Official Statistics

Methodology note: FCDO Afghanistan Official Development Assistance results, April 2025 to March 2026

Published 3 September 2026

This note sets out the methodology and quality assurance processes behind the Foreign, Commonwealth, Development Office (FCDO) Afghanistan Official Development Assistance (ODA) Results publication. There are also two annexes setting out the results indicator definitions and a glossary with key terms.

Purpose and scope of the Afghanistan results publication

1. Results estimates are figures that have been collected from implementing partners to provide a standalone snapshot of activities and outputs from Afghanistan Official Development Assistance (ODA) programmes for a specific period.

2. They are not intended to support direct comparisons with previous years, as humanitarian needs and the response provided can change over time. The results are also not directly comparable across years due to changes in the mix of programmes, delivery partners and type of assistance provided.

3. Different types of assistance vary in their reach, depth of support and resource requirements. For example, a one-off cash grant to an Afghan returnee compared to sustained support for more productive agriculture.

4. The Afghanistan Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) team within FCDO has created a standardised method for capturing the results achieved in Afghanistan, using a set of results indicators which all partners are required to report against.

5. Data is collected annually in April/May from implementing partners receiving UK bilateral ODA funding, covering the previous 12 months (i.e. previous financial year). All partners in scope submit data. The MEL team within FCDO quality assures data received from partners and aggregates the data to estimate the impact of FCDO funding.

6. These results represent a conservative estimate and are an ‘at least’ measure, due to precautions implemented to avoid double counting beneficiaries (see aggregation section below). As a result, the total number of FCDO Afghanistan beneficiaries cannot be fully captured.

Results indicators

7. The results indicators (Annex B) cover various thematic areas such as Humanitarian, Health and Water and Sanitation. They can be grouped into two categories:

People reached: this counts the number of people that have received support; this could be in the form of cash, food or health consultations. These types of indicators are measured on a unique beneficiary basis which means each beneficiary is only counted once per result, regardless of how many times they receive assistance.

An example of a “People reached” indicator is the “Number of people reached with humanitarian assistance”.

There is one exception to this definition which is the “Number of people that receive health education / promotion / awareness sessions” results, where partners could be capturing the same person more than once due to the nature of the interventions.

Number of items distributed, or services provided: this counts the total number of items or services provided regardless of whether the same person has already been reached with the distribution/services.

For example, if a beneficiary was reached with two food assistance packages over the year, they would be counted once against “Number of people reached with in-kind food assistance” but the weight of both food packages would be counted against “Number of metric tonnes of food distributed.”.

8. Results must not be summed together; there is overlap between the results. For instance, if a beneficiary receives food aid and receives access to safe drinking water, they would be captured in both results.

9. Some humanitarian interventions such as cash/voucher transfers and food aid benefit the direct recipient’s whole household, for instance the cash can be used to purchase food and non-food items which will be accessed by the full household. In these cases, a household size of 7 has been assumed^{[footnote 1]} when calculating the total beneficiary numbers.

10. The headline humanitarian indicator “Number of people reached by humanitarian assistance” captures unique beneficiaries across multiple other indicators – Health, Cash/Vouchers, Food Aid, WASH, Nutrition, Safety, Resilience and Wellbeing and Livelihood, Agriculture and Climate to give an indication of total humanitarian reach. If a beneficiary has received both food aid and WASH support, they would only be counted once within the humanitarian result but would be counted in both the Food Aid and WASH separate results.

11. These indicators will be regularly reviewed and refined based on lessons learned to maintain their relevance and usefulness. New indicators may be added or removed based on changes in programme objectives. See Annex B to understand the improvements and additions to indicators for the 2025 to 2026 period.

12. Disaggregation plays a critical role in tracking programme effectiveness and understanding the diversity of beneficiary reach. Partners are required to provide indicator data disaggregated by sex, disability, age, and geographic region (province), where appropriate and relevant (see disaggregation section).

Data collection and quality assurance

13. Implementing partners are requested to submit their results data using a structured spreadsheet template. Given the sensitivity of some data, protecting it from unauthorised access is a top priority. While various third-party platforms are available for data collection, the spreadsheet based approach ensures greater control and security.

14. Before the reporting cycles (as outlined in the purpose and scope section), a partner consultation workshop is conducted to communicate the purpose and processes of the reporting.

15. A detailed guidance document accompanies the template providing clear instructions on data entry, key definitions such as unique beneficiaries, and methods for aggregating results across different geographical areas. This guidance improves the accuracy and reliability of the data.

16. The results data represents contributions from multiple partners. The majority of data is secondary and is provided directly by implementing partners, often from their existing monitoring and evaluation management information and/or existing programme result frameworks.

17. In addition, estimates of the impact of FCDO un-earmarked contributions to country pooled funds and appeals (AHF and ICRC) are calculated (see glossary). These are based on applying the UK share of the overall funding provided to the fund/appeal, to the results collected and disseminated by the fund/appeal. These result indicators will not directly match the FCDO core indicators (Annex B), but do broadly align to key thematic areas such as Nutrition, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene etc. These estimates are based on calendar year results (unlike the results collected directly from other partners).

18. The Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund (AHF) results have had a “maximum methodology” applied which means there is no overlap in the number of beneficiaries reported under each type of assistance.

19. The Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund (ARTF) results have not had a UK share applied as the results were achieved through a combination of donor contributions to ARTF and resources from the International Development Association (IDA). UK contributes both to ARTF and IDA. A methodology for calculating an overall UK share is not currently available.

20. Ensuring high-quality data is essential for generating reliable results. To minimise errors and enhance data integrity, several validation measures are in place. These quality assurance checks include:

• upon receiving the data, the data is evaluated against established definitions and methodologies – such as the identification of unique beneficiaries – to ensure accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Any identified errors or discrepancies are promptly addressed by contacting the relevant partners for clarification

• meetings with partners to fully understand the data return and any data discrepancies where necessary

• comparison to partners project results frameworks, questioning inconsistencies

21. Quality assurance is carried out by analysts including members of the Government Statistics and Social Research professions. Findings from quality assurance checks are recorded via a quality assurance tracker.

22. Third-party monitoring is used to verify delivery and establish that partners have robust data collection practices in place. The Assurance and Learning Programme was established by FCDO in 2022 to strengthen oversight of the delivery of UK-funded aid in Afghanistan by providing independent third-party monitoring and portfolio monitoring, evaluation and learning.

23. Due to the operating context in Afghanistan, it is not always possible to collect, or quality assure, all data and disaggregated data to the desired standards. FCDO’s reliance on partner’s data systems and the challenging environments in which our partners operate limits FCDO’s control over underlying data quality. Therefore, guaranteeing accuracy and completeness of results estimates is extremely difficult. FCDO is working with partners with a view to improve the quality and the availability of disaggregated data over time.

24. The annual results commission is a recent development, as implementing partners continue to become more familiar with the definitions and methodology, we expect to see continued improvement in the confidence and granularity of data provided and used in results publications. See upcoming developments and improvement section for detail.

Aggregation

25. Once data is quality assured and finalised, implementing partners’ data is aggregated together to obtain estimates of FCDO’s total reach – these are the figures used within the publication. To ensure that each beneficiary is only counted once in a result, different approaches are used:

a) people reached results: more than one partner reporting: the data (including gender disaggregation) from the implementing partner with the largest reach in each province is included in the aggregated total. Province totals are then summed together. For example, total people reached through humanitarian assistance was calculated in this way

b) people reached results: just one partner reporting: result definitions already require partners to adjust for double counting within their own beneficiaries; therefore, a single partner’s data can be used without adjustment

c) distribution/items results: these results aim to capture all items/transfers distributed; therefore, partner data is summed together with no double counting considerations needed e.g. number of births attended or  total metric tonnes from food aid distributed

26. If an implementing partners’ data is used within a results indicator, this includes the partner’s disaggregation of gender and age too. See  below for an example of this.

27. Please see an illustrative example of aggregation method below:

Calculating the number of people reached with humanitarian assistance in province X

In province X, partners have submitted this data.

Partner	Number of people reached with humanitarian assistance	Number  of women and girls reached with humanitarian assistance
A	1,000	400
B	500	375
C	900	500

Following the methodology we would include Partner A data (1000 people of which 400 were women and girls) within the aggregated total, and Partner B and Partner C would be excluded. Figures across provinces would then be summed together (including gender and age).

Disaggregation

28. Sex disaggregation is mandatory for all the “People reached” results data This data is essential for calculation of FCDO’s performance against the 50% women and girls reach commitment (see next section).

29. Disability data helps us understand the extent to which vulnerable populations are reached through different interventions. Partners take different approaches to gathering information on disabilities:

• direct surveying: some partners ask all beneficiaries directly using the Washington Group Questions or a similar set of questions

• representative sampling: others conduct surveys on a representative sample of beneficiaries across provinces, again using the Washington Group Questions or comparable tools. The sample produces a disability prevalence which can be applied to the whole population of beneficiaries

• self-declaration and observation: in some cases, disability data is gathered through self-declaration during health interventions, supplemented by direct observation by frontline workers to assess functional limitations

Some partners are unable to provide disability disaggregation but have plans to capture disability in future years.

30. The disability disaggregation is based on data from the partner with the largest reach of people with disabilities to avoid double-counting. The disability figure provided in our publication is an “at least” estimate; the total number of people with disabilities reached with Afghanistan ODA could be much higher.

31. Age disaggregation is collected for the majority of “People reached” results.

Women and girls commitment methodology

32. FCDO has made a commitment that 50% of the beneficiaries reached with UK ODA in Afghanistan are women and girls.

33. This is assessed by calculating the proportion of total people reached that were women and girls for each individual partner^{[footnote 2]}. This proportion is calculated based on each partners’ result with the largest reach, to minimise double counting. An average is then calculated across partners weighted by the size of the partners reach. This approach means that the partners with the largest number of beneficiaries have the largest influence on the average. An example of this calculation is below:

Partner	Largest Indicator – number of people reached	number of women  and girls (W and G) reached	percentage of W and G	Reach weighting	Weighted average
A	1,000	400	40%	0.42	17%
B	500	375	75%	0.21	16%
C	900	500	56%	0.38	21%

Total weighted average: 54%

34. The methodology effectively reflects women and girls reach by weighting partner data according to overall reach size. However, it should be noted that there are some potential limitations to this method; for example, the accuracy of this approach depends on consistent sex-disaggregated data across partners, plus there is a risk of double counting beneficiaries across partners’ data. On the other hand, using a single indicator per partner may underrepresent some beneficiaries, for instance most partners highest reach indicator will be “Number of people reached by humanitarian assistance”, while the “essential health” indicator tends to have a higher proportion of women and girl beneficiaries.

35. In 2024 to 2025,the 50% target was met. In 2023 to 2024, a similar results collection was conducted (for the first time); against the weighted average methodology described above, the 50% target was met. In 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023, there was no central results collection. The 50% target was assessed using the disaggregated results achieved for each partner under the humanitarian programme which was central to our immediate response – against that method the target was met.

Ethical and sensitivity considerations

36. Ensuring ethical considerations and data confidentiality is a key priority. In line with FCDO statistics: statement on disclosure control, figures have been rounded down to the nearest 1000, and partner names and some disaggregation have been suppressed.

Upcoming development and improvements

37. As the results collection process has become more established and implementing partners more familiar with the reporting definitions and methodology, we have seen continued improvements in the quality, confidence and granularity of the data provided. Considering this, we will review the methodology used for aggregation and other calculations involved ahead of the next publication and will consider refinements to some sector indicators to better align with future programme delivery.

Annex A: glossary 

Aggregation: the process of combining data from multiple implementing partners to calculate the total result for all FCDO ODA programmes.   

AHF: Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund (AHF) is a country pooled fund which is co-ordinated by the Office of Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).  

ARTF:  the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund (ARTF) is a trust fund managed by the World Bank. Trust funds receive financial contributions from multiple donors combining them into a single fund, with the aim to improve the coordination of basic human needs assistance. 

Beneficiary: an individual receiving support or services provided through FCDO-funded programmes in Afghanistan. 

Cash/voucher: a form of humanitarian aid where recipients receive cash or vouchers to buy goods and services locally. 

Disaster Risk Reduction: activities aimed at helping people and communities prepare for and reduce the impact of disasters. This includes preventing new risks, reducing existing risks, and managing unavoidable risks with the aim to strengthen resilience. 

Humanitarian assistance: the provision of emergency assistance or preventative support with the aim to save lives, alleviate suffering and protect dignity during and after crises – whether triggered by natural disaster, conflict or displacement. Essential health, education, safety, resilience and wellbeing support, agriculture and livelihood support, nutrition and water and sanitation in a protracted humanitarian crisis such as Afghanistan are also described as humanitarian assistance.

Implementing Partner: an organisation responsible for delivering aid and services on the ground on behalf of donors.  

ICRC:  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a neutral, independent, and impartial humanitarian organisation whose mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. The ICRC also works to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening international humanitarian law. 

ODA: Official Development Assistance (ODA) is an internationally agreed measure of resource flows to developing countries and multilateral organisations, which are provided by official agencies (e.g. the UK Government) or their executive agencies, where each transaction meets the following requirements:  

• it is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective; and 
• it is concessional, including grants and soft loans

ODA is measured according to the standardised definitions and methodologies of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). 

Province: One of Afghanistan’s 34 first-level administrative divisions below national level, used as a geographic disaggregation for reporting the location of beneficiaries and programme activities. Provinces are made up of multiple districts.  

Results: figures that have been collated from a set of programmes to provide an indication of our activity in Afghanistan. Results are defined as the outputs, outcomes or impacts of development interventions. The results in this publication are outputs describing the support and services which result from FCDO’s Afghanistan ODA programmes. 

Unearmarked contribution: funding to an organisation where the donor has not specified that it must be spent on a specific activity or purpose. This enables greater flexibility, allowing partners to respond quickly to emerging crises or shifting priorities in terms of where needs are greatest.  

Unique beneficiary: a unique individual that is only counted once within a partner intervention, within an indicator even if they receive multiple interventions. 

UNOCHA: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is a United Nations agency focused on the co-ordination of crisis response, facilitating needs analysis and mobilised international humanitarian assistance.  

WASH: Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH), these interventions are focused on improving access to clean and safe water, safe disposal of waste and minimising environmental contamination and personal hygiene, all contributing towards preventing illness. 

Washington Group Questions: a standardised data collection tool designed to identify whether someone has a disability. The set of questions are the best practice approach to collecting disability data. They promote inclusive and sensitive data collection, the results are internationally comparable and easy to use and understand

1. Household size of 7 is a commonly applied assumption in Afghanistan, for example see UNDP Socio -Economic Outlook 2024,  that uses Whole of Afghanistan Assessment data. ↩

2. ARTF is not included as it is not possible to calculate a UK share, see Data collection and quality assurance for more detail. ↩