MONITORING GUIDE - PDM

2

Monitoring guide - PDM

Index

Introduction pag. 3

The Guide pag. 3

Objective pag. 3

Part 1 – General Recommendations pag. 4

Part 2 – Recommended indicators pag. 5

Section 1: Introduction and Consent pag. 5

Section 2: Biodata pag. 5

Section 3: Transfer of assistance pag. 5

Section 4: Usage pag. 8

Section 5: Impact pag. 11

Section 6: Accountability, Protection and Gender pag. 15

ANNEXES pag. 19

Annex 1: List of strongly Recommended Indicators pag. 19

Annex 2: Definition of Safety, Access and Dignity pag. 20

3

Introduction

The Impact Technical Working Group (TWG), established under the Gaza Cash Working Group (CWG), has

been working and on the collection, revision, and analysis of tools, used across CWG members, with the

aim of systematizing and harmonizing the ways CVA is monitored in Gaza. This initial product focuses on

Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) tools, specifically in the forms of household surveys.

Future harmonization efforts will be directed towards other forms of monitoring, such as Focus Group

Discussions (FGDs), Spot-checks, and Quality Assurance. Priorities and scope of the work will be agreed at

CWG level.

The guide: The present guide is composed of two parts. The first (General Recommendations) includes a

list of best practices and suggestions for the proper conduction of PDMs in Gaza. The second part

(Recommended Indicators) includes six sections covering the most common PDM components. For each

section a list of recommended questions is reported, this menu can be used by partners to pick those

useful for their programme objectives. Some of the questions reported are marked as “Strongly

Recommended” (also highlighted in yellow). The TWG suggests these questions to be always included in

each PMD.

Recommended questions and indicators were taken from CWG partners tools1, along with some

international guidance, such as the Grand Bargain “Multipurpose Cash Outcome Indicators”.2

Objective: the guide is meant to support Gaza CWG members by providing ready-to-use indicators and

questions that can be added to organizations’ PDM. Partners at all levels, i.e. national NGOs, international

NGOs, UN Agencies, are recommended to use the indicators and questions available in the guide to

enhance the quality and effectiveness of their data collection efforts, as well as to support harmonization

of monitoring activities and methodologies.

The utilization of the “Strongly Recommended indicators” can also support the collection and analysis of

data at CWG level, which can inform next endeavours in regard to monitoring and evaluation of CVA.

Following finalization and roll-out, the guide will be regularly reviewed and updated to integrate partners’

feedback and potential changes in the CVA environment in Gaza.

1 The following partners shared their tools: Action Against Hunger (AAH), The Culture and Free Though Association (CFTA),

Catholic Relief Service (CRS), Danish Church Aid (DCA)-MAAN, Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH), Mercy Corps, OXFAM, Première Urgence Internationale (PUI), Save the Children. 2 https://www.calpnetwork.org/publication/multipurpose-cash-outcome-indicators-final-draft-for-testing/

4

Part 1 – General Recommendations

The following are some general best practices to be considered when implementing Post Distribution

Monitoring exercises:

- Monitoring of distribution activities is an unavoidable part of any CVA project.

- PDM surveys must be conducted at least once during CVA interventions. In case only one PDM is

conducted, it is the recommended to have it at the end of the project.

- If multiple PDM exercises are conducted, e.g. after each distribution cycle, the results can be used

to adjust programme to better serve its purposes.

- Always ensure gender balance in your PDM teams when conducting PDMs. Additionally, make

sure of ensuring culturally sensitive data collection and planning as much as possible

- Always try to collect data in a gender, age and disability disaggregated manner.

- Do not have the same people who managed identification and selection of beneficiaries

performing the PDM as well.

- Conduct PDMs at different times after the distribution, this will allow you to grasp some of the

changes that might occur immediately and in the longer term.

- Plan several data analysis and interpretation sessions during project life to flag important results

for the adaptive management purpose.

- The same indicators should be included in targeting and monitoring assessments, those allowing

for clear and precise comparison.

- Ensure all respondents of PDM exercises are well aware of the objectives of this survey. Especially

the fact that it will not affect their current participation either positively or negatively.

- Explain PDM exercise from the beginning of the project, use information sessions and awareness

materials to make sure participants are well aware of what to expect.

- Make sure that you include both direct receivers of the assistance and those who manage HH

finances in the assessments.

- As much as possible, collect feedback from different members of the HG, ensuring a proper AGD

approach to the PDM.

- Always consider budgeting dedicated resources for monitoring purposes (staff, vehicles, phone,

materials, etc).

5

Part 2 – Recommended Indicators

Section 1: Introduction and Consent

As for any other tool aimed at collecting data on beneficiaries, both at household and individual level, it is paramount, before starting a PDM, to provide the respondents, with all the information needed to fully understand the nature and the scope of the questionnaire. This include, as a minimum, introducing the people and the organization(s) administering the survey and clearly explaining the objectives of the PDM and how data will be managed, used and if it will be shared with other parties. Ensuring space for questions and doubts from the respondents is a critical part of the introduction.

An explicit consent to be subjected to the PDM, and for the data to be used, needs to be obtained by the respondent before starting the survey.

It is a best practice as well to clarify the fact that a PDM is NOT meant to selected beneficiaries for assistance, but to monitor different aspects of transfer project.

In case PDM data might be used for referral purposes, a specific consent for this purpose needs to be included before asking any question. As always, a given consent can be withdrawn at any time during and after the survey is administered.

Section 2: Biodata

Whenever it is possible to link PDM beneficiaries with baseline data, it is recommended not to repeat the whole set of biodata questions, in order to reduce assessment fatigue and save time. This might be completed in case beneficiaries report key changes, e.g. different HH composition, since the initial assessment. Unique identifiers for each beneficiary can be useful for this purpose. Using digital data collection tools (ex. KOBO, ODK, etc) can also facilitate the link between baseline and end-line data set.

Section 3: Transfer of assistance

It is important to always monitor the process of assistance distribution, regardless of the specific delivery mechanism, to make sure it fits with beneficiaries’ preferences and abilities, it does not create additional burden or problems, and it is implemented in the most suitable way possible.

In order to properly monitor the CVA transfer, security, and distribution process the following indicators are recommended.

Strongly Recommended indicators: Indicator 1: % of project beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, and dignified manner (See Annex 2)

6

Indicator 2: % of the beneficiaries who are satisfied with the process and methods of implementation (including CVA modality and delivery mechanism) Indicator 3: % of households who are satisfied with the whole distribution process? (scale “Very satisfied” – “Very dissatisfied”) Data related to strongly recommended indicators shall always be collected in Age, Gender and Disability disaggregated manner. Recommended indicators: Indicator 1: Average time spent traveling to and from the distribution site (disaggregated per access method: on foot, by car, etc) Indicator 2: Percentage of HHs reported that safety and precautionary measures are applied and respected at the distribution point and/or bank teller? (C19-related indicator)

Recommended questions:

Question Answers Justification/Importance

Cash Transfer process

How much did you receive? (ILS) In how many shots?

Confirm the beneficiary received the planned amount.

Does the received amount correspond to the amount that was communicated to you?

Yes/No Confirm communication with beneficiary was correct

Did you receive the transfer on the same day which was communicated to you by the organization?

Yes/No Confirm communication with beneficiary was correct and the timely delivery of assistance.

Was the time of receiving the cash assistance suitable for responding to your household’s needs or meeting the assistance objectives?

Yes/No

To check the timeliness of assistance in relation to needs. House needs: for MPCA projects Assistance objectives: for sectoral cash

Delivery mechanism

In case of payments through banks/FSPs, did you encounter any delays at the bank?

Yes/No If “Yes”, please explain

Monitor FSP efficiency

How satisfied are you with the treatment of bank staff during the cashing process?

Satisfied/Neutral/Not Satisfied Monitor FSP behaviour

7

Were you provided enough information regarding the process of the CVA distribution?

Yes/No If “No”, please explain

Control the quantity and quality of information flow to beneficiaries

Accessibility and safety at the distribution site

Did you or the person who received the assistance feel safe and comfortable at the distribution point?

☐ Yes, completely

☐ Yes, partially

☐ Not sufficiently

☐ Not at all If the answer is “Not sufficiently” or “Not at all”, please explain?

Check safety during distribution

Did you face any security problems or safety risks on your way to the distribution site, at the distribution site, or on your way back to home?

Yes/No If “Yes”, What were the problems/risks that you faced?

Check safety during distribution

How long did you wait at the distribution point before reaching the distribution staff? (Minutes)

1. 10-30 min 2. 30-45 min 3. 45-60 min 4. +60 min

Monitor the efficiency at distribution

How long did it take to receive your assistance from the distribution staff and sign the receipt form?

1. 10-30 min 2. 30-45 min 3. 45-60 min 4. +60 min

Monitor the efficiency at distribution

How long did it take to reach the distribution point from your home? (Minutes)

☐ On foot: ……….

☐ By car: ……...

☐ By bike/tuk-tuk: ……

Monitor potential access issues.

In general, how satisfied are you with the whole distribution process?

1.Very satisfied 2. Quite satisfied 3. Neutral 4. Quite dissatisfied 5.Very dissatisfied If “quite dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”, please explain.

This question summarized in a simple manner the level of satisfaction with the overall distribution process

8

In the light of COVID-19 context, to what extent do you think that the distribution was implemented in accordance with safety and precautionary measures?

1.Yes, completely 2.Yes, partially 3.Not sufficiently 4.Not at all

The question is meant to check whether COVID19 measures are properly and regularly applied. The question might be used only until the pandemic is ongoing. You can also add a follow up question to explain why s/he felt safe or not.

Section 4: Usage

This section explores in a descriptive way the ways in which the assistance was used. It also investigates the “planning of expenditures”, including the occurrence of new issues, gradual vs one-shot spending, and the decision process on how to spend the funds.

In order to properly monitor the usage of assistance the following indicators are recommended.

Question Answers Justification/Importance

Usage (1/2)

Did you start spending the cash assistance received?

☐ Yes ☐ No To confirm the assistance is spent. If not, the PDM does cannot be conducted (lacks purpose). The question is valid as well to understand potential barriers in spending the assistance

How did you spend your assistance? ☐ all in one day ☐ gradually but it is

finished ☐ I still have some

Understanding the spending patterns of HHs

Expenditures

It is essential to monitor household expenditure (particularly following delivery of MPCA). There are numerous indicators for monitoring expenditure. Strongly recommended here are:

• Total monthly expenditure, and the % of households whose total expenditure exceeds the MEB (Economic Capacity to Meet Essential Needs).

9

This should be measured using an expenditure module with at least the same number of expense categories as the MEB. The module recommended is based on the one used in the UVAT, with the addition of two categories.

Go through the expenditure module twice, first asking about expenditure of assistance, then of any other non-assistance income.

Expenditure Module

Food and Nutrition (including for people with special diet or nutritional needs)

Communication (e.g., phone credit)

Rent / housing payments Household items (e.g., bedding)

Hygiene items (e.g., soap, shampoo) Healthcare (including medicines, rehabilitation, and transport)

Electricity Education (all levels including fees, equipment, uniforms, and transport)

Fuel (cooking gas / butane) University fees

Debt repayments Household assets (e.g., TV)

Water (drinking) Productive assets

Water (cooking, washing) Cultural and recreational activities (e.g., weddings, mosque donations)

Transportation Given to family members/friends

Cigarettes and tobacco Other (please explain)

TOTAL

Question Answers Justification/Importance

Usage (2/2)

If you selected “debts” repayment: what was type of debt?

☐ cash loan

☐ goods/services on credit ☐ other Debts represent a major financial issue among households in Gaza. The questions aim at understanding the Why was the debt incurred? ☐ cover basic needs

10

☐ respond to an emergency

☐ Rent/shelter rehabilitation

☐ Business investment

☐ repaying other debts Education fees Cultural events (wedding of son or daughter)

☐ other

nature of the debts and the general purpose why they were initially incurred.

Were all of the items available in the local markets?

Monitor goods/service availability

What made you choose the shops that you visited in the last 30 days?

☐ Proximity

☐ Quality

☐ Good prices

☐ Vendor’s good attitude

☐ Special offers

☐ Variety

☐ Other (specify):

Monitor beneficiaries’ preferences in terms of choosing where to spend the assistance.

Approximately, on monthly basis, how much money (NIS) do you spend commuting to and from vendor shops? (All visited vendor shops combined)

Monitor the costs attached to accessing vendors to use the assistance received

How easy or difficult was it for you to travel to the shops where you could use the assistance? Would you say that it was very easy, somewhat easy, rather difficult or impossible?

☐ It was very easy

☐ It was somewhat easy

☐ It was rather difficult

☐ It was impossible

☐ The respondent did not try to use the modality

Monitor accessibility to vendors

Can you explain to me why it was difficult? ☐ Due to poor security/ fear of travel Monitor accessibility to vendors

11

☐ Fear of COVID-19 contagion

☐ Due to roadblocks/ checkpoints

☐ Due to no/ poor means of transport (bus, car, motorbike, etc.)

☐ Due to large distance

☐ Due to no money for transport

☐ Due to poor health

☐ Due to physical disability

☐ Due to lack of time

☐ Due to lost identification card (ID card)

☐ Due to not knowing where the vendor shops are located

☐ Family did not allow her/him to travel

☐ Other, specify: _________

Section 5: Impact

The monitoring and evaluation of the impact of a programme is tightly connected to its objectives and it does not necessarily imply only the CVA components. The list provided here is meant primarily for Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA) projects, but it can be adapted and expanded for use in different sectoral CVA interventions.

The modules included in this section, i.e. FCS, CSI, rCSI, can be complicate, especially in relation to the rationale and the logic behind the calculation and the interpretation of the results. Please consult the documents in the footnote for some explanation. 3It is recommended to reach out to the CWG is case support is needed.

Recommended and Strongly Recommended indicators are spread across the section.

3 https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/food-security-capacity-building/docs/Nutrition/NairobiWorkshop/5.WFP_IndicatorsFSandNutIntegration.pdf https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp197216.pdf

12

Food Consumption Score

The FCS measures the sufficiency of weekly food consumption, so the current food security situation of the household, by asking about the consumption of different food groups over the past 7 days. Possible scores range from 1 – 112, and are categorised as ‘Poor’ (<28), ‘Borderline’(28-42), or ‘Acceptable’ (>42). Each food group is multiplied by a specific weight. These food groups (and weights in parentheses) are: Starch staples (2), pulses (3), vegetables (1), fruit (1), fats (0.5), sugars (0.5), meat/fish/eggs (4), milk/dairy (4), condiments (0).

Recommended indicator: average FCS among cash recipients, and % of households with Poor, Borderline, and Acceptable scores.

FCS Module # days

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Cereals, grains, roots and tubers (rice, pasta, bread, potato)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Legumes/nuts (beans, peanuts, lentils, nut, soy and/or other nuts? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume vegetables and leaves (spinach, onion, tomatoes, carrots, peppers, green beans, lettuce, cabbages, eggplant)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Fruits (banana, apple, lemon, mango, watermelon, apricot, peach, pineapple, grape, fig, orange, avocado, wild fruits, etc.)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Meat, fish and eggs (goat, beef, chicken, fish including canned tuna and/or other seafood, eggs)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume) Milk and other dairy products (fresh milk, yogurt, cheese, other dairy products, excluding margarine/butter or small amounts of milk for tea/coffee)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Sugar or sweets (honey, jam, cakes, candy, cookies, pastries, and other sweets)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Oils, fats and butter (vegetable oil, palm oil, margarine, other fats)? (0-7 days)

How many days in the past 7 days did your household consume Condiments and Spices (tea, coffee, cocoa, salt, garlic, spices, yeast, tomato)? (0-7 days)

The Module can be completed, if appropriate for the objective of the project, with the following question: “How was this food acquired?” Potential answer options are: “purchase (cash), purchase (credit), food assistance (GFD), food assistance (food card), army distributing food, support from relatives/friends, barter and exchange, borrowing, begging/scavenging, gathering of wild foods (plants/insects), hunting/fishing, own production”.

13

Reduced Coping Strategy Index

The reduced CSI (rCSI) is used to compare food security across different contexts. It is a sub-set of the context-specific (and food- or consumption-based CSI), but is calculated using a specific set of behaviours with a universal set of severity weightings. The five standard coping strategies and their severity weightings are:

• eating less-preferred foods (1.0)

• borrowing food/money from friends and relatives (2.0)

• limiting portions at mealtime (1.0)

• limiting adult intake (3.0)

• reducing the number of meals per day (1.0)

Recommended indicator: average rCSI score among cash recipients.

Best practice: to add explanations and tips on each behaviour to ensure that all enumerators understand the main purpose of this study.

Monthly Coping Strategies

The full, mainly livelihoods- or remuneration-based coping strategies module is used to better understand longer-term coping ability of households. While FCS and rCSI are proxies for the current food security situation and include only food-related behaviours, livelihoods- or remuneration-based strategies “help to assess longer-term household coping and productive capacities and their future ability to meet essential needs, including food, shelter, health, education… for instance, the sale of productive assets is likely to affect the sustainability of a household’s livelihoods and may therefore translate into reduced physical and/or economic access to essential needs in the medium to long term” (WFP Essential Needs Assessment Interim Guidance Note).

Strongly Recommended indicator: Indicator 1: % of households showing reduced negative non-food coping strategy use, Indicator 2: % of households using Crisis or Emergency coping strategies. The categories are:

• Selling household assets (Stress)

• Spending Savings (Stress)

14

• Buying goods or services on credit or using borrowed cash (Stress)

• Sent household members to eat elsewhere (Stress)

• Sold productive assets (Crisis)

• Withdrew children from school (Crisis)

• Reduce expenses on health (including medicines) and education (Crisis)

• Engage in begging (or similar risky behaviour) (Emergency)

• Sold house or land (Emergency)

• Entire household migrated (Emergency)

For monitoring purposes, it is important to look at the same indicators before and after the delivery of assistance. The UVAT provides a set of Coping Strategies which can are recommended to be used as well when conducting PDM.

Qualitative Impact

These indicators address what impact each cash beneficiary feels the assistance has had, and compliment the quantitative measures to give a holistic understanding of impact. Depending on the type of assistance provided, these are:

Indicator 1 (MPCA project): Has the cash enabled you to purchase assets, essential goods and/or services that you otherwise would not have been able to purchase before?

UVAT Coping Strategies Module

Selling household assets (Y/N) Withdrew children from school (Y/N)

Spending Savings Reduce expenses on health (including medicines) and education

Buying goods or services on credit or using borrowed cash

Engage in begging (or similar risky behaviours)

Sold productive assets Sold house or land

Sent household members to eat elsewhere Entire household migrated

Children engaged in types of begging or child labour

15

Indicator 2 (Sectoral CVA): Has the cash enabled you to purchase [food/NFI/shelter materials/WASH materials] that you otherwise would not have been able to purchase? Indicator 3: Percentage of HHs that considered the cash transfer value enough to cover the essential basic needs4. Indicator 4: To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “the cash assistance helped to reduce household financial burdens” (if MPCA; Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

Section 6: Accountability, Protection and Gender

Questions in this section look at the behaviour of staff involved in all steps of cash assistance, in addition to complaint and feedback mechanisms that must be in place when cash assistance is developed, and to beneficiaries’ participation. Furthermore, they look at Protection and Gender consideration of the overall assistance process.

Strongly Recommended indicators Accountability

% of the target population (male/female) receiving information through their preferred channel

% of affected population (male/female) that is aware of the complaint and response mechanism and knows how to use it

% of the beneficiaries (male/female) demonstrating clear awareness of key CBA programme information

Question Answers Question

Accountability

What is your preferred methodology to receive information about the assistance from our organization?

Collect beneficiaries’ preferences in terms of communication channels (for us to adapt, if needed)

Are you aware of complaints/feedback mechanism to report problems/suggestions to the programme?

☐Yes ☐No

Monitor the knowledge of beneficiaries about complaint and feedback mechanisms

4 It is strongly recommended to always link the concept of “Basic Needs” to the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB), i.e. monitor the HH’s capacity to purchase the goods and services included in the MEB. If the data are collected with a HH self-reporting approach, it is suggested to explain the main items included in the MEB, without disregarding other potential needs of the HH. If data are available on the actual expenditure of the HH (or self-reported on each item), a mathematical calculation approach can be used.

16

If yes, how could you report complaints and feedback?

☐ Toll-free number

☐ Vendor shops

☐ Call staff

☐ Call partner staff

☐ Visit office

☐ Visit partner office

☐ Email address

☐ Other: ________

Have you reported a complaint or feedback during project life?

☐Yes ☐No Monitor the beneficiary perception of the complaint and feedback mechanism. The question can also be useful to spot mistakes in recording, managing and responding to complaints received.

If yes, were you satisfied with the reaction/response received from the organization?

☐Yes, completely

☐ Yes, partially

☐Not sufficiently

☐Not at all (explain)

Were the selection criteria applied to be included as a beneficiary clearly explained? If No: Why not?

☐Y es ☐ No ☐ I don’t know

☐Information provided was insufficient

☐ The criteria were not clear

☐ There was confusion created by third parties

☐ Other (please explain)

Review the clarity and transparency of our communication with beneficiaries.

Do you think the selection of beneficiaries was fair? If No: Why?

☐Yes ☐No

☐ The most vulnerable were excluded

Monitor beneficiaries’ perception of selection criteria and prioritization of cases. Gather feedback in case beneficiaries are confused or unclear. The question is useful to potentially

17

☐Richer households were included

☐Only friends and family of community leaders were included

☐ Only certain social groups were included

☐ Other (please explain)

review selection criteria and the way they are communicated. It allows as well for exploring whether there is some exclusion error

Strongly Recommended indicators: Protection and Gender

% of respondents who report that decision-making on spending is jointly shared (woman and man); women-only; men-only; all family members

% of recipients (male/female) reporting assistance had positive impact on relations within household

% of recipients (male/female) reporting assistance had negative impact on relations within household

Question Answers Question

Protection and Gender

Who in the household decided how the assistance would be spent?

☐ Male (HoH/ Spouse)

☐ Female (HoH/ Spouse)

☐ Jointly (Husband and Wife) Together

☐ Men, women, and children together

☐ Other: Specify______

Power dynamics in the household and gender responsiveness

Who in the household was responsible to spend the cash?

☐ Men going to the market alone

☐ Women going to the market alone

☐ Men and women going to the market together

☐ Men, women and children going to the market together

☐ Children or other family members

☐ Other (specify):

☐ No one used the assistance at shops

Confirm how the assistance is spent to monitor both family dynamics and potential protection concerns (CP)

18

How has the received assistance impacted relations within your household? If the answer is positive or negative, explain how

☐ Positively

☐ Negatively

☐ It did not produce any effect

☐ I don’t know For the first two options, explain why/how?

Tensions and family disputes due to cash assistance

Have receiving or using the assistance caused you any tensions or conflicts in the area where you live (community)? If yes, how did it affect you? [Open-ended]

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Did not respond

Were you asked by anyone to pay a fee/ a charge / or a favour to receive or the cash?

☐ Yes ☐ No If “Yes”, who asked you to pay a fee?

☐Staff ☐Community leader ☐Local

government ☐Local partner CBO ☐Bank

teller ☐Other, specify

Accountability. Monitor the risks of fraud and corruption across all stakeholders involved.

19

ANNEXES

Annex 1: List of strongly Recommended Indicators

Transfer of assistance

- % of project beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible,

and dignified manner.

- % of the beneficiaries who are satisfied with the process and methods of implementation

(including CVA modality and delivery mechanism)

- % of households who are satisfied with the whole distribution process?

Usage

- Total monthly expenditure, and the % of households whose total expenditure exceeds the MEB

Impact

- Average rCSI score among cash recipients.

- % of households showing reduced negative non-food coping strategy use,

- % of households using Crisis or Emergency coping strategies.

- (MPCA project): Has the cash enabled you to purchase assets, essential goods and/or services that

you otherwise would not have been able to purchase before?

- (Sectoral CVA): Has the cash enabled you to purchase [food/NFI/shelter materials/WASH

materials] that you otherwise would not have been able to purchase?

- Percentage of HHs that considered the cash transfer value enough to cover the essential basic

needs.

- To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “the cash assistance helped to reduce

household financial burdens”

Accountability, Protection and Gender

- % of the target population (male/female) receiving information through their preferred channel

- % of affected population (male/female) that is aware of the complaint and response mechanism

and knows how to use it

- % of the beneficiaries (male/female) demonstrating clear awareness of key CBA programme

information

- % of respondents who report that decision-making on spending is jointly shared (woman and

man); women-only; men-only; all family members

- % of recipients (male/female) reporting assistance had positive impact on relations within

household

- % of recipients (male/female) reporting assistance had negative impact on relations within

household

20

Annex 2: Definition of Safety, Access and Dignity

For the purpose of monitoring the indicator “% of project beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian

assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, and dignified manner”, under section “Transfer of Assistance”

the following definitions can be considered. The definitions were provided by the Protection Cluster from

The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action Glossary5.

Safety: The condition of being protected from danger, risk or injury. Refers to people's physical and

personal well-being and integrity as well as to their freedom from physical, environmental, social,

spiritual, political, emotional or psychological harm.

Accessibility: Entails the removal or mitigation of barriers to people’s meaningful participation. These

barriers and the measures needed will vary according to disability, age, illness, literacy level, status of

language, legal and/or social status, etc.

Dignity: The capacity to make one's own deliberate choices and consequently to be acknowledged as a

free subject. It reflects the integrity of the person and is the source from which all human rights derive.

The foundation of life with dignity is the assurance of access to basic services, security and respect for

human rights. Equally, the way in which humanitarian response is implemented strongly affects the dignity

and well-being of disaster-affected children, families and communities.

5 https://alliancecpha.org/en/glossary-minimum-standards-child-protection-humanitarian-action-2019-edition