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

4

Operational Map: Distributions January - June 2016

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: wfp.ukraine@wfp.org | Website: wfp.org/countries/Ukraine | Twitter: @WFP_Ukraine

Food Security Analyst: Gerd Buta gerd.buta@wfp.org

Food Security Analyst: Lyubomyr Kokovskyy lyubomyr.kokovskyy@wfp.org

Monitoring and Evaluation Officer: Dmytro Samorodov Dmytro.samorodov@wfp.org

Project Manager Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) – Andrey Kashin a.kashin@kiis.com.ua