The State of the World's Cash | Full Report

FEBRUARY 2018
THE STATE OF THE
WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING IN HUMANITARIAN AID
The Cash Learning Partnership

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The report was commissioned by the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) and delivered by a team of CTP experts,
CaLP staff and Accenture Development Partnerships.
RESEARCH & WRITING TEAM
— Gabrielle Smith (lead)
— Ruth McCormack
— Alex Jacobs
— Arushi Chopra
— Aarsh Vir Gupta
— Thomas Abell
We are extremely grateful to the many contributors and collaborators who so generously shared their time and
experience, to build up this common picture of the state of the world’s cash transfer programming in humanitarian
aid. In particular, we would like to thank the members of the Steering Committee for their expert guidance
throughout the process, and Abigael Baldoumas (CaLP) for her valuable support in editing and finalizing the
report and leading the communications planning.
STEERING COMMITTEE
Louisa Seferis (Danish Refugee Council), Paula Gil Baizan (formerly World Vision International), Paul Harvey
(independent), David Peppiatt (British Red Cross), Emily Henderson (UK DFID), Kenn Crossley (World Food
Programme), Gabriel Fernandez (Government of Liberia), Kalinda Glenn-Haley (USAID/OFDA), Ruco van der
Merwe (USAID/FFP), Isabelle Pelly (CaLP), Claire Mariani (UNICEF)
Many thanks also to the members of CaLP’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and others who reviewed the draft
report, and those who reviewed and provided inputs to the case studies, including Karen Peachey (CaLP), Nynne
Warring (WFP Somalia), Dalia Sbeih (Solidarites Lebanon), Dina Morad and Jonathan Campbell (WFP Turkey),
Gabriele Erba (ex-UNICEF DR Congo), Iraz Oyku Soylap and Qimti Paienjton (UNICEF Turkey), Jasmine Jahromi and
Jenny Weatherall (Lebanon Cash Consortium), Sophie Tholstrup (OCHA), and Sophie Pongracz and Tom Russell
(DFID Lebanon). Alexandra Spencer and Cat Langdon from Development Initiatives provided essential advisory
support and access to data to enable the calculation of the 2016 CTP expenditure estimate.
The report was funded by: the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the
German Federal Foreign Office, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the British Red Cross, the
World Food Programme, as well as CaLP’s general funds.
The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ alone and are not necessarily the views of the donors.
Cover photo: WFP/Kiyori Ueno

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
FOREWORD
Imagine that you had to flee your home with your young children and elderly parents. That you had to leave
everything behind. At long last, an aid organization arrives in your displacement camp. They come from far away
and know neither your needs nor your heritage. Fortunately, they ask a question first: ‘Would you like us to give
you boxes containing what we think you need, or would you like to receive cash and decide for yourself?’ Which
would you choose?
Personally, I would choose unconditional cash and decide for myself, provided there is a market available that
can meet my needs. That is why I suggested in the DFID high-level panel on humanitarian cash that all decision
makers in the aid world should always be required to ask: ‘Why not cash? And if not now, when?’ And that is why
I think the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) and this report are so important.
Cash-based assistance is, in brief, one of the most significant reforms in recent years. There is no longer serious
dispute about whether cash can significantly improve humanitarian aid. Established humanitarian actors now
invest in cash at greater scale and more consistently than ever before. It is at the forefront of innovation for people
in crisis.
However, while the overall argument is won, important debates continue about how cash-based assistance
should best be used. This is because we are still learning about how best to use cash in different contexts and
because it challenges established ways of operating in the humanitarian sector.
Cash-based assistance is not necessarily a substitute for or very different from existing humanitarian
programming. When we embrace the complementarities between different forms of humanitarian assistance,
cash undoubtedly helps to better serve affected populations.
With a humanitarian sector in rapid change, there is an urgent need to take stock of how much progress the
sector is making in using cash and how we best learn from good practices. We also need to agree on the next
steps for making the most of the potential of cash-based assistance.
This report addresses that need. It has been prepared by an expert team on the basis of extensive research and the
best available evidence. It provides a comprehensive overview of the issues and establishes a new understanding
of the practical steps needed to make the most of cash. A stronger collective understanding will drive a stronger
collective reform.
I therefore welcome the report as an important step in our shared journey to continually improve humanitarian
aid, so that limited funds provide the greatest possible benefit to people in desperate need all around the world.
Jan Egeland
Secretary General
Norwegian Refugee Council
1

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements iv
Foreword 1
Executive Summary 3
Glossary of Terms 16
Abbreviations 19
Introduction 20
Chapter 1: Funding 26
Global Objective 1: Ensure sufficient funding is available for cash transfer programming 26
Chapter 2: Routine Consideration 35
Global Objective 2: Ensure cash is routinely considered, alongside other modality tools 35
Chapter 3: Capacity Building 45
Global Objective 3: Build sufficient capacity for cash transfer programming 45
Chapter 4: Quality 54
Global Objective 4: Ensure the quality of cash transfer programming 54
Chapter 5: Coordination 67
Global Objective 5: Strengthen coordination of CTP 67
Chapter 6: Evidence and Innovation 79
Global Objective 6: Strengthen the evidence base and invest in innovation 79
Priority Actions 94
References 100
Annex 1: Methodology 103
1.1 Practitioner survey 103
1.2 Organization survey 105
1.3 Focus group discussions 106
1.4 Organizational interviews 107
1.5 Methodology for total CTP expenditure calculation (2016) 109
1.6 Governance and review process 112
Annex 2: Case Studies 113
2.1 Nepal – scaling up cash transfer programming (CTP) after a rapid onset disaster 113
2.2 Turkey – Working with host governments to
deliver cash-based assistance during the refugee crisis 116
2.3 Zimbabwe – Lessons from the ‘Emergency Cash First Response’ to
drought-affected communities 121
2.4 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – Taking cash transfers to s
cale in challenging environments 123
2.5 Nigeria – Piloting tools and approaches for multi-sectoral cash responses 125
2.6 Liberia – Implementing cash at scale in response to an epidemic 128
2.7 Somalia – Rapid scale-up of cash transfer programming in response to drought 131
2.8 Lebanon – Designing and implementing operational models for cash at scale 136
2

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1
In recent years, the use of cash transfer programming (CTP) in humanitarian assistance has grown significantly.
2
In 2016, we estimate that $2.8bn in humanitarian assistance was disbursed through cash and vouchers, up 40%
3
from 2015 and approximately 100% from 2014 . As this report describes, the move to CTP has strong roots and
is set to continue. CTP is widely recognised as one of the most significant areas of innovation in humanitarian
assistance, with huge potential to meet more needs, more efficiently and more effectively.
Realizing the transformative This has never been more vital. The gap between humanitarian
4
potential of cash depends on: needs and available funding has increased to over 40% . In
recognition of CTP’s potential, many humanitarian actors, through
— Integrating CTP into humanitarian 5
the Grand Bargain and independently, have made public
responses, systems and commitments to increase its use. These political commitments are
organizations; and welcome. But, they are not enough on their own. Despite the
— Innovating to benefit from the significant increase in CTP, it accounted for only 10% of humanitarian
6
new and disruptive opportunities assistance in 2016, up by 2.5% from 2015. Realizing the
created by CTP transformative potential of CTP requires significant changes to
established ways of working within institutions and collectively.
The change process is already under way. This report identifies specific steps that have already been taken,
good practices to learn from and the priority actions necessary to accelerate progress. For example, donors,
coordinating bodies and implementing agencies are actively integrating CTP into humanitarian programming.
They are updating their systems, skillsets and processes to make the best use of CTP. With the volume of CTP
already measured in billions of dollars and still growing, the stakes are high.
The benefits of cash-based assistance have been shown to cut across multiple sectors. And many opportunities
have been identified to align CTP with major reforms at every level, from achieving the Sustainable Development
7
Goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, to strengthening social protection systems and
8
realizing the UN’s New Way of Working. CTP has been actively linked to a host of other reforms such as: financial
inclusion, the digital revolution, evolving coordination mechanisms, strengthening local leadership, enhancing
dignity and accountability to affected populations, and improving monitoring and reporting of results.
At the same time, CTP is not a silver bullet capable of solving all the problems associated with aid. Rather it is
one factor, among many, driving a wider set of reforms across the sector. However, the increasing scale of CTP is
driving disruptive innovation by raising strategic questions for organizations about their role and function, and
how different humanitarian stakeholders best work together. Answering these questions cuts across established
ways of working and interests.
Different actors have overlapping goals and ambitions for CTP. Whether CTP is seen as a tool to realize wider
reforms, an integral component of a related set of reforms or a straightforward good in its own terms, it is clear
that the increasing scale of CTP is inextricably linked to the future of the humanitarian aid sector. The case for CTP
has been made. It now remains to ensure the hard work is continued across humanitarian actors to realize the
benefits and opportunities it offers.
1 CTP refers to all programs where cash (or vouchers for goods or services) are directly provided to beneficiaries. All key terms used in this report are defined in
CaLP’s Glossary: www.cashlearning.org/resources/glossary
2 Total calculated at $2.806 billion, rounded to $2.8 billion. Methodology for calculation of the total CTP figure is detailed in Annex 1.5 of the main report
3 Compared to the best available estimate of $1.2-1.5bn in 2014, made in Doing Cash Differently: Report of the High Level Panel on Cash Transfers (2015).
4 Development Initiatives (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report
5 List of signatories and text of Grand Bargain available at www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/3861
6 Important caveat on the comparability of the CTP figures and IHA: as these figures have respectively been compiled from different sources, they do not allow
for easy comparison so the proportional estimates should be treated with caution
7 See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 and https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
8 www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/5358
3

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report critically analyses the current state of CTP in humanitarian aid, and the extent to which commitments
have been achieved, in order to provide shared insights that can accelerate progress.
The report is structured according to the six Global Objectives set out in CaLP’s Global Framework for Action
9
(GFA, see Annex 1). This is a consolidated summary of the major commitments and recommendations made to
improve CTP. It provides a collective and measurable road map for increasing the scale and quality of CTP:
— Ensure sufficient funding is available for cash transfer programming
— Ensure cash is routinely considered, alongside other tools
— Build sufficient capacity for cash transfer programming
— Ensure the quality of cash transfer programming
— Strengthen coordination of cash transfer programming
— Strengthen the evidence base and invest in innovation
The Framework connects policy commitments with operational management, and the contents of the six
chapters based on the Global Objectives are closely inter-linked.
The full report also includes:
Critical Debates: These summarize the views of different actors in six key areas of current debate, without
attempting to reconcile them.
Case Studies: The report presents eight case studies of CTP in practice. These vividly bring the issues to life. They
were selected on the basis of providing significant insights into recent practice, progress and challenges.
Priority Actions: These are the next steps required to drive progress most effectively. They are summarised at the
end of this Executive Summary.
Methodology: The methodology for this report included primary and secondary research. Over 40 key
informants were interviewed, and over 200 practitioners and 35 organizations were surveyed. Respondents
include humanitarian actors from donors, non-government organizations (NGOs), UN agencies, the Red Cross
movement, host governments and the private sector. Secondary research was undertaken drawing on a
significant volume of reports, studies, reviews, data analysis and articles. Survey results were triangulated with
the interviews, focus group discussions and secondary data. Unless otherwise stated, the findings included in the
report reflect common trends and perceptions from across the different data sources.
The team worked closely with Development Initiatives to use a comparable methodology for estimating the
total volume of CTP during 2016 as they used for 2015, as presented in the publication ‘Counting Cash: Tracking
10
humanitarian expenditure on cash-based programming’.
9 www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-framework-web.pdf
10 http://devinit.org/post/counting-cash-tracking-humanitarian-expenditure-on-cash-based-programming/
4

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
, ee
r
g ee
ting r
ainings a g
TP ainingse trend er
t C tt olif o 100% A 0% A tion TP
e enough TP tro fac o a 44% tional or C
v e t e pr a
ac ailable t m selec
o implemen essing C e ar v or of oper
tions ha nf models f
tions y t c ost of F e is a I
nly 40% o ac C Lack of time t
ganiza videnc ely ors
O Orcapacit videnc 53% TP t t
ganiza arriers t e e ia
TP is a limiting B v se Copr
or C emain U oss sec
y foss or appracr
oles tions and e
y a
or acr illed TP r v TP
apacitt tions 80%
C fac or C nno titioners who belie or C
I but gaps r ake the
e difficult ac
ganizav r M case f
3 7/10 Orhafinding skstaff f6% P
ch

sis t in e Resear
ts TP is ee , o
t C ed than a tions rket and emen TP t t entur
v tional c
en, outinely o a c
t ee thae r t mar y of C e TP
espondenronsiderear agoganizaesponse analye embedded in esponseeliable
e of 87% Rag morc y 48% Ordo not agthararr tion ors aror C ommitmened oper
igh ed tabilit t aLP and A
H dina tion f ed c mechanisms, C
edic TP ey
r oor v
ed mor TP is unrealiz41% Pc dina or C Limituse shar
ally e has been an impr
oor tion f
tic TP e ther tional/ local ac
onsider enefits rv t na dina
tion of C tion e ganization Sur
ema oor em r
st e with C dina e thaed in the ce c st , O
eing c dina olv ey
ienc or oor v tiv tion sits in v
w o TP c ec tional sy
Lo ely in dina
TP is b xper er t o eff na
ood tion tion he c titioners who belie ia oorer
C but not syor eF ASH ition T limiting the bacy of C t titioner Sur
t SheltW Healthec r titioners believopr ac
ec Nutr duca ot ualit ac onfusion about wherTP cr
S E r % P r arriers t C C the in
2 P 5 48% Q 28% Pappr B e: P
c
our
S
TP ning
y of C
otal Global ,
T ds and guidelines
ouchers id of $27.3bn in 2016 ving es while desig
o tic
10.3% tion ac
TP as a % of a tion easing the qualit
o $2.8bn in 2016CHum. A or
ash and v TP is impr ganiza ds incr ommon standar
id 0.8bn ollab ar e of best pr
w TP
y 40% t y c o
end on c o 2016 y of C e their or ess t o embed c
oucher A 40% ed b r ting C
V 2.8bn 2.0bn og ed evidenc
eased b eps t
lobal sp om 2015 t t
ash and he qualit onsidering stTP
indingsG incr T enhanc
wth fr 2016 2015 titioners believ
o emen Has made pr Has cand implemenIs takor C
otal C ac    f
y F T Gr r
e 1 ncr 4 8/10P     
K I
5

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 1 – FUNDING
Global Objective 1:
Ensure Sufficient Funding is Available for Cash Transfer Programming
Increased support for CTP: Increased high-level support for CTP within donor and implementing organizations
is translating into numerous policy and strategy commitments. Some donors and agencies have set quantitative
targets for the use of CTP. Others who are supportive of scaling up CTP have not yet done so, often as a result of
concerns about diverting aid away from contextually appropriate responses. 60% of surveyed organizations do
not have a target for CTP as a percentage of humanitarian assistance.
More humanitarian aid is being disbursed as cash and vouchers, but growth is uneven: We estimate that the
11 12
total aid being disbursed in CTP (both cash and vouchers) increased from $2bn in 2015 to $2.8bn in 2016.
13 14
This indicates a 40% growth rate in CTP from 2015 to 2016. CTP’s share of total IHA has increased from 7.8%
in 2015 to 10.3% in 2016. Note that the 7.8% calculation for 2015 has been updated from the 7% included in the
15
Counting Cash report, as recommended by Development Initiatives. This estimate suggests that progress in
terms of commitments to CTP is starting to translate into practice, with a 2.5% increase in CTP as a proportion of
total IHA from 2015 to 2016. Aid disbursed as CTP is however not evenly distributed, but is concentrated within
a few organizations. Over two-thirds of aid disbursed as CTP in 2016 came from just two organizations – the
World Food Programme (WFP) ($880 million distributed to beneficiaries), and UNHCR ($688 million distributed
to beneficiaries).
The volume of CTP is beginning to be better reported, but obstacles remain: CTP must be integrated into the
global systems used for tracking humanitarian aid as well as organizations’ internal systems. The vast majority
of organizations and donors that participated in this study are taking steps to improve their internal reporting
systems to better track CTP. Further progress will require collective action on a) whether to track cash and vouchers
separately or together, b) what costs should be counted (just transfer values or full programming costs), and c)
what related programming data should be measured.
In order to achieve greater scale in CTP, policy commitments need to be translated into practice: This requires
systemic organizational change involving both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Government buy-in and
public support for CTP as a form of humanitarian assistance are also important elements in both donor and host
countries.
11 The $2 billion figure is drawn from Development Initiatives (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report. This figure is an update on the $1.9 billion reported in
Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming
12 Total calculated at $2.806 billion, rounded to $2.8 billion. Methodology for calculation of the total CTP figure is detailed in Annex 1.5 of the main report
13 The 40% increment is the rounded figure (from 40.3%), calculated using the 2016 $2.806 billion figure, and $2.0 billion for 2015
14 Important caveat on the comparability of the CTP figures and IHA: as these figures have respectively been compiled from different sources, they do not allow
for easy comparison so the proportional estimates should be treated with caution
15 ODI, Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming
6

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 2 – ROUTINE CONSIDERATION
Global Objective 2:
Ensure Cash is Routinely Considered, Alongside Other Tools
Over the past two years, CTP is being considered much more systematically. Several factors are driving this
change, which is an evolution rather than a single step. In addition to policy commitments and investments
in staff capacities, there has been greater embedding of tools and processes for market analysis and response
analysis, and greater collaboration around common approaches and tools.
While tools and processes required for the routine consideration of CTP are becoming more embedded, they
still need to be used more systematically and effectively. Response analysis and market analysis are undertaken
inconsistently within and between organizations. Although response analysis is commonly used to inform initial
programme design, it is not often revisited during implementation, and there is limited consideration of mixed
modalities. The tools used for market assessment tend to focus on commodities, rather than the service markets
which are of interest in sectors such as shelter, WaSH and education. Respondents saw a need to simplify market
analysis guidance to enable wider adoption by country teams and improve decision making.
Barriers that limit the use of CTP persist (particularly the use of unrestricted cash, including multipurpose
grants). The biggest barriers are seen to be: perceived risks of CTP; capacity constraints within implementing
agencies; constraints of sectoral mandates; constraints of donor funding processes; and lack of multi-sectoral
assessments. The perceived risks of cash are amplified by limited funding and the anti-terrorism/money laundering
agenda of donors. There can be less tolerance for the diversion of cash compared to in-kind aid.
Respondents agreed that some sectors are currently more likely than others to consider using CTP. The main
constraints here are perceived to be concerns about achieving high-quality, sector-specific outcomes in areas
such as protection, shelter or health. There are concerns about whether there will be sufficient funding for
complementary in-kind, technical assistance and other sector-specific activities, as well as about diminishing the
roles of established actors in humanitarian assistance.
Multipurpose Cash Grants (MPGs) emerged as an area of contention, with strong views expressed by different
actors about their appropriate use. No stakeholder argued for their uncritical adoption, nor that MPGs are
sufficient to meet all people’s needs. More dialogue is needed between donors, clusters and other stakeholders
to agree on opportunities and ways forward.
For many implementing agencies, the use of CTP across sectors represents the ‘next step’. There are several barriers
to this, including practical challenges in terms of cross-sectoral coordination and engagements. However, there
has been progress, including tools and processes for a ‘Basic Needs Approach’ (BNA) being developed and tested
by UNHCR and others. Some respondents suggested that reorienting thinking around ‘basic needs’ could support
better integration of sectors, presenting MPGs as a common platform and the foundation for meeting sector-
specific needs. At the same time, some were cautious about the limited evidence available to establish ‘proof of
concept’ and the need to monitor outcomes.
7

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 3 – CAPACITY BUILDING
Global Objective 3:
Build Sufficient Capacity for Cash Transfer Programming
Lack of organizational capacity is a critical barrier to effective and extensive usage of CTP. 60% of organizations
surveyed reported that they don’t currently have the capacities in place required for CTP. Human resource capacity
must be supported by organizational structures, systems, policies and procedures. The lack of organizational
systems for CTP was identified as a major obstacle to efforts to scale up.
Systematic investments are required to build organizational capacity for CTP. These are long-term processes.
The organizations that have made greatest headway in scaling up CTP – such as WFP and UNHCR – have invested
consistently in structured capacity building over several years. This has gone significantly beyond hiring technical
‘cash experts’ to mainstreaming CTP within sectoral and operational teams, and upgrading key systems and
processes.
Human resource capacity in CTP is improving, but gaps remain. Upskilling existing staff requires suitable
training as well as experience, for which further opportunities and resourcing are required. Respondents reported
that it would be helpful for capacity-building materials to be shared, and to foster more harmonized ways of
working across organizations through joint capacity-building approaches. Recruiting skilled staff for cash-related
roles is a challenge across the sector, particularly for technical and strategic leadership roles.
Agencies need to invest in upgrading their systems and procedures for CTP; but uncertainty over the future
direction of CTP implementation is holding back investment. The growth and innovation in CTP is leading to the
rapid trialling of new approaches to delivering aid. Not all agencies are clear about what this means for their future
roles. Many interviewees perceived that a trend towards more streamlined cash delivery means that operational
agencies may not all require the full systems and processes needed for CTP delivery. However, others pointed out
that new models still needed to be tested, that not all donors are aligned, and that the feasibility of certain models
depends to a great extent on the context. They saw a continued need for a wide range of operational capacities
in the short to medium term. There was general agreement that implementing organizations should reconsider
the roles that they should be playing, based on where they can add most value, and for this to inform capacity
developments.
Building capacity of local actors can generate significant benefits but is not being undertaken systematically.
The Grand Bargain commits international actors to make humanitarian action as local as possible. Currently, there
is a major gap in the emphasis and resources being channelled towards building the CTP capacities of local actors
– both governmental and non-governmental. The work of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies (IFRC) to build the capacities of national societies demonstrates the added value of building
local cash readiness ahead of a crisis, and highlights the importance of consistent and increased investment in
cash preparedness and institutionalization.
8

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 4 – QUALITY
Global Objective 4:
Ensure the Quality of Cash Transfer Programming
The quality of CTP is perceived to be improving. However, it was noted that there is no common definition of
what quality means for CTP, which could act as the basis for objective measurement. Work is planned to develop
more standardized measures of quality around efficiency and effectiveness, for instance, through the Grand
Bargain and Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative.
Common tools and standards, based on best practice, are required to manage quality consistently. Many
respondents report that they have access to tools and information on best practices for CTP. But they are not
systematically used or harmonized. Reasons include the proliferation of CTP guidelines and tools, with insufficient
consolidation and curation, and the fact that they are not embedded into wider humanitarian frameworks. There
is increasing evidence that harmonizing tools and guidance can help to increase the quality of CTP.
CTP is being integrated into key humanitarian standards, with increasing engagement across sectors. CTP is
being mainstreamed in the current revision of the Sphere Standards. There is a growing agreement across sectors
and clusters that CTP can play an important role in achieving quality outcomes. However, there is some way to go
in determining the best ways to do this.
Unrestricted CTP can promote choice and quality, but evidence is currently limited. Debates about the role of
unrestricted cash in achieving sectoral outcomes are rooted in concerns that: a) beneficiaries may not prioritize
certain sectoral needs, b) markets may not have the right quality of goods or services, or c) beneficiaries may
purchase lower quality goods or services. This cuts to the heart of ‘putting people at the centre’ of decision making
and the role of beneficiaries in making complicated decisions in times of crisis.
Effective monitoring requires the use of common indicators and processes across agencies. This is true
across all modalities, including in-kind aid. It can enable comparative analyses of efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability. The monitoring of CTP should be integrated with other complementary programming activities.
The potential of humanitarian CTP to enhance financial inclusion depends on context-specific factors.
Research suggests that there may be limited opportunities for humanitarian CTP to contribute to financial
inclusion objectives, and only when intentionally designed for this purpose, in ways appropriate for each context.
Respondents consider that the question of whether financial inclusion should be an objective for CTP depends
on the nature of the crisis – specifically, its predictability and time horizon.
9

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 5 – COORDINATION
Global Objective 5:
Strengthen Coordination of Cash Transfer Programming
Currently, the coordination of CTP is ad hoc. Only 28% of survey respondents agree that humanitarian agencies
make the best use of common mechanisms for assessment, delivery or monitoring of CTPs. This is identified as
a critical barrier to achieving global commitments on improving the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of cash
assistance.
The causes and results of the poor coordination of CTP are well documented. Different agencies manage
programmes on the basis of different analysis, with gaps or duplications in service provision, inconsistencies in
the results achieved (and key factors such as transfer values), and confusion among beneficiaries and authorities.
These challenges are most acutely felt in relation to MPGs, which do not fit into the established humanitarian
sectors and structures.
In most contexts, Cash Working Groups (CWGs) have emerged at an operational level. They respond to
operational needs, such as coordinating assessments or minimum expenditure baskets. They are organized
inconsistently by different actors, without stable resourcing or clear relationships with strategic oversight bodies.
Lessons are not shared between contexts. This study found little evidence that CWGs adequately involve local
actors. 44% of survey respondents perceive that host governments have become more involved in coordinating
humanitarian CTP in the last year.
The barriers to improving cash coordination are not being adequately addressed. Barriers include confusion
about where CTP fits into the international humanitarian system, for instance, in areas such as clarifying key
responsibilities, the role of CWGs, and incorporating CTP in humanitarian response plans (HRPs). Another barrier
is seen to be the limited commitment of agencies to use shared mechanisms. The debate about cash coordination
is perceived as politicized and undermined by ‘turf wars’. Respondents note that it also relates to wider issues
about enhancing coordination in aid.
There is broad agreement that cash coordination should be situated at the inter-sector level, building on
existing humanitarian coordination structures. Work is underway to implement this. For instance, UN agencies
are building CTP into the system of humanitarian coordination, and developing use of the Basic Needs Approach.
There is significant interest in linking humanitarian CTP with national social protection systems. 50% of
survey respondents report that their organization has worked with governments, on some level, to use national
social protection systems for delivery of cash assistance. Experience suggests that, in appropriate contexts, this
can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian response. There is little evidence that humanitarian
programmes can strengthen social protection systems during a crisis response. Further research is required and
currently being undertaken in this area.
10

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 6 – EVIDENCE AND INNOVATION
Global Objective 6:
Strengthen the Evidence Base and Invest In Innovation
The case for CTP as an assistance modality that can effectively be used at scale has been made. There is a solid
and growing evidence base for CTP, and it is among the best researched humanitarian tools. However, critical
evidence gaps remain, which constrain further change. These relate to using different types of CTP in different
contexts and for different sub-populations, including in terms of achieving sectoral outcomes, as well as the use
of MPGs, and complementary and multi-modality programming. Determining what works best in a given context
requires new approaches to be tested in practice. At the sector level, agencies and clusters are considering how to
build evidence to achieve sectoral outcomes through CTP, and a range of research is planned or being carried out.
16
Collaboration in implementing CTP is increasing, but we don’t yet know which operational models are the
most appropriate in different contexts. Respondents report that this needs to be systematically addressed
through trials of alternative models in different contexts and comparison of the results. Scaling up CTP offers
opportunities to transform how humanitarian aid is delivered, potentially involving a consolidation of functions
and a more prominent role for ‘non-traditional’ players. Key issues include the role of the private sector in the
delivery of aid, the digitization and potential for greater harmonization of programming functions, the use of
MPGs and opportunities to increase value for money. These can have major ramifications in terms of funding
decisions, how agencies work, and partnerships with distinct government units, financial service providers and
technology providers.
Respondents reported different views about operational models. Some prioritize potential efficiency gains.
Others are concerned about wider aspects of effectiveness. If functions are consolidated, this can reduce the
funding available for agencies that are not involved in directly delivering payments. The implications of this for
funding core costs and maintaining key humanitarian capacities needs further discussion, based on transparent
analysis of the real costs of humanitarian action.
CTP can act as a catalyst for further innovation. It will benefit from increased strategic collaboration, both among
humanitarian agencies and with the private sector. Innovation requires an appetite for risk (and the accompanying
possibility of failure) on the part of implementing agencies and donors. Technological advances have been
central to the growth of CTP, such as the rapid expansion of mobile money, use of biometrics and more recent
attempts to utilize blockchain technology and digital identities. Overall, new technology has been underutilized,
with primary reasons being fragmented demand from humanitarian agencies and a proliferation of solutions
which address specific issues, rather than taking a more holistic approach to programming requirements. This
also relates to the need to enhance data interoperability.
16 ‘The overall structure through which agencies work jointly (either through a partnership, consortium or other form of collaboration) to deliver a CTP. Specifically,
in the situation response and analysis, program design and implementation’ (CaLP’s working definition of ‘operational models’).
11

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 7 – PRIORITY ACTIONS

n
Each chapter closes with three priority actions needed to drive further progress, summarised below. Unless
otherwise stated, the actions apply to implementing agencies, donors and coordinating bodies. These span
government entities, UN agencies, NGOs, the Red Cross Movement and the private sector.
This report does not propose a new set of recommendations, which would be unnecessary and potential
confusing. Instead, the priority actions are cross-referenced to the Global Framework for Action and the draft
17
action plan of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream (GB). The Sustainable Development Goals provide a broad
18
frame of reference, alongside the UN’s New Way of Working.
The priority actions are summarized here. More details are provided in the full report. Each action is cross
referenced to:
19
— GFA: Specific supporting actions identified in the Global Framework for Action
— GB: Specific draft actions identified in the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream Workshop Report, 31st May–1st
20
June 2017
1.1 Sustain high-level policy commitments to CTP. [GFA 1.3, GB 1.3]
— Continually monitor, sustain and refresh existing commitments to realize the potential of CTP, for instance,
through lobbying, public accountability mechanisms, sharing experiences and strengthening the evidence base.
1.2 I ntegrate CTP into organizational and inter-agency reporting systems, using common definitions.
[GFA 1.4, GB 4]
— This should be enacted within individual institutions, and across key inter-agency systems such as the
Financial Tracking System (FTS), and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) data standard. All actors
should use common definitions, to enable comparison and aggregation. CaLP’s Glossary has been collectively
developed over several years and recently recommended for adoption by the cash workstreams of the Grand
Bargain and the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative.
— Policy decisions are required concerning whether to report cash and vouchers together or separately in global
reporting systems. Work is needed to increase transparency of programming costs for all modalities (cash,
vouchers, in-kind, etc).
1.3 Strengthen support for CTP among the public. [GFA 1.3]
— Make the case to the public for CTP as an integral part of humanitarian aid. Actors can achieve more in this area
by working together using common messaging.
21
2.1 Embed c ontextual analysis and response analysis into humanitarian programme cycles and funding
decisions. [GFA 2.2]
— Decisions about how best to provide aid should be based on an assessment of each context, including all issues
relevant for CTP. Programme cycles should include the explicit step of response analysis. These steps should be
embedded in agencies’ internal procedures, as well as in leadership, coordination and funding bodies.
— Use and promote common, streamlined tools, appropriate to each context and operating across sectors. Work
with new partners to achieve collective goals in these areas.
17 https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/gb_cash_workstream_workshop_report_may-jun_2017.pdf This action plan identified areas where
the Grand Bargain could add value to other processes. It was not intended to provide a comprehensive road map for achieving the cash reform.
18 See p. 6 of The New Way of Working, available at www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/NWOW%20Booklet%20low%20res.002_0.pdf: ‘working over multiple
years, based on the comparative advantage of a diverse range of actors, including those outside the UN system, towards collective outcomes; wherever
possible, efforts should reinforce and strengthen the capacities that already exist at national and local levels’.
19 www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-framework-web.pdf
20 http://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/gb_cash_workstream_workshop_report_may-jun_2017.pdf
21 Response analysis is defined in CaLP’s Glossary: www.cashlearning.org/resources/glossary#RA
12

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
2.2 Iden tify how CTP can achieve the best results in different technical sectors and across sectors. [GFA 2.3,
GB 1.6 & 1.7]
— Technical specialists, including clusters, should lead work to identify and promote how CTP can best contribute
to outcomes in different sectors. Explore the added value, and limitations, of MPGs in different contexts.
2.3 Donors should work together to ensure appropriate consideration of CTP. [GFA 2.4, GB 1.1]
— Donors should encourage implementing agencies to always consider using CTP, to achieve the best strategic
outcomes for crisis-affected people. This includes considering how actors can collaborate in the most effective
and efficient ways.
— Donors may benefit from developing shared principles for high-quality CTP. They should consider how risk can
be managed in different contexts and appropriately shared across actors.
3.1 Integrate CTP into organizations’ strategies, systems, processes and staffing [GFA 3.2]
— All relevant staff should be equipped to use CTP appropriately, including through the structured integration
of CTP into organizational plans, systems, processes and guidance. This is the single most significant step in
driving the uptake of CTP and requires time, consistent resourcing and leadership.
— Agencies should make strategic decisions about the role they intend to play in CTP. Donors should resource
capacity building and institutionalization processes.
3.2 Fund and support national organizations to build their capacity for CTP [GFA 3.5]
— National organizations should be supported by international actors to accelerate their efforts to build capacities
for CTP. National agencies can also benefit from sharing experience, tools and approaches.
3.3 Build individual competencies in CTP. [GFA 3.3]
— All actors should invest in strengthening the competencies of individual staff and practitioners in CTP. CTP
competencies should be built into existing job roles, rather than siloed as separate ‘CTP experts’.
— CTP should be integrated within existing initiatives to develop skills and talent in the humanitarian sector. All
agencies can benefit from common approaches such as shared materials based on best practice. Competencies
should be enhanced with experience from outside the humanitarian sector.
4.1 Desig n and implement cash-based assistance to contribute as effectively and efficiently as possible to
strategic outcomes. [GFA 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4]
— Agencies should systematically ensure that CTP is designed and implemented on the basis of the best available
standards and evidence. Programmes should be designed to contribute to strategic outcomes for the whole
humanitarian response, in line with beneficiaries’ preferences. Agencies should assume that this will involve
collaborating with other actors, rather than operating independently.
— Humanitarian programmes should build on existing infrastructure and systems where possible, such as social
protection systems, local networks or financial services and communications providers.
4.2 Develop common tools for managing the quality of CTP. [GFA 4.1].
— Agencies, donors and coordinating bodies should improve the common tools available to manage the quality
of CTP, at global, national and operational levels. Tools should link to shared definitions of quality and include:
outcome indicators, standards, guidance and operational tools.
— The process of developing tools should involve a range of actors bringing different perspectives. Tools will
need to be systematically updated and promoted.
4.3 I ntegrate CTP into existing mechanisms for managing the quality of humanitarian action. [GFA 4.2]
— CTP should be integrated into existing and new humanitarian standards, guidance, frameworks and initiatives.
This includes areas such as: humanitarian programme cycles, coordination processes and funding decisions.
This should be undertaken with due account paid to best practices from across the humanitarian sector, with
lessons shared between organizations and countries.
13

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
5.1 I ntegrate CTP into existing mechanisms for coordinating humanitarian action. [GFA 5.1, 5.2, GB 2.2]
— Coordination bodies should integrate CTP into their ongoing work and objectives. This could include updating:
strategies, procedures, information systems and planning tools. The lessons from different approaches should
be actively shared, to drive continual improvement.
— The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) should provide clearer guidance on locating responsibilities
for cash coordination (at strategic and technical levels) within the humanitarian system, building on existing
analysis.
5.2 Support and engage with Cash Working Groups. [GFA 5.4]
— Cash Working Groups (CWGs) should be established and supported to enhance technical coordination. The
chair, resourcing and responsibilities of the CWG should be determined locally, on a pragmatic basis, while
global responsibilities are clarified. CWGs should work with sub-national groups where necessary.
— High-level coordinating bodies should support CWGs and connect them to wider coordination efforts. All
agencies working on CTP should engage with the relevant CWG, which should seek to include all humanitarian
actors, including government, local and international actors.
— Donors should resource CWGs, and specialist bodies strengthen the pool of relevantly experienced CWG
leaders. CWGs should operate on the basis of good practices from other humanitarian responses.
5.3 Build links bet ween humanitarian programmes and other government/development initiatives.
[GFA 5.1 & 5.3]
— Humanitarian actors should routinely consider how their work can be connected to and contribute to other
government systems and development initiatives. This includes potentially linking short-term humanitarian
aid to approaches such as social protection systems, related programmes and private sector financial
infrastructure.
— The evidence base in this area should be strengthened, through testing and monitoring different approaches.
6.1 Strengthen the evidence base. [GFA 6.1, GB 1.6]
— Evidence needs to be strengthened in areas including: using CTP in different contexts and sectors, and for
different sub-populations; different operating models; the outcomes achieved by MPGs in different contexts;
and linking humanitarian CTP to social protection systems.
— CTP interventions should build in sufficient resources to enable the writing up and dissemination of lessons
learned. Actors should expect to innovate, learn and improve CTP within each context, rather than using
existing, ‘off the shelf’ models that may be inappropriate in the given context.
6.2 S trengthen common platforms for building, sharing and using knowledge about CTP. [GFA 6.4 & 6.5]
— All actors working on CTP should make use of and support common platforms to contribute to and benefit from
the best available knowledge. Common platforms should promote existing knowledge in easily accessible,
practical ways, and help to apply it through best practice tools and guides. Actors should actively share their
experiences through common platforms.
6.3 Invest in innovation to achieve more for beneficiaries. [GFA 6.2]
— CTP should be used as a catalyst for innovation, with a focus on better achieving humanitarian objectives and
meeting the needs of beneficiaries. New partnerships with the private sector can enable significant scale-up.
New technologies can generate efficiencies for beneficiaries and implementing agencies alike.
— New approaches are needed for how humanitarian aid is organized and funded, to drive efficiency and
effectiveness. The increased use of CTP should be associated with reforms that bring about a leaner, more
holistic and better-connected humanitarian response. New funding models are needed to fund the core
capacities required for humanitarian action.
14

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Key themes and enabling factors
Two key themes and three enabling factors have been identified from across the whole report. Together, they
summarize the actions needed by all actors involved in humanitarian response to achieve the greatest progress
in CTP.
The two key themes are:
— Integrate CTP into all existing mechanisms of providing humanitarian aid, including: organizations’ policies,
strategies, management and reporting systems, funding and programming decisions, capacity-building
initiatives, coordination mechanisms, standards, guidance, tools and others.
— Innovate and strengthen the evidence base. Trial new ways of working that generate the greatest benefits for
people in crisis from the opportunities created by CTP. Develop new partnerships and stronger insights into
CTP, share experience and learn together.
The three enabling factors are:
— Sustain the high-level policy commitments needed for the effective implementation of CTP.
— Plan and act collaboratively. Expect to use common approaches and mechanisms for CTP at operational,
national and global levels, which are implemented across organizations and existing technical sectors.
— Support a limited amount of CTP-specific infrastructure, including platforms for collective action on CTP.
Many of the priority actions identified in this report focus on integrating cash into existing humanitarian
architecture. CTP is moving from a standalone activity to become an established component of mainstream
humanitarian action. As a result, the nature and pace of reforms are changing. Changes are happening at a deeper
level, affecting whole organizations and involving more actors. This takes time, requiring structured approaches
with consistent leadership and resourcing, often over several years.
At the same time, wide and varied ambitions remain to innovate and use the disruptive nature of CTP to achieve
broader reforms. At the least, CTP enables greater collaboration among implementing agencies, for instance,
through the sharing of analysis or delivery mechanisms. More fundamentally, CTP challenges established
operating models, funding models and coordinating structures. It opens the door to new partnerships and new
ways of doing business that have potential to generate substantial benefits for donors and beneficiaries alike.
Work on CTP over the coming years must span both these components: integrating cash into existing architecture,
and innovating to reform and improve that architecture. The speed and distance travelled will depend on the
political will invested by many different actors, and the way that cash is aligned to related reforms. Just as cash is
finding its place at an operational level, so the reform potential of cash is finding its place among the panoply of
humanitarian reforms.
Making the most of cash at every level will continue to require collective action among the many different actors
involved. The humanitarian ecosystem remains characterized by interdependent organizations, each working
with overlapping aims and objectives. Perhaps the greatest driver of progress will be the extent to which
organizations consider the potential of cash independently or collectively. Organizations working independently
will recreate the limitations of the current humanitarian architecture. But collectively, they can use CTP to drive
a step change in the potential for limited humanitarian funding to meet the needs of people in desperate crisis
around the world.
15

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Terms and definitions used in this report are consistent with CaLP’s Glossary, which can be accessed in full at:
www.cashlearning.org/resources/glossary. Selected terms used in this report are listed below.
Assistance Modality: ‘Assistance modality’ refers to the form of assistance – e.g. cash transfer, vouchers, in-kind,
service delivery, or a combination. This can include both direct transfers to household level, and assistance
provided at a more general or community level e.g. health services, WaSH infrastructure.
Basic Needs: The items that people need to survive. This can include safe access to essential goods and services
such as food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, sanitation and education.
Cash for Work (CFW): Cash payments provided on the condition of undertaking designated work. This is generally
paid according to time worked (e.g. number of days, daily rate), but may also be quantified in terms of outputs
(e.g. number of items produced, cubic metres dug). CFW interventions are usually in public or community work
programmes, but can also include home-based and other forms of work.
Cash Modality: ‘Cash modality’ refers to the different types of cash or voucher transfer – e.g. conditional (cash
for work, etc.), unconditional, restricted, unrestricted, multipurpose, etc. A single transfer can generally be
categorized in terms of several of these variables e.g. a conditional, unrestricted transfer.
Cash Plus: This term refers to complementary programming in which CTP is combined with other modalities
or activities. Complementary interventions may be implemented by the same agency/agencies providing CTP,
or potentially by other agencies working in collaboration. Examples might include provision of training and/or
livelihood inputs, or behavioural change communication programmes.
Cash Transfer: The provision of assistance in the form of money (either physical currency/cash or e-cash) to
beneficiaries (individuals, households or communities). Cash transfers as a modality are distinct from both
vouchers and in-kind assistance.
Cash Transfer Programming (CTP): CTP refers to all programs where cash (or vouchers for goods or services)
are directly provided to beneficiaries. In the context of humanitarian assistance, the term is used to refer to the
provision of cash or vouchers given to individuals, household or community recipients; not to governments or
other state actors. CTP covers all modalities of cash-based assistance, including vouchers. This excludes remittances
and microfinance in humanitarian interventions (although microfinance and money transfer institutions may be
used for the actual delivery of cash). The term can be used interchangeably with Cash Based Interventions, Cash
Based Assistance, and Cash and Voucher Programming
Conditionality: Conditionality refers to prerequisite or qualifying conditions that a beneficiary must fulfil to
receive a cash transfer or voucher, i.e., activities or obligations that must be fulfilled before receiving assistance. It
is distinct from restriction, which pertains only to how transfers are used. Conditionality can in principle be used
with any kind of cash, voucher or other type of assistance, depending on its objectives and design.
Cost-Effectiveness: Cost-effectiveness is the extent to which the programme has achieved or is expected to
achieve its results (outcomes/impacts) at a lower cost compared with alternatives. (Source: World Bank)
Delivery Mechanism: Means of delivering a cash or voucher transfer (e.g. smart card, mobile money transfers,
cash in envelopes, etc.).
E-Transfer: A digital transfer of money or vouchers from the implementing agency to a programme participant.
E-transfers provide access to cash, goods and/or services through mobile devices, electronic vouchers, or cards
(e.g., prepaid, ATM, credit or debit cards). E-transfer is an umbrella term for e-cash and e-vouchers.
Effectiveness: Effectiveness relates to how well outputs are converted to outcomes and impacts (e.g. reduction
in poverty gap and inequality, improved nutrition, reduction in school dropout rates, increased use of health
services, asset accumulation by the poor, increased smallholder productivity, social cohesion).
Efficiency: Efficiency refers to the ability of a programme to achieve its intended objectives at the least cost
possible in terms of use of inputs (i.e. capital, labour and other inputs).
16

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Financial Inclusion: Financial inclusion means that a full suite of financial services is provided, with quality, to all
who can use them, by a range of providers, to financially capable clients.
Financial Service Provider (FSP): An entity that provides financial services, which may include e-transfer services.
Depending upon context, financial service providers may include e-voucher companies, financial institutions
(such as banks and microfinance institutions) or mobile network operators (MNOs). FSPs include many entities
(such as investment funds, insurance companies, accountancy firms) beyond those that offer humanitarian cash
transfers or voucher services, hence, within CTP literature, FSP generally refers to those providing transfer services.
Know Your Customer (KYC): This usually refers to the information that the local regulator requires banks to collect
about any potential new customer in order to discourage financial products being used for money laundering or
other crimes. Some countries allow banks greater flexibility than others regarding the source of this information,
and some countries allow lower levels of information for accounts that they deem to be ‘low risk’.
Market: The term ‘market’ refers to a system of exchange between two or more actors or players. The exchange
can be for goods or services, or for money, and can take place in a physical space or through virtual media such as
the internet. Markets are sometimes defined by forces of supply and demand, rather than geographical location
e.g. ‘imported cereals make up 40% of the market’.
Market Analysis: Analysis of market information to understand how a market functions, or how it has been
impacted by an event or crisis.
Market-based programming: Market-based programming or market-based interventions are understood to
be projects that work through or support local markets. The terms cover all types of engagement with market
systems, ranging from actions that deliver immediate relief to those that proactively strengthen and catalyse local
market systems or market hubs.
Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB): Defined as what a household needs – on a regular or seasonal basis –
and its average cost over time. The MEB can be a critical component in the design of interventions including
Multipurpose Cash Grants/Assistance (MPG/MCA), with transfer amounts calculated to contribute to meeting the
MEB.
Mobile Money: Mobile money uses the mobile phone to access financial services such as payments, transfers,
insurance, savings and credit. It is a paperless version of a national currency that can be used to provide
humanitarian e-cash payments.
Modality: See Assistance Modality and Cash Modality.
Multiplier Effect: Indirect effects of cash transfers whereby increased expenditure by recipients contributes
to income growth for non-recipients, expansion of markets for local goods or increased demands for services.
The ‘economic multiplier’ is the estimated number by which a change in some other component of aggregate
demand is multiplied to give the total amount by which the national income is increased as a result of direct and
indirect benefits from that change in demand.
Multipurpose Cash Grant (MPG)/ Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MCA): MPGs or MCAs are defined as a transfer
(either regular or one-off) corresponding to the amount of money a household needs to cover, fully or partially,
a set of basic and/or recovery needs. They are, by definition, unrestricted cash transfers. The MPG/MCA can
contribute to meeting a Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) or other calculation of the amount required to cover
basic needs, but can also include other one-off or recovery needs.
Private Sector: The private sector includes any actors which generate surplus income/profit through their business
operations. This includes small individual traders and micro-enterprises, small firms employing temporary labour,
cooperatives with numerous ‘members’ or shareholders, through to multinational companies. The absolute
criteria for what is/isn’t the private sector is blurred, as many private firms are owned by governments, and some
enterprises – for instance, ‘social enterprises’ – have business plans that generate a profit which is invested back
in to society.
17

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Response Analysis (RA) or Response Analysis Framework (RAF): The link between situational analysis (broadly
speaking, needs assessment and other contextual information) and programme design. It involves the selection
of programme response options, modalities and target groups; and should be informed by considerations of
appropriateness and feasibility, and should simultaneously address needs while analysing and minimizing
potential harmful side effects.
Restriction: Restriction refers to limits on the use of a transfer, after it has been received by a beneficiary.
Restrictions may describe either the range of goods and services that a transfer can be used to purchase, or the
places where a transfer can be used, or both. The degree of restriction may vary – from the requirement to buy
specific items, to buying from a general category of goods or services, or to achieve an agreed output (e.g. to
repair a shelter, or start up a livelihood activity). Restriction is distinct from conditionality, which applies only to
prerequisite conditions that a beneficiary must fulfil before receiving a transfer.
Safety Nets (SN) or Social Safety Nets: Safety nets target the poor or vulnerable and consist of non-contributory
transfers, such as in-kind food, cash or vouchers; they can be provided conditionally or unconditionally. They are
a sub-set of broader social protection systems.
Sector-Specific Intervention: This refers to a CTP intervention designed to achieve sector-specific objectives.
Sector-specific cash transfers can be restricted or unrestricted, and conditional or unconditional.
Social Protection: Actions carried out by the state or privately, to address risk, vulnerability and chronic poverty.
Social protection refers to comprehensive systems including safety nets, social assistance, labour market policies,
social insurance options (e.g. contributory pensions, health insurance), and basic social services (e.g. in education,
health and nutrition).
Unconditional Transfer: Unconditional transfers are provided to beneficiaries without the recipient having to do
anything in return in order to receive the assistance.
Unrestricted Transfer: Unrestricted transfers can be used entirely as the recipient chooses, i.e., there are no direct
limitations imposed by the implementing agency on how the transfer is spent. Cash transfers are by default
unrestricted, unless they require beneficiaries to spend their cash on particular goods or services in order to
receive subsequent transfers.
Value for Money: VfM refers to the optimal use of resources to achieve the best outcomes for people affected by
crisis and disaster.
Voucher: A paper, token or e-voucher that can be exchanged for a set quantity or value of goods, denominated
either as a cash value (e.g. $15) or predetermined commodities or services (e.g. 5kg maize; milling of 5kg of maize),
or a combination of value and commodities. They are redeemable with preselected vendors or in ‘fairs’ created
by the agency. Vouchers are used to provide access to a range of goods or services, at recognized retail outlets
or service centres. Vouchers are by default a restricted form of transfer, although there are wide variations in
the degree of restriction/flexibility that different voucher-based programmes may provide. The terms vouchers,
stamps and coupons are often used interchangeably.
NOTE ON THE USE OF ‘CASH’, ‘CASH TRANSFERS’ AND ‘CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING’
IN THIS REPORT
CaLP uses the term ‘cash transfer programming’ (CTP) in its publications to refer to cash and voucher
programming collectively (see definition above). There are equivalent terms such as ‘cash-based assistance’
and ‘cash-based interventions’ which may also occasionally be used in this report. Where these terms are used,
readers can assume reference is to cash and voucher programming.
Where ‘cash’ has been used in relation to programming, it is generally referring to cash transfers only, as
opposed to cash and voucher programming collectively. However, sometimes a shorthand of ‘cash actors’
or ‘cash experts’ or similar might be used, which is referring to cash and voucher programming collectively.
Otherwise, the authors have used ‘cash transfers’ or ‘cash’ when referring to cash transfers specifically.
18

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
ABBREVIATIONS
ACAPS Assessment Capacities Project IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and
ADP Accenture Development Partnerships Red Crescent Societies
BCC Behaviour Change Communication IHA International Humanitarian Assistance
BRC British Red Cross INGO International Non-Government
BNA Basic Needs Approach Organization
BRCiS Building Resilient Communities in Somalia IPC Integrated Food Security Phase
Classification
CaLP The Cash Learning Partnership IRC International Rescue Committee
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
Everywhere MBP Market-Based Programming
CBA Cash-based Assistance MNO Mobile Network Operator
CCG Cash Coordination Group MPG Multipurpose Grants
CCT Conditional Cash Transfer NGO Non-Government Organization
CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron OCHA Office for the Coordination of
CRS Catholic Relief Services Humanitarian Affairs
CSI Coping Strategies Index OCRT Organizational Cash Readiness Tool
CTP Cash Transfer Programming ODA Official Development Assistance
CWG Cash Working Group ODI Overseas Development Institute
DAC Development Assistance Committee OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation
DFID United Kingdom Department for and Development
International Development PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
DI Development Initiatives PHAP Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo and Profession
DRM Disaster Risk Management PQT Programme Quality Toolbox
ECHO European Civil Protection and RI Relief International
Humanitarian Aid Operations SCT Social Cash Transfer
ELAN Electronic Cash Transfer Learning SCUK Save the Children UK
Action Network SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
ESSN Emergency Social Safety Net TORs Terms of Reference
FFP Food for Peace UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer
FGD Focus Group Discussion UN United Nations
FSL Food Security and Livelihoods UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner
FSP Financial Service Providers for Refugees
FTS Financial Tracking System UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
GB The Grand Bargain USAID The United States Agency for
GHA Global Humanitarian Assistance International Development
GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship VfM Value for Money
GPPI Global Public Policy Institute WaSH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
HC Humanitarian Coordinators WFP World Food Programme
HCT Humanitarian Country Team WHS World Humanitarian Summit
HRP Humanitarian Response Plan WVI World Vision International
HXL Humanitarian Exchange Language 3RP Regional Response and Resilience Plan
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee 3W Who does What, Where
IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
19

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, cash transfer programming (CTP) has emerged as one of the most significant reforms in
international humanitarian assistance (IHA). More humanitarian aid is being delivered today as cash and vouchers
than ever before. It is being used to assist people suffering the effects of terrible crises around the world from Syria
and Yemen to Greece, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria, Somalia, Uganda, Ecuador, Brazil, Fiji, the Philippines,
India, Myanmar and many other countries.
The humanitarian system is today stretched more thinly across major operational responses than it has ever
been. The global humanitarian funding gap is currently estimated at over 40%,22 and is expected to widen. It
is more important than ever to deliver humanitarian aid as effectively and efficiently as possible. Cash transfer
programming is proving to be an essential part of the solution, but it requires changes to established ways
of working, alongside other major reforms. Across the humanitarian sector and beyond, there is widespread
excitement about and investment in realizing the transformative potential of cash.
Realizing the transformative potential of cash This new State of the World’s Cash Report has two
refers to efforts to improve humanitarian aid by objectives. Firstly, it provides an authoritative analysis of
making the most effective use of cash transfer progress made to date in using cash and vouchers as
programming. It is characterized by: tools for humanitarian aid. This includes assessing how
major commitments are being realized, and analysing
— Integrating cash transfer programming fast-moving successes and obstacles. Secondly, it charts
into humanitarian responses, systems and the way forward and identifies the essential next steps
organizations; and required to accelerate progress in the coming years.
— Innovating to benefit from the new and The substantial benefits associated with using cash
disruptive opportunities created by cash and vouchers as tools for humanitarian aid are widely
transfer programming. recognized and increasingly well evidenced. They
Both are analysed in depth in this report. include: driving efficiencies and innovation in the
delivery of aid, increasing the effective use of limited
aid dollars in achieving outcomes, enhancing the dignity and choice of beneficiaries, improving the traceability
of how aid funds are used and stimulating crisis-struck economies from the bottom up. These represent very
significant benefits for beneficiaries, host governments, taxpayers, donors and implementing agencies.
COMMITMENTS TO CTP
The concept of providing assistance in the form of cash or vouchers is not new, and there are powerful examples
of agencies providing effective humanitarian assistance this way over many years. However, CTP has only recently
become a mainstream priority. Major commitments to increase the use of CTP were made in 2015 and 2016,
particularly through the Grand Bargain, adopted at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016. As of
today, 53 of the most significant donors and implementing agencies have made formal commitments to the
Grand Bargain.23 Many organizations have also made their own public commitments to increase the use of CTP;
further details of this are provided in the following pages.
These commitments built upon analysis developed throughout 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the Council of the
European Union adopted ‘10 Common Principles for Multi-Purpose Cash-Based Assistance to Respond to
Humanitarian Needs’,24 and the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers published their report ‘Doing
25
cash differently: How cash transfers can transform humanitarian aid’. In 2016, the Principals of the United
Nation’s Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) commissioned the World Bank to write a ‘Strategic note on
26
Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts’. Since then, a great deal of further analysis and case studies have been
published, much of which is summarized in this report.
22 Development Initiatives (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report.
23 List of signatories and text of Grand Bargain available at www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/3861
24 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/concept_paper_common_top_line_principles_en.pdf
25 www.odi.org/publications/9876-cash-transfers-humanitarian-vouchers-aid-emergencies
26 www.cashlearning.org/downloads/humanitariancashtransfersfinalcopyedited.pdf
20

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
This analysis has recognized the potential for CTP to improve humanitarian aid, and also the risks and obstacles
faced in realizing that potential. Experience to date has shown that, in order to increase the reach and quality
of CTP yet further, significant changes are required to aspects of how donors, implementing agencies and
coordinating bodies work. In turn, this requires ongoing investment within institutions and collectively to evolve
the common architecture that the humanitarian system depends on.
Donors and implementing agencies are having to invest in updating their skills, systems, procedures and
partnerships across international operations. This requires years of consistent effort, backed by appropriate
resourcing and championing from a senior level, in order to ‘re-tool’ existing organizational machinery to deliver
different products.
The increasing scale of CTP is also raising strategic questions for organizations about their role and function. Due
to its impact on operating models, it forces agencies to ask whether they require a full range of general response
capabilities, or whether they should focus on a sub-set of capabilities that add specialist value within the wider
humanitarian ecosystem. It also raises significant new risks to be managed. The scale and volume of CTP is already
measured in billions of dollars and is growing substantially. The stakes are high in terms of institutional concerns
as well as humanitarian results.
At the same time, the common architecture is being adapted to enable new forms of collaboration in relation to
CTP, some of which cut across established interests and approaches. At the moment, much of this is taking place
in an ad hoc and country-specific manner. For instance, the place of CTP within coordination mechanisms and
humanitarian response plans (HRPs) is currently the subject of vigorous debate and a wide variety of practice.
RELATED REFORMS
The potential to align CTP with related reforms and objectives has been identified at every level, from achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to strengthening social protection systems and realizing the UN’s New
27
Way of Working. CTP is seen as a way of bridging the humanitarian–development divide and has been actively
linked to other reforms such as: financial inclusion, the digital revolution, evolving coordination mechanisms,
strengthening local ownership and leadership of aid, enhancing the dignity of and accountability towards
affected populations, and improving monitoring and reporting of results.
For example, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,28 UN Member States reaffirmed the dignity of the
individual as fundamental to all development efforts, which should endeavour to reach first those who are furthest
behind. CTP resonates across all seventeen of the SDGs. CTP’s benefits have been shown to cut across multiple
29 30 31 32
sectors and address women’s empowerment, food security, emissions reduction, education and healthcare.
33
It can help enable financial inclusion by stimulating innovation in digital payments. As a consequence of this
intrinsic capacity to span multiple sectors, cash transfers can also be used to bring together different actors and
promote SDG 17, ‘Partnership for the Goals’.
These wide-ranging humanitarian reforms and objectives are influenced by significant underlying factors, such
as public and political expectations in host and donor countries, the mandates of major implementing actors,
and the emergence of new donors and actors in humanitarian aid. There are natural tensions between them
and competing agendas at play. It is not surprising that there has been a great deal of policy debate about CTP.
Different actors have overlapping goals and a range of ambitions for the speed, depth and approaches to driving
change. Some see CTP as a tool to drive wider reforms; some see it as an integral component of a set of related
reforms; others see it as a straightforward good on its own terms.
27 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 and www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/5358
28 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
29 https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/aid/2016/09/womens-economic-empowerment-and-cash-transfer-programming
30 www.gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/077-Humanitarian-Indicators-v2.pdf
31 www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp146_2015.pdf
32 www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/SDGs/English/Transitioning%20from%20the%20MDGs%20to%20the%20SDGs.pdf
33 www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/Working-Paper-Achieving-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Apr-2016.pdf
21

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report provides a wide-ranging, objective review of these and other issues surrounding CTP. It critically
analyses and showcases the state of CTP today, in order to provide shared insights that can accelerate progress
in realizing the huge potential of CTP.
The report was commissioned by the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) and delivered by a team of CTP experts,
CaLP staff and Accenture Development Partnerships. The report presents an analysis based on primary and
secondary research, covering CaLP’s member organizations and other major humanitarian actors (see below, and
Annex 1, for details of the methodology and limitations).
Global Framework for Action: The core of the report is structured according to the six Global Objectives set out
34
in CaLP’s Global Framework for Action. The Global Framework for Action is a consolidated summary of the major
commitments and recommendations made to improve cash transfer programming (including the Grand Bargain).
It enables a consistent approach to implementing commitments and monitoring progress. As such, it provides
a collective road map for increasing the scale and quality of CTP. The Framework is presented in summary here:
34 www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-framework-web.pdf
22

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
This framework consolidates all major commitments to improve CTP from 2015/16. It provides a collective road
map for action. The full version is available at www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-framework-web.pdf.
Global Objective Supporting Actions
Global Objective 1 1.1 Increase the use of cash programming, where appropriate.
Ensure sufficient 1.2 D evelop and employ common markers and definitions for organizations to track and
funding is available report CTP.
for cash transfer 1.3 S trengthen support for CTP among all levels of government, senior decision makers and
programming the general public.
(Grand Bargain 1.4 T rack and report the funding allocated to CTP, using common markers and definitions.
#1 & #6)
Global Objective 2 2.1 Ensur e that decision makers consider CTP as an option at all stages of humanitarian
Ensure cash is response, throughout programme and funding cycles.
routinely considered, 2.2 Embed C TP, market analysis and response analysis within humanitarian response
alongside other tools procedures and funding mechanisms.
(Grand Bargain #1) 2.3 M ake best practice tools and support available to decision makers, to help them consider
the appropriate use of CTP.
2.4 Identify and address barriers to increasing the use of CTPs.
Global Objective 3 3.1 Ensure that appropriate delivery and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are in place
Build sufficient for CTP, using common approaches where possible.
capacity for cash 3.2 Undertake structured approaches to strengthen capacity for CTP at strategic and
transfer programming operational levels, including adapting support functions and operational preparedness.
(Grand Bargain #5) 3.3 Increase the number of competent staff available for strategic, technical and operational
functions required for CTP.
3.4 Make best practice training materials and programmes on CTP widely accessible and
tailor them to a range of audiences.
3.5 Invest in supporting national and local organizations to build leadership and capacity for
CTP.
Global Objective 4 4.1 D evelop common standards and guidelines for CTP, including outcome indicators.
Ensure the quality 4.2 M ake existing knowledge and evidence on CTP easily accessible to all significant actors.
of cash transfer 4.3 D esign and implement CTPs (including response modalities and operating models) on
programming the basis of the best available evidence, beneficiary preferences and considerations of
(Grand Bargain efficiency and effectiveness.
#4 & #5) 4.4 D esign and implement CTP delivery mechanisms to facilitate financial inclusion,
localization and build on local systems and infrastructure where possible.
Global Objective 5 5.1 Host go vernments play a leading role in strategic coordination of CTP throughout a
Strengthen response, where possible and consistent with humanitarian principles.
coordination of cash 5.2 D evelop a predictable approach to strategic coordination by international actors, and
transfer programming implement it where necessary.
(Grand Bargain #5) 5.3 Link humanitar ian CTPs to existing social protection systems, legislation and infrastructure
to the greatest extent possible.
5.4 A ll significant local and international actors actively participate in strategic and
operational coordination mechanisms, share information, use common approaches and
collaborate with each other as much as possible.
Global Objective 6 6.1 Strengthen the evidence base about the costs, benefits, impacts and risks of CTP in
Strengthen the different contexts and sectors.
evidence base and 6.2 Invest in developing new delivery models and innovations which can be used to increase
invest in innovation the quality and scale of CTP. This includes new partnerships with the private sector and
(Grand Bargain other actors.
#2 & #3) 6.3 Develop and employ common markers to track and assess delivery models.
6.4 Proactively share information about experiences of CTP.
6.5 Maintain a comprehensive overview of the evidence base and gaps on CTP, across all
sectors, and promote new evidence across all relevant organizations.
23

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
The contents of the six Global Objectives on which the report’s chapters are based are closely interlinked. The
Framework was designed to connect policy commitments with operational management. As a result, some
compromises had to be made about which issues were located within each chapter. All six chapters should be
read in conjunction with each other. For instance, innovations described in Chapter 6 have a bearing on the
capacities that agencies are building in Chapter 3 and the coordination mechanisms discussed in Chapter 5.
Priority Actions: Each chapter closes with three ‘priority actions’ that highlight the next steps required to drive
progress most effectively. These are cross-referenced with existing recommendations from the Global Framework
for Action and the Grand Bargain, in order to focus on implementation. They are summarized further into two key
themes and three enabling factors that have been identified from the analysis in order to drive the most effective
use of CTP in the coming months and years.
Critical Debates: The report highlights six current critical debates. These summarize the different views of various
actors, without attempting to reconcile them. They are presented in order to assist wider understanding and
provide greater insight on points of convergence and divergence.
Measuring CTP
Should cash and vouchers
be measured separately or
Multi-purpose Grants together? Operational Models
How should we use MPGs How do we ensure that both
appropriately, while ensuring efficiency and effectiveness are
necessary sectoral outcomes? given due weight in the selection of
CRITICAL DEBATES operational models?
Social Protection Capacity Building
How and when can Financial Inclusion What do new ways of
humanitarian CTP align What are the most implementing CTP mean for
best with social protection appropriate ways to combine capacity building?
systems? humanitarian CTP with longer
term financial inclusion?
Case Studies: In addition, the report presents eight case studies of CTP in practice (see Annex 2). These vividly
bring the issues to life, offering recent examples of the many ways in which the humanitarian community is
rapidly learning how to make the best use of CTP. They include a balanced description of successes achieved
and obstacles faced in each context. The case studies are referred to throughout the text. They were selected
on the basis of providing significant insights into recent practice, progress and challenges, based on available
documentation, and spanning a range of contexts.
This report is predicated on the understanding that CTP has appropriately come to be seen as a tool to enhance
humanitarian response, rather than a silver bullet or panacea. However, there is enormous potential to make
better use of CTP in most humanitarian settings in ways that can have a transformative effect for those in greatest
need, while also achieving more from limited aid dollars.
This State of the World’s Cash Report aims to provide a common platform to enhance evidence-based decision
making across humanitarian actors, in order to realize the potential of CTP. Its ambition is to make a significant
contribution to converting the high-level policy commitments to CTP into the most effective, practical actions
that will drive the greatest change over the next two years.
24

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
METHODOLOGY
Primary research included interviewing over 40 key informants, and surveying over 200 practitioners and 35
organizations, covering humanitarian actors from donors, NGOs, UN agencies, the Red Cross movement, host
governments and the private sector. Secondary research included collating and reviewing a significant volume of
relevant reports, studies, reviews, data analysis, and articles (see References).
Data collection tools include key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and two surveys, referred
to throughout the report as the ‘practitioner survey’ and the ‘organization survey’. The report includes the
perspectives of practitioners across multiple geographies and varied roles (ranging from technical advisors and
senior management to programme managers and operations). In line with the localization agenda, we aimed to
include national actors, within the limitations of time and budget. This is reflected in the different instruments
used – for example, the regional FGDs, and reaching out to the wider CaLP membership, including national
organizations, for the organization survey. However, it is recognized that the majority of the respondents to this
research work for international organizations.
The practitioner survey was designed to reach a broad audience, with 239 completed responses received. The
relatively small sample size, and variations in the rate of response across different stakeholder groups, should
be noted when reviewing the results. For example, a total of 77% of respondents work for INGOs, the UN, or
the Red Cross/Red Crescent; donors and national NGOs comprise 5% each, and the private sector, 2%. In terms
of geographical spread, 49% are based in Africa, 13% in Western Europe, 10% in the Middle East, 9% in North
America, and 7% in South Asia.
Survey results were clarified and triangulated with the stakeholder interviews, FGDs and secondary data. Unless
otherwise stated, the findings included in the report are reflective of common trends and perceptions from
across the different data sources. The use of quotes follows best practice in qualitative research – they have been
selected to illustrate findings based on their representativeness of the broader perspectives expressed, and as
such should be read as more than just isolated, subjective responses.
As noted above, eight in-depth case studies have also been developed, to illustrate the progress, trends, challenges
and issues which are highlighted and analysed within the main narrative.
The research focus of this report is on the community of practice involved in funding, designing, implementing,
supporting and analysing humanitarian assistance. Within the time and resources available, it was not feasible to
capture beneficiary perspectives in the primary research and analysis.
The team worked closely with Development Initiatives to ensure a comparable methodology for estimating the
total volume of CTP during 2016 (Chapter 1) as they used for 2015, as presented in the publication ‘Counting
35
Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming’.
Please see Annex 1 for full details of the research methodology.
35 http://devinit.org/post/counting-cash-tracking-humanitarian-expenditure-on-cash-based-programming/
25

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 1: FUNDING
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 1: ENSURE SUFFICIENT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE FOR
CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING
Support for CTP by strategic decision makers has significantly increased in the last two years. This has led to a range
of policy and strategy commitments to scale up CTP by donors and implementing agencies, and an (albeit modest)
increase in the scale of CTP as a proportion of humanitarian assistance over the last two years. To achieve greater scale
necessitates policy commitments to be translated into practice, requiring systemic organizational change.
Global Objective 1 Supporting Actions
Ensure sufficient 1.1 Increase the use of cash programming, where appropriate.
funding is available 1.2 Develop and employ common markers and definitions for organizations to track and
for cash transfer report CTP.
programming 1.3 Strengthen support for CTP among all levels of government, senior decision makers and
(Grand Bargain the general public.
#1 & #6) 1.4 Track and report the funding allocated to CTP, using common markers and definitions.
There is increased high-level support for CTP within donor and implementing organizations, translating
into policy and strategy commitments
There is increased support for cash transfer programming (CTP) among donor governments and senior
decision makers in humanitarian organizations. Following a gradual growth in interest in CTP from 2004/5, it
has accelerated since 2015. Landmark publications, including the High Level Panel report (2015),36
which
outlined recommendations to increase the scale, efficiency and quality of cash transfers, and the Grand Bargain37
commitments (2016), have helped express and galvanize this support. This is reflected in the practitioner survey,
whose respondents perceive a marked shift in the level of support for CTP among strategic decision makers
in donors and implementing organizations (see Box 1.1). This support is evident from the policy and strategy
commitments being made by both donors and implementers.
BOX 1.1 INCREASING SUPPORT FOR CTP Many actors are making specific commitments to
scaling up CTP by setting specific targets. The 53
38
signatories of the Grand Bargain have made formal
>80% commitments to increase the use of CTP. They include
Practitioners agree that there all the major established donors and implementing
has been strengthening of agencies involved in international humanitarian
support for CTP among donor response. Some donors and agencies have chosen to
governments and senior
decision makers. set quantitative targets for the use of CTP. For instance,
the UK’s Department for International Development
(DFID) has committed to more than double its use of
39
cash in crises by 2025 and the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) aims to
40
deliver 35% of its humanitarian assistance in the form of CTP in 2017. UNHCR has committed to double its use
of CTP by 2020. Some International Non-Government Organizations (INGOs) have made similar public
commitments. For example, World Vision International (WVI) has committed to deliver 50% of its programmes
41
through a multi-sectoral and multi-purpose ‘cash first approach’ by 2020. The International Rescue Committee
(IRC) has committed to deliver 25% of their assistance through cash and vouchers by 2020. Of the 32 organizations
which completed the organizational survey, 40% reported that they have targeted a percentage of humanitarian
assistance to be delivered as cash or vouchers by 2020. Among this group, 38% have a CTP target in excess of
36 ODI (2015) ‘Doing Cash Differently: A Report on the High Level Panel for Cash Transfers’. See www.odi.org/publications/9876-cash-transfers-humanitarian-
vouchers-aid-emergencies
37 Relief International (2016) Grand Bargain Report. See https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Grand_Bargain_final_22_May_FINAL-2.pdf
38 List of signatories available at www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/3861
39 UK WHS Self Report 2016, available at www.agendaforhumanity.org/annual-report/5161
40 EU WHS Self Report, available at www.agendaforhumanity.org/annual-report/5545
41 World Vision International (2016) ‘Cash first, but not always’ Blog, available at www.wvi.org/disaster-management/blogpost/cash-first-not-always
26

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
40%, 31% are aiming for 20–30%, and 23% have a target at or below 10% of total humanitarian programming.
Others have not set targets in terms of volume of CTP (percentage of funding/programming) but have committed
to more operational targets – for instance, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has committed to use cash within 72
hours wherever appropriate.
BOX 1.2 PERCEIVED POLICY SHIFTS This commitment shown towards CTP is also reflected
CONCERNING CTP through the adoption of policies requiring the systematic
65% and equal consideration of all modalities or forms of
transfer by several donors and implementing
Practitioners believe that in the organizations. These policies promote the active
last year, there have been policy consideration of cash and vouchers as modalities, and their
changes in their organization
that have driven or will drive an usage (where appropriate) – sometimes referred to as a
increase in CTP. ‘cash first’ approach. Sweden’s new strategy for
humanitarian assistance, for instance, states that it ‘should
68 % encourage partners to consider cash-based support when
Practitioners believe that relevant and possible … in contexts where such interventions
the policies of donors and 42
are appropriate and effective.’ Australia has also issued
humanitarian agencies, and recommendations for the consideration of CTP wherever
those being developed, will be
effective in increasing the scale appropriate.43 A number of organizations, including the
of cash assistance. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), WVI, Relief International (RI) and the IRC
have also adopted similar positions. This increased high-level support for CTP is also apparent to practitioners, as
reflected in the practitioner survey, where two-thirds of practitioners believe that policies have driven or will drive
an increase in CTP (see Box 1.2).
Not all organizations that are supportive of scaling up CTP have committed to specific targets and/or associated
policies. Currently, 60% of 32 CaLP member organizations that were surveyed reported that they don’t have
organizational targets for CTP as a percentage of humanitarian assistance. These are likely to have been conscious
decisions, for example, based on concerns regarding effective response analysis.
Some organizations who implement or fund CTP, along with material assistance “Core funding to partners is
and support to services, were concerned about the impact of such targets in not earmarked as we strongly
potentially distorting operational and programmatic decisions. For example, the believe we should allow partners
44 to be more flexible, but want
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has successfully
scaled up its CTP portfolio with a ‘modality neutral’ approach, requiring modality them to ‘consider’ cash.” SDC
justifications on the basis of appropriateness, feasibility, objective and cost.
More humanitarian aid is being disbursed as cash and vouchers, but growth is uneven
Evidence suggests that increased levels of commitment is beginning to translate into an increase in the scale of
CTP in practice. For example, 75% of respondents in the practitioner survey believe their organization has made
progress towards increasing the scale of CTP.
In collaboration with Development Initiatives (DI), our research collected data from 34 organizations and
triangulated it against data from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA) Financial
Tracking Service (FTS) to update the 2015 ‘baseline’ of volume of aid delivered as CTP calculated by Development
Initiatives in the Counting Cash study (see methodology in Annex 1.5). We estimate that the total aid being
disbursed in CTP (both cash and vouchers) increased from US $2bn45 46
in 2015 to $2.8bn in 2016. This indicates
47
a 40% growth rate in CTP from 2015 to 2016 (see Box 1.3).
42 WFP (2017) ‘Analytical Paper on WHS Self-Reporting on the Agenda for Humanity’, available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CASH.pdf
43 DFAT (2016) Humanitarian Strategy, available at http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/dfat-humanitarian-strategy.pdf
44 Food for Peace (FFP) and Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA).
45 The $2 billion figure is drawn from Development Initiatives’ (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report, available at http://devinit.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/06/GHA-Report-2017-Full-report.pdf. This figure is an update on the $1.9 billion reported in Development Initiatives’ (2016) Counting Cash:
Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming.
46 Total calculated at $2.806 billion, rounded to $2.8 billion. Methodology for calculation of the total CTP figure is detailed in Annex 1.5.
47 The 40% increment is the rounded down figure (from 40.1%), calculated using the 2016 $2.806 billion figure, and $2.0 billion for 2015.
27

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 1.3 TOTAL GLOBAL CTP (CASH + VOUCHERS) AMOUNT Note that these numbers include
both cash and vouchers together,
$0.8 since the data on which these
calculations were made was not
40% $2.8 generally disaggregated between
$2 the two. It is also important to be
aware that, owing to variations in
2015 Increment 2016 how different organizations measure
($BN, 2015–2016) and report CTP expenditure, some
Source: Organization Survey, Development Initiatives, FTS provided figures only for the value of
transfers delivered to beneficiaries,
and others provided an overall figure comprising transfer amounts and associated programming costs. To allow
comparability with the 2015 figure calculated by DI, which included overall programming costs for all organisations,
a similar methodology was applied to enable an estimated total including both transfer values and programming
48
costs. There was no geographic breakdown of expenditure provided, but readers can refer to the Global
49
Humanitarian Assistance Report (2017) for a breakdown of CTP funding reported to FTS. This indicated that
Yemen (33%), followed by Syria (12%) were the largest recipients of funding for CTP in 2016.
50
Box 1.4 illustrates the volume of CTP as a proportion of total international humanitarian assistance (IHA). CTP’s
share of total IHA has increased from 7.8% in 2015 to 10.3% in 201651 (see methodology detailed in Annex 1.5).
52
Note that the 7.8% calculation for 2015 has been updated from the 7% included in the Counting Cash report.
53
This is due to the availability of more accurate data from retrospective donor reporting to calculate total IHA,
which resulted in a significant reduction of the 2015 total, from $28 billion, to $25.7 billion. As a result of this
reduction of total IHA, the percentage of CTP increased, from 7% to 7.8%.
BOX 1.4 YEAR ON YEAR CHANGE IN CTP AS A PROPORTION OF This estimate suggests that the
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (IHA) progress in terms of leadership buy-in
and policy and strategy commitments
*IHA to CTP is starting to translate into
practice, with a 2.5% increase in CTP
2015 7.8% $25.7bn as a proportion of total IHA from 2015
to 2016. However, there is still
significant space for growth of CTP.
2016 10.3% $27.3bn The Global Public Policy Institute’s
54
(GPPI) 2016 study used a thought
*IHA numbers based on GHA (2017) Report experiment which estimated that, if
CTP were the default modality (where
feasible and appropriate) its value as a percentage of total humanitarian funding would be between 37% and 42%.
This would have amounted to between $8.6bn and $9.8bn, which is significantly higher than the present reality.
48 For the transfer value only figures, an estimated programming cost was calculated based on an average percentage of project funds delivered directly to
beneficiaries (the 2015 average calculated by DI was used as this was assessed as more reliable based on the data available). Where it wasn’t possible to
clarify if the figure included programming costs, the source figure provided by the organisations was used to avoid potential over-estimation of the totals by
erroneously adding programming costs. However, it is also possible that numbers were underestimated if the data provided by the organisations didn’t include
programming costs.
49 Development Initiatives (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report, p. 83. Available at http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GHA-Report-2017-
Full-report.pdf
50 Important caveat on the comparability of the CTP figures and IHA: Since these figures have both been compiled from different sources, they do not allow for
easy comparison, so the proportional estimates should be treated with caution.
51 Percentages of CTP as a part of total international humanitarian assistance (IHA) are calculated against the IHA figures provided in Development Initiatives’
(2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report. IHA totals are influenced by the emergency contexts that predominate in any given year, and may be subject to
change as more accurate data becomes available.
52 ODI, Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming.
53 Adjustments to provide a consistent price base, and resulting changes in exchange rates (particularly given the strength of the US dollar in 2015) also influenced
the reduction in IHA in 2015.
54 GPPI (2016) Drivers and Inhibitors of Change in the Humanitarian System, available at www.gppi.net/publications/humanitarian-action/article/drivers-and-
inhibitors-of-change-in-the-humanitarian-system
28

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Moreover, the amount of aid currently disbursed as CTP is not evenly distributed, but is rather, concentrated within
a few organizations. Over two-thirds of total aid disbursed as CTP in 2016 came from just two organizations – the
World Food Programme (WFP) ($880 million distributed to beneficiaries), and UNHCR ($688 million distributed
to beneficiaries). This is illustrated in Box 1.5, which shows the percentage split of CTP by organizations that
participated in the study (34 organizations, plus additional organizational data from the FTS). It suggests that a
few large players are in dominant positions in terms of volumes of CTP disbursed, which may have implications as
donors look towards more streamlined models for large-scale cash assistance. This issue is considered further in
Chapter 3, on capacity for CTP, and Chapter 6, on operational models. It is also worth noting that although most
respondent organizations increased their CTP expenditure between 2015 and 2016, the rate of growth varied
significantly, and in a minority of cases CTP expenditure decreased.
BOX 1.5 PER CENTAGE SPLIT OF CTP BY The variable and unevenly concentrated growth in CTP to
ORGANIZATION (2016) date is also illustrative of the investments that are needed
Total CTP 2016 $2.8bn to realize policy commitments in practice. These
commitments are important in providing the legitimacy
and direction for CTP but need to be operationalized if
28% gains are to be made. Box 1.6 on RI and the IRC’s experiences
highlights how tangible organizational change requires
72% both top-down (leadership vision) and bottom-up (tools,
systems and expertise) approaches. These issues are the
focus of Chapters 2 and 3.
 WFP and UNHCR  Other organizations
  This evidence does not suggest that implementing agencies
are limited in the scale of CTP by donor policies. However, as
in other areas, donor priorities and concerns (or perceptions of these) may influence operational and programmatic
decisions by implementing agencies, for instance, about the selection of cash or vouchers. A related issue is the extent
to which there is the flexibility to adjust or switch assistance modalities during a response. As yet there is no significant
body of evidence on this topic, but analysis of enablers to multi-modality programming indicate that this is a matter
of preparedness and buy-in for more responsive and agile programming from a range of stakeholders (implementing
55
organizations, donors, local authorities, beneficiaries), rather than particularly an issue of donor policy. Counter-
terrorism legislation from donor governments can also pose an obstacle for programming in certain contexts. These
issues are considered further in Chapter 2. Host government buy-in is also essential in efforts to scale up CTP, and as
with other areas requiring reform of how humanitarian assistance is delivered, whether host governments support
or block changes relating to CTP is likely to depend on country-specific factors and implications.56
55 CRS/CaLP (2017) Cash or in-kind? Why not both? Response Analysis Lessons from Multimodal Programming.
56 GPPI (2016) Drivers and Inhibitors of Change in the Humanitarian System.
29

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 1.6 FROM POLICY COMMITMENT TO RESULTS: EXPERIENCES OF INSTITUTIONALIZING CTP IN
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
In the last two years, Relief International (RI) and the IRC have been implementing policy and strategy
commitments to increase use of CTP. Their experiences show that overcoming challenges in taking cash to
scale require both top-down and bottom-up approaches and concerted investments over several years. The
change process comprises several steps.
Step 1 – Creating the business case for change:
Greater adoption of CTP first requires the understanding, engagement and buy-in of strategic decision
makers within an organization’s senior management. This can take time to achieve. RI and the IRC’s experience
highlighted enabling factors here:
— Providing evidence: In RI it was important to demonstrate that cash assistance is effective in achieving
agency mandates, meeting the needs of target groups and reducing transaction costs.
— Demonstrating the links between cash and agency’s strategic priorities: In the IRC, a review of the evidence
base highlighted to senior decision makers that CTP was fundamental to achieving a number of the strategic
outcomes prioritizeprioritized in their 2015 Strategic Review.
— Contextualizing CTP within the bigger picture: in both agencies, highlighting the trends and opportunities
in humanitarian aid – including global cash commitments of other implementing agencies and donors –
proved effective in making a case for action, in order to remain relevant and ahead of the curve.
Step 2 – Providing the top line vision for change:
In 2016, RI’s senior management endorsed a new humanitarian strategy, stating that the INGO will prioritize
market-based programming including the use of CTP, where feasible and appropriate. A revised organizational
strategy in 2017 outlines the strategic appropriateness of CTP to achieving organizational objectives, and
committing to the institutional change processes required to realize this. The IRC’s new organizational policy
in January 2017 commits to a ‘cash first’ approach for food and basic needs programming in place of in-kind
assistance, unless shown to be inappropriate for the context. As part of the ongoing country strategy review,
country offices are asked to consider how they will be applying the ‘cash first’ policy within the country strategy
– where it adds most value, and the programmatic, operational and management changes that are needed to
realize this. These changes have confirmation to staff in all departments and at all levels about the direction
that the organization is taking, and that the organization will invest in the support needed to realize this. This is
important for shifting mindsets and building confidence, to remove internal barriers to scaling up CTP.
Step3 – Realizing the top-down vision through bottom up strategies:
Achieving more systematic, large-scale and effective adoption of cash assistance requires that tools, processes,
systems and expertise are developed at all levels. Formalizing organizational commitments to CTP, through
inclusion in departmental and individual objectives, work plans and budgets, is helping to realize the
necessary investments – in time, money and human resources – that are needed to take cash to scale. Targeted
and hands-on support strategies at implementation level, intended to increase capacity and confidence, and
which celebrate and communicate successes, are also critical to enabling this change.
Source: Interviews with RI and the IRC.
Less than half of respondents in the practitioner survey believe that there has been a strengthening of support
for CTP among the public in donor countries. From this research, it was not possible to determine whether limited
support among the public in donor countries is a contributing factor to the relatively slow growth of CTP. This is
something that merits further research and analysis. However, concerns about negative public opinion have the
potential to influence decisions made by donor governments. Donor governments are concerned that public
support for CTP is weak, and that the public may perceive greater risks with cash. Even a small scandal around CTP
could be used by unsympathetic political groups to fuel campaigns against humanitarian aid as a whole. At the
same time, host governments must maintain support for aid assistance to people affected by crisis.
30

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Interviews conducted confirmed that greater efforts need to be made to improve public perception – for aid given
as cash, and for humanitarian aid in general – and that this remains a gap to address. As indicated in the report
of the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) cash workshop held in June 2017, an appropriate communication
strategy is regarded as crucial to address public perceptions, and the public’s familiarity with remittance flows
may help form positive perceptions of cash programming. Participants at the workshop noted that such change
57 58
may take time, One effort to fill this gap is CaLP’s development of the ‘Power of Financial Aid’ website. This
public-facing site makes the case for CTP over in-kind aid through relevant statistics and empirical proof.
The volume of CTP is beginning to be more effectively reported, but challenges to agreeing methodologies
and systems remain
The need to improve the measurement and reporting of the value of aid delivered as CTP is widely recognized,
with the development and use of common markers and definitions for organizations to track and report different
transfer modalities including cash, vouchers, in-kind, and service delivery identified as a key action in the Grand
Bargain. 72% of signatories of the Grand Bargain have reported that they are working to publish timely, transparent,
59
harmonized, and open high-quality data on humanitarian funding. The 2016 working paper ‘Counting Cash:
60
Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming’ sets out recommendations for improving
measurement of CTP and systematic reporting on programming by cash, voucher or in-kind assistance. These
focus on building upon existing systems, recognizing that CTP must be tracked within wider efforts to improve
humanitarian data and reporting. Mechanisms to measure CTP should be built into (a) the global and coordinated
interagency systems used for collecting and collating data, and (b) organizations’ internal systems.
The vast majority of organizations that participated in this study are actively taking measures to improve
the capacity of their internal reporting systems to better track CTP. For example, the WFP, Mercy Corps, Save
the Children, and CARE International UK are improving financial tracking to better report on the volume of
61 for country level
programming that is cash-based, disaggregated by modality. Oxfam is revising templates
reporting to include more information on CTP. Many donors are also actively engaged in this space. Initiatives
to improve CTP tracking in relation to interagency reporting systems and standards are being explored; key
examples are outlined in Box 1.7.
57 DFID and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway (2017) Report on the Good Humanitarian Donorship Cash Workstream Workshop, 15 June 2017.
58 http://power-of-financial-aid.org/
59 GPPI (2017) Independent Grand Bargain Report. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/independent-grand-bargain-report
60 ODI and Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming.
61 WFP (2017) Analytical Paper on WHS Self-Reporting on the Agenda for Humanity.
31

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 1.7 INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS AND IMPROVE INTERAGENCY REPORTING OF
CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING
Integrating CTP into FTS, IATI and OECD DAC Reporting: The Counting Cash study found that the International
Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) data standard and OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS) provide the best
foundations for building global systems to track CTP. In 2017, FTS introduced a marker for reporting if a
funding contribution supports CTP. This doesn’t distinguish between cash and vouchers as modalities; FTS
is considering introducing reporting categories for ‘restriction’ and ‘conditionality’ in future. As the bulk of
restricted transfers are vouchers, this would enable a level of disaggregation. The Online Project System (OPS),
the central repository of response and action plan projects, is also managed by OCHA and linked to the FTS.
OPS has introduced a field for CTP, which asks users to indicate if the project includes CTP (aggregated), and
also has categories for restriction and conditionality. Establishing the systems and standards may only be one
step in resolving this issue. According to reporting on progress towards Grand Bargain commitments, only
36% of signatories were reportedly using the FTS in January 2017.
At the same time, the OECD DAC’s system for tracking official development assistance (ODA) is considering
proposals to adopt either a ‘cash flag’ (i.e., the project does or does not have a cash or voucher component), or
a ‘keyword’ (whereby projects with CTP components include ‘cash’ in the project description). Neither of these
proposals would enable disaggregation between cash and vouchers, as there was reportedly limited appetite
among OECD DAC members for the more elaborate marker this would require.
In 2017 the IATI standard went through its routine upgrade process. Although CTP wasn’t directly included,
there was agreement to a) work with the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT) to
have ‘cash’ (and any other related modalities) added to the DAC Aid Type code-list and, b) to work with CaLP
and the Measuring Cash Working Group (see below) to develop other code-lists for CTP as required.
3W (Who does What, Where) Reporting: In future, the FTS would ideally have the functionality to draw data
directly from ‘3W’ reporting at field level and compare this with financing data to assess actual expenditure.
There have been recent efforts, both at response/national level and overseen globally through the Information
Management Working Group, to integrate CTP-specific data types into 3W templates, including disaggregated
project modalities. There are some good examples of how this has been done at a country level. Achieving
standardization and uptake in this regard is challenging due to a combination of factors, not least the fact that
3W reporting and templates are not standardized globally or across clusters. Separating out budget allocations
in multi-modality projects, and effective reporting of multi-purpose and cross-sectoral interventions at the 3W
level, are also problematic.
Measuring Cash Working Group: CaLP established this group in the latter part of 2017 as a specialized
platform for sector-wide discussion and collective action for CTP tracking and reporting. Membership of the
group includes NGOs, UN agencies, donors, and representatives of the interagency reporting systems. This
group builds on the earlier work of the Humanitarian Exchange Language (HXL) Cash & Markets Working Group,
whose focus was on identifying recommended CTP data types for inclusion in reporting (including for 3W
templates), and developing associated HXL hashtags.
Source: CaLP (2017) Briefing Note on Measuring Cash Transfer Programming; Measuring Cash Working Group (discussions, minutes, etc.).
Despite this level of activity and interest in improving the measurement of CTP (and other modalities), several
technical and policy issues are constraining progress. On a practical level, existing reporting systems have not
generally been designed to include CTP, and adaptations to include it may be complicated. For example, the British
Red Cross (BRC) noted that their legacy systems are set up for goods, so bringing cash in is not straightforward.
While this may be an internal challenge for agencies, in general, resolving the key issues and finding agreement
requires coordinated action across a wide range of agencies and systems, which is a challenge in itself. An OCHA
62
representative noted that achieving this level of consistent evolution across the many different information
systems involved is likely to take a number of years.
62 Comment made at the Grand Bargain cash workshop, 1 June 2017.
32

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
There is not yet common agreement on the markers and standard categories for reporting CTP: This originates
from technical, practical and strategic issues, resulting in a lack of harmonization in the systems and categories
being introduced. Key issues here include:
— Disaggregation of cash transfers and vouchers – there are different views on whether to track cash and
vouchers separately or together. The critical debate on this issue is explored in Box 1.8.
— What costs should be counted (e.g. transfer values, programming costs, core costs) and how to allocate
programming costs to different modalities. This issue extends beyond CTP to other modalities, and is linked
to Grand Bargain commitments on requiring greater budget transparency in how costs are reported and
allocated.
— What programming data should be tracked (e.g. modality, conditionality, restriction, etc.), including what level
of detail and granularity is necessary and useful for different areas of reporting.
BOX 1.8 CRITICAL DEBATE: TERMINOLOGY, DISAGGREGATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF
CASH AND VOUCHERS
The CaLP Glossary has been broadly recommended as the central reference for CTP (comprising both cash
and vouchers) terminology. However, there is not yet sufficient consensus on whether cash transfers should
be measured and reported together with vouchers, or separately. This is inhibiting progress in developing
common markers for use in global reporting systems for measuring and reporting ‘cash transfer programming’.
Organizational interviews highlighted that there are strongly held, and opposing, views between implementing
agencies and between donors on this. Some argue in favour of aggregating cash transfers and vouchers in
reporting, reflecting terms which cover both modalities such as Cash Transfer Programming, Cash Based
Assistance, or Cash and Voucher Programming. Others argue that cash transfers should be reported as the
headline figure, disaggregated from vouchers. The debate has several dimensions.
At the technical level, there are some significant areas of convergence and divergence about how cash transfers
versus vouchers are used programmatically. Both make use of local markets to provide aid, increase purchasing
power, and create a degree of choice among beneficiaries. Vouchers increase the traceability of funds and
control over what beneficiaries spend funds on and where. However, they also limit beneficiaries’ options, and
potentially distort the flow of money through local markets. Cash is more flexible and empowering, but its
inherent fungibility means it is harder to track how it is used, or ensure it is used to achieve specific intended
outcomes. Understanding the different risks, benefits and potential value for money offered by cash transfers
and vouchers would enable more informed decision making, which requires disaggregated data to be able to
evaluate them separately.
At the practical level, it adds complexity to reporting systems to separate cash and vouchers, including
delineating and quantifying different operational costs. Many different reporting systems are involved,
including global inter-agency systems (such as OCHA’s FTS), reports required by donors, and implementing
agencies’ internal systems. It is possible that pragmatic considerations at this level may significantly influence
what data is measured and reported.
At the strategic level, different actors perceive different benefits to reporting cash and vouchers separately or
together, for instance, in relation to their goals for the use of CTP and their organizational goals. Some of those
with goals to increase multi-purpose, unrestricted cash transfers tend to take one view. Some of those with a
greater involvement in both cash and vouchers together take another. This was reflected at a workshop held
by the Cash Workstream of the Grand Bargain in May/June 2017. This workshop proposed an action point to
facilitate agreement on the issue. Further work will be required at the practical and strategic levels to come to
working agreements across a critical mass of actors.
At the individual agency level, this is making some agencies reluctant to commit internally to specific
methodologies or markers while global, inter-agency initiatives to standardize CTP measurement are underway.
As highlighted above, others are nevertheless moving ahead with updating their internal systems, while keeping
track of what is happening at the global level.
33

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Priority Actions
1.1 Sustain high-level policy commitments to CTP. [GFA 1.3, GB 1.3]
— Existing commitments, which are a powerful engine of change and funding for CTP, will need to be continually
monitored, sustained and refreshed over three to five years in order to realize the potential of CTP. There are
risks that: new issues overshadow CTP on policy agendas; the time taken to achieve the necessary reforms
undermines commitments; the reality of developments in CTP do not meet inflated expectations as a driver of
wider reforms; the traction of the Grand Bargain/WHS diminishes over time.
— Champions will need to find creative ways to strengthen and sustain support for CTP among policy makers
for several years to come, such as through continual lobbying, public accountability mechanisms and
strengthening the evidence base. It will be useful to share lessons from experience in different countries.
1.2 I ntegrate CTP into organizational and inter-agency reporting systems, using common definitions.
[GFA 1.4, GB 4]
— CTP should be integrated into the financial and reporting systems within individual institutions, and across
key inter-agency systems such as the FTS, IATI data standard, and emerging innovations such as Humanitarian
Exchange Language (HXL). This will enable agencies, donors and policy makers to track and report CTP
consistently.
— All actors should use the same common definitions, to enable comparison and aggregation. The Grand
Bargain and Good Humanitarian Donorship cash workstreams have both recommended using CaLP’s Glossary
to provide those common definitions, as it has been developed with collective input from across agencies and
donors.
— Policy decisions are required concerning whether to report cash and vouchers together or separately in global
reporting systems. Further work will be needed to increase transparency around costs for all modalities at the
programme level.
1.3 Strengthen support for CTP among the public. [GFA 1.3]
— Since public support is crucial for governments to maintain commitment to CTP, all actors share an obligation
to make the case for CTP as a part of humanitarian aid to the public. They will likely be able to achieve more
collectively, and reinforce each other’s efforts, by using common messaging. This can also help to address the
tension between calls for greater accountability about how aid is spent and greater use of flexible CTP.
34

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 2: ROUTINE CONSIDERATION
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 2: ENSURE CASH IS ROUTINELY CONSIDERED,
ALONGSIDE OTHER MODALITY TOOLS
Over the past two years, CTP is being considered much more systematically alongside other modalities. This has been
supported by the policy commitments made, and the greater embedding of tools and processes for market analysis and
response analysis. There remain barriers to overcome if CTP (particularly unrestricted cash, including multi-purpose
grants) is to be used to its full potential in responses. These include overcoming perceptions of risk, and barriers to use
within different sectors.
Global Objective 2 Supporting Actions
Ensure cash is routinely 2.1 Ensure that decision makers consider CTP as an option at all stages of humanitarian
considered, alongside response, throughout programme and funding cycles.
other tools 2.2 Embed CTP, market analysis and response analysis within humanitarian response
(Grand Bargain #1) procedures and funding mechanisms.
2.3 Make best practice tools and support available to decision makers, to help them consider
the appropriate use of CTP.
2.4 Identify and address barriers to increasing the use of CTPs.
CTP is being considered more systematically by programme decision makers than it was 1–2 years ago
There is a strong perception among humanitarian practitioners, including implementing organizations and
donors, that, generally speaking, CTP is being considered more systematically alongside other modalities at the
outset of a response than it was a year ago. 87% of respondents in the practitioner survey support this proposition,
with consistent perceptions across organizations, across
global, national and locally based actors and across regions. “We are definitely doing it more, and there’s
This is mirrored in the organization survey, in which 81% of been a massive increase in the uptake and
respondents agreed. Organizations interviewed agreed that the interest – we are seeing this across grants,
there has been a significant shift over the last 12–24 months, and across countries. We have moved from
with an increase in interest to consider cash, and adoption of a position a year ago when cash certainly
CTP within operational agencies. These agencies have moved, wasn’t routinely considered, to now being
or are moving, from a stage at which consideration of cash almost always raised as an option – if not
depended on specific cash champions in the organization or strictly considered. Out of every operation
prior experience, to a more systematized position of that could potentially involve cash, we’ve
institutional consideration. Cash is generally no longer moved from 30% to 70% consideration”
considered as something ‘new’ or ‘different’. Relief International
A number of factors are driving this change, which is a gradual evolution rather than a single step
Interviews with implementing agencies, donors and other CTP practitioners consistently highlighted enabling
factors that contribute to this outcome – both within their organization and across the wider landscape.
Policy and strategy commitments by senior decision makers
The policy commitments on cash by donors and implementing “We are much better than we were two
agencies that were highlighted in Chapter 1 are driving greater years ago. When I asked this question to the
investment in and consideration of CTP by implementing emergency field directors two years ago they
organizations. The attitudes of donors towards cash have said, ‘it totally depends on the individual’.
substantively changed over the years, culminating in the Now, the individual matters much less.” IRC
various global commitments. These have been significant in
generating the buy-in for cash within senior management of operational agencies. Organizations’ own policies
and leadership are also affirming the institutionalization of cash as an appropriate modality to deliver on agency
mandates and strategies.
35

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Nevertheless, a significant proportion (44%) of respondents in the practitioner survey did not agree that the policies
in place or under development would be effective in ensuring that cash and vouchers are routinely considered
in all humanitarian responses. Interviews highlighted that, whilst this high-level direction is an enabling factor, it
is just one component of the changes necessary to increase uptake of CTP. These policy commitments must still
be translated into action at the country and local levels, and across sectors, which requires relevant tools, systems
and processes, and expertise.
Decision making tools
At the level of the response, decision makers require tools that support effective and systematic consideration of
CTP during programme design. Respondents in the majority of organizational interviews highlighted the
importance of embedding tools for cash feasibility assessment, analysis and defining the Minimum Expenditure
Basket (MEB) within project management processes and programme teams (this is considered further below).
Besides a plethora of agency-specific tools, in recent months there has
“As part of our internal directives, been greater collaboration to develop common inter-agency approaches
Country Offices must show that they and tools. One prominent example of this is the DFID-funded joint UN
considered all response options and cash feasibility assessment tool developed by OCHA, UNHCR, UNICEF
justify their choice.” WFP and WFP, which was piloted in four countries (Niger, Myanmar, Burundi,
Afghanistan) in 2016.
Several implementing organizations – such as RI, UNHCR, WFP, CARE UK and IRC – cited the importance of
strategic management tools and directives for consistent consideration of CTP. Some donors have made similar
investments, to guide country advisers and others responsible for evaluating proposals.
Systems and processes, staff and expertise
The ability to consider cash-based responses increases where country teams are ‘cash ready’. Interview
respondents – for example, including UNHCR, WFP, IRC, RI, NRC, IFRC and British Red Cross – explained that this
requires concerted investment in organizational processes and systems, as well as in staff expertise and capacities
at all levels. Where organizations have invested as part of emergency
“As part of every new proposal, we preparedness, this has been a significant enabler. These issues are the
have to go through a Go-No Go focus of Chapter 3.
decision making process. In 2017 we Critically, it is both the high-level buy-in and, subsequently, the actions
amended this form to include criteria that result from the implementation of these commitments that are
on whether cash has been considered, needed for agencies to move forward with greater consideration and
and if not why”. CARE International UK use of cash.
Tools and processes required for the routine consideration of CTP by programme teams are becoming more
firmly embedded, though they still need to be used more systematically and effectively
In any context, an operational decision must be taken about which modality, or modalities, to use to provide
humanitarian assistance. This could be cash, vouchers, in-kind assistance, service delivery, technical assistance, or
combinations thereof. The decision should be based on a robust analysis of the feasibility and appropriateness of
different modalities, based on a sensitive, ideally multi-sectoral, assessment of context and needs. This requires that
a situation and response analysis is undertaken to understand needs and preferences, how markets are functioning
63
in the provision of goods and services, enablers and constraints to CTP in the wider operating environment and
which programme response options and modalities to select.
In the practitioner and organization survey, 41% of cash practitioners and 48% of organizations, respectively,
did not agree that market analysis and response analysis have become more embedded within humanitarian
response in the past year. These findings are consistent with the reflections of all implementing agencies and
donors during interviews, as well as the findings of the FGDs.
Interviews highlighted that during this time, progress has been made in terms of the level of awareness of
available tools for response analysis and market analysis, the existence of organizational guidance or procedures
that highlight the use of such tools within project management processes, and the extent to which market
63 For example, whether cash be delivered safely and securely, political and community attitudes to cash, associated risks, etc.
36

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
analysis and response analysis are undertaken to inform programme design. The support of donors in promoting
these processes as part of funding decisions has contributed to these raised levels of awareness.
Interviews with respondents from implementing organizations, and with donors, consistently noted the same
perceived constraints within implementing agencies – particularly in terms of embedding market analysis:
— Where response analysis and market analysis are undertaken, there are inconsistencies – both within and
between organizations – in the level of detail, the questions asked, analytical rigour and documentation
processes. There remain inconsistencies between sectors in the analysis of markets, and analysis of the extent
to which people’s needs and vulnerabilities have an economic dimension is still more commonplace in food
security and livelihoods programmes than in other sectors. Certain donors also highlighted differences in
how market and response analysis tools and processes were promoted by advisers in different sectors during
funding decisions. For example, this is reflected in the findings of an evaluation of ECHO’s programme portfolio
in India and Nepal 2014–17.
— Capacity for market analysis is not yet embedded within implementing agencies at country level, with agencies
such as Mercy Corps highlighting a tendency to rely on particular (usually HQ-level) technical specialists, or
external consultants, to lead or support these activities. Expertise remains predominantly in the food security
and livelihoods (FSL) sector, though it is growing within others – especially in shelter.
— Whilst response analysis is commonplace to inform initial programme design, this is not commonly revisited,
or decisions reassessed later in the programme cycle, in order to update decision making to respond to a
changing environment.
— The tools that are commonly used for market assessment focus on commodities. They do not cover the service
markets, which are of interest in sectors such as shelter (rental markets, construction labour markets), WaSH
(water markets) and education. This was substantiated in the FGDs with the global shelter cluster members,
and is also a lesson highlighted in the case study on the Nigeria response (see Annex 2.5). Chapter 4 further
notes some of these challenges in terms of sector perspectives on CTP.
— Where tools are being used, there still tends to be limited consideration of mixed modalities. Decisions are
most often framed in terms of one modality or another.
— A major gap remains in the application of multi-sectoral assessments and analyses within and between
organizations (discussed further below).
As with many issues relating to scaling CTP, this situation also underlines more general systemic and organizational
challenges. As one interview respondent from the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) observed, few
humanitarian organizations have invested in dedicated analysis capacity
(e.g. analyst roles or teams). This forms a major barrier to embedding “We need to be challenging the
proper analysis in the programme cycle. When institutional capacity is caveat of ‘cash when appropriate’
stretched during a crisis, decision makers must frequently make choices – actually, we underestimate how
without access to complete or optimal analysis. dynamic markets and people
In terms of moving forward with embedding market analysis, respondents can be. Cash can be done in more
(including from DFID, ECHO, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), contexts that we presently think.”
DRC, RI, IRC, SCUK and CARE UK) argued the case for adopting – where CARE International UK
appropriate – a different, and more ‘light touch’, approach to market assessments and analyses, to reflect learning
on the feasibility of market-based responses in humanitarian contexts. Over the years that the case for CTP was
being made, humanitarian actors’ understanding of markets was still developing and there were widespread
concerns over the feasibility and appropriateness of CTP that needed to be overcome. In-depth market assessments
by humanitarian agencies served an important purpose here. Now, the basic rationale for CTP is widely accepted.
Evidence from programmes is building awareness among practitioners that markets are often resilient and
responsive after a crisis – more so than expected – and demonstrating that market-based responses are still feasible
even in remote, insecure or otherwise difficult contexts. The case study of
experience from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) illustrates this (see “If you can buy cola, you can do cash.
Annex 2.4). Market actors find a way”. WVI
37

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
“We are actively moving forward with more Respondents saw a need to simplify market analysis guidance
light touch market analysis. We often don’t to enable wider adoption by country teams and ensure more
need the Emergency Market Assessment and rapid decisions regarding the use of cash (and other modalities)
Analysis any more. We need simpler tools that in the first phase of a response. Respondents were clear that
local partners can take on.” Save the Children, UK this needs to be proportionate and that in-depth assessments
and analyses would still be needed where markets are complex
or are less understood. However, where it is quite clear that markets can and do work, a lighter touch, common-
sense approach may be more relevant. Some also highlighted the potential for speedier – and still effective –
decisions if greater use were made of macroeconomic, and other existing government and private sector data
sources (and expertise) on the capacity and functioning of markets. Such an approach was used successfully in
Zimbabwe, where macroeconomic analysis of the grain market enabled decision makers to move forward with
CTP at the household level, complemented by market support measures at the national level (see case study in
Annex 2.3). This data can inform the need for and focus of any specific (more micro-level) assessment and analysis
by humanitarian agencies.
The recent work of ACAPS in this field (see Box 2.1) also demonstrates the potential of this approach. ACAPS’
64
work is an example of specialized service provision under the Humanitarian to Humanitarian concept, whereby
numerous small humanitarian actors provide services to support the effectiveness of the wider humanitarian
system, rather than directly to the affected populations. Some respondents argued that activities such as market
analysis and monitoring, and the resulting outputs, are in many ways a ‘public good’ in humanitarian work. As
such, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to continue to situate them at individual operational agency or consortia
level, but in such a way that they can be undertaken by specialized service providers, and thereby reach a wider
audience. This has implications for the types of capacities that agencies should be building as part of preparedness.
Capacity building is the focus of Chapter 3.
BOX 2.1 ACAPS – MARKET ANALYSIS USING SECONDARY DATA AND
INFORMATION GAP IDENTIFICATION
For the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), secondary data analysis across multiple sources is a specialization.
Whilst primary data collection post-crisis can be more precise, it is also more expensive and time-consuming to
collect. When analysing markets, ACAPS therefore combines secondary analysis with analysis of primary data,
where the latter is required to fill information gaps.
A working group set up by ACAPS has developed a framework for analysing markets based on such data sources,
covering problem analysis (how far needs relate to market failure, and constraints to market functioning),
response analysis (operational environment), and information gap analysis (identifying and prioritizing gaps).
This has been tested in Ukraine, and then piloted in Haiti in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew. It generated
a ‘Multi-Sector Market Environment Analysis’ to determine the extent to which markets could meet the basic
needs of the affected population. The analysis was completed within nine days of the hurricane making landfall,
and was considered to be timely and useful for informing response by humanitarian actors. Topics covered
included demand, supply, prices and trends, lessons learned from past responses, the macro-environment,
projections for the next six months, and information landscape, gaps and recommendations.
Source: ACAPS (2016) Multi-Sector Market Environment Analysis Haiti; ACAPS (2016) Market Systems in Crisis: Analysis Framework; interview
with ACAPS.
64 ACAPS (2016) Improving Assessments. www.acaps.org
38

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
There remain constraints to systematic adoption of CTP, particularly unconditional and unrestricted cash
Whilst cash and vouchers are increasingly being considered, findings in Chapter 1 showed that to date this has
translated into relatively modest increases in terms of the volume of CTP. In other words, consideration does not
always equate with action and uptake of CTP. Of course, sometimes, analysis will point to the inappropriateness of
a cash-based response and the need for a different programme approach. However, the findings of our research
suggest that this discrepancy between consideration and use is more commonly an indication of the existing
barriers to the use of CTP to its full potential.
BOX 2.2 PER CEIVED BARRIERS TO MORE EFFECTIVE AND Box 2.2 shows the findings of the
EXTENSIVE USAGE OF CTP practitioner survey, on the most
commonly perceived barriers to more
Perceived risks of CTP – 41% effective and extensive usage of cash
misappropriation, leakage, etc. and vouchers. The survey found that a
Lack of capacity across the organization 36% lack of buy-in for CTP, and a lack of
Lack of local partners with capacity 33% evidence on the efficiency, effectiveness
or appropriateness of CTP generally, are
Funding agencies/funding processes 31% not considered to be major barriers.
Mandates of donors/ 31% Today, the biggest barriers are perceived
implementing organizations to be: perceived risks of CTP; capacity
Lack of multi-sector assessments 26% constraints within implementing
agencies and local partners; constraints
of sectoral mandates; constraints of
donor funding processes; and lack of multi-sectoral assessments. Responses to this question were consistent
between donors and implementers. Only 45% of respondents agreed that, in the next 12 months, these barriers
will reduce. Interviews with organizations, as well as the regional FGDs, consistently highlighted the same
constraints and provided further evidence as to the nature of these barriers:
Perceived risks of using cash transfers
Concerns about misappropriation or leakage of cash are being amplified by limited budgets for humanitarian
assistance and the increased importance of the anti-terrorism/money laundering agenda of Western donors.
Respondents noted something of a dilemma here – in that donors may be able to tolerate diversion of a modest
proportion of in-kind aid, but can be much more sensitive to
diversion of cash. This acts as an inhibitor for greater “A terrorist cannot do much with stolen
consideration of CTP, since it is perceived that there is greater mattresses, but think what they could do with
risk of harm with cash modalities compared to alternatives. stolen money.” Global Cash Forum participant
This concern is felt by implementing agencies as well as certain
65
donors. Experiences in Liberia, DRC and Zimbabwe (Annexes
2.6, 2.4 and 2.3) highlight the important role that donors play in demonstrating an appetite for risk and building
confidence among implementing agencies. It is particularly sensitive in conflict environments where the threats
posed by armed groups are real and where access and oversight are restricted. Agencies highlighted a need for
more evidence on effective safeguards for CTP in such contexts. Recent guidance on remote programming for
66
cash was identified as a first step in filling this gap. There is also the need for an evidenced-based conversation
about the relative risks of cash and in-kind assistance in such contexts.
65 This issue was also noted by members of the Good Humanitarian Donorship’s cash workstream (DFID/Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2017) Report on
the GHD Cash Workstream Workshop, 15 June 2017).
66 NRC (2016) Cash Transfers in Remote Emergency Programming, available at https://cash.nrc.no/remote-cash.html
39

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Lack of capacity
Organizations interviewed were unanimous that, where national and local programme teams are not ‘cash-
ready’ – where staff lack the expertise to critically assess the feasibility of or design CTPs, and where systems and
processes for implementation of cash assistance are not developed – this presents a significant challenge to the
translation of interest into action. In such cases, respondents said that there can be a tendency for programme
teams to revert to modalities that they know, and to delivering what is already prepositioned. For example, such
a lack of previous experience in, and preparedness for, humanitarian CTP has reportedly been a barrier to greater
adoption of CTP in the recent refugee crisis in Uganda. Lack of experience is also a factor behind the slower
adoption of CTP in particular sectors (discussed in (c) below). Building organizational capacity is the focus of
Chapter 3, where evidence from recent emergency responses and organizational experience further substantiates
these perceptions.
Sectoral barriers to use of cash
All organizations surveyed agree that certain sectors are still more likely than others to consider using CTP. Box
2.3 shows the ranking by practitioners in terms of which sectors are perceived to be most positive about using
cash. Implementing agencies and some donors interviewed reported similar trends within their organizations.
BOX 2.3 SECTORS RANKED IN The practitioner survey identifies several underlying reasons for
ORDER OF POSITIVITY this. The top four perceived barriers are detailed in Box 2.4. These
TOWARD THE USE OF CASH barriers all relate to concerns about ensuring (and demonstrating)
effective programming in terms of sector-specific outcomes.
1 Food Security and Livelihoods Respondents in organizational interviews and in FGDs consistently
2 Shelter corroborated the prevalence of these barriers. Whilst the evidence
3 WaSH base for CTP ‘in general’ has been growing, there remain significant
gaps when it comes to proving the effectiveness of CTP (especially
4 Nutrition unrestricted cash) in different sectors.
5 Education There is inevitably a lag in other sectors since organizational
6 Health experience – and expertise – in CTP has emerged from the FSL
sector. Implementing agencies and donors both highlighted that,
7 Education based on their own organizational experiences, it requires time to
develop these new mindsets. Furthermore, cash and vouchers are
a more obvious and logical choice with regard to humanitarian assistance, with increasing access to particular
commodities, and where there is a clear ‘cause and effect’ relationship between economic security and this
desired outcome. In sectors in which service delivery predominates and/or where sectoral outcomes are
determined by a complex range of supply and demand factors (e.g. health, education, nutrition, parts of WaSH),
it is less clear-cut. It requires practitioners to think differently, to identify financial barriers to accessing services
BOX 2.4 TOP PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO and consider ways that beneficiary-focused
GREATER CONSIDERATION OF assistance can complement other sectoral activities
CASH ACROSS SECTORS to achieve desired outcomes. Some organizations,
such as IRC, are taking steps to map the theory of
Lack of evidence of effectiveness 42% change for different sectors and to identify possible
of CTP in some sectors entry points for where cash modalities can support
Concerns of how to monitor 38% these desired outcomes. UNHCR is undertaking
sectoral outcomes
Constraints of sector mandates technical reviews regarding the use of cash in
36% technical sectors and determining linkages and
Concerns about achievement of 35% complementarities with multipurpose grants
quality standards (MPGs) and a ‘Basic Needs Approach’ (BNA). The
basic needs assessment produced by the Emergency
Response Capacity (ERC) consortium of NGOs which is being piloted in Nigeria (see case study in Annex 2.5) seeks
to investigate the underlying causes for why sectoral needs remain unmet and understand possible pathways to
achieve desired final outcomes, including combinations of assistance modalities.
40

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
In the shelter and WaSH sectors, CTP is being increasingly implemented to meet sector-specific needs. To date,
these sectors have tended to favour the use of conditions and restrictions over unconditional and unrestricted
transfers. This reflects concerns about (i) ensuring that funds are used for the purpose intended by the agency and
their donors (i.e., to meet particular sectoral needs) and (ii)
ensuring that these sector-specific expenditures maintain “People find it easier going from ‘what we know’
certain quality standards (i.e., that house repairs are to ‘similar to what we know’. For anything that we
earthquake proof, water is clean, drugs purchased are in had to distribute as in-kind items, it is a no-brainer
date, etc.). Quality issues are discussed further in Chapter 4. to go to cash. For sectors like nutrition and health,
Respondents reflected on the positives here, in that the use of it is harder for people to take this leap, the Theory
restrictions and conditions, in addressing sectoral concerns, of Change is not so clear. The evidence base is also
is creating space for these programmes to consider market- still not so strong that it can make a difference in
based responses and move away from in-kind distributions. these sectors”. Danish Church Aid
However, many were also clear that – especially given the
67
growing evidence about the cost effectiveness of cash over vouchers – more work was needed to ensure the
equal consideration of more flexible, unrestricted modalities during programme design. Interview respondents
highlighted that these concerns, for the most part, are perceptions rather than based on evidence, and remain
68
unsubstantiated one way or the other, since unrestricted modalities have not commonly been used.
These sectoral concerns are more pronounced in the case of MPGs that aim to meet a range of essential basic
needs through a single transfer. Both the shelter and WaSH sectors (at cluster and individual agency level) have
expressed a reticence to adopt MPGs, owing to concerns over the difficult choices beneficiaries must make
between many competing needs, which, combined with
market limitations, may lead to expenditure decisions that “We need more evidence on the use of MPGs in
compromise the quality of sectoral outcomes (this is also a shelter, and evidence on ways to ensure quality
69
concern in the health sector). At the same time, outcomes without use of restrictions. This is also
practitioners also argued for a need to move forward and the key issue in WaSH. But we need to test things
test MPGs in order to substantiate sectoral concerns and to generate the evidence.” CARE International UK
build evidence on the effectiveness and the limitations of
this type of assistance.
This is one of several issues which polarized opinions among implementers and donors concerning the ‘appropriate’
consideration of MPGs, which are summarized in Box 2.5. It is important to emphasize that no stakeholder in
interviews or FGDs promoted the uncritical adoption of MPGs. There was clear appreciation among advocates of
MPGs that they should (i) be based on sound analysis and (ii) be one part of a broader response. This reflects the
agreements between stakeholders at the meeting of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream, that MPGs will not be
70
sufficient to meet all people’s needs. The fact that some stakeholders still clearly have such strong concerns about
whether MPGs will inappropriately supplant other forms of assistance suggests the need for greater dialogue
between donors, clusters and other stakeholders to come to agreement on opportunities and challenges.
Funding processes
This barrier was discussed previously in Chapter 1. An additional factor to highlight here, raised in interviews
and the FGD with the global shelter cluster, is that the incentive structures within the humanitarian system may
present a barrier to greater consideration of unrestricted cash across sectors. A significant percentage of some
sectoral budgets is still based on commodities and kits of non-food items (NFI). Cluster members and leads are
unsure about the implications of greater donor support for cash assistance (especially MPGs) for levels of sector-
specific funding. There are concerns about whether there will be sufficient funding for complementary in-kind,
technical assistance and other sector-specific activities, and legitimate concerns about losing their stake, or role
in humanitarian assistance. This can limit the more systematic consideration of cash across clusters and reduce
support for MPGs.
67 Discussed further in Chapter 6.
68 This fact is also highlighted in UNHCR’s 2016 review of CTP in the WaSH sector.
69 WaSH, Shelter and Health sector position papers on the use of CTP stipulate such concerns. e.g.
www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/wash_shelter_cash_advocacy_paper_-_final_version.pdf and
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/gsc_position_paper_cash_and_markets_in_the_shelter_sector-1_2.pdf
70 WFP/DFID (2017) Report of the first workshop of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream, 31 May–1 June 2017.
41

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 2.5 CRITICAL DEBATE: THE APPROPRIATE USE OF MPGS
The evidence collected for this report included strong views held by different actors about the appropriate use
of multi-purpose cash grants (MPGs). Some argued in favour of MPGs, on the basis of providing the greatest
choice for beneficiaries and reducing programming costs. Others argued for a more cautious approach, for
reasons including: that MPGs may not align with sector-specific goals and outcomes; that CTP needs to be
integrated into wider humanitarian actions and aims, particularly around protection; and that MPGs may not
enable sufficient traceability and accountability.
Some practitioners argued that the strong support of particular donors and cash actors for MPGs is perceived
to be making it more difficult for some clusters and sector specialists to voice their concerns about the
appropriateness of MPGs for achieving sector outcomes. Others indicated that there has been no ‘pushing’ of
this type of assistance where it was not appropriate, and that this approach is challenging to sectors because
it raises the question of the relative weight to be afforded to beneficiary preferences (i.e., the objectives of
affected people) with regard to the objectives that humanitarian technical specialists consider important.
Some respondents expressed concern about the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of MPGs and a lack of
clear theory of change or clarity on the outcomes that can realistically be achieved. However, respondents
interviewed also acknowledged the need for experimentation in order to build the evidence base for (or
against) the effective use of MPGs.
Some of those interviewed expressed caution that, by focusing humanitarian resources on MPGs, other
necessary activities required to support sectoral outcomes, such as technical assistance or sensitization, may
suffer. Others countered that consideration of MPGs puts people at the centre of the response, requiring an
understanding of the pathways to key outcomes for survival and resilience that take into account people’s
preferences and priorities. They felt that use of MPGs is encouraging discussion about what aspects of technical
sector outcomes can sensibly be met through cash and where complementary activities or other modalities
are needed, to overcome market inefficiencies and support particular outcomes.
This debate is expected to continue. It may be most usefully informed by context-specific consideration of the
issues outlined above, in relation to any specific humanitarian response. There is also recognition of the need
to strengthen the evidence base about the outcomes that can best be achieved through MPGs in different
contexts.
Multi-sector assessments
Respondents in this study highlighted a lack of multi-sectoral assessment and analysis, which acts as a barrier
to greater consideration of cash as an instrument to meet needs across sectors, potentially including MPGs.
This is thought to be due to a combination of factors including (until recently) a lack of tools supporting multi-
sectoral response analysis; the barriers to equal consideration of cash across sectors; and difficulties in practical
implementation, requiring engagement and coordination across sectors. For many implementing organizations
that were interviewed, this represents the ‘next step’.
There has been some recent progress in this area, partly driven by investments from particular donors in multi-
sectoral assessment and analysis. This includes a multi-sectoral market assessment tool developed by UNHCR,
and multi-sectoral needs assessment and response
“We are discussing ways to start looking at things more analysis tools and processes for a ‘Basic Needs
multi-sectorally – to begin with a multi-purpose grant as Approach’ (BNA) being developed and tested by
an entry point to meet basic needs and then add in the 71
UNHCR and other agencies. The case study on
more specific sectoral competencies as required over piloting the Basic Needs Approach in Nigeria (Annex
time, to fill gaps and support outcomes”. NRC 2.5) summarizes one such initiative that is currently
being implemented by a consortium of agencies,
and the lessons that are emerging. Findings suggest that such multi-sectoral assessment and analysis tools have
potential to better inform the effective use of MPGs; they also highlight the limitations of existing tools for
understanding markets for services.
71 UNHCR (2017) Basic Needs Approach in the Refugee Response – this has been implemented in Chad, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Malaysia and Niger.
42

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Several implementing agencies and donors interviewed in this study suggested that reorienting thinking in this
way, around ‘basic needs’, could be a promising way to support better integration of sectors, presenting MPGs as
a common platform and the foundation by which to meet sector-specific needs. Respondents considered the
potential of the approach to enable the design of mixed modality programmes, whereby basic cash assistance
is complemented by more detailed assessment and analysis, along with other forms of support. For example,
the shelter cluster perceived that, under such an approach, an MPG could be complementary to other shelter
responses and supplemented by technical support and supervision. There were, however, notes of caution
sounded regarding the lack of available evidence as yet to establish ‘proof of concept’ and the need to monitor
outcomes. It is clear from the experiences in Nigeria that adoption requires buy-in and strategic engagement
across organizations and sectors. Respondents highlight that this presents a challenge, given the present
coordination architecture and the reticence/concerns of certain clusters. Issues in cash coordination are the
focus of Chapter 5. Furthermore, some respondents acknowledged that multi-sectoral needs assessments do not
collect the level of detail that can be required to design some sector-specific programmes, meaning they must be
considered (and resourced) as an additional, complementary, rather than substitute, task.
At the meeting of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream in June 2017, Global Cluster representatives called for
improved joint response analysis across clusters. There is agreement to develop a paper on the links between the
BNA, MPGs and complementary programming, with inputs from the Cash Workstream and Needs Assessment
72
Workstream members, which are spread across clusters.
72 WFP/DFID (2017) Report of the First Workshop of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream, 31 May–1 June 2017.
43

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Priority Actions
73
2.1 Embed c ontextual analysis and response analysis into humanitarian programme cycles and funding
decisions. [GFA 2.2]
— In every context, humanitarian agencies should make an active decision about how best to provide aid,
including whether to use CTP. This should be consistently based on an assessment of the context, including
assessing the feasibility and desirability of CTP. It can be achieved through two steps: (a) ensuring that
assessments consider all issues relevant for CTP, and (b) ensuring that programme cycles include the explicit
step of response analysis. These steps should be embedded in agencies’ internal procedures, as well as in
leadership, coordination and funding bodies.
— As in other areas, agencies should actively seek to use common, streamlined tools for these steps, appropriate
to each context and operating across sectors. Coordinating bodies should promote common tools.
— Humanitarian actors should forge partnerships with other actors – including researchers, government units
and private sector actors – who have a comparative advantage in this space.
2.2 Iden tify how CTP can achieve the best results in different technical sectors and across sectors.
[GFA 2.3, GB 1.6 & 1.7]
— Technical specialists, including clusters, should lead work to identify and promote how CTP can best
contribute to outcomes in different technical sectors (such as health, education and protection). This includes
complementary programming/’cash plus’ approaches, where CTP is provided in conjunction with other types
of assistance.
— More evidence is also needed about how CTP contributes to results across the established sectors, for instance,
through the Basic Needs Approach. In line with commitments made in the Grand Bargain, this should explore
the added value, and limitations, of multi-purpose cash grants in different contexts. These analyses should be
actively promoted through relevant national and international networks.
2.3 Donors should work together to ensure appropriate consideration of CTP. [GFA 2.4, GB 1.1]
— Donors should encourage implementing agencies to always consider using CTP, to achieve the best strategic
outcomes for all people affected by a crisis. This may involve considering how donors and agencies can work
together in order to assist the entire affected population, in the light of all components of a humanitarian
response, and balancing needs across different sectors. Context-specific approaches for key aspects of CTP
could include: funding coordination bodies, or encouraging common assessments and joint responses.
— Donors may benefit from developing shared principles for high-quality CTP, as a foundation for effective action.
— Donors should also consider how risk can be most effectively managed in different contexts and appropriately
shared across actors.
73 Response analysis is defined in CaLP’s Glossary: www.cashlearning.org/resources/glossary#RA
44

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 3: CAPACITY BUILDING
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 3: BUILD SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR CASH
TRANSFER PROGRAMMING
Lack of organizational capacity – both human resources and systems and processes – remains a critical barrier to
increasing the scale of quality CTP. There are insufficient investments being made to build capacity of national and local
actors, in line with the localization of aid agenda. Trends in the ways in which CTP are being implemented, including
the streamlining of processes and segregation of roles, have implications for the types of capacities that implementing
agencies should be building.
Global Objective 3 Supporting Actions
Build sufficient 3.1 Ensure that appropriate delivery and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are in place
capacity for cash for CTP, using common approaches where possible.
transfer programming 3.2 Undertake structured approaches to strengthen capacity for CTP at strategic and
(Grand Bargain #5) operational levels, including adapting support functions and operational preparedness.
3.3 Increase the number of competent staff available for strategic, technical and operational
functions required for CTP.
3.4 Make best practice training materials and programmes on CTP widely accessible and tailor
them to a range of audiences.
3.5 Invest in supporting national and local organizations to build leadership and capacity for
CTP.
At present, lack of organizational capacity is a critical barrier to effective and extensive usage of CTP
The organization survey and practitioner survey (see Box 3.1) reveal that a lack of organizational capacity is
perceived as a critical barrier to scaling up CTP. These survey perceptions are confirmed in the majority of
interviews.
BOX 3.1 LIMITED CAPACITY IS A CHALLENGE TO Staff competence and expertise are a critical
SCALING UP CTP element of capacity, but there is also growing
acknowledgement that human resource capacity
60% must be supported by organizational structures,
Organizations report that they systems, policies and procedures that enable the
74
do not have the capacities in design and implementation of CTP. Policies are the
place needed to implement CTP. focus of Chapter 1. This Chapter discusses the other
components of capacity building: human resource
64% capacity, systems and procedures.
Practitioners agree that their Systematic investments are required to make
organization’s existing policies or real progress in building organizational capacity
the ones being developed will be for CTP
effective in ensuring organizational
capacity and readiness for CTP. The ability to consider cash-based responses
increases where country teams are ‘cash ready’.
Respondents explained that this requires concerted investment in staff expertise and capacities at all levels,
alongside organizational processes and systems. These actions are needed to realize the implementation of
policy and strategy commitments to scaling up CTP in practice. These are not insignificant investments to make
and, like any process of systemic organizational change, they take time to materialize, and have to compete for
management attention and resources among many other priorities.
74 CaLP (2016) Organizational Cash Readiness Tool. www.cashlearning.org/strengthening-institutional-capacity/strengthening-institutional-capacity
45

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 3.2 WFP - INCREASED GLOBAL SCALE OF CTP INTERVENTIONS
CBT Trend 2009–2017 (11 month)
2009 10
2010 60
2011 119
2012 183
2013 507
2014 844
2015 680
2016 880
11 month 2017 1.2 billion
Source: WINGS/BO million USD
Those organizations that have made greatest headway in terms of scaling up the volume of aid provided as cash
and vouchers – such as WFP and UNHCR – have invested consistently and heavily in structured capacity building
approaches over several years. This has gone significantly beyond the establishment of technical ‘cash experts’ –
although such positions are still essentials – to include
mainstreaming of CTP expertise within sectoral and “We had to change the ‘plumbing’ of the organization
operational teams. Besides investment in training, to implement these policy decisions [on CTP]. We did
there is also great emphasis placed on ‘learning by an enormous amount of work – requiring a huge
doing’. The graph illustrates the increases in scale of investment in money, time and energy – to develop an
CTP assistance delivered by WFP since 2009. The end-to-end operational business model, for the whole
volume of funds that WFP channelled towards CTP programme cycle. We had to consider every role and
have increased by approximately 30% – from $680m in function of the organization within this, to define
2015 to $880m in 2016, and beyond in 2017, while responsibilities for cash. It was an extremely intensive,
UNHCR’s funds through CTP have more than doubled75 whole organization effort. This has been a journey,
during the same time (2015 to 2016). not a step, from country office experimentation,
It is worth noting that these UN agencies have had to defining a global strategy and cross-functional
extensive financial resources at their disposal through business processes, to scale up and roll out. It has
which to realize these investments. Both have received led to a classic growth curve in terms of scale of
specific capacity building funds from donors. WFP has programmes, and countries adopting cash”. WFP
made use of core unearmarked funding for capacity
76
building in the area of cash and has invested around $10 million over three years at corporate level. In
contrast, such systematic investments can be harder for those implementing organizations, such as NGOs, that
are highly reliant on project-based donor funding. In the case of the IRC, their model of reserving a percentage
of project funds for technical learning has enabled them to invest in cash capacity at a greater level to date
than many INGOs.
75 Figures provided by WFP and UNHCR to CaLP via the organization survey.
76 Key informant – Paul Harvey, Humanitarian Outcomes.
46

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Investments are improving competencies in CTP, but gaps in human resource capacity remain
BOX 3.3 HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY As shown in Box 3.2, less than half of respondents in the
FOR CTP IS LIMITED practitioner survey perceive that their organization currently
has the required competencies for CTP. Agencies are taking
steps to build human resource capacity in CTP through upskilling
of existing teams and recruitment of skilled practitioners for
dedicated roles.
Upskilling of existing staff: respondents interviewed clearly
expressed the importance of moving beyond ‘cash experts’
to embedding cash capacities across all relevant functions, in
Only 4/10 order to overcome the ‘siloing’ of cash and support effective
Practitioners believe that their mainstreaming of CTP. The practitioner survey identified
organization has sufficient capacity technical expertise as the area on which organizations are
in terms of competent staff for CTP. primarily focusing, followed by strategic and operational
capacity (see Box 3.3).
Training: An essential element of organizations’ (implementing agencies, donors and also host governments)
approaches here has been training. Awareness of CTP training is high among practitioners, with 88% of
practitioner survey respondents citing awareness of both face-to-face courses and e-learning, and knowledge
of where to access them. Interviews highlighted that the training products of CaLP are by far the most
commonly known and used.
BOX 3.4 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR SPECIFIC ROLES Our research also revealed commonly
perceived barriers to accessing
Percentage of practitioners who believe that their organizations are building trainings. The practitioner survey
capacity of their respective functions: identifies that the top barriers to
Technical 79% Strategic 66% Operational 59% attending CTP training courses
are their high cost and substantial
time commitment, aggravated by
77
the length of some of the face-to-face courses. There was also a perceived gap in investment in face-to-face
78
trainings for CTP in the Asia region. The limited availability of training materials in languages besides English
79
was identified as a barrier to upskilling (especially national) staff.
Whilst interview respondents highlighted that a continuation of basic training is still required for those who are
new to CTP, there is also a need for materials tailored to the requirements of specific roles and for more specialized
trainings to fill particular gaps. Respondents felt that training materials have tended to be based on evidence
and experiences from particular regional contexts and technical sectors. For example, the Pacific Island region is
relatively underserved in training examples. Trainings have tended to focus on theory over practice, rather than
building understanding based on practical approaches or learning by doing. Interviews and FGDs highlighted
clear agreement between agencies that such training investments cannot be considered a ‘one-off’ activity but
rather should be an integral part of continual professional development.
In 2015, CaLP undertook a comprehensive review of their training and capacity building efforts, which highlighted
similar issues. CaLP is now implementing a new capacity building strategy that responds to these issues, with
a series of tailored courses designed to embed CTP capacities across different functions (senior management,
programme/technical, and supply chain/finance/ICT functions) and level of expertise. There is increasing
development of scenario-based learning materials, to support practical application, and partnerships with other
training providers, and an approach to certifying competencies with Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance
80
and Protection (PHAP). As internet, tablet and smartphone penetration increase, the relevance of e-learning
materials will increase and is one way of mitigating the cost of face-to-face training. That said, more hands-
77 This is similar to findings from CaLP’s Global Survey on CTP Training Needs 2017, which analysed responses from 300 participants. Here, only 41% of respondents
said that their employer had resources to contribute to professional development such as through trainings.
78 As per the FGDs.
79 CALP’s Global Survey on CTP Training Needs identified demand for Arabic, French and Spanish training materials, as well as demand created through the
growth in CTP in specific disaster and country contexts – for example, Turkish and Urdu.
80 https://phap.org
47

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
on approaches will continue to be needed, and capacity building strategies should include a combination of
81
approaches. Furthermore, a range of specialized courses complement the more general foundational courses,
allowing practitioners to find topics most suited to their needs and interests.
Several implementing organizations have actively invested in their own ‘in house’ training. Some of the greatest
investments have been those of WFP, UNHCR and IFRC, which have developed e-learning courses in recent years.
Such investments, and the tailoring of training materials to the needs and requirements of specific agencies,
can be important. At the same time, respondents in interviews and FGDs expressed caution that such ‘siloed’
approaches to capacity building should not undermine efforts to foster more harmonized ways of working across
organizations, or reinforce existing ways of working at the expense of new approaches. Respondents felt that it
would be helpful if more of such materials were actively shared, to prevent duplication of effort and make more
82
efficient use of resources. CaLP has committed to sharing its face-to-face training materials publicly from the
end of 2017, in addition to the e-learning materials available through its new Cash Learning Hub, hosted by the
Humanitarian Leadership Academy.
Practice: Whilst training is essential, it is only an entry point; consolidation of this knowledge and further skill
83
development must come from practical experience. This was recognized as a gap by several respondents
interviewed. This is partly because, where agencies’ country offices or teams lack the prior experience, there can
be a reluctance to move forward with programming. It is also
because other capacity building activities, such as secondments “It’s not just training, it’s the actual
and on-the-job support and mentoring are not sufficiently practical experience [of designing and
84 implementing CTP] that’s important, and
developed and funded. In 2016 and 2017, CaLP and CashCAP
have been piloting such an approach through the Building this is what is still lacking” Anonymous
Individual Expertise Programme in East and West Africa. More of
such initiatives are needed.
Recruiting skilled practitioners: Given the challenges in upskilling existing staff, a key part of the strategy of
humanitarian organizations seeking to scale up CTP is the recruitment of cash specialists. These dedicated roles
are designed to support the institutionalization of CTP, including the upskilling of existing teams. This can provide
a level of guidance and support to practitioners and thus a level of confidence to management to move forward
with CTP, which in turn increases the exposure of, and internalizes skills within, existing staff.
Our research highlighted some challenges in this aspect of capacity building, since the pool of actors with the
desired knowledge and – critically – practical experience to take on these roles, though growing, remains limited.
The practitioner survey revealed that only 29% of practitioners perceive that it is easy to recruit skilled staff for
cash-related roles. Agencies reporting on progress towards the Grand Bargain commitments reported that a lack
of skills among experienced and senior practitioners to take on strategic and technical leadership of a cash-based
85
response remains a challenge. There are similar findings from the practitioner survey, which indicates that lower
level and field-based positions are perceived to be easier to fill compared to a greater perceived shortage of
the skillsets required at a global and country office level (see Box 3.4). Furthermore, such investments – unless
explicitly designed to support scale-up of CTP across sectors, can risk perpetuating the siloing of cash expertise
and the breadth of responses.
81 CaLP’s Global Survey on capacity building needs for CTP (2017) showed that 86% of respondents could access e-learnings in their country, with 80% indicating
that their internet connection was sufficient to access them. It also showed a strong preference for face-to-face learning and demand for a combination of
training formats.
82 All the IFRC e-learning materials are publicly available online.
83 For example, Save the Children UK’s global learning needs assessment for shelter practitioners highlighted that the priority in terms of learning modalities was
practice, not training.
84 CashCAP is an inter-agency project established to help address CTP capacity gaps in emergencies, managed by NORCAP, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s
Expert Deployment capacity.
85 GPPI (2017) Grand Bargain independent Report.
48

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Some respondents considered that there was a need for discussion about emerging trends in CTP and their
implications for building human resource capacity. Expertise for CTP to date is recruited from within the
humanitarian sector, whereas respondents suggested a need to increase diversity in this pool of expertise, to
draw upon complementary skillsets in other industries in areas such as e-commerce, digital technologies and
market analysis.
BOX 3.5 PRACTITIONER VIEWS ON EASE OF RECRUITING CTP EXPERTISE
29%
Practitioners agree that their organization finds it easy to recruit skilled staff for cash related roles.
However, this perception varies by various factors:
Split by role Split by geography Split by location of role
Senior mgmt/ 36% Africa (103) 41% Africa (103) 35%
Program mgmt (105)
Overall (195) 29% Overall (195) 29% Overall (195) 29%
Techincal Advisory (66) 17% North America 11% North America 15%
and W. Europe (37) and W. Europe (37)
Building capacity of local actors can generate significant benefits, but is not being undertaken systematically
The Grand Bargain is committed to making humanitarian action as local as possible. In line with this commitment,
there is a fundamental need to build the capacity of national and local actors to design and implement CTP. This
research highlights this as a major gap, with limited emphasis “There is progress on the international dialogue
to date on building capacity of local partners – both on cash. But getting this right heavily relies on
governmental and non-governmental. national systems and local actors. Cash needs
In the organization survey, less than half of respondents to be done bottom up”. British Red Cross
reported that their organization was supporting local
non-government actors to implement CTP. One organization that has made considerable investments in the
localization of CTP is IFRC. Their experiences in building capacity of National Societies is detailed in Box 3.5.
49

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 3.6 BUILDING CAPACITY OF LOCAL ACTORS TO IMPLEMENT CTP AT SCALE:
EXPERIENCES OF IFRC
IFRC began efforts to institutionalize cash within National Societies in 2012, with a cash preparedness pilot
project implemented with four National Societies in the Philippines, Vietnam, Senegal and Chile. This ran until
2014 and was intended to build their institutional capacity to design and implement timely and effective CTP
at scale through technical and financial support. Tailored action plans focused on five key areas: leadership
commitment and enabling systems (SOPs, systems and guidelines); resource capacity development (financial
resources and human capacity in leadership, technical and operational positions); contingency planning;
operational tools; and communication and coordination.
Evaluations demonstrated the added value of such investments. It developed commitment to and leadership
on cash within all the National Societies, and human resource capacity (cash focal points, technical working
groups and trained staff and volunteers) in the headquarters, chapters and branches. Both the Vietnam Red
Cross Society and the Philippine Red Cross significantly increased the scale and speed of cash-based responses.
In Vietnam, only 5% of households targeted by the Vietnam Red Cross for emergency assistance in 2009 were
supported with unrestricted cash assistance, whereas by 2013 this increased to 70%. In the Philippines, only
2% of households targeted by the National Society received unrestricted cash before the pilot, whereas in the
emergency response to Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, this increased to 50%. The Philippine Red Cross is also leading
coordination of the national cash working group.
Capacity building for National Societies to embed cash in preparedness, contingency and response plans
is now a core part of IFRC’s global strategy to institutionalize and scale up CTP. Based on the pilots, the
Federation, with support of key National Societies such as British Red Cross (BRC) and American Red Cross,
has developed global guidance on National Society Cash Preparedness, developed the Cash in Emergencies
Toolkit and invested in designing and delivering a variety of online and advanced practical training for National
Society staff and emergency roster personnel. In 2015, a Cash Peer Group was formed with the Federation,
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and several National Societies, tasked with improving
the capability of the Movement to deliver cash at scale where appropriate. The Federation has developed a
roadmap to guide actions for increasing its capabilities in CTP, with activities supported by a Cash Unit within
the Secretariat and recognizing the need to have cash coordinators in each regional office.
Several lessons have emerged from IFRC’s CTP institutionalization efforts to date. These investments across
human resources, systems and tools are showing demonstrable results, allowing National Societies to become
proficient in and able to implement CTP independently. Just like international organizations, National Societies
have required similar shifts of strategic and operational thinking, only possible with adequate levels of investment
and time. Maintaining human resource capacity for CTP in national organizations can be a challenge, since training
and expertise can open up career opportunities elsewhere, whilst leadership changes in National Societies can
require continued high-level engagement to generate the buy-in required. In 2018, IFRC will conduct a review of
these efforts, considering the sustainability of these investments as well as incentives to ensure staff continuity.
Source: Interviews with IFRC, BRC; IFRC (2014) Case study: Preparing to implement relief CTP at scale.
Other organizations are also working with the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) Movement at a response level to
86
build capacities of National Societies. Experiences from WFP and UNICEF’s implementation of cash at scale in
Turkey, working with the government and Turkish Red Crescent, are detailed in Annex 2.2.
These positive experiences are significant, since in disasters across the globe (and particularly those which are
smaller in scale), national organizations including National RC/RC Societies are often first responders. They also
demonstrate the added value of building local cash readiness ahead of a crisis. There are similar findings from the
2015 earthquake response in Nepal and the Ebola response in Liberia (see case studies in Annexes 2.1 and 2.6),
where a lack of prior knowledge and experience of CTP among local actors proved to be barriers to timely and
effective response. In Nepal, where investments in cash preparedness were made by international actors, there
were demonstrably higher returns – for both beneficiaries and the wider economy.
86 Another example is the Kenyan Red Cross Society disaster management strengthening programme funded by ECHO, DFID and the Red Cross. This went
beyond improving technical skills and focused on the ability of the National Society to take decisions and act on Disaster Risk Management (DRM). The Kenyan
Red Cross Society has been able to scale up CTP as a result, delivering over 12 programmes to over 230,000 households (data shared by British Red Cross).
50

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
IFRC’s experience highlights the importance of consistent and increased donor investment in and support for
cash preparedness and institutionalization, to realize commitments made in the localization of the aid agenda.
In the last two years, the Federation has noticed a contraction of funding opportunities in this area. This lack
of resources was similarly cited by respondents in interviews and FGDs, and considered a key factor limiting
investments in capacity building of local actors.
Another perceived limiting factor that was mentioned here is limited strategic and long-term vision on the part
of international agencies. There remains a tendency to bring in external capacity rather than investing locally.
Where investments in training of local partners have been made, FGD respondents “Local partners are seen
consider that these have focused on basic technical and operational skills to enable as implementers, never
these organizations to implement cash and voucher projects, and that local actors as co-decision makers”.
are rarely involved in response analysis and strategic decision making on response FGD participant, West Africa
design. Furthermore, such efforts for the most part remain focused on national
NGOs, neglecting local civil society and government authorities, although this institutional capacity remains in
the area post response. The experiences in Liberia and Turkey (see case studies in Annexes 2.6 and 2.2) highlight
the importance of enhancing capacity of host governments, to realize their potential as a strategic partner in CTP
at scale.
The START Network (an alliance of 42 major aid organizations) supports local organizations through country-level
platforms which allow them to collaborate on topics of mutual interest, and link to relevant expertise based on
needs. These platforms aren’t CTP-specific, but can support capacity building in this regard, where it is identified
as a priority by members. For example, pilot funds have been used by a platform in Pakistan to develop training
in CTP for surge capacity within local and community-based organizations, with support from the Pakistan Red
Crescent.
This research identified a consensus view that this was a gap to be addressed, and several new or planned
initiatives that may contribute to this in future. For example, CaLP and IFRC’s investments in online learning are
partly intended to increase local access to training materials (though language continues to present a barrier).
Training providers such as the Humanitarian Leadership Academy and RedR are considering investment in
regional learning hubs.
Respondents voiced the concern that national staff with capacity in CTP benefit from greater employment
opportunities and are more likely to move onto more senior roles with other organizations. This is a common
challenge facing local capacity building in the humanitarian sector; however, CTP is an evolving and expanding
area and the continued reliance on individuals with prior experience means this is a particularly pertinent issue
with respect to cash expertise. Similar issues were faced by IFRC (Box 3.5). This represents a loss of institutional
capacity that must be anticipated and addressed.
Agencies need to invest in upgrading their systems and procedures for CTP, but uncertainty over the
direction that CTP implementation could take in future is stalling this
Respondents were unanimous that individual capacity must be supported by organizational systems and
procedures that improve readiness to design and implement effective CTP. The lack of appropriate organizational
systems for CTP was identified as a major barrier to scale up. CaLP’s capacity building survey identified similar
challenges. One barrier is that progress in this area requires considerable organizational change – to identify,
prioritize and act on adapting existing systems and processes. A second barrier is that development of new
systems and digital solutions for improving data management and payment processes – such as those developed
by a number of agencies leading the scaling up of CTP – requires time, technical expertise and financial resources.
87
CaLP’s Organizational Cash Readiness Tool (OCRT) supports implementing agencies to: assess the capacity of
existing processes, systems and staff, at technical, operational and management levels; identify gaps; and plan
actions to address these. This was formally piloted by CaLP with five agencies in 2016, and the revised tool has
been concurrently and successfully employed by several actors to date to guide systemic capacity building for
88
CTP, including UNHCR.
87 Available for download: www.cashlearning.org/strengthening-institutional-capacity/strengthening-institutional-capacity
88 CaLP (2017) Organizational Cash Readiness Assessment: Project Concern International and Relief International Case Study; interviews with UNHCR and Relief
International.
51

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
With regard to the second barrier, inter-agency collaboration can reduce the need for such systemic capacity
investments at an individual agency level. Agencies are still in the process of understanding the rapidly changing
CTP landscape and making strategic choices about how they position themselves in relation to other actors. This
has a major impact on which capacities they decide to invest in developing, as discussed in Box 3.6.
For example, in the refugee crisis response in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, UNICEF collaborated with
UNHCR and/or WFP to jointly implement aspects of cash and voucher programming through use of UNHCR
and WFP’s well-established operational systems. Working through these established systems saved time and
money and reduced the need for UNICEF to invest heavily in its own ‘in house’ operational systems.89 More detail
is provided in the case studies of the Lebanon and Turkey responses (see Annexes 2.8 and 2.2). Chapters 5 (on
coordination) and 6 (on innovation) document the growing interest in and experiences of operational collaboration
and harmonizing systems between agencies, and between agencies, host governments and the private sector.
BOX 3.7 CRITICAL DEBATE: WHAT DO NEW WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING CTP
MEAN FOR CAPACITY BUILDING?
As highlighted in different chapters of this report, global commitments on CTP and the drive to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of CTP implementation are resulting in increased interest in and testing of a
range of new approaches for cash delivery. These approaches include various models to harmonize and share
common systems between aid agencies; segregation of payment and other auxiliary programming functions;
and partnerships with governmental actors and the private sector. This raises the question: do all agencies
need to be investing equally in cash delivery?
On the one hand, many of those interviewed in this research perceived that this suggests a trend towards
more streamlined cash delivery, through fewer agencies and that, in the future, it will not be necessary (or
advisable) for all operational agencies to invest in full operational systems and processes for CTP. On the other,
actors pointed out that these models still needed to be tested, that not all donors are aligned behind the same
models, and that furthermore not all were likely to be feasible in every context where CTP is required. They
therefore saw a continued need for operational capacity in the short to medium term.
All were in agreement that there is a need for implementing organizations to reconsider the functions, or
roles, that they should be playing, based on where they can add most value, and for this to inform capacity
developments. For example, World Vision advocates for a modularized approach – where organizations stop
working ‘end-to-end’, but rather focus on where they can create most value for the humanitarian sector at large.
This modular approach is also reflected in the plans of the Collaborative Cash Delivery (CCD) platform (see Box
6.8 in Chapter 6 for more on this). Oxfam commissioned a review of the trends and opportunities emerging in
this space to identify which aspects of CTP they have a comparative advantage in and are presently using this
to inform their strategy for capacity building.
89 Interview with UNICEF; Smith (2017) Advantages and Challenges of Joint Cash Transfer Programming in the MENA Region: Internal Lessons Learned Case Study
for UNICEF, UNICEF MENA Regional Office.
52

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Priority Actions
3.1 Integrate CTP into organizational strategies, systems, processes and staffing. [GFA 3.2]
— Agencies need to ensure that all relevant staff are equipped to use CTP appropriately in every humanitarian
response they work on. This can be achieved through structured capacity building programmes that integrate
CTP into the organization’s plans, management systems, processes, procedures and guidance, and build skills
among staff. Experience has shown that this is the single most significant step in driving the uptake of CTP; and
that it takes several years, particularly for large international organizations. It requires consistent resourcing
and leadership.
— Agencies first need to make strategic decisions about the role they intend to play in relation to CTP, bearing
in mind trends in the humanitarian sector and determining whether to work end-to-end in CTP, or focus on
developing specialist capabilities.
— There is significant scope for agencies to learn from each others’ experiences and benefit from sharing tools
and approaches.
— Donors have a key role to play in resourcing these efforts, in order to build and sustain the capacities needed
for CTP for the future.
3.2 F und and support national organizations to build their capacity for CTP.
[GFA 3.5]
— National organizations should be supported by international actors to accelerate their efforts to build capacities
for CTP. This reflects wider demands from national actors, including government departments, private sector
firms, NGOs, Red Cross societies and others, for a greater leadership role in humanitarian assistance and more
access to international funds. It is also consistent with substantial commitments made in the Grand Bargain
and elsewhere.
— National agencies can also benefit from sharing experience, tools and approaches.
3.3 Build individual competencies in CTP. [GFA 3.3]
— All actors should invest in strengthening the competencies of individual staff and practitioners in CTP. CTP
competencies should be integrated into existing job roles, rather than siloed as separate ‘CTP experts’.
— In the same way, CTP should be brought into existing initiatives to develop skills and talent in the humanitarian
sector, such as academic and training institutions and competency assessment mechanisms.
— All agencies can benefit from common approaches, such as shared materials based on best practice.
— Competencies should also be boosted with experience from outside the humanitarian sector, for instance,
from the private sector, digital start-ups, social protection, governments and academia, in order to inject
new ideas and drive innovation. Humanitarian innovation hubs and exchange programmes can encourage a
90
diversity of ideas and talent.
90 For example, the Humanitarian Innovation Fund: www.elrha.org/hif/home
53

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 4: QUALITY
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 4: ENSURE THE QUALITY OF CASH TRANSFER
PROGRAMMING
The quality of CTP is perceived to be improving. Further collective action is required to develop and implement
common standards and guidance for quality CTP, based on best practice. CTP is being increasingly used across and
within sectors; more evidence is needed about how it contributes to outcomes, along with the identification and use of
common outcome indicators. The potential of humanitarian CTP to enhance financial inclusion depends on a range of
context-specific enabling factors.
Global Objective 4 Supporting Actions
Ensure the quality 4.1 Develop common standards and guidelines for CTP, including outcome indicators.
of cash transfer 4.2 Make existing knowledge and evidence on CTP easily accessible by all significant actors.
programming 4.3 Design and implement CTPs (including response modalities and operating models) on
(Grand Bargain the basis of the best available evidence, beneficiary preferences and considerations of
#4 & #5) efficiency and effectiveness.
4.4 Design and implement CTP delivery mechanisms to facilitate financial inclusion,
localization and build on local systems and infrastructure where possible.
There is a perception that the quality of CTP is improving, but there are no objective measures of quality
The central aim of any humanitarian intervention is to achieve intended outcomes while maintaining quality
standards, through aid that is appropriate and meets people’s needs quickly, safely and with dignity. 80% of
practitioners surveyed believe that their organization has made the required progress towards increasing the
quality of CTP (see Box 4.1), and 72% agreed that they are informed about current best practices for effective cash
and voucher programming.
These findings were reflected in organizational interviews citing improvements in the quality of CTP delivered in
the last 12 months, and the use of best practice and evidence in designing and implementing CTP. For example,
the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) note that evidence is starting to inform their programmes, and there
are plans for in-depth evaluations every year, with funding allocated to priority countries/projects. Chapter 6
explores the evidence base for CTP in more depth, and highlights that while, at a general level, the evidence exists
on how to design quality CTP, there are notable gaps. Practitioners also believe that their organizations’ policies
will continue to improve the quality of CTP in the future (see Box 4.1).
BOX 4.1 PRACTITIONER VIEWS ON PROGRESS IN CTP QUALITY
3/4
Practitioners believe they have
the evidence they need to design
quality CTP.
80% 2/3
Practitioners believe that their Practitioners believe that their
organization has made the required organization’s existing policies (or
progress towards increasing the quality the ones being developed) will be
of cash and voucher programming. effective in ensuring the quality of CTP.
54

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
These subjective assessments are a positive indication of increasing quality in CTP. But respondents noted that
there is not, as yet, any commonly understood definition of what quality means for CTP. Across over 30 interviews,
differing responses were received on the definition of quality, ranging from high-quality staff to clearly defined
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and documentation. All these responses may be parameters of quality,
but they do not provide a basis for a common and objective means of applying and measuring this.
At the same time, there is ongoing work, led by CaLP, to develop an analytical framework to evaluate operational
models for delivering CTP, which has unpacked the issue of quality in a way that might be more broadly
applied in evaluating quality in CTP. This identifies three components of quality – efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability. Identifying indicators/drivers under each of these components can provide a basis for more
91
objective measurement of quality – see for example A Review of Interagency Collaboration for CTP Delivery.
The need to develop more standardized measures of quality, particularly around efficiency and effectiveness,
are priority areas in the cash workstreams of both the Grand Bargain (‘measuring value for money, efficiency,
effectiveness and outcomes’), and the GHD group (‘development of common tools: identify shared cost efficiency
and cost effectiveness metrics, and outcome indicators’). These issues are further explored in this chapter (see the
section on Effective monitoring of CTP outcomes), and in Chapter 6.
Common tools and standards, based on best practice, are required to drive consistent quality across
organizations
The right tools, guidance and standards, based on best practices, can help achieve quality programming.
Many operational organizations and donors, along with entities such as CaLP and the Electronic Cash Transfer
Learning Action Network (ELAN), have invested in developing guidance and tools for CTP. Without a common
understanding of what constitutes quality for CTP, it is inevitable that there is significant variation in the proposals
made across these materials.
BOX 4.2 PERCEIVED BARRIERS IN ACCESSING AND APPLYING COMMON STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES RELATED TO CTP
Cash guidelines are standalone so not 24%
integrated with other standards
Guidelines vary 32%
between organizations
Standards are sectoral 36%
but cash is multi-sectoral
Agencies are developing 36%
their own standards
Lots of guidance exists but lack of 40%
agreement on ‘best practice’ guidance
Lack of common standards for cash and 41%
voucher programming across organizations
75% of respondents in the organization survey think that decision makers in their organization have sufficient
access to tools and information on best practices for CTP, whilst 81% of respondents to the practitioner survey
agree that they know the best practice tools for the appropriate use of CTP. Despite this, our research suggests CTP
tools and guidance are not being systematically used across organizations, and are not sufficiently harmonized
– either with each other, and with other humanitarian guidance. As the practitioner survey shows (see Box 4.2),
there are a number of overlapping issues to consider in this regard:
— Harmonizing tools and guidelines is often deprioritized: Those interviewed noted that where agencies have
already invested resources in their own tools and guidance, they are likely to continue using them, not least
because they will be aligned with their organization’s systems and processes. Also, achieving consistency and
reaching consensus to consolidate tools and guidance is seen as a time-consuming process, which could come
at the expense of timely delivery if carried out in a response setting.
91 CaLP (2017) A Review of Inter-agency Collaboration for CTP Delivery, p. 15. Available at www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-inter-agency-collaboration-
web.pdf
55

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
— Too many guidelines, with insufficient consolidation and curation: A consistent finding across this and other
research is that there is no overall shortage of tools and guidance for CTP. In fact, respondents to CaLP’s scoping
study on information needs reported that, while practical guidance and tools are a priority requirement, the
abundance of existing materials is actually an obstacle to identifying the best examples.92 Similarly, when
CaLP was researching priorities for developing guidance for monitoring CTP, a strong recommendation was to
provide ‘a guide to the guides’, consolidating existing materials and highlighting essential reading and tools.
Without effective consolidation, duplications of effort are likely, and navigating what’s available to identify the
best examples will remain a challenge.
— Tools and guidelines for CTP are not embedded into wider humanitarian frameworks: The majority of
tools and guidelines that have been developed for CTP are standalone, and are not embedded within other
programme implementation guidelines and quality frameworks. This undermines the effective integration
of CTP into wider humanitarian programming. Progress is being made, however. For instance, as shown by
the Basic Needs Assessment methodology (see case study in Annex 2.5), and CaLP’s Monitoring Guidance
93
for CTP in Emergencies, CTP is only now being mainstreamed into humanitarian standards, for instance,
through the revised Sphere standards (see Box 4.4). The forthcoming 2018 edition of the Sphere Handbook will
provide guidance on how CTP can be used to meet humanitarian standards, including the Core Humanitarian
Standard, and technical standards. The need for multi-sector response analysis is referenced in the overall
introduction, and sector-specific market analysis and CTP considerations are referenced in each chapter. CaLP
is currently working to address some of these issues through the development of the Cash Based Assistance
(CBA) Programme Quality Toolbox, as outlined in Box 4.3.
— Contextualisation and customization may be required: Tools and guidance may need to be adapted, both
to the context and/or a specific organization’s ways of working. Practitioners need the appropriate skills to
do this. Respondents to CaLP’s knowledge hub consultations recommended that global guidance include
context-specific considerations for the successful design, delivery and monitoring of CTP. However, realizing
better harmonization also requires a balance between customization and maintaining common elements, for
example, those concerning indicators and minimum standards.
BOX 4.3 THE CASH-BASED ASSISTANCE (CBA) PROGRAMME QUALITY TOOLBOX
The programme quality toolbox provides a set of common standards and actions for quality Cash-Based
Assistance (CBA).* It has been developed by CaLP and its members based on the best available guidance across
organizations, using a systematic selection protocol, rather than developing additional materials. The content
of the Toolbox has been identified through a consultative curation process, involving a range of humanitarian
actors coordinated through CaLP’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
The standards and actions define ‘what’ needs to happen for quality CBA. These are supported by a curated set
of guidelines and ready to use tools and templates, i.e., ‘how’ to achieve quality CBA. The toolbox can therefore
be used by managers and donors, as well as by practitioners.
The toolbox is applicable across modality, context and outcomes (both sectoral and multi-sectoral). Where
they exist, sector-specific guidelines and tools have been included. It will continue to be updated, to serve as a
live resource in the light of emerging experience.
The Toolbox has been designed to accompany the forthcoming revised Sphere handbook (see Box 4.4), and
is also a component of CaLP’s Knowledge Hub (see Box 6.4), the purpose of which is to generate CTP-related
knowledge and make existing CTP knowledge accessible and effectively shared. It will be available to access
from both Sphere and CaLP websites, from early 2018.
* Preferred term for cash & vouchers in new Sphere handbook
92 CaLP (2017) CaLP Knowledge Hub – Consultations and Recommendations (internal document – unpublished).
93 CaLP (2017) Monitoring Guidance for CTP in Emergencies, available at www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-ctp-monitoring-web.pdf
56

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Regardless of the challenges, there is increasing evidence that efforts to harmonize tools and guidance can
contribute to increased quality in CTP. In a response led UNICEF in the DRC, for instance, agencies pooled their
resources to develop common tools for market assessment and response analysis, adapting them for contextual
relevance. A harmonized market analysis was undertaken across all implementing partners. This was considered
to contribute to quality programming compared to a prior intervention, where variations in partner experience
and understanding led to big differences in the quality of analysis (see case study in Annex 2.5). Another example
of harmonized tool development is the Joint Cash Feasibility Assessment developed by UNHCR, UNICEF, OCHA
and WFP through DFID funding. In addition, a CaLP-led study on interagency collaboration noted that tools and
approaches developed through exchanges of best practice between agencies were of higher quality than any
94
single agency’s frameworks because they brought together the strengths of each agency.
CTP is being integrated into key humanitarian standards, with increasing engagement across sectors
BOX 4.4 MAINSTREAMING CTP/CBA IN THE FORTHCOMING 2018 VERSION OF
THE SPHERE STANDARDS
The 2011 version of the Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Humanitarian
Response references CTP as an ‘emerging issue’, and includes a section on the use of cash and vouchers in
the food security chapter. In 2016, CaLP’s Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MiSMA) was accepted as a
Sphere companion guide, as part of the Humanitarian Standards Partnership.
The Sphere Handbook is currently undergoing a complete revision, for publication in May 2018. CBA is being
mainstreamed as a cross-cutting theme, led by a working group, coordinated by CaLP. The revision process is
ongoing at the time of writing, but key areas in which CBA is expected to feature include:
— In the introduction chapter, as an overview of CBA and how it can be used to meet multi-sectoral needs;
— In the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) chapter, as a means of meeting specific commitments;
— In the introduction and under relevant standards in the technical chapters (water supply, sanitation and
hygiene promotion; food security and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-food items; and health action);
— In a new annex on ‘Delivering through Markets’. The annex applies across the handbook and provides
guidance on how to deliver humanitarian assistance through markets, whether through a combination of
international and local procurement, or through CBA.
— As noted in Box 4.3 above, the CBA Programme Quality Toolbox has been developed in parallel with the
Sphere revision process, and will be formally linked as an accompanying resource to the Handbook.
Multi-purpose cash grants (MPGs) and the Sphere standards: The revised Handbook will also recognise the
inherent multi-sectoral nature of MPGs, and the opportunity they provide to ‘put people at the centre’. For
MPGs to adequately meet multi-sector needs, in accordance with Sphere standards, the following is required:
— Sufficient justification for MPGs, including the identification of which humanitarian needs to address, as well
as understanding contextual dynamics, market functionality, and the feasibility of cash;
— An evidence base that helps determine the transfer value, frequency and duration of distribution to meet
needs;
— Adequate monitoring and evaluation systems to determine what needs are met, and how well they are met,
by MPGs;
and
— Sufficient quality control.
94 CaLP (2017) Review of Interagency Collaboration for CTP Delivery. www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-inter-agency-collaboration-web.pdf
57

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
As shown in the survey results above (Box 4.2), standards for technical quality tend to be linked to sectors,
whereas cash is multi-sectoral in nature. This will in part be addressed in the ongoing Sphere revision, which will
mainstream CTP as a cross-cutting approach (see Box 4.4).
At the same time, as noted in Chapter 2, concerns about achieving quality sectoral outcomes and existing
standards are prominent in debates on increasing the scale of CTP. These concerns are reflected in interviews and
focus groups undertaken for this study, as well as in ongoing discussions and various sector position papers that
have been produced on the topic of CTP. Equally, none of the respondents to this study claimed that cash alone
is sufficient to achieve sectoral outcomes in their entirety.
‘All sectors are not equal when it comes to CTP/market-based programming (MBP) and the technical specificities of
each sector may present constraints or opportunities towards a greatly scaled usage of CTP/MBP, and especially of
95
unconditional cash and multi-purpose grants (MPGs).’ (Global WaSH and Shelter Cluster Joint Advocacy Paper )
These positions and debates contain a great deal of nuance and complexity and vary from sector to sector.
However, common elements emerge, including:
— Distinctions between unrestricted CTP and restricted or conditional CTP. Unrestricted and unconditional
programming types, including MPGs, pose greater challenges in terms of associating assistance with sector-
specific outcomes. These issues are explored below;
— The way that CTP is linked with other forms of programming, including market based approaches (MBP) and
complementary activities, when achieving sectoral outcomes. This reflects observations from respondents
that CTP is one tool among many, and the need to focus on achieving quality outcomes, rather than on a
specific modality; and
— The complex role of markets in generating public goods, for sectors such as shelter and health, and a
concomitant lack of experience, capacity and tools to assess and analyse them from a humanitarian perspective.
The following summarizes some of the main issues of concern for the Shelter, WaSH and Health sectors:
— Shelter: A critical concern for achieving quality outcomes in this sector is the need to build safe, durable shelters,
through ensuring access to suitable materials, complemented as required with awareness raising, community
engagement, technical support, and/or facilitation to overcome regulatory issues. Shelter specialists highlight
the complexity of related markets (e.g., urban rental and construction labour markets) and the weakness of
current understandings of them, which undermines their ability to make robust decisions on the viability of
MPGs and unconditional CTP interventions. The potential of well-designed CTP and MBP to contribute to
quality shelter outcomes is recognized, however, with a growing body of evidence (see the case study on Haiti
in Box 4.5, for an example).
— Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WaSH): WaSH specialists emphasize that no single modality is sufficient for
achieving WaSH outcomes related to achieving safe living environments and public health outcomes that
benefit whole communities and mitigate the impacts of future disasters. These include outcomes such as
the provision of safe water, toilet facilities, waste disposal and drainage. It is argued that a combination of
complementary activities will be required in combination with CTP and market-based approaches, to achieve
WaSH outcomes.
— Health: Determining how CTP can support access to quality health services (generally a public good) is more
complex than in sectors which focus more on providing items at the household level (e.g. food security). Health
specialists have noted the potential for CTP to reduce barriers to healthcare access, and incentivize use of
specific services. Significant concerns remain that MPGs and unconditional transfers in isolation will not achieve
health outcomes, particularly where support is insufficient to cover all household needs. They highlight the
requirement for CTP to be considered as a part of a package of measures on both demand and supply sides,
tailored in accordance with a given context.
95 Global WaSH and Shelter Cluster Joint Advocacy Paper for increased sectoral capacity around Cash Transfer & Market Based Programming. www.alnap.org/
system/files/content/resource/files/main/wash_shelter_cash_advocacy_paper_-_final_version.pdf
58

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 4.5 CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) – HAITI SHELTER RESPONSE CASE STUDY 2016
Context: Hurricane Matthew struck Haiti on 4 October 2016, killing 900 people, and leaving 750,000 in the
need of humanitarian assistance. The hurricane damaged over 100,000 buildings, with over 170,000 people
seeking refuge in temporary shelters as a result.
Market Assessments: Given that Haiti is a hurricane prone area, there is a need for durable housing and shelter.
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) conducted an emergency preparedness pilot for shelter response in 2015–16, to
evaluate the ability of vendors in urban areas of the country to deliver shelter kits in sufficient quantity, at a
competitive price, and in a timely manner. Corrugated galvanized iron (CGI) sheets were identified as the most
important material for post-disaster shelter response.
After Hurricane Matthew, CRS conducted an Emergency Market Assessment and Analysis (EMMA) to assess the
requirements of a shelter response. The CGI available in the market was found to be of low quality. High-quality
CGI would be critical to the success of a shelter intervention to prevent poor quality shelters, vulnerable to
future hurricanes, from being rebuilt. At the same time, the Government of Haiti set standards lower than the
technical advice offered by the Shelter cluster, by recommending the distribution of lower quality materials.
CTP and Market-Based Shelter Response: CRS determined that a market-based approach would be
necessary to ensure a supply of higher quality construction materials to the affected areas. Higher quality CGI
that complied with associated Sphere standards was imported to the country. The market-based approach,
instead of direct distribution, proved to be appropriate to the context, as the CGI market was functional and
structurally competent to deliver the needed material. This approach could support the local economy and
was also more cost-effective than direct distribution, since it minimized administrative costs.
In tandem with this, CRS provided assistance for shelter rehabilitation in the form of unrestricted cash transfers
and e-vouchers, with beneficiaries receiving transfers valuing approximately $160 each to address their shelter
needs. Consumers and vendors stood to benefit from this arrangement, with cash transfers creating demand
for quality construction materials. Simultaneously, it would support local and regional procurement through a
network of mid-level wholesalers to reach the target population.
Utilization of the Assistance: CTP (both restricted and unrestricted) was successful in achieving the intended
outcomes, as a majority of beneficiaries reported buying construction materials, while only a few said they
paid their children’s school tuition, or paid for medical assistance. Beneficiaries preferred cash to in-kind
goods, as it gave them the flexibility to decide which of their most urgent needs they would address first. In a
household survey of 179 beneficiaries by CARE, over 70% reported that they felt safe after the shelter assistance
programme. There was significant involvement of the local authorities, financial service partners and local
implementing agencies. Local partners were involved in targeting, supervision and monitoring of distribution
and follow-up, helping to build their capacities for implementing CTP independently in the process.
Sources: Groupe URD/HERE Geneva (2016) Real Time Evaluation of the Response to Hurricane Matthew Haiti; CRS (2016) Relying on Markets for
Shelter Response to Hurricane Matthew in Haiti; interview with CRS.
There is a growing agreement across sectors that CTP can potentially play an important role in achieving quality
outcomes, whereby needs are addressed through markets, and programmes are appropriately designed.
However, there is some way to go in determining the best ways to achieve this, particularly through unrestricted
and unconditional cash transfers.
In addition to the technical standards and approaches, it is also important to consider the role of operational
standards and processes in contributing to programme quality. This is particularly relevant in relation to improving
collaboration between agencies in delivering CTP in areas such as data sharing and data protection, and using
common systems and platforms. For example, UNHCR wants to use learning from the Common Cash Facility
96
(CCF) in Jordan as a basis for developing related standards on issues such as interoperable data and the use of
common processes for cash delivery. The Collabrative Cash Delivery (CCD) Platform, a partnership of 15 INGOs,
is also examining ways to improve data interoperability across agencies, and strengthening shared processes
at different stages in the programme cycle. The Programme Quality Toolbox includes key actions and resources
relating to operational standards, but overall this is an area which requires significant further work.
96 H. Gilert and L. Austin (2017) Review of the Common Cash Facility Approach in Jordan www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-ccf-jordan-web.pdf
59

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Unrestricted CTP can promote choice and quality, but the evidence needs to be strengthened
Multi-sector programming and multi-purpose cash grants (MPGs): Debates about the role of MPGs in achieving
quality sectoral outcomes are generally rooted in several interrelated concerns: a) beneficiaries may not prioritize
certain sectoral needs, b) markets may not have the right quality of goods or services, or c) beneficiaries may
purchase lower quality goods or services, due to a lack of information, or cost.
It is generally recognized that these concerns are valid, and that MPGs on their own cannot address all needs
and should be implemented in combination with other programme activities. However, this debate also cuts to
the heart of the issue of ‘putting people at the centre’ in terms of decision making and the role of beneficiaries as
rational actors making complicated decisions and trade-offs in times of crisis, rather than more passive recipients.
Some respondents noted that CTP demands new ways of thinking, with choice as a component of quality in
programming to enable beneficiaries to prioritize their own needs. This also points to the broader issue of
participation, and how cash-based assistance can offer different opportunities to include beneficiary perspectives
throughout the programme cycle, including response analysis, design and monitoring.
Ultimately, the use of cash to address multiple needs challenges some of established ways of working in
humanitarian assistance. This includes how quality is defined in terms of outcomes, and who should be involved
in defining what constitutes a successful outcome. Sectoral objectives are not seen as incompatible with the use
of multipurpose cash, but there is a clear drive towards considering broader outcomes, for instance, through
measures of well-being (e.g., use of coping strategies).
In this context, some respondents argue that there is a need to reposition measures of quality around multi-
sectoral objectives and programmes, with cash as a central, but not the only, modality. This is the premise on
which the concept of a ‘Basic Needs’ approach is being explored by a variety of actors, including UNHCR,97 multiple
98
NGOs, and ECHO. For instance, a consortium of aid actors is developing a Basic Needs Assessment methodology
– see case study in Annex 2.5. This aims to enable assessment “CTP and associated debates are a disruptor
of ‘basic needs’, as defined by the affected population, for a system that needs change. Cash forces
disaggregated by context, population group and geography. It better analysis of what is happening in the
was noted that this approach does not fit neatly into the societies we’re working with. It requires
existing sectors and clusters, and could be associated with greater documenting and understanding of
further reforms (see also the critical debate on MPGs (Box 2.5) how the aid is used and impacts.” Anonymous
in Chapter 2).
Some respondents noted that there is limited evidence about the effect of CTP on sector-specific outcomes.
Both the claims and the concerns about CTP cannot yet be substantiated. However, it was also remarked that the
evidence base for some other forms of assistance can be similarly limited or lacking. One interviewee noted that
99
the effectiveness of sensitization messaging in some emergency programmes is unclear. Work to strengthen the
evidence base, including at the sectoral level, is explored in Chapter 6.
Building constructive dialogue and collaborating to address requirements within sectors: Making progress
on all these issues requires constructive dialogue within and between clusters and other stakeholders with an
interest in increasing the scale and quality of CTP on a multi-sectoral basis. Some respondents noted that sector
specialists have felt sidelined in the apparent push to increase the scale of cash, or that not all sectors have not
been adequately involved in developing Minimum Expenditure Baskets (MEBs) in some contexts. Several global
clusters have been identifying how to improve their use of CTP in order to achieve quality outcomes. On this basis
they are developing workstreams covering activities such as capacity building, developing indicators to monitor
CTP, mapping of evidence and research needs, and developing tools, e.g., for analysis of construction labour
markets. These initiatives offer opportunities for wider collaboration.
97 UNHCR’s work on basic needs can be accessed here: www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/590aefc77/basic-needs-approach-refugee-response.html
98 Okular Analytics (2017) Guidance and Toolbox for the Basic Needs Analysis, available at www.cashlearning.org/resources/library/1128-guidance-and-toolbox-
for-the-basic-needs-analysis
99 The evidence gap in this regard is also cited in UNHCR (2016) Cash Based Interventions for WASH Programmes in Refugee Settings (p. 16). http://wash.unhcr.
org/download/cash-based-interventions-for-wash-programmes-in-refugee-settings
60

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Effective monitoring of CTP outcomes requires the identification and use of common indicators and
processes across agencies
The main challenges in monitoring and evaluation for CTP are at the level of outcome monitoring, primarily for
unrestricted transfers, including MPGs:
— Monitoring outcomes in CTP requires data collection from sources outside the usual domain of humanitarian
project monitoring – including from finance departments, financial service providers (FSPs), market vendors
and other public and private sources of market price monitoring data.
— The fungibility of unrestricted cash demands that monitoring goes beyond output level (receipt of assistance)
to demonstrate how funds are used and the changes that result. Ascertaining these results should be best
practice whatever the modality; however, practitioners acknowledged that outcome monitoring has remained
poorly developed outside of the FSL sector.
— The flexibility of cash, to be spent according to people’s needs and priorities, makes it a challenge to determine
appropriate outcome indicators. Respondents highlighted – on the one hand – the need to demonstrate
attainment of the specific (sectoral) outcomes for which cash was given, whilst – on the other hand – looking
beyond these to capture the ‘added value’ of this more flexible assistance for beneficiaries.
— The growth of MPGs presents a specific challenge here, since it requires monitoring attainment of needs
across multiple sectors. At the same time, there are limitations on the accuracy and use of expenditure data
due to recall periods, and the fact that cash support will generally form part of wider household income and
expenditure. For these reasons, USAID/the Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) noted that they don’t
require partners to collect expenditure data when reporting on outcome indicators for MPGs.
Respondents were relatively unanimous on the need to agree on and use common indicators for monitoring the
outcomes of CTP, and that such indicators were needed across sectors. However, it was also noted that it is
important for comparative analyses of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability that common indicators be
employed across modalities where possible, i.e., outcomes as a reflection of needs shouldn’t be CTP-specific, even
if the processes to identify them and requirement for more
aggregated analysis differ. Similarly, monitoring of cash-based “Cash is changing the nature of conversations
assistance should be integrated with monitoring of other on the aim of M&E. It’s no longer about simply
complementary programming activities. For sectoral checking receipt of items, it’s more about
programmes, many respondents recognized the need to go checking the uses of the cash. It’s moving
beyond sector-specific indicators to (i) capture the diverse away from the paternalistic approach [to
utilization of cash by beneficiaries and (ii) build understanding defining success] of ‘we gave assistance
of how expenditure decisions contribute to broader well-being, to you for X, not Y’. It’s about considering
beyond sector-specific objectives. This was recognized to be outcomes for households, and accepting that
essential on programmes using MPGs, as was the use of their perception of needs, or their priorities,
outcome indicators that align with beneficiaries’ self-identified may be different to our own” Relief International
priority needs – since not all sectoral expenditures will be given
equal weighting. Donors and implementing agencies commented on the challenges that agencies have faced in
developing a ‘good enough’ and manageable approach to monitoring outcomes for cash.
Furthermore, some respondents also highlighted the importance of going beyond these indicators to build
understanding of the factors influencing expenditure decisions of households, the extent to which the receipt
of cash assistance influences or changes overall spending patterns, and the reasons why particular outcomes are
not achieved.
Since 2016, several initiatives have been developed with the aim of building this capacity. Donors such as ECHO
and USAID have been developing standard outcome indicators per sector – for use across all modalities. The
Norwegian Refugee Council has set up an innovation fund to develop monitoring guidance for those programmes
that have the potential for cross-sectoral outcomes. CaLP has published Monitoring Guidance for CTP in
Emergencies,100 which includes specific guidance on monitoring the outcomes of MPGs, and proposes two
approaches that can be used simultaneously: (i) the use of composite indicators (based on collation of multiple
sector-specific indicators), and (ii) the use of indices and scales for measuring coping strategies and broader well-
100 CaLP (2017) Monitoring Guidance for CTP in Emergencies, available at www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-ctp-monitoring-web.pdf
61

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
being, which are cross-sectoral in nature. ECHO is adopting these approaches within their results framework for
MPGs. These monitoring approaches have been piloted in part on a basic needs intervention in Nigeria (see case
study in Annex 2.5). Practitioners have highlighted the challenges of using an expanded Coping Strategies Index
(CSI) that goes beyond food to capture a complete picture of well-being. This is due to the complexity of the CSI
method, which needs to be tailored according to context, and recognition of the difficulties of capturing within
an index the range and variation in types of coping strategies and how they are used.
BOX 4.6 PERCEIVED LACK OF Ensuring that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms are
CAPACITY IN M&E FOR CTP put in place for CTP is a commitment under the Grand Bargain.
However, in 2017 only 19% of signatories reported relevant
101
progress in building this capacity. Our research reflects this,
where only 39% of respondents in the practitioner survey agree
that humanitarian agencies have appropriate M&E mechanisms in
place for CTP (Box 4.6). Similar concerns were voiced during
interviews. However, respondents acknowledged that this reflects
limitations in M&E capacity within humanitarian programming
102
generally.
4/10 Further progress to build capacity for CTP outcome monitoring
Practitioners believe humanitarian requires greater collaboration among clusters and implementing
agencies have appropriate M&E agencies – to agree on monitoring approaches and indicators
mechanisms in place for CTP. that can be accepted across agencies and sectors – and among
donors. Currently, different donor mandates and priorities lead
to conflicting requirements for monitoring and reporting. In our study, limited collaboration among agencies
emerged as a key barrier to progress here. 56% of respondents in the practitioner survey do not agree that there
has been greater collaboration among agencies around the M&E of CTP. Going forward, this is a priority area of
work as part of the Grand Bargain and GHD cash workstreams, through which a number of donors are already in
discussion regarding harmonizing outcome indicators for CTP.
role of beneficiary preferences in measuring outcomes and determining modality decisions: It was noted
above that beneficiary choice has a role to play in defining and measuring quality in outcomes. This requires
effective ways to capture beneficiary perspectives and integrate them into outcome measurement. Better
understanding of beneficiary perspectives may also support more effective response analysis and selection of
programming modalities. Implementing organizations collect data from “M&E is the first item to be slashed
beneficiaries to monitor and evaluate their own projects, but this may not from the budget”. Anonymous
allow the necessary breadth or neutrality to properly assess preferences
and perspectives at the aggregate response level.
The Cash Barometer (Box 4.7), which is being piloted in 2017, aims to help fill this gap. Findings from the first
pilot in Afghanistan revealed that beneficiaries prefer cash compared to other modalities. It also revealed that in
some cases, beneficiaries incorrectly thought assistance was delivered by government, which could have political
implications.
101 GPPI (2017) Independent Grand Bargain Report. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/independent-grand-bargain-report
102 Similar conclusions are reached in CaLP’s CTP Monitoring Guidance (2017) – include resourcing of and the capacity to undertake monitoring activities.
62

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 4.7 CAPTURING BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVES THROUGH THE CASH BAROMETER
Whilst the potentially positive effects of CTP have been clearly demonstrated, gaps exist in policy makers’
understandings of how CTP – and particularly cash ‘at scale’ – is perceived by intended beneficiaries. Existing
feedback on cash-based assistance is mostly project-specific and focused on what people buy or consume.
Through understanding more about how the humanitarian ‘cash revolution’ is experienced by those intended
to benefit from it, and the concerns affected people have, the Cash Barometer aims to inform a more effective
roll-out of CTP worldwide. The initiative is currently being piloted by Ground Truth Solutions and CaLP.
The Cash Barometer combines quantitative surveys with qualitative approaches to collect data on users’
perspectives. Questions relate to the perceived fairness, quality, relevance and effectiveness of CTP and of
cash in combination with other modalities. The Barometer aims to monitor perceptions, expectations and
ultimately satisfaction of cash recipients and host communities at an aggregated level.
In 2017 the tool is being piloted in Afghanistan, Turkey and Lebanon. It aims to provide actionable information
that can be translated into response-specific programme improvements, as well as informing global policy
debates.
For example, in Afghanistan, evidence from 598 respondents has been used to inform programme design and
communications strategies. People affected by crisis largely preferred CTP over in-kind aid and they considered
cash more relevant than other types of aid. This preference was particularly strong among women. At the same
time communities perceived – incorrectly – that assistance was coming from the government of Afghanistan
rather than humanitarian agencies. Corruption was considered likely; even more likely than for in-kind aid. See
www.cashbarometer.org for details.
In Lebanon and Turkey, the forthcoming pilots are designed to inform national and global debates about the
efficiency and effectiveness of more harmonized approaches to CTP – for example, through understanding
differences in beneficiary opinions between those who have received assistance from a single agency and
those who have received it from more than one. Data will show perceptions around where aid is coming
from, the level of trust in local and international cash providers, and to what extent affected people feel that
humanitarian cash transfer programmes take their views into account.
The tool is designed for regular use across a response, with the potential for in-depth thematic or geographic
application. Ground Truth and CaLP will engage cash coordination structures in response countries, as well as
a global approach to include individual humanitarian cash experts, and recipients of transfers to discuss pilot
findings and refine the approach in early 2018.
Source: Interview Ground Truth Solutions; data from Afghanistan pilot (accessed July 2017).
63

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
The potential of humanitarian CTP to enhance financial inclusion is context specific
Facilitating pathways to financial inclusion when possible and appropriate is one of the Principles for Digital
103
Payments in Humanitarian Response (often called the ‘Barcelona Principles’). Our research found different views
about how humanitarian CTP can be used to strengthen financial inclusion. 64% of respondents in the practitioner
survey agree that financial inclusion is a realistic objective for humanitarian cash and voucher programming. Yet
interviews and focus groups highlighted the need for careful contextualization of such statements. The potential
added value of CTP, and of humanitarian actors, in contributing to financial inclusion, is an area of current debate
among practitioners (see Box 4.8).
BOX 4.8 CRITICAL DEBATE: THE ROLE OF CTP AND HUMANITARIAN ACTORS
IN FINANCIAL INCLUSION
There is growing interest in the potential of CTP to contribute to financial inclusion. Humanitarian beneficiaries
are often ‘unbanked’ (i.e., new to formal financial services), and there is potential for humanitarian assistance
to connect them to financial providers. This has been often cited as an additional benefit of CTP and of using
electronic payment systems. For example, the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers recommended
that CTPs capitalize on e-payment systems where possible, and in a manner that furthers financial inclusion. It
is also cited as an area where the humanitarian-development divide can be bridged, in line with the New Way
of Working.
While the majority of interview respondents and FGD participants agreed with the aspiration of contributing
to longer term financial inclusion in principle, a significant number expressed doubts about how achievable
this would be in practice. They pointed out that the assumed benefits of CTP to improve financial inclusion are
neither being resourced nor systematically monitored.
Respondents consider that whether financial inclusion should be an objective for CTP or not depends on the
nature of the crisis – its predictability and time horizon. In case of a sudden onset crisis, expectations that the
programme could also improve financial inclusion were generally considered to be unrealistic.
The importance of financial services to the success of CTPs is acknowledged, along with the value of activities
to increase access to them. However, respondents also questioned the ability of short-term humanitarian
CTPs to effectively influence the enabling environment and the expansion of such financial services, since
humanitarian CTP is not seen to be a significant factor in the business model of service providers. Some
respondents also questioned the relevance of this as a priority area of investment for humanitarian actors and
funds, since money spent here is not spent on meeting more immediate needs. They suggested instead that it
would be better dealt with by development partners and governments.
There was agreement that financial inclusion objectives – if they are to be included in humanitarian CTP –
should be based on an understanding of the context-specific barriers to financial inclusion, supported by
concrete activities and resources, and the expected outcomes monitored.
103 Available at https://static.globalinnovationexchange.org/s3fs-public/asset/document/Digital-Payments-Humanitarian-Principles_0.pdf
64

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Recent research by ELAN (see Box 4.9), suggests that there may be only limited opportunities for humanitarian CTP
to contribute to financial inclusion objectives, and only when carefully and explicitly designed for this purpose.
This resonates with evidence about the challenges in achieving financial inclusion on longer term development-
104
focused cash transfer programmes.
BOX 4.9 INVESTIGATING LINKAGES BETWEEN FINANCIAL INCLUSION AND CTP USING
E-TRANSFERS
The Electronic Cash Transfer Learning Action Network (ELAN) seeks to improve the impact of humanitarian cash
transfers through appropriate use of e-payments technology. Between 2015 and 2017, one workstream has
been dedicated to understanding the connection between humanitarian CTP and longer-term access to and
use of financial services. ELAN commissioned operational research in three emergency contexts (Zimbabwe
– medium-term response to drought and food shortage; Ethiopia – drought response as a component of
a longer-term development programme; and Bangladesh – rapid response to flooding), to understand the
barriers and enabling factors influencing uptake and use of newly introduced financial services among
e-transfer recipients.
The study revealed that humanitarian cash transfers through mobile money did increase the use of specific
financial services for the duration of the programme, but did not automatically lead to adoption of all products
and services, or to sustained uptake, by beneficiaries. It was the exception rather than the rule that beneficiaries
used their accounts for financial transactions after the CTP finished.
Influencing factors include: access to phone handsets; trust in the company, products and services offered,
and the local agents; convenience of services to beneficiaries, for example, due to the distance to local agents,
level of adoption of e-payment services by local retailers and service providers, and digital literacy; and the
relevance of the products and services to the lives of individuals outside of the CTP – including potential
overlap and competition with existing informal mechanisms that people are more accustomed to using.
The research concludes that financial inclusion objectives on humanitarian programmes can be feasible where
such preconditions are met or where these can realistically be built. Such objectives were most successfully met
in Ethiopia, where the INGO had a pre-existing relationship with the financial service provider and where the
activities were supported as part of a longer-term development project. These investments, while important,
can take considerable time and are not well-suited to the short horizons of many humanitarian responses.
Source: Bailey (2017) Electronic Transfers in Humanitarian Assistance and Uptake of Financial Services: a Synthesis of ELAN Case Studies, HPG
Report for ODI; interview with Mercy Corps.
These findings are corroborated by several recent experiences of using e-payment systems in cash-based
responses at scale. In Zimbabwe (see case study in Annex 2.3) there was a considerable increase in the adoption of
mobile money services for buying goods and services by CTP beneficiaries, largely due to changes in the enabling
environment (the liquidity crisis) which made storing funds and transacting through e-cash more relevant and
necessary for beneficiaries. In DRC (see case study in Annex 2.4), the assumption that CTP could influence the
expansion of coverage of these financial services in the affected areas has proven unfounded. In Somalia (see case
study in Annex 2.7) there is some emerging evidence that the provision of mobile phones and the use of mobile
money to delivery cash transfers has helped to expand their use, although this is in a context in which the use of
mobile money is already widespread.
The emerging evidence from these experiences suggests that the enabling environment for e-transfers, and for
financial inclusion, needs to be developed ahead of an emergency, if such services are to be effectively leveraged
for CTP. Similar lessons were learned in the Ebola response in Liberia, where the government is now taking steps
to improve coverage of e-transfer services and financial inclusion as part of disaster preparedness (see case study
in Annex 2.6). Such investments could have clear added value for emergency preparedness and response, but are
increasingly seen as a development policy and regulatory issue that needs long-term discussion and investment,
rather than short-term engagement post-emergency. The added value, or role, that humanitarian actors can or
should play in this space remains unclear.
104 Use of electronic payment systems on long term social protection programmes are often presented as an opportunity to bring financial services to the
unbanked. However, evidence shows that most recipients withdraw their cash transfer shortly after it comes available – Smith (2014) Innovations in Social
Protection Payment Delivery: Literature Review for DFAT; CGAP (2014) Electronic G2P Payments: Evidence from Four Lower-Income Countries.
65

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Priority Actions
4.1 Desig n and implement cash-based assistance to contribute as effectively and efficiently as possible to
strategic outcomes. [GFA 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4]
— Agencies should systematically ensure that cash-based assistance is designed and implemented on the basis
of the best available standards and evidence.
— Programmes should be designed to contribute effectively and efficiently to strategic outcomes for the whole
humanitarian response, in line with beneficiaries’ preferences. Agencies should assume that this will involve
collaborating with other actors, in all areas from assessment to delivery and monitoring, rather than operating
independently. This may involve using a variety of modalities, including multi-purpose cash grants.
— Humanitarian programmes should build on existing infrastructure and systems where possible, such as social
protection systems, local networks or financial services and communications providers.
4.2 Develop common tools for managing the quality of CTP. [GFA 4.1]
— Agencies, donors and coordinating bodies should improve the common tools available to manage the quality
of CTP. They should continue to build on existing initiatives to develop tools at global, national and operational
levels. Tools should link to shared definitions of quality and include: outcome indicators, standards, guidance
and operational tools (e.g. for assessment, delivery or monitoring).
— The process of developing tools should involve a range of actors bringing different perspectives, to build
quality, legitimacy and uptake. Common tools will enable better collaboration, based on best practice, to
contribute as much as possible to strategic outcomes.
— Tools will need to be systematically updated and promoted.
4.3 I ntegrate CTP into existing mechanisms for managing the quality of humanitarian action. [GFA 4.2]
— CTP should be integrated into existing and new procedures and guidance, in areas such as: humanitarian
programme cycles, coordination processes and funding decisions. This should be undertaken with due
consideration given to best practices from across the humanitarian sector, with lessons shared between
organizations and countries. Tools for managing the quality of CTP, such as standards and guidance, will be
most influential when they are integrated into overall humanitarian standards, guidance, frameworks and
initiatives. This reflects CTP becoming a mainstream part of humanitarian assistance.
66

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 5: COORDINATION
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 5: STRENGTHEN COORDINATION OF CTP
Coordination of CTP remains ad hoc and contested. As a result, the efficiency and effectiveness of CTP is undermined. It
is not clear which organization(s) should be responsible for CTP coordination, or the extent to which the planning and
coordination of MPGs should transcend sectors, and this limits progress. More evidence is needed about when and how
humanitarian CTP should best link with social protection systems.
Global Objective 5 Supporting Actions
Strengthen 5.1 Host governments play a leading role in strategic coordination of CTP throughout a
coordination of cash response, where possible and consistent with humanitarian principles.
transfer programming 5.2 Develop a predictable approach to strategic coordination by international actors, and
(Grand Bargain #5) implement it where necessary.
5.3 Link humanitarian CTPs to existing social protection systems, legislation and infrastructure
to the greatest extent possible.
5.4 All significant local and international actors actively participate in strategic and operational
coordination mechanisms, share information, use common approaches and collaborate
with each other as much as possible.
The problem of poor coordination of CTP and its impacts are well documented
105
The limitations of cash coordination are now well understood. Since 2015, several studies shed light on and
reached consensus on the key issues – specifically the ad hoc and fragmented approach to cash coordination,
which is not formally or consistently embedded within the humanitarian coordination architecture. This poses
challenges that limit the efficiency and effectiveness of the scaling up of CTP. These challenges and their impacts
are summarized in Box 5.1. Experiences in Nepal in the 2015 earthquake response, documented as a case study
(see Annex 2.1), illustrate several of these challenges.
105 World Bank (2016) Strategic Note on Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts, a report for the Inter-Agency Standing Committee http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/697681467995447727/Strategic-note-cash-transfers-in-humanitarian-contexts; GPPi (2017) White Paper on Cash Coordination
www.cashlearning.org/downloads/gppi-(2017)-policy-paper-on-cash-coordination.pdf ; CaLP (2015) Cash Coordination in the Philippines: A Review of Lessons
Learned www.cashlearning.org/downloads/cash-coordination-philippines-web-2.pdf; ODI (2017) Challenging the System: Humanitarian Cash Transfers in Iraq;
ODI (2017) The Politics of Cash: a Case Study on Humanitarian Cash Transfers in Ukraine www.odi.org/publications/10764-time-change-harnessing-potential-
humanitarian-cash-transfers.
67

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 5.1 CHALLENGES CAUSED BY THE AD HOC APPROACH TO CASH COORDINATION
Challenges created Impacts
— Delays in setting up cash coordination — Lack of harmonized approaches to assessment and
mechanisms such as Cash Working Groups (CWGs). design, creating confusion among beneficiaries.
— Limited engagement of strategic decision makers — Duplication of efforts among agencies, reducing
early in the response (cluster leads; Inter Cluster cost efficiency of the response.
Coordinators; Humanitarian Country Teams (HCT); — Inter-agency tensions, extensive negotiations and
governments). disagreements between agencies.
— No clear mandate or role in the formal — Reduced ownership and buy-in for CTP from
coordination architecture (especially the ICC and sectors.
HCT) for CWGs mean they are useful for technical/ — Constraints to development of quality cash
operational aspects but lack ability to fulfil responses for all needs, and of multi-sectoral
strategic coordination functions – especially where approaches that integrate MPGs and other
CWGs lack links to or representation in clusters. complementary assistance.
— No clear locus for the planning and coordination — Reduced legitimacy or status of CWG decisions, in
of MPGs. particular around intersectoral coordination and
— Limited mobilization of resources needed for MPGs.
effective cash coordination. — Lack of resources for institutionalizing cash
— No designated leadership between aid agencies. coordination mechanisms outside of active
— Reliance on implementing agencies for responses, limiting preparedness planning.
coordination meaning particular sectors and — Lack of strategic, joint analysis and decision
expertise tend to dominate coordination decisions making on cash, the use of MPGs, or where these
– which should be collective, neutral, and not sit within multi-sectoral responses programming,
linked to the needs of a single programme or actor. especially where CWGs are not connected to the
— Lack of adequate links to national social protection cluster system.
systems or inclusion of host governments and local — Delays/mixed messages as government are not on
civil society in decisions. board with or not up to speed with CTP.
Source: Authors, based on content from GPPI (2017) White Paper on Cash Coordination www.cashlearning.org/downloads/gppi-(2017)-policy-
paper-on-cash-coordination.pdf
It is recognized that these challenges are most acutely felt in the coordination of MPGs, which do not fit into the
current sectoral divisions of the humanitarian coordination system. This in turn constrains adoption of multi-
sectoral programming in its fullest sense and limits the potential of MPGs as a programming tool.
Studies highlight widespread agreement across humanitarian actors, including senior decision makers, on the
need to formalize cash coordination, particularly at country/response-level, while retaining the flexibility to
adapt coordination mechanisms based on context. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Principals have
endorsed the World Bank’s Strategic Note on Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts calls for such formalization
measures to be taken (although it does not make explicit recommendations on how this should be done).
The barriers to improving cash coordination are not being adequately addressed
Despite this agreement, over the past two years, little progress is perceived to have been made in this area.
Respectively, only 41% and 48% of respondents in the practitioner survey agree that the predictability and quality
of cash coordination has increased in the past year. As seen in Box 5.2, both national actors and donors are more
critical here than implementing agencies.
68

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 5.2 PRACTITIONER VIEWS ON PREDICTABILITY AND QUALITY OF CTP COORDINATION
Only a few practitioners believe that predictability and quality of CTP coordination has increased in the past year.
View on predictability View on quality of
of coordination by coordination by
organization type organization type
INGO(119) 50% INGO(115) 57%
Average(210) 41% Average(204) 48%
Red Cross(18) 33% Red Cross(18) 44%
Un Agency(31) 32% Un Agency(29) 41%
Donor(11) 27% Donor(12) 8%
*Number in brackets indicates the total respondents, excluding no basis responses
BOX 5.3 TOP FIVE PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE The main perceived barriers to
COORDINATION OF CTP IN A HUMANITARIAN effective coordination of CTP in a
RESPONSE humanitarian response are detailed in
Box 5.3. Lack of support from clusters,
Confusion about where coordination for 63% implementers, donors or host
CTP sits in the international system governments are not seen as critical
Limited commitment to use shared 41% barriers. The main barriers include: no
operational mechanisms
No leader of cash coordination in the defined place for cash coordination
humanitarian system 40% within the international humanitarian
Limited resources for coordinating bodies 32% system; lack of leadership for cash
coordination; and limited resources
Lack of support from host governments 28% for coordinating bodies. In addition,
the limited commitment of agencies
to use shared operational mechanisms
was considered significant. These issues are discussed further below. Organizations interviewed highlighted that
this ongoing coordination challenge is a critical barrier to achieving global commitments on improving the scale,
efficiency and effectiveness of cash assistance.
Lack of progress in formalizing cash coordination in the humanitarian system
This lack of progress in formalizing cash coordination means barriers to effective cash coordination persist, at
strategic and operational levels. Those interviewed cited: a lack of clarity about where cash should sit within the
formal coordination system to enable multi-sectoral coordination, “This is a huge gap. At the root of it, cash
which limits the positioning of cash – especially MPGs – within coordination is not having a clearly defined
Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs); lack of agreed leadership place in the humanitarian coordination
for cash coordination; lack of a formal and consistent structure for system. This is a real reason inhibiting the
cash coordination; and no formal endorsement of, mandate for or scale up of cash.” Anonymous
embedding of CWGs within the aid architecture.
Efforts of donors and others to partially address this, such as by funding coordination positions through CashCAP
and bilateral funding in emergency responses, have not been successful on a sustainable basis, since the
coordination structure is not formalized, positions are only temporary, and are not institutionalized. CashCAP
report high demand for coordination roles, and that there are capacity gaps in this regard.106 They intend in
future to focus primarily on technical coordination deployments. They also note that the lack of global clarity on
the position of cash coordination poses a challenge, as those deployed are working with a range of coordination
arrangements – and without a clear model for how their work should be undertaken.
106 For example, in Nigeria a request for a technical coordination post was unable to be filled after 8 months.
69

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Other efforts to address this by coordination entities include the ongoing capacity building of coordination staff
107
within OCHA, the integration of fully funded strategic cash coordination positions in countries such as Pakistan,
Somalia, Nigeria, and DRC, and inclusion of cash coordination as explicit activities in OCHA coordinator’s terms of
reference (TORs) and workplans. However, the lack of formal arrangements is perpetuating the same coordination
challenges and limitations in recent responses, as documented in case studies for Nigeria, where OCHA stepped
in to provide coordination functions and support (see Annex 2.5), and Somalia (Annex 2.7) where the lack of
institutionalization of the CWG between emergencies reduced effective preparedness and harmonization.
The main reason for this lack of progress is because of a deadlock, since early 2016, on how to take forward the
recommendations from the World Bank/IASC Strategic Note. Stakeholders consulted for the GPPI report, and for
this research highlight three reasons for this:
— A lack of practical guidance on ways to take forward the “This [lack of coordination] makes it difficult
recommendations of the report, leading to different from a donor perspective, to say ‘let’s scale
interpretations by organizations on how the commitments up cash’, when programs are not harmonized,
should be operationalized, and different underlying visions and when there is no single point of contact for
of what a cash coordination function will be responsible for. cash in the response. For cash to be effective
— The debate about the appropriate model(s) for cash it needs to be intricately linked to sectoral
coordination has become politicized. Cash coordination and inter-sector coordination to ensure
is seen by some as going hand in hand with control of interventions are meeting needs.” USAID
common cash delivery mechanisms for large-scale CTPs;
leading response analysis decisions and determining the allocation of resources for CTPs; and controlling
growing budgets for MPGs at the expense of individual sectors. These links have not been formally made – in
the IASC report or by donors. This debate also reflects ongoing tensions between the coordinating roles of
different entities (linked to their mandates) in different contexts.
— Lack of leadership from the IASC on what should be done, to navigate this impasse.
There is consensus that this must be resolved to take cash to scale.
It was noted by an interviewee that this isn’t solely about CTP, “At global coordination meetings, there is
and can also be framed in terms of the improvements needed for a turf war going on between the three UN
better coordination overall, to overcome the fragmentations and agencies on who should ‘own’ cash – this is not
silos in the current system. Whilst the model or models are still helpful.” Anonymous
to be determined, the views of those practitioners interviewed
mirror the conclusions of the GPPI report:
— Little support for creating a new, separate cluster for cash or for mainstreaming cash coordination into existing
sectoral clusters.
— Strong support for a solution that would involve an overall reform of the coordination architecture, to include
a ‘Basic Needs Approach’ alongside further sector-specific assistance. However, most stakeholders see this as a
medium- to long-term (five years plus) change.
— In the short- to medium-term, there was broad agreement among those interviewed that cash coordination
should be situated at the inter-cluster or inter-sector level (as suggested by the IASC Strategic Note), to better
ensure strategic consideration of cash across sectors, consideration of MPGs in the design of HRPs and a multi-
sectoral approach to assessment, planning, implementation and coordination of humanitarian assistance. The
chair or co-chair of any CWG should be a member of this inter-sector coordination mechanism to link strategic
decisions to technical design and implementation. There is however, not yet a consensus on whether HRPs should
include a separate chapter for multi-sectoral assistance within which MPGs could be coordinated and funded.
— Broad agreement that the coordination leadership role should not extend to leading response decision
making, delivering cash or vouchers, or allocating resources and that it should ideally be segregated from
implementation aspects of programming.
107 Over 50 OCHA staff trained as of September 2017
70

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
At the meeting of the Cash workstream of the Grand Bargain in May–June 2017, the group recognized the need
for the IASC to provide guidance on cash coordination (processes, leadership and institutions) globally, to include
108
MPGs for basic needs in HRPs, and to include cash coordination in Humanitarian Coordinator and Humanitarian
Country Team (HCT) TORs. They also acknowledged that the Humanitarian Coordinator should be accountable
for timely activation of CWGs and agreement to undertake joint advocacy to the IASC on these issues. The group
109
will be requesting the IASC to clarify their position and take action on these issues.
At the meeting of the GHD committee in June 2017, there was collective agreement on the need for IASC to
provide leadership and guidance for formalizing cash coordination structures and functions and agreement to
110
engage with the IASC on these issues. Subsequent to these discussions, there was also an agreement to build
cash into Inter-Cluster TORs.
Since January 2017, OCHA has convened a CTP Task Team for “If we don’t get coordination right, we won’t
the Global Cluster Coordinators (GCC) Group. The Task Team get CTP right. With the current set-up we’re
identified a range of areas of work, including: a functional missing opportunities in terms of how to best
mapping of CWGs and inter-relations with clusters; capacity address needs”. Anonymous
building; clarity and guidelines on information management,
specifically the reporting of CTP; and building on the work carried out for the global Food Security Cluster for
111
cluster level cash coordination guidance, to develop something with more multi-sectoral applicability. Whilst
there have been some initial challenges in achieving agreement and buy-in across the clusters, activities are
progressing and the GCC has agreed that cash should be coordinated at the inter-sector level, with both strategic
and technical level components. OCHA has commissioned an independent study to compare models of cash
coordination, develop standard CWG TORs and recommendations on linking cluster coordination to CWGs.
OCHA plans to build the capacity of Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs), Inter-Cluster Coordinators, Information
Management Officers and Humanitarian Financing staff in CTP, and ensure that cash assistance is discussed in
all strategic forums from the beginning of a response, across sectors. OCHA is also working to incorporate cash
coordination into the TORs for HCs/HCTs and the ICC Group.
Similarly, in parallel, UNHCR has been working to integrate their Basic Needs Approach (BNA), providing MPGs
112
alongside other sector-specific support, into the Refugee Coordination Model. The BNA is seen as an integral
part of the multi-sectoral approach that the Refugee Coordination Model is based on and is central to the
Common Refugee Response Framework. The BNA is being coordinated at an inter-sectoral level, through multi-
113
sectoral working groups (CWGs and basic needs assistance working groups).
There is a lack of commonly agreed processes for technical coordination – though Cash Working Groups are
highly regarded and are filling a critical gap
Only 28% of survey respondents agree that humanitarian agencies currently make the best use of common
mechanisms for assessment, delivery or monitoring on CTPs. Here, donors are more sceptical of progress, whereas
implementing agencies rated this more highly. This could be because implementing agencies’ perspectives
relate to specific examples of progress on the ground (in specific contexts), whereas donors have a more global
perspective at a scale at which the impact of these case-by-case interventions is yet to be felt.
Respondents reported some good progress on adopting more harmonized approaches to assessments,
targeting and calculating transfer values/amounts. Indeed, those interviewed highlighted how humanitarian
actors have often made efforts to coordinate between themselves, in the absence of strategic guidance and
direction. Stakeholders perceived these collaborative working methods to have added value by reducing
duplication of effort and facilitating the consideration of responses that meet the needs of affected populations
across sectors. Criticisms were voiced, however, particularly in relation to the unnecessary complexity and time
108 This point was also made in the Global Cash Forum, held in June 2017. See CaLP (2017) Global Cash Forum Report available at www.cashlearning.org/
downloads/gcf-final-report-august-2017-1.pdf
109 WFP/DFID (2017) Report of the First Workshop of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream, 31 May–1 June 2017
110 DFID/Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2017) Report on the GHD Cash Workstream Workshop, 15 June 2017.
111 gFSC (2017) Food Security Cluster Coordinator Cash Transfers Briefing Package: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/food-security-cluster-coordinator-cash-
transfers-briefing-package
112 Framework for delivering all assistance and protection in refugee contexts.
113 UNHCR (2017) Basic Needs Approach in the Refugee Response.
71

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
consuming nature of certain processes, which limits their added value. The prior planning and institutionalization
of approaches to particular issues ahead of an emergency remains inadequate. The DRC, Lebanon and Somalia
case studies (Annexes 2.4, 2.8 and 2.7) highlight both positive experiences and challenges faced with operational
coordination.
These experiences – and those in Liberia (Annex 2.6) – demonstrate the importance of a well-functioning CWG
with strong leadership and technical capacity, for improving this coordination between agencies with regard to
114
the design and implementation of CTP. In most emergency contexts, such groups have been established, or
Basic Needs Working Groups have been set up to support
multi-sectoral coordination, including that of CTP. These “If governmental vision for CTP is limited,
have tended to focus on addressing specific technical and efficiency and effectiveness of cash coordination,
operational issues, such as developing common MEBs, and coordination of cash with the wider response,
setting common transfer values, and coordinating will be hampered and will largely depend on
geographical coverage and assessment activities between individuals.” Anonymous
agencies. CWGs are currently organized and chaired by a
variety of different actors, including host governments,
OCHA, other UN agencies and NGOs. They are still set up in a largely ad hoc way, by operational actors to meet
immediate priorities on the ground, and as such, they tend to lack stable resourcing (either in terms of funds or
115
staff) and relationships with strategic oversight bodies. The lack of formal and consistent linkages into existing
humanitarian architecture, including the lack of formal information management for CTP, limits the ability of
CWGs to assume some of the critical strategic coordination functions. Based on data from a mapping undertaken
by OCHA, as of December 2017, there are 30 active CWGs globally.
Roles for local actors in cash coordination need to be improved, and this could be linked to investment in
their capacities
This study highlights the limited progress made to date on commitments to improve the engagement of
governments and other local actors in coordination of CTP. It found little evidence of concrete efforts to
effectively involve local actors – such as local authorities, technical services and civil society organizations – in
cash coordination. This is in line with findings of Chapter 3 concerning issues with capacity building of local actors,
which highlighted that these stakeholders are considered as implementers rather than decision makers. This was
identified by stakeholders during interviews as a significant gap to address, as part of a broader approach to local
capacity building in line with the localization agenda for CTP.
BOX 5.4 TOP 5 PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO GREATER INCLUSION Only 44% of survey respondents
OF LOCAL ACTORS IN CASH COORDINATION perceive that the involvement of
host governments in the
Governments lack expertise in 44% coordination of humanitarian
humanitarian cash programming cash and voucher programming
Civil society organisations lack expertise in 41% has increased in the last year.
humanitarian cash programming There were large regional
Local actors are not aware of humanitarian disparities in opinion, with greater
coordination mechanisms 40% progress perceived in Asia
Lack of clarity on cash coordination compared to Africa. This is
processes and mechanisms within the 33% perhaps reflective of the relatively
international humanitarian system strong interest and leadership
Corruption issues with 25% role of national governments in
local actors and government disaster response within Asia, as
well as the types of emergency
(i.e. in more complex crises, government involvement and leadership can become more difficult to reconcile with
humanitarian principles). Findings are substantiated by the organization survey, where only 57% of respondents
consider that their organization works with governments to implement CTP.
114 For example, see the lists of CWGs, contact points and meeting minutes available on CaLP’s website at www.cashlearning.org
115 Though it should be noted that arrangements vary considerably from context to context; a handful of CWGs have been formally integrated into the coordination
architecture (e.g., in Iraq, Ukraine, and South Sudan these groups are sub-groups of the ICC Group) and some others (e.g. in Afghanistan and Yemen) have
significant influence at the ICCG and HCT.
72

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Box 5.4 illustrates the main perceived barriers to greater inclusion of local actors in cash coordination. Interviews and
FGDs highlight less ideological opposition among humanitarian actors to the idea of government involvement on
116
the grounds of upholding humanitarian principles, and more openness from host governments to collaborate
on CTP. The lack of expertise and awareness of CTP by local actors are perceived to pose the most significant
barriers. Continued lack of clarity on formal cash coordination processes within the international humanitarian
system is also thought to limit their consistent engagement.
There are positive examples emerging wherein host governments have effectively contributed to the coordination
of cash responses. Lessons from Turkey (see Annex 2.2) and Liberia (see Annex 2.6), as well as documented
117
experiences of cash coordination in the Philippines suggest that the following are enabling factors:
— Engaging host governments as members or co-leads of national CWGs.
— The government establishing a single line ministry or focal point responsible for engaging on CTP.
— Embedding CTP within strategic discussions on the HRP, alongside other modalities, with an emphasis on the
achievement of needs rather than particular modalities.
— Investments in capacity building as part of preparedness.
— Donor support for engagement of host governments.
— Existence of cash-based social transfer and safety net schemes in country (note: the opportunities and challenges
for linking humanitarian CTP to these national systems are analysed further below).
Meanwhile, emerging experiences from Nigeria (see case study in Annex 2.5) suggest that the process by which
humanitarian actors engage governments must take into account the available time and resources and be
transparent, in order to encourage collaboration.
However, host government actors are still at times seen as being conservative in their attitudes to humanitarian
cash assistance, which may limit acceptance of cash modalities (especially unrestricted transfers and MPGs) in
the response phase, and take valuable time to build awareness and acceptance. This is illustrated by experiences
in Nepal (Annex 2.1). It can present a quandary for humanitarian actors regarding the extent or quality of
engagement with governments in contexts in which there is reluctance on the part of government to support
118
CTP, or particular cash modalities. The gaps in technical support for governments that were highlighted in
Chapter 3 therefore hinder effective coordination of CTP.
Only 28% of respondents considered that national and local organizations are appropriately involved in CTP
coordination mechanisms. Respondents based in global offices of organizations have very low opinions, whereas
the perceptions of national and sub-national staff are substantially more positive.
116 Exception was made for contexts in which government is contributing to the humanitarian crisis or would not be impartial.
117 G. Smith (2015) Cash Coordination in the Philippines: A Review of Lessons Learned, available at www.cashlearning.org/resources/library/639-cash-coordination-in-
the-philippines-a-review-of-lessons-learned-during-the-response-to-super-typhoon-haiyan
118 For example, this was an issue in Haiti in the hurricane Matthew response – some government actors, based on negative experiences after the 2011 earthquake,
were reluctant to move to large-scale unconditional CTP as they perceived that this undermined traditional communal labour practices in clean-up efforts.
However humanitarian actors were concerned about the appropriateness of cash for work in the majority of the worst-hit areas, and moved ahead with
unconditional cash (Source: UN OCHA Key Informant).
73

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
The case for linking humanitarian CTP with national social protection systems is becoming clearer but
requires long-term technical and strategic support
This study has highlighted the growing interest and experience among humanitarian actors in linking
humanitarian CTP with national social protection systems. The potential is recognized to leverage national
social protection programmes and their underlying systems to support humanitarian response, and thereby
119
support the development of emerging social protection systems to become more ‘shock responsive’. 50%
120
of survey respondents report that their organization has worked with governments, on some level, to
use national social protection systems for delivery of cash assistance. Respondents based in Southern Asia
reported most positively, perhaps reflecting recent developments in this regard in the region. Similarly, 32 of
the organizations that are signatories of the Grand Bargain report that they have made increased investments
in social protection programmes and in strengthening national and local systems to build resilience in fragile
121
contexts. Three of the responses that feature as case studies in this report (Nepal, Liberia and Turkey – see
Annexes 2.1, 2.6 and 2.2) have linked or coordinated with national safety nets – in different ways, and to
varying degrees. In Turkey, these initiatives reach significant scale with the EUR 348 million Emergency Social
Safety Net (ESSN) programme for Syrian refugees in Turkey, implemented by the Turkish government, Turkish
Red Crescent and WFP, which aims to support one million refugees to meet their basic needs. There are also
ongoing investments by donors and UN agencies to advance this agenda through research, synthesis of
emerging good practices and development of guidance for policy makers and practitioners. Some ongoing
initiatives are shown in Box 5.5.
119 There are several different ways in which humanitarian cash assistance can link with national social protection systems. Growing literature on this topic highlights
consensus on some common ways in which social protection (particularly social transfer programmes) can bridge the development and humanitarian divide.
The DFID-funded research into shock-responsive social protection (see Box 5.5) has developed a useful typology that summarizes these approaches: i) Vertical
expansion: temporarily increasing the benefit value or duration of the benefit provided on an existing social protection programme, for all or some of the
existing beneficiaries. This can be achieved via an adjustment of transfer amounts, or through the introduction of extraordinary payments or transfers. The
extra support is provided as an integral part of the existing intervention. ii) Horizontal expansion: temporary inclusion of new, disaster affected, beneficiaries
into a social protection programme. This could be done via the extension of the programme’s geographical coverage to underserved areas, an extraordinary
enrolment campaign to rapidly enroll those who fit programme criteria and who have been affected, or modification/relaxation of eligibility criteria to allow
more people to benefit.iii) Piggybacking: using a social protection programme’s administrative framework or systems to deliver assistance, but running the
response programme separately. This could be use of a specific programme’s beneficiary list, national registries or databases of households underpinning social
protection programmes, a particular payment mechanism, or social protection staff. iv) Alignment: an emergency response is deliberately designed to align
with another (actual or emerging/potential future) programme or system. This could be greater alignment of humanitarian interventions into something more
predictable and ‘systemic’ or alignment of a response programme with an existing or future social protection programme, to facilitate potential integration and
national ownership in the future.
120 Note: here n = only 187 respondents.
121 GPPI (2017) Independent Grand Bargain Report. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/independent-grand-bargain-report
74

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 5.5 LINKING HUMANITARIAN CTP TO NATIONAL SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS:
EXAMPLES OF ONGOING INITIATIVES
1
Research into Shock-Responsive Social Protection (DFID 2015–17)
A multi-country research study to better understand whether, and how, long-term social protection systems
can foster resilience to and respond to crises. It examines: (i) social protection and its potential role in shock
response; and (ii) the opportunities for coordination/integration of humanitarian interventions, disaster risk
management and social protection for effective responses to shocks. The project has been implemented
by Oxford Policy Management (OPM) in the Philippines, Pakistan, Lesotho, Mozambique, Mali and the Sahel
region. A range of outputs including country case studies, a synthesis of findings, an extensive literature review,
and a toolkit are to be published by early 2018 to guide practitioners in this emerging field.
Providing Social Protection across the Humanitarian–Development Nexus (DEVCO/ECHO 2016–18)
This aims to develop a flexible guidance package to raise awareness and support practical recommendations
on how, on the one hand, the European Commission (EC) can encourage and support, whenever feasible and
appropriate, the use of social protection mechanisms to mitigate, respond to and recover from crises, and
how, on the other hand, humanitarian interventions can contribute to the progressive building of sustainable
national social protection systems. The primary audience is staff in EC Headquarters, European Union
Delegations and ECHO field offices, with some resources made publicly available through a web platform. The
guidance focuses on the realities and constraints of working in fragile and conflict affected areas and contexts
of cross-border migration.
Conference on Social Protection in Contexts of Fragility and Forced Displacement (UNICEF Sept 2017)
This conference brought together lessons from research and concrete policy responses, in order to develop
evidence-based social protection solutions in contexts of crisis. An outcome document was endorsed by
participants and provides consensus on some of the key considerations for operationalizing this approach
across humanitarian and development spheres, the gaps and the research and policy actions needed to
2
address them.
Mapping of social protection system readiness (UNICEF 2017–18; UNHCR 2017–18)
Both UNICEF and UNHCR are aiming to explore how to use existing or nascent social protection systems –
especially cash transfers – to channel humanitarian assistance during emergencies and protracted crises.
— UNHCR is aiming to gain a better understanding of existing cash-based social transfers and safety nets in
15–20 UNHCR countries of operation through a light-touch mapping exercise to scope out the possible
entry points for supporting displaced populations, for further detailed analysis in 2018.
— UNICEF piloted a light-touch survey tool to assess the ‘readiness’ of national social protection systems to
support shock response. This has formed the basis of a more detailed tool which assesses the social protection
system, the humanitarian system and capacities of implementing agencies – currently being piloted in the
Central Asia region (Tajikistan and Armenia).
1
Visit the project web page for the research outputs.
2
UNICEF (2017) Conference on Social Protection in Contexts of Fragility and Forced Displacement: Outcome Document.
Experiences from research and practice are generating valuable lessons to inform policy debates on the feasibility
and appropriateness of using, and/or building national social protection systems as part of humanitarian cash
assistance. Box 5.6 summarizes the key lessons emerging from research and experiences to date.
75

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 5.6 CRITICAL DEBATE – LINKING HUMANITARIAN CTP TO
NATIONAL SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS
There is a great deal of interest in the potential to link humanitarian CTP to national social protection systems.
Respondents identified a range of perspectives, reflected in the following lessons from research and practice.
Proof of concept is emerging, but more evidence is needed: Experience suggests that, in the appropriate
context, linking to national systems has the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
humanitarian response – reducing the time and resources needed to establish new systems and processes and
improving cooperation between humanitarian agencies and government departments on broader aspects of
the response. However more evidence is needed. There is little evidence yet to substantiate the contribution
that humanitarian programmes can make to strengthening the underlying social protection system.
Determining whether the context is ‘appropriate’ depends on careful assessment and analysis: making a
link will not be the best way of working everywhere, and requires an informed decision to be taken based on
the humanitarian objectives, careful assessment and analysis of the underlying social protection system, and
the wider context. Critical factors to consider are:
— Maturity and coverage of social transfer programmes: programmes that are well established, and with robust
operational processes and staff capacities, offer more opportunity.
— The targeting approach on social transfer programmes: there may be extensive or only limited overlap
between households targeted for social protection and those that are worst affected by a disaster.
— Political will and regulations: without prior engagement and support of government departments involved
in social protection, designing and implementing a linked programme is not possible.
— The humanitarian context and needs to be met: social transfer programmes are geared towards the regular
and predictable distribution of cash to beneficiaries. A linked programme is more suited to meet needs that
are addressed through regular repeated support.
Social protection programmes can be linked to in different ways: national programmes and their underlying
operational systems and processes can be used in ways that leverage their strengths whilst accounting for and
mitigating their limitations. If elements of the operational system present bottlenecks, or if design features are
not well suited for humanitarian assistance, these could potentially be bypassed, or adapted.
Coordination of linked programmes can be challenging in practice: linking humanitarian assistance to social
protection systems requires the involvement of a range of actors with different mandates, concerns and priorities.
It may need to bring together social protection and humanitarian response thematic areas within governments,
donors and international organizations that more commonly operate as separate departments, with different
mandates, sources of funding, and lines of reporting. It may also involve government departments responsible
for managing any underlying databases/registries and setting programme regulations. Establishing ways of
working and securing buy-in of these various stakeholders, ex-post, is not conducive to a timely response. It
also raises the question of how to integrate such activities with the agenda for developing common systems
for cash delivery, since one focuses on using, building or strengthening nationally owned systems whilst the
other prioritizes the development of a separate, parallel system.
While there are potential advantages to linking with national social protection systems to deliver humanitarian
assistance, this way of working will also present challenges, just as with any other programme. Social protection
and humanitarian response have different objectives, and tools or designs to support one will not always be
the best way of achieving the other. Political motivations can influence design features such as targeting, or
setting of the transfer value, and the ‘politically acceptable’ approach may not necessarily be the most effective
from a humanitarian perspective. Engagement with and capacity building of national governments, whilst
desirable, is not always a smooth process – particularly if departments are unfamiliar with the requirements or
principles of humanitarian response. There can be difficulties faced in including refugees – such as challenges
in recognition of refugee status, legal and regulatory barriers to accessing state services, among others (lack of
information, language barriers, discrimination, etc.).
Source: Authors, synthesizing findings from the global research and guidance initiatives mentioned in Box 5.5.
76

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 5.7 TOP FIVE PERCEIVED CHALLENGES IN LINKING The case studies demonstrate that
CTP TO NATIONAL SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS there are consistent findings
emerging in both Nepal and
Lack of coordination between the Turkey (see Annexes 2.1 and 2.2).
various actors involved 46% This approach has clear potential,
Humanitarian practitioners lack expertise 40% but also brings significant
in social protection challenges, which have to be
Social protection systems are not 40% addressed within the operational
designed to respond to crisis situations context of any country response.
Lack of support from governments/ local bodies 29% Our research generated findings
Social protection processes and staff lack 27% consistent with those from
capacity to support humanitarian response the above mentioned global
experiences, with strong agree-
ment from practitioner survey respondents on the main challenges in linking humanitarian cash assistance
to national social protection systems. These are shown in Box 5.7. The most significant perceived barriers are
all a consequence of the siloed nature of humanitarian and development programming and the difficulty of
bringing these fields together. These present a challenge to the effective use of existing national programmes
and systems for shock response. As demonstrated by experiences in Lebanon (Annex 2.8), in contexts where
social protection is still emerging, the fragmented design and implementation of humanitarian cash transfers
as well as competing visions for the place of CTP in the humanitarian system also makes it difficult to build
responses that share the characteristics of social protection (as a single cohesive programme) and that can,
over time, evolve into national safety nets.
Experiences from emerging research and practice, and the opinions of stakeholders interviewed, highlight several
gaps to be addressed in order to move forward with global commitments to link humanitarian CTP to national
social protection systems – to achieve ‘proof of concept’ and to foster strategic engagement. There is a need for:
— Definitive evidence on the efficiency and especially the effectiveness of these linked approaches in comparison
with the traditional business model of a parallel humanitarian response, including identifying issues related to
humanitarian principles around data protection and needs-based targeting.
— Evidence on the added value of this approach for strengthening or informing the development of the national
social protection system, or on what must be done to ensure this.
— Guidance for policy makers and practitioners regarding which contexts should be prioritized and how best to
design and implement programmes – including how CTP differs to the ‘usual’ approach of standalone
humanitarian programming.
— Discussion on which actors (development and “The discussion on linking with social protection systems
humanitarian, donor and host government, and is logical and attractive conceptually but much more
implementing agencies) should be involved in complex in practice. It really isn’t that easy; there will be
taking this approach forward, their added value places where it is not feasible. That said, there are elements
in this space, specific roles and responsibilities, of these systems, like the databases, that are very useful
and on where and how coordination between and could add real value [to humanitarian response] –
diverse sets of actors should most effectively assuming the right level of political commitment and
take place. funding to make it happen.” IRC
Forthcoming outputs from the research efforts mentioned in Box 5.5 should fulfil some of the requirements for
guidance and tools in this emerging space, though there is a need for flexibility and for continuous updating of
these based on further experience. However, the last point (on who should be involved) is emerging as a more
difficult issue to tackle because of the vested interests at stake.
77

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Priority Actions
5.1 I ntegrate CTP into existing mechanisms for coordinating humanitarian action. [GFA 5.1, 5.2, GB 2.2]
— Coordination bodies should integrate CTP into their work and objectives. This should be undertaken by relevant
government bodies, national entities and international humanitarian actors, on the basis of the best available
evidence, at a level that spans technical sectors. It could include updating areas like: strategies, procedures,
information systems and planning tools.
— The lessons from different approaches to coordination should be actively shared, in order to drive continual
improvement.
— The IASC should provide clearer guidance on locating responsibilities for cash coordination (at strategic and
technical levels) within the humanitarian system, building on existing analysis.
5.2 Support and engage with Cash working groups. [GFA 5.4]
— Cash working groups (CWGs) should be established and supported to enhance coordination at the technical
level. The chair, resourcing and responsibilities of the CWG should be determined locally, on a pragmatic basis,
while global responsibilities are clarified. Cash working groups should work with sub-national groups where
necessary, taking care to avoid duplication of activities.
— High-level coordinating bodies should support CWGs and link them to wider coordination efforts. All agencies
working on CTP should engage with the relevant CWG. Cash working groups should seek to include all
humanitarian actors, including government, local actors and international actors.
— Donors should resource CWGs, and specialist bodies strengthen the pool of relevantly experienced CWG
leaders.
— CWGs should work on the basis of good practices from other humanitarian responses, and should seek to
share and promote their experiences.
5.3 Build links bet ween humanitarian programmes and other government/development initiatives. [GFA
5.1 & 5.3]
— Humanitarian actors should routinely consider how their work can be connected to and contribute to other
government systems and long-term development initiatives. This can help to bridge the humanitarian–
development divide and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It includes potentially
linking short-term humanitarian aid to longer term approaches, such as social protection systems and related
programmes and infrastructure, as set out, for example, in the New Way of Working and the Comprehensive
122
Refugee Response Framework.
— The evidence base in this area should be strengthened, through testing and monitoring different approaches.
122 See www.unhcr.org/uk/comprehensive-refugee-response-framework-crrf.html
78

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CHAPTER 6: EVIDENCE AND INNOVATION
GLOBAL OBJECTIVE 6: STRENGTHEN THE EVIDENCE BASE AND INVEST
IN INNOVATION
The case for CTP as an assistance modality that can be used at scale has been made, but the evidence base for the
efficiency and effectiveness of different operating models, and types of CTP in different contexts needs to be developed.
Agencies are examining how to build evidence for the achievement of sectoral outcomes through CTP. Many
organizations are open to and share CTP knowledge, but the policies and platforms to facilitate this at a systemic level
need to improve. CTP can act as a catalyst for further innovation, but will benefit from more strategic collaboration,
both between humanitarian agencies themselves, and with the private sector.
Global Objective 6 Supporting Actions
Strengthen the 6.1 Strengthen the evidence base about the costs, benefits, impacts and risks of CTP in
evidence base and different contexts and sectors.
invest in innovation 6.2 Invest in developing new delivery models and innovations which can be used to increase
(Grand Bargain the quality and scale of CTP. This includes new partnerships with the private sector and
#2 & #3) other actors.
6.3 Develop and employ common markers to track and assess delivery models.
6.4 Proactively share information about experiences of CTP.
6.5 Maintain a comprehensive overview of the evidence base and gaps on CTP, across all
sectors, and promote new evidence across all relevant organizations.
The fundamental case for CTP as an assistance modality that can effectively be used at scale has been made
It has been established that there is a solid and growing evidence base for CTP, and that it is among the best
researched humanitarian tools.123 There have been notable efforts to review and distil the state of CTP evidence;
the main findings from some of the key studies are outlined in Box 6.2 (below). As seen in Box 6.1, 80% of
the practitioner survey respondents agreed (and just 11% actively disagreed) that the evidence to support a
significant increase in CTP now exists. Similarly, the very low percentage of organizations surveyed that consider
the lack of evidence to be a significant internal barrier to increasing CTP indicates that the fundamental case for
CTP has been made.
BOX 6.1 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON THE ‘PROOF OF CONCEPT’ FOR CTP
80% 6%
Practitioners agree that sufficient Organizations saw a lack of evidence on the
evidence is available to make the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness
case for a significant increase in of cash as a significant barrier to effective and
the use of CTP. extensive usage of CTP within their organization
and their readiness for CTP.
123 ODI (2015) Report of the High Level Panel on Cash Transfers www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9828.pdf
79

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Evidence quality and utilization
Some key informants noted the limitations of the CTP evidence base, particularly in terms of empirical rigour
and cross-contextual applicability. However, it is regularly highlighted that generating high-quality humanitarian
evidence is challenging, regardless of modality, owing to the nature of the environment and the programming
itself. For example, a series of systematic reviews commissioned by DFID in 2016–17 demonstrated the limited
availability of evidence that meets scientific standards across the humanitarian sector. Most CTP evidence to date
is operational (i.e., specific to a programme and/or context), with a relative minority of studies using control groups
or equivalent standards. Overall, the highest quality evidence around the comparative performance of assistance
124
modalities and the effectiveness of cash transfers is from non-emergency contexts, with a paucity of rigorous
125
evidence about how best to address the needs of crisis-affected populations. It has also been noted that there
is no consensus on what constitutes evidence for CTP, and how this should be used, which was corroborated by
126
CaLP’s recent scoping study on evidence needs for CTP.
BOX 6.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM STUDIES AND REVIEWS OF EXISTING CTP EVIDENCE
The points below are drawn from systematic reviews and literature reviews of CTP studies. While the lessons
can be applied to wider contexts to an extent, the evidence reflects the fact that there have been more studies
generated in some contexts than others, so it should not be assumed that these findings hold true in all
contexts under all circumstances.
— ‘Proof of concept’ – CTP is an effective and appropriate means of providing humanitarian assistance.
Cash can be effective at meeting the needs of people dealing with the impacts of crisis and disaster. Long-
term global trends in demographics, economic activity and technology are increasingly conducive to the
delivery of cash as an appropriate humanitarian response at scale. The rigorous evaluation of cash-based
social assistance programmes in Latin America demonstrate that cash transfers can form an effective and
appropriate part of social protection strategies to alleviate poverty.
— The appropriateness of CTP, and other modalities, is context-specific and needs to be determined
through response analysis. CTP is not appropriate at all times and in all places. Different factors need to
be considered, e.g., markets need to be functioning or able to quickly recover, and there needs to be secure
ways to make transfers.
— Cash and vouchers pose different risks to in-kind aid, but are not inherently higher risk. Risks associated
with different modalities need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Experience shows that ways can be
found to deliver cash safely and securely even in conflict-affected places. There is no evidence of cash being
more or less prone to diversion than other modalities. E-transfers can reduce related risks through more
transparent tracking.
— People spend cash transfers on the goods and services that they most need, which varies among
individuals and contexts. There is very little evidence of anti-social expenditure. This is consistent with
findings from social protection cash transfer programmes.
— People affected by disaster often prefer cash to other forms of aid, but not universally. Preferences can
be influenced by the perceived value of the assistance, market volatility and familiarity with particular
modalities.
— Studies of the comparative effectiveness of cash, vouchers and in-kind aid (primarily for food security),
show it depends on context, needs and specific objectives. Effectiveness is similar on average across
modalities. For example, in-kind food transfers were more successful than cash in increasing per capita
caloric intake, whereas cash and vouchers led to greater improvements in dietary diversity and quality.
— Cash transfers are generally more cost-efficient to deliver than in-kind or vouchers. Cash transfers have
a lower cost per head than vouchers and in-kind aid, and vouchers have a lower cost than in-kind. More
consistent and robust approaches to cost analysis are required to cover relevant dimensions including scale,
context, procurement practices and hidden costs.
124 World Bank (2016) IASC Strategic Note.
125 3ie (2016) Cash-based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review.
126 CaLP (2017) Knowledge Hub: Report on Consultations and Recommendations. Despite representing the views of a range of donors, practitioners and academics,
this was only a small sample of 32 interviewees, which should be taken into account when using these findings.
80

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
— How cash is used can be influenced by the number and size of the instalments and the duration of the
programme. When cash is received in multiple instalments, how it is used may change over time. There is
emerging evidence that larger or lump sum transfers can support longer-term investments.
— There is little evidence that cash transfers either disadvantage or empower women in terms of household
decision making. The most consistent finding is that providing money can reduce arguments between
husbands and wives related to difficulties meeting household needs.
— CTP can have positive indirect market impacts (multiplier effects) when implemented at scale. Vouchers
generated up to $1.50 of indirect market benefits and cash transfers generated more than $2 of indirect
market benefits for each $1 provided to beneficiaries.
— Cash injections have not generally caused inflation, with exceptions in cases when markets were not well
connected and demand outstripped supply.
— There is large variance in the availability of comparative evidence across sectors. There is a substantial
amount of evidence in the food security sector, but a limited evidence base for nutrition. For other sectors,
and for multi-purpose cash, there is very little or no existing evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of
CTP as compared to, or in combination with, other modalities.
Sources: Adapted primarily from: 3ie (2016) Cash-based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: A systematic review; ODI (2015) State of
evidence on humanitarian cash transfers: Background Note for the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers; World Bank (2016) The
Other Side of the Coin: The comparative evidence of cash and in-kind transfers in humanitarian situations.
BOX 6.3 SHARING CTP LEARNING AND EVIDENCE A majority of organizations are open to
and share CTP knowledge and learning,
but the policies and platforms to
facilitate this at a systemic level need to
improve
As highlighted in Box 6.3, survey results
59% 69% confirm that a significant majority of
organizations share their CTP evidence
Practitioners believe that their Organizations report that they and experiences with others. There is less
organization proactively documents systematically share knowledge on confidence at a more system-wide level
and shares knowledge on cash and cash and voucher programming
voucher programming with others. with other organizations. that the policies exist, or are planned, to
1/2 improve the sharing of CTP information
and evidence.
Practitioners believe that the policies that exist (or are under development)
will be effective in improving the sharing of information, learning and The practitioner survey asks about the
evidence related to CTP. main barriers to the systematic sharing
of information, evidence and learning on
CTP. The most significant barrier, cited by 40% of respondents, is a lack of awareness of common platforms for
information sharing. At the same time, 31% cite a lack of common platforms as a main barrier, and 29% a resistance
to using common platforms. Organizational interviews revealed similar findings, while CaLP’s knowledge and
evidence scoping study found that different types of audience (e.g., practitioners, donors, etc.) have differing
key needs in terms of CTP materials and evidence. These results indicate that there are a variety of issues to be
addressed before progress can be made, including raising awareness of existing platforms, and ensuring these are
fit for purpose. Furthermore, it is imperative that dissemination
is translated into actual uptake and use, critically, in project “The evidence base is almost all very positive.
design and decision making, which has implications for how We need to have more about the challenges.
common platforms engage users. The WHS self-reporting 90% of the evidence is positive, but that might
analysis included a recommendation for more support to be be because the negatives are not shared.
provided to communities of practice to foster partnership Donors need to encourage and support the
and support learning, knowledge sharing, networking and sharing of failure and learning to improve
coordination. CaLP’s planned Knowledge Hub (see Box 6.4) is humanitarian action.” NRC
being developed with the aim of addressing key issues with
sharing CTP evidence and learning.
81

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Evidence and transparency: Information sharing platforms need to find ways to effectively tap in to and
encourage further sharing between organizations. Several of those interviewed highlighted that failures and bad
experiences tend not to be shared, which may skew the evidence base. This is not specific to CTP, but relates to the
incentives and value placed on transparency of evidence. Donors have a significant role to play here, including
ensuring funding decisions are supported by existing evidence, and encouraging impartial and open processes
for generating and sharing evidence (see the Lebanon case study in Annex 2.8). It was also observed during one
FGD that a lot of the data that is collected is underexploited or unused.
BOX 6.4 CALP’S KNOWLEDGE HUB
Recognizing both the importance of and the issues relating to sharing and using CTP information, CaLP is
developing a Knowledge Hub that aims to: a) create an integrated space enabling access to all relevant CTP
knowledge; b) support more effective CTP research, based on priority gaps; and c) encourage transparency
and collaboration in evidence generation.
The Hub will include an Evidence Centre which will draw on and consolidate work being done to provide
mapping of evidence, and help synthesize this to identify priorities and to document emerging research. The
aim is that this will also serve as a platform for collaboration, to enable the formation of collective research
agendas, and build partnerships to include both operational agencies and academia at global and national/
local levels.
Other key components of the Hub will include: (i) an improved online Resource Library; (ii) CTP Standards,
including the Programme Quality Toolbox (see GO4), and Glossary; (iii) Thematic Pages, providing guidance
and resources on key topics; (iv) Making the Case for Cash, including advocacy materials; (v) CaLP D-Group
(email discussion group); and (vi) the Learning Hub, CaLP’s online capacity building platform.
Strengthening the evidence base for CTP will rely in part on being able to identify and address priority gaps
(evidence gaps are explored in the next sections), which requires a collective effort. Various initiatives to map
and collate CTP evidence are already in progress, some at the sector level (see below), and some agency-led, for
127
example, IRC’s Outcomes and Evidence Framework (although this isn’t CTP- specific). See Box 6.4 for more on
how CaLP aims to build on these initiatives to support better CTP research.
Critical gaps in the evidence base for CTP remain, which act as constraints for further change
As has been noted earlier in this report, CTP evidence gaps remain. These are in relation to the comparative
efficiency and effectiveness of different operating models, and different types of CTP (and other assistance
modalities) in different contexts, including in terms of achieving sectoral outcomes, the use of MPGs, and
complementary and multi-modality programming. There is also a need to strengthen the evidence on CTP and
gender equality, and in relation to specific sub-populations of concern, which may also help to bridge gaps in
protection evidence.
The following sections will examine these gaps in greater “This is the big question mark for progress for
detail, as well as the challenges they present, and progress cash going forward – it’s no longer whether it’s
towards addressing them. A common theme is that a lack appropriate, this is confirmed. It’s how best to
of evidence contributes to inertia and reluctance to engage deliver it to meet a range of needs, and what
with CTP, yet, conversely, determining how to best achieve agency needs to do what.” Independent Consultant
given objectives in a specific context requires that new
approaches are tested in practice.
There is a need for a more rigorous evidence base at the impact level across modalities, which would allow for
cross-comparison and analysis of different types of programming. Several of those interviewed, including some
donors, highlighted the importance of improvements to and harmonize in outcome monitoring, to allow for better
evaluation both at a response level, and cross-contextually. Both the GB and GHD cash workstreams identified
the development of common indicators as a point of action. More routine and harmonized data collection and
analysis could play a significant role in building the evidence base. See Chapter 4 for further exploration of issues
and opportunities with regards to monitoring CTP.
127 See http://oef.rescue.org/#/?_k=74c4u7
82

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Agencies have recognized the need to build the evidence base on achieving sectoral outcomes through CTP
in multiple sectors, and are acting on this
BOX 6.5 PERSPECTIVES ON EVIDENCE Research for this report (surveys, interviews and FGDs) revealed
FOR USE OF CTP IN SECTORS that, overall, respondents note a lack of sufficient evidence for
1/2 the appropriate use of cash and vouchers in some sectors.
Practitioners agree that sufficient evidence is Similarly, existing systematic studies and syntheses, as well as
128
available about how to use cash and vouchers sector-wide reviews, point to very limited evidence in some
appropriately in different sectors. sectors, including health, nutrition, WaSH, shelter and protection.
There is a need to build credible evidence about sector outcomes.
This is both in terms of the effectiveness of different types of CTP, and more broadly regarding the use of a range
of aid modalities. Various sectors are beginning to gather and review existing evidence, and develop research
agendas, probably stimulated in part by policy developments. The work of the Global Health Cluster is a good
example of progress (see Box 6.6). Other global clusters, e.g., WaSH and education, are also studying this issue,
and there are multiple examples of collective and agency-level initiatives to identify sectoral evidence gaps, and
begin to address them through research and learning.129
BOX 6.6 RESEARCH AGENDA-SETTING ON CTP FOR HEALTH AND NUTRITION
Recognizing the limited evidence base for CTP for health and nutrition in humanitarian assistance, the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Health Cluster commissioned a study to identify research priorities.
A total of 189 suggested research questions were collected through an online survey and a face-to-face group
session. These questions were then reviewed by an advisory group based on four criteria (answerability/
feasibility, fills important knowledge gap, maximum potential for improving health or nutrition outcomes,
effect on equity) using a five-point scale. Content analysis was used to identify and rank research categories.
The top three categories in terms of the number of questions (NB. a single question could fall into more than
one category) were:
— Modalities (i.e., different types of CTP and comparison with each other and with direct support to access
services and goods)
— Outcomes & Impact (e.g., health and nutrition outcomes and systems, links to development, etc.)
— Intermediate Outcomes (e.g., access to and utilization of care and goods, behaviour change, etc.)
The study leads noted that the findings are illustrative rather than exhaustive, due to limitations in the process,
and the complexity and relative novelty of the topic. Nevertheless, the results serve as valuable guidance for
researchers, policy makers, implementers and funders.
Source: Global Health Cluster (2017) Research agenda-setting on cash programming for health and nutrition in humanitarian settings.
As noted in Chapter 2, sectoral concerns often focus on MPGs with respect to achieving and measuring outcomes.
MPGs as a form of cash transfer explicitly designed to address a range of basic needs are quite new, hence,
there is currently little evidence concerning how they contribute to achieving different sectoral outcomes.
There is also little evidence of how and which activities implemented in tandem with MPGs (often referred
to as ‘complementary programming’, or ‘cash plus’) are effective in contributing to reaching intended sectoral
outcomes and/or increasing overall well-being. It was also noted by a respondent that, ideally, we should also
test the comparative effectiveness of a given complementary activity in relation to the provision of more cash per
beneficiary, although this may be challenging in practice. Studies in the pipeline will help to answer these complex,
and often very context-specific questions. For example, the Basic Needs Assessment (BNA) methodology being
developed by the ERC consortium (see Annex 2.5 for the Nigeria case study) has the use of MPGs alongside other
complementary activities at its foundation, and outputs from the pilots in Nigeria and Ethiopia will contribute to
understanding in this space. Another example is UNHCR’s study (due to be completed in early 2018), comprising
a desk review and two case studies, with the objective of providing evidence on the effectiveness of MPGs and
complementary programming in reaching sectoral outcomes. A further study on the related topic of ‘multimodal’
128 e.g. IASC Strategic Note and Doocy et al., and UNHCR review of Cash Based Interventions in WASH programmes
129 Includes literature and programming reviews - e.g. Protection Outcomes in Cash Based Interventions A Literature Review – Berg and Seferis (2015), UNHCR
sectoral CTP evidence reviews for WASH and health – and research e.g. IRC’s planned research relating to health and protection outcomes
83

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
130
programming (using more than one modality simultaneously, or switching from one modality to another)
analysed a range of case studies and found that there may be multiple ‘right’ responses in a given context. It
was also found that ‘the general information categories needed for response analysis are quite similar across sectors
suggesting that a harmonized approach to response analysis would be appropriate’.131
As highlighted by several of those interviewed, however, the issue of evidence and the sectoral use of CTP
(including in relation to MPGs and complementary programming) currently forms a cyclical argument: there are
concerns about risks and outcomes, with a lack of evidence cited as a key barrier, but in the absence of relevant
programming, there is no means to generate evidence.
Regardless of the relative efficacy or otherwise of CTP for “Let’s look at the outcomes of cash and
food security and livelihoods outcomes, a principal reason complementary programming (‘cash plus’).
that there is a more substantial evidence base in these sectors For example, we might need cash plus BCC
is the volume of relevant CTP to research in the first place. (behaviour change communication) to have an
Some agencies such as the IRC and Save the Children impact on child nutrition. These are complex
highlighted their analysis of sectoral Theories of Change outcomes and to achieve them we need to
(TOC) to identify which parts of these pathways that CTP be addressing all the causal pathways. It’s a
might be able to support, which can be used as a basis for complicated area of evidence to build”. ECHO
testing in practice. There are also examples emerging of
132
efforts to identify opportunities and constraints for using CTP to achieve sectoral objectives. While these efforts
don’t immediately constitute evidence in themselves, this trying and testing of interventions, based on appropriate
response analysis, is an imperative step towards generating evidence. These initiatives at present remain ad hoc
and driven by individuals, rather than being systematically adopted.
133
Collaboration in implementing CTP is increasing, but we don’t yet know which operational models are the
most efficient and effective in a given context
BOX 6.7 PERSPECTIVES ON EVIDENCE Drivers and opportunities for change: Over the last decade,
FOR OPERATING MODELS individual agencies have tended to run their own CTP, from
44% funding application through to delivery, resulting in multiple
Practitioners agree that sufficient evidence is agencies delivering CTP, sometimes to the same beneficiaries,
available to inform the selection of operating using different platforms. Recent policy debates and
models for CTP. developments on the ground have prompted greater focus on
the potential benefits of collaboration and different operational
models for CTP (e.g. consortia, common cash delivery platforms, single agency delivery, etc.), and the types of
data and evidence required to evaluate what works best, how and where. These debates are being driven in large
part by the imperative of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance. Scaling up CTP
offers opportunities to transform how humanitarian aid is delivered, potentially involving a consolidation or
rationalization of functions, and/or a more prominent role for ‘non-traditional’ players in the humanitarian sphere.
Key areas of current and potential change include:
— The role of the private sector (FSPs) in providing a core operational function – the actual delivery of aid. This
also implies separating the delivery of assistance from other programming functions, which was recommended
in the High Level Panel report, and reflected in ECHO’s draft 2017 guidance (see Box 6.8);
— Advances in technology, involving the digitization of a range of programming functions. This provides
opportunities for greater harmonization and the use of shared systems and data platforms, as well as the need
to work with relevant service providers;
— Recognition of the advantages of undertaking joint assessment and analysis (see Chapter 2), which
encourages agencies to work together and multi-sectorally;
130 CRS/CaLP (2017) Cash or in-kind? Why not both? Response Analysis Lessons from Multimodal Programming.
131 Ibid., p. 7.
132 For example, Libya Cash and Markets WG – AIDE-MEMOIRE Final Cash assistance to support health objectives, July 2017; ACAPS leading an assessment of
education services in North East Nigeria to inform the potential for CTP (October 2017).
133 ‘The overall structure through which agencies work jointly (either through a partnership, consortium or other form of collaboration) to deliver a CTP. Specifically,
in the situation response and analysis, program design and implementation’ (working definition of operational model).
84

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
— The use of a single modality of assistance (cash), delivered through the same mechanism, to address
134
multiple needs within a household, i.e., multipurpose cash. A 2015 DFID-funded study into the value for
money (VfM) of cash transfers in emergencies concluded that the flexibility of cash means that it is uniquely
placed to enable VfM gains in the humanitarian system. The range of goods and services that households can
access with cash transfers would be difficult or impossible to replicate via in-kind assistance.
— Many host governments are investing in cash-based social protection systems, with the support of actors
such as the World Bank. These can provide new foundations for humanitarian response, and challenge
humanitarian agencies to define their role and added value more clearly, as discussed in Chapter 5.
These issues can have major ramifications in terms of how agencies work together and separately, funding
provision, partnerships with FSPs and technology providers, and how (and which) needs are addressed through
CTP.
Many operational models have and are being tested in practice, while others have been proposed but not yet
been properly applied on the ground. Box 6.8 summarizes a range of models which have evolved in recent years.
This does not purport to be comprehensive of all current and potential models, but seeks to outline some key
approaches. They are not all necessarily mutually exclusive.
A primary rationale has been to minimize duplication of effort, on the assumption that this will generate efficiency
gains from streamlining systems and processes. From an accountability perspective, the value of simplifying
arrangements for beneficiaries in terms of how they access and use assistance is critical. Effectiveness gains have
also been central to the arguments driving change. For example, in Lebanon (see Annex 2.8) a key argument for
shifting from food vouchers to cash was based on a study which concluded that cash provided approximately
20% increases in purchasing power as compared to vouchers. See the critical debate in Box 6.10 which explores
some of the issues arising from tensions between efficiency and effectiveness in determining operational models.
It is important to note that the models summarized in Box 6.8 broadly cover humanitarian agencies (UN and NGO)
working together and with the private sector, but do not explicitly account for the growing role of governments
in delivering cash-based humanitarian assistance, primarily through social protection systems. How these types
of operational models develop in future are likely in many contexts to be increasingly intertwined with how
governmental social assistance and cash distribution systems are developing. This will inevitably require an
examination of the role(s) and added value of humanitarian agencies in circumstances where significant elements
of cash delivery and other programming components are managed by the government. As noted above, the
topic of the linkages between humanitarian CTP and social protection has been explored in Chapter 5, which
notes the need to further build the evidence base in this regard.
134 Cabot-Venton et al. (2015) Value for Money of Cash Transfers in Emergencies (DFID).
85

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 6.8 TYPES OF OPERATIONAL MODEL – CONCEPTS AND PRACTICE
Consortia and Alliances: Consortium models are based on formal contractual and funding relationships
between members, usually with funding channelled through a lead agency and disbersed to other members as
sub-grantees. These are distinct from alliance models, which are generally based on semi-formal relationships
between members and separate funding flows from donor(s) to member agencies. Working in consortia or
alliances is not a CTP-specific model, and there are multiple examples of consortia that have employed a mix
of modalities, including cash and vouchers, simultaneously. The Review of Interagency Collaboration for CTP
Delivery (2016) found that shared costs within consortia can increase efficiency over time, while standardizing
processes (e.g., monitoring, referals, etc.) between members supports overall effectiveness.
The case study (see Annex 2.8) reviewing the history of the Lebanon Cash Consortium (LCC) – which consisted
of six INGOs and served 18,000 households – highlights that consortia models for implementing cash assistance
must be based on defined operational processes and strong, clear governance systems. This experience also
suggested that it is important to be pragmatic about the most critical things to harmonize and to be clear on
the limits of collaboration within a given consortium structure. Establishing consortia pre-emergency, as was
the case in Somalia (see Annex 2.7), can enable a faster response, as donors are able to contract a single grant
more quickly than multiple separate ones.
Shared Cash Delivery Mechanisms: These types of models entail collaboration in the financial delivery of cash
transfers, but not necessarily in other areas of programming, although linking to shared registration systems
may feature. There are, broadly, two types of shared delivery mechanism:
— A single contract exists between one agency and the FSP, and other agencies make use of this platform
through sub-accounts, generally making a service payment to the contracted agency for making the
relationship with the FSP and card issuance. The One Card, managed by WFP, in Lebanon (see Annex
2.8) is an example of this. Evaluations of the One Card showed it reduced costs by reducing time for pre-
negotiated agreements, reducing aggregate card numbers and sharing operating costs between agencies.
The collaboration between WFP and UNICEF in Turkey (see Annex 2.2) is another example.
— Each participating agency has a direct relationship with the FSP, which acts as the platform manager. The
Common Cash Facility (CCF) in Jordan is an example. Facilitated by UNHCR, it is used by ten organizations.
All agencies participating in the CCF benefit from the same terms and conditions. The CCF offers economies
of scale and cost advantages: the more beneficaries reached (which is linked to the number of agencies that
join), the lower the bank fees . A recent review of the CCF in Jordan found that it has resulted in improved
efficiency and accountability of cash assistance activities by CCF members. Bank transfer fees and human
resource requirements have reduced. Although it has improved collaboration for cash delivery, including
minimizing duplications, it it is not necessarily (nor was it set up to be) a mechanism that contributes to
135
coordination more broadly.
Some respondents noted the need to retain the flexibility for contracting multiple service providers in contexts
in which variations in quality and access to different service providers depends on the location, and capacity
to cover the last mile might be challenging. Currently, the use of a single service provider to deliver assistance
may only be appropriate in some contexts, although technological improvements that increase coverage for
related infrastructure and penetration of FSPs means that this is likely to change in future (see case studies for
DRC and Liberia – Annexes 2.4 and 2.8).
Broader Integration of Systems: These types of model are evolving to develop harmonized systems for all
CTP project cycle management processes, building on the comparative advantages of stakeholders. The
Lebanon One Unified Inter-Organization System for E-Cards (LOUISE) – see Annex 2.8 – is an example. It
aims to provide a common platform for payments, linking to joint information management systems, and
incorporating common approaches to vulnerability analysis and targeting. There are also efforts to develop a
common complaints response mechanism and common monitoring system. This collaboration enables ‘joint
programming’ in terms of the operational use of common systems – not joint programming in terms of a single
common objective or design.
135 CaLP/UNHCR (2017) Review of the Common Cash Facility Approach in Jordan.
86

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
The Greece Cash Alliance, funded by ECHO and led by UNHCR with six INGO members, is another example
of a broader harmonization and integration of systems and processes. With the donor and implementing
agencies recognizing the need for streamlining, members of the Alliance are required by ECHO to establish
one database, one contract, one FSP and one card for delivering cash payments. Bank cards are loaded by
UNHCR, which has the contract with the FSP, following partners’ certification and validation. The members also
use standarized eligibility criteria and cash transfer values, a common M&E framework, a centralized feedback
mechanism, and joint communications materials.
Single Agency Cash Delivery (with segregation of functions): This approach was proposed in ECHO’s draft
guidance for large-scale cash transfers, published in 2017 (note that ECHO will be updating this guidance in
2018). It stipulates a single delivery system for CTP, unless justified by operational concerns. CTP is separated
into two components: (a) all humanitarian programming elements of the intervention (assessment, monitoring,
targeting, etc.), including a contract for programme coordination, and (b) the financial delivery of the cash
transfers. Efficiency ratios of 90:10 for the financial delivery, and 85:15 overall are expected, i.e., 85% of the
overall contract(s) value to be provided to beneficiaries as cash transfers. In this model, funding from one or
multiple donors (e.g., pooled funding) could be channelled through the same agencies.
To date, this model has not been fully implemented, although as of the end of 2017, the closest example
is the WFP-implemented programme of unrestricted cash assistance for refugees in Lebanon, which has
independent monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL), and uses existing harmonized
processes under LOUISE such as the One Card and joint targeting (see case study in Annex 2.8). However, in
its response to the draft guidance, the CCD (see below) highlighted three main concerns: (i) ensuring practical
linkages and ways of working between those implementing components A and B; (ii) ensuring cost-efficiency
concerns are weighed against a needs-driven approach (see the critical debate in Box 6.10); and (iii) ensuring
cash components are effectively integrated into wider humanitarian programming. These concerns were also
reflected in interviews for this study.
Collaborative Cash Delivery Platform (CCD): The CCD is an initiative being developed by a group of 15 NGOs
with the overall objective of working together in preparedness and response to ensure quality CTP at scale.
The CCD is still at a prototype stage. It does not denote a specific operational structure but would be expected
to vary from one country platform to the next. The CCD is based on a modular approach – a module groups
together different activities and competencies in the CTP cycle, e.g., assessment, delivery, monitoring. This
approach recognizes that collaboration is not a binary on/off for the whole project cycle; such appreciation of
the challenges and opportunities in different ‘modules’ of CTP allows a more nuanced, localized approach to
emerge. Pilots are planned in Somalia, Uganda, Nigeria and Oman.
87

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Operational Models, Collaboration and Segregation: Most operational models for collaboration have emerged
as a result of specific contextual factors. Different operational models require different types of collaboration –
between humanitarian agencies, and between humanitarian agencies and the private sector. Different models
may also involve varying segregations of functions relating to different stages in the prorgramme cycle, including
in terms of the financial delivery of CTP, and other programming components. On a general level, collaboration
between organizations in implementing CTP is increasingly common practice, as confirmed by the results of the
organizational survey (see Box 6.9). However, it is not always encouraged in a system in which agencies compete
for resources in order to remain financially viable.
136
BOX 6.9 A 2016 study reviewed examples of several types of
inter-agency collaboration for CTP between NGOs
(consortia, alliances and collaboration via CWGs) in
70% order to test the commonly held assumption that
Organizations report that they greater collaboration results in greater efficiency or
implement CTP in collaboration effectiveness. UN-led delivery models, and models in
with other humanitarian which functions are segregated on a technical basis
actors, rather than operating between agencies, and/or where a single agency
independently. leads financial delivery, were not included, owing to
the lack of examples that had been operating for a
sufficient period to enable analysis at that time. Based
on the available examples, which largely involved a geographical rather than functional split in responsibilities,
the study found that that higher degrees of collaboration and formalization do not necessarily correlate with
improved efficiency and effectiveness. Collaboration can lead to effectiveness gains by enhancing the coverage
and quality of design, but collaboration can bring associated costs which can affect efficiency, particularly in the
short-term. The study also highlighted the importance of country- or context-specific approaches to defining
optimal collaboration frameworks.
Building an evidence base for different operational models through transparent, comparative analysis: A key
feature in current debates on operational models has been the release of ECHO’s Draft Guidance (Guidance to
partners funded by ECHO to deliver large-scale cash transfers in the framework of 2017 Humanitarian Implementations
Plans and Emergency Support Operational Priorities). ECHO has clarified that it applies principally to cases of large-
scale funding (>€10m) in protracted crises that allow necessary planning, with sufficient stability in terms of
beneficiary numbers. This draft guidance is currently under review. Nevertheless, in tandem with the launch in
2016 of large, competitive tenders for CTP (e.g., ECHO and DFID in Lebanon – see case study in Annex 2.8), it has
proven to be a catalyst for far-ranging and intense debates on programming models.
Those interviewed for this report were often appreciative of the fact that these developments have opened up
debates, and the lens this has required the humanitarian sector to apply to their ways of working. However, a
key observation, which was reflected across multiple organizational interviews (including donors, NGOs and
UN agencies), is that we don’t yet have the evidence for which operational models work best, how and where.
Respondents feel that this needs to be systematically addressed by the testing of alternative models in different
contexts and ensuring rigorous comparative analysis of the process and impact.
CaLP is working to build evidence around operational models for large-scale CTP, particularly those implementing
MPGs, using a CTP Operational Models Analytical Framework. This is a simple toolset to identify features that
influence quality (efficiency, effectiveness and accountability), and draw out the role that contextual factors play
in the formation and evolution of operational models and on supporting or hindering positive outcomes. CaLP’s
intent is to use this aggregated evidence base to develop guidance on the suitability of different operational
models, by context.
136 CaLP (2016) A Review of Interagency Collaboration for CTP Delivery.
88

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 6.10 CRITICAL DEBATE: HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT BOTH EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
ARE GIVEN DUE WEIGHT IN THE DESIGN AND DECISION-MAKING FOR THE SELECTION OF
OPERATIONAL MODELS?
Concerns cited regarding different operational models, both in interviews and other sources, frequently reflect
a tension between efficiency (particularly cost-efficiency) and effectiveness, and the comparative weight of
each in decision making and design.
Some feel that there is an imbalance in the attention paid to cash delivery functions and associated efficiency
gains, compared to the broader spectrum of essential programming functions required to implement CTP
effectively. Many of these broader functions (e.g., assessment, registration, monitoring, etc.) tend to be
performed by NGOs, often involved in the last mile of providing humanitarian assistance, whereas large-scale
cash delivery favours larger agencies and potentially the private sector.
Implementing agencies often fund their core overhead costs by charging a fixed percentage for them on
project budgets. As the Lebanon case study highlights (see Annex 2.8), the consolidation of functions can
reduce the operational budgets for agencies that are not involved in delivering payments. The implications
of this for funding core overheads needs further discussion, including how to ensure technical actors can still
‘afford to engage’. Respondents note the need for transparent analysis, involving donors and implementing
agencies, of the real costs of delivering cash, and the real costs of other essential technical programming
activities. This would help to enable a discussion about how to ensure sufficient operational capacity and
technical expertise is maintained and developed.
Ideally, these debates would be informed by a full analysis based on comparative data, which requires the
right tools to be in place, and applied. There is common agreement, reflected, for example, in the actions from
the GHD cash workstream (June 2017), on the importance of identifying and routinely applying shared cost-
efficiency and cost-effectiveness metrics across organizations. However, this a complex process, and the sector
may be some way from realizing it in practice.
Evidence to date demonstrates that different operational models have different strengths and weaknesses for
the delivery of efficient and effective CTP. These strengths and weaknesses often relate to contextual factors
and programme design features which are not necessarily inherent to an operational model itself. It is widely
recognized that no single operational model will be appropriate in all places at all times, and so decisions
should always be based on a mixture of accumulated evidence and informed contextual analysis.
Implications of evolving operational models for the humanitarian system: Models that drive more harmonized
cash delivery can challenge the established interests and roles of actors within the humanitarian system. The
push to separate cash delivery from other programming components, and projections that, in future, cash
delivery may be increasingly contracted directly to the private sector, have led some organizations (particularly
NGOs) to question further investment in cash delivery capacities (see Chapter 3 for more on this). Instead, they are
considering where they might add more value in terms of specialist and technical skills, and local engagement.
The development of the Collaborative Cash Delivery Platform (CCD) – see Box 6.8 – is in many ways reflective of
these concerns.
As noted in Chapter 3, the Grand Bargain is committed to making humanitarian action as local as possible.
Respondents remarked that this approach is in tension with operational models that increase the scale of CTP
through more streamlined models that involve fewer agencies. How this tension plays out in practice will depend
both on how the overall localization agenda and related commitments progress, along with efforts to ensure that
national and local organizations are engaged in evolving operational models.
As highlighted in the case studies for Somalia and Lebanon (see Annexes 2.7 and 2.8), there is a need for greater
donor coordination on approaches for more collaborative cash delivery. Donors are often not seen to be taking
steps to pool their funding for CTP, or sharing the same approach for operational models for cash delivery, and
have different criteria for reporting. This creates confusion among agencies, can contribute to duplications or
differential treatment of people with similar vulnerabilities, and undermines the potential of more collaborative
approaches. Greater harmonization and coordination among donors is likely to drive better and more expansive
collaboration between those implementing CTP.
89

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
CTP can act as a catalyst for further innovation, but will benefit from more strategic collaboration, both
between humanitarian agencies themselves, and with the private sector
Although the nature of humanitarian programming has not tended to incentivize innovation,137
it is embedded
in the drive to increase efficiency and effectiveness through new models, private sector engagement and new
technology. CTP can act as a catalyst for further innovation where it offers opportunities for new ways of working.
Innovation in the development of CTP can apply in multiple ways, for example, to evolving operational models,
programme design, delivery mechanisms, and funding structures. The use of CTP can also act as a catalyst for
considering broader MBP, including market support. It was noted by respondents that all innovation requires an
appetite for risk and failure, both from implementing agencies and, critically, from donors. Care International’s
experience of partnering with DFID in Zimbabwe is a good example of the importance of strong donor buy-in
when it comes to innovating and taking programming risks (see case study in Annex 2.3).
The innovations in programming that are driving the evolution of different operating models are often happening
hand in hand with technological innovations, which in themselves are facilitating new approaches to CTP. The
growth of mobile money is an example of the potential impact of a technology which plays a key role in CTP in
many places. Mobile phones were first used as a platform for financial services in 2001. By 2017, there were over
174 million active accounts in 92 countries, with increasing evidence that
these services can help to alleviate poverty. For example, a recent report “To innovate we need space to
estimates that M-Pesa helped to bring 194,000 households in Kenya out of take risks”. CARE International UK
138
extreme poverty in its first six years. The Somalia case study (Annex 2.7)
illustrates the rapid uptake of mobile money in areas where there is very little penetration of regular banking
services. At the same time, experiences such as the Liberia Ebola response (see Annex 2.6) highlight the need to
be conscious of the limits of the applications of new technology in some contexts.
Work to integrate technological advances has been a central part of the growth of cash transfers, both in
development and emergency contexts. For example, many cash-based social assistance systems now use
biometrics (e.g., fingerprints, iris scans) in registration and payment, which has been shown to reduce costs
139
and leakage, and improve transparency and convenience. Biometrics are also being used increasingly in
humanitarian CTP – one example is WFP’s SCOPE (see the Somalia case study in Annex 2.7), a cloud-based digital
beneficiary and transfer management platform which uses biometric signatures. Iris scan technology is also used
by beneficiaries accessing payments from the bank under the Common Cash Facility (CCF) in Jordan (see Box 6.8).
Over the last couple of years there has been increasing interest in the potential uses of blockchain technology
for CTP, which is explored in Box 6.11. Blockchain, like many tech-based applications, can be linked to digital
identities.
137 e.g. OCHA (2014) Humanitarian Innovation: The State of the Art – notes that the consequences of failure in humanitarian programming are high, and the
financial structures do not incentivise innovation – it encourages a form of evaluation driven by demands of accountability for public spending, which rarely
feed into future planning. www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/Humanitarian%20Innovation%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Art_0.pdf
138 Center for Global Development (2017) Policy Paper 107: Blockchain and Economic Development: Hype vs. Reality, citing T. Suri and W. Jack (Konner 2017).
139 Center for Global Development (2011) Cash at Your Fingertips: Biometric Technology for Transfers in Developing and Resource-Rich Countries – Working Paper 253,
available at www.cgdev.org/publication/cash-your-fingertips-biometric-technology-transfers-developing-and-resource-rich
90

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
BOX 6.11 PILOTING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY FOR CASH-BASED TRANSFERS
What is Blockchain?: Blockchain is a data structure in which every modification of data is agreed to by
participants on a network, providing a complete record of all the data modifications that have ever taken place
in that chain. Encoding is used to prevent tampering, and that no new modifications can be made without
detection. Participants can trust data held on a blockchain without having to know or trust one another and
without having to rely on a central authority like a bank, credit card company or government. (Adapted from
Center for Global Development (2017) Policy Paper 107: Blockchain and Economic Development: Hype vs.
Reality, p. 1.)
Blockchain and humanitarian aid: Blockchain has the potential to speed up the distribution of aid funding and
trace every pound spent – from original donor to each individual assisted. This also removes intermediaries,
lowering the chance of fraud and the cost of transactions. For example, WFP expects that using a blockchain
ledger can reduce their overhead costs from 3.5% to around 1% (see below). Blockchain also has the potential
to speed aid to remote or disaster-struck areas, where ATMs or banks do not exist or are not functioning
normally.
The largest pilot of blockchain in humanitarian aid has been that of WFP in Jordan, providing assistance to
refugees in Azraq camp in Jordan using Ethereum-based blockchain ledger technology. Ultimately, they plan
to scale up to cover their entire caseload of 500,000 people. Beneficiaries can purchase food using iris scans;
this is essentially a voucher-based intervention in that purchases are restricted to participating supermarkets,
with no cash withdrawal option. WFP runs the blockchain itself – there are no other entities involved at this
stage – with the fact that they are now operating their own payment network, rather than needing to go
through other service providers, accounting for the cost savings. The programme’s costs are front loaded, with
heavy fixed costs (IT, staff, cost of beneficiary registration, etc.), and the payback period is expected to be one
to two years. This is driven by lower overall delivery costs, which were 1–3% lower as a result of a reduction in
bank fees.
Another example is the partnership between START network (an alliance of 42 aid organizations), and the
Blockchain startup Disberse to speed up fund distribution, reduce transfer costs and ensure accountability.
Having completed an initial pilot, which resulted in zero leakage and reduced costs, Disberse intends to work
with a START member to directly transfer funding from the UK to a crisis-hit country, and subsequently, to use
the platform for direct transfers from multiple organizations, demonstrating scalability of the model.
World Vision International too, has helped develop a blockchain ledger-based digital asset transfer platform
in Nepal called Sikka (www.sikka.me). Sikka allows transfer of digital tokens directly to a beneficiary’s phone
(including simple feature phones), which can be exchanged at local cooperatives.
Despite the promise of the technology, it’s application is still very restricted. There are several interesting
areas, including integration with digital money platforms, and digital identity management. A fintech start-
up BanQu (www.banquapp.com/about) has demonstrated the use of blockchain in digital identity creation
and management. It allows the unbanked to set up a personal identification profile while connecting to their
banked network. Bitcoin ledger allows them to accumulate a transaction history and develop a traceable, vetted
financial and personal history. Blockchain offers economies of scale, which can be leveraged by interoperability
of data and sharing of common platforms. Some players like WFP have open sourced their platform with no
licensing fee, which can be used by other organizations instead of duplicating and fragmenting the blockchain.
Hence, there is a case for organizations to collaborate to take the technology forward and optimize the benefits
of the technology.
Sources: Interviews with WFP and Disberse; CaLP D-Group discussions; Center for Global Development (2017) Policy Paper 107: Blockchain and
Economic Development: Hype vs. Reality; https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2017/11/26/the-world-food-programmes-much-publicised-
blockchain-has-one-participant-i-e-its-a-database/
91

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
Digital identity and data protection: Digital identity systems can provide better access to services for the over
1.5 billion people who lack formal identification records. For example, in India, digital identity (Aadhar) is used to
open bank accounts, monitor attendance and provide government assistance. There are, however, important data
privacy and security concerns over the use of digital identities and beneficiary data. These relate to ownership and
sharing of these records, and the potential for misappropriation. It is important that data and security standards
and best practices are established to ensure that sensitive data is handled properly by all agencies involved.
140
Initiatives such as the collective development of Principles for Digital Payments in Humanitarian Response and
141
the Principles on Public-Private Cooperation in Humanitarian Payments (launched at the 2017 World Economic
Forum), provide an important foundation in relation to cash delivery. This work was further developed during
2017 with the drafting of the Action Agenda for Digital Payments in Humanitarian Response, identifying the
highest priority barriers and actionable solutions to overcome them, including linking to long-term resilience
and financial inclusion.
While technology has been embraced in CTP, it has been underutilized overall, with a primary reason being
a proliferation of tools and products which address specific areas of programming, rather than taking a more
142
holistic approach to the programming process. Different platforms need to be interoperable with each other,
which is a challenge in view of the fact that agencies and companies often developing products independently. It
is generally agreed that better collaboration between agencies and the private sector should in principle increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts to develop tech-based solutions for programming. Collaboration can
also help to share the risks that can hinder innovation, reducing duplications and allowing access to different
capacities without each agency having to develop it themselves. In order to foster this, however, different
approaches to funding innovation and related incentives are necessary, which tend to be competitive.143
These challenges are increasingly recognized. For example, the CCD is looking at how agencies can work collectively
with interested private sector operators to generate global solutions to tackle the issue of interoperability between
144
existing data management systems. Another example is World Vision’s BeCashReady an inter-agency project
management tool for cash design that integrates with a range of third party ID, payment and data collection
solutions. It provides an easy to use process to design projects, undertake market assessments and calculate
transfer sizes. BeCashReady was developed with Social Offshore – a branch of a private sector digital agency which
offers services to NGOs using a not-for-profit model.
BOX 6.12 WORKING WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR Just over half of the respondents to the
practitioner survey agreed that humanitarian
55% agencies and the private sector are developing
Practitioners agree that humanitarian agencies effective new ways of working together for CTP
and the private sector are developing and (see Box 6.12). One inherent challenge is the very
implementing effective new ways of working different working methods employed by risk-
together on cash and voucher programmes. averse humanitarian agencies with accountability
for spending public funds, and the private sector,
where the potential failure of new innovations is built into the business model. Respondents noted in relation to
blockchain that collaborative partnership with the tech community was needed to address concerns about data
security, governance and operational resiliency before wider adoption is likely.145 It was also argued in the same
study that, as with humanitarian programming in general, metrics are required to be able to measure and evaluate
the relative effectiveness of different technologies.
Recent discussions on the use of blockchain on CaLP’s D-Group highlighted the point that tech-based solutions
need to be focused on the objectives of the humanitarian programme, rather than the technology itself, and
that good uses of technology will be custom-designed to meet the needs of their target users. It is the role of the
humanitarian agencies to define the requirements, and identify the service providers and partnerships that might
140 https://static.globalinnovationexchange.org/s3fs-public/asset/document/
Digital-Payments-Humanitarian-Principles_0.pdf?BvMH5s_7H6psd5btsC7ZIS3v8KBx4Xdj
141 www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2016/FS/WEF_FI_Principles_Humanitarian_Payments.pdf
142 www.ictworks.org/60-million-displaced-people-need-new-technology-for-cash-transfers/#.WhWs6kqnE2w
143 OCHA (2014) Humanitarian Innovation: The State of the Art.
144 www.offshorly.com/worldvision
145 Center for Global Development (2017) Policy Paper 107: Blockchain and Economic Development: Hype vs. Reality.
92

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
be able to address these. In this regard, the recent emergence of a number of ‘innovation labs’ may help provide
the space to develop productive ways of working with the private sector. Examples here include the World Bank’s
146 147
Blockchain Lab, the WFP’s Innovation Accelerator in Munich, and UNHCR’s Geneva-based lab. However, to
achieve their objectives, it’s essential that these labs remain connected to field operations and affected people.
The humanitarian service providers in the Humanitarian to Humanitarian community can also have a role to play
148
here.
Priority Actions
6.1 Strengthen the evidence base. [GFA 6.1, GB 1.6]
— In order to achieve the ambitions for CTP, there is an urgent need to strengthen evidence in areas including:
the costs, benefits, results and risks of CTP in different contexts and sectors and for different sub-populations;
the costs, benefits, results and risks of different operating models; the outcomes achieved by MPGs, including
in combination with other activities, in different contexts; and how humanitarian CTP can best link to social
protection systems.
— CTP interventions should build in sufficient resources to enable the writing up and dissemination of lessons
learned.
— Limitations in global knowledge should not be a brake to scaling up CTP. Actors should expect to innovate,
learn and improve CTP within each context, rather than using existing, ‘off the shelf’ models that may be
inappropriate in the given context.
6.2 S trengthen common platforms for building, sharing and using knowledge about CTP. [GFA 6.4 & 6.5]
— All actors working on CTP should make use of and support common platforms to contribute to and benefit
from the best available knowledge. Common platforms should promote existing knowledge in easily
accessible, practical ways, and help to apply it through best practice tools and guides. They should help actors
to coordinate research activities by maintaining an overview of the existing evidence base.
— Governments, agencies, donors and others should actively share their experiences of CTP through common
platforms, including lessons drawn from positive and negative experiences.
6.3 Invest in innovation to achieve more for beneficiaries. [GFA 6.2]
— CTP should be used as a catalyst for innovation, with a focus on better achieving humanitarian objectives and
meeting the needs of beneficiaries. New partnerships with the private sector can enable significant scale-up.
New technologies can generate efficiencies for beneficiaries and implementing agencies alike, creating new
solutions to old problems.
— There is a need to innovate in how humanitarian aid is organized and funded. New approaches are needed
to drive efficiency and effectiveness across established ways of doing business. The increased use of CTP
should be associated with reforms that bring about a leaner, more holistic and better-connected humanitarian
response. New funding models are needed to fund the core capacities required for humanitarian action.
146 See www.coindesk.com/end-poverty-restore-trust-world-bank-dives-into-blockchain-with-lab-launch
147 See www.wfp.org/news/news-release/world-food-programme-launches-innovation-accelerator-test-drive-hunger-solutions
148 N. van Praag (2017) ‘Can innovation labs deliver better humanitarian aid?’, Ground Truth Solutions: http://groundtruthsolutions.org/2017/09/27/can-innovation-
labs-deliver-better-humanitarian-aid
93

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
PRIORITY ACTIONS
The analysis presented in this report enables a small number of priority actions to be identified, to accelerate
the scale and quality of cash transfer programming in humanitarian response. Taken together, these actions will
enable humanitarian actors to take the next steps on the collective journey of achieving the potential of CTP to
improve humanitarian aid.
This report does not propose new recommendations. Respondents recognized that this would be unnecessary
and potentially confusing. Instead, specific actions have been identified in order to achieve existing commitments
and recommendations, as summarized in the Global Framework for Action (GFA). The GFA includes the formal
commitments made in the Grand Bargain that many humanitarian donors and implementing agencies have
signed up to.
Three priority actions are identified at the end of each of the six core chapters. Unless otherwise stated, the actions
apply to implementing agencies, donors and coordinating bodies. These span government entities, UN agencies,
NGOs, the Red Cross Movement and the private sector. The priority actions are cross-referenced to the GFA and
149
the draft action plan developed at the May/June workshop of the Grand Bargain Cash Workstream (GB).
These actions fit into wider reforms and priorities. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a broad frame
150
of reference, along with the UN’s New Way of Working. Building support for CTP among donors is a subset of
strengthening support for humanitarian aid in general. The Grand Bargain comprises many related reforms, such
as improving joint needs assessments and supporting local and national responders. Sometimes reforms may be
best served by putting CTP centre stage, and sometimes not.
Key themes and enabling factors
Two key themes and three enabling factors emerge across the complete set of 18 priority actions. Together,
they summarize the actions needed over the coming months and years by all actors involved in humanitarian
response to achieve the greatest progress in CTP.
The two key themes are:
— Integrate CTP into all existing mechanisms of providing humanitarian aid, including: organizations’ policies,
strategies, management and reporting systems, funding and programming decisions, capacity-building
initiatives, coordination mechanisms, standards, guidance, tools and others.
— Innovate and strengthen the evidence base. Trial new ways of working that generate the greatest benefits for
people in crisis from the opportunities created by CTP. Develop new partnerships and stronger insights into
CTP, share experience and learn together.
The three enabling factors are:
— Sustain the high-level policy commitments required for the effective implementation of CTP in the longer-term.
— Plan and act collaboratively. Expect to use common approaches and mechanisms for CTP at operational,
national and global levels, which are implemented across organizations and existing technical sectors.
— Support a limited amount of CTP-specific infrastructure, including platforms for collective action on CTP.
Many of the priority actions identified in this report focus on integrating cash into existing humanitarian
architecture. This has emerged as a central aspect of the current state of realizing the potential of CTP. Cash
transfer programming is moving from a standalone activity to become an established component of mainstream
humanitarian action. As a result, the nature and pace of reforms are changing. Changes are happening at a deeper
level, affecting whole organizations and involving more actors. This takes time, requiring structured approaches
with consistent leadership and resourcing, often over several years.
149 https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/gb_cash_workstream_workshop_report_may-jun_2017.pdf This action plan identified areas where
the Grand Bargain could add value to other processes. It was not intended to provide a comprehensive roadmap for achieving the cash reform.
150 See p. 6 of The New Way of Working, available at www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/NWOW%20Booklet%20low%20res.002_0.pdf: ‘working over multiple
years, based on the comparative advantage of a diverse range of actors, including those outside the UN system, towards collective outcomes. Wherever
possible, efforts should reinforce and strengthen the capacities that already exist at national and local levels’.
94

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
At the same time, wide and varied ambitions remain to innovate and use the disruptive nature of CTP to achieve
broader reforms. At the least, CTP enables greater collaboration among implementing agencies, for instance
through the sharing of analysis or delivery mechanisms. More fundamentally, cash transfer programming
challenges established operating models, funding models and coordinating structures. It opens the door to new
partnerships and new ways of doing business, that have the potential to generate substantial benefits for donors
and beneficiaries alike.
Work on CTP over the coming years must span both these components: integrating cash into existing architecture,
and innovating to reform and improve that architecture. The speed and distance travelled will depend on the
political will invested by many different actors, and the way that cash is aligned to related reforms. Just as cash is
finding its place at an operational level, so the reform potential of cash is finding its place among the panoply of
humanitarian reforms.
Making the most of cash at every level will continue to require collective action among the many different actors
involved. The humanitarian ecosystem remains characterized by interdependent organizations, each working
with overlapping aims and objectives. Perhaps the greatest driver of progress will be the extent to which
organizations consider the potential of cash independently or collectively. Organizations working independently
will recreate the limitations of the current humanitarian architecture. But collectively, they can use CTP to drive
a step change in the potential for limited humanitarian funding to meet the needs of people in desperate crisis
around the world.
Priority Actions
1.1 Sustain high-level policy commitments to CTP. [GFA 1.3, GB 1.3]
— Existing commitments, which are a powerful engine of change and funding for CTP, will need to be continually
monitored, sustained and refreshed over three to five years in order to realize the potential of CTP. There are
risks that: new issues overshadow CTP on policy agendas; the time taken to achieve the necessary reforms
undermines commitments; the reality of developments in CTP do not meet inflated expectations as a driver of
wider reforms; the traction of the Grand Bargain/WHS diminishes over time.
— Champions will need to find creative ways to strengthen and sustain support for CTP among policy makers
for several years to come, such as through continual lobbying, public accountability mechanisms and
strengthening the evidence base. It will be useful to share lessons from experience in different countries.
1.2 I ntegrate CTP into organizational and inter-agency reporting systems, using common definitions.
[GFA 1.4, GB 4]
— CTP should be integrated into the financial and reporting systems within individual institutions, and across
key inter-agency systems such as the FTS, IATI data standard, and emerging innovations such as Humanitarian
Exchange Language (HXL). This will enable agencies, donors and policy makers to track and report CTP
consistently.
— All actors should use the same common definitions, to enable comparison and aggregation. The Grand
Bargain and Good Humanitarian Donorship cash workstreams have both recommended using CaLP’s Glossary
to provide those common definitions, as it has been developed with collective input from across agencies and
donors.
— Policy decisions are required concerning whether to report cash and vouchers together or separately in global
reporting systems. Further work will be needed to increase transparency around costs for all modalities at the
programme level.
1.3 Strengthen support for CTP among the public. [GFA 1.3]
— Since public support is crucial for governments to maintain commitment to CTP, all actors share an obligation
to make the case for CTP as a part of humanitarian aid to the public. They will likely be able to achieve more
collectively, and reinforce each other’s efforts, by using common messaging. This can also help to address the
tension between calls for greater accountability about how aid is spent and greater use of flexible CTP.
95

C
The Cash Learning Partnership
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT
151
2.1 Embed c ontextual analysis and response analysis into humanitarian programme cycles and funding
decisions. [GFA 2.2]
— In every context, humanitarian agencies should make an active decision about how best to provide aid,
including whether to use CTP. This should be consistently based on an assessment of the context, including
assessing the feasibility and desirability of CTP. It can be achieved through two steps: (a) ensuring that
assessments consider all issues relevant for CTP, and (b) ensuring that programme cycles include the explicit
step of response analysis. These steps should be embedded in agencies’ internal procedures, as well as in
leadership, coordination and funding bodies.
— As in other areas, agencies should actively seek to use common, streamlined tools for these steps, appropriate
to each context and operating across sectors. Coordinating bodies should promote common tools.
— Humanitarian actors should forge partnerships with other actors – including researchers, government units
and private sector actors – who have a comparative advantage in this space.
2.2 Iden tify how CTP can achieve the best results in different technical sectors and across sectors.
[GFA 2.3, GB 1.6 & 1.7]
— Technical specialists, including clusters, should lead work to identify and promote how CTP can best contribute to
outcomes in different technical sectors (such as health, education and protection). This includes complementary
programming/’cash plus’ approaches, where CTP is provided in conjunction with other types of assistance.
— More evidence is also needed about how CTP contributes to results across the established sectors, for instance,
through the Basic Needs Approach. In line with commitments made in the Grand Bargain, this should explore
the added value, and limitations, of multi-purpose cash grants in different contexts. These analyses should be
actively promoted through relevant national and international networks.
2.3 Donors should work together to ensure appropriate consideration of CTP. [GFA 2.4, GB 1.1]
— Donors should encourage implementing agencies to always consider using CTP, to achieve the best strategic
outcomes for all people affected by a crisis. This may involve considering how donors and agencies can work
together in order to assist the entire affected population, in the light of all components of a humanitarian
response, and balancing needs across different sectors. Context-specific approaches for key aspects of CTP
could include: funding coordination bodies, or encouraging common assessments and joint responses.
— Donors may benefit from developing shared principles for high-quality CTP, as a foundation for eff