00:00:00 Introduction

Thank you so much, Fay, and thanks for attending today's webinar. Welcome everyone. Today marks the first session of this series of two webinars where we will explore cash interventions, implementation modalities, cash intervention M&E, and cash-based intervention tracking using ActivityInfo. As you absorb today's insights, we also invite you to mark your calendar for our next session which is scheduled for the 11th of October.

Today's session outline covers several broad topics. We will review our knowledge of Cash Based Interventions (CBI), explore the types of CBIs used in practice, and talk about implementation modalities. We also want to review our grasp of the operations management cycle. After that, we will talk about the monitoring and evaluation for cash-based interventions, where we will discuss establishing meaningful KPIs for your particular programs, defining clear M&E goals, and aligning M&E objectives with program outcomes. We will also identify crucial criteria for gauging CBI successes. Finally, we will show you how to use ActivityInfo in tracking cash-based interventions using a case study approach with a ready template, followed by a Q&A session.

00:01:44 What are cash based interventions?

A cash-based intervention refers to any action in which cash or vouchers redeemable for goods or services are distributed to persons of concern. Persons of concern could range from refugees to persons in need during disasters, whether as individuals or on behalf of a community. The term CBI is often used interchangeably with Cash Based Transfer or Cash Transfer Programming. These can be employed independently, in conjunction with one another, or alongside in-kind assistance.

There is a rationale for cash-based interventions. It is good to note that CBIs in themselves are a tool and a means to an end, not the goal themselves. The rationale stems from the recognition that cash transfer serves as a versatile mechanism for allocating resources across various sectors. In situations where vital goods or basic goods are accessible in the market, yet the affected population lacks the financial means to acquire them, the provision of cash enables individuals to address their immediate and enduring needs for essential foods and non-food items. Moreover, there is a circular economy possibility; if properly executed, CBIs have the potential to impact many sectors of the economy and even restart economies. Essentially, cash transfer programming allows for the improvement of human agency, the promotion of human rights, community-based approaches to disaster relief, and ensures collaboration among state and non-state actors in humanitarian crises.

00:06:48 Types of cash based interventions

The first common type of CBI is the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT). This comes with specific spending requirements where the recipients receive the transfer of cash in exchange for fulfilling certain conditions. For example, engaging in tasks like building their homes, planting seeds, contributing labor to community projects, or reestablishing livelihoods. A key component of conditional transfers is the qualifying condition, where recipients receive cash or vouchers only after they fulfill specific conditions.

The second type is Unconditional Cash Transfer. This is the opposite of the first type; there are no rules attached to how the money should be spent. The third type involves Commodity or Cash Vouchers. A commodity voucher serves as a promissory note, exchangeable for a specific good or commodity. While cash vouchers are worth a specific monetary value (e.g., $100), a commodity voucher might be for seeds, allowing the user to get seeds in return. Various delivery mechanisms exist, such as immediate cash, delivery through an agent, smart cards, mobile money, or bank accounts.

00:09:40 Selecting transfer modalities

When selecting transfer or cash modalities, the first thing to consider is market viability. Is the market capable of supplying the required products or services to meet the displaced population's needs in terms of quality, quantity, and scalability? If the answer is no, then providing in-kind assistance might be more appropriate. The second consideration is community preference; do affected individuals prefer cash or vouchers over in-kind assistance?

Security concerns are also vital. You do not want to disburse cash in a situation where it puts recipients at risk of theft. Other considerations include financial infrastructure, financial literacy, government approvals, and operational capacity. It is crucial to ensure these elements are present before proceeding, rather than making assumptions that could be overturned by government restrictions later.

00:11:23 Risks and mitigation

In the context of humanitarian aid, CBIs offer both opportunities and challenges. Risks such as overcrowding camps are a worry to practitioners. To avoid unintended consequences, programs need to be carefully designed and monitored. Cash aid can accidentally break up a community's sense of unity or discourage voluntary work, potentially making people more dependent without helping them in the long run. To deal with these problems, there is a push for CBI programs to reach displaced people living outside of camps or vulnerable people in host towns.

A diverse risk analysis is necessary. For example, in a case study from Somalia, diversion or fraud can happen at different stages: at registration and verification, during the transfer of cash to money agents, or at the point of payment to recipients. We must guard against this, and the management system presented later will provide a way to track and detect if money is not reaching the intended recipients.

00:13:22 Operational management cycle

The operational management cycle begins with preparedness action, which is crucial before launching the program. The next stage is to assess needs and capacities and determine program objectives. The third stage is to analyze the different response options and choose the best combination, ensuring you do not impose on the community. The fourth stage is to plan, design, and implement the responses based on evidence rather than assumptions. Finally, you must monitor, listen, evaluate, and learn. This involves a feedback response mechanism where you can iterate and adjust the program based on what you learn.

00:14:53 Impact of M&E on CBIs

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) can ensure that cash transfers effectively meet basic needs and support livelihoods by assessing the impact of the transfer, tracking changes in livelihood assets, or collecting beneficiary feedback. M&E also contributes to the speed and efficiency of cash transfers by identifying delays or bottlenecks, monitoring timelines of disbursements, and analyzing cost-effectiveness metrics.

Furthermore, M&E ensures comprehensive support by assessing the integration and coordination of cash transfers with other humanitarian services, such as health, education, or shelter. It helps gather data on the multi-dimensional needs of beneficiaries. Finally, M&E plays a critical role in safeguarding beneficiaries and preventing abuse or diversion. By implementing M&E mechanisms, you can detect irregularities, fraud, or potential abuse, and encourage beneficiaries to report incidents.

00:17:46 Monitoring and evaluation for CBI

Monitoring and evaluation is crucial across all programs, and the fundamentals are not different for cash transfers compared to other projects. However, cash programming has specific characteristics, primarily flexibility. For example, in unconditional cash transfers, beneficiaries choose how and where to spend the money. This means we need to track not just the receipt of assistance, but how it was spent, who spent it, and the decision-making power within the household.

We must also be aware that cash transfers frequently correspond to a great influx of money within a specific village or area, which may have wider intended and unintended impacts. For instance, we need to monitor if the cash creates tensions within the community or affects household dynamics, following the "Do No Harm" approach.

00:21:16 Monitoring objectives

The objective of monitoring cash-based interventions is to create a solid basis for evidence-based decision making. We need to monitor areas important to project implementation, determine what is working well and what is not, and perform timely modifications if needed. Monitoring provides information to help program managers make better decisions regarding resource allocation.

Additionally, monitoring is strongly associated with accountability towards beneficiaries, implementing actors, and the government. It provides the evidence needed to support changes within a project and backs up decisions. It helps provide context on the logical framework for monitoring.

00:23:18 Logical framework for monitoring

Monitoring starts at the baseline, determining the state of the participants before the intervention. When building the MEAL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning) system, we need to determine what to monitor: the process, higher-level or mid-level results, the context (especially in fast-changing environments), and the risks.

Indicator selection is the core of every M&E system. We need to know which piece of data provides evidence of advancement. This selection dictates how we collect and analyze information, whether we need disaggregation, and our sampling strategy. We then verify and validate the data to guarantee consistency. The most crucial point is using this information for decision making and providing feedback to beneficiaries and upper management.

00:27:55 Indicator selection

We need to ensure we gather relevant and useful indicators. Quantitative indicators should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound). It is important to collect disaggregated information—gender, age, and vulnerability status—to understand risks and household dynamics. A balance of quantitative and qualitative indicators is essential. Qualitative data helps explain the "why" and "how" behind the numbers. For example, knowing a household is unsatisfied is the quantitative part; understanding the reason why requires qualitative inquiry.

Common examples of indicators include the percentage of households reporting being able to meet basic needs according to priorities, the percentage of households by livelihood coping strategies, and the percentage of households where women report being involved in decision-making on cash transfer use.

00:31:07 Data collection methods and tools

We want to collect useful information of high quality. It is better to collect a small quantity of high-quality information than a large amount of unreliable data. Qualitative data should not be overlooked as it explains the context. We must mainstream gender and equity in data collection methods, ensuring that enumerators and participants represent different groups.

Accountability is another crucial component. We need to build accountability questions into data collection tools, such as asking about safety during distribution or withdrawal. We must also monitor the quality of complementary services if the CBI is accompanied by other support. Using prepaid cards often provides an additional data source via the financial provider, such as transaction logs. Finally, selecting a range of methods like surveys and focus group discussions helps triangulate information.

00:34:54 Use of technology

Monitoring and evaluation involve many components that need to come together in a common platform. A comprehensive cash transfer platform is crucial to combine M&E data with the project implementation flow. For example, data from registration, verification, and distribution should all reside in one system. This is especially important when multiple implementing actors are involved.

We need to build upon pre-existing components within the organization and consider requirements, capacities, and existing technology. The choice of technology depends on the nature of the cash, the scale, the capacity of the organization and partners, and the available budget.

00:37:23 Case study

To demonstrate how to create an information management system that combines MEAL and implementation flow, we will use a case study. The scenario involves a multipurpose unconditional cash intervention targeting populations in refugee camps (rural) and urban areas. Eligibility is determined by a vulnerability score, and the cash amount is based on household size. The modality is prepaid cards loaded monthly. Cards not used for two months are canceled.

The workflow involves registration by field staff, monthly verification of eligibility (checking household size, presence in the country, possession of cards), and a feedback response mechanism (helpline, suggestion boxes). The project logic aims to meet basic needs and reduce negative coping strategies. We monitor how beneficiaries spend money, their satisfaction, and delivery efficiency.

00:46:22 ActivityInfo demonstration

In ActivityInfo, we can reflect this workflow efficiently. We have a form for beneficiary registration collecting demographic information and vulnerability data. Calculations are embedded to determine the vulnerability score and the cash amount based on household size. This reduces errors and supports field staff.

We have a monthly verification form to track the history of the household, allowing updates if family size changes or other factors affect eligibility. There is also a form for tracking prepaid cards, including barcode scanning capabilities. Separate forms exist for the feedback complaint mechanism and the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) survey. Even though these are separate forms, they are connected to the principal beneficiary table.

Finally, we use the data for analysis and reporting. We can create a monthly monitoring report that refreshes automatically as data comes in, showing registrations, verifications, and demographics. We also have a PDM report tracking high-level indicators like the percentage of households meeting priority needs or using negative coping strategies. Having everything in one integrated database saves time and reduces the risk of errors compared to using multiple Excel sheets.

00:56:07 Key considerations

Monitoring provides a strong basis for successful evaluation. Information systems for strong monitoring should combine M&E plans with existing data sources from the implementation flow (registrations, verifications). Always consider the availability of resources and collaboration with implementing partners. Using existing data for M&E purposes saves time and money by reducing the need for additional data collection.

00:57:10 Q&A session

How do you coordinate cash-based interventions activities of different actors? Coordination can be managed through a system like ActivityInfo that allows you to track multiple partners in one place. You can use reference forms to manage partner activities and reporting. Establishing a coordination mechanism, such as a cluster lead or inter-agency body, is essential to define roles and responsibilities. Joint assessments, standardized tools, and resource mapping are also critical for alignment.

How much of the project budget should be assigned to monitoring and evaluation of CBI? A common guideline is to allocate around 5 to 10% of the total project budget for M&E. However, this depends on complexity, donor requirements, and risk levels. High-risk environments or programs requiring frequent travel may require a higher budget. Using technology and existing data sources can help reduce costs.

How do we achieve mainstreaming on gender and equity in data collection methods? Mainstreaming requires integrating gender and equity considerations into every aspect of the data collection process. This includes designing inclusive questions, ensuring the sampling strategy represents all groups, and training data collectors on sensitivity. The gender of the enumerator can also play a role in getting accurate responses for sensitive topics.

Is there evidence where cash transfer has made sustainable change? Yes, but CBI must be viewed as a tool to achieve a bigger aim. For example, in Haiti, cash for rent interventions helped dismantle camps and move over 330,000 internally displaced persons back to residences. The success depended on the strategy and the agency given to the beneficiaries, proving that when used correctly, cash can lead to sustainable solutions.

How best can you target individuals to be included in CBI interventions in case of emergencies? Targeting depends on the type of emergency and government regulations. In some cases, the government determines eligibility (e.g., all asylum seekers). In others with restricted budgets, vulnerability criteria are used to target the most needy. Monitoring registration data helps refine targeting by identifying if certain groups (like female-headed households) are being excluded.

How often should we do Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM)? The frequency depends on resources and objectives. It can be monthly with small samples for quick checks, or quarterly/bi-annually with larger samples for a broader picture. If a program is well-established and running smoothly, less frequent but larger PDM surveys might suffice.