Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://monitoringhandbook.manuals.wfp.org/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

99. Programmes or other system components are transitioned to national ownership

Prev Next

99. Programmes or other system components are transitioned to national ownership

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

99

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS – CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is recommended for activities that involve the transition of WFP‑led or WFP‑implemented programmes, or other system components, to national leadership and implementation, supported by WFP’s capacity strengthening engagement. For transition strategies focused on school feeding, please use outcome indicator 92.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Transition progress level (measured on an ordinal scale from 0 to 7)

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the extent to which WFP‑supported programmes or system components shift from WFP operational responsibility to sustained national ownership, based on progress against a transition strategy established with national stakeholders.

Below are some key terms for this indicator:

Programme: A structured set of activities designed to deliver goods and services to a defined population in need. Programmes may be led or implemented by national institutions, WFP, or other partners. For this indicator, the focus is on tracking how WFP’s operational responsibilities for such programmes progressively shift to national ownership.

System component: This refers to a specific function within a national system that contributes to the organization and delivery of public goods and services. System components may include functions such as the development and dissemination 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 or progressively assumed by national actors as part of a transition process (see CCS Framework for descriptions of common system components).

Transition: The gradual process of shifting responsibility for planning, managing, implementing, monitoring and financing programmes or system components from WFP’s operational role to full national leadership.

A transition process typically involves the gradual shift of responsibilities across specific geographic areas and/or selected system functions, depending on where WFP has been playing a direct operational role (e.g. procurement, supply chain, programme delivery) and where national capacities are being strengthened. In areas where national systems already lead (e.g. coordination or policysetting), transition focuses on supporting national actors to sustainably carry out these functions with reduced external assistance. Because transition is often gradual and nonlinear, it must be intentionally planned and monitored to ensure progress, quality and sustainability.

This planning should be articulated in a transition strategy, co-developed by WFP and national actors, outlining responsibilities, commitments and required capacity strengthening actions. The strategy should include clear, measurable milestones that specify who provides and receives support, what the support consists of and its purpose, and where and when each milestone is to be achieved. If contextual changes require the strategy to be adjusted, revisions should be agreed with national stakeholders and reflected in the updated milestones.

National ownership refers to national actors leading and taking responsibility for programmes or system components, with external partners playing only a supportive or advisory role when needed. It does not imply that national systems work alone; rather, it means they set and steer the agenda, with partners contributing in ways that reinforce – rather than replace – national leadership. National ownership means that:

  • Decisionmaking authority rests with national institutions.

  • National systems, policies, processes and staff guide and carry out the work.

  • Financing and resource allocation are determined and sustained domestically, with external support used complementarily when appropriate.

  • National stakeholders hold accountability for results.

  • External support, including from WFP, aligns with national priorities, complements existing capacities and reduces over time as capacities strengthen.

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 9 Types of Capacity Strengthening Support – from accompaniment to advocacy, convening, piloting, modeling, secondment, physical and financial assets, knowledge products and training – to address diverse needs and entry points.

RATIONALE

This indicator captures the extent to which WFP responsibilities for specific programmes or system components are shifting toward national ownership, and whether capacity strengthening and joint planning efforts are translating into measurable progress. As transition is a multi‑year, multi‑stakeholder process, the indicator helps assess whether agreed milestones are being met and whether the transition remains on track, providing a signal when further analysis or dialogue is needed to identify adjustments or additional support to sustain momentum.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

For each transition strategy, it is recommended that the activity manager and monitoring staff maintain an Excel file for the duration of the CSP, stored on the CO shared drive. This document should record:

Type of info

Description

Key steps in the strategy development process (indicator ratings 0-3)

OR

Milestones in the transition strategy (indicator ratings 4-7)

initiation, consultations, drafting, submission for endorsement, formal endorsement

list implementation milestones from the transition strategy

Status of each step or milestone

completed, partially completed, not started

Evidence source

(what proves the step or milestone occurred)

meeting minutes, draft strategy versions, endorsement letters, TORs for consultations, supervision reports, new guidance, budget notices, training records, or other relevant documentation

Date of verification

when WFP and/or national stakeholders reviewed the evidence and confirmed the status of the step or milestone

Validation from national stakeholders

(agreement the status is correct)

written note or email from the counterpart entity, or other documented agreement (e.g. joint meeting note)

Additional clarifications from national stakeholders

(optional)

short notes explaining delays, how a step or milestone was completed, or contextual factors not visible in the documentation

Assigned indicator rating and justification

indicator rating with a brief explanation referencing the verified steps or milestones and supporting evidence

Information should be obtained through engagement with the national entity leading the transition, facilitated by the activity manager responsible for the intervention. Verification must be supported by documented evidence and, wherever possible, jointly reviewed with national stakeholders to ensure a credible and agreed rating.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is assessed using the following rubric. Select the appropriate rating to reflect progress in developing and implementing the transition strategy.

Rating

Description

0

Development of the transition strategy not started

1

Development of the transition strategy underway

2

Strategy drafted and submitted for national review/endorsement

3

Strategy formally endorsed by the appropriate national authority

4

Strategy in early implementation, with up to 30% of milestones achieved

5

Strategy in mid-implementation, with 31% to 60% of milestones achieved

6

Strategy in advanced implementation, with 61% to 90% of milestones achieved

7

Strategy fully implemented, with the programme/system component operating under national leadership

If multiple transition strategies are monitored, each must be rated and reported separately. For example, if WFP supports the development of a transition strategy for community‑managed malnutrition programmes in one state, and later supports a similar strategy in another state, these should be treated as separate processes. By contrast, if WFP works with a national ministry to develop a single transition strategy that is implemented across multiple counties or states, this should be monitored and reported as one strategy process.

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

Follow-up values are reported in COMET as shown in the table below.

Indicator

Value

Programmes or other system components are transitioned to national ownership

From 0 to 7

In cases where country offices are measuring more than one transition strategy under the same strategic outcome, standard activity and sub-activity, they should also be disaggregated by geographic location (see example in indicator calculation guidance above).

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

  1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

  2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

  3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baselines remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above.

The baseline value for this indicator is usually 0, unless the development or implementation of the transition strategy is already underway when the CSP document is approved (e.g. a transition strategy submitted for endorsement during the previous CSP).

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Annual targets should reflect the level of progress that is realistically achievable during the reporting year. For the early stages of strategy development (ratings 0–3), targets should be based on feasibility, stakeholder readiness, and the expected pace of joint planning. For implementation stages (ratings 4–7), annual targets should align with the transition strategy’s planned milestones. If contextual changes require the strategy to be adjusted, revisions should be agreed with national stakeholders and reflected in the updated milestones before setting or updating annual targets.

End of CSP target:

The CSP end‑line target should reflect the level of progress foreseen in the transition strategy over the full CSP period. It should be based on the planned sequence of milestones in the strategy and agreed with national stakeholders.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Data should be collected and reviewed annually, with optional semi‑annual or quarterly updates as needed to track progress on time‑bound milestones and support joint discussions with national stakeholders. However, the indicator rating is assigned once per reporting year.

INTERPRETATION

This indicator should be interpreted alongside verified milestone evidence and national stakeholder perspectives. An increase in the rating indicates that additional steps or milestones have been completed and that responsibilities are progressively shifting toward national leadership. A stable rating may reflect steady progress on longerterm milestones, consolidation of earlier achievements, or delays that require followup. Understanding whether stability reflects intentional phasing or emerging challenges is essential for accurate interpretation.

Because the indicator does not diagnose solutions, complementary qualitative information helps clarify the reasons behind observed progress or stagnation. Interpreting results in this way enables WFP and national stakeholders to identify whether sequencing, timelines, or specific areas of capacitystrengthening support need to be adjusted, and to determine where targeted actions may be required to maintain momentum in the transition process.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Below are two example narratives illustrating different stages of transition strategy development and implementation under this indicator.

Example corresponding to a rating of ‘1’

WFP and the Department of Social Welfare jointly initiated the development of a transition strategy to gradually shift operational responsibilities for shockresponsive cash assistance, currently supported by WFP during emergencies, into the government’s national social protection system. As part of this process, WFP supported the Department in drafting a transition strategy that outlines the sequencing of actions, required capacity strengthening, and the roles and responsibilities of each actor.

To inform the strategy, WFP and the Department conducted a rapid assessment of existing systems, including delivery mechanisms, information management and financing arrangements. The resulting evidence is being used to set realistic milestones and ensure that the planned handover of WFPsupported functions is feasible and aligned with national processes.

Example corresponding to a rating of ‘6’

The Ministry of Health (MoH) is leading implementation of the 2021–2026 transition strategy established to transfer WFP operational responsibilities for communitybased management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) to national systems. Of the 22 milestones included in the strategy, 17 have been completed. These include the integration of CMAM reporting into the national health information system, supervision by the Ministry in 10 of 12 priority districts, and the transfer of responsibility for supplychain planning and lastmile delivery of nutrition commodities in most targeted areas.

During 2025, national officers delivered all refresher training sessions to health facility staff without direct WFP involvement, and district health offices coordinated joint monitoring visits using Ministry of Health tools and procedures. WFP’s role has now shifted to targeted advisory support, focusing on resolving remaining bottlenecks in commodity procurement and helping finalize the national CMAM logistics handbook. The two remaining milestones – full integration of supply‑chain management tools into MoH systems and securing routine domestic budget allocations for CMAM monitoring – are expected to move forward next year.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

Other indicators that should be collected alongside this transition indicator include relevant CCS output indicators that capture WFP’s capacity strengthening support (C.25, C.26, C.27, C.8, C.28), as well as complementary outcome or systemfunction indicators (37) that help explain readiness for transition – such as financing, coordination, workforce readiness, and system functionality measures.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Complementary qualitative research, such as key informant interviews, joint milestone reviews, document review, and targeted discussions with national stakeholders, can help verify indicator ratings, explain the reasons behind progress or delays, shed light on the quality of WFP capacity‑strengthening support, and provide evidence of WFP’s contribution to the transition process.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

This indicator does not diagnose solutions, but it signals where the transition stands against agreed milestones. The joint review of milestone evidence with national stakeholders helps ensure that the indicator meaningfully informs decisions on sequencing, resourcing, partnerships and risk mitigation.

VISUALIZATION

Visualization is not recommended for this indicator. Because the indicator reflects progress through an ordinal set of transition stages rather than quantitative values, charts add limited analytical value and may suggest false comparability or linearity. The indicator is best interpreted through narrative reporting and milestone evidence reviewed jointly with national stakeholders.

LIMITATIONS

Potential limitations of this indicator are outlined below. Although these stem from the complexity of multi‑stakeholder transition processes, they can be managed through a clear transition strategy, regular consultation with national stakeholders and evidence‑based scoring. Together, these practices support meaningful use of the indicator for tracking progress and guiding joint decision‑making.

  • Cannot fully capture the complexity of transition processes. Transition is often non‑linear, political and iterative; a single rating cannot reflect all nuances or behind‑the‑scenes dynamics.

  • Relies on subjective judgement. Although the rubric supports consistency, ratings still depend on interpretation and requires triangulation of evidence to ensure reliability.

  • Progress depends on national decision‑making and resource availability. WFP has limited influence over key factors affecting the pace of transition, which may slow progress despite strong engagement.

  • Does not measure quality or effectiveness of national systems. A higher rating reflects progress against the transition strategy, not whether programme or system performance is strong or equitable.

  • Requires a well‑designed transition strategy with clear milestones. Weak, outdated, or overly ambitious milestones will affect the accuracy and usefulness of ratings.

  • Documentation burden can be high. Reliable scoring requires evidence of milestone achievement, agreement with national stakeholders, and periodic updating of strategies.

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.