These programs help in the most difficult places—do they work?

“When the project provided in-kind support, it was not just food—it was dignity. We did not have to ask our neighbours for help that month.”

These words were spoken by a woman involved in a World Vision program, during a group discussion several months ago. She lives in Herat, Afghanistan. Her husband has a disability and can’t work. Her family depends entirely on their eldest son to provide.

When food support landed in this mom’s arms, it met a need that was so much more than physical. Her words reflect the reality, and exhaustion, of living life in a fragile context.

What are fragile contexts?

Fragile contexts are places where multiple hazards overlap at once—where conflict, disaster and instability drag on and on. Today, a full quarter of the world’s people call these places home.

Because life in a fragile context can change quickly, linear approaches to development rarely work. Instead, World Vision has developed an approach tailored to settings where instability is the norm. The programs connect emergency relief with longer-term development and peacebuilding approaches. In the international aid world, this joining is known as the nexus —the point where things connect.

World Vision’s nexus work uses three “dials.” These dials can all be active at the same time, but each is turned up or down as a community’s needs change.

• Survive: When disasters strike, we help people meet their immediate needs.
• Adapt: As situations improve, we help people prepare for future shocks.
• Thrive: Once things stabilize, we tackle people’s priorities for long-term well-being together, confronting root causes beneath the fragility.

Evaluating World Vision’s nexus programs

Through World Vision, donors in Canada support a group of nexus programs running from 2025 to 2027 [1] in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of (DRC), Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela. [2] These countries face a mix of conflict, displacement, climate shocks, food insecurity and weakened institutions.

Each program relies on flexible funding. This allows resources to be redirected when needs, risks and local priorities change. This matters in fragile places, where a sudden crisis can create new—sometimes desperate—needs, and our programs need to pivot quickly to help.

But is our flexible approach working?

Midway through the program, it was time to assess progress. In April 2026, a mid-term evaluation set out to understand:

• What progress had the programs made so far?
• Were they responding well to change in their contexts?
• To what extent had the programs helped families survive, adapt and thrive?

The evaluation took place across all countries at once, with 5,273 people giving input. Among them, 3,405 people answered surveys, 1,316 joined focus groups, 433 joined other quantitative surveys and 119 people were interviewed, including government representatives, community leaders, faith leaders, service providers and partner organizations. This was the largest effort to gather evidence across these programs to date.

The evaluation was a midpoint check, showing where the nexus approach is making progress and where gaps remain. The evidence reflects participants’ own experiences and how they view change. Read the full report.

Three findings stand out

• Meeting people’s urgent needs is not separate from building their longer-term resilience. In most cases, it’s the starting point.
• Communities are preparing for shocks earlier and with more confidence. But knowledge alone does not change what people do unless they also have the tools and resources to act on it.
• Progress is more likely to last when we work with local partners and locally tailored solutions. But that alone is not removing the deeper causes of fragility.

Read on to go deeper.

5 lessons learned across World Vision’s nexus programs

1. World Vision’s integrated approach—linking emergency relief, development and peacebuilding—is indeed bringing positive change.

Participants talked about change they were experiencing holistically, not as separate activities. They reported how support given through food assistance, health, disaster preparedness and more did not only address their immediate needs but helped with longer-term challenges as well.

The changes were taking place across the survive, adapt and thrive pathway, not within single sectors alone. That is good news.

For example, in South Sudan, participants linked activities that strengthen governance and social cohesion to improvements in their longer-term stability and resilience:

• 69 per cent of respondents had joined governance and social cohesion activities
• 89 per cent reported risks in their communities had gone down

One example comes from Gogrial, South Sudan, where local committees work together to monitor conflict in the area, as well as flooding and drought. Their updates feed into an early warning system that helps communities prepare.

“The project brought unity among community members.”

— Focus group participant, South Sudan

2. Resilience-building activities work better when families can cover their basic needs first.

When food, money and basic services become more secure, families have room to think beyond the next meal. The evaluation found that communities in this position are better placed to prepare for emergencies, earn a living and solve local problems together.

But the need is great. The unsurprising reality is that many families continue to face significant challenges. In some places, like South Sudan and the DRC, people said that the projects were not keeping pace with the sheer magnitude of the hardships they were facing. In some places, support was too small, too short or reached too few households.

3. Communities are better prepared for future shocks, but training alone does not always lead to action.

Across the countries, people reported a better understanding of the risks facing them and more confidence to respond when disaster strikes. This held true in places hit by floods, drought, displacement, disease outbreaks and economic shocks. For example:

• In South Sudan, community awareness about early warning systems reached 78 per cent overall.
• In Somalia, knowledge of climate-smart agriculture grew from 5 per cent to 67 per cent.
• In Afghanistan, participation in preparedness drills rose from 69 per cent to 80 per cent.

Communities are making disaster preparedness part of how they operate. That move—from simply knowing about risks to making decisions ahead of time—is one of the strongest signs of resilience the evaluation found. And it’s critical in fragile contexts, where outside help can be slow to arrive and communities are first responders by default.

A strong example comes from Aweil, South Sudan, where an anticipatory protocol was activated during floods, allowing communities to protect their assets before the full impact hit. Read more examples of community-led preparedness.

Education does not always lead to change, however. In Afghanistan, 85 per cent of women received training in post-harvest and climate-smart practices, but only 28 per cent reported applying the techniques. Investment in preparedness must be paired with practical support, through financing, equipment and functioning systems.

4. Local partners add knowledge, credibility and sustainability to the programs, and there is room to deepen their involvement.

Across countries, the role of local partners was clear. They are much more than program implementors. They establish trust with community members, build connections, keep work going during insecurity and make sure plans are suited to the community’s needs.

Overall, people said trust, cooperation and peaceful problem-solving were improving in their communities. The changes were often linked to activities that brought people and groups together, like peace committees and community meetings.

In Somalia, peace committees, elders and district authorities played key roles in settling disputes. Knowledge of conflict mitigation reached 82 per cent among respondents.

“Community members generally trust elders and accept their decisions in solving conflicts.”

— Focus group participant, Somalia

Nexus programs are more likely to last when local partners help design, run and adapt them—not just take part in them. That requires moving beyond consultation toward real partnership and co-ownership, with more room for women, youth and marginalized groups in the decisions.

Several countries also highlighted the potential of community-led groups to sustain progress long term. In the DRC, participants said savings groups and care groups helped people to cooperate, manage conflict and solve problems together. In Lebanon, local organizations were seen as essential partners for work in education, emotional well-being and livelihoods.

5. The nexus programs are helping people adapt, but they aren’t yet addressing the root issues.

Some of the most promising results came from practical approaches that were adapted for local conditions. Innovation is happening across several countries, but it’s not always something “new.” Often, it means adjusting existing approaches to work better in fragile settings.

For example, mobile climate information systems are improving resilience to drought in Somalia. Preparedness programs are running, through school brigades in Venezuela. And in Syria, service packages are combining nutrition, health and parenting support. Read Innocent’s story of innovation in the DRC.

Still, participants across all 11 countries continue to battle poverty, unemployment, displacement, climate shocks, weak infrastructure and limited access to services.

Many said they were better equipped to manage shocks than before. But they could not yet overcome the conditions that made them vulnerable in the first place. As one participant put it:

“Seeds and agricultural activities have helped us to resume some crops, but many families still do not have enough land or means to produce properly.” — Focus group participant, DRC

Building the foundation to withstand shocks is an important step toward long-term transformation—the thrive dial we are working to turn. But reaching that goal will take sustained effort and investment over time.

How these lessons are changing the future

The evaluation has already shaped how World Vision teams and partners have planned the final year ahead. Below are key recommendations, with examples of how programs are adjusting.

1. Strengthen context monitoring and community feedback so that programs can continue to adjust quickly.

• The team is Mali is now incorporating three levels of risk (stable, alert and response). Changes to those levels will trigger predetermined program adjustments.
• In Sudan, the program is tracking set conflict triggers so teams can act before tensions escalate.
• In South Sudan, field-based focal points will report to the national disaster management team.
• In Somalia, programs are being adjusted based on feedback received through community adaptation action plans.

2. Deepen work with local partners, and widen who takes part in decisions.

• The Central African Republic team has a plan to gradually transition its mechanisms to local authorities and organizations.
• The South Sudan program is positioning local organizations and community groups as first responders.
• In Lebanon, city councils will bring together children, youth, business and civil society.
• The Iraq program runs youth-led dialogues and has an inclusion pathway for Yazidi survivors.
• The Mali team has committed to holding inclusive community consultations, prioritizing accessible locations and times.

3. Strengthen coordination with other organizations and government systems.

• The DRC program is involving government ministries in identifying local needs and taking steps to avoid duplicate work.
• In Somalia, they are working with the Ministry of Health to select hygiene promoters.
• In South Sudan, World Vision is using its co-lead role in the food security coordination group to push for earlier funding.
• The Syria program is aligning with food security and early recovery groups.

4. Pair training with the tools, equipment and financing people need to apply what they learn.

• In Mali, ten women’s groups will receive training plus equipment to process, preserve and sell local products, and women’s unions will get multi-purpose grain mills. Each market garden will receive an adult tricycle to reach markets.
• In Somalia, farm inputs and water management support will follow irrigation training, building on solar-powered water systems installed earlier. A community contingency fund will help repair disaster damage, with local authorities and committees helping to maintain what is built.
• In South Sudan, school management committees will be trained to run school gardens and water tanks, and the program will support upkeep of small water treatment systems.
• In Iraq, the Green Fund will combine training with grants and mentoring, with plans for businesses that struggle after the grant.

5. Continue with longer-term, flexible funding, so communities can move beyond adaptation toward lasting resilience.

• Across the nexus portfolio, teams are using the strong evidence from the mid-term evaluation as they engage with donors and advocate for flexible funding approaches.
• Flexible funding mechanisms are already at work within the nexus programs, including response and contingency funds in South Sudan, Somalia and the Central African Republic.

Conclusion

Halfway through these programs, the evidence is encouraging. Flexible programming is meeting communities’ changing needs in every country. The three dials are turning together to build resilience, empower families and help children live life in all its fullness.

But moving from surviving to thriving in a fragile context is a formidable challenge. It takes time, local ownership, true flexibility and steady support. The work is far from finished, and the evidence makes a clear case for more flexible funding and programs as we move forward.

Give a gift to help children and families in fragile contexts.

Written by Katie Hackett, with files from Connie Wu.

[1] Fiscal years 2025–2027, running from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2027.

[2] World Vision Canada is one of 20 country offices that support these programs. Afghanistan is also part of World Vision’s nexus programming, but World Vision Canada does not support it financially.