Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot ...€¦ · the United Nations Children’s...

EVALUATION REPORT

APRIL 2018

EVALUATION REPORT

EVALUATION T

EVALUATION OF THE CARD AND

UNICEF CASH TRANSFER PILOT

PROJECT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN

AND CHILDREN IN CAMBODIA

Annexes – Volume II

September 2017 – March 2018

Cambodia

Photo Credit © UNICEF Cambodia/2012/Andy Brown

iii

Authors:

Ashish Mukherjee (Team Leader), Kriti Gupta on behalf of IPE Global Limited, New Delhi, India and Dr. Chey Tech on behalf of Dynamic Alliance Consulting (DAC) Group Co., Ltd, Cambodia

Submitted to the Council for Agricultural and Rural

Development and UNICEF Cambodia Country Office on 31

March 2018

EVALUATION OF THE CARD

AND UNICEF CASH TRANSFER

PILOT PROJECT FOR

PREGNANT WOMEN AND

CHILDREN IN CAMBODIA

Annexes – Volume II

September 2017 – March 2018

Cambodia

EVALUATION

REPORT

APRIL 2018

Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children

ii

EVALUATION OF THE CARD AND UNICEF CASH TRANSFER PILOT PROJECT FOR

PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CAMBODIA: Annexes (Volume II)

© United Nations Children’s Fund, Phnom Penh, 2018 United Nations Children’s Fund P.O. Box 176 Phnom Penh, Cambodia 12201 [email protected]

April 2018

UNICEF Cambodia produces and publishes evaluation reports to fulfill a corporate commitment to

transparency. The reports are designed to stimulate the free exchange of ideas among those

interested in the study topic and to assure those supporting UNICEF work that it rigorously examines

its strategies, results and overall effectiveness.

The evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and

Children in Cambodia was prepared by Ashish Mukherjee and Kriti Gupta on behalf of IPE Global

Limited with contribution from Dr. Chey Tech, Dynamic Alliance Consulting (DAC) Group Co., Ltd,

Cambodia. The evaluation was jointly commissioned by the Council for Agricultural and Rural

Development and UNICEF Cambodia and managed by the evaluation management team comprising

Erica Mattellone, Evaluation Specialist (UNICEF Cambodia); Phaloeuk Kong, M&E Officer (UNICEF

Cambodia); Kimsong Chea, Social Policy Specialist (UNICEF Cambodia) and Sambo Pheakdey,

Chief of Pension Department (Ministry of Economy and Finance), assisted by Cody Minnich,

Evaluation Intern (UNICEF Cambodia) and Elizabeth Fisher, Evaluation Intern (UNICEF Cambodia).

It was supported by Reference Group members H.E. Sann Vathana, Deputy Secretary General

(Council for Agricultural and Rural Development); Maki Kato, Chief of Social Inclusion and

Governance (UNICEF Cambodia); Sophannha Chhour, Director of Social Welfare Department

(Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation); Betina Ramirez Lopez, Social

Protection Technical Officer (International Labor Organization (ILO) Cambodia); Jillian Popkins, Chief

of Social Policy (UNICEF China); Rim Nour, Consultant (UNICEF Regional Office for East Asia and

the Pacific (EAPRO)) and Som Sophorn, Chief of Zone Office (UNICEF Siem Reap Zone Office).

Further, the Regional Evaluation Adviser, Riccardo Polastro, (UNICEF EAPRO), and Evaluation

Officer, Hiroaki Yagami (UNICEF EAPRO) provided guidance and oversight throughout.

The purpose of this report is to facilitate exchange of knowledge among UNICEF personnel and its

partners. The contents do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The text has not

been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for error. The

designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on the legal status of any country or territory,

or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

The copyright for this report is held by the United Nations Children’s Fund. Permission is required to

reprint, reproduce, photocopy or in any other way cite or quote from this report in written form. UNICEF

has a formal permission policy that requires a written request to be submitted. For

non-commercial uses, permission will normally be granted free of charge. Please write to UNICEF

Cambodia to initiate a permission request.

mailto:[email protected]


iii

Title: EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE EVALUATION

OF THE CARD AND UNICEF CASH TRANSFER

PILOT PROJECT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND

CHILDREN IN CAMBODIA

Geographic Region of the Pilot: Prasat Bakong District, Siem Reap Province,

Cambodia

Timeline of the Evaluation: September 2017 – March 2018

Date of the Report: 31 March 2018

Country: Cambodia

Evaluators: Ashish Mukherjee and Kriti Gupta for IPE Global

Limited, India; and Dr. Chey Tech for Dynamic

Alliance Consulting (DAC) Group Co., Ltd,

Cambodia

Name of the Organization

Commissioning the Evaluation:

The Council for Agricultural and Rural Development

(CARD) and United Nations Children’s Fund

(UNICEF) in Cambodia


iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Philipino Project

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

ANC ante-natal check-up

AMK AMK Microfinance Institution Plc

BCC behaviour change communication

BCG Bacillus Calmette–Guérin

BDT Bangladeshi taka

BFP Bolsa Familia Programme

BLT Bantuan Langsung Tunai

BPS Badan Pusat Statistik

CARD Council for Agricultural and Rural Development

CBT community-based targeting

CC commune council

CCT conditional cash transfer

CCWC Commune Committee for Women and Children

CDHS Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey

CEDAC Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation

CSG Child Support Grant

CSO Civil Society Organization

CT cash transfer

CWD Child Welfare Department

DCWC District Committee for Women and Children

DDC District Development Committee

DFID Department for International Development

EAPRO Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific

EMT evaluation management team

FGD focus group discussion

GEROS Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System

GOI Government of Indonesia

HC Health Centre

HEF health equity fund

HH household

IDPoor identification of poor households programme

ILO International Labour Organization

IP3 3-year Implementation Plan


v

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT information technology

KAP knowledge, attitudes and practices

KAPE Kampuchean Action for Primary Education

KII key informant interview

LBM Línea de Bienestar Mínimo (minimum well-being line)

MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance

M&E monitoring and evaluation

MFI microfinance institution

MIS management information system

MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

MoH Ministry of Health

MoP Ministry of Planning

MoSVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation

MMR Measles, Mumps, and Rubella

NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board

NCDD-S National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development Secretariat

NGO non-governmental organization

NSPPF National Social Protection Policy Framework

OECD/ DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/ Development Assistance Committee

PhP Philippine Peso

PMT Proxy Means Test

POS point of sale

PKH Program Keluarga Harapan

QMS quality management system

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

Rp Indonesian rupia

SAE Small Area Estimates

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

SEDESOL Secretaria de Desarollo Social

SNC Safety Net Beneficiary Cell

SNDD Sub-National Democratic Development

SP social protection

SPA Safety Net Program Assistant

ToC theory of change

ToR terms of reference


vi

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEG United Nations Evaluations Group

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

US$ United States Dollar

VHSG village health support group

WBG World Bank Group

ZAR South African Rand


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. iii

Annex 1. Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................................ 1

Annex 2. Poverty Estimates for Cambodia .................................................................................................. 13

Annex 3. Nutrition and Health indicators ..................................................................................................... 16

Annex 4. Analysis of IDPoor Data for Select Provinces .............................................................................. 18

Annex 5. Evidence of Selected Cash Transfer Projects .............................................................................. 20

Annex 6. Commune-wise IDPoor Data ........................................................................................................ 30

Annex 7. Transfer Amount, Co-responsibilities for Bonus Transfer ............................................................ 31

Annex 8. Cash Transfer Pilot Implementation Steps ................................................................................... 33

Annex 9. Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................................... 34

Annex 10. Evaluation Matrix, Indicative Questions to Guide Development of Data Collection Tools and

Analytical Framework for the Evaluation ...................................................................................... 38

Annex 11. List of Documents for Review ....................................................................................................... 44

Annex 12. List of Activities and People Met during Scoping Visit ................................................................. 46

Annex 13. Key Stakeholder List, Data Collection Methods and Data Collection Tools ................................ 47

Annex 14. Critical Cost-effectiveness Drivers ............................................................................................. 102

Annex 15. Ethics and United Nations Evaluation Guidelines ...................................................................... 103

Annex 16. Health Centre Data ..................................................................................................................... 104

Annex 17. Comparison of Survey Findings to Baseline .............................................................................. 109

Annex 18. Trainings Conducted during the Pilot Project ............................................................................. 110

Annex 19. Break up of Costs of the CARD – UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot ................................................ 111

Annex 20. Indicative Parameters for Consideration for Phased Scaling-up ............................................... 112

Annex 21. Indicative Areas of Monitoring .................................................................................................... 113

Annex 22. Grievance Redress Mechanism of Bangladesh’s Income Support Programme ........................ 114

Annex 23. Internal Quality Review Process ................................................................................................ 115

Annex 24. Team Composition ..................................................................................................................... 116


1

Annex 1. Terms of Reference

IMPROVING CASH-BASED INTERVENTIONS:

EVALUATION OF THE CARD AND UNICEF CASH

TRANSFER PILOT PROJECT FOR PREGNANT

WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CAMBODIA

Terms of Reference

UNICEF CAMBODIA COUNTRY OFFICE

08 JUNE 2017


2

1. INTRODUCTION

1. This Terms of Reference (ToR) document outlines the purpose and scope of a formative, learning-oriented, Evaluation of the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia. The evaluation seeks to examine the cash delivery from May 2016 until its current implementation, but it will also look at the inception phase thus covering the project design and targeting from 2013 to 2016. To this end, the ToR presents methodological options and operational modalities for an institutional contract of a team of two evaluation consultants (one international and one national). This independent evaluation is commissioned by UNICEF Cambodia, on behalf of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) and CARD. UNICEF is hence looking for institutions with deep commitment to, and strong background in, the evaluation of social cash-based interventions. Findings and recommendations from this evaluation will inform the design of the national cash transfer project for nationwide roll-out lead by the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC).

2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

2.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT

2. Following a return to political stability in mid-2014 after a year-long political deadlock, Cambodia is continuing to pursue its transitional approach to economic and social development: gradually promoting greater decentralisation, moving the focus of planning from rehabilitation to inclusive growth, shifting from establishing systems and developing capacity to more of a focus on the efficient performance of systems and use of capacity. With an annual average Gross Domestic Production (GDP) growth rate of more than 7 per cent since 2011, Cambodia is now a low-middle-income country and has fully achieved economic integration into the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). This brings a related challenge of reduced inflow of external financial resources and the need to raise more domestic resources and forge stronger partnerships within the region and with other developing nations. Cambodia has a large, very young population of children and adolescents; 45 per cent of the population is aged 19 years or younger. More than 11 per cent of the total population is under 5 years of age.

3. Economic growth has contributed to a steep decline in poverty, from 47.2 per cent in 2007 to 18.6 per cent in 2012, with around 3 million Cambodians living in poverty. Of these, 90 per cent live in rural areas. This recent economic growth has not benefited all, and significant geographic disparities exist, with poverty rates ranging from around 15 per cent in Phnom Penh to up to 37 per cent in the mostly rural north-east provinces. Of the estimated total population of 15.3 million, around 40 per cent live just above the poverty line and are highly vulnerable to small economic changes, natural disasters and other shocks. Similarly, Cambodia’s human development indicators remain low, with a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 0.52 versus an average of 0.67, for the rest of the East Asia and the Pacific region.1

4. Furthermore, nutrition poses a particular challenge for current and future human development in Cambodia with one in every three children under-five being stunted (low height for age). This negatively affects cognitive and physical development and it is likely to later affect reaching full potential to be a productive adult. Malnutrition is particularly acute among the poor, with children from the poorest quintile being more than twice as likely to be stunted compared to children in the richest quintile. This is due to the inability of many poor households to make use of existing health and nutrition services, inadequate food consumption, inappropriate hygiene practices and unsuitable feeding practices which cause frequent preventable diseases, especially among young children. To this end, the RGC had introduced several measures aimed at improving the coverage and quality of health and nutrition services through the public health system. However, with the exception of Health Equity Fund, supply-side interventions seem unable to address

1 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview


3

barriers to access faced by poor households and utilisation of those services among the poor is deemed to be low.

2.2 THE CAMBODIA SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER PILOT PROJECT

5. CARD, supported by UNICEF, designed a pilot cash transfer project in 2013 targeting pregnant women and children under-five living in poverty. The pilot project has been implemented within the existing government structure – without creating any external-funded posts – to test whether this type of interventions could be implemented by the Government. The pilot targets poor women and young children under five, in order to improve maternal health, nutrition and human capital development. The first cash delivery to the women started in May 2016.

6. The objectives of the pilot are as follows:

• Enable women with cash transfer or income support to utilize basic social services and to improve their diet intake for reduction of chronic malnutrition of children under-five and pregnant mothers living in poverty; and

• Test the implementation of the cash transfer only using the existing government structure to prepare for future roll-out by the RGC, including (a) at the institutional level, to test the capacity of central and local authorities for implementation and coordination of social protection projects and to oversee community-level supply-side services, in line with the legislative framework for Sub-National Democratic Development (SNDD) and the current three year Implementation Plan (IP3); and (b) at the operational level, to develop the overall design of the operations cycle and test the effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms for women enrolment, case management and community participation, benefit payments, monitoring and reporting, and to test the linkages with complementary supply-side activities such as education/communication sessions, services provided by Health Centres and possibly future related social protection services.

7. The cash transfer project is piloted in Prasat Bakong district in Siem Reap province, under implementation of the District Administrator in close coordination with the CARD. Beneficiaries were identified as all poor children and women registered as IDPoor I and II in the Prasat Bakong district. According to CARD, this list includes 1,298 people composed of 69 pregnant women and 1,179 mothers with a child under five years old.

8. AMK Microfinance is currently in charge for delivering the cash to designated household receivers (usually the mother or the female guardian). Designated cash receivers of each household opened an individual account with AMK Microfinance to which a transfer is made every two months. The transfer amount is USD$ 5 per month per individual woman and child, with bonus upon completion of co-responsibilities (i.e., prenatal check-up, institutional delivery and postnatal care, growth monitoring and vaccination, attendance of education or communication sessions on early childhood development). The total maximum benefit per child amounts to USD$ 90 per year.

9. In practice, cash transfer recipients receive payment from the AMK Microfinance representative at designated pay points by showing the national identification card and ATM card. Distribution points were identified within maximum five kilometres from recipients (on average two distribution points per commune). Moreover, implementation on the ground is done by the Commune Councils. Below are the list of the roles and functions in relation to cash transfer implementation by the Commune Councils:

• Raise awareness about the cash transfer pilot among members of the community;

• Identify and enrol women, compile/receive complaints and ensure primary data collection of lists of compliance from Health Centres;

• Promote birth registration;

• Support community-based education through co-facilitation of education sessions with Heath Centre personnel;

• Monitor the attendance of women at community-based education sessions;


4

• Verify co-responsibilities to inform bonus payment; and

• Through village chiefs, inform the cash transfer recipients on upcoming payment schedule.

10. This evaluation is expected to be formative (learning-oriented) in nature and to produce credible, reliable and useful evidence from the cash transfer pilot project – what is working, what is not working, how and why – to inform the design of the national cash transfer project, as indicated in the recently approved National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) 2016-2025.2

3. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 PURPOSE

11. The primary purpose of this independent (formative) evaluation is to foster learning and improvement within the cash transfer pilot project. With a view of RGC commitment to implement a cash transfer for pregnant women and children as described in the NSPPF, the evaluation will therefore assess both project design and implementation mechanism, (i.e., to what extent the pilot project has been implemented as intended), assess its programmatic effectiveness, women’s preferences and satisfaction, and what adjustments are required moving forward. The evaluation will also compare the CARD-UNICEF cash transfer pilot with other cash transfer interventions.

12. The primary users of the evaluation include MEF (General Department of Financial Industry and General Department of Budget), CARD, Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) and UNICEF. Secondary users include other agencies involved in cash transfer programming in Cambodia, civil society organizations, development partners, and UNICEF’s Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific (EAPRO) and others.

3.2 OBJECTIVES

13. The objectives of the evaluation include the following:

• Analyse the extent to which the cash transfer project has been appropriately designed, efficiently and effectively implemented (including targeting and coverage, inclusion and exclusion errors, cash distribution mechanism, financial management, reporting compliance, data management, etc.) and its cost-effectiveness (e.g., analysis of administrative costs, etc.);

• Understand how women (and families) have used the money provided, their satisfaction, adequacy of the transfer level, and the extent to which the spending of the money translated (or not) into benefits for children;

• Assess the institutional capacity at national and sub-national level for management and implementation of the CARD-UNICEF cash transfer project, identifying key gaps and bottlenecks in relation to the cash transfer pilot project life-cycle; and

• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the CARD-UNICEF cash transfer pilot project versus other cash transfer interventions in Cambodia (including its cost-effectiveness).

14. Evaluation evidence will be judged using modified Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability, as well as equity, gender equality and human rights considerations. Key evaluation questions include the following:

Relevance of the project design and approach, considering:

• To what extent did the selection of targeted pregnant women and children under five complement the targeting of other social projects to reach to the worst-off and most

2 https://www.UNICEF.org/cambodia/National_Social_Protection_Strategy_for_the_Poor_and_Vulnerable_Eng.pdf


5

vulnerable women? Were there any gaps in relation to targeting and coverage of the pilot project?

• To what extent was the choice to use conditional cash transfer rather than unconditional justified with regards to the needs among pregnant women and children, availability and quality of services, capacity of local government and service providers, and government preferences?

• To what extent was the size and regularity of the cash transfer adequate? Were the different needs of pregnant women and under five children met within the objectives of the pilot project?

Efficiency of the delivery mechanism, considering:

• How well was the delivery process managed, considering the time and resources at each stage of implementation and coordination between UNICEF, CARD, sub-national administrations, and AMK Microfinance?

• How cost-effective was the cash transfer pilot compared to other modalities and mechanisms and what potential is there for efficiency savings at all stages?

Effectiveness of the project, including better consumption patterns, nutrition and care of newborn children and children under-five:

• To what extent and how was the cash transfer used for better consumption of under-five and other children in the household, comparatively with adults (considering food quality, quantity and diversity)? How has the cash transfer supported nutrition and care of new-born children, and children under-five? Were there any unintended results?

• How effective were the complementary community-based education sessions from both implementers and women’s perspectives?

• How well did the financial management system establish including reporting compliance?

• How well did the monitoring of co-responsibilities and other reporting mechanisms function, including the role of Health Centres, Commune Councils and village chiefs?

Sustainability in terms of the cash transfer pilot, considering:

• How can the cash transfer pilot be replicated at the national level given the current capacities at the national and sub-national levels? To what extent can the major capacity gaps and bottlenecks at national and sub-national levels be overcome during the life-cycle of this project?

15. One of the key tasks to be initiated at the proposal stage will be to interrogate these questions and criteria and determine if all key issues have been given due prominence. Bidders are required to propose appropriate evaluation criteria (e.g., OECD/DAC criteria for evaluating development projects, including sub-criteria such as equity, gender equality, human rights). Improvements and/or refinements to the draft questions may be offered at the proposal stage. However, the expectation is that the inception process will yield the final set of questions.3

3 The actual final decisions on the detailed questions will be taken in the inception phase, based on the following principles:

1. Importance and priority: the information should be of a high level of importance for the various intended audiences of the evaluation;

2. Usefulness and timeliness: the answer to the questions should not be already well known or obvious, additional evidence is needed for decisions;

3. Answerability and realism: all the questions can be answered using available resources (budget, personnel) and within the appropriate timeframe; data and key informants are available and accessible, and performance standards or benchmarks exist to answer the questions; and

4. Actionability: the questions will provide information which can lead to recommendations that be acted upon to make improvements.


6

3.3 SCOPE OF WORK

16. The evaluation will not be an impact evaluation, but it will cover the inception and the implementation phase of the cash transfer pilot, which began implementation in May 2016 and it is expected to run until the end of 2017 in the Prasat Bakong district in Siem Reap province. The evaluation should include pregnant women and mothers with a child under five years old, and put an emphasis on children who benefited from the intervention.

4. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY4

17. Based on the objectives of the evaluation, this section indicates possible approaches, methods, and processes for the evaluation. Methodological rigor will be given significant consideration in the assessment of proposals. Hence bidders are invited to interrogate the approach and methodology proffered in the ToR and improve on it, or propose an approach they deem more appropriate. Bidders are encouraged to also demonstrate methodological expertise in evaluating social cash transfer projects.

18. It is expected that the evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach drawing on key project documents and the monitoring framework for guidance. The evaluation should also be situated within current debate about the use of unconditional cash transfer interventions and social protections projects to improve the welfare of women and children5, and throughout it should consider issues of equity, gender equality and human rights.

19. The timing of the evaluation is such that it will take mainly a formative approach, identifying and assessing its project effectiveness and women’s preferences and satisfaction with the project to date to inform design of a national cash transfer project as envisaged in the NSPPF. To this end, the evaluation will provide continuous and rapid feedback to primary users in the course of the evaluation process.

20. At minimum, the evaluation will draw on the following methods:

• Desk review of project documents and other relevant data;

• Review and analysis of secondary quantitative data;

• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs);

• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs);

• Case studies of women participating in the project;

• Cost-effectiveness analysis; and

• Surveys.

The data collected should be disaggregated by sex, age, etc. where relevant and focus on both the implementers (incl. district and commune focal points, village chiefs, AMK Microfinance, and other implementing partners) as well as pregnant women and mothers of children under-five.

21. Sampling of KIIs and FGDs should be done in consultation with MEF, CARD and UNICEF. A purposively selected sample of villages in the Prasat Bakong district should be taken, considering a balance of criteria such as socioeconomic indicators, remoteness, ethnicities, etc.

22. Baseline data will be provided based on the survey conducted for the selected beneficiaries. Additionally, secondary data sources such as IDPoor and DHS can be used. Other secondary data specific to the project will be available from the CARD, such as project monitoring reports and AMK Microfinance reports.

4 The proposed methodology is just indicative, and based on internal experience in conducting similar evaluations. The will be a need to develop a detailed design, analytical methods and tools during the inception phase based on additional literature review and in consultation with CARD and UNICEF.

5 UNICEF Social Protection Strategic Framework: https://www.UNICEF.org/socialprotection/framework/files/UNICEF_SPSFramework_whole_doc(1).pdf


7

23. Likewise, conventional ethical guidelines are to be followed during the evaluation. Specific reference is made to the revised UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN System, as well as to the UNICEF’s revised Evaluation Policy, and the UNICEF Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation and Data Collection and Analysis and UNICEF’s Evaluation Reporting Standards.6 Good practices not covered therein are also to be followed. Any sensitive issues or concerns should be raised with the evaluation management team as soon as they are identified.

5. MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION

5.1 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

24. The evaluation will be conducted by an external evaluation team to be recruited by UNICEF Cambodia, on behalf of MEF and CARD. The evaluation team will operate under the supervision of an evaluation management team comprised of an Evaluation Specialist, an M&E Officer and a Social Policy Specialist at UNICEF Cambodia. The evaluation management team will be responsible for the day-to-day oversight and management of the evaluation and for the management of the evaluation budget as well as to assure the quality and independence of the evaluation and to guarantee its alignment with UNEG Norms and Standards and Ethical Guidelines, to provide quality assurance checking that the evaluation findings and conclusions are relevant and recommendations are implementable, and to contribute to the dissemination of the evaluation findings and follow-up on the management response. The final report will also be approved by the Country Representative at UNICEF Cambodia.

25. A reference group will be established, bringing together the Chief of Social Inclusion and Governance at UNICEF Cambodia, and representatives from MEF (General Department of Financial Industry, General Depart of Budget, General Department of Macroeconomic and Public Finance Policy), CARD (Deputy Secretary General), and Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (Child Welfare Department), CSO representative and eventually other subject-matter experts. The reference group will have the following role: contribute to the preparation and design of the evaluation, including providing feedback and comments on the inception report and on the technical quality of the work of the consultants; provide comments and substantive feedback to ensure the quality – from a technical point of view – of the draft and final evaluation reports; assist in identifying internal and external stakeholders to be consulted during the evaluation process; participate in review meetings organized by the evaluation management team and with the evaluation team as required; play a key role in learning and knowledge sharing from the evaluation results, contribute to disseminating the findings of the evaluation and follow-up on the implementation of the management response.

5.2 EVALUATION TEAM PROFILE

26. The evaluation will be conducted by engaging an institution. The proposed team consists of one (1) international senior-level consultant (Team Leader) to conduct the evaluation that will be supported by at least one (1) national consultant (Team Member/Technical Expert).

27. The Team Leader should bring the following competences:

• Having extensive evaluation experience (at least 15 years) with an excellent understanding of evaluation principles and methodologies, including capacity in an array of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods, and UNEG Norms and Standards.

• Having extensive experience on social cash transfer interventions – planning, implementing, managing or monitoring and evaluation.

• Holding an advanced university degree (Masters or higher) in international development, public policy or similar, including sound knowledge of policy and systemic aspects; familiarity

6 Please refer to: http://www.UNICEF.org/evaluation

http://www.unicef.org/evaluation


8

with social protection projects.

• Bringing a strong commitment to delivering timely and high-quality results, i.e., credible evaluations that are used for improving strategic decisions.

• Having in-depth knowledge of the UN’s human rights, gender equality and equity agendas.

• Having a strong team leadership and management track record, as well as excellent interpersonal and communication skills to help ensure that the evaluation is understood and used.

• Specific evaluation experience of cash programming is strongly desired, but is secondary to a strong mixed-methods evaluation background, so long as the cash transfer expertise of the other team member (see below) is harnessed to ensure the team’s collective understanding of issues relating to cash programming from a UN or NGO perspective.

• Previous experience of working in an East Asian context is desirable, together with an understanding of the Cambodian context and cultural dynamics.

• The Team Leader must be committed and willing to work independently, with limited regular supervision; s/he must demonstrate adaptability and flexibility, client orientation, proven ethical practice, initiative, concern for accuracy and quality.

• S/he must have the ability to concisely and clearly express ideas and concepts in written and oral form as well as the ability to communicate with various stakeholders in English.

28. The Team Leader will be responsible for undertaking the evaluation from start to finish, for managing the evaluation, for the bulk of data collection, analysis and consultations, as well as for report drafting in English and communication of the evaluation results.

29. One (1) national Team Member/Technical Expert:

• Holding advanced university degrees (Masters-level) in international development, public policy or similar.

• Hands-on experience in collecting and analysing quantitative and qualitative data, but this is secondary to solid expertise in cash transfer interventions related to social protection.

• Strong expertise in equity, gender equality and human rights based approaches to evaluation and expertise in data presentation and visualisation.

• Be committed and willing to work in a complex environment and able to produce quality work under limited guidance and supervision.

• Having good communication, advocacy and people skills and the ability to communicate with various stakeholders and to express concisely and clearly ideas and concepts in written and oral form.

• Excellent Khmer and English communication and report writing skills.

30. The Team Member will play a major role in data collection, analysis and presentation, and preparation of the debriefings and will make significant contributions to the writing of the main evaluation report.

31. The evaluation team is expected to be balanced with respect to gender to ensure accessibility of both male and female informants during the data collection process. Back-office support assisting the team with logistics and other administrative matters is also expected. It is vital that the same individuals that develop the methodology for the RFPS will be involved in conducting the evaluation. In the review of the RFPS, while adequate consideration will be given to the technical methodology, significant weighting will be given to the quality, experience (CV’s and written samples of previous evaluations) and relevance of individuals who will be involved in the evaluation.

5.3 EVALUATION DELIVERABLES

32. Evaluation products expected for this exercise are:

a) An inception report (in English), including a summary note in preparation for data collection (in both English and Khmer);


9

b) A report of the initial evaluation findings from primary data collection (in English), including a desk review analysis and a PowerPoint presentation to facilitate a stakeholder consultation exercise;

c) A draft and final report (in English) that will be revised until approved (incl. a complete first draft to be reviewed by the evaluation management team and UNICEF; a second draft to be reviewed by the reference group and Regional Evaluation Adviser within UNICEF EAPRO, and a penultimate draft);

d) A PowerPoint presentation (in both English and Khmer) to be used to share findings with the reference group and for use in subsequent dissemination events; and

e) A four-page executive summary (in both English and Khmer) that is distinct from the executive summary in the evaluation report and it is intended for a broader, non-technical and non-UNICEF audience.

33. Other interim products are:

a) Minutes of key meetings with the evaluation management team and the reference group; and

b) Presentation materials for the meetings with the evaluation management team and the reference group. These may include PowerPoint summaries of work progress and conclusions to that point.

34. Outlines and descriptions of each evaluation products are meant to be indicatives, and include:

• Inception report: The inception report will be key in confirming a common understanding of what is to be evaluated, including additional insights into executing the evaluation. At this stage evaluators will refine and confirm evaluation questions, confirm the scope of the evaluation, further improve on the methodology proposed in the ToR and their own evaluation proposal to improve its rigor, as well as develop and validate evaluation instruments. The report will include, among other elements: i) evaluation purpose and scope, confirmation of objectives and the main themes of the evaluation; ii) evaluation criteria and questions, final set of evaluation questions, and evaluation criteria for assessing performance; iii) evaluation methodology (i.e., sampling criteria), a description of data collection methods and data sources (including a rationale for their selection), draft data collection instruments, for example questionnaires, with a data collection toolkit as an annex, an evaluation matrix that identifies descriptive and normative questions and criteria for evaluating evidence, a data analysis plan, a discussion on how to enhance the reliability and validity of evaluation conclusions, the field visit approach, a description of the quality review process7 and a discussion on the limitations of the methodology; iv) proposed structure of the final report; v) evaluation work plan and timeline, including a revised work and travel plan; vi) resources requirements (i.e., detailed budget allocations, tied to evaluation activities, work plan) deliverables; v) annexes (i.e., organizing matrix for evaluation questions, data collection toolkit, data analysis framework); and vi) an evaluation briefing note for external communication purposes. The inception report will be 15-20 pages in length (excluding annexes), or approximately 15,000 words, and will be presented at a formal meeting of the reference group.

• Initial evaluation findings: This report will present the initial evaluation findings from primary data collection, comprising the desk-based document review and analysis of the cash transfer pilot. The report developed prior to the first drafts of the final report should be 10 pages, or about 8,000 words in length (excluding annexes, if any), and should be accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation that can be used for validation with key stakeholders.

• Final evaluation report: The report will not exceed 40 pages, or 25,000 words, excluding the executive summary and annexes.

7 UNICEF has instituted the Global Evaluation Report Oversight System (GEROS), a system where final evaluation reports are quality assessed by an external company against UNICEF/UNEG Norms and Standards for evaluation reports. The evaluation team is expected to reflect on and conform to these standards as they write their report. The team may choose to share a self-assessment based on the GEROS with the evaluation manager.


10

• PowerPoint presentation (both in English and Khmer): Initially prepared and used by the evaluation team in their presentation to the reference group, a standalone PowerPoint will be submitted to the evaluation management team as part of the evaluation deliverables.

• An evaluation briefing note, data and a four-page executive summary for external users will be submitted to the evaluation management team as part of the evaluation deliverables.

• Reports will be prepared according to the UNICEF Style Guide and UNICEF Brand Toolkit (to be shared with the winning bidder) and UNICEF standards for evaluation reports as per GEROS guidelines (referenced before).

• The first draft of the final report will be received by the evaluation management team and UNICEF who will work with the team leader on necessary revisions. The second draft will be sent to the reference group for comments. The evaluation management team will consolidate all comments on a response matrix, and request the evaluation team to indicate actions taken against each comment in the production of the penultimate draft.

35. Bidders are invited to reflect on each outline and effect the necessary modification to enhance their coverage and clarity. Having said so, products are expected to conform to the stipulated number of pages where that applies.

36. An estimated budget has been allocated for this evaluation. As reflected in Table 1, the evaluation has a timeline of four months from August to November 2017. Adequate effort should be allocated to the evaluation to ensure timely submission of all deliverables, approximately 10 weeks on the part of the evaluation team.

Table 1: Proposed evaluation timeline8

ACTIVITY DELIVABLE TIME ESTIMATE RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

1. INCEPTION, DOCUMENT REVIEW AND

ANALYSIS

4 weeks, concurrent

(Aug, 2017)

1. Inception meeting by Skype with evaluation management team

Meeting minutes Week 1 Evaluation team,

evaluation

management team

2. Inception visit (incl. initial data collection and desk review; development of evaluation matrix, methodology and work plan, data collection material, drafting of the inception report)

Draft inception

report

Week 2 Evaluation team

3. Present draft inception report to the reference group

PowerPoint

presentation

Week 3 Evaluation team,

evaluation

management team,

reference group

4. Receive inception report and feedback to evaluation team

Evaluation

commenting

matrix

Week 3 Evaluation

management team,

reference group

5. Present inception report, confirm planning for field visit

Final inception

report


evaluation

management team,

reference group

2. DATA COLLECTION 3 weeks, consecutive

(Sept, 2017)

1. Pilot data collection tools and conduct field-based data collection

- Weeks 5-7 Evaluation team

8 Please note that the timing of the data collection may change depending on the possibility of carrying out KIIs and FGDs and other contextual factors.


11

ACTIVITY DELIVABLE TIME ESTIMATE RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

2. Prepare initial evaluation findings report and prepare presentation for validation workshop to validate data collection results

Initial evaluation

findings report

(incl. desk

review),

PowerPoint

presentation,

meeting minutes


evaluation

management team,

reference group

3. REPORTING AND COMMUNICATION OF

RESULTS

6 weeks, consecutive

(Oct – Nov, 2017)

1. Prepare and submit first draft of evaluation report

Draft report Week 8 Evaluation team

2. Receive first draft and feedback to evaluation team

Evaluation

commenting

matrix

Week 9 Evaluation

management team

3. Prepare and submit second draft of evaluation report


4. Receive second draft and feedback to evaluation team

Evaluation

commenting

matrix

Weeks 11-12 Evaluation

management team,

reference group

5. Prepare and submit penultimate draft of evaluation report


6. Submit and present final report to reference group and prepare presentation and other materials

Final report,

executive

summary,

PowerPoint

presentation,

meeting minutes


evaluation

management team,

reference group

6. CONTENT OF THE PROPOSERS’ TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

37. The written technical proposal will be submitted in hard copy and electronic (PDF) format and include the following elements, as a minimum requirement:

a) Request for proposals for services form (provided above).

b) Presentation of the bidding institution or institutions if a consortium (maximum two institutions will be accepted as part of the consortium), including:

• Name of the institution;

• Date and country of registration/incorporation;

• Summary of corporate structure and business areas;

• Corporate directions and experience;

• Location of offices or agents relevant to this proposal;

• Number and type of employees;

• In case of a consortium of institutions, the above listed elements shall be provided for each consortium members in addition to the signed consortium agreement; and

• In case of a consortium, one only must be identified as the organization lead in dealing with UNICEF.

c) Narrative description of the bidding institution’s experience and capacity in the following areas:

• Evaluation of cash transfer interventions;

• Process evaluation of social protection interventions, ideally implemented by government institutions;

• Previous assignments in developing countries in general, and related to social protection projects, preferably in East Asia; and

• Previous and current assignments using UNEG Norms and Standards for evaluation.


12

d) Relevant references of the proposer (past and on-going assignments) in the past five years. UNICEF may contact references persons for feedback on services provided by the proposers.

e) Samples or links to samples of previous relevant work listed as reference of the proposer (at least three), on which the proposed key personnel directly and actively contributed or authored.

f) Methodology. It should minimize repeating what is stated in the ToR. There is no minimum or maximum length. If in doubt, ensure sufficient detail.

g) Work plan, which will include as a minimum requirement the following:

• General work plan based on the one proposed in the ToR, with comments and proposed adjustments, if any; and

• Detailed timetable by activity (it must be consistent with the general work plan and the financial proposal).

h) Evaluation team:

• Summary presentation of proposed experts;

• Description of support staff (number and profile of research and administrative assistants etc.);

• Level of effort of proposed experts by activity (it must be consistent with the financial proposal); and

• CV of each expert proposed to carry out the evaluation.

38. Please note that the duration of the assignment will be from August to November 2017, and it is foreseen that the Team Leader and the Team Member will devote roughly half of their time to the evaluation. The presence of a conflict of interest of any kind (e.g., having worked for or partnered with CARD or UNICEF on the cash transfer pilot project in the design or implementation phase will automatically disqualify prospective candidates from consideration).

7. CONTENT OF THE FINANCIAL PROPOSAL

39. The financial proposal must be fully separated from the technical proposal. The financial proposal will be submitted in hard copy. Costs will be formulated in USD$ and free of all taxes. It will include the following elements as a minimum requirement:

a) Overall price proposal; and b) Budget by phase and by cost category (incl. personnel costs, transportation, DSA,

translation services, report editing, and overheads).

8. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

40. Unless the proposers propose an alternative payment schedule, payments will be as follows:

a) Approved inception report: 25% of the contractual amount; b) Approved initial evaluation findings report: 30% of the contractual amount; c) Approved final report: 30%; and d) Approved final presentation and other materials: 15%.


13

Annex 2. Poverty Estimates for Cambodia9

POVERTY LINE

New poverty line: Calculations of Poverty lines are calculated for 3 regions: Phnom Penh, other urban

areas, and rural areas from CSES 2009. These are presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows a comparison

of the new poverty line with the earlier poverty line (drawn in 1997, based on CSES 1993-1994 data).

Table 1. New poverty lines (expenditure per person per month and day, 2009 prices) based on CSES

2009

1. Phnom Penh

a. Food poverty line: 94,945 Riels per month, at 2,200 K-calories

b. Non-food allowance: 98,106 Riels per month

c. Water: nil

Total (a + b + c): 193,052 Riels monthly per capita, or 6,347 Riels/day per capita

2. Other Urban Areas



c. Water: 61 Riels per month


3. Rural Areas



c. Water: 1,247 Riels per month


Table 2. Comparing poverty lines of 1997 (based on CSES 1993-1994 data) and new poverty lines

(based on CSES 2009 data), Riels/day at 2009 prices (daily expenses)

Old poverty lines (1997 method) New poverty lines

Phnom Penh 4,185 6,347

Other urban areas 3,438 4,352

Rural areas 3,213 3,503

Cambodia 3,332 3,871

The sum of the food bundle (2,200 calories for the Reference Food Basket in the bottom 5th-30th

percentile group), non-food items (14 items in all, in the bottom 20 th-30th percentile group) and the

gap between the cost of purified water paid for in Phnom Penh and elsewhere, constitutes the poverty

line.

9 Ministry of Planning, Royal Government of Cambodia, ‘Poverty in Cambodia – A new approach, Redefining the poverty line,’ April 2013.


14

POVERTY RATES

Estimates for 2009:

Poverty rates, estimated for the 3 regions and the whole country, are given below in Table 3:

Table 3. Percentages of persons below the poverty line according to the New Poverty Line based on

CSES 2009 data

Region Food poverty rates (%) Poverty rates (%)

Phnom Penh 0.3 12.8

Other urban areas 2.0 19.3

Rural areas 5.1 24.6

Cambodia (weighted average) 4.23 22.89

Intra Rural Inequality10

Table 4. Quintile-wise per capita disposable income of other rural population in Cambodia from 2009

to 2015 based on annual CSES data

Disposable income per capita (Value in US$)

Quintile Group 2009 2010 2011* 2012* 2013* 2014* 2015*

1 (lowest 20% income quintile) 4 6 7 8 12 4 14

2 (20%-40% income quintile) 11 15 17 20 26 31 39

3 (40%-60% income quintile) 19 24 29 33 41 51 59

4 (60%-80% income quintile) 30 37 44 50 60 75 84

5 (highest 20% income quintile) 88 108 106 113 132 169 187

* Preliminary results

** Other than Phnom Penh

Table 5. Quintile-wise year on year growth rate of per capita disposable income of other rural

population in Cambodia from 2009 to 2015 based on annual CSES data

Year-on-year growth rate of disposable income per capita

Quintile Group 2009-10 2010-11* 2011-12* 2012-13* 2013-14* 2014-15*

1 (lowest 20% income quintile) 46% 11% 19% 44% -64% 236%

2 (20%-40% income quintile) 41% 11% 19% 28% 20% 25%

3 (40%-60% income quintile) 31% 18% 16% 24% 23% 17%

4 (60%-80% income quintile) 23% 19% 13% 20% 25% 12%

5 (highest 20% income quintile)

23% -2% 7% 16% 29% 10%

* Preliminary results

** Other than Phnom Penh

10 Source: Cambodia Social and Economic Survey (CSES)


15

Graph 1. Year on year growth rate of per capita disposable income of other rural population in

Cambodia from 2009 to 2015 based on annual CSES data

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

2009-2010 2010-2011* 2011*-2012 2012*-2013 2013*-2014* 2014*-2015*

Year-on-year disposible income growth rate

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5


16

Annex 3. Nutrition and Health Indicators

UNICEF, Save the Children &

World Bank Save the Children World Bank

Cambodia Siem Reap Pursat Battambang Banteay Meanchey

Nutrition

Children under 5 who are stunted (%)

32 36 39 25 29

Children under 5 who are wasted (%)

10 10 12 8 8

Children age 6-59 months with any anaemia (%)

56 52 65 49 40

Women age 15-49 yrs with any anaemia (%)

45 41 47 43 26

Maternal Health

Antenatal Care from a skilled provider (%)

95 96 95 97 99

Births delivered in health facility (%)

83 92 78 90 88

Births assisted by skilled provider (%)

89 93 86 94 96

Child Health

Children age 12-23 months who received all basic vaccinations (%)

73 79 80 89 91

Childhood Mortality (deaths per 1000 live births)

Infant mortality 28 40 31 28 29

Under five mortality 35 56 36 37 32

Fertility

Total fertility rate (number of children per woman)

2.7 2.7 3.1 2.9 2.8

Source: Cambodia Demographic Health Survey (CDHS), 2014


17

Indicator Data (from CDHS, 2014)

The median age

at first birth

• 22.4 (for all women in Cambodia currently aged 25-49)

• 21.6 (for all women in Siem Reap Province currently aged 25-49)

Attended birth • 83 per cent births in the five years before the survey were delivered in a health facility, and 17 per cent were delivered at home

• 89 per cent of births are delivered with the assistance of a trained health professional (i.e., a doctor, nurse, or midwife), an increase from 71 per cent in 2010

Infant mortality • Infant mortality in Cambodia - 28 deaths per 1,000 live births

• Under-5 mortality in Cambodia - 35 deaths per 1,000 live births

Exclusive

breastfeeding

rates

• 63 per cent of children are breastfed within one hour of birth, and 87 per cent are breastfed within one day of birth

• 73 per cent of Cambodian children aged 0-3 months are exclusively breastfed, and only 65 per cent of children aged 0-5 months are exclusively breastfed.

• Among children less than 6 months old, 11 per cent consume breast milk and plain water and 7 per cent consume other milk in addition to breast milk

Source: Cambodia Demographic Health Survey (CDHS), 2014


18

Annex 4. Analysis of IDPoor Data for Select Provinces

Brief ID Poor Data for Select Provinces

UNICEF,

Save the Children & World Bank

Save the Children World Bank

Siem Reap (Round 9, 2015)

Pursat (Round 7, 2013)

Battambang (Round 7,

2013)

Banteay Meanchey

(Round 9, 2015)

Total Number of Households in Coverage Area (Poor & Non-Poor)

190,106 95,614 240,201 161,006

HH in Poor Level 1 12,561 10,376 32,460 9,960

Average % of Total HHs per Village in Poor Level 1

6.6% 10.9% 13.5% 6.2%

Female-Headed HH in Poor Level 1

4,539 4,740 10,488 3,877

% of Female-Headed HH in Poor Level 1

36.1% 45.7% 32.3% 38.90%

HH in Poor Level 2 21,070 12,928 44,601 18,241

Average % of Total HHs per Village in Poor Level 2

11.10% 13.5% 18.6% 11.3%

Female-Headed HH in Poor Level 2

6,568 5,040 12,219 5,832

% of Female-Headed HH in Poor Level 2

31.2% 39.0% 27.4% 32.0%

Source: ID Poor Website - http://www.idpoor.gov.kh


19

Nutritional status of children disaggregated by age and gender

Table 2. Nutritional status of children (by gender)

Gender Stunting

(Height for age percentage below -2 SD)

Wasting

(Weight for height percentage below -2 SD)

Male 32.9 9.9

Female 31.9 9.3

Table 1. Nutritional status of children (by age)

Age in

months

Stunting

(Height for age percentage below -2 SD)

Wasting

(Weight for height percentage below -2 SD)

<6 16.1 12.8

6-8 13.1 6.5

9-11 16.6 14.2

12-17 28.1 10.6

18-23 33.8 10.9

24-35 38.5 8.0

36-47 39.8 9.3

48-59 36.0 8.7


20

Annex 5. Evidence of Selected Cash Transfer Projects

Name of the programme and Location

Conditional/ Unconditional

Targeting and Coverage Objectives Findings/Impact

World Bank Cambodia Cash Transfer Pilot Programme, Cambodia

Conditional Transfer consisted of two types - basic transfer and bonus transfer. Basic transfer was US$ 5 per month per individual woman & child, with bonus upon completion of co-responsibilities (attendance in health and education sessions, prenatal check-up, institutional delivery, post-natal check-up for mother and growth monitoring and vaccination for child). Maximum benefit per child amounted to US$ 90 per year.

Pregnant women and children under 5 registered as IDPoor 1 and 2 in Srey Snam district (Siem Reap) and Phnom Srok district (Banteay Meanchey). 2,330 beneficiaries – 381 women and 1,949 children.

To help increase the utilization of essential health services by pregnant women and children (0 to 5 years of age), and enhance the readiness of delivery mechanisms of the social protection system.

Readiness of delivery mechanisms of the social protection system tested in this pilot are satisfactory and can support implementation of scaled-up versions.

Rationalisation of conditions is needed to reduce exclusion of vulnerable populations.

The design needs to take into account supply-side services needed for growth monitoring to be an effective tool in preventing and combating malnutrition, importantly during the first 1,000 days, but also beyond that given high stunting levels among older children.

A full programme communication strategy should be designed, not just to strengthen the linkage between payments and co-responsibilities but to support the strategy on behavioural change.

Source: Cambodia Cash Transfer Pilot Programme Process Evaluation

Nourish Cambodia

Conditional Eligible women can receive up to six payments to reach a maximum of US$ 65 over the course of their participation in the project, after certain conditions are met. Conditions include at least four antenatal care visits, childbirth at health care facility, two postnatal care visits, use of hand washing device and monthly growth

Pregnant women and children under two years old registered as IDPoor 1 and 2 in Pursat, Battambang, and Siem Reap provinces. 13,378 beneficiaries – 3,392 pregnant women and 9,986 caregivers of children under 2 (as of June 2017).

To reduce preventable maternal and new-born deaths, apply key government policies and improve the nutritional status and wellbeing of pregnant women and children less than two years.

Digitization is required to reduce time lag between recording conditional cash transfer (CCT) conditions and the payments made. Mobilization of CCT beneficiaries to attend community-level CCT activities with the help of mobile technology should also be done.

Share good practices through CCT refresher trainings.


21




monitoring for children under two.

Source: NOURISH First 1,000 Days CCT Process Review

Pantawid Pamilyang Philipino Project (Pantawid), Phillipines

Conditional It provides grants conditioned on health-related behaviours for children aged 0–5 years and schooling for those aged 10–14 years.

Two types of grants – health and education were provided:

Health: Poor households with children 0–14 years old and/or pregnant women received up to PhP 500 (US$ 11) per household per month.

The conditions included monitoring of children (0-14 years) and pregnant women.

Education: The education grant of up to PhP 300 (US$ 6.50) per child per month. Beneficiary households received the education transfer for each child as long as the child was enrolled in primary or secondary school and attended 85 per cent of the school days every month.

Residents of the poorest municipalities, based on 2003 Small Area Estimates (SAE) of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).

• Households whose economic condition is equal to or below the provincial poverty threshold;

• Households that have children 0-18 years old and/or have a pregnant woman at the time of assessment; and

• Households that agree to meet conditions specified in the programme.

It operates in all the 17 regions in the Philippines, covering 79 provinces, 143 cities, and 1,484 municipalities.

The Government expanded the programme in December 2016 to reach a total of 20 million people belonging to 4.4 million households.

The 4Ps has dual objectives as the flagship poverty alleviation programme of the Aquino administration: 1. Social assistance,

giving monetary support to extremely poor families to respond to their immediate needs; and

2. Social development, breaking the intergenerational poverty cycle by investing in the health and education of poor children through programmes such as:

a. Health check-ups for pregnant women and children aged 0 to 5.

b. Deworming of schoolchildren aged 6 to 14.

c. Enrolment of children in day-

There is an estimated poverty reduction impact of 1.4 percentage points per year.

Household heads, other adults are more encouraged to work and set up their own businesses.

87% of 4Ps parents are now more optimistic about their situation and their children’s futures.

Health:

Reduction in severe stunting among beneficiary children.

Lower maternal mortality in the past five years because more mothers deliver babies in health facilities (7/10 live births).

Drastic decrease in alcoholism in 4Ps. households (spending on vices was lowered by 39%).

4Ps beneficiaries consume more rice and cereals than non-beneficiaries.

Education:

Near-universal school enrolment of elementary age children for 4Ps households (98%).

6% higher gross enrolment rate for beneficiary high school students.

Higher spending on education among 4Ps households (PhP 206 more per school-aged child per month vs non-4Ps).

Decrease in child labour days (7 days less a month for 4Ps households).


22




care, elementary, and secondary schools.

d. Family development sessions.

333,673 graduated from high-school in 2015, 13,400 of whom received honours.

Local Economies:

Households invest more in working assets (livestock, machineries) than non-beneficiaries.

4Ps households spent more on basic needs such as food, education and medicine that stimulate the growth of the local economy.

Source: <http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/programs/conditional-cash-transfer/>

<http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/brief/faqs-about-the-pantawid-pamilyang-pilipino-program>

Prospera (Mexico)

Conditional

It is made up of three components that provide (1) direct monetary support to beneficiary families, (2) a basic nutrition package and nutrition supplements for children under 5 years old and pregnant and lactating women, and (3) scholarships for primary, secondary and professional school, and university.

The specific aim of Prospera is to serve households with an estimated per capita income below the LBM - Minimum well-being line (Línea de Bienestar Mínimo), with socio-economic and income conditions that hinder their members from developing their capacities in terms of nutrition, healthcare and education. Thus, the programme conducts a process to identify beneficiaries aimed at selecting households with such characteristics.

As of April 2016, the programme targets 6.1 million households (25.5 million people), including 293,060 pregnant women attending breastfeeding workshops and 1,453,382 children under 5

Its objective is to strengthen the social rights of the poor by improving their capabilities, especially their nutrition, health, and education capabilities, and contributing to breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. PROSPERA is designed to address three key problems in the country: low use of health services, high level of chronic malnutrition, and low school attendance.

Selected key health/nutrition results are summarized for the most recent surveys (2007 for rural areas, 2009 for urban areas):

Increased use of health services, especially preventive services;

Increased use of prenatal care, reduced likelihood of adolescents to engage in risky behaviour, and reductions in obesity and chronic illness among project participants;

Increases in both overall and food consumption, sustained over time;

In the case of nutrition, in children under two years old, a reduction of 22.2 percentage points in the prevalence of stunting and of 11.8 percentage points in the prevalence of anaemia;

Reductions of 5.4 percentage points and 14.2 percentage points in urban and rural areas, respectively, in the prevalence of anaemia in pregnant women 17–22 years old;

Reduction in anaemia of 16.3 percentage points and 2.4 percentage points in rural and


23




years old attending health workshops.

urban areas, respectively, in children 6–59 months;

The greatest changes in health and education were observed in women and indigenous populations;

The longer the participation by beneficiaries in the project, the better the health and education outcomes;

The project still faces significant challenges in reaching its objective of breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty; and

Nutrition, health, education, and job indicators for the target population still lag significantly behind.

Source:

<http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/Participatory%20Local%20Development/Mexico_Progresa_web.pdf>

<http://scalingupnutrition.org/news/mexico-program-of-social-inclusion-prospera/>


24




Shombhob Pilot Project, Bangladesh

Conditional

Households with children aged 0-36 months

Nutrition allowance of BDT 400 per month

Conditions

Monthly attendance at growth monitoring of children aged 0 – 36 months, and nutrition session for mother/caregiver

Households with children going to primary school (6-15 years)

Education allowance of BDT 400 per month

Conditions

Regular school attendance (at least 80 percent every month) for enrolled children in primary school

Following a Public Information Campaign, Proxy Means Test (PMT) scores were used to determine household eligibility to create the initial beneficiary roster. Shombhob set up an open registration process where interested households with at least one child age 0-36 months and/or at least one primary-school-aged child were invited to come and apply to be selected by the project. each household had to fill in a questionnaire which gathered all the information and variables needed to construct a PMT score based on the formula and weights and eligible beneficiaries were identified.

7,004 children receiving nutrition-related benefits and 15,774 children receiving education-related benefits

The objective of the Shombhob project was threefold:

Test the delivery of conditional cash transfers to the poorest households through local governments to reduce their household poverty levels;

Increase school attendance of beneficiary children going to primary school; and

Improve the nutritional status of beneficiary children aged 0 to 36 months old.

Combination of nutrition information, growth monitoring and cash are able to motivate mothers towards nutrition-enhancing feeding practices.

A significant impact on the incidence of stunted and underweight children was not found, which is not surprising since these outcomes are generally more stubborn to affect and require a longer term intervention.

This modality of conducting the nutrition and growth monitoring sessions allowed non-beneficiary mothers to have access to nutrition-related knowledge.

Source: Ferré, Céline and Sharif, Iffath, World Bank, ‘Can Conditional Cash Transfers Improve Education and Nutrition Outcomes for Poor Children in Bangladesh?’, 2014.

Programme Keluarga Harapan (PKH), Indonesia

Conditional Payments are made quarterly. Conditions include: covering use of specific health care services and children being enrolled in school and having at least 85

• The targeting for PKH was conducted by the IndonesiaStatistics Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik — BPS).

• Households were eligible based on their level of

• The Government of Indonesia (GOI) introduced the PKH programme to address inequalities in health and education service

As per the World Bank Group (WBG) Evaluation Study conducted in 2011, following were some impact indicators: The average monthly expenditure of

beneficiaries increased by Rp 19,000 per person, equal to a 10 per cent increase in comparison to pre-project levels. Households


25




per cent attendance. Compliance is monitored using an online system. Non-compliance results in a warning and then, if not rectified, a 10 per cent cut to transfer size and, finally, exclusion from the project. By design, recertification of eligibility is conducted every three years.

poverty and fulfilment of demographic characteristics.

• Conditional requirements for receiving PKH benefits include expectant mothers receiving prenatal check-ups, new-borns and toddlers receiving post-natal care and health check-ups, and children aged 6 to 18 attending nine-year compulsory education.

Initial roll-out was to 432,000 households, gradually expanding to several million. As of 2010, the project had expanded to reach 810,000 households across 13 provinces. According to the latest world bank documents, PKH coverage has increased to 6,000,000 in 2016) and is targeting up to 15,000,000 poor families by 2019, covering all 34 provinces, 426 districts, and 98 cities, as well as by expanding and integrating other social accountability interventions.

and to provide a direct cash transfer for very poor households.

• The cash transfer contributes to immediate poverty alleviation while the continuing commitments to preventative health care practices and education contribute to breaking inter-generational poverty by increasing productive investments in children so that they have better opportunities for the future. The GOI intends for PKH to produce changes in indicators such as child malnutrition, expenditure on high-protein foods, education, and child labour.

used this additional income to increase their spending on food (especially high-protein foods) and health costs. There is no evidence that beneficiaries misspent the additional funds on non-productive goods such as tobacco or alcohol.

The likelihood of mothers from beneficiary households completing four pre-natal check-ups increased by more than 13 per cent above pre-project levels, and completing the recommended two post-natal visits increased by nearly 21 per cent.

The likelihood of children (ages zero to 5 years old) being taken to local health facilities to be weighed increased by 30 per cent above baseline levels. At the same time, beneficiary households increased the likelihood of completing their children’s vaccinations by approximately 11 per cent.

Increased usage of health services also contributed to an increase in the share of households that treated their children for diarrhoea by 13 per cent.

Beneficiary households, however, did not demonstrate increased usage of recommended vitamins (iron tablets for pregnant women or vitamin A for children), which is partly due to insufficient stocks. There is no evidence yet of changes in long-term health outcomes, such as child malnutrition and mortality rates, which are not expected to be observed over the short timeframe of the three-year survey.

The benefits of the project also extended to neighbouring households that did not receive cash transfers but nevertheless changed their


26




behaviours (i.e., a “spill-over effect”). Their pre-natal visits increased by over six per cent compared to pre-project levels and child weighing increased by 10 per cent compared to pre-project levels. Changes among these neighbouring households may have been encouraged by the positive example of beneficiaries as well as PKH facilitators who played an important role in helping to spread information about healthy behaviours.

The pilot project had little impact on changing education behaviours. For children from beneficiary households who were already in school, the project helped to increase the time they spent in school. Junior secondary students spent approximately 40 minutes more in school per week, while primary school students spent 20 more minutes per week. During the initial pilot phase, however, PKH had no impact on drawing more children into the education system and keeping them in school. Enrolment rates, drop-out rates, and the incidence of wage labour remained unchanged after three years.

Source: World Bank. "Indonesia Social Assistance Reform Program." Documents & Reports. <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/292331488533981092/text/113149-REVISED-EA-Box402877B-PUBLIC-ESSA-Final-Version-P160665-March-15-2017.txt.> World Bank. "Program Keluarga Harapan: Main Findings from the Impact Evaluation of Indonesia’s Pilot Household Conditional Cash Transfer Program." Documents & Reports. <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/589171468266179965/pdf/725060WP00PUBL0luation0Report0FINAL.pdf> Cash transfers: What does the evidence say? A rigorous review of project impact and of the role of design and implementation features

Bantuan Langsung Tunai (BLT), Indonesia

Unconditional BLT, a direct cash transfer in four instalments over one year. BLT provided temporary

Eligibility: Targeted to the poor households who were benefiting least from the old

The objectives of the BLT programme, as stipulated in the

• BLT benefits were rapidly consumed on essential items.


27




protection to poor households in a manner that was more progressive than the subsidies it was replacing.

subsidy regime and most at risk from the negative impacts on consumption from price increases. Coverage: The program ran for 12 months in 2005-2006 and nine months in 2008-2009. Approximately 50 percent of all households in the poorest quintile (according to expenditure) received BLT. The poorest 40 percent of households received nearly two-thirds of total BLT benefits available. Though designed and deployed in less than 5 months, BLT reached over 19 million households. More than a third of all households in Indonesia received BLT in 2005. The post office distributed benefits in every one of Indonesia’s provinces. In 2008, there were approximately 600,000 fewer beneficiaries but every province continued to be served.

Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2008 is: (a) To help the poor in maintaining the fulfilment of their basic necessities;

(b) To prevent the decline of welfare level among the poor resulting from economic hardships; and

(c) To promote social responsibility and social awareness.

• BLT households made regular and safe consumption choices.

• BLT allowed poor households to plan for and adjust to increases in fuel prices.

• Where average household spending was most anaemic, BLT households increased their expenditure most; BLT had positive effects on community-wide expenditure.

• Rates of child labour fell faster in poor BLT households, though these same households had slightly higher rates of child labour before BLT.

• BLT did not create handout-dependent households and in fact, households receiving BLT cash benefits found new jobs at increased rates.

Source: World Bank. "BLT Unconditional Cash Transfer: Social Assistance Program and Public Expenditure Review 2." Documents & Reports. 2012. <http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/652291468039239723/pdf/673240WP0BLT0T00Box367866B00PUBLIC0.pdf>

International Labour Organization. ‘BLT- Unconditional Cash Transfer, Fuel Price Compensation Program (implemented in 2005-2006 and 2008-2009).’

<http://www.ilo.org/dyn/ilossi/ssimain.viewScheme?p_lang=en&p_geoaid=360&p_scheme_id=3162>


28




South Africa Child Support Grant (CSG)

Unconditional Cash transfers to poor households with young children to provide social protection, reduce poverty, and decrease inequality.

Eligibility: The primary caregiver must be a South African citizen, permanent resident or refugee; both the applicant and the child must reside in South Africa; the applicant must be the primary caregiver of the child/children concerned; the child must be under the age of 18; the caregiver cannot apply for more than six non-biological children; the child cannot be cared for in a state institution; and the caregiver is subject to a means-test threshold of ZAR 3,300 per month (or annual income of ZAR 39,600) in 2015; if the caregiver is married then the combined threshold is double (ZAR 6,600 a month and/or ZAR 79,200 per annum). From 10 per cent of poor children covered when it was introduced in 1998, it reached 85 per cent in 2015 (11.7 million)

CSG aimed to reduce poverty and promote investments in the physical, social and human capital of poor children.

• The CSG generates positive developmental impact that multiplies its benefits in terms of directly reducing poverty and vulnerability.

• Early enrolment in the CSG programme substantially strengthens impacts. Promoting continuous access to the CSG for eligible children through adolescence would help to maximise the potential benefits of the grant.

• Receipt of the grant by adolescents generates a range of positive impacts, not least of which is the reduction in risky behaviours, which in the context of high HIV prevalence, generates a particularly protective impact.

Source:

‘Child Support Grant (CSG).’ <http://socialprotection.org/programme/child-support-grant-csg>

International Labour Organization. ‘South Africa's Child Support Grant: A Booster for Poverty Reduction.’ Impact Stories. 14 April 2016. <http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/features/WCMS_468093/lang--en/index.htm.>

Center for Gloabal Development. ‘South Africa’s Child Support Grant,’ <http://millionssaved.cgdev.org/case-studies/south-africas-child-support-grant>


29




United Nations Children’s Fund. ‘The South African Child Support Grant Impact Assessment Evidence from a survey of children, adolescents and their

households.’ May 2012. <https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_csg2012s.pdf.>


30

Annex 6. Commune-wise IDPoor Data

Commune Poor Level 1

HHs

Poor Level 2

HHs

Poor Level 1 HHs

%

Poor Level 2 HHs

%

Total Poor Level 1&2 HHs

%

Total HHs in Commune

Bakong 32 147 1.8 % 8.4 % 10.3 % 1,744

Ballangk 65 116 4.7 % 8.4 % 13.1 % 1,381

Kampong Phluk

22 59 3 % 8.1 % 11.1 % 731

Kantreang 47 84 2.3 % 4.2 % 6.5 % 2,011

Kandaek 72 218 2.5 % 7.6 % 10.1 % 2,875

Mean Chey 59 158 4.8 % 13 % 17.8 % 1,220

Roluos 152 141 9.3 % 8.7 % 18 % 1,630

Trapeang Thum

145 130 7.7 % 6.9 % 14.6 % 1,883


31

Annex 7. Transfer Amount, Co-responsibilities for Bonus Transfer

Beneficiary

Amount (US$)

Frequency Total (US$)

Co-responsibilities

Basic Transfer (Unconditional transfer upon enrolment)

Pregnant women

5 (month)

9 times* 5 x 9

times = 45

Meet eligibility and enrolment criteria

(*until delivery of child)

Children 0-5 years

5 (month)

12 times (every month)

5 x 12 times = 60

Meet eligibility and enrolment criteria

Bonus Transfer (Conditional transfer based on compliance of co-responsibilities)

Pregnant women (and mothers)

Bonus for prenatal check-ups during pregnancy

10 1 time bonus

10 x 1 time = 10

Have at least 4 prenatal visits as per MoH safe motherhood standards -1st visit: 1st trimester (before 16 weeks) -2nd visit: 2nd trimester (24-28 weeks) -3rd visit: 3rd trimester (30-32 weeks) -4th visit: at term (36-38 weeks)

Bonus for institutional delivery & post-natal care package

14 1 time bonus

14 x 1 time = 14

Have institutional delivery and postpartum care package in a public Health Centre (HC) as per MoH safe motherhood standards -1st check-up upon delivery -2nd check-up during the first week -3rd check-up before 6 weeks

Children below 1

Bonus for first 3 growth monitoring sessions and first 3 vaccinations

10 1 time bonus

10 x 1 time = 10

Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions and obtain 3 recommended vaccinations below, as per MoH safe motherhood standards: 1. BCG and Hep B at birth 2. OPV-1 and DPT-HepB_Hib1 at 6 weeks 3. OPV-2 and DPT-HepB_Hib2 at 10 weeks 4. OPV-3 and DPT-HepB_Hib3 at 14 weeks 5. Measles at 9 months 6. Japanese Encephalitis one month after measles vaccination

Bonus for 3 additional growth monitoring sessions and 3 additional vaccinations

10 1 time bonus

10 x 1 time = 10

Attend an additional 3 growth monitoring sessions and obtain an additional 3 recommended vaccinations above, as per MoH safe motherhood standards:

Children between 1 and 5

Bonus for first 3 growth

$10 1 time bonus

$10 x 1 time = $10

Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions (children 1 to 5 years old)


32

Beneficiary

Amount (US$)

Frequency Total (US$)

Co-responsibilities

monitoring sessions

Bonus for 3 additional growth monitoring sessions

10 1-time bonus

10 x 1 time = 10

Attend additional 3 growth monitoring sessions (children 1 to 5 years old)

Mothers

Bonus for attending 3 community-based education sessions

10 3 times* 10 x 3

times = 30

Participate in 3 community-based education sessions for each bonus

* there is a total of 9 modules – once every two months, over 18 months


33

Annex 8. Cash Transfer Pilot Implementation Steps

# 3. Information Campaign a. Principles b. Posting of information c. Dissemination to villages d. Updating IDPoor list e. Processing of completed

forms

# 2. Training of Enrolment Teams a. Methodology applied b. Cascaded training c. Training content d. Training coverage e. Timing and venue

# 4. Targeting a. Assessment by IDPoor b. Identifying eligible families

(IDPoor 1 and 2)

# 5. Enrolment a. Validating and registering

eligible family members (pregnant women and children)

b. Orientation of eligible families at registration

c. Final registration check list d. Closure process

# 6. Monitoring Compliance of Co-responsibilities a. Updating beneficiary lists b. Compliance verification

#7. Processing Payroll and Payments a. General principles b. Generation and transfer of

payroll c. Payments to beneficiaries d. Reconciliation of accounts

#8. Case Management

a. Updates of family information

b. Complaints (e.g., exclusions, compliance, payment) and responses/resolutions

# 1. Planning Preparation of: a. Instruments and materials b. Operational plans and

venue c. Enrolment teams


34

Annex 9. Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder Roles/responsibilities in the project

Assessment of potential impact of project on stakeholder and

stakeholder on project

Potential strategies for

obtaining support or reducing obstacles

Rights Holders

Mothers and Pregnant Women

Rights holders who benefit directly from cash transfer funds

Recommendations and opinions made upon the project will lead to an improvement in the quality and frequency of the services they receive

Scheduling must not conflict with work schedules

Children The rights holders who will benefit from cash transfer funds

Recommendations and opinions made upon the project by their mothers will lead to an improvement in the quality and frequency of the services they receive

Scheduling must not conflict with work schedules of mothers

Husbands/ Heads of Household

Secondary actors involved in determining usage of cash transfer money and key influencers in the household

Recommendations and opinions made upon the project will lead to an improvement in the quality and frequency of services to household members

Scheduling must not conflict with work schedules

National Level (Duty Bearers)

CARD Function as the implementation agency, provide national level leadership and management, strengthen structures within sub-national administration, provide capacity building support, undertake monitoring and evaluation

Inputs from CARD will provide insights for the design and implementation mechanism of the cash transfer projects; this will affect design and implementation of future projects

Identify focal point and schedule prior appointment

MEF Financier, responsible for funding the project and distributing funds to AMK Microfinance

Opinion and recommendations will affect future implementation strategies/approaches for cash transfer deliveries, inform replication of the project, cost-effectiveness will be assessed and lessons learnt and good practices will be provided


MoP MoP being the implementing agency for IDPoor provided IDPoor data for targeting and enrolment purpose. MoP also provided all relevant details related to IDPoor as required for different implementation activities

Data on IDPoor and opinions will affect targeting mechanisms for future cash transfer projects



35






MoH Agency ensuring proper implementation of health services and support in delivery of community based health and nutrition sessions

Recommendations will inform the supply side limitations of health service provision and provide lessons learnt and good practices for community-based health and nutrition sessions


Sub-national Level (Duty Bearers)

District Administration Office/Deputy Governor

Administrative unit responsible for data collection and reporting, case management and coordination with social protection agencies

Insights and opinions will affect future implementation strategies


Commune Council/ Commune Focal Person/ Commune Chief/ CCWC

Administrative unit responsible for raising awareness about the project, enrolling beneficiaries, supporting community based health and nutrition sessions and undertaking monitoring


Identify focal point and schedule prior appointment; reassure them that the evaluation will only help in improving project quality and progress towards achieving outcomes

Village Chiefs/ VHSG

Administrative unit helping in implementation of community based health and nutrition sessions, leading communication functions, supporting CCWC in identification and enrolment of beneficiaries


Identify focal point and schedule prior appointment; reassure them that the evaluation will only help in improving project quality and progress towards achieving outcomes

Health Centre Primary provider of health services, support

Recommendations will inform the supply-side limitations of health service provision and provide lessons learnt and good practices for community based health and nutrition sessions


Implementing Partners

AMK Microfinance

Payment agency undertaking cash delivery to beneficiaries at local level

Data and recommendations will affect future implementation strategies/approaches for cash transfer deliveries

Reassure them that the evaluation will only help in improving project quality and progress towards achieving outcomes


36






UNICEF Cambodia

Designed and provided technical support to the project whose role/contribution to outcomes will be assessed

Recommendations and insights will affect future implementation and design of projects/strategies

Commissioning the evaluation, cooperation should not be a problem


37

Cash transfer pilot implementation structure

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

UNICEF

UNICEF

UNICEF

UNICEF

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

CARD

CARD

CARD

CARD

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Monitoring & evaluation




District/Commune (focal persons)




Data management

Data management

Data management

Data management Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries

AMK

AMK

AMK

AMK


38

Annex 10. Evaluation Matrix, Indicative Questions to Guide Development of Data Collection Tools and Analytical Framework for the Evaluation

S.N. Criteria Evaluation Questions Indicators Expected Sources

1. Relevance of the project design and approach

▪ To what extent did the selection of beneficiaries (pregnant women and children under five) complement the targeting of other social projects to reach the worst-off and most vulnerable women? Any gaps in relation to targeting and coverage of the pilot project?

▪ To what extent was the choice to use conditional cash transfer rather than unconditional justified with regards to the needs of beneficiaries, availability and quality of services, capacity of local government and service providers, and government preferences?

▪ To what extent was the size and regularity of the cash transfer adequate? Were the different needs of beneficiaries met within the objectives of the pilot project?

▪ Was the choice to use cash rather than in-kind assistance justified in terms of the needs (among different social/gender groups), availability of markets and beneficiary and government preferences?

▪ Was the usage of the cash by beneficiaries in line with the project objectives?

▪ Does the inclusion of beneficiaries happen on a regular basis and what could be a possible mechanism for regular inclusion and exit?

▪ Number of beneficiaries ▪ Average transfer amount per

beneficiary ▪ Frequency of cash transfers ▪ Average number of education sessions

attended by beneficiaries ▪ Percentage of women indicating that

cash transfer is the preferred mechanism to improve health and nutrition service utilization would be preferred

▪ Number of children identified as malnourished/ Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM)

▪ Project documents, including theory of change / log-frame

▪ Other social project documents

▪ Situation analysis/needs assessment

▪ Review of secondary quantitative data

▪ Documents on cash transfer methodologies

▪ Assessment of local capacity

▪ Data on budgets/financial disbursements

▪ FGDs ▪ Information gathered

through KIIs ▪ Survey findings

2. Efficiency of the delivery mechanism

▪ How well was the delivery process managed, considering the time and resources at each stage of implementation and coordination between UNICEF, CARD, sub-national administrations, and AMK Microfinance?

▪ Is there potential for improving efficiency and savings at various stages of implementation?

▪ How timely was the project in relation to the needs of different social groups and in comparison with other cash transfer projects? How could timeliness have been improved?

▪ Number of beneficiaries who were not a part of the original targeting under IDPoor

▪ Amount of time taken to open a bank account

▪ Amount of time spent by beneficiaries in receiving cash (wait time)

▪ Attendance at orientation sessions

▪ Information gathered through KIIs

▪ Roles/responsibilities documents

▪ Assessment of cash transfer methodology

▪ Document review ▪ Secondary data

analysis ▪ Assessment of local

capacity


39


▪ How efficient was access to the project in terms of potential private/opportunity costs from the beneficiary perspective, and considering different social groups?

▪ Is there an efficient mechanism for dissemination of lessons learnt and best practices?

▪ Is the project congruent to other social protection projects related to nutrition of pregnant women and children under five?

▪ Assessment of stakeholder engagement and capacity

3. Effectiveness of the project

▪ To what extent and how was the cash transfer used for better food consumption of under-five and other children in the household, compared with adults? How has the cash transfer supported nutrition and care of new-borns and children under-five? Were there any unintended results?

▪ How effective were the complementary community-based education sessions from both implementers and women’s perspectives?

▪ Has there been utilization of health services attached to the conditions and/or other health services?

▪ How well was the financial management system established, including reporting compliance?

▪ How well has the existing targeting mechanisms helped achieve the desired objectives of the pilot?

▪ How well did the monitoring of co-responsibilities and other reporting mechanisms function, including the role of HCs, Commune Councils and Village Chiefs?

▪ How effective was the process of information dissemination in terms of awareness regarding the project?

▪ Has there been a change in the knowledge, attitudes and practices of women because of the cash transfer?

▪ Are there any grievance redress mechanisms available and if so, are they effective?

▪ Were there any significant gaps in inclusion for particular social groups?

▪ Was the pilot has cost effective, provided value for money?

▪ Average opinion of participants regarding the cash transfer (simplicity and clarity)

▪ Change in household expenditure ▪ Percentage of women who consumed

iron pills during their pregnancy ▪ Percentage of women who had

institutional deliveries ▪ Percentage of women who use iodised

salt ▪ Percentage of women who give their

child/children sprinkles ▪ Percentage of women whose children

have been immunized ▪ Percentage of women indicating that

food consumption of children has increased after the cash transfer

▪ Average number of times each child’s growth has been monitored

▪ Percentage of beneficiaries who borrowed money to cover the cost of delivery of their child since receiving the cash transfer

▪ Percentage of beneficiaries who borrowed money to cover the cost of healthcare since receiving the transfer

▪ Average bonus payment as a result of fulfilling co-responsibilities

▪ Attendance at nutrition and health education sessions

▪ Time taken for complaint resolution

▪ Survey findings ▪ Information gathered

through KIIs and FGDs ▪ Secondary data

sources ▪ Project documents ▪ Documents related to

financial management ▪ Review of programme

methodology ▪ Data related to costs

incurred ▪ Cost effectiveness

assessment ▪ Identification and

comparison of certain indicators on knowledge and behaviours from the baseline


40


4. Sustainability of the cash transfer project

▪ To what extent can the major capacity gaps and bottlenecks, if any, at national and sub-national levels be overcome?

▪ What are the implications in re-targeting? ▪ Is the project sustainable without creating externally-

funded institutions? What can be the role of national, provincial and sub-national government in implementation of the cash transfer project?

▪ Where does the existing implementation capacity of the Government stand given that the cash transfer is to be implemented as a regular project and not as a limited duration pilot?

▪ What are some good practices witnessed in the project that are replicable at the national level?

▪ Financial sustainability ▪ Capacity building needs ▪ Coordination ▪ Synergy with other projects at the local

level


5. Equity and gender

▪ Was the project design and delivery equitable to different social groups and gender?

▪ Did the project achieve the same level of success in different places and with different social groups?

▪ Were there any negative effects felt by any social groups?

▪ Number of beneficiaries reached across various communes under the pilot


▪ Survey findings ▪ Information gathered

through FGDs

6. Comparison with other cash transfer projects

▪ Carry out a comparison to other cash transfer projects (both conditional and unconditional) in the region and other successful ones, such as Nourish and World Bank Cash Transfer pilot in Cambodia; Pantawid (4Ps) Pamilyang Pilipino Programme in Philippines; Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) in Indonesia; and Prospera (PROGRESA / Oportunidades) in Mexico, etc.

▪ Type (conditional / unconditional) ▪ Design and implementation features ▪ Size of transfer ▪ Project governance

▪ Project documents ▪ Evaluation reports ▪ Studies ▪ KIIs (in case of

Cambodian cash transfer projects)


41

Indicative questions to guide development of data collection tools

Category Respondent Category Indicative Questions to Guide Tools

Governance and

institutional issues

Pregnant women and mothers

of children under the age of

five, field level government

officials including commune

members, focal points, village

chiefs, district advisors

• Was sufficient effort made to inform the community about the cash transfer project?

• Is there any systemic leakage by local elites or authorities?

• Is there any discrimination in targeting or distribution?

• Are all targeted beneficiaries receiving the cash transfer?

• Is the enrolment and payment mechanism discriminatory in any way?

• Were there any constraints in completing co-responsibilities?

Roles and

responsibilities of the

sub-administrative units

Field level government officials

including commune members,

focal points, village chiefs,

district advisors

• What are the methods of raising awareness about cash transfers and to what extent are they successful?

• Has there been an increase in birth registrations?

• What is the process of enrolment and what are the challenges faced?

• What does community based education entail and what is the level of participation?

• Are the conditions being followed to receive bonus payments?

• Who is responsible for reporting/monitoring the conditions that need to be followed to receive benefit?

Understanding

response to payments

done by AMK

Microfinance

representatives at pay

points


of children under the age of

five, AMK Microfinance officials

• What are the documents needed to receive the payment?

• Is cash delivered on time and in a secure manner?

• Are any recipients disadvantaged by the payment system?

Health Centre facilities

and services

Health Centre medical

professionals, service delivery

staff

• What are the supply-side problems at Health Centres?

• What are the demand side constraints in utilization of services?

• What is the response of beneficiaries to co-responsibilities, which are a part of the conditional cash transfer project?

• What training was provided to Health Centre staff?

• What is the level of record-keeping at Health Centres?


42

Category Respondent Category Indicative Questions to Guide Tools

Usage, adequacy and

satisfaction with the

cash received


of children under the age of five

• What are recipients’ views on the use of cash? Is it being used in the expected areas?

• If both cash and in-kind assistance were available, which option would recipients prefer?

• Is the cash amount sufficient to achieve its objectives?

• What is the opinion on conditionality of receiving cash payments (prenatal check-up, institutional delivery and postnatal care, growth monitoring and vaccination, attendance of education or communication sessions on early childhood development)?

• What are the main challenges being faced?

• Have there been any changes in Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) as a result of the education sessions?


43

Analytical framework for the evaluation

Level of Analysis Criteria being

Analysed

Respondent Category Broad Areas of

Analysis

Policy level analysis • Relevance • Equity and

Gender

• Representatives from UNICEF Cambodia, CARD and MEF

• Policy makers and officials from government department (national level)

• Other development partners (national level)

• Governance and institutional issues

• Social protection policy

• Comparison with other similar projects

Design level analysis • Relevance • Efficiency • Sustainability

and Scalability • Equity and

Gender

• Officials from government department

• Project officers and their affiliates (provincial and district level)

• Design of the cash transfer system

• Cost effectiveness

Implementation level

analysis

• Efficiency • Effectiveness • Sustainability

and Scalability

• Representatives from UNICEF Cambodia, CARD and MEF

• Implementing partners (field level government officials including commune members, focal points, village chiefs, district advisors, officials from AMK Microfinance)

• Roles and responsibilities of the District Office, DCWC, Commune Council, CCWC, VHSG

• Payment process undertaken by AMK Microfinance

• Monitoring mechanisms

• Grievance redressal

Demand-side

analysis

• Relevance • Effectiveness

• Implementing partners (field level government officials including commune members, focal points, village chiefs, members of CCWC and VHSG, among others)

• Beneficiaries – pregnant women

• Beneficiaries – mothers with children under the age of 5

• Heads of household and husbands of beneficiaries

• Non-beneficiaries (excluded due to economic status)

• Health Centre staff

• Understanding response to payments done by AMK Microfinance representatives at pay points

• Usage, adequacy and satisfaction with the cash received

• Demand and utilization of health services


44

Annex 11. List of Documents for Review

▪ CARD-UNICEF Cambodia Cash Transfer Pilot Operations Manual, 2016.

▪ UNDP Cambodia Country Profile <http://www.kh.undp.org/content/cambodia/en/home/countryinfo.html>.

▪ Anderson, V.P., et al. ‘Co-existing micronutrient deficiencies among stunted Cambodian infants and toddlers,’ 2008.

▪ Sann, V and S. Oum, ‘Design Features of the Conditional Cash Transfer Project in Cambodia: Impacts in Income Distribution and Poverty’, 2011.

▪ ‘Cash Transfer Pilot for Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition,’ 2016.

▪ Sophorn, Som, ‘Small cash transfers lead to big changes for children and their families,’ United Nations Children’s Fund Cambodia, 27 June 2017, <http://unicefcambodia.blogspot.com/2017/06/small-cash-transfers-lead-to-big.html>.

▪ ‘Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey,’ 2014.

▪ IDPoor Data for Prasat Bakong District.

▪ Asian Development Bank, ‘Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis,’ 2014.

▪ Summary Statistics for Siem Reap.

▪ ‘Cash Transfer Baseline Report.’

▪ Progress Reports from AMK Microfinance and CARD.

▪ ‘National Social Protection Policy Framework,’ 2016-2025.

▪ National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable, 2011-2015.

▪ UNICEF Social Protection Strategic Framework, 2012.

▪ Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia: Strategy Paper, 2015.

▪ de Groot, Richard, et al., ‘Cash Transfers and Child Nutrition: What we know and what we need to know,’ Innocenti Working Paper No.2015-07, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence, 2015.

▪ ‘United Nations Children’s Fund Cambodia Country Project,’ 2016-2018.

▪ ‘United Nations Children’s Fund Cambodia Annual Report,’ 2016.

▪ ‘Mid-term Review for UNICEF Country Project, 2011-2015.’

▪ ‘Cambodia SP Cash Transfer Pilot Project: Project Information Document,’ 2014.

▪ USAID First 1000 Days Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Manual, 2017.

▪ The Strategic Plan for Social Accountability in Sub-National Democratic Development: A policy framework for social accountability at the local level in Cambodia, 2014.

▪ Cash transfers: what does the evidence say: A rigorous review of project impact and of the role of design and implementation features, 2016.

▪ Lancet, 2013, Maternal and Child Nutrition.

▪ International Food Policy Research Institute, ‘Global Nutrition Report,’ 2015, Washington D.C.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘The Royal Government of Cambodia - UNICEF Country Programme Action Plan 2016-2018.’

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘The imperative of improving child nutrition and the case for cash transfers in Cambodia,’ 2011.

▪ Overseas Development Institute, ‘Understanding the impact of cash transfers: the evidence,’ July 2016.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Communication for Development, Behaviour and Social Change,’ 2016.


45

▪ World Bank, 2014, ‘International Development Association project appraisal document on a proposed credit in the amount of SDR 202.4 million (US$300 million equivalent) to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for an Income Support Program for the Poorest Project.’

▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘UNICEF’s approach to scaling up nutrition for Mothers and their Children,’ 2015.

▪ Brinkman, Henk-Jan, et. al., ‘High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health.’ The Journal of Nutrition vol. 140 no. 1: 153S-161S, 2010.

▪ Molyneux, Maxine and Thomson, Marilyn, ‘Cash transfers, gender equity and women's empowerment in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia,’ Gender & Development, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 195-212, 2011.

▪ Asian Development Bank, ‘Conditional Cash Transfers – are they helping promote gender equity?’ 2013.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Cash Transfer as a Social Protection Intervention: Evidence from UNICEF Evaluations, 2010-2014.’ June 2015

▪ Department for International Development, ‘Cash Transfers Evidence Paper,’ 2011.

Evaluation guidance documents:

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Guidelines on Piloting and Scaling Up of Innovations and Good Practices.’

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Brand Book and Brand Manual,’ 2017.

▪ Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System Handbook, 2017.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘How to design and manage Equity-Focused Evaluations.’

▪ United Nations Evaluation Group Code and Conduct, Ethical Guidelines, Handbook, Norms & Standards for Evaluation.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund-Adapted UNEG Evaluation Reports Standards, 2017.

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund, Evaluation Policy, 2013.

▪ UN Women, ‘How to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation.’

▪ United Nations Children’s Fund Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis, 2015.


46

Annex 12. List of Activities and People Met during Scoping Visit

Description of Activities

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Briefing meeting on inception mission itinerary, Dropbox and logistics with EMT of UNICEF

Presentation on the cash transfer pilot to understand the design and other details of the pilot at UNICEF Office

Meeting to understand UNICEF key priorities for Cambodia and role in social protection projects

Meeting to understand the nutrition issues in Cambodia and potential of cash transfers

Friday, 8 September 2017

Meeting with Save the Children to understand the design and implementation of the Nourish project

Meeting with the CARD team to understand the process of design and implementation of the CT pilot

Meeting with MEF to understand their role and expectations from cash transfers

Meeting with Health Department officials to understand their role and delivery of services

Meeting with MoP officials to understand the identification process

Monday, 11 September 2017

Meeting with district officials and commune focal persons to understand the implementation of the pilot in District Bakong

Interview with Prasat Bakong District Focal Person and IT Assistant to understand monitoring and reporting under the CT pilot

Meeting with AMK based in Siem Reap and Focal Person involved in cash distribution

Tuesday, 12 September 2017

Interview with Focal Person in Rolus Commune and interview with five beneficiaries, including pregnant women and mothers

Visit to Health Centre to understand role of service providers in the pilot, utilization of health and nutrition services, etc.

Thursday, 14 September 2017

Development of draft tools and preparation of presentation for reference group meeting

Friday, 15 September 2017

Discussions with Evaluation Management Team to debrief about the inception mission visits

Meeting with Reference Group Members

Meeting with C4D, UNICEF to understand the process development of IEC/BCC material and trainings conducted under the CT pilot


47

Annex 13. Key Stakeholder List, Data Collection Methods and Data Collection Tools

Level Objectives of Data Collection Respondents Data Collection

Tool

Number of

Interviews

Broad Category of Questions

National • Analysing the extent to which the

project has been appropriately designed and effectively implemented

• Understanding parameters to determine cost-effectiveness of the project

• Assessing the institutional capacity at the national level.

• Identifying key gaps in relation to the programme life-cycle

• Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the project

• Identifying the learning for project scale-up

• Providing comparison with similar cash transfer projects

UNICEF

Cambodia

KII Key

personnel

from 10

institutions

• UNICEF’s targets on health and nutrition

• Efficacy of using cash transfer

• Design of the project

• Project funding

• Provision of TA and support

• Capacity development

CARD KII • National policy on social protection,

health and nutrition targets, cash transfers

• Roles and responsibilities


• Budget plan

• Implementation mechanisms including payments, communication

• Tracking, M&E mechanisms

• Institutional capacity development and trainings

MEF KII • National policy on social protection,

health and nutrition targets, cash transfers

• Efficacy of using cash transfer


MoP KII • Implementation of IDPoor

• Targeting, enrolment, grievance redressal for the project

MoH KII • Health service provision

• Utilization of health services as a result of co-responsibilities

• Community education sessions

• Community nutrition projects

• Institutional capacities


48


Tool

Number of

Interviews


NCDD KII • World Bank Cash Transfer project-

design, implementation and monitoring mechanism

• Budget and project costs

World Bank KII • World Bank Cash Transfer project-

design, implementation and monitoring mechanism


Save the

Children

KII • Nourish Project- design, implementation

and monitoring mechanism


AMK

Microfinance

KII • Roles and responsibilities

• Payment process (to beneficiaries)

• Institutional capacity

• Grievances

• Flow of funds

• Verification mechanisms

• Data collection and management information system generation

District Office –

Planning and

Commune

Semi Structured

Interview


• Data collection and reporting

• Monitoring

• Case management

• Coordination with other departments

• Institutional capabilities/requirements

Province/District • Analysing the extent to which the

project has been effectively implemented, with a particular focus on MIS management, cash distribution mechanism, monitoring and case management

• Assessing the institutional capacity at the sub-national level

District Office – Sangat Support Office

Semi Structured Interview

4-6 • Roles and responsibilities

• Data collection and reporting

• Monitoring

• Case management

• Coordination with other departments



• Payment process


District Council KII


49


Tool

Number of

Interviews


• Analysing the level of coordination between sectoral structures involved in social protection

• Identifying key gaps in monitoring, institutional capacity

• Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the project in terms of data collection and flow, coordination arrangements, transparency, grievance redressal

AMK KII • Grievances

• Flow of funds

• Verification mechanisms

• Data collection and MIS generation Commune

Council

Members

including

Commune

Committee for

Women and

Children

(CCWC)

FGD • Roles and responsibilities

• Awareness about the project

• Enrolment procedures


• Community-based education sessions

• Monitoring including HC services


Commune • Understanding the extent to

which the cash transfer has been successfully implemented in terms of targeting, enrolment, inclusion and exclusion errors, promoting birth registration

• Assessing the institutional capacity at the sub-national level

• Assessing the effectiveness and utilization of behaviour change communication (BCC) activities

• Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the programme in terms of targeting, enrolment, quality and reach of BCC activities

Commune focal

persons

Semi-structured

questionnaire

8 • Roles and responsibilities

• Awareness about project

• Enrolment procedures


• Community based education sessions

• Monitoring including HC services


• Community based education sessions

• Communication activities

• Identification and enrolment of beneficiaries

• Beneficiary satisfaction/grievances

Village chief KII 8

Village

• Analysing the extent to which the project has been effectively implemented in reaching out to target groups

• Assessing the effectiveness and utilization of BCC activities

Household head

and husbands of

beneficiaries

Survey 24 • Socio-economic status

• Payment mechanism including documents required, regularity and adequacy of cash transfer

• Understanding the usage of cash by households


50


Tool

Number of

Interviews


• Understanding the usage of money being provided along with beneficiary satisfaction and adequacy of the transfer level

• Understanding the grievances of beneficiaries in utilization of services

• Overall view, opinion and need of the cash transfer programme

• View and effectiveness of the nutrition and health education sessions

• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) towards immunization, maternal nutrition, child nutrition, breastfeeding etc.

• Grievances and redress mechanisms

• Success stories

Beneficiary Structured questionnaire

240 • Socio-economic status and need for cash transfers

• Payment mechanism including documents required, regularity and adequacy of cash transfer

• Understanding the usage of cash by households

• Overall view, opinion and need of the cash transfer programme

• View and effectiveness of the nutrition and health education sessions

• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) towards immunization, maternal nutrition, child nutrition, breastfeeding etc.

• Grievances and redressal mechanisms

• Success stories

• Reasons for non-inclusion in the programme

• Overall view and opinion of the cash transfer project

Beneficiary

husbands

Semi-structured

questionnaire

24

Non-

beneficiaries

(excluded due to

economic

status)

24

Facility in-

charge

KII 24 • Roles and responsibilities

• Availability and utilization of health services



51


Tool

Number of

Interviews


Health Centre • Assessing the availability and

utilization of health services

• Assessing the institutional capacity at Health centres

Service provider

(Nurse/Doctor)

KII 4 • Roles and responsibilities

• Availability and utilization of health services



52

List of attendees at the Validation of Fieldwork and Desk-Study Findings Workshop

1. Deputy Secretary General of CARD

2. Deputy Director, Planning and Health Information, MoH

3. Deputy Director, DDC, MoI

4. Director of Social Welfare, MoSVY

5. Child Welfare Department, MoSVY

6. Chief Social Inclusion and Governance, UNICEF Cambodia

7. Chief Siem Reap Zone Office, UNICEF Zone Office

8. Deputy Representative, UNCIEF Cambodia

9. Junior Assistant, CARD

10. Chief of Party, Save the Children

11. Deputy Governor, Prasat Bakong

12. District Focal Point, Prasat Bakong

13. District Advisor, Prasat Bakong

14. Commune Focal Point, Trapeng Thom

15. Commune Focal Point, Balang

16. Commune Focal Point, Kantreang

17. Commune Focal Point, Rolours

18. Evaluation Specialist, UNICEF Cambodia

19. M&E Officer, UNICEF Cambodia

20. Team Leader, IPE Global

21. Assistant Team Leader, IPE Global

22. National Consultant, Dynamic Alliance Consulting

23. Community Development Specialist, UNICEF Cambodia

24. C4D Officer, UNICEF Cambodia

25. Evaluation Intern, UNICEF Cambodia

26. Deputy of CWD, MoSVY


53

List of people interviewed

1. Director of Social Protection Department, CARD

2. Junior Assistant, CARD

3. Project Assistant, CARD

4. Chief Pension Unit, Ministry of Economy and Finance

5. Deputy Director of Planning and Health Information Department, Ministry of Health

6. Director of Welfare for Persons with Disability Department, MoSAVY

7. Director of IP Poor Department, Ministry of Planning

8. Deputy District Governor, Prasat Bakong district

9. District Focal Point, Prasat Bakong district

10. IT Person, Prasat Bakong district

11. Distict Advisor, Prasat Bakong district

12. Country Representative, UNICEF Cambodia

13. Deputy Country Representative, UNICEF Cambodia

14. Chief Social Inclusion and Governance, UNICEF Cambodia

15. Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF Cambodia

16. Chief Siem Reap Zone Office, UNICEF Cambodia

17. C4D Officer, UNICEF Cambodia

18. Health Specialist, UNICEF Cambodia

19. Child Survival Development, UNICEF Cambodia

20. Chief of Party, NURISH Project, Save the Children

21. Former Project Manager, CT Pilot project of World Bank

22. Senior Mobile Banking Support, AMK

23. Focus group interviews with commune council members in Bakong commune, Rolous commune, Kantreang commune, Ballank commune, Kampong Phlok commune, Trapaing Thum commune, Kandaek commune, and Meanchey commune.

24. Key formant interview with commune focal points from 8 communes, village chief, and village members from 23 target villages.

25. Key informant interview with 4 health centers (HCs): Bakong HC, Rolous HC, Meanchey HC, and Trapaing Thum HC.


54

Data collection tools

Survey Questionnaire for Households Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)

Interviewer’s Name: _________________________ Date of Interview: ____/_____/2017

Part 1 – Identification (Fill out before interview)

Commune Name Commune Code

Village Name Village Code

Name of Respondent Age (years)

Household ID ID from HH Roster

House No. (in family book)

House No. (on road)

Contact Number

Household Type IDPoor 1 IDPoor 2 Other

No. of Children under the

age of five

Part 2 – Introduction and Consent

Hello! My name is ______________________ and I am here on behalf of IPE Global Limited. We

are conducting an independent evaluation on behalf of CARD and UNICEF regarding the Cash

Transfer Programme. We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. We are very

interested to hear your valuable opinion on the cash transfer programme and appreciate your

participation in this interview. The information will help the Government to understand the cash

transfer services, which were provided. The survey will take approximately 1.5 hours to complete.

The information you provide will be kept confidential and will not be shown to other persons. It is not

mandatory to participate in this survey and you can opt out at any point in the course of the survey.

If I ask a question you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question; or

you can stop the interview at any time. However, we hope that you will participate in this survey,

since your views are important. Do you want to ask me anything about the survey? May I begin the

interview now?

RESPONDENT AGREES TO BE INTERVIEWED Yes No


55

Part 3 – Survey

1. Are you literate [1] Yes

[2] No

2. How many years have you been at school?

3. Who is the Head of the Household? [1] Myself

[2] Partner

[3] Parent/Parent in law

[8] Other (specify)

4. What kind of card do you have? (prompt -please mark all applicable answers – multiple answers possible)

[1] ID Poor Card

[2] Other (specify)

5. Can I please see your ID Poor card? (prompt – please see the document and click pictures)

[1] Have

[2] Don't Have

6. Do you have a maternal health book? (prompt – please see the document and click pictures)

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Lost it

[4] Don’t know

7. How many children do you have? Please specify the age of each child. (prompt: please write age of all children)

No. of Children ________________

Age (Child 1)__________________

Age (Child 2)__________________

Age (Child 3)__________________

8. Does your child have a birth certificate? (prompt – if the respondent has more than one child, please ask individually for each child and respond accordingly) (prompt – please see the document and click pictures)

Child 1

[1] Yes

[2] No

Child 2

[1] Yes

[2] No

Child 3

[1] Yes

[2] No

9. Did the child have a birth certificate before the programme?

Child 1

[1] Yes

[2] No

Child 2

[1] Yes

[2] No

Child 3

[1] Yes

[2] No

10. Do you have a yellow immunization/growth monitoring card for your baby?

Child 1

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Lost it

[4] Don’t know

Child 2

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Lost it

[4] Don’t know

Child 3

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Lost it

[4] Don’t know

11. Does your household have any means of transport? How many? (prompt - please mark all applicable answers – multiple answers possible)

[1] Bicycle

[2] Horse/Oxen Cart

[3] Kou Yon

[4] Small Rowboat Or Canoe (No Motor)

[5] Motorbike

[6] Tuk Tuk

[7] Car/Van/Truck

[8] Boat With Motor

[9] Tractor

[10] Others

12. Counting all sources together, how much is the monthly income of your family?

[1] Less than 50 USD (<200,000 R)


56

[2] 50 to 100 USD (200,001-400,000R)

[3] 101 to 150 USD (400,001-600,000R)

[4] 151 to 200 USD (600,001-800,000R)

[5] More than 200 USD (800,000R)

13. Can you please state the month in which you started receiving the Cash Transfer Benefit Amount?

14. How many installments of cash transfer have you received?

15. How much of the cash transfer money have you withdrawn from your bank account?

[1] None

[2] Entire Amount

[3] Others, please specify ………………….

16. Do you know how much money you have in your Cash Transfer Pilot bank account? (Prompt: Skip if answer to 16 is [2] – Entire Amount)

17. In the previous month, how much money did you spend on the following items?

[1] Food ……………………

[2] Cloth ……………………

[3] Health care ………………….

[4] Education-related costs ………….

[5] Paying off debt ……………………

[6] Other …………….

18. Have the household expenditures changed as a result of the cash transfer programme?

[1] Yes, decreased

[2] Yes, increased

[3] No, remained the same

[4] Don't know

19. If expenditures of household decreased/ increased, on which items and how much on each? (Prompt: Skip if answer to 18 is [3] No, remained the same) (Prompt: please write all appropriate responses)

[1] Food____________________________

[2] Debt Repayment __________________

[3] Clothing/Shoes ___________________

[4] Saved ___________________

[5] Business investment ___________________

[6] Transport ___________________

[7] Rent/Shelter ___________________

[8] Water ___________________

[9] School Fees ___________________

[10] Gift/Share ___________________

[11] Livestock ___________________

[12] Household Items ___________________

[13] Medical ___________________

[14] Agricultural inputs ___________________

[15] Firewood ___________________

[16] Other ___________

TOTAL ________________

20. If your household expenditure was decreased/ increased on food, what was decreased/ increased? (Prompt: please tick all appropriate

responses)

[1] Quantity consumed by all HH members

[2] Quantity consumed by children

[3] Quantity consumed by adults

[4] Quality of food consumed

[5] Others (specify)_______________________


57

21. If your household expenditure on food was increased, please state on which type of food. (Prompt: please tick all appropriate responses)

[1]Quantity of meat purchased/consumed

[2]Quantity of fish purchased/consumed

[3]Quantity of fruits purchased/consumed

[4]Quantity of vegetables purchased/consumed

[5]Quantity of milk purchased/consumed

[6]Others (specify)_________________________

22. If you spent the Cash Transfer Programme money on food, how much did you spend on the following:

[1] Cereals (rice, corn, wheat etc.)

_______________

[2] Vitamin A rich tubers and vegetables (pumpkin,

carrots, sweet potatoes etc.) __________________

[3] White tubers and vegetables (white potatoes,

yams, cassava root) ___________________

[4] Vitamin A rich fruits (ripe mangoes, papaya,

cantaloupe etc.) ___________________

[5] Flesh Meats (beef, pork, chicken, birds, wild

game) ______________________

[6] Eggs _____________________

[7] Fish ______________________

[8] Oils and Fats ___________________

[9] Micronutrient (tablets or syrup)

_______________

[10] Commercial Products (Ovaltine, formula etc.)

___________________

Part 4 – Cash Transfer

1. How did you come to know about Cash Transfer Programme? (Prompt: please allow the respondent to answer and tick all appropriate responses)

[1] Heard from Commune Council

[2] Heard from HC

[3] CT staff

[4] Heard from VHSG

[5] Heard from village chief

[6] Neighbour

[7] Relatives

[8] Other (specify)

2. Are you aware of the selection criteria used by the govt. to choose your household as a beneficiary?

[1] Yes

[2] No, why not?

3. If yes, what are the selection criteria?

(Prompt: Skip this question if answer to 2 was

[2] No)

(Prompt: please allow the respondent to answer

and tick all appropriate responses)

[1] IDPoor

[2] Pregnant Woman

[3] Mother of Child Under 5

[4] One essential prenatal check-up

[5] Availability of Child Health yellow card or Birth

Certificate of Child [6] Others (specify)

4. How were you enrolled? [1] Mass Enrolment in Communes

[2] Admission on Demand


58

5. If you were enrolled under Admission on Demand, Why was enrolment not done during mass admission at the commune?

(Prompt: Skip this question if answer to 4 was

[1] Mass Enrolment in Communes)



[1] Name not in IDPoor list

[2] Child did not have birth certificate

[3] Child did not have yellow card

[4] Did not have HC documentation regarding

pregnancy

[5] Not present during registration day

[6] Others (specify)

6. What were the documents required for enrolment?

(prompt: please allow the respondent to answer


[1] ID Poor Card

[2] Birth Certificate or Yellow Card

[3] Mothers Card [4] Others (specify)

7. Did you participate in the Enrolment Orientation Session?

[1] Yes

[2] No

8. Do you know that there are two types of transfer – basic and bonus?

[1] Yes

[2] No

9. Do you know about the co-responsibilities for bonus payment?

(prompt: please tick all the appropriate and

correct responses)

Pregnant Women and Mothers [1] 4 Prenatal check-ups during pregnancy [2] Institutional Delivery & 3 post-natal care package [3] Participate in 3 community based education sessions Children below 1 [4] Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions and 3 recommended vaccinations [5] Attend 3 additional growth monitoring sessions and 3 additional vaccinations Children between 1 and 5 [6] Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions [7] Attend 3 additional growth monitoring sessions

10. Which co-responsibilities did you complete in order to receive bonus payment?

(prompt: please tick all the appropriate and correct responses)

Pregnant Women and Mothers [1] 4 Prenatal check-ups during pregnancy [2] Institutional Delivery & 3 post-natal care package [3] Participate in 3 community based education sessions Children below 1 [4] Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions and 3 recommended vaccinations [5] Attend 3 additional growth monitoring sessions and 3 additional vaccinations Children between 1 and 5 [6] Attend 3 growth monitoring sessions [7] Attend 3 additional growth monitoring sessions

11. Were you given full information about what you are entitled to in an open manner?

(Prompt: Ask: amount, where, frequency…)

[1] Yes

[2] No

12. When were you given this information?


and tick the appropriate and correct responses

only)

[1] Orientation Session

[2] Education Sessions

[3] At Health Centre

[4] At Payment Points

[5] Others

13. Did you have to open a Bank Account for the Cash Transfer Programme?

[1] Yes

[2] No


59

14. How much time did it take for the Bank Account to open?

[1] Less than 1 month

[2] 1 - 2 months

[3] 2 - 3 months

[4] 3 - 4 months

[5] Over 5 months

15. Was the process to open the bank account clear and simple? Kindly rate on a 5 point scale

[1] Strongly disagree

[2] Disagree

[3] Neither agree nor disagree

[4] Agree

[5] Strongly agree

16. How long ago did you receive your last cash transfer?

[1] Less than 1 month

[2] 1 - 2 months

[3] 2 - 3 months

[4] 3 - 4 months

[5] Over 5 months

17. After what interval do you receive the cash transfer?

[1] More frequently than once a month

[2] Monthly

[3] Every 2 months

[4] Every 3 months

[5] Less frequently than 3 months

18. How long did you take to reach the pay point? [1] Less than 30 minutes

[2] 0.5 - 1 hour

[3] 1 - 2 hours

[4] 2 - 3 hours

[5] over 3 hours

19. How much money did you spend on travelling to the pay point?

20. What was the waiting time before receiving cash? (prompt: please state that the waiting time starts after completion of the Health and Nutrition Education Session)

[1] Less than 30 minutes

[2] 0.5 - 1 hour

[3] 1 - 2 hours

[4] 2 - 3 hours

[5] over 3 hours

21. Who is the household member designated to be the receiver of the cash?

[1] Pregnant lady/mother

[2] Female Guardian

[3] Father

[4] Male Guardian

[5] Other (specify)

22. In your opinion is the process for receiving money as a part of the Cash Transfer Programme clear/ simple?


[2] Disagree


[4] Agree

[5] Strongly agree

23. Was the amount received sufficient to cover the health and nutrition needs of the household?

[1] Yes

[2] No

24. Who mainly makes the decision about how the money is used?


60

25. Do you consider that the money received is properly used in the household?

[1] Yes

[2] No

26. Has the cash transfer project addressed your immediate needs

[1] Yes

[2] No

27. If yes, what has it addressed? [1] Food

[2] Medical

[3] Clothing

[4] Shelter

[5] Other, please specify ……………………..

[6] Not Applicable

28. If no, what has not been addressed? [1] Food

[2] Medical

[3] Clothing

[4] Shelter

[5] Other, please specify ……………………..

[6] Not Applicable

29. How much money did you spend on food in the past week?

30. How much money did you spend on health care (including transportation) in the past one year?

31. Have you encountered any problem while processing/accessing the cash?

[1] Yes

[2] No

32. If yes, what was the nature of the problem?

33. Have you ever raised a complaint regarding the project?

[1] Yes

[2] No

34. If yes, what was the nature of complain?

If No, Are you aware of any mechanisms to report

any complaint on this project?

35. Was it resolved? (Prompt: Skip this question if answer to 33 was [2] No)

[1] Yes

[2] No

36. If yes, how was it resolved? If no, why not? (Prompt: Skip this question if answer to 33 was [2] No)

37. In how much time was the complaint resolved? (Prompt: Skip this question if answer to 33 was [2] No)

[1] less than 2 week

[2] 2-4 weeks

[3] 4-6 weeks

[4] 6-8 weeks

[5] 8-10 weeks

[6] more than 10 weeks

38. In your opinion, what should be done to improve the cash transfer process? (Simpler enrolment processes, more cash, more pay points, more frequent transfers etc.)

39. Given options, which alternative to Cash Transfer would you prefer?

[1] Food voucher


61

[2] Free Food

[3] Free Medical Care

[4] Food for Work

[5] Business grants

[6] Other: ______________________

[7] None (Cash Transfer is better)

40. What tangible benefit/success story/testimony of how the project has impacted you or your household

(prompt: to be used in case studies)

Part 5 – Healthcare Service Utilization

1. Have you ever had to borrow to cover the cost of delivery of your children since getting the Cash Transfer? (please tick Not Applicable if the woman has not given birth after enrolment in the Cash Transfer Programme)

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Not Applicable

2. Have you ever had to borrow to cover the cost of health care for you or your children since getting the Cash Transfer?

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Not used health care services after enrolment in

Cash Transfer Programme

3. How much have you borrowed to cover the cost of health care in total since getting the Cash Transfer?

4. Does the closest public Health Centre in your area provide free services for you with your IDPoor card?

[1] Yes

[2] No

5. Have you ever used your IDPoor card to receive health services from a public Health facility?

[1] Yes

[2] No

6. If not, why not? Prompt: Please skip if answer to 5 is [1] Yes)

[1] Not seriously ill

[2] Not sick at all

[3] Prefer private doctor

[4] No money for transport

[5] Doctor takes money

[6] Just got the card

[7] Too sick to travel

[8] Doctors discriminate HEF members

[9] Lost card

[10] Distant facility/no money for transport

[11] Other(specify)

Part 6 – Knowledge, Attitude and Practices

1. From where do you get information regarding maternal and child nutrition?

[1] Spouse

[2] Parents/In-laws

[3] Healthcare Professionals

[4] Traditional healers


62

[5] Others

2. From whom did you seek advice or treatment for yourself or your baby?

[1] Hospital

[2] Health Centre

[3] Traditional birth attendant

[4] Private clinic/doctor

[5] Village health volunteer

[6] Relatives & friends

[7] Pharmacy/drug seller

[8] Traditional healer

[9] Other (specify)

3. How many Nutrition and Health Education (NHED) Sessions did you attend?

[1] Less than 3

[2] 3

[3] 3-6

[4] 6-9

[5] None

4. Were the NHED sessions useful in gaining knowledge about health and nutrition?


[2] Disagree


[4] Agree

[5] Strongly agree

5. Do you have any recommendations/

changes (ផ្លា ស់ប្ត រូ ) to help improve

the sessions?

Breastfeeding

6. What is the first food a new-born baby should receive?

7. When should a mother start adding foods to breastfeeding?

(prompt: please allow the respondent

to answer and tick the appropriate

and correct responses only)

[1] Start adding earlier than 4 months of age

[2] Start adding between 4-6 months of age

[3] At 6 months

[3] Start adding later than 6 months of age

[4] Don't know

8. Have you ever breast-fed your baby?

[1] Yes

[2] No, why not?

9. After the delivery, when did you breast-feed your baby for the first time?

[1] During the first hour after delivery

[2] From 1 to 8 hours after delivery

[3] More than 8 hours after delivery

[4] Do not remember

10. How long did/will you exclusively breast feed without liquid supplements?

11. When did/will you introduce solids?

12. What solids did/will you start with? [1] Rice cereal

[2] Fruits

[3] Vegetables

[4] Meat/chicken/fish

[5] Others (specify)


63

Anaemia

13. Have you ever heard about anaemia?

[1] Yes

[2] No

14. Can you name some symptoms or health problems caused by Anaemia?




[1] Pallor

[2] Weakness

[3] Tiredness

[4] Cravings from non-food items

[5] Shortness of breath

[6] Poor growth and development

[7] Other causes

[8] Don't know

15. Can you tell some measures to prevent anaemia?




[1] Access to more information

[2] Good diet

[3] Iron and folic acid supplements

[4] Medical care

[5] Other

[6] Don't know

Supplements

16. In your pregnancies, did you take any iron and folic acid pills?

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Don't know

17. For how many days do you need to take iron tablets, when pregnant?

(correct answer should be 42 days, if

incorrect answer is provided, please

write it down and inform the

beneficiary of the correct response)

18. Have you ever given your child iron supplements?

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Don't know

19. Where did you obtain the iron supplements?

[1] Health Centre / distributed

[2] Pharmacy / sold / reimbursed

[3] Other / specify

[4] Don't know

20. Can you name some symptoms or health problems caused by iron/folic acid deficiency?




[1] Pallor

[2] Weakness

[3] Tiredness

[4] Cravings from non-food items

[5] Shortness of breath

[6] Poor growth and development

[7] Other causes

[8] Don't know

21. Do you use iodized salts? [1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Don't know

22. Do you know the benefits of using iodized salt?

[1] Yes


64

[2] No

23. Please tell us about the benefits of using iodized salts?




[1] Healthy pregnancies

[2] Improved brain function

[3] Improved thyroid function

[4] Fights depression

[5] Weight control

[6] Fights cancer

[7] Healthy heart

[8] Removes toxin

[9] Irritable bowel syndrome

[10] Improved appearance

[11] Other (Specify)

24. Which vitamin helps you prevent "night blindness"?




[1] Vitamin A

[2] Don't know or other

25. Which foods contain vitamin A?




[1] Green leafy vegetables

[2] Orange or yellow fruits

[3] Meat/fish

[4] Breast milk

[5] Egg yolks

[6] Others

[7] Don’t know

26. Did/ Do you give your child sprinkles?

[1] Yes

[2] No

27. What is the use of giving sprinkles?




[1] Promoting child’s growth

[2] Improving immunity

[3] Preventing Diseases

[4] Improving Child’s Appetite

[5] Preventing Anaemia

[6] Others, Specify …………….

Dietary Diversity

28. Do you usually consume foods such as organ meat, meat, fish, eggs, legumes, green leafy vegetables? (prompt: one week recall to be asked)

[1] Organ meat Yes/No

[2] Fish Yes/No

[3] Eggs Yes/No

[4] Legumes Yes/No

[5] Green leafy vegetables Yes/No

[6] Others Yes/No

[7] Don't know

Immunization and Healthcare

29. Has your baby ever received any immunizations?

[1] Yes

[2] No

30. If yes, where did he/she get his/her vaccination?

[1] Provincial Hospital

[2] Referral Hospital

[3] Health Centre


65

[4] NGO Clinic

[5] Private Facility

[6] Others

31. If no, why not?

32. Look at the growth monitoring card of the child, and record the number of times the child has been weighed and measured. Also check if the child is malnourished and tick Yes/No accordingly.

Child 1

Age:

Child 2

Age:

Child 3

Age:

Child 4

Age:

Malnourished-

[1] Yes

[2] No

Malnourished-

[1] Yes

[2] No

Malnourished-

[1] Yes

[2] No

Malnourished-

[1] Yes

[2] No

33. If the child was diagnosed as malnourished in the growth monitoring chart, ask the following question: What action was taken by the HC staff or you?

[1] Referral to Hospital/ Treatment Centre

[2] Given Supplements

[3] Provided advice/counselling on better nutrition

[4] Others, specify

34. When you were pregnant with your baby did you visit any health site (hospital, HC) for prenatal care?

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Don’t know

35. Look at the maternal health book and record whether the mother ever made any antenatal visit?

[1] One

[2] Two

[3] Three or more

[4] None

[5] Don’t have the card

36. Where do you go for antenatal check-ups?



[3] Health Centre


[5] NGO Clinic, please specify ____________

[6] Others

37. Did/ Will you give birth at a health/medical facility?

[1] Yes

[2] No

[3] Don’t know

38. If yes, where? [1] Provincial Hospital


[3] Health Centre


[5] NGO Clinic, please specify

[6] Others

39. If no, why not?

40. Where do/will you take your child when he/she is ill?



[3] Health Centre


[5] NGO Clinic, please specify _________

[6] Others


66

Others

41. What is the minimum year gap/space that should be there between two pregnancies?

[1] Less Than 1

[2] 1-2

[3] 2

[4] 2-3

[5] More than 3

42. Do you always wash your hands before meals?

[1] Yes

[2] No

If No, why not ______________________________

43. Does/Do your child/children always wash their hands before meals?

[1] Yes

[2] No

If No, why not

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and opinions with us.

Part 7 – Questions for Head of the Household/ Husband of Beneficiary

1. Name of respondent and ID from HH roster

2. Age

3. Gender

4. What is your relation to the beneficiary?

5. How many years have you been at school?

6. What are the typical occupations and activities that women conduct in your household?

7. What are the typical occupations and activities you conduct in your household?

8. If the Government wants to start programmes for improving women’s status, what do you think these programmes should focus on?


67

9. From where did you learn about the Cash Transfer Programme?

10. In what areas of the cash transfer programmes did you participate? Please elaborate on activities undertaken

For Enrolment:

For Payment:

For Co-responsibilities:

For Education Sessions:

11. Did you accompany the beneficiary to the Health Centre for check-ups, vaccinations etc.?

12. How many check-ups was the beneficiary supposed to get during her pregnancy?

[1] One

[2] Two

[3] Three

[4] Four

[5] More than four

[6] None

[7] Don’t know

13. Have you heard about anemia? [1] Yes

[2] No

14. Can you tell some measures to prevent anemia? [1] Access to more information

[2] Good diet

[3] Iron and folic acid supplements

[4] Medical care

[5] Other

[6] Don't know


68

15. Do you know the benefits of using iodized salt? [1] Yes

[2] No

16. Please tell us about the benefits of using iodized salts?

[1] Healthy pregnancies

[2] Improved brain function

[3] Improved thyroid function

[4] Fights depression

[5] Weight control

[6] Fights cancer

[7] Healthy heart

[8] Removes toxin

[9] Irritable bowel syndrome

[10] Improved appearance

[11] Other (Specify)

[12] Don’t know

17. Please list the type of vaccines that need to be given to babies. (prompt: please allow the respondent to answer and tick the appropriate and correct

responses only)

[1] BCG

[2] Hep B

[3] Vitamin A

[4] ABZ/MBZ

[5] DPT 1st

[6] OPV 1st

[7] DPT 2nd

[8] OPV] 2nd

[9] DPT 3rd.

[10] OPV 3rd

[11] Measles

[12] Don't know

18. What was the Cash Transfer money used on? (Food, Healthcare, Clothing, debt repayment)

19. Did you help in deciding how the money should be spent? If not, who made these decisions?

20. Are you aware of any problems/ challenges in availing benefits under the Cash Transfer Programme (access to money, fulfilling co-responsibilities, documentation)


69

21. Do you see any changes in the quality of life of the household as a result of the cash transfer? (including as a result of the education sessions and the money received)

22. What are your recommendations to improve the Cash Transfer Programme?

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and opinions with us


70

KII Tool for Non-Beneficiaries Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)





Name of Respondent Age

Designation of Respondent

Contact Information







transfer services, which were provided. The interview will take approximately 45 minutes to

complete.






interview now?



71

Part 3 – Questions

1. A) Do you know about the Cash Transfer Programme?

B) What do you know about the programme?

C) From whom did you learn about these details?

2. Why were you not a part of the Cash Transfer Programme?

[1] Not in ID Poor 1 or 2

[2] Did not have the necessary documents

[3] Did not enrol in the given time period

[4] Did not enrol voluntarily, please explain

……………………………………………………….…………………

………………………………………………………………………….

[5] Others, please explain …........................................................

………………………………………………………………………….

3. A) Do you think that including people in the programme through IDPoor Categorisation is a good method for enrolling women for the programme?

B) In your opinion, what criteria should be used for including women in the programme?


72

4. Do you wish to be a part of the Cash Transfer Programme? Please elaborate on the reasons including specific needs, which you may have

5. A) Do you know anybody who is a part of the Cash Transfer Programme? What is your relationship with them?

B) Do you think they have benefitted from the programme? Please elaborate on your answer with examples.

6. What is your overall opinion on the Cash Transfer Program? Do you think it is a good way to improve the status of health and nutrition for pregnant women and children?

7. Do you have any recommendations/suggestions regarding the cash transfer programme?



73

KII Tool for Village Chief/ Commune Focal Person Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)





Name of Respondent Gender


Contact Information







transfer services, which were provided. The interview will take approximately 1 hour to complete.






interview now?



74


1. What are your overall roles and responsibilities as Village Chief/ Commune Focal Person?

Please ask the following

question to only the

Commune Council Focal

Person

What are your responsibilities

as a part of CCWC (Commune

Committee for Women and

Children)?

2. A) When and how did you first come to know about the Cash Transfer Programme?

B) Did you receive any training or orientation with regard to the Cash Transfer Programme? If yes, please elaborate?

C) What materials/ documents were provided to help undertake the Cash Transfer Programme? How useful were they? (probe: ask about operational guidelines and whether they understand it or not)


75

Can you provide any recommendations to help improve the quality of the material received?

3. What activities do you have to undertake as a part of the Cash Transfer Programme?

4. Can you please elaborate on your role in raising awareness about the Cash Transfer programme? What were the methods used?

5. A) Did you have a role in conducting the community-based education sessions? Can you explain your role?

B) Do you feel these sessions are useful and have benefitted the cash transfer recipients?

C) Do you have any recommendations for improving these sessions?

6. Are you compensated in any way for the services that you render for the cash transfer?

7. A) How much time do you devote per month to activities related to the cash transfer?

B) Do you have adequate time to complete all your other tasks?

8. Please state the key challenges in supporting the implementation of the Cash Transfer Programme including capacity gaps


76

9. Kindly elaborate on the details required in the table below:

Method Appropriateness/

Effectiveness Transparency

Involvement of

Community

Members

Targeting Probe: Was the targeting

mechanism clearly

described and

documented to you as

well as to the

beneficiaries?

Enrolment Probe: Were the steps

for enrolment and list of

beneficiaries to be

enrolled shared with

you? Were beneficiaries

aware of the above?

Payment Probe: Was the process

of payment delivery and

generation of payroll

clearly told to you and to

the beneficiaries?


77

Reporting

after

Payment

Probe: Is the report

which is generated after

payment shared with all

relevant people and is it

available for everyone to

view?

Grievance

Redress

Probe: Is the grievance

mechanism known to

everyone and are

complaints resolved in

an open and transparent

way?

10. According to you, what are the challenges faced by the beneficiaries in accessing cash? How can these be resolved?

11. According to you, can there be an alternate method for cash distribution? If yes, please elaborate.

12. Have you received complaints from the beneficiaries regarding the Cash Transfer Programme? Please elaborate on the type of complaints.


78

13. What is the method of resolution of beneficiary complaints/grievances?

14. What improvements should be put in place by the administration and leaders to ensure the beneficiaries get better services in the Cash Transfer Programme?

15. Do you think that the Cash Transfer Programme has led to an increase in beneficiaries availing more health services, eating more nutritious food and having better knowledge?

Availing more health services:

Eating more nutritious food:

Having better knowledge:

16. Can you provide examples of the Cash Transfer leading to an increase in use of health and nutrition services?

17. In your capacity as an administrative member, what according to you are some of the main social problems in your commune/village which need to be addressed? (Food security, livelihood support, better health services, water and sanitation services, infrastructure, education)

18. How has the cash transfer programme helped to address these issues? Please provide examples


79

19. In your opinion, was the programme design and delivery equitable/fair/non-discriminatory/unbiased to different social groups such as migrant families, children living with grandparents, other vulnerable groups? If not, please provide examples.

20. In the context of your village/commune, do you think the cash transfer programme has been successful in improving the care and nutrition status of pregnant & lactating mothers and children of the age 0 to 5 years?

21. Do you have any recommendations/ suggestions to improve the Cash Transfer Programme? (probe – is the current mechanism for targeting, enrolment, payment effective? What are the capacity gaps?)



80

KII Tool for Health Centre Staff1 Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)





Health Centre Name Health Centre ID

Name of Respondent


Contact Number



are conducting an independent evaluation on behalf of CARD AND UNICEF regarding the Cash




transfer services, which were provided. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete.






interview now?


.

1 This is to be administered to 2 functionaries – 1) Functionary who has been involved in delivering nutrition & health education sessions under the cash transfer programme and 2) Functionary who has been involved in providing services at the health facility


81


What activities have you undertaken as a part of the Cash Transfer programme?

a. Conducted Nutrition and Health Education sessions (NHED) as part of the cash transfer programme

b. Only provided health services to beneficiaries who came to the health centre

c. Both of the above

d. Any other activity (please specify)

(In case response is (b) or (d) then skip Section 3.1)

Section 3.1 – Nutrition & Health Education Sessions (NHED)

1. With regard to the NHED, Please answer the following questions:

Were you provided any training to conduct these sessions? Was it

adequate?

Do you feel any further training is required?

Can you recall how many sessions you have conducted? (Probe:

please ask no. of instalments for which sessions conducted, no.

of days sessions conducted and no. of sessions per day)

What was the content of these sessions?


82

What was the average duration of each session? Was it adequate? In

your opinion, what should be the appropriate duration?

How has the response of the beneficiaries been to the sessions? Are

they able to understand and comprehend the message being

conveyed?

Were they able to correctly recall what had been conveyed to them in

the previous sessions?

In your opinion, are these sessions beneficial to the women and the

households?

In your opinion what percentage of beneficiaries has adopted

appropriate practices with regard to healthcare and nutrition during

pregnancy and nutrition of the child?


83

What additional content or methods are needed to improve the

effectiveness of these education sessions?

2. A) How and who informs you of the date, time and location of the NHED sessions which are to be conducted?

B) Did you come to know of the scheduled date sufficiently in advance?

C) Do you have any suggestions with regard to scheduling of the sessions and coordination for conducting the sessions?

3. Did you receive any compensation for delivering the education sessions? If yes, what are they?


84

4. How much time does it take you to prepare for a session? How much time does one session take?

5. In your opinion, has the cash transfer programme led to an increase in utilization of health services?

6. Can you please describe some key challenges, if any, of delivering education sessions?

7. Apart from the education sessions conducted as a part of the UNICEF CARD cash transfer pilot project, are any other education sessions also conducted? Who conducts these sessions and are any agencies/NGO’s involved?


85

What is the content of these sessions and does it complement with the education sessions conducted as a part of the Cash Transfer Pilot?

8. Do you have any recommendations/suggestions to improve the overall delivery of the Cash Transfer Programme?

Section 3.2 – Health Centre services

1. Are there any supply side constraints/ problems at your Health Centre (infrastructure, skilled staff, supplies, etc.)?

2. Were any additional resources (E.g.: vaccines, weighing scales etc.) provided as a part of the Cash Transfer programme?


86

3. What are the resources that are required to further improve the Cash Transfer programme?

4. Do majority of the women in your catchment area visit the HC for institutional deliveries and health check-ups for themselves and their children?

For Institutional Delivery:

For Health Check-ups for themselves:

For Health Check-ups for their children:

5. If women don’t come to the HC, what are the reasons? (Costs, distance, lack of knowledge, skewed beliefs)?

6. In your opinion, has the cash transfer programme led to an increase in utilization of health services?


87

7. What is the method of keeping records at the HC? (manual – hard copy, computerized)

8. A) Do you keep records to track health and nutritional indicators of women? If yes, how and on which MIS/reporting system/document is this record-keeping done?

B) Do you keep records to

track health and nutritional

indicators of children? If yes,

how and on which

MIS/reporting

system/document is this

record-keeping done?

C) Kindly show the

documents/MIS. (prompt:

kindly click pictures. If not

available, ask and note the

reason).

9. Do additional records need to be kept as a result of the Cash transfer programme?

10. A) Did you identify any malnourished or SAM children who were a part of the Cash Transfer Programme? If yes, how many?


88

B) If yes to above, then what actions/ steps were taken to ensure their treatment?

(Referred the children to

treatment centres, provided

nutritional supplements,

asked mothers to give better

food etc.)

11. Overall, what is your opinion of the cash transfer programme?

12. What are some of the main constraints/ problems in the programme?

13. What are your recommendations to improve the programme?



89

FGD Guide for Commune Council Members Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)

Names of the Facilitators: _________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Date of FGD: ____/_____/2017

Part 1 – Identification (Fill out before the FGD)



Sl. Name of the Respondent/Participant Role/Position Gender

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Hello! My name is ______________________ and I am here on behalf of IPE Global Limited. We are conducting an Independent Evaluation on the Cash Transfer Pilot Programme on behalf of CARD and UNICEF. We are very interested to hear your valuable opinion on the cash transfer programme and appreciate your participation in this discussion. The information will help the Government to understand the cash transfer services, which were provided. The discussion is expected to take 1 to 2 hours to complete.

We understand how important it is that this information is kept private and confidential. We request all participants to respect each other’s confidentiality. The information you provide will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside the group.

It is not mandatory to participate in this survey and you can opt out at any point in the course of the discussion. If I ask a question you don't want to answer, just let me know and we will not discuss the same. Do you want to ask me anything about this discussion? Can we start the discussion now?

Let's start by going around the circle and having each person introduce themselves.

(Members of the research team should also introduce themselves and describe each of their roles.)


90

Part 3 – Discussion Points

1. What are the overall roles and responsibilities of the Commune Council and the CCWC in the cash transfer programme? (Probe - Number of members, relationship with village chiefs, fiscal management)

2. What were the specific roles performed by each Member (category of member) in the cash transfer programme?

3. Did you receive any orientation / training regarding the cash transfer programme? Were these sessions useful? What did you learn? Do you have any suggestions to improve these sessions? (Probe – give specific examples of learnings, did the CC further provide any training to, for example, the village chiefs?)

4. Was any material given to you during the orientation or training sessions? Please provide details and also state whether the material is easy to understand. Was the operation manual given to you? Do they understand the operation manual clearly?

5. What is your opinion regarding the cash transfer project in the community? (Probe: effect on beneficiaries, change in attitudes of people towards health and nutrition, ease of implementation of project, targeting of beneficiaries vs. universal cash transfer given budget constraints, use of cash by beneficiaries)

6. Do you think there is an alternative way that people of the community would prefer to address the issues related to care during pregnancy and nutrition of mother and child instead of receiving a cash transfer? (Probe – free Food, free healthcare, other in-kind assistance etc.)

7. Do you think the conditions required for payment are relevant? Do you have any suggestions regarding these? (Probe – opinion on conditional vs. unconditional cash transfers)

8. In your opinion was the amount paid during the cash transfer sufficient enough to address the nutrition needs of pregnant & lactating mothers and their children?

9. Did you receive or are aware of any complaints/grievances from the beneficiary households? How were they resolved?

10. In your opinion what are some of the challenges/shortfalls faced by cash transfer project? Probe: What is not working well and how can it be addressed?

11. Do you think that the commune council has adequate capacity to undertake the Cash Transfer Programme? If not, what are the key challenges and capacity gaps which need to be addressed? Are the roles at each level clear and different (at district, commune, village level) or is there an overlap of responsibilities?

12. What are your recommendations and suggestions to improve the cash transfer programme?

Thank you so much for coming and sharing your thoughts and opinions with us.


91

Format for Case Studies Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia (District Prasat Bakong)





Name of Respondent

Is the respondent a recipient

of the cash transfer or related

to the beneficiary?

If related to the beneficiary,

then state the relationship.

Contact Number


Hello! My name is ______________________ and I am here on behalf of IPE Global Limited. We are conducting an Independent Evaluation about the Cash Transfer Programme on behalf of CARD and UNICEF. We are very interested to hear your experience from the cash transfer programme and how it has affected your life. We would very much appreciate your participation in this study. The information will help the Government to understand the cash transfer services, which were provided. The discussion will take approximately 1 hour to complete

We are obligated to protect your privacy and not disclose your personal information (information about you and that identifies you as an individual e.g. name, date of birth, etc.). In the event that this story is published or presented, your identity will not be disclosed.

It is not mandatory to participate in this discussion and you can opt out at

any point during the course of this discussion. If I ask a question you don't

want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question; or

you can stop the interview at any time. However, we hope that you will

participate in this discussion, since your views are important. Do you want

to ask me anything about the survey? May I begin the interview now?

RESPONDENT AGREES TO BE INTERVIEWED?

Yes No


92


Area of Information Collection Responses to be recorded from the

Beneficiary

Beneficiary Profile

Age

Occupation (including homemaker)

Educational Qualification (attended school till which

class, whether drop out/ never been to school/ studying,

want to continue studies)

Reasons behind educational status (Supportive or non-

supportive family/ poverty/ lack of facilities/ early marriage

and pregnancy)

Husband’s Name and Occupation

Husband’s Age

Current Marital Status (collect full details from the

beneficiary like age at marriage (her and husband’s);

current status- happily married, widow, divorced, remarried

/separated etc.)

Number of children (Note ages and gender for each child separately)

Details 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Live

Kids

# of Death /

Abortion

(if any) Age Age Age Age Age Age

Boy

Girl

TOTAL

When did the beneficiary enrol for the cash transfer

(dd/mm/yy)? (see AMK opening acknowledgement, if

available)

Case Study Questions

What were the health services that the beneficiary availed after registering for the cash transfer:

a) No. of pre-natal check-ups: …………………….

b) Was the child delivered at a health institution? (Yes/No) …………………………

c) No. of post-natal check-ups …………………………………………

d) Has the child received full immunization? (Yes/No) (See Mother & Child Card)…………………

e) No. of Nutrition and Health Education (NHED) sessions attended? ………………………….

What is the status of weight and height according to his/her age (observation based, see the Mother & Child

card)?


93

Any other information that you think necessary to mention.

Note: LISTEN TO RESPONDENTS STORY: (ask her to tell you her story from childhood, sit with her

and just listen carefully, don’t take out paper and pen, and don’t take notes during the narration)

Understand what she has gone through in her life. What were her struggles in life? What has she faced?

Who all helped her (collect details if the Cash Transfer Programme has helped her, what help she got, did it

help her in managing her life and the problems she faced)? Who did not help her at all or created problems

for her?

What is her life story, what is the most touching and emotional part in her narrations? FOCUS ON THAT

PART AND BUILD YOUR STORY AROUND IT

NOW START WRITING AND ASK YOUR QUERIES:

1. Before participating in the Nutrition and Health Education Sessions, did you have access to essential information on Maternal and Child Nutrition & Health?

2. Before the cash transfer programme, did you have enough money for HC visits and to buy nutritious food?

3. What are some of the important things that the cash transfer programme has done in your life and the lives of the members of your household? Please provide examples.

4. Has the cash transfer programme improved the nutrition and health status of your child/children? Please elaborate on your answer.

5. In your opinion what are some of the challenges/shortfalls faced by cash transfer project?

Take written consent from the beneficiary (in the format provided)

Take photo/s of Beneficiary, family (whoever is available and willing to give photo with a prior

written consent in the format provided), get photos of children as well.

Take her or husband’s or family members’ quote in their own words and write it verbatim.



94

FGD Tool for Households Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot Project for Pregnant Women and Children in Cambodia

Names of the Facilitators: ____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Date of FGD: ____/_____/2017

Part 1 – Identification (Fill out before the FGD)



Sl. Name of the Participant Category2 Gender

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


Hello! My name is ______________________ and I am here on behalf of IPE Global Limited. We are conducting an Independent Evaluation on the Cash Transfer Pilot Programme on behalf of CARD and UNICEF. We are very interested to hear your valuable opinion on the cash transfer programme and appreciate your participation in this discussion. The information will help the Government to understand the cash transfer services, which were provided.

The discussion is expected to take 1 to 2 hours to complete. We understand how important it is that this information is kept private and confidential. We request all participants to respect each other’s confidentiality. The information you provide will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside the group.

2 Pregnant mother, Mother with child 0-5 years, care-giver, husband, head of household etc.


95

It is not mandatory to participate in this survey and you can opt out at any point in the course of the discussion. If I ask a question you don't want to answer, just let me know and we will not discuss the same. Do you want to ask me anything about this discussion? Can we start the discussion now?

Part 3 – Discussion Points

1. Could you briefly describe to us how you were selected for participating in this cash transfer project? Probe: transparency – was information provided in an open and complete manner, community involvement—were community members consulted regarding the design and implementation of the programme, feelings of some people not included who feel they deserve to be included, information on entitlements—amount of unconditional transfer they are supposed to receive, frequency of transfer, conditionality/co-responsibilities and bonus payments.

2. What is your opinion regarding the cash transfer project in your community? Probe: Did the cash transfer programme help you in your daily needs; on what do you use the cash transfer money; Did you learn something new in the education sessions which you did not know earlier? What? Do you think cash transfers are the best way to improve nutrition and health of children under 5? How much time and money do you have to spend to get the cash transfer? Are the cash transfer processes easy to understand? ; What is your opinion of having conditional cash transfer? Do you know why conditional cash transfers are used? Do you think they are helpful?

3. Could you briefly describe to us the process of accessing the cash from the project? Probe: what documents did you have to provide for enrolment? What is the waiting time at service points – to get cash? Are implementing partners (AMK, Health Centre, and Commune Council) helpful? Do they answer your questions? Can you suggest better alternatives approaches of getting the cash?

4. Who has control over resources (cash, food, mobile phones) within households? Who makes decisions about spending? (Spending decisions may vary by type of resource. For example, women may make decisions about the household food budget, while men may make decisions about purchasing household assets)

5. Has the cash transfer affected your life or the life of your family in any manner? How or what is the change? (testimonies)

6. In your opinion what are some of the challenges/shortfalls faced by cash transfer project? Probe: What is not working well and how can it be addressed?

7. What alternatives (if any) to cash transfer do you think people in this community would prefer to address their needs related to food (nutrition during pregnancy / lactation for children) and health care?



96

Indicative guide for key informant interviews at national and district level

Criteria Questions Key Respondents

Project Design

▪ Please explain the constitution of the committee which designed this project. What were the specific roles and responsibilities of each?

▪ Why was Prasat Bakong in Siem Reap chosen to undertake the pilot project?

▪ What was the external technical advice provided for the design and implementation of this project? Will this be available for the scaling-up phase? Did this result in capacity building within the existing institutional structures? What guidance/support is being provided to support the implementation of the cash transfer project?

▪ Were any challenges faced during the implementation of the project – in legal or policy terms?

▪ Was there any Theory of Change or causal pathways developed during the design of the project?

▪ Several cash transfer projects (example Bolsa Familia project (BFP) Project in Brazil) include aspects of education, sanitation and hygiene in their nutrition project to have a unifying force in social policy, integrating social policy across sectors. Was this a consideration while defining the objectives and conditionality of this project? Are the impact indicators likely to change during the scale-up?

▪ Were civil society organizations involved in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project(s)?

▪ As per the project documents, there were consultations with the villagers. Can you provide any details of participatory processes which were followed during the consultations?

▪ Please explain the end-to-end monitoring mechanism for the project.

▪ Can the draft as well as actual timeline of the project roll out and project cycle be shared? Which processes required more time than initially considered?

▪ Please share the budget for the project.

▪ UNICEF Cambodia

▪ CARD

▪ Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)

Relevance

▪ Understanding the project approach.

o What do you see as key features of CARD and UNICEF’s approach to cash transfer? How is this cash transfer project distinct from others?

o How does CARD or UNICEF prioritize its cash transfer project? What support is provided? To what extent are activities not directly related to the cash transfer being leveraged to strengthen the project?

o What do CARD and UNICEF do to ensure sustainability of the project?

o How do considerations of scalability figure in decisions about what interventions to support?

o What is CARD’s role in the project? What is UNICEF’s role, vis-a-vis that of other partners? How does CARD-UNICEF project fit with the work of other partners?

▪ To what extent did the selection of targeted pregnant women and children under five complement the targeting of other social projects to reach the worst-off and most vulnerable women? Were there any gaps in relation to targeting and coverage of the pilot project?

▪ UNICEF Cambodia

▪ CARD

▪ Ministry of Planning (MoP)

▪ Ministry of Health (MoH)


97


o The consideration for targeting only the IDPoor was possibly because of poor nutrition status amongst the lower quintiles, availability of targeting criteria and limited financial resources. However, were there any other considerations for not having a universal cash transfer?

o Does IDPoor data update and processing take place in a timely manner? What are the challenges in utilization of IDPoor Data for targeting, if any?

o Apart from IDPoor lists, is there any other mechanism to seek out beneficiaries from the village population (for example through surveys undertaken at the village level)?

o In your opinion, how successful is the cash transfer project in reaching targeted beneficiaries? Were there some specific target groups which got excluded for some reason?

o What are some of the most common reasons for beneficiaries getting excluded as seen in Form 06?

o What are the nutrition and health targets which the Government is looking to achieve?

▪ To what extent was the choice to use conditional cash transfer rather than unconditional justified with regards to the needs among pregnant women and children, availability and quality of services, capacity of local government and service providers, and government preferences?

o What were the considerations while designing this project as a mixed-conditionality project? What are the arguments for conditional vs. unconditional cash transfer projects?

o Was the Ministry of Health (MoH) involved in the design phase of the project?

o What were the activities, organizational and infrastructural, which were undertaken by the MoH for proper implementation of health services expected under the cash transfer project? (Infrastructure would include, for example, provision of equipment such as weighing machines)

o Were any additional Health Centre records required to be created as a result of the project or were existing records only used?

o Is the healthcare infrastructure in Cambodia adequate for fulfilment of the conditionality of the Cash Transfer? Are Health Centres available in the vicinity of beneficiaries and are they adequately staffed? Is there a possibility of private providers being included in the setup?

o It is mentioned in the Operational Manual that there is inadequate contact of women with the health system. What are the main demand-side reasons for this and how does the project address these issues?

▪ To what extent was the size and regularity of the cash transfer adequate? Were the different needs of pregnant women and under five children met within the objectives of the pilot project?

o On what basis was the amount of the monthly transfer as well as bonus payments decided?

▪ Was the choice to use cash rather than in-kind assistance justified in terms of needs (among different social/gender groups), availability of markets and beneficiary and government preferences?

▪ Was the usage of the cash by beneficiaries in line with the project objectives?

o Please explain the ’Community Nutrition Projects’ which are supported by the MoH.


98


o Please provide details of other measures introduced by RGC to improve coverage of health and nutrition services.

o What are some of the most common reasons for early exit from the project?

o How has the cash transfer contributed to / improved the health and nutrition status of the households or community? Please provide some practical examples.

Efficiency ▪ How well was the delivery process managed, considering the time and resources at each stage of implementation and coordination between UNICEF, CARD, sub-national administrations, and AMK Microfinance?

o Was there any challenge in coordination between different agencies and implementation partners?

o Is there adequate capacity within each administrative unit (CARD, MoP, MoH, District Administration, Commune Council and Health Centres for implementation of the project? What is CARD/UNICEF staff capacity / expertise to deliver on the cash transfer project?

o Do the implementers have adequate time to undertake the activities for the project? Are any incentives given for additional job responsibilities?

▪ How cost-effective was the Cash Transfer pilot compared to other modalities and mechanisms and what potential is there for efficiency savings at all stages?

o What is the process for prioritization and allocation of resources within CARD/UNICEF, and to what extent are the human/financial resources available sufficient for implementing the cash transfer project?

o Was the pilot project implemented within the pre-decided budget plan? If not, what were some areas where unexpected costs were incurred?

o What were the main implementation costs?

o Was there a possibility to combine this project with some other to reduce start-up costs?

o Considering the available options in Cambodia (and Prasat Bakong, specifically), was the most cost effective method applied in ensuring the cash is transferred to the beneficiaries at minimal cost? What alternatives would you propose?

▪ How timely was the project in relation to needs of different social groups, and comparatively with other cash transfer projects? How could timeliness have been improved?

o Since a condition for enrolment is to have at least one prenatal check-up before the 14th week of gestation, when is the first payment to the pregnant woman made?

▪ How efficient was access to the project in terms of potential private/opportunity costs from the beneficiary perspective, and considering different social groups?

o Given the occupational structure of the target population (largely agrarian), what is the opportunity cost to beneficiaries for participation in the project? What are the transportation costs to the Health Centre and what is the poverty gap?

▪ UNICEF

▪ CARD



▪ AMK Microfinance

▪ District and Commune Level Officials


99


o Is it mandatory for beneficiaries to visit the cash points for withdrawal? What percentage of beneficiaries come alone?

o Were exclusive bank accounts created for this project or were existing bank accounts also used? Can the bank accounts which were opened be used for other purposes?

▪ What are the strengths and weaknesses of the CARD-UNICEF approach to monitoring the cash transfer project – both its activities and outputs and its contribution to broader country outcomes?

▪ Is there an efficient mechanism for dissemination of lessons-learnt and best practices? To what extent is CARD-UNICEF engaged in generating knowledge/data on cash transfer?

▪ Is the project congruent to other social protection projects related to nutrition of pregnant women and children under the age of five? How is the cash transfer project integrated or coordinated with other projects in health/nutrition?

Effectiveness

▪ To what extent and how was the cash transfer used for better food consumption for under-fives and other children in the household, comparatively with adults (considering food quality, quantity and diversity)? How has the cash transfer supported nutrition and care of new-born children, and children under-five? Were there any unintended results?

o What is the pattern of withdrawal of cash by beneficiaries?

▪ How effective were the complementary community-based education sessions from both implementers and women’s perspectives?

o What was the various communication material developed for the project as well as the communication sessions?

o What is the content of information packs distributed to households? Does it target only the beneficiary or the entire household?

o For Village Meeting One, what is process of developing the presentation and discussion material?

o What material composes the modules which are a part of the community based education sessions? Are the modules correlated? What is the rationale behind giving bonuses for attending 3 out of 9 modules?

o What is the content and delivery process of the orientation session which takes place during enrolment? Is this the same across communes?

▪ How well did the financial management system establish including reporting compliance?

o What was the process/criteria for selection of the microfinance institution (MFI)? Were any other alternatives considered?

o What was the process followed by CARD to ensure timely payment to beneficiaries by AMK Microfinance?

o For payments to beneficiaries, were additional distribution points created?

o What was the preference amongst beneficiaries between using Mobile Saving Card and Fixed Banking Services? What was the cost for each?

o What are the main bottlenecks as cash moves from the Government to MFI to beneficiaries?

▪ UNICEF

▪ CARD

▪ AMK Microfinance



▪ District, Commune and Village Level Officials


100


▪ How well did the monitoring of co-responsibilities and other reporting mechanisms function, including the role of Health Centres, Commune Councils and village chiefs?

o What is the MIS system being used by the district office? What information is captured? How often is it updated and what are the validation checks? Kindly explain the flow of Health & Nutrition indicators from the Health Centres to the National Level.

o What are the various tracking, monitoring and evaluation activities undertaken by CARD?

o What support is provided by MoH in the verification of health co-responsibilities at the Health Centre?

o What activities are undertaken by the CC to monitor availability of preventive health services at HCs?

o What is the system of monitoring attendance at education sessions by the CC?

o Is there a formal system by which the VHSG provides feedback to the CCs on beneficiary satisfaction?

o What was the mechanism to document and disseminate lessons learnt from the project planning and implementation?

o What is the mandate for spot-checks, which are to be made by District-level officials?

o Have the monitoring and validation systems been working effectively?

o What are the strengths and weaknesses of the CARD and UNICEF approach to monitoring the cash transfer project – both its activities and outputs and its contribution to broader country outcomes?

o What activities are undertaken as a part of Growth Monitoring?

▪ How effective was the process of information dissemination in terms of awareness regarding the project?

o What are the methods employed by the CCs to raise awareness about the CT pilot among community members?

▪ Are there any grievance redressal mechanisms available and if so, are they effective?

o What activities are undertaken by MoP for grievance redressal? What is the mechanism?

o What is the turn-around time for resolution of grievances? Is it in accordance with the operation manual guidelines?

o What are some of the most common grievances?

o Is there a system to utilize these grievances to ‘learn lessons’ and accord changes in processes?

o Do you have any specific recommendations for improvements which should be put in place by the Government or implementers to ensure the beneficiaries get better services?

▪ Were there any significant gaps in inclusion for particular social groups?

Sustainability

and Scalability

▪ How can the cash transfer pilot be replicated at the national level given the current capacities at the national and sub-national levels?

o What capacity building and strengthening activities / efforts were undertaken to strengthen structures within sub-national administrations?

▪ UNICEF

▪ CARD


101


o Was any training provided at the National Level (CARD), including to the individuals designing the project and those providing training to the district?

o What training sessions were undertaken to strengthen Health Centre Human Resource capabilities, particularly for imparting BCC? Kindly provide the training plan, if any.

o Which NGOs were involved in supporting training of trainer sessions? What was the role envisaged for NGOs? What was the selection process for NGOs? What were the actual tasks carried out?

▪ To what extent can the major capacity gaps and bottlenecks at national and sub-national levels be overcome during the life-cycle of this project?

▪ Is the project sustainable without creating any externally-funded institutions?

o What were the specific challenges faced in undertaking the pilot without creating any externally-funded posts?

o World Bank Cash Transfer Project structurally seems very similar to the UNICEF CARD Cash transfer project, with the main difference being only the use of government structures in the UNICEF project. Were there any other main differing components? Was this intentional and what are the expectations for convergence while scaling-up?

▪ For what time period is the National Level Project expected? Have funds been raised accordingly, taking into consideration factors like inflation?

▪ What is the level of technology and equipment across Cambodia, in terms of phone and internet connections, smartphone usage, internet and phone banking, etc.?

▪ What alternative options / complementary interventions should Cambodia develop to ensure smooth transition from over-dependence on cash transfers to being self-reliant?

▪ Why were the Save the Children and World Bank projects chosen for comparison? What will be their role in the National Level scaling-up?

▪ What are some best practices, which were witnesses in this project that are replicable at the national level?

▪ District and Commune Level Officials

Equity and Gender ▪ How is equity and gender integrated into CARD and UNICEF’s cash transfer pilot project? What approaches are

CARD and UNICEF deploying, or does it plan to deploy, to ensure that the project targets the most vulnerable women? Probe for specific examples.

▪ CARD

▪ District, Commune and Village Level Officials


102

Annex 14. Critical Cost-effectiveness Drivers

Driver Parameters

Targeting efficiency • Targeting approach and its cost as percentage of total cost

• Percentage of recipients not in target group

• Percentage of target group not receiving transfers

• Percentage of total transfers reaching target group(s)

• Frequency of retargeting

Transfer levels • Nominal level(s) of transfer per direct recipient per month at scheme inception

• Arrangements for periodic review of levels

Cost of conditionality • Public costs of monitoring conditions and private costs of compliance

• Recipients’ additional use of services specified in conditions, and cost of supplying additional services

Implementation systems • Costs of registration, enrolment, recipient identification and payments

• Regularity of payments to recipients

• Grievance / appeals procedures, actual frequency of use, including by those excluded, and outcomes

• Integrity of financial management systems and control over fiduciary risk


103

Annex 15. Ethics and United Nations Evaluation Guidelines

Box 1: Obligations to Participants

RESPECT FOR DIGNITY AND DIVERSITY

Respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, personal interaction, gender

roles, age and ethnicity.

Consult locally when planning the research and developing protocols.

Optimize demands on the respondents’ time, and respect people’s right to privacy.

Ensure that opinions and answers provided by the adolescents and children are respected.

RIGHTS

The participants will be treated as autonomous agents and will be given the time and information to decide

whether or not they wish to participate.

They reserve the right to making independent decisions without any pressure or fear of penalty for not

participating.

Care will be taken to ensure that relatively powerless, ‘hidden’, or otherwise excluded groups are represented.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Respect people’s right to provide information in confidence and making the participants aware of the scope

and limits of confidentiality.

Ensure utmost care and sensitivity towards children’s right to privacy and to ensure that their information

remains confidential.

Securely store, protect and dispose of information / data that has been collected.

AVOIDANCE OF HARM

Evaluators shall seek to minimize risks to, and burden on, those participating in the evaluation.

Employ strategies to minimize distress for all participants, especially adolescents and children participating

in the research

Take measures to ensure that harm is not caused to adolescents, children, families or communities.


104

Annex 16. Health Centre Data

Pre-natal check-up utilization

Figure A. Pre-natal checkup utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres (Source: Health Centre records)

Figure B. Pre-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres – IDPoor only (Source: Health Centre records)

842

667 686 657 697733

762 773737 724 688

537

698 704745

6…

812 795 781809

746 737

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Nu

mb

er

of

Pre

-nat

al C

he

ck-u

ps

Pre-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong

Linear (Prenatal Checkup uptake in Prasat Bakong )

13

22

1210

21

29

3…

24 24 23 24

18 18

21 20

30

2523 24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er

of

Pre

-nat

al C

he

ck-u

ps

Pre-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong - IDPoor

Linear (Prenatal Checkup uptake in Prasat Bakong - IDPoor)


105

Figure C. Pre-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong of number of pre-natal check-ups over time commune-wise

(Source: Health Centre records)

Institutional delivery and post-natal care package utilization

Figure D. Institutional delivery data for Health Centres in Prasat Bakong (Source: Health Centre records)

Figure E. Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong health centres (Source – health centre records)

0

50

100

150

Trapaing Thum HC

Trapaing Thum HC

Linear (Trapaing Thum HC)

0

50

100

150

Rolous HC

Rolous HC Linear (Rolous HC)

050

100150

Bakong HC

Bakong HC Linear (Bakong HC)

0

50

100

Kantreang HC

Kantreang HC Linear (Kantreang HC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

No

. of

Inst

itu

tio

nal

De

live

rie

s

Institutional deliveries in Prasat Bakong

Trapaing Thum HC Rolous HC Kantreang HC Bakong HC


106

Figure E. Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres (Source: Health Centre records)

Figure F. Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres – IDPoor only (Source: Health Centre records)

66 6560

4763

70 73 78 74

127

105 103

118108

97

77

97 102 100112

81

97

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

No

. of

Po

st-n

atal

Ch

eck

-up

s

Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong

Linear (Total)

9

1412

810

14 1413

911

1617

20

13

17

1416

10 11

1716

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

No

. of

Po

st-n

atal

Ch

eck

-up

s

Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong - IDPoor

Linear (Total IDPoor)


107

Figure G. Post-natal check-up utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres commune-wise (Source: Health Centre

records)

Figure H. Growth monitoring services utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres (Source: Health Centre records)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f M

on

thly

Po

st-n

atal

Ch

eck

-u

ps

in P

rasa

t B

ako

ng

HC

's

Commune-wise post-natal check-up data

Trapaing Thum HC Rolous HC Kantreang HC Bakong HC

554

4123…

438

307

375408 388

326

380 387357 346 339

291

330 313345 330 342 355 365

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

No

. of

Gro

wth

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Growth monitoring utilization in Prasat Bakong

Linear (Total)


108

Figure I. Growth monitoring services utilization in Prasat Bakong Health Centres – IDPoor beneficiaries (Source: Health Centre

records)

54

4148 46

73

51

62 6358

109

74 70

53

68

54

6964

80

68

7971

64

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No

. of

Gro

wth

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Growth monitoring utilization in Prasat Bakong - IDPoor

Linear (Total IDPoor)


109

Annex 17. Comparison of Survey Findings to Baseline

Some key results from CCT Maternal Health Baseline survey, conducted by Indochina Research Ltd.

are given in the box below. As mentioned earlier, the studies have a different purpose and sampling

methodology and results are not directly comparable. The survey conducted as a part of the

evaluation was not an end-line survey.

Key results from the Indochina Research Ltd. baseline assessment:

• 93% pregnant women in the past took any iron pills, vitamin tablets or other supplements

(n=268);

• 18% responded that their child had received iron supplements (n=255);

• 62% households were using iodized salts (n=268);

• 88% had given birth at a Health Centre, district hospital or provincial hospital (n=244).

• 93% pregnant women in the past took any iron pills, vitamin tablets or other supplements.

(n=268)

• 18% responded that their child had received iron supplements. (n=255)

• 62% households were using iodized salts. (n=268)

• 88% had given birth at a health centre, district hospital or provincial hospital. (n=244)


(n=268)





(n=268)





110

Annex 18. Trainings Conducted during the Pilot Project

Training Date Training Type Participants

18-20 May 2016 Training on CT project implementation and its

operation guideline, Siem Reap town hotel in

Siem Reap province

District focal persons, commune

focal persons, and Health Centre

staff

03 August 2016 Health Education Training on Maternal

Healthcare and new-born baby care at Prasat

Bakong district hall



staff

05 October 2016 Health Education Training on Child Nutrition

at Prasat Bakong district hall



staff

07 Dec. 2016 Training on Child Vaccination and Growth

Monitoring for Children at Prasat Bakong



staff

07 February 2017 Health Education Training on how to take

care of sick children at Prasat Bakong district

hall



staff

04 April 2017 Health Education Training on Child

Development at Prasat Bakong district hall



staff

12 June 2017 Health Education Training on Hand Washing

and Sanitation (Toilet using) at Prasat Bakong

district hall



staff

07 August 2017 Health Education Training on Child

Development at Prasat Bakong district hall



staff

11 October 2017 Health Education Training on Maternal

Healthcare and new-born baby care at Prasat

Bakong district hall



staff

(The training was cancelled. Only

commune focal persons and Health

Centre staff provided training to

beneficiaries during payment day.)


111

Annex 19. Break-up of Costs of the CARD – UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot

Cost Type Components Breakup of Costs Total Cost

Set-up costs • Design cost

• Planning cost

• Training cost

• System / infrastructure cost

• Database: US$ 8,000 (US$ 6,000 for first round and US$ 2,000 for second round of adjustment)

US$ 8,000

Roll-out costs • Targeting cost

• Costs for enrolment

• Training and refresher training to district and commune: US$ 1,000*3+ US$ 500*6 = US$ 6,000

• Field visit and support for refresher training and training: US$ 1,000*6 times = US$ 6,000

• Communication materials: US$ 5,000

• Distribution and registration: US$ 1,000*11 times = US$ 11,000

US$ 28,000

Operational costs • MFI payment delivery fees

• Cost of verification of co-responsibility

• Cost of education sessions

• Internet connection: US$ 660

• Junior assistants: US$ 600*18 mths = US$10,800

• Senior advisor: US$ 10,000

US$ 21,460

Monitoring and evaluation costs

• On-going monitoring cost

• Periodic costs of external evaluation

• Monitoring and support: US$ 1,500*11 times= US$ 16,500

US$16,500

Service fee to AMK Microfinance

US$ 6,285

Total US$ 80,245


112

Annex 20. Indicative Parameters for Consideration for Phased Scaling-up

Area Indicator Rationale

Poverty level Per capita income Indicator of poverty levels in the

geographic area Number of families under IDPoor

Level of under-

nutrition and health

service utilization

Low birth weight Indicator of child nutrition status

Anthropometric measures

Severely thin mothers (measured as

BMI) Indicator of maternal nutrition status

% of pregnant women (measured as

crude birth rate) To estimate the target group for the

project No. of IDPoor households

% of women receiving ante-natal and

post-natal check-ups

To understand existing utilization of

health services and potential for gains

% of women having institutional

deliveries

% of children getting immunization

Infrastructure and

human resource

capability

Access to banks (measured as

population served per bank)

To understand banking infrastructure

and appropriateness and operational

cost of payment mechanisms

Number of sub-administrative staff and

number of vacancies

To understand gap in human

resources

Number of Health Centres To understand health infrastructure for

fulfilment of co-responsibilities Checklist of services available at the

Health Centre


113

Annex 21. Indicative Areas of Monitoring

Area Example of possible indicators Possible sources

Targeting • % of beneficiaries in the target group

• % of beneficiaries out of target group (for example

those enrolled with no IDPoor)

• % of children enrolled who were malnourished /

SAM

• % of beneficiaries from floating villages

• % of children enrolled who were orphans

• % of pregnant women enrolled were single

Commune council members

Delivery

mechanism

• % of beneficiaries who received payment during

payment day

• % of beneficiaries who received cash at the bank /

ATM

• % of beneficiaries who did not withdraw the cash

transfer amount in that cycle

AMK Microfinance

Conditionalities • Monthly number of IDPoor households who

visited the health centre

• Average number of health and nutrition education

sessions visited

• Number of malnourished children identified in the

age group of 0 to 5 years coming from IDPoor

households

• Utilization of health services – institutional

delivery, ante-natal check-up, post-natal check-

up, immunization etc.

Health Centre, commune focal

point

Project

implementation

• Number of beneficiaries

• Cash transferred

• Coverage rate

• Average value of cash transfer

Commune council members

and district administration

Results and

impacts

• Reduction in number of malnourished children

• Improvement in stunting, wasting and

underweight indicators

• Dietary diversity and consumption of better quality

and more quantity of food

• Usage of cash

Impact assessment, pay-point

assessment, nutritional

assessment etc.


114

Annex 22. Grievance Redress Mechanism of Bangladesh’s Income Support Programme

Source: World Bank, 2014, International Development Association project appraisal document on a proposed

credit in the amount of SDR 202.4 million (US$300 million equivalent) to the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

for an Income Support Program for the Poorest Project.

Grievance redress mechanism of Bangladesh’s income support programme for the

poorest

▪ In Bangladesh’s conditional cash transfer project ‘Income support program for the poorest project’, the

proposed management information system (MIS) includes a grievance redress mechanism which will

address beneficiary complaints concerning targeting, payments, information updates, and complaints

on quality of service.

▪ The mechanism will be managed by Grievance Redress Officers, who are appointed at various levels

to address grievances according to the Operations Manual and keep a record of the details of cases

lodged, cases resolved, pending cases and actions taken.

▪ There will be a feedback loop which includes informing the complainant about the action taken and

feeding this information into the implementation of the programme.

▪ Complaint forms will be made available at the Safety Net Beneficiary Cells (SNCs). Completed forms

must be submitted to the Safety Net Programme Assistant (SPA), who will issue applicants with a

stamped receipt confirming that the form has been received.

▪ SNC staff will make a fortnightly inventory of the complaints received and enter the information into the

MIS.

▪ In the case of valid complaints about payments, the office will make the correction and inform the

banks to release the corrected amount with the next payment.

▪ If beneficiaries fail to receive a solution they can appeal.

Grievance Redress Mechanism of Bangladesh’s Income support program for the poorest

▪ In Bangladesh’s conditional cash transfer project - ‘Income support program for the poorest project’,

the proposed Management Information System (MIS) includes a grievance redress mechanism which

will address beneficiary complaints concerning targeting, payments, information updates, and

complaints on quality of service.


to address grievances according to the Operations Manual; and keep a record of the details of cases


▪ There will be a feedback loop which includes informing the complainant about the action taken, and


▪ Complaint forms will be made available at the Safety Net Beneficiary Cells (SNCs). Completed forms

must be submitted to the Safety Net Program Assistant (SPA), who will issue applicants with a

stamped receipt confirming that the form has been received.

▪ SNC staff will make a fortnightly inventory of the complaints received, and enter the information into the

MIS.

▪ In the case of valid complaints about payments, the office will make the correction and inform the

banks to release the corrected amount with the next payment.

▪ If beneficiaries fail to receive a solution they can appeal.

Grievance Redress Mechanism of Bangladesh’s Income support program for the poorest

▪ In Bangladesh’s conditional cash transfer project - ‘Income support program for the poorest project’,

the proposed Management Information System (MIS) includes a grievance redress mechanism which

will address beneficiary complaints concerning targeting, payments, information updates, and

complaints on quality of service.


to address grievances according to the Operations Manual; and keep a record of the details of cases


▪ There will be a feedback loop which includes informing the complainant about the action taken, and



115

Annex 23. Internal Quality Review Process

IPE Global is an ISO 9001:2015 certified company (accreditation agency: Bureau Veritas UKAS Quality Management). Quality procedures have been refined as per the ISO certified quality and procedure manual to ensure better services to employees and clients and enhance project outputs. There is a well-entrenched system comprising of periodic departmental and peer reviews, interactive feedback mechanisms, complaint redressal and quality checks.

Quality Policy Statement: “We are committed to exceed client expectation by delivering value-for-money services that lead to the twin objectives of economic growth and social equity through continual improvement of our quality management system.”

Policies, Procedures and Practices for Quality Outputs: We have policies and practices to promote quality in (i) the workplace, (ii) interaction with clients, and (iii) outputs produced by us. The human resource department is responsible for quality at the work place; we have regular reviews to check the quality of work at different stages by the certified internal auditors in each department. We place strong emphasis on effective management to ensure that projects are successfully completed on time and within the stipulated budget. We have developed an interactive approach to promote liaison between the IPE Global team and client personnel. Features of this approach, including undertaking peer review by the Directorial staff of IPE Global has proved very successful.

Quality Management System: The quality planning is done for undertaking each project so as to meet the requirements of each client and QMS requirements set under ISO 9001:2008. All activities are monitored at appropriate points / stages through collection of appropriate data in set formats. Evaluation and analysis of this data is carried out to identify problems and take appropriate corrective actions leading to continual improvement. Deliverables to be submitted are frequently assessed by the respective team through peer review and by senior experts committed to the project. Client interaction at regular intervals helps us to produce the output to their satisfaction. The effectiveness of the QMS in the overall functioning is monitored by the Management Representative and reviewed in the Management Review Meeting by the Managing Director.

Staff for Quality Assurance: Quality of IPE Global’s performance over the life of an assignment is ensured by the staff responsible for quality assurance, including Team Leader, Head of the Department which is undertaking the assignment, Project Manager concerned, Peer Reviewers, and the certified internal auditor. In addition, IPE frequently takes inputs of senior personnel and experts on outputs developed for any consulting assignment. The administration and finance wing is solely responsible for ensuring quality control in areas of administration, invoicing and other related areas.

Value for Money: Our experience in providing consulting services in a competitive environment allows us to set realistic fees which are cost-effective for clients and allow the deployment of appropriate and qualified resources to meet the particular needs of each project undertaken. In addition, we are continually developing our systems to provide improvements to our services and to make our processes more cost efficient. In this regard, the implementation of our QMS supported by a commitment to Total Quality Management ensures we remain in the forefront of our industry in terms of value and service provided.

Internal Controls: IPE Global has set up an internal complaint redress system which works through a certified internal auditor in each department and the Human Resource Department. Any complaint during the process of work and even after completion of the project is immediately brought to the attention of the Head of the Department undertaking the assignment, and is addressed at the earliest by the Head of Department, Peer Reviewer, and/or the assignment Team Leader.


116

Annex 24. Team Composition

Ashish Mukherjee, Team Leader has over 18 years’ experience of leading and managing various long-term evaluations and technical assignments in the areas of health, nutrition and social protection. He has vast understanding of various evaluation techniques, data analysis and evidence based research methodologies. He brings on-board extensive experience in conducting qualitative and quantitative evaluations. His skills lie in M&E, surveys & research studies, project planning & leading multi-disciplinary implementation teams. He has broad experience of working as a Team Leader with government and non-government bodies and multilateral and bilateral donor agencies like UNICEF, DFID, ADB, World Bank, etc. across South and East Asian countries.

Ashish has recently completed implementation of a Cash Transfer assignment in the education sector funded by DFID - Delivery of a Conditional Secondary School Incentive Project for Disadvantaged Girls in Odisha, India. In this project, he led the monitoring and evaluation component, developed the log frame for M&E and undertook analysis of key performance indicators of the project. Another relevant assignment that he undertook in East Asia was Independent Monitoring and Evaluation of the Nutrition Improvement through Community Empowerment (NICE) Project, Indonesia. In this project, he designed the M&E system for all phases of implementation and undertook robust analysis of performance indicators such as nutrition status of children under-five years of age & pregnant and lactating women.

Dr. Chey Tech, National Technical Expert has over 16 years of work experience in Cambodia with expertise in monitoring and evaluation of projects in the domains of health, governance, gender, education and agriculture. He has successfully provided consultancy services in terms of project planning, monitoring & evaluation design, project mid-term and final evaluation and conducting surveys using mixed method evaluation techniques for several assignments including cash transfer, democratic development, and social protection projects. He has undertaken implementation, organizational management, assessment and other studies for various organizations including local and International NGOs, UN agencies, multilateral funding agencies and government institutions such as UNICEF, UNDP, ADB, CARD, CEDAC, Banteay Srei, ADRA, KAPE etc.

Chey has developed evaluation frameworks, developed and implemented strategies for project implementation, conducted mixed method evaluations and undertaken quantitative and qualitative data collection for projects such as Qualitative Governance Survey for NCDD-S, Outcome Evaluation of UNDP Cambodia Country Program Action Plan 2011-2015 for Democratic Governance Outcomes, Evaluation of the Beacon School Initiative project, among others.

Kriti Gupta, Research Assistant: Kriti has completed her degree in Economics from Delhi University, India and her Masters in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. Kriti is an Assistant Manager at IPE Global and brings in 3 years of experience in quantitative and qualitative data analysis, designing surveys and research. She is trained in undertaking quantitative data analysis using STATA and SAS software. Kriti has experience in Finance and International Development sectors, with specific expertise in Socio-Economic and Health Assessments, Economic Profiling, Primary Data Collection, Risk Management, Credit Rating & Reporting and Financial Analysis.

Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot ...€¦ · the United Nations Children’s...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the CARD and UNICEF Cash Transfer Pilot ...€¦ · the United Nations Children’s...