C.28 Number of national institutions engaged in WFP capacity strengthening activities at the national and sub-national levels

C.28 Number of national institutions engaged in WFP capacity strengthening activities at the national and sub-national levels

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

C.28

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS-CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Output Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

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

1. Emergency preparedness and response CCS (EPR_CCS)

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

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

4. Malnutrition management CCS (NTA_CCS)

5. Malnutrition prevention CCS (NPA_CCS)

6. National data and analytics CCS (NDA_CCS)

7. School-based programme CCS (SMP_CCS)

This is also recommended for the following sub‑activity in CSP logframes. Choosing it in COMET will not trigger the inclusion of this indicator.

1. Social protection technical support (SP_CCS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Number of entities

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the number of institutions that receive capacity strengthening support through initiatives implemented or facilitated by WFP. It is reported in COMET through detailed indicators that are categorized by the type of institution involved, and further disaggregated by level – sub-national, national, and, where relevant, regional. Country offices can select the detailed indicators that best reflect their activity context and implementation.

Key terms used in this indicator are defined below.

National institutions refer to domestic entities operating within a country’s territory at national or sub‑national levels. For this indicator, the term may also include regional bodies rooted in and serving countries within a specific region (e.g. African Union, Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency). However, the term excludes international or external organizations, such as UN agencies, international financial institutions, bilateral donors and international NGOs.

The types of institutions covered by the indicator are government institutions, civil society organizations, private‑sector entities and academic institutions:

• Government institutions refer to public sector entities forming part of the executive, legislative, or administrative structures of the State, responsible for policy-making, regulation, coordination, and service delivery. These include national ministries and central government agencies, sub-national authorities (regional, provincial, district, municipal), public agencies and parastatals.

  Sub-national government entities should be counted separately where they represent distinct administrative units.

• Civil society organizations are non-state, not-for-profit entities that operate independently of government and represent the interests, needs, or initiatives of communities and specific population groups. These include national and local NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), and faith-based organizations.

  Civil society structures can vary significantly across countries; classification should reflect organizational scope of operation, not just registration status.

• Private sector entities are for-profit or commercially oriented organizations engaged in economic activities, including production, trade, finance, or service provision. These include companies (small, medium, large enterprises), producer organizations and cooperatives, financial institutions, and market and supply chain actors.

  Where cooperatives or producer groups are community-based, classification should consider whether they function primarily as economic actors (private sector) or community organizations (civil society), based on their role in the activity.

• Academic institutions are organizations dedicated to education, research, and knowledge generation, including formal education providers and policy or technical research bodies. These capture universities and higher education institutions, research institutes and think tanks, and specialized training and knowledge institutions.

  Primary and secondary schools are typically classified under government institutions (service delivery) unless they operate independently and meet criteria for civil society or private sector classification.

WFP capacity strengthening support: Engagements with national stakeholders aimed at enhancing the capacity of national systems and programmes to function efficiently, effectively and sustainably. WFP applies a mix of support types – from accompaniment to advocacy, convening, piloting, modeling, secondment, physical and financial assets, knowledge products and training – to address diverse needs and entry points (see guidance on 9 types of capacity strengthening support).

Engaged in refers to institutions that directly receive capacity strengthening support through initiatives implemented or facilitated by WFP.

South–South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC) is a collaborative process through which developing countries exchange knowledge, skills and solutions, based on mutual learning and partnership among peers. WFP supports SSTC to strengthen national capacities and accelerate progress to end hunger and malnutrition at country level.

Detailed indicators under C.28 capture institutions that receive capacity strengthening support through WFP-implemented or facilitated initiatives delivered through SSTC. Only institutions within the reporting country should be counted; institutions from other countries involved in the exchange should not. Regional bodies involved in SSTC may be included where relevant, provided they meet the definition of national institutions for this indicator and receive capacity strengthening support through the initiative.

RATIONALE

This indicator captures the range of national institutions engaged in WFP capacity strengthening activities at national, subnational and local levels, reflecting WFP’s whole‑of‑society approach to strengthening national systems. Engaging a diverse set of institutions – including government bodies, civil society organizations, private sector entities, and academia – helps ensure that capacity strengthening efforts are rooted in the actors who collectively govern, manage and deliver services within national systems. Such engagement can contribute to more coherent policies, better‑coordinated services and stronger institutional ownership. However, the depth and quality of engagement, and the degree to which institutional capacity improves as a result, must be assessed through complementary indicators and qualitative analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Data for this indicator should be extracted from programme implementation records produced by WFP or cooperating partners. Relevant sources include activity reports, attendance lists, mission reports, technical assistance records, and documentation generated through formal partnership arrangements such as Memoranda of Understanding or Field‑Level Agreements. These documents should clearly show which national institutions directly participated in WFP‑supported capacity strengthening activities during the reporting year.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by counting the number of distinct national institutions that engage in WFP‑supported capacity strengthening activities during the reporting year. To ensure consistent counting, apply the following rules:

• Count each institution once per reporting year. Participation in multiple CCS activities, locations or support modalities does not increase the count.

• Count by legal entity. Departments, units or offices belonging to the same parent institution count as one institution unless they are formally separate legal entities.

• Active WFP engagement is required. Count only institutions where WFP, or a cooperating partner acting on WFP’s behalf, directly takes part in the activity. Do not count institutions reached solely through a ministry’s or partner’s independent rollout after an upstream activity such as a training‑of‑trainers. Institutions reached during a rollout in which WFP is directly involved should be counted.

• Include only eligible institutions. Do not count international organizations. Only domestic institutions (and eligible regional bodies) should be included in line with the definition.

• Do not count international organizations. Only domestic institutions (and eligible regional bodies) should be included, in line with the indicator definition.

• The indicator is not cumulative. Institutions are counted in the year they participate; if engagement continues across years, they must be counted again in each reporting year.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Planned values for this output indicator are entered in the Other Output Plan (OOP) in COMET, while actual values are recorded through completion reports. Planned and actual values must be disaggregated by activity tag and location.

In COMET, this indicator is broken down into four detailed indicators that specify the type of entity:

• C.28.1 Number of government institutions

• C.28.2 Number of civil society organizations

• C.28.3 Number of private sector entities

• C.28.4 Number of academic institutions

If the indicator is included in the logframe, reporting on at least one detailed indicator is mandatory. Values should be reported using the corresponding breakdown presented in the tables below, reporting only against applicable entries.

PLANNED FIGURES

Targets for this indicator are set at the level of the detailed indicators selected for reporting, using the corresponding breakdown presented in the data entry tables above. Activity managers should define these targets at the start of the engagement, in consultation with the national partner and any other stakeholders involved, ensuring they align with agreed workplans.

At the beginning of each reporting year, these targets must be reviewed with stakeholders, and the annual target values for each detailed indicator entered into the COMET Other Output Plan (OOP). Initial targets should be established in the first quarter of the CSP’s first year and then revisited in the first quarter of each subsequent year.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The indicator should be monitored continuously through proper record keeping, with records reviewed at least quarterly for quality assurance and accurate tracking. Data must be consolidated and reported at least annually in the COMET completion report.

INTERPRETATION

When interpreting this indicator, the narrative should explain which national institutions were engaged, at what levels (national, subnational or local), and how WFP directly supported them through the capacity‑strengthening activity. It should clarify whose capacities were strengthened, what capacities were targeted, and for what purpose, linking where relevant to related indicators such as C.25 (people engaged) and C.26 (initiatives delivered). The narrative should also describe the type of CCS support provided, drawing on WFP’s nine support types as appropriate, such as accompaniment, advisory services, training, knowledge products, convening, advocacy, assets, piloting, modelling and secondments. Finally, it is useful to highlight how the support aims to ensure that institutions can maintain, apply and sustain the capacities developed through WFP’s engagement.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Below are two examples of how this indicator could be reported in the Annual Country Report. Each example shows how the institutions counted link to the structure of the capacity‑strengthening engagement and WFP’s level of involvement.

Example 1

WFP collaborated with a local NGO to support the Ministry of Interior in developing a flood information system for nationwide deployment. This engagement followed an Emergency Preparedness Capacity Index exercise in 2024, which highlighted the need for such a system. WFP provided technical support and advocacy that contributed to mobilizing national budget resources for the system’s development. The flood information system enables the Ministry to monitor population exposure and assess damage to croplands, homes, schools and other infrastructure, and it supports planning and decision-making across the institution. The system will be expanded to include early‑warning functionalities to strengthen preparedness activities.

Example 2

WFP collaborated with the provincial government through the Ministry of Health to develop and implement a new nutrition programme in line with updated Maternal, Newborn, Infant and Young Child Health and Nutrition guidelines. As part of this engagement, WFP worked directly with one national institution (the Ministry of Health), five provincial health directorates, ten district health facilities, five district education offices, and four local civil society organizations that supported outreach and community mobilization. Engaging this mix of national, sub-national and local institutions was essential to ensure that the curriculum and training materials were technically sound at the national level, adapted to local operational realities, and delivered through the frontline institutions responsible for providing nutrition services. This combination of actors helped strengthen consistency across administrative levels, improved coordination in service delivery, and increased national ownership of the programme.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

Use this indicator with other capacity strengthening output indicators to understand which institutions were engaged, what forms of support were provided, and how WFP contributed to strengthening their capacities. In particular:

• C.25 provides information on the number of people engaged through capacity strengthening initiatives. This helps clarify whose capacities within the reported institutions are being strengthened.

• C.26 shows the number of initiatives delivered and helps clarify the type and scale of support through which these institutions were engaged.

• C.27 captures the tools, products, or materials developed or revised, some of which may directly support the institutions counted under this indicator.

• C.8 reflects the assets or infrastructure transferred to national stakeholders, which may represent material inputs provided to the institutions engaged.

Taken together, these indicators provide a fuller picture of WFP’s capacity strengthening support, showing the initiatives delivered, the people involved, the tools and assets provided, and the institutions engaged across different levels of the system.

VISUALIZATION

Not applicable

LIMITATIONS

• Reflects quantity only. The indicator counts the number of institutions engaged but does not capture the quality, intensity, effectiveness or depth of WFP’s engagement with each institution.

• Does not reflect level of effort. Institutions vary widely in size, mandate and complexity. Working with a national ministry and working with a local civil society organization both count as one institution, even though the level of engagement, resources and effort required may differ substantially.

• Does not measure improvements in capacity. The indicator records institutional engagement, not whether the institution’s capacity has improved, adopted new practices or achieved better performance. These results must be assessed through complementary indicators and qualitative analysis.

• Dependent on WFP’s direct involvement. Institutions reached indirectly through a ministry’s or partner’s independent rollout are not counted, which may underrepresent the broader reach of an intervention if WFP is not involved in downstream engagement

FURTHER INFORMATION

Refer to the CCS Framework, 9 Types of Capacity Strengthening Support, and additional resources in the CCS section of the Programme Guidance Manual.