1 BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT FOOD FOR EDUCATION (FFE) PHASE II PROJECT - USDA CRS HONDURAS – (AWARD # FFE-522-2015/013-00) Prepared by: Dr. Thomas M. Crea creat@bc.edu Dr. José Acevedo joalac@yahoo.com October 2016 REVISED – February 2017 BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT : FY 2015 McGOVERN-DOLE FOOD FOR EDUCATION (FFE) PHASE II PROJECT - USDA CRS HONDURAS Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Agreement Number: FFE-522-2015/013-00 Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2015 Project Duration: 2015-2021 Implemented by: CRS DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices................................................................................................... 3 Acronyms............................................................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 5 Baseline Evaluation Report ................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 9 Background................................................................................................................................ 9 FFE I Baseline Study Report..................................................................................................... 10 FFE I Midterm Study Report.................................................................................................... 10 FFE I Final Study Report........................................................................................................... 10 FFE II Baseline Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 11 Evaluation Questions............................................................................................................... 11 Transversal Questions............................................................................................................. 11 Methods............................................................................................................................................ 12 Target Population and Study Sample ...................................................................................... 12 Sample Characteristics............................................................................................................ 13 Measures and Data Collection Tools....................................................................................... 14 Results............................................................................................................................................... 15 Explanation of Baseline Indicators.......................................................................................... 15 Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (Result 1.0)........................................................... 15 Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education (Result 16.0)........................ 19 Transversal Baseline Evaluation Questions............................................................................. 21 Relevance............................................................................................................................ 21 Effectiveness....................................................................................................................... 23 Efficiency............................................................................................................................. 24 Impact................................................................................................................................. 25 Sustainability....................................................................................................................... 29 Results of the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) .................................................. 38 Discussion & Summary...................................................................................................................... 42 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 45 References......................................................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX A: Indicator Matrix for FFE II Baseline Evaluation............................................................ 50 APPENDIX B: Data Collection Instruments........................................................................................ 55 APPENDIX C: Terms of Reference, FFE II Baseline Evaluation - USDA............................................... 70 3 List of Tables, Figures, and Matrices Table 1. Transversal Evaluation Questions ....................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Target Population and Sample of Parents........................................................................... 12 Table 3. Parents’ Reasons for the Importance of Education (Result 16.0) ....................................... 19 Table 4. Interpersonal Violence ........................................................................................................ 26 Table 5. Results of Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Items........................................... 39 Table 6. SDQ Comparisons by Ethnic Group and Gender ................................................................. 40 Figure 1. Changes in EGRA Reading Comprehension by Gender (FFE Phase I)................................. 16 Figure 2. Differences in Literacy Rates Between EGRA and MIDEH.................................................. 17 Figure 3. Differences in Literacy Rates Between EGRA and MIDEH, by Gender............................... 17 Matrix 1. The greatest impact on children’s education.................................................................... 18 Matrix 2. Importance of education ................................................................................................... 20 Matrix 3. Parental involvement in the education of their children .................................................. 22 Matrix 4. Violence against children on the way to and from school, and protection against violence. ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Matrix 5. Activities that had an impact on interpersonal relationships of students........................ 28 Matrix 6. Sustainability of project effects......................................................................................... 31 Matrix 7. Barriers to achieving sustainability.................................................................................... 33 Matrix 8. Strategies that have most contributed to local ownership of the project........................ 34 Matrix 9. 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?............................... 36 Matrix 10. Availability of financial resources.................................................................................... 37 Matrix 11. Organizations and Lenca culture related to the project.................................................. 41 4 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 EGMA Early Grade Math Assessment (Diagnóstico Inicial de Matemáticas) EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment (Diagnóstico de Lectura Inicial) EPRED Dropout Prevention Team FFE Food for Education (Programa Alimentos para la Educación) ICC Intra-Class Correlation MoE Ministry of Education NGO Non-Governmental Organization 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 5 Executive Summary The Food for Education (FFE) 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. The first phase of the three-year project ended in December 2015. A new five-year (2016-2020) project (FFE II) was approved in November 2015, and began implementation in February 2016. As with the previous three years, the FFE II project in Honduras will continue to benefit more than 50,000 children and over 2,000 teachers in the 17 municipalities of Intibucá. It will continue to provide school meals to all students enrolled in 1,047 schools (509 schools and basic education centers, 308 kindergartens and 230 pre-school centers and non-formal basic CCEPREBs). The purpose of this study is to set baseline indicators for a longitudinal evaluation of FFE II concurrent with its implementation through 2020. A random sample of 180 schools was selected from all 1,047 schools, and 1,269 parents of children were selected from school rosters to participate in the study. As displayed in Appendix A, this study measured the specific indicators of Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children (Result 1); and Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education (Result 16.0). All other baseline indicators (Results Indicators, 1.2, 1.4-1.7, 1.9, and 2.0-15.0) are set at “0” for future comparison at midterm and final evaluations. Below, findings related to Result 1 (Improved Literacy) and Result 16 (Increased Understanding of Benefits of Education) are presented. In addition, further results are summarized below pertaining to each of the Transversal Baseline Evaluation Questions (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability). Additional findings related to parents from the Lenca cultural group are also presented. RESULTS INDICATORS Literacy (FFEII Result 1). Literacy was measured in the FFE I Final Evaluation in 2015 using EGRA. The Government of Honduras also collected literacy data through using the MIDEH assessment conducted in 2015. This study compared EGRA and MIDEH assessment scores, but uses MIDEH data the baseline literacy indicators. EGRA data from the FFE Final Evaluation are compared with data from the MIDEH project for children in grades 2, 3, and 4. For MIDEH data, children totaled n=6,845 (2nd grade=2,182; 3rd grade=2,398; 4th grade=2,265). For EGRA data, children totaled n=3,235 (2nd grade=1,002; 3rd grade=1,153; 4th grade=1,080). Results from both EGRA and MIDEH assessments show boys and girls well below the project’s final target of 75.0% literacy. Significant variability emerged from MIDEH scores, with 2nd graders scoring much higher than 3rd and 4th graders. On average across the three grades, 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 for boys and girls, with 43.6% for boys, 45.5% for girls, and 44.5% overall (see Appendix A). 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. 6 Perceived Benefits of Education (FFEII Result 16). At baseline for FFEII, 20.8% of parents (n=264 out of 1,269) identified 3 or more reasons why education is important for their children. On average, parents provided fewer than 2 reasons each, but nearly all agreed (99.8%) education was important. The most common reason given by parents was that education could improve children’s quality of life (47.2%), followed by obtaining a higher income (17.8%) and learning/knowledge (13.4%). From focus groups, parents mentioned that education is important in terms of future employment, but also in terms of supporting socialization and good behavior, respect for others, and avoiding criminal activities. TRANSVERSAL BASELINE EVALUATION QUESTIONS Relevance. Results show that parents are engaged in supporting their children’s education outside of the school environment as well as at school. Most parents reported helping children with their homework by making sure the work gets done, providing materials, reviewing work, and providing assistance. Most parents reported reading to their children at home and nearly ½ read to them every day. Most parents also have reading materials available in their home. At home, when children are not doing homework, parents reported they spend time playing and doing chores or other activities. Only 3.0% said that children work for pay. Parents reported being active in school organizations Parents also said they assist children at school by assisting with school feeding, and buying clothes, shoes and educational materials for students – a considerable contribution given the limited income of most parents. Effectiveness. Parents were asked a variety of questions related to factors that could facilitate the goals of the FFE project. Relatively few parents (16.1%) reported ever using a library, and of these, 13.6% said they did not know how a library would be used in the community. Very few parents reported that their children received transportation support through FFE; 93.6% said that their children did not receive transportation. A majority of parents (59.9%) said that no one in their homes volunteered at school, although 41.1% reported one or more people volunteering. The most common volunteer activities included serving on the Merienda committee and the parents’ association. The least common activities included serving on PASE, EPRED, CED, and COMDE. Most parents reported seeing teaching materials at school. In cases where they did not see materials, most parents said they would take direct action to help support obtaining these materials, either through raising funds or locating materials to bring to school. Efficiency. Parents were asked about community inputs and other factors that helped the project reach its goals during Phase I. A majority of parents (2/3rd) said they received information from the school on their children’s academic performance, which helped them support their children’s education and participate more actively with the school. Over 1/3rd of parents said they participated on the school feeding committee, mostly to prepare and handle food. Parents identified a variety of food provided at school, some of which is part of the FFE package of supports and some of which are likely provided by parents (e.g., dairy products, chicken, fruits/vegetables, eggs, etc.). However, over 1/4th of parents said they were unable to identify the nutritional classifications of various foods, and only a small number of parents were able to identify specific classifications. Nearly ½ of parents received dry rations for home use. In terms of health and hygiene, most parents (93.3%) reported that they reinforced personal hygiene with children at home. However, only 27.3% stated they emphasized managing waste with their children, and very few parents (4.9%) said they taught children proper handling of food and water. 7 Over ½ of parents said that improvements had been made to the school infrastructure, particularly with classrooms, sanitary stations, general maintenance and construction, and kitchens. Yet, 1/4th of parents said they were not aware of activities related to school infrastructure improvements. Impact. Parents were asked about issues pertaining to school enrollment, parent engagement, and security issues that may have implications for the impact of FFE. About 2/3rd of parents reported having had a census in their community, sponsored by FFE Phase 1 and supported by parents, and most of these parents provided information for this census. Nearly 2/3rd of parents said that, if there were children in their community not attending school, they would reach out to families directly by making home visits, and smaller numbers said they would mobilize resources or inform the authorities to support children coming to school. Most parents (84.9%) said they visit schools at least once per week, and 29.1% visit every day. Over half of parents reported helping with school meals during visits and nearly half meet with the parents’ association. In terms of interpersonal violence and security issues, most parents (89.1%) said their children never experience violence on the way to or from school, but 6.0% said that children experienced violence sometimes or more frequently. While parents recognize that interpersonal violence exists among students, they seem to consider this a normal part of childhood. Most frequently, parents identified that parents must educate children at home and that these efforts should be reinforced at school to reduce violence. Sustainability. Parents were asked several questions about the sustainability of FFE once USDA support ends. In terms of income and savings, over 1/3rd of parents said they receive income from agriculture or livestock, another 1/3rd receive money from a spouse, and others reported various sources. Nearly 1/10th (8.5%) said they have no income at all. On average, parents reported that 3.0% of income goes towards savings, but 71.0% of parents said that no income is saved. Most parents (70.8%) said they would be interested in joining a school for parents, especially to gain more knowledge. The limited income of parents implies that the school feeding aspect of FFE may not be sustainable in its current form, after USDA support ends. From focus groups, parents currently contribute additional food to FFE supplies, as well as support school gardens, but focus group respondents are unclear about next steps. Infrastructure support is more sustainable, as municipalities and parents both contribute resources to maintain infrastructure. Yet, efforts must be made to ensure that municipalities provide these resources. A barrier to ensuring sustainability is 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. From focus groups, strategies that support sustainability of FFE include parent involvement in school feeding and parents’ associations which link them more closely with municipal planning efforts. Parents can also supplement municipal activities related to school improvement by donating their time and labor. Further support is likely needed from the private sector to build capacity for sustainability. These efforts could focus on agricultural development, by establishing viable gardens at home and school that could support school feeding. Lenca Culture. Of n=1,048 cases, 73.1% (n=766) identified as being part of the Lenca indigenous cultural group. Comparisons of scores from the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) showed no statistically significant differences between Lenca parents and others, with the exception that Lenca parents reported more prosocial behaviors for their children than non-Lenca 8 parents (p<.05). Focus groups reported little understanding of Lenca culture by educational authorities, however, and one mayor said that Lenca families have complained that their rights to social inclusion in education are not respected within municipalities, and that they are not involved in decision-making. Some schools support education about Lenca culture and language, but few activities appear to exist at municipal and governmental levels to ensure social inclusion. Recommendations (See Recommendations section for full descriptions of each) (1) Reinforce to parents, through additional trainings and outreach, the importance of education for children. (2) Provide additional support to parents and communities to improve literacy, outside of the school environment. (3) Promote greater parent participation in school committees. (4) Reinforce the importance of hygiene and proper food storage and handling with parents. (5) Establish a series of workshops for communities to begin planning for post-USDA school feeding and the sustainability of the project. (6) Begin building linkages between FFE II and existing agricultural programs currently being implemented by CRS and other organizations in the region. (7) Examine the prevalence of violence against children in more detail, and provide further training on child protection to communities. (8) Identify barriers to social inclusion for Lenca families and identify strategies for empowering these families in educational decision-making within the school, community and municipality. (9) For future reading assessments, decide whether the convenience of using MIDEH data outweighs the need to weigh the comparative strengths of MIDEH vs. EGRA. 9 BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT USDA FOOD FOR EDUCATION PHASE II PROJECT – CRS HONDURAS Introduction 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, Food for Education (FFE) programs, a type of school feeding program that provides 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). FFE 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). FFE 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 FFE 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 FFE 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). The purpose of this study is to set baseline indicators for a longitudinal evaluation of Phase II of FFE in Honduras, concurrent with its implementation through 2020. Background The Food for Education (FFE) project in Honduras, 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 been implementing the project "Food for Education FFE". This project 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 FFE project’s strategic goal is to improve the literacy of school age children in the 17 municipalities of Intibucá, Honduras. 10 The first phase of the three-year project ended in December 2015. A new five-year (2016-2020) project (FFE II) was approved in November 2015, and began implementation in February 2016. As with the previous three years, the FFE II project in Honduras will continue to benefit more than 50,000 children and over 2,000 teachers in the 17 municipalities of Intibucá. It will continue to provide school meals to all students enrolled in 1,047 schools (509 schools and basic education centers, 308 kindergartens and 230 pre-school centers and non-formal basic CCEPREBs). FFE I Baseline Study Report The Baseline Evaluation 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). FFE I Midterm Study Report The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) 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 competency, 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%). No significant differences emerged between non-critical and critical schools. 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, with no differences between non-critical and critical schools. Teacher attendance also significant increased from baseline to MTE, with no significant differences between non-critical and critical schools. FFE I Final Study Report The Final Evaluation 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 (55 critical schools, and 121 non-critical schools). 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. 11 FFE II Baseline Evaluation The main purpose of the proposed project is to establish FFE II baseline values through a comprehensive desk review of FFE I project documents and field work in the project intervention area. Specific objectives are as follows: (1) Conduct a desk review of the FFE I final evaluation report to determine FFE II baseline values for all continuing results indicators. Using the numbers from the FFE I final evaluation, the construction of the Baseline values will be done using the indicator definitions established in the FFE II Performance Monitoring Plan; (2) Conduct field data collection to establish the baseline values for parental perceptions of the project and the importance of education. The results of these interviews should allow for additional recommendations that address parental perceptions on sustainability; and (3) Compare, analyze and make conclusions regarding the results of the CRS FFE I EGRA test applied in 2015 and the results obtained through the application of the Government of Honduras end of year literacy tests for 2015. Following this Baseline Evaluation, CRS staff will use this information to help guide the following monitoring and evaluation activities. The baseline measures all new indicators for FFE Phase II with a particular emphasis on: establishing sustainability roadmap indicators; including standardized Secretary of Education SOE early grade reading tests to measure reading performance; assessing the current number of teachers and administrators using SOE-promoted competencies; analyzing current savings and investment practices for communities; and using random sample surveys in schools to measure the number of communities that are already involved/trained to track teacher attendance. Evaluation Questions The baseline evaluation will be guided by a set of overarching Transversal Questions, under a set of criteria for the program. Key Evaluation Questions are rooted in the Transversal Questions, as well as the Strategic Objectives and Results identified in the FFE II logframe (see Appendix A). Each set of questions is defined below. Transversal Questions The Transversal Questions identify a set of criteria to be evaluated for the program (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability). These are outlined in Table 1. Table 1. Transversal Evaluation Questions 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? 12 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 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? Impact  Has the project contributed to improving school-age children’s literacy? Why or why not?  Have project interventions contributed to improving the quality of literacy instruction, the enrolment in school-age children and their attendance? Why or why not?  Have there been any positive or negative impacts in the target areas, besides the realization of the strategic objective-level results? If so, can these be addressed? If so, how? If not, why not? 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 Study Sample The study sites include all schools participating in the FFE program across the 17 municipalities of Intibucá. The project focuses on parents of all primary school children. The target number of schools to be selected was n=180, in keeping with the methodology followed in the MTE and final evaluations. Given the population of N=1,047 schools, with a 95% confidence interval, a sample size of 180 schools provides a margin of error of 2.9%. Schools were randomly selected based on the proportion of children represented within each municipality (see Table 2; population data taken from the Final Evaluation report). In n=6 cases, selected schools were inaccessible to research staff, either because of logistical challenges or security issues. In these cases, additional schools were randomly selected for replacement. Table 2. Target Population and Sample of Parents Municipality # Students Population % Students # Schools Sampled # Parents Sampled Camasca 1,669 3.1 8 51 Colomoncagua 4,223 7.7 14 84 Concepcion 2,045 3.7 7 37 Dolores 1,509 2.8 5 19 Intibucá 11,310 20.7 25 344 Jesus de Otoro 6,697 12.3 16 88 13 La Esperanza 3,195 5.8 6 61 Magdalena 993 1.8 7 20 Masaguara 3,302 6.0 13 78 San Antonio 1,429 2.6 8 37 San Francisco de Opalaca 2,917 5.3 10 48 San Isidro 1,154 2.1 3 22 San Juan 3,066 5.6 5 19 San Marcos de la Sierra 2,501 4.6 11 44 San Miguelito 1,871 3.4 12 59 Santa Lucia 1,290 2.4 9 57 Yamaranguila 5,449 10.0 21 201 Total 54,620 100.0% 180 1,269 After the random sample of 180 schools, parents of children were randomly selected from school rosters to participate in the study (n=1,269; see Table 2). Selected children’s parents were invited by school directors prior to the day of data collection, and underwent an informed consent process prior to participating. In some cases, convenience sampling of parents was required if school rosters were not available, or if directors or implementing partners failed to notify parents in advance, which resulted in a larger sample size than the original target of n=1,047 parents. The number of parents interviewed took into account the number of students per municipality, assuming a 1:1 relationship between parents and students (such that only one parent per child will be interviewed). The number of parents selected per municipality was determined by the percentage of children represented in each municipality. For example, La Esperanza’s 3,195 students account for 5.80% of the overall number of 54,620 students in Intibucá FFE schools (in school year 2015). The number of children sample from La Esperanza (n=61; see Table 2) accounts for 5.80% of the original targeted sample of n=1,047 children, and accounts for 4.8% of the final sample of n=1,269. Given a population of N=54,620 students, assuming a 50.0% response rate from parents, with a 95% confidence interval, a sample size of 1,269 students provides a margin of error of 2.72%. For qualitative data, 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=15 focus groups). Sample Characteristics Of the 1,269 parents participating in the study, 84.3% were women. The average age of participants was 36 years old (SD=11.6) and the average household size was 5.9 persons per household (SD=2.2). In terms of education, 40.7% of parents had some primary school, 33.0% had completed primary school, 8.5% had some secondary education, 10.2% had completed secondary education, 4.7% had no education, and 2.8% had technical or university education. Reported occupations of parents included the following: homemaker (75.9%); farmer (11.9%); professional (3.5%); services/trade (3.2%); merchant (2.7%); and worker/laborer (2.7%). The number of children in the home ranged from 0-11, with an average of 3.0 children per household (SD=1.5). 72.7% identified as being part of the Lenca cultural group, while 17.6% did not, 8.2% did not know, and 1.6% did not respond. 14 Measures and Data Collection Tools Data collection tools were developed by the consultants with input from FFE II project staff. Data collection instruments were pre-tested in 2 schools in the municipality of La Esperanza prior to data collection. Four sources of data were employed for data collection. These include: i. Parent Interview Protocols In n=180 randomly selected schools, n=1,269 parents of children were invited to participate in individual survey interviews. The content of the interviews were developed in consultation with CRS and implementing partner staff, and focused on parents’ perceptions of the importance of education, issues related to program implementation and sustainability, and the extent to which FFE helps support the larger community. ii. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – Spanish version Each parent also completed the SDQ for his or her child. The SDQ is a behavioral screening measure for children ages 3-16, to assess the following domains: (1) emotional symptoms (5 items); (2) conduct problems (5 items); (3) hyperactivity/inattention (5 items); (4) peer relationship problems (5 items); and (5) prosocial behavior (5 items). These data are intended to help explain variations in literacy and other outcomes as FFE Phase II tracks data over time for student beneficiaries. Enumerators completed the SDQ by asking questions of respondents and recording their answers electronically in iPads. iii. Parent Focus Groups One school was randomly selected from each municipality, and parents participating in interviews at these selected schools will also be invited to participate in a focus group (total of 15 focus groups). Focus group questions were developed in consultation with CRS and implementing partner staff, and focused on the importance of education and FFE program implementation. A semi-structured interview was used, which was agreed upon with the project staff. iv. Baseline and Administrative Data Data from the final evaluation of FFE Phase I were used to help establish baseline indicators for Phase II related to literacy, based on EGRA scores. MIDEH data were obtained to provide a basis for comparing EGRA scores. NOTE: Quantitative data are based on parent self-report, and therefore may be subject to social desirability bias. 15 Results Explanation of Baseline Indicators As displayed in Appendix A, this study measured the specific indicators of Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children (Result 1); and Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education (Result 16.0). All other baseline indicators (Results Indicators, 1.2, 1.4-1.7, 1.9, and 2.0-11.0, 13.0, and 14.0) are set at “0” for future comparison at midterm and final evaluations. For Result 12 (Improved Student Attendance), baseline values are taken from the CRS project register. As shown in Appendix A, the overall number of children attending at least 80.0% of school days at baseline has already exceeded the project target by 10.6% (n=5,030 children). The number of boys attending at least 80.0% is 10.2% higher than target (2,471 more) and the number of girls attending at least 80.0% is 11.0% higher than target (2,559 more). For Result 15 (Increased Student Enrollment), baseline values are also taken from the CRS project register. As shown in Appendix A, the overall number of children enrolled in school has already exceeded the project target by 2.8% (n=760 children). The number of boys enrolled is 1.7% higher than the target (435 more) and the number of girls enrolled is 2.8% higher than the target (760 more). Below, findings related to Result 1 (Improved Literacy) and Result 16 (Increased Understanding of Benefits of Education) are presented. Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (Result 1) Based on data presented in the final evaluation report of FFE Phase I, child literacy was determined by the percentage of students who scored 5 out of 5 points on the EGRA reading comprehension subscale. Overall, 42.4% of children demonstrated 100% reading comprehension at the final evaluation (n=3,235). Figure 1 outlines differences by gender for EGRA literacy scores at baseline, midterm, and final evaluation of FFE Phase I. Both boys and girls increased literacy rates substantially between baseline and midterm evaluations (from 26.1% to 46.5% for girls; from 17.5% to 36.1% for boys). Boys continued to increase to 39.4% literacy at final evaluation, while girls dropped slightly to 45.5% at final evaluation. From EGRA scores, both girls and boys are well below the final target for literacy during FFE Phase II of 75.0%. 16 Figure 1. Changes in EGRA Reading Comprehension by Gender (FFE Phase I) As a basis of comparison, data were obtained from the MIDEH project, sponsored by USAID and the Government of Honduras. These data were only available for the 2015 school year. For the Department of Intibucá, n=17,736 cases were available in the MIDEH dataset. For meaningful comparisons, differences in MIDEH scores by grade (2nd, 3rd, and 4th ) were compared with differences in EGRA scores collected during the Phase I final evaluation, by grade (2nd, 3rd, and 4th). For MIDEH data, children totaled n=6,845 (2nd grade=2,182; 3rd grade=2,398; 4th grade=2,265). For EGRA data, children totaled n=3,235 (2nd grade=1,002; 3rd grade=1,153; 4th grade=1,080). 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). EGRA scores are calculated on a 5-point scale (higher is better), with 100% literacy calculated in the final FFE I evaluation as a score of 5 out of 5. To make meaningful comparisons between EGRA and MIDEH scores for 2 nd, 3rd and 4 th graders in the Department of Intibucá, a score of 3 or 4 on the MIDEH assessment was compared with a score of 5 on the EGRA assessment. EGRA literacy rates predictably increased with each increase in grade level. MIDEH scores were much higher than EGRA for 2nd graders, and then lower than EGRA for 3rd and 4th graders. Figure 2 displays differences in EGRA and MIDEH scores among 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders. The greatest difference emerged for 2nd graders, 59.7% of whom achieved literacy using MIDEH scores, but only 29.14% of whom achieved literacy using EGRA scores. Yet, MIDEH scores for 3rd graders dropped to 29.69%, compared to 40.68% for EGRA scores. EGRA scores were also higher than MIDEH scores for 4th graders (56.48% for EGRA vs. 44.15% for MIDEH) (see Figure 2). On average, across the 3 grades, MIDEH scores were higher at 44.5% literacy, compared with 42.1% for EGRA scores. All scores are well below the final FFE II target of 75.0% literacy for boys and girls (see Appendix A). 26.1 46.5 45.5 17.5 36.1 39.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 BASELINE MIDTERM FINAL Girls Boys 17 Figure 2. Differences in Literacy Rates between EGRA and MIDEH Figure 3 below presents EGRA and MIDEH data disaggregated by gender. For 2nd graders, both girls and boys showed higher scores on the MIDEH assessments compared with EGRA assessments. As with the overall scores, this pattern reversed for 3rd and 4th graders, with both genders scoring higher on EGRA compared with MIDEH. Girls consistently scored higher than boys across grades and between EGRA and MIDEH assessments. On average, across the 3 grades, 45.5% of girls demonstrated literacy based on MIDEH scores, compared with 43.6% of boys (see Appendix A). Figure 3. Differences in Literacy Rates between EGRA and MIDEH, by Gender 42.10% 44.50% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade EGRA (100%) MIDEH (Satisfactory or Advanced) EGRA Average MIDEH Average 45.52% 43.55% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Girls (2nd Grade) Boys (2nd Grade) Girls (3rd Grade) Boys (3rd Grade) Girls (4th Grade) Boys (4th Grade) Girls - Average Boys - Average EGRA (100%) MIDEH (Satisfactory or Advanced) Target = 75.0% 18 FGP1 1. Regarding the support provided by the project, what had the greatest impact on your child's education? According to parents, the greatest effects of FFE are associated with the goods and services provided by the project. Parents perceived that children are more motivated to attend school and also remain more attentive in the classroom. Given limited access to food in many homes, children feel more motivated to come to school when they know they will be fed - 67% of the participant groups of parents identified this effect (see Matrix 1 for summary). A second major effect is the children’s attention improvement in the classroom, most likely as children have more energy. According to some parents and teachers, children who come to school not well fed tend to fall asleep during class or even faint. The improvement in the children’s energy causes them children look healthier - 40% of the participant groups of parents identified this effect. Another important effect, identified by 13% of participant groups, is that school feeding decreases the time of traveling from school to home for lunch, when children have to go to class in the morning and evening. Therefore, they can focus their energy for studying and attending classes. In addition, a further consequence is that the children’s exposure to risks on their way between home and school are reduced. As a result of these effects, the most important impact is in the improvements in children's learning. According to 40% of parent focus groups, children showed new skills acquisition such as "making calculations" and children of pre-basic learning showed a "loss of shyness”. Also, since kindergarten they learn how to hold a pencil. Moreover,” first grade teachers can stay on track with the curricula as the students improve faster, even knowing how he will paint a picture, too”. Learning is favored not only by the highest concentration of children in the classroom, but also at home as children can perform well with the homework assigned by the teacher, "if the child does not eat, goes back to sleep and does not do the homework”. Matrix 12 . The greatest impact on children’s education Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Motivation to attend school Parent: "For me, providing food has been very good. I only did up to third grade and when I went to school, I usually fell asleep in the classroom. Now is different, because the child is thinking about his school feeding before leaving home". Parent: "The school feeding motivates children". Parent: "An immediate change is that children already want to go to school". Parent: "I feel that the food contributes to attract children to school. They become less lazy as children already know that at school they will receive food, whilst sometimes they do not have it at home." 67% (10 comments) 1 Focus groups of parents. 2 Percentages and frequencies refer to the number of focus groups which identified a particular theme. 19 Decrease in the number of trips form home to school Parent: "children do not have to go to the house at noon to eat, so they can focus their energy at school." Parent: "Children who live far away, do not go to the house to eat, here they are provided with food. Thus, they no longer need to go to their home. " 13% (2 comments) Improving attention in the classroom Parent: "If they do not receive help with food, they tend to be drowsier or very quiet; but with food, children pay more attention." Parent: "Their pretty school feeding helps them because there are children who skip breakfast to come to school. At seven o'clock the milk is ready at school and that impacts on children; so they pay more attention to the teacher. " Parent: "When children receive a snack, they become active and pay more attention to the classes that the teacher gives them." 40% (6 comments) Learning Parent: "The school feeding encourages them to learn more and to pay attention." Parent: "A child will not perform in the same way if he is not well fed. If he comes to school without eating, his senses are slow, because he's thinking that he's sleepy. " Parent: "I asked my children to make calculations and I can see they are learning enough. Children are content to have that snack here. When they are happy, chubby, they are happier in classes, while a hungry child falls asleep." 40 % (6 comments Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education (Result 16.0) When asked whether parents thought education was important for their children, 99.8% of parents (n=1,267) agreed. On average, parents identified close to 2 benefits of education for their children (M=1.80, SD=1.02). Of the n=1,269 parents, n=264 (20.8%) identified 3 or more reasons why education is important. Table 3. Parents’ Reasons for the Importance of Education (Result 16.0) N % Improve quality of life 599 47.2 Get higher income 226 17.8 More knowledge/General learning 170 13.4 Achieve greater social prestige 134 10.6 Contribute to local development and to Honduras 83 6.5 Acquire better values and have good conduct 53 4.2 So children can defend their rights 11 0.9 It is the best legacy to leave children 11 0.9 Obligation to provide education 5 0.4 20 Nearly half of parents (47.2%) identified improving quality of life as a reason why education is important. Smaller numbers indicated getting a higher income (17.8%), gaining more knowledge and learning (13.4%), achieving greater social prestige (10.6%), contributing to local development and to Honduras (6.5%), and acquiring better values and having good conduct (4.2%). Small numbers of parents (below 1.0%) indicated children being able to defend their rights, leaving a legacy for children, and being obliged to provide education, as reasons why education is important for children. FGP 2. Why is education important for your children? All focus groups noted that education is very important for their children and their statements show that it is also associated with the welfare of the child when they reach adulthood. Education prepares children to have a better job, to be professionals or for the defense of rights. More than half of the focus groups said that education is important as it prepares their children to have a better job compared to people with less education (see Matrix 2 for summary). Similarly, 8 focus groups (53%) associated children’s good behavior with the importance of education. Education is perceived as a mean for proper socialization of the child in appropriate standards and values for social interaction, such as respect for other people and the use of a proper language. Furthermore, education is perceived as a mechanism of social security and poverty alleviation - as the child improves his education, he gets a better job and therefore can help their parents financially. Similarly, some parents see their children's education as the best legacy they can leave to them, especially because they always retain ownership of it. Additionally, some parents are aware that education is a means to acquire skills for critical thinking, in their words "to prevent being foolish" and to avoid their engagement in criminal activities - 20% of participant parents identified this effect. Several parents also declared that education is a way for children to contribute in the future to have a better municipality or community. Parents who have children in pre-school, emphasized the importance of developing skills for admission to basic education. Parents are aware that now more schools are available to their children, facilitating access to their education. Others suggested that education is a way for children to overcome their parents’ situation, both in terms of education and employment. Matrix 2. Importance of education Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency For good behavior Parent: "As they grow, they learn to respect others. At home, they are taught to respect others. In addition, the school also teaches them the same. " Parent: "If we do not educate them, when they become adults, their behavior is incorrect and do not show respect for others". 53% (8 comments) 21 To have critical thinking Parent: "Education is very important because it is a foundation in a home, in a country, in a community. If a person has studied, has the ability to discern any subject, is not fooled." Parent: "It is very important for a country to have educated citizens, because it can overcome underdevelopment. Even to go to the polls, people need the ability to see who they are going to vote for. " Parent: "A child who can read will not follow someone else without thinking". 20% (3 comments) To get a better job with more skills or being professional. Parent: "For any job, people needs to have a degree. A person with a degree can be a good teacher, a lawyer, even a president". Parent: "Because they can have a better future. They can get a good job". Parent: "It helps them get good jobs, earn higher wages and have a better life than us". 53 % (8 comments Education as an inheritance Parent: "It is very important because it is the only thing a father can give to their children. Wisdom stays in the mind and nobody can take it away. I can give them a land, but they can sell it and they will no longer have anything." 20 % (3 comments) Transversal Baseline Evaluation Questions Relevance Help with Homework. Parents were asked whether they helped children with their homework, and the activities with which their children engaged in their spare time. Most parents (89.3%) stated they helped their children with homework. Of these, 58.2% helped their children every day, 14.4% helped them 3 or 4 times a week, 15.7% helped 2 times a week or fewer. Parents most frequently help children by making sure homework gets completed (60.7%), providing materials (34.1%), reviewing homework to ensure it is well done (29.8%), explaining material and helping to do research (10.9%), finding someone who can help with the homework (6.3%), searching for information on the internet (5.5%), and helping with writing and dictation (2.7%). Other Children’s Activities. In their spare time, when children are not doing homework, parents reported that children spend their time playing (73.2%), doing housework (such as getting water, feeding animals, sweeping the yard, and looking for firewood (55.2%), studying (49.0%), engaging in farming activities (13.8%), going to church (6.2%), recreation (5.1%), doing errands and other chores (3.2%), and working for pay (for example, during the coffee harvest) (3.0%). 22 Reading at Home. Most parents said they read at home with their children (84.2%). Close to half of these parents read to their children every day (43.0%). Otherwise, the frequency with which parents read to their children is as follows: 1 time per week (14.6%); 2 times per week (18.1%); 3 times per week (17.0%); 4 times per week (5.9%); 1 time per month (0.6%). Parents were also asked about the reading materials typically present in their home. Most (82.7%) said they have books, while 32.6% have newspapers, 17.8% have journals, 14.1% have magazines, 1.1% have Bibles, and 3.1% have other materials (almanacs, encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.). FGP 3. How have parents and community organizations participated in the education of children? Parents reported participating in their children’s education in various ways. 100% of parent groups reported participating in organizations, meetings and schoolwork, such as school feeding, the infrastructure and the school garden. These activitiesinclude everything from the supply of unskilled labor to participation in dropout prevention work. One of the activities, most frequently mentioned, is the work of mothers in the preparation of the school feeding. 47% of parents groups mentioned buying clothes, shoes and educational materials for children to attend school. These expenses are a very important contribution, given the low income of most parents. In addition, 53% of the groups said that another way to participate in the education of children, is to send them to school (see Matrix 3 for summary). 47% of the focus groups reported supporting the learning process, such as helping with homework or reinforcing appropriate behavior. Although some mothers cannot read and write, they ask their children to do homework; for example, a mother stated that "I cannot read, but I tell children to do homework….” Another mother declared, "I did not go to school then. So, I tell my child, do your homework.” Thus, a mutual reinforcement between home and school is generated. Also, parents reported taking care of children’s personal hygiene and providing advice, so that they are not violent. Matrix 3. Parental involvement in the education of their children. Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Learning Support Parent: "I help with some homework, because they always need help. If I understand, I tell them how to do it, but there is homework that I do not understand". Parent: "Collaborating with homework. Whenever the child comes, I check their notebook and supervise he makes them and take them to school." Parent: "Our responsibility is to help them with their homework, ensure that they make it before they go to play." 47% (7 comments) 23 Participating in organizations, meetings and school work Parent: "We are divided into different committees, we support teachers, and we visit parents who do not send their children to school." Parent: "We participate in the PASE (school safety patrol), our job is to monitor when they leave school to avoid risks in the street." Parent: "We have organized the Association of Parents to support the education of our children." 100% (15 comments) Buying clothes, shoes and educational materials Parent: "We must provide materials requested by teachers, like school uniforms." Parent: "We must contribute with the educational materials, from an eraser to shoes. We have to buy notebooks, pencils, pencil sharpeners and uniforms." 47% (7 comments) Sending children to school Parent: "Sending children to school, so they have no problems at exam time. Moreover, going to school, they learn more. " Parent: "Preparing children early so that they arrive on time to kindergarten". Parent: "We must ensure that they arrive on time to school, to go with their shoes and clean uniforms". 53% (8 comments) Effectiveness Community Libraries. When asked whether parents have ever used a library, relatively few parents indicated yes (16.1%). Parents were then asked if their community had a library, how it would be used and supported by the community. Nearly half of these parents (49.3%) said that children could use the library to read, and 44.2% said that parents could use it to read. 5.7% said that the library could be used for studying and obtaining books. 10.3% said that parents could donate books to the library, and 3.0% said that parents could help manage and maintain the library facility. A significant number (13.6%) said they did not know how a library could be used or supported. Transportation. When asked how many children in the home received transportation support, 6.4% of parents reported that 1 or more children received transportation. This number represents an increase from the midterm and final evaluation reports of FFE Phase I, 1.7% reported receiving transportation at midterm, and 1.9% in the final. 4.6% of parents said that 1 child received transportation, and 1.8% said that 2 more children received transportation. Parents were then asked their role in supporting transportation. Of the small number responding to this question (n=51), parents said they supported transportation by making sure children were on time (80.4%), monitoring security while boarding transportation (13.7%), monitoring the means of transportation (15.7%), and administration (2.0%). 24 Volunteering. Parents were asked how many people living in their home volunteer at the school. A majority (59.9%) said no one volunteered, 33.0% said that one person volunteered, and 7.1% said that 2 or more people volunteered. Of responding parents (n=509), over 1/4th of parents (27.5%) said they belonged to the Merienda committee (an ad hoc school committee focused on food storage and preparation), 15.1% belong to the parents’ association, 8.1% volunteered as teacher helpers, 5.7% were members of PASE, 3.5% were members of EPRED, 2.2% were members of CED, 1.6% were health volunteers, and only 1 parent (0.2%) was a member of COMDE. Teaching Materials. When asked whether parents observed teaching materials when they visited the school, 66.7% said yes. Parents were then asked what actions they took if they observed no materials at the school. Of these parents (n=567), 53.6% said they try to obtain resources, 12.2% said donate money or materials or raise funds, 10.9% said they help develop training materials using locally available resources, 7.9% said they did not know, 4.4% inform the administration and work together to find solutions, and 9.5% said they did nothing. Efficiency Information on Academic Performance. About 2/3rd of parents (65.2%) reported receiving information from the school on their children’s academic performance. The types of information received included partial tests (60.4%), monthly reports of academic performance (16.0%), academic achievement tests (8.9%), general communication from teachers (6.3%), reports about problem behaviors (3.0%), and EGRA results (0.4%). Parents were also asked how they used the information they received from schools. Over half of parents said they used the information to help make decisions to improve their children’s performance (57.2%), to participate more actively in school activities (10.1%), to help children with their homework (18.6%), to provide support and advice for children (5.8%), and for advocacy with other parents (1.8%). School Feeding. When asked whether they belonged to the school feeding committee, 35.7% of parents said yes. Parents were then asked about their role on the committee. 33.7% of parents on the committee said they worked to prepare food, 17.6% said they handled food (including receiving snacks and monitoring proper handling of food), and only 0.8% stated they trained mothers. Parents were asked to identify the various foods provided to children at school. In order of frequency, parents identified the following: Beans (93.3%), Rice (93.1%), Corn Soy Blend (87.8%), Corn (75.6%), Oil (62.7%), Greens (54.8%), Milk or Dairy Products (28.4%), Chicken/Gallina India (11.5%), Fruits/Vegetables (7.1%), Eggs (5.5%), and Meat (3.0%). Parents were also asked if they were familiar with the nutritional classifications of food received by children at school. Over a 1/4th of parents (26.5%) said they did not know about these classifications, 3.5% said they knew about vitamins, and fewer than 2.0% knew about proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, and lipids/fats. Nearly half of parents said they received dry rations (44.8%). Of these parents, 49.3% said they consumed these rations at home, and 6.6% shared with other families. Only one case (0.2%) indicated they sold or bartered rations, and no parents used rations to feed animals. Health and Hygiene. Parents were asked which health and hygiene practices they emphasize with their children at home. These practices included personal hygiene (washing hands, brushing teeth, wearing clean clothes, taking a bath every day) (93.3%), house cleaning (54.0%), cleaning sanitary facilities (26.5%), managing waste (27.3%), and proper handling of food and water (washing fruit, boiling/chlorinating water) (4.9%). 25 School Infrastructure. About half of parents indicated that there have been improvements in school infrastructure (51.8%), and 4.7% did not know. By the end of Phase I, 173 schools received infrastructure support. The parent self-reports indicate a much higher rate of infrastructure improvements, which may indicate informal improvements made by the community. Identified improvements included classrooms (roof, walls, windows, doors, floor) (50.5%), sanitary stations (31.4 %), construction (fences, gates, painting, auditorium, etc.) (24.3%), kitchens (13.6%), and wells and/or water systems (7.4%). Parents were also asked about the maintenance activities currently being done at schools. About 1/4th of parents (24.5%) were not aware of any activities. Identified activities included cleaning (39.0%), monitoring of physical condition of the school (11.5%), ensuring that facilities are being used properly (9.5%), repairing facilities (7.8%), and other activities (painting, general repairs) (7.2%). A small number of parents (1.6%) noted that the school was in poor condition or that no infrastructure activities were taking place. Impact Student Enrollment. Parents were asked a number of questions pertaining to student enrollment. The first of these asked parents whether there had been a census in their community, to which 66.1% replied yes. This census was sponsored by the FFE project and was supported by parents. The objectives of the census, according to the systematization carried out by the FFE project, were the following: (1) To have a baseline of enrollment indicators to carry out a measurement in the third year of the project; and (2) To have quantitative data in the 17 municipalities of the department on the main factors, causes and barriers that impede the attendance of children to school and to use them as input for the design of enrollment campaigns. During this census, parents described their roles as providing information about their families (87.1%), supporting coordination of data collection (2.6%), helping with data collection (4.7%), and monitoring the implementation of the census (1.1%). 5.8% did not know what role they played in the census. Parents were then asked what action they would take if there were children in their community who were not attending school. Nearly 2/3rd said they would make home visits (63.7%), 13.1% would inform local authorities, 14.3% would manage resources to motivate the parent to send the child to school, 12.3% would inform the school principal, 12.9% would accompany, sensitize, or encourage parents to send the child to school, 2.1% would make a report to the school committee, and 0.9% said they would do nothing. 9.7% of parents said they did not know what they would do. Parent Engagement and Activities at School. When asked how many times a week they visit the school, 29.1% said every day, 22.3% said one time a week, 11.3% said two times a week, 7.7% said three times a week, 2.1% said 4 times a week, and 12.6% said once a month. Overall, 84.9% of parents said they visit the school at least once a week. The activities in which parents engage at school are the following: helping with school meals (57.7%); meetings with the parent’s association (46.7%); meetings with teachers (36.0%); taking care of the children and watching school property (18.9%); volunteering (cleaning, raising money, helping with snacks, etc.) (9.7%), dropping off or picking up students (8.6%), observing and monitoring their child’s behavior and performance (6.9%), participating as a member of the school organization (5.3%); and monitoring the proper use of materials received at the school (4.9%). Student Security and Interpersonal Violence. Parents were asked the frequency with which their children suffer violence in school, or on the walk to school. Most parents (89.1%) said that their children never experienced violence, 5.4% said children experienced violence sometimes, 3.9% 26 said infrequently, 0.4% said frequently, 0.2% said always, and 0.9% said they did not know. Parents were then asked about specific types of violence, and whether these events took place in school or out of school (see Table 4); only a small number of parents provided this information (n=66). Table 4. Interpersonal Violence (n=66) Did Not Experience Experienced In School Experienced Out of School Bullying 59.1% 22.7% 15.2% Physical Violence 48.5% 31.8% 19.7% Psychological Violence 71.2% 22.7% 6.1% Sexual Abuse 100.0% -- -- Sexual Assault 100.0% -- -- Other (harassment by men drinking, animals in the street, being called names, verbal abuse) n/a 3.0% 7.8% As shown in Table 4, the most prevalent type of violence is physical (experienced by over half of those reporting), and physical violence is reported to occur more often at school (31.8%) vs. out of school (19.7%). Over 40.0% of these parents reported bullying, more commonly at school (22.7%) than outside school (15.2%). Over 1/4th of these parents reported psychological violence, more commonly at school (22.7%) than outside school (6.1%). No parents reported issues of sexual abuse or assault. A small number of parents reported other types of harassment that are more commonly experienced outside of school (7.8%) than in school (3.0%). NOTE: Given the small number of parents providing reports on these issues (n=66; only 5.2% of the study sample), these findings must be interpreted with caution as they likely do not reflect the perceptions of the larger population of parents. This small sample size also likely reflects a reticence to discuss issues of violence among this population of parents, perhaps related to cultural norms and preferences. FGP 4. 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? Parents perceive the community and school environment with a limited incidence of violence. Parents perceive some violence originating from teachers and among children, but not easily see the violence originated at home, as only 13% of the focus groups identified it. Neither type of violence is perceived on the way between home and school, although one focus group identified each of two these types of violence (see Matrix 4 for summary). Parents also have difficulty identifying protection mechanisms against school violence, as only 20% of the groups identified a mechanism. School for Parents seem to be the best tool to strengthen or develop parenting skills to deal with violence. Moreover, for creating a safer way to and from school, PASE (parents escorting children from and to school) seems to be the best tool, although it is a less formal mechanism. This occurs, most often among pre-school children, given their young age: "Most parents are responsible for coming to get them, then there will always be an adult with them. Avoiding any form of violence." Also, it should be mentioned that the provision of transport for 27 children who live farther from school, acts as a protective mechanism against violence on the way to school. A greater risk is perceived on the way to school when there is a canteen on the way: "Where we live, we fear for the girls because some years ago there was a canteen here. The girls said that the drunk harassed them". In these cases, the PASE should be particularly active. Matrix 4. Violence against children on the way to and from school, and protection against violence. Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Violence at school Parent: "Once, my child told me that the teacher had pulled his ear”. Parent: “Then, my girl told me that the teacher pulled her hair." Parent: "Teachers do not treat children well and we do not say anything to the teacher or the principal." 6% (1 comment) Violence on the way to and from school Parent: "Here, there has been no violence, either on the way between home and school." Parent: "No, no violence here, perhaps elsewhere, but not here." 6% (1 comments) Domestic Violence Parent: "If we want to eradicate domestic violence and school, parents and teachers should be trained together." Parent: "It is important to prevent domestic violence, because children take it from home to school". 13% (2 comments) Protection against violence at school Parent: "In a case of violence among children, the teacher brought parents to talk with the principal and told them that the child must be corrected." Parent: "I would like the project to train parents of our school about ways to prevent violence." Parent: "To prevent children suffer violence on the way to school is convenient to use a means of transportation". Parent: "The PASE was organized to protect children when the creek grows, but also to prevent children from hitting each other." Parent: "For me it is important that a child in school develop their values, depending on the training of teachers and home". 20% (3 comments) 28 FGP 5. What FFE project activities have impacted students' interpersonal relationships with each other related to violence in the school, bullying, and empathy? What have been those impacts? Parents recognize the existence of violence in students’ interpersonal relations with each other, but do not grant a high level of importance, perhaps because it is a form of violence that is considered natural. For example, as one participant mother said "Sometimes, we as parents look that other children are playing violently with our son, but we do not do our best to defend him." Other mothers identified violence in relationships among children. For example, another participant mother said, "I had a problem, someone punched one of my children in the eye, it was a classmate." Another added that "well I have a student who is in eighth grade, and another student hurt her in the leg with an awl. The teacher just sent him to talk to the school principal. Another child was hit with a stone in the forehead." Also, a typical case of bullying was reported: "I'll give you an example, some children were bullying a girl because she is fat" (see Matrix 5 for summary). There are several ways to deal with violence among children, some of which are pre-existing to the project, but which can be strengthened with the project. As an example, when there was violence between two students: "The teacher sent their parents to the school principal and pointed out that the children must be corrected." In any case, it seems to be an issue in which there is still work to do, as parents do not identify the ways in which the project has contributed to the prevention of violence in relationships among children. However, there are other forms of prevention, direct or indirect, that have been developed with the project, such as school safety patrols (PASE) and school transportation services. Parents noted some activities that have had an impact in the relationships among students. For example, "strengthening the teacher’s role in monitoring the behavior of children", was identified by 20% of the groups; "strengthening the parent’s role to prevent violence at home, which is reinforced at school by teachers", identified by 60% of the groups; "Values education happens at school," according to 13% of the focus groups; and "Improvement of relations between parents, teachers and the school head to prevent violence," according to 40% of parent groups. Matrix 5. Activities that had an impact on interpersonal relationships of students Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Strengthening the role of the teacher in monitoring children behavior Parent: "At school, it has to be the teacher who educates the children. If the teacher sees violence, she has to call the parent to explain the child's behavior." Parent: "I advise my son. If someone fights with you, you have to let the teacher know." 20% (3 comments) Strengthen the role of parents in the home to prevent violence, which is reinforced at school Parent: "Educating them at home, because children learn from what they see at home and it is necessary to educate them." 60% (9 comments) 29 Parent: “The mother has to teach them not to fight or not to hit other children.” Parent: "Mothers should not use violence with their children. The family should not give them a bad education, because if there is domestic violence, they will carry it to school." Values education at school Parent: "For me it is important because a child who goes to school develop more values, depending on the training of teachers." Parent: "The teacher must talk to the child about self-esteem and human relationships, because at school he will learn to relate with other human beings". 13% (2 comments) Improved relations between parents, teachers and school principal to prevent violence Parent: "When some of the children walked in with small daggers, parents did a session and alerted the teachers; also, security checks before entering school were put in place. I think that helped a lot". Parent: "When the teacher set parent meetings, mothers must come, there is where we find if our children misbehave". Parent: "A closer communication between parents, teachers and child, so that the teacher is communicating about the child's behavior". Parent: "In School for Parents, we receive advice about the child's behavior and when parents must come to talk to teachers". 40% (6 comments) Sustainability Income and Savings. Parents were asked question about their income and the amount of money they were able to save. Over 1/3rd of parents (39.9%) obtained income from agriculture or livestock, 33.3% received money from their spouse, 9.9% from a family business, 8.1% had a fixed income, 3.4% from selling goods, 2.3% from family in Honduras, 2.1% from cleaning or day labor, and 1.8% from family living overseas. 8.5% reported having no income. When asked what percentage of their income goes to savings, parents on average reported that 3.0% of their income is saved (SD=8.4%), although 71.0% of parents said that no income goes towards savings. Most commonly, for those with savings, parents reported keeping their money in a bank (48.5%), followed by a cooperative (27.5%), in their home (21.1%), or in a rural box (6.4%). School for Parents. The majority of parents (60.8%) knew whether a school for parents operated in their community, and 70.8% said they would be interested in participating in such a school. The motivations for participating included obtaining more knowledge (62.5%), supporting their 30 children’s education (10.2%), interacting with others (3.2%), and supporting the community (1.3%). Some parents either did not know or did not respond about their motivation (12.7%). FGP 6. 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? Greater parental involvement is most likely to impact program effects such as attendance, lower dropout rates, and children’s educational performance. School feeding, however, does not appear to be sustainable in its current form. Parents can hold their local contribution, although their income is very low. They can even increase it by school gardens. The rest would depend on national programs originated in SEDIS (Secretaría de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social) or municipalities, which certainly would require increased central government transfers. A district director stated: "That is a difficult, very broad and complex question, because we have thought of that. After five years, what? The municipal corporation looks difficult to argue that, parents, even if they want, they do not have the financial resources to be invested.” (See Matrix 6 for summary) Regarding the sustainability of improvements in infrastructure (kitchens, water and sanitation works), the continued construction of improvements seems to be assured by contributions of municipalities and parents. Improved management capacity is a condition for municipalities to mobilize the resources of international cooperation, since this tends to make the greatest contribution. The maintenance works will depend on the continuity of the systems that the project has been launched in schools, which is associated with good management of schools. Moreover, it is necessary to ensure that appropriate allocations to the education sector are made by municipalities. One of the conditions is that central government transfers arrive promptly. A district director confirmed this view by stating that: "Economic transfers made by the central government to municipalities, are not big enough. For example, the municipal corporation is paying fourteen teachers in one-teacher schools, to become two teachers school, but recently I removed them because the municipal corporation has not received the transfer. " Joint planning among municipalities, educational authorities and teachers are also needed, so that together they can prioritize investments. A mayor stated that: "In terms of sustainability, apart from the education fund, we put more funds because we cannot touch those funds for infrastructure, but rather give more than what corresponds to education," adding that "organizations that come to invest in this area should be addressed by the plans we already have in the municipality. We cannot continue improvising with other plans. " However, it should be noted that a respondent who is not political, differs from the approach of mayors, since he thinks that political party interests greatly influence the processes of resource allocation: "It would be a dream to say that there will be a sustainability, because many of the funds used by the municipal authorities are directed via politics, the communities that have supported the election of the mayor receive more money.” Matrix 6. Sustainability of project effects 31 Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Actions of the Municipality that can contribute to the sustainability of services such as school meals, transportation and infrastructure improvement Mayor: "Education is a duty and a right. One of the problems we have had to meet the needs of educational sector is the delay in transfers from the central government. " Mayor: "We need to prioritize the needs with teachers". Mayor: "I believe the infrastructure has been greatly improved with the agreements we have with German cooperation. Taiwan embassy supports with desks. " District Director: "In infrastructure it would be KFW, which who could provide financial support in purchasing materials and construction. Municipal corporations would grant complementary funds and parents, too. " 80% (4 comments) Effects to sustain District director: "In performance, Intibucá was always among the last places in educational indicators. If you looked at the department of Intibucá, looked back in place 16 or 17. Now, it is on the 13th ". Departmental Director: "We have increased retention and drop out has been declining for three years. The performance in Spanish and Mathematics has increased significantly. " 40% (2 comments) Actors that can contribute Mayor: "In the municipality we have been beneficiaries with Caritas infrastructure projects. Also, the German KFW (Bank of Development), which funded the construction of a basic center in a village. " Mayor: "Parents are not like before, only going to enroll their children; now, if their support is needed, they have to be prepared. If we make a classroom, unskilled labor is provided by parents. Thus, they feel part and taking care for other generations. "District Director: "For example, parents are the only support for teachers and students in their communities, plus some support from municipal corporations". 100% (5 comments) Parent: "The benefits of school feeding could not be supported by parents. Each parent would have to provide his child, because there is no money. " 40% (6 comments) FGP 7. Barriers to achieving sustainability 32 Sustainability requires both cultural changes, i.e., changes in attitudes and practices of individuals, as the institutionalization of processes. Indeed, so far, it is the institutionalization of the field processes in which actors identify more barriers. The project must ensure that the municipalities, the Ministry of Education and other existing institutions assume these processes. The Coordinating Committee for Public and Private Partnerships (CCPPP) is very important for sustainability. According to the FFE II Plan of Operation, "CRS will establish and train at the formal CCPPP, which expects CRS will be comprised of a representative from each of the 17 municipalities in Intibucá; one representative from each of its CRS and subrecipients, if any; and three Departmental-level Representatives from SOE.” Thus, the CCPPP is a major component of the project's sustainability strategy. For this committee to be stronger, it should include the participation of other civil society organizations, in addition to subrecipients. Another weakness is that the plan does not consider the necessity of COMDE and CED at the local and community level, even though these organizations are currently underutilized. These organizations were established in the Law for Strengthening Public Education and Community Participation, in 2011. The government thus far has not been successful in strengthening and developing COMDE and CED, but they are organizations established in the law and have the potential to mobilize energies at municipal and community levels. They can also act as umbrellas for the sustainability of organizations generated by the project, such as EPRED or PASE. They can also be the basis of support for the departmental committee raised by the project. Considering this situation, the project could consider allocating resources to strengthening COMDE and CED, as well as its further articulation with the CCPPP. From the perspective of some stakeholders, the COMDE and CED are barely functional, which might suggest that, so far, they do not have great potential to contribute to sustainability at the community level. However, the question of what is the structure that can contribute to sustainability at this level always persists. One of the risks of having weak COMDE and CED, is that FFE-related novel structures such as EPRED and PASE could disappear in the absence of a superior coordination structure as CED (see Matrix 7 for summary). If there is no inter-agency coordination, there is duplication of resources and governance of the education sector is difficult. This is perceived by one of the mayors consulted, who suggests that there are some improvements, although he suggested the thematic table of education (mesa temática de educación), instead of COMDE, as the coordinating body. The thematic table is a meeting place for municipal actors in education, who organize a board of directors and establish an agenda to solve the main problems of education in a municipality. Thematic tables have been organized in Honduras, both at the municipal and national levels. Another important barrier is the insufficient coordination between the plans of international cooperation and government organizations at central level, with existing plans at the municipal level. There is therefore a need to coordinate all existing plans and improving planning capacity of municipalities and municipal directors of education. One of the most significant barriers to project sustainability is the poverty that characterizes most families, to which must be added the seasonal variations in employment and, therefore, in income. In one group, the parents argued that, "in this area parents do not always have money to buy materials for children. For example, when cutting coffee, we have money, but when the coffee season ends, households spend difficult time." Another group stated, "Single mothers have more 33 difficulties to meet the needs of our children. Although parents want to give them food or materials, they cannot give them because they have no money. " Matrix 7. Barriers to achieving sustainability Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Weak interagency coordination Mayor: "We could organize a thematic table of education (mesa temática de educación). Each institution is enclosed within four walls. I feel that we have to converge and agree, to improve our development". 40 % (2 comments) COMDE and CED are poorly developed Mayor of La Esperanza: "The COMDE are not empowered and also there is no good coordination with the municipality". Mayor: "Here, we organize the COMDE, but is not working, only exists on paper." Mayor: "The CED does not work, but parents’ associations are working properly". 180 % (4 comments) Aligning international cooperation plans with municipal plans Mayor: "Organizations that come to invest in this area should be addressed by the plans we already have in the municipality. We cannot continue improvising with other plans. " Mayor: "To work coordination, we need to prepare budgets in a participatory manner." 40 % (2 comments FGP 8. Strategies that have most contributed to local ownership of the project Some strategies have proven effective in building local ownership of the project and its results. One is the involvement of parents in various forms of organization promoted or supported by the project, as the school feeding committee or parents’ association. According to one mayor, there is continuous improvement in parental involvement in organizations promoted by the project: "There are important issues, such as school parents, but there are other issues such as the involvement in safety committees, transport and school feeding. Moreover, their integration into boards and participatory planning and monitoring” (see Matrix 8 for summary). Another strategy is the awareness of parents about the importance of education. Parents are perceived as being more aware of the importance of education for their children and are therefore more committed to educational processes. According to a mayor, "parents are not like before only going to enroll their children. Now, if their contribution is needed, they are ready.” Similarly, schools have been successful in engaging parents to provide resources and labor for school improvement. One mayor stated, "For example, if we make a classroom, parents provide the unskilled labor. Thus, they feel a part, taking care of other generations." This strategy is complemented by the signing of agreements with municipalities to ensure their participation and contribution to the project implementation. The appropriation is provided, also, through the participation of stakeholders in the various participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, like town hall meetings focused 34 on education. However, to strengthen this strategy, it is necessary to improve the quality and participation in these meetings. Similarly, it is advisable to check the quality of the available information and decision making process. A very interesting strategy, but only reported by one mayor, is the participatory mechanism used for the preparation of the annual budget for education. This is elaborated with the principal’s council, based on the annual budget of each school. Once developed, it is presented to the municipality, which allocates funds to be delivered to education. If this practice does not exist in the other municipalities, it could be a model for them. Also, some mentioned the strategy of developing and strengthening educational networks. According to the department director of education, "Educational networks operate at the level of a coordinating center, which is usually a basic education center, with several associated schools. Networks facilitate resource access to associated educational centers. The networks could be a good mechanism to strengthen the processes of educational coaching/supervising, which are weak in the Ministry of Education, as stated by one mayor: "In terms of educational support, locally there are few resources of the Secretary of Education, since they are concentrated at the central level.” As for the school feeding, parents seem to suggest that it is necessary that beyond the financial and food resources, logistics capabilities should be transferred: "It requires profession, work schedules, technical assistance and field promoters. It is not within our reach. " Matrix 8. Strategies that have most contributed to local ownership of the project Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Strategies Mayor: "Our monitoring is through the open town hall meeting. We give one or two per year to the education sector. At that meeting, the authorities report the main education indicators, as drop put rate. Also, we see the levels of goals achievement. " Mayor: "We program with education. We included a town hall meeting which teachers and education authorities, but also with parents". Mayor: "In Camasca we are achieving the 200 school days. Parents are monitoring this compliance. They visit all the schools". 60% (3 comments) Resource management Mayor: "Of course, there are always weaknesses in support of educational materials, which are the responsibility of the central government. The council of principals in Camasca presents an annual plan of activities and its budget to develop in each school. The teachers manage the education budget of the municipality. " District director. "The distribution of food is done by Caritas and parents. Teachers are not involved. Parents manage transport". 40% (2 comments) 35 FGP 9. 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? The project works with multiple participants, such as children, parents, teachers, school principals and mayors. Capacity development has been focused on parents, teachers and principals. The statements of the actors suggest that this development has been effective, but that further work is needed. Given the interest of the project to mobilize resources from private business, stakeholders need to develop resource mobilization capacities with private entrepreneurs, because they obey a different logic of NGOs or government organizations. These capabilities must be developed within departmental committee level, but also at the municipal and community levels. Moreover, it is important making advocacy on the local private sector to develop programs of social responsibility, so that it can make sustainable contributions to the education sector (see Matrix 9 for summary). Another area in which it is necessary to increase capacity is the agricultural production as a condition for increasing the contribution of parents to school feeding. This further development could materialize in improving home gardens, but also in improving school gardens in those schools that have land for developing them. While agricultural capacity-building was not included in the design of FFE Phase II, CRS and other local organizations implement agricultural projects which may be of benefit to the community. Also, considering the importance of the Lenca culture in the department, it is desirable that the project strengthen the capacities of teachers for intercultural education, establishing cooperation agreements with the office responsible for intercultural and bilingual education of the Ministry of Education. It is also necessary to develop the capacities of parents as advocates, so that they can influence resource allocation of municipalities and also so that they can be proactive in participatory spaces like town hall meetings. Social exclusion of Lenca people be emerging in two ways: (1) the limited participation of Lenca indigenous organizations in educational planning processes, since only eventually they participate in the identification of educational needs in some municipalities. (2) Lenca culture is not reflected in educational texts and, in addition, teachers are not trained to ensure that Lenca culture is recovered in the educational process. This is due in large part to the fact that there is no bibliographic production on Lenca culture. While it is not the responsibility of the FFE project to produce such materials, it could influence the performance of the Ministry of Education in this area, since it is the responsibility of the State to preserve and stimulate the development of the cultures of the native peoples (Secretaría de Educación, 2004). Based on the Plan of Operation of the Project, CRS should develop its sustainability strategy in detail and develop a set of sustainability indicators within it, which should be periodically monitored and evaluated during the mid-term review and the final evaluation. Indicators should focus on critical aspects of the project that aim at improving literacy for children. This set of indicators can be the basis for the development of the sustainability map, both at the departmental and municipal levels. Matrix 9. 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? 36 Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Capacities Municipal Director: "The commitment of parents has changed. They are more committed, because the government is serving them so that teachers are in the classroom, institutions are supporting with testing, training teachers with backpacks and transport ". Municipal director: “Men participate carrying firewood to school, come to bring food to school; in construction projects they provide support as unskilled labor ". 60% (3 comments) Needs of capacity building Mayor: "The presence of private business in education is fleeting. Last year the organization of pharmacy owners in Intibucá, provided a couple of scholarships. It was not sustainable. Also, last year the Pepsi Foundation gave shoes and backpacks. Private companies are not engaged socially with the educational theme. We need to work with them. " Mayor: "We must strengthen education councils (COMDE and CED)". 80% (3 comments) Parent: "The school garden could be handled by ourselves, but we always would need technical assistance. For example, we have no knowledge about seeds. " Parent: "We could plant fruits and vegetables to maintain the school garden, like cassava, yams, taro, bananas and coffee.” 53% (8 comments) FGP 10. Availability of financial resources Target groups indicated they do not have sufficient financial resources to continue many of the project activities. In the following paragraphs it is presented an analysis of what would be the strategy from the perspective of the actors, to provide financial resources to continue the improvements in infrastructure, which include building / rehabilitation of kitchens, latrines, and Wells and water stations / systems (see Matrix 10 for summary). Informants considered that there are now some national and international aid workers who are investing in educational infrastructure. 100% of key informants identified Caritas and COCEPRADII, while 80% to KFW of Germany, as the leading organizations that are investing in this area. In addition to these organizations, respondents mentioned various governmental organizations, which have the legal mandate to provide social infrastructure. One respondent mentioned the Institute of Community Development, Water and Sanitation (IDECOAS), an agency of the government linked to the Cabinet Sector of Development and Social Inclusion. The IDECOAS integrates, among other institutions, the Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS) and the National Autonomous Service of Aqueducts and Sewers (SANAA), institutions working in social infrastructure. 100% mentioned the municipalities, which have the potential to be one of the main sources for continued investment in educational infrastructure, while actors from schools and community leaders would be responsible for maintaining project activities. Typically, municipalities share infrastructure costs with community organizations, but may also act as the main funders even 37 communities may provide money or in kind contributions. In addition, projects coming from international NGOs, like FFE, should be compatible with those of municipal plans and be aligned with municipal efforts, to avoid duplication. This alignment may lead to change in the governance of the education sector at the municipal level and, probably, at the departmental level. This is interesting because there are no participation mechanisms at the departmental level. Regarding parents, although they have the capacity to provide labor and some limited financial resources for school feeding, infrastructure and transport, the best ability they have is to organize themselves and make advocacy to influence government agencies and international cooperation. On capabilities that have been developed by the project, it is desirable that they are trained on advocacy processes, but also to invest in strengthening their organizations. Matrix 10. Availability of financial resources Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Actors supporting infrastructure construction Mayor: "In the municipality we have been beneficiaries with Caritas infrastructure projects. Also, with German cooperation with the Bank of KFW German Development”. Mayor: "Parents are not like before, only going to enroll their children, they have to be prepared. If we make a classroom, part of unskilled labor is provided by parents. " 100% (5 comments) Community participation Mayor: "Also, we have important social fabric, communities, employers' associations, water boards, the support committees in different sectors. They are involved and are an important part in decision-making." Departmental Director: "The municipal corporation is helping us with some constructions. Also, the KFW, which is supporting us with the construction of schools." 40% (2 comments) Parent: "If an organization comes, as CARITAS, to promote school gardens, parents contribute with their labor.” Parent: "In improving student bathrooms, we bring the unskilled work." Parent: "We should organize ourselves and knock on doors of institutions for help. 100% (15 comments) Results of the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Research shows that children’s emotional and behavioral problems are comorbid with academic performance (Adams et al., 1999) and that schoolchildren in low- and middle-income countries 38 (LMIC) are often at increased risk for psychosocial problems (Cortina et al. 2013). The Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) is a commonly used measure of child functioning that has been used and validated across a number of countries and cultural groups (Goodman et al., 2005, 2012; Valdez et al., 2013). To date, however, no studies have examined how the SDQ works in the context of Honduras, nor more specifically with the Lenca indigenous cultural group in the Department of Intibucá. The purpose of this analysis is to examine SDQ items and subscales for this sample as a means of comparison to normative samples, and to establish baseline psychosocial indicators for future data collection efforts related to FFE implementation. The SDQ is comprised of 25 items on a three-point Likert-type scale (“not true, partly true, or certainly true”) rated by the respondent over the past 3 months. Items are clustered with 5 subscales: Emotional Symptoms, Hyperactivity/Inattention, Peer Problems, Conduct Problems, and Prosocial Behavior. The Total Difficulties scale measures overall functioning as a sum of all subscales except Pro-Social Behavior. High scores indicate higher psychiatric difficulties, with the exception of the Pro-Social scale where higher scores indicate better functioning. In previous research, the SDQ has shown good internal consistency (α= .73), good mean retest stability (α=0.62; Goodman, 2001), and good predictive validity (Goodman & Goodman, 2009). Table 5 displays the patterns of responses for SDQ individual items, and average subscale and total scores with measures of internal consistency. The highest individual indicators for problems are clustered within the Hyperactivity/Inattention subscale, with over half of respondents reporting their child being easily distracted (59.0%), constantly fidgeting and squirming (51.8%), and being restless and overactive (51.1%). Similarly, the Hyperactivity/Inattention subscale is on average the highest rated subscale within the SDQ (M=4.4, SD=2.2), although internal consistency for this measure is low with α=0.43. The next highest rated subscale is for Emotional Symptoms (M=4.0, SD=2.8), followed by Peer Problems (M=2.8, SD=1.9) and Conduct Problems (M=2.0, SD=1.9). Prosocial behaviors were rated high with M=7.91 (SD=2.0). Overall difficulties totaled M=13.2, SD=5.9. Internal consistency measures were acceptable for the Overall Difficulties score (α=0.59) but ranged from a low of α=0.35 for Peer Problems to a high of α=0.65 for Emotional Symptoms. Normative data (based on a sample of UK children) for the parent-completed SDQ show that - on average - the current sample is at the high normal range for Total Difficulties; borderline range for Emotional Symptoms; high normal range for Conduct Problems; normal range for Hyperactivity/Inattention; borderline range for Peer Problems; and normal range for Prosocial (see Goodman et al., 1997). While no comparative data for Honduras are available, Goodman et al. (2005) presented SDQ data collected from a rural setting in Brazil with a sample of relatively poor parents. Compared to these data, the Intibucá parents in the current study showed lower Total Difficulties, Emotional Symptoms, and Conduct Problems; comparable scores for Inattention/Hyperactivity; higher scores for Peer Problems; and lower scores for Prosocial behavior (see Goodman et al., 2005). Table 5. Results of Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Items (n=1,269) Not True Somewhat True Certainly True 39 % % % EMOTIONAL SYMPTOMS; M=4.0, SD=2.8; α=0.65 3. Often complains of headaches, stomach-aches, or sickness 39.6 21.1 39.2 8. Many worries or often seems worried 52.7 20.3 27.0 13. Often unhappy, depressed or tearful 63.4 21.7 15.0 16. Nervous is new situations, easily loses confidence 56.5 13.8 29.7 24. Many fears, easily scared 42.5 13.8 43.7 CONDUCT PROBLEMS; M=2.0, SD=1.9; α=0.47 5. Often loses temper 53.5 21.0 25.5 7. Generally well behaved, usually does what adults request (R) 3.4 12.3 84.3 12. Often fights with other youth or bullies them 63.4 20.5 16.2 18. Often lies or cheats 62.4 24.3 13.3 22. Steals from home, school or elsewhere 95.2 2.8 2.0 HYPERACTIVITY/INATTENTION; M=4.4, SD=2.2; α=0.43 2. Restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long 28.1 20.8 51.1 10. Constantly fidgeting or squirming 13.9 34.4 51.8 15. Easily distracted, concentration wanders 25.9 15.1 59.0 21. Thinks things out before acting (R) 15.2 15.2 69.6 25. Good attention span, sees work through to the end (R) 5.4 8.8 85.8 PEER PROBLEMS; M=2.8, SD=1.9; α=0.35 6. Would rather be alone than with other youth 47.3 16.5 36.2 11. Has at least one good friend (R) 6.5 6.6 86.9 14. Generally liked by other youth (R) 3.9 11.0 85.1 19. Picked on or bullied by other youth 55.8 24.7 19.5 23. Gets along better with adults than with other youth 40.7 31.9 27.3 PROSOCIAL; M=7.91, SD=2.0; α=0.44 1. Considerate of other people’s feelings 29.2 15.8 54.9 4. Shares readily with other youth, for example books, games, food 14.9 11.8 73.3 9. Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill 15.2 10.4 74.4 17. Kind to younger children 2.8 8.7 88.6 20. Often offers to help others (parents, teachers, children) 11.3 15.8 72.9 TOTAL DIFFICULTIES; M=13.2, SD=5.9; α=0.59 Table 6 presents the results of bivariate comparisons of SDQ data in the current sample, comparing parents who self-identify as Lenca (vs. not), and parents of boys and girls. Those parents in the non-Lenca group scored higher for Prosocial behaviors compared to the Lenca group (p<.05) but no other comparisons were statistically significant. Parents of girls scored higher on Conduct Problems compared with boys (p<.01) and higher on Total Difficulties (p<.05). These patterns are opposite of those found in Brazil (Goodman et al., 2005), which found that boys scored higher on these issues compared with girls. Table 6. SDQ Comparisons by Child’s Ethnic Group and Gender (n=1,048) Lenca Other Male Female 40 n=766 n=282 n=152 n=896 M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Emotional Symptoms 3.8 (2.7) 4.0 (2.9) 3.7 (2.6) 3.9 (2.8) Conduct Problems 1.9 (1.9) 2.0 (1.9) 1.6 (1.7) 2.0 (1.9)** Hyperactivity/Inattention 4.3 (2.3) 4.5 (2.0) 4.1 (2.1) 4.4 (2.2) Peer Problems 2.7 (1.9) 2.7 (1.9) 2.5 (1.7) 2.7 (1.9) Prosocial 8.0 (1.9) 7.7 (2.0)* 7.9 (2.1) 7.9 (1.9) Total Difficulties 12.7 (6.0) 13.2 (5.6) 11.9 (5.5) 13.0 (6.0)* *p<.05; **p<.01 FGP 11. Lenca participation in education in Intibucá The government of Honduras has a policy for bilingual intercultural education for pre-school and primary education, which is executed by the Office of Education for Indigenous Peoples and Afro￾Honduran in more than 900 centers in indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities. For the implementation of the policy, this office has units for Bilingual Intercultural Education in the 15 departments in which indigenous peoples and Afro-Honduran are present, including the Department of Intibucá. Even though there is a policy, and despite the importance of the Lenca culture in the department, qualitative analysis revealed that the Lenca population is quite invisible between the authorities of the local government and education. Some intervieweesrecognized that the Lenca feel marginalized and socially excluded. As one mayor said, "I feel that the education authorities have failed. We really do not know this ethnic group. Recently, I was in a workshop with representatives of Lenca communities. They complained about education and municipal authorities; they complained that their rights as indigenous groups, their rights to social inclusion, are not respected. Also, there were complaints to health authorities, to the justice authorities and to the education authorities. They feel marginalized and isolated" (see Matrix 11 for summary). Some regional differences in ethnic identity may operate in the department. Another mayor suggested that in southern Intibucá there is no significant presence of the Lenca ethnic group, but that they all perceive themselves as Lenca. In the municipality of Intibucá, because various communities identify as Lenca, a specialist in intercultural bilingual education resource teacher has been assigned. However, this specialist’s work seems to be dedicated to the promotion of just some aspects of the Lenca culture, especially those related rather than the implementation of the Lenca culture, rather than the implementation of intercultural education: "He helps us support. I'll take it to schools and he organizes cultural activities, meals and local social events. He works to rescue the Lenca culture." Intercultural education should help Lencas to understand their identity as an indigenous people, but also for Ladinos to understand the characteristic aspects of Lenca identity. This is relevant because indigenous peoples have specific characteristics that differentiate them from the majority (UNESCO, 2006). From the perspective of Departmental Director, the main contribution of the Lenca communities and organizations is to help the departmental direction in identifying the needs of schools. This suggests that there is little relationship with Lenca organizations. Despite the importance of the Lenca communities in the department, they are producers of "inputs", i.e., mere conduits of 41 demands. Given the importance of the Lenca population in the department, in the future, the project should study in detail the Lenca culture and its relationship with educational achievement. In regards to differences in gender roles in the department of Intibucá, women participate more than men in the education of their children. For example, of the 84 participants in the focus groups, 73 were mothers and 11 parents. In addition, it should be noted that there is a division of roles between men and women, among all the fathers and mothers of the department. While mothers are more involved in tracking their children's progress in school and exclusively in the preparation of school snacks, parents work in the transportation of food and infrastructure at school. Matrix 11. Organizations and Lenca culture related to the project Category Example Comments Illustrating Category % Frequency Perceptions about Lencas Mayor Intibucá center: "I feel that we failed because we do not know these groups. We have to know this ethnic group." A mayor in northern Intibucá: "This ethnic group has a leading role. It is observed that the Lenca groups are working on their culture, history and heritage." 100% (5 comments) Invisibility of Lencas Mayor of South Intibucá: "We feel that we are part Lenca, so we support any initiative that favors our ethnicity, although the Lenca people are more settled in other municipalities." North Mayor Intibucá: "The Lenca culture is lost, with rare exceptions. We have about three or four communities that are starting to strengthen their organization." 40% (2 comments) Influence of Lenca organizations in education Mayor: "Of course, they are well organized and are important in decision-making, when there are some conflicts, they help at departmental level. They help select staff for some schools because they seek to maintain their culture. " Departmental Director: "The Lenca organizations help us identify areas where we need to expand coverage. During my administration, about seventy schools have been created." 60% (3 comments In regards to gender differences, it is possible to identify texts from the different focus groups that show the prevalence of differentiated gender roles between men and women. From the perspective of men, in the process of preparation of food women should cook and men to look for wood for the stove. One father stated, "We bring them the wood, because if there is no firewood they cannot cook rice, beans and milk; then we have to look for the firewood.” Likewise, one mother reported, "A father cannot come to distribute food, for men it's like a joke. We, the mothers, come to distribute the food. Before this project, the men did not approach the school.” Another mother 42 agreed: "Men do not usually come to school because they spend time working, making the cornfield and bringing the firewood. They hardly participate in school activities. It is more our work to come to school." Discussion & Summary RESULTS INDICATORS Literacy (FFEII Result 1). 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, 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 for boys and girls, with 43.6% for boys, 45.5% for girls, and 44.5% overall (see Appendix A). In making comparisons between EGRA and MIDEH, however, it must be noted that these assessments are scored using different metrics and different methodologies. This study attempted to make these measures uniform by defining “literacy” as a score of 5 on EGRA, and a score of 3 or 4 on MIDEH. Given the differences in these approaches, one-to-one comparisons may be difficult to make as they mask the underlying differences in both methodology and measurement. To make such comparisons more meaningful, future studies could benefit from assessing children with both EGRA and MIDEH methodologies and examining the differences and similarities in responses. 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. Perceived Benefits of Education (FFEII Result 16). At baseline for FFEII, 20.8% of parents (n=264 out of 1,269) identified 3 or more reasons why education is important for their children. On average, parents provided fewer than 2 reasons each, but nearly all agreed (99.8%) education was important. The most common reason given by parents was that education could improve children’s quality of life (47.2%), followed by obtaining a higher income (17.8%) and learning/knowledge (13.4%). From focus groups, parents mentioned that education is important in terms of future employment, but also in terms of supporting socialization and good behavior, respect for others, and avoiding criminal activities. TRANSVERSAL BASELINE EVALUATION QUESTIONS Relevance. Results show that parents are engaged in supporting their children’s education outside of the school environment as well as at school. Most parents reported helping children with their 43 homework by making sure the work gets done, providing materials, reviewing work, and providing assistance. Most parents reported reading to their children at home and nearly ½ read to them every day. Most parents also have reading materials available in their home. At home, when children are not doing homework, parents reported they spend time playing and doing chores or other activities. Only 3.0% said that children work for pay. Parents reported being active in school organizations Parents also said they assist children at school by assisting with school feeding, and buying clothes, shoes and educational materials for students – a considerable contribution given the limited income of most parents. Effectiveness. Parents were asked a variety of questions related to factors that could facilitate the goals of the FFE project. Relatively few parents (16.1%) reported ever using a library, and of these, 13.6% said they did not know how a library would be used in the community. Very few parents reported that their children received transportation support through FFE; 93.6% said that their children did not receive transportation. A majority of parents (59.9%) said that no one in their homes volunteered at school, although 41.1% reported one or more people volunteering. The most common volunteer activities included serving on the Merienda committee and the parents’ association. The least common activities included serving on PASE, EPRED, CED, and COMDE. Most parents reported seeing teaching materials at school. In cases where they did not see materials, most parents said they would take direct action to help support obtaining these materials, either through raising funds or locating materials to bring to school. Efficiency. Parents were asked about community inputs and other factors that helped the project reach its goals. A majority of parents (2/3rd) said they received information from the school on their children’s academic performance, which helped them support their children’s education and participate more actively with the school. Over 1/3rd of parents said they participated on the school feeding committee, mostly to prepare and handle food. Parents identified a variety of food provided at school, some of which is part of the FFE package of supports and some of which are likely provided by parents (e.g., dairy products, chicken, fruits/vegetables, eggs, etc.). However, only 1/4th of parents said they were able to identify the nutritional classifications of various foods. Nearly ½ of parents received dry rations for home use. In terms of health and hygiene, most parents (93.3%) reported that they reinforced personal hygiene with children at home. However, only 27.3% stated they emphasized managing waste with their children, and very few parents (4.9%) said they taught children proper handling of food and water. Over ½ of parents said that improvements had been made to the school infrastructure, particularly with classrooms, sanitary stations, general maintenance and construction, and kitchens. Yet, 1/4th of parents said they were not aware of activities related to school infrastructure improvements. Impact. Parents were asked about issues pertaining to school enrollment, parent engagement, and security issues that may have implications for the impact of FFE. About 2/3rd of parents reported having had a census in their community, and most of these parents provided information for this census. Nearly 2/3rd of parents said that, if there were children in their community not attending school, they would reach out to families directly by making home visits, and smaller numbers said they would mobilize resources or inform the authorities to support children coming to school. Most parents (84.9%) said they visit schools at least once per week, and 29.1% visit every day. Over half of parents reported helping with school meals during visits and nearly half meet with the parents’ association. In terms of interpersonal violence and security issues, most parents (89.1%) said their children never experience violence on the way to or from school, but 6.0% said that children experienced violence sometimes or more frequently. While parents recognize that 44 interpersonal violence exists among students, they seem to consider this a normal part of childhood. Most frequently, parents identified that parents must educate children at home and that these efforts should be reinforced at school to reduce violence. Sustainability. Parents were asked several questions about the sustainability of FFE once USDA support ends. In terms of income and savings, over 1/3rd of parents said they receive income from agriculture or livestock, another 1/3rd receive money from a spouse, and others reported various sources. Nearly 1/10th (8.5%) said they have no income at all. On average, parents reported that 3.0% of income goes towards savings, but 71.0% of parents said that no income is saved. Most parents (70.8%) said they would be interested in joining a school for parents, especially to gain more knowledge. The limited income of parents implies that the school feeding aspect of FFE may not be sustainable in its current form, after USDA support ends. From focus groups, parents currently contribute additional food to FFE supplies, as well as support school gardens, but focus group respondents are unclear about next steps. Infrastructure support is more sustainable, as municipalities and parents both contribute resources to maintain infrastructure. Yet, efforts must be made to ensure that municipalities provide these resources. A barrier to ensuring sustainability is 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. From focus groups, strategies that support sustainability of FFE include parent involvement in school feeding and parents’ associations which link them more closely with municipal planning efforts. Parents can also supplement municipal activities related to school improvement by donating their time and labor. Further support is likely needed from the private sector to build capacity for sustainability. These efforts could focus on agricultural development, by establishing viable gardens at home and school that could support school feeding. Lenca Culture. Of n=1,048 cases, 73.1% (n=766) identified as being part of the Lenca indigenous cultural group. Comparisons of scores from the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) showed no statistically significant differences between Lenca parents and others, with the exception that Lenca parents reported more prosocial behaviors for their children than non-Lenca parents (p<.05). Focus groups reported little understanding of Lenca culture by educational authorities, however, and one mayor said that Lenca families have complained that their rights to social inclusion in education are not respected within municipalities, and that they are not involved in decision-making. Some schools support education about Lenca culture and language, but few activities appear to exist at municipal and governmental levels to ensure social inclusion. 45 Recommendations (1) Reinforce to parents, through additional trainings and outreach, the importance of education for children. The target for Result Indicator 16 (percent of parents who can name at least three benefits of primary education) is 45.0%. At baseline, this result is 20.8%, so that significant gains must be made to achieve the target. In addition, the reasons parents provided for the importance of education are not varied – almost half stated that education could improve quality of life, but fewer than 20.0% identified any other single benefits. CRS and implementing partners should sensitize parents further about the importance of education, perhaps through community-based workshops. Similarly, further sensitization of parents to this issue could stimulate the reduction of child labor in agricultural work, for example, in coffee-cutting activities, although only a small percentage of parents reported such activities. (2) Provide additional support to parents and communities to improve literacy, outside of the school environment. The results of this study showed that many parents help their children with their homework, or at least help ensure that homework is completed. However, in spite of a number of parents’ reporting reading daily with their children, many parents have little formal education themselves, such that their ability to support their children’s education is limited. In addition, few parents reported having access to community libraries, but many stated they would be interested in a school for parents. The project should identify ways to support parents with low education and literacy levels to assist children with schoolwork, perhaps through the establishment of community-based libraries and attached tutoring centers. These locations could support children’s literacy, as well as parents’ literacy, by providing dedicated space outside of the school environment to focus on schoolwork. (3) Promote greater parent participation in school committees. Over 40.0% of parents reported having household members volunteering at school, and over 1/3rd reported that they themselves volunteered on the school feeding committee. These are admirable numbers, but the project could be strengthened further with the involvement of even more parents. This involvement will be crucial especially as the project eventually transitions to post￾USDA support. In addition, many committees are underrepresented by parent volunteers, particularly PASE, EPRED, CED, and COMDE. CRS and implementing partners should assist schools in specifically recruiting for these committees. (4) Reinforce the importance of hygiene and proper food storage and handling with parents. The great majority of parents stated they reinforce personal hygiene with students at home. However, less than 1/3rd of parents discuss proper waste disposal with children and fewer than 5.0% teach their children about proper handling of food and water. Even if hygiene and proper food handling are modeled in the school environment, children’s health will still be at risk if these behaviors are not supported at home. This issue is particularly important in light of the FFE I Final Evaluation report which identified health related absences significantly increasing in 2015 46 (although the report was not able to identify reasons for this increase). CRS and implementing partners could establish a campaign targeted to parents to highlight the importance of hygiene and proper food handling and the links to health for children. (5) Establish a series of workshops for communities to begin planning for post-USDA school feeding and the sustainability of the project. During Phase II, the sustainability of the project becomes a more pressing topic as the end of support from USDA approaches. Parents and stakeholders need to be aware of the expectations that they will assume ownership of project activities post-USDA, including school feeding. Yet, the results of this study indicate that, while infrastructure improvements may be sustainable in terms of community and municipal support, no viable plan yet exists to replace USDA food commodities with locally sourced goods. CRS and implementing partners should lead an effort among school communities to begin specific planning for the transition from USDA support. This effort could include a series of workshops in which school administrators, teachers, parents and community leaders jointly identify potential strategies, which could then be refined and implemented through further workshops and pilot projects. Food sustainability can be improved through commitments from municipalities to allocate budget for this item, which may be part of the percentage of central government transfers that should be allocated to education. In addition, the Coordinating Committee for Public and Private Partnerships (CCPPP), which has the potential to give continuity to several project initiatives, should be institutionalized, perhaps through an agreement with the Ministry of Human Rights, Justice, Interior and Decentralization. The project should also analyze the feasibility of strengthening COMDE and CED as a means of promoting the project at the community and municipal levels. The project could also consider building relationships with local private business and, if appropriate, incorporate a representative from them to aid in sustainability planning. The project could also help strengthen parent’s organizations and develop their capacity to influence government authorities, private enterprise and international partners. (6) Begin building linkages between FFE II and existing agricultural programs currently being implemented by CRS and other organizations in the region. The results of this study suggest that parents already contribute a small amount of food to supplement USDA commodities in school feeding. Yet, given the scale of current USDA support, and the limited income of most parents, it is unlikely that parent volunteers will be able to replicate school feeding in its current form. Community gardens in schools are intended to be a learning resource for students and teachers but cannot be expected to scale up to levels needed to replace USDA support. As part of a larger organizational strategy, CRS should make efforts to link FFE II with existing agricultural programs being implemented, either by CRS or by other NGOs in the region. In this way, it is possible to leverage economies of scale by integrating vertically focused program activities using existing infrastructure and resources. (7) Examine the prevalence of violence against children in more detail, and provide further training on child protection to communities. Parents reported fairly rare instances of violence experienced by their children (6.0%), and much of this violence seemed to be focused on physical violence, psychological violence, and bullying in general, and with more prevalence at school. Yet, parents were fairly silent about the prevalence 47 and importance of violence for children, and perceived some amount of violence as normal. CRS and implementing partners could examine parent perceptions of violence in more detail, as part of routine monitoring and evaluation activities. This effort could serve as the basis of designing a strategy for informing, educating, and communicating the importance of child protection in and out of school. It may also be necessary to strengthen the training on the prevention of violence that parents receive in the School for Parents. The project could also train teachers as school counselors who could help prevent violence at school and intervene during and after incidences of violence. The project should also examine whether the increased PASE school security patrols have helped to reduce incidences of violence for children traveling to and from school. Additionally, the project should explore whether gender differences exist in terms of exposure to and experience of violence. (8) Identify barriers to social inclusion for Lenca families and identify strategies for empowering these families in educational decision-making within the school, community and municipality. The results of this study suggest that, despite 72.7% of parents identifying as Lenca, these parents often feel that the Lenca cultural group is marginalized and excluded from the educational system. As a recent report from the United Nations (2016) noted, indigenous peoples suffer from high levels of social exclusion: “The situation of the indigenous peoples of Honduras is critical, since their rights over their lands, territories and natural resources are not protected, they face acts of violence when claiming their rights, in a general context of violence and impunity, and they lack access to justice. In addition, they suffer from inequality, poverty and a lack of basic social services, such as education and health” (p. 1). Marginalization is evident in the levels of poverty and in the absence of mechanisms for the participation of Lenca organizations in the processes of planning and execution of the educational system. However, it should be noted that there is little awareness and knowledge about the content of Lenca identity. Even teachers with a Lenca cultural background do not have the necessary knowledge about their own culture CRS and implementing partners should support schools to integrate intercultural education as a cross-cutting issue in the curriculum, in line with the policies of the Ministry of the Education. This integration requires strengthening the capacities of the Ministry of Education in municipalities and schools to support intercultural education. In addition, efforts should be made to ensure that representatives from primarily Lenca communities are engaged in educational decision-making at the school, community, and municipal levels. All efforts should include a focus on gender equity between boys and girls regarding educational enrollment and performance. (9) For future reading assessments, decide whether the convenience of using MIDEH data outweighs the need to weigh the comparative strengths of MIDEH vs. EGRA. To decide on which reading assessment to implement in the future, CRS must weigh at least 3 factors. First, the EGRA assessment is widely used with data on literacy collected from 65 countries for comparison. MIDEH has been developed specifically for the context of Honduras so that cross￾country comparisons are not possible. Second, MIDEH data are routinely collected by the Government of Honduras and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) project and these data are available for CRS staff to track literacy as an outcome for the FFE II project; EGRA assessments are time consuming and costly, and must be collected for each FFE external evaluation. Third, as shown in this study, EGRA and MIDEH do not appear to be equivalent in terms of measuring 48 reading comprehension. It is concerning that MIDEH literacy rates for 2nd graders are much higher than those for higher grades, while EGRA rates rise consistently across grades as would be expected. Assessing the validity of each approach, however, is beyond the scope of the current project and the expertise of the evaluation team. For the sake of convenience alone, MIDEH appears to be the better option for CRS. To undertake a study of the comparative validity and rigor of MIDEH compared with EGRA, it is recommended that CRS consult with an expert on educational assessment with expertise in international education. 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. Dubeck, M. M., & Gove, A. (2015). The early grade reading assessment (EGRA): Its theoretical foundation, purpose, and limitations. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 315–322. 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. 49 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. 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., MacGowaLn 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 Educación. (2004). Currículo Nacional Básico. Versión sintetizada. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaría de Educación. United Nations. (2016). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on her visit to Honduras. New York: United Nations. UNESCO. (2006). Guidelines on Intercultural Education. Paris, France: UNESCO. USDA. (2016). McGovern-Dole Food for Education program. Available from: http://www.fas.usda. gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program. 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. 50 APPENDIX A. FFE PHASE II Baseline Indicator Matrix Language from Attachment E - verbatim Baseline Target (Life of Project) Result 1 IMPROVED LITERACY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN Result Indicator 1.1 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 (male) 43.6% 75.0% Result Indicator 1.2 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (male) 0 37,176 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 (female) 45.5% 75.0% Result Indicator 1.4 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (female) 0 35,708 Result Indicator 1.5 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (new) 0 25,809 Result Indicator 1.6 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions (continuing) 0 65,904 Result Indicator 1.7 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 0 72,874 Result Indicator 1.8 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 44.5% 75.0% Result Indicator 1.9 Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions 0 72,874 Result 2 Increased Government Support Result Indicator 2.1 Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance (Host Government) 0 239999 Result Indicator 2.2 Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance (Other Public) 0 95001 Result Indicator 2.3 Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance 0 335000 Result 3 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups Result Indicator 3.1 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (Education) 0 5 Result Indicator 3.2 Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar "school" governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 0 509 Result Indicator 3.3 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (Multi-focus) 0 5 Result Indicator 3.4 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance 0 10 51 Result 4 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. 0 40 Result 5 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework Result 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) 0 3 Result 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) 0 3 Result 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) 0 3 Result 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) 0 3 Result 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) 0 3 Result 6 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 0 80 Result 7 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 0 3200 Result 8 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 0 1040 Result 9 Increased Skills and Knowledge of Teachers Result Indicator 9.1 Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0 1509 Result Indicator 9.2 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 0 400 Result 10 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 0 637 52 Result Indicator 10.2 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0 703 Result 11 Increased Access to Food (School Feeding) Result Indicator 11.1 Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance (male 0 27030 Result Indicator 11.2 Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance (female) 0 25970 Result Indicator 11.3 Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance (continuing) 0 52716 Result Indicator 11.4 Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance 0 47000000 Result Indicator 11.5 Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance 0 168056 Result Indicator 11.6 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance (Others) 0 17866 Result Indicator 11.7 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance (new) 0 6616 Result Indicator 11.8 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance (continuing) 0 17866 Result Indicator 11.9 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance (male) 0 32246 Result Indicator 11.10 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance (female) 0 38336 Result Indicator 11.11 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance (new) 0 7749 Result Indicator 11.12 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance (continuing) 0 69734 Result Indicator 11.13 Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance (new) 0 1132 Result Indicator 11.14 Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (male) 0 85 Result Indicator 11.15 Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet (female) 0 85 Result Indicator 11.16 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (male) 0 316 Result Indicator 11.17 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance (female) 0 724 Result Indicator 11.18 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance 0 17866 Result Indicator 11.19 Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance 0 53000 53 Result Indicator 11.20 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance 0 70582 Result Indicator 11.21 Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 0 1040 Result Indicator 11.22 Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet 0 85 Result 12 Improved Student Attendance Result Indicator 12.1 Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools (male) 26798 24327 Result Indicator 12.2 Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools (female) 25962 23373 Result Indicator 12.3 Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools 52760 47700 Result 13 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 0 3000 Result 14 Improved School Infrastructure Result Indicator 14.1 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Kitchens, cook areas) 0 72 Result Indicator 14.2 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Latrines) 0 181 Result Indicator 14.3 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 0 72 Result Indicator 14.4 Number of schools using an improved water source 0 72 Result Indicator 14.5 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance (Wells and water stations/systems) 0 72 Result Indicator 14.6 Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom, latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance 0 325 Result 15 Increased Student Enrollment Result Indicator 15.1 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance (male) 27790 27030 Result Indicator 15.2 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance (female) 26405 25970 Result Indicator 15.3 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance 54195 53000 54 Result 16 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 (collected through a survey) 20.8% 45.0%