69. Proportion of national stakeholders reporting improved consensus, coalitions, or networks after WFP capacity strengthening support

69. Proportion of national stakeholders reporting improved consensus, coalitions, or networks after WFP capacity strengthening support

VERSION

V3.0 - 2026.03 — Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

69

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS - CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is recommended for all CCS sub-activities, when efforts focus on strengthening how national stakeholders collaborate – through consensus‑building, coalitions, or networks. Such collaboration supports information‑sharing, joint decision‑making, and coordinated action across the national system.

Note: As this indicator relies on surveys or interviews with national partners, consider the nature of the partnership to determine whether data collection is feasible.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of national stakeholder respondents

DEFINITION

The following definitions apply to this indicator:

National stakeholders: These are actors from the country’s own systems at national, sub-national, or local levels. In line with a whole‑of‑society approach, they can include government, civil society (formal or informal), the private sector, academia, and communities. Regional organizations, such as the African Union or Asian Development Bank, can also be included when relevant. However, this indicator does not apply to stakeholders from organizations governed or managed by WFP or other international/external entities (e.g. UN agencies, the World Bank, IMF, bilateral donors, international NGOs).

The indicator should focus on stakeholders who are relevant to the intervention and who are either decision‑makers or directly involved in the coalition or network being strengthened.

Consensus: It refers to agreement among stakeholders. Depending on the intervention, this may relate to agreement on the way forward, operational arrangements, problem analysis, or shared priorities.

Coalitions and networks: These are groups of stakeholders who work together. They may be formal, for example a regional government coalition mandated to improve school nutrition. They may also be informal, such as district officials with similar responsibilities who collaborate as a peer group.

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.

* WFP does not work alone as an enabling partner; results cannot always be attributed exclusively to WFP. Relevant contributions from other stakeholders should be acknowledged in narratives.

RATIONALE

Effective mechanisms, coalitions, and networks help national and local actors work together on policy development and implementation. They support information sharing, joint decision-making, and coordinated action across the national system. When stakeholders have stronger consensus around the Zero Hunger agenda, these collaborative arrangements function more effectively and allow actors to draw on each other’s strengths.

This indicator captures how stakeholders perceive changes in these collaborative arrangements following WFP’s support. Even though the data are subjective, gathering views from several stakeholders helps verify and cross‑check these perceptions, making the findings more reliable.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Surveys or semi‑structured key informant interviews should be developed for the specific capacity strengthening interventions, and used to gather information from national stakeholders.

If a pre‑ and post‑intervention assessment is conducted, the same individuals must participate in both rounds of data collection, and their surveys or interview notes should include identifying information to enable comparison.

The data collection tool should assess up to three aspects – consensus, coalitions, and networks – depending on the institutional change targeted by the CCS intervention. Questions may be asked directly or through proxy questions, as illustrated below.

Direct questions

• Post‑only example: “Do you think the strength of the coalition has changed now that the working group meets monthly?”

• Pre/post example: “On a scale of 1–5, how strong is the network of businesses working on fortification?”

Proxy questions

• Post‑only example: “Do you find it easier or more challenging to coordinate among the different UN agencies since last year?”

• Pre/post example: “On a scale of 1–10, how easy is it to coordinate among the different UN agencies?”

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Minimum sample size: If using surveys, at least 30 respondents should be included. If the intervention involves fewer than 30 stakeholders, all stakeholders should be surveyed.

When the stakeholder group is small: key informant interviews (KIIs) are recommended to gain a deeper understanding of perceived changes and the factors influencing them.

For any data collection approach that compares stakeholder perceptions before and after the intervention, the same individuals must participate in both rounds of data collection to ensure comparability.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

This indicator can be measured through structured surveys or coded key informant interviews. It can assess up to three dimensions – consensus, coalitions, and networks – depending on the intervention’s objectives. Information should be collected from national stakeholders involved in, or directly connected to, the capacity strengthening intervention.

There are two ways to collect data and apply the scoring method:

• Method A collects information only after the capacity strengthening intervention and is useful when baseline data are not available. It captures whether stakeholders feel collaboration has improved.

• Method B collects data in two rounds, before and after the capacity strengthening intervention, measuring perceived change over time for the same individuals.

Method B is more robust because it measures actual change for the same individuals. In method A, there is risk of recall bias – a type of measurement error that occurs when people are asked to remember past conditions and report changes, and their memory is inaccurate, incomplete, or influenced by current feelings or circumstances.

However, method B is only feasible when stakeholders remain in stable roles and baseline data can be collected. Method A is often more practical and may produce more reliable data in contexts where turnover, timing, or access make pre/post measurement difficult.

In the steps below, only Step 1 differs between Methods A and B; Steps 2–5 apply to both approaches.

STEP 1 – Rate responses given by each individual

METHOD A – one round of data collection (post intervention only)

a.1. Collect responses

Ask each respondent questions about changes in collaboration for each relevant dimension (consensus, coalitions, networks).

a.2. Code each answer

Assign each answer one of the following codes.

METHOD B – two rounds of data collection (pre and post intervention)

b.1. Collect baseline and follow‑up using the same tool

Ask each stakeholder to rate collaboration in the areas you are measuring – consensus, coalitions, networks – before the intervention (baseline) and after the intervention (follow‑up) using the same questions and scale in both rounds.

b.2. Rate the change in response for each individual

For each question, compare the person’s response before and after the CCS

intervention. Rate the change using the following codes.

This coding is applied regardless of how big or small the change is.

STEP 2 – Calculate a score per person for each dimension

Group the person’s responses coded in step 1 by dimension (consensus / coalitions / networks). Sum that person’s coded answers for each dimension.

For example, if their coded answers to three coalition questions are +1, 0 and -1, then the total is 0. Do the same for consensus and networks if these were measured.

STEP 3 – Convert dimension scores to ratings

For each dimension (consensus, coalitions, networks), apply the following rules. If the total for that dimension is:

• greater than 0 → then assign a +1 rating (improvement)

• exactly 0 → then assign a 0 rating (no change)

• less than 0 → then assign a -1 rating (deterioration)

STEP 4 – Calculate the final code for each individual

For each individual, add together the ratings for each dimension measured.

• If the total is > 0, give the person a final code = 1 (improved).

• If the total is ≤ 0, give them a final code = 0 (no improvement).

For example, if the consensus rating is 1, the coalition rating is 0, and the network rating is 0, then the final code for this individual is 1.

STEP 5 – Calculate the indicator value

Next, calculate the proportion of national stakeholders who reported improvement. The result will be a number between 0 percent and 100 percent.

Method A example:

An individual stakeholder was asked three questions about consensus, three questions about coalitions and three questions about networks. Answers have been coded in the table below.

The rating by dimension for this individual is improvement (1) for consensus, no change for coalitions (0) and no change (0) for networks. Overall, the final code for this individual is 1 – improved.

Method B example:

An individual stakeholder was asked three questions about consensus before and after the CCS intervention. Responses were scored on a 1–5 scale. The change from pre to post was coded in the table below.

The rating for the consensus dimension for this individual is improvement (1). Since only the consensus dimension was examined, the final code for this individual is 1 – improved.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Values are recorded in the logframe annually. Each value has a reporting combination which is created based on:

• Sub-activity

• Country

Follow-up values are reported in COMET as shown in the table below.

In country offices using the CCS Framework, further analysis and disaggregation can be undertaken by CCS capacity components.

This indicator may be used under one strategic outcome to measure multiple groups of institutional stakeholders. Results from different target groups should not be averaged. Instead, each target group should be reported separately in COMET. This can be done by specifying the target group clearly, e.g. nutrition multi-sectoral working group.

When sample sizes exceed 30 participants, country offices are encouraged to collect sex‑disaggregated data to enable meaningful analysis by sex.

BASELINE

Baselines are set only once, at one of the following points:

1. At the beginning of the CSP, or

2. When the indicator is selected for reporting after the commencement of the CSP, or

3. When a change in target, location and/or modality triggers a new reporting combination (target, location and modality) for an existing indicator.

Baseline remain fixed for the entire CSP period and are not recalculated annually, unless applicable above.

First baseline values for the CSP are 0.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Annual targets should be established based on the evolving context and progress made in previous years. They must be feasible and realistic, taking into account stakeholder dynamics, existing partnerships, the complexity of planned activities, and the time required to implement them.

Annual targets are not cumulative: each target reflects the expected results for that specific year only and does not add to previous or subsequent years’ targets.

End of CSP target:

The CSP end target should be set based on an up-to-date assessment of national capacities at CSP commencement and a solid analysis of the CCS work plan developed with national stakeholders. These inputs help ensure that the CSP targets are both meaningful and realistic.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Data may be collected pre‑ and post‑intervention, but results for each intervention should be reported only once per year in the COMET logframe module.

INTERPRETATION

A higher value on this indicator means that a larger share of key national stakeholders perceive improved consensus, coalitions and networks. Because the indicator does not explain why these improvements occurred, the narrative should describe how WFP’s CCS intervention contributed to the change and what effects this had on coordination, decision‑making and other national processes.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In the example below, a survey was conducted to measure key stakeholders’ perceptions of improvements in consensus building. Sixty‑three percent of respondents reported positive change; this figure is reported in ACR data tables. The accompanying narrative could be presented as follows:

In country X, the government‑led Social Protection Working Group received WFP capacity strengthening support during 2022 and 2023. WFP provided formal career coaching to five national stakeholders from two government agencies, selected for their key roles in supporting the functioning of the Working Group. The coaching aimed to strengthen facilitation skills and the soft skills required for effective coordination and consensus building.

At the end of the coaching engagement, WFP surveyed all Working Group members to assess whether they perceived improvements in collaborative decision‑making. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported positive change, citing increased Working Group efficiency, stronger buy‑in, and enhanced cooperation.

Although the initial coaching has concluded, the positive experience has generated further interest among the supported ministries, which have requested coaching support for additional staff who could benefit from similar professional development opportunities. This is helping reinforce and expand WFP’s partnership with the institutions involved.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator should be used in conjunction with CCS output indicators that measure the number of capacity strengthening initiatives or people engaged (C.26 or C.25). Together, these indicators show both the scale of WFP’s activities to strengthen how national stakeholders collaborate through consensus‑building, coalitions, or networks, and whether those involved observe measurable improvements.

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Country offices may use a range of qualitative methods and monitoring approaches to understand the factors that influence the effectiveness of capacity strengthening activities. When indicator results do not show improvements in consensus building, coalitions or networks, targeted inquiries should be conducted to identify the underlying constraints, including power dynamics, resource limitations, organizational culture, or stakeholder turnover. These inquiries may include, for example, key informant interviews or focus group discussions with national stakeholders.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

This indicator signals whether collaboration among national stakeholders is improving and should guide adjustments to WFP’s capacity strengthening approach when needed.

VISUALIZATION

Because this indicator is binary (improved/not improved), a simple bar chart or stacked bar chart is the most appropriate way to visualize results. Pie charts are not recommended, as they rely on angles and areas, which are harder to compare accurately and convey little information when there are only two categories.

LIMITATIONS

This indicator captures only whether stakeholders perceive an improvement; it does not show the extent of the change or explain the dynamics behind it. Country offices should use complementary qualitative information to provide context in the ACR narrative.

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.