Harmonising data systems for cash transfer programming in emergencies in Somalia

Abstract

Quality data and information are fundamental for effective implementation of cash transfer programmes in emergency contexts. Establishing a robust information system can facilitate the equitable and responsive distribution of humanitarian cash-based assistance, while enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of its delivery. This study presents findings on how various humanitarian agencies are collecting and using registration and identification data in cash transfer programmes in Somalia and identifies opportunities, risks and barriers to establishing an effective integrated data system. The study is based on a systematic review of published and grey literature, as well as on key informant interviews with representatives of humanitarian agencies, donors and government officials in Somalia. The study finds that the collection of registration and identification data is largely based on individual agencies' policies, guidelines and standard operating procedures, resulting in multiple noninteroperable data systems. Progress is being made to harmonise/integrate data systems, including using harmonised registration forms, a common database and data sharing agreements in various consortia; bilateral agreements to share registration platforms; and initiatives by donors and the government to enhance interoperability. Despite this progress, the harmonisation of data systems is still constrained by a number of technical, political, financial and organisational factors, as well as legal, fiduciary, reputational and data protection risks. The study concludes that harmonising data systems presents both long-term opportunities and short-term risks for developing a robust integrated data system for providing cash-based assistance in humanitarian contexts and supporting implementation of social protection programmes.

Harmonizing government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Harmonizing data cannot escape these dynamics and in fact invites greater scrutiny of them as it adds another layer of negotiation and complexity in terms of determining what is worthy of being measured and how to measure it. Undergirding all of this are social processes that produce data in the first place and which can have important influence on what data ultimately is or is not harmonized 23 . Though in a number of fields, researchers have developed novel platforms that aim to help facilitate data harmonization 24 , 25 , ultimately effective data harmonization requires researchers to identify clear goals for their harmonization process, a high level of attention to detail in designing a rigorous plan to carry out, and a robust working culture to ultimately successfully implement it.…”

Cash transfer, maternal and child health outcomes: a scoping review in sub-Saharan Africa

“…selecting a given state or province rather than others), and who should benefit from such programmes cast questions on its transparency, and accountability. Quality data and information are fundamental for the effective implementation and evaluation of programmes [ 55 ]. The lack thereof exposes the programme to shortcomings (e.g.…”

A General Guide for Harmonizing Data: Drawing Lessons from Harmonizing COVID-19 PHSM Data

“…Harmonizing data cannot escape these dynamics and in fact invites greater scrutiny of them as it adds another layer of negotiation and complexity in terms of determining what is worthy of being measured and how to measure it. Undergirding all of this are social processes that produce data, harmonized or not, in the őrst place and which can have important inŕuence on what data ultimately is or is not harmonized [63]. Though in a number of őelds, researchers have developed novel platforms that aim to help facilitate data harmonization [17,104], ultimately effective data harmonization requires researchers to identify clear goals for their harmonization process, a high level of attention to detail in designing a rigorous plan to carry out, and a strong working culture to ultimately successfully implement it.…”

“…Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the resulting harmonized methodology would be methodologically more robust compared to alternative strategies. Standardization can create winners and losers [61,62], and the őnal harmonized methodology may better reŕect the institutional power of those advocating for it [63,64] rather than its scientiőc rigor. Meanwhile, even if these challenges are overcome but the desired data is part of a longer time series, then previously collected data cannot be included in prospective harmonization [65].…”