Cash Transfer
Programming
and
Persons of Concern
Workshop
Centre Point Hotel Chidlom
Bangkok, Thailand
14-15 March 2016
|Inclusivity| Predictability| Continuity
Protection Definition
“…encompasses all activities aimed at obtaining
full respect for the rights of individuals in
accordance with human rights, refugee and
humanitarian law.
Protection can involve either removing individuals
or groups from a risk, threat or situation of
violence that may adversely affect their
fundamental rights or freedoms or intervening at
the source of the violence to stop or reduce it.”
- (IASC, 2006)
2
What are the Sphere Protection Principles?
Principle 3:
Principle 2:
Impartial assistance
Safety and
Dignity
Protection from
violence and
coercion
Meaningful
Access
Accountability
Principle 1:
Do no harm
Participation &
Empowerment
Principle 4:
Claim rights and
access remedies
3
Cash and Protection
• Potential protection benefits of CBI:
– Dignity - enabling individuals and households to choose how the money is
spent according to their own priorities.
– Potential to prevent or reduce the use of negative coping strategies used by
children and families in order to meet their basic needs (which could include
child labor, early marriage, strategic family separation, etc).
– Mitigate psychosocial distress and vulnerability to abuse, exploitation,
violence and neglect.
• UNHCR literature reviews (2013, 2015) have generally
demonstrated positive results for the protection of beneficiaries
through cash-based programming, within limitations.
• Research also indicates that the risks that do arise are usually
related to programme design, rather than being inherent to the use
of cash.
• Risk analysis, safeguarding measures throughout the programme
cycle and ongoing monitoring of safeguarding issues and
protection situation are key factors to ensure that risks are
minimised.
Knowledge
Guidance
Tool
Confidence
Risk Equation
Risk =
Threat × Vulnerability
Capacity
5
Knowledge
Guidance
Tool
Confidence
What are common assumptions
regarding the risks of CBIs?
• Conflict in the family. • Disincentive to work.
• Additional burden on • Antisocial spending.
women.
• Lack of data
• Safety issues.
protection.
• Corruption.
Response
Analysis
Program
Design
Mitigation
6
Knowledge
Guidance
Tool
Confidence
How do we maximize benefits
and minimize risks?
Incorporate protective
elements to mitigate risks
Design interventions
that mitigate
unintended consequences
Design and revise programs
to enhance protection
benefits
Ensure participation,
accountability and meeting
the needs of different
groups/individuals
7
Protection Risk and Benefit Analysis
(excerpt)
Protection
area
Protection
risk
What does the
evidence sayspecific to CBI?
Communitybased mitigation
Humanitarian
agency
mitigation
Protection
benefits
specific to CBI
Safety and
dignity
Theft,
extortion
Not specific to
cash. Designrelated.
PoC participation
in assessment,
design,
monitoring.
Feedback
mechanisms,
appropriate
delivery
mechanism
Dignity of choice.
Participation.
Accountability to
PoC. Discreet
delivery
mechanisms.
Improved
income doesn’t
necessarily
lead to
empowerment.
PoC with
specific
needs
Additional
burdens of
participation
e.g. women
in cash-forwork.
Not specific to
cash.
PoC participation
in assessment,
design,
monitoring.
Careful,
communitybased design,
monitoring and
feedback
mechanisms,
willingness to
revise/stop as
necessary.
Discreet delivery –
avoid stigma,
alternative delivery
mechanisms.
Community
cash transfers
helped to
strengthen
community
care for
orphaned
children along
with other
community
support.
What does
the
evidence
say?
Key Recommendations for Protection in the CBI Programme Cycle
(excerpt)
Top Tips for Protection in CBI (excerpt)
Action Research – Cash and Protection
Partner
DRC
IRC
Save the Children
Location
Topic
Dates
Turkey
Effectiveness and protection results of MPG
for out-of-camp Syrian refugees in southern
Turkey.
June-Nov 2015
Jordan
Identify lessons learned and
recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of CBI in mitigating genderbased violence risks.
Sept-Dec 2015
Lebanon
Child-outcomes focused research to
measure the direct and indirect impact of
multi-purpose cash assistance on the
children of beneficiary households of the
Lebanon Cash Consortium (LCC).
Sept-Dec 2015
Protection benefits, risks and outcomes
“Cash Transfer Programming for Syrian Refugees: Lessons learned on vulnerability,
targeting and protection from the Danish Refugee Council’s e-voucher intervention in
Southern Turkey”
Programme: DRC Turkey is currently implementing a two-year, DFID-funded project that
aims to provide immediate support to and strengthen the coping mechanisms of
vulnerable non-camp Syrian refugees in southern Turkey.
Key findings:
• Nearly all focus group participants, both men and women, stated that the e-vouchers
provided valuable material support to their households, allowing them to cover their
food needs and direct money toward other priorities, particularly rent.
•
Several participants in both Sanliurfa and Antakya also highlighted the psychological
effect of receiving e-voucher assistance, saying that it reduced their worries and
even “conferred dignity and respect.”
•
As may be expected, participants in all groups expressed a preference for
unrestricted cash over restricted e-vouchers, as cash would provide more choice and
would allow them to avoid unpleasant and sometimes undignified conditions at
partner supermarkets.
Protection benefits, risks and outcomes
“Integrating Cash Transfers into Gender-based Violence Programs in Jordan: Benefits, Risks and Challenges”
Programme: Women’s protection and economic empowerment. In 2013, the International Rescue Committee’s
(IRC) started cash transfer programming (CTP) as part of the urban Women’s Protection and Empowerment
(WPE) program in Jordan. The aim was to use cash transfers as a tool to build women’s resilience towards
gender based violence through meeting their basic needs and targeted protection services. Three years into the
program, the IRC sought to reflect on its experiences to inform future use of cash assistance in gender based
violence (GBV) programming in Jordan and other contexts.
Key findings:
•
Resilience to GBV is supported by receiving both cash transfers (CT) and WPE services, rather than cash
alone.
•
Receiving cash and attending Gender Discussion Groups (GDGs) can result in a decrease of domestic
violence.
•
The impact of cash is limited to CT duration, while GDGs and Psychosocial services offer a sustained
protection impact beyond CT duration.
•
Cash associated with individual GBV case management can be lifesaving: in preventing an imminent threat of
violence from occurring, in ensuring immediate health, safety and security once violence has occurred.
•
While not a direct program objective, increased social cohesion could allow refugees, including women and
girls, to experience enhanced protection and safety due to improved social relations among communities.
Protection benefits, risks and outcomes
“Impact of Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MCA) on Outcomes for Children in Lebanon”
Programme: The Lebanon Cash Consortium (LCC) brings together six leading international NGOs to
deliver MCA to socio-economically vulnerable refugee households living in Lebanon.
Key findings:
• Education. Figures from caretaker and surveys suggest that those receiving cash more often enroll
their children in school (beneficiaries: 60.7%; control: 51.5%) their children attend school more
consistently (12.3% of beneficiary group children and 27% control group children did not attend school
in the winter), and, while still a barrier, engagement in child labour is less so for the beneficiary as
opposed to control households.
•
Health. Children are often sick, suffering from a variety of illnesses ranging from common cold
symptoms to chronic illness. Data does not directly indicate that the beneficiary households are
seeking more medical care, it does however suggest that the beneficiary households are more
consistently seeking medical attention from qualified doctors rather than alternative sources such as
traditional healers. Cash assistance is reducing the probability of experiencing a lack of resources to
cover food expenses by .105, and increasing the overall diversity in children’s diet by .04%.
•
Inadequate size of MCA. The relatively small size of MCA as compared to the cost of living in
Lebanon is likely minimizing any potential impact on shelter and negative coping strategies. This is
especially true given the already severe vulnerability of the beneficiary population.
Using the Protection Risks and Benefits Analysis Tool
Case Study A
Mainstreaming
Protection in CBIs
to meet basic
need(s)
Groups 1 & 2
Case Study B
CBIs contributing to
protection
outcomes
Groups 3 & 4
16
Reviewing the Case Studies
Each group will present and receive feedback on:
–
–
–
–
–
Possible results and impact.
Intended/unintended consequences.
Possible heightened risks and mitigation.
Response decision and justification.
Any comments on using the PRBA Tool.
17
Knowledge
Guidance
Tool
Confidence
Decision Tree
Identify and assign context-specific weights/importance to
protection risks and benefits in terms of safety and dignity,
access, data protection, market impacts, people with
specific needs and risks, social relations, fraud and
diversion, and durable solutions/early recovery.
YES
Consider different CBI modalities (cash,
voucher) and delivery mechanisms (cash,
electronic card, mobile phone, etc.)
Explore the community and agency
measures and aspects of program design
that could mitigate protection risks.
Is each
protection
risk specific
to CBI?
NO
Explore the community and
agency measures and aspects of
program design that could mitigate
protection risks.
18
Decision Tree
If no feasible mitigation
measures exist consider inkind assistance or no
material assistance (other
services or protection work
instead).
If mitigation measures and/or
another CBI delivery modality
or delivery mechanism is
possible, weigh the risks and
mitigation measures along
with potential protection
benefits of CBI, discuss with
communities and decide
whether and how to implement
CBI.
Remember!
• Consider context-specific protection risks and benefits.
• Ask yourself if protection risks and benefits are specific
to cash.
• Monitor changes in protection risks, benefits and the
effectiveness of mitigation mechanisms. Adapt!
• Work jointly across protection and program/cash
teams.
20