1
Honduras McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Project
Final Evaluation
4/20/2021
2
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Honduras McGovern-Dole 
Final Evaluation Report
Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition
Agreement Number: FFE-522-2015/013-00
Funding Year: FY2021
Project Duration: November 2015-March 2021 
Implemented by: Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Honduras
Evaluation Authored by: Creative Research & Evaluation Associates, LLC
Thomas M. Crea, Antonia Díaz-Valdés, Anayeli Lopez, José Acevedo
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Final Evaluation Report ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
 Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
 MGD I Baseline Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
 MGD I Midterm Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...10
 MGD I Final Study …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
 MGD II Baseline Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
 MGD II Midterm Study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
MGD II Final Study: Final Evaluation Purpose and Objectives …………………………………………………….. 11
 Overall Purpose and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
 Evaluation Questions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
 Target Population and Sampling Plan ……………………………………………………………………………………….13
 Limitations and Possible Selection Bias …………………………………………………………………………………….15
 MGD Final Evaluation Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17
Explanation of Final Evaluation Indicators and Means of Verification …………………………………………. 17
 Result 1.0 – Improved Literacy of School-Age Children ……………………………………………………………. 17
 Result 2.0 – Increased Government Support ……………………………………………………………………………. 21
 Result 3.0 – Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups …………………21
 Result 4.0 – Increased Capacity of Government Institutions ……………………………………………………..22
 Result 5.0 – Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework ………………………………………………………….23
 Result 6.0 – More Consistent Teacher Attendance ……………………………………………………………………24
 Result 7.0 – Better Access to School Supplies and Materials ……………………………………………………..25
 Result 8.0 – Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials ………………………………………………………… 28
 Result 9.0 – Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers …………………………………………………………..28
 Result 10.0 – Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators …………………………………… 31
 Result 11.0 – Increased Access to Food (School Feeding) …………………………………………………………. 34
 Result 12.0 – Improved Student Attendance ……………………………………………………………………………. 36
 Result 13.0 – Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (or Decreased Disincentives)……………38
 Result 14.0 – Improved School Infrastructure ………………………………………………………………………….. 38
 Result 15.0 – Increased Student Enrollment …………………………………………………………………………….. 41
 Result 16.0 – Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education ……………………………42
 Consequences of COVID 19 Pandemic ……………………………………………………………………………………… 45
4
Key Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
 Relevance ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49
 Effectiveness ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
 Efficiency ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
 Impact ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53
 Sustainability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..55
Progress Made on Midterm Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………..61
Final Evaluation Recommendations ……….…………………………………………………………………………………… 65
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..67
APPENDIX A: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Indicators ………………………………………………………………. 69
APPENDIX B: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Terms of Reference…. ……………………………………………. 75
APPENDIX C: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Measurement Instruments ……………………………………. 75
5
List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices
Table 1. Critical MGD II Outcomes and Related Evaluation Questions ………………………………………….12
Table 2. Key Criteria and Related Evaluation Questions ……………………………………………………………….13
Table 3. Sample by Municipality …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Table 4: 2019 MIDEH Scores by Grade and Gender (n=1,728) …………………………………………………….. 19
Table 5. Parent’s Use of Information on Child Academic Achievement ………………………………………..20
Table 6. School Type Disaggregated by Gender ……………………………………………………………………………24
Table 7. Results from SOE Teacher Observations (n=807) …………………………………………………………… 29
Table 8. Results from SOE Educational Administrator Observations (n=315) ………………………………. 32
Table 9. Alignment of Results of the MGD Program with the Strategic Objectives of the Strategic 
 Plan 2014–2018……………………………….……………………………….…………………………………………….50
Table 10. Alignment of Results of the MGD Program with the Strategic Quality Area of the Strategic 
 Plan 2014–2018…………………………….…………………………….…………………………….…………………… 51
Figure 1. Baseline and Midterm MIDEH Scores by Gender ………………………………………………………….. 20
Figure 2. Teaching Methodologies Used by Teachers …………………………………………………………………..30
Figure 3. Use of Techniques and Methodologies Used at the Beginning of 
 Program Implementation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
Figure 4. Food Received by Children …………………………………………………………………………………………… 36
Figure 5. Students Receiving USDA Assistance (2015-2020) …………………………………………………………41
Figure 6. Importance of Education ………………………………………….………………………………………………….. 42
Figure 7. Frequency of Parent Visits to the School ……………………………………………………………………….43
Matrix 1. Teacher Attendance ………………………………………….………………………………………………………….25
Matrix 2. Increase Access of School Supplies and Materials …………………………………………………………27
Matrix 3. Teacher and School Principal Trainings …………………………………………………………………………33
Matrix 4. Parents’ View on the Importance of Education ……………………………………………………………. 44
Matrix 5. Educational Challenges During the Pandemic …………………………………………………………….. 47
Matrix 6. Parental Involvement in the Education of their Children ……………………………………………… 49
Matrix 7. Impact of School Feeding Program ………………………………………….……………………………………54
Matrix 8. Sustainability of Project Effects ………………………………………….…………………………………………56
Matrix 9. The Role of Actors in the Sustainability of the Program ………………………………………………..57
Matrix 10. Interagency Relationships ……………………………………….………………………………………………… 59
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the staff of CRS Honduras, and their implementing partners 
Caritas and COCEPRADII, for assistance in the successful execution of this project, particularly Olga 
Canelas, Glenda Hernandez, Wilson Zelaya, Marlon Garcia, and Jennifer Mallman. We also thank 
the many participants who contributed their time to this study.
6
Acronyms
APF Asociación de Padres de Familia
Caritas SRC Social Ministry of the Dioceses of Santa Rosa de Copán (Caritas de la Diócesis de 
Copán)
CCEPREB Community Center of Pre-primary Education (Centro Comunitario de Educación 
Pre-Básica)
COCEPRADII Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development of Intibucá 
(Comité Central pro Agua y Desarrollo Integral de Intibucá)
CEB Centro de Educación Básica
CED El Consejo Escolar de Desarrollo (Comité Escolar)
COMDE El Consejo Municipal Desarrollo Educativo
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DDEI Dirección Departamental de Educación de Intibucá
EPRED Dropout Prevention Team
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning System
MGD McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
MoE Ministry of Education
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations
PASE Safety Patrol
PEC School Educational Project
POA Annual Operational Plan
PROHECO Honduran Community Education Programs (Programa Hondureño de Educación 
Comunitaria), a type of primary school in Honduras
SACE School Administration System (Sistema de Administración de Centros Educativos)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
7
Executive Summary
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGD), 
implemented by CRS Honduras and funded by USDA, is a school feeding project focused on the 
strategic objective to improve the literacy of school-age children in 17 municipalities in the 
Department of Intibucá. The first phase of the three-year project ended in December 2015. A new 
five-year (2016-2020) project (MGD II) was approved in November 2015, and began 
implementation in February 2016. As with the previous three years, the MGD II project in 
Honduras continues to benefit more than 50,000 children and over 2,000 teachers in the 17 
municipalities of Intibucá. MGD II provides school meals to all students enrolled in 1,047 schools 
(509 schools and basic education centers, 308 kindergartens and 230 preschool centers and non￾formal basic CCEPREBs). The purpose of this study is to examine how MGD has met its final targets 
for all Results Indicators during Phase II, and to identify the need for any further corrections 
should MGD be implemented for a third phase. 
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected every aspect of MGD implementation. In spite of 
these challenges, CRS was able to accomplish most of the targets and was able to continue 
supporting schools, parents and students. For the Final Evaluation, all data collection was 
conducted over mobile phones because of the COVID-19 pandemic. CRS staff first identified a list 
of schools in which strong or adequate cell phone signals existed (N=589, 56.3% of all MGD 
schools). From this list, a random sample of 180 schools was selected, and surveys were conducted 
with parents (n=1,159), teachers (n=362), and principals (n=127). Sensitivity analyses revealed few 
statistically significant differences in demographics between the Midterm Evaluation (school 
population of N=1,047) and the Final Evaluation (school population of N=589) suggesting that the 
reduced sample may not have introduced significant sampling bias. Researchers also interviewed 
parents (n=37), municipality mayors (n=4), departmental district directors (n=2), municipal 
directors (n=4), CCEPREB members (n=8), and USDA staff (n=2). In addition, CRS MEAL data and 
records from Caritas and COCEPRADII were reviewed to supply indicators.
All Results Indicators are displayed in Appendix A, and a summary of these indicators is provided 
below. For ease of interpretation, a three-tiered color code is used to denote achievement of final 
indicator targets, as follows:
GREEN: Achievement (within 5.0% of final target) of final target (45 of 53 indicators)
YELLOW: Moderate progress (6.0%-20.0%) towards final target (4 of 53 indicators) 
RED: Slow or concerning progress (<20.0%) towards final target (4 of 53 indicators)
Notably, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of indicators were not able to be collected; 
in these cases, the midterm indicators served as proxies for the final indicators. Reading 
comprehension data were not collected by the Government of Honduras for 2nd graders in 2019, 
so for this report we used data for 3rd graders; thus, direct comparisons between 2nd and 3rd
graders should be made cautiously. With these caveats in mind, results show that 45 of the 53 
results indicators met or exceeded their final targets. Four of 53 indicators showed moderate 
progress, and four of 53 showed slow or concerning progress. Results indicators are presented in 
Appendix A.
8
Conclusion and Recommendations
At the Final Evaluation, the MGD program achieved and exceeded most of its indicators. The 
COVID-19 pandemic necessitated school shut-downs around the country, and CRS successfully 
pivoted their school feeding program to provide take-home rations for beneficiaries. CRS also 
successfully trained teachers, leveraged funds from the government and increased public-private 
partnerships to support MGD implementation and sustainability, and improved school 
infrastructure. Yet, the effects of COVID-19 on MGD and on communities has been profound. 
Many children are not able to access education given lack of internet and technological resources. 
This issue is also compounded by declines in reading comprehension prior to COVID-19, as well as 
drops in school enrollment compared to the Midterm Evaluation. Communities also continue to 
grapple with the issue of sustainability and the commitment of local governments to maintain 
MGD program activities after phase-out. Given these challenges, recommendations from the Final 
Evaluation are as follows:
1. Examine the reasons behind reading comprehension declines in 2019, and identify and 
implement a strategy to reverse these declines.
2. Develop a strategy for mitigating learning losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, 
including a strategy to build parents’ capacities to support their children’s learning at 
home.
3. Examine the reasons behind drops in school enrollment in 2019.
4. Assist district and departmental managers to establish a cohesive sustainability plan for 
post-MGD transition.
9
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
USDA FOOD FOR EDUCATION PHASE II PROJECT – CRS HONDURAS
Introduction
School feeding programs focus on the promotion of household investment in the human capital of 
their children, through engagement in education that in turn encourages children’s school 
enrollment and attendance (Alderman & Bundy, 2012; Cheung & Perrota, 2010; WFP, 2007). 
Investing in human capital through school feeding is typically considered a long-term economic 
goal to reduce poverty and alleviate hunger among school children (Alderman & Bundy, 2012), and 
to promote larger scale economic growth through the promotion of nutrition and health 
(Martorell, 1999).
Food insecurity worldwide has increased since the economic crisis of 2008, especially for the 
world’s most vulnerable populations (Vilar-Compte et al., 2015), and food insecurity poses 
significant negative implications for children’s health and education (Jyoti et al., 2005). In this 
context, school feeding programs such as MGD that provide agricultural commodities as well as 
technical assistance and financial support (WFP, 2007; United States Department of Agriculture 
[USDA], 2016), gain increased importance (Bundy et al., 2009). 
School feeding programs also demonstrate immediate and practical benefits for families and 
communities. Parents are more likely to send their children to school when the direct costs of 
sending them, in terms of their contributions to the household, are lower than the benefit 
received in terms of food provision and prospects for the future (Alderman et al., 2012). For 
example, in-school programs typically provide children with a meal or snack served in school, 
which literature shows to be effective incentives to enrollment and attendance (Alderman et al., 
2012; Bundy et al., 2009; Cheung & Perrotta, 2010). There is mounting evidence suggesting that 
school feeding programs help children enroll in school and remain there, and alleviate hunger, as 
well as avoid short-term cognitive impairment, and improve cognitive performance (Kristjansson 
et al., 2009). Results from our research team’s comparative analysis of MGD programs in 
Guatemala and Honduras show consistent gains in reading comprehension alongside MGD 
implementation (Crea et al., 2021).
The purpose of this study is to conduct a Final Evaluation of Phase II of MGD in Honduras, 
concurrent with its implementation through 2020, considering the significant impact of the COVID￾19 pandemic on all aspects of program implementation.
Background
The McGovern-Dole Food for Education (MGD) Project, implemented by CRS Honduras and funded 
by USDA, is a school feeding project focused on the strategic objective to improve the literacy of 
school-age children in 17 municipalities in the department of Intibucá. Since 2012, Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), the Social Pastoral of the Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán (CARITAS) and the 
Central Committee for Comprehensive Development of Water and Intibucá (COCEPRADII, for its 
acronym in Spanish), in coordination with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Livestock and the Ministry of Social Development through its School Feeding Program has 
10
been implementing the MGD project. MGD is funded by the Department of Agriculture of the 
United States of America (USDA) and provides, through CRS, complementary foods for school 
meals, as well all the financial resources required to implement each of the technical components 
of the project. The MGD project’s strategic goal is to improve the literacy of school age children in 
the 17 municipalities of Intibucá, Honduras. 
The MGD I Baseline Study was conducted between February and April 2013. Quantitative surveys 
were collected from 284 parents, 184 teachers, and 147 primary school directors, and 31 
interviews or focus groups with key stakeholders. 129 schools were sampled. Based on EGRA 
reading comprehension scores, results showed literacy rates of 18.6% for 2nd graders, 20.3% for 
3rd graders, and 27.1% for 4th graders. In regards to school attendance, 92.3% of kindergartners 
and 89.9% of primary school students regularly attended USDA-supported classrooms (80% time).
The MGD I Midterm Study was conducted beginning in July 2014, and used a mixed methods 
approach of quantitative surveys, and qualitative methods using interviews and focus groups with 
key informants. In the MTE, 149 schools were sampled, with a target of 15 randomly selected 
students assessed per school. The MTE surveyed 172 principals, 471 teachers, and 1,135 parents. 
EGRA assessments were conducted for 437 children across 180 schools. MTE results showed 
significant increases in students demonstrating 100% reading competency1
, compared with 
baseline results (2nd grade increased from 18.6% to 38.3%; 3rd grade increased from 20.3% to 
43.1%; 4th grade increased from 27.1% to 42.5%). The MTE also found that 95% of students 
attended more than 80% of their classes during the school year, compared with 89% in the 
baseline. Teacher attendance also significantly increased from baseline to MTE.
The MGD I Final Study began in October 2015, and used a mixed methods approach of quantitative 
surveys, and qualitative methods using interviews and focus groups with key informants. The final 
sample of schools in the study totaled n=176). Within each school, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade 
students were invited to participate in the study. For larger schools, 22 students were randomly 
selected for inclusion in the study using preexisting school rosters. For smaller schools, all 2nd, 
3rd, and 4th grade students were invited to participate. The final sample totaled n=3,235 students, 
n=168 directors, n=328 teachers, and n=537 parent volunteers. The final evaluation showed 
significant gains for children compared with baseline and midterm evaluations. At final evaluation, 
39.4% of boys showed 100% literacy compared to 36.1% at midterm and 17.5% at baseline. Girls 
slightly decreased at final (45.5%) compared with midterm (46.5%), after making substantial gains 
since baseline (26.1%). Boys’ attendance totaled 94.8% at final, compared with 95.2% at midterm 
and 89.3% at baseline, and girls’ attendance totaled 92.6% at final, compared with 95.6% at 
midterm and 90.4% at baseline. Teacher attendance totaled 93.3% at final evaluation, compared 
with 97.8% at MTE and 90.3% at baseline.
The MGD II Baseline Study began in August of 2016 and also used a mixed-methods approach in 
180 randomly selected schools, with interviews and focus groups targeted to parents only 
(n=1,269). National MIDEH data specific to Intibucá were also compared with EGRA data collected 
from the Final Evaluation of FFE Phase I. Results from both EGRA and MIDEH assessments show 
boys and girls well below the project’s final target of 75.0% literacy. On average across the three 
grades (2-4), children showed higher scores on MIDEH assessments (44.5%) compared with EGRA 
assessments (42.1%). Average MIDEH scores are well below the final FFE II target of 75.0% literacy 
1 Reading competency was measured using the USAID Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA), scored on a 
scale of 1-5, with a score of 5 indicating 100% literacy.
11
for boys and girls, with 43.6% for boys, 45.5% for girls, and 44.5% overall. Parents believed that 
the greatest impact of FFE was related to the food provided to children at school. Parents and 
teachers also believed that these food provisions helped children be more attentive in the 
classroom and also improved their academic performance and confidence. In addition, being fed 
at school allowed children to spend more time at school and not have to travel to home and back 
for lunch. In general, the hypothesized effects of FFE, according to the theory of change, seem to 
be operating as conceptualized by USDA and CRS Honduras. The issue of project sustainability 
remained a concern especially related to a lack of inter-agency coordination among government, 
municipal, and international organizations, such that important FFE-related activities may 
disappear. An additional barrier to sustainability is the high level of poverty experienced by most 
parents and the seasonal variation incomes which impacts the ability to provide school and other 
materials. 
The MGD II Midterm Study began in July 2018 using a mixed methods approach. A random sample 
of 182 schools was selected, and surveys were conducted with parents (n=1,720), students 
(n=3,464), teachers (n=524), and principals (n=171). One school from each municipality was 
randomly selected prior to data collection, and parents at this school were invited to participate in 
a focus group (n=17 focus groups). Researchers also interviewed municipality mayors, the 
education district director, the departmental district director, and USDA staff. In addition, CRS 
MEAL data and records from Caritas and COCEPRADII were reviewed to supply indicators. Results 
showed that CRS had made significant gains in achieving targeted results for MGD Phase II. The 
majority of indicators (42 of 52, or 80.8%) had already met or exceeded their final targets. In 
addition, CRS also followed recommendations from the Baseline Evaluation and advanced 
community buy-in to the project. Yet, some challenges emerged from the Midterm Evaluation, 
related to slower than expected gains in reading comprehension, issues around the sustainability 
of project activities, meeting the needs of students with learning and other disabilities, problems 
around health and hygiene, and issues related to financial decision-making among parents.
The MGD II Final Study: Final Evaluation Purpose and Objectives
Overall Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the final evaluation process is to use scientific, evidence-based 
measurement of project indicators to conduct evaluations to assess changes that have taken place 
as a result of project activities. The main objective of the project is to assess and analyze the 
project’s progress and performance at midterm in order to provide lessons learned and 
recommendations for USDA, program participants, and other key stakeholders with the goal of 
improving project implementation and supporting the development of future food assistance and 
early grade reading programs. Specific objectives are as follows:
(1) Conduct a critical and objective analysis, utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques, 
to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of the strategies used in the project.
(2) Generate data for accountability on behalf of the people CRS serves (beneficiaries), 
stakeholders, and the program donor.
(3) Provide recommendations for future program implementation.
(4) Document best practices, share lessons learned, and evaluate sustainability efforts.
12
Evaluation Questions
The final evaluation is guided by questions that directly relate to the critical outcomes outlined in 
the theory of change as well as key evaluation criteria such as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
impact, and sustainability. Critical outcomes are outlined below in Table 1 with their associated 
evaluation questions.
Table 1. Critical MGD II Outcomes and Related Evaluation Questions
Critical outcomes Evaluation questions related to project design 
assumptions
More knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated teachers
who consistently attend classes and continuously improve 
their teaching methods and techniques on the basis of 
career development plans and effective human resources 
management practices.
● What changes can be observed in the quality of 
education? To what extent did the training provided to 
teachers and the adoption of improved human 
resource management practices contribute to this? 
How? 
More knowledgeable, skilled and motivated school 
administrators who effectively and efficiently manage 
schools to provide consistent, quality education and 
incentives for school-age children enrollment and 
attendance, and who motivate teachers using good 
human resource management practices. 
● What changes can be observed in the effectiveness and 
efficiency in schools’ management and in the 
management of human resources? To what extent did 
the training provided to school administrators 
contribute to this? How?
Improved instructional materials for literacy that 
incorporate quality content to support children´s 
education and are broadly accessible; and, improved 
access for children to school supplies and materials.
● What instructional materials have had the highest 
impact on education quality? Why? How could they be 
further improved? 
Parents are motivated to send their children to school
because they understand the value of and prioritize their 
child’s education, they are certain that their children have 
safe transportation, schools are in good condition and 
have appropriate, well-maintained sanitary facilities, and 
children receive a nutritious meal
● What is the effectiveness of different incentives to 
promote children’s enrollment and regular attendance? 
Which are the most important? What other barriers for 
children’s enrollment and attendance were not 
addressed by the project?
Children are motivated to attend school because they 
have teachers who use innovative methods and age￾appropriate techniques to ensure a quality education; 
and, extracurricular activities are available which help 
develop life competencies and are suitable to the context.
● What role do teachers’ knowledge, skills and 
commitment play in promoting children’s enrollment 
and attendance? How do innovative education 
methods and techniques contribute? What has helped 
most to motivate children to attend school?
Families have the financial resources, including savings, 
and management skills to support their children´s 
education and are aware of the importance of education
for their children.
● How do SILC groups contribute to improved financial 
management for families? To what extent have SILC 
participants been able to save and how much of these 
savings have they invested in the education of their 
children? What is the contribution of these savings to 
children’s enrollment and school attendance?
Communities have the motivation and competencies to 
support education activities, prevent school drop-outs, 
maintain a safe passage for children to and from school, 
and advocate for public investment in education.
● What has helped most to motivate communities to 
support education? What skills and competencies have 
best enabled communities to advocate for children´s 
education needs? What gaps remain? 
The final evaluation is also guided by a set of key program criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability. These are outlined in Table 2 below, along with associated 
evaluation questions to be included in the qualitative component of the evaluation methodology.
13
Table 2. Key Criteria and Related Evaluation Questions
Key Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance ● Do project stakeholders (students, teachers, PTAs, parents, and local officials) feel the 
project has met their needs? Why or why not? 
● How well does the project design align with the Secretariat of Education and the 
Secretariat of Development and Social Inclusion´s goals, objectives and strategies?
● How appropriate are project interventions for Intibucá’s local culture and context?
Effectiveness ● To what extent have project interventions been effective in meeting output and outcome 
targets?
● What factors have inhibited or facilitated the achievement of project goals, objectives and 
expected results?
● Do any project interventions need to be adjusted to achieve project targets? If so, which 
interventions and why?
Efficiency ● What instructional materials have had the highest impact on education quality? Why? How 
could they be further improved? 
Impact ● What interventions are the most cost-effective? Are there other interventions which would 
be more cost-effective while still achieving the same results? If so, what are these?
● What results were accomplished using community inputs/support? What were the critical 
factors that allowed you to provide those inputs?
Sustainability ● Are the effects, both intended and unintended, of the project likely to be sustained in the 
absence of support from USDA and CRS? What evidence is there that suggests this?
● What are the major barriers to achieving sustainability benchmarks? Can any action be 
taken (or could have been taken) to address these barriers?
● What strategies have most contributed to local ownership of the project? How? Why?
● Did the project build the necessary capacity among multiple participants to continue with 
project’s activities after it ends? If not, what further support is needed?
● Do the target groups have sufficient financial resources to continue the project’s activities 
after it has ended? If not, what further support is needed?
Methods
Target Population and Sampling Plan
The study sites for both the midterm and final evaluations include all schools participating in the 
MGD program across the 17 municipalities of Intibucá. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person 
data collection was not possible. As a result, all data collection was conducted over the phone in 
places where participants had adequate mobile cell networks. CRS staff first identified 589 schools 
in areas with adequate signals (56.3% of the population of 1,047 schools). From among these 589
schools, 180 were randomly sampled for data collection in keeping with the methodologies of the 
earlier MGD evaluation studies, which identified an acceptable margin of error of 2.9%, given a 
population of N=1,047 schools, assuming a 95% response rate from schools, with a 95% 
confidence interval.
For quantitative data, a two-stage sampling approach was employed: (1) a simple random sample 
of 180 schools; and (2) purposive sampling of teachers and randomly sampled parents of all 
children within each school, as well as the school principal at each school. Prior to data collection, 
quantitative and qualitative forms were validated with a sample of parents (n=5), principals (n=5), 
14
and teachers (n=5). As a result of the validation, minor changes were made to the questions, 
seeking to reduce the number of questions, to avoid the loss of quality of the data provided by the 
respondents.
Because all data collection was conducted over the phone, parents were randomly sampled by 
researchers prior to data collection based on school census lists where phone numbers are 
available in areas with adequate cell phone signals. A brief informed consent was texted to all 
parents when invitations to participate were sent, and parents were given the opportunity to opt 
out of the study if they were not interested. Enumerators ensured informed consent again during 
calls with parents to ensure they understood the study’s purposes and procedures.
Table 3. Sample by Municipality
Municipality # Parents
Sampled
Teachers 
Sampled
Principals 
Sampled
Camasca 59 22 6
Colomoncagua 73 14 5
Concepcion 86 8 3
Dolores 17 13 6
Intibucá 169 96 22
Jesus de Otoro 212 26 13
La Esperanza 41 14 4
Magdalena 29 2 2
Masaguara 42 14 17
San Antonio 56 8 7
San Francisco de Opalaca 25 19 8
San Isidro 39 8 1
San Juan 115 25 8
San Marcos de la Sierra 39 19 4
San Miguelito 53 16 7
Santa Lucia 23 3 2
Yamaranguila 81 55 12
Total 1,159 362 127
For qualitative data, one parent from each municipality was randomly selected to participate in an 
interview (n=17). Researchers also interviewed municipality mayors, the education district 
director, the departmental district director, and USDA staff. All participants underwent informed 
consent before participating. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional 
Review Board (IRB) at Boston College. Data collection was conducted the first two weeks of 
December 2020.
Limitations and Potential Selection Bias
Given the COVID-19 pandemic and related health guidelines, interviews and surveys had to be 
conducted with those participants with access to mobile phones and reliable mobile cell networks. 
15
This limitation could potentially introduce selection bias, especially among parents. The lack of 
access to a smartphone and internet by children and parents was mentioned by teachers and 
principals. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which parent, principal, 
and teacher demographics in the Final Evaluation samples significantly differed from those in the 
Midterm Evaluation samples. These findings are reported below.
Parents. For the Midterm Evaluation 1,720 parents were surveyed. Of those, 88.0% were from 
rural areas and 71.1% were females. The average age was 37.3 (SD=10.4). The average number of 
kids under the age of 18 living at the household was 3 (SD=1.6). 74% were housewives and 20% 
were farmers. Fewer parents were surveyed at the Final Evaluation (n=1,159) because of the 
limited number of schools and parents with access to adequate cell phone signals. 70% of these 
parents were from urban areas and 79% were females. The average age was 37 (SD=10). The 
average number of kids under the age of 18 living at the household was 3 (SD=1.4). 64% were 
housewives and 13% were farmers. 
Independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests showed no statistically significant differences 
between samples regarding sex; number of children under 18 living at the household; or the 
average age of respondents. However, statistically significant differences emerged between Final 
Evaluation and Midterm Evaluation samples for parents’ primary occupation and the proportion of 
parents from urban areas. The proportion of housewives and farmers was higher at the Midterm 
Evaluation compared to the Final Evaluation (X2
=6.3, p<0.05). At the Final Evaluation, more 
parents (30.7%) were from urban areas and fewer (69.3%) were from rural areas At the Midterm 
Evaluation, 22% of parents were from urban areas and 88% from rural areas (X2
=154.8, p<0.05).
Principals. At the Midterm Evaluation, the sample of principals (n=171) was 55.6% female and 
44.4% male, with a median age of 39.8 (SD=10.5). The average number of years as director was 8.2 
(SD=7.2) and 4.1% had a master’s degree, 69% had an undergraduate college degree, 10.5% had 
completed technical college, and 16.4% had completed high school. At the Final Evaluation the 
sample of principals (n=127), 59% of whom were female and 41% male, with a median age of 39.7 
(SD=10.4). The average number of years as director was 8.7 (SD=7.9) and 1% had a master’s 
degree, 69% had an undergraduate college degree, 7.1% had completed technical college, and 
22.8% had completed high school. Sensitivity test indicates that there were no statistically 
significant differences regarding principals’ age, sex, level of education, and time as a director.
Teachers. At the Midterm Evaluation, the sample of teachers (n=524) was 68.4% female and 31.6% 
male, with a median age of 39 years old (SD=10.34). Teachers reported the following levels of 
education: 3.4% had a Master’s degree, 70.1% had an undergraduate college degree, 14.9% had 
completed technical college, and 11.6% were high school graduates. At the Final Evaluation, the 
sample of teachers (n=362) was 72% female and 28% male, with a median age of 41 years old 
(SD=10). Teachers reported the following levels of education: 1.4% had a Master’s degree, 79.3% 
had an undergraduate college degree, 1.38% had completed technical college, and 10% were high 
school graduates. Sensitivity tests indicated no statistically significant differences regarding 
teachers’ age or sex. However, teachers at the Midterm Evaluation had higher levels of education 
than those at the Final Evaluation (X2
=11.2, p<0.05).
Overall, some differences emerged between sample demographics at the Final Evaluation 
compared to the Midterm Evaluation. Yet, these samples are similar on most demographic 
variables. These findings mitigate some of the concerns about selection bias introduced by 
16
conducting surveys entirely over the phone. All enumerators were local Hondurans with college￾level educations. There is the potential for social desirability bias on the part of respondents.
MGD Final Evaluation Measures
Data collection tools were developed by the consultants, and project staff reviewed these measures 
with the research team to ensure the data collection instruments were aligned to the objectives of 
the final evaluation. After the review, data collection instruments were pre-tested with participants 
from randomly selected schools. All measurement instruments were inputted into the KoBo Toolbox 
platform for electronic data collection using enumerators’ smartphones. Measurement instruments 
included the following: 
i. Parent Surveys + Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) Parent Report
Parents of primary school children (n=1,159) were invited to participate in individual survey 
interviews. The content of the surveys was modeled on those used in the MGD Midterm 
Evaluation, and focused on parents’ perceptions of the importance of education, issues related to 
program implementation and sustainability, and the extent to which MGD helped support the 
larger community. The PHQ-92 is a widely used assessment of mental health; parents were asked 
these questions on behalf of their children.
ii. Principal Surveys
Survey interviews were completed with principals from all study schools (n=127). These interviews 
asked principals’ perceptions of the program’s relevance, effectiveness, adequacy, and gender 
equity, and teaching quality. Because structured classroom observations and school infrastructure 
observations were not possible for this evaluation, similar questions were asked of principals.
iii. Teacher Surveys
Survey interviews were completed with teachers at each school (approximately n=362 teachers; 2 
schools in the final evaluation sample were unitary, so that teachers also served as school 
principals). Interview questions assessed teachers’ perceptions of the quality of teaching and 
training, student assistance, student hygiene, and infrastructure.
iv. Key Informant Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were completed with parents (n=37), municipality mayors (n=4), 
departmental district directors (n=2), municipal directors (n=4), CCEPREB members (n=8), and USDA 
staff (n=2). Interview questions followed those used in key information interviews conducted in the 
MGD Midterm Evaluation and focused on the importance of education and MGD program 
implementation.
v. Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory
2 https://www.pedsalex.com/client_files/file/phq9-parent.pdf
17
The Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPIII Short)3 is a 50-item measures developed to 
examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the following domains: work and employment; 
home life; social activities; economic outcomes; emotional health and wellbeing; physical health 
problems; physical distancing and quarantine; infection history; and positive change. Researchers 
worked with CRS staff to determine which subscales were most relevant to MGD outcomes. All 
teachers and parents were administered the EPIII survey.
vi. Baseline Evaluation, Midterm Evaluation, and Administrative Data
Data from previous evaluations and project monitoring and evaluation reports were used to help 
establish midterm and final evaluation indicators for Phase II, for comparison with baseline and 
midterm. Where available, school administrative data were drawn from existing datasets (e.g., 
Information Communication and Technology [ICT], databases from the Ministry of Education, the 
SEDUC 2019 study, and the 2019 USAID Honduras Reading Activity project.
vii. Validation of CRS MEAL Indicators
COVID-19 restrictions prohibited in-person validation of MEAL Results Indicators as was done in the 
Midterm Evaluation. CRS MEAL databases and documentation were provided for Results Indicators: 
1.1, 1.3, 3.0, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 13.1, and 15.0. All indicators from available databases were calculated 
by the evaluator to replicate and verify MEAL Results Indicators reported in the MGD Semi-Annual 
Report.
Results
Explanation of Final Evaluation Indicators and Means of Verification. As displayed in Appendix A, 
this study measured all Results Indicators according to the Performance Improvement Plan (PMP) 
established between CRS and USDA. Data for most indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL 
records. Wherever possible, these data were verified by cross checking with electronic records 
collected by Caritas and COCEPRADII, and these verifications are reported along with the relevant 
indicators below. Importantly, data collected by the Secretariat of Education (SOE), and reading 
comprehension data collected as part of the MIDEH project, were not able to be verified 
independently. As such, these data are of unknown reliability and validity.
Result 1.0 - Improved Literacy of School-Age Children
Data for Results Indicators 1.1 through 1.2 were obtained through CRS MEAL records and each 
surpassed its final target. The numbers reported in the Midterm Evaluation were added to the 
new students who entered school and received school meals, and new volunteers who received 
dry rations or were trained. Data for Result Indicator 1.3 – Reading Comprehension were obtained 
by the USAID and GoH MIDEH project. 
3 Grasso, D.J., Briggs-Gowan, M.J., Ford, J.D., & Carter, A.S. (2020). The Epidemic – Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPIII).
18
**NOTE: The MIDEH project did not collect data from children in 2nd grade in the Department of 
Intibucá in 2019. As a result, and with USDA approval, we report MIDEH scores from 3rd graders
for Indicator 1.3.
Result Indicator 1.1 - Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions. 
CRS MEAL records for 2020 show an increase of 14,479 students since the midterm evaluation. As 
of 2020, 86,317 individuals directly benefited from USDA-funded interventions. This number 
represents 127.7% of the final target of 67,599.
Result Indicator 1.1.b - female. CRS MEAL records show an increase of 8,516 female students 
since the midterm evaluation. As of 2020, 46,980 female direct beneficiaries directly benefited 
from MGD, representing 131.9% of the final target of 35,609.
Result Indicator 1.1.c - male. CRS MEAL records show an increase of 5,963 male students since the 
midterm. As of 2020, 39,337 male direct beneficiaries directly benefited from MGD, representing 
123.3% of the final target of 31,900.
Result Indicator 1.2 - Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions. CRS MEAL records show a total of 135,888 individuals indirectly benefiting from 
USDA-funded interventions. This number represents 186.0% of the final target of 73,076 and is 
calculated as the number of direct beneficiaries multiplied by 2.18. However, this number is a 
decrease of 27,903 students compared to the midterm evaluation.
Result Indicator 1.3 - Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text. Reading 
comprehension data were obtained from the MIDEH project, sponsored by USAID and the 
Government of Honduras, and collected in 2019. MIDEH scores are calculated on a 4-point scale, 
as follows: 1=Unsatisfactory (100-199); 2=Needs Improvement (200-299); 3=Satisfactory (300-
399); and 4=Advanced (400-500). 
Given that data for 2nd graders were not available, we calculated reading proficiency for children in 
3rd and 6th grades for comparison to baseline and midterm indicators (see Figure 1). Proficiency in 
reading comprehension is calculated as the percent of 3rd and 6th grade children who score a 3 or 4 
on the MIDEH test. Overall, 26.2% of children scored in the proficient range. 33.7% of 3rd graders
scored in the proficient range, a decrease from 2nd graders’ proficiency of 50.9% at the Midterm 
Evaluation, and below the final target of 60.0% (see Table 4). 
Result Indicator 1.3.a - female. **NOTE: this indicator is calculated for 3rd graders, instead of 2nd
graders as in the Baseline and Midterm Evaluations. Of all female students taking the MIDEH test 
in 3rd and 6th grade, 23.5% scored in the proficient range (see Table 4). 30.2% of 3rd grade female 
students scored in the proficient range, representing significant decrease compared to the 
Baseline proficiency of 45.7% and Midterm proficiency of 49.9% for 2nd grade females, and is 
well below the final target of 61.0%. 
19
Table 4. 2019 MIDEH Scores by Grade (3 & 6) and Gender (n=1,728)
Grade Disaggregation
Fail Pass
Score=1 (n=254) Score=2 (n=1,021) Score=3 (n=419) Score=4 (n=34)
Grade ***
Three (n=740) 7.2% 59.2% 31.1% 2.6%
Six (n=988) 20.3% 59.0% 19.1% 1.5%
Gender (Grade 3)
Male (n=382) 7.1% 56.0% 34.0% 2.9%
Female (n=358) 7.3% 62.6% 27.9% 2.2%
Gender (Grade 6)
Male (n=550) 21.5% 60.2% 17.1% 1.3%
Female (n=438) 18.9% 57.5% 21.7% 1.8%
Gender Totals (Grade 3)
Male (n=382) n=241 (63.1%) n=141 (36.9%)
Female (n=358) n=250 (69.8%) n=108 (30.2%)
GRADE 3 TOTALS n=249 (33.7%)
Gender Totals (Grade 6) *
Male (n=550) n=449 (81.6%) n=101 (18.4%)
Female (n=438) n=335 (76.5%) n=103 (23.5%)
GRADE 6 TOTALS n=204 (20.7%)
OVERALL TOTALS n=1,275 (73.8%) n=453 (26.2%)
* p<.05 for Gender (Grade 6) by Pass/Fail; *** p<.001 for Grade x Score
Result Indicator 1.3.b - male. **NOTE: this indicator is calculated for 3rd graders, instead of 2nd
graders as in the Baseline and Midterm Evaluations. Of all male students taking the MIDEH test in 
3rd and 6th grade, 18.4% scored in the proficient range (see Table 4). 36.9% of male 3rd graders 
scored in the proficient range, representing a significant decrease compared to the Baseline 
proficiency of 43.7% and Midterm proficiency of 51.1% for 2nd grade males, and is well below the 
target of 59.0%. 
However, 3rd grade males showed an increase in reading comprehension at final evaluation 
(36.9%) compared to the midterm evaluation (35.6%) (see Figure 1). 6th grade males and females 
both experienced significant declines in reading comprehension since midterm, and 3rd grade 
females declined about 5.0%. All indicators of reading comprehension at the final evaluation are 
significantly below the project target of 60.0%.
Notably, with the revised target of 60.0% for the Final Evaluation (reduced from 75.0% for the 
Baseline and Midterm Evaluations), 2nd graders were on track to achieve reading comprehension 
targets at the Final Evaluation. Thus, comparisons between 3rd graders and 2nd graders must be 
made with caution as the decline at Final Evaluation may simply reflect differences between 3rd
graders and 2nd graders.
20
Figure 1. Baseline, Midterm, and Final MIDEH Scores by Gender
Results from the parent survey information also provide insight into the ways in which parents 
interact with their children to support their learning and development of literacy skills. A large 
majority of parents indicated that they read to their children (93.3%), and of those, 34.3% read 
every day and 60% read between one and four times a week. Parents generally have access to 
books (92.1%) but also newspapers (37.1%), the Bible (27.75%), and other literacy materials in the 
home. Most parents (96%) help their children with homework, and of those, 54% help daily and 
24% help at least three times a week. Most parents also reported receiving information about 
their child’s academic achievement (70.2%). Of these, parents reported receiving midterm grades 
(76.9%, a decrease since midterm of 90.9%, and an improve since baseline of 60.4%), end-of-year 
standardized test scores (57.4%, a decrease since midterm of 80.6%, and an improvement since 
baseline of less than 1%), and monthly updates on academic progress (50.4%, a decrease since 
midterm of 65.5%, and an improvement since baseline of 16%). Table 5 reports how parents 
reported using the information they received to support their child’s learning.
Table 5. Parent’s Use of Information on Child Academic Achievement
Baseline Midterm Final
Take positive actions to help my child succeed 57.2% 96.0% 96%
To help your child with homework 18.6% 90.6% 89.4%
To participate actively in the activities of the 
center
5.8% 87.3% 68.6%
To have a positive impact on other parents 1.8% 61.4% 48.0%
61.0%
66.6%
58.4%
67.7%
30.9% 35.4% 30.20%
28.6%
34.8% 35.6% 36.90% 35.2%
23.50%
34.7%
37.0%
18.40%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Baseline (2015) Midterm (2017) Final (2019)
GRADE 2 Female GRADE 2 Male GRADE 3 Female GRADE 3 Male
GRADE 6 Female GRADE 6 Male TARGET
21
Result 2.0 - Increased Government Support
Data for Result 2.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL data. All indicators achieved and 
surpassed final targets.
Result Indicator 2.1 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Other Public). According to CRS MEAL records, $316,727.00 of public funds have 
been invested as a result of USDA assistance. This number represents 300.0% of the final target of 
$95,001.00.
Result Indicator 2.2 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that $2,365,257.00 of public and private funds have 
been leveraged as a result of USDA assistance representing 706.1% of the final target of 
$335,000.00.
Result Indicator 2.3 - Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Host Government). CRS records show that the host government has invested 
$772,544.00 related to USDA assistance. This figure represents 322.0% of the final target of 
$239,999.00.
● Verification. All numbers were verified with partner records from Caritas and COCEPRADII. 
These records include information on infrastructure, school transportation, the warehouse 
in Siguatepeque, Tom’s Shoes donations, book donations and communication materials.
(also see Result 14).
Result 3.0 - Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Data for Result 3.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records. One indicator surpassed 
the final target, and other indicators came between 40%-80% of their final targets.
Result Indicator 3.1 - Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar "school" 
governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that 
574 PTAs or other school governance structures have been supported as a result of USDA 
assistance. This number represents 112.8% of the final target of 509. These structures were 
already reported in the Midterm Evaluation and continued to be strengthened with training and 
materials.
Result Indicator 3.2 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance. CRS MEAL records show that six public-private partnerships have been formed as a 
result of USDA assistance, representing 120.0% of the final target of 5.
Result Indicator 3.3 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (Multi-focus). CRS MEAL records show that four multi-focus public-private 
partnerships have been formed as a result of USDA assistance, representing 133.3% of the final 
target of 3. In 2020, two new public-private partnerships were formed. The first partnership was 
with a communications and media company called Comunica which developed campaigns for 
MGD school enrollment, hygiene and importance of education. Comunica donated the design for 
22
posters explaining methods of COVID prevention, as well as a one-minute radio message about 
symptoms and how to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The second partnership was with a printing 
company, Publigraficas, which donated 2000 posters (1,000 focusing on good hygiene for COVID
prevention, and 1,000 about the importance of education). SEDUC was responsible for distributing 
the posters in front of schools, health centers, and other public spaces.
Result Indicator 3.4 - Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (Education). CRS MEAL records show that two public-private partnerships around 
education have been established, representing 100.0% of the final target of two. In September 
2018, CRS signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a partnership with Feed the 
Children to receive and distribute Tom’s Shoes to more than 50,000 students. In 2019, a public￾private partnership (PPP) was developed among MGD, the Tiburcio Carias Andino School in Jesus 
de Otoro, and the organization Chispa Project. This PPP established a school library with 1,500 
books. In early February, when the school year opened, Chispa Project painted and set up the 
library and trained teachers in how to use and manage the library.
● Verification. Partnerships with Comunica, Publigraficas, Chispa Project, and Feed the 
Children were verified with MOU documents for each.
Principals. Principals reported on family and community engagement in the school. 96.6% of 
principals stated that parents are involved in the School Educational Project, a slight decrease
since midterm - 97.7%. 
Parents. Parents also shared information about their involvement in the school. Of parent survey 
respondents, 40.4% reported belonging to the school food committee, a slight decrease since 
midterm of 43.7%. On the committee, 78.9% of parents reported being involved in management 
of food, 63.3% in preparing food, and 27.6% in training mothers in food service. 10% of parents 
reported engaging in other activities, including serving in administrative roles (president, 
treasurer, etc.), participating in transporting food, and cleaning. 
Teachers. Of teachers, 97% indicated that parents are involved in the School Educational Project4
, 
a slight decrease since midterm of 98.5%. Of those, 71.5% reported that parents were very 
involved in the School Educational Project while 29% reported that parents were not very 
involved, an improvement since midterm. 
Result 4.0 - Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Result Indicator 4.1 - Number of Honduran government authorities that have been trained to 
implement activities in accordance with their roles. CRS MEAL records show that 170 Honduran 
government authorities have been trained to implement activities in accordance with their roles. 
This figure represents 200.0% of the final target of 85.
4 The School Educational Project (PEC for its acronym in Spanish) is a strategic plan for the development of 
educational centers, focused on achieving the goals of the educational system. The project is based on a 
diagnosis made with the participation of the community and the staff of educational centers.
23
● Verification. Partner data spreadsheet showed that 170 district supervisors in the 
Department-level Teacher Accompanying Unit (DDEI) were trained.
Result 5.0 - Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Result Indicators 5.1 - 5.5 all refer to the number of educational policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance. Below are the definitions of each stage, and the extent to which these stages have 
been achieved according to CRS MEAL records. 
Indicator 5.1 STAGE 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis 
(review of existing policy/ regulation/ administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy/ 
regulations/ administrative procedures). CRS records show that three policies, regulations or 
administrative procedures have achieved Stage One, representing 100.0% of the final target of 
three.
Indicator 5.2 STAGE 2: Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second 
stage includes public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or 
revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure. CRS records show that three policies, 
regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Two, representing 100.0% of the 
final target of three.
Indicator 5.3 STAGE 3: Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were 
presented for legislation/ decree to improve the policy environment for education). CRS records 
show that five regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Three, representing 
167.0% of the final target of three.
Indicator 5.4 STAGE 4: Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval 
(legislation/decree) of new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant 
authority]. CRS records show that five regulations or administrative procedures have achieved 
Stage Four, representing 167.0% of the final target of three.
Indicator 5.5 STAGE 5: Completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised 
policy/ regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority). CRS records show that five 
regulations or administrative procedures have achieved Stage Five, representing 167.0% of the 
final target of three. CRS staff reported three activities related to reaching the 5th stage of the 
policy reform process:
1. School age children in the municipality must be enrolled in school:
Three mayors were surveyed to gather information regarding the status of the municipal 
ordinances related to student enrollment and if they have progressed from Stage Four. 
These mayors reported that at the beginning of the year they coordinated with the 
COMDE and the Department of Children and Youth at the municipal level, to carry out 
home visits with parents who have not enrolled their children in school. They also 
provided scholarships, uniforms and school supplies to some of these children who did not 
enroll because of a lack of economic resources.
24
2. Establish the participation of volunteer substitute/assistant teachers (VAD):
Before the pandemic began, the implementation of the VAD program continued. This 
process was led by the DDEI but because of school closures, volunteers are not active. 
However, in order to document the implementation, the MGD team is systematizing the 
VAD strategy in coordination with key actors. 
3. Improving the process for departmental-level teacher coaching:
The MGD team has supported the Supervision and Coaching unit to help them implement 
their annual work plan. During the pandemic they have monitored this plan virtually and 
have focused on ensuring that teachers are still leading classes during the pandemic￾related school closures. This coaching may be done virtually, through phone calls, text 
messages, or home visits.
● Verification. COCEPRADII and Caritas records related to activities strategies.
Result 6.0 - More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Result Indicator 6.1. Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 
90% of scheduled school days per school year. These data are not available for 2020. The COVID￾19 pandemic necessitated school closures, such that teachers were not able to attend school for 
the 2020 academic year. Therefore, this indicator will be calculated as the 2019 percent of 
teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90% of scheduled school days per 
school year, which totaled 96.2% representing 120.3% of the final target of 80%.
As displayed in Table 6, there are 2,269 teachers across all municipalities: 133 for Pre-K and K
(97.7% female teachers), 1,699 for Primary (63.9% female teachers) and 437 for Secondary (60.6% 
female teachers). 
Table 6. School Type Disaggregated by Gender
Type Female Male Total
Pre-K and K (Prebasica) 130 3 133
Primary (Basica) 1,086 613 1,699
Secondary (Media) 262 175 437
TOTAL 1,478 791 2,269
How Have Districts Managed Teacher Absences?
The two most common ways in which the principals and districts have reduced teacher absences is 
through the enforcement of existing institutional norms (57% of comments) and mechanisms of 
internal control (73% of comments). These are strategies that they were already utilizing during 
the Midterm Evaluation, indicating that educational entities have been consistent and these 
strategies have been successful. An example of how they have enforced institutional policy 
practices is by working together with school principals so that they do not approve more absences 
to teachers than are permitted by law. An example of how they use mechanisms of internal 
controls to monitor absences is school principals recording the daily attendance of teachers using 
an attendance book, which is then monitored by the Consejo Escolar de Desarrollo (CED).
25
The CED plays a very important role in monitoring and controlling the mechanisms of internal 
control by visiting the schools on a weekly basis to monitor attendance. They record attendance 
through an electronic form that is then submitted to the Ministry of Education. It is worth noting 
that the CED receives trainings on monitoring attendance through CRS as a strategy to reduce 
teacher absenteeism. The interviews with district and departmental directors attest to the impact 
these trainings have had on reducing teacher absenteeism.
While teacher absenteeism has decreased as a result of enforcing institutional policies and using 
mechanisms of internal control, teachers experience inevitable life events that force them to miss 
work (e.g., work-related training, illness, etc.). With the support of MGD, a group of parents 
known as teacher support volunteers (VADs) have been trained to provide support in the 
classroom when teachers are absent. Therefore, VADs have also played a crucial role over the past 
few years in providing support when teachers must be absent by supervising children in the 
classroom (see Matrix 1).
Matrix 1. Teacher Attendance
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Enforcement of 
Institutional 
Norms
Departmental Director: “There has been an emphasis for the 
school principals to not allow or authorize more absences for 
teachers than the law permits.”
57%
(2 comments)
Mechanisms of 
Internal Control
Municipal Director: “We used an internal control, an internal 
control that the school principals are responsible for.” 
Municipal Director: “Even in 2019 they were implementing this 
part of the teacher attendance, they filled the teacher attendance 
book for the principal of the school, or say they sign and there is 
always available for view by the CED president what is the support, 
to the principal also more than anything this attendance of the 
teacher more than anything.” 
71%
(3 comments)
Support from 
parents (VADs)
Municipal Director: “Another change is that parents (VAD 
members) are being trained on providing support in the classroom. 
Of course they are not supervising the teachers, but instead they 
are helping out with the work that needs to be done. When a 
teacher doesn’t show up to classes or is absent, the students miss 
out on their education so parents are stepping in to support the 
education of their children.”
29%
(2 comments)
Result 7.0 - Better Access to School Supplies and Materials
Result Indicator 7.1 - Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided 
as a result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show that 104,206 textbooks and other 
materials were provided as a result of USDA assistance. This number represents 253.0% of the 
final target of 41,200. At the Midterm Evaluation in 2019, a total of 5987 materials were delivered 
in the form of school kits. During the COVID-19 pandemic, students received a total of 92,883 
learning packets. Feedback from the Supervision and Coaching unit as well as national data 
26
showed that many students were unable to access the virtual classes offered by SEDUC and 
therefore needed an alternative form of instruction. SEDUC developed the content for the learning 
packets following the national curriculum. The MGD team then worked with SEDUC to create the 
layout, printing and distribution of learning packets for reading and writing for all grades in 
primary and preprimary schools.
● Verification. Caritas and COCEPRADII activity databases for 2018, 2019, and 2020, showing 
the number of school kits and learning packets distributed at each school.
Parents. The parent survey included questions related to use of libraries and access to learning 
materials. Overall, 22.43% of parents reported visiting a library. Those who have visited the library 
reported doing so to take their kids to read, to look at material for school homework, and to do 
research. 
75.3% of parents indicated that they have observed learning materials when they have visited 
their child’s school (during pre-COVID times). When asked what they do when no materials are 
available5
, 59.02% of parents said they would work to obtain more resources, 86.5% said they 
would contribute financial resources to support obtaining learning materials, 51.6% said they 
would help construct/make more learning materials with available resources, 0.78% said they 
were not sure, and 3.3% said they would do nothing.
Teachers. Data from teacher surveys indicate that 51.1% of teachers received an education kit 
from the MGD program. Of these, 99.0% reported that the kit is used in the school setting. 
Teachers also reported that the following sources had contributed to access of school materials6
: 
actions of local government (45.0%), school management by the director (72.2%), NGOs (80.9%), 
civil society organizations (28.7%), and other groups (18.5%). Conversely, the following items were 
cited by teachers as responsible for limited access to school materials: lack of resources (89.2%), 
school location (25.7%), lack of sufficient materials for all students (82.9%), and other reasons 
(17.1%). 
Principals. 62.0% of principals stated that the resources are insufficient or very insufficient. 34.7% 
of principals said the resources were sufficient and 3.2% said they were very abundant. 
Who Provides School Supplies (Books, Notebooks, Didactic Material), to Whom Are They Awarded, 
and Under What Criteria?
The responses from mayors, district directors, and departmental directors show that similar to the 
Midterm Evaluation, schools continue to have access to school supplies and didactic materials 
through the MGD program, which are distributed by local organizations including CRS, CARITAS, 
and COCEPRADDII. Department directors stated that their primary source of support has come 
from CRS. CRS works directly with the departmental director to determine their needs and 
priorities, and based on this, CRS has donated computers to the district and departmental 
directors as well as didactic supplies to teachers. The supplies provided by CRS are also given out 
to families in need. Municipal directors mentioned that students’ motivation has increased 
5 Parents could select more than one option.
6 Note that because teachers could select multiple sources, cumulative percentages are greater than 100%.
27
because of the additional aid they are able to provide in the schools. Parents have also voiced 
gratitude for the donated school supplies because it provides needed supplies to the families free 
of cost. Teachers and school administrators are also incentivized.
Other local organizations and actors that also provide school supplies and didactic material include 
the mayoral offices, the Ministry of Education, and World Vision, but the donations are primarily 
supplemental and the types of materials they provide may differ from those that MGD provides. 
For example, the mayoral offices depend on the municipal transfers and the quantity they 
distribute depends on their annual budget. In addition, one of the municipal directors emphasizes 
MGD’s role in distributing school supplies to students, while sometimes the mayoral offices only 
distribute didactic materials to teachers. World Vision provided booklets for the students during 
the Pandemic.
When informants were interviewed during the Midterm Evaluation, the Ministry of Education had 
not determined specific criteria for provision of school supplies and didactic materials for schools, 
leaving stakeholders to decide for themselves to whom the materials are distributed based on a 
student’s educational merit or the level of poverty. This dynamic continues to be the case 
presently. The program and the Ministry of Education allow the schools to use their own 
judgement to determine how they will distribute the school supplies and didactic materials to 
students and teachers.
 
Matrix 2. Increase Access of School Supplies and Materials
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Contribution 
from MGD 
(Catholic Relief 
Services/ 
COCEPRADDII/ 
CARITAS
Department Director: “We determine which needs should be 
prioritized in our plans. CRS has seen and supported the projects 
that we are trying to achieve. For example, CRS always asks us 
what our needs are. Last year they donated computers and DATA 
to municipal and department directors. Project technicians have 
also helped in the delivery of materials to teachers. All of this is 
overseen by the municipal directors.”
District Director: “With CARITAS it goes directly to the students. 
The Mayor’s office provide some kits to the teachers, but CARITAS 
always gives directly to the students. They provide the backpacks 
to students.”
58%
(5 comments)
Contributions 
from other 
organizations/ac
tors
Mayor: “Those from World Vision helped us with booklets. We are 
headed into a year where we don’t know or it is unsure if classes 
will be face-to-face.”
Mayor: “In part by the secretary of education sometimes they give 
some small donations like books. Some institutions have brought 
donations like backpacks, notebooks, the same as CARITAS.”
Mayor: “With the municipal transfers we provide school supplies 
at the start of the school year, during registration. Therefore, we 
provide books to every school, depending on their matriculation 
number, same depending on the grade of the child, and quantity of 
42%
(5 comments)
28
children. This is started through the transition funds and it is done 
equally.”
Criteria for 
awarding the 
supplies and 
materials
Mayor: “According to each institution’s policy, they award the 
supplies to children who have better grades. Other institutions 
award them based on the family’s poverty level.”
District Director: “They use different criteria in the schools. For 
example, where there is a high dropout rate or where the 
enrollment rate has decreased significantly. In some places the 
economic condition of the children is used as the criteria.”
42%
(5 comments)
Result 8.0 - Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials
Result Indicator 8.1. Number of schools receiving literacy instruction materials (materials from 
the Basic National Curriculum Design - DCNB) and/or unpublished texts produced by school 
children. CRS MEAL records show that an additional 111 schools received literacy instruction 
materials, beyond the 936 schools documented in the Midterm Evaluation. The number of schools 
receiving materials at the final evaluation thus totals 1,047, a number which represents 101.0% 
attainment of the final target of 1,040 schools.
Before the pandemic, schools received monthly progress exam booklets for Spanish and math 
which are required for use by the Ministry of Education. In response to a request by teachers and 
education officials, the MGD team, in collaboration with the department level education office, 
created answer sheets to accompany the booklets. The addition of answer sheets allows exam 
booklets to be reused for several school years, which is important because the Ministry of 
Education has not provided schools with new exam booklets each year. The answer sheets are 
disposable whereas the exam booklets can then be reused for several years. During the pandemic, 
learning packets were distributed that were designed for home schooling following the national 
curriculum. This shift allowed for greater parent-led participation in children’s education, 
especially because most families do not have reliable access to internet to support children’s 
remote school attendance.
● Verification: Caritas and COCEPRADII activity databases for 2018, 2019, and 2020, showing 
the number of school kits and learning packets distributed at each school.
Result 9.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Result Indicator 9.1. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance.
According to the CRS MGD Project Monitoring Plan (PMP), Indicator 9.1 should be measured 
externally by the Honduras SOE to examine the extent to which teachers demonstrate use of new 
and quality teaching techniques or tools. The SOE measured three indicators for Pre-K and K, 
Primary, and Secondary teachers: (1) Planning aligned to the DCNB (standards-schedules); (2) Use 
and management of textbooks; and (3) Application of monthly formative tests, answer sheets, and 
summary tables of monthly achievements. For each teacher, answers are scores as “incomplete”, 
“no”, or “yes”.
29
Unfortunately, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, no new data on use of new and quality 
teaching techniques were able to be collected. Therefore, Result Indicator 9.1 remains unchanged 
since the Midterm Evaluation. As displayed in Table 7, a total of 1,458 teachers were observed. 
Among these, 80 teachers (39.6%) from Pre-K and K demonstrated all three techniques, as did 663 
from Primary (59.2%) and 64 from Secondary (47.1%). Combined, the number of teachers 
demonstrating all three techniques totaled 807, representing 201.8% of the final target of 400.
Table 7. Results from SOE Teacher Observations (n=807)
Pre-K and K
(n=202)
Primary
(n=1,120)
Secondary
(n=136)
Planning aligned to the DCNB (yes) 184 (91.1%) 1,014 (90.5%) 123 (90.4%)
Use and management of textbooks (yes) 191 (94.6%) 1,005 (89.7%) 123 (90.4%)
Application of monthly formative tests, answer sheets, 
and summary tables of monthly achievements (yes) 86 (42.6%) 741 (66.2%) 70 (51.5%)
ALL THREE 80 (39.6%) 663 (59.2%) 64 (47.1%)
TOTAL 807 (201.8%)
In March, the Interinstitutional roundtable for Teacher Supervision and Coaching began meeting 
for the 2020 school year. Participants represented CRS, USAID, the German Aprode project, 
UNICEF, UNESCO and the Inter-American Development Bank and was led by the National 
Education Supervision Department (SINASE). The goal of this roundtable was to formulate a 
national strategy regarding how to monitor school coverage during the pandemic and at-home 
learning. Teachers from department-level supervision units were trained in the use of the ODK 
database to input data monthly. ODK is open-source software for collecting data that allows for 
offline data collection with mobile devices in remote areas. The MGD team assisted with the 
report design using PowerBI so that data could be shared at the national level. These data help 
SEDUC with decision-making and allocation of resources. The data collected refer to the number of 
students who are not able to access virtual classes. These data prompted the development of 
paper learning packets so that all students could learn at home, regardless of technology access.
Result Indicator 9.2. Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance. CRS MEAL records show 717 teachers were trained or certified since 
the 1,214 documented in the Midterm Evaluation. The total number is therefore 1,931 teachers 
trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance, representing 128.0% achievement of the final 
target of 1,509 teachers. 
● Verification: Caritas and COCEPRADII electronic records. The overall gender 
disaggregation is 477 female trainees (66.5%) and 240 male trainees (33.5%). 
Teachers. Teachers were trained in a variety of course subjects, including mathematics (58.8%), 
Spanish (79.8%), EGRA test (20.4%), EGMA test (12.7%), information technology (51.1%), health 
and hygiene (70.4%), child tutoring (37.57%) and parent education (65.19%). Some teachers also 
reported receiving training from other programs in sexual education, English, and other topics. 
Also, 28.2% of teachers reported receiving formation on distance teaching. 98.6% of teachers 
reported using the following techniques/methodologies (see Figure 2).
30
Figure 2. Teaching Methodologies Used by Teachers
18.23% Teachers reported using other techniques or methodologies, such as elaboration of 
material, constructivism and conflict management. 
At the beginning of the MGD program implementation teachers reported they used the following 
techniques (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Use of techniques and methodologies at the beginning of the program implementation
Teachers also reported that 96.4% work with students who have learning difficulties, 70.4% have 
special needs, and 37.6% come from diverse ethnic backgrounds. When asked about their 
knowledge in identifying learning disabilities, 55.0% of teachers reported their knowledge as 
“good” or “very good”, while 41.4% reported having acceptable and average knowledge, and 3.0% 
insufficient knowledge. Many teachers (53.0%) reported having participated in training sessions to 
help them support students with learning and literacy problems. Of those who received training to 
support students with learning difficulties, 68.8% came from the Secretary of Education, 68.8% 
came from an NGO, 7.3% came from a cooperative, and 32.8% came from another source. 
Additionally, 64.9% of teachers reported participating in MGD training.
31
Principals. Principals were also asked to report on increased knowledge of teachers. 68.5% of 
principals have organized training sessions for teachers, some of which included partnerships with 
the Secretary of Education (77.0%), NGOs (85.1%), or other organizations (46.0%). Of those who 
offered trainings, 79.5% reported offering training in mathematics, 91.3% in Spanish, 55.9% in 
Informative technology, 27.6% in EGA tests, 82.7% in Hygiene and sanitization, 58.3% on child 
tutoring, 74.8% on parents´ education, and 40.2% on another topic. These other topics included 
English, social and emotional skill building, nutrition, among other specific teacher training topics. 
Nearly all (97.6%) stated that teachers used these techniques correctly.
49.6% of principals offered training sessions specifically to address learning disabilities in students. 
Similar to other trainings, 81.0% of principals reported working with the Secretary of Education, 
79.4% reported working with an NGO, 30.2% worked with a cooperative, 39.7% worked with other 
groups. Many principals (73.2%) reported that they personally offer pedagogical assistance to their 
teachers - 29.0% said they do so monthly, 38.7% quarterly, and 32.0% every four months or more. 
During the pandemic, 37.6% said they did so monthly, 6.5% quarterly, and 56.0% every four 
months or more. Principals were also asked to share if they offer trainings specific to vulnerable 
student populations. 64.4% of principals reported offering trainings on learning disabilities, 52.5% 
on special education needs, and 52.5% offered trainings on the specific needs of various ethnic 
groups. Principals reported that most teachers had some knowledge of identifying learning 
problems in students - 51.0% were good/very good, 55.0% were regular/acceptable, and 3.2% 
were insufficient. 
Additionally, principals reported that teachers were trained during the pandemic. 81.9% said 
principals and teachers were trained on use and management of books and worksheets in Spanish, 
virtual communication (81.9%), biosecurity (92.1%), human talent (41.7%), stress management 
(51.2%), emotions management (75.6%), students’ motivation (65.4%), SINAGER (57.5%), talking 
to other teachers (41.7%), and other trainings (15%). 
Result 10.0 - Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
Result Indicator 10.1 - Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. Similar to Result 
Indicator 9, Indicator 10.1 was measured externally by the Honduras SOE to examine the extent to 
which educational administrators demonstrate use of new or tools as a result of USDA assistance. 
The SOE measured three indicators for Pre-K and K and Primary teachers: (1) School education 
plan (PEC) elaborated; (2) There is a school curriculum project (for Primary); Authorization and 
monitoring of Teacher Planning (for Pre-K and K); and (3) School applies diagnostic and training 
assessments. For each teacher, answers are scores as “incomplete”, “no”, or “yes”.
Unfortunately, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, no new data on use of new and quality 
teaching techniques were able to be collected. Therefore, Result Indicator 10.1 remains 
unchanged since the Midterm Evaluation. As displayed in Table 8, 668 educational administrators 
were observed using these three indicators (n=234 for Pre-K and K and n=434 for Primary). The 
number of educational administrators demonstrating all three techniques totaled 119 (50.9%) for 
Pre-K and K and 196 (45.2%) for Primary. Combined, the number of educational administrators 
demonstrating all three techniques totaled 315, representing 49.5% of the final target of 637.
32
Table 8. Results from SOE Educational Administrator Observations (n=315)
Pre-K and K
(n=234)
Primary
(n=434)
School education plan (PEC) elaborated (yes) 179 (76.5%) 347 (80.0%)
There is a school curriculum project [Authorization and 
monitoring of Teacher Planning for Pre-K and K] (yes)
180 (76.9%) 251 (57.8%)
School applies diagnostic and training assessments (yes) 163 (69.7%) 329 (75.8%)
ALL THREE 119 (50.9%) 196 (45.2%)
TOTAL 315 (49.5%)
SOE collected data on the number of students not able to access virtual classes. These data 
prompted the development of paper learning packets so that all students could learn at home, 
regardless of technology access.
Result Indicator 10.2 - Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance. Data obtained from CRS MEAL records show that MGD provided 
trainings to 178 school administrators since the Midterm Evaluation, for a total of 968 school 
administrators or officials trained. This number represents 138.0% of the final target of 703.
However, none of these school administrators are new since the Midterm Evaluation; they are the 
same as those administrators trained previously.
● Verification: Caritas and COCEPRADII lists of people trained
School Principals. Drawing from data in the school principals survey, the characteristics of school 
principals are as follows: most are women (59.1%) with a median age of 40 years (M=39.7,
SD=10.5). The median average number of years worked in the school is 9 (M=8.7, SD=7.9). Most 
had either completed college (68.5%) or attended some college/obtained a technical degree 
(20.0%). A smaller proportion had only a high school degree (8.7%) or attended a technical school 
(0.8%).
The majority of principals indicated that they use a specific technique or approach to school 
administration during 2019 (94.5%), specifically in the areas of education management (83.3%), 
teacher evaluation (85.8%), using the SACE (92.5%), dropout prevention (79.2%), annual operating 
plans (92.5%), teacher monitoring and support (75.0%), infotechnology (50.8%), and other 
strategies (24.7%). Additionally, over 50% of principals stated they use a specific technique or 
approach to school administration during the pandemic (2020), specifically, education 
management (68.3%), teacher evaluation (75.8%), using SACE (94.2%), dropout prevention 
(80.0%), annual operating plan (82.5%), teachers monitoring and support (55.0%), infotechnology 
(64.2%), and other strategies (23.3%).
Teachers. The majority of teachers indicated that their administrators use a specific technique or 
approach to school administration (94.2%), specifically in the areas of education management 
(71.0%), school management (31.0%), teacher evaluation (96.1%), using the SACE (97.0%), dropout 
prevention (86.7%), annual operating plans (93.4%), teacher monitoring and support (72.1%), 
infotechnology (67.7%), special techniques during the pandemic (80.7%), and other strategies 
(7.7%).
33
Teacher and School Principals Trainings and Capacity Building 
CRS has focused on developing the technical, methodological, supervision, and administrative 
skills and knowledge of teachers and school administrators. The majority of trainings provided to 
teachers focused on the areas of technology, mathematics, technology, reading, and Spanish. 
Additional trainings on administrative practices were provided to teachers and school 
administrators. Some topics included conflict resolution, project management and 
implementation, resource development, and human resource management.
Informants reported that topics for capacity building have been identified and decided upon after 
the completion of a needs assessment conducted in partnership with municipal directors and CRS. 
Teachers and school principals received certificates after the completion of the trainings. Because 
the topics have been selected in conjunction with district directors, and based on the need and 
interest of educational stakeholders, they have been well accepted by teachers and school 
administrators (see Matrix 3).
Matrix 3. Teacher and School Administrator Trainings
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Pedagogic 
training
District Directors: “Teachers were trained in the areas of 
math, reading, and language. In those areas because they 
are the most fundamental for basic education.”
District Directors: “The teachers have accepted well the 
trainings because they acknowledge that it helps them to 
improve their pedagogic performance in the classroom.”
45%
(8 comments)
Administrative 
training
District Director: “They had certificate programs in resource 
development for school principals and another one for 
district directors.”
District Director: “The school principals were very interested 
in learning new ways of administrating/managing their 
school. The training covered different guidelines on how to 
manage different organisms of support, how to implement 
projects, and how to develop new resources. It was very
interesting. CRS, together their partners, trained almost 
100% of the school principals and administrative personnel.”
56%
(10 
comments)
34
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Needs 
assessment/owne
rship
Departmental Director: “We always worked with the 
program personnel and they always worked with us to meet 
our needs. They provided the training that we needed. Math 
and Spanish were given priority because they were the 
academic benchmark that we were trying to focus on. 
Teachers were able to accredit courses and receive 
certificates for the classes that they took and that has helped 
out a lot.”
Departmental Director: “We used an assessment tool to 
identify the training priorities that teachers wanted and 
needed in the classroom. That’s how we planned and 
developed each one of the trainings based on the topics the 
teachers identified.”
17%
(3 comments)
Result 11.0 - Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
In 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures, USDA approved a shift 
from providing daily school meals to providing take-home rations for student beneficiaries. In both 
April and July 2020, students received 30-day rations. In June and November 2020, students 
received 60-day rations. The MGD team coordinated with the National Risk Management System 
(SINAGER) and the Department Education authorities to mobilize the field team and coordinate 
with school directors and teachers as well as parent associations to distribute the food. The rations 
were given to the parents. 
Result Indicator 11.1. Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic during the 2020 
school year, 53,588 children received daily school meals before USDA approved the shift from 
providing a daily school meal to providing take-home rations for students. This number represents 
103.1% of the final target of 52,000 students.
Result Indicator 11.4 - female. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic during the 2020 school year, 
25,633 female children received daily school meals before USDA approved the shift from 
providing a daily school meal to providing take-home rations for students. This number represents 
102.7% of the final target of 24,967 female students.
Result Indicator 11.5 - male. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic during the 2020 school year, 
27,955 male children received daily school meals before USDA approved the shift from providing 
a daily school meal to providing take-home rations for students. This number represents 103.4% 
of the final target of 27,040 male students.
Result Indicator 11.6 - Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
school-age children as a result of USDA assistance. No daily school meals were provided during 
the COVID-19 pandemic school closures. 25,835,531 school meals were distributed as of the 
35
Midterm Evaluation. 6,537,736 meals were distributed during the last half of FY2018, and 
9,969,134 were distributed during FY2019 for a sum total of 42,342,401 meals, representing 
88.8% of the final target of 47,700,000. Without the COVID-19 pandemic, MGD likely would have 
exceeded their final target, not taking into account take-home rations that were provided instead 
of school meals.
Result Indicator 11.7 - Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance. As noted above, take-home rations were provided to students in lieu of school meals 
during the COVID-19 school closures. 50,632 students and 10,915 volunteers were provided take￾home rations in 2020. In addition to the 17,211 individuals receiving take-home rations reported 
during the Midterm Evaluation, the total number of individuals is 78,758 at the Final Evaluation, 
representing 441.0% of the final target of 17,866 individuals.
Result Indicator 11.11 - Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of 
USDA assistance. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, a total of 13,311 individuals were trained 
in child health and nutrition. Since the MTE, an additional 1,012 new individuals were trained for a 
total of 14,323 individuals trained as a result of USDA assistance over the course of the project. 
This number represents nearly 1,377.0% of the final target of 1,040 individuals. 
Result Indicator 11.12 - female. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, a total of 11,969 female 
individuals were trained in child health and nutrition. Since the MTE, an additional 710 female 
individuals were trained for a total of 12,679, representing 1,751.2% of the final target of 724 
female individuals. 
Result Indicator 11.13 - male. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, a total of 1,342 male 
individuals were trained in child health and nutrition. Since the MTE, an additional 302 male 
individuals were trained for a total of 1644, representing approximately 520.3% of the final 
target of 316 male individuals.
● Verification (11.11 - 11.13). Lists of people trained in health and nutrition in 2017, 2018, 
2019, and 2020 from Caritas and COCEPRADII.
Result Indicator 11.14 - Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive 
safety nets as a result of USDA assistance. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, a total of 
71,838 social assistance beneficiaries participated in productive safety nets (calculated as the 
number of children receiving school meals, plus the number of individuals receiving take-home 
rations). Since the MTE, an additional 5,285 new students and volunteers benefited from school 
meals and take-home rations. The total number is therefore 77,123, representing 114.1% of the 
final target of 67,599 beneficiaries.
Result Indicator 11.16 - female. A total of 38,465 female beneficiaries were recorded for the 
Midterm Evaluation. Since the MTE, an additional 3,048 female beneficiaries were added for a 
total of 41,513 female beneficiaries, representing 107.5% of the final target of 38,609 female 
beneficiaries. 
Result Indicator 11.17 - male. A total of 33,373 male beneficiaries were recorded for the Midterm 
Evaluation. Since the MTE, an additional 2,237 male beneficiaries were added for a total of 35,610 
male beneficiaries, representing 110.4% of the final target of 32,246 male beneficiaries.
36
Result Indicator 11.19 - Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance. 
As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, a total of 68,933 take-home rations were provided. Since 
that time, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, additional 293,299 take-home rations were 
provided in lieu of school meals. The number of take-home rations provided therefore totals 
362,232, representing 215.5% of the final target of 168,056 take-home rations provided.
● Verification (11.19). Project delivery lists from Caritas and COCEPRADII
Parent Survey. Parents were also asked to report on the food their child receives at school (see 
Figure 4).
Figure 4. Food received by children
Among “other” responses, parents also indicated that their child receives milk, cheese (cuajada) 
spaghetti/noodles, juices/horchata, pupusas, tamales/tamalitos, tajadas, and tortillas. 65.9% of 
parents also reported receiving dry rations. When asked how food was used, 99.6% reported 
consuming it at home, and 30.1% share it with other families. Fewer than 1% of families reported 
selling or donating their rations to others. 
Result 12.0 - Improved Student Attendance
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and related school closures, no new data were reported for 
student attendance in 2020. Therefore, all indicators for the Final Evaluation will remain as 
reported for the Midterm Evaluation, below. Data for Result 12.0 indicators during the Midterm 
Evaluation were obtained through CRS MEAL records and verified through physical attendance 
lists pulled at Caritas and COCEPRADII offices. All results indicators exceeded their final targets.
**NOTE: Attendance records were not available for several schools, primarily because teachers 
did not record this information.
37
Result Indicator 12.1 - Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools. According to CRS MEAL records, 50,165 students attended USDA supported 
classes at least 80.0% of the 200 school days. This number represents 94.0% of the final target of 
53,384 students attending 80% of school days. 
Result Indicator 12.2 - female. A total of 23,988 female students attended 80.0% or more of 
school days, representing 102.6% of the final target of 26,010 female students attending 92.2% 
of school days.
Result Indicator 12.3 - male. A total of 26,177 male students attended 80.0% or more of school 
days, representing 95.6% of the final target of 24,327 male students attending 80% of school 
days.
● Verification. Five attendance lists each for 2017 and 2018 were pulled at Caritas and 
COCEPRADII.
Parents. Parents were asked to respond how they would act if their community had children who 
were not attending school. Parents indicated that they would make home visits (83.5%), inform 
the principal of the school (83.9%), obtain resources to help motivate the parent to send the child 
to school (64.5%), and inform local authorities (65.5%). Only 4.7% of parents said they would do 
nothing. Of those who responded other (8.0%), most strategies involved having a conversation 
with the parents of the child not attending school about the importance of school attendance and 
strategies to support the family in sending their child to school. 
Teachers. Given COVID-19 restrictions and related school closures, teachers were not asked about 
students' attendance. However, teachers were asked about barriers and tools used for students 
learning in the new COVID-19 context. 56.6% reported using WhatsApp videos to ensure students 
learning, 48.9% used WhatsApp voice messages, 84.3% called their students, 8.6% used Zoom for 
online classes, 99.2% used flyers, 84.3% used working sheets and 60.5% used pictures of books. 
Additionally, 84.5% delivered didactic material at students’ homes, and 75.4% delivered those 
materials at school. 73.5% did home visits and 19.3% did in person classes. 40.9% of teachers said 
the school opened one day a week. 
Among the barriers they identify for students continued learning they identified child labor 
(56.4%), lack of phone access (88.4%), poor or lack internet connection (94.2%), parents mistrust 
of distance learning (59.7%), and lack of parents’ support (80.1%). Among those who reported 
other barriers (10.5%), teachers mentioned difficulties to get to school, lack of knowledge and 
motivation from parents, incapacity of parents to guide their children, and lack of electricity. 
Barriers faced by teachers included lack of internet connection, mistrust and demotivation of 
parents, difficulties to get to their students’ houses, and lack of support.
Principals. Principals reported several methods and strategies they used to ensure the students' 
learning during the pandemic. 48.8% reported using WhatsApp video, 41.7% reported using 
WhatsApp voice messages, 84.3% reported calling students, 99.2% reported using flyers, pictures 
of books (52.0%), didactic material delivered at home (82.7%), didactic material given at school 
(70.9%), zoom classes (9.5%), domiciliary visits (81.9%), classes in person (20.5%), opening the 
school one day a week (57.5%), using WhatsApp text messages (48.8%), the use of worksheets 
(89.8%), and others (22.8%), such as opening the center once or twice a month and 
38
communicating with parents. Among the barriers identified for students’ learning, principals 
reported lack of smartphones (95.3%), no internet access or poor connection (94.5%), lack of 
money to print material by the teachers (63.0%), lack of parents motivation (70.9%), lack of 
importance for parents (70.9%), lack of internet connection for teachers (49.6%), lack of economic 
resources (97.6%), lack of support from parents (87.4%), and others (18.9%), such as lack of 
electricity, lack of students motivation, fear of getting sick, poor communities, etc. When asked 
about the barriers faced by the school, principals mentioned location of the school and 
transportation, lack of support and interest from parents, and lack of resources such as internet 
connection, material, printing options, access to phones and internet, and natural disasters or 
weather. 
Result 13.0 - Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased Disincentives)
Result Indicator 13.1 - Number of students receiving transportation to schools as a result of 
USDA assistance. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, and according to transportation records 
collected by implementing partners, 3,517 children received transportation to school as a result of 
USDA assistance. CRS MEAL databases record an additional 1,631 students receiving 
transportation since the MTE. The total number of students receiving transportation is therefore 
5,148, representing 171.6% of the final target of 3,000. 
Parent Survey. 7% of parents reported that their children have access to transportation services. 
Of those that did, most received transportation for one (54%) or two (26.4%) children and 18.4% 
for 3 or more children. Among families receiving transportation services, 96.51% of parents 
worked to ensure the child arrives on time to the transportation stop, 84.88% monitor the child’s 
safety until they board, 47.67% monitor the safety of the means of transportation, 5.81% are 
engaged in administrative tasks related to transportation, and 8.14% manage the resources for 
transportation. 
What are the Factors Influencing Family’s Income and Savings?
Parents were asked in surveys about income and savings. 49.7% of parents reported that their 
main source of income comes from agricultural work, 10.1% indicated it came from their family 
business, about 15% said it came from family members, 8.0% said they have no source of income 
and 19.3% indicated other sources, such as coffee worker, drivers, service workers, cleaning and 
informal selling of their products, among others. 46% of parents stated they saved money 
monthly, and of those saving the average monthly amount saved was 1,093 (SD=1,742) or 
approximately US$45.00 (SD=$72.34). Most of them keep their savings at their house (44.0%), at a 
bank (30.6%) and cooperatives (24.6%). During the pandemic over 50% of parents reported 
suffering food insecurity, and over 80% were not able to pay bills of basic services. 
Result 14.0 - Improved School Infrastructure
Data for Result 14.0 indicators were obtained through CRS MEAL records. All indicators showed 
good progress, having met or exceeded their final targets.
Result Indicator 14.1 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance. As reported in the Midterm Evaluation, 
39
333 educational facilities were rehabilitated or constructed as a result of USDA assistance. Since 
the MTE, CRS MEAL records show that an additional 159 facilities were constructed for a total of 
492, representing 137.8% of the final target of 357.
Result Indicator 14.2 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas). As reported in 
the Midterm Evaluation, 44 kitchens and cook areas were built or rehabilitated. Since the MTE, 
CRS MEAL records show that an additional 41 kitchens and cook areas were constructed for a total 
of 85, representing 105.0% of the final target of 81. 
Result Indicator 14.3 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Latrines). As reported in the Midterm 
Evaluation, 199 latrines were built or rehabilitated. Since the MTE, CRS MEAL records show that an 
additional 73 latrines were built or rehabilitated for a total of 274, representing 151.4% of the 
final target of 181.
Result Indicator 14.4 - Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Wells and water stations/systems). As 
reported in the Midterm Evaluation, 44 wells and water stations/systems were built or 
rehabilitated. Since the MTE, CRS MEAL records show that an additional 43 wells and water 
stations/systems were built or rehabilitated for a total of 87, representing 91.6% of the final 
target of 95.
Result Indicator 14.5 - Number of schools using an improved water source. As reported in the 
Midterm Evaluation, 44 schools were using an improved water source. Since the MTE, CRS MEAL 
records show that an additional 27 schools are using an improved water source for a total of 71, 
representing 98.6% of the final target of 72. 
Result Indicator 14.6 - Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities. As reported in the 
Midterm Evaluation, 46 schools had improved sanitary facilities. Since the MTE, CRS MEAL records 
show that an additional 26 schools have improved sanitary facilities for a total of 75, representing 
104.2% of the final target of 72.
● Verification. All numbers were verified with partner records from Caritas and COCEPRADII. 
These records include information on Infrastructure; Warehouse (Siguatepeque); Kitchens, 
cook areas; Latrines; and Wells and water stations/systems. (also see Result 2).
School Infrastructure
Principals, parents and teachers were asked about the state of school infrastructure and any 
needed areas of improvement.
Principals. Principals reported on the state of the facilities of the school building. They indicated in 
general that the states of their building facilities were average (48.3%) or good (33.07%), though a 
small group said the facilities were bad/poor (18.2%). 22.0% indicated that their school building 
was not accessible for children with disabilities. Many principals indicated their preferences for 
improvements to school infrastructure. When asked what areas they would like to see improved, 
24.8% said that classrooms should be improved, 11.8% said latrines/toilets should be improved, 
40
and 6.3% said sinks should be improved. In addition, 34.7% said construction on classrooms should 
occur, 25.2% said construction on latrines/toilets should occur, and 9.5% said sinks should be built. 
48.8% indicated that a perimeter fence should be built. Write-in responses indicated that 
principals value construction projects on kitchens, storage spaces, gymnasiums, and other 
buildings. 
Parents. Over half (52.6%) of parents indicated that there had been improvements in school 
infrastructure. When asked what areas were improved, 41.5% said that kitchens were improved, 
35.4% said restrooms were improved, 14.8% said the septic system has been improved, 54.6% said 
classrooms were improved. Other improvements (32.3%) included storage space, sport areas and 
playgrounds. To maintain the infrastructure, 87.7% of parents said that cleaning areas were 
improved, 63.2% said the installations were used as supposed, 67.6% said that the school was 
being supervised, and 59.5% said repairs were made to roofs, walls, windows, doors, and floors.
41.1% said that replacement pieces were used, and 4.7% indicated that there were other 
maintenance actions, such as cleaning of the school and trimming. 
Teachers. Teachers reported on the state of the facilities of the school building. They indicated in 
general that their building facilities were average (49.5%) or good (33.4%), though a small group 
said the facilities were bad/poor (16.6%). Many teachers indicated their preferences for 
improvement areas for school infrastructure. When asked what areas they would like to see 
improved, 27.9% said that classrooms should be improved, 17.7% said latrines/toilets should be 
improved, and 5.0% said sinks should be improved. In addition, 40.3% said construction on 
classrooms should occur, 23.2% said construction on latrines/toilets should occur, and 14.4% said 
sinks should be built. Finally, 37.9% indicated that a perimeter fence should be built. Write-in 
responses indicated that principals value construction projects on kitchens, storage spaces, 
gymnasiums, and other buildings. 
Hygiene Practices
Parents, teachers and principals were asked in surveys about hygiene and sanitation practices at 
home and at school.
Parents. Parents were asked about the hygiene practices they emphasized to their kids at home.
100.0% of parents emphasized personal hygiene, 99.0% reported house cleaning, 96.7% reported 
bathrooms/latrines cleaning, 93.9% said trash management, 91.2% said using/consuming clean 
water, and 5.9% said other practices, such as animal washing, food washing, changing clothes, 
among others. 
Teachers. 70.4% of teachers reported being trained in hygiene and sanitization. When asked about 
what hygiene practices they promote to their students, teachers said: personal hygiene (99.7%), 
washing hands (100.0%), daily baths (99.2%), cleaning the environment (98.9%), cleaning school 
(98.9%), cleaning classrooms (98.9%), brushing teeth (96.1%), washing food (97.5%), 
using/consuming clean water (89.8%), and other practices (21.0%), such as cleaning the 
community and public spaces, taking biosecurity measures, among others. 91.4% of teachers said 
they always promote these practices and 8.6% said they promoted them sometimes. 
Principals. 82.7% of principals reported that teachers were trained in hygiene practices. 100.0% of 
principals stated they promote hygiene practices at their school, such as: personal hygiene 
41
(99.2%), washing hands (98.4%), daily baths (98.4%), cleaning the environment (98.4%), cleaning 
the school (98.4%), cleaning the classrooms (98.43%), brushing teeth (94.5%), washing food 
(97.6%), using/consuming clean water (85.8%), and others (22.5%) such as wearing masks and 
using hand sanitizer. 94.5% of principals stated they always promoted these practices and 5.5% 
stated they did sometimes
Result 15.0 - Increased Student Enrollment
Result Indicator 15.1 - Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance. Student 
enrollment data were obtained by Caritas and COCEPRADII, and disaggregated by gender. At the 
Final Evaluation, the number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance totaled 
51,632. This number represents 99.3% of the final total of 52,000 but is a decrease of 2,046 
students since the MTE.
Result Indicator 15.2 - female. According to Caritas and COCEPRADII records, 25,363 female 
students were enrolled at the Final Evaluation, representing 101.6% of the final target of 24,960 
but is a decrease of 360 female students since the MTE.
Result Indicator 15.3 - male. According to Caritas and COCEPRADII records, 26,269 male students 
were enrolled at the Final Evaluation representing 97.1% of the final target of 27,040 but is a 
decrease of 1,686 male students since the MTE.
As displayed in Figure 5, fewer female than male students have been enrolled and received USDA 
assistance over the course of the MGD project. More males were served at the MTE than at 
Baseline, but at Final Evaluation this number has dropped. The number of female students also 
declined over time, but not as steeply between the MTE and Final Evaluation as between Baseline 
and the MTE (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Students Receiving USDA Assistance (2015-2020)
42
Result 16.0 - Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
Result Indicator 16.1 - Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three 
benefits of primary education. 87.0% of parents named at least three benefits, an increase from 
72.6% at midterm, and representing 116.0% of the final target of 75.0%.
Close to all parents (99.8% of n=1,157) indicated that they believed their child’s education is 
important. Figure 6 displays the top reasons provided by parents.
Figure 6. Importance of education
Parents provided many additional reasons for why they believe their child’s education is 
important, including developing literacy and reading skills, the development of social and 
emotional skills as well as a moral/decision-making framework, acquiring knowledge, and a 
broader understanding of the role of education in a child’s formation into adulthood. 
Parents also reported on their frequency of visits to the school prior to COVID. Figure 7 provides 
these results. Over a third of parents reported visiting the school every day (34.25%). 
When parents come to school, 87.9% report having meetings with the parents’ association (APF), 
87.2% meet with teachers, 70.0% help with food preparation and serving, 59.9% monitor the 
safety of the children and of materials of the school, 50.7% participate as members of the school 
organization, 10.2% check on the use of installations, 44.8% report monitoring the good use of 
school materials, and 68.2% indicated that they come to school when the teacher calls them.
Regarding volunteer activities, 73.0% of parents indicated that at least one person in their home 
volunteers at the school.
43
Figure 7. Frequency of Parent Visits to the School
Parents also discussed the role of the School for Parents (Escuela Para Padres). 58.8% of parents 
stated they knew there is a parents’ school. Most of these parents (88.5%) either participate or 
have an interest in participating in the parent school. Parents also indicated that the desire to 
learn more (88.5%), to help their children with authorities (70.8%), and to meet other people 
(74.9%) as motivations to attend. Write-in responses also emphasized parents’ desires for 
assistance in learning parental skills, getting closer to the community and to the teachers. 
Why Do Parents Believe Education is Important for Their Children?
All parents who were interviewed reported believing that their children’s education is important 
for their future. This finding is also consistent with the views parents held during the Midterm 
Evaluation, indicating that the program goals of increasing community understanding of the 
benefits of education has been sustainable. The majority of parents (73% of comments) said they 
felt that being educated would provide their children with a better future. They understood 
education would provide more opportunities for their children. Parents stated that they wanted 
their children to be educated because they themselves had dropped out of school at a young age 
and did not want their children to have the same limited options that they experienced. One 
mother commented that she thinks it is important for girls to be educated so that they do not 
need to depend on a man. She stated that through education a person can decide their own future 
and not depend on others.
Parents (43% of comments) also believe that education would help their children get better jobs in 
the future. Many of the parents aspire for their children to obtain a higher education diploma and 
become professionals so that they are not limited to performing manual jobs. In general, parents 
acknowledged that education will help their children acquire new abilities and skills necessary to 
obtain a better job with a good earning potential compared to someone who has less education.
Additionally, parents (25% of comments) perceive education as a way to improve their children’s 
quality of life as adults. Parents mentioned how their own low levels of education have limited 
their job and financial opportunities in life. Therefore, they desired for their children to break the 
cycle of illiteracy and poverty and fare better in life. 
44
Another theme that emerged (in 29% of the comments) was that education promotes positive 
values, behaviors, and life decision-making. Parents believed that individuals who have a formal 
education are more likely to choose “the right path in life” and less likely to engage in criminal and 
other negative behaviors (e.g., drug use and abuse, corruption etc.). In general, parents perceived 
education as promoting higher critical thinking skills and better life decisions. Complementing this 
theme, parents also noted that because education prepares individuals to become better people, 
educated individuals are more likely to contribute to the wellbeing of society (12% of comments). 
Well educated children will be the leaders of tomorrow and can help their country to progress.
Matrix 4. Parents’ Views on the Importance of Education
Category Example of Commentary Illustrating Category % Frequency
To have a better 
future
Parent: “I think being educated is important for so 
many reasons. The education of my son is very 
important to me because I want him to actually be 
someone when he’s older. I don’t want him to be 
stuck without any opportunities. People who aren’t 
educated can’t do very much and I don’t want that 
for my child. That is why it’s important to me that 
he studies so he can have a good future.”
73%
(30 comments)
To have better job 
opportunities
Parent: “I think that the goal of every parent is to 
educate their kids so that they can get a good job. 
We hope that if they can get a good job that they 
won’t have to do manual labor.”
46%
(19 comments)
To have a better 
quality of life
Parent: “It is important because by obtaining an 
education our child will have a better quality of life; 
they will no longer be illiterate.”
24%
(10 comments)
Promotes positive 
values, behaviors, 
and life-decision 
making
Parent: “It helps them to become good people. They 
will choose the right path in life, they won’t be 
corrupt, and they won’t learn negative behaviors.”
29%
(12 comments)
Contributes to the 
development of 
their communities 
and their country.
Parent: “It would be good for society. These children 
would not be using drugs or have additions. If they 
continue studying, they will be excellent people, 
professionals, and they can even contribute to the 
development of their country. They could even 
become the president of Honduras.”
12%
(5 comments)
45
Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The global COVID-19 pandemic, declared in March 2019, created upheaval across the world. In 
Honduras and elsewhere, social distancing protocols created challenges for many people to 
maintain income and employment. Anecdotally, quarantines have contributed to an increase in 
family conflicts and mental health problems. This section presents results of the EPIII Inventory
completed by parents specific to COVID-19, and findings from qualitative interviews.
Quantitative Findings Related to COVID-19
Work and Employment. 10.5% of parents stated they or someone at their home had to close their 
business because of COVID. 39% of parents (themselves or someone at their house) have had to 
continue working during the pandemic even when having close contact with someone sick. 39.6% 
of parents and 8.0% of people living with them reported an increased workload during the 
pandemic. 45.4% of parents and people at their homes stopped working to avoid contact with sick 
people, and 52.8% continued working. Roughly 13.0% of parents or someone at their house were 
primary caregivers for someone sick.
Housing. 6.7% of parents reported moving because of COVID, and 1.9% of people at their house 
had to move. 3.6% lost their house or place to live, and 0.8% of people living with them lost their 
house. About 80% remained at their houses.
Home Life. 85.0% of parents reported that they could not send their kids to school because of 
COVID, and only 2.5% of parents have issues with daycare and babysitters availability during the 
pandemic. 44.3% of parents reported having issues taking care of children at home during the 
pandemic. Over 50% of parents (or someone at their house) reported having increased discipline 
conflicts with the kids at home.
Visits and Celebrations. 47.7% of parents and 14.0% of people at their house reported being 
separated from family and friends during the pandemic, and about 30% lack the resources to 
communicate or talk with family members or friends. 19.8% of parents reported they could not 
visit a family member or friend at the hospital, 86% reported they could not participate in family 
celebrations, and 33.2% of parents (and 11.9% of people at their home) could not assist in 
religious services or funerals. 65.1% of parents and 24.4% of people living at their home reported 
having transportation issues.
Family Conflicts. About 5.0% of parents reported increased conflict with their partner, and about 
4.0% reported having increased conflicts with other adults at home. About 17.0% of parents or 
other people at their house reported increased conflicts (verbal or physical) between kids at 
home. 19.9% of parents and 5.6% of people living at their house reported seeing an increase in 
behavioral problems in kids. 34.1% of parents reported increased mental health issues, and 12.2% 
of people at their home suffer from increased mental health issues. 7.2% of parents and 3.6% of 
people at their house were unsatisfied with their therapies. Similarly, 7.3% of parents and 4.1% of 
people at their house were unsatisfied with the changes made to their therapies. 27.4% reported 
having sleep issues, and 9.0% of people at their house had sleeping problems. Fewer than 1.0% of 
parents reported increased use of alcohol or other substances.
46
Children’s Mental Health (PHQ-9). Over the past 30 days, 5.2% of parents reported that their 
children feel anxious every day, 24.3% several days, and 4.7% more than half of the days. 6.8% felt 
worried every day, 24.5% several days and 3.6% half of the days. 5.6% felt general disinterest 
every day, 21.5% several days and 2.4% half of the days. 5.2% felt depressed every day, 23.2% 
several days, and 4.8% half of the days. 
Qualitative Findings Related to COVID-19
Home Schooling and Distance Learning Challenges. The main change reported by parents was 
that children were no longer going to school. Home schooling children has been difficult for all the 
parties involved including parents, children, and teachers. One parent mentioned that she believes 
that online classes do not provide the same quality of education. This sentiment was shared by 
other parents who commented on their children being less engaged this year, and they worry that 
the children are not paying attention to the schoolwork through this format. Parents commented 
on a general lack of interest shown by their children and that their children miss the school 
environment. Parents also feel that the school environment is important because it allows 
children to ask their teachers and classmates any questions that they have.
Additionally, parents commented that their children are struggling to complete the homework 
because they are not receiving sufficient instruction and support from their teachers. This is 
especially challenging because a large portion of the parents interviewed said that they do not 
understand the material because their own education level is very low and they may not know 
how to read and write (in spite of most parents in the quantitative data reporting that they read to 
their children). Another major issue that parents commented on was the difficulties of using 
technology. Many parents are unfamiliar with the new teaching formats and are having to learn 
them themselves before they can work with their children. This is complicated for many parents 
who work in addition to helping their children out with their school work. 
According to district directors and mayors, distance learning was not only a challenge for parents 
and children, but also for teachers. For teachers, it was also very challenging to provide instruction 
for children through the new format. The main difficulty that teachers have had teaching during 
the pandemic is the inability to visit the community. Teachers wanted to go and check in on 
families, but due to government policies it was not a possibility. Teachers have also had to figure 
out how to get information and homework out to families who do not have access to a 
smartphone. Previously, before the pandemic, teachers were able to provide support in students’
learning, but now no one could leave their houses or work closely with the children due to the 
lock-down orders. It was also necessary to educate the parents as well as the children through 
remote work. Some areas that were hit harder with restrictions have been unable to work with 
the schools. In some instances, the only support that can be provided is through the provision of 
printing materials so that students may receive their booklets and work. 
Communication with Teachers. The main form of communication between teachers and parents 
has been through their phone using phone calls, text messages, and WhatsApp. Teachers 
communicate with parents individually or through a WhatsApp group. In some communities, 
teachers send out homework through WhatsApp groups and answer questions the same way. In a 
few instances, teachers were able to use technology to communicate with parents, either by Zoom 
or Google meet. Parents responded that another form of communication with their teacher was 
through home visits or seeing the teacher at the school. Of the parents that said that they 
47
communicated with their teacher in person, only very few mentioned that that the teacher came 
to their homes. The department director said that they felt that this was risky to do because it put 
the health of the teacher and their family at risk. 
Challenges with Technology. According to informants, one of the biggest barriers to students 
continuing their education during the pandemic is the lack of technology available to them. Online 
classes are not an option in isolated and poorer communities. The pandemic has illuminated the 
various disparities and inequality of the education system and the disconnect between the 
Department of Education and the various educational institutions. These communities often do 
not have electricity so the basic infrastructure needed for online classes are not available. Many 
families are unable to afford smart phones or internet, the route in which the Department of 
Education has identified as the most viable for learning. This prevents students from attending 
classes and keeping in contact with their teachers. The majority of parents interviewed expressed 
that there were challenges in communicating with their child’s teacher. Parents responded that in 
their area they have limited signal and access to the internet. Parents who primarily maintained 
contact with the teacher over the phone mentioned that this limited their ability to receive their 
child’s homework consistently. Although many parents commented that teachers would call them, 
they voiced their frustration that if they had questions about homework that they would have to 
put minutes on their phone. Another issue that affected communication was not having a 
smartphone. Parents who did not have a phone or WhatsApp expressed frustration and said that 
they were reliant on other parents to communicate with the teacher. 
Access to Food. The products most commonly received from the MGD project were dry food items 
including rice, corn, beans, milk, oil, and CSB. Additionally, some schools received vegetables such 
as carrots, potatoes, chilies, plantains, and tomatoes. Some parents also mentioned that through 
the program that they had also received soap for their household. The main barrier that was 
addressed by one director was the delivery of the school meals. The director said that he had to 
get in touch with the local parent organization to request help. After his request was made, the 
parent association took charge of the school food program and delivered the food to different 
families within the community. 
Matrix 5. Educational Challenges During the Pandemic
Category Example of Comments illustrating category % Frequency
Challenges with 
homeschooling
Parent: “I feel that the kids haven’t learned a lot, just being online isn’t 
the same as being in the classroom.”
Parent: “The kids don’t have anyone to explain their homework to them. 
The professor would drop off the homework at a certain house and we 
had to go pick them up there.”
Parents: “I think the biggest change was learning how to use new 
technologies. Parents had to learn these new program in order to have 
your child go to class.”
Department Director: “The first difficulty to mention is the education 
level of the parents because it is very difficult in the rural areas. Most 
parents only completed third grade, sixth grade at most.”
82%
(33 comments)
48
Challenges with 
accessing 
internet and 
technology
District Director: “The largest obstacle for participants was the limitations 
of internet/connectivity for teachers. As many lived in the same 
communities as the students, or were visiting students, they often were 
unable to connect. While the schools all had connectivity, the protections 
needed due to the pandemic limited the availability of this resource. 
Teachers also spent much of their own resources to do their job, resulting 
in limited availability or last minute communication.” 
Mayor: “The access to technology has been one of the biggest obstacles 
that we have had many children do not have access to a phone or not 
many parents have the capacity to buy internet or buy a smart phone and 
many children are not going to be able to graduate.”
Mayors: “That they don’t have smartphones or the internet. You have to 
understand that in isolated and poor communities that they don’t even 
have electricity so taking classes online isn’t an option. Even if they had 
access to a computer it wouldn’t do anything without internet.”
92%
(37 comments)
Communication 
with teachers
Parents: “During the pandemic teachers have not been able to go to the 
school so instead they come to our house to drop off and pick up 
homework.”
Parents: “They have communicated through messages and calls. For those 
who don’t have WhatsApp the teacher calls them directly and we 
communicate that way. There has been constant communication.”
Directors: “To be exact it was the 14th of March that all classes were 
suspended. The teachers couldn’t come to the community. They wanted 
to but it was prohibited. Some the teachers asked me how they could get 
homework for kids because the majority of families don’t have 
smartphones. The teachers were able to find out a way to get in touch with 
the families though.”
Departmental: “They went to visit the families. They would risk their health 
and the health of their family to go visit the families. It’s hard because 
imagine bringing back COVID to your family after visiting our community.”
68%
(27 comments)
Access to Food Department Director: “We don’t have the luxury of letting the food go bad. 
We had the teachers call and get the parent’s association involved. The 
parent association is now very organized. A teacher called the group and 
told them to come down to the school and pick up the school meals.”
District Director: “In the pandemic they didn’t stop, and they continued 
distributing it (food) to families. It was done in coordination with principals, 
parents, the associations of parents, and school feeding committees. They 
ensured the distribution of the meals with all security measures. ”
60%
(3 comments)
49
Key Criteria
Relevance
Project stakeholders continue to believe the MGD is meeting the needs of their communities and 
they continue to engage community groups in fostering the success of the program. The 
interviews with parents revealed that MGD has fostered and increased the participation of 
parents. The majority of parents (93% of comments), when asked what they did to support their 
child’s education, responded that they helped by participating in different ways through the 
school feeding program such as receiving, organizing, and preparing the daily meals, and helping 
to clean the school grounds. In addition to this work, parents are also involved in different school 
committees. The largest and most mentioned committee was APF (parent association). Parents 
involved with APF work directly with the school to promote high quality education and to address 
different issues within the community. Another parent committee is the group EPRED, which 
works to connect with students who have dropped out of school and provide support to their 
families. Finally, the parent organization, VAD, works with the school to provide support to 
teachers throughout the school year. In addition to participating in the school feeding program 
and committees, parents (23% of comments) also mentioned that they provide support to their 
children by supporting them with the learning process. Parents stated that they provide learning 
support to their children by helping them with their assignments, sending them to school, 
attending parent-teacher conferences, and helping them to learn how to read and write.
Of all the responses, only two parents mentioned that the local government, community 
organizations, and church helped out with education within the community. All other respondents 
commented that they did not receive any support from local organizations or did not mention 
local organizations in their responses. However, this view is not consistent with the perspective of 
institutional representatives and district directors, who have spoken of other ways government 
and community organizations have contributed to the program such as providing school supplies 
and supplementing the cost for the food transportation.
Overall, participants responded that through the length of the program that the relationship 
between parents and school had improved. Other parents responded that they felt that parents' 
commitment to their children’s education has increased. This point was reinforced by the majority 
of parents responding that it is more than just the school’s responsibility to educate their children. 
Matrix 6. Parental Involvement in the Education of their Children
Category Example of Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency
Participation in 
school feeding 
project and other 
committees
Parent: “The parents are active in group meetings and other committees. 
They are also in charge of making sure the food is delivered. We assigned 
roles ahead of time so when it was our turn to cook we were ready.”
Parent: “Parents are very willing to collaborate when there is a need. 
They pay attention to the needs and they help. For example, the VAD 
provides support to the teachers when they have to be absent. The 
EPRED monitors school dropouts. The APF provides support to ensure the 
school is more structured.”
93%
(41 comments)
50
Provide support 
with the learning 
process
Parent: “The teachers are not able to do everything, so we help them 
with homework or when they have to do a research project, we help 
them.”
23%
(10 comments)
Support from 
community 
organizations
Parent: “We receive help from the local mayor, from local health centers 
and churches that give talks within the community, and other community 
organizations.”
1% (2 comments)
How well does the project design align with the Secretariat of Education and the Secretariat of 
Development and Social Inclusion´s goals, objectives and strategies?
The design of the MGD program was aligned with the national plans of the Ministry of Education 
and, furthermore, has continued to be aligned as those national plans have changed. Its design is 
aligned with the 2014-2018 institutional strategic plan of the Ministry of Education (Secretaría de 
Educación, 2017), as can be seen in Table 9, which shows the compatibility of MGD Results 1 and 3 
with the strategic objectives of the MINEDUC Strategic Plan.
Table 9. Alignment of Results of the MGD Program with the Strategic Objectives of the Strategic 
Plan 2014–2018
MGD Result Indicator Strategic Objectives (from the 2014-2018 strategic 
plan of the Ministry of Education)
Result 1.0 Improved Literacy of 
School-Age Children
1. Increase the access of girls and boys to the 
compulsory year of Pre-Basic Education at the 
reference age of five years, to promote them to the 
first grade of Basic Education
2. Increase the access of girls and boys to Basic 
Education (first to ninth grade) to promote them to 
the level of Secondary Education
5. Improve the educational quality in the levels and 
modalities of the National Education System, 
delivering services with relevant, significant and 
pertinent learning
Result 3.0 Increased Engagement of 
Local Organizations and 
Community Groups
8. Achieve the active and harmonized participation 
of all the actors involved in the country's education.
In addition, most of the other results of the program are aligned with the priorities of Strategic 
Area 2: Quality, of that strategic plan, as shown in Table 10.
51
Table 10. Alignment of Results of the MGD Program with the Strategic Quality Area of the Strategic 
Plan 2014–2018
MGD Result Indicator Priorities of Strategic Area 2: Quality (from the 2014-
2018 strategic plan of the Ministry of Education)
Result 4.0 Increased Capacity of 
Government Institutions
1. Basic National Curriculum appropriate to the 
regions, articulated horizontally and vertically and 
attached to history and culture from Honduras; 
2. National system of evaluation, accreditation and 
certification of educational quality; 
3. Incentive system for the best performance of 
teachers, students and educational centers; 
4. Curricular tools with adequate content and in 
opportune times; 
5. Creation of decentralized unity of supervision; 
6. Educational research; 
7. Equipped with school furniture all schools; 
8. Educational networks; 
9. Formation and practice of values; 
10. Teaching in the mother tongue of indigenous 
peoples; 
11. Teaching career with compulsory degree level; 
12. School for fathers and mothers;
13. Permanent training of the teaching and 
administrative staff of the Education secretary.
Result 6.0 More Consistent Teacher 
Attendance
Result 7.0 Better Access to School 
Supplies and Materials
Result 8.0 Improved Literacy of 
Instructional Materials
Result 9.0 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of Teachers
Result 10.0 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of School 
Administrators
Result 12.0 Improved Student 
Attendance
Result 13.0 Increased Economic and 
Cultural Incentives (Or 
Decreased Disincentives)
In addition, the MGD program has maintained its alignment with the new national plans, such as 
the STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR 2018-2030 (Secretaría de Educacción, 2019), 
showing compatibility with its three strategic areas: Inclusive access to the educational system;
assurance of learning that is pertinent, relevant and effective; and institutionality, decentralization 
and democratization.
Similarly, the design of the MGD program is consistent with the poverty reduction strategies of the 
INSTITUTIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN OF THE SECRETARIAT OF DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL INCLUSION 
2014 - 2018 (SEDIS, 2017). In this case, Result 11.0 - Increased Access to Food (School Feeding) is 
aligned with the 2. SCHOOL AND COMPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM, established in that strategic 
plan, which constitutes the foundation of the delivery of food in the educational centers of 
Honduras.
How appropriate are project interventions for Intibucá’s local culture and context?
The MGD project has appropriately targeted improvement of existing educational exclusion and 
food insecurity in the Department of Intibucá. Prior to MGD implementation, school enrollment 
was quite low particularly for children in higher grades (Secretaría de Educación, 2016). MGD’s 
project design was specifically designed to increase school enrollment, and despite recent 
declines, enrollment has increased since 2014 because of MGD project activities.
52
The program also was adapted during the pandemic so that, with the support of community 
organizations and volunteers, the program facilitated access to teaching materials for home study 
for families that do not have access to the internet or a good mobile phone signal, the situation for
most homes in the Department of Intibucá. Likewise, the program has contributed to children's 
access to food, periodically ensuring the delivery of food rations to be prepared in within larger 
context of food insecurity which has been aggravated by recurring droughts (UTSAN, 2019) and by 
the pandemic itself.
Furthermore, the various forms of social organization promoted by the program in the local 
educational system are compatible with the local culture, but also with what is stipulated in 
educational legislation. This social organization is also aligned with the traditions of social 
participation of the Department’s inhabitants, especially in rural areas. This adaptation of the 
project design to the local culture and context has facilitated the success of organizations such as 
school safety patrols, dropout prevention teams, and school feeding committees.
Effectiveness
The MGD program achieved or exceeded 40 of 53 indicators at the Final Evaluation (75.5%). No 
new data were available for two indicators related to teaching, and school meals were not 
provided such that those three related indicators remained at “0”. Taking these five indicators out 
of the denominator, MGD achieved or exceeded 83.3% (40/48) of its final targets. CRS made 
substantial progress following the recommendations made in the Midterm Evaluation report, and 
stakeholders are highly engaged. Yet, the negative effects of COVID-19 on MGD implementation 
and children’s learning cannot be understated. Reading comprehension scores for boys and girls 
already declined in 2019 prior to the pandemic. Parents and teachers in the qualitative study 
noted that children’s learning will be significantly affected by not being able to attend school in 
person. Parents need significantly more support in helping their children learn at home, and 
technological limitations further complicate this situation because children are not able to access 
classes remotely. 
Efficiency
One of the frustrations that department and district directors continue to express is a lack of 
commitment from the municipalities in prioritizing funding for the school feeding program. 
Municipal governments have been supportive in paying for transportation food distribution, 
teacher’s salaries, and infrastructure. However, some are not so interested in supporting the food 
purchase of the school feeding program. The interviews with mayors continue to show 
inconsistencies in the extent to which they have engaged in sustainability planning post-USDA 
since the Midterm Evaluation, including how funding will be allocated or generated after MGD 
Phase II concludes. For example, some mayors said that they have only been able to contribute 
with transportation cost and that’s the only cost they could continue to support. Other mayors 
have taken a lead with the local and regional purchase program to provide fresh vegetables to the 
school feeding program and they are committed to sustaining this project. One of the mayors 
spoke about updating strategic community development plan to include a sustainability solution 
for the school feeding program, but he also warned that the plan may not be carried out because 
of a lack of funding. MGD has succeeded in building more public-private partnerships to support 
school feeding and children’s learning. However, the program missed two of its final indicators in 
53
this regard (3.2 and 3.4) so more work needs to be done to identify and strengthen such 
partnerships.
Impact
Stakeholders reported the school feeding program had the largest impact on a child’s education
During the Midterm Evaluation, and this opinion remains strong at the Final Evaluation. However, 
no school meals were able to be provided because of COVID-19 restrictions. CRS was able to pivot 
successfully to provide take home rations to families, but clearly, children’s lack of ability to attend 
school is negatively affecting their ability to learn. Other actions of the program mentioned by 
informants that also had major impacts in the area of education include infrastructure, school 
supplies and didactic materials, parent trainings, and teacher and school administrator trainings. 
Informants believe that the strengthening of school networks through the increased involvement 
of parents in school committees and their child’s education has greatly benefitted the educational 
and greater community. Together, Caritas, COCEPRADDII and CRS have strengthened the 
networks of school support, community participation, school governments, and volunteer 
committees. Another change was noticed in the improved quality of educators by developing their 
capacity. The program also provided support to schools in regards to school infrastructure. 
Through the school feeding program the district was able to add a new structure to the school and 
update existing structures that needed work. MGD provided the necessary start up materials and 
funds and promoted the involvement of other stakeholders from the community, especially within 
local government.
The majority of parents commented that prior to the school feeding program (88% of comments), 
many students went to school without eating breakfast and they did not have access to nutritious 
foods at home throughout the day. In the past, students would also have to walk home to eat 
lunch and at times travel long distances to get back to school. Parents believe that the school 
lunches have helped increase the learning capacity of their children in the classroom. 
According to the perceptions of the different informants, the school feeding program has 
significantly decreased student absenteeism and school dropout (45% of comments). District 
directors, departmental directors and municipal mayors stated that improvements in these 
indicators were more evident in schools located in rural communities, with children living in 
extreme poverty. The different stakeholders affirm that as a result of the school feeding program, 
children who come from limited resources are more motivated to attend school because of the 
free meal that it’s provided to them. With most students not having access to the foods offered at 
school while at home, they arrive at the school with excitement over the meals they are being 
offered. 
Another one of the positive outcomes of the program, reported by different actors, is that the 
school feeding program leads to improved academic performance (61% of comments). One of the 
parents attest to this: “This program has been excellent. My daughter is learning more than she 
was last year. This year her grades were much better thanks to the program.” Informants believe 
that a child who is well fed is able to pay more attention in the classroom than a child who is 
hungry, and this leads to the children performing better academically.
54
Matrix 7. Impact of School Feeding Program
Category Example of Commentary illustrating Category % Frequency
Overall impact of 
school feeding 
program on 
education
Municipal Director: “Before, the children would arrive at the 
school hungry and we had a lot of grade repetition. When we 
make the comparison after the school feeding program began, 
we say: ‘We have had very positive results in this municipality 
that had high levels of extreme poverty. We have improved our 
educational indicators.’ That has been the true impact of 
offering food to the children in the schools.”
Parent: “The program helps rural students because they don’t 
have to go home to eat lunch. There are children that come to 
school hungry so the school lunch helps out a lot because they 
don’t have to spend energy walking far away to their homes.”
88%
(45 comments)
Increased academic 
performance
Parent: “The program has been excellent. My daughter is 
learning more than she was last year. This year her grades were 
much better thanks to the program.”
Mayor: “When the children arrived to school, they hadn’t eaten, 
so they would sleep. With food, they began to have more 
strength and were more motivated. These are the positive 
outcomes, that they felt comfortable and that the child felt the 
desire to be in school.” 
61%
(3 comments)
Decreased student 
absenteeism/dropo
ut rates
District Director: “The most important impact we have had with 
the school feeding program is that it has improved tremendously 
the school attendance.”
Department Director: “I can tell you that the Secretary of 
Education is happy with the results. We raised our educational 
indicators. They are also happy with the support we had from 
CRS. There were almost no absences and dropouts because if 
the child doesn’t go to school to learn, they go to eat.”
District Director: “Because they get their snack in the morning. 
They (parents) make some tortillas that they learned to make 
there and then for lunch, they have things that in their house 
they cannot have. So, we see the impact of nutrition in the 
schools has come to greatly benefit and reduce the amount of 
dropouts and the absence of students, because this is an 
incentive for students to come to school.”
45%
(23 comments)
Better nutrition and 
health
District Director: “The meals benefit the children tremendously 
because in rural areas there are many challenges. There are 
limited resources and the children go to school without money 
to purchase food. The children benefit from the meals since the 
food helps them get through the day. It has had a lot of impact, 
particularly in their health.” 
10%
(5 comments)
55
Involvement and 
commitment from 
parents
Mayors: “One of the impacts has been the culture of parent 
involvement. Before, the father would barely approach the 
school to see how their child was doing. Now, they go more 
frequently. The mom also goes more often to the school to 
prepare the meals. Everything is organized better; that’s what 
we have noticed.”
District Directors: “The parents are more empowered and take 
more responsibility due to the trainings. Now they participate 
very closely in the school and that has been very important in 
Intibucá that the teachers have the support of the parents. They 
are more organized and more motivated.” 
22%
(11 comment)
Sustainability
Sustainability of Project Effects: 
The interviews explored the challenges informants believe exist to obtain program sustainability. 
During the mid-term evaluation the majority of parents interviewed believed the program would 
be difficult to sustain without the financial support it is currently receiving from MGD. Parents 
continued to hold this perception during the final evaluation interviews. Parents commented that 
the main reason they believe the program is not sustainable without MGD support is the levels of 
poverty in their communities. One parent suggested that the community should solicit funds from 
the local government to help supplement the food that families are able to provide. Other 
participants believe the program could be somewhat sustainable, but also added that parents 
would need to play a larger role in order for this to happen. Another suggestion that parents 
offered to improve the sustainability of the program was to build school gardens, indicating this 
would be one of the most sustainable options. Additionally, some parents also emphasized that 
even after the conclusion of the program, they will continue to have the knowledge and skills they 
gained through the trainings and participation in the program and they can continue to put these 
into practice. This sense of empowerment among parents, is likely a result of the building capacity 
strategies the program has implemented over the years.
Parents also commented that if the program does not continue, that it would be up to each parent 
to provide meals for their children. This is seeing as a barrier because many parents would not be 
able to afford the same quality meal that the school currently provides. The majority of families 
depend on the daily school lunch. Parents express that the children would be likely to suffer from 
hunger similar to before the program existed and parents would no longer send them to school, 
having an impact on the current program effects. The responses from parents indicate that some 
parents are not confident that the program could continue on without the current support from 
MGD.
Municipal representatives and district directors report that the municipality has been primarily 
supporting the schools by paying the cost for transporting the food, trainings the teachers, 
providing didactic materials, supporting infrastructure projects in the schools, and managing the 
56
local food purchases program. Municipalities indicate that they would continue to help in these 
ways upon the conclusion of MGD Phase II. However, they report that it would be more difficult to 
support the program in its entirety.
Matrix 8. Sustainability of Project Effects
Category Example of Comments illustrating category % Frequency
Challenges to 
sustainability
Parents: “Talking about my community, talking about where I live, it 
would not be sustainable. It’s difficult because there is a very high level 
of poverty.”
Parents: “The truth is that every parent would have to really work hard 
because we don’t have a lot of money. It would be very difficult to 
continue this program without that additional help. We would have to 
start a new initiative or find a new way to provide the food.”
31%
(34 comments)
Unsustainable 
program 
components
Parents: “Keeping the food program might not be very easy, but it is 
possible. If we're talking about school supplies like notebooks and 
pencils then I think it could continue.”
Parents: “Perhaps we can help to make a repair, but not to construct 
for example a kitchen…because our community is poor.”
Parents: “Personally, I would not like for the students not to receive 
any meals. In regards to the meals, I think it’s too difficult.”
Mayors: “We can commit to paying for the cost of transportation. 
That’s what we can help with. Regarding the purchases of food for the 
schools, we have not done that before in the municipality.”
42%
(46 comments)
Sustainable 
program 
components
Parents: “We would have to work in the school gardens so that the 
children have food.”
Parents: “I think it would be a matter of putting in practice the 
knowledge and abilities the program taught us, like parents, students, 
and teachers…use everything we have learned.”
Parents: “I think when the program ends, the only thing we would have 
is the knowledge and skills we gained through the trainings. The most 
complicated thing would be to obtain the food products for the meals.”
Municipal directors: “Some municipalities have implemented the fresh 
food project, that is the local purchases program which provides fresh 
vegetables to the school feeding program. They also provide eggs.”
District Director: “They (municipal government) have invested greatly 
in supporting the salaries of the English teachers. They have also 
supported us this year with building a classroom, trainings, and didactic 
material kits for the teachers. They help us with scholarships, awards 
given for academic excellence.”
27%
(30 comments)
57
The Role of Actors in the Sustainability of the Program: 
The interviews conducted for the final evaluation show that actors continue to work together 
since the mid-term evaluation, which contributes to the functioning and sustainability of the 
school feeding program. These stakeholders acknowledge their unique roles and the importance 
of working as a team in supporting the program. For example, the departmental director reports 
while CRS is in charge of the school feeding program, they work together with CRS to distribute 
the food and they have regular meetings to discuss different issues that come up. The program 
technicians conduct the supervision of the distribution of food products. The school principals and 
municipal directors deliver the information to the department about the distributions.
The main roles of the mayors and other municipal actors is to provide support with the supervision 
of transporting and distributing the food products to the schools. Another one of their roles 
involves coordinating the process of storing the food, writing up the report about the food 
products, and providing support to the school feeding committees. Some of these responsibilities 
are delegated to different actors within the municipal corporation.
The role of parents is also very critical in the sustainability of the program. Since the mid-term 
evaluation, parents have continued to participate in different school committees including the 
school feeding committee, the parent association, VAD, school dropout committee, among others, 
empowering parents to take on leadership roles within these school organizations. District 
directors also attest to the impact the program has had on increasing the involvement of parents 
in the schools.
One of the most recent examples of collaboration among the different actors is how they worked 
together to ensure families where still receiving meals during the pandemic. The department and 
district directors coordinated together with the school principals, the parent association, and 
school feeding committee to deliver the meals to family in a safe and timely manner.
Matrix 9. The Role of Actors in the Sustainability of the Program
Category Example of Comments illustrating category % Frequency
Parents Parent: “The community should work together to cultivate the 
vegetables in the school to obtain food for the students. If we are 
talking about providing financial support, it would be very difficult for 
this community because we don’t have resources. In the first place, we 
should work together, so that we can plant our own garden to have the 
food for our schools.”
Parent: “I think it would involve putting into practice the knowledge 
the program has taught us as parents and being able to use everything 
we have learned.”
42%
(12 comments)
Municipal 
government
Mayor: “We have been coordinating the school food program and in
some instances simply providing support if they ask us for it. For 
example, if they ask me to help them find a warehouse to store the 
food products, I help them with that task and our work ends there. 
After that the school committees in each community are in charge of 
distributing the food.”
25%
(7 comments)
58
Mayor: “We have tried to support the transportation of the food. We 
transport it from the place of delivery to each of the schools.”
Community 
organizations/
NGOs
Department Director: “CRS is in charge of the school feeding in our 
Department of Intibucá. Therefore, we deliver the food together with 
them.”
Municipal Director: “In Intibucá, CRS, CARITAS, and McGovern-Dole run 
the school feeding program. They have always supported us and their 
support did not stop. We continued to deliver meals to families, 
especially during the quarantine. During the time we still coordinated 
with school principals, the parents’ association, and school feeding 
committee. They still delivered the food to families in a safely manner.”
14%
(4 comments)
Educational 
institutions
Municipal directors: “The supervision is done through the technicians. 
The school principals and municipal directors deliver information to the 
Department regarding the deliveries.”
Municipal directors: “CRS first establishes the conversation of with the 
Departmental Director and they provide instructions on how the 
process will be for the food delivery. Once they have established the 
relationship with the Department, they have meetings to talk about 
different issues that come up.”
18%
(5 comments)
Interagency Relationships:
Interagency relationships among key actors is an important factor that could contribute to the 
sustainability of the MGD program positively or negatively. Informants, including, municipal 
actors, district, and department directors reported the improvement as well as some challenges in 
the relationship between the municipality and educational entities.
District and departmental directors agreed that the communication between the municipalities
and the DDEI is positive overall. A specific example was provided by an informant who said that 
within their community that the municipality works well with DDEI. She mentioned that her 
experience is not universal and the level of commitment shown by a local mayor depends on each 
individual mayor. The mayor within the community she mentioned has worked hard in partnering 
with the school district to bring English and computer teachers to the school. The respondent said 
that this is not common for many other schools so she is happy with the partnership is currently in 
place. Additionally, when schools are in need of infrastructure such as fixing a restroom, they take 
it to the corporation to solicit the request and they have had very positive results. Municipal 
directors believe that this positive relationship between the municipality and the DDEI may be due 
to teacher representatives upholding important positions within the municipality committees, 
further advocating for the successful collaboration of the two entities.
While many of the relationships between the municipality and the DDEI are positive overall, there 
are some challenges in some relationships mentioned by informants. For example, one informant 
expressed that while a mayor might have good intentions of helping them, some of the people 
59
working in the municipality do not understand the situations of the schools and rather spend 
money on infrastructure than in the school feeding program. This lack of understanding often 
inhibits the relationship between the two parties and prevents work that meets the indicators of 
the program from being completed. Additionally, the majority of the funds in the budget are 
spent on hiring teachers without including directors in the decision-making process, indicating for 
some informants that for municipal representatives, the program is not a priority.
Municipal representatives also attest to the lack of communication between the two parties. This 
informant expressed that during the 3 years he has been in office, he has never received a visit 
from the department or district directors to have a discussion on current updates on the school 
feeding program and proposals on how they can collaborate. Based on these perspectives, the 
municipality works within their own politics while the Secretary of Education work within theirs.
In regards to the functioning of the COMDE, informants report that the COMDE is well organized 
and this improvement maybe a result of the trainings and support it has received from the MGD 
program. Compared to the mid-term evaluation, the municipalities seem to be more supportive in 
of the COMDE in some ways. For example, some municipalities provided more equipment and a 
physical place for them to have meetings. They also provide an office and an administrative 
assistant to the municipal director. One of the challenges that it continues to face, is the lack of 
commitment from some of the mayors in fulfilling their role in the organization. Similar to the 
Midterm Evaluation, municipal directors express their frustration over how the COMDE is not 
given a budget by the municipality and many times the proposals that require financial resources 
made are not approved. Additionally, because the COMDE is not a permanent organization, it 
must continue to train members continuously over time.
Matrix 10. Interagency Relationships:
Category Example of Comments illustrating category % Frequency
Interagency 
coordination
Department or District Director: “COMDEs, in addition to being led by the 
Municipal Directors, are also included in the municipal corporations. The 
COMDEs present their strategic plan with the needs. Many mayors work very 
well, others do not even go to COMDE meetings, but I think that also depends 
on the mayors' level of education. I had very good relations with the Mayor of 
(a municipality) who has a Bachelor of Education, with the Mayor of (a 
municipality) who is also a Bachelor of Education, for example, the Mayor of 
(municipality) always did his planned actions in conjunction with us and placed 
English and computer teachers that the secretary of education does not give to 
most of their schools. They did infrastructure repairs and communicated to us 
but not all mayors act in the same way.”
Director: “For example, in infrastructure there is support. If the teacher takes a 
request and says that the restrooms are not working. We talk about it, we 
review it, and we take it to the corporation to solicit help and we have always 
had positive responses.”
28%
(7 comments)
60
Interagency 
relationship 
challenges
District Director: “Much of the time I feel that the mayors focus more on 
infrastructure than activities that meet our indicators, and sometimes it is 
understandable because they want things that are visible.” 
District Director: “The mayor could have good intentions but other local 
government officials sometimes don’t understand the true situation that is 
going on in our schools. They would rather spend money on a bridge or 
repairing a road, instead of investing the money in the school food program.”
District Director: “The majority of the funds are spent on hiring teachers and 
without any advice from the department heads.”
Mayor: “I want to tell you that in the 3 years that I have been here I have never 
received a departmental/district visit in which they say this is what we are 
working on within the education field and this is my proposal.”
24%
(6 comments)
Functioning 
of COMDE
Department Director: “I would say that they are very organized. They have 
been trained in various topics due to the support of the school food program. 
Due to this program the people in charge to provide resources for the different 
activities.”
32%
(8 comments)
Limitations of 
COMDE
Department Director: “The main contribution we need from the mayor is that 
they carry out their role within COMDE. If they did that they would figure out 
what kind of support, we really need.”
Director: “The COMDE is a dynamic organism because the mayor will never be 
permanent. You never know who will be the mayor for the next period. There 
will be another mayor and you will have to train him/her. The COMDEs are 
never a product that is complete.”
Directors: “The mayors should fulfill their role within the COMDE, that way 
they will identify the needs of the municipalities.”
20%
(5 comments)
Sustainability Conclusion
Similar to the results of the Midterm Evaluation report, findings from the Final Evaluation show 
that one of the biggest areas of strength is the different program strategies that MGD has utilized 
is building capacity among stakeholders in the past years. For example, the program has provided 
pedagogic, leadership, and administrative trainings to teachers and school administrators to build 
capacity inside the classroom and within the school, developing the knowledge and skills 
necessary to manage the program. Thus, school principals could serve as key actors in promoting 
and managing the school feedings within the school in the absence of the MGD program. Through 
the training and experience, parents have also developed their capacities, preparing them to serve 
in different leadership roles through various committees (e.g., parent association, school feeding 
committee). One of the benefits of the parent participation is that the interaction between 
parents and actors within the school has improved. 
Parents attest to the long-term benefits of the capacity building trainings and leadership 
experience within the school, they report that regardless of the outcomes of the program, they 
will be able to utilize the knowledge and skills they have gained through their participation in the 
61
program. Although they see many challenges to sustaining the program without the financial 
support of MGD, parents express interest in being in charge of the school gardens to produce food 
for the children and continuing to help through different committees. Other educational leaders 
who are part of groups such as the CED, COMDE, and DDEI have also received trainings in their 
specific areas of work, resulting in better functioning of those groups. Most importantly, the 
different actors have demonstrated that they are able to work together and this could prove 
beneficial for the sustainability of the program.
Another theme that emerge from the Final Evaluation interviews, relevant to the sustainability of 
program, is that key actors have shifted their attitudes and behaviors over the years regarding the 
importance of their participation in the program. For example, the different actors are more 
aware of the short- and long-term impacts of the program on the education of the children. 
Parents also understand better the importance of education on their children’s future 
opportunities. School principals are more empowered to managing different components of the 
program (e.g. school feeding program, teacher trainings, teachers assistance). Similarly, the 
department and district directors and municipal governments have expressed interest in 
institutionalizing some of the components of the program.
Some of the limitations and challenges that may continue to exist is that while stakeholders
understand the importance of sustaining the program and actions they should take, there was no 
mention of developing a cohesive and collaborative sustainability plan. District and departmental 
directors and municipal governments spoke about the different program components that they 
could support. They each discussed some actions they should take to sustain the different 
components of the program such as seeking funds from the national government and NGOs and 
allocating funding from their budgets. Parents primarily spoke about the knowledge and skills they 
could contribute to the sustainability of the program through their continual participation in 
committees. However, the different factors did not mention working together and collaborating 
on a strategic plan and action steps to make the program more sustainable. 
Progress Made on Midterm Recommendations from 2018
CRS Honduras staff provided information on the extent to which recommendations from the MGD 
II Baseline Evaluation report have been implemented. Responses from CRS staff related to each of 
these questions are included below, lightly edited.
(1) Sustain and Increase Efforts to Improve Reading Comprehension through Continued 
Trainings and More Frequent Child Assessments
MGD continued teacher trainings to improve students’ reading comprehension as well as the 
certificate course in teaching reading and writing. The training topics included creating didactic 
material for teaching reading and writing, written expression, teaching vocabulary, using recycled 
materials for teaching reading comprehension, and incorporating them in the classroom. Another 
main topic in the teacher training was calculation of education indicators based on the results of 
student formative tests. These tests are an initiative of the Ministry of Education to evaluate 
student progress in math in Spanish on a monthly basis. According to an educational study 
62
conducted by the Government of Honduras, these monthly progress exams are an important 
factor in the process of learning development because they evaluate student learning on a 
monthly basis allowing for earlier intervention, and they also prepare students for national level 
annual evaluations. To complement the teacher training, in 2019 MGD continued providing the 
test for all students in over 700 schools in Intibucá. 
In 2019, another activity to support the students learning was the continuation of the peer-to-peer 
tutoring program. At the beginning of the school year, teachers selected the tutors according to 
academic achievement and parental authorization. Peer tutors received tutoring booklets to help 
students between first and ninth grades in math and Spanish. The first through third grade 
materials focus on basic math and reading concepts and were developed by the Ministry of 
Education. The MGD program developed the fourth through ninth grade materials and cover 
concepts where students tend to have most difficulties. Student tutors also received a basic 
tutoring kit (small marker board, markers, paper, glue, scissors, etc.) and approximately 40 hours 
of training. 
During the pandemic, the MOE developed content for learning packets that followed the national 
curriculum for the months of August, September, October and November. Then, the MGD team 
worked with SEDUC to design, print and distribute the learning packets for reading and writing for 
all grades in primary and pre-primary schools. 
The MGD program also adapted the teacher training to a virtual format. The MGD team is working 
closely with the teacher training unit (DGDP) of the SEDUC. The virtual sessions covered are (1)
The use of activity books and accompanying teacher guides; (2) Reading and teaching; (3) Writing 
for grades 1-3; and (4) Formative evaluations.
(2) Sustain and Increase Advocacy and Training Efforts to Ensure Sustainability of Project 
Activities
In December 2018, the MGD team updated the sustainability roadmap to guide the sustainability 
process. The team reviewed each of the proposed activities and suggested actors who can 
continue the activities. The updated map was then shared with municipal education leaders for 
feedback. Some leaders expressed that activities such as teacher trainings and materials will be 
difficult to sustain after the project closes, while other leaders hope to find local solutions to 
maintain teacher training opportunities though perhaps with fewer materials and hours. The MGD 
team also met with the Ministry of Social Inclusion a (SEDIS) to discuss the National School Feeding 
Legislation. Some highlights in progress towards sustainability described in the sustainability map 
are: 
A. In 2019, MGD continued coordination with several NGOs and Government of Honduras 
entities who form part of the cross-sector committee focused on school feeding. The 
committee developed standards and regulations for food preparation and distribution, as 
well as a standardized curriculum for parents who prepare the school meals incorporating 
experiences and best practices from the MGD program. These concepts were integrated 
into three different training guides and manuals. In 2020, the guides outlining standards 
for schools and parents was completed and printed. These guides will be distributed and 
used at the national level once schools are open. 
63
B. The MGD-sponsored rural school transportation program concluded in November with the 
end of the 2019 school year. A total of 14 communities served by the MGD program in 
previous years recognized the value of the transportation program, stating that it 
encourages students to enroll in school despite having to travel long distances. The team 
was pleased to report that six mayors representing the municipalities of Magdalena, San 
Antonio, Jesús de Otoro, La Esperanza, Dolores, and Intibucá have taken the initiative to 
continue the service beyond the support of MGD. In February and March 2020, the 
municipalities invested a total of $2,289 and parents contributed $2,498. A total of 398 
children benefited from this initiative. The service was suspended because of the 
pandemic, but the mayors have expressed plans to continue once possible. 
C. The MGD program also formed a Committee for Public/Private Partnerships. The purpose 
of this committee is to advocate for quality education in Intibucá, soliciting donations and 
supporting education initiatives. The group is represented by the Education Director and 
Legal Advisor for the Departmental Education Office of Intibucá, leaders from two of the 
municipal associations, a representative of Lenca Eramani, the president and 
administrator of Asociación de Municipios Fronterizos de Intibucá (AMFI) which represent 
a total of eight municipalities in the region. The directors of the two CRS local 
implementing partners and a representative of the CRS MGD team are accompanying and 
supporting the establishment of the committee. By the end of 2019 the committee started 
the process to become a legal entity to be able to receive donations from the private 
sector and advocate for education needs throughout the department of Intibucá.
However, this process is delayed because of the closure of government offices because of 
the pandemic. MGD III will continue to work with this committee.
(3) Increase the Focus on Meeting the Needs of Students with Learning and Other Disabilities
In 2019, the MGD program consulted with the Special Education Unit from the DDEI to gain a 
better understanding of the approach to support students with learning and other disabilities. The 
MGD team worked with a consultant specializing in special education to lead and carry out an 
analysis and action plan. The first step was to develop a basic needs assessment for inclusive 
education in the department. With the results of the assessment, the MGD and DDEI staff 
elaborated a 4-year plan that includes training for members of psychopedagogy teams7 at the 
municipal level, identification of students with disabilities by municipality, and identification of 
teaching tools to address their needs. After this, three documents were created: (1) Process for 
identifying students with learning disabilities; (2) Manual of inclusive education in the classroom 
specific to Intibucá, taking into consideration the assessment results; and (3) Toolbox for the 
teacher to use with students with disabilities.
By the end of 2019, with the three documents the members of the psychopedagogy teams began 
a pilot with 120 schools. The students with disabilities in these schools were identified and, 
according to their needs, the teachers began the training. This process was delayed because of the 
pandemic. The training was adapted to virtual classrooms, but many of the teachers were unable 
7 The psychopedagogical teams are organized in each municipality and are made up of 6-8 teachers and 
community leaders who are mainly in charge of (1) identification of students with learning problems, (2) 
support in teacher training to serve the student and (3) referring the student to the appropriate organization 
if the student’s needs cannot be adequately met by the teacher cannot attend to him.
64
to participate because of low bandwidth or internet problems. At the beginning of the 2021 school 
year, the DDEI will continue coordinating the virtual training for teachers and will deliver printed 
manuals to teachers from the 120 schools so that they can continue learning how to support these 
students.
(4) Increase the Focus on Health and Hygiene in Relation to Infrastructure Improvements at 
Schools
In 2019, the MGD team conducted a needs assessment for a sample of educational facilities 
constructed by MGD to understand general maintenance needs. The assessment sought to 
identify training needs for the improvement of health and hygiene in relation to infrastructure 
maintenance as well as understand availability of resources to do minor repairs. Using the 
assessment results, the MGD team created a personalized training based on the type of facility 
constructed (Kitchen, Latrines or Water Systems) in each school. 
The workshops took place in the schools so that participants received hands-on skills. During the 
workshops the team and the participants also completed some basic repairs such as fixing leaks
and loose valves in the water systems and faucets, and replacing drainage accessories for the 
kitchens and sanitary facilities. 
(5) Develop a Training on Financial Decision-Making for Parents, and Rigorously Evaluate its 
Effectiveness
In 2019, CRS assigned $100,000 to expand the SILC methodology in the Department of Intibucá 
and formulate the first SILC groups in the neighboring Department of La Paz. The intervention 
included student groups but also added teacher groups and parent groups. The model and 
experience were documented and shared with key stakeholders for further learning. Additionally, 
CRS continued strengthening its relationship with the Honduran Ministry of Education (MOE) 
sharing the methodology and encouraging scaling the program at the national level as it seeks to 
promote a holistic approach to education and support new curriculum blocks. 
With these funds CRS, identified approaches for greater teacher and parent involvement to model 
and support the development of key skills in children. The Theory of Change stated that: IF 
children increase leadership and key financial education skills, such as savings and goal-setting, 
and IF teachers and parents’ model and promote financial education skills through their own 
participation in SILC groups, THEN children will save and use money to achieve their individual 
spending goals, BECAUSE CRS has learned from experience that incorporating SILC groups into the 
school day with children as a methodological approach is an effective method to build financial 
education and leadership skills in children. The underlying assumption was that if parents and 
teachers participate in SILC activities, they will learn to value savings practices, and then 
encourage these practices amongst their children/students. 
It was not possible to evaluate its effectiveness rigorously, but CRS conducted a special study to: 
1. Describe the benefits generated in students from the implementation of the SILC 
strategy.
2. Analyze if there are differences in the performance in Spanish and mathematics of 
students participating in SILC and those who do not receive this benefit.
65
3. Analyze if there are differences in other educational indicators (Absenteeism, 
Attendance, Dropout, Failure).
4. Identify behavioral changes acquired through participation in SILC. (leadership, self￾esteem, solidarity, entrepreneurship, financial skills, participation).
5. Identify the factors that contribute or not to the implementation and sustainability of 
SILC.
6. List the lessons learned and good practices generated from the implementation of the 
SILC strategy with the MGD program.
Final Evaluation Recommendations
At the Final Evaluation, the MGD program achieved and exceeded most of its indicators. The 
COVID-19 pandemic necessitated school shut-downs around the country, and CRS successfully 
pivoted their school feeding program to provide take-home rations for beneficiaries. CRS also 
successfully trained teachers, leveraged funds from the government and increased public-private 
partnerships to support MGD implementation and sustainability, and improved school 
infrastructure. Yet, the effects of COVID-19 on MGD and on communities have been profound. 
Many children are not able to access education given lack of internet and technological resources. 
This issue is also compounded by declines in reading comprehension prior to COVID-19, as well as 
drops in school enrollment compared to the Midterm Evaluation. Communities also continue to 
grapple with the issue of sustainability and the commitment of local governments to maintain 
MGD program activities after phase-out. Given these challenges, recommendations from the Final 
Evaluation are as follows:
1. Examine the reasons behind reading comprehension declines in 2019, and identify and 
implement a strategy to reverse these declines.
Children’s reading comprehension declined considerably in 2019 according to MIDEH data. This 
decline is particularly concerning in that it occurred prior to the COVID-19 school closures. 6th
graders lost progress at a steeper rate than 3rd graders, but all experienced a decline since the 
Midterm Evaluation. Based on the findings of the qualitative data in the Final Evaluation, it is likely 
that children’s reading comprehension will deteriorate further as children are not able to access 
school. CRS should liaise with MIDEH and other actors to examine the reasons for declines in 
reading comprehension prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. This information could help CRS and 
government actors identify a strategy for mitigating learning losses currently being experienced by 
children (see Recommendation #2).
66
2. Develop a strategy for mitigating learning losses incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, 
including a strategy to build parents’ capacities to support their children’s learning at 
home.
COVID-19 school closures will likely compound the declines in reading comprehension already 
experienced since the Midterm Evaluation. The effects of the pandemic on children’s education 
could be felt for years to come, but it is clear that parents are struggling to support children’s 
learning at home. Many children are also unable to access school remotely because of 
technological and internet issues. The burden of education thus falls on parents who feel ill 
equipped to manage their children’s learning at home. CRS should build parents’ capacities to 
support home schooling and remote learning during the pandemic. Such activities could include 
parent training on structuring students’ time, familiarizing parents with curricula, or creating 
“learning pods” in the community with small groups of parents and children to minimize risk of 
COVID-19 exposure. As the pandemic stretches on, CRS and other stakeholders will need to focus 
on how to provide quality learning when school attendance is not possible.
3. Examine the reasons behind drops in school enrollment in 2019.
MGD nearly met school enrollment targets at the Final Evaluation. Yet, enrollment for boys 
dropped 6.0% and for girls dropped 1.4% since the Midterm Evaluation. Given that enrollment is a 
key factor in the MGD theory of change towards building literacy, more information is needed 
regarding the drivers of dipping enrollment. Qualitative data did not reveal any such concerns 
among participants, so it is unclear whether the current drop is simply an aberration or a cause for 
increased attention. CRS should liaise with community and municipal leaders, as well as parents, 
to establish the extent to which declining enrollment is related to some unifying factor, such as 
out migration. 
4. Assist district and departmental managers to establish a cohesive sustainability plan for 
post-MGD transition.
At the Final Evaluation, as during the Midterm Evaluation, project sustainability continues to be a 
concern among stakeholders. Municipal mayors did not report much progress in establishing 
sustainability plans, and even when such plans were in place, lack of funding may prohibit their full 
implementation. Parents in particular voiced concern over sustainability, related to the significant 
levels of poverty in the region and the challenges faced by parents in replacing school feeding 
efforts of the MGD program. Some participants (particularly directors) reported that the 
government has increased support of teachers and classrooms, but thus far this support has not 
extended to school feeding. During Phase III of MGD implementation, CRS should make it a priority 
to work with government officials at every level to create a cohesive plan for sustainability post￾MGD.
67
REFERENCES
Adams, J. W., Snowling, M. J., Hennessy, S. M., & Kind, P. (1999). Problems of behavior, reading 
and arithmetic: Assessments of comorbidity using the Strengths and Difficulties 
Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571-585.
Alderman, H., & Bundy, D. (2012). School feeding programs and development: Are we framing the 
question correctly? World Bank Research Observer, 27(2), 204-221. 
Bundy, D., Burrbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M., & Drake, L. (2009) Rethinking school 
feeding: Social safety nets, child development, and the education sector. Available from: 
https://www.wfp.org/content/rethinking-school-feeding-social-safety-nets-child￾development-and-education-sector.
Cheung, M. & Perrotta, M. (2010) The Impact of Food For Education Program On Schooling in 
Cambodia. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies (APPS). Available from http://ssrn.com/ 
abstract=2507055.
Cortina, M. A., Fazel, M., Hlungwani, T. M., Kahn, K., Tollman, S., & Cortina-Borja, M. (2013). 
Childhood psychological problems in school settings in rural Southern Africa. PLOS ONE, 
8(6): e65041.
Crea, T. M., Neville, S. E., Diaz-Valdes, A., Evans, K., Urizar, B., Drummer, E., Acevedo, J., Canelas, 
O., Medina, M., & Mallman, J. (2021). The McGovern–Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program in Guatemala: Increases in literacy associated with 
program implementation from 2014-2016. World Development Perspectives, 21. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2021.100288
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A research note. Journal 
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.
Goodman, R. (2001).Psychometric properties of the Strengths snd Difficulties Questionnaire. 
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Goodman, A., & Goodman, R. (2009). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a dimensional 
measure of child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 
Psychiatry, 48, 400–403.
Goodman, R., Neves dos Santos, D., Robatto Nunes, A. P., Pereira de Miranda, D., Fleitlich-Bilyk, & 
Almeida Filho, N. (2005). The Ilha de Maré study: A survey of child mental health problems 
in a predominantly African-Brazilian rural community. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric 
Epidemiology, 40, 11-17. 
Goodman, A., Heiervang, E., Fleitlich-Bilyk, B., Alyahri, A., Patel, V., Mullick, M. S. I., Slobodskaya, 
H., Neves dos Santos, D., & Goodman, R. (2012). Cross-national differences in 
questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence. 
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 1321-1331.
68
Jyoti, D., Frongillo, E., & Jones, S. (2005). Food Insecurity Affects School Children's Academic 
Performance, Weight Gain, and Social Skills. Journal of Nutrition, 135(12), 2831-2839.
Kristjansson B., Petticrew M., MacDonald B., Krasevec J., Janzen L., Greenhalgh T., Wells G. A., 
MacGowan J., Farmer A. P., Shea B., Mayhew A., Tugwell P., & Welch V. (2009) School 
Feeding For Improving The Physical And Psychosocial Health Of Disadvantaged Students 
(Review). The Cochrane Library (1), 1-74.
Martorell, R. (1999) The nature of child malnutrition and its long-term implications. Food and 
Nutrition Bulletin, 20(3), 288-292.
Secretaría de Educacción. (2019). https://transparencia.se.gob.hn. Retrieved from:
https://transparencia.se.gob.hn/media/documents/planeacion/planes/PESE_2018-
2030_Aprobado_CNE_11_abril_2019_02.pdf
Secretaría de Educación. (2016). SISTEMA EDUCATIVO HONDUREÑO EN CIFRAS - PERIODO 
ACADÉMICO 2015. Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de Educación.
Secretaría de Educación. (2017). www.se.gob.hn. Retrieved from: https://www.se.gob.hn/se￾detalle-plan/
SEDIS. (2017). https://sedis.gob.hn. Retrieved from: https://sedis.gob.hn/portal/sites/default/
files/PEI%20SEDIS%20ACTUALIZADO%202017_0.pdf
USDA (2016). McGovern-Dole Food for Education program. Available from: http://www.fas.usda. 
gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program.
UTSAN. (2019). http://www.ipcinfo.org. Retrieved from: http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/ 
user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Honduras_AcuteFoodSec_2019Nov2020June_Spanish.pdf
Valdez, C. R., Padilla, B., Moore, S., & Magana, S. (2013). Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary 
outcomes of the Fortalezas Familiares intervention for Latino families facing maternal 
depression. Family Process, 52(3), 394-410.
Vilar-Compte, M., Sandoval-Olascoaga, S., Bernal-Stuart, A., Shimoga, S., & Vargas-Bustamante, A. 
(2015). The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on food security and food expenditures in 
Mexico: A disproportionate effect on the vulnerable. Public Health Nutrition, 18(16), 2934 
– 2942.
WFP (2007) Full Report of the Thematic Evaluation of the WFP School Feeding in Emergency 
Situations. (A Report from the Office of Evaluation No. OEDE/2007/06). Retrieved from 
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/ documents/reports/wfp127463.pdf?_ 
ga=1.8013938.1583969398.1468935841. 
69
APPENDIX A: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Indicators
All Results Indicators are displayed below. The percentage achievement of the target for each 
indicator at the Final Evaluation is included in parentheses next to the indicator itself. For ease of 
interpretation, a three-tiered color code is used to denote achievement of final indicator targets, 
as follows:
GREEN: Achievement (within 5.0% of final target) of final target (45 of 53 indicators)
YELLOW: Moderate progress (6.0%-20.0%) towards final target (4 of 53 indicators) 
RED: Slow or concerning progress (<20.0%) towards final target (4 of 53 indicators)
Notably, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of indicators were not able to be collected; 
in these cases, the midterm indicators served as proxies for the final indicators. Reading 
comprehension data were not collected by the Government of Honduras for 2nd graders in 2019, 
so for this report we used data for 3rd graders; thus, direct comparisons between 2nd and 3rd
graders should be made cautiously. With these caveats in mind, results show that 45 of the 53 
results indicators met or exceeded their final targets. Four of 53 indicators showed moderate 
progress, and four of 53 showed slow or concerning progress. Results indicators are presented in 
Appendix A.
Language from Attachment E - verbatim Target Baseline Midterm Final
Result 1 Improved Literacy of School-Age Children
Indicator 1.1
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions
67,599 0 71,838 86,317
(127.7%)
Indicator 1.1.b female 35,609 0 38,465 46,980
(131.9%)
Indicator 1.1.c male 31,900 0 33,373 39,337
(123.3%)
Indicator 1.2
Number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions
73,076 0 163,791 135,888
(186.0%)
Indicator 1.3
Percent of students who, by the end of 
two grades of primary schooling, 
demonstrate that they can read and 
understand the meaning of grade level 
text
60.0% 44.2% 50.9% 33.7%
Indicator 1.3.a female 61.0% 44.7% 49.9% 30.2%
Indicator 1.3.b male 58.0% 43.7% 51.1% 36.9%
Result 2 Increased Government Support
Indicator 2.1
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Other Public)
95,001 0 77,637 316,727
(300.0%)
70
Indicator 2.2
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
335,000 0 644,693 2,365,257
(706.1%)
Indicator 2.3
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance (Host Government)
239,999 0 560,101 772,544
(322.0%)
Result 3 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
Indicator 3.1
Number of Parent-Teacher 
Associations (PTAs) or similar "school" 
governance structures supported as a 
result of USDA assistance
509 0 574 574
(112.8%)
Indicator 3.2 Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 5 0 2 6
(120.0%)
Indicator 3.3
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 
(Multi-focus)
3 0 2 4
(133.3%)
Indicator 3.4
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 
(Education)
2 0 0 2
(100.0%)
Language from Attachment E - verbatim Target Baseline Midterm Final
Result 4 Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Indicator 4.1
Number of Honduran government 
authorities that have been trained to 
implement activities in accordance 
with their roles.
85 0 134 170
(200.0%)
Result 5 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Indicator 5.1
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 1)
3 0 3 3
(100.0%)
Indicator 5.2
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 2)
3 0 3 3
(100.0%)
Indicator 5.3
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 3)
3 0 0 5
(167.0%)
71
Indicator 5.4
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 4)
3 0 0 5
(167.0%)
Indicator 5.5
Number of educational policies, 
regulations or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of 
USDA assistance (stage 5)
3 0 0 5
(167.0%)
Result 6 More Consistent Teacher Attendance
Indicator 6.1
Percent of teachers in target schools 
who attend and teach school at least 
90% of scheduled school days per 
school year
80% 0% 96.2% 96.2%
(120.3%)
Result 7 Better Access to School Supplies and Materials
Indicator 7.1
Number of textbooks and other 
teaching and learning materials 
provided as a result of USDA 
assistance
41,200 0 5,317 104,206
(253.0%)
Language from Attachment E - verbatim Target Baseline Midterm Final
Result 8 Improved Literacy of Instructional Materials
Indicator 8.1
Number of schools receiving literacy 
instruction materials (materials from 
the Basic National Curriculum Design -
DCNB) and/or unpublished texts 
produced by school children
1,040 0 936 1,047
(101.0%)
Result 9 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers
Indicator 9.1
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching 
assistants in target schools who 
demonstrate use of new and quality 
teaching techniques or tools as a result 
of USDA assistance
400 0 807 807
(201.8%)
Indicator 9.2
Number of 
teachers/educators/teaching 
assistants trained or certified as a 
result of USDA assistance
1,509 0 1,214 1,931
(128.0%)
Result 10 Increased Skills and Knowledge of School Administrators
Indicator 10.1 Number of school administrators and 
officials in target schools who 
637 0 315 315
(49.5%)
72
demonstrate use of new techniques or 
tools as a result of USDA assistance
Indicator 10.2
Number of school administrators and 
officials trained or certified as a result 
of USDA assistance
703 0 790 968
(138.0%)
Result 11 Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Indicator 11.1
Number of school-aged children 
receiving daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance
52,000 0 54,627 53,588
(103.1%)
Indicator 11.4 female 24,967 0 26,073 25,633
(102.7%)
Indicator 11.5
male
27,040 0 28,554
27,955
(103.4%)
Indicator 11.6
Number of daily school meals 
(breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to 
school-age children as a result of USDA 
assistance
47,700,000 0 25,835,531
42,342,401
(88.8%)
(take-home 
rations)
Language from Attachment E - verbatim Target Baseline Midterm Final
Result 11 Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Indicator 11.7 Number of individuals receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA 
assistance
17,866 0 17,211
78,758
(441.0%)
(take-home 
rations)
Indicator 
11.11
Number of individuals trained in child 
health and nutrition as a result of 
USDA assistance
1,040 0 13,311 14,323
(1,377.0%)
Indicator 
11.12 female 724 0 11,969 12,679
(1,751.2%)
Indicator 
11.13 male 316 0 1,342 1,644
(520.3%)
Indicator 
11.14
Number of social assistance 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets as a result of 
USDA assistance
67,599 71,838 77,123
(114.1%)
Indicator 
11.16 female 38,609 0 77,259 41,513
(107.5%)
Indicator 
11.17 male 32,246 0 67,064 35,610
(110.4%)
Indicator 
11.19
Number of take-home rations 
provided as a result of USDA 
assistance
168,056 0 68,933 362,232
(215.5%)
73
Result 12 Improved Student Attendance
Indicator 12.1
Number of students regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
53,384 0 50,165 50,165
(94.0%)
female 26,010 0 23,988 23,988
(92.2%)
male 27,374 0 26,177 26,177
(95.6%)
Result 13 Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased Disincentives)
Indicator 13.1
Number of students receiving 
transportation to schools as a result of 
USDA assistance
3,000 0 3,517 5,148
(171.6%)
Result 14 Improved School Infrastructure
Indicator 14.1
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance
357 0 333 492
(137.8%)
Result 14 Improved School Infrastructure
Indicator 14.2
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas)
81 0 44 85
(105.0%)
Indicator 14.3
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Latrines)
181 0 199 274
(151.4%)
Indicator 14.4
Number of educational facilities (i.e. 
school buildings, classroom, latrines) 
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Wells and water 
stations/systems)
95 0 44 87
(91.6%)
Indicator 14.5 Number of schools using an improved 
water source
72 0 44 71
(98.6%)
Indicator 14.6 Number of schools with improved 
sanitary facilities 72 0 46 75
(104.2%)
Result 15 Increased Student Enrollment
Indicator 15.1 Number of students enrolled in school 
receiving USDA assistance 52,000 0 53,678 51,632
(99.3%)
Indicator 15.2 female 24,960 0 25,723 25,363
(101.6%)
74
Indicator 15.3 male 27,040 0 27,955 26,269
(97.1%)
Result 16 Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
Indicator 16.1
Percent of parents in target 
communities who can name at least 
three benefits of primary education 
(collected through a survey)
75.0% 20.8% 72.6% 87.0%
(116.0%)
75
APPENDIX B: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Terms of Reference
See attached.
APPENDIX C: MGD Phase II Final Evaluation Measurement Instruments 
See attached.
1
Final evaluation of the Food for Education Program 
Parent Questionnaire 
1. Name of supervisor __________________ 2. Name of interviewer __________________
3. Date of the survey ____________________________________
I. Center information and parent information 
1. Name of the center: _____________________________2. Center code ____________
3. Center type 1) Official: _________ 2) PROHECO: _________ 3) Other:_______________
4. Teaching type: 1) Single teacher ________ 2) Dual teacher ________ 3) Multi-teacher ___________
5. Area: 1) Urban: ___________ 2) Rural: ____________
7. Community: ________________ 8. Name of father or mother: _________________________
9. Child code: __________________________________
II. Mother or Father information 
1. What is your sex?
a. Female
b. Male
2. How old are you? __________________
3. How many people live in your household (including you)?______________
4. How many children are in your home?
5. What is your primary occupation? 
a. Work in the home
b. Farmer
c. Rancher
d. Worker/Laborer
e. Businessperson / store-keeper
f. Professional
g. Services
h. Not sure
i. Did not respond 
2
III. Parent involvement in the program:
Improving the quality of teaching 
(RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT)
6. Do you read at home to your children? Si______ No_______ (If the answer is no skip to question 21)
7. How often? 
Every day _____
4 times a week _____
3 times a week_____
2 times a week _____ 
1 time a week_____
1 times a month ______
Other (specify): __________ 
8. What reading materials do you read at home? 
a. magazines
b. brochures
c. periodicals 
d. books
e. others _________________
f. Not sure
g. Did not respond
9. Have you been to a library? Yes _____ No _______
10. If the community had a library, how would you use it?
11. ¿Do you help your child with homework? Yes _____ No ____ (If the answer is no, skip to question 25)
¿How often? 
Every day _____
4 times a week _____
3 times a week_____ 
2 times a week _____ 
1 time a week_____
1 times a month ______
Other (specify): __________ 
(EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY)
12. Have you received information about the academic progress of your child? Yes _____ No _______ (If the answer is no 
skip to question 28)
13. What information did you recieve? 
a. Mid-term grades
b. End of year standardized test results 
3
c. Monthly updates on academic progress 
d. PISA test scores (Program for International Student Assessment)
e. EGRA
f. Other: __________________________________
14. Why did/would you use this information?
a. Take positive actions to help my child succeed 
b. To particiate actively in the activities of the center 
c. For no reason 
d. To help your child with homework 
e. To have a positive impact on other parents 
f. Other (Be specific)___________________
g. Not sure
h. Did not respond
Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased Disincentives)
(EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY)
15. Of those children living in your home, how many receive transportation? ____
16. What is your role in this service? (Select all that apply)
a. Pass the time
b. Monitor the child’s safety until they board the transportation 
c. Monitor the means of transportation 
d. Administrative 
e. Resource manager for the activity 
f. Otros_____________________________________
17. Whether studying or not, what are the activities that your children do during their free time? (Select all that apply) 
a. Play
b. Study
c. Go to church 
d. Chores (getting the water, feeding the animals, sweeping the patio, looking for firewood)
e. Farmwork
f. Work (Receives compensation: Cut of coffee)
g. Other: _________________
h. Not sure 
i. Did not repsond 
(EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, RELEVANCE, SUSTAINABILITY)
18. What are the foods that your children receive at school? Select all that apply. 
a. CSB
b. Corn
c. Beans
d. Oil
e. Rice
4
h. Vegetables
i. Chicken or Indian hen 
j. Churros
g. Sodas
h. Other: _______________
19. Do you belong to the school food committee? (If the answer is no, skip to question 36)
Yes ______ No________
20. What is your rol in this service?
a. Drive the food (receive snack, make sure there is an adequate amount of food)
b. Prepare the food 
c. Train the mothers 
d. Not sure
g. Did not repsond
21. ¿Did you receive a dry ration? Yes ______ No___________
22. How are you using it?
a. Consumed at home 
b. Shared with other families 
c. Sell or barter 
d. Feed the animals 
e. Other__________________
f. Not sure
g. Did not repsond
Improved School Infrastructure
(EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY)
23. ¿Have there been improvements in school infrastructure? Yes________ No_________ 
24. What repairs/new constructions have been made?: (Select all that apply)
a. Kitchens
b. Cleaning areas 
c. Well or water systems
d. Classrooms (Roofs, walls, windows, doors, floor)
e. Other: ___________________
25. What maintenance activities are being done? 
a. Services
b. Periodic supervision of the physical state of the structure 
c. Monitoring that the work is done adequately 
d. Repairs (Reparación de obras (leaks, keys not working, etc). 
e. Contributing spare parts 
f. Other: _____________________________ 
5
g. Not sure
g. Did not repsond
26. What healh practices and hygene do you emphasize at home?
a. Personal health (handwashing, teeth brushing, using clean clothes, bathing every day)
b. Keeping the house clean 
c. Keeping cleaning areas and bathrooms clean
d. Managing waste
e. Other __________________
f. Not sure
g. Did not repsond
Increased Student Enrollment
(EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT, SUSTAINABILITY)
27. If your community had children who were not attending school, what action would you take? 
a. Visit homes 
b. Inform local authorities
c. Inform the director of the education center 
d. Arrange resources to motivate the parent to send their child to school
e. Other: _____________________________________________
Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
(EFFECTIVENESS, SUSTAINABILITY)
28. How often do you visit the school?
a. Every day _____
b. 4 times a week _____
c. 3 times a week_____ 
d. 2 times a week _____ 
e. 1 time a week_____
f. 1 time every 15 days ______
g. 1 time a month ______
h. Other (specify): __________ 
29. What activities do you participate in when you visit the school?
a. Meet with with APF
b. Meet with the teacher 
c. Help prepare the school snack 
d. Participate as a member of the structure of the school 
e. Monitor the children and goods of the school 
6
f. Respond to teacher calls
g. Ensure the good use of material received by the school 
f. Other_________________
g. Not sure
h. Did not repsond
30. ¿Cuándo visita la escuela ha observado si hay materiales de enseñanza disponibles? 
Si____ No________ 
31. ¿Qué hace como padre/madre/cuidador(a) si no hay disponibilidad de materiales en la escuela?
a. Gestiona recursos
b. Nada 
c. Coopera económicamente 
d. Apoya a la elaboración de materiales didáctico con recurso local disponible. 
e. Otro:____________
f. Not sure
g. Did not repsond
32. Of those living in your home, how many are volunteers at the school? _____________________ 
(SUSTAINABILITY)
33. ¿How do you obtain your income? ______________
a. Fixed salary
b. From family members abroad
d. From family members in the country 
e. Farming or ranching 
f. Family business
g. Do not have income
h. Other: _____________________
i. Not sure
j. Did not respond
34. ¿What percentage of your income do you save? ___________ (If your percentage is zero, go to question 52)
35. ¿Where do you put your savings? (Seleccione todas las que apliquen)
Cooperative________
Bank_____________
Caja Rural__________
At home__________
Otro: ______________
36. Do you know if in your community the parent school is operating? Yes____ No________
37. Do you participate or have an interest in participating in the parent school? Yes____ No________
38. What would motivate you to participate in the school for parents? 
a. The desire to learn more 
b. To help my child with their academic work
7
c. To meet new people 
d. Does not interest me 
e. Other: _________________________
f. Not sure
g. Did not respond 
(IMPACT, SUSTAINABILITY)
39. ¿Do you think your child’s education is important?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
d. Did not respond 
(If the answer is yes, go to number 56)
40. Please choose three reasons why you think an education for your child is important. (Select all that apply)
a. To have a better future 
b. To have a better quality of life 
c. To reach a higher social class 
d. To bring in more income 
e. To contribute to local development and to Honduras 
f. Other ___________________________
g. Other --------------------------------------------
h. Other ---------------------------------------------
i. Not sure
j. Did not respond
8
EPIDEMIC – PANDEMIC IMPACTS INVENTORY
We would like to learn how the coronavirus disease pandemic has changed people's lives. For each statement below, 
please indicate whether the pandemic has impacted you or a person in your home in the way described.
Check YES (Me) if you were impacted.
Check YES (Person in Home) if another person (or people) in your home were impacted. Check NO
if you and your family were not impacted.
Check N/A if the statement does not apply to you or someone in the home.
***If both YES (Me) and YES (Person in Home) are true, check both***
Since the coronavirus disease pandemic began, what has changed for you or your family?
WORK AND EMPLOYMENT
1. Had to close own business, lay off employees, or
reduced work activity of business by a significant 
amount.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
Had to continue to work even though in close contact
2. with people who might be infected (e.g., customers,
patients, co-workers).
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
3. Increase in workload or work responsibilities. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
4. Stopped going to work because of not wanting to be
 In close contact with people who might be infected
.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
5. Provided direct or supportive care to people with the 
 disease in a hospital or long-term care facility
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
HOME LIFE
6. Had a child in home who could not go attend school. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
7.
Childc
are or 
babys
itting
unava
ilable
when
need
ed.
Childcare or babysitting unavailable when needed. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
8. Difficulty taking care of children in the home (such as having 
to teach child school, working with child at home)
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
9. More conflict with child or harsher in disciplining child D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
10. Increase in verbal or physical arguments or conflict with a
partner or spouse.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
11. Increase in verbal/physical arguments or conflict with other
adult(s) in home.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
12. Increase in verbal/physical conflict among children in the 
home.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
13. Had to move or relocate. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
14. Became homeless. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
9
SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
15. Separated from family or close friends. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
16. Did not have the ability or resources to talk to family or
friends while separated.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
17. Unable to visit loved one in a care facility or hospital D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
18. Family celebrations, vacations, religious activities 
cancelled or restricted.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
19. Unable to attend in-person funeral or religious services for 
a family member or friend who died.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
ECONOMIC
20. Unable to get enough food, healthy food, or water. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
21. Unable to pay important bills like rent or utilities. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
22. Difficulty getting places due to less access to public
transportation or concerns about safety.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
23. Increase in child behavioral, emotional or sleep 
 problems.
D YES D NO D N/A
24. Increase in mental health problems or symptoms(e.g.,
mood, anxiety, stress).
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
25. Increase in sleep problems or poor sleep quality. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
26. Increase in use of alcohol or substances. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
27. Unable/unsatisfied with access mental health treatment 
 or therapy.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
28. Not satisfied with changes in mental health treatment or 
therapy.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
10
PHQ-4
 Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you 
 been bothered by the following problems?
 (Use “✔” to indicate your answer)
Not 
at all
Several 
days
More than 
half the 
days
Nearly 
every day
 1. Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge 0 1 2 3
 2. Not being able to stop or control worrying 0 1 2 3
 3. Little interest or pleasure in doing things 0 1 2 3
 4. Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless 0 1 2 3
Scoring
PHQ-4 total score ranges from 0 to 12, with categories of psychological distress being:
• None 0-2
• Mild 3-5
• Moderate 6-8
• Severe 9-12 
Anxiety subscale = sum of items 1 and 2 (score range, 0 to 6)
Depression subscale = sum of items 3 and 4 (score range, 0 to 6)
On each subscale, a score of 3 or greater is considered positive for screening purposes
The PHQ scales were developed by Drs. Robert L. Spitzer, Janet B.W. Williams, and Kurt Kroenke and 
colleagues. The PHQ scales are free to use. For research information, contact Dr. Kroenke at 
kkroenke@regenstrief.org
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and 
depression: the PHQ-4 Psychosomatics 2009;50:613-621.
1
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL SURVEY
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 
1. Supervisor __________________ 2. Interviewer ____________ 
3. Date of interview: ____________________________________ 
 
I. SCHOOL AND PRINCIPAL IDENTIFICATION 
1. Name of school: _____________________________2. School Code ____________ 
3. School type 1) Official: _________ 2) PROHECO: _________ 3) Others_______________ 
4. Method: 1) One teacher _______ 2) Two teachers _______ 3) More than two teachers ________ 
5. Area: 1) Urban: ___________ 2) Rural: ____________ 
7. Community: ________________ 8. Name of School Principal: _________________________ 
9. Academic degree of School Principal: _________________________ 
10. Do you tend for a school grade? 1) Yes 2) No 
11. If “yes”, ¿which grades? ________________________ 
 
Please read the consent form to the participant. After reading the form, ask the participant if he has 
any questions, and answer these questions. Then, ask the participant if he agrees to participate. Once 
he agrees, then begin asking the questions below.
II. Characteristics of the Principal 
1. Sex
a. Man 
b. Woman
c. DK
d. NR
2. What is your age in completed years? _________
3. How many years have you been principal of the school you work in? _________
4. What is your level of education today? Check only one
a. Complete High School
b. Technical High School
c. Technical College
d. Incomplete College
e. Complete College
f. Postgraduate
g. Profession 
h. DK
i. NR
III. Quality of teaching (RS 1)
5. Have you managed training in techniques or methodologies that facilitate the learning process for teachers?
a. Yes
2
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
 (If ‘no’, go to number 9) 
6. ¿With which institutions have you managed these trainings? Select all that apply
a. Secretary of Education
b. NGO
c. Cooperatives
d. Others _______________
e. DK
f. NR
7. Specify the techniques and methodologies the teachers have been trained in Select all that apply
a. Mathematics
b. Spanish
c. Information Technology
d. EGRA
e. EGMA
f. Hygiene and Sanitation
g. Tutor children methodology
h. School for parents
i. Other ______________
j. DK
k. NR
8. Do you believe the techniques and methodologies used by teachers are appropriate to enhance the teaching￾learning process of students?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
9. Does your school have the tools of the basic national curriculum (BNC)?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
10. Have you managed training sessions for teachers to strengthen or gain knowledge to address learning and 
literacy disabilities in students?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
 (If ‘no’, go to number 13) 
3
11. How did you deliver these trainings? Check only one 
a. Online only
b. In person, socially distanced
c. Online, and in person socially distanced
d. Other _________
12. To which institutions have you managed these training sessions? Select all that apply
a. Secretary of Education
b. NGO
c. Cooperatives
d. Others ____________
e. DK
f. NR
13. Do you give pedagogical assistance for teachers?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
14. How often did you give pedagogical assistance before the pandemic? Select only one
a. Monthly
b. Bimonthly
c. Quarterly
d. Every four months
e. Semiannually
f. Annually
g. Other _________
h. DK
i. NR
15. How often did you give pedagogical assistance during the pandemic? Select only one
a. Monthly
b. Bimonthly
c. Quarterly
d. Every four months
e. Semiannually
f. Annually
g. Other _________
h. DK
i. NR
16. The school you direct, has: Select all that apply
a. Teaching curriculum 
4
b. Annual Operative Plan (AOP)
c. Didactic teaching materials
d. Workbooks
e. School Educational Project (SEP)
f. DK
g. NR
17. Overall, how would you rate the availability of these resources? Select only one
a. Abundant
b. Sufficient
c. Insufficient
d. Very insufficient
e. DK
f. NR
18. Do you apply managing and control techniques and tools for the operation of the school?
a. Yes
b. No
19. What techniques and tools did you apply before the pandemic? Select all that apply
a. Management of Schools
b. Teaching performance and evaluation.
c. Using the SACE.
d. Infotech
e. Dropout prevention
f. Annual operating plans
g. Plan for monitoring and support to teachers 
h. Others _______________
i. DK
j. NR
20. What techniques and tools did you apply during the pandemic? Select all that apply
k. Management of Schools
l. Teaching performance and evaluation.
m. Using the SACE.
n. Infotech
o. Dropout prevention
p. Annual operating plans
q. Plan for monitoring and support to teachers 
r. Others _______________
s. DK
t. NR
IV. Student Assistance (RS 2) 
5
21. Do you promote hygiene practices in your school?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
 (If ‘no’, go to number 22) 
22. What hygiene practices do you promote? Select all that apply
a. Personal cleanliness
b. Hand washing
c. Daily bath 
d. Cleanness of the environment
e. Cleanness of the school 
f. Cleanness of the classroom 
g. Tooth brushing/ oral hygiene
h. Food hygiene 
i. Other ____________
j. DK
k. NR
23. How often are these practices applied in your school? 
a. Always
b. Sometimes
c. Never
d. DK
e. NR
24. Have you trained teachers in addressing students with: Select all that apply 
a. Learning disability 
b. Special educational needs
c. Belonging to ethnic groups
d. DK
e. NR
25. How would you rate the knowledge of teachers to identify learning problems in students? Select only one
a. Insufficient
b. Regular
c. Acceptable
d. Good
e. Very good
f. DK
g. NR
 
6
26. Does your school have accessibility for children with disabilities?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
27. In your opinion, what is the state of physical facilities of the school you direct?
a. Bad
b. Regular
c. Good
d. DK
e. NA
28. What are the two pieces that you would prioritize in order to improve the state of the facilities? Select only 
two options 
a. Improvement of classrooms
b . Improvement of latrines / toilets
c . Improvement of sinks
d . Construction of classrooms
e. Construction of latrines / toilets
f . Construction of sinks
g . Perimeter fence
h. Other _____________
i. DK
j. NA
29. Are parents involved in developing the School Educational Project (SEP)?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
30. Do you know the EFA goals and education indicators?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
V. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on education 
31. What are the training activities carried out during the pandemic with teachers and principals? Select all that apply
a. Use and management of Spanish books and guides
b. Forms of virtual communication
c. Biosecurity measures
d. Human talent
7
e. Stress management
f. Managing emotions
g. Motivation of learning in students
h. Risk management training by SINAGER
i. Talking with teachers.
j. Other, specify ____________________________________________________________
32. How many students were enrolled in the school in 2020? ____________
33. How many of the enrolled students have continued studying in the last 30 days? ____
34. How many students have dropped out because of the pandemic? ____
35. What are the methods that the school uses to ensure the students continue the learning during the 
pandemic? Select all that apply
a. Videos by WhatsApp
b. Voice memo by WhatsApp
c. Phone calls to children
d. Printed brochures and booklets with academic content
e. Photos of books
f. Delivery of teaching materials to homes
g. Delivery of teaching material at school
h. Virtual classes through zoom in (third cycle)
i. Home visits (at the request of the parent)
j. Face-to-face classes at the educational center
k. Opening of the educational center one day a week
l. Via WhatsApp
m. Work sheets
n. Other, specify ___________________________________________________________
36. What are the main barriers for school children to continue studying during the pandemic? Select all that 
apply
a. Students do not have access to smartphones.
b. Students do not have internet (they do not have money to enter recharges).
c. Teachers do not have the economic solvency to print materials.
d. Demotivation of parents.
e. Lack of awareness on the part of parents about the importance of education.
f. Lack of internet connection by teachers
g. Lack of economic resources in the parents
h. Little support from parents due to their low educational level
i. Other, specify ___________________________________________________________
37. What are the main barriers for you to continue managing the school during the pandemic?
Please specify: _________________________________________________________________
38. How do teachers communicate with parents during the pandemic? Select all that apply
8
a. Phone calls
b. Personal home visits
c. Via Whataspp
d. Text messages
e. Short meetings at school
f. Other, specify __________________________________________________
39. Have the teachers received special training for distance learning?
a. Yes ____
b. No ___
1
TEACHERS SURVEY
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Supervisor __________________ 2. Interviewer ____________
3. Date of interview: ____________________________________
I. SCHOOL AND TEACHER IDENTIFICATION
1. Name of school: _____________________________2. Code ____________
3. School type 1) Official: _________ 2) PROHECO: _________ 3) Others_______________
4. Method: 1) One teacher_______ 2) Two teachers_______ 3) More than two teachers________
5. Area: 1) Urban: ___________ 2) Rural: ____________
6. Community: ________________ 7. Name of teacher: _________________________
Please read the consent form to the participant. After reading the form, ask the participant if he has 
any questions, and answer these questions. Then, ask the participant if he agrees to participate. 
Once he agrees, then begin asking the questions below.
II. Characteristics of the teacher
1. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
c. DK
d. NR
2. What is your age in completed years? _________
3. What grade(s) do you attend? Select all that apply
a. Preschool
b. First
c. Second
d. Third
e. Fourth
f. Fifth
g. Sixth
h. Seventh
i. Eighth
j. Nineth
k. DK
l. NR
4. What is your main position in the school? Select only one
a. Principal
b. Principal assistant
c. Secretary
d. Adviser
2
e. Counselor
f. Librarian
g. Teacher
h. other __________
i. DK
j. NR
5. What is your level of education today? Select only one
a. Complete High School
b. Technical High School
c. Technical College
d. Incomplete College
e. Complete College
f. Postgraduate
g. Professional
h. DK
i. NR
III. Quality of teaching (RS 1)
6. In how many centers of education you work? ________________
7. Specify the techniques and methodologies in which you have been trained. Select all that 
apply
a. Mathematics
b. Spanish
c. Information Technology
d. EGRA
e. EGMA
f. Hygiene and Sanitation
g. Tutor children methodology
h. School for parents
i. Other ______________
j. DK
k. NR
8. Have you been trained in distance education?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
9. Do you apply a technique or methodology to facilitate the teaching process?
a. Yes
3
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
10. Do you use any of these techniques or methods? Select all that apply
a. Active Participation
b. Group Work
c. Deductive
d. Investigation
e. Focused Communication
f. Brainstorming
g. Distance Education
h. Other ____________________________________________
i. DK
j. NR
11. Of these which are already used before the start of Food for Education project? Select all that 
apply
a. Active Participation
b. Group Work
c. Deductive
d. Investigation
e. Focused Communication
f. Brainstorming
g. Distance Education
h. Other __________
i. DK
j. NR
12. Before the pandemic, how often did you receive pedagogical assistance from the Principal? Select 
only one
a. Monthly
b. Quarterly
c. Every four months
d. Semiannually
e. Annually
f. Never
g. Other _________
h. DK
i. NR
13. During the pandemic, how often do you receive pedagogical assistance from the Principal? Select 
only one
a. Monthly
b. Quarterly
c. Every four months
d. Semiannually
4
e. Annually
f. Never
g. Other _________
h. DK
i. NR
14. The school where you work uses: Select all that apply
a. Teaching curricula
b. AOP
c. Didactic material
d. Workbooks
e. School education Project
f. Tests
g. Special materials developed for teaching during the pandemic
h. DK
i. NR
15. Do you know if the school director uses the techniques and tools of administration and control 
for running the center?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
16. To your knowledge, what administrative techniques and methods are they using? Select all 
that apply
a. Teaching performance and evaluation
b. Management of Schools
c. Teachers’ evaluation
d. Using the SACE.
e. Infotech
f. Dropout prevention
g. Annual operating plans
h. Plan for monitoring and support to teachers
i. Special techniques adapted for teaching during the pandemic
j. Others _______________
k. DK
l. NR
17. Do you help students with Select all that apply
a. Learning difficulties
b. Special needs
c. Other ethnic backgrounds
d. DK
e. NR
5
18. How would you rate your knowledge of identifying learning disabilities in your students?
Select only one
a. Insufficient
b. Average
c. Acceptable
d. Good
e. Very Good
f. DK
g. NR
19. Have you participated in training sessions to enhance your knowledge of how to address 
learning and literacy problems in students? (if answer is no, continue in question 21)
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
20. Where have you received this training?
a. Secretary of Education
b. NGO
c. Cooperatives
d. Other _________
e. DK
21. Have you participated in trainings related to distance learning?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
22. Where have you received this training?
a. Secretary of Education
b. NGO
c. Cooperatives
d. Other _________
e. DK
23. Have you participated in MGD training sessions?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
24. Have you received a school kit for “Food for Education”
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
25. Are those MGD materials used in the schools?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
6
26. Has the introduction of these materials helped to improve education?
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
e. DK
f. NR
27. What factors have contributed to the improvement of access to school supplies/materials?
Select all that apply
a. Actions of the local government
b. Management by the direction of the school
c. NGO
d. Civil Society Organizations
e. Other ___________
f. DK
g. NR
28. What factors have limited access to school materials/supplies? Select all that apply
a. Lack of resources
b. Location of school
c. Not enough materials for everyone 
d. Other _____________
e. DK
f. NR
IV. Student assistance (RS 2)
29. What hygienic practices do you promote among your students? Select all that apply
a. Personal hygiene
b. Hand washing
c. Bathing daily
d. Clean environment
e. Clean school
f. Cleaning the classroom
g. Brushing teeth/ Oral health
h. Clean food 
i. Other __________
j. DK
k. NR
30. How often do your students employ these practices?
a. Always
b. Sometimes
c. Never
d. DK
e. NR
31. In your opinion, in what condition are the physical structures of the school in which you teach?
7
a. Bad
b. Regular
c. Good
d. DK
e. NR
32. What would you propose as the two top priorities for improving the school infrastructure?
Select only two options
a. Improving classrooms
b. Improving bathrooms
c. Improving sinks
d. Building classrooms
e. Building bathrooms
f. Building sinks
g. A fence
h. Other _____________
i. DK
j. NR
33. Does the director of the school provide support for teachers?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
34. Are parents involved in School Education Project execution?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK
d. NR
35. How much are they involved?
a. Very Much
b. Not too much
c. Nothing
d. DK
e. NR
V. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on education
36. During the pandemic, how do you help children with learning difficulties or other special needs? Select all that 
apply
a. Design of specific content adapted to these children
b. Apply different forms of evaluation than those used with other children
c. Reduction in the amount of academic work
d. Other, specify ___________________________________________________
8
37. What kind of support does the school principal provide to teachers during the pandemic? Select all that apply
a. Delivery of teaching materials
b. The director participates in the design of learning materials
c. Communication of instructions from the Secretary of Education
d. Prioritization of subject content
e. Organization of the school to receive students, in cases in which students arrive at school
f. Other, specify ___________________________________________________
38. How many students were enrolled in your grade in 2020? ________
39. How many students have continued their studies in the last 30 days? _____________
40. How many students have dropped out because of the pandemic? ____
41. What are the methods you use to ensure that your students continue their learning during the pandemic?
Select all that apply
a. Videos by WhatsApp
b. Voice memo by WhatsApp
c. Phone calls to children
d. Printed brochures and booklets with academic content
e. Photos of books
f. Delivery of teaching materials to homes
g. Delivery of teaching material at school
h. Virtual classes through zoom in (third cycle)
i. Home visits (at the request of the parent)
j. Face-to-face classes at the educational center
k. Opening of the educational center one day a week
l. Via WhatsApp
m. Work sheets
n. Other, specify ___________________________________________________________
42. What are the main barriers for children to continue studying during the pandemic? Select all that apply
a. Child labor
b. Low parent access to phones
c. Low internet connection
d. Scarce financial resources
e. Mistrust of parents about the distance learning methodology
f. Low parental support for students (educational level of parents)
g. Educational cards not very adequate to the content
h. Other, specify ___________________________________________________
9
43. What are the main barriers for you to continue teaching during the pandemic?
Please specify: ___________________________________________________________
44. How do you communicate with parents during the pandemic? Select all that apply
a. Phone calls
b. Personal home visits
c. Via Whataspp
d. Text messages
e. Short meetings at school
f. Other, specify __________________________________________________
EPIDEMIC – PANDEMIC IMPACTS INVENTORY
We would like to learn how the coronavirus disease pandemic has changed people's lives. For each statement below, 
please indicate whether the pandemic has impacted you or a person in your home in the way described.
Check YES (Me) if you were impacted.
Check YES (Person in Home) if another person (or people) in your home were impacted. Check NO
if you and your family were not impacted.
Check N/A if the statement does not apply to you or someone in the home.
***If both YES (Me) and YES (Person in Home) are true, check both***
Since the coronavirus disease pandemic began, what has changed for you or your family?
WORK AND EMPLOYMENT
1. Had to close own business, lay off employees, or
reduced work activity of business by a significant 
amount.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
Had to continue to work even though in close contact
2. with people who might be infected (e.g., customers,
patients, co-workers).
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
3. Increase in workload or work responsibilities. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
4. Stopped going to work because of not wanting to be
 In close contact with people who might be infected
.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
5. Provided direct or supportive care to people with the 
 disease in a hospital or long-term care facility
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
HOME LIFE
6. Had a child in home who could not go attend school. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
7.
Childc
are or 
babys
itting
unava
ilable
when
need
Childcare or babysitting unavailable when needed. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
8. Difficulty taking care of children in the home (such as having 
to teach child school, working with child at home)
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
10
9. More conflict with child or harsher in disciplining child D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
10. Increase in verbal or physical arguments or conflict with a
partner or spouse.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
11. Increase in verbal/physical arguments or conflict with other
adult(s) in home.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
12. Increase in verbal/physical conflict among children in the 
home.
D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
13. Had to move or relocate. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
14. Became homeless. D
D
YES (Me)
YES (Person in Home)
D NO D N/A
SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
15. Separated from family or close friends. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
16. Did not have the ability or resources to talk to family or
friends while separated.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
17. Unable to visit loved one in a care facility or hospital D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
18. Family celebrations, vacations, religious activities 
cancelled or restricted.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
19. Unable to attend in-person funeral or religious services for 
a family member or friend who died.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
ECONOMIC
20. Unable to get enough food, healthy food, or water. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
21. Unable to pay important bills like rent or utilities. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
22. Difficulty getting places due to less access to public
transportation or concerns about safety.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
23. Increase in child behavioral, emotional or sleep 
 problems.
D YES D NO D N/A
24. Increase in mental health problems or symptoms(e.g.,
mood, anxiety, stress).
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
25. Increase in sleep problems or poor sleep quality. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
26. Increase in use of alcohol or substances. D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
27. Unable/unsatisfied with access mental health treatment 
 or therapy.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
28. Not satisfied with changes in mental health treatment or 
therapy.
D YES (Me)
D YES(PersoninHome) D NO D N/A
11
1
GUIDE FOR INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Supervisor __________________ 2. Interviewer ____________
3. Date of interview: ____________________________________
I. School identification
1. Name: _____________________________2. Code ____________
3. School type 1) Oficial: _________ 2) PROHECO: _________ 3) Others_______________
4. Method: 1) One teacher ________ 2) Two teachers ________ 3) More than two teachers
___________
5. Area: 1) Urban: ___________ 2) Rural: ____________
7. Community: ________________ 
Please	read	the	consent	form	to	the	participant.	After	reading	the	form,	ask	the	participant	if	he	
has	 any	 questions,	 and	 answer	 these	 questions.	 Then,	 ask	 the	 participant	 if	 he	 agrees	 to	
participate.	Once	he	agrees,	then	begin	asking	the	questions	below.
NOTE:	Questions	1-11	relate	to	the	2019	school	year,	before	the	pandemic.	Questions	12-18	relate
to	the	2020	school	year,	during	the	pandemic.
1. Talking about support provided by the project, what had the greatest impact on your 
child's education? (IMPACT)
2. In general, in what ways do you think the project has influenced the education of children?
(EFFECTIVENESS)
3. Could you explain, how do parents and community organizations have participated in the 
education of children? (RELEVANCE, SUSTAINABILITY)
4. Why do you think education is important for your children? (EFFECTIVENESS, 
SUSTAINABILITY)
5. What activities do you think children (ages 9-15) should be doing in their spare time? 
(RELEVANCE)
6. What MGD project activities have impacted students' interpersonal relationships with 
each other as it relates to violence in the school, bullying, and empathy? What have been 
those impacts? Do children experience violence on the way to school, or at school? If so, 
what has been done, or could be done, to protect children from violence? (IMPACT, 
RELEVANCE)
7. What MGD project activities have impacted parental relationships with each other and 
with the school? What have been those impacts? (IMPACT, RELEVANCE)
2
8. Are there any activities that have proven effective for improving your community? If so, 
what changes have you noticed? (IMPACT, RELEVANCE)
9. If the MGD program ended, what aspects of the program would be the most sustainable 
for your community? What aspects would be least sustainable? How might your 
community respond to the program ending, in terms of continuing program activities?
(SUSTAINABILITY)
10. If the MGD program ended, what is the degree of sustainability of the program activities 
in your community (SUSTAINABILITY)?
a. Very sustainable 
b. Somewhat sustainable 
c. Neutral
d. Somewhat unsustainable 
e. Unsustainable
f. NS
g. NR
(SUSTAINABILITY)
11. If the MGD program ended, what aspects of the program are the most sustainable?
Unsustainable Somewhat 
unsustainable
Neutral Somewhat 
sustainable
Very 
sustainable
a. Food 0 1 2 3 4
b. Educational materials 0 1 2 3 4
c. Support for school infrastructure 0 1 2 3 4
d. Other (specify): ________________ 0 1 2 3 4
e. Other (specify): ________________ 0 1 2 3 4
12. What have been the main changes in your children's education during the pandemic?
13. What are the main challenges with your children’s learning process while at home during 
the pandemic?
14. Did you work in the last week?
a. YES
b. NO
15. How many meals have you been able to have per day in the last week?
16. What products have you received from the MGD project during the pandemic?
17. How has the teacher communicated with your child during the pandemic?
18. What have been the main problems for communication with the teacher?
3
19. How many days a week does your child communicate with the teacher?
INTERVIEW ADRESSED TO MUNICIPAL MAYORS
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Supervisor __________________ 2. Interviewer ____________
3. Date of interview ____________________________________
I. Municipal Mayor Identification
1. Name of municipality: ___________________________2. Code of municipality: ____________
3. Name of Mayor: _________________________ 4. Gender: ________________
5. Age: _________________ 6. Years as mayor _____________
Please read the consent form to the participant. After reading the form, ask the participant if he has any 
questions, and answer these questions. Then, ask the participant if he agrees to participate. Once he 
agrees, then begin asking the questions below.
NOTE: Questions 1-17 relate to the 2019 school year, before the pandemic. Questions 18-20 relate to the 
2020 school year, during the pandemic.
Questions 
1. What are the main strengths in the municipality in the field of education?
2. What issues have you identified in education? 
3. What actions are taken in your government to overcome the problems that you told me?
4. What has been the response to each of these actions?
5. Who have been your support to carry out the reforms or changes and in what way have they 
supported you?
6. Tell me about the monitoring of schools in infrastructure, how is it done, how often and by 
whom?
7. Tell me about feeding programs in schools, are there any? Who are those responsible? ¿Do they 
monitor the process?
8. What is your opinion on the impact of school feeding programs in the educational achievement 
of children?
9. What has been the support the municipal government has provided for school feeding? What 
could be the contribution of the municipal government for the sustainability of school feeding?
10. Aids of school supplies (books, notebooks, teaching materials), From whom have you received 
them? Who are they granted to? Under what criteria?
11. What do you know of the actions developed in the region by CARITAS Santa Rosa de Copan, 
COCEPRADII and CRS in education field?
12. What changes have you noticed in education due to the actions and programs by these 
institutions?
13. Please describe the coordination between the municipal government and school district 
director.
14. What are the obstacles to better coordination of work between the municipal government and 
the school district director?
15. Please, describe the main education areas in which you invest municipal budget.
16. What is your opinion about the performance of COMDE (municipal committee for education 
development in this municipality)?
17. What can be the contribution of the municipal government to improve the performance of 
COMDE?
18. What has been the municipality's contribution to education during the pandemic?
19. How has the ability to provide education support changed during the pandemic?
20. What have been the main problems children have had to continue learning in the period of the 
pandemic?
INTERVIEW ADRESSED TO MUNICIPAL DIRECTORS
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
1. Supervisor __________________ 2. Interviewer ____________
3. Date of interview: ____________________________________
I. Identification of District Director
1. Name of municipality: ___________________________2. Code of municipality____________
3. Name of municipal director: _________________________ 4. Sex: ________________
5. Age: _________________ 6. Years as District Director _____________
Please read the consent form to the participant. After reading the form, ask the participant if he has 
any questions, and answer these questions. Then, ask the participant if he agrees to participate. 
Once he agrees, then begin asking the questions below.
NOTE: Questions 1-18 relate to the 2019 school year, before the pandemic. Questions 19-23 relate to 
the 2020 school year, during the pandemic.
Questions
1. What kind of actions have been implemented in schools in terms of teacher training?
2. What kind of actions have been implemented to improve the skills of the administrative 
staff
3. How has the district’s management address the issue of teachers' absences?
4. Tell me about the managing of resources for aid to schools?
5. What criteria have you defined for granting aid to schools?
6. What are the main challenges that teachers face in carrying out their duties?
7. Tell me about the monitoring of schools in infrastructure, how is it done, how often and by 
whom?
8. Tell me about feeding programs in schools, are there any? Who are those responsible? 
¿Do they monitor the process?
9. What is your opinion on the impact of school feeding programs in the educational 
achievement of children?
10. What has been the support the municipal government has provided for school feeding? 
What could be the contribution of the municipal government for the sustainability of 
school feeding?
11. Aids of school supplies (books, notebooks, teaching materials), From whom have you 
received them? Who are they granted to? Under what criteria?
12. What do you know of the actions developed in the region by CARITAS Santa Rosa de 
Copan, COCEPRADII and CRS in education field?
13. What changes have you noticed in education due to the actions and programs by these 
institutions?
14. Please describe the coordination between the municipal government and DDEI.
15. What are the obstacles to better coordination of work between the municipal government 
and the DDEI?
16. Please describe which are the main areas in which you invest municipal budget for 
education.
17. What is your opinion about the performance of COMDE in this municipality?
18. What can be the contribution of the municipal government to improve the performance of 
COMDE?
19. How many students are enrolled in the district?
20. How many students are still studying during the pandemic?
21. What are the main barriers for school children to continue studying during the pandemic?
22. How do teachers communicate with parents during the pandemic?
23. What are the main challenges in communicating with teachers and principals during the 
pandemic?
INTERVIEW DIRECTED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL DIRECTOR
1. Name of Supervisor __________________ 2. Name of interviewer ____________
3. Date of survey: ____________________________________
I. Identification of the departmental director
1. Name of the departmental director: _________________________
Questions
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC
1. What type of actions have you implemented in schools in terms of teacher training?
2. What type of actions have you implemented to improve the skills of administrative staff?
3. How has the departmental management handled the issue of teacher absences?
4. Tell me about the management of resources to get aid to schools?
5. What criteria have you defined for granting aid to schools?
6. What are the main difficulties that teachers face in fulfilling their functions?
7. Tell me about the supervision of schools in terms of infrastructure, how is it done, how often 
and by whom?
8. Tell me about the feeding programs in schools, do they exist? Who are the managers? Do 
you monitor the process?
9. What is your opinion regarding the impact of school feeding programs on children's 
educational achievement?
10. What has been the support that mayors have provided for school meals? What could be 
the contribution of the municipal governments for the sustainability of school feeding?
11. Aid for school supplies (books, notebooks, didactic material. From whom have they 
received them? To whom are they awarded? Under what criteria?
12. What do you know about the actions carried out by CARITAS Santa Rosa de Copán, 
COCEPRADII and CRS in the region regarding education?
13. What changes have you noticed in educational matters due to the actions and programs by 
these institutions?
14. Please describe the coordination between the municipalities and the DDEI.
15. What are the obstacles to better coordination in the work between the municipalities and 
the DDEI?
16. Please, describe which are the main items in which the municipal budget for education is 
invested.
17. What is your opinion about the functioning of the COMDE in this department?
18. What can be the contribution of the municipalities to improve the performance of 
COMDE?
20. How many students does the department have?
21. How many students are still studying during the pandemic?
22. What are the main barriers for school children to continue studying during the pandemic?
23. What are the main barriers for teachers to continue teaching during the pandemic?
24. What are the main barriers for schools principals to continue managing the schools during 
the pandemic?
23. What means do teachers use to communicate with parents during the pandemic?