Search

After making large investments to put in place effective health and nutrition interventions, researchers, program implementers, policy makers, and donors all expect lasting effects. However, it is uncertain whether this is the case, and there is less certainty on how to approach the study of program sustainability. This symposium, "Building Evidence for Sustainability of Food and Nutrition Intervention Programs in Developing Countries," provided not only frameworks for conceptualizing sustainability but concrete evidence about the approaches and methods used as well as lessons on how they do or do not work in particular contexts. We presented the following findings: 1) sustainability of activities and impacts of Title II food aid programs in Bolivia and Kenya, 2) sustainability of impact in terms of adoption and consumption of a biofortified orange sweet potato in Uganda, and 3) lessons from incorporating pro-sustainability investment strategies in child survival programs in Guinea. Our symposium introduced a new important body of research on program sustainability to provide insights and stimulate innovative thinking in the design and planning of further applied research and future prosustainability intervention programs.

Background: Food aid provided by the United States has saved lives for almost two centuries. Delivering the right products is important, but of equal concern are the ways in which products are delivered and to whom., Objective: The study addresses how food products are currently used, whether interventions are appropriate to achieve nutrition objectives, and whether nutrition targets could be met more cost-effectively with a different mix of products or programs., Methods: The team conducted consultations with a broad range of stakeholders. A survey of Title II implementing partners was conducted, focusing on procurement and logistics, and uses of FBFs and other foods. Input of implementing partners, civil society, and donor organizations was obtained through individual consultations, international and small group meetings. More than 400 individuals accessed the project's website. The project convened a panel of experts in food technology and science, food policy, law, industry, medicine, development and humanitarian work, and the maritime industry, and held regular joint meetings with USDA and USAID. The draft report was widely disseminated and posted on the website., Results and Conclusions: There is wide variation in the quantities of fortified blended foods provided to target populations. Most of these foods are used in health/nutrition programs, but they are also used in general family rations or as an incentive or pay. Clearer programming guidance and improved decision tools are needed to match products to nutrition goals, and programs should consider delivering nutrients across a basket of commodities, not single products. The evidence base for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of specific foods and programs needs to be strengthened and should be supported by FFP Research is needed to provide guidance on nutrition support for HIV/AIDS. Additional investments are needed in effective behavior change communication.

Background: Food aid provided by the United States has saved the lives of the vulnerable for many years. Recognizing the need for a thorough review of product formulations and specifications, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) commissioned a 2-year assessment of quality issues relating to Title II food aid products. This article presents findings and recommendations of that review relating to product enhancements., Objective: The core question addressed was: Are current commodity specifications for enriched FBFs appropriate in light of evolving nutritional science and food fortification technology, or do they need to be updated?, Methods: Empirical data were derived from a number of sources, including a survey of Title II implementing partners focusing on procurement and logistics, and uses of FBFs and other foods. Input of implementing partners, civil society, and donor organizations was obtained through individual consultations, international and small group meetings. More than 400 individuals accessed the project's website. The project convened a panel of experts in food technology and science, food policy, law, industry, medicine, development and humanitarian work, and the maritime industry, and held regular joint meetings with USDA and USAID. The draft report was widely disseminated and posted on the website., Results and Conclusions: The findings of this research led to the following broad areas of improvement in US Title II food aid products: 1) Improve the formulation of existing FBF products used in Title II programming. This includes the addition of a dairy source of protein to products targeted to children 6 to 24 months of age, pregnant and lactating women, wasted children, and wasted individuals undergoing HIV/AIDS treatment. 2) Upgrade the vitamin and mineral mixes used and diversify approaches to addressing micronutrient needs. Enhance the composition of premixes used to fortify blended foods as well as milled grains and vegetable oil; facilitate shipping offortificant premix with bulk cereals for in-country fortification; and develop micronutrient powders (sachets) and other point-of-use fortification options. 3) Develop or adopt non-cereal-based (e.g., lipid-based) products for the management of nutritional deficiencies. This is an argument for more choice among appropriate tools, not for discarding products that have already shown their value over many years. It also does not reduce the need to maintain a focus on supplying high volumes of quality grains as the main staple in food aid baskets.

Background: Enacted in 1950, Public Law 480 (PL480) dramatically increased the volume of U.S.food aid and the scope of interventions it supports. Billions of dollars have been invested, both to enhance the diets of chronically undernourished people in development settings, and to support nutritional needs during conflicts and natural disasters., Objective: Review the institutional processes-from procurement to delivery-that support this programming., Methods: We examined the systems that govern and oversee the many components of food aid programming and the extent to which they support a whole-of-government, multi-agency food aid agenda. We conducted consultations with US government employees and contractors, academics, industry representatives, donor agency staff United Nations personnel, and field-level food aid programming technical staff from many countries. A survey of USAID implementing partners conducted among 64 responding offices in 40 countries provided data on the use and effectiveness of enriched, fortified, or blended Title II commodities, the use of new commodities, and related procurement or logistics aspects. Expert panels provided input and feedback throughout the process., Results: We identified potential improvements to overall delivery and cost-effectiveness of USAID programming to better meet the nutrition needs of beneficiaries. Options include changes in product formulation, the range of products provided, and/or the modes of product approval, processing, procurement, and distribution. This research points to several improvements in processes related to food aid: 1) Establish an interagency committee to oversee all government interests in the food aid agenda through an ongoing review process. 2) Enhance processes and quality assurance along the product value chain including the importance of effective interaction with the private sector to incorporate industry best practices and create public-private partnerships to promote product innovations. 3) Strengthen the evidence base for innovations in products, programming approaches, and institutional processes., Conclusion: Successful programming requires knowledge and understanding of the unit cost of impact, not simply tonnage and "numbers of hungry people fed". Empirical rigor is essential; any significant program changes, including those recommended here, should be tested and monitored.

This paper hypothesizes that there is a common "core" to the household food insecurity experience that goes beyond insufficient food quantity and that transcends culture. The paper for the first time employs an exploratory approach to identify cross-cultural commonalities of the food insecurity experience as captured in 22 scales and related ethnographies derived from 15 different countries. The constant comparative method was used to code elements of the food insecurity experience expressed in the ethnographies and to regroup them into domains and subdomains. This typology was then applied to ascertain which experiential domains and subdomains were measured (or not) across all 22 studies. Survey data from 11 of the studies were then analyzed to assess similarities in the relative frequency with which culturally diverse households responded to questionnaire items related to these common domains/subdomains. The analysis confirmed that insufficient food quantity, inadequate food quality, and uncertainty and worry about food were a significant part of the food insecurity experience in all sampled cultures; concerns about social unacceptability emerged in all ethnographic accounts. Several subdomains were identified, such as concern over food safety and meal pattern disruption, with potentially important consequences for physical and psychological well-being. The comparative survey data showed that the relative frequency at which populations responded to domain-related questionnaire items was similar across all but a few cultures. Future food insecurity assessments should consider these core domains and subdomains as the starting point for measures that can generate rich information to inform food security policies and programs.

This paper compares a qualitative and a quantitative (Rasch) method of item assessment for developing the content of a food insecurity scale for Bangladesh. Data are derived from the Bangladesh Food Insecurity Measurement and Validation Study, in which researchers collected 2 rounds of ethnographic information and 3 rounds of conventional household survey data between 2001 and 2003. The qualitative method of scale development relied on content experts and respondents themselves to evaluate household food insecurity items generated through ethnographic research. The quantitative method applied the Rasch model to assess the fit of the same items using representative survey data. The Rasch model was then used to test for differential item functioning (DIF) across diverse demographic and geographic subgroups. The qualitative assessment flagged and discarded 10 items, leaving 13. The Rasch assessment of infit and outfit flagged 3 items, and the Rasch DIF test discarded another 10 items, leaving a total of 10 items in the Rasch-derived scale. The 2 scales contained 8 of the same items. The qualitatively and quantitatively derived scales were highly correlated (r = 0.96, P < 0.01), and the 2 methods located 90% of households in the same food insecurity tercile. This convergence lends added confidence to the use of either scale for identifying food-insecure households in different regions of Bangladesh. Multiple methods should continue to be applied in a systematic and transparent way to lend additional credence to the results when they converge and to pinpoint directions for further clarification where they do not.