WFP and J-PAL for Humanitarian Impact Evaluation
EvalCommunity Academy Case Study
WFP and J-PAL Humanitarian Impact Evaluation Case Study
A practical case study on how rigorous impact evaluation can support better humanitarian decision-making in crisis settings.
Last updated: June 2026 · EvalCommunity Academy case study · Humanitarian impact evaluation · WFP · J-PAL · RCTs
Summary for Evaluators
This case study examines how the World Food Programme and J-PAL are strengthening the use of rigorous impact evaluation in humanitarian settings. It focuses on evidence from randomized controlled trials, humanitarian programme design, anticipatory action, transfer timing, targeting, and the idea of evidence as a public good.
The case is designed for evaluators, M&E specialists, humanitarian practitioners, development professionals, funders, policymakers, and students interested in evidence-based humanitarian programming.
Introduction
Humanitarian and development organizations often make decisions in urgent, complex, and resource-constrained settings. This case study examines how the World Food Programme and J-PAL are working together to strengthen the use of rigorous impact evaluation in humanitarian action.
The case is based on the WFP Evaluation article Humanitarian impact evaluations: WFP and J-PAL build commitment for a common cause, which describes discussions at the Global Impact Evaluation Forum in Rome and highlights the role of impact evaluation in answering difficult humanitarian questions.
For evaluators, the case shows why rigorous evidence matters when assumptions, intuition, or established practice may not be enough to determine whether a programme is actually working.
Case Background
In 2025, the World Food Programme and J-PAL came together at the Global Impact Evaluation Forum in Rome to discuss the role of rigorous impact evaluation in humanitarian and development settings.
The discussion connected WFP’s impact evaluation agenda with the work of Professor Abhijit Banerjee, co-founder of J-PAL and Nobel Laureate in Economics. Banerjee’s work on randomized controlled trials helped shape how development programmes are tested and understood.
The case highlights how WFP, J-PAL, and other partners are working to build stronger evidence for humanitarian action at a time of increasing crises, funding constraints, and difficult operational choices.
The Evaluation Challenge
Humanitarian and development organizations often make decisions in difficult conditions. They face urgent needs, limited resources, and rapidly changing contexts.
The source material emphasizes that interventions should not be assumed to work simply because they appear logical, familiar, or based on common practice. Banerjee warned that “the presumption of knowledge is dangerous,” explaining that some interventions that seemed sensible in education did not work when tested rigorously.
This creates an important evaluation challenge: how can humanitarian actors make better decisions when common-sense assumptions may be wrong, and when resources are scarce?
The Role of Impact Evaluation
The case shows that rigorous impact evaluations, including randomized controlled trials, can help answer difficult humanitarian questions.
Rather than relying only on intuition, ideology, or established practice, impact evaluation can test whether programmes are actually producing the intended results.
The source material presents evidence as especially important in humanitarian settings because resources are scarce and life-changing decisions often have to be made quickly.
Example: The Graduation Approach
The Graduation Approach is presented as an example of how impact evaluation can identify what works over the long term.
The approach, pioneered by the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee in the early 2000s, provided very poor households with productive assets of their choice, such as livestock. It also included income support until the assets began generating returns, together with 18 months of intensive training and encouragement.
Large-scale randomized controlled trials in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan, and Peru showed that households had better financial outcomes and increased psychosocial well-being. The source material also notes that researchers later found persistent effects 11 years after the programme, as well as intergenerational benefits as children contributed to higher income streams.
Although the programme had upfront costs ranging from $330 to $1,900 per household, depending on local costs, the source material states that long-term benefits outweighed the initial investment nearly everywhere the programme was evaluated.
Humanitarian Evidence in Practice
The source material identifies several recent examples of impact evaluations in humanitarian settings.
Community-based targeting in the DRC
A randomized comparison showed that community-based targeting could match the precision of data-driven proxy means test models at lower cost.
Transfer timing in Northern Ghana
An evaluation found that changing transfer timing from monthly payments to lump-sum support could increase agricultural investment and improve short-term food security.
Anticipatory action in Nepal and Bangladesh
Impact evaluations found that anticipatory action delivered before forecasted floods led to higher food consumption, fewer negative coping strategies, and improved well-being compared with equivalent post-shock transfers.
These examples show that rigorous evidence can inform practical programme choices, including targeting, transfer timing, and anticipatory action.
Evidence as a Public Good
A central message of the case is that evidence should be treated as a public good in humanitarian settings.
The source material argues that collaboration between funders, UN agencies, NGOs, and academic partners makes it more feasible to build long-term evidence portfolios across countries and contexts.
This matters because humanitarian actors often face similar questions, and evidence generated in one setting can contribute to learning across the wider humanitarian system.
Partnership Model
The partnership between WFP and J-PAL brings together complementary strengths.
WFP contributes its global operational footprint and humanitarian mandate. J-PAL contributes methodological leadership and an academic network.
The source material also notes collaboration between WFP and UN-OCHA on shared evidence related to anticipatory action and beyond.
Lessons for EvalCommunity Academy
1. Evaluation requires humility
Programmes should not be assumed to work simply because they seem logical, familiar, or widely accepted.
2. Evidence can improve programme design
Rigorous evidence can support better decisions about targeting, transfer timing, anticipatory action, and other design choices.
3. Rigorous evaluation is possible in humanitarian settings
The case highlights that impact evaluations can be conducted in humanitarian and fragile contexts, even though such settings were once seen as too difficult, too urgent, or too constrained.
4. Partnerships are essential
Humanitarian agencies, academic institutions, funders, NGOs, and UN agencies all have roles to play in building useful evidence.
5. Small design changes can matter
The examples in the case show that programme design choices, such as transfer timing or targeting methods, can have meaningful effects without necessarily increasing programme complexity.
SEO and AI Search Topics Covered
This case study is structured to answer common search and AI-search questions about humanitarian impact evaluation, WFP, J-PAL, randomized controlled trials, evidence-based humanitarian programming, anticipatory action, targeting, transfer timing, and evaluation partnerships.
- Humanitarian impact evaluation
- WFP impact evaluation strategy
- J-PAL humanitarian evidence
- Randomized controlled trials in humanitarian settings
- Evidence as a public good
- Anticipatory action evaluation
- Community-based targeting evaluation
- Transfer timing and food security
- Graduation Approach evidence
- Evaluation lessons for humanitarian practitioners
FAQ
What is the main source for this case study?
The main source is the WFP Evaluation article Humanitarian impact evaluations: WFP and J-PAL build commitment for a common cause, published on March 5, 2026.
What is the main evaluation issue in the case?
The case focuses on how humanitarian actors can make better decisions when common-sense assumptions may be wrong and resources are scarce.
Why is impact evaluation important in humanitarian settings?
Impact evaluation can help test whether programmes are producing intended results and can inform practical choices such as targeting, transfer timing, and anticipatory action.
What does evidence as a public good mean in this case?
It means that evidence generated through collaboration can support learning across the wider humanitarian system, not only within one organization or project.
What partnership strengths are highlighted?
The case highlights WFP’s global operational footprint and humanitarian mandate alongside J-PAL’s methodological leadership and academic network.
What examples of humanitarian impact evaluation are included?
The case includes examples on community-based targeting in the DRC, transfer timing in Northern Ghana, and anticipatory action in Nepal and Bangladesh.
Conclusion
The WFP and J-PAL case shows how rigorous impact evaluation can help humanitarian actors make better decisions during difficult times.
By testing assumptions, building evidence across contexts, and treating evidence as a public good, humanitarian organizations can strengthen crisis programming and support more effective action for people affected by crises.
