State of World’s Cash Report

State of World’s Cash Report:Cash transfer programming in humanitarian aid

February 2018

Copyright © CaLP and Accenture 2017. All rights reserved 2

About this Report

• Commissioned by the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP). Delivered by a team of CaLP

staff, Accenture Development Partnerships & experts.

• Purpose: an objective review of the state of Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) in

humanitarian aid today, in order to: (a) assess progress compared to commitments and

(b) provide shared insights to accelerate progress.

• Guided by a high level steering committee of 11 representative actors.

• Primary & secondary research, with input and review from diverse actors, roles and

countries.

• Collaboration with Development Initiatives to generate comparable estimates of the

value of CTP.

• Structured using CaLP’s Global Framework for Action, which consolidates all major

commitments including the Grand Bargain, into 6 key chapters.

• Closes with Priority Actions, based on existing recommendations.

Note: Please see the Appendix for more detail on the Research Methodology

40+ Experts Interviewed

200+ Practitioners Surveyed

35+ Organisations Surveyed

2 Focus Group Discussions

6 Critical Debates

Our research in numbers

8 In depth Case Studies

Copyright © CaLP and Accenture 2017. All rights reserved

40%

Respondents agree that CTP is more routinely considered than a year ago

48%

5

Food

WASH

Education

Protection

Shelter

Nutrition

Health

CTP as a % of Total Global Hum. Aid of $27.3bn in 2016

Total Cash and Voucher Aid Growth from 2015 to 2016

1 2

Quality of CTP coordination

87%

Organizations do not agree that market and response analysis are embedded in response

6

3

4

40%Organizations have enough capacity to implement CTP

The quality of CTP is improving, enhanced by collaboration

The coordination of CTP is unreliable, limiting the benefits realized

Innovations and evidence are proliferating, but gaps remain

Global spend on cash & vouchers increased by 40% to $2.8bn in 2016

Capacity for CTP is a limiting factor across organizations

CTP is being considered more often, but not systematically

HighLow

7/10Organizations have difficulty finding skilled staff for CTP roles

Barriers to accessing CTP trainings

Cost of Face to face trainings

Lack of time to attend

48% 41%

28%

Predictability of CTP coordination

Practitioners believe that national/ local actors are appropriately involved in the coordination for CTP

% Practitioners who believe there has been an improvement in % Practitioners who believe evidence is available to

80%

100% Agree

0% Agree

Make the case for CTP

Use CTP appropriately across sectors

Inform selection of operational model for CTP

53%

44%

Only

Source: Practitioner Survey, Organization Survey, CaLP and Accenture Research

Confusion about where CTP coordination sits / no leadership in the international system

Limited commitment to use shared operational mechanisms

2015

2016

Increment 0.8 bn

10.3%2.8bn

2.0bn

Practitioners believe their organization

8/10

Sector experience with CTP

- Has made progress towards increasing the quality of CTP

- Has considered evidence of best practices while designing and implementing CTP

- Is taking steps to embed common standards and guidelines for CTP

Barriers to effective coordination for CTP


Key Messages (1)

4

Cash transfer programming is improving humanitarian aid around the world. The recent major commitments made to increase the use of cash & vouchers are translating into action on the ground. Momentum for cash transfer programming is strong

In 2016, the use of cash and vouchers grew to $2.8bn, up 40% from 2015 and up 100% from 2014. This accounted for

10.3% of global humanitarian assistance in 2016, up from 7.8% in 2015. Growth is expected to continue.

To date, growth has been uneven. Cash is being considered more often as a tool for humanitarian response, but not yet systematically. Over two thirds of all humanitarian aid delivered as cash and vouchers worldwide in 2016 was disbursed by WFP & UNHCR

Capacity for cash transfer programming is a critical limiting factor. This includes capacity in host governments, national organisations and international agencies. The organisations that have made most progress have invested consistently in building their capacities over years, in areas such as staff skills, response analysis and organisational procedures & support

Building the capacities of local actors for cash transfer programming requires more investment from international

actors

Cash transfer programming is being integrated into key humanitarian standards, such as Sphere, with increasing engagement across clusters. Greater use of common tools, based on best practice, is required to manage quality consistently


Key Messages (2)

5

The coordination of CTP remains ad hoc and unreliable across humanitarian responses. This limits the realisation of benefits. It reflects wider issues about coordination, organisational interests and limited resources. Consensus is emerging that cash should be coordinated at the inter-sector level, with the support of technical Cash Working Groups.

Many exciting innovations are being trialled to use cash and vouchers to enhance aid. They range from technology, to

partnerships with new actors, testing new operational models, and bridging the humanitarian - development divide

The evidence base for how cash and vouchers can be best used in different contexts and sectors is strengthening. Addressing the remaining critical gaps requires different types of programming to be implemented and systematically evaluated

Significant debates continue about the best use of cash. Different actors have differing views about issues such as the use of unrestricted cash, reforms to operational models and links with wider reform efforts

Looking ahead, actors will need to continue investing in integrating CTP into existing humanitarian mechanisms, and innovating to improve aid. This requires the support of three enabling factors: sustaining high level policy commitments, working collaboratively, and supporting a limited amount of cash-specific infrastructure.

CTP is making a major contribution to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian aid. There is immense opportunity to take this further, as cash enables new ways of working. But it is not a silver bullet and needs to be implemented with care in each context. Progress will depend on the extent to which organisations consider the use of cash collectively rather than independently.


How and when can humanitarian CTP align best with social protection

systems?

What do new ways of implementing CTP mean for

capacity building?

Critical Debates affecting progress in CTP

6

Social Protection

Multi-purpose GrantsOperational Models

Measuring CTP

Critical Debates

Financial Inclusion Capacity Building

Should cash and vouchers be measured separately or

together? How do we ensure that both efficiency and effectiveness are given

due weight in the selection of operational models?

How should we use MPGs appropriately, while ensuring necessary sectoral outcomes?

What are the most appropriate ways to combine humanitarian CTP with longer term financial inclusion?


WVI

Agencies/ donors are committing to increase their use and consideration of CTP. In some cases specific targets have been set, e.g.

35%

Objective 1: Ensure sufficient funding is available for cash transfer programming

There is increased high level support for CTP But growth in CTP is uneven, concentrated in a few organizations

Maintaining progress in CTP requires support in both donor and host countries

80% of practitioners agree that there has been strengthening of support for CTP

amongst donors and senior decision makers

More aid is being disbursed as cash and vouchers

7

EU 2x50% UK DFID

Only 38% of organizations surveyed reported more than 20% growth in CTP expenditure from 2015 to 2016. In a minority of cases CTP expenditure decreased

2 organizations (WFP and UNHCR) accounted for over 2/3rd of total CTP expenditure in 2016

▪ Only 39% practitioners surveyed believed that there is strengthening of support for CTP within the general public in donor countries

▪ An appropriate communications strategy is essential to address public perceptions and potential concerns regarding CTP

Challenges to agreeing and harmonizing methodologies and systems for measuring and reporting CTP:

▪ Lack of common categories and definitions for measuring CTP (and other modalities) i.e. what should be tracked and how?

▪ Need to Invest in organizational and interagency reporting systems

Resolving key issues and finding agreement requires coordinated action across a wide range of agencies and systems

Cash target for 2017 Cash target for 2020 through a “cash first approach”

Target to double its use of cash in crises by 2025

$2.8bnTotal Cash and Voucher aid in 2016

10.3% CTPof International Humanitarian Assistance in 2016, compared to 7.8% in 2015

Achieving greater scale necessitates policy commitments to be translated into

practice, requiring systemic organizational change.

Source: State of the World’s Cash Research, CaLP and Accenture Research

Total Global CTP (Cash + Vouchers) amount

$2bn

0,8

$2.8bn

2015 Increment 2016

40%

Improving reporting of CTP involves greater standardization


a. Policy and strategy commitments by senior decision makers

b. Decision making tools – embedding tools for cash feasibility, market and response analysis within project management processes and teams

c. Institutional investment in systems and processes, staff and expertise

Perceived risks of misappropriation and leakage▪ Sensitivities can be higher for cash than in-kind. Donor risk appetite is

important to build confidence. Further evidence is needed on effectivesafeguards in conflict-affected areas.

Lack of capacity▪ Programme teams need to be ‘cash ready’ – in terms of expertise,

systems and processes - to be able to translate CTP interest into action

Objective 2: Ensure cash is routinely considered, alongside other tools

Cash is being considered more systematically by decision makers

Practitioners agree that in the last 12 months, cash and vouchers have been more systematically considered as a response modality87%

Change is gradual, and is driven by several factors

CTP tools and processes are becoming more embedded, but there are issues to address

48%

There remain common constraints to the systematic adoption of CTP


Organizations do not agree that market and response analysis have become more embedded within humanitarian response

Issues with the use of Response Analysis and Market Analysis

They are undertaken inconsistently within and between organizations

Response analysis is not generally revisited during implementation

Market analysis capacity not embedded within agencies at country level

Common market assessment tools are not a good match for the specificities of service markets

Sectoral mandates▪ Sectoral concerns regarding CTP are

generally about ensuring effectiveprogramming in terms of sector-specific outcomes

Funding processes▪ There is uncertainty about the

implications of increased fundingfor CTP, particularly MPGs, forsector-specific funding.

Lack of multi-sector assessments▪ Multi-sectoral response analysis is considered to be an important ‘next

step’ by many. Challenges to date include issues of cross-sectoralcoordination and engagement. A ‘basic needs’ approach might supportbetter cross-sectoral integration, but further testing in practice isrequired


Objective 3: Build sufficient capacity for cash transfer programming

Lack of capacity across organizations is a critical barrier to the effective and extensive use of CTP

Practitioners agree that their organization’s existing policies or the ones

being developed will be effective in ensuring organizational capacity and

readiness for CTP

Organizations report that they do not have the capacities in place

needed to implement CTP60%

64%

Systematic investments are required to make real progress in building CTP capacity

Technical Strategic Operational 59%69%79%

Organizations are building capacity, but the focus is more on strategic and technical

capacity than operational capacity

*Number in the box indicates the % of practitioners who believe that their organization is investing in respective capacities

Human resource capacity in CTP is improving, but gaps remain


Organizations that have made greatest progress in scaling up CTP haveinvested consistently in structured capacity building over several years.This requires dedicated financial resourcing and leadership

Upskilling existing staff requires suitable training as well as

practical experience, for which further opportunities (e.g. on-the-jobsupport or secondments) and resourcing are required▪ Training can benefit from the development of more tailored materials

for different roles and contexts, and translation into more languages.▪ Sharing of training materials and working across organizations

through joint capacity building approaches are favoured.

It is crucial to build local cash readiness through increased investment in CTP preparedness and institutionalization

Only 29% of practitioners believe it is easy to recruit skilled staff for

CTP roles, particularly for senior roles

Capacity building strategies: organizations need to strategically identify wherethey can add most value to CTP, based on their core competencies, and use this toinform their capacity development strategy

Building capacity of local actors can generate significant benefits but is not being undertaken systematically

Only 46% of surveyed organizations reported that they support local non-

governmental actors to implement cash and voucher programming


Objective 4: Ensure the quality of cash transfer programming

10

The quality of CTP is perceived to be improving, but there is currently no common definition of what quality means for CTP

Practitioners believe that their organization has made

progress towards increasing the quality of CTP80%75% of practitioners believe they have the evidence they need to

design quality CTP

Common tools and standards, based on best practice, are required to manage quality consistently.

81% of respondents to the practitioner survey agree that they knowabout best practice tools for CTP. But CTP tools and guidance are notsystematically used across organizations, and are not sufficientlyharmonized with each other or other humanitarian guidance

▪ CBA Programme Quality Toolbox: Details the steps to be followed alongthe entire program cycle, in order to ensure quality of CTP

▪ Mainstreaming CTP in the new Sphere standards: Underpins theinherent multi-sector nature of MPGs and integrates CTP into relevantsectoral technical standards

There are ongoing initiatives to help address these issues, e.g.

Unrestricted CTP can promote choice and quality,but evidence is currently limited

MPGs on their own cannot address all needs and should beimplemented in combination with other programme activities

The use of unrestricted cash cuts to the heart of ‘putting people at thecentre’ of decision making

Determining the best ways for CTP to achieve sectoral outcomes,including through the use of MPGs, requires constructive dialogue andcollaboration across sectors

Effective monitoring requires the use of common indicators and processes across modalities and agencies

Perceived lack of capacity in M&E for CTP

4/10Practitioners believe

humanitarian agencies have

appropriate M&E mechanisms

in place for CTP.

Greater harmoization of indicatorsand outcomes can help enablecomparative analyses of efficiency,effectiveness and accountability.This also needs to be resourced.

The potential of humanitarian CTP to enhance financial inclusiondepends on the context

Whether financial inclusion should be an objective for CTP depends on the nature of the crisis – specifically, its predictability and time horizon.


The causes and results of this are well documented. Humanitarian actors agree on the need to improve cash coordination at country/response level

Objective 5: Strengthen coordination of cash transfer programming

The coordination of CTP remains is unreliable and ad hoc,limiting the benefit realized

48%41%

Relatively few practitioners believe that predictability and quality of CTP

coordination has increased:

Predictability Quality

Barriers to improving cash coordination not being adequately addressed

1

2

3

Barriers to including local actors in CTP coordination

*Indicates the % of practitioners who

agree these aspects of coordination

have improved

44%

41%

40%

33%

Governments lack expertise in CTP

Civil society organisations lack expertisein CTP

Local actors not aware of coordinationmechanisms

Lack of clarity on CTP coordinationwithin the international humanitarian…


28%

Survey respondents agree that humanitarian agencies make the bestuse of common mechanisms for assessment, delivery or monitoring ofCTPs

Lack of progress in formalizing cash coordination in the humanitarian system

Lack of commonly agreed processes for technical and coordination

Lack of operational coordination on CTP assessment, delivery and monitoring

Barriers include:

Coordination should build on existing structures and mechanisms at strategic level

• Growing role of governments, in some contexts• Wider issues about appetite for and strength of coordination• Significant interest in linking to social protection systems

30 Cash Working Groups at an operational level, organized inconsistently

Each group can fit together with leadership & actors in each context

No stable or predictable basis for organisation or resourcing groupsInconsistent role, participants & link with oversight bodies

+

-


Objective 6: Strengthen the evidence base and invest in innovation

The case that CTP can effectively be used at scale has been made,but significant gaps in evidence remain

Agencies are building the evidence base for how CTP can achieve sectoral outcomes CTP can act as a catalyst for further innovation

Practitioners agree that sufficient evidence is available to make the case

for a significant increase in the use of CTP80%Evidence gaps on the use of CTP for:

1 32

4

Different contexts Use of MPGsDifferent sectoral outcomes

Multi-modality / complementary programming

Less than half of practitioners agree that enough evidence is available to

inform the selection of operational models

Contentious issues remain:

▪ Impact on consistency of services available for different populations, and

coordination

▪ Impact on roles of different agencies currently engaged in CTP

▪ Impact on funding core costs and maintaining key humanitarian capacities across

geographies

Collaboration in implementing CTP is increasing, but we don’t yet know which operational models are most appropriate in different contexts


5 Different sub-populations

6 Efficiency and effectiveness of different operational models

Limited evidence reduces use of CTP, but determining how to achieveobjectives in a specific context requires new approaches to be testedin practice

53%Practitioners think sufficient evidence is available about how to use cashand vouchers appropriately in different sectors

There is limited evidence in some sectors, e.g. health, nutrition, WaSH,shelter and protection. This is being addressed through new research andevidence reviews

44%

New operational models are developing based on considerations ofefficiency, effectiveness and accountability, in combination withspecific contextual factors

Innovation requires an appetite for risk, and will benefit fromincreased collaboration among humanitarian agencies and the privatesector.

Technology has been central to CTP, e.g. mobile money, biometrics anddigital identities. Overall, new technology has been underutilized


Priority Actions (1)

13

1.1 Sustain high-level policy commitments to CTP. [GFA 1.3, GB 1.3]1.2 Integrate CTP into organizational and inter-agency reporting systems, using common

definitions. [GFA 1.4, GB 4]1.3 Strengthen support for CTP among the public. [GFA 1.3]

Objective 1: Funding

2.1 Embed contextual analysis and response analysis into humanitarian programme cycles and funding decisions. [GFA 2.2]

2.2 Identify how CTP can achieve the best results in different technical sectors andacross sectors. [GFA 2.3, GB 1.6 & 1.7]

2.3 Donors should work together to ensure appropriate consideration of CTP. [GFA 2.4, GB 1.1]

Objective 2: Routine Consideration

Objective 3: Capacity 3.1 Integrate CTP into organizations’ strategies, systems, processes and staffing [GFA 3.2]3.2 Fund and support national organizations to build their capacity for CTP. [GFA 3.5]3.3 Build individual competencies in CTP. [GFA 3.3]


Priority Actions (2)

14

4.1 Design and implement cash-based assistance to contribute as effectively and efficiently as possible to strategic outcomes [GFA 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4]

4.2 Develop common tools for managing the quality of CTP [GFA 4.1]4.3 Integrate CTP into existing mechanisms for managing the quality of humanitarian

action [GFA 4.2]

Objective 4: Quality

5.1 Integrate CTP into existing mechanisms for coordinating humanitarian action. [GFA 5.1, 5.2, GB 2.2]

5.2 Support and engage with Cash Working Groups. [GFA 5.4]5.3 Build links between humanitarian programmes and other government/development

initiatives. [GFA 5.1 & 5.3]

Objective 5: Coordination

Objective 6: Evidence & Innovation 6.1 Strengthen the evidence base. [GFA 6.1, GB 1.6]

6.2 Strengthen common platforms for building, sharing and using knowledge about CTP. [GFA 6.4 & 6.5]

6.3 Invest in innovation to achieve more for beneficiaries. [GFA 6.2]


Future progress depends on two key themes and three enabling factors

15

Two key themes

Integrate CTP into all existing mechanisms of providing humanitarian aid, including: organizations’ policies, strategies, management and reporting systems, funding and programming decisions, capacity building initiatives, coordination mechanisms, standards, guidance, tools and others.

Innovate and strengthen the evidence base. Trial new ways of working that generate the greatest benefits for people in crisis from the opportunities created by CTP. Develop new partnerships and stronger insights into CTP, share experience and learn together.

Three enabling factors

1. Sustain the high-level policy commitments needed for the effective implementation of CTP.

2. Plan and act collaboratively. Expect to use common approaches and mechanisms for CTP at operational, national and global levels, which are implemented across organizations and existing technical sectors.

3. Support a limited amount of CTP-specific infrastructure, including platforms for collective action on CTP.


In Depth Case Studies

Case Study Summary

NepalScaling up CTP after a rapid onset disaster

Examines how limited CTP capacities, institutionalization and preparedness affected the use of CTP post-earthquake,also highlights lessons learned for linking to social protection systems

NigeriaPiloting tools and approaches for multi-sectoral cash response

ZimbabweLessons from the ‘Emergency Cash First Response’ to drought-affected communities

Summarizes findings from the large scale use of mobile money to address food and nutrition security in the context of a liquidity crisis

DRC Taking cash to scale in challenging environments

Charts the evolution of the

Turkey Working with host governments to deliver CTP during the refugee crisis

Reviews learning emerging from the partnership between Turkish Red Crescent, WFP and the Government to deliver the Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN)

LiberiaCash at scale in response to an epidemic

Examines how CTP was used to support recovery from the Ebola epidemic, including the role of the government, and constraints on payment delivery options due to limited infrastructure

SomaliaRapid scale-up of cash transfer programming in response to drought

Explores enabling factors for rapid scale up of CTP in 2017, along with challenges encountered, with a particular focus on coordination, preparedness and the use of mobile money

LebanonOperational models for cash at scale

Summarizes the evolution to date of different types of CTP operational models during the Syrian refugee response, including consortia and shared delivery mechanisms, and the learning and debates arising

16Source: State of the World’s Cash Research, CaLP and Accenture Research


Research Methodology overview

Activity

Practitioner Survey• 239 responses received spanning roles and

geographies

• 40+ interviews conducted across donors, INGOs, ICRC, governments, private sector etc.

• Captures views from 36 organisations• Major source of org-specific financial data for

CTP calculation

• 8 case studies captured in appendix

17

• 2 FGDs concluded – Asia and West Africa

Organisation Survey

Interviews

Case studies

Focus group discussions

Literature review

Objective Methodology Notes

To gather opinions of practitioners in the field of CTP and get their perspective of current state of CTP

To gather inputs of organisations on their CTP data and their perceptions of the current state of CTP

To gather inputs from organisations in conjunction with the organization survey

To gather inputs from regional CTP practitioners and get their perspective of current state of CTP

To provide detailed review of CTP in a particular response scenario

Review of the work already published in the field of CTP – to learn from the research and draw data/insights

A detailed survey was rolled out to an audience of thousands of CTP practitioners via CaLP d-group, regional mailing lists and newsletters

A brief survey was rolled out to over 40 organisations over email

An interviewer facilitated the capture guided responses from our contact point in each organisation

A combination of interviews and secondary research was used to gather data and analyze CTP response in different crisis situations

A combination of interviews and secondary research used to detail CTP response in different crisis situations

Note: Please refer to the Methodology section in Annex 1 of the State of the World’s Cash Report for further details

Documents

State of World’s Cash Report