CC.6.3 Country Office Social Cohesion Integration Score

CC.6.3 Country Office Social Cohesion Integration Score

VERSION

V2.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

CC.6.3

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-E

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Embedding humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at CSP activity level.

Applicable for CSPs that:

Are actively implementing programmes or activities that contribute to social cohesion, whether directly or as part of broader development or humanitarian efforts.
Report on a country specific social cohesion-related indicator(s) in their logframe and/or donor/programmatic reports.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Score

Low
Moderate
High

DEFINITION

This indicator captures the degree to which social cohesion is intentionally and systematically integrated into programming—through design, objectives, and measurement-- by assigning country offices a score. It reflects a shift from implicit contributions to social cohesion toward explicit, measurable, and evidence-based approaches.

Activities are assessed against three core criteria:

Conflict Analysis as Design Foundation: Activities are informed by a Conflict Analysis and Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessment (CSRA) or other relevant conflict analysis (internal or external), aligned with the sector/programmatic area of intervention and geographic implementation context.
Explicit Secondary Objectives on Social Cohesion: The activity clearly articulates secondary social cohesion outcomes such as: improved intergroup trust, reduced tensions, or inclusive participation.
Social Cohesion-focused Monitoring Systems: M&E is adapted to include qualitative and quantitative indicators that capture perceived or measured changes in social cohesion. These indicators can be country- and context-specific but should be able to inform horizontal or vertical social cohesion to enable aggregation and learning.

Social cohesion refers to the strength and quality of relationships within a society. It encompasses trust in people and institutions, inclusive participation, solidarity and collaboration, tolerance and respect for diversity of all individuals in their communities and in shaping decisions that affect their lives, wellbeing, and dignity. It also involves a shared sense of belonging and equal opportunity, where people feel recognised, valued, and connected to both their communities and the broader society. Social cohesion includes perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, responsiveness and accountability of institutions, authorities and systems of power.

Horizontal social cohesion refers to the strength and quality of relationships among individuals and groups within a community or society. It emphasises collective, community level dynamics, while social capital focus on the individual or household-level. Social capital is defined as relationships of trust, reciprocity, and exchange that households can draw on, including during in times of need. Both encompass bonding and bridging. Vertical social cohesion refers to the relationships between individuals or groups and institutions, authorities, and systems of power. Strong vertical cohesion enhances people’s ability to access services, participate in decision-making, and advocate for their rights and needs.

Political capital refers to the trust, perceived legitimacy, and access that individuals or households have in relation to institutions, authorities, or power structures.

Bonding refers to intra-community relationships (bonds) within relatively homogeneous groups that share common identity markers such as culture, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, age, ability, displacement status, or host community. These relationships are often rooted in shared location, values, or demographic characteristics, and they foster strong internal cohesion and solidarity.

Example: Neighbours from the same cultural background organising mutual aid during a crisis.

Example: Women’s savings groups within the same village or ethnic community.

Bridging refers to inter-community relationships between heterogeneous groups that differ in identity markers such as host and displaced populations, or people from differing geographic location, ethnicity, religion, or gender. It encompasses the trust, collaboration, and mutual understanding that develop across social divides, enabling inclusive interaction and cooperation.

Example: Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) that bring together individuals from different regions or ethnic backgrounds and promote dialogue and joint action.

Trust in people (horizontal) refers to people’s levels of trust in others. It is confidence that others will act fairly, inclusively, respectfully, and cooperatively.

Trust in institutions (vertical) refers to the confidence individuals and communities have in the fairness, legitimacy, competence, and responsiveness of authorities, and systems of power. It enables constructive relationships between people and those who govern or serve them, reinforcing inclusive governance, accountability, and social stability. Vertical trust reflects the belief that institutions will uphold the rule of law, protect rights, and deliver services equitably.

Inclusive participation refers to the meaningful involvement of all individuals and groups, especially those who are marginalised or at risk of exclusion, in shaping decisions that affect their lives, wellbeing, and dignity.

Solidarity and cooperation refer to the willingness of individuals and groups to support one another and engage in collective action toward shared goals. These behaviors foster trust and inclusive participation, which are especially critical in contexts affected by fragility, displacement, or conflict—where social bonds may be weakened, and collective efforts are essential for rebuilding cohesion and resilience.

Tolerance and Respect for Diversity refer to the active respect for and protection of human dignity and identity, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender identity, age, disability, displacement status, or any other social characteristics. Rooted in the human rights principle of non-discrimination, they promote peaceful coexistence through empathy, dialogue, and mutual understanding. These are proactive commitments to uphold the rights of all individuals to exist, express themselves, and participate freely, safely and equally.

Sense of belonging refers to the extent to which individuals feel accepted, valued, and connected within their community (horizontal cohesion) and recognised and included by authorities, institutions and decision-making structures (vertical cohesion). It is fostered through inclusive participation, mutual support, tolerance and respect for diversity, and is essential for building trust and resilience.

N.B. While building relationships is a necessary component of social cohesion, it is not sufficient on its own. Promoting social cohesion requires WFP programmes to promote relationship-building while also supporting values, systems, and institutions that foster inclusion, equity, and justice. This dual approach ensures that social cohesion efforts are not only about interpersonal harmony but also about addressing structural inequalities and enabling meaningful participation for all.

Contact theory refers to the concept that positive, meaningful interactions across social boundaries such as ethnicity or displacement statues can reduce fear, challenge stereotypes, and foster constructive relationships. These experiences can lay the groundwork for collaboration on more complex or contentious issues over time. Global evidence shows that such contact can build trust and cohesion between individuals and groups. However, for contact to lead to genuine social cohesion, it must be approached with a mindful understanding of underlying power dynamics. When political, economic, or social power is disproportionately held by one group while others are marginalised, the potential for equitable and transformative relationships is significantly constrained.

N.B. Efforts to promote cohesion should never be misconstrued as attempts to suppress legitimate grievances or obscure underlying power imbalances. Nor should they rest on the assumption that intergroup contact alone inevitably leads to greater cohesion (cf. contact theory). Instead, WFP’s approach recognises that while meaningful collaboration across divides can be a powerful catalyst for trust-building, such interactions must be underpinned by fairness, equity, and mutual respect. By fostering environments in which members of all groups feel heard, valued, and included, programming can nurture authentic relationships rooted in shared belonging, while at the same time remaining vigilant to structural inequalities that may otherwise hinder sustainable cohesion.

When social cohesion is anchored in justice and accountability, it strengthens communities’ resilience to conflict and lays the groundwork for sustainable peace.

RATIONALE

This indicator is designed to capture whether and how country offices are intentionally contributing to social cohesion through their programming. It does not measure impact directly, but rather assesses the presence of key design, implementation, and monitoring elements that reflect a strategic commitment to fostering horizontal and vertical cohesion.

By applying this indicator, WFP can systematically document and learn from how activities are designed and monitored to promote trust, inclusion, collaboration, tolerance, and sense of belonging and across social groups and between communities and institutions. To ensure systematic and meaningful reporting on contributions to social cohesion, country offices are encouraged to apply a structured indicator framework at the CSP activity level.

The indicator is designed to provide a consistent and analytical basis for assessing the depth, intentionality, and impact of programming efforts on social cohesion.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The main data source for this indicator is a short self-reported survey that CO should complete (see below), responses of which should be informed by respective activity-level documentation and monitoring systems. These include project design materials, conflict analysis reports, and M&E frameworks that demonstrate how an activity:

Is informed by a relevant conflict analysis or risk assessment
Clearly states secondary social cohesion objectives
Uses adapted monitoring tools to capture changes in social cohesion

Data can be drawn from both qualitative and quantitative sources, depending on the context.

This indicator is collected using the following data collection questionnaire, which should be conducted for all CSP activities that meet the conditions mentioned in the applicability section of this note.

COs should download the questionnaire at this link and then complete one per relevant CSP activity (see above applicability section). All questionnaires should be stored in the CO data management system, ideally the corporate storage platform Data Library as the Technical Unit may request data for quality checks and/or global aggregation.

Questions 1, 2 and 6 are mandatory, while other questions are optional but highly recommended to complete. Please note that Question 6 is weighted higher than Questions 1 and 2.

Question	Answer Options	Scoring
Q1. Has a Conflict Analysis (CA) been conducted for this activity? Select one. Note: If internal is selected, please do not also select external as this would have been referenced in the internal analysis.	a) Yes, internal CA.¹ b) Yes, in-depth internal CA², could be part of ICARA³. c) Yes, external CA⁴ (i.e. activities informed by externally conducted CA, e.g. UN Country Team, academic, government, NGO). d) Yes, in-depth external CA.⁵ e) No	1 2 1 2 0
If yes, briefly describe the methodology and findings, list sources and how they influenced design decisions:	(free text)	Optional (not scored)
Q2. Does the activity include social cohesion as a secondary objective? Select one.	a) Yes, explicitly (activities clearly identifies social cohesion as a secondary objective). b) Yes, implicitly (activities promoting dialogue or cooperation, building trust, reducing marginalisation etc. (please refer to definitions section). c) No	2 1 0
If yes, describe the intended outcome:	(free text)	Optional (not scored)
Q3. What type of social cohesion is promoted? (Select all that apply.)	☐ Horizontal social cohesion / bonding (intra-group interaction within the same community or identity group).^6,7 ☐ Horizontal social cohesion / bridging (inter-group interaction between different identity or social groups).^8,9 ☐ Vertical social cohesion / linking (trust and engagement between individuals or communities and state or institutional actors).¹⁰	Optional (not scored)
Q4. Are specific entry points or mechanisms being used to build cohesion? Select all that apply.	☐ Social Bridging Activities¹¹ If selected, please describe: (Insert description of activities, target groups, and observed outcomes) ☐ Capacity Building with Dialogue Components¹² If selected, please describe: (Insert description of training content, participants, and impact) ☐ Other Locally Relevant Mechanisms¹³ If selected, please describe: (Insert description of unique approaches and their relevance to local dynamics) ☐ No/None	Optional (not scored)
Q5. Have diverse and/or previously divided groups been intentionally engaged or brought together? Select one.	☐ Yes (e.g. host and refugee communities, herding and farming communities, ethnic or religious groups with historical tensions, men and women in gender-unequal settings, youth and elders, marginalised and dominant social group). Please specify which. ☐ No	Optional (not scored)
If yes, please provide details on group composition and engagement strategy:	(free text)	Optional (not scored)
Q6. Are indicators on social cohesion included in the activity’s M&E framework? Select one.	a) Yes, basic inclusion of social cohesion indicators¹⁴ b) Yes, a robust system¹⁵ c) No	1 2 0
If yes, list relevant indicators:	(free text)	Optional (not scored)
Q7. Are you using both qualitative and/or quantitative methods to collect and report data to inform these indicators? Select all that apply. Note: If respondent answered “No” to Q6, this question is not applicable.	☐ Yes, qualitative (focus groups etc.) ☐ Yes, quantitative (perception surveys etc.)	Optional (not scored)
Q8. Are you using control or comparison groups to assess changes in social cohesion as a result of your interventions? Select one. Note: If respondent answered “No” to Q6, this question is not applicable.	☐ Yes ☐ No	Optional (not scored)

N.B. Considerations to COs collecting primary data on social cohesion: In alignment with culturally sensitive practices and respondent comfort, female enumerators might be assigned to interview women, and male enumerators to interview men, where culturally appropriate or preferred by participants. The survey design module must specify and record the gender of the enumerator to facilitate gender-matched interactions, especially when addressing sensitive topics.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

N/A – The questionnaire should be completed by the CO for each relevant CSP activity. Thus, there is no sampling required.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator can be calculated using a three-part scoring system, each part corresponding to one of the indicator’s core criteria:

Conflict Analysis Integration
- Sore: 0 (no analysis), 1 (yes internal /yes, external), 2 (yes, in-depth internal/external)
Explicit Secondary Objectives on Social Cohesion
- Score: 0 (not mentioned), 1 (implied or weakly stated), 2 (clearly articulated and linked to outcomes)
Adapted Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Systems for Social Cohesion
- Score: 0 (no adaptation), 1 (basic inclusion of SC indicators), 2 (robust system)

There is one question per indicator core criteria (a total of three mandatory questions) that will be used in the calculation. Each one of these mandatory questions has an optional short answer section each to provide more details that are not part of the calculation. The remaining 3 questions of the survey are not included in the scoring calculation but are highly recommended to complete. Each survey is scored out of a maximum of 6 points (maximum 2 points per mandatory question). The total score should then be normalised to a 0–100 percentage scale and converted to a categorical score for comparability:

0–33%: Low integration of social cohesion principles

34–66%: Moderate integration

67–100%: High integration and intentionality

As question 6 is weighted higher than Questions 1 and 2, if a scenario realizes where the CO scores a 33.33% or 66.66%, then the score will be weighted towards the response to question 6 (e.g. A CO scores a 33.33% with a response of 1 to question 1, a response of 0 to question 2 and a response of 1 to question 6, the final CO score is “Moderate Integration” whereas if the CO responded 0 to question 6 and 1 to questions 1 and 2, the final CO score would be “Low Integration”.).

The calculation is performed automatically in the downloadable template available here, COs only need to answer the questions, and the score will be displayed for manual input into COMET (cell H33 or H34).

This calculation must be repeated per relevant CSP activity.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data is entered at CSP activity level.

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

Sub-activity

Location

Beneficiary Group

Baseline and follow-up values are to be entered as scores (Low, Moderate, High).

BASELINE

New CSP/CSP & Ongoing CSP/CSP activities: First monitoring value for the CSP serves as baseline. Every subsequent year, the CO then enters only a follow up value in COMET.

In the first reporting year, the initially collected value will serve as the baseline. In line with Scenario 4 of this guidance note,the “No data” function, and the ‘Not applicable” sub-function should be applied for the follow-up value, as no subsequent measurement is yet available.

TARGET SETTING

N/A

This indicator does not require a target. Please use the “No data function”, specifically the “Not applicable” sub-function for the yearly and end of CSP target.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

This indicator is collected on a yearly basis.

INTERPRETATION

NSocial cohesion is not a static condition but a dynamic interplay of horizontal (intergroup) and vertical (people–state) relationships. Interpretation of data should consider the tensions, perceptions, and collective action tendencies that shape these relationships, especially in fragile and conflict settings.

Measuring social cohesion is inherently complex. COs should consider that different data collection methods may yield contrasting results when measuring social cohesion. For instance, quantitative surveys might show no change, while qualitative methods reveal improvements in relationships and inclusion — or vice versa. In some cases, qualitative data may suggest stagnation or even deterioration, while quantitative scores indicate progress. This divergence underscores the key challenge that no single method can fully capture the complexity of social cohesion. Findings should be interpreted in combination, with careful attention to context, design, and the populations being assessed.

Note: The scoring system is intentionally flexible and allows for different combinations of responses across the three core criteria—conflict analysis, secondary objectives, and adapted monitoring systems. A score can reflect strong performance in some areas even if others are still under development.

Low Integration (0–33%)
The Country Office has taken initial steps to integrate social cohesion into its programming. While efforts may be emerging or exploratory, the score reflects a growing awareness and early-stage engagement with social cohesion principles. A score above 0% signals that some intentionality is already present.
Moderate Integration (34–66%)
The Country Office demonstrates a meaningful commitment to social cohesion. Programming includes several key elements, such as conflict analysis, secondary objectives, or adapted monitoring systems, though there may still be opportunities to deepen and systematise the approach.
High Integration (67–100%)
The Country Office has (almost) fully embedded social cohesion into the design, objectives, and monitoring of its programming. This score reflects a strong, intentional, and evidence-based approach to fostering horizontal and/or vertical social cohesion, aligned with WFP’s strategic vision.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In Country X, Activity 4 scored 65% on the Social Cohesion Integration Score, indicating moderate integration of social cohesion principles. Activity 5 scored 23%, reflecting early-stage efforts. Compared to last year, this shows progress in embedding social cohesion objectives and monitoring systems.

Among the main gaps identified were the absence of conflict analysis and limited qualitative monitoring tools. To address this, the Country Office is planning to make greater use of existing analytical resources (such as ICARA and other relevant internal or external conflict analysis) and expand M&E frameworks to capture changes in social cohesion more systematically.Sugg

ested sentence for progress reports: These results demonstrate that the Country Office is actively integrating social cohesion into its programming, with clear progress in some activities and a strong foundation for further improvement across the CSP portfolio.

Note: Social Cohesion Integration Scores are calculated at the activity level and are not aggregated across activities. Each score reflects the degree of integration for that specific activity only and should be interpreted individually.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

CO may find findings from the CC.1.6 relevant to this indicator.

Any resilience related indicators, particularly ones measuring social capital such as 84. Resilience Capacity Score (RCS).

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

I-CARAEvidence for this indicator is activity-level documentation and monitoring systems. Complementary qualitative research can help fill gaps in understanding how social cohesion is perceived, experienced, and influenced by programming.

Some relevant complementary qualitative research methods include:

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Participatory Tools (i.e. community mapping, social network analysis)
Observation and Field Notes
Feedback Mechanisms Analysis

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Data on social cohesion allows COs to understand if programming is contributing to peace. More specifically, it enables COs to assess whether and how activities are contributing to social cohesion, to refine secondary peace outcomes, and strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems. Beyond measurement, data can prompt COs to prioritise or establish partnerships, targeting strategies, and community engagement approaches that reinforce trust, inclusion, and collaboration. When linked to conflict analysis and used to inform program design and adaptation, social cohesion data supports more conflict-sensitive, context-responsive, and peace-contributing interventions.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

Scope of Contribution
While social cohesion is relevant across all contexts, WFP may only have identified specific entry points to contribute to it in certain geographic areas or through particular activities. This score does not reflect the full relevance of social cohesion, but rather where COs have actively designed contributions. It is important to recognize that the absence of a score in some areas does not imply irrelevance—it may simply reflect a lack of identified programming pathways.

Nature and Purpose of the Score
The social cohesion score does not measure increases in social cohesion or the impact of programming. Instead, it captures whether—and to what extent—COs are making deliberate efforts to promote social cohesion through their programming. It is a proxy for intentionality and integration, not for outcomes. The score is designed to identify COs that systematically aim to contribute to social cohesion and to inform future efforts to develop meaningful measurement approaches.

Cumulative Effects of Programming
The score is based on current CSP activities and may not capture the cumulative effects of programming over time. Social cohesion outcomes often emerge gradually and through layered interventions and may be difficult to attribute. COs should consider external impacts and strategic-level efforts when interpreting the score.

Subjectivity and Self-Assessment
The indicator is self-assessed, which introduces a high degree of subjectivity. COs may interpret criteria differently, and responses may vary depending on internal capacity, familiarity with the concept, or strategic priorities. This subjectivity should be considered when analysing corporate performance or comparing across COs.

Measurement Challenges and Mixed Methods
Social cohesion is difficult to measure due to its multidimensional and context-specific nature. Different data collection methods may yield contrasting results—for example, quantitative surveys may show no change while qualitative findings reveal meaningful improvements in relationships and inclusion, or vice versa. This divergence highlights the importance of triangulating data and designing indicators that reflect lived realities. COs should carefully consider how questions are framed to ensure they meaningfully capture changes in social cohesion.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For more information on social cohesion please see: 10 minutes to learn about social cohesion tip sheet and the CtP Knowledge Management Platform that serves as the central hub for WFP’s work on CtP and will continue to be updated as new tools, evidence, and lessons become available.

¹Any CA that does not fulfill the criteria of an in-depth internal CA (see following footnote).

²CA is comprehensive, structured, and up to date. This means (1) CA covers all conflict- or tension-affected geographical areas within the implementation context - or at a minimum, all areas classified as highly conflict-affected if full geographical coverage is not feasible; (2)

CA uses WFP corporate guidance or an equivalent methodology considering all key elements/categories of programme incl. drivers, actors, dynamics/trends of the conflict. Please see CC.1.6. Conflict Sensitivity for further information.

³Integrated cross cutting context analysis and risk assessment (ICARA) – Analysis Framework (WFP, 2023)

⁴Any CA that does not fulfill the criteria of an in-depth external CA (see following footnote).

⁵CA is comprehensive, structured, and up to date. This means (1) CA covers all conflict- or tension-affected geographical areas within the implementation context - or at a minimum, all areas classified as highly conflict-affected if full geographical coverage is not feasible; (2)

CA uses a methodology that considers all key elements/categories of programme incl. drivers, actors, dynamics/trends of the conflict. Please see CC.1.6. Conflict Sensitivity for further information.

⁶This includes situations where individuals—despite being members of the same identity group—may experience exclusion or unequal access to resources, services, or opportunities, such as competition over resources, employment, or participation in community spaces.

⁷Programming should identify and address intra-group disparities based on factors such as gender, age, disability, ethnicity, or socio-economic status, ensuring that all members are equally included and empowered. Examples: trust-building between parents’ organisations; inclusive access to community kitchens, inclusive representation in local decision-making.

⁸This includes situations where exclusion, discrimination, or unequal access to resources and services may occur between different identity groups—such as host and displaced communities (IDP or refugee), farmers and herders, or different ethnic or religious communities.

⁹Programming could aim at fostering dialogue, mutual understanding, and inclusive cooperation between groups, while identifying and addressing power imbalances, historical grievances, and structural inequalities that may fuel conflict or mistrust. Examples: community dialogue between host and refugee groups, mediation between farmers and herders, or joint initiatives between ethnic communities.

¹⁰Programming could facilitate access to resources, influence, and participation in decision-making processes. Example: Transparent beneficiary selection verified through joint community validation with oversight from institutional actors such as government bodies and WFP

¹¹Examples may include: Nutrition clubs, savings groups, youth-led campaigns, women-led initiatives. Joint training on conflict resolution and collaboration during asset creation to foster trust and cooperation across diverse community groups. Type: Bridging
Purpose: Connects diverse groups across ethnic, religious, or socio-economic divides, fostering mutual understanding and collaboration.

¹²Examples may include: Mediation training embedded in vocational programs, leadership training for formal/informal leaders, community dialogue spaces. Type: Bonding & Bridging Purpose: Strengthens intra-group trust and inter-group cooperation through shared learning and conflict resolution.

¹³Examples may include: Cultural events, intergenerational dialogue, traditional conflict resolution practices. Type: Context-dependent. Purpose: Strengthens cohesion through culturally appropriate and locally driven initiatives.

¹⁴A basic M&E system may include limited or informal tracking of social cohesion outcomes, often relying on general observations and anecdotal evidence (e.g., “community relations seem improved”). Indicators are not clearly defined, are not systematically collected or rely on single-method data (e.g., participation rates).

¹⁵A robust system uses clearly defined qualitative and/or quantitative indicators tailored to the context, applies triangulation - multiple methods and sources (e.g., surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews) to validate findings, indicators are integrated into the activity’s results framework, with regular data collection and analysis. It enables learning and adaptation, with findings used to inform programming and improve outcomes.

Documentation Index

CC.6.3 Country Office Social Cohesion Integration Score