IFE Core Group
Mid-Term Review
Summary Report

Caroline AblaENN Consultant

February 2024

Contents
Acknowledgements4
Abbreviations and Acronyms

5

Executive Summary6

MTR Background

6

MTR Process

6

MTR Key Findings – Summary

6

MTR Key Findings – Priorities

6

Mid Term Review Background

8

MTR Objectives and Timeframe

8

MTR Deliverables

9

MTR Process

9

MTR Process – Online Survey

9

MTR Process – Internal Key Informant Interviews (IKIIs)

9

MTR Process – External Key Informant Interviews (EKIIs)

10

MTR Process – Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

10

MTR Process – Consultations with IFE-CG at the Annual Meeting 2023

10

MTR Findings
IFE-CG Relevance

10
10

Is the IFE-CG relevant and fit for purpose?

11

Is the IFE-CG strategy relevant and fit for purpose?

11

Leadership and delivering on IFE11

IFE-CG and the Operational Guidance

12

IFE-CG Working Methods

12

IFE-CG Strategy and Workplan

13

IFE-CG and the Shift in IFE Needs

13

IFE External Communication and Engagement

13

IFE-CG and Knowledge Products

14

IFE-CG and Regional Entities

14

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

2

Contents
IFE-CG Governance

14

Internal Communication

15

Steering Committee Selection

15

Level of participation in the IFE-CG

15

Who is missing from the IFE-CG membership?

15

IFE-CG Fundamental Functions16

Priority Recommendations16

Annex: IFE-CG Strategy

18

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 3

Acknowledgements
This mid-term review (MTR) report was prepared by Caroline Abla, Emergency Nutrition
Network (ENN) consultant.
This MTR was made possible due to the generous support of UNICEF. The ideas, opinions
and comments included are entirely the responsibility of the document’s author and do notnecessarily represent or reflect the policies of the donor.
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following:
The IFE Core Group (IFE-CG) members who took time out of their busy workdays to participate
in the survey, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions and whose invaluable
contributions have been instrumental in shaping the outcomes of this MTR.
The IFE-CG members who participated in the IFE-CG annual meeting 2023 whose feedback andrecommendations on the MTR presentation of findings validated the consultant’s understandingof the IFE-CG priorities.
The IFE-CG Steering Committee for its feedback and support in developing the different tools
used to collect the needed data in the analysis phase and during the IFE-CG annual meeting
when the MTR findings were presented and discussed.
The ENN team including Nicki Connell, Marie McGrath, Laura Delfino, Judith Fitzgerald, andDima Ousta for their technical and logistical support.
This MTR represents a snapshot in time from August to December 2023. The report provides
the feedback received at that time from different IFE-CG internal and external participants.
The recommendations made by the consultant are based on discussions, understanding, andinterpretation of the participants’ responses and are the sole responsibility of the consultant.
Recommended Citation
ENN, IFE Core Group (2024). IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report. Emergency
Nutrition Network (ENN), Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25342789

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 4Abbreviations and Acronyms
CFE			

Complementary feeding in emergencies

CoI

Conflict of interest

DEI 			

Diversity, equity, inclusion

ENN

Emergency Nutrition Network

EKIIs

External key informant interviews

GNC

Global Nutrition Cluster

GNC-GTWGs

Global Nutrition Cluster – Global Thematic Working Groups

IBFAN

International Baby Food Action Network

IFE			

Infant feeding in emergencies

IFE-CG			

Infant Feeding in Emergencies Core Group

IKIIs

Internal key informant interviews

IYCF

Infant and young child feeding

IYCF-E

Infant and young child feeding in emergencies

MTR

Mid-term review

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

OG-IFE

Infant feeding in emergencies – operational guidanceSC

Steering Committee

TOR

Terms of referenceUN

United Nations

UNOCHA

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

WASH

Water, sanitation and hygiene

WHA

World Health Assembly

WHO

World Health Organization

UN

United Nations

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

5Executive Summary
MTR BackgroundIn 2023, Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN) commissioned a mid-term review (MTR) to takestock and critically examine what the IFE Core Group (IFE-CG) is doing and how it is doing it,
what has worked and what has not, and whether the needs and challenges that were present
when the strategy was developed remain relevant or whether new needs, challenges and, indeed,
opportunities have emerged.

MTR Process
The MTR process included an online survey, internal and external key informant interviews (IKIIs
and EKIIs), and focus group discussions (FGD). Thirty-four IFE-CG members participated in the
online survey, 14 IFE-CG members participated in the IKIIs, 11 EKIIs were conducted, and seven
IFE-CG members participated in three FGDs.
The aim was to gather information about the participants’ understanding of how the IFE-CG
works, how it is governed, and how relevant it is. The findings were presented at the IFE-CG
annual meeting in November 2023, and the members provided feedback on the suggested
top priorities to be focused on in the next steps. The interviews, consultations, and report
preparation were undertaken from August to December 2023.

MTR Key Findings – Summary• IFE-CG is a safe, neutral space to express, respectfully discuss, raise red flags, hold each otheraccountable, and reach consensus.
• IFE-CG is relevant and fit for purpose to deliver on infant feeding in emergencies (IFE) but
there is room for improvement.
• IFE-CG strategy is still relevant and fit for purpose but activities undertaken are not always
linked to the strategy and workplan.
• There is a lack of understanding of the role of the IFE-CG – who the group is, who it serves,
what it should or should not do.
• There are three critical functions that would be compromised or neglected without the IFECG’s existence: guidance, knowledge, and advocacy.

MTR Key Findings – Priorities
Based on the results of the survey, KIIs, and FGDs, the consultant prioritised several
recommendations to address the issues identified by the MTR. The top five priorities include:
1. Articulate a clear vision, purpose and mission statement based on what the IFE-CG does anddoes not do, in addition to reviewing and updating the detailed roles and responsibilities of
the Steering Committee, and all member organisations and individuals as it relates to their
responsibility for IFE.
2. Clarify the IFE-CG and Global Nutrition Cluster working relationship. This needs to be clearly
formulated (who does what) and understood by both groups.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 6

3. Promote, encourage, and support regional UN/NGO entities to engage with day-to-day IFE
work at the regional or country level to ensure better links to work on IFE at the global level
and to ensure that global level work is informed by those working in the contexts that the IFECG supports.
4. Map the membership to better understand geographic, technical, and emergency
representation and assess who else should be considered to join the IFE-CG or if the IFE-CG
needs to join those that are also addressing different aspects of IFE in their work.
5. Strengthen advocacy and communication, review and finalise the communication strategy,
and include advocacy and communication specialists in the IFE-CG.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 7Mid Term Review Background
The Infant Feeding in Emergencies Core Group (IFE-CG), a global collaboration of agencies andindividuals, was formed in 1999 to address policy guidance and training resource gaps hindering
programming on infant and young child feeding (IYCF) support in humanitarian contexts.
Since 1999, the IFE-CG has developed guidance and resource materials, documented lessons
learned, and built capacity for effective IYCF support in emergency contexts. One of the
major tasks and achievements of the IFE-CG has been the development and the continued
management of the Operational Guidance on IFE (OG-IFE) including updates which is a key pieceof policy guidance endorsed by the World Health Assembly (WHA).
Internally to the IFE-CG, 2019 saw the restructuring of the group which included a renewed
governance structure, three sub-committees and seven working groups to deliver key tasks andthe establishment of a leadership structure, the Steering Committee (SC). In addition, at the sametime, the IFE-CG developed a 2020-2024 strategy (Annex 1) that was informed by a theory ofchange which presented the desired long-term impacts that the IFE-CG was trying to contributeto and how the activities of the IFE-CG would influence these impacts. This strategy set a
direction for the IFE-CG for the next three to five years (2020-2024). Higher level objectives
were intended to remain functional for the full five years. Externally to the IFE-CG, the infant
feeding in emergencies (IFE) landscape changed, requiring closer examination given the potential
consequences for the need/niche for the IFE-CG, what the IFE-CG does and how it does it.  
In 2023, ENN commissioned a mid-term review (MTR) to take stock and critically examine what
the IFE-CG is doing and how it is doing it, what has worked and what has not, whether the needs
and challenges that were present when the strategy was developed remain relevant or whether
new needs, challenges and, indeed, opportunities have emerged.

MTR Objectives and Timeframe
The objectives of the MTR are to (1) examine what activities the IFE-CG has undertaken, withwhom and how, “the way the IFE-CG works”, (2) appraise if/the degree to which the IFE-CG
as a collective is needed and in what way (relevance), and (3) review and advise on IFE-CG
governance and ways of working to deliver on commitments most effectively and efficiently.
The timeframe for the MTR was between August and December 2023.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

8MTR Deliverables
The main MTR deliverables include:
1.  An inception report detailing consultation process, timeline, etc.
The inception report presented the IFE-CG strategy and governance context, the methodology for
the MTR, questionnaires for the key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), anda member survey, and a timetable for the process including document review, conducting interviews
and the survey, and completing the MTR. This report was produced in August 2023.
2. An evaluation report on the MTR findings (this report).
3. A summary presentation of the MTR findings to the IFE-CG at the virtual annual meeting inNovember 2023.
A PowerPoint presentation was developed and delivered at the November 13 and 15, 2023
annual meeting.
4. A light implementation plan to put recommendations into practice (developed in a separate
document).

MTR Process
The MTR process included an online survey, internal and external key informant interviews (IKIIs
and EKIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). The aim was to gather information about theparticipants’ understanding of how the IFE-CG works, how it is governed, and how relevant it is.
The findings were presented at the IFE-CG annual meeting in November 2023 and the members
provided feedback on the suggested top priorities to be focused on in the next steps.

MTR Process – Online Survey
A survey questionnaire, using SurveyMonkey, was developed focusing on the role of the
IFE-CG, awareness of and the relevance of the strategy, IFE-CG relevance, partnerships,
internal and external communications, leadership on IFE, focus on OG-IFE dissemination andcommunication, the promotion of regional entities, and three critical IFE-CG functions. An email
was sent to the IFE-CG members asking them to participate in the survey. Thirty-four IFE-CG
members participated in the online survey. The data was then analysed and the results are usedthroughout this report.

MTR Process – Internal Key Informant Interviews (IKIIs)
The IKIIs questionnaire focused on the work of the IFE-CG as a collective, what the IFE-CG
does/does not do, the question of if the IFE-CG is the best entity to lead on IFE, should the
IFE-CG focus on the OG-IFE including training at field level, what is working or not in terms ofthe governance of the group and how it can improve, SC selection process, participation in the
IFE-CG, who is missing from the IFE-CG, and what the three critical IFE-CG functions are. A listof potential internal KIIs was developed based on the number of years of involvement and active
participation in the IFE-CG. An email was sent to potentials IKIIs requesting participation in theinterviews. Fourteen IFE-CG members participated in the internal interviews. The data was thenanalysed and the results are used throughout this report.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

9MTR Process – External Key Informant Interviews (EKIIs)
The aim of the EKIIs was to understand how other groups similar to the IFE-CG are structured
and governed, what has worked or not in engaging their members, if EKIIs were familiar with
IFE, the degree to which the IFE-CG is needed to deliver on IFE, who else can lead, and what the
EKIIs thought were the three critical IFE-CG functions. A list of potential EKIIs was developedand emails were sent requesting an interview. Seven EKIIS were interviewed via Zoom andfour were reached via email exchange. The data was then analysed and the results are usedthroughout this report.

MTR Process – Focus Group Discussions (FGD)
The consultant sent out a call for IFE-CG members to take part in the FGDs. The following
criteria were set for members to be selected: (1) active involvement in the IFE-CG, (2) attendance
at least six monthly meetings or involvement in one of the working groups, and (3) having beena member of the IFE-CG for at least a year.  Those who took part in the IKIIs were not eligible totake part in the FGDs. Several emails calling on IFE-CG members to participate in the FGDs weresent out and a total of seven members volunteered and participated in three FGDs. One FGD(two participants) focused on ways of working and if and how the IFE-CG is needed. Another
FGD (two participants) discussed if and how the IFE-CG is needed and group governance while
the third FGD (three IFE-CG members) focused on ways of working, if and how the IFE-CG isneeded and governance. The data was then analysed and the results are used throughout thisreport.

MTR Process – Consultations with IFE-CG at the Annual Meeting 2023
The findings from the survey, IKIIs, EKIIs, and FGDs were presented at the IFE-CG virtual annual
meeting in November 2023. The intention was to have the IFE-CG’s discussions of the findings
and the feedback inform the MTR report but not dictate the priorities. The group’s priorities
overlapped with the consultant’s suggested priorities that the SC will be required to approve andmove forward.

MTR Findings
As stated, the information from the survey, IKIIS, EKIIS, and FGDs was analysed and theresults are used throughout this report. The information is presented below by themes: IFECG relevance, working methods, governance, and fundamental functions. Each section issummarised in the body of this report. This report presents and focuses on priority findings
across all themes. These priorities are suggested by the consultant and were supported by the
consultations during the IFE-CG 2023 annual meeting.

IFE-CG RelevanceThe question of the relevance of the IFE-CG considered several aspects including looking at if
the IFE-CG is still fit for purpose, if the strategy remains relevant, if other entities can/should
step up to take leadership of IFE, and if the IFE-CG’s main focus should be on the OG-IFE,
updating, translating, and disseminating this as well as providing training.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 10Is the IFE-CG relevant and fit for purpose?
Eighty-eight percent of those who responded to the survey, in addition to those who responded
to the KIIs and FGDs, believed that the IFE-CG is relevant and fit for purpose to deliver on IFE
but there is room for improvement as shown by the MTR results. The group is relevant, as it
brings a wealth of experience and is very active, but some members think that it is limited inits membership (predominantly HQ-based members from western countries) and is somewhat
disconnected from coordination groups at country-level.
Is the IFE-CG strategy relevant and fit for purpose?
Seventy-six point five percent of the survey respondents stated that they had reviewed or lookedat the strategy in the past year. In addition, 73.5% of survey respondents and the majority of the
FGD and KIIs stated that the IFE-CG strategy is still relevant and fit for purpose and addresses all
the fundamental issues that the IFE-CG should focus on.
Those who believed that the IFE-CG strategy is not as relevant and fit for purpose stated that thestrategy is based on the priorities of members who are rarely based at country level or deployed
to emergency responses, that it was developed prior to several significant changes in the IFE
field, particularly the formation of the Global Nutrition Cluster (GNC) Technical Alliance (nowknown as the technical arm of the GNC), and it has not reflected new areas of emphasis including
a gender lens.
Leadership and delivering on IFE
Sixty-five percent of the survey respondents stated that they did not think that there are otheragencies/networks who can or should be leading/taking over the role of leading the IFE-CG.
These sentiments were also shared by the KIIs and FGD participants. Members believed that
the IFE-CG is a coalition that brings a broad range of expertise and experience beyond thatwhich any single agency could do. The IFE-CG has diversity, highly committed individuals andagencies, and content experts all in one group. Because the IFE-CG is a collective, it has more
gravitas than one agency carrying the IFE flag. In the IKIIs and FGD discussions, participants
addressed ENN’s role in coordinating the IFE-CG. They thought that ENN was the agency tocontinue coordinating the group. They stated that United Nations (UN) agencies have links togovernments and may not be as independent as the leader of the IFE-CG needs to be. This also
applies to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as ENN, but particularly the large NGOs
who have multi-country chapters and have to navigate multiple departments and red tape, whohave ties to their donors and may not be as independent as they need to be to lead the IFE-CG
as ENN has done since the start. Although the agencies that make up the IFE-CG may not be
independent and able to say what needs to be said, the collective is independent and can voice
the concerns of the partners.
Seventy point six percent of the members who responded to the survey, as well as KII and FGD
respondents said that the IFE-CG is the best entity to address IFE issues because it is a highly
technical group that has a diversity of opinions but can work together to reach consensus. One
limitation to the IFE-CG is that it does not have the resources (funding and time) to do what itneeds/wants to do. With access to these resources, there is potential to do more, such as having
a pool of experts who can work on advocacy, research, and the economics of IFE, and work withdonors on how to include IFE in preparedness and emergency responses.
There are some agencies that are better positioned to deliver on individual pieces of IFE work
but not at a collective level. However, this approach risks orphaning certain topics if there is nolead agency able to find capacity to champion them. The agencies that could lead on individual

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 11pieces of work on specific IFE issues include UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO),
including regional and country offices, and GNC, Save the Children, and other NGOs.
IFE-CG and the Operational Guidance
Seventy-three point five percent of respondents said that the IFE-CG’s internal and external
communication focused sufficiently on the operational guidance on IFE in the last two years.
However, the dissemination of the OG-IFE had not expanded much (47%) since the new strategy
although, since it had been developed, a great deal of dissemination has taken place including
the translation of this key resource into many languages. Some of the KIIs and FGDs believedthat the work of the IFE-CG in the past two years had shifted away from disseminating the2017 guidance to focusing on tools and resources to better articulate the OG-IFE and this isappropriate. The work on the infographics and the webinars has contributed to communicating
the operational guidance.
The IFE-CG internal advocacy and communication needs to concentrate on both supporting
members and holding them to account. The IFE-CG needs to advocate to members that they are
responsible for ensuring that their organisations have disseminated and trained their staff on the
OG-IFE at HQ, regional, country, and response site levels, are compliant with the International
Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (the Code), utilise best IFE practices when they
develop emergency responses, and that their media messages and fundraising appeals are inaccordance with IFE best practices.

IFE-CG Working Methods
One of the roles of the IFE-CG is to bring experts in emergencies and in infant feeding toconsensus on specific issues, develop guidance, and disseminate new knowledge. The way the
IFE-CG generally works gives equal opportunity for all to be involved with clear tasks and a
specified commitment time that is communicated upfront.
From the survey, KIIs, and FGD responses, it is clear that there is a lack of understanding of therole of the IFE-CG, who it is, who it serves, what it should or should not do, the role of ENN, andthe role of the different members.
There is also confusion about the relationship between the IFE-CG and the GNC. Since the IFECG existed before the formation of the clusters, it was asked to act under the GNC and was notformed under the GNC. However, there needs to be clearer understanding by the members andthe GNC as to what this means, how the two entities work together, what the expectations areof the GNC of the IFE-CG and vice versa, and how the IFE-CG relates to the other GNC global
thematic working groups (GTWGs). Is it the IFE-CG’s role to link to the different clusters that
impact on IFE (health, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), logistics, protection) or is this the
GNC’s role? Or both? Would, for example, the IFE-CG work on products that are not in the IFECG workplan simply because the IFE-CG is the IFE GTWG under the GNC?
Most of the IFE-CG members involved in the MTR stated that the IFE-CG is not mandated towork at country level, “country response is not our job”, but the IFE-CG can proactively facilitate
what the field needs in order to provide quality IFE responses. It is not clear what scale and/or stage the emergency has to be at before the IFE-CG starts its support to and through thepartners.
A recurring theme under the IFE-CG working methods is that the IFE-CG needs to focus on its
core business, its niche. If the IFE-CG becomes involved in the operational side, then the core

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 12business will not receive the attention needed. According to respondents from the survey, KIIs,
and FGDs, the core business is being the “guardian of the operational guidance” and its update,when needed, the dissemination of the OG-IFE and advocating for its use, and developing tools
for its implementation, as well as IFE preparedness and policies. There is further need to look at
the practicality of the guidelines from a field perspective and simplifying and operationalisingmore sections of the OG-IFE, such as has been done through infographics, to make it easy for
use at field level. There is need to ensure that the implementation of the OG-IFE is happening
through IFE-CG partners. Some suggested that complementary feeding in emergencies (CFE)
is now a new niche for the group. IFE-CG has shown a spotlight on the CFE issue, and partners
have started to take the work forward.   
IFE-CG Strategy and Workplan
The strategy and the workplan are not prominent enough in the IFE-CG’s daily work. They were
the result of members investing their time to develop and implement the strategy and workplan.
Even though the development of these was inclusive to existing members, and transparent, someare still confused about what gets into the workplan, how decisions are made as to what work isfunded and who gets the funding.
Some believed that the IFE-CG has not been accountable to itself, critiquing what and how
it does its work. The group is at times moved to action depending on available funding andcapacity without questioning if the group should invest in these actions.
Some of the respondents to the survey, IKKs, and FGDs mentioned that in 2022-2023 theworkload of IFE-CG members, as it relates to IFE-CG work, increased with so many projects led
by members asking the collective to work on specific activities without much discussion of how
these activities connected to the strategy and workplan. Additionally, members are asked toparticipate in many taskforces/working groups without clarity as to how these activities connect
to the strategy. Members accepted this workload but there is a lack of prioritisation of effort
which is not coordinated in a strategic manner.
IFE-CG and the Shift in IFE Needs
There has been a shift in terms of attention to IFE and IFE needs in different contexts. Moreorganisations, the UN, local and international NGOs, and donors have strengthened their focus
on IFE. There has been a geographical/economical shift in where emergencies are occurring.
With climate change and conflict, emergencies are not only occurring in low-income countries
but are becoming more frequent in middle- and high-income countries such as Ukraine, Australia,
and the USA. The IFE-CG’s approach to IFE has been based on a model of support to low-income
countries that do not have strong systems to support infant feeding in times of non-emergency
and emergency. The IFE-CG needs to rethink how it will support emergency responses in areas
where there is a strong health system and government engagement. The IFE-CG has led andadapted to a broader focus than breastfeeding to also address the non-breastfed infant as well
as CFE.
IFE External Communication and Engagement
Forty-one percent of the respondents said that there is not effective communication by the
IFE-CG with different external groups, and only 56% thought that the IFE-CG included all
the relevant entities in communications and discussions. They stated that communication
has been challenging in recent months/years due to all the changes at the coordination level.
External communication is not done well. This is a result of a lack of expertise as well as a lackof budget. The IFE-CG consistently develops guidance and writes reports, but dissemination

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 13to other groups is ad hoc and not strategic. All outputs and deliverables produced under the
auspices of the IFE-CG should have a dissemination plan built into them from the beginning as
is envisioned in the communication strategy that is under development. This requires resourcing
strategic communications to be foundational rather than as an output that is divorced from thedeliverables.
IFE-CG and Knowledge Products
Ninety-seven percent of the survey respondents as well as KIIs and FGD respondents believedthat the IFE-CG is the appropriate group to produce the knowledge products that the IFE-CG
has developed in the last two years. The added value of the products is that they are the workof the collective including NGOs, the UN, and donors which gives additional weight for theirdissemination, use and implementation. Arguably, the IFE-CG had to develop some knowledge
products because others did not or were not able to step up to do so.
Fifty percent of respondents using all the data collection tools thought that the Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) guidance work should probably not have been
undertaken by the IFE-CG while others believed that the guidance on CBRN is work that the
IFE-CG is best suited to do because it is uniquely able to integrate scientific and technicalinformation within the OG-IFE in novel circumstances. On the other hand, there is a belief thatwork such as the breastfeeding counselling guidance in emergencies, the infographics, and thework on Covid-19 developed by the IFE-CG is important and could not have been easily done byother organisations. Clearly there is confusion about what the IFE-CG should do/produce, andwhat others should take responsibility for and produce.
IFE-CG and Regional Entities
KIIS, FGDs, as well as 79.4% of survey respondents thought that the IFE-CG should promote,encourage, and support regional UN/NGO entities to engage with the day-to-day IFE workat the regional or country level but that ultimately it was the responsibility of those entities
operating regionally or at the country level to engage and not that of the IFE-CG. They can
engage with already existing regional platforms such as the nutrition and health clusters, national
working groups such as the IFE working groups in country, regional entities such as NGO
forums, the Asia Disaster Centre and similar entities. Agencies that are members of the IFE-CG
should create opportunities to share experiences and knowledge from the regions, disseminate
information from the global level to their regional and country entities and platforms, and bringissues that the field is having and needs assistance with to the IFE-CG.

IFE-CG Governance
There has been a lot of progress in the governance of the group since the IFE-CG came into
existence, particularly in the last few years. The governance has improved with the formationof the SC to support the IFE-CG, the addition of the conflict-of-interest (CoI) document that
all members must sign, and with the terms of reference (TOR) for membership. Despite themembership TOR having been developed and shared with the members, it is still not clear
to some what is expected of them, and what members’ duties towards the group are withsome members being very active while others presenting more as 'observers', and whatmembers expect to gain from the membership. Some members still felt that accountability andtransparency need to be strengthened. There is a suggestion that the development of a collective
Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) statement would assist the group to improve transparency.
Annex 5 provides further details on the IFE-CG governance and suggested solutions to identified
problems.  

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

14

EKIIs provided information about their governance structure. Like the IFE-CG, some arestruggling with the same issues, including membership, participation, and scope (global, regional,
or country level involvement). Others focus on country level yet still find difficulties engaging
with that level during emergencies.
Internal Communication
Eighty-eight percent of survey respondents and most of the KIIs and FGDs thought that internal
communications from the IFE-CG were regular and effective. The monthly meeting minutes,
the current format of the newsletter (What’s New, an IFE-CG email update), and the infant andyoung children feeding in emergencies (IYCF-E) repository were very useful. Even though the
respondents thought that the monthly meetings are valuable, they suggested that the meeting
format and content should be revamped to provide a space for dialogue and discussion of issues
and reporting against the workplan rather than partner updates.
Steering Committee Selection
There are members who believed that the SC selection process provided inclusion (anyone cannominate themselves or be nominated to the SC) and transparency while a few others did notagree. From comments in the survey, FGDs, and KIIs, about 40% lack understanding of the SC
selection process and criteria leading to a feeling that the SC is not accountable or transparent
and is far removed from the IFE-CG. There is a need to better understand the SC’s relationship to
the IFE-CG and what the SC’s responsibilities are.
Level of participation in the IFE-CG
At least 60% of those who participated in the MTR stated that active participation in IFE-CG
work and meetings had fluctuated in recent years, however the engagement of members remains
strong. Some members did not participate in monthly meetings due to the time of the meetingand the difference in time zone. There is a feeling that a small number of members are very
engaged and do most of the work. Some members only engage when the issue is of interest tothem. Some members are grateful that there is no pressure to engage in working groups as they
are busy with their day-to-day jobs and may not have the time to be involved. Members have an
understanding of the role of the collective versus the role of the individual in the IFE-CG. Thiscan be used to build on to improve participation.
Who is missing from the IFE-CG membership?
Sixty-five percent of those who responded to the online survey, and from feedback fromthe IKIIs and FGDs, stated that the IFE-CG has developed and leveraged the necessary andappropriate partnerships with direct and tangential partners. However, several improvements
can and should be made to move the IFE-CG forward.
Representation in the membership by those living and working (field implementors) in emergency
affected countries and across nationalities, ethnicities, and experiences has not been achieved
as per the strategy. There is a need to expand and leverage the experiences and partnershipfrom low- and middle-income countries, and different regions of the world (Central America,
Southeast Asia, etc.). Suggestions as to how to tackle this issue are included in the light
implementation plan (separate document).
The respondents thought that intersectoral work is still missing from the IFE-CG approachand that this is a lost opportunity. IFE is not only a nutrition issue but also a health, protection,
food security, WASH, and logistics issue at a minimum. Engagement is required with the United
Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) to ensure that IFE needs

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 15are understood at the highest level and that support for the activation of the nutrition cluster is apriority to protect IFE.
Another missing group or specialty from the IFE-CG is advocacy and communications experts.
There are very few members who have experience in advocacy or communications. Theseexperts are needed to assist the IFE-CG in developing a concrete advocacy and communications
plan of action to promote the OG-IFE and developed resources, as well as to unify messaging on
IFE during an emergency. This was part of the workplan but has not yet been achieved and has
proved difficult to achieve in the past.

IFE-CG Fundamental Functions
Thirty-four respondents from the survey in addition to 14 KIIs, and seven people from three
FGDs provided their thoughts on the critical functions that the IFE-CG provides and what would
be compromised and or neglected without the group’s existence.
The respondents felt that the IFE-CG is a safe, neutral space to express and respectfully discuss
IFE issues and raise red flags, hold each other accountable, and reach consensus. The IFE-CG asa collective is recognised as an authority on IFE. It is a collection of committed, passionate andknowledgeable people who willingly give their time and expertise. The IFE-CG is more than thesum of its parts. The group brings its technical knowledge to protect and support breastfeeding
and optimal complementary feeding in emergency contexts, including respect for the mother's
choice in deciding which infant feeding method to use.
Regarding the IFE-CG fundamental functions, the answers from the respondents can be divided
into three critical functions that would be compromised or neglected without the IFE-CG’sexistence: guidance, knowledge, and advocacy.
Guidance✓ Maintaining, updating, translating, and positioning of the OG-IFE✓ Addressing emerging questions for which no previous guidance has been developed✓ Providing clear guidance on IFE emergency preparedness
Knowledge✓ Highlighting gaps, developing, and disseminating tools✓ Documenting lessons learnt
Advocacy✓ Providing visibility on IFE✓ Ensuring IFE is addressed (assessed, specific IFE activities planned and implemented tosupport IFE response, and interventions evaluated) in different types of emergencies
regardless of the rate of acute malnutrition.

Priority Recommendations
Based on the results of the survey, KIIs, and FGDs, the consultant prioritised several
recommendations and presented these to the IFE-CG during the annual meeting in 2023.
The meeting participants discussed the list of recommendations presented and agreed to theconsultant’s priorities except for one.  The participants felt that the priority to “reassess the

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 

16

IFE-CCG workplan, what activities the group is unable to work on, decide to drop or moveactivities to another time frame. Cost out remaining activities and fundraise” would be moreeasily addressed once the other priorities have been addressed, particularly priority 1 listed
below. This document focuses on the five main priority recommendations. The associated light
implementation plan t produced in conjunction with this report details specific activities that theSC can discuss and undertake for each recommendation to take forward and implement thesepriority recommendations.
The priority recommendations are as follows:
1. Articulate a clear vision, purpose and mission statement based on what the IFE-CG does anddoes not do, in addition to reviewing and updating detailed roles and responsibilities of theSC, and all member organisations and individuals, as it relates to their responsibility for IFE.
2. Clarify the IFE-CG and GNC working relationship. This needs to be clearly formulated (whodoes what) and understood by both groups.
3. Promote, encourage, and support regional UN/NGO entities to engage with day-to-day IFE
work at the regional or country level to ensure better links to work on IFE at the global level
and to ensure that global level work is informed by those working in the contexts that the IFECG supports.
4. Map the membership to better understand geographic, technical, and emergency
representation and assess who else should be considered to join the IFE-CG or if the IFE-CG
needs to join others that are also addressing different aspects of IFE in their work.
5. Strengthen advocacy and communication – review and finalise the communication strategy,
include advocacy and communication specialists in the IFE-CG.
Next step
The next step is for the consultant to finalise a light implementation plan to address the fivepriority recommendations identified by the MTR. This will then be provided to the IFE-CG SC for
feedback and implementation in order to take forward the findings from this MTR.

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 17learning lessons regarding infant and young child feeding inemergencies including the uptake of the IYCF-E OpsG andother IFE Core Group developed resources. The results
framework below provides a summary of the indicators
which will be used, and the core means of verification.

The IFE Core Group is committed to improving the monitoringand evaluation of its activities, outputs and outcomes during
this strategic period. As the theory of change (figure 1 above)
indicates some of this monitoring forms a critical part of
Output A which includes documenting evidence andAnnex: IFE-CG Strategy

Outcomes

ImpactTable 1Results Matrix

Outcome/Output

Indicator

IM1: Child survival, growth and development
for populations affected by emergencies
protected from further negative impacts.

These impact indicators won’t be evaluated specifically, but learning in relation to themwill feature in the IFE-CG’s work and may also come up in stories of change.

IM3: Mothers, caregivers and influencers
receive appropriate support which empowers
them to safeguard the feeding and care of
infants and young-children in humanitariancontexts.
O1: Frontline responders (service providers,mothers, families and communities) are able
to protect, promote and support appropriate
and context specific infant and young childfeeding and care in humanitarian contexts.

Intermediate
Outcomes

O2: Policy makers, decision makers andpractitioners reflect the latest IYCF-E OpsG
in relevant national and agency policies,
guidelines and procedures, and costed plans

IO1: Key stakeholders are aware of theimportance of IYCF-E and what is required
for timely appropriate protection, promotion
and support and to minimize risks during ahumanitarian response.

Intermediate Outcomes

Secondary literature (reviews andevaluations of on-the-ground interventions)(a) report appropriate feeding and careinterventions and (b) cite materials provided
by the IFE-CG as a contributing factor.

Review of secondary literature

Staff of frontline service providers report use
of key approaches and practices

Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices (KAP)
study of practitioners implemented
through an online survey tool and at leastone ‘Story of Change’

Countries have in place policies,
programmes and funding for IYCF-E

Analysis of NutriDash, GINA and WBTI
data

policies, guidelines and costed plans reflect
core elements of the IYCF-E OpsG and cite
the IYCF-E OpsG and other key IFE-CG
outputs.

Review of key documents key word
analysis citation analysis and at least one‘Story of Change’

Secondary literature (reviews andevaluations of on-the-ground interventions)indicate good awareness

Review of secondary literature

Stakeholders report knowledge

KAP study of practitioners implemented
through an online survey tool

IFE-CG generated documentation and tools
reflected
in literature
Indicator

Table 1 cont’d

Outputs

Tools

Outcome/Output

IFE Core Group Strategy 2020-2024

Citation analysis

Tools

IO2: IFE Core Group members and other
Stakeholders report knowledge
stakeholders have improved understanding of
the contextual challenges related to prevalent
Increase in the extent to which literature
feeding and care practices and greaterreflects emerging issues
commitment and consensus on how toaddress these in humanitarian contexts
IFE-CG generated documentation and tools
reflected in literature

KAP study of practitioners implemented
through an online survey tool

IO3: Relevant stakeholders benefit from
improved understanding of how better toinstitutionalize emergency preparedness inexisting policies and services and how todevelop shock responsive systems that
integrate safeguarding of the feeding andcare of children.

Stakeholders report knowledge

KAP study of practitioners implemented
through an online survey tool(A)
Gaps, challenges and issues identified; experiences and lessons learned documented andbrought to the IFE Core Group and other stakeholders for action and support.

# and nature of documents produced,
Discussion groups established,
Research proposals developed,
Field exchange articles,
IYCF-E related/relevant assessments(B)
Resource materials to support feeding and careof children in humanitarian settings developed
and provided in accessible and appropriate formats and widely used means.

Dissemination of IYCF-E OpsG
Internal monitoring# and nature of documents produced;
IFE-CG engagement in third party processes(e.g. WHO guideline development and theirby-products).
# of GTAM engagements

C)
Advocacy and communication strategies developed and implemented

Existence of communication and advocacy
strategies,
IFE-CG representation at global platforms,
conferences etc.

(D)
Networked IFE Core Group ‘community of practice’ is active and further enhanced.

# and make up of IFE members
Internal monitoring# of IFE-CG conference call and face-to-facemeetings,
IFE-CG tagged outreach through GTAM andENN

7

Key word analysis
Citation analysis

Increase in the extent to which literature
Key word analysis
reflects emergency preparedness and shock
responsive systems
IFE-CG generated documentation and tools Citation analysis
related to emergency preparedness and how
to develop shock responsive systems
reflected in literature
Internal monitoring

Internal monitoring

IFE Core Group Mid-Term Review Summary Report 
The development of the IFE Core Group Strategy and Theory of Change was made possible by the generous supportof the American people through funding by the United States Agency for International Development’s Office of18

Emergency Nutrition Network

2nd Floor, Marlborough House, 69 High Street,
Kidlington, Oxfordshire, OX5 2DN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1865 372340 | office@ennonline.net
www.ennonline.net