19 October 2014
This report synthesizes findings of evaluations conducted between July 2013 and July 2014, covering 12 operations with a combined planned value of USD 3 billion (totaling over USD 1.7 billion funded), which targeted 14.3 million beneficiaries a year, were of varying types, durations and sizes and implemented in diverse settings.
The evaluations found all operations cohered well with national and sector policy frameworks. WFP is directly influencing policy and strategy formulation, and increasingly engaging in joint programming. WFP delivered broadly relevant food assistance, with most operations appropriate to overall needs; however, insufficient differentiation in the analysis and planning of some operations compromised planning for specific beneficiary needs. Results were inadequately documented, particularly at the outcome level, mainly because of weak monitoring systems. Evaluations revealed that the full extent of WFP’s achievements – and under-achievements – is not currently reflected in reporting systems. General food distribution, school feeding and nutrition activities delivered well against coverage targets, with weaker performance in food assistance for assets. Evidence found that WFP served beneficiaries with less food than planned, however. Gender sensitivity was limited.
At the outcome level, WFP made most progress under Strategic Objective (SO) 1 - saving lives. Only limited data were available on SO2 (preventing acute hunger and investing in disaster preparedness and mitigation) and SO5 (capacity-development). Assessment of efficiency and sustainability was shallow; few operations were characterized as generally efficient or potentially sustainable.
External factors affecting results include WFP’s complex operating terrain and funding. Internal factors are symptomatic of an organization in transition, progressing in introducing changes, but with business processes needing to adapt. The lessons presented in this synthesis report aim to support WFP as it becomes increasingly fit for purpose.
5 February 2014
The evaluation covers WFP’s protracted relief and recovery operation (PRRO) 200296 “Support for Returnees and other Conflict-Affected Households in Central Mindanao, and National Capacity Development in Disaster Preparedness and Response” (May 2012-April 2014). It was intended for both accountability and learning and focuses on assessing: i) the appropriateness and coherence of the operation; ii) its results; and iii) the factors explaining the results.
The evaluation assessed the following activities: school feeding, prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition, food and cash for assets, food and cash for training as well as capacity development in disaster preparedness and response. The evaluation, which makes a number of recommendations for the future, was managed and conducted by a consultancy firm, with fieldwork taking place in February/March 2014.
26 September 2013
This evaluation of food security cluster coordination mechanisms was jointly commissioned by the Offices of Evaluation of WFP and FAO – the cluster’s lead agencies.
The evaluation focuses on the utility and effects of food security coordination at the country level. The evaluation concludes that effective food security coordination creates clear benefits for humanitarian organizations and the coverage of interventions. It is broadly supported by international humanitarian actors, who perceive investments in coordination to be largely worthwhile.
However, certain constraints undermine their relevance to operations and put current achievements at risk. The evaluation recommends advocating with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee to reduce the demands of system-wide processes; clarifying roles and responsibilities in the coordination architecture; advocating for greater donor commitment to food security coordination; enhancing the lead agencies’ commitment to and capacity for food security coordination; strengthening the Global Support Team’s capacity to deploy experienced coordination staff; mentoring to promote operationally relevant coordination; and enhancing the involvement of national, local and non-traditional humanitarian actors.