Percentage of country offices progressing in the implementation of United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS) standards on accessibility.
NEW OR EXISTING KPI
Update of an existing KPI
INDICATOR CODE
C2629.MR24.K29
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION
PRG
MR OUTPUT
2.4. People management and duty of care
PURPOSE
The purpose of this KPI is to measure WFP’s progress in strengthening Universal Accessibility across its operations by tracking Country Offices’ advancement against the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS) accessibility standards. It reflects WFP’s commitment to implementing the Disability Inclusion Roadmap, meeting UNDIS reporting requirements linked to QCPR and the UN Disability Inclusion Scorecard, and upholding the WFP Duty of Care Framework, ED Assurance Standards and the WFP Directive on Digital Accessibility. The KPI, previously used in the 2022–2025 CRF, is transitioned to an MR KPI given its focus on organizational compliance and continuous accessibility improvements.
CALCULATION FORMULA
Result KPI = (Number of Country Offices in the Category Meeting/Exceeding/Total Number of Applicable Country Offices) x100
Where:
Category refers to: Meeting/Exceeding UNDIS Accessibility Standards.
“Meeting” and “Exceeding” are combined into a single reporting category.
Applicable Country Offices include Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 WFP Country Offices.
CALCULATION STEPS
In the ED Assurance Questionnaire , Country Offices report a control compliance score on their level of accessibility for each of the four UNDIS‑aligned domains (see data collection method) from a scale from 0 to 3
An average single compliance score between 0-3 is calculated per Country Office as an internal aggregation step to support consistent classification against UNDIS ratings
The single compliance score (between 0-3) is not reported as the indicator result. Instead, it is used to classify Country Offices into UNDIS implementation stages (“missing, approaching, meeting and/or exceeding). The CO will then be assigned an overall UNDIS-compliant accessibility category, with only “meeting” and “exceeding” used to determine progress
Corporate Level: The number of COs with category “Meeting and/or Exceeding” will be aggregated and divided by the overall number of reporting COs
DATA SOURCE
Primary system(s), dataset(s), or repository(ies) from which KPI data are obtained.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD
The data collection will be done through sourcing answers and control compliance scores to the Accessibility -related questions in the ED Assurance Questionnaire and will be extracted annually by the Global Disability Inclusion Team and analyzed based on the methodology above.
The questions included in the tool are:
Section 5: Information Communications and Technology
Is the technology used in the CO accessible, as benchmarked against WFP’s IT accessibility standards?
Criteria to Consider:
Policy on Enhancing Accessibility of WFP’s Information Technologies (IT) for the Digital Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities
WFP IT Accessibility Standards
Digital Accessibility Checklist
Digital Accessibility Action Plan 2024-2027
Control compliance score:
0 = no benchmarking of technology accessibility completed
1 = baseline assessment of technology accessibility completed
2 = Guidelines and/or action plan plan in place to improve accessibility targets, in alignment with WFP IT accessibility standards
3 = WFP technology is accessible in alignment with IT accessibility standards and reviewed annually.
Section 6: Communication and Media Management
Question: are communications and media produced by your country office disability inclusive and accessible?
Criteria to Consider: Disability Inclusive Communications Guidance
Control compliance score:
0 = no benchmarking
1 = CO established minimum standards on accessible communications as per the DI communications guidance
2 = communications employees are trained on accessible communication standards
3 = CO communications and media is accessible and disability inclusive (provide at least 3 examples)
Section 20: Management Services
20.8Has your office followed and implemented the WFP Accessibility API Process (Assess-Plan-Improve) to ensure the minimum accessibility standards and achieve accessibility of premises, in line with WFP Procedures and Standards? Please select all that apply.*
Criteria to Consider:
WFP Standards and Procedures for Inclusive Accessibility of the Built Environment
Conduct assessment using the WFP Checklist along with plans and pictures (conduct in-house, with OPDs, or SMART assessment).
Plan improvements along with the budget in collaboration with the Building Accessibility Team.
Implement improvements and achieve the WFP Accessibility Certificate and get the plaque that certifies you are compliant with WFP standards.
Control compliance score:
0 = no accessibility assessments or updates complete to facilities
1 = Accessibility assessment is conducted and validated
2 = Accessibility improvements are planned with budget estimation
3 = Accessibility level implemented and achieved, accessibility certificate achieved.
Question: is infrastructure to convene accessible meetings and events in place?
1 = baseline assessment of accessibility of conferences and events infrastructure (including LTAs) completed
2 = Action plan plan in place to improve accessibility of conferences and events infrastructure
3 = WFP Office has a list of vendors or infrastructure in place of accessible event spaces, hotels, transport, financial service providers, etc.
AUTOMATION
N/A
BASELINE VALUE
26% COs meeting or exceeding
ASSUMPTIONS
Continued indicator use using new methodology Country Offices using the new methodology and questions provide responses in full in the ED questionnaire to provide comparable results to those collected in the 2023, 2024 and 2025 Corporate Results Framework
Reliable and Increasing Engagement from Country Offices Country Offices maintain the level of buy-in demonstrated in previous years, ensuring adequate responses in the ED questionnaire and accurate submission of control compliance scores
Improving Accessibility Practices Are Accurately Reflected Increases observed in previous cycles (e.g., reported improvements in accessibility scores and target achievement rates) are assumed to reflect genuine progress and continue to be captured through the ED Assurance Questionnaire
Availability of Updated Methodology and Tools Revisions to the data collection tool—particularly those related to technology and digital accessibility—are finalized as planned (by May 2026) and integrated into guidance used by COs
Access to Adequate Technical Support TEC colleagues and CO TEC focal points provide timely support to ensure the revised methodology is correctly applied once updates are rolled out
Consistency in Reporting Across the Transition Period New methodological updates introduced in 2026 are communicated early and applied uniformly across all COs to preserve year-to-year comparability
COs Have Capacity to Implement the Updated Tool Country Offices have the staff capacity, technical understanding, and internal processes required to complete the ED Assurance Questionnaire using the guidance provided
LIMITATIONS
Self-Assessment Variability Across COs The indicator relies on CO self-reporting scores in the ED Questionnaire, which may vary in interpretation, evidence quality, and application of the scoring tool
Does Not Measure Depth or Quality of Accessibility Work The KPI captures categorical placement (Missing, Approaching, Meeting/Exceeding) but does not assess the scope, quality, or impact of specific accessibility actions undertaken by COs
Resource and Context Differences Not Reflected Variations in infrastructure, digital maturity, staffing, and resources across COs influence results but are not represented in the scoring.
Methodological Updates Affect Comparability New revisions to the tool and to standards on accessibility—particularly technology-related updates expected by May 2026—may limit comparability between reporting cycles
Dependence on Completeness and Compliance Strong participation from COs is required; incomplete submissions to answers in the ED Questionnaire may skew aggregation of CO average compliance score (second step in data calculation)
Improvement Trends Do Not Reveal Underlying Drivers Increases in scores across years may reflect genuine progress, better reporting, or shifts in interpretation—but the indicator cannot distinguish between these factors
Reduced Granularity in Aggregated Reporting Combining “Meeting” and “Exceeding” into a single category limits visibility on COs performing at the highest level of accessibility implementation. Additionally, the absence of “Approaching” in the corporate calculation masks efforts that have been made below the “meeting” benchmark
Lack of External Validation No independent verification from GHQ, RO, or external experts is included, which may result in variation in accuracy or interpretation