3. Assessment and Analysis

When the use of Cash Based Intervention is considered, the situation analysis should comprise:

• A mapping of the existing social protection schemes. Using existing social protection programmes could allow a quicker, more efficient, better coordinated and therefore more effective intervention. The mapping should include:
  • a review of targeting mechanisms already in place;
  • caseload and geographical location of the beneficiaries;
  • payment systems;
  • complaint mechanisms;
  • administrative structures;
  • existing evaluations.

CARE could then decide how much it could build on the existing social protection programmes for its future emergency response.

• Other agencies’ CBI responses. With CBI, coordination takes on a new level of importance. It helps streamline approaches and prevents overlap in coverage. It is especially critical to ensure the combined impact on local markets of the different responses is monitored.
• Review of government policy and rules on the use of CBI. When deciding on the use of CBI the following considerations should be taken into account with regards to the government stance:
  • Under local law, does cash based intervention by non-Government actors require any license or pre-approval from the Government?
  • If so, what are they and what is the process for obtaining this authorization/pre-approval?
• Cash Feasibility and Risk Assessment. The use of CBI is not necessarily more risky than in‐kind but the risks and perception of them can be different. The Feasibility and Risk Assessment (FRA) will support the decision on CBI appropriateness. It is designed around five risks, commonly associated with CBI and in‐kind delivery:
  • Risk to the safety and security of implementing partners and beneficiaries;
  • Risk of fraud and diversion;
  • Risk of leakage of confidential information;
  • Risk related to market systems and their disruption;
  • Risk of misinformation or political capture.

As a rule of thumb, CBI can be implemented in locations where:

• markets are functional and
• the affected population has access to these markets.

Ideally, a pre-crisis market analysis has been carried out by the country office prior to the emergency. Information from this analysis can be used as a baseline to compare the results of the post-crisis assessment.

Specific impacts of the emergency on market functionality are determined through a post-crisis market analysis. This should be the first step in the string of assessments preceding a cash intervention.

The country office could conduct an analysis of a market place (in specific geographies identified for operation) or market systems (broader structures, which include market places as well as actors and the enabling environment). Market systems analysis is particularly useful when identifying market support interventions.

Market analysis should answer questions related to:

• The capacity of markets and market systems to cover the volume and diversity of needs of the population during the crisis;
• People’s access to these markets during time of the crisis;
• The impact of CARE’s intended humanitarian response on markets and people’s access to markets;
• The delivery modality to be chosen for the response.

Markets can be both a means to achieve desired short-term humanitarian goals, and a way to improve longer‐term access to basic needs and livelihoods so that communities can better withstand shocks. As a result market analysis can also be used to answer questions related to:

• The appropriateness of ensuring the recovery of the market systems in emergency settings and supporting the increase of people’s access to the market following the crisis;
• The relevance of disaster risk reduction measures prior to the identified crisis to increase people’s access to the market systems or to protect/strengthen the market systems to decrease vulnerability to shocks.

Every market analysis should meet five minimum requirements:

1. The scope and depth of the market assessment enable appropriate programme decisions and are based on identified information needs.
2. Market analysis data informs key programme‐related decisions and contributes to the selection of appropriate modalities to achieve programme objectives whilst doing no harm.
3. Collection of data is undertaken by competent and knowledgeable teams.
4. Data collection systems, procedures and information sources utilized in the market assessment are appropriate and of sufficient quality to allow for the capturing of the dynamic nature of markets.
5. Monitoring activities provide a check against initial assessment findings and enable decision‐making for potential adaptation of interventions.

A CARE Gender in Brief should pre‐exist in country and other gender analysis can be accessible with UNWOMEN, UNICEF or from other agencies operating in country. The Gender in Brief should be updated right after the shock and a gender assessment should be undertaken within a month. The following CBI-related information should be derived from these documents:

• Whether and why women are (or are not) especially vulnerable to poverty and shocks and what exacerbates the risks for women during a shock;
• The roles, needs and capacities of women, men, girls and boys in relation to income generation, access to market, access to cash and credit and analyse any gendered differences and inequalities;
• The power relations and participation of men and women with regard to cash generation, access to and control over cash and resources, decision making about how to spend it to meet the identified needs within the family;
• The way money is divided, controlled, and used within households including within multiple partners households (polygamy, polyandry);
• The control, within the household, over cell phones, SIM cards and ATM card;
• The differences between male and female headed households in term of access and control of cash;
• The cultural norms and practices that shape women’s and men’s access to and control over cash and other family resources.

If CARE is planning to deliver cash assistance through partners, the following CBI-specific check-list should be applied to partner capacity assessment:

• Previous or on‐going experiences with the design and implementation of CBI for emergency or longer‐term response (e.g. safety nets);
• Previous or on‐going experiences with distribution (including in‐kind distribution);
• Existing activity reports of these experiences;
• Existing financial reporting of these experiences;
• Existence of financial systems and sign off procedures that enable CBI;
• Existence of procurement systems that enable CBI;
• Existence of Standard Operating Procedures on CBI;
• Existence of data protection policy;
• Clear share of roles and responsibilities within the partner team members for the implementation of CBI;
• Existence of Monitoring and Evaluation framework and tools reflecting the use of CBI with appropriate process and impact indicators;
• Experience in analysing and monitoring market trends;
• Technical and operational capacity of partner staff to implement and monitor CBI even in the aftermath of a shock;
• Presence of full time employees with the required skills and capacities in terms of CBI;
• Understanding of the resources needed to design, implement and monitor good quality CBI.

The selection of Financial Service Providers follows the procedure for procurement of service described in CARE’s Procurement Manual. Basic understanding about the availability of financial service providers can be gained through market analysis and assessments (Section 3.2 above).

The following checklist can be used to vet service providers which meet CARE procurement standards and specific programmatic requirements:

• Possession of valid license/operational permit;
• Previous or on‐going experience in CBI in emergency or longer‐term settings;
• Scale of those previous CBI;
• Country coverage (# counter, # staff);
• Capacity to make payment (# pers/day, maximum amount/day) even in the aftermath of the shock;
• Registration process for beneficiary HH;
• Money transfer and disbursement process;
• Service costs (both for recipient and sender);
• Access to service for beneficiaries (document needed, existence of a bank account, etc.);
• Time for the whole transfer process CARE>agent>household;
• Monitoring and reconciliation mechanisms of the disbursed money;
• Mistake management;
• Ability and willingness to develop and/or customize services and alter the value of payments within the programme lifespan, if required;
• Credit Rating Certificate from a recognised rating institution (for banking service providers only) for the previous three years. If not available financial accounting systems should be automated and auditable;
• Existence of anti‐money laundering and anti‐terrorism policies;
• Existence of data protection policies;
• Ability and willingness to provide customer service dedicated to the project (accessible directly by the beneficiaries and by the project team);
• Interest in collaborating with CARE for CBI.