Cash‐based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness, efficiency and implementation of cash transfers in humanitarian settings. The review summarises evidence from five studies of effects, 10 studies of efficiency and 108 studies of barriers and facilitators to implementation of cash‐based humanitarian assistance. Studies assessing effectiveness of cash‐based approaches were experimental and quasiexperimental studies. Studies analyzing efficiency were experimental, quasi‐experimental or observational studies with a cost analysis or economic evaluation component. Studies examining barriers and facilitators included these study types as well as other qualitative and mixed methods studies. Unconditional cash transfers and vouchers may improve household food security among conflict‐affected populations and maintain household food security among food insecure and drought‐affected populations. Unconditional cash transfers led to greater improvements in dietary diversity and quality than food transfers, but food transfers are more successful in increasing per capita caloric intake than unconditional cash transfers and vouchers. Unconditional cash transfers may be more effective than vouchers in increasing household savings, and equally effective in increasing household asset ownership. Mobile transfers may be a more successful asset protection mechanism than physical cash transfers. Cash transfers can be an efficient strategy for providing humanitarian assistance. Unconditional cash transfer programmes have a lower cost per beneficiary than vouchers which, in turn, have a lower cost per beneficiary than in‐kind food distribution. Cash transfer programs can also benefit the local economy. Voucher programmes generated up to $1.50 of indirect market benefits for each $1 equivalent provided to beneficiaries and unconditional cash transfer programmes generated more than $2 of indirect market benefits for each $1 provided to beneficiaries. Intervention design and implementation play a greater role in determining effectiveness and efficiency of cash‐based approaches than the emergency context or humanitarian sector. Factors which influence implementation include resources available and technical capacity of implementing agencies, resilience of crisis‐affected populations, beneficiary selection methods, use of new technologies, and setting‐specific security issues, none of which are necessarily unique to cash‐based interventions. Plain language summary Cash‐based humanitarian assistance approaches can increase food security and are more cost effective than in‐kind food transfersBoth cash‐based approaches and in‐kind food assistance can be effective means of increasing household food security for people who live in areas of conflict. The review in briefCash‐based approaches have become an increasingly common strategy for the provision of humanitarian assistance. Both cash‐based approaches and in‐kind food assistance can be effective means of increasing household food security among conflict‐affected populations and maintai...

Responding to conflict: Does “Cash Plus” work for preventing malnutrition? New evidence form an impact evaluation of Yemen’s Cash for Nutrition Program

“…A recent comprehensive literature review identified only four empirically rigorous studies measuring impacts of cash-based approaches on nutritional outcomes during humanitarian emergencies, primarily focusing on methodologies for providing aid to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees. 7 Notably, only one of these studies, focused on a refugee population, was able to randomize a cash intervention compared to a pure control group. 8 The other three studies randomized…”

The Long-Term Effect of Humanitarian Emergencies on Adolescents

“…Particularly important to understand are the effects of exposure to multiple and varied shocks over time, that is, the cumulative effects on adolescents' well-being of the myriad of shocks and crises characterizing famines and the distinctive effects of 'human-made' versus natural shocks and crises. While some work has been carried out in the context of crises with regards to protection mechanisms to soften impacts (see Doocy and Tappis (2016) for a review of cash-based interventions in humanitarian contexts), much less has been done on protective mechanisms to support adolescent well-being outcomes (see Asghar, Rubenstein and Stark (2017) for interventions to prevent violence against children and women in humanitarian contexts).…”

Prospects and Bottlenecks of Reciprocal Partnerships Between the Private and Humanitarian Sectors in Cash Transfer Programming for Humanitarian Response

“…For the implementation of cash aid, financial service providers appear to play an important role by providing technology and expertise in transferring money to beneficiaries. Despite the recent growth of humanitarian sector's expectation toward CTP, relevant literature is limited Doocy, 2017, Doocy andTappis, 2016).…”

“…A systematic literature review on CTP from Doocy and Tappis (2016) concludes that only nine studies are in peer-reviewed publications and none of them focus on the role of the private sector. The majority of peer-reviewed articles are case studies about CTP implemented in different geographical areas while others modeling the cost efficiency and effectiveness of cash versus in kind.…”