Intibucá, Honduras McGovern Dole Phase III Baseline Report June 2021 Baseline Consultant Team Training 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. Baseline Report Program MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION Agreement Number FFE-522-2020-007-00 Funding Year FISCAL YEAR 2021 Project Duration From: October 30th, 2020 To: September 30th, 2025 Implemented by CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) HONDURAS Jennifer Mallman Chief of Party, MGDIII Program Evaluation Authored by RAÍCES COLECTIVO (B+ CONSULTING GROUP) Olga Marina Velásquez Sergio Amador, PhD David Cruz , Msc Silvia Amador, Msc June 2021 Cover Photo: UNICEF Honduras/2019/Bindra Table of Contents List of Acronyms 6 Executive Summary 7 Project Background and Purpose 7 Findings and Conclusions 8 Recommendations 9 1. Introduction and Purpose 11 1.1. Project Context and Description 11 1.2. Purpose of the Evaluation 11 2. Background and Key Questions 12 2.1. Country Context 12 2.2. Project Background 13 2.3. Results Framework 15 2.4. Key Evaluation Questions 16 Table 1. Key Research Questions by Stakeholders and Evaluation Criteria. 17 1.1. Contingency Plan 19 Table 2. Baseline Project Indicators Measurement 19 3. Evaluation Design and Methodology 21 3.1. Scope 21 Table 2. Scope from Analysis Unit 21 3.2. Type of Evaluation 21 3.3. Research and Data Collection Methods 22 Outcome Mapping (OM) 22 Outcome Harvesting (OH) 22 Sequential Interviewing 23 Network Analysis 23 3.4. Universe and Sampling methods 24 3.5. Data Analysis and Processing Methods 25 3.6. Baseline Limitations 26 4. Findings MGDIII 28 1.1. Strengthened School System 28 Educational Indicators 28 Organization and Educative Structures 30 1.2. Nutrition and School Meals 33 1.3. Learning Environment 38 The Literacy Goal 38 Active Participation of Students 41 Better infrastructure and equipment 43 1.4. Health and Dietary Practices 46 1.5. Community Participation for Educational Development 48 1.6. Public Policies 50 1.7. Sustainability 53 5. Conclusions 57 6. Recommendations 59 Bibliografía 63 Annexes 64 Annex I: Values or References Project Indicator set as Baseline 64 Annex II: Baseline Evaluation Contingency Plan Approved by USDA 65 Annex V: Results Frameworks 69 Annex VI: Data from School Observations 70 List of Figures Figure 1. MGDIII Project Interventions Map...............................................................................................15 List of Tables Table 1. Key Research Questions by Stakeholders and Evaluation Criteria................................................17 Table 2. Scope from Analysis Unit...............................................................................................................21 Table 3. Methods and Techniques by Stakeholder.....................................................................................23 Table 4. Data Sampling and Collection Methods Implemented .................................................................24 Table 5. Baseline Limitations ......................................................................................................................26 Table 6. Indicators IR 1.3.............................................................................................................................28 Table 7. Enrollment Coverage Estimated....................................................................................................30 Table 8. Indicators Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP)................................34 Table 9. Value from Volume and Income Annual Sales..............................................................................34 Table 10. Evaluations of CAEs, PTAs, Education Centre, Teaching Personnel, and Children......................35 Table 11. Indicator from Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (SO1)................................................38 Table 12. Evaluations of USAID, CRS, PTAs, Parents, Teachers and Educational Networks......................41 Table 13. Indicator from Improved Attentiveness (IR 1.2) .........................................................................41 Table 14. Indicators IR 2.4...........................................................................................................................43 Table 15. Indicator Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1.............................................................................................46 Table 16. Data from community members using LQAS..............................................................................46 Table 17. Evaluations of Community Leaders, PTAs, CAEs, Municipal Government, Education Authorities, Teaching Staff..............................................................................................................................................49 Table 18. Average References - Content Analysis ......................................................................................50 Table 19. Evaluations of NGOs, municipal authorities and other community organizations, grassroots leaders.........................................................................................................................................................52 Table 20. Content Analysis - Relations between Theory of Change ...........................................................54 Table 21. Data from Schools Observations in Selected Municipality .........................................................70 List of Graphs Graph 1. Enrollment 2020 MGDIII .............................................................................................................29 Graph 2. Impact by Actor Type ..................................................................................................................30 Graph 3. Prior Support Required from schools..........................................................................................32 Graph 4. Valuations from learnings in Literacy..........................................................................................39 Graph 5. Water Infrastructures Improved in Schools................................................................................44 Graph 6. School's Sanitary Infrastructure Improved..................................................................................44 Graph 8. Average References by Theme - Content Analysis......................................................................51 Graph 9. Sustainability from each Stakeholder .........................................................................................53 List of Acronyms Acronym Full Term DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse FFPr Food for Progress FY Fiscal Year SOW Statement of Work USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture CRS Catholic Relief Services PMP Performance Improvement Plan SACE School Administration System PROHECO Honduran Community Education Programs, a type of primary school MGDIII - FFE McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program CCEPREB Community Center of Pre-primary Education CEB Center for Basic Education (Centro de Educación Básica in Spanish) COCEPRADII Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development of Intibucá APF Parent-Teacher Association CAES School Feeding Committee DME Municipal Director of Education MM Municipal Mayors SINAGER National System of Risk Management (Sistema Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos in Spanish) SEDUC Education Secretary (Secretaría de Educación in Spanish) CSB Corn, Soy and Blend MT Metric Tons LQAS Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) LRP Local and Regional Procurement Executive Summary Project Background and Purpose Honduras is the second-largest country in Central America with a population of 9.1 million people: 50.7 % women and 49.3 % men. According to the World Bank, in 2017 Honduras was classified as the poorest country in Latin America, and also with the most income inequality, with a Gini coefficient of 53.7%. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition (MGDIII) program has been operated by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in Honduras since 2012, in coordination with local and national level organizations. This program is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and seeks to improve the literacy of school-aged children and increase the use of health and dietary practices in the 17 municipalities of the department of Intibucá. The first two phases reported positive impacts on school retention and enrollment, organization of the educational community, improvement in school infrastructure, and contribution to child nutrition. In its third phase, the project will seek two strategic objectives: SO1, Improved Literacy of School-Age Children, contributing to expected results 1.1 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction, 1.2 Improved Attentiveness and 1.3 Improved Student Attendance; and SO2, Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, contributing to different results including the Increased Knowledge of Improved Antenatal Care and Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices. This phase is implemented with a budget of US$25 million and aims to provide school meals to all students enrolled in 1,040 schools, for an approximate student population of 52,000 students, according to the project’s information system. This document details the efforts to (1) determine MGD III baseline values for results indicators that apply, (2) conduct a critical and objective analysis about the results of the baseline, utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques and (3) provide recommendations for the adaptation of the monitoring plan and project evaluation plan based on the data obtained. For this reason, a baseline participatory study was carried out, combining the current views of the stakeholders. A contingency plan has been established for 9 project indicators, as 5 indicators cannot be measured at this time because the schools are closed. These will be measured once the schools reopen; therefore, this study focuses on a qualitative and contextual analysis based on the key questions and evaluation criteria shown in the methodology section. The approach used mixed research methodologies with a strong qualitative focus, applied to the different project stakeholder groups, using the methodological principles of Outcome Mapping, Outcome Harvesting, Network Analysis, and Capitalization of Experiences and through the use of technological tools, the data was processed. Findings and Conclusions Regarding the establishment of the phase III baseline, below the report summarizes the measured indicators. It is relevant to restate that 5 out of these 9 indicators were postponed until schools reopen. This baseline has determined the initial values for the indicators that were possible (4 project indicators), and reference measurement values for those that, given COVID-19, could not be measured according to the required protocol (5 project indicators). ● Standard #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 was not measured in this baseline, but used as a reference value the data (47%) of the MGDII study. conducted by CRS and Ministry of Education in March 2021. ● Standard #2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools, was not measured in this baseline and the figure of 68% found in the table of indicators for this study is maintained. ● Standard #9: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance was not measured in this baseline and the figure of 51,177 students from the MGDII final evaluation is maintained as the reference value. ● Custom Indicator Attentiveness: Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria by USDA, was not measured in this baseline and the figure for this indicator remains at 70% as shown in the table of indicators. ● Custom Indicator Absent: Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month, was not measured in this baseline and the baseline of 8.95% is maintained as established in the table of indicators. ● LRP Standard #8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance, was measured by suppliers who reported 83.2 MT in total. ● LRP Standard #7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) was measured by suppliers who reported U$61,603 annual sales for 8 organizations. Producers’ organizations are expecting to increase 25% of their sales with agreements from MGD. ● Standard #27: Number of schools using an improved water source was measured by interviews with school principals and project records, an estimated 890 (85%) schools had water source infrastructure defined as adequate. ● Standard #28: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities was measured by interviews with school principals and project records; an estimated 864 (82%) schools had sanitary infrastructure defined as adequate. Following SINAGER guidelines, in-person classes have been suspended since February 2020. Currently, schools are using a combination of methodological resources and customized techniques for distance learning. The modalities for distance learning are varied according to the conditions of the area and the location of the homes., Online group sessions or homework and assignment reviews are conducted using texting application such as WhatsApp. Where there is no connection, home visits or group visits are done when possible. On average, homework and class assignments are sent two days a week and students meet regularly at the school for consultations and to submit assignments. While there is internet access available to some teachers, this represents a challenge at home. The third phase of MGD has merged with LRP Project, a local purchasing initiative for the supply of school meals. In this third phase, 8 suppliers between producer organizations and enterprises are registered. To achieve the proposed objectives, the project will have to strengthen the supply capacity of existing organizations, as well as expand the number of new suppliers. The 8 producer organizations identified to work as suppliers for the project directly involve 305 small producers. Five of these producer organizations are supplied exclusively by their members and have direct traceability of goods purchased for the project. The meals represent economic support to households, so the teachers see it as a necessary resource for them to be able to carry out their work as teachers. On the other hand, there are significant inputs and strong opinions from parents who believe that the current practice of distance learning has adversely affected the quality of learning. All those involved in the education system agree on the need to return to schools with better conditions and with a network to support sustainable results. They also believe that the goals and actions of the third phase of the project meet the learning needs of the students. An additional analysis was conducted, to explore the differences between reports about illness from teachers and members of the community, using LQAS sampling methodology. However, qualitative methods (cases studies, outcome mapping and sequential interviews), conclude that perceptions from parents, community leaders and teachers are explicit about a lack of knowledge and investment in nutrition; they also reported a lack of health care in the communities studied, due to the absence of medical personnel and, mainly due to the scarcity of basic medicines. One of the main points of consensus among external actors, authorities and the educational community is the need to create public policies and formal agreements that contribute to the sustainability of the changes achieved. Authorities and stakeholders have acknowledged a direct correlation between sustainability and the creation of public policies, based on content analysis. It is worth noting that the need for stronger policies and regulations is recognized at all levels, specifically mentioned were policies regarding investment at the school level or incentives for increasing educational coverage. The need is acknowledged, and actions have been proposed to achieve sustainability, and from a development perspective the very action of identifying the need is in itself a change that can potentially be attributed to the previous two phases of the MGDIII program. At the government level, the budget is limited and does not fully meet the local level activities in education, nutrition and health, so school directors and municipal authorities increase their management capacities to obtain funds for their operational plans. The support to schools (when the support is recognized by the school or for authorities) is carried out in partnership with other actors or NGOs, or with projects that have already made progress in political advocacy, but these actions are not included in the budget of municipal plans. Recommendations This baseline was conducted doing in-depth analysis of the Theory of Change, indicators to measure in baseline, and evaluation criteria. The evaluation team’s recommendations across these three levels are outlined below: • Considering that different indicators were not measured in the baseline (5 out of 9), it is necessary to establish a measurement strategy for these indicators based on the current context of distance learning. • As identified in the baseline, producer organizations have a production level of 82 MT of vegetables and eggs and sales of $61,603 dollars, which represents 5.7% of the volume required by the program. This percentage represents only the volume and sales of LRP products. To meet this demand, it is necessary to coordinate with these organizations to support the strategy to meet this demand. • The results of the interviews with key stakeholders show that more than a quarter of the mayors see the sustainability of some of the program's actions as improbable or impossible; therefore, it is suggested that the program's sustainability plan be reviewed, updated, and followed up. • Although there are still no guidelines and conditions that allow the safe return to schools, the MGDIII program should work with SEDUC to establish a plan that guarantees the necessary conditions for a safe environment and safe return to school • It is necessary to gather evidence by carrying out an analysis looking at gender, generational and ethnic gaps to inform and support inclusive activities though out the life of the project. Note: For more details on the action points and the time of their implementation, see the Recommendations section on page 56 of the document. 1.Introduction and Purpose 1.1. Project Context and Description The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGDIII) began operating in the 17 municipalities of the Department of Intibucá, in 2012. The selection of this department along with the project design is the result of a study carried out regarding the nutritional and educational deficiencies in Intibucá. The study observed substantial levels of poverty, marginalization, and lack of access to clean drinking water0F 1 . In partnership with the Central Committee for Water and Comprehensive Development in Intibucá (COCEPRADII), the Education Development Center (EDC) and Feed the Children Honduras, MGDIII will use a systems strengthening and collaborative approach to seamlessly build on and expand USAID early grade reading work1F 2 , address maternal and child health deficiencies in the poorest municipalities, increase capacity to procure food products locally, and consolidate local stakeholders’ capacity to implement school feeding, nutrition and WASH interventions in 1,040 schools, reaching 52,000 preschool, primary and lower secondary school students and a total of 61,194 direct participants in the Department of Intibucá. To strengthen the education sector, the previous phases have provided pedagogical and management training to principals and teaching staff; along with improvements to infrastructure, school equipment, and sanitation works in the schools. Between 2012 and 2020, phases I and II of the project reported evidence of positive results on attendance and literacy. According to the final evaluation data, improvements occurred mainly among girls. With the approval of a third phase in November 2020 and a budget of US$25 million, the project is due to expand to include project sustainability, the creation of public policies and increase impact in areas of health and nutrition and public-private partnerships for development, always in coordination with COCEPRADII, EDC and Feed the Children. 1.2. Purpose of the Evaluation CRS has requested the baseline study for the third phase of the MGDIII project to 1) establish initial values of the different comparison groups with respect to each indicator, providing a basis against which to compare midterm and final evaluation data; 2) collect data for each performance indicator and help project staff adjust project objectives as needed; and 3) establish questions and arguments to test the project's theory of change. Specifically, the baseline evaluation responds to the following objectives with the caveat that, given the current health crisis, direct data collection was not conducted for those educational indicators whose measurement involves a face-to-face classroom system: 1 Country Context was developed as a section from this report in the Chapter II - Background and Key Questions 2 MGDIII is funded by USDA and is part of the consortium articulated in the framework of the Honduras Reading Activity project funded by USAID through the strengthening of teachers and the establishment of learning curricula through SEDUC. ● Conduct field data collection to determine MGD III baseline values for results indicators that apply. ● Conduct a critical and objective analysis about the results of the baseline, utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques. ● Provide recommendations for the adaptation of the monitoring plan and project evaluation plan based on the data obtained. ● Generate data for accountability on behalf of the people CRS serves (beneficiaries), stakeholders, and the program donor. The project team, local stakeholders, and donors are expected to use the data in order to create the necessary course corrective actions in their implementation plan for the achievement of the well-being of the subjects. To achieve this, the evaluation has mapped all the sources of information that can provide input and established a direct consultation with them, using mixed research tools. The present report accounts for these findings. The following pages explore the components and activities carried out in order to concretize the data required by CRS. Considering that the McGovern-Dole Project and Food for Progress learning agendas highlight the analysis of implementation, impacts on schooling, nutrition, health, value creation and market linkages, and a particular emphasis on sustainability, this study will contribute to the learning process as the tools were designed to provide insight into the results on the topics of interest. Although the main audience of the evaluation will be the project execution team, which will use the findings as inputs for decision making or to make timely adjustments to the design, the study will include information relevant to other stakeholders such as SEDUC, SEDIS, SAG, USDA, or additional stakeholders at CRS’s discretion. 2.Background and Key Questions 2.1. Country Context According to 2020 data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE), with 9.4 million inhabitants, of which more than 52% are women, Honduras is the second most populated country in Central America. 80% of the Honduran population lives in rural areas. With about 43% of the population under the age of 18, it is clear that the future of the country depends to a large extent on the welfare and education of this group. However, it appears that the country is not using the window of opportunity represented by its demographic pyramid. Honduras has a Gini index of 48.2%, relative poverty of 22.6% and extreme poverty of 36.7% (INE, 2019). More than 15% of children between 10- and 14-years old are working (INE, 2019) and one in four pregnant girls and women in Honduras are between 15 and 19 years old (INE, 2014); Honduras is emerging as one of the poorest countries, with the greatest inequalities and the highest incidence of teenage pregnancy in the continent. The precarious socioeconomic situation is compounded by insecurity, with 39 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018; a sustained tendency to migrate (700,000 Hondurans leaving the country in the second decade of the century), and a drastic loss of confidence in institutions, with a drop from 64% to 34% between 2000 and 2018. According to an analysis conducted by the Colegio Profesional Superación Magisterial Hondureño (COLPROSUMAH, 2019), the elements that best describe the situation of public education in Honduras can be summarized as follows: ● With the tests administered by the Project Improving Impact to Student Performance in Honduras (MIDEH), from 2015 to 2017, the previously upward trajectory of academic performance of basic education students stagnated, reporting "must improve" or "unsatisfactory" levels at over 70% in mathematics and 49% in Spanish. ● With nearly total enrollment coverage for the 6- to 11-year-old range (92%), coverage decreases as age increases. Only 45% of children between 12 and 14 and 25% of adolescents between 15 and 17 years of age are in the school system. ● The public system reports 70% of schools without proper conditions for teaching, 75% without access to water and electricity and one sanitary facility for every 200 students. ● Although there was a relatively stable increase in the size of the education budget from L 9.3 billion (2003) to L 29.2 billion (2017), there was a drop of one percentage point in the ratio of education budget to GDP (from 6.4% to 5.4%). ● There are 4,500 single-teacher schools and 2,500 two-teacher schools (with higher incidence in the pre-basic and basic levels in rural areas and poor regions). ● The base teacher salary, L 9,863.76 (US$402) monthly, did not experience the increases that the average minimum salary did. This, when contrasted with an accumulated inflation between 2009 and 2018 of 44%, means that the real salary of teachers has decreased greatly in the last decade. 2.2. Project Background The McGovern-Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (MGDIII) is implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and seeks to improve the literacy of school children and Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices in the 17 municipalities of the department of Intibucá. The program’s third phase has a budget of US$25 million and aims to provide school meals to all students enrolled in 1,040 schools, for an approximate student population of 52,000 students. The first phase, implemented for 3 years from 2012 to 2015, obtained important results in the establishment and strengthening of each of the components of the educational community, such as the Association of Parents (APs) and the School Feeding Committees (SFCs), as structures for the improvement of educational indicators of enrollment, attendance, and promotion. CRS collaborated in the process of accompanying teachers. CRS also assisted in developing teacher accompaniment programs. Attendance and literacy increased according to the final evaluation data, mainly in girls (26.1% baseline and 45.5% final evaluation). The program conducted the implementation of its second phase from 2015 to 2020. The final evaluation showed an increased capacity of MGDII in the strengthening of school meals and the implementation of the construction of educational networks, coordination spaces as well as contributions to the dialogue between municipal authorities and municipal principals as a basis for the creation of public policies. The project achieved and surpassed 77% of the indicators (41 out of 53). The main challenge identified is the reduction of the quality of learning and literacy results. The final evaluation for phase III occurred in December of 2020, an iconic year due to the impact of the global health pandemic that led to the closure of the on-site school system in Honduras and worldwide. The third phase of the project will run from November 2020 to September 2025. The McGovern-Dole project contains comprehensive inputs that aim to influence behavioral change in students, teachers, support networks, parent committees, community networks, school principals, and local authorities, as well as to influence national policies. Figure 1. MGDIII Project Interventions Map Source: CRS Graph provided to document review 2.3. Results Framework CRS's overarching Theory of Change for MDG III is: IF the school system is strengthened and delivers quality literacy instruction, IF children benefit from safe and nutritious meals, IF schools provide a safe and stimulating learning environment, IF children and parents adopt improved health and dietary practices, IF parental and community participation in activities leading to improved learning and nutrition is strengthened, and IF key public, private and civil society stakeholders co-develop appropriate, evidence-based policies and practices, THEN children in Intibucá will attend school regularly, thrive, and learn during MGD III and beyond. The project will seek two strategic objectives: SO1, Improved Literacy of School-Age Children, contributing to expected results 1.1 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction, 1.2 Improved Attentiveness and 1.3 Improved Student Attendance; and SO2, Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, contributing to all of the expected results and including the additional result 2.8 Increased Knowledge of Improved Antenatal Care and Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices (see Appendix A/ Results Framework). The critical assumptions of the project are the following: IR 1.1 Critical Assumptions: 1) Following the 2021 elections, the new Government of Honduras (GOH) education officials share MGD III goals and are willing to continue making systemic and resource allocation changes; 2) Challenges such as COVID-19 or political unrest do not result in prolonged school closures. IR 1.2 Critical Assumptions: 1) Despite the possible transition of key officials following the 2021 elections, the GOH will gradually assume financial responsibility for funding the dry and fresh rations in Intibucá as envisioned in the National School Feeding Law and outlined in its agreements with CRS; 2) The adverse impacts of climate variability will not outweigh project support to increase local producers’ resilience, thereby overwhelming their capacity to meet LRP demand. IR 1.3 Critical Assumptions: 1) Surges in violence in target communities do not impede attendance; and 2) COVID-19, political unrest or other challenges do not result in school closures or supply chain disruptions. SO2 Critical Assumptions: 1) Newly appointed key GOH authorities are willing to coordinate with MGD III to deliver trainings; and 2) newly elected local governments are willing to allocate financial resources to support school infrastructure projects. 2.4. Key Evaluation Questions The present study used a series of research questions determined by the CRS implementation team as a reference in addition to the specific evaluation objectives to design the observables and search categories for this study. In previous evaluations conducted by the MGD program in its first two phases and in most evaluation approaches, the key research questions are structured based on universal evaluation criteria such as sustainability, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the project; this study is no exception. Since the proposed evaluation methodology follows a protocol with a high participatory priority and focused on the analysis of learning from previous phases from MGD, the key questions were enriched from the perspective of the intervention subjects for a holistic understanding of the situation. The key questions, therefore, are the methodological reference for the design of the instruments applied during the present study with the different audiences2F 3 . In each of the proposed methodologies, the categories required by the evaluation questions are integrated into the protocols and are thus part of the tools for analysis and processing of the results in each of the chapters. Table 1. Key Research Questions by Stakeholders and Evaluation Criteria. Subjects of Change / Key Research Questions Criteria School Networks (Parent School Nutrition Committees, Parent Student Commission) ● Has the project contributed to improving school-age children’s literacy? Why or why not? Impact ● Has the project contributing to improve school-age children’s health and dietary practices? Why or Why not? Impact ● Do project stakeholders (students, teachers, PTAs, parents, and local officials) feel that the project could meet their needs? Why or why not? Relevance ● What facilities or resources have they received for food distribution - are they sufficient? Efficiency ● What mechanisms have been created between the community and school committees to promote schooling? Impact ● What sanitary measures are being taken for health protection? Have health risks been identified or documented? Impact ● What roles are mothers and fathers undertaking to improve the quality of education, and do they take into account women's double workload in the household? Relevance Community Groups ● How does the educational support community plan and deliver activities to promote literacy in the absence of any outside resources? (Literacy) Sustainability ● What is the involvement of local actors in improving standards for food preparation and school infrastructure? (MCN) Sustainability ● To what extent do project activities support educational initiatives implemented by other organizations in Intibucá? (External coherence) Coherence ● How appropriate are project interventions to the local culture and context of Intibucá? Relevance ● What results have been achieved using community inputs/support? What were the key factors that made it possible to provide these inputs? Impact ● What results have been accomplished using community inputs/support? What were the critical factors that allowed to provide those inputs? Efficiency Producer Organizations 3 Key questions with (**) are required by TOR and must be answered with results from baseline. ● To what extent could the private sector be actively involved in the different interventions at project level? Sustainability Authorities and Donors ● To what extent has the project been effective in meeting output and outcome targets? Effectiveness ● To what extent have project resources (inputs) facilitated the results achieved? Efficiency ● How do changes in government capacities, policies, procedures, and priorities facilitate (or impede) sustainability? Sustainability ● How well does the project design align with the goals, objectives, and strategies of SEDUC and SEDIS? Coherence ● To what extent is the project intervention complementary with initiatives implemented by other CRS projects in Intibucá? (Internal coherence) Coherence 1.1. Contingency Plan Given that the closure of the schools does not allow the measurement of literacy, attendance and absences, attentiveness, and enrollment indicators due to the obvious challenges of distance education, USDA has approved a contingency plan (See contingency plan in annex) that allows the CRS team to measure the five standard indicators listed in the following table: Table 2. Baseline Project Indicators Measurement Results Framework Statement Performance Indicator Measured or postponed Baseline Target LOP Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (SO1) Standard #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 (Not measured at baseline) Reference measurement: A diagnostic was completed in March (2021) in coordination with the Ministry of Education to measure reading levels at the beginning of the new school year. A sample of incoming 3rd graders were selected and tested on their reading levels at the completion of 2nd grade. The same instrument to measure reading skills will be used for midterm and final evaluations. The results from this diagnostic will be used as the MGDIII baseline. Not Measured Reference: 47%3F 4 74% Improved Attentiveness (IR 1.2) Custom Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria Not measured at baseline. Reference measurement: The data found in the indicators table is maintained as the baseline measure. Not Measured 70%4F 5 85% Improved Student Attendance (IR 1.3) Standard #2 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools Did not measure at baseline. Reference measurement: The data found in the indicators table is maintained as the baseline measure. Not Measured 68%5F 6 83% Increased Student Enrollment (Sub-IR 1.3.4) Standard #9 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance Did not measure at baseline. Reference measurement: It will be carried out in the same classrooms as indicator MGD 2 Not Measured Reference: 100% 4 MGDII Intibucá student performance assessment data 5 Data from MGD Guatemala 6 Data from MGDII information system 51,1776F 7 Reduced Health￾Related Absences (Sub-IR 1.3.2) Custom Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. Did not measure at baseline. Reference measurement: The data found in the indicators table is maintained as the baseline measure. 8.95%7F 8 4% Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub￾IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP) LRP Standard #8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. Measured 83.2 MT 1,460 MT Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub￾IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP) LRP Standard #7 Value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) Measured $61,603 $524,3 93 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services (IR 2.4) Standard #27 Number of schools using an improved water source Measured 890 1052 IR 2.4 Standard #28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities Measured 864 1052 7 Data from MGDII information system 8 Data from MGDI final evaluation 3.Evaluation Design and Methodology 3.1. Scope The baseline study was carried out in the Republic of Honduras in the 17 municipalities that make up the department of Intibucá. The study includes the different actors of change identified in the Results Framework of the MGDIII project as study subjects, as well as the development axes listed in the theory of change. Data on school conditions has been collected in all 17 municipalities, working within the conditions of most schools being closed, CRS's implementation of a strict health protocol around Covid-19, and the context of the USDA's approval of a contingency plan for the measurement of overall indicators. This includes data collected from principals, teachers, and local and municipal authorities. The following table summarizes the scope for each unit of analysis in this study: Table 2. Scope from Analysis Unit Analysis units Indicators School Principals Surveys ● Standard #27: Number of schools using an improved water source ● Standard #28: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities Schools Field Visits Observations Producer Organization Field Visit ● LRP Standard #8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. ● LRP Standard #7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) Teacher Forms ● Context and analysis from Indicators about literacy, attendance and absences, attentiveness, and enrollment, not measured during this baseline. ● Test methods and collection protocols. Community members Surveys ● Pilot using LQAS Sampling to compare data from absences by illness between teacher and community members. In the data referring to school conditions, observation tools were designed for data triangulation purposes, therefore pilot visits were conducted in 1 municipality as an input to estimate the quality of the data collected for the indicators of school infrastructure conditions, given that it was collected through telephone calls. Finally, the data on suppliers of producer organizations and enterprises in the report includes data from 6 municipalities. 3.2. Type of Evaluation The third phase of the MGDIII baseline study is a non-experimental study to be applied with a pre-post design, which allows comparing the results over time through a highly participatory mixed (quali￾quantitative) approach. The analyses, results, and instruments determine the relationships and dynamics of the following areas highlighted in the Theory of Change: Strengthened School System, Nutrition and School Meals, Learning Environment, Health and Dietary practices, Community Participation, Public Policies and Sustainability. The participation of stakeholders in the collection of data for the study has been completely voluntary. Participatory, sensitive, and sympathetic methods were used, respecting the opinions, ideas, and suggestions of the participants and reporting them in the manner that they were shared. 3.3. Research and Data Collection Methods This study addressed the understanding of the impact of schooling and literacy in Intibucá within the MGDIII project framework, considering research techniques applied to different actors (research subjects) involved which are summarized in table 4. Quantitative methods are used for the interpretation of qualitative categories and qualitative tools were expanded. However, the measurement of indicators related to educational statistics have been postponed to when face-to-face classes resume. The following is a brief description of each of these methods: Outcome Mapping (OM) Originally created for the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of development initiatives, closely related to the Theory of Complexity, it contains structured observables to identify maps of relations, joint visions, risk analysis, goals, or change challenges. All focused on bringing about the required changes or adjustments, as identified by the stakeholders affected by these changes, in the context of MGDIII. For this baseline study, 3 basic observables were used during the stakeholder analysis: the current situation, the desired situation, and the required changes. The behavioral changes expected are organized in tiers according to resources: I'd expect to see, I'd like to see, I'd love to see. Using ludic techniques, the subjects talk about their interests, expectations, concerns, and development benchmarks. The facilitator, instead of playing the role of an interviewer with a set of expectations, plays a more leading role, inquiring about the points mentioned on each topic. Facilitators use the project's framework to identify the aspects included in the project and its theory of change that are mentioned by the participant and to narrow down those that they overlook. Outcome Mapping is a methodology that transcends and offers further methodological steps for mapping risk, levels of change, formative assessments, signs of change, and operational tools. However, for this baseline study, a development planning approach is used. Outcome Harvesting (OH) Derived from Outcome Mapping, Outcome Harvesting is a methodology used for long-term intervention during the evaluation phase. In this study it was used to analyze the process for required changes and where the causal links were not yet fully understood. The methodology consists of participants identifying or "harvesting" changes from each of the stakeholders for each result, defining, and understanding the change and its causes. In this baseline study, given the number of key stakeholders and the diversity of opinions, the interviews focused on observed changes and changes hoped for in future projects. In addition, questions from the OH methodology have been included in the quantitative data collection tools for triangulation purposes. This methodology is very extensive and more than sufficient for impact assessments with open￾ended content analysis tools on reported changes. However, given the time and large amount of assessment material, coding was used to categorize the changes for each of the stakeholders involved. The interviewers coded the responses during the interviews, ensuring not to ask leading questions. IT tools reclassified each of the qualitative responses provided to the open questions. The methodology was used with principals, teachers, and in the household pilot study. Sequential Interviewing The very nature of qualitative research methods prevents the results from being considered general. Since they serve an epistemologically different purpose, this characteristic does not make them less useful, but rather subject to a different interpretation. This method demands redefining both the participants in the study and the interpretation of each interview. Sequential interviews (Small, 2009) do not dictate a uniform model to be used with all participants (literal replication). On the contrary, each new interview was modified according to the information provided by previous interviews, which explains why, to start, there is not a defined (but only an approximate) number of interviewees. The objective is not generalization, but saturation. Upon analysis, these interviews allowed us to identify some correlations between the stakeholders and the frequency of the themes they mentioned. Network Analysis The explanatory potential of network analysis is useful in this study, based on input from the stakeholder interviews. Using self-administered structured forms, key stakeholders and authorities recognized connections with institutions and municipalities. As you can see in the table at the end of this section, the qualitative techniques have been integrated into specific applications with the objective of providing guidelines on the effectiveness and sustainability of MGDIII interventions. Triangulation is used in this baseline in order to increase credibility and value to results. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data was performed by comparing it with the results of the baseline and final evaluation of MGDII and other contextual information. In each of the proposed methods, training, and analysis of the instruments, both the CRS team and the consulting team reviewed the tools applied in accordance with the project's PMP and the objectives and purpose of the study. Likewise, the instruments were validated with field and remote pilots. The recommendations of the subjects and the field team were reviewed and integrated. Table 3. Methods and Techniques by Stakeholder Actor Type Research Method* Techniques Tools Applied Parents ❏ Qualitative ❏ Quantitative ❏ Document Revision ❏ Surveys ❏ Interviews ❏ Outcome Harvesting ❏ Storytelling Teachers ❏ Qualitative ❏ Quantitative ❏ Interviews ❏ Focus Groups ❏ Outcome Harvesting ❏ Structured form ❏ Outcome Mapping ❏ Self-administered on￾line forms. School Principals ❏ Qualitative ❏ Quantitative ❏ Telephone Surveys ❏ Interviews ❏ Focus Groups ❏ Outcome Harvesting ❏ Structured form ❏ Outcome Mapping CAES - CPF’S ❏ Qualitative ❏ Focus Groups ❏ Interviews ❏ Outcome Mapping ❏ Storytelling Groups of Producers ❏ Qualitative ❏ Quantitative ❏ Interviews ❏ Structured form ❏ Observations Authorities and Donors ❏ Qualitative ❏ Quantitative ❏ In-depth interviews ❏ Network self￾administered form *The protocols for each data collection technique are included in the annex of this report. 3.4. Universe and Sampling methods This study had different units of analysis such as parents, teachers, school principals, community members, producers, and authorities involved in the MGDIII project. A summary of the qualitative and quantitative instruments used is shown below. In the annexes, there is a table with applied methods according to the indicators and in relation to what was established in the terms of reference of the baseline. The data collected at the level of principals and producer organizations are statistically representative for the present study. Although data collection with some key actors such as teachers had not been considered, online surveys were carried out to gather contextual information on educational indicators, as well as direct observation of infrastructure works (water sources, sanitary facilities) in schools to triangulate the information obtained through interviews with principals. Table 4. Data Sampling and Collection Methods Implemented Indicators of interest (Individual/ Cluster) Cluster * Individual Total sample size TDR Baseline Considerations Baseline Modifications MGD1 Percent of students demonstrating they can read grade level text (Student test/ school) 78 * 30 2,340 b Students March 2021 diagnostic data Not measured MGD 2 Average student attendance rate (Classroom/school) 110 * 4 440 classrooms The indicator table data is maintained. Not measured 08 - Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria (custom) 110 * 4 440 f classrooms The indicator table data is maintained. 36 - Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. (custom) 110 * 4 440 i classrooms The indicator table data is maintained. LRP 7 Average value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer groups) 4 * 1 4 producer organizations Measured 8 surveys to organizations LRP 8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. 4 * 1 4 producers h because the support received for MGDIII is to OP Project records will be considered for the measurement of the following indicators. MGDIII 9 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance 100% j School The indicator table data is maintained. Not measured MGDIII 27 Number of schools using an improved water source 609 g Schools MGD II records and surveys with principals of schools not included in phase II were considered. 669 surveys with principals MGDIII 28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 658 g Schools 3.5. Data Analysis and Processing Methods Spreadsheets were used to process data from surveys and Python was used for visualizations. A systematic reading review framework was created for documents. To analyze data from focus groups, reductive text analysis frameworks were used using the observable categories as descriptors during the process. Finally, the processing of the sequential interviews was performed using NVivo software. This analysis, in addition to the creation of descriptors for the categories of observables, has generated significant correlations, frequency counts, and other frequency analysis required based on the indicators being studied. The data was collected through mobile data capture, such as Commcare, Microsoft Forms, and Airtable, co-managed by the consulting team and CRS. This allows the reports to be enabled for the intermediate and final evaluation measurements. For each of the sources of information, a framework of tasks and sources is designed, and rigorous quality control is undertaken: a. In the case of the telephone surveys with principals, a data analysis session is conducted daily, which includes verifying outliers, common data, and a qualitative analysis in order to ensure that 100% of the data collected can be used as a final source for the results. b. A review was also carried out using a checklist tool with a series of observations to rate the quality of the data collected by phone. c. In the case of the self-administered questionnaires, assessment criteria were identified, and then a dedicated team validated all outliers, eliminated duplicates, and questionnaires that could not be validated were removed from the analysis framework. In this case 97% of the data collected by questionnaire remained in the final analysis. d. All tools were tested before being implemented in real time and the data and processing team set up debriefing sessions with the research team to confirm trends, clusters, and results as well as additional qualitative assessments. e. Using a data analysis plan for each source of information, the processes and variables identified in the indicators were processed and analyzed for consistency and a comparative analysis was made between each of the tools used. 3.6. Baseline Limitations Above, we have described methodologies as well as sources; however, there are some limitations to the protocol used that should be documented for future studies and in the context of mid-term and final evaluations: Table 5. Baseline Limitations Limitation Adopted Measures Considering the protocol to be followed due to the mobility limitations imposed at the national level and the temporary closure of schools, field data collection with principals is not feasible for safety reasons for both the subjects and the consulting team. i) A working basis was established for conducting stakeholder interviews through telephone calls with a strict quality protocol. ii) In coordination with CRS and local stakeholders, missing data that were not in CRS records regarding principals to interview were collected and two days were dedicated to pre-scheduling in order to ensure sufficient participation. iii) Some direct observations were completed. (19) in school in the selected municipality to triangulate the obtained information. This municipality was considered for its willingness to carry out the process. Only 88% of the scheduled telephone interviews with school principals were mainly due to internet connection problems. This can generate selection biases, since those that were not measured were principals without telephones or with little or no internet connection, suggesting a lack of resources. Principals who could not be contacted via telephone calls were contacted via face-to-face interviews in those schools where observations were conducted. School closures do not allow direct measurement of educational indicators. i) Mixed methodologies such as Outcome Harvesting and Outcome Mapping to identify the perceptions of the interviewees. ii) A documentary review was carried out to find out the relevant data on the indicators that could not be measured. Student participation was not considered in this process because of conditions due to the health pandemic. The protocol does not allow spaces for consultation with children about their role as students. This may leave out the relevance of products and services that are mainly used by children. Recommendations are made to address this limitation in future studies such as midterm or final evaluations. Gender analysis of sex-disaggregated data was included, but an intersectional gender analysis was not considered from the point of view of the quality of participation in decision-making and active participation, since it is not a variable required in the MGDIII theory of change. Gender differences in contributions and priorities between men and women were explored during the focus groups and interviews and integrated into the change maps. It is recommended that a gender analysis including caretaker roles and home education tasks of female teachers and mothers be piloted in the future. A gender section is not included since there are insufficient elements for an intersectional analysis of gender as it was not a variable in the research protocols beyond disaggregation. The evaluation team leading this study is an international team with vast knowledge of the Central American and Honduran regional context. However, intercultural biases may exist. Conversely, data i) The field team in this evaluation was required to be local in order to facilitate data capture. ii) At the end of the application of each instrument, a closing and data review session is completed with the data quality team and Limitation Adopted Measures collection by evaluators who are also part of the Intibucá population may bias the collection of the main challenges. the lead evaluators to develop understanding and analysis of the results. iii) The quality control protocol includes daily reports on data consistency and variability, by interviewer and by main topic, to determine the consistency and quality of the data. 4. Findings MGDIII The following describes the findings and evaluations of the indicators that were measured, as well as contextual information for those that were not measured due to school closures. The results of the baseline study show significant challenges for distance learning, as well as for accountability, policy development, and sustainability of the project's achievements in enrollment and attendance in Phases I and II. Principals, teachers, municipal authorities, educational networks, and community groups all identify the improvement of education, schooling, and the need for an adequate learning environment as part of their strategic priorities. “The good thing about this is that it not only supports the parents, but also the teachers, with materials and training”, middle school teacher. In addition to being a teacher, is a married mother of three children, two of whom benefit from the school lunch, a project that she considers has had a positive impact.” As a teacher I have seen how these school meals have changed the lives of the children, they all eat it and the best thing is that it is a nutritious meal, I have seen them with more encouragement… before many arrived without eating and fell asleep in class”, she said. “The good thing about this (the project) is that it not only supports parents, but also us teachers, with materials and training. I would like to be trained in subjects such as handicrafts, cooking, not only math and Spanish; art is also important for children’s development… For example, it would be good to teach them how to use technology, if that is difficult for those of us who have studies, imagine the parents who do not know how to read or write”, the teacher explained. 1.1. Strengthened School System Educational Indicators The MGD program has been making efforts to strengthen the educational system and improve the learning environment in the department of Intibucá in Honduras. It is important to note that since 2020 , the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on educational processes at all levels and especially among poor populations with little access to educational technology, such as the population of Intibucá. The baseline indicators related to attendance and enrollment will be measured when schools reopen in accordance with the contingency plan approved by USDA. Table 6. Indicators IR 1.3 Outcome Indicator Target Baseline Improved Student Attendance (IR 1.3) Standard #2 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools 83% 68%* Increased Student Enrollment (Sub-IR 1.3.4) Standard #9 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance 100% 51,177* * The data found in the indicator table is maintained as the baseline. Since this indicator was not measured due to school closures caused by the pandemic, the baseline value estimated in the MGDIII indicator table will be maintained, however, even though this indicator was not measured, the consultant team calculated a proxy attendance rate as a result of reports from 330 teachers in the baseline survey. In this case, with the number of student enrollment confirmed by the teacher as denominator and the number of students participating on learning distance as numerator, it was obtained an estimated attendance rate of 82% of students currently participating in classes, which is very positive under current conditions. In regard to enrollment, as with the previous indicator, the data from SEDUC's SACE system was queried, which is considered only as a reference for analysis, since the official data is that of the project's information system, therefore the data from the table of indicators is maintained. The following graph shows the current enrollment from the SACE system. Each point is a school, showing the enrollment from pre-basic to ninth grade. Graph 1. Enrollment 2020 MGDIII Source: SACE 2020 Data from SACE reported in 2020 includes the entire student population in the department, including both public schools and non-public schools (60,346 total students, 30,089 girls and 30,257 boys). According to data from MIDEH-SE.2018: 38 (Solís, 2021), the national evaluation results for nine grades of elementary education show that only 51% of students reach the expected learning levels in Spanish and 29% in Mathematics. According to the Honduran National Institute of Statistics (INE), the projected population of children between the ages of 5 and 14 for Intibucá for the year 2021 is 60,302, of which 30,589 are boys and 29,713 are girls. Meanwhile, the enrollment data available of the project for preschool education through ninth grade for the same department is 51,632 in total, of which 25,363 are boys and 26,269 are girls. In other words, according to estimates of the present baseline, there is an enrollment coverage of 85.6% from pre-school to 9th grade. Table 7. Enrollment Coverage Estimated Population Estimates INE 2021 Enrollment Records CRS 2020 Enrollment Coverage Estimate 2020 30,589 Boys 25,363 Boys 82.9% 29,713 Girls 26,269 Girls 88.4% 60,302 Total 51,632 Total 85.6% Source: CRS Honduras – MGDII and the National Institute of Statistics of Honduras Organization and Educative Structures The MGDIII project's efforts to strengthen the education sector are focused on improving classroom conditions and school supplies and materials as well as providing teacher training, all of which are directly related to student learning capacity and teacher performance. Lastly, the creation of support networks for the educational community, including in the home, with training in health issues for tutors and support setting up parent committees all create favorable conditions for enrolment, attendance, and school retention among the population of Intibucá. MGD's intervention in strengthening the educational system has resulted in new routines and changes for students, households, and teachers, who are the main subjects of change. The trend among principals and households remains the same. The results indicate better attendance, participation, better relations between homes and schools, greater interest, and a better attitude. Schools have been strengthened and the local impact of MGDII in terms of participation is recognized. However, this has not translated into public policies or to the independent capacity of the schools’ networks. Graph 2. Impact by Actor Type Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team In order to better understand the current needs of the schools, the principals' priorities for investment and support have been explored. Methodologically, it is important to note that the principal survey was conducted through an in-depth interview in which the questions are not set but are classified by the evaluators based on their responses. In the case of the teachers, the responses are given through a structured, self-administered questionnaire. This means that the identification of the factors has a greater risk of induced bias, meaning that in order to be fully comparable in future evaluations, it is necessary to use the same method. In spite of the aforementioned limitation, an exercise was carried out to identify the areas of support needed/prioritized for phase 3, and there are indeed some discrepancies in terms of the needs of each intervention group. Both teachers and principals identified books and school literature as a key resource in the teaching process. While 38% of principals request support with infrastructure improvements as a priority, teachers emphasize on the need for training or workshops for them. Principals referred that the schools’ meals will be important until face-to-face classes are restarted. Accordingly, the areas in which support is most requested are the areas in which the program has provided the most support, which implies that the resource has been relevant and effective for the purpose for which it was developed. A final aspect of the school system to highlight is that 56% of principals consider that the project interventions from phases I and II have brought about positive changes in terms of better control of data and statistics. In the survey of principals, fifty-nine percent consider that the SACE System is very useful and 26% consider that it allows them to organize all the school's data regarding the statistics that are kept in their academic records. We found mainly educational indicators such as initial enrolment (99%), attendance (92%), non-attendance (82%) and number of teachers (73%). Only 34% reported statistical records of students' reading and writing skills and only 48% reported having records of students who have dropped out of school. Fifty-nine percent of the principals reported not collecting or not having the a before mentioned data because it has never been required to keep records of these types of statistics. Graph 3. Prior Support Required from schools Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team Teacher, comment. “As a teacher it’s difficult because there were children who in the middle of class would lose concentration and tell me they were hungry… Now at least the food helps them concentrate…” Teacher She has been teaching for six years and in her experience, she knows that a child who comes to school without eating can easily lose concentration. “As a teacher, it is difficult because there were children who in the middle of the class would lose concentration and tell me they were hungry… Now at least the food helps them to concentrate, I noticed that sometimes they arrived without dinner and without breakfast, most of them were small and skinny, the parents did not feed them not because they did not want to, but because they did not have enough to give them a school meal”, she said. The teacher is pleased with the project and would like it to last longer because it not only benefits the children, but also the parents and even the teachers who receive training and materials. “If it weren’t for them, I would be left without materials, they are the only ones who help us, not even the government gives us anything” she said. She said, is also critical of the new education modality to which they were pushed because of COVID-19. She finds deficiency in the system and would like to be in the classroom with her students. “If there was a way for us to go back to the schools, help us to find it because the children are not learning how they should, we are from remote places, we do not have good access to internet, much less telephones and the children do not receive the explanation they deserve with their studies, but at least we would like them to help us with the study materials copies because we pay for it”, she expressed. 1.2. Nutrition and School Meals The component of Nutrition and School meals constitutes a fundamental pillar of the theory of change, as it establishes a link between food security and the level of attention and performance of students in school. During this baseline study, the field team visited the offices of eight current and potential supplier organizations. The table below shows the results of the measurement based on the Total Volume and Incomes Sales indicators. Table 8. Indicators Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP) Indicator Target Baseline LRP Standard #8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. 1,460 MT 83.2 MT LRP Standard #7 Value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) $524,393 $61,603 Table 9. Value from Volume and Income Annual Sales Disaggregate Value from report (Sales $) Number of participants Disaggregate Value from report (TM Volume) Number of participants A. Horticulture $57,403.00 6 A. Horticulture 83.8 6 a.1 Microenterprise $57,403.00 6 a.1 Microenterprise 83.8 6 By Gender By Gender • Female $0 0 • Female 0.0 0 • Male $ 57,403 6 • Male 83.8 6 By Age By Age • 15-29 $900 1 • 15-29 1.63 1 • 30+ $56,503 5 • 30+ 82.17 5 B. Eggs $ 4,200.00 1 B. Eggs 1.90 1 b.1 Microenterprise $4,200.00 1 b.1 Microenterprise 1.90 1 By Gender By Gender • Female $4,200.00 1 • Female 1.90 1 • Male $0.00 0 • Male 0.00 0 By Age By Age • 30+ $4,200.00 1 • 30+ 1.90 1 TOTAL $61,603.00 7 TOTAL 85.70 7 In order to achieve the MT and annual revenue targets, current suppliers will have to increase their marketing capacity fivefold, so CRS has the opportunity to attract new suppliers and areas. One of the challenges of the project is to strengthen the managerial and administrative capacity of the organizations that become suppliers. In organizational terms, they are still in the development phase. They include companies, rural banks, and producer associations, with an average of 13 years of having been set up. Six of them are legally constituted and the remainder are reviewing the registration process. As part of the methodology, observation techniques were integrated, 50% provided documentation for data verification. If all these organizations manage to grow through contracts and as suppliers of the educational system, they will have a direct impact on their environment, as they generate 152 direct jobs, 39% of their suppliers are women, and they reach a minimum of 305 producers, being mostly directly managed by groups of producers. Producer organizations reported having problems with the selling weight of their products due to dehydration during transportation and in the delivery process, resulting in uncompleted or outstanding orders at schools. They also have to travel to remote areas on bad roads, causing the product to be damaged. Although in the schools they thought that the product was in bad condition, the reality was that the product did not leave damaged but was damaged in route. This problem was solved by carrying the products in plastic baskets to facilitate transportation and ventilation of the products. Farmers also planned to deliver the meals immediately, in order to avoid long storage times, since many schools do not have optimal storage conditions and the food was damaged. Some of the producer organizations stated that before the pandemic they sold sixteen food products and after the pandemic they sold an average of eight products: tomato, potato, carrot, cassava, cucumber, and plantain. Recently, parents and teachers have expressed their wish for the program to incorporate the fresh ration again, including milk, vegetables, and fruits; and to complement the protein source with eggs and meat, in addition to beans. With the incorporation of LRP CRS in MGD III, CRS seeks to create a local market to complement the school meals activities. In fact, as a result of the analysis of impacts reported in the different populations using Outcome Harvesting, the School meals has been one of the products provided by the project with the greatest reach mentioned by principals, attributable to changes in students (92%), teachers (84%), households (95%), and the community (82%). From this, it can be seen that involvement in food production, distribution, access, and consumption has been well-received by the beneficiaries and has been used to improve their situation. “The children received food and meals. This helped the children pay better attention in their classes…” Local Authority.Local authorities reported that the impact on nutrition has been significant, many of them explicitly mentioned the food situation before the project was implemented. The challenge for this third phase will be to involve local authorities not only in providing transportation, but also to institutionalize the efforts. Among the DMEs (Municipal Director of Education), the position on coverage, quality, and distribution is maintained, even in inaccessible areas. Having first-hand contact with the children, the DMEs stress how precarious the food situation was prior to the project. “The children received food and meals. This helped the children pay better attention in their classes…” Local Authority.In the construction of their own Outcome Map, the groups of parents and teachers created a collective vision based on joint dynamics between the school community and the contributions of companies and organizations. This coincides with the commitment to sustainability made by donors, project stakeholders, and local authorities. Table 10. Evaluations of CAEs, PTAs, Education Centre, Teaching Personnel, and Children Current Situation Outcome Challenge In the Future Since February 2021, school meals are no longer available in schools or to take home. Previously, the project included about 16 food items. Currently, due to the pandemic situation, they were reduced to five Well-fed children. A guaranteed daily meal, which is prepared in the schools, taking into account their tastes and food preferences. The meal includes not only dry rations, but also fresh rations (such as They’d expect to see: Design and distribute a training guide on food preparation, nutrition, and hygiene, incorporating participatory techniques to facilitate training for parents, children, CAEs, and teaching staff. dry ration food items: corn, beans, CBS, rice and oil. Some training on food preparation at home has been received. However, the need to improve creativity at home in food preparation has become evident. The children's rejection of some nutritious foods prevails. vegetables and dairy products) and meat as a source of protein, in addition to beans. Parents receive training on new forms of food preparation and better nutritional use of food. Infrastructure and equipment of school kitchens are improved. They’d like to see awareness raised about the need and importance of acquiring storage and kitchen equipment in schools to improve food storage and preparation. They’d love to see: Parents are trained in food and nutrition issues. Children benefit from the preparation of rich and nutritious food at home and at school. For the third phase, a closer relationship with companies and producer organizations is necessary to strengthen them internally and to facilitate their connection with the educational system, so that the established market opportunities can be consolidated. Principal of School, comment. "The classroom distribution is as follows: we divide the blackboard in two, second grade on the right and third grade on the left”, Teacher from the municipality.. The School, was established out of the need to provide education to the children. Its principal, says that the parents made a list to see how many children there were, then asked for funding and that is how the school was built. “After the construction they opened the opportunity for the job position, that was in 2001, I have been here since then”, the principal, said. The center’s enrollment has never exceeded 16 students, which is why is a single-teacher school, meaning that she holds five different positions at a time: principal, assistant principal, teacher, secretary and cleaning staff. It is also because of the low enrollment that only second and third grade are offered, which are taught in the same classroom. "The classroom distribution is as follows: we divide the blackboard in two, second grade on the right and third grade on the left”. The principal says that one of the biggest problems she has had with this organization is that the children show concentration problems, because in addition to the fact that the subjects of each grade are different, the older children hit the younger ones and this generates discomfort in the parents. Since the arrival of COVID-19, the center has been working with guides (workbooks or learning packets). The students attend with their parents every Monday and receive a guide for one week, which they must complete the following Monday for review. This new study method has caused learning problems for the children. “Sometimes I cannot explain well because parents arrive quickly, the best thing would be that we return to the classrooms, nothing would be better than that. There are some children who I managed to explain by WhatsApp… but they are few because most parents do not have a phone”, explains the principal. These guides are printed for the ease of parents, boys and girls. The cost of printing the materials has been paid by the teacher since the beginning of the pandemic and although it has not been easy, the fact of being a brave and proactive woman has allowed her to see things in a positive way. “This project changed my life, not only mine but also that of many parents… When the quarantine was there, the school meals were a blessing in their homes because many of them had nothing to eat”, she said. In addition to the school meals, the project has benefited the school in different ways, such as infrastructure, donation of materials and training for both parents and teachers. One of her dreams is to be able to improve the facilities, have more materials and have someone else to help her take care of the children. 1.3. Learning Environment The Teaching-Learning Environment is a critical condition of the Theory of Change. It is not only seen as one of the six conditioning pillars of the project's Theory of Change, but also as the first of the project's Strategic Objectives with three key results at its core: improving the quality of teaching, the level of student attention, and pupils’ attendance. For analysis of this component, this baseline study analyzes the current level of literacy and active participation of students, although the official measurement of the indicators is planned for when the schools are officially reopened. The Literacy Goal Given the importance that schooling has in the project's performance, it is obvious that the Covid-19 pandemic, with its consequent school closures, threatened to significantly jeopardize the achievement of the objectives. In the case of the department of Intibucá, this has affected the measurement of educational indicators. For the present baseline, the indicator related to the level of literacy is taken as a reference value according to the contingency plan of the data of the diagnosis carried out by MGDII in March 2021. Table 11. Indicator from Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (SO1) Indicator Target Baseline Standard #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 74% 47% During the implementation of the MGD I and MGD II, learning advances were measured and confirmed. Using as a metric the percentage of children who by the end of two grades of primary schooling demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text, it showed that between the baseline study and the mid-term evaluation, the indicator rose from 44.2% to 50.9%. It was hoped that this improvement of more than 6 percentage points would be overcome by the time of the final evaluation, for which a target of 60% had been set. However, it was not possible to measure the indicator, as data collection was made impossible due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The indicator, which was calculated for the phase II for the Baseline (44.2%) and for the Intermediate Evaluation (50.9%), could not be raised in the final evaluation due to the closure of schools. Faced with the impossibility of collecting the data, the Final Evaluation of MGDII calculated and reported the percentage of third-grade students with marks of 3 or 4 in the MIDEH test. This value equals 33.7%. However, to try to standardize the data with the previously measured indicator, the project uses the Student Performance Evaluation in Intibucá as a reference. For this, standardized tests were applied. The report was published in March 2021 and is the source approved by the USDA contingency plan for MGDIII, given the current context. The results of said diagnosis reports a value of 47%, which would indicate a less abrupt fall than that of the Intibucá Student Performance Evaluation used in the final evaluation of MGD II. Although the “Student Performance Evaluation in Intibucá” report does not provide methodological details to prescribe recommendations on raising the indicator in the future, either with face-to-face or distance classes, it does document an evolution of learning more comparable with the baseline and average data. In particular, only 11.9% managed to place themselves in the Satisfactory or Advanced category. In Spanish, 50.9% pass the expected tests with a positive difference for girls. According to the consulting report “Student Performance Evaluation in Intibucá”, when compared with students from similar departments, according to the results of the national evaluations of the Ministry of Education / MIDEH, students from 1st to 6th grade in Intibucá experienced greater improvements in their educational indicators in the period 2015-2017. Intibucá shared with La Paz the lowest rates of failure, repetition, and desertion, also being better positioned than the national average. During the present baseline, the perception of the reading and writing learning status of teachers and principals was investigated. According to the Survey of Teachers (339 respondents), 76% of the teachers surveyed consider that boys and girls have a literacy level equal to or higher than last year, and 61% of the teachers attribute it, among other factors, to teaching methods. Of the principals who answered this question (670), 55% consider that the level of literacy is the same or better. Graph 4. Valuations from learnings in Literacy Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team Although this analysis includes a significant sample of principals, the data sample from teachers is much smaller and represents those teachers who were able to respond to the online questionnaire. The data does provide some parameters for an analysis of how teachers are experiencing the current dynamics. In general, when interacting with teachers in focus groups, it is apparent how much effort is being made to maintain the quality of teaching during such a critical time.“…Good organization for the sharing of information to the Network and municipal administration, despite all the difficulties we are experiencing, the parents have supported us by sending their children to school on the corresponding days, and it is us, the teachers, who are even paying for materials, because we want them to learn…” Teacher. In fact, when asked more precisely to evaluate the current teaching system, only 7% of surveyed teachers and 22% of principals reported that the distance system "works well and is improving". The rest identified a number of limitations to establishing an adequate learning system. Although 87% of principals report that teacher supervision is maintained, confirmed by 94% of teachers, supervision is not a facilitating factor for overcoming learning challenges, particularly in the area of reading and writing. Among the factors mentioned as barriers to improving reading and writing, the biggest percentage (44%) mentioned by teachers was the category “Other”, attributed to the pandemic, for unexplained reasons. The second factor (39%) mentioned as a barrier is the lack books and teacher resources. Indeed, principals identified the lack of materials and textbooks as the second most important factor in a list of investment priorities (38%). This limitation, understood as a lack of sufficient methodological material for the teaching-learning process, explains that the transfer of knowledge may be much more limited in the current context. This is not a conclusion easily identified by teachers. In this regard, what the baseline data did report is that only 12% of teachers consider that they have enough resources to carry out their teaching work effectively. One factor mentioned by the principals is the support for home learning, which is considered important as a facilitator and as a barrier to comprehension and the learning of reading and writing. This happens because while it is noted that pupils who have improved have had exceptional support from parents or guardians, it is one of the most difficult barriers to distance learning. Two additional elements provide more concrete evidence on the role of parents/guardians in the home. In the teacher’s survey, when asked about the factors limiting reading and writing, the main reason given (86%) was the schooling level of parents and guardians, followed by the lack of awareness of the importance of education (over 40%). The challenge is, logically, in the home. In total agreement with these findings, when the educational networks and school support committees were asked about the challenges and perspectives in relation to the educational situation of their children, teachers were seen as having a double role: they have to educate parents and children, while households were seen to have to take on a task for which they are not prepared or have the resources for. The following table shows results from the focus groups using OM. It shows how the needs of the subjects in this component align with the priorities of the project in the training and accompaniment component. The educational networks state that the virtual classes originated as a response to an emergency situation in the face of the pandemic. To date, a support methodology has not been developed that incorporates elements to achieve the virtual learning process with students at primary and pre-primary grade levels. Students at these ages have greater concentration difficulties and require specific teaching dynamics for the development of reading and writing skills. For example, teaching vowel pronunciation, learning calligraphy strokes, or socialization and cognitive development skills that are learned with playful methodologies in pre-basic. Table 12. Evaluations of USAID, CRS, PTAs, Parents, Teachers and Educational Networks Current Situation Outcome Challenge In the Future The new model of study has forced parents to take on the role of teachers in their homes without any prior training. Many parents do not know how to read or write.This, together with their lack of time due to work, greatly affects the children's learning process since there is no support mechanism available to facilitate the parents' teaching work at home. There is a lack of understanding between what the teacher assigns, what the parents understand, and the work the child submits for each subject. Parents are trained in teaching techniques so they can support their children's learning. Parents understand their children's learning processes, give them more attention and instruct them patiently, including aspects of play learning in their daily study time. There exists a better understanding by parents and their children of the homework to be handed in to the teachers. They’d expect to see: Parents and teachers organize themselves through the PTAs and educational networks and arrange support for parents to receive training in teaching techniques. They’d like to see: Non-governmental organizations and educational networks aware of the importance of supporting the development of a parent education program that includes topics such as teaching strategies, cognitive and emotional development. They’d love to see: Parents in continuous training activities, actively involved in the learning process of their children during the transition from virtual to blended learning classes and when in￾person classes are resumed. Active Participation of Students In accordance with the poll conducted by means of the survey of principals and with emphasis on the activities that have been developed through phases I and II, 56% of principals, a perceived positive change as a result of the previous phases is an increase in student participation in class. And according to just over 30% of them students learn faster, which they attribute to students spending more time studying in order to learn more. The second indicator related to the Learning Environment component is the level of attention of the students, for this study the data taken as a basis is that of the table of indicators and in accordance with the contingency plan approved by the USDA. Table 13. Indicator from Improved Attentiveness (IR 1.2) Indicator Target Indicator Custom - Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria 85% 70% Regarding the attentiveness indicator (“boys and girls paying attention in class”), it is important to clarify that its measurement was postponed until schools reopen, for this reason, this indicator was not measured during the study and the reference data is an estimate based on MGD Guatemala. The protocol to be used for the measurement at that time when the classes return to face-to-face format is presented in the Annex. Briefly, it is prescribed that at the time of the reading assessment, a series of instruments be raised to investigate the level of attention of the students from the perspective of an external observer, teachers, and the students themselves. Using more than one source of information will allow what is collected in each classroom and school to be used not only in the direct calculation of the requested indicator (the observer's report), but also to contrast it with the opinions of the main actors in the Teaching-Learning process. This protocol is based on the tool used by the MGDIII-II Guatemala project for the metric of attention in the classroom and combined with the measurement resources implemented during this baseline. The consulting team developed an exercise to validate the instruments that will be used in the mid-term and final evaluation, obtaining 81% for the indicator. However, these results are not necessarily considered as a reference value for this study, since the indicator cannot be measured within the requirements of the PMP due to schools being closed. In the Teacher Survey, the consulting team mapped the level of educational commitment of the students at present, taking into account the aforementioned limitations of distance education. The following possible categories were identified: (a) They complete homework, (b) They ask questions and inquire about the topics, (c) They meet in work teams, (d) They attend all distance sessions, and (e) They attend all face-to-face sessions. The algorithm used is as follows: if a teacher reports that his/her students attend all their sessions, whether face-to-face or distance (d and e), 1 point is assigned. If they report that (a) they complete assignments, or (b) they ask questions and inquire, 2 points are assigned. Voluntary participation was reported as positive only if includes most of the students. The decision rests on the fact that the indicator requires that the level of attention be analyzed, not just their attendance. With a maximum of 2 points, each teacher's report is standardized as a percentage. If they do not report any option, they receive 0%; if they only attend classes, 50%; if they at least complete tasks or ask questions and inquire (even without attending in person or synchronously), they get 100%. The indicator is, therefore, the average of this calculation. In our instrument, this value generates the 81% reported. Regarding the suggested algorithm, it is recommended that it be refined by asking the teacher what percentage of his or her students fall into each category, in order to overcome the homogeneity assumption that is currently used. This tool can be used to inquire about remote participation and engagement. However, the protocol for the calculation of the indicator, once the students return to the classrooms, is detailed in the annex. An element not included in the frameworks of analysis provided by MGDIII but mentioned as part of the challenges of change as aspects of active participation and frequent attendance, is the quality of education and participation of children with disabilities. The current situation for children with motor, psychological, or intellectual difficulties is that there are no provisions or activities that take into consideration different ways of learning and possible setbacks due to the pandemic. A second element is the single-teacher programs. During the selection of cases, and in the focus groups, they were reported as a priority challenge that causes serious learning problems for single teacher groups, since a single teacher covers two or three groups of classes that share a teacher, resources, space and sometimes even the blackboard. “(For the children) … the school is a nicer place to be than their house. We keep hearing from children who are craving to return to the classroom, they miss it and it is a healthy environment for them. There are clean toilet facilities just for them, a comfortable canteen for eating in. The space has been improved and this has made it more enticing for the children to attend school…” Education Authority. Better infrastructure and equipment Continuing with the study of the basis for the indicators related to the improvement of water infrastructure and facilities, the data from the schools surveyed shows that 890 (84%) schools have some type of improved water infrastructure and 864 (82%) schools have improved sanitation infrastructure. Table 14. Indicators IR 2.4 Indicator Target Baseline Standard #27 Number of schools using an improved water source 1052 890 Standard #28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 1052 864 One of the main reasons that the education authorities are maintaining the distance learning model is because of a lack of adequate facilities in schools to guarantee biosafety. In the survey of all principals, 91% of the schools reported that their water supply was provided by community water and sanitation projects and that 90% of the schools have taps and plumbing installed for access to water, which may seem to contradict the local authority’s position. Indeed, from the principals' perspective, an investment prioritization exercise showed that only 14% required infrastructure improvement as a priority. Data from the indicators coincides with the position of the principals. However, 76% of the teachers report that if they had to order priorities for investment in schools, infrastructure improvement would be the first priority. Even though 42% of the schools have already received improvements in sanitary infrastructure through USDA projects. In the focus groups, the need for investment in health infrastructure was also mentioned, along with specific issues such as sexual and reproductive health for girls and safety in schools. As the following graphics show, 82% schools have access to water on site thanks to existing community projects. This implies that the investment and themes prioritized by CRS are in line with work being carried out by other actors, but continued investment is needed for this phase. Emphasizing the survey results, the principals did not mention it as an investment. Meanwhile, 34% of the teachers surveyed consider it currently necessary to invest in water and sanitation. Graph 5. Water Infrastructures Improved in Schools Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team 84% of schools have toilets, but only 48% have sinks or hand-washing stations. Less than 35% of schools have neither of these. Only 12% have separate toilet stalls, while 11% of principals mentioned latrines, 70% of those have septic tanks and a built-in platform. It is worth mentioning that 82% of the sanitary facilities are more than 50 meters away, which helps protect groundwater and natural springs. 87% of the principals confirmed that the sanitary conditions have not changed in the last month. Graph 6. School's Sanitary Infrastructure Improved Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team Available data from measurement of these indicators refer to material conditions. Considering the pandemic and biosafety measures in the field, a field observation team was directed to verify the data provided by telephone surveys. Position: Teacher “The mothers made a great effort to cook. They went to a water well that is 250 meters from the school, filled a mud pitcher and carried it on top of their head, then returned to the school to cook with that water”. Single-teacher from a preschool.. She has dedicated twelve of those years to teaching. She says that the best project she has seen is the McGovern Dole. "For me, the school meal is the best way to make a positive impact because a well-fed child is a child who will perform academically. If he or she is not well fed, the teacher can have all the dedication in the world to teach but the child will not pay attention," she said. As a single-teacher of a preschool, she feels that her job is very heavy and would like to have at least one more teacher to help her, since the current enrollment is 20 students and the conditions are not the best. The infrastructure of the educational center is in poor condition and there are large cracks in the walls, “There are plenty of chairs and tables for the children… there is no blackboard. The one that is there is mine, I bought it with my own money because I saw that the children needed it”, she explained. Of the most difficult challenges she has faced as a single-teacher, she expresses that attending three grades in the same classroom is the hardest. "It is difficult because the secretary only sends us one curriculum and that is for third grade [of preschool]. What I did was to give the same content (to second and first), but I put different levels of difficulty in each explanation and exercise.... At the municipal level we adapt the curriculum...", she explained. The school is equipped with a kitchen and refrigerator and before the quarantine the mothers used to prepare food in the kitchen; the biggest problem has been that the community has not had potable water since 2015. “The mothers made a great effort to cook. They went to a water well that is 250 meters from the school, filled a mud pitcher and carried it on top of their head, then returned to the school to cook with that water… and that was the work of only mothers, we never saw any father…”, she said. The water problem not only affects the preparation of meals but also the cleaning of the school. "We use rainwater for cleaning the center, for the children to wash their hands and for sanitation of the bathrooms, but we have to reuse the water. For example, sometimes we reuse the water we use to wash the toilet... we only have one bathroom in use due to the lack of water, teachers, children and parents go to that bathroom", she explained. Currently, the children receive classes virtually. "Of my 20 students, five do not have access to the internet or telephone or their mothers do not have the money to recharge their phones...tell me, what can I do about that?" she asked. 1.4. Health and Dietary Practices Among the indicators established in the contingency plan for measurement once classes start again in the schools is the CUSTOM indicator, which measures the percentage of students who are missing classes for health reasons. The baseline value considered is 8.95%, which is shown in the table of indicators below: Table 15. Indicator Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1 Indicator Target Baseline Custom - Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. 4% 8.95% As an analytical and reference exercise to pilot the methodological instrument and estimate data that could illustrate the current situation, the surveys of principals included questions where each teacher provided data on absences due to illness according to their records from this year. As a result, it is estimated that 11.7% of students were not participating in the school system for health reasons in the last month. In this regard, 67% of principals reported keeping statistics on absences due to illness. According to teachers, 86% of students reported flu and common cold as the main cause of absence from classes due to illness, which coincides with the information shared in the focus groups, which identified respiratory illnesses, gastrointestinal illnesses, and skin conditions. One of the limitations of evaluating the measurement of absence due to sickness at the teacher level is that it would be proxy data, since teachers will report on the basis of their recording capacity and information received from community members. During the baseline, we recommended piloting the same indicator one municipality at a household level to compare the results using LQAS and the indicator as defined by the PMP. As a result, the data in the municipality selected shows 4% incidence using LQAS in community members and 11% using the teacher as a source. Table 16. Data from community members using LQAS Data Reference Defect Average coverage Net percentage Children who missed school due to illness in the last month 2 5% 11% The classes are developed through a WhatsApp group, during one hour the students share messages, videos and audios on the topic that the teacher guides. "This modality works for children who can have their mom close by. I don't do the classes in zoom, nor by video call because the signal here doesn't pick up video calls," she explained. The students who do not have access to the internet also take classes, the teacher talks to the parents, and visits them on Tuesdays and Thursdays, always taking biosecurity measures. Children who missed school due to illness in the last year 6 20% 32% Deworming coverage in the last year 7 25% 37% Coverage of health information to community members 11 55% 42% Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team The adoption of better health and dietary practices, addressed in the Theory of Change, also includes the transfer of knowledge on hygiene issues, and is linked to the provision of meals, as it seeks to train families on nutritional issues to maximize the benefit of the food delivered. This is a new component in the logical framework, considering that if there are improvements to infrastructure, activities around health and education, improvements to sanitary conditions, kitchen, and food storage, then the probabilities of absences due to illnesses are reduced. According to the information collected from teachers about their experiences in phases I and II, 24% of those surveyed have participated in Health and Nutrition training, and 55% consider that since the food donations and the program's training processes on nutrition, hygiene and safety issues, there has been an improvement in the students' nutrition. Thirty-eight percent of the teachers consider that this has had an impact on increased class attendance, and 30% consider that the project interventions have had positive changes in the general health situation. Given that MGDIII contributes greatly to a Health outcome, it is a good opportunity to train teachers and members of the community on the subject, given the low level of training recorded. Regarding hygiene, the principals interviewed who mentioned it linked it directly to hand washing and biosecurity measures, due to the pandemic, and consider that these messages have been reinforced by the project. However, for hygiene practices to be sustainable, access to water and the improvement of sanitation infrastructure is indispensable, and there are still regions with access and without availability. Principals Comments “We demand the mothers to be involved in everything, we don't demand so much of the fathers because they don't like it, they have a macho culture... they help with carrying the meals but not all of them do". Teacher. As principal of School, she considers the school meal as one of the best projects she has been able to participate in. In her own words, "it benefits both the student and the educator. The children have improved their nutrition and there is greater concentration in class, attendance also improves because the food serves as motivation for children with limited resources," she said. In the school she directs, parents have been excited since the beginning, not only because of the food but also because of the organization. "They feel taken into account. We have no complaints from them, they organize themselves in a good way". As part of the inclusion to the community, they have opened a school for parents where they address issues of self-esteem, responsibility and mental health, and they have had good participation. "Our community is integrated in a good way, and this will help them at home”. However, the role of mothers and fathers is not equally participatory. “We demand the mothers to be involved in everything, we don't demand so much of the fathers because they don't like it, they have a macho culture... they help with carrying the meals but not all of them do", the teacher acknowledged. The school was remodeled last year thanks to a project called Foundation for Education in Honduras, so they have enough chairs and tables for the children. One of the biggest difficulties they are facing at the moment is that the children do not bring their school guides, "what happens is that we are in the agricultural season and many parents take their children to work in the fields”, she said. The other problem they face is the expense of photocopying school guides, because it is the teachers who are covering this expense. "The economy is low, the center has an enrollment of 118 students, the copies cost one lempira and there are more than 150 pages in the guides. We give them in parts but each guide has 5 pages and each teacher has between 25 and 36 students, so between copies and other teaching materials, they are spending almost 200 Lempiras [US$10] weekly" she expressed. 1.5. Community Participation for Educational Development Community participation is fundamental to achieving the social transformation processes outlined in the program's Theory of Change. Through community participation we seek to promote effective coordination between the different community actors in participatory processes. The ultimate goal is for the community as a whole to identify the problems that affect them and work together to find solutions. Eighty-six percent believe that changes can be evidenced by closer relationships between the communities and the schools, thanks to parents and community leaders taking a more active role in the children's learning processes. Seventy percent also identify a higher level of commitment to the schools, because there is more awareness of the realities and limitations experienced in the schools, there is now more willingness to work together to improve education. Likewise, 58% of the principals consider that there is now a more open attitude towards the schools and a better relationship with teaching staff, as they now have to coordinate with them to hand in work, mark homework, and to oversee the children's curriculum. The incentive of the school meals and the increased awareness brought about through workshops and training courses have been the main resources offered by the program that have contributed to this behavioral change in the relationship between the communities and the schools. “…the students show interest in learning, adapting to the new strategies they try to fulfil their obligations and homework. Teachers do what they can to provide the essential information and tasks for each pupil. Parents have been involved in supporting their children with their schoolwork...” Teacher. According to the content analysis and the opinions expressed during interviews with municipal directors and mayors, the position of local government is that they highly value the coordinated efforts of the educational communities: teachers, parents, and principals. This is evident in the delivery of food. Some mention other actors involved in their particular municipality, such as COCEPRADII, boards of trustees, and AMFI. They see themselves as providing occasional support, mainly in providing transportation for deliveries, and with some infrastructure projects. However, some mention the importance of formally linking local governments with more of the project activities. They suggest involving more local producers to strengthen the work at the municipal level, which is felt could work, compared to the slowness and bureaucracy of the central government. DMEs attest to and play a leading role in the growing integration of the educational community, which they attribute to committed parents and timely training in participation processes. Some recognize that not all parents have the same level of engagement, and this is something that needs to be worked on. One mayor and one DME suggested the involvement of churches as an important part of community integration. Based on the above, school heads, teachers, community groups and local authorities all recognize the impact of the project in building a channel of communication and exchange between the educational community and local and municipal stakeholders. The process of analysis at the community level, carried out through the focus groups included identifying the initial situation, identifying the actors (roles and functions) and the different levels of progress in changes in attitude that must be adopted in order to achieve the desired behavioral change. Table 17. Evaluations of Community Leaders, PTAs, CAEs, Municipal Government, Education Authorities, Teaching Staff Current Situation Outcome challenge In the Future Poor rural communities, mainly engaged in subsistence farming activities, with low production yields, poor roads, and difficulty accessing high-value markets. Families with malnourished children and school dropout problems. Families affected by unemployment and lack of development opportunities; factors that trigger migration (to the United States, Spain and El Salvador) and family disintegration: children who stay and parents who leave. Prevalent problems of alcoholism and juvenile drug addiction, a product of free￾time and desperation. Communities with children suffering from respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases, without access to medical attention or medicines. There are also problems of deforestation in the water basins. Corruption and apathy for social change. Communities with rural community development, with well-fed children, gainfully employed young people working locally, and adults generating new employment opportunities. Productive communities that ensure the reforestation of water basins, with high productive yields, good roads and highways, accessing high-value markets. Children accessing quality public education. Municipal authorities look after the common welfare and not the individual. Integral families, with values and cultural roots, who find opportunities for their development and wellbeing within their communities. Healthy families, with access to medical care and medicines when they need them. Communities living in peace and working together to manage their own well-being. They’d expect to see: Firm belief that changes can be achieved. Communities, families, teachers, producers' organizations, educational and municipal authorities make a commitment to work together for rural development. Stakeholders renew their hopes for a better future for their children. They’d like to see: Community management for social and economic change while respecting the environment. Prioritizing the health, education and employment needs of the most vulnerable. Awareness of the importance of fairness and transparency in decision-making processes. They’d love to see: Empowered communities assume their role as agents of change for the rural development of their municipalities. Integral families raising generations with moral values to work for the future of Honduras. Transmitting feelings of cultural belonging to future generations. Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team For the implementation of MGDIII, the integration of community groups and school networks requires achieving autonomy and management capacity before municipalities and educational authorities. It is also necessary to broaden the scope of action of these groups to community aspects such as social issues or environmental development. 1.6. Public Policies "... (The change of authorities] is something that undoubtedly puts even cooperation on a tightrope, because each government that enters believes it owns the truth. What is law is obligation... If there are no public policies, agreements are made and when the mayor leaves, the agreement ends, that's the end of it” ... Local Authority. After two phases of the project, MGDIII has achieved goals in the performance of groups, communities, teachers and students, contributions to national statistics, and the beneficiaries have reported that the products and services of the project have been positive in improving awareness of the importance of educational quality and the need for an active and participatory educational community to manage the challenges and opportunities for development. This component is a condition of the theory of change and the last link for establishing the sustainability of the MGDIII intervention. The data from the analysis of the interviews with municipal and educational authorities show that this component is the one to which least reference was made in general during the interviews, and also showed a marked difference between mayors and educational directors, the latter reporting the least references in the content analysis carried out. A reference is categorized as a concrete idea about a certain phenomenon. In other words, the understanding of how public policies work, what is expected of them and how to bring them about is not clear from the point of view of educational and municipal authorities. All interviewees who mention aspects of public policy see it as a way to give sustainability to the project's efforts, but they do not identify the role they could play, nor is it clear what tasks can be assumed. The average number of references by each group, for the seven study topics, is shown below. Table 18. Average References - Content Analysis Interview Mayors Directors 01- Strengthened School System 4.5 7.9 02- Learning Environment 3.2 8.0 03- Nutrition and School Meals 5.6 8.6 04- Health and Dietary Practices at Home 1.7 2.9 05-Participation 6.4 5.3 06- Public Policies 2.9 0.4 07- Sustainability 6.5 5.9 Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team The mayors who addressed the issue consider that the project's efforts deserve to be replicated at higher levels and think that this will require influencing national legislation: on education (to incorporate the good practices taught by the project into the national curriculum); food (to establish in writing commitments on school feeding); agriculture (to promote agricultural diversification). They refer to how municipal development plans guide local efforts and hope to see the same at national level. The DMEs similarly replicate this order of ideas. They believe that advantage should be taken of the decentralization that already exists and has proven to work. Although it is entirely to be expected that DMEs make more reference to educational issues, their ability to quantify this trend, and analyze the rest of the issues is valuable. The following graph shows the results of the previous table: that the DMEs are those who make more reference to the strengthened school system, but the gap widens with the mayors over learning issues, which can be seen at the content level, in the previous section and in the matrix in Annex 5. In nutrition and hygiene practices, the DMEs also lead. In the rest of the topics, it is the mayors. The Public Policies component is striking, as it is not only the lowest of all, but also presents a substantial difference between interviewees. A valuable element: the two groups refer equally to sustainability issues. Graph 7. Average References by Theme - Content Analysis Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team Both USDA and other project actors, as well as coordinating allies, all recognize that progress has been made in programmatic results aimed at education, which have facilitated levels of coordination and communication, although not enough strategic actions have been established to influence changes in public policies. The opportunity from this point of view is to take advantage of a ring strategy that, from the grassroots level, allows working with municipal and central governments, and the inclusion of the private sector. This is also a challenge from the point of view of the educational community and from the grassroots perspective. According to the following table, based on the map made with community leaders and educational networks, there are still politicized spaces and benefits, and there is not enough information for local leaders to know the progress made in the municipalities on educational issues. In fact, the results of the harvest of changes show less than 1% of the principals recognize some impact on authorities and governments, which coincides with the position of the teachers. Table 19. Evaluations of NGOs, municipal authorities and other community organizations, grassroots leaders. Current Situation Outcome challenge In the Future Organizations and municipal authorities are supporting families in privileged conditions, who are close to decision-makers in local organizations, whilst families that could make better use of the benefits provided by the project are being neglected. There is a lack of knowledge of the realities in the field and the needs of the families participating in the project. There is often duplication of efforts concentrated on community minorities. Organizations and municipal authorities conducting field studies to see the real needs in the communities, schools, and families involved in development projects. They maintain good communication and demonstrate good organization, which allows them to share responsibilities to efficiently and effectively assist the communities and schools of the municipality, guaranteeing impartiality and prioritization of aid to the neediest families. They’d expect to see: Priority is given to the preparation of a diagnosis that includes the needs of parents, children and teachers, in order to provide solutions that are in tune with the realities of their municipalities, communities, and schools. They’d like to see: Organizations and municipal authorities working in an organized manner for a common community development agenda. Complying with monitoring mechanisms. They’d love to see: Community networks, which include organizations and municipal authorities, strengthened and impartial, fulfilling their role of supporting families, communities, and schools. Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team In conclusion, stakeholders and MGDIII agree that public policies are the first step towards sustainability, however the theory of change does not address adequately what conditions are required to achieve this goal. In this third phase, the project requires specific advocacy strategies for the creation of municipal norms for education priority in addition to work on dissemination and communication of results. In alliance with local actors, the relations established with the platforms and NGO consortiums could be strengthened, defining specific goals to be achieved with Phase III, mainly for the most vulnerable groups. It is necessary to identify common funding opportunities focused on the development of legal frameworks regarding education for municipalities. 1.7. Sustainability Sustainability is a transversal axis within the theory of change to the extent that the products and services offered in the two previous phases of MGDIII, and in this third phase, can be assimilated into the educational and local dynamics. This component is the priority of the project implementers. As we saw in the content analysis of the public policy section, it is also of interest to local and municipal authorities. The sustainability of the program is one of the priorities raised by the donor, who identifies the challenges as political will and funding opportunities in this area. CRS also agrees that a stronger relationship with the government opens up the possibility of influencing and, in addition to concrete actions at the policy level, the strategies that are already working at the grassroots level can be taken on board. The following graph shows what interviewees mentioned as sustainable in terms of changes reported by each group. The data reported by principals during the harvest of changes according to a Likert scale used to locate their perception on the sustainability of the changes, reports that although there has been an impact on the different actors of the educational system, which has been evident for more than three years on average, the continuity of the results is diverse. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents said that the changes experienced by the students are sustainable, and 35% coincide with the impact that households have a better chance of being sustained over time after the project, too. This dispersion shows that there is still not enough certainty or evidence that the actors involved take on board the changes and maintain them after the program phase ends. Graph 8. Sustainability from each Stakeholder Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team The results of the sequential interviews show that more than a quarter of the mayors see it as improbable to impossible. Those who believe it is possible agree that the crucial aspects will be: empowerment and commitment, clear responsibilities and sources of financing, raised standard of Reliable No changes living, systematization of good practices, gradual transition, coordination between local government administrations, productive diagnoses to establish supply chains and, perhaps, that the government's financial support is administered in a decentralized way by municipal authorities. They suggest better communication of results on the part of the project. A similar proportion of DMEs see sustainability as unlikely. In this case, they make the nuanced connection between project components. Educational efforts can endure, because trained teachers, methodological resources and infrastructure support remain in place. The improbable and challenging part is the food component, for which they see the commitment and motivation of local actors and parents as key. Some suggest community initiatives such as vegetable gardens or micro-enterprises in schools, or partnerships with local workshops for the provision of didactic material, an aspect that was also mentioned by the educational networks, which in itself presents an opportunity for joint work. No stakeholder recognizes any kind of support or interest in strengthening this issue from the central government."... If we, did it in a holistic way, it would be less of a burden. Now, if [sustainability efforts] were municipal, it is mathematically and financially impossible. .... Yes [sustainability is possible], as long as there is awareness on the part of teachers, parents, and local government. We have to change the way of thinking, the way of cultivating...". Municipal Authority. As part of the discourse analysis effort, using explicit statements to find relationships, patterns and tacit trends, a cluster correlation analysis is presented. The following is the similarity correlation framework of words used by theme, using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The triangulation values under the main diagonal of the matrix are presented with a color scale for easier reading, where values closer to 1 reflect higher correlation in the use of similar words. Table 20. Content Analysis - Relations between Theory of Change Strength ened School system Learning Nutrition and Schools Meals Health and Dietary Practices Community Participation Public Policies Sustainability 1-Strengthened school system 2- Learning 0.778 3- Nutrition and Schools Meals 0.594 0.674 4- Health and Dietary Practices 0.498 0.495 0.696 5-Community Participation 0.574 0.487 0.715 0.679 6-Public Policies 0.392 0.317 0.340 0.242 0.457 7-Sustainability 0.532 0.416 0.468 0.410 0.647 0.660 Source: Own elaboration by the consultant's team For the analysis of the relationships, it is taken that the clearer and more explicit the understanding of a theme and its connection with the rest, the more likely it will be sustained over time. As might be anticipated, the correlation between "1-Strengthened School System" and "2-Learning" is the highest. Equally expected was the correlation between "3-Nutrition and School Meals" and "4-Health and Dietary Practices". Other valuable findings are the closeness between "5-Community Participation" and "3- Nutrition and School Meals", but not the educational component, reflecting that community articulation is more evident in the delivery of food than in the strengthening of the school. To better understand the concept of sustainability, the strong correlation between "6-Public Policies" and "7-Sustainability" can be noted, reflecting that explicitly, but also tacitly or implicitly, all interviewees see public policies as the key to sustainability. Taking up again what was stated in the emptying matrix, "what is law, must be complied with". The second element is community participation, which according to the 5th chapter of the results section has activated communication and articulation networks but not joint actions as yet. A work opportunity during Phase III is the creation of actions using sustainability to increase the correlation between the education and health axes, by making visible the contributions these axes make to the development of the department. In this sense, there are four factors mentioned by local and municipal actors, which also coincide with the rest of the actors during the baseline: Structural Challenges; Structural Advantages; Communication of Results; Political Context. A work opportunity during phase III is the creation of actions using sustainability to increase the correlation between the education and health axes, by making visible the contributions these axes make to the development of the department. In this sense, there are four factors mentioned by local and municipal actors, which also coincide with the rest of the actors during the baseline: Structural Challenges; Structural Advantages; Communication of Results; Political Context. ● Structural challenges: The territories in which the project works present particular conditions that clearly affect the project's actions and achievements. Among the structural challenges mentioned by almost all the people interviewed were poverty, rurality, lack of access to services, citizen insecurity, exclusion of indigenous minorities, gender, generational, precarious adult literacy. In order to work on sustainability, it is necessary to create a departmental wide observatory on these issues because they directly affect the educational situation. ● Structural advantages: There are municipalities that have structural advantages such as: good agro-climatic conditions, agricultural diversity, cultural and tourism potential, solid productive network, and the existence of local initiatives such as: rural banks and financial institutions to promote production, family health projects, youth entrepreneurship projects, family agriculture projects, psychological support to families, bonding with primary health care programs, vocational workshops in secondary schools. These municipalities can more easily take on activities and products offered by the project and also promote educational forums. ● Communication of results: From the perspective of stakeholders and focus groups, the project is weak in communication and management of large-scale accountability. In order to achieve greater sustainability, it is necessary to make the program more visible, not only to motivate local stakeholders and increase commitment, but also so that authorities at the national level learn about the experience and decide to replicate it. This should involve candidates for positions of authority in the next elections in order to generate commitment from now going forwards with whomever is elected. Likewise, in the focus groups, the actions of the project are identified in schools, although they are still generally unaware of all the branches of MGDIII. ● Political context: Understanding the functioning of local governments and the central government is key for this phase. Regarding local governments, there are those who consider that they are closer to the people and have a greater capacity to react, as opposed to the bureaucracy of the central government; for this reason, they consider it positive and necessary to decentralize and take advantage of the local networks that have already been created, some local only governments act within an electoral term, and do not always manage to design long￾term development strategies, which means that they do not commit to educational initiatives. The work in communication and advocacy needs lobbying spaces, and for these roles to be assigned within the existing community structures. 5. Conclusions The McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition (MGD - FFE) Program has been operated by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in Honduras since 2012 in coordination with local and state organizations. This program is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and seeks to improve the literacy of school-aged children and increase the use of health and dietary practices in Intibucá. The Theory of Change specifies that the educational development of an intervention area depends on the condition of six specific components: Strengthened School System, School Nutrition and Meals, Learning Environment, Health and Dietary Practices, Community Participation, Public Policies and Sustainability. To this end, the project has organized its actions around these six axes of change into two levels of results: Improvement in Literacy and Improvement in Health and Nutritional Practices. As the educational system is operating a distance learning model, the current context with the COVID-19 health crisis means the implementation of the third phase faces serious difficulties for the measurement of indicators of the results to meet USDA standards. However, all the progress of previous years in terms of information, statistics, research, and current networks provide solid references for the measurement of indicators that cannot be measured at the classroom level. These references, provided throughout the report, confirm the Relevance to continue MGDIII's intervention, as the progress of learning and achievements around school enrollment, school retention, and the construction of coordinating networks for educational improvement have a high risk of regression, mainly due to the harsh conditions of poverty, rurality, and lack of investment in the Intibucá region. ● The change maps show that stakeholders identified the need to work on: strengthening learning as a priority; sustainability of actions; the creation of regulations; investment in schools and infrastructure; and access to food with appropriate health practices; which coincide with MGDIII's priorities for this third phase. ● A positive trend is observed in the schooling level among women and the potential opportunities to impact gender gaps. However, additional efforts are required from project activities to foster women empowerment. Some 79% of the principals surveyed were women, and 51% of the participants in focus groups were women in their roles as meal providers, leaders, mothers, teachers, among others, which provides a great opportunity for understanding the gender gaps within the school and their impact on the community. It is not by chance, therefore, that issues such as gender violence, sexual harassment at home or schools, learning for children with disabilities, or citizen insecurity have been mentioned as factors and signs of change that they would expect to see, like to see, or love to see in their challenges of change and their ideal educational community. In terms of Impact, one of the key factors for the resilience of the communities has been precisely the role and positive impact of MGDIII. Its results in each of the axes of change show a number of positive resources for the continuity of the project and the gradual transfer of the education model proposed by MGDIII to the local and municipal authorities of Intibucá. ● 96% of teachers consider that MGD's contribution to educational indicators has been relevant. Based on the statistics provided, it is estimated that 84% of active students remain within the distance learning system. 84% of the principals surveyed recognize the impact of MGDIII's work on student attendance, and 91% of them relate it to school meals, a change that has been observed systematically since the MGDII. ● According to official data, the consulting team estimates a current educational coverage of 85% according to project enrollment data, which is significant (although a revision of the goals is suggested). To maintain this ratio represents a significant challenge for the educational community in the current context. ● The transfer of the responsibility of learning to the home highlighted the low schooling levels of the adults as the main obstacle to achieving current progress in learning. Teachers work double to inform parents and guardians working with the students, as well as teaching the students themselves. Local resources are insufficient, such as copies and teaching materials, all of which has reduced the level of learning. Only 11% of students passed the performance assessment in mathematics and 51% achieved satisfactory or advanced levels in Spanish. This is explained by the fact that 91% of the teachers feel that they do not have sufficient resources for their teaching work in the current situation. From the perspective of Sustainability, the tools used reveal challenges in the creation of public policies or regulations that control or contribute to the quality of education. The perception of local authorities is that there is no realistic and sufficient financial capacity to undertake the products and services with the MGD approach. ● 3 out of 10 say that changes in students, homes, or the education system still need to be strengthened with resources, training, and support in order to be sustained over time and have a long-term impact. ● In effect, 98% of the schools receive support mainly from NGOs. Despite this, 21% of the principals mentioned receiving direct benefits from municipalities and central government, which provides an opportunity to share experiences with other schools and promote good experiences in communication and project accountability strategies, and to advocate for this occasional support to translate into regulations and agreements that can be sustained over time. ● Less than 1% report changes in governments and authorities, and all audiences reported this a priority. Despite this, the theory of change does not propose a roadmap for making progress in this area, but rather suggests that progress in the project components collaterally generates political and local development in the long term. The effectiveness of the project and the opportunities created is evidenced by the continued reports from the target groups that have been using the resources provided by the project for education, nutrition, and health on a regular basis. ● School meals are mentioned by 8 out of 10 principals as key to the positive impact on the improvement of educational indicators. A total of 40% of principals and teachers consider this to be a valuable resource for school participation and increased learning capabilities. ● 9 out of 10 teachers participating in support activities have used their knowledge to improve the correct use of teaching materials and to consciously create a positive classroom environment. This explains why the main support requested by principals is for methodological resources and books for teaching work, which indicates a recognition of the importance of the methodological approach in this new context. Efficiency in the use of project resources has made it possible to assemble a framework of community participation around educational quality, in which each of the actors plays an active role. The authorities provided logistical support, local stakeholders organized and managed community initiatives, and parents and teachers reported improvements to attendance and enrollment control. ● The APFS and CAES groups have an established critical capacity that in itself demonstrates the impact the project has had on them. Although the participation of private enterprise and organizations is incipient, mechanisms for articulation and anchor companies have been proposed by the educational networks. ● Despite the current context, 70% of teachers report that students complete assigned work, and according to the participation indicator measured by the consulting team, 85% of teachers report active and committed participation on the part of their students. ● Although progress has been made around investments in schools, and 85% of schools on average have improved water and sanitation facilities, the lack of resources and support at the local level is causing an accelerated deterioration of the schools. Even though 95% of the schools have access to water, only 3 out of 10 have a sink available, making it impossible to consider returning to school with an active Covid pandemic. As part of external coherence, CRS together with actors such as CARE, COCEPRADII, and donors, maintains an active role in the human development framework and promotes efficient coordination alongside them. There is a need to jointly develop more sustained practices for the communication, presentation, and dissemination of the results of MGDIII and its components to community actors and audiences. Some 70% of the organizations working as suppliers are legalized and working on their financial management. 75% of them implement environmental practices. Through their contracts with MGDIII they hope to impact 305 producer families. The changes reported in companies and organizations were minimal according to the report from principals, so there is an opportunity to work on making more actions visible. In the focus groups and interviews, municipal authorities and local leaders also mentioned interest in working in school gardens, learning more about the work of organizations and rural funds, and even contributing to schools growing their own crops. 6. Recommendations As part of the analysis of the Theory of Change proposed by MGDIII during the development of this baseline, some elements that could be improved were identified These elements include different stages of the methodology from its conception to data collection. These recommendations will make it possible to make the necessary adjustments in the approach, the orientation of future monitoring, the evaluation of the project, and will provide a more complete vision of the necessary change processes at the different levels of results. The following is a detailed description of each of these recommendations: Evaluation Recommendations CRS Management Response Time Frame Recommendation 1: Considering that different indicators were not measured in the baseline (5 out of 9), it is necessary to establish a measurement strategy for these indicators based on the current context of distance learning Teniendo en cuenta que en la línea de base no se midieron diferentes indicadores (5 de 9), es necesario The MGD III team will review the definitions and data collection strategies outlined in the PMP for each of the indicators that were not measured at baseline. As needed, the team will consider alternative strategies to measure the indicator regardless of the modality in which classes are taught. This will be done in coordination with the SEDUC and taking into consideration the current context. The following indicators will be reviewed: Remainder of the 2021 school year (through November 2021) establecer una estrategia de medición de estos indicadores basada en el contexto actual de la educación a distancia • Improved Literacy: This indicator has been measured through the diagnostic conducted in March and was approved in the contingency plan. • Attentiveness: The MEAL team has already begun to review the data collection tools developed by the CRS MGD team in Guatemala. The tools will be adapted to the Honduran context and analyzed with SEDUC authorities to identify opportunities to measure attentiveness even during distance learning. The team will then pilot these instruments. • Attendance: The MEAL team will work with SEDUC leadership to formulate criteria to measure student attendance. Some teachers meet with students once/week to distribute or collect homework assignments. This is one example of how attendance could be measured however it would most likely not be possible to measure daily attendance. • Enrollment: CRS will use the most recent enrollment data collected by the SEDUC and update the project data information system. • Reduced Health-related absences: Given the current context, the team will create an instrument that tracks number of students who report an absence due to illness. CRS will coordinate with the SEDUC. Like student attendance, it may be challenging to track daily absences as students are not attending school daily. Recommendation 2: As identified in the baseline, producer organizations have a production level of 82 MT of vegetables and eggs and sales of $61,603 dollars, which represents 5.7% of the volume required by the program. This percentage represents only the volume and sales of LRP products. To meet this demand, it is necessary to coordinate with these organizations to To reach the MT and annual revenue targets, current suppliers would have to increase their capacity fivefold. Therefore, CRS will identify new suppliers. To do so, CRS will formulate a joint strategy with producer organizations to meet the demand. This will include identifying new suppliers in neighboring municipalities and other nearby regions. The team will evaluate their progress throughout the life of the project, documenting a baseline, and then evaluating them at midterm and final. October 2021 support the strategy to meet this demand. CRS will also map institutions that can provide producers with technical assistance in topics such as good agricultural practices and in administration and legal matters with the objective of increasing production and sales. Recommendation 3: The results of the interviews with key stakeholders show that more than a quarter of the mayors see the sustainability of some of the program's actions as improbable or impossible; therefore, it is suggested that the program's sustainability plan be reviewed, updated, and followed up CRS will take several concrete steps to ensure there is a realistic sustainability plan. First, CRS will review the plan to identify potential actions that may be difficult to achieve in the determined time frame. CRS will then meet with key stakeholders at the local and national levels to discuss the sustainability plan and concerns making modifications were needed. The project team is cognizant that it is an election year and key actors could change in early 2022 and therefore the plan will also be shared with any new actors for continuity. CRS will continue to revise the plan as it is a living document subject to modification reflecting the current context. The project team will also work closely with actors at the local levels including parents, teachers, and education and municipal leaders in the various project components who can lead initiatives and sustain change at the local level beyond the life of the project. September - November 2021; early 2022; Continuous review throughout the life of project Recommendation 4: Although there are still no guidelines and conditions that allow the safe return to schools, the MGDIII program should work with SEDUC to establish a plan that guarantees the necessary conditions for a safe environment and safe return to school In March of 2021, CRS began discussions with departmental and central level education authorities regarding a comprehensive protocol for safe return to school that would allow for in-person instruction in a safe environment through consistent use of proven preventative strategies including masking, physical distancing, and leaving classroom doors open for air circulation and to reduce high touch surfaces. Since the baseline study was conducted, the SEDUC has outlined the following guidelines for the safe return to school: water and sanitation access and infrastructure, teachers and school administrators vaccinated, and sufficient biosecurity equipment. CRS will continue to work with relevant authorities to ensure a clear protocol is in place and understood by authorities throughout Intibucá. CRS will coordinate specific actions with SEDUC that are aligned with MGD program priorities such as installing and maintaining handwashing stations November 2021 before the end of the 2021 school year. CRS team members will work with education authorities to update the protocol as new information and best practices are determined by national and international health authorities. Recommendation 5: It is necessary to gather evidence by carrying out an analysis looking at gender, generational and ethnic gaps to inform and support inclusive activities though out the life of the project. CRS will identify and coordinate with key stakeholders to inquire about existing evidence regarding gender, generational, and ethnic gaps, and ways to reduce those gaps. The MEAL team will revise the project's M&E system and include tools for identifying the needs of vulnerable groups such as women, migrant children, and others, to allow for periodic analysis for informed decision making and establishing actions. December 2021 Bibliografía 1. (USINIEH), U. d. (2018). INFORME SISTEMA EDUCATIVO HONDUREÑO EN CIFRAS. Tegucigalpa. 2. Creative Research & Evaluation Associates, M. (2021). Honduras Local and Regional Food. CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) HONDURAS. 3. Light Ryan, J. M. (s.f.). The Oxford handbook of social networks. (R. Light, Editor) Small, M. L. (2009). 4. Neuendorf, K. (2002). (SAGE, Productor) 5. Solís, M. A. (2021). ¿CUÁNTO DEJARON DE APRENDER LOS ESTUDIANTES DE NIVEL BÁSICO DURANTE EL AÑO DE LA PANDEMIA 2020? Universidad Francisco Morazán, Intibucá. 6. Bracker, M. (2000). https://elsudamericano.files.wordpress.com/. Obtenido de elsudamericano.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/maren-bracker-metodologc3ada-de-la￾investigacic3b3n-social-cualitativa.pdf 7. Carabajo, R. A. (8 de Julio de 2008). La metodología fenomenológica hermenéutica de Van Manen en el campo de la investigación educativa. Posibilidades. Revista de Investigación Educativa, Volumen 26(2), 409-430. 8. Durao S, V. M.-M. (2020). doi:DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011504.pub2. 9. FAO, F. U. (2020). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011504.pub2. 10. FAO, I. U. (Julio de 2020). www.unicef.org, Inglés. doi:https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en. 11. Jimenez, D., Benítez, A., Rodríguez, M. (Octubre de 2015). Análisis de determinantes sociales de la desnutrición en Latinoamérica. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 25. 12. Amigo, M. G. (Diciembre de 2007). http://ve.scielo.org/. (F. d. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. México, Editor) Recuperado el 26 de 11 de 2018, de http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-06222007000400003. 13. Arcos-Griffiths, E. V.-R.-G.-S. (4 de Julio de 2016). Scielo, ISSN 1657-7027. doi://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.rgyps15-31.cgpp. 14. González Pisano AC, A. F. (3 de mayo de 2015). Dialnet Contribuciones. Recuperado el 10 de junio de 2020, de file:///C:/Users/usuario/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempSt ate/Downloads/Dialnet-ContribucionesEvidenciaDeLaInvestigacionCualitativ-5201763%20(1).pdf 15. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Honduras. (2021). Assistance Procurement Program (LRP) Final Evaluation Report. Honduras Local and Regional Food. 16. Crea, Tomas.; Reynolds, Andrew. (2018). MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND. Intibucá. 17. USDA. (2019). Food Assistance Indicators and Definitions. Foreign Agricultural Service – Food Assistance Division. 18. Joseph J. Valadez, P. l. (2000). Una Guía de Capacitadores para Encuestas de Línea Base y Monitoreo Regular. Perú 19. Fuster Guillen, Doris Elida. (2019). Investigación cualitativa: Método fenomenológico hermenéutico. Propósitos y Representaciones, 7(1), 201-229. https://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2019.v7n1.267 Annexes Annex I: Values or References Project Indicator set as Baseline Results Framework Statement Performance Indicator Target Baseline Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (SO1) Standard #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 74% NM** Ref - 47%8F 9 Improved Attentiveness (IR 1.2) Custom Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria 85% NM** Ref - 81%9F 10 Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP) LRP Standard #8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. 1,460 MT 83.25 MT10F 11 Sub-IR 1.2.1; Sub-IR 1.3.1; Output 1.2.1.2.; Output 1.3.1.2 (LRP) LRP Standard #7 Value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) $524,393 $65,803. Reduced Health￾Related Absences (Sub-IR 1.3.2) Custom Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. 4% 11.7%11F 12 Improved Student Attendance (IR 1.3) Standard #2 Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools 83% NM** Ref - 82.8% Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services (IR 2.4) Standard #27 Number of schools using an improved water source 1052 890 IR 2.4 Standard #28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 1052 864 Increased Student Enrollment (Sub-IR 1.3.4) Standard #9 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance 100% NM**12F 13 Ref- 51632 9 Referenced data from Intibucá Performance Evaluation collected last March 2021. 10 Results from N# 333 self-administered forms to teachers, with student engagement index, constructed during the MGDIII baseline. 11 Data from 08 active and potential MGDIII III provider organizations visited and verified during the baseline in May 2021 12 Results from N# 333 teacher self-administered forms of the average number of students absent due to illness in 43 grades who did report sickness absences during the last month. 13 2020 Intibucá enrollment provided by the MEL team. Annex II: Baseline Evaluation Contingency Plan Approved by USDA Baseline Evaluation Contingency Plan McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program – CRS Honduras 2020 Award Due to COVID-19 and subsequent guidelines to reduce its transmission, CRS has identified potential risks and subsequent implications in the activities that will be carried out during the MGDIII final evaluation. The risks have been categorized according to level: high, medium and low. CRS Honduras proposes the following strategy to minimize the impact identified: Activities Date Category/Risk Strategy Key Activities Sign contract April 30 Low risk Proposals are being evaluated and contract will be signed Conduct field activities May 10 – May 31 Medium - High Risk. Schools closed Virtual meetings for coordination between the MGDIII team and consultant team. Virtual meetings to coordinate with local and education authorities and stakeholders. Small in-person meetings when possible following biosecurity measures. Phone interviews with participants and small focus groups when possible following biosecurity measures. Indicators MGDIII 1 Percent of students demonstrating they can read grade level text (Student test/ school) May 10 – May 31 Low Risk – A diagnostic was completed in March under the 2015 award in coordination with the Ministry of Education to measure reading levels at the beginning of the new school year. A sample of incoming 3rd graders were selected and tested which measured their reading levels at the completion of second grade. The same instrument to measure reading skills will be used for midterm and final evaluations. Use results from the March diagnostic MGDIII 2 Average student attendance rate (Classroom/school) High Risk Schools continue to be closed and therefore it is not possible to collect Collect attendance records once schools reopen. Activities Date Category/Risk Strategy attendance records on a “typical school day”. MGDIII 9 Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA assistance Low Risk Data will be provided by teachers and school principals in coordination with Department level education authorities. LRP 7 Average value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer/ producer groups) Low Risk Data was collected during the LRP final evaluation for 8 of the 11 municipalities. Two out of the three new municipalities have similar conditions so the suggestion is to use the data from the LRP final evaluation. LRP 8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance Low Risk Data was collected during the LRP final evaluation for 8 of the 11 municipalities. Two out of the three new municipalities have similar conditions so the suggestion is to use the data from the LRP final evaluation. Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. (custom) High Risk Similar to MGDIII 2 above, this indicator cannot be measured during school closures Collect records once schools reopen. MGDIII 27 Number of schools using an improved water source Medium Risk Telephone calls to school principals to collect data In cases where school directors cannot be reached, use data from the Ministry of Education school infrastructure database MGDIII 28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities Medium Risk Telephone calls to school principals to collect data In cases where school principals cannot be reached, use data from the Ministry of Education school infrastructure database Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria (custom) High Risk Schools remain closed and therefore it is not possible to observe or collect data regarding attentiveness. Collect data for attentiveness once schools reopen. During baseline CRS would like to collect data on engagement and participation in remote learning while schools are closed to document how the project is supporting students during school closures. Present final report for submission to USDA June 15, 2021 Low Risk Extension approved by USDA on April 12 2021 Annex III. Data Sample and Quantitative Methods Indicators of interest (Individual/ Cluster) LOP Target Cluster * Individual Total sample size TDR Baseline Considerations Baseline Adjust Quantitative Data Collected at Baseline MGD1 Percent of students demonstrating they can read grade level text (Student test/ school) 74% 78 * 30 2,340 b students Collected Once schools reopen NM Data from secondary source MGD 2 Average student attendance rate (Classroom/school) 83% 110 * 4 440 classrooms Collected Once schools reopen NM Make a pilot to test tools and analyze information. Target not defined Not Measured Just for reference: 339 forms made for test collecting data analyze context 08 - Percent of students in the classrooms defined as "very attentive" using a scale that defines established criteria (custom) 85% 110 * 4 440 f classrooms 36 - Percent decrease of students who miss school days due to illness during the last month. (custom) 4% 110 * 4 440 i classrooms Not Measured 339 forms to as a reference to analyze the data + Pilot 19 Survey in Community Members LQAS Sampling Method LRP 7 Average value of annual sales of farms and firms (Producer groups) $4,154 4 * 1 4 producers’ organizations Contingency plan established use data from final evaluation 8 surveys to organizations because the support received for MGDIII is to OP 8 verifications on field to Producer Organizations LRP 8 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. 1460 TM 4 * 1 4 producers h Project records will be considered for the measurement of the following indicators. MGDIII 9 Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance 100% j School Use data from project records 1052 Schools Use data from SACE 2002 Not Measured 100% 1087 Schools MGDIII 27 Number of schools using an improved water source 609 g School Collect data from schools who didn’t report infrastructure investment 774 Schools where data is required 669 Surveys to Principals MGDIII 28 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 658 + 69 g School a Value from midterm evaluation of Honduras’ MGDIII-II. b The finite population correction factor has been applied, as the initial calculated sample size was greater than 5% of 5,900, the anticipated number of enrolled second-graders at baseline. c Value from baseline study of Sierra Leone’s CRS-implemented McGovern-Dole project (Phase 4). Applicable standard deviation was 0.44. d Value from baseline study of Honduras’ FY18 LRP project. Standard deviation ($2,485) based on scale (~3.5 times control average) found in Ring et al. (2017). e Brooks and Donovan (2018) f It will be carried out in the same classrooms as indicator MGDIII 2 g The project already has records of these schools from a list used by SEDUC, surveys will be conducted with the principals to confirm that they meet the criteria according to the PMP h the same groups of producers of the indicator LRP 7 will be considered and the final records of the LRP project will be reviewed I It will be carried out in the same classrooms as indicator MGDIII 2 j The most updated registration record will be reviewed according to the project records Annex IV: Research Quality Criteria As a means of verifying the evaluation standards and the relevance of the results, we documented our adherence to certain recognized standards that we used to evaluate the quality of the research used for the baseline study, the methodology, and the proposed recommendations and conclusions for MGDIII. The results were discussed and reviewed with the consulting team and advisors, and throughout the study we strived to follow the credibility criteria of Guba and Lincoln (Bracker, 2000) outlined below: ● Representativeness: Since most of the tools for wide-ranging quantitative and indicator measurement were applied to the total sample, representativeness is guaranteed given that no probability sample calculations were used. In the case of the smaller surveys, they are described as pilot data to validate the method and the instrument, and as possible tools for systematic monitoring during implementation, and have no statistical significance. As for the qualitative process, at all stages of the research there were discussions among the research team about the themes and information that emerged from the data, verifying the quality of the data collection and the data itself. ● Validity: Internal validity is a given, as the categories and relationships are useful and can be used by various levels of project management. External validity is shown in that the results and their interpretation are sufficient for generating ideas and options for other situations similar to the original one (Yin, 1994). The results presented coincide with studies carried out for MGDIII by independent teams and by other renowned authors for national statistics. ● Openness/Trustworthiness: Despite an initial semi-structured approach, the data collection and analysis were open and did not predict which behaviors would be found, nor their context. Always open to new, emerging and unexpected data, such as anthropometry of mothers, which was not originally anticipated. Similarly, all potential risks not addressed in the theory of change were documented without interference from the project team. ● Procedural nature: Has been evidenced in all aspects of the work. Describing in detail the interactions and participation of the subjects, in the collection of the data, in the classification, interpretation of data and its subsequent use. In this way, involvement with the process itself and the subjects, both influenced the design of the different techniques and tools, as well as the way they were used. ● Flexibility: Despite using known and proven methods, when applying them in certain situations, with certain subjects or contexts it might be necessary to make changes to the way the data was collected, analyzed, and the results applied. This happens whilst carrying out the process. It was therefore necessary to incorporate or adjust variables in some aspects of the design, depending on the technique, and depending on the source. ● Triangulation: We use different methods in a specific combination for this criterion. In this precise context, place and time, we’re using observation and interviews in combination with group discussions to incorporate different perspectives on data interpretation. We triangulate between types of informants, methods, as well as empirical evidence. Annex V: Results Frameworks Annex VI: Data from School Observations Table 21. Data from Schools Observations in Selected Municipality Observations Coincidence Level Observation vs Phone Calls Main Source of Water 94% Potable Water Available 100% Water Sourcing 96% Water Drainage 96% Sanitaries Infrastructure 78% Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole CHECKLIST OBSERVATION Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I General Data 1. Date 2. Supervisor 3. Status Scheduled Collected Processed Approved 4. School Code Check the code with your coordinator or on the assigned list. QR type 5. Enter GPS II Observations Current Status 1. Municipality Automatic drop-down list of municipalities 2. Verify the type of basic services available in the school Drinking Water Electricity Internet Garbage Collection Telephone Other 3. Type of educational center Preschool PROHECO Basic Common Basic PROHECO CCEPREB CEB Technical Institute Other 4. What is the current teaching modality of the school you are visiting? On-site Blended Distance learning Closed Other Access to Water 5. Main Water Source From the local water system From a spring or surface source From a community water/sanitation project Water harvesting No access to water 6. School water supply system Public Tap - Standpipe Cased/drilled well Industrial or mechanical wells for water and sewage systems. Dug well Well made by hand Water tanker trucks Containerized or bottled water Other 7. Water from surface source or protected well Yes If you mark Surface Source, Water Harvesting, or Well No 8. Do you observe filters installed in any area of the center? Yes No 9. Do you observe any type of water treatment? Filters Only if you apply treatment at school Treatment tanks Chlorinated water Treatment tablets Other 10. Do you observe signs indicating that the available water is potable? Yes No 11. Capture a photo of the water system Sanitary Conditions 12. Type of sanitary infrastructure available in the educational center Restrooms - Showers Hand washing stations Sink Toilets Restroom stalls Latrines Not available at the school 13. Drainage or disposal of wastewater Sewage system Dedicated well Septic tank Run over a surface Other 14. Type of toilets installed in the educational center Toilets Latrine with platform and septic tank Improved latrine with integrated pit Composting latrine Bucket latrine without pit Open latrines Other 15. Sanitary conditions Clean Separated by sex Absence of animals, rats Construction of a shelter (concrete or wood) Floors or concrete Water available More than one toilet, separated with individual door 16. How do you rate the observed conditions of the health services? Adequate Needs improvement Inadequate 17. Type of improvements required Sanitary Services Infrastructure (Floors, Booths or Walls) Support Personnel Installation of drainage or waste system Expansion of existing system Other 18. How many meters from the water well or natural spring are the toilets located? Less than 15 meters 15 to 50 mts More than 50 mts 19. Capture a photo of the sanitary system Assistance 20. Number of children (boys) present in each grade: Preschool First grade Second grade Third grade Fourth grade Fifth grade Sixth grade Seventh grade Eighth grade Ninth grade 21. Number of children (girls) present in each grade: Preschool First grade Second grade Third grade Fourth grade Fifth grade Sixth grade Seventh grade Eighth grade Ninth grade III Concluding Observations Was the address provided for the center correct? Yes No Sometimes Did you have any problems making the observations? Yes No Who was present during the visit to the school? No one Security Guard Director Teachers Students Mention any aspects not included in this visit, about the conditions of the center Take a photo of yourself in front of the school End of interview Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole HOUSEHOLD SURVEY Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Hello. My name is………. I work for CRS, today we are conducting surveys directed at parents or guardians who are responsible for schoolchildren. We ask you to participate by answering a few simple questions, this information will help us improve the planning and activities of the projects that we are currently developing. And we assure you that the information will be handled with total discretion. This survey takes about half an hour. Circle the number of the selected option. Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I. Ballot Data 1. Collected by: Trained enumerators list 2. Date 3. Supervisor 4. Survey format In-Person Phone 5. Status Planned Collected Processed Approved 6. School Code Check the code with your coordinator or on the assigned list QR type 7. Type of educational center the student attends Prebschool, PROHECO Common Elementary Elementary PROHECO CCEPREB CEB Institute Other 8. Municipality Waterfall 9. Register GPS III. Education Data Of the care giver or person responsible for the students To better understand your relationship with the school, please provide the following information Remember that it could be a mother, father or person responsible for a student 10. Name of the informant 11. Age 13. Kinship Mother Dad Aunt, Uncle, or cousins Grandparents Not relatives 14. What is a phone number where we can reach you? 15. Schooling of the informant None Incomplete Elementary Only if you dial the phone in the previous question Complete Elementary Incomplete High School Completed High School Other 16. What activities do you take on as a care giver? Childcare at home Prepare and send the child to school Homework support School Meetings School snack Cultural activities Support Parent Committees Community support Other Current Knowledge of School Progamming We want to take the opportunity to ask about your assessment and knowledge about the current operation of the center 17. In which teaching modality is the educational center currently operating? Face-to-face Blended Distance learning Closed 18. How does the distance learning model work? By phone (messages and calls) Display if it marks blended, or distance in question 17 Home visits Community groups Daily internet calls Other 19. How many days a week do children currently go to school with the blended system? Enter the number mentioned by the director Put validation of no more than 7. Display if it marks blended or distance in question 17 20. What is your assessment of the teaching system that the school is currently implementing? It works very well and continues improving It has limitations but we are overcoming them. It has many problems and we are still learning it It is not viable, but we have no other options currently 21. From your perspective, what kind of support does this educational center consider as a priority? Workshops & Teacher Training Textbooks Library Support School snack Health Brigades Psychological Support School Gardens / Nutrition School Curriculum Counseling Access to Water and Sanitation Management and administration Methodology support Infrastructure improvement Other IV. Child Health and Illness Data Absence from illness 1. Has the student missed classes in this home due to illness in the last year? Yes No I do not remember 2. Has the student missed classes at this home due to being sick in the last month? Yes No 3. Did you report to the teacher that the student's absences were due to illness? Yes No 4. How many times has the student missed school due to illness during this year 2021? Type Number 5. Do you have any medical records or documents about these medical absences? 6. Mention what illness the student had in those absences Diarrhea Pneumonia Common Cold or Flu Hepatitis Other 7. Has your son or daughter received deworming treatment at school this year? Yes No 8. How many times have you given deworming treatment in the last year? If you answer Yes to the previous question Health and nutrition 9. Have you received health or nutrition information from the school in the last month? Yes No 10. Mention the subject of which they have received information 11. Have you participated in any health activities at school in the past month? Yes No 12. Mention the activity in which they participated 13. Do you know if the school currently takes measures to protect your child’s health? Yes No 14. What measures do you know that the school has implemented to protect the health of the children? Activities to teach handwashing Tooth brushing activities Workshops with children and teachers Improves access to water at the school Improvement in the toilets or bathrooms in the center Other 15. Is drinking water available in the educational center? Yes No 16. Where does the drinking water come from for the educational center? Tap System water Natural source Water well Containers Other 17. What sanitary system is available at the school? Toilet Latrine There is nothing SAW. Final remarks Do you think the person understood the questions? Yes No Sometimes Was the person willing to provide information? Yes No Do you perceive that the information collected is of quality and represents the reality of the person surveyed? Yes No Why not? I dont know Do not know this person They answered very quickly Did not answer the questions Did the interview have any interference or problem that interferes with the data? Yes No End of interview Before leaving home or school, thank the participant for completing the survey, carefully check that it is correctly filled out, before continuing with the next one or leaving the field. Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole INSTRUMENT FOR PRODUCERS OR ORGANIZATIONS Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Currently the MGD project is in its phase III and is seeking to understand the perception of teachers about the current situation of schools, teachers, and the school system. We appreciate your valuable collaboration Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I Ballot Data 1. Date Trained enumerators list 2. Municipality 3. OP name Review mechanism to link the school 4. Organization Type Cooperative Business Rural Box Producers Association II. Talking to the Organization Manager 5. Could you confirm your full name? 6. What is your current position? 7. How old are you? 8. Type of Charge Owner / Founder President Board of Directors Member Partner Manager Coordinator Operator 9. Could you provide us with a phone number where I can contact you for additional questions 10. How long have you worked in this organization? If they don't have a phone, write 8 times zero 11. How many years ago was this organization founded? 12. Is the organization legally constituted? If not 13. You can confirm the legal name of the organization 14. What kinds of products does this organization sell? Farm products • Agricultural products, which generally include those raw products sold by producers such as staple foods, legumes, horticulture, livestock and fish, but do NOT include seeds. Agricultural supplies • Inputs: Seeds and planting material. Non-Agricultural Inputs • Inputs: Other non-durable inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides. Equipment and Machinery • Inputs: durable equipment and machinery, including land preparation equipment, irrigation equipment, and other equipment or machinery. Processed products • Processed products / products with added value (post-harvest). Processing and postharvest items • Postharvest storage and processing equipment, including PICS bags and processing machinery. 15. What type of agricultural products specifically does the organization produce or distribute? Corn Beans coffee Yucca Potato Banana Green banana (Plantain?) Carrot Tomato Fruit Eggs Livestock Beekeeping Other 14. Are you familiar with MGD's CRS project or LRP Local Purchases? Yes No I'm not sure 15. Have you participated in some activity or received benefits from the MGD project? Yes No I'm not sure 16. What kind of benefits or activities have you received or performed with MGD? Endowment of agricultural inputs Provision of equipment and materials for food handling Training in agricultural production and quality standards Loans and access to capital Links with markets Local Purchasing Contracts or Supply Provider Other 17. What is the current status of the relationship as suppliers with the MGD or Local Purchasing project? Active Provider In Registration Process Inactive Was a supplier but is not currently with contracts Other 18. From your perspective, what is the main advantage of being an MGD supplier? Local Purchasing Contracts or Supply Provider Endowment of agricultural inputs Provision of equipment and materials for food handling Training in agricultural production and quality standards Loans and access to capital Links with markets Other 19. How many years has this organization been a supplier to MGD? This would be the first year 1 year 2 to 4 years 5 to 7 years 20. What kinds of current problems do you hope will improve through working with MGD? Low prices Low sales volume Cost effectiveness Training Access to Supplies Lack of Working Capital Access to Financing 21. From your perspective, what is the main strength and competitive advantage of your organization as a supplier of MGD? Stable Suppliers Contract Volume Collection Financial Organization Legal Organization Lack of infrastructure Other Stable Provider Network Collection and Volume Cost effectiveness Training Access to Supplies Working capital Access to Financing Financial Organization Legal Organization Efficient Work Team Processing Infrastructure Installed Growth Capacity Other 22. Does the organization currently receive technical assistance or training? Yes No 23. Who do you receive technical assistance or advice from? NGOs Municipality Ministry of Agriculture Central government Private service Other 24. Which actor specifically provides technical assistance or training? MGD Or Local Purchases COCEPRADII USAID FAO DICTA PROLENCA PROLEMPA Other 25. How often do you receive training or technical assistance visits? Weekly Biweekly Monthly Bimonthly Quarterly Biannual Annual III. Social dimension 26. Currently, how many permanent active employees does the organization hire? 27. What percentage of permanent employees are women? 28. Currently, how many temporary active employees does the organization hire? 29. What percentage of temporary employees are women? 30. What positions or functions do women hold? Cleaning Agricultural work Gathering Processing Commercialization Coordination or logistics Management Other 31. What kind of projects or initiatives does the organization carry out to support the community? Support in Schools Trainings and Talks Health Support Access to Roads Infrastructure improvement Spaces for community meetings Youth projects Projects with women Environmental initiatives Other 32. What percentage of your suppliers are women? 33. What kind of benefits do you provide to your raw material suppliers? Access to Supplies Capital Advances Preferential Prices Social programs Access to Financing Environmental Programs Bonuses and Economic Awards Others IV. Environmental dimension 34. Does the organization carry out any kind of environmental assessment? Yes No 35. What areas have been identified as having the greatest risk or environmental impact? Cultivating Processing Distribution Packaging Administration 36. What kind of energy saving and alternative energy measures are you using? Light bulbs Solar panels Recycle raw material Other 37. During the obtaining of raw materials, what type of soil conservation measures do you carry out? Dykes Living Barriers Cover Crops Litter or Soil Cover Planting against slopes Does not apply 38. During the obtaining of raw materials, what type of water conservation measures do you carry out? Water Harvests Measures for non-contamination Buffer zones for water sources Filtration tanks Spring water or wastewater treatment Does not apply 39. Does the organization currently have an environmental impact policy or regulation? 40. How many meters from the water source is the waste system? Less than 15 meters 15 to 50 meters More than 50 meters 41. Are you doing any recycling system or practices? Yes No 42. What recycling practices are you implementing? Paper recycling Plastic Recycling Glass or Metal Recycling Recycle raw material Recycling of consumables packaging Other V. Economic dimension 43. What type of financial records does the organization keep? Input Records Cost Records Purchase record Supplier base Financial statements Income Records Expense Records Application of Inputs Agricultural Practices Others 44. How do you collect your products? Direct from producers Through intermediaries Own Plant / Supply of Own Farms 45. What percentage of the products are produced directly by your partners 46. Select the phrase that best describes the type of relationship with your suppliers Purchase from a single producer group (year after year) Purchase from direct or occasional producers according to required volume Buys from various suppliers in a collection center of the organization Buy from an organization or representative of producers although it is not known exactly who they are 47. How many producers currently supply you with products? 48. Do you have the exact data of the location of your suppliers at the farm level? Yes No Only of some 49. How do you assess the current relationship with your suppliers or producers? Excellent Good Neutral Regular With problems Let's talk specifically about the current financial situation 50. How do you assess the current financial situation of the organization? High Profitability (We are achieving significant profits) In Growth (we have not yet reached the required profit margin) We are in breakeven point (you don’t gain profits, but costs are covered) Costs are not covered 51. Do you have the data of the sales volume marketed with MDG, during the 2020 cycle, for all items? Yes No 52. How much is the sales volume reported during the 2020 cycle in total? In lbs Take into account in the case of Eggs, make conversion to lbs of commercialized eggs 53. Specify for each item of which you have confirmed to market, the current sales volume Corn Beans coffee Yucca Potato Banana Green banana (plantain?) Carrot Tomato Fruit Eggs 54. Specify for each item of which you have confirmed to trade, the average price obtained Corn Beans coffee Yucca Potato Banana Green banana (plantain?) Carrot Tomato Fruit Eggs Other 55. What sales channels did the organization have? Community Municipality For LRP or MGD Formal market (companies and individuals) Intermediaries 56. During 2020, did you make sales or commercial contracts? 57. You can confirm the total value of the current income of the organization Yes No 58. With the MGD contract, what percentage of increase in income do you expect to obtain? Less than 5% 5% to 20% More than 20% 59. Does the organization currently have any of the legal tax records? RTN CAI None of the above 60. Why is it that you have not made your RTN or legal CAI? Lack of resources We are still growing and validating the model Lack of information The organization is not profitable yet Other 61. Would the organization be interested in legalizing itself to sell its production? Yes No SAW Final remarks Yes During the performance of the hearing, did you have any interference that could have impacted the data quality? No Sometimes What is the sex of the person who provided the information? Male Female Did you manage to observe documentation on the level of sales of the organization? Did you manage to observe documentation on the financial statements and current income of the organization? Did you notice posters or signs about the organization's policies or regulations? Yes No The organization's offices were not visited Confirm what type of records you were able to observe and verify Input Records Cost Records Purchase record Supplier base Financial statements Income Records Expense Records Application of Inputs Agricultural Practices Others What data is included in the records or lists of the organizations' client producers Full name Farm location Family data Sales Volume Types of products Status or Relationship with Organization End of interview Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole QUARTERLY MONITORING OF TEACHERS Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I Ballot Data Date Trained enumerators list Municipality School Review mechanism to link the school Type Modality of the Center Common Preschool Proheco Elementary Common Elementary Proheco CCEPREB CEB Institute Other What is your full name? Sex of the person surveyed Could you provide us with a phone number where I can contact you for additional questions Are you currently an active classroom teacher? If you are not a teacher, you should not continue the survey. Skip to the closing and dismissal II. Education Data Current status We are going to talk in a general way about the situation of the school and its teaching work 1. In which teaching modality is the educational center currently operating? Face-to-face Blended Distance learning Closed 2. How many contact days a week does the hybrid system have? 3. What is the level of educational commitment of the students today? They fulfill tasks They ask and inquire about the issues They meet in work teams They attend all sessions remotely They attend all face-to-face sessions Other 4. Compared to last year, what is your assessment of the reading level of second graders? They have improved compared to the previous cycle Has decreased from the previous cycle It is the same as in previous years 5. What positive factors have affected first and second grade students' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other 6. What barriers or factors have affected first and second grade students' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other Complete this portion if the school is open, or operating in a hybrid or remote system Statistics We will talk in detail about the statistics process and attendance of the center 7. In general, you can confirm with me that the data that I am going to mention below is available and are part of the records of your educational center Please read all the options to the interviewee. If it is necessary to stop or ask for clarification, do so. 8. You can confirm the following data based on the last report sent Initial Registration Total Female Students Total Male Students Total Current Attendance Number of students who dropped out of school Causes of School Absence Number of days for absence due to illness Number of days for non-attendance due to migration 9. Based on the reading level assessment completed for second graders, describe the percentage of students according to the following criteria: Did not answer Take into account that it adds up to 100% Unsatisfactory Needs improvement Satisfactory Advanced 10. What is the main cause of absences for your students? Family problems Distance Illness Migration School disinterest Lack of resources Other 11. What percentage of students reported absences due to illness more than once? 12. What illnesses were reported as causes of absence? Diarrhea Pneumonia / Cold Hepatitis Other: 13. Why is it that they do not collect and organize the data that is not available? It has never been necessary Skip if they do not mark any of the above Lack of information Lack of equipment Lack of office supplies Lack of knowledge III. Learning Achievements 14. For each of the learning achievements below, confirm the percentage of students that you estimate to be satisfactory. Display if they answer yes, to the question about the project in the general data section Achievement 1 Define in conjunction with teachers Achievement 2 Achievement 3 Achievement 4 Achievement 5 Achievement 6 End of interview Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole SCHOOL DIRECTORS SURVEY Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Hello, my name is .......... I am currently part of the CRS team working to collect data for the baseline study of the third phase of the MGD project. In order to conduct this interview, my team has given me your contact, as the director of XXX school. We are interested in collecting some important data for the implementation of the project. The interview lasts no more than 45 minutes, and your information is confidential and valuable. Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I Ballot Data 1. Collected by: List of trained surveyors 2. Date 3. Supervisor 4. Collection medium Field Telephone 5. Status Scheduled Collected Processed Approved School Code Check the code with your coordinator or on the assigned list. QR type Number of surveys per day Confirm the number of calls you have made during the day, which corresponds to this survey. II General Data 6. What is your full name? Automatic drop-down list of municipalities 7. Sex of respondent 8. How many years have you been working in the education system? Less than 3 years old 4 to 7 years 8 to 15 years More than 15 years 9. Are you currently the director or manager of the school? If the person is not a Director, but is interim responsible, remember to check yes. If the answer is “not a director,” the surveyor should not continue a jump to the closing and dismissal 10. Do you have the telephone contact information for the person who assumes the position of Director of the Educational Center? If the person does not facilitate the contact, enter "0" 8 times Only if you mark that you are not a director. Then finish the survey. Validation of an 8-digit number 11. How many years have you been working as the principal of this school? Type number 12. Are you familiar with MGD's CRS project? Yes No I'm not sure 13. Have you participated in some activity, received any information or benefits from the MGD project? Yes No I'm not sure III Education Data Current status We want to confirm with you some data and characteristics of the school that you direct. We appreciate the time provided and we remind you that this data is used only for project purposes and is used confidentially. 14. Municipality Automatic drop-down list of municipalities 15. Location Rural-Urban Automatic drop-down list of municipalities 16. What type of access to basic services are present in the educational center? Drinking water Electricity Internet Garbage collection Telephone Other 17. What is the telephone number where we can contact the center? 18. Whose phone number is it? School Director, Personal Cell Only if you record the phone number in the previous question Community Telephone Other 19. Type of educational center modality Common Preschool Preschool Proheco Common Elementary Elementary Proheco CCEPREB CEB Institute Other 20. In which teaching modality is the educational center currently operating? Face-to-face Blended Distance Learning Closed 21. How does the remote mechanism work? By phone (messages and calls) Display if it marks blended, or distance in question 20 Via home visits Community groups Via daily internet calls Other 22. How many contact days a week does the hybrid system have? Enter the number mentioned by the director Put validation of no more than 7. Display if it marks blended or distance in question 20 23. What is your assessment of the teaching system that you are currently implementing? It works very well, and we are improving It has limitations but we are overcoming them. It has many problems, and we are still learning it It is not viable, but we have no other options currently 24. Are you doing any kind of supervision to the teacher? Yes No 25. What kind of support does this educational center receive? Workshops & Teacher Training Books, School Literature Library Support School snack Health Brigades Psychological Support School Gardens / Nutrition School Curriculum Counseling Access to Water and Sanitation Management and administration Methodological Accompaniment Infrastructure improvement Other 26. Who provides this kind of support? NGOs Social movements Mayors Central government Private company 27. From your perspective, what kind of support does this educational center require as a priority? Workshops & Teacher Training Books, School Literature Library Support School snack Health Brigades Psychological Support School Gardens / Nutrition School Curriculum Counseling Access to Water and Sanitation Management and administration Methodological Accompaniment Infrastructure improvement Other 27. Compared to last year, what is your assessment of the literacy level of second graders? It has improved compared to the previous cycle It has decreased compared to the previous cycle It is the same as in previous years 28. Compared to last year, what positive factors have affected first and second grade students' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other 29. Compared to last year, what barriers or factors have affected first and second graders' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other Statistics We would like to review some of the data and characteristics of the school you direct. We appreciate the time you are taking to complete the survey and assure you the data remains confidential. If you need time to look up information, you may do so now. The data will only pertain to this educational cycle. Deploy, if the school is open, or operating in a hybrid or remote system 30. In general, you can confirm to me what data that I am going to mention below is available and part of the records of your educational center Initial Registration Please read all the options to the interviewee. If it is necessary to stop or ask for clarification, do so. Number of students who dropped out of school Total Current Attendance Current Attendance 1st Grade Current Attendance 2nd Grade Number of students with literacy adequate at the end of 2nd Grade Level of Participation 'Quality of Participation by grade Absence Statistics Causes of school absence Number of days for absence due to illness Number of days for non-attendance due to migration Number of teachers and collaborators Number of guardians (mothers or fathers) participating or supporting the educational system None of the above Validate that you do not check the rest of the options 31. Why is it that they do not have or collect the data that is confirmed as not being available? It has never been necessary Jump if they do not mark any of the above Lack of information Lack of equipment Lack of office supplies Lack of knowledge 32. What is your assessment of the SACE information system? It is very useful It's easy to use It allows us to organize the data of the educational center Works with many difficulties Not currently working + 33. What resources do you need to improve the center's statistics recording system? Nothing Equipment Information Training Technical assistance to form them Office supplies Other 34. How do you record the statistics of the center? Analog - By hand Digital Both None 35. How many students did you register in the 2021 school enrollment? Confirm the data as accurate as possible. If you don't remember, type 6 times 0 6-digit number validation 36. Can you provide the contact information of your first and second grade teachers Yes If you check Yes, write down in the base with your coordinator the data of the teachers provided No IV Hydrosanitary Conditions Access to Water We will better understand how the water and sanitation system works, please ask if any information is not clear to you. 37. What is the main source of water for the school? From the local water system From a spring or surface source From a community water / sanitation project Water harvest No access to water 38. What is the school's main water supply system like? Public Faucet - Vertical Tube Cased / drilled well Well made in an industrial or mechanical way by the water and sewage system Dug well Well made by hand Water tanker trucks Containerized or bottled water Other 39. Is the water from the surface source or well protected? Yes If you check Surface Fountain, Water Harvest, or Well No I'm not sure 40. Does the educational center carry out any action to treat / filter the water? Yes No 41. What type of treatment do you carry out on the water? Filters Only if you apply treatment at school Treatment tanks Chlorinated water Treatment pills Other 42. Describe the type of support you receive in improving water sanitation Open question. Display only if you marked water and sanitation in question 27 43. What kind of measures are applied to conserve and save water? Open question Sanitary conditions 44. What type of sanitary infrastructure is available in the educational center? Bathrooms - Showers Hand washing stations Handwash Toilets Bath Houses Latrines Does not exist in school 45. How is the drainage or disposal of wastewater carried out? Sewage system Dedicated well Septic tank Is allowed to run on a surface Other 46. What type of Latrines are installed in the educational center? Latrine with platform and septic tank Improved latrine with integrated pit Compostable Composting Latrine Bucket latrine without shed Open latrines Other 46. Confirm if the sanitary system has the following conditions Clean Read the options Separated by sex Absence of animals, rats Shed construction (concrete or wood) Floors or Concrete Available Water More than one toilet, separated with individual door 47. How do you assess the current conditions of the health services? Adequate Regular Inappropriate 48. What kind of improvements does the educational center's health system require? Sanitary Services Infrastructure (Floors, Booths or Walls) Support staff Installation of drainage or waste system Expansion of the existing one Other 49. How many meters from the water well or natural source are the toilets? Less than 15 meters 15 to 50 meters More than 50 meters 49. During the last two weeks, has the water source and/or the sanitary service changed? Yes - Water Source Yes - Sanitary Service No - None 50. How has the center's water source changed in the last two weeks? V. Harvest of Changes As you know, MGD has already been working in the Intibucá area and we want to understand how its impact has been in the current situation. Display if you answer yes, to the question about the project in the general data section In this section add the option of NONE in case the person says so, no others are marked. 51. From your perspective, who has MGD supported or impacted? Students (1st to 2nd grade) Teachers Households Educational Networks Community Government and Authorities 52. What positive changes have you observed in Students? Greater assistance If you check Students Class participation Better health Open attitude to school Better relationship with teachers Students learn faster Students participate in all kinds of activities Greater commitment to the school Other 53. What positive changes have you observed in Teachers? More organization in the class If you check Teachers Better control of data and statistics Better knowledge Teaching methodologies Better relationship with students Better relationship with the Director Better relationship with guardians Joint participation with educational networks More participation in teacher workshops Greater commitment to the school Open attitude to school Other 54. What positive changes have you observed in Homes/Guardians? More guardians visit school If you check Homes and Guardians Greater parental involvement Better relationship with students Better relationship with the Director Better relationship with teachers Participate in community activities Greater commitment to the school Open attitude to school Less stress at home Better food at home Greater assistance Better health Other 55. What positive changes have you observed in Educational Networks? Better work plans If you check educational networks Better control of data and statistics Improved work with authorities Creation of joint activities for education Better relationship with students Better relationship with the Director Better relationship with teachers Participate in community activities Greater commitment to the school Open attitude to school Other 56. What positive changes have you observed in the Community and its leaders? Greater interactions with the schools If community mark Better control of data and statistics Community plans Greater cooperation with the authorities Better security support Better relationship with the Director Better relationship with teachers Greater commitment to the school Open attitude to school Other Greater involvement with the community 57. What positive changes have you observed in local and government authorities? Greater involvement with schools Better control of data and statistics Better budget accountability Joint action with other local actors Policies and programs to support education Better relationship with the Director Open attitude to school Other 58. What resources offered by the project facilitated this change to [Students or as applicable]? Workshops and training Repeat 5 more times for each of the indicated subjects of change School attendance School snack Meetings Monitoring of work plans Home diet support Joint work plans Education campaigns Communication campaigns Supply of supplies Delivery of books or primer Others 59. When was this change observed? No more than 6 months ago In the last year In the last two years ago For more than three years From the start of the project 60. What contributions or resources did the [Students or as applicable] use to achieve the change? Interest in learning Monitoring and evaluating their work plans They took time to research and learn more Meetings and follow-up with the project They participate in all activities They complete all assigned tasks Share what they have learned with others They support the activities with their own financial funds They invite their networks, friends, and family to activities They support the organization of the process Communicate difficulties effectively They propose solutions to the problems that arise Other 61. Do you think that these types of changes are sustained over time? Certain Somewhat sure Neutral It is possible, but needs improvement I do not believe it 62. From your perspective, what is the most significant change that the project has achieved? Audio type SAW Final remarks Do you think the person understood the questions? Yes No Sometimes Was the person willing to provide information? Yes No Do you perceive that the information collected is of quality and represents the reality of the person surveyed? Yes No Why not? I do not know Do not know them They answered very quickly Did not answer the questions Did the interview require any type of interpreter or translator? Yes No How many call attempts did you make to be able to set up the interview? What was the quality of the telephone communication during the call? Excellent Inconsistent Low quality End of interview Catholic Relief Services CRS International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program McGovern-Dole TEACHERS SURVEY Question / Section Answer categories Additional indications Jumps - Logic Presentation Currently the MGD project is in its phase III and is seeking to know the perception of teachers about the current situation of schools, teachers, and the school system. We appreciate your valuable collaboration Do you agree to participate? Yes No End survey I. Ballot Data 1. Date Trained enumerators list 2. Municipality 3. School Review mechanism to link the school 4. Type of Educational Center Common Preschool, PROHECO Elementary, Common Elementary, PROHECO CCEPREB, CEB, Institute, Other II. Personal information 5. What is your full name? 6. Sex of the person surveyed 7. How many years have you been working in the educational system? Less than 3 years 4 to 7 years 8 to 15 years More than 15 years Could you provide us with a phone number where I can contact you for additional questions 8. Are you currently an active classroom teacher? If you are not a teacher, you should not continue the survey a jump until the closing and dismissal 9. How many years have you been working as a teacher at this school? Type number 10. Are you familiar with MGD's CRS project? Yes No I'm not sure 11. Have you participated in some activity or received benefits from the MGD project? Yes No I'm not sure III. Education Data Actual status We are going to talk in a general way about the situation of the school and you work as a teacher 12. In which teaching modality is the educational center currently operating? Face-to-face Blended Distance learning Closed 13. How does the remote mechanism work? By phone (messages and calls) Display if it marks blended, or distance in question 12 Via home visits Community groups Via daily internet calls Other 14. How many contact days a week does the hybrid system have? Put validation of no more than 7. Display if it marks blended, or distance in question 12 15. What is your assessment of the teaching system that you are currently implementing? It works very well and we are improving It has limitations but we are overcoming them. It has many problems and we are still learning it It is not viable, but we have no other options currently 16. What is the level of educational commitment of the students today? They fulfill tasks They ask and inquire about the issues They meet in work teams They attend all sessions remotely They attend all face-to-face sessions Other 17. Are they receiving any kind of supervision from the teacher? Yes No 18. From your perspective, what kind of support does this educational center require as a priority? Workshops & Teacher Training Books, School Literature Library Support School snack Health Brigades Psychological Support School Gardens / Nutrition School Curriculum Counseling Access to Water and Sanitation Management and administration Methodological Accompaniment Infrastructure improvement Other 19. Compared to last year, what is your assessment of the reading level of second graders? They have improved compared to the previous cycle They have decreased from the previous cycle They are the same as in previous years 20. Compared to last year, what positive factors have affected first and second grade students' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other 21. Compared to last year, what barriers or factors have affected first and second graders' learning to read and write? School staff training Teacher training Supervision Follow-up tests Teaching method Books and methodological resources Home support Pandemic Other 22. What type of methodological resources do you receive for your teaching work? Teacher training Monitoring and Supervision Literature Methodological Support Computer or Work Phone Internet access Access to Phone Balance Impressions and educational material Other 23. Do you consider that you have the resources to do your teaching in the best possible way? 24. What kind of resources do you need at this moment for your teaching work? Teacher training Snack and Diet Support for Students Monitoring and Supervision Literature Methodological Support Computer or Work Phone Internet access Access to Phone Balance Printing and educational material Other 25. Has your school received sanitary infrastructure improvements with USDA or the MGD project? Yes No 26. Has your school received infrastructure improvements for water with USDA or the MGD project? Yes No 27. Have you participated in some training, or activity of part of the MGD project? Yes No I'm not sure 28. Have you participated in some training, or training in Teacher Improvement from the MGD project? Yes No I'm not sure 29. Have you participated in some training, or activity in Health and Nutrition from the MGD project? Yes Not I'm not sure 30. Do you use tools, didactic or curricular resources from these training activities? I use a balanced approach to teaching / learning processes Proper use of teaching materials. Sufficient time spent learning. Assessment of learning progress and adequacy of teaching. Favorable class environment. Other Statistics We will talk in detail about the statistics process and attendance of the center Use questions if the school is open, or operating in a hybrid or remote system 31. In general, you can confirm to me that the data requested is available and are part of the records of your educational center Please read all the options to the interviewee. If it is necessary to stop or ask for clarification, do so. 32. What kind of attendance data do you report to the school principal? Initial Registration Total Current Attendance Number of students who dropped out of school Initial Registration 33. You can confirm the following data based on the last report sent Total Female Students Total Male Students Total Current Attendance Number of students who dropped out of school 34. What type of absence data do you report to the school principal? Absence Statistics Causes of School Absence Number of days for absence due to illness Number of days for non-attendance due to migration 35. You can confirm the following data based on the last report sent Absence Statistics Causes of School Absence Number of days for absence due to illness Number of days for non-attendance due to migration 36. Do you report the Quality of Student Participation? Yes No 37. What data is reported regarding the achievements of the school year? Number of students who were promoted / passed the school year Number of students who, by the end of second grade, demonstrate literacy according to the textbooks of the required level. Number of tutors (mothers or fathers) participating or supporting the educational system 38. You can confirm the following data based on the last report sent Number of students who were promoted / passed the school year Number of students who, by the end of second grade, demonstrate literacy according to the textbooks of the required level. Number of tutors (mothers or fathers) participating or supporting the educational system 39. From the reading evaluation of students who graduated from second grade, categorize the total number of students according to the results they obtained? Did not answer Unsatisfactory Needs improvement Satisfactory Advanced 40. What is the main cause of absences for your students today? Family problems Distance Illness Migration School disinterest Lack of resources Other 41. What percentage of students reported absences due to illness more than once? 42. What illnesses were reported as causes of absence? Diarrhea Pneumonia / catarrh Hepatitis Other: 43. Why is it that some of the data requested is not collected and organized? It has never been necessary Skip if they do not mark any of the above Lack of information Lack of equipment Lack of office supplies Lack of knowledge 44. What is your assessment of the SACE information system? It is very useful It's easy to use It allows us to organize the data of the educational center Works with many difficulties Not currently working + 45. What resources do you need to improve the center's statistics recording system? Nothing Equipment Information Training Assistance technique to formulate them Office supplies Other 46. How do you record the statistics of the center? Analog - By hand Digital Both None VI. Harvest of Changes As you know, MGD has already been working in the Intibucá area and we want to understand how its impact has been in the current situation Display if they answer yes to the question about being familiar with the project in the general data section 47. Select from your perspective Who has had the most significant and important change that you have observed? Students (1st to 2nd grade) Teachers Households Educational Networks Community Government and Authorities 48. What changes have you observed? 49. What resources offered by the project facilitated this change to [Students or as applicable]? Workshops and training School attendance School snack Meetings Monitoring of work plans Home diet support Joint work plans Education campaigns Communication campaigns Supply of supplies Delivery of books or primer Others 50. When was this change observed? No more than 6 months ago In the last year In the last two years For more than three years From the start of the project 51. What contributions or own resources did they use to achieve the change? Interest in learning They monitor and evaluate their work plans They took time to research and learn more Meetings and follow-up with the project They participate in all activities They complete all assigned tasks Share what they have learned with others They support the activities with their own financial funds They invite their networks, friends, and family to activities They support the organization of the process Communicate difficulties effectively They propose solutions to the problems that arise Other 52. Do you think that these types of changes are sustained over time? Certain Somewhat Sure Neutral It is possible, but needs improvement I do not believe so SAW. Final remarks Did you understand the questions? Yes No Sometimes End of interview