Experiences with Cash Transfer Projects

Also SDC has adopted the worldwide trend of professionalizing its interventions and started to carefully document self-implemented Cash Transfer Projects in order to improve in future.

Over recent years, many actors have started to analyse Cash Transfer Projects in detail. Numerous evaluations implemented worldwide have provided a strong evidence-based pictures about appropriateness, opportunities and limitations of Cash Transfer Projects.

From experience

• “Experience has shown that beneficiaries of all social segments have variable but very clear coping mechanisms according to their situation, but they often lack the necessary financial means.” (“Cash Projects in Humanitarian Aid: an innovative form of direct support”, SDC, 2005)
• “The cash assistance of 30 Euros per month is a modest contribution towards household living expenses, but nonetheless makes it possible to cover immediate needs, even after the withdrawal of assistance in food and hygienic items. The significance lies in the ability of people to set their own priorities.” (“Review of the ICRC cash assistance and micro-economic initiatives in Serbia-Montenegro, 2001-2004”, ICRC, 2005)
• “The argument that cash is more likely to be misused than in-kind was proven wrong. The experience has shown that poor people and people under severe economic stress are very well capable to handle cash responsibly.” (“Joint SDC-IFRC External Review,” SDC-IFRC, 2005)
• “Cash-transfer interventions are increasingly considered by donors and humanitarian agencies as an appropriate emergency response to meet immediate needs for food and non-food items, and to support the recovery of livelihoods.” (Cash-Transfer Programming in Emergencies”, Oxfam, trial edition, 2005)
• “The existing documentation of cash- and voucher-based responses shows that they are overwhelmingly successful in terms of their impact. People spend the money they are given sensibly, cash projects have not generally resulted in sustained price rises and women have been able to participate, and have a say in how cash is spent. Cash responses have usually been found to be more cost-effective than commodity-based alternatives.” (“Cash and vouchers in emergencies”, ODI, 2005)