Apr 5, 2019
Exploring the links between cash and protection
How might we maximize the potential of cash assistance to reduce violence and other negative outcomes for women and girls?
Co-authored by Kathryn Falb and Alexandra Blackwell
For those of us working in the humanitarian sector, it is no secret that cash and voucher assistance has gained increased attention in recent years. In fact, in 2015, just 6% of humanitarian aid programming was delivered through cash. But because of global commitments made by multiple organizations, the use of cash has increased 40% since then, and cash is now one of the most widely used modalities for interventions supporting populations in emergencies.
We have seen this in our own programs: the International Rescue Committee (IRC) recently announced that in 2018 we already exceeded our commitment to deliver 25% of international material assistance through cash and vouchers by 2020.
This increased attention to cash assistance has led us to ask more questions about its potential to improve or amplify a variety of outcomes.
One of the main areas that the IRC is investigating is around the integration of cash and protection interventions. For instance, how can we add cash transfers to protection and empowerment programming, such as girls’ life skills programs or case management support to survivors of violence to reduce intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and other forms of violence against women and girls? How can we also integrate protection programming, such as social norms strategies that seek to empower women, into traditional cash programming? Would this maximize the economic empowerment of women and families? Who does cash assistance help the most and in what contexts, and how can we prevent additional risk for the most vulnerable sub-populations?
To answer these and other questions, we first turned to existing evidence on cash assistance programs.
What We Know
In humanitarian contexts, we know that cash and voucher assistance helps people meet basic needs and improve household food security. This is the primary purpose of most of IRC’s cash programs in emergency settings.
We know that cash assistance in humanitarian contexts helps households respond to shocks related to illness, death and unemployment. We also know that it can reduce a household’s reliance on short-term economic-related negative coping mechanisms, such as family debt, begging or selling household assets.
But what does this mean for protection?
While evidence on cash and protection from humanitarian contexts is limited, we have seen promising links between cash assistance and protection outcomes including violence, household decision-making, sexual exploitation and early marriage, and other measures of wellbeing in development contexts. Conditional cash transfers can delay marriage for adolescent girls, reduce child labor and promote retention in education.
The impacts of cash on household decision-making and intimate partner violence are mixed but largely positive. Cash assistance alone has the potential to reduce intimate partner violence by decreasing household stress as families are able to meet basic needs; however, it could either exacerbate or reduce violence if women’s control of cash or decision-making changes in the home as a result.
We also know that humanitarian crises impact all individuals differently, and the success of cash assistance is dependent on gender dynamics, age, disability status, displacement status and other intersecting vulnerabilities. Evidence from IRC’s cash programs reveals that cash assistance alone (without additional targeted complementary programming) can expose beneficiaries to risk including increased household and community tension, intimate partner violence, and exposure to theft and stigma.
What We Want to Know
To deepen our understanding of how cash and protection are connected, the IRC is exploring how cash assistance affects outcomes in a variety of sectors, and testing the best ways to prevent and mitigate risks associated with receiving cash.
We have several ongoing studies, including:
- A pre-post evaluation of a three-month cash for basic needs program in Raqqa, Syria that explores the perceived impact of cash transfers on sexual exploitation and other experiences;
- A cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating two iterations of the Girl Empower Program in Liberia, examining whether including a conditional cash transfer amplifies positive protection outcomes for girls;
- A pilot study using mixed-methods to test the evidence-based Safer Cash Toolkit, which aims to monitor, mitigate, and prevent protection risks in cash assistance programs.
The evidence gathered through these studies will enable the IRC to influence programmatic decisions, policy discussions and humanitarian sector reform at a pivotal moment in the expansion of cash assistance in humanitarian programs.
Learning Priorities
As we continue to build evidence on the links between cash and protection, the IRC is focusing on several key learning priorities:
Learning Priority #1: Risk Mitigation
Design cash programming to monitor, minimize, and prevent risks to beneficiaries throughout the cash program cycle.
Learning Priority #2: Test Solutions
Test different design and delivery elements to maximize potential positive impacts for women and girls.
Learning Priority #3: Scale & Sustainability
Test how to take programming to scale at the early stages of an acute crisis and how best to transition from short-term emergency cash to longer-term livelihoods and opportunities for women.
By focusing on these learning priorities and furthering this research, we aim to protect the overall safety of participants in cash-based programming and maximize cash’s potential impact to reduce risk of violence, exploitation or other negative outcomes among clients, especially women and girls. This will allow crisis-affected populations to achieve optimal outcomes safely and with dignity.
To learn more about the IRC’s ongoing and completed research on cash and protection, read our Research Vision on Cash and Protection.
