Protocol 2.6: Systematically document evidence and analysis and provide them upon request

All evidence and analyses need to be clearly and systematically documented in order to provide analysts with the body of evidence to support their classification. The documented evidence should be made available if requested for quality review purposes. 

The IPC Analysis Worksheet

The IPC Analysis Worksheet supports systematic, transparent and consistent evidence-based analysis by guiding the analyst through the IPC Food Security Analytical Framework and linking evidence to the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table. The use of the Worksheet is a major advantage to IPC analyses and is highly recommended. 

The IPC Analysis Worksheet is divided into steps (Box 17). While Steps 1 and 2 are common for current and projected classifications, Steps 3 to 7 apply only for classification of current conditions and are subsequently followed by Steps 8 to 11 for projection. If various projection periods are analysed, Steps 8 to 11 should be repeated. Procedures for completing the Analysis Worksheet are described below. It is highly advisable that parts of the Worksheet, especially Steps 1 and 2, 3, 5 and 8, be prepared before the analysis workshops and completed when the analysis team meets.

The Worksheet is best utilized in the web-based IPC ISS, but may also be completed in MS WordTM, which can be found in the IPC website.

Steps 1 and 2: Common to current and projected classifications

Step 1: Identify context and analysis parameters (for all classifications)

Purpose: To introduce the characteristics of the area and population of households within the area to allow for contextualization of evidence and livelihood-based analyses. 

Approach overview: 

  • Decide on the spatial extent of the analysis area. A single phase classification will be determined for each area analysed. The determination of the analysis area can be informed by, but not limited to, units such as livelihood or agro-ecological zones, hazard zones, administrative boundaries, market catchment zones, camps of IDPs or refugees, among others. The IPC is adaptable and applicable to any spatial size, and the spatial area of the classification can vary widely. IPC analysts must determine the spatial extent of the analysis area depending on the situation, availability of evidence and the needs of decision-makers as well as the feasibility of the number of areas being classified. In general, the analysis area should be as homogeneous as possible with regard to likely food security outcomes and causes. 
  • Decide on time periods of analysis. The analysis is a snapshot of the current or projected food security situation. Each analysis has a validity period where conditions are likely to remain similar and is determined by the analysts. The validity period can be as short as a few weeks and as long as a few months to a maximum of 12 months, depending on seasonality and stability contexts. However, the existing (current) or expected (projection) food security situation should not change during the validity period of the analysis. If the food security situation unexpectedly changes during the validity period of the analysis, analysts can either conduct a new analysis or an update of the projection analysis, depending on how significant the change has been and what new evidence is available. Multiple projections can be prepared, each with its own validity period. In case of multiple projections Steps 9, 10 and 11 of the Analysis Worksheet would need to be repeated for each new projection.
  • Provide a brief description of the area, including relevant information to be used in contextualizing evidence. Important aspects may include common livelihood strategies to acquire food and income, seasonal patterns, cultural habits and economic environment. Add population figures, specifying source and reference years. If applicable, use projected populations if a significant population movement is expected.
  • Indicate the chronic food insecurity level for the area if IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Analysis results are available. If no IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Analysis has been conducted, use findings from another classification approach if available, or highlight the fact that the chronic food security situation is not known for the area.
  • Identify if the analysis area experienced IPC Acute Phase 3 Crisis or more severe in three years over the previous ten years. If IPC Acute Analyses have not been conducted in enough years to determine this, either use an equivalent classification system or highlight the fact that a recurrence of the crisis cannot be identified.
  • Identify and describe groups living in the area. HAGs are groups of households that compared to each other are assumed to likely have different phase classifications pending evaluation and analysis of the evidence. Individual HAGs are relatively homogeneous groups of households with regard to their food security situation, including contributing factors and likely outcomes. These groups may be defined, for example, by variations in wealth, gender, ethnic affiliation, livelihood, religion, exposure to a hazard event, or any other factor or combination of factors that make these groups distinct. The number of HAGs identified will depend on the complexity of the situation. Also, specify the estimated number of people in each HAG and their percentage share of the total people in the area. It is important to ensure that some food security evidence is available for the different HAGs, in particular if an acute analysis is conducted by HAGs. Even when analysis follows the area-based approach, analysis would significantly benefit from complementary analysis of specific household groups. For example, analysis taking into consideration the situation of refugees and IDPs, poorest households or female-headed households would help to estimate populations in different severity phases and understand the overall food insecurity in the area as well as provide stronger basis for identification of characteristics of those most affected.

Step 2: Populate evidence repository (for all classifications)

Purpose: To help organize wide-ranging evidence from multiple sources for ease of access and reference.

Approach overview:

  • Provide references for all evidence to be reviewed in analysis, including identification of source and date of evidence collection.
  • Provide a note on methods of data collection to support the assessment of the reliability score whenever possible. 
  • When possible, insert pieces of evidence, such as graphs, text and numbers, and identify which food security element(s) it informs.

Step 3: Analyse evidence (current classification)

Relevance: To analyse evidence following the IPC Food Security Analytical Framework and Reference Table considering the local context and reliability score, including reference to historical trends and socio-economic differences (Box 18).

Approach overview:

  • Write evidence statements identifying the current levels of key indicators, linking current outcomes and conditions to IPC phases, context, historical trends and other relevant analysis such as specific socio-economic groups and gender inequalities. Consider the other four protocols for Function 2 (i.e. use of the IPC Analytical Framework, IPC Reference Table, IPC Reliability Scores and IPC Key Parameters) as well as local context when writing statements. 
  • Include source of information, linking all evidence statements to the reference specified in Step 2.
  • Assess reliability scores of all evidence so that it can be analysed by also taking reliability into consideration. Assess if evidence that does not reach R1 should be included in the analysis for contextualization and explanation.
  • Provide conclusions for the elements, including reference to evidence and critical reasoning, for example:
    • Hazards and vulnerability: Assess the key hazards and ongoing conditions that are likely impacting current food security outcomes. Describe and consider usual and unusual shocks, both positive and negative, that are affecting current food security. Indicate the level of humanitarian/relief assistance that focuses on direct asset transfers, such as food, cash and other inputs, as well as policies and other long-term assistance that the area has received, such as road or dam construction. Conclude how the element condition compares to typical conditions. See Box 19 for examples on conclusion statements.
    • Food availability, access, household utilization and stability: Consider the impact of shocks on the dimensions of food security, including, for example: food availability – levels of food production, functioning of markets and transportation networks, imports and food movements; food access – the ability of households to reach food, as a function of physical, financial and social considerations; household food utilization – ability to maximize consumption, including, for example, access to safe water, food preparation, cooking, storage and care practices; and stability – assess how it affects each of the dimensions, considering typical and seasonal stability.
    • Food consumption and livelihood change: Provide evidence statements and summary conclusions, with the aim of distributing the proportion of households among the five phases or classifying HAG(s), and assessing how current conditions differ from typical conditions and latest trends. Ensure that evidence is contextualized and that supporting and contradictory evidence is presented. Analysts should consider what the likely situation is after all factors (including evidence-based mitigating factors such as humanitarian or social assistance) have impacted the conditions. Specific considerations include:
      • Food consumption: Present relevant evidence on indicators included in the Reference Table (i.e. direct evidence, including, for example, FCS, HHS, rCSI, HEA, HDDS), as well as other evidence relevant to the area being analysed, together with inference of contributing factors. Critically assess access to food, focusing especially on access to quantity of food consumed by households.
      • Livelihood change: For acute food insecurity, livelihood change is analysed as households’ response to their inability to access food and income. This is difficult to quantify because livelihood changes can take multitude forms and vary depending on households’ resilience, and the depth, duration and type of problem; as a result, universal thresholds do not exist. Thus, general descriptions are used in conjunction with a typology of coping strategies developed by WFP that identifies three main strategy types. Although WFP’s livelihood coping strategy indicator is included in the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table as a globally comparable indicator, analysts need to adapt it to local conditions, considering that certain strategies may be perceived as more severe than others in the local context.
      • Food consumption and livelihood change interactions: Careful analysis of livelihood change is important, especially to ensure that food insecure households are not overlooked in case food consumption has been temporarily protected through the use of unsustainable coping strategies that will negatively affect consumption in the longer term. Therefore, livelihood change information for a given population should be considered after food consumption has been assessed, rather than simultaneously. It should be noted that livelihood change assumes that households can respond to acute events or ongoing conditions; however, the most food insecure, especially households that have lost assets in previous, ongoing or protected crises, often have little to no ability to change their livelihoods or asset levels. This may render the analysis of livelihood change challenging with typical livelihood change indicators, and requires contextualization of available information on livelihood change.
    • Acute Malnutrition and mortality:  Consider IPC Acute Malnutrition Classification findings if available. If classification has not been completed, make key statements on the prevalence of Acute Malnutrition and provide a critical reasoning of linkages with food insecurity. Assess death rates based on evidence available. 

Step 4: Determine area classification and population estimations (current classification)

Purpose: To provide a critical review of supporting and contradictory evidence used to arrive at phase classification and an estimation of number and percentage of people in different phases.

Approach overview:

  • Use convergence of evidence to conclude on phase classification for the current period based on relevant supporting and contradictory evidence (Box 20). Area classification should be performed based on the acute food insecurity conditions of the worst-off 20 percent of the population. The classification is performed through a convergence of evidence, where analysts consider the whole body of evidence, including evidence on outcomes, contributing factors and context. Only evidence that is relevant to Acute Food Insecurity should be used for classification. Evidence on malnutrition and mortality are only considered to the extent that they are driven by food gaps and livelihood changes due to limited access to food. Therefore, nutrition and mortality are considered to support or examine food insecurity classification but not to override it. 
  • Provide a conclusion for the final classification by adding a critical rationale for area classification, summarizing key supporting and contradictory evidence into a short paragraph (Box 21). The final conclusion needs to provide an overall view of the evidence used to support the classification. The paragraph should refer to the IPC Food Security Analytical Framework. The rationale for discarding contradictory evidence should also be provided as relevant. As much as possible, the conclusion should also mention which household groups are the most affected. Simply put, the summary conclusion needs to describe the storyline behind the classification and reflect the group discussion and rationale for the conclusion. When carrying out a HAG analysis, provide indicative classification of each HAG.
  • Distribute the proportion of households in each phase, converging the body of evidence as included in Step 3 (Box 22). (This should be carried out only if evidence and analysis so allow.) Population estimates in IPC phases should be made by taking into account both contributing factors and outcomes, and thus consider direct and indirect evidence, including inferences from contributing factors for outcomes and locally specific indicators. Analysis of direct evidence, considering the context, is usually the most useful type of evidence for population estimates, since the prevalence of households in each category as per the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table allows for the distribution of households across the five severity phases. For example, knowing that 35 percent of households have a poor FCS and that 25 percent have a HHS of over 4 enables the analysts to better estimate the population in Phase 4 than knowing that food production was only 80 percent of normal, food prices were 200 percent higher than last year and that employment opportunities decreased. However, evidence on indirect and contributing factors is useful when used for inference to contextualize the estimates and to ascertain or contradict the results from direct evidence. It is also recommended that a rationale for the population estimates be provided when feasible. 
  • Assign evidence levels of analysis (* ,**, ***) by counting the number of pieces of evidence available for food consumption and livelihood change outcomes, and other supporting evidence on contributing factors or outcomes (see Table 11  for the criteria for evidence level).

Step 5: Identify areas that received significant humanitarian food assistance (current classification)

Purpose: To enable decision-makers to identify areas that received significant humanitarian food assistance as this was incorporated in the analysis as a mitigating factor. Step 5 should not be considered an impact assessment of assistance or a monitoring and evaluation product to assess the impact of response and the achievements towards developmental goals.

Approach overview:

  • Identifying areas that received significant humanitarian food assistance.
  • Flagging areas that received significant humanitarian food assistance as per the two categories relating to coverage and size of transfer. While coverage is assessed over the total population of households, the size of transfer is estimated in reference to households’ caloric needs. If assistance provided includes modalities different from in-kind food transfer (such as cash and livelihood inputs) analysts should assess if resource transfers would be enough to meet the reference caloric needs:
    • At least 25 percent of the households met at least 25 percent of their caloric needs through humanitarian food assistance;
    • At least 25 percent of the households met at least 50 percent of their caloric needs through humanitarian food assistance;
  • The reference period for an analysis of humanitarian food assistance should be the period that best reflects current assistance delivery. In cases where assistance is regularly delivered each month, a one-month reference period may be appropriate. However, depending on the pattern of food assistance delivery in the area of analysis, this reference period may be extended to a maximum of three months. For example, if emergency rations are provided every other month, it may make sense to define “current humanitarian food assistance” as the average of the last two months. 

Step 6: Identify key drivers and the main factors limiting food security  (current classification) 

Purpose: To enable decision-makers to identify the key drivers triggering the current food security situation and the factors limiting food security so that action can be more strategically planned. 

Approach overview:

  • Identify key drivers of acute food insecurity, including reference to possible acute shocks such as drought and conflict, as well as to ongoing conditions and vulnerability to shocks, such as lack of diversified income, high reliance on rain-fed agriculture, and inadequate or harmful policies. See Figure 39 for examples.
  • Identify the main factors that limit food security, including reference to evidence on food availability, access, utilization and stability.

Step 7: Develop assumptions for future shocks and ongoing conditions (projection classification)

Purpose: To provide analysts with an expected outlook of the key factors to be considered when projecting the severity and magnitude of future Acute Food Insecurity.

Approach overview: 

  • Describe the key assumptions on impacts of shocks and ongoing conditions that are likely to affect food availability, access, utilization and stability during projected period. Consider the likely occurrence of both seasonal and usual events as well as any unusual shocks likely to occur. Consider the most likely evolution of all the factors that are expected to impact food security, including negative/aggravating and positive/mitigating factors. Consider impacts of events that have already occurred or will occur. 
  • The assumptions on likely impacts of shocks and ongoing conditions will be used in Steps 9 and 10 as the basis for the projection of food availability, access, utilization and stability, as well as for the consequent projection of outcomes.

Step 8: Analyse evidence (projection classification)

Purpose: To organize, evaluate and analyse evidence for the forecast of the most likely future conditions of food security elements, taking into account their current levels, historical trends, previous and most likely future impacts of shocks as guided by the IPC Food Security Analytical Framework and the IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table.

Approach overview:

  • Write clear evidence statements identifying and explaining the expected projected trends by relating current conditions as included in Step 3 with context, historical trends and assumptions on the evolution of the current situation (Box 24). Provide other analyses such as information on specific socio-economic groups and gender inequalities as relevant. 
  • Include the source of information, linking all evidence statements to the reference specified in Step 2. 
  • Assess reliability scores of all evidence and assess if evidence that does not reach R1- should be included in the analysis.
  • Provide conclusions for the elements, including reference to evidence and critical reasoning, for example:
    • Hazards and vulnerability elements: Consider typical livelihood strategies and assets that are important for the projected period, including typical sources of food and income, and adaptive capacity. Provide a summary of the projection period, including how the situation is likely to evolve. Consider the likely impact (if any) that humanitarian assistance will have on the evolution of factors affecting food insecurity (e.g. indirect impacts of assistance on potential displacement).
    • Food availability, access, household utilization and stability: Include relevant evidence referring to current food availability levels as assessed in Step 3, as well as assumptions on the most likely impact of shocks on food availability supported by other relevant evidence. Provide a summary of general food security projection, including how the situation is likely to evolve.
    • Food consumption and livelihood change: Consider the whole body of evidence, including likely trends on food availability, access, utilization and stability based on impacts of shocks on livelihood strategies (sources of food and income) and livelihood assets, as well as the likely evolution of outcomes based on current levels, and conclude on the most likely evolution of food consumption and livelihood change.
    • Acute Malnutrition and mortality: Consider IPC Acute Malnutrition Classification findings if available. If classification has not been completed, make key statements on assumptions on how Acute Malnutrition and mortality are likely to evolve in the projected period due to the most likely expected conditions of food consumption and livelihood change. Once again, although useful, analysts should recall that evidence on nutrition and mortality is considered to support or examine food insecurity classification but not to override it. 

Step 9: Determine phase classification and population estimates (projection classification)

Purpose: To project the most likely phase classification and estimate the number and percentage of people in different phases, based on a critical review of the supporting and contradictory evidence available.

Approach overview:

  • Conclude on the phase classification for the projected period using all supporting and contradictory evidence, based on the severity of the worst-off 20 percent of the population, similar to Step 4. If conducting a HAG-based analysis, provide an indicative classification of each HAG. Note that projections should consider the most likely situation, incorporating the likely effects that the  planned, funded or likely to be funded and delivered humanitarian food assistance will have on the evolution of the situation. 
  • Distribute the proportion of households in each phase by converging the body of evidence (only if evidence and analysis allow), similar to Step 4.
  • Add the critical rationale for summarizing key supporting and contradictory evidence, both in support of and disputing area classification, similar to Step 4.
  • Identify the evidence levels of analysis by determining the number of pieces of direct evidence available for food consumption and livelihood change outcomes and other supporting indirect evidence on contributing factors or outcomes (see Figure 32 on criteria for evidence levels).

Step 10: Identify areas where a significant amount of humanitarian food assistance has been planned and is likely to be funded and delivered

Purpose: To allow decision-makers to identify areas where the likely delivery of humanitarian food assistance will be significant, as this was incorporated in the analysis. Step 10 should not be considered an impact assessment of humanitarian food assistance or a monitoring and evaluation system to assess the impact of action and achievements towards developmental goals.

Approach overview:

  • Identify areas that will likely receive significant humanitarian assistance that has been planned and will likely be funded (or has already been funded) and delivered.
  • Flagging areas that will likely receive significant humanitarian food assistance as per the two categories relating to coverage and size of transfer. While coverage is assessed over the total population of households, the size of transfer is estimated in reference to households’ caloric needs. If assistance provided includes modalities different from in-kind food transfer (such as cash and livelihood inputs) analysts should assess whether resource transfers would be enough to meet the reference caloric needs. The categories are as follows:
    • At least 25 percent of the households will likely meet between 25 and 50 percent of their caloric needs through humanitarian food assistance;
    • At least 25 percent of the households will likely meet over 50 percent of their caloric needs through humanitarian food assistance;
  • Planned humanitarian food assistance should meet the above thresholds over the selected reference period Plans for transfers should inform the validity period of the projected analysis. 
  • Analysts should also consider factors that might prevent planned assistance from being delivered such as lack of access, corruption, conflict and so on.

Step 11: Identify risk factors to monitor

Purpose: To identify triggers for analysis updates and validity of projections. 

Approach overview:

  • Identify risk factors to monitor. Consider risk factors that could increase or decrease food insecurity over the short or medium term, and thus need to be monitored against the assumed evolution included in Step 8 (Box 25). 

Step 12: Identify priority strategic response objectives

Purpose: To highlight to decision-makers and partners the key strategic response objectives that should be assessed during posterior response analysis.

Approach overview:

  • Based on an analysis of drivers, limiting factors and severity of outcomes, identify the key response objectives that should be prioritized. For example, if the dietary intake of displaced households is extremely poor (e.g. 5 percent of households have acceptable consumption), this calls for responses that aim at decreasing inadequate dietary intake.
  • Present strategic objectives as starting points for response analysis and do not define the modalities for response. For example, if agricultural inputs are needed due to losses highlight the need to increase access to seeds and agricultural inputs rather than mentioning how they should be delivered.