EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unconditional cash transfers1 are increasingly prevalent in humanitarian response plans. The use of cash is now widely accepted across all contexts and there has been significant focus on the means by which cash can facilitate and promote more efficient and effective delivery of support. This is alongside the increased attention throughout the decade on risk mitigation and feasibility as well as improved effectiveness substantiated through impact evaluation that has, in turn, meant a growth in programme policy and evidence-based planning.
As the World Humanitarian Summit approaches, global consultations on the use of unconditional cash transfers have concluded with a recognition of the potential of cash to transform the ways in which humanitarian response is operated. There is a growing consensus that cash transfers offer opportunities for a new approach: one that is more efficient and streamlined; one that presents ways to capitalise on technology and private sector capacity; and one that opens the door to improved multi-sector programming.
The purpose of this study is to include the voices of recipients of unconditional cash transfers in these discussions.
The study asks beneficiaries of unconditional cash transfers in three countries – as the primary stakeholders in this type of programming – what works and what doesn’t work in their particular setting and uses their experiences to contextualise this. The study is small, but the questions the same as those engaging policy makers: what works about unconditional cash transfers? And, what should be changed or improved?
During August and September 2015, a total of 111 unconditional cash transfer beneficiaries in ongoing humanitarian settings – Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nepal and Philippines2 – were engaged in a series of focus group discussions centred on these two open questions. The discussions were complemented by a quantitative survey that explored some of the key dimensions of quality programming, including operational ease of use, issues of dignity and choice and on expected or perceived impacts.
Participants in all focus groups in the three countries agreed on two specific areas when asked “what works” in unconditional cash transfers: cash provides choice and reinforces a respect for beneficiaries’ dignity. That cash provides flexibility to meet varying needs and the resulting choice this gives to recipient households was widely appreciated and acknowledged as a positive benefit. Receiving cash on time and in a flexible manner meant that households expressed a wide range of spend, from food and household items, to spend on livelihoods and shelter repairs. People were able to identify their own priorities and this was invaluable.
This was complemented by agreement among all groups that the choice and freedom in expenditure as well as some direct cash outcomes respected and even restored beneficiaries’ dignity. This is expressed through some of the quotes directly from participants who talked of cash “ending humiliations” and turning them from “burdens” to accepted and respected members of the community; and this is reflected in some of the stated benefits of cash. For example, cash had allowed recipients to re-engage in social commitments, an important part of culture in all study countries. Amidst the countless challenges and disruptions, being able to contribute and to make joint decisions made recipients feel empowered and respected.
When asked how unconditional cash transfers can be improved, participants of all groups talked about an increase in total volume of cash distributed. Though groups to degrees understood the purpose of the cash received within the respective programmes – i.e.: to meet a range of immediate needs and support emergency recovery – all felt that an increase in the volume of cash would mean that multiple objectives could be met. Of course, the value of assistance is driven and determined by many factors in each setting and specific interventions are designed for specific purposes; but, participant feedback makes a clear call for the expansion of cash programmes to go deeper in meeting needs.
Whilst discussions at a global level focus significantly on efficiencies that can be sought in cash transfer programming, the voices of recipients affected by crises calls clearly for progress that enables the use of unconditional transfers for multiple purposes. These testimonials from recipients provide useful insights to further leverage attributes of cash transfers in support of beneficiaries and to put emphasis on the determination of transfer values to support a more complete recovery.
These stories also reveal the importance of a continuous dialogue and engagement with affected communities in decisions on planning and implementation. It is by engaging and including the opinions of those directly affected by crisis that cash transfer programming can transform humanitarian aid to best serve those these activities are meant to support.