SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT - 2011
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE TITLE II MULTI-YEAR 
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM “SEGAMAYA” 
FINAL REPORT 
Guatemala, November 2011
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
2 
PARTICIPANTS 
Survey Coordinator Marlon Motha
Field Supervisor Verónica Morales
Survey Takers / Anthropometrists Toribia Ramos
Evelyn Méndez
Alberta Gonzalez
Ana Lissete Barrera
Laura Ramazzini
Brenda Marlene
Dorotea Alvarado
Mayra Ochoa
Sonia Hernández
Sample size calculation Lic Jorge Matute
Data processing and analysis Lic. Humberto Méndez
Final Evaluation Report Licda. Mireya Palmieri
Ing. Agr. Columba Sagastume
Dr. Hernán Delgado
Caritas Diocesana Verapaz
Edgar Raúl Hernández
Mario Arévalo
Nestor Flores
Caritas Diocesana San Marcos Ronel Ramirez Carrillo
Jorge Armando Rodas
Catholic Relief Services Roberto De Paz
Mónica Rodríguez
Gustavo Chew
Maribel Quintanilla
William Vásquez
Oscar Ixquiac
Catalino Miculax
Victor Hugo Lemus
Regina Incer
Rosario Sarmiento
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
I. Background............................................................................................................................... 2
A. National Context............................................................................................................. 3
B. Program Description....................................................................................................... 4
II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 6
A. Survey Study Design ...................................................................................................... 6
B. Final Evaluation Plan for CRS Multi-Year Assistance Program.................................... 8
1. Design of survey tools.......................................................................................... 8
2. Training the survey team...................................................................................... 8
3. Logistics for data collection and quality control .................................................. 8
4. Data processing, analysis of indicators and final reporting.................................. 9
III. RESULTS PER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE............................................................................ 9
A. Impact indicator Results from Baseline Survey in 2007 and End Line Survey in 2011. 9
B. Changes in impact and results indicators during the 2007-2011 period....................... 10
1. Program goal: effects on nutritional status......................................................... 10
2. Strategic Objective 1: improved productivity and sustainable use of natural 
resources (food access and availability)............................................................. 23
2.1 Effects on food supply and dietary diversity...................................................... 23
2.2 Effects on food availability, adoption of agricultural and animal production 
practices and sustainable use of natural resources.............................................. 27
3. Strategic Objective 2: Increased family livelihood capacities (food Access) .... 40
4. Strategic Objective 3: Improved health and nutritional status of children 0-36 
months and pregnant/lactating women (food utilization and consumption) ...... 44
4.1 Effects on breastfeeding and childhood feeding................................................. 44
4.2 Effects on health-care seeking patterns.............................................................. 54
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 69
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Table I.1 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Classification of the Vulnerability Level in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz departments and their 
Municipalities according to the Food Insecurity Vulnerability Index ................................................. 4
Table I.2 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Major Activities of the SEGAMAYA Program ................................................................................. 4
Table II.1 ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 1.1 ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Prevalence of global, chronic and acute malnutrition of children 0-59 months at national level and 
in the departments of Baja Verapaz and San Marcos according to the Mother-Child Health National 
Survey (ENSMI 2008/2009) ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Change to the prevalence of global, chronic and acute malnutrition of children 6-59 months 
between baseline survey in 2007 and end line survey in 2011.......................................................... 12
Table 1.3 ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Prevalence of global* malnutrition per geographic area among children 6-59 months .................... 13
in baseline and end line surveys ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 1.4 ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area among children 6-59 months in baseline 
and end line surveys .......................................................................................................................... 13
Table 1.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Prevalence of acute malnutrition * per geographic area among children 6-59 months in baseline and 
end line surveys ................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 1.6 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Prevalence of global malnutrition* per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 1.7 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 1.8 ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Prevalence of acute* malnutrition per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 1.9 ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Prevalence of global* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children ................. 15
6-59 months in baseline and end line surveys ................................................................................... 15
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
iii
Table 1.10 .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children 6-59 
months in baseline and end line surveys ........................................................................................... 16
Table 1.11 .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Prevalence of acute* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children 6-59 months 
in baseline and end line surveys ........................................................................................................ 16
Table 1.12 .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Indicators combining global, chronic and acute malnutrition among children 6-59 months ............ 17
In baseline and end line surveys ........................................................................................................ 17
Table 1.13 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Average Z score for anthropometric indexes in 2007 baseline survey and 2011 end line survey 
among children 6-59 months ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 1.14 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Weight-for-age average Z score per group age (every six months) in 2007 baseline survey and 2011 
end line survey .................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 1.15 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Height-for-age average Z score per group age (in months) in 2007 baseline survey and 2011 end 
line survey ......................................................................................................................................... 20
........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 1.16 .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Weight-for-height average Z score per age (in months) in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 1.17 .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Relation of weight for age, height for age and weight for height indices with mothers‟ schooling 
level, family size and mothers response when they recognize danger signs in the 2011 end line 
survey ................................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 1.18 .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Relation of weight for age, height for age and weight for height indices with feeding and food 
consumption indicators in 2011 end line survey ............................................................................... 22
Table 2.1 ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Adequate food provisioning (per tercile) in baseline and end line surveys ...................................... 23
Table 2.2 ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Average number of months of adequate food provisioning in the baseline and end line surveys .... 23
Table 2.3 ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Average number of months of adequate food provisioning (per tercile) in baseline and end line 
survey ................................................................................................................................................ 24
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
iv
Table 2.4 ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Percentage of households dietary diversity (per tercile) in baseline and end line surveys ............... 24
Table 2.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Average of food groups consumed in the baseline and end line surveys .......................................... 25
Table 2.6 ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Average of food groups consumed (per tercile) of dietary diversity in baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 2.7 ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Food groups consumed in household the previous day during baseline and end line surveys.......... 25
Table 2.8 ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Months of food shortages during the past year in baseline and end line surveys.............................. 26
Table 2.9 ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Months of food shortages in baseline and end line surveys .............................................................. 26
Table 2.10 .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Food shortage in households during months of food shortages in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 2.11 .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Causes of food shortages in household in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys .................. 27
Table 2.12 .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Producers adopting at least two improved agriculture practices in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end 
line surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Table 2.13 .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Producers adopting at least two improved animal production practices in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 2.14 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Food production deficit in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys ............................................... 29
Table 2.15 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Months with adequate food production (per tercile) in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys ... 29
Table 2.16 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Months with no food production in the baseline and end line surveys ............................................. 29
Table 2.17 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Causes of food production deficits reported by farmers in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 2.18 .......................................................................................................................................... 30
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
v 
Coping strategies to access food during months of food shortage in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end 
line surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 2.19 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Heads of households engaged in agriculture in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys ......... 31
Table 2.20 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Maize production per the baseline and end line surveys ................................................................... 31
Table 2.21 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Final number of grains per hole in the baseline and end line surveys ............................................... 31
Table 2.22 ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Production of beans in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys ............................................... 31
Table 2.23 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Farmers that use certified maize and/or bean seed in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 32
Table 2.24 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Producers that report storing basic grains per method in the baseline and end line survey .............. 32
Table 2.25 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Producers that use improved structures to store basic grains in the baseline and end line surveys .. 32
Table 2.26 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Producers who grow native plants for household consumption in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 2.27 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Types of native plants grown by producers in the 2011 end line survey .......................................... 33
Table 2.28 .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Producers that report growing vegetables in the baseline and end line surveys ............................... 34
Table 2.29 .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Producers that grow commercial vegetables in the end line survey .................................................. 34
Table 2.30 .......................................................................................................................................... 35
Producers that report implementing soil conservation practices in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 2.31 .......................................................................................................................................... 35
Producers that report use of fertilizers or compost in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 35
Table 2.32 .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Percentage of producers that report having fruit trees in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 2.33 .......................................................................................................................................... 36
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
vi
Producers that report having crop problems during the past year in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 2.34 .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Producers that use chemicals to control pests in the baseline and final surveys ............................... 37
Table 2.35 .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Producers that report being engaged in raising animals in the baseline and end line surveys .......... 37
Table 2.36 .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Producers that report animal care methods in baseline and end line surveys ................................... 37
Table 2.37 .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Producers that report obtaining products from their animal production in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 2.38 .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Producers that report consuming products from their animal production in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 2.39 .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Producers that report selling their animal products in the baseline and end line surveys ................. 38
Table 2.40 .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Producers that report animal production problems in the baseline and end line surveys .................. 39
Table 2.41 .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Producers that report having received agriculture training during the past month in the baseline and 
end line surveys ................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 3.1 ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Producers adopting at least two improved formal marketing practices in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 3.2 ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Producers with a small business in the baseline and end line surveys .............................................. 41
Table 3.3 ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Producers that report calculating their business expenses in the baseline and end line surveys ....... 41
Table 3.4 ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Producers adopting formal marketing practices in the baseline and end line surveys ...................... 41
Table 3.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Producers that report having a notebook to write down calculations in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 3.6 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Producers that identify problems that affect the business in the baseline and end line surveys ....... 42
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
vii 
Table 3.7 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Producers that have a plan to improve their businesses in the baseline and end line surveys .......... 42
Table 3.8 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Producers that have marketing plans for their businesses in the end line survey .............................. 43
Table 3.9 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Producers that report a place to sell their products in the baseline and end line surveys .................. 43
Table 3.10 .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Producers that report receiving institutional support for their business in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 4.1 ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Exclusive breastfeeding in children 0–6 months in the baseline and end line surveys ..................... 44
Table 4.2 ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Exclusive breastfeeding in children 0-6 months per age group in the baseline and end line surveys44
Table 4.3 ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Liquids other than breast milk consumed by children <6 months on the previous day in the baseline 
and end line surveys .......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.4 ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Breastfeeding at any point in time from 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys ............. 46
Table 4.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Mothers currently providing breastfeeding to children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.6 ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Mothers currently breastfeeding a child 6-23 months per age group in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4.7 ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Liquids other than breast milk consumed by children 6-23 months in baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4.8 ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Average age in which the child 6-23 months began feeding in the baseline and end line surveys ... 48
Table 4.9 ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Average age of introduction of food in children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 48
Table 4.10 .......................................................................................................................................... 48
Age in which children 6-23 months start eating solid foods in the baseline and end line surveys ... 48
Table 4.11 .......................................................................................................................................... 49
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
viii 
Food groups consumed the previous day by children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 4.12 .......................................................................................................................................... 50
Frequency of feeding the previous day for children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.13 .......................................................................................................................................... 51
Frequency of feeding the previous day to children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 4.14 .......................................................................................................................................... 51
Number of tablespoons fed to the 6-23 month child the previous day in 2011 end line survey ....... 51
Table 4.15 .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Number of tablespoons fed to children 6-23 months the previous day in the end line survey in 
comparison to recommended standards ............................................................................................ 52
Table 4.16 .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Way to prepare food for the 6-23 month child the previous day in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end 
line surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 4.17 .......................................................................................................................................... 54
Number of women that recognize two or more pregnancy danger signs in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.18 .......................................................................................................................................... 54
Number of mothers who recognize two or more neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.19 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Number of mothers that recognize two or more childhood illness signs in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 4.20 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Number of women that recognize pregnancy danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys ..... 56
Table 4.21 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Pregnancy danger signs that are recognized by women in the baseline and en line surveys ............ 56
Table 4.22 .......................................................................................................................................... 57
Number of pregnancy danger signs recognized by women in the baseline and end line surveys ..... 57
Table 4.23 .......................................................................................................................................... 57
Average of pregnancy danger signs recognized by women in the baseline and end line surveys .... 57
Table 4.24 .......................................................................................................................................... 57
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
ix
Percentage of women who sought health services after recognizing pregnancy danger signs in the 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 57
Table 4.25 .......................................................................................................................................... 58
Place where mothers/women sought health services after recognizing pregnancy danger signs ...... 58
in the baseline and end line surveys .................................................................................................. 58
Table 4.26 .......................................................................................................................................... 60
Number of mothers that recognize neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys ..... 60
Table 4.27 .......................................................................................................................................... 60
Neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers (per sign) in the baseline and end line surveys ....... 60
Table 4.28 .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Number of neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line surveys...... 61
Table 4.29 .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Average number of neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4.30 .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Percentage of mothers that sought health services after recognizing neo-natal danger signs in the 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 61
Table 4.31 .......................................................................................................................................... 62
Place where the mother sought health services after recognizing neo-natal danger signs in the 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 62
Table 4.32 .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Number of mothers that recognize childhood illness danger signs in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 4.33 .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Childhood illness danger signs recognized by mothers (per sign) in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 4.34 .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Number of childhood illness danger signs recognized by mothers in baseline and end line surveys 64
Table 4.35 .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Average number of childhood illness signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line 
surveys............................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 4.36 .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Percentage of mothers that sought health services after recognizing childhood illness danger signs 
in the baseline and end line surveys .................................................................................................. 65
Table 4.37 .......................................................................................................................................... 65
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
x 
Place where the mother sought health services after recognizing childhood illness danger signs in 
the baseline and end line surveys ...................................................................................................... 65
Table 4.38 .......................................................................................................................................... 67
Percentage of households that use a method for purifying drinking water ....................................... 67
in the baseline and end line surveys .................................................................................................. 67
Table 4.39 .......................................................................................................................................... 67
Percentage of households that use a method for purifying drinking water per method .................... 67
in the baseline and end line surveys .................................................................................................. 67
Table 4.40 .......................................................................................................................................... 68
Percentage of households that received counseling on health and nutrition in the past month in the 
baseline and end line surveys ............................................................................................................ 68
Table 4.41 .......................................................................................................................................... 68
Percentage of household that received training/counseling on health and nutrition per theme in the 
baseline .............................................................................................................................................. 68
and end line surveys .......................................................................................................................... 68
Table 4.42.......................................................................................................................................... 68
Percentage of households that received training/counseling on health and nutrition in the past month 
per source in the baseline and end line surveys ................................................................................. 68
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT - 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The final evaluation of the Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program titled SEGAMAYA1
, funded by 
USAID and implemented by Catholic Relief Services – Guatemala Program and local partners 
Caritas San Marcos and Caritas Baja Verapaz covers the period from mid 2007 to mid 2011. 
Both the 2007 baseline and the 2011 end line surveys collected data in comparable sample 
households which provides sufficient statistical evidence to estimate differences between the 
findings of both studies and to make valid statistical inferences for comparable groups. 
Both studies used almost identical tools which were administered by trained survey takers (with 
experience in conducting surveys in households at community level) and the same statistical 
software for comparative analysis and classification criteria of results. 
This report documents the changes that occurred in the different SEGAMAYA program indicators, 
including positive changes that reveal the appropriateness and effectiveness of the set of 
interventions carried out with participating families. 
Based on the results of both baseline and end line surveys, we can draw the following conclusions 
that provide recommendations for future similar health and nutrition programs implemented at 
community level: 
 Stunting among children 6-59 months reduced more than 12 percentage points (from a 
baseline 79.1% in 2007 to 66.4% in 2011), which represents a reduction of over three 
percentage points per year in a four year period. 
 Both baseline and end line surveys reveal that stunting is first found somewhere between the 
6
th-12th month of age, which confirms significant maternal nutrition deficiencies before and 
during pregnancy found in other relevant available studies. 
 Collected data reveal positive changes in the impact and results indicators that refer to the four 
pillars of food security and nutrition underlying the design of the SEGAMAYA program. 
 Mothers have shown some progress in improving key health and critical feeding behaviors to 
care for themselves and their children. 
 The food ration contributed to significantly increase dietary diversity and adequacy of food for 
participating families. 
 Results also showed an increased number of mothers adopting improved feeding practices 
such as adequate age for introducing solid foods, frequency, quantity and consistency of food. 
 Results imply that the SEGAMAYA program was successful in increasing mothers‟
identification of significant health problems and risks that may affect their health and that of 
their children and the importance of seeking health services in a timely fashion. 
 
1
Food Security Program for the Mam and Achi peoples
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
2 
 The SEGAMAYA Program worked with preventive health, child feeding and nutrition 
interventions with pregnant and lactating women to improve the adoption of key nutrition and 
health practices, which are part of the elements of the 1,000 days strategy; a recent collective 
global commitment to improve food security and nutrition and consequently contribute to 
accomplish the Millennium Development Goals.
 Survey results indicate a 17 percentage point food production deterioration between 2007 and 
2011, which could mean that household food provisioning did not improve due to increased 
farmers‟ production, but to an increase of the food ration being distributed by the Title II 
program as explained in more detail in the conclusions section of this report. As reported by 
74% of households in 2011, farmers´ production was affected by two major natural disasters 
including drought in 2009 and Tropical Storm Agatha in 2010 (see table 2.17). 
 Although the adoption of improved agriculture/livestock production and marketing practices 
does not seem as significant as food consumption and utilization results, the 2011 end line 
results show an increased number of farmers adopting these improved practices. 
 Findings validate the effectiveness of integrated and sustainable interventions of the 
SEGAMAYA Program that led to changes in difficult to impact indicators such as the height 
for age indicator among children under the age of five. 
I. Background 
Guatemala has one of the highest chronic malnutrition rates in Latin America and the Caribbean 
among children under the age of five (49.8%), which places it on the list of countries with very high 
levels of chronic malnutrition (> 40%) according to the World Health Organization.2
 The chronic 
malnutrition rate is even higher among rural and indigenous populations and among families with 
little to no education or with a family size larger than average. High levels of chronic malnutrition 
are persistent and although an analysis of the past 45 years indicate 0.5 reduction of chronic 
malnutrition per year, this improvement is relatively lower than that of other countries in Central 
America. 
To respond to the challenges faced by Guatemala, especially in remote rural areas with high poverty 
rates, the United States Agency for International Development -USAID- funded a Title II Multi-Year 
Assistance Program from 2007-2011 titled SEGAMAYA to be implemented by CRS3
 and 
implementing partners Caritas San Marcos and Caritas Verapaz in three municipalities in the San 
Marcos department and three municipalities in the Baja Verapaz department. The goal of this 
program is to improve the food security of 12,000 families located in the most vulnerable and 
marginalized geographic zones. 
SEGAMAYA´s results framework include the following goal and strategic objectives: 
 
2
 Physical Status: The use and interpretation of anthropometry, Report of a WHO Expert Committee, 1995.
3
 This programa was designed under the Food for Peace strategy (FFP/USAID) for 2004-2008 and the Country Plan 
USAID/Guatemala 2006-2010 whose goal is to “Improve the Food Security of Guatemalan Rural Families”. the 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
3 
Goal: Improved food security of the most vulnerable rural households in San Marcos and Baja 
Verapaz by 2011 
Strategic Objective 1: Improved agricultural productivity and sustainable use of natural resources 
(food access and availability) 
Strategic Objective 2: Increased resilience of family livelihood capacities (access) 
Strategic Objective 3: Improved health and nutritional status of children 0-36 months and 
pregnant/lactating women (food utilization and consumption) 
A. National Context 
Guatemala is among the countries with some of the worst social development indicators in Latin 
America and the Caribbean. This is related in part to the lack of government´s ability to invest 
enough resources and efforts to develop and implement strategies to solve historical problems and 
emerging issues that occur as a result of demographic, nutritional and epidemiological changes that 
further exacerbate existing problems. 
There is another crisis that threatens the possibilities of good governance in Guatemala – The 
inefficient use of public funds, ineffective government measures to address the needs of the 
population and government corruption that have caused the reduction of public funds that together 
with population growth has increased the demand for public services. 
Unequal distribution of public and private investment in Guatemala throughout the years has 
contributed to have either privileged or relegated zones in the country, with employment 
opportunities and public services unequally distributed across the nation. There are regions and 
departments that present higher levels of social, economical and political exclusion which is revealed 
through structural limitations to access resources and an income, barriers in exercising citizens´ 
human rights and for the establishment of social relations that respect differences in people‟s
religious beliefs, ethnicity and gender4
. 
CRS chose to implement the SEGAMAYA Program in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz, two of the 
departments presenting some of the worst social economical conditions at national level as revealed 
by its high chronic malnutrition rate and anemia among children and women. These departments 
present different challenges and possibilities for improving people‟s level of wellbeing. For 
example, according to the Food Insecurity Vulnerability Index (table I.1), 31% of total municipalities 
in the San Marcos department are classified with high vulnerability to food insecurity, 15.8% with 
medium vulnerability and 17.2% with low vulnerability while the municipalities in the Baja Verapaz 
department are equally distributed (25%) in the four vulnerability levels.5
 
4
 UNDP, 2000 
5
 Priority Municipalities identified by the National Counsel of Food Security and Nutrition (Consejo Nacional de 
Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional – CONASAN-) to implement Food Security and Nutrition Interventions in 
Guatemala, July 2011.
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
4 
Table I.1
Classification of the Vulnerability Level in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz departments and their Municipalities 
according to the Food Insecurity Vulnerability Index 
 
Geographic Area Food Insecurity Vulnerability Level 
Very High High Medium Low 
San Marcos 31% 31% 20.7% 17.2%
Baja Verapaz 25% 25% 25% 25%
Municipality Food Insecurity 
Vulnerability Index
Food Insecurity 
Vulnerability Level
San Marcos
Tajumulco 0.997053 Very high 
Sibinal 0.943539 Very high
Tacaná 0.937667 Very high
Baja Verapaz
Cubulco 0.88716 Very high 
Rabinal 0.53134 High
San Miguel Chicaj 0.361678 High
B. Program Description 
CRS and partners developed the SEGAMAYA Program based upon the lessons learned and 
successful practices from the implementation of past Title II programs as well as on the new 
guidelines emerging from recognized national and international organizations working to improve 
food security and nutrition. The evaluation team had access to program documentation which served 
to identify key activities proposed by CRS to achieve the program objectives. The following table 
includes a summary of these activities: 
Table I.2
Major Activities of the SEGAMAYA Program 6
Strategic Objective Expected Intermediate 
Result Activities
Improved 
agricultural 
productivity and 
sustainable use of 
natural resources
Farmers using improved 
cultivation and post￾harvest management 
techniques 
Train 525 community volunteers with emphasis on improved 
and sustainable agricultural production 
Promoters replicate trainings (received from CRS and partners) 
to group of farmers using five modules (Improved production 
and post-harvest management, production and management of 
small-scale livestock production, agro forestry, fish culture and 
conservation techniques).
Communities organized 
and engaged in natural 
resource management.
Development of 14 micro-watershed plans 
Reforestation of 2,400 hectares in communal and privately 
owned land 
Soil conservation structures in 1,200 hectares of land 
(communal and private)
Communities use early 
warning systems to 
monitor climatic shocks 
Development of early warning systems to monitor climatic 
shocks, especially flooding and droughts in target communities
Increased family Rural families are Development of 14 market studies 
 
6
 This information was extracted from the Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) FY2007-FY 2011 developed by CRS 
and approved by USAID. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
5 
Strategic Objective Expected Intermediate 
Result Activities
livelihood capacities engaged in profitable 
commercial activities
Formation, organization and support to 14 legally-recognized 
farmer and non-agricultural associations 
Support 14 farmer associations with seed capital and training to 
improve their productive capacity.
Establish formal alliances with organizations that are able to 
provide specific technical support to CRS/GT, partner staff and 
participants based on identified needs
Train and follow-up of 700 participants on non- agriculture 
basic small business management.
Improved health and 
nutritional status of 
children 0-36 
months and 
pregnant/lactating 
women
Families adopt improved 
health and nutrition 
practices and behaviors 
based on AIEPI/AINM￾C
Train 600 health promoters in AIEPI/AINM-C
7
themes: 
childhood illnesses management, monthly growth 
monitoring/promotion for children under 3 years of age, 
recognition of danger signs (prenatal, during delivery, 
postpartum and in the newborn), hygiene and health practices, 
household management of diarrhea (without dehydration) and 
respiratory infections, as well as family planning (e.g. 
counseling on spacing between pregnancies, natural birth 
control methods).
Design an effective information, education and communication 
(IEC) strategy based on the ProPAN (Process to Promote Child 
Feeding) methodology8
.
Education and promotion of key messages as defined by the 
AIEPI/AINM-C described above to 12,000 participating 
mothers
Monthly growth promotion and monitoring of children of 
12,000 families
Promotion of complementary feeding practices including 
selection and preparation of food, hygiene and proper food 
storage and management 
Promotion of family gardens and small-scale livestock 
production 
Establishment of situation rooms in participating communities 
Families have access to 
and use improved water 
and sanitation systems
Construction and/or improvement of 35 community water 
systems
Construction of latrines and gray water disposal systems for 
1,400 households
Creation of community water committees 
Promotion of the solar water disinfection method SODIS as part 
of the health and nutrition training activities 
The purpose of this evaluation was not to assess staff performance or review internal reports, but to 
review the annual monitoring information with the level of progress in achieving proposed goals and 
outputs, thus providing the grounds to assess the results of program interventions. 
 
7
 Guatemala program of Integrated Management of Childhood Illness and Health Care for Children and Women in the 
Community focusing on adult education and behavior change for mothers in order to reduce maternal and infant mortality. 
8
 Pachón, E. Proceso para la Promoción de la Alimentación del Niño: Methodology, software and examples of how 
ProPAN has been used to improve feeding of children under the age of two, Quito, Ecuador, October 2006.
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
6 
Final Evaluation Objectives: 
The purpose of the SEGAMAYA Program evaluation was to measure the effects and impact of the 
different interventions implemented in target areas. The objectives of this evaluation are: 
1. Provide a quantitative assessment of the impact indicators (from baseline to end line) that relate 
to the achievement of the program strategic objectives in the 2007-2011 period. 
2. Document the level of progress in achieving program Indicators in light of the baseline and end 
line results as a basis for drawing conclusions and making recommendations to future similar 
projects. 
II. METHODOLOGY9
A. Survey Study Design 
The design of the end line survey conducted to evaluate the impact of the SEGAMAYA Program 
included pre and post measurements without a control group for comparison purposes. This study 
will serve to identify changes in main proposed indicators in target areas. The survey sample 
included direct beneficiaries of the SEGAMAYA program and non-beneficiaries. Based on 
recommendation by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), the survey used 
stratified sampling and three levels: 1) by each of the three PVOs with Title II Programs (including 
CRS); 2) by municipalities in target areas; and, 3) by communities (this was disaggregated by 
communities with SEGAMAYA´s agricultural interventions and communities without agricultural 
activities. For the third level, cluster sampling was selected and the survey was conducted in three 
stages, as follows: 1) first, selection of communities; second, selection of households within these 
communities; and third, selection of families (in case there were more than one family within a 
household). 
A total of 860 homes were visited to obtain a sample size of 768 children under the age of five. 32 
clusters were selected for this sample size with an average of 22 households to be visited in each 
cluster. At the end, 686 questionnaires from households with children under the age of five were 
completed. The following table shows the total number of households visited during the end-line 
survey. 
 
9
 The main aspects of the methodology used by the evaluation of this MYAP can be found in the “Template for a short 
paper describing CRS Guatemala Final Evaluation Plan, developed by CRS Guatemala. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
7 
Table II.1 
Location of communities selected for SEGAMAYA program end line survey
Department Municipality Micro-watershed Community 
Total 
Number of 
Households 
in the 
Community
Total Number 
of 
Questionnaires 
Completed
San Marcos Tacana Saquipaque Caserío Holanda 47 24
San Marcos Tacana Saquipaque Aldea Tojcheche 160 23
San Marcos Tacana Chanjule Cantón Sn Antonio la Laguna 83 25
San Marcos Tacana Las Molinas Cantón la Ciénaga 77 21
San Marcos Tacana Chochilaja Cantón Nueva Reforma Caserío 
Plan Grande 57 21
San Marcos Tacana Chemealon Cantón Toninchicalaj 115 25
San Marcos Tacana Chanjule Cantón la Esperanza 127 24
San Marcos Tacana Toninpich Cantón Tojchoc Grande 665 24
San Marcos Tacana Chemealon Cantón Cua 155 27
San Marcos Sibinal Sibinal Cantón Tohaman 187 24
San Marcos Sibinal Sibinal Aldea San Andrés Cheoj 34 21
San Marcos Tajumulco Cutzulchima Caserio la Libertad 193 19
San Marcos Tajumulco Cutzulchima Aldea Chanchicupe 244 27
San Marcos Sibinal Suchiate medio Aldea Maria Cecilia 111 18
San Marcos Sibinal Suchiate medio Caserío 20 de Noviembre 79 13
San Marcos Tajumulco Petacalapa Caserío Tajumulquito 85 20
San Marcos Tajumulco Petacalapa Aldea Pueblo Nuevo 258 19
San Marcos Tajumulco Cutzulchima Aldea Chana 220 21
Baja Verapaz Cubulco El Xun Chiul La Laguna 109 25
Baja Verapaz Cubulco El Xun Colonia el Naranjo 200 19
Baja Verapaz Cubulco El Xun La Laguna II 125 24
Baja Verapaz Cubulco Canchel Choven 145 19
Baja Verapaz Rabinal Canchel Las Ventanas 88 20
Baja Verapaz Rabinal Chococ Chuaperol 296 20
Baja Verapaz Rabinal San Rafael Chisaliya 244 24
Baja Verapaz Rabinal San Rafael Chiticoy-Pamaliche 246 17
Baja Verapaz Cubulco Chixoy Pajales II 113 25
Baja Verapaz San Miguel San Miguel Dolores 240 20
Baja Verapaz Rabinal San Rafael San Rafael 174 17
Baja Verapaz San Miguel San Gabriel Chixolop 457 27
Baja Verapaz Cubulco Chitanil Los Encuentros 42 16
Baja Verapaz San Miguel San Miguel San Rafael 52 17
Total 5,428 686
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
8 
B. Final Evaluation Plan for CRS Multi-Year Assistance Program 
1. Design of survey tools 
Data collected responds to program strategic objectives that refer to the pillars of food security and 
nutrition. The study researched the food availability, access, consumption and utilization by families 
that live in communities targeted by this Title II program. 
The questionnaire used had open and closed questions linked to impact Indicators that responded to 
the following research topics suggested by CRS programmatic staff: agriculture (food availability 
and access); health, nutrition, water and sanitation (food consumption and utilization).
The end line survey used the same tools used in the baseline study based on FANTA guidelines in 
order to measure the indicators required by Food for Peace. The tool used in the baseline survey was 
only modified to divide the sample (list of communities) in two strata: One with communities with 
SEGAMAYA agricultural activities and another with communities not benefiting by agricultural 
activities, but benefitted by maternal child health interventions. 
2. Training the survey team 
The team was composed of a Field Coordinator, a Field Supervisor and nine survey takers with 
extensive experience in taking anthropometric measurements and collecting data at the household 
level. The staff was trained by CRS to assure the accurate weighing and measurement of children as 
well as their understanding of each question and the information that they needed to collect. This 
training also included practical exercises where survey takers conducted interviews in pairs. 
The evaluation and survey teams had the support from the technical staff from CRS and partners 
Caritas San Marcos and Caritas Verapaz with extensive experience working in Baja Verapaz and San 
Marcos. Consultancy firm Consultores en Nutrición y Desarrollo, S.A. (CONDESSA) and CRS‟
M&E unit supervised survey activities in the field and helped make necessary adjustments to assure 
optimum quality of the final evaluation process. 
3. Logistics for data collection and quality control 
After selecting the communities for the survey, a plan to visit each community was developed and 
communities were assigned to survey teams taking into account access to communities and the 
number of questionnaires to be administered per day. 
A total of 686 survey questionnaires from households with children under the age of five were 
completed in August and September 2011, which collected different information (e.g. composition of 
the family within the household, health, nutrition and small livestock production). Teams were 
organized in order to complete the survey within 30 days. There were two supervisors that oversaw 
and distributed the workload to a total of nine survey takers, which included collecting the 
information through interviews and taking anthropometric measurement of children. This evaluation 
placed special emphasis in the revision of the questionnaires being filled out on a daily basis to 
correct possible errors in a timely manner. This revision was done at all levels (survey takers, 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
9 
supervisors and the Field Coordinator). CRS M&E staff also reviewed some questionnaires 
randomly selected. 
4. Data processing, analysis of indicators and final reporting 
The questionnaires were reviewed, coded (identify which questions responded to each indicator) and 
entered into the Epi-Info program twice to minimize data entry errors. Children´s nutritional 
improvement (weight and height data) was processed through WHO Anthro software using WHO 
2006 anthropometric standards. The team of consultants analyzed and interpreted the change in 
impact and results indicators between the 2007 baseline and the 2011 end line survey period and 
prepared and submitted the present report. 
III. RESULTS PER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 
A. Impact indicator Results from Baseline Survey in 2007 and End Line Survey 
in 2011 
The following table shows the accomplishment of impact and results indicators revealed by this final 
evaluation. Some of the highlights include the achievement in the reduction of the chronic 
malnutrition indicator, exceeding the proposed target of 73.0% by 6.6 percentage points to 66.4% or 
an overall reduction from the 2007 baseline (79.1%) of 12.7 percentage points and the improvement 
of household dietary diversity score. The only planned target not achieved was the weight-for-age 
indicator while the adoption of formal marketing practices was lower than expected. 
Impact Indicators Base Line 
Survey Goal
End Line 
Survey
Program Goal
Percentage of children 0-59.99 months with weight for age below -2.0 SD 22.0% 17.0% 24.9%
Percentage of children 6-59.99 months with height for age below -2.0 SD 79.1% 73.0% 66.4 %
Strategic Objective 1: Improved agricultural productivity and sustainable use of natural resources (food 
access and availability)
Number of months (average) of adequate household food provisioning 10.8 months 12 
months 11.4 months 
Household Dietary Diversity Score (average) 5.5 groups of 
food 
6 food 
groups
6.8 groups 
Percentage of farmers adopting at least two improved agriculture practices 53.9% 65.0% 80.2%
Percentage of farmers adopting at least two improved animal production 
practices 13.7% 30.0% 39.9%
Strategic Objective 2: Increased family livelihood capacities (food access)
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
10
Impact Indicators Base Line 
Survey Goal
End Line 
Survey
Percentage of participating producers adopting at least two formal marketing 
practices 29.3% 50.0%
42.4%
Strategic Objective 3: Improved health and nutritional status of children 0 – 36 months and 
pregnant/lactating women (food utilization and consumption).
Percentage of infants 0-5.99 months who have received exclusive 
breastfeeding during the past 24 hours 62.2% 70.0% 74.9%
Percentage of mothers and care givers with children 0-35.99 months who 
recognize at least two childhood illness signs that indicate need of seeking 
health care services 
39.7% 60.0% 69.8%
Percentage of mothers with children 0-35.99 months that recognize at least two 
pregnancy danger signs that indicate need of seeking health care services 10.2% 30.0% 83.2%
Percentage of mothers with children 0-35.99 months able to report at least two 
signs of danger of the newborn (<28 days) that indicate need of seeking health 
services 
11.6% 32.0% 71.4
B. Changes in impact and results indicators during the 2007-2011 period 
1. Program goal: effects on nutritional status 
The physical growth of a child under the age of five is an important parameter to evaluate his/her 
nutritional status. The two universally accepted measures of physical growth are height and weight. 
When comparing children‟s weight and height according to their age and gender against universally 
recommended growth standards, it is possible to estimate three anthropometric indices: weight for 
age, height for age and weight for height used for different purposes. The height for age 
measurement is used as a sign of chronic malnutrition accumulated since birth while weight for 
height measurements is a sign to determine acute malnutrition. The weight for age standard is used 
to determine global malnutrition and cannot distinguish between chronic and acute malnutrition. 
Statistically, when there is a normal distribution of children´s weight and height measurements (age 
and gender), it is possible to estimate stunting and indirectly indentify the magnitude of malnutrition 
as the proportion of children that fall below certain value within that distribution or as the average Z 
score of a population being studied. According to the new growth standards launched by the World 
Health Organization in 2006, 2.3 % of children fall below minus 2 standard deviation for weight for 
age, height for age and weight for height indicators. 
The most recent information available – the Mother-Child Health National Survey 2008-2009 with 
anthropometric data among children under the age of five (table 1.1) for national and departmental 
levels for Baja Verapaz and San Marcos, indicate that chronic malnutrition affects almost half of the 
children under the age of five while acute malnutrition is below 2%, with children‟s height 20 times 
lower than the expected height indicated by WHO growth standards. At departmental level for both 
Baja Verapaz and San Marcos, the prevalence is even higher than the national average for the three 
indicators mentioned above. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
11
Table 1.1 
Prevalence of global, chronic and acute malnutrition of children 0-59 months at national level and in the 
departments of Baja Verapaz and San Marcos according to the Mother-Child Health National Survey (ENSMI 
2008/2009) 
Anthropometric Indicator 
(<-2 SD)
Percentage at Departmental Level
National Level
(N = 9,713)
Baja Verapaz
(N = 426)
San Marcos
(N = 472)
Weight for age 13.1 14.9 14.4
Height for age 49.8 59.4 53.5
Weight for height 1.4 1.6 2.9
Based on the above information, the following are the results of the anthropometric baseline survey 
conducted in 2007 and the anthropometric end line survey carried out in 2011 after four years of 
program implementation. The sample size was selected to get a representation of the population 
targeted by this Title II program and to assure sufficient statistical evidence to identify changes in the 
two anthropometric indicators, especially in the height for age indicator and if these were above two 
percentage points per year during the period of 2007-2011. 
In order to measure changes in the anthropometric indices (weight for age, height for age and weight 
for height), the survey used the proportion of children under the age of five falling below minus two 
standard deviations from the median of the WHO child growth standards and average Z score. 
Confidence intervals were also used for these estimations. In order to evaluate consistency of 
results, the information was analyzed by age group, sex and geographic area. The analysis of the 
program effects is estimated through the comparison of the prevalence of stunting and Z score 
average before and after program implementation (2007 and 2011) since the survey does not have a 
control group for comparison purposes. 
Table 1.2 and Chart 1 show the changes detected from the baseline study conducted in 2007 and the 
end line study carried out in 2011 for the three anthropometric Indicators mentioned above. Although 
the results of both studies show a prevalence of global and chronic malnutrition above the prevalence 
at national level (Mother-Child Health National Survey (ENSMI 2008/2009) and departmental level 
in Baja Verapaz and San Marcos, when comparing the baseline with the end line survey results, the 
later reveals that chronic malnutrition in target communities was reduced by 12 percentage points 
(from a baseline 79.1% in 2007 to 66.4% in 2011), which is statistically significant. There were no 
significant changes in the prevalence of global and acute malnutrition. The analysis of data 
disaggregated by gender revealed a reduction of chronic malnutrition prevalence in both sexes, with 
a statistically significant reduction among girls from 2007 to 2011. However, there were no 
significant statistically differences between the improvement between girls and boys during this 
four-year period. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
12
Table 1.2 
Change to the prevalence of global, chronic and acute malnutrition of children 6-59 months 
between the baseline survey in 2007 and the end line survey in 2011 
Anthropometric
Indicator (<-2 SD)
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End Line Survey 
Number of 
Children Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number of 
Children Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Weight for age 1286 22.0 17.9-26.0 1043 24.9 19.6-30.2
Height for age 1124 79.1 75.4-84.8 925 66.4 59.5-73.2
Weight for height 1133 1.6 0.4-2.7 926 1.4 0.1-2.7
Boys
Weight for age 654 23.0 17.9-28.2 556 26.2 20.8-31.5
Height for age 574 81.0 74.8-87.3 489 70.2 61.3-79.1
Weight for height 581 2.1 0.2-4.0 489 2.42 0.0-5.1
Girls 
Weight for age 632 20.8 16.1-25.6 487 23.6 17.2-30.0
Height for age 550 77.0 71.1-83.0 436 60.3 54.8-69.8
Weight for height 552 1.0 0.0-2.0 437 0.3 0.0-0.8
Tables from 1.3 to 1.5, from 1.6 to 1.8 and from 1.9 to 1.11 show results by geographic area, sex and 
age group in order to evaluate consistency of changes revealed by survey results. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
13
These analyses confirm the reduction of chronic malnutrition in target areas, with results slightly 
better in the Baja Verapaz department with no statistically significant differences among the groups 
disaggregated by geographic area, sex and age. The differences in the prevalence of global and acute 
malnutrition are not statistically significant. 
Table 1.3 
Prevalence of global* malnutrition per geographic area among children 6-59 months 
in the baseline and end line surveys 
Geographic area 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz 519 21.9 16.4 381 21.0 12.2-29.9
San Marcos 767 22.0 17.5-26.4 662 28.0 21.3-34.6
*prevalence of global malnutrition: weight for age <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.4 
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area among children 6-59 months in the baseline and end line 
surveys 
Geographic area 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz 449 67.9 59.3-76.4 336 57.1 44.7-69.2
San Marcos 675 80.2 74.1-86.2 589 73.7 65.2-82.1
*prevalence of chronic malnutrition: height for age <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.5 
Prevalence of acute malnutrition * per geographic area among children 6-59 months in the baseline and end line 
surveys 
Geographic area 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz 453 1.3 0.0-2.8 336 2.1 0.0-4.9
San Marcos 680 1.6 0.3-2.9 590 0.8 0.1-1.6
*prevalence of acute malnutrition: weight for height <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
14
Table 1.6 
Prevalence of global malnutrition* per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in the baseline and end 
line surveys 
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
boys 248 21.1 13.1-29.1 196 24.4 14.5-34.3
girls 271 22.5 16.6-28.5 185 17.8 7.7-27.9
San Marcos
boys 406 23.2 17.7-28.8 360 27.4 21.4-33.4
girls 361 20.6 15.4-25.9 302 28.7 19.8-37.5
*prevalence of chronic malnutrition: height for age <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.7 
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in the baseline and 
end line surveys 
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
boys 215 69.2 57.3-81.1 172 63.9 45.6-82.2
girls 234 66.7 57.8-75.5 164 50.5 39.9-61.1
San Marcos
boys 359 82.1 75.4-88.8 317 74.8 66.1-83.5
girls 316 78.1 71.7-84.5 272 72.4 62.2-82.6
*prevalence of chronic malnutrition: height for age <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Low height per age (boys) Low height per age (girls) 
prevalence
Chart 2
Changes in prevalence of child chronic malnutrition per sex in San 
Marcos and Baja Verapaz
In the 2007- 2011 period
2007 2011
Table 1.8 
Prevalence of acute* malnutrition per geographic area and sex among children 6-59 months in the baseline and end 
line surveys 
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
boys 218 2.4 0.0-5.1 172 4.3 0.0-10.6
girls 235 0.3 0.0-0.8 164 0.0 0.0-0.0
San Marcos
boys 363 2.0 0.0-4.1 317 1.1 0.0-2.4
girls 317 1.1 0.0-2.4 273 0.6 0.0-1.4
*prevalence of acute malnutrition: weight for height <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.9 
Prevalence of global* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children 
6-59 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
16
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
0-35 348 22.0 15.4-28.5 245 20.5 14.2-26.9
36-59 171 21.6 15.0-28.3 136 21.9 6.6-37.3
San Marcos
0-35 522 20.4 15.0-25.8 421 26.4 19.3-33.6
36-59 245 25.5 17.7-33.3 241 30.9 20.4-41.4
*prevalence of chronic malnutrition: height for age <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.10 
Prevalence of chronic* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children 6-59 months in the baseline 
and end line surveys 
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
0-35 281 65.6 55.4-75.9 200 56.1 44.0-68.3
36-59 168 71.8 63.1-80.5 136 58.4 43.7-73.2
San Marcos
0-35 434 76.9 70.1-83.7 352 72.6 63.6-81.5
36-59 241 86.3 80.5-92.0 237 75.4 64.3-86.4
*prevalence of chronic malnutrition: height for age <-2.00 SD Z score from the median of the WHO child growth standards, 2005. 
Table 1.11 
Prevalence of acute* malnutrition per geographic area and age group among children 6-59 months in the baseline 
and end line surveys 
Geographic 
Area 
Sex 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Baja Verapaz
0-35 284 1.1 0.0-2.5 200 3.5 0.0-8.2
36-59 169 1.5 0.0-4.0 136 0.0 0.0-0.1
San Marcos
0-35 438 2.0 0.0-3.9 353 0.6 0.0-1.5
36-59 242 0.9 0.0-2.2 237 1.2 0.0-2.9
*prevalence of acute malnutrition: weight for height <-2.00 Z score from the median of the 2005 WHO child growth standards. 
Table 1.12 presents the combined analysis of three anthropometric Indicators for both the 2007 
baseline and the 2011 end line surveys. For this, the information of each child was classified into 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
17
two categories: low and normal (low = <-2.00 Z score; normal = >-2.00 Z score) in the weight for 
age, height for age and weight for height indicators. 
Table 1.12 and Chart 3 indicate the groups found more frequently as follows: children with stunting, 
children within the normal range in the three indicators (weight for age, height for age and weight for 
height) and children with both low weight and height but with a normal weight-height relation. The 
proportion of children presenting stunting reduced significantly between 2007 and 2011 while the 
percentage of children within the normal range of the three indicators increased significantly. The 
proportion of children with both low weight and height but with a normal weight-height relation 
increased but not significantly. 
Table 1.12 
Indicators combining global, chronic and acute malnutrition among children 6-59 months 
in the baseline and end line surveys 
Indicators 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Children
Percentage
Confidence 
Intervals
LWA LHA LWH 8 0.68 0.06-1.30 8 1.11 0.00-2.40
LWA LHA NWH 227 21.06 17.48-24.64 204 24.19 20.72-27.66
LWA NHA LWH 4 0.44 0.00-1.00 2 0.14 0.00-0.37
LWA NHA NWH 4 0.17 0.00-0.38 2 0.68 0.00-1.88
NWA LHA NWH 589 57.25 52.96-61.53 392 41.08 37.14-45.02
NWA NHA WHM 2 0.10 0.00-0.28 1 0.15 0.00-0.44
NWA NHA NWH 287 20.30 17.02-23.58 314 32.65 28.92-36.39
WA= weight-for-age; HA: height for age; WH = weight for height; WHM: Weight-for-age malnourished 
L = low < -2.00 Z score 
 N = normal >-2.00 Z score 
 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LWA LHA 
NWH NWH LHA 
NWH NWA NHA 
NWH
21.06
57.25
20.3
24.19
41.08
32.65
Percentage
Chart 3
Changes in indicators combining global, chronic and acute 
malnutrition among children 6-59 months in San Marcos and Baja 
Verapaz during 2007 - 2011
2007
2011
WA= Weight for age 
HA = Height for age
WH = Weight for 
height
L = Low < - 2.00 SD 
Z score
N = normal > - 2.00 Z 
score
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
19
Baseline and end line survey anthropometric data was examined by using an estimated Z score 
average in relation to the growth pattern. Table 1.13 and chart 4 present the average values and 
confidence intervals of Z score for the weight-for-age, height for age and weight for height indices 
found in the 2007 baseline and the 2011 end line surveys. As shown in the table, the height for age Z 
score in the end line survey is 0.30 less than what was reported in the 2007 baseline, which confirms 
increased height among children measured in 2011 in comparison to those weighed in 2007. The 
table also shows the statistically significant loss in the weight-for-height average Z score, which 
indicates that the children measured in 2011 are taller but thinner than those measured in 2007. 
Table 1.13 
Average Z score for anthropometric indexes in the 2007 baseline survey and the 2011 end line survey among 
children 6-59 months 
Anthropometri
c Index 
Age 
(months)
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number of 
Children 
Measured 
/Weighed
X Confidence 
Intervals
Number of 
Children 
Measured/ 
weighed
X Confidence 
Intervals
Weight for 
height 
0-59 1286 -1.34 -1.44, -1.23 1043 -1.41 -1.54, -1.27
Height for age 6-59 1124 -2.75 -2.91, -2.58 925 -2.45 -2.63, -2.26
Weight for age 6-59 1133 0.22 0.13, 0.32 926 -0.12 -0.23, -0.01
Chart 4
Average Z score for Anthropometric Indices among children 6-59 months in 
San Marcos and Baja Verapaz 2007 - 2011
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
weight/height weight/age height/age Z score
2007
2011
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
20
Tables from 1.14 to 1.16 present the average Z score for weight-for-age, height-for-age and weight￾for-height indicators per age (in months) for the baseline and end line surveys. As shown in Table 
1.15 and chart 5, the average Z score of height for age is consistently lower, which is an indication of 
a better height in children‟s age (every six months) after the first year of implementation in the end￾line survey in comparison to baseline results. The average Z score of height-for-age is below -2.00 
from an early age (from 6th-12 month), which suggests growth deficiencies since conception but it 
presents itself during the first year of life (Chart 5). 
Table 1.14 
Weight-for-age average Z score per group age (every six months) in the 2007 baseline survey and 2011 end line 
survey 
Age (months) 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
N X IC N X IC
6-11 146 -0.82 -0.95, -0.69 117 -1.23 -1.53, -0.93
12-17 154 -1.36 -1.55, -1.18 97 -1.44 -1.71, -1.17
18-23 141 -1.45 -1.70, -1.20 114 -1.57 -1.90, -1.23
24-29 138 -1.47 -1.73, -1.20 103 -1.44 -1.62, -1.26
30-35 145 -1.53 -1.79, -1.28 123 -1.54 -1.77, -1.30
36-41 127 -1.50 -1.69, -1.31 115 -1.49 -1.72, -1.26
42-47 118 -1.53 -1.71, -1.36 90 -1.68 -1.91, -1.46
48-53 78 -1.62 -1.89, -1.36 86 -1.64 -1.89, -1.40
54-59 93 -1.64 -1.78, -1.50 86 -1.47 -1.68, -1.26
Table 1.15 
Height-for-age average Z score per group age (in months) in the 2007 baseline survey and 2011 end line survey 
Ages (in months) 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number of 
Children 
Measured 
/Weighed
X Confidence 
Intervals
Number of 
Children 
Measured/ 
weighed
X Confidence 
Intervals
6-11 145 -2.03 -2.18, -1.87 116 -2.04 -2.40, -1.68
12-17 151 -2.54 -2.99, -2.09 97 -2.36 -2.74, -1.98
18-23 139 -3.12 -3.31, -2.93 114 -2.73 -3.15, -2.31
24-29 138 -2.90 -3.12, -2.69 103 -2.43 -2.81, -2.05
30-35 142 -3.05 -3.32, -2.78 122 -2.60 -2.81, -2.40
36-41 125 -2.84 -3.08, -2.59 115 -2.47 -2.74, -2.20
42-47 114 -2.75 -2.94, -2.55 90 -2.60 -2.92, -2.28
48-53 77 -3.01 -3.28, -2.73 85 -2.56 -2.76, -2.35
54-59 93 -2.80 -3.04, -2.55 83 -2.33 -2.58, -2.07
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
21
Chart 5
Height-for-age Average Z Score per age (months) among children in Baja Verapaz and San Marcos in 
2007 Baseline and 2011 End Line Surveys
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0-5 06-ll l2-17 18-23 24-29 30-35 36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59
Age in Months (per semesters) 
2007
2011
Z Score
Table 1.16 shows a consistent Z score lower in all ages in the end line survey, showing the lowest 
values between the 12th and 23rd months of age. In order to carry out a more in-depth analysis of 
the 2011 end line survey, this final evaluation explored the relationship between the prevalence of 
anthropometric indicators with a series of independent variables related to mothers‟ schooling level, 
family composition, mothers‟ response after recognizing danger signs (during delivery, neonatal and 
childhood illnesses), feeding, food provisioning and food consumption. Analysis results presented in 
tables 1.17 and 1.18 indicate a very low prevalence in the weight for height indicator. 
Table 1.16 
Weight-for-height average Z score per age (in months) in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Age (months) 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number of 
Children 
Measured 
/Weighed
X Number of 
Children 
Measured 
/Weighed
X Number of 
Children 
Measured 
/Weighed
X
6-11 146 0.48 0.28, 0.67 116 -0.05 -0.36. 0.27
12-17 152 -0.23 -0.39, -0.07 97 -0.37 -0.54, -0.21
18-23 141 0.18 -0.09, 0.46 114 -0.27 -0.52, -0.01
24-29 138 0.16 -0.12, 0.45 103 -0.18 -0.35, -0.01
30-35 145 0.40 -0.00, 0.72 123 -0.03 -0.19, -0.13
36-41 126 0.32 0.18, 0.46 115 -0.06 -0.22, 0.09
42-47 117 0.21 0.04, 0.38 88 -0.06 -0.24, 0.12
48-53 76 0.34 0.06, 0.63 86 -0.10 -0.49, 0.29
54-59 92 0.29 -0.10, 0.69 84 -0.00 -0.19, 0.18
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
22
Table 1.17 
Relation of weight for age, height for age and weight for height indices with mothers’ schooling level, family size and 
mothers response when they recognize danger signs in the 2011 end line survey 
Description 
Weight for Age Height for Age Weight for Height 
Number 
of 
Mothers
%
Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Mothers
%
Confidence 
Intervals
Number 
of 
Mothers
%
Confidence 
Intervals
Mother’s Schooling Level 
None 458 27.7 23.1 - 32.3 402 74.0 67.0 – 81.0 404 1.4 0.1 – 2.7
1
st
– 3
rd grade 323 22.4 15.8 - 29.0 294 66.2 53.6 – 78.8 294 0.3 0.0 – 0.7
4th- 6
th grade 206 24.8 10.9 - 38.7 179 53.4 42.5 – 62.2 178 3.2 0.0 -8.7
7th grade and 
above
47 14.2 1.7 - 26.6 41 57.0 33.6 – 80.5 41 0.0 ---- ----
Family composition 
1-4 155 19.9 13.3 – 26.6 135 58.7 44.6 – 72.8 135 0.0 ---- ----
5-6 293 25.4 16.2 – 34.5 269 63.8 53.2 – 74.4 268 2.6 0.0 – 6.6
7-8 282 26.3 19.0 – 33.6 248 68.7 60.9 – 76.6 250 0.5 0.0 – 1.4
9 or more 313 26.7 16.2 – 37.2 273 72.6 63.5 – 81.7 273 1.8 0.0 – 3.6
Recognition of pregnancy danger signs that lead the mother to seek health services 
No 57 26.4 14.3 – 38.6 48 75.2 54.4 – 96.0 49 0.0 ---- ----
Yes 201 25.3 17.3 – 33.2 180 61.4 51.2 – 71.7 179 1.2 0.0 – 3.2
Recognition of neonatal danger signs that lead the mother to seek health services 
No 38 38.3 23.4 – 53.3 30 91.9 82.2 – 100.0 31 0.0 ---- ----
Yes 129 19.7 10.6 – 28.9 114 51.7 40.1 -63.2 113 2.3 0.0 – 6.5
Recognition of danger signs in childhood that lead the mother to seek health services
No 45 37.5 14.7 – 60.3 42 75.1 49.6 – 100.0 43 0.0 ---- ----
Yes 566 25.8 17.3 – 34.3 513 66.5 59.3 – 73.0 511 2.1 0.0 – 4.4
Table 1.18 
Relation of weight for age, height for age and weight for height indices with feeding and food consumption 
indicators in the 2011 end line survey 
Description
Weight for Age Height for Age Weight for Height 
Number %
Confidence 
Intervals Number %
Confidence 
Intervals Number %
Number 
of 
Mothers
Dietary Diversity 
No 45 37.5 14.7 – 60.3 42 75.1 49.6 -100.0 43 0.0 ---- ----
Yes 566 25.8 17.3 – 34.3 513 66.1 59.3 – 73.0 511 2.1 0.0 – 4.4
Dietary Diversity: food groups 
Low 457 24.8 18.1 – 31.5 402 69.2 61.5 – 76.9 404 1.0 0.0 – 1.9
Medium 200 27.0 15.3 – 40.6 179 70.3 58.8 – 81.7 179 2.9 0.0 – 8.6
High 386 23.3 15.7 – 30.9 344 60.8 53.1 – 68.6 343 1.0 0.0 – 2.4
Adequate Food Provisioning 
Low 258 18.7 18.7 – 37.7 227 74.5 61.3 -87.8 228 0.7 0.0 – 1.9
Medium 779 18.5 18.5 - 29.1 693 63.8 57.1 – 70.5 692 1.6 0.0 – 3.3
Frequency of meals per day 
Adequate 71 23.1 6.1 – 40.1 70 51.6 33.4 – 69.8 71 ---- ---- ----
Inadequate 5 22.0 0.0 – 66.0 5 74.0 17.0 – 100.0 5 ---- ---- ----
Number of meals per day given to 9-11 month children
Adequate 77 28.5 9.0 – 48.0 76 57.4 35.4 – 79.3 76 6.6 0.0 – 17.4
Inadequate 27 13.5 0.1 – 26.8 24 47.3 19.7 – 75.0 24 6.3 0.0 – 16.4
Number of meals per day given to 12-23 month children 
Adequate 69 33.6 17.8 – 49.5 68 71.1 58.3 – 84.0 68 ---- ---- ----
Inadequate 261 23.8 18.1 – 29.6 254 70.5 60.3 – 80.8 254 ---- ---- ----
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
23
2. Strategic Objective 1: improved productivity and sustainable use of natural 
resources (food access and availability). 
2.1 Effects on food supply and dietary diversity 
As shown in tables 2.1 and 2.2 and chart 6, survey results show a decrease of families with low food 
provisioning. In 2011, over three fourths of families interviewed were classified with a high level of 
food provisioning. There was also a minor increase of the average number of months with adequate 
household food provisioning (table 2.3). 
Table 2.1 
Adequate food provisioning (per tercile) in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Tercile
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Low 141 32.7 133 36.6 274 32.8 99 25.3 61 22.7 160 24.0
Medium 42 8.8 42 11.6 84 9.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
High 269 58.8 155 51.7 424 58.1 292 74.6 212 77.2 504 75.9
Table 2.2 
Average number of months of adequate food provisioning in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number Average Number Average Number Average 
Base line survey 452 10.86 330 10.68 782 10.84
End line survey 391 11.25 273 11.48 664 11.36
32.8
9.1
58.1
24
75.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Low food provisioning medium food 
provisioning
high food provisioning
2007 2011
10.84
11.36
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Average Number of months of food 
provisioning 
2007 2011
Chart 6
Adequate food provisioning in households in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 
2007 baseline and 2011 end line survey
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
24
Table 2.3 
Average number of months of adequate food provisioning (per tercile) in the baseline and end line survey 
Tercile
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line 
Survey 
Number Average Number Average 
Low 274 8.7 160 9.4
Medium 84 11.0 ---- ----
High 424 12.0 504 12.0
As shown in table 2.4 and chart 7, the percentage of households with low dietary diversity level 
reduced and the number of households with high level of food provisioning in 2011 end line survey 
increased. This is confirmed by the increased average of food groups consumed between 2007 and 
2011 as shown in tables 2.5 and 2.6. 
Table 2.4 
Percentage of households dietary diversity (per tercile) in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Tercile 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Low 248 52.8 168 46.4 416 52.2 198 50.5 80 30.1 278 40.4
Medium 91 22.2 68 23.4 159 22.3 71 18.0 60 24.4 131 21.2
High 118 25.0 106 30.1 224 25.5 125 31.3 133 45.4 258 38.3
52.2
22.3
25.5
40.4
21.2
38.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
low dietary diversity Medium dietary
diversity
High dietary diversity
Percentage 
2007 2011
5.5
6.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average number of food groups consumed
Months
2007 2011
Chart 7
Dietary diversity in households in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end 
line survey 
When analyzing the average number of food groups being consumed in households in 2007 and 2011 
(tables 2.5 and 2.6) food diversity improved more in Baja Verapaz than in San Marcos. This positive 
change was also bigger in households classified under the high and medium level of dietary 
diversity. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
25
Table 2.5 
Average of food groups consumed in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number Average Number Average Number Average 
Baseline survey 457 5.4 342 5.7 799 5.5
End line survey 394 6.3 273 7.2 667 6.8
Table 2.6 
Average of food groups consumed (per tercile) of dietary diversity in the baseline and end line surveys 
Tercile 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number Average Number Average 
Low 416 4.2 278 4.9
Medium 159 6.0 131 7.0
High 224 7.6 258 8.7
As to the food groups consumed by all family members, table 2.7 indicates an increased number of 
families that consumed vegetables and fruit that are rich in Vitamin A, eggs, beans and other 
legumes, dairy products, oil, sugar and honey. 
Table 2.7 
Food groups consumed in household the previous day during baseline and end line surveys 
Food Groups
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Whole Grains 457 100.0 341 99.5 798 99.9 390 99.1 272 99.5 662 99.3
Root vegetables 172 41.5 81 24.5 253 39.8 146 43.1 94 27.4 240 35.3
Vegetables and fruit 
Rich in Vitamin A
271 64.9 191 57.4 462 64.1 254 67.1 165 58.4 419 62.8
Other vegetables and 
fruit 204 43.1 120 36.9 324 42.5 252 62.4 213 79.4 465 70.8
Meat and viscera 120 25.0 76 20.8 196 24.6 100 20.9 88 26.2 188 23.6
Egg 192 39.8 182 52.5 374 41.1 180 43.1 164 54.8 344 48.9
Seafood 1 0.1 2 0.7 3 0.2 7 3.0 10 5.3 17 4.2
Legumes and nuts 302 65.0 272 82.8 574 66.8 273 71.3 224 86.4 497 78.8
Milk and dairy 
products 42 10.4 121 30.5 163 12.4 33 8.2 102 37.8 135 22.9
Oil and fats 240 48.8 196 55.2 436 49.4 253 62.0 191 69.4 444 65.7
Sugar and honey 355 75.6 243 73.3 598 75.4 324 81.3 254 92.5 578 86.8
Other foods 132 30.1 108 33.7 240 30.5 310 76.6 234 86.4 544 81.5
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
26
Table 2.8 
Months of food shortages during the past year in the baseline and end line surveys 
Food shortage San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number % Number % Number %
Baseline survey 184 41.2 175 46.5 359 41.7
End line survey 99 25.1 61 22.7 160 23.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Percentage of Households
2007 2011
Chart 8
Months with food shortages in households in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 
baseline and 2011 end line surveys
In comparison with the 2007 baseline survey, there were fewer people that reported experiencing 
food shortages in 2011 (table 2.8) especially in Baja Verapaz. However, when analyzing collected 
data per month (table 2.9 and Chart 8), the end line survey indicates more households with food 
shortages between March and July and there were less food shortages between August and 
December.
Table 2.9 
Months of food shortages in baseline and end line surveys 
Month
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
January 17 12.9 14 6.6 31 12.2 8 11.0 2 2.0 10 6.7
February 15 11.6 22 10.0 37 11.4 13 17.9 0 0.0 13 9.4
March 16 13.0 35 18.2 51 13.6 20 22.5 5 11.9 25 17.5
April 16 11.4 39 22.1 55 12.6 25 30.7 13 29.4 38 30.1
May 63 32.5 39 18.6 102 30.9 34 41.5 16 27.3 50 34.8
June 84 36.5 61 32.7 145 36.1 45 45.9 23 39.5 68 42.9
July 80 36.3 96 52.5 176 38.1 43 32.9 40 68.0 83 49.5
August 86 43.9 106 59.1 192 45.6 38 33.7 24 40.8 62 37.0
September 61 32.8 50 31.0 111 32.6 17 15.6 3 7.2 20 11.6
October 36 26.1 22 12.3 58 24.6 14 16.2 1 0.08 15 8.6
November 19 14.3 9 4.3 28 13.2 12 16.8 1 0.08 13 8.9
December 11 5.6 10 4.9 21 5.6 8 10.1 0 0.0 8 5.3
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
27
As shown in table 2.10, the end line survey indicated a decreased number of households reporting 
food shortages of maize, beans and rice, but there were an increased number of households reporting 
shortage of sugar and meat. 
Table 2.10 
Food shortage in households during months of food shortages in the baseline and end line surveys 
Food
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Maize 128 70.6 136 77.1 264 71.3 53 55.1 39 62.8 92 58.7
Beans 131 72.1 136 77.2 267 72.6 56 55.0 31 47.5 87 51.5
Vegetables 26 12.6 15 10.7 41 12.4 30 26.9 10 19.8 40 23.6
Leafy 
vegetables
18 10.5 11 5.9 29 10.0 13 11.6 5 8.6 18 10.2
Sugar 68 37.4 44 22.3 112 35.8 48 43.7 40 64.5 88 53.5
Oil 27 10.8 37 19.8 64 11.8 12 10.6 9 15.3 21 12.8
Rice 85 43.0 66 34.8 151 42.1 42 38.4 13 19.3 55 29.4
Eggs 12 6.6 11 4.3 23 6.4 11 14.0 6 9.8 17 12.0
Meat 24 9.1 14 7.2 38 8.9 18 20.6 21 40.2 39 29.9
Other 33 20.5 36 18.7 69 20.3 20 13.3 16 29.2 36 20.8
The majority of the interviewees indicated that the lack of money was one of the causes that there 
was food shortage in the previous year. This number increased from 2007 to 2011. Another cause 
mentioned was the lack of employment (see table 2.11). 
Table 2.11 
Causes of food shortages in household in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Cause
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Lack of money 121 65.2 105 58.8 226 64.5 84 80.0 53 89.5 137 84.4
Lack of employment 55 21.8 41 18.6 96 21.4 26 20.5 30 49.7 56 34.3
Large family size 8 5.0 11 5.6 19 5.0 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 0.6
Market / store 
located far away 
5 1.2 1 0.4 6 1.1 2 1.7 0 0.0 2 0.9
There was no harvest 14 10.9 24 13.0 38 11.1 11 11.9 9 16.1 20 13.9
Harvest loss 13 10.1 14 8.5 27 10.0 17 19.7 2 3.6 19 12.1
Expensive food 26 13.1 22 10.5 48 12.8 17 16.6 8 8.0 25 12.6
2.2 Effects on food availability, adoption of agricultural and animal 
production practices and sustainable use of natural resources 
Both the baseline and end line surveys suggest that during the four-year period between both studies, 
the number of farmers that adopted two new improved agricultural/livestock production practices 
increased as shown in tables 2.12 and 2.13 and chart 9. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
28
Table 2.12 
Producers adopting at least two improved agriculture practices in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Response
2007 Baseline 
Survey 
2011 End line 
Survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 315 53.9 499 80.2
No 384 46.1 129 19.8
total 699 100.0 628 100.0
Table 2.13 
Producers adopting at least two improved animal production practices in the baseline and end line surveys 
Response
2007 Baseline 
Survey 
2011 End line 
Survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 94 13.7 200 39.9
No 573 86.3 395 60.1
Total 667 100.0 595 100.0
Chart 9
Farmers that adopt at least two improved agricultural and animal production 
practices in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line 
surveys
As to the adequate household food provisioning, global results and per month indicate that families 
expressed having more food production deficits in 2011 than in 2007 (See table 2.14). 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
29
Table 2.14 
Food production deficit in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Response
2007 
Baseline Survey 
2011 End line Survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 437 47.8 429 64.8
No 354 51.5 238 35.2
total 791 100.0 667 100.0
Table 2.15 suggests a deterioration of household food production as there were fewer families 
classified under high level of adequate food production in 2011 in comparison to 2007 baseline 
results. 
Table 2.15 
Months with adequate food production (per tercile) in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Tercile
2007 Baseline 
survey
2011 End line survey
No. % No. %
Low 255 27.0 197 29.0
Medium 182 21.2 232 35.8
High 354 51.8 238 35.2
total 791 100.0 470 100.0
Food production levels vary depending on the season and month of the agricultural cycle. In both 
the 2007 baseline and the 2011 end line surveys, the percentage of households reporting food 
production problems occurred in the “food shortage period.”10 However, it is important to note that a 
considerable reduced number of families report limitations in food production during March-April in 
the 2011 end line survey. It seems as if the length of the food shortage period among interviewed 
families reduced from the 2007 baseline to the 2011 end line survey. (Table 2.16) 
Table 2.16 
Months with no food production in the baseline and end line surveys 
Total Basal Total Final
No. % No. %
January 54 4.6 52 12.0
February 63 5.4 40 11.0
March 76 5.9 53 14.6
April 88 7.1 70 19.2
May 135 14.7 115 28.7
June 193 17.7 155 35.5
July 236 21.5 184 43.6
August 260 26.2 175 40.8
September 151 17.2 106 24.4
October 98 13.7 107 23.1
November 59 9.2 85 17.5
December 53 6.0 83 17.9
 
10 MFEWS/USAID. Perspectiva de Seguridad Alimentaria; boletín semestral. Guatemala, en www.fews.net/guatemala
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
30
In 2007, nearly half of interviewees reported that the main cause of food shortage was the lack of 
money, while in 2011, 74% of households indicated food shortages after a natural disaster (table 
2.17). 
Table 2.17 
Causes of food production deficits reported by farmers in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Cause
Base line 
survey 
End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Lack of money 209 48.8 49 12.4
Natural disasters 56 16.0 326 74.4
Low agriculture production 195 46.4 213 49.6
Low animal production 1 0.1 3 0.7
Other causes 164 30.5 6 1.6
Table 2.18 presents collected information about coping strategies used by families to overcome low 
food production. There were no changes during the 2007-2011 period except that in 2011 more 
households reported a family member leaving his/her community to find work, which was the coping 
strategy more commonly used, followed by the sale of small animals and taking up a loan. 
Table 2.18 
Coping strategies to access food during months of food shortage in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Coping Strategy
2007 Baseline 
survey 
2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Selling of assets 12 1.9 3 0.1
Selling of animals 96 14.6 65 14.6
Selling of land 3 0.7 0 0
Taking up a loan 75 11.8 47 10.6
Child labor 7 1.2 1 0.1
Family member had to leave community 
to find work 274 69.8 366 86.6
Other 95 19.7 25 6.4
Both the 2007 and 2011 studies show that almost every head of family was engaged in agriculture 
(Table 2.19). Results also show that 9 out of 10 heads of households cultivated native maize (maíz 
criollo). Farmers´ use of improved seed from 2007 to 2011 decreased in numbers but increased in 
percentage (table 2.20). 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
31
Table 2.19 
Heads of households engaged in agriculture in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Response 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
Number % Number %
Yes 699 88.5 628 93.9
Table 2.20 
Maize production per the baseline and end line surveys 
Description 2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
No. % No. %
Producers engaged in maize 
production 637 91.3 568 92.3
Type of seed used 
Native (criolla) 559 95.9 524 91.5
Improved 64 3.4 38 7.0
Both native and improved 14 0.7 6 1.5
As to planting techniques, results indicated an important increase of 26 percentage points of the 
number of farmers that place from 0-3 grains per hole as shown in table 2.21. 
Table 2.21 
Final number of grains per hole in the baseline and end line surveys 
Number of 
grains per 
hole
Base line survey End line survey 
Number % Number %
1-3 221 15.0 202 41.1
4 or more 416 85.0 366 58.9
total 637 100.0 568 100.0
Data in table 2.22 reflect only a minor increase in the number of producers engaged in bean 
production between 2007 and 2011, which confirms the trend at national level that fewer producers 
are growing beans. 
Table 2.22 
Production of beans in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Description
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Producers that cultivate beans 518 79.9 501 82.8
Type of seed used 
Native (Criolla) 483 95.4 479 94.0
Improved 20 1.5 16 4.7
Native and improved 13 2.7 5 1.2
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
32
Table 2.23 presents a slight improvement of the percentage of farmers that used certified maize and 
bean seed in 2011 in comparison to 2007 results. 
Table 2.23 
Farmers that use certified maize and/or bean seed in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Response
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 72 3.9 43 8.1
No 578 96.1 535 91.9
total 650 100.0 578 100.0
Nine out of ten producers store their basic grains using different techniques (table 2.24). One of the 
most important changes is the adoption of the metallic silo and improved granaries from 2007 to 
2011 (11 percentage points) and how farmers are gradually reducing the use of the tapanco and 
sacks to store their grains. 
Table 2.24 
Producers that report storing basic grains per method in the baseline and end line survey 
Characteristic
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Families that store basic grains 644 93.1 585 93.3
Method used 
Silos 94 11.0 125 22.5
Traditional granary 73 5.8 79 16.8
Improved granary 2 0.1 12 2.5
Barrel (54 gallons) 56 2.9 51 7.0
Tapanco 143 40.9 107 17.5
Sacks 309 62.3 322 55.3
Mancuerna 22 2.7 21 2.9
Other 146 9.8 52 7.9
Table 2.25 shows that the number of producers that have begun to use improved structures for basic 
grains storage has progressively increased. 
Table 2.25 
Producers that use improved structures to store basic grains in the baseline and end line surveys 
Base line survey End line survey 
No. %. No. %
Yes 96 11.1 137 25.1
No 548 88.9 448 74.9
Total 644 100.0 585 100.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
33
Tables 2.26, 2.27, 2.28 and 2.29 show increased agricultural diversification with vegetables and leafy 
greens between 2007 and 2011. Production of native plants increased by 34 percentage points 
among farmers that are growing three or more plants during the 2007-2011 period. 
Table 2.26 
Producers who grow native plants for household consumption in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description
Base line survey End line survey 
Number % Number %
Producers that grow native 
plants 346 48.8 528 86.2
Number of native plants 
1-2 249 78.9 256 45.3
3-4 89 17.8 208 42.2 
5 or more 8 3.3 64 12.5
Table 2.27 
Types of native plants grown by producers in the 2011 end line survey 
Native Plants
End Line 
Survey
No. %
Hierbamora or macuy 320 60.2
Amaranth 106 21.7
Chipilín 123 25.9
Watercress 30 5.7
Colinabo 187 37.1
Cabbage 26 5.9
Chayote 110 20.6
Cucurbitaceae 137 29.5
Malanga 2 0.5
Sweet potato 17 2.2
Jicama 0 0.0
Coriander 258 48.3
Mint 64 12.8
Other plants 86 12.5
Comparison between the baseline and end-line surveys presents nearly 23 percentage points of the 
number of farmers that are growing three vegetables or more as detailed in table 2.28. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
34
Table 2.28 
Producers that report growing vegetables in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Farmers that grow vegetables for 
household consumption 242 45.5 454 75.8
Number of vegetables being 
grown 
1-2 145 57.7 157 35.1
3-4 75 32.6 204 44.6
5 or more 22 9.7 93 20.3
Farmers that grow three or more 
plants and 3 or more vegetables 29 11.4 75 29.6
Table 2.29 
Producers that grow commercial vegetables in the end line survey 
Type of vegetables 2011 End Line Survey 
No. %
Radish 341 73.9
Lettuce 29 6.1
Cabbage 158 33.6
Carrot 222 49.7
Beet 96 20.3
Parsley 1 0.3
Onion 115 27.0
Garlic 2 0.6
Broccoli 54 8.9
Cauliflower 84 18.1
Tomato 8 1.7
Pepper 6 1.2
Chard 150 32.6
Cucumber 13 3.6
Spinach 57 12.6
Turnip 73 14.8
Celery 28 5.9
Potato 49 11.7
Leek 1 0.1
Other vegetables 34 6.0
Results also show an increased number of farmers adopting soil conservation practices and the 
number of practices being adopted. The soil conservation practices most commonly used in 2011 are: 
live barriers (56.2%), ditches (37.3%), dead barriers (25.2%) and individual terraces (21.6%) as 
shown in table 2.30. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
35
Table 2.30 
Producers that report implementing soil conservation practices in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description 
Base line survey End line survey 
Number % Number %
Farmers that implement soil 
conservation practices 309 50.9 462 73.5
Type of soil conservation 
practices 
Live barriers 129 42.5 253 56.2
Dead barriers 94 19.8 106 25.2
Ditches 40 16.8 171 37.3
Contour farming 12 2.2 20 4.7
Cover crops 8 6.0 7 1.4
Individual terraces 54 19.5 101 21.6
Other practices 29 8.2 9 1.5
Table 2.31 presents a slight increase in the number of producers that use fertilizer or compost to 
cultivate. The number of farmers using organic compost and manure increased considerably. 
Table 2.31 
Producers that report use of fertilizers or compost in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Description
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Producers that use fertilizer or 
compost 642 92.1 599 96.3
Types of Practices 
Composting 13 0.9 105 16.1
Chemical fertilization 545 81.9 446 77.2
Leaf extracts 7 1.0 13 1.6
Green manure 19 4.0 11 1.5
manure 193 47.7 313 51.9
Worm composting 5 0.7 6 0.9
Other ---- ---- 7 1.4
Organic fertilization 213 50.3 394 63.0
Table 2.32 shows an increased number of producers that reported having fruit trees and there is also 
an increase of improved practices such as clearing the land. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
36
Table 2.32 
Percentage of producers that report having fruit trees in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Description
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Farmers that have fruit trees 395 50.9 538 84.5
Farmers that implement 
practices for the management of 
fruit trees 
237 97.6 419 97.3
Farmers that implement 
practices for the care of fruit 
trees 
254 59.3 428 80.8
Types of Practices 
Pruning 33 18.1 87 17.4
Clearing 113 32.4 204 50.1
Fertilization 135 59.5 265 59.7
Whitewash applied to fruit 
trees (to prevent sun 
scalding)
20 12.6 61 14.3
Plant renovation 3 2.3 3 1.1
Other 36 5.8 31 7.6
Table 2.33 shows an increased percentage of producers who reported having crop problems 
(diseases, pests and more exposure to climatic events such as heavy rains). 
Table 2.33 
Producers that report having crop problems during the past year in the baseline and end line surveys 
 
Description
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
Number % Number %
Farmers that reported having 
crop problems 355 46.0 500 79.7
Type of problems
Diseases 38 9.2 72 15.6
Pest 117 23.0 194 43.7
Lack of agricultural input 18 2.9 14 3.0
Frost 21 9.5 49 10.4
Little rain or drought 38 4.3 45 10.2
Excess precipitation 58 18.6 346 66.1
Lack of seed 1 0.1 0 0.0
Post harvest loss 14 6.0 6 1.7
Lack of land 11 1.5 9 1.3
Increased rent 1 0.1 2 0.1
Other problems 128 45.0 87 12.5
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
37
The use of chemicals for pest control also increased by 21 percentage points between 2007 and 2011 
as indicated in table 2.34. 
Table 2.34 
Producers that use chemicals to control pests in the baseline and final surveys 
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 331 35.9 332 56.7
No 369 64.1 296 43.3
Total 700 100.0 628 100.0
Table 2.35 shows a slight increase in the number of households that in 2011 were engaged in animal 
production (especially poultry) in comparison to the 2007 baseline data. On the other hand, the 
number of farmers raising pigs and sheep decreased by 15 and 10 percentage points, respectively. 
Table 2.35 
Producers that report being engaged in raising animals in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Farmers engaged in animal 
production 667 83.8 595 87.1
Species being raised 
Poultry 610 89.1 570 96.2
Pigs 359 59.8 283 44.8
Rabbits 18 3.8 19 3.6
Sheep 122 36.4 138 26.6
Goats 31 4.2 13 4.5
Fish 5 0.3 2 0.5
Cow 136 17.3 110 18.9
Other 69 10.8 36 6.4
Table 2.36 shows an important increase (nearly 36%) of the producers that administer vaccines to 
their poultry. 
Table 2.36 
Producers that report animal care methods in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description 
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Poultry vaccination 288 39.7 411 75.4
De-worming of goats 7 8.2 9 69.1
Vitamins for goats 5 5.5 5 1.2
Vitamins for fish 2 23.2 2 0.5
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
38
The 2011 end line survey results (Table 2.37) show an increased percentage of farmers that obtain 
products from their animal production. 
Table 2.37 
Producers that report obtaining products from their animal production in the baseline and end line surveys 
Product
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Meat 580 86.5 554 93.5
Egg 576 85.7 550 93.6
Goat milk 5 0.2 10 3.0
Cow milk 79 12.2 79 14.0
Wool 36 11.1 24 6.2
Manure 105 21.2 253 44.0
Other 23 3.7 81 12.4
The 2011 end line survey results (table 2.38) present a slight increase in consumption of meat, eggs 
and cow milk while table 2.39 shows a reduction in the sale of their animal products. 
Table 2.38 
Producers that report consuming products from their animal production in the baseline and end line surveys 
Product
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
Number % Number %
Meat 600 91.1 554 94.1
Eggs 573 85.3 546 93.6
Goat milk 7 0.3 10 2.9
Cow milk 80 11.8 79 14.5
Other 18 2.9 0 0.0
Table 2.39 
Producers that report selling their animal products in the baseline and end line surveys 
Product
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Meat 163 19.9 37 6.2
Eggs 189 26.6 79 13.0
Goat milk 4 0.2 1 0.1
Cow milk 28 6.7 21 3.7
Wool 29 8.7 9 1.8
Manure 2 0.9 1 0.2
Other 308 45.4 0 0.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
39
Table 2.40 shows an increased percentage of interviewees that reported having experienced problems 
with their animal production. Most of the problems reported were related to diseases and the 
presence of predators. 
Table 2.40 
Producers that report animal production problems in the baseline and end line surveys 
Problem Description 
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
Number % Number %
Farmers that have had animal 
production problems 402 58.7 414 71.9
Type of problem
Diseases 351 87.6 384 93.4
Lack of funds 6 0.3 2 0.3
Lack of food 16 2.3 19 4.3
Robbery 21 6.2 24 5.0
Lack of space 9 1.1 20 5.2
Climatic conditions 10 5.5 26 5.1
Natural predators 40 6.2 93 19.8
Parasitic diseases 15 1.4 7 2.0
Other 7 4.1 5 1.5
As shown in Table 2.41 there was a significant increase in the number of producers that participated 
in agriculture trainings in 2011, especially in training sessions addressed to improve their production. 
Table 2.41 
Producers that report having received agriculture training during the past month in the baseline and end line 
surveys 
Description 
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Received training 56 4.9 297 45.0
Subjects covered
How to improve production 54 91.6 289 97.4
How to improve their small business 0 0.0 1 0.1
Orientation on how to generate more 
income 4 16.5 1 0.5
How to improve animal production ---- ---- 28 10.1
Actors who give training or advice 
Organizations that support agriculture 
production 77 66.7 75 25.2
Organizations that support marketing 
processes
0 0.0 3 0.7
Family members 3 1.6 2 0.5
Radio station 0 0.0 0 0.0
Printed media 0 0.0 0 0.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
40
Television 0 0.0 0 0.0
Megaphone 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other organizations 15 31.2 7 1.9
Technical staff ---- ---- 50 14.3
Volunteer promoter ---- ---- 231 79.1
2.3 Strategic Objective 2: Increased family livelihood capacities (food 
Access) 
The SEGAMAYA Program implemented different activities to train small-scale farmers in basic 
entrepreneurial concepts (production costs, registration of expenses, sales records and profit). This 
included strengthening local organization, support with seed capital and revolving funds to improve 
farmers´ production ability, and the establishment of alliances for specific technical assistance. 
The baseline and end-line survey results allow us to infer a slight increase in the percentage of 
producers adopting at least two improved formal marketing practices (table 3.1 and chart 10) while 
the number of producers that had a business between 2007 and 2011 didn‟t change much. Table 3.2 
suggests that the majority of the producers who have their own business run it as a family business 
and nearly 27% of businesses are agriculture-related. 
Table 3.1 
Producers adopting at least two improved formal marketing practices in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 36 29.3 76 42.4
No 119 70.7 113 57.6
total 155 100.0 189 100.0
Chart 10
Producers that adopt at least two improved formal marketing practices in San 
Marcos and Baja Verapaz during 2007 - 2011
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
41
Table 3.2 
Producers with a small business in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Producers with a small business 160 21.9 191 22.1
Type of business 
Agriculture 27 18.4 51 26.9
Small-livestock 24 18.3 11 6.3
Handicrafts 10 1.8 23 11.6
Forestry 0 0.0 1 1.1
Family business 74 43.2 104 53.1
Agro-industrial 14 3.0 0 0.0
Other business 24 19.4 7 4.3
Purchase and sell ---- ---- 11 5.8
There was a slight reduction of producers that calculate their business expenses as shown in table 
3.3. 
Table 3.3 
Producers that report calculating their business expenses in the baseline and end line surveys 
Response
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 112 77.6 130 68.7
No 48 22.4 61 31.3
total 160 100.0 191 100.0
A slight decrease in the percentage of producers that calculate their business expenses and profit 
(table 3.4). 
Table 3.4 
Producers adopting formal marketing practices in the baseline and end line surveys 
Type of Practice
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Producers that calculate 
their business expenses 112 77,6 130 68,7
Producers that calculate 
their business profit 110 75,5 129 67,9
Producers that have a 
notebook to write down 
their calculations in a 
notebook 
23 27,0 39 33,6
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
42
Table 3.5 reveals that only a third of the interviewees do their calculations in a notebook. 
Table 3.5 
Producers that report having a notebook to write down calculations in the baseline and end line surveys 
Response
Base line survey End line survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 23 27.0 39 33.6
No 87 73.0 90 66.4
total 110 100.0 129 100.0
Table 3.6 shows that of those producers that have their own business, in 2007 26.8% expressed 
having problems that affected their business while this percentage increased to 37.8% in 2011. The 
end line study shows an increased number of producers who indicated having problems related to the 
lack of market. 
Table 3.6 
Producers that identify problems that affect the business in the baseline and end line surveys 
Problem Description 2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Producers who have had 
problems that affect their 
business
49 26.8 77 37.8
Type of problem 
Lack of market 10 21.8 49 65.3
Lack of funds 15 32.4 21 27.3
Lack of registration of business 
operations 2 2.9 0 0.0
Lack of technical assistance 8 23.3 8 11.8
Lack of input (raw material) 1 1.0 4 2.7
Lack of organization 1 0.5 0 0.0
Other 17 22.4 10 13.8
Based on table 3.7 the percentage of producers that reported having a plan to improve their business 
nearly doubled. 
Table 3.7 
Producers that have a plan to improve their businesses in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Base line 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Yes 17 15.7 56 31.0
No 143 84.3 135 69.0
total 160 100.0 191 100.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
43
Only a fourth of the producers that own a business have actually developed a marketing plan for it as 
shown in table 3.8. 
Table 3.8 
Producers that have marketing plans for their businesses in the end line survey 
Response
2011 End line survey
No. %
Yes 47 24.5
No 144 75.5
Total 191 100.0
Data in table 3.9 reveal that the majority of producers sell their products in communal markets, 
which increased from 59.2% in 2007 to 73.4% in 2011 while only a fourth of the interviewees 
reported selling in the municipal market. 
Table 3.9 
Producers that report a place to sell their products in the baseline and end line surveys 
Selling place
2007 Base line survey 2011 End line survey 
No. % No. %
Communal market 83 59.2 132 73.4
Municipal market 52 27.6 54 26.8
Regional market 2 4.5 11 2.8
Large-scale market 2 0.7 0 0.0
Through intermediaries 6 1.2 13 5.5
Export market 0 0.0 4 3.5
Other 40 18.2 1 0.1
Of the interviewed producers that received support from the SEGAMAYA program, only one 
reported receiving support from another organization as indicated in table 3.10. 
Table 3.10 
Producers that report receiving institutional support for their business in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description
Total Basal Total Final
No. % No. %
Producers that report receiving 
institutional support for their 
business
10 3.6 11 6.2
Name of the organization (other
than CRS) that provides 
institutional support 
AGIL ---- ---- 1 8.3
Other 10 100.0 7 100.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
44
3. Strategic Objective 3: Improved health and nutritional status of 
children 0-36 months and pregnant/lactating women (food utilization and consumption) 
3.1 Effects on breastfeeding and childhood feeding 
During the 2007-2011 period, survey results for total target region reveals a 12.7 percentage point 
increase of exclusive breastfeeding, equivalent to approximately a 20% increase. The change was 
more evident in San Marcos than in Baja Verapaz as shown in tables 4.1, 4.2 and charts 11 and 12. 
As expected, exclusive breastfeeding decreases as the child grows. The breastfeeding practice 
consistently increased from the 2007 baseline to the 2011 end line survey especially among five￾month children. 
Table 4.1 
Exclusive breastfeeding in children 0–6 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
43 61.9 38 65.0 81 62.2
2011 End Line 
Survey
46 75.6 27 74.0 73 74.9
Table 4.2 
Exclusive breastfeeding in children 0-6 months per age group in the baseline and end line surveys 
Grupos de edad (en meses)
<1 1-2 3-4 5
n % n % n % n %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
11 72.4 31 68.8 34 66.8 5 32.6
2011 End Line 
Survey
14 81.5 29 73.0 19 70.4 11 72.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
45
0 20 40 60 80
Total
San Marcos
Baja Verapaz
Percentage
Chart 11
Exclusive breastfeeding in children 0-6 months inSan Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 
2011 end line surveys
2011
2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
newborn (0-1) l-2 03-.04 5 percentage
Months
2007
2011
Chart 12
Exclusive Breastfeeding in children 0-6 months in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 
2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
Even when the number of children in each age group (table 4.2) are small including those from 0- 
months, we can conclude that there was a slight decrease of the number of children that consume 
liquids other than breast milk as shown in table 4.3. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
46
Table 4.3 
Liquids other than breast milk consumed by children <6 months on the previous day in the baseline and end line 
surveys 
Description of Practice
Base line survey End line survey 
San 
Marcos
Baja 
Verapaz Total San 
Marcos
Baja 
Verapaz Total
% % % % % %
Did you give your baby 
any milk (other than 
breast milk) ? 
10.8 7.7 10.4 1.9 11.2 5.9
Liquids prepared at 
home (Agüitas)
18.7 17.1 18.7 20.2 12.0 16.6
Juices 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Coffee or tea 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.8 2.2
Atole 13.0 15.5 4.4 1.0 3.5 2.1
Soda pop 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3
Table 4.4 confirms that breastfeeding is universal at any point among 6-23 month babies. 
Table 4.4 
Breastfeeding at any point in time from 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number % Number % Number %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
222 99.5 135 99.6 357 99.5
2011 End line 
Survey 
185 99.3 125 97.9 310 98.6
Prolonged breastfeeding among 6-23 month children indicated a small reduction between 2007 and 
2011 as shown in table 4.5, especially in the 12-23 month babies, with better results in the San 
Marcos department (table 4.6). 
Table 4.5 
Mothers currently providing breastfeeding to children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Base line 
survey
186 82.6 118 88.9 304 83.1
2011 End line 
survey
132 76.0 108 85.5 240 80.5
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
47
Table 4.6 
Mothers currently breastfeeding a child 6-23 months per age group in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos
Age Group (in months)
6-8 9-11 12-23
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Base line 
survey
50 96.7 39 100.0 104 69.4
2011 End line 
survey
26 100.0 25 99.4 61 59.3
Baja Verapaz
Age Group (in months)
6-8 9-11 12-23
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
survey
23 96.0 22 100.0 76 83.2
2011 End line 
survey
9 100.0 13 93.4 72 78.7
Total
Age Group (in months)
6-8 9-11 12-23
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
survey
73 96.7 61 100.0 180 70.5
2011 End line 
survey
38 100.0 33 99.6 61 59.3
Table 4.7 shows that the percentage of mothers that gave “aguitas11
” and atoles to their babies 
increased during the 2007-2011 period. 
Table 4.7 
Liquids other than breast milk consumed by children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
Description of Practice
Base lines survey End line survey 
San 
Marcos
Baja 
Verapaz Total San 
Marcos
Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Did you give your baby any milk 
(other than breast milk)? 9 5.8 3 3.3 12 5.6 8 6.4 5 5.4 13 5.9
Liquids prepared at home (Agüitas) 60 22.9 48 36.0 108 24.0 48 32.1 59 52.0 107 42.0
Juices 5 6.9 4 4.0 9 6.6 3 1.5 9 7.9 12 4.7
Coffee or tea? 83 43.5 64 49.9 147 44.1 42 33.8 51 41.1 93 37.5
Atole? 127 66.5 94 79.6 221 67.6 105 86.8 95 90.4 200 88.6
Soda pop? 7 4.1 3 3.1 10 4.0 4 0.5 2 5.0 6 2.7
 
11 Tea fushions and other liquids prepared at home. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
48
Survey results as shown in table 4.8 indicate that children began feeding at an earlier age in 2011 
(0.80 months earlier). 
Table 4.8 
Average age in which the child 6-23 months began feeding in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number Median Number Median Number Median
2007 Baseline 
survey
366 7.39 277 6.53 643 7.30
2011 End line 
survey 
173 6.61 123 6.58 296 6.50
Table 4.9 presents a reduced percentage of children 6-23 months that begin to be fed after the eighth 
month of birth, especially in San Marcos. 
Table 4.9 
Average age of introduction of food in children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
Age (in months) 
Baseline survey End line survey 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
6-8 135 79.4 105 92.2 240 80.4 142 93.6 109 94.7 251 94.1
9-11 22 9.9 5 4.8 27 9.5 7 7 7 4.0 14 3.8
12-23 17 10.7 4 2.9 21 10.1 5 5 4 1.3 9 2.1
Table 4.10 and chart 13 show the introduction of solid foods at an older age found in the 2007 
baseline survey while the 2011 end line survey shows a considerable increase in the percentage of 
children that began eating solid foods during the 6th month, especially in San Marcos. 
Table 4.10 
Age in which children 6-23 months start eating solid foods in the baseline and end line surveys 
Age (months)
Baseline survey End line survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
<6 48 16.5 24 17.2 72 16.6 19 6.4 3 2.7 22 4.6
6 58 25.9 73 50.5 131 27.8 85 50.6 73 62.0 158 56.0
>6 116 50.7 41 26.7 157 48.8 69 37.2 47 32.1 116 34.8
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
49
Do not eat solid 
foods yet 17 7.0 8 5.7 25 6.9 12 5.8 4 3.3 16 4.6
Total 239 100.0 146 100.0 385 100.0 185 100.0 127 100.0 312 100.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
< 6
6
> 6
Not eating 
solid foods yet 
Percentage
Month of age
2007 2011
Chart 13
Age of introduction of solid foods in children 6 -23 months in San Marcos and 
Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
Table 4.11 and chart 14 show that the percentage of children 6-23 months that consumed fruit 
groups, vegetables and other foods such as eggs, beans and dairy increased from 2007 to 2011. 
Table 4.11 
Food groups consumed the previous day by children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
Food groups
2007 Baseline 
survey 
2011 End line 
survey 
No. % No. %
Whole Grains 332 90.2 195 86.3
Root vegetables 94 32.1 77 32.7
Vegetables and fruit 117 34.3 68 31.2
Other fruit 112 33.6 104 46.7
Meat and viscera 49 16.5 20 6.4
Eggs 113 22.6 90 38.9
Beans 115 23.3 75 35.8
Dairy 38 2.3 21 8.4
Fried foods 65 12.8 29 12.9
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Whole grains
Root vegetables 
Fruit and vegetables rich in Vitamin A
Other fruit and vegetables
meat and viscera
Eggs
Beans
Dairy products
Fried foods
percentage 
2011 2007
Chart 14
Food groups consumed by 6-23 month children the day previous to the survey in
San Marcos and Baja Verapaz, 2007 - 2011
Tables 4.12 and 4.13 indicate an increased number of mothers that fed their children (> 8 months) 
more than three times per day. During the four studied years of the program, there was an increased 
percentage of children with adequate feeding frequency according to their age (chart 15). However, 
it is still necessary to stress educational messages with mothers of children over 12 months of age. 
Table 4.12 
Frequency of feeding the previous day for children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
Age group
(in months) Frequency 
2007 Baseline survey 2011 End line survey
Number % Number %
6- 8
Did not feed the child 1 8.0 3 2.0
One time a day 3 2.9 1 1.3
Two times a day 21 23.9 18 14.5
Three times a day 31 65.2 59 63.1
Four or more times a 
day 
0 0.0 8 15.7
9-11
Did not feed the child 2 5.6 0 0.0
One time a day 1 3.8 0 0.0
Two times a day 12 21.0 7 11.5
Three times a day 38 57.6 58 71.4
Four or more times a 
day 
3 12.0 12 13.2
12-23
Did not feed the child 6 2.5 0 0.0
One time a day 4 2.4 0 0.0
Two times a day 36 18.7 2 3.2
Three times a day 182 68.7 39 80.7
Four or more times a 
day 
20 7.6 6 11.3
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
51
Table 4.13 
Frequency of feeding the previous day to children 6-23 months in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Base line survey San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
6-8
Adequate 34 88.9 18 92.6 52 89.2
Inadequate 3 11.1 1 7.4 4 10.8
9-11 Adequate 24 68.6 17 83.7 41 69.6
Inadequate 12 31.4 3 16.3 15 30.4
12- 23 Adequate 8 7.4 12 9.8 20 7.6
Inadequate 141 92.6 87 90.2 228 92.4
2011 end Line Survey San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
6-8
Adequate 14 82.3 76 100.0 20 88.1
Inadequate 2 17.7 0 0.0 2 11.9
9-11 Adequate 19 84.6 8 77.9 27 81.6
Inadequate 6 15.4 4 22.1 10 18.4
12- 23 Adequate 13 23.9 14 10.9 27 16.6
Inadequate 48 76.1 58 89.1 106 83.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6 a 8 9 a 11 12 a 23
porcentaje
adequate 2007 adequate 2011
Chart 15
Frequency of feeding the previous day to children 6-23 months in San Marcos 
And Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
Tables 4.14 and 4.15 show the 2011 end line survey results for the number of tablespoons fed to the 
6-23 month children which shows that mothers have improved this practice especially in the group of 
children under 12 months with better results in the department of San Marcos. 
Table 4.14 
Number of tablespoons fed to the 6-23 month child the previous day in 2011 end line survey 
Number of 
tablespoons 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
6-8 9-11 12-23 6-8 9-11 12-23 6-8 9-11 12-23
n % n % n % n % n % N % n % n % n %
1 3 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.2 2 3.3 3 10.3 1 1.0 2 1.8
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
52
2 6 53.8 8 28.0 7 7.7 3 41.2 0 0.0 9 12.9 9 49.7 8 15.4 16 10.6
3 3 11.3 8 45.7 7 11.1 2 38.2 5 33.6 15 21.5 5 20.0 13 40.3 22 16.9
4 3 18.6 4 17.4 18 39.7 1 20.6 3 44.4 9 18.1 4 19.2 7 29.5 27 27.6
5+ 1 1.1 4 8.9 29 41.4 0 0.0 3 19.8 37 44.3 1 0.7 7 13.8 66 43.0
Table 4.15 
Number of tablespoons fed to children 6-23 months the previous day in the end line survey in comparison to 
recommended standards 
Classification 
based on 
recommended 
Standards 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
6-8 9-11 12-23 6-8 9-11 12-23 6-8 9-11 12-23
n % n % n % N % n % n % n % n % n %
Adequate 13 84.8 16 71.4 47 81.2 6 100.0 11 97.8 46 62.3 19 89.7 27 83.2 93 70.6
Inadequate 3 15.2 9 28.6 14 18.8 0 0.0 1 2.2 26 37.7 3 10.3 10 16.8 40 29.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mashed food for 
6-8 month 
children
Strained for 6-8 
month children
Mashed food for 
9-11 month 
children
Chopped food 
for 9-11 month 
children
Mashed food for 
12-23 month 
children
Chopped food 
for 12-23 month 
children
Porcentage
2007 2011
Chart 16
Way to prepare food for 6-23 month children the previous day in 2007 baseline 
and 2011 end line surveys
Table 4.16 and chart 16 present a minor decrease in the proportion of children 9- 11 months that 
were fed mashed food (from 97.4% to 91.9%) and an increase in the number of children who 
received chopped food from 2007 to 2011 (from 1% to 5%). The table also shows a decrease in the 
number of children 12-23 months that were fed mashed food (from 71.08% to 65.4%) and an 
increase of ten percentage points in the children who were fed chopped food. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
53
Table 4.16 
Way to prepare food for the 6-23 month child the previous day in the 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys 
2007 Baseline survey San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Age in months Preparation No. % No. % No. %
6-8 months
Mashed 27 85.3 16 89.0 43 85.6
Chopped 2 3.8 2 7.9 4 4.1
Same preparation than 
rest of family
0 0.0 1 3.0 1 0.2
Strained 7 10.9 0 0.0 7 10.1
9-11 months
Mashed 33 98.3 17 86.0 50 97.4
Chopped 0 0.0 1 7.0 1 0.5
Same preparation than 
rest of family
1 1.7 2 7.0 3 2.1
Strained 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
12-23 months
Mashed 116 73.9 46 48.7 162 71.8
Chopped 15 14.6 31 31.2 46 16.0
Same preparation than 
rest of family
15 10.3 19 20.1 34 11.1
Strained 2 1.2 0 0.0 2 1.1
2011 End Line Survey
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
6-8 months
Mashed 14 90.3 15 80.9 19 87.2
Chopped 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.6
Same preparation than 
rest of family
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Strained 1 8.8 1 19.1 2 12.2
9-11 months
Mashed 23 95.2 8 87.8 31 91.9
Chopped 1 4.8 4 12.2 5 8.1
Same preparation than 
rest of family
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Strained 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
12-23 months
Mashed 43 65.4 44 65.4 87 65.4
Chopped 11 24.4 22 26.7 33 25.7
Same preparation than 
rest of family
5 6.3 5 5.8 10 6.9
Strained 2 3.8 1 2.1 3 2.9
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
54
3.2 Effects on health-care seeking patterns 
Knowing danger signs that might 
indicate an early warning of 
problems in the mother and child´s 
health is important to preventing 
complications during pregnancy with 
newborn and older children. Table 
4.17 and chart 17 show an increased 
percentage of women able to 
recognize pregnancy danger signs 
such as bleeding, headache and 
stomachache. 
Table 4.17 
Number of women that recognize two or more pregnancy danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 39 9.0 75 21.9 114 10.2
End Line Survey 275 89.0 171 76.8 446 83.2
Table 4.18 and chart 18 show a significant increase in the percentage of women who recognize 
neonatal danger signs 
Table 4.18 
Number of mothers who recognize two or more neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 36 10.9 53 18.8 89 11.6
2011End Line Survey 252 83.5 129 57.3 381 71.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Knows 2 + pregnancy danger signs 
Percentage
2007 2011
Chart 17
Mothers that recognize at least two pregnancy danger signs in San 
Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 en line surveys
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Recognizes at least 2 neonatal danger signs 
2007 2011
Chart 18
Mothers who recognize at least two neonatal danger signs in 2007 baseline and 
2011 en line surveys
Table 4.19 and chart 19 reveals an increased percentage of mothers who recognize dangers signs in 
children in 2011. For example, in the 2007 baseline, 40% of mothers could recognize danger signs 
in children while in the 2011 end-line survey, 7 out of 10 mothers were able to recognize at least two 
danger signs. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Recognizes at least 2 childhood illneses danger signs 
Percentage
2007 2011
Chart 19
Mothers who recognize at least two childhood illnesses danger signs in San Marcos and Baja 
Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end-line surveys
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
56
Table 4.19 
Number of mothers that recognize two or more childhood illness signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
161 38.4 155 53.1 316 39.7
2011 End Line 
Survey
227 75.2 136 64.0 363 69.8
Table 4.20 indicates an increased percentage of mothers „capacity to recognize pregnancy danger 
signs from 2007 to 2011. 
Table 4.20 
Number of women that recognize pregnancy danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 130 29.3 148 40.4 278 30.4
2011 End Line Survey 350 92.1 241 84.3 591 88.2
Table 4.21 and chart 20 confirms that in the 2011 end line survey, there was an increased percentage 
of mothers who were able to recognize danger signs such as bleeding, headache, stomachache and 
fever, while tables 4.24 and 4.25 show an increased percentage of mothers who sought advice and 
health care after recognizing a warning sign, especially at the community level using community 
services. 
Table 4.21 
Pregnancy danger signs that are recognized by women in the baseline and en line surveys 
Danger sign
Basal Final
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Bleeding 87 69.3 99 62.9 186 68.4 293 83.3 197 81.8 490 82.6
Strong headache 30 24.9 74 50.0 104 28.3 283 84.6 186 78.4 469 81.6
Blurry vision 11 6.5 12 7.5 23 6.6 67 18.4 24 11.7 91 15.2
Strong pain in the pit of 
the stomach 38 25.1 49 30.7 87 25.9 235 71.6 109 45.8 344 59.3
Difficulty breathing 1 0.5 2 1.7 3 0.7 38 13.0 36 18.4 74 15.6
Fever 7 5.2 26 17.3 33 6.8 132 36.6 101 39.7 233 38.1
Swollen hands, face or 
body 6 5.7 14 9.0 20 6.1 125 38.7 68 27.3 193 33.3
Baby in transverse 
position or bottom first 
position 
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 48 16.1 26 12.5 74 14.4
Clear watery fluid from 
vagina ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 52 14.5 41 20.5 93 17.4
Table 4.22 show the type and number of pregnancy danger signs recognized by mothers. The 
number of mothers who recognized warning signs increased in 2011 to three or more signs (from 2% 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
57
in 2007 to 48.9% in the 2011 end line survey), which was also the average number of warning signs 
recognized as shown in table 4.23 and chart 21. 
Table 4.22 
Number of pregnancy danger signs recognized by women in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Baseline Survey
Number of 
signs 
recognized 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number 
of 
women
%
Number 
of 
women
%
Number 
of 
women
%
0 293 74.2 155 60.0 448 72.8
1-2 99 24.5 92 31.6 191 25.1
3-4 3 1.4 27 8.0 30 2.0
5+ 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.3
2011 End-line Survey
Number of 
signs 
recognized 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number 
of 
women
%
Number 
of 
women
Number 
of 
women
%
0 24 6.6 19 10.4 43 8.4
1-2 76 21.4 73 34.5 149 27.6
3-4 167 53.6 100 43.8 267 48.9
5+ 56 18.4 22 11.3 78 15.0
Table 4.23 
Average of pregnancy danger signs recognized by women in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number 
of 
Women
Average number of 
signs recognized
Number 
of 
Women
Average number 
of signs recognized
Number 
of 
Women
Average number 
of signs recognized
2007 Baseline 
Survey
238 0.35 143 0.83 381 0.39
2011 End Line 
Survey
323 3.56 214 3.04 537 3.31
Table 4.24 
Percentage of women who sought health services after recognizing pregnancy danger signs in the baseline and end 
line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 32 53.8 32 68.2 64 55.4
2011 End Line Survey 66 68.6 71 87.9 137 78.5
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
58
Table 4.25 
Place where mothers/women sought health services after recognizing pregnancy danger signs 
in the baseline and end line surveys 
Place / Person
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End Line Survey
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Hospital 13 11.6 11 25.9 24 13.2 16 13.0 19 17.8 35 15.5
Health Center 11 25.2 17 35.1 28 26.3 29 33.1 38 51.0 67 42.3
Health post 4 9.1 2 4.2 6 8.6 19 21.3 12 14.2 31 17.7
Private clinic 5 8.5 8 15.8 13 9.4 4 3.5 4 7.0 8 5.3
Convergence Center (from the 
Integral System of Health Care 
known as SIAS) 
1 0.7 2 5.9 3 1.2 1 1.4 2 1.8 3 1.6
Health promoter --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 4.3 1 1.4 4 2.8
Midwife --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 19.0 5 6.0 19 12.3
Other --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 1.4 1 1.4 2 1.4
Did not seek advice of treatment --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 10.5 5 5.7 14 8.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Recognizes 
Bleeding 
Recognizes Blury 
vision
Seeks counseling 
or treatment 
Seeks medical 
attention at hospital
Seeks medical 
attention at health 
center
Seeks medical 
attention at health 
post
Percentage
2007 2011
Chart 20
Women s Knowledge and behaviors related to the recognition of pregnancy warning 
signs in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Total average number of signs
recognized 
Average number of signs recognized in
San Marcos
Average number of signs recognized in
Baja Verapaz Average number of signs recognized by mothers
2007 2011
Chart 21
Average number of pregnancy danger signs recognized by women in San Marcos and 
Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end line surveys
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
60
Table 4.26 shows a slight improvement in a mother‟s capacity to recognize neo-natal danger signs 
from 70.7% in the 2007 baseline to 77.8% in the 2011 end line survey.
Table 4.26 
Number of mothers that recognize neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 320 69.8 273 78.9 593 70.7
2011 End Line 
Survey
332 88.5 202 67.0 534 77.8
Table 4.27 and chart 22 indicate an increased percentage of mothers able to recognize neo-natal 
danger signs from the 2007 baseline to the 2011 end line results. Some of the warning signs 
recognized include difficulty breathing, premature birth and baby´s belly button turning red. The 
percentage of mothers who sought medical attention also increased, especially at the community 
level using community services. 
Table 4.27 
Neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers (per sign) in the baseline and end line surveys 
Danger signs
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End-Line Survey
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Difficulty breathing (turning 
purple)
22 10.9 35 15.5 57 11.6 224 70.6 104 51.2 328 62.3
Premature baby 16 11.2 18 9.0 34 10.9 150 47.8 53 30.9 203 40.6
Baby is cold to touch 6 3.7 12 6.8 18 4.2 89 30.0 38 21.6 127 26.4
Fever 86 62.7 92 57.0 178 61.9 184 48.9 106 54.0 290 51.1
Not able to take breastfeed 50 35.8 69 33.9 119 35.6 169 54.6 128 61.2 297 57.5
Baby´s belly button turning 
red 3 0.8 15 7.2 18 1.7 106 35.5 33 15.9 139 27.1
Red eye with discharge 6 2.4 4 2.4 10 2.4 33 10.5 20 11.5 53 11.0
Table 4.28 indicates mothers´ increased ability to recognize danger signs (especially three or more) 
in 2011. Table 4.29 and chart 23 show an increase in the average number of signs recognized by 
mothers (2), with better results in the San Marcos department. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
61
Table 4.28 
Number of neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Baseline Survey
Number of 
signs 
recognized
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
0 220 63.7 97 43.6 317 61.9
1-2 122 36.1 122 52.9 244 37.6
3-4 1 0.2 12 3.5 13 0.5
5+ 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2011 End-line Survey 
Number of 
signs 
recognized
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
0 41 9.4 41 23.8 82 16.1
1-2 101 31.4 96 44.0 197 37.3
3-4 159 50.8 62 26.5 221 39.5
5+ 22 8.5 8 5.6 30 7.1
Table 4.29 
Average number of neo-natal danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
Number 
of 
mothers
Average 
Number 
of 
mothers
Average 
Number 
of 
mothers
Average 
2007 Baseline Survey 343 0.47 231 0.79 574 0.50
2011 End Line Survey 323 2.73 207 1.88 530 2.33
Tables 4.30 and 4.31 indicate an increased percentage of mothers who sought advice and treatment 
after recognizing newborn danger signs and more visits to primary and secondary level health 
services. 
Table 4.30 
Percentage of mothers that sought health services after recognizing neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end 
line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
56 63.9 70 80.1 126 66.2
2011 End Line 
Survey
51 60.5 43 90.2 94 73.7
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
62
Table 4.31 
Place where the mother sought health services after recognizing neo-natal danger signs in the baseline and end line 
surveys 
Health 
Provider/Person
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End Line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Hospital 14 13.6 20 25.3 34 15.3 8 8.2 15 32.0 23 18.7
Health Center 20 24.2 37 42.5 57 26.8 25 30.4 18 36.7 43 33.2
Health post 8 9.1 11 13.0 19 9.7 9 10.0 10 19.0 19 14.0
Private clinic 19 21.0 12 8.8 31 19.3 14 14.3 4 16.3 18 15.2
Convergence Center
(from the Integral 
System of Health 
Care known as SIAS)
2 1.3 5 6.6 7 2.1 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.3
Health promoter ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6 11.1 0 0.0 6 6.1
Midwife ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 3 4.7 1 1.4 4 3.2
Did not seek advice 
or treatment ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5 12.2 2 7.0 7 9.9
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Recognizes difficulty
breathing
Recognizes child
with fever 
Recognizes that the
child is not taking
breastmilk 
Sought advice or
treatment after
recognizing danger
sign 
Sought medical
services at hospital
Sought medical
services at a health
center 
Sought medical
treatment at health
posts 
2007 2011
Chart 22 
Knowledge and behaviors related to the recognition of newborn danger signs by 
mothers in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz in baseline 2007 and 2011 end-line 
surveys
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Total average number of danger signs
recognized 
Average number of signs recognized
in San Marcos
Average number of signs recognized
in Baja Verapaz Average number of signs recognized
2007 2011
Chart 23
Average number of newborn danger signs recognized by mothers in San Marcos 
and Baja Verapaz in 2007 baseline and 2011 end-line surveys
Table 4.32 indicates an increased number of mothers who were able to recognize childhood illness 
danger signs from 70.7% in the 2007 baseline to 94.6% in the 2011 end-line line survey, especially 
in the San Marcos department. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
64
Table 4.32 
Number of mothers that recognize childhood illness danger signs in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
320 69.8 273 78.9 593 70.7
2011 End Line 
Survey
361 95.1 256 94.0 617 94.6
Table 4.33 and chart 24 indicate an important increase in the percentage of mothers who recognize 
childhood illness danger signs in 2011. For example in 2011 more mothers were able to recognize 
“vomiting” as a warning sign; however, mothers still need to learn to recognize other signs such as 
“weakness, not eating or drinking liquids.” The percentage of mothers who sought medical attention 
at health centers and posts also increased in 2011. 
Table 4.33 
Childhood illness danger signs recognized by mothers (per sign) in the baseline and end line surveys 
Danger Sign
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
The child does not look 
good or does not play 
96 25.6 87 32.4 183 26.4 64 15.9 64 24.8 128 20.3
The child does not eat nor 
drink liquids 
157 45.0 142 52.3 299 45.8 123 36.4 107 45.3 230 40.8
Weakness or has difficulty
waking up 
89 24.8 100 39.4 189 26.4 66 19.7 33 15.6 99 17.7
High fever 156 47.3 142 51.3 298 47.8 257 69.8 178 67.8 435 68.8
Panting 2 0.3 15 5.8 17 0.9 41 12.7 21 8.0 62 10.4
Vomiting 78 28.6 44 13.6 122 26.9 200 56.7 103 39.5 303 48.2
Seizures 0 0.0 3 1.0 3 0.1 42 15.0 8 2.8 50 9.0
Table 4.34 indicates an increased number of mothers able to recognize more childhood illness danger 
signs in the 2011 end line survey compared to the 2007 baseline results, with an average of two 
danger signs recognized, but it also shows that mothers were better at recognizing pregnancy and 
newborn danger signs than at recognizing childhood illness danger signs.
Table 4.34 
Number of childhood illness danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line surveys 
2007 Baseline Survey 
Number of danger 
signs recognized
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
0 134 34.4 67 24.0 201 33.4
1-2 211 53.3 156 53.4 367 53.3
3-4 58 12.3 62 22.6 120 13.3
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
65
5+ 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
End-line Survey 
Number of danger 
signs recognized
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
0 24 5.2 14 5.6 38 5.4
1-2 200 62.0 154 68.2 354 65.0
3-4 94 30.8 50 25.1 144 28.1
5+ 5 2.1 2 1.0 7 1.6
Table 4.35 
Average number of childhood illness danger signs recognized by mothers in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. Average No. Average No. Average 
2007 Baseline 
survey
239 1.24 146 1.56 385 1.27
2011 End-line 
Survey 
323 2.15 220 1.90 543 2.03
Tables 4.36 and 4.37 and chart 24 show improvements in patterns of medical-care seeking after 
recognizing childhood illness danger signs, with more mothers seeking medical services in the 2011 
end line survey compared to the 2007 baseline results, especially at the community level, using 
community services. 
Table 4.36 
Percentage of mothers that sought health services after recognizing childhood illness danger signs in the baseline 
and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
188 85.3 179 86.2 367 85.4
2011 End Line 
Survey
216 96.8 174 98.7 390 97.8
Table 4.37 
Place where the mother sought health services after recognizing childhood illness danger signs in the baseline and 
end line surveys 
Health 
Provider/Person
2007 Baseline survey 2011 End-line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Hospital 21 7.9 38 22.4 59 9.7 15 3.9 21 12.8 36 8.7
Health Center 79 39.1 96 47.2 175 40.1 83 43.1 105 60.5 188 52.4
Health post 37 13.7 35 15.6 72 13.9 77 34.5 38 16.6 115 25.0
Private clinic 65 29.6 36 14.0 101 27.7 36 11.9 19 14.7 55 13.4
Integral System of 
Health Care (SIAS)
Convergence Center
3 2.5 15 7.2 18 3.1 2 1.5 6 3.5 8 4.8
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
66
Health 
Provider/Person
2007 Baseline survey 2011 End-line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Health promoter --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 10.8 3 1.4 20 5.8
Midwife --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.1
Did not seek advice or
treatment 
--- --- --- --- --- --- 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Child does not 
eat or drink 
liquids 
Recognizes 
vomiting 
Recognizes 
weakness
Signs lead for 
seeking advice 
or treatment 
Sought medical 
care in hospital
Sought 
attention at 
health center 
Sought 
attention at 
health post 
Percentage
2007 2011
Chart 24
Knowledge and behavior related to mothers 'recognition of danger signs in children in San 
Marcos and Baja Verapaz 2007 - 2011 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
67
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Total number of danger signs 
recognized 
Average number od signs 
recognized in San Marcos 
Average number of danger signs 
in Baja Verapaz
Promedio de señales
2007 2011
Chart 25
Average number of danger signs in children recognized by mothers in San Marcos and Baja Verapaz 
2007 - 2011
Although chart 4.38 shows families‟ generalized use of a water treatment method in the 2007 
baseline results, table 4.39 shows that nearly all families were using the boiling method in 2007 
while 2011 results show a minor increase of the number of families that also use chlorination for 
water purification. 
Table 4.38 
Percentage of households that use a method for purifying drinking water 
in the baseline and end line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline 
Survey
451 99.2 327 94.9 778 98.8
2011 End Line 
Survey
390 97.6 269 98.4 659 98.0
Table 4.39 
Percentage of households that use a method for purifying drinking water per method 
in the baseline and end line surveys 
Water Treatment 
Method
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End-line Survey
San 
Marcos
Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Boiling 443 98.4 321 98.5 764 98.4 371 96.7 256 97.5 627 97.1
Chlorination 32 6.0 15 3.2 47 5.8 71 18.4 24 4.0 95 11.2
Solar disinfection 
(Sodis)
6 1.7 2 0.1 8 1.1 13 3.5 4 0.8 17 2.2
Filter 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.0 4 0.4 4 0.9 8 0.6
Use two or more water 
purification methods 
451 99.2 326 94.8 777 98.7 390 97.6 269 98.4 659 98.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
68
Tables 4.40, 4.41 and 4.42 reveal that educational activities carried out in the month prior to the 2011 
end line survey increased by four times than what farmers reported a month prior to the 2007 
baseline study. The number of mothers that participated in educational sessions and received 
counseling increased mainly due to the implementation of more activities designed to convey key 
messages to improve feeding and nutrition practices and the health of pregnant women and the 
newborn. Interviewees also reported more involvement of food security staff at the community level 
and increased use of printed materials during educational sessions in 2011. 
Table 4.40 
Percentage of households that received counseling on health and nutrition in the past month in the baseline and end 
line surveys 
San Marcos Baja Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. %
2007 Baseline Survey 95 16.5 143 37.8 238 18.6
2011 End Line Survey 314 83.9 223 81.8 537 82.9
Table 4.41 
Percentage of household that received training/counseling on health and nutrition per theme in the baseline & end 
line surveys 
Theme
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End-line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Child‟s health 38 41.2 64 43.7 102 41.7 123 39.0 70 37.7 193 38.3
Pregnant woman health 3 1.7 3 1.4 6 1.6 70 21.5 56 22.8 126 22.1
Newborn health 2 1.3 2 0.9 4 1.2 79 27.7 25 9.7 104 18.9
Nutrition and feeding 40 44.1 55 41.3 95 43.6 142 40.3 121 57.1 263 48.5
Household hygiene 44 55.1 81 56.3 136 55.4 117 32.4 66 28.7 183 30.6
Water purification methods 20 23.6 10 7.4 30 20.3 40 12.9 20 9.7 60 11.3
Table 4.42
Percentage of households that received training/counseling on health and nutrition in the past month per source in 
the baseline and end line surveys 
Health Provider/Person 
2007 Baseline Survey 2011 End-line Survey 
San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total San Marcos Baja 
Verapaz Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Staff From Ministry of 
Health 66 66.7 71 53.0 137 64.0 75 19.4 49 20.5 124 19.9
Food security volunteer 
staff 30.9 72 49.5 98 34.6 281 92.7 201 88.5 482 90.8
Family members 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Neighbors 1 0.9 2 1.3 3 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Radio stations 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.2
Printed materials 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 47 14.2 68 32.0 115 22.9
Television 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Megaphone 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
69
IV.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
This section presents main program successes and challenges for future similar programs to be 
implemented by either Catholic Relief Services or other organizations. 
A. Program achievements judging by changes documented by this final evaluation: 
1. Improved Nutritional status of children 6-59 months 
a. The prevalence of stunting among 6-59-month children decreased significantly 
from a baseline 79.1% in 2007 to 66.4% in 2011 - 12 percentage points in four 
years, which represents a reduction of over three percentage points per year. 
b. Both baseline and end line surveys indicate that stunting is present somewhere 
between the 6th-12th month of age, which confirms results from other relevant 
studies that indicate significant maternal nutrition deficiencies before and during 
pregnancy. 
c. The weight-for-height average Z score in the 2007-2011 period decreased, but 
this did not affect the prevalence of acute malnutrition found in both studies. 
2. Variables associated with the four pillars of food security and nutrition 
a. Collected data reveals consistent and significant positive changes in the impact 
and results indicators that relate to the four pillars of food security and nutrition 
underlying the design of the SEGAMAYA program. 
b. Highlights include verifiable progress in improving mothers key health and 
feeding behaviors to care for themselves and their families (e.g. feeding 
practices recommended for children depending on their age, recognition of 
danger signs during pregnancy, with newborn and children, seeking advice or 
medical attention in a timely manner and the adoption of measures to improve 
the quality of water at household level). 
c. As informed by CRS staff, in 2010, the Title II program increased the food 
ration being distributed for a period of six months to alleviate the effects caused 
by a severe drought in 2009 and tropical storm Agatha in 2010. This helped 
increase the percentage of recommended daily dietary allowance covered by this 
ration from 15% to 23.3%. A Food Consumption Survey conducted by CRS in12
2010 revealed that participating families had an average energy availability of 
1,833 kcal per person per day, which represents 92.2% of energy adequacy 
(household diet and ration) and that the food ration represented 20.1% adequacy. 
Hence, the ration distributed by the Title II program contributed to improve 
 
12 Medición de la Escala de Inseguridad Alimentaria y Consumo Aparente de Alimentos; programa SEGAMAYA - CRS, 
Cáritas Verapaz, Cáritas San Marcos, December 2010
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
70
household food provisioning significantly. Consequently, families also 
benefitted from more diversity and dietary adequacy. 
d. As indicated above, the nutritional status of children under the age of five 
improved substantially between 2007 and 2011. It is assumed that this 
improvement is due to the interaction of the different decisive factors that 
contributed to food availability, access, consumption and utilization. On the 
other hand, collected data indicates that food production deteriorated 17 
percentage points in the studied period. However, this could be due to natural 
disasters reported by 74% of households in 2011 as a cause of food shortages 
(table 2.17). Hence, it seems as if food availability expressed as household food 
provisioning did not improve due to agricultural production of small-scale 
farmers, but to the increase of the food ration distributed by the SEGAMAYA 
program. 
e. Results indicators linked to mothers‟ breastfeeding and child feeding practices 
also showed improvements as presented in the tables included in the narrative. 
Although the number of children under six months was low, there was a tangible 
improvement of exclusive breastfeeding as well as other practices such as 
adequate age for introducing solid foods, feeding quantity, consistency and 
frequency manifested by improved food intake by 6-23 month children. 
f. Collected data related to mother‟s health behavior and seeking health services 
imply that the SEGAMAYA program was successful at increasing mothers´ 
recognition of significant health problems and risks that may affect her health 
and that of her children and the importance of seeking health services in a timely 
manner. 
g. Mothers‟ adoption of improved feeding and sanitation practices promoted by the 
program suggest the implementation of effective educational activities. Changes 
to improve the information, education, communication of key messages and 
adult learning methodology made throughout program implementation had 
positive results. These changes included the development of methodology 
guides for technical staff from implementing partners. These were also adapted 
for promoters who received an educational package to support their training 
sessions with mothers. After the SEGAMAYA mid-term evaluation, the group 
size of mothers participating in educational sessions was reduced to 15-20 
mothers per group in order to be more effective. This along with staggered 
hours for training groups of mothers helped improve attendance to educational 
sessions. As a result of the introduction of popularized culturally appropriate 
educational materials in 2009 (based on AIEPI-AINM-C strategy) and the use of 
an adult education approach for conveying key messages, this helped increase 
the effectiveness of conveying key messages which resulted in mothers´ 
increased adoption of improved behaviors and practices. 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
71
h. The SEGAMAYA Program worked with preventive health and nutrition 
interventions with pregnant and lactating women to improve the adoption of key 
nutrition and health practices such as exclusive breastfeeding and appropriate 
age to introduce solid foods to children and conducted monthly growth 
monitoring to determine if a child was growing well and provided counseling 
and follow up to mothers on how to improve the child‟s nutrition. These actions 
are some of those included in the 1,000 days global strategy to improve child 
nutrition. 
i. Although the adoption of improved agriculture/livestock production and 
marketing practices were not as significant as food consumption and utilization 
results, they reflect an increased number of farmers adopting improved 
practices. Some of these practices include use of 1-3 grains per hole, use of 
metallic silos for grain storage; vegetable and plant diversification; adoption of 
soil conservation techniques such as live and dead barriers, ditches and use of 
compost. Livestock management practice results also revealed a considerable 
increase of poultry vaccination. Marketing practices more relevant are those 
that relate to running a business, with a slight increase in the number of family 
and agriculture businesses and the incorporation of a notebook to calculate 
expenses and profit. 
j. Although changes in agriculture and livestock practices have been less 
significant than health-related changes, this was due probably to two structural 
problems - lack of land and water supply that affect farmers‟ subsistence 
capacity and the late introduction of agricultural material specifically designed 
for the use of promoters and farmers, using easy to understand materials and the 
ERCA (Experience Reflection, Knowledge and Action) approach for adult 
education. 
k. Evidence collected for measurement of activities for monitoring and evaluation 
of this program confirms the effectiveness of integrated and sustainable 
interventions of the SEGAMAYA Program that led to changes in difficult to 
impact indicators such as the height for age indicator among children under the 
age of five. 
B. Challenges and Recommendations:
a. In spite of the changes demonstrated at improving feeding behaviors to 
prevent malnutrition of children under the age of two, it is crucial to intensify the efforts and 
place more emphasis on adjusting existing national guidelines related to feeding and develop 
simple methodologies to make it easier for mothers to choose to adhere and adopt 
recommended practices. 
b. It is recommended to re-organize the formal marketing component of the 
program. This includes modifying strategies, approaches and activities based on an in-depth 
assessment of potential beneficiaries as proposed in the final report of the „Estudio 
SEGAMAYA PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT – NOV 2011
72
Cualitativo para Medir los Avances en los Procesos de Comercialización de Productos13‟
attached to this Final Evaluation Report. 
c. Given the positive results of this Title II program, it is important that CRS 
Guatemala use this experience in future programs so that the effective model and strategies 
used for the SEGAMAYA program in 2007-2011 for the provision of technical assistance, 
education, communication and food distribution continue to be implemented. 
d. It is suggested to adjust the methodology to monitor results and impact 
indicators14, especially in terms of the frequency of this measurement based on the changes 
to some of these indicators. 
 
13 Qualitative Study to Measure Progress in Product Marketing Process 
14 See CRS Performance Indicator Tracking Table.