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.

For more information, please write to info@3ieimpact.org. To receive alerts about call for proposals, please sign up here.

Related content

LS B2

Early implementation lessons from 3ie-supported impact evaluations of humanitarian assistance

Learning summary 3ie 2016
This learning brief draws from the preliminary challenges and lessons from the ongoing impact evaluations under 3ie’s Humanitarian Assistance Evidence Programme.

Cash-based approaches in humanitarian emergencies

Cash-based approaches in humanitarian emergencies

Systematic review 3ie 2016

This review by Doocy and Tappis assessed and synthesised existing evidence on the effects of cash-based approaches on individual and household outcomes in humanitarian emergencies.

Evidence for peacebuilding: an evidence gap map

Evidence for peacebuilding: an evidence gap map

Evidence gap map 3ie 2015

Around 70 per cent of fragile states have seen conflict since 1989 and 30 per cent of official development assistance is spent in fragile and conflict-affected situations.

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.

What methods may be used in impact evaluations of humanitarian assistance?

What methods may be used in impact evaluations of humanitarian assistance?

Working paper 3ie 2014

Since 2005, more than US$90 billion has been spent on humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian crises are complex situations where demand for aid very often exceeds supply.

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

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.