IFPRI and Mercy Corps researchers will share more insights on graduation models in fragile contexts, with reflections from a panel of experts, at a policy seminar on January 21, 2026—both in person at our Washington, D.C. office and online. Join us for the discussion!

The global poverty landscape is increasingly shaped by conflict, climate shocks, displacement, and market disruptions—forces that are concentrating extreme poverty in the most fragile settings. At the same time, humanitarian and development financing is under pressure, heightening the need for  scalable and cost-effective approaches to poverty reduction. Graduation models—multifaceted interventions designed to help extremely poor households to “graduate” from poverty—are emerging as a particularly promising response in this context.

These models typically combine several components, including cash transfers, asset provision, livelihoods training, and in some cases household coaching, and are among the most rigorously evaluated and successful interventions in international development.[1] When implemented with sufficient intensity, they can improve household welfare trajectories across several dimensions with impacts that persist over the medium and long term. Their central premise is to provide a “big push” over a relatively short period, enabling households to escape chronic poverty.

Interest in graduation models is growing among donors, multilaterals, and governments, many of whom are exploring how to integrate these approaches into national poverty reduction and social protection strategies. At the same time, graduation models are increasingly being applied in fragile settings affected by conflict, climate shocks, displacement, and market disruptions. These conditions introduce distinct risks and constraints, raising critical questions about how graduation models can be adapted to remain effective. For example, two recent IFPRI randomized trials in East Africa show that the graduation model can improve the welfare of internally displaced households in a conflict-affected Somalia and help buffer households in Ethiopia against the adverse effects of drought.

A recent Mercy Corps report, Closing the Gap, synthesizes the global evidence base and program experience on graduation models, with particular focus on fragile contexts. The report highlights that while economic impacts are generally consistent, evidence on food security and nutrition impacts is more limited and mixed.  It also highlights important differences in impacts, with benefits often larger for participants facing fewer structural barriers or those with greater initial resources.

Against a backdrop of rising fragility, constrained resources, and urgent unmet needs, this blog highlights four areas where evidence is mixed or incomplete, and where further research could help strengthen the design, implementation, and scaling of graduation models in fragile settings.

• How can graduation models work with markets, services, and other local systems to sustain outcomes?

Graduation models have demonstrated strong household-level impacts on income, consumption, and asset accumulation. However, sustaining these gains often depends on access to functioning markets, services, and institutions. In contexts where these systems are weak or fragmented, it is still unclear how graduation models can best align with broader economic and service delivery systems to support sustained impact. Key evidence gaps remain on how programs engage local markets and private sector actors, integrate with financial services and social protection systems, and generate effects beyond participating households.  Filling these gaps can inform program design and help identify the conditions under which these linkages with local systems support lasting household and broader development  outcomes.

• How should existing intervention models be adapted for adolescents and other marginalized groups?

Graduation models are increasingly working with adolescents, displaced populations, and households facing mobility, caregiving, or structural constraints—groups that often experience smaller benefits than participants with fewer barriers or more initial resources. These participants face unique barriers to participation and livelihood development and may prioritize different outcomes over time, such as continued education, child-care support, or safer access to essential services. It remains unclear which adaptations most effectively reduce barriers and support meaningful engagement, or which outcomes beyond income should be prioritized and measured more consistently. Addressing these gaps can guide more inclusive program design and delivery, and inform evaluation approaches to more holistically assess impacts for marginalized participants.

• How can graduation models improve food security and nutrition outcomes?

While graduation interventions consistently increase income and consumption, evidence on sustained food security and nutrition outcomes remains relatively mixed. Research points to several factors that may influence these results, including constrained food environments, caregiving responsibilities, and limited access to nutrition and health services. In settings where malnutrition and poverty overlap— particularly in fragile contexts—it is critical to understand when and how economic gains translate into improved food security and nutrition. Key learning opportunities include identifying which nutrition-sensitive components or adaptations most effectively improve diets. It also involves understanding how household characteristics and caregiving dynamics shape outcomes, and how local food systems influence the conversion of income gains into better nutrition and food security. Insights in these areas can help graduation programs to more effectively improve food security and nutrition outcomes.

• How can the effects of graduation model interventions be best sustained in the face of shocks?

While most graduation models include short-term consumption support, few are specifically designed to help households anticipate, absorb, and adapt to shocks over the long term. In fragile and conflict-affected settings, recurrent shocks such as droughts, displacement, and economic instability often disrupt livelihoods and erode hard-won economic gains. As graduation approaches are increasingly implemented in these high-risk environments, there is growing interest in their potential to build resilience, an area that remains underexplored in the current evidence base.

Key questions include how different types of shocks affect household welfare, how graduation models can build resilience at individual, household, and system levels, and which risk-informed components—such as climate-smart livelihoods, risk financing, or linkages to adaptive social protection—are most effective in sustaining gains. Improving how we measure resilience, coping capacity, and recovery trajectories is also critical. Exploring these questions can help graduation programs better support durable outcomes, even in the most fragile contexts.

Together, these four areas highlight key  research and learning opportunities for graduation models in fragile and complex settings. Building on a strong existing evidence base, they address questions that are becoming increasingly urgent as conflict, climate shocks, displacement, and constrained resources shape the environments in which these programs operate. Focusing on these priorities can help guide how graduation programs are adapted to be more inclusive, resilient, and responsive, supporting sustained outcomes even in the most fragile contexts.

[1] Terminology can also vary; similar interventions can sometimes be described as intensive cash-plus interventions, or economic inclusion programs.

Jeeyon Kim is Director of Research, Food Security, at Mercy Corps; Jessica Leight, Senior Research Fellow at IFPRI’s Poverty, Gender, and Inclusion Unit.

This post is based on research that is not yet peer reviewed. Opinions are the authors’.