107. Average satisfaction of national safety net systems and programme counterparts with the technical assistance received from WFP

107. Average satisfaction of national safety net systems and programme counterparts with the technical assistance received from WFP

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

107

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-S (Social Protection)

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is mandatory against the following sub-activities in CSPs logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Social protection technical support (SP_CCS)

The selection of this indicator is also recommended against any other sub-activity with a CCS tag, and any other sub-activity that involves work with/through national safety net systems and programme. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. Emergency preparedness and response CCS (EPR_CCS)

2. Malnutrition prevention CCS (NPA_CCS)

3. Malnutrition management CCS (NTA_CCS)

4. School based programmes CCS (SMP_CCS)

5. Ecosystem restoration, community infrastructure and livelihood opportunities CCS (ECL_CCS)

6. Financial services, information services and market access CCS (FIM_CCS)

7. National data & analytics CCS (NDA_CCS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Numerical scale (1 to 5)

DEFINITION

This indicator measures qualitatively governments’ level of satisfaction with WFP’s technical support to their national social protection systems.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

Satisfaction refers to the extent to which national safety net institutions and programme counterparts perceive that WFP’s technical assistance meets their expectations, responds to their needs, and contributes meaningfully to their objectives. It reflects their overall judgement of the relevance, quality, timeliness, and usefulness of the support received, including whether the assistance has strengthened their capacities, informed decision-making, or facilitated progress in system development. Satisfaction is therefore understood as a subjective but essential measure of how well WFP’s technical engagement aligns with partner priorities and adds value to their work.

National safety net systems and programme counterparts refer to the national or subnational government institutions and designated entities responsible for the design, coordination, or implementation of a country’s social protection system. In line with the SPIAC‑B inter‑agency definition, social protection comprises the “policies and programmes aimed at preventing and protecting people against poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion throughout their life, with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups.”. For the purpose of this indicator, counterparts are the technical and/or political counterparts in the specific ministries, agencies, or mandated bodies with which WFP engages and who receive WFP’s technical assistance – typically those overseeing national safety nets, cash transfer programmes, social registries, early warning systems, or related institutional capacities.

Technical assistance refers to the technical advice and institutional capacity‑strengthening support that WFP provides to national social protection and safety net systems. Institutional capacity strengthening is understood as “the process through which organizations, institutions and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain their capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time¹.” WFP’s assistance may include policy and analytical support, guidance on programme design and delivery systems, operational tools, digital solutions, and implementation support aimed at enhancing the effectiveness, responsiveness, and inclusiveness of national systems. Assistance provided under service provision contract is not included.

RATIONALE

This indicator enables WFP to qualitatively assess the value and effectiveness of its technical assistance from the perspective of national institutions. While existing quantitative indicators capture the scale of WFP’s support, they do not show whether this support meets government expectations or contributes meaningfully to WFP’s commitment to national capacity strengthening, system sustainability, and transition to government‑led programmes.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Satisfaction should be assessed directly with the relevant government counterpart following the delivery of technical assistance. The information can be gathered through several possible methods, depending on what is most appropriate for the context and relationship with the institution:

1. Brief structured discussion or debrief: Conducted during an informal or routine meeting, where the counterpart is invited to provide a rating for each of the five dimensions listed under the ‘Indicator Calculation’ section below.

2. Key Informant Interview: Where more depth is required, a short KII can be used to elicit additional qualitative insights. (See link in the Qualitative Research section below.)

3. Short, targeted questionnaire: A simple written or digital may be used when a discussion is not feasible or when counterparts prefer to provide feedback in writing.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Formal sampling is not required for this indicator, as the target group – national counterparts directly involved in receiving WFP’s technical assistance – is typically small and clearly defined. However, Country Offices should seek feedback from minimum 2 and maximum 5 relevant officials. Only in exceptional cases where the pool of potential respondents is unusually large should a purposive selection be used to ensure representation of the main institutional units linked to the technical assistance.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by using the following steps:

Each government counterpart involved in the technical assistance rates WFP’s support on a 1–5 scale, whereby: 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Moderate, 4 = High, 5 = Very high, for the following five dimensions.

While the survey questions may explore broader aspects of WFP’s support, respondents must still provide a clear numerical rating from 1 to 5 for each dimension and each question to ensure consistency and comparability across responses.

1. Adequacy: Does the support correspond to the needs and expectations of your team/organization?

2. Relevance: Is the support relevant to your team/organization considering national social protection objectives?

3. Effectiveness: Has the support contributed to your team/organization achieving its intended results?

4. Efficiency: Has WFP been timely and efficient in the provision of its support?

5. Sustainability: Does the support contribute to building long‑term institutional capacity?

The indicator is calculated in two steps: (1) compute a satisfaction score for each respondent, and (2) calculate the average across all respondents.

Step 1: Score per respondent

For each individual respondent, WFP calculates an individual satisfaction score as the mean of the five ratings they provide:

Individual score = (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4 + Q5) / 5

Where:

• Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5​ are the respondent’s scores for the five questions

• Scores range from 1 to 5

Step 2: Overall indicator value

The final indicator value is the average of all respondents’ overall satisfaction scores:

Final indicator value = (Score1 + Score2 + ... + Scoren) / n

Where:

• n = number of government respondents

• All eligible respondents are included (typically a small, defined set of institutional counterparts)

This approach ensures that the number of respondents is fully accounted for, and that each counterpart’s perspective contributes equally to the final indicator.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe, as one overall number based on the average score calculated, as follows:

Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Country

• Target Group

BASELINE

This indicator does not require a baseline, because it captures satisfaction at each point in time rather than measuring change from an initial value. What matters is tracking the scores regularly so trends can be observed over time.

Please use the “no data” function and its “Not applicable” sub-function to report the baseline.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

COs should establish targets informed by the strength of the relationship with government counterparts, the scope of upcoming technical assistance, and anticipated shifts in system‑strengthening efforts. Targets should reflect a commitment to continuous improvement while acknowledging that satisfaction levels depend on multiple factors, including national priorities and institutional capacity. Scores falling below 3 out of 5 should be treated as a clear signal of concern, indicating meaningful gaps that require focused attention and improvement.

End of CSP target:

End‑CSP targets should reflect at least the same level of ambition as the annual targets, and ideally show improvement by the end of the CSP. All targets should remain appropriate to the CSP context and needs.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

This indicator is reported annually.

INTERPRETATION

An increase in the average satisfaction score suggests that government counterparts perceive WFP’s technical assistance as of increasingly high quality in supporting national social protection and safety net systems. Conversely, a decrease may indicate misalignment with government priorities, challenges in the quality or delivery of support, or external factors such as institutional changes or shifting national agendas. Because satisfaction can be influenced by both WFP performance and contextual dynamics, Country Offices should examine the qualitative explanations gathered during interviews to understand the drivers behind changes in scores. Distinguishing between issues related to the content of technical assistance, its delivery, evolving government expectations, or broader political or organizational shifts is essential for interpreting results and informing programmatic adjustments.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• C.29 Elements of national safety net systems and programmes supported by WFP during the reporting period

• 106. Number of people benefitting from improved national policies, systems or programmes for which WFP provided technical (and financial) support (Tier 3 beneficiaries).

Collecting and analysing these two indicators simultaneously allows WFP to link what elements of national safety net systems were supported (output) with the scale of coverage those strengthened systems achieve (outcome). Viewed together, they provide a more complete picture of how WFP’s technical assistance contributes both to system‑level improvements and to expanded reach for people benefiting from national programmes.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

A key informant interview template, an analytical grid and a methodological note can be accessed by CO as a complementary resource for monitoring of this indicator.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The indicator supports evidence‑based decision‑making by helping Country Offices and government partners understand how well WFP’s technical assistance aligns with national priorities and contributes to strengthening social protection systems. Combined with information on system elements supported and programme coverage, the indicator also helps inform strategic decisions on prioritization, resource allocation, partnership management, and timing of transition or handover processes. Ultimately, it enables WFP to tailor its system‑strengthening efforts more closely to government needs and to continuously refine the quality and relevance of its assistance.

VISUALIZATION

When visualizing this indicator, Country Offices should select formats that clearly show changes in satisfaction levels over time and differences across counterpart institutions when multiple respondents are involved. Simple charts—such as bar charts [CS1] for single‑year results or line charts for trends—are recommended to highlight whether satisfaction is improving, stable, or declining. If disaggregated data are available (e.g., by ministry or type of technical assistance), grouped bars or small multiples can help illustrate variations across institutions or dimensions (adequacy, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability). Visualizations should always be accompanied by brief qualitative explanations to contextualize scores, especially given the small sample sizes and the influence of external factors on perceptions. Including the number of respondents alongside the score is essential for transparency.

For example, a Country Office could present a simple grouped bar chart showing satisfaction levels from 2023–2025, disaggregated by two key national counterparts. Illustrative data might look as follows:

Plotted as grouped bars, this format clearly shows both the upward trend over the three‑year period and the differences in satisfaction between institutions.

LIMITATIONS

This indicator relies on the perceptions of government counterparts, which can be influenced by factors beyond the quality of WFP’s technical assistance, including political dynamics, staff turnover, shifting national priorities, or broader institutional constraints. Because the number of respondents is typically small, individual views may have a strong effect on the overall score, and results may not always be comparable across years or countries. Satisfaction levels may also be shaped by expectations rather than measurable performance, and officials might hesitate to provide fully critical feedback in certain contexts. When COs sense reluctance from government counterparts to share views, they should reassure government counterparts that the purpose of collecting this feedback is solely to strengthen collaboration and improve support, and that it has no bearing on the provision of funding or assistance from WFP. For these reasons, the indicator should be interpreted alongside qualitative explanations, triangulated with other monitoring information, and contextualized within the broader partnership and operating environment.

FURTHER INFORMATION

N/A