C The Cash Learning Partnership THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT 1.5 METHODOLOGY FOR TOTAL CTP EXPENDITURE CALCULATION (2016) Methodology Overview: This research sets out to update the baseline 2015 global CTP calculation estimated 154 by Development Initiatives (DI) in the Counting Cash Study in December 2016. It represents the 2016 global cash and voucher programming expenditure figure estimated by CaLP and Accenture, in collaboration with Development Initiatives. As with DI’s 2015 calculation, the total figure comprises an estimate of both transfer values to beneficiaries and associated programming costs. Data Sources: Three major data sources were used to estimate the global CTP figure for 2016: 1 CaLP’s organization survey The methodology for this survey is detailed above. The organization survey, apart from gathering inputs on perceptions of current state of humanitarian CTP, also requested financial data related to CTP. The following fields captured that data: — Organization name and type: Organizations were asked to fill out the name and type of their organization (donor, NGO/INGO, UN agency, etc.). This data was used while aggregating the CTP figure and to eliminate instances of double counting. However, please note that CTP numbers are represented in aggregate, and are not attributable to any particular organization. — Total CTP figure disbursed by the organization (2015 and 2016 data): Organizations were required to enter data for their 2016 CTP (cash and vouchers) number along with currency. Due to variations in how organizations measure and report CTP expenditure, some provided total programme costs and some only the value of transfers to beneficiaries. 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 155 including both transfer values and programming costs. . 156 — We also asked for the 2015 data, to enable comparisons with the DI Counting Cash study (2016). The 2015 number was also used to estimate percentage growth in CTP figure over the two years. Organizations were given an option to either provide the 2015 data or grant permission to access the data from Development Initiatives, who had previously collected data from some of these organizations to arrive at the 2015 baseline figure. — Growth in CTP from 2015 to 2016: In cases where absolute data was unavailable, organizations were requested to estimate the growth in CTP from 2015 to 2016, and were requested to select from the following ranges: 0–20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, 60–80% and 80%+ — Percentage share of CTP in total aid: Organizations were also requested to estimate this by selecting from the following ranges: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–15%, 20–30%, 30–40% and 40%+ 2 Development Initiatives’ 2015 CTP estimate In order to complement the 2015 global cash and voucher programming baseline estimate, and with the permission of implementing partners, Development Initiatives provided CTP data for some of the organizations surveyed in this study. Where contact with those organizations was not possible, Development Initiatives shared an anonymized and aggregated figure for eight organizations, using 2015 data collected for the previous exercise. An estimated percentage growth figure for 2016 was then applied. 154 ODI and Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming. 155 Organisations were asked to clarify if the figure provided comprised transfer values only, or if it included associated programming costs. 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 or not, 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 these numbers were underestimated if the data provided by the organisations didn’t include programming costs. 156 ODI and Development Initiatives (2016) Counting Cash: Tracking Humanitarian Expenditure on Cash-Based Programming. 109