i
Managua, December 2017
Final Evaluation Report
August/Sept. 2017
Project “Mejor Educación y Salud 
(MESA)” - Nicaragua
Agreement: FFE-524-2013/042-00 
Submitted to: USDA/FAS
i
Credits
Project “Mejor Educación y Salud (MESA Project)” Final Evaluation
Research Team (Federación Red NicaSalud)
Fernando V. Campos Ordeñana. Physician, Epidemiologist. Research Team Coordinator.
Oscar Guerrero Aburto. Physician, Public Health Professional.
María Isabel Lanuza. Psychologist. Master in Violence and Mental Health. Post-graduate in HIV, 
M&E and Care for Children and Adolescents.
Technical Review (PCI- Project Concern International)
Leonel Arguello Yrigoyen. Representative in Nicaragua.
Mariangeles Arguello Yrigoyen. Director of Operations.
Maria del Socorro Zepeda Palacios. Director of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Chris Elliott. Technical Advisor, Monitoring and Evaluation.
Jason Rubin. Technical Advisor, Monitoring and Evaluation.
Amy Ostrander. Technical Advisor, FNLS.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1
I. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 5
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Results, objectives and activities by MESA project component............................................. 5
1.3 Project Coverage .................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Purpose of the final evaluation .............................................................................................. 7
II. Evaluation Methodology........................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Quantitative approach .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Qualitative approach................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Data collection............................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Data processing and analysis .................................................................................... 10
III. FINAL EVALUTION FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 12
3.1 Relevance .................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Effectiveness (Results by indicator/target)............................................................... 13
Respondent characteristics........................................................................................................... 13
MGD SO1. Improved literacy of school-aged children.................................................................. 13
3.2.1 Improved quality of literacy (MGD 1.1) ........................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Increased attention in school children (MGD 1.2).................................................... 17
3.2.3 Improved school attendance (MGD 1.3)................................................................... 23
MGD SO2 Increased health and nutrition practices (SO2) ........................................................ 27
3.2.4 Improved knowledge and practice on health and hygiene (MGD 2.1)..................... 28
3.2.5 Improved knowledge and practice on food preparation and storage (MGD 2.2) .... 30
3.2.6 Improved knowledge of nutrition (MGD 2.3) ........................................................... 31
3.2.7 Improved access to safe water and sanitation (MGD 2.4)........................................ 32
3.2.8 Improved access to preventive health interventions (MGD 2.5).............................. 33
3.2.9 Increased participation of local organizations and community groups (MGD 1.4.4 / 
2.7.4) ................................................................................................................................... 34
3.2.10 Improved capacity of governmental institutions (MGD 1.4.4 / 2.7.1)...................... 37
ii
3.3 Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 38
3.4 Assessment of the gender approach......................................................................... 39
IV. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 41
V. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................... 42
VI. ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 44
Annex 01. MESA Project Results Framework............................................................................ 45
Annex 02. Beneficiary schools and population, by municipality............................................... 46
Annex 03. Quantitative sample disaggregated by population group and geographic area ..... 46
Annex 04. Sampling frame by Supervision Area ....................................................................... 47
Annex 05. Survey Instruments for school children, teachers and mothers.............................. 54
Annex 06. Qualitative data collection guides............................................................................ 71
Annex 07. MESA Project definitions, sources and indicator targets....................................... 105
Annex 08. Calculation of confidence limits for LQAS KPC Survey ........................................... 109
i
Index of Figures
Figure 1. Percentage of boys and girls in 6th grade with adequate reading comprehension. .......... 14
Figure 2. Percentage of boys/girls who do not pay attention in class, according to teachers. ......... 17
Figure 3. Reasons for why school children do not pay attention in class, according to teachers..... 17
Figure 4. Food that school children receive during the day. ............................................................. 19
Figure 5. School with school gardens.. ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 6. Limitations for developing school gardens, according to teachers.. .................................. 21
Figure 7. School children perception on quantity and quality of school snacks................................ 23
Figure 8. Benefits of primary education that mothers identify. Final evaluation. Sept. 2017............ 27
Figure 9. Critical moments for handwashing identified by mothers. Final evaluation. Sept. 2017. .. 29
Figure 10. Knowledge of hygiene practices and food storage.. ........................................................ 31
Figure 11. Schools with access to drinking water, according to teachers......................................... 32
Figure 12. Schools that have received treatment for intestinal parasites and lice............................ 34
Figure 13. Knowledge and participation in SFC, by mothers............................................................ 36
i
ACRONYMS
AOP Annual Operating Plan
ASP Analytical and Synthetic Phonics (Reading and writing teaching method)
BL Baseline
CEDEHCA Centro de Derechos Humanos, Ciudadanos y Autonómicos (Center for 
Human, Civil and Autonomous Rights
CI Confidence interval
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FE Final Evaluation 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FNS Food and Nutrition Security 
GRNU Government of Reconstruction and National Unity
LPA Learn, Practice and Apply (Reading and writing teaching method) 
LQAS Lot Quality Assurance Sampling
MAPAF Mothers and fathers
ME Midterm Evaluation 
MEFCCA Ministerio de Economía Familiar, Comunitaria, Cooperativa y Asociativa 
(Ministry of Family, Community, Cooperative and Associative Economy)
MESA Mejor Educación y Salud (Better Education and Health) (MESA Project)
MGD McGovern-Dole
MINED Ministerio de Educación (Ministry of Education)
MINSA Ministerio de Salud (Ministry of Health)
PCI Project Concern International
PINE-MINED Programa Integral de Nutrición Escolar del Ministerio de Educación
(Ministry of Education Comprehensvie School Nutrition Program)
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
RACCS Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Sur (Southern Carribean Coast 
Autonomous Region)
REN Rural Education Nucleus
SA Supervision Areas
SFC School Feeding Committee
SIMESA Sistema de Información del Proyecto MESA (MESA Project Information 
System)
SN Natural Sciences
SO Strategic Objective
SODIS Water treatment system using solar energy 
SRS Simple Random Sample
SS Social Sciences
SSP School Snack Program 
TEPCE Talleres de Evaluación, Programación y Capacitación Educativa 
(Evaluation, Programming, and Educational Training Workshops)
TOR Terms of Reference
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project background
From September 2013 to September 2017, Project Concern International (PCI), the Center for 
Human, Citizen and Autonomous Rights (CEDEHCA) and the Comprehensive School Nutrition 
Program of the Ministry of Education (PINE-MINED), with funding from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), implemented the Better Education and Health Project (MESA
in Spanish) in 11 municipalities of the country: seven from the Southern Caribbean Coastal 
Autonomous Region (RACCS) and four from the department of Jinotega. The purpose of the 
project was to support the education of school-aged boys and girls by integrating health and 
education activities aimed at improving the quality of teaching and the attendance and attention 
of children, thereby directly supporting the MINED’s Comprehensive School Nutrition Program. 
The project covered 1,115 primary schools, 473 of which are located in four municipalities of 
Jinotega (Jinotega, La Concordia, San Sebastián de Yalí and Santa María de Pantasma) and 642 
are in seven municipalities of the RACCS (Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Laguna de Perlas, la Cruz de 
Río Grande, Desembocadura de Río Grande, El Tortuguero, and Corn Island). The project 
benefitted 106,743 people (students, parents, teachers, and government officials). 
The MESA Project focused on two major outcomes
1. Improving the literacy of school-aged children (SO1) by improving the quality of education
and the attendance and attention of school children in the classroom
2. Increasing health and nutrition practices (SO2) by improving knowledge of health and
hygiene practices, food storage and preparation, and nutrition, as well as increasing 
access to safe drinking water, sanitation and preventive health
Purpose and methodology of the evaluation
The purpose of the final evaluation was to determine the completion of targets established in the 
project framework using a qualitative-quantitative approach. The information sources were:
a) Surveys to school children, teachers, and mothers, using the Lot Quality Assurance 
Sampling (LQAS) methodology with a random sample (247) for each population group
b) Interviews, group meetings and/or focus groups with key stakeholders (MINED and PINE￾MINED officials, PCI and CEDEHCA technical teams, teachers, and parent members of 
the PTA)
c) MESA Project Information System (SIMESA) and the PINE and MINED Information 
Systems. Quantitative survey data was processed in EpiInfo. Results were weighted by 
population, and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a 
specific formula for the sampling methodology (LQAS) to be comparable with baseline 
results. All results were compared with the baseline, project targets and midterm evaluation 
(ME) results.
Evaluation findings
All stakeholders agree that the project is entirely relevant, contributing directly to the fulfillment of 
the education sector strategies contemplated in the National Development Plan of the 
Government of Reconstruction and National Unity (GRNU), the Ministry of Education Plan, and 
the Caribbean Coast Development Plan.
The objectives and targets of the project were satisfactorily fulfilled:
2
Improve the reading and writing of school-aged children through the training of teachers and the 
delivery of textbooks and school materials. Figures provided by MINED show an increase in 
reading and writing skills in 6th grade students: 82% of girls at Baseline (BL) compared to 97% in 
the Final Evaluation (FE), and 80% of boys at BL compared to 96%. These figures show a 
significant improvement and achievement of the target for both sexes. The project contributed to 
improving capacity in schools by surpassing the below targets:
• Provision of materials and supplies for teachers and school children in 1,092 schools, 
representing 7% more than the established target
• Capacity building among teachers through educational techniques and methodologies: 1,401 
teachers were trained, exceeding the goal by 36%. It was expected that at least 50% of 
teachers would use new techniques or tools for teaching with project support, but 65% actually 
did, according to MINED's monitoring system.
• Directly benefiting 106,743 students, teachers, and parents, surpassing the target by 12%,
and indirectly benefiting 310,184 people, meeting the target at 102%.
Improve student attention by alleviating short-term hunger through the delivery of school snacks, 
establishment of school gardens, and alliances with local producer groups. According to the
teachers surveyed, 9% of school children did not pay attention in class, a decrease of 6 
percentage points compared to the baseline result of 15%. The school snack contributes to the 
physical, psychological, and social well-being of the students. According to teachers, with the 
snack, "students are more active, more dynamic, more aware of the explanations that are provided 
in class, and therefore learn to read and write faster."
In the BL, 6% of students surveyed said they were hungry or very hungry, compared to 1.4% in 
the FE. A total of 3,847 tons of food (98% of the target) were distributed to the beneficiary schools. 
This benefited 75,900 school children who received the school snack during the life of the project, 
meeting the target. Although the target of developing school gardens in 200 schools was met, we
recognize that further development is still needed in this component; the main difficulty is that
schools do not have agroecological conditions that facilitate agricultural activity. The storage, 
preparation, and delivery process of the school snack served to develop the organizational 
capacity of both teachers and parents, as well as the involvement and partnership with other local 
stakeholders, mainly producers. There was significant parent participation in the school snack. 
Mothers and fathers each developed important roles in the process leading up to the ultimate
delivery of the prepared food. The preparation of the school snack has improved by incorporating
the complementary contributions from parents, thus substantially improving the quantity as well 
as the nutritional quality of the snack. This has made it more accepted by students.
Improve student attendance through increased community awareness of and advocacy to 
promote an understanding of the benefits of education and increase school enrollment in general. 
Statistics provided by MINED show that 88% of girls and boys attend classes regularly, an 
improvement from 80% at the beginning of the project. Of surveyed school children, 84.5% said 
they had missed at least one day of class in the 2017 school year, compared to 60% at the BL.
Illness was the cause for 72% of the students who had missed a day of class. Despite this 
increase, school children’s regular attendance substantially improved throughout the school year. 
Improve the physical environment for learning in schools, through the construction and 
rehabilitation of school infrastructure, including classrooms and kitchens. Using the initial 
assessment to select the schools, 394 schools were rehabilitated in kitchen areas, storage areas,
and/or classrooms. At the end of the project, 98% of the classroom target, 105% of the kitchen 
target, and 134% of the storage areas target was achieved in selected schools, improving the 
basic conditions for a better teaching-learning process. Despite having met the targets, all 
3
stakeholders agree that there are still gaps and needs that remain in many schools to create 
optimal conditions for teaching and for school children.
Improve access to preventive health interventions by increasing access to health services in 
schools, distributing medications for deworming, and holding educational talks. Coordination was 
established with local authorities at the Ministry of Health (MINSA) to provide deworming 
treatments to school children (lice treatment and intestinal deworming), reaching 1,019 schools. 
This surpassed the target of 986 and reached 74,703 school children, 24% above the target.
Improve health and eating habits by increasing access to water and sanitation services and
knowledge of health and hygiene practices, nutrition, and preparation and safe storage of food. 
The practice of cleaning latrines increased to at least once a day, from 43% reported at BL to 85% 
in the FE, well exceeding the target of 50%. School children who practice handwashing before 
lunch increased from 47% to 94%. Teachers were directly observed teaching adequate 
handwashing techniques. In 64.7% of randomly selected schools, there was water and 
handwashing soap available, higher than the 15% recorded at BL. However, this is still below the 
80% proposed target, representing a gap to overcome in the future. The "Tippy Tap" is an excellent 
initiative that helped increase the number of handwashing stations through the use of recycled 
materials and easy installation. Regarding food preparation and storage, 100% of the target was 
achieved by training 3,565 parents on preparation and adequate food storage practices. Of 
parents who participated in a training, 88% passed a test to determine the level of learning of food 
preparation and safe storage techniques. Among mothers surveyed, 55.2% were able to identify
at least three benefits obtained from good nutrition or diet, exceeding the goal of 50% and 
significantly improving upon the 14% obtained at baseline.
Increase the capacity of government institutions and the participation of local organizations and 
community groups. During the project, 1,036 parents were trained in management, sustainability,
and resource mobilization, meeting the target at 105%. The organized participation of fathers and 
mothers was strengthened through concrete activities during the preparation and delivery of the 
school snack. Community organization was consolidated in schools where it was non-existent or 
its development very weak, providing follow-up to 148 schools, 48% higher than the target (100). 
Sixty PINE-MINED, CEDEHCA, and PCI staff were trained in product management, accounting, 
monitoring and evaluation, and supervision and quality management, developing greater local 
managerial capacity.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results show that the project targets were largely met or surpassed, contributing significantly 
to the achievement of the proposed objectives. Key elements that contributed to the success of 
the project are:
a) The comprehensive approach in the design and execution of the project, including 
complementing the school snack with additional components such as health, training, 
infrastructure development, hygiene, and sanitation. Although this approach is more 
complex, its comprehensiveness shows greater benefits and better results.
b) The integration of all local stakeholders and the strengthening of community 
engagement. In addition to the educational community (teachers, students, parents), 
the project achieved active participation from the local government, the private sector, 
and small and medium size producers.
c) The capacity building of teachers in educational methodologies, school children and 
parents on the benefits of education, and everything related to school snacks, health, 
hygiene, and sanitation. This has improved basic health practices such as hand 
washing, the use of latrines, food preparation and storage, and nutrition.
4
For similar projects in the future, we recommend maintaining the comprehensive nature and 
components of the project. However, prioritization should be made according to the availability of 
resources (human, financial, and time). Coordination at the local level is fundamental for 
operational execution, but coordination at a strategic political level is also required. Thus, in 
addition to coordination between PCI and PINE-MINED management, we recommend reinforcing
relationships with counterparts in other departments of MINED (Infrastructure, Planning, Capacity 
Development). Given that the financial resources of external cooperation will always be limited, to 
be sustainable we recommend strengthening and expanding activities aimed at integrating other 
sectors, especially the private sector where there is great potential both at the local level with 
producers as well as at a national level with bodies that implement Corporate Social Responsibility 
(CSR).
5
I. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Background
The Government of Nicaragua, through the Ministry of Education, implements the Ministry of 
Education’s (PINE - MINED) Comprehensive School Nutrition Program, for which the main 
objective is to "guarantee school children the Human Right to Adequate Food, through school 
feeding," regulated by Law No. 693 “Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security, Article 30 
subsection ‘C’" throughout the national territory.1 PINE-MINED runs four key components: 
1. School Snack restores the human right to food. It stimulates attendance, lowers dropout
rates, and contributes to nutritious and healthy food consumption by providing a daily food 
ration (145 grams of a staple food) for 150-160 days of the year. 
2. School gardens promote love for Mother Earth and affect nutritional changes in eating 
behaviors. This is a teaching and production tool to supplement school snacks. It promotes 
the cultivation and consumption of vegetables and fruits. 
3. Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) Education provides education for a healthier lifestyle 
and develops educational skills in FNS areas. As of 2009, it was included in the basic 
national teaching curriculum and teacher training. 
4. School kiosks promote access to adequate food, consumption and culture of local food,
and the consumption of nutritious and healthy food in schools through the sale of nutritious 
and hygienic food.
PCI Nicaragua, with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), from late 2013 until 
September 2017 implemented the Better Education and Health Project (Project MESA) in eleven 
municipalities: four departments in Jinotega and seven in the Southern Caribbean Coast 
Autonomous Region (Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Sur, RACCS) as previously defined 
with MINED authorities and in association with the local organization Center for Human, Civil and 
Autonomous Rights (CEDEHCA).
1.2 Results, objectives and activities by MESA project component
The results framework is based on the McGovern-Dole framework #1 and #2, which describes the 
strategic objectives and results of the MESA Project program that will contribute to the strategic 
plan of the USDA. (see Annex 01. MESA Project Results Framework). These are: 
SO1 Improve the literacy of school-aged children 
RI 1.1 Improve the quality of education
RI 1.2 Increase attention
RI 1.3 Improve school attendance
SO2 Increase health and nutrition practices through the following results:
RI 2.1 Better knowledge of health and hygiene practices
RI 2.2 Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices
RI 2.3 Increased knowledge of nutrition
RI 2.4 Increased access to clean water and sanitation
RI 2.5 Increased access to preventive health interventions
 
1 Nicaragua. Ministry of Education. MINED Comprehensive School Nutrition Standards
6
The following objectives were defined according to the expected results of the project:
1. Improve the literacy of school-aged children, 
2. Improve student attention,
3. Improve student school attendance,
4. Improve the physical learning environment in schools, 
5. Improve access to preventive health interventions, 
6. Improve health and eating habits, and
7. Increase the capacity of government institutions and increase the participation of local 
organizations and community groups.
According to the objectives and expected results, the project focused its activities in the four main 
areas of school snack, training, infrastructure, and health, developing specific activities in each of 
these linked directly to development and/or strengthening of the components that make up the 
School Snack Program (SSP). The activities developed by component were: 
School Snack Component
• Distribution of materials for School Snack: Provided a daily food delivery (160 class calendar 
days) for children in preschool and elementary schools. The School Feeding Committee (SFC) 
organizes the preparation and delivery of food in schools.
• Development of school gardens: Encourages the involvement of parents and provides training, 
seeds, and tools; teaches children the entire cycle of production. The garden is used as a 
laboratory for learning.
• Parent-Teacher Association (PTA, SFC): Supports and works in schools to help improve 
teaching conditions for the school population.
Training Component 
• For the PTA, SFC: Topics included proper food handling and storage and hygienic preparation 
of snacks, including storage and handling of commodities, recipes, and food preparation, 
proper hygiene practices with emphasis on handwashing before cooking and eating, and care 
and proper handling of food and utensils at home and school. Prioritized materials for food 
storage (barrels, pallets, "trunks") are delivered to schools. The PTA is trained on the 
importance of partnering for food preparation as a step toward sustainability, community 
planning, and monitoring.
• For teachers: Topics include participatory techniques, leadership development, personal 
development, and educational methodology (teaching), as well as MINED FNS materials on 
the importance of school nutrition, school gardens, food security, and selling healthy snacks 
in school kiosks. This included the delivery of manuals and guides developed by MINED.
• Delivery and school supplies: These include blackboards, chalk, flip charts, books, pencils, 
erasers, pencil sharpeners, pencils, paper, notebooks, geometry sets, and sports equipment, 
as well as textbooks for teaching, stories, and other supplies for "mini" libraries.
• Training on good health and nutrition practices: Students, teachers, and parents are trained 
on health education, nutrition and hygiene, prevention of parasitic diseases, nutritional 
deficiencies, infectious diseases, proper storage, and food preparation.
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Component
• Classrooms, kitchens and food storage areas: PCI provides construction materials, supplies 
and skilled labor in the locations with the highest need, and the community provides unskilled 
labor. It incorporates training for parents, teachers and students on how to use and maintain 
the infrastructure.
7
• Water systems: Renovation of wells, water systems, hand washing stations and rainwater 
collection systems. Parents, teachers and students were trained on the proper use and 
maintenance of water systems, water conservation, the importance and benefits of 
handwashing, and how to build “tippy tap” handwashing stations using simple technology. It 
also teaches water disinfection methods for drinking water, mainly using filters and the SODIS 
methodology, a water treatment system using solar energy.
• Latrines: This included the design, materials, construction supplies, and skilled labor when 
needed. PTA and community members provide unskilled labor. The educational component 
included training of parents, teachers and students on use and maintenance.
Health Component
• Preventive health school campaigns: In coordination with the Ministry of Health (MINSA), lice 
and deworming treatments, and vitamin A supplements were provided, as well as information 
dissemination on hygiene and health.
1.3 Project Coverage 
The project covers 473 public elementary schools located in four municipalities of Jinotega
(Jinotega, La Concordia, San Sebastian de Yali and Santa María de Pantasma) and 642 schools 
in seven municipalities of the RACCS (Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Laguna de Perlas, La Cruz de Río 
Grande, Desembocadura de Río Grande, El Tortuguero and Corn Island), for a total of 1,115 
schools, including 129 community preschools. This benefits 106,743 students, parents, teachers,
and government officials. The project indirectly benefits 310,184 other family members (see Annex 
02. Schools and beneficiary population by municipality).
1.4 Purpose of the final evaluation
The overall purpose of the FE is to identify the level of achievement obtained according to the 
results and targets established under the project. It focuses on the following objectives:
• Assess whether the project has achieved the expected results as outlined in the results 
framework;
• Assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of project activities;
• Measure the results of the project and assess attribution;
• Identify lessons learned through the implementation/maturation of the project with emphasis 
on identifying key strategies, methodologies, and factors that contributed and/or inhibit 
success, focusing on areas that could be applied to similar programs;
• Draw conclusions and provide recommendations to PCI, USDA, beneficiaries, project 
partners, and other key stakeholders to strengthen future food assistance and similar 
programs.
8
II. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation incorporates a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to analysis that 
responds to the objectives of the assessment and the project’s monitoring and evaluation plan.
The study universe is made up of different population groups linked to schools in the departments 
of Jinotega and the RACCS: 
• Students: Primary school children from 4th to 6th grade, 
• Teachers from primary schools, 
• Parents of school children, 
• Ministry of Education Comprehensive School Nutrition Program (PINE-MINED) delegates 
and/or officials 
• PTA,
• PCI and CEDEHCA officials or technical staff,
• USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) /Nicaragua and USDA/FAS/Washington officials
2.1 Quantitative approach
Analysis Unit: Corresponds to the population groups’ program goals:
• Elementary student (girl or boy) 
• Elementary school teacher
• Mother with children studying in elementary school
Sample: The LQAS methodology2
(Lot Quality Assurance Sampling) was used for the evaluation, 
as it was in the BL and midterm evaluations. It is an easy to use methodology with acceptable 
statistical power in addition to its use for monitoring by Supervision Area (SA). The SAs used for 
the final evaluation are the same as those used in the BL and midterm evaluations (see Annex 
03. Sample disaggregated by population group and geographical area).
• Five SAs in the department of Jinotega: two in the town of Jinotega, two in Pantasma, and one 
SA unifying the municipalities of Yalí and La Concordia. 
• Eight in the RACCS: two SAs in La Cruz de Río Grande, two in El Tortuguero, two for Bluefields 
and Corn Island together, and one for Laguna de Perlas and Kukra Hill.
 
2
LQAS, called "batch acceptance sampling," involves taking a small random sample from each set of population 
elements to determine if it meets a predetermined quality standard. LQAS is functionally identical to stratified 
sampling (where each lot is a single stratum), but requires smaller samples. LQAS was originally designed for use in 
industry to perform statistically valid quality tests at minimal cost. In the context of modern research, LQAS has 
become an accepted sampling method in the fields of public health and international development. It is a sampling 
method that:
• Can be used locally, at the level of a "supervision area," to identify priority areas (e.g. county, sector) or 
indicators that are not reaching average coverage or an established benchmark
• Can provide an accurate measure of coverage or quality of the health system at a more aggregated level 
(e.g. program catchment area, district, municipality, or department)
• Can be used for quality assurance using a principle of "minimum sample," "maximum safety."
9
According to the methodology, each SA corresponds to a set of 19 observations, and each set 
consists of the following population groups: a student, a teacher, and a mother. The sample size 
for each unit of analysis is 247.
Sampling: Random selection was performed in two stages:
• First stage selection of schools: Using an updated list of participating schools per municipality, 
each were coded sequentially with ordinary numbers. Using the RAND() function, the Excel 
program assigns a random number to each school. The Sort function was used to create a 
random distribution, from which 19 schools were selected in each Supervision Area (see 
Annex 04. Sampling frame for Supervision Area).
• Second stage selection of respondents: Student attendance lists from the day of the field visit 
to the selected school and a random number table were used to select students. Teachers 
were selected randomly in schools where there was more than one. Mothers were selected 
using the house nearest the selected school. 
2.2 Qualitative approach
In-depth interviews: Key stakeholders in project implementation were selected for interview: 
MINED and municipal government officials, as well as PCI, CEDEHCA, and USDA officials.
Group meetings/focus groups: An independent group meeting was conducted with technical 
teams from PINE-MINED as well as focus groups discussions (FGD) with PTA/SFC members and 
teachers. See Table 1. 
Table 1. Interviews and focus groups conducted, by key stakeholder/population group and
geographic area. 
Number per zone
Jinotega RACCS Managua Total
Interviews
MINED departmental (Jinotega) and regional 
(RACCS) delegate
1 1 - 2
PINE-MINED official 1 1 1 3
Local government official 1 1 - 2
PCI departmental/regional project manager 1 1 - 2
PCI-CEDEHCA M&E project coordinator 1 2 1 4
CEDEHCA official - 2 - 2
USDA/FAS/Nicaragua official - - 1 1
USDA/FAS/Washington official - - 1 1
Group Meeting/FGDs
PINE-MINED official 1 1 - 2
Teachers 1 3 - 4
SFC parent members 1 2 - 3
2.3 Data collection
PCI’s project information system (SIMESA) was used to obtain data about the activities completed 
and progress made on process indicators. Indicators related to literacy levels in school children
and teacher ability to instruct (the same used for the baseline study) were obtained from the 
MINED information system upon request from PCI.
10
The quantitative tools (surveys) used with teachers, school children, and mothers were the same 
as those used in the baseline and midterm evaluations (Annex 05. School children, teacher, and 
mother surveys). Data collection was performed using a team of enumerators trained in the 
evaluation tools. During data collection, the following situations occurred in some schools:
• School closed by the teacher due to a convening called by the Municipal Delegate of 
MINED.
• Change of principal and/or new teacher (time in office: one week)
• School without a teacher during the 2nd semester 2017
• School not applicable because it only teaches grades 1 through 3
• School in conflict zone and highly dangerous
• School closed due to lack of a teacher
• Weather conditions prevented access to the communities (in some cases, the team waited 
several days for conditions to improve, but access was still not possible)
In cases where it was not possible to collect data, using the LQAS methodology we located the 
next nearest school to conduct the surveys. This happened in seven schools in Jinotega and 34 
in the RACCS. 
Qualitative data was collected by the research team through guided questions for each key 
stakeholder, addressing topics on attendance/enrollment, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and 
gender. Annex 06. Guidelines for qualitative data collection. 
A document review was conducted using reports from previous studies, plans, performance 
frameworks, and process records linked to the distribution activities of school snacks. Working 
sessions were held with members of the PCI and CEDEHCA technical teams with whom we 
reviewed the project information system (SIMESA), including data collection (primary records) as 
well as municipal, provincial, and central level consolidated records, verifying their operation, use,
and security. 
2.4 Data processing and analysis
To process and analyze indicators, the sampling frame, definition of indicators, and data source, 
as used in the baseline and midterm evaluations were reviewed (Annex 07. MESA Project 
definitions, sources, and indicator targets).
Process indicators’ established targets were compared with what was achieved, using data from 
the project information system to obtain achievement percentages.
For result indicators whose source was the MINED, the target or the BL data was compared with 
the data from the final evaluation, thereby establishing the level of progress. One limitation of this 
source of information is that it is not possible to conduct statistical tests to validate progress made
for these indicators. 
For indicators obtained through the household survey, EpiInfo was used for double data entry, 
cleaning, and processing to obtain output tables; results were weighted by population and 95% 
confidence intervals were constructed using a specific formula for LQAS sampling.
3 The LQAS 
methodology uses fewer observations per SA (19), so the estimated specific coverage by lot and 
confidence limits are not accurate. However, accurate estimated coverage and corresponding 
 
3 KPC 2000+. Field Activities Manual. Analysis methodology for cluster and LQAS sampling.
11
confidence limits were calculated by combining lots. Annex 08 describes the formula used by the 
LQAS methodology to calculate the weighting and the construction of confidence intervals (Annex 
08. Calculation of confidence limits for KPC LQAS Surveys). The results were then compared to
project targets and BL results. To determine the statistical significance of the FE results compared 
to the BL for indicators obtained through household surveys, both data were weighted by 
population and compared to their respective 95% CI; if it was outside the CI range, the changes 
are considered statistically significant. 
In order to evaluate the statistical significance between the final evaluation and baseline results, 
a hypothesis test for large (more than 30) independent sample observations was carried out in 
selected results indicators. This test concentrates on the relative difference (difference divided by
the standard deviation distribution of the sample) between the two sample proportions. The value 
of the statistical test (relative difference) is compared to the tabular value of the normal distribution, 
whereby the null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted or rejected. 
Null Hypothesis: 
Ho: p1 = p2
Where the alternative hypotheses are: 
Ho: p1 ≠ p2 Ho: p1 > p2 Ho: p1 < p2
The combined estimate of the alternative p value are calculated with the following formula:
 x1 + x2
p = --------------
 n1 + n2
Where:
p = sample proportion
x1 = number of correct answers or obeys the condition in sample 1
x2 = number of correct answers or obeys the condition in sample 2
n1 = number of observations in sample 1
n2 = number of observations in sample 2
The formula to calculate the test’s statistical value is:
 x1/n1 - x2/n2
Zp = -------------------------------
√ p(1-p)(1/ n1 + 1/n2)
For all analysis, a 0.05 level of significance is used.
Qualitative data transcripts were initially written in Word. Matrices then organized the data by type 
of participant and themes to process the information and enable the identification of trends, 
similarities, and divergent aspects that help explain and/or interpret the results or the factors that 
in some way influenced them, as well as to identify best practices and lessons learned. 
12
III. FINAL EVALUTION FINDINGS
The findings in the FE are defined by outcome and process indicators and described by comparing 
BL results and targets. The description of the results is accompanied by a qualitative analysis. 
The evaluation addresses and establishes the project scope in relation to the following areas: 
project relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, sustainability, and gender approach. 
3.1 Relevance
Stakeholders involved in project implementation agree that the project is entirely relevant, 
considering the support it provides, mainly to PINE-MINED, for achieving the objectives of the 
Government of Reconciliation and National Unity (GRNU) in the restoration of the right to food 
and quality education for children. It is also a project that is linked to the Government National 
Development Plan4 and the Ministry of Education Plan. 
As expressed by interviewed PINE-MINED officials: "Yes, it is relevant because it is focused on 
government challenges, quality and coverage, access to education and especially on the 
impoverished population." They believe it has supported the priorities of MINED and is a project 
designed to meet the needs of beneficiaries that can influence improved education for elementary 
school children in the areas served by the project.
The representative of CEDEHCA assesses the relevance of the project from a perspective
integrated with the Caribbean Coast Development Plan. In his opinion: 
“...it is entirely relevant because it is aligned to the National Human Development Plan and is also 
aligned to the Caribbean Coast Development Plan. It prioritizes relevant and quality education, but 
also child nutrition. It [MESA project design] was done starting from a baseline and necessary 
studies to justify the development of this project. We determined that the limitations of school 
nutrition were directly proportional to school dropouts, meaning the children were not at school 
because they had no food. So, to provide schools with food helped to first increase enrollment in 
remote and rural communities, but also to maintain and increase school children retention.”
According to the representative of the Mayor of Pantasma in the department of Jinotega, who was 
actively involved in project implementation, especially supporting the infrastructure component, 
the MESA project "...really focused on the needs that they have, the roots and needs of the 
Ministry of Education...it was well guided. It supported the development of the beneficiary 
population, the Ministry of Education, students, teachers, and parents."
All those interviewed agree that the MESA project responded to the needs of the population of the 
municipality, with activities to improve coverage and retention of children in primary schools where 
they had a high percentage of non-attendance and/or abandonment. In this regard, teachers 
expressed: 
 
4
In the National Development Plan section 6.4.3. Education sector strategy and policies defines among GRNU's 
significant Lines of Policy Education: (i) More education consists of reducing the illiteracy of the population over 15 
years of age, and increase access and coverage in pre-school, primary, secondary, special, normal and technical 
education; (ii) Better Education means mainly transforming the educational curriculum and the formation and training 
of teachers.
13
"...school snacks are an important component of the program. There are many boys (and girls) who 
attend our school to eat. This helps their nutrition and improves their health, but it also helps us 
achieve our goal of attendance, so that children do not drop out of school, they approve, that these 
(students) love school, they have the courage and physical and mental strength to acquire learning 
in the classroom and achieve the goal of quality education. In short, it is a project that has helped 
us to fulfill our educational indicators such as attendance, retention, approval, acquiring health 
values."
"...children did not go to school because sometimes they did not have anything to eat at home, and 
when the children had guaranteed food in school, it greatly helped families, and well-nourished
students can pay more attention..., and something that has also contributed is the presence and 
involvement of the parents in schools preparing snacks for their sons and daughters."
3.2 Effectiveness (Results by indicator/target)
Effectiveness was assessed by the level of compliance with set targets as described in the 
monitoring and evaluation plan and disaggregated according to the performance framework for 
each outcome and process indicator. We compared the results of the final evaluation with the 
targets and/or results obtained in the BL study. The description and analysis of results are 
described below.
Respondent characteristics
Of the 247 teachers surveyed, 57.1% are female and 42.9% are male, with an average age of 
32.6; 72% have a teaching degree, 23.1% completed secondary education, and 4.9% had 
incomplete secondary education. This data indicates an increase in academic standards in 
relation to the BL, where 63% had teaching degrees, and the rest had a secondary education. 
Respondents have been a teacher for an average of 9.8 years, compared to 6 years at BL; the 
average number of years was 11.2 in Jinotega and 8.9 in the RACCS. Among these teachers, 
92.3% provide instruction to multiple grades; only 7.7% teach a single grade.
The average age of mothers surveyed is 34.9 years, with an average of 3.9 children (3.4 in 
Jinotega and 4.3 in the RACCS). On average, they have 1.9 children in school. Among mother 
respondents, 27.5% said they could not read or write (15.8% in Jinotega and 34.9% in the 
RACCS). On average, they had 3.8 years of schooling, indicating that a high percentage did not 
complete primary school. In Jinotega, the average number of years of study was 4.7 and in the 
RACCS, 3.2 years. This data is similar to that obtained at BL, where 73% reported literacy, and 
of those, 60% had incomplete primary education and adult education.
Among all the school children surveyed, 53% were girls and 47% were boys, with an average 12.4 
years of age.5
MGD SO1. Improved literacy of school-aged children
School children’s literacy levels is measured by MINED as the number of students (boys and girls) 
who pass the 6th grade Language Arts class at the end of the year, divided by the total number 
of students (boys and girls) enrolled. According to records provided by MINED at the beginning of 
the project, 82% of girls and 80% of boys had adequate reading comprehension. These figures 
increased to 97% in girls and 96% in boys, indicating a significant improvement and exceeding 
the target in both sexes (85% for girls and 83% for boys) (See Figure 1). These results show the 
 
5
PCI. MESA Project-Mejor Educación y Salud. Baseline Evaluation Report. February - July 2014.
14
significant impact of the project through the strategies and activities implemented during the 
project period that involved key populations such as students, teachers, and parents. The project 
impacted these results, as expression by a local MINED official:
“...[it’s a] given that well-nourished children studying in suitable, clean environments and feeling 
protected could stay longer in school, pay more attention, and focus on their studies and of course 
achieve their learning accomplishments as well as learn to read and write within the expected time."
Project activities focused on achieving 
educational indicators: geographic 
coverage, enrollment, grade 
graduation, and learning literacy. The 
implementation of these activities 
required collaboration and teamwork by 
the parties involved, highlighting the 
role of MINED as manager of education 
in the country, as well as local 
government and project beneficiaries, 
including teachers, students, and 
parents. To achieve the results, each 
project component (school snack, 
school gardens, infrastructure, and
training) involved completing activities through a process based on a needs assessment, planning, 
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation at different times.
The population that the project directly benefited through each component exceeded the target by 
12% (16% in Jinotega and 8% in the RACCS). The project reached 102% of the target of people 
indirectly benefiting from project activities. 
Table 01. Direct and indirect beneficiary population. 
Indicator Goal Reached
# %
S01. Total number of individuals benefiting directly 
from USDA-funded interventions 95,420 106,743 112
- Jinotega 46,816 54,289 116
- RACCS 48,604 52,459 108
S01. Total number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 304,712 310,184 102
- Jinotega 156,104 161,164 103
- RACCS 148,608 149,020 100
Source: MESA Project Information System
Table 02. Student reading comprehension
Indicator BL (%) MTE (%) FE (%) Target (%)
S01. Percent of girls who, by the end of 6th grade 
demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their 
grade level as defined by national standards at USDA 
supported schools
82 97 97 85
S01. Percent of boys who, by the end of 6th grade 
demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their 
grade level as defined by national standards at USDA 
supported schools
80 95 96 83
Source: MINED data 
82 80 85 83
97 95 97 96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Girls Boys
%
Baseline Target
Midterm evaluation Final evaluation
Source: MINED Information System
Figure 1. Percentage of boys and girls in 6th grade with 
adequate reading comprehension. 
15
3.2.1 Improved quality of literacy (MGD 1.1)
Fundamental strategies supported through the MESA Project to improve learning in school 
included the distribution of school supplies and materials, as well as teacher training.
Improved access to school supplies and materials (MGD 1.1.2)
The availability of school supplies and materials are essential so that both teachers and school 
children develop an appropriate teaching-learning process. The project provided didactic materials 
for use by school children and teachers. Some materials delivered were to be used directly in the 
classroom. Among these were backpacks, notebooks, pencils and other basic materials for school 
children. Educational materials for teachers included notebook guides on FNS, staplers, 
calculators, and rulers. Materials for use at school in mini libraries included a collection of 1st 
through 6th grade Nacho books, Natural Sciences (NS) sheets, Social Sciences (SS) sheets, 
national symbols, geometric cases, compasses, literacy materials, fungible materials, textbooks, 
and elementary language arts books. Desks were also delivered to priority schools. These
materials provided important support to better facilitate the teaching and learning process. There 
were 1,092 schools that were given school supplies and materials, representing 107% of the 
target. These materials benefited 74,492 schools, representing 99% of the target (75,487). They
also benefited 2,202 teachers, exceeding the target (2,032) by 8%.
Table 03. Delivery of school materials and beneficiary population. 
Indicator Target Achieved
Number Percentage
Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials as 
a result of USDA assistance 1.1.2. * 1,016 1,092 107
Number of students benefiting from the provision of school 
supplies and materials 1.1.2a** 75,487 74,492 99
Number of teachers benefiting from the provision of school 
supplies and materials 1.1.2a** 2,032 2,202 108
*Source: MESA Project Information System 
**Indicator with extended target due to no-cost project time extension. Source: Project Information System
Improved knowledge and tools for teachers (MGD 1.1.4)
Teacher trainings focused on techniques and methodologies for teaching with the aim of 
strengthening their teaching capacity. Topics included participatory methodologies and 
techniques, proper use of Nachos Books, the ASP methodology, and basic skills for initial literacy. 
With the support of the project, 1,401 teachers were trained, exceeding the planned target by 
36%. Jinotega met its target of 127 teachers. The global target was exceeded due to the RACCS, 
where through a request and negotiation with the local MINED, 1,274 teachers were trained,
representing 41% more than the target (see Table 03. Teacher training in educational 
methodologies).
To monitor the level of instruction acquired by teachers, MINED, through its network of team
supervisors in the territory, identified that 96% of teachers have improved their ability to teach 
reading and writing. This exceeded the target of 80%. With a focus on teacher capacity building, 
the project framework detailed that at least 50% of teachers would be using new techniques or 
tools for teaching. MINED reported that 65%6 was achieved,indicating this target was exceeded. 
 
6
Information collected by the MINED through a simple random sample, using a supervision guide to apply the FSN 
curriculum in class plans
16
These data show that the technical and methodological capacity of teachers improved, thus 
providing a greater learning opportunity for school children. 
Table 04. Teacher training in educational methodologies. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of teachers trained in participatory techniques, leadership 
development, personal development and educational methodologies
1.1.14a*
1,030 1,401 136
Percentage of teachers demonstrating improved literacy instruction 
as identified by supervisors 1.1 ** 80% - 96%
Percentage of teachers in selected schools that demonstrate the use 
of new quality teaching techniques or tools 1.1.4 ** 50% - 65%
*Source: MESA Project Information System 
**Source: Supplied by MINED
Teachers expressed the importance of receiving training through the MESA project, expressing 
satisfaction with the process and methodology used: "...that teaching materials came, documents 
came, and they were updated according to the basic national curriculum of MINED. They analyzed 
and reviewed indicators, the skills that came in those study materials were related and 
contextualized." Other positive aspects included that the training allowed for sharing experiences 
and that this was very useful for the preparation of informative materials according to the themes 
touched upon in the training. 
Two elements were key to the trainings being successful:
1. The selection and prioritization of key issues: This was important so that teachers had 
the correct methodological tools available for teaching. Two examples are the 
methodology for using Nacho books and the ASP method.
2. The themes were contextualized to the educational curriculum: Teachers expressed 
"...that the training strengthened their work because they were given tools to use in 
classes with their students."
The survey asked teachers for recommendations to improve the quality of teaching in schools. 
Most frequently cited, 66% of teachers specifically mentioned having more teacher capacity 
building, 57.5% mentioned the provision of school materials and supplies, and 55.1% mentioned 
using new teaching methodologies. A smaller percentage (15%), mentioned that greater 
involvement and participation of parents in the education process of their children would improve 
learning and teaching quality. These results show that project components successfully targeted
the specific requirements of teachers and has allowed them to improve their teaching 
performance. 
 
17
3.2.2 Increased attention in school children (MGD 1.2)
Teacher respondents stated that a total of 6,999 students attended the 247 selected schools, with 
an average of 28.3 children per teacher (25.6 in Jinotega and 30 in the RACCS). Each teacher 
respondent was a sked if they identified children who were not paying attention during class. If
their response was positive, they were asked how many children were not paying attention. The 
results show that 197 (80%) of teachers 
expressed that they had children in 
their classroom who do not pay 
attention in class, lower than the 92.7% 
(229) at BL and 85.8% (212) in the 
midterm evaluation. In total, teachers 
identified 628 children that do not pay 
attention in class, representing 9% of 
total students in these schools. This is 
six percentage points lower compared 
to BL (15%). When results are 
compared through the hypothesis test, 
the p value (Zp= -8.69) shows that the 
decrease between the BL and FE is 
statistically significant (Annex 9).
Teachers in Jinotega identified a higher percent of students who do not pay attention than those 
in the RACCS.
The data in Figure 2 show that the number of students who do not pay attention has diminished.
When asked what they thought were 
the reasons students do not pay 
attention, 39.3% mentioned lack of 
food, similar to data collected in the BL 
(36%). As seen in Figure 3, other 
reasons included the class being 
uninteresting (31.2%), illness (25.5%), 
hyperactive children (19%) and lack of 
support from parents (20.2%)7
. 
According to teachers, student 
attention has improved, but there are 
still gaps that need follow-up, 
particularly in areas where the 
components of the school snack
program play an important role. 
In this regard, it is recognized that school snacks not only support the physical component of the 
student, but also the psychological and social – integral parts of school children. In the words of 
teachers, school snacks achieved "...greater integration in the class. [The child] is more active, 
more dynamic, more aware of the explanations given in class, and thus learns to read and write 
faster."
 
7 Sum of averages is over 100% due to use of a multiple-choice question in the survey instrument
15.0 16.0
14.0
10.9 11.0 10.9
9.0
10.6
8.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Total Jinotega RACCS
%
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation Target
Source: Teacher 
sruvey (n=247)
Figure 2. Percentage of boys/girls who do not pay 
attention in class, according to teachers. 
31.2 
39.3 
25.5 
20.2 19.0 
0
10
20
30
40
50
Class is uninteresting Lack of food Illness Parental lack of
support/mistreatment
Hyperactive children
%
Source: Teacher survey (n=247)
Figure 3. Reasons for why school children do not pay 
attention in class, according to teachers. 
18
Teachers claim that school snacks have improved the retention of students in schools: "...when 
children are at school, they are awaiting their snack and when they receive them, they look happy, 
excited; it takes away the laziness and sleepiness and their performance is better."
One experience shared in the focus group with teachers was:
“...a girl who was twelve but appeared to be six, is in first grade and the mom never let her eat the 
food. So we told her if the child does not eat she does not learn, because with an empty stomach 
the [alphabet] letters are not going to stick. Then we went with the director of the SFC to talk with 
the lady and at the last minute we took religious leaders and visited the house to see what was 
happening. There was no food (in the house). We walked into the kitchen, and there was nothing 
to eat in this house..., that’s why the girl came to school and would fall asleep sitting up. From the 
moment that the girl began to eat food from school, she learned to read. So it seems that what she 
needed was something in her stomach to be able to learn. So there are children that sometimes 
have problems at home, and we do not know the child has an empty stomach."
Reduced short-term hunger (MGD 1.2.1)
The percent of school children who say they are hungry or very hungry during the school day
decreased by almost five percentage points from BL to FE (6% to 1.4%). Compared to the target, 
this improved by more than half of what was expected (3%), showing that hunger in school children
was reduced to a minimum. When results are compared through the hypothesis test, the p value 
(Zp= -2.94) shows that the decrease between the BL and FE is statistically significant (Annex 9).
In Jinotega, the result was 2.1%, and in the RACCS, 0.7% (see Table 05).
Among surveyed students, 93.8% said they received school snacks four to five times a week, 
more than the 87% found at BL. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the target was met as 
established under the project (92%) (see Table 05). In addition, 96.5% of mothers surveyed said 
their child received school snacks four or five times a week, confirming the statement by school 
children themselves. Midterm evaluation data confirms a steady high percentage of school snack
delivery in over the last few school years. The results show that school snacks delivered 
systematically during the academic cycle of the past three years has contributed directly to the 
nutrition given to children in their homes, reducing hunger to a minimum in this population group.
Teachers recognize that many of the homes where students come from, especially those in remote 
areas, have limitations for providing good nutrition, which directly affects the learning ability of 
those students. In that sense, a teacher in the RACCS shared:
"At school, there are many boys and girls that work, that shine shoes, and maybe in their homes 
they do not receive any food and now at school they have a bite to eat. We are grateful for the 
snack because it supports the teaching-learning process, because a hungry child, what will he 
learn? It is very difficult and giving him a morsel of food, that child feels more dynamic, is more 
attentive and learns more." 
Meanwhile, mothers and fathers share that the project has not only benefited their children with 
school snacks, but also themselves. In the trainings they received, they have learned to combine 
foods to be more nutritious and that there’s teamwork between different family members now. One 
mother expressed, "...we mothers prepare the snack and the fathers are there and collaborate by 
carrying firewood and by looking for things to supplement the snack."
19
Table 05. Delivery of school snacks and perception of hunger in school children.
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
Evaluation (%) FE (%) Target
(%)
Percentage of students indicating they are 
"hungry" or "very hungry" during the 
school day MGD 1.2.1 (n=247)
6.8
(95% CI ±3.4) 3.0 1.4
(95% CI ±1.6) 3
- Jinotega 1.1 2.1
- RACCS 4.2 0.7
Percent of students in target schools 
consuming daily meals at school MGD 
1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1 (n=247)
87.2
(95% CI ±4.5) 92.8 93.8
(95% CI ±3.1) 92
- Jinotega 98.9 93.7
- RACCS 88.7 94.8
Source: Household survey to school children and mothers.
Improved access to food/school snacks (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1)
Among students surveyed, 96% of students report that they eat food at home before attending 
school. This shows little variation relative to the BL (94%) and midterm evaluations (97.2%). There 
was no major difference between the two geographical areas. 
The number of times a person eats affects healthy nutrition, as addressed in the Guide for 
Nutritious and Healthy Food for School Children, which states that in addition to quality and 
quantity, the distribution and schedule of snacks is also important. Food must be spread across 
various times: breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks or light snacks between meals. 
School children respondents were 
asked the number of times they eat 
during the day: 95% said they eat three 
or more times daily, which varied little 
compared to BL (93%). This figure was 
similar in both geographical zones. 
Mothers were asked how many times a 
day they offer food to their school 
children: 85.6% said they provide food 
three or more times, similar to that 
found in the BL (84%). Again, there 
was little variation between the 
geographical areas.
Access to school snacks was ensured through the delivery of basic foods to be prepared. It was 
estimated that 3,920 tons of food would need to be acquired and distributed through the duration 
of the project. By project end, 3,847 tons of food were distributed, 98% of the project’s target 
(including the extension of the last period of the project). A total of 75,900 school children received 
school snacks during the project period, representing 101% of the target. This fulfilled one of the 
key targets and had a direct impact on the educational environment and on school children’s
performances.
School snacks have a direct impact on school children as well as an impact on the active 
participation of other stakeholders such as parents, who have been trained to take on important 
roles in this process. Parental participation in the program implementation involved transferring 
94.0 93.0
84.0
97.2 94.3
84.2
96.0 95.0
85.6
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
School children that eat before
going to school
School children that eat 3 or
more times a day
Mothers that provide their child
food 3 or more times a day
%
Figure 4. Food that school children receive during the 
day. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation
Source: School children (n=247) 
and mother (n=232) surveys
20
food from the point of delivery to the school, finding good storage, preparing food adequately, and 
ensuring hygienic consumption.
Table 06. Number of school children who benefitted from school snacks. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of boys receiving school meals as a result of USDA 
assistance (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1)* 38,505 38,504 100
Number of girls receiving school meals as a result of USDA 
assistance (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1)* 36,995 37,396 101
Total quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals as a 
result of USDA assistance (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1)** 3,920 3,847 98
*Source: MESA Project Information System (SIMESA).
**Indicator whose goal was extended by a no-cost project time extension. Source: SIMESA.
School gardens
The school garden is an educational element in the academic environment and supplements the 
diet of the school population. Its implementation requires supplies, materials, and land. One 
hundred percent of the target was met, creating conditions for, and establishing gardens in 200 
selected schools. The selection of these schools was coordinated with the local PINE-MINED 
team. By creating 200 gardens, 47% more school children benefited than was expected. However, 
the number of parents who benefited was only 68% of the expected. Neither Jinotega nor the 
RACCS met their target, and in the RACCS, only 45% of the target was reached. 
Table 07. School gardens created and beneficiary population. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of school gardens established or created (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1b) 200 200 100
- Jinotega 140 140 100
- RACCS 60 60 100
Number of students who benefit from the creation, establishment, 
etc., of school gardens (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1b) 20,400 30,150 147
- Jinotega 14,280 24,926 174
- RACCS 6,120 5,224 85
Number of parents who benefit from the creation, establishment, 
etc., of school gardens (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1b) 10,319 7,025 68
- Jinotega 7,220 5,637 78
- RACCS 3,099 1,388 45
Source: MESA Project Information System.
Although the target of reaching 200 schools with school gardens was met, teachers and mothers 
expressed that this component deserves greater effort to ensure that schools have the garden, 
that they are sustainable, and that they remain productive. 
21
The consensus among all stakeholders 
is that the creation of school gardens, 
while a very important component, has 
been less successful than the other 
components of the program. Evidence of 
this is that less than half (47.1%) of the 
247 selected schools where household 
surveys were conducted had established 
school gardens. This situation is less 
favorable in the RACCS, where only 
32.2% of the 152 schools sampled had 
gardens because agroecological 
conditions are less favorable for farming
there. 
The conditions that hinder the establishment of school gardens, according to teachers surveyed, 
are linked to a lack of land (26.7%), limited supplies and tools (17.4%) and poor agroecological 
and soil conditions (24.7%) that do not allow for production. In the focus group with teachers, all 
participants agreed with these limitations. They also stated that in general there was a lack of 
interest and motivation on this topic: "...the 
lack of land in schools, the lack of tools or 
seeds, lack of water, but I think that what 
most affects some is the lack of interest, 
because they can even plant in a tire if they 
want. This need must be promoted more.” 
Although no data are available showing the 
conditions of schools for developing school 
gardens, it has been identified that not all 
schools have favorable conditions. Sharing 
experiences among teachers and students 
from different geographical areas could be 
an incentive to generate ideas that can help 
overcome limitations in creating school 
gardens. 
In the creation or development of school gardens there are different experiences according to the 
conditions of each school. Some experiences expressed in the focus group with teachers in the 
municipality of Pantasma are motivating and can serve as an example for other territories. After 
being given the tools to work the garden in El Aserrío and San Cristóbal schools, there was
increased motivation among parents, who then became more involved in this activity. Another 
benefit of the school garden is economic. One school stated that "...last year they harvested a lot 
of cabbage and sold 100 cabbages at a favorable price. This helped to raise money that was used 
for an educational activity.” When production in school gardens is greater than consumption, they 
sell the products: "...products that are not consumed due to excess production are sold to meet 
other needs, and we don’t have to tell parents we want a pump (to pump water). We can buy one 
from the sale of surplus products and invest in the school garden and promotions."
The project developed greater capacity for caring for gardens. One example is the preparation of 
organic fertilizer to apply to plants: 
38.0
24.9
31.6
20.7
47.1
67.4
32.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Total Jinotega RACCS
%
Figure 5. Schools with school gardens. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation Source: Teacher survey (n=247)
23.8
34.0
25.7
13.2
26.7 24.7
16.6 17.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Lack of land Poor
agroecological
conditions
Lack of parent
interest
Lack of materials /
technical
assistance
%
Figure 6. Limitations for developing school 
gardens, according to teachers.
Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation
Source: Teacher survey (n=247)
22
"Students and parents were watching how to prepare it so they could do it. The parents were excited 
when they managed to make the white fly [pest] disappear...and now parents do not say we will go 
buy a chemical to throw on the plant; now they say we will prepare it, and it’s very easy and 
inexpensive I tell them, and there is no reason to intoxicate themselves and the children. So it helps 
to eliminate the use of insecticides.”
School snack supplements
The school snack program delivers six staple foods, five of them supplied through the project (rice, 
beans, oil, grain and wheat flour) plus corn provided by PINE-MINED. These are prepared as a 
snack by mothers. Through their economic capacity and through activities carried out in the 
community, they incorporate what is known as a supplement to the school snacks. This means 
they incorporate ingredients to provide greater nutritional quality and/or flavor, such as onions, 
tomatoes, bell peppers, sugar, etc., as well as other types of food that accompany and enhance 
the snack, including vegetables (pipián, chayote, squash), tubers, milk or dairy, eggs and meat. 
In all schools visited, there was a complete willingness from school children families to provide 
snack supplements. In addition to the supplement provided, other positive experiences that have 
contributed to the snack are the alliances with local producers and other community members as 
well as the sale of products obtained through the school garden. These experiences and 
organization around preparing a snack, involving parents, teachers and other local stakeholders 
is a key pillar for ensuring the program's sustainability.
PINE-MINED’s contribution of food and food transport amounted to US$980,678
. The involvement
of mothers has been substantial and has gone beyond simply preparing snacks to preparing foods 
with higher nutritional value and better taste. One comment about this experience from a mother 
recalls:
"...that we try to make the snack more attractive according to the [economic] possibilities each 
person has. Some add other little things like seasonings, tomatoes, cucumbers. We also add sugar 
to the juices. We add a little milk so that they eat well balanced and to add color. They (the children) 
say it is very delicious."
Teachers and parents agree that there has been good coordination to ensure the school snack
supplements. "...There are mothers who may not have any supplements (other foods), so then we 
immediately talk to a mother who has (a food supplement). She supports even though it’s not her 
turn to prepare the snack that day. There has been great solidarity to make this reality possible."
Although there has been some effort to count the foods that parents provided to supplement 
school snacks, it was not completely successful. Thus, we are unable to know exactly how much 
support has been provided in this manner. Counting the supplements requires daily recording of 
each product and the consolidation of all information at different levels. This process has a high 
level of complexity. While the family contribution is considered valuable information, it should be 
decided whether or not it is a priority for the project. 
Perception of quantity and quality of school snacks
Access to the school snack is affected by the perception of users, in this case the students. Thus,
the quantity and quality of food delivered to the school were evaluated. Of 247 students surveyed, 
229 (92.7%) said they were receiving school snacks, and inquiries into the quantity and quality of 
 
8 Source: MESA-PCI Project Accounting
23
the snack saw high percentages of satisfaction. The remaining 7.3% of students said they did not 
receive school snacks. This was because the survey was conducted at the end of the 2nd
distribution period, and the food for that period had already been consumed in those schools.
• Most respondents (89.5%) think that 
the amount of food is sufficient, 15% 
higher than at BL. This was 91.6% in 
Jinotega and 89.6% in the RACCS. 
• Almost all (96.1%) said that the food 
they received at school is delicious, 
has a good taste, and that they liked it. 
This percentage is higher than the 90% 
obtained at BL. In Jinotega, this was 
94.7%, and in the RACCS, 97.8%.
• 88.1% of students believe that the 
quality of food they receive is good or 
very good, just over 12 percentage 
points higher than at BL. Although not a significant difference, it is a slight decrease in relation 
to the midterm evaluation. This was 88.4% in Jinotega and 89.6% in the RACCS.
All stakeholders involved in education in both geographical areas recognize that school snacks
play an important role in school children’s education. Parents, teachers, MINED officials, school 
children, and local authorities expressed their full support for the activities carried out to ensure 
the preparation and distribution of food at each school. They agree that the school snack is one 
of the project components that has brought the most benefits to the school population. The 
children are not only consuming nutritious foods that their mothers and fathers prepare for them, 
but they are also more motivated to go to and stay in school. They have improved their school 
performance, and there are more children who pass their grade. 
3.2.3 Improved school attendance (MGD 1.3)
Reduced school absence due to illness (MGD 1.3.2)
Regular attendance is defined as when a child attends at least 80% of all school days in the 
calendar year. According to MINED attendance records, 88% of girls regularly attended school in 
the last school year, an improvement from the 80% reported at BL, despite a decrease compared 
to the 95% reported at the midterm evaluation. 80% of boys regularly attended school in both the 
BL and the midterm evaluation, then reached 88% in the FE. In both sexes, there was an 
improvement in regular school attendance. Separated by geographic area, the RACCS shows a 
higher percentage in both sexes: 93% for girls and 92% for boys. In Jinotega, the percentage for 
both sexes is 84% (see Table 08).
Of school children respondents, 84.5% expressed that they had missed class at least once during 
the course of the 2017 school year, representing an increase compared to the 60% reported at 
BL and 78.9% in the midterm evaluation. There are no major differences between the two 
geographic areas: Jinotega reports 86.3% and the RACCS 82.9% (see Table 08). The higher 
percentage of students who missed classes at least once as reported in the midterm and FE may 
be because both studies were conducted between the 7th and 8th month after classes had started,
whereas the BL study was conducted during the 3rd month. Being in class for a longer period of 
time increases the likelihood of students missing class for any reason.
74.0
90.0
76.0
87.3
97.0 89.5 91.1 96.1
88.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Food is
sufficient/enough
Food is good/delicious Quality is good/very
good
%
Figure 7. School children perception on quantity 
and quality of school snacks. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation Final evaluation Source: Teacher survey 
(n=229)
24
The main reason for missing class was illness (72.3%), an increase over the 41% obtained at BL; 
this reason was higher in Jinotega (82.9%) than in the RACCS (59.5%). A likely explanation for 
the increase in missing class due to illness during this period is due to outbreaks or sudden spikes 
of illnesses that occurred in the country and affected much of the population, including school 
children. Viral and/or vector borne diseases have had a large effect this year (Chikungunya, Zika, 
dengue, and malaria mainly in the RACCS communities). Other illnesses include viral respiratory 
diseases that primarily affect children. 
Other reasons for missing class include supporting or helping with household tasks (27.4%), 
working outside the home (13.5%) and impassable roads on the way to school, mainly due to 
flooded rivers (13%).
Despite the increased number of students who missed class at least one day during the school 
year, the percentage of attendance throughout the school year has improved, which also 
influences retention and completion of the school year. 
Table 08. School children attendance at school.
Indicator BL Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target
(%)
Percent of girls regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools. MGD 1.3*
- 95 88 80
- Jinotega 84 80
- RACCS 93 80
Percent of boys regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools. MGD 1.3*
- 80 88 80
- Jinotega 84 80
- RACCS 92 80
Percent of students who state that 
illness is the primary reason they are 
absent from school. MGD 1.3.2** 
(n=208)
41.5
(95% CI ±8.0) 71.3 72.3
(95% CI ±5.9) 20
- Jinotega 87.5 82.9
- RACCS 61.8 59.5
*Source: PINE-MINED Information System.
**Source: Household survey to school children.
Improved school infrastructure (MGD 1.3.3)
The project included the rehabilitation and/or construction of infrastructure in schools, specifically 
kitchens, storage areas, and classrooms, thus improving the environment for teaching, for the 
protection of food, and for preparing school snacks. This in turn encourages participation and 
retention of students in schools. Based on the initial diagnosis made, 394 schools were prioritized 
for rehabilitation of kitchen areas, storage areas, and/or classrooms. The established targets were 
achieved as follows: 100% rehabilitation of classrooms, 105% of kitchens, and 134% of storage 
areas for foods used in the preparation of school snacks with basic conditions to prevent spoilage 
(see Table 09).
The above percentages indicate excellent performance in this project component and thus a direct 
benefit to school children (see Table 09). Targets reached for beneficiaries are as follows: 
25
• The number of school children benefitting from rehabilitated classrooms exceeded the target 
by 73%, mainly because in Jinotega more than twice the number of children benefited than 
was expected, since more children enrolled than anticipated. In the RACCS, the target was 
exceeded by 24%. 
• The number of school children benefitting from rehabilitated kitchens reached 82% of the 
target, which represents a good performance despite not having achieved one hundred 
percent. The target was not reached because in schools where the kitchen was remodeled to 
prepare school snacks, fewer children enrolled than the target estimated. A higher percentage 
was achieved in the RACCS (87.4%) compared to Jinotega (75%).
• The number of school children benefitting from the construction of food storage areas/trunks 
reached 98% of the target. In the RACCS, only 58.7% was achieved, while in Jinotega the 
target was exceeded by 65%, mainly because of the larger number of children enrolled in 
schools where the restoration took place. 
Wells, stalls or water systems, and/or hand washing stations were also rehabilitated and/or 
constructed in schools, so that the school population had a better system for clean drinking water. 
The project rehabilitated/constructed 400 water systems in as many schools, achieving the 
program target (394) at 102%. With the rehabilitation/construction of these water systems in 
schools, the population of students expected to benefit tripled, mainly in the municipalities of 
Jinotega where the number of student beneficiaries increased fivefold. In the RACCS, the number
of beneficiaries expected doubled (see Table 09).
The authorities of MINED and teachers recognized the improved infrastructure in schools through 
the MESA project:
"The project has greatly helped school infrastructure. Kitchens where school snacks are prepared 
have been rebuilt, latrines have been built or rebuilt, water storage tanks have been installed, and 
water systems have been installed to have safe water. They have provided safe trunks to store 
food...completely sealed with a padlock to prevent rodents from contaminating food for the school 
snacks. They have facilitated the construction of kitchens which are more comfortable, quiet, and 
social for the children to eat their snack."
In the infrastructure component, in addition to the participation of MINED and project technical 
teams, the participation of other stakeholders was promoted and encouraged, especially for the 
municipal government and students’ family members. They provided materials, labor, or cash as 
mentioned in the following:
"...parents have offered their labor, have supplied some materials such as boards, zinc, wire, and 
nails for repairs in classrooms and making fences for garden spaces. The Mayor’s Office has
facilitated transport of food and materials for construction or school repairs and have joined with 
PCI to install water systems in schools where this was lacking so beneficiaries could consume safe
water. They planted trees together with some farmers to rescue water sources. So this is the 
organization that is actually responding to these needs."
Infrastructure development was also a key element for uniting efforts in a common cause. The 
project encouraged teamwork: "...It was good to see the Mayor’s Office, parents working together 
with PCI, and the most important thing to recognize is that by improving school environments 
children feel better, get sick less, they stay in school and improve their learning."
The municipal authorities and producer organizations contributed US $9,780.60 in materials and 
transportation for infrastructure.
26
Stakeholders are satisfied with the results and level of development that occurred during the 
remodeling of infrastructure. It is clear that the project incorporated the rehabilitation component 
rather than new construction. However, MINED authorities expressed a desire for greater 
investment in this line of work given the great need.
Part of the infrastructure component included training on proper management to take care of the 
improvements, including keeping them clean and hygienic, making good use of empty bottles by 
filling them with soil to sow plants, and managing trunks for food storage. All this knowledge helps 
ensure better maintenance of infrastructure. This is an example of the comprehensiveness of the 
project components. The integrated approach was a traceable factor in the project, which certainly 
made the results and success possible.
Table 09. Rehabilitation of infrastructure in schools.
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of classrooms to be constructed/rehabilitated. 1.3.3a 394 394 100
- Jinotega 133 133 100
- RACCS 261 261 100
Number of students benefiting from the (rehabilitated or constructed) 
classrooms as a result of USDA assistance. 1.3.3. 15,760 27,295 173
- Jinotega 6,320 15,547 245
- RACCS 9,440 11,748 124
Number of kitchens be built/rehabilitated. 1.3.3a 394 412 105
- Jinotega 104 104 100
- RACCS 290 308 106
Number of students benefiting from the (rehabilitated or constructed) 
kitchens as a result of USDA assistance. 1.3.3. 31,520 25,984 82
- Jinotega 12,640 9,487 75.0
- RACCS 18,880 16,497 87.4
Number of storage areas to be constructed/rehabilitated. 1.3.3a 394 528 134
- Jinotega 158 252 159
- RACCS 236 276 117
Number of students benefiting from the (rehabilitated or constructed) 
storage areas as a result of USDA Assistance. 1.3.3. 31,520 30,864 98
- Jinotega 12,640 19,782 165
- RACCS 18,880 11,082 58.7
Number of wells, posts and water systems be 
constructed/rehabilitated. 2.4ª
394 400 102
- Jinotega 158 160 101
- RACCS 236 240 102
Number of students who benefit from wells, posts and water systems 
to be constructed/rehabilitated as a result of USDA assistance. 2.4 10,400 33,737 324
- Jinotega 4,170 21,038 504
- RACCS 6,230 12,699 203
Source: MESA Project Information System (SIMESA).
Greater community awareness about the benefits of education (MGD 1.3.5)
Of surveyed mothers, 47.1% could name three or more benefits of primary education, representing 
36 percentage points higher than at BL (11%). Statistical analysis shows (Zp= 9.68) the difference 
between the BL and FE is statistically significant (Annex 9). This indicates substantial progress 
in sensitizing mothers to support their children in attending school and completing their studies. In 
Jinotega, 46.7% of mothers mentioned three or more benefits, and in the RACCS, 57.7%.
27
Table 10. Knowledge of the benefits of primary education. 
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target (%)
Percent of parents in target 
communities who can name at least 
three benefits of primary education. 
MGD 1.3.5 (n=213)
11.0
(95% CI ±4.3) 27.5 47.1
(95% CI ±6.6) 50
- Jinotega 51.6 46.7 50
- RACCS 12.5 57.7 50
Source: Household survey to mothers.
The main benefit identified by mothers 
(97.2%) is related to literacy and the 
development of analytical skills obtained 
by studying. Support for their children in 
developing life skills to be prepared for 
the future and able to “confront” life was 
mentioned second most often, at 67.1%.
Similarly, 58.2% of mothers believe that 
studying at school benefits their children 
in the learning process in being able to
establish relationships with others, and
43.7% said their children gained 
knowledge related to the world, science, 
geography, and other issues addressed at school. Other benefits of primary education mentioned 
by mothers included that it teaches moral values (4 mothers) and that the children receive support 
such as school snacks, clothing, shoes, and other items (2 mothers).
Activities were implemented to improve knowledge regarding the benefits gained when children 
finish their basic education, especially in finishing primary school. The target was to reach 11,420
fathers and mothers in these knowledge and awareness activities. The target was exceeded by 
92%, particularly in the RACCS municipalities where the number of parents who participated in 
these activities was double the expected number.
Table 11. Parents benefited from campaigns on the importance of education. Comparison of 
baseline, midterm and final evaluation. MESA Project-Sept. 2017.
Indicator Goal Reached
# %
Number of parents who benefitted from awareness 
campaigns on the importance of education. 1.3.5a. 11,420 22,005 192
- Jinotega 6,252 8,488 135
- RACCS 5,168 13,517 261
Source: MESA Project Information System.
MGD SO2 Increased health and nutrition practices (SO2)
The link between learning ability and good health and nutrition, especially in school children, is 
well recognized. With this vision, the project strategically integrated health and nutrition activities 
that contribute to improving health and nutrition knowledge and practice in the community. The 
five intervention areas addressed by the project include knowledge and practices in hygiene and 
sanitation, preparation and storage of food, aspects of nutrition, access to safe water and 
sanitation, and access to preventive health interventions.
97.2 
58.2 
43.7 
67.1 
0
20
40
60
80
100
Literacy Social relationships
/coexistence
Knowledge of the
world
Capacity for
personal
development
%
Figure 8. Benefits of primary education that mothers 
identify. Final evaluation. Sept. 2017
Source: Mother survey (n=213)
28
3.2.4 Improved knowledge and practice on health and hygiene (MGD 2.1) 
Indicators of hygiene knowledge and practice including practices of washing latrines in schools, 
mothers’ knowledge of health and hygiene practices, handwashing knowledge and practice, and 
the use and maintenance of health services were measured and evaluated.
According to teachers, 85.2% of schools clean the latrines at least once a day, representing a 
statistically significant improvement compared to BL (39.5%)9
, and exceeding the expected target 
(50%). Although there was great improvement in both geographic areas in this practice, there is a 
difference between Jinotega schools at 97.9% and RACCS schools at 78.5%.
Of surveyed mothers, 73% were able to mention at least three health and hygiene practices, 
achieving the project target (70%) and exceeding the BL result (43.9%). Although this vastly 
improved in both geographic areas covered by the project, there is greater knowledge of health 
and hygiene practices in the RACCS (78.9%) compared to Jinotega (68.4%).
Table 12. Knowledge and practice of health and hygiene. 
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target
(%)
Percent of target schools that clean 
their latrines at least once a day. MGD 
S02 (n=247)
39.5
(95% CI ±6.0) 72.1 85.2
(95% CI ±3.8) 50.0
- Jinotega 78.7 97.9
- RACCS 67.4 78.5
Percent of parents in targeted 
communities who can identify at least 
three important health/hygiene 
practices. MGD 2.1 (n=247)
43.9
(95% CI ±6.0) 77.3 73.0
(95% CI ±5.6) 70.0
- Jinotega 85.3 68.4
- RACCS 72.4 78.9
Source: Household survey to teachers and mothers.
School children, parents, and teachers were trained in various topics on health, child nutrition, and 
nutritional food security. In these population groups, more people were reached than the expected 
target because there were more participants in the knowledge and awareness activities 
developed. While there was high participation in both geographic areas, the RACCS area had 
higher participation by parents, showing a great interest for more learning on the subjects. The 
population reached throughout the project period included the following:
• The cumulative sum of teachers trained was 2,240, meeting the target at 114%. 
• The number of school children trained was 15,700, reaching the target at 106%; in both 
geographic areas, the target was satisfactorily fulfilled. 
• The number of parents trained was 15,228, more than double the target; in the RACCS the 
number trained was more than triple the target (332%). 
Sixth graders were trained on the importance of school snacks, why should they eat them, what 
nutrients they contained, and how it helps improve nutrition and school performance. They were 
trained on how to create a school garden, on planting they can do in their homes to provide a 
home garden, on water consumption at school, and on hand washing technique. 
 
9 Zp = 8.47, (Annex 9)
29
Table 13. Training on child health and nutrition topics.
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of students trained in child health and nutrition. 2.1a. 14,800 15,700 106
- Jinotega 7,000 6,996 99.9
- RACCS 7,800 8,704 111
Number of parents trained in child health and nutrition. 2.1a. 5,958 15,228 256
- Jinotega 2,000 2,009 100
- RACCS 3,958 13,129 331
Number of teachers trained in child health and nutrition. 2.1a. 1,972 2,240 114
- Jinotega 1,226 1,391 113
- RACCS 746 849 114
Source: MESA Project Information System (SIMESA)
Knowledge and practice of handwashing
Key elements to improve the practice of handwashing include providing supplies (water and soap) 
and knowledge of key times for carrying out this practice. Project activities included ensuring water 
supply and training teachers and school children, mainly regarding the key times that hand 
washing should be practiced. 
Overall handwashing knowledge vastly 
improved. The percentage of mothers who 
could identify at least three important 
times for hand washing rose from 49% at 
baseline to 94.6%, representing a 
significant improvement. The key times 
that mothers most identified included: 
after using the latrine (93.1%), before 
lunch (86.6%), and before cooking 
(70.9%). Two other key times, including
before serving food and after cleaning 
babies, were mentioned by less than 60% 
of mothers.
School children that identified at least two key times to practice hand washing increased from 77% 
at baseline to 90.7%, and the percentage of school children who claim to practice hand washing 
before lunch increased from 47% to 94%. In all the schools visited, school children were seen 
washing their hands before school snacks were served. Direct observation also verified the use 
of proper technique. Teachers expressed that they have been trained in hand washing techniques 
and in turn have taught and reinforced this practice with school children. 
Each selected school was observed to determine if they had soap and water in the posts used for 
handwashing. In 63.4%, of schools, they had both soap and water, representing a statistically 
significant improvement compared to 13.6% at BL10
. However, this failed to reach the target of 
80%. A breakdown by region shows that in Jinotega reached 77.9% and the RACCS 57.2%.
 
10 Zp = 10.48, (Annex 9)
93.1 
86.6 
70.9 
56.3 
39.7 
0
20
40
60
80
100
After using the
latrine
Before eating Before cooking Before serving
food
After cleaning
a baby
%
Figure 9. Critical moments for handwashing 
identified by mothers. Final evaluation. Sept. 2017
Source: Mother survey (n=247)
30
Table 14. Knowledge and practice of hand washing. 
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target
Percent of schools with soap and 
water at a hand washing station 
commonly used by students. MGD 
S02 (n=247)
13.6
(95% CI ±6.3) 31.5 63.4
(95% CI ±5.4) 80
- Jinotega 13.6 77.9 80
- RACCS 59.6 57.2 80
Source: Household survey with teachers, school children and mothers.
In general, one limitation was that some schools do not have a water system, so each child carried 
his or her own water for drinking. During visits to selected schools, most schools were observed 
to not have soap at the hand washing station; instead, teachers kept the soap in classrooms. 
Teachers do this to avoid losing it every time it is left outside the classroom due to theft by people 
outside of the school. This situation was an unexpected finding, so it was not quantified. However, 
the fact that soap is kept in classrooms has not had much impact on school children’s practice of 
hand washing. 
One positive and effective initiative for hand washing was the construction of "Tippy Tap" style 
hand washing stations. These stations use basic materials and a simple structure that allow for 
rapid construction at a very low cost. Its use has been widely accepted within the school population 
and is a simple and practical way to provide a hand washing station.
Teachers recognize the progress of their students in improving their hygiene habits. "...they have 
learned well the art of hand washing and at what times to do it. They also demonstrate without 
problem when asked to do so to verify their learning.” Mothers also expressed this same practice 
is carried out at home, which shows that the exercise of good hygiene practices is sustained and 
that these good habits are taken home and influence other relatives to adopt the same practice.
3.2.5 Improved knowledge and practice on food preparation and storage (MGD 2.2) 
A goal of the project linked to school snacks was to improve the knowledge and practice of key 
stakeholders involved in storing food and food preparation, particularly teachers and parents. They 
play important roles in receiving and storing food until the preparation and delivery of snacks,
where the process then requires hygienic standards for the safe preparation of foods.
Knowledge about health standards for food storage and handling
Distribution of food (basic grains) from the central to the municipal level is divided into three cycles 
during the school year. Food is initially taken to delivery points where the SFC is responsible for 
bringing them to each school for storage until they are used during the day by the mothers in 
charge, according to the monthly role of snack preparation.
Once food (basic grains) are delivered to each school, part of the role that SFC members (teachers 
and parents) should play is to ensure good storage to prevent damage or loss. The project 
strengthened knowledge of standards through a training plan on food practices and storage aimed 
at parents. The project reached 100% the number of trained beneficiaries in both geographic
coverage areas of the project. The project technical team in charge of monitoring located in 
different municipalities conducted knowledge tests at the end of the workshop to assess the level 
of learning. The average score in post-tests was 88%, surpassing the target of at least 80%, 
indicating a good level of learning. 
31
Table 15. Parent training on food preparation and storage. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of parents trained in food preparation and storage 
practices. 2.2.a. 3,550 3,565 100
- Jinotega 1,430 1,436 100
- RACCS 2,120 2,129 100
Percent of parents at target schools who achieve a passing 
score on a test of safe food preparation and storage. 2.2 80% - 88%
- Jinotega 80% - 89%
- RACCS 80% - 84%
Source: MESA Project Information System (SIMESA)
Knowledge about suitable food preparation and storage practices were evaluated in mothers. 
Knowledge was defined as having mentioned at least two practices. Of mothers surveyed, 98.6% 
had knowledge, exceeding the 68% obtained at BL and indicating a statistically significant 
improvement11
.
Teacher knowledge of health standards 
for storage and knowledge of standards 
for food preparation was also assessed. 
This was defined as having mentioned 
at least two standards. Of teachers 
surveyed, 93.9% knew the standards for 
proper storage of food, showing a clear 
improvement relative to BL (68%), and
87.8% of teachers know the standards 
for food handling, also an improvement 
compared to the 55% obtained at BL. 
All indicators show significant
improvement in both geographic areas 
covered by the project. The project had 
an impact through training with teachers, students, and parents on different topics including the 
consumption of healthy and nutritious food, food handling, how to prepare, cook, and serve in 
portions appropriate for children, as well as handwashing, consumption of safe drinking water, 
and administration of deworming medicines.
3.2.6 Improved knowledge of nutrition (MGD 2.3)
Of mothers surveyed, 55.2% mentioned three or more benefits gained from good nutrition or diet, 
a significant increase compared to BL (14.5%)12 and exceeding the project target (50%). The result 
validates that this population has become more knowledgeable on these issues. Given that the 
mother usually prepares food at home, this increase also helps to improve nutrition and diet in 
school children. 
 
11 Zp = 7.14, (Annex 9)
12 Zp = 10.2, (Annex 9)
68.0 
55.0 
68.0 
74.9 
80.6 
87.0 
98.6 
87.8 
93.9 
 -
 20.0
 40.0
 60.0
 80.0
 100.0
Mothers that know 2 or more
hygiene and food preparation
standards
Teachers that know 2 or
more standards on food
handling
Teachers that know 2 or
more standards for food
storage
%
Figure 10. Knowledge of hygiene practices and food 
storage. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation
Source: Teacher (n=247) and 
mother (n=247) surveys
32
Table 16. Mother knowledge of nutrition benefits.
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target
(%)
Percent of mothers (or care providers) in 
targeted communities who can identify at 
least three important nutrition or dietary 
guidelines/recommendations. MGD 2.3 
(n=247)
14.5
(95% CI ±4.4) 33.2 55.2
(95% CI ±6.1) 50
- Jinotega 56.8 57.9 50
- RACCS 18.4 58.6 50
Source: Household survey to mothers.
3.2.7 Improved access to safe water and sanitation (MGD 2.4) 
Access to safe water and sanitation services by the school population was assessed through 
direct questions to teachers at selected schools. Access to water at school, the source of water, 
frequency of water availability, and method of disinfection used to treat the water for drinking were 
assessed, as well as school children’s knowledge of safe water. 
In the first phase of the project, after conducting a health diagnosis in schools per the available 
budget, it was decided to support 394 schools to improve access to a safe water source. This was 
achieved in 602 schools (153%), fulfilling the established target. The target was achieved in both 
geographic areas of project coverage using filters, chlorination, and SODIS and was made 
possible by the efforts of the respective local governments and community support. In Jinotega, 
224 schools were reached (141%) and in the RACCS, 378 were reached (160%).
Table 17. Rehabilitation of water systems in selected schools. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of target schools with year round access to a clean and safe 
water source. 2.4 394 602 153
- Jinotega 158 224 141
- RACCS 236 378 160
Source: MESA Project Information System
In the household survey conducted 
with teachers, 79.8% reported there is 
always water to drink at school, and 
89.7% said they always have water for 
washing hands. Both were higher 
percentages than those found in the 
BL study, showing a significant 
improvement. Among teachers, 77.7% 
knew the type of treatment given to the 
water source used at school.
Despite the effort and having met the 
target for the number of schools with 
access to a safe water source, these data show that there is still a percentage of schools without
access to drinking water.
School children were assessed on their knowledge of what safe water is, and 83.8% correctly 
related this concept to obtaining water that is clean and free of bacteria or microbes. This was 
37.0 40.0 41.0 
47.0 
66.4 65.2 65.2 
83.0 79.8 89.7 
77.7 
83.8 
 -
 20.0
 40.0
 60.0
 80.0
 100.0
Drinking water always
available
Water for hand
washing always
available
Know the type of water
treatment
School children that
know what safe water
is
%
Figure 11. Schools with access to drinking water, 
according to teachers. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation Final evaluation Source: Teacher survey (n=247)
33
47% higher than at BL, a significant change. By geographic area, 88.4% and 81.6% were the 
figures in Jinotega and in the RACCS, respectively. 
In the case of sanitation facilities, the project rehabilitated and built latrines in 418 schools, 
satisfactorily reaching the target. This benefitted 20,690 students, exceeding the target by 29%.
Table 18. Rehabilitation of latrines and number of beneficiaries. 
Indicator Target Achieved 
# %
Number of latrines to be built/rehabilitated. 2.4b 400 418 105
- Jinotega 160 161 100
- RACCS 240 257 107
Number of students benefiting from rehabilitated or constructed latrines 
as a result of USDA assistance. 2.4 16,000 20,690 129
- Jinotega 6,400 10,428 163
- RACCS 9,600 10,282 107
Source: MESA Project Information System
At the start of the project, only 13% of schools had separate sanitation facilities for boys and girls. 
On site visits to the selected schools, 67.2% of schools were directly observed as possessing
clearly identified sanitation facilities used separately for boys and girl, surpassing the 30% 
minimum target. While this represents a statistically significant improvement13
, this data also 
shows a gap given just over 30% of schools that still do not implement this practice. In the RACCS, 
only 57% of schools in the sample had separate latrines for boys and girls. 
There is a percentage of schools that only have one latrine, thus a limitation for making this service 
available separately for boys and girls. In these schools, the priority must be building new latrines.
Table 19. Access to sanitation services. 
Indicator BL (%) Midterm 
evaluation (%) FE (%) Target 
(%)
Percentage of target schools with separate 
latrines for boys and girls. MGD 1.3.1 
(n=244)
13.4
(95% CI ±4.5) 45.6 67.2
(95% CI ±5.1) 30
- Jinotega 47.9 89.5 30
- RACCS 43.9 57.0 30
Source: Household beneficiary survey.
3.2.8 Improved access to preventive health interventions (MGD 2.5)
The project benefited 1,021 schools with preventive health interventions, surpassing the target of 
986. These operations were closely coordinated with local Ministry of Health (MINSA) authorities, 
reaching a total of 74,703 schools, 24% above the target. 
 
13 Zp = 12.4, (Anexo 9)
34
Table 20. Schools and school children benefiting from preventive health interventions. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of target schools benefiting from preventive health 
interventions. 2.5. 986 1,021 103
- Jinotega 350 369 105
- RACCS 636 652 102
Number of students benefiting from the provision of preventative 
health services. 2.5.a 60,390 74,703 124
- Jinotega 38,280 38,280 100
- RACCS 22,110 36,423 165
Source: MESA Project Information System
The preventive health interventions aimed to provide treatment for parasites and lice. School 
children were asked in the survey whether they had been treated for parasites during the year: 
86.8% said they had been treated for 
internal parasites and 70.4% had been 
treated lice. In Jinotega, the project 
covered more children with both 
treatments: 97.9% for intestinal parasites 
and 92.6% for lice. In the RACCS, 
coverage was lower at 79.6% for intestinal 
parasites and 57.3% for lice. The lower 
percentage in the RACCS was probably 
due to less accessible schools, therefore 
making it more difficult for health 
personnel to travel there.
The application of both treatments for preventing parasites increased significantly and met the 
target. In addition to coordination with MINED for deworming, teachers remarked that some 
schools formed an alliance with MINED and through this alliance were able to obtain first-aid kits 
with alcohol, analgesics, antibiotics, and anti-allergy medication. They were trained on how to use 
these medicines should a child have a health problem at school.
Although progress was made in implementing activities to ensure preventive treatment of these 
parasitic diseases, the implementation team says that there was not complete coordination among
the parties. There was less synergy between MINSA, MINED, and project managers in both 
geographic areas.
3.2.9 Increased participation of local organizations and community groups (MGD 
1.4.4 / 2.7.4)
The project strengthened the capacity of community groups by organizing and training them, 
particularly school feeding committees and the PTA, and by building partnerships with the private 
sector to strengthen the school snack program.
The project trained 1,036 parents in management, sustainability, and resource mobilization, 
reaching the target at 105%. Parents were organized in the PTA or SFC to organize and execute 
concrete activities related to preparing and delivering school snacks. Through this project, 
community organization was solidified in 148 schools, 48 more than initially planned. This occurred
in schools they discovered there was no community organization or where it was very weak (see 
Table 21).
58.0 
16.0 
60.7 
34.0 
86.8 
70.4 
 -
 20.0
 40.0
 60.0
 80.0
 100.0
Received treatment for intestinal
parasites
Received treatment for lice
%
Figure 12. Schools that have received treatment for 
intestinal parasites and lice. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation
Source: School chidren survey 
(n=247) 
35
The partnership with different sectors was anticipated as key to the success of the project. 
Partnerships with the private sector was a new initiative promoted by PCI based upon successful 
experiences in other projects. Given the agricultural activity in the area covered by the project, 
especially in the municipalities of Jinotega, the project worked to promote and create partnerships 
between the public sector (schools) and the private sector via individual producers and 
cooperatives to support the delivery of food to schools. In both types of partnerships, the project 
exceeded the targets. 
• Thirty-six partnership agreements were signed between schools and different private sector 
representatives located in the municipalities. In Jinotega, there were 31 signed partnerships, 
one more than the target, and in the RACCS, five partnerships were signed. These alliances 
committed support for the school snacks program. The contributions were delivered in kind or
in cash, accumulating US $7,617.80 in total during the project period.14
• There were 34 partnerships signed with individual producers or cooperatives: 21 in Jinotega 
and 13 in the RACCS. The latter almost doubled its set target (seven). These alliances made
a commitment to deliver food products to supplement school snacks, resulting in the 
accumulation of 17,558 kilograms of food, or 46% of the planned target. In total, US $9,780.60 
was accumulated throughout the project period.15
The coordination between PINE-MINED technical staff, community networks, PCI, and CEDEHCA 
technical staff as well as local producers to ensure school snacks, was recognized as beneficial 
among the different stakeholders. At meetings with teachers, they remarked:
“...the good coordination and accompaniment of the colleagues of the school PINE, who bring them 
the food on time, see to the quality of the food, and of course with the PCI technicians who are 
always in the area. They talk with the children; they see their progress in hand washing, sometimes 
when they eat food...they are very supportive, and we see the teamwork."
The alliance with the agricultural sector has not been as large. However, coordination was 
strengthened, and this is considered an important step for the future involvement of these 
stakeholders. As expressed by teachers in two cases: 
"One aspect to note are the alliances and coordination that have been established in the 
community. There is the story of a mother who has land near the school, who lent almost half a 
manzana where there are more than 80 fruit trees, and last year for the fruit season sold oranges,
and the children were given fresh orange and mango juice every day." 
"...a parent donated a roll of wire to fence the place where they were going to work the garden and 
so parents are joining efforts and valuing the importance of school gardens in schools and they 
themselves are motivated to build them in their houses."
 
14 Project registration system
15 Project registration system
36
Table 21. Participation of local organizations and community groups.
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of parents trained in priority setting, financial management, 
asset mapping, development of sustainability plans and resource 
mobilization. 1.4.4/2.7.4a
986 1,036 105
- Jinotega 500 503 100
- RACCS 486 533 109
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations or similar "school" 
governance structures contributing to their school as a result of 
USDA assistance. 1.4.4/2.7.4
100 148 148
- Jinotega 40 19 47
- RACCS 60 129 215
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance 35 36 103
- Jinotega 30 31 103
- RACCS 5 5 100
Number of alliances formed with cooperatives/producer groups to 
supply food to schools. 1.4.4/2.7.4.b 28 34 121
- Jinotega 21 21 100
- RACCS 7 13 186
Quantity of food (in kilograms) delivered to schools by producers. 
1.4.4/2.7.4.b 37,949 17,558 46
- Jinotega 29,274 9,809 33.5
- RACCS 8,675 7,749 89.3
Source: MESA Project Information System
Mothers were asked about their knowledge and participation in the SFC. Results show that a high 
percentage of mothers (89.4%) know that there is a SFC. When asked about the operations of the 
SFC, a high percentage of mothers 
(95.5%) recognize the role it plays in
ensuring school snacks. When asked 
about their participation in the SFC, 
42.7% mothers expressed membership, 
a higher percentage compared to BL 
(33.3%). This is a group that normally 
rotates membership, which may 
influence the variability of its 
participants. The percentage of mothers 
participating in the SFC shows that there 
are opportunities opening up for further 
participation for this population. 
The work performed by the PTA/SFC is also highly regarded, especially in reference to the
involvement of parents, as expressed by teachers: 
"The SFC plays an important role, one might say an excellent one. They are very committed, they 
come to the school to see what problems there are and how they can help; they get involved in 
everything to collaborate; they are always thinking about how to complement the snack; they see 
the importance this has for their children. There’s no need for us to say anything to them; rather 
they come to us saying ‘We have more for the snack!’ They have learned -- the parents -- to be 
more responsible, more united to share experiences and to contribute what they can to improve 
the snack if a mother does not have anything [to give]…I think the project awakened in them this 
sense of solidarity, because before they never approached the school.” 
82.6 
33.3 
95.1 91.1 
49.1 
94.6 89.4 
42.7 
95.5 
 -
 20.0
 40.0
 60.0
 80.0
 100.0
Know that the SFC exists Participate as a member in
the SFC
Recognize good
performance of the SFC
%
Figure 13. Knowledge and participation in SFC, by 
mothers. 
Baseline Midterm evaluation
Final evaluation
Source: School children survey 
(n=247) 
37
3.2.10 Improved capacity of governmental institutions (MGD 1.4.4 / 2.7.1)
To provide management tools to key personnel involved in the School Snack Program, PINE￾MINED officials and PCI and CEDEHCA technical personnel were trained in the main components 
of the program, including product management, accounting, monitoring and evaluation, 
supervision, and quality management. A total of 60 people in the three institutions were trained, 
thus developing greater management capacity and strengthening of the local level. Those trained 
are at the forefront of activities in both geographic project areas.
Table 22. Management training to institutional staff. 
Indicator Target Achieved
# %
Number of government officials trained in school feeding program 
management (commodity management, accountability, M&E, 
supervision and quality management). 1.4.1/2.7.1a.
16 16 100
Number of technical staff trained in school feeding program 
management (commodity management, accountability, M&E, 
supervision and quality management). 1.4.1/2.7.1a.
40 44 110
- PCI en Jinotega y RACCS 34 34 100
- CEDEHCA en la RACCS 6 10 100
Number of established Parent-Teacher Associations trained in 
preparation for sustainability. 1.3.5a 986 901 91
- Jinotega 350 350 100
- RACCS 636 551 86.7
Number of parents in target communities who are members of PTA 
(or a similar school-based community group). 1.3.5 4,064 5,490 135
- Jinotega 1,622 1,665 102
- RACCS 2,442 3,825 157
Source: MESA Project Information System
There is a clear differentiation of roles and functions in the organization and work required for the 
preparation of the school snack. These were supported by the project via organizational 
strengthening and capacity development.
• Teachers manage and lead the SFC. They recognize that the responsibility for school snacks
and being the lead of the SFC is a task they must assume, and they do so with a positive 
manner and are aware of the benefits it brings for girls and boys. They are responsible for 
organizational aspects and food quality control, including ensuring that food is well stored, 
keeping inventory, and preparing reports. They are responsible for preparing and conducting 
meetings with parents, planning how snacks will be carried out, distributing roles, and 
controlling the rations distributed daily to the children. 
• Mothers prepare the food, rotating the responsibility monthly. When the snacks are prepared 
at home, mothers bring the food to school prepared and ready to serve to the children. 
• Parents provide support in securing supplies for food preparation, particularly firewood and 
other foods to supplement the snack and make it more substantial.
The project strengthened the SFC. It trained members of the SFC and other community groups 
who support the school snack program. The targets established for the training of these human 
resources were satisfactorily met. The project also managed to broaden the base of parental 
participation in the SFC, particularly in the RACCS, which exceeded the set target by 57%. 
38
3.3 Sustainability 
Sustainability was a cornerstone during the design of the project with the purpose of sustaining 
any achievements beyond project end. A sustainability strategy was developed with a defined 
scope of work and a tool to monitor progress in schools. 
The basis of sustainability is framed in the empowerment and participation of government 
institutions, local organizations, and community groups. In the Sustainability Strategies16
document designed within the framework of the project, sustainability is conceptualized as “the 
facilitation of a process of school organization empowerment (PTA, SFC, MAPAF17) to sustain
over time the benefits of school snacks to increase primary school children attention and 
attendance for greater learning.
All stakeholders consulted agree that there is a high degree of sustainability and relevance in the 
strategies and development of project components, which implies a predisposition by the 
government that translates into the development and implementation at all levels of the School 
Snack Program. In the words of the PINE-MINED director, "It is sustainable because it works in 
conjunction with the GRNU for which school snacks are a priority and government policy."
A key element for sustainability is the awareness of stakeholders that play important roles in the 
implementation of the program. Although the participation of key local stakeholders is highly
valued, there remains a need for greater integration of some sectors, particularly local government 
and the private sector. A local government representative summarizes this point as follows: 
"...I think we've already mentioned that all the project beneficiaries have really taken ownership: 
parents are involved in preparing food, including the work involved in creating school gardens; the 
students are attending classes and doing well on their homework; teachers are taking control and 
improving the quality of learning. You see the commitment to take concrete action, but as I 
mentioned before we need to get more involved - everyone, including those of us who’ve been a 
little on the margin, only supporting when asked. We want to be a part as well and have all the 
information before, during and after, and we want other stakeholders to also be involved. This will 
make it more sustainable, which ultimately is what we seek, because we can’t be thinking that this 
project will be here forever." 
In this sense, the representative of CEDEHCA states that among the elements that stand out and 
make the program sustainable, it "...is the active participation of the various institutions and 
organizations and the efforts made at the coordination level for the project; that speaks of 
sustainability, citizen participation, mothers and fathers.”
The activities developed by the project are part of the institutional strategies of MINED and are
thus considered relevant and sustainable. The local MINED representative emphasizes multi￾stakeholder participation to strengthen educational programs, including school snacks, with all its 
components: "...because they are a necessity for MINED to make a qualitative leap in education. 
However, we will always need support, friendly hands complementing the work - those of PCI, key 
stakeholders, institutions like the mayor’s office supporting infrastructure in schools like building 
classrooms…”
 
16 PCI/CEDEHCA. Sustainability Strategy. MESA Project.
17 Mothers and fathers
39
The level of organization that the school community currently has, as well as the level of training
in on issues related to the different project components, is a guarantee for sustainability. It has 
increased awareness and therefore participation.
"...this project changed the behavior of teachers, students and parents; We have seen parents very 
interested, organized, trained, showing all the achievements, they have had, how they have learned 
to do a work plan. Families have reached a higher level within the school; they have become 
empowered in the role they play...that the teacher is also integrated with parents discussing the 
problems they have in school, families talk about the importance of nutrition both in the city as well 
as in the countryside. It’s great and the main thing that they now know is that these programs are 
rights they have - this is what has stayed with people."
While PCI’s monitoring tool prepared to support the sustainability strategy is very useful, it is still 
being validated. It has been used by technical teams in both geographic areas and allowed them 
to measure progress in certain schools, but it has not been used systematically, and there is no 
tool available that consolidates all the information by SA and/or municipality, which would provide 
a broader perspective. Technicians in the RACCS express: 
"The tool provides a technician a chance to see the development taking place in each of the 
activities, because there is a classification that allows us to visualize communities or schools that 
are more empowered. That allows us to direct attention to those schools that are a little weaker.” 
This tool incorporates five defined conditions considered key to ensuring sustainability. Each 
condition is evaluated by variables or indicators through a scoring system that is assigned 
depending on the observed level of progress. The basis for assigning a certain score is by verifying 
evidence. However, not all the variables measured have clearly defined categories to assign a 
certain score, leaving it to the discretion of each evaluator. Although staff have been trained on 
how to use the current tool, a standardization process that incorporates MINED technical staff is 
needed.
Other key elements that are not incorporated in the guide for the use of the sustainability tool 
include the frequency with which to apply it in schools and a mechanism to develop a feedback 
process with different areas of the MINED, starting with teachers of the schools where it is applied, 
the Rural Education Nucleus (REN), and the municipal MINED.
On the other hand, not all MINED municipal delegations have had the opportunity to use this tool. 
It requires a level of ownership by MINED officials for its use, since it is a very useful instrument 
for monitoring activities focused on sustainability.
3.4 Assessment of the gender approach
For the MESA project, an approach to strategies and activities through a gender lens was both 
cross-cutting and a challenge. As part of this approach, teachers, students, and parents were 
trained on this topic, thus strengthening MINED, who also views gender as a cross-cutting axis.
Nicaraguan culture has maintained strongly defined roles for women and men, especially in more 
rural areas and communities. However, the perception is that this culture has changed through 
multiple activities developed by government institutions, civil society organizations, and other 
sectors. There is no quantitative measurement of change, but some perceptions expressed by 
MINED teachers and representatives include the following:
40
"In shaping the direction of the SFC, we have seen participation by both men and women."
"There is more parent involvement in snack preparation. At one school, during a meeting, a father 
said: ‘I am a single father, but I have my children go to classes. I have no partner, and I’m the one 
who has to prepare food.’ And people recognize that this father is one of the people that whenever
it’s his turn (to prepare the snack) he is punctual with his food.”
"It's something that has been quite difficult. We’ve been working on that. I could not tell you how 
the dads are involved in the snack activities because the food is prepared at home. I imagine that 
in one way or another the father supports the mother. The father helps by bringing the food to 
school, but in other schools the dads stay and help serve the food. Where I have been and they 
have invited me, I have seen the participation of both men and women."
There is widespread recognition of parent involvement in preparing snacks, although in general 
there are distinct roles: 
"...in practice, it is possible to see gender equity. Both men and women are involved in the activities. 
For example, the men transfer the food for snacks from the point of delivery to the school, and the 
women make the food for the boys and girls." "...as far as the roles, the woman always cooks the 
food; the fathers bring the firewood, and they look for [food] to complement the snack. Parents are 
getting more involved in meetings. Before only the mothers arrived. We can say that little by little 
the men have been getting involved, but we still have to fight the machismo. It’s always the mothers 
who are taking care of the children and the fathers are in agricultural work."
Changes are taking place little by little. It is a process that requires time, because they require
changes in attitudes that must be unlearned and new behaviors that have to learned. The 
representative of the local government recognizes that the MESA Project incorporated a gender 
approach. However, the representative expressed that more efforts are needed to improve this 
area.
"...it is still not easy for men to prepare food for their children, for example; it is always the women 
who do so. However, the men are becoming more involved at school, but doing their traditional 
roles of bringing firewood, working in the garden, arranging the classrooms. There needs to be 
more work on the machismo and more training on this aspect. The important thing is that both men 
and women have been involved as being responsible for the children."
An important aspect that was mentioned is that the men show greater openness for allowing their 
partner to participate in these activities: "...there is more acceptance of men to let women leave 
home to participate more in community activities like those at school and in trainings, but there 
needs to be more involvement of men."
The local MINED official recognizes that the project promoted the involvement of fathers and 
mothers in project activities:
"...they have been trained on the subject, progress has been made, parents have been working, 
but there are still gaps. We see women’s participation more because the culture of our rural people 
is too ingrained. It is still dad who is going to the field and the woman who stays at home cooking.
As I say, we are going little by little, because in Nicaragua before the father never picked up a 
broom and now he does. So it has progressed, but logically fighting against century-long traditions 
requires a lot of work and effort, but we can say that we are moving forward."
41
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative and qualitative data related to indicators aimed at improving the coverage, 
attendance, and ability to read and write in school children show that the targets were reached or 
exceeded and therefore the objectives of the project were satisfactorily fulfilled. Except for one 
result indicator (MGD S02. Schools that have soap and water in handwashing posts), the project 
targets were met or exceeded by a large percentage.
There is evidence of an improvement in the quality of education, measured through the ability of 
6th grade students to read and write, as well as the attendance of children in school. The project 
contributed directly to the improvement of these indicators through the distribution of school 
materials, rehabilitation or construction of infrastructure, and the development of technical￾methodological capacity in teachers, thus providing materials and methodological tools necessary 
to ensure a better teaching-learning process.
With the delivery of school snacks, the project contributed to the following:
• Improved attention of school children during class. According to the perception of teachers, 
the number of children who did not pay attention during the class was halved, leaving only a 
few students who did not pay attention.
• Increased enrollment and consistency of attendance by boys and girls.
• Greater integration of sectors and local stakeholders in educational activities and in the 
provision of school snacks. In addition to traditional participants (teachers, parents, and school 
children), local producers, cooperatives, and local government were involved as well.
• Increased awareness of the school’s general population. Greater willingness and commitment 
of all involved stakeholders affected program sustainability through participation in activities 
that ensure the safeguarding, preparation, and delivery of food, including 
complementary/supplemental foods.
The project completed the planned number of gardens in schools. However, the consensus of 
stakeholders is that this component deserves more effort. Some schools had successful 
experiences with the participation of teachers, school children, and parents. These schools were 
able to produce food that in addition to being used as a complement to school snacks, were able 
to be sold and part of the financial profits invested in school improvements.
Through the infrastructure rehabilitation/construction component there was a substantial 
improvement in the conditions for storing and preparing food (rehabilitation of kitchens and storage 
spaces), in waste disposal (rehabilitation of latrines), and in the provision of safe water 
(rehabilitation of wells or water systems). The support of local government and the involvement of 
parents through their labor were fundamental for fulfilling the proposed target for the rehabilitation 
of infrastructure. However, this component is one of the most in demand due to the poor conditions 
that many schools still have.
Training plans implemented by the project improved the knowledge of the educational community 
on issues of FNS and hygiene and health issues, translating into better hand washing practices, 
use and management of sanitation facilities, safe water, and the use of standards for food storage 
and preparation.
Parent participation (PTA/SFC) was strengthened in both organization and function; there is 
significant participation by teachers and parents, which provides the basis for the sustainability of 
42
the School Snack Program with all its components. However, greater management capacity is still 
needed, especially in the use of notebooks for food control and building alliances with other 
sectors in the communities, particularly the private sector.
Coordination with the local authorities of MINSA was effective in meeting the targets of preventive 
care for school children, especially to ensure anti-parasite treatment.
The preparation of a Sustainability Strategy is an excellent initiative because in addition to specific 
activities, it incorporates a monitoring tool. However, the latter is not final and remains to be 
validated with internal staff and MINED. In addition, the scoring system is not fully defined, all 
personnel including MINED must receive a standard training on use, there is no system in place 
to consolidate the information, there is no specified frequency for when to apply it in schools, and 
no defined feedback mechanism for teachers, REN, and the municipal MINED.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The positive results of the project reflect the comprehensive approach adopted during the life 
of the project. For this reason, we recommend maintaining this comprehensive vision when 
developing similar projects with the participation of all the stakeholders that have been 
involved in the execution of each component. For future projects that incorporate diverse 
components in different areas, we recommend strengthening coordination and defining
priorities. Specifically:
a. Strengthen coordination and communication with the different structures in Central MINED 
that are linked to the project components (School Snack Program, capacity building, and
infrastructure) to have a direct counterpart with which to coordinate and agree on activities 
for each component.
b. Part of the efficiency of the MESA Project was the comprehensiveness and approach used 
in its different components and its focus on results and impact in primary education. This 
undoubtedly required effective organization and coordination among all stakeholders, in 
addition to financial resources. Recognizing that these latter resources are limited, we 
recommend identifying and agreeing on priorities with institutional authorities. This could 
also serve to identify other sources of funding.
2. Strengthen engagement with the private sector for sustainability. There is great potential 
to support government education plans and programs via the private sector, including school 
snacks and their components. Recognizing this potential and establishing future alliances with 
this sector, we recommend:
a. Taking advantage of the CSR network that exists in Nicaragua and to explore and/or take 
steps that can lead to strategic alliances with the goal of obtaining contributions for the 
different components of the institutional program that support the project.
b. Obtaining supplies that supplement the school snack and support efforts that strengthen 
alliances with small and medium producers at the local level. This would both allow for 
cooperation and benefit both parties.
3. A good practice that the project implemented was to sign alliance agreements between 
parties with specified commitments. We recommended maintaining and strengthening this 
practice with all sectors, thereby consolidating efforts at the local level (SFC, community 
groups, REN and others).
43
4. The school gardens component of the school snack program requires further development. 
We recommend assessing the successful initiatives developed in some municipalities and 
translating them to other areas as part of an exchange and new learning process. Additionally, 
conducting negotiations with government agencies (MEFCCA) for their support in capacity 
building will strengthen the program, as well as evaluating alternatives such as the use of 
improved seeds or growing from local seeds.
5. Infrastructure is a component that always requires a high investment of financial resources. 
Recognizing the requirements and needs in schools as well as the budgetary constraints that 
exist, we recommend that in addition to establishing priorities, the project strengthen efforts 
with municipal governments so that they assume a greater role in this area while 
simultaneously maintaining steady efforts with other sectors, particularly the private sector.
6. Management with MINSA. To take advantage of the experience gained through 
implementation of preventive activities against parasites and to integrate more school health 
components, especially focused on health education, we recommend establishing greater 
management and coordination with the local MINSA.
7. To strengthen monitoring and evaluation for similar future projects we recommend:
a. Incorporating evaluation using specific tests (EGRA) in a random sample of school 
children. In addition to measuring the level of learning achieved in a given grade level, the 
tests have the ability to identify elements that can contribute to the learning process.
b. Although the project incorporates activities for the promotion and prevention of diseases, 
these are specific for parasitic diseases and not for other diseases that also affect children 
and school attendance. Unless a second phase of the project includes other activities to 
prevent these other diseases, we do not recommend keeping this indicator.
c. The Sustainability Readiness Guide is a good initiative for monitoring schools with a focus 
on sustainability. To strengthen this tool and its use, we recommend:
▪ Finalizing the instrument validation process for primary data collection in schools,
▪ Designing a tool to consolidate data, which could be in an Excel format for simple
use by all staff,
▪ Providing a standardized training for the entire technical team that uses the tool,
▪ Presenting and negotiating its use with the local MINED and incorporating
members of the MINED technical team into the standardization process for the tool,
▪ Sharing the results obtained from using this tool with the different areas of MINED 
(Municipal, REN, teachers) and other appropriate areas to support improvement 
activities.
8. Key stakeholders approached in the evaluation provided recommendations. The most notable
are:
✓ Maintain a strengthening of institutional capacity as a priority work area, including but not 
limited to educational materials, hiring of qualified personnel, means of transportation, office 
equipment, and office supplies for monitoring and follow-up in intervention municipalities.
✓ Continue to provide training to all stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents). Teachers 
need to learn new teaching and assessment strategies, and there is a need to strengthen a 
strategy that is both active and participatory. Technology is also a fundamental component
that should be incorporated. Classroom workshops should learn and improve by doing
evaluations.
✓ Trunks for food storage are necessary and important to keep food from spoiling and should 
be provided to all schools that do not have them.
44
VI. ANNEXES
Annex 01. MESA Project Results Framework (Pg. 45)
Annex 02. Beneficiary schools and population, by municipality (Pg. 46)
Annex 03. Quantitative sample disaggregated by population group and geographic 
area (Pg. 46)
Annex 04. Sampling frame by Supervision Area (Pg. 47-53)
Annex 05. Survey Instruments for school children, teachers and mothers (Pg. 54-
70)
Annex 06. Qualitative data collection guides (Pg. 71-104)
Annex 07. MESA Project definitions, sources and indicator targets (Pg. 105-108)
Annex 08. Calculation of confidence limits for LQAS KPC Survey (Pg. 109-110)
Annex 09. p Value tests for two independent proportions (Pg. 111-113)
45
Annex 01. MESA Project Results Framework
46
Annex 02. Beneficiary schools and population, by municipality
No. Municipality No. schools School 
children
Teachers Parents
1 Jinotega 235 22,898 449 5,293
2 Yalí 75 5,580 306 2,807
3 La Concordia 32 1,319 90 884
4 Pantasma 131 9,774 384 4,500
5 Bluefields 208 13,751 608 3,759
6 Corn Island 5 1,638 29 274
7 Kukra Hill 61 3,334 72 1,604
8 Laguna de Perlas 71 3,882 133 733
9 El Tortuguero 130 5,556 190 4,659
10 La Cruz de Río Grande 159 6,804 167 3,113
11 Desembocadura del Río 
Grande
8 1,364 56 733
TOTAL 1,115 75,900 2,484 28,359
Annex 03. Quantitative sample disaggregated by population group and 
geographic area
Supervision Area No. of 
schools
Population group
No. Municipality Students Teachers Mothers
Jinotega
1 Jinotega 1 19 19 19 19
2 Jinotega 2 19 19 19 19
3 Yalí y La Concordia 19 19 19 19
4 Pantasma 1 19 19 19 19
5 Pantasma 2 19 19 19 19
Sub total 5 Supervision Areas 95 95 95 95
RACCS
6
Bluefields and Corn 
Island 1 19 19 19 19
7
Bluefields and Corn 
Island 2 19 19 19 19
8 Kukra Hill 19 19 19 19
9 Laguna de Perlas 19 19 19 19
10 El Tortuguero 1 19 19 19 19
11 El Tortuguero 2 19 19 19 19
12
LCRG and
Desembocadura de 
Río Grande 1
19 19 19 19
13
LCRG and
Desembocadura de 
Río Grande 2
19 19 19 19
Sub total 8 Supervision Areas 152 152 152 152
TOTAL 13 Supervision 
Areas 247 247 247 247
47
Annex 04. Sampling frame by Supervision Area
SUPERVISION AREA JINOTEGA 1
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.01576319 1 Jinotega Alpes Alpes
0.89233039 51 Jinotega San Antonio de Sisle San Gregorio
0.0190136 41 Jinotega Paso Real 2 Proyecto Lourdes
0.87112528 14 Jinotega Cerrones 2 Diriangén (Cerrones 2)
0.6145986 54 Jinotega San Francisco de los Cedros San Francisco de los Cedros
0.28087117 55 Jinotega San Francisco de los Cedros San Isidro
0.62787764 52 Jinotega San Esteban 1 San Esteban 1
0.62752216 57 Jinotega Santa Ana Santa Ana de los Cedros
0.43981977 16 Jinotega Cerrones 4 Salomón Ibarra Mayorga
0.80756684 65 Jinotega Sardinal 1 Carlos Fonseca Amador
0.2077356 71 Jinotega Sisle 1 Divino Niño
0.19887124 76 Jinotega Virgen Buenos Aires
0.28162785 70 Jinotega Sierra Morena Sierra Morena
0.87182038 28 Jinotega Embocadero Embocadero
0.11716576 45 Jinotega Pita del Horno Pita del Horno
0.66747782 48 Jinotega Pueblo Nuevo José Dolores Estrada/ Pueblo 
Nuevo
0.56315711 20 Jinotega Colinas Bastilla
0.63103894 40 Jinotega Paso Real 1 Elías Blandón Machado
0.77894178 72 Jinotega Sisle 2 Juan Pablo Segundo
SUPERVISION AREA JINOTEGA 2
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.36223359 66 Jinotega Santa Inés Santa Inés
0.44796522 58 Jinotega Reforma Arriba Reforma Arriba (Las Marías)
0.79064348 15 Jinotega Camelias Camelias
0.33291281 75 Jinotega Walasa Walasa
0.25193758 28 Jinotega Esperanza Esperanza/ Paraíso
0.79191775 74 Jinotega Viola Viola
0.73077575 21 Jinotega Consuelo Rubén Darío
0.77314227 65 Jinotega Santa Enriqueta Santa Enriqueta
0.21704801 42 Jinotega Mercedes Mercedes
0.00024794 47 Jinotega Palestina Palestina
0.07548853 71 Jinotega Tejera Tejera
0.12521464 38 Jinotega Lipululo Lipululo
0.20548984 40 Jinotega Mancotal abajo San Miguel
0.39007609 60 Jinotega Sajonia Sajonia
0.39753499 12 Jinotega Barrio San Isidro Anexo INACS
0.00251796 67 Jinotega Santa Isabel 2 Santa Isabel 2
0.52649283 31 Jinotega Hatillo Hatillo
0.60546734 27 Jinotega Esmeralda Lázaro Talavera
0.3947353 3 Jinotega Aurora Aurora
48
SUPERVISION AREA YALI - CONCORDIA 3
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.202685858 57 San Sebastián de Yalí Yalí urbano Enmanuel Mongalo y Rubio
0.462222946 42 San Sebastián de Yalí Rodeítos Miguel Ángel Vásquez
0.785676168 52 San Sebastián de Yalí Trabón Andres Castro
0.197897483 50 San Sebastián de Yalí Terreros Augusto Cesar Sandino
0.208681376 85 La Concordia Zapote Oriental Padre Odorico Andrea
0.757755805 43 San Sebastián de Yalí San Antonio San Antonio
0.843978381 31 San Sebastián de Yalí Pavona Abajo Pavona Abajo
0.466578713 81 La Concordia Vallecillo Vallecillo
0.365029108 53 San Sebastián de Yalí Trabón Juan Pablo Segundo
0.714259892 70 La Concordia Coyolito Jose Santos Rivera
0.246585876 18 San Sebastián de Yalí Estación Divino Niño
0.126221664 36 San Sebastián de Yalí Portillos Portillos
0.942643393 46 San Sebastián de Yalí San Pedro San Pedro
0.724066949 80 La Concordia Valerio Armidia Zelaya Valdivia
0.444759512 58 San Sebastián de Yalí Yoluca Salomón de la Selva
0.365479401 8 San Sebastián de Yalí Chamastro Chamastro
0.032969077 14 San Sebastián de Yalí Cureñas Cureñas
0.676503808 47 San Sebastián de Yalí Santa Isabel Santa Isabel
0.483834167 35 San Sebastián de Yalí Portal Poeta Niño
SUPERVISION AREA PANTASMA 4
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.607232597 35 Santa Maria de Pantasma Quebrada El Hule 1 Quebrada El Hule 1
0.388133625 7 Santa Maria de Pantasma Brellera 2 Brellera 2
0.493656233 34 Santa Maria de Pantasma Prisionero 2 Prisionero 2
0.848918886 42 Santa Maria de Pantasma Tamalaque Tamalaque
0.781573013 32 Santa Maria de Pantasma Portal Portal
0.770824127 39 Santa Maria de Pantasma Sacramento Sacramento
0.951008479 41 Santa Maria de Pantasma Soledad 2 Soledad 2
0.502445795 47 Santa Maria de Pantasma Wale 2 Wale 3
0.227683202 46 Santa Maria de Pantasma Wale 1 Wale Arriba 2
0.231856741 6 Santa Maria de Pantasma Brellera 1 Brellera 1
0.884313746 11 Santa Maria de Pantasma Corozal Corozal
0.647402353 4 Santa Maria de Pantasma Bramadero 1 Bramadero 1
0.846208519 24 Santa Maria de Pantasma Nispero Nuevo Amanecer
0.557927577 17 Santa Maria de Pantasma Limones 1 Miguel Larreynaga
0.043827705 29 Santa Maria de Pantasma Patastillal Santa Martha
0.870080349 33 Santa Maria de Pantasma Prisionero 1 Bosque
0.876779456 40 Santa Maria de Pantasma Soledad 1 San Cristóbal
0.641585751 26 Santa Maria de Pantasma Palmeras Palmeras
0.223752829 5 Santa Maria de Pantasma Bramadero 2 Bramadero 2
49
SUPERVISION AREA 5 PANTASMA
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.163378428 28 Santa Maria de Pantasma Piragua Piragua
0.390287941 23 Santa Maria de Pantasma Guapinol 1 Guapinolito 1
0.038866004 26 Santa Maria de Pantasma Laureles Laureles
0.605211291 3 Santa Maria de Pantasma Aguas Calientes 2 Salomón de la Selva
0.226974925 45 Santa Maria de Pantasma Venado 2 Venado 2
0.493317437 14 Santa Maria de Pantasma Comal 1 José Dolores Estrada
0.643375667 39 Santa Maria de Pantasma Santa Cruz 1 Santa Cruz 1
0.694630067 20 Santa Maria de Pantasma Flor de Pino 1 Flor de Pino de Vilán 1
0.852715359 46 Santa Maria de Pantasma Ventarrón 1 Ventarrón 1
0.572134494 32 Santa Maria de Pantasma Porvenir José Cecilio del Valle
0.770125649 31 Santa Maria de Pantasma Plátano Rafaela Herrera
0.202358624 33 Santa Maria de Pantasma Praderas Nicarao/ Ninfa Segura 
Castillo 
0.270890611 24 Santa Maria de Pantasma Guapinol 2 Rubén Darío 
0.055366612 36 Santa Maria de Pantasma San Luis San Luis
0.574817293 18 Santa Maria de Pantasma Delirio Paraíso
0.901667896 44 Santa Maria de Pantasma Venado 1 Alfredo Alegría
0.758766116 27 Santa Maria de Pantasma Malecón
Miguel de Cervantes 
Saavedra/ Luis Alfonso 
Velásquez Flores
0.505911961 9 Santa Maria de Pantasma Chamarro 1 Chamarro 1
0.384540845 35 Santa Maria de Pantasma San José 2 San José 2
SUPERVISION AREA 6 Bluefields CEDEHCA
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name Random no.
0.411282351 43 Bluefields PG Nueva Esperanza Esperanza 
0.067593696 87 Bluefields Yaladina Yaladina Dinamarca
0.570882255 7 Bluefields Bluef Barrio Central San Marcos Primaria 
0.650766009 84 Bluefields Torsuany Torsuany José Dolores Estrada 
0.079245235 2 Bluefields Bluef Loma Fresca Cristiano Nueva Visión
0.053985683 62 Bluefields PG Porvenir Santa Rosa
0.995318043 10 Bluefields Bluef Barrio San Pedro Pública San Pedro
0.630863966 6 Bluefields Bluef Barrio Old Bank Comunal Old Bank
0.387641235 17 Bluefields PG Flores Sector 1 Delicias de las Flores 
0.636748537 9 Bluefields Bluef Barrio Loma Fresca Barbie Henríquez
0.969397793 58 Bluefields PG Venado Venado
0.737206846 46 Bluefields PG Pejibaye Diriangén
0.253651563 40 Bluefields PG San Miguel Maria José
0.555228407 59 Bluefields PG Flores San Juan de la Salle
0.972768871 41 Bluefields PG Monte Crique Monte Crique
0.246164844 68 Bluefields PG Camilo Palo Bonito Neysi Ríos 
0.332936274 11 Bluefields Bluef Barrio 19 De Julio Corazón del Padre 
0.386908033 54 Bluefields PG Naranjo Nazareno
0.898293541 53 Bluefields PG Molinares Madroño
50
SUPERVISION AREA 7 Bluefields and Corn Island PCI
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name Random no.
0.413940823 64 Bluefields Leydi Pájaro Rubén Darío 2
0.783847345 62 Bluefields Marjorie Naranjal 2 Luz de la Esperanza
0.283851438 58 Bluefields Julio César Montes Verdes Niños del Futuro
0.958241204 79 Bluefields Marjorie San Miguelito KR Buena Esperanza
0.659648348 46 Bluefields Julio César Delicias del Pajaro 2 Rubén Darío Sarmiento
0.69583329 18 Bluefields Marjorie Barrio Tres Cruces Bautista
0.582604113 14 Bluefields Marjorie Barrio San Mateo Comunal San Mateo
0.688784731 56 Bluefields Leydi Montes verdes Manatial
0.797464508 41 Bluefields Leydi Colorado 2 Triunfo
0.895212062 80 Bluefields Julio César San Pablo Sorpresa
0.648210931 96 Bluefields Marjorie Villa Nueva 1 San José 1
0.166676969 70 Bluefields Leydi Peñones José de la Cruz Mena
0.838211634 7 Bluefields Marjorie Barrio 19 de Julio Rubén Darío
0.284751748 63 Bluefields Marjorie Nueva Alianza Santa Teresita (vicariato)
0.896710634 71 Bluefields Leydi Quebradón Nicaragüita
0.417358381 66 Bluefields Leydi Paraíso Luz de Esperanza
0.837233454 5 Bluefields Leydi Asentamiento Augusto 
Cesar Sandino Carlos Fonseca Amador
0.998329573 6 Bluefields Leydi Aurora Edwin Baltodano
0.997783562 4 Bluefields Marjorie Ángeles de Masayón San José
SUPERVISION AREA 8 - Kukra Hill
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.337281252 4 Kukra Hill Buena Vista Buena Vista
0.063311725 14 Kukra Hill Fonseca Maria Auxiliadora 2
0.412133931 28 Kukra Hill Maravillas Celestina
0.491990769 37 Kukra Hill Panchón Enmanuel Mongalo
0.914080303 56 Kukra Hill Unión Santa Martha
0.053411152 25 Kukra Hill Loma de Mico San José
0.503201758 39 Kukra Hill Pichinga Letania
0.081157471 43 Kukra Hill Pichinga Sendero de Vida
0.840083466 30 Kukra Hill Maravillas Eneida
0.479219906 45 Kukra Hill Porvenir Gladys Álvarez
0.328352816 1 Kukra Hill Asent.Samuel Lau Andronico Espinales
0.067343312 57 Kukra Hill Wary Rubén Darío/ Wary
0.407087732 33 Kukra Hill Neysi Rio Santa teresita
0.297041939 47 Kukra Hill Rosario Rosario
0.554576649 32 Kukra Hill Neysi Rio San Antonio
0.402347263 51 Kukra Hill San Ramón Viejo San Francisco
0.068634886 42 Kukra Hill Pichinga Buen Pastor
0.582863865 12 Kukra Hill Escobal Escobal
0.818425667 38 Kukra Hill Pichinga San Marcos
51
SUPERVISION AREA 9 - Laguna de Perlas
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.92649317 40 Laguna de Perlas Pondler Sueño
0.744135694 26 Laguna de Perlas Papel Nueva Esperanza
0.800924481 46 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Israel Galiano
0.504384966 55 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Mi Hogar
0.981511854 52 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Florida
0.601320633 3 Laguna de Perlas Arenita Rafaela Herrera 2
0.21661793 14 Laguna de Perlas Cedro Santa Teresa
0.624342223 56 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Nuevo Amanecer
0.735917729 34 Laguna de Perlas Pedregal San José
0.325701729 39 Laguna de Perlas Pondler Rubén Darío 3
0.86762609 54 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Laureles
0.459262844 9 Laguna de Perlas Castaño Borbollón
0.08599682 13 Laguna de Perlas Castaño Santa Idubis
0.865271223 43 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Buenos Aires
0.786047102 58 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Reymundo Hernández
0.54063559 66 Laguna de Perlas San Vicente San Vicente
0.571332195 53 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Quinta
0.416388259 42 Laguna de Perlas Pueblo Nuevo Buen Samaritano
0.598481572 6 Laguna de Perlas Caño Wilson Diriangén
SUPERVISION AREA 10 - El Tortuguero 1
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.523256219 31 El Tortuguero San Miguel Santa Lucia Rubén Darío 3
0.151165854 36 El Tortuguero Santa Rita San Jerónimo
0.902967001 27 El Tortuguero San José Sawawas Jerusalén del Guayabo
0.053765572 38 El Tortuguero Santa Rita San Miguel
0.707322135 9 El Tortuguero Hierba Buena Diriangén
0.176044798 56 El Tortuguero Chacachaca San Juan
0.061685327 1 El Tortuguero Espabel Carmen 3
0.379124298 21 El Tortuguero Guitarra San Isidro 2
0.195197731 7 El Tortuguero Chilicreck Buenos Aires
0.847288198 42 El Tortuguero Sawawas Patria Unida
0.978104243 30 El Tortuguero San Miguel Santa Lucia San Francisco Santa Lucia
0.256087998 57 El Tortuguero Flor de Pino Flor de Pino
0.617538114 44 El Tortuguero Sulating Sendero de Luz
0.498914482 5 El Tortuguero Bambucito Piñol Nazareth
0.77142709 68 El Tortuguero Mango María Auxiliadora
0.158915391 28 El Tortuguero San José Sawawas San Jacinto
0.723125541 32 El Tortuguero San Miguel Santa Lucia Nuevo Amanecer 1
0.219121882 41 El Tortuguero Sawawas Linda Vista
0.797770882 10 El Tortuguero Hierba Buena Jehová es mi Pastor
52
SUPERVISION AREA 11 - El Tortuguero 2
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.173984899 47 El Tortuguero Waspado Caserío San Rafael
0.014183114 20 El Tortuguero Salto Sinaí 1
0.811355793 61 El Tortuguero Makatis Buen Samaritano 2
0.848746689 4 El Tortuguero Kasmiting Central Ríos de Agua Viva
0.77019407 42 El Tortuguero Waspado Rubén Darío 1
0.053753953 21 El Tortuguero San Francisco Wawalating Naranjo
0.402455131 63 El Tortuguero Mata de Caña San José 2
0.472690187 15 El Tortuguero Pavon Nueva Esperanza 2
0.688574765 50 El Tortuguero Waspado Santa Marta Santa Marta 3
0.91308128 38 El Tortuguero San Juan Chiriwas Camino a Luz
0.824946888 8 El Tortuguero Paharatigne Jardín del Edén 3
0.964975494 31 El Tortuguero Tamarindo Arca de Noé
0.945926595 24 El Tortuguero San Jose Kurinwas San José Good Living
0.741296724 33 El Tortuguero Tortuguita Nueva Luz 2
0.214870572 10 El Tortuguero Pajarating Nuevo Amanecer 3
0.888469424 62 El Tortuguero Mata de Caña Trinidad
0.075924171 2 El Tortuguero Kasmiting Sinaí 2
0.029435328 67 El Tortuguero Belén Central Santa Elena
0.160525293 1 El Tortuguero Kasmiting Progreso
SUPERVISION AREA 12 - La Cruz de Río Grande
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.019613644 26 La Cruz de Río Grande San Antonio San Ramón
0.146228035 29 La Cruz de Río Grande San Antonio Buen maestro
0.652997393 75 La Cruz de Río Grande Uliwas Rubén Darío 1
0.241832525 57 La Cruz de Río Grande Sixiwas Sacuanjoche
0.840291625 9 La Cruz de Río Grande Nuevo San Antonio San Fidel
0.292539892 15 La Cruz de Río Grande Ponkaya Santa Martha3
0.8372875 11 La Cruz de Río Grande Palma San Antonio
0.976029742 40 La Cruz de Río Grande San Miguel Casa de Alto Luz Divina
0.462723412 7 La Cruz de Río Grande Nuevo Amanecer Jesús El Buen Maestro
0.419015169 5 La Cruz de Río Grande Mayawas San Pablo
0.638274887 69 La Cruz de Río Grande Tumarin Mestizo Monte Líbano
0.035845841 61 La Cruz de Río Grande Trinidad San Jorge
0.706932423 23 La Cruz de Río Grande Sagrado Corazón Gloria
0.292521076 72 La Cruz de Río Grande Uliwas Nueva Esperanza
0.384903964 43 La Cruz de Río Grande San Miguel Esperanza Nuevo Paraíso
0.577521176 52 La Cruz de Río Grande Santo Domingo Carmen Buena Esperanza
0.943722516 13 La Cruz de Río Grande Patriota Esperanza
0.88513779 27 La Cruz de Río Grande San Antonio San Antonio
0.023700208 38 La Cruz de Río Grande San Miguel Casa de Alto San Francisco de Asís
53
SUPERVISION AREA 13 - La Cruz de Río Grande y Desembocadura de Río Grande
Random no. No. Municipality Community School Name
0.214641252 63 La Cruz de Río Grande Naranjo Divino Niño
0.825379018 11 La Cruz de Río Grande Apawas Luz de la Enseñanza
0.858717208 9 La Cruz de Río Grande Apawas Bendición de Dios
0.418285885 5 La Cruz de Río Grande Apawonta Olivos
0.852728033 73 Desembocadura del Rio Grande Guadalupe Guadalupe
0.263749812 60 La Cruz de Río Grande Naranjo Paraíso
0.107614432 50 La Cruz de Río Grande Hachita Rubén Darío
0.86322344 19 La Cruz de Río Grande Batitán San José
0.924513203 46 La Cruz de Río Grande Hachita Monte de los Olivos
0.074373989 26 La Cruz de Río Grande Betani Madre del Divino Pastor
0.010750154 39 La Cruz de Río Grande Estrella Santa Fe
0.820667827 52 La Cruz de Río Grande Makantaka San Martin
0.697959874 38 La Cruz de Río Grande Estrella Jesús de la Buena Esperanza
0.314320565 41 La Cruz de Río Grande Estrella Fortuna
0.293472514 37 La Cruz de Río Grande Estrella Jesús el Buen Maestro
0.651405102 54 La Cruz de Río Grande Matagalpa Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe
0.133341881 65 La Cruz de Río Grande Naranjo Enmanuel 2
0.29890146 75 Desembocadura del Rio Grande Esperanza Esperanza
0.00217705 6 La Cruz de Río Grande Apawas Esperanza
54
Annex 05. Survey Instruments for school children, teachers and mothers
SECCION A. IDENTIFICACION DEL CUESTIONARIO
A01. Fecha de la entrevista: A02. Número de cuestionario: 
A03. Departamento: RACCS q Jinotega q A04. Municipio
A05. Nombre de escuela
A06. Código único de escuela A07. Nombre entrevistador/a
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO 
 ¿En este momento, usted quiere preguntarme algo acerca de la entrevista? 
 ACEPTA SER ENTREVISTADA?................................... SI …… 1
NO ….. 2 TERMINE
 Firma del entrevistador: Nombre: 
SECCIÓN B. IDENTIFICACIÓN DEL ESCOLAR
B01. Nombre: B02. GÉNERO: NIÑO q NIÑA q
B03. Edad: AÑOS CUMPLIDOS B04. Fecha de Nacimiento:
B05. Comunidad donde vive: B06. Grado que está cursando:
DIA MES AÑO
Evaluación Final Proyecto MESA. Julio/Agosto, 2017.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
ENCUESTA A NIÑO/A ESCOLAR DE GRADO SUPERIOR EN ESCUELA PRIMARIA
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Hola. Mi nombre es ___________________________ estoy trabajando con PCI-Nicaragua/CEDEHCA. Estamos
realizando una entrevista a los y la niñas dentro de las escuelas, sobre la alimentación que reciben, los aprendizajes
en salud, nutrición e higiene dentro de la escuela. Sus opiniones son importantes, apreciaríamos su participación.
Esta información ayudará a mejorar las actividades que estamos desarrollando con el PINE/MINED. Esta entrevista
normalmente tarda _____ minutos. Cualquier información que Usted nos proporcione es estrictamente confidencial y
no se mostrará a otras personas. 
Su participación en esta entrevista es voluntaria y Usted puede escoger no contestar cualquier pregunta individual o
todas las preguntas. Le gustaría participar?
DÍA MES AÑO
55
SECCION C. ALIMENTACIÓN Y NUTRICIÓN
PASE A
C01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
C02 TORTILLA/PAN ……..…………….…..….................A
HUEVOS ………………..…………….…..…................. B
FRIJOLES ….………..…………….…..….................C
VERDURAS / HORTALIZAS ….…..…................. D
CARNE / POLLO ….…………….…..…................. E
ARROZ …….………..………….…..…................. F
LECHE Y DERIVADOS ……….…..…................. G
ATOL / CEREAL ……..………….…..…................. H
FRUTAS / REFRESCOS ……….…..…................. I
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..…................. Y
C03 UNA VEZ ………………………………...…..…....... 1
DOS VECES ……………...………….................... 2
TRES VECES ….…………………....................... 3
CUATRO VECES …………………………………… 4
C04 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
C05 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 C11
C06 UN DÍA ...………………………………...…..…....... 1
DOS-TRES DÍAS ……………...………….................... 2
CUATRO-CINCO DÍAS ……………....................... 3
C07 POCO ……..……………………………...…..…....... 1
SUFICIENTE ……………...………….................... 2
MUCHO ……...….…………………....................... 3
NO OPINA / NO RESPONDE ……………………… 88
C08 RICO / SABROSO ……………………...…..…....... 1
FEO / MAL …..…………...………….................... 2
 OTRO ________________________________ …..96
NO OPINA / NO RESPONDE ……………………… 88
C09 MUY BUENA ……………………………...…..….......1
BUENA ……….…………...………….................... 2
REGULAR ……...….………………….......................3
MALA …..…...….…………………....................... 4
NO OPINA / NO RESPONDE ……………………… 88
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Normalmente, ¿Comés algo en tu casa antes de 
venir a la escuela?
¿Cuántas días en la semana comés en la 
escuela?
¿La cantidad de alimentos que te dan, es poco, 
suficiente o mucho?
Para vos, ¿Qué sabor tienen los alimentos que 
te dan en la escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
Para vos, ¿Cómo es la calidad de la comida que 
te dan en la escuela?
Actualmente, ¿Estás recibiendo alimentación en 
la escuela?
¿En el día, cuántas veces comés?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
Regularmente, ¿Qué tipo de comida comés en 
tu casa?
El año pasado, en la escuela, ¿Recibiste 
alimentación o merienda escolar?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS 
56
SECCION C. ALIMENTACIÓN Y NUTRICIÓN
PASE A
C10 MUY LLENO ……………………………...…..…....... 1
LLENO ……….…………...………….................... 2
SIN HAMBRE ….…………………....................... 3
CON HAMBRE .….…………………....................... 4
CON MUCHA HAMBRE .….………….................... 5
NO OPINA / NO RESPONDE ……………………… 88
C11 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 C13
C12 MAS ATENTOS EN CLASE ….…..…................. A
MEJOR APRENDIZAJE ……….…..…................. B
MEJORA SU SALUD ………….…..…................. C
FORTALECE SU DESARROLLO ….…................. D
JUGAR CON MÁS ENTUSIASMO ……................. E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
C13 CEREALES (Arroz, pan) ……….…..…................. A
B
C
FRIJOLES ….……….…………….…..…................. D
HUEVO ….……….…………….…..…................. E
LECHES Y DERIVADOS ….….…..…................. F
CARNES / PESCADO ….…….…..…................. G
FRUTAS/VERDURAS RICAS EN VIT. A …........... H
OTRAS FRUTAS ….…………….…..…................. E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..…................. Y
NÚM. PREGUNTAS
Cuando comés en la escuela, ¿Quedás muy 
lleno, lleno, sin hambre, con hambre o con 
mucha hambre?
¿Crees que la alimentación en la escuela tiene 
algún beneficio para los niños y niñas?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
RESPUESTA/S
¿En qué crees que ayuda a los niños/as la 
alimentación escolar?
SI ES NECESARIO REPITA LA PREGUNTA MÁS 
DESPACIO
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
LEGUMBRES Y FRUTOS SECOS (repollo, 
zanahoria, tomate, almendra) ….………….……..
RAICES Y TUBERCULOS (yuca, papa, 
malanga) …………………………………………….
Para Usted, ¿Cuáles alimentos piensa que son 
buenos para los niños y niñas de tu edad?
57
SECCION D. HIGIENE Y MANIPULACIÓN DE LOS ALIMENTOS
PASE A
D01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D03 A
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …………...……......... Y
D04 EVITAR ENFERMEDADES ………...……..…....... A
CRECER SANO / FUERTE ..……...…................. B
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D05 ANTES DE COMER …………………...….................A
DESPUÉS DE COMER …………………….…....... B
DESPUÉS DE IR A LA LETRINA …...................... C
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D06 ANTES DE COMER …………………...….................A
DESPUÉS DE COMER …………………….…....... B
DESPUÉS DE IR A LA LETRINA …...................... C
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D07 LAVAMANOS / PILA DE AGUA …...…................. A
LLAVE SIN PILA EN EL PATIO ……………….….. B
NO ME LAS LAVO ….……………........................ C
NO TIENE / NO HAY LAVAMANOS ……....…...... D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D08 SI NO
AGUA EN EL GRIFO O LLAVE …………….. 1 0
JABÓN …………………………..…..................1 0
RECIPIENTE DE AGUA C/TAPA ………..... 1 0
PANA / GUACAL ……..….…..…................. 1 0
En la escuela, ¿En qué momentos te lavas las 
manos?
¿Dónde se lavan las manos en la escuela?
¿En la escuela siempre tienen agua para lavarse 
las manos?
Menciona algún beneficio del agua segura
¿Sabes cuándo te debes lavar las manos?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿Sabes qué es agua segura?
OBSERVE el lugar donde se lavan las manos, si 
tienen los siguientes insumos
OBSERVE Y MARQUE CADA UNO DE LOS 
ASPECTOS
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Me gustaría preguntarle sobre el abastecimiento 
de agua en la escuela, ¿En la escuela siempre 
tienen agua para beber?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
AGUA LIMPINA, SIN BACTERIAS / SIN 
MICROBIOS …………......................................
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS (ESPECIFIQUE)
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS. SI 
ENCUESTADOR/A ESTÁ PRESENTE DURANTE 
PREPARACIÓN O DISTRIBUCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS, 
SUBRAYAR SI FUE POR OBSERVACIÓN, DE LO 
CONTRARIO SOLO PREGUNTAR
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
58
SECCION E. ACCESO A SERVICIOS DE SALUD
PASE A
E01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E03 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 FIN
E04 POR ENFERMEDAD ………….….………..…….… A
POR AYUDAR EN CASA …….….………..…….… B
POR TRABAJAR FUERA DE CASA ……..…….… C
D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …………...……......... Y
¿En este año has faltado a clase algún día?
MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN !!!!
¿Cuáles fueron los motivos para faltar a clase?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS 
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿Alguna vez te han dado a tomar pastillas para 
parásitos en la escuela?
¿Alguna vez te han aplicado líquido en la cabeza 
para los piojos en la escuela?
POR NO TENER UNIFORME, ZAPATOS, 
CUADERNO ………...……………………………..
(ESPECIFIQUE)
59 SECCION A. IDENTIFICACION DEL CUESTIONARIO
A01. Fecha de la entrevista: A02. Número de cuestionario: 
A03. Departamento: RACCS q Jinotega q A04. Municipio
A05. Nombre de escuela: A06. Comunidad:
A07. Código único de escuela A08. Nombre entrevistador/a
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO 
 ¿En este momento, usted quiere preguntarme algo acerca de la entrevista? 
 ACEPTA SER ENTREVISTADA?................................... SI …… 1
NO ….. 2 TERMINE
 Firma del entrevistador: Nombre: 
SECCIÓN B. IDENTIFICACIÓN DEL/LA MAESTRO/A DE ESCUELA PRIMARIA
B01. Nombre: B02. Sexo: MASCULINO q FEMENINO q
B03. Edad: AÑOS CUMPLIDOS B04. Nivel Escolar: SEC. INCOMP. q SEC. COMP. q GRADUADO q
B05. Estudia actualmente: SI q NOq B06. Qué estudia?: 
B07. Cuántos años tiene de docencia: SI ES MENOS DE UN AÑO, ESCRIBA 00
B08. Cuál(es) grado(s) atiende actualmente: B09. Cuántos alumnos/a atiende actualmente:
P 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALUMNOS/AS
Evaluación Final Proyecto MESA. Julio/Agosto, 2017.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
ENCUESTA A MAESTRO/A DE ESCUELA PRIMARIA
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Hola. Mi nombre es ___________________________ estoy trabajando con PCI-Nicaragua. Estamos realizando una
entrevista a los/as maestros/as de las escuelas sobre los conocimientos y prácticas de la alimentación y los
aprendizajes sobre salud e higiene dentro de la escuela. Su opinión es importante para PCI, apreciaríamos su
participación. 
Esta información ayudará a mejorar las actividades que estamos desarrollando con el PINE/MINED. Esta entrevista
normalmente tarda _____ minutos. Cualquier información que Usted nos proporcione es estrictamente confidencial y
no se mostrará a otras personas. 
Su participación en esta entrevista es voluntaria y Usted puede escoger no contestar cualquier pregunta individual o
todas las preguntas. Le gustaría participar?
DIA MES AÑO
60
SECCION C. SALUD Y NUTRICIÓN
PASE A
C01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 C05
C02 A
ALIMENTACIÓN BALANCEADA …..........................B
C
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
(ESPECIFIQUE)
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
C03 ORIENTAR A LOS NIÑOS/AS ……..…................. A
ORIENTAR A PADRES DE FAMILIA …………….. B
COMPARTIR CON OTROS MAESTROS/AS …........C
APLICARLO CON SU FAMILIA …....................... D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
C04 MINED / PINE ……..…………….…..…................. A
PERSONAL DE CEDEHCA ……..….................... B
PERSONAL DE PCI ………………………............ C
BRIGADISTA DE SALUD …………....................... D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
C05 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1 C07
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
C06
C07 FALTA DE ALIMENTACIÓN …............................ A
ENFERMEDAD …………………........................... B
LA CLASE NO ES LLAMATIVA PARA ELLOS …....C
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
(ESPECIFIQUE)
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
C08
A
B
C
D
NADA …………...………………........................... E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
El año pasado, ¿Usted recibió capacitación 
sobre la importancia de la alimentación nutritiva y 
saludable del escolar?
¿Puede mencionar algunos de los temas de 
capacitación que recibió?
CONCEPTOS BÁSICOS DE ALIMENTACIÓN Y 
NUTRICIÓN …………......................................
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
APORTES NUTRICIONALES DE LOS 
ALIMENTOS …................................................
¿Usted ha identificado durante el desarrollo de 
sus clases que algunos niños/as no prestan 
atención?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿De parte de quien recibió capacitaciones sobre 
la importancia de la alimentación nutritiva y 
saludable del escolar?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
(ESPECIFIQUE)
En la escuela, ¿Para qué le han servido las 
capacitaciones recibidas?
Cuando los niños/as no prestan atención, ¿Qué 
ha hecho para mejorar o captar la atención de 
los niños/as?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿Cuántos de los niños/as que atiende en la clase 
no ponen atención?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿Sabe Usted porqué los niños/a no prestan 
atención en la clase?
NÚMERO DE NIÑOS/AS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
REFORZAR LA LECCIÓN CON OTROS 
MÉTODOS DE ENSEÑANZA ……..…………….
CAMBIAR OTRO TEMA DE INTERESANTE 
PARA LOS ESTUDIANTES ……..…………….….
INVESTIGAR LAS DIFICULTADES DEL 
ESTUDIANTE …...…..…………………………..…
INSISTIR EN EL MÉTODO DE ENSEÑANZA 
USUAL …...…..……………………………...…..…
61
SECCION D. HIGIENE, MANIPULACIÓN Y ALMACENAMIENTO DE LOS ALIMENTOS
PASE A
D01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D02 A
COCINAR BIEN LOS ALIMENTOS ........................B
C
D
E
F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D03 A
PRODUCTOS/ALIMENTOS SEPARADOS ..............B
C
D
E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D04
A
B
C
D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
D05 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 D07
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
NO ALMACENAR LOS ALIMENTOS JUNTO A 
PRODUCTOS QUÍMICOS …………...……........
LOCAL DONDE SE ALMACENAN DEBE 
LIMPIARSE TODOS LOS DÍAS …………...…..
TAPAR LOS RECIPIENTES QUE CONTIENE 
ALIMENTOS ……………...………...……..........
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
PISO, PAREDES Y TECHO DEBEN 
LIMPIARSE CON FRECUENCIA …………….....
LIMPIAR MESAS PARA COCINAR ANTES Y 
DESPUÉS ……………….……………….…........
NO DEBEN HABER ANIMALES DOMÉSTICOS 
EN EL LUGAR ……………….………................
EL RECIPIENTE QUE SE USA DE BASURERO 
DEBE ESTAR LEJOS Y TAPADO ……………..
¿Puede mencionar algunas condiciones 
higiénicas sanitarias del lugar donde se preparan 
los alimentos?
Actualmente, ¿Los alumnos/as están recibiendo 
alimentación en la escuela?
LAVAR ALIMENTOS CON AGUA POTABLE O 
CLORO ANTES DE COCINARLOS ………...…..
NO JUNTAR ALIMENTOS CRUDOS CON LOS 
COCINADOS ………...…………………………….
CONSUMIR INMEDIATAMENTE LOS 
ALIMENTOS DESPUES DE COCINADOS ……..
EL AGUA PARA PREPARAR ALIMENTOS 
DEBE ESTAR CLORADA O HERVIDA …………
QUITAR LA BASURA, PIEDRAS Y TIERRA DE 
LOS GRANOS, ANTES DE PREPARLOS ……..
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿Se realiza en la escuela prácticas de lavado de 
mano con los niños/as antes de comer?
ALMACENAR SOBRE POLINES, TABLAS O 
MESAS ……………………………….………........
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿Puede mencionar algunas normas de higiene 
para la manipulación de los alimentos?
¿Puede mencionar algunas condiciones 
sanitarias para almacenar los alimentos en la 
escuela?
62
SECCION D. HIGIENE, MANIPULACIÓN Y ALMACENAMIENTO DE LOS ALIMENTOS
PASE A
D06 NO HA LLEGADO ALIMENTO A LA ESCUELA … A
NO HA HABIDO APOYO PARA TRASLADO …..... B
NO HA HABIDO APOYO PARA COCINAR …........ C
NO INCLUYERON A LA ESCUELA ESTE AÑO …...D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
D07
D08 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 2
NO TIENE CUADERNO …………...……...……….. 3
D09 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D10 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D11 BUENO ….…………………………………………… 1
REGULAR ……...…………………………………… 2
MALO …………...………………………………….. 3
NO SABE ……….…………………………………… 88
D12 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 2
NO TIENE COCINA ……...……...…………………. 3
D13 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
D14 NO TIENEN TERRENO ………….....…................. A
NO TIENE INTERÉS MAESTROS ……………..... B
NO TIENEN APOYO DE PADRES …....................... C
NO CONDICIONES AGROECOLÓGICAS …........ D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/ NO RESPONDE ………...………......... Y
SI RESPUESTA ES NEGATIVA, PREGUNTE: 
¿Porqué no?
NÚMERO DE DÍAS ¿Cuántos días a la semana se les prepara 
alimentación a los niños/as?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿El CAE supervisa la recepción de los 
alimentos, el almacenamiento y su distribución?
¿Los padres de familia realizan aportes para 
complementar la alimentación escolar?
¿En qué estado reciben los alimentos para 
los/as niños/as de la escuela?
¿Utilizan la cocina de la escuela?
¿Se ha establecido en la escuela Huerto 
Escolar?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿Qué limitantes o dificultades tienen para 
establecer un huerto escolar?
¿Usan cuaderno o registro para control y 
seguimiento de los alimentos en la escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
63
SECCION E. AGUA Y SANEAMIENTO
PASE A
E01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E03 POZO ………………..…………….…..…................. 1
AGUA ENTUBADA ……………….…..….................2
MINI ACUEDUCTO POR GRAVEDAD ….............. 3
AGUA DE LLUVIA ……………….…..…................. 4
PADRES LLEVAN BALDES DE AGUA …............ 5
 OTRO ________________________________ …..96
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..….................88
E04 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 E06
E05 LA CLORAN ……..…………….…..…................... 1
CON SODIS ……….…………….…..…................. 2
LA HIERVEN ……..…………….…..…................. 3
LA FILTRAN ………..…………….…..…................. 4
NINGUNA …………………………………............... 5
E06
E09
E07 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E08
E09 LETRINA ……..…..…………….…..…................... 1
INODORO …...…….…………….…..…................. 2
NINGUNA ……..…..…………….…..…................. 3
 OTRO ________________________________ …..96
E10 UNA VEZ ……..…..…………….…..…................... 1
MÁS DE UNA VEZ .…………….…..…................. 2
NINGUNA ……..…..…………….…..…................. 3
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..….................88
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Me gustaría preguntarle sobre el abastecimiento 
de agua en la escuela, ¿En la escuela siempre 
tienen agua para beber?
¿En la escuela siempre tienen agua para lavarse 
las manos?
En la escuela, ¿De donde reciben el agua para 
beber?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿Sabe qué tratamiento de desinfección le hacen 
al agua de beber en la escuela?
OBSERVE, cuántos lavamanos o estaciones de 
agua están funcionando
ANOTE EL NÚMERO OBSERVADO
¿Qué tipo de deposición de excretas tiene la 
escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
Usualmente, ¿Qué tipo de tratamiento le hacen 
al agua que utilizan para beber en la escuela?
¿Cuántas veces al día limpian la(s) letrina(s) de 
la escuela?
¿Cuántas estaciones de lavado de manos hay 
en la escuela? Anote el número mencionado
SI NO HAY, ANOTE 0 Y SALTE A E09
OBSERVE, si en el lavamanos o estaciones de 
agua tienen jabón
NÚMERO DE ESTACIONES 
MENCIONADAS
NÚMERO DE ESTACIONES 
OBSERVADAS
64
SECCION E. AGUA Y SANEAMIENTO
PASE A
E11 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E12 SI NO
LIMPIA POR FUERA …….…..…................. 1 0
BANCO LIMPIO Y TAPADO ….................. 1 0
SIN PAPEL ALREDEDOR DEL BANCO .... 1 0
PUERTA CERRADA …….…..…................. 1 0
CON TUBO DE VENTILACIÓN ….................1 0
E13 LA TIRAN AL PATIO ……………………...…..….......1
LA ENTIERRAN ………..…………….................... 2
LA QUEMAN ……….……………........................ 3
LA TIRAN AL RÍO ….……………........................ 4
LA RECICLAN ……….……………........................ 5
 OTRO ________________________________ …..96
E14 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
OBSERVE si en la escuela cuentan con 
recipientes para depositar la basura
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿Qué hacen con la basura en la escuela?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS 
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
OBSERVE, si se cuenta con letrinas separadas 
para niños y niñas.
OBSERVE, cómo se encuentran todas las 
letrinas de la escuela
OBSERVE Y MARQUE CADA UNO DE LOS 
ASPECTOS
SI NO ESTÁ ROTULADO, LA RESPUESTA ES NO
SECCION F. EDUCACIÓN
PASE A
F01 A
B
CAPACITANDO A MAESTROS/AS ...……………. C
D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Para Usted, cómo se podría mejorar la calidad 
de la enseñanza en las escuelas?
MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN !!!!
UTILIZANDO UN CURRÍCULO AJUSTADO A 
LAS CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LOS NIÑOS/AS …
DOTANDO A LA ESCUELA DE MATERIALES 
EDUCATIVOS ………………………………….…..
UTILIZAR NUEVAS METODOLOGÍAS DE 
ENSEÑANZA ..................................................
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
65 SECCION A. IDENTIFICACION DEL CUESTIONARIO
A01. Fecha de la entrevista: A02. Número de cuestionario: 
A03. Departamento: RACCS q Jinotega q A04. Municipio
A05. Nombre de escuela A06. Tipo de escuela: Urbana q
Rural q
A07. Código único de escuela A08. Nombre entrevistador/a
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO 
 ¿En este momento, usted quiere preguntarme algo acerca de la entrevista? 
 ACEPTA SER ENTREVISTADA?................................... SI …… 1
NO ….. 2 TERMINE
 Firma del entrevistador: Nombre: 
SECCIÓN B. IDENTIFICACIÓN DE LA MADRE
B01. Nombre: B02. Edad: AÑOS CUMPLIDOS
B03. Comunidad donde vive: 
B04. Número de hijos/as: B05. No. de hijos/as en la escuela:
B06. En qué grado está/n su/s hijo/s: B07. Sabe leer: SI q NOq
B08. Último grado aprobado:
Hola. Mi nombre es ___________________________ estoy trabajando con PCI-Nicaragua. Estamos realizando una
entrevista a madres de familia con hijos/as en las escuelas, sobre los conocimientos y prácticas de la alimentación y
los aprendizajes sobre salud e higiene que han recibido. Su opinión es importante para PCI, apreciaríamos su
participación. Esta información ayudará a mejorar las actividades que estamos desarrollando con el PINE/MINED.
Esta entrevista normalmente tarda _____ minutos. Cualquier información que Usted nos proporcione es estrictamente
confidencial y no se mostrará a otras personas. 
Su participación en esta entrevista es voluntaria y Usted puede escoger no contestar cualquier pregunta individual o
todas las preguntas. Le gustaría participar?
DIA MES AÑO
ENCUESTA A MADRES DE FAMILIA CON NIÑOS/AS EN ESCUELA PRIMARIA
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Evaluación Final Proyecto MESA. Julio/Agosto, 2017.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
66
SECCION C. IMPORTANCIA DE LA EDUCACIÓN
PASE A
C01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
C02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 Sec. D
C03 APRENDER A LEER, ESCRIBIR, ANALIZAR …….………..…….… A
B
C
D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
C04 MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN ……..…................. A
PCI-NICARAGUA/USDA …………….................... B
UNIVERSIDAD ……………………....................... C
CEDEHCA/USDA …………………....................... D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
C05 DE LA ESCUELA ……………….…..…................. A
ASOC. PADRES DE FAMILIA …….................... B
DE OTRO PADRE/MADRE DE FAMILIA ….......... C
DE LA RADIO ……..………………....................... D
FERIAS O REUNIONES COMUNIDATARIAS ….... E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿Cree Usted que la educación es importante o 
aportará un beneficio para su/s hijo/s e hija/s?
¿Usted ha recibido charlas o información sobre 
la importancia de la educación para los niños y 
niñas?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿A través de qué medio recibió charlas o 
información sobre la importancia de la 
educación?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿Puede mencionar algunos beneficios de la 
educación primaria para los niños y niñas? APRENDER A CONVIVIR CON LOS DEMAS 
(RELACIONES INTERPERSONALES) ……..…..
CONOCEN O DESCRUBREN EL MUNDO (LAS 
CIENCIAS, LA COMUNIDAD, SU PAÍS, OTROS 
PAÍSES, ETC.) …….………………………………
SE PREPARAN PARA SER CAPACES DE 
ENFRENTAR O DEFENDERSE EN LA VIDA …
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS 
¿ALGO MÁS?
¿Qué institución brindó estas charlas o 
información sobre la importancia de la educación 
primaria?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
67
SECCION D. ALIMENTACIÓN Y NUTRICIÓN
PASE A
D01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 D06
D02 POCA ….…………………………………………….. 1
SUFICIENTE ………………………………………… 2
MUCHO ….………………...……...………………… 3
D03 PINE- MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN ……..…....... A
PCI-NICARAGUA/USDA …………….................... B
CEDEHCA/USDA …………………....................... C
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
D04 MAÍZ ………………..…………….…..…................. A
ARROZ ………………..…………….…..….................B
ACEITE ….………..…………….…..…................. C
FRIJOLES ….……….…………….…..…................. D
HARINA DE TRIGO …………….…..…................. E
CEREAL/CSB ………..………….…..…................. F
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..…................. Y
D05 UN DÍA ...………………………………...…..…....... 1
DOS-TRES DÍAS ……………...………….................... 2
CUATRO-CINCO DÍAS ……………....................... 3
D06 ALIMENTACIÓN BALANCEADA/ADECUADA ….... A
ALIMENTACIÓN COMBINADA/VARIADA …........ B
ALIMENTACIÓN FRECUENTE/VARIAS VECES…....C
ALIMENTACIÓN NUTRITIVA/COLORIDA….......... D
ALIMENTOS CON VITAMINAS Y MINERALES ….......... E
HIGIENE DE LOS ALIMENTOS ……………........... F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE ……………............... Y
D07 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 D10
D08 ALIMENTACIÓN BALANCEADA/ADECUADA ….... A
ALIMENTACIÓN COMBINADA/VARIADA …........ B
ALIMENTACIÓN FRECUENTE/VARIAS VECES…....C
ALIMENTACIÓN NUTRITIVA/COLORIDA….......... D
ALIMENTOS CON VITAMINAS Y MINERALES ….......... E
HIGIENE DE LOS ALIMENTOS ……………........... F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
¿Cuáles son los alimentos que recibe la escuela 
para la alimentación escolar?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿Puede mencionar algunas recomendaciones 
para una buena alimentación en los niños/as que 
van a la escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
¿El año pasado o en lo que va de este año, 
recibió charlas o capacitación sobre alimentos 
nutritivos y saludables?
¿Podría mencionar qué temas recibió en estas 
charlas o capacitaciones?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿El niño/a, cuántas veces en la semana come 
en la escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS 
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Actualmente ¿Su hijo/a está recibiendo 
alimentación en la escuela?
¿Considera Usted que los alimentos que reciben 
los niños/as es: Poca, suficiente o mucho, para 
el período del año?
¿Sabe Usted quién entrega a las escuelas este 
alimento?
68
SECCION D. ALIMENTACIÓN Y NUTRICIÓN
PASE A
D09 DE LA ESCUELA …………………...…................. A
DE OTRO PADRE/MADRE DE FAMILIA ……....... B
DE LA RADIO ……………………....................... C
DE FERIAS / REUNIONES COMUNITARIAS …... D
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
D10 CEREALES (Arroz, pan) ……….…..…................. A
B
C
FRIJOLES ….……….…………….…..…................. D
HUEVO ….……….…………….…..…................. E
LECHES Y DERIVADOS ….….…..…................. F
CARNES / PESCADO ….…….…..…................. G
FRUTAS/VERDURAS RICAS EN VIT. A …........... H
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE …….…..…................. Y
D11 MENOS DE 3 VECES ………….…..…................. 1
DE 3 A 5 VECES ……………....…..…................. 2
MÁS DE 5 VECES …………….…..…................. 3
NINGUNA VEZ ………….……….…..…................. 4
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE ….….................88
D12 ALIMENTACIÓN INADECUADA ………………….... A
POCA DISPONIBILIDAD DE ALIMENTOS …........ B
C
INFECCIONES Y PARÁSITOS ……………........... D
E
POCO ACCESO A LOS ALIMENTOS ……........... F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE ……………............... Y
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿A través de qué medio recibió charlas o 
información sobre alimentación y nutrición?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
LEGUMBRES Y FRUTOS SECOS (repollo, 
zanahoria, tomate, almendra) ….………….……..
RAICES Y TUBERCULOS (yuca, papa, 
malanga) …………………………………………….
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
FALTA DE HIGIENE EN LA PREPARACIÓN DE 
ALIMENTOS …………………………………........
FALTA DE CONOCIMIENTO SOBRE 
ALIMENTACIÓN Y NUTRICIÓN …....................
El día de ayer ¿Qué le dio de comer a su hijo/a 
que va a la escuela?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
Para Usted, ¿Cuáles son las causas de la 
desnutrición o mal nutrición en los niños y las 
niñas?
El día de ayer, cuántas veces le ofreció comida a 
su hijo/a en el día?
69
SECCION E. HIGIENE Y MANEJO DE LOS ALIMENTOS
PASE A
E01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 E05
E02 A
B
HIGIENE DE UTENSILIOS DE LA COCINA …..... C
ALMACENAMIENTO DEL AGUA ………............. D
MANIPULACIÓN DE LOS ALIMENTOS …............ E
HIGIENE PERSONAL …………..…………........... F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
E03 ASOC. DE PADRES DE FAMILIA ………..…....... A
MAESTROS ………...……………...…................. B
PERSONAL DE PCI NIC / USDA ….…................. C
CEDEHCA ………….………………....................... D
OTRAS ONG´s …………………………………………..…... E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
E04 DE LA ESCUELA …………………...…................. A
DE OTRO PADRE/MADRE DE FAMILIA ……....... B
DE LA RADIO ……………………....................... C
DE FERIAS / REUNIONES COMUNITARIAS …... D
ASOC. DE PADRES DE FAMILIA ………..…....... E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
E05 BAÑARSE TODOS LOS DÍAS …...…................. A
CORTARSE FRECUENTEMENTE LAS UÑAS ….. B
USO DE LETRINA O INODORO …....................... C
CEPILLARSE LOS DIENTES …………………...... D
USO DE ROPA LIMPIA ……………...……..…....... E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
¿Podría mencionarme qué temas recibió en 
estas charlas o capacitaciones?
¿Quién le dio la charla sobre higiene de los 
alimentos?
De lo que Usted sabe, ¿Puede mencionar 
algunas prácticas de higiene personal?
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿Usted ha recibido charlas o información sobre 
normas de higiene y manipulación de los 
alimentos?
(ESPECIFIQUE)
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
CONDICIONES SANITARIAS PARA 
ALMACENAR LOS ALIMENTOS …………........
CONDICIONES HIGIÉNICO SANITARIA DEL 
LUGAR DONDE SE PREPARAN LOS 
ALIMENTOS ………….....................................
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
¿A través de qué medio recibió charlas o 
información sobre alimentación y nutrición?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
SECCION E. HIGIENE Y MANEJO DE LOS ALIMENTOS
PASE A
E06 DESPUÉS DE USAR LA LETRINA …...…................. A
ANTES DE COMER …………………………….….. B
ANTES DE COCINAR ……………........................ C
ANTES DE SERVIR LOS ALIMENTOS …..…...... D
DESPUÉS DE LIMPIAR AL NIÑO/A ….……..….......E
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
E07 LAVAR LAS MANOS ANTES DE COCINAR …...…................. A
B
COCINAR BIEN LOS ALIMENTOS ........................C
D
E
F
G
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
Sabe Usted ¿En qué momento se debe lavar las 
manos?
¿Puede mencionar algunas prácticas de higiene 
en la preparación de los alimentos?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
LAVAR ALIMENTOS CON AGUA POTABLE O 
CLORO ANTES DE COCINARLOS ………...…..
NO JUNTAR ALIMENTOS CRUDOS CON LOS 
COCINADOS ………...…………………………….
CONSUMIR INMEDIATAMENTE LOS 
ALIMENTOS DESPUES DE COCINADOS ……..
EL AGUA PARA PREPARAR ALIMENTOS 
DEBE ESTAR CLORADA O HERVIDA …………
QUITAR LA BASURA, PIEDRAS Y TIERRA DE 
LOS GRANOS, ANTES DE PREPARLOS ……..
(ESPECIFIQUE)
70
SECCION F. PARTICIPACIÓN / SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL PROGRAMA DE ALIMENTACIÓN ESCOLAR
PASE A
F01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 F04
F02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
NO SABE/NO RESPONDE ………...………......... 88
F03 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
F04 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
F05 BUENA ….…………………………………………… 1
REGULAR ……...……………………………………. 2
MALA ……….…...…………………………………… 3
NO SABE/NO OPINA ………...………................. 88
F06 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 FIN
F07 CONDIMENTOS, ESPECIAS ……….………........ A
VEGETALES / HORTALIZAS …………………....... C
LECHE / DERIVADOS ………………..…….............D
CARNE / POLLO …………………………............... E
PAN ……………………….………..…………........... F
 OTRO ________________________________ ….. X
NO RECUERDA/NO RESPONDE …………….........Y
NÚM. PREGUNTAS RESPUESTA/S
¿Sabe Usted si en la escuela hay un Comité de 
Alimentación Escolar (CAE)?
¿Qué tipo de aporte alimenticio dan los padres 
de familia para mejorar la alimentación escolar?
¿El Comité de Alimentación Escolar (CAE), está 
funcionando?
¿Usted es miembro del Comité de Alimentación 
Escolar (CAE)?
Actualmente o el año pasado ¿Usted participó en 
la preparación de la alimentación escolar?
MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN !!!!
¿Cómo considera Usted que es la participación 
de los padres en la preparación de los 
alimentos?
¿Los padres aportan algunos complementos 
alimenticios para mejorar la alimentación 
escolar?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
(ESPECIFIQUE)
71
Annex 06. Qualitative data collection guides
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
GUIA No. 1 - Entrevista en profundidad
Delegado/a departamental MINED – Responsable de Secretaría 
Regional del MINED/RACCS
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: ___________ Hora de finalización: ____________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: ____________________________
Nombre y Apellidos: ______________________________________________________
Cargo en la institución: ________________________________________________________________
Tiempo en el cargo: _____________________________________________________
Entrevistador/a:_________________________________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud” 
que está desarrollando PCI en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA.
Quisiera saber si puedo realizarle una entrevista con el objetivo de conocer su opinión, 
experiencia y/o participación en las actividades que realiza el proyecto en relación a educación, 
nutrición y alimentación (merienda escolar) en la zona. Sus ideas, punto de vista, conocimiento 
o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final. Su 
participación es completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para 
efectos de la investigación. ¿Está de acuerdo con ser entrevistado/a?
72
Temas y preguntas de indagación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
Pertinencia
1. ¿Me podría decir cuáles son las prioridades que tiene el MINED en esta zona 
(departamento, región, municipio o escuela)? 
2. En su opinión, ¿Cómo valora Usted el proyecto en función de las prioridades que 
tiene el MINED, estudiantes y/o comunidad educativa? ¿Cómo fue la integración 
y respuestas que se brindaron a través del proyecto? 
3. ¿En qué medida se han incluido las necesidades de la población beneficiaria en 
el diseño de este proyecto?
4. ¿En qué medida las actividades del Proyecto respondieron a las necesidades de 
los beneficiarios, incluido el MINED, administradores/maestros de las escuelas y 
los estudiantes? 
5. ¿Cómo considera que se ha avanzado en el resultado de “Mejorar la calidad de la 
enseñanza para la lectoescritura? En su opinión, ¿cómo se está abordando? 
INDAGUE:
Sobre merienda escolar relacionada a la asistencia, retención, y educación en 
seguridad alimentaria, involucramiento de la comunidad educativa en mejoramiento 
de la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos. 
Huertos escolares: Organización, Producción de hortalizas y frutas de periodo corto, 
Educación y Nutrición
Capacitación: incremento del conocimiento sobre seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y 
salud. Principalmente maestros/as
6. En la región/zona, ¿existe alguna experiencia exitosa que se podría retomar con 
respecto al enfoque para este resultado 
7. Desde su punto de vista, ¿cómo se podría hacer en futuros Proyectos similares a 
este, para mejorar sus procesos de planificación en el abordaje de los desafíos y 
limitaciones internas y externas?
Eficiencia
8. ¿Cómo valora las relaciones y mecanismos de coordinación y colaboración del 
MINED con PCI, la Alcaldía, las iglesias, USDA y otros actores claves?
9. ¿Cómo contribuyen estas a la realización de planes de acción y obtención de 
resultados? ¿Pudo haber sido mejor?
10.¿Podría mencionar alguna de las estrategias o actividades ejecutadas con el 
proyecto que hizo posible conseguir los resultados a menor costo o en menor 
tiempo?
11.¿Cuáles actividades desarrolladas con el Proyecto Usted recomendaría para su
expansión y/o imitarla, para asegurar un uso más eficiente de los recursos y que 
se tenga el mismo o mayor resultado?
73
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
12.¿Hubo alguna estrategia o actividad que se adecuó a las condiciones particulares 
de la zona para conseguir los resultados? Si es afirmativo, por favor mencione en 
qué consistió.
13.En la zona de cobertura del Proyecto ¿Conoce si hay otros programas o proyectos 
con enfoque de seguridad alimentaria que se estén desarrollando en las escuelas 
y que estén "duplicando” las actividades del proyecto? Si es afirmativo por favor 
menciónelos.
Efectividad - Resultados/ Impacto
14.Desde su punto de vista y experiencia con el Proyecto ¿Cómo se ha llevado a 
cabo la ejecución y el cumplimiento de las actividades del proyecto a nivel 
técnico/programático, organizativo y administrativo? 
15.En su experiencia con el Proyecto ¿Cuáles son los principales resultados 
alcanzados por las actividades desarrolladas?
Retome: Merienda escolar, capacitación y huertos escolares, mejoramiento de la 
infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos. 
Considera que el Proyecto alcanzó los resultados esperados en relación a:
1. Alfabetización/ Lecto escritura
2. Calidad de la enseñanza
3. Atención y asistencia de los estudiantes
16.¿Ha influido el proyecto en estos resultados? 
17.¿Hubo algún resultado que no se cumplió de acuerdo a lo esperado? Si es así, 
¿cuáles fueron los motivos? ¿Se hicieron ajustes al proyecto para superarlos? 
18.¿Cuáles de las estrategias que se están aplicando con el proyecto, han sido más 
efectivas para la obtención de los resultados? ¿Por qué?
19.¿Cuáles estrategias/actividades cree que fueron menos efectivas? ¿Por qué? 
20.¿Cómo considera Usted el nivel de satisfacción de los beneficiarios o participantes 
directos del Proyecto?
21.¿Cree que hubo impacto no intencionado, como producto de enfoque o estrategias 
ejecutadas en el Proyecto? Sea este impacto positivo o negativo. ¿Cómo 
ocurrieron estos impactos y cómo considera que pudieron haber sido maximizados 
o mitigados?
Sostenibilidad
22. En general, ¿Considera que las acciones y resultados obtenidos con apoyo del 
proyecto son sostenibles? 
23. ¿En qué medida las actividades del proyecto promovieron cambios sostenibles en 
los comportamientos de estudiantes, maestros/as y padres/madres de familia?
24. ¿Cómo considera que ha sido la apropiación del MINED en las actividades 
implementadas en el proyecto? 
Ejemplo: El Proyecto de alimentación escolar es más que entregar meriendas a los 
escolares, reconocen la importancia de los PTA para implementar un PAE completo 
y adecuado, identifican la participación de socios privados a nivel local como pilar 
fundamental en el PAE.
74
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
25. ¿En qué medida considera que ha sido la integración de actores locales (sector 
privado, organización comunitaria, instituciones locales, otros) para garantizar la 
sostenibilidad del Proyecto?, y cuáles han sido esas formas de integración 
(participación física, contribución económica, contribución en especie, otros) 
26. En el marco del proyecto, ¿Cómo se abordaron las necesidades de capacitación 
institucional: Capacidad en las autoridades superiores, Dirección de escuelas y de 
los/as docentes? ¿Y en los recursos del PINE-MINED? ¿Alguna recomendación 
para que se considere en proyecto similar de futuro? 
27. ¿Considera que ha habido algún progreso para asegurar la sostenibilidad de los 
recursos humanos, recursos financieros, infraestructura o algún otro tipo de 
recurso? ¿la ejecución del proyecto tuvo participación en este progreso? 
28. Desde su perspectiva, ¿cómo cree que contribuye la participación de 
padres/madres u otros miembros de la familia, a la sostenibilidad de los resultados 
del Proyecto o al programa mismo?
29. Presente la herramienta de Evaluación Preparación de la Sostenibilidad. 
Pregunte: ¿Conoce esta herramienta que ha utilizado PCI para medir la 
Sostenibilidad del Proyecto? ¿Cree que es una manera eficaz de medir la 
sostenibilidad? ¿Qué recomendaciones podría brindar para mejorar ésta 
herramienta?
Si la respuesta es negativa explique las 5 condiciones que se evalúan en la 
herramienta y consulte si cree que es eficaz para medir la sostenibilidad y si 
tuviese recomendaciones para mejorarla
Abordaje de Género
30.¿Cómo considera que el proyecto promovió la equidad de género? ¿Qué 
resultados y/o impacto diferenciados tuvo el Proyecto en mujeres y niñas?, ¿en 
hombres y niños? 
31.¿Hasta qué punto el proyecto abordó las barreras y restricciones específicas de 
género, en relación a la educación y el compromiso de la comunidad?
Facilitadores/limitantes – Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
32. Desde su conocimiento, ¿podría decirme si se presentaron imprevistos o 
limitantes en la implementación del proyecto, que se haya transformado en barrera 
para obtener los resultados previstos? Si es así, ¿cuáles fueron y qué ajustes se 
realizaron para su abordaje?
33. ¿Qué aspectos o elementos han sido facilitadores en la ejecución de las 
estrategias del proyecto? 
34. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas o mejores prácticas identifica usted de la participación 
en este proyecto? 
Indague además:
• ¿De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado para futuro, o sea para la 
implementación de otro proyecto? 
• ¿Qué cambios considera se deben hacer para mejorar?
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!
75
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
GUIA No. 2 - Entrevista en profundidad
Personal técnico gerencial del proyecto PCI y CEDEHCA
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: ___________ Hora de Finalización: ____________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: __________________________
Nombre y Apellidos: ______________________________________________________
Cargo en la institución: _____________________________________________________________
Tiempo en el cargo: _____________________________________________________
Entrevistador/a: __________________________________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de investigación que 
está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud” que está desarrollando PCI
en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA. Quisiera saber si puedo realizarle una
entrevista con el objetivo de conocer su opinión, experiencia y/o participación en las actividades que 
realiza el proyecto en relación a educación, nutrición y alimentación (merienda escolar) en la zona. Sus 
ideas, punto de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de mucha utilidad en 
esta evaluación final. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se utilizará 
exclusivamente para efectos de la investigación. ¿Está de acuerdo con ser entrevistado/a?
Temas y preguntas de indagación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
Pertinencia
1. ¿En qué medida los resultados y el enfoque del proyecto MESA son válidos 
para el contexto local, cultural, político, económico y social?
2. ¿En qué medida considera que en el proyecto se incluyeron las necesidades 
de la población beneficiaria? 
3. Según su valoración, ¿el propósito del proyecto responde a las prioridades 
que tiene el MINED, estudiantes y/o comunidad educativa? Si es afirmativo, 
mencione en ¿cuáles prioridades y abordaje/respuestas se brindaron a 
través del proyecto? 
76
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
4. Las estrategias y actividades que se ejecutaron como parte del proyecto, 
¿cómo aportaron al desarrollo de los actores y beneficiarios? Valore el 
aporte que se da a lo interno y externo.
5. ¿En qué medida cree que se ha avanzado en el resultado de “Mejorar la 
calidad de la enseñanza para la lectoescritura a través del proyecto o 
programa de seguridad alimentaria?
INDAGUE:
Sobre merienda escolar relacionada a la asistencia, retención, y educación en 
seguridad alimentaria, involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
Huertos escolares: Organización, producción de hortalizas y frutas de periodo 
corto, educación y nutrición.
Capacitación: incremento del conocimiento sobre seguridad alimentaria, 
nutrición y salud. Del personal técnico de PCI o CEDEHCA, Maestros, Padres 
de familia y escolares.
Mejoramiento de la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de 
sus hijos.
6. ¿Qué cambios considera deben hacerse para mejorar la pertinencia en la 
siguiente fase de implementación del proyecto en la región?
7. ¿Conoce alguna experiencia exitosa que se podría retomar para este 
resultado?
8. Desde su punto de vista, ¿cómo se podría hacer en futuros proyectos 
similares a este, para mejorar sus procesos de planificación en el abordaje 
de los desafíos y limitaciones internas y externas?
9. ¿Podría decirme hasta qué punto abordaron las recomendaciones de los 
resultados obtenidos en la evaluación intermedia con los socios o MINED? 
Eficiencia
10. En su experiencia ¿Cuáles son los principales resultados alcanzados 
producto de las actividades desarrolladas y los insumos suministrados por 
el proyecto?
Retome: Merienda escolar, capacitación y huertos escolares, mejoramiento 
de la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos.
11. ¿Cómo valora las relaciones establecidas entre el personal del proyecto 
con personal MINED y/o las instancias del gobierno y socios locales?
12. ¿Cuáles fueron los mecanismos de coordinación que ustedes tuvieron con 
las contrapartes del proyecto durante la ejecución de las actividades, y 
cómo contribuyeron a la realización de planes de trabajo para la obtención 
de resultados? ¿Se puede mejorar?
77
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
13. ¿Cuán eficiente y eficaz considera usted que fueron los recursos 
(humanos, financieros, de capital y similares) asignados y utilizados para 
lograr los resultados del proyecto?
14. ¿Podría mencionar alguna de las estrategias o actividades ejecutadas con 
el proyecto que hizo posible conseguir los resultados a menor costo o en 
menor tiempo?
15. ¿Cuáles actividades desarrolladas con el proyecto Usted recomendaría 
para su expansión y/o limitarla, para asegurar un uso más eficiente de los 
recursos y que se tenga el mismo o mayor resultado?
16. ¿Hubo alguna estrategia o actividad que se adecuó a las condiciones 
particulares de la zona para conseguir los resultados? Si es afirmativo, por 
favor mencione en qué consistió.
17. En la zona de cobertura del proyecto ¿Conoce si hay otros programas o 
proyectos con enfoque de seguridad alimentaria que se estén 
desarrollando en las escuelas y que estén "duplicando” las actividades del 
proyecto? Si es afirmativo por favor menciónelos.
Efectividad - Resultados/ Impacto
18. ¿Se cumplieron las actividades contempladas en el proyecto a nivel 
técnico/programático, organizativo y administrativo por parte del MINED? 
19. ¿Cuáles considera usted que son los principales resultados alcanzados 
producto de las actividades desarrolladas en el marco del proyecto?
Retome: Merienda escolar, capacitación y huertos escolares, mejoramiento de 
la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos. 
Considera que el Proyecto alcanzó los resultados esperados en relación a:
✓ Alfabetización/ Lecto escritura
✓ Calidad de la enseñanza
✓ Atención y asistencia de los estudiantes
20. ¿En qué medida considera que la alimentación escolar, la capacidad 
instalada, la promoción de huertos escolares y otras actividades del 
proyecto, incidió en estos resultados? 
21. ¿Podría ejemplificar cómo ha sido esta incidencia del proyecto y en 
quiénes?
22. ¿Podría decirme qué mejoría significativa reconoce usted que han tenido 
los beneficiarios del proyecto en relación a su visión de futuro? 
¿Podría ejemplificar por favor en qué ha observado o ha consistido esa 
mejoría y en quiénes? 
Indague (salud, nutrición, educación, alimentación)
78
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
23. ¿De acuerdo al conocimiento e información que tienen, cree que se 
alcanzaron los objetivos específicos del proyecto? ¿Si no es así, cuáles 
fueron los motivos y cuáles ajustes se realizaron para avanzar?
24. ¿Cuáles de las estrategias del proyecto considera que fueron las más 
efectivas para la obtención de los resultados? Por qué.
25. ¿Cuáles estrategias/actividades cree que fueron menos efectivas y por
qué?.
26. ¿Cómo considera Usted el nivel de satisfacción de los beneficiarios o 
participantes directos del proyecto?
27. ¿Cree que hubo algún impacto no intencionado/esperado, como producto 
del enfoque o estrategias ejecutadas en el proyecto? Sea este impacto
positivo o negativo. ¿Cómo ocurrieron estos impactos y cómo considera 
que pudieron haber sido maximizados o mitigados?
Sostenibilidad
28. En general, ¿Considera que las acciones y resultados obtenidos con apoyo 
del proyecto pueden ser sostenibles por parte del MINED? ¿Qué le hace 
pensar en eso?
29. ¿En qué medida cree usted que las actividades del proyecto promovieron 
cambios sostenibles en los comportamientos de estudiantes, maestros/as y 
padres/madres de familia?
30. ¿Cómo considera que ha sido la apropiación del MINED en las actividades 
implementadas en el proyecto? 
Ejemplo: El programa de alimentación escolar es más que entregar 
meriendas a los escolares, reconocen la importancia de los PTA para 
implementar un PAE completo y adecuado, identifican la participación de 
socios privados a nivel local como pilar fundamental en el PAE.
31. ¿En qué medida considera usted que se han integrado los actores locales 
para garantizar la sostenibilidad del Proyecto?: Sector privado, 
organización comunitaria, instituciones locales, otros, 
32. ¿Considera usted que ha habido algún progreso para asegurar la 
sostenibilidad del Proyecto, en cuanto a recursos humanos, recursos 
financieros, infraestructura o algún otro tipo de recurso? ¿El proyecto tuvo 
participación en este progreso hacia la sostenibilidad? 
33. Según su opinión ¿Qué necesidades específicas de capacidad institucional 
deberían ser consideradas en un futuro para fomentar una mayor 
participación?, ¿Para el PINE-MINED, autoridades superiores, 
directores/as de escuelas, docentes?
34. Desde su perspectiva, ¿cómo cree que contribuye la participación de 
padres/madres u otros miembros de la familia, a la sostenibilidad de los 
resultados del Proyecto o al programa mismo?
79
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
35. ¿Qué tanto fue de utilidad al equipo técnico la herramienta para el 
monitoreo de esta estrategia? ¿Qué recomendaciones tiene para mejorar la 
estrategia y su implementación a nivel operativo? 
Abordaje de Género
36. ¿Cómo considera que el proyecto promovió la equidad de género? ¿Qué 
resultados y/o impacto diferenciados tuvo el Proyecto en mujeres y niñas?, 
¿en hombres y niños? 
37. ¿Cómo cree que se abordaron en el proyecto las barreras específicas de 
género y las limitaciones en la educación y la participación de la 
comunidad?
Facilitadores/limitantes – Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
38. ¿Qué aspectos o elementos han sido facilitadores en la ejecución de las 
estrategias del proyecto? 
39. Desde su conocimiento, ¿podría decirme si se presentaron imprevistos o 
limitantes en la implementación del proyecto que se haya transformado en 
barrera para obtener los resultados previstos? Si es así, ¿cuáles fueron y 
qué ajustes se realizaron para su abordaje?
40. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas o buenas prácticas identifica usted de la 
participación en este proyecto? 
Indague, además:
¿De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado para futuro, o sea para la 
implementación de otro proyecto? 
¿Qué cambios considera se deben hacer para mejorar? 
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!!
80
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
GUIA No. 3 - Entrevista en profundidad
Representante de Alcaldía municipal 
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: ___________Hora de finalización: ____________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: __________________________
Nombre y Apellidos: ______________________________________________________
Cargo en la institución: __________________________________ Tiempo en el cargo: _______
Entrevistador/a: __________________________________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de investigación que 
está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud” que está desarrollando PCI
en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA. Quisiera saber si puedo realizarle una 
entrevista con el objetivo de conocer su opinión, experiencia y/o participación en las actividades que 
realiza el proyecto en relación a educación, nutrición y alimentación (merienda escolar) en la zona. Sus 
ideas, punto de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de mucha utilidad en 
esta evaluación final. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se utilizará 
exclusivamente para efectos de la investigación. ¿Están de acuerdo con ser entrevistado/a?
Temas y preguntas de indagación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
Pertinencia
1. ¿Cómo valora usted que está la situación de la educación primaria en el 
departamento y/o región? Puede ser: Alfabetismo, cobertura/cantidad de 
escuelas y maestros, calidad de la enseñanza, rendimiento académico, 
retención escolar, etc., en general.
2. ¿Conoce cuáles son las prioridades que tiene el MINED en esta zona 
(departamento, región, municipio)? 
3. ¿Qué conoce usted sobre el proyecto MESA que desarrolla PCI/CEDEHCA 
con el MINED en este municipio? Proyecto que incluye merienda escolar, 
81
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
capacitación, huerto escolar, mejoramiento de la infraestructura e 
importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos.
4. En su opinión, ¿Cómo valora Usted el proyecto en función de las prioridades 
que tiene el MINED, estudiantes y/o la comunidad educativa?
5. ¿En qué medida cree que se reflejan las necesidades de la población en el 
proyecto MESA?
6. ¿En qué medida cree que las actividades del proyecto respondieron a las 
necesidades de los beneficiarios, incluido el MINED, 
administradores/maestros de las escuelas y los estudiantes? 
7. ¿De qué manera cree usted que las estrategias y actividades que desarrolló 
el proyecto, aportó al desarrollo de la población beneficiada? 
8. ¿Cómo cree usted que este proyecto contribuye en el resultado de “Mejorar 
la calidad de la enseñanza para la lectoescritura? 
INDAGUE:
Sobre merienda escolar relacionada a la asistencia, retención, y educación en 
seguridad alimentaria, involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
Huertos escolares: Organización, producción de hortalizas y frutas de periodo 
corto, educación y nutrición.
Capacitación: incremento del conocimiento sobre seguridad alimentaria, 
nutrición y salud. Del personal técnico de PCI o CEDEHCA, Maestros, Padres 
de familia y escolares.
Mejoramiento de la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de 
sus hijos.
9. Pensando en el futuro, ¿cree que PCI/CEDEHCA debería retomar este 
resultado en la siguiente fase de implementación del proyecto? En la región, 
¿Qué tendría que hacer para ello?
10. Para mejorar la planificación en el abordaje de las necesidades y prioridades 
de la población en esta zona, ¿Qué recomendaciones daría para futuros 
proyectos similares a este? 
Eficiencia
11. ¿Cómo valora las relaciones de la Alcaldía con el proyecto MESA, el MINED 
y/o otras instancias del gobierno y socios locales?
12. ¿Cuáles fueron los mecanismos de coordinación que el proyecto implementó 
con ustedes durante su ejecución? ¿Fue efectiva esta coordinación para la 
realización de planes de trabajo y obtención de resultados? ¿Pudo haber 
sido mejor?
13. ¿Usted considera que la inversión que el proyecto realizó en las escuelas, 
fue eficiente y eficaz? (utilización de recursos humanos y financieros del 
proyecto)
82
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
14. Desde su conocimiento en la ejecución del proyecto, ¿podría mencionar 
alguna estrategia o actividad ejecutada que obtuvo resultados a menor costo 
o en menor tiempo?
15. ¿Cuál(es) actividad(es) que se implementó con apoyo del proyecto MESA y 
que considera muy eficiente, Usted recomendaría para su expansión o para 
ser reproducida en otra experiencia?
16. ¿Conoce usted si hubo alguna estrategia o actividad que se adecuó a las 
condiciones particulares de la zona para conseguir los resultados? Si es 
afirmativo, por favor menciónela.
17. En la zona de cobertura del proyecto ¿Conoce si hay otros programas o 
proyectos con enfoque de seguridad alimentaria que se estén desarrollando 
en las escuelas y que estén "duplicando” los resultados del proyecto? Si es 
afirmativo por favor menciónelos.
Efectividad - Resultados/ Impacto 
18. Desde su conocimiento que tiene del proyecto MESA, ¿Cómo se ha llevado 
a cabo la ejecución y el cumplimiento de sus actividades? En lo que respecta 
al área técnica/programática, organizativa/administrativa? 
19. En su conocimiento ¿Cuáles cree que son los principales resultados 
alcanzados producto de las actividades desarrolladas e insumos 
suministrados por el proyecto?
Retome: Merienda escolar, capacitación y huertos escolares, mejoramiento de 
la infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos. 
20. ¿Cuáles cree que fueron los beneficios obtenidos con la ejecución del 
proyecto? Considera que el Proyecto alcanzó los resultados esperados en 
relación a:
1. Alfabetización/ Lecto escritura
2. Calidad de la enseñanza
3. Atención y asistencia de los estudiantes
21. Podría decirme ¿qué mejoría significativa reconoce usted que tuvieron los 
estudiantes, padres de familia y maestros (beneficiarios del proyecto) con 
este proyecto? Por ejemplo, en cuanto a la salud, nutrición, educación, 
alimentación.
22. De acuerdo a su conocimiento e información, ¿cree que se alcanzó todos 
los resultados del proyecto? Si no es así, ¿cuáles fueron los motivos y cuáles 
ajustes se tenían que haber hecho para lograrlo?
23. ¿Qué opinión tiene usted acerca del nivel de satisfacción de los beneficiarios 
o participantes directos del Proyecto?
24. ¿Cree que hubo algún impacto no intencionado/no proyectado, como 
producto del enfoque o estrategias ejecutadas en el proyecto MESA? Sea 
este impacto positivo o negativo. ¿Cómo cree que ocurrieron estos impactos 
y cómo considera que pudieron haber sido maximizados o mitigados?
Sostenibilidad
25. ¿Considera que las acciones y resultados obtenidos en las escuelas con 
apoyo del proyecto son sostenibles? 
83
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas 
/opinión
26. ¿En qué medida considera que las actividades del proyecto promovieron 
cambios sostenibles en los comportamientos de estudiantes, maestros/as y 
padres/madres de familia?
27. Para la sostenibilidad de este Proyecto, ¿cómo valora el nivel de 
apropiación por parte de actores locales?
Indague con cada uno de los siguientes actores cuáles han sido las formas 
de integración para garantizar la sostenibilidad del Proyecto (organización, 
contribución económica o en especie, otros): Gobierno Municipal, Sector 
privado/comercial, organización comunitaria, población en general, 
iglesia, otros presentes en la zona.
28. Conoce si con el proyecto se abordó las necesidades de capacitación 
institucional: Con autoridades superiores, Dirección de escuelas, 
maestros/as, en el PINE-MINED? ¿Alguna recomendación para que se 
considere en proyecto similar de futuro? 
29. Desde su perspectiva, ¿cómo cree que contribuye la participación de 
padres/madres u otros miembros de la familia, a la sostenibilidad de los 
resultados del programa de alimentación escolar?
Abordaje de Género
30. ¿Sabe si el proyecto promovió la equidad de género? ¿Considera qué tuvo 
resultados o impacto diferenciados en mujeres y niñas?, ¿en hombres y 
niños? 
31. ¿Hasta qué punto considera que el proyecto abordó las barreras y 
restricciones específicas de género, en relación a la educación y el 
compromiso de la comunidad?
Facilitadores/limitantes – Lecciones aprendidas y 
recomendaciones
32. ¿Cuáles considera que fueron los aspectos o elementos que facilitaron la 
ejecución de las estrategias y obtención de resultados del proyecto? 
33. ¿Qué aspectos o elementos dificultaron o limitaron la ejecución de las 
estrategias del proyecto? ¿Conoce si se hicieron ajustes para su abordaje?
34. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica usted de la participación en este 
proyecto? 
Indague, además:
• ¿De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado para futuro, o sea para 
la implementación de otro proyecto? 
• ¿Qué cambios considera que se deben hacer para mejorar?
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!
84
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
Guía No. 4 
Entrevista Grupal Funcionarios de PINE-MINED
Tema de discusión: Estrategias de Seguridad Alimentaria Escolar
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: _________ Hora de finalización: _________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: ____________________________
Participantes
Nombre y apellido Cargo Tiempo de laborar en PINE-MINED
Facilitador/a:______________________________
Anotador/a y apoyo logístico: ________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________, soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud”, 
que está desarrollando PCI en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA. 
Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una Entrevista grupal en el marco de la Evaluación final del 
proyecto que se está implementando en esta zona. El propósito es conocer de Ustedes su 
opinión, experiencia y/o participación que han tenido en las actividades que realiza el proyecto 
en relación a las estrategias de seguridad alimentaria, con énfasis en educación, nutrición y 
alimentación (merienda escolar, capacitación, huertos escolares, infraestructura y participación 
de los padres, madres en actividades escolares) en las escuelas beneficiarias del proyecto.
Sus ideas, puntos de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de 
mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final y también para considerarlas en la nueva fase del 
85
proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será 
confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la evaluación. ¿Están de acuerdo en 
participar en esta entrevistada de grupo? Muchas gracias. 
Metodología y actividades iniciales
✓ Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar el 
objetivo de la entrevista grupal: “Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista 
sobre la implementación y resultados del proyecto MESA (merienda escolar, capacitación a 
escolares, padres, madres y maestros/as, huertos y mejoramiento de infraestructura e 
importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos) que fueron ejecutados en las escuelas y cómo 
se ha involucrado toda la comunidad educativa.”
✓ Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista grupal:
✓ La participación es de forma totalmente voluntaria; debe haber una participación activa y sus 
opiniones son muy importantes, queremos que todas y todos tengan la misma oportunidad de 
participar y opinar. Ninguna está obligada a responder las preguntas que no quiera responder. 
Si alguien quiere salirse de la reunión puede hacerlo en cualquier momento.
✓ Para registrar sus opiniones se hará grabación de la conversación - si ustedes no tienen 
inconveniente - por eso omitiremos sus nombres completos, pero pueden pedir interrumpir la 
grabación si desean expresar algo que no quieren que quede grabado.
✓ Se garantiza que la información será resguardada y utilizada única y exclusivamente para fines 
de esta evaluación.
✓ Coloque una tarjeta con el nombre de la persona para facilitar la comunicación personalizada, 
también debe estar identificado el equipo que facilita la Entrevista grupal.
✓ Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, luego 
proceder con la guía de preguntas.
✓ Explique cómo se desarrollará la actividad, dé a conocer los temas o contenidos que se estarán 
abordando. Dígales que se estarán haciendo preguntas en cada tema (por bloque) y que a través 
de estas preguntas generadoras que Usted hará, se irá desarrollando la discusión grupal. 
Cada bloque/tema contiene preguntas específicas; cada persona puede opinar en el momento que 
desee, pero se insta a que todas y todos participen de forma activa. 
▪ Primer bloque/tema: Merienda Escolar
▪ Segundo bloque/tema: Capacitación
▪ Tercer bloque/tema: Huertos escolares 
▪ Infraestructura escolar e involucramiento de los Comité Escolar o CAE para la sostenibilidad
▪ Quinto bloque/tema: Género, Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
86
Desarrollo de la entrevista grupal
Primer bloque/tema: Merienda escolar
1. ¿En las escuelas donde trabajan Ustedes se implementa la Merienda Escolar? ¿Nos podrían contar 
desde hace cuánto tiempo y qué les parece está estrategia?
2. Nos pueden contar ¿qué actividades realizan en la estrategia de Merienda Escolar?
✓ ¿Cómo están organizados, cómo realizan la distribución, almacenamiento, consumo y 
control de los alimentos estrategia o programa de Merienda Escolar?
✓ ¿Quiénes participan (comité escolar y otros actores) y qué papel o rol desempeñan?
✓ ¿Cómo funciona el comité escolar en relación a la merienda escolar?
Programa de Merienda Escolar Descripción 
Actividades realizadas y Cómo se 
organizan
Quiénes participan y qué rol juega c/u
Cómo funciona el Comité Escolar 
dentro del programa
3. ¿Cómo valoran Ustedes el proyecto en función de las prioridades que tiene el PINE MINED, 
estudiantes y/o comunidad educativa? ¿Cómo fue la integración y respuestas brindadas a través del 
apoyo del proyecto? 
✓ En qué medida se incluyeron las necesidades de la población beneficiaria en el diseño de 
este proyecto
✓ En qué medida las actividades del proyecto respondieron a las necesidades de los 
beneficiarios, incluido el MINED, directores /maestros de las escuelas y los estudiantes 
4. ¿Cuáles consideran que son los principales resultados alcanzados producto de las actividades 
desarrolladas en el marco del proyecto? El proyecto alcanzó los resultados esperados en relación a:
✓ Asistencia y Retención escolar por parte de estudiantes 
✓ Calidad de la enseñanza. Rendimiento académico / Promoción escolar
✓ Aspectos de salud, nutrición/alimentación de escolares
✓ Participación e involucramiento de la comunidad educativa en mejoramiento de la 
infraestructura y sensibilización en la importancia de la educación primaria de sus 
hijos.
5. ¿En qué medida consideran que la capacidad instalada, la promoción de huertos escolares y otras 
actividades educativas del proyecto, incidió en la merienda escolar? ¿Podrían ejemplificar cómo ha 
sido esta incidencia del proyecto y en quiénes?
6. Para futuros proyectos similares a este, ¿cómo se podría hacer para mejorar el proceso de 
planificación en el abordaje de las prioridades del PINE-MINED, los desafíos y limitaciones internas 
y externas?
87
7. Según sus propias experiencias ¿Qué es lo que ha funcionado bien del proyecto y qué no ha 
funcionado como se esperaba? Indague: 
✓ De lo que ha funcionado bien, ¿Cuáles fueron los elementos o factores que facilitaron el buen 
funcionamiento
✓ De lo que no funcionó bien, ¿Qué elementos o factores pudieron incidir de forma negativa? 
✓ ¿Qué aspectos se deben mejorar y qué se debe hacer para lograrlo? 
8. ¿Consideran que la estrategia de merienda escolar se puede mantener en el tiempo después que el 
proyecto finalice? ¿Por qué sí, o por qué no? Indague:
✓ ¿Hay otros programas o proyectos que se estén desarrollando "duplicando" las actividades del 
proyecto? Mencione 
✓ ¿Cuál ha sido el aporte que brindaron las familias de niños y niñas para la merienda escolar?
✓ ¿En qué medida otros actores locales se han comprometido para garantizar la sostenibilidad de 
las actividades en las escuelas? Sector privado, asociaciones comunitarias, instituciones del 
gobierno local, etc.
✓ ¿Qué recursos han invertido en esta estrategia desde el nivel departamental/regional hacia el 
municipio o escuela?
Segundo bloque/tema: Capacitación SAN
1. Para desarrollar las estrategias del Proyecto ¿En qué temas fueron capacitados Ustedes, 
estudiantes, comité escolar y familias? Mencionar por cada beneficiario. Explorar sobre temas de 
alimentación, nutrición, higiene de los alimentos, lavado de manos, métodos de desinfección del 
agua.
Temas de capacitación PINE￾MINED
Maestros/as CAP Escolares
Metodología, herramientas, instrumentos para 
gerencia, seguimiento y monitoreo
Alimentación y nutrición – Preparación de alimentos
Higiene de los alimentos / lavado de manos
Desinfección del agua
Herramientas para la docencia: FAS, Metodología 
participativas, Manejo metodología colección 
Nacho 
Importancia de la Educación Primaria
Importancia de las Alianzas para sostenibilidad
Otros, describa
88
2. ¿Cómo consideran que fue el aporte de la capacitación en los conocimientos, actitudes y 
comportamientos de docentes, estudiantes, comité escolar y familia? ¿Mejoró o desmejoró? 
Aporte en PINE-MINED Maestros/as CAP Escolares
Conocimientos nuevos adquiridos
Actitudes mejoradas (en comparación antes de 
la intervención)
Mejora en el comportamiento / prácticas (en 
comparación antes de la intervención)
3. ¿Qué necesidades de capacitación o prioridades creen que todavía hizo falta para que la estrategia 
educativa funcionara mejor o se obtuvieran mejores resultados?
Tercer bloque/tema: Huertos escolares 
1. ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de huertos escolares? ¿Hay huertos en todas las escuelas de la zona?
Si la respuesta es negativa, cuáles son los motivos?
2. ¿Nos pueden comentar la experiencia que han tenido/observado para el desarrollo de huertos 
escolares? Indague ¿cómo ha sido su implementación. ¿En alguna escuela se hizo diferente, o no 
se pudo implementar? Expliquen.
✓ ¿Qué contempla los huertos escolares (acciones organizativas, demostrativas, prácticas 
supervisadas, involucramiento y aportes de padres, etc.)?
✓ ¿Cómo se organiza su implementación? ¿Quiénes participan y qué papel o rol desempeña, por 
ejemplo, el comité escolar?
✓ ¿Qué productos producen y qué hacen con los productos?
✓ ¿Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar? 
¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron? ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que 
afectaron los resultados esperados? 
Estrategia Huerto escolar Descripción Aspectos positivos y por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza / participantes. 
Rol de maestros/as, Madre/padre, 
estudiantes, otros
Qué producen y qué hacen con los 
productos
Resultados obtenidos
3. ¿Consideran que hay aceptabilidad de los huertos escolares? ¿Cómo ha sido la experiencia para 
que cumplan con la razón de ser? Indague 
✓ Si los productos que se producen en la escuela (corto plazo) son consumidos sin resistencia por 
las niñas y niños. 
✓ Cómo ha sido la participación de las familias/padres/madres
✓ Si hay algunas familias que han hecho huertos en sus casas.
✓ Hay compromiso de las partes involucradas para mantener los huertos
89
4. ¿Cómo valoran los resultados obtenidos en relación a la implementación de los huertos escolares?
5. ¿Podría valorar si esta estrategia se puede mantener en el tiempo a pesar de que el proyecto 
finalice? ¿Por qué sí o por qué no?
Cuarto bloque/tema: Infraestructura escolar e involucramiento de los Comité Escolar o 
CAE para la sostenibilidad
1. En el marco de los compromisos establecidos en el proyecto ¿Cómo valoran los resultados 
obtenidos en relación a la mejora en la infraestructura escolar? ¿En las aulas? ¿En baúles y 
cocinas? ¿En las estaciones de agua y los servicios sanitarios? 
2. Además de los recursos invertidos directamente por el proyecto, ¿hubo apoyo financiero o en 
especie brindado por algún otro actor local, por ejemplo, del gobierno municipal, el sector 
privado (comerciante, productor, organización de padres y madres de familia)?
3. ¿Considera que las inversiones realizadas en las escuelas son sostenibles? ¿Por qué sí, por 
qué no?
4. Y en cuanto al desarrollo organizativo y funcional de los CAE, ¿cómo valoran los resultados 
obtenidos? ¿Se logró que funcionaran en todas las escuelas? ¿Por qué creen que en algunas 
escuelas funcionan mejor que en otras escuelas? Indague:
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron 
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que afectaron los resultados esperados? 
5. ¿El proyecto tuvo un abordaje integral para el desarrollo de los CAE? ¿Qué acciones 
consideran que fueron las más efectivas y que llevaron a los mejores resultados?
6. ¿Cómo consideran que ha sido la integración y participación de padres/madres/maestros/as en 
la los CAE? ¿Cómo se podría mejorar?
Quinto bloque/tema: Género, lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
1. A través de la implementación del proyecto ¿Cómo fue promovido la equidad de género? 
¿Consideran que hubo resultados diferenciados entre mujeres/niñas y hombres/niños?
2. Hasta qué punto a través de la implementación del proyecto se abordaron las barreras de género 
para los aspectos propios de la educación y en cuanto al compromiso de la población/comunidad? 
Indague:
✓ ¿Qué barreras de género identifican todavía y cómo han tratado estas cuestiones?
✓ ¿Se integran los hombres (padres) en la elaboración de la merienda escolar o todavía es una 
actividad sólo para las mujeres (madres)
✓ ¿Las niñas y los niños se integran por igual a las actividades del proyecto? 
90
3. En general, para todo lo que significó la implementación del proyecto durante estos cuatro años: 
¿Cuáles consideran que fueron factores facilitadores y factores limitantes para lograr los resultados 
esperados? ¿Qué otros elementos pueden mencionar? Por ejemplo: 
✓ Adecuación de estrategia o alguna actividad 
✓ Mecanismos de coordinación 
✓ Planes de mejora 
✓ Monitoreo, supervisión, evaluación
✓ Desarrollo de alianzas para la sostenibilidad 
4. Podrían identificar desde su experiencia ¿qué aprendizajes tuvieron Ustedes con la implementación 
de las estrategias del proyecto?
5. Mencionen lecciones aprendidas durante la implementación del proyecto: En cuanto al desarrollo de 
la Merienda Escolar, los huertos escolares, Proyecto de capacitación y la infraestructura escolar. 
6. Pensando en el futuro, para mejorar y continuar con las estrategias del Proyecto, ¿Qué 
recomendaciones sugieren que se deben retomar?
Aspecto
Componente del Proyecto
Merienda Escolar Huertos Escolares Capacitaciones 
SAN Infraestructura
Organización
Funcionamiento
Seguimiento y 
monitoreo
Capacitación
Plan de Mejora/ 
Preparación para la 
Sostenibilidad
Enfoque de género
Finalización de la actividad
1. Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas
2. Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar
3. Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. 
4. Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas.
5. Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!!
91
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
Guía No. 5
Entrevista Grupal 
Maestros/as – Ministerio de Educación
Tema de discusión: Estrategias de Seguridad Alimentaria Escolar
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: ___________ Hora de finalización: ____________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: ____________________________
Participantes
Nombre y apellido Cargo Tiempo de laborar en PINE-MINED
Facilitador/a:__________________________________________________________
Anotador/a y apoyo logístico: ____________________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________, soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud”, 
que está desarrollando PCI en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA. 
Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una Entrevista grupal en el marco de la Evaluación final del 
proyecto que se está implementando en esta zona. El propósito es conocer de Ustedes su 
opinión, experiencia y/o participación que han tenido en las actividades que realiza el proyecto 
en relación a las estrategias de seguridad alimentaria, con énfasis en educación, nutrición y 
alimentación (merienda escolar, capacitación, huertos escolares, infraestructura y participación 
de los padres, madres en actividades escolares) en las escuelas beneficiarias del proyecto.
92
Sus ideas, puntos de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de 
mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final y también para considerarlas en la nueva fase del 
proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será 
confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la evaluación. ¿Están de acuerdo en 
participar en esta entrevistada de grupo? Muchas gracias.
Metodología y actividades iniciales
Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar el objetivo 
de la entrevista grupal: “Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista sobre la 
implementación y resultados del proyecto MESA (merienda escolar, capacitación a escolares, padres, 
madres y maestros/as, huertos y mejoramiento de infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria 
de sus hijos) que fueron ejecutados en las escuelas y cómo se ha involucrado toda la comunidad 
educativa.”
✓ Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar el 
objetivo de la entrevista grupal: “Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista 
sobre la implementación y resultados del proyecto MESA (merienda escolar, capacitación a 
escolares, padres, madres y maestros/as, huertos y mejoramiento de infraestructura e 
importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos) que fueron ejecutados en las escuelas y cómo 
se ha involucrado toda la comunidad educativa.”
✓ Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista grupal:
✓ La participación es de forma totalmente voluntaria; debe haber una participación activa y sus 
opiniones son muy importantes, queremos que todas y todos tengan la misma oportunidad de
participar y opinar. Ninguna está obligada a responder las preguntas que no quiera responder. 
Si alguien quiere salirse de la reunión puede hacerlo en cualquier momento.
✓ Para registrar sus opiniones se hará grabación de la conversación - si ustedes no tienen 
inconveniente - por eso omitiremos sus nombres completos, pero pueden pedir interrumpir la 
grabación si desean expresar algo que no quieren que quede grabado.
✓ Se garantiza que la información será resguardada y utilizada única y exclusivamente para fines 
de esta evaluación.
✓ Coloque una tarjeta con el nombre de la persona para facilitar la comunicación personalizada, 
también debe estar identificado el equipo que facilita la Entrevista grupal.
✓ Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, luego 
proceder con la guía de preguntas.
✓ Explique cómo se desarrollará la actividad, dé a conocer los temas o contenidos que se estarán 
abordando. Dígales que se estarán haciendo preguntas en cada tema (por bloque) y que a través 
de estas preguntas generadoras que Usted hará, se irá desarrollando la discusión grupal. 
Cada bloque/tema contiene preguntas específicas; cada persona puede opinar en el momento que 
desee, pero se insta a que todas y todos participen de forma activa. 
• Primer bloque/tema: Merienda Escolar
• Segundo bloque/tema: Capacitación
• Tercer bloque/tema: Huertos escolares 
• Infraestructura escolar e involucramiento de los Comité Escolar o CAE para la sostenibilidad
• Quinto bloque/tema: Género, Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
93
Desarrollo de la entrevista grupal
Primer bloque/tema: Merienda escolar
1. ¿En las escuelas donde trabajan Ustedes se implementa la Merienda Escolar? ¿Nos podrían contar 
desde hace cuánto tiempo y qué les parece esa estrategia?
2. ¿Nos pueden contar qué actividades realizan en la estrategia de Merienda Escolar?
✓ ¿Cómo están organizados, cómo realizan la distribución, almacenamiento, consumo y 
control de los alimentos estrategia o programa de Merienda Escolar?
✓ ¿Quiénes participan (comité escolar y otros actores) y qué papel o rol desempeñan?
✓ ¿Cómo funciona el comité escolar en relación a la merienda escolar?
Programa de Merienda Escolar Descripción 
Actividades realizadas y Cómo se organizan
Quiénes participan y qué rol juega c/u
Cómo funciona el Comité Escolar dentro del 
programa
3. ¿Cómo valoran Ustedes el proyecto en función de las prioridades que tiene el PINE MINED, 
estudiantes y/o comunidad educativa? ¿Cómo fue la integración y respuestas brindadas a través del 
apoyo del proyecto? 
✓ En qué medida se incluyó las necesidades de la población beneficiaria en el diseño de este 
proyecto.
✓ En qué medida las actividades del proyecto respondieron a las necesidades de los 
beneficiarios, incluido el MINED, directores, maestros de las escuelas y los estudiantes 
4. ¿Cuáles consideran que son los principales resultados obtenidos con apoyo del proyecto? El 
proyecto alcanzó los resultados esperados en relación a:
✓ Asistencia y Retención escolar por parte de estudiantes 
✓ Calidad de la enseñanza. Rendimiento académico / Promoción escolar 
✓ Aspectos de salud, nutrición/alimentación de escolares
✓ Participación e involucramiento de la comunidad educativa en mejoramiento de la 
infraestructura y sensibilización en la importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos.
5. ¿En qué medida consideran que la capacidad instalada, la promoción de huertos escolares y otras 
actividades educativas del proyecto, incidió en la merienda escolar? ¿Podrían ejemplificar cómo ha 
sido esta incidencia del proyecto y en quiénes?
94
6. Según sus propias experiencias ¿Qué es lo que ha funcionado bien del Proyecto y qué no ha 
funcionado como se esperaba? Indague: 
✓ De lo que ha funcionado bien, ¿Cuáles fueron los elementos o factores que facilitaron el buen 
funcionamiento?
✓ De lo que no funcionó bien, ¿Qué elementos o factores pudieron incidir de forma negativa? 
✓ ¿Qué aspectos se deben mejorar y qué se debe hacer para lograrlo? 
7. ¿Consideran que la estrategia de merienda escolar se puede mantener en el tiempo después que el 
proyecto finalice? ¿Por qué sí, o por qué no? Indague:
✓ ¿Hay otros programas o proyectos que se estén desarrollando "duplicando" las actividades del 
proyecto? Mencione 
✓ ¿Cuál ha sido el aporte que brindaron las familias de niños y niñas para la merienda escolar?
✓ ¿En qué medida otros actores locales se han comprometido para garantizar la sostenibilidad de 
las actividades en las escuelas? Sector privado, asociaciones comunitarias, instituciones del 
gobierno local, etc.
✓ ¿Qué recursos han invertido en esta estrategia desde el nivel departamental/regional hacia el 
municipio o escuela?
8. Presente la herramienta de Evaluación Preparación de la Sostenibilidad. Pregunte: ¿Conoce esta 
herramienta que ha utilizado PCI para medir la Sostenibilidad del Proyecto? ¿Cree que es una 
manera eficaz de medir la sostenibilidad? ¿Qué recomendaciones podría brindar para mejorar ésta 
herramienta?
Si la respuesta es negativa explique las 5 condiciones que se evalúan en la herramienta y consulte 
si cree que es eficaz para medir la sostenibilidad y si tuviese recomendaciones para mejorarla
Segundo bloque/tema: Capacitación SAN
1. Para desarrollar las estrategias del Proyecto ¿En qué temas fueron capacitados Ustedes, 
estudiantes, comité escolar y familias? Mencionar por cada beneficiario. Explorar sobre temas de 
alimentación, nutrición, higiene de los alimentos, lavado de manos, desinfección del agua, otros.
Temas de capacitación PINE-MINED Maestros/as CAP Escolares
Metodología, herramientas, instrumentos para 
gerencia, seguimiento y monitoreo
Alimentación y nutrición – Preparación de 
alimentos
Higiene de los alimentos / lavado de manos
Desinfección del agua
Herramientas para la docencia: FAS, 
Metodología participativas, Manejo 
metodología colección Nacho 
Importancia de la Educación Primaria
Importancia de las Alianzas para 
sostenibilidad
Otras, describa
95
2. ¿Cómo consideran que fue el aporte de la capacitación en los conocimientos, actitudes y 
comportamientos de docentes, estudiantes, comité escolar y familia? ¿Mejoró, desmejoró? ¿Se 
mantuvo igual? 
Aporte en PINE-MINED Maestros/as CAP Escolares
Conocimientos nuevos adquiridos
Actitudes mejoradas (en comparación antes de 
la intervención)
Mejora en el comportamiento / prácticas (en 
comparación antes de la intervención)
3. ¿Qué necesidades de capacitación o prioridades creen que todavía hizo falta para que la estrategia 
educativa funcionara mejor o se obtuvieran mejores resultados? Señale temas específicos.
Tercer bloque/tema: Huertos escolares 
1. ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de huertos escolares? ¿En sus escuelas hay huertos? ¿Y en las otras 
escuelas de su zona?
2. ¿Nos pueden comentar la experiencia que han tenido para el desarrollo de huertos escolares? 
Indague ¿cómo ha sido su implementación. ¿En alguna escuela se hizo diferente, o no se pudo 
implementar? Expliquen.
✓ ¿Qué contempla los huertos escolares (acciones organizativas, demostrativas, prácticas 
supervisadas, involucramiento y aportes de padres, etc.)?
✓ ¿Cómo se organiza su implementación? ¿Quiénes participan y qué papel o rol desempeña, por 
ejemplo, el comité escolar?
✓ ¿Qué productos producen y que hacen con los productos?
✓ ¿Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar? 
¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron? ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que 
afectaron los resultados esperados? 
Estrategia Huerto escolar Descripción Aspectos positivos y por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza / 
participantes
Qué producen y qué hacen 
con los productos
Resultados obtenidos
3. ¿Consideran que hay aceptabilidad de los huertos escolares? ¿Cómo ha sido la experiencia para 
que cumplan con la razón de ser? Indague 
✓ Si los productos que se producen en la escuela (corto plazo) son consumidos sin resistencia por 
las niñas y niños. 
✓ Cómo ha sido la participación de los Comité Escolar o Comité Alimentación Escolar o las familias
✓ Si hay algunas familias que han hecho huertos en sus casas.
✓ Hay compromiso de las partes involucradas para mantener los huertos
96
4. ¿Cómo valoran los resultados obtenidos en relación a la implementación de los huertos escolares?
5. ¿Podría valorar si esta estrategia se puede mantener en el tiempo a pesar de que el proyecto 
finalice? ¿Por qué sí o por qué no?
Cuarto bloque/tema: Infraestructura escolar e involucramiento de los Comité Escolar o 
CAE para la sostenibilidad
1. En el marco de los compromisos establecidos en el proyecto ¿Cómo valoran los resultados 
obtenidos en relación a la mejora en la infraestructura escolar? ¿En las aulas? ¿En baúles y 
cocinas? ¿En las estaciones de agua y los servicios sanitarios? 
2. Además de los recursos invertidos directamente por el proyecto, ¿hubo apoyo financiero o en
especie brindado por algún otro actor local, por ejemplo, del gobierno municipal, el sector privado 
(comerciante, productor, organización de padres y madres)?
3. ¿Considera que las inversiones realizadas en las escuelas son sostenibles? ¿Por qué sí, por qué
no?
4. Y en cuanto al desarrollo organizativo y funcional de los CAE, ¿cómo valoran los resultados 
obtenidos? ¿Se logró que funcionaran en todas las escuelas? ¿Por qué creen que en algunas 
escuelas funcionan mejor que en otras escuelas? Indague:
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron 
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que afectaron los resultados esperados? 
5. ¿El proyecto tubo un abordaje integral para el desarrollo de los CAE? ¿Qué acciones consideran 
que fueron las más efectivas y que llevaron a los mejores resultados?
6. ¿Cómo consideran que ha sido la integración y participación de padres/madres/maestros/as en la 
los CAE? ¿Cómo se podría mejorar?
Quinto bloque/tema: Género, lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
1. A través de la implementación del proyecto ¿Cómo fue promovido la equidad de género? 
¿Consideran que hubo resultados diferenciados entre mujeres/niñas y hombres/niños? 
2. Hasta qué punto a través de la implementación del proyecto se abordó las barreras de género para 
los aspectos propios de la educación y en cuanto al compromiso de la población/comunidad? 
Indague:
✓ ¿Qué barreras de género identifican todavía y cómo han tratado estas cuestiones?
✓ ¿Se integran los hombres (padres) en la elaboración de la merienda escolar o todavía es una 
actividad sólo para las mujeres (madres)
✓ ¿Las niñas y los niños se integran por igual a las actividades del proyecto? 
97
3. En general, para todo lo que significó la implementación del proyecto durante estos cuatro años: 
¿Cuáles consideran que fueron factores facilitadores y factores limitantes para lograr los resultados 
esperados? ¿Qué otros elementos pueden mencionar? Por ejemplo: 
✓ Adecuación de estrategia o alguna actividad 
✓ Mecanismos de coordinación 
✓ Planes de mejora 
✓ Monitoreo, supervisión, evaluación
✓ Desarrollo de alianzas para la sostenibilidad 
4. ¿Podrían identificar desde su experiencia qué aprendizajes tuvieron Ustedes con la implementación 
de las estrategias del proyecto?
5. Mencionen lecciones aprendidas durante la implementación del proyecto: En cuanto al desarrollo de 
la Merienda Escolar, los huertos escolares, programa de capacitación, infraestructura escolar. 
6. Pensando en el futuro, para mejorar y continuar con las estrategias del proyecto, ¿Qué 
recomendaciones sugieren que se deben retomar?
Aspecto
Componente del programa
Merienda Escolar Huertos Escolares Capacitaciones 
SAN
Infraestructura 
escolar
Organización
Funcionamiento
Seguimiento y 
monitoreo
Capacitación
Preparación para la 
Sostenibilidad
Enfoque de género
Finalización de la actividad
1. Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas
2. Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar
3. Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. 
4. Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas.
5. Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!!
98
PCI Nicaragua / CEDEHCA / USDA
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud – MESA” Jinotega-RACCS
Evaluación Final 2017
Guía No. 6 - Grupo Focal 
Madres y Padres organizados en Comité/Patronato/Gabinete Escolar (PTA), 
Comité Alimentación Escolar (CAE) y Mujeres Empoderadas (ME)
Tema de discusión: Estrategias de Seguridad Alimentaria Escolar
DATOS GENERALES
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio: ___________ Hora de finalización: ____________
Departamento/Región: Jinotega  RACCS  Municipio: ____________________________
Participantes
Facilitador/a: ____________________________________________________________________________
Anotador/a y apoyo logístico: ______________________________________________________________
INTRODUCCIÓN: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________, soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación final del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud”, 
que está desarrollando PCI en Jinotega y la RACCS, en esta última con apoyo de CEDEHCA. 
Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una Entrevista grupal en el marco de la Evaluación final del 
proyecto que se está implementando en esta zona. El propósito es conocer de Ustedes su 
opinión, experiencia y/o participación que han tenido en las actividades que realiza el proyecto 
en relación a las estrategias de seguridad alimentaria, con énfasis en educación, nutrición y 
alimentación (merienda escolar, capacitación, huertos escolares, infraestructura y participación 
de los padres, madres en actividades escolares) en las escuelas beneficiarias del proyecto.
Sus ideas, puntos de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de 
mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final y también para considerarlas en la nueva fase del 
proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será 
confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la evaluación. ¿Están de acuerdo en 
participar en esta entrevistada de grupo? Muchas gracias.
99
Metodología y actividades iniciales
✓ Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar el 
objetivo de la entrevista grupal: “Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista 
sobre la implementación y resultados del proyecto MESA (merienda escolar, capacitación a 
escolares, padres, madres y maestros/as, huertos y mejoramiento de infraestructura e 
importancia de la educación primaria de sus hijos) que fueron ejecutados en las escuelas y cómo 
se ha involucrado toda la comunidad educativa.”
✓ Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista grupal:
✓ La participación es de forma totalmente voluntaria; debe haber una participación activa y sus 
opiniones son muy importantes, queremos que todas y todos tengan la misma oportunidad de 
participar y opinar. Ninguna está obligada a responder las preguntas que no quiera responder. 
Si alguien quiere salirse de la reunión puede hacerlo en cualquier momento.
✓ Para registrar sus opiniones se hará grabación de la conversación - si ustedes no tienen 
inconveniente - por eso omitiremos sus nombres completos, pero pueden pedir interrumpir la 
grabación si desean expresar algo que no quieren que quede grabado.
✓ Se garantiza que la información será resguardada y utilizada única y exclusivamente para fines 
de esta evaluación.
✓ Coloque una tarjeta con el nombre de la persona para facilitar la comunicación personalizada, 
también debe estar identificado el equipo que facilita la Entrevista grupal.
✓ Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, luego 
proceder con la guía de preguntas.
✓ Explique cómo se desarrollará la actividad, dé a conocer los temas o contenidos que se estarán 
abordando. Dígales que se estarán haciendo preguntas en cada tema (por bloque) y que a través 
de estas preguntas generadoras que Usted hará, se irá desarrollando la discusión grupal. 
Cada bloque/tema contiene preguntas específicas; cada persona puede opinar en el momento que 
desee, pero se insta a que todas y todos participen de forma activa. 
▪ Primer bloque/tema: Merienda Escolar
▪ Segundo bloque/tema: Capacitación
▪ Tercer bloque/tema: Huertos escolares 
▪ Infraestructura escolar e involucramiento de los Comité Escolar o CAE para la 
sostenibilidad
▪ Quinto bloque/tema: Género, Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
100
Desarrollo del grupo focal
Objetivo: Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista sobre la implementación y 
resultados del proyecto MESA (merienda escolar, capacitación a escolares, padres, madres y 
maestros/as, huertos y mejoramiento de infraestructura e importancia de la educación primaria de sus 
hijos) que se ejecutan en las escuelas y cómo se ha involucrado en el comité de madres y padres como 
estructura organizada para trabajar en pro de la escuela. Indagar previamente el nombre de la 
organización en ese territorio.
Preguntas Respuestas
Actividades iniciales
Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, 
luego proceda con la guía de preguntas.
Estrategias de seguridad alimentaria nutricional abordadas en el 
proyecto MESA
1. ¿En las escuelas donde estudian sus hijas e hijos se implementa la Merienda 
Escolar? ¿Nos podrían contar desde hace cuánto tiempo y qué les parece?
2. ¿Nos pueden contar en qué consiste la Merienda Escolar?
3. ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo son miembros del Comité de madres y padres? ¿Qué 
les motivó integrarse y cómo se sienten en esa labor comunitaria?
• ¿Cómo se organizan en el comité de madres y padres? 
• ¿Cómo funciona la organización?
• ¿Cómo participa el comité de madres y padres y qué papel o rol desempeñan en 
la merienda escolar?
• ¿Hay alguna escuela en que funciona diferente?
• ¿Qué limitantes han tenido?
4. ¿Cómo valoran Ustedes la integración y respuestas brindadas a través del apoyo 
del proyecto? 
En qué medida el proyecto incluyó y respondió a las necesidades de la población 
beneficiaria
5. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios que tiene la merienda escolar para escuela, niñas, 
niños y familia? Indague sobre la incidencia en la calidad de la enseñanza al 
obtener estos beneficios
• Asistencia, retención escolar y rendimiento académico, promoción.
• Salud, nutrición, alimentación
• Involucramiento de la comunidad educativa para la sostenibilidad. 
6. Según sus propias experiencias ¿Qué es lo que ha funcionado bien del proyecto 
y qué no ha funcionado como se esperaba?
7. ¿En su rol de como miembro del comité de madres y padres qué aspectos cree 
que se deben mejorar y qué se debe hacer para lograrlo? 
8. ¿En qué medida otros actores locales se han comprometido para garantizar la 
sostenibilidad de las actividades en las escuelas? Sector privado, asociaciones 
comunitarias, instituciones del gobierno local, etc.
101
Preguntas Respuestas
Actividades iniciales
9. Consideran ustedes que hay condiciones a nivel de la comunidad para la 
sostenibilidad del proyecto de alimentación escolar (qué posibilidades hay que 
continúe implementándose cuando ya no se cuente con financiamiento del 
proyecto). Explique su respuesta.
10. Para desarrollar la estrategia del proyecto ¿En qué temas fueron capacitados 
Ustedes como comité escolar? Los/as estudiantes? ¿y las familias? Alimentación, 
higiene de los alimentos, lavado de manos, salud, nutrición, método de 
desinfección del agua, huertos escolares, importancia de la educación primaria, 
importancia de las alianzas para la sostenibilidad.
11. ¿Cómo aportó la capacitación recibida en los conocimientos, las actitudes y 
comportamientos de docentes, estudiantes, comité escolar y familia? ¿Mejoró, 
desmejoró, se mantuvo igual?
• Conocimientos nuevos adquiridos
• Actitudes mejoradas (en comparación antes de la intervención)
• Comportamientos en prácticas (en comparación antes de la intervención
12. ¿Qué necesidades o prioridades de capacitación se les dio atención en el 
proyecto y a qué beneficiario?
• Temas
• Metodología, herramientas, instrumentos 
• Herramientas para seguimiento y monitoreo 
• Materiales, otros
13. ¿Qué otros temas de capacitación creen que les hubiera gustado recibir desde 
el proyecto para que este funcionara mejor o se obtuvieran mejores resultados? 
Señale temas específicos.
14. ¿Cómo fue la experiencia de desarrollo de Huertos escolares? ¿cómo fue su 
implementación en sus escuelas? 
• ¿Qué contempló los huertos familiares (componentes, insumos, etc.)?
• ¿Cómo se organizó su implementación?
• ¿Quiénes participaron y qué papel o rol desempeña? ¿Ustedes como comité de 
madres y padres qué rol tienen?
• ¿Qué tipo de productos producen y que hacen con estos productos?
• ¿Cómo valora los resultados de los huertos?
15. ¿Hay aceptabilidad de los huertos escolares y cómo ha sido la experiencia para 
que cumplan con la razón de ser? 
16. ¿Conocen si hay algunas familias que han hecho huertos en sus casas; y en el 
caso de Ustedes tienen huertos en sus casas?
17. ¿Podría valorar si esta estrategia se puede mantener en el tiempo a pesar de que 
el proyecto finalice? ¿Por qué sí o por qué no?
¿Qué se puede mejorar para la implementación de esta estrategia? Pueden 
brindar alguna recomendación.
102
Preguntas Respuestas
Actividades iniciales
18. ¿Cómo valoran los resultados obtenidos en relación a la mejora en la 
infraestructura escolar? ¿En las aulas? ¿En bodegas y cocinas? ¿En las 
estaciones de agua y los servicios sanitarios?
19. ¿Ustedes como miembros del CAE han tenido alguna participación en estas 
actividades? ¿Pueden describirlas?
20. Conocen si además de los recursos invertidos directamente por el proyecto, 
hubo apoyo financiero o en especie brindado por algún otro actor local, por 
ejemplo: el gobierno municipal, el sector privado (comerciante, productor, 
organización de padres y madres)?. 
21. ¿Considera que las inversiones realizadas en las escuelas son sostenibles? 
¿Por qué sí, por qué no?
22. En cuanto al desarrollo organizativo y funcional de los CAE, ¿cómo valoran los 
resultados obtenidos? ¿Se logró que funcionaran en todas las escuelas? ¿Por 
qué creen que en algunas escuelas funcionan mejor que en otras escuelas? 
Indague:
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron 
✓ ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que afectaron los resultados 
esperados?
23. ¿Tuvo el proyecto MESA alguna incidencia, desarrolló actividades para que los 
CAE/Comité escolar/Mujeres empoderadas se fortalecieran? ¿Qué acciones 
consideran que fueron las más efectivas y que condujeron a los mejores 
resultados?
24. ¿Cómo consideran que ha sido la integración y participación de 
padres/madres/maestros/as en la los CAE? ¿Cómo se podría mejorar?
Género, Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
25. ¿Cómo participan las mujeres y los hombres en las estrategias del proyecto? ¿Se 
integran los hombres a la elaboración de la merienda escolar? ¿Qué se puede 
hacer para lograr su integración tanto como las mujeres?
26. ¿Las niñas y los niños se integran por igual a las actividades del proyecto? 
27. ¿Cómo se coordinan Ustedes con docentes y el proyecto para la ejecución de las 
actividades? ¿Existe planes de acción conjunto o para el comité de madres y 
padres? ¿Cómo se puede mejorar esta coordinación?
28. ¿Cuáles consideran que fueron factores facilitadores y factores limitantes para 
lograr los resultados esperados?
▪ Adecuación de estrategia o alguna actividad 
▪ Mecanismos de coordinación 
▪ Planes de mejora 
▪ Monitoreo, supervisión, evaluación
▪ Desarrollo de alianzas para la sostenibilidad
29. ¿Podrían identificar desde su experiencia qué aprendizajes tuvieron ustedes con 
la implementación de las estrategias del proyecto?
103
Preguntas Respuestas
Actividades iniciales
30. Del resultado alcanzado en cada una de las estrategias ¿qué lecciones 
aprendidas se pueden sacar? Merienda, huertos, capacitación, infraestructura 
escolar. (Ubicar las lecciones en la tabla al final de la guía)
Puede llevarlo en un papelógrafo para llenarlo en conjunto.
LECCIONES APRENDIDAS
De las actividades ejecutadas o resultados alcanzados en cada componente del proyecto, podrían 
compartir alguna lección aprendida
Estrategia Organización Funcionamiento Seguimiento y 
monitoreo 
Resultado alcanzado
(positivo o negativo)
Merienda Escolar
Huertos Escolares
Capacitaciones SAN
Infraestructura escolar 
/ desarrollo de CAE
RECOMENDACIONES
Pensando en el futuro, para mejorar y continuar con las estrategias del proyecto, ¿Qué recomendaciones 
sugieren que se deben retomar?
Estrategias Organización Funcionamiento Seguimiento y 
monitoreo Capacitación Sostenibilidad
Merienda Escolar
Huertos Escolares
Capacitaciones SAN
Infraestructura 
escolar / desarrollo 
de CAE
Tema/ Contenido Preguntas Respuestas
SOLO PARA 
MUJERES 
ORGANIZADAS 
(Mujeres 
Empoderadas)
31. Si algunas de ustedes están participando en grupos de 
Mujeres empoderadas (ME), ¿En qué ha contribuido su 
participación en estos grupos para apoyar la educación de 
sus hijos?
32. En los grupos ME se promueve el liderazgo y participación 
activa, ¿Esto ha facilitado su rol en el comité de la escuela? 
¿De qué manera? Explique
104
Finalización de la actividad
1. Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas
2. Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar
3. Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. 
4. Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas.
5. Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 
¡Muchas gracias por su participación!!!
105
Annex 07. MESA Project definitions, sources and indicator targets
Performance Indicator LOP 
Target Indicator Definition Data Source
Contribution to Feed 
the Future
Number of public-private partnerships formed 
as a result of USDA assistance 35
Total number of alliances with other public and/or private entities, 
e.g. municipal governments. 
Please refer to MGD Feed the Future Indicator 1 for the complete 
definition.
Project Records, 
Financial Records
Number of social assistance beneficiaries 
participating in productive safely nets as a 
result of USDA assistance 95,420
Total number of individuals participating in USDA-supported 
social assistance programming with productive components 
aimed at increasing community assets, household assets, or 
strengthening human capital.
Please refer to MGD Feed the Future Indicator 4 for the complete 
definition.
Project monitoring 
data
SO1. Improved 
literacy of school￾aged children
Percent of girls who, by the end of 6th grade 
demonstrate reading comprehension 
equivalent to their grade level as defined by 
national standards at USDA supported 
schools
85%
Numerator: Total number of girls assessed who, by the end of 6th 
grade, demonstrate they can read and understand grade level 
text
Denominator: Total number of girls assessed at the school 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 4 for the complete 
definition.
Baseline and final 
evaluation 
MINED Evaluation 
Data
Percent of boys who, by the end of 6th grade 
demonstrate reading comprehension 
equivalent to their grade level as defined by 
national standards at USDA supported 
schools
83%
Numerator: Total number of boys assessed who, by the end of 
6th grade, demonstrate they can read and understand grade 
level text
Denominator: Total number of boys assessed at the school 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 4 for the complete 
definition.
Baseline and final 
evaluation 
MINED Evaluation 
Data
Total number of individuals benefiting directly 
from USDA-funded interventions 95,420
Total number of individuals who directly participate in any USDA￾funded activity, e.g. trainings, school feeding program, etc.
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicators 21 and 22 for the 
complete definition. 
Project monitoring 
data SIMESA
Total number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 304,712
Total number of individuals who indirectly participate in any 
USDA-funded activity, e.g. trainings, school feeding program, etc. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicators 21 and 22 for the 
complete definition. 
Project monitoring 
data SIMESA
MGD 1.1 Improved 
quality of reading and 
writing instruction in 
schools
Percent of teachers who demonstrate 
improved literacy instruction as identified by 
supervisors 80%
Numerator: Total number of teachers who demonstrate improved 
literacy instruction as per evaluation by supervisors
Denominator: Total number of teachers surveyed 
MINED Evaluation 
Data
MGD 1.1.2 Improved 
access to school 
supplies and 
materials
Number of schools receiving school supplies 
and materials as a result of USDA assistance 1016
Total number of schools that receive school supplies and 
materials (i.e. pencils, paper, flip charts, recreational materials, 
etc.) a minimum of one time through USDA support. 
Materials Delivery 
Report SIMESA
MGD 1.1.4 Improved 
teachers' skills and 
knowledge
Percentage of teachers in selected schools 
that demonstrate the use of new quality 
teaching techniques or tools 50%
Total number of teachers who complete at minimum one training 
through USDA support in educational topics including 
participatory techniques, leadership development, personal 
development and/or educational methodologies, and 
demonstrate the ability to apply them to other teachers or 
students. 
Training Register 
SIMESA
106
Performance Indicator LOP 
Target Indicator Definition Data Source
MGD 1.2 Improved 
students attention in 
class
Percent of students in classrooms identified 
as inattentive by their teachers (data 
collected during a single day, at specific 
intervals)
10%
Numerator: Total number of students identified as inattentive by 
their teachers based on pre-established criteria. 
Denominator: Total number of students assessed for 
inattentiveness at the school
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation, 
Teachers Survey 
MGD 1.2.1 Percent of 
students who feel 
hungry in school 
reduced
Percent of students in target schools who 
indicate that they are "hungry" or "very 
hungry" during the school day (collected 
through a student survey)
3%
Numerator: Total number of students who indicate they are 
"hungry" or "very hungry" during the school day (Likert Scale)
Denominator: Total number of students assessed at the school
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Student Survey 
MGD 1.2.1.1/ 1.3.1.1 
Increased access to 
food (school meals)
Percent of students in target schools 
consuming daily meals at school 92%
Numerator: Total number of students in target schools consuming 
daily meals at school
Denominator: Total number of students enrolled in target schools 
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Student Survey
MGD 1.3 Improved 
students' school 
attendance
Percent of boys regularly (80%) attending 
USDA supported classrooms/schools 
80%
Numerator: Total number of boys who attend at least 80% of 
class sessions at the end of the school year
Denominator: Total number of boys enrolled 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 2 for the complete 
definition.
MINED Evaluation 
Data
Percent of girls regularly (80%) attending 
USDA supported classrooms/schools 
80%
Numerator: Total number of girls who attend at least 80% of class 
sessions at the end of the school year
Denominator: Total number of girls enrolled 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 2 for the complete 
definition.
MINED Evaluation 
Data
MGD 1.3.1 Economic 
and cultural 
incentives increased; 
and/or disincentives 
reduced
Percent of target schools that have separate 
latrines for boys and girls
30%
Numerator: Total number of targeted schools that have separate 
latrines for boys and girls
Denominator: Total number of targeted schools 
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Teachers Survey
MGD 1.3.2 Health￾related school 
absences reduced
Percent of students who state that illness is 
the primary reason they are absent from 
school 20%
Numerator: Total number of students assessed who state that the 
primary reason for their school absences is due to health reasons
Denominator: Total number of students assessed at the school
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Student Survey
MGD 1.3.3 School 
infrastructure 
improved
Number of students benefiting from the 
(rehabilitated or constructed) classrooms as a 
result of USDA Assistance 15,760
Total number of students that benefit from infrastructure support 
(classrooms), both rehabilitation and/or new construction 
projects. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 10 for the complete 
definition.
Project reports; 
Infrastructure 
plans; Field 
Technician reports 
SIMESA
Number of students benefiting from the 
(rehabilitated or constructed) kitchens as a 
result of USDA Assistance 31,520
Total number of students that benefit from infrastructure support 
(kitchens), both rehabilitation and/or new construction projects. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 10 for the complete 
definition.
Project reports; 
Infrastructure 
plans; Field 
Technician reports 
SIMESA
Number of students benefiting from the 
(rehabilitated or constructed) storage areas 
as a result of USDA Assistance 31,520
Total number of students that benefit from infrastructure support 
(storage areas), both rehabilitation and/or new construction 
projects. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 10 for the complete 
definition.
Project reports; 
Infrastructure 
plans; Field 
Technician reports 
SIMESA
107
Performance Indicator LOP 
Target Indicator Definition Data Source
Number of students benefiting from the 
(rehabilitated or constructed) wells, water 
station/systems as a result of USDA 
Assistance
10,400
Total number of students that benefit from infrastructure support 
(wells, water station/systems), both rehabilitation and/or new 
construction projects. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 10 for the complete 
definition.
Project reports; 
Infrastructure 
plans; Field 
Technician reports 
SIMESA
Number of students benefiting from the 
(rehabilitated or constructed) latrines as a 
result of USDA Assistance 16,000
Total number of students that benefit from infrastructure support 
(latrines), both rehabilitation and/or new construction projects. 
Please refer to MGD Standard Indicator 10 for the complete 
definition.
Project reports; 
Infrastructure 
plans; Field 
Technician reports 
SIMESA
MGD 1.3.5 Increased 
Community 
Understanding of 
Benefits of Education
Percent of parents in target communities who 
can name at least three benefits of primary 
education (collected through a survey)
50%
Numerator: Total number of parents who can name at least three 
benefits of primary education.
Denominator: Total number of parents assessed
Parent 
questionnaires 
Surveys
Number of parents in target communities who 
are members of PTA (or a similar school￾based community group)
4,064
Total number of parents who are registered members of school 
Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs)
PTA membership 
registers Project 
Records: SIMESA
SO2. Use of health 
and nutritional 
practices increased 
(See RF 2)
Percent of schools with soap and water at a 
hand washing station commonly used by 
students 80%
Numerator: Total number of schools with soap and water at a 
minimum of one hand washing station commonly used by 
students verified through direct observation
Denominator: Total number of schools surveyed 
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Teachers Survey
Percent of target schools that clean their 
latrines at least once a day
50%
Numerator: Total number of targeted schools that clean their 
latrines once a day. 
Denominator: Total number of targeted schools
Field Technician 
reports Baseline, 
Mid-Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Teachers Survey
MGD 2.1 Knowledge 
on health and hygiene 
practices improved
Percent of parents in targeted communities 
who can identify at least three important 
health/hygiene practices (e.g. use of latrines) 70%
Numerator: Total number of parents who can identify at least 
three important health/hygiene practices, e.g. use of latrines, 
washing hands before eating, etc.
Denominator: Total number of parents assessed
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation
 Mothers Survey
MGD 2.2 Knowledge 
on safe food 
preparation and 
storage improved
Percent of parents at target schools who 
achieve a passing score on a test of safe 
food preparation and storage 80%
Numerator: Total number of parents trained in food preparation 
who respond correctly to a minimum of 80% of questions on safe 
food preparation and storage (i.e. washing hands prior to 
handling clean utensils and preparing food, using treated water 
for beverages, etc.)
Denominator: Total number of parents interviewed by survey 
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation 
Training Register
MGD 2.3 Knowledge 
on nutrition improved
Percent of mothers (or care providers) in 
targeted communities who can identify at 
least three important nutrition or dietary 
guidelines/recommendations
50%
Numerator: Total number of mothers (or care providers) who can 
identify at least three healthy nutrition practices, i.e. eating a 
balanced diet with vegetables, etc.
Denominator: Total number of mothers (or care providers) 
assessed
Baseline, Mid￾Term, Final 
Evaluation
 Mothers Survey
MGD 2.4 Access to 
clean water and 
sanitation services 
increased
Number of target schools with year round 
access to a clean and safe water source 394
Total number of schools that have access to potable water, 
including schools using SODIS for water disinfection
Technical 
Specialist Report 
Project Records: 
SIMESA
108
Performance Indicator LOP 
Target Indicator Definition Data Source
MGD 2.5 Access to 
preventive health 
interventions 
increased
Number of target schools benefiting from 
preventive health interventions 986
Total number of schools that benefit from preventative health 
interventions (e.g. de-worming and vitamins, health education 
and training, etc.)
Technical 
Specialist Report 
SIMESA
MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.1 
Improved capacity of 
governmental 
institutions
Number of standard operating procedures 
and tools for management and oversight of 
school feeding programs by relevant 
government offices that are operational
1
Number of standard operating procedures and tools for 
management and oversight of school feeding programs by 
relevant government offices (e.g. Ministry of Education) that are 
operational (e.g. systematically utilized by the entire government 
agency)
Government office 
records
MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.4 
Increased 
participation of local 
organizations and 
community groups
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations or 
similar "school" governance structures 
contributing to their school as a result of 
USDA assistance
100
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA) contributing to 
their school as a result of USDA assistance. Contributions can 
include assistance in the provision of school meals (e.g. meal 
preparation), helping to establish school gardens, etc. 
Project Records: 
SIMESA
109
Annex 08. Calculation of confidence limits for LQAS KPC Survey
Calculation of the weight for each lot or SA:
Definition of symbols: 
N = Sample size in LQAS (Total number of children in the sample)
ni = Sample size for determined lot or SA (19 per lot)
N = Total number of population according to the project area
Ni = Total number of population in determined lot
The weight for determined lot 
(wi)
= Total number of population in each lot divided by 
the total number of population in the project area
= Ni /N
Example of calculation of the weight for the five supervision areas 
LOT (SUPERVISION AREA) POPULATION SIZE WEIGHT (wi)
Supervision Area A 1,600 1,600/10,000 = .16
Supervision Area B 2,300 2,300/10,000 = .23
Supervision Area C 2,200 2,200/10,000 = .22
Supervision Area D 2,000 2,000/10,000 = .20
Supervision Area E 1,900 1,900/10,000 = .19
TOTAL (Global Project Area) 10,000
Calculation of the coverage ratio, using the weighting by SA:
Definition of symbols:
ni = Sample size in LQAS (Total number of children in the sample)
xi = Number of correct or adequate conditions by SA
wi = Weight of the lot i (see previous section “Calculation of the weight for each SA”)
Weighted data from each SA to determine overall coverage
LOT ni xi xi/ni wi wi * (xi/ni)
Supervision Area A 19 3 .16 .16 .03
Supervision Area B 19 5 .26 .23 .06
Supervision Area C 19 5 .26 .22 .06
Supervision Area D 19 7 .37 .20 .07
Supervision Area E 19 11 .58 .19 .11
TOTAL 95 .27
In the example, the weighted coverage by population for the global project area is 27% 
(.27 x 100).
To calculate the confidence limit for the estimated global coverage, we used the following 
formula.
Z = 95% confidence = 1.96
P = true proportion in the population
p = proportion of coverage for the global programmatic area
110
pi = proportion of coverage for determined lot (= xi/ni)
qi = 1-pi
ni = sample size for determined lot 
P = p+ Z x  wi
2 x (pq/n)
ni
Notes: 
The LQAS methodology yields a smaller number of cases within each Supervision Area (SA) 
that correspond to the area of programmatic administration (lot). Consequently, the 
estimates of specific coverage by lot or SA and its confidence limits will not be precise, and 
therefore will give useless information. However, it is possible to calculate with great 
precision, an estimate of coverage and corresponding confidence limits for the total 
project area, by combining all the SA or lots. In doing so, it is important to remember that 
the number of beneficiaries probably varies from one lot to another. In such cases, when 
calculating an estimate of coverage through the program, the results of each SA or lot should 
be weighted according to the total number of beneficiaries residing in it.
When a sample is used, the estimate obtained will probably be similar but different from the 
actual percentage in the population. However, when using a random sample, in addition to 
obtaining an estimate, it is possible to express how certain the result is by using the 
confidence interval (CI) of the sample. Thus the last step for measuring a coverage ratio is 
to calculate the CI. This measure is necessary because the coverage is an estimate and is 
not accurate. A 95% CI is the range in which you have 95% confidence that the estimated 
coverage is within it. In other words, when the estimated percentage is presented, it is almost 
certain (95% confidence) that the actual population percentage is within the range. These 
data are used to establish comparisons between results of the same mean: when the CI of 
two means overlap, the difference between the two is not statistically significant; on the other 
hand, when they do not overlap, the difference is statistically significant.
111
Annex 09: p Value tests for two independent proportions 
Valor P 2 proporciones independientes
1.2. Porcentaje de estudiantes en las clases que identifiquen con falta de atención por parte de sus maestros
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 < p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 628 x2 999
n1 6999 n2 7360
p1 0.09 p2 0.14
p1 - p2 -0.05
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.1133087
8 0.8866913
sDo 0.0053
Ze -8.69
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
1.2.1. Porcentaje de estudiantes que dicen responden tener hambre o mucha hambre durante el dia
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 < p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 3 x2 14
n1 247 n2 223
p1 0.01 p2 0.06
p1 - p2 -0.05
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.0361702
8 0.9638298
sDo 0.0172
Ze -2.94
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.99834 No rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00333 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 0.00166 Rechazo la Ho
1.2.2.1/1.3.1.1 Porcentaje de escolares que consumen comidas diarias en la escuela
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 216 x2 196
n1 229 n2 223
p1 0.94 p2 0.88
p1 - p2 0.06
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.9115044
8 0.0884956
sDo 0.0267
Ze 2.41
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00805 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.01610 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 0.99195 No rechazo la Ho
112
1.3.2 Porcentaje de escolares que afirman que la enfermedad es la razón principal por la que se ausentan a la escuela
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 < p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 143 x2 61
n1 208 n2 148
p1 0.69 p2 0.41
p1 - p2 0.28
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.5730337
8 0.4269663
sDo 0.0532
Ze 5.18
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000No rechazo la Ho
1.3.5 Porcentaje de madres que pueden nombrar al menos tres beneficios de la educacion primaria
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 113 x2 28
n1 213 n2 247
p1 0.53 p2 0.11
p1 - p2 0.42
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.3065217
8 0.6934783
sDo 0.0431
Ze 9.68
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
1.3.1 Porcentaje de escuelas que tienen letrinas separadas por sexo
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 170 x2 29
n1 244 n2 224
p1 0.70 p2 0.13
p1 - p2 0.57
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.4252137
8 0.5747863
sDo 0.0457
Ze 12.40
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
113
SO2 Porcentaje de escuelas con agua y jabon en estaciones de lavado de manos usado por escolares
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 161 x2 15
n1 247 n2 100
p1 0.65 p2 0.15
p1 - p2 0.50
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.5072046
8 0.4927954
sDo 0.0593
Ze 8.47
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
SO2 Porcentaje de escuelas que limpian la letrina al menos una vez al dia
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 210 x2 97
n1 247 n2 247
p1 0.85 p2 0.39
p1 - p2 0.46
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.6214575
8 0.3785425
sDo 0.0436
Ze 10.48
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
2.1 Porcentaje de madres que identifican al menos tres practicas de salud/higiene
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 185 x2 107
n1 247 n2 247
p1 0.75 p2 0.43
p1 - p2 0.32
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.5910931
8 0.4089069
sDo 0.0442
Ze 7.14
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho
2.3 Porcentaje de madres que identifican al menos tres beneficios importantes de la nutricion
Ho: p1 = p2
H1:p1 > p2
Poblacion 1 Poblacion 2
x1 144 x2 35
n1 247 n2 247
p1 0.58 p2 0.14
p1 - p2 0.44
Nc 95%
α 5%
ṕ 0.3623482
8 0.6376518
sDo 0.0433
Ze 10.20
α/2 2.5%
Zα/2 1.96 -1.96
Zα -1.64
Z1-α 1.64
Do 0
P-valor Decision
Cola superior 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Prueba bilateral 0.00000 Rechazo la Ho
Cola inferior 1.00000 No rechazo la Ho