33. Climate/Resilience Capacity Score (C/RCS)

33. Climate/Resilience Capacity Score (C/RCS)

VERSION

V6.0 - 2026.01 - Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

33

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGR

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

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: 

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of households

DEFINITION

This indicator measures households’ perceived resilience to shocks, climate variability and weather-related shocks.

Below are some key definitions for this indicator:

Resilience: Resilience is the capacity that ensures adverse stressors and shocks do not have long-lasting adverse consequences for development (Food Security Information Network – FSIN-, 2014). 

RATIONALE

This indicator measures household resilience to shocks in general or to adverse climatic events based on the perception of their capacities to anticipate, absorb, adapt, and transform livelihoods in a way that ensures that shocks and stressors, including climatic ones, will not have long-lasting adverse development consequences. 

Through this indicator, WFP can rely on the self-perception of target households in measuring the relevance and effectiveness of its climate sensitive interventions aimed at building/restoring/maintaining livelihood capital and resilience capacities in vulnerable communities. 

In other words, the perception by beneficiaries of the usefulness of these capacities and capital in preparing for and/or coping with shocks or climate variability and weather shocks, helps WFP assess whether an intervention has achieved the expected results and it can be regarded as needs based. 

It is expected that the percentage of targeted households with a high level of C/RCS increases over time in multi-year interventions. The disaggregated analysis of the C/RCS variables can point to possible programme improvements/adjustments with special attention to resilience capacities and/or livelihood capital, in the case of a lower C/RCS. 

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

The electronic version of the questions associated with this indicator (listed below) can be found in Survey Designer by selecting the Climate / Resilience Capacity Score (C/RCS) Indicator. 

It is important to note that this indicator has two different data collection modules in the survey designer, one is presented as CRCS and one as RCS. 

The “CRCS” which should be used when beneficiaries are affected by climate and weather-related shocks modules, and the second module for any other type of shocks which in the survey designer is marked as the combination of the indicator previously known as Shock-Exposure Index (SEI) and RCS sub-modules.

The selection of the applicable module depends on the main type of shock affecting the food security of targeted households and can be summarized as the table below: 

Questions related to the type of shock and its magnitude and frequency are mandatory and needed to analyze the results of this indicator. These questions are part of the CRCS module and are in the SEI module for non-climate and weather-related shocks.

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

Sampling requirements are the same as for PDMs or monitoring surveys, where the questions of the C/RCS data collection tool will be included. Detailed guidance on sampling options is available here. Panel sampling and the use of control groups are strongly recommended for the follow-up of this indicator.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

The C/RCS is calculated from 9 sub-questions (Q1 to Q9) using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from ’strongly disagree’ to ’strongly agree’) to capture the household perception of existing resilience capacities or livelihood capital.  

The nine questions (available in the survey module) ask households  whether they have experienced various shocks in the past 12 months—climatic shocks for CRCS or any type of shock for RCS—and, if so, the extent to which resilience capacities (Q1 to Q4) and livelihood capitals (Q5 to Q9) have been strengthened as a results of WFP intervention.

The main nine questions used to calculate this indicator refer to resilience capacities (Q1. Anticipatory, Q2. Absorptive, Q3. Adaptive, Q4 transformative) and livelihood capitals (Q5. Human, Q6. Financial, Q7. Social, Q8. Institutional and Q9. Informational) 

• The Climate/Resilience Capacity Score aggregates the unweighted answers to the nine questions and is normalized to provide a score ranging from 0 to 100. 

• This result is used to classify households into three groups (low, medium, or high). The percentages at each level are used later in following the changes over time in these percentages for a specific target group of households. 

• Progress achieved or change over time in any of the 9 items is also calculated to understand which capacities or capitals contribute the most to the final score and which need to be reinforced to enhance future climate resilience.

Detailed calculations

Being: 

i= each household included in the sampling of the relevant target group 

n = number of households in the sampling of the relevant target group

Step A. Standardizing the score 

Once answers to each of the questions have been gathered, they are numerically converted (Strongly disagree = 1, Disagree=2, Neutral =3, Agree=4, Strongly agree = 5). Individual answers are then used to compute an overall resilience score for each household as an equally weighted average of the nine answers. 

The resilience score is standardized by minmax normalization39, transforming the results in a score that ranges from 0 (not at all resilient) to 100 (fully resilient).

C/RCS i = {{[(Q1_i+Q2_i+Q3_i +Q4_i +Q5_i +Q6_i +Q7_i +Q8_i +Q9_i)/9]-1} /(5-1)}x100 

Step B. Categorization of the C/RCS 

Once the C/RCS is calculated, households are divided in terciles (low-medium-high) to show the distribution of the CRCS within the target population. Therefore: 

• if C/RCS<33 the household is categorized as reporting a low C/RCS, 

• if 33=<C/RCS<66 the household is categorized as reporting a medium C/RCS and 

• if C/RCS>=66 then the household is categorized as reporting a high C/RCS.

Once all households are categorized, counting the number of households in each tercile (low-medium-high) divided by the sample size (n) is the percentage to be reported in COMET.

Steps a and b must be repeated with the first four questions separated. In other words, including only answers to questions Q1 to Q4 produce the scores of resilience capacities as follows:

Q.1 Anticipatory capacity I = {{[( HHCRCSPrepared ]–- 1} / (5-1)} x 100 

Q.2. Absorptive capacity i = {{[( HHCRCSBounceBack ]–- 1} / (5-1)} x 100 

Q.3. Transformative capacity i = {{[( HHCRCSIncSrcChange ]–- 1} / (5-1)} x 100 

Q.4. Adaptive capacity i = {{[( HHCRCSGetBy ]–- 1} / (5-1)} x 100 All key results to be reported in COMET are shown in the following table: 

As each figure represents the percentage of households at each level, the sum of each row must be 100% in all cases. 

Step C. Individual question score calculation 

The calculation of the average score for each question is recommended for use in the narrative and in the further analysis of elements with higher incidence in the C/RCS calculation and/or for picking out the major variations over time of the elements of the score.

Therefore, using answers coded as values from 1 to 5, the sum of all values for each question (Q), divided by the sample size (n) will yield 9 values (one for each Q) that could be compared over time and used as shown in the visualization section.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Mandatory

• By total, by resilience capacities, and by livelihood capital and for each of these options by the CRCS levels: Low, Medium, and High

The table below shows the minimum set of figures that should always be captured in COMET for this indicator:

As each figure represents the percentage of households on each level, the sum of all rows must be equal to 100% to be consistent.  Likewise, the total to be entered at CO level needs to be validated by COMET to ensure that this figure is between the Min and Max value reported under the same column. 

Cohort/target group desegregation is mandatory.  

Panel sampling and the use of control groups are strongly recommended. Therefore, it is particularly important to report on the sampling size and sampling frame of each data collection exercise.

For each follow-up it is also required to specify the type of applicable weather-related shocks (multiple choice between Floods, Drought, Storm/Cyclone, Heat Wave, Wildfire, other) or other shocks to which the target groups were exposed in the previous year to the data collection round. In multi-year integrated resilience programmes, it is also required to keep track of the applicable and changing sub-activities (activity tags) supporting the same group of beneficiaries and/or changes in the transfer modalities between follow-ups.

For this indicator's purpose, a cohort is defined as a group of beneficiaries that minimally share characteristics such as receiving the same type of WFP assistance/support and during the same period. They can also share other characteristics such as geographic area, vulnerability level, transfer modality, residence status, donor, or cooperating partner.

Please specify in the ‘Notes’ section whether the indicator collected was CRCS or RCS.

Optional for reporting outside of COMET:

• Sex of the household head

• Transfer modality

Important data entry options: Since SO2 CSP activities commonly combine, sequence and/or layer multiple sub-activities to support the same cohort/target group, this indicator can be reported with all applicable sub-activities. COs are requested to use multiple sub-activities to report on this indicator when its results should be presented as the outcome of multiple sub-activities supporting the same target group.

BASELINE

In line with business rules, baseline values should be established within 3 months before and after the start date of the activity implementation. However, it is highly preferable to collect baseline values before the start of the activity implementation.

If no baseline exists prior to activity implementation, the first collected value should serve as the baseline.

TARGET SETTING

Targets in COMET are entered for the ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ Levels.

Annual targets:

For categories medium and high: the annual target should be at least equal and ideally higher than the latest follow-up of the previous year or than the baseline figure if there is no previous follow-up.

For category low the annual target should be lower than the baseline and/or previous follow-up.

End of CSP target:

This is country specific and depends mostly on baseline figures, context, CSP duration and programme design (i.e., transfer modality, transfer value, duration of assistance, complementary activities, etc.).

In any case, for multi-year interventions with the same beneficiary group, annual targets of

the category “low” are expected to decrease towards the end of the CSP.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

Monitoring of this indicator is mandatory twice a year and should be conducted during the same periods every year to enable comparability across surveys. Frequency of measurement can also be based on programme objectives and timeline.

If the intervention is focused on resilience to seasonal weather events such as storms, floods or droughts, it is recommended to collect follow-up data for this indicator as close as possible to the occurrence of this type of shock.

Given that resilience building takes time, variation in resilience capacities would be observable on a year-to-year basis, it is therefore recommended not to measure this indicator on intervals shorter than 12 months.

For years when a baseline is conducted, only one follow up is required.

INTERPRETATION

The C/RCS provides a score ranging from 0 to 100 with 0 indicating no resilience and 100 fully resilient. The average C/RCS for the population analyzed (participants, control group…) indicates the overall resilience status of the population and is useful for comparison over time. A change (increase or decrease) in this indicator reflects how households’ overall resilience to climate variability and shocks has changed over time. To understand the distribution of C/RCS resilience levels and how they evolve, households are grouped into three categories - low, medium, and high - based on terciles of their scores. 

An increase in the frequency of households in the high and medium categories and a reduction of the proportion of households in the low resilience capacity can be understood as a positive change over time. 

Depending on programme objectives and/or context-specific need, the average value and variation of each of the nine items can also be analyzed. Each question relates to a specific resilience capacity (Q1= anticipatory, Q2=absorptive, Q3=adaptive, Q4=transformative and) or capital (Q5=financial, Q6= social, Q7=institutional, Q8=human and Q9=information). 

• Capitals represent potential immediate and medium-term effects of WFP interventions to promote resilience. For instance: 

• Financial capital is expected to reflect the results of initiatives aiming to improve financial access of target communities (i.e., microinsurance, village savings and loans associations, etc.), 

• Human capital reflects the achievements of trainings and the promotion of climate adapted practices, 

• Informational capital is expected to increase because of climate services, seasonal and forecast weather information made accessible and tailored to target communities, 

• Institutional capital is increased by WFP support of government strategies and programmes, including social protection systems, 

• Social capital variations are attributable to interventions oriented to promote community cohesion, integration and/or coexistence. 

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

An integrated risk management intervention providing access to microinsurance, climate services and training on climate adapted agricultural practices has conducted a baseline and a follow-up survey (outcome 1) one year later, asking questions to a representative sample of beneficiaries and a control group in the intervention area. 

From the analysis of the average C/RCS, we observe that at the baseline stage participants and the control group shared similar resilience capacity, with scores of 31.8 and 29 respectively. (See figure below)

One year later (Outcome 1), we observe a 12.6-point increase in the C/RCS of beneficiaries of the integrated risk management intervention, while households in the control group have only increased their perception on their resilience capacities by only 2.6 points.

The calculation of the C/RCS and the distribution of households per resilience capacity terciles is as follows:

In line with the improvement observed in the average C/RCS, the distribution of households among the three resilience terciles shows a 13% reduction in the proportion of participants with low resilience capacity and a 10% increase of households with medium resilience and a 3% increase in the share of households with higher resilience. During the same period, only 6% of households in the control group transitioned from low to a medium C/RCS and none to the high C/RCS category. (See graphs in the section Visualization).

To better understand the elements causing this change in beneficiaries’ perception of climate resilience capacity, a suggestion is made to analyze the change in the answers to each of the nine questions grouped per resilience capacity and capitals. (See spider graphs in the Visualization section)

The factors explaining the increase in the C/RCS are related to an improved perception of households’ capacity to absorb and adapt to climatic shocks with a minimal improvement in their anticipatory capacity. Therefore, adjustment to the programme should be made to enhance the anticipatory capacity of households.

All the different capitals analyzed show an increase, with major variations observed in human and informational capitals. The training activities on adaptive practices and access to climate services may have positively affected households’ resilience capacity perception.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

This indicator may be measured together with any other CRF indicators reported under SO2. CSP activities reporting on this indicator may also, where relevant, report on the following outcome indicators:

• 103. Humanitarian Food Assistance (HFA) Needs

• 35. Investment Capacity Index (ICI)

• 32. Climate Adaptation Benefit Score (CABS)

• 27. Percentage of verified assets that demonstrate improvement in biophysical conditions as confirmed through remote monitoring from space (LCI)

• 101. Assets benefit Score (ABI)

Also, other output and outcome indicators linked to the following sub-activities should be reported as relevant:

• Food Assistance for Assets (FFA)

• Food Assistance for Training (FFT)

• Climate Adapted Assets and Agricultural Practices (CAP)

• Micro/Meso-insurance (MMI)

• Smallholder Agricultural Market Support (SMS)

• Saving and Loans Associations (SLA)

• Other Climate Adaptation and Risk Management Activities (CAR)

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Depending on country specific context conditions and key programmatic assumptions noted in the corresponding TOC exercises, the information of this indicator can be analyzed together with process monitoring data/results that can be collected through qualitative approaches such as direct observation, Key Informant Interviews or Focus Group Discussions. No additional tools, questions or templates are required to do this apart from what is already used for the regular process monitoring.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

This indicator helps to confirm how changes in the programme design (transfer modality, transfer value, technical assistance, transfer values, duration of transfers, etc.) and the occurrence of climate related shocks, might affect the contribution of CSP activities to the building/restoring/maintaining of household capacity to anticipate, absorb and/or adapt to climate variability and weather shocks. This indicator can also provide information on the typology and severity of shocks that project participants experience which may also be used to help interpret programme results and to effectively explain the project context. 

VISUALIZATION

(Evolution of) proportion of HH per C/RCS categories (100% stacked column)

C/RCS development and its analysis can be visualized in a spider graph of capacities and of capitals

(Evolution of) Resilience capacities (Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4) (Spider graph)

(Evolution of) Average C/RCS (stacked column)

LIMITATIONS

This indicator refers to the subjective perception of household resilience that may not always be aligned with quantitative measures of resilience, given that perceptions are personal and can be influenced by a wide range of factors.

These could include the respondent’s character, mood, a range of other cues, and the local environment. Privacy, confidentiality, and trust are important aspects of the data collection conditions affecting the quality of the information obtained. 

This indicator refers to the perception of sets of four capacities and five capitals. It does not necessarily refer to capacities that were intentionally built with assistance or support by WFP. For this reason, a detailed analysis of specific items is required in narratives as will be explained in the interpretation and calculation section. 

Perception is also affected by personal experiences and exposure to shocks. The frequency, magnitude, type, duration, and date of damage caused by shocks affect the perception of resilience. For that reason, it is key that narratives referring to these results also provide as much information as possible about the related shocks and context of project implementation. The data collection section already includes basic questions in this regard. This could be extended to more specific topics if required. 

FURTHER INFORMATION

Guidance: Planning and Reporting on Climate Action