MPCA & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT: COMBINED 2020 GUIDELINES
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MPCA & VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT: COMBINED 2020
GUIDELINES
Cash Working Group guidelines for proposal
development and programme implementation
Abstract
This document contains information on the CWG vulnerability assessment and targeting
model, standard operating procedures, and guidelines for implementation of Multi-purpose
Cash Assistance within the Iraqi humanitarian response in 2020.
January 2020
Mauro Clerici, Cash Working Group coordinator
clericim@unhcr.org
Gabrielle Fox, Cash Working Group co-lead
gfox@mercycorps.org
Safwan Khan, Cash Working Group Economist
khansaf@unhcr.org
Joe Mekhael
jmekhael@mercycorps.org
Taban Ihsan, Sub-National CWG Coordinator – Kirkuk
taban.ihsan@tearfund.org
0Cash Working Group Iraq
MPCA & Vulnerability Assessment: Combined 2020 Guidelines
Table of contents
Table of acronyms 3
Summary of tables and figures 4
1. Overview 5
2. Introduction 6
3. Coordination of MPCA and sectorial cash 6
4. The targeting model 7
5. Calculation of the PIN 8
6. MPCA objectives and relationship with the Humanitarian Consequences Framework (HCF) 9
7. Referral to other sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system 11
8. Mapping for referral to other sectors/agencies 12
9. Targets and financial requirements. 12
10. Activity Based Costing (ABC) 12
11. Thresholds for single budget items 14
12. Ratio between direct and indirect costs 14
13. Economy of scale considerations 14
14. Consortia and other multilateral arrangements 15
15. Engagement of national NGOs 15
16. Capacity building 15
17. Research components 15
18. Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and transfer value 15
19. Transfer Value 16
20. Transfer value, equivalent in IQDs and related transfer costs 16
21. Percentage of population across predicted consumption categories 17
22. Usage of the SEVAT by MPCA partners and other sectors, Capacity Building, Data collection and scoring 18
23. Delivery mechanism 18
24. MPCA monitoring framework 19
25. Assessment modality 19
26. Cash Assistance to recent returnees 19
27. Verification Questionnaire 20
28. Post Distribution Monitoring 20
129. Segregation of roles and responsibilities 20
30. Protection mainstreaming 20
31. Child Protection Safeguard in Cash Distribution 20
32. SGBV concerns 21
33. Mitigation measures, PSEA, complain mechanism and anti-fraud policy 21
34. Standard Operating Procedures 21
35. Interference Matrix 21
36. Prioritized geographical areas and partners presence 22
37. JPMI and JRAM 23
38. Recommended elements to be included in the proposals and used as vetting parameters 24
39. HRP partners 26
40. Reporting 27
41. Relevant literature 27
42. Subscription to the CWG mailing list 30
43. Contacts 30
44. List of annexes 31
Appendix I – Basic needs definition and approaches used by the Iraqi CWG to determine the basic needs basket, SMEB and
transfer value 32
Appendix II. What we mean by consumption, expenditure and income? 33
2Table of acronyms
ABC Activity Based Costing
CCCM Camp Coordination and Camp Management
CVA Cash and Voucher Assistance
CWG Cash Working Group
DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix
FTS Financial Service Provider
GoI Government of Iraq
HCF Humanitarian Consequences Framework
HCT Humanitarian Country Team
HH Household
HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview
HPC Humanitarian Programme Cycle
HRP Humanitarian Response Plan
IASC Inter-agency Standing Committee
ICCG Inter-cluster Coordination Group
IDPs Internal Displaces Population
ILO International Labor Organization
IOM International Organization of Migration
JPMI Join Price Monitoring Initiative
JRAM Join Rapid Assessment of Markets
KRI Kurdistan Region of Iraq
MCNA Multi-cluster Needs Assessment
MoDM Ministry of Migration and Displacement
MoLSA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
MoP Ministry of Planning
MPCA Multi-purpose Cash Assistance
NPC National Protection Cluster
PDM Post-distribution Monitoring
PIN People in Need
PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women
PMT Proxy Mean Test
SEVAT Socio-economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool
SMEB Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket
SNFI Shelter and Non-food Items
SOP Standard Operational Procedures
SSN Social Safety Net
UNHCR United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees
WFP World Food Programme
3Summary of tables and figures
Figure 1. MPCA 2020 pillars
Figure 2. Representation of the PMT functioning
Figure 3. Relation between MPCA 2020 strategy, linkages with the HCF, response modality, PIN and acute PIN
Figure 4. Potential interaction between MPCA and sector-specific assistance
Table 1: Severity of vulnerability – correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Table 2: Severity of vulnerability – acute PIN using the correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted
Consumption
Table 3. MPCA response strategy within the Iraqi Humanitarian Consequences framework
Table 4. Targets across the groups and related financial requirements.
Table 5. MPCA ABC items breakdown
Table 6. Overall financial requirements
Table 7. Composition of the revised 2019 SMEB and correspondent value
Table 8. % of population across predicted consumption categories
Table 9. Financial Service Providers List
Table 10. MPCA monitoring indicators
Table 11. MPCA Standard Operational Procedures table of contents
Table 12. 2020 HRP prioritized districts
Table 13. Recommended proposal elements to be considered in drafting and vetting
Table 14. List of MPCA HRP partners
Table 15. List of selected literature
41. Overview
IRAQI 2020 MPCA RESPONSE
61.475 HHs USD 73 ML 30 Partners
368.850 individuals
Strategic Objective: Provide access to 36.270 Catastrophic Critical Protection service
basic needs for 370,025 in-camp IDPs, package:
351,026 out-of-camp IDPs and 926,170 Vulnerable HH - access to legal documentation
returnees - PSS
320 USD per month - case management
Specific Objective: Assist 370,025 in-camp
IDP’s and 351,026 out-of-camp IDPs and 3 months assistance - social protection schemes
926,170 returnees to meeting basic needs
and minimize reliance on negative coping Protection services package
strategies.
CWG Objective 1: Provide MPCA to 61.475
acutely vulnerable households (29.000 out
of camps and 49.000 returnees) affected by 25.205 Extreme Referral to other sectors:
conflict and/or another shock generating Adopting a cross-sectorial
humanitarian needs that cannot be covered Vulnerable application of the SEVAT,
by existing national services.
320 USD per month Identification of referral
CWG Objective 2: Facilitate acutely pathways to livelihood and
vulnerable households’ access to 2 months assistance sector specific activities with
complementary and critical humanitarian particular focus on integrated
and national assistance services, including Referral to other sector specific
approach with other sector-
non-contributory government social intervention specific CBI
protection programs.
Activities
Provide 2 rounds of multi-purpose cash assistance to 36.270 catastrophically vulnerable and to households affected by conflict and/
or another shock generating humanitarian needs that cannot be covered by existing national services.
Provide 3 rounds of multi-purpose cash assistance to 25.205 extremely vulnerable households affected by conflict and/ or another
shock generating humanitarian needs that cannot be covered by existing national services.
Facilitate extreme and catastrophically vulnerable households’ referral to sector specific interventions, protection actors and national
social protection schemes.
Transfer value
HHs receive a transfer value of 320
The revision of the transfer value from USD per month equal to the SMEB
USD 400 to 320 follows a consultative Revised SMEB: value, for 2 or 3 months according to
process with clusters and partners. the assessed level of vulnerability.
320 USD (IQD 380.000)
The amount in IQD should be intended as the “cash in hand” to the beneficiaries. Fees and transfer commissions
whether accredited by the implementing partner directly to the Financial Service Provider or retained as commission
by the agent, should be added to the above indicated value and included in the administrative costs. See the section
on activity based costing in this guidelines for more detail.
52. Introduction
MPCA response in humanitarian settings finds its fundamentals in the 2018 OCHA message on Cash Coordination1, which
states that “Humanitarian actors should work together to ensure that cash is the preferred and default form of assistance
where markets and operational contexts permit.” The document emphasizes how “it can also serve as an important bridge
between humanitarian and development activities”. On assessment of humanitarian MPCA response, the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) strategic note on Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts 2 notes that:
“The needs assessment process is largely conducted with a sectoral lens {...} Cash transfers have highlighted the need
to broaden the scope and uptake of such cross-sector approaches”.
Finally, the 2020 Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) guidelines in the context of the above, also underline maintaining a
focus on intersectoral discussions, stating that “response analysis during the preparation of the Humanitarian Response Plan
should enable more systematic inter-sectoral discussions about required multisectoral response approaches, which could
include multipurpose cash, and to identify the potential use of national social protection systems.”3
The MPCA response in Iraq is based on these principles. In doing so, it encompasses the three pillars of the response: relying
on existing function market for goods, . Adopting a cross-sectorial approach in targeting, and identifying referrals to other
sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system.
Figure 1. MPCA 2020 pillars
Cross-sectorial approach in Referral to other sectors and social
Funcioning market
targeting protection schemes
While the number of people unable to cover their basic needs in 2020 remains almost constant in comparison with 2019 (2,8
Vs 2,9 million people countrywide), the acute PIN (people in need, see calculation rationale in section 5) is 2 ML people, an
increase of 25 percentage points from 2019. This has resulted from protracted displacement and an increased rate of return,
with no significant macro-economic improvement and livelihood opportunities, or a strengthening of national social
protection systems in areas of origin. MPCA continues to be a preferred assistance modality4 that affords vulnerable
households the flexibility to meet their survival basic needs. More significantly, MPCA decreases the incidence of negative
coping strategies, including secondary displacement that are triggered by financial constraints, and plays an essential role in
supporting (re) integration and transition to durable solutions.
3. Coordination of MPCA and sectorial cash
MPCA operational and strategic coordination is led by the Cash Working Group (CWG). In 2020, the CWG will continue leading
MPCA coordination at the national and sub-national levels, as well as provide strategic technical coordination of sector-
specific Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA). Coordination of MPCA will mainly, but not exclusively, include: harmonization of
approaches and monitoring tools, technical support to MPCA actors on approach and monitoring tools, coordination of
geographic coverage areas, duplication check processes, partnership with cluster leads for development of referrals pathways
1 OCHA on Message: Cash Coordination, April 2018, link
2
Strategic Note Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts Final draft prepared for the Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee The World Bank
Group June 2016, link
3 ENHANCED HPC APPROACH 2020, Stronger focus on Cash, link
4CWG partners consistently find over 99% of assessed households prefer cash over other forms of assistance. The largest volume of calls and requests the
Iraq Information Center received consistently pertain to cash.
6based on the CWG Socio-economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT), strategic efforts on transition to government-led
social protection assistance, in addition to the development of other workstreams as identified by the CWG secretariat in
consultation with the Inter-cluster Coordination Group (ICCG) and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT).
4. The targeting model
Looking at basic needs “as to the essential goods, utilities, services or resources required on a regular, seasonal, or exceptional
basis by households for ensuring survival and minimum living standards, without resorting to negative coping mechanisms or
compromising their health, dignity and essential livelihood assets” (ILO, 1976) helps to understand the rationale behind the
adoption of a consumption based survey and a Proxy Mean Test (PMT) as a targeting model since 20195. While the use of a
poverty based approach could be confusing as a semantic for humanitarian actors, it remains crucial for strategic thinking on
programme design, specially in the context of transitions to durable solutions. A key objective of the PMT approach in
humanitarian MPCA assessment is to find a systematic mechanism for cross-sectoral referrals, including, very crucially, to
government administered social safety nets.
Figure 2. Representation of the PMT functioning The PMT based targeting
methodology facilitated by the
CWG represents a strategic
choice, as it aims to prepare the
ground for transitions to durable
solutions, through a potential
conversion of an emergency
response like MPCA into a
national social protection scheme.
The targeting model is based on
the idea of predicted
consumption, computed using a
range of household characteristics
and behaviors (including, for
example, shelter type, negative
coping strategies) , and how these
affect the household’s capacity to consume (see Appedix II and Annex I for details), captured through the CWG assessment
tool called the Socio Economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT). 6 Household per capita predicted consumption is
compared with the national poverty line of IQD 110.000 per capita to assess household vulnerability, and, by extension,
eligibility for MPCA. The CWG PMT has three scoring models, to account for geographic heterogeneity in vulnerability across
the country. Predicted consumption is generated based on a composite index of 32 multi-sector indicators (including
characteristics and behaviors), with three scoring models tailored for distinct regions of Iraq. This follows the same PMT
approach used by MPCA actors since 2016, with revisions in 2018 to reflect the evolving nature of vulnerability in Iraq 7 (see
Annex I. “Iraq MPCA Vulnerability Model Review”). This is meant to ensure that assistance is delivered based on a rigorous
analysis of vulnerability, rather than based on household status (such as displaced, returnee, host) or categorical targeting.
The coefficients composing the model should not be read as scores but rather as odds, for someone presenting a certain
characteristic or behaviour to be exposed to vulnerability in comparison to someone that does not represents having the
same characteristic/behaviour. For example, in the Northern model, a HH without standard shelter is 23% more likely to be
5 The World Bank published a vast literature on Proxy Mean Tests. For technical information on how a PMT is built, you can refer to the following paper:
PMT-based social registries Measuring income and poverty using Proxy Means Tests, World Bank Group, link
6 Please refer to Appendix II for more information on consumption based surveys and Predicted Consumption
7
See MPCA vulnerability assessment and targeting review 2019, link
7vulnerable than someone with a standard shelter such as a house or a flat. Is important to note that while the PMT approach
is methodologically aligned with that of development actors including the World Bank in the assessment of eligibility for social
safety nets, it is based on humanitarian caseload dataset (the 2018 Multi-cluster Needs Assessment - MCNA - data) and
therefore look specifically at the family characteristics and behaviours that affect consumption (i.e. vulnerability) in the Iraqi
humanitarian context. Nonetheless, having methodological alignment would help in the estimation of humanitarian case load
that could be referred to government social safety nets.
5. Calculation of the PIN
MPCA PIN, accounting for the portion of crisis affected population exposed to humanitarian consequence #1 “Critical
problems related to physical and mental well-being” (see section 6. for a brief on the humanitarian consequences
framework), has been calculated applying the CWG PMT to the 2019 Multi-cluster Needs Assessment (MCNA). The 2020
Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) classifies vulnerability on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the severity. MPCA vulnerability
was elaborated using the same scale. This is shown in Table 1. Following HCT/ICCG guidance for 2020 Humanitarian Response
Plan (HRP) submission, the focus of humanitarian response would be on acute vulnerability, defined as those falling in severity
categories 4 and 5. The threshold for acute vulnerability according to CWG estimations is IQD 92.000 per capita per month.
Hence those household with a predicted per capita consumption of less than IQD 92.000 per capita per month would be
considered eligible for assistance8. The total number of individuals estimated within these categories is 2,0 million people. As
can be noted in table 1, while all those with a predicted consumption below 70.000 IQD/per-capita/per-month are considered
to be catastrophically vulnerable as falling below the International Poverty Line (IPL) of USD 1.90/day9, in order to better
reflect MPCA actors programmatic needs, a further category defined as “catastrophic in protracted vulnerability” has been
introduced by the CWG. The latter are people likely to remain in protracted vulnerability due to being exposed to protection
risks and facing severe difficulties in accessing livelihood opportunities. It is expected that those falling in this category (while
not exclusively as also people falling in other categories might face severe conditions) can be referred for protection services
and social safety nets.
Table 1: Severity of vulnerability – correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Correspondent Predicted consumption threshold
Severity Category
From To
1 Minimal 147.000* above
2 Stress 110.000 147.000
3 Severe 92.000 110.000
4 Extreme 70.000 92.000
5 Catastrophic 40.000 70.000
5.1 Catastrophic in protracted vulnerability 0 40.000
* 147.000 IQD per capita per month is the average predicted consumption the whole humanitarian caseload according to MCNA 2019
Table 2: Severity of vulnerability – acute PIN using the correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Household predicted consumption Number of % share within the acutely
Severity category (IQD, per capita per month) individuals vulnerable population
Extremely vulnerable Between 70.000 and 92.000 818,070 41%
Between 40.000 and 70.000 886,651 44%
Catastrophically vulnerable
Less than IQD 40.000 298,816 15%
2,003,537
NOTE: the percentages indicated in the last column of table 2 represents countrywide CWG estimations based on the application of the SEVAT scoring model
on the MCNA 2019 dataset. For programmatic purposes at governorate and district level, we recommend partners to refer to the sub-district break-down
estimation contained in Annex II. “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments”.
8Based on recent consultations with the World Bank
9
1.90 USD/per capita/per day is the World Bank IPL as from October 2015 replacing the 2005 1,25 USD/per capita/per day. It corresponds to the Absolute
poverty defined as the absence of enough resources to secure basic life necessities.
86. MPCA objectives and relationship with the Humanitarian Consequences Framework (HCF)
This section discusses MPCA objectives and how they relate with the humanitarian consequences framework (HCF).
The Humanitarian Response Plan for 2020 sets a Humanitarian Consequences Framework composed of 4 potential
consequences:
a. Safeguard physical and mental well-being of 1.65 million conflict-affected people with acute needs by providing
services to meet basic needs.
b. Address critical problems related to living standards by expanding access to basic services for 1.54 million conflict-
affected people with acute needs.
c. Support 689,000 conflict-affected people in acute need who remain displaced to move toward economic
independence and durable solutions by strengthening their resilience.
d. Respond to key protection needs of affected communities in support of the transition to durable solutions in
accordance with all applicable legal and policy frameworks.
Figure 1. depicts the linkages between the four humanitarian consequences, the response modality, corresponding
vulnerability thresholds, PIN and acute PIN as well as complementary referrals for each vulnerability category. The
distribution of HHs across a spectrum of socio-economic vulnerability can be reflected into the design of the HPC four
Humanitarian Consequences (HC), where those at the bottom and categorized as catastrophically vulnerable are exposed to
well-being consequences, those in the middle to living standards consequences and those at the top to resilience and
recovery. Protection is an overarching concern to be explored within each category. Within the Humanitarian Consequences
Framework, MPCA response contributes to address humanitarian consequence #1 i.e. “critical problems related to well-
being.” The MPCA scoring tool can be used to activate the referrals shown in figure 3 (see section 7).
Figure 3. Relation between MPCA 2020 strategy, linkages with the HCF, response modality, PIN and acute PIN
Table 3 in the summarizes the strategic and specific objectives from the HCF and how they relate with CWG objectives and
MPCA activities.
9Table 3. MPCA response strategy within the Iraqi Humanitarian Consequences framework
Strategic
Objectives Specific Objective CWG Objectives MPCA Activities
1. Safeguarding 1.2 Assist 250,000 1.2.1 Provide MPCA to 61.475 1.2.1.1 Provide multi-purpose cash assistance
physical and in-camp IDPs and acutely vulnerable households to 36.270 catastrophically vulnerable
mental well- 351,026 out-of- (29.000 out of camps and households affected by conflict and/ or
being of 1.65 49.000 returnees) affected by
camp IDPs and another shock generating humanitarian needs
million conflict- conflict and/or another shock
affected people 926,170 generating humanitarian that cannot be covered by existing national
with acute needs returnees to needs that cannot be covered services.
by providing meeting basic by existing national services.
services. needs and
minimize reliance 1.2.2 Facilitate acutely 1.2.1.2 Provide multi-purpose cash assistance
on negative vulnerable households’ access to 25.205 extremely vulnerable households
coping strategies to complementary and critical affected by conflict and/ or another shock
humanitarian and national generating humanitarian needs that cannot be
assistance services, including covered by existing national services.
non-contributory government
social protection programs.
1.2.2.1 Facilitate extreme and catastrophically
vulnerable households referral to sector
specific intervention, to protection actors and
national social protection schemes.
Response Approach
- Administration of SEVAT questionnaire in targeted locations.
- Please refer to Annexes A, B, C, D, F and G for the SEVAT package10 and to the guidelines for the support offered by the
CWG.
- Determination of socio-economic vulnerability based on the Proxy Mean Test scoring model
- Enrollment in the MPCA programme.
- Disbursement of 2 months assistance to severely vulnerable HHs
- Disbursement of 3 months assistance to extremely and catastrophically vulnerable HHs.
- Referral of HHs missing legal documentation to legal partners
- Referral of HHs in need of PSS, specialized protection services and case management to protection partners.
- referral to other sector specific activities, mainly cash based intervention trough the identification of sector specific
indicators.
- facilitate access to national non-contributory social protection schemes.
10
Annex A: PDF version of the questionnaire; Annex B: Kobo version of the questionnaire; Annex C: Vulnerability Assessment Tool 2019
Combined Guidelines in English; Annex D: Vulnerability Assessment Tool 2019 Combined Guidelines in Arabic; Annex E: MPCA Vulnerability
Scoring Tool; Annex F: a Kobo Demo Link; Annex G: the Verification form
107. Referral to other sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system
Based on unique household-level need, all MPCA recipients will be considered within a comprehensive referral scheme, to
include an array of complementary interventions by humanitarian actors as well as government-led social protection
assistance, as feasible.
Referral to other sectors
The Socio-Economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT)11 represents a comprehensive and efficient mechanism to trigger
referrals for complementary humanitarian-led sectoral assistance. MPCA actors have been successful in referring assessed
households who are missing civil documentation for legal assistance to secure critically-needed documentation. This work
will continue in 2020. Strategically, the CWG will focus on establishing further referral pathways for Livelihoods and Protection
assistance, with additional potential to enhance linkages with Shelter/ NFI, Health, WASH, Education, etc. There are
operational constraints for effective referrals, such as limitations in geographic presence, budget, timeframe for assistance
by other actors, however, activation of such referrals even at modest scale offers clear value for enhanced outcomes for
affected populations that would reinforce durable solutions and promote a more coherent response overall. However, as the
2019 experience of SNFI shows, the tool can be used, jointly with sector specific indicators, to prioritize socio-economic HHs
among those eligible for sector-specific interventions. In fact, HHs not eligible for MPCA might be eligible for other stream of
assistance which can be preliminary determined using the SEVAT. Partners will enhance the collaboration – but not limiting
to - with the Emergency Livelihood cluster in order to identify key indicators to operationalize the referrals. In the course of
2020, the SEVAT might be amended to accommodate sector specific indicators in collaboration with clusters. Figure 4 depict
the potential referral interactions.
Figure 4. Potential interaction between MPCA and sector-specific assistance
Referral to protection services
As earlier mentioned, those at the bottom of vulnerability pyramid, falling in the “catastrophic category in protracted
vulnerability”, estimated to be about 6% of the humanitarian affected population, should be considered for referral to
protection actors. While critical protection needs might be identified across all the severity categories, this segment of
population, according to CWG estimates, reflect a high degree of reliance on negative coping strategies and therefore are
exposed to increased protection risks. The CWG will work in close collaboration with the National Protection Cluster in order
to set a referral pathway and procedures.
11
The SEVAT is the tool used by the CWG partners to assess HHs socio-economic vulnerability eligibility for MPCA. MPCA partners data are
collected by the CWG on regular basis.
11Referral to national social protection schemes
This segment of the vulnerable population is also likely to be eligible for non-contributory national social protection schemes
for the poor and for special categories. While those schemes exist and are regulated by the national social protection legal
framework, financial resources are limited and currently many of the available tools are non-operational. In the course of
2020 partners are required to actively collaborate with the CWG and the clusters in order to map the existing functioning
services at district level and facilitate the activation of linkages for transition of the humanitarian caseload to governmental
responsibility.
The SEVAT will facilitate the transition to durable solutions by estimating the likelihood of eligibility for the Cash Transfer
Social Safety Net (SSN) programme implemented by MoLSA. This will allow MPCA actors to geographically map the need for
inclusion of people in need in government led social safety net cash transfer programs. Although registration for the SSN
remains closed, this represents a strategic transition strategy. The CWG will continue to engage with the Government of Iraq
(GoI) and other key social protection stakeholders, such as the World Bank, on these transition efforts.
Reassessment for further assistance of the “catastrophic in protracted vulnerability” category
Given the protracted extreme vulnerability of the bottom 6% of the population which has to rely on continued assistance to
avoid the usage of negative coping strategies, in the absence of functioning social protection schemes, partners will consider
during the course of 2020 the possibility to reassess the caseload for a second round of assistance in addition to the above
mentioned potential protection referral. Detailed guidance will be provided by the CWG during the first quarter of 2020.
8. Mapping for referral to other sectors/agencies
In order to facilitate the referral to other agencies, the CWG initiated information collection on partners’ presence in the
following sectors: Emergency Livelihood, Food Security, Shelter NFI, Protection. The initial mapping is available in Annex IX,
the document will be updated and complemented with information from sectors in 2020.
9. Targets and financial requirements.
MPCA continues to be a major component of the Iraq HRP for 2020 through its support for 368.850 vulnerable returnees and
displaced individuals outside camps, out of 2.8 million PIN in HRP prioritized locations (see section 34 and Annex VII “MPCA
by pop group and district 2020 for details”). The 2020 target (corresponding to approximately 20% of the acute PIN) has been
set following an analysis of MPCA partners’ operational capacity, 2019 achievements and HRP prioritized areas. As per HCT
indications the original returnee target has been decreased (from approx. 50.000 to approx. 40.000). Table 4 shows the overall
financial requirements under the HRP 2020. The budget has been calculated is based on activity-based costing for MPCA,
discussed in the following section.
Table 4. Targets across population groups and related financial requirements
Targets Financial allocation
Cat.
Individuals HHs %
Out-camp IDPs 127,260 21,210 35% $ 25,239,930.54
Returnee 284,042 40,265 65% $ 47,915,650.77
Total 368,850 61,475 --- $ 73,155,581.32
10. Activity Based Costing (ABC)
HRP 2020 financial requirements are based on the activity-based costing approach (ABC). The below is an abstract of the
“Activity-Based Costing Coordination Approach in Iraq 2020 Guidance Note for the ICCG” (see attachment VI, “ABC Guidance
Note”).
“Following the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) decision (14 April 2019) to move to activity-based costing (ABC)
for the 2020 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), implementation of the coordinated humanitarian response in Iraq
will no longer be based on projects submitted through the HPC Tools Projects Module (former OPS). Development
12and funding of projects will be between partners and current or potential donors, while clusters, the ICCG and the
HCT will be concentrating on providing coordination, technical and strategic guidance and support to the overall
activities in order to meet the strategic priorities outlined in the HRP. {…} In this approach, clusters identify
humanitarian activities required to improve humanitarian outcomes and estimate a budget for their
implementation. The cluster budgets derived from humanitarian needs form the total HRP budget request. There
will be no central project repository used to vet or “register” projects in an exclusive finite list for the HRP.
{…} As the HRP activities are reflective of joint cluster agreements and commitment {…} all cluster members will be
listed in the HRP document. However, the list is not inclusive and new members can be included in the clusters – or
leave the cluster system throughout the year..”
Following the above instructions, the CWG drafted the below ABC which should be looked at as guidance for partners for
proposal submission and for donors for vetting of proposals received. The different items composing the average cost per
household should be intended as a ceiling for financial requirements. The total cost per HH should not exceed 1.190 USD
where 830 USD (70%) are the direct costs intended as the money disbursed to HHs and 360 the amount dedicated for indirect
costs. Table 5 contains the breakdown of the MPCA ABC items while table 6 provides an overview of the overall financial
requirements.
Table 5. MPCA ABC items breakdown
2020 MPCA Activity cost estimation for assistance provided to catastrophic and extreme vulnerable HH.
B transfer C portion of D Correspondent
A # of transfers
value ($) eligible population value* ($)
Between 70.000 and 92.000 PC (extreme) - 2 payments 640,00 25.205 (41%) 262.40
Between 40.000 and 70.000 PC (catastrophic) - 3 payments 960,00 27.049 (44%) 422.40
Below 40.000 PC (catastrophic in protracted vulnerability) - 3 payments 960,00 9.221 (15%) 144.00
1. estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries 828.80
2. estimated FSPs fees costs calculated with an average of 4% on direct transfer costs 33.15
3. Sub-total cost for the transfers to beneficiaries (1+2) 861.95
4. estimated cost for enhanced referral activities per HH 25.00
5. Total HH cost (3+4) 886.95
6. Support costs, calculated as a 26% of 5 230.61
7. Sub-total project costs (5+6) 1117.56
8. Administrative costs (7% of 7) 78.23
TOTAL (5+6) 1195.79
ROUNDED 1190.00
DIRECT COST (money disbursed to HHs) 830.00 70%
INDIRECT COST (including support costs, referral, fees, overheads, assessment costs, HR, hotlines etc.) 360.00 30%
* These calculations were undertaken for planning and budgeting purposes and reflect the proportional cost per HH. The average reference amount per
HH is 1190 USD.
Table 6. Overall financial requirements
Activity cost estimation for assistance provided to catastrophic and extreme HH.
transfer value portion of the affected
# of transfers Total financial req.
($) population eligible
Between 70.000 and 92.000 PC (extreme) - 2 payments 640,00 25.205 (41%) $ 29.993.788
Between 40.000 and 70.000 PC (catastrophic) - 3 payments 960,00 27.049 (44%) $ 32.188.456
Below 40.000 PC (catastrophic in protracted vulnerability) - 3
960,00 9.221 (15%) $ 10.973.337
payments
1. estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries $ 830,00 (70%)
2. Estimated average INDIRECT COST (including support costs, referral, fees, overheads, assessment costs,
$ 360,00 (30%)
HR, hotlines etc)
ACTIVITY BASED COST PER HH $ 1190,00
13The calculations are based on:
- analysis of the proposals submitted to IHF over the past 2 years
- complemented with a market analysis of the costs related to transfers
- proportionally adjusted to reflect the different allocations per vulnerability level and revised transfer value
- amended to include additional costs per required enhanced referral activities
- the cost per beneficiary is indicative for medium scale projects (up to the value of USD 3 ML). Larger proposals
should present a higher ratio of efficiency. See the economy of scale considerations section for more information.
11. Thresholds for single budget items
1. The estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries is 830 USD. This value is based on a nationwide
estimation of caseload across the different severity categories as indicated in column C: 41% extremely vulnerable,
44% catastrophically vulnerable, 15% catastrophically vulnerable in protracted displacement. Partners might submit
proposals with a different average value based on the reference given in Annex II. “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT
assessments” (see table 8 of these guidelines for quick reference), complemented with a sound contextual analysis
and need assessment. For example, in a rural district in Anbar, where the share of those classified as catastrophically
vulnerable is likely to be significantly higher than the national average provided by the CWG, the average direct
transfer to beneficiaries will be higher. On the contrary, the average cost in an urban setting in KRI, where the portion
of those at the bottom of the vulnerability pyramid is likely to be lower, will be significantly lower.
2. Estimated Financial Service Providers (FTS) fees costs should not exceed the 4% on direct transfer costs i.e. 33 USD
per HH. The FSP fees might vary significantly according to the disbursement modality used. Partners are required to
provide extensive justification on the preferred modality.
3. The sub-total cost for the transfers to beneficiaries (1+2) should not exceed 862 USD per HHs unless a different
vulnerability breakdown is applied (point 1).
4. Estimated cost for enhanced referral activities per HH should not exceed 25 USD per HH. While this cost has been
added in order to allow partners to operationalize the MPCA referral strategy described in the sections above, clear
reference on implementation modality should be made in the narrative and budget proposals submitted to donors.
CWG is available to provide guidance to donors on the vetting of the proposed actions and related costs.
5. Total HH cost (3+4) should not exceed 887 USD unless differently justified in compliance with the indication in
point 1.
6. The support costs should not exceed the 26% of the above. These include HR, running costs, assessment costs,
facilities, capacity building and any other costs which are not related to direct transfer to beneficiaries (1), FSP
fees (2) and referral activities (4). On average, unless differently justified in compliance with the indication in point
1, should not exceed 230 USD per HH.
7. Sub-total project costs (5+6)
8. The administrative costs intended as general costs sustained by the organization should not exceed the 7% of sub-
total project costs (point 7).
12. Ratio between direct and indirect costs
The cost per beneficiary should not exceed the one indicated in the ABC section of these guidelines. Regardless of the actual
average cost per beneficiary, which might vary according to context specific analysis as described in the above ABC section,
support costs should not exceed 30% of the total cost.
13. Economy of scale considerations
The above calculation and recommendations are based on analysis of medium scale value projects not exceeding USD 3 ML
grant. Higher value and consortia proposals, for an economy of scale rule, should present a better value for money ratio in
favor of direct costs Vs indirect costs. The CWG is available to provide assistance to donors in assessing the appropriate ratio
according to the grant value.
1414. Consortia and other multilateral arrangements
Consortia and other forms of partnership are encouraged and usually welcomed by donors. In such cases the proposals should
contain a clear indication of the added value of the consortia, for example in terms of geographical coverage, maximization
of technical expertise, monitoring, management and coordination etc. Wherever possible, technical, managerial, middle-
managerial and administrative profiles should be shared positions, providing a significant added value of the consortia
arrangement and clearly increasing the efficiency ratio (decreasing the portion of budget allocated to support costs). The set-
up of parallel managerial and administrate systems, unless strongly justified by operational arguments (geographical
coverage, difficult to access areas etc.) should be avoided.
15. Engagement of national NGOs
National NGOs are encouraged to participate in CWG activities and to actively engage in the delivery of MPCA. The CWG is
committed to provide, as much as possible, capacity building support to active national NGOs. International NGOs are
encouraged to engage with national NGOs, whether it is through formal participation in consortia or as implementing
partners, contractors or associates (depending on what is agreed with specific donors).
16. Capacity building
Organizations are encouraged to include elements of capacity building within their proposals, especially in relation to national
partners/associates. A capacity building plan, inclusive of objectives, methodology and clear budget breakdown, should be
included in the narrative and budgetary proposal. The CWG can offer its assistance to partners and donors.
17. Research components
Research, evaluations, impact studies are highly encouraged. Organizations willing to engage in such activities are advised to
consult with the CWG ahead the submission of proposals. The CWG promotes engagement with national research institutions
and universities as well as the prioritization of studies on transitions to durable solutions, role of cash assistance in transitional
context and linkages with social protection schemes. In addition, research and assessment on Financial Service Providers and
on services mapping will be welcomed. Such activities and their proposed costs should be evaluated separately and are not
included in the ABC described in section 9.
18. Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and transfer value
From a basic needs approach, which views vulnerability as deprivation of consumption, measured as the capacity to consume
a certain amount of goods and service – not limited to the purchase of them - without using negative coping strategies and,
from an household expenditure perspective, which identifies the, the MPCA transfer value in Iraq equals the national SMEB.
From a basic needs approach that is based on the capability of a household to consume and not just earn, without relying on
negative coping strategies, the MPCA transfer value in Iraq is based on the national Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket.12
The calculation of SMEB takes into account both the “survival threshold” and the “livelihood protection threshold”.13
Revised in October 201914, the SMEB has been derived from the contributions of sector-specific baskets (SNFI, WASH, Food
Security) and following a comparative analysis of the trends in prices monitored through the Joint Price Monitoring
Initiative15, the WFP food items price monitoring 16, the trends in post-conflict deflation rate17, partners’ programme data on
expenditure (Post-Distribution Monitoring data). Documentation related to the revision of the SMEB is attached with these
12
For details on calculation of the portion of SMEB used as transfer value please refer to the CWG technical note on transfer value calculation.
13
The ‘survival threshold’: access to enough kilocalories to meet their food needs, enough cash to meet their basic survival needs; The
‘livelihoods protection threshold’: survival needs, plus the income necessary to cover basic household expenditures, cash required to meet a
locally acceptable standard of living, FAO, Save the Children, 2017
14
For details on the revision of the SMEB, please refer to the CWG technical note SMEB revision October 2019.
15
The REACH initiative Joint Price Monitoring Initiative monitors the prices of most items composing the SMEB basket across the country on
bimonthly basis thanks to the contribution of the CWG partners.
16
WFP food basket price monitoring, July 2019
17
World Bank database, IMF, Trading Economics.
15guidelines18. The revision was part of a broader strategy discussion, which focused on aligning MPCA in Iraq with the new
strategic parameters for the humanitarian response going forward. The revision resulted in a revised SMEB value of 320 USD.
As the SMEB reflects a survival basket, the full transfer value will be disbursed to those falling below the survival threshold of
predicted consumption of 92.000 IQD per month per capita.
The final value of the SMEB is approximated at 320 USD, as per the break-down below:
Table 7. Composition of the revised 2019 SMEB and correspondent value
Component Value
Food Security $67.79
WASH $14.63
Rent $139.06
Electricity $31.53
Water $14.67
Transportation $32.01
Communication $20.30
TOTAL $319.98
ROUNDED TO $320.00
IQD equivalent IQD 380.000
The amount in IQD should be intended as the “cash in hand” to the beneficiaries. Fees and transfer commissions (whether
accredited by the implementing partner directly to the Financial Service Provider or retained as commission by the agent,
should be added to the above indicated value and included in the indirect costs (see section 11 and section 20).
19. Transfer Value
The MPCA transfer values in Iraq, based on the above mentioned national SMEB is $320 (380.000 IQD). MPCA will be
delivered in two lines of response.
● The first line of response will target ‘extremely’ vulnerable households who will receive two months of MPCA.
● The second line of response will target ‘catastrophically’ vulnerable households who will receive three months of MPCA.
As earlier mentioned, given the protracted extreme vulnerability of the bottom 6% of the population which has to rely on
continuous assistance to avoid the usage of negative coping strategies, in the absence of functioning social protection
schemes, partners will consider during the course of 2020 the possibility to reassess the caseload for a second round of
assistance in addition to the above mentioned potential protection referral.
20. Transfer value, equivalent in IQDs and related transfer costs
The IQD 380.000 recommended transfer value (using a fix exchange rate of 1:1.200 and rounding up to the nearest decile)
represents the amount to be transferred directly to beneficiaries (cash in hand to beneficiaries) and does not include any fees
or administrative costs. Whether the latter are paid by the organization to the financial service provider or paid as a formal
contractually agreed fee by the beneficiary to the agent during the disbursement, they must be added to the 380.000 transfer
value and budgeted as indirect costs. For example, if the organization contractually agrees that a 3.000 IQD fee must be paid
by the beneficiary when withdrawing the money at the distribution point, the gross amount of money to be disbursed to the
beneficiary is 383.000 IQD. In this way the beneficiary will retain 380.000 IQDs net value. Alternatively, if it is contractually
agreed that the 3.000 fee is to be paid by the organization to the agent directly, the beneficiary will not pay anything to the
18
Annex IV.I: Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note October 2019; Annex IV.II Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket
Technical Guidance Note June 2018; 4.3. Annex IV.III SMEB Comparison 2018 – 2019; 4.4. Annex IV.IV WFP Food basket
16agent during the withdrawal operation and receive a net amount of 380.000 IQDs. In both scenarios the fees and commissions
should be budgeted as indirect costs following the instructions in the Activity Based costing (ABC) section of this guidelines.
21. Percentage of population across predicted consumption categories
The below table is intended to provide to MPCA and CWG partners an indication of the share of population falling within
different severity categories across the CWG/HRP prioritized districts. The analysis is based on application of the CWG scoring
model to the 2019 MCNA data. The information provided here should be complemented with ad-hoc field assessments and
is intended to provide partners willing to submit MPCA proposals with useful programmatic information. More information
can be found in Annex II, “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments”
Table 8. % of population across predicted consumption categories
% of population across predicted consumption categories
Minimal Catastrophic
Stress Extreme Catastrophic in protracted
Moderate
vulnerability
District
Governorate Over 92,000 - 70,000 - 40,000 -
less than 40,000
110,000 110,000 92,000 70,000
Al.Falluja 69.30% 16.00% 9.00% 3.80% 1.90%
Al.Kaim 28.20% 8.30% 26.30% 30.10% 9.60%
Al.Ramadi 64.60% 18.50% 13.80% 3.20%
Al-Anbar
Al.Rutba 3.80% 7.60% 16.50% 44.30% 29.10%
Ana 27.50% 15.90% 26.80% 19.60% 11.60%
Heet 45.10% 16.90% 21.80% 13.40% 2.80%
Al- Al.Sulaymaniya
24.00% 21.20% 27.90% 26.90%
Sulaymaniyah h
Al.Kadhmiyah 62.80% 24.20% 7.00% 4.70% 1.40%
Baghdad
Al.Mahmoudiya 43.60% 23.20% 20.50% 11.40% 1.40%
Al.Muqdadiya 62.10% 19.70% 18.20% 3.00%
Diyala
Khanaqin 45.30% 14.20% 18.60% 15.40% 7.90%
Duhok 8.30% 17.40% 30.30% 41.30% 3.70%
Duhok Sumail 12.00% 9.90% 26.40% 40.90% 11.60%
Zakho 16.70% 11.70% 16.70% 40.80% 15.80%
Erbil 38.70% 24.30% 18.50% 17.30% 1.20%
Erbil
Makhmour 29.70% 14.30% 24.20% 27.50% 4.40%
Al.Hawiga 7.40% 9.10% 15.70% 38.80% 31.40%
Kirkuk
Kirkuk 46.80% 14.70% 18.10% 15.40% 6.80%
Al.Mosul 76.10% 8.10% 6.60% 7.50% 2.10%
Al.Shikhan 15.20% 9.10% 23.60% 35.00% 18.30%
Ninewa Sinjar 14.40% 7.40% 22.30% 34.90% 22.30%
Telafar 18.60% 11.80% 14.70% 37.70% 19.10%
Tilkaef 32.90% 17.40% 11.90% 30.10% 10.00%
Al.Shirqat 31.10% 15.40% 21.80% 19.90% 13.00%
Balad 9.90% 16.50% 45.10% 28.60% 2.20%
Salah Al-Din Beygee 31.30% 10.60% 17.30% 24.00% 18.40%
Tikrit 46.30% 14.00% 18.70% 19.60% 2.80%
Tooz.Khurmato 46.70% 16.70% 15.60% 16.00% 6.20%
1722. Usage of the SEVAT by MPCA partners and other sectors, Capacity Building, Data collection and
scoring
All partners (MPCA and non-MPCA) using the SEVAT questionnaire and the CWG PMT scoring model will be assisted by the
CWG with relevant capacity building and technical assistance. Partners who don’t possess in-house capacity to set a data
collection platform can benefit from the Kobo based questionnaire drafted by the CWG (available in Arabic, English and
Kurdish). The CWG will provide relevant trainings to enumerators and officers on the usage of the tool and the scoring model
and offer to partners the possibility to share anonymized data for scoring. Ensuring confidentiality of shared datasets, the
CWG will return the scoring together with a standardized data analysis to support interested partners in their programming.
The anonymized data received will be used, with partners’ consent, to generate district, governorate and nationwide
statistics, and to improve the efficiency of the scoring model.
23. Delivery mechanism
The below table contains a non-exhaustive list of available FSPs in Iraq (Annex X Financial Service Providers Mapping). While
partners are free to adopt different money delivery mechanisms, smart cards, money transfer agents and mobile money
transfers continue to be the preferred MPCA delivery mechanisms allowing CWG partners to deliver assistance to vulnerable
families in hard-to-reach areas efficiently. The proposal should contain an indication of the preferred delivery mechanism
and, preliminary market analysis of the available Financial Service Providers (FSP) and justification on the reasons behind the
selection of a given FSP in a certain area.
Table 9. Financial Service Providers List
Type of Delivery Location Website
Company Mechanism Product Name Governorate (s)
District (s)
covered
All districts in the
Iraq Wallet/ ZainCash Mobile Money Mobile Money Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil, https://www.zaincas
mentioned governorates.
(subsidiary of Zain) Service Provider Transfers Dohuk h.iq/en/
All districts in the
Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil, mentioned governorates,
Hassan Office Hawala Money Transfers
Dohuk aside from Kirkuk where
only Kirkuk City is served.
Mobile Money Mobile Money Ninewa, Kirkuk,
Asia Cell Mobile Cash
Service Provider Transfers Erbil, Dohuk
Mobile Money Mobile Money Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil,
Qi Card
Service Provider Transfers Dohuk
Hassan Office, Al- KRI,Ninewa,SAD,Anbar,
Direct money All districts in the
Munshed ,Alaq Djla and Hawala Kirkuk and Diyala,
transfer mentioned governorates.
Takan office Baghdad
Iraq Wallet/ ZainCash
http://asiahawala.iq
(subsidiary of Zain) and
Mobile Money Mobile Money and
Asia Hawla (subsidiary Iraq wide all
Service Provider Transfers https://www.zaincas
of Asia cell)
h.iq/en/about-us/
1824. MPCA monitoring framework
The MPCA monitoring framework includes the following indicators. The below are mandatory for MPCA proposal submission
and partners are required to incorporate them in their monitoring framework. Additionally, in late 2019 the CWG composed
a PDM Task Force in order to draft a common PDM tool. The tool will be finalized in the course of the first quarter of 2020
and provided to partners. PDM data will be compiled on quarterly basis and, subject to partners’ consent, results will be
shared with CWG partners and clusters.
Table 10. MPCA monitoring indicators
Indicator % Target
# of acute vulnerable population benefitting of MPCA NA 61,475.28
# of catastrophically vulnerable HHs in protracted vulnerability receiving 3 transfers of MPCA 15% 9,221.29
# of catastrophically vulnerable HHs receiving 3 transfers of MPCA 44% 27,049.12
# of extremely vulnerable HHs receiving 2 transfers of MPCA 41% 25,204.86
# of female headed HHs receiving MPCA 30% 18,442.58
# of male headed HHs receiving MPCA 70% 43,032.69
# of HHs likely eligible for MoLSA SSN and other governmental Social Protection Schemes 15% 9,221.29
# referrals for legal services (civil, civil status, HLP) services 12% 7,499.15
# referrals for protection services, including case management 7% 4,303.27
# referrals for LIVELIHOOD services 19% 11,526.61
# referrals for sector specific assistance (WASH, Education, Health etc) 30% 18,442.58
25. Assessment modality
Assessment for MPCA should be conducted exclusively using the SEVAT and its scoring model and administrated by a gender
balanced team of enumerators. The MPCA assessment modality follows a need-based approach. As per MPCA endorsed SOPs,
partners are recommended to assess entire neighborhoods of a given area in coordination with other actors. This approach,
while ensuring to the affected population equal possibilities to access humanitarian assistance, gives the opportunity to
identify gaps and enable an efficient allocation of resources. If partners assess an area but don’t have enough financial
resources to cover the entire identified caseload, they can contact the CWG for coordination and identification of potential
partners to cover the gaps.
Field visits conducted by the CWG team with implementing partners in 2019 indicate that the average time for the
administration of the complete SEVAT is about 30 minutes. It is important to ensure that the assessments are conducted in
full and not restricted to specific questions, as this may undermine the efficacy of the assessment, as well as humanitarian
coordination, to target the most vulnerable households; in addition it will also limit the scope for cross-sectoral referrals,
even if the household may not be eligible for MPCA.
26. Cash Assistance to recent returnees
During the last quarter of 2019 the rate of camp closures increased significantly, triggering returns and secondary
displacement. MPCA partners willing to assist the population affected by sudden closure of camps approached the CWG in
order verify the possibility to use the SEVAT and the same assessment methodology to recently return population. While the
tool can still work with the caveat that ideally 30 days should pass from the date of return/secondary displacement to ensure
efficiency of the scoring model, assessing only the recently returned population does not fully align with the needs based
approach described in the previous section. The CWG, in October 2019 issued a guidance note for partners (please find it
attached to these guidelines (Annex III. Guidance Note on Cash Assistance to Recent Returns). In order to support MPCA
partners in identification of priority locations, the CWG conducts an analysis of the IIC camp consolidation follow-up survey /
out of camp setting survey update on regular basis. The results are published on the following website:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiY2MxNjIzMzAtYzc0OC00MDI0LWE4ZWUtZmI4ZWExN2RlMGRhIiwidCI6IjA4ZGU4Nj
I4LTU5M2UtNDNmNS05Y2ViLWYzZTVkZDdhZTJjYiIsImMiOjF9
1927. Verification Questionnaire
The CWG MPCA SOPs foresee the usage of a verification questionnaire to be administrated to up to 20% of the caseload
assessed before proceeding with the delivery of the assistance. In case the eligibility results of the 20% of those randomly
selected for verification mismatches with the original results, the whole assessment should be invalidated. For the verification
questionnaire and its Kobo version, see attachments G. “Verification Form” and H. “Verification Form Kobo”
28. Post Distribution Monitoring
While the CWG is committed to provide a standardized tool for PDM during the first quarter of 2020, partners are strongly
recommended to indicate in their proposals their PDM procedures and intended indicators.
29. Segregation of roles and responsibilities
Clearly indicate how the organization intends to segregate the assessment functions from data collection, data processing
and scoring, verification, distribution and post distribution and which internal audit and control mechanisms are in place.
30. Protection mainstreaming
The project design are strongly recommended to articulate how protection is mainstreamed across the various phases of the
project and follow the below minimum criteria set by the Global Protection Cluster and by the Iraqi National Protection
Cluster (NPC):
- Prioritize safety & dignity and avoid causing harm: prevent and minimize as much as possible any unintended
negative effects of your intervention which can increase people's vulnerability to both physical and psychosocial
risks.
- Meaningful access: arrange for people’s access to assistance and services, in proportion to need and without any
barriers (e.g. discrimination). Pay special attention to individuals and groups who may be particularly vulnerable or
have difficulty accessing assistance and services.
- Accountability: set-up appropriate mechanisms through which affected populations can measure the adequacy of
interventions, and address concerns and complaints.
- Confidentiality: ensure all data collected through the project are maintained and treated confidentially.
- Compliance with humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Sharing of
distribution lists, bio-data of beneficiaries and other sensitive data with civil and/or military authorities is considered
as a breach of the humanitarian principles, the principle of confidentiality and principle of do no harm. Partners
should be able demonstrate they have the necessary capacity to inform all staff on the need to comply with the
above-mentioned principles.
Specific consideration should be paid in articulating how the project will support the prevention and mitigation of GBV from
the assessment to the post-distribution monitoring phase.
31. Child Protection Safeguard in Cash Distribution
Put in place a child and adult safeguarding policy. Consider informing beneficiaries of safeguarding policies and reporting
mechanisms. Carry out child protection policy and reference check for all employees, volunteers and partners. In 2019 the
CWG in collaboration with the Child Protection Working Group drafted a guidance note for Child Protection Safeguard in Cash
Distribution, attached with these guidelines19. It is recommended that submitted proposals take into account the content of
the guidance note and indicate relevant operational arrangements should be indicated.
Use the following link to identify location of child protection actors: LINK TO CP 4Ws:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/1uyUVhPtzuU2ao3co-
M7IPqB29s13GAeMioVI0XRGMgA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=110912187329057390385
19
Annex V.I: Guidance on Making a Decision to Distribute Cash to Child Headed HH 21082019; Annex V.II Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution
- Decision Tree - Cash for Food Distribution; Annex V.III Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree - MPCA
20You can also read
