INDICATOR DEFINITION | This indicator measures the percentage of Country Offices that, through the annual Executive Director Assurance (EDA) Exercise, assess and report that they have met the four global assurance standards for general food assistance, as defined in WFP’s Global Assurance Framework (OED2024/004). This ensures that people who need assistance receive it safely, in full, and without interference. Below are some key terminologies for this indicator: Global Assurance Standards WFP consults with and listens to the people it assists and respects their privacy. Affected communities are consulted in a transparent, comprehensive, and participatory way that is safe and gender-responsive so that people’s needs and preferences are prioritized in both the type of assistance that WFP provides and the way it is provided, including factors like the type of food, packaging, and when and how it is delivered. Accessible and functioning community feedback mechanisms are in place so people can easily contact WFP if they have a problem or want to report wrongdoing or misconduct. Country Offices have clear procedures for managing and escalating issues and a reporting system to handle any sensitive reports about unacceptable conduct like gender-based violence, sexual exploitation or abuse, fraud, corruption, theft, environmental and social harm WFP knows who is being assisted, and at the end of every cycle, the organization knows who did not receive their assistance. Needs assessments and targeting, even when conducted by third parties, are subject to joint review to ensure credibility and accuracy. The right people are registered digitally, and their relevant personal information is collected, managed, stored, and disposed of in accordance with WFP’s data protection policies ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and the right to privacy. Within a few days of the end of every cycle WFP reconciles transfers to know by person or household who did and did not receive their assistance, and therefore how much food should be left over or how much money was not distributed. Reconciliation includes checking for and removing duplicate records, as well as detecting and addressing anomalies in the data. WFP knows that its in-kind assistance is safe and where it is – from origin to the hands of the people it serves. WFP ensures safe transportation and secure storage of its in-kind assistance from origin to distribution. WFP knows where its in-kind assistance is across the supply chain even where a third party (for example, a host government, cooperating partner, or vendor) is involved. WFP ensures in-kind assistance is appropriately inspected and meets both WFP and local food quality standards. Maintaining WFP’s operational independence. As a humanitarian agency WFP establishes and maintains a relationship with governments and other authorities in a manner that fosters collaboration and adheres to humanitarian principles, including steadfastly preserving its operational autonomy and freedom from interference, including bureaucratic and administrative impediments. The way WFP selects, assesses and evaluates its workforce, cooperating partners, and vendors is transparent and fair, and that a due diligence process free from outside influence is part of the selection process.
Note: as of December 2025, the Global Assurance Framework applies only to unconditional resource transfers, including in-kind food, cash, and vouchers, across all WFP operations. This encompasses both immediate life-saving emergencies and longer-term protracted operations. Unconditional resource transfer, which is WFP’s largest programmatic activity, is commonly understood as general food assistance. WFP aims to extend the applicability to additional activity areas in the future. |
CALCULATION & AGGREGATION
METHODOLOGY | The data will be collected from COs through the EDA Exercise, using a set of sub-indicators for each standard developed in consultation with functional thematic areas. Standard 1: WFP consults with and listens to the people it assists and respects their privacy. Sub Indicator | Response Option & Scoring | 11.4 Does your office have an accessible community feedback mechanism (CFM)? | Fully – 3 points Mostly – 2 points Partially – 1 point No – 0 points
| 11.5 Are CFM cases received from all channels documented and centrally stored in a digital solution? | 11.6 Does your office have sufficient employees to respond to the expected volume of CFM cases on time, in line with corporate and CO-defined timelines? | 11.8 Does your office handle allegations of misconduct, including Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption and Sexual exploitation and abuse, received through the CFM channels, as per corporate guidance? | 14.9 Does your office engage with communities across the targeting and prioritization process, especially for eligibility criteria validation, sensitization, communication, and appeals? |
Standard 2: WFP knows who is being assisted and, at the end of every cycle, who did and did not receive their assistance. Sub Indicator | Response Option & Scoring | 13.10 What is the percentage of reconciliations digitally performed at recipient level (individual or household) following each in-kind distribution/voucher/cash transfer cycle? | 76-100% - 3 points 51-75% - 2 points 26-50% - 1 point 0-25% - 0 points
| 13.2 Does your office have ways to uniquely identify the people that we assist through foundational (e.g., identity document, passport, voter card) or functional (e.g., UNHCR ID) identities, documented in an Identity Management Standard Operating Procedure? | Fully – 3 points Mostly – 2 points Partially – 1 point No – 0 points
| 13.7 At each distribution of in-kind assistance, cash, vouchers (excluding digital transfers), cards, or payment instruments, does your office, through WFP employees, cooperating partners, or financial service providers/retailers, verify the reliable identification of the individuals receiving assistance? | 13.8 For interventions longer than 12 months, does your office verify at least the principal recipient once per year to update their data, confirm their presence in the area of assistance and, where applicable, confirm that they are still in possession of the correct payment instrument/assistance card? | 14.10 Does your office ensure targeting eligibility verification is provided for (planned, funded) and systematically conducted? |
Standard 3: WFP knows that its in-kind assistance is safe and where it is - from origin to distribution. Sub Indicator | Response Option & Scoring | 18.2 Has your office implemented the Food Safety and Quality (FSQ) manual from sourcing to delivery of foods, including specification setting, purchase inspection, spot testing and other FSQ practices when transporting, delivering, storing, and handling food? | Fully – 3 points Mostly – 2 points Partially – 1 point No/Minimal – 0 points
| 19.3 To what extent does your office conduct PIC in all WFP warehouses according to the following standards? | 19.12 To what extent has your office fully implemented and consistently used the LESS Last Mile application to record commodity receipts at Final Delivery Points? | 19.4 What percentage of cooperating partner-managed warehouses in your office were visited quarterly by a Logistics or Supply Chain employee, either independently or in collaboration with Field Monitors? | 76-100% - 3 points 51-75% - 2 points 26-50% - 1 point 0-25% - 0 points
| 19.7 How frequently does your office reconcile data between LESS and COMET systems? | Quarterly – 3 points Annually – 2 points Ad Hoc – 1 point No – 0 points
|
Standard 4: WFP maintains operational independence. Sub Indicator | Response Option & Scoring | 12.5 How effectively does your office identify, document, and address risks related to humanitarian principles (e.g., neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity)? | Strategic and Proactive – 3 points Responsive but Inconsistent – 2 points Ad Hoc and Limited – 1 point Unaddressed – 0 points
| 3.5 Are employees in your office disclosing actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest to management, within relevant processes (e.g., hiring recruitment or procurement) and taking appropriate mitigation actions? | Fully – 3 points Mostly – 2 points Partially – 1 point No– 0 points
| 12.2 To what extent has your office completed a context analysis and applied its findings to inform programming and operations? | 12.3 Has your office completed a Conflict Sensitivity Risk Assessment, and implemented appropriate mitigation measures? | 12.4 Does your office identify, document, and address risks related to humanitarian access and challenges related to engagement with national or international military forces? |
Calculation Formula Each standard consists of up to five questions with four response options. The maximum score per standard is 15 points, (5 questions × 3 points) for a total score of 60 points (4 standards × 15 points). A Country Office must score at least 7.5 points (50 percent) in each applicable standard to be considered compliant. Country Offices complete the annual EDA, responding to 20 sub-indicator questions across four standards. Scores are assigned to each question based on the selected response. For each Country Office, the score for each applicable standard is calculated by summing the points for up to five questions under that standard. A CO is classified as meeting WFP’s global assurance standards only if all applicable standards individually meet or exceed 7.5 points. The percentage of Country Offices meeting the standards is calculated as follows:
Performance Scale (Applied per Standard) 1. Not Meeting Standards (0-25%) o No implementation of required Global Assurance Standards. o No evidence of processes or documentation. 2. Partially Meeting Standards (26–50%) o Some standards implemented; significant gaps remain. o Limited documentation or controls; corrective actions needed. 3. Mostly Meeting Standards (51–75%) o Most requirements within the standard are met with minor gaps. o Processes and documentation largely in place; improvements needed. 4. Substantially Meeting Standards (76–100%) o All standards implemented. o Complete documentation and controls; no corrective actions required. Treatment of N/A and Blank Responses To ensure fairness and methodological consistency, the scoring approach distinguishes between valid non‑applicable responses and genuine non‑compliance. Assigning a score of zero to N/A or system‑driven blank responses creates an unintended negative bias and does not reflect the assurance objective of assessing quality where a Country Office is actually operating. Therefore, the following rules apply: Handling of N/A and System‑Driven Blank Responses - N/A responses or blank items that result from dependency logic (e.g., when a CO does not undertake a specific function and follow‑up questions are not applicable) must not be treated as “0”. These items are excluded from the scoring denominator to prevent unintended penalization for non‑applicable functions and ensure that scoring reflects actual performance rather than structural characteristics of operations. Only applicable questions will be included per standard and reweighted for scoring as: Sum of points ÷ Maximum possible points for applicable items × 15 Standards with Fully Blank Responses - In cases where a Country Office has no applicable questions within a standard, the standard is classified as “Not Applicable” rather than “non‑compliant.” In these cases, compliance is assessed only against applicable standards.
This approach aligns with the intent of the CRF, which is to ensure assurance where WFP operates, not to penalize COs for activities that fall outside their operational scope. |