CC.1.2 Percentage of beneficiaries who report that they experienced no barriers to accessing food and nutrition assistance

CC.1.2 Percentage of beneficiaries who report that they experienced no barriers to accessing food and nutrition assistance

VERSION

V3.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

CC.1.2

TECHNICAL OWNER

GPI Unit

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority Area: Ensuring protection and accountability to affected people

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is applicable at the activity level.

This indicator is applicable to all CSPs with activities targeting Direct/Tier 1 beneficiaries except for CSPs that exclusively target Tier one beneficiaries for the following programmes:

• Exception 1: Smallholder farmers (SMS) targeted with capacity strengthening activities without participating in any Food for Asset or Training activities.

• Exception 2: On-site school feeding activities where children receive meals that are consumed in schools.

These exceptions are in place because none of the beneficiaries from the above-mentioned programmes are interviewed in post distribution monitoring (PDM).

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of beneficiaries (respondents)

DEFINITION

This indicator aims to measures the proportion of beneficiaries who report experiencing no barriers to accessing food and nutrition assistance.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

• Beneficiaries (or assisted people): refer to any recipient of assistance from WFP and partners. This includes all individuals receiving assistance, as well as household members that are not entitlement holders but are benefitting from the assistance being part of the household.

• Barriers to access: refer to any situation where safe and meaningful access to assistance is manipulated or obstructed (e.g. sexual favours in return for food; Illegal taxation/extortion) regardless of where that happens; physical obstacles such as distance to distribution points, lack of accessible infrastructure, or unsafe routes).

It refers to the ability of WFP to reach people in need, people’s access to where WFP is implementing an activity and the areas recipients have to travel to and from to access these sites. This may include distribution points (banks or agents for cash payments), schools, health clinics, community or household sites of asset-creation activities, training sites, markets, and agricultural project sites (e.g. P4P).

Access challenges can take several forms including:

• Physical obstacles: lack of infrastructure, flooding, closed camp settings/garrison towns that limit movement and access to basic services and markets distances, or distance. As per Sphere Standard access to the assistance/site of operation should be no more than 5 km.

• Insecurity: such as crime, violence, armed conflict, armed actors, transit through conflict lines/checkpoints.

• Fraud, corruption, diversion of assistance, and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA): extortion or requests for money, favours, food in exchange for assistance from security actors (including non-state armed groups or vigilante groups), implementing partners, or community-based structures, this can include project management committees.

• Assistance organizational issues: poor organization of the assistance resulting in long waiting hours or the need to come to the site of assistance multiple times to access the assistance.

• Non-universally accessible information: inability to access information on targeting criteria, entitlements, community feedback mechanism, and broader information on the activity because of a language, age, (digital) literacy, disability, and preferences.

Non-inclusive assistance: lack of approaches or mechanisms tailored to the needs of marginalized or discriminated people that they may not be able to participate in and benefit from the assistance. This might include factors linked to the following: people with disabilities, people living with HIV, child-headed households, unaccompanied minors, older people, women due to social or cultural norms (e.g. purdah), language groups, GBV survivors, perceived affiliation with armed groups, marital status, and others. For example, livelihood and asset creation activities may not consider the caregiving role of women hindering their ability to fully participate in the activities unless childcare is considered in the design of the activity.

RATIONALE

Through its Policy on Protection and Accountability (2020) WFP is committed to designing and carrying out food and livelihood assistance activities that do not increase the protection risks to its beneficiaries, but instead contribute to the safety, dignity and integrity of women, men, girls and boys with and without disabilities in a vulnerable situation. Central to this commitment is the principle that all people should have safe, equitable and meaningful access to WFP assistance. Monitoring whether beneficiaries experience any barriers - physical, social, informational or administrative - is essential to identifying and addressing constraints that may prevent individuals or groups from accessing the support they need. This indicator therefore helps WFP assess whether its programmes are effectively removing obstacles to assistance and enabling all beneficiaries to fully exercise their right to access food and nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Data is collected through household level Post- Distribution Monitoring (PDM) surveys from respondents.

Data collected through PDM may be contextualized and triangulated with other monitoring data, including Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Community Feedback Mechanisms (CFM). Monitoring tools may be adapted accordingly.

The following questions can be included in household surveys and monitoring exercises. Minor adaptations may be required to reflect the specific geographic and programme context.

The electronic versions of the questions associated with this indicator (listed below) are available in WFP Survey Designer, under the cross-cutting modules of Protection and Accountability, within the Protection & Accountability to Affected People (AAP) framework, specifically in the Barriers to accessing food sub-module

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Sampling should follow the strategy adopted for the monitoring exercise used to collect information to calculate multiple indicators.

It is recommended to collect information from a statistically representative sample of the population under analysis. To calculate the sample, the confidence level should be between 90-95% with a 5-10% margin of error.

For more details and guidance please refer to the sampling guide for household level data collection.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by summing the number of responses reporting no barriers to accessing WFP food assistance and dividing it by the total number of responses, expressed as a percentage.

For the numerator: Responses must be negative (“no”) for question 1 (HHAsstAccess) in the table above to consider the household to having unhindered access to WFP programmes.

For the denominator: total number of respondents to question 1 (HHAsstAccess) in the table above

Note: For the first reporting year, if a Country Office, on an exceptional basis, intends to collect data on an annual basis, the first collected value must be entered as the baseline in COMET. No follow-up values should be entered at this stage. Instead, the ‘No data collected’ option should be selected for the follow-up value. Data collected in subsequent years should then be recorded as follow-up values in COMET in accordance with the related guidance « No Data » Function in COMET Guideline.

Scripts in R, STATA and SPSS and sample data are available on github for calculating this indicator.

Note: Follow-up values are to be recorded as absolute figures, using numerator and denominator, in line with the indicator calculation formula. COMET will automatically calculate the percentage and CO is only required to input the numerator and denominator.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data for this indicator is entered at the activity level.

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

• Sub-activity

• Country

• Target Group

Baseline is entered as an overall percentage, disaggregated by sex of the respondent.

Follow-up value is entered as numerator and denominator.

Targets are entered as an overall percentage, disaggregated by sex of the respondent.

Mandatory disaggregation for data entry in COMET is sex, as per table below (Follow-up value).

Recommended additional disaggregation levels for analysis (not for data entry in COMET):

• Transfer modality

• Households with at least one Person with Disability (PWD)

• Disability

• Child-headed households

BASELINE

New CSP/CSP activities: As this indicator relates to barriers directly related to WFP assistance, a pre-assistance baseline will not be feasible to collect; however, it is possible to ensure that a protection analysis informs the project design and provide an indication of potential barriers. COs are not required to establish a pre-assistance baseline.

Data should be collected as soon as possible after the start of the project (ideally within the first 3 months of food/vouchers or cash distribution.

Note: For the first reporting year, if a Country Office, on an exceptional basis, intends to collect data on an annual basis, the first collected value must be entered as the baseline in COMET. No follow-up values should be entered at this stage. Instead, the ‘No data collected’ option should be selected for the follow-up value. Data collected in subsequent years should then be recorded as follow-up values in COMET in accordance with the related guidance « No Data » Function in COMET Guideline.

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.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

2025 and beyond, 100%. Annual achievements that do not meet the annual targets are expected to show gradual improvement towards the end of project/CSP target.

100% of targeted people reporting to have no barrier issues when accessing WFP assistance.

Volatile environments may present challenges beyond WFP’s control that can affect people’s safety such as lack of infrastructure, or conflict. However, WFP must analyse these and put in place measures to avoid people being exposed to safety threats when accessing assistance. While the aim is that all targeted people safely access WFP assistance, it can be expected that some safety issues might occur in line with the relative degree of volatility and due to unexpected changes in the context.

If data are not available, Country Offices should report using the « No Data » Function in COMET Guideline , in accordance with the related guidance.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Align with outcome monitoring PDMs (i.e. twice per year for PDM as per the Minimum Monitoring Requirements).

INTERPRETATION

Actual vs. Target

If the number (or proportion) of people who have safe and meaningful access to WFP programmes is below the target, this means that people are facing protection challenges while attempting to access assistance is delivered is exposing affected people to safety risks. In this case, mitigating measures should be identified based on an analysis of the location and type of barriers to access reported. If the value meets or exceeds the target, this indicates that the operating environment does not pose challenges for people to access WFP assistance. However, barriers to meaningful access can be a sensitive issue and people often do not report challenges they have encountered. A low number of reported barriers to access does not necessarily indicate that there are no issues of concern.

Data Triangulation

To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges beneficiaries may be exposed to, quantitative survey data should be triangulated with:

• Qualitative information, including focus group discussions, key informant interviews, secondary data from other actors operating in the area, and direct field observations; and

• Community Feedback Mechanism (CFM) data, especially of the case categories linkedto barriers to access such as physical challenges, discrimination, preferential treatment, disrespect, diversion of assistance, etc.

This triangulation can support:

• Before data collection: contextualising response options and refining the design of monitoring tools; and

• After data collection: validating, complementing, and strengthening interpretation of the indicator results.

Mitigating Actions

When interpreting access challenges, it is essential to have an understanding if and what measures have WFP and/or its partners put in place already to prevent or pre-empt potential barriers to people’s access. In addition to recording the number of reported incidents, it is also important to track change over time. If the proportion of people experiencing barriers to access is increasing, this could mean that:

• the security situation is deteriorating;

• the design of WFP programmes is contributing to an increase in access challenges; or that

• the physical operating environment has changed. Particular attention should be given to whether access constraints are experienced by a particular group of people to determine if they are discriminated against.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

X% of intended recipients of assistance surveyed in X months after the in-kind distribution that took place in XX reported they experienced no barriers to accessing food and nutrition assistance. Compared to the last monitoring exercise, people reporting barriers (in/de)creased by X% or percentage points (p.p.).

This positive trend could be explained by the set of measures adopted by WFP and its partners following the latest PDM that highlighted Z, Y and Z to be challenges for A, B, C in accessing assistance OR This negative trend could be explained by the recent deterioration of security situation in area X.

The top three barriers representing more than X% of those reporting challenges are 1, 2, and 3. To overcome these challenges WFP plans to put in place the following measures Z, Y, and Z and to keep monitoring the evolution of these challenges over time.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• CC.1.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting no safety concerns experienced as a result of their engagement in WFP programmes

• CC.1.3 Percentage of beneficiaries who report being treated with respect as a result of their engagement in programmes

• CC.2.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting they were provided with accessible information about WFP programmes, including PSEA

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

• Questions about personal or household barriers to accessing assistance should not be asked in front of other people if they may cause discomfort, stigma, or unintended disclosure.

• During FGDs, ask about access issues in general terms, phrasing questions as:

  • “Have people in this community faced challenges accessing…?” rather than “Have you personally had difficulties accessing…?”

• Consider age, gender, and disability, and adapt the composition and facilitation to participants’ preferences and comfort levels. For example, adolescent girls may not feel comfortable sharing feedback in mixed age or mixed gender groups.

• The choice of language, facilitator’s gender, and familiarity with the local context is especially important when discussing barriers to access, such as documentation requirements, mobility constraints, social norms, or communication challenges.

Respondents

A respondent is a beneficiary representing a household.

• Data collectors should interview the household member best positioned to provide accurate and reliable information on access to assistance. While this may often be the head of household or the primary recipient of assistance, other household members may be better able to respond (e.g., women, older persons, or persons with disabilities).

• Efforts must be made to directly consult children who are primary recipients of assistance and people with disabilities, while ensuring appropriate safeguards.

This indicator should be complemented by a thorough protection risks analysis including qualitative information collected through focus group discussions and secondary data collected from other actors operating in the area, and observation in the field as well as CFM data analysis.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

This indicator can inform multiple programmatic decisions, primarily putting measures in place to prevent or pre-empt threat to people’s safety while accessing WFP assistance.

VISUALIZATION

Recommended visuals for this indicator: graphs, pie charts and diagrams that capture the proportion of assisted people who report satisfaction with WFP assistance. These could be disaggregated by sex, age and location to allow for analysis of trends.

LIMITATIONS

Access constraints is a sensitive issue and people often do not report challenges they have encountered. There may be reluctance to report access challenges for fear of retaliation on discontinuation of assistance. As such, a low number of reported access challenges does not necessarily indicate that there are no issues of concern.

To obtain a clearer picture of the challenges beneficiaries are exposed to, the quantitative data can be enriched by other information. More details about data triangulation are provided in the section above.

I should also be recognised that there will be situations when various measures have been put in place, yet some access challenges that could not be mitigated still remained. Circumstances beyond the control of humanitarian agencies need to be taken into perspective, too.

Ideally, data should be collected directly from the individual who received the food distribution, although this may not always be possible. Where feasible, interviews should be conducted in a manner that promotes comfort and disclosure - for example, female respondents discussing sensitive issues with female enumerators - to reduce barriers to reporting and improve data quality.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Indicator description on VAM Resource Centre

Protection and Accountability Handbook WFP Community Engagement Strategy for Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) 2021-2026

Protection at WFP – What is it?

How to Mainstream Child Protection in WFP Programmes

Safe Referrals Guide for GBV and Child Protection Disclosures

« No Data » Function in COMET Guideline

Dedicated protection channel that consolidates all existing resources. Please feel free to refer to the following link for more information.