CC.1.3 Percentage of beneficiaries who report being treated with respect as a result of their engagement in WFP programmes

CC.1.3 Percentage of beneficiaries who report being treated with respect as a result of their engagement in WFP programmes

VERSION

V3.0 - 2026.03 — Existing

INDICATOR CODE

CC.1.3

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 being treated with respect as a result of their engagement in WFP programmes.

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.

• Respect: Refers to the notion that people have a right to be valued, treated with dignity, and receive ethical treatment. The emotional experience of a person is as important as their physical safety, and often human rights violations can be humiliating for a person, affecting their sense of self-esteem and of human dignity.

• Dignity: is intended as self-determination, respect for aspirations and wishes, and self-worth. This means recognizing and respecting that affected populations participating in WFP activities and initiatives must be central to all phases of the programme cycle. Protection challenges affecting dignity include disempowerment, humiliation and disrespect. Some examples include:

  • Misconduct by WFP/CP personnel, shop and/or bank assistants involving shouting at participants, discrimination, and favoritism.

  • Abuse of power such as requests for bribes, sexual exploitation and abuse

  • Poor conditions and basic services at programme sites including lack of shade, water, toilet facilities, private spaces for breastfeeding mothers.

  • Lack of crowd measures, leading beneficiaries to fight to obtain assistance

  • Location of the activity is not culturally sensitive. For example, in certain contexts, it may not be culturally appropriate for women and girls to access public spaces alone and therefore the provision of assistance must be tailored to meet their preferences.

  • Long waiting time - more than two hours as per SPHERE Standards

  • Long travel times - more than 1 hour or 5 km to reach one location as per SPHERE Standards

  • The transfer modality or timing of assistance does not reflect the affected population’s preferences or is not culturally sensitive of perceived gender roles. For example, in certain contexts, the reception of humanitarian assistance can be shameful for an individual and they may feel more comfortable receiving assistance in a discreet manner.

If feasible contextualize the definition of dignity and respect based on findings of protection analysis to determine what conditions are considered important to the affected populations and align these with the SPHERE Standard benchmarks.

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, and that they are treated with respect and dignity.

Undignified or disrespectful treatment of people can occur already at the design stage of programmes by not consulting them and reflecting their expressed needs, wishes, priorities and barriers they may face in accessing activities and services. The indicator, therefore, aims to capture instances of disrespect or undignified behaviour/approaches that WFP or partners employ both during programme design and implementation.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

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

Respondents

• A respondent is a beneficiary representing a household.

• Data collectors should interview the household member best positioned to provide accurate and reliable information on how beneficiaries are treated during programme interactions. While this may often be the head of household or the primary recipient of assistance, other household members may be better placed to comment on respect, communication, and treatment.

• 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 constraints. In such cases, field monitors may collect information from a representative group (e.g. clinic / programme staff) by asking whether they are aware of concerns related to how people are treated when interacting with programme staff or systems.

Talking to Children

Core principles

• Talking to children requires particular care, especially when discussions relate to to respect, fairness, voice, or how they are treated by adults or institutions.

• 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, including how children’s feedback will be used to improve how programmes treat beneficiaries.

• Discussions should occur in a private, child-friendly space, with an interviewer of appropriate language, and where possible, gender.

Consent, assent, 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 cases where children may be experiencing undignified or harmful treatment.

• 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 concerns related to children being treated respectfully, listened to, and treated fairly in programme settings.

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

  • Any direct questions to children should be neutral (e.g., whether staff are kind, respectful, explain things clearly), avoiding accusatory or distressing topics.

Data Collection Guidelines and Training

Inquiring about dignified treatment is a sensitive process because: perceptions of respect, fairness, and power dynamics are closely linked to trust and accountability;

• beneficiaries may fear negative consequences or being perceived as ungrateful if they raise concerns;

• gender parity among enumerators is essential, as beneficiaries may feel more comfortable discussing issues of respect and treatment with 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 to improve dignified treatment, 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 individual complaints or cases beyond the questions included in the PDM;

• ensure familiarity with referral pathways for protection, accountability, and complaints handling;

• carry contact details for relevant programme or accountability focal points and provide referrals with the respondent’s consent when concerns are raised;

• escalate serious or systemic concerns related to undignified treatment through the appropriate WFP channels, including the CFM;

• raise awareness of available community feedback mechanisms for reporting concerns about how beneficiaries are treated; ensure enumerators understand the escalation matrix so that concerns related to dignity and respect are promptly documented and addressed.

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 Protection and cross-cutting Accountability modules, within the Protection & Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) framework, specifically in the Treated Respectfully 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 being treated with respect and dividing it by the total number of responses, expressed as a percentage.

For the numerator: Responses must be positive (“yes”) for both question 1 (HHAsstRespect) and question 6 (HHDTPDign) in the table above to consider the household to have safely participated in WFP programmes.

For the denominator: total number of respondents to questions 1 (HHAsstRespect) and 6 (HHDTPDign) 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 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:

90%. Annual achievements that do not meet the annual targets are expected to show gradual improvement towards the end of project/CSP target.

Minimum 90% of targeted people reporting they were treated with respect WFP programmes.

This target takes into consideration that volatile environments may present challenges beyond WFP’s control that can affect feelings of being treated with respect such as lack of infrastructure or environmental challenges. It can be expected that such challenges will increase in line with the relative degree of volatility in the overall context.

If data are not available, Country Offices should report using the« No Data » Function in COMET Guideline , in accordance with the related guidance.

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 of persons who perceive WFP programmes as dignified is below the target value, this means that a percentage of the population are experiencing undignified treatment or conditions in connection with WFP assistance. In this case, mitigating measures need to be explored based on an analysis of the location and type of problem reported. If the number is higher than the target value, this indicates that WFP programmes are generally perceived as contributing to the dignity of vulnerable populations.

In addition to recording the number of reports of undignified treatment or conditions, it is also important to track change over time. If the proportion of people experiencing undignified treatment or conditions is increasing, this could mean that conditions at programme sites is deteriorating or that staff or partner attitudes have changed. In particular, it is important to determine if certain groups within the overall population consistently report undignified treatment as this could be an indicator of discrimination.

Mitigating actions: in all instances, when interpreting the dignity issues, it is also very important to have an understanding of what measures WFP and/or its partners have put in place already to prevent or pre-empt potential undignified treatment or conditions. Conclusions should take into account contextual factors such as infrastructure and environmental aspects, and whether WFP’s programmes are part of an emergency response, recovery or development programme; these variables may make targets easier or more difficult to achieve. It is important to evaluate the nature of the most predominant challenges to determine the urgency of implementing mitigation measures.

Data triangulation: to obtain a clearer picture of the challenges beneficiaries are exposed to, the quantitative data can be enriched by:

• Qualitative information collected through focus group discussions, secondary data collected from other actors operating in the area, and observation in the field.

• Analysis of CFM data, especially of the case categories linked to barriers to access such as physical challenges, discrimination, preferential treatment, disrespect, diversion of assistance, etc.

The above can help:

• prior to data collection in contextualizing the question options of the monitoring tool; and

• after data collection in triangulating, validating and complementing the interpretation of the indicator.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In country X, 90% of participants in WFP programmes reported that they were treated with respect in WFP programmes. This is X% (in)decrease from the last reporting period.

Among the most common challenges reported were ill treatment by financial service providers and lack of information. Women, as the main entitlement holders, were the most affected. WFP is implementing gender sensitization trainings for financial service providers and tightening controls and oversight to avoid discriminatory behaviour.

Programme sites for in-kind transfers have been selected based on whether they provide shelter from harsh weather conditions, water can be provided, and a gender-balanced crowd-control staff is employed.

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

• CC.2.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting they were provided with accessible information about WFP programmes, including PSEA

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

• Questions about personal experiences of undignified treatment mustnever be asked in front of other people if they may cause discomfort, stigma, or unintended disclosure.

• During FGDs, ask about dignified treatment in general terms, phrasing questions as:

  • “Have people in this community felt respected and fairly treated when interacting with programme staff?” rather than “Have you personally been treated badly?”

• Consider age, gender, and disability, and adapt the composition and facilitation to participants’ preferences and comfort levels. For example, adolescent girls, older persons, or persons with disabilities 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 issues related to respect, power dynamics, communication, and perceptions of fairness.

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 to prevent or pre-empt potential threats to people’s safety while accessing 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

Dignity and feelings of being respected is a sensitive issue and people often do not report challenges they have encountered. There may be reluctance to report challenges for fear of retaliation on discontinuation of assistance. As such, a low number of reported problems does not necessarily indicate that there are no issues of concern.

To obtain a clearer picture of the challenges beneficiaries are exposed to, the quantitative data can be enriched by other information. More details about data triangulation are provided in the section about.

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 [AB1] [MA2]

Protection and Accountability Handbook

How to Mainstream Child Protection in WFP Programmes

Safe Referrals Guide for GBV and Child Protection Disclosures

« No Data » Function in COMET Guideline

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