31 July - 01 August 2023

MONITORING & EVALUATION

TPM Training - Conducted By WFP Afghanistan
 Why Third-Party Monitoring for WFP

• Access Limitations

• UN Security protocols

• Capacity and cost efficiency

WFP Third-Party Monitoring Coverage Map
 TPM Communication and Coordination Structure
WFP Head of AO

WFP AO VAME or WFP AO Unit FP

WFP AO SO Managers (SCOPE, SC, CBT etc.)
TPM Coordinator

TPM Regional
Coordinator
(PM/DPM/CC/Lead) AO VAME should be the primary FP
between WFP AO and TPM and TPM
Regional Coordinator is the primary
TPM Team Leader FP between WFP AO and TPM.

TPM Field Monitor

Purpose and Importance of TPM Field Monitoring Reports
TPM are the EYES & EARS of WFP on the Ground
• Notify WFP relevant SO managers issues in their project/ activity
implementation which might affect program expected
output/outcomes; hence need for quick follow-ups actions;
• Identify areas where the CP is not respecting what was agreed in their
Agreement with WFP (Food, CBT or Resilience Activities);
• Safeguard WFP image among the beneficiaries by respecting its
commitment of protection and accountability to affected people.
• To record and document problems and issues in project/activity.
Key Qualities/Characteristics of a Good Field Monitoring Report

• Accurate/Reliable
• Complete
• Consistent/Relevant
• Clear/Simple
• Concise
• Timeliness
• Periodic
• Punctuation/Grammar
• Concrete (Evidence-based)
• Right Form/Format
 Summary of TPM Key Tasks, Reporting Format and Frequency
Does WFP have
SO1 SO2 SO3
any digital form?
No of Reports
Purpose of Field Visit Type of Report Required GFD VAM
Required GFD VST School
MoDa KOBO (Conditional-CVI/ TSFP FFA SAMS
(Contingency) /FFT Feeding
Unconditional)

Activity Implementation Activity Implementation No Yes

1 For Each Project Site Yes - No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Monitoring Monitoring Checklist (*) (*)
Distribution Monitoring Distribution Monitoring Checklist 1 For Each
Yes - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
(Food & CBT) (Food & CBT) Distribution Site
CFAC Verification CFAC Verification Form 1 For Each CFAC Yes - No Yes No No No No No No
Beneficiary Selection Beneficiary Selection
1 For Each HH Yes No No Yes No No No No No No
Verification/Spot-check Verification/Spot-check Form
Post Distribution Post Distribution Monitoring As per WFP
- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
Monitoring Form requirements
Beneficiary Scope Beneficiary Scope Registration 1 For Each
Yes - Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Registration Monitoring Monitoring Form Registration Center
Food Safety and Quality Food Safety and Quality Check 1 For Each No
No No Yes (*) No Yes Yes No Yes No
Check Form Distribution Site (**)
CFM/Compliance Case CFM/Compliance Case No
1 For Each Case No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Verification Verification Form (**)
School Students Headcount No
School Students Headcount 1 For Each School No No No No No No No Yes No
Form (**)
Market Food Price Data Market Food Price Data 1 For Each Provincial No
No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes
Collection Collection Form Center (**)
Market Functionality Index Market Functionality Index Data As per WFP
- Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes
Data Collection Collection Form requirements
Rapid Food Security As per WFP
Rapid Assessment Form - Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes
Assessment requirements

Note (*): Currently there i s no "Implementation Monitoring" checklist for CVI and SAMS, CO M&E work with SO1/2 team to develop a checklist.
Note (**): Currently there are not any specific reporting format for these activities, CO M&E will work and develop a specific reporting format for each of these
activities soon.
Weakest Sections in MODA Reports from TPM
Weakest Sections in MODA Reports from TPM
Weakest Sections in MODA Reports from TPM
Weakest Sections in MODA Reports from TPM
• Corrective Actions: Field Monitor is responsible to take corrective actions in
the field in response to an error/deviation made by CPs or FSPs. Corrective
Actions are taken about an error or deviation that can be resolved in the field on
the spot and/or for future consideration.
Example: people not organized in queue, vulnerable people (e.g., disabled, women
with children, sick, etc) not being given priority.

• Lessons Learnt & Best Practices: A Lesson Learnt can be positive or

negative. It is something that was learnt from an experience. A best practice is
something positive that produced good results and should be replicated. It is a
recommendation to inform future actions.
• Example: CP X uses a Megaphone to ensure that beneficiaries hear well.
Issue Categorization/Type of Issue
• Awareness/Sensitization Issue
• Behavioural (Retailer/Gov/FSP/CP Staff) Issue
• Beneficiary Selection/Identification Issue
• Cash (CBT) Shortage/Liquidity Issue
• Cash (Money) Quality Issue
• Commodity Quality Issue
• Commodity Storage Issue
• Coordination/Collaboration/Communication Issue
• Compliance (Corruption/Fraud/Misuse) Issue
• Data Management & Reporting Issue
• Distribution Management (Crowd/Screening/Delay) Issues
• Entitlement Sharing /Selling Issue
• Gender & Protection Issue
Issue Categorization/Type of Issue
• Hygiene & COVID-19 Protection Measures
• Implementational (Quality/Quantity) Issue
• Interruption (Internal/External/Natural/Security)
• Mobility/Facility Issue
• Pipeline Break / Shortfall (Food) Issue
• Project Progress (Time) Issue
• Ration/Entitlement (Food/CBT) Issue
• Site Selection Issue
• Staff Management/Capacity/Payment /Deployment Issue (CP/FSP)
• Targeting Issue
• Technical/Device Issue
• Visibility Issue( please refer to our detailed guideline here for further details)
ISSUE CATEGORIZATION (Critical/High/Medium)

• Critical Issue: Critical or red flag-level issue is a time-sensitive problem that requires
urgent decisions and actions at higher level and if not addressed would have serious impact
to the operation and WFP at larger.
• Example: Thefty, DfA interference, Loss of Food, Fighting at the FDP, etc.
• High Issue: A High-level issue is a problem that negatively impacts the project’s goal and
need to be addressed soon. The issue can affect the project quality if not addressed within a
short duration, it will cause suspension or stoppage in the long run.
• Example: CP staff disrespect/abuse of recipients, poor food storage, Failure to provide
information to recipients, Count of physical stock not same as on stock cards, etc
• Medium Issue: A Medium-level issue is a problem that has potential to negatively impact on
a project performance, though may not require urgent attention. The issue needs follow-up
by the AOs to address it with the CP.
• Example: Delays to start distribution, lack of shelter, no toilets for male and female, etc
ISSUE DESCRIPTION – Precise and clear

• Description of Issue: The issue needs to be described in a simple, brief but clear
language. Avoid using to many words that are not clear or mixing more than one issue in
a single description. Each issue must be described separately.
Example: Critical: At FDP X, on 27th July at 2.00pm, two DFA came at the FDP and asked CP staff to
stop distribution unless their relative are also included on the list of beneficiaries. The CP called the
Governor who came at the sight and took the 2 DFA away, and distribution continued normally.
Recommendations/Actions Required: Necessary actions/measures required to be taken by the relevant
unit or stakeholder for the improvement or resolution of the issue/problem.
• Example: Medium Issue No shelter at the FDP – The CP was asked to provide shelter for recipients
while waiting to receive their entitlements because of the sun and heat. The CP said shelter was not
approved in his budget to WFP. TPM reported this issue to FO for follow-up given the importance.
• Action(s) to be taken by: Name of the WFP focal point who is responsible to follow the issue with the
concerned unit (Supply Chain, etc…) or stakeholder (CP, FSP, Government, etc…)
• Issue Status: Field Monitor can only select “Open” as issue status in the checklist.
Common Mistakes Made by Field Monitors in Checklists
• Selection of wrong option within the checklist;
• Putting incorrect data/figures within the checklist;
• Inconsistence selection/data within the checklist;
• Selection of wrong “Issue Type”
• Selection of wrong “Issue Seriousness”
• Completeness, clarity, relevancy, consistency, accuracy and preciseness were missing in
“Description of issues”
• Delay in submission of process monitoring reports
• Delay in reporting of “Critical Issues”
• Selection of wrong “SO Manager” for Issue follow-up;
• Delay in review of process monitoring checklists by TLs, Q.A, etc….
• Not reporting ground realities/comparing with donor TPM reports
Some examples of common mistakes by field monitors
Corrective Actions Taken on Lessons Learnt & Best
Type of Issue Description of Issue
Importance of Action to be Taken Activity
the Site by WFP / TPM Staff Practices Issue by

No DFAs intervention NA Other No DFAs High NA Scope

to the process. intervention to
the process.

Checking spelling Checking Data Checking High SO3-Manger Scope

during scoping spelling during Management spelling during
scoping and scoping
Reporting

Know information It is good to Beneficiary Surpluses of Critical SO1-Manager GFD

about the village. know village Selection/Ide foods, make
Know about the culture ntification problems for
culture of village Issue us. CP must
people. manage the
FDP and
Warehouse.
 Some examples of common mistakes by field monitors
Corrective Actions Taken on the Lessons Learnt & Best
Type of Issue
Description of Importance of Action to be Activity
Site by WFP / TPM Staff Practices Issue Issue Taken by
The previous Distribution The team has Other High AO-TPM SO1-GFD
point was a suitable sought the assi Manager
place. The new stance of There observd
distribution point is community lead solvable issue
comparatively difficult in ers in identifyin that have
access to beneficiaries. It g the true ben been solved
is recommended by TPM eficiaries. after advised
to find a suitable and to CP
easy to access place of supervisor
distribution.

CP was advised for NA Site •Both Medium NA SO1-GFD

strictly following the WFP Selection FDPs in
rules and principals Issue Sangin
during the distribution district are
process. near to each
other.
Actual Monitoring Visit Report: Submission-Verification & Use of the Data
WFP Actual Monitoring Visits Summary Report is a form that records all WFP and TPM monitoring staff’s
daily field visits. This reporting format helps WFP to:
• Ensure all project sites and FDPs are visited for process monitoring in the reporting year in compliance
with WFP minimum monitoring requirements.
• Keep track of each activity’s project sites and FDPs’ visits and their frequency of visits.
• Compare the data with the Monitoring Plan to find out what percentage (%) of the plan is executed.
• Analyze the data at different level based on needs for example; monitoring activities by SO/ activity, or
percentage (%) of monitoring activities conducted by WFP field monitors and by TPM.
• Compare and certify the number of reports received vs required; - Compare and certify the invoices
received from TPM service providers for DSA, transportation, and other relevant costs
Actual Monitoring Visit Report: Submission-Verification & Use of the Data
WFP Actual Monitoring Report helps TPM service provider to:

• Compare if the staff has visited the assigned project, location, purpose and etc as planned.
• Analyze the average number of days each staff (male, female, regular or standby) is deployed to field.
• Review and certify if the TPM staff has submitted the required report in sufficient number.
• Review and certify each staff’s DSA and transportation costs incurred during the period and many more…
• Supporting document for invoice processing
• To properly fill and submit actual monitoring visit form, the guideline is linked here
Lessons Learnt: Dos & Don’ts
• Don’ts
- Introducing self as WFP staff;
- Going to fields without prior coordination and planning or due time
- Going to fields without reviewing and having project documents
- Not doing the required and expected tasks during field visits;
- Doing the tasks of others (CP, FSP, etc……) knowingly (interruption)/unknowingly;
- Doing things beyond their ToR or area of responsibility/authority;
- Going to field visits / distribution sites/FDPs later;
- Leaving the distribution sites/FDPs earlier;
- Using CPs transportation means;

- Not reflecting ground realities from fields;

Lessons Learnt: Dos & Don’ts
- Reporting incorrect issues from fields due to personal problems with CPs;
- Imposing their family members and relatives to CPs, FSPs for recruitment.
- Imposing on CPs and FSPs to rent theirs or their relatives’ vehicles.
- Enlisting their family members and relatives, etc in WFP’s assistance through CPs.
- Not preparing proper field monitoring report
- Submitting field monitoring reports late
- Bypassing direct supervisors and going directly to WFP SO managers for every issue

- Misuse of local transportation cost and overnight stay;

- Not preserving professional behaviour with CP/FSP (too harsh/too friendly);

- Using photo taken from field during monitoring for personal use;
Lessons Learnt: Dos & Don’ts
- Advertising project assistance for personal gain;
- Not preserving equity/equality among team members in terms of # of missions, near way and far away
locations, # of overnight stay, etc…..
- Ineffective utilization of office arranged vehicles;
• Dos
- Careful monitoring, identify issues, take correction actions, provide report and recommendation for
improvement and solutions.
- Report critical and high importance issues as soon as possible