Evaluation Top 10 Lessons
–Safety Nets, 2011
they may focus on protecting people and enabling them to survive periods of stress and shock. Longer-term objectives include mitigating shocks or reducing the risk of crises occurring. Increasingly safety nets are also being designed with the aim of strengthening livelihoods and reducing chronic poverty. WFP workshops in 2009 and 2011 brought together senior staff to discuss ways for WFP to be moreeffective when working with safety nets, and where efforts to integrate into national social protection andsafety net systems are appropriate.The Strategic Evaluation of WFP’s Role in Social Protection and Safety Nets commissioned by the WFPOffice of Evaluation (OE) contributed to internal consideration of these issues and has helped to increaseunderstanding of this area and its relevance for WFP. However, WFP staff have requested more detailedand practical-level lessons and information than was reported in the evaluation summary report.This Top 10 Lessons document seeks to provide some of this additional practical information and isorganized based on three categories – lessons regarding results, lessons regarding external factorsaffecting performance, and lessons regarding internal factors affecting performance.
WFP programmes often have the intended effects of alleviating hunger and saving lives,which serves protective safety net purposes. Different instruments require different considerations toeffectively meet good practice standards of being adequate, timely and predictable. Some instrumentstend to more frequently serve as safety nets, which promote livelihoods in addition to protecting lives.
Experiences from the field:
WFP operationshave been found to have life-saving safety neteffects by allowing people to survive periods of stress or shock. The 2010 evaluation of theEthiopia Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) found that relief, Governmentof Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme(PSNP) and Targeted School Feeding (TSF)components of the programme delivered transfersto millions of people which saved lives, preventedacute hunger, reduced the risk of chronic hungerand addressed under nutrition.The 2010 evaluation of the Occupied PalestinianTerritory PRRO noted that WFP food assistancethrough general food distribution (GFD), food for work (FFW) and food for training (FFT) helped tomitigate the worst effects of the economic crisison food security.Experiences with different instruments shows the ways in which quality criteria (e.g. adequate,timely, predictable and sustainable) interact withprogram design and implementation decisions toincrease the safety net effects of WFPprogrammes.School feeding programmes have been shown toenable people to survive shocks and also tostrengthen livelihoods when implementedpredictably and without interruption. The 2007evaluation of WFP School Feeding in Emergency Situations, the 2010 evaluations of WFP SchoolFeeding in Gambia and Kenya, and the 2011evaluations of WFP School Feeding in Cambodiaand Cote d’Ivoire all found that school feeding hasasignificant value transfer effect whenprogrammes provide predictable and reliabledelivery of food, positively increasing householdincome and freeing up time for productiveactivities.The value of the transfer from school feedingappears to be highest for the most vulnerable