C.27 Number of tools or products developed or revised to enhance national systems contributing to ending hunger as part of WFP capacity strengthening

C.27 Number of tools or products developed or revised to enhance national systems contributing to ending hunger as part of WFP capacity strengthening

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

C.27

N.B: This indicator is an update to a previous indicator (formerly known in CRF 2022-2025 as C.6 Number of tools or products developed or revised to enhance national systems contributing to Zero Hunger and other SDGs as part of WFP capacity strengthening).

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS-CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Output Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator.

1. Emergency preparedness and response CCS (EPR_CCS)

2. Ecosystem restoration, community infrastructure and livelihood opportunities CCS (ECL_CCS)

3. Financial solutions, information services and market access CCS (FIM_CCS)

4. Malnutrition management CCS (NTA_CCS)

5. Malnutrition prevention CCS (NPA_CCS)

6. National data and analytics CCS (NDA_CCS)

7. School-based programme CCS (SMP_CCS)

This is also recommended for the following sub‑activity in CSP logframes. Choosing it in COMET will not trigger the inclusion of this indicator.

1. Social protection technical support (SP_CCS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Number of tools and products

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the number of tools or products developed or revised with WFP capacity strengthening support. It is reported in COMET through detailed indicators that describe the type of tools and products generated. Country offices can select the detailed indicators that best reflect their activity context and implementation.

Within COMET, the detailed indicators are grouped according to the following categories: i) policies, legislation, strategies, and planning documents; ii) analytical and evidence products; iii) operational and technical instruments; iv) skills and training resources; v) governance and institutional tools; vi) other. These categories are defined below.

Tools or products developed: These are specific, knowledge‑based or technical deliverables produced by national stakeholders with WFP capacity strengthening support. They represent tangible outputs within a broader capacity strengthening engagement and often mark critical milestones required to achieve longer‑term capacity outcomes. Tools or products may take many forms and are intended to be applied, institutionalized, or used by national stakeholders to strengthen systems contributing to ending hunger.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Policies, legislation, strategies, and planning documents which guide strategic direction or set binding rules for action .

• Analytical and evidence products: These are diagnostic, research, or analytical products that inform decisions, such as assessments (e.g. food security, logistics), stakeholder mappings, evidence syntheses, technical briefs, case studies.

• Operational and technical instruments used to run programmes and systems day‑to‑day, such as standard operating procedures (SOPs), job aids and step‑by‑step protocols, programme registers, targeting tools or algorithms, digital tools, dashboards, technical specifications and system designs.

• Skills and training resources that strengthen human capabilities, such as training curricula, coaching or mentoring toolkits, e-learning modules and other instructional materials.

• Governance and institutional tools that clarify roles, mandates, structures, or institutional processes, e.g. terms of reference, coordination frameworks, institutional organigrammes, governance protocols, committee or working group charters.

This list is not exhaustive. Any tool or product to which WFP contributes substantively through its capacity strengthening support should be considered an output under this indicator. Their official endorsement, institutionalization, or sustained use by national stakeholders may in some cases represent outcome‑level results and should be documented under relevant CCS outcome indicators.

Additional key terms for this indicator are defined below.

WFP capacity strengthening support:

Engagements with national stakeholders aimed at enhancing the capacity of national systems and programmes to function efficiently, effectively and sustainably. WFP applies a mix of support types – from accompaniment to advocacy, convening, piloting, modeling, secondment, physical and financial assets, knowledge products and training – to address diverse needs and entry points.

* WFP does not work alone as an enabling partner, and results cannot always be attributed exclusively to WFP. Contributions from other stakeholders should be acknowledged in narratives.

National system: The interconnected institutions, policies, processes and actors that work together to deliver a specific public sector function or service area that WFP supports – such as emergency preparedness, nutrition (including fortification), school feeding, social protection, food security analysis or supply‑chain management.

System components: Specific functions within a national system that contribute to the organization and delivery of public goods and services. System components may include the development of policies and laws; coordination and governance structures; planning and financing mechanisms; programme design, implementation and monitoring processes; and the human or technical capacities that support them. Each component represents a distinct area of responsibility within the wider system, which may be strengthened with WFP support. See the CCS Framework for a list of common system components and their descriptions.

RATIONALE

This indicator captures tools and products developed or revised by government or other national stakeholders with WFP capacity strengthening support. When such tools are developed through collaborative processes and integrated into national workflows, their rollout and use can contribute to outcome‑level changes by helping institutionalize good practices, standardize processes, and strengthen decision‑making and service delivery. Counting these tools provides an early signal that WFP’s support is generating tangible, context‑specific solutions that are owned, governed, and maintained by national institutions. The degree of ownership and the resulting system performance, however, must be evidenced through complementary indicators and qualitative assessment.

DATA SOURCE

The primary data source for this indicator is WFP and national stakeholder documentation generated through capacity strengthening engagements, including workplans, technical reports, TORs, meeting minutes, draft and final versions of tools or products, and official approval or endorsement records from national institutions. Additional verification can come from project progress reports, correspondence with national counterparts, and other documentation that confirms WFP’s technical or advisory role in the development or revision of the tool or product.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by summing the target or follow‑up values reported for the selected detailed output indicators.

To ensure consistent counting, apply the following rules:

• A single tool or product counts once. Whether developed from scratch or revised, each discrete tool or product should be recorded as one item. Examples include guidelines, standard operating procedures (SOPs), digital tools, assessment methodologies, job aids, training packages, or monitoring instruments.

• Iterative revisions count once. If a tool undergoes multiple rounds of adjustments or refinement during the year, it should be counted only once, as these relate to a single developed or revised product.

• A tool deployed in multiple locations is counted once. If the same tool is rolled out or applied in multiple regions or institutions, it still counts as one product unless it has been substantively adapted for each context.

• The indicator is not cumulative. A tool or product should be counted in the reporting year in which it is completed.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Planned values for this output indicator are entered in the Other Output Plan (OOP) in COMET, while actual values are recorded through completion reports. Planned and actual values must be disaggregated by activity tag and location.

In COMET, this indicator is broken down into six detailed indicators that specify the type of tool or product.

• C.27.1 Number of policies, legislation, strategies and planning documents

• C.27.2 Number of analytical and evidence products

• C.27.3 Number of operational and technical instruments

• C.27.4 Number of skills and training resources

• C.27.5 Number of governance and institutional tools

• C.27.6 Number of other tools or products

If the indicator is included in the logframe, reporting on at least one detailed indicator is mandatory. Values should be reported using the corresponding breakdown presented in the tables below, reporting only against applicable entries.

PLANNED FIGURES

Targets for this indicator are set at the level of the detailed indicators selected for reporting, using the corresponding breakdown presented in the data entry tables above. Activity managers should define these targets at the start of the engagement, in consultation with the national partner and any other stakeholders involved, ensuring they align with agreed workplans.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The indicator should be monitored continuously through proper record keeping, with records reviewed at least quarterly for quality assurance and accurate tracking. Data must be consolidated and reported at least annually in the COMET completion report.

INTERPRETATION

This indicator captures the number of tools or products that government or other national stakeholders developed or revised with WFP capacity strengthening support. On its own, the figure reflects only the number of tools produced or updated; it does not indicate their quality, relevance, use, or contribution to improved system performance. To interpret this indicator meaningfully, it should be reviewed together with complementary indicators and supported by a brief narrative that explains:

• which institutions or actors were involved in developing or revising the tool or product (e.g. line ministries, national data agencies, academia, NGOs).

• what type of tool or product was produced (e.g. SOPs, strategies, digital tools, job aids, assessment methodologies).

• what capacity or system function the tool is intended to strengthen (e.g. targeting, information management, workforce development, procurement, monitoring).

• the purpose of the tool within the broader objectives of the intervention, and how it addresses specific capacity gaps or operational challenges.

The narrative should also describe the extent of WFP’s support, the degree of national leadership in the development process, and how and where the tool is expected to be used. Whenever possible, it is recommended that the narrative explain how WFP’s capacity strengthening initiative aims to ensure that the tool or product will be maintained and utilized sustainably. For example, this may include outlining ongoing software licensing arrangements or ensuring that staff are trained to update or operate the tool over time. Finally, the narrative should highlight any linkages to outcome‑level indicators that can demonstrate adoption, institutionalization, or system‑level improvements associated with the tool’s use.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

WFP supported the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) in developing two tools aimed at strengthening emergency preparedness and response systems. Working closely with the NDMA’s Early Warning and Response Unit, WFP provided technical assistance to revise the national disaster preparedness standard operating procedures (SOPs), including updated protocols for information flow, rapid needs assessment, and coordination with sub‑national authorities. The revised SOPs were validated through a national consultative workshop and are now ready for dissemination to provincial disaster management offices.

WFP also worked with NDMA’s Logistics Directorate to develop a prepositioning plan for essential emergency supplies. The plan includes a standardized methodology for estimating stock requirements based on hazard profiles, guidance on selecting and assessing storage locations, and templates for monitoring stock levels across regional warehouses. WFP facilitated technical workshops to refine the methodology and supported NDMA in finalizing the plan for approval. Once rolled out, the prepositioning plan is expected to improve the timeliness and reliability of emergency response across priority regions.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

Use this indicator with other capacity strengthening output indicators to understand who was involved in the engagement, what forms of support were provided, and how the development or revision of the tool or product was enabled. In particular:

• C.25 provides information on the number of people engaged through capacity strengthening initiatives.

• C.26 provides information on the number of initiatives delivered and helps clarify the type of support that led to the creation of the tool or product.

• C.8 reflects the assets or infrastructure transferred to national stakeholders.

• C.28 shows the number of institutions engaged at national and subnational levels.

Taken together, these indicators offer a more complete picture of WFP’s capacity strengthening efforts, showing the initiatives delivered, the people involved, the products and assets generated, and the institutions engaged.

Additionally, outcome-level indicators, such as #37 on the number of national policies, strategies, programmes and other system components enhanced with WFP capacity strengthening support, can help demonstrate institutionalization or system level improvements associated with the tool’s use.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

• Reflects quantity only. As an output indicator, it counts how many initiatives were delivered, but does not capture the quality, depth, or effectiveness of the capacity strengthening support.

• Different initiative types treated equally. One‑off sessions and long-term technical assistance efforts count the same, which can mask variation in scope and effort.

• Does not show who benefited. On its own, the indicator does not capture participant profiles or how well the initiative aligned to national capacity needs.

• Influenced by external factors. The number of initiatives may be affected by operational constraints, partner availability, shifting national priorities, or emergencies – factors beyond WFP’s control that do not reflect performance.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Refer to the CCS Framework, 9 Types of Capacity Strengthening Support, and additional resources in the CCS section of the Programme Guidance Manual.