CC.2.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting that they were provided with accessible information about WFP programmes including on protection from SEA

CC.2.1 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting that they were provided with accessible information about WFP programmes, including on protection from SEA

VERSION

V5.0 - 2026.05 — Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

CC.2.1

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 and consume food 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 in communities where WFP and partners are operating who can demonstrate that they have been given accurate, relevant, and timely information about WFP and its assistance, including information related to Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA). This includes beneficiaries’ awareness of their rights, expected standards of behaviour from WFP and partner personnel, available reporting channels, and how to safely seek support or make complaints.

Below are some key terminologies for this indicator:

Beneficiaries (or assisted people): refer to any intended recipient of assistance from WFP and partners. This includes:

• All individuals receiving assistance and household members that are not entitlement holders but benefit from the assistance being part of the household;

• All of those who are eligible for assistance but did not access the service.

Accessible: WFP should disseminate information through a range of inclusive and accessible communication channels identified by affected populations through consultations. For example, community radio, community gatherings, community gatherers, feedback mechanisms, focus group discussions, notice boards. The source of information should be captured whenever possible to assist in improving communications with beneficiaries. To ensure that channels are inclusive and accessible, consultations with representatives of groups within the area, where WFP operates or is planning to implement programmes, should be considered.

This must include consultations with first-tier beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Special attention should be paid to groups that may be less visible or marginalised, including children, women, and persons with disabilities (PWD). It is recommended to include this type of consultation in COs’ Community Engagement (CE) action plan.

Moreover, to be accessible, information needs to be understandable and perceived as easy and clear as possible by a range of different groups, irrespectively of their, age, gender, ability, and literacy level. Accessible information gives people the right to make informed decisions and act accordingly.

Information: as a minimum, the information provided should include the following elements:

• Who is included: beneficiaries demonstrate that they understand the eligibility criteria for receiving WFP assistance.

• What people will receive: beneficiaries declare that they are aware of their entitlements and can determine that they received the appropriate assistance.

• How to report misconduct, including PSEA: beneficiaries are aware of their right to report staff misconduct without repercussions, and how to do it.

• Information is easy to understand: beneficiaries report whether the information is clear, easy to understand, and hence accessible to everyone.

Although the elements above are specifically measured by the indicator, the information provided to assisted people should not be limited to these areas. Additional elements to monitor are the following:

• Length of assistance: beneficiaries report that they are aware of the duration of the programme, hence they know when the programme will end, and the food assistance will be discontinued.

• Distribution dates: beneficiaries report they are informed about distribution dates ahead of time.

• Who is excluded: beneficiaries inform WFP they know vulnerable families who were excluded from assistance and why.

• Information gaps: beneficiaries identify knowledge gaps and information needs WFP could support them on.

• Information source: beneficiaries report who they heard about WFP’s assistance from for the first time.

• Rights of community: beneficiaries are aware of their right to complain including on staff misconduct and provide feedback without repercussions, and they know where to submit feedback.

Programme: it includes corporate activities categories defined under the framework of the new CSP process such as (Un)conditional resource transfers to support access to food, Asset creation, Livelihood support activities, School meal, Nutrition treatment, Smallholder agricultural market support, Emergency preparedness, etc.

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

In 2017, WFP endorsed four updated commitments on accountability to affected people (AAP) through its membership in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). These commitments relate to: (i) leadership; (ii) participation and partnership; (iii) information, feedback and action; and (iv) results. Informed by these commitments, WFP’s Strategy for AAP aims to ensure that affected people participate in and are able to influence decision-making in matters related to WFP food assistance programmes.

To operationalize the IASC commitments, WFP focuses on three key areas:

1. Information and Knowledge Management

2. Inclusion

3. Community Feedback and Response

This indicator responds to the first area, where WFP commits not only to provide accurate, timely, and accessible information to affected people about its assistance, but also to provide information that is clearly understandable by everyone, irrespective of their age, gender, or other characteristics. This includes providing communities with essential information on PSEA, such as expected staff and partner personnel behaviour and how to safely report concerns.

This indicator is concerned with the dignity of people affected by disaster and conflict, and their ability to make informed decisions and exercise their rights. Providing accessible information on both WFP programmes and PSEA further strengthens this, by ensuring communities understand the assistance available to them, expected staff conduct, and how to safely raise concerns.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

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

Respondent: individuals who are part of the same household are represented by one respondent. Data collectors should attempt to talk to the person in the household who has the best ability to answer the questions to maximize the reliability of the collected information. This is typically, but not necessarily, the head of the household or the primary recipient of the assistance. Other household members may be better able to respond. Efforts must be made to directly consult children who are primary recipients of the assistance and people with disabilities. Data collectors must also ensure respondents can safely raise any concerns, including those related to staff conduct or SEA and respondents should be informed of available reporting channels and how to safely raise concerns.

For some programmes, particularly HIV interventions or social protection programmes that are owned by the Government, WFP may not have access to beneficiary lists due to confidentiality reasons. In such circumstances, field monitors can collect information from a representative group - for example, staff at the clinic/programme site – by asking whether they are aware of any concerns related to people’s access to information, including PSEA related information.

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 Accessible Information sub-module.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

A statistically representative sample of the eligible households that WFP intended to assist and were identified and registered into the WFP beneficiary identity management system 90 according to context-specific targeting criteria.

For the correct calculation of this indicator, it is fundamental that the sampling strategy includes eligible households that WFP intended to assist despite whether or not they benefited from WFP assistance. The proportion of eligible households who benefited from the assistance vs those who did not benefit from it should mirror actual figures.

To calculate the sample, the confidence level should be between 90-95% with a 10-5% margin of error.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator is calculated by summing the number of responses reporting they were provided with accessible information by the total number of responses, expressed as a percentage.

For the numerator: Responses must be positive (“yes”) for all 4 questions (1,2,3,6) (HHAsstKnowEnt + HHAsstKnowPeople + HHAsstRecInfo + HHAsstReportMisc) in the table above to consider the individual to be informed. No negative answer is tolerated. Positive responses mean that respondents not only respond “yes”, but also are able to sufficiently describe the systems and processes in place.

For the denominator: total number of respondents to question 1,2,3,6 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:

• 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:

Suggest same as the end of project/CSP target.

80% of households eligible for assistance are informed about the CSP activities.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Align with outcome monitoring PDMs (i.e. twice per year for PDM as per the Minimum Monitoring Requirements).

INTERPRETATION

Ideally, all individuals eligible for assistance from WFP – either directly or indirectly – should be well informed. However, several variables may impact the extent to which they are informed, including:

• how well partners are briefed regarding expectations of the type, level, and method of information provided.

• unequal access to information by different groups within the community; literacy levels and efforts made to compensate for low literacy; and disability.

• The extent to which information related to PSEA is shared consistently and in accessible formats.

The results should be presented in a table followed by a narrative description and analysis in the ACR at the end of every year.

• The question “Do you know how people were chosen?” gauges whether respondents’ understanding of the targeting methodology is consistent with the expectations of WFP and its partners.

• The question “Have you been told exactly what you are entitled to receive?” verifies whether respondents have received this information.

• “Did you receive the information in a way that you could easily understand?” clarifies if the information provided is clear and accessible to all segments of the population.

• “Do you know how to report misconduct from WFP or partners, including sexual exploitation and abuse?”: informs on the level of awareness among beneficiaries of mechanisms to report staff misconduct.

• As explained above, the indicator methodology requires that all four elements it measures (targeting criteria, entitlements, accessibility of information, and awareness of available mechanisms to report staff misconduct) are known by the beneficiaries to satisfy the requirements for an individual to be considered informed. In cases where the CO itself does not know with certainty how long the programme will run, this should be communicated to the beneficiaries giving some indication of what is known; the same applies to pipeline breaks.

• If no information has been provided and beneficiaries, therefore, are not able to respond to one or two of the four dimensions of the indicator, that should be calculated as an overall negative response to the indicator.

• If this is the case, an explanation can be provided in the narrative section detailing which dimensions of the indicator beneficiaries are not informed about and the reasons why.

Additional recommended questions include the following:

• The question, “Have you been informed of when the food assistance programme you are participating in will end?” verifies whether people know how long they are entitled to receive assistance and therefore have the opportunity to make informed decisions over their future livelihoods and food security situation.

• “Were you informed of the distribution dates prior to the distribution?” provides information about timely communication by giving insights on whether this poses a challenge to beneficiaries’ access to WFP assistance or not.

• “Were beneficiaries that need assistance missed from the selection? Based on your knowledge, why were they not selected?” provides some insights, even if indirectly and not in a representative manner, on who is excluded from assistance according to the affected population. This might provide important insights into what needs to be better communicated to the community, but also identify potential shortfalls in the targeting criteria based on the community's perception.

• “Is there anything else you need to know about the programme?” provides the country office with valuable data regarding the information needs of affected communities. A lack of critical information may pose a protection risk or may indicate gender inequality or vulnerability.

• “How did you hear about the programme?” confirms whether respondents’ have heard about WFP’s assistance through the intended channels and highlights how effective those channels were.

• “If you wanted to contact the agency providing assistance (WFP or a partner) about anything – for example, to ask a question, make a complaint or provide feedback – do you know what to do/who to contact (CFM)?” informs on the level of awareness among beneficiaries of mechanisms to complain and provide feedback, hence their right to freely speak up.

• “If you have never used the feedback mechanism, why?” together with the question before monitors if assisted individuals are afraid of repercussions or face barriers when reporting violations, including SEA related concerns.

• If there are few positive responses to the above questions, this may indicate that WFP that measures should be taken to improve communication, encourage the involvement of affected populations in project design and establish feedback mechanisms and processes.

However, as stated above, answers to these questions will not influence the definition of the values for the indicator.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Most of the beneficiaries (80%) indicate and demonstrate they know eligibility criteria, entitlements, and available mechanisms to report staff misconduct.

Most of those who reported they were not provided with accessible information were single female-headed households. Cultural barriers and gender norms explain to a great extent why the proportion of people who are not informed are women. WFP will therefore employ a range of measures that are gender-sensitive, context-specific, and culturally appropriate to ensure that women know their entitlements, targeting criteria, and ways of reporting misconduct in an accessible and understandable manner. Also, beneficiaries across age, diversity, and gender will be consulted and encouraged to participate in project planning and implementation.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

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

• 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

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Stakeholders’ consultation and FGDs feeding into the community engagement action plan at country level and CFM data analysis should complement this indicator data.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

Measures to improve communication material/channels on targeting criteria, entitlements, feedback mechanism, PSEA awareness, and encourage involvement of affected population.

VISUALIZATION

Recommended visuals for this indicator: graphs, pie charts and diagrams that capture the proportion of those informed, including single female HH, child HH, location, and the disaggregated levels suggested in the dedication section, and allow for analysis of trends, profile households, and gaps in information provision.

LIMITATIONS

This indicator may not capture the different channels through which the affected population is reached and the reasons why people are not adequately informed.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Indicator description on VAM Resource Centre

Protection and Accountability Handbook

Community Engagement Strategy for AAP 2021-2026

OED Protection from Sexual Exploitation | WFPgo

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

PSEA at the Frontline - Together We Say No – Phase 2 | IASC