Humanitarian

3ie supports seven impact evaluations under this programme that provide rigorous evidence to improve the quality of life of people living in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. These impact evaluations examine important questions related to nutrition; food security; resilience; water, sanitation and hygiene; and multi-sectoral humanitarian programming. We expect these studies to answer priority questions on effective and efficient ways to deliver humanitarian programming to improve recovery and build resilience of vulnerable and crises-affected populations.

Sylvain Liechti , UN Photo

As part of this programme, 3ie supports high-quality impact evaluations and systematic reviews to improve evidence on community-driven reconstruction; peace-building programmes; cash-based humanitarian interventions; and water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives, among several others. Funding for this programme is provided by UNOCHA-Common Humanitarian Pooled Fund in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Danida and the World Food Programme.

Why more evidence is needed

UNOCHA predicts that in 2018 over 135 million people globally will need humanitarian assistance and protection. Despite the large number of people in need of assistance, little evidence exists on the effectiveness of aid interventions in challenging humanitarian environments. Two evidence gap maps and a 3ie scoping study highlight the lack of high-quality studies that show the causal relationship between assistance and changes in targeted results.

3ie’s evidence programme

In 2014, 3ie, with the support of UK aid and USAID, launched the humanitarian assistance grant-making programme to increase the stock of high-quality, policy-relevant evidence in the humanitarian sector.

To develop and ensure the relevancy of this programme, 3ie, in collaboration with these donors, hosted a consultative event in 2015 to discuss the scope of the programme and the evidence gaps that exist. At the event, we presented findings from a scoping paper and a methodology working paper that identified innovative methods of measuring impact in humanitarian conditions.

Related content

What evidence is available and what is required in humanitarian assistance?

What evidence is available and what is required in humanitarian assistance?

Scoping report 3ie 2014

Most areas in the humanitarian sector suffer from a paucity of evidence.

wp5

Impact evaluation in the post-disaster setting

Working paper 3ie 2009

Alison Buttenheim synthesises the guiding principles and analytic frameworks for post-disaster impact evaluation, and applies it to a design for the evaluation of relief and recovery programmes fol

WP B3

What works to improve nutrition and food security in the Sahel?

Working paper 3ie 2018
This brief summarises the main findings and lessons from a synthesis of four 3ie-supported impact evaluations of the World Food Programme’s interventions to improve nutrition and food security outcomes.

WP31

Synthesis of impact evaluations of the World Food Programme’s nutrition interventions in humanitarian settings in the Sahel

Working paper 3ie 2018

Acute malnutrition in the Sahel region affects an estimated 6 million children under the age of 5, of whom approximately 1.4 million require treatment for severe acute malnutrition.

IE79

Impact evaluation of the World Food Programme’s moderate acute malnutrition treatment and prevention programmes in Sudan

Impact evaluation 3ie 2018
Report authors evaluated the effectiveness of a food-based treatment programme and additional supplementary feeding interventions on moderate acute malnutrition incidence and prevalence in children, pregnant and lactating women in Sudan.

IE78

Impact evaluation of WFP’s programs targeting moderate acute malnutrition in humanitarian situations in Chad

Impact evaluation 3ie 2018
Authors of this evaluation looked at the differences in impact of a prevention programme on moderate acute malnutrition on children between 6-23 months during the pastoral and agricultural lean season.

There are no impact evaluations
There are no systematic reviews
There are no evidence gap maps
There are no replication studies
There is no related content.