CC.2.7 Country office meets community feedback mechanism assurance standards

CC.2.7 Country office meets community feedback mechanism assurance standards

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC.2.7

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-MF

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 CSP level.

Applicable and mandatory to all CSPs with activities targeting direct/Tier one beneficiaries.

The indicator can also be selected as complementary for CCS activities.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Unit of analysis: Country Office (CO)

Unit of measurement: Percentage

Interpreted as Categorical:

Does not meet
Partially meets
Mostly meets
Fully meets

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the extent to which a country office’s community feedback mechanism (CFM) complies with WFP’s six global CFM Standards. It assesses whether the mechanism is accessible, safe, and transparent, and whether it enables people to ask questions, raise concerns, and receive timely responses.

A strong CFM enables timely and responsive action, supports early identification and mitigation of risks to affected people and WFP, and reinforces WFP’s Accountability to Affected People (AAP) commitments. By ensuring feedback and complaints are handled systematically and inform programme decisions, CFM builds trust with communities, strengthens donor confidence, and supports broader humanitarian commitments to people-centred, responsive programming.

RATIONALE

This indicator is anchored in a set of core corporate normative documents that guide people‑centred, transparent, risk assured, and accountable programming.

The Protection and Accountability Policy and its accompanying handbook embed CFMs firmly within WFP operations. The Community Engagement for AAP Strategy identifies CFMs as a central pillar of WFP’s approach to accountability.

The Executive Director Circular on Minimum Monitoring Requirements and CFM standards further institutionalize CFMs as essential elements of WFP’s assurance ecosystem.

Other frameworks - including the Cash Assurance Framework, the Environmental and Social Sustainability Framework, and IASC Standards for Collective Feedback Mechanisms - underscore the indispensable role of CFMs in ensuring safe, equitable, and responsive humanitarian action.

This indicator provides a structure for COs to assess the extent to which their community feedback mechanism follows WFP’s corporate assurance standards. This indicator is informed by earlier measurement approaches and responds to the need for a common measurement framework for tracking progress over time.

The indicator is calculated through the self‑scoring of multiple sub‑indicators, each reflecting a core element of its corresponding CFM assurance standard. Each standard contains three sub‑indicators, resulting in a total of 18 sub-indicators.

Each sub‑indicator is scored from 0 to 3, and the total score is converted into a percentage that shows the country office’s overall level of compliance with the CFM assurance standards. The indicator is designed to reflect varying levels of progress across the standards, capturing both an overall score and performance against individual sub-indicators.

Country offices that do not achieve at least 75% on-time case closure (sub-indicator 3.c) cannot be classified as mostly compliant or fully compliant with the CFM assurance standards.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Country offices complete the self‑assessment using the questionnaire linked here to determine their overall indicator score. The completed questionnaire is uploaded to the corporate storage platform Data Library and the country office records the indicator score (value) in COMET.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Country offices will review a purposive sample of CFM cases to support self‑scoring against sub‑indicators. The sample must be drawn from across all channels and feedback types as well as a mix of cases that are closed on the spot and those that are escalated because they require follow‑up action. Sampling size should be proportionate to caseload, ensuring adequate representation across feedback types and case pathways. Sampling calculator linked here can support this exercise. This enables the country office to verify whether case information is consistently complete, accurate, and actionable across the system.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated using the following steps:

Step 1: Country offices asses their performance assigning a score from 0 to 3 (0 - Does not meet, 1 - Partially meets, 2 - Mostly meet, and 3 - Fully meets) to the following sub indicators:

N	Sub-indicator
Standard 1: Be accessible to everyone everywhere to include all locations, activities, and people in all their diversity
1.a	All locations receive CFM cases through multiple channels.
1.b	All WFP activities receive CFM cases.
1.c	Different groups of people (i.e., age, sex) submit CFM cases to WFP.
Standard 2: Collect only what we need to resolve issues and learn about people’s feedback and changing trends
2.a	CO systematically collects minimum mandatory personal information, including the option for anonymous submission.
2.b	CO records comprehensive descriptions of the case details, resolution, and closure.
2.c	CO records the 4Ws (where, when, who, what) for all allegations of misconduct (including Sexual Exploitation & Abuse (SEA)) to ensure cases are actionable.
Standard 3: Facilitate timely, transparent, and consistent responses through documented and corporately compliant procedures
3.a	CO categorizes CFM cases using standardized feedback categories.
3.b	CO escalates and closes allegations of misconduct (including SEA) in compliance with WFP corporate guidance.
3.c	CO closes escalated cases on time.
Standard 4: Centralize, digitize, and systematize feedback from all channels in compliance with data privacy
4.a	Data from all CFM channels is stored in a single centralized database solution.
4.b	CO limits access and visibility to sensitive cases to designated staff for case management.
4.c	CFM digital systems are approved to host CFM data.
Standard 5: Generate data that gives insight into trends and informs decision-making
5.a	CO prepares analysis of CFM data to inform case management and programme adaptation.
5.b	CO establishes platforms that facilitate the review of findings coming from feedback and other sources and the formulation of recommendations.
5.c	CO monitors recommendations to track implementation and improvements.
Standard 6: Ensure reliability of data and accountability of procedures through quality assurance checks
6.a	CO regularly monitors the timeliness of feedback loops, flagging delays, and early signals that may affect responsiveness.
6.b	CO systematically monitors the interaction of staff with affected people to ensure conversations are respectful, and responses are aligned with established procedures.
6.b
6.c	CO conducts systematic data checks to identify and correct data entry errors at least monthly.

Step 2: An average percentage score is calculated by

Step 3: Determine the country office‑level category based on the percentage score:

Does not meet: <60%
Partially meets: 60% <= 75%
Mostly meets: 75% < 90%
Fully meets: >=90%

Important: Country offices that are closing less than 76% of escalated case on-time cannot be classified as mostly compliant or fully compliant, even if their overall percentage score falls within those ranges.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Data for this indicator will be entered in COMET at CSP level, and it must be entered for all six standards as a percentage as follows:

BASELINE

The baseline is set the first year of reporting.

TARGET SETTING

Annual target:

All country offices with tier‑one beneficiaries must demonstrate annual progress toward compliance with the CFM assurance standards.

End of CSP targets:

All country offices with tier‑one beneficiaries must aim to have a CFM that is mostly or fully compliant with the CFM assurance standards by the end of the CSP.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Annually at the end of each calendar year.

INTERPRETATION

The final percentage score provides an overall picture of how closely the country office aligns with WFP’s community feedback mechanism assurance standards. Higher scores indicate stronger, more consistent implementation across the six standards, while lower scores point to areas that may require attention or improvement. Because the indicator captures different levels of performance rather than a binary pass/fail, results should be interpreted alongside the sub‑indicator scores, which help identify specific strengths and gaps within their community feedback system.

In addition, country offices that close fewer than 76 percent of cases on time cannot be considered mostly or fully compliant, even if their overall percentage is high - highlighting the importance of timely case management as a minimum expectation for effective accountability. Together, the overall score and the sub‑indicator results provide country offices with a balanced view of progress and priority areas for strengthening their CFM.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Country office CFM Assurance Standard Compliance – 2026

Standard	Score	Interpretation
Standard 1 – Reach and Accessibility	85%	Mostly meets
Standard 2 – Minimum Data Collection	72%	Partially meets
Standard 3 – Case Handling	68%	Partially meets
Standard 4 – Information Management System	90%	Fully meets
Standard 5 – Analysis, Reporting and Tracking	76%	Mostly meets
Standard 6 – Quality Assurance Procedures	70%	Partially meets

Overall CFM Indicator Score: 77% – Mostly Meets
On‑time Case Closure: 80% (threshold is met)

In 2026, the country office achieved a CFM compliance score of 77 percent, placing it in the ‘mostly meets’ category. Performance was strong under Standards 1 (Accessibility) and 4 (Information Management System), while Standard 3 (Case Handling) requires improvement, particularly regarding on‑time case closure. The CO closed 80 percent of cases within the required timeframe, meeting the minimum threshold for the ‘mostly meets’ classification. Action plans for 2027 include strengthening escalation procedures and enhancing staff refresher training on case documentation.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

Other indicators capturing the cross-cutting priority “Ensuring protection and accountability to affected people”

CC.1.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting no safety concerns, including SEA concerns, experienced as a result of their engagement in WFP programming
CC.1.2 Percentage of beneficiaries who report that they experienced no barriers to accessing food and nutrition assistance
CC.2.2 Country office meets or exceeds United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy standards on consulting organizations of persons with disabilities
CC.2.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting that they were provided with accessible information about WFP programmes, including on protection from SEA
CC.1.3 Percentage of beneficiaries who report being treated with respect as a result of their engagement in WFP programmes
CC.1.4 Number of women, men, boys and girls with disabilities receiving food/cash-based transfers/commodity vouchers/capacity-strengthening transfers.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

A qualitative analysis can help explain why certain standards scored lower by examining the underlying practices, bottlenecks, and operational realities behind the numerical results. Reviewing each standard in more detail - through staff consultations, case reviews, process mapping, and direct observation - can highlight specific gaps such as inadequate routing procedures, inconsistent documentation, limited staff capacity, or system‑related barriers. Complementing the scoring with a more in‑depth CFM assessment allows the CO to identify the root causes of weak performance, understand contextual blockers to improvement, and prioritize targeted actions that can accelerate progress across the assurance standards.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The measurement of this indicator is designed to offer country offices a structured opportunity for reflection. Assessing compliance with the CFM assurance standards - when complemented by qualitative insights - supports more informed operational and strategic decision‑making. It helps identify where to prioritize capacity‑building, how to refine case‑routing procedures, and which processes may require simplification to improve overall responsiveness. Examining trends across the standards highlights systemic bottlenecks and areas where practices may not fully align with corporate expectations. Analyzing the timeliness of case closure, especially for escalated and sensitive cases, enables decisions on workload distribution, staff accountability, and strengthening escalation pathways to ensure adherence to corporate timelines.

VISUALIZATION

A dashboard will be made available to provide country offices with an accessible visual overview of performance across all sub‑indicators, aggregated at both the standard and overall levels. Its purpose is to help teams identify which elements of each assurance standard are performing well, and which may benefit from further attention. This level of detail is intended to support more substantive internal discussions on the factors shaping performance trends and any operational or procedural gaps that may remain.

When reviewed over time—particularly alongside trend visualizations such as year‑to‑year comparisons—the analysis will enable country offices to monitor progress, identify recurring bottlenecks, and evaluate whether corrective actions are resulting in measurable improvements across the CFM system".

LIMITATIONS

The indicator relies on country office self‑assessments, which may introduce varying degrees of subjectivity depending on staff familiarity with the standards, the availability of supporting documentation, and the extent to which COs interpret and apply the scoring criteria consistently.

Additionally, while the indicator measures compliance with procedures, it does not assess the quality, or effectiveness of responses to feedback - including whether CFM action resolves issues, unblocks assistance, or leads to improvements for affected people.

To help mitigate these limitations, Global HQ will complement the annual self‑assessment with targeted oversight, which will enhance consistency, strengthen interpretation of standards, and provide an extra layer of quality assurance.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Contact: hq.cfm@wfp.org

Resources:

Documentation Index

CC.2.7 Country office meets community feedback mechanism assurance standards