Saving lives, changing lives and feeding dreams

Minimum Monitoring Requirements

For Effective Monitoring, Reporting and Reviewing Country Strategic Plans

March 2018
Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
A brief overview of Data Collection Exercises for monitoring (details in Corporate Monitoring Guidance). ................................................................................ 3
Understanding the Minimum Monitoring Requirements (matrix description) ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Cross-Cutting Indicators .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Food Security indicators ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Nutrition and Nutrition-sensitive indicators .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
School Meals indicators .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Capacity Strengthening indicators .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Smallholder Agricultural Market Support indicators .................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
P4P Nutrition-sensitive indicators ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Livelihood ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Adaptation and resilience to climate and other shocks indicators ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Supply chain ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Services ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Output Indicators .............................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Process Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24
ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

1
Introduction

Before the introduction of the Minimum Monitoring Requirements in 2014, analysis of monitoring practice revealed significant variation in methodologies used,
including the representativeness of sampling, for WFP’s corporate indicators. Lack of guidance on sampling parameters or common standards for outcome,
output and process monitoring, contributed to excessive data collection in some instances and insufficient monitoring in others.

The Minimum Monitoring Requirements (MMRs) intend to establish common expectations as to what is required in relation to monitoring coverage, baselines,
data collection exercises, monitoring frequency, applicability, level of disaggregation and sampling requirements. The intended audience for the MMRs includes
all country and sub office staff with monitoring functions, including heads of programme and activity managers, programme and VAM officers/assistants and
field monitors.

The Minimum Monitoring Requirements have been updated in 2017, as they are directly linked to WFP’s Corporate Results Framework 2017-2021 (CRF), including
the CRF Logframe Business Rules, and the Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Jointly, these four instruments (MMRs, CRF, CRF Logframe Business
Rules and SOPs) comprise the normative framework for monitoring by country offices. The MMRs are also supplemented by the CRF Indicator Compendium,
which defines indicator methodology in detail, and the suite of Corporate Monitoring Guidance . The MMRs stipulate the monitoring requirements to be met by
country offices in relation to WFP’s set of corporate outcome, output and crosscutting indicators, along with measures to guide process monitoring of WFP
interventions. The MMRs should therefore be read in conjunction with all these documents available in the new WFPgo site for Monitoring.

While the MMRs are referred to as minimum requirements, they are adjustable as country contexts vary (i.e government, donors and partners’ requirements,
security context, resources availability); they are therefore in fact recommendations on minimal monitoring frequencies, coverage, applicability, disaggregation
and sampling parameters, which should guide the planning of monitoring activities. The MMRs should therefore be read as a “good enough”1 standard when
designing monitoring plans and country offices may deviate from these standards when needed.

1The “good enough” approach in monitoring is a principle aimed at encouraging a practical approach to accountability of humanitarian responses in the field. The importance of this approach is to remind
practitioners to focus on what matters, and emphasize collaboration with the most affected and vulnerable people. More information can be found at the Good Enough Guide website.
2
A brief overview of Data Collection Exercises for monitoring (details in Corporate Monitoring Guidance).
Post distribution monitoring (PDM) for outcome, process and crosscutting data collection:
PDM is not a specific survey, but a description of when to collect data. Data is collected at the household level as well as through group discussions and/or key
informant interviews. Both outcome and process monitoring data can be collected during post distribution monitoring; in addition, data collected during PDM
may include beneficiary perceptions regarding crosscutting indicators such as gender and protection/accountability to affected populations. Collecting
crosscutting indicators data during both outcome and process monitoring is not in contradiction to the minimums set by the CRF, as the objectives are different.
Outcome monitoring, which is mandatory, uses corporately set representative sampling and results are used for corporate reporting such as the Annual Country
Report (ACR). Process monitoring, which is context specific, uses sampling parameters as set by the country office (CO), which can include purposive sampling;
results are meant for internal decision-making and performance measures. When designing PDM tools, it should be made clear whether the objective is to
collect outcome or process data. The frequency of data collection and the sampling parameters will vary according to the indicators included, and different tools
are therefore necessary. Whether to combine outcome PDM with process PDM is the country office’s decision, however, it must be noted that this could result
in a burdensome data collection and analysis exercise.

Outcome PDM: PDM is the primary means for WFP to collect outcome data for food security and livelihood (FSL) indicators. Because the gender and
protection/accountability to affected populations crosscutting indicators stipulate using the same sampling parameters as outcome PDM, components for
gathering data for these indicators should be added to the outcome PDM tool. Outcome PDM may be substituted by food security and outcome monitoring
(FSOM) surveys or exercises such as the emergency food security assessment (EFSA), as applicable. A different outcome PDM tool is used for certain nutrition
indicators as sampling parameters vary from those of FSL indicators.

Process PDM: PDM is also the primary means for WFP to collect process data in the form of beneficiary contact monitoring. Objectives include the
quantity/value, use, acceptability and quality of assistance provided. Beneficiary perceptions regarding targeting, choice of transfer modality (i.e., food, cash,
and/or voucher) and the distributions process are also probed. In addition, data collected during this exercise includes beneficiary perceptions regarding
crosscutting indicators such as gender and protection/ accountability to affected persons. Process PDM can also be combined with activity implementation
monitoring.

Activity Implementation Monitoring (process):

AIM entails direct observation and interviews with beneficiaries as well as WFP/partner staff at the activity site while the activity is being conducted; e.g.,
construction of a classroom, planting of a tree nursery, attendance in schools or clinics, etc. Determining whether the activity is in adherence with beneficiary

3
expectations is central. Spot checks are made to verify the quality and quantity of activity outputs, the proper use of beneficiary lists for attendance and if
appropriate non-food items have been provided. Activity sites are inspected to ensure safety, cleanliness, availability of services (e.g., water, shade, etc.) and
proximity to beneficiary households. Over the course of each project, each activity site should be monitored at least once; monitoring frequency for AIM is per
activity (e.g., for a three-month activity, one quarter would be three weeks) and coverage should ensure a different site selection each quarter. Where applicable,
AIM can be combined with process PDM.
Retail Monitoring (process):

Retail monitoring includes shops both participating in WFP cash based transfers (CBT), and similar nearby shops that are not part of the WFP program. The
components are organized into three sections: 1) questions directed to shop representatives, 2) questions directed to beneficiaries and, 3) direct observation by
monitors. The results of this process monitoring should be compiled and compared to identify areas where the WFP program is impacting the market,
implementation is not following the program rules, price differentiation in and out of the WFP program, and opportunities to improve the program design and
control mechanisms.

Distribution monitoring (process):

DM includes direct observation and beneficiary contact monitoring during the actual distribution process of food, cash and/or vouchers. Determining whether
timely and orderly distributions are occurring is the key objective. Spot checks are made to verify the proper use of beneficiary lists, ration/token/identification
cards, weights and scales, etc. Distribution sites are inspected to ensure safety, cleanliness, availability of services (e.g., water, shade, etc.) and proximity to
beneficiary households. Distribution monitoring should include basket monitoring; it can also be combined with warehouse monitoring.

Basket Monitoring (process):

BM entails the selection of a random number of beneficiaries at a distribution site to assess whether the entitlement provided is as planned; for in-kind food
assistance, commodities are weighed, and results are compared with the planned ration and the family size on the beneficiary document (e.g., ration card). Basket
monitoring is typically combined with DM and should be conducted at the same time. It enables validation of output reporting by partners but is not the source
of output data. Basket monitoring is often referred to as food basket monitoring; however, with the shift from food aid to food assistance, it should encompass
all transfer modalities.

4
Warehouse Monitoring (process):

WM is used to verify the condition of the food storage areas and is typically undertaken as a joint exercise between Supply chain/logistic and Programme
(monitoring team). Observations should include site security, proper stacking methods, use of pallets or ground covers, ventilation, signs of infestation or water
leakages as well as the general condition of stored food. Warehouse monitoring can be combined with DM, if the storage areas are in or near the distribution
site.

5
Understanding the Minimum Monitoring Requirements (matrix description)
Column Heading Cross-Cutting Outcome Output Process
Themes and measures for typical interventions (see
Indicator Indicators as presented in the Corporate Results Framework
footnotes); CO to choose as applicable
Which data to use / when to collect data for baseline results. Where interventions are simply
continuations of prior ones, baseline results may be prior year Annual Country Reports’ results;
however, it is recommended to conduct baseline surveys for each new intervention, as
Baseline appropriate. For new interventions, or new caseload of beneficiaries when applicable, baselines Country specific – country offices to decide as
Establishment should be established 3 months before or 3 months after the start of the activity as per CRF applicable
business rules. These baseline values may be pre-assistance, or first monitoring values,
depending on the indicator2. It is suggested to set sample sizes for baseline data higher than
that of follow-up monitoring.
Recommendations are provided on how to set annual targets. The setting of the annual target
depends on how activities are planned. The annual targets are expected to show gradual
Country specific – country offices to decide as
Annual Target improvement towards the CSP end target, while for some indicators and in some contexts,
applicable
annual targets will be equal or similar to the end of CSP target. Where relevant, some
indication is given on assumptions a CO may consider.
Data Source / Data
Type of monitoring exercise that should be conducted, and who the respondent should be (See descriptions above)
Collection Exercise
Post baseline establishment; how often to conduct monitoring exercises or collect partner/WFP outputs reports in order to produce relevant annual
results. This is a reference to data collection only and not to reporting – either internal (for progress measures and decision-making) or external (for
Monitoring
corporate requirements). Country offices should decide upon their own internal reporting frequency.
Frequency
For emergencies, this rule can be waived for activities Applicable to interventions of any Applicable to interventions of any duration, as
implemented less than six months. duration. decided upon by the country offices.
Clarifies when a corporate indicator may not be
Applicability applicable and reasons COs may provide to not include N/A N/A
them in logframes.
Advice on relevant levels of disaggregation. Data should Coverage: 100% Coverage is representative of WFP oversight efforts
Possible levels of
be statistically representative at the reported level of Output monitoring simply entails (not monitoring conducted by partners). Each
disaggregation
disaggregation. Only when data is statistically collection, consolidation and activity site should be monitored at least once over

2Baseline values are usually collected prior to the intervention to allow for comparison of changes in an indicator prior/during/post intervention and to assess the activity progress in achieving set targets. First
Monitoring value is the first value collected during activity implementation. As baselines can also be established up to three months after the start of the activity, sometimes a first monitoring value is used as a
baseline. In this case, the value should be reported as baseline and not as follow-up value.
6
 representative at that level, outcome indicators may be analysis of all outputs reports. There the course of each project; activity implementation
disaggregated by activity, gender, beneficiary type, cannot be a minimum requirement, monitoring plans should therefore ensure a
geographical location and/or assistance modality. For as payments to partners are different coverage area for each monitoring round.
those corporate indicators calling for gender contingent on receipt of output
disaggregation, disaggregated values should be reports and other documentation,
reported even when data is not representative (clearly as per contracts (e.g., FLAs).
state so in your reporting) and the generic indicator Verification of quality and quantity
(non-gender disaggregated) should always be included. of outputs falls under process
Caution! When aggregating data across many monitoring.
implementation sites data should be weighted to reflect
the relative size of the activities implemented
Sampling Parameters for collecting statistically representative data CO to decide upon the rigour of sampling
via simple random (SRS3) or cluster sampling. The ideal parameters in collecting data for their internal
(not minimum) is CI=95% and precision=5%. Clusters performance measuring and decision-making
include design effect (DE). Ideally, FSL and nutrition needs. Sampling should be random, but can
indicators use DE=2 and DE=3, respectively. DE for FSL include purposive when needed (i.e. areas
indicators can reduce to =1 in populations with higher experiencing frequent issues, recent inaccessibility,
homogeneity (e.g., camp settings). For minimums, see high priority). In each community or site, randomly
charts below. speak to 5-15 individuals or HHs and/or hold a
See Guidance on: Sampling for household data group discussion per community/site with 6-10
collection individuals.

3
is the basic sampling technique where we select a group of subjects (a sample) for study from a larger group (a population). Each individual is chosen entirely by chance and each member of the population has an
equal chance of being included in the sample
7
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Cross-Cutting Indicators
AnnualData Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Applicability Disaggregation Sampling4
Target Exercise Frequency
PDM: HH interviews
C.1.1. Proportion of assisted people informed If applicable:
or Phone calls.
about the programme (who is included, what Sex and age;
In some cases, BCM
people will receive, length of assistance) Activity; Location
and CP reports.
New activities:
Outcome data
First Suggest
Collection Tool, using Activities of =< 1
C.1.2. Proportion of project activities for which monitoring same as end
CP reports, on-site year: once at the end. SRS and cluster:
beneficiary feedback is documented, analyzed value of CSP
monitoring (AIM, Activities of > 1 year: confidence interval
and integrated into programme target.
BCM) and CFM (CO at least twice per 90%, precision rate
improvements Ongoing
specific), year. All activities 5%.
activities: prior
involving Cluster: design
year ACR result
PDM, onsite food or cash effect 2
If applicable:
C.2.1. Proportion of targeted people accessing monitoring (AIM, based
Characteristics of
assistance without protection challenges BCM) and CFM (CO transfers
population affected
specific).
C.3.1 Proportion of households where women, Activities of =< 1
Mandatory:
men, or both women and men make PDM: HH interviews year: once at the end.
New activities: Transfer Modality
decisions on the use of food/cash/vouchers, or group discussions Activities of >1 year:
First Optional: Activity
disaggregated by transfer modality To be based at least twice a year
monitoring
on gender Member lists of WFP Mandatory: All WFP food
C.3.2. Proportion of food assistance decision- value
analysis food assistance Updated as members Gender assistance related
making entity – committees, boards, teams,
informing related decision- change. Optional: decision-making
etc. – members who are women Ongoing
the CSP making entities Age; Disability; entities.
activities: prior
C.3.3. Type of transfer (food, cash, voucher, no Participation records ACL activities
year ACR result Partner’s distribution Sex of participant;
compensation) received by participants in are updated as and activities Coverage 100%
reports Type of transfer;
WFP activities, disaggregated by sex and individuals join and requiring

4For indicators with sampling parameters: The Indicator Compendium stipulates data collection for these indicators should be embedded into existing outcome PDM procedures. Therefore, the sample sizes
should follow the same requirement as for the outcome data being collected in existing tools. It is recommended to include these cross-cutting measures with monitoring for FSL outcomes. Cluster sample size
can therefore reduce to DE=1.5 or DE=1 in populations with higher homogeneity (e.g., camp settings); DE should not be dropped altogether, however.
8
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Cross-Cutting Indicators
Annual Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Applicability Disaggregation Sampling4
Target Exercise Frequency
activity type leave the activity. volunteers Type of
participation
Through an To be completed
“Environmental risk during asset creation No sampling
New 2018 screening template”, planning stage (i.e. required as this
Annual In 2018, only
C.4.1 Proportion of activities for which indicator. during CBPP CBPP). indicator is based
target is 100 for assets
environmental risks have been screened and, processes or through Data for this indicator N/A on a census of all
percent for creation
as required, mitigation actions identified Baseline is zero a government is calculated once a asset creation
all projects activities
for all projects. screening year, towards the end planning exercises.
programme. of the year.

9
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Food Security indicators
Reduced prevalence of
HHs with poor food
New activities of < 1 consumption
Food Consumption Score AND
year: within 3 months Minimum: Twice a
(1.1.1; 3.1.5; 4.1.1) Reduced prevalence of Mandatory:
prior/post start of year
HHs with poor and Sex of HH head;
activity. borderline food Transfer modality (if
For very small SRS and cluster: CL
consumption (SUM) applicable)
New activities of >1 operations: 90%, PR 5%, Cluster:
once/year DE 2
year and ongoing All food assistance Optional:
EFSA, PDM,
activities with sudden targeted at HH Rural/urban;
FSOM For operations Note: it is
influx: survey before level livelihood zone;
with access recommended to do
Beneficiary type
first distribution constraints: panel survey if
Presence of
Coping Strategy Index Stabilized or reduced once/year Face to feasible
Ongoing activities: disabled /
(1.1.2; 3.1.6; 4.1.2) average rCSI (index) face + remote
chronically ill/ within
Last monitoring value monthly
HH
of previous activity monitoring

5For indicators that have sampling parameters: The Indicator Compendium stipulates data collection for these indicators should be embedded into existing outcome PDM procedures. Therefore, the sample sizes
should follow the same requirement as for the outcome data being collected in existing tools. It is recommended to include these cross-cutting measures with monitoring for FSL outcomes. Cluster sample size
can therefore reduce to DE=1.5 or DE=1 in populations with higher homogeneity (e.g., camp settings); DE should not be dropped altogether, however.
10
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Minimum: Twice a
year
Mandatory
For very small
Reduced proportion of - Sex of HH head
operations: Transfer
HH applying crisis and -
once/year modality
emergency strategies
New activities of < 1
compared to baseline. For operations
year: within 3 months Optional
Livelihood-based Coping with access All food assistance
prior/post start of AND - Rural/urban
Strategies (LCS) constraints: targeted at HH
activity. - Admin and SRS and cluster: CL
Reduced proportion of EFSA, PDM, once/year Face to level (GFD, FFA), all livelihood zone 90%, PR 5%, Cluster:
(1.1.2 / 3.1.6 / 4.1.2) FSOM
Ongoing activities: HH applying face + remote transfer - Displacement DE 2
Last monitoring value emergency strategies monthly modalities. status
of previous activity - Presence of
compared to baseline, monitoring
disabled/chroni
or previous yearly FU in cally
For multiannual
case of multiannual ill/unaccompani
projects it is
projects ed minor’s
extremely members within
important to HH
collect data in the
same seasons
Twice a year
Median monthly food
PDM (no voice Mandatory for
expenditure decreased SRS and cluster: CL
Food expenditure share 3 months prior/post calls or SMS, Very small CBT.
AND 90%, PR 5%, Cluster:
(1.1.3; 3.1.7; 4.1.3) start of activity. module too operations or Recommended for
% of HHs spending DE 2
long) access constraints: food transfers
=>65% decreased
once/year.
Food Price Index (1.2.1) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

11
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Nutrition and Nutrition-sensitive indicators
Proportion of eligible New activities: MAM Treatment: MAM Treatment: MAM Treatment: All MAM Required:
population that participates baseline zero Rural areas: > 50% Specialized Survey at least treatment and - Sex MAM Prevention
in programme (coverage) Urban areas: > 70% cross-sectional every 5 years. In prevention (MAM, - Reasons for non- SRS: CL: 90%; PR:
(2.1.1) Ongoing activities: Camps: > 90% survey (SLEAC, the years stunting and coverage 10%; Cluster: 375
latest value of SQUEAC, or between surveys, MND) individuals (25
previous project 3SM) desk review programmes. Recommended: clusters of 15
MAM Prevention: (approved by RB) as per programme individuals each)
>70% MAM needs.
Prevention: MAM MAM Treatment:
> 6 months: Prevention: Refer to Indicator
Probabilistic >6 months: Compendium for
cross-sectional Survey once per sampling of
survey including year Specialized Surveys
all population in < 6 months: one
catchment area desk review
< 6 months:
Desk review
Proportion of target Target: 66%. PDM / Measured Required: Type of SRS: CI 90%, PR 10%
population that participates At least 66% of the Individual following prevention activity Cluster: 375
in an adequate number of target population interviews at distributions of Recommended: individuals (25
distributions (adherence). participate in at least
HHs specialized geographic location, clusters of 15
(2.1.2) 66% of distributions nutritious food beneficiary group individuals each)
Proportion of children 6–23 New activities: First An increase of at least PDM, FSOM: HH Once a year. Micronutrient and Mandatory: SRS: CI 90%, PR 10%
months of age who receive monitoring value or 10 percentage points interviews after MAM prevention MDD Cluster: 375
a minimum acceptable diet survey before the first each year distribution programmes, Minimum Meal individuals (25
(MAD) distribution. specifically Frequency clusters of 15 indiv.)
(1.1.7; 2.1.3; 3.1.11; 4.1.8) Ongoing activities: Note: end of project/ targeting > 2 Recommended: PDM but sample
Last monitoring value end of CSP target is population. Only Age category (6-11, must be powered to
of prev. year >70%) for children 12-17, 18-23 m) collect data on
12
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
between 6-23 Sex of child children 6 – 23
months. Beneficiary type months
Moderate acute Within 1 month of Mortality rate <3% Ministries of Data monthly All beneficiaries to Cooperating Partner N/A
malnutrition (MAM) start of activity. Default rate <15% health, WFP collected from all be categorized Beneficiary type
treatment performance: Ongoing activities: Non-response <15% patient registers health facilities upon discharge as Geographical area
recovery, mortality, default last value from Recovery rate >75% and monthly and analysed. dead, defaulted,
and non-response rate6 previous project cooperating ACR: weighted not responded to
(2.1.4) New activities: Zero partner reports. average of treatment or
monthly rates recovered.
Mandatory: Population based
Stunting prevent. probability sample;
New activities: First
Optional: On individuals within
Minimum Dietary Diversity monitoring value > compared to EFSA, PDM,
Nutrition-sensitive As per programme the HH.
Women Ongoing activities: previous year’s value. FSOM Once a year
programmes with requirements Caution! Woman
(1.1.5; 2.1.5; 3.1.10; 4.1.6) Last monitoring value
impact pathway of respondents for self;
of previous year
dietary outcome cannot substitute
for target group respondents
Food Consumption Score – 3 months prior /post Reduced prevalence of PDM: HH Twice a year Nutrition-sensitive Mandatory: SRS and cluster: CI
Nutrition7 start of activity. beneficiaries never interviews. Very small operat: programmes of all Sex of HH head; 90%, PR 5%, Cluster:
(1.1.6; 4.1.7) Strongly consuming protein-rich Possibly remote once a year. transfer modalities Transfer modality DE 2
recommended prior foods surveys through Access constraints: Optional:
start of activity AND live calls once/year face to Rural/urban;
As above for Hem iron face + remote livelihood zone;
AND monthly monit. Activity; Beneficiary

6
This indicator includes default rate of clients from anti-retroviral therapy (ART), tuberculosis-directly observed treatment, short course (TB-DOTS) treatment and prevention of mother-to-
child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV programmes and ART/TB nutrition programmes.
7
The Food Consumption Score – Nutrition is an analysis of household-level consumption of nutrient-rich food groups that is carried out alongside analysis of the Food Consumption Score
and that needs to be measured in combination with individual-level indicators of dietary outcomes.

13
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
As above for Vit. A type; disabled
members
Default rate of clients from New activities: value < 15% default rate is ART, TB-DOTS or Monitoring data 100% of assisted Required: N/A
anti-retroviral therapy, from period prior to deemed acceptable PMTCT/MCHN to be collected health facilities; - Programme type
tuberculosis directly first distribution medical registers from all health This data must be (ART, TB or PMTCT)
observed treatment (TB- Ongoing activities: >30% default rate is at health facility facilities and collected by - Sex of client
DOTS) and prevention of latest available alarming level, including analysed monthly. programmes (programme type
mother-to-child monitoring value those run by For corporate administering should be
transmission of HIV (PMTCT) from the previous health care reporting, data is either ART, disaggregated by
programmes project partners (e.g., to be compiled TBDOTS sex
NGOs). once a year and or PMTCT. additionally)
weighted average - % of clinics by
of monthly rates default rate: <=15%,
from different 16% - 35%, and
health facilities is >%35
to be calculated. Recommended:
Programme needs
Percentage increase in The amount of The annual target Information At least annually, All contexts where Required: The information
production of high-quality production of high- should contribute to collected from at the end of the WFP supports - By type of food needs to be
and nutrition-dense foods quality and nutrition- the end of CSP target. partnering reporting year. production of (fortified/ special collected and
(2.2.1) dense foods by the company, high-quality and nutritious foods) compiled from all
supported producer institution or CP. nutrition-dense partnering
needs to be foods locally, or institutions or
measured before the where there is an communities.
intervention. The increase in local
baseline figure will be production of
reported as 0%. these commodities
due to WFP
interventions.

14
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
School Meals indicators
As explained in CRF on p. 8, where school meals activities are implemented with an education and/or nutrition objective and/or are linked to social protection, country offices
can refer to the School Meal Monitoring Manual for project-specific indicators.

Note: Where school meals activities are implemented with a nutrition objective (nutrition-sensitive), it is mandatory to collect data on output indicator “Average number of
school days per month on which multi-fortified or at least 4 food groups were provided” (OPI 8 and OPI 9, p. 141 in School Meals Monitoring Framework and Guidance. For
more information, please see also p. 49 in the same guidance)

Capacity Strengthening indicators

Zero Hunger Capacity TBD Progress towards Narrative self- Updating the CNM All country N/A To be determined on
Scorecard positive change in description, by can be done on an capacity a case-by-case basis
(1.3.1; 2.3.1; 3.3.1; 4.3.1; capacity relevant annual basis fairly strengthening by each Activity
5.1.1) stakeholders, of easily, thus interventions, Manager.
capacity levels in updating the across sectors.
in each pathway, indicator
formulated narratives, but in
during a multi- all cases, these will
stakeholder require
workshop or stakeholder
similar. validation.
Emergency Preparedness New activities: at The CO to define jointly EPCI matrix / Annually to Emergency Disaggregation: N/A
Capacity Index (EPCI) project design, as part with the government consultative monitor progress. Preparedness Each of the 6
(1.3.2; 4.3.2) of the country which variables and process with The matrix must activities with variables
strategic plan rev. The specific pathways to be stakeholders and be completed government at Coverage:
latest within a month included in the CSP. A secondary data before and after a national and sub Invite 100% of
of starting the joint plan of action review and WFP intervention national levels. stakeholders to
operation. would help to define verification. (baseline and consultations, 80%
Ongoing activities: specific targets by year. outcome) attend consultations
last ACR result.

15
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Proportion of targeted Baseline should be Context specific Data comes from As relevant. In All COs where N/A N/A
sectors and government zero. documents on case that there is a WFP supports the
entities participating in the composition follow-up conduction of a
national zero hunger of different mechanism that Strategic Review,
strategic reviews (6.1.1) structures of the will continue to or other similar
Strategic Review work on the policy coherence
process as well Strategic Review enhancing
as minutes of recommendations, institutional set-
meetings that list the same indicator ups
participants. can be measured
in the follow-up
structure.
Proportion of targeted Baseline should be Context specific Self-reported by As relevant All COs where N/A N/A
sectors and government zero. participating based on the WFP supports
entities implementing agencies and frequency of follow-up
recommendations from sectors stakeholder mechanisms to the
national zero hunger participating in meetings in the Strategic Reviews.
strategic reviews (6.1.2) the follow-up follow up
mechanism to mechanism, but
the Strategic at least once
Reviews. every year.
Number of new or improved Baseline should be The CO must set Data from As per CO’s target When WFP is N/A N/A
plans, policies, regulations, zero. targets based on policy Government engaging in
pieces of legislation and coherence needs. sources: number activities that
programmes to enhance of promote policy
food security and nutrition Adopted / coherence in
(6.2.1) amended laws sustainable
and regulations development for
supported by food security and
WFP nutrition.

16
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Smallholder Agricultural Market Support indicators
Percentage of male/female No data: N/A May not see results in Sales records Minimum, CO to All activities in By sex of N/A
smallholder farmers selling If data is availableearly years. In time the provided by collect which WFP directly smallholder farmer
through WFP-supported (from aggregator number of smallholders targeted pro- aggregate. supports pro- (if data is
farmer aggregation systems records), baseline participating in the SHF aggregation records once a smallholder available)
(3.1.1) based on the value of sales will rise. CO to set systems year. Preferable aggregation
the indicator of the annual targets based (aggregator after each systems to achieve
year prior to the on previous year results records) marketing SR 3
project start. season
Rate of post-harvest losses Baseline is Same as end of - Representative 3 measurements All smallholder By activity type SRS and cluster: CL
(3.1.2) established during project/end of CSP household per year: (1) at farmers activities By participant sex 90%, PR 5%, Cluster:
storage period target surveys (farmers) time of storage, (2) participating in By farmer HH head DE 2
(depending the - HH interviews 60 days later, (3) WFP Zero Food Optional
number of harvest a (farmers) 120 to 180 days Loss Initiative. By livelihood zone
year) - Optional: focus later. By training type
group By coop. partner

Value and volume of pro- No data: N/A The SAMS M&E Aggregator Sales are All activities in By sex of farmer N/A
smallholder sales through Data available: use Framework provides records recorded in the which WFP selling through the
WFP-supported aggregation the historical of sales guidelines on how to aggregators’ procures locally aggregation
systems (3.1.3) of targeted aggreg. conduct the annual records on from pro- system (if data
systems in the SHF procurement ongoing basis. smallholder available)
calendar year before planning. CO to collect aggregation
start of programme aggregator systems.
records at least
once a year.
Percentage of WFP food New activities: It is expected that COs WINGS Data from All activities in Mandatory: N/A
procured from pro- baseline is zero will be able to achieve WINGS is which WFP By type of food
smallholder farmer Ongoing activities: the 10% goal. available for any procures locally procured and

17
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
aggregation systems, “%of WFP food desired interval; from pro- By type of aggreg.
disaggregated by sex of procured from pro- data should be smallholder system
smallholder farmer and type smallholder farmer consolidated aggregation Optional:
of programmes. (3.1.4) aggreg. systems in annually for the systems. By farmer sex
the calendar year ACR. By type of food
prior the activity start. programme
Percentage of default rate New activities: Achieve acceptable Quantitative Data from All activities in - By reason for N/A
of WFP pro-smallholder baseline N/A levels of default information: WINGS and FPTS which WFP default
farmer procurement Ongoing activities: gradually over the extracted from available for any procures locally - By type of
contracts, disaggregated by “Default rate on food course of the CSPs Food desired interval; from pro- smallholder farmer
reason and aggregation procurement (target default rate for Procurement data to be smallholder aggregation
system contracts awarded to year n < default rate Tracking System consolidated aggregation system.
(3.2.1) smallholder for year n-1). (FPTS) annually. For systems
aggregation systems” Qualitative data on defaults,
during the calendar information: FPTS must be
year prior the start of directly from updated.
the activity. aggregator Guidance in IC
P4P Nutrition-sensitive indicators
Percentage of targeted New activities: WFP food procurement HH surveys Once a year Smallholder Sex of smallholder Statistically
smallholder farmers Baseline is Zero plans will provide market support farmer representative
reporting increased targets for each activities intending
production of nutritious At the start of the nutritious crop to be nutritional
crops, disaggregated by sex project, before the procured through outcomes
of smallholder farmer first agricultural WFP-supported
(3.1.9) season, the volume of aggregation systems
production of each year.
targeted nutritious
crops must be
established

18
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Livelihood
Community Sampling:
Community Can set year-end
At least once a =< 30 comm: 80%
consultation to targets based on a All ACL activities
Proportion of the year, ideally twice >30 comm: 30 comm
identify benefits of linear projection under outcomes
population in targeted - HH survey a year – always at Household Sampling:
the ACL activity. towards the CSP-end 3.1, 4.1, as well as FFA participants and
communities reporting (PDM) the same time of Random set of HHs
New activity: Zero target. This will not those under non-participants;
benefits from an enhanced - Complemented the year. per sampled
apply to contexts outcome 1.1 if Female-Male
livelihood asset base (Assets by qualitative Ideally beyond the community.
In case of ongoing where assets benefiting ‘root causes’ or headed HH
Benefit Indicator, ABI) information project completion Representative at
multi-year FFA the widest range of the ‘resilience
(1.1.4; 3.1.8; 4.1.4) to allow for solid community level.
programme: not population are building’ focus.
trend analysis. Include participants
equal to Zero prioritized.
and non-participants.
Adaptation and resilience to climate and other shocks indicators
Proportion of targeted New activities: Depends on PDM, FSOM, Collected Mandatory in Disaggregation: < of 30 communities:
communities where there is baseline is Zero. operational plan. CO Community sufficiently close interventions at - Activity SRS of 80% of
evidence of improved Baseline data to be may assume linear focus group to the end of the community level - Livelihood communities
capacity to manage climate collected at the start progression discussions post activity (or the end aiming at reducing - Geographical 30 communities or
shocks and risks (4.1.6) of the activity to distribution of the year) to climate shocks and location more: SRS of 30
establish a allow for timely risks communities
benchmark ACR reporting.
Ongoing activities in Caution! Careful Caution! Monitoring
the same timing of rounds to be
communities: the last monitoring: conducted in the
value from the establishing asset same communities
previous project functionality may (panel survey)
depend on season
Effectiveness of resilience- Amount of funding Based on country Data retrieved Once a year COs planning to By type of fund. N/A
enhancing and risk from listed funds in context from HQ raise or already
management financial the country during raising financial
19
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
instruments (as per the start of the technical unit resources through
qualitative review) (7.1.1) project/ CSP. If no (OSZIR) AF & GCF, on
funding available at behalf of the
the start of the national
project/ CSP, baseline government
should be zero.
Environment
Proportion of the Community Community Sampling:
population in targeted consultation to =< 30 comm: 80%
communities reporting identify benefits of >30 comm: 30 comm
environmental benefits the ACL activity. Can set year-end - HH survey
To be reported
Asset creation Household Sampling:
At least once a
(4.1.5) New activity: Zero targets based on a (PDM) particpants and Random set of HHs
year, always at the only for Asset
linear projection - Complemented non-participants; per sampled
same time of the Creation activities.
In case of ongoing towards the CSP-end by qualitative Female-Male community.
year.
multi-year FFA target. information headed HH Representative at
programme: not community level.
equal to Zero Include participants
and non-participants.
Supply chain
Percentage reduction of TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Supply Chain costs in areas
supported by WFP (4.2.1)
Partnerships
Effectiveness, coherence TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD N/A
and results of partnerships
(as per qualitative review)
(8.2.1)

20
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Outcome Indicators
Data Collection Follow-up
Indicator Baseline Annual Target Applicability Disaggregation Sampling5
Exercise Frequency
Services
User satisfaction rate Ongoing activities: Same as end of project Survey After every three Logistics, Disaggregation: Invite 100% of users
(5.2.1; 8.1.1) prior year ACR target. questionnaire/ months and at end Emergency - Function to respond to survey;
New activities: first users of services of project Telecom and - Type of service 80% responds to
monitoring value provided by UNHAS Special provided. survey
within the first 3 Logistic or Operations.
months (UNHAS) and Emergency
the first month (Log telecommunicati
Cluster) of the ons clusters and
operation. UNHAS

Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Output Indicators

Outputs Indicator8 Data Source Monitoring Frequency
A.1 Number of women, men, boys and girls receiving food/CBT/commodity vouchers Partner or WFP direct
distribution reports
A.2 Quantity of food provided
(DR)
A1. Unconditional resources A.3 Total amount of cash transferred to targeted beneficiaries Partner, Financial
transferred Service Provider or
A.4 Total value of vouchers (expressed in food/cash) redeemed by targeted beneficiaries At least on a monthly basis, with
WFP DR
A.5 Quantity of non-food items distributed regular monitoring and
A2. Conditional resources
verification.
transferred A.6 Number of institutional sites assisted Partner or WFP DR
A.7 Number of retailers participating in cash-based transfer programmes
Planning documents
A.8 Number of rations provided
and DR
B.1 Quantity of fortified food provided
B. Nutritious foods provided Partner or WFP DR
B.2 Quantity of special nutritious foods provided

8
Indicators will be disaggregated, where relevant, by criteria such as activity, sex, age, disability, beneficiary category, commodity type, etc., and reported as percentage of planned.
21
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Output Indicators
Outputs Indicator8 Data Source Monitoring Frequency
C. Capacity development C.1 Number of people trained Partner or WFP Per stablished schedule – often
and technical support C.2 Number of capacity development activities provided implementation monthly or quarterly. Some
provided C.3 Number of technical support activities provided reports activities upon completion
Partner Per stablished schedule – often
D.1 Number of assets built, restored or maintained by targeted households and
D. Assets created implementation monthly or quarterly. Some assets
communities, by type and unit of measure
reports seasonally/upon completion
E.1 Number of targeted caregivers (male and female) receiving three key messages
PDM or the most
E. Advocacy and education delivered through WFP-supported messaging and counselling Depends on the programme
appropriate data-
provided E.2 Number of people exposed to WFP-supported nutrition messaging objectives and timeline.
collection technique.
E.3 Number of people receiving WFP-supported nutrition counselling
Farmer organizations,
WFP and partners Farmer organization membership
F.1 Number of smallholder farmers supported/trained
F. Purchases from keep records on records updated annually
smallholders completed number/gender

F.2 Quantity of fortified foods, complementary foods and special nutritious foods WINGS and FPTS data available for
WINGS records FPTS.
purchased from local suppliers any interval. Consolidated annually
G.1 Number of people obtaining an insurance policy through asset creation At the stage of insurance
G.2 Total premiums paid through asset creation implementation and by the stage
G. Linkages to financial Financial institutions
of a possible premium pay-out.
resources and insurance G.3 Total sum insured through asset creation
Consolidated annually.
services facilitated
G.4 Number of commercially viable financial products and services developed TBD TBD
(Includes products and
G.5 Number of food-insecure and nutritionally vulnerable people accessing financial TBD
services for effective risk TBD
products and services
management)
G.6 Number of public, private and public-private partnerships for financing hunger TBD
TBD
solutions
H.1 Number of shared services provided, by type Several sources Monthly
H. Shared services and H.2 Number of WFP-led clusters operational, by type CO units
platforms provided Journal of Entries and Annually
H.3 Number of engineering works completed, by type
Purchase Orders
22
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Output Indicators
Outputs Indicator8 Data Source Monitoring Frequency
Relief Item Tracking
H.4 Total volume of cargo transported
Application
Entered daily, consolidated
H.5 Percentage of cargo capacity offered against total capacity requested
Flight Management annually
H.6 Percentage of payload delivered against available capacity
Application
H.7 Total number of passengers transported
CO IT unit, ETC/IT
H.8 Number of emergency telecoms and information and communications technology
Emergency
(ICT) systems established, by type
Coordinator
Accommodation
H.9 Number of camps and sites installed/maintained
booking service
Focal point of Staff Annually
H.10 Number of humanitarian workers provided health services, by agency and type
Wellness in CO
H.11 Number of agencies using common cash-based transfer platforms CO CBT focal points
I. Policy engagement CO specific tracking
strategies developed I.1 Number of policy engagement strategies developed/implemented sheet/ CCS Activity
/implemented Matrix
J. Policy reform identified
J.1 Number of policy reforms identified/advocated TBD TBD
/advocated
Entered regularly, consolidation
K. Partnerships supported K.1 Number of partners supported COMET
annually
L. Infrastructure and L.1 Number of infrastructure works implemented, by type
WINGS, procurement
equipment investments
L.2 Amount of investments in equipment made, by type POs
supported Annually
M. National coordination CO specific tracking
M.1 Number of national coordination mechanisms supported
mechanisms supported sheet

23
Minimum Monitoring Requirements: Process Monitoring
Data Collection Monitoring
Process Theme9 Process Measures10 Respondent (Level) Coverage13
Exercise11 Frequency12
 Distributions occur as per schedule Beneficiary (Individual or Group
DM Monthly 100% if 30 or <
 Reasons for delay (if untimely) Discussion) and Direct Observation
Distribution sites; randomly
 Distribution schedule communicated widely
Timeliness select 30 sites if >
 Beneficiaries’ time spent traveling for distribution PDM Beneficiary (Household) Quarterly
30 sites
 Beneficiaries’ time spent at distribution
Distribution  Distributions follow corporate guidance and partner agreements Beneficiary (Individual or Group
DM Monthly
Point  Gender and protection/accountability issues considered Discussion) and Direct Observation As above
Management  Management committees active PDM Beneficiary (Household) Quarterly
 Beneficiaries are aware of the distribution process Beneficiary (Individual or Group
Beneficiary DM Monthly
 Beneficiaries are aware of their entitlements Discussion)
Sensitization and As above
 Beneficiaries understand targeting process Beneficiary (Household or Group
Feedback PDM Quarterly
 Communications mechanisms in place Discussion)
Beneficiary DM Direct Observation Monthly
Beneficiaries are verified at the final distribution point As above
Verification PDM Beneficiary (Household) Quarterly
Entitlement DM (Basket Beneficiary (Individual)
Entitlements provided in proper amounts and condition, as planned Monthly As above
Verification Monitoring) and Direct Observation
Beneficiary (Individual) and Direct
Food  Handling and transporting of food commodities properly done DM Monthly As above
Observation
Commodity  Storage facilities are adequate
WM, Delivery
Management14  Adequate condition of food (at delivery, storage, distribution) Partner and Direct Observation Monthly 100% FDP and EDP
Monitoring.

9 Themes correspond to the questionnaire components presented in the Process Monitoring chapter (Corporate Monitoring Guidance). Each data collection method is represented by a questionnaire with all
applicable themes. CO will choose thee themes applicable. Where data collection exercises overlap with themes, the exercises can be combined.
10 These measures are a summary of what each theme covers. Detailed questions covering all transfer mechanisms and activities are provided in the Process Monitoring chapter of the Corporate Monitoring

Guidance. Downloadable questionnaires are available in the Monitoring Toolkit Builder. Even from within applicable questionnaire components, CO should choose those questions that are applicable.
11 AIM- Activity Implementation Monitoring; DM- Distribution Monitoring; PDM- Post Distribution Monitoring; WM- Warehouse Monitoring. Process PDM and AIM can be combined, as applicable.
12 Monitoring frequency for process PDM is at a minimum quarterly, however CO may choose to monitor certain themes more frequently. This is especially true in areas that experience frequent/several issues.
13 In each community or site, randomly speak to 5-15 individuals or households and/or hold one group discussion per community/site with 6-10 individuals. For PDM, purposive sampling where needed is also

recommended. For AIM, a different set of sites should be reached per each monitoring frequency so that after four quarters, 100% have been reached.
14 Transporting of food is more aligned with delivery monitoring, included in the distribution monitoring section of the Process Monitoring chapter. While deliveries are typically monitored by WFP/Logistics, it is

worthwhile for both delivery and warehouse monitoring to be conducted as a joint effort and included in programmatic monitoring. EDP – extended delivery point; FDP – final distribution point
* AIM process themes with an asterisk are applicable to all activities, as appropriate, subject to CO decision. Over the course of each project, each activity site should be monitored at least once; monitoring
frequency for AIM is per activity (e.g., for a three-month activity, one quarter would be three weeks) and coverage should ensure a different site selection each quarter. AIM can be combined with process PDM.
24
 Beneficiary (Individual or Female 100% if 30 or fewer
DM Monthly
Group Discussion) sites; randomly
select 30 sites if
Gender Equity* Composition of and responsibilities within households and MC PDM As above Quarterly
more than 30 sites
Randomly select
AIM As above Quarterly
25% of sites
Activity Design  Communities and/or beneficiaries’ involvement in design and
and management of activity AIM As above Quarterly As above
Management*  Partners ensure knowledge sharing of activity processes
Attendance* Partners record attendance properly at activity sites AIM Partner and Direct Observation Quarterly As above
Opportunity Beneficiary (Individual or Group
Costs to the beneficiary due to participation are within acceptable limits AIM Quarterly As above
Costs* Discussion)
 NFI have been distributed in sufficient quantity and condition Beneficiary (Individual or Group
Non-Food
 Beneficiaries/partners understand purpose, use and maintenance AIM Discussion), Partner and Direct Quarterly As above
Items* 15
 Partners have ensured knowledge sharing of NFI information Observation (Check records)
 WASH levels at activity sites are up to the standards set forth by
Water,
WFP, its partners and the government Beneficiary (Individual or Group
Sanitation and AIM Quarterly As above
 Beneficiaries’ behaviour and changes measured Discussion) and Direct Observation
Hygiene*
 Partners have ensured knowledge sharing of WASH information
Teacher/Guardian/Adult Beneficiary
Food  Food preparation standards are upheld
AIM (Individual or Group Discussion) and Quarterly As above
Preparation16  Entitlement sizes are upheld
Direct Observation
 Activity is progressing according to schedule
School Feeding  Outputs are up to the standards as set forth by WFP and partners AIM As above Quarterly As above
 Elements of the essential package are adequate
 Activity is progressing according to schedule Beneficiary (Individual or Group
Assets Creation  Outputs are up to the standards as set forth by WFP and partners AIM Discussion), Partner and Direct Quarterly As above
 Beneficiaries remain interested in the activity Observation
 Activity is progressing according to schedule
Health, Nutrition
 Outputs are up to the standards as set forth by WFP and partners AIM As above Quarterly As above
and HIV/TB
 Beneficiaries’ behaviour and changes measured

15 Including NFIs related to school feeding (cooking/eating utensils), nutrition and HIV interventions (clinic supplies) and food assistance for assets (tools, equipment, etc.).
16 Applicable to all activities in which entitlements are provided as hot meals or wet feeding (e.g., school feeding, institutional feeding, assistance to orphans/vulnerable children, emergency distributions, etc.)
25
ACRONYMS

ACL: Assets Creation and Livelihoods

AIM: Activity Implementation Monitoring
BCM: Beneficiary Contact Monitoring
CBPP: Community Based Participatory Planning
CFM: Complaint and Feedback Mechanisms
CI: Confidence Interval
DE: Design Effect
DM: Distribution Monitoring
FBM: Food Basket Monitoring
FSL: Food security and livelihood
MC: Management Committee
PDM: Post Delivery Monitoring
SRS: Simple Random sampling
WM: Warehouse Monitoring

26
 For more information contact:

World Food Programme,

Performance Management and

Monitoring Division, Monitoring
Branch (RMPM)

Rome, Italy

[email protected]

Version:
March 2018

27