The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) has awarded Valid International with one of six grants under 3ie’s humanitarian assistance thematic window specifically on the theme of impact evaluations of programmes targeting moderate acute malnutrition in humanitarian situations. 3ie’s overall thematic window grant programme is designed to support the generation of high-quality evidence on important topics in international development, where impact evaluations and evidence of effectiveness are lacking.

Valid International has been granted funding for our proposal on impact evaluation of the Food-based Prevention of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (FBPM) programme in Sudan implemented by the World Food Programme (WFP).


3ie is aiming to obtain an understanding of the relationship between malnutrition treatment and prevention and generate evidence of the value of the interrelationship. Related to this would be knowing how effectiveness varies in emergency and post emergency conditions and the extent to which impact of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) treatment programmes varies when prevention interventions are also present.

3ie expects the evaluation to make use of experimental or quasi-experimental methods to examine the full causal chain to answer questions about what works, why, how and at what cost and to identify changes needed to enable fulfilment of potential impact of MAM interventions.

Proposed evaluation questions

We are proposing a core evaluation question of:

What is the impact on incidence and prevalence of MAM and SAM in children under 5 years and PLW of different packages of MAM treatment and prevention in acute/protracted emergencies in Sudan (i.e. TSFP, TSFP with eBSF1, TSFP with FBPM)?

Of this core evaluation question, we propose to address the following sub-questions:

  1. How are these impacts effected by different intervention modality in terms of product used, delivery of service, duration of intervention and coverage?

  3. What is the impact of FBPM and eBSFP on effectiveness of MAM treatment (performance and coverage)?

  5. How timely and effective is the rapid response (eBSF) intervention?

  6. How does the inclusion of SBCC impact on the effectiveness of MAM treatment and prevention and what factors influence this?

  8. How appropriate are geographical and individual targeting criteria for each intervention?

  10. Cost measures and comparison of different packages (cost-effectiveness)?

  12. What are the wider impacts, positive or negative, of the packages at household, community or institutional level (opportunity, social, economic, environmental)?


For details and further information on this project, visit our project site.