World + 13 more

Evaluation of the WFP People Strategy (2014-2017) - Evaluation Report: Volume I

View original


Executive Summary


  1. Approved in 2014, the WFP People Strategy (2014–2017) is now in its sixth year of implementation and its inclusion in the Office of Evaluation workplan (2019–2021) was therefore timely.

  2. The three main evaluation questions for this evaluation were:

• How good is the strategy?

• What were the results of the strategy?

• Why has the strategy produced the results observed?

  1. The evaluation covers the period 2014–2019. Between April and June 2019, evaluation data were collected at the global, regional and country levels through the following lines of inquiry:

• a retrospective construction of the theory of change underlying the WFP People Strategy;

• a document and literature review;

• a review of relevant datasets, including global staff survey results;

• group interviews with over 580 employees conducted by contract type during field missions at WFP country offices in Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Nicaragua, Senegal, the Sudan and the United Republic of Tanzania and to the regional bureaux in Johannesburg and Panama;

• key informant interviews with WFP headquarters employees currently and formerly based in Rome; and

• a review of comparator organizations – the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the private-sector firm Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) – using a document review and interviews.

  1. Primary intended users of the evaluation are the Human Resources Division (HR), regional directors, country directors and their human resource officers, the leadership group, the Legal Office, headquarters directors and staffing coordinators, the Ethics Office, the Office of the Ombudsman and Mediation Services and the Inspector General and Oversight Office.

  2. Certain limitations were encountered, including the lack of a fourth comparator organization; the unavailability of Executive Board members for interviews; and the inability to disaggregate interview data by gender owing to the organization of group interviews by contract type. Those limitations did not affect the quality of the data collection process.