Emergency response to conflict-affected people in Eastern Ukraine
Monitoring and Evaluation Report
January - June 2016
Fig
hti
ng
Hu
ng
er W
orl
dw
ide
2
Executive Summary
This monitoring and evaluation report covers the period from January to June 2016. Within this
period, WFP planned to provide food assistance to 267,000 beneficiaries through a range of
modalities (food in-kind, cash and vouchers). The main objective at the outcome level was to
increase food accessibility and affordability to vulnerable and food insecure people in eastern
Ukraine.
Despite access constraints impeding distributions and Third Party Monitoring access, WFP managed
to obtain positive results during the reporting period at both output and outcome levels. WFP
distributed 6,500 metric tons of food and USD 4 million of cash based transfers to approximately
340,000 beneficiaries.
Following WFP’s assistance, food consumption increased, quality of diet improved and the use of
negative coping strategies reduced among assisted households. Poor food consumption levels were
reduced significantly and quality of diet remained at satisfactory levels. The food assistance results
showed a decrease in negative coping strategies (such as reducing or skipping meals, selling of
productive assets or relying on less preferred food).
People assisted were well informed and aware of their entitlements, targeting criteria and usage of
complaints mechanisms.
Selection and targeting of the most vulnerable and food insecure people face diverse challenges in
different areas of assistance. In the government controlled areas, lack of employment and high
prices put internally displaced persons and general population at food insecurity risk. In non-
government controlled areas, where food insecurity levels are higher, the targeting issues in terms
of transparency and consistency remain. WFP will continue the dialogue at all levels ensuring the
food assistance reaches the most vulnerable and food insecure people.
As recommended by the Operation Evaluation report1 published on 01 August 2016, an analysis of
different modalities was conducted. The findings will contribute to making a choice of appropriate
modality. While beneficiaries improved their food consumption after receiving assistance, the cash
was the most preferred type of assistance. Around 56 percent of people assisted stated they would
like to receive cash, 33 percent preferred food in-kind and 11 percent preferred vouchers.
Markets remained stable in the first six months of 2016. Food prices in the conflict areas,
particularly in Donetsk Non-Government Controlled Area and the Buffer Zone, are around 25
percent higher than in the rest of the country. While local financial institutions in this region
continue recovering, very limited access to international banking system remains an issue.
Availability of food in non-government controlled area markets is satisfactory and supply is
sufficient.
The Terminology Note at the end of the document gives details on main WFP Food Security terms
and methodologies used, while the Glossary provides with the definitions of commonly used WFP
terms.
1 https://www.wfp.org/content/ukraine-emop-200765-emergency-assistance-civilians-affected-conflict-eastern-ukraine-operati
3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................... 2
Operational Map: Distributions January-June 2016 ......................................... 4
Output Results ........................................................................................... 5
Outcome Results – Food Consumption .......................................................... 7
Gender Perspectives on Food Consumption Levels .......................................... 8
Diet Diversity Score (DDS) .......................................................................... 8
Coping Strategy Index (CSI) ........................................................................ 9
Cross-Cutting Indicators ............................................................................ 10
Usage of Cash and Modality Preferences ...................................................... 11
Markets - Food Basket Price Trends ............................................................ 12
Terminology Note ..................................................................................... 13
Glossary .................................................................................................. 14
Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................... 16
5
Output Results
The results of WFP’s Emergency Operation (EMOP) in Ukraine at the outputs level are presented
in this section; namely, the number of beneficiaries reached as well as the metrics on food, cash
and vouchers distributed. The analysis covers different breakdowns of the data at hand for the
period of January-June 2016.
Graph 1 shows the number of
beneficiaries reached in January-
June 2016.
As shown on the Graph 1, the
actual figures reached around
129 percent of the planned
figure.
This over-achievement (a higher
number of beneficiaries reached
compared to initial plans) is a
result of the strict control by
authorities in NGCA limiting the
number of times the food
assistance could be given to
same beneficiaries. Therefore, WFP reached more beneficiaries with fewer rounds of assistance.
WFP planned to support beneficiaries with four-month food assistance but this is not always
applied on the ground, especially in NGCA due to the aforementioned issue.
Significant movement of people/beneficiaries between GCA and NGCA as well as within these
areas is another reason for that. The main migration patterns include job search and receiving
of social benefits.
Graph 2 shows beneficiary data 2
breakdowns from a gender perspective.
Overall, WFP assisted more women than
men (59 percent versus 41 percent
respectively). A reason for this difference is
targeting of households headed by women
with one or more children.
2 Output data including numbers of beneficiaries, metric tons of food, amounts of CBT distributed, are collected through the Monthly
Distribution Report from Cooperating Partners. Data are then inputted into COMET (Country Office Monitoring and Evaluation Tool) under
the responsibility of M&E Unit of Country Office Ukraine.
267,000
344,036
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Planned Actuals
Graph 1: Planned and actual numbers of beneficiaries, Jan-Jun 2016
41%
59%
Graph 2: WFP beneficairies, by gender
Male Female
6
Graph 3 and Graph 4 show the achievements in distributions of food in-kind (MT) and CBT
modalities (number of transfers) respectively.
In January-June 2016, WFP distributed
6,500 metric tons of food in-kind against
11,089 metric tons planned to be
distributed.
Graph 5 shows monthly distributions.
Major challenges faced by WFP in
achieving the planned figure include
challenging accessibility, especially to
NGCA and area around contact line
(AACL). Since March 2016, Luhansk
NGCA was for the most part inaccessible
to humanitarian aid as a result of the
security situation hampering regular
access.
Graph 6 shows the distribution of food in-kind in January-June 2016 by area of assistance.
Around 70 percent of the food in-kind was distributed in NGCA with the majority (55 percent)
distributed in Donetsk NGCA.
The Buffer Zone has got 11 percent of food
distributions. And around 18 percent was
distributed in GCA near the Buffer Zone
where beneficiaries preferred food instead
of CBT modality due to inaccessibility to
markets and financial institutions.
CBT is distributed exclusively in GCA where
beneficiaries have regular access to
markets and financial institutions. In
January-June 2016, WFP actually
distributed USD 4,130,000 against the
USD 3,600,000 planned. This is a
15-percent overachievement. This is
mainly caused by favourable USD/UAH
exchange rates.
100%
58%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Planned Actual
Graph 3: Food distribution performance Jan-June 2016, %
100%
115%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Planned Actual
Graph 4: CBT distribution performance Jan-June 2016, %
1,115 1,159
636
1,411
577
1,621
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
January February March April May June
Graph 5: Food in-kind distribution (MT)/month 2016
10%
8%
55%
15% 2%9%
Graph 6: In-kind distribution in Jan-Jun 2016
Donetsk GCA
Luhansk GCA
Donetsk NGCA
Luhanks NGCA
Donetsk AACL
Luhansk AACL
7
Outcome Results – Food Consumption3
The food consumption score (FCS) based on the frequency and nutritional value of the food
consumed by households is one of the main WFP corporate indicators used to measure the
progress and efficiency of WFP food assistance operation4.
Graph 7 shows the food consumption pattern before (PAB, March-April 2016) and after WFP
assistance (PDM, April-May 2016) of targeted beneficiaries in the eastern Ukraine. The results
are compared against the situation among the non-beneficiaries (general population).
The share of surveyed households with acceptable food consumption increased from 67 to
81 percent after food assistance, and the share of those with poor food consumption decreased
from 13 to 3 percent.
Food consumption levels analysis also included the comparison of different transfer modalities
currently used by WFP. Graph 8 shows an improvement being the decrease of poor food
consumption levels for all modalities. Among the two CBT modalities, vouchers reduced
significantly the inadequate food consumption levels.
3 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp271745.pdf 4 The FCS is used to classify households into three groups in terms of food consumption: poor, borderline and acceptable; the households
with acceptable food consumption are considered with adequate diet, while those with borderline or poor food consumption do not have
adequate food consumption level.
13%3% 3%
20%
16% 21%
67%81% 76%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PAB PDM Non-beneficiaries
Graph 7: Overall Food Consumption
Poor Borderline Acceptable
13%3%
14%3% 10% 4%
15%
12%
29%
19%23%
20%
72%85%
57%
78%67%
76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PAB PDM PAB PDM PAB PDM
Food Voucher Cash
Graph 8: Food Consumption by transfer modality
Poor Borderline Acceptable
8
Gender Perspectives on Food Consumption Levels
Graph 9 below shows the food consumption levels by “gender of head of household”. Targeted
men and women had different food consumption levels in PAB, while food consumption
improvement was noticed among households headed by women in PDM.
While significant positive results in overall reduction of inadequate food consumption levels are
seen, the data suggest slower recovery rates among men headed households.
Lower food consumption of households headed by women in PAB could be explained, among
other things, by a lack of employment and lower salary levels.
The latest WFP Market Update of April-May 20165 highlights some reasons why households
headed by women may have lower food consumption prior to WFP assistance. One of the major
reasons is lower salaries for women6. Moreover, respondents of focus group discussions mostly
believed that to find an employment for men was somewhat easier.
Diet Diversity Score (DDS)7
Positive outcomes were reported
regarding the diet diversity after the WFP
assistance (Graph 10). While the diet
diversity of households headed by women
had higher improvement, both kinds of
households increased the diversity of
their diets after the WFP assistance8.
Respondents in focus group discussions
stated that compared to the regular diet
before the conflict, all of them consumed
less meat, fish, fruits, dairy products and
sweets. Furthermore, most of them
switched to cheaper brands of products.
5 http://vam.wfp.org/CountryPage_assessments.aspx?iso3=UKR 6 In first quarter 2016, the average salary of a male employee was UAH 5,379 compared to UAH 3,966 for female. 7 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/wa_workshop/docs/FAO-guidelines-dietary-diversity2011.pdf 8 Acceptable diverse diet is considered to be one scoring more than 6 DDS index points, that is each of the food groups is consumed at
least once a week.
7%15%
1% 4%
13%
23%
18% 15%
80%62%
81% 81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male Female Male Female
PAB PDM
Graph 9: Food consumption levels by gender
Poor Borderline Acceptable
5.4
5.6
5.9
5.2
5.6
5.6
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
PAB
PDM
Non-beneficiaries
Graph 10: Diet Diversity Score by gender of head of household
Female Male
9
Coping Strategy Index9 (CSI)
Strong improvement was also detected in the coping strategies index; it measures short-term
strategies used by households to meet their basic food needs. The higher the score the more
often families have to adopt negative coping strategies.
The average CSI decreased from 14.2 before to 6.1 index points after the WFP assistance.
Graph 11 shows the most frequently used food coping strategies. Reliance on less preferred and
less expensive food was a widespread coping strategy before the WFP assistance with 53 percent
of the households applying this strategy every day. WFP was reported to have a significant effect
on index reduction to 13 percent.
Similar results were also observed for other frequently applied strategies such as to reduce
portion size of meals; prioritize children; and reduce the number of meals eaten per day.
9 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp271450.pdf
13%
0%
2%
3%
3%
53%
3%
17%
25%
19%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rely on less preferred, less expensive food?
Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives?
Reduce number of meals eaten per day?
Reduce portion size of meals?
Reduce quantities consumed by adults so children can eat?
Graph 11: Proportion of beneficiaries applying Food Coping Strategies on a daily basis
Applied daily, % PAB Applied daily, % PDM
10
Cross-Cutting Indicators Two corporate cross-cutting indicators were measured during the PDM exercise: Protection and
Gender. The graphs below show the findings from interviewed beneficiaries.
Both types of respondents answered that
they did not experience any safety problems
going to or coming back from WFP
registration or distribution points (Graph 12)
meaning the Cooperating Partners were
running safe and efficient distributions over
the last six months.
Beneficiaries are also informed about their
entitlements at registration and distribution
points. These activities will continue raising
the beneficiaries’ knowledge about their
entitlements, selection processes, programs
and donors.
More women (52 percent) were found to be
responsible for taking decisions on the use of
vouchers/food (Graph 13). Women remain
more often responsible for the household
management as was the case before the conflict.
However, there was certain redistribution of
responsibilities depending on who was employed
after the outbreak of the conflict.
FGDs respondents in the region noted that
unemployment among men significantly
increased. Women continue working in the
public sector and trade (markets, shops) also
being responsible for buying food, cooking, the
welfare and health of children and other
household members.
Accountability to beneficiaries (Graph
14) is also one of WFP’s operation
worldwide concerns. Currently, all efforts
are being made within WFP in Ukraine to
raise awareness of beneficiaries about
contacts of agency providing assistance,
levels of informed beneficiaries about
entitled assistance, as well as awareness
of how people were chosen to receive
assistance. Each of the accountability
indicators were above 40% (Graph 14).
WFP is discussing the plan to establish its
own hotline assistance to ensure proper
feedback, provision of detailed
information on distributions (including
targeting processes and entitlements) and other types of support to beneficiaries. Meanwhile, all
partners support WFP with their hotlines to collect feedback from people assisted. Informative
leaflets on targeting criteria and ration sizes continue to be distributed at food distribution points.
45%
3%
52%
Graph 13: Gender (decision making)
Women Men Both
100%100%
Graph 12: Protection
Male Female
44%
58%
45%
Do you know how people werechosen to receive assistance?
Have you been told exactlywhat you are entitled to
receive?
Do you know how to contactagency providing assistance?
Graph 14: Accountability Indicators
11
Usage of Cash and Modality Preferences Graph 15 shows the usage of cash by people assisted under the cash assistance modality. When
people assisted were asked to report how they spent the cash provided by WFP over last 30 days,
food made 65 percent of the total amount. 21 percent were spent on health and hygiene items,
7 percent on accommodation and 9 percent on other.
Graph 16 shows the redemption of vouchers by people assisted. Supermarket reports show
meat products (28 percent) and other types of food (16 percent) including canned food items,
spices, etc. are the most preferred food items among people assisted under the voucher
modality. The graph also shows a high number of purchases of cereals and sugar.
One of the key findings is that Non-Food Items (NFIs) make only 11 percent of all redeemed
vouchers. This is a significant reduction against the last M&E report 2015 where around
35 percent of the voucher transferred funds were redeemed on NFIs.
It is recommended to increase the amount of CBT modalities including the piloting of CBT
implementation in NGCA areas. Furthermore, a combination of CBT modalities and SCOPE10 could
provide with a much more diverse and widespread network of traders, farmers and local shops
at a community/village level.
10 SCOPE is WFP’s digital beneficiary and transfer management platform that supports the WFP programme intervention cycle from
beginning to end. It is a cloud-based solution used for beneficiary registration, intervention setup, distribution planning, entitlement
transfers and distribution reporting.
65%7%
21%
9%
Graph 15: Cash Purchases in % of total funds redeemed
Food Rent/accommodation Health & Hygiene Other (Clothing, Education, Fuel for cooking etc)
28%
16%
11% 10%9% 8% 8%
6%
2%1% 1%
Meatproducts
Other -food
(spices,appetizers,sauces, tea,
cannedgoods...)
Other - NFI(HH
chemicalgoods, toys,packages,clothes, ...)
Cereals andgrain
Sugar orsweets
Oil / fat /butter
Milk andother dairy
products
Fruits andvegetables
Fish andother
seafood
Other -beverages
Eggs
Graph 16: Voucher redemption (Supermarkets reports 2016)
12
On the whole, the beneficiary satisfaction with the
quantity of assistance provided by WFP was high –
above 90 percent (Graph 17). Beneficairies of food
in-kind are the most satisfied (98 percent), and the
less satisfied with the quantity of assistance are the
beneficiaries of cash (91 percent).
Whereas, focus group discussions with beneficiaries
of food in-kind assistance show a preference to
receive less pasta and more rice and buckwheat in the
parcel. Nearly all respondents asked for more butter,
sugar and flour. Some would like to have tea and
sweets (especially families with children), tomato
paste, canned vegetables or other dried fruit.
During the post-distribution monitoring,
people assisted were also asked about their
preference between the three modalities.
The majority (around 56 percent) declared
the cash to be the most preferred modality
(Graph 18), approximately 11 percent
stated vouchers, and 33 percent still feel
they would prefer receiving food in-kind. In
most of the cases, food in-kind assistance
covered elderly people or those with limited
access to markets due to insecurity in the
Buffer Zone and inaccessible areas in NGCA.
Markets - Food Basket
Price Trends Graph 19 represents the dynamics of food basket national cost starting from the conflict in
March 2014 till June 2016. The food basket cost increased by 56 percent during this period.
The red sections of the graph represent the seasonal decrease in the food basket price. The
decreases were also experienced earlier this year, in February 2016. Slow recovery of the
Ukrainian economy may be one of main explanations of this effect. In fact, the food inflation
decreased significantly from 50 percent in June 2015 to almost 3 percent in June 2016.
The cost of food basket remains 24 percent higher in NGCA compared to GCA. The food basket
cost in Luhansk NGCA is lower than in Donetsk NGCA. Higher cost of food basket is registered in
settlements situated closer to contact line.
More information on Market Monitoring could be found at WFP VAM Ukraine webpage.
427.8
668.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
550.0
600.0
650.0
700.0
750.0
Mar
-14
Ap
r-1
4
May
-14
Jun
-14
Jul-
14
Au
g-1
4
Sep
-14
Oct
-14
No
v-1
4
Dec
-14
Jan
-15
Feb
-15
Mar
-15
Ap
r-1
5
May
-15
Jun
-15
Jul-
15
Au
g-1
5
Sep
-15
Oct
-15
No
v-1
5
Dec
-15
Jan
-16
Feb
-16
Mar
-16
Ap
r-1
6
May
-16
Graph 19: Ukraine (National) value of food basket, UAH
98% 97%91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Food Voucher Cash
Graph 17: Beneficiary Satisfaction with Quantity/Modality
11%
56%
33%
Graph 18: Beneficiary modality preference, %
Voucher Cash Food
13
Terminology Note
Major terms dealt with in this report are:
Food security defined at the World Food Summit in 1996 as "when all people, at all
times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life". Food security
includes aspects of availability, access, utilization and as well stability. Household food
security is the application of this concept to the family level.
Food insecurity being an insufficient access to adequate food. As long as food security
indicators do not assess adequacy of nutrient intake, households may be classified as
food secure but individual nutrient intake may not be adequate. Households with a per
capita daily kilocalorie intake greater than 2,100 kilocalories are considered to have
adequate food consumption. When analysing food insecurity, it is not enough to know the
duration of the problem that people are experiencing, but also how intense or severe the
impact of the identified problem is on the overall food security and nutrition status.
Main indicators that WFP uses to measure food security on household level are Food Consumption
Score, Dietary Diversity Score, reduced (food) Coping Strategy Index, Livelihood-Based Coping
Strategy Index and Share of Expenditure on Food.
The food consumption score (FCS) is one of the main WFP corporate indicators used for
measuring household food consumption and, thus, progress and effectiveness of the operations.
The FCS, an indicator of dietary quality and frequency of consumption, is calculated using the
frequency of consumption (number of days) of eight food groups consumed by a household
during the seven days before the survey. The FCS is used to classify households into three
groups: poor, borderline or acceptable food consumption and the households with acceptable
food consumption are considered food secure, while those with borderline or poor food
consumption don’t have adequate food consumption level. The dietary diversity indicator on the
other hand measures the number of different food groups consumed over a given period. It
provides an estimation of the quality of a diet and it is a good complement to FCS since it provides
a complete picture of the household diet. WFP uses the following thresholds for interpretation:
6+ = good dietary diversity; 4.5–6 = medium dietary diversity; <4.5 = low dietary diversity.
Reduced (food) copying strategies index (rCSI) measures the short-term strategies
households use to meet their basic food needs. It is used for better understand the frequency
and severity of changes in food consumption behaviours when faced with a shortage of food.
Households were asked how many of the preceding seven days they did not have enough food
or money to buy food and adopted one of the coping strategies. The higher the CSI value, the
higher the degree of food insecurity. The minimum possible CSI value is 0, while the maximum
is 56.
The livelihood-based Coping Strategy Index is measured to understand better longer-term
household coping capacities. Household livelihood and economic security is determined by
income, expenditures and assets. Understanding the behaviours households engage in to adapt
to recent crises provides insights into the difficulty of their situation, and how likely they will be
to meet challenges in the future. Households were asked if anyone in their households had to
engage in any of the ten coping strategies because there was not enough food or money to buy
food during the past 30 days. One neutral strategy, four stress strategies, three crisis strategies,
and three emergency strategies were asked based on the severity of the strategies. The higher
the CSI value, the higher the degree of food insecurity.
Share of expenditure on food gives impression how much of all budget of household they use
for food (indicator measuring economic vulnerability). A categorical variable is created that
equates ranges of the food expenditure share to levels of food insecurity, with the most food
insecure spending greater than 75% of their budget on food and food secure spend less than
50%.
14
Glossary
Accountability – obligation to demonstrate that work has been conducted in compliance with agreed rules
and standards or to report fairly and accurately on performance results vis-à-vis mandated roles and/or plans.
Beneficiaries – a WFP beneficiary is a targeted person who is provided with WFP food.
Beneficiary contact monitoring – a systematic investigation to monitor the beneficiaries' perceptions of a WFP operation.
COMET – the WFP’s comprehensive online tool to design, implement and monitor programmes and to improve organisational performance.
Comparison group - a group of individuals who are not exposed to a WFP operation, but who share characteristics similar to those of the target group.
Disaggregated data – information broken down by sex, age or other relevant variables to reveal the different needs, priorities, activities and interests of distinct groups, and their access to and control over resources, services and activities. Disaggregated data are essential for monitoring interventions and outputs in order to establish who is participating in WFP operations and who is benefiting from them.
Effect – intended or unintended change due directly or indirectly to a WFP operation. These changes (results) can be at the output, outcome and/or impact levels.
Effectiveness – the extent to which the operation's objectives were achieved, or expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.
Efficiency – a measure of how economical inputs are converted to outputs.
Evaluation – the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed operation, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, as well as efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
Feedback – the transmission of findings generated through the monitoring and evaluation process to parties for whom it is relevant and useful so as to facilitate learning. This may involve the collection and dissemination of findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons from experience.
Finding - a finding is an accumulation of evidence from an assessment, review or evaluation that allows for a factual statement.
Focus group – a small, homogeneous group formed to discuss open ended questions about a certain topic.
Focus group respondents are encouraged to talk among themselves so that a discussion unfolds among the participants rather than between the evaluator/researchers and the respondents.
Food insecurity – when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development, and an active and healthy life. Food insecurity may be caused by the unavailability of food, insufficient purchasing power, inappropriate distribution, or inadequate use of food at the household level.
Food security – when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
Goal – the highest-level result to which a WFP operation is intended to contribute. It is measured by impact indicators.
Impact – lasting and/or significant effects of the intervention, social, economic, environmental or technical, on individuals, gender and age-groups, households, communities and institutions. Impact can be intended or unintended, positive and negative, macro (sector) and micro (household).
Indicator – quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement or to reflect the changes connected to a WFP operation.
Input – the financial, human, and material resources required to implement the WFP operation.
Lessons – generally applicable conclusions based on evaluation or review experiences with WFP operations or policies that extrapolate from the specific circumstances to broader situations. Frequently, lessons highlight strengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and implementation that affect performance, outcome, and impact.
Logframe (Logical Framework) – a management tool used to design projects and programmes. It involves identifying inputs, outputs, purpose (outcomes), and goal (impact), and their causal relationships, related performance indicators, and the assumptions or risks that may influence success and failure. It thus facilitates planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a WFP operation.
15
Monitoring – a continuing function that uses the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to inform management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing WFP operation of the extent of progress and achievement of results in the use of allocated funds and food aid.
Objective – the purposes and goal of a WFP operation, representing the desired state which the operation is intended to achieve.
Outcome – the medium-term results of an operation’s outputs. Relates to the purpose level of the Logframe hierarchy.
Outputs – the products, capital goods and services which result from a WFP operation; includes changes resulting from the operation which are relevant to the achievement of outcomes. Relates to the output level of the Logframe hierarchy.
Partners – the individuals and organisations that collaborate to achieve mutually agreed upon objectives.
Performance – the degree to which an operation or organisation (WFP or partner) operates according to specific criteria/standards/guidelines or achieves results in accordance with stated goals or plans.
Post-distribution monitoring – information collected at the household level on the quantity of food received, the use of food aid, and its acceptability and quality.
Pre-assistance baseline – the analysis and description of the situation prior to the start of a WFP
operation, against which change can be assessed or comparisons made.
Purpose – the improved situation that a WFP operation is expected to contribute significantly to if completed successfully and on time. It is measured by outcome indicators.
Qualitative data – observations that are categorical rather than numerical, and often involve attitudes, perceptions and intentions.
Quantitative data – observations that are numerical.
Relevance – the extent to which the objectives of a WFP operation are consistent with beneficiaries’ needs, country needs, organisational priorities, and partners’ and donors' policies.
Reliability – consistency or dependability of data, with reference to the quality of the instruments, procedures and analyses used to collect and interpret data.
Results – the outputs, outcomes and/or impacts (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a WFP operation.
Results-based management – a management strategy focusing on performance and achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Results chain – the causal sequence for an operation that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives - beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes and impacts.
Stakeholders – agencies, organisations, groups or individuals who have a direct or indirect interest in the operation, or its evaluation.
Survey – a data collection method that involves a planned effort to collect required data from a sample of the relevant population. The relevant population consists of people affected by the WFP operation (or, in the case of a control or comparison group, of people with similar characteristics).
Sustainability – the continuation of benefits from a WFP operation after major assistance has been completed.
Target group – the specific individuals or organisations for whose benefit the WFP operation is undertaken.
Terms of reference – the purpose and scope of the assessment, review or evaluation, the methods to be used, the standard against which performance is to be assessed or analyses are to be conducted, the resources and time allocated, and reporting requirements, generally conveyed in a written document.
Third party monitoring - defined as monitoring by parties that are external to a projects direct beneficiary chain and management structure (e.g., local or international civil society organizations, academia etc.)
Triangulation – the use of three or more theories, sources or types of information, or types of analysis to explore, verify and substantiate an assessment.
Validity – the extent to which the data collection strategies and instruments measure what they purport to measure.
Vulnerability – the presence of factors that place people at risk of becoming food insecure or malnourished, including those factors that affect their ability to cope.
16
Abbreviations and Acronyms AACL Area around Contact Line
COMET Country Office Monitoring and Evaluation Tool
CBT Cash Based Transfers
CSI Coping Strategy Index
DDS Diet Diversity Score
DL GCA Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts Government Controlled Areas
EMOP Emergency Operation
FCG Food Consumption Group
FCS Food Consumption Score
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GCA Government Controlled Areas
IDP Internally Displaced Person
KIIS Kiev International Institute of Sociology
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MT Metric ton
NGCA Non-Government Controlled Area
NFI Non-Food Items
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
PAB Pre-assistance baseline
PDM Post-distribution monitoring
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
rCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index
RDD Random Digit Dialling
TPM Third Party Monitoring
UAH Ukrainian Hryvnia
UN United Nations
UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
USD United States Dollar
WFP World Food Programme
17
Contacts World Food Programme Ukraine Country Office
Email: [email protected] | Website: wfp.org/countries/Ukraine | Twitter: @WFP_Ukraine
Food Security Analyst: Gerd Buta [email protected]
Food Security Analyst: Lyubomyr Kokovskyy [email protected]
Monitoring and Evaluation Officer: Dmytro Samorodov [email protected]
Project Manager Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) – Andrey Kashin [email protected]