Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report written by: Lilian Mutiso, Debbie Gourlay and Glenn HUGHSON 5/15/2011
Harare Cash Transfer Workshop, 2011
Determining the Value of Cash Transfers and
Harmonising Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash-Based Responses
14th – 15th Nov, 2011 – The Cresta Oasis Hotel, Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare – Zimbabwe Author: Dr Deborah Gourlay, CaLP Country Coordinator, Zimbabwe
Workshop Report
The Workshop ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Rationale: ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Workshop Agenda: .............................................................................................................................. 6
Intended Outputs: ............................................................................................................................... 7
Day 1: Determining the Value of Cash Transfers
Overview of Presentations .................................................................................................................... 10
Presentation 1 : Dr Deborah Gourlay: Setting the Cash Amount .................................................. 10
Presentation 2 : Killian Mutiro, Determining the Value of Cash Transfers: Experiences from PRP ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Presentation 3 : Breanna Ridsdel: Good Practice Review: Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies .................................................................................................................................. 13
Case Study Exercises ...................................................................................................................... 14
Presentation 4 : Daniel Matimba & Killian Mutiro : Beneficiary Perceptions and Experiences of the Value of Cash Transfers ........................................................................................................... 18
Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Group Work Exercises ...................................................................... 19
Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Summary of Key Recommendations ................................................ 20
Key Factors to Consider When Setting the Transfer Value ........................................................... 20
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Survival / Basic Needs .................................................. 21
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Household Recovery Needs ......................................... 21
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Livelihood Support / Development Needs ................... 22
Group Needs During Recovery ...................................................................................................... 22
Data Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 23
Proposed Steps in the Process of Setting the Cash Transfer Value ...................................................... 24
Day 2: Harmonising Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash-Based Responses
Overview of Presentations .................................................................................................................... 26
Presentation 5: Tapiwa Huye: Benefits and Challenges of Coordination: The Case of JI cash Transfers ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Presentation 6: Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services; The Design of the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Scheme ......................................................................................................... 28
Presentation 7: Leonard Turugari; Locating Cash Transfers in the Broader national Policy Framework .................................................................................................................................... 31
Government –NGO Coordination Challenges, Opportunities and Actions ........................................... 33
Opportunities ................................................................................................................................ 33
Challenges ..................................................................................................................................... 34
The Way Forward .................................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix 1: Workshop Participants ...................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 2: Context for the Workshop ................................................................................................ 40
5 | P a g e
The Workshop
Rationale:
The Zimbabwe Cash Transfer Working Group has identified a workshop on „Determining the Value of Cash Transfers”, with an additional element of “Harmonizing Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash Transfer Approaches” as a priority based on the following observations:
Most cash transfers in Zimbabwe have for a period of several years set a „default‟ value of $20 - $25 for the transfer amount, even though the objectives of the cash transfer projects, geographical locations, and types of beneficiary targeted have varied considerably.
Recent research under the Protracted Relief Program (PRP) has revealed wide variations in the cash amount needed to meet basic needs deficits in different geographical contexts due to variations in prices and ability to grow their own food, etc. (see attached report). The findings of this report included the following statement:
“Translating the food gaps into monetary terms we see that the additional annual amounts required to close the gaps range from $49 for very poor and $32 for poor, rural households, compared to $71 for very poor, $38 for poor, and $11 for better off, urban households.”
Recognition amongst CTWG members that the appropriate cash transfer amount for a long term safety net scheme providing ongoing support to beneficiaries (such as the Government of Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program), is likely to differ significantly from the amount appropriate to schemes implemented by NGOs, where support is of a temporary nature and needs to involve an exit strategy which will not involve beneficiaries lapsing back into their previous adverse situation.
Recognition amongst CTWG members that the cash being distributed is in many cases no longer meeting beneficiary needs (e.g. basic food basket), and is in many cases failing to meet expectations in terms of food security and long term impacts on improving the situation of beneficiaries
Denial of the fact that the cash distribution is coming to an end and nothing is being promised for the future is common amongst beneficiaries, and is exacerbated when transfer amounts are inadequate to enable the restoration / development of livelihood activities. As such there is a high risk of beneficiaries lapsing back into their previous situation once the program ends.
In most cases, cash transfer amounts are insensitive to household size.
The Zimbabwe Government is currently introducing a major social cash transfer program, the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program (ZHSCT). This forms part of the National Action Plan for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (NAP II for OVCs) 2011-2015 and is technically and financially supported by UNICEF. A key program pillar of the NAP II for OVCs will be cash transfers to labour constrained households living below the poverty line. The ZHSCT aims to target 55,000 households with unconditional social cash transfers over the next 3 years, and is likely to be rolled out nationally thereafter. In order to harmonise with other Government programs, the average transfer amount is set at US $ 20 per household per month, with transfers to individual households varying according to household size at US$ 5 per head, up to a maximum total amount of US $ 25 per household. As a result of the implementation of the ZHSCT this year, the cash transfer context in Zimbabwe is about to change significantly. It is important for non-governmental organisations to harmonise their cash transfer activities and beneficiary selection to coordinate with the introduction of this major program of social cash transfers.
6 | P a g e
Workshop Agenda:
Session Description Presenter(s)
DAY 1
8.00-8.30 Arrival and Registration + Coffee on Arrival
8.30- 9.00 Welcome and overview of Workshop Objectives CaLP / CTWG
Presentations of different perspectives on determining the transfer value
9.00 – 9.30 Setting the Amount: Survival vs. Livelihood Protection Thresholds, Factors to consider in assessing basic needs
Dr. D. Gourlay
CaLP
9.30-10.15 Determining the Value of Cash Transfers – Evidence from LIME / PRP
Killian Mutiro, GRM / PRP
10.15-10.30 Coffee
10.30-11.15 Beneficiary Perceptions of Cash Transfer Amounts Daniel Matimba / Killian Mutiro, GRM / PRP
11.15-12.00 Zimbabwe Launch of the CaLP and ODI / HPN Good Practice
Review on Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies
The Future of CaLP in 2012 and Beyond
(incl. Q&A session)
Breanna Ridsel
CaLP Communications and Advocacy Officer
CaLP HQ, Oxford, UK
Workshop Discussions
12.00 – 1.00 Group Discussions: Review of Key Considerations and how to incorporate them into value setting process:
To include the following minimum sub-topics (others TBC)
Objectives of the cash transfers-What are we hoping to achieve? These are important to articulate before the discussion of how to determine the value. To include consideration of a range of sectoral objectives – food security, education, health, training, etc.
Rural versus Urban situations
Data requirements
Facilitator CaLP, CTWG
1.00 – 2.00 Lunch
2.00 – 3.00 Plenary Discussion / Feedback All
3.00-4.00
Including Coffee
3.15-3.30
Group Discussions: Development of Guidance and Recommendations. To include:
Key Determinants: o Minimum factors to consider o Additional factors (desirable)
Data requirements
Recommendations on the approach used to set the amount
All
4.00 – 5.00 Identification and Summary of Key learning Points from Workshop Discussions
CaLP / GRM
7 | P a g e
Session Description Presenter(s)
DAY 2
8.00 – 8.15 Welcome and overview of Today’s Workshop Objectives
8.15-8.45 Review of Previous Day’s Key Learning Points and Agreement of Key Points for Inclusion in Guidance to CTP Practitioners on Setting the Cash Value
All
8.45-9.30 Presentation from JI / Mercy Corps on Benefits and
Challenges in Coordination (including Q&A) Tapiwa Huye
JI / Mercy Corps
9.30- 10.00 Group / Plenary Discussion on Opportunities and Challenges in Coordinating between NGOs
All
10.00-10.30 Coffee
10.30-11.00 Presentation by Government on the Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program (ZHSCT) and Coordinating of the Role of NGOs with the ZHSCT (including question & answer session)
DSS / Government
11.00 – 11.45 Locating Cash Transfer Coordination in the Broader National Policy Framework
Leonard Turugari
Consultant
12.00 – 1.00 Discussions on Opportunities and Challenges in Coordinating with the ZHSCT
Facilitator: DSS
1.00– 2.00 Lunch
2.00 – 2.45 Group Discussions on Coordination with ZHSCT
All
2.45-3.15 Feedback / Plenary Discussion on Key Principles of, and Requirements for Effective Coordination between NGOs and ZHSCT
Facilitator: DSS
All
3.15-3.30 Coffee
3.30- 4.00 Identification of Key Learning Points from the Coordination
Discussions
All
4.00 – 4.30 Looking Forward / Future Actions
All.
Intended Outputs:
Development of a framework for setting the cash transfer amount in the Zimbabwean context
Summary of key learning points on coordination of Government and NGO activities on Cash Based Programming
Zimbabwe launch of the CaLP ODI/HPN Good Practice Review
Outline Action Plan for the Way Forward
8 | P a g e
9 | P a g e
Harare Cash Transfer Workshop
Day 1
Determining the Value of
Cash Transfers
10 | P a g e
Overview of Presentations
Presentation 1 : Dr Deborah Gourlay: Setting the Cash Amount
This presentation set the agenda for the day and outlined key questions and issues for participants to consider during workshop sessions. These included:
What is the intervention trying to achieve? (program objectives)
What costs are involved in meeting these objectives?
What are the needs of the intended beneficiaries? o including non-food needs (firewood, cooking utensils, water, health, shelter, etc)
the distinction between „survival threshold‟ and the „livelihood protection threshold‟,
the role of „gap analysis‟ in setting the transfer value i.e. considering what the beneficiaries can do for
themselves, and help being provided from other sources. The „gap‟ between this amount and the
amount required to reach the desired needs threshold is the relevant amount to consider when setting
the transfer value.
• What is the context ? (location (rural / urban), prices, existing resources) • How should we be using this information when setting the transfer amount ? • What coping strategies are being adopted?
o Are these corrosive / damaging or reversible?
• How will the stage of the humanitarian crisis affect data availability and approach to setting the transfer amount?
• Do we adapt amounts for household size?
• What is the program duration (long term / permanent or short term)?
• For short term projects, what is the ‘exit strategy’?
11 | P a g e
Presentation 2 : Killian Mutiro, Determining the Value of Cash Transfers:
Experiences from PRP
Key messages included the importance of the following factors:
• Understanding households and the trajectory out of poverty as a basis for determining cash transfer values
• Program objectives as basis for determining the transfer value • Understanding regional and location specific differences as basis for determining transfer value • Understanding the gap and circumstances to establish the nature of the transfer
Important to consider when determining the transfer value were identified as including:
a) Who are we targeting? b) Why are we targeting this household? c) What are we going to provide? d) Where is this household to be targeted? e) When should the targeted household receive this transfer and for how long f) How should the transfer be provided to the household (frequency & delivery method)?
The PRP Graduation Model was outlined, which incorporates the concept of 3 threshold levels:
1. Survival threshold
2. Livelihood protection threshold
3. Livelihood promotion threshold
Each threshold was linked to a ‘package’ of potential interventions as indicated in the following diagram:
12 | P a g e
Two potential scenarios for achieving ‘graduation’ were outlined:
1. A gradual progression from one wealth level to another
2. The need to provoke a ‘jump’ (hysteresis) - a ‘stepping up’ process
Assumptions:
Moving form A to B may not be so easy; these are two alternative system regimes; interventions need to provoke a ‘jump’ (hysteresis)
Discontinuity, irreversibility…
Key elements important in achieving a transition to a higher wealth group were identified as including factors such as the number of female breeding goats (for pastoralists), and number of cattle.
Debt was identified as an important factor to consider, especially in urban contexts (related to municipal rates for water and electricity charges).
The way in which the transfer amount differs according to how it is paid. $20 paid every month will be utilised differently from the same amount paid in ‘lumps’ – e.g. half yearly. In the latter case, the larger amount is more likely to be used for larger livelihood investments linked to hysteresis, whereas monthly amounts may be more suited to meeting survival needs.
Three elements were thus identified as components of setting the transfer amount:
1. Increasing household food security (Social Protection Objective)
o Based on household size, price of staple foods, household energy deficit (gap), cost of cereal required to cover deficit
2. Livelihood Support
- productive expenditure support
3. Debt Relief
- Debt relief for poor households who are constrained by debt
Conclusions were:
1. The objective of the cash transfer program should be clear ; Social protection vs livelihood support vs debt relief
2. Location matters; rural vs urban; different livelihood zones;
3. Design should consider the impacts of flexibility in playing around with the same transfer value but administered differently to increase and /or change impact.
Hysteresis
+
-
Underlying (controlling) variable
Sta
te o
f cap
ital s
tock
(fas
t var
iabl
e)
System state II
System state I
B) Two alternate regimes
13 | P a g e
Presentation 3 : Breanna Ridsdel: Good Practice Review: Cash Transfer
Programming in Emergencies
The considerable variety of ways in which cash can be used in humanitarian interventions were outlined:
Sector Examples of responses
Education • CCT for school attendance
Health and nutrition • Vouchers for fresh food
• CCT for vaccination
• CCT for health trainings / clinic visits
Food security & livelihoods • UCT, CCT, vouchers or CFW to promote access to food
• CCT for livelihoods recovery
Shelter • CCT for rebuilding homes
• Vouchers for shelter materials
• CFW to clear rubble
WASH • CCT for household WASH infrastructure
• CFW for communal WASH infrastructure
• Vouchers for hygiene items
Returns & reintegration • CCT or UCT as returns or reintegration packages
The importance of the program objectives in setting the amount was outlined and the following steps identified in the process:
1. What are the program objectives?
2. How much will it cost for a Household to fulfill those objectives?
3. What other costs do we need to consider?
4. Will these costs fluctuate or remain the same throughout the project?
Common mistakes in setting the transfer amount were identified as:
• Not setting the value based on the project objective
• Basing the grant value only on the value of what would have been distributed in-kind
• Not considering what needs HH‟s can meet on their own or are being met in other ways
• Not thinking through how costs may change during the project cycle
• Only obtaining prices in one project area
• Not including additional costs or fees
• Basing the transfer amount only on amount of funding received
• Getting the objective wrong in the first place!
Based on the principles outlined, workshop participants were worked through the two case studied detailed below.
14 | P a g e
Case Study Exercises
Case Study 1 : Oxfam International - Typhoon Ketsana, Philippines 2009
Typhoon Ketsana struck the Philippines on 26 September 2009 when the ground was already saturated from four preceding storms. Laguna Lake spilled over its banks and flooded the densely populated urban areas of Laguna and Rizal. The flooding forced 156,431 families into just 1,080 evacuation centers (ECs). Areas of the towns closest to the lake, where the most vulnerable families already lived, were completely underwater for an extended period of time.
Rapid assessments showed that:
Families in EC’s were receiving in-kind food aid, but in insufficient quantities
Hygiene conditions were well below minimum standards and many people were suffering from
health problems
Markets were functioning normally although prices were slightly higher after the disaster.
All basic commodities were available and markets were very close to ECs.
Many people had lost their livelihoods: usually small shops or fishing enterprises
Oxfam decided to implement an in-kind distribution of hygiene kits, and a complementary cash transfer programme with the following objectives:
Phase 1 (10,000 beneficiaries):
o Meet immediate food and non-food needs for vulnerable families for one month, as quickly
as possible
Phase 2 (5,000 beneficiaries):
o Support vulnerable people to rebuild sustainable livelihoods
In groups, workshop participants discussed and answered the following questions:
Question 1:
For phase 1, how would you calculate the transfer amount? Think about:
o What kind of information would you need?
o How would you get that information?
o What factors would be the most important in deciding your transfer amount?
For phase 2, how would you calculate the transfer amount? Think about:
o What would you do differently from Phase 1?
Participants Conclusions
Phase 1 : Information Required
Information to determine the ‘gap’ in food and non food basic needs and social services
Demographic information
Market information (e.g. prices and availability)
15 | P a g e
Phase 1 :Sources of information:
the rapid assessment
market survey
household survey, FGDs, key informants
Cross reference with data from other sources (e.g. secondary data sources, other informants, etc)
Phase 1 : Factors determining the Amount
Needs assessment / ‘gap’ identification
Budget for project
Timeframe (duration) of the intervention
Phase 2 : Changes to basis of Calculation of the Amount
Increased contextual analysis
Facilitate linkages to financial institutions
Training and support for livelihoods
Question 2:
Post-distribution monitoring of the Phase 2 livelihoods grants revealed the following expenditure patterns:
What does this chart say about the adequacy of the transfer
amount to meet the programme objectives?
Based on the chart, would you say that the livelihoods grant met
the programme objectives?
Participants Conclusions:
1. The amount was inadequate.
a. Beneficiaries are above the survival threshold but below the livelihoods protection threshold
b. 25% is being spent on basic needs, and 10% on shelter. Because the amount was calculated
on what was required for livelihoods (not basic needs) there is a deficit on livelihood
expenditure.
2. Because of this, the program was not fully meeting its objectives. An integrated approach is
required, incorporating survival needs as well as livelihood needs.
Figure 1: Allocation of Phase 2 Cash Grant
16 | P a g e
Case Study 2: Concern Worldwide – Niger Food Crisis 2010
In the context of a slow-onset food security and nutrition crisis affecting 7 million people in Niger (half the population), Concern’s response focused on the two most chronically vulnerable districts in the country. An estimated half a million people were suffering extreme food deficits in the two rural districts of intervention and rates of malnutrition were well above emergency thresholds.
Previous experience and baseline data from the region showed that:
Close to 100% of households were already relying on local markets to meet their food needs
The main cause of food deficit among the target group was extreme poverty, lack of income and
high food prices during the lean season (6 months from May-September)
Food supplies were adequate, provided that demand was sustained
Concern was the only humanitarian organisation in the area
Concern decided to implement a 6-month cash transfer programme with the objective of mitigating malnutrition (meeting basic food needs) among vulnerable families.
In groups, workshop participants discussed and answered the following questions:
Question 1:
How would you calculate the transfer amount?
What kind of information would you need?
About markets?
About households?
How would you get that information?
Participants Conclusions:
Calculating the Transfer Amount
Establish the objective
Establish composition of basic needs basket, and the period that support should last
Calculate daily individual requirements by age group (children / adults)
Identify household sizes
Use market information to identify prices of commodities
Market Information Required
Prices and price changes
Supply chain (availability, quality, quantity)
Accessibility
Household Information Required
Household size and composition (age, sex, etc.)
Sources of income
17 | P a g e
Expenditure patterns
Basic needs
Livelihood strategies
How to obtain the information
Household needs assessment
Market assessment
Questionnaires
FGD
Observations
Key informants
Question 2:
Data from previous years indicates that during the 3 months immediately following the local harvest, more locally produced grains are available on the market, driving food prices down.
Would this affect your transfer amount? If so, how?
Participants Conclusions:
Option Conclusion
Monthly adjustment of prices Not appropriate due to price patterns identified. Incurs unnecessary administrative costs.
Fixed transfer based on average amount Risks failing to meet program objectives as it requires beneficiaries to save a portion of 1
st 3
months‟ transfer if they are to be able to afford the required amount in the 2
nd 3 months. As this is
unlikely to occur, the project will not meet its objectives in the 2
nd 3 month period
3 months lower transfer amount then 3 months at a higher amount
Preferred options as has most likelihood of meeting project objectives for least administrative complexity.
18 | P a g e
Presentation 4 : Daniel Matimba & Killian Mutiro : Beneficiary Perceptions and
Experiences of the Value of Cash Transfers
A review of field experiences of beneficiary perceptions of the adequacy of cash transfer values under PRP was provided, including the impact of monthly versus „lump sum‟ distributions. Key points identified were:
Pattern / frequency of payment of the cash transfer:
• There were cases where the $20 per month CT was delayed due to donor funds disbursements challenges and beneficiaries received backdated 2 to 5 months benefits as „lump-sums‟ of between $40 to $100 amount.
• For those who want to start income generating activities, $20 is not enough hence those who got $100 backdated lump-sum said they prefer quarterly rather than monthly disbursements.
• For pure welfare case beneficiaries who use the CT for their sustenance they prefer a predictable monthly $20. When breaks were experienced in the monthly CT disbursements, life became difficult for some vulnerable beneficiaries.
Fluctuations in the transfer amount purchasing power:
• General price increases in 2011 have been reducing the value of the cash transfer e.g. after duty on basic goods was increased.
• Euro and pound based CT do not have a constant value as they experience exchange rate loses and gains from month to month.
• For Matabeleland beneficiaries, the value of the CT is not the same as of those in other parts of the country because of the use of the Rand/USD exchange rate loses.
• Both direct cash transfer, and transfers by cash cards etc necessitate beneficiaries travelling to the location / pay point with some needing to bus fares to do so.
Timing of Cash transfers during the month, and impact on purchasing power / choice:
• Supermarkets observed that the timing of the cash disbursement has a bearing on the real value of the CT. During the busy periods (e.g. month-ends) most people would be getting their salaries and busy shopping. This was felt to be the wrong time for disbursing the CT, not only because it congests the supermarket but because most cheap product brands will be out of stock because of demand. These are the most popular brands to the vulnerable beneficiaries who have only $20 to spend.
Impact of delivery mechanism on beneficiaries‟ choice.
• Cash cards linked to one merchant / supermarket limit beneficiaries‟ choice.
• A cash back facility is appreciated by beneficiaries, and increases choice.
• In Mutare, most beneficiaries prefer to use ZimSwitch to access cash, paying 50 cents for the transaction, as in the supermarket they must buy goods before they can get a cash back of $10.
Impact of urban situations on needs:
• In Zvishavane, the Town Council reported that the average council rates (water and services) per household are around $17.
• For a vulnerable household with no other source of income, $20 is not enough to cover their basic needs. These are the households that owe Council huge amounts of money. Cutting water to these households would worsen their situations as some are caring for the bedridden.
Other observations:
• “The majority of both the rural and urban beneficiaries were unanimous that if the amount was increased to $50 per month their lives would change significantly. This would cover most of their monthly bills including school fees and levies. Others said this money could help them start income generating projects and even expand on their restocking of small livestock”, 101 Days of Cash Transfers Report.
19 | P a g e
Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Group Work Exercises
Following the presentations, three Group Work Exercises were conducted, which results of which form the basis of the outputs and recommendations contained in the following sections. The format of the exercises was as follows:
Group Work Exercise 1
1. What are the items which should be included in the “survival” or “basic needs” basket for calculating the transfer amount?
a) In rural areas (Grp 1 & 2)
b) In urban areas (Grp 3 & 4)
c) Compile a suggested “checklist” of items to consider in setting the amount for basic (survival) needs
Group Work Exercise 2
1. How should you calculate the transfer amount for:
a) Emergency phase basic needs (Grp 1 rural, Grp 3 Urban)
b) Recovery phase livelihoods protection / promotion (Grp 2 rural & 4)
Think about:
a) What are the data requirements? Are there gaps and how would you collect this data?
b) Would you used a fixed or variable transfer rate?
c) For how long and how frequently would you make the transfer?
2. What essential recommendations would you make?
Group Work Exercise 3
1. What are the main things you have learned from today‟s session?
2. What are the key recommendations you would make to fellow practitioners on setting the transfer value?
20 | P a g e
Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Summary of Key Recommendations
Key Factors to Consider When Setting the Transfer Value Key considerations when setting the cash transfer value were identified as:
The Cash Transfer value should be derived from the program objectives, and reflect the amount
needed to meet those objectives.
Consider the needs of the proposed beneficiaries. To quantify those needs:
o Conduct a needs assessment (which may be a Rapid Assessment)
o Identify requirements to meet the “survival threshold”
o Identify requirements to meet the “livelihoods protection / livelihoods development threshold”
o What are the capacities of beneficiaries:
Identify what beneficiaries can do for themselves, or help they are receiving from
other sources (including from other aid agencies, remittances from family, etc.)
What assets / skills do they have which could form the basis of recovery of
livelihoods?
o Identify the “gap” or “shortfall” which is required to meet the program objectives.
Consider the context, and the impact this has on needs and costs of basic items. In particular:
o is it rural or urban?
How is the cost of goods affected by rural / urban location
How is the ability of beneficiaries to provided from their own resources (and thus the
„gap‟) affected by location? e.g. scope for own production, casual labour, etc. may
vary with location.
Is support for shelter provision required?
o Are beneficiaries displaced to a „camp‟ context. If so, is tent provision required, either through
cash grants or in-kind?
o In urban areas, do beneficiaries require support for accommodation (rentals, electricity, water
rates, etc.)?
Calculate the cost of the elements that are required to meet the program objectives, and thus will form
the basis of the calculation of the Cash transfer amount. This should include consideration of:
o Market information
o Ongoing assessment (e.g. of price information) and the possible adjustment of the Cash
Transfer value to reflect price changes
When setting the Cash Transfer amount, consider any costs associated with the delivery mechanism
to be used, such as:
o Cost of transport to / from payment points
o Transaction costs (e.g. for mobile phone transfers, bank charges, etc.)
Identify and take into account other interventions within the target area / affecting the target
beneficiaries. Based on this information:
o Seek to identify and build on potential synergies with other interventions
o Avoid duplication and / or conflicting activities.
During initial emergency phase transfer amounts may be fixed, due to need for speed of response /
lack of immediately available reliable data on household sizes.
During recovery phase amounts should vary with household size to reflect costs of meeting basic
needs.
21 | P a g e
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Survival / Basic Needs
Category Components
Food and nutrition needs Cereal Oils / fats Protein source Vegetables / fresh food Salt
Non-food items Milling fees Soap Cooking fuel (wood, paraffin) Matches Sanitary ware (for women)
Health Health services
accessible?
affordable?
user fees ?
Water, sanitation and Health (WASH) Safe water for drinking and hygiene needs
does water require to be purchased?
Are there user fees for use of water
points?
Shelter In situations of displacement / loss of shelter Rental costs (mainly in urban situations) Utilities (water rates, electricity)
Transport To access the cash transfer and / or markets
Education1 Primary education (fees, school goods, etc)
Capital Items (requiring a once-off grant) Utensils / cookware Water containers Clothes (where lost in an emergency) Blankets (if required by situation / climate)
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Household Recovery Needs
Category Components
Shelter Reconstruction / Construction costs
Bill of Quantities / Costs
Water Sanitation and Health Water user fees
Education Provision of support for basic primary education
School fees
School materials (stationery, uniforms, etc.)
Health Health care user fees
1 It was recognised that in an emergency where the objective was “survival” this element may not occur until the
situation had stabilised and recovery / development was being considered. Education was recognised as a “basic” need but not literally a “survival” need.
22 | P a g e
Recommended Checklist for Calculating Livelihood Support / Development Needs
Category Components
CTs should be based on Livelihood Support Needs (i.e. vary by type of Income Generating Activity), but with a ceiling
One-off payment may be required to “kick-start” livelihood protection /development.
Possible fixed capital requirements (one-off costs)
Infrastructure (possibly including premises)
Equipment
Initial stock
Agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer, tools,
livestock, etc.)
There is a need to provide ongoing support until the livelihood protection / development strategy is self supporting
Identify ongoing / follow-up support required to achieve self supporting status.
Possible recurring costs components: Transport
Licencing (e.g. of traders)
Rentals
Various items were identified as needs which required to be provided on a group (not individual) basis , and which therefore would not form part of the calculation of the individual transfer amounts. These items are specified in the Table below. They may however require additional funding provision (e.g. group grants, in-kind provision, etc.), possibly as once-off grants.
Group Needs During Recovery
Category Components
Water, sanitation and Health (WASH)
Development of safe sources of water for drinking and hygiene needs
Sanitation facilities (is destroyed / people displaced)
Security Provision of an adequately secure environment
Training provision For livelihood development
Health facilities If required by the situation.
23 | P a g e
Data Requirements
Data requirements identified as necessary for calculating the transfer amount are summarised below.
Category Components
Needs Assessment Demographics of affected population(s) and
Households
Household Income and Expenditure Patterns
Proportion of needs being met from own / other
sources or interventions (‘Gap’ analysis)
Market Assessment Market prices
o Current prices
o Price trends
o Seasonal price patterns
o Other price variability
Product availability and quality
Supply Chains
Potential for market to respond to increased demand
(inflationary risk)
Accessibility of markets / costs in accessing markets
(e.g. transport)
Government Policies, Frameworks and Legislation
Commodity pricing polices
Trading restrictions
Coordination / harmonization frameworks
o Productive Community Works Policy Framework
o Social Transfer Policy Framework
Employment Legislation (Cash for Work)
Preliminary assessments of livelihood opportunities
Contextual analysis
Identification of existing skills / capacities / assets which
could form the basis of livelihoods development
Rank and prioritise possible interventions
Assessment of market demand for livelihood outputs
24 | P a g e
Proposed Steps in the Process of Setting the Cash Transfer Value
Define the objective(s) of the intervention. This forms the basis for setting the transfer
amount.
Identify which needs the transfer must cover to meet the program objectives
•What is the duration of the Intervention? Is an exit strategy required to ensure needs are met after the program ends? How will this affect the transfer amount?
Identify the cost of meeting these needs
Identify other interventions and seek to build on synergies and avoid duplication
•Use information on other interventions in the "gap analysis"
Identify what needs are being met from other sources (including beneficiaries' own
resources) and use "Gap analysis" to identify unmet needs
Consider whether the amount of the transfer should vary or be fixed.
Set the Cash Transfer Value based on assessments, and review / monitor to ensure it is effective / remains relevant to meeting the
program objectives
Needs Assessment
Food and Nutrition
Non food items
Health
WASH
Shelter
Transport
Education
Capital items
Livelihood protection and / or development
Other needs?
Location
Consider impact of location on needs gap / requirements
Market Assessment:
e.g. Price Information,
Accessibility of goods
Household Data
e.g. Household size
Other costs
e.g. Transaction costs
Transport, etc.
Location
Consider impact of location on cost of meeting needs
What are other Agencies doing in the target area?
NGOs
Government (including Govt. Policy frameworks and regulations)
Community Support structures
Other Sources:
Own production
Casual labour
Other Aid Programs
Gifts / Community support
Remittances
Fixed or Variable Amount?
Will the transfer vary, (e.g. in line with household size, price changes, vulnerability) or be a fixed amount
25 | P a g e
Harare Cash Transfer Workshop
Day 2
Harmonising Governmental
and Non-Governmental Cash-Based Responses
26 | P a g e
Overview of Presentations
Presentation 5: Tapiwa Huye: Benefits and Challenges of Coordination: The
Case of JI cash Transfers
Coordination was embedded in the program design of the Joint Initiative (JI) in order to achieve:
Program integration
Standardization and harmonization of approaches and reporting
Synchronization of databases
Key JI coordination platforms included the National Platform (CT Workshop Dec 2009), JI Sector Working Groups, Area Coordination Committees, and Extended Area Coordination Committees/ Urban Forums
JI Coordination Model
Justifications for the JI focus on coordination were:
Improved targeting and mobilization
Helps to avoid duplication and increases accountability
Improves integration
Improves effective and efficient utilization of resource (Value for Money)
Smoother decision-making
Cross fertilization of ideas and effective learning
Promotes innovativeness by shared learning (e.g. on different cash distribution channels)
Peer review is used by JI to monitor / evaluate projects.
27 | P a g e
Key benefits of coordination were identified as:
Ensures potential programming linkages & referrals
Share plans and challenges (different CT modalities- voucher, banking, direct)
Incorporating other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities & security agencies) into consultative process
Promotes Goodwill
Public benefit (other organizations can gain from success and approaches already tried and tested)
More effective use of resources – more milage from resources as no double dipping and
oewnership of program by beneficiaries
Key challenges in coordination included:
Organizational culture
Conflicting interest, activities, and agendas of organisations
Differing local environments / contexts
JI has the following resources which it is willing to share:
Various harmonisation and coordination tools are available
o e.g. Standardised report format
Manual for targeting and mobilisation
Household financial manual
Other organisations in urban locations can share the JI framework for CT coordination
28 | P a g e
Presentation 6: Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services; The Design
of the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Scheme
The objectives of the HSCT are to:
To lift extremely poor (food poor) people out of life threatening poverty To alleviate the poverty of people that suffer from any of the manifestations of poverty listed
in the definition of poverty given above To reduce the vulnerability of people to falling into poverty
Key features of the HSCT are:
◦ Bi-monthly unconditional cash transfers averaging $20/month/household
◦ Targets labour constrained food-poor Households
◦ Uses administrative two-tier targeting approach
◦ Employs CIT cash delivery method
◦ Outsources targeting and cash delivery to private companies
◦ Managed through a Harmonised MIS database Households targeted by HSCT are labour constrained food poor households, defined as:
No able bodied HH member 18-59 years to do productive work. Able bodied member present but has to care for more than 3 members less than 18 or above
59 who are sick. HH that can not benefit sufficiently from labor based interventions. Food Poor- Living below the food poverty line. Total household expenditure capacity inadequate to meet minimal food requirements
(2100Kcal) Cannot purchase essential non food items e.g. soap, clothes Thus chronic hunger prevails
Cash delivery method:
Cash In transit will be used National Programme Office using MIS sends payment schedule to delivery agency and
instructs bank to transfer respective funds to the payment agency Beneficiaries are issued with beneficiary cards Payment is made bi monthly CIT payments are done at one or two central pay points per ward using a fixed schedule
Value of the cash transfers will vary with household size, up to a maximum of a 4 person household:
1 Person Household $10 2 Person Household $15 3 Person Household $20 4 Person and more $25
29 | P a g e
Anticipated results from the HSCT are:
Output level-strengthen the purchasing power of targeted households
Outcome Level-empower targeted households to increase consumption above the food
poverty line
Impact level- Increase the consumption of goods and services (basic needs) =improved
nutrition, health education reduced mortality
The HSCT will be harmoinised with other Government policies as follows:
Intervention Nature of Intervention Compliment
HSCT
Will Be Replaced
BEAM School fees, exam fees X
AMTOS Health vouchers X
Public Works Cash for work & free cash X Free cash for labour constrained
households will be replaced.
Support to children
in distress
Monthly cash to children
and material support
X Cash components will be replaced.
Anticipated targets and coverage of districts are as follows:
Province District No. of wards Total No. of hhs No. of labour constrained
food poor households
Manicaland Makoni/Rusape 45 49,768 4,977
Mash Central Rushinga 19 13,427 1,343
Mash East Goromondzi 25 32,724 3,272
Mash West Kariba 12 7,687 769
Masvingo Chivi 25 31,088 3,109
Mat North Umguza 18 16,118 1,611
Mat South Mangwe 12 14,655 1,466
Midlands Zishavane 18 13,790 1,379
Harare Epworth 6 22,814 2,281
Bulawayo Bulawayo Wards
8,14,18,19,27,29
6 29,402 2,940
Totals 153 231,657 23,166
Average 15 23,166 2,317
Source: Zimbabwe population census 2002
30 | P a g e
Institutional arrangements and coordination is based on the following principles:
The Government recognises the multi- sectoral nature of the social protection policy Different roles will be played by different stakeholders Stakeholders include individuals, state actors, non state actors, development partners and
private sector. Roles of Development Partners will be :
Government has the mandate to ensure social protection. NGOS will continue to do research on various modalities and share information. NGOs will continue to programme in social protection NGOs need to follow the Government methodology (e.g. beneficiary database format) for
easy take over (e.g. of databases). NGOs need to report all cash transfer activities and targets through DSS sub-national offices
All humanitarian NGOs in Zimbabwe are hosted by the DSS, so all communications should be copied through DSS, but if an NGO is doing program in a local area, they must contact local office. Is then easier for government departments to coordinate with local government on behalf of the NGOs. Everything done in social protection should thus be coordinated through the DSS offices. The MOU with NGOs states they must go through the Ministry of Labour and Social Service, not direct to local authorities. The entry point for such initiatives is the DSS office in local area. The DSS then reports to DA as head of local government.
For unconditional cash transfers, NGOs should not give more then $25 as cash as this is the top end of government bands for the HSCT.
No person shall be targeted by more than 1 cash based intervention, e.g. if a person is in the Government scheme they should not receive any other cash transfer from other agencies. This is the reason for the Government sharing its databases.
However, NGOs can give non-cash items to same beneficiaries – e.g. can give in-kind food aid, livelihood training, etc. , but they cannot give cash.
The HSCT Program will harmonise with other programs, such as PRP and WFP.
The Government HSCT Scheme will focus on the chronically poor. NGOs main focus should be on the transitory poor, who can be assisted to transition out of poverty or crisis.
31 | P a g e
Presentation 7: Leonard Turugari; Locating Cash Transfers in the Broader
national Policy Framework
Social Transfer Policy Framework
Humanitarian Cash Transfers are Social Transfers, and as such their coordination falls within the ambit of the national Social Transfer Policy Framework. The overall goal of the STPF is:
To strengthen the risk management capacities of vulnerable population groups to promote continuous improvements in living standards and prevent irreversible welfare losses throughout their lives.
The STPF pursues the following objectives which are critical for achieving coordinated CT programming:
Harmonize CT programmes for progressive impacts;
Improve the relevance and adequacy of CTs to achieve intended policy impact whilst adhering to minimum quality standards;
Increase efficient and effective institutional arrangements for cash transfer interventions;
Establish a coherent framework for linking CTs to the country’s social protection and broad national development policies; and
Prescribe guidelines to all stakeholders in the design and implementation of CT programmes.
STPF Focus Areas
To adequately address the welfare needs of the poor and vulnerable target groups, the social transfers policy framework requires programmes to focus on six outcomes:
Increased access to complementary welfare support;
Restoration of sustainable livelihoods;
Asset protection and creation;
Human capital formation;
Empowerment of marginalised groups and the most vulnerable; and
Productivity enhancement
All social transfers (including NGO cash transfers) will be required to target the above focus areas.
Targeting of beneficiaries
The STPF requires that programmes prioritise support for the following vulnerable groups:
The chronically poor;
The transitory poor;
The poorest and most vulnerable children;
People with disabilities;
People with chronic illnesses;
The elderly; and
Internally displaced people.
32 | P a g e
Coordination Framework for the STPF:
At the national level Government will establish a National Steering Committee on Social Transfers (NSCST) consisting of accounting officers from the key social sector and economic ministries.
All Programme Technical Committees/Working Groups established to oversee the implementation of Government and NGO ST programmes/projects shall be sub-committees of the NSCST. This includes the Cash Transfer Working Group (CTWG).
At the subnational level, the implementation of this policy shall be facilitated through existing structures that include Provincial Development Committees, District Development Committees (DDCs) and community committees.
The MoLSS will be responsible for administering and coordinating the social transfer policy implementation. Specialised social sector ministries and agencies, through their decentralized structures shall provide technical support to community level interventions.
Policy Coordination and NGOs
The STPF acknowledges the range of social transfer interventions being implemented by NGOs and the private sector.
Therefore, the STPF provides for the institutionalisation of the roles of NGOs and private sector in its implementation by ensuring their participation in the design and implementation of social transfer programmes, and in the institutional, administrative and management structures of social transfer programmes envisaged by this policy.
Policy Framework for Productive Community Works This policy is currently at the consultation stage. Key elements are:
The PCW Programme is set to be the key CT programme for transferring incomes to non-labour constrained households.
In order to have a coordinated approach to PCW by both Government and NGOs, the Policy Framework seeks to harmonise the following:
◦ Geographical targeting
◦ Wage/CT rate
◦ Hours worked by beneficiaries
◦ Days worked per month
◦ Duration of employment and a guaranteed minimum number of days
◦ Types of permissible projects
A multistakeholder PCW Technical committee will support the implementation of the PCW programmes
All organisations should review the Government consultation document on the “Policy Framework for
Productive Community Works”, and should seek to respond to this consultation. These Operational Guidelines for Productive Community Works (PCW) will provide a guide for managing and implementing PCW activities in Zimbabwe under the Government’s PCW Policy Framework. The Guidelines apply to all activities implemented under the policy framework, including those funded by the Government, development partners, and the private sector. As such, this policy will provide the
33 | P a g e
frameworks within which future NGO Cash for Work programs will have to operate, so it is important for stakeholders to participate in the development of the Policy Framework.
Government –NGO Coordination Challenges, Opportunities and Actions
Participants worked in breakout groups to identify the key opportunities / benefits and key challenges associated with coordination between Government and non-governmental cash transfer programs. They then sought to:
Identify key actions required to build on / maximize the potential benefits identified
Identify key actions required to mitigate or overcome these challenges.
Opportunities
Opportunities / Benefits Actions Required to Build upon Potential Benefits
Responsible / Lead Agency
Effective utilisation of a single, harmonised database of beneficiaries / communities / projects
Share database Regularly update database
DSS
Achievement of general consensus about the operational and policy environment
Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO) Govt to engage NGOs and development partners
DSS
Harmonised programming frameworks
Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO)
Cordial working relationships between NGO sector and central / local Govt.
Constructive engagement by all stakeholders
Sharing of information on Who is doing What, Where (3W)
Coordination forums of stakeholders at all levels
CTWG DSS
Reduced „double-dipping‟ (duplication of targeting)
Joint targeting and monitoring
Enhanced information sharing and experience sharing
Regularise coordination meetings Share reports and best practices CTWG task force at district level
CTWG
Increased impact from synergies / Complementary effects
Share databases Share plans
Achieve greater value for money Activity coordination
Effective use of resources Strengthen information sharing and dissemination Produce periodic update documents (e.g. „newsletter‟ like WASH cluster)
Harmonising stakeholder relations Stakeholders‟ meetings (frequent)
Increased coverage / outreach and impact, due to a a broader distribution of assistance
Sharing databases and plans
Strengthening the human capital base Refresher Courses / trainings Secondments
Reduced competition Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO) Joint targeting Share plans
Collaboration to achieve greater effects
Coordination meetings of stakeholders at all levels
34 | P a g e
Challenges
Challenges Actions Required to Build upon Potential Benefits
Responsible / Lead Agency
Dual programming system (Govt and non-governmental)
Strengthen and consolidate Govt / NGO partnerships Synergise capacity utilisation
Coordinated setting of the Cash Transfer Value
Need to regularly share information so as to keep partners abreast and on the same wavelength
Capacity of DSS to oversee implementation of NGO programs
Finalise / consolidate Policy Framework
DSS
Ability of NSTSC Secretariat to effectively coordinate the stakeholders with their multiplicity of interventions
Hedge against divisive donor interests
DSS
Technological challenges Engage private sector in the development of techno-based payment systems
DSS
Limited participation by NGOs and Government at coordination fora
Introduce sub-national CTWG at provincial / district level
Lack of standardisation on:
CT Value
M&E for projects with similar
objectives
Targeting for projects with similar
objectives
Shared guidelines and tools
Conflicting interests, objectives and values
Internal lobbying of management MoUs
Varying levels of competencies Harmonise recruitment criteria Staff development
Varying implementation strategies Standardise
Funds availability for NGOs (Govt is well funded)
Fund raising
Electrical power outages for access to the database at district DSS offices
Alternative energy sources Use of battery powered laptops
Operationalising joint targeting and monitoring given different work schedules / timings
Coordinate sharing of work schedules (joint planning)
Different organisational policies Harmonisation at policy level
35 | P a g e
The Way Forward
NGOs should take their lead from the Government frameworks outlined in the two
presentations, and seek to fit their programs within these frameworks.
All organisations implementing cash transfers for social objectives should coordinate though
the local (district) DSS office, which should be seen as the „entry point‟ when implementing
programs in the area.
Seek to promote the development of coordination structures for Cash Transfer programming
at all levels – from local (district) level upwards. This may take the form of „local Cash
Transfer Working Groups‟ which also feed information up to the national level.
CTWG to take forward the actions identified above. This should involve:
o Developing a program / work plan for the implementation of key actions
o Identifying a „lead agency / individual” for each key action, to be responsible for
ensuring key actions identified above are carried forward.
o Identifying which other stakeholders should support the lead agency in carrying
forward the key actions.
o Assigning target time scales for the completion of the actions
Updates on coordination between the Government HSCT and NGO schemes should be
included on the agenda of CTWG meetings.
All organisations should review the Government consultation document on the “Policy
Framework for Productive Community Works”, and should seek to respond to this
consultation. These Operational Guidelines for Productive Community Works (PCW) will
provide a guide for managing and implementing PCW activities in Zimbabwe under the
Government’s PCW Policy Framework. The Guidelines apply to all activities implemented
under the policy framework, including those funded by the Government, development
partners, and the private sector. As such, this policy will provide the frameworks within which
future NGO Cash for Work programs will have to operate, so it is important for stakeholders to
participate in the development of the Policy Framework.
The CTWG should change its approach on mailing lists so that people who „opt-in‟ to the
mailing list and will then continue to receive notification of meetings, copies of minutes , etc
until they choose to „opt-out‟. Several interested individuals indicated they no longer attended
the meetings as they were no longer receiving notifications. All those who „opt-in‟ should
receive mailings even if they have missed meetings. The current practice of only mailing
those who attended the most recent meetings is causing people to be excluded from
participation and thus coordination / sharing of information.
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
Harare Cash Transfer Workshop
Appendices
38 | P a g e
Appendix 1: Workshop Participants
Workshop Participants November 2011
Name Organisation Contact details
1 Njinja Melody M
Social Protection Officer, Zimbabwe Community Development Association
2 Tafi Mupfanochiya Farm and Community Trust Zimbabwe (FCTZ)
3 Felida Nkhoma Zimbabwe Community Development Trust (ZCDT)
4 Sayaka Maeda WFP, Cash and Vouchers [email protected]
5 Kudzai Nhongo Oxfam [email protected]
6 Tafadzwa Mkhata Oxfam [email protected]
7 Olivia Muza Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) [email protected]
8 Linda Kabaira
PO (Livelihoods & food security)
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)
9 Wadzanai Chikudza
Finance & Admin, THAMASO-ZIMBABWE
10 Jacob Tivenga
National Director, THAMASO-ZIMBABWE
11 Marjury Walter THAMASO-ZIM [email protected]
12 Clever Mukove VAPRO Programs Manager [email protected]
13 Ackulina Jonga. Food Security & Livelihoods Programme Officer, GOAL Zimbabwe
14 Tongesayi Rwapunga Concern WW [email protected]
15 Munyaradzi Gaadzikiva Concern WW [email protected]
16 Tiwonge Machiwenyika Programme Assistant WFP
17 Joy Achayo Programme Assistant WFP [email protected]
18 Brenda Zvinorova WFP Program Asst. [email protected]
19 Adonis Faifi HelpAge Zimbabwe [email protected]
20 Munyaradzi Ziburawa Helpage Zimbabwe [email protected]
21 Thembie Mlanzi CAFOD [email protected]
22 Jerome Bernard Save the Children [email protected]
39 | P a g e
23 Tapiwa Huye Joint Initiative Program Coordinator, Mercy Corps Zimbabwe
24 Breanna Ridsdel CaLP UK HQ [email protected]
25 Killian Mutiro GRM / PRP [email protected]
26 Lovemore Dumba Dept. of Social Services [email protected]
27 Leonard Turugari Consultant [email protected]
28 Deborah Gourlay CaLP Zimbabwe [email protected]
40 | P a g e
Appendix 2: Context for the Workshop
Organisation responsible for requesting the workshop:
Zimbabwe Cash Transfer Working Group
Organisation responsible for commissioning and hosting the workshop:
CaLP Zimbabwe (Debbie Gourlay)
Date and location of the workshop:
14th – 15
th November, 2011
Venue: Cresta Oasis Hotel, Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare, Zimbabwe
Person(s) responsible for organising the workshop at field level:
Debbie Gourlay, CaLP Coordinator, Zimbabwe in liaison with Kerina Zvobgo, GRM / CTWG Chairperson. Debbie Gourlay was responsible for organising the workshop.
Person(s) responsible for facilitating the workshop discussions:
Debbie Gourlay (CaLP Coordinator, Zimbabwe)
Leonard Turugari, Consultant
Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services, Government of Zimbabwe
Presentations were prepared / presented by:
Debbie Gourlay (CaLP Coordinator, Zimbabwe)
Killian Mutiro, GRM / Protracted Relief Program
Daniel Matimba & Killian Mutiro, GRM / Protracted Relief Program
Breanna Ridsdel, CaLP UK HQ, Communications and Advocacy Officer
Tapiwa Huye, Mercy Corps / NGO Joint Initiative in Zimbabwe (JI)
Leonard Turugari, Consultant
Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services, Government of Zimbabwe
