The Committee on International Nutrition Programs (CINP) of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science (NAS) has been providing technical advice to the Office of Nutrition since May 1970. The present evaluation covered the period since 1983. The reports completed by CINP under the agreements with the Office of Nutrition were reviewed primarily from the point of view of utility of the information for informed decisionmaking by both A.I.D./W and field staff. Interviews were conducted with CINP committee and subcommittee members, both former and present, as well as staff in the Office of Nutrition and other parts of A.I.D. Each of the reports produced by CINP since 1982 for the Office of Nutrition was reviewed. CINP reports were regarded highly by the A.I.D. staff who had reviewed them. Unfortunately the circulation of the reports was rather limited within the Agency; this was particularly true of dissemination to field personnel. Therefore, the impact of the reports on program operations in developing countries was constrained. In general, criticisms of the CINP did not revolve around substance but style — specifically the lack of timeliness and the cumbersome process of preparing the reports. Over and over again, A.I.D. staff commented about the long delays in releasing the reports. In order to have a more timely report, most CINP subcommittee members were adamant about the need for a strong chairman to give clear direction to the subcommittee activities. The CINP has provided high quality, unbiased scientific and technical information. At times however, rapid results are more important than is than a high degree of scientific rigor. Under the circumstances, either the NAS/CINP process must be altered to produce information rapidly or the Office of Nutrition needs to examine other mechanisms for obtaining a quick turn- around time for obtaining information. Some alternative mechanisms are discussed in this evaluation. It is likely that the Office of Nutrition in the future will need some issues to be dealt with in the systematic, scientifically rigorous process that NAS/CINP has used in the past. However, many CINP and A.I.D. staff also mentioned that new, fresh mechanisms for obtaining technical information would also be needed. NAS and A.I.D. need to clarify what combination of approaches best address the priorities of the Office of Nutrition. A series of modifications to the CINP/Office of Nutrition agreements are discussed in this report. (Author abstract)
