0 
Managua, August 2015 
PCI Nicaragua Food for Education 
Intermediate Evaluation Report 
June-August 2015
MESA Project - “Mejor Educación y Salud” 
Nicaragua
0 
Credits
Project Mejor Educación y Salud Intermediate Evaluation (MESA Project)
Research Team (Federación Red NicaSalud) 
Fernando V. Campos Ordeñana. Physician, Epidemiologist. Research Team Coordinator.
Oscar Guerrero Aburto. Physician, Public Health Professional. 
Gertrudis Medrano. Sociologist, Specialist in gender and qualitative evaluation. 
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
1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 1
II. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION....................................................... 6
Results and objectives of the MESA Project ................................................................................... 6
Objectives of the MESA Project ...................................................................................................... 7
Coverage.......................................................................................................................................... 7
Activities.......................................................................................................................................... 7
III. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 9
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.................................................................................... 10
Type of study ................................................................................................................................. 10
Study Population........................................................................................................................... 10
Sample and sampling .................................................................................................................... 10
Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 11
Data processing and analysis ........................................................................................................ 12
V. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Improved literacy of school-aged children (MGD SO1) .................................................... 13
4.1.1 Improved quality of literacy instruction (MGD 1.1)......................................................... 13
4.1.2 Improved school children attentiveness (MGD 1.2) ................................................. 16
4.1.3 Improved student attendance (MGD 1.3)................................................................. 24
4.2 Increased use of health and dietary practices (SO2) ........................................................ 27
4.2.1 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices (MGD 2.1) ........................... 27
4.2.2 Increased knowledge and practice of food preparation and storage (MGD 2.2) ..... 30
4.2.3 Improved knowledge of nutrition (MGD 2.3) ........................................................... 32
4.2.4 Increased access to safe water and sanitation services (MGD 2.4).......................... 33
4.2.5 Improved access to preventative health interventions (MGD 2.5)........................... 35
4.3 Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups............................ 37
4.3.1 Improved capacity of government institutions (MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.1)......................... 37
4.3.2 Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups (MGD 1.4.4 / 
2.7.4) 37
4.4 Managerial concerns......................................................................................................... 39
2 
VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 42
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 44
VIII. APPENDICES...................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 01. Results Framework. MESA Project (Better Education and Health)..................... 46
Appendix 2. Sampling Frame..................................................................................................... 47
Appendix 3. Quantitative data collection instruments............................................................. 47
Appendix 4. Qualitative data collection guides......................................................................... 66
Appendix 5. Table of survey results by Supervision Area .............Error! Bookmark not defined.
1 
ACRONYMS
BL Baseline 
CEDEHCA Centro de Derechos Humanos, Ciudadanos y Autonómicos (Center for Human, 
Civil and Autonomous Rights 
FNS Food and Nutrition Security 
IE Intermediate Evaluation 
LQAS Lot Quality Assurance Sampling 
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) 
NER Núcleos Educativos Rurales (Rural Education Centers) 
PCI Project Concern International 
PINE-MINED Programa Integral de Nutrición Escolar del Ministerio de Educación (Ministry of 
Education Integral School Nutrition Program) 
PTA Parent-Teacher Association 
RACCS Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Sur (Southern Carribean Coast Autonomous 
Region) 
SA Supervision Areas 
SFC School Feeding Committee 
SODIS Water treatment system using solar energy 
SRS Simple Random Sample 
TOR Terms of Reference 
TEPCE Talleres de Evaluación, Programación y Capacitación Educativa (Evaluation, 
Programming, and Educational Training Workshops) 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
1 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In partnership with PINE-MINED, CEDEHCA and local communities, PCI is implementing the MESA 
Project in eleven municipalities in the departments of Jinotega and the Autónoma Costa Caribe Sur 
(RACCS) Region in Nicaragua. The purpose of the project is to support the educational level of 
school-aged children. The project integrates health activities and education to improve the quality 
of education, attendance and attentiveness of children as well as directly support the Integral 
School Nutrition Program. 
The project covers 409 elementary schools located in four municipalities of Jinotega (Jinotega, La 
Concordia, San Sebastian de Yali and Santa María de Pantasma) and 607 schools in seven 
municipalities in the RACCS (Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Laguna de Perla, the Cruz de Rio Grande, 
Mouth of Rio Grande, El Tortuguero and Corn Island), totaling 1,016 schools. The project provides 
school meals, training and other benefits to 95,420 students, parents, teachers and MINED officials. 
To evaluate the initial conditions of the project, a study was done using qualitative and quantitative 
methods and the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) methodology to compare results at 
baseline with established project targets. The study included surveys of students, teachers and 
mothers as well as interviews, group meetings and/or focus groups with MINED and PINE-MNIED 
staff, PCI and CEDEHCA technical teams, teachers, and parents on the SFC. The results are 
described below. 
Relevance of the project. Stakeholder assessment of the project has been very positive. The 
project provides direct support to one of the priority programs of the government (PINE-MINED), 
which is part of the policies established in the Human Development Plan for the educational sector. 
Improved literacy for school-age children (MGD SO1) 
Overall, the project has reached 94% (89,749) of the target population. According to information 
from MINED, reading comprehension measured in 6th grade school children has improved 
compared to baseline. In school girls, it has increased from 82% to 97% and in school boys from 
80% to 95%, surpassing the target set for students of both sexes. The results of the project that 
address this result are described below. 
Improved access to school supplies and materials (MGD 1.1.2). School supplies and materials 
were delivered in 530 schools (52.2%), directly benefiting 40,428 students and 464 teachers; this 
corresponds to 89.3% and 38% respectively of the target set for each population group for the year 
2015. Delivery of materials was delayed due to delays in the design of some materials and their 
final approval by MINED authorities. In some geographical areas of the RACCS, delivery was 
delayed due to difficulties accessing schools. 
Increased knowledge and skills of teachers (MGD 1.1.4). Of the 330 teachers to train by 2015, 
55.8% (184) were trained in current teaching methodologies. 
Improved school children attentiveness (MGD 1.2). 85.8% of teacher respondents expressed 
that they have children in their classroom who do not pay attention in class. This number was 
85.3% in Jinotega and 86.2% in the RACCS. The teachers surveyed serve 7,077 students; they 
estimate that 773 students do not pay full attention during class. In Jinotega, the estimated 
percentage is 11% of students and 10.9% in the RACCS. These data show improvement over the 
2 
BL (15%). The main reasons for student distraction in school include the class not being interesting 
(49.4%), lack of food (33.2%), illness (25.9%), and problems at home (10.1%).
Reduced short-term hunger (MGD 1.2.1). When asked, 3% of school children said they were 
hungry or very hungry during the school day, half of the result found at baseline. In Jinotega this 
number was 1.1% and 4.2% in the RACCS. This improvement is probably directly related to the 
delivery of school meals in schools. Just over 90% of school children and mothers mentioned that 
children receive a school lunch 4-5 days per week, an increase over the baseline result of less than 
90%. Jinotega had a higher percentage than the RACCS. 
Improved access to food/school meals (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1). Food supplies for school children meals 
distributed to all schools total 1,620 tons of food delivered or 64.4% of the target set for the first two 
years (2014 and 2015). It is expected that this goal will be fulfilled after the deliveries scheduled for 
the rest of this year. 
 
The number of school boys and girls who have received school meals since the project started is 
equivalent to 98.2% and 99.8% of the target established by student sex respectively. 
Of the 200 school gardens planned for 2015, 77.5% were created. The target for students and 
parents who benefit from these gardens is low, at 44.5% for school children and 15.9% for parents. 
The difficulties that arose for implementing this component include poor weather that affected much 
of the country as well as limited availability of tools. In the RACCS in particular the funds allocated 
underestimated the high cost. 
Access to food was also assessed through the perception of school children and mothers in relation 
to the quantity and quality of food provided at school; 87.3% of students report that the amount 
received is sufficient, more than ten percentage points above the baseline. In addition, 71.3% of 
mothers believe that the amount is sufficient. Both mothers and teachers believe that the ration 
established for the meal is fine, but could be adjusted for preschoolers, 1st and 2nd graders 
compared to the requirement for older students (5th and 6th graders).
In terms of quality, 97% of students were satisfied (good and tasty) with the food received, more 
than 90% found at baseline. When asked specifically about the quality, 91.1% said it was very 
good or good, higher than the 76% result at baseline. In Jinotega this result was 95.8% and 88% in 
the RACCS. Although there is a high level of satisfaction with the meal, it was expressed that 
sometimes the meal is delivered too late; this is a result of preparing food in mothers’ homes which 
affects the quality and timing of delivery. 
Knowledge of benefits of school meals. 99.2% of students recognize that school meals have 
benefits for children. The main benefits cited include being more attentive in class (57.6%), 
improved health (49%), strengthening child development (46.3%), improving the level of learning 
(39.6%), and the ability to play more enthusiastically (32.2%). In turn, 87.9% of mothers surveyed 
say that families contribute with food to complement school meals, 81% higher than at baseline. 
Improved student attendance (MGD 1.3). According to information from MINED, 95% of girls 
attend school 80% of the time, and 88% of boys. MINED authorities, teachers and mothers 
surveyed reported that school attendance has improved.
Reduced health-related absences (MGD 1.3.2). Despite an improvement in school attendance 
last year, 78.9% of students report having missed at least one day so far this year, higher than the 
60% reported at baseline. By department, this number is 75.8% in Jinotega and 80.9% in the 
RACCS. The main reason for missing class is due to illness (71.3%), higher than the 41% obtained 
at baseline. Other reasons mentioned included helping at home (31.3%) and working outside the 
home (13.3%), both higher percentages than at baseline. 
3 
Improved school infrastructure (MGD 1.3.3). The progress of rehabilitation/construction 
according to type of infrastructure is as follows: 56 of 201 classrooms planned for 2015 were 
completed, corresponding to 27.9%; 50 school kitchens of 211 planned are complete for 23.7%; 
and 282 of 394 planned storage areas for food storage for 2015 are complete, representing 71.6%. 
The percentage of population benefiting from the rehabilitated/constructed infrastructure in 
accordance with the established target is 13.3% for rehabilitation of classrooms, 12.1% for 
constructed kitchens and 49.2% for food storage areas. The reasons for these low percentages 
include the time taken for the initial assessment to identify the needs and costs of implementation, 
gain consensus with MINED authorities on the schools to be benefited and work to be 
rehabilitated/constructed, and engage the community and parents for contributing labor. The food 
storage area component made more progress because of the decision to use a quick and safe 
piece of infrastructure (trunks). 
Increased understanding of the community about the benefits of education (MGD 1.3.5). 
27.5% of mothers stated at least three benefits of education, 51.6% in Jinotega and 12.5% in the 
RACCS. The main benefits mentioned included learning to read, write, and analyze (92.4%); 
prepare for life (69%); learn to live with others (53.2%); and learn about the world (32.3%).
Increased use of health and dietary practices (SO2) 
This result analyzes indicators of health and nutrition knowledge, practice and coverage. 
Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices (MGD 2.1). We measured this through 
hand washing, use of health services and safe water. 
Hand washing. Mothers’ knowledge of the key moments for hand washing improved from 49% at
baseline to 76.9%. By geographical area, in Jinotega it was 89.5% and in the RACCS 69.1%. Of all 
the schools visited, 111 (45%) had at least one station used for hand washing, of which 35.1% (39) 
had soap and water; by geographical area, functioning stations with soap and water were 13.6% in 
Jinotega and 59.6% in the RACCS. 
Use of sanitation services. 91.5% (226) of schools visited have sanitation services, 87% in the 
RACCS and 99% in Jinotega; 21 schools do not have plumbing, 20 of them in the RACCS and one 
in Jinotega. Through observation of the hygienic conditions of latrines/toilet, we found that 72.1% 
meet three of five conditions, 78.7% of them in Jinotega and 67.4% in the RACCS. 
Use of clean water. School children knowledge about safe water improved; 83% of students 
recognize what safe water means, greater than 47% at baseline. In Jinotega this number is 91% of 
students and 78% in the RACCS. 
Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices (MGD 2.2). The program 
has trained 2,580 parents about hygiene standards for food preparation and storage, corresponding 
to 72.7% of the target. Mothers’ knowledge of food handling improved to 74.5% from 68% at 
baseline; 87.4% in Jinotega and 66.5% in the RACCS. 
Increased knowledge of nutrition (MGD 2.3). The trainings programmed for students and parents 
exceeded the target set at 140% and 560% respectively. Teacher trainings met 84.1% of the 
established target. The target set for parent trainings is considered to have been too low. Only 
12.6% of mothers could mention important recommendations that should be given to students to 
improve nutrition, a result that did not very much in relation to the baseline. According to 67% of 
mothers, the main factor affecting school malnutrition is inadequate food; this is higher than at 
baseline (47%). 
4 
Of teacher respondents, 66.4% report that there is always water for drinking at school and 65.2% 
that there is always water for washing hands, demonstrating limited access to water and therefore 
the ability to practice personal or environmental hygiene. Of the 294 schools targeted to improve 
access to water, 270 (98.1%) were able to do so. Despite this progress, only 2,490 boys and girls 
benefited from the rehabilitation of water sources, 23.9% of the cumulative target for 2016 (10,400). 
The goal for the construction/rehabilitation of latrines in schools is 209 by 2015, of which 66 (31.6%) 
were completed. The goal for 2016 is to benefit 16,000 students; to date the project has reached 
3,508 (21.9%). This was due to delays in the initial preparation for the project, including conducting 
the initial assessment, defining priority schools, and conducting a cost analysis. However, this initial 
stage of organization is completed and the work is expected to conclude in the remainder of the 
year. In 45.6% of schools visited, the latrine/toilet was properly labeled for boys and girls. 
Increased access to preventative health interventions (MGD 2.5). Of the 986 schools 
programmed, 27.1% have benefited from preventative health interventions, including 16,485 school 
children (27.3% of the target). 60.7% of school children have been treated for parasites with little 
variation compared to baseline, 91.6% of them were in Jinotega and 41.4% in the RACCS. 34% of 
school children have been treated for lice, more than twice the baseline; 67.4% are in Jinotega and 
13.2% in the RACCS. 
The main strengths identified in the overall performance of the project include the credibility of the 
implementing organizations; the commitment of all the parties involved; the level of ownership 
shown by MINED, parents and other local stakeholders involved in the project, all working to obtain 
the best results for program implementation to ensure that the child population has better 
development; the experience of institutional technical staff (administrative and programmatic); a 
good level of coordination and communication between all parties involved (MINED, PCI, 
CEDEHCA and others); the planning and control mechanism; field supervision; timely availability of 
the necessary logistics to do the work; and the project automated information system. 
The main limitations encountered include the ability of the project and PINE-MINED technical staff 
to support schools due to a high average of schools assigned to technical staff and difficult access, 
especially in the RACCS. Some inconsistency in the records of school enrollment at the central and 
regional PINE-MINED level has caused difficulties in the distribution of materials, food and other 
products; little development of partnerships with other institutions and/or sectors; updating the 
database in the PINE-MINED information system with enrollment information. Although there has 
been good coordination, there is no space or systematic and permanent mechanism to report 
project progress and provide feedback. Similarly, the lack of a focal point in the central MINED 
office to coordinate activities is another limitation. Based on these limitations and results, we 
recommend: 
For school lunches. Strengthen the alternatives that are being implemented for the diversification of 
food in school: working with a private company, developing community gardens and gathering food 
and fruits specifically for school lunches. To improve the quality and diversity of food, incorporate 
training topics related to healthy eating, the nutritional value of food and recipes. 
For creating gardens. Focus on schools according to the availability of land and whether agro￾ecology is viable; strengthen the participation of parents in implementation. 
Knowledge and capacity building. Prepare a schedule in agreement with MINED authorities for all 
pending trainings to different population groups (teachers, parents, MINED officials, students) and 
issues (education; FNS; personal and environmental hygiene; food storage, handling and 
preparation), focusing on practices where less knowledge has been detected. 
For improving key practices. Organize the necessary resources so that people can perform key 
practices. Review the budget and/or coordinate with other sectors (government, private sector). 
5 
For infrastructure. Prioritize activities that fall within the mini projects already approved, expediting 
the certification of materials and doing supervision to ensure that they are implemented on 
schedule; coordinate with partner institutions (Mayor’s office and MINED) to support supervising 
projects. 
For the evaluation system. Complement indicators that are measured with the MINED information 
system with the use of population surveys. Readjust underestimated targets (number of parents 
benefited). Conduct a training workshop with the staff of PINE-MINED to support the updating of 
school enrollment in the information system. Establish a formal space to meet between the 
departmental/regional deputies and project coordinators in each geographical area. Provide 
information to local stakeholders on the progress of the project. Assess mechanisms to expand 
coverage of schools via the technical team. Analyze results with the technical equipment based on 
the results by supervision area. 
6 
II. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 
The Nicaraguan government is implementing the Ministry of Education Integral School Nutrition 
Program (PINE-MINED). The main objective of the program is to “Guarantee the Human Right to 
Adequate Food for school children through school feeding” throughout the nation as regulated in 
Law N° 693 “Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security,” Article 30, paragraph "C."1 PINE
implements four key components:
 School meals restore the human right to food, stimulate school retention, lower dropout rates 
and contribute to the consumption of healthy and nutritious food. They consist of a daily food 
ration (of 145 grams of staple foods) for 150 days a year. 
 School gardens promote love of Mother Earth and influence changes in nutritional eating 
habits. They are a teaching and production tool that supplement school meals and promote 
short periods of cultivation as well as consumption of vegetables and fruits. 
 Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) Education provides education for healthier lifestyles and 
develops educational skills in FNS topics. Since 2009 it has been included in the basic 
national teaching curriculum as well as in teacher trainings (preschool, elementary, 
secondary and Normal Schools). 
 School kiosks promote access to adequate food, revive food culture and promote 
consumption of nutritious and healthy food in schools through the sale of nutritious and 
hygienic food. They promote food produced or processed locally that meet basic hygiene 
standards. 
PCI Nicaragua has been implementing Project Mejor Educación y Salud (MESA Project) since the 
end of 2013; the project duration is three years. In 2014 PCI Nicaragua initiated a partnership with 
CEDEHCA to implement the MESA Project in municipalities where it would have an impact on a 
local level. 
In order to establish baseline data for project indicators, we conducted a baseline study using the 
Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) methodology. After nearly two years of implementing 
action plans in the various project components, the mid-term evaluation focuses on measuring the 
level of progress according to indicators and targets as well as identifying priorities and providing 
key information for planning the following stages of the project. 
Results and objectives of the MESA Project 
The project includes both health and education interventions and aims to achieve the following 
results2
: (See Appendix 01. Results Framework – MESA Project.)
a) Improved literacy of school-aged children (MGD SO1) through improvement in the quality of 
literacy instruction (MGD 1.1), improved attentiveness (MGD 1.2) and improved student 
attendance (MGD 1.3). 
b) Increased use of health and dietary practices (MGD SO2) through training in health, 
hygiene, food preparation and nutrition knowledge (MGD 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3); greater access 
to potable drinking water (MGD 2.4) and sanitation and preventative health interventions 
(MGD 2.5). 
 
1Nicaragua. Ministry of Education. Integral School Nutrition Program Regulations - MINED
2MESA Project Results Framework and key work activities
7 
Objectives of the MESA Project
In order to obtain results, the project includes the following objectives: 
a) Improve the literacy of school-aged children through teacher trainings and providing textbooks 
and school materials; 
b) Improve student attentiveness by solving short-term hunger through providing school feeding, 
establishing school gardens and developing partnerships with local producer groups; 
c) Improve student attendance by implementing awareness-raising activities and community 
outreach to promote understanding of the benefits of education and increase school enrollment 
in general; 
d) Improve the physical learning environment in schools through the construction and 
rehabilitation of school infrastructure, including classrooms and kitchens; 
e) Improve access to preventative health interventions by increasing access to health services in 
schools and by distributing deworming medicines and vitamins; and 
f) Improve health and eating habits by increasing access to water and sanitation services through 
the construction and rehabilitation of wells, water stations/systems and latrines; increasing 
knowledge about health and hygiene practices, nutrition and safe preparation and storage of 
food; and providing the necessary tools and equipment for food preparation and storage. 
Coverage 
The project covers 409 public elementary schools located in four municipalities of Jinotega 
(Jinotega, La Concordia, San Sebastian de Yali and Santa María de Pantasma) and 607 schools in 
seven municipalities of the Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Sur (RACCS) (Bluefields, Kukra 
Hill, Laguna de Perlas, La Cruz de Río Grande, Desembocadura de Rio Grande, El Tortuguero and 
Corn Island) for a total of 1,016 schools in eleven municipalities. The project provides school 
feeding, training and other benefits to 95,420 students, parents, teachers and government officials 
and indirectly benefits another 304,712 family members. 
Activities 
The main activities planned and developed for the project include: 
Teacher trainings: workshops for teachers on participatory techniques, leadership development, 
personal development and teaching methodology (pedagogy); food security, using MINED 
materials about the importance of school feeding, school gardens, food security and the sale of 
healthy meals in school kiosks. This also includes printing and delivery of training manuals and 
guides developed by MINED. 
Distribution of school supplies and materials: supply and delivery of school materials (blackboard, 
chalk, flip charts, books, pencils, erasers, pencil sharpeners, pens, paper, notebooks, geometry 
sets, and sports equipment) as well as textbooks for teaching and stocking “mini” libraries. 
Rehabilitation of schools: rehabilitation of school infrastructure, including classrooms, kitchens and 
food storage areas. PCI provides construction materials and supplies as well as skilled labor in 
areas where required. The community provides the unskilled labor. A training component for 
parents, teachers and students on how to use and maintain the infrastructure is also included. 
Provision of school feeding: daily provision of food (150 class calendar days) to children in 
preschool and elementary schools. The PTAs organize food preparation according to the available 
resources. 
8 
Establishment of school gardens: promoting school gardens, encouraging parents to actively 
participate as mentors of this activity. Training is provided, as well as seeds and tools; it teaches 
children the entire cycle of production in the gardens, including soil preparation, plant protection 
from insects and diseases and harvesting and uses the garden as a laboratory for learning. 
Training for parent-teacher associations: It supports the organization of the PTA in schools that do 
not yet have them, providing technical assistance, monitoring and support. 
Training in food preparation and storage practices: PTA training on proper food storage and 
handling and hygienic food preparation, including issues of storage and handling of products, 
recipes for food preparation, good hygiene practices with emphasis on mandatory hand washing 
before cooking and eating, and proper care and handling of food and utensils at home and school. 
In accordance with the initial assessment, schools are given materials for food storage (barrels, 
skids, "trunks"). 
Rehabilitation of water systems: rehabilitation management of wells, water systems, hand washing 
stations and rainwater collection systems. Parents, teachers and students are trained on the proper 
use and maintenance of water systems, water conservation, the importance and benefits of hand 
washing, and the use of simple technology to build "tippy tap" hand washing stations. 
Rehabilitation of latrines: provide design, materials, construction supplies, and skilled labor when 
required. This component engages the PTA and community members who contribute unskilled 
labor. It also includes an educational component for parents, teachers and students on the use and 
maintenance of latrines. 
Distribution of deworming medication: in coordination with the Ministry of Health (MINSA) provide 
lice treatment, deworming and vitamin A. 
Training in good health and nutrition practices: training students, teachers and parents in the 
areas of health education, nutrition and hygiene, prevention of parasitic diseases, nutritional 
deficiencies, infectious diseases, and proper storage and food preparation. 
9 
III. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
The intermediate evaluation focuses on the following objectives: 
 
 Assess the relevance of the strategy and approach of the project as well as the validity of 
the hypotheses established during project design; 
 Measure progress from baseline, including effectiveness, efficiency, and reasons for delays 
in the implementation of interventions and/or achievement of obtained objectives; 
 Document lessons learned, challenges and unintended effects; 
 Identify facilitators and obstacles to progress (both internal and external factors) that have 
supported or limited project success; 
 Assess sustainability efforts to date; 
 Provide clear, realistic and achievable recommendations based on the results and 
conclusions as the project is being implemented to strengthen project performance, 
efficiency and sustainability; and 
 Provide recommendations for areas of focus for the final evaluation, including identifying 
data collection systems that need to be strengthened in preparation for the final evaluation. 
10
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Type of study 
The study uses a mixed method approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative methods to 
respond to the evaluation objectives as well as to the project monitoring and evaluation plan. 
Study Population
Based on the components and coverage of the project, the study universe consists of different 
population groups linked to schools in the departments of Jinotega and the RACCS. 
 Students: elementary school children from 4th to 6th grade,
 Elementary school teachers, 
 School parents, 
 Officials and/or staff of the Integral School Nutrition Program – MINED (PINE-MINED), 
 Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs), 
 Local government officials and local private organization officials, 
 PCI and CEDEHCA officials or technical staff, 
 USDA/FAS Nicaragua officials and USDA/FAS Washington officials 
The geographical coverage of the study includes both departments where the project is 
implemented: Jinotega and the RACCS. 
Sample and sampling 
a) Quantitative Approach 
Unit of analysis. For the surveys, the unit of analysis corresponded to the target population of the 
program: 
 Girl or boy elementary school student 
 Elementary school teacher 
 Mother with son or daughter studying in elementary school 
Sample. We used the LQAS (Lot Quality Assurance Sampling) methodology. Supervision areas 
(SA) were defined as the municipalities benefiting from the project and consisted of five (5) SA in 
the department of Jinotega (two in the municipality of Jinotega, two in Pantasma and one in Yalí 
and La Concordia) and eight (8) SA in the RACCS (two in La Cruz Rio Grande and Desembocadura 
Rio Grande, two in the Tortuguero, two in Bluefields and Corn Island, and two in Laguna de Perlas 
and Kukra Hill). 
In each SA, we completed a set of 19 surveys; each set consisted of the following target population 
groups: student, teacher and mother. The sample size for each unit of analysis corresponds to 247. 
 Sample size disaggregated by population group and geographical area 
Supervision Area Population Group
No. Municipality Students Teachers Mothers
Jinotega
1 Jinotega 1 19 19 19
2 Jinotega 2 19 19 19
3 Pantasma 1 19 19 19
4 Pantasma 2 19 19 19
11
5 Yalí y La Concordia 19 19 19
Subtotal 5 Supervision Areas 95 95 95
1 LCRG and Desembocadura de Río Grande 1 19 19 19
2 LCRG and Desembocadura de Río Grande 2 19 19 19
3 El Tortuguero 1 19 19 19
4 El Tortuguero 2 19 19 19
5 Bluefields and Corn Island 1 19 19 19
6 Bluefields and Corn Island 2 19 19 19
7 Laguna de Perlas 19 19 19
8 Kukra Hill 19 19 19
Subtotal 8 Supervision Areas 152 152 152
TOTAL 13 Supervision Areas 247 247 247
Sampling. The selection of each set was random and sampling was carried out in stages. The first 
stage was the selection of the schools, using the list of beneficiary schools by municipality. Schools 
were coded and selected using simple random sampling. 
The next stage of selection of respondents was also conducted at random. We used a list of 
students and teachers attending the selected school on the day we visited. Mothers were selected 
from homes nearest to the selected school. 
b) Qualitative Approach 
In-depth interviews with key people as well as group sessions were conducted with different target 
populations (beneficiaries of the project or those involved in project implementation) at various 
levels. Participation was as follows: 
Population Number
Ministry of Education (MINED) departmental and 
regional officials 2
PINE MINED staff or municipal or regional official
(group interview) 2
Teachers (group interview) 4
PCI official or technical staff 2
Local government officials 2
CEDEHCA official or technical staff 1
USDA/FAS Nicaragua officials 1
USDA/FAS Washington officials 1
We conducted 2 focus groups with parent members of PTAs and groups of cooperative producers 
in the department of Jinotega. 
We conducted a reflective workshop with PCI and CEDEHCA decision-making stakeholders aimed 
at identifying positive elements that have facilitated project progress, sharing limitations or obstacles 
for taking action and identifying lessons learned that can be useful in the remainder of the project to 
meet project targets. Administrative and financial staff, project managers and M & E specialists 
located in Jinotega and the RACCS participated. 
Data collection
We conducted document and system reviews provided by PCI on planning, reporting and the 
monitoring and evaluation system defined by the project as well as baseline and systematization 
studies. This information establishes the project commitments, initial results and progress reporting, 
allowing for comparison of results in the intermediate evaluation. 
12
Instruments. We used the same survey instruments used during the baseline, adapting them 
according to the indicators to be measured in the intermediate evaluation. 
Standardization of survey team. We conducted a training workshop with survey teams and 
supervisors where we trained them in: 
 Use of instruments for data collection 
 Interview techniques 
 Sampling techniques (selection of respondents) 
 Organizational and logistical aspects for fieldwork 
Field work. Data collection was completed during the established time period with just a week of 
delay due to weather conditions that limited access to schools and delay in local coordination for 
completing the last selected schools. Some selected schools were replaced either because they 
were closed, were only preschools or per the recommendation of the MINED, as they were in areas 
of high crime conflict (three schools located in the municipality of the Tortuguero and La Cruz de 
Río Grande). 
For process indicator data collection, we used the information system designed for the project 
SIMESA as well as that of the MINED. We reviewed the SIMESA system at the local and central 
levels, reviewing the data collection system (primary records) which is completed at the municipal, 
departmental and central levels. We checked the functionality of the various modules available as 
well as its levels of use and security in accordance with the responsibilities of the technical team. 
The indicators collected through the MINED information system were requested by PCI at the local 
level, but access to the information system was not granted. 
Data processing and analysis 
Quantitative: Data entry and processing of survey data was done in Epi Info. In general, we 
describe each result of the project by corresponding population group. We present tables that 
summarize the indicators by each result and compare the results at baseline to established targets. 
Indicators taken from the surveys are analyzed by supervision area and are presented in order of 
highest priority according to the decision rule. 
Qualitative. Transcripts of the interviews and focus groups were written in Word and the text 
coded. For data processing we used matrices, organizing the data by group participant and analysis 
axes/categories addressed by the project. We identify situations that explain the achievements 
accomplished, constraints that have influenced the results, as well as practices and lessons learned 
that can influence achieving the goals. 
13
V. RESULTS 
All the actors involved in implementing the project consider it very relevant. The project provides 
direct support to one of the priority programs of the government that is implemented through a 
specially organized structure (PINE-MINED) to lead it nationwide. The project is framed by at least 
two policies established by the Human Development Plan for the education sector3
. These include 
(ii) Better Education which mainly means transforming the educational curriculum and training 
teachers and (iv) Participatory and Decentralized Educational Management which fosters the
participation of Citizen Power (fathers and mothers, educators and students, civil society 
organizations, municipal governments, media and international aid agencies) in the formulation and 
management of educational policies. In addition, the results framework of the project is focused 
directly on the axes or components that PINE-MINED uses.
"...it is a well-focused project…it fully engages with the objectives of MINED" 
-Departmental official, MINED-Jinotega
The results are presented according to the results framework and the defined indicators and are 
organized by two main areas of the project intervention: education/nutrition and health and hygiene. 
We compared these results with the overall results obtained at baseline. Some indicators/variables 
are broken down by geographical department (Jinotega and the RACCS). For other indicators, we 
present the areas (municipalities) by highest priority in accordance with LQAS methodology. 
4.1 Improved literacy of school-aged children (MGD SO1) 
The number of people reached by the project is 89,749, representing 94% of the established target. 
The literacy capacity of 6th graders was measured by the MINED through the established 
institutional protocol and the data supplied to PCI. At baseline the project estimated that 82% of 
girls and 80% of boys had an adequate reading comprehension; these percentages had increased 
to 97% in girls and 95% in boys, exceeding the target established for school-aged children of both 
sexes (Table 01). 
Table 01. School children with adequate reading comprehesion, according to MINED estimates. 
Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. August 2015 
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of direct beneficiaries who benefit as a result of 
USDA assistance*
95,420 89,749 94.1
Indicator disaggregated by sex of student Baseline
(2013) Target Evaluation
(2014)
Percentage of girls and boys that at the end of sixth grade 
exhibited reading comprehension equivalent to their grade 
level according to national standards**
Girls 82.0 85.0 97.0
Boys 80.0 83.0 95.0
*Source: MESA Project Information System 
**Source: PINE-MINED Information System 
4.1.1 Improved quality of literacy instruction (MGD 1.1) 
To improve the quality of learning of school-aged students, the project included actions aimed at 
increasing school supplies and materials and building the capacity of teachers. The progress of 
each of these goals is described below. 
 
3 Nicaragua. Human Development Plan, 2012-2016.
14
Better access to school supplies and materials (MGD 1.1.2) 
At the end of 2016 the target is to have supported 1,016 schools by providing school supplies and 
materials. To date it the project has reached 530 schools, representing 52.2% of the target. These 
materials have directly benefited 40,428 school children, corresponding to 89.3% of the target 
established for 2015. The project has also benefited 464 teachers, accounting for 38% of the target 
for 2015 (Table 02). 
The availability of school supplies and materials is essential so that both teachers and students to 
develop a good learning process. Both MINED delegations agreed there was limited availability of 
basic materials for teachers, specific supplementary materials for promoting literacy, and support 
materials for implementing classes. There was a consensus for the need for materials, including 
school bags, mini libraries, and elementary language arts books. Although PCI has these materials, 
it has not been able to deliver them to schools due to delays in approval by the national PINE￾MINED authorities. 
Different stakeholders expressed the importance of enabling factors in schools. Mothers report that 
the conditions of school desks have improved and that their children go to school in better 
conditions for having received whiteboards, markers and elementary school books. The MINED 
Municipal Deputy in the Tortuguero said in this regard, "An enabling factor is the strengthening of 
human resources and the aid of appropriate materials for schools." 
One factor that affected the delivery time of the materials was the delivery process itself. Materials 
went through a consensus process with the national authorities of PINE-MINED as well as at the 
local level. In particular, the process for incorporating logos took more time than expected. 
Furthermore, the distribution to some schools has been more complex than expected, mainly due to 
access and weather conditions that hindered the mobilization of support materials for schools from 
delivery points to less accessible schools. An example of this are the schools located in 
development centers which did not receive authorization until June 2015 due to inaccessibility via 
the Chiquito river for reasons of drought. Therefore, the materials were stored in storage areas in
Puerto Principe, the RACCS. 
"... In general, the delivery of school bags and mini libraries to schools has not progressed 
in the time required because of approval by the MINED and the arrangement of the logos 
to be printed." -M & E Specialist, Jinotega
"It has come to areas where other organizations have never managed to come...which 
has created a lot of trust in the educational community towards a serious organization and 
a project with a high degree of responsibility. The stipulated times must be adjusted to the 
dynamics of transportation in the area given the difficulty of transporting materials from 
one place to another. This has repercussions by delaying staff and the materials available 
in the intervention areas.” –Health specialist, PCI - MESA Project, the RACCS 
Table 02. Delivery of school supplies and materials, students and teachers benefited. Baseline and intermediate 
evaluation comparison. August 2015
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Perecentage
Number of schools receiving supplies and materials as a result of USDA 
assistance 1016 530 52.2 
Number of students who benefit from the delivery of school supplies and materials 45,292 40,428 89.3
Number of teachers who benefit from the delivery of school supplies and materials 1,220 464 38.0
Source: MESA Project Information System 
15
Increased knowledge and skills of teachers (MGD 1.1.4) 
56.5% (139) of teachers interviewed are graduates of the normal school, 31.3% (79) have finished 
secondary school and 11.8% (29) have not completed their secondary education. Just over half 
have teacher training and a percentage (43%) have no basic training at the secondary level, 
demonstrating a deficiency in the academic preparation of current teachers. 
However, of the total number of teachers 34% (84) are currently studying, 25% (21) of which are 
studying teaching; 32% (27) are studying to finish high school, 39% (33) are studying for a 
bachelor’s degree, and 4% (3) are in graduate studies. These data show a great interest to be 
better prepared academically and to provide the best service to students. 
It was projected for 2015 to train 330 teachers; 55.8% (184) of that goal was reached (Table 04). 
The teachers surveyed expressed that they had received training, the propose of which was to 
update teaching methodologies, through the support of PCI/CEDHECA between the second half of 
2014 and the first half of 2015. 
Data show that the training plan established by the MINED and MESA Project has been 
implemented. This is corroborated by the departmental and regional authorities of the MINED who 
expressed favorable views regarding the development of teacher skills, particularly of those 
teachers in the lower elementary grades (1st to 3rd grade). 
On the contrary, teacher 
respondents were asked 
about actions that could be 
taken to improve the quality 
of teaching. The two actions 
most mentioned were 
adjusting school curricula to 
the characteristics of 
children (72.9%) and the 
use of new teaching 
methods (51%). These were 
followed by providing more 
training to teachers (38.1%) 
and increasing the number
and diversity of educational 
materials (24.3%), the latter 
two having been addressed 
by the project. Another action mentioned was to develop awareness processes to gain more 
support from parents (16.6%) (Figure 01). 
At baseline the main actions mentioned were in relation to teacher training and increasing the 
number of educational materials. The current decline is probably due to the fact that they are 
already taking action on both issues, but still deserve attention for the project to continue in its 
development. 
Other recommendations by teachers referred to a lesser extent are related to the number of 
students who attend each class, which in some schools is more than the teacher can handle. 
Therefore, it is important to consider and evaluate the possibility of increasing the number of 
teachers per school and reducing the number of students per teacher. 
One aspect that teachers say has helped in their learning and training is the support received 
through comprehensive visits by NER (Rural Education Centers) directors and PCI-CEDEHCA 
technicians which allowed for better service and direct support for teaching methodologies. 
72.9 
51.0 
38.1 
24.3 
16.6 12.9 
Adjusting school
curricula to the
characteristics
of children
Use new
teaching
methods
Training
teachers
Increase
educational
materials
Raise parent
awareness and
support
Others
Figure 01. Actions to improve teaching quality in 
teacher opinion. August 2015
Source: Household survey to 
beneficiaries
16
Conversely, a factor identified as a limitation, especially in areas of the municipalities of El 
Tortuguero, La Cruz de Río Grande, Kukra Hill and Bluefields, is the lack of salary payments that 
some teachers experience, given that they are not included on the MINED payroll. Their pay 
depends on the financial support of the local government or of parents and is not always paid on 
time. 
"...there are teachers discouraged because they are working without pay. The mayor just 
withdrew the support of 30 teachers and the parents cannot give them support required" 
-PINE-MINED Representative, Tortuguero Municipality, the RACCS 
Table 03. Teacher knowledge and skills. Progress made compared to the target. Intermediate evaluation. August
2015.
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of teachers trained in participatory techniques, leadership 
development, personal development and educational methodologies 330 184 55.8
Source: MESA Project Information System 
4.1.2 Improved school children attentiveness (MGD 1.2) 
According to the teachers interviewed, 85.8% (212) they said they have children in their classroom 
who do not pay attention in class. In the BL, this number was higher at 92.7% (229). By department, 
Jinotega was 85.3% (81) and the RACCS 86.2% (139); in the BL, Jinotega was higher than the 
RACCS with 93.6% (89) compared to 92.1% (140). 
The total number of school children located in the classrooms of the teachers interviewed is 7,077 
with an average of 28.7 students per teacher (26.3 students in Jinotega schools and 30.1 in the 
RACCS schools). In the teachers’ opinions, 10.9% (773) of school children are distracted, are not 
fully concentrated and do not pay full attention during class. This number is 11% in Jinotega and 
10.9% in the RACCS (Table 04).
Table 04. Students who do not pay attention in class, according to teacher assessments. Comparison of baseline 
and intermediate evaluation results. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Target Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of students according to teachers who do not pay attention in 
class. MGD 1.2 15.0 10.0 10.9
Jinotega 16 11.0
RACCS 14 10.9
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
According to teacher respondents, the 
main reasons why students do not pay 
attention in class are because class does 
not draw their attention (49.4%), due to 
lack of food (33.2%), illness (25.9%), 
because they have some problem at 
home (10.1%), and because parents do 
not support them, including abusing them 
(6.1%) (Figure 02). 
The perception of teachers is that 
students are more alert in the classroom, 
follow instructions and participate in 
17
assignments; however, there is a percentage of students who do not pay the required attention to 
learning. Some teachers expressed that such behavior is due to the fact that some children are 
eager for school meals or have family problems. On the other hand, mothers have been expressed 
changes in their children’s attitudes towards attending classes, including that their children are more 
motivated. Furthermore, the rate of students staying in school is evident. 
Las acciones que maestros/as mencionan que han tomado para el abordaje y mejorar la atención 
de niños/as, son: Reforzamiento con otros métodos de enseñanza (71.5%), investigar cuáles son 
las dificultades que tienen los escolares (50.9%), cambiar a otros temas en los cuales los escolares 
pueden tener mayor interés (41.4%), realizar un abordaje con padres/madres de familia (9.5%). Por 
otro lado, un 25.7% mencionó que insistía en el método de enseñanza usual. Existe alguna 
diferencia de estos resultados en comparación con la línea de base, cuando se encontró que las 
tres principales acciones eran: Abordaje con padre/madre (43%), el refuerzo con otro método 
educativo (36%) y la consejería/asistencia individual (24%). 
The actions that teachers mentioned they have taken to address and improve child attentiveness 
include reinforcing teaching with other teaching methods (71.5%), researching the difficulties faced 
by students (50.9%), changing topics to those that may better interest school children (41.4%), and 
approaching parents (9.5%). On the other hand, 25.7% mentioned insisting on the usual method of 
teaching. There is some difference in these results compared to the baseline. In the baseline, the 
three main actions were approaching the parent (43%), reinforcing with another educational method 
(36%) and counseling/individual attention (24%). 
Reduced short-term hunger (MGD 1.2.1) 
Of the school children interviewed, 3% said they are hungry or very hungry during the school day, 
which is half compared to the result for the baseline. In Jinotega we found this to be the case in 
1.1% of children and in the RACCS 4.2% (Table 05). 
Table 05. Hungry or very hungry school childnren. Comparison of baseline and intermediate evaluation results. 
August 2015
Indicator Baseline Target Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of students that indicated being “hungry” or “very hungry” 
during the school day. MGD 1.2.1 6.0 3.0 3.0
Jinotega 1.1
RACCS 4.2
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
The decline in students who 
are hungry or very hungry is 
probably directly related to 
the increased delivery of 
school meals. In this regard, 
96% of both students and 
teachers and 97.2% of 
mothers mentioned that they 
are currently receiving school 
meals. These percentages 
are higher than those 
obtained in the baseline 
(Figure 03). 
In relation to the number of days they receive school meals, 92.8% of school children and 92.5% of 
mothers report that students receive school meals 4-5 days per week, a slight increase over the 
results of the baseline which were 87% and 91%, respectively. By department, Jinotega had higher 
18
percentages with 98.9% of schoolchildren and 95.8% of mothers reporting receiving school meals 
4-5 days a week compared to 88.7% and 90.3% in the RACCS, respectively (Table 06). 
School meals are considered important for parents because it resolves some of their economic 
problems by ensuring their children have one meal at school. 
"...it has managed to involve parents and improve the complementary meal. The 
enrollment of girls and boys increased from 2014 to the current year. More girls paying 
attention in class. Improved health and school nutrition.” -Municipal Deputy, Kukra Hill, 
the RACCS
Table 06. Number of days that students receive school meals in school, according to students and mothers. 
Comparison of baseline and intermediate evaluation results. August 2015
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Improved access to food/school meals (1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1) 
97.2% of students say they eat at home before going to school, a slight increase compared to the 
baseline (94%). No significant difference between the two geographic areas was found (Table 08). 
There was little variation regarding the number of times student eat in a 24-hour period compared to 
the baseline. The nutrition standard states that a person should eat 5 times throughout the day, 
including the three main courses (breakfast, lunch and dinner) and two meals (morning and 
afternoon). According to students, 94.3% eat 3 or more times daily, which had little variation 
compared to the baseline (93%) and between the two departments. Mothers were also consulted 
and 84.2% said they provide between 4-5 meals a day, similar to that found in the baseline (84%). 
In the RACCS 77% of mothers reported providing between 4-5 meals a day compared to 95.8% in 
Jinotega (Table 07). 
Despite an improvement in these indicators, there is still a percentage of students who do not have 
access to food the number of times required for good nutrition. 
In relation to the delivery of basic food commodities, it is recorded that a total of 1,620 tons have 
been received by PINE-MINED authorities, which in turn have been delivered to distribution centers 
in each municipality within the project coverage area and lastly to each benefited school. Thus, the 
project achieved 64.4% (2,517 tons) of the cumulative target for the first two years of the project 
(2014 and 2015). Since food donated by USDA through the project was delayed, the PINE-MINED 
contributed to 16% of the established target. Combined with the two deliveries pending this year, 
the project will be able to meet 84% the overall goal. 
Table 07. Students that receive adequate food during the day (3 or more times), according to students and 
mothers. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparision. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Indicator/variable Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of students that receive a school meal 4-5 times per week MGD 
1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1 87 92.8
Jinotega 98.9
RACCS 88.7
Percentage of mothers that report that their child receives a school meal
4-5 times a week 91 92.5
Jinotega 95.8
RACCS 90.3
19
Percentage of students that say they eat at home before going to school 94.0 97.2
Jinotega 98.9
RACCS 96.1
Percentage of students that eat 3 or more times a day 93.0 94.3
Jinotega 97.9
RACCS 92.1
Percentage of mothers that feed their school children 3 or more times a day 84.0 84.2
Jinotega 95.8
RACCS 77.0
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
The number of children who have received school meals since the project began are 98.2% and 
99.8% of the target, for boys and girls, respectively (Table 08). 
With regard to the benefit of school lunches, teachers expressed they are very relevant, because 
the meals support parents who have difficulty feeding their children. They see evidence of the 
additional nutritional supply in children. "...they are now more energetic and play and participate in 
classes with greater enthusiasm." "The retention rate is higher in relation to the 2013-2014 
academic year. There is better academic performance and they take more advantage of their 
classes. When there is no food, they arrive every other day."
The whole process needed to ensure the delivery of school meals has generated better integration 
of the entire school population (teachers, mothers, fathers and students). There is a great 
motivation around activities involving the school meals which contributes directly to the 
sustainability of this strategy. 
"A child with a full stomach learns more, the words stick better." Group meeting with 
teachers, Daniel Guido School, Bluefields, the RACCS 
 
"Children now pay better attention…and they don’t leave the classroom," Group meeting 
with teachers, Bethel School, Kukra Hill, the RACCS 
"School children attendance has improved from 80% to 90%. Children are in a better 
mood to play, attend classes; it has improved school performance." Representative of the 
PINE-MINED, El Tortuguero Municipality, the RACCS 
With regards to support for the creation of school gardens, the project has established 77.5% of the 
200 that were promised. However, the number of students who have benefited from the gardens, 
only total 4,535 which corresponds to 44.5% of the target. In addition, the garden have only 
benefited 15.9% of fathers/mothers (Table 08). 
20
23.8
1.5
25.7
34.0
13.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Lack of land Little teacher
interest
Little parent interest Lack of
agroecological
conditions
Lack of
materials/technical
assistence
%
Figure 04. Barriers to preparing school gardens. Intermediate 
evaluation. August 2015
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries
Table 08. Process indicators associated with the preparation and delivery of school meals, according to the 
target. August 2015 
Indicator
Accumulated 
target (2014-
15)
Attained to date
Number Percentage
Total amount of food (tons) delivered for school meals as a result of 
USDA assistance 2,517 1,620 64.4
Number of school boys that receive school meals as a result of USDA 
assistance 38,640 37,961 98.2
Number of school girls that receive school meals as a result of USDA 
assistance 36,784 36,722 99.8
Number of school gardens established or created 200 155 77.5
Number of students that benefit from the creation, establishment, etc. of 
school gardens 10,200 4,535 44.5
Number of fathers/mothers that benefit from the creation, establishment, 
etc. of school gardens 6,480 1,033 15.9
Source: MESA Project Information System 
In the 247 schools visited to verify the existence of school gardens, only 24.9% were established, 
31.6% of those were in Jinotega and 20.7% in the RACCS (Table 09). According to teacher 
respondents regarding limitations that arose in the promotion, creation and development of school 
gardens, what stands out 
most in both 
geographical areas at 
mid-term is little or no 
agro-ecological 
conditions for growing 
gardens (34%), the 
unavailability of land for 
the garden (23.8%), lack 
of support of parents 
(25.7%), and lack of 
required materials, 
supplies and technical 
assistance (13.2%) 
(Figure 04). Overall, a 
third of schools have no 
conditions or materials to 
develop school gardens.
This component of the project is being initiated through mini projects (school gardens) in a specific 
group of schools defined by the municipal authorities of the MINED. The project has provided 
trainings to teachers and parents, but has not yet been launched in all schools mainly due to 
weather conditions that have affected much of the country, limited availability of tools for land 
preparation and seeds, and in the case of the RACCS, underestimation of the amount of funding 
needed to purchase supplies and tools locally. The schools selected for the development of 
gardens were chosen jointly by PCI/CEDEHCA and the MINED. To date they have provided tools 
and seeds to 100% of the target (200), including 60 schools that were scheduled for the RACCS, 
despite the high cost in this area. 
"The training in FSN touches on the importance of nutrition in the region. It has a guide for 
food, school gardens and nutrients. Teachers are trained in FSN and school gardens." 
Group meeting with teachers, Daniel Guido Development Center, Bluefields, the 
RACCS
21
"School gardens provide a way to implement the food security plan. They should be 
promoted to develop the economic part. The school population must become integrated 
and take up the cultural values of the region again, and school gardens are aimed at 
producing for the sustainability of the ME in schools" MINED Regional Deputy, the
RACCS
School gardens have the potential to be supply sources of ingredients that complement the 
preparation of school meals, but to date do not have the level of development needed to achieve 
this goal. On the other hand, the primary objective of school gardens is first pedagogical and 
secondly seeks to support school lunches. The development of both of these activities is limited and 
is also linked to the poor involvement of parents who have played a secondary role. 
Despite these situations, we see motivation on behalf of the teachers who have even requested to 
be included and provide the means (tools and seeds) to start planting during the final rains of the 
season. 
"They are renovating the school grounds and to deliver seeds and are making 
arrangements with INTA, MAGFOR for technical support, monitoring and seed for the 
school gardens while respecting the culture of the region." CEDHECA Representative, 
Bluefields, the RACCS 
Table 09. Establishment of school gardens. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. Agosto 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of schools with established gardens 38 24.9
Jinotega 31.6
RACCS 20.7
Percentage of schools that do not have land for a school garden 26.0 23.8
Percentage of schools that do not have agro-ecological conditions for a school garden 21.0 34.0
Percentage of schools with little or no tools for school gardens 73.0 13.2
Source: Target group survey 
Perception of quantity and quality of school meals 
There is a high degree of appreciation for school meals by all stakeholders involved in the 
education of schoolchildren. Parents, teachers, MINED officials, students and local authorities, 
among others, expressed their full support for activities to ensure that school meals are delivered to
schools. 
To measure student access to food, we assessed perceptions of both students and mothers in 
relation to the quantity and quality of food offered in schools. 87.3% of students reported that the 
amount of food they receive is sufficient or greater, representing more than ten percentage points 
higher than that obtained in the baseline. In Jinotega we found 89.5% and in the RACCS 85.9%. 
For mothers this percentage is lower at 71.3% for the whole project and 79.2% in the department of 
Jinotega and 66% in the RACCS (Table 10). 
Contrastingly, in group sessions with mothers and teachers both groups argued that the ration 
established in the meal is fine, but should be reviewed because the ration for preschool, 1st and 
2nd grade children should not be the same for students in 5th and 6th grades, since the latter are 
bigger and require a greater quantity of food. 
"...The teacher sent me 3 pounds of food to cook. It is not enough for them, but I adjust to 
what they have given me (3 pounds of rice). So you do not fill the child’s belly...there is not 
enough for all of them to eat so sometimes I complement it with tortillas, bread, coconut. I 
22
break them into pieces for everyone and if they ask for more I give it to them if there is 
anything left over. The fact is that you prepare food to be eaten, not to return it home." 
Mother at the Padre Hugo School, Kukra Hill, the RACCS 
As for the quality of food they receive at school, 97% of students said that they are delicious, 
meaning they rate the food with a high degree of acceptance; this is higher than the 90% found in 
the baseline. By department there was greater variation; 98.9% was found in Jinotega and 95.8% in 
the RACCS. These figures were complemented when we asked schoolchildren about the quality of 
the food they receive at school and 91.1% said it was very good or good, well above the 76% who 
responded this way at baseline. In Jinotega 95.8% had this perception and in the RACCS 88% 
(Table 10). 
With regards to the quality of food, respondents expressed situations that in some way affected
students, including that sometimes the meal arrived too late. There are children that do not eat at 
home, travel long distances to go to school and are waiting for the food and not paying attention. In 
most schools the meal is prepared outside the school, usually by mothers in their own homes and 
carried over long distances which affect the timing and quality of the food. 
"Many times the distance from where food is prepared means that the food arrives cold to 
school. The economic factor prohibits some parents from supplementing the school 
meals. A larger enrollment of students than anticipated reduced the number of school 
meal days.” PINE-MINED Representative, Tortuguero Municipality, the RACCS
Table 10. Perception of students and mothers regarding the quantity and quality of school meals. Baseline and 
intermediate evaluation comparison. Agosto 2015 
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of students who say the amount of food they receive is sufficient/more 
than enough 74 87.3
Jinotega 89.5
RACCS 85.9
Percentage of mothers who say that the meal their child receives is sufficient 44 71.3
Jinotega 79.2
RACCS 66.0
Percentage of students who say the food they receive at school is delicious 90 97.0
Jinotega 98.9
RACCS 95.8
Percentage of students who say that the quality of food they receive at school 
is good/very good 76 91.1
Jinotega 95.8
RACCS 88.0
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
23
Knowledge of content and benefits of school meals and delivery of meal by parents 
The school meal is based on five 
products that are delivered through the 
project. Mothers were asked to state the 
foods that schools receive for preparing 
school meals. In relation to the baseline, 
the level of knowledge increased for all 
items; the most recognized products were 
oil, rice, cereal and beans which were 
mentioned by more than 94% of mothers. 
Corn was mentioned least at 42.5%. 
There was a decrease in the percentage 
of mentions of wheat flour likely due to 
the fact that in the Pacific this product is 
not delivered (Figure 05). 
In relation to knowledge about the 
benefits of school feeding, 99.2% of 
school children recognize that school 
feeding has benefits for children. The 
benefits most often mentioned include 
allowing students to be more attentive in 
class (57.6%), improving health (49%), 
reinforcing child development (46.3%), 
improving the level of learning (39.6%), 
and enabling children to play with more 
energy (32.2%) (Figure 06). 
The main focus of MESA Project is 
undoubtedly la preparation and delivery of school meals, for which the delivery of five basic 
products is crucial. However, to improve nutrition it is important that there is food available to 
complement the meal. Therefore, the project encourages parents to work with other types of foods 
to complement the meal. 87.9% of mothers interviewed believe that parents effectively complement 
with other foods, more than the 81% 
obtained in the baseline; 98.9% of 
mothers in Jinotega and 87.9% in the 
RACCS reported this belief. 
Of all the foods that parents provide to 
complement school meals, those with 
the highest percentage include milk 
and dairy products (79.6%), 
condiments and spices (69.9%), 
vegetables and leafy green vegetables 
(54.6%), meat and chicken (38%), 
bread, tortilla and noodles (19.9%) and 
sugar (15.7%) (Figure 07). 
The departmental, regional and municipal authorities of the MINED recognize that the 
accompaniment of teachers is a facilitator for supporting parents in workshops on trainings topics 
about the benefits and nutritional requirements that school meals provide as well as good hygiene 
practices during food preparation. Mothers also reported feeling the need to receive more training 
on key practices and behaviors that families should incorporate to ensure proper growth, 
development and quality of life for children. 
24
4.1.3 Improved student attendance (MGD 1.3) 
The project includes actions to improve and/or maintain high school retention rates, of which the 
distribution of school meals is a main focus. As mentioned previously, however, there are other 
actions that contribute to school attendance, including improving infrastructure conditions and 
raising awareness among the educational community, especially parents so that there is a 
permanent incentive for children to attend school. 
According to information provided by the MINED, 95% of girls have attended 80% of the time 
compared to 88% for boys (Table 11). 
MINED authorities, teachers and mothers who were interviewed all expressed school attendance 
has improved due to greater student participation in school in relation to the 2014 school year. 
"Last year school retention was one hundred percent and right now this year it has 
remained at one hundred percent. There is an increase in enrollment and it remains at 
one hundred percent. Last year enrollment was 82,000 and right now it is 87,000; 
enrollment has increased and attendance remains at one hundred percent." Group 
meeting with PINE-MINED technical team, Jinotega 
Reduced health-related absences (MGD 1.3.2) 
Among student interviewees, 78.9% responded positively when asked if they had missed at least 
one day at school, a result above the 60% reported in the baseline. 75.8% of students have missed 
class in Jinotega and 80.9% the RACCS (Table 11). 
The main reason mentioned for being absent from school was sickness at 71.3%, higher than the 
41% obtained in the baseline. In Jinotega this was the reason for the 87.5% of schoolchildren and 
for 61.8% in the RACCS. Other reasons mentioned included helping at home (unpaid work) at 
31.3% (a reduction from the 41% found in the baseline) and work outside the home (paid work) at 
13.3% (lower compared to 17% at baseline). 
MINED staff, PINE-MINED, local authorities, teachers and mothers report that students currently 
have a high school attendance rate. They believe that one of the main motivations for attending 
school is the daily school meal. Therefore, they believe the program has a high acceptance rate 
since it is very positive and important for the educational community.
Table 11. School attendance. Baseline and intermediate evaluation goal comparison. August 2015
Indicator Target Attained to 
date
Percentage of children that regularly attend (80%) class/schools supported 
by USDA, disaggregated by sex. MGD 1.3*
Girls 80.0 95.0
Boys 80.0 88.0
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of school children that report missing class at least one day** 60.0 78.9
Jinotega 75.8
RACCS 80.9
Percentage of students that say that illness is the main reason why they are absent 
from class. MGD 1.3.2** 41.0 71.3
Jinotega 87.5
RACCS 61.8
*Source: PINE-MINED Information System 
**Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
25
"...currently there are more children attending school." Group sessions with teachers, 
Daniel Guido Development Center, Bluefields, the RACCS 
"It contributes to child retention. The 2014 – 2015 retention rate is one hundred percent." 
PINE-MINED Representative, Tortuguero Municipality, the RACCS 
Improved school infrastructure (MGD 1.3.3) 
One of the focuses of the project has been improving the infrastructure of schools, supporting the 
provision of an adequate and comprehensive teaching environment, thereby encouraging the 
participation and retention of students in schools. Advances have been made to date in 
rehabilitation/construction, according to the type of infrastructure and the established goal. These 
include 56 of 201 classrooms planned for 2015, which equals 27.9%; 50 of 211 planned school 
kitchens, equivalent to23.7%; and 282 storage areas for storing food for school lunches of the 394 
planned for 2015, representing 71.6% of the target (Table 12). 
This rehabilitated/constructed infrastructure directly benefits the students. Of the established goal, 
13.3% (2,099) of students benefited from the rehabilitation of classrooms; 12.1% (3,823) benefited 
from the built kitchens; and 49.2% (15,511) benefited from the food storage areas (Table 12). 
Table 12. Progress in the rehabilitation/construction of school infrastructure according to targets. August 2015
Indicator Target
Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of planned classrooms (constructed/renovated) 201 56 27.9
Number of kitchens planned (constructed/renovated) 211 50 23.7
Number of storage areas planned (constructed/renovated) 394 282 71.6
Number of students that benefited from a classroom 
(constructed/renovated) as a results of USDA assistance 15,760 2,099 13.3 
Number of students that benefited from kitchens (constructed/renovated) as 
a result of USDA assistance 31,520 3,823 12.1 
Number of students that benefited from storage areas
(constructed/renovated) as a result of USDA assistance 31,520 15,511 49.2 
Source: MESA Project Information System 
Factors affecting infrastructure construction and/or rehabilitation include the implementation process 
itself, beginning with the initial assessment to identify the requirements and costs for 
implementation, which took much more time than expected; and joint decisions with the MINED 
authorities on which schools would be benefited and the work to be rehabilitated/constructed. Once 
consensus was reached, the administrative process for the procurement of works and 
implementation was another limiting factor. In addition, the engagement of the community and 
parents through their contribution of labor has also been a slow process. 
However, a positive experience has been seeing steps taken for infrastructure development, which 
occurred in the municipality of Pantasma, Jinotega, where they were able to engage and obtain full 
support from the local government who directly supported the project with technical assistance and 
materials to build latrines. This effort was made possible by the stakeholders involved in the project, 
including the MINED, senior officials from the municipal government, and the town council, all being 
united with the purpose of improving access to health services for the school population. 
26
Increased community understanding of the benefits of education (MGD 1.3.5) 
64% of mothers have received lectures or information on the importance of education for children 
(88.4% in Jinotega and 48.7% in the RACCS). The main institution that has provided lectures or 
information is the MINED with 77.1%, followed by PCI-CEDEHCA with 52.2%. The means by which 
mothers have received lectures or information is at school (91.7%), via radio (26.1%), through the 
Parent-Teacher Association (14.6%), in conversation with other parents (9.6%) and via community 
fairs (7%). 
One hundred percent of mothers expressed that education is important and that it provides a 
benefit to their children. When asked to mention the benefits they believe education offers, 27.5% 
mentioned at least three benefits (by geographic area, 51.6% in Jinotega and 12.5% in the RACCS) 
(Table 13). 
In order of frequency, the benefits mentioned most often were learning to read, write, analyze 
(92.4%); to help them prepare for life (69%), to be able to cope or deal with life; to learn to live with 
others (53.2%), to help personal relationships; and to help them understand the world (32.3%). 
Table 13. Perception and knowledge about the benefits of elementary education. Baseline and intermediate 
evaluation comparison. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Mothers that have received lectures about the benefits of education for children 45.0 64.0
Jinotega 88.4
RACCS 48.7
Mothers that believe that education brings benefits to their children 100 100
Percentage of parents that can name at least three benefits of elementary 
education MGD 1.3.5 11.0 27.5
Jinotega 51.6
RACCS 12.5
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
"School children attendance has improved from 80% to 90%. Children are in a better mood 
to play, attend classes; it has improved school performance. They receive education about 
healthy food. The teacher promotes good eating habits and helps them become adults. 
Children now receive another “fresco” [fruit drink] in addition to cereal. School feeding will 
improve with the resources that we have. Children with better nutrition get better and don’t 
get sick again." Representative of the PINE-MINED, El Tortuguero Municipality, the 
RACCS
27
4.2 Increased use of health and dietary practices (SO2) 
Five areas of work developed by the project are assessed under this outcome, including knowledge 
and practices in hygiene and sanitation; knowledge and practices in preparation and storage of 
food; knowledge in aspects of nutrition; access to safe water and sanitation; and access to 
preventive health interventions. 
4.2.1 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices (MGD 2.1) 
The assessment was conducted for issues of health and hygiene including hand washing and use 
and maintenance of health services. 
Knowledge and practice of hand washing 
Hand washing is a practice that contributes significantly to the prevention and reduction of many 
diseases, including respiratory and gastrointestinal. This is an effective method for breaking the 
cycle of infection (anus, hand, mouth) of many germs or parasites by using clean water, soap or a 
disinfectant. The five critical moments that are recommended for hand washing for one’s personal 
health and that of children at home are before eating, after using the latrine, before giving food to 
children, before preparing food and after changing the baby's diaper. 
Mothers were asked to mention the critical moments for hand washing. 76.9% reported at least 
three of these five times, higher than the 49% found in the baseline. By geographical area, in 
Jinotega 89.5% of mothers mentioned at least 3 of the five times compared to 69.1% in the RACCS 
(Table 14). 
The critical moments most 
often identified were after 
using the latrine (89.9%), 
before eating (89.5%), 
before cooking (70.9%) 
and before serving food 
(50.6%) (Figure 08). 
Hand washing requires 
schools to have basic 
supplies such as hand 
washing stations, water 
and soap. Of all the 
schools visited, 111 (45%) 
had at least one station used for washing hands, of which 35.1% (39) had soap and water; by 
geographical area, functioning stations with soap and water were 13.6% in Jinotega and 59.6% in 
the RACCS (Table 14). While the overall percentage increased twice that observed in the baseline, 
it is still low compared to the established target (80%). 
Teachers and students were asked about the school children practices of washing their hands 
before eating food. 96.4% of students say they practice this habit. However, according to teachers, 
only 80.2% do so. 
There is a good assessment of the importance of educational activities among the educational 
community. Teachers and mothers agreed that hand washing is a practice that contributes 
significantly to the prevention and reduction of many diseases, particularly gastrointestinal illnesses. 
However, they recognize that more education is needed on this issue for both children and their 
parents. 
28
While students are at school, teachers reinforce the practice of hand washing, especially before 
distributing meals. However, we observed in the schools that we visited a lack of supplies 
necessary for this exercise to be done with the correct technique. 
Table 14. Knowledge and practice of hand washing. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. August
2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of mothers that identified at least three important moments for hand 
washing 49.0 76.9
Jinotega 89.5
RACCS 69.1
School children that know two appropriate times to wash hands 77.0 77.2
Jinotega 78.6
RACCS 75.8
Percentage of schools that have soap and water in a hand washing station 
that school children use. MGD S02 (n=111)
15.0 35.1
Jinotega (n=59) 13.6
RACCS (n=52) 59.6
Percentage of school children that practice hand washing before eating
According to teachers 64.0 80.2
According to student 47.0 96.4
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Knowledge and practice of the use and maintenance of sanitation services 
Of the schools visited, 91.5% (226) have a sanitation service, 76.9% of which are latrines and 
14.6% of which are toilets. In the RACCS, 87% of all schools have a sanitation service compared 
to 99% in Jinotega. We found that 21 schools do not have any sanitation service, of which 20 
correspond to the RACCS and one in Jinotega (Table 15). 
Teachers were asked about the cleanliness of the sanitation services; 93% responded that their 
school has the practice of cleaning them at least once a day, with a similar percentage in both 
geographical areas. However, via direct observation of the basic hygiene conditions that sanitation 
services should have we found that of the 226 schools with toilets, 72.1% met at least three of the 
five conditions, 78.7% in 
Jinotega and 67.4% in the 
RACCS. 
The hygiene and use 
conditions Most frequently 
met included keeping the 
door closed (81%), 
cleanliness around the 
latrine/toilet (77.9%), no 
dirty toilet paper around the 
bench/seat (75.2%), a 
clean and covered 
bench/seat (49.1%) and a 
tube or mechanism for 
ventilation (31.4%) (Figure 
09). 
According to the mothers interviewed, more work must be done with teachers, because not 
everyone provides maintenance for the sanitation services. Teachers expressed a willingness to do 
29
so, but claim that supplies for cleaning and maintenance are not always available. Cleaning and 
maintenance is always done
jointly with students who are 
directly responsible for the 
cleanliness of the sanitation 
services in each school. 
77.3% of mothers identified at 
least three important health and 
hygiene practices, 85.3% of 
which were in Jinotega and
72.4% in the RACCS (Table 15). 
The practices most often 
recognized included bathing 
daily, use of clean clothes, brushing teeth, cutting nails and using the latrine or toilet (Figure 10).
Table 15. Knowledge and practice about the use and maintenance of sanitation services and importante 
practices in health/hygiene. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation Target
Percentage of school that wash latrines at least once a day. MGD S02 
(Observation of 3 basic hygiene practices)
39.0 72.1 50.0
Jinotega 78.7
RACCS 67.4
Percentage of parents that identified at least three important
health/hygiene practices. MGD 2.1 43.0 77.3 70.0
Jinotega 85.3
RACCS 72.4
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Knowledge and practice about the use of clean water 
Water is always exposed to contamination due to handling at the time it is consumed, during 
storage and during use in the school. Thus, it is important to use a method to disinfect the water 
stored for human consumption at the school level. 
Teachers were asked if they knew the type of treatment applied to the drinking water at school. 
Only 65.2% (161) said they knew (by geographical area, 71.6% in Jinotega and 61.2% in the 
RACCS) (Table 16). 
Of the teachers that said they knew which water disinfection method was used at school, the 
method Most often mentioned is chlorination at 83.9% (135), followed by SODIS at 7.5% (12) and 
filtration at 3.7% (6). In seven schools, respondents reported that the water was not treated. 
We measured school children knowledge in relation to clean water. 83% answered correctly the 
connection between obtaining safe water when it is free of bacteria or microbes; this was 47% 
higher than the result obtained in the baseline. By geographical area, 91% of students responded 
appropriately in Jinotega and 78% in the RACCS (Table 16).
30
Table 16. Knowledge and practice of safe water. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of teachers who know the type of drinking water treatment at school 41.0 65.2
Jinotega 71.6
RACCS 61.2
Percentage of students that know what is safe water 47.0 83.0
Jinotega 90.5
RACCS 78.0
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Teachers said they have acquired knowledge through workshops and lectures given to the 
educational community, but need better coordination with the MOH because they have done no 
inspections of water sources and sometimes lack chlorine for treating the water source. Some 
families have filters and treat water with chlorine; however, this is that least frequent situation in the 
remote communities of the southern Caribbean. For this reason mothers and teachers mentioned 
that some students bring water in bottles for personal consumption. 
4.2.2 Increased knowledge and practice of food preparation and storage 
(MGD 2.2) 
Both parents and teachers play an important role in the process of preparing school meals, from the 
time ingredients are received and stored to the time it is prepared and distributed to school children. 
Throughout this process hygiene and food handling standards must be followed so that safe food is 
prepared for the children. For this reason, the project includes the development of knowledge and 
practice among both populations, through multiple activities both theoretical and practical. 
Knowledge about hygiene standards for food preparation or handling 
So far the project has managed to train 2,580 parents on different topics addressing hygiene 
standards for food preparation and storage, corresponding to 72.7% of the target. 
Teachers and mothers were considered knowledgeable as long as they mentioned at least two 
hygiene standards that every 
person must take for proper food 
handling. 74.5% of mothers are 
knowledgeable; 87.4% of them 
in Jinotega and 66.5% in the
RACCS. This is a slight increase 
compared to 68% at baseline 
(Table 17). 
The hygiene standards for food 
handling most frequently 
mentioned are washing food 
before cooking, cooking food 
thoroughly, and using safe/clean water for food preparation (Figure 11). 
31
Knowledge of health standards for food storage 
Once food is distributed in schools, part of the role assumed by teachers is to ensure good storage, 
thus preventing damage or loss of food. Respondents were considered to be aware of health 
regulations for proper storage if they correctly mentioned at least two standards. We found that 87% 
are aware (95.8% in Jinotega and 81.6% in the RACCS). In relation to the baseline, the knowledge 
level is lower (68%) (Table 17). 
The rules for proper food 
storage that were Most 
frequently mentioned included 
using skids, daily cleaning of 
the locale, separation of 
foodstuffs and keeping food 
covered (Figure 12). 
Proper storage requires 
having the minimum 
conditions and materials. 
Thus, for the project it was 
thought to manufacture 
specially designed "trunks" 
prepared to provide space and proper conditions. Although progress has been made in the 
distribution of the "trunks" in certain schools, there remains a gap to meet the required needs, given 
that a large majority of schools do not have adequate infrastructure for food storage and must use 
classrooms or the homes of parents where there are not good conditions and parents must use 
different resources to create the minimum conditions. 
In turn PINE-MINED officials explained that they sought solutions with different local parties to 
address this situation; sometimes they were able to solve the problem, as in the case of Laguna de 
Perlas where they negotiated and obtained the support of the Municipal Mayor, who assigned a 
storage area with lots of space and adequate conditions for storing food in his municipality. 
"The MINED has no storage area...it has little storage capacity at both the central 
(municipal) level as well as in the rural schools." Teacher Focus Group Daniel Guido, 
Bluefields, the RACCS 
Table 17. Knowledge and practice in preparation and storage of food. Baseline and intermediate evaluation 
comparision. Augst 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of mothers that know at least two hygiene and food preparation standards 68.0 74.5
Jinotega 87.4
RACCS 66.5
Percentage of teachers that know at least two hygiene and food preparation standards 55.0 80.6
Jinotega 78.9
RACCS 81.6
Percentage of teachers that know at least two sanitary conditions for storing food in 
school 68.0 87
Jinotega 95.8
RACCS 81.6
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
32
4.2.3 Improved knowledge of nutrition (MGD 2.3) 
One area of the project is the training in nutrition topics to different groups of the school population. 
In the group of students and parents the target set for the years 2014-15 has been surpassed; in 
the group of school children, the target has been fulfilled by 140% and that for parents by 560%. 
Only in the group of teachers has the target not been fulfilled (84.1%). The progress achieved in the 
group of parents is evidence that the target set was underestimated. Considering that the number of 
beneficiaries of this population is similar to that of the students, this is a high over compliance rate 
(Table 18). 
Table 18. Advances in training about health and nutrition, by population group according to established target. 
Intermediate evaluation. August 2015
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of students trained in health and child nutrition 10,360 14,549 140
Number of teachers trained in health and child nutrition 1972 1,658 84.1
Number of parents trained in health and child nutrition 2070 11,589 560
Source: MESA Project Information System 
73.3% of teachers said that last year they received training on the importance of nutrition and 
healthy eating at school. When asked if the trainings have been helpful for providing guidance to 
children at school, 87.7% said yes, 21% higher than that reported at baseline (Table 18). 
Mothers were asked about what they considered to be factors affecting malnutrition of school 
children; 67.6% say that is inadequate nutrition, higher than the 47% at baseline; 48.2% mentioned 
that it is due to infections and parasitic diseases; and 25.9% due to little food availability, below the 
36% mentioned at baseline. Of all mothers and teachers surveyed, 44.5% and 73.3% respectively 
say they have received training on the importance of a healthy, nutritious diet that school children 
should have; in both populations was an increase relative to the baseline (Table 19). 
 
When mothers were asked about important guidelines or recommendations that should be given to 
school children to improve nutrition, only 33.2% responded with three or more, a fact with little 
variation in relation to the 
baseline. However, there is a big 
difference between geographical 
areas; in Jinotega this percentage 
is 56.8% and in the RACCS 
18.4%.
School children were asked to 
name foods they considered 
nutritious for children. The food 
groups Most often mentioned are 
cereals, beans, fruits rich in 
Vitamin A and meat (beef, fish). 
Compared to baseline, there was 
greater recognition of food groups 
(Figure 13). 
33
Table 19. Knowledge about food and proper nutrition in schools. Baseline and intermediate evaluation. August 
2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation Target
Percentage of teachers that say that trainings have helped 
them give guidance to children at school 21.0 87.7
Jinotega 89.3
RACCS 86.7
Factors affecting the nutrition of schoolchildren, mentioned 
by mothers 
Inadequate nourishment 47.0 67.6
Limited food availability 36.0 25.9
Infection and parasites 48.2
Percentage of mothers and teachers that have received training 
on the importance of nutritious and healthy food for school children
Mother 10.0 44.5
Teachers 25.0 73.3
Percentage of mothers that can identify three important nutrition or 
dietary guidelines/recommendation MGD 2.3 14% 33.2 50%
Jinotega 56.8
RACCS 18.4
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
4.2.4 Increased access to safe water and sanitation services (MGD 2.4) 
We asked teachers and mothers about the accessibility of water at school, the type of source from 
which water is obtained, the frequency with which it is obtained, and the type of treatment or 
disinfection method used to treat the water consumed by the school population. 
Access to safe water 
Drinking water in schools come from a variety of sources. We asked teachers to identify the water 
source at their school; 25.9% reported that there is no water source and students must bring water 
from home or from neighboring houses. In some cases the teacher brings it. 
Among the water sources at school, 
the Most common is the well at
34.8%, followed by a piped water 
system at 19% and Gravity-fed Mini 
Aqueduct (GMA) systems at 14.6%. 
4.9% of respondents mentioned that 
drinking water comes from surface 
water (rivers, streams, etc.) or 
rainwater (Figure 14). 
Of 294 schools set as a target, 270 
have achieved gaining access to a 
water source (well or post/water 
system) throughout the year, an 
increase of 98.1% from selected schools. It is expected that upon completion of the project (2016), 
a total of 10,400 students are benefiting from the rehabilitation of water sources, so that they have 
access throughout the school year. To date, 2,490 boys and girls benefit, accounting for 23.9% 
(Table 20).
34
We asked teacher respondents about the availability of water for drinking and hand washing. 66.4% 
say that there is always water for drinking and 65.2% that there is always water for washing hands; 
in relation to both geographical areas, in the RACCS access to water is less than in Jinotega, both 
for drinking water as well as for hand washing (Table 20). 
Table 20. Access to drinking water. Progress in relation to the established target. Intermediate evaluation. 
August 2015
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of selected schools with access year round to clean and secure 
water*
294 270 98.1
Number of students that benefit from a well or post/water system 
(renovated or constructed) as a result of USDA assistance*
10,400 2,490 23.9
Indicator
Línea de 
Base
Evaluación 
intermedia
Percentage of teachers who report that there is always water for drinking 
at school** 66.4
Jinotega 67.4
RACCS 65.8
Percentage of teachers who report that there is always water for hand 
washing at school** 65.2
Jinotega 71.6
RACCS 61.2
*Source: MESA Project Information System. **Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Access to sanitation services 
For 2015 the target is the construction/rehabilitation of 209 latrines in schools; thus far 66 have 
been completed or 31.6%. Upon completion of the project (2016) the expectation is that the 
construction/rehabilitation of latrines will benefit 16,000 students; to date the project has benefited 
3,508 students, registering at 21.9% (Table 20). There has been a significant delay in the 
implementation of this activity, largely due to the initial preparation required (assessment, prioritizing 
schools, cost analysis, and project bids). 
When asked about the availability of sanitation services at their school, teachers responded that 
91% of schools have this basic service (latrines and/or toilet). One school in Jinotega and 20 
schools in the RACCS do not have this type of service. 
In the schools visited, we found via direct observation that 45.6% had separate sanitation services 
for boy and girls complete with correct signage. This was 13% higher than the same result found at 
baseline. In the RACCS we observed that 43.9% of schools fulfilled these criteria compared to 
47.9% in Jinotega (Table 21).
Table 21. Access to sanitation services. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. August 2015
Indicator Target Attained to date
Number Percentage
Number of latrines to be (constructed, rehabilitated) 2.4.b. 209 66 31.6
Number of students that benefit from latrines (rehabilitated or
constructed) as a result of USDA assistance 16,000 3,508 21.9
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation Target
Percentage of target school that have separate latrines for boys 
and girls MGD 1.3.1 13.0 45.6 30.0
Jinotega 47.9
RACCS 43.9
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
35
These results show that a group of the student population is making appropriate use of health 
services (latrine), although not all latrines receive proper maintenance. Some mothers report that 
although there are schools and homes which have not adopted protection practices (such as 
covering the bench/seat, trimming the surrounding brush, using lime) or continue using 
inappropriate practices (used toilet paper not thrown in a waste basket) this indicates the need to 
focus more on education while recognizing that a behavior change approach needs more time to be 
effective. 
Actions have been taken to raise awareness within the educational community actions about the 
care of water sources and latrines management. However, the community believes that despite 
having greater knowledge, there is a need to develop a methodology to work on behavioral 
changes and propose specifying themselves the specific behaviors they wish the educational 
community to adopt. 
In general, the infrastructure component of the project is one of the least advanced in accordance 
with the established goals. Regarding this matter, the Departmental deputy of the MOH in 
Jinotega expressed, "...the Achilles heel of MESA Project is drinking water and sanitation support 
for our schools…that's expensive, but is a component of the project...that hasn’t been developed, 
and for that reason I recommend centering efforts in one area of the municipality." 
4.2.5 Improved access to preventative health interventions (MGD 2.5) 
Of 986 schools, 27.1% have benefited from preventive health interventions coordinated with local 
authorities of the Ministry of Health, benefitting a total of 16,485 students or 27.3% of the target. 
Table 22. Schools and students benefited from preventative health interventions. Progress in relation to the 
target. Intermediate evaluation. August 2015
Indicator Target Intermediate Evaluation
Number Percentage
Number of target schools that benefit from preventative health 
interventions 986 267 27.1
Number of student that benefit from delivery of preventative health 
interventions 60,390 16,485 27.3
Source: MESA Project Information System 
The preventive health interventions are mainly targeted at providing treatment for parasites and lice. 
The student survey asked whether or not students had received such treatment this and last year. 
The results of the survey show that: 
 60.7% said they had been treated for parasites, a figure similar to the baseline result. However, 
in Jinotega this number was 91.6% and in the RACCS 41.4%; 
 34% have been treated for lice, slightly more than twice that found at baseline. The percentage 
is also higher in Jinotega at 67.4% compared to 13.2% in the RACCS (Table 23). 
36
Table 23. Student access to preventative health services. Baseline and intermediate evaluation comparison. 
August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
Evaluation
Percentage of students that have received treatment for parasites 58.0 60.7
Jinotega 91.6
RACCS 41.4
Percentage of students that have received treatment for lice 16.0 34.0
Jinotega 67.4
RACCS 13.2
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
Although progress has been made to ensure preventative treatment of these diseases, there has 
been little coordination with the Ministry of Health to ensure that these are continuous activities 
completed by health authorities at both the health post and health center levels. Previous 
coordination between the MOH and the MINED with project managers in both geographical areas 
also has not been very synergetic. 
In Jinotega coordination with the MOH is done through MINED, since MINSA authorities request a 
collaboration agreement of any organization with whom they work. Despite efforts to initiate the 
process, no agreement has yet been made. In the RACCS the issue has been logistical challenges, 
since the Regional Ministry of Health has human and budgetary resources to provide full coverage 
to schools, especially those that are furthest from the municipalities. 
37
4.3 Increased engagement of local organizations and community 
groups
The actions related to this result were aimed mainly at strengthening the institutional capacity of the 
MINED and the PTA. 
4.3.1 Improved capacity of government institutions (MGD 1.4.1 / 2.7.1) 
The project has provided timely support to PINE-MINED and MINED. According to the priorities 
established with central and departmental/regional level authorities such support has consisted of 
human and material resources. 
In human resources support, technical team staff was contracted for PINE-MINED at the 
departmental level (Jinotega), providing greater coverage for supporting and monitoring the entire 
program development process. However, stakeholders recognize that there is still an insufficient 
amount of human resources to provide better coverage for all schools in the department. In the 
RACCS, the gap is greater because there is no PINE-MINED structure. Thus all of the work for this 
program falls on the NER municipal technical teams and directors. 
In terms of human resources, technical teams have received a training on teaching methodology, 
planning and coordination in the NER, management processes related to school meals and 
resource optimization by rotating teachers in trainings on teaching techniques. 
As for material resources, schools have been supplied with computer equipment and office 
supplies, in accordance with the priorities established by the MINED Departmental and Regional 
Directorate and the National MEO-ISNP. 
4.3.2 Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups 
(MGD 1.4.4 / 2.7.4) 
Of all mothers surveyed, 91.1% were aware of the existence of a SFC in their school compared to 
82.6% in the BL; in Jinotega the result is 94.7% (83.2% at baseline) of mothers and in the RACCS 
88.8% (82.2% at baseline). Of all mothers who were aware of the SFC, 94.6% (similar at at 
baseline) said that the SFC was currently functioning well (96.7% in Jinotega and 93.2% in the 
RACCS). There is currently good representation of mothers on the SFC with 49% of respondents 
stating that they are members (Table 24). 
While there are some operational limitations, overall teachers and MINED officials find the SFC to 
be of great support to implement all the activities involved in the preparation and distribution of 
school meals. Without this organizational support and the food supplement, the program would not 
have the positive impact it has had to date and managed to maintain and even improve over time. 
SFC operational limitations observed include that not all members have a full understanding of the 
role and functions of the committee, indicating the need for further training. Another operational 
challenge is member rotation, although there is no record of it, partly due to other commitments that 
individual members have as well as their level of commitment for providing effective support. 
"...in Most communities it’s just a few people do not support the school meals...the majority cook, it 
is a small number that do not support...(regarding those who do not support) because of their 
economic situation...logically that’s what Most influences the contribution of parents, when they are 
not able, even though they may wish to for the economic part...there are many communities here in 
this department that are quite poor among the very poor." Group meeting with PINE-MINED 
technical team, Jinotega
38
Table 24. Existence of SFC, perception of SFC operation and engagement of mothers in the SFC. Baseline and 
intermediate evaluation. August 2015
Indicator Baseline Intermediate 
evaluation
Percentage of mothers that are aware of the existence of a SFC 82.6 91.1
Jinotega 94.7
RACCS 88.8
Percentage of mothers that perceive that the SFC functions well 95.1 94.6
Jinotega 96.7
RACCS 93.2
Percentage of mothers that participate as a member of the SFC 33.3 49.1
Jinotega 50.5
RACCS 48.1
Source: Household survey to beneficiaries 
"Another influential factor is the attitude of the parents, because in the schools just like we 
have responsible parents who are helping, there are parents who have resources and 
provide a supplement, but there are parents who have resources and do not give. There 
are parents who do not have resources but look for a way to get them and provide the 
supplement/complement. Yet from another perspective, there are parents who never take 
an interest in their children, how they are doing in school, how their grades are...if they 
aren’t interested in the educational part, they are much less likely to take an interest in the 
food supplement." Group meeting with the PINE-MINED technical team, Jinotega
39
4.4 Managerial concerns 
As part of the methodological process of this evaluation we conducted a work session with the 
technical team of both implementing organizations, the goal of which was to share preliminary 
results and based on those results identify facilitating factors that contributed to the project’s 
progress as well as identify and/or share limitations or obstacles during implementation that should 
be taken into consideration for the remainder of the project in order to meet targets. This session 
was conducted with the participation of senior authorities, departmental project coordinators, 
administrative-financial staff and program staff from both organizations. 
Several people from different sectors participated in the work session where they had the 
opportunity to present different points of view regarding project achievements, facilitating factors 
and challenges they have faced. The most relevant aspects that have greatly influenced or still 
greatly influence the processes and results of the project are the following: 
Principal strengths 
 The credibility that implementing organizations have both with institutions as well as the 
communities benefited by the project. This credibility has been earned and maintained 
through a collective effort. 
 The commitment of all the stakeholders involved; the level of ownership that the MINED, 
parents and other local parties involved in the project have taken, particularly in working 
together to obtain the best results for program implementation and ensure improved child 
development. 
 Institutional technical staff (administrative and programmatic) with good and broad 
experience in program/project development, technical ability and knowledge of the 
geographical areas which means greater managerial and operational capacity. 
 Good level of coordination and communication between all parties involved including the 
MOH, PCI, CEDEHCA at the operational, managerial, administrative and financial levels 
thus contributing to better flow in activities and decisions. 
 There is a good internal organizational mechanism for planning and control which consists 
of conducting systematic evaluations through monthly work sessions to assess progress 
and define future commitments. The automated information system that was specifically 
designed for MESA Project contributed greatly. It allows for monitoring the level of 
progress by indicator. 
 Creating field supervision plans, both programmatic and administrative/financial, that the 
technical teams implemented was very valuable as they provide insight into the real 
situation and facilitate better decision-making. 
 The monitoring and evaluation system. The design of its own automated system for the 
project (SIMESA) was finalized and is in operation at the municipal, departmental/regional 
and central levels. This system has undergone a validation process and is currently 
operating at one hundred percent at all levels and modules. 
 The timeliness of the logistics needed to carry out fieldwork is considered a strength and 
contributed to the development and implementation of operational plans. 
"...I think the basic thing is...the focal point of absolutely everything is…the good pairing of 
PCI with the MINED and the focus" Departmental deputy of the MINED, Jinotega 
40
Main limitations or obstacles 
 Lack of a focal point for coordination and communication at the central MINED level, limiting 
the ability to coordinate activities that are not related to the PINE-MINED.
 Limitations regarding the ability of technical staff to accompany and support schools given 
the high average of assigned schools per staff in addition to the fact that access to many of 
the schools is extremely difficult. This means that staff visits to schools occur every 3 to 4 
months, thereby limiting the opportunity to directly monitor activities and provide technical 
support. The same situation occurs with PINE-MINED technical teams who are directly 
responsible for the school meal program as well as in both geographical areas where the 
project is located, particularly in the RACCS due to its geographical features. 
 Inconsistency in the statistical records of school enrollment at the central and regional 
levels of PINE-MINED which has caused difficulties in the distribution of materials, food and 
other products covered by the project, all of which is calculated according to the number of 
schools and students enrolled. This has meant that the materials and supplies for school 
meals or teaching are not available to all beneficiaries. In the municipality of Bluefields, for 
example, the nuclearization process which is still in progress has led to a lack of updated 
information on schools, teachers and students. 
 Lack of partnerships with other institutions and/or sectors. We have taken some steps in 
this area, but the results, specifically those focused on the private sector, have been limited 
and in the case of the RACCS there have been none. Priority has been given to other areas 
of work, such as food distribution, meal preparation and delivery, infrastructure, school 
gardens, and capacity-building. Alliance-building is probably the area where the least 
amount of time axis has been invested. In recent months progress was made in preparing 
staff, parents and teachers for alliance management, which is expected to be given priority 
in the immediate future. 
 One limitation of the monitoring and evaluation system has been updating the database 
with information on school enrollment, due to the fact that such information provided by 
central PINE-MINED has been inconsistent with data at the municipal level. 
 Coordination and communication with local stakeholders. In general, stakeholders 
acknowledge that coordination has been good during the project. MINED officials 
expressed that the level of coordination developed between implementing organizations 
and the MINED as an institution has been a strength. However, there is no systematic and 
permanent space or mechanism available for the main agencies involved in the project to 
report on progress and provide feedback. Local government officials only knew about the 
project when it was presented to them and occasionally received some information on it. 
There has been no fixed session with the MINED to present progress, proposals, and 
difficulties and to facilitate decision-making. 
The Departmental Deputy of MEO in Jinotega reflected on the recent issues regarding what 
should be improved in the project. 
“Systematize meetings between the directors of PCI Jinotega and departmental (MINED).” 
“Evaluate...we have evaluated, but not systematically. The last Friday of every month 
when we have TEPCE, we evaluate PCI and MINED.”
"...I go to the schools and see PCI-USDA (in newly built latrines). Project management 
here in Jinotega should be less aggressive in the sense that we must communicate and 
agree on which geographical areas we will focus, define priorities. Probably be on target 
(in relation to the infrastructure already created), but the issue is not to be on target; the 
41
issue is that they are working with us and have to tell us here are so many latrines, where 
do you want us to put them. 
"...We have to do the project on time. Otherwise, the donor tells us we're wrong. It 
shouldn’t be like that; the project time must be more flexible, more adjustable, must be 
adjusted to Nicaragua time...you have to adjust." 
42
VI. CONCLUSION 
 Literacy in school children has substantially improved, according to statistics from the 
MINED, measured in 6th grade students. The project was able to implement activities in 
two areas that support improving the quality of education: materials and capacity building 
for teachers. However, the distribution of materials and school supplies has been slow, and 
there is even a percentage of schools and teachers that have not yet received them. The 
project has also been unable to complete the number of teachers trained in areas that 
strengthen their teaching ability. 
 The number of children who are distracted and not paying attention in class has decreased. 
The reasons teachers identified for why children do not pay attention are similar to those 
described at baseline: the class does not draw their attention, lack of food, sickness and 
problems at home. Recognizing these reasons has been very useful for teachers, enabling 
them to try different approaches depending to the circumstances presented. 
 The number of students who attend school "hungry" or "very hunger" has halved. This is 
directly linked to the delivery of school meals. The school meal component of the program 
has seen a high level of compliance among benefited schools with regard to coverage in 
benefited schools, number of students (boys and girls) benefited, and number of days per 
week that students receive a meal. 
 There is a large degree of appreciation for the school meal among all stakeholders involved 
in the education of students. Parents, teachers and MINED officials, students and local 
authorities expressed full support for it. Parents and students expressed a high degree of 
satisfaction with the quantity and quality of food they receive at school. Mothers recognize 
the benefits that school meals offer for their children’s development. Parents are committed 
as evidenced by their willingness to store, prepare and deliver food as well as provide food 
to supplement the meal. 
 The project includes the delivery of five basic foods to prepare the meal. This, however, 
does not ensure diversity of diet in the food provided to students, so parents supplement 
with other foods, depending on their economic possibilities. However, a diverse diet is not 
always possible. 
 The project met the target for school retention for both girls and boys. However, thus far in 
the 2015 school year, a high percentage of school children have missed school at least 
once, the majority due to illness. 
 Despite limitations (lack of land, agro-ecology, limited availability of resources), the school 
gardens component has met three-quarters of the established targets. However, it has had 
little support from parents and teachers. In addition, the weather has not been favorable for 
agricultural areas in different geographical areas of the country, which can affect the 
creation of school gardens. 
 There is delay in infrastructure development, especially in classrooms, kitchens latrines, 
and wells due to the complexity of the implementation process. In particular, this includes 
making the initial assessment to identify needs and define priorities, defining investment 
costs, soliciting bids and contracting. However, there has been significant support and 
participation by parents, contributing to project sustainability. The construction of storage 
areas has been more successful since they can be constructed more quickly using "trunks" 
that offer basic features for adequate and safe food storage. Nonetheless, the initial 
assessment made clear that there is a greater need for improvement in the infrastructure of 
schools, which the project’s limited budget cannot meet. 
43
 There was improvement in the level of knowledge among population groups in relation to 
safe health and hygiene practices, including hand washing, use and maintenance of 
sanitation services, and safe water. However, this knowledge does not always translate into 
practice, as confirmed via direct observation, since not all the conditions exist to accomplish 
this. For example, not all schools have a station for hand washing nor soap needed for 
proper technique. Not all schools treat the water used for consumption and a high 
percentage of latrines/toilets do not meet basic cleanliness standards (door closed, clean 
and covered bench/seat, ventilation, no used toilet paper around). 
 The project provided training for the educational population on nutrition and food security, 
as evidenced by the increase in knowledge among teachers and mothers regarding 
nutrition, hygiene and food preparation. However, there is no improvement in teacher 
knowledge on sanitary conditions for food storage. 
 The project has failed to achieve effective coordination with local health institutions for 
implementing preventative health interventions, thus limiting the preventative treatment for 
parasites, lice and vitamin A. 
 There is good engagement of the educational community for preparing school meals, 
especially among teachers and parents through SFC. However, more training is needed 
about the SFC in order to fulfill the roles and functions stipulated. 
 Overall, the sustainability strategy of the School Feeding Program is based on the four 
sectors involved in the program, of which the MOE and the organized community are those 
with greater development; in the MOE through the implementation of PINE, and the 
community through the PTA who play an important role in the process of storage, 
preparation and distribution of food in schools. The other two sectors: Local government 
and private sector are participating in the program, indicating some level of sensitivity and 
commitment, however, this share has been on an ad hoc and based on specific demand. 
44
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 
Regarding actions taken to improve project performance 
For school meals, the most successful component of the project, the following recommendations for 
improvement include: 
 Strengthen alternatives for diversifying food in schools, including working with private 
companies, developing community gardens and collecting food and fruits specifically for 
school meals. 
 
 Consider recommendations offered by mothers who are directly in charge of preparing school 
meals. Incorporate into trainings topics related to healthy eating, the nutritional value of food 
and recipes to improve the quality of food. 
 Encourage promotional group activities such as fairs, gastronomic competitions and point of 
sales such as food kiosks during business days. 
For school gardens, we recommend focusing on schools according to the availability of land and 
agro-ecology, if viable. Strengthen the participation of parents in garden implementation, taking into 
consideration that this population has experience in agriculture.
Improve knowledge and capacity-building. Considering the gap between the time needed for 
trainings and the time available in the current school year, we recommend the following: 
 
 Prepare a timeline in consensus with MINED authorities, taking into consideration the various 
population groups (teachers, parents, MINED officials, students) and the diversity of issues to 
be addressed (educational, FNS, personal and environmental hygiene, storage, food 
handling and preparation) which will require coordinating timing among facilitators and 
participants. 
 Continue to take advantage of all meeting times that the MINED has institutionalized to 
incorporate training topics. Taking advantage of the space and time. 
 Focus trainings to parents and schoolchildren on those practices where there is less 
knowledge. 
 An alternative to diffuse information and education is through an awareness campaign for 
parents aimed at key practices. We recommend considering the possibility of designing and 
implementing one focused on specific topics. Considering that the results demonstrate that 
media more often used is through schools and the radio, consider these for such campaigns. 
Improve key practices via use of safe water, hand washing, proper use and maintenance of 
latrines/toilets, and proper storage and food handling. 
 To perform safe or proper practices, one needs resources or basic materials in addition to 
knowledge. Thus, we recommend obtaining the necessary resources so that the population 
can do so. Review the budget and coordinate with other sectors (government, private 
sector) to search for and distribute materials. 
Infrastructure: rehabilitation/construction of classrooms, latrines, wells, storage areas and kitchens. 
This is the component that has made the least progress in relationship to established targets. It 
takes time to execute. Thus, we recommend:
45
 That project technical teams prioritize activities that fall within the mini projects already 
approved. Streamline certification of materials and monitor to ensure that they are 
executed on schedule. 
 Coordinate with partner institutions (Mayor’s office and MINED) to ensure supervisory 
support for activities. 
With regard to management issues and M & E 
 The monitoring and evaluation system uses various sources of information to evaluate the 
project indicators, one of which is the MINED information system. However, whenever 
possible we recommend using specific population surveys via a random sample to 
complement evaluation of these indicators. For example, measure the indicator of fluency 
and student reading comprehension through the EGRA test and regular school attendance 
by students through a survey of teachers. 
 We recommend reviewing and adjusting underestimated targets (e.g. number of parents
benefited).
 Conduct a training workshop of PINE-MINED staff with staff from the central, regional and 
municipal levels to update school enrollment data in the information system. 
 To strengthen coordination between MINED and implementing organizations, establish a 
formal space between the departmental / regional delegation to the project coordinators in 
each geographical area. 
 Provide information to local stakeholders on the progress of the project. Take advantage of 
existing spaces such as Municipal Council sessions. 
 Technical supervision capacity will improve with greater coverage of the technical team; 
however, more human resources are needed. Therefore, consult the budget for the 
possibility of new hires or alternatively strengthen the mobilization of the people responsible 
for the NER and have them provide support. The latter requires good coordination with 
MINED municipal and departmental/regional authorities. 
 The approach taken in each municipality should be done according to the evaluation 
results. For some indicators information is available by Supervision Area, making it easy to 
identify which have the greatest priority by intervention area. We recommend presenting 
evaluation results in each geographical area, involving MINED authorities and technicians 
and other important partners. 
 To support the sustainability of the program, it is recommended that systematically 
addressing the four sectors: MINED, community organizations, local government and 
private sector, giving priority to the last two actors, oriented in the future allocate more 
resources to the education sector specifically to support the School Feeding program, and
encouraging to go earmarking is permanently. 
46
VIII. APPENDICES 
Appendix 01. Results Framework. MESA Project (Better Education and 
Health) 
MGD 1.1 Mejorada la calidad de la 
educación
MGD S01. Mejorada la lectoescritura en niños/as de edad escolar MARCO DE RESULTADOS. Proyecto MESA
MGD 1.1.1 Más consistencia en la asistencia de 
maestros/as
MGD 1.3 Mejorada la 
asistencia escolar MGD 1.2 Mejorada la atención
MGD 1.2.1 
Reducida el 
hambre a 
corto plazo
MGD 1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1 
Mejor acceso a comida 
(merienda escolar)
MGD 1.1.5 
Mejor herramientas y conocimiento 
de gerentes 
de la escuela
MGD 1.1.4 
Mejor herramientas y conocimiento 
de maestros/ as MGD 1.1.3 
Mejor 
materiales 
de literatura 
institucional MGD 1.1.2 
Mejor 
acceso a 
suministros 
y materiales 
escolares MGD 1.3.1 
Mejor 
incentivo 
económico y cultural MGD 1.3.3 
Mejor infraestructura 
de la escuela MGD 1.3.2 
Reducida la 
ausencia 
escolar por 
motivos de salud MGD 1.3.5 
Mejor comprensión 
del beneficio de la educación MGD 1.3.4 
Aumento de 
la matrícula 
escolar MGD S02. Mejorada las prácticas de salud y alimentación MGD 2.1 
Mejor conocimiento 
y práctica en Salud e 
Higiene MGD 2.6 
Mejor acceso 
equipamiento para preparación 
de alimentos 
seguros MGD 2.5 
Mejor acceso 
a intervención 
preventiva de salud MGD 2.4 
Mejor acceso 
a agua segura 
y servicios 
sanitarios MGD 2.3 
Mejor conocimiento 
de nutrición MGD 2.2 
Mejor conocimiento 
y práctica en 
preparación y 
almacenamie nto de 
alimentos
MGD 1.4.1/2.7.1 Mejorada la capacidad de institución del gobierno MGD 1.4.4/2.7.4 Mejor empoderamiento de 
organizaciones locales y grupos comunitarios RESULTADOS 
FUNCIONALES
47
Appendix 2. Sampling Frame 
Appendix 3. Quantitative data collection instruments 
48
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: 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 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 GRADUADOq
B05. Estudia actualmente: SI q NOq B06. Qué estudia?: 
B07. Comunidad donde vive: 
B08. Cuántos años tiene de docencia: SI ES MENOS DE UN AÑO, ESCRIBA 00
B09. Cuál(es) grado(s) atiende actualmente: B10. Cuántos alumnos/a atiende actualmente:
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 opiniónes 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?
ENTREVISTA
DIA MES AÑO
Maestro/a de escuela primaria
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Evaluación Intermedia Proyecto MESA. Junio, 2015.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
49
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
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0 D06
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 …...…..……………………………...…..…
50
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?
51
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
52
SECCION E. AGUA Y SANEAMIENTO
PASE A
E01 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E02 SI ……………………...…………………………………….. 1
NO …………………………….………………...……...……….. 0
E03 POZO ………………..…………….…..…................. 1
AGUA ENTUBADA ……………….…..….................2
MAG ……...………..…………….…..…................. 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)
¿Qué tratamiento le hacen al agua que utilizan 
para beber en 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
¿Cuántas veces al día limpian la(s) letrina(s) de 
la escuela?
NÚMERO DE ESTACIONES 
MENCIONADAS
NÚMERO DE ESTACIONES 
OBSERVADAS
53
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)
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
54
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:
ENTREVISTA
DIA MES AÑO
Niño o niña escolar del grado superior en la escuela primaria
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Evaluación Intermedia Proyecto MESA. Junio, 2015.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
Hola. Mi nombre es ___________________________ estoy trabajando con PCI-Nicaragua. 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 para PCI Nicaragua,
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. 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:
DIA MES AÑO
Madres de familia con niños/as la escuela primaria
Conocimiento y práctica en alimentación escolar, salud-higiene.
Evaluación Intermedia Proyecto MESA. Junio, 2015.
PCI -CEDEHCA - USDA
ENTREVISTA
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?
60
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)
61
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
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?
¿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?
RESPUESTA MÚLTIPLE. PUEDE ENCERRAR EN 
CÍRCULO VARIAS RESPUESTAS
NÚMERO DE DÍAS
¿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 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)
62
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
(ESPECIFIQUE)
Para Usted, ¿Cuáles son las causas de la 
desnutrición o mal nutrición en los niños y las 
niñas?
¿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) …………………………………………….
El día de ayer, cuántas veces le ofreció comida a 
su hijo/a en el día?
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?
63
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
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
64
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
ESPUÉS 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 práccticas 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)
65
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 Aliimentación 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)
66
Appendix 4. Qualitative data collection guides 
PCI Nicaragua 
Evaluación Intermedia Cualitativa del proyecto 
Mejor Educación y Salud - MESA Jinotega - RACCS - USDA 
GUIA No. 1. 
Entrevista en profundidad 
Delegado/a departamental y/o Responsable de Secretaría 
Regional del MINED RACCS 
Datos generales: 
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio_________________ 
Departamento/Región: ______________________Municipio: ____________________ 
 
Nombres y Apellidos: ______________________________________________________ 
Cargo: ________________________________________________________________ 
Tiempo en el cargo: _____________________________________________________ 
Entrevistador/a:__________________________________________________________ 
Hora de finalización: _____________________________________________________ 
Introducción: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación intermedia del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud”, 
que está desarrollando PCI/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 para considerarlas en la ejecución del proyecto. Su participación es 
completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la 
investigación. ¿Están de acuerdo con ser entrevistado/a?
67
Temas y preguntas de indagación 
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
Objetivos, estrategias y actividades del proyecto
Pertinencia Cómo está la situación de la educación primaria en el 
departamento y/o región? 
 Puede ser: Alfabetismo, cobertura de escuelas y maestros, 
rendimiento académico, retención escolar, etc, en general
Esta pregunta es introductoria
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, y las respuestas brindadas por éste? 
INDAGUE:
Sobre enfoque de la merienda escolar relacionada a la 
asistencia, retención, aprobación, y educación en seguridad 
alimentaria, involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
Enfoque de los huertos escolares: Organización, Producción de 
hortalizas y frutas de periodo corto, Educación y Nutrición
Enfoque de la capacitación: incremento del conocimiento sobre 
seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y salud. Principalmente 
maestros/as
Eficiencia 3. 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 
4. Cómo valora relaciones del proyecto con el MINED y/o las 
instancias del gobierno y socios locales?
5. ¿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?
6. ¿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.
7. En la zona de cobertura con las estrategias del proyecto 
¿Conoce Usted 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
8. ¿En qué medida la alimentación escolar ha incidido en el 
incremento de la asistencia de los estudiantes?
9. ¿Cuáles de las estrategias que se están aplicando con el 
proyecto, han sido más efectivas para la obtención de los 
resultados? Indague por qué?
10. ¿Si no se están logrando los objetivos, cuáles son los 
motivos y cuáles ajustes se han realizado para avanzar?
Elementos facilitadores, limitantes u obstáculos enfrentados
Facilitadores y 
limitantes
11. ¿Se han presentado imprevistos en la implementación del 
programa, que han sido barreras para obtener los 
resultados? Si es así, ¿cuáles han sido y qué ajustes se 
han realizado para su abordaje?
12. ¿Cuáles son los principales limitantes en el desarrollo de 
las estrategias del programa? 
68
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
13. ¿Qué aspectos o elementos han sido facilitadores en la 
ejecución de las estrategias del programa? 
14. ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de coordinación que del 
proyecto ha tenido con ustedes durante la ejecución de las 
actividades?
15. Cómo contribuyen estas a la realización de planes de 
acción y obtención de resultados? Se puede mejorar?
16. ¿Cómo se han abordado las barreras específicas de 
género, las limitaciones en la educación primaria y la 
participación de la comunidad?
Impacto 17. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios obtenidos con la ejecución del 
programa? Indague sobre la incidencia en la calidad de la 
enseñanza al obtener estos beneficios
18. ¿Podría decirme qué mejoría significativa reconoce usted 
que han tenido los estudiantes, padres de familia y 
maestros (beneficiarios del proyecto) con este proyecto 
¿Podría ejemplificar por favor en qué ha observado o ha 
consistido esa mejoría y en quiénes.
Indague (salud, nutrición, educación, alimentación)
Sostenibilidad
Sostenibilidad 19. ¿En qué medida las actividades del proyecto han llevado a 
cambios sostenibles en los comportamientos de 
estudiantes, maestros/as y padres/madres de familia?
20. ¿En qué medida los actores locales (sector privado, 
entidades y asociaciones de la comunidad, agencias del 
gobierno local, etc.) se han comprometido para garantizar la 
sostenibilidad de las actividades en las escuelas? Indague 
sobre los recursos invertidos desde el nivel 
departamental/regional hacia el municipio
21. ¿Qué necesidades específicas de capacidad institucional, 
por ejemplo para el PINE-MINED, debe ser considerada en 
el proyecto, para fomentar una mayor participación de las 
autoridades superiores, y la rendición de cuentas?
Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
Lecciones 
aprendidas
y recomen￾daciones
22. Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica usted de la 
participación en este proyecto? 
Indague además:
 De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado para la 
continuidad del proyecto? 
 Qué cambios considera que se deben hacer para mejorar?
69
PCI Nicaragua 
Evaluación Intermedia Cualitativa del proyecto 
Mejor Educación y Salud - MESA Jinotega – RACCS – USDA 
GUIA No. 2. 
Entrevista en profundidad 
Personal técnico gerencial del proyecto PCI y CEDEHCA 
Datos generales: 
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio_________________ 
Departamento/Región: ______________________Municipio: ____________________ 
 
Nombre y Apellido: ______________________________________________________
Cargo: ________________________________________________________________ 
Tiempo en el cargo: _____________________________________________________ 
Entrevistador/a:__________________________________________________________ 
Hora de finalización: _____________________________________________________
Introducción: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación intermedia del proyecto “Mejor Educación 
y Salud”, que está desarrollando PCI/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 para considerarlas en la 
ejecución del proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se 
utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la investigación. ¿Están de acuerdo con ser 
entrevistado/a? 
70
Temas y preguntas de indagación 
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
Objetivos, estrategias y actividades del proyecto
Pertinencia 1. ¿En qué medida los resultados y el enfoque del proyecto 
MESA es válido para el contexto local, cultural, político, 
económico y social?
2. ¿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 cuales prioridades.
3. Las estrategias y actividades que se ejecutan cómo aportan a 
los procesos de desarrollo de los actores y beneficiarios? 
Valore el aporte que se da a lo interno y en el contexto. 
INDAGUE:
Sobre enfoque de la merienda escolar relacionada a la 
asistencia, retención, aprobación, y educación en seguridad 
alimentaria, involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
Enfoque de los huertos escolares: Organización, producción de 
hortalizas y frutas de periodo corto, educación y nutrición.
Enfoque de la capacitación: incremento del conocimiento sobre 
seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y salud. Del personal técnico de 
PCI o CEDEHCA, Maestros, Padres de familia y escolares
4. En qué medida se ha alcanzado a las personas beneficiarias a 
través del proyecto y en las temáticas que los actores y 
beneficiarios consideran prioritarios.
5. ¿Qué cambios considera deben hacerse y en qué sentido para 
mejorar la pertinencia del proyecto?
Eficiencia 6. 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 
7. Cómo valora relaciones establecidas entre personal del 
proyecto con personal MINED y/o las instancias del gobierno 
y socios locales?
8. ¿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?
9. ¿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.
10. En la zona de cobertura con las estrategias del proyecto 
¿Conoce usted 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 11. ¿En qué medida la alimentación escolar ha incidido en el 
incremento de la asistencia de los estudiantes? 
71
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
12. ¿En qué medida las actividades del proyecto están llegando 
por igual a los escolares masculinos y femeninos?
13. ¿Cuáles de las estrategias que se están aplicando con el 
proyecto, han sido más efectivas en la obtención de los 
resultados?
14. De acuerdo al conocimiento e información que tienen, cree 
que se están alcanzando los objetivos específicos del 
proyecto? ¿Si no se están logrando los objetivos, cuáles son 
los motivos y cuáles ajustes se han realizado para avanzar?
15. ¿Cómo son el personal del proyecto y los interesados que 
utilizan datos para la toma de decisiones estratégicas?
Elementos facilitadores, limitantes y obstáculos enfrentados
Facilitadores 
y limitantes
16. ¿Se han presentado imprevistos en la implementación del 
programa, que han sido barreras para obtener los 
resultados? Si es así, ¿cuáles han sido y qué ajustes se han 
realizado para su abordaje?
17. ¿Qué aspectos o elementos han sido facilitadores en la 
ejecución de las estrategias del programa? 
18. ¿Cuáles son los principales limitantes en el desarrollo de las 
estrategias del programa?
19. ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de coordinación que del 
proyecto ha tenido con ustedes durante la ejecución de las 
actividades, y cómo contribuye a la realización de planes de 
acción y obtención de resultados? Se puede mejorar?
20. ¿Cómo se han abordado en el programa las barreras 
específicas de género y las limitaciones en la educación y la 
participación de la comunidad?
Impacto 21. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios obtenidos con la ejecución del 
programa seguridad alimentaria? Indague sobre la incidencia 
en la calidad de la enseñanza al obtener estos beneficios
22. ¿Podría decirme qué mejoría significativa reconoce usted 
que han tenido los beneficiarios del proyecto en relación a 
sus condiciones de vida? ¿Podría ejemplificar por favor en 
qué ha observado o ha consistido esa mejoría y en quiénes. 
Indague (salud, nutrición, educación, alimentación)
Sostenibilidad
Sostenibilidad 23. ¿En qué medida las actividades del proyecto han llevado a 
cambios sostenibles en los comportamientos de estudiantes, 
maestros/as y padres/madres de familia?
24. ¿Qué necesidades específicas de capacidad institucional, 
por ejemplo para el PINE-MINED, debe ser considerada en 
el proyecto, para fomentar una mayor participacións, de las 
autoridades superiores, y la rendición de cuentas?
Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
Lecciones 
aprendidas
y recomen￾daciones
25. Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica Usted de ejecución del 
proyecto? 
Indague además:
 De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado para la 
continuidad del proyecto? 
 Qué cambios considera que se deben hacer y en qué sentido 
para mejorar? 
72
PCI Nicaragua 
Evaluación Intermedia Cualitativa del proyecto 
Mejor Educación y Salud - MESA Jinotega – RACCS – USDA 
GUIA No. 3. 
Entrevista en profundidad 
Representante de Alcaldía municipal 
Datos generales: 
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio_________________ 
Departamento/Región: ______________________Municipio: ____________________ 
 
Nombre y Apellido: ______________________________________________________ 
Cargo: ________________________________________________________________ 
Tiempo en el cargo: _____________________________________________________ 
Entrevistador/a:__________________________________________________________ 
Hora de finalización: _____________________________________________________ 
Introducción: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación intermedia del proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud”, 
que está desarrollando PCI/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 para considerarlas en la ejecución del proyecto. Su participación es 
completamente voluntaria y confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la 
investigación. ¿Están de acuerdo con ser entrevistado/a? 
73
Temas y preguntas de indagación 
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
Objetivos, estrategias y actividades del proyecto
Pertinencia Cómo está la situación de la educación primaria 
en el departamento y/o región? 
1.Puede ser: Alfabetismo, cobertura de escuelas 
y maestros, rendimiento académico, retención 
escolar, etc, en general
Esta pregunta es introductoria
2.Qué conoce usted sobre el proyecto que 
desarrolla PCI con el MINED en este municipio 
sobre seguridad alimentaria (merienda, 
capacitación, huertos)?
3.De qué manera cree usted que la merienda 
escolar, los huertos y la capacitación aportan a 
los procesos de desarrollo de las personas 
beneficiarios del proyecto? 
Eficiencia 4.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 
5.Cómo valora las relaciones de la Alcaldía con el 
proyecto (MESA), el MINED y/o las instancias 
del gobierno y socios locales?
6.En la zona de cobertura con las estrategias del 
proyecto ¿Conoce usted 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
7.¿De acuerdo al conocimiento e información que 
usted tiene, cree que se están alcanzando los 
objetivos específicos del proyecto? ¿Si no se 
están logrando los objetivos, cuáles son los 
motivos y cuáles ajustes se han realizado para 
avanzar?
8.Cuáles de las estrategias que se están 
aplicando con el proyecto, han sido más 
efectivos en la obtención de los resultados?
Elementos facilitadores, limitantes u obstáculos enfrentados
Facilitadores y 
limitantes
9.¿Qué aspectos o elementos han sido 
facilitadores en la ejecución de las estrategias 
del programa?
10. ¿Cuáles son los principales limitantes en el 
desarrollo de las estrategias del programa?
11. ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de 
74
Tema y criterio 
de evaluación
Pregunta de indagación Respuestas /opinión
coordinación que del proyecto ha tenido con 
ustedes durante la ejecución de las 
actividades, y cómo contribuye a la realización 
de planes de acción y obtención de 
resultados? Se puede mejorar?
12. ¿Cómo se han abordado en el programa las 
barreras específicas de género y las 
limitaciones en la educación y la participación 
de la comunidad?
Impacto 13. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios obtenidos con la 
ejecución del programa seguridad 
alimentaria?
23. ¿Podría decirme qué mejoría significativa 
reconoce usted que han tenido los 
estudiantes, padres de familia y maestros 
(beneficiarios del proyecto) con este 
proyecto? ¿Podría ejemplificar por favor en 
qué ha observado o ha consistido esa mejoría 
y en quiénes. 
Indague (salud, nutrición, educación, 
alimentación)
Sostenibilidad
Sostenibilidad 14. ¿En qué medida las actividades del proyecto 
han llevado a cambios sostenibles en los 
comportamientos de estudiantes, maestros/as 
y padres/madres de familia?
15. ¿En qué medida las autoridades locales se 
han comprometido para garantizar la 
sostenibilidad de las actividades en las 
escuelas?
Indague sobre los recursos invertidos desde el 
nivel departamental/regional hacia el municipio y 
alianza con el sector privado.)
Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones
Lecciones 
aprendidas
y recomen￾daciones
16. Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica Usted de
ejecución del proyecto? 
Indague además:
De lo que ha aprendido, qué puede ser retomado 
para la continuidad del proyecto? 
Qué cambios considera que se deben hacer y en 
qué sentido para mejorar? 
75
PCI Nicaragua 
Evaluación Intermedia Cualitativa del proyecto 
Mejor Educación y Salud - MESA Jinotega - RACCS - USDA 
Guía No. 4 
Entrevista Grupal 
Funcionarios/as PINE-MINED y Delegados/as municipales MINED 
Tema de discusión: Estrategias de Seguridad Alimentaria Escolar
Datos generales: 
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio_________________ 
Departamento/Región: ____________________ Municipio: __________________ 
 
Lugar: ________________________________________________________ 
No. de Participantes: _________________________________________________
Moderardor/Facilitador/a: _____________________________________________ 
Anotador/a y apoyo logístico: __________________________________________ 
Hora de finalización: ________________ 
Introducción: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación intermedia del proyecto “Mejor Educación 
y Salud”, que está desarrollando PCI/CEDEHCA. Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una 
Entrevista grupal en el marco de la Evaluación Intermedia del proyecto que se está 
implementando es 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 y kioskos 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 para considerarlas en la continuidad de la ejecución 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. 
76
Metodología 
I. Actividades iniciales 
1. Presentarse y dar la bienvenida nuevamente, agradeciendo la presencia de las 
personas participantes; y presentar el objetivo de la Entrevista grupal. 
2. Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista grupal: 
 Cada una de ustedes está aquí de manera voluntaria. 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 queremos grabar 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. 
 Les garantizamos que esta información será resguardada y utilizada única 
y exclusivamente para fines de esta evaluación; una vez utilizada la 
grabación borraremos la información. 
3. Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, 
luego proceder con la guía de preguntas. 
4. 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. 
5. Dé a conocer el objetivo: Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de 
vista sobre la implementación y resultados de las estrategias de seguridad 
alimentaria (merienda, capacitación, huertos y kioskos) que se ejecutan en las 
escuelas y cómo se ha involucrado la comunidad educativa. 
 
6. 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. 
7. La discusión se organizará en 5 bloques de temas y para cada una hay preguntas; 
cada persona puede opinar en el momento que desee, pero se insta a que todas 
participen de forma activa. 
 Primer tema: Merienda Escolar 
 Segunda parte: Capacitación 
 Tercera parte: Huertos escolares 
 Cuarta parte: Kioskos escolares saludables 
 Quinta parte: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
II. Desarrollo de la entrevista grupal 
Contenido y preguntas de la discusión 
Primer tema: Merienda escolar 
77
1. En base a la experiencia y conocimientos de Ustedes ¿En qué consiste y cómo se implementa 
la Merienda Escolar en las escuelas? Nos pueden comentar de acuerdo al área de cobertura 
de los municipios que atienden, mencionando lo que se hace de forma general, y sí en alguna 
escuela se hace diferente? 
 ¿Qué contempla la merienda escolar (componentes, insumos, etc)? 
 ¿Cómo se organiza su implementación? 
 ¿Quiénes participan y qué papel o rol desempeña? 
 ¿Cuántas escuelas tienen en cobertura actual? 
 Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar. 
Estrategia Merienda 
Escolar Descripción Valoración. Aspectos positivos y 
por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza
Quiénes participan
Cómo funciona
2. Podría indicar cuál es la contribución que ha tenido la merienda escolar para las escuelas, 
familias, niños y niñas beneficiarias? 
 Asistencia
 Retención escolar 
 Rendimiento académico 
 Salud, nutrición, alimentación 
 Involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
3. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios obtenidos con la ejecución del programa seguridad alimentaria? 
Indague sobre la incidencia en la calidad de la enseñanza al obtener estos beneficios
 Escuelas 
 Docentes 
 Niñas y niños 
 Familia 
 Comunidad 
4. En la zona de cobertura con las estrategias del proyecto ¿Conoce Usted 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. 
5. Podría valorar si la estrategia de merienda escolar se puede mantener en el tiempo a pesar de 
que el proyecto finalice? Por qué sí o por qué no?
6. ¿En qué medida los actores locales (sector privado, entidades y asociaciones de la comunidad, 
agencias del gobierno local, etc.) se han comprometido para garantizar la sostenibilidad de las 
actividades en las escuelas? Indague sobre los recursos invertidos desde el nivel 
departamental/regional hacia el municipio
78
Segundo tema: Capacitación SAN 
7. En relación a la capacitación que contempla el programa, ¿En qué temas fueron capacitados, 
docentes, estudiantes y familias? 
8. ¿Cómo aportó la capacitación en los conocimientos, actitudes y comportamientos de docentes, 
estudiantes y familia? 
 Conocimientos nuevos adquiridos 
 Actitudes mejoradas (en comparación antes de la intervención) 
 Comportamientos en prácticas (en comparación antes de la intervención) 
9. ¿A qué necesidades o prioridades de capacitación no se les dio atención en el programa, y con 
qué beneficiario? 
 Temáticas abordadas 
 Metodología, herramientas, instrumentos brindados 
 Herramientas para seguimiento y monitoreo 
 Materiales, otros 
Tercer tema: Huertos escolares 
10. En base a la experiencia y conocimientos de Ustedes ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de 
Huertos escolares y cómo se implementaron en las escuelas? Nos pueden comentar de 
acuerdo al área de cobertura de los municipios que atienden, mencionando lo que se hizo de 
forma general, y sí en alguna escuela se hace diferente, o no se hizo nada? 
 ¿Qué contempla los huertos familiares (componentes, insumos, etc)? 
 ¿Cómo se organiza su implementación? 
 ¿Quiénes participan y qué papel o rol desempeña? 
 ¿Cuántas escuelas tienen en cobertura actual? 
 Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar. 
Estrategia Huerto 
escolar Descripción Valoración
Aspectos positivos y por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza
Quiénes participan
Cómo funciona
11. En base a la experiencia y conocimientos de Ustedes ¿Hay aceptabilidad de los huertos 
escolares y cómo ha sido la experiencia para que cumplan con la razón de ser? 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?
79
Cuarto tema: Kioskos escolares saludables 
12. ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de Kioskos escolares saludables? 
13. Qué se ha hecho en las escuelas para promover el concepto de Kiosko saludable? ¿Cómo ha 
sido la experiencia y cómo han funcionado? 
 ¿Qué cambios se introdujeron en los kioskos (componentes, insumos, etc)? 
 ¿Cómo se garantiza que su funcionamiento sea acorde al programa? 
 ¿Qué resistencias han encontrado por parte de los dueños o de estudiantes? 
 Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar. 
Quinto tema: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
14. En relación factores facilitadores y limitantes para lograr los resultados de las estrategias qué 
otros elementos puede mencionar? Por ejemplo, refiriéndose a los siguientes puntos: 
 ¿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. 
 ¿Cuáles han sido los mecanismos de coordinación que el proyecto ha tenido con Ustedes 
durante la ejecución de las actividades, y cómo contribuye a la realización de planes de 
acción y obtención de resultados? Se puede mejorar? 
 ¿Cuál ha sido la experiencia del trabajo en alianza para garantizar la sostenibilidad? 
15. ¿Cómo se han abordado las barreras específicas de género y las limitaciones en la educación 
y la participación de la comunidad? 
16. Podrían identificar desde su experiencia qué aprendizajes tuvieron Ustedes con la 
implementación de las estrategias del proyecto 
17. Del resultado alcanzado en esta estrategias qué lecciones aprendidas se pueden sacar? 
Lecciones aprendidas
Estrategias Por su nivel de 
Organización
En base a su 
Funcionamiento
Por el Seguimiento y 
monitoreo dado
De acuerdo al resultado 
alcanzado
(positivo o negativo)
Merienda 
Escolar
Huertos 
Escolares
Capacitacion
es SAN
Kioscos o 
Glorietas
18. Para mejorar las estrategias del proyecto (programa PINE-MINED: merienda escolar, huertos, 
capacitación y kioskos escolares) que recomendaciones sugiere que se deben retomar? 
80
Recomendaciones
Estrategias Organización Funcionamiento Seguimiento y 
monitoreo
Capacitación Sostenibilidad
Merienda 
Escolar
Huertos 
Escolares
Capacitaciones 
SAN
Kioscos o 
Glorietas
III. 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! 
81
Evaluación cualitativa intermedia PCI 
Proyecto “Mejor Educación y Salud” (MESA)-PCI/USDA/FAS 
Guía No. 5 
Entrevista Grupal 
Docentes de escuelas beneficiarias PINE-MINED 
Tema de discusión: Estrategias de Seguridad Alimentaria Escolar 
Datos generales: 
Fecha: ____/________/______ Hora de inicio_________________ 
Departamento/Región:______________________ Municipio: ___________________ 
 
Lugar: _________________________________________________________ 
No. de Participantes: _________________________________________________ 
Moderardor/Facilitador/a: _______________________________________________ 
Anotador/a y apoyo logístico: ____________________________________________ 
Hora de finalización: _________________ 
Introducción: 
Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________ Soy parte del equipo de 
investigación que está realizando la Evaluación intermedia del proyecto “Mejor Educación 
y Salud”, que está desarrollando PCI/CEDEHCA. Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una 
Entrevista grupal en el marco de la Evaluación Intermedia del proyecto que se está 
implementando es 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 y kioskos 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 para considerarlas en la continuidad de la ejecución 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. 
82
Metodología 
IV. Actividades iniciales 
8. Presentarse y dar la bienvenida nuevamente, agradeciendo la presencia de las y los 
docentes participantes; y presentar el objetivo de la Entrevista grupal 
9. Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista grupal: 
 Cada una de ustedes está aquí de manera voluntaria. 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 queremos grabar 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. 
 Les garantizamos que esta información será resguardada y utilizada única y 
exclusivamente para fines de esta evaluación; una vez utilizada la grabación 
borraremos la información. 
10. Realizar dinámica de presentación y/o rompe hielo con las personas participantes, luego 
proceder con la guía de preguntas. 
11. 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. 
12. Dé a conocer el objetivo: Compartir las experiencias, conocimientos y puntos de vista 
sobre la implementación y resultados de las estrategias de seguridad alimentaria 
(merienda, capacitación, huertos y kioskos) que se ejecutan en las escuelas y cómo se ha 
involucrado la comunidad educativa. 
 
13. 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. 
14. La discusión se organizará en 5 bloques de temas y para cada una hay preguntas; cada 
persona puede opinar en el momento que desee, pero se insta a que todas participen de 
forma activa. 
 Primer tema: Merienda Escolar 
 Segunda parte: Capacitación 
 Tercera parte: Huertos escolares 
 Cuarta parte: Kioskos escolares saludables 
 Quinta parte: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
V. Desarrollo de la entrevista grupal 
Contenido y preguntas de la discusión 
Primer tema: Merienda escolar 
19. En las escuelas donde trabajan Ustedes se implementa la Merienda Escolar? Nos podrían 
contar desde hace cuánto tiempo y qué les parece esa estrategia? 
83
20. En base a la experiencia y conocimientos de Ustedes nos pueden contar ¿En qué consiste la 
estrategia? 
 ¿Cómo se organiza y cómo se implementa? 
 ¿Quiénes participan (comité escolar) y qué papel o rol desempeñan? 
 ¿Cómo funciona el comité escolar en relación a la merienda escolar? 
 ¿Conocen si hay alguna escuela en que funciona diferente? 
Estrategia Merienda 
Escolar
Descripción Valoración
Aspectos positivos y por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza
Quiénes participan 
Cómo funciona
2. Podría indicar cuál es la contribución en términos de beneficios que ha tenido la merienda 
escolar para, niños y niñas, familias, docentes, escuelas y comunidades beneficiarias? 
 Asistencia 
 Retención escolar 
 Rendimiento académico 
 Salud, nutrición, alimentación 
 Involucramiento de la comunidad educativa. 
3. En base a lo mencionado en la pregunta anterior, ¿Cuál es la incidencia en la calidad de la 
enseñanza al obtener estos beneficios? 
4. Según su experiencia como docente ¿Qué es lo que ha funcionado bien de la merienda 
escolar y qué no ha funcionado como se esperaba? Indague: 
 De lo que ha funcionado bien, ¿Cuáles fueron los elementos o factores facilitaron que 
funcionara bien 
 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? 
5. Podría valorar si la estrategia de merienda escolar se puede mantener en el tiempo a pesar de 
que el proyecto finalice? Por qué sí, o por qué no? Indague:
 Si hay otros programas o proyectos que se estén desarrollando "duplicando" los 
resultados del proyecto? 
 Qué aportan la familia de niños y niñas para la merienda escolar 
 ¿En qué medida los actores locales (sector privado, entidades y asociaciones de la 
comunidad, agencias del gobierno local, etc.) se han comprometido para garantizar la 
sostenibilidad de las actividades en las escuelas? 
 Recursos invertidos en esta estrategia desde el nivel departamental/regional hacia el 
municipio o escuela. 
Segundo tema: Capacitación SAN 
84
6. Para desarrollar las estrategias del programa ¿En qué temas fueron capacitados Ustedes, 
estudiantes, comité escolar y familias? Procure que mencione por cada beneficiario de ser 
posible; tenga en cuenta para explorar los temas de alimentación, nutrición, higiene de los 
alimentos, lavado de manos, métodos de desinfección del agua. 
 Temas de capacitación 
 Metodología, herramientas, instrumentos 
 Herramientas para seguimiento y monitoreo 
 Materiales, otros 
7. ¿Cómo aportó la capacitación en los conocimientos, actitudes y comportamientos de docentes, 
estudiantes, comité escolar, y familia? 
 Conocimientos nuevos adquiridos 
 Actitudes mejoradas (en comparación antes de la intervención) 
 Comportamientos en prácticas (en comparación antes de la intervención) 
8. Qué necesidades de capacitación o prioridades todavía falta por atender para que el programa 
funcione mejor o se obtengan mejores resultados? 
Tercer tema: Huertos escolares 
9. ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de huertos escolares? Hay huertos en las escuelas donde 
trabajan Ustedes? 
10. ¿Nos pueden comentar la experiencia que han tenido con los huertos escolares? Indague 
cómo se implementaron, y sí en alguna escuela se hizo diferente, o no se hizo nada? 
 ¿Qué contempla los huertos familiares (componentes, insumos, etc)? 
 ¿Cómo se organiza su implementación? 
 ¿Qué productos producen? 
 ¿Quiénes participan y qué papel o rol desempeña, por ejemplo el comité escolar? 
 ¿Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar. 
Estrategia Huerto 
escolar
Descripción Valoración
Aspectos positivos y por mejorar
Qué contempla 
Cómo se organiza
Quiénes participan
Cómo funciona
11. ¿Hay aceptabilidad de los huertos escolares y 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. 
 Si hay algunas familias que han hecho huertos en sus casas. 
85
 Hay compromiso de las partes involucradas para mantener os huertos 
12. En su criterio, ¿Qué funcionó bien de los huertos escolares y qué no lo logró funcionar de la 
manera en que se esperaba? Indague: 
 ¿Cuáles fueron los factores que facilitaron 
 ¿Cuáles fueron las limitantes o los elementos que afectaron los resultados esperados de 
los huertos escolares? 
13. 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 tema: Kioskos escolares saludables 
14. ¿En qué consiste la estrategia de Kioskos escolares saludables? 
15. Qué se ha hecho en las escuelas para promover comida saludable en los Kioskos escolares? 
Indague: 
 ¿Qué cambios se introdujeron en los kioskos (componentes, insumos, etc)? 
 ¿Cómo se garantiza que su funcionamiento sea acorde al programa (alimentos 
saludables? 
 ¿Qué resistencias han encontrado por parte de los dueños de kioskos o de parte de 
estudiantes? 
16. Cómo valora sus resultados, en términos de lo que funciona bien y lo que debe mejorar. 
Quinto tema: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones 
17. En relación factores facilitadores y limitantes para lograr los resultados de las estrategias en 
general, ¿Qué otros elementos puede mencionar? Por ejemplo, refiriéndose a los siguientes 
puntos: 
 Adecuación de estrategia o alguna actividad 
 Mecanismos de coordinación 
 Planes de acción y de mejora 
 Monitoreo, supervisión, evaluación en su escuela 
 Alianza para garantizar la sostenibilidad 
18. ¿Cuáles son las barreras de género y cómo participan las mujeres y los hombres en las 
estrategias del programa? 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 programa? 
19. ¿Podrían identificar desde su experiencia qué aprendizajes tuvieron Ustedes con la 
implementación de las estrategias del proyecto? 
20. Del resultado alcanzado en cada una de las estrategias qué lecciones aprendidas se pueden 
sacar? Merienda, huertos, capacitación, kioskos. Ubicar las lecciones en la tabla siguiente (
Puede llevarlo en un papelógrafo para llenarlo en conjunto).
86
Lecciones aprendidas
Estrategias Por su nivel de 
Organización
En base a su 
Funcionamiento
Por el Seguimiento y 
monitoreo dado
De acuerdo al resultado 
alcanzado
(positivo o negativo)
Merienda 
Escolar
Huertos 
Escolares
Capacitacion
es SAN
Kioscos o 
Glorietas
21. Para mejorar las estrategias del proyecto (programa PINE-MINED: merienda escolar, 
huertos, capacitación y kioskos escolares) que recomendaciones sugiere que se deben 
retomar? 
Recomendaciones
Estrategias Organización Funcionamiento Seguimiento y 
monitoreo
Capacitación Sostenibilidad
Merienda 
Escolar
Huertos 
Escolares
Capacitacione
s SAN
Kioscos o 
Glorietas
VI. Finalización de la actividad 
6. Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas 
7. Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar 
8. Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. 
9. Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas. 
10. Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 
Muchas gracias por su participación! 
87
Appendix 5. Table of survey results by Supervision Area 
88
J1 J2 CyY P1 P2 Total n % RD B1 B2 KH LP T1 T2 LC1 LC2 Total n % RD Total n % RD
MGD 
1.2
Porcentaje de estudiantes en las aulas que los maestros 
identifican como que no prestan atención (datos recopilados 
durante un solo día, a intervalos específicos)
C06 10.9 10.7 14.8 9.8 9.5 11.0 95 13.2 10.2 11.9 11.4 9.4 8.6 12.3 11.0 10.9 152 10.9 247 NA 15% 10%
MGD 
1.2.1
Porcentaje de estudiantes en escuelas seleccionadas que 
indican que tienen "hambre" o "mucha hambre" durante el día 
escolar (recopilado mediante encuestas a estudiantes)
C10 19 19 19 18 19 94 95 98.9 16 15 18 16 17 19 19 17 15 136 142 95.8 15 230 237 97.0 16 6% 3%
MGD 
1.2.1
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que actualmente están 
recibiendo merienda escolar C05 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 18 18 16 19 19 19 17 16 142 152 93.4 16 237 247 96.0 16 88% 92%
MGD 
1.2.1.1
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen recibir la merienda escolar 
4-5 veces a la semana C06 19 18 19 19 19 94 95 98.9 16 16 14 13 18 17 18 15 15 126 142 88.7 13 220 237 92.8 15 87% 92%
MGD 
1.3.1.1
Porcentaje de madres que dicen que su hijo/a recibe 
merienda escolar 4-5 veces a la semana D05 18 16 19 19 19 91 95 95.8 16 19 18 15 17 15 17 15 15 131 145 90.3 14 222 240 92.5 15 91% 92.5%
Porcentaje de madres que dicen que este año, sus hijos/as 
han recibido merienda escolar D01 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 19 19 16 19 19 19 17 17 145 152 95.4 16 240 247 97.2 16
Porcentaje de maestros/as que dicen que este año, en la 
escuela se ha recibido merienda escolar D05 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 18 18 16 18 19 19 17 17 142 152 93.4 16 237 247 96.0 16
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que comen algo en su 
casa antes de ir a la escuela C01 19 19 18 19 19 94 95 98.9 16 18 18 18 17 19 19 19 18 146 152 96.1 16 240 247 97.2 16
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen comer 3 o más veces al 
día C03 19 19 17 19 19 93 95 97.9 16 15 17 17 18 19 16 19 19 140 152 92.1 15 233 247 94.3 16
Porcentaje de madres que dicen que le dan comida a su 
hijo/a escolar 3 o más veces al día D11 18 19 16 19 19 91 95 95.8 16 11 13 17 17 18 13 16 12 117 152 77.0 13 208 247 84.2 14
Porcentaje de escuelas que no tienen terreno para huerto 
escolar D14A 4 8 6 6 6 30 95 31.6 4 2 2 4 3 2 3 4 4 24 152 15.8 NA 54 247 21.9 1
Porcentaje de escuelas que no tienen condicionaes 
agroecológica para huerto escolar D14D 6 11 12 6 3 38 95 40.0 5 8 7 11 6 3 3 2 1 41 152 27.0 3 79 247 32.0 3
Porcentaje de escuelas con poca o ningun 
instrumentos/herramienta para huertos escolares D14Otros 5 4 0 2 1 12 95 12.6 NA 1 1 1 4 4 0 2 3 16 152 10.5 NA 28 247 11.3 NA
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que la cantidad de 
alimentos que reciben es suficiente/mucho C07 15 16 19 16 19 85 95 89.5 15 15 15 13 15 17 16 16 15 122 142 85.9 13 207 237 87.3 13
Porcentaje de madres que dicen que la merienda que recibe 
su hijo/a es suficiente D02 17 11 15 16 17 76 95 80.0 13 8 12 8 8 18 15 13 13 95 145 65.5 10 171 240 71.3 11
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que los alimentos que 
reciben en la escuela son ricos/sabrosos C08 19 19 19 18 19 94 95 98.9 16 16 17 15 18 18 19 17 16 136 142 95.8 15 230 237 97.0 15
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que la calidad de la 
comida que reciben en la escuela son bueno/muy buena C09 18 18 18 18 19 91 95 95.8 16 15 17 13 15 17 17 16 15 125 142 88.0 14 216 237 91.1 15
Porcentaje de estudiantes que dicen haber faltado a clases 
algún día este año E03 15 13 17 15 12 72 95 75.8 13 14 16 18 11 14 19 15 16 123 152 80.9 14 195 247 78.9 13
MGD 
1.3.2
Porcentaje de estudiantes que dicen que las enfermedades 
son la principal razón por la que se ausentan de clases E04A 13 9 17 13 11 63 72 87.5 11 8 11 12 7 9 12 11 6 76 123 61.8 7 139 195 71.3 9 41% 20.0%
Porcentaje de madres que han recibido charlas sobre 
beneficios de la educación a sus hijos/as C02 15 15 17 18 19 84 95 88.4 15 8 7 6 13 9 18 8 5 74 152 48.7 7 158 247 64.0 10
MGD 
1.3.5
Porcentaje de madres que creen que la educación trae 
beneficio a sus hijos/as C01 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 152 152 100.0 16 247 247 100.0 16 100% 100%
MGD 
1.3.5
Porcentaje de padres y madres de familia en las comunidades 
meta que pueden nombrar al menos tres beneficios de la 
educación primaria
C03 6 8 3 6 0 23 95 24.2 8 2 0 0 8 3 3 1 2 19 152 12.5 NA 42 247 17.0 3 11% 50.0%
INCREMENTADA LA ATENCIÓN DE ESCOLARES
Línea de 
base META Cobertura Promedio
TOTAL
Cod INDICADOR Código 
Encuesta
JINOTEGA RACCS
Areas de Supervición Cobertura 
Promedio Areas de Supervisión Cobertura 
Promedio
89
J1 J2 CyY P1 P2 Total n % RD B1 B2 KH LP T1 T2 LC1 LC2 Total n % RD Total n % RD
Porcentaje de maestros que saben el tratamiento al agua de 
beber en la escuela E04 16 13 16 13 10 68 95 71.6 11 7 9 11 12 18 19 9 8 93 152 61.2 9 161 247 65.2 10
Porentaje de escolares que reconocen qué es agua limplia 
(sin bacteria, microbios) D03 17 17 16 17 19 86 95 90.5 15 16 15 17 17 12 17 13 12 119 152 78.3 13 205 247 83.0 13
MGD 
2.1
Porcentaje de padres y madres de familia en las comunidades 
meta que pueden identificar al menos tres prácticas 
importantes de salud/higiene (ej., el uso de letrinas)
E05 14 11 18 19 19 81 95 85.3 15 15 10 9 14 14 18 17 13 110 152 72.4 12 191 247 77.3 13 43% 70%
Porcentaje de maestros/as que conocen al menos 2 normas 
de higiene y preparación de alimentos D04 8 10 19 19 19 75 95 78.9 13 17 15 16 13 14 18 16 15 124 152 81.6 13 199 247 80.6 13
Porcentaje de maestros/as que conocen al menos 2 
condiciones sanitarias para almacenar los alimentos en la 
escuela
D03 18 17 19 18 19 91 95 95.8 16 18 14 15 16 18 18 14 11 124 152 81.6 13 215 247 87.0 15
Porcentaje de maestros/as que dicen que las capacitaciones 
les ha servido para orientar a niños/as en la escuela C03A 11 8 13 16 19 67 75 89.3 11 10 11 10 15 13 14 10 8 91 106 85.8 6 158 181 87.3 10
Porcentaje de madres que mencionó Alimentación 
Inadecuada como problema nutricional en escolares D12A 15 17 18 18 19 87 95 91.6 16 6 13 10 14 14 8 7 8 80 152 52.6 7 167 247 67.6 11
Porcentaje de madres que mencionó Poca disponibilidad 
de alimentos como problema nutricional en escolares D12B 5 5 8 4 1 23 95 24.2 5 6 4 1 5 1 4 2 1 24 152 15.8 NA 47 247 19.0 3
Porcentaje de madres de familia (o cuidadores/as) en las 
comunidades meta que pueden identificar al menos tres 
lineamientos/recomendaciones importantes nutrición o 
dieta
D06 14 12 17 19 19 81 95 85.3 15 12 7 14 9 12 10 11 6 81 152 53.3 8 162 247 65.6 10 11% 50%
MGD 
2.4
Porcentaje de maestros que refieren que siempre hay agua 
para beber en la escuela E01 13 12 16 13 8 62 95 65.3 7 7 10 7 10 14 17 8 11 84 152 55.3 7 146 247 59.1 9
Porcentaje de maestros que refieren que siempre hay agua 
para lavado de manos en su escuela E02 13 12 19 13 7 64 95 67.4 7 10 13 9 9 15 18 6 10 90 152 59.2 7 154 247 62.3 9
MGD 
S02 
Porcentaje de escuelas que cuentan con jabón y agua en un 
puesto de lavado de manos utilizado comúnmente las y los 
estudiantes
E07 1 1 5 0 1 8 67 11.9 4 3 5 1 10 13 2 0 38 66 57.6 46 133 34.6 NA 15% 80%
Porcentaje de escuelas que tienen servicio sanitario (letrina 
y/o inodoro) E09 18 19 19 19 19 94 95 98.9 16 18 18 16 7 18 17 19 19 132 152 86.8 15 226 247 91.5 12
MGD 
1.3.1
Porcentaje de escuelas meta que cuentan con letrinas 
separadas para niños y niñas E11 8 5 6 9 17 45 95 47.4 7 9 6 8 10 11 14 7 7 72 152 47.4 7 117 247 47.4 7 13% 30%
MGD 
S02 
Porcentaje de escuelas meta que lavan sus letrinas al menos 
una vez al día E10 17 16 19 19 19 90 94 95.7 16 16 15 16 7 16 17 15 16 118 132 89.4 15 208 226 92.0 16 43% 50%
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que han sido 
desparasitados E01 17 15 19 17 19 87 95 91.6 15 11 7 5 10 7 12 7 4 63 152 41.4 5 150 247 60.7 9
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que les han aplicado 
piojicidas E02 12 12 11 16 13 64 95 67.4 11 6 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 20 152 13.2 NA 84 247 34.0 4
Cod INDICADOR Código 
Encuesta
JINOTEGA RACCS
Areas de Supervición Cobertura 
Promedio Areas de Supervisión Cobertura 
Promedio
AUMENTADA LAS PRÁCTICAS DE SALUD Y ALIMENTACIÓN (SO2)
TOTAL
Línea de 
base Cobertura Promedio META
90
J1 J2 CyY P1 P2 Total n % RD B1 B2 KH LP T1 T2 LC1 LC2 Total n % RD Total n % RD
Porcentaje de estudiantes en las escuelas seleccionadas que 
consumen una comida diaria en la escuela C06 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 17 16 16 19 19 19 17 16 139 142 97.9 16 234 237 98.7 16
Porcentaje de padres y madres en las escuelas meta que 
obtienen una calificación aprobatoria en una prueba sobre 
preparación y almacenamiento seguro de alimentos
E07 14 15 17 18 19 83 95 87.4 15 12 8 12 14 15 17 13 10 101 152 66.4 11 184 247 74.5 12 0% 80%
Porcentaje de padres/madres que brindan/aportan 
complemento a la merienda escolar F06 19 18 19 19 19 94 95 98.9 16 16 16 13 18 17 19 14 10 123 152 80.9 13 217 247 87.9 15
Porcentaje de escuelas con huertos establecidos D13 10 4 11 1 4 30 95 31.6 4 7 2 3 3 7 6 1 2 31 152 20.4 1 61 247 24.7 2
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que han faltado a clase 
por ayudar en sus casas (trabajo no remunerado) E04B 3 5 1 4 0 13 72 18.1 NA 5 5 6 3 5 7 7 10 48 123 39.0 NA 61 195 31.3 NA
Porcentaje de escolares que dicen que han faltado a clase 
por trabajar fuera de casa (trabajo remunerado) E04C 1 1 2 0 1 5 72 6.9 NA 1 3 2 0 0 7 3 5 21 123 17.1 NA 26 195 13.3 NA
Porcentaje de escolares que practican lavado de manos antes 
de comer, según maestros/as D01 19 19 19 18 8 83 95 87.4 15 15 15 13 12 17 17 13 13 115 152 75.7 12 198 247 80.2 13
Porcentaje de escolares que practican lavado de manos antes 
de comer, según el propio escolar D06A 16 19 19 19 11 84 95 88.4 15 16 19 17 16 19 19 14 14 134 152 88.2 15 218 247 88.3 15
Porcentaje de madres que conocen al menos 3 momentos 
importantes en que deben lavar las manos E06 17 19 19 19 19 93 95 97.9 19 19 12 19 19 19 17 16 140 152 92.1 16 233 247 94.3 16
Porcentaje de escuelas que utilizan cloro para tratamiento al 
agua de consumo, según maestro/a E05A 16 9 16 13 8 62 68 91.2 NA 7 8 10 8 17 11 8 4 73 93 78.5 NA 135 161 83.9 NA
Porcentaje de maestros/as que conocen metodología SODIS E05B 0 1 0 0 0 1 68 1.5 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 2 11 93 11.8 NA 12 161 7.5 NA
Porcentaje de escolares que conocen 2 momentos adecuados 
de lavado de manos D05 15 18 19 16 19 87 95 91.6 15 17 14 16 15 15 19 16 15 127 152 83.6 14 214 247 86.6 14
Porcentaje de escolares que practican de forma adecuada el 
lavado de manos (en dos momentos) D06 12 17 19 18 11 77 95 81.1 17 13 9 10 15 17 13 14 108 152 71.1 185 247 74.9
Porcentaje de maestros/as que dicen haber recibido 
capacitación sobre importancia de alimentación nutritiva y 
saludable del escolar
C01 14 12 14 16 19 75 95 78.9 13 11 14 12 16 14 14 14 11 106 152 69.7 11 181 247 73.3 12
Porcentaje de escolares que reconocen que la alimentación 
en la escuela tiene beneficios para niños/as C11 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 19 19 19 19 18 19 19 18 150 152 98.7 16 245 247 99.2 16
Porcentaje de maestros/as que utilizan cuaderno de control de 
alimentos D08 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 17 12 14 16 19 19 16 13 126 152 82.9 13 221 247 89.5 15
Porcentaje de escuelas que no tienen cuaderno de control de 
alimentos D08 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0.0 1 4 1 2 0 0 2 3 13 152 8.6 NA 13 247 5.3 NA
Porcentaje de maestros/as que dicen supervisar la recepción 
de alimentos (CAE) D09 19 19 19 19 19 95 95 100.0 16 19 18 15 19 19 18 15 13 136 152 89.5 15 231 247 93.5 16
Cod INDICADOR Código 
Encuesta
JINOTEGA RACCS
Areas de Supervición Cobertura 
Promedio Areas de Supervisión Cobertura 
Promedio
OTROS INDICADORES
TOTAL
Línea de 
base Cobertura Promedio META