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.

CC2.b Percentage of country offices that meet community feedback mechanism assurance standards

Prev Next

CC2.b Percentage of country offices that meet community feedback mechanism assurance standards

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.05 NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC2.b

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-MF

INDICATOR TYPE

Corporate Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority area: Ensuring protection and accountability to affected people

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of country offices by category:

  • Percentage of country offices that meet the CFM assurance standards

  • Percentage of country offices that mostly meet the CFM assurance standards

  • Percentage of country offices that partially meet the CFM standards

  • Percentage of country offices that do not meet the CFM assurance standards

INDICATOR DEFINITION

This indicator measures the proportion of WFP country offices that meet the community feedback mechanism (CFM) assurance standards.

Each country office with Tier 1 beneficiaries needs one CFM that covers all activities. At country level, WFP assesses the country office community feedback mechanism (CFM) against its six global CFM standards, to ensure it is safe and accessible, addresses people’s questions and concerns, and systematically informs WFP’s decision-making. The CFM standards emphasize the importance of accountability, transparency, operational safeguards, risk mitigation, and building trust among the communities WFP serves, donors, and the broader humanitarian network.

MANDATORY COUNTRY-LEVEL INDICATORS & INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR APR AGGREGATION

Mandatory Country level Indicator(s) composing the corporate indicator:

Inclusion criteria for Mandatory Country Level Indicator(s):

The mandatory country level indicator is included in the aggregation of the corporate indicator only if the following conditions are met:

  • The country office has tier 1/direct beneficiaries

CALCULATION & AGGREGATION
METHODOLOGY

To calculate the percentage of WFP country offices that meet the CFM assurance standards:

where

  • Numerator: Number of Country Offices who report “fully meets” for the country level indicator in the reporting year.

    Country Offices meet the CFM assurance standards if they fall in the “fully meet” category: i.e, have a score of 90% or above and a score above 76% on sub-indicator 3b (on timely case closure).

  • Denominator: Total number of country offices who met the conditions for aggregation for this indicator.

Additional calculation should be included for the other three categories (“mostly meets”, “partially meets” and “does not meet”) to capture the extent to which Country Offices meet the CFM assurance standards, repeating the above calculation for each of the following categories:

  • Does not meet: <60%

  • Partially meets: 60% <= 75%

  • Mostly meets: 75% < 90%

Note: The four categories may not sum to 100% when there are cases of Country Offices not being able to report on the country level indicator (e.g. “Not collected” data").

DISAGGREGATION FOR REPORTING IN APR

This indicator should be disaggregated by category (“Does not meet”, “Partially meets”, “Mostly meets” and “Fully meets”) and regional office.

BASELINE

New indicator. Baseline to be collected by end of 2026.

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.