Save the Children - Cash Transfer project evaluation report

Improving Income and Food Security through Cash

Transfers in Southern Sudan:

An Evaluation of the Save the Children’s Pilot Project in Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, southern Sudan

“With the cash transfer, I know that if my baby is sick, I can take her to hospital. When

she is old enough to go to school, she will go.” – Cash for Work recipient, Rupkou Boma

Natalie I. Forcier September 2010

Cash Transfer Project Evaluation, September 2010

2

CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 4

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Project Design .................................................................................................................. 8

1.3 Evaluation Objectives & Methodology.............................................................................. 9

1.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 11

2. FINDINGS............................................................................................................................ 12

2.1 Technical Performance .................................................................................................. 12

2.1.1 Project Management ................................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 Cost Effectiveness....................................................................................................... 13

2.1.3 Effectiveness of Targeting........................................................................................... 15

2.1.4 Effectiveness of Delivery ............................................................................................. 16

2.1.5 Effectiveness of Disaster Risk Reduction Training and Nutrition Promotion

Components............................................................................................................................ 17

2.2 Use of Transfers by Beneficiaries .................................................................................. 18

2.3 Overall Project Impact .................................................................................................... 19

2.3.1 Income and Expenditures............................................................................................ 19

2.3.2 Asset Depletion and Coping Mechanisms................................................................... 20

2.3.3 Education, Health and Nutrition................................................................................... 21

2.3.4 Cash-for-work projects ................................................................................................ 23

3. LESSONS LEARNED......................................................................................................... 24

4. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 26

5. WORKS CITED.................................................................................................................... 27


3

ACRONYMS

ACF Action Contre La Faim

CFW Cash-for-Work

ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection Department

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HAS Humanitarian Air Service

NBeG Northern Bahr el-Ghazal State

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PDM Post Distribution Monitoring

SC Save the Children

SSOP Standard Security Operating Procedure

SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission

UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer

UN United Nations

WFP World Food Program


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Between April 2009 and June 2010, Save the Children (SC) implemented an ECHO funded cash

transfer pilot project in Baac Payam, Aweil East County, Northern Bahr el Ghazal State,

southern Sudan. The project was an effort to provide aid to households experiencing crisis and

food insecurity in a region that suffers from ongoing vulnerability. The payam suffers from

chronic, cyclical food insecurity because of a number of factors. It has experienced some of the

worst consequences of more than two decades of war in the region, including extensive

displacement and the loss of production assets in communities.

Cash transfers were administered in two forms: (1) cash-for-work (CFW), in which beneficiaries

received the transfer for working 16 days per month in projects designated to help the

community as a whole (collective farming, construction of schools, attending nutrition education

sessions ); and (2) unconditional cash transfers (UCT) to vulnerable households, specifically the

elderly, disabled, and child-headed households. The project targeted a total of 1,400 households

in seven bomas1, comprising approximately 14.5% of households in Baac Payam

2. Beneficiaries

received 80 Sudanese Pounds per month, which according to monthly monitoring comprised

approximately 35% of their monthly income. In addition to the direct cash transfer, selected

bomas also received disaster risk reduction training and benefited from having trained nutrition

promoters conducting house visits and providing nutrition and hygiene education.

Qualitative and quantitative data was collected in September 2010 to measure the impact of the

project. This data was compared against the baseline assessment and ongoing monthly

monitoring reports prepared by Save the Children. Based on this information, the following

findings were able to be drawn regarding the performance and impact of the project:

Technical Performance

• Coordination with local government authorities proved to be very successful in providing

security at cash distribution sites.

• Clear and regular internal reporting structures were established between field staff and

management ensuring that bottlenecks were identified and addressed quickly while

enabling effective ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project.

• Post-distribution reports proved effective in allowing the project to alter the execution of

the cash distribution to reflect the best possible logistical options available.

• The analysis of regular monitoring data by SC staff proved to be thorough and

informative, adequately monitoring the project as it progressed.

• Ongoing communication with traditional leadership and community stakeholders proved

to be effective both in terms of involvement in project management and adequately

conveying the nature and purpose of the project.

1 A boma is the smallest administrative unit used in southern Sudan.

2 Based on baseline mapping exercise and South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission records

(SSRRC)


5

Use of Transfers by Beneficiaries

• Beneficiaries were 30 percentage points more likely spend money on education than non-

beneficiaries.

• Beneficiaries were 20 percentage points more likely to report expenditures on medical

services than non-beneficiaries.

• Beneficiaries were twice as likely to have invested in cultivation equipment (49%; n=91)

and household materials3 (42%; n=79) in the past three months than non-beneficiaries.

• Beneficiaries were two and a half times more likely to have made payments towards debt

reduction, fines or taxes (24%; n=46) than non-beneficiaries (10%; n=4) in the past

month.

• There was no significant difference in consumption patterns of alcohol and tobacco

between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

Overall Project Impact

• No significant difference was observed in school attendance in the week preceding the

survey; however children from beneficiary households were less likely to miss school to

engage in work.

• Only a slight decrease in the frequency of illness in the month preceding the survey was

observed among beneficiary households as compared to the non-beneficiary group.

• While direct linkages with the cash transfer are not clear, livestock ownership among

beneficiaries has more than doubled since the beginning of the project.

• Beneficiaries were able to feed their children more frequently, even during the hunger

season, than non-beneficiaries.

• There was a significant increase in the number of households with acceptable dietary

diversity, however the relationship between this increase and the cash transfer project is

unclear as change was exhibited among both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

These findings are based on the impact of the ten-month pilot project, which is a limited time

period to see significant impact on behavioral patterns and overall patterns of disease incidence

and school attendance. Nonetheless, the following valuable lessons have been learned from this

project:

• If appropriate security precautions are followed and existing security mechanisms

utilized, cash transfer is possible in post-conflict settings where security is considered a

risk.

• Cash transfers are not misused.

• The most important priorities for use of cash transfer are expenditures on education,

health and assets.

• Beneficiaries are building assets.

• Selective targeting processes are possible, even in communities where “everyone is

poor.”

3 Household materials refer to any items used in the construction or renovation of traditional homes.


6

• Additional components such as nutrition promotion or livelihood projects must be

intertwined with cash transfer activities from the beginning of the project in order for

their role to be fully recognized.

• Significant impact on school attendance, disease frequency, and dietary diversity is not

exhibited in the short-term.


7

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Cash transfers are becoming increasingly popular as methods of humanitarian assistance and

income distribution policy development around the world. They have been used as methods of

social protection when incorporated with a wider economic or social plan and are becoming

more preferred than traditional “in-kind” assistance in which food, tools or other commodities

are provided. They can stimulate local markets and communities and promote gender equality for

women, to whom the money is usually given (Son, 2008).

While these types of programs have had notable success in countries such as Mexico and Brazil

with the Oportunidades and Bolsa Familia plans4 (Schwartz and Abreu, 2007), respectively, low-

income countries are now experimenting with cash transfer programs as well. Save the

Children’s (SC) cash transfer program in the Northern Bahr el-Ghazal (NBeG) State in southern

Sudan is an example of how cash transfer programs are being adapted to serve as humanitarian

assistance in less-developed regions. In the past decade, an extensive amount of research has

been done on how to best implement cash transfer programs. Direct cash programs are typically

unfavorable in regions like Latin America, where conditional cash transfers are more popular, as

they are more appealing politically and can achieve specific social goals – for example,

encouraging parents to send their children to school or seek preventative health care. However,

as these programs typically operate under conditions that their beneficiaries receive health care

or education, they might not work as well in areas where the supply of health and educational

facilities are lacking; furthermore, they work best under conditions of widespread political

support and interaction between all levels of governance (Son, 2008). Self-targeting, or cash for

work projects, could be feasible options for less-developed countries, as they are a way to ensure

participation of the most needy.

Current literature on cash transfer programs shows that there are many challenges to

implementing these types of programs in less-developed regions and regions of conflict, such as

southern Sudan, which lacks community-level social protection methods, resources and skills.

Though distribution can be difficult in regions with limited institutional capacity, lacking

financial infrastructure, corruption and frequent conflict, research shows these issues can be

overcome. A 2008 project briefing on cash transfer programs in Sierra Leone found that the

challenges are “not insurmountable” (Holmes and Jackson, 2008). Current means of cash

transfer, though not using formal banking systems, can still be effective, and the developing

financial infrastructure in Sierra Leone shows that cash transfer projects could be even more

practical there in the future when capacity develops allowing for the private sector to be engaged.

4 Oportunidades (formerly Progresa) was a program in Mexico that began in 1997 for families with children who fell below the

poverty line. They were given cash on three conditions: 85% school attendance, visits to health clinics and attendance of health

and nutrition workshops. Bolsa Familia (formerly Bolsa Escola) was a cash transfer program that began in Brazil in 2003.

Through the program, families who were in extreme poverty and who had children were given cash on the condition that they

seek regular preventative health care and send their children to school (Schwartz and Abreu, 2007).


8

Other challenges include the perception that cash transfer programs could cause aid dependence

or inflation in local markets. However, with careful planning, coordination with local

government and a sophisticated evaluation system of monitoring and evaluation, these issues can

be dealt with as well (Son 2008).

At their best, cash transfer programs can provide assistance to people cost-effectively. When

conditions are used, they can successfully reach vulnerable populations and achieve goals such

as increased nutrition or establishing social safety nets. Because of the freedom of choice cash

assistance gives beneficiaries, it is seen as a more dignified type of aid. As was the case in the

project evaluated herein, cash transfer was chosen because such an intervention:

a) Promotes dignity and choice;

b) Has multiplier effects in that it stimulates local markets, may enable productive

investments and may support a shift from relief to development;

c) Has a beneficial impact on household food security and gender empowerment when

channeled to women5;

In developing areas of the world including southern Sudan, market function is improving, food

systems are becoming more integrated and financial services are becoming more widespread.

These trends are making cash transfers more feasible in countries such as southern Sudan.

1.2 Project Design

Save the Children’s cash transfer program in Aweil East County, NBeG State between April

2009 and June 2010 was an effort to increase the capacity and assets at community and

household levels to strengthen food and income security. The province suffers from chronic,

cyclical food insecurity. It has experienced some of the worst consequences of more than two

decades of war in the region, including many displaced people and the loss of production assets

in communities. Furthermore, since 2005, NBeG became an entry point for thousands of

returnees from Khartoum and Darfur, making the province in perpetual need of humanitarian aid.

The county is one of the regions receiving the highest returnee populations within the country.

Over 27,000 returnees returned within the first half of 2008 alone and they include those who are

experiencing acute food insecurity. Host households have also been affected by disasters such as

displacement by floods, disease and acute food insecurity. (Save the Children UK project

documents, 2009). This influx puts strain on communities and their already-depleted resources.

Periodic droughts and floods worsen their conditions, and a government infrastructure weakened

and decentralized by decades of war makes response slow.

The payam lacks the institutional means to provide measures of social protection needed for

creating food security, and constant need for food makes it difficult for families to make long-

term investments, such as education, skills training or livestock; meanwhile, not enough

resources have been devoted to filling the void of skilled community members lost or displaced

5 See Haddad, Hoddinot & Alderman, ‘Intra-Household Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods and

Policies’, 1997, and Khogali & Takhar, ‘Empowering Women Through Cash Relief in Humanitarian Contexts’, 2002.


9

during war. Specifically, in Baac Payam in Aweil East County, where this cash transfer program

was piloted, 55 to 60 percent of its 137,000 people are considered poor households. Typically,

they have two or three chickens, two beehives and a plot of only 0.125 to 0.375 acres; less than

three livestock holdings are the norm. In addition they buy about 20 to 25 percent of their annual

food requirement from the market using income from hard labor or selling grass, fuel wood and

poles for building. To cope with hardship, the households might sell their firewood, force early

marriages or eat one meal per day (Save the Children program documents, 2009)

Cash transfers were administered in two forms: (1) cash-for-work (CFW), in which beneficiaries

received the transfer for working 16 days per month in projects designated to help the

community as a whole (collective farming, construction of schools, attending nutrition education

sessions); and (2) unconditional cash transfers (UCT) to vulnerable households, specifically the

elderly, disabled, and child-headed households. The project targeted a total of 1,400 households

in seven Bomas, with the total number of direct project beneficiaries estimated to be 10, 854

individuals comprising approximately 14% of Baac Payam.6 Beneficiaries received 80 Sudanese

Pounds (SDG) per month, which according to monthly project monitoring data, comprised

approximately 35% of their monthly income. In addition to the direct cash transfer, selected

bomas also received disaster risk reduction training and benefited from having trained nutrition

promoters conducting house visits.

1.3 Evaluation Objectives & Methodology

The evaluation began with a thorough review of project documents including cash distribution

reports, monthly monitoring reports, and donor reports. A literature review on subjects relevant

to cash transfer was also conducted. Secondary analysis of data conducted as part of the monthly

monitoring was also analyzed using STATA 10.

Qualitative and quantitative data for this evaluation was collected in the form of questionnaires,

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and in-depth interviews with beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries

within the same communities, children of beneficiary households, community leaders and project

staff.

The purpose of the evaluation was three fold:

1) To evaluate the impact of the Save the Children’s Cash Transfer Program in

Malualkon, NBeG State, on the target community with an emphasis on its

impact on children

2) To ensure critical project lessons and experiences are captured and made available

to provide evidence based information to inform design and funding of future

cash transfer and safety net programming

3) To evaluate effectiveness of Save the Children’s monitoring, data and report

systems for the cash transfer project

6 Based on baseline mapping exercise and South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission records

(SSRRC)


10

To achieve these objectives, three questionnaires were administered to 200 randomly selected

beneficiary households and 50 non-beneficiary households in five of the seven bomas

participating in the project. Two locations – Angot and Chomator Bomas – were excluded from

the study due to security concerns of operating near the border with the Abyei region and

extreme flooding experienced during the time of data collection, respectively. In the five

sampled bomas (Rumdier, Mathiangdit, Rupkou, Panabei, and Wunatemie), a proportional

sampling technique (proportional to the size of the beneficiary population in each location) was

employed using randomly selected households from the master beneficiary list. Within each

boma, questionnaires were administered to cash-for-work and unconditional cash transfer

recipients proportional to the relative population size of each within the location. The sample

size was equal to that of the baseline assessment undertaken at the start of the project and

monthly monitoring reports to minimize sampling bias. The following table represents the

number of questionnaires administered in each location:

Table 1: Number and type of interviews by location

Boma UCT % of

Total CFW

% of

Total

Non-

Beneficiary

% of

Total

Panabei 11 29% 27 71% 9 19%

Rupkou 15 28% 37 72% 13 26%

Wunatemei 11 29% 26 71% 9 18%

Rumdier 13 28% 34 72% 12 23%

Mathiangdit 8 28% 20 72% 7 14%

Total 57 28% 143 72% 50 100%

Each selected beneficiary was interviewed using an individual questionnaire. Within the same

household, questionnaires were administered to women between the ages of 15-49 years and to

the caretakers of any children in the household under the age of 5 to gather information of each

child. A separate questionnaire was administered for each child under the age of 5 in the

household. Each questionnaire was assigned a unique identification number and serial number to

facilitate data entry. Analysis was conducted using STATA 10.

Focus group discussions were conducted in four of the five sampled bomas. A focus group

discussion was not carried out in Wunatemie Boma due to flooding rendering the area

inaccessible to the consultant. The following table represents each location visited and the type

beneficiaries who took part in a FGD.

Table 2: Type of FGDs by location

Location Focus Group Discussions

Rumdier Children of Beneficiary Households

UCT Recipients

Mathiangdit Beneficiaries (both CFW and UCT)

Rupkou CFW Recipients

Community Leaders

Panabei CFW Recipients

Community Leaders


11

In addition to the FGDs, in-depth interviews were conducted with SC staff, specifically the Area

Program Manager, the Monitoring & Evaluation Officer, the Project Officer, one Assistant

Project Officer (Rupkou and Panabei), one Community Supervisor (Mathiangdit) and two

Nutrition Promoters (Mathiangdit). The initial evaluation design also included interviews with

other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in the same bomas, however this

became irrelevant as the bomas selected for the cash transfer project were selected because there

were no other organizations implementing activities in the selected location.

1.4 Limitations

In addition to having to limit the interview sites to five of the seven bomas, 12 questionnaires

were discarded due to either incomplete data collection (only the first page of the questionnaire

filled in) or incorrect/inadequate data collection (not all questionnaires utilized; data collector

marking that respondent refused to answer all questions). This altered the distribution of the

proportional sampling technique initially designed.

Focus groups discussions conducted with children were also hindered significantly. The intention

was to conduct two FGDs with children of beneficiary households between the ages of 10-14

years old. At one of the project sites (Rupkou), none of the children were present for the

discussion despite prior arrangements, and at the second location (Mathiangdit) children were

reluctant to speak due to the large crowd that gathered to observe the discussions. Despite

attempts by the SC staff to isolate the focus group from the other community members, this was

unsuccessful and thus children felt uncomfortable speaking, regardless of the topic. In this vein,

it is important to note that all FGDs were accompanied by an audience of between 40 – 100

individuals who had gathered in the boma center when hearing that an independent evaluator

would be visiting to discuss the project.

Focus group discussion, Rumdier Boma-

The four seated closest to the camera are participants, the remainder are those who came to observe the session.


12

2. FINDINGS

2.1 Technical Performance

2.1.1 Project Management

Review of project documents and interviews with stakeholders and project staff all indicated that

the project was managed effectively with necessary levels of transparency. In particular, project

staff noted that they received adequate support from other SC projects operating in Malualkon,

specifically in assisting with manpower during the cash distribution process. All staff indicated

receiving adequate support from line managers and SC headquarters in Juba.

Coordination with local government authorities to host cash distribution processes within Mobil

and Warawaar Markets and provide security during the distribution proved to be very successful

ensuring security at cash distribution sites. Beneficiaries noted specifically that one of the

reasons there were no security issues was because of the security provided at cash distribution

sites by local government authorities. Interviews and project documents indicate that this

partnership ensured smooth running and implementation of cash distribution and the security of

SC staff and beneficiaries.

Clear and regular internal reporting structures were established between field staff and

management ensuring that bottlenecks were identified and addressed quickly while enabling

effective ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project.

The Standard Security Operating Procedure (SSOP) (Annex 1) developed for the cash transfer

project also minimized the risk of financial loss during the cash distribution process by

establishing clear controls on the number of individuals required to handle the cash and by

limiting the amount of time that the community were aware of the possession of the funds to 24

hours prior to distribution. Throughout the process, all staff indicated that there were no

problems handling large amount of funds, both when funds were transferred via charter flight

and later when World Food Program Humanitarian Air Service (WFP/HAS) flights were used.

All staff members interviewed reported that at no point did they feel their safety was threatened.

Post-distribution reports proved effective in allowing the project to alter the execution of the cash

distribution to reflect the best possible logistical options available, such as changing from

chartered private flights to WFP/HAS flights for transporting cash from Juba to Malualkon.

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation consisted of post-cash distribution monitoring (PDM)

reports detailing the logistics of the operation as well as monthly data collection from

beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in all seven bomas. Monthly PDM reports collected and

analyzed information on the following topics:

• Types of assistance received in the previous month

• Food consumption and dietary diversity

• Income and expenditures


13

"You can't compare receiving cash with receiving food. You can't send your child to school with food. Cash

you can MULTIPLY - you use it in local businesses, local trade. You can

actually make money grow." - Community Leader, Panabei Boma

• Fluctuations in market prices

• Decision making regarding expenditures

• Opinions on the cash-for-work projects

The analysis of this data by SC staff proved to be thorough and informative, adequately

monitoring the project as it progressed. Reports could have been improved by bolstering

quantitative results with qualitative data, which was the original intention. While the proportional

sampling technique employed proved to be sufficient, panel data may also help shed light on

long-term impact, specifically on issues of food consumption patterns, educational enrolment,

and access to health care facilities throughout seasonal variations.

Ongoing communication with traditional leadership and community stakeholders proved to be

effective both in terms of involvement in project management and adequately conveying the

nature and purpose of the project. Local staff, particularly Assistant Project Officers, played a

key role in maintaining communication with leadership authorities (traditional and government)

during project activities, including the targeting process.

External communication with other NGOs and United Nations (UN) agencies appeared to be

limited to the project planning period and identifying potential sites for the cash transfer project.

As part of the project design, bomas were specifically selected because of the absence of other

development projects, thus minimizing the necessity of ongoing coordination to ensure activities

are not duplicated. However, ongoing monitoring and evaluation could have been bolstered by

greater communication with other organizations, particularly Action Contre La Faim (ACF) and

WFP, who are both implementing nutrition-specific projects in Baac Payam.

All interviews with beneficiaries and stakeholders indicated they felt all aspects of the project

were managed effectively and appropriately. Stakeholders were particularly satisfied with the

efficiency, planning and execution of cash distribution. Positive reviews of the management and

nature of cash-for-work activities were also received, although beneficiaries in Rupkou and

Rumdier Bomas indicated that in future rounds the priorities of public works should shift to

reflect community needs; specifically the construction of schools,

health care units, and boreholes.

2.1.2 Cost Effectiveness

More systematic approaches in data collection at all stages of

developing cash transfer projects will make it easier to analyze their

efficiency. One Institute of Development Studies report acknowledged

that "the cost-effectiveness of social protection programmes is...

extremely challenging to determine, partly because full costs are

difficult to obtain and partly because impacts (effectiveness) are

difficult to attribute and to quantify" (Davies, 2009).

Despite the lack of definitive analysis on their efficiency, cash

transfer projects have proven to cost less and allow for more

beneficiary control and flexibility; there is little evidence to show


14

they cause inflation or suffer from misuse (White, 2006). A project by Save the Children Fund,

HelpAge International and the Institute of Development Studies; evaluating cash transfer

programs in eastern and southern Africa concluded that fears about cash transfer projects' cost-

effectiveness are unfounded: "Although more detailed work is needed ... the evidence from this

review suggests that concerns about [cash transfer programmes'] unaffordability or fiscal

sustainability may be overstated" (Devereux and Pelham, 2005).

A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers versus service vouchers or in-kind

goods was not conducted as part of this study. This is because the primary reasons cash transfer

was selected as the key component for the project were because such programs:

d) Promote dignity and choice;

e) Have multiplier effects in that it stimulates local markets, may enable productive

investments and may support a shift from relief to development;

f) Have a beneficial impact on household food security and gender empowerment when

channeled to women7;

As a result, the study does not compare the effectiveness of in-kind service provision versus cash

transfer. Such a comparison holds no relevance when the objective of the intervention is to allow

beneficiaries to have autonomy and choice in how to spend a cash infusion – whether it be food

products, assets (investing in housing materials or livestock), or increase expenditures on health

or educational services. However, measuring overall cost effectiveness of delivery is relevant as

possible economies of scale may exist in the implementation of such a project (i.e. increasing the

number of beneficiaries in a particular location will not proportionally increase the total cost).

The study did examine the overall cost effectiveness of the total cost of delivering the project as

well as the total cost of delivering the cash transfer to the beneficiary. Results of both are

summarized in the tables below.

Table 3: Project delivery cost per beneficiary

Unit Value

(SDG)

Unit Value

(Euro)

Number of

Beneficiaries

Value of

Project

Transfer

Cost of

Project

Delivery

Project Delivery

Cost/

Beneficiary

(Euro)

SDP 800.00 ! 270.00 1400 ! 809,597.00 ! 74,403.00 ! 53.00

Table 4: Cash transfer delivery cost per beneficiary

Unit Value

(SDG)

Unit

Value

(Euro)

Number of

Beneficiaries

Value of Cash

Transfer

Cost of Cash

Transfer

Delivery

Cash Transfer

Cost/

Beneficiary

(Euro)

SDP 800.00 ! 270.00 1400 ! 398,963.00 ! 12,433.00 ! 9.00

7 See Haddad, Hoddinot & Alderman, ‘Intra-Household Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods and

Policies’, 1997, and Khogali & Takhar, ‘Empowering Women Through Cash Relief in Humanitarian Contexts’, 2002.


15

The beneficiary households (n=1400) were distributed across seven bomas within Baach Payam,

with the total number of direct project beneficiaries estimated to be 10,854 individuals, which is

equivalent to approximately 23% of the population of the payam.8 Although the overall cost of

the cash transfer per beneficiary is low, it is still is worthwhile to explore exploiting potential

economies of scale wherein the number of beneficiaries could be increased without a significant

increase in stabilized overhead costs. One possible scenario would be to increase the number of

beneficiaries within the existing locations, which was also suggested and requested by project

staff and beneficiaries alike.

2.1.3 Effectiveness of Targeting

Save the Children created the initial targeting criteria, which was then augmented and

implemented by community leaders. The criteria ensured that households with the following

characteristics would be targeted to be a part of the project:

! Vulnerable returnees and their host communities with households having the following

characteristics:

- no cattle/livestock owned, or less than a defined small number (e.g. < 3 cattle, 5

goats);

- less than a defined small acreage of farmland (e.g. < 0.5 acres);

- very large families,

- no, or low food/cash crop harvest, animals not producing milk;

- no fixed employment or petty business;

- no food stocks held;

- no petty trading or no small business;

- households of widows, widowers, orphans, aged, disabled;

- no kinship support

- single woman headed households

Project staff, community leaders, beneficiaries, and non-

beneficiaries in all five locations all indicated that the

targeting process was transparent and fair and that there

was no tension between beneficiaries and non-

beneficiaries. The positive review of this crucial aspect

of the project can be attributed to two processes:

1. Community leaders were involved in the design

of beneficiary criteria and the selection of

individual beneficiaries for both cash-for-work

and unconditional cash transfers. Even though it

was understood that due to limits on the number

of beneficiaries not all vulnerable households 8 Based on baseline mapping exercise and South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission records

(SSRRC)

"In the future, the number of people in cash-for-work should increase. Cash-for-Work benefits everyone in the community." - CFW Recipient, Rupkou Boma


16

could participate, this still did not result in tension between beneficiaries and non-

beneficiaries. However, community leaders and participants in all five locations did

request that in future rounds of the project the number of beneficiaries be increased.

2. Vulnerable households who did not benefit from the cash transfer project were given

priority in the distribution of food cultivated from cash-for-work projects. Community

members felt this was the fairest use of the food products cultivated and greatly improved

the overall support of the project by the community and reduced tensions between

beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

Participants of FGDs in all four locations noted that there were households that were excluded

from the project that should have been included; both among cash-for-work and unconditional

cash transfer beneficiaries. However, none of those interviews felt that there were individuals

who had been included in the project that should have been excluded. Individuals in all four

locations indicated that the number of beneficiaries should be increased. If it is not possible to

increase the number of beneficiaries, those in Rupkou and Rumdier Bomas suggested that later

rounds target households that were not previously able to participate in the program to ensure

that as many as possible from the community are able to benefit from the project.

Table 5 summarizes the number and type of beneficiaries for each boma.

Table 5: Profile of beneficiaries by location

Cash for Work Unconditional Cash

Transfer

Boma Adults Children

Total

CFW Adults

Total

Children

Total

UCT

Total

Beneficiaries

Chuomator 872 1421 2293 232 441 673 2966

Rupkou 543 824 1367 135 256 391 1758

Mathiangdit 305 429 734 49 137 186 920

Wunatemei 435 628 1063 82 202 284 1347

Rumdier 550 732 1282 88 134 222 1504

Panabiei 320 467 787 83 183 266 1053

Angot 411 508 919 98 289 387 1306

Total 3436 5009 8445 767 1642 2409 10854

2.1.4 Effectiveness of Delivery

Distribution took place in Mobil and Warawaar Markets, with each location serving four and

three recipient bomas respectively. In line with the SSOP, community leaders and community

supervisors were informed of the distribution date 24 hours prior to the distribution. Despite the

short time window provided for beneficiaries to travel to the distribution sites, monthly PDM and

cash distribution reports indicate very high turnout by beneficiaries for collection of the

distribution (98% for all but the second distribution, which showed an average turnout of 96%).

The lowest turnout rates were consistently demonstrated by beneficiaries from Angot Boma, the


17

most distant cash distribution location. However, even this reduced turnout never fell below

83%, with an average turnout of 91%. This demonstrates: (1) the project developed effective

communication networks to convey information regarding distribution in a efficient manner to

mobilize beneficiaries to attend distributions; (2) distribution locations were feasibly accessible

for beneficiaries to access on a monthly basis without associated costs excessive enough to deter

or prevent collection of the transfer.

Save the Children staff also indicated that in several instances when unconditional cash transfer

recipients (specifically the elderly or disabled) were unable to collect the transfer from the

distribution points, relatives were sent with their beneficiary card to collect on their behalf. The

relationship between the individual presenting the card to collect the cash transfer and the

actually beneficiary was confirmed by community leaders present for the distribution to ensure

that fraud was not occurring. If this was not possible, community supervisors and assistant

project managers were able to deliver the transfer to the bomas in the following days.

All beneficiaries and community leaders interviewed indicated satisfaction with the timeliness

and location of the delivery and distribution of funds. Despite the distance that some

beneficiaries were required to travel to collect the funds, beneficiaries indicated that collecting

cash in the market allowed them to immediately purchase required items and thus reduce the

amount of money kept on their person while returning home.

Similarly, placing distribution points at local government authorities within Mobile and

Warawaar Markets allowed for police security to be present, which was appreciated by

beneficiaries. In addition, cultural attitudes towards the intervention also ensured security, as one

beneficiary noted, “No one would interfere with this project or those carrying money from the

market after distribution. To do so would be a sign of disrespect, and the community is greatly

appreciative of the project” (10/9/2010, Rumdier Boma). Of all the beneficiaries and

stakeholders interviewed, no one reported any security problems at any point during the cash

distribution or immediately afterwards. No evidence of fraud or corruption on the part of staff,

beneficiaries, or stakeholders was found.

2.1.5 Effectiveness of Disaster Risk Reduction Training and Nutrition

Promotion Components

As discussed previously, the project also included two training components covering disaster risk

reduction and nutrition education to be carried out in the beneficiary bomas. Interviews with

project staff indicated that the nutrition component was started late due to a delay in identifying a

qualified consultant to design the program. During the FGDs, the disaster risk reduction training

was not mentioned as a component of the program. When beneficiaries and community leaders

were asked directly about this component, it was shown that it was not clear that it was

intertwined with the cash transfer project. However, the only areas where disaster risk reduction

and cash-for-work components were specifically linked was in the lowland bomas (Wunatemie

and Chomator), where dykes were constructed by beneficiaries. No interviews or FGDswere

conducted in these areas.


18

Only one of the bomas (Panabei) mentioned the nutrition component during the focus group

discussions. Participants in this location cited it as a key benefit of the program and recited

several of the key messages of the program without prompting. Other locations responded

positively when asked directly about the component, but were not able to recall the specific

content messages. This is most likely due to the delay in the start of the component, as the

project had difficulty identifying a qualified consultant to develop the curriculum.

The nutrition and disaster risk reduction components, although relevant, appeared to lack

cohesion and integration within the overall cash transfer project, as their purpose was unclear to

community leaders and beneficiaries. However, staff did attempt to link the components with the

overall project. It is anticipated that as the program continues, the nutrition component in

particular, will be able to play a more prominent role within the overall project as intended.

2.2 Use of Transfers by Beneficiaries

Data was collected in the baseline assessment, monthly monitoring reports, and the evaluation

regarding beneficiary’s income, expenditure, asset acquisition, and savings. These data sets were

analyzed to identify similarities and differences among both beneficiaries to non-beneficiary

groups, as well as baseline and endline data. In particular, the data indicated the following:

• Beneficiaries were 30 percentage points more likely spend money on education than

non-beneficiaries. Over three-quarters, 78% (n=146) of beneficiaries reported that they

had spent money on education related expenses in the three months prior to the survey, as

compared with only 48% (n=20) of non-beneficiaries. Focus group discussions indicated

that one of the priority expenditures for beneficiaries was educational related expenses,

and beneficiaries in all four locations indicated that the only means by which they had

been able to afford to send children to school was because through using the cash

transfer. This was confirmed in quantitative data, which indicated that beneficiaries

(57%, n=193) were 16 percentage points more likely to have a school-aged child that was

currently attending school than non-beneficiaries (41%, n=33).

• Beneficiaries were 20 percentage points more likely to report expenditures on

medical services than non-beneficiaries. Beneficiaries in all five locations indicated

that medical services were a priority expenditure for the cash transfer. In particular,

mothers noted that they were now able to afford to take their children to the doctor when

they were ill. Children under five from beneficiary households were more than three

times as likely to receive medical advice when showing signs of pneumonia, such as

rapid breathing and coughing, (71%; n=25) than non-beneficiaries (18%; n=10).

• Beneficiaries were twice more likely to have invested in cultivation equipment

(49%; n=91) and household materials9 (42%; n=79) in the past three months than

non-beneficiaries. In addition, beneficiaries were 21 percentage points more likely

(89%; n=169) to report planting land in the previous season. The most commonly planted

crops included sorghum, pumpkins, sesame, and maize, without a significant difference

9 Household materials refer to any items used in the construction or renovation of traditional homes.


19

between beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. Sorgum was by far the most frequently

planted crop, and FGDs in all five locations referenced a less productive than anticipated

sorghum harvest in 2010 due to striga lutea, a parasitic witchweed that stunts the growth

of the plant. The mean number of feddans cultivated in the previous season in 2009 by

respondents did not differ significantly between beneficiaries and non-beneficiary (2

feddans and 1.8 feddans, respectively).

• Beneficiaries were two and a half times more likely to have made payments towards

debt reduction, fines or taxes (24%; n=46) than non-beneficiaries (10%; n=4) in the

past month. Ability to reduce debt is significant both for the individual and the vendor,

as it unlocks future income for families to use towards services such as education and

health rather than repayment, and also relieves local vendors, relatives and families

members of debt owed.

• There was no significant difference in consumption patterns of alcohol and tobacco

between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. One of the most common criticisms of

cash transfer projects is that the funds can be used for negative or anti-social purposes,

specifically alcohol and tobacco. However, as the data indicates, beneficiaries are no

more or less likely to consume alcohol than those who did not receive the cash transfer.

Of those interviewed, 15% (n=28) of beneficiaries and 12% (n=5) of non-beneficiaries

indicated having purchased alcohol or

tobacco in the previous month.

2.3 Overall Project Impact

“Before the project started, I used to sit under a tree near the market and drink tea. Then the project started. I was able to save a little bit and buy a goat. One day, my goat became pregnant. Now I am able to sit under the tree and drink tea with milk.” -UCT recipient, Mathiangdit Boma

2.3.1 Income and Expenditures Throughout the duration of the project, monthly monitoring reports showed that the 80 SDG cash

transfer received from Save the Children constituted 35% of overall household income. This

percentage did not fluctuate significantly from month to month.


20

Figure 1: Beneficiary expenditures by month and type based on monthly monitoring

reports, 2009/2010

As Figure 1 indicates, the percentage of income spent on food varied from month to month

reflecting seasonal differences. When food purchases decreased, asset purchases increased

indicating that the cash transfer project was successful in enabling beneficiaries to build assets.

As one woman in Panabei Boma explained, “From the beginning, the first money was used on

food because it was the hunger season. After the hunger season ended we started buying

chickens and goats. As the hunger season approached again, we went back to buying food. Some

of us still have our chickens and goats, but if the project doesn’t begin soon we’ll be forced to

sell them.”

2.3.2 Asset Depletion and Coping Mechanisms

Less than half (42%; n=92) of respondents indicated that their household had experienced an

event that affected its usual ability to eat and/or buy foods of the quality, quantity and variety

they prefer. The five most common shocks experienced were the same among beneficiaries and

the non-beneficiary groups (Table 6):

• Increased price of food

• Drought/dry spell

• Insecurity or violence (in areas near Abyei border)

• Floods (in lowland areas)

• Sickness of household member


21

Table 6: Shocks experienced by households during life of the project

Shock Most Commonly Employed Coping Mechanism

Beneficiary Non-beneficiary

Increased price of food

(n=58)

Purchase food on credit

(37%; n=15)

Purchase food on credit

(50%; n=5)

Drought/dry spell

(n=57)

Nothing

(23%; n=10) or

Eat fewer meals per day

(23%; n=10)

Go an entire day without meals

(57%; n=5)

Floods

(n=47)

Reduce expenditures on health or

education

(22%; n=15)

Collect wild foods, hunt or harvest

immature crops

(33%; n=5)

Insecurity or violence

(n=32)


(30%; n=6)


(50%; n=4)

Sickness of household

member

(n=25)

Reduce expenditures on health or

education

(43%; n=7)

Distress sale/slaughter of livestock

(51%; n=4)

Although the shocks were the same for both groups sampled, the coping mechanisms employed

by beneficiaries as opposed to non-beneficiaries varied. In particular, the data shows that

beneficiaries were less likely to be forced to deplete assets or make significant nutritional

reductions than those sampled from the non-beneficiary group.

2.3.3 Education, Health and Nutrition

• No significant difference was observed in school attendance in the week preceding

the survey; however children from beneficiary households were less likely to miss

school to engage in work. Parents interviewed reported that a majority of children had

attended all days of school in the previous month, with the non-beneficiary group

reporting slightly higher rates of perfect attendance (63%; n=20) than beneficiaries (56%;

n=123). These rates were significantly lower among children in Rupkou Boma (37%;

n=21). Among beneficiaries the most common cause for missing school was illness

(79%; n=52), whereas among the non-beneficiary group the most common cause was

work (50%; n=4). The lower perfect attendance rates among children in Rupkou Boma

were all attributed to illness and all came from beneficiary households. In the FGDs in

Panabei Boma, beneficiaries noted that children were now more likely to attend school on

a regular basis because families no longer needed them to beg on the street or steal for

food. Children in Rumdier Boma noted that they were now able to attend school this

year, as last year they had to spend their days collecting wild foods or working as

laborers in the market.

• Livestock ownership among beneficiaries has more than doubled since the

beginning of the project. Both the baseline assessment and this evaluation study

collected information on cattle, chicken, goat and sheep ownership among project

beneficiaries. It is unclear to what extent this increase was caused by the cash transfer

project or other outside factors. The following table demonstrates the change in the


22

"One month you have some extra money, you

can buy a goat or chicken." UCT Recipient, Rupkou

percentage of beneficiaries indicating that they own livestock.

The greatest livestock ownership exhibited was the acquisition

of chickens and goats, which indicates a positive impact on

gender empowerment as goats and chickens are generally

female-acquired and owned livestock. Furthermore, goats and

sheep care were considered “stepping stones” for building

wealth in poor families (Southern Sudan Livelihood Profiles

2007). Focus group discussions revealed that goats and

chickens were also the primary store of value within the

communities and thus this acquisition can be viewed as a form

of savings as well as asset building.

Table 7: Absolute livestock ownership at baseline and evaluation

Type of Livestock Baseline Evaluation % Pts Increase

Cattle 13% 43% 30

Chickens 27% 79% 52

Goats 32% 79% 47

Sheep 6% 29% 23 *Absolute livestock was define as owning one or more of the specified livestock

• Beneficiaries were able to feed their children more frequently, even during the

hunger season, than non-beneficiaries. As Table 8 indicates, the difference between the

number of meals consumed by adults in beneficiary households versus non-beneficiary

households was not statistically significant. However, a significant difference can be seen

in the mean number of meals consumed by children during the hunger season – with the

average number of meals consumed by children of beneficiary households being 2.0,

compared to only 1.6 in non-beneficiary households. However, those interviewed

indicated that the ability to feed their children more regularly and healthier foods were

directly dependent on the availability of funds as a result of the cash transfer, noting

“when the project stops, the child malnutrition will be back” (Rupkou Boma).

Table 8: Number of meals consumed

Normal Period Hunger Season

Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Beneficiary Non-beneficiary

Adults 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.0

Children 2.8 2.7 2.0 1.6

• There has been a significant increase in the number of households with acceptable

dietary diversity, however the relationship between this increase and the cash

transfer project is unclear. Dietary diversity calculated using the WFP Food

Consumption Index showed a significant shift in the number of households with poor or

borderline dietary diversity as compared to baseline data. However, this shift was also

exhibited among non-beneficiary groups. Furthermore, differences between the endline

beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups were not statistically significant. While it is safe

to assume that the practice of allocating cash-for-work food production to non-


23

beneficiaries increased the dietary diversity of those recipients, this alone is not enough to

have caused the shifts indicated in the following table among non-beneficiaries. Table 9

summarizes the dietary diversity scores in both the baseline and endline data.

Table 9: WFP Food Consumption Score at baseline and endline

Beneficiaries

(n=160)

Non-beneficiary

(n=43)

Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

Poor 45% 0% 19% 0%

Borderline 34% 12% 62% 9%

Acceptable 21% 88% 19% 91%

2.3.4 Cash-for-work projects

Several beneficiaries noted that they would continue projects similar to cash-for-work projects

even if the cash transfers ended, particularly with regards to cultivation. One man in Rupkou

Boma explained, “Before the project everyone would just work on their own farm. Now we

know how to cultivate larger amounts of land and how to work together.” Beneficiaries in FGDs

in all four locations noted that they had learned new skills as a part of the cash-for-work

cultivation project and thus would continue the projects.

Beneficiaries also noted that many of the improvements they saw in their community were the

result of cash-for-work projects, not cash transfer alone. One community leader in Rupkou Boma

explained,

“Before the project started, we depended on wild fruits. When the project ended,

we began suffering again looking for food. Those who were in the project though

had learned how to cultivate. They still knew how to cultivate. Even though the

project is over they are still cultivating so that we all may eat. They are still

making bricks so we can construct a school so our children can learn” (Rupkou).


24

3. LESSONS LEARNED

Several lessons can be drawn from the experience of the pilot cash transfer project in Northern

Bahr el-Ghazal State. As the first cash transfer project to be piloted in southern Sudan, the

project is rich with lessons learned – both specific to this location and to be considered in a wider

context of potential scale up.

• If appropriate security precautions are followed and existing security mechanisms

utilized, cash transfer is possible in post-conflict settings where security is

considered a risk. Of all the individuals interviewed and all questionnaires administered,

not a single person reported any type of security threat or incident during the course of

the project. Save the Children staff noted that the SSOP and adherence to it was sufficient

to protect themselves and other staff during cash distributions. Beneficiaries noted that

the distribution sites – the presence of police stations near to distribution places as well as

being within a market where money could be spent during the same trip – contributed

significantly to their feeling of security during the project.

• Cash transfers were not misused. As indicated in the literature, for the most part the

belief that cash transfer will lead to increased expenditure on alcohol and tobacco has

been disproven. Data from this study corroborates this finding as there was no

statistically significant difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with

regards to report consumption of alcohol or tobacco.

• The most important priorities for use of cash transfer were expenditures on

education, health and assets. Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate that

education was the highest priority for expenditure of the cash transfer, noting that

receiving the cash transfer was the “missing link” enabling them to send their children to

school. However, once the cash transfer ended, the ability for families to send children to

school ended as well. Health and asset acquisition were also identified as priorities for

use of the cash transfer. Expenditure reporting corroborated these priorities.

• Beneficiaries are building assets. As mentioned previously, absolute (non-zero)

livestock ownership among beneficiaries almost doubled since the beginning of the

project, particularly among female-possessed livestock such as goats and chickens. These

assets are also being protected as a store of value by the household, as evidenced by the

fact that when beneficiary households receive a shock, they are more likely to reduce

expenditures on health or education than liquidate assets.

• Selective targeting processes are possible, even in communities where “everyone is

poor.” The greatest challenge in a cash transfer project of this nature, especially when

working within communities where the majority of inhabitants are considered to be

“vulnerable” or “very poor” by objective standards, is the targeting process by which

participants are selected. Involvement of the community leaders throughout the selection

process, as well as allocation of cash-for-work crop yields to non-beneficiaries was able

to successfully ensure that there was not tension between beneficiaries and non-

beneficiaries.

• Additional components must be intertwined with cash transfer activities from the

beginning of the project in order for their role to be fully recognized. Although

disaster risk reduction training took place from the beginning of the project, its


25

relationship to the cash transfer component was unclear to beneficiaries. The nutrition

component was delayed substantially, which without doubt decreased its efficacy. It is

important that the relationship between these skill-building components be integrated

clearly and from the initiation of the project, with refresher seminars reinforcing the

corresponding objectives throughout the project and their linkages to uptake of behavior

change and the ways that the cash transfer can help support these changes.

• Significant impact on school attendance, disease frequency, and dietary diversity

was not exhibited in the short-term. While expenditure patterns and qualitative data

indicate that households are spending transfers on education and health related services,

which in turn would impact school attendance, disease frequency, and dietary diversity,

ten months is not long enough to be able to objectively observe this type of impact.

However, should the project continue with the same trends, it is possible to assume that

such an impact would eventually be seen.


26

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings on the quantitative and qualitative data and the lessons learned from the

pilot project in Northern Bahr el-Ghazal State, the following recommendations can be made for

replication in different locations as well as scale-up within the current locations:

1. The pilot project should be expanded; however the number of beneficiaries should

be increased within existing bomas before additional bomas are added. Focus group

discussions with beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and community leaders all expressed a

need for there to be additional beneficiaries within the communities, or at the very least

for subsequent rounds to target different households than those included in the previous

round. Interviews with project staff indicated that logistics of managing additional project

sites would be difficult without a substantial increase in manpower.

2. Feasibility of engaging the private sector, specifically commercial banks, should be

explored as partners in the cash distribution process. The finding that no security

threats were experienced during cash distribution is perhaps one of the most valuable

lessons learned, and one that should be shared with commercial banks who may limit

expansion into rural areas due to this reason. One of the largest consumers of manpower

in the project was the number of staff required to prepare and distribute cash transfers

monthly. Partnership with commercial banks could reduce this burden, both in

transferring funds to a local branch instead of transporting cash on WFP/HAS flights and

possibly assuming the role of actually distributing funds through bank kiosks established

in marketplaces. To this end, commercial banks could benefit through expanding their

customer base, and cash transfer recipients would also be able to open bank account

facilitating savings practices.

3. The nutrition component should be enhanced, and a financial literacy component

should be included. Several beneficiaries requested more information and training on

how to open small businesses and build assets using the funds. Financial literacy training

is a natural partner in cash transfer interventions and thus should be explored. The

nutrition component should be integrated more within the overall project and initiated

from the start of the project.

4. Sustainability of the project as it currently stands is questionable, and thus long-

term options should be explored more closely. In the long term, there is no available

institute or organization that would be able to assume the duties of cash transfer in place

of donor-funded projects. While some cash transfer projects are able to be absorbed by

the government, given the situation of southern Sudan, this is not a possibility. Thus, the

project should begin to focus more on building financial literacy, small business, and

savings skills in order to ensure a successful phase-out of direct cash transfer.


27

5. WORKS CITED

Devereaux, Stephen, and L. Pelham. "Making Cash Count." Institute of Development

Studies (2005). Print.

Holmes, Rebecca, and Adam Jackson. "Cash Transfers in Sierra Leone: Are They Appropriate,

Affordable or Feasible?" Overseas Development Institute (2008). Print.

Save the Children UK Humanitarian Aid form submitted to the European Commission

Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid, February 2009.

Son, Hyun H. "Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: An Effective Tool for Poverty

Alleviation?" ADB Economics and Research Department Policy Brief Series 51 (2008). Print.

Schwartz, Analice, and Gisleide Abreu. "Conditional Cash Transfer Programs for Vulnerable

Youth: Brazil's Youth Agent and Youth Action Programs." CICE Hiroshima University, Journal

of International Cooperation in Education 10.1: 115-33.

Documents

Save the Children - Cash Transfer project evaluation report