Distribution and Post-Distribution

Monitoring Report

on

Pilot Cash Based Intervention (CBI)

Prepared by

Nir Prasad Dahal

Planning Monitoring Evaluation Accountability and Learning

(PMEAL) Delegate

IFRC

07 January 2019

RCY volunteers validating the documents for cash distribution (Photo Credit: Salauddin

Ahmed, IFRC)

Executive Summary

Introduction

Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS) with support from IFRC distributed Cash (BDT 5500

per household) to 718 households in Camp 13 (Burmapara) i.e. 628 households received on

21-22 October 2018 and remaining 90 households received on 20th November 2018. Targeting

criteria was applied to select the beneficiaries and Bangladesh Post Office (BPO) was

contracted for the distribution. Cash in envelope was the distribution modality.

In both slot of distribution, the Exit survey and Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) survey was

conducted. Both surveys aimed to collect and understand the beneficiaries’ feedback on the

cash transfer program in terms of its quality, adequacy, use and effectiveness. Particularly,

the PDM evaluated the effectiveness of the cash assistance provided to the beneficiaries in

Camp 13 (Burmapara) in sub block A. The Exit survey and PDM was conducted independently

from the distribution of the cash transfer, led by PMEAL and conducted during 29 November

2018 until 11 December 2018 after a month of cash distribution.

Methodology

Exit survey was conducted on the day of distribution randomly selecting the recipients at the

exit point. Similarly, the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) surveys were conducted after a

month of distribution using random sampling of beneficiary households who received the

cash transfer vouchers.

For exit survey, 191 (159 for the first lot and 32 for the second lot of distribution) cash

recipients were randomly selected. For PDM, a total of 253 face to face interviews were

conducted across Camp 13 (Burmapara) in sub block A. For both exercises, the data was

collected by trained BDRCS volunteers using android mobile devices and was cleaned and

analysed using Excel.

Key Findings

The both surveys suggested that the distribution of the cash assistance to the beneficiaries

provided overall satisfaction and enabled households to prioritise what they wanted to spend

the cash on. Following the distribution of cash, majority of participants reported that they

spent the bulk of the assistance on purchasing food, medical items, and clothing. Only a small

portion of respondents reported that they purchased items including large household items,

and maintenance or stock for family business/tools and supplies for self-employment. The

majority of respondents perceived those who received the cash assistance to be the most

vulnerable in their block however, 5% of respondents did not perceive those who received

the cash to be the most vulnerable.

Some of the findings suggest that the beneficiaries incurred travel expenses in getting to and

from the distribution point and also getting to and from the market to purchase goods with

the cash. Many of the respondents left feedback about the distribution process indicating

that they were happy with the process and future distributions should be similar however,

for some respondents, the cash distributed was spent on transportation. Most of them

expressed that they heard about receiving money from community leaders (Majhi, Imam),

CiC and only one third of the respondents (in both surveys) heard it from RCRC staffs

volunteers.

Majority of the respondents were under 39 years of age and only 9% were over 60 years of

age. In majority of the households (64%), it was reported that the household has an elderly,

lactating mother or disabled person. Additionally, 49 of the respondents to the survey are

pregnant.

Overall, the findings of the survey are predominantly positive with only a few concerns about

the cost of transportation and the frequency of cash distributions. Furthermore, the findings

indicate that the respondents are highly satisfied with the cash transfer program in terms of

its quantity, usefulness and flexibility. The flexibility of the cash meant that the beneficiaries

were not restricted in what they could purchase and were able to spend the cash to tackle

their priorities which was reported to be food, medical expenses and clothing. However, there

were few issues reported which require attention and action to ensure that beneficiaries are

satisfied with the cash transfer program.

• It is evident that since receiving the cash, 84% of respondents had spent all 5500BDT

that they received, this indicates that the current cash assistance is not enough to

sustain the household’s basic needs

• Transportation to the market to purchase goods with the cash had to be paid for by

many of the respondents with some paying over 1000BDT to go to and return from

the market.

• Majority of the respondents had received items to meet their basic needs from the

BDRCS which included tarps, WASH/hygiene kits, food parcels, and blankets

• 92% of the respondents believed that the most vulnerable members of the community

were selected for the cash transfer program and 5% did not believe that they were

the most vulnerable

• Majority of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the cash and if it was

done over again, they would still prefer to receive cash rather than food/goods

• Overall, the time taken to get from the distribution point to the home was relatively

fast with nine-tenth of the respondents reporting it took them less than 30 minutes

to get from the distribution point to their home

Based on the findings, the following recommendation the following recommendations are

useful for future programming:

• Unconditional Cash Transfer Programme (CTP) is the best option to address the needs

of targeted population as it gives flexibility and freedom of choice where market is

fully functional. If possible, it would be good to give cash instead of distributing food

and non-food items;

• Information sharing on beneficiary selection has been found effective as most of the

respondents knew about it in advance. It should be continued in other distribution as

well. Also, few the respondents mentioned that distribution process was not

communicated properly, it is suggested to have help desk set up in the distribution

site to expand the communication in effective manner; and

• About one third of the respondents expressed that they heard the CTP from the

staffs/volunteers and the rest said they heard from other sources, it is well-

intentioned to mobilise RCRC staffs/volunteers to have more community engagement

and information sharing which helps to strengthen the organisational image and

visibility

Introduction

Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS) with support from IFRC distributed Cash (BDT 5500

per household) to 718 households in Camp 13 (Burmapara) i.e. 628 households received on

21-22 October 2018 and remaining 90 households received on 20th November 2018. Targeting

criteria was applied to select the beneficiaries and Bangladesh Post Office (BPO) was

contracted for the distribution. Cash in envelope was the distribution modality.

In both slot of distribution, the Exit survey and Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) survey was

conducted. Both surveys aimed to collect and understand the beneficiaries’ feedback on the

cash transfer program in terms of its quality, adequacy, use and effectiveness. Particularly,

the PDM evaluated the effectiveness of the cash assistance provided to the beneficiaries in

Camp 13 (Burmapara) in sub block A. The Exit survey and PDM was conducted independently

from the distribution of the cash transfer, led by PMEAL and conducted during 29 November

2018 until 11 December 2018 after a month of cash distribution.

Methodology

Exit survey was conducted on the day of distribution randomly selecting the recipients at the

exit point. Similarly, the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) surveys were conducted after a

month of distribution using random sampling of beneficiary households who received the

cash transfer vouchers.

For exit survey, 191 (159 for the first lot and 32 for the second lot of distribution) cash

recipients were randomly selected. For PDM, a total of 253 face to face interviews were

conducted across Camp 13 (Burmapara) in sub block A. For both exercises, the data was

collected by trained BDRCS volunteers using android mobile devices and was cleaned and

analysed using Excel.

Household Characteristics

The majority (56% in the exit survey and 57% in the PDM) of the respondents interviewed are

female and the remaining are males. Around half of respondents are aged between 25-39

years with 49% being in this age bracket. The data indicates that predominately respondents

from younger age groups were interviewed for the PDM, with 22% being aged between 18-

24. Additionally, only 9% of respondents interviewed were over 60 years of age.

Chart 1: Gender of respondents Chart 2: Age of respondents

Table 1: Are you in one of the following situations?

Situation

PDM Exit Survey

N % N %

Pregnant 49 83% 6 3%

Elderly (60+) 5 8% 28 15%

Disabled 1 2% 9 5%

Chronic illness 1 2% 63 33%

Child headed 0 0% 14 7%

Women headed 3 5% 87 45% (Multiple Response: N = 59 for PDM and N = 191 for Exit survey)

In PDM, respondents were asked about the situation that they are in, only 59 respondents

answered this question of which 83% stated they are pregnant. A further 8% of respondents

stated that they are elderly (60 years and above). Additionally, 5% of respondents indicated

that their household is women headed. Most of the respondents interviewed are the head of

the household however, 13% of those interviewed stated that they are not the head of the

household.

Respondents in PDM survey were mostly pregnant. Whereas, in terms of 6 vulnerability

indicators of HH members, in Exit survey, the respondent was more from women headed and

with chronic illness (see the table above for the details).

As seen in chart four below, 57% of those who are head of the household are aged between

25-39 years of age and a further 25% aged between 15-24 years of age. Only 9% of

respondents aged 40-59 years and 9% aged 60 years and over stated that they are the head

of household. Whereas 94 percent of Exit survey respondents were head of households.

57%43%

Female Male

22%

49%

20%

9%

18-24 25-39 40-59 60 +

Chart 3: Are you head of household? Chart 4: Age of head of household

As indicated below in the chart below ‘sex of head of household’, majority of heads of

households are male and only 22% are female headed.

Chart 5: Sex of head of household among PDM respondents

The respondents were asked if there are any elderly or lactating mother or disabled in the

household. Of the 253 respondents, 64% stated that there was either an elderly, lactating or

disabled person in the household.

Chart 6: Are there any elderly or lactating mothers, disabled, in the household?

25%

57%

9%

9%

15-24 25-39 40-59 60+

22%

78%

Female Male

13%

87%

No Yes (go to Q12)

36%

64%

No Yes

In the PDM, majority (31%) of the respondents also stated that the number of people living

in their household is five persons and the second majority (30%) stated that four people lived

in their household. Majority of the respondents came from larger households of four to six

people or more. There were 9% of respondents who stated that they live in a household of

eight people.

Table 2: How many people live in your household?

Number of

people %

1 1%

2 1%

3 0.5%

4 30%

5 31%

6 18%

7 5%

8 9%

9 3%

10 1%

11 0.5%

Respondents were asked if they had heard of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, 91% claimed that

they had heard of the movement and only 9% stated that they had not. The respondents were

further asked what their household has received from the Red Cross Red Crescent since they

had arrived in Bangladesh. Respondents had multiple answers as some had received multiple

items from the Red Cross Red Crescent. The most common item received among those

interviewed was cash, with 228 respondents stating that they had received cash from the

cash transfer program. It appears that many respondents had not received core relief items,

in particular dignity kits, shelter tool kits, and kitchen sets. The most common items received

among the respondents include, tarps, blankets, WASH/hygiene supplies, and food parcels.

Table 3: What has your household received from the Red Cross Red Crescent since when you arrived in

Bangladesh?

Count %

Cash 228 90% Kitchen set 18 7% Shelter tool kit 56 22% Tarps 187 74% Blankets 215 85% WASH/hygiene supplies 166 66% Dignity kit 85 34% Food parcel 207 82% Other household items 76 30%

Note: Multiple Response (N = 253)

Overall, majority of respondents had been provided cash by the Red Cross Red Crescent since

arriving in Bangladesh. Only a small portion had received their cash from another

organisation, including government, other NGO’s, and religious groups.

Table 4: Which organisation(s) have provided you cash since you arrived in Bangladesh?

Organisation Count %

Government 1 0% Red Cross Red Crescent 240 95% Other NGOS 3 1% Religious Groups 2 1% Other 74 29%

Note: Multiple Response (N = 253)

Distribution Method

Although 82% of respondents stated they collected the cash at the distribution point

themselves, there is a concerning 5% of respondents who stated that their son/daughter

collected the cash at the distribution point on behalf of the household. Additionally, 9% of

respondents stated that it was their spouse who collected the cash. All respondents reported

that they received 5500 BDT cash from the Red Cross Red Crescent at the distribution point

which is the full amount of the cash transfer program.

Table 5: Who collected the cash at the distribution point on behalf of your household?

%

Brother/ sister 1% Father/ mother 2% Grand (son/ daughter) 0.4% Myself 82% Son/ daughter 5% Spouse 9%

Only 12% of respondents stated that they did not know why their household was selected for

this cash transfer program, the remaining 88% of respondents all had an understanding of

why their household was selected applying one or more vulnerable criteria. The majority of

respondents (41%) stated that they were selected as their household is very poor. The other

main reasons stated included, pregnant or lactating women (32%), women head of household

(26%), elderly household members (24%), and endorsed by community officials/leaders (26

%).

Table 6: Do you know why you were selected for this cash transfer program from BDRCS?

Count %

Do not know 32 12% Woman head of household 66 26% Family member with chronic disease/disability 25 10% Child head of household 5 2%

Pregnant of lactating women 82 32% Elderly household members 61 24% Endorsed by community officials/leaders (e.g. CIC, Majhi, Imams) 66 26% Household very poor 104 41%

Most of the respondents were informed that they were selected for this cash transfer

program by RDRCS/IFRC staff/volunteers from the information in DAPS centre (67%). An

additional 32% stated that they were informed by Mazhis. Only 1% were informed by

BDRCS/IFRC staffs/volunteers from the distribution centre, and only one respondent was

informed by community volunteers. Most of the respondents were also informed about the

date of the registration and pre-distribution by BDRCS/IFRC staffs/volunteers from the

distribution centre (77%) or they were informed by Mazhis (32%). Only one respondent stated

that they were informed about the distribution from community volunteers.

Encashment Process

Respondents were asked about the process they had to undertake to receive the cash from

the distribution process. Overall, the data suggests that there is high satisfaction from the

beneficiaries about the process of collecting the cash from the distribution point.

Majority of the respondents believe that the most vulnerable people in their block were

selected for the cash transfer program however, 5% of the respondents stated that they did

not believe the most vulnerable people were selected. Additionally, the respondents were

asked if they had to pay anyone or give a favour to be part of the cash transfer program. All

of the respondents stated that they did not have to pay anyone of give a favour to be part of

the program.

Chart 7: Do you think the most vulnerable people in your block were selected for cash transfer program?

During the exit survey, the vast majority of the respondents (89%) expressed that it took half

an hour or less to come to the cash distribution point and only slightly more than one-tenth

(11%) spent more than half hour to come to the distribution point. Similarly in the PDM,

majority (87%) of the respondents reported that it took them less than 30 minutes to get from

the distribution point back to their home, this indicates that there is minimal wait time for

3%

5%

92%

Don’t know No Yes (Go to Q25)

the respondents to collect the cash and it is also in close proximity to their house. Although

only one respondent stated that it took more than three hours to get from the distribution

point back to their home, this is a concerning amount of time to return back to the home. A

further 12% stated that it took between 30 minutes to one hour to get from the distribution

point back to their home.

Table 7: How long did it take to get from the distribution point back to your home?

Time %

Less than 30 minutes 87%

1 hour to 30 minutes 12%

More than 3 hours 0.40%

Don't know 0.40%

Almost all (96%) of the respondents reported that the person who went to the distribution

point walked as the main mode of transportation. It is evident that there are issues relating

to the distance from the distribution point to the home for some of the respondents as 4%

stated that a tom tom was the mode of transportation to get home from the distribution

point. Most of those who required a tom tom paid nothing to get from the distribution point

(96%) however, 3% stated that they paid 10 BDT and 4% paid 20 BDT.

Chart 8: What was the main mode of transportation from the distribution point for you or the person who

went to the distribution point for you (return)?

The analysis demonstrates that majority (99%) of the respondents felt safe at the venue for

the distribution and only one person reported that they felt somewhat safe and one indicating

that they did not know if they felt safe.

4%

96%

Tom tom Walking

Chart 9: Did you or the person who went to the distribution for you feel safe at the venue for the distribution?

CASH Utilization

Respondents were asked if they were overall satisfied with the cash distribution process.

100% of respondents stated that they were completely happy with the distribution process

however, one respondent from PDM survey stated they were somewhat happy.

Most respondents (84%) stated that they had spent all 5500 BDT of the cash they received.

10% of respondents had almost spend all of the money reporting that they had spent between

3000 and 5000 BDT so far. Only 2% of the respondents had spent below 1000 BDT since

receiving the cash and a similar percentage, 4% had spent between 1000 and 3000 BDT.

Table 8: Of the cash assistance from IFRC/BDRCS you have received, how much have you spent so far?

Amount %

Less than 1000 BDT 2%

Between 1000 and 3000 BDT 4%

Between 3000 and 5000 BDT 10%

All 5500 84%

The findings of the PDM indicate that the top three areas respondents had spent their money

including medical expenses (95%), food (94%) and clothing (57%). The least common areas

respondents had spent their money include shelter construction materials (4%), basic

household items (6%). Education (3%), and hygiene items (4%). These items appear to be less

common as majority of the respondents had indicated that they had received hygiene items

and shelter materials, such as tarps from the Red Cross Red Crescent. Most of the

respondents (99%) reported that the items they required were available at their local market.

Table 9: Of all the money you have spent, what were your top three areas/categories you spent your money

on?

Count %

1 1

251

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Don’t know Somewhat Yes – completely (go to Q29)

Shelter construction materials 10 4%

Food 239 94%

Medical expenses 240 95%

Basic household items (utensils, cooking supplies, blankets, etc.) 16 6%

Clothing 143 57%

Paying debts 61 24%

Savings 2 1%

Agricultural inputs 26 10%

Education 8 3%

Hygiene items 10 4%

Large household items (table, stove, etc.) 2 1% Note: Multiple Response (N = 253)

The real expenditure (Shown in the table above from PDM survey) seems slightly different

than what they expressed their plan of spending money at the time of distribution in the exit

survey. For example, more than half of the respondents expressed that they utilise the cash

for firewood and fuel purchase, however, that has not been reported as the expenses during

PDM survey.

Majority (57%) of the respondents reported that they did not pay anything to transport the

items they bought from the market to their homes. It is concerning however that 15% of the

respondents reported that they paid 20BDT to transport the items from the market home.

It is evident that respondents preferred to receive cash rather than food/goods with 81%

indicating that they would prefer cash. For some, it appears that it was more difficult to

receive cash rather than food/goods as 19% reported that they would have preferred to

receive food/goods rather than cash. This could suggest that it was costly for some to get to

and return home from the market, it also suggests that there may be limited confidence in

the local market.

Chart 10: If the assistance could have been done over again, would you have preferred to receive food/goods

rather than cash?

81%

19%

No Yes

Community Engagement

Most (92%) of the respondents stated that receiving the cash did not cause any conflict within

the household however, 8% of the respondents stated that the cash had caused conflict

within the household.

Chart 11: Has receiving this cash caused conflict within your household?

It is evident that community members who

did not receive any cash are jealous of the

community members who did receive

cash. 12% of the respondents reported

that other community members who did

not receive the cash are jealous because

they received the cash transfer. An

additional 4% stated that they did not

know if other community members were

jealous. Overall, it appears that community

members were not jealous that they did

not receive cash when other community members did. This could suggest that community

members understand that the cash transfer program provides cash assistance to the most

vulnerable members of the community.

Chart 12: Are other community members (who did not receive the cash) jealous because you received the

cash transfer?

The most preferred organisation to talk to if

respondents wanted more information about

the cash distribution was reported to be

BDRCS/IFRC staff or volunteers (60%). The

remaining 40% reported that they would prefer

to talk to Mazhis. Similarly, 62% of respondents

indicated that they would prefer to talk to

BDRCS/IFRC staff or volunteers if they have

feedback or complaints about the cash

distribution, and 38% would prefer to talk to Mazhis. 77% of the respondents believe that this

is a safe way to raise concerns however, an alarming 23% stated that they do not think that

this would be a safe way to raise their concerns.

92%

8%

No Yes

4%

84%

12%

Don’t know No Yes

Chart 13: Who would you prefer to talk to if you have feedback or complaints about the cash distribution?

Overall, respondents feel like BDRCS listens

and responds to feedback and only 1% of

respondents did not feel like BDRCS listen and

responds to feedback. Although majority of

the responds did not have any comments,

ideas for improvement or anything else they

wanted to mention to BDRCS, 38% of the

respondents from PDM survey and 19% of the

exit survey had something they wanted to

add.

Chart 14: Do you have any comments, ideas for improvement or anything else you would like to mention to

BDRCS?

Of the respondents who had comments,

ideas for improvement or anything else

that they wanted to mention to BDRCS

predominately thanked for Red Cross

Red Crescent for the cash transfer and

were grateful they were able to receive

cash. Some of the most common

comments and feedback from both exit

survey and PDM included:

• Highly satisfied with receiving cash transfer over other things;

• Many respondents reported that they require gas stoves, fuel wood and solar panels

• Respondents suggested that more people in their community should be selected for

the cash transfer program;

• The distribution process was good, and it was highly recommended that future

distributions for cash and other items be done this way;

• Some respondents suggested also being provided with goods/commodities that are

daily necessities;

• Only a small portion of respondents suggested that the cash should be distributed in

smaller amounts rather than giving such large amounts of cash at one time

Conclusion and Recommendations

Overall the findings indicate that the respondents are highly satisfied with the cash transfer

program in terms of its quantity, usefulness and flexibility. The flexibility of the cash meant

that the beneficiaries were not restricted in what they could purchase and were able to spend

62%

38%

BDRCS/IFRC staff or volunteers Mazhis

62%

38%

No Yes

the cash to tackle their priorities which was reported to be food, medical expenses and

clothing. However, there were few issues reported which require attention and action to

ensure that beneficiaries are satisfied with the cash transfer program.

• It is evident that since receiving the cash, 84% of respondents had spent all 5500BDT

that they received, this indicates that the current cash assistance is not enough to

sustain the household’s basic needs

• Transportation to the market to purchase goods with the cash had to be paid for by

many of the respondents with some paying over 1000BDT to go to and return from

the market.

• Majority of the respondents had received items to meet their basic needs from the

BDRCS which included tarps, WASH/hygiene kits, food parcels, and blankets

• 92% of the respondents believed that the most vulnerable members of the community

were selected for the cash transfer program and 5% did not believe that they were

the most vulnerable

• Majority of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the cash and if it was

done over again, they would still prefer to receive cash rather than food/goods

• Overall, the time taken to get from the distribution point to the home was relatively

fast with nine-tenth of the respondents reporting it took them less than 30 minutes

to get from the distribution point to their home

Based on the findings, the following recommendation are drawn for the future programming

• Unconditional Cash Transfer Programme (CTP) is the best option to address the needs

of targeted population as it gives flexibility and freedom of choice where market is

fully functional. If possible, it would be good to give cash instead of distributing food

and non-food items;

• Information sharing on beneficiary selection has been found effective as most of the

respondents knew about it in advance. It should be continued in other distribution as

well. Also, few the respondents mentioned that distribution process was not

communicated properly, it is suggested to have help desk set up in the distribution

site to expand the communication in effective manner; and

• About one third of the respondents expressed that they heard the CTP from the

staffs/volunteers and the rest said they heard from other sources, it is well-

intentioned to mobilise RCRC staffs/volunteers to have more community engagement

and information sharing which helps to strengthen the organisational image and

visibility