EMERGENCY RESPONSE MECHANISM (ERM) AFGHANISTAN … · distributions, conduct post-distribution...
Transcript of EMERGENCY RESPONSE MECHANISM (ERM) AFGHANISTAN … · distributions, conduct post-distribution...
EMERGENCY RESPONSE MECHANISM
(ERM) AFGHANISTAN
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
(SOPs) for
CASH TRANSFERS
FEBRUARY 2018
2 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTE ON ALIGNMENT WITH 2017 ECHO GUIDANCE ON CASH TRANSFERS ........................................... 4
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................... 5
CASH GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................... 6
SUMMARY OF STEPS – EMERGENCY CASH TRANSFERS .......................................................................... 8
SUMMARY OF FRAUD RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF SAFETY & SECURITY RISKS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 11
STEP 1 – ASSESSMENTS, TARGETING AND SETTING THE TRANSFER VALUE ...................................... 13
1.1. Market assessment ................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.1. Purpose of market assessments ...................................................................................... 13
1.1.2. Tools .................................................................................................................................... 14
1.1.3. Market data analysis and reporting .................................................................................. 15
1.2. Needs assessment .................................................................................................................... 15
1.2.1. Meeting with local community leaders ............................................................................. 15
1.2.2. Household survey (HEAT) .................................................................................................. 16
1.3. Beneficiary selection .................................................................................................................. 16
1.3.1. Transitioning from status-based targeting to vulnerability targeting .............................. 16
1.3.2. HEAT household duplication check................................................................................... 17
1.3.3. Exclusion list ....................................................................................................................... 17
1.3.4. Phone-based beneficiary verification ............................................................................... 17
1.4. Determining the cash transfer value ....................................................................................... 18
1.4.1. Adjusting the transfer value based on household needs ................................................ 18
1.4.2. Coordinating with other humanitarian partners ............................................................... 19
STEP 2 – DISTRIBUTION PREPARATION .................................................................................................. 19
2.1. Caseload approval ..................................................................................................................... 19
2.2. Beneficiary distribution list ........................................................................................................ 20
2.3. Selecting the distribution location ............................................................................................ 20
2.4. Informing beneficiaries of distribution time and location ....................................................... 20
2.5. Delivery mechanism: hawala agent .......................................................................................... 21
2.5.1. Why hawla? ........................................................................................................................ 21
2.5.2. Hawala contracting (done annually –not before each distribution) ............................... 21
2.5.3. Informing the hawala agent before each distribution ..................................................... 22
3 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
STEP 3 – DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.1. Who should be present at the distribution? ................................................................................. 22
3.2. Communication and interaction with beneficiaries ..................................................................... 22
3.2.1. Key messages to communicate before the distribution ....................................................... 22
3.2.2. Interaction with beneficiaries ................................................................................................. 23
3.3. Distribution process ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1. Prioritization of certain beneficiary groups............................................................................ 23
3.3.2. Verification of beneficiary ID .................................................................................................. 24
3.3.3. Cash distribution ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.4. Dealing with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries/complaints .................................................... 24
3.5. Standard security measures.......................................................................................................... 24
3.6. Evacuation from the distribution site ............................................................................................ 25
3.7. Managing large distributions ......................................................................................................... 25
3.8. Managing several rounds of distribution ...................................................................................... 25
3.9. Managing joint distributions .......................................................................................................... 26
3.10. Visibility ......................................................................................................................................... 26
STEP 4 – PAYING THE HAWALA AGENT ................................................................................................... 26
4.1. Paying the hawala agent ................................................................................................................ 26
4.2. Supporting documents ................................................................................................................... 26
STEP 5 –POST DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................. 26
5.1. Distribution report .......................................................................................................................... 26
5.2. Complaint and feedback mechanism ........................................................................................... 26
5.3. Post distribution monitoring (PDM) ............................................................................................... 27
5.3.1. Tool .......................................................................................................................................... 27
5.3.2 Timing ....................................................................................................................................... 27
5.3.3. Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 27
LIST OF ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................... 28
4 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
NOTE ON ALIGNMENT WITH 2017 ECHO GUIDANCE ON CASH TRANSFERS
These standard operating procedures (SOPs) seek, as much as possible, to align with the principles
and mechanisms outlined in ECHO’s 2017 Guidance Note on cash transfers1 – and seek to enhance
the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the Emergency Response Mechansim (ERM)’s cash
procedures.
However, as recognized in the Guidance Note itself, transitioning to the full separation of the three
components of the cash programme cycle outlined in the Guidance Note (Component A: needs
assessment, targeting and registration; Component B: cash transfer delivery; Compinet C:
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL)) will take time and will not always be
possible in all contexts.
Without adopting a full separation of components, the present SOPs nevertheless seek to streamline
mechanisms to ensure transparency and segregation of duties – as much as possible, given the
practical operational constraints of emergency response in Afghanistan. In particular, the present
SOPs emphasize/ introduce the following mechanisms:
Segregation of duties between the partner organization doing the analysis of needs assessment
and market assessment data (REACH), and partner doing the data collection and distribution
(other ERM partners).
Internal segregation of duties (within each ERM partner organization) between the programme
implementation staff (who do beneficiary selection and distribution), and M&E staff (who monitor
distributions, conduct post-distribution monitoring surveys, and do beneficiary list spot checks).
Introduction on mandatory phone spot checks by the M&E unit of selected and excluded
beneficiaries.
Use of hawala agents to distribute the cash instead of cash-in-envelope, to reduce the risk of
internal diversion of funds.
1 Guidance to partners funded by the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and
Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) to deliver large-scale cash transfers (Ref. Ares(2017)5727618
- 23/11/2017 )
5 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
ACRONYMS
ANDMA – Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority
AOG – Armed Opposition Group
DoRR – Department of Refugees and Repatriation
ERM – Emergency Response Mechanism
HEAT – Household Emergency Assessment Tool
IDP – Internally Displaced People
M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation
MPC - Multi-Purpose Cash
NFIs – Non Food Items
PDM – Post Distribution Monitoring
SMEB – Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket
6 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
CASH GLOSSARY
TRANSFER MODALITY: the broad type of transfer. There are three main transfer modalities: cash,
voucher and in-kind.
A CONDITIONAL transfer requires beneficiaries to undertake a specific action/activity (e.g. attending
school, building a shelter, attending nutrition screenings, attend trainings, etc.) in order to receive
assistance; i.e. a condition must be fulfilled before the transfer is received (e.g. cash for Work/Cash
for Assets; Cash for Training).
Conditionality refers only to prerequisite or qualifying conditions that a beneficiary must fulfil in order
to receive a cash transfer or voucher; i.e. activities or obligations that must be met before receiving
assistance. It is distinct from restriction which pertains only to how transfers are utilized. Conditionality
can in principle be used with any kind of cash or voucher assistance (both restricted and unrestricted),
depending on the objectives and design of the programme.
A RESTRICTED transfer requires the beneficiary to use the assistance provided to purchase particular
goods or services. Restriction refers to limits on the utilization of a transfer, after it has been received
by a beneficiary. Restrictions may describe either the range of goods and services that a transfer must
be used to purchase, or the places where a transfer can be used, or both. The degree of restriction
may vary – from the requirement to buy specific items, to buying from a general category of goods or
services, or to achieve an agreed output (e.g. to repair a shelter, or start-up a livelihood activity).
Restriction is distinct from conditionality, which applies only to prerequisite conditions that a
beneficiary must fulfil in order to receive a transfer.
Restricted transfers include:
Vouchers, which by definition are always restricted, since they can only be used to buy specific
goods or services.
A few specific types of cash transfers where receipt of subsequent transfers is contingent on
spending previous transfers on particular goods or services (e.g. cash-for-rent programmes
where beneficiaries are required to show rental contracts in order to receive the next cash
installment).
In Afghanistan, the vast majority of humanitarian cash programmes are unrestricted (but there are
some (restricted) voucher programmes). Multipurpose cash (MPC) grants are by definition always
unrestricted. In Afghanistan, even sector-specific humanitarian cash grants (e.g. cash for food, or cash
for shelter) are generally in fact unrestricted. The name “cash for food” for example, only indicates
that the aid organization distributing the cash intended the transfer to be spent on food – but
beneficiaries are in fact free to spend it as they chose.
DELIVERY MECHANISM: the specific means through which beneficiaries access cash or vouchers:
Cash delivery mechanisms include: hawalas (cash distributed by hawala agent), cash-in-hand
(cash distributed directly by organization staff to beneficiaries), cash over the counter at the
bank (distributed at bank branch to beneficiaries), mobile cash (incl. mobile tokens, mobile
money), and e-cash (incl. smart cards, magnetic stripe cards).
Voucher delivery mechanisms include: paper vouchers, mobile vouchers, e-vouchers (incl.
smart cards, magnetic stripe cards).
7 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
For more information on electronic/ mobile delivery mechanisms – for both cash and vouchers –
please see CaLP’s Guidelines to e-Transfers in Emergencies
Please note that there is still a lot of variation/ confusion in the use of certain terminology –
especially related to e-transfers and mobile transfers. Various guidelines/ organizations use these
terms to refer to different things, so it’s important to be clear on the specific technical mechanism
through which the cash/ vouchers are delivered, when discussing any type of cash-based
intervention.
Multipurpose Cash (MPC): any unrestricted cash grant covering cross-sectoral needs. By definition,
MPC grants are always unrestricted - i.e. beneficiaries can spend the cash however they want. MPC
grants can be one-off (e.g. emergency relief) or regular (e.g. seasonal or annual safety nets)
Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB): A list (‘basket’) of goods and services that a household needs
to meet its core needs – on a regular or seasonal basis – and its associated cost on the local
market. The MEB varies depending on the context, but typically includes costs related to food, water,
shelter, sanitation and hygiene, education, health, transport, and clothing.
The Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) is a the MEB specifically needed by a household
to meet its basic survival needs – typically in an emergency situation (e.g. conflict displacement or
natural disaster). The SMEB for a given area/ population is generally lower than the MEB, as it only
covers essential survival needs – so it might for example exclude education and communication.
The (S)MEB is a critical component in the design of Multipurpose Cash (MPC) programmes –
however, the actual transfer amount under any the MPC programme might be different from the
(S)MEB. For example, if several partners are providing emergency assistance to the same
beneficiaries, with one organization providing MPC and the other providing in-kind food, the food
component could be deducted from the total transfer value of the MPC grant.
8 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
SUMMARY OF STEPS – EMERGENCY CASH TRANSFERS
Step Activities Tools and supporting docs
Step 1
Assessments,
targeting and setting
the transfer value
Carry out market assessment to
determine whether markets can
support a cash intervention
Carry out HEAT household needs
assessment
Analyze HEAT data (done by REACH),
including:
- Duplication check to identify
households were previously
assessed/ assisted by ERM
- Determine caseload size and
beneficiary list
- Determine transfer value
Write assessment report
Do phone spot checks of selected
and excluded beneficiaries (M&E)
Needs assessment:
HEAT questionnaire (annex 1)
HEAT vulnerability targeting guidelines (under
development)
HEAT data analysis excel template (under
development)
Beneficiary list
Petition exclusion list (annex 4)
Assessment report – includes both HEAT and
market assessment results (annex 5)
Market assessment:
Market assessment (trader) questionnaire
(annex 2)
Market analysis results (Excel file sent by
REACH to partners) (annex 3)
Beneficiary phone-check template (annex 6)
Step 2
Distribution
preparation
Internal or donor approval (if > 100
HHs)
Identify distribution site and time
Inform hawala agent of distribution
Inform beneficiaries of distribution
Beneficiary distribution list
Step 3
Distribution
Brief beneficiaries in groups on
selection process, purpose of cash
assistance, and complaint
mechanism
Do cash distribution
Distribute beneficiary complaint card
to each household, keeping in mind
there may be illiterate individuals who
require additional support to report
complaints.
Beneficiary distribution list
M&E complaint & feedback cards
Step 4
Payment of Hawala
agent
Request invoice from hawala
Pay Hawala agent (within 1-2 days of
receiving invoice)
Compile all hawala payment
supporting documentation
Approved hawala payment request
Distribution list, with beneficiary fingerprint
Hawala agent invoice
Proof of payment to hawala agent (copy of
check or bank transfer slip)
Hawala contract
Step 5
Post-distribution
Write distribution report
Carry out PDM survey (done by M&E)
within two months of the distribution
(if distribution was split into two
rounds, do PDM within two months of
the first distribution).
Collect and respond to beneficiary
complaints/ feedback
Distribution report template (annex 8)
Cash PDM questionnaire (annex 7)
9 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
SUMMARY OF FRAUD RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Type of risk Specific risk Mitigation measure
Skewed
beneficiary
selection
ERM partner
staff, local
officials, or
community
leaders select
their relatives/
friends, and
exclude eligible
HHs
Transition to needs-based targeting based on analysis of HEAT data (vs. current practice
of status based targeting done on the spot by field assessment staff)
Independent phone spot checks of selected beneficiaries (by M&E or other), to ensure
that they meet vulnerability criteria reported in the HEAT assessment. Done before
caseload approval.
Independent phone spot checks of excluded HHs (e.g. by M&E), to ensure that they were
not unfairly excluded Done before caseload approval.
Beneficiaries
who already
received ERM
assistance
previously are
knowingly
selected for a
second round
of assistance
Systematic checks of beneficiary lists against previous lists, by M&E.
Diversion of
cash during
distribution
Cash is stolen
during the
distribution by
ERM partner
staff or local
official/ leader
Transition to hawala delivery mechanism, instead of cash-in-envelope – only the hawala
agent should be responsible for preparing the cash packets and transporting them to the
distribution. Hawala agent has incentive to ensure that beneficiaries receive the correct
amount, otherwise they could be held liable later on.
Presence of independent witnesses during the distribution (i.e. ERM partner staff from
units not involved in beneficiary selection, e.g. M&E or Finance).
Cash should be handed to the beneficiary by the hawala agent or ERM partner staff, not
by local officials or community leaders.
Cash should be counted at least 3 times in front of the beneficiary when he/ she
receives it: by hawala agent, by partner staff, and by beneficiary himself/ herself
(community leader should help count if beneficiary is illiterate).
Beneficiaries must fingerprint the distribution list, which should clearly state the amount
they received, next to their name.
PDM monitoring (question on what amount beneficiaries received
M&E complaint mechanism – both at the distribution site and after (through phone)
Beneficiary
extortion/
taxation
Beneficiaries
are asked to
pay a bribe to
ERM partner
staff, local
official or
community
leader, in order
to get selected
(either before
getting
selected or
Clearly explain the beneficiary selection process and criteria, during both the HEAT
assessment and during the distribution – so that beneficiaries know that they do not
have to pay bribes to get selected.
PDM monitoring (question on whether beneficiaries had to pay anyone to get selected
10 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
after the
distribution)
Beneficiaries
are taxed or
“punished” by
AOGs for
receiving
assistance
from the
government or
international
organizations
Keeping beneficiary lists strictly confidential in AOG-controlled areas
Clearly communicate to local leaders, beneficiaries and AOGs that the assistance is
being provided by an impartial, neutral humanitarian organization – not by the
government. Ensure that government officials do not claim that the assistance is
provided by the government. Do not hold distributions in government offices.
No photos allowed during distribution
PDM monitoring (question on whether beneficiaries had to pay an armed group because
they had received assistance
M&E phone complaint mechanism
11 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
SUMMARY OF SAFETY & SECURITY RISKS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Who is at
risk? Specific risk Mitigation measure
Beneficiaries
Getting robbed
while coming
back from the
distribution site
Only inform beneficiaries and local authorities/ leaders of the distribution time and place
24-48hours in advance
Keep beneficiary list strictly confidential.
Ensure that distribution is held in a secure location, as close as possible to beneficiaries’
homes.
In particularly insecure areas, when the total cash transfer per HH is > AFN 20,000,
assess whether it is better to distribute the whole amount in one or two distribution
rounds. Both have their advantages from a security perspective, so the chosen option will
vary depending on the specific type of security risks in that area:
- Splitting distributions in 2 rounds means beneficiaries are not carrying huge
sums with them when returning from the distribution, but exposes them to two
journeys.
- Distributing everything in one round means beneficiaries only have to do one
journey, but forces them to carry large amounts of cash.
PDM monitoring (question on whether beneficiaries felt safe while going to/ from the
distribution site, and at the distribution site)
ERM partner
staff/ hawala
agent
Getting robbed
on the way to/
at the
distribution
Only use hawala system, in which hawala agent is responsible/ liable for bringing the
cash to the distribution site (no cash-in-envelope, i.e. ERM partner staff brings the cash).
Only inform beneficiaries and local authorities/ leaders of the distribution time and place
24-48 hours in advance
Hold distribution is a safe, enclosed area (but not in a government office, and not in the
ERM partner’s office).
For large caseloads, split beneficiaries into several groups and hold separate distribution
over several days, to prevent having huge sums of cash at the distribution site at once.
Do distributions as fast as possible, to avoid being at the distribution site too long.
Measures can include:
- For large caseloads: split the task of checking beneficiary ID and distributing the
cash into two desks/ stations – that way beneficiaries have already had their ID
checked when they arrive to collect the cash, and simply need to show the
distribution card given to them by the ID check desk.
- Make sure that staff carrying out the ID check and distribution are well trained.
- Make sure that the hawala agent shows up on time, and knows that showing up
late on repeated occasions can lead to the termination of the contract.
- Instruct the halwal agent to prepare the cash “packets” for each beneficiary
household in advance. At the distribution, the packet will simply need to be
checked (in front of the beneficiary).
Crowd unrest/
outbreaks of
violence during
the distribution
No weapons should be allowed inside and around the distribution site under any
circumstances. Armed personnel should not be present or participate in the distribution
process.
Before starting distribution, identify a safe exit and hibernation location in case
emergency evacuation is needed.
12 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
Ensure that ERM partner staff have adequate tools for communication, especially in
hard to access areas, (several phones and if needed walkie-talkies, loud hailers,
whistles etc)
Inform beneficiaries and community leaders of any delays or changes in distribution
arrangements, to avoid frustration, misunderstandings and anger - which can escalate
into violence.
Ensure that staff carrying out the cash distribution do not leave their position at the
distribution desk at any time while the distribution is ongoing, unless replaced by
another staff member.
13 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
STEP 1 – ASSESSMENTS, TARGETING AND SETTING THE TRANSFER VALUE
1.1. Market assessment
1.1.1. Purpose of market assessments
Why do we do market assessments for emergency cash distributions?
The aim of the market assessment in the context of emergency assistance is to determine whether
local markets are functioning well enough to provide cash to beneficiaries – or if it is better to
provide in-kind assistance (food, NFIs, tents etc.) because beneficiaries won’t be able to buy these
items on the local markets.
What do we mean by “are local markets functioning well enough”?
There is enough supply to meet the additional demand created by our beneficiaries, once we give
them cash. This means that (a) there are currently no shortages/ all basic items are present in
sufficient quantities in the market to meet basic household needs and (b) there will still be
enough supply, even once demand increases as our beneficiaries start spending the ERM
partner Cash in the market.
Items can be bought at reasonable/ “normal” prices (i.e. similar prices to the ones used to
determine the size of the cash transfer value – if prices are much higher, people will not be able
to buy all the things the cash grant was intended to cover).
The key thing we want to know when reading the results of a market assessment is:
Are prices “normal” for this season? (i.e. they can be a bit higher than what they usually are at
this time of the year, but they shouldn’t be much higher)
Is there enough supply/ are there any shortages of food or other key items? (i.e. will our
beneficiaries be able to buy all the basic commodities in sufficient quantities?)
Will the cash injection in the local market generated by humanitarian cash grants have negative,
unintended consequences on market dynamics (inflation, shortages, traders will collude to
increase prices etc.)
How long does it take beneficiaries to reach the nearest functioning market where they can buy
most essential items? If it takes more than 1 hour (one way) – either by foot or by public
transport, depending on how they normally go to the market – then cash is probably not
appropriate.
Can beneficiaries safely access local markets – both men and women? Or do they prefer not to
come to the market because they face security concerns while travelling to/ from the market?
ERM Afghanistan market assessment approach
Market assessments/ analysis for humanitarian assistance is a whole field in itself, which has been
growing very fast in recent years, as cash programming has expanded globally. Many organizations
or groups (such as CaLP) have developed different market assessment methodologies and
questionnaires – often very time consuming and complex ones which really tried to understand
supply chains and market dynamics in depth.
However, these tools are often not practical in the field, as they are too complex and take too long to
complete (questionnaires are too long, method requires multiple different questionnaires – trader
14 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
interviews, trader focus groups, customer focus groups, key informant interviews…) and collect too
much information that is not actually used in decision making. In the context of emergency
assistance, the key question that a market assessment needs to answer is really “can we give
cash?” - or, more specifically, “if we give cash to x number of people, will they be able to buy what
they need in sufficient quantity (and quality), in the local market?” Any information that does not
directly help answer these questions, while interesting, is superfluous when it comes to informing
emergency response.
When designing market assessment for Afghanistan specifically, a number of additional context-
specific factors need to be kept in mind:
“Mini” emergencies (i.e. conflict-induced displacement) happen every week – if not every day.
Since a market assessment – or at least price collection – is needed every time one of these
mini emergencies occur, the process needs to be very simple and quick, in order not to delay
distributions.
Experience shows that markets in Afghanistan are generally highly resilient, and bounce back
from shocks (conflict, natural disasters) remarkably fast. Market systems here have evolved in
contexts of uncertainty and conflict for decades, and market supply chains are generally very well
organized, involve large volume turnovers and many traders. This is very different from rural
markets in much of sub-Saharan Africa (which most global market assessment methods and
tools were initially designed for), which are very fragile and where sudden a sudden influx of cash
(i.e. NRC cash grants) could lead to inflation, shortages or collusion amongst traders holding a
monopoly.
The volume of cash injected in the local market through the ERM is generally insignificant
relative to the volume of cash circulating in the market.
The ERM partners therefore adopted a very simple emergency market assessment approach:
Tools: (a) a short, simple trader interview, complemented with (b) information of household
access to markets (distance and security) obtained from the household needs assessment
survey (HEAT).
Sampling: 3 traders interviewed per market
1.1.2. Tools
a. Information on household access to markets (distance and security) – this is obtained from the
HEAT household needs assessment survey (see section 1.2.2)
b. Market survey:
- Three traders should be interviewed per market.
- The long survey form should always be used, The short survey will no longer be used,
because it was being systematically used by field staff even when they should have been
using the long version).
- A market survey should always be done – even if one was done less than 1 week ago in the
same location, because some partners were not doing market surveys even when the last
survey was more than 1 week before).
- IMPORTANT: when collecting prices, always ask for prices of low quality staples (rice, wheat
flour and cooking oil). This is to ensure that prices collected over several months/ years and
15 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
in different areas are comparable (prices will not be comparable if some collect high quality
prices and others collect low quality prices).
1.1.3. Market data analysis and reporting
Market survey results should be reported in the Assessment Report, along with HEAT household
needs assessment results. It is important to report in the Assessment Report whether prices are
within the “normal range” (e.g. for ERM7, partners were asked to report whether prices for (low
quality) wheat flour, rice and oil were within +/- 20% of the average national price for each of these
commodities over the period April 2017 – April 2017 (i.e. the 12-month period preceding the start of
ERM7).
If prices for one or more of these commodities are > 20% higher than the reference price, partners
should analyze market assessment data in more detail/ speak with field staff to understand the
cause for this. In some (but not all) cases, this could be a justification for replacing part (or all) or all
of the ERM cash transfer with in-kind food, shelter or NFI assistance.
See annexes for the market survey questionnaire, and an example of the analyzed market data
(analyzed by REACH and sent in Excel format to partners).
1.2. Needs assessment
This section provides a brief overview of the beneficiary selection process, without going into details
– as this is not strictly related to cash distribution mechanisms per say.
Beneficiary selection should include three layers of screening:
Petition screening committee led by the Department of Refugees and Returnees (DoRR),
attended by a variety of actors from government, national and international NGOs, and the UN.
The purpose is to screen out “fake IDPs” (i.e. households who are not IDPs or are IDPs who have
been displaced for more than 6 months).
Meeting with community leaders in the community before doing the HEAT assessment, to inform
them about the purpose of the assessment (for areas where ERM assistance has never been
provided), and to screen out fake IDPs.
Household assessment (HEAT survey): meant to screen-out fake IDPs and determine the level of
vulnerability of the household
IMPORTANT: the first two steps (petition screening committee and focus group discussion) are only
meant to determine whether or not a household is a “real” IDP (i.e. status), while the last step (HEAT
household survey) is meant to also determine the level of vulnerability of the household – which will
ultimately determine whether or not that household gets assistance. Being a “real” IDP is not enough
to qualify for assistance – the household must also meet the required vulnerability criteria.
1.2.1. Meeting with local community leaders
Right before the household assessment (on the same day), hold a quick meeting with community
leaders (IDP leaders and and host community members), jointly with DoRR and other humanitarian
partners. Make sure to include women, or to hold a separate meeting with women if necessary:
Explain the purpose of the HEAT assessment. (specify that the selection will not be done by
enumerators going to the field – it will be done in Kabul once the collected data is analyzed).
16 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
Informally ask the community leaders and host community members (shopkeepers, people
living in the neighborhood) to identify any “fake IDPs” in the DoRR/ petition list, so that the
field teams don’t waste time assessing them. However, always cross-check information given
by these informants (especially community leaders) after the meeting. This is better done
informally, not during the meeting itself. In particularly sensitive areas, it is best to omit this
altogether, if it poses a security risk to ERM staff.
1.2.2. Household survey (HEAT)
Pre-survey screening questions to screen out “fake IDPs”
Before starting to fill out the actual HEAT form, start by explaining the purpose of the assessment,
and explaining clearly that eligible households will not be selected on the spot (selection will be
made in Kabul once survey data is analyzed). Then discuss with the household (or talk to other
members of the community beforehand) to determine whether they are “real” IDPs. Potential
screening methods:
DO NOT take people’s phones and randomly call people in the contact list to check if the
beneficiary is telling the truth. This is a disrespectful and invasive tactic, used by armed
opposition groups – we do not want humanitarian actors to be associated with such tactics.
Ask for children’s UNICEF vaccine card (women will generally be the one to have it) and look
for where the card was issued and the date of recent vaccines.
Ask children if they have been going to school in this place, for how many grades/ years.
Ask local shop keepers or mullahs if this household arrived recently.
If a household passes this screening and is determined to be “real” IDPs, then fill out the entire HEAT
survey.
For “fake” IDP households:.
Do NOT fill out the entire HEAT form.
Only enter the basic information about the household which you already have from the DoRR
petition list (the key info is name, father name, phone number and province/ district of
origin).
Indicate in the HEAT form that this household was rejected, and the reason for rejection (is
actually from the host community; is a returnee rather than an IDP, is a prolonged IDP who
has been displaced for more than 6 months).
Do NOT ask for additional details (which you do not already have from the DoRR petition list),
such as tazkera number, number of household members etc. Otherwise these households
might come to the distribution asking why they are not receiving assistance even though the
assessment team collected their household details.
When the HEAT data is analyzed by REACH, a rejection list will be created, listing all the
households which have been excluded during the HEAT assessment – this will allow M&E to
do phone-based spot checks to verify that households were not unfairly excluded (see
section below on verification of beneficiary selection).
1.3. Beneficiary selection
1.3.1. Transitioning from status-based targeting to vulnerability targeting
17 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
Beneficiaries will be selected based on the HEAT data analysis, which will identify the households
eligible for ERM assistance based on specific vulnerability criteria. The use of analyzed HEAT data to
select beneficiaries is important step in moving away from STATUS-based assistance to NEEDS-
based assistance.
REACH will be responsible for carrying out the data analysis, using vulnerability criteria agreed upon
by all ERM partners and ECHO, and for sending analysis results to ERM partners.
1.3.2. HEAT household duplication check
As part of the HEAT analysis, REACH should check for duplications in the household data, to verify
that:
- Assessed households have not been assessed/ assisted previously in ERM, by comparing the
current data with the database of all past HEAT data from all partners (focusing on duplications
in one or more of the following: name, father name, telephone number, and tazkera number).
- No households are included twice in the list, under different names or different households.
Check in particular that people who should be listed under the same household are not split into
separate households (e.g. two brothers whose total combined household members are less than
14 people and who share meals should be listed under the same household. If they are more
than 14 people, they should be split in two different households). Also check that people are not
listed twice under slightly different names/ spellings (look at phone numbers and tazkera
numbers).
1.3.3. Exclusion list
As part of the HEAT data analysis, REACH should create a rejection list, listing all the households
which have excluded during the HEAT assessment – this will allow M&E to do phone-based spot
checks to verify that households were not unfairly excluded (see section below on verification of
beneficiary selection).
1.3.4. Phone-based beneficiary verification
ERM partners’ M&E unit should carry out a random spot check (by phone) to make sure that
beneficiaries were fairly selected (i.e. those selected are truly eligible, and those rejected were in fact
not eligible). During the phone call, the M&E officer should cross check whether the information
given by the respondent during the call matches what was reported in the HEAT assessment
database/ household exclusion list.
The spot check should be carried out on:
10% of the selected households (from the beneficiary list)
5% of the rejected households (from the exclusion list)
Issues to look out for in particular during the phone interview:
For selected beneficiaries:
Dates of assessment and displacement match those reported in the HEAT assessment
18 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
The assessment and displacement date are sequenced in a logical order (i.e. displacement
occurred before assessment)
The place of origin before displacement and the current location of displacement match
those reported in the HEAT assessment
The household meets required vulnerability criteria
For excluded household:
The household was excluded for good reasons (i.e. has been displaced for more than 6
months or is not an IDP).
1.4. Determining the cash transfer value
The ERM cash grant is designed as multi-purpose cash assistance. The size of this multi-purpose
cash grant is based on the Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) for two months, i.e. the
amount of money that allows a household to buy all the basic goods and services needed to survive
for two months. The full SMEB for two months for a household of seven people was calculated to be
AFN 30,000 (see breakdown below).
1st Month (AFN) 2nd Month (AFN) TOTAL (AFN) TOTAL (USD)
Food 6,000 6,000 12,000 180
NFIs 4,000 - 4,000 60
Shelter (incl.
access to some
WASH services)
2,500 2,500 5,000 75
Fuel 2,000 2,000 4,000 60
Health 2,000 2,000 4,000 60
Transportation 1,000 - 1,000 15
Total 17,500 12,500 30,000 450
IMPORTANT: The SMEB is the maximum possible amount that a household could receive, but
households will not always receive the full SMEB. The amount households in a given caseload will
actually receive depends on (a) household needs and (b) what other humanitarian partners are
providing (see details below).
Note that water, sanitation and health (WASH) is not included in the SMEB as a standalone
allocation, as it is partially included in the shelter and NFI allocation, and is also provided in-kind
when needed.
1.4.1. Adjusting the transfer value based on household needs
The amount of assistance that households in that caseload actually need is assessed through the
HEAT assessment. The use of the HEAT results to set the transfer amount for each caseload is an
important step in moving away from STATUS-based assistance to NEEDS-based assistance.
19 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
IMPORTANT: all selected households in the same caseload will receive the same cash amount. The
HEAT results will be used to determine the overall needs for that entire caseload (not for each
household), using the vulnerability scoring method agreed to by all ERM partners (method is under
development, led by REACH).
1.4.2. Coordinating with other humanitarian partners
If a non-ERM partner wants to give in-kind assistance (to the same beneficiaries):
Deduct the value of the in-kind assistance from the ERM partner cash grant and try to have
joint distributions (same place, same time).
e.g. if WFP is giving a 2 months food ration:
ERM partner cash grant = AFN 30,000 – (6,000 x 2)
= AFN 30,000 – 12,000
= AFN 18,000 [distributed in a single round]
If a non-ERM partner wants to give cash:
Best option: negotiate so that only one partner gives cash to this caseload (e.g. ERM partner
provides assistance for this caseload, the other organization will provide assistance for the next
caseload)
Second best option: split the caseload – ERM partner gives cash to part of the caseload and the
other partner gives cash to the rest. But make sure both organizations give the same amount if
beneficiaries all live in the same area – to avoid conflict/ confusion in the community.
Last option (to be avoided if possible): distribute a single combined cash grant (ERM partner
provides part of the grant, other partner provides rest): Subtract the value of other partner’s cash
grant from ERM partner’s standard AFN 30,000 package (same as with in-kind assistance). The
idea is that the total cash assistance received by each household should not exceed AFN
30,000.
o For example: ERM partner to give 30,000 AFA, non-ERM partner to provide 6000 AFA
contribution to cover NFIs. Beneficiaries should receive 30,000 AFA – 6000 AFA =
24,000 AFA from ERM partner (regardless of ERM SMEB that shows NFIs at 4000 AFA)
o Do a joint distribution (same time and place + try to ensure that beneficiaries don’t have
to wait in line twice – give cash from both organizations at once).
STEP 2 – DISTRIBUTION PREPARATION
2.1. Caseload approval
For each caseload, the request for approval of fund disbursement should be supported by the
following documents:
HEAT data and analysis
Market assessment data and analysis
Assessment report (including both HEAT and market assessment)
Beneficiary list
Household exclusion list (i.e. households who were on the DoRR list but were not selected
during the HEAT assessment).
20 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
If the caseload includes more than 100 households, the ERM partner must obtain the approval of
ECHO.
2.2. Beneficiary distribution list
Once the beneficiary list and transfer amount per beneficiary has been approved, the distribution list
should be prepared, including the following information:
Distribution date
Distribution location
Beneficiary current residence (province, district, city/ village)
Beneficiary name
Name of beneficiary alternate, if applicable (person authorized by the beneficiary to collect
the cash in his/ her place).
Beneficiary father name
ID number (tazkera, voter card or ERM partner ID)
Cash transfer amount for this distribution
Fingerprint
2.3. Selecting the distribution location
Things to consider when choosing the distribution location:
Safety – for beneficiaries and ERM partner staff. Consult with Security unit.
Travel time for beneficiaries: beneficiaries should not have to travel for more than 1 hour
(one way – either by foot or by transport) to reach the distribution point.
How the location may affect the community’s perception of ERM partner; in particular,
partner will not be perceived as impartial or fair if distributions take place in government
office (see below).
Types of locations:
Distributions should not be held in government offices (governor’s office, DoRR office etc.) or
in direct proximity to military facilities – ERM partner staff needs to insist on this in case of
joint distributions where other partners want to hold the distribution in a government office.
Preferred location is a safe location outside of ERM partner premises, either in the city or in
the community.
If not possible, ERM partner’s warehouse is acceptable (if it is separate from the office).
Last resort (if no other option) is ERM partner’s office – but to be avoided as much as
possible.
2.4. Informing beneficiaries of distribution time and location
Beneficiaries should be informed of the distribution 1-2 days before the distribution in order to:
Inform them of the location, date and time of distribution.
Remind them to bring their ID (original tazkera/ voter registration card)
Due to security reasons, in some areas it might be necessary to only inform them on the day of
distribution, or the evening before.
21 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
The easiest and fastest way to contact beneficiaries is through phone (phone numbers are collected
during the HEAT assessment). For beneficiaries who don’t have phones/ don’t answer the call, ask
someone else from the community to inform them.
2.5. Delivery mechanism: hawala agent
2.5.1. Why hawla?
It is recommended that ERM partners distribute cash through hawala agents, who bring the cash to
the distribution point and hand the cash to the beneficiary (in the presence of ERM partner staff).
This is to reduce the potential diversion of cash that can occur through cash-in-envelope (i.e. where
ERM partner staff brings and distributes the cash themselves), and to transfer the liability of
transporting the cash to the distribution point to the hawala agent.
2.5.2. Hawala contracting (done annually –not before each distribution)
The Logistics/ Finance unit should establish framework agreements/ contracts with one (or several)
hawala agent, who can cover the entire area of operation, and which can be used to distribute cash
for each emergency over a year or so (i.e. without having to re-sign a contract for each distribution).
Key things to negotiate with the hawala agent and include in the contract:
Period of validity of contract
Clause specifying that the hawala agent has to be present at the distribution (i.e. cannot give
the cash to ERM partner staff who then distributes it on their own – otherwise defeats the
who purpose of going through hawala, and becomes a cash-in-envelope delivery
mechanism).
Distribution locations: important to specify, as this will affect the commission fee, which
depends on whether the hawala agent does the distribution in his shop or has to travel to
another location (e.g. ERM partner warehouse or in a village), and on how insecure the
distribution location is.
Commission – by distribution location. Include the list of districts where the hawala agent is
willing to distribute at the community/ district center level – and associated fee for each; and
the list of other distribution locations (ERM partner warehouse, other locations within
provincial capital, etc.) and associated fee for each. Specify whether fee is a flat fee per
distribution/ caseload, or if it’s a percentage of the total amount of cash transferred.
Maximum amount of cash hawala agent is willing to transport/ distribute in one time.
Clause specifying that ERM partner is not responsible for any loss of cash while the hawala
agent is transporting the cash to the distribution site lies with the hawala agent, not ERM
partner.
How long in advance the ERM partner has to inform the hawala agent of the distribution
(amount of cash needed, time and location) (typically 24hrs).
Maximum delay between submission of invoice by Hawala agent and payment by ERM
partner (typically 24 hours to 2 days)
(Optional) Clause specifying if either party (hawala or ERM partner) is more than 30 min late,
for more than 3 distributions, either party is allowed to terminate the contract.
22 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
2.5.3. Informing the hawala agent before each distribution
The ERM partner should inform the Hawala agent of the location, date and time of the distribution,
the number of beneficiaries, the amount of cash per beneficiary, and total cash needed. How far in
advance the Hawala should be informed (e.g. 24 hours) should be mentioned in the contract
between the ERM partner and the Hawala agent.
STEP 3 – DISTRIBUTION
3.1. Who should be present at the distribution?
At least one emergency/ programme staff (more as needed depending on caseload size) (at
least one female, to deal with distributions to women)
One M&E staff (at least one female) to monitor the distribution process and register
complaints/ feedback from beneficiaries or non-beneficiaries
One finance staff (to ensure checks and balances within the ERM partner organization, as
finance staff are not involved in the selection of beneficiaries – unlike programme staff).
Community leader (Malek/ shura leader/ IDP representative)
DoRR or other government official (depends on the context – only if required by the local
government)
No armed group or personnel should be present.
3.2. Communication and interaction with beneficiaries 3.2.1. Key messages to communicate before the distribution
Right before starting the distribution, ERM partner staff should clearly explain to the beneficiaries, in
front of everyone (including the community leader and DoRR/ government official):
Who the ERM partner is: non-governmental humanitarian organization, independent from the
government, who provides assistance to people in need.
Selection process and criteria: beneficiaries were selected by the ERM partner (not by the
community leaders or the government) because they are IDPs who are in need of assistance,
based on the household assessment that ERM partner and other NGOs did a few days ago.
Beneficiaries do not need to pay anyone for getting selected. Protection-related
vulnerabilities should not be mentioned specifically, to avoid discrimination against these
beneficiaries.
Cash amount and purpose: clearly state how much money each household will be receiving,
and what this cash is intended for. In cases where there is also an in-kind distribution (by
ERM or non-ERM partners), explain that the cash is intended to cover the needs that are not
met in-kind.
Inform beneficiaries of how long (approximately) they can expect to wait to receive their cash.
Complaint mechanisms: tell beneficiaries that they have the right to provide feedback and
complaints at any time either on the day of the distribution, or later on using the ERM
partner’s complaint mechanism. Clearly inform beneficiaries that:
- During the distribution, they can talk to an M&E staff present during the distribution
(and show who/ where this person is) if they have any complaints or feedback.
23 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
- Each one of them will receive a card with the telephone number of a male and a
female ERM partner staff, and that they should keep this card and call the ERM
partner if they have any complaints related to the assistance (e.g. if they did not
receive the right amount, if somebody asked them for a bribe, if they faced security
issues when returning home after receiving the cash…).
- Note: In areas where with high illiteracy rates, consider providing the number to
beneficiaries verbally (as with mobile phones they may have understanding of
numbers) and/ or reminding them to go to see an ERM staff member who can help
them to add the number into their phone.
- The ERM partner will not give the names of people who call to anyone – government,
community leader etc. – their complaint will be managed internally and kept strictly
confidential.
- Calling the ERM partner to complain will not affect whether they are selected for
future assistance by the ERM partner or by any other organization – this complaint
process is completely separate from the selection of beneficiaries.
3.2.2. Interaction with beneficiaries
General guidelines on how to interact with beneficiaries:
Female staff should be the ones interacting with female beneficiaries.
ERM staff and community representatives should treat beneficiaries and community members
with respect at all times
Shouting, jostling or hitting including with sticks or any other item is not permitted at any time (by
ERM staff nor any other person allowed in the distribution site).
ERM staff should not have any physical contact with beneficiaries.
No loud talking with or shouting at beneficiaries is permitted.
No photography allowed – especially in locations where beneficiaries or their family members in
their district of origin could be targeted by armed opposition groups (AOGs) in retaliation for
receiving humanitarian aid. Exceptions can be made for specific media/communication needs,
but should be discussed beforehand internally.
Keep community leaders, hawala agent, DoRR/ ANDMA personnel (if present) informed of what
is happening at all times, especially if delays in the distributions are expected or suddenly occur.
3.3. Distribution process 3.3.1. Prioritization of certain beneficiary groups
Persons with special needs (pregnant women, people living with disabilities, elderly people,
women with children) should be assisted first.
All remaining women should then be assisted.
Finally, all remaining men should be assisted.
This can be done either by grouping beneficiaries at the beginning of the distribution, or by creating
priority lines.
24 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
3.3.2. Verification of beneficiary ID
Beneficiaries should always be asked for ID (tazkera, voter registration card). For those without ID,
the phone number should be used as identification, and the identity of the beneficiary should be
confirmed by the community/ IDP leader present at the distribution.
3.3.3. Cash distribution
For each beneficiary, the cash should be counted by three different people to make sure that the
beneficiary is given the right amount:
Hawala agent counts
ERM partner staff verifies
Ask the beneficiary to count again (if they are illiterate, community leader should help them).
Once the beneficiary has received the cash, he/ she should put his fingerprint next to his name on
the distribution list, and he/ she should be given a complaint and feedback card.
3.4. Dealing with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries/complaints
While each ERM partner has its own compliant and feedback mechanism, it is recommended that
each beneficiary be given a complaint and feedback card, featuring the telephone number of one
male and one female M&E staff.
Set up a separate table (away from the distribution table) maned by an M&E staff, where
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries can give feedback and raise concerns
M&E staff should utilize this space to interview beneficiaries on the process of distribution and to
conduct post-distribution exit interviews, where possible;
Non-beneficiaries who try to join the lines should be respectfully kept away from the distribution
site by ERM staff and if required, given the phone number to register their complaint.
Beneficiaries with complaints should not be allowed near the distribution waiting line, as it could
disturb proceedings. Beneficiaries who are complaining very loudly/ are creating disturbances
should be asked respectfully to leave the distribution site and be given the phone number to
register their complaint.
3.5. Standard security measures
No weapons should be allowed inside and around the distribution site under any circumstances.
Armed personnel should not be present or participate in the distribution process;
Before starting distribution, identify a safe exit and hibernation location in case emergency
evacuation is needed.
Do not change distribution arrangements or protocols without the prior approval of ERM partner
managers.
Ensure that ERM staff have adequate tools for communication, especially in hard to access areas,
(several phones and if needed satellite phones, walkie-talkies, loud hailers, whistles).
Staff carrying out the cash distribution should not leave their position at the distribution desk at
any time, unless replaced by another staff member; the distribution desk should not be left
unattended at any time while the distribution is still ongoing.
Beneficiaries and community leaders should be informed of any delays or changes in distribution
arrangements, to avoid frustration, misunderstandings and anger - which can escalate into
violence.
25 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
3.6. Evacuation from the distribution site
Preparation before the distribution:
Prior to distribution, emergency procedures and security signals or alerts for evacuation must
be in place and understood by all ERM staff.
Park vehicles close to the site or exit for rapid departure.
Ensure the driver does not leave the vehicle.
Always travel in convoy to and from the distribution.
During the distribution:
Pay attention to what is going on inside and around the distribution site
In case of total breakdown, use a previously identified emergency exit with a vehicle and driver
standing ready and knowing where to go, making sure that no one is left behind.
Aggression levels normally rise if staff are caught trying to ‘run away’. The crowd might take
this as a sign of guilt or, or focus their anger on you. So if the decision is taken to make an
emergency exit, be sure that staff can get away. If not, consider staying put and trying to
reason with the crowd and calm things down;
Life is more important than assets. If there is a need for immediate evacuation leave behind
distribution assets;
Do not resume the distribution until the situation stabilizes and a security meeting has been
held between beneficiaries and the ERM representatives.
3.7. Managing large distributions
To speed up the distribution process for large caseloads, the emergency teams can carry out an ID
check at the entrance of the distribution site, and give out a distribution card which the beneficiary
then takes to the cash distribution desk (in order to skip the ID check at the distribution desk, to
save time). This is optional, not mandatory.
3.8. Managing several rounds of distribution
The cash grant is intended to cover household needs for two months, but it can be distributed in
either a single round, or split into two rounds, depending on the context. The decisions to do only one
or two rounds is at the discretion of the ERM partner.
In cases where the distribution is done in two rounds:
Do not tell beneficiaries and community leaders that there will be a second round of
assistance – this is to avoid inadvertently encouraging prolonged displacement, by
discouraging households from returning home because they are waiting for the second
round.
Right before the second distribution, call each beneficiary to check whether they are still
displaced.
If a beneficiary is still displaced, tell him/ her (during the same phone call) the time and
location of the second distribution (and remind him to bring his ID).
If the beneficiary is no longer displaced, he/ she will not get the second round of cash.
26 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
3.9. Managing joint distributions
Timeline: as a general rule, ERM partners can delay a cash distribution by up to 3 days in order to
allow for a joint distribution with a non-ERM partner (i.e. when ERM partner is ready to distribute but
other partners ask to delay).
Location: need to find a site that can be used by several organizations in case of joint distributions
(in the case of joint-distribution with WFP, this means a site that can accommodate in-kind food
distributions).
3.10. Visibility
Place an ERM partner and ECHO banner behind the distribution desk, so that beneficiaries know that
they are receiving assistance from an NGO/ foreign country, not from the government (to ensure that
government officials are not able to extort beneficiaries by falsely claiming that they influence the
beneficiary selection process).
STEP 4 – PAYING THE HAWALA AGENT
4.1. Paying the hawala agent
The hawala agent should be asked to submit his invoice after the distribution (usually done on the
same day), and should be paid within 1-2 days of submitting the invoice (specific time frame to be
specified in the contract), through bank transfer or check.
4.2. Supporting documents
Supporting documents to be kept by Finance in their records, for each caseload
Document (hard copy or email) showing caseload approval by management/ budget holder
Distribution list, with beneficiary fingerprints. In original hard copy and soft copy
Hawala agent invoice (including commission fee)
Proof of payment from ERM partner to hawala agent (bank transfer slip or copy of check)
Framework contract between Hawala agent and ERM partner
STEP 5 –POST DISTRIBUTION
5.1. Distribution report
The distribution report should be produced within 2 days of distribution, readily available to ECHO if
requested. The report should outline the number of beneficiaries and the type of assistance provided
(cash and/ or in-kind). See annex 7 for report template.
5.2. Complaint and feedback mechanism
Each ERM partner has its own beneficiary complaint and feedback mechanism. However, one
recommended method is to distribute a Complaint & Feedback card to each beneficiary during the
distribution, at the same time as the cash. The cards should feature the telephone number of one
27 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
male and one female M&E staff. If some beneficiaries are illiterate, help them store the complaint
number into their phone.
5.3. Post distribution monitoring (PDM)
5.3.1. Tool
Post distribution monitoring (PDM) for cash should be done using the standard ERM cash PDM
(which includes all the mandatory questions from the inter-cluster cash PDM, as well as some
additional ERM-specific questions). WASH activities have a separate PDM.
5.3.2 Timing
PDM surveys should be carried out by M&E staff, not by the programme staff who selected
beneficiaries and distributed the cash– to ensure transparency. Surveys should be carried out at the
end of the intended assistance period. e.g. for a cash grant intended to cover 2 months’ needs, the
PDM should be conducted (a) two months after the distribution if the entire transfer was given in one
distribution, or (b) 1 month after the second distribution if the transfer was split over 2 distributions.
5.3.3. Sampling
Households should be selected randomly from the beneficiary list, but not all from the same village/
settlement (if beneficiaries for that caseload are spread over several settlements). The sample size
for the PDM survey depends on the caseload size, as shown below:
Caseload size # households selected for PDM
< 10 households All households
10 – 100 households 10 households
> 100 households 10% of all households
28 DRAFT 2 – 7 February 2018
LIST OF ANNEXES
# Annex
Document type
1 HEAT (household needs assessment) questionnaire
Questionnaire
2 Market assessment (trader) questionnaire
Questionnaire
3 Market assessment analysis Sample (Excel)
4 Petition exclusion list Template (Excel)
5 Assessment Report Sample
6 Beneficiary spot check Template and sample (Excel)
7 Distribution report Template
8 Cash post distribution monitoring (PDM)
questionnaire
Questionnaire