109. Number of national school meals programme core capacity components that have been strengthened with WFP support and/or advocacy

109. Number of national school meals programme core capacity components that have been strengthened with WFP support and/or advocacy

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

109

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-S SBP

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is also recommended against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. School based programmes CCS (SMP_CCS)

2. School Meals Programme On Site (SF_ONS)

3. School Meals Programme Take Home Initiatives (SF_THI)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Number of core national capacity aspects

DEFINITION

This indicator aims to measure the core components of a national school meals or nutrition programme that have been developed with WFP support. These components are essential to the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of a national school meals programme (NSMP) and may include:

• National school meals policies or strategies, as well as other relevant sectoral policies or strategies that strengthen school meals implementation in the country;

• National school meals legislation, or laws that enshrine children’s right to access school meals (e.g. education laws);

• The allocation of public funding for the NSMP;

• The design and adoption of a national school meals model;

• The establishment of a national monitoring and reporting system for the NSMP;

• The establishment of a Community Feedback Mechanism for the NSMP.

These components are typically the result of long-term engagement and cooperation with government counterparts and represent significant progress towards a contextualized, high-quality, and sustainable national school meals programme.

National: Refers to school feeding systems operating within a country’s territory, including national, sub-national, and local levels, and encompassing state, civil society, private sector, and community actors. It excludes policies, strategies, programmes, or systems governed or managed by WFP or other international or external entities.

Policies: Officially adopted regulations or standards issued by a governmental body that establish a framework guiding public or private action, including objectives, commitments, and priorities related to school health, nutrition, or school meals.

Strategies: Nationally owned plans that define long-term objectives, priorities, and actions to achieve them, including intended coverage, targets, and arrangements for monitoring and reporting.

Legal rights to school meals: Rights established through legislation adopted by a country’s legislative body that legally guarantees children’s access to school meals, whether through a specific law or provisions within broader legislation.

Public funds: Financial resources allocated by national or sub-national governments to school health and nutrition or school meals programmes – including complementary activities - regardless of budget structure or line-item classification.

National model: A government-defined framework describing the intended design and functioning of a national school meals programme, including objectives, coverage, targeting, procurement, delivery modalities, ration size and composition, and resource arrangements.

Monitoring and reporting system: A nationally owned results framework that defines objectives, outputs, outcomes, indicators, targets, data collection and analysis processes, and reporting arrangements to track performance and results of a national school meals programme.

Community Feedback Mechanism: A structured system that enables community members to submit questions, feedback, or concerns related to programme design or implementation to programme management.

WFP capacity strengthening: WFP-supported processes that enhance the ability of national and sub-national institutions and systems to sustainably design, manage, and deliver food security and nutrition programmes, in collaboration with other stakeholders.

WFP advocacy: WFP-led efforts to influence policies, commitments, and investments at national, regional, and global levels in support of children’s access to school health, nutrition, and school feeding.

RATIONALE

This indicator is specific to school-based programmes and is designed to capture system-level change resulting from WFP’s capacity strengthening support and advocacy for national school health and nutrition and school feeding systems. It focuses on core capacity components that are critical to the quality, functionality, and sustainability of a national school meals programme.

By measuring the number of core components strengthened, the indicator reflects meaningful institutional progress rather than short-term outputs. These components represent foundational elements of national ownership—such as policy, legal, financial, programmatic, and accountability capacities—that enable governments to plan, finance, implement, monitor, and sustain school meals programmes at scale.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Data for this indicator is primarily drawn from official and verifiable government and programme documentation. Sources may include Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) assessments or similar system diagnostics; formal government correspondence; and desk reviews of approved policies, strategies, laws, and programme documents related to school health and nutrition or school meals.

Additional sources include national and sub-national budget documents, budget execution or expenditure reports demonstrating public financing for school meals programmes, and official government communications such as press releases or gazette publications confirming adoption or implementation of core capacity components.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

The indicator measures the number of national school meals programme (NSMP) core capacity components that have been strengthened with WFP support and/or advocacy. Core aspects are assessed and calculated separately.

Scoring of core aspects

Each core aspect is assessed along a three‑stage progression that reflects increasing levels of institutional maturity. One score can be counted per stage achieved, as outlined below:

The total score for core aspects is calculated as the simple sum of all scores achieved across core aspects during the reporting period, minus the corresponding baseline score established at the beginning of the reporting cycle. This ensures that only new or additional system strengthening progress attributable to the period is counted.

Indicator calculation: 18 (endline) – 5 (baseline) = 13

Indicator result: 13 core capacity points strengthened during the reporting period.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Country

• Target Group

Data is entered as a number for each component as follows:

BASELINE

A baseline score is established for each core aspect at the start of the annual reporting period, reflecting the stage already achieved prior to WFP support during that cycle. Progress is measured relative to this baseline.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

To be determined at the country office level. Annual targets need to reflect the gradual, multi‑year nature of system strengthening and to track realistic, year‑on‑year progress in strengthening core national school meals capacities attributable to WFP support.

End of CSP target:

To be determined at the country office level.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Annual

INTERPRETATION

The indicator value reflects the extent to which WFP support and advocacy during the reporting period have contributed to strengthening the core institutional capacities underpinning national school health and nutrition or school feeding systems.

Higher values indicate greater progress in establishing or advancing foundational components—such as policy, legal, financial, programmatic, and accountability mechanisms—that are essential for government ownership, effective implementation, and long‑term sustainability of national school meals programmes. The indicator should be interpreted as a measure of system‑level change over time, recognizing that progress is incremental and achieved through sustained engagement with national stakeholders.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In 2024, the Government of Atlantica, with WFP’s technical assistance, capacity strengthening, and policy advocacy, strengthened four core components of its National School Meals Programme (NSMP). During the year, Atlantica developed and secured Cabinet endorsement of its first National School Meals and Nutrition Policy, establishing a formal institutional framework for school meals. In parallel, provisions on school feeding were incorporated into the amended Education Act adopted by Parliament, legally guaranteeing primary school children the right to receive a nutritious school meal. WFP also supported the establishment of a national NSMP monitoring and reporting system to track food stocks, meal delivery, food quality, and procurement, accompanied by nationwide training for education officials and school administrators. In addition, a school meal specific community feedback mechanism was designed and operationalized, enabling parents, teachers, and community members to provide feedback through multiple channels and strengthening accountability within the Ministry of Education.

As a result of these advances, the indicator “Number of national school meals programme core capacity components strengthened with WFP support and/or advocacy” recorded an increase of 7 points in 2024, reflecting progress across four core capacity components compared to the established baseline at the start of the reporting period.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator is best analyzed alongside complementary indicators that capture implementation, coverage, and outcomes of national school meals programmes – such as:

• 43. SABER

• 92. Transition strategy for school health and nutrition and school feeding developed with WFP support.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Complementary qualitative research can help explain what lies behind changes in the indicator score by examining how each strengthened core capacity component is functioning in practice. Short interviews or reviews can assess whether approved policies and strategies are actively used, whether legal provisions are understood and applied, whether increased public funding is predictable and sustainable, and whether national models, monitoring systems, and community feedback mechanisms are operational and used for decision‑making. These insights help distinguish formal progress (e.g. documents approved, or systems established) from effective and sustainable capacity strengthening and clarify why scores have advanced or stalled between stages.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

At country level, this indicator informs decisions on how WFP should prioritize, sequence, and adapt its support to the national school meals programme. It helps identify which core capacity components have progressed sufficiently and which require continued technical assistance or policy advocacy, guiding joint annual work planning and resource allocation. The indicator also supports decisions on transition, including when to shift from capacity strengthening to handover to government counterparts, as part of the broader transition process.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

This indicator aggregates different types of system changes into a composite score, which can obscure differences in nature, depth, and significance of changes in core components. It captures formal progress along defined stages and does not fully reflect the quality, functionality, or sustainability of strengthened components in practice. In addition, progress is strongly influenced by external factors beyond WFP’s control, including government political will, legislative and budget cycles, administrative capacity, and contextual shocks such as crises or emergencies. Results should therefore be interpreted as reflecting WFP’s contribution, not attribution, to national system strengthening.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Consult GHQ SBP team.