83. Proportion of people engaged in Income Generating Activities as result of skills development training (EIG)

83. Proportion of people engaged in Income Generating Activities as result of skills development training (EIG)

VERSION

V5.0 - 2026.06 — Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

83

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRG-R

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Outcome Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Mandatory

INDICATOR SCOPE

Programme specific

APPLICABILITY

The selection of 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:

1. Food assistance for training (FFT)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Percentage of people

DEFINITION

This indicator aims to measure the effects of skills development trainings and post-training support (business grants provision, business start-up kit, job fairs, internship, business credit access, etc.) on the livelihoods of participants by assessing the proportion of the total programme participants who succeeded in engaging in income generation, through employment or self-employment, as a result of: a) the skills acquired and/or enhanced through completing a skills development training and b) the post-training support received.

Below are some important terms related to this indicator:

Participants are defined as: those individuals who are identified by WFP as eligible for taking part in the skills development training, and who engage in such activities.

Skills development training refers to the activity that involves a transfer of knowledge, equipping participants with skills to generate an income or accessing work-based learning options. The training uses resources or curricula designed or developed by recognized institutions or cooperating partners. The duration of the training is guided by the training resources and context needs. For definitions of training types, please refer to this technical note.

Post-training support refers to active labour market measures, namely a set of activities aimed at assisting participants in transitioning from training to income-generating opportunities. The support can take different forms. It includes mentorship to run a business or to access and retain a job, connection/referrals to potential employers, or financial support to develop an income-generating activity/business. The type and duration of support are determined based on participants' needs, capacities and technical background, local economic context, and available programme resources. For definitions of post-training support please refer to this technical note. (link underdevelopment).

Income Generating Activities: Any activity that participants engage in which generates a revenue. It includes any formal or informal income generating activity including micro/small enterprises set-up by programme participants (self-employment), as well as engagement in remunerated jobs (employment). The respondent participating in the data collection of this indicator should be able to report that the formal or informal employment they are engaged in was fully or at least, partly a result of the offered skill development training.

Employment: Any person who has engaged in an activity to generate an income, received either in cash or in kind, as part of a salary or wage from an employer, for at least 30 days within six months to one year from training completion. The period of 30 days here is being used as the weight/minimum days worked for the employment to be counted, so that jobs counted under this indicator are those which provide some stability/sustainability.

Self-Employment: Any person who during the reference period earned an income, either in cash or in kind, directly from one's own business, trade, or profession rather than as a specified salary or wages from an employer. For operational purposes, the notion of some work may be interpreted as work for at least 30 days¹.

RATIONALE

The objective of skills development training is to strengthen the human capital of participants by equipping them with skills which they can use to generate an income, in cash or in-kind. Income generation can help overcome food insecurity when this is underpinned by economic factors.

The assumption is that by acquiring new skills, or enhancing the skills they already have, participants will be able to engage in activities to generate income, whether through self-employment or employment, which will help them improve their livelihoods, by meeting their needs, and ultimately becoming more food secure.

Engagement in income generating activities is an indication of improvement in livelihoods, since income, or resources in general, is one of the elements which shape the livelihood strategy of an individual or household. The composition and the level of income, of an individual or a household, are the most direct and measurable results of livelihood strategies². As such, income diversification is a positive strategy to which vulnerable populations often resort to minimize risks.

The indicator is applicable to activities where the purpose of skill development trainings is to improve participants’ capacity to generate an income. Please refer to the “Definition” section of this document to see the list of applicable trainings.

DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Data for this indicator is collected using a survey³ and is dependent on available resources and capacity at CO level. Tracer studies may be administered to training participants. Tracer studies are graduate surveys which can be conducted within six to eight months from training completion to: improve content and course delivery, strengthen the transition of graduates from education to the labour market or profitable business opportunities, and overall, to better match the supply and demand of skills.

While the information is quantitative and obtained through a survey, it may be complemented and contextualized by qualitative information obtained from the respondents themselves.

To facilitate the data collection process, questions on EIG can be asked along with data collection questions for Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) and or Activity Implementation Monitoring (AIM)⁴. Tentatively, if the process monitoring surveys are planned to be conducted via remote tools (i.e., voice calls, SMS, etc.), the same collection methods could be applied to collect data for the EIG.

For data triangulation, please see below reliable data sources:

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS

The number of people to whom the survey will be administered should be a representative sample of the FFT beneficiaries, tracked under indicator 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) (FFT sub-activity).

Country Offices should refer to the corporate sampling guidance for additional guidance on developing samples for this indicator.

For additional insight on the trends and impact of skill development trainings, Country Offices are encouraged to visit the same households adopting a longitudinal approach, using complimentary qualitative enquiry, where possible, and to monitor the change in food security and nutrition of participants who engaged in skill development trainings.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

The EIG should be calculated, for each year, as the percentage proportion of the number of participants, among the sampled ones, who responded positively to the question on whether they engaged in an income generation activity as a result of skills development trainings (FFT), out of the total number of sampled FFT participants.

This indicator is calculated by using the following steps:

For example, the training programme includes 1,200 participants, of which 291 are sampled applying a margin of error of 5% and confidence level of 95%. If 185 out of 291 participants in the sample managed to engage in an income generation activity as a result of the skills acquired or enhanced during the programme, then the EIG will be equal to 63.6%. EIG = 185/291 *100 = 63.6%

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

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

• Sub-activity

• Location

• Target Group

Follow-up value is reported as:

Recommended disaggregation (when sample size allows):

• Sex

BASELINE

For a new programme, the baseline is zero for the first year. For programmes continuing for more than one year and supporting the same target group, the baseline should be based on the previous year’s latest indicator value.

TARGET SETTING

Annual targets:

Annual targets should be context specific. Project targets (i.e., set proportion of participants reporting they have engaged in income generation thanks to the skills acquired in the skills development training) should be set individually for each project, as the expected outcomes will largely depend on contextual factors, such as:

• pre-training skills level of participants;

• national employment rate;

• regulatory framework for setting up new businesses;

• regulatory framework on employment for certain groups of the population;

• and shocks and stressors, such as conflicts, natural disasters and economic shocks.

An increase in the EIG value is desired over time.

End of CSP target:

Context-specific.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The data collection should be timed to feed into the ACR reporting as well as to inform the following planning period. The CO may also consider collecting data up to 6-8 months after the end of the training activity.

The minimum frequency for data collection is once a year. Where the CO has more than one cohort of participants, and data for both cohorts cannot be collected at the same time, a separate survey can be conducted to collect data for the other cohort.

In case skills development training activities are suspended for a certain period, it is recommended to continue monitoring the EIG and other indicators relevant for long-term skills training programmes.

To capture seasonal and sporadic income generating activities, which may be characteristic of most informal activities, it is recommended to design surveys to cover such seasons, possibly bi-annually, in order to curb respondent recall.

INTERPRETATION

The EIG measures the project’s capacity to improve the economic status of participants, by assessing whether they managed to engage in income generation thanks to the skills acquired during the trainings.

A higher EIG or higher proportion of participants reporting having engaged in income generation thanks to the skills acquired or enhanced through participation in training programmes and the post-training support received, is an indication of improved livelihoods and that the activities are successful and achieving anticipated results.

Low values of the EIG are equally informative as they imply that adjustments to the design are needed. For this purpose, reasons for non-engagement in income generation should always be collected at the same time as EIG, through the specific question included in the data collection tool. They can include a range of reasons, such as lack of equipment or space, not enough time (household work and childcare), high competition, no demand in the labour market, inadequate level of skills or lack of qualification.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

In 2026, country A supported 16,000 participants with livelihood skills trainings (capacity strengthening beneficiaries). Among the 16,000 participants, 10,000 received technical and vocational training on food processing, carpentry, and digital skills; and 6,000 received only business management skills training. Out of the 16,000 participants 63.6% declared to have engaged in an income generation activities because of the support received by WFP.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• 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) (FFT sub-activity).

In addition, as applicable the following indicators may be reported along with this indicator:

• 1. Food Consumption Score (FCS)

• 2. Food Consumption Score-Nutrition (FCS-N)

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

• 4. Livelihood Coping Strategies - Food Security (LCS-FS)

• 6. Economic Capacity to Meet Essential Needs (ECMEN)

COMPLEMENTARY QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The FFT Activity Implementation Monitoring (AIM) tool, analysing the quality of the technical training provided during the programme, represents a quality data collection instrument that can be used ahead of the EIG data collection, for a deeper analysis of the training activity implemented.

Additionally, qualitative data collection, such as interviews or Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), can be used for in depth understanding. To be developed after the pilot phase of the quantitative tool.

Reasons for non-engagement in income generation should always be collected at the same time as EIG, using the specific question included in the data collection tool.

DECISIONS DATA CAN INFORM

The indicator is anticipated to inform programme design and implementation and provide basis/evidence for course correction by assessing:

• whether the trainings effectively provided the skills

• what training activities have allowed participants to generate income.

• the elements which made the project non effective in transferring the skills

• the reasons why participants did not engage in income generation.

VISUALIZATION

Visualizations should reflect the information captured.

For example: Pie charts are strong at representing a percentage of the whole, such as a single measurement.

Columns can also be used to compare multiple categories from a single survey; for instance, compare the proportion of women supported to that of men.

LIMITATIONS

While EIG is a good proxy to understand whether the programme is effective, low values do not necessarily imply that the issue lies in the programme design. While this can certainly be a possibility, there are other factors that come into play that determine a person’s engagement in income generating activities, which are specific to each individual participant’s personal circumstances or to the context.

The way the EIG measures the impact of skills training programmes is binary, i.e., engagement (yes) or lack of engagement (no) in income generation. As such, the indicator does not capture the level of income, and possible changes from the income participants were making prior to participating in the training.

This indicator focuses on the financial outcome (income) of the impact of skills development trainings but does not speak to other levels of impact such as the human capital (good health, skills) and social capital (reciprocity within the community, between households or individuals, based on the confidence formed through social links).

The indicator does not assess participants’ satisfaction or feelings of accomplishment in regard to their IGA. As such, it does not capture whether participants are personally fulfilled and engaging in a job that they enjoy or take pride in.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Further information on designing and monitoring FFT activities is in the FFT PGM (coming soon) and information on result reporting can be found in FFT ACR Technical Guidance.

FFT Activity Implementation monitoring tool: Full survey, survey preview (underdevelopment) and Process Monitoring Data Collection Tools and Resources of the VAM Resource Centre.

For additional information please contact: wfp.assetcreationandlivelihoods@wfp.org.