Menu ENN Search

The effects of DFID CTPs on poverty and vulnerability

Summary of research1

Location: Global

What we know: Cash transfers are an important element of national social protection systems to alleviate poverty and vulnerability.

What this article adds: A recent review assessed the impact of DFID-supported national cash transfer programmes (CTPs) between 2011 and 2015 on poverty and vulnerability, development of sustainable, nationally-owned CTPs and on value for money. Health and nutrition objectives are included in all DFID CTPs, which overall are having a “satisfactory” impact on poverty and vulnerability, having reached 9.3 million people (six million target). Country ownership of CTPs has increased but systematic financial and technical assistance and strategic oversight is lacking. Value-for-money criteria are largely met and a large research portfolio has contributed to the evidence base. Impact on secondary objectives is more variable; evidence of impact on health and nutrition is uneven, both within and between programmes, with scope to optimise. Recommendations are made regarding scale-up, clarity regarding impact in programme design, women’s empowerment and strategic approach to technical assistance on CTPs.

Cash transfers are an important element of national social protection systems and help to alleviate poverty by supplementing household income, thereby increasing food consumption and access to education and health services, among other benefits.

Under its global results framework for 2011-15, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) committed to reaching at least six million people with cash transfers. Over this period, DFID spent an average of £201 million per year – around 2% of its total expenditure – on the support of national cash-transfer programmes (CTPs)2, either through direct funding or the provision of technical and financial support for system-building. Most of these programmes fall within DFID’s social protection portfolio, contributing to the “poverty, vulnerability, nutrition and hunger” pillar of DFID’s results framework, and aim to have positive effects on nutrition and health.

This review by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) explored the impact of DFID CTPs from 2011-2015 on poverty reduction. The authors conducted desk reviews of 18 of the 28 DFID programmes and detailed case studies of programming in two countries: Bangladesh and Rwanda. The review addresses three broad areas: (1) The impact of DFID-supported cash transfers on poverty and vulnerability, including health and nutrition; (2) DFID’s contribution to the development of sustainable, nationally-owned cash transfer systems; and (3) The value for money of DFID’s cash-transfer programming.

The 2015 DFID Annual Report showed that between 2011 and 2015 the department had reached a “peak”3 of 9.3 million people with cash transfers, against a target of six million. The authors examined this claim thoroughly and found some inclusion errors in the data that led to over-reporting of around 475,000 people, all from one programme. These errors were corrected when brought to DFID’s attention. For the rest of the programme portfolio, the authors verify that DFID had exceeded its target.

The authors report that DFID CTPs have succeeded in their primary purpose of alleviating extreme poverty. Programmes have consistently helped to improve household incomes and boost consumption levels of food and other basic items, with no evidence of increases in unhealthy consumption choices (e.g. alcohol or gambling). The evidence suggests a modest but positive impact on savings, asset accumulation and debt reduction, which in turn increases household resilience to shocks.

In terms of education, results of DFID-funded programmes are uneven, with some showing a positive contribution to school attendance but others only modest impact. There are encouraging signs of women’s empowerment in DFID-funded programmes but the evidence is not strong enough to support a clear conclusion.

Health and nutrition objectives are included in all DFID CTPs. This reflects empirical evidence from the literature that cash transfers can promote both greater use of health services and more dietary diversity, although impacts on child wasting and stunting are generally weaker. Evaluations of DFID-funded programmes show a wide range of uneven results, including some cases where no positive effect was observed.

In some instances, health and nutrition objectives are not being achieved; in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, DFID is supporting experiments combining cash transfers and other types of health and nutrition-related support in order to improve results. The available evidence suggests that several of the programmes DFID is supporting are currently not optimised for maximum impact on nutrition and health and that improvements in design and implementation – including timeliness and transfer size – could strengthen results in this area.

Overall, in the context of the ICAI’s traffic-light award system4, DFID CTPs were awarded a green-amber score for impact on poverty and vulnerability, DFID having achieved and exceeded its global-reach targets and across the portfolio. Impact on secondary objectives are more variable and evidence of impact on health and nutrition is uneven, both within and between programmes, with a pattern of results that DFID is sometimes unable to explain.

Wherever possible, DFID funds cash transfers through national programmes. The review finds that DFID has good relations with its national counterparts and has helped to increase country ownership of CTPs. However, a systematic approach to both financial and technical assistance is lacking, with no overall clearly stated rationale or strategy for DFID’s efforts in this area. There is also a lack of adequate monitoring and assessment of the results of its system-building activities. The authors therefore awarded DFID an amber-red in this area.

The review finds that DFID’s support for cash transfers meets many of the criteria for value for money. It is consistently delivering on its core objective of alleviating extreme poverty and reducing vulnerability. However, there may be a value-for-money case for scaling up funding towards national coverage. DFID has made an important contribution to building up evidence on what works in CTPs. During the review period, it managed a centrally-commissioned research portfolio of over £35 million that has been innovative in both themes and methodology and has demonstrated a willingness to learn from international evidence and from DFID’s own programmes. On this basis, the authors rated DFID’s portfolio as green-amber on value for money.

Conclusion and recommendations

The authors make four recommendations for the further improvement of DFID CTPs (Box 1). They conclude that, overall, DFID’s cash transfer portfolio merits a green-amber score. The portfolio has demonstrated its capacity to achieve impact in its core objective of alleviating extreme poverty. DFID has also made an important contribution to encouraging the spread of national protection systems. There may be scope to achieve even greater value for money by scaling up successful programmes.

Box 1: Recommendations to DFID

DFID should consider options for scaling up contributions to CTPs where there is evidence of national government commitment to improving value for money, expanding coverage and ensuring future financial sustainability.

DFID should be clearer about the level and type of impact it is aiming for in each of its CTPs and ensure that these are adequately reflected in programme designs and monitoring arrangements.

DFID should do more to follow through on its commitment to empowering women through cash transfers by strengthening its monitoring of both results and risks and using these data to inform innovations in programming.

DFID should take a more strategic approach to technical assistance on national cash transfer systems, with more attention to prioritisation, sequencing, monitoring and oversight.

Read more...

Endnotes

1 Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) (2017). The effects of DFID’s CTPs on poverty and vulnerability: An impact review. January 2017. Available from: http://icai.independent.gov.uk/report/cash-transfers/

2National programmes did not include humanitarian assistance but included any kind of regular payments made to individuals and households, such as child-support grants, old-age pensions, payments to vulnerable groups such as widows and people with disabilities and transfers to particularly poor households.

3 DFID uses a “peak year” indicator which takes the largest number of people reached in any single year between 2011 and 2015 by each programme and sums that “peak” figure across all programmes. The figure of 9.3 million is therefore the sum of the best single-year reach performance of each CTP over this period.

4Green: Strong achievement across the board; Green/Amber: Satisfactory achievement in most areas but could do more; Amber/Red: Unsatisfactory achievement in most areas, with some positive elements; Red: Poor achievement across most areas with urgent remedial action required in some.

More like this

FEX: Child outcomes of cash transfer programmes in humanitarian and development contexts

Summary of research1 Location: Global What we know: Cash transfer programmes (CTPs) have a proven impact on poverty reduction and social protection but their overall impact...

NEX: Research on Food Assistance for Nutritional Impact (REFANI): Literature Review

REFANI is a 3-year research project funded by the Department of International Development (DFID/UKAID) of the United Kingdom and implemented by ACF, Concern Worldwide,...

FEX: Swaziland Cash and Food Transfer Programme

By Rosie Jackson Rosie Jackson currently works for Save the Children UK as an Emergency Food Security & Livelihoods Advisor. Based in London, she provides technical support to...

FEX: Designing an inter-agency multipurpose cash transfer programme in Lebanon

By Isabelle Pelly Isabelle Pelly was Save the Children's Food Security & Livelihoods Adviser in Lebanon until September 2014, and co-chair of the Lebanon Cash Working Group....

FEX: Postscript: Dealing with urban emergency: lessons from Oxfam’s EFSL activities in three cities

By Ian MacAuslan and Laura Phelps Ian MacAuslan leads Oxford Policy Management (OPM)’s education, early childhood development and labour portfolio and is a senior...

FEX: What affects the cost of delivering cash transfers in humanitarian settings?

By Clare O'Brien and Fidelis Hove Clare O'Brien is a senior consultant in the Poverty and Social Protection team at Oxford Policy Management, a development...

FEX: Literature review on impact of cash transfers on nutritional outcomes

By Bridget Fenn and Ellyn Yakowenko Bridget Fenn is an epidemiologist with a background in nutrition. She is currently a consultant for the Emergency Nutrition Network (ENN)...

en-net: Potential Negative Impacts of Cash Transfers on Nutrition Status

Dear All I am looking for information on the potential negative impacts of cash transfers on the nutrition status. I would grateful if you can share with me...

FEX: The REFANI Project in Pakistan: adapting research to a multi-sectoral programme for impact measurement

By Zvia Shwirtz, Bridget Fenn, Riccardo Mioli, Ghulam Murtaza Sangrasi and Maureen Gallagher Zvia Shwirtz is currently the REFANI Communications and Research Uptake Officer,...

FEX: IRC cash and livelihoods support programme in Lebanon

By Francesca Battistin Francesca Battistin leads the International Rescue Committee (IRC) cash assistance and livelihoods recovery interventions in Lebanon. She has a...

FEX: Income and employment support (Special Supplement 3)

5.1 Introduction The provision of cash as an emergency response has the potential to impact on all elements of the livelihoods framework by providing the means to protect or...

FEX: Impact evaluation of a cash-transfer programme for Syrian refugees in Lebanon

By Christian Lehmann and Daniel T. R. Masterson Daniel Masterson is a PhD student in Political Science at Yale University. Daniel worked for UNHCR in Syria in 2007 and 2008....

FEX: Doing cash differently: how cash transfers can transform humanitarian aid

Summary of research1 Location: Global What we know: Humanitarian aid is increasingly provided in the form of cash assistance. Unconditional and multi-purpose cash programming...

FEX: Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods Project in Amhara and Oromia regions

By Sarah Coll-Black and Matt Hobson Sarah Coll-Black is a Social Protection Specialist working with the World Bank in Ethiopia and Kenya. She has been involved with Ethiopia's...

FEX: Food insecurity and mental health among community health volunteers in Ethiopia

By Sarah Coll-Black and Matt Hobson Sarah Coll-Black is a Social Protection Specialist working with the World Bank in Ethiopia and Kenya. She has been involved with Ethiopia's...

FEX: Briefing on the Bihar Child Support Programme, India

By Oxford Policy Management (OPM) India Oxford Policy Management (OPM) is a development and research based consultancy company that has 30 years' experience is providing...

FEX: Addressing urban food security through electronic cash transfer in Kenya

By Sumananjali Mohanty Sumananjali Mohanty has been working with Oxfam Kenya programme for the past four and half years, initially as the Urban Food Security and...

FEX: Child Development Grant Programme (CDGP) in northern Nigeria: influencing nutrition-sensitive social policy programming in Jigawa State

By Fatima Adamu, Maureen Gallagher and Paul Xavier Thangarasa Fatima Adamu is the Communication Officer for Action Against Hunger Nigeria's Child Development Grant Programme...

FEX: CALP guidance on e-transfers in emergencies

Globally, cash payments to poor people from governments, aid agencies or the private sector are in the order of magnitude of billions. Meanwhile, the rapid spread of...

FEX: UNHCR cash programming in emergencies – implementation and coordination experience during the Syrian refugee response in Jordan

By Volker Schimmel Volker Schimmel is UNHCR's Head of Field Office Amman and manages the agency's cash assistance programme in Jordan. He has worked in refugee and...

Close

Reference this page

The effects of DFID CTPs on poverty and vulnerability. Field Exchange 55, July 2017. p29. www.ennonline.net/fex/55/dfidctppoverty