T.6 Total value (USD) of individual capacity strengthening transfers

T.6 Total value (USD) of individual capacity strengthening transfers

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW

INDICATOR CODE

T.6

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-MC

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Output Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Generic

APPLICABILITY

The selection of this indicator is recommended against Tier 1 beneficiary sub-activities in CSPs logframes where Tier 1 individual capacity-strengthening beneficiaries are planned or implemented. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator:

1. General distribution (GD)

2. Prevention of micronutrient deficiencies (PMD)

3. Prevention of stunting (STUN)

4. Prevention of acute malnutrition (PREV)

5. Management of moderate acute malnutrition/undernutrition (MAM)

6. Treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM)

7. HIV care & treatment (HIV/TB_C&T)

8. School meals programme on site (SF_ONS)

9. School meals programme take home incentives (SF_THI)

10. Food assistance for assets (FFA)

11. Food assistance for training (FFT)

12. Forecast-based anticipatory actions (FBA)

13. Other climate adaptation and risk management activities (CAR)

14. Macro insurance (MAI)

15. Micro/meso insurance (MMI)

16. Climate adapted assets and agricultural practices (CAP)

17. Climate and weather risks information services (CIS)

18. Saving and loans association (SLA)

19. Smallholder agricultural market support (SMS)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

USD

DEFINITION

This indicator captures the total USD value of costs associated with the capacity strengthening (CS) transfer modality as far as those costs are relevant to individual capacity-strengthening engagements.

Below are key terminologies related to the indicator:

Capacity strengthening is the process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time.

WFP differentiates between individual and institutional capacity strengthening. Individual capacity-strengthening directly targets the individuals whose food security and nutritional (FSN) status WFP is aiming to enhance (such as the training components provided to beneficiaries through FFA, FFT or SAMS activities, the SBCC components of nutrition activities, etc). They differ from institutional (i.e. country) capacity-strengthening which refers to activities structured around engagement with national and sub-national stakeholder institutions and organizations with the intention of improving the sustainable functioning of systems and programmes that support populations with their food security, nutrition and associated essential needs.

Individual capacity strengthening:

• aims to bring about sustained change in behaviours, skills, assets and practices that contribute to enhancing individual and/or household food security and nutrition (FSN) conditions;

• can be delivered to people in individual, household, and community settings, or institutional settings (such as mothers at health clinics), on its own or alongside the provision of other transfers (such as food, cash, and vouchers);

• can address skills and knowledge that directly or indirectly influence people’s FSN related behaviours and practices (and in some cases, those of their household members);

• can target specific, known individuals and groups, or the public at large.

WFP delivers capacity strengthening to its participants through different initiatives in all Tier 1 beneficiaries related sub activities, such as

• Transfer of skills and capacities to specific individuals

• Transfer of information to a larger group and/or the population as a whole

• Transfer of tools and assets

• Individual counselling or training – one-on-one nutrition counselling for the management of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM),

• financial literacy training for utilization of cash assistance,

• Maternal Infant Young Child Nutrition (MIYCN) counselling)

• Group education/training or discussion/dialogue (i.e. MIYCN or WASH practices,

• Utilization of an interactive game-based learning platforms, Care Groups, nutrition support groups, dialogue or issue groups on particular topics such as gender-based violence)

RATIONALE

The indicator can capture WFP support to individual capacity strengthening in financial terms (USDs spent) and the extent to which the project is cost-efficient and allocates appropriate resources to each activity.

Appropriate allocation of resources to individual capacity strengthening is often a reflection of programme quality, recognising that individual CS is a critical complement that enables or enhances the effectiveness of other transfers.

DATA SOURCE

WINGS and activity documents relevant to individual CS engagements (workplans, budgets, and cooperating partner FLAs and reports).

Relevant data should be drawn from annual budget/expenditure under the Capacity Strengthening transfer modality. Planned values should be based on data in the “Implementation Plan” (an annual prioritised plan of work derived from the Country Portfolio Needs) which takes into consideration available resourcing and operational challenges.

Actual values should be drawn from expenditure data in WINGS under “Capacity Strengthening Transfer” cost category. The activity manager should consult with the CO budget and programming and finance officers to access the correct data in WINGS. Costs that are not reflected in WFP systems (e.g. proposals that are not integrated into the implementation plan; costs which are not expensed in WINGS in the same fiscal year) should not be included in the calculation.

Country offices are recommended to maintain a tracker sheet that captures the planned and actual expenses related to individual CS by CSP output, activity and sub-activity levels. The tracker sheet should be updated on a frequent basis, including the capacity transfers conducted, such as training, with relevant costs, actual expenses, and the total number of participants. The information on that tracker sheet should be verified against invoices shared by the Finance Unit.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Generally, the calculation should focus on the CS transfer modality included in the Implementation Plan, which covers the following cost planning items to be included when related to individual capacity strengthening:

• WFP Staff Salary costs (and related allowances, IT/overtime and MSLS costs, as relevant) for staff budgeted under the CS modality;

• Facility Rent and Running costs;

• Equipment and Supplies;

• TC/IT Equipment;

• Travel Costs;

• Contracted Services;

• Trainings, Meetings, Workshops, and

In addition, Cooperating Partner Costs related to the individual CS implementation budgeted under the CS modality should also be considered.

Since the CS Transfer Modality covers budgeting for both individual and institutional (i.e. Country) capacity strengthening (CCS), the calculation has to ensure that any budget or expenditure related to CCS not be included in the result reported for this indicator.

The relevant Activity Manager should disaggregate the CS Transfer Modality costs between individual CS and CCS for each of the cost planning items provided above. Then, only the cost related to individual CS should be summed up to provide the value for this indicator.

The calculations depend on the field level agreements or contracts with cooperating partners, which ideally include a tracker sheet of all expenses related to individual capacity strengthening, as the value will be based on WINGS expenditure (aligned with cooperating partner payment requests and financial reports).

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

This output indicator is reported on in COMET through other output indicator:

The values against this indicator should be disaggregated by CSP activity, output and sub-activity.

Actual values are recorded in COMET through completion reports, based on actual expenditures captured in the WINGS system under the “capacity strengthening” cost category, excluding expenditures related to country capacity strengthening.

PLANNED FIGURES

In COMET, targets per detailed indicator per year are to be planned in the COMET Other Output Plan (OOP).

Targets for each reporting year and subsequent years should be set in the first quarter of the current reporting year based on the original implementation plan. If there are changes in the latest approved implementation plan, CO should revise the yearly target based on the latest approved implementation plan for the annual corporate reports.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Expenditure figures against capacity strengthening transfer modality should be updated in accordance with standard budget reconciliation timetables for the CSP.

The corporate reporting frequency is done annually in COMET completion reports.

INTERPRETATION

The USD value of transfers can indicate the scope of the activity and the alignment to planning figures and budget.

To give meaning to this figure, along with other complementary indicators (such as post distribution monitoring data and other output indicators), it is important to provide a narrative analysis that links to the broader objective of the intervention and includes further details of interest. In cases where individual CS is complementary to other transfers, it would be particularly meaningful to compare the level of implementation of food and/or CBT/Commodity Vouchers transfers against the implementation plan. Cases where food/CBT implementation is high, but individual CS expenditure is low may point to programme quality challenges.

Large discrepancies between planned and actual should be explained in reporting. They can be caused by a variety of factors, including:

• over/under-estimation of needs during programme implementation design;

• a change in the needs since the programme was designed;

• a lack of resources; and

• logistics, security, access or other activity implementation constraints.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator can be reported on along with indicators related to direct/Tier 1 beneficiaries of capacity strengthening activities:

• T.1 Number of people (Tier 1) receiving direct food/cash-based/commodity vouchers/individual capacity strengthening transfers (disaggregated by sex, age group, residence status, modality and activity)

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

Financial investment in the provision of capacity strengthening, while critical, does not guarantee achievement of capacity strengthening results among those who receive the capacity strengthening financed. Investment enables inputs and achievement of basic outputs, but the capacity change process takes time and cannot easily be measured empirically. It will be contingent upon the quality and appropriateness of programme design and whether the programme addresses issues of capacity creation as well as capacity retention and utilisation over time. In addition, the recipients’ ability and readiness to absorb the capacity changes introduced will influence results, and ideally, indicators like these should be captured over time and complemented with qualitative assessments of change in relevant technical, functional and soft skills as well as engrained behaviours and practices.

This indicator does not capture institutional capacity strengthening. Those can be recorded under C.8 Value of assets and infrastructure handed over to national stakeholders as part of WFP capacity strengthening.

FURTHER INFORMATION