CC.8.1 Percentage of people assisted by WFP who report overall satisfaction with the way in which assistance was delivered | |
VERSION | V1.0 - 2026.01 — NEW |
INDICATOR CODE | CC.8.1 |
TECHNICAL OWNER | Field Monitoring Unit (PRG-MF) |
INDICATOR TYPE | Country Level Cross-cutting Indicator Priority Area: Maintaining Assurance |
INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION | Mandatory |
INDICATOR SCOPE | Programme specific |
APPLICABILITY | This indicator is applicable at CSP activity level. This indicator is applicable and mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes: 1. General distribution (GD) This indicator is also applicable and optional against all other direct beneficiaries’ sub-activities. |
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS | Percentage of people |
DEFINITION | This indicator aims to measure the proportion of people who express that they are satisfied with the overall process of receiving WFP assistance and of its quality. It describes whether people feel WFP delivered assistance with integrity, reliably and in a way that meets their needs and expectations. Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:
|
RATIONALE | People’s satisfaction is critical to WFP’s assurance because it demonstrates whether assistance is delivered in a way that is timely, accessible, dignified, and accountable to affected populations. This indicator is a people-centered validation of WFP’s operational standards, complementing internal assurance systems with external feedback. The indicator is subjective, providing WFP a sense of how individuals perceive the assistance received. It provides insights that WFP’s programmes are not only meeting operational targets, but also respecting the rights and expectations of the people they serve. |
DATA COLLECTION TOOL | The tool to collect this indicator is located here, for either Distribution Monitoring (DM) or Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM). There are six questions in this tool (all mandatory). One question is used to understand the overall satisfaction, while the remaining five questions gather information to further understand the drivers of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction. All questions have the same three response options: response options of ‘unsatisfied’, ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’. For all questions, WFP assistance refers to either in-kind, CBT or commodity voucher entitlements.
|
SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS | Sampling follows the strategy adopted for the monitoring exercise used to collect information to calculate multiple indicators (e.g., DM or PDM). 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 further 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 overall satisfaction and dividing it by the total number of responses, expressed as a percentage. The question, ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the assistance provided by WFP?’ is used to calculate this indicator.
The overall satisfaction question is followed by five additional questions, with the same response options, that provide insightful information for the CO and GHQ teams to better contextualize people’s perception of satisfaction. For all questions, WFP assistance refers to either in-kind, CBT or voucher entitlements. COs should also calculate the sum of the number of ‘satisfied’ and ‘very satisfied’ per question below, divided by the total number of respondents and express as a percentage.
Regression analysis is recommended to be computed in order to estimate the relative importance (weight) of each driver variable (delivery integrity, reliability, appropriateness) and examine which dimensions drive people’s satisfaction most strongly. This informs resource allocation and programme design, ensuring that interventions target the most influential drivers. For example, a simple linear regression formula can be used for statistical testing on whether people’s satisfaction of WFP assistance is associated most strongly with delivery integrity, and less influenced by the quality or quantity of assistance (or vice versa). Please contact PRG-MF for assistance on regression analysis. |
DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS | Data for this indicator (and the five drivers) will be entered in COMET at the CSP activity level. Values are recorded in the logframe. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:
The numerator (Number of respondents reporting either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied) and the denominator (Number of respondents who answered the survey) must be entered in COMET for all six questions. The COMET team is working to update the system to improve data entry requirements.
Mandatory disaggregation:
Recommended additional disaggregation for analysis (not in COMET):
Particular attention must be paid to individuals and groups identified as particularly marginalized, discriminated against as documented in protection risk assessments, and needs assessments. Disaggregation is recommended whenever possible to identify the specific characteristics of anyone experiencing safety issues while attempting to access assistance. This could include language, religion, displacement status, or other characteristics as relevant in the context. |
BASELINE | Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points: 1. At the beginning of the CSP, or 2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or 3. When there is a change in target, location and/or modality that triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator Baselines remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above. |
TARGET SETTING | Annual target: 80%. Annual achievements that do not meet the annual targets are expected to show gradual improvement towards the end of project/CSP target. An annual target of 80% satisfaction reflects a balance between high performance expectations and the operational realities of WFP’s work. Setting the target at 80% ensures that the target reflects WFP’s commitment to quality and accountability and is ambitious enough to drive quality improvements, while remaining realistic in humanitarian settings. End of CSP targets: 100% of targeted people reporting overall satisfaction with the way in which assistance was delivered. Dissatisfaction with WFP assistance can stem from a range of practical and experiential factors. People may feel that the support does not fully meet their needs, arrives irregularly, or is difficult to access due to distance, long waits, or security concerns. In some cases, external factors beyond WFP’s control such as market price increases or supply disruptions further affect how people perceive the reliability and appropriateness of the assistance. However, WFP must analyse these factors and put in place measures to ensure that people are satisfied when accessing assistance. While the aim is that all targeted people are satisfied with the way in which assistance was delivered, it can be expected that some levels of dissatisfaction might occur in line with people’s experiences and due to unexpected changes in the context. |
FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION | Align with DM or PDM minimum data collection requirements (i.e. quarterly for DM and twice per year for PDM as per the Minimum Monitoring Requirements). |
INTERPRETATION | If the percentage of people reporting overall satisfaction with WFP assistance reaches the target, this indicates that WFP assistance respects the rights and expectations of people. If the percentage is below the target value, this means that the integrity and reliability of assistance is compromised, and that assistance is not meeting people’s needs or expectations. In this case, mitigating measures need to be explored based on an analysis of the drivers of satisfaction and the context. A low level of dissatisfaction does not necessarily indicate an absence of issues of concern. People may hesitate to report their true dissatisfaction with WFP assistance if they feel pressure to give positive feedback or fear that raising concerns could affect their support. Data triangulation: to obtain a clearer picture of people’s satisfaction after data collection, the data can be enriched, validated and complemented by:
|
REPORTING EXAMPLE(S) | X% of intended recipients of assistance surveyed X months after the in-kind distribution that took place in XX reported they were satisfied with the overall process of receiving WFP assistance and of its quality. Compared to the last monitoring exercise, people reporting satisfaction increased or decreased by X% or percentage points. This positive trend could be explained by the set of measures adopted by WFP and its partners following the latest PDM that highlighted X, Y and Z to be determining factors for people’s satisfaction OR This negative trend could be explained by the recent (contextual) situation in the area X. The top three determinants of dissatisfaction, representing more than X% of those reporting dissatisfaction, are 1, 2, and 3. To overcome these challenges, WFP will put in place the following measures X, Y, and Z and monitor the evolution of these challenges over time. |
INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME | The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:
|
COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH | This indicator should be complemented by qualitative data collected through focus group discussions, key informant interviews, secondary data collected from other actors operating in the area, field observations, process monitoring findings or CFM feedback. This will enable the validation of results with diverse evidence and reinforce accountability. |
DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM | This indicator can inform multiple programmatic decisions, primarily putting measures in place to ensure people’s satisfaction with 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 | The indicator is subjective, as it is quantifying a perception. There may be reluctance to report dissatisfaction for fear of retaliation on discontinuation of assistance. As such, a low percentage of reported dissatisfaction does not necessarily indicate that there are no issues of concern. To obtain a clearer picture of the challenges people are exposed to, the quantitative data can be enriched by qualitative data, for example from focus group discussions where participants are separated according to gender and age groups, and data collected from other actors operating in the area. There will likely be situations when various measures have been put in place, but some dissatisfaction with assistance could not be mitigated and remains. Circumstances beyond the control of humanitarian agencies need to be taken into perspective too. |
FURTHER INFORMATION | Contact: HQ.Monitoring@wfp.org Resources:
|
CC.8.1 Percentage of people assisted by WFP who report overall satisfaction with the way in which assistance was delivered
- Published on Mar 31, 2026
- 9 minute(s) read
.png?sv=2026-02-06&spr=https&st=2026-06-30T07%3A11%3A45Z&se=2026-06-30T07%3A30%3A45Z&sr=c&sp=r&sig=fun%2BK1Qmwd6Mx3tK%2F7bG%2Fq21HPHg1vZB%2B76ah0XRCOU%3D)