Nutrition Indicators for Assessment
1




Identified the need to have a common pool of
nutrition indicators for assessment in order to
better respond to assessment needs
2012 July GNC meeting – included in the
2012-13 workplan
Assessment Working Group lead
Renewed interest in nutrition indicators after
exposure to IASC NATF MIRA framework
2







2009 IRA Tool – assessment indicators included
2010 GNC AWG first set of 10 nutrition indicators for
assessment to feed into NATF MIRA process (prior to
setting up of GFSC)
GNC contribution to MIRA process at Geneva level (GNC
member / WFP KO AWG Co chair)
IFE group providing indicator input after IRA Tool
experience
2011 MIRA draft did not include nutrition specific
indicators - despite constant contributions
July 2012 GNC meeting recognition - to be more proactive
Core group of GNC members consulted in January 2013 to
take this topic forward
3
Initial set of nutrition assessment indicators to
be agreed on for use in emergencies that fits in
with existing assessment methods and practice
 Recognition of MIRA breakdown of “phases of
data collection”
• Preparedness
• Phase I (72 hours)
• Phase II (14 days)
• Phase III (30 days)
• Phase IV (45 days)

4
2010 indicators, IYCF indicators and indicators
submitted to IASC NATF
 New comprehensive list of indicators including
 Indicator name & description
 Disaggregation
 Appropriate phase for collection & likely source
and collection methods
 Any additional general & technical guidance
 Identification of an overall Nutrition Cluster
Needs and Analyses Framework

5
6
7
SMART
IYCF
IYCF surveys
Nutrition assessment
MIRA
IRA
MIRA
IRA
Nut assessment
8
Title
Global
Acute
malnu
trition
description
disa Approggre piate
gati phase
on
Source /
method
General
guidance
Unit Thre
of
shol
mea ds
sure
men
t
prevalance rate (%) Geog Preparat population
Should be
WHO
%
raphi ory:
of global acute
surveys with based on a
1995
cal
Phase III representative methodologi
malnutrition in
classifi
area; Phase IV sampling
children 6 to 59
cally solid
cation:
Age;
months of age
methods
anthropome5,10,
sex
based on presence
(MICS, DHS,
tric nutrition
15%
of bilateral pitting
SMART)
survey
oedema and / or
findings and
weight-for-height
include
z-score less than -2
Confidence
standard
Intervals;
deviations of the
Not
median of the
comparable
standard
with MUAC
population (WHO
9
2006)
Collaborative process 6 core GNC members
IFE core group IYCF workshop
Indicators shared with wider GNC group at side
meeting yesterday (n:18)
 Initial feedback to GNC
 Ways forward to:
 Finalise list
 Prioritise indicators
 Formulate the assessment questions that can be
used for collection of indicators



10
16 anthropometry related indicators for
different age groups (0-5 months; 6-59 months;
adults; and nutritionally vulnerable groups (PLW,
elderly, adolescents)
 2 dietary quality indicators
 1 cooking facilities indicator (link to FS and
shelter)
 5 micronutrient status indicators
 2 health related indicators (measles & morbidity)
 15 IYCF indicators

11
First step towards consolidating a list of
appropriate nutrition indicators for assessment
Next steps:
1. Finalising wording and collection methods
2. Classifying and prioritising indicators for
different phases
3. Identifying indicators that will also be
performance indicators
4. Devising appropriate assessment questions to
systematically feed into assessment design

12


Open process of consultation to those
interested in actively contributing to work
Matching this theoretical process with needs
assessment realities and practice
13
14