............................................................................................ 33
Table 10. Sociodemographic characteristics by students’ sex – PE ........................................................... 34
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | iii
Table 11. Nutrition by students’ sex – PE .................................................................................................. 35
Table 12. Sociodemographic characteristics by municipality – PE............................................................ 38
Table 13. Nutrition by municipality – PE................................................................................................... 38
Table 14. Correlations between reading skills and sociodemographic characteristics ............................... 42
Table 15. Teachers’ characteristics............................................................................................................. 43
Table 16. School kitchen characteristics (N = 259).................................................................................... 65
Table 17. Food preparation practices.......................................................................................................... 65
Table 18. Kitchen staff interview (N=259)................................................................................................. 66
Table 19. Food storage characteristics (N=251)......................................................................................... 67
Table 20. Toilets/latrines characteristics (N=258)...................................................................................... 69
Table 21. Other school characteristics (N=262) ......................................................................................... 72
Table 22. Harvest after own consumption, selected products (a) ............................................................... 74
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | iv
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Impact evaluation municipalities................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2. Poverty levels in 2011 by impact evaluation municipalities (%) ................................................ 21
Figure 3. Total students and students per teacher in primary schools in 2017, by impact evaluation 
municipalities.......................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 4. Reading skills in 3rd grade 2014 national assessments, by impact evaluation municipalities.... 23
Figure 5. Reading skills – IE (%correct / CWPM) ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 6. Reading skills in Spanish and K’iche’ households – IE (%correct / CWPM)............................. 28
Figure 6. Propensity score by treatment status ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 7. Reading skills by students’ sex – PE........................................................................................... 37
Figure 8. Reading skills by municipality – PE............................................................................................ 40
Figure 9. Average reading fluency by number of reading comprehension questions correctly answered. . 41
Figure 10. Language used in class, by local language ................................................................................ 44
Figure 11. La Taza Escolar ......................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 12. Where teachers saw the image for the first time........................................................................ 45
Figure 13. Teachers’ selection of best school lunch ................................................................................... 46
Figure 14. Teachers’ belief that a typical carbohydrate-based diet is nutritious......................................... 47
Figure 15. Foods that help children grow according to teachers ................................................................ 48
Figure 16. Foods that give children energy, according to teachers............................................................. 49
Figure 17. Foods that protect children from illnesses, according to teachers............................................. 50
Figure 18. Moments when students should wash their hands..................................................................... 51
Figure 19. Moments when students washed their hands the day before data collection (as reported by the 
teacher).................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 20. Awareness of child anemia (%)................................................................................................. 53
Figure 21. Percentage of teachers’ who identified foods to prevent anemia .............................................. 54
Figure 22. Teachers’ knowledge of the importance of iodized salt ............................................................ 55
Figure 23. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed with the statement that Incaparina is rich in calcium....... 56
Figure 24. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed with the statement that “to pay attention in class, children 
need to drink enough water.” .................................................................................................. 57
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | v 
Figure 25. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed that students need to learn about nutrition to prevent 
obesity. .................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 26. Negative effects of sugar........................................................................................................... 59
Figure 27. Teaching the risks of too much sugar and teachers’ awareness that drinking water instead of 
soda helps to prevent diabetes................................................................................................. 60
Figure 28. Percentage of teachers who agree with nutrition-related statements......................................... 61
Figure 29. Teachers’ perception of their own capacity, responsibility, and time availability for nutrition 
education ................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 30. Teaching hygiene and nutrition practices.................................................................................. 63
Figure 31. Teachers reporting that students worked in the garden and that students consumed garden 
produce (only schools with gardens)....................................................................................... 64
Figure 32. Food storage space..................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 33. Iodized salt................................................................................................................................. 67
Figure 34. Sanitary services........................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 35. Characteristics of handwashing facilities (fraction, multiple responses allowed) (N=245)...... 70
Figure 36. Water sources (%) (N=173)....................................................................................................... 71
Figure 37. Water treatment methods (%) (N=132)..................................................................................... 72
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | vi
Acronyms 
DID Difference-In-Difference
DIGEDUCA National Directorate For Educational Evaluation And Research
EDSSs Electronic Data Storage Systems
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
ELI Evaluación De Lectura Inicial
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FtF Feed The Future
HFC High Frequency Checks
ICT Information And Communication Technology
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IE Impact Evaluation
IRB Institutional Review Board
J&A Juárez And Associates
KAP Knowledge, Attitudes, And Perceptions
KII Key Informant Interview
LASP Local Agriculture Service Provider
LENS Literacy Education And Nutrition For Sustainability
MAGA Ministry Of Agriculture
MCHN Maternal, Child Health, And Nutrition
MGD McGovern-Dole
MINEDUC Ministry Of Education
MOH Ministry Of Health
OSY Out-School-Youth
PCI Project Concern International
PE Performance Evaluation
PSM Propensity Score Matching
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
RCT Randomized Control Trial
RFP Request For Proposals
SC Save The Children
SCUS Save The Children United States
SFTP Secure File Transfer Protocol
SHN School Health And Nutrition
SHRP School Health And Reading Project
SO Strategic Objective
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | vii
TFET Techniques For Effective Teaching
UNICEF United Nationals International Children's Emergency Fund
USAID United States Agency For International Development
USDA United States Department Of Agriculture
ViM Victory Against Malnutrition
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 1 
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the baseline program and impact evaluations of Save the Children’s 
Literacy Education and Nutrition for Sustainability (LENS) program, an intervention aimed at improving 
the quality of literacy instruction, children’s attentiveness and children’s attendance, by decreasing short￾term hunger and increasing the use of health and dietary practices. 
Program Background
LENS is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) McGovern Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD). The primary goals of LENS are to improve the 
quality of literacy instruction, children’s attentiveness and children’s attendance, by decreasing short-term 
hunger and increasing the use of health and dietary practices. To achieve these goals SC, the program 
implementer, has partnered with the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) and the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock, and Nutrition (Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Alimentación - MAGA). 
The LENS program will be implemented over a period of five years, and will target pre-primary and 
primary students in 274 schools across six program municipalities of the department of Quiché.1 The 
overall goals of the program are broken out into two overarching Strategic Objectives which include 
(SO1) improving literacy of school-age children by improving the quality of literacy instruction, student 
attentiveness, and student attendance, and (SO2) reduce health-related absences by increased use of health 
and dietary practices. Through the LENS program, Save the Children will incorporate commodities from 
the MGD program into school feeding activities.
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions
The LENS evaluation seeks to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of school 
feeding programs on child education outcomes. The evaluation also aims to address key research 
questions from the McGovern-Dole Learning Agenda, including: (1) in what ways do the combination of 
school meal interventions and educational interventions improve education and literacy levels? And (2) 
what kinds of partnerships with the private sector and/or host country governments are the most effective 
at ensuring program sustainability?
The purpose of the baseline evaluation is to establish conditions in the program area prior to the start of 
program intervention and thus capture improvements when comparing the baseline to midline and endline 
data, as well as to control for any difference between treatment and control groups observed at baseline. 
Impact Evaluation Design and Findings
Design
The impact evaluation will use a matched difference-in-difference (DiD) model, which combines DiD 
with matching methods to reduce potential sources of bias and provide a compelling approach to inferring 
causality. The key assumption behind this model is that, in the absence of treatment, students in treatment 
1 Originally there were 283 schools that were supposed to be part of the program. Before data collection started 9 schools decided 
not to be part of the program. SC is working to get these 9 schools back in the program.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 2 
schools would observe the same change in the outcome of interest than students in the comparison 
schools. 
Findings
Below we summarize the main baseline findings for the impact evaluation:
• In terms of socioeconomic indicators, there are no major differences between treatment and 
comparison groups. 
• There are notable differences between treatment and comparison groups in terms of language 
spoken at home, as there are no students that speak Ixil at home in the comparison group.
Although this compromises how comparable are the two impact evaluation groups, we will be 
able to offset baseline differences using the baseline data, in the context of the DID model.
• Household environment seems more suitable for learning how to read for the treatment group 
than for the comparison group.
• Most students ate something before coming to school. Similarly, most students ate something at 
school the day before data collection.
• Across all five reading subtasks, students in the comparison have higher scores than their 
counterparts in the treatment group, and all differences are statistically significant.
• Students read 51 cwpm in the treatment group and 60.7 cwpm in the comparison group. However, 
reading comprehension results are relatively low, as the treatment group students answered 
correctly only 37 percent of the items, while the figure for the comparison group is 50 percent.
Program Evaluation Design and Findings
Design
The program evaluation will use a mixed methods approach to address questions on the program’s 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Quantitatively, we will analyze data from 
the student literacy assessments, student attendance, and teacher responses to the health and nutrition 
knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) survey to study how these outcomes change over waves of data 
collection.
Alongside the quantitative analysis, we will conduct FGDs with parents and KIIs with teachers, school 
principals, PTA members, LENS staff, local producers and government officials to add depth and nuance 
in explaining changes we see in the quantitative outcome measures.2 Protocols for FGDs and KIIs for 
each group will follow the program evaluation questions. Each protocol will be structured such that 
qualitative and quantitative data can be triangulated to provide insights to answer the different research 
questions. 
2 For the baseline program evaluation, qualitative data was only collected from teachers, parents, and local producers. LENS staff 
and government officials will be included in future rounds of data collection. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 3 
Findings
For the program evaluation the main findings are summarized as follows:
Students’ background and reading skills
• Students are 9.6 years old, on average. About four fifths of the sample attended preschool, and 
half the students have repeated or are repeating a year. 
• Roughly 90 percent of students ate something at school the day before data collection. During 
focus group discussions parents reported they aren’t sure whether their child needs to eat before 
school or not because schools sometimes offer breakfast and sometimes a snack (refacción). This 
suggests that parents should be better informed on what meals children are going to receive 
during the school day. 
• Parents suggested menu diversification as a way to improve school meals. As opposed to the 
student responses, the majority of the focus groups, eight of ten, participants stated that their 
children are not satisfied with the school meals. The two main reasons for this perception were 
(1) repetition of meals and (2) quality of the cooked food.
• Students in Ixil municipalities come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than students in 
K’iche’ municipalities. In effect, students in Ixil municipalities are more likely to have repeated a 
year than students in K’iche’ municipalities, and mothers in K’iche’ municipalities are more 
likely to be literate than in Ixil municipalities. Moreover, households in K’iche’ municipalities are 
more likely to have electricity and have more household assets, than households in the Ixil 
municipalities.
• There are major differences in reading skills between municipalities. For example, while students 
in Cotzal read, one average, 60.5 cwpm, in Chajul this figure is only 38 cwpm.
• The data show that students that answer 9-11 questions correctly read, on average, 77 words per 
minute. 
• Bivariate regression analyses show that speaking Spanish at home, mother’s literacy and number 
of household assets, are positively correlated with reading skills. By contrast, age and having 
repeated a grade are negatively correlated with reading skills.
Teacher surveys and interviews
• Third grade teachers have relatively small classrooms, with an average of 18 students per 
classroom. 
• Teachers’ absenteeism rate is 18 percent, according to teachers’ own reports.
• While most teachers use Spanish in class, local languages are also prevalent. In the three K’iche’
municipalities (Cunén, Sacapulas and Uspantán) 94 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 52 
percent use K’iche’, 6 percent use Uspanteco and 16 percent use Sacapulteco. In Ixil 
municipalities (Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj), 93 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 73 percent use 
Ixil and 5 percent use K’iche’. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 4 
• Related to teachers’ experience with nutrition education, the majority of teachers (70 percent) 
reported having seen the Taza Escolar (an image of food groups developed for the Ministry of 
Education) prior to the survey. 
• There are important gaps in teachers’ knowledge on what types of foods help children grow and 
give them energy. 58 percent incorrectly selected leafy greens, vegetables and fruit as types of 
food that help children grow. Also, only 18 percent of teachers correctly selected cereals, grains 
and tubers, as sources of energy.
• The majority of teachers seem knowledgeable about which types of food protect children from 
diseases. 64 percent correctly selected leafy greens, vegetables and fruit as foods that protect 
children from diseases, and the most common incorrect response was milk, meat, eggs and other 
animal source foods, selected by 23 percent.
• Regarding school hygiene, a high percentage of teachers (87 percent) mentioned the importance 
of washing hands before eating, but only half mentioned the need to wash hands after using the 
bathroom. Similarly, nearly all teachers (94 percent) said their students washed their hands before 
eating on the previous day, but less than half mentioned that hand washing occurred after going to 
the bathroom, indicating a gap area in optimal practices. About a third of teachers mentioned that 
their students brushed their teeth at school the day before data collection.
• In terms of awareness of micronutrients, 94 percent of teachers recognize anemia’s symptoms, 
but only a quarter could identify two or more foods that prevent anemia. Very few teachers (9 
percent) knew why consuming iodized salt is important. Most teachers (89 percent) recognized 
the fortified blending flour Incaparina as a source of calcium, and three-quarters agreed that 
staying hydrated by drinking water can improve students’ attention in class.
• Although almost all teachers said they teach students about the negative effects of too much 
sugar, there are gaps in teachers’ understanding about the negative impacts sugar consumption 
can have. While 70 percent see the association with diabetes, only a third recognize the 
relationship with obesity, and about half (52 percent) recognize sugar as a cause of cavities.
• A high percentage of teachers agreed that students need nutrition education to prevent obesity (94 
percent), and 84 percent recognize the importance of teaching children about the effects of junk 
food. Almost all teachers (96 percent) recognize they have a role as communicators of nutrition￾related messages in their communities, 82 percent feel trained to teacher about nutrition, and 69 
percent say they have adequate time in class to teach about nutrition.
• Only 28 percent of teachers reported that their schools had a garden. However, among schools 
with a garden, 80 percent of teachers said their students had worked in the garden in the last two 
weeks, and about a third of teachers (35 percent) said students consumed produce from the garden 
during the previous month.
School observations
• Most schools have a kitchen. 92 percent of the kitchens have a stove; 68 percent have a sink and 
72 percent had either running or stored water in the kitchen at the time of the observation. Only 
43 percent of kitchens have soap for kitchen staff to wash their hands. 39 percent have a trash 
can, and 46 percent have the weekly menu on display.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 5 
• In the majority of kitchens the stored water observed (if any) is visibly clean, and utensils and 
tables are visibly clean. In terms of staff attire, about half do not wear an apron and only 26 
percent wear a hairnet or handkerchief over their hair.
• In 96 percent of the 262 observed schools there is a food storage space. Food is kept off of the 
ground in 80 percent of the storage spaces. 91 percent have measurement equipment, 50 percent 
have a daily stock control sheet, 35 percent have a portioning table on display, 43 percent visibly 
display the Save the Children logo, and 17 percent have a checklist for visits by Save the Children 
technical staff.
• Enumerators were able to observe the salt package in only 64 percent of the schools. Among 
these schools where the salt package was seen by enumerators, 94 percent of the salt was 
confirmed to be iodized. 
• 88 percent of schools have improved sanitation facilities. These include flush toilets, manual 
pour-flush toilets, pit latrines with slab and compost latrines. Among the schools with 
unimproved latrines, the majority have pit latrines without slab, and the rest have other types of 
latrines.
• In 245 schools (94 percent) students have handwashing facilities. Only in 35 percent of schools 
with handwashing facilities, or 32 percent of all 262 observed schools, are there both water and 
soap for students to wash their hands.
• Water for student consumption is available in only 173 schools (66 percent). 93 percent of these 
schools, or 61 percent of all 262 observed schools, have an improved water source, such as piped 
water, rainwater, and protected well or spring.
• In 97 percent of schools, school administrators reported that there is a school meals program, 
funded in most cases by MINEDUC. The majority of schools provide a small meal and a drink 
(67 percent), based example of a tamale and a hot drink for that option. Less than half of school 
administrators reported that their school currently provides a full meal (39 percent).
• 70 percent of schools have a library or reading room.
Local producers
• Producers identified possible economic benefits of having secure buyers for their products, 
including reduced transportation and storage costs. In addition, their products are commonly 
found as ingredients in the official school menus. This suggests that producers are in a good 
position to provide food to schools’ feeding programs. 
• Producers also mentioned that the program are well-positioned to improve students’ nutrition.
• One of the most discussed challenges faced by local producers is access to water. This includes 
not having access to water itself, and not having access to irrigation systems to pump water when 
it is available. Other challenges mentioned include storage, transportation, sale prices, availability
of resources, and lack of technical knowledge. 
• Three producers reported being registered with the Superintendent of Tax Administration 
(Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria – SAT). These producers did not mention that it 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 6 
was particularly difficult to register. However, two of the remaining producers mentioned they 
were not registered with the SAT because of the associated fees. 
• None of the ten interviewed producers, including those who have previously sold food to schools, 
reported having the new MAGA accreditation that will be required to sell food to schools. 
• It was challenging to recruit producers for the interviews. If this reflects an overall scarcity of 
local producers in the area, then LENS may find it more challenging to recruit local producers.
Programmatic recommendations
The baseline findings revealed the following areas of opportunity for the LENS project:
1. Promote student feedback on menus and preparation. During FGD parents stated that their 
children are not satisfied with the school meals, primarily due to (1) repetition of meals and (2) 
inadequate quality of the cooked food (e.g. undercooking). The project can promote additional 
local foods to assure a variety of dishes. LENS can also help schools collect and use feedback 
from children to improve recipes and/or meal preparation. 
2. Support school communication on school meals. Parents reported they aren’t sure whether their 
child needs to eat before school or not because schools sometimes offer breakfast and sometimes 
a snack (refacción). This suggests that parents should be better informed about which meals 
children are going to receive during the school day.
3. Build on teachers’ interest in nutrition education and knowledge gaps. Findings from the 
teacher surveys indicate that nearly all teachers recognize the value of providing nutrition 
education to their students and view themselves, as well as parents, as having the responsibility to 
teach children about nutrition to improve their health. LENS should find opportunities to 
capitalize on teachers’ base of interest, providing training on priority topics that teachers and 
students consider most relevant and which pose the greatest threats to student health.
4. Facilitate active learning about nutrition and health. Given that many teachers already 
mention engaging in some nutrition-related games with their students, LENS can help teachers 
maximize the potential of these games. 
5. Promote realistic, local solutions to nutrition challenges in Quiché. It is essential that LENS 
promote locally-available, lower-cost nutrient-rich foods that are feasible for families, given 
documented income and access constraints faced by families in Quiché. 
6. Focus on gaps in school meals systems. Although most schools have kitchens and food storage 
spaces, there are multiple opportunities for LENS to improve the use of existing infrastructure, 
address gaps or strengthen processes. 
7. Examine and address priority water, sanitation and hygiene constraints. Given that only a 
third of schools had both soap and water present for students’ handwashing, there is a need for 
LENS to address the factors that impede availability of water and (especially) soap, and help 
schools generate feasible, long-term solutions (including improved student monitoring). 
Regarding hygiene practices, handwashing before eating was better understood and practiced in 
schools, suggesting a need for LENS to emphasize handwashing after using the bathroom (such 
as process for students to mark whether water and soap were present at the handwashing place, 
each time they visit the bathroom). 
8. Support optimal use of gardens. Only about a third of of schools have a garden, but schools 
with gardens report high use of students’ participation in gardening, although a lower number 
have recently consumed garden produce. This is an opportunity for LENS to support 
establishment of additional gardens and use of existing gardens for practical nutrition education.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 7 
9. Provide information and support to local producers to mitigate constraints. It was 
challenging to recruit local producers for the baseline interviews. LENS’ recruiting activities 
should elaborate on the benefits of program participation, as well as the potential risks and how 
they could be addressed. In addition, very few of the interviewed producers were registered with 
the SAT, and most did not even know about the accreditation MAGA requires to participate in 
schools feeding program. Efforts should be made by LENS and/or the Government of Guatemala 
to advertise the permits needed to be a school meal provider.
Evaluation Limitations and Recommendations
All LENS schools were part of Save the Children’s previous school feeding program (Investment for 
Educational Development in the Highlands Project [IDEA]) so we know that treatment and comparison 
schools are different in fundamental ways. Not only does this affect comparability of treatment and 
comparison schools, but it can also affect some of the results found in this baseline study. Regarding 
comparability, the fact that we are using DID models will allow us to isolate any differences at baseline 
between treatment and comparison schools. In other words, we do not need to assume that schools are 
observationally equivalent at baseline for the impact evaluation, only that the treatment schools would 
observe the same change in the outcomes of interest than the comparison schools, if the treatment schools 
did not receive treatment.
Program substitution could affect the validity of the impact evaluation results. If other organizations are 
offering services similar to LENS in comparison schools, it would be ideal to collect data to at least 
control for this substitution. To do this we would need data on what other programs are being 
implemented in the comparison schools. In comparison schools only students are being surveyed, so we 
could ask them questions about feeding and literacy programs that are being implemented in their 
schools; however, it would probably be preferable to survey teachers to collect this type of data. At 
midline and endline, SC should consider having the evaluation team survey teachers in comparison and 
treatment schools, so data on alternative school feeding programs and early reading interventions can be 
recorded. 
Student attendance is one of the key outcomes of the evaluation. The survey collected attendance data for 
the surveyed children, and the results indicate that attendance is quite high. Being results for the students 
attending the day of the survey, these results could be an overestimation of the true attendance rates. As 
SC will start collecting attendance data more systematically as part of their monitoring activities, the 
evaluation team will be able to incorporate these data in the analysis.3
The school observations were programmed to be conducted at baseline only. However, it would valuable 
for the evaluation team to also conduct school observations at midline and endline, to record and analyze 
progress, at least on the 72 schools that will be visited for the other activities. 
While key informant interviews (KII) with teachers provided valuable insights on teachers’ views and 
practices regarding nutrition and hygiene, with fewer interviews the same information could probably be 
acquired. Previous research shows that 12 interviews are enough to discover between 80 and 90 percent 
of the themes. Along these lines, Save the Children should consider, for the midline and endline, reducing 
the number of KIIs not only with teachers, but with principals, PTA members, and government officials. 
3 In addition, once the Ministry of Education produces enrollment data for 2019, we will be able to calculate attendance rates for 
each of the classes where s, as the survey recorded the number of students present the day of data collection.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 8 
Savings from these reductions in KIIs could help cover the costs of surveying teachers in impact 
evaluation schools and/or conducting school observations at midline and endline, as proposed above. 
Finally, it was challenging to recruit local producers for the interviews, so the documented results may not 
replicate if other local producers are interviewed. LENS’s efforts to recruit local producers for the 
program will intensify over the next two years, in preparation for the training activities to be implemented
in years four and five of the program. For the midline data collection, it would be ideal for the evaluation 
team to have access to the pool of local producers recruited for the program, so a more representative 
sample of local producers can be interviewed.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 9 
1. Introduction 
Save the Children (SC) contracted NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct the evaluation of the 
Literacy Education and Nutrition for Sustainability (LENS) program, an intervention aimed at improving 
the quality of literacy instruction, children’s attentiveness and children’s attendance, by decreasing short￾term hunger and increasing the use of health and dietary practices, in 274 schools in the department of 
Quiché, Guatemala. The evaluation will comprise three waves of data collection, namely baseline, 
midline and endline.
NORC will undertake two types of evaluations: 
(1) A program evaluation (PE) using multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data collected in 
six municipalities of the Quiché department, namely Cunén, Chajul, Cotzal, Uspantán, Nebaj and 
Sacapulas. This will include student assessments, student attendance data, program monitoring 
data, focus group discussions (FGDs) with parents, and key informant interviews (KIIs) with 
teachers, school principals, PTA members, LENS staff, local producers and government officials.
(2) An impact evaluation (IE), using data collected in the same six municipalities, and in three 
control municipalities, also located in the Quiché department. NORC will conduct a quasi￾experimental design evaluation and analysis to estimate the impact of school feeding, School 
Health and Nutrition (SHN) activities, and literacy activities on reading skills and students’ 
attendance, among other outcomes of interest.
For the program evaluation, NORC will randomly sample 72 schools from the 274 selected by LENS for 
treatment activities. These 274 will receive different combinations of treatment activities. After an 
assessment of needs, LENS selected 87 of the 274 schools to receive the full set of program activities.4 Of 
these 87 schools, NORC randomly sampled 50 schools for the impact evaluation. The 50 comparison 
schools for the impact evaluation were drawn from schools in Quiché outside the six municipalities where 
LENS is being fielded. 
Baseline data were collected between May 27 and July 4, 2019. This report presents findings from the 
collected data.
2. Program Background 
LENS is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) McGovern Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD).
5 The primary goals of LENS are to improve the 
quality of literacy instruction, children’s attentiveness and children’s attendance, by decreasing short-term 
hunger and increasing the use of health and dietary practices. To achieve these goals, SC, the program 
implementer, has partnered with the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) and the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock, and Nutrition (Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Alimentación - MAGA). 
The LENS program will be implemented over a period of five years, and will target pre-primary and 
primary students in 274 schools across six program municipalities of the department of Quiché. The 
overall goals of the program are broken out into two overarching Strategic Objectives which include 
4 Originally there were 283 schools that were supposed to be part of the program, 91 of which were going to receive all treatment 
components. Before data collection started 9 schools decided not to be part of the program, including 4 of the ones that were
going to receive all treatment components. SC is working to get these 9 schools back in the program.
5 Cooperative agreement number FFE-520-2018/012-00. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 10 
(SO1) improving literacy of school-age children by improving the quality of literacy instruction, student 
attentiveness, and student attendance, and (SO2) reduce health-related absences by increased use of health 
and dietary practices. Through the LENS program, Save the Children will incorporate commodities from 
the MGD program into school feeding activities.
LENS’s literacy strategy will target activities that impact the “5 Ts” (Texts, Tongue, Testing, Teachers, 
and Time). Below are specific activities that LENS will carry out as part of its literacy strategy.
- LENS will address the needs of struggling learners by helping teachers to adopt more inclusive 
teaching practices, such as through an adaptation of the Student Needs Action Pack (SNAP), 
which provides teachers with easy-to-implement inclusion strategies for the classroom.
- LENS will help teachers adopt multilingual instruction strategies through the introduction of 
simple strategies into teacher peer learning circles, such as using illustrations or gestures, 
activating background knowledge, using sentence frames, etc.
- LENS will implement reading camp activities in 166 schools. Save the Children will work with 
key teachers in each school to recruit and train youth volunteers who will serve as camp 
facilitators, and encourage students with reading difficulties to attend and participate in the 
camps.
- LENS will ensure that children have access to reading materials in their schools and communities 
through book banks. Book banks are collections of reading materials used by students and 
community members that are stored in trunks, chests or other mobile storage options.
- Throughout LENS, Save the Children will establish literacy roundtables to: i) Plan, guide, and 
troubleshoot the handover of school feeding, early grade reading activities, and school health and 
nutrition activities supported by Save the Children and other implementing partners; ii)
Coordinate development work across projects so actors are not competing for teacher or school 
administrator time or taking teachers away from their classroom duties unnecessarily; and iii)
Advise MINEDUC on budget allocations in order to make best use of available resources in light 
of development partner investments, such as USDA and USAID.
As part of the LENS Nutrition Strategy: 
- LENS will provide school meals of iron-fortified rice, black beans, and vegetable oil for an 
estimated 43,850 students, their teachers and school cooks over the 180-day school term. The 
selection of the foods and portion size build on experiences under the previous IDEA program, 
meeting 27 percent of students’ daily caloric requirement, 34 percent of the daily protein 
requirement, and 39 percent of his/her daily iron requirement. 
- LENS will support the long-term availability of local foods, such as fruit, vegetables, spices and 
animal protein. LENS will foster organizational linkages between PTAs and local producers so 
that MINEDUC’s school meals subsidy can be partially invested in local production, as required 
by the new school feeding law. For this, LENS will select 50 school communities for a pilot 
project. In these schools LENS will work with new or existing groups of local food producers, to 
facilitate connections between them and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs). LENS will select a 
single local agriculture service provider (LASP) to train and work with local producers and PTA 
members to build a supply chain for sustainable school meal programs.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 11 
- LENS will continue actions started under IDEA to establish school gardens and/or maximize their 
use, through training and provision of tools, seeds and other supplies. 
- LENS will produce, in collaboration with the National School Feeding Coordination Group and 
School Feeding Steering Committee, a pictorial leaflet to be used for the training and certification 
of school cooks in best practices for safe and hygienic food preparation.
- LENS will provide a take-home ration of iron-fortified rice and black beans to pregnant women, 
lactating mothers with children 0 to 23 months, and children aged 6 to 23 months. Distribution 
days will be paired with nutrition and health education, peer support and referrals for health 
services. To complement these activities, LENS will develop radio messages on relevant health, 
nutrition, early childhood stimulation and parenting topics, for broadcasting on municipal radio 
stations, and sharing at national and sub-national levels. Note that this program component will 
not be considered in this evaluation.
Finally, LENS will promote safe water, sanitation and hygiene in schools, through the following 
activities:
- LENS will support teachers and school governments to conduct child-to-child activities focused 
on washing hands and brushing teeth, filling water filters, use of a hygiene traffic light checklist 
to monitor the cleanliness of school grounds, and report/address WASH deficits with school 
leadership. 
- LENS will partner with the Ministry of Health and Public Assistance (MSPAS) to assure that 
children are dewormed. 
- LENS will support government capacity, regulatory frameworks and laws with respect to school 
nutrition, health and hygiene. 
- LENS will help PTAs to conduct maintenance of school water, sanitation and hygiene 
infrastructure, and implement guidelines for healthy schools according to the School Feeding 
Program. 
- LENS will also support COCODES and PTAs to advocate for improvements in school 
infrastructure and work with community mayors, an activity started under IDEA, to advocate for 
funds in the community. Additionally, LENS will sponsor annual celebrations of International 
School Meals Day to raise awareness of the contribution of school meals to addressing hunger 
and poverty.
Project activities started after baseline data was collected.
3. Objectives and Research Questions
Previous research shows that children with nutritional deficiencies are susceptible to metabolic changes 
that impact cognitive ability and performance of the brain.6 Despite this, studies that have evaluated the 
impacts of school feeding find that links between school feeding and learner performance are largely 
6 What is the relationship between child nutrition and school outcomes?, 
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130320135909/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/W
BL18.pdf
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 12 
inconclusive.7 These studies cite data reliability, short implementation timelines, and the complex 
relationship between child nutrition and schooling outcomes as the primary constraints for detecting 
impacts of school feeding programs on educational outcomes.8,9 A recent International Initiative for 
Impact Evaluation (3ie) review of programs in low and middle income countries shows a link between 
improved nutrition and health and an improved ability to learn, but more rigorous research is needed to 
fully explore the relationships.10 The LENS evaluation, therefore, offers an excellent opportunity to 
resolve some of these methodological challenges in order to contribute to the global body of research on 
the relationship between school feeding and educational outcomes.
While the link between school feeding on educational outcomes is unclear, the literature does clearly 
point to increased school attendance as a result of school feeding programs in low and middle income 
countries.11 A 2002 evaluation of a school feeding intervention in Bangladesh found that the intervention 
increased enrollment rates and reduced dropout rates in Bangladeshi schools, particularly for students in 
food insecure areas.12
The LENS evaluation seeks to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of school 
feeding programs on child education outcomes. The evaluation also aims to address key research 
questions from the McGovern-Dole Learning Agenda, including: (1) in what ways do the combination of 
school meal interventions and educational interventions improve education and literacy levels? And (2) 
what kinds of partnerships with the private sector and/or host country governments are the most effective 
at ensuring program sustainability?
For this evaluation three rounds of data collection will be implemented: baseline, midline and endline. 
Baseline data collection serves three purposes: 1) to measure pre-implementation values for performance 
indicators, 2) to provide inputs for setting indicator targets, and 3) to establish baseline values for the 
impact evaluation and assess the comparability between treatment and comparison students.
Below we present the midline evaluation questions. Some questions refer specifically to the pilot program 
and are denoted with an asterisk. 
Relevance 
• Do program stakeholders (students, teachers, PTAs, parents, local agriculture producers and local 
officials) feel the LENS program is meeting their needs? Why or why not? 
• How culturally appropriate are the in-school meals provided? 
• In what ways is the support to local producers appropriate in the program context?*
Effectiveness 
• To what extent has the program achieved its output and outcome targets? 
7 Does school breakfast make a difference? An evaluation of an in-school breakfast programme in South Africa, 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059316301808
8 Ibid 
9 The Impact of Child Health and Nutrition on Education In Less Developed Countries*, 
http://emiguel.econ.berkeley.edu/assets/miguel_research/31/_Chapter__Impact_of_Child_Health_and_Nutrition_on_Education.p
df
10 The impact of education programmes on learning and school participation in low- and middle-income countries, 
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/429341481774674870/The-Impact-of-Education-Programmes-on-Learning-and-School￾Participation.pdf
11 Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes, 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043412/
12 Impact of Feeding Children In School: Evidence From Bangladesh, 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253422918_Impact_of_feeding_children_in_school_evidence_from_Bangladesh
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 13 
• What factors have inhibited or facilitated achievement of goals, objectives, and expected results? 
Efficiency 
• How timely is the delivery of different intervention components? 
• Is the program delivering commodities on time and in a way that minimizes waste? 
• How often and in what ways are schools utilizing produce from local producers to supplement 
and/or substitute donated food?* 
Sustainability 
• According to stakeholders, how has the program influenced the amount of food for school meals 
purchased from local producers? Who are the local producers that have been most successful in 
satisfying that demand and what factors have influenced this result?* 
• How have activities of the LASP with local producers affected sustainability?* 
• What are the current barriers to achieving sustainability according to the different stakeholders?* 
Impact 
• How do literacy outcomes compare across the treatment and comparison groups? Is there 
evidence of a positive impact of LENS on literacy outcomes? 
• Have literacy skills of school-age children generally improved in the LENS program area? 
• Have health KAP outcomes of teachers changed in the LENS program area? 
• Has LENS contributed to increased enrollment and regular attendance of school-age children? 
• Have nutrition, dietary, and food safety practices in schools improved in the LENS program area? 
• Have there been any positive or negative impacts in the target areas, besides the realization of the 
strategic objective-level results? 
For the endline, the evaluation questions are:
Relevance 
• Did stakeholders feel that their voices were heard and their needs considered throughout the 
program? 
• Has the program integrated activities to support literacy and improved nutrition in culturally 
appropriate ways in the target communities? 
Effectiveness 
• To what extent has the program achieved its output and outcome targets? 
• What factors have inhibited or facilitated achievement of goals, objectives, and expected results? 
• How effective are the contracts and the quality monitoring between local producers and PTAs?* 
Efficiency 
• Did the program deliver intervention components within their planned timeline? 
• Which commodity management strategies were most efficient for quick delivery and waste 
reduction? 
Sustainability 
• Under which conditions are local producers able to satisfy the food demand of schools for the 
feeding program? What are the pathways that lead to a successful sale and delivery of food by 
local producers to schools?* 
• Do schools have the necessary infrastructure, food management plans, and systems in place to 
continue feeding and literacy activities after the program concludes?* 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 14 
• What are the necessary components for successful school handover of activities, as modeled by 
this program? What were the lessons learned?* 
Impact
• How do literacy outcomes compare across the treatment and comparison groups? Is there 
evidence of a positive impact of LENS on literacy outcomes? 
• Has LENS improved access to and availability of early grade multilingual reading materials? 
• Have literacy skills of school-age children improved in the LENS program area? 
• Have health and nutrition KAP outcomes of teachers improved in the LENS program area? 
• Has LENS contributed to increased enrollment and regular attendance of school-age children? 
• Have nutrition, dietary, and food safety practices in schools improved in the LENS program area? 
• How have PTAs contributed to the school feeding program? 
• Have there been any positive or negative impacts in the target areas, besides the realization of the 
strategic objective-level results?
4. Data Collection
In this section we describe data collection for both the program and impact evaluations, as data collection 
for the two evaluations occurred in parallel. Baseline data collection took place May 22 – July 4, 2019. 
NORC’s data collection partner, Juarez & Associates (J&A), conducted all data collection activities, 
working closely with NORC. 
While the program will benefit pre-primary and primary students in target schools, to assess the impact of 
the program on reading skills the evaluation will focus on 3rd grade students.13 
Data collection activities include literacy assessments (ELI), teacher Knowledge, Attitude and Practice 
(KAP) surveys, school observation checklists, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with teachers and local 
producers, and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with 3rd grade parents. These instruments were fielded 
in the six municipalities where there are LENS schools, namely Cunén, Chajul, Cotzal, Uspantán, Nebaj 
and Sacapulas. In addition, the ELI and student survey were fielded in comparison schools, located in 
three Quiché municipalities, including Chicamán, San Pedro Jocopilas and San Andrés Sajcabajá. 
Below is a description of each of the instrument fielded during the baseline data collection:
4.1 Quantitative Data 
a) Student literacy assessment: NORC fielded the Evaluation of Initial Reading (Evaluación de Lectura 
Inicial in Spanish - ELI) to ten third graders (five boys and five girls) in both treatment and control 
schools. The assessment was developed and provided by the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), 
who modeled the instrument after the widely used Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA). The 
assessment was fielded only in Spanish, regardless of each student’s maternal language, as designed 
by MINEDUC. In addition to the assessment questions, NORC included additional questions to 
capture information about students’ sociodemographic background, satisfaction with in-school meals, 
nutritional history, and home literacy environment. The items developed by NORC are available in 
Annex I (forthcoming). The assessment includes subtasks on letter naming, letter sounds, initial 
phoneme identification, phoneme separation, short word reading, familiar word reading, non-word 
reading, listening comprehension, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, and dictation. Table 
13 The original plan was to survey 2nd graders, after discussions J&A, NORC and SC, SC decided to assess 3rd graders instead.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 15 
1 below details the name, description, duration, and number of items included in each literacy 
subtasks included as part of the ELI.
Table 1. ELI Assessment Overview
Sub-Task Name Sub-Task Description Duration Number of Items
Letter Naming - Task 1
Child reads a list of 30 letters, once with the 
lower-case version of the letters and once 
with the upper-case version of the letters, for 
a total of 60 letters, and gives the name for 
each letter.
240 
seconds 60
Letter Naming - Task 2
Child reads a mixed list of 100 lower- and 
upper-case letters, and gives the name for 
each letter.
60 
seconds 100
Letter Sounds - Task 1
Child gives the sound for each letter on a list 
of 30 letters, once with the lower-case 
version of the letters and once with the 
upper-case version of the letters, for a total 
of 60 letters,
240 
seconds 60
Letter Sounds - Task 2
Child gives the sound for each letter on a 
mixed list of 100 lower- and upper-case 
letters.
60 
seconds 100
Initial Phoneme 
Identification
Child gives the first sound for each word on a 
list of ten words. Untimed 10
Phoneme Separation Child separates all letter sounds for each 
word on a list of ten words. Untimed 10
Short Word Reading Child reads a list of 10 short, one-syllable 
words.
120 
seconds 10
Familiar Word Reading Child reads a list of 70 common, grade￾appropriate words.
60 
seconds 70
Non-Word Reading
Child reads a list of 70 invented words with 
no meaning.
60 
seconds 70
Listening Comprehension
Child answers ten comprehension questions 
about a text read by the interviewer. Untimed 10
Oral Reading Fluency Child reads a 100-word story. 60 
seconds 100
Reading Comprehension
Child answers eleven comprehension 
questions on the same 100-word passage 
from the Oral Reading Fluency sub-task. The 
number of questions varies by child 
depending on the amount of the text they are 
able to read. A zero value is automatically 
assigned to students who are unable to read 
anything.
Untimed 11
Dictation Enumerator reads a six-word sentence and 
asks the child to write the sentence.
Untimed 6 
b) Teacher Knowledge Attitude and Practice Survey: The teacher KAP instrument was designed to 
collect information on teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices around health and nutrition. 
The instrument includes specific questions on teachers’ exposure to nutrition education, their 
knowledge about nutrition, sanitation and hygiene topics, their attitude about the importance of 
teaching about these topics and their experiences addressing these issues with their students. In 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 16 
addition to KAP questions, the instrument includes questions to capture information on teachers’ 
backgrounds, and other information.
c) School Observation Checklist: The School Observation Checklist was designed to document 
school infrastructure and practices related to food storage and manipulation, water treatment and 
maintenance, school gardens and reading resources. 
4.2 Qualitative Data 
NORC developed KII and FGD scripts that address the LENS evaluation questions that could be fully or 
partially answered with qualitative data. We drafted the interview guides in English and shared them with 
Save the Children for feedback. Once the instruments were finalized, the instruments were translated to 
Spanish, the language they were ultimately fielded in. As baseline data collection occurred prior to 
implementation, the interviews focus primarily on respondents’ experience with previous projects and 
their expectations of the LENS program. Below, we describe the content of each instrument: 
a) Key Informant Interviews with 3rd Grade Teachers in treatment schools recorded teachers’ views 
on different program aspects, including expectations of the program, perceived opportunities and 
challenges, current and past activities related to nutrition and hygiene, perceived opportunities for 
local foods to promote dietary diversity, and adequacy of books and other reading materials.
b) Focus Group Discussions with 3rd Grade Parents sought to elicit information from parents about 
their expectations of the program, appropriateness of past program meals, perceived opportunities 
to integrate local foods into school meals, and overall satisfaction with similar programs.
c) Key Informant Interviews with Local Producers recorded their expectation of the program, prior 
experience with similar activities, perceived future opportunities or challenges associated with the 
supply of food to schools, and possible relationships between local producers and school 
stakeholders. These interviews also captured the food production profile (quantities, variety, and 
seasonal availability) of each producer.
4.3 Training
Prior to launching data collection, NORC and J&A conducted qualitative and quantitative data collection 
training between May 17 and 25, 2019 in Santa Cruz de Quiché, Guatemala.14 J&A recruited trainees 
from a pool of assessors who had experience with school-based data collection and, in most cases, had 
worked with J&A on previous implementation of the ELI. The training included 24 quantitative 
enumerators, six quantitative supervisors, three school observers, three qualitative recruiters, and four
qualitative moderators. The team was specifically recruited to ensure that enumerators spoke the local 
languages of the municipalities they would be working in. The training started with a two-day supervisor 
training that introduced the program background, instruments, and field plans to the selected team 
supervisors. Following the supervisor training, NORC and J&A trained the full data collection team, and
conducted a 1-day field exercise, where quantitative teams practiced applying the ELI, KAP and school
observation instruments. The field teams, including the qualitative teams working with parents and local 
producers, practiced introducing themselves and explaining the evaluation in both K’iche’ and Ixil as part 
of the training. Additionally, the qualitative team practiced administering the local producer and parent 
instruments in the local languages before leaving for the field. 
14 Baseline training and data collection dates overlap because dedicated classroom observers were trained within the first two 
days of full-team training and commenced their fieldwork on May 22 in order to meet data collection deadlines. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 17 
Throughout the training, NORC conducted multiple inter-rater reliability (IRR) tests to ensure 
enumerators administering the ELI assessment were correctly marking responses. J&A based final field 
team selections on each enumerator’s performance during the field exercise and IRR tests. 
4.4 Fieldwork and quality control
Quantitative and qualitative data collection took place between May 22 – July 4, 2019. The dedicated 
classroom observers launched their data collection on May 22, while the rest of the field teams started
data collection on May 27, 2019. 
As part of the quality control measures, a NORC team member observed the first two days of quantitative 
data collection to isolate any issues with the implementation of data collection and worked with J&A to 
resolve them during the first week. One of the most important observations from the first week of data 
collection was that students had difficulty answering NORC’s survey questions in Spanish at the end of 
the ELI. NORC and J&A jointly decided to allow enumerators to provide translations of these questions 
into local languages. However, we emphasized to enumerators that MINEDUC’s instrument, including 
the literacy assessment, was not to be translated. 
Throughout data collection J&A continued observing and recording any issues the data collection teams 
faced. J&A was denied access to eight LENS schools - five in Uspantán, two in Cunén and one in Cotzal. 
The schools in Uspantán were replaced with schools from Chajul. Although there were more LENS 
schools in Uspantán we could potentially have used as replacements, refusals were driven by the 
municipal teachers’ union, in other words this was a municipality-level refusal, rather than a school￾specific one, so there was no point in trying to survey other schools in the same municipality. Refusals in 
Cunén and Cotzal, by contrast, were replaced with schools from the same municipalities.
In addition, 16 schools in the comparison communities also denied access, most of them in Chicamán. 
These schools were replaced with other schools from the other two comparison municipalities, namely
San Pedro Jocopilas and San Andres Sajcabaja. The main reason why comparison schools denied access 
was that, as they were not receiving program support, they were not interested in having their students
assessed. Also, as was the case in Uspantán, some schools requested that J&A should get approval from 
the teachers’ union.
The qualitative data collection also launched on May 27, 2019 and was conducted by two sets of data 
collection teams. The Teacher KIIs were conducted by the quantitative supervisors as they traveled from 
treatment school to treatment school, while the Parent FGDs and Producer KIIs were conducted by 
dedicated qualitative data collection teams that traveled independently of the quantitative teams. The 
teams carried out a total of 28 Teacher KIIs, ten Local Producer KIIs, and 10 Parents FGDs. For each 
Parent FGD, a centrally located school was selected as the reunion point where the FGD was conducted. 
Once the school was selected, the teams worked with nearby schools to recruit parents in order to ensure 
that parents from more than ten schools participated in the interviews. The teams also attempted to get as 
close to a gender balance as possible for each FGD, however the reality is that in most cases female 
parents were more willing and able to participate in the FGDs. 
Table 2 below presents a gender breakdown of the participants for each FGD.
Table 2. Parent FGD Gender Breakdown
FGD Males Females Total
K’iche’ 1 – Uspantán 1 9 10
K’iche’ 2 – Cunén 10 9 19
K’iche’ 3 – Uspantán 0 5 5
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 18 
FGD Males Females Total
K’iche’ 4 – Sacapulas 1 9 10
K’iche’ 5 – Cunén 0 13 13
Ixil 1 – Nebaj 3 7 10
Ixil 2 – Nebaj 3 3 6
Ixil 3 – Nebaj 2 11 13
Ixil 4 – Chajul 2 13 15
Ixil 5 – Cotzal 0 10 10
NORC originally planned to conduct only 8 parent FGDs, however due to low participant turnout in two 
of the FGDS, two more were added to increase the total number of FGD participants. The low turnout in 
these two FGDs was caused by two issues: (1) some schools in Uspantán did not allow parents to 
participate in the FGDs, similar to them refusing access to students for the quantitative data collection, 
and (2) some parents from Nebaj entered the wrong meeting, which was taking place at the same school 
and the same time as the LENS Parents FGD. 
Finally, enumerators interviewed ten local producers to better understand their current position as 
producers, as well as their capacity to provide food for school feeding programs in the future. To recruit 
these local producers, two approaches were followed. First, we used a list of local producers who would 
potentially be interested in participating in LENS, given to NORC by Save the Children. During 
fieldwork we found that contacting these local producers was very challenging, and eventually only two
producers from this list were interviewed. Most of these producers were not interested in participating in 
the survey. The second approach was to recruit producers when advanced teams were sent to the schools 
to recruit parents for the focus groups discussions. This method proved to be more effective to recruit 
local producers. 
5. Impact evaluation 
5.1 Research design overview
Impact evaluations (IEs) allow us to attribute changes in an outcome to a specific intervention or set of 
interventions by answering the counterfactual question “What would have happened to program 
participants in the absence of the intervention?” The ideal comparison group stems from the use of 
experimental methods in which eligible participants are randomly assigned to receive the intervention or 
not. The process by which schools were selected for LENS treatment was not randomized. In fact, there 
are two selection processes that determined school selection for the impact evaluation. First, LENS 
schools were part of another Save the Children literacy and school feeding program between 2014 and 
2018 called IDEA. Second, the 87 schools that will receive the full LENS treatment (i.e. full package of 
interventions) were selected based on a needs assessment conducted by SC in early 2019. These two 
characteristics of the treatment schools suggest they are not directly comparable to non-LENS schools in 
Quiché, from which the comparison schools will be drawn. Because some characteristics between 
treatment and comparison schools are presumably different, comparing their outcomes at midline or 
endline will most likely lead to biased estimates of the treatment effect because the difference in their 
outcomes will reflect not only the impact of LENS, but the fact that schools in the two groups would be 
different even in the absence of the program.
To address this challenge, we will use a matched difference-in-difference (DiD) model for the evaluation. 
Matched DiD, which is widely used in IEs and peer reviewed studies, combines DiD with matching 
methods to reduce potential sources of bias and provide a compelling approach to inferring causality. DiD 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 19 
involves comparing the changes in the outcome of interest between baseline and endline in treatment 
schools to changes between baseline and endline in comparison schools. The key assumption behind this 
model is that, in the absence of treatment, students in treatment schools would observe the same change in 
the outcome of interest than students in the comparison schools.
Formally, to estimate the impact at midline of LENS we will estimate:
𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾𝑀𝑀 + 𝛿𝛿𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑀𝑀 + 𝐱𝐱𝐢𝐢𝐢𝐢
′ 𝛉𝛉 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (1) 
Where 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 measures the outcome of interest (e.g. students’ test scores) for student i in period t; 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 is a 
dummy variable for treatment status; 𝑀𝑀 is a dummy variable for the midline, xit is a vector of 
characteristics at the student level (e.g. student age and gender), 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is an error term and α, 𝛽𝛽, 𝛾𝛾, 𝛿𝛿 and θ
are parameters to be estimated. The parameter of interest is 𝛿𝛿, which captures the effect of being in the 
program at midline. 
The model in Equation 1 can be adapted to incorporate the endline analysis, so only observations at 
baseline and endline are included. To analyze differential impacts between boys and girls, we will 
conduct this analysis stratifying by students’ gender. Standard errors will be clustered at the school level 
to control for autocorrelation within schools.
5.2 Sample and Data Collection
We surveyed 50 treatment and 52 comparisons schools in the department of Quiché, for a total of 102 
schools. The 50 treatment schools were randomly selected from the pool of 87 schools selected for full 
treatment by SC/Guatemala (based on the aforementioned needs assessment), stratifying by 
municipality.15
To construct the comparison group, we selected 50 schools from three municipalities with no LENS 
activities, but that neighbor the six LENS municipalities, namely Chicamán, San Pedro Jocopilas and San 
Andrés Sajcabajá. Figure 1 shows the treatment and control municipalities. 
15 This design will allow estimation of a minimum detectable effect size of 0.27 percent of a standard deviation, assuming school￾intracluster correlation of 0.15, power of 80 percent, alpha of five percent, and that covariates explain 20 percent of the variance 
in the outcomes of interest.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 20 
Figure 1. Impact evaluation municipalities
These control municipalities are similar to the LENS municipalities across poverty levels. 
Figure 2 shows the fraction of the population living below the poverty line and in extreme poverty, 
according to census data collected between 2008 and 2011. Within the treatment group, Cunén is the 
municipality with the lowest poverty incidence; only 9.2 percent of the population live in extreme 
poverty, and 55 percent live below the poverty line. These levels are similar to those observed by San 
Pedro Jocopilas, the control municipality with the lowest levels of poverty. The treatment municipalities 
Chajul, Sacapulas, Uspantán y Nebaj have levels of total poverty between 68 and 83 percent, and of 
extreme poverty between 12 and 27 percent, which are relatively similar to the indicators for the control 
municipalities Chicamán and San Andrés Sajcabajá. Finally, San Juan de Cotzal is an extreme case with 
97.8 percent of the population living below the poverty line, and of these, roughly two thirds living under 
extreme poverty.
Chajul
Chicaman
Cunén
Nebaj
Sacapulas
San Andrés Sajcabajá
San Juan Cotzal
San Pedro Jocopilas
Uspantán
Treatment
Control
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 21 
Figure 2. Poverty levels in 2011 by impact evaluation municipalities (%)
Note: Extreme poverty is defined as the fraction of people living with less income than the cost of purchasing a 
minimum of recommended calories. Total poverty includes extreme poverty and those not below the extreme poverty 
line, but that do not have enough income to purchase a minimum of goods and services other than food. 
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2013
Comparison municipalities are also similar to the LENS municipalities in terms of their school 
characteristics. Figure 3 shows total students and students per teacher by municipality. While schools in 
San Juan de Cotzal and Chajul are larger than schools in the control group, on average, school sizes in the 
rest of the LENS municipalities are similar to the sizes observed in the control municipalities. Moreover, 
the student/teacher ratio is remarkably similar between treatment and control municipalities. 
77.5
77.7
55.4
97.8
83.4
75.8
76.0
68.3
55.0
21.5
21.4
9.6
67.3
26.8
22.7
19.3
12.1
9.2
Chicamán
San Andrés Sajcabaja
San Pedro Jocopilas
San Juan Cotzal
Chajul
Sacapulas
Uspantán
Nebaj
Cunén
Comparison Treatment
Extreme poverty Total Poverty
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 22 
Figure 3. Total students and students per teacher in primary schools in 2017, by impact evaluation 
municipalities
Source: Ministry of Education. 
Finally, control and treatment municipalities are also similar in terms of students’ reading skills. Figure 4
shows results of a national reading assessment of 3rd graders conducted by the Ministry of Education in 
2014 (Ministerio de Educación, 2015). The results are representative at the municipality level. The scores 
are standardized such that the national mean and standard deviation are zero and one, respectively, which 
is why scores are negative for most impact evaluation municipalities. In fact, only two municipalities, 
Sacapulas in the treatment group, and San Pedro Jocopilas in the control group, have positive scores. The 
rest of the municipalities in the evaluation have negative scores, which implies that, on average, students 
in these municipalities scored below the national mean. With the exception of Cunén, reading scores are 
relatively similar between treatment and comparison groups. 
In effect, Cunén constitutes an extreme case. In this municipality students scored, on average, 1.38 
standard deviations lower than the national mean. Perhaps paradoxically, Cunén is also the municipality 
with the lowest poverty indexes in 2011, as shown in 
Figure 2. There could be a few explanations for this result. First, data on poverty was collected between 
2008 and 2011, while the reading assessments were conducted in 2014; hence, it is possible that these 
indicators may have changed between the two data collections points. Another explanation could be that, 
with Cunén being relatively wealthier than the rest of the target municipalities, there are fewer out of 
school students. If there are fewer out of school children in Cunén than in other evaluation municipalities, 
16.9
19.4
23.6
21.7
19.1
19.7
16.9
22.2
21.6
58.4
82.1
98.6
79.9
88.1
103.6
104.2
135.3
158.8
San Andres Sajcabaja
San Pedro Jocopilas
Chicaman
San Miguel Uspantan
Sacapulas
Cunen
Nebaj
Chajul
San Juan Cotzal
Comparison Treatment
Total students (grades 1-6) Students per teacher
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 23 
then in Cunén schools should have more low ability students than schools in other municipalities, because 
fewer students have dropped out in Cunén. If schools in Cunén have more low ability students than other 
municipalities, this could explain why they have lower average test scores. 
Figure 4. Reading skills in 3rd grade 2014 national assessments, by impact evaluation 
municipalities
Source: Ministry of Education (2015)
In sum, comparison municipalities are similar to LENS municipalities in terms of poverty indicators, 
school characteristics and students’ reading skills. However, there are a few extreme cases in the 
treatment group for which, at the municipality level, no clear counterfactual can be found in the 
comparison group. For example, the fraction of people living in extreme poverty in San Juan Cotzal is 
67.3 percent, while the equivalent figures in the control municipalities are much lower. However, it is 
important to highlight that the comparison municipalities do not need to be observationally equivalent to 
the LENS municipalities. As we will use matching methods for the impact evaluation, we will be able to 
balance treatment and control groups at the student level, even if there are some imbalances at 
municipality level. Moreover, the DID estimator will allow us to control for baseline differences.
The 50 treatment schools were selected in proportion to the number of schools selected in each 
municipality for full treatment by SC. Table 3 shows the target number of schools and the number of 
schools surveyed, by municipality. As mentioned before, five schools in Uspantán refused participation, 
one of which was part of the treatment group of the impact evaluation (the other four are part of the 
program evaluation). This was replaced with a school from Chajul. In addition, one school in Cunén and 
one in Cotzal, that also refused participation, were replaced with schools from the corresponding 
municipalities.
-0.54
-0.24
0.29
-1.38
-0.51
-0.45
-0.43
-0.40
0.23
San Andrés Sajcabaja
Chicaman
San Pedro Jocopilas
Cunen
San Miguel Uspantan
Nebaj
Chajul
San Juan Cotzal
Sacapulas
Comparison Treatment
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 24 
Table 3. Target and surveyed treatment schools by municipality
Municipality Target Surveyed
Chajul 3 4
Cotzal 7 7
Cunén 13 13
Nebaj 9 9
Sacapulas 9 9
Uspantán 9 8
Total 50 50
 
Within the three control municipalities, we selected 50 schools with similar characteristics to the 50 
treatment schools in terms of number of teachers and number of students16, thereby balancing the 
treatment and control groups across these two dimensions. As Table 4 shows, the objective was to survey 
16 schools in Chicamán, 18 in San Andres Sajcabajá and 16 in San Pedro Jocopilas, for a total of 50 
schools. We surveyed only six schools in Chicamán, 20 schools in San Andres Sajcabajá and 26 in San 
Pedro Socopilas, for a total of 52 schools. The reason why the number of schools surveyed in Chicamán 
is lower than the target, is that after surveying a few schools in Chicamán enumerators were denied access 
to the schools in this municipality, so the evaluation team decided to survey more schools in San Andres 
Sajcabajá and San Pedro Jocopilas to compensate. Note that, relative to the original plan, two more 
comparison schools were surveyed. We keep these additional schools in the analysis, so we can have 
replacements in case other schools refuse participation at midline or endline. 
Table 4. Target and surveyed comparison schools by municipality
Municipality Target Surveyed
Chicamán 16 6
San Andrés Sajcabajá 18 20
San Pedro Jocopilas 16 26
Total 50 52
In schools with more than one third grade classroom, enumerators selected one class randomly. The target 
was to survey ten 3rd grade students (5 girls and 5 boys) in each sampled school. However, a number of 
schools were too small so fewer than 10 students were surveyed. To palliate sample deterioration, in some 
large schools more than ten students were surveyed. In total 930 3rd graders - 466 in treatment schools and 
464 in comparison schools - were surveyed, for a completion rate of 93 percent. 
Each surveyed child answered the Evaluación de Lectura Inicial (ELI), as well as a short student survey, 
to record students’ age, gender, parental literacy, and other characteristics. 
5.3 Baseline results
Table 5 shows descriptive characteristics by treatment status. Students are ten years old on average, and 
students in the comparison group are slightly older than students in the treatment group. All students are 
16 More specifically, we calculated quintals of the number of students and quartiles of the number of teachers, and used these 
variables to divide the sample in a grid of 20 cells (some of these cells were empty). We divided the schools in the three control 
municipalities using the same grid, and randomly sample, per cell, the same number of schools found in the treatment group.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 25 
in 3rd grade. A little over half the students are male, both in the treatment and control groups. Differences 
in the languages spoken at home are worth highlighting. In the comparison group, about half the students 
speak Spanish and the other half K’iche’. In the treatment group, 30 percent speak Spanish, 36 percent 
speak K’iche’, and 28 percent speak Ixil. Note that there are no students that speak Ixil at home in the 
comparison group. The three municipalities where Ixil is prevalent in the department of Quiché are 
Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj; because no schools were surveyed as controls in these municipalities, there are 
no schools in the comparison group where this language is spoken.17 This hinders the comparability 
between treatment and comparison groups. 
Regarding preschool attendance, 77 percent of students in the treatment group attended preschool, while 
the fraction for the comparison group was 61 percent. Roughly half the students have repeated at least one 
year, both in the treatment and comparison groups, including students that repeated 1st or 2nd grade, or are 
repeating 3rd grade.18 Interviewers recorded student attendance during the previous week by consulting 
teachers’ attendance records. The attendance rate during the previous week was roughly 95 percent for 
both groups Note that this may constitute a biased estimated of the true attendance rate, as we are missing 
all the students that did not attend the day of the survey.
The survey also included items on reading environment at home. Household environment in the 
treatment group seems more conducive to learning how to read than in the comparison group. For 
example, households in the treatment group are more likely to have books, parents and other household 
members are more likely to read to children, and mothers are more likely to be literate. Some of these 
results could be explained by the fact that these communities were part of the IDEA program. The 
differences across these three dimensions are statistically significant.
In terms of socioeconomic indicators, we do not find major differences between treatment and 
comparison groups. A little over 80 percent of the households have electricity in both groups and, in 
most households, someone owns a cell phone. To approximate household wealth we constructed an asset 
index for the number of times students affirmatively answered questions on whether their household 
owns, in good condition, a chair, a bed, a clock, a radio, a television, a computer, a bicycle, a motorcycle, 
a car/truck/boat, a refrigerator, and a stove. Table 5 shows that students have roughly eight of these items, 
and there are no major differences between the treatment and comparison groups.
Table 5. Sociodemographic characteristics – IE
Treatment Comparison Difference
Age (years) 9.7 10.2 -0.44***
Male 0.54 0.55 -0.01
Language spoken at home
Spanish 0.30 0.46 -0.15***
K’iche’ 0.36 0.59 -0.23***
Ixil 0.28 0.00 0.27***
Other 0.02 0.02 -0.00
NR 0.10 0.04 0.06**
Attended preschool 0.77 0.61 0.16***
17 During the design phase NORC suggested to survey schools in Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj that were not part of the program for 
the comparison group, but this idea was rejected due to potential contamination of the comparison group. 
18 These results are consistent with previous research conducted for the IDEA evaluation. For the IDEA baseline data show that 
the repetition rate for 1srt grade was 35 percent, and for 2nd grade was 23 percent. The equivalent figures for the LENS baseline 
for the impact evaluation schools are 35 percent for 1st grade and 22 percent for 2nd grade. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 26 
Treatment Comparison Difference
Repeated or repeating a year 0.50 0.49 0.01
Attendance last week (fraction)(a) 0.94 0.95 -0.01
Household reading environment
There are books at home 0.73 0.59 0.14***
Household members read with child 0.54 0.44 0.11***
Mother's literacy 0.63 0.53 0.10**
Father's literacy 0.91 0.87 0.03
Socioeconomic indicators
Household has electricity 0.83 0.82 0.01
Household owns a cellphone 0.93 0.94 -0.01
Asset index (number of items) 8.14 7.93 0.22
N 466 464
Note: For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. Sample sizes are a few observations 
smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
(a) 10 comparison schools in San Andres Sajcabajá were closed the week before data collection, so no attendance 
rate can be computed for these schools.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Nutrition-related indicators, displayed in Table 6, show that most students ate something before coming 
to school. Students in the treatment group are statically significantly more likely to have received 
something to eat at school than in the comparison group, albeit the great majority of students in both 
groups are receiving food at school. Notably, among students receiving food, those in the comparison 
group seem to be receiving more food than in the treatment group. In effect, while students in the 
treatment are more likely to receive a small meal and a drink than those in the comparison group, this is 
compensated with students in the comparison group being more likely to receive a full meal. It is 
important to highlight that, being a baseline survey, SC had not started program activities when the data 
was collected. This explains why the treatment group seems to be receiving less food than students in the 
comparison schools (within the students that reported having received any). It is also possible that 
students in the treatment schools are used to a larger meal, thanks to their participation in the IDEA 
program between 2015 and 2018, and their current meals are perceived as smaller than they really are, 
compared to what students in comparison schools are receiving.
19 Notably, almost all students in both 
treatment and comparison groups, like the school meals. 
Table 6. Nutrition – IE
Treatment Comparison Difference
Did you eat something before coming to school 
today? 0.90 0.90 -0.00
Did you receive food at school yesterday? 0.93 0.86 0.07**
What did you eat? (For students that ate something at school)
A drink only (e.g. atol) 0.08 0.04 0.04
A small meal and a drink 0.46 0.37 0.09
A small meal 0.19 0.13 0.06
Full meal 0.19 0.37 -0.19***
19 While IDEA started in 2014, food delivery started in 2015.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 27 
Treatment Comparison Difference
NR 0.08 0.09 -0.01
Do you like school meals? 0.97 0.96 0.01
N 466 464
Note: For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. Sample sizes are a few observations 
smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
There are also differences in reading skills between treatment and comparison schools. 
Figure 5 shows ELI scores by treatment status for selected subtasks, namely familiar word reading, non￾word reading, listening comprehension, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
20 Across all 
five subtasks, students in the comparison group have higher scores than their counterparts in the treatment 
group, and all differences are statistically significant. This highlights the importance of collecting baseline 
data, so we can control for these historical differences when the midline and endline evaluations are 
conducted. 
Figure 5. Reading skills – IE (%correct / CWPM)
Note: Sample sizes are 455 for the treatment group and 463 for the comparison, although the number of observations 
may be smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data. The differences with respect to the sample sizes 
for the sociodemographic variables correspond to students that did not pass the initial instructions to answer the 
assessment. For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. 
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
On average, reading performance is fairly low for 3rd graders. For familiar word reading students are able 
to read correctly roughly half the words, and the number of non-words per minute read is relatively low 
for both groups (as shown in Table 1, the maximum number of non-words students could read was 70). 
While students read a fairly high number of words per minute (students in the treatment group 
read 51 cwpm and in the control group they read 60.7 cwpm, out of a maximum of 100 words), 
20 Annex II shows results for all 12 ELI’s subtasks, for the main body of the report we focus on these five subtasks because these 
are the most similar to EGRA.
57.3
30.4
46.3
60.7
50.3
48.8
26.2
36.0
51.0
36.4
8.4**
4.1**
10.3**
9.6**
13.9***
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
Comparison Treatment Difference
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 28 
their reading comprehension results are relatively low, for the treatment group students answered 
correctly only 37 percent of the items, while the figure for the comparison group is 50 percent.
In sum, the students survey shows that there are major differences between treatment and comparison 
schools. One of the most apparent is that there are no students who speak Ixil at home in the 
comparison group. There are also differences in reading skills, with students in the comparison 
group clearly outperforming those in the treatment group. Although this is in part because there are 
more households that speak Spanish in the comparison group than in the treatment group, even for 
Spanish speaker households, comparison students outperform treatment students, and the same goes for 
K’iche’ speaking households, as Figure 6 shows.
Figure 6. Reading skills in Spanish and K’iche’ households – IE (%correct / CWPM)
55.2
29.0
49.2
60.2
50.8
59.6
31.5
56.3
65.0
59.2
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
A. Households where Spanish is the most 
spoken language
Treatment Comparison
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 29 
The fact that students in comparison schools outperform students in the treatment group is perhaps 
surprising given there are no major differences in socioeconomic indicators (e.g. number of household 
assets, electricity); moreover, the reading environment in treatment households seems more favorable 
than in comparison households; for example, treatment households are more likely to have books, and 
their members more likely to read to children, than in the comparison group). This suggest there are 
unobservable differences between the treatment and comparisons groups that affect reading skills. We 
will use difference-in-differences estimators and baseline data to isolate and control for these baseline 
differences in the midline and endline analyses.
5.4 Balance
In this section we use propensity score matching methods to show how baseline characteristics between 
treatment and comparison groups can be balanced. More specifically, we estimate the probability of 
program participation for both treatment and comparison students, and match students in the treatment 
group with students in the comparison group with similar participation probabilities. 
We model program participation as a function of students’ age and gender, home reading environment 
indicators (whether there are books in the household and mother’s literacy), whether the student attended 
preschool, whether the student has repeated a year, whether they speak Spanish at home, mother’s 
literacy, household socioeconomic indicators (electricity, cell phone ownership and the asset index), and 
household size. To control for historical differences in reading performance between municipalities, we 
also include the municipal mean score of the 2014 national reading assessments discussed in subsection 
5.2. 
48.2
25.7
28.6
49.3
28.7
56.4
30.1
37.6
58.5
43.1
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
B. Households where K'iche is the most 
spoken language
Treatment Comparison
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 30 
We use the estimated probabilities to construct matching weights. The result is a weighted comparison 
group that approximates the characteristics of the treatment group, on average. Table 7 shows how this 
weighting procedure reduces the differences between treatment and comparison schools for selected 
characteristics. In the first column the differences between the treatment and the “raw” comparison 
groups are displayed, in the second column the differences between the treatment and the weighted 
comparison group are shown. Note that the model is successful in balancing most of the selected
variables. One important exception is language spoken at home. This is because there are no 
communities in the comparison municipalities where Ixil is spoken, so the model cannot really 
balance local languages.
Table 7. PSM results - Balanced characteristics at baseline
Unbalanced 
Difference Matching
Age (years) -0.44*** -0.13
Language spoken at home
Spanish -0.15*** 0.01
K’iche’ -0.23*** 0.13
Ixil 0.27*** 0.28***
Other -0.00 -0.21*
NR 0.06** -0.16**
Attended preschool 0.16*** -0.02
Repeated or repeating a year 0.01 -0.11
Household reading environment
There are books at home 0.14*** -0.01
Household members read with child 0.11*** -0.01
Mother's literacy 0.10** 0.01
Note: Standard errors are clustered at the school level. Matching uses kernel weights (Epanechnikov).
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Figure 7 shows the propensity score distributions by treatment status. It is apparent that there are major 
differences in the distributions of the propensity to participate in the program between treatment and 
comparison groups. However, it is also worth highlighting that the distribution of the comparison group 
almost completely overlaps the treatment’s, indicating that we are able to find counterfactuals for most of 
the students in the treatment group. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 31 
Figure 7. Propensity score by treatment status
5.5 Conclusions
Below we summarize the main baseline findings for the impact evaluation: 
• In terms of socioeconomic indicators, there are no major differences between treatment and 
control groups. 
• There are notable differences between treatment and comparison groups in terms of language 
spoken at home, as there are no students that speak Ixil at home in the comparison group.
• Household environment seems more suitable for learning how to read for the treatment group 
than for the comparison group.
• Most students ate something before coming to school. Similarly, most students ate something at 
school the day before data collection.
• Across all five reading subtasks, students in the comparison have higher scores than their 
counterparts in the treatment group, and all differences are statistically significant. Although this 
is in part because there are more households that speak Spanish in the comparison group than in 
the treatment group, even within Spanish speaking households, comparison students outperform 
treatment students, and the same happens within K’iche’ speaking households.
0 1 2
3
4
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
x
kdensity Treatment kdensity Comparison
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 32 
• Students read 51 cwpm in the treatment group and 60.7 cwpm in the comparison group. However, 
reading comprehension results are relatively low, for the treatment group students answered 
correctly only 37 percent of the items, while the figure for the comparison group is 50 percent.
Finally, matching methods are successful in balancing most of the selected variables. An important 
exception is language spoken at home. This is because there are no communities in the comparison 
municipalities where Ixil is spoken. Hence, the model cannot balance local languages. However, for the 
impact evaluation, we will be able to offset these differences using the baseline data, in the context of the 
DID model.
6. Program evaluation
6.1 Research design overview
We will use a mixed methods approach to address questions on the program’s relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, sustainability and impact. 
Quantitatively, we will analyze data from the student literacy assessments, student attendance, and teacher
responses to the health and nutrition KAP survey to study how these outcomes change over waves of data 
collection. For example, for student reading skills, we will present changes over time of mean scores, the 
fraction of students that read no words, and the fraction of students reaching meaningful literacy 
thresholds (e.g. the target that SC will propose after baseline data is analyzed). We will graphically 
display descriptive statistics by wave of data collection for ease of exposition, as well as present results by 
municipality, to document heterogeneity between the target areas. We will also conduct regression 
analysis to determine how student sociodemographic characteristics, (e.g. age, gender, and parental 
literacy), and home literacy environment factors are correlated with outcomes of interest. 
Alongside the quantitative analysis, we will conduct FGDs with parents and KIIs with teachers, school 
principals, PTA members, LENS staff, local producers and government officials to add depth and nuance 
in explaining changes we see in the quantitative outcome measures. Protocols for FGDs and KIIs for each 
group will follow the program evaluation questions. Each protocol will be structured such that qualitative 
and quantitative data can be triangulated to provide insights to answer the different research questions. 
The instruments will be administered in Spanish and recorded with the respondent’s permission to collect 
as detailed information as possible. The audio recordings will then be transcribed for analysis.
Qualitative analysis will take a multi-step approach. First, we will use a phenomenological analysis to 
identify key themes emerging from the KIIs and FGDs. Each key theme will align with specific aspects of 
the intervention, and the research questions. The key themes and evaluation questions that emerge will be 
used to develop a code frame, which will anchor the qualitative analysis, in which each code is a pre￾determined area of interest. The phenomenological approach helps identify topics that come up most 
frequently, and topics that were important to research participants, but not necessarily included in the 
protocols. We will then use a grounded theory approach to triangulate data across sources, identify 
explanations for the phenomena observed, and the relationships between these phenomena. We will use 
qualitative analysis software, such as NVivo, to code data from each transcript along the themes emerging
from the research questions and pre-determined key themes, identifying patterns and underlying causes of
the emergence of observed themes.
6.2 Sample and data collection
For the baseline we collected data in 72 schools in the municipalities of Cunén, Chajul, Cotzal, Uspantán, 
Nebaj and Sacapulas. Fourteen of these 72 schools are also part of the treatment group of the impact 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 33 
evaluation. To ensure that we survey ten pilot program schools, we stratified the 270 LENS schools by 
municipality and pilot status, for a total of 12 strata.21 We sampled schools in proportion to the total 
number of schools in each strata. Table 8 shows the total number of schools in each municipality, and the 
number and fraction of sampled schools. In all municipalities roughly 26 percent of schools were sampled 
(72/270 = 0.266), except for Chajul and Uspantán, because four program evaluation schools in Uspantán 
refused to participate in the study, and were replaced using schools from Chajul. In addition, one school 
in Cunén that also refused participation was replaced with another school from the same municipality.22
The main reasons for these refusals were related to complaints about the school feeding program, in 
particular concerns about the appropriateness of the menus. 
Table 8. Number of samples schools by municipality
Student survey
Total Sampled Fraction sampled
Chajul 40 15 0.38
Cotzal 26 7 0.27
Cunén 51 13 0.25
Nebaj 67 18 0.27
Sacapulas 37 10 0.27
Uspantán 49 9 0.18
Total 270 72
In schools with more than one 3rd grade classroom, enumerators selected one class randomly. Similar to 
the impact evaluation, the target was to survey ten 3rd grade students (five girls and five boys) and their 
teacher in each sampled school. However, a number of schools were too small so fewer than ten students 
were surveyed. To palliate overall sample reduction, in some large schools more than ten students were 
surveyed. In total 688 students in 72 schools were surveyed for the program evaluation. In 68 of these 72 
schools we surveyed one 3rd grade teacher. In the remaining four schools it was not possible to survey the 
teacher either because she or he was absent or refused to participate. Additional teacher surveys were 
conducted in four replacement schools so the sample for the teacher survey is also 72.23
To supplement the quantitative data, we also conducted ten FGD with parents, 28 KIIs with 3rd grade 
teachers, and ten KIIs with local producers.
Finally, we implemented a school observation checklist in 262 program schools at baseline, to record 
availability of food storage and manipulation facilities and equipment, among other schools’ 
characteristics. A summary of all the qualitative data collected for the Program Evaluation is presented 
below in Table 9. 
Table 9. Program Evaluation Data Collection
Data Collection Number of Schools Total Participants
Student Assessment 72 688
21 Four schools were dropped because we could not find them in the Ministry of Education data sets. 
22 The reason we replaced the refusals from Uspantán with schools from a different municipality was because these refusals, 
rather than being school-specific, were driven by the teachers’ union and, as such, was a municipality-level problem. As a result, 
we opted to use replacements from Chajul, a different municipality. 
23 Specifically, two schools in Uspantán were replaced with one in Chajul and one in Cotzal, one school in Sacapulas was 
replaced with another school in Sacapulas, and one school in Cunén was replaced with another school in Cunén.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 34 
Data Collection Number of Schools Total Participants
Parent FGD - 111
Teacher KII 28 28
Local Producer KII - 10
School Observation 262 -
6.3 Baseline results
In this section we present baseline findings for the program evaluation. First, we discuss students’
background and reading skills, drawing from the analysis of the student survey, including the reading 
assessment, as well as focus groups discussions with parents. Second, we analyze teachers’ responses, 
both to the KAP instruments and the KIIs. Third, we present the results of the school observations. Lastly, 
we discuss findings of the interviews with local producers.
Student background and reading skills
Characteristics by Sex
Table 10 shows descriptive statistics by students’ sex. All descriptive statistics use sampling weights, so 
the figures approximate the results for students in all 270 schools from which the 72 schools were 
sampled. Students are 9.6 years old, on average. Girls are seven percentage points more likely to speak 
Spanish at home than boys. Differences between girls and boys for other languages are small and not 
significant. About four fifths of the sample attended preschool, and half the students have repeated or are 
repeating a year. Attendance rate during the previous week was 96 percent. 
There are no major differences in households’ reading environment by students’ sex. There are books in 
seventy-one percent of the households. Most of these books are in Spanish.24 About half the students said 
someone reads with them at home, 61 percent of students’ mothers are literate and for students’ fathers 
this fraction is 85 percent. 
We do not find major differences in socioeconomic indicators between households of girls and boys. 
Almost 80 percent of households have electricity, and in most households someone owns a cell phone. 
Results for the asset index show that students’ households own, on average, 7.6 assets. Although the 
difference between girls and boys for the asset index is statically significant, this difference is very small. 
Table 10. Sociodemographic characteristics by students’ sex – PE
Males Females Difference
Age (years) 9.7 9.6 0.12
Language spoken at home
Spanish 0.29 0.36 -0.07**
K’iche’ 0.29 0.27 0.02
Ixil 0.31 0.30 0.00
Other 0.04 0.04 -0.00
NR 0.11 0.08 0.03
Attended preschool 0.77 0.79 0.02
Repeated or repeating a year 0.51 0.50 0.01
24 For example, 80 percent of the students that have children’s books at home said they have books in Spanish, 12 percent said 
K’iche and 12 percent Ixil.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 35 
Males Females Difference
Attendance last week (fraction) 0.96 0.97 0
Household reading environment
There are books at home 0.71 0.71 -0.01
Household members read with child 0.51 0.55 -0.04
Mother's literacy 0.61 0.60 0.01
Father's literacy 0.81 0.88 -0.07*
Socioeconomic indicators
Household has electricity 0.79 0.81 -0.02
Household owns a cellphone 0.94 0.96 -0.02
Asset index (number of items) 7.80 7.41 0.39*
N 340 348
Notes: For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. Sample sizes are a few observations 
smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Table 11 shows results for nutrition-related indicators. Most students ate something before coming to 
school. During focus group discussions the majority of parents reported their children go to school having 
eaten breakfast, but there were some who mentioned that the schools sometimes have breakfast and 
sometimes have a snack (refacción), so they are not sure whether their child needs to eat before school or 
not, because each day is different. This suggests that parents should be better informed by the school, 
on what meals children are going to receive during the school day. 
Around 90 percent of students ate something at school the day before data collection. Of the students who
received a meal the day before data collection, only 16-17 percent received a full meal, and about 45
percent received a small meal and a drink. Ninety-six percent of the boys and 98 percent of the girls said 
that they like the meals they receive in school. 
Table 11. Nutrition by students’ sex – PE
Males Females Difference
Did you eat something before coming to school 
today? 0.89 0.93 -0.04
Did you receive food at school yesterday? 0.90 0.89 0.01
What did you eat?
A drink only (e.g. atol) 0.08 0.08 0.00
A small meal and a drink 0.46 0.45 0.00
A small meal 0.21 0.20 0.02
Full meal 0.16 0.17 -0.01
NR 0.09 0.10 -0.01
Do you like school meals? 0.96 0.98 -0.02
N 340 348
Note: For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. Sample sizes are a few observations 
smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 36 
Although almost all students reported satisfaction with the school meals, the parent focus groups revealed 
that their views were less positive. In the majority of the focus groups, 8 of 10, participants stated that 
their children are not satisfied with the school meals. The two main reasons for this perception were (1) 
repetition of meals and (2) quality of the cooked food. One female parent from a K’iche’ predominant 
municipality said, “There have been many issues at the school because they repeat the [school meal] a lot. 
I’ve noticed that in multiple classrooms the food is wasted, it should not be like that. One should be 
conscious of what the children like and if possible not repeat the meals so much.” Another female parent 
from an Ixil predominant municipality qualified the issue by saying, “They like [the school meals], but 
they get bored. They like it! Maybe once or twice a week they get bored maybe every day.” For other 
parents, the main concern was quality of the cooked food. Many parents pointed out that some of the food 
served to their children was not prepared properly. One female parent mentioned that “because of the way 
it’s cooked, sometimes the atol is undercooked or poorly prepared”. The fact that students have much 
more favorable views on the quality of the provided meals could be the product of social desirability bias.
When asked how school meals can be improved, many parents suggested diversifying school meals.
Respondents were also specifically asked how local products can be incorporated to diversify school 
meals. All but one focus group mentioned local food items that can be incorporated, including fruits and 
vegetables. When asked about seasonality, focus group respondents mentioned that fruits tended to be 
available seasonally only, but that vegetables and herbs were available year-round. 
On a related note, when asked what challenges a school meal program like LENS could face, parents 
from four of the focus groups pointed to local acceptance or agreement over the appropriateness of the 
meals as a possible challenge.25 One female parent stated a challenge could be that, “the community does 
not accept the benefits of the program and that [the program] should know our needs.” The majority of 
the parents believed the program would be a benefit to the students for a variety of reasons, including 
improvements on nutrition, health, and support in the school.
Figure 8 shows results for selected reading skills by gender. Albeit females have higher scores than males 
across three of the five subtasks, the differences are small and not statistically significant. 
25 The majority of parents were not familiar with the LENS program (albeit some did recognize the Save the Children’s name), so 
enumerators gave a brief explanation so parents could answer program-related questions.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 37 
Figure 8. Reading skills by students’ sex – PE
Note: Sample sizes are 332 for males and 336 for females, although the number of observations may be smaller for 
some items due to item-specific missing data. The differences with respect to the sample sizes for the 
sociodemographic variables correspond to students that did not pass the initial instructions to answer the assessment.
For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level.* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Overall, there are no major differences by sex, across sociodemographic characteristics or reading skills 
in the program evaluation schools.
Characteristics by Municipality
Table 12 shows descriptive statistics by municipality. In the first three columns the results for the three 
municipalities with Ixil communities, namely Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj, are displayed. The second three 
columns show results where K’iche’ is the predominant local language, these are Cunén, Sacapulas and 
Uspantán. Across all six municipalities, there are no major differences in students’ age or sex. 
In Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj about a fourth students speak Spanish at home. While in these three 
municipalities there are students that speak K’iche’ at home, especially in Cotzal, Ixil is the predominant 
local language. Of the three municipalities where there are no Ixil communities, in Cunén roughly two 
thirds of the students speak K’iche’ at home, while in Sacapulas and Uspantán only about a third speak 
K’iche’. 
Although for most variables there are no clear differences between Ixil and the K’iche’ municipalities, 
there are a few patterns that are worth highlighting. First, students in Ixil municipalities are more likely to 
have repeated a year than students in K’iche’ municipalities. Also, mothers in K’iche’ municipalities are 
more likely to be literate than in Ixil municipalities. Moreover, households in K’iche’ municipalities are 
more likely to have electricity and have more household assets, than households in the Ixil municipalities.
These differences suggest that students in Ixil municipalities come from more disadvantaged 
backgrounds than students in K’iche’ municipalities.
51.7
28.0
38.1
52.9
40.5
52.0
27.7
39.5
54.5
39.2
0.3
-0.3
1.4
1.6
-1.3
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
Males Females Difference
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 38 
Table 12. Sociodemographic characteristics by municipality – PE
Ixil K’iche’
Chajul Cotzal Nebaj Cunén Sacapulas Uspantán
Male 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.52 0.50
Age (years) 9.6 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.3 9.6
Language spoken at home
Spanish 0.19 0.36 0.23 0.34 0.53 0.44
K’iche’ 0.09 0.24 0.01 0.62 0.39 0.37
Ixil 0.51 0.41 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.13
NR 0.23 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.11
Attended preschool 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.65 0.79 0.85
Repeated or repeating a year 0.62 0.57 0.58 0.44 0.32 0.41
Attendance last week (fraction) 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.99
Household reading environment
There are books at home 0.78 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.72 0.71
Household members read with child 0.42 0.73 0.44 0.62 0.48 0.48
Mother's literacy 0.58 0.54 0.53 0.69 0.75 0.61
Father's literacy 0.83 0.86 0.82 0.94 0.87 0.64
Socioeconomic indicators
Household has electricity 0.66 0.68 0.83 0.82 0.89 0.91
Household owns a cellphone 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97
Asset index (number of items) 7.02 6.69 7.35 8.04 8.43 8.27
N 141 73 175 138 83 78
Note: Sample sizes are a few observations smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
Table 13 shows nutrition indicators by municipality. There are no major differences in the likelihood that 
students eat something before going to school. Regarding eating something at school, in Chajul only 75
percent of students said they ate something at school the previous day, while in the other five 
municipalities this proportion is roughly 90 percent. It is also worth highlighting that students in K’iche’
municipalities are more likely to receive a full meal than students in Ixil municipalities.
Table 13. Nutrition by municipality – PE
Ixil K’iche’
Chajul Cotzal Nebaj Cunén Sacapulas Uspantán
Did you eat something before coming to 
school today? 0.92 0.96 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.87
Did you receive food at school yesterday? 0.75 0.89 0.96 0.88 0.97 0.90
What did you eat?
A drink only (e.g. atol) 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.15
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 39 
Ixil K’iche’
Chajul Cotzal Nebaj Cunén Sacapulas Uspantán
A small meal and a drink 0.33 0.33 0.55 0.46 0.61 0.35
A small meal 0.21 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.20
Full meal 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.23
NR 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.07
Do you like school meals? 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99
N 141 73 175 138 83 78
Note: Sample sizes are a few observations smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
Figure 9 shows reading skills scores by municipality. Panel A shows results for the three Ixil 
municipalities. Across all five subtasks Cotzal has the highest average scores, followed by Nebaj and 
Chajul. There are major disparities in reading skill across these three municipalities. For example, while 
students in Cotzal read, on average, 60.5 cwpm, in Chajul this figure is only 37.4 cwpm. Interestingly, 
despite the fact that students, especially in Cotzal, are able to read a fair amount of words per minute, 
their reading comprehension level is still relatively low; on average, they are only able to answer 44 
percent of the questions correctly. Panel B shows results for K’iche’ municipalities. Uspantán has the 
highest average scores across all subtasks. Sacapulas outperforms Cunén in non-word reading and 
listening and reading comprehension, while the opposite pattern is observed for familiar word reading and 
oral reading fluency.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 40 
Figure 9. Reading skills by municipality – PE
Note: Total sample size is 668, although the number of observations may be smaller for some items due to item￾specific missing data.
57.2
32.4
43.4
60.5
43.7
51.1
28.0
42.0
52.9
42.6
41.1
21.9
24.7
38.0
24.3
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
A. Ixil predominant municipalities
Cotzal Nebaj Chajul
58.7
30.4
51.2
63.0
56.2
47.3
27.6
44.9
48.5
46.6
53.6
26.8
31.9
55.9
33.6
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct
Non-Word Reading - CWPM
Listening Comprehension - % Correct
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM
Reading Comprehension - % Correct
B. K'iche predominant municipalities
Uspantán Sacapulas Cunén
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 41 
It is interesting that despite the fact that students read a fair amount of words per minute, especially in 
municipalities like Uspantán and Cotzal, their reading comprehension scores are quite low. This could 
imply that students need to read faster to achieve acceptable levels of reading comprehension. Figure 10
shows average oral reading fluency by the number of reading comprehension questions correctly 
answered. It shows that students who answered 9-11 questions correctly read, on average, 77 words 
per minute, many more than the municipality-averages shown in Figure 9. Annex III shows this figure
by language most spoken at home. Although the overall patterns are consistent with what is shown in 
Figure 9, for K’iche’ and Ixil the slope is less steep because there are so few students that answered 
correctly more than eight reading comprehension questions.
Figure 10. Average reading fluency by number of reading comprehension questions correctly 
answered.
To explore the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and reading skills, we display 
bivariate regressions results between reading skills and selected socio-demographic characteristics in 
Table 14. Although all the correlations for males are negative (meaning that girls outperform boys), none 
of the coefficients are statically significant. For age, we ran regressions where the dependent variables are 
the different reading scores, and the covariates are dummy variables for the different ages; the omitted
category is eight years, so coefficients should be interpreted as a function of the result for 8 years old
students. All the age coefficients are negative; moreover, for most reading skills the coefficients increase 
with age in absolute value. This indicates that age and reading skills are negatively correlated. This 
could be because struggling students are more likely to repeat years, so the older a 3rd grader is, the lower 
her/his reading achievement would be. 
Speaking Spanish at home is positively correlated with reading skills; this is hardly surprising as the 
reading assessment was conducted in Spanish. Similarly, having attended preschool is positively 
correlated with all reading skills. Repeating one or more years is negatively correlated with reading 
31
52
59
68
77
0
20
40
60
80
Correct Words Per Minute
(ORF Sub-Task)
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-11
Reading Comprehension Raw Score
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 42 
skills. This reflects the same pattern found between age and reading skills, and suggests that repeating a 
year is not helping students catch up with students who have not repeated a year, at least not completely. 
Although the correlations between reading skills and having books at home is positive across all subtasks, 
none of the coefficients are statically significant, suggesting the relationship between having books at 
home and reading skill is weak at best. Other household indicators, like mother’s literacy and number of 
household assets, are more clearly correlated with reading skills. Both of the variables are positively 
correlated with reading skills, and the coefficients are significant across all specifications. Finally, there is 
no clear relationship between having eaten something before coming to school and reading skills. The 
coefficients are negative for four of the five subtasks, but the parameters is significant only for listening 
comprehension.
Baseline data collected for the evaluation of IDEA confirms some of these results. In particular, IDEA 
data also shows that grade repetition is also negatively correlated with reading skills, girls (weakly) 
outperform boys in reading skills, and socioeconomic status (measured for IDEA as an index that 
combines type of home, household size, household amenities/possessions) is positively correlated with 
reading skills, just as the household asset index below in Table 14 is positively correlated with reading 
skills.26
Table 14. Correlations between reading skills and sociodemographic characteristics
Familiar Word 
Reading % 
Correct
Non-Word 
Reading - 
CWPM
Listening 
Comprehension 
- % Correct
Oral Reading 
Fluency - 
CWPM
Reading 
Comprehension 
- % Correct
Male -2.85 -0.85 -1.68 -3.29 -0.62 
Age
9 yo -3.65 -1.69 -3.47 -4.42 -7.33 
10 yo -8.51 * -3.61 -13.33 ** -10.98 ** -17.52 ***
11 yo -12.80 ** -5.62 * -12.28 * -15.46 *** -18.05 **
12 yo -13.86 ** -4.57 -7.51 -20.55 *** -18.09 **
13+ yo -29.64 *** -16.15 *** -21.01 *** -31.63 *** -31.33 ***
Spanish is native language 12.40 *** 6.05 *** 27.37 *** 17.27 *** 27.98 ***
Attended Any Pre-School 6.67 ** 3.79 ** 11.67 *** 9.20 ** 13.69 ***
Ever failed a grade and had to repeat -11.48 *** -5.74 *** -10.57 *** -14.22 *** -14.55 ***
Are there books in your house? 1.79 0.85 1.21 2.56 2.24 
Literate Mother = YES 6.19 ** 3.53 ** 7.04 ** 8.09 *** 8.38 ***
Household Asset Index 
(0=Poorest,13=Richest) 1.43 *** 0.74 *** 1.87 *** 2.15 *** 1.91 ***
# of People in Household 0.09 -0.05 0.09 -0.16 -0.06 
Ate Before School Today = YES 1.14 -0.44 -8.24 * -1.69 -6.31 
Note: For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level. 
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Teachers’ surveys and interviews
Table 15 shows sociodemographic characteristics for the 72 surveyed teachers. Teachers are, on average, 
37 years old and roughly half of them are males. They have an average of 11 years of experience teaching 
in primary schools. For a fourth of teachers Spanish is the mother tongue, for 19 percent it is K’iche’, for 
46 percent it is Ixil, for 3 percent Uspanteco and for ten percent Sacapulteco. The prevalence of Ixil is 
26 See Figure 15, Table C1 and Figure 17, respectively, in the Baseline report. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 43 
relatively higher because we surveyed more schools in municipalities where the predominant local 
language is Ixil (41) than in municipalities where the predominant local language is K’iche’ (31). 
Teachers have relatively small classrooms, with an average of 18 students per classroom. Finally, teachers 
missed, on average, almost one day of class the week before data collection, which constitutes a relatively 
high absenteeism rate of 18 percent.
Table 15. Teachers’ characteristics
Mean
Age (years) 36.9
Male 0.49
Years of experience (primary school) 11.4
Mother tongue
Spanish 0.25
K’iche’ 0.19
Ixil 0.46
Uspanteco 0.03
Sacapulteco 0.10
Language(s) used in class
Spanish 0.93
K’iche’ 0.25
Ixil 0.42
Uspanteco 0
Sacapulteco 0.04
Education level
Primary level teaching certificate for urban areas ( MEPU ) 0.21
Primary level teaching certificate for rural and bilingual areas (MEPR ) 0.19
Secondary level teaching certificate 0.31
Some college 0.06
Technical degree 0.04
Professional degree 0.08
Other 0.11
Number of students in classroom 18.05
Number of school days missed last week 0.90
N 72
Note: Sample sizes are a few observations smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data.
The survey also asked teachers which language or languages they use in class. We allowed for multiple 
responses in order to have a better picture of how teachers communicate in the classroom. While most 
teachers use Spanish in class, local languages are also prevalent. As Figure 11 shows, in the three K’iche’
municipalities, 94 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 52 percent use K’iche’, six percent use Uspanteco 
and 16 percent use Sacapulteco. In Ixil municipalities, 93 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 73 percent 
use Ixil and five percent use K’iche’. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 44 
Figure 11. Language used in class, by local language
Teachers’ previous exposure to la Taza Escolar and knowledge of food groups
Given that the predominantly carbohydrate-based diets in the Western Highlands are associated with the 
rising prevalence of overweight, diabetes and other chronic diseases,
27 LENS will support teachers to 
recognize and promote a nutritionally balanced diet for students. La Taza Escolar (Student Cup) (Figure 
12) is a graphical representation of foods and food groups, similar to the US food pyramid and 
Guatemala’s La Olla Familiar (Family Pot). Based on the National Food Guidelines (Guias Alimentarias 
Nacionales), la Taza Escolar has been embraced by MINEDUC to guide the selection of diverse foods to 
assure nutritionally balanced school meals.
Figure 12. La Taza Escolar
To measure whether teachers have prior exposure to the Taza Escolar graphic, we showed teachers 
Figure 12 and asked if they had seen it before. The majority of teachers (70 percent) reported having seen 
27 Ricardo Uauy, Cecilia Albala, Juliana Kain, Obesity Trends in Latin America: Transiting from Under- to Overweight, The 
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 131, Issue 3, March 2001, Pages 893S–899S, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.3.893S
0.94 0.93
0.52
0.05
0.00
0.73
0.06
0.00
0.19
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
K'iche is most prevalent local language
(N=31)
Ixil is most prevalent local language
(N=41)
Spanish K'iche Ixil Uspanteco Sacapulteco
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 45 
the Taza Escolar image prior to the survey. Figure 13 presents the breakdown of where teachers recalled 
seeing la Taza Escolar image for the first time. Among the teachers who had previously seen the image, 
28.2 percent reported seeing it first in a book or during the teacher’s own studies, while nearly a quarter 
(26 percent) said they saw it in a MINEDUC training or materials. Thirteen percent reported seeing it 
through Save the Children activities or materials. The remaining were split between having seen it in an 
unspecified training (10 percent) and other/don’t know (23 percent).
Figure 13. Where teachers saw the image for the first time
Based on la Taza Escolar, MINEDUC developed a set of school menus with each meal composed of 
foods from different “levels” of the Taza Escolar, representing different food groups. To gauge teachers’ 
familiarity with the concept that school meals should include a diversity of food groups, we asked
teachers to select the best example of a school lunch from among several options. Figure 14 shows that 59 
percent correctly selected a bean and corn tamale with cheese and sauce, the one meal option that 
included several food groups and was specifically promoted in the MINEDUC school meal menu. This 
meal contrasted with the other options, including a hot oatmeal drink, a corn tortilla with avocado or 
spaghetti soup, which do not include several food groups. The fact that nearly half of teachers did not 
select the balanced meal suggests that even teachers who have seen la Taza Escolar lack understanding of 
how la Taza Escolar can be used to select a nutritionally complete meal for students. This implies there 
is an opportunity for LENS to provide teachers with nutrition education about balanced meals 
composed of several food groups depicted by la Taza Escolar.
25.6
12.8
10.3
28.2
23.1
0
10
20
30
Percentage of Teachers (%)
Ministry of Education
Training or Materials
Save the
Children
Other Training
or Unspecified
Training
Book or
Teachers Own
Studies
Other / 
Dont Know
Where did you first see the Taza Escolar?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 46 
Figure 14. Teachers’ selection of best school lunch
Teachers were asked to consider whether it is true or false that a child with a daily diet of oatmeal, corn 
flakes, tortilla with beans and rice for lunch and dinner is well-nourished. Figure 15 shows that only 45 
percent of teachers correctly said “false”, suggesting that there are gaps in teachers’ nutritional 
knowledge. 
11.8
8.8
58.8
14.7
5.9
0
20
40
60
Percentage of Respondents
Oatmeal Tortilla
with Avocado
Bean Tamale
w/ Cheese
& Sauce
Noodle
Soup
None
of the
Above
What is the Best Example of a School Lunch?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 47 
Figure 15. Teachers’ belief that a typical carbohydrate-based diet is nutritious
Given that cereals, grains and tubers, such as maize, pasta, rice, potatoes and bread are predominant in the 
diets of the Western Highlands,28 the baseline sought to understand teachers’ knowledge of the function 
of different food groups, as a crucial aspect for promoting the need to consume foods from each food 
group to achieve a nutritionally balanced diet. Through a set of three questions, teachers were asked to 
identify which foods or food group: 1. primarily contributes to giving children energy for physical 
activity; 2. primarily helps children grow; and 3. primarily protects from illness due to its high quantity of 
vitamins, minerals and fiber? 
Teachers’ responses to question 2 – Which foods help children grow? - are shown in 
Figure 16. The correct options are animal protein, and beans and soya protein. Fifty-eight percent of 
teachers correctly identified animal protein (i.e. milk, meat, eggs and other animal source foods) as 
helping children grow, while only 18 percent recognized that the legumes beans, soy and fava/broad 
beans are also growth foods. More than half the teachers (58 percent) incorrectly selected leafy greens, 
vegetables and fruit. Overall, 59 percent of teachers selected at least one correct response, and 17 percent 
mentioned both correct responses.
28 FANTA. 2013. Summary Report: Development of Evidence-Based Dietary Recommendations for Children, Pregnant Women, 
and Lactating Women Living in the Western Highlands in Guatemala. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
45.1
43.7
9.9
1.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage of Respondents
False True Not Sure No response
Daily Diet of Oatmeal, Cornflakes, and
Tortilla with Beans & Rice is Nutritious
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 48 
Figure 16. Foods that help children grow according to teachers
Notably, a greater percentage of teachers recognize animal source foods as important for growth, while 
few recognize the importance of legumes. This is an important gap in teacher’s knowledge about growth 
foods, considering that animal protein is scarce in the diets of the Western Highland, because of its 
relatively high cost and the challenges due to lack of refrigeration and consistent market access.29
Increasing the consumption of animal protein and the micronutrients it contains (e.g. iron, zinc and 
vitamin B12) is a priority to improve the quality of diets in the Western Highlands and address stunting.30
However, plant-based protein sources, particularly legumes, such as black beans, fava beans and soy 
(particularly in Incaparina fortified blended flour or Protemás Textured Soy Protein) are important 
sources of protein that are more accessible and affordable for families in the Western Highlands.31 LENS 
has the opportunity to increase teachers’ understanding and promotion of growth foods, 
particularly plant-based protein sources, in combination with lower-cost animal protein, such as 
eggs, or small animals like chicken. 
Teachers were also asked which food group principally provides energy to children for physical activity. 
As Figure 17 shows, only 18 percent of teachers correctly selected cereals, grains and tubers, the only 
correct answer provided. Thirty-two percent selected animal protein, and almost half (45 percent) selected 
herbs, vegetables and fruits, which in fact provide the least energy. As teachers were not familiar with 
foods that primarily provide energy, they lack the information to teach children that typical diets in 
Quiche commonly provide an overabundance of energy foods (i.e. carbohydrates). LENS could help 
29 FANTA. 2015. Validation of Food-Based Recommendations Developed using Optifood for Groups at Nutritional Risk in the 
Western Highlands of Guatemala. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
30 FANTA. 2015. Technical Brief: Reducing Stunting in the Western Highlands of Guatemala: Promoting the Consumption of 
Animal-Source Food to Optimize the Diets of Women and Young Children. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA
31 FANTA. 2015. Validation of Food-Based Recommendations Developed using Optifood for Groups at Nutritional Risk in the 
Western Highlands of Guatemala. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
57.7
35.2
57.7
18.3
11.3
0.0
0
20
40
60
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
Animal
Protein
Cereals,
Grains, and
Tubers
Herbs,
Vegetables,
and Fruits
Beans
and Soya
Protein
Fats None of
the Above
Which foods help children grow?
Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 49 
teachers and students understand this imbalance in the typical diet, and give teachers the tools to 
promote foods that support growth (i.e. protein foods) and protection from illness (i.e. fruits, leafy 
greens and other vegetables).
Figure 17. Foods that give children energy, according to teachers
Teachers were also asked which foods protect children against sickness, due to their high content of 
vitamins, minerals and fiber. 
Figure 18 shows that two-thirds of teachers (64 percent) selected leafy greens, vegetables and fruit, the 
only correct answer. The most common incorrect response was milk, meat, eggs and other animal source 
foods, selected by almost a quarter of teachers. As the majority of teachers recognize the nutritional 
value of leafy greens, vegetables and fruit, LENS can build on this knowledge base by helping 
teachers more clearly differentiate the contribution of different food groups. For leafy greens, 
vegetables and fruit, LENS may highlight locally available foods, including foods grown in school 
gardens.
32.4
18.3
45.1
1.4 1.4 1.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
Animal
Protein
Cereals,
Grains, and
Tubers
Herbs,
Vegetables,
and Fruits
Beans
and Soya
Protein
Fats None of
the Above
Which foods give children energy?
Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 50 
Figure 18. Foods that protect children from illnesses, according to teachers
School hygiene
To assess teachers’ knowledge of the importance of handwashing, the survey asked, without providing 
options, when it was important for children to wash their hands. According to the Global Handwashing 
Partnership, two critical times for handwashing have the greatest documented impact on child health, 
including: 1) after contact with feces (such as after using the toilet or changing diapers) and 2) before 
contact with food (such as eating or preparing food).32 In addition, the Centers for Disease Control 
promotes handwashing after sneezing, coughing or blowing one’s nose and after contact with animals, 
garbage or other dirty items. 
Figure 19 shows that 91.5 percent of teachers mentioned before eating, while only around half (53 
percent) mentioned after using the latrine or toilet. Given that schools rely on teachers to define, 
encourage and enforce handwashing routines at school, these findings indicate that teachers require 
more support to clarify the priority moments for handwashing, possibly through games or other 
methods that help them visualize the critical pathways for disease, and which they can then share with 
their students.
32 https://globalhandwashing.org/about-handwashing/faqs/#when 
22.9
10.0
64.3
1.4 1.4
0
20
40
60
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
Animal
Protein
Cereal,
Grains,
and Tubers
Leafy Greens,
Vegetables,
and Fruit
Beans,
Soy Meat,
and Broad Beans
None
Which Type of Food Protects Children From Diseases?
Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 51 
Figure 19. Moments when students should wash their hands
In Key Informant Interviews (KII), all interviewed teachers spoke to the importance of cleanliness and 
hygiene, and most teachers specifically mentioned handwashing. More than half of the teachers had 
previously received training on school hygiene, including several who had attended trainings led by Save 
the Children. Teachers commonly mentioned that proper handwashing techniques were covered in the 
trainings and believed it was important that students practice “handwashing before and after going to the 
bathroom, before and after eating.”
The teachers KAP survey also asked which moments in the day their students washed their hands at 
school the day prior to the survey. Again, options were not provided to the teachers. 
Figure 20 shows that 94 percent of teachers said their students washed hands before eating, but a much 
lower percentage said students washed their hands after using the bathroom (45 percent) or touching 
something dirty (20 percent). It is notable that there is both high teacher awareness of handwashing before 
eating and high reported student handwashing before eating. Qualitative data indicate that some teachers 
have classroom routines for all students to line up to wash hands before eating, which facilitates the 
practice and teacher’s verification. Also, students may visit the restroom individually during class, so 
teachers do not see whether they washed their hands or not. In order to promote handwashing, it may 
be helpful for LENS to focus on the area of greatest apparent deficit (handwashing after using the 
latrine) and solicit suggestions from students and teachers about how to verify handwashing, such as 
having a buddy system for handwashing, or having students mark on a chart whether they washed hands 
or not, (and perhaps whether soap and water were available). Regarding handwashing after sneezing, 
coughing or blowing one’s nose, although these moments are not fecal-oral pathways, is it an important 
pathway for transmitting infections in the classroom, and could be emphasized as a way of limiting 
transmission of other illnesses.
91.5
14.1
53.5
29.6
4.2
1.4 1.4
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage of Teachers Who
Mentioned Response Option (%)
Before
Eating
Before
Cooking
After
Using the
Restroom
After Touching
Something
Dirty
After
Sneezing
After
Changing
Diapers
No
Response / 
Dont Know
Important Moments for Handwashing
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 52 
Figure 20. Moments when students washed their hands the day before data collection (as reported 
by the teacher)
 
Nearly all teachers interviewed during KIIs stated they try to promote good hygiene habits, including 
handwashing, among their students. When asked how they promote good hygiene practices in the 
classroom, teachers pointed to various strategies they use to impart good hygiene practices to their 
students, such as using a chart to track students’ progress or creating games to encourage students. 
Several respondents explained they require their students to practice washing their hands daily or several 
times a day. One teacher said they teach “that they have to do [handwashing] every time before and after 
going to the bathroom, then before consuming the food. I tell them they are going to wash their hands, 
because there are children who touch all kinds of things, and at the time of the snack… not knowing how 
many things they have touched, I say, you have to wash your hands to be able to eat the snack.”
Given the high prevalence of tooth decay among Guatemalan children,33 LENS intends to promote oral 
hygiene in the treatment schools, specifically the practice of students brushing teeth at school with a 
fluoride toothpaste. Brushing teeth with a fluoride toothpaste has been shown to reduce oral cavities.34
About a third of teachers (37 percent) reported that their students brushed their teeth at school yesterday 
(or on the last day of school). The fact that only about a third of teachers reported that their children 
brushed their teeth at school suggests that this practice is not yet well-established. LENS may choose 
to explore the barriers that prevent teachers from having a class brush their teeth, particularly since 
brushing their teeth requires each child to have a toothbrush and toothpaste.
During KIIs several teachers said they took steps to promote tooth brushing among their students, and to 
assure that students brushed their teeth. During an interview, one teacher commented, “what we do in the 
morning is ask them if they brushed their teeth. If they have not brushed their teeth we take the children to 
33 Archila, Luis & D Bartizek, Robert & W Gerlach, Robert & A Jacobs, Steven & Biesbrock, Aaron. (2003). Dental Caries in 
School-Age Children Residing in Five Guatemalan Communities. The Journal of clinical dentistry. 14. 53-8.
34 O'Mullane DM, Baez RJ, Jones S, et al. Fluoride and Oral Health. Community Dent Health. 2016;33(2):69-99. 
94.4
5.6
45.1
19.7
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers Whose
Students Washed Their Hands (%)
Before
Eating
Before
Cooking
After
Using the
Restroom
After Touching
Something
Dirty
After
Sneezing
Moments Students Washed Their Hands Yesterday
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 53 
brush them.” A few teachers mentioned they have their students bring a toothbrush to school with them or 
keep one in the classroom.
Nutritional challenges relevant to schoolchildren 
Despite declines in anemia rates, child anemia remains a serious risk to children’s growth and 
development in Quiche, affecting 28 percent of children aged 6-59 months old, according to the most 
recent 2014-2015 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). Anemia’s detrimental consequences on 
cognitive development and school outcomes are well-documented.35 36 Figure 21 summarizes results for 
three indicators on awareness of child anemia. First, 93 percent of teachers indicated that they were in 
agreement with the statement that “Anemia due to lack of iron is a serious condition in children.” This
indicates a high level of teacher awareness of the seriousness of child anemia, providing a strong base 
for further teacher education, as other baseline questions, discussed below, indicate lower teacher 
knowledge of specific actions needed to prevent anemia. Figure 21 also shows that 94 percent of 
respondents correctly responded “true” to the statement that signs of anemia include tiredness, paleness 
and learning difficulties. Lastly, 80 percent of respondents correctly marked “true” to the statement that 
children can get anemia if their diets lack foods containing iron or are fortified with iron. Although a high 
percentage of teachers apparently are aware of the need for iron in the diet, teachers’ responses to other 
baseline questions, presented below, identify gaps in knowledge about which foods provide iron.
Figure 21. Awareness of child anemia (%)
35 Black, R.E., et al. (2008). Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The 
Lancet Maternal and Child Health Series 371 (9608), 243–260. 
36 Sachdev H, Gera T, and, Nestel P. Effect of iron supplementation on mental and motor development in children: systematic 
review of randomised controlled trials. Public health nutrition 2005; 8 (2):117–32.
92.8 94.4
80.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Respondents
Anemia is a serious
condition in children
Anemia symptoms include
tiredness, paleness, and
learning difficulties
Children are more
likely to have anemia
if they do not consume
enough iron
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 54 
To understand teachers’ current knowledge about anemia prevention, the survey asked them to select 
foods that are important for preventing anemia. The options provided were relatively important sources of 
iron in local diets,37 plus one incorrect option (apples). Results are shown in Figure 22. Even among foods 
such as liver and meat/fish, that are generally promoted for preventing anemia, few teachers correctly 
identified these foods as preventing anemia. Moreover, less than a quarter (24 percent) of teachers 
correctly selected at least two foods that prevent anemia, and few teachers (5 percent) selected at least 
three or all four correct options. Given the high prevalence of anemia in Guatemalan children and 
importance of anemia to students’ educational outcomes, there is a valuable opportunity to help 
teachers become more aware of the consequences and importance of anemia, as well as specific 
foods that prevent anemia. However, in promoting foods rich in iron that prevent anemia, it is important 
to note that previous research shows that cost is a primary barrier to increased consumption of animal 
source foods in Quiché. It is more feasible to promote consumption of fortified blended flours (e.g. 
Incaparina) and fortified oats, as well as black beans.38 LENS should also educate teachers, students and 
parents about the benefits and origin of the fortified rice and oil provided as US donated commodities. 
An opportunity exists for LENS to raise awareness of lower cost foods that prevent anemia, such as 
fortified foods, and legumes, and assure that eating red meat is not viewed as necessary to prevent 
anemia.
Figure 22. Percentage of teachers’ who identified foods to prevent anemia
37 FANTA. 2013. Summary Report: Development of Evidence-Based Dietary Recommendations for Children, Pregnant Women, 
and Lactating Women Living in the Western Highlands in Guatemala. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
38 Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA). 2015. Technical Brief: Micronutrient Malnutrition among 
Women and Young Children in the Western Highlands of Guatemala: What Are the Needs and What Can Be Done? 
Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
33.8
22.5
26.8
40.8
16.9
8.5
0
10
20
30
40
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
Liver Meat/Fish Apples Incaparina and
Other Fortified
Products
Beans Dont Know/
No Response
Which foods are important for preventing anemia?
Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 55 
Iodine deficiency causes irreversible damage to cognition, including lower IQ scores in schoolchildren39, 
and salt iodization is the major public health strategy to combat iodine deficiency. Since 1952, Guatemala 
has carried iodization of processed commercial salt, but program staff report that unprocessed artisanal 
salt is regularly consumed in some municipalities of Quiche. The survey included a baseline question to 
gauge teacher’s awareness of why it is important to consume iodized salt. As shown in Figure 23, only 
8.5 percent of teachers correctly chose “for intelligence.” As few teachers are aware of the 
consequences of iodine deficiency, LENS can emphasize this issue related to the promotion of 
iodized salt.
Figure 23. Teachers’ knowledge of the importance of iodized salt
Figure 24 shows that 89 percent of respondents know that Incaparina is rich in calcium. Animal milk is 
typically promoted as a source of calcium. However, given that milk and milk products are rarely 
consumed in Quiche, due in part to cost barriers, lack of cold storage and preferences,40 it is important to 
raise awareness that Incaparina is a local calcium source, available at a lower cost than milk.41
39 Kapil U. Health consequences of iodine deficiency. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2007 Dec;7(3):267-72. PubMed PMID: 
21748117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3074887.
40 SPRING. 2015. Formative Research: Key Influencers of Household Food Access in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. 
Arlington, VA: USAID/ Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING) Project.
41 FANTA. 2013. Summary Report: Development of Evidence-Based Dietary Recommendations for Children, Pregnant Women, 
and Lactating Women Living in the Western Highlands in Guatemala. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.
35.2
8.5
9.9
16.9
29.6
0
10
20
30
40
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
To Grow For Intelligence For Teeth None of the Above Don't Know
Why is it important to consume iodized salt?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 56 
Figure 24. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed with the statement that Incaparina is rich in 
calcium.
As shown in Figure 25, 76 percent of teachers expressed agreement with the statement, “To pay attention 
in class, it is important that children drink enough water.” As even mild dehydration is associated with 
reduced cognitive performance in school, it’s valuable for teachers to be aware of the benefit of 
encouraging children to consume enough water at school.42
42 Clinton S. Perry III et al. Hydration status moderates the effects of drinking water on children's cognitive performance. 
Appetite. Volume 95, 1 December 2015, Pages 520-527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.006
1.4
88.7
8.5
1.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers
False True Not Sure No Response
Incaparina is rich in calcium
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 57 
Figure 25. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed with the statement that “to pay attention in class, 
children need to drink enough water.”
Figure 25 shows that 94 percent of teachers agreed with the statement, “My students need to learn about 
nutrition to prevent obesity.” About half of Guatemalan women of reproductive age are overweight or 
obese43 and a growing percentage of children are affected,44 making it highly relevant for teachers to be 
aware of the need to prevent obesity.
43 Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social (MSPAS), Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), ICF International. 2017. 
Encuesta Nacional de Salud Materno Infantil 2014–2015. Informe Final. Guatemala: MSPAS/INE/ICF.
44 Muros, José & Briones, Mercedes & Rodríguez, Guillermo & Bouzas, P.R. & Giménez, Rafael & Cabrera, Carmen. (2016). 
Double burden of malnutrition in rural and urban Guatemalan schoolchildren. Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la 
Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral. 33. 345-350. 
76.1
7.0
12.7
4.2
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage of Teachers
Agree Neutral Disagree Don't Know
Agreement with the statement 'To pay attention in class,
it is important that children drink enough water.'
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 58 
Figure 26. Percentage of teachers’ who agreed that students need to learn about nutrition to 
prevent obesity.
Due to the extremely high consumption of sugar in Western Highlands and the alarming prevalence of 
associated problems of diabetes, obesity and tooth decay, the survey asked teachers to select from a list of 
possible negative effects caused by consuming too much sugar. Figure 27 shows that the most recognized 
effect of excess sugar was diabetes, selected by 72 percent of teachers, followed by cavities, selected by 
about half (52 percent), while fewer teachers recognized obesity (32 percent) or hyperactivity (13 percent) 
as negative effects. Only 17 percent of teachers mentioned at least three correct responses. These 
findings suggest a need to help teachers relate common health risks to high sugar consumption, 
assuring that nutrition education is tailored to the highest priority health risks faced in the 
implementation area.
94.4
4.2
1.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers
Agree Neutral Disagree
My students need to learn about nutrition to prevent obesity
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 59 
Figure 27. Negative effects of sugar
When asked to express their opinion on whether drinking water instead of sweet drinks or soda helps to 
prevent diabetes, 93 percent of teachers correctly marked “true,” as shown in 
Figure 28. Teachers’ high level of knowledge about the association between sugar drinks and diabetes 
suggest that providing information about this issue may not be useful for LENS. Rather, LENS could add 
value by helping school communities exchange sweet drinks for water as much as possible, recognizing 
that sweet drinks are a social norm/expectation/preference that will be challenging to change. 
Additionally, 96 percent of teachers responded that they frequently or sometimes teach about the risks of 
consuming a lot of sugar, as shown in 
Figure 28. Given the gaps in teachers’ knowledge about the risks of consuming too much sugar, this 
question reveals the need for more emphasis on providing teachers with correct information and useful 
strategies or tools to enhance their nutrition education about excessive sugar. 
52.1
71.8
32.4
12.7 14.1
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage of Teachers
Who Answered 'Yes' (%)
Cavities Diabetes Obesity Hyperactivity Fatigue
What are the negative effects of too much sugar?
Incorrect Answer Correct Answer
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 60 
Figure 28. Teaching the risks of too much sugar and teachers’ awareness that drinking water 
instead of soda helps to prevent diabetes 
Teachers’ attitudes and practices on student nutrition and health
In recognition of the relationship between students’ diets, health and learning, LENS is interested in 
engaging teachers in supporting student’s improved health and nutrition. Therefore, the survey included a 
series of questions to gauge teachers’ current attitudes and practices related to nutrition and health. These 
questions asked teachers whether they agreed, were neutral or in disagreement with a set of statements 
related to their role in teaching about health and nutrition in their classroom. Figure 29 summarizes 
responses to these questions. Sixty-four percent of teachers were in agreement with the statement “There 
is a problem with child undernutrition in my school.” Given the alarming evidence from the Western 
Highlands about the consumption of highly processed “junk” foods, such as salty or sugar snacks,45
teachers were asked about the importance of teaching students about junk food. This question relies on 
teachers being aware of the consequences of junk food and how widespread consumption is among their 
students, as well as seeing themselves as responsible for the issue. Eighty-four percent of teachers agreed 
with the statement, “It is important to educate my students about junk food,” suggesting that they see the 
relevance of addressing junk food consumption through their teaching activities. Nearly all interviewed 
teachers (96 percent) expressed agreement with the statement, “My role as an educator allows me to 
communicate messages about nutrition in my school and community.” Similarly, a high percentage of 
teachers (91 percent) expressed agreement with the statement, “When I teach my students about nutrition, 
I can help to improve their health,” suggesting that teachers see the importance that nutrition education 
can have on the health of their students. These responses suggest an opportunity for LENS to build on 
45 SPRING. 2015. Formative Research: Key Influencers of Household Food Access in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. 
Arlington, VA: USAID/ Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING) Project.
93.0
95.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers
Agrees drinking water instead of
sugary drinks helps prevent diabetes
Frequently or sometimes teaches
about the risks of too much sugar
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 61 
teachers’ perception that they can be a conduit for sharing nutrition messages at school and in the 
community.
Figure 29. Percentage of teachers who agree with nutrition-related statements
In addition to having an interest or openness about teaching students about nutrition, teachers require 
sufficient knowledge, skills and appropriate materials to facilitate nutrition education. To analyze how 
prepared and equipped teachers feel about teaching students about nutrition, the survey asked teachers 
whether they agreed, were neutral or in disagreement with a set of related statements. The results are 
summarized in
Figure 30. Regarding teachers’ sense of their own capacity (self-efficacy) to teach about nutrition, 82 
percent of teachers expressed agreement with the statement, “I feel trained to be able to teach my students 
about good nutrition practices”. This suggests that the majority of teachers perceive themselves to be 
capable of providing nutrition education, although other baseline findings point to specific knowledge 
gaps. When asked about the time required for nutrition education, 69 percent teachers expressed 
agreement with the statement, “I have sufficient time in my classes to teach the students about nutrition. 
Also, 76 percent of teachers expressed agreement with the statement, “Teachers are responsible for 
teaching children about nutrition” while nearly the same percentage (78 percent) of teachers expressed 
agreement with the statement, “Parents are responsible for teaching children about nutrition.” These 
responses suggest that teachers already see themselves as responsible for education about nutrition 
and have similar expectations from parents, offering an opportunity for activities to engage both
sets of stakeholders.
64.3
84.3
95.8
91.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers Who Agree (%)
There is
Undernutrition
Problem
in my School
Important to
Teach my
Students About
Junk Food
My Role as
Teacher
Enables Me
To Communicate
Nutrition
Messages in
School/Community
I Can Help
Improve Health By
Teaching Nutrition
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 62 
Figure 30. Teachers’ perception of their own capacity, responsibility, and time availability for 
nutrition education
 
During KIIs, teachers were asked if they had received training on school nutrition. Several teachers had 
participated in trainings related to student nutrition led by Save the Children or other organizations. 
Teachers mentioned learning about various topics in these trainings, including the nutritional properties of 
different foods, portion sizes, the effects of malnutrition, and what foods children should eat, among other 
topics. Most teachers who had previously received training expressed interest in receiving additional 
training related to student nutrition. In contrast to the quantitative data, this may indicate that, 
despite having already received training, many teachers still do not feel fully equipped to teach 
their students about nutrition. Furthermore, many teachers did not possess any classroom materials 
they could use to teach students about nutrition. Other teachers described having books, posters, and other 
materials, such as visual displays of the food pyramid, that they used to teach students about nutrition.
Findings from KIIs also indicate that teachers believe it is important that they teach students about 
nutrition, though only a few teachers commented on parents’ responsibility or capacity to teach children 
about nutrition. The teachers who did refer to parents implied that the school could impart knowledge on 
parents and the community, in addition to the students - at times implying that the parents lacked the 
capacity to teach their children about nutrition. One teacher explained that they try to “talk to the children 
about nutrition because the community does not have the means as the parents do not have money.” 
Another teacher commented that they desired additional training that would “expand well on what is 
malnutrition and train the mothers,” and a third wanted training that would “help with the families in this 
village.” These responses indicate that some teachers feel parents require additional support to be able to 
educate their children about nutrition. 
81.7
68.6
76.1
79.7
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage of Teachers Who Agree (%)
I am
Trained
To Teach
Healthy
Nutrition
Practices
Sufficient Class
Time to Teach
Nutrition
Teachers Are
Responsible
For Teaching
Nutrition
Parents Are
Responsible
For Teaching
Nutrition
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 63 
Given LENS’ dual focus on literacy and student nutrition/health, teachers were asked about whether they 
use techniques for teaching literacy through using names of foods. Figure 31 shows that virtually all (99 
percent) teachers responded that they frequently or sometimes teach to read and write using the names of 
foods. Similarly, 91 percent of teachers responded that they frequently or sometimes carry out games to 
promote messages about eating. LENS may find opportunities to support this type of games, by 
helping teachers maximize the potential of these games, or improving their approaches or 
materials, where possible.
As handwashing practices require water and soap to be consistently available to students, LENS is 
interested in assuring that teachers ask students to report unavailability of soap and water at the school 
handwashing places. Virtually all (97 percent) of teachers responded that they frequently or sometimes 
ask their students to report if there is no water or soap to wash their hands at school. As we discuss in 
more detail in the next section, in only 32 percent of all 262 observed schools, enumerators observed 
handwashing facilities with both water and soap.
Figure 31. Teaching hygiene and nutrition practices
School garden
Only about a quarter of teachers (28 percent) said there is a garden at their school to cultivate vegetables 
and fruit for students’ consumption. Among the teachers whose schools have a garden, three quarters (80 
percent) reported that their students had worked in the school garden in the previous two weeks, as Figure 
32 shows. 
Figure 32 also shows that one third of teachers (who have a school garden) responded affirmatively that 
their students consumed something produced in the school garden during the previous month.
98.6 97.2
91.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of Teachers Who
Do This Frequently or Sometimes
I Teach
Reading/Writing
With Names
of Foods
I Ask
Students To
Report When
No Soap/Water
For Handwashing
I Do
Games To
Promote
Nutrition
Messages
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 64 
Figure 32. Teachers reporting that students worked in the garden and that students consumed 
garden produce (only schools with gardens)
Of the 14 teachers whose students did not consume any food produced by the garden in the previous 
month, nearly all (12/14) mentioned unavailability of garden produce due to seasonality and other causes. 
This suggests that LENS could work to maximize schools’ use of their gardens, possibility through 
cultivation techniques or diversifying production to extend the seasonal availability of crops. Also, it 
would be valuable to ensure students’ preferences are taken into account when selecting crops to 
cultivate, and/or using taste tests or games to encourage trying new foods. 
In KIIs, several teachers mentioned their school had a garden. One teacher commented, “We have a 
school garden, students plant it, work in it and cultivate it, and parents as well.” Another teacher 
recommended installing a garden at his or her school as a way to improve the quality of the food served at 
the school.
School Observations
We conducted school observations in 262 schools, 97 percent of the 270 target schools.46 Eight schools 
denied access to enumerators, as explained in subsection 4.4. The characteristics that were recorded can 
be grouped in three categories: cooking facilities and cooking practices, including food storage; hygiene, 
sanitation and water; and other school characteristics. Below we discuss the main findings.
Cooking facilities and cooking practices
46 As explained before, four schools were dropped because we could not find them in the Ministry of Education data sets.
80.0
35.0
0
20
40
60
80
Percentage of Teachers (%)
Students Worked in
Garden in Last
Two Weeks
Students Ate Something
From Garden in
Last Month
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 65 
Almost all schools have a cooking space (259 out of the 262). 
Table 16 shows the main characteristics of these school kitchens. Ninety-two percent of the kitchens have 
a stove; of these, 61 percent use a regular firewood stove, and the rest use an improved firewood stove 
(ahorradora de leña). Eighty-four percent of the stoves have a chimney to mitigate indoor air pollution by 
drawing cooking smoke out of the kitchen. Over two thirds of kitchens have a sink and a similar 
percentage had either running or stored water in the kitchen at the time of the observation. However, only 
43 percent of kitchens have soap for kitchen staff to wash their hands. Thirty-nine percent have a trash 
can, and 46 percent have the weekly menu on display.
Table 16. School kitchen characteristics (N = 259)
Characteristic Fraction
Kitchen has a stove(a) 0.92
Firewood 0.61
Improved firewood (Ahorrador de leña) 0.38
Stove has a chimney 0.84
Kitchen has a sink 0.68
Presence of running or stored water 0.72
Presence of soap for hand washing 0.43
Presence of a trash can 0.39
Kitchen looks clean 0.65
A weekly menu is on display 0.46
 
In 259 schools enumerators were able to observe the food preparation process.47 Table 17 shows results 
for recorded practices. For some practices the number of observations is lower than 259 because it was 
not possible to observe all the practices in all schools. For example, enumerators were supposed to 
observe whether utensils were washed before starting food preparation, but were in time to observe this 
only in 123 schools. Out of these 123 schools, in 92 percent it was observed that utensils were properly 
washed.. In the majority of kitchens the stored water observed (if any) is visibly clean, and utensils and 
tables are visibly clean. However, in terms of staff attire, about half do not wear an apron and only 26 
percent wear a hairnet or handkerchief over their hair.
Table 17. Food preparation practices
Characteristic Fraction N
Food is kept covered 0.68 170
Utensils were properly washed 0.92 123
Stored water is visibly clean 0.83 175
Working tables are visibly clean 0.71 192
Dress code-kitchen staff
Apron 0.49 195
Hairnet or handkerchief 0.26 191
47 Because food is usually cooked in the morning, enumerators were not able to observe the cooking process in all the visits.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 66 
During the cooking process observation, enumerators asked one of the staff in each kitchen a few 
questions about food preparation and access to the kitchen. Table 18 summarizes the results of this short 
interview. In many schools parents, teachers and students/other children have access to the kitchen, in 
addition to the designated food preparation staff. It is possible that some parents help with cooking and/or 
bring ingredients, which is why they would enter the kitchen and may bring other children. Teachers may 
have oversight duties, which would explain their presence. Students or teachers may be in charge of 
taking the meals for distribution, which would explain their access to the kitchen. 
Enumerators also asked when kitchen staff wash their hands and did not read potential responses; 73 
percent said before starting food preparation, 38 percent said after manipulating raw ingredients (e.g. raw 
chicken) and 24 percent after going to the bathroom. The expectation was that all respondents would 
answer that they wash their hands at key critical moments, such as before starting food preparation, after 
touching raw ingredients and after using the bathroom. 
Table 18. Kitchen staff interview (N=259)
Characteristic Fraction
Who has access to the kitchen?
Parents 0.36
Teachers 0.61
Students/children of volunteers 0.29
Other 0.03
When do you wash your hands?
Before cooking 0.73
After manipulating raw ingredients 0.38
After using the bathroom 0.24
Other 0.05
After the kitchen observation, enumerators asked to observe where food is stored. There is a food storage 
space in 251 of 262 observed schools (96 percent). Figure 33 shows that the majority of schools (77 
percent) have a room to store food. 
Figure 33. Food storage space
No food 
storage 
space\
4%
Cabinet
11%
Room
77%
Other
8%
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 67 
Enumerators recorded whether storage spaces are clean and well-equipped. Table 19 shows that the 
majority of storage spaces (60 percent) look clean and organized. In 80 percent of the storage spaces food 
is kept off of the ground, and there is measurement equipment in 91 percent of the food storage spaces. 
However, work still needs to be done to manage the storage space. Only half of the storage spaces had a 
daily stock control sheet, and in only 35 percent of cases was there a portioning table on display. Less 
than half of storage spaces had the Save the Children logo visible and only in 17 percent there was a 
checklist for visits by Save the Children technical staff.
Table 19. Food storage characteristics (N=251)
Characteristic Fraction
Looks clean and organized 0.60
Food is stored off of the ground 0.80
There is a daily stock control sheet 0.50
Food measurement equipment 0.91
Portion table on display 0.35
Save the Children logo is visible 0.43
Save the Children visit control checklist 0.17
Iodine deficiency is a primary cause of reduced cognitive capacity and salt iodization is the primary 
prevention strategy.48 Therefore, enumerators recorded whether the salt used by the school was labeled as 
iodized. Although it was not possible to observe the label in 36 percent of the cases, when it was visible 
in almost all cases the salt was labeled as iodized, as Figure 34 shows.
Figure 34. Iodized salt
Water, sanitation and hygiene 
Ninety-eight percent of schools have sanitary facilities. The internationally accepted definition of 
improved sanitation facilities in a school setting includes flush or pour-flush toilets, pit latrines with slab, 
and composting toilets, all of which separate excreta from human contact.49 The majority of schools have 
48 WHO webpage. Micronutrient Deficiencies. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/idd/en/. 49 Improved” facilities in school settings include: flush/pour-flush toilets, pit latrines with slab, and composting toilets. 
“Unimproved” facilities include: pit latrines without slab, hanging latrines, and bucket latrines, or any other facility where human 
excreta is not separated from human contact. WHO/UNICEF. 2016. Core questions and indicators for monitoring WASH in 
Schools in the Sustainable Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
Label on salt 
says is Iodized
60%
Label does not 
says is Iodized
4%
Not observable
36%
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 68 
a toilet or an improved latrine. More specifically, as Figure 35 shows, 42 percent of schools have flush 
toilets, 34 percent have manual pour-flush toilets, 12 percent have pit latrines with slab and two percent 
have compost latrines. Therefore, 90 percent of observed school sanitary facilities meet the definition for 
improved sanitation facilities (sanitation indicator 1), as part of monitoring countries’ progress toward the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SGD).50 Among the schools with unimproved latrines, the majority have 
pit latrines without slab, and the rest have other types of latrines.
Figure 35. Sanitary services
Table 21 shows the main characteristics of school bathrooms. Using the UNICEF/WHO criteria for SGD 
sanitation indicator 2 that defines usable toilets as available to students, functioning, and private,51
enumerators found that schools have, on average, 3.7 usable toilets/latrines. This is equivalent to roughly 
46 students per toilet/latrine. In 84 percent of schools’ bathrooms are separated by students’ sex, which is 
SGD sanitation indicator 3. For MINEDUC the standard for sanitary facilities is that schools should have 
1 toilet/latrine for every 25 girls, and 1 toilet/latrine and 1 urinal for every 50 boys. Unfortunately the 
survey did not record the number of urinals in each school, but we can estimate the fraction of schools 
meeting the MINEDUC’s standard. Assuming schools follow the guidelines for the distribution between 
girls toilets, boys toilets and urinals, we estimate 43 percent of schools meet the standard for boys, 48
percent meet the standard for girls and 41 percent meet the standard for both.52
50 UNICEF and WHO. 2016. Core questions and indicators for monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable Development 
Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
51 “Usable refers to toilets/latrines which are (1) available to students (doors are unlocked or a key is
available at all times), (2) functional (the toilet is not broken, the toilet hole is not blocked, and water is available for flush/pour￾flush toilets), and (3) private (there are closable doors that lock from the inside and no large gaps in the structure) at the time of 
the questionnaire or survey. If any of these three criteria are not met, the toilet/latrine
should not be counted as usable.” WHO/UNICEF. 2016. Core questions and indicators for monitoring WASH in Schools in the 
Sustainable Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
52 By assuming schools follow the guidelines for the distribution between girls toilets, boys toilets and urinals, we are only saying 
that if there are 3 toilets/latrines in a school, we assume 2 are for girls, 1 is for boys, and there is one urinal. Note that we are not 
assuming schools meet the MINEDUC standard for the number of sanitary facilities, just that they distribute the number of toilets 
we observed they have, according to MINEDUC’s guidelines.
Flush toilet
42%
Pour-flush toilet
34%
Compost latrine
2%
Pit latrine with 
slab 
12%
Pit
8%
Hangining 
latrine
1%
Bucket
0.4%
Not improved
10%
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 69 
The data also indicates that bathroom management and equipment can be improved. Only half were found 
to be clean, according to the SGD sanitation indicator SX5 for evaluating odor, pests and visible fecal 
matter.53 There were trash cans in 69 percent of the bathrooms, and only 13 percent of the bathrooms had 
checklist for daily verification of maintenance.
Table 20. Toilets/latrines characteristics (N=258)
Characteristic Number/fraction
Average number of toilets/latrines per school 4.49
Average number of usable toilets/latrines per school (a) 3.75
Separated for boys and girls (fraction) 0.84
Bathrooms are clean (fraction) 0.51
Bathrooms have trash cans (fraction) 0.69
Bathrooms have a checklist for daily verification of maintenance (fraction) 0.13
(a) See footnote 51
Handwashing facilities
In 245 schools (94 percent) students have handwashing facilities; 237 of these schools (90 percent of all 
262 observed schools) have handwashing facilities that comply with the UNICEF/WHO standard 
definition for SGD hygiene indicator 1.54 Figure 36 shows the different types of facilities available. In 
almost half the schools, students have a sink with faucet to wash their hands. In 37 percent of schools 
students use a water tank (pila) with faucet. In 87 percent of schools where there are handwashing 
facilities enumerators found water available in these facilities, but found soap only in 36 percent. The 
SGD hygiene indicator 2 specifies that handwashing facilities should have both water and soap. Only in 
35 percent of schools with handwashing facilities, or 32 percent of all 262 observed schools, this criterion 
is met.
55
53 “Clean: all toilets do not have a strong smell or significant numbers of flies or mosquitos, and there is no visible feces on the 
floor, walls, seat (or pan) or around the facility. Somewhat clean: there is some smell and/or some sign of fecal matter in some of 
the toilets. Not clean: there is a strong smell and/or presence of fecal matter in most toilets. WHO/UNICEF. 2016. Core questions 
and indicators for monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
54 “A handwashing facility is any device or infrastructure that enables students to wash their hands effectively using running 
water, such as a sink with tap, water tank with tap, bucket with tap, tippy tap, or other similar device. Note: a shared bucket used 
for dipping hands is not considered an effective handwashing facility,” UNICEF and WHO. 2016. Core questions and indicators 
for monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
55 “To be considered available, water and soap must be available at one or more of the handwashing facilities at the time of the
survey or questionnaire. If girls and boys have separate facilities, soap and water should be at both. Soapy water (a prepared 
solution of detergent suspended in water) can be considered as an alternative for soap, but not for water, as non-soapy water is 
needed for rinsing. Surveys may choose to add other response categories for ash or alcohol hand rub, but these should be kept as 
separate categories from soap to support SDG monitoring.” UNICEF and WHO. 2016. Core questions and indicators for 
monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 70 
Figure 36. Characteristics of handwashing facilities (fraction, multiple responses allowed) (N=245)
Access to drinking water
Water for student consumption is available in only 173 schools (66 percent). 
Figure 37 shows the distribution of the different types of water sources for these 173 schools. The great 
majority of schools, 76 percent, have piped water. Other much less prevalent sources include rainwater (6 
percent), protected well or spring (11 percent), and unprotected well or spring (4 percent). According to 
the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, an “improved” drinking water source is protected from 
contamination, particularly fecal matter from piped or protected sources.56 Therefore, 93 percent of 
schools have water for students’ consumption, and 61 percent of all 262 observed schools, have an 
improved water source, (SGD water indicator 1).
56 Improved” water sources in school settings include: piped, protected well/spring (including boreholes/tubewells, protected dug 
wells and protected springs), rainwater catchment, and packaged or delivered water. “Unimproved” sources include: unprotected
well/ spring, and surface water (e.g. lake, river, stream, pond). UNICEF and WHO. 2016. Core questions and indicators for 
monitoring WASH in Schools in the Sustainable
Development Goals (Version June 2018). WHO: Geneva.
0.48
0.37
0.03
0.14
0.01 0.04 0.05
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Sink with
faucet
Water tank
with faucet
Bucket
with faucet
Water tank
with
bucket
Other
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 71 
Figure 37. Water sources (%) (N=173)
Finally, 132 schools reported treating water for students’ consumption, representing 76 percent of schools 
that provide water to students, and 50 of all surveyed schools (SGD water indicator XW6a57). The most 
popular method of water treatment are clay filters (65 percent), followed by boiling water (38 percent), 
and adding chlorine (12 percent), as SGD water indicator XW6b58. Note that some schools use more than 
one method. In 144 schools, there was water available from the primary source during the school 
observation, equivalent to 83 percent of the schools that have water for students’ consumption, and 55 
percent of all 262 schools.
57 SGD water indicator XW6a is based on the survey question “Does the school do anything to the water from the main source to 
make it safe to drink?” which was modified for the LENS survey to “Is the water treated to make it safe to drink?” (¿Se trata el 
agua para que sea segura para consumir?)
58 SGD water indicator XW6b is based on the survey question, “If yes, what treatment method is used?” (Que medida utiliza?) 
5.8
75.8
11.0
4.0 3.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Rain water Piped water Protected well or
spring
Unprotected well
or spring
Other
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 72 
Figure 38. Water treatment methods (%) (N=132)
School meal program and other school characteristics
At the end of the school observation enumerators asked the head teacher a few questions about school 
management, the school garden and the school meals program. Table 21 summarizes their responses. In 
most schools (97 percent) there is a school meals program, and in almost all cases head teachers reported 
that it is funded by MINEDUC. In the majority of cases, schools provide a small meal and a drink (67 
percent) or a full meal (39 percent). Note that fractions for the types of meals add up to more than one. 
This could be because feeding programs could provide different meals over the year. Ninety-seven 
percent of head teachers reported that students contribute to the school feeding program, such as 
contributions of food or firewood. Notably, only 31 percent of schools have a garden; since gardens can 
be turned into assets for students’ nutrition, efforts should be made so more schools grow gardens.
Given LENS’ interest in promoting child-to-child participatory actions to promote nutrition, hygiene and 
health practices, questions were included on whether the school uses a school hygiene traffic light 
checklist and has a student government. The traffic light checklist is a tool used by students to monitor the 
cleanliness of different areas of the school and to prompt actions to improve these areas. The majority of 
head teachers (87 percent) know what the traffic light is; however, among these schools, only 31 percent 
use a traffic light. Eighty-seven percent of schools have a student government.
Regarding reading resources, 70 percent of schools have a library or reading room, and of these, 81 
percent have more than 50 books.
Table 21. Other school characteristics (N=262)
Characteristic Fraction
School has a school meals program 0.97
What meals are provided?
A drink only (e.g. atol) 0.06
A small meal and a drink 0.67
0.65
0.38
0.12 0.12
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Clay ecofilter Boil water Chlorine Other
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 73 
Characteristic Fraction
A small meal 0.08
Full meal 0.39
Take-home meals 0.00
Other 0.01
Students contribute to the school meals program 0.97
School has a garden 0.31
School has a student government 0.87
Head teacher knows what the school hygiene "traffic light" checklist is (a) 0.87
School has a school hygiene "traffic light" checklist 0.31
School has a library 0.70
(a) The first surveys were conducted under the assumption that head teachers were familiar with the cleaning traffic 
light, so the originally survey did not ask if they knew what the traffic light was. During fieldwork enumerators realized 
that this was not the case, and that a non-negligible fraction of head teachers did not know what the traffic light was. 
Therefore, during fieldwork we included a question asking this. In the end, only 94 percent of head teachers were 
asked if they knew what the traffic light was.
Local producers
As part of the baseline evaluation, NORC’s data collection team interviewed 10 local producers to better 
understand their current situation as producers, as well as their capacity to provide food to schools for 
school feeding programs in the near future. To begin, producers were asked whether they were familiar 
with the LENS program. Two of the ten producers interviewed were aware of the program. One of the 
two producers familiar with the program said he/she was invited to a meeting about LENS because he/she 
was the president of the education advisory board. During that meeting they discussed LENS, the 
municipal menus, and whether or not there were local producers who provided food to the schools. 
Following this, the enumerators gave producers a brief introduction to the LENS program and asked them 
to describe some of the possible benefits of the program. Producers identified two distinct types of 
possible benefits of the LENS program. The first is a benefit to the children and their learning through 
access to school meals. In the words of one producer, “The benefit of better nutrition will be seen through 
the children’s increased academic performance and then they are more intelligent.” Aside from benefits to 
children, some producers identified possible economic benefits to themselves by having secure 
buyers for their products and reduced transportation costs as the producer would stay within the 
community. 
As part of the interview, each producer was asked details about their five most important crops. Table 22
summarize producers’ responses. The most popular crops are corn and beans, grown by five producers. 
Next are potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, chili peppers, and onions. All these products are ingredients in the 
menus proposed by the Ministry of Education for the school feeding program, 59 so they could easily be 
incorporated into these programs. To approximate how much producers could sell to schools, Table 22
shows average yearly production, after own consumption.
59 Menús para el programa de alimentación escolar 2019. Ministerio de Educación.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 74 
Table 22. Harvest after own consumption, selected products (a)
Crop type # Producers
Average harvest 
after own 
consumption
Crop harvest 
(unit)
Bean 5 6 Quintals
Corn 5 10 Quintals
Potato 4 90 Quintals
Tomato 3 192 Quintals
Carrot 2 263 Units
Chili pepper 2 5243 Units
Onion 2 89 Quintals
(a) Only results for products that were mentioned by two or more producers are included. Products 
mentioned only once include beets, cucumber, and cole, among others. 
Respondents were also asked about some of the challenges they face as agricultural producers. Reported 
challenges include: access to water, storage, transportation, sale prices, product quality, availability of 
resources, and lack of knowledge. One of the most discussed challenges was access to water. One 
producer framed the issue in terms of both not having access to water itself, and not having access to 
irrigation systems to pump water when it is available. The producer said, “During the summer, water is 
scarce and it’s not enough for watering, and it costs us to take water. Likewise, we need an irrigation 
system, because even if the water is available, if there isn’t an irrigation system then it’s not functional. ” 
Other frequently mentioned issues revolved around transportation and storage of products. Two producers 
mentioned that the quality of the products decrease when they are transported to the market. 
Finally, we also asked producers about their experience with projects similar to LENS, and selling food to 
schools in general. Of the 10 producers interviewed, three reported having previous experience selling 
their products to schools. One of these producers reported having sold beans to a school on only one 
occasion when there was a shortage, while the other two said they had regular relationships selling to 
schools. The two producers who have regular relationships selling their products to schools each 
mentioned previously being affiliated with an institution that helped connect them to schools. One 
producer specifically mentioned Save the Children, saying: “It was Save the Children personnel that 
contacted me to distribute some products. I think it was IDEA that Save the Children was working on 
with nutrition in schools, and based on that, they approached me about buying tomatoes. They bought 
from me and that’s how the relationship formed. There was nothing, no agreement but it was more for the 
quality of the product. Since they bought from me on that one occasion, and that’s how I connected with 
the schools.” 
Interestingly, these are also two of the three producers who report being registered with the 
Superintendent of Tax Administration (Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria – SAT). One of 
these three producers reported that it was easy to register with the SAT, while another mentioned it 
happened by chance while he was selling broccoli to a company as part of producer group. Of the seven 
producers who reported not being registered with the SAT, four said it was not necessary for their level of 
production. One of these producers told the interviewer, “We don’t register because we sell in local 
markets, we register if our products are sold in other places.” Two of the remaining producers mentioned 
they were not registered with the SAT because of the fees associated, one saying “I’m not familiar with 
the SAT and I’m scared to go register because it may cost a lot of money.”
None of the 10 interviewed producers, including those who have previously sold food to schools, reported 
having the new MAGA accreditation that will be required to sell food to schools. When asked if they 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 75 
were familiar with the accreditation, the majority of the producers responded in the negative. One 
producer responded that they do not have the accreditation because the producers don’t know about it or 
what they have to do to obtain it. He went on to say, “It’s a mess, the government has not paid attention to 
[regulations]. If we are talking about MAGA, we don’t know where their offices are.” Another producer 
simply said, “I am unfamiliar with the certification, and as such I don’t have it.”
There are a couple of reasons to think that local producers are in a good position to provide food to 
schools’ feeding programs. First, producers recognize potential economic benefits that could come from 
these programs, in terms of income stability and reduced transportations costs. Second, their products can 
be introduced in the school menus. That being said, it is important to highlight that it was challenging to 
recruit producers for the interviews, as explained in section 4.4. If this reflects an overall scarcity of local 
producers in the area, then the findings presented in this section should be taken with a grain of salt. 
For producers, selling to schools nearby would alleviate some of the challenges associated with 
transportation and storage of their products. However, based on the experiences of the two producers who 
currently provide food to schools, a stronger effort should be made by LENS and/or the Government of 
Guatemala to advertise the permits and accreditations needed to be a school meal provider. 
6.4 Conclusions
For the program evaluation the main findings are summarized as follows:
Students’ background and reading skills
• Students are 9.6 years old, on average. About four fifths of the sample attended preschool, and 
half the students have repeated or are repeating a year. 
• Roughly 90 percent of students ate something at school the day before data collection. During 
focus group discussions parents reported they aren’t sure whether their child needs to eat before 
school or not because schools sometimes offer breakfast and sometimes a snack (refacción). 
• Parents suggested menu diversification as a way to improve school meals. As opposed to the 
student responses, the majority of the focus groups, 8 of 10, participants stated that their children 
are not satisfied with the school meals. The two main reasons for this perception were (1) 
repetition of meals and (2) quality of the cooked food. 
• Students in Ixil municipalities come from more disadvantaged backgrounds than students in 
K’iche’ municipalities. In effect, students in Ixil municipalities are more likely to have repeated a 
year than students in K’iche’ municipalities, and mothers in K’iche’ municipalities are more 
likely to be literate than in Ixil municipalities. Moreover, households in K’iche’ municipalities are 
more likely to have electricity and have more household assets, than households in the Ixil 
municipalities.
• There are major differences in reading skills between municipalities. For example, while students 
in Cotzal read, one average, 60.5 cwpm, in Chajul this figure is only 38 cwpm.
• The data shows that students that answer 9-11 questions correctly read, on average, 77 words per 
minute. This could be used by Save the Children as benchmark to set program targets. 
• Bivariate regression analyses show that speaking Spanish at home, mother’s literacy and number 
of household assets, are positively correlated with reading skills. By contrast, age and having 
repeated a grade are negatively correlated with reading skills.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 76 
Teacher surveys and interviews
• Third grade teachers have relatively small classrooms, with an average of 18 students per 
classroom. 
• Teachers’ absenteeism rate is 18 percent, according to teachers’ own reports.
• While most teachers use Spanish in class, local languages are also prevalent. In the three K’iche’
municipalities (Cunén, Sacapulas and Uspantán) 94 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 52 
percent use K’iche’, six percent use Uspanteco and 16 percent use Sacapulteco. In Ixil 
municipalities (Chajul, Cotzal and Nebaj), 93 percent of the teachers use Spanish, 73 percent use 
Ixil and five percent use K’iche’. The use of local languages in class is not surprising as teachers 
in Guatemala are required to use local languages in early grades.
• The majority of teachers (70 percent) reported having seen the Taza Escolar image prior to the 
survey, although 40 percent could not identify an example of a nutritionally-balanced meal.
• There are important gaps in teachers’ knowledge on what types of foods help children grow, and 
give them energy. Fifty-eight percent incorrectly selected leafy greens, vegetables and fruit as 
types of food that help children grow. Also, only 18 percent of teachers correctly selected cereals, 
grains and tubers, as sources of energy.
• The majority of teachers seem knowledgeable about which types of food protect children from 
diseases. Sixty-four percent correctly selected leafy greens, vegetables and fruit as foods that 
protect children from diseases, and the most common incorrect response was milk, meat, eggs 
and other animal source foods, selected by 23 percent.
• Regarding school hygiene, a high percentage of teachers (87 percent) mentioned the importance 
of washing hands before eating, but only half mentioned the need to wash hands after using the 
bathroom. Similarly, nearly all teachers (94 percent) said their students washed their hands before 
eating on the previous day, but less than half mentioned that hand washing occurred after going to 
the bathroom, indicating a gap area in optimal practices. About a third of teachers mentioned that 
their students brushed their teeth at school the day before data collection. 
• In terms of awareness of micronutrients, teachers indicated their awareness of the seriousness of 
anemia (93 percent) and its symptoms (94 percent), but only a quarter could identify two or more 
foods that prevent anemia. Very few teachers (nine percent) knew why consuming iodized salt is 
important. Most teachers (89 percent) recognized Incaparina as a source of calcium and three￾quarters agreed that staying hydrated by drinking water can improve students’ attention in class.
• Although almost all teachers said they teach students about the negative effects of too much 
sugar, there are gaps in teachers’ understanding about the negative impacts sugar consumption 
can have. While 70 percent see the association with diabetes, only a third recognize the 
relationship with obesity, and about half (52 percent) recognize sugar as a cause of cavities.
• A high percentage of teachers agreed that students need nutrition education to prevent obesity (94 
percent), and 84 percent recognize the importance of teaching children about the effects of junk 
food. Almost all teachers (96 percent) recognize they have a role as communicators of nutrition￾related messages in their communities, 82 percent feel trained to teacher about nutrition, and 69 
percent say they have adequate time in class to teach about nutrition.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 77 
• Only 28 percent of teachers reported that their schools had a garden. However, among schools 
with a garden, 80 percent of teachers said their students had worked in the garden in the last two 
weeks, and about a third of teachers (35 percent) said students consumed produce from the garden 
during the previous month.
School observations
• Most schools have a kitchen. Ninety-two percent of the kitchens have a stove; 68 percent have a 
sink and 72 percent had either running or stored water in the kitchen at the time of the 
observation. Only 43 percent of kitchens have soap for kitchen staff to wash their hands. Thirty￾nine percent have a trash can, and 46 percent have the weekly menu on display.
• In the majority of kitchens the stored water observed (if any) is visibly clean, and utensils and 
tables are visibly clean. In terms of staff attire, about half do not wear an apron and only 26 
percent wear a hairnet or handkerchief over their hair.
• In 96 percent of the 262 observed schools there is a food storage space. Food is kept off of the 
ground in 80 percent of the storage spaces. Ninety-one percent have measurement equipment, 50 
percent have a daily stock control sheet, 35 percent have a portioning table on display, 43 percent 
visibly display the Save the Children logo, and 17 percent have a checklist for visits by Save the 
Children technical staff. 
• Enumerators were able to observe the salt package in only 64 percent of the schools. Among 
these schools where the salt package was seen by enumerators, 94 percent of the salt was 
confirmed to be iodized. 
• Eighty-eight percent of schools have improved sanitation facilities. These include flush toilets, 
manual pour-flush toilets, pit latrines with slab and compost latrines. Among the schools with 
unimproved latrines, the majority have pit latrines without slab, and the rest have other types of 
latrines.
• We estimate that 41 percent of schools meet MINEDUC’s standard for number of sanitation 
facilities (1 toilet/latrine for every 25 girls, and 1 toilet/latrine and 1 urinal for every 50 boys). 
• In 245 schools (94 percent) students have handwashing facilities. Only in 35 percent of schools 
with handwashing facilities, or 32 percent of all 262 observed schools, are there both water and 
soap for students to wash their hands.
• Water for student consumption is available in only 173 schools (66 percent). Ninety-three percent 
of these schools, or 61 percent of all 262 observed schools, have an improved water source, such 
as piped water, rainwater, and protected well or spring.
• In 97 percent of schools, school administrators reported that there is a school meals program,
funded in most cases by MINEDUC. The majority of schools provide a small meal and a drink 
(67 percent), based example of a tamale and a hot drink for that option. Less than half of school 
administrators reported that their school currently provides a full meal (39 percent).
• Seventy percent of schools have a library or reading room.
Local producers
• Producers identified possible economic benefits of having secure buyers for their products, 
including reduced transportation and storage costs. In addition, their products are commonly 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 78 
found as ingredients in the official school menus. This suggests that producers are in a good 
position to provide food to schools’ feeding programs. 
• It is important to highlight that it was challenging to recruit producers for the interviews. If this 
reflects an overall scarcity of local producers in the area, then LENS may find it more challenging 
to recruit local producers.
• Producers also mentioned that the program are well positioned to improve students’ nutrition.
• One of the most discussed challenges faced by local producers is access to water. This includes 
not having access to water itself, and not having access to irrigation systems to pump water when 
it is available. Other challenges mentioned include storage, transportation, sale prices, availability 
of resources, and lack of technical knowledge. 
• Three producers reported being registered with the Superintendent of Tax Administration 
(Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria – SAT). These producers did not mention that it 
was particularly difficult to register. However, two of the remaining producers mentioned they 
were not registered with the SAT because of the associated fees. 
• None of the 10 interviewed producers, including those who have previously sold food to schools, 
reported having the new MAGA accreditation that will be required to sell food to schools. 
7. Programmatic recommendations
The baseline findings revealed the following areas of opportunity for the LENS project: 
1. Promote student feedback on menus and preparation. During FGD parents stated that their 
children are not satisfied with the school meals, primarily due to (1) repetition of meals and (2) 
inadequate quality of the cooked food (e.g. undercooking). Although LENS’ donated 
commodities are restricted to rice, oil and black beans, the project can promote additional local 
foods to assure a variety of dishes and also inform the school community about the particular 
benefits of the donated foods. LENS can also help schools collect and use feedback from 
children to improve recipes and/or meal preparation. 
2. Support school communication on school meals. Parents reported they aren’t sure whether their 
child needs to eat before school or not because schools sometimes offer breakfast and sometimes 
a snack (refacción). This suggests that parents should be better informed about which meals 
children are going to receive during the school day.
3. Build on teachers’ interest in nutrition education and knowledge gaps. Findings from the 
teacher surveys indicate that nearly all teachers recognize the value of providing nutrition 
education to their students and view themselves, as well as parents, as having the responsibility to 
teach children about nutrition to improve their health. However, there were important gaps in 
teachers’ knowledge about key topics, such as anemia, obesity, diabetes and the foods to address 
these. LENS should find opportunities to capitalize on teachers’ base of interest, providing 
training on priority topics that teachers and students consider most relevant and which pose the 
greatest threats to student health.
4. Facilitate active learning about nutrition and health. Given that many teachers already 
mention engaging in some nutrition-related games with their students, LENS can help teachers 
maximize the potential of these games, by varying their approaches or materials, and assuring that 
nutrition education is tied to dynamic and practical approaches.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 79 
5. Promote realistic, local solutions to nutrition challenges in Quiché. In tandem with standard 
nutrition messages of the Taza Escolar, it is essential that LENS promote locally-available, 
lower-cost nutrient-rich foods that are feasible for families, given documented income and access 
constraints faced by families in Quiché. In particular, LENS can increase understanding about 
the value of lower cost animal source foods and fortified foods, including the iron-fortified 
products provided by LENS. 
6. Focus on gaps in school meals systems. Although most schools have kitchens and food storage 
spaces, there are multiple opportunities for LENS to improve the use of existing infrastructure, 
address gaps or strengthen processes. For example, the majority of school kitchens lacked a trash 
can, and soap was not present for school cooks to wash their hands. These findings suggest that, 
while most schools have already basic infrastructure in place, LENS could be instrumental in 
supporting schools to improve conditions. 
7. Examine and address priority water, sanitation and hygiene constraints. Given that only a 
third of schools had both soap and water present for students’ handwashing, there is a need for 
LENS to address the factors that impede availability of water and (especially) soap, and help 
schools generate feasible, long-term solutions (including improved student monitoring). 
Regarding hygiene practices, handwashing before eating was better understood and practiced in 
schools, suggesting a need for LENS to emphasize handwashing after using the bathroom (such 
as process for students to mark whether water and soap were present at the handwashing place, 
each time they visit the bathroom). Other WASH challenges which require specific emphasis 
include lack of drinking water in a third of schools and a need for improved
cleanliness/monitoring of school bathrooms.
8. Support optimal use of gardens. Only about a third of of schools have a garden, but schools 
with gardens report high use of students’ participation in gardening, although a lower number 
have recently consumed garden produce. This is an opportunity for LENS to support 
establishment of additional gardens and use of existing gardens for practical nutrition education.
9. Provide information and support to local producers to mitigate constraints. It was 
challenging to recruit local producers for the baseline interviews. LENS’ recruiting activities 
should elaborate on the benefits of program participation, as well as the potential risks and how 
they could be addressed. In addition, very few of the interviewed producers were registered with 
the SAT, and most did not even know about the accreditation MAGA requires to participate in 
schools feeding program. Efforts should be made by LENS and/or the Government of Guatemala 
to advertise the permits needed to be a school meal provider.
8. Limitations and recommendations for the evaluation
All LENS schools were part of the IDEA program (2014-2018) so right from the start we know that 
treatment and comparison schools are different in some fundamental ways. Not only this affects 
comparability of treatment and comparison schools, but it can also affect some of the results we get in this 
baseline study. For example, students may have greater expectations about the size (and quality) of meals 
a school feeding program should provide, than their counterparts in comparison schools. Regarding
comparability, the fact that we are using DID models will allow us to isolate any differences at baseline 
between treatment and comparison schools. In other words, we do not need to assume that schools are 
observationally equivalent at baseline for the impact evaluation, only that the treatment schools would 
observed the same change in the outcomes of interest than the comparison n schools, if the treatment 
schools did not receive treatment.
Program substitution could affect the validity of the impact evaluation results. If other organizations are 
offering services similar to LENS in comparison schools, it would be ideal to collect data to at least 
control for this substitution. To do this we would need data on what other programs are being fielded in 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 80 
the comparison schools. In comparison schools only students are being surveyed, so we could ask them 
questions about feeding and literacy programs that are being fielded in their schools; however, it would 
probably be preferable to survey teachers to collect this type of data. SC should consider have the 
evaluation team survey teachers in comparison (and treatment) schools at midline and endline, so data on 
alternative school feeding programs and early reading interventions can be recorded. 
There are notable differences between treatment and comparison groups in terms of language spoken at 
home as there are no students that speak Ixil at home in the comparison group. However, for the impact 
evaluation, we will be able to offset these differences using the baseline data, in the context of the DID 
model.
Student attendance is one of the key outcomes of the evaluation. The survey collected student attendance
for the week previous to data collection using teachers’ attendance records, and the results indicate that 
attendance is quite high. These results could be an overestimation of the true attendance rates, because we 
are only collecting data for the students present the day of data collection. It is also possible that teachers 
tend to overestimate student attendance. As SC will start collecting attendance data more systematically 
as part of their monitoring activities, the evaluation team will be able to incorporate these data in the 
analysis.60
The school observations were programmed to be conducted at baseline only. However, it would be 
convenient that the evaluation team also conducts school observations at midline and endline, to record 
and analyze progress. SC should consider have the evaluation team conduct school observations at 
midline and endline, at least on the 72 schools that will be visited for the other activities. 
While KIIs interviews with teachers provided valuable insights on teachers’ views and practices regarding 
nutrition and hygiene, with fewer interviews the same information could probably be acquired. Previous 
research shows that 12 interviews are enough to discover between 80 and 90 percent of the themes.61
Along these lines, Save the Children should consider, for the midline and endline, reducing the number of 
KIIs not only with teachers, but with principals, PTA members, and government officials. Savings from 
these reductions in KIIs could help cover the costs of surveying teachers in impact evaluation schools 
and/or conducting school observations at midline and endline, as proposed above. 
Finally, the fact that it was not easy to recruit local producers for the interview implies that the 
documented results may not replicate if other local producers are interviewed. LENS’s efforts to recruit 
local producers for the program will intensify over the next two years, in preparation for the training 
activities that will be fielded in years 4 and 5 of the program. For the midline data collection, it would be 
ideal that the evaluation team has access to the pool of local producers recruited for the program, so a 
more representative sample of local producers can be interviewed.
60 In addition, once the Ministry of Education produces enrollment data for 2019, we will be able to calculate attendance rates for 
each of the classes where s, as the survey recorded the number of students present the day of data collection.
61 Guest, Greg, Emily Namey and Kevin McKenna (2017). How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base 
for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field Methods 2017, Vol. 29(1) 3-22. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 81 
Annex I. Instruments 
ESTUDIANTES62
CUESTIONARIO LENS
Asistencia
Enumerador, seleccione el número de días que el estudiante asistió a la escuela la semana pasada.
 0 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 No sabe o no recuerda
Refacción
Hoy ¿comiste algo antes de venir a la escuela?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe o no recuerda
Ayer ¿te dieron comida en la escuela?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe o no recuerda
Ayer ¿qué te dieron de comida en la escuela?
 Una bebida sola (como atol o leche)
 Bebida y alguna comida pequeña
 Alguna comida pequeña
 Plato completo de comida
 No sabe o no responde
¿Te gusta la comida que te dan en la escuela este año?
 Sí 
 No
62 The student questionnaire started with DIGEDUCA’s ELI, and is not shown. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 82 
 No sabe o no recuerda
El año pasado ¿te daban comida en la escuela?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
 No sabe o no recuerda [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
El año pasado ¿qué te daban de comida en la escuela en un día cualquiera? (Encuestador, permitir 
respuesta múltiples.)
 Una bebida sola (como atol o leche)
 Bebida y alguna comida pequeña
 Alguna comida pequeña
 Plato completo de comida
 No sabe o no responde
¿Te gustaba la comida que te daban en la escuela el año pasado?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe o no recuerda
Personal
¿Qué idioma hablas en casa la mayoría del tiempo?
 Español
 K'iche
 Ixil 
 Otro
 No sabe o no recuerda
Si responde otro, llenar el siguiente espacio.
¿Qué idioma habla tu maestro/a cuando te enseña en la escuela? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Español
 K'iche
 Ixil 
 Otro
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 83 
 No sabe o no recuerda
¿Qué otro idioma?
¿Vives con tu mamá?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿Tu mamá puede leer y escribir?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe o no recuerda
¿Vives con tu papá?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿Tu papá puede leer y escribir?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe o no recuerda
¿Qué adulto cuida más de ti?
 Mamá
 Papá
 Abuela
 Abuelo
 Tía
 Tío
 Hermana
 Hermano
 Prima
 Primo
 Otro
 Nadie
Si responde otro, llenar el siguiente espacio.
¿(Este adulto) puede leer y escribir?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 84 
 Sí
 No
 No responde
Contándote a ti, ¿cuántas personas viven en tu casa?
Hábitos de lectura
¿Hay un lugar en tu escuela dónde puedes leer o prestar libros? ¿No pienses en libros de texto, piensa en 
otros libros que puedes leer en la escuela o llevarte a casa?
 No hay lugar en la escuela [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 Esquina de lectura (lugar con libros dentro de la clase)
 Habitación de lectura (habitación dentro de la escuela con libros para leer)
 Biblioteca
 Otro
 No sabe o no recuerda [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿Cada cuánto visitas (el lugar de lectura)?
 Nunca
 Una vez por semana
 Dos veces por semana
 Tres veces por semana
 Cuatro veces por semana
 Cinco veces por semana
 No recuerda o no sabe
¿Tienes materiales para leer en casa? Piensa en libros, periódicos o revistas que sean de tu familia, no los 
que puedes prestar en la escuela.
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT 7 QUESTIONS]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT 7 QUESTIONS]
¿En qué idioma están estos materiales? (Seleccione todas las opciones que apliquen)
 Español
 K'iche
 Ixil 
 Otro
 No sabe o no recuerda
¿Tienes libros infantiles para leer en casa?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 85 
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿En qué idioma están estos libros? (Seleccione todas las opciones que apliquen)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
¿Tienes otros tipos de libros para leer en casa?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿En qué idioma están estos libros? (Seleccione todas las opciones que apliquen)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
¿Tienes periódicos o revistas para leer en casa?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿En qué idioma están estos periódicos o revistas? (Seleccione todas las opciones que apliquen)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
¿Lees o intentas leer por tu cuenta en casa?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 86 
Al salir de la escuela, ¿participas en actividades de lectura fuera de tu casa? ¿Piensa en actividades como 
ir a la biblioteca o competencias de lectura?
 Sí
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿En qué actividades participas? (Encuestador, permitir respuestas múltiples)
 Clubes de lectura
 Actividades de lectura en la comunidad
 Actividades de lectura en la iglesia
 Visitas a la biblioteca
 Leer con amigos
 Leer con un mentor en la comunidad
 Competencias de cuenta cuentos
 Maratón de lectura
 Clubes de escritura
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
Si responde otro, llenar el siguiente espacio.
¿Qué fue lo último que leíste?
 Libro para niños
 Tira cómica
 Otro tipo de libro
 Revista
 Periódico
 Página o sitio de internet
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
Vivienda
En tu casa, ¿hay una silla en buen estado?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa, ¿hay una cama en buen estado?
 Sí
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 87 
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay un reloj que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay un radio que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay una televisión que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay una computadora que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay una bicicleta que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay una motocicleta que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay un carro o camión que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay un refrigerador que funcione?
 Sí
 No
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 88 
 No responde
En tu casa ¿hay una estufa que funcione?
 Sí
 No
 No responde
¿Tu casa tiene electricidad?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe
 No responde
¿Alguien en tu casa tiene celular?
 Sí
 No
 No sabe
 No responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 89 
CUESTIONARIO KAP PARA PROFESORES
Cuestionario administrativo
Fecha: 
Hora: 
Municipio: 
CodEst: 
Direccion: 
Entrevistador, ingrese su nombre por favor: 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 90 
Consentimiento Y Confidencialidad De Los Entrevistados
Hola, mi nombre es [nombre de entrevistador] y trabajo para Juárez & Asociados. Estamos realizando un 
estudio del proyecto LENS de Save the Children para entender mejor cómo aprenden los niños.
Su ayuda es muy valiosa para nosotros, sin embargo, no necesita participar si no lo desea.
Su nombre no se registrará en este formulario, ni se mencionará en ningún lugar de los datos de la 
encuesta.
El nombre de su escuela y su aula será registrado con el fin de poder conectar los datos entre escuela, aula 
y estudiantes.
Lo que aprendamos será utilizado para ayudarnos a identificar el apoyo adicional que se necesita. La 
encuesta durará aproximadamente 40 minutos y le haremos preguntas sobre su experiencia como docente 
y sobre cuestiones relacionadas con la nutrición y la salud de los alumnos.
Si acepta responder a las preguntas y cualquier pregunta lo hace sentir incómodo, podemos omitirlas. 
También puede optar por dejar de responder en cualquier momento. Por favor déjeme saber si tiene 
alguna pregunta antes de comenzar o durante la encuesta.
¿Está dispuesto a participar? 
 No [PROG: END OF SURVEY]
 Yes
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 91 
A. Cuestionario demográfico
¿Qué idiomas predominan en la zona? (ENCUESTADOR, permitir respuestas múltiples)
 Español
 K'iché
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
Ahora me gustaría hacerle unas preguntas sobre su persona: ¿Qué edad tiene?
 |_ _| años
Registrar el sexo de la persona, por observación. 
 Hombre
 Mujer
¿Cuántos años tiene de experiencia como maestro?
 |_ _| años
¿Cuántos años ha enseñado en primaria?
 |_ _| años
¿Cuál es su idioma materno? (Seleccione todas las opciones que aplique)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué idioma habla cuando da clases? (Se puede permitir respuestas múltiples)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
¿Cuál es el nivel más alto de educación que ha completado?
 a) Magisterio en Educación Primaria Urbana, MEPU
 b) Magisterio en Educación Primaria Rural, MEPR
 c) Profesorado de segunda enseñanza
 d) Algún tiempo en la universidad
 e) Técnico universitario
 f) Licenciatura
 g) Otro
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 92 
 h) No sabe o no responde
¿Ha recibido capacitación sobre cómo enseñar a leer, desde enero de 2019?
 Si
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No sabe o no responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿Quiénes le han brindado la capacitación a partir de enero del 2019? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.) 
 Save de Children, IDEA
 USAID Leer y aprender
 Child Aid
 CRS/Caritas 
 Ministerio de Educación u oficinas locales de educación
 Universidades
 Programa académico de desarrollo profesional docente (PADEP)
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
¿En qué grados está enseñando este año escolar? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples. Si el maestro 
enseña varios grados en el mismo salón, marque “otro”, explique e indique que grados.)
 Preprimaria 
 1ro 
 2do
 3ro 
 4to
 5to
 6to
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué sección de tercer grado imparte?
 A 
 B 
 C 
 D 
 Única
 Otros
 No sabe o no responde
¿Cuántas niñas hay inscritas en su sección?
 |_ _| niñas
¿Cuántos niños hay inscritos en su sección?
 |_ _| niños
Pensando en la última semana, ¿cuántos días NO pudo asistir a la escuela? Por favor, no cuente los días 
en que toda la escuela estuvo cerrada por un feriado u otra razón.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 93 
 |_ _| días
El año pasado, ¿fue usted profesor en esta escuela?
 Si
 No
 No sabe o no responde
Reading Resources at School
¿Esta escuela tiene una biblioteca? (Un espacio donde los niños pueden leer y/o pedir prestado libros)
 Si
 No [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
 No sabe o no responde [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
¿Cuántos libros tiene la biblioteca de la escuela? (Maestro estima, no cuenta libros)
 1-10
 11-50
 Más de 50
 No sabe o no responde
30.1. ¿En qué idiomas están estos libros? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Español
 K'iche'
 Ixil 
 Uspanteco
 Sacapulteco
 Inglés
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
School feeding programs
¿Ha habido un programa de alimentación escolar en esta escuela desde enero del 2019?
 Si
 No [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
 No sabe no responde [PROG: SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
¿Quiénes han proporcionado el programa de alimentación escolar en esta escuela desde enero de 2019? 
(Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Save de Children, IDEA
 USAID Leer y aprender
 Child Aid
 CRS/Caritas 
 Ministerio de Educación u oficinas locales de educación
 Programa académico de desarrollo profesional docente (PADEP)
 Otros
 No sabe no responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 94 
En un día típico, ¿qué comidas han proporcionado estos programas de alimentación escolar a partir de 
enero 2019? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Una bebida sola (como atol o leche)
 Bebida y alguna comida pequeña
 Alguna comida pequeña
 Plato completo de comida
 No sabe
 Prefiere no responder 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 95 
Alimentación basada en la Taza Escolar
La taza escolar es una representación del Ministerio de Educación de Guatemala para explicar cómo los 
niños y jóvenes en edad escolar deben comer. Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas basándose en 
información que usted ha visto o recibido sobre la taza escolar. 
[Encuestador: Dale la copia de la taza escolar al maestro/a]
¿Ha visto esta imagen de la taza escolar?
 Si
 No [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No responde [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
¿En dónde vio esta imagen por primera vez?
 
¿Según la distribución de la taza escolar, cuál opción mencionada abajo es el mejor ejemplo de un 
almuerzo que se debe ofrecer en las escuelas?
 Atol de avena
 Tortilla con aguacate
 Tamalito de frijol con queso y salsa
 Sopa de fideo
 Ninguno
 No sabe o no responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 96 
Alimentación en la Escuela
¿Sus estudiantes recibieron alimentación en la escuela ayer?
 Si
 No [PROG: SKIP MENU QUESTIONS]
 No sabe o no responde [PROG: SKIP MENU QUESTIONS]
¿Qué recibieron? (NO lea las opciones)
 1) Espagueti con espinaca y carne
 2) Doblada de papa y queso
 3) Guisado de verduras con huevo
 4) Boxboles
 5) Shepes con salsa
 6) Siete camisas
 7) Salpicón de rábano con carne vegetal
 8) Empanada de frijol con hierbas
 9) Guisado de fideo con bledo y pollo
 10) Tamalito de chipilín con pollo
 11) Arroz negro
 12) Tortitas de ejote
 13) Enchilada de verdura con carne
 14) Tortilla con frijol y huevo
 15) Chaomein con verdura y pollo
 16) Doblada rellena de hortalizas y frijol
 17) De manía con leche
 18) Chuchitos de frijol y hierbamora con queso
 19) Pupusas de hierba con queso
 20) Arroz con hortalizas y huevo
 21) Chaomein de res
 22) Enchilada de carne vegetal
 23) Fideos con carne y verduras o hierbas
 24) Dobladas de hierbas con requesón
 25) Tamalito de frijol con queso y salsa
 26) Pan con picado de verduras y carne vegetal
 27) Caldo de pollo con arroz y verduras o hierbas
 28) Frijoles con huevo duro
 29) Hierbas guisadas con huevo
 30) Huevo con tomate y cebolla
 31) Tamalitos de chipilín con queso y pollo
 32) Empanada de frijol con hierbas
 33) Otro
 34) No sabe o no responde
[PROG: OPEN SECONDARY MENU QUESTIONS BASED ON QUESTEION ABOVE]
¿Con que venía acompañado el Espagueti con espinaca y carne? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de chilacayote
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 97 
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañada la Doblada de papa y queso? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de harina fortificada con leche
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Guisado de verduras con huevo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de arroz en leche
 Tortilla
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado los Boxboles? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de haba con leche
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado los Shepes con salsa? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de harina fortificada con manía
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Siete camisas? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Refresco de papaya y piria
 Queso fresco
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Salpicón de rábano con carne vegetal? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de guayaba
 Tortillas
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Empanada de frijol con hierbas? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 98 
 Refresco de manzana y membrillo
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde 
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Guisado de fideo con bledo y pollo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de mora
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Tamalito de chipilín con pollo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de haba con leche
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Arroz negro? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Refresco de naranja y limón
 Queso fresco
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado las Tortitas de ejote? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de harina fortificada con leche
 Tortilla y fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Enchilada de verdura con carne? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de plátano
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Tortilla con frijol y huevo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de manzana
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 99 
¿Con que venía acompañado el Chaomein con verdura y pollo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de limonada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Doblada rellena de hortalizas y frijol? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de amaranto con leche
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la De manía con leche? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Refresco de horchata
 Ensalada de frutas con amaranto y miel
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado los Chuchitos de frijol y hierbamora con queso? (Encuestador, permitir 
respuesta múltiples.)
 Refresco de manzana y membrillo
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado las Pupusas de hierba con queso? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de avena
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Arroz con hortalizas y huevo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de pinol con leche
 Fruta de la temporada
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Chaomein de res? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de avena O refresco de avena
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 100 
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Enchilada de carne vegetal? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de harina fortificada O refresco de harina fortificada
 Fruta
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado los Fideos con carne y verduras o hierbas? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Caliente de piña o refresco de Jamaica con piña
 Tortilla
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado las Dobladas de hierbas con requesón? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Arroz con leche U horchata de arroz con leche
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Tamalito de frijol con queso y salsa? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Atol de haba con leche o refresco de avena y fruta
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Pan con picado de verduras y carne vegetal? (Encuestador, permitir 
respuesta múltiples.)
 Atol de harina fortificada con leche o refresco
 Fruta
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Caldo de pollo con arroz y verduras o hierbas? (Encuestador, permitir 
respuesta múltiples.)
 Horchata de arroz con manía y leche
 Totilla
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado los Frijoles con huevo duro? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Caliente de manzana O limonada
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 101 
 Tortilla
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado las Hierbas guisadas con huevo? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Ponche de frutas o refresco de piña
 Tortillas
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el Huevo con tomate y cebolla? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Arroz con chocolate u horchata de arroz con leche
 Fruta
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venían acompañado los Tamalitos de chipilín con queso y pollo? (Encuestador, permitir 
respuesta múltiples.)
 Horchata de arroz
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado la Empanada de frijol con hierbas? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Refresco de manzana y membrillo
 Nada
 No sabe o no responde
 Otro
¿Con que venía acompañado el [otro]?
 
¿Los estudiantes en tu salón de clases se lavaron los dientes en la escuela ayer? (o el último día de 
escuela)
 Si
 No
 No sabe o no responde
¿En qué momentos se lavaron las manos los niños de su clase ayer? (o el último día de escuela) 
(Encuestador, NO LEA las opciones. Permitir respuestas múltiples.)
 Antes de comer
 Antes de cocinar
 Después de usar la letrina / inodoro.
 Después de tocar algo sucio, como animales o suciedad
 Después de estornudar
 No sabe o no responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 102 
¿En qué momentos es más importante lavarse las manos? (Encuestador, NO LEA las opciones. Permitir 
respuestas múltiples.)
 Antes de comer
 Antes de cocinar
 Después de usar la letrina / inodoro
 Después de tocar algo sucio, como animales o suciedad
 Después de estornudar
 Otros
 Después de cambiar pañales
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué alimentos ayudan a los niños a crecer? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta múltiples.)
 Leche, carne, huevo u otros derivados de animales
 Cereales, granos y tubérculos
 Hierbas, verduras y Frutas
 Frijoles, carne de soya y haba
 Grasas
 Ninguno
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué grupo de alimentos les da principalmente energía a los niños para la actividad física?
 Leche, carne, huevo u otros derivados de animales
 Cereales, granos y tubérculos
 Hierbas, verduras y Frutas
 Frijoles, carne de soya y habas
 Grasas
 Ninguno
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué grupo de alimentos por su alto contenido de vitaminas, minerales y fibra protegen de enfermedades?
 Leche, carne, huevo u otros derivados de animales
 Cereales, granos y tubérculos
 Hierbas, verduras y Frutas
 Frijoles, carne de soya y habas
 Grasas
 Ninguno
 No sabe o no responde
¿Cuáles son los efectos negativos de comer demasiada azúcar? (Encuestador, permitir respuesta 
múltiples.)
 Problemas en los dientes / caries
 Riesgo de diabetes / azúcar alto
 Aumento de peso / obesidad
 Hiperactividad / exceso de energía
 Les da sueño
 No sabe o no responde
¿Qué alimentos son importantes para prevenir la anemia? (ENCUESTADOR, permitir respuestas 
múltiples)
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 103 
 Hígado/riñón/corazón
 Carne roja/pescado/pollo
 Manzana
 Incaparina y otros productos fortificados
 Frijoles
 No sabe o no responde
¿Por qué es importante consumir sal yodada?
 Para crecer
 Para la inteligencia
 Para los dientes
 Ninguno
 No sabe o no responde
ENCUESTADOR LEA LA FRASE: "Pensando en los niños de edad escolar en su escuela, indique si 
cada oración es verdadera (V), falsa (F), o no está seguro (NES). 
Cuando el niño come todos los días: mosh, corn flakes, tortilla con frijol y arroz para almuerzo y cena. 
Este niño está bien alimentado."
 Verdadero
 Falso
 No está seguro
 No responde
Al igual que la leche, la Incaparina es rica en calcio.
 Verdadero
 Falso
 No está seguro
 No responde
A los niños les puede dar anemia si les falta alimentos que tienen hierro o fortificados con hierro
 Verdadero
 Falso
 No está seguro
 No responde
Los síntomas de anemia en niños escolares incluyen el cansancio, palidez y dificultades para aprender
 Verdadero
 Falso
 No está seguro
 No responde
Tomar agua pura en lugar de fresco o gaseosa ayuda a prevenir la diabetes.
 Verdadero
 Falso
 No está seguro
 No responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 104 
ENCUESTADOR LEA LA FRASE: Pensando en los niños de su escuela, indique si está de acuerdo, 
neutral, en desacuerdo con las siguientes oraciones. 
En mi escuela hay problema de desnutrición en los niños
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Es importante educar a mis estudiantes sobre la comida chatarra.
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
La anemia causada por falta de hierro es una condición seria en los niños
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Mi rol de educador me facilita comunicar mensajes sobre nutrición en mi escuela y comunidad
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Cuando enseño a mis estudiantes sobre nutrición, puedo ayudar a mejorar su salud.
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Me siento capacitado para poder enseñarle a los estudiantes sobre buenas prácticas de la nutrición 
saludable
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Para prestar atención en clase, es importante que los niños tomen suficiente agua
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Tengo suficiente tiempo en mis clases para enseñarle a los estudiantes sobre nutrición
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 105 
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Mis alumnos necesitan aprender sobre nutrición para prevenir el sobrepeso
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Los maestros son responsables de enseñarles a los niños sobre nutrición
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
Los padres son responsables de enseñar a sus hijos sobre nutrición
 De acuerdo
 Neutral
 Desacuerdo
 No sabe o no responde
ENCUESTADOR LEA LA FRASE:"Con qué frecuencia Ud. realiza cada una de las siguientes 
actividades. Indique si lo hace a menudo, algunas veces, o nunca. 
Enseño a leer y escribir utilizando nombres de alimentos
 A menudo
 Algunas veces
 Nunca
 No sabe o no responde
Les pido a mis estudiantes reportar si no hay agua o jabón para lavarse las manos en la escuela
 A menudo
 Algunas veces
 Nunca
 No sabe o no responde
Enseño sobre los riesgos de comer mucho azúcar
 A menudo
 Algunas veces
 Nunca
 No sabe o no responde
Realizo juegos para promover mensajes sobre alimentación
 A menudo
 Algunas veces
 Nunca
 No sabe o no responde
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 106 
Algunas escuelas cultivan verduras y/o frutas para el consumo de los estudiantes. ¿Hay un huerto en tu 
escuela?
 Si
 No [PROG: END SURVEY]
 No sabe o no responde [PROG: END SURVEY]
En las últimas dos semanas, ¿los estudiantes trabajaron en el huerto escolar?
 Si [PROG: SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
 No
 No sabe o no responde
¿Por qué los estudiantes no trabajaron en el huerto escolar? (NO lea las opciones)
 Agua insuficiente
 Tiempo insuficiente
 Falta de materiales / herramientas de jardinería
 No permitido por la escuela
 Estudiantes no interesados
 Huerto demasiado pequeño
 Otro
 No sabe o no responde
En el último mes, ¿sus estudiantes consumieron algo producido por el huerto escolar?
 Si [PROG: END SURVEY]
 No
 No sabe o no responde
¿Por qué los estudiantes no consumieron nada producido por el huerto escolar? (ENCUESTADOR, 
permitir respuesta múltiple. NO leer respuestas)
 Porque el huerto no produjo nada
 Porque no les gusta a los estudiantes lo que produce el huerto [PROG: END SURVEY]
 Porque no es temporada de cosecha [PROG: END SURVEY]
 Porque es muy temprano para cosechar [PROG: END SURVEY]
 Otro [PROG: END SURVEY]
 No sabe o no responde [PROG: END SURVEY]
¿Por qué no produjo nada el huerto?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 107 
GUÍA DE OBSERVACIÓN ESCOLAR 1
Nombre del enumerador: ________________________________________
Posición geo referencia: _________________________________________
Fecha de la aplicación:
FECHA __ / __ / ____
HORA __:__:__ AM/PM
DATOS DEL ESTABLECIMIENTO
Seleccione de la lista la escuela que está visitando.
Municipio _______________________________________________
CodEst _______________________________________________
Dirección _______________________________________________
Nombre Observador
Observador, ingrese su nombre por favor: _______________________________
Instalaciones Escolares: Espacio para almacenar alimentos
1 
Sí No (Enumerador, Si la 
respuesta es “No,” 
salta al #17.) La escuela cuenta con un lugar para 
almacenar los alimentos (almacén).
2 El lugar es: Sí No Comentarios
Gabinete
Habitación
3 Otro
¿Cuál?
Sí No Comentarios
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 108 
4 
El lugar para almacenar alimentos se 
utiliza exclusivamente para almacenar 
alimentos.
5 
El lugar para almacenar alimentos está 
limpio y organizado (comida guardada 
adecuada mente y libre de restos de 
comida)
6 
¿Se observa evidencia de humedad o huele 
a humedad en el lugar para almacenar 
alimentos?
7 
En el lugar para almacenar alimentos, los 
alimentos se almacenan fuera del piso en 
repisas o dentro de un mueble seguro y 
limpio.
8 
Se observan sustancias fecales o alguna 
otra evidencia de roedores o cucarachas (o 
alguna otra peste o animal) en el lugar para 
almacenar alimentos.
9 
El lugar para almacenar alimentos tiene un 
control diario actualizado disponible en el 
almacén.
10
El lugar para almacenar alimentos tiene un 
equipo de medición de porciones (taza de 
medir, bascula, o pesa).
11 El equipo de medición de las porciones de 
comida está limpio y en buena condición.
12
En el lugar para almacenar alimentos, los 
alimentos se encuentran sellados y no se 
observan derrames.
14 La tabla de cálculo de porciones se 
encuentra exhibida.
15
El espacio para almacenar alimentos está 
identificado con el logo (imagen) de Save 
the Children.
16
El lugar para almacenar alimentos tiene 
una lista de verificación de visitas de los 
técnicos de Save the Children.
Instalaciones Escolares: Espacio para cocina
17
Sí No [PROG: IF NO, 
La escuela tiene un espacio para SKIP TO 30] cocina.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 109 
Sí No Comentarios
28 El espacio para cocinar está al aire libre.
18 El espacio de cocina se usa exclusivamente 
para cocinar.
19 El espacio para cocinar tiene puerta.
20
El espacio de cocina tiene piso de cemento 
o cualquier otro material para recubrir el 
piso.
22 El espacio para cocina está organizado 
(platos y cubiertos tapados).
23 El espacio de cocina está visiblemente 
limpio (libres de restos de comida).
24 El espacio de cocina cuenta con bote de 
basura.
25 El espacio de cocina tiene lavamanos (sea 
agua entubada o agua almacenada).
26
En el espacio de cocina, hay agua para 
limpieza (sea agua entubada o agua 
almacenada).
27 El espacio de cocina tiene un menú 
semanal.
La etiqueta 
dice yodada.
La etiqueta no 
dice yodada.
No se observa 
la etiqueta.
29
Observe si el paquete de la sal dice ‘sal 
yodada.’ (Nota: Si no es posible ver el 
paquete, indica “no se observa.”)
Instalaciones Escolares: Equipo de Cocina
30
Sí No [PROG: IF NO, 
SKIP TO 36] La escuela tiene estufa.
Gas Leña Ahorrador 
de leña
Otro 
[PROG: IF 
“Other” ask 
question 32]
31 La estufa es de:
32 ¿De qué tipo es la estufa?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 110 
33
Sí No Comentarios
¿La estufa tiene chimenea?
Instalaciones Escolares: Servicios sanitarios para los estudiantes
36
Sí No [PROG: IF NO, 
SKIP TO 48] ¿Hay servicios sanitarios para los 
estudiantes en la escuela?
37
Inodoro Letrina
Los servicios sanitarios son: (Marque el más común.)
38 ¿Qué tipo de letrina se utiliza? Seleccione una
Letrina de pozo
Letrina elevada
Letrina de cubeta
Letrina de losa
Letrina de compostaje
Inodoro con descarga 
directa
Inodoro con descarga 
manual (el usuario vierte 
agua para la descarga)
39 ¿Qué tipo de inodoro se utiliza?
Respuesta numérica
40 Número de inodoros/letrinas individuales para uso de estudiantes
41
Número de inodoros/letrinas individuales que se encuentran 
funcionando para uso de estudiantes (disponible, funcional, con 
cerrojo)
Sí No Comentarios
42 Los inodoros/letrinas se encuentran 
separados para hombres y para mujeres.
43 Los inodoros/letrinas tienen puertas con 
cerrojos.
44
El espacio está visiblemente limpio. 
(Todos los baños no tienen un olor fuerte o 
un número significativo de moscas o 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 111 
mosquitos, y no hay heces visibles en el 
piso, las paredes, el asiento o alrededor de 
las instalaciones.)
45 Los inodoros/letrinas/baños tienen bote de 
basura.
46
Los inodoros/letrinas tienen una lista de 
verificación del mantenimiento diario del 
baño/letrina.
Instalaciones Escolares: Instalaciones para lavado de manos
48
Sí No [PROG: IF NO, 
La escuela tiene un lugar para que los SKIP TO 51]
estudiantes se laven las manos.
49
Para lavarse las manos, los estudiantes 
utilizan: (Esta pregunta se refiere a la 
infraestructura.)
Sí No Comentarios
Lavamanos con grifo
Pila con grifo
Tanque de agua con grifo
Cubeta con grifo
Contenedor de agua elevado, con un 
pequeño agujero
Pila o cubeta con palangana
Pila o cubeta (se meten las manos)
49.1 Otro
¿Cuál?
50
Para lavarse las manos, los estudiantes 
tienen acceso a: (Encuestador, Seleccione 
todos que apliquen.)
Sí No Comentarios
Jabón
Agua o contenedor con agua
Ninguno
Instalaciones Escolares: Agua para consumo de los estudiantes
51
Sí No [PROG: IF NO, 
La escuela tiene agua para consumo de los SKIP TO 86]
estudiantes.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 112 
52 La principal fuente de agua en la escuela es:
Sistema de captación de agua de lluvia
Agua entubada
Pozo de agua o nacimiento de agua protegido
Pozo de agua o nacimiento de agua sin protección
Lago, río, arrollo
53 Otro
Por favor especifique.
 
Sí No Comentarios
54 La escuela tiene cisterna para almacenar 
agua.
55 ¿Se encuentra actualmente disponible el 
agua, proveniente de la fuente primaria?
56 ¿Se trata el agua para que sea segura para 
consumir?
57 ¿Qué medida utiliza? Selección multiple
Ecofiltro de arcilla 
Hervir el agua
Clorar el agua
Desinfección solar
58 Otro
Por favor especifique:
[PROG: IF “ECOFILTRO” NOT SELECTED, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]
59.1 ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que cambiaron el 
ecofiltro? (mes y año o dejar en blanco si no se sabe) MM/AAAA
59
Sí No Comentarios
¿El ecofiltro tiene agua?
Preguntas para el/la director/a
Encuestador, hágale las siguientes preguntas al director/a de la escuela.
86
Sí No No sabe o no 
responde
¿Hay un programa de alimentación escolar 
en esta escuela en este ciclo escolar 2019?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 113 
87 ¿Quién proporciona el programa de alimentación escolar en esta 
escuela en este ciclo escolar 2019?
A Save de Children, IDEA
B USAID Leer y Aprender
C Child Aid
D CRS/Caritas
E Ministerio de Educación u oficinas locales de educación
F Programa académico de desarrollo profesional docente (PADEP)
87.1 Otro(s)
Por favor especifique
H No sabe o no responde
88 ¿Qué comidas han proporcionado estos programas de alimentación 
escolar?
A Bebida sola (como atol)
B Bebida y comida pequeña
C Comida pequeña sola
D Plato completo
E Alimentos para llevar a casa
89 Otro
Por favor especifique
90
Sí No No sabe o no 
responde
¿Los estudiantes contribuyen con comida 
o leña para la alimentación escolar?
91 ¿Qué contribuyen?
Sí No No sabe o no 
responde
93 ¿Hay gobierno escolar para la escuela?
93.1 ¿Sabe qué es el semáforo de limpieza?
94 ¿Hay semáforo de limpieza en uso?
[PROG: IF NO, SKIP TO 85]
95
(Encuestador: pide ver el semáforo y 
observe.) El semáforo se encuentra 
exhibida en un lugar abierto.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 114 
Jardines de la escuela
85
Sí No Comentarios
La escuela tiene un huerto.
Biblioteca escolar
96
Sí No Comentarios
¿Esta escuela tiene una biblioteca? 
(Recursos de lectura)
97
1-10 11-50 Más de 50
¿Cuántos libros tiene la biblioteca de la 
escuela? [Enumerador, pide que lo dejen 
contar los libros (hasta un máximo de 50)]
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 115 
GUÍA DE OBSERVACIÓN ESCOLAR 2
Seguridad alimentaria y prácticas de higiene: Preparación de comida
Sí No
60
¿Durante la visita, se observó la 
preparación de alimentos?
[PROG: IF NO, 
END 
OBSERVATION]
60.1 ¿Se prepara comida en la escuela para 
consumo de los estudiantes?
Sí No No se 
observa Comentarios
61
Todas las personas que 
manejan los alimentos 
utilizan un delantal/gabacha 
visible y limpio.
63
Todas las personas que 
manejan los alimentos usan 
redecilla o pañuelo para el 
cabello.
65
Durante la observación, ¿al 
menos una persona que 
maneja los alimentos se lavó 
las manos?
65.1
¿Se lavó correctamente las 
manos? (jabón y agua que 
corre)
67
La comida se mantiene 
cubierta para protegerla de 
contaminación.
73
El equipo de comida, los 
utensilios y las superficies de 
contacto fueron lavados, 
enjuagados y desinfectados 
apropiadamente. [Si el 
observador no puede 
observar el proceso de 
preparación de comida, 
marque "no se observa" y 
preguntará sobre el proceso 
utilizado. Detalla el proceso 
usado en el comentario que 
sigue.]
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 116 
75
Toda agua almacenada está 
limpia y libre de grasa y de 
partículas de comida.
77
Las superficies de trabajo 
están visiblemente limpias 
(sin restos de comida).
79 Los botes de basura se 
mantienen cubiertos.
81
Los botes de basura están 
apropiadamente llenos, sin 
rebalsar.
Encuestador, haga las siguientes preguntas a una de las personas que prepara la comida:
83 ¿Quién tiene acceso a la cocina? (Enumerador, permitir respuestas 
múltiples)
Personal que prepara la comida
Padres de familia
Maestros
Niños (estudiantes o hijos voluntarios)
83.1 Otro
Por favor especifique:
84 ¿Cuándo se lava las manos? (Enumerador, NO lea 
las opciones.) Marque todas las que correspondan
Antes de preparar la comida
Después de tocar alimentos crudos
Después de usar el baño
84.1 Otro
Por favor especifique:
Nunca
84.2 ¿Dónde se lava las manos? (Enumerador, observe 
si hay…) Marque todas las que correspondan
Jabón
Agua o contenedor con agua
Ni jabón ni agua
No se observa
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 117 
KII MAESTROS
Hola, mi nombre es [nombre de entrevistador] y trabajo para Juárez & Asociados. Estamos 
realizando un estudio del proyecto Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS) de Save the 
Children para entender mejor cómo aprenden los niños. Su ayuda es muy valiosa para nosotros, 
sin embargo, no necesita participar si no lo desea. 
Su nombre no se registraran en este formulario, ni se mencionarán en ningún lugar de los datos 
de la entrevista. 
La entrevista durará aproximadamente una hora y le haremos preguntas sobre su experiencia 
como docente y sobre cuestiones relacionadas con la nutrición y la salud de los alumnos. Si usted 
permite, la entrevista será grabada.
Si acepta responder a las preguntas y cualquier pregunta lo hace sentir incómodo, podemos 
omitirlas. También puede optar por dejar de responder en cualquier momento. Por favor déjeme 
saber si tiene alguna pregunta antes de comenzar o durante la entrevista
Su identidad se mantendrá confidencial asegurándonos que ninguno de sus comentarios permita 
que usted o su escuela sean identificados.
¿Tiene alguna pregunta? 
¿Está dispuesto a participar? 
______________________________________________________________________________
____
Inicio
1) ¿Conoce el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible LENS? (ENCUESTADOR: 
Si no, salte a #2).
a. ¿Es LENS la forma como le llaman al programa?
b. ¿Podría describir brevemente sus expectativas de LENS?
c. ¿Qué beneficios espera del programa para su escuela?
d. ¿Cuáles son los retos que considera que LENS puede encontrar en su escuela?
Nutrición e Higiene de la Escuela
Ahora hablemos sobre la nutrición e higiene dentro de la escuela. 
2) ¿Esta escuela proporcionó algún tipo de alimentos a los estudiantes el año pasado? 
ENCUESTADOR: Si el maestro no sabe porque no estuvo en esta escuela el año 
pasado, salte a pregunta #3. Si no, ¿por qué no? 
a. ¿Qué alimentos proporcionó? 
b. ¿Era una alimentación adecuada y saludable? ¿Por qué si o no? 
c. ¿Qué sugerencias tiene para mejorar la comida de la escuela?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 118 
d. En su escuela, ¿quién decide que alimentos servir?
3) ¿Qué tan importante es que su escuela brinde alimentación a los estudiantes durante su 
jornada escolar? ¿Por qué?
4) ¿Qué alimentos se venden en su escuela?
a. ¿Cuánto cuestan? (agrupar y poner rango) 
b. ¿Quiénes los venden? 
c. ¿Hay restricción de que se vende o quienes venden?
d. ¿Qué opina Ud. de estos alimentos?
e. ¿Tiene sugerencias acerca de los alimentos que se deben vender en su escuela?
5) ¿Ha recibido capacitación sobre la nutrición escolar? Si no, ¿por qué no?
a. ¿Qué temas cubrieron en la capacitación? 
b. ¿Quién dio la capacitación? 
c. ¿Qué partes de la capacitación le parecían más útil? 
d. ¿Sobre qué temas de nutrición escolar le gustaría recibir capacitación? 
6) ¿Qué materiales tienen para enseñar temas de nutrición a los niños?
 
7) ¿Qué hábitos de higiene promueven en su escuela? 
a. ¿Como los promueve? 
8) ¿Ha recibido capacitación en prácticas de higiene escolar? Si no, ¿por qué no?
a. ¿Qué temas cubrieron en la capacitación?
b. ¿Quién dio la capacitación? 
c. ¿Hay algo de la capacitación que fue útil? 
d. En general, no hablando solo de las capacitaciones previas, ¿Sobre qué temas de 
higiene escolar le gustaría recibir capacitación? 
Alimentos locales y la Diversidad de la Dieta
9) ¿Cuáles alimentos que se producen en esta zona, serían buenos de incluir en el menú de la 
escuela? 
a. ¿Siempre están disponibles?
b. ¿Quiénes producen estos alimentos?
c. ¿Cómo podrían ser utilizados o preparados? (recetas, etc…) 
d. ¿Qué tanto les gustarían estos alimentos a los estudiantes?
Estado de Implementación del Programa [SALTAR SI AL PRINCIPIO AFIRMARON NO 
CONOCER EL PROGRAMA]
Ahora hablemos sobre el proyecto LENS 
11) ¿Ha recibido alguna capacitación por parte del proyecto LENS?
a. Si ha recibido, ¿de qué fue la capacitación?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 119 
b. ¿Hay algo de la capacitación que fue útil? ¿Cómo?
c. ¿Como haría la capacitación más útil?
d. APLICA A TODOS: ¿está enterado de capacitaciones futuras en las que 
participará? ¿Saben los temas o algunos detalles?
12) ¿Conoce los círculos de aprendizaje?
a. Si lo está, ¿ha participado previamente en algún círculo de aprendizaje? 
i. Por favor describa su experiencia.
13) ¿Ha recibido su escuela materiales de lectura por parte del proyecto LENS?
a. Si ha recibido, ¿qué tipo de materiales recibió? 
b. ¿Qué tan apropiados son los materiales para enseñar a leer a los estudiantes? 
¿Cómo? 
Libros y otros materiales de Lectura
Finalmente, hablemos sobre los materiales de lectura en su escuela.
14) ¿Su escuela tiene una biblioteca o un espacio para que los estudiantes lean o piden libros 
prestados? Si no, ¿por qué no? 
a. ¿Qué tipos de libros tiene?
b. ¿En qué idiomas están los libros?
c. ¿Qué tan útiles son los materiales para promover la lectura?
15) ¿Fuera de la escuela, hay otra biblioteca cercana?
a. Si la hay, ¿Dónde está? ¿Qué tan accesible es para sus estudiantes y sus padres?
16) ¿Existen otros programas u actividades de lectura en su escuela? (tales como 
campamentos de lectura o concursos de lectura). Si no, ¿por qué no? 
a. Si existen, por favor, describa los programas o actividades. 
b. Desde su perspectiva, ¿qué tan útiles son para promover la lectura? 
Conclusión
Gracias por hablar conmigo hoy. Sus opiniones son muy valiosas. 
17) ¿Hay algo más que quisiera mencionar acerca de la lectura y nutrición en su escuela?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 120 
GUÍA DE GRUPOS FOCALES CON PADRES DE FAMILIA
A. Introducción y consentimiento (10 minutos)
Introducción (resumida por el facilitador)
Hola, gracias por hacer tiempo para participar en esta conversación de grupo focal (FGD). Soy 
[NOMBRE], el moderador. Trabajo con Juárez & Asociados y NORC de la Universidad de 
Chicago. Estamos trabajando para evaluar un programa de alfabetización y nutrición llamado 
Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS) implementado por Save the Children. 
Hemos pedido a ustedes que nos hablen sobre sus opiniones sobre el proyecto LENS. El propósito 
de este estudio es comprender cómo los niños aprenden a leer. Lo que aprendemos se utilizará para 
mejorar el diseño del programa y también podría ayudar a diseñar mejores programas en el futuro. 
Su identidad se mantendrá confidencial y nos aseguraremos de que ninguno de sus comentarios se 
remita a usted.
Nuestra conversación se grabará con esta tableta [presente tableta] para que pueda revisar la 
conversación y tomar notas. Nada de lo que diga estará asociado a su nombre. Del mismo modo, 
le pedimos que sea respetuoso con las opiniones de los demás y que no repita fuera de esta sala lo 
que se dice hoy aquí. Es importante que nos dé su opinion sincera. 
La conversación durará aproximadamente una hora y media y nos detendremos para tomar un 
descanso en el medio. Hasta este momento, ¿tiene algo que requiera nuestras aclaraciones o tiene 
alguna pregunta? [dejar espacio para preguntas]. Si no hay más preguntas, procederemos. 
Consentimiento informado
Por este medio pido su permiso verbal para continuar con la conversación de grupo focal (FGD). 
Si no acepta participar en la discusión del grupo focal, siéntase libre de abandonar la sala. No 
estaremos en contacto con usted o su familia si no desea participar.
PERMITIR A LOS MIEMBROS QUE NO ACEPTEN SALIR DE LA SALA.
Certifico que he discutido los procedimientos de consentimiento con los encuestados, ____ en 
total, y solo continué con el consentimiento de todos los miembros presentes o que permanecen en 
la sala.
Firma (facilitador) Fecha:
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 121 
A. Preguntas de evaluación (45 minutos) 
Ahora vamos a hablar sobre el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS). Antes 
de comenzar, me gustaría establecer reglas para esta conversación. Cada uno de ustedes tendrá la 
oportunidad de hablar y compartir sus pensamientos. Queremos asegurarnos de que todos se 
sientan cómodos compartiendo sus pensamientos, incluso si son diferentes. Recuerde, no hay 
respuestas correctas o incorrectas. Por favor, no critique las respuestas de nadie, ni interrumpa 
cuando estén hablando. Por favor, no discuta nada de lo que digan fuera de esta sala. ¿Están todos 
de acuerdo?
[Moderador: asegura que todos estén de acuerdo]
Apertura
1. ¿Está familiarizado con el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS)? 
a. ¿Es LENS como se llama este programa?
b. ¿Puede decirme qué sabe de este programa? [Después de que los participantes 
respondan, complemente la descripción del programa (por ejemplo, explique que LENS 
proporcionará comidas en las escuelas y mejorará la calidad de la instrucción para la 
lectura, a través de la provisión de herramientas de enseñanza y materiales de lectura 
complementarios).
c. ¿Puede describir brevemente sus expectativas del programa?
i. ¿Cuáles son algunos de los beneficios que espera ver del programa? 
ii. ¿Cuáles son algunos desafíos que podría enfrentar el programa? 
Adecuación de las comidas del programa
Ahora vamos a discutir el papel del proyecto relacionado con la nutrición escolar. 
2. Si sus hijos recibieron una comida escolar el año pasado, ¿qué les proporcionaron? 
a. ¿A sus hijos les gustó la comida provista en la escuela?
3. Si sus hijos comen en la escuela, ¿de igual forma comen algo antes de ir a la escuela?
Si es así, ¿qué tipo de alimentos suelen comer en casa antes de la escuela?
4. ¿Con qué frecuencia los niños compran alimentos mientras están en la escuela?
¿Qué tipo de comida? 
5. ¿Contribuyeron las familias a la comida escolar el año pasado? [Sondear: por ej. Leña, ayuda 
con la preparación, trayendo unos cuantos tomates, etc.] 
 ¿Cómo contribuyó su familia a la comida escolar el año pasado? 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 122 
a. ¿Cree que su familia podría seguir haciendo esta contribución? 
6. Aparte de estas contribuciones, ¿participaron los padres en el programa de comidas escolares?
Si es así, ¿en qué tipo de actividades participaron los padres?
a. ¿Qué se podría hacer para involucrar más a los padres?
¿Cómo espera participar en el programa de comidas escolares este año?
7. ¿Sabe quién preparó las comidas escolares?
 ¿Son voluntarios o se les paga? 
8. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre las formas en que se preparan los alimentos en la escuela?
9. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre la higiene?
¿Tiene alguna sugerencia sobre cómo mejorar la higiene?
10. ¿De qué manera funcionaron bien las comidas escolares?
¿Cuáles fueron los retos?
11. ¿Qué sugerencias tiene para las comidas escolares en el futuro?
Oportunidades percibidas para integrar alimentos / recetas locales en las comidas escolares
12. En su escuela, ¿cómo se toman las decisiones sobre qué alimentos servir?
13. ¿Puede pensar en algún alimento producido en su comunidad que sea bueno incluir en la 
comida escolar?
a. Si es así, ¿qué alimentos son? ¿Están siempre disponibles o solo algunas veces?
 ¿Cuándo? 
Satisfacción y adecuación de los resultados del programa 
14. ¿Puede pensar en algo que su hijo le haya dicho que aprendió sobre nutrición en la escuela? 
a. ¿Le pidieron que pruebe una nueva práctica o actividad de nutrición en casa?
15. ¿Puede pensar en algo que su hijo le haya dicho que aprendió sobre salud en la escuela? 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 123 
16. ¿Qué tan satisfecho está con lo que su hijo ha aprendido en la escuela sobre salud y nutrición?
 ¿Por qué? 
17. ¿Qué tipos de recursos de lectura (por ejemplo, libros, libros de texto, revistas) se 
proporcionaron a sus hijos como parte del programa LENS? 
 ¿Qué tan satisfecho está con esos recursos de lectura?
Gracias a todos por su participación. 
18. ¿Hay algo más de lo que te gustaría mencionar que aún no hayamos hablado? 
C. Cierre
Agradezca a todos por su participación, explique que ha sido muy útil y explique nuevamente para 
qué se utilizará la información que han compartido. 
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 124 
KII PRODUCTORES LOCALES
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo de platicar conmigo el día de hoy. Mi nombre es [nombre de 
entrevistador] y trabajo para Juárez & Asociados. Estamos realizando un estudio de Save the 
Children para mejor entender su experiencia con el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición 
Sostenible (LENS). Su ayuda es muy valiosa para nosotros, sin embargo, no necesita participar si 
no lo desea. 
El propósito de esta entrevista es comprender de mejor manera su experiencia con el programa 
de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS). Su participación es voluntaria y usted puede 
dejar de participar en el momento que lo desee. La entrevista tomará aproximadamente una hora 
y si usted permite, la entrevista será grabada. Se elaborará un reporte con los resultados de este 
estudio, sin embargo, su identidad se mantendrá confidencial asegurándonos que ninguno de sus 
comentarios pueda ser rastreado a usted o su organización. 
¿Tiene alguna pregunta? 
¿Está dispuesto a participar?
Opening
1) Registrar el sexo de la persona, por observación.
2) ¿Qué edad tiene?
3) ¿Está familiarizado con el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible (LENS)?
Si si:
a. ¿Es LENS la forma como le llaman al programa?
b. ¿Podría describir brevemente el programa? [Después de que el entrevistado 
conteste, complementé su descripción del proyecto, en particular explique qué 
LENS va promover la compra de productos agrícolas locales para los programas 
de alimentación escolar.]
i. ¿Cuáles son sus expectativas del programa? 
ii. ¿Qué beneficios espera del programa?
iii. ¿Cuáles son los retos que como productor podría enfrontar como 
consecuencia de participar en el programa? 
Prior Experience 
Ahora, hablemos de su actividad agrícola.
4) ¿Cuáles son los cinco cultivos más importantes que usted produjo en los últimos 12 
meses?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 125 
a. CROP PRODUCTION
Listado de 
cultivos 
mencionados por 
el entrevistado
ÁREA DE TIERRA 
UTILIZADA PARA 
CRECER ESTE 
CULTIVO
(TODAS LAS 
PARCELAS ; 
HECTAREAS) 
[Si es cero, continúe 
con el siguiente 
cultivo]
Si te da el área en 
cuerdas, incluye la 
conversión de cuerdas 
a metros cuadrados. 
¿CUÁNTO COSECHÓ? ¿CUÁNTA COSECHA 
VENDIÓ?
¿CUANTO RECIBIÓ 
POR LA VENTA DE SU 
COSECHA EN TOTAL? 
¿CUÁNTO DE SU COSECHA, 
UTILIZÓ PARA CONSUMO?
Cantidad Unidades
10 Unidad 
11 Libras 
12 KG 
13 Quintales 
14 Otro
Cantidad Unidades
10 Unidad 
11 Libras 
12 KG 
13 Quintales 
14 Otro 
(QUETZALS) Cantidad Unidades
10 Unidad 
11 Libras 
12 KG 
13 Quintales 
14 Otro 
|__|__|__|.|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|
|__|__|__|.|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|
|__|__|__|.|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|
|__|__|__|.|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|
|__|__|__|.|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 126 
5) ¿Quién es el dueño de la tierra donde usted cultiva? 
a. ¿Paga por utilizar la tierra?
6) ¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades que tiene para producir? (Ejemplo. falta de 
ingresos para comprar semillas y fertilizantes, dificultades para transportar semillas y 
fertilizantes, acceso al agua, acceso a crédito, etc.)
7) ¿Cómo y dónde almacena su producto? 
a. ¿Cuáles son las dificultades que afronta para poder almacenar su producto?
b. ¿Es habitual que se arruina/pierde parte de su producto? 
8) ¿Cómo transporta su producto? 
a. ¿Cuál es el costo de trasportarlo y qué tan lejos/ a dónde lo transporta? 
b. ¿Cuáles son las dificultades que afronta para transportar su producto? (Ejemplo. 
Carreteras en mal estado, inundaciones, etc) 
9) ¿Se encuentra actualmente registrado en la SAT (Superintendencia de administración 
Tributaria) como productor agrícola? 
a. Si está registrado, ¿cuándo se registró? ¿qué tan fácil fue registrarse? ¿Qué 
asistencia, si hubo, recibió durante el proceso?
b. Si no está registrado, ¿por qué no? (Indague para ver si conocen el sistema) 
i. ¿Cree que sería útil recibir capacitación sobre cómo registrarse en el SAT?
Oportunidades y Retos Asociados a la Provisión de Comida a Escuelas 
Ahora le hare unas preguntas sobre su posible interés en participar en LENS.
10) ¿Ha participado antes en un proyecto como LENS suministrando alimentos a escuelas?
a. ¿Quién fue su contraparte del lado de la escuela? 
b. ¿Qué hizo en ese proyecto? (Si no entrego comida a la escuela, saltar a la 
pregunta 11)
c. ¿Qué tipo de alimentos, con qué frecuencia y cuánto alimento proporcionó a la 
escuela en ese proyecto?
d. ¿Qué tipo de registro o contratación se le requirió como parte de ese proyecto? 
e. ¿Cuáles fueron los mayores beneficios de ese proyecto para usted?
f. ¿Cuáles fueron los mayores retos que enfrento usted en ese proyecto?
11) Si no ha participado, o no está participando actualmente en un programa de 
alimentación escolar (como productor), cuáles son las razones por las que no lo está 
haciendo? (e.g. regulaciones son difíciles de cumplir, su producción no es suficiente para 
participar, dificultades para almacenar/transportar alimentos). 
12) ¿Cómo se diferencia el producir alimentos para las escuelas de producir alimentos para 
consumo propio o para una empresa privada? 
a. ¿Los mecanismos de contratación son diferentes para los productores de 
alimentación escolar de los que usa habitualmente?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 127 
b. ¿Qué prefiere? ¿Por qué?
c) ¿Cree que sería útil recibir capacitación sobre mecanismos de contratación de 
programas de alimentación escolar?
13) ¿Tiene recomendaciones sobre cómo facilitar la relación entre productores locales y 
programas de alimentación escolar, incluida la relación con los directores y las 
organizaciones de padres de familia?
14) En adelante, para participar como productor en programas de alimentación escolar, es 
necesario que el Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA) le expida 
un certificado. ¿Está familiarizado con este proceso?
Si sí:
a. ¿Cuenta con esta certificación del MAGA, o ha intentado obtener esta 
certificación?
b. Si está certificado, ¿cuándo consiguió la certificación? ¿qué tan fácil fue 
conseguirla? ¿Qué asistencia, si hubo, recibió durante el proceso? 
c. Si no está certificado, ¿por qué no? (Indague para ver si conocen el sistema) 
15) ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre las regulaciones gubernamentales para pequeños y medianos 
productores? 
a. ¿Qué tipo de apoyo necesita para cumplir con los requisitos de los pequeños y 
medianos productores agrícolas?
b. ¿Cree que sería útil recibir capacitación sobre cómo enfrentar las regulaciones 
gubernamentales para los pequeños y medianos productores?
16) ¿Cree que es posible que algunos agricultores reciban un trato preferencial en el proceso 
de selección para el programas de alimentación escolar?
a. En caso afirmativo, ¿tiene alguna sugerencia sobre cómo evitar esta situación?
Conclusión
Gracias por platicar conmigo hoy, sobre el programa de Lectoescritura y Nutrición Sostenible 
(LENS).
17) ¿Hay algo más que desea mencionar que aún no hayamos hablado?
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 128 
Annex II. Results for all ELI subtasks
Table II.1. Reading skills by treatment status - IE
Treatment Comparison Difference
Letter Naming - % Correct 69.6 75.1 -5.53*
Letter Naming Task 2 - % Correct 57.7 63.8 -5.68*
Upper/Lowercase Pair Letter Sounds - % 
Correct 54.2 53.3 0.88
Letter Sounds Task 2 - % Correct 43.2 48.1 -4.84*
Initial Phoneme Identification - % Correct 78.3 80.4 -2.10
Phoneme Separation - % Correct 43.4 55.8 -12.36***
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct 48.8 57.3 -8.43**
Non-Word Reading - CWPM 26.2 30.4 -4.14**
Listening Comprehension - % Correct 36.0 46.3 -10.30**
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM 51.0 60.7 -9.64**
Reading Comprehension - % Correct 36.4 50.3 -13.88***
Dictation - % Correct 0.67 0.92 -0.25***
Note: Sample sizes are 455 for the treatment group and 463 for the comparison, although the number of observations 
may be smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data. The differences with respect to the sample sizes 
for the sociodemographic variables correspond to students that did not pass the initial instructions to answer the 
assessment. For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
Table II.2. Reading skills by gender - PE
Males Females Difference
Letter Naming - % Correct 75.9 74.2 1.71
Letter Naming Task 2 - % Correct 61.9 59.7 2.22
Upper/Lowercase Pair Letter Sounds - % 
Correct 56.1 52.8 3.25
Letter Sounds Task 2 - % Correct 42.4 41.0 1.40
Initial Phoneme Identification - % Correct 79.1 74.9 4.20*
Phoneme Separation - % Correct 45.7 44.3 1.38
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct 51.7 52.0 -0.29
Non-Word Reading - CWPM 28.0 27.7 0.33
Listening Comprehension - % Correct 38.1 39.5 -1.42
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM 52.9 54.5 -1.59
Reading Comprehension - % Correct 40.5 39.2 1.26
Dictation - % Correct 0.74 0.72 0.02
Note: Sample sizes are 332 for males and 336 for females, although the number of observations may be smaller for 
some items due to item-specific missing data. The differences with respect to the sample sizes for the 
sociodemographic variables correspond to students that did not pass the initial instructions to answer the assessment.
For the differences tests, standard errors are clustered at the school level.
* p<.1 ** p<.05 *** p<.01
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 129 
Table II.2. Reading skills by municipality - PE
Chajul Cotzal Cunén Nebaj Sacapulas Uspantán
Letter Naming - % Correct 74.1 79.7 68.2 79.4 73.9 76.1
Letter Naming Task 2 - % Correct 53.0 67.1 56.2 64.5 56.5 66.3
Upper/Lowercase Pair Letter Sounds - % 
Correct 43.3 53.8 63.0 50.3 55.4 58.0
Letter Sounds Task 2 - % Correct 26.7 37.8 51.6 35.0 46.8 52.0
Initial Phoneme Identification - % Correct 61.8 79.0 82.8 71.9 81.1 85.9
Phoneme Separation - % Correct 33.0 40.4 43.3 45.9 57.3 54.2
Familiar Word Reading - % Correct 40.3 57.2 53.6 51.1 47.3 59.0
Non-Word Reading - CWPM 21.4 32.4 26.8 28.0 27.6 30.6
Listening Comprehension - % Correct 24.7 43.4 31.9 42.0 44.9 49.2
Oral Reading Fluency - CWPM 37.4 60.5 55.9 52.9 48.5 63.2
Reading Comprehension - % Correct 23.7 43.7 33.6 42.6 46.6 52.3
Dictation - % Correct 0.43 0.80 0.62 0.78 0.85 0.96
Note: Sample size is 668, although the number of observations may be smaller for some items due to item-specific missing data. The difference with respect to 
the sample sizes for the sociodemographic variables correspond to students that did not pass the initial instructions to answer the assessment.
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 130 
Annex III. Average reading fluency and reading
comprehension, by language most spoken at home
37
52
55
74
82
0
20
40
60
80
Correct Words Per Minute
(ORF Sub-Task)
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-11
Reading Comprehension Raw Score
Spanish
35
58
66 64
59
0
20
40
60
80
Correct Words Per Minute
(ORF Sub-Task)
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-11
Reading Comprehension Raw Score
Kiche
NORC | LENS PROGRAM 
BASELINE REPORT | 131 
34
47
60
68 69
0
20
40
60
80
Correct Words Per Minute
(ORF Sub-Task)
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-11
Reading Comprehension Raw Score
Ixil