CC.1.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting no safety concerns, including SEA, experienced as a result of their engagement in WFP programming

CC.1.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting no safety concerns, including SEA, experienced as a result of their engagement in WFP programming

VERSION

V4.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

CC.1.1

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 safety concerns as a result of their engagement in WFP programming.

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.

• Safety: The physical security of people and their psychosocial safety require that service delivery and assistance provision modalities are designed and implemented effectively so that the need for safety is taken into account.

  Sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA)

  • Sexual exploitation: means any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust for sexual purposes. Examples include exchanging money, employment, goods, or services for sex.

  • Sexual abuse: means the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions.

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. A key component of this is ensuring that people have safe and meaningful access to assistance.

Protection Risk: Likelihood of the occurrence of potential harm that could come to an individual. The harm may negatively impact the physical or mental integrity of a person, her or his material safety or violate her or his rights.

Risk factors: threats, vulnerabilities and capacities and require an examination of root causes, decisions and events that contribute in different ways to creating or exacerbating patterns of violations.

Threats: Actions, behaviours and policies entailing violence, coercion or deliberate deprivation that cause harm (physical or psychological) and/or a barrier to accessing WFP support.

Vulnerability: The characteristics of a person or community that affects their capacity to cope with the impact of shocks or structural inequalities. A person is not inherently vulnerable, but the situation they are in may render them vulnerable. People cannot be seen as one homogenous group. Group needs should not obscure the likelihood of intra-group vulnerabilities.

Coping mechanism: Adaptive response to threat, stress or insecurity. Some coping mechanisms may be harmful to individuals or the wider community and, as such, may pose a protection risk.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

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

Respondents

• A respondent is a beneficiary representing a household.

• Data collectors should interview the household member best positioned to provide accurate and reliable information. While this may be the head of household or the primary recipient of assistance, other household members may be better able to respond.

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

In some programmes (e.g., HIV interventions or government owned social protection programmes), WFP may not have access to beneficiary lists due to confidentiality reasons. In such cases, field monitors may collect information from a representative group (e.g.staff at the clinic / programme site) by asking whether they are aware of any safety or SEA related risks when people access assistance Talking to Children (Please check related guidance at this link and in the further information field).

Core principles

• Talking to children requires particular care, especially when discussions relate to safety, protection or SEA risks.

• A child is defined as any person under 18 years. Engagement must always be conducted in a way that prevents harm and protects confidentiality.

• Before any questions are asked, explain confidentiality and its limits in age-appropriate terms (e.g., if someone is unsafe, staff may need to share information with protection services to help keep them safe)‑appropriate terms (e.g., if someone is unsafe, staff may need to share information with protection services to help keep them safe).

• Discussions should occur in a private, child and gender friendly space, with an interviewer of appropriate language.Consent, assent, and maturity

• Children aged 15–17 years are considered sufficiently mature to provide their own informed consent to participate in monitoring discussions. If a parent or caregiver is present, they should also provide informed consent.

• Children under 15 years are not considered able to give informed consent on their own; in such cases, informed consent must be obtained from the parent or caregiver, while still seeking the child’s voluntary assent in a in a way that respects their age and understanding.

• Regardless of age, monitors should seek the child’s voluntary assent and respect a child’s refusal to participate, unless there are immediate life‑saving concerns.

Exception to consent — significant or imminent harm

• If a child is experiencing harm or faces a significant and/or imminent risk of harm (including SEA), caregiver consent is not required to refer them to appropriate child protection services. The child’s immediate safety and best interests take precedence. Staff must follow established referral pathways without delay.

Specific contexts and safeguards

• For child headed households, separated children or unaccompanied minors, consultations should occur in the presence of qualified child protection actors or community based child protection structures. Where such support is unavailable, WFP is responsible for ensuring monitors are trained to conduct child sensitive interviews safely and confidentially, and that they know how and where to refer child protection or SEA cases. ‑

• In programmes where children are the main beneficiaries (e.g., school feeding), monitoring should primarily occur in the presence of a primary caregiver (e.g., parent, teacher or school representative) as part of routine on‑site monitoring.

• Rather than asking children directly about sensitive issues, monitors should ask adults (e.g., teachers, parents, school management committees) whether they are aware of any concerns regarding children’s safety, wellbeing or SEA risks in or around schools.

• For take-home rations, teachers or school staff may serve as the main respondents.

• Any direct questions to children should be neutral (e.g., satisfaction with meals, timing, access), avoiding sensitive personal safety topics.

• Monitors do not directly question children about experiences of SEA. If a child spontaneously discloses, monitors must ensure they know how to safely refer and report the SEA allegation.

Data Collection Guidelines and Training

Inquiring about safety and SEA is a sensitive process because:

• individuals may have experienced psychological trauma, and insensitivity when discussing these issues may increase distress;

• fear of reprisals, stigma, or embarrassment may prevent disclosure;

• gender parity among enumerators is essential, as beneficiaries may feel safer and more comfortable discussing sensitive issues related to safety and SEA when interviewed by an enumerator of the same gender. Gender balanced teams also support inclusivity, cultural appropriateness, and respect for beneficiaries’ preferences and comfort levels.

All enumerators must be trained prior to data collection and must adhere to the following:

• Explain the purpose of the questions, how the data will be used, confirm that participation is voluntary, and obtain informed consent;

• Be supportive, empathetic, and non‑judgemental when listening to responses;

• respect confidentiality at all times and explain its limits when engaging with children;

• Never pressure respondents to disclose information;

• Never investigate incidents or interview individuals beyond the questions included in the PDM;

• Carry contact details for trusted protection actors, including GBV, child protection and provide referrals with the respondent’s consent when needed;

• Make sure you have the contact details of the WFP PSEA focal point so you can liaise with them in case of any issues linked to SEA;

• Escalate serious or urgent protection or SEA concerns through the appropriate WFP channels, including the CFM and relevant focal points;

• raise awareness of available community feedback mechanisms, including PSEA reporting channels;

• Ensure enumerators understand the escalation matrix so that SEA risks or concerns are promptly and adequately addressed;

• Ensure familiarity with the Safe Referrals Guide for GBV and Child Protection Disclosures.

Data Collection Tool

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 Safety Concerns 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 safety challenges and dividing it by the total number of responses, expressed as a percentage.

For the numerator: Responses must be negative (“no”) for question 1 (HHAsstSecurity) in the table above to consider the household to have safely participated in WFP programmes.

For the denominator: total number of respondents to question 1 (HHAsstSecurity) 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).

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 safety 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.

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 report safe access to WFP programmes is below the target, this indicates that the way assistance is delivered is exposing affected people to safety risks. In such cases, mitigating measures should be identified based on an analysis of the location, nature, and type of security threats or incidents reported.

This analysis should also consider risks of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), as barriers to safe access can increase vulnerability to PSEA.

If the value meets or exceeds the target, this suggests that the operating environment and programme delivery modalities do not pose significant safety challenges for people accessing WFP assistance. However, this result should be interpreted with caution. Security concerns are sensitive, and people may be reluctant or unable to report challenges they have faced. As such, a low number of reported safety concerns does not necessarily imply the absence of risks. Similarly, SEA incidents are widely underreported; therefore, low reported figures do not necessarily indicate that SEA risks are not present.

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, particularly case categories related to personal safety, security incidents, and PSEA-related complaints or concerns.

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 and Trend Analysis

When interpreting safety and security concerns, it is essential to understand whether, and which, mitigation measures have already been put in place by WFP and/or partners to prevent or reduce risks to people’s safety. This includes PSEA prevention and mitigation measures, such as awareness-raising on reporting channels, safe and confidential complaint mechanisms, and trained PSEA focal points.

In addition to analysing reported levels at a given point in time, it is important to track changes over time. An increase in the proportion of people experiencing safety or security issues may indicate that:

• the overall security situation is deteriorating;

• the design or implementation of WFP programmes is increasing exposure to safety risks; and/or

• the operating environment has changed.

Particular attention should be paid to whether specific groups (e.g. women, girls, persons with disabilities, older persons) are disproportionately affected by safety or SEA risks.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

X% of intended recipients surveyed X months after the in-kind distribution carried out in XX reported that they experienced no safety challenges when accessing food and nutrition assistance. Compared to the previous monitoring exercise, the proportion of people reporting safety issues has (increased/decreased) by X% or X percentage points (p.p.).

This positive trend may be explained by the set of mitigation measures adopted by WFP and its partners following the most recent PDM, which identified Z, Y, and Z as key challenges affecting A, B, and C in accessing assistance. Conversely, this negative trend may be explained by the recent deterioration of the security situation in area X.

The main safety challenges were reported to occur on the way to or from the distribution point (X%). The three most frequently reported safety issues, accounting for more than X% of those reporting safety challenges, were 1, 2, and 3*. To address these challenges, WFP plans to implement the following measures: Z, Y, and Z, including strengthened PSEA prevention and mitigation measures, such as awareness-raising on reporting channels, refresher training for staff and partners, and the establishment of safe, confidential, and accessible complaint mechanisms. WFP will continue to monitor the evolution of these challenges over time.

If SEA-related risks were reported, they should be included among the main safety issues or presented separately (e.g. “Concerns about inappropriate behaviour by staff or volunteers”).

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

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

• 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

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.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

• Questions about personal experiences of safety concerns or sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) must never be asked in front of other people due to privacy and safety concerns.

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

• “Have you heard of…?” rather than “Have you experienced…?”

• 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 gender, and familiarity with the local context is especially important when discussing sensitive topics such as SEA.

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 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

Safety is a sensitive issue, and people often do not report safety challenges they have encountered. There may be reluctance to report such challenges due to fear of retaliation or discontinuation of assistance. This also applies to concerns related to sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), which are widely underreported because of stigma, fear of reprisals, and lack of trust in reporting mechanisms. As such, a low number of reported safety or security challenges does not necessarily indicate the absence of issues of concern.

To obtain a clearer and more accurate picture of the challenges beneficiaries may be exposed to, quantitative data should be complemented with qualitative information, including focus group discussions (FGDs) in which participants are separated by gender and age groups, as well as secondary data collected from other actors operating in the area. These discussions should include questions designed to identify SEA-related risks in a safe and indirect manner (e.g. using formulations such as “Have you heard of…” rather than “Have you experienced…”) and should be facilitated by staff trained in PSEA-sensitive and protection-informed approaches.

It should also be recognised that there may be situations in which various mitigation measures have been put in place, yet some safety challenges remain unmitigated. This may include persistent SEA risks despite prevention efforts; therefore, referral pathways and reporting mechanisms must remain active, accessible, and trusted at all times. In addition, circumstances beyond the control of humanitarian actors should be considered when interpreting results.

Ideally, data should be collected directly from the individual who received the food distribution, although this may not always be possible. Particular attention should be paid to sensitive topics, including safety and SEA-related concerns. 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

Protection at WFP – What is it?

Safe Referrals Guide for GBV and Child Protection Disclosures

Gender Based Violence Guidance Manual

OED Protection from Sexual Exploitation | WFPgo

Executive Director's circular OED2023/011 on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

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

« No Data » Function in COMET Guideline