C O N T E N T R E L E A S E

THE

CASH
BOOK
FEBRUARY 2024
THE A-Z OF CASH TRANSFERS
 The CashBook describes the procedures that WFP follows to send money to people.
INTRODUCTION These processes and procedures are detailed in four phases:

ENGAGE & UNDERSTAND DESIGN & PLAN

ASSIST & ASSURE REVIEW & RENEW

The manual aligns to the WFP Cash Policy and reflects the direction that our cash opera-
tions are going globally. It focuses specifically on delivery of cash for large-scale general
food assistance (GFA) and unconditional resource transfers (URT) activities designed to
meet food, nutrition, and other essential needs. While it applies to all interventions where
WFP is transferring money to people, there are some cash programmes with quite specif-
ic objectives – such as prevention of malnutrition, school feeding, resilience programmes,
etc – where this book needs to be read alongside the corresponding technical guidance.

Likewise, during emergencies, it is important to read the Emergency Pocketbook

and the CBT in Emergencies Toolkit, which give you the quick information that you
need about how to expedite or waive procedures, accelerate processes, or use fast
track approaches.

When transferring money through government systems as part of a WFP cash operation,
the manual still applies with some adaptation. You can find specific guidance for using
government systems here, and there is guidance on supporting government-to-person
payments systems forthcoming.

The CashBook is a ‘one stop shop’ for CBT Officers and other functional areas that sup-
port CBT to implement unrestricted cash transfers. It covers everything from initial steps
required to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of unrestricted cash, through
learning and adapting mature cash operations to make them even more impactful for the
people we serve. As such, this manual does not cover value vouchers. It also does not in-
clude programme activities like targeting, which is done regardless of the modality being
used (in kind food or cash). For ease of reading, links to guidance on these other topics
have been inserted where relevant.

The manual clarifies roles and responsibilities for cash transfers, so it supersedes the
previous cash manual, CBT business process model (BPM), and RACI.
It specifies accountability and responsibility for each of the steps and associated actions
and outputs.

The CashBook will be a live document, with an mobile/desktop Application being released
soon that will allow changes to be made and those with the App automatically notified.
As the CashBook was published, some organisational restructuring may impact account-
abilities and responsibilities outlined in the manual.

Please be aware, we will keep communicating these changes to you and if at any time you
have a question - write to Bronwyn Healy-Aarons and Francesco de Rosa, drop a line to
cashbook.support@wfp.org, or contact your Regional Bureau for advice. We will always
ensure you get your answer - and we’d love to hear from you! ENJOY!

OTHER IMPORTANT LINKS FOR CASH

WFP CASH POLICY | WFPgo CASH PROGRAMME GUIDANCE MANUAL

SENDING MONEY TO PEOPLE
THE CASHBOOK PROCESS FLOW

S TA R T H ER E F O R I M PA C T F U L C AS H O P ER AT I O N S

ENGAGE & UNDERSTAND

FINANCIAL
PEOPLE MARKETS
E C O SYS T E M S

E X T ER N A L C O O R D I N AT I O N

C AS H F E AS I B I L I T Y A N A LYS I S

DESIGN & PLAN

CASH OPERATIONAL DESIGN

CONSULT WITH PEOPLE WE ASSIST

D E T ER M I N E T R A N S F ER VA L U E

S E L E C T C AS H T R A N S F ER M E C H A N I S M

S E T U P PAY M E N T S O L U T I O N

DEVELOP IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

S T R AT E G Y A N D I D E N T I F Y SYS T E M S

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK MECHANISM

F I N A L I S E C AS H O P ER AT I O N A L D ES I G N A N D S O P

ASSIST & ASSU RE

I N F O R M P E O P L E W E AS S I S T O F C AS H O P ER AT I O N A L P L A N

PEOPLE’S DATA COMPILATION, CLEANING,

AND MANAGEMENT FOR REGISTRATION

IMPORT AND / OR COLLECT

CLEAN

D E D U P L I C AT E &
A D J U D I C AT E

M A I N TA I N

V ER I F Y

A P P LY E L I G I B I L I T Y C R I T ER I A A N D S E L E C T P E O P L E T O AS S I S T

D I S T R I B U T E PAY M E N T OR EVEN BETTER, DON’T AND TRANSFER

INSTRUMENTS TO PEO PLE DIRECTLY INTO THEIR ACCOUNT IF YOU CAN!

C O N F I R M T R A N S F ER VA L U E E N T I T L E M E N T P ER P ER S O N / H H

C R E AT E PAY M E N T L I S T S

A P P R O V E PAY M E N T L I S T S

R A I S E & P R O C ES S P U R C H AS E R EQ U I S I T I O N S ( P R S )

R A I S E & P R O C ES S P U R C H AS E O R D ER S ( P O S )

SEND MONEY TO PEOPLE!

T R A N S F ER R E C O N C I L I AT I O N

A N O M A LY D E T E C T I O N , F O L L O W U P
A N D R ES O L U T I O N

PRODUCE REPORTS

REV IEW & RENEW

P R O C ES S M O N I T O R I N G

C O N T I N U A L & M O N T H LY

P R I C ES A N D M A R K E T S

AS S U R A N C E M O N I T O R I N G

E V ERY 6 M O N T H S

OUTCOME MONITORING

F I N A N C I A L S ER V I C E P R O V I D ER S
AT L E AS T A N N U A L LY
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF:

C O O P ER AT I N G PA R T N ER S

I N C O R P O R AT E L E A R N I N G A N D A D J U S T / R E F I N E
C BT O P ER AT I O N S
IMPACT FUL CASH OPERATIONS:
THE CASH POLICY IN PRACTICE

When we send money to people, we can help them meet their immediate food, nutrition and other
essential needs in an efficient, effective, and assured way. Well-designed cash operations can also
support a range of other outcomes that help boost people’s financial resilience and food and nutrition
needs, along with helping them avoid negative coping mechanisms.

To design impactful cash operations, WFP commits to 8 actions that are backed by our new Cash Poli-
cy (2023). These are particularly relevant for COs as you put together your CSPs (see more on CSPs at
the end of this section) and implement your cash operations. They are also key to which partnerships
you pursue.

Find out more about these actions by clicking on the resources below each of them!

1. Apply a people-centred approach to cash operations and improve the experience for people
we assist at every touchpoint they have with WFP. This must include representation of all people
we assist – including women and girls, people with disabilities, the LGBTQI+ community, youth,
elderly, minorities, and all other people we serve. Understand their preferences, listen to their
experiences, and work with them to figure out how cash operations can best help them, including
how you can best communicate with them, and what type of assistance works best. User-experi-
ence design and user-journeys are key tools that help you design programmes around people’s
experiences.

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Putting people at the centre of WFP cash operations

2. Expand the use of unrestricted cash to ensure flexibility, choice, and maximize efficiency. Cash
is unrestricted by definition. It can be exchanged for any goods or services so by sending people
money, we avoid them selling or swapping all or part of their in-kind assistance– often at a consid-
erable loss - in order to buy what they actually need. Removing restrictions on assistance is about
respecting people’s choices and trusting them to decide for themselves what they need most.
• CBT White Paper Series: Unrestricted Cash for Essential Needs: Giving People the Power
of Choice

3. Design cash operations that are responsive to essential needs and better geared towards
healthy diets. Food and nutrition needs are inherently linked to other essential needs that people
have, such as rent, medical bills, transportation, clothes or school fees. People make hard choices
everyday about how to use what little resources they have across these many critical needs, and
when there is not enough money to cover it all, they make trade-offs for example between having
enough to eat or paying their bills, whether to buy more filling but less nutritious foods that often
cost less or whether to purchase fewer but more nutritious foods. When we analyse these needs
holistically, calculate how much they cost to meet each month, and determine the gap between
the amount of money needed and what the household has, we are better able to understand
food and nutrition needs. It also puts us in a better position to tailor our assistance to meet these
needs, and advocate with others to help do so too.
• CBT White Paper Series: Unrestricted Cash for Essential Needs: Giving People the Power
of Choice

• Everyone deserves a healthy diet

• Essential Needs Approach Collection

4
4. Set up cash operations to provide money to people in emergencies quickly and safely,
including as anticipatory action. People affected by crisis often have a range of expenses they
need to cover quickly: they need to eat, they need to move out of harm’s way, they need to find
new accommodation, they may need medical care. Getting money to people fast helps them nav-
igate through crises. When we do so, the money we send has to be safe for people to receive and
use, and, whenever possible, from the onset of a crisis sent to people in ways that lay the foun-
dations for them to recover and become more financially resilient in the longer term, such as by
sending money to women or transferring money to their own accounts. When a crisis is imminent
and predictable (for example, climate-related), money can even be sent ahead of time, so people
can protect themselves, secure their assets and livelihoods, or move out of harm’s way. This can
reduce human suffering and help decrease the cost of humanitarian and recovery interventions.
• CBT White Paper Series: Sending Money in Crisis: So that People Can Protect Themselves and
Recover Faster

• CBT in Emergencies Toolkit

5. Protect the purchasing power of families in contexts of economic volatility. Inflation, depre-
ciation, and hard currency deficits affect many of the economies where we operate. When econ-
omies are unstable, it is more important than ever to keep sending people money that maintains
flexibility and gives them choice, and that helps sustain the economy when that money is spent lo-
cally on essentials that people need. By adjusting transfer values, negotiating favourable exchange
rates, and sometimes changing the currency of transfers, you can maintain the purchasing power
of people receiving transfers from WFP and help keep money flowing in the local economy, which
supports livelihoods and helps maintain food systems.
• CBT White Paper Series: Cash in Volatile Economies

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Safeguarding people’s purchasing power and supporting local economies

6. Enable digital financial inclusion through cash transfers whenever possible by transferring
money to people’s accounts and by investing in financial capabilities (among others). Technolog-
ical developments have opened new opportunities for people who are underserved by tradition-
al financial service providers – many of whom are among the people we assist. Online financial
products and services can reach people even in remote locations and allow them to receive, send,
spend, and save money making it possible for them to run small businesses and build a credit his-
tory that opens up access to other financial products such as micro credit. By transferring money
into people’s own accounts, linking them with financial services tailored to their needs, and by
working with them to build their financial capabilities, you can help accelerate their digital financial
inclusion.
• Enable People’s Digital Financial Inclusion through Cash Transfers

7. Prioritize women as primary recipients of cash transfers on behalf of their families. Wom-
en’s economic power has huge potential for strengthening the financial resilience of families,
communities, and countries – in addition to the multiple positive impacts it has on the well-being
of women themselves and their families. By directing WFP cash transfers to women, and coupling
this with financial inclusion initiatives, you can give women in the communities you assist a first
stepping stone to enter the formal economy.
• CBT White Paper Series: Prioritizing Women in Receiving Cash Transfers on Behalf of Their
Families

• Prioritizing Women

5
8. Support governments to strengthen their cash transfer programmes and govern-
ment-to-person (G2P) payment systems. Governments can provide sustainable and scalable
cash transfers to people through their social protection systems – often reaching hundreds of
millions more people than we can. By working with, through, and in complement to government
systems, and by offering technical assistance to governments, you can help strengthen G2P sys-
tems. By doing so we can help create a viable alternative to humanitarian cash transfers for peo-
ple who continue to need assistance after WFP’s transfers stop as well as for people affected by
crisis or shocks in the future.
• CBT White Paper Series: Supporting Governments: Build Financially Inclusive and Assured
G2P (Government-to-Person) Payments Systems

• Government-to-Person (G2P) Payments Services Catalogue | WFPgo

• How to apply the Cash Assurance Framework when transferring money through govern-
ment systems | WFPgo

Plan for cash in your Country Strategic Plan (CSP). Using cash is a strategic decision to increase the im-
pact of the assistance we provide to people. The formulation of the CSP is the right time to elevate the
discussion on how best to use cash and to integrate it into the vision of the country office. If user-ex-
perience design is foreseen as part of programme design and implementation, if cash transfers are
used whenever possible, if an essential needs approach is clearly outlined, or if supporting women’s
economic empowerment is already an objective, you are already well on your way to being able to
send people money in a way that delivers better outcomes for them.

The development of a new CSP begins when you start preparing the evaluation of the previous CSP. In

BACK TO THE FLOW

other words, to make sure that the opportunities cash can bring in your context are brought out and
well-integrated in new CSPs, you need to engage before the new CSP is even being formulated. Below
are the key moments to engage in the CSP development process:

• The formulation of the TORs for the CSP evaluation during the evaluation inception phase

• Review of the findings and recommendations of the CSP evaluation

• The development of the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSD-
CF) and the Common Country Analysis (CCA)

• The analysis phase of the new CSP

• The visioning workshop for the new CSP

• The development of the CSP package (CSP draft, the Line of Sight (LoS), partnership action plan
(PAP), Country Portfolio Budget (CPB), a.o.)

Throughout the CSP formulation process – from evaluation of the previous CSP to approval of the new
CSP– think about the 8 actions mentioned above and how these can contribute to a country office
strategy that seeks to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and create better and longer-lasting outcomes
for people we assist including (and perhaps most importantly) in emergencies.

For more guidance on how to integrate cash in the CSP, please see section III.5. on Cash-based trans-
fers of “Key considerations and resources for designing Country Strategic Plans”.

6
PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Operations (usually the DCD)

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT and relevant Activity Managers with support from other functions (such as Protection, AAP, Gender,
Disability Inclusion, RAM / M&E etc)

ACTION:
The 2023 Cash Policy puts people at the centre of our operations right from the beginning.
People-centredness is so important, we made it the very first principle of the policy.

Cash works better and achieves more when it takes into account how people use and spend their
money in their day-to-day lives in their local markets. Do they have money in their pockets, or do they
transfer it from their phones? Do they already use bank cards, mobile wallets, or other digital tools
– and do they like it? Where do they shop? Can they buy everything they need at the local market?
Can everyone access financial services and markets or are there barriers for some groups? Getting a
general sense of how cash and markets work in the communities we assist will allow us to tailor our
approach to the context.

Assessments – such as the Essential Needs Assessment – are a primary source of information to un-

BACK TO THE FLOW

derstand people’s needs and preferences, including in relation to cash. Assessments also help identi-
fy barriers and challenges people are facing and which people are unable to buy and access the basics
of life. These assessments must use a gender, age, and inclusion lens, to ensure the needs of women,
people with disabilities, LGBTQI+, and minorities are involved and included in findings and analysis.
Throughout this manual, whenever we refer to the ‘people we assist’ – we mean everyone, including
those with specific needs, from specific groups. This approach is crucial for designing high quality cash
operations that meet the needs and mitigate risks for all members of the community.

Together with assessments, continually speaking to people directly and consulting with protection and
civil society organisations is also very important – both formally and informally. Programme and cash
teams will have regular engagement with the people we assist and the communities they live in, so
the information we ‘collect’ during meetings, consultations, and other engagements could be useful
to cash operational design. So make sure to compile as relevant, noting the source and date, along-
side formal assessment data and reports. And don’t forget to read carefully existing assessments and
community engagement initiative reports, and don’t forget to engage with representatives who might
already have loads of useful information.

The following are minimum information you need to find out about people at the ‘Engage and Under-
stand’ phase, to inform the ‘Design and Plan’ phase. While a fully-fledged Essential Needs Assessment
will probably be the best way to do this, if you can’t do the full assessment at this stage work with oth-
er teams – mainly RAM and other Programme units as appropriate – to ensure you understand what
people need, prefer, and their local contexts. Please keep in mind that the needs and preferences of
people vary based on different factors such as their sex, age, disabilities, displacement status, level
of financial/digital literacy, etc – so make sure you’re talking to all these groups (and disaggregating
your data accordingly). The below explores the areas you should engage with people on, to ensure
you have a good understanding and evidence to support your cash feasibility analysis and initial
design process.

7
UNDERSTAND PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES. The first point of departure of cash programmes should
always be understanding the people and communities we set out to support and identify potential
obstacles to cash assistance. Consider the following:

Needs – What are people’s main unmet needs? Why are these needs unmet? Can money help people
to meet these needs? Do some people have specific needs – such as women, people with disabilities,
youth, or elderly?

Money – How do people use it in day-to-day life? Is money in people’s pockets, in bank accounts, or
on phones? Do women control their own money and accounts? Are there differences between older
and younger groups in terms of how they use money and payment solutions?

Markets –Where do people shop? Can everyone access the local market? What do they buy? Can they
get everything they need from local shops?

Literacy – Can most people read and write? Are there differences between literacy rates – including
financial and digital literacy – among different groups (eg. men and women, old and young, minorities,
people with disabilities, etc)?

Connectivity – How connected are people via mobile phones and how is internet coverage? Do peo-
ple (including women, elderly, people with disabilities, minorities, among others) have access to mo-
bile phones, access to internet and electricity coverage?

Gender dynamics – Do some genders face specific barriers to accessing assistance? Are there barri-
ers to financial inclusion based on specific social norms?

BACK TO THE FLOW

Household dynamics – How do people typically make decisions about expenses within their house-
holds? How do they cope if they can’t meet their household needs with the money they have? If safe
to ask – who makes the decisions about how to spend money in the household?

Social and cultural dynamics – What, if any, tensions exist between different groups (ethnic, social,
generational, or displaced/hosts) and how cash-based transfers could exacerbate or mitigate those
tensions?

Identification – Do people predominantly have identification? Who doesn’t have access to identifica-
tion?

Freedom of movement – Can people move around freely? Can they easily get to markets, banks, and
other important infrastructure?

UNDERSTAND CAPACITIES AND VULNERABILITIES: Cash operations should be designed around the
needs of the people most vulnerable to food insecurity and malnutrition in each context, to have cash
assistance that meets the needs of everyone. Consider the following questions:

• Which groups are most at risk, marginalised, or vulnerable? And why?

• What would work best for people to register, access, and spend their money? Are there any risks
for people we should mitigate?
• What strengths do communities have that CBT programmes can build on? What are the challenges
they would face that we should be aware of?
• What specific barriers would different marginalized groups such as women, youth, unaccompa-
nied children/child-headed households, LGBTQI+, displaced people, elderly, persons with disabil-
ities, or people living with HIV face when registering for, accessing, and spending cash transfers?
Why do these barriers exist? And how can we overcome them?
• What is the security situation and how is it perceived by different groups?
• What risks would collecting personal data on refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), or cri-
sis-affected people involve? 8
• What are the main national social protection systems and which groups and geographical areas
do they cover?
• Understand preferences: Wherever possible, our cash programmes should align with existing and
informed preferences1 people already have. Understanding the distribution, origin, and determi-
nants of people’s preferences as they relate to the design of cash programmes allows us to design
and plan cash operations that work for people. Consider the following questions:
• How would people prefer to receive their money and why?
• Would people prefer smaller transfers over a longer period/more instalments or bigger transfers
across shorter timeline/fewer instalments?
• What payment systems are people using and why? (To collect this information, we recommend
you use and tailor Standard Operating Procedure 1: Conducting Information Sessions on Payment
Service Providers)
• Does the preferred choice of payment system vary across groups or geographies?
• Do prices change over time and how does this impact people’s spending behaviours?
• How would people prefer to participate in the design of cash programmes?
• What are the preferred channels and trusted sources (traditional and digital) used by people to
access and share information? And how can and should we communicate across different groups?
• What are the preferred / trusted ways to get help and report complaints about service delivery?
• What are the preferred languages?

DO:

• Work with RAM; if possible, conduct an Essential Needs Assessment use the results of a recently
conducted one! If not an ENA, use another in-depth assessment to ensure you have an adequate
evidence base for your programme. Essential Needs Assessments use quantitative and qualita-

BACK TO THE FLOW

tive tools to answer the questions throughout this technical note, so they’re likely to be the most
efficient way to find out everything above. ENAs might be conducted periodically or conducted on
an ad-hoc basis to inform the design of a specific programme. They might be conducted by WFP
alone or jointly with other humanitarian partners and governments.

• Use the findings and align with other assessments, evaluations, or ad hoc data collection efforts
that might be ongoing – particularly those run by Protection, AAP, Gender, and other teams con-
ducting people-centred activities.

• Gather information from inter-agency Cash Working Groups (if active), Protection Working
Groups, and data/reports from Government/other humanitarian cash organisations.

• Work with Communications and CFM teams to produce key messages, sensitization material, and
Q&As prior to undertaking assessment activities – so people are aware of what we are doing.

• CBT has also developed tools for engaging with communities on digital financial inclusion (DFI)
and women’s economic empowerment (WEE) that could be useful at this stage – or the next.

• Consult with community leaders, civil society organisations, and groups representing vulnerable
individuals – ONLY if safe to do so (for example: Organisations for Persons with Disabilities, youth
groups, LGBTQ+ networks, women’s collectives, and ethnic minority groups, etc.)

• Through your protection colleagues, reach out to the protection cluster and local protection or-
ganisations to discuss the feasibility of cash programming from a protection perspective.

• Triangulate information from all the various sources before drawing conclusions.
DON’T:

• Miss out on opportunities to engage people, especially when they are on the move. You may have
limited opportunities to consult people experiencing displacement to understand their needs and
how to adapt cash programmes accordingly.

• Raise expectations or go into detail of planned cash programmes (amount, targeting, etc.) – these
will be discussed with the communities we assist during the later ‘Design and Plan’ phase.

• Assume that community representatives always represent everyone in the community – make
sure to engage directly (unless unsafe) with women, LGBTQI+ groups, Organisations for Persons
with Disabilities, youth groups, minority groups, among others, to ensure everyone’s voice is heard
and factored into your cash operational design.

• Put people at risk or increase tensions by consulting specific groups or individuals and not others.
Put people in harm’s way by consulting them (for instance by organising community consultations
with ‘those with HIV’ or ‘GBV survivors’ – make sure to not label or ostracise people).

• Over consult! Make sure you liaise with other WFP colleagues to go and see people once together,
such as RAM or other programme teams. Try not to take up people’s time by knowing what data
you all need, how it will be analysed and used, and don’t ask questions just because they
are ‘interesting’.

BACK TO THE FLOW

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The purpose of engaging and understanding people’s communities, preferences, and vulnerabilities
is to design cash programmes that are effective and safe. Capture this in either an Essential Needs
Assessment Report or use a simple template to document your findings.

This document can also be used to for reporting purposes and any audits of the cash transfers design
process, while serving as a basis for more detailed consultations or cash SOPs.

KEY LINKS:
• World Bank literacy rate index
• GSMA mobile connectivity index
• UNDP gender inequality index
• User Experience Design for Cash Operations | WFPgo
• CBT and Protection | WFPgo
• DFI/WEE Her Money Her Account
• 2021 – WFP Community Engagement Strategy for Accountability to Affected Populations
(AAP) | World Food Programme
• ICARA - Integrated cross cutting context analysis and risk assessment (wfp.org)
• Qualitative Interviews: Guidance Document
• Focus Group Discussions: Guidance Document
• Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
• Disability Inclusion in Focus Group Discussions
• RAM Dataviz Reports Explorer
• Essential Needs Analysis Collection Page
• Targeting and Prioritization | WFPgo
• Standard Operating Procedure: Conducting Information Sessions on Payment Service
Providers
10
MARKETS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Supply Chain and Head of Research Assessment and Monitoring

RESPONSIBLE:
Supply Chain and RAM are the jointly responsible functions in WFP for undertaking market as-
sessments. This means providing evidence to cash (and other) programmes through the accurate
collection and analysis of data and information on the dynamics, price evolution, and overall strengths
and risks of targeted markets. When market assessments are conducted with or by external partners
and/or Governments, SC and RAM remain responsible for managing the relationship and data ex-
change agreements, to ensure oversight and quality of analysis/services delivered – in line with WFP
latest methodologies and systems.

Programme teams, including CBT, Activity Managers, and Nutrition must be consulted to:
1) Affirm target areas and locations to define the market assessment plan; 2) Validate items and
services which comprise essential needs (including nutritious foods); and 3) Review results to finalize
recommendations or relevant risk mitigation actions which need to be pursued with as part of the
operations’ design.)

Programme teams, such as Nutrition, can request a SC and RAM technical assessment of market
capacity to provide nutritious foods to recommend on the types of products that would need to be
available for people to have access to a healthy diet.

BACK TO THE FLOW

CBT/Programme officers need to be engaged in understanding local markets. They are encouraged
to accompany market assessment exercises as a means of getting first-hand perspective and get to
know how markets work behind the scenes – super useful when making recommendations.

ACTION:
Understanding how markets function and prices evolve in WFP areas of operation is essential to good
cash operational design.

One of the strengths of cash programming is that it works with local market systems and contributes
to the whole community through its ‘multiplier effects’ – which is a fancy way to say that other people
(including local businesses, market stall owners, and farmers among others) also benefit from the
money we send to people. It is WFP policy to support local markets and providing cash to people to
purchase locally is one of the best ways we can do this.

Market are complex systems that do change over time: we refer to marketplaces as the physical loca-
tions where buyers and seller come together to trade goods and services (these are also sometimes
online/virtual – but this is less common where WFP works). Seasonality, changed regulations, local and
global events can impact the market and affect both supply and demand, making market monitoring
critical for WFP activities.
To obtain solid contextual understanding, a systematic approach in gathering evidence from the rele-
vant market actors (including people we assist, customers, traders, small farmers, cooperatives, retail-
ers, and wholesalers) is essential to answer the following questions throughout the cash programme
design and implementation:

• Can all people access the market (including people with disabilities, women, the elderly, and
others) or do some groups / individuals struggle? Are we planning operations in places where
people have ready access to markets to buy all the things they need?
• What type and how much food is available in the market? Can people meet their dietary needs?
• Are essential items available in sufficient quantities?
11
• What are the prices like? Do prices change often and for what reasons?
• How do people pay at the market (on credit, in small instalments, in cash, via mobile money
directly at the shop, by mobile money transfers)?
• How are market structures organized (big shops with a monopoly versus smaller sellers, e.g
groups of women selling home-grown fruit/veg)?
• Who supplies the market? Local food producers? Suppliers from further away? Is the market
dependent on imports? Are there any problems with market supply – and if so, what are their
causes?
• Are sellers struggling to finance themselves to buy their merchandise? And could this explain food
shortages?
• Is there internet coverage and mobile money agents at the market?
• Are sellers equipped to accept payments digitally from their customers?

How can you understand markets? There are corporate tools available to use for market analysis and
referenced hereunder. These tools are recommended to be used both at the onset of programmatic
design but also for monitoring purposes (see section ‘Economic and Market Monitoring’).

BACK TO THE FLOW

This way we ensure consistency and can analyse changes to common indicators through time.
The Market Functionality Index (or MFI) is a WFP corporate tool that benchmarks marketplace
functionality in a quantitative manner across nine dimensions (assortment, availability, price, resil-
ience, competition, infrastructure, services, food quality, and access/protection). These are essential to
understand the interactions between traders / customers and the transparency / predictability of the
features ruling the supply and prices’ trends. The MFI comes with a package that supports the entire
cycle of a market assessment: from the design phase to data collection, and storage, up to the analy-
sis, and reporting of results. Remember, the MFI is modality agnostic – meaning it applies to all types
of CO programmes and aims to provide valuable evidence about market functionality for both in-kind
and cash operations (but is not used for modality selection). For questions or support during the MFI
implementation or analysis and interpretation of results contact global.mfi@wfp.org.

Analysing prices is important from the outset of cash programme design and to complement the
overarching market functionality analysis. Prices can give insight into many different drivers that
influence the functioning of markets and that are relevant for food and other essential needs pro-
gramming. Remember that price fluctuation and even volatility is common in the contexts where WFP
operates – particularly as the effects of conflict and COVID continue to have global ramifications. In
addition to these, drivers that can impact on the effectiveness of our programmes include the mac-
ro-economic context, natural or human-induced disasters, physical infrastructure, and weather, har-
12
vest cycles, and lean season – the latter of which can lead to seasonality in the prices. So, it is import-
ant to contextualise price data within these realities. Get the relevant teams involved in the process of
identifying the geographical coverage areas and the items/services that need to be included in price
analysis – based on the programmatic objectives. Check out our guide on how to respond to these
risks in Recommendations for Doing Cash in Volatile Economies.

To complement the above, the Fill the Nutrient Gap Analysis can provide an understanding of
whether food availability at the market is adequate to meet the nutrient needs of different household
members, what amount of money is needed by households to meet their nutrient needs through the
market, and how different types and levels of assistance compare to each other regarding access and
choice of nutrient-dense foods.

The above tools should be used to identify any possible market risks, so we can:

1. Design simple and effective mitigation measures (found here) to reduce their likelihood or
impact. For support contact global.mfi@wfp.org and cashbook.support@wfp.org.

2. Ensure feasibility of cash-based programming to meet its objectives by detailing availabil-

ity and affordability of relevant items. Complemented with tools such as Fill the Nutrient Gap
(discussed above).

3. Develop and implement impactful market development activities that will support and en-
hance the cash programme. The Market System Analysis (MSA) is the corporate tool to conduct
an in-depth analysis, to determine why the market is not functioning and to select the Market
Development Activities that WFP can support to tackle root-causes of market inefficiencies (such
as absence of markets or competition, high product losses, high item prices, missing market actor

BACK TO THE FLOW

linkages etc.). The Market Development Activities should be integrated into the intervention design
and operational plan, as they will run in parallel to the cash assistance in targeted areas. For sup-
port, contact hq.retailmarketdevelopment@wfp.org

These tools and the understanding of the market should not be used in isolation to decide which mo-
dality or mechanism to use. Such decisions are informed by a variety of information sources, most im-
portantly what people we assist prefer, but also strategic factors, donor preferences, and many others
(find more on this in ‘Modality Selection and Cash Feasibility’ and ‘Cash Transfer Mechanism Selection’
sections of the CashBook).

Keep in mind, people use markets every day regardless of WFP providing cash to people or not. Our
job is to make sure we work with market systems and mitigate risks – but always remember, the
benefits of cash programming are likely to be significant and these must be factored in. Remember to
make market assessment results and reports available to partners, including governments.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Short analysis to be included in the ‘Cash Operational Design and SOP’ as per the instructions in that
section of the CashBook and its supporting annexes; MFI quantitative results and the MFI full report;
if relevant, an MSA report; if relevant, a Market Price bulletin; and FNG analysis. It is recommended to
undertake an MFI every two years.

KEY LINKS:
• The Market Functionality Index (MFI) | WFPgo
• Market System Analysis (MSA) Guidance | WFPgo
• Collecting Prices for Food Security Programming: The how and why of price data collection
at WFP
• Fill the Nutrient Gap | World Food Programme (wfp.org)
• Fill the Nutrient Gap and Cash-Based Transfers
• RAM Dataviz Economic Explorer Price Database
13
FINANCIAL ECOSYSTEM
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Finance

RESPONSIBLE:
In the CO: CBT, FIN, TEC, PROC, possibly RAM.

In the RB: CBT, FIN, PRO, SCOP, TEC.

In HQ: FINB, FINT, SCOPG, CBT.

ACTION:
The financial context in which WFP operates impacts if and how people can receive money, at which
cost, and through which transfer mechanism. COs therefore need an in-depth understanding of this
context to design effective cash transfer operations.

The financial ecosystem refers to the providers, regulations, and services available in a given market
where WFP operates (FSPs, regulators, government, businesses, technology providers) fulfilling the
financial needs of the people we assist, while making people’s financial inclusion possible. So, the
CO needs to be familiar with how this ecosystem works in their context. The results of this step will
inform the phase ‘Set Up Payment Solution’ of the sending money process.

At the minimum, the activities required to understand the financial ecosystem are to:

BACK TO THE FLOW

HAVE CLEAR OPERATIONAL NEEDS AND PRIORITIES: the CO CBT and programme team should
have clear priorities for the operation, including how many recipients there will be, where they will
be located, whether they already have some form of ID and an account, their financial and digital
literacy, and if possible, where and how they would like to receive the money. The technical note and
standard operating procedure to collect and process information from recipients on how to receive
the money will guide you on how to implement the choice model. The CO FIN team and the internal
cash working group, if one exists, otherwise the CO’s focal points for each of the CBT cross-functions
– need to be informed and understand these considerations and factor them into the analysis of the
financial ecosystem so they can work efficiently and in a focused way.

UNDERSTAND THE COUNTRY’S FINANCIAL MARKET: the CO CBT programme team needs to have a
clear view on whether the financial service providers (FSPs) are able to provide money to people: do
they operate in the areas that WFP needs to be in, do they perform well enough, do their products fit
the needs of the people and do they comply with WFP’s contractual requirements. This analysis needs
to be rooted in the understanding of the broader context, including of other context-related risks,
like macroeconomic shocks, currency volatility, and conflicts. Depending on needs and plans, the CO
should identify companies offering banking services, mobile money, insurance, remittance and fintech
products among others.

FINANCIAL SECTOR INTELLIGENCE (FSI): The most comprehensive tool to understand financial
ecosystems is the Financial Sector Intelligence (FSI), the recommended assessment to prepare for any
cash operation. The FSI requires cross-functional participation and provides detailed information on
the conduciveness of cash in a country, as well as the list of recommended FSPs that can be invited
to a tender. The FSI process includes initial conversations with the regulator and relevant FSPs. The
resulting FSP roster is valid for 2 years, with the possibility of further extension through an NFR
provided that the financial sector has not dramatically changed. The FSI comprises of the first part of
the Due Diligence process, which is mandatory and speeds up the process at the tender stage.

14
To initiate the FSI and rapid FSI the CO FIN team contacts the RB CBT Fin team, and a call is organised
with FINB. As the assessment is a cross-functional effort, a workshop with the relevant units (CBT,
SCOP, TEC) is organised. The FSI is completed by the CO FIN Officer, in consultation with the regional
and HQ counterparts, while for the Rapid FSI the FINB team has a stronger involvement. Completed
FSIs are shared with the CD, DCD and CO and RB Finance teams, while UN interagency documents are
available on the FSI page.

The FSI is one of the ways to generate shortlist of companies, there are other alternatives to
shortlist companies to be invited to WFP’s tenders. A good shortlist requires that the CO has a good
understanding of the companies’ financial strength, their ability to provide the requested financial
services, qualification to participate to WFP tenders (like years in operations), experience with bulk
payments, geographic spread, and other minimum requirements, that can be discussed and agreed
upon locally. These are the alternatives:

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST: when the CBT and Fin teams have a clear idea of their requirements
(meaning, when they are quite sure about the services that they want to procure) the Expression Of
Interest (EOI) is a way for WFP to understand which suppliers are interested in offering such products
in the given market.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: conversely, when the CBT and Fin teams are not very sure about the
products they are looking for, and are exploring the market, the most suitable procurement process
is the Request for Information (RFI), where they ask vendors to provide information on the available
products.

RAPID FINANCIAL SECTOR INTELLIGENCE: this method can be chosen if the CO needs to urgently
understand the market and based on a particular scope of work. However, if the financial sector

BACK TO THE FLOW

has substantially changed, requiring the scope of work to be changed, you may need to re-validate the
shortlist.

FINANCIAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT (FCA): was previously used for FSP shortlisting . Such shortlists
are still valid in some countries, but no further FCAs will be carried out as they have been replaced by
the more comprehensive FSI. The FCA can be also extended by another year through an NFR with a
valid justification.

To understand the local financial services market and convince potential FSPs to participate to
WFP’s tenders, CO teams are encouraged and highly recommended to engage early with FSPs by
participating to specialized engagement events with the financial sector and by organising financial
sector forums with regulators, FSPs and technology companies, fairs, meetings and/or calls with
potential vendors. Guidance material and templates to set up these forums are available. It is
important to involve procurement, to comply with WFP’s rules.

The CBT CO team will review any existing assessment, EOIs and RFIs, and consult with CO PROC to
identify the most suitable option to shortlist an adequate number of companies in view of a tender.
Regardless of how they are generated, shortlists need to be recommended by the Local Contracts
Committee (LPCC) and approved by the Procurement Authority (usually CD / DCD). Remember that if
you are in a situation that qualifies for direct contracting and allows for a waiver, the shortlist is not
required, provided approval of the LPCC and delegated authorities.

All the options above are also valid for regional and global cash operations, but the delegation of
authority rests with the region or HQ respectively.

A point to notice is that financial markets evolve, and so should shortlists. So, if an assessment has
generated a shortlist, and in the meantime new, viable FSPs enter the market, or some FSPs become
unviable, it is the prerogative of the CO units to request the shortlists to be amended.

15
UNDERSTAND AVAILABLE PAYMENT SCHEMES and their main characteristics. The FSI is a good
starting point for this, but it may need to be complemented by other sources. The CO cross functional
team should be aware of these schemes, and particularly whether they are local or regional and their
level of interoperability (between MNOs, between banks and MNOs or just banks), if they support
Government-to-Person (G2P) payments, the use cases that they support (Person-to-Person, Business-
to-Person etc), who are the participants, who are the payment aggregators, and regulations that might
affect cash transfers (e.g., limits or fees for cash withdrawals or fees for digital transfers).

UNDERSTAND HOW TO SOURCE LOCAL CURRENCY: Local currencies primarily are sourced through
the below main sources: competitive process of purchasing local currencies by soliciting prices from
multiple bidders, exchange through FSPs for Cash Based Transfers via FSP agreements, local currency
receipts from service provision and contribution. Refer to the ED Circular on Sourcing Local Currency
for WFP Operations for more detailed guidance.

UNDERSTAND THE CONDUCIVENESS OF THE FINANCIAL ECOSYSTEM TO DIGITAL FINANCIAL

INCLUSION AND WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT: WFP can provide people first-time access
to a bank or mobile money accounts in their name and can help governments do the same. For
this purpose, the programme team should assess limitations and opportunities to digital financial
inclusion and women’s economic empowerment through cash transfers through a basic diagnostic
to assess demand, supply and regulatory barriers preventing people from benefiting from financial
services. The diagnostic toolkit and the external resources below will help you.

If you want to conduct a more detailed DFI diagnostic the CBT HQ team can support, so that the
diagnostic can inform your programme design and advocacy efforts with the financial sector or
government bodies.

BACK TO THE FLOW

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The following outputs are required from a financial ecosystem assessment:

• An assessment of the financial sector, in the form of the FSI report.

• If a tender is being planned, a shortlist of companies suitable for cash operations, to be endorsed
by the PCC.

• An understanding of how to source local currency.

KEY LINKS:
• The Market Functionality Index (MFI) | WFPgo
• Market System Analysis (MSA) Guidance | WFPgo
• Collecting Prices for Food Security Programming: The how and why of price data collection
at WFP
• Fill the Nutrient Gap | World Food Programme (wfp.org)
• Fill the Nutrient Gap and Cash-Based Transfers
• RAM Dataviz Economic Explorer Price Database

16
EXTERNAL CASH COORDINATION
AND COLLABORATION
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
Head of Cash Based Transfers and/ or Head of Programme. Depending on the context (IASC, mixed,
refugee or neither) responsibility may also be joint with a WFP CWG programmatic co-chair.

ACTION:
Cash coordination is a process that brings humanitarian actors together to discuss where, how and
who will deliver cash transfers in an emergency response. Cash Working Groups (CWGs) are inter-
agency platforms that allow actors, including WFP, to share operational information, collaborate and/
or harmonize with each other around cash transfer programming.

This can include feasibility assessments, monitoring indicators and other technical programmatic
tools, such as minimum or survival minimum expenditure baskets (S/MEB) and transfer values (TV) for
multi-purpose cash assistance (MPC). The aim of cash coordination is to maximize resources, enable
complementarity, reduce gaps, and limit duplications, so that the most vulnerable can get more – and
better quality – cash in simple and convenient ways.

BACK TO THE FLOW

In 2022, the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Cash Coordination model was endorsed,
this attempts to strengthen the predictability, effectiveness and accountability of CWGs. This model
makes OCHA and UNHCR accountable for cash coordination globally and at country level. OCHA is
accountable as a non-programmatic CWG co-chair in IASC and mixed settings only (meaning that
they only provide information management support, since they are not operational), while UNHCR is
accountable as a programmatic CWG co-chair in refugee contexts only.

The model also prioritizes and advocates for local and national actors to co-chair CWGs. WFP is part
of the global Cash Advisory Group (gCAG) that provides cash coordination support to countries and
develops standard guidelines to help implement (and review the application) of the new model.

HOW TO DO IT:

• Attend and participate in Cash Working Group (CWG) meetings.

• Represent WFP cash operations and affected people’s needs in inter-agency CWGs.
• Share WFP in-country cash operational coverage and distribution information with the CWG.
• Engage with cash international/ national/ local actors, agencies, governments and donors.
• Coordinate and/ or collaborate with cash actors to deliver cash assistance, where feasible.
• Align/influence CWG discussions based on WFP programming.
• Identify ways to harmonize and coordinate approaches to deliver cash.
• Contribute technical inputs on inter-agency cash guidelines, protocols etc in-country.
• Involve relevant WFP CO staff on inputs on specific CWG technical guidance.
• Liaise with Food Security, Nutrition, and Protection Clusters / Working Groups colleagues in-
country to ensure links and complementarity, as well as technical and operational support.
• Be conversant about the new IASC Cash Coordination Model (see FAQs) and the new model
transition plan.
• Be aware of WFP’s internal position of this model and red lines.
• Know the ways to elevate concerns to CBT Delivery Support Team and the gCAG if needed.
17
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

• Depending on the context, priorities and resources available, WFP may want and/or be able to:
• Co-chair the CWG as a programmatic co-chair alongside OCHA, UNHCR, or other co-chair.
• Lead a CWG sub-working group or technical task team (e.g. on assessments, targeting, MEB,
MPC transfer value calculations, monitoring, links with social protection etc).
• Develop CWG technical guidance on specific cash-related topics.
• Support links between humanitarian cash and social protection.
• Collaborate with UN agencies, NGOs or government to jointly programme or complement
assistance to increase effectiveness of cash transfers.

For that, you will need to:

• Be familiar with the UN Common Cash Statement (UNCCS) to increase collaborative

procurement, harmonized or complementary programme approaches and data sharing or data
interoperability between WFP, UNHCR and UNICEF. WFP also has an internal ‘If Asked’ document
on the UNCCS, which can be accessed from the Global Coordination Technical Advisor (via
global.cbtsupport@wfp.org).

• Reach out to RB, HQ and colleagues from COs where this approach is piloted (Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Niger, Yemen and
to somewhat Nepal) to contextualize and apply learnings.

• Engage in operational conversations with other agencies and identify entry points for successful
collaboration, using experiences from other countries.

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Facilitate the engagement between WFP functional units and other agencies to identify
collaboration entry points and diffuse any bottlenecks.

• Collaborate with other cash actors where feasible and beneficial on linking humanitarian cash
assistance with national social protection systems to strengthen or adapt shock responsive
elements.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
There is no single required output. Every output is needs, context and emergency specific.
Below are some of the possible and optional outputs from most CWGs:

• CWG TORs
• CWG Co-Chair TORs
• Sub-Working Group or Task Team (TORs)
• 5Ws – Cash Actors mapping (who, what, where, why, when)
• Mapping of financial service providers (FSPs)
• Needs assessments (combined with sector needs assessments)
• Cash feasibility assessments
• Market/ price assessments
• Outlining of different cash activities in-country
• MPC MEB
• MPC TV
18
• MPC Targeting
• MPC Monitoring/ Impact Indicators
• Seasonal Cash Assistance Package
• One-off new displacement or new emergency assistance
• Guidelines on delivering MPC
• Feedback Mechanism approaches
• Communication messages
• Approaches to linking humanitarian cash and social protection

KEY LINKS:
• IASC Cash Coordination Model
• CWG Presentation of Cash Coordination Model
• New Cash Coordination Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• Cash Transition Plan Overview
• Global Cash Advisory Group (gCAG)
• TOR of gCAG
• Working Documents e.g. CWG TOR, CWG Co-Chair TORs, DRAFT CWG Co-Chair Elections

BACK TO THE FLOW

• UN Common Cash Statement (UNCCS) Principal Statement (2018)
• UNCCS Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 2020
• UNCCS Progress Report 2021
• Tipsheet Supporting the links between Humanitarian Cash and Social Protection Systems
• CALP Network | Choice & Dignity for People in Crisis

19
CASH FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
Head of Programme; CBT Coordinator/Officer; relevant Programme teams; Finance; Supply Chain

ACTION:
A cash feasibility analysis outlines whether sending money to people is appropriate, relevant, and
doable in your country operation. It sets out the opportunities and challenges of using cash to meet
people’s food and other essential needs, helping you make decisions that will inform the ‘Design and
Plan’ phase of your cash operational design.

The cash feasibility analysis can form part of a modality decision-making process. However,
sometimes you might do one where the CO has already made a strategic decision to shift to cash, or
there is a clear donor requirement to use cash, and/or operational constraints are preventing the use
of in-kind modalities.

Cash feasibility analyses leans heavily on the combined learnings from talking to people and
communities about their diverse needs, preferences, and concerns; knowledge and assessment
findings from local markets; and the overview of the financial ecosystem. It pulls together all the
data and information from the distinct assessments in the ‘Engage and Understand’ phase and
explains what the results mean for using cash in the specific context – including how to maximise the

BACK TO THE FLOW

opportunities and mitigate challenges and risks.

All of this cash-specific information should be combined with insight from other CO sources, such
as contextual analyses, sector-specific assessments (eg food security, protection, conflict sensitivity,
gender, amongst various others), security and access analyses – and indeed any other relevant inputs.
The analysis should also detail stakeholder engagement findings, such as those with government and
donors – as these represent potential significant support or constraints on the use of cash and the
types of transfer mechanisms you are able to implement.

Finally, you should also consider the CO capacity to successfully implement cash – and what support
you might need from your RB and HQ if you’re making a shift from other modalities. WFP is the
largest humanitarian cash actor in the world, so we’ve got loads to guide and support you through the
process of making the change to sending money.
This all might sound like a lot of information to pull together, so use the following questions to guide
your cash feasibility analysis:

• Can all groups access cash? Do displaced people, women, youth, LGBTQI+, elderly, people with
disabilities, or any other group experience restrictions or face accessibility challenges to receiving
and using money?

• Do people prefer to receive cash? Can their needs be met by sending money?

• How do people use money in their day-to-day lives? Can we transfer cash in a way that is
convenient for them?

• Can cash be used safely? Are there any potential protection risks, safety concerns, or conflict
sensitivity concerns? Can you mitigate them? How should safety considerations influence decisions
on using cash and specific transfer mechanisms?

20
• Is cash assistance acceptable to – or even better, aligned with – government approaches
and systems? Is there a social protection system WFP could be working through or at least
complementing? What are other humanitarian cash actors doing and how will WFP be aligning or
differing from their cash operations?

• What sort of data needs to be collected from people? How will we keep it safe and secure?

• Do some people require specific consideration of their needs to ensure cash is effective for them?
For instance, do people with disabilities have the assistance they need to access their payment
solutions and markets?

• Are markets functional and accessible in all the operational areas? Are there any market related
risks that need to be factored into the programmatic design and accompanying activities planned?

• Are prices stable or fluctuating? What does this mean for the transfer value design?

• Is the CO shifting from a different modality to cash? What will be the training and development
requirements? What new systems and processes will need to be put in place?

• What are the lead times to design and set up the cash operation and start transferring money to
people? By when can it be operational?

• Do donors support or have restrictions on the use of their funding for cash programmes?

• And any other relevant questions to your context.

BACK TO THE FLOW

The analysis should answer these types of questions and explain how the cash operation will take
advantage of the opportunities and mitigate the risks and challenges identified. It should outline key
things to be considered in the subsequent ‘Design and Plan’ phase of the cash operational set up.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A documented cash feasibility assessment, either standalone or embedded in other relevant CO
documents (such as Cash Operational Design, CONOPs, etc).

You can choose the format and layout of the cash feasibility analysis to suit your needs – however we
are in the process of compiling some template options and examples into a Sharepoint folder which
will be made available in Q1 of 2024.

KEY LINKS:
• Templates and Examples – Cash Feasibility Analyses (forthcoming)
• The Market Functionality Index (MFI)
• Market System Analysis (MSA) Guidance
• Fill the Nutrient Gap | World Food Programme
• Fill the Nutrient Gap and Cash-Based Transfers
• Protection and Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Analysis

21
CONSULT WITH PEOPLE WE ASSIST
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT, activity managers, with support from any relevant functions in the CO (Protection & AAP, M&E,
Gender, Nutrition, Disability Inclusion, Communications, etc)

ACTION:
The Cash Policy commits us to putting people at the centre of Cash-Based Transfers (CBT). That
means designing cash programmes around people’s lives to ensure they can safely access support
and have power to make decisions about how best to meet their needs. An essential aspect of people-
centred programming is consulting people we assist on the design of cash programmes to ensure
they are responsive to their needs and preferences. This requires inclusive consultations with a range
of people that reflect the diversity of the people we plan to assist, with specific attention to the most
vulnerable groups and using different communication channels and tools. To ensure an inclusive
approach, consider who might be marginalised and excluded in the community you work with – and
how to ensure their voices and input are heard.

WHAT TO CONSULT PEOPLE ON:

BACK TO THE FLOW

Consultations with communities are generally useful prior to program implementation, though
their effectiveness and practicality can vary based on specific contexts. Engaging in some form of
consultation is preferable to none, with a focus on the quality and relevance of these engagements.
It is important to choose the right mix of consultation methods – whether formal, like focus group
discussions (FGDs) and interviews, or informal conversations – tailored to the program’s objectives
and the community’s needs. These consultations should be conducted with sensitivity to the dynamics
within the community, ensuring inclusive engagement.

Ask people to share their opinions on the planned cash programme, listen to their challenges,
and capture their ideas. Doing so ensures that cash operations are more impactful, easier to
communicate, able to anticipate unforeseen challenges, and ultimately safer. Whatever way you
consult people, make sure you capture the information and analysis so it is clear how people’s
perspectives were factored into the design and influenced decisions made – documenting this can
help future redesign and redevelopment efforts.

In line with the 2023 WFP Cash Policy and the Community Engagement Strategy for Affected People (2021-
2026), the following programmatic aspects can and should be shaped through consultations with the people
we send money to:

The transfer mechanism and payment instrument. The choice of transfer mechanism and
payment instrument(s) for cash operations should always be informed by people’s preferences.
Rather than just selecting the payment provider that suits us and our procurement requirements,
people should decide how we send them money. Where people already have accounts with financial
service providers, they usually prefer we send them money directly into their existing accounts –
explore this option in the first instance. Where people do not yet have accounts, wherever possible
they should be able to choose the most convenient solution for them. In either case, we need to
understand the people’s preferences and the payment systems already in use. Even where we
cannot partner with people’s preferred financial service providers, it is important to understand
22
people’s preferences for the payment systems we can offer. In some cases, external factors – such as
government restrictions on non-nationals having accounts – may also play a part in what we can do.
The transfer value and timing/frequency of assistance. It is now corporate policy to base transfer
values on an assessment of people’s essential needs or food/nutritional requirements, the minimum
expenditure required to meet them, and the gap between this and what people can cover through
their own means1 This process already includes detailed processes to understand people’s essential
needs and their capacity to meet them. Once you have done these assessments and calculations,
you need to validate the final transfer value and frequency with people we will assist and their
communities.

The registration process and distribution points. Where, when, and how to best register recipients
should be agreed together with the people we send money to. Locations where payment instruments
should also be determined with the community to avoid unforeseen challenges or safety issues.
Ongoing cash ‘distributions’ are likely to be electronic, however still check to make sure fixed locations
such as ATMs and mobile money agents are convenient, accessible, and safe for people we assist.

Community feedback mechanisms. People need community feedback mechanisms (CFMs) they
can trust and use. This is essential to ensuring cash operations are having their intended effect and
people can access information and get help if there are any problems. Trust is built by involving
people in the design of CFMs and ensuring that when feedback is provided, it is followed up on. The
design of appropriate CFMs should therefore be part of the broader Community Engagement Plan.
Triangulate findings with feedback received from other sources, such as market and financial actors,
to understand if they align or differ from community perspectives.

BACK TO THE FLOW

HOW TO CONSULT WITH PEOPLE:

By the Design and Plan phase, most assessments should have been completed during the Engage and
Understand phase. However, quick, qualitative, practical, and targeted consultations to understand
people’s perspectives on the above-mentioned programmatic aspects, can still help shape design (for
instance on final transfer mechanism and transfer value decisions). The following are complementary
activities that will help you with ongoing and continuous consultation throughout the cash
programme cycle:

Seek local wisdom: National colleagues, community leaders and local NGOs should be your first
point of call in initial exploratory discussions. They are more likely to know the payment systems
people already use, how much things cost, etc. Share this info and the best strategies to engage with
the people in the community. Listen to your field monitors, in particular – they are out there talking to
people every day!

Informal consultations with community members and their representatives: Do as many of

these consultations as possible but also be mindful of reaching the point of saturation – that is the
point at which each additional interview provides little to no new information (until the situation
changes and then you should start to consult again). Where possible, hold different discussions for
different groups such as all sexes and genders, youth, people with disabilities, elderly and others, to
ensure that their specific needs are captured in the discussions.

Individual interviews: Using a pre-scripted interview guide covering a range of questions on

available payment providers, preferences and needs, consult a sample of recipients in individual
interviews. The vulnerabilities mapped out as part of the Engage & Understand module, can be used
to ensure that the data collected speaks to the challenges faced by more vulnerable people.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Here too participants can be sampled using the vulnerabilities
identified in the Engage & Understand module to explore people’s familiarity with and preferences
23
around various payment providers. FGDs work well when participants are grouped according to
gender and age, creating a more comfortable environment for people to share their views.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Qualitative mapping of people’s views on their needs, preferences, barriers, and suggestions in
relation to cash transfers (including all ‘Design and Plan’ steps – Transfer Value Calculation, Transfer
Mechanism Selection, IDM Strategy and Systems, and the CFM set up).

KEY LINKS:
• Essential Needs Assessment guidance | WFPgo
• Community Engagement for AAP | WFPgo
• Consulting with Persons with Disabilities and their Representative Organisations at WFP,
Guidance Note
• Community Engagement Strategy for AAP 2021-2026 (wfp.org)
• WFP Community Engagement for AAP Action Plan_Guidance
• Community Engagement for AAP – Quick reference sheet
• Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
• Qualitative Research Guidance for WFP Monitoring

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Focus Group Discussions Guidance Document
• DFI/WEE FDG Guidelines and KII Interviews Question with Communities
• DFI/WEE user journeys and cartography of the household finances.

24
DETERMINE TRANSFER VALUE
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT Officer, RAM Officer, and relevant Programme/Activity Managers

ACTION:
The transfer value is the amount of money people receive from WFP, for each round of assistance.
The Transfer Value Guidance outlines the full WFP corporate process for calculating transfer values,
however below we provide an overview of the steps and introduce other guidance pieces that may be
included in the process.

The most common example of a transfer value is monthly assistance transfers, but you can also have
less regular larger amounts or even just a single lumpsum – which might be particularly helpful for
people in the immediate aftermath of a major crisis. You can also have multiple transfer values – with
monthly amounts, lumpsums, or top ups such as those for nutrition for young children or pregnant/
breastfeeding mothers. The method for calculating a transfer value may differ if there is a specific
programme objective such as when providing a top up for nutrition / diet related objectives or
anticipatory actions, among others.

To set the transfer value, it is highly recommended that you first get a clear understanding of
people’s essential needs – because if people can’t get the basics in life, they will have to make trade-

BACK TO THE FLOW

offs between equally important needs. We do this by (ideally) conducting an Essential Needs
Analysis, constructing a Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) and/or doing a Cost of the Diet
(CotD) estimate, and Conducting a Gap Analysis (calculating people’s capacity to meet their essential
needs with their own means (and without resorting to negative coping mechanisms).

It is important to coordinate with RAM and Budget and Programming teams during the design phase,
as the transfer value amount and a rough estimate of the expected number of people we will assist
is important to determine the cash operation budget requirements. Consider if useful to budget for
any necessary transfer value increases to maintain purchasing power if prices increase. A number
of traditional donors encourage including a buffer for price increases in funding proposals. Where
price volatility can be expected, triggers and mechanisms for modifying the transfer value can also be
defined from the onset for a quicker response to price changes.

In brief, the steps are:

• Use an existing minimum expenditure basket (MEB) or, if this does not exist, construct and
calculate an MEB by identifying what it costs per month to buy life’s essentials, including food.
You can calculate per person, average sized household, or for a few different household sizes,
among others – whichever makes the most sense in your context. Remember that some people
have more or additional expenses than others – such as people with disabilities, who may need to
factor in additional transport costs, disability assistance aides, or other costs associated with their
specific needs.

• Conduct a gap assessment and analysis, which is the difference between people’s economic
capacity and what it costs to meet essential needs. If it costs $100 to meet essential needs but
vulnerable people only manage to spend about $50 using their own resources, then the gap is
$100 - $50, so $50!

• If WFP is not covering the whole gap, whether in coordination with others or due to funding
25
 constraints, alternatively you can calculate the food gap only. The food gap is the difference
between the cost of meeting essential food needs (usually the food component of an MEB)
and what people manage to spend on food through their own resources. for instance, in the
above example, if the cost of essential food was $60 out of the $100 basket, and people can
only cover 50% of this food basket, the food gap is $30.

• Remember to coordinate with others on transfer values – you may need to harmonise with
what governments are providing, or cover the gap with other humanitarian cash actors, or
there may be other programmatic, coordination or financial realities that may impact the
transfer value amount. These factors can be extremely important for perceptions of fairness
among communities receiving from different sources, to ensure community coherence, and
avoid tensions or push/pull factors.

• If you are using a transfer value on the basis of an average household size, you may need to
consider very large households as being two (or more) families. For instance, if the average
household size is 5 members, consider that households of 13 might actually need three times
the average amount. Ensure you determine this logic ahead of time, so that there are no
variations in how you treat similar cases and you are able to explain to the community how
this works.

• Do not forget that unlike with food, while you might calculate based on a minimum
expenditure basket you do not necessarily have to transfer once a month. Talk to people
about their preferences for timing and frequency of assistance.

• If you have really limited resources, you might have to prioritize the most vulnerable, or
reduce the transfer value.

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Finally, remember to reassess the value periodically to reflect potential changes in market
dynamics or population’s economic capacity. This includes adjusting the transfer value
whenever prices change significantly.

Get the full guidance in the corporate packages on Essential Needs, Minimum Expenditure
Baskets, and Transfer Value Setting.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A documented transfer value signed off by the HOP.

KEY LINKS:
• Transfer Value guidance
• ENA guidance
• MEB guidance
• Gap analysis to inform transfer values of CBT operations | WFPgo
• Fill the Nutrient Gap and Minimum Expenditure Basket
• Step by step for adjusting the transfer value in contexts of inflation

26
SELECT TRANSFER MECHANISM
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
In the CO: CBT (lead), Programme, RAM, Finance, Protection, Procurement.

ACTION:
In WFP terminology, transfer mechanisms are the means of delivering money to people.
The Transfer Mechanisms Summary (refer to the Transfer Mechanisms Summary for more specific
definitions). Selecting the transfer mechanism that best fits your operational needs is a balancing
act that relies on solid understanding of the context, on the programmatic objectives you are trying
to achieve: go back to the assessments done to understand people’s preferences and financial
ecosystems, including the experience of partners to use the various transfer mechanisms, programme
design, and community feedbacks.
The selection of the transfer mechanisms is not static but should be reviewed if you are introducing
new programme objectives, based on people’s preferences, changes in the financial ecosystem,
government and humanitarian programmes, changes in the caseloads and, donors’ indications, within
the constraints of the operation.

FACTORS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN SELECTING THE TRANSFER MECHANISM:

Prioritise transfer mechanisms that people have chosen.

BACK TO THE FLOW

Whenever possible, ask the recipients which transfer mechanism they prefer to use, and see the
section on ‘People’ for how to go about it. You can also obtain information from the community
feedback mechanisms. Asking people to choose the transfer mechanism, and the financial service
provider, is what is called the “choice model” and it is standard practice for our cash programmes.
The tools required to implement the choice model are two: the Technical Note and the Standard
Operating Procedure.

Prioritise transferring to accounts already owned by the recipients, or opening accounts for
them if they do not have one.
Always prioritise opening accounts for individuals, or using accounts people already have.
Rule of thumb: always ask yourself “why not assist people through their own existing accounts? Why not
open accounts in the name of women rather than the head of household (who tend to be men, due to social
norms)?”.

KYC Requirements.
KYC stands for ‘Know-Your-Customer’, which originates from the anti money laundering/combating
terrorist financing laws enacted in a particular country. The financial institutions are required under
this law to perform customer due diligence including ID verification and assessing the risks associated
with onboarding a new client. Some jurisdictions follow a risk-based or tiered KYC approach which
refers to the practice of categorizing clients into high, medium or low risk brackets and having
different due diligence requirements for each of them. The particularly having low value transactions
or mini-mobile wallet accounts have to adhere to ‘simplified KYC’ which is less stringent than the other
two categories.

For money transfers, the responsibility falls on the financial institutions making the cash transfers to
verify the ID of the person receiving the funds and the risk associated with the transaction.
It is important to know the KYC requirements in a particular country in order for WFP to select the
most appropriate transfer mechanism, and this informs the ‘Develop IDM Strategy and Systems’ stage
as well.
27
There are generally two types of IDs. These can be ‘foundational’, when they are proof of identity
issued by the government and recognized by the law (e.g., National ID or passport) or ‘functional’,
when they are issued as proof for a specific use (e.g., electoral cards, driving licenses but also refugee
identity cards issued by UNHCR). If the government restricts specific groups, such as refugees, from
opening accounts, WFP can advocate to change these rules to support refugee economic and financial
inclusion, and with the central banks to relax these rules for humanitarian purposes. In some
countries, functional IDs such as driver’s licenses or IDs issued by aid agencies are accepted to meet
KYC requirements.

Explore how your cash operation can facilitate access to ID for the people we assist, women in
particular. The final decision on whether to open accounts for people will also depend on the results
of the ‘Set Up Payment Solution’ phase.

Rule of thumb: the fewer KYC requirements, the easier it is for people to open an account in their name.

Availability and access to places for people to get money safely.

At this stage, if you have started or completed a financial ecosystem assessment you should
have some understanding of the strength of the financial sector in general, and of some more
specific aspects, such as the points that can be used to redeem cash. The selection of the transfer
mechanism will depend on the presence and accessibility - and whether they actually function – of
a network of electronic payment systems that service that mechanism and/or permanent cash
distribution/redemption points, e.g bank branches, cash-in-cash-out (CICO) mobile money agents,
money merchants, or ATMs. You may not be fully aware of the availability of electronic or physical
redemption points of the FSPs, as this will be clarified after a tender or after the roll out of WFP’s
proprietary solutions, but you should already have an idea. Take into consideration security and

BACK TO THE FLOW

protection concerns, especially for vulnerable groups, and ability of people to access the CICO points
(infrastructures).

Remember that during the tender we can ask FSPs to expand their distribution points in the areas we
need them – for example, agents near or around the settlements where we know or predict recipients
will be (e.g., in emergency prone areas, at the border with other emergency prone countries, near
refugee camps). Additionally, in the tender you may ask for surge teams to be available in case of
sudden onset disasters or surge needs.

In some countries, Know-Your-Agent (KYA) requirements may limit FSPs from extending their agent
networks or may prevent women from becoming agents. In this case, WFP and other humanitarian
actors can advocate to revise the KYA rules.

Rule of thumb: the more cash distribution points there are, the better. As soon as possible, get the GPS
coordinates of the cash distribution points (ATMs, agents, merchants) from the potential vendors, to overlay
them with the areas where the recipients are, or may be.

Beyond cash-out: toward greater financial resilience.

Financial resilience, or people’s ability to cope with financial shocks or recovering from financial
difficulties, requires us to transfer money to people’s own accounts. But just the transfer or the own
account is not the end objective. For people to truly benefit from digital financial inclusion, select
transfer mechanisms that encourage them to use their accounts and build their financial resilience
over time, especially mechanisms that rely on digital paymentsi. People may initially cash out their
whole assistance but gradually, as you build their capabilities, they will be able to benefit from other
products (e.g., payments to merchants, international remittances, savings, credit and insurance for
health and climate risks). This requires that local markets work and can satisfy people’s essential
needs, so CBT and the Supply Chain teams experts in retailers and markets need to engage with
market actors to assure the sustainability of cash assistance.

28
Rule of thumb: favor mechanisms that allow people to use multiple financial services – such as payments,
savings, credit, insurance as opposed to solutions that only allow people to cash out their assistance or
restricted solutions such as vouchers.

Devices and Equipment.

Consider if everyone we assist (including women, youth, persons with disabilities, elderly) own and
are familiar with the devices they will need to get their money, especially smartphones or other
types of cellular phones, debit cards, PINs, OTPs and ATMs. If you select a mechanism that requires
a device that people do not have, you will need to plan how they will get it from WFP or another
source and train them on how to use it. Always ensure certain groups are not disadvantaged by the
introduction of such devices, particularly women. Remember that the management of PIN codes is
always problematic and the SOPs on how to distribute and modify the PIN codes need to be spelled
out clearly.

Some transfer mechanisms are more equipment intensive than others, as the devices, connectivity
and power equipment need to be distributed to (and maintained by) merchants, FSPs and CPs, deep
in the field. Some equipment needs to be imported, adding substantial costs and time.

Rules of thumb: favour digital mechanisms that are device-less or that require people to use a device they
already have and are familiar with. Favour transfer mechanisms that do not require large procurement and
transportation, especially international, maintenance and disposal of equipment.

Financial and digital capabilities.

At the very start of the transfer mechanism selection process, you should know if people can read
numbers and use a phone, a card, or a bank account. If you are selecting a transfer mechanism that
requires additional financial and/or digital training going beyond basic literacy/numeracy, make sure

BACK TO THE FLOW

you include it in the programme design, budget for it, and that your programme incorporates various
teaching moments for both the recipients, and the market actors, not only when you distribute
payment instruments to people but all along the journey of people receiving and using cash. Also
remember that different target groups have different needs, so tailor the teachable moments as
much as possible, make sure they are practical and people-centred, so that they teach skills and
attitudes.

Rule of thumb: strike the balance between giving people money in a way that allows people to fulfil
their immediate needs, while faciliating increased financial and digital literacy where possible
and appropriate.

Customer Protection.
When selecting transfer mechanisms, pay close attention to customer protection risks, such as fraud,
data misuse, agent abuse, over-exposure to credit or cyber-crime. While account-based solutions
unlock life-changing opportunities by helping consumers save, borrow, and receive remittances,
introducing people to new financial services also brings new customer risks that you need to be
aware of and mitigate as much as possible. Vulnerable groups are more at risk of consumer abuses.
Understand if your country has consumer protection regulations. WFP’s FSPs standard contract
clauses include some consumer protection mechanisms but you need to develop your own SOPs to
protect the recipients. Tools to protect the rights of the consumers can be
found here.

Financial Risks.
Based on your understanding of the financial ecosystem, we need to understand if the FSPs we may
contract, or the proprietary payment solutions we want to roll out, are reliable and capable, including
whether and how we are protected in case of problems like defaults and frauds.

The FSP financial risks will be identified and assessed during the FSP Due Diligence process, a
mandatory step of the FSP selection and contracting process, led by the Finance function. The Due
29
Diligence report will provide an analysis of the risk profile of the FSP and the proposed payment
solution(s) and recommend relevant risk mitigation measures to be put in place if entering into a
contracting agreement with the FSP, to minimize the risk of financial loss for WFP. The Due Diligence
process builds on information received from the FSP during the tender, meetings held with relevant
FSP staff, FSP previous performance evaluation tool (if available) and FSI.

These considerations are especially important if you are thinking of using NGOs or Hawalas as
transfer agents, as these bodies are less regulated than commercial FSPs. If you are planning to use
plugPAY, a proprietary solution of WFP, the risks associated with advancing funds are mitigated, as the
solution relies on WFP’s systems to dispatch payment instructions, and WFP’s bank accounts held at
corporate banks for distributions.

Rule of thumb: Where possible, always contract the entity licensed and regulated to provide the payment
service we need. Favour the option for the vendor to advance the funds for distribution and WFP to
reimburse upon confirmation that the people redeemed or received the funds. Or favour options for direct
payments to people we assist from WFP bank accounts held at corporate banks. Avoid requesting the vendor
to be in charge of foreign exchange. Ask CBT, FINB, and LEGC in HQ for advice.

Payment Instrument and Token Distribution.

Although this consideration is less important than others, think about the complexity of distributing
cards or tokens, considering the distance between our recipients and the operational areas, whether
we have access to them and if the distribution is one off or cyclic. Think about the whole process of
procuring, storing, sorting, managing, distributing and disposing of payment instruments and tokens
and, wherever possible and within the mechanisms selected by the recipients, choose the most
efficient, and least labor-intensive.

BACK TO THE FLOW

Rule of thumb: where possible, favour payment instruments that are durable and do not require repeated
distributions, which consume extensive equipment and labour costs.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The selection of the transfer mechanism is an important decision that must be documented in a
memo drafted by the CBT officer and Head of Programmes, endorsed by relevant CO units, and
signed off by the CD. At minimum, the memo should be endorsed by Programme, Finance and Supply
Chain.

KEY LINKS:
• For support to transfer mechanism selection, cashbook.support@wfp.org
• To understand the Transfer Mechanisms: Transfer Mechanisms Summary
• Technical Note on the Choice Model
• Standard Operating Procedure on the Choice Model
• Use of existing Global LTA: Western Union Standard Operating Procedures
• Guidance on Use of Hawalas for WFP
• Using Non-Government Organisations as Transfer Agents for Cash-Based Transfers
(Programme Guidance Manual, chapter 2.4)
• For more information on plugPAY, visit plugPAY | WFPgo or write to global.plugpay@wfp.org.
• Code of conduct and animation to promote agents’ appropriate behavior
• Raising cash recipients awareness about their rights, the behaviors to expect from agents
and how to make a complaint
• For sample budgets for equipment, CBT Systems Menu.
• For financial risk management: FSP Due Diligence.

30
SET UP PAYMENT SOLUTION  
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
In the CO: CBT (lead), FIN, (SC) Procurement, TEC.

For the tendering process: (SC) Procurement is the lead function

In the RB: CBT (lead), FIN, (SC) Procurement, TEC.

In HQ: CBT (lead), FINB, SCOPG, LEGC.

ACTION:
Based on the decisions on the transfer mechanism, the Country Office will define how to set up
the payment solution(s), through establishing access to financial service providers (FSP) or WFP’s
proprietary payment solution, or through the government channels, required by the operation.

After the step ‘Engage and Understand: Financial Ecosystem’ and using all the relevant assessments
and the selection on transfer mechanism, the CO will determine how to obtain the selected
payment solutions.

BACK TO THE FLOW

The options to contract, or otherwise access and use FSPs are as follows:

OPTIONS TO ACCESS FSP(S) IDENTIFIED

WHAT’S REQUIRED
IN CO - CHOICE MODEL

Through the Government-to-Person (G2P) payments MoU signed and process established with
mechanism (where it exists) – the government may government counterpart.
1 Pre-requisites: the G2P payments system should
have an established payment system (e.g., for social
protection payments). meet the Assurance standards for sending money
through G2P payments systems

Through an existing global Long-Term Activation of LTA through the creation of an Outline
2 Agreement and decision made on data sharing with
Agreement (LTA)* the company (e.g., API, web interface, other).

Check with your RB if there are regional LTAs that can

cover your needs. Purchase Requests and Purchase
3 Through an existing regional or local LTA
Orders against LTA raised and released to obtain
financial services.

Through plugPAY (WFP’s mass payment solution

which enables payments straight from WFP bank
plugPAY feasibility assessment to be conducted upon
4 accounts held at corporate banks into people’s
request with plugPAY.
wallets and accounts without advancing funds or
third party FSP contracting)

Through a new LTA with an FSP, also including the LTA established and activated based on the tendering
5 aggregators and/or remittance companies process.

31
 Through an existing new Field Level Agreement Formalize process using this guidance: Using Non-
6 (FLA) with a Non-Government Organization (NGO) as Government Organisations as Transfer Agents for
Transfer Agent Cash-Based Transfers

1. Evidence of legality and/or regulation

2. Documentation/agreement with Hawaladar(s) who
will perform the transfer
Through an informal money transfer system such
7 as Hawala
3. Formalisation of the contract with the hawala using
the process described in the Guidance on Use of
Hawalas for WFP
4. Risk mitigation activities put in place

Dependent on options provided by WFP TEC and

INKA divisions. A tender is likely to be required, if
no alternative contractual arrangement is present
8 Through other innovative payment solution
(you may also want to verify if there are existing
agreements established by other United Nations
agencies that you can piggyback on).

The table above is better described in the Technical note of the Choice Model.

All the steps required to ask people where to receive the assistance are in the standard operating
procedure of the Choice Model.

* WESTERN UNION GLOBAL LTA

BACK TO THE FLOW

At the time of writing this manual the only global LTA in place is the one with Western Union. The
agreement is valid until 2023 and includes remittance services, as well as transferring money to
wallets, cards and bank accounts, in selected countries (Benin, Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia,
Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Philippines, Zambia, Zimbabwe).

COs willing to use this agreement need to compile a schedule of particulars, which triggers the
configuration of the system and has a cost recovery implication. Standard Operating Procedures are
in place and explain clearly on which frequency the invoices to WU need to be processed, based on
the transfer value, and the type of reports that the CO can expect after the distribution cycles.

Transactions are usually processed within 24 hours from the reception of the payment instruction
from the CO. All the information can be found in the contract.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The CO CBT team will initiate the tendering process by understanding the financial ecosystem, and
the preferences of the People on how to receive the money. See relevant sections (add links to the
sections). Note that additional guidance on how to ask individuals where they want to receive the
money, on which payment instrument and FSP, will be developed so for now a generic understanding
will be enough. Writing a solid scope of work is the key for a good procurement process and it is the
responsibility of CBT in the CO, with support of all other relevant units, field offices dealing with cash,
finance, procurement and, in lesser measure, TEC. CBT in the CO needs to verify the scope of work
against the quality control checklist, to ensure it is of good quality, forward looking and aligned
to the Cash Policy, and then the CBT in the CO needs to obtain the clearance of the Cash unit in HQ
(contact cashbook.support@wfp.org to obtain quick support).

Further to that, CO CBT will discuss with CO SCOP on the suitable procurement process for the given
situation, whether to launch a Request For Information (RFI), an Invitation To Bid (ITB), a Request For
Proposal (RFP), an emergency process or, under certain conditions, a waiver. The RFP, the most used
process for FSP contracts, consists of four phases that require the strong collaboration of CO CBT,
SCOP, FIN, TEC with some support from the same functions in the RB and HQ. In HQ, LEGC is also
32
involved. A CBT officer in the field can expect this process to be intense, so needs to plan in advance
and actively project manage it.
The process has four phases: preparedness, planning and solicitation, evaluation and contracting and
each phase comprises up to ten tasks each. All the details can be found in the relevant collection on
WFPgo.

The timeline for completion of a process varies greatly, depending on the responsiveness of the
WFP CO and the financial sector, available capacity on the ground, sophistication of the services
sought, how much the process is prioritised and the number of players. We recommend forecasting
a minimum of 6 months, but it can take longer. Undertaking the required preparatory steps, like a
thorough and detailed scope of works (SOW) and getting off to the right start can really help speed up
the process.

One of the many things to consider during the planning phase, is the estimation of cash, and the
caseload, which will be distributed in a given operation, for a certain number of years. This estimation
needs to be realistic and balance WFP’s urge of showing optimistic forecasts, which lead to volume
discounts, with the realities on the ground, in order not to create false expectations in the market,
and losing credibility with the vendors. This forecast will determine who in WFP has the authority to
approve the procurement process, before the contract is signed by the CD (or RD, if it is a regional
contract). See the latest circulars and collection on the Delegation of Authority for CBT.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE CONTRACT WITH AN FSP IS SIGNED?

Create the Outline Agreement

Once the procurement is approved and the contract is signed, an Outline Agreement (OA) is created
to reflect in WINGS the estimated total amount of cash to be distributed plus the total amount of

BACK TO THE FLOW

service fees that may be paid to the service provider.

Estimating these amounts is key for determining who in WFP has the authority to approve the
procurement (see section on FSP contracting and Delegation of Authority) before the contract is
actually signed by the Procurement Authority (typically the CD).

Depending on the total amount of cash to be distributed plus service fees for the service provider, the
procurement may be approved by the Country Director, or it may have to go to the Regional Bureau
and/or Headquarters for additional approvals. The link to the delegation of authority for each scenario
that a CO might encounter is here: Delegation of Authority for CBT.

An outline Agreement (OA) is created and released in WINGS for each contract with a service provider
that delivers cash to people we assist (FSP, Cooperating Partner or Government). The OA is a control
that eliminates the risk of COs spending more than planned through each contract. Different types of
OA exist for competitive and waived procurement, and for different types of providers. OAs are a pre-
requisite for creation of PRs and POs, so they should be created by the Programme/CBT immediately
after signature of the contract. When contracts are extended in time or expanded in value, the OA
needs to be amended too. All the guidance on how to do it is here.

Remember that in WFP, many contracts expire at the end of the calendar year, the busiest period
especially for Procurement in the CO, RB, and HQ; so, as much as possible, avoid asking for OA
releases at the last minute or you may be delayed, and communicate proactively with RB and HQ
around upcoming contracts and contract modifications. If the OA is not created on time, or there are
errors that delay its release by the competent authority, the CO will not be able to create PRs and POs
or distribute money to people.

Create the vendor

If the company that won the bid has not worked with WFP before, the CO vendor creation focal point
will need to create the vendor in WINGS, following the procedure which follows internal directives also
33
to check against sanctions. The appointed staff creates the vendor using this form. Depending on how
fast the new vendor sends the documents, it may take up to one month.

Opening of Beneficiary Cash Account (BCA):

When it is specified by the contract with the FSP, WFP needs to open a Benefit Cash Account (BCA).
Fin CO will follow the instructions in self-service using this link: WFP Self Service. Requests of opening
accounts for FSPs need to be endorsed by FINB. Usually this takes a few days.

Test the FSP and the solution:

During the tender phase, the FSP tends to agree with all WFP’s requests and conditions, but before
using them for large caseloads, it is recommendable for CBT to test them for small cases, and in
remote areas, to understand their responsiveness and capacity. During this phase the SOPs for joint
operational activities between the FSP, the CP and WFP can also be tightened.

For global and regional LTAs, the process is the same except that activities are held at the global or
regional level, respectively.

Organise the capacity building / training activities for recipients and agents:
Based on the needs of your operation, on the literacy (digital, financial, basic) of the recipients, and
on the diverse/specific needs of people being assisted you may want to organise capacity building
/ training sessions and teachable moments, so that people understand how to use the payment
instrument we are giving them, including how to use the CFMs. The standard contracts include clauses
that open the possibility for the FSPs to provide such trainings. FSPs should understand that training
this new customer base is an investment for them to make, but should they charge us for training,
then consider that the CPs can do them too, and may be more cost effective. You may also need to
organise trainings for FSPs on prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA), corruption, fraud,

BACK TO THE FLOW

and other standard inclusions in FSP contracts. These activities may be organised before or during
distributions, and the CO will develop its own SOPs.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Note for Records (NFRs) endorsed by the CD. This information will be included in the CBT SOP.

KEY LINKS:
• Technical note of the Choice Model.
• Standard operating procedure of the Choice Model.
• To create new vendors
• To establish local LTAs:
• FSP selection and contracting process
• Quality Standards for Scope of Work
• For clearance of scope of work: contact cashbook.support@wfp.org
• Use of existing Global LTA:
• All information on delegations of authority for cash and value vouchers ( how to create OAs):
CBT Delegation of Authority
• Use of plugPAY: WFPgo page: plugPAY | WFPgo
• Contact email: Global.PlugPAY@wfp.org
• Using Non-Government Organisations as Transfer Agents for Cash-Based Transfers
• Guidance on Use of Hawalas for WFP
• Assurance standards for sending money through G2P payments systems
• Using other innovative payment solutions:
• Considering digital assets for humanitarian cash-based transfers
• Contact email: global.innovation.frontiers@wfp.org.  
34
DEVELOP IDENTITY MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY AND IDENTITY SYSTEMS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
Head of Programme or Head of CBT (or Head of IDM, depending on the office setup), with support
from the CO IT team.
Support available from the respective Regional Officers and IDM/DAT teams in HQ.

ACTION:
Identity management (IDM) involves collecting/receiving and processing securely the information
that we need to ensure that the right people are receiving the right assistance. IDM is defined as the
principles, standards, processes, and capabilities that we use to identify people and store and utilise
their personal data to assist them through our own programme activities – including when we are
providing assistance on behalf of governments or other partners (IDM Circular). IDM is contextual and
should be adapted according to the standards in place (forthcoming). Ensuring respect for people’s rights
includes protecting their privacy and personal data, so to do no harm and enable people to receive

BACK TO THE FLOW

assistance safely, it is important to have a strategic approach to IDM defined based on people needs
and in line with data protection principles.

This strategy should cover all activities within the CO and highlight the following:

• Brief overview of programmatic objectives and activities for the CO, including expected length of
activities (if applicable);

• Who are the people that the programme aims to assists (e.g., IDPs, refugees);

• Overview of the identity data and technology landscape in the CO, including, but not limited to
(based on context):

• Risks and mitigation actions associated with identity data (pulled from various sources
depending on the CO, including relevant Privacy Impact Assessments, Context analysis);

• Identification of key stakeholders (e.g., UNHCR, government), including what data they may
have already collected and knowledge of their data management approach (includes systems
and processes as relevant)/ protection regulations;

• Assessment of reliability and uniqueness of identity data (internal and external, as applicable);

• Accessibility of identity data from key stakeholders (internal and exteranl, as applicable);

• Existing or need for agreements for relevant data transfers, including relevant FLA clauses if
with a cooperating partner;

• Considerations of the needs of the community and specific groups (including IDPs/refugees),
any religious, ethnic, linguistic or cultural factors that may impact IDM (for example, women
35
 having their data collection done by other women, modesty requirements meaning faces are
veiled, among others), and access to identity documents by different groups (women, youth,
people with disabilities, among others).

• Dentification of capabilities needed (e.g., data collection, data import, deduplication / adjudication,
assurance needs, government restrictions, etc.), including any restrictions, ethical or legal aspects
(e.g., physical data storage, data protection laws) that should be considered within capabilities.

Where feasible, targeting and registration data should be collected at the same time – work alongside
RAM to design the IDM strategy and select appropriate systems for storing and using the data
accordingly.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Documented identity data landscape, along with the setup of processes and systems, including
relevant details around risks and mitigation actions, for securely collecting and managing people’s
personal data in support of Country Office strategic programmatic objectives.

People’s personal data should only be collected when needed for a defined programmatic purpose
(reference Data Collection Decision Tree) and should be processed using trusted digital systems that
meet WFP’s business and IT standards (reference IDM Systems Menu).

An adequate and capacitated staffing structure is also needed with segregation of duties for key
processes (reference Assurance Technical Note).

KEY LINKS:

BACK TO THE FLOW

• IDM Systems Menu | WFPgo

• Data Collection Decision Tree (VPN REQUIRED)

• CBT Assurance | WFPgo

• IDM Key Messages

• Principles for sharing peoples’ personal data with governments

• IDM Technical Note (forthcoming)

36
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK MECHANISM
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
Community Feedback Mechanism Manager/Officer (or equivalent) supported by Accountability to Af-
fected Populations (AAP) focal point, M&E, potentially TEC/IT. CBT is responsible to work with the CFM
Manager and team to ensure cash questions can be answered, complaints logged and followed up,
and escalations1 / referrals made.

ACTION:
Community Feedback Mechanisms (CFM) are vital to WFP programmes and operations. Not only
are they a corporate requirement to make sure people can get information, ask questions, and get
support with challenges and problems – they are an essential way we stay in touch with people,
get their feedback on the programmes we run, and ensure people have a way to tell us if things
just are not working. The CFM must also be able to manage escalations and referrals – including
programmatic issues (to WFP or other humanitarian organisations, if possible) or reports of serious
breaches and misconduct by WFP, partners, or service providers (including fraud, coercion, misuse,
sexual exploitation and abuse, corruption, and others). You can find all the corporate guidance on
how to set up and run an effective CFM in the CFM Toolkit and other collected materials here.

BACK TO THE FLOW

A strong CFM is essential to a high-quality and accountable cash programme. In fact, people we
assist and affected communities being able to contact us if they have a question or want to report a
wrongdoing is so important, we made it the very first standard of our Cash Assurance Framework.
So in addition to the corporate guidance linked above, the Cash Assurance Framework Technical
Note sets out a series of guiding questions and technical advice to ensure the CFM meets cash
operational requirements. Having a robust CFM in place is equally important whether WFP is
implementing directly or through government social protection systems.

Remember that your CFM set up needs to be able to solve a range of potential problems, complaints,
and reports from people about their cash assistance, so you’ll need to make sure of the following:

• The CFM is accessible and safe for all. People might not have access to a phone or good reception,
have difficulty seeing or hearing, or speak a variety of different languages. The CFM needs to
account for all these possibilities, so try to set up multiple ways for people to get in touch – for
instance via a phone hotline, in person at help desks, through email, and community focal points.
Make sure everyone in the community is comfortable using at least one of the available channels
and the staff can support women, men, elderly, people with disabilities, people who cannot read
or write, – or anyone else that might be accessing the CFM that has specific needs. Make sure
the CFM is well publicised, through plenty of different mediums, and all WFP project sites should
have information on how to access it. And of course, confidentiality and privacy are paramount to
protect everyone accessing the mechanism.

• The CFM can help solve problems related to everything from the design of the cash operation to
redemption challenges people might have. For example, it is important for community cohesion
that everyone in the community understands who is eligible for assistance – and why. Or to
identify potential fraud people need to be able to report a wrongdoing. Or just for people’s
information, they need to know where distributions are happening. Particularly important for cash,
people also need to be able to report any issues they face related to cash transfers (for example,
not receiving a transfer or the correct amount), find out how to update their data, and have any
37
 issues with redemption solved (such as lost cards, issues at ATMs, lack of liquidity at agents,
mistreatment, etc). So, make sure you work with your CFM team to have answers to frequently
asked questions and to know how to escalate / refer people to the right person to get their issue
resolved. You should also pay close attention to the issues being raised through the CFM, as they
might indicate a problem with communication or information provision (for instance, if lots of
questions are being received about eligibility or how to use payment instruments).

• The CFM is run by the right people. They speak all the languages of the local area, they have been
trained in how to talk to people and solve any challenges they’re having, both women and men
are available – and indeed representatives of minority groups or people with disabilities might be
useful in the context you are working. People need to be able to get their problem solved – so the
CFM staff need to understand and be able to refer people to financial service providers as needed.
The staff also might need to receive serious complaints, such as FSPs or money agents ‘skimming’
(taking fees for cashing out people’s assistance). It is very important staff understand privacy and
confidentiality.

• The people running the CFM are supported with information, procedures, resources, and systems
that enable their work resolving the needs, concerns, and complaints that might come their way.
Ensure it is clear how to manage different types of feedback, requests, and complaints, that
things can be referred to or escalated as needed, and that everything is logged and tracked while
respecting privacy and confidentiality.

• As cash programmes involve FSPs who provide services to the people we assist, they will also
have their own mechanisms to provide customer support. It is important to understand how their
customer service support is provided and – if possible – get regular reports on the types of issues
commonly raised with the mechanism, including anonymised information on whether these issues

BACK TO THE FLOW

were resolved or not.

These are just some examples, check out the links below for all the guidance on setting up and
running a CFM that works for the people you assist. CBT should contribute to CFM SOPs for actioning
and resolving cases – and be sure to identify to your CFM accountable staff which CBT staffers are
responsible for actioning and resolving cases that are escalated to them. Ensure it is clear what
actions are required for following up and resolving cash-related feedback, requests, and complaints.
Following escalations, ensure the CFM team is informed on the resolution of cases escalated to CBT.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A well-functioning CFM with clear CBT SOPs! CBT should develop ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ answer
sheets for CFM operators in multiple languages and in easy-to-understand terminology.

KEY LINKS:
• CFM Guidance and Tools (wfp.org)
• CFM Standardisation Initiative | WFPgo
• Cash Assurance Technical Note | WFPgo
• Global CFM Assurance Standards

38
CASH OPERATIONAL DESIGN
AND SOPS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT Coordinator/Officer and relevant Programme team; for SOPs – cross-functions (such as Finance,
Supply Chain, etc) should contribute as relevant to their areas of responsibility

ACTION:
Toward the end of the Design and Plan phase, it is important to document and compile the key
decisions and design components into one place and (ideally) put together a cash operations SOP.

For the operational design background, this can be as simple as filing all assessment and consultation
reports, NFRs, transfer value calculations, scopes of work (SOW), and other documents in one place
and keeping this folder updated as you proceed through the ‘Assist and Assure’ phase. Throughout
this manual, the ‘required outputs’ contain documentation that needs to be prepared – so practically
speaking, simply compiling and filing can form the vast majority of your operational design briefs.

BACK TO THE FLOW

A cash operations SOP is a very useful resource, which can be quite straightforward or quite robust –
depending on your CO needs. This is a bit different to the SOP you put together for legal contracting
of your SOP, as it covers the whole cash programme rather than just the transfer process. A Cash
Operations SOP is not compulsory, however if you do decide to develop one, we suggest the following
sections be included:

• Programme objectives
• Targeting, eligibility, and selection of people we assist
• Transfer value, frequency, and duration
• Transfer mechanism (annex associated SOP with FSP)
• IDM strategy and selected systems
• Data management plan and process flow
• Distribution and/or transfer plan and process flow
• Reconciliation and anomaly detection specifics
• Monitoring procedures and tools
• Reporting

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A compilation of relevant documentation, whether they be design briefs, concepts, NFRs, or SOPs –
filed together for easy reference. A Cash Operational SOP (optional)

KEY LINKS:
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for FSP contracts | WFPgo
• Templates and examples of Cash Operational SOPs (forthcoming Sharepoint folder)

39
INFORM PEOPLE WE ASSIST OF CBT
PROGRAMME PLAN
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT; Activity Manager(s), Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) and Communication with Com-
munities (CwC) focal points; RAM (particularly for targeting information and key messages for people
we assist); M&E

ACTION:
People need accessible and straightforward information about the CBT operations we design and
implement. That information serves as the basis for participation and allows people to make informed
decisions. Done right, it also reduces mistrust, manages expectations, and reduces requests for
information. Across CBT programmes, interactions with the people we send money to are often
limited. With so few touchpoints, it is critical to make the best use of those encounters by sharing the
right kind of information about CBT programmes. This means finding ways to communicate concepts
like targeting criteria, payment systems, as well as community feedback mechanisms (CFMs) in non-
technical language that can be understood by all the people we send money to – including people
with a range of disabilities, who might find some information channels hard to access or understand.

BACK TO THE FLOW

Informing the people we assist about CBT programmes works best when:

1. We simplify: Stick to one topic per message and use simple, easy-to-translate sentences that are
going to be understood by as many people as possible

2. We test: Find ways to test your messages with a sample of people. Ask them how to make your
messages and their translations easier to understand.

3. We diversify: Wherever possible find multiple channels to communicate key messages. Consider
different formats including audio (i.e. radio), visual (i.e. posters or animations, pictograms on the
back of bank cards, social media, SMS), along with more traditional approaches.

4. We visualise: Even when communicating in written form, use colour and visualisations whenever
possible to make key messages stand out.

5. We adapt: Always think about the “users” of the information you are sharing.
Makes sure it is sensitive to people with varying degrees of literacy, people with disabilities, and
more marginalised groups.

Wherever possible, people should also be able to proactively seek out information themselves. Rather
than having to wait passively to be informed at various touchpoints, CBT programmes should make it
possible for people to access information whenever they might need it. Depending on the resources
available, this could, for example, be achieved through the following approaches:
• Leaflets: Printed leaflets with key messages handed out during the registration;
• Low tech methods: Help Desks (including partner help desks); Community champions: Individuals
trained to provide support and information in their communities that can be approached by
people when needed, but also community bazars and community consultations;
• SMS messages: Text messages that communicate key messages at various stages of the
programme cycle;
40
• Interactive Voice Recording: Using recorded messages to communicate information to people who
call a hotline. This can also be used to provide feedback via pre-programmed surveys;
• Websites and videos: Accessible online content for people to consult when they have questions
or face challenges related to CBT programmes. Radio, video/movie recording can also be
broadcasted at distribution points.

WHAT ARE THE KEY TOPICS YOU NEED TO INFORM PEOPLE ON?
Many of the requests that come through our CFM systems are for information about programmes.
To free up CFMs for actual complaints and feedback, we need to ensure that people know, or at least
know where to find out about, the following:

• First, people should always be reminded that the assistance they receive is free and never
requires payments or favours of any kind.

• How information will be provided throughout the cash assistance programme: For instance,
how will people be notified of their entitlements, transfers, or if anything changes. How can
they contact us? Make sure these things are very clear, as these channels will be essential and
sometimes people don’t know text messages come from us and our partners – so miss critical
information or (worse) could suspect our communications are scams.

• Transfer values and how they are determined: People need to be able to know the size of
their transfer value and how it was determined so they can be sure they have received the right
amount.

• Frequency of transfers and the duration of the CBT programmes: While we often do not know
the precise duration of CBT programmes, people should know how long the programme is funded

BACK TO THE FLOW

for and, where relevant, that it could be extended.

• Where and how to redeem entitlements: Including how to use the payment instrument, that
there should only be one payment instrument per person/household, and keeping things like
PIN codes confidential and safe. This is particularly important to avoid people being exploited by
others who charge money to redeem their entitlements for them.

• Targeting criteria: Being transparent on how people were selected to receive money avoids
tensions arising between community members and builds trust between WFP and the
communities it supports.

• Personal data: People have a right to know how the data they provide us with will be collected,
stored, and used – and how to update it, if they need to. They also have the right to request that
WFP deletes (or updates) any personal data it stores on them, without providing a reason.
•
Community Feedback Mechanisms: People need to know who and how to reach out to with a
problem or a complaint, and be able to provide feedback on CBT programmes.
•
Discontinuation or change of the CBT operation: When CBT programmes are discontinued or
changed for whatever reason, people must be informed as soon as possible so that they are able
to plan.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A communication sensitisation plan is implemented.

KEY LINKS:
• Accessible information provision to affected people: tip-sheet
• Communicating Cash (CALP)
• PSEA at the Frontline – Together We Say No | IASC / PSEA
41
IMPORT DATA
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
TEC, Programme

ACTION:
Data import refers to the act of obtaining and importing pre-collected data of people we assist from
external sources into an information management platform. Typical sources of data to import could
be from lists maintained by national registries, other UN agencies, local authorities, NGOs or other
trusted parties– reducing the need for WFP to conduct independent registration exercises with people
who have already had their information collected by other trusted actors. However, WFP verification
of this data will need to be carried out as per the guidance in the Assurance Framework – even when
imported from trusted partners.

This requires data cleaning, processing and transformation (often) using secure corporately endorsed
platforms that can accommodate the variety of data formats and produce customised outputs
based on the contextual needs of the programme. In addition, data transfer agreements need to be
established between WFP and the external source.

PREREQUISITES:

BACK TO THE FLOW

1. A Data transfer agreement must be in place before any import of external data. The CO should
contact the Global Privacy Office to draft the relevant agreement, which would include at a
minimum the following considerations:

• Which exact data fields are needed and why? Are their definitions well-defined (e.g. phone
number – landline or mobile)? Can the data be disaggregated by sex and age?
• What is the purpose for the data being transferred (e.g., receiving calls, SMS, or mobile
money)?
• Are reference data compatible with WFP systems (e.g. do locations and boundaries use a
common identifier, or originate from the same data source)?
• Data format (Excel, XML…) and system integration requirements
• Plan for how the data will be stored and who needs access to it. Will the data be transferred to
third parties?
• Is there a method of return and/or destruction?

For data transfers with UNHCR, UNICEF, and ICRC, WFP has global data sharing agreements
(Contact CBT Delivery HQ support team for more information – cashbook.support@wfp.org) in
place that provide a standardised process and template to facilitate the arrangement, however
each request needs to be evaluated and approved by your CO management and the Global
Privacy Office (GPO) should be consulted global.privacy.office@wfp.org

2. The Data import process must be trackable and auditable, it goes as follows: a) The CO receives
data in an agreed import format (Excel, XML, others) through a secure file transfer. NEST is a
secure method of exchanging information with FSPs and Sharepoint for partners and UN agencies.
There are several options for securely sharing files. ASFTP purpose is to have controls in place
to mitigate risks related to file exchange. With the ASFTP methods, we can ensure the highest
measures of controls for data integrity, data confidentiality, and data availability.

• Data validation/cleaning is conducted: missing values, special characters, duplicates, correct

42
 file formats (for details on how to conduct data cleaning refer to: ‘CPM Assist and Assure:
Clean Data’ and ‘CPM Assist and Assure: Deduplicate and Adjudicate Data’)

• File import into the corresponding platform.

Data lifecycle management. Once the import is completed, a process should be put in place to
record and update population changes (e.g., births, deaths, family composition, location, population
movements) including archiving or purging when data is no longer required as per WFP compliance
standards (please refer to the “How to identify someone” section of the ‘CPM Assist and Assure:
Collect Data’ section of this manual). Updating / maintaining data imported should be based on
the terms of the data transfer agreement (refer to ‘Assist and Assure: Maintain Data’ section of
this manual) and can be linked to CFM for people we assist to self-report updates. All updates and
changes should be trackable by the system.

3. The import and management of existing personal data for people we are or plan to assist is based
on the principle of ‘quantity and quality sufficient to meet the purpose and not excessive’.
The key data fields recommended for CBT implementation are:

• Type – Refugee, IDP, local population, returnee, principal or alternate

• Location (admin areas) - (These data fields must be available to be considered for data import. CO
should refer to their RAM Officer at CO or RB for location and admin area structure)
• First Name
• Middle Name
• Last Name
• Individual Document type
• Individual Document number

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Date of birth / Age
• Sex
• Disability Status (Remember, disability will be defined in different ways by partners we are
importing data from. If the partner has not used the Washington Group short set or another
globally approved defintion, consider carefully if this information is indicative of the real picture.
Experience has shown that data using other criteria/methodologies to result in an inaccurate
picture of the person’s ability to function on an equal basis to othersFind more information here)
• Account type
• Account number
• Household Size
• Recipient Mobile number

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
On completion of the above steps, you should have an SOP on importing data including a data
transfer agreement covering the key steps, segregation of duties, timelines, and any other relevant
information endorsed by CBT and internal stakeholders and approved by CO Management.

KEY LINKS:
• WFP Personal Data Protection
• Forthcoming: The above guidelines will soon be replaced by the upcoming data protection normative
framework (including an ED Circular and associated guidance), the link to which will be added upon
publication.

43
COLLECT DATA
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
TEC, Programme

ACTION:
In the absence of comprehensive pre-existing data from sources like national registries, other UN
agencies, local authorities, NGOs or other trusted parties, WFP collects data directly from the people
we intend to assist. Registration is the process of collecting pre-determined personal data fields from
people identified for assistance, recorded in a secure system.

The data collected in this process enables delivery and assurance of assistance by, for instance,
ensuring assistance is sent to the right person, identifying the number of people in a household to
determine the total transfer value for the family or capturing the accurate ID numbers. This section
does not cover other types of data that might need to be collected in parallel, such as data for
targeting and selection of people to assist.

The key steps in a data collection process include:

BACK TO THE FLOW

1. Identify programme needs - Based on immediate and upcoming programme needs (link design
and plan section), identify what information is needed to calculate entitlement and enable delivery
of assistance (for example, national ‘know your customer’ requirements will impact what data you
need to collect). The data needs should consider what is needed across the programme cycle,
including for reporting purposes.

2. Review what is available – Review existing data with local authorities, National registries, NGO
and CSO partners, Financial Services Providers (FSP), other UN agencies and understand if this
data can be used (perform data quality checks, review if data is outdated etc) (link import data
section)/built upon through data enhancement (collection of additional data fields against a pre-
existing record to ensure completeness for the purpose of enabling delivery of assistance);
3. Define data to collect and who to register – Based on the steps above, define the minimum
data points required both at a household and individual level. It is advisable to only collect the
personal data for individuals receiving the assistance on behalf of a household. You should
prioritize to register the most senior adult woman of the family. While not possible or applicable
everywhere, we highly suggest focusing on the prioritization of women as first recipients for
their households, to follow the principles of the Cash Policy and to promote Digital Financial
Inclusion.

4. Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment – Depending on the volume of data collected, the
vulnerability of people we assist, the envisaged risks deriving from the collection of data, and/or
other circumstances. PIAs are not mandatory every time COs engage in a data collection exercise,
only when specific circumstances are in place. COs should contact the Global Privacy Office and
their Data Protection Lead (if in CO or RB) to know whether a PIA is required.

5. How to identify someone – Review legal IDs available in country, either issued by the government
or authorized agencies like UNHCR – and actual availability and accessibility of these IDs to all
people, including women, youth, people with disabilities, LGBTQI+, elderly, minorities and any
other relevant group. If ID coverage is poor, work with authorities to issue IDs to populations we
44
 plan to assist. When not possible, WFP can issue functional ID cards only for providing assistance
(for example – a simple plastic assistance card with name and picture).

6. Who will collect data – Where possible, people’s self-registration should be prioritised. Most
often, co-operating partners are contracted to collect data for WFP. Based on context, local
government authorities and community leaders/committees may also perform data collection. It
is important in all cases to have both women and men collecting data, to ensure people can speak
to their own sex during registration processes and data collection exercises should be organised
in a way that respects people’s time and other essential tasks (such as work, farming, or caring for
children). Whenever another entity is collecting data on behalf of WFP, specific data processing
conditions should be signed. Country Offices should contact the Global Privacy Office for proper
guidance on the contract.

7. How to collect data – WFP has a set of corporately-endorsed solutions that support data
collection (see systems menu here). The type of solution selected should depend on review of (i)
technology & capacities available in country (ii) the time required to deploy (including procurement
& capacity building).

8. Inform people we assist about the intended use of their data. In all cases where WFP is acting
as “data controller” and collects data either directly or through another entity, such as a CP, UN
agency or government, it needs to ensure that people we assist are informed, at a minimum,
about the following: the identity and contact details of WFP; purposes for collecting data; data
transfer to other entities; the importance of providing accurate and updated information; whether
data Processing involves Automated Decision-Making that could result in decisions significantly
affecting them; personal data retention criteria; data related rights and how to exercise them.

BACK TO THE FLOW

9. Maintain and update data – Once a registration exercise is completed, a process should be put
in place to record and update people’s personal and household information changes (e.g., births,
deaths, family composition, population movements, consent) and correct any errors in registration
(refer to ‘CPM Assist and Assure: Maintain Data’).

Keep in mind key WFP policy principles:

• Data minimization and data quality - Only collect the minimal amount of data needed to enable
delivery (and any other essential activities, such as targeting and selection). Every data point WFP
plans to collect should be reviewed against this principle. It is imperative that the data collection is
done with accuracy, errors can lead to downstream data quality issues, resulting in problems with
people receiving their money and reporting.

• Biometrics and other sensitive data - Biometrics (such as fingerprint and iris) should be the last
resort and only be considered when all other options are ruled out. Collection of highly sensitive
data like religious beliefs, political opinions etc should not be collected as they could cause serious
protection risks (read more here).

• Minimum Assurance – For CBT programs longer than 6 months, ensure compliance with the
WFP Cash Assurance Framework (refer here) that sets out the standards and measures to be
implemented.

• Data protection and privacy – Ensure compliance with WFPs data protection principles (available
here) that govern processing of data right from data collection, through storage, access and
alteration, consent and consultation, and erasure/destruction.

• Prioritize women as recipients of assistance for their families. Money sent by WFP can be an
important catalyst of women’s, integration into the digital economy, especially when women have
45
 their own accounts and use these for multiple sources of income and payments. So, wherever
this is possible, collect her information to receive assistance on behalf of the family.1 Again, even
where she is not the primary recipient of the assistance, it is important to collect data of the
most senior female member of the household – in case this changes over time and to align with
Outcome 5 of the WFP Cash Policy.

• Where feasible, targeting and registration data should be collected in the same system(s) – work
alongside RAM to design the IDM strategy and select appropriate systems accordingly.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
• One time - A detailed Registration/Data collection SOP covering how the process will take place,
systems to be used, segregation of duties, timelines, and any other relevant information endorsed
by the Internal CBT Working Group (if one exists) or by the CO’s focal points of the CBT cross-
functions, and CO Management.

• Annual – Budget and Procurement plan for registration solutions and relevant hardware.

• Privacy Impact Assessment (if deemed applicable by the Global Privacy Office and/or Data
Protection Lead at the CO or RB).

• Every data collection cycle:

• A Registration Plan endorsed by the Internal CBT Working Group, if one exists, or by the CO’s
focal points of the CBT cross-functions. Plan includes dates and locations of data collection,
systems to be used, training of partners, sensitization plan, and other relevant information;

BACK TO THE FLOW

• A Registration File containing information of recipients collected during the exercise. This is
an intermediary output, requiring additional cleaning/transformation and follow up on any
errors/incomplete records.

KEY LINKS:
• Data Collection Decision Tree (VPN REQUIRED)
• CBT systems menu - Guidance on solutions available for registration here
• SCOPE offline registration solution manual – available here

46
CLEAN DATA
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
HQ Cash Data Services (for automated processes where HQ support is requested); within CO, a Data
Analyst or Database Administrator can perform this task; at HQ level, CBT Delivery (Cash Data Ser-
vices) or CO programme/TEC staff

ACTION:
When data originates from national registries, other UN agencies, local authorities, NGOs
or other trusted parties, it often needs to be cleaned before it can be utilised for further use or
analytics. Some examples of outputs could be a reconciliation report, a recipient list, or a payment list.

To know what to clean, we should first identify 1) the expected format and content of the incoming
data (details below) and 2) what is required from the subsequent steps. Subsequent steps could
include storing data, transforming data, joining data, or importing data into a system.

The following should be considered:

• Column names: what are the column names that we expect in the data and in what order? Are all
the columns mandatory?

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Mandatory values: which columns should never contain empty values?

• Formats of values: for specific columns, how should the values appear? Dates, mobile numbers,
national ID numbers, etc.

• Data types: for each column, do we expect a consistent type of data? For example, should we
expect only decimals in an ‘amount’ column?

• Naming conventions: are there naming conventions for the file name or for values expected within
the file and do these matter for subsequent steps?

Once we know what is expected from both the data source and subsequent steps, we will know what
needs to be cleaned or whether the data is even usable. If the data is deemed unusable, (the process
will need to be halted while the data source is notified of the issues. Examples of unusable data could
include: files with empty data, files containing data for the wrong time period, files with misaligned or
messy data, such as dates in an amount column or names in a date column.

The steps taken to address issues with data should consider the expected usage of the data. For
example, if a process is being established for regularly occurring transfers of data for the foreseeable
future, then it is worth investing the time to correct issues at the source. If, however, the transfer of
data is for short-term use and not expected to be recurring, such as in an emergency, it may suffice to
confirm with the source about the intended corrections without addressing the root causes.

Cleaning cannot happen in isolation. Cleaning requires input or validation – called ‘specifications’ –
from concerned parties. These can include Country Office staff, our partners or another external party
who is responsible for the data source, or owners of a system. There may be a need to agree on the
‘source of truth’ – also known as master data - for the data in question. For example, if location data
is being used, what is the source for location names? Agreeing on common, authoritative sources of
47
data can help avoid confusion later in the process.

In short, specifications are important to instruct a system or person about how to clean. For example,
should May 1 2023 be written as 2023-01-05 or 2023-05-01 and does it matter for subsequent steps?
Or, if a mandatory value is missing, such as a missing phone number or national ID number, should
the process insert a default value and what should that value be? Make sure to determine the answer
to these questions before setting out on a data cleaning exercise.

In terms of how to do the cleaning, the CBT Cash Data Services team supports Country Offices in
developing automated processes for validating, cleaning, and storing data from external and internal
sources. There are several options falling into two broad categories:

• Automated: a system can validate data and clean data according to specifications and rules; this
approach typically relies on technological infrastructure (cloud-based solutions) and scripts; this
approach is recommended because it is auditable, and data is stored and processed securely

• Manual: tools such as Excel with formulas or macros can be used to edit or update data according
to specifications; please note that this approach adds risk of human error and is not auditable,
lowering the assurance integrity of the data from source to destination

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The output is a cleaned version of the data that was originally received. The steps leading to the
cleaned version should be documented (specifications), traceable, and repeatable. The output might
only be an intermediary output in a process where the data is then transformed or joined to create a
final output.

BACK TO THE FLOW

KEY LINKS:
Cash Services Catalogue | WFPgo

48
DEDUPLICATE AND ADJUDICATE DATA
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
Programme (overall responsibility); CBT Cash Data Services (identifying duplicates); TEC/SCOPE (identi-
fying biometric duplicates); CO Programme (adjudicating and removing duplicates)

ACTION:
Deduplication and adjudication are the processes of identifying potential duplicate identities within
a list of people we assist and then deciding how the possible duplicates should be addressed
(adjudication). The ultimate purpose of this process is to reduce the risk that WFP (and other partners
we may be sharing or cross-checking data with) is transferring assistance again to individuals who
have already received the assistance to which they were entitled. This ensures fairness and efficiency
in the way WFP and other partner’s use donor funds.

There are two broad categories of methods to identify duplicates:

1. Biographic duplicates: when the biographic information of people we assist is collected during
registration, this data can be analysed by producing algorithms that can assess whether two
records in a dataset are likely to be the same person. Biographic information includes first and last

BACK TO THE FLOW

names, dates of birth, location, sex, or anything else that may help identify uniqueness based on
contextual factors. Note that its accuracy highly depends on data quality and availability.

2. Biometric duplicates: when information collected during registration includes biometric data of
people we assist – such as fingerprints or iris – then this data can be used to automatically identify
duplicates within the list. Within WFP’s SCOPE system, potential biometric duplicates can be
searched automatically. WFP discourages the use of biometric data, unless absolutely necessary,
as it is invasive to collect, expensive, and highly personal data for us to have.

To identify potential duplicates using biographic data, the following steps should be taken:

1. It is essential that you get feedback about contextual factors, including language and culture. For
example, some names are spelt in various ways and information such as dates of birth are less
reliable in some countries.

2. Analyse data quality for completeness and cleanliness of essential biographic attributes; for
example, are 100% of dates of birth present and are they in the same format?
3. Analyse the uniqueness of the data points. For example, if everyone is born on January 1, 1990,
then date of birth cannot be used in any algorithm to flag potential duplicates.

4. Develop algorithms or models to flag potential duplicates, with a target percentage of certainty
that is appropriate for the context.

5. Share output list of potential duplicates with CO stakeholders to initiate adjudication process.

6. Receive feedback from the adjudication process before proceeding to subsequent steps in the
cash transfer process which involve usage of the recipient list, such as the creation of payment
lists. Depending on the time needed, the adjudication process should not delay the regular or
planned transfer of assistance.
49
Note that in some cases, deduplication and adjudication must occur across various external parties
(such as other UN agencies or cooperating partners who might be assisting the same people). This
involves inter-agency coordination in the adjudication process and may require reviews of potential
duplicates by each party without any party sharing data of people we assist.

The CBT Cash Data Services team can help Country Offices identify duplicates based on biographic
data and develop solutions for creating and using common identifiers across different parties when
sharing beneficiary lists is not an option.

Biometric deduplication, on the other hand, can be defined as a process to identify duplicate
biometric identities in a biometric database. The duplicates search can be based on fingerprint, iris,
and face identification technologies using a photo. Currently, the SCOPE platform offers capability
to search for duplicates using fingerprints and irises. Each biometric identity is given a “matching
score”, which indicates the degree of similarity between a new biometric identity and the one already
in the database. Based on the degree of similarity, the system classifies the biometric identity as
“unique”, “duplicate”, or “pending adjudication”. The ones that are classified as the latter, i.e., “pending
adjudication” need to be resolved manually though the adjudication process.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Periodic reports or NFRs on the number of potential duplicates detected and the number of cases that
were adjudicated and resolved; HQ Data Services team to provide to the Country Office colleagues
(Programme/CBT Officers) a list of identities flagged as potential duplicates with the probability score
measuring likeliness of duplication, for their follow up with adjudication and resolution of the cases.

BACK TO THE FLOW

KEY LINKS:
• Digital Assistance Delivery through Service Providers - Biometric Deduplication
and Adjudication
• Digital Assistance Delivery through SCOPECARDs - Biometric Deduplication and Adjudication
• Forthcoming: Biometrics White Paper
• Forthcoming: IDM Assurance Framework

50
MAINTAIN DATA
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT, Programme, RAM, TEC

ACTION:
The following information on people and households should already have been determined:
acceptable documents for identification and verification; minimum set of data fields required for each
assistance or transfer modality; and different kinds of consent as to what WFP will use this data for.

For example: a government-issued family book; or a mobile phone number for receipt of mobile
money. For each of these minimum data fields, determine what level of verification is required for
WFP to change its value. For example: for ID documents, face to face verification by WFP or partner
staff could be needed; or for mobile phone numbers, a one-time password sent to the number and
verified by a WFP or partner staff member.

In addition to these levels of verification for each data field, plan also for an adjudication process for

BACK TO THE FLOW

when a verified value for any particular data field conflicts with an existing record.
For example: ID numbers, biometric records, mobile phone numbers, household membership. (See
“Deduplication and Adjudication”).

WFP may receive, collect or encounter people’s personal data in several ways including (but not
limited to): regular import from governments or registering partners, explicit registration activities
by WFP, feedback received through CFM channels, or feedback received through monitoring or
outreach activities. For each of these cases: ensure that data fields and flows of data are documented,
understood, and any necessary controls and measures implemented to address risks and protect
personal data.

In cases where a government or another partner is responsible for registration and issuance of IDs,
there should already be a data transfer agreement in place for exchange of data. When WFP receives
that data, it may already be out of date – decide and document the acceptable timeframe in which
WFP can incorporate updates to data from the government or partner, in relation to WFP payment
processes. (See “Apply Eligibility Criteria and Select People to Assist”).

When WFP has collected or received updates to people’s personal and household information, plan
with the government or partner whether and how those updates may be incorporated into their
registry or systems.

Finally, ensure with TEC that any systems WFP is using are able to track changes to people’s personal
and household information (eg. through accessible audit trails) and to produce reports on the number
and type of changes that have occurred. These changes can include (but are not limited to):

• Changes in ID number, name, and other biographic data;

• Fixes to ID number, name, and other biographic data;

51
• Individual has changed location or moved internationally;

• Individual has left the household and joined a new one;

• Individual has married or otherwise create a new household;

• A baby has been born;

• A death has occurred;

• Flag when changes are corrections versus updates in life situation;

• Different kinds of consent as to what WFP will use a person’s data for;

• Changes to mobile phone number, bank account number, or any other data points needed for the
person to receive assistance through the related delivery mechanism;

• Changes in given choice of financial service provider or other options available to people in terms
of how they receive their assistance.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:

• A detailed SOP approved by the Head of Programme of CO management, outlining how people’s
personal and household information is maintained through specific processes, responsible units
and systems to be used;

BACK TO THE FLOW

• Regular NFRs or memos that can be shared with Heads of Programme, CO management, CBT and
CBT cross-functional focal points, summarizing the changes recorded in people’s personal and
household information, and noting any potential impact on programme design.

KEY LINKS:
• Forthcoming: Biometrics White Paper
• Forthcoming: IDM Assurance Framework

52
VERIFY IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE
WE ASSIST
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
Programme; TEC

ACTION:
Verification is the process by which WFP and partners ensure, over time, that the right people are
receiving assistance and in possession of the right payment instruments (bank cards, SCOPECARDs,
phone numbers for mobile money, etc.). When working through digital transfers, WFP and
cooperating partners generally lose regular physical contact with the majority of people we assist
– as unlike food, they don’t come to a distribution site every month. While this is better and more
convenient for the people we assist, it means we need to perform periodic re-verifications (at least
annually) as a critical operational control. Verification ensures digital payment mechanisms are set up
to deliver assistance digitally to the right people in need.

BACK TO THE FLOW

People may be verified routinely as part of physical cash distributions or through biometric
redemptions, in which case verification objectives are satisfied as part of the operational design. Re-
verifications are also not normally applicable to shorter or seasonal programmes (less than 6 months).
So before you embark on a costly verification exercise, consider whether the programme design
actually requires it, and try to identify approaches that are effective and convenient for the people we
assist.

Steps:
Confirm the identity and general location of at least the principal applicant or one adult member of
the household we are assisting;
Match the identities of people we assist with their correct payment instruments or assistance cards
and confirm that they are still in possession of the right cards;
Document verification results (successful, unsuccessful, inconclusive, pending, etc.)
Ensure the results of the verification exercise are applied to the following transfer cycles (i.e., people
who are successfully verified are eligible for future assistance and part of future payment lists);
Always ensure alternative approaches are established for special cases of people unable to attend
physical verifications due to disabilities or other protection-related reasons.

Required datasets:
Cleaned, digital lists of relevant information on the people we assist (e.g. unique identifiers);
Digital tracking and records of payment instruments (status and custodianship);
Method and system for matching people’s IDs with payment instrument serial numbers.

Note that identity checks can be done using biometrics or non-biometric means (e.g., checking
national IDs or other identity cards). While planning and implementing verifications, COs should
comply with WFP’s data protection principles in accordance with WFP Guide to Personal Data
Protection and Privacy and take into account the CBT position paper on the use of biometrics and
IDM normative framework.

53
Other factors to be taken into consideration when conducting physical verification activities include
site adequacy and accessibility, security and crowd control, estimated caseloads, and other logistics.
A robust communication strategy should be developed to raise awareness of the verification exercise
objectives, dates and times, and what people must bring to the verification site, to ensure efficient
participation and community trust. Below are some examples of the key information that may be
included in the communication material:

• What is verification and what are the objectives/value (from the perspective of the people we
assist);

• Who should be verified (e.g. principal applicants, entire families, etc.);

• What to bring (e.g. documentation, etc.);

• How long the exercise will last;

• When and where to verify (e.g. verification sites including addresses, times and dates);

• How to enquire and provide feedback (e.g. contact details for CFM channels);

• How to receive or enquire about verification results (e.g. when and how people will be informed
about the verification results and whether there is an appeals mechanism).

Depending on the operational context, remote verifications methods may also be explored, including
using phone calls, SMS, or voice recognition. COs will need to decide which verification method best
serves their programmatic requirements and use-case, taking into account people’s protection and

BACK TO THE FLOW

preferences, connectivity and available technology, any cultural or religious requirements (such as
modesty requirements requiring women staff to conduct verification of women cash recipients), and
the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

Verification exercises confirm that the intended people are still the ones receiving and redeeming
CBT assistance. The objectives of verification exercises should NOT be confused with other possible
activities such as maintaining an updated registry (i.e. verifying and updating registration data for ALL
individuals) or performing case management, which may adhere to other methods and timelines and
require additional resources to implement.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
• A detailed SOP approved by the Head of Programme or CO management, outlining how periodic
verifications will be managed, responsible units and tools and systems to be used;

• A digital and centralised system to conduct periodic verifications when applicable to safeguard and
protect people’s personal data;

• A clean and verified recipient list outlining the outcomes of the verification exercise, verification
location, operator, time and date;

• A memo outlining how the verification outcomes will be applied to future payment cycles,
endorsed by CO management.

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Framework Technical Note (section 1.3)

54
APPLY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND
SELECT PEOPLE TO ASSIST
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
RAM is responsible for defining eligibility criteria and targeting strategies for all WFP programmes; CBT
and Programme are responsible for ensuring eligibility criteria are applied and people selected cor-
rectly for each assistance cycle

ACTION:
All WFP programmes should have a clear targeting strategy to select people who are eligible for
assistance, at household and individual levels. These targeting criteria must be approved by the Head
of Programme, Head of RAM, and documented in the CBT SOP. To ensure rights are respected and
everyone who should be included (or excluded) is, targeting criteria should be applied in a consistent
and transparent manner with supporting documentation and a clear audit trail.

Targeting criteria need to be applied to data sets (such as registration databases, lists received and
vetted from trusted partners, etc) to generate the list of people to assist – or ‘eligibility list’ that will

BACK TO THE FLOW

eventually become the ‘payment list’. Remember: these lists do not remain static over time – the
selection process should ensure that the correct people are included in payment lists, and anyone
that is no longer eligible is removed and informed appropriately.

Once targeting criteria are determined, managing the selection process in a secure data environment
with controlled access is crucial. This includes encrypting sensitive data and complying with WFP data
protection guidelines. Staff actions should be auditable to ensure accountability. The targeting criteria
applied for determining the inclusion and exclusion of people can be complex and context-specific
and involve multiple variables and operational datasets. Regular reviews are necessary to avoid
biases and inclusion/exclusion errors. Highly sensitive information in the system while needing to be
accessible must be tightly controlled, with strict protocols for ethical considerations, to ensure privacy
and informed consent.

Lists of people we assist should be approved by CO Heads of Programme (or sometimes Head of
RAM), based on supporting documentation to highlight the people that were selected/not selected
from previous cycles. If selection is done outside of digital corporate systems, then the CO should
ensure that controls – such as segregation of duties and oversight – are in place to reduce the risk of
human error, internal fraud, or data leak/misuse. A best practice is for a ‘Reload Memo’ to be drafted
and signed for each payment cycle (example templates are available upon request to CBT Delivery HQ
support team).

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The CO should have clear eligibility criteria and SOPs to determine the monthly inclusion and
exclusion of people from assistance – and this targeting framework should be clearly communicated
to people we assist and host communities.
An audit trail and appropriate controls and oversight should be in place to manage the monthly
selection using secure digital systems (not MS Excel).

55
CO management should approve the monthly inclusion and exclusion with supporting documentation
as the basis for their approval.

It is essential that people have access to an appeals process and clear communication on how to
have their case reviewed if they believe they have been incorrectly excluded – and the CFM and other
communication channels with WFP must be able to make referrals to this appeals mechanism.

KEY LINKS:
• Targeting and Prioritization | WFPgo
• Cash Assurance Technical Note | WFPgo
• Cash for prevention of acute malnutrition

DISTRIBUTE PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS

TO PEOPLE

BACK TO THE FLOW

ACCOUNTABLE:
Director of Operations (usually the DCD)

RESPONSIBLE:
Distributions to people - CBT; Handling and tracking of Payment Instruments – Finance; other relevant
Programme teams; IT

ACTION:
Cash assistance usually requires at least one distribution of the ‘payment instrument’ – which is the
means by which the people we assist access their money. Payment instruments are the bank cards,
SIM cards, SCOPECARDs, value vouchers, etc that are then ‘loaded’ with their assistance entitlement
each month or with top-ups and one-off lumpsums. This is a key difference to regular distribution
cycles (eg. with in kind food or cash in envelopes) – with digital money, you often only see people once
at their payment instrument distribution (unless we are doing cash in hand/envelope). For in-kind
programmes there might be an assistance card or functional ID that WFP and partners create and
distribute to programme participants.

The distribution of payment instruments and assistance cards may be done by WFP, CPs or directly
by Financial Services Providers (FSP). Regardless of who does the distribution, there are key steps
and assurance controls that must be taken into consideration when distributing cards to the people
we assist. Liabilities associated to the distribution of cards lie with the entity responsible to distribute
them.

Prior to starting a distribution, a key part of distribution planning is the development and approval of
a clean distribution list, listing the households eligible for assistance who need a payment instrument,
with dates, locations, and expected caseloads (or how many people we expect to assist through
distributions). Site adequacy and accessibility, security and crowd control, and other distribution
logistics should be determined and duly documented. This should include organising distributions
56
around the lives of people we assist, particularly around times that will be convenient for people
(especially women) and factors in things like religious festivals or other important community events.
A robust communication strategy should be developed in order to raise awareness of the distribution
exercise through WFP staff, the FSP and/or Cooperating Partners objectives, along with information
regarding the date, time and location of the distribution, entitlements, what people must bring to the
distribution site and who should be present. Strong CFM mechanisms should also be set up ahead
of time, to ensure people have an easy and effective way to communicate with WFP and raise any
questions or issues.

Distribution processes may vary depending on the type of payment instrument that is being
distributed (bank card, sim card, SCOPECARD, etc.) and the type of verification method that is used
to verify the identity of the recipient (people’s IDs, ration cards, and biometrics only if truly necessary,
etc.). During distributions it is important to:

1. Verify the identity of the person collecting the payment instrument against the distribution list;

2. Digitally record the distribution of payment instruments;

3. Explain how payment instruments are used and how cash benefits may be accessed, and organise
and inform people about additional training available for using the payment instrument where
relevant;

4. Inform the people we assist on how they can report an issue or request further assistance.

Key assurance controls must be implemented to ensure that people are in possession of the right
payment instrument and therefore money transfers are sent to and received by the intended persons.

BACK TO THE FLOW

These controls are part of the standard operating procedures annexed to the contracts with Financial
Service Providers (FSPs). For more information on this aspect, please refer to the section ‘Set Up
Payment Solution’. These controls include:

• Digitally log and track payment instruments throughout the programme lifecycle (including
request, issuance, handovers, distributions and subsequent statuses);

• Verify the identity of payment instrument collectors and maintain a digital audit trail of
distributions (including distributor’s name, location, time and date);

• Ensure segregation of duties are in place to manage key aspects of payment instruments (Finance)
and PIN codes (Programme);

• Ensure eligible people receive payment instruments and only those which are distributed are
activated and part of the payment list;

• Ensure undistributed payment instruments are returned and eventually destroyed (with
supporting documentation);

• Ensure people know how to use their payment instruments and how to receive support if needed;

• Perform spot-checks on samples of distributed payment instruments by contacting some of the

people we assist;

• Ensure one-time payment instruments are destroyed upon redemption by beneficiaries;

• Detailed requirement of data harmonization/synchronization between payment instrument

tracking system and beneficiaries identity management system, e.g., frequency, how, etc, to
ensure correct BPL is created;
57
• Finally, as per the ‘Verification’ section of the CashBook, conduct annual verification to ensure the
distributed payment instruments are still held by the intended beneficiaries.

If payment instrument distributions are done directly by the FSP, WFP must obtain and securely store
reports from the FSP containing details of the payment instruments issued, date of distribution and
recipient, and their status over time. These reports should be stored and exchanged through secure
means (NEST, Sharepoint, password protected, etc.), given the sensitivity of the data they contain.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
• Distribution Plans – approved/authorised as per the relevant CO segregation of duties
arrangements, normally the DCD or HOP.

• An SOP on payment instrument management and handling of distributions endorsed by CBT and
internal stakeholders and signed off by management.

• A centralized card tracking log or system which should have a full record of card serial numbers,
people’s associated IDs, and data related to the issuance, distribution, and status of cards,
including the name/unit of the person handling payment cards and date of the actions performed.

For more information on the detailed process steps required to manage various types of payment
instruments and their distribution, please visit the ‘PI Management Guidance’ in the key links below.

KEY LINKS:

BACK TO THE FLOW

• PI Management Guidance
• PI Management Factsheet
• PIT Application
• Emergency Pocketbook - Distribution of cards in an emergency context [VPN required]
• Emergency Pocketbook - Managing a distribution site [VPN required]

58
CONFIRM TRANSFER VALUE
PER PERSON/HOUSEHOLD
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT and Activity Managers are responsible for ensuring the right amount of money is sent to the right
person each month; RAM is responsible for implementing prioritisation exercises when needed to
reduce the overall caseload.

ACTION:
As per the ‘Determine Transfer Value’ step of the Design and Plan phase, a transfer value would have
been calculated either per individual or, per household (either based on an average household size or
different household sizes).

Using the transfer value calculation, once you have compiled and cleaned people’s registration data it
is necessary to confirm the total amount to be transferred to each household (or individual).
Once you have determined this, you can finalise the payment lists. Confirming the total amount to be
transferred can be done in the following ways:

BACK TO THE FLOW

• If you have calculated a transfer value per capita, you calculate the household’s transfer based on
the number of household members. For example, if the transfer value is 5 USD per person and
there are seven household members, the transfer amount is 35 USD for that cycle.

• If you are using a transfer value based on household size, the transfer value of a household will be
determined based on their size. For example, if the TV for households from one to three members
is 10 USD, a household of two members would get 10 USD. Instead, if the TV for households from
four to six members is 15 USD, a household of six members would get 15 USD.

• For polygamous households, we need to provide alternative ways of registering and calculating
transfer values for these families – the best way is to treat each wife and her children as a unique
household to ensure equity of access to money among this type of family (but remember to only
register the husband in one family).

• Finally, you might find that there were more eligible people in the registered and eligible caseload
than the targeting criteria predicted – or indeed than you have funds for.
This is an incredibly tough situation, requiring CBT to work with the HOP, RAM, Protection, and
possibly other programme units to determine the way forward. There are three options – in all
cases these would be led by the HOP/Programme/RAM, with CBT involved and supporting with
technical inputs:

• The first is to assist everyone, with a lower transfer value than originally calculated and
planned for. The advantage of this strategy is that everyone gets ‘something’ while you
advocate for more funds, consult with the community and other stakeholders, and/or conduct
another prioritisation exercise.

• The second is to reduce the caseload, using vulnerability-based prioritisation with the lowest
possible inclusion error. This can be difficult to do last minute unless you have the required
59
 data to modify the eligibility criteria or apply a tiered approach, but it may be the only way to
reach programme objectives if the transfer value would be too small to be meaningful forthe
large caseload being assisted.
• The final option is to ‘tier’ the transfer value, which involves assisting the most vulnerable
in the caseload with the ideal transfer value, then sharing the remaining between the rest
of the caseload. This needs to be done with RAM colleagues, as it involves designing and
implementing a tiered targeting criteria system tailored to distinct vulnerabilities.
Like with all these options, this needs to be done with a high level of consultation and
communication with the people we are assisting so that everyone understands why some
people are getting more or less than others.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Details of amounts per HH/individual for the payment list.

KEY LINKS:
• Transfer Value Guidance | WFPgo
• Targeting and Prioritization | WFPgo
• Breadth vs Depth Annex to the Transfer Value guidance (forthcoming)

CREATE PAYMENT LISTS

BACK TO THE FLOW

ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of CBT

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT CO; CBT Delivery DAT service in HQ (if service agreement in place)

ACTION:
Based on the approved list of people we assist, a payment list is created by adding the amount that
each individual or household should receive (plus other information as relevant such as mobile phone
numbers, locations or camp names, etc.).

The systems and required information and data for payment lists needs to be discussed and agreed
with FSPs, to ensure compatibility with their systems and processes.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Payment lists with the IDs or other unique identifier and entitlements (ready for approval) of the
people we assist.
Record of people we assist included/removed from payment lists (and compared to previous cycles).

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Technical Note | WFPgo
60
APPROVE PAYMENT LISTS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of CBT / Head of Finance

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT and Finance

ACTION:
Heads of CBT (or an alternative person, based on the context of the CO) should approve the people
that are included in payment lists and the entitlements they should receive. Heads of Finance should
check and confirm that the total amounts included in payment lists are covered by available CO funds
and the PO number is correct.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:

Recorded approvals of the final payment lists by Heads of CBT and Heads of Finance. A best practice
is for a Distribution Plan or Reload Memo to be drafted and signed for each payment cycle (example
templates are available upon request) and/or for the approvals to be digitally recorded in a system.

BACK TO THE FLOW

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Technical Note | WFPgo

61
RAISE AND PROCESS PURCHASE
REQUISITIONS (PR S )  
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT and Finance

ACTION:

FIRST, A NOTE ON FUNDS MANAGEMENT

Cash that we give to the people we assist is managed in WINGS through several steps, including
Purchase Requests (PRs) and Purchase Orders (POs) (see relevant sections). To ensure that we
manage WFP’s funds effectively, and distribute it to people on time, it is essential that Programme,
Finance and Procurement work closely and proactively together to plan PRs and POs. Likewise,
entering data into WINGS after distributions take place, and closing PRs and POs when no longer
needed, are equally important to ensure that the information in WINGS always reflects accurately the
funds that are available vs the funds already distributed.

Insufficient funds in the Outline Agreement, insufficient funds on grants, or incorrect material groups

BACK TO THE FLOW

or GL codes can all block PRs or POs from being created or released – such issues should be promptly
addressed through communication between CBT, Finance and Procurement, to avoid causing delays
to distributions.

Managing, monitoring, and spending funds in a CO will fall under the responsibility of various units,
and the ones relevant for cash operations, typically, are:

• Programme/Activity Managers: put together implementation plans for their activities, including
amounts of cash to be distributed, and identifying which grants should be used for each
distribution based on expiry dates and donor restrictions of available grants. They communicate
this information to CBT for action.

• Budget and Programming: monitors funds availability for implementing WFP’s activities, including
keeping track when each grant expires (called Terminal Obligation Dates (TOD) and Terminal
Disbursement Dates (TDDs)). They also track that fund utilisation aligns with donor earmarking
(eg. for a specific caseload or activity). Grants that expire very soon should be prioritised for use in
PRs/POs.

• CBT: creates Purchase Requests based on the plans shared by Activity Managers, and requests
Procurement to create corresponding POs. When PRs and POs are in place, CBT prepares payment
requests for sending funds to FSPs so that distribution can take place.

• Procurement: creates POs and ensures that they are released by the competent authority. For
more information, see Raise Purchase Requests and Raise Purchase Orders (add links).

• Finance: releases PRs, ensures that WINGS entries are in line with financial rules and regulations,
sends payments to vendors including FSPs, and reconciles transactions.

The Resource Management Committee (RMC) is an important CO forum for reviewing funds
62
availability and taking decisions to ensure that funds are used correctly and on time; CBT participation
in this committee is strongly recommended.

RAISING PURCHASE REQUISITIONS

We can only distribute cash to people if we have the funds to do so in WINGS, and a valid contract
with a service provider like an FSP, or in some cases, Cooperating Partners or the Government.

Purchase Requisitions (PRs) are used to set aside funds within WINGS for each cash distribution
cycle, and Purchase Orders (PO) are then created using the specific grants that we want to use for
each distribution cycle. See separate section on POs (add link). Both of these are linked to the service
provider that will actually distribute the cash through their vendor number, and also to the contract
that we have with the service provider through an Outline Agreement (OA) (link to “Set Up Payment
Solution”).

There are two types of PRs and POs: one type is for the cash that is distributed (transfer value), and
the other is for the fees that are paid to the service provider (service fees). If a PR/PO is created for
distribution of cash, the PR/PO for the fees paid to the service provider should always be created at
the same time to avoid any kind of imbalance in WINGS.

While PRs can be created as long as there are funds available for the Activity in WINGS, the PO should
only be created when there is an actual intent to distribute. For this reason, an approved Distribution
Plan must be shared with Procurement before they will create the PO.

If the CO is distributing in local currency, then the PR (and corresponding PO) will be created in local
currency, automatically taking the official UN exchange rate in effect on that day between the local
currency and the US Dollar. It is recommended that COs create one PR per distribution cycle for this

BACK TO THE FLOW

reason; if the CO were to create a PR covering 6 months of distributions, and then the exchange rate
were to change significantly, the CO could find itself exposed to exchange rate gains or losses which
affect WFP’s ability to continue assisting people. Creating a PR for the month of distribution, during
the month of distribution if possible, helps to minimize any significant variation between our planning
in WINGS and what is happening in the real economy. Multiple lines can be created within each PR, to
use different grants and/or to indicate which amounts are intended for which purpose, e.g., region of
the country or group of people covered by the distribution. More information can be found above in
the “Funds Management” section.

The process is as follows:

• CBT/Programme Assistant creates the PR and CBT Officer does zero release

• Finance Officer checks that the PR has been raised correctly (correct vendor number, material
group, etc) and that funds are available, and releases the PR

• CBT Assistant requests Procurement Assistant to create a PO linked to the PR, indicating the
specific grants to be used, and sharing the approved Distribution Plan which clearly shows the
amounts of cash to be distributed

• Procurement Assistant creates the PO and sends to the procurement authority (usually the CD) for
release

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
PR created and released in WINGS for each CBT distribution cycle and any fees to be paid to the
service provider.

KEY LINKS:
• WINGS Manuals.
63
RAISE AND PROCESS PURCHASE
ORDERS (PO S )
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director or delegated Procurement Authority (usually DCD)

RESPONSIBLE:
Procurement and Country Director

ACTION:

*
FIRST, SEE ‘A NOTE ON FUNDS MANAGEMENT’ IN THE ‘RAISE AND PROCESS PURCHASE
REQUISITIONS’ SECTION OF THE CASHBOOK.

Once the PR is released, Purchase Orders can be created for the cash distributions that will take place.

There are two types of POs: one type is for the cash that is distributed, and the other is for the fees
that are paid to the service provider. Ideally the two POs are created at the same time, but this is not
always possible.

The PO should only be created when there is an actual intent to distribute. For this reason, an

BACK TO THE FLOW

approved Distribution Plan must be shared with Procurement before they will create the PO.

If the CO is distributing in local currency, then the PO will be created in local currency (some
exceptions exist for global FSP contracts), automatically taking the official UN exchange rate in effect
on that day between the local currency and the US Dollar. It is recommended that COs create one PO
per distribution cycle for this reason: if the CO were to create a PO covering 6 months of distributions,
and then the exchange rate were to change significantly, the CO could find itself exposed to exchange
rate gains or losses which affect WFP’s ability to continue assisting people.

Creating a PO for the month of distribution, during the month of distribution if possible, helps to
minimize any significant variation between our planning in WINGS and what is happening in the real
economy. Multiple lines can be created within each PO, to use different grants and/or to indicate
which amounts are intended for which purpose, e.g., region of the country or group of people covered
by the distribution or programme activity (e.g., livelihoods, food for assets).

Because no distribution can take place without a PO, proactive planning and clear communication
between CBT, Finance, Budget & Programming, Programme and Procurement is essential. Within
Programme, Activity Managers should work closely with Finance and Budget & Programming to
monitor the available funds for each Activity, together with any restrictions that might apply to
different grants and their expiry dates. Grants that expire soon should be prioritized for use in POs.
Insufficient funds on grants, no approved distribution plan, or incorrect material groups or GL codes
can all block POs from being created or released – such issues should be promptly addressed through
communication between CBT, Finance and Procurement, to avoid causing delays to distributions.
More information on this can be found above in the “Funds Management” section.

The process is as follows:

• CBT/Programme Business Support assistant requests Procurement Assistant to create POs

linked to the PR in WINGS, indicating the specific grants to be used, and sharing the approved
64
 Distribution Plan which clearly shows the amounts of cash to be distributed.
• Procurement Assistant creates the PO, attaching the Distribution Plan in WINGS, and the
Procurement Officer does the initial release.
• Procurement informs CD or other delegated procurement authority that the PO is waiting
for release.
• CD or delegated procurement authority releases the PO.
• Procurement informs CBT that the PO has been released; CBT can then proceed to transfer funds
to the FSP.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
PO created and released in WINGS for each cash distribution cycle and any fees to be paid to the
service provider. All the detailed steps, including timelines, roles and responsibilities should be
detailed in an internal SOP that the CBT unit should draft and manage.

KEY LINKS:
• Impact of Foreign exchange transactions on CBT | WFPgo

TRANSFER RECONCILIATION  

BACK TO THE FLOW

ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT Cash Data Services; CBT/Programme Officers/Finance; Supply Chain

ACTION:
The transfer reconciliation is a process that occurs immediately after the payment cycle is completed
to verify that the intended people received the right assistance. There are two types of transfer
reconciliation:

1. First-level reconciliation: WFP is responsible for performing first-level reconciliation when WFP is
transferring benefits using WFP’s proprietary cash transfer platforms (i.e. managed by WFP), such
as SCOPE or Building Blocks. The purpose of first-level reconciliation is to ensure that transfers are
legitimate and to ensure that invoices from distributing agents match the total amount that was
redeemed by the people we assist.

2. Second-level reconciliation: WFP is responsible for performing second-level reconciliation when

transferring benefits through external service providers or partners, such as Financial Service
Providers (FSPs) or NGO Cooperating Partners (CPs). The purpose is to confirm that the external
service provider executed the transfer to people we assist as intended by WFP (defined as the
transfers performed by the FSP or CP match the transfers planned in the payment advice file sent
by WFP).

For second-level reconciliation, two data sources are required:

1. Payment instructions via the Payment List (also referred to as the ‘payment advice file’): this
dataset contains, at the very least, people’s identifiers and amounts each of them is entitled
to receive.
65
2. Transfer report: the dataset contains, at the very least, people’s identifiers, amounts that were
attempted to be transferred, and transaction outcomes, indicating whether the transfer has been
successful or not. It typically also contains date or time of transfer, transaction identifier, and in
case of unsuccessful transaction, transaction error message. The transfer report should be shared
with WFP securely and with respect to all WFP data privacy and protection protocols.

Comparing these two datasets on a person’s identifier level – or ‘the intended versus actual’ – is
transfer reconciliation analysis. The analysis should highlight discrepancies between the datasets, i.e.:
cases where people received different amounts than intended (more, less, or did not receive payment
at all), and cases where people that were not on the payment list received the transfer. Detected
discrepancies should be followed up and resolved according to the programme design by the CBT or
Programme Officer.

The CBT Cash Data Services team can support Country Offices with reconciliation analysis by creating
visual reports (typically dashboards) and automating the process for acquiring, storing, cleaning,
and analysing data. SCOPE also contains a reconciliation module which can be used when payment
instructions are created in SCOPE and the Financial Service Provider shares back the transfer report
for SCOPE to consume.

When possible, it is advisable to automate reconciliation so that manual handling of files by WFP
internal staff is not necessary. This helps ensure the integrity and accuracy of reconciliation results.

Financial Services Providers play a key role in transfer reconciliation. When selecting and contracting
an FSP, ensure you clearly state in the contractual requirements and SOP the frequency and format of
reports and types of data required. Make sure you follow up with the FSP to ensure they comply with
these contractual obligations. The contract provides for tools to deal with any delays by the FSP in

BACK TO THE FLOW

this respect. Should this happen, you should liaise with Legal (LEGC) on what to do. At the ‘Design and
Plan’ phase, you should have already ensured the FSP has strong data protection mechanisms in place
to avoid putting people at risk.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
The outcome of the exercise should be two documents: for each distribution cycle, (1) a transfer
reconciliation report, outlining total figures in terms of numbers and value of the transfers, and
detected discrepancies, and if applicable, (2) a detailed report or a note for the record on the follow
ups and resolution of the detected discrepancies. On a monthly basis, the aggregated report should
be prepared, outlining the applicable figures that correspond to the transfers done within the given
calendar month. Both reports should be signed by the Country Director or delegated authority (e.g.,
Head of CBT / Programme).
For each distribution cycle, after the transfer reconciliation has been closed and signed, please follow
the steps with the reference to the Finance Manual for applicable accounting scenario.

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Directive (March 2022)
• Cash Assurance Framework: Technical Note (October 2021)
• Transfer Reconciliation Guidance (forthcoming)
• Financial Management of Cash-Based Transfers (part 12.1.1.3.3)

66
ANOMALY DETECTION, FOLLOW UP,
AND RESOLUTION
ACCOUNTABLE:
CBT Officer

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT Cash Data Services; CBT Officer

ACTION:
The term “anomaly” refers to a data point or cluster of points that deviates from what is considered as
standard or expected. In the context of Cash Based Transfers, an anomaly could be an indication that
there is an irregularity in the delivery of assistance to people or it could highlight possible fraudulent
behaviour by actors involved in the process. Actors can include retailers, financial service providers,
cooperating partners, people we assist, or WFP internal staff.

When anomalies are highlighted in reports, they require follow up to determine whether the anomaly
reflects something that has gone wrong in the process, or whether the anomaly can be justified as
being normal under the specific circumstances.

BACK TO THE FLOW

Examples of anomalies could include: the same person receiving assistance more than once within a
payment cycle; unusual household size changes (for example, household size changing from 3 to 10
members in a short period of time); transactions at unusual times such as 3am; groups of payment
instruments repeatedly being used within a short period of time; or dormant accounts (where WFP is
sending assistance to accounts that are not being used).

The process to develop context-specific anomaly reports involves the following:

1. Identifying types of anomalies that are relevant to the CBT context.

2. Analysing data to determine what is ‘normal’ and considering contextual factors based on
information provided by CO CBT colleagues.

3. Create reports every distribution and transfer cycle that highlight the number of anomalies
detected as well as specific details to enable follow up, such as people receiving assistance or
account identifiers, transaction identifiers, or financial service provider information. Make sure
these reports can be understood by the people that have to read and sign off on them – the Head
of Programme or Deputy Country Director.

The CBT Cash Data Services Team maintains standard approaches for identifying anomalies and
creating visual reports.

Once anomalies are flagged in reports, it is the responsibility of CO CBT or Programme staff to follow
up on individual cases. For example, if a household has increased in size from 3 to 10 in one month,
then it may be necessary to liaise with the party responsible for updating household composition (for
instance, by a cooperating partner) to understand if the change is credible or if the case should be
reviewed.

After a thorough review of the anomalies case, if it is determined to relate to fraud, corruption,

67
or system errors, the resulting loss will be categorised as CBT loss – and must be reported to CO
Management by the WFP employee who discovered the loss or who may have gained knowledge
about the loss from others.
REQUIRED OUTPUT:
From the above steps, an anomaly report will be generated. Reports typically exist as dashboards
(on WFP’s Tableau Server). Access to dashboards must be approved by a Senior Authorising Officer
(such as Head of Programme or Deputy Country Director) due to sensitive data being presented. To
get access to dashboards or databases containing data related to anomalies, you can contact the CBT
Data Assurance Team (global.cbtdataassurance@wfp.org) who will share an Access Request Form to
be filled out.

Anomalies can be considered as an additional layer of reporting and analytics to complement transfer
reconciliation. Therefore, a review of anomaly reports should be part of the process where transfer
reconciliation is reviewed.

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Framework: Technical Note
• CBT Losses and Recoveries Procedure | WFPgo

PRODUCE REPORTS

BACK TO THE FLOW

ACCOUNTABLE:
CBT Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT; M&E; Partnerships

ACTION:
After a cash distribution has taken place, there are a number of reports that WFP receives from
partners and service providers, and a number of reports that we produce internally, some of which
contain information that may eventually be shared with donors.

Different types of reports include:

• Cash distribution & reconciliation: When we receive distribution or payment reports from
financial service providers, CPs or Government Partners, we use them to do the transfer
reconciliation. A reconciliation report which shows amounts planned to be distributed and
people to be assisted vs the amounts actually distributed and people actually assisted, as well as
any anomalies or discrepancies identified, should be shared with relevant internal stakeholders
(including CO CBT focal points and the CBT cross-functions) each month and then sent to relevant
management as per internal CBT SOPs. This report, notably the amount of cash distributed,
should be the basis of any SES entered in WINGS, and should align with the information in COMET.

• COMET: The information in COMET which may be entered directly by field office staff or
Cooperating Partners, should match the information in the CBT Reconciliation Report each
68
 month. Close monitoring of the alignment between WINGs and COMET can help the COs to
ensure that the consistency of the ‘amount of cash transferred to CPs’ with the ‘amount of cash
distributed to people’ between the two systems. The ACR Technical Guidance provides insights
into various potential causes of discrepancies between the two systems. One primary factor is
the exchange rate differences: for instance, if the PO was created in WINGS in a different month
than the distribution data were entered in COMET. Another main reason lies on the criteria
followed for recording data: while the cash distributions are reflected in COMET based on the
amounts distributed by WFP and received by people, WINGS figures are derived from the amounts
redeemed or received by people, depending on the delivery mechanism or beneficiary account
ownership. If the cumulative discrepancy on the amount between these two systems exceeds 1%
by the end of the year, the CO should include these details in an NFR as a justification. You can find
the NFR TEMPLATE _CBT ALIGNMENT BETWEEN COMET AND WINGS here.

• Information Management: SitReps or other internal documents often refer to cash distribution
figures, and highlight challenges or solutions related to the distribution.

• Donor reports or briefs: Briefs or presentations for donors in country may use cash distribution
figures, and likewise highlight challenges or solutions related to the distribution. Some donors also
require financial or operational reports related to their specific grant. As COMET does not track
distribution information by donor or grant, cross-referencing WINGS and COMET data may be
necessary to provide this kind of specialized reporting; this should be done in collaboration with
the COMET focal point, Activity Manager, BPU Officer, and Head of Programme.
When reporting both internally and externally, there are a few things to keep in mind for
consistency of information and data:

• To the extent possible, always use figures from COMET on the number of people assisted or

BACK TO THE FLOW

the amounts distributed. If the COMET figures are not yet finalized and aligned with WINGS
figures, the CO should always indicate that any figures provided are not final. This is important
even when reporting internally, to avoid different colleagues using different figures which may
eventually be transmitted externally and create confusion.

• When reporting cash distribution figures in USD in documents outside of the COMET and
WINGS systems (which have their own exchange rates), it is often useful to indicate clearly the
exchange rate being used to convert local currency to USD figures.

• When reporting in external fora such as through Cash Working Groups, where Cooperating or
Government Partners of WFP may also be providing information on distributions undertaken
with WFP, only one set of figures should be provided per distribution. If a Cooperating Partner
supported or directly delivered the WFP cash distribution, the information should be reported
only by WFP, and the figures should align with COMET.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Consistent and accurate figures on cash distributions in terms of people assisted and amounts
distributed, in local currency and/or USD; COMET reporting; Financial Reporting.

KEY LINKS:
• COMET-WINGS Reconciliation Guidance
• ACR Technical Guidance
• CASHboard CBT Alignment between WINGS and COMET
• CASHboard CBT Alignment overview
• CASHboard CBT Alignment (including Payment Instruments)
69
PROCESS MONITORING
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of RAM/ Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) or Deputy Country Director, depending on
CO structure

RESPONSIBLE:
RAM/Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) team, Field Monitors, third party monitoring team
(if applicable)

CBT should be consulted on the design of surveys, particularly the inclusion of optional questions
that are relevant to the programme and context. A minimum set of process monitoring questions are
available in the Survey Designer and align to the corporate minimum standards

ACTION:
Process monitoring is continuous monitoring of the implementation of WFP operations in the field.
As with in-kind assistance, it is one of the most important quality assurance checks of our cash
operations. Things examined include: (1) how well activities are implemented in the field; (2) how
compliant WFP offices and partners are with WFP guidelines and contract agreements; and (3) how
accurate the information reported in partner and service provider reports is.

Below are some considerations for the two types of data collection activities for CBT process

BACK TO THE FLOW

monitoring.

DISTRIBUTION MONITORING
Distribution monitoring is one of the ways we engage with people we assist to ensure our assistance
is designed according to their needs and distributed to them in a safe and dignified way. Distribution
monitoring also helps ensure that the process of handing out payment instruments and transferring
cash is done in a way consistent with the Cash Assurance Framework, WFP standards, and
respectful best practices. Differently from food operations, cash distribution monitoring mainly
focuses on the distribution of payment instruments, except for cash in hand distributions. Unless
cash in hand is being distributed, some questions – such as process monitoring questions regarding
entitlements – may need to be addressed during post-distribution monitoring.

Field Monitors collect information on:

• Demographics of people at the distribution point (age and sex of the recipient, for example),

• Any observed concerns with the distribution (such as crowd management, waiting times, clear
information provision, etc.),

• Any observed or experienced misconduct (harassment, discrimination, corruption, etc.),

• Any concerns people we assist may have (such as access to the distribution site, whether they got
all the information they need to access and spend their money, etc).

This information can then be used to adjust or change the way we do future distributions to better
serve the needs and preferences of all the people we assist – with particular attention to those who
might face barriers to safe and dignified access, such as women, elderly, people with disabilities, or
groups facing discrimination.

More information can be found on the Distribution Monitoring page of the Monitoring Handbook.
70
When should DM take place? At distributions! Any time there is a direct interaction between WFP
staff, cooperating partners, or service providers, and the people we assist where we hand out money
or payment instruments to access money:

For cash in hand, it can be cash distribution sites, which are the last point of redemption;
For cash over the counter, this can take place at relevant sites (eg. banks, Western Union agents, etc)
where people are collecting their money;
For mobile money, it can be SIM distribution sites and agents for cash out;
For ATM card or bank cards, it can be card distribution sites and banks/ATMs.

DM must be carried out at each distribution site and/or health centre at least once every quarter (or
every six months in very small COs).
Checking in on WFP or CP-run distributions and also service providers such as banks, mobile money
offices, and anywhere else people go to access their assistance is an important way of checking that
the quality of our services are up to standard.

Remember: Country Offices can modify the DM survey to fit the unique context of the operation.

POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING

In addition to data collected during distributions, process-related information can also be collected
through Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) exercises. Here, the objective is to collect data from
households after they have received the assistance, when they have already been using their cash.
Questions will focus on the experience of receiving cash; any access barriers people faced; their
treatment by us, our service providers, and cooperating partners; any diversions / abuse of power /
requests for all or part of their assistance; the adequacy of transfer values; targeting concerns; and

BACK TO THE FLOW

other process-related concerns.

In the post distribution data collection survey, process monitoring related questions are coupled with
outcome and cross cutting indicators, which may be found in the Corporate Results Framework and
are tailored to each country’s Line of Sight (LoS) and Logframe.

More information can be found on Post Distribution Monitoring page of the Monitoring Handbook.

Ok, I collected the data. Now what? In addition to entering the data in any relevant corporate
reporting systems (such as MoDA),the important thing is to actually look at and use the data to ensure
smooth and safe processes (such as distributions and cash withdrawals, among others). Process
monitoring, particularly post distribution monitoring, also helps us to understand the profiles of the
people that receive WFP cash transfers and whether the assistance is having the desired outcome,
which in turn informs how we might need to modify the operation to better suit their needs.
Field Monitors and RAM/M&E Officers should share the summary of PDM findings with key issues
highlighted as soon as ready with the CBT Officer so they may take appropriate corrective action.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Process Monitoring reports; Distribution and post-distribution monitoring survey analysis; Escalation
of concerns and referrals as per the internal CO procedure.

KEY LINKS:
• Monitoring Handbook: 4.3.2 Types of process monitoring (wfp.org)
• Distribution Monitoring guidance 4.3.2.1 Distribution monitoring (wfp.org)
• Data collection tools: 5.4 Data collection tools and data management (wfp.org)
• Survey Designer
71
ECONOMIC, PRICE,
AND MARKET MONITORING
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of RAM/VAM and Head of Supply Chain

RESPONSIBLE:
RAM and Supply Chain are jointly responsible for market monitoring.

RAM is responsible for economic and price monitoring.

Supply Chain is responsible for monitoring market development activities, and for performance moni-
toring of contracted or non-contracted retailers.

Finance is responsible for sharing relevant information related to the procedures and conditions ob-
tained when exchanging currencies, availability of cash, financial regulation or other insights related
to their function that could be useful for monitoring.

CBT is responsible for engaging with relevant functions involved in monitoring, outlining monitoring
needs relevant to the design and implementation of cash transfers and informing the adjustment of
cash programmes, preparedness and mitigation measures with monitoring outputs.

BACK TO THE FLOW

ACTION:
To ensure our cash transfers have the most impact in an efficient way, it is key to conduct periodic
economic, price and market monitoring that continuously informs cash programme (re-)design. This
can allow us to continue to send money to people, safeguard their purchasing power, and support
local economies, in line with the 2023 Cash policy.

Economic, price, and market monitoring informs cash programme design and adjustments. Below
you will find a brief description of these together with all the relevant links. Note that the economic,
price and market dimensions should also be integrated with monitoring of other risks – including
political and natural hazards – as relevant.

A note on quantitative and qualitative data: Quantitative data is key to inform programmes
and many of the available tools and resources help obtain insights from this type of data. However
small scale qualitative data collection or insights (e.g., from informal discussions with people, Focus
Group Discussion, Key Informant Interviews, or other) can also be very useful to illustrate aspects that
quantitative data alone cannot capture (e.g. individual perspectives, cultural context, and behavioural
motivations). They can also be a faster source of information, considering quantitative data collection,
processing and dissemination usually requires more time that speaking to people, FSPs or retailers,
among others.

As a CBT officer you will not be responsible for collecting or processing this data, but it is important
to understand economic, price and market developments to inform cash operations. Many concepts
are technical, so do not hesitate to reach out for clarifications to RAM and Supply Chain Retail in
the CO, RBs and HQ. You can also reach out to CBT Delivery support in HQ for clarifications on the
implications of these economic variables or developments on cash transfers.

ECONOMIC MONITORING:
Economic monitoring and analysis entails tracking and assessing how the macroeconomic context and
72
outlook evolve, including exchange rate and inflation dynamics, the development of economic growth
or public debt, among others.

Economic and primary data collection is usually done by RAM officers through desk research,
including external reports, surveys, and databases (this could be from government, central banks
or others), or can be available in the DataViz Economic Explorer. At times it can be useful to
complement this with qualitative data from interactions with different stakeholders, including with
other functions as Supply Chain and Finance, Financial Service Providers, retailers, and the people we
assist. Periodic economic monitoring is recommended, with frequency of monitoring depending on
the context and variables (whenever possible, it is recommended to monitor economic variables at the
frequency with which price and market monitoring are conducted).

You can find in this document a detailed outline of the type of economic variables and analysis that
could be useful for informing cash transfer (re-) design.

Price monitoring: Price monitoring refers to the systematic and periodic process of collecting and
analysing data related to the prices of relevant food and non-food items in a specific region or market.
This can include tracking the price for key staple and nutritious foods and of basic goods and services
consumed by the people we assist, among others.

A note on PURCHASING POWER: Changes in prices or the transfer value (TV) affect people’s
purchasing power. An increase in prices implies people can buy less with the same amount of money,
while a TV increase (all things equal) increases purchasing power. Indicators like TV coverage (how much
of a given basket poeple can buy with the money we send them) can be very useful to flag the need for
a TV revision.

BACK TO THE FLOW

Periodically, typically on a monthly basis (the usual frequency of price data collection and market
bulletins is monthly, but it can be different depending on the CO’s context), price data is collected,
analysed, and disseminated by RAM colleagues in the form of a report. This can include also data on
non-food items such as fuel, hygiene products, or wages which can also affect the people we assist.
The data is also accessible through the DataViz Economic Explorer, while market bulletins are on the
DataViz Reports Explorer. One of the most important outcomes of the price monitoring for CBT is
the value of the Minimum Expenditure Basket or any other threshold the CO uses to set their transfer
value to understand any possible implications on people’s purchasing power.

You can find in this document a detailed outline of the type of economic variables and analysis that
could be useful for informing cash transfer (re-) design.

MARKET MONITORING:
Market (In the context of the CashBook, the term market refers to the physical location where
buyers and sellers come together to trade goods and services) monitoring implies regularly updating
evidence on how markets evolve in terms of food and non-food items’ availability at a market level,
the resilience of supply chains, market environment and structure, conduct, and performance, among
others.

WFP conducts market monitoring and analysis to understand how markets can help people meet their
essential needs and achieve food security; assess feasibility and risks of cash transfers or other WFP
interventions; and understand how local markets can be strengthened sustainably.
The Market Functionality Index is a corporate tool that can be useful for monitoring changes in
market dynamics over time in a structured way (Market monitoring would normally follow after
an initial market assessment, for which the MFI can also be used. For more information on market
assessments, please check the Markets section). This can include for example tracking markets’
73
availability and variety of essential goods, prices, supply chain resilience, competition, infrastructure,
service, food quality, access, and protection. Based on needs and capacity to monitor all these
dimensions, Supply Chain, RAM, and CBT officers, among others, should discuss what aspects would
be most relevant to monitor and what would be the best approach for it (key informant interviews or
external reports, among others, can be used to get insights on these dimensions).

When specific Market Development Activities (MDAs) are implemented together with a cash
operation, the impact of those activities in market systems and for different stakeholders should be
monitored. Supply Chain in collaboration with RAM should complement the market monitoring with
specific indicators (examples of market indicators can be found here and the Corporate Results
Framework (CRF) which can be set and/or monitored using different corporate tools as the Retailer
Performance Monitoring & Evaluation (RPME - can provide information on price, availability, quality and
service of market retailers for both contracted and non-contracted retailers. The RPME captures information
from retail shop visits and feedback from consumers’ experience in those shops).

HOW TO LINK MONITORING TO CASH TRANSFER (RE-)DESIGN:

While monitoring itself will be done by RAM and Supply Chain Retail colleagues, there are a number
of things CBT officers can do to ensure monitoring outcomes inform cash programme (re-)design.
This includes identifying any risks to cash transfers and outlining possible preparedness or response
measures that could minimize or mitigate the possible impact of those economic risks. It also includes
adjusting cash programmes in any necessary way, including adjusting the transfer value, modifying
the payment mechanism or currency of payments among others.

For more detail on how to do cash in contexts of economic volatility and how monitoring can inform
cash programme design, please refer to the Technical Note and the Recommendations for Doing
Cash in Contexts of Economic Volatility.

BACK TO THE FLOW

REQUIRED OUTPUT (AND RESPONSIBLE UNIT):
• Plan for how to incorporate monitoring outcomes and insights to cash (re-)programming – CBT
• Contingency plan for economic risks to CBT where relevant – CBT
• Market Functionality Index trends analysis – RAM/SCO
• Market price bulletin or market monitor report including economic monitoring – RAM
• Any other reports or analysis as needed – RAM and others as relevant
• Market System Analysis – SCO
• Retailer Performance Evaluation & Monitoring trend analysis where applicable – SCO
• Market Development Activities monitoring indicators where applicable – SCO

KEY LINKS:
For CBT officers:
• Recommendations for doing cash in contexts of economic volatility
• Economic Explorer
• Reports Explorer
• Step-by-step for adjusting the transfer value in contexts of inflation
• Impact of foreign exchange transactions on CBT
• Note on engaging with central banks when doing CBT Economic Explorer, including relevant
economic and market data (not exclusively for CBT officers)
• Reports Explorer, with available market reports and assessments (not exclusively for CBT officers)
• Data Economic Explorer
74
Not for the use of CBT officers but useful for CBT officers to know of:
• Price monitoring guidance
• Exchange rate monitoring guidance
• Market Functionality Index (MFI) package supporting the entire process of a market assessment
• Market Systems Analysis (MSA) package supporting the market diagnostic process
• VAM Resource Center, including resources for data collection, management and analysis,
reporting, monitoring and planning
• Emergency Dashboards, providing an overview of the most relevant operational information for
WFP’s emergencies
• Retail Performance Management Guidance to support Retailer Performance Monitoring &
Evaluation (RPME) surveys done to WFP contracted and non-contracted retailers
• Indicators for monitoring Market Development Activities can be useful not only to track the
success and impact of those activities but also inform programming
• Qualitative data collected via Process-Output (Distribution) and Outcome (Post Distribution)
Monitoring, Complaint Feedback Mechanisms and others illustrated in other chapters
of this manual.

BACK TO THE FLOW

ASSURANCE MONITORING
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
Country Directors should nominate a CBT focal point (and backup) to fill out the survey on behalf
of the Country Office. While the responsibility for each indicator may be assigned to different units,
the survey should be led by one focal point in each Country Office. Inputs should be gathered in
consultation with the relevant units: Programme, M&E, CBT, Finance, Supply Chain, and other units
as required.

ACTION:
The Cash Assurance Framework was issued through the Cash Assurance Directive in March 2022
and pulls together existing guidance and learning on the measures that country offices should have
in place so that WFP can be reasonably confident that the right people are receiving the right benefits
at the right time. The Cash Assurance Framework is intended to make it easier for country offices to
do assurance well in their cash-based transfer (CBT) operations, no matter what the context, including
in emergencies, and when implementing through government systems or providing on-demand cash
transfer services to governments and partners. The Cash Assurance Framework includes a set of
standards that country offices should aim to achieve, and a detailed technical note to help country
office teams design and implement cash-based transfer (CBT) operations that meet the standards.

The Cash Assurance Monitoring Survey has been implemented on MoDa platform, a corporate tool
for data collection. You can log in using your WFP credentials. Note that upon first sign in, you will be
prompted to create your username. The access to the survey is granted to authorized contributors
75
only. To be granted access, please contact global.cbtdataassurance@wfp.org.

1. Log into MoDa platform.

2. Click on Projects

3. In the drop down menu on the top select Cash Assurance Monitoring Project

4. In the folder that opens, access the survey for your Regional Bureau by clicking on the Webform
next to the survey name. Alternatively, if you are already logged into MoDA with your browser, you
can access the survey directly by clicking on a link below:

• Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific

• Regional Bureau for the Middle East and Northern Africa

• Regional Bureau for Western Africa

• Regional Bureau for Eastern Africa

• Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean

• Regional Bureau for Southern Africa

The survey is composed of four sections. In the first section, you will be asked to indicate the Country
Office, reporting period and relevant programme activities. In the second section, you will be asked to
provide input (level of implementation) for each of the selected activities.

BACK TO THE FLOW

In the third section, you will have the opportunity to express the need for support, and in the fourth
section you will be able to provide feedback on the survey.

When there is more than one CBT activity in the country, focal points should report the status of
controls for each activity separately, which can be done in a single survey (i.e. one submission per
Country Office per reporting period). The survey will automatically extract the activity names from
COMET which will appear under each indicator.

The Cash Assurance Monitoring exercise has been established with bi-annual frequency.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A Cash Assurance Monitoring Dashboard will be generated by HQ CBT once the survey is completed
by the CO. Also, an RB aggregated dashboard will be generated for RB management.

KEY LINKS:
• Cash Assurance Monitoring: CBT Data Assurance (wfp.org)
• Cash Assurance Materials: CBT Assurance | WFPgo
• Retail Performance Monitoring and Eveluation (RPME)

76
OUTCOME MONITORING
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
RAM/Monitoring & Evaluation team, Field Monitors, third party monitoring team (if applicable)

CBT should be consulted on the design of surveys, particularly the inclusion of optional questions that
are relevant to the programme and context.

ACTION:
Outcomes are the short- to medium-term effects of WFP programmes, resulting from outputs.
Outcome monitoring helps answer the question, ‘Have we made a difference in people’s lives?’

One way to understand how outcome indicators are used is to consider the unit of analysis. The unit
of analysis is the “what” or “who” that is being studied, such as individual, household, community,
institution, or system. For CBT specifically, outcome monitoring at household level could track whether
the cash transfer is helping people meet their essential needs and that they’ve got enough money
to ensure a healthy diet. At the moment, CBT doesn’t have any outcome indicators at the corporate
level. However, COs are free to develop country-specific indicators to cover their information needs.
The full list of corporate outcome indicators can be found in the Annex of the Corporate Results
Framework as well as in the Indicator Compendium.

BACK TO THE FLOW

OUTCOME MONITORING

Outcome Monitoring – which includes baselines, endlines, and PDMs – together with process
monitoring (It is important to distinguish between “Outcome” and “Process” monitoring questions/
modules within the “Post Distribution Monitoring”. While some of the post distribution data collected
during outcome and process monitoring may be similar, this is not redundant because the objectives of
each monitoring exercise are different. Outcome monitoring uses corporately set representative random or
cluster sampling, the results of which are presented in corporate reporting in order to show what change
has happened in the targeted communities due to WFP assistance. There is no need to visit all sites as the
results are representative for the target population (clusters)), consists of interviews with people at the
household level (and sometimes other stakeholders, depending on programme objectives) after cash
distributions and transfers.

The outcome monitoring section of the PDM assesses the outcomes of WFP interventions for the
people we assist, such as the ability of people to meet their food and other essential needs, quality of
the assistance provision, or impact on gender equity and protection, among many others. Analysing
this key information allows WFP to modify the design of its cash operations to meet the intended
results – as well as targets – associated to the specific cash-based intervention being monitored.

When should Outcome Monitoring take place? For COs engaging in direct cash transfers,
depending on the length and type of programme, outcome monitoring should take place at least
twice per year for all activities (including a baseline and follow-up survey(s)).

Ok, I collected the data. Now what? First, COs should ensure that outcome data is entered in
corporate reporting systems (such as COMET) and that outcome monitoring results are reported on at
the end of the year in Annual Country Reports.
Outcome monitoring data is used to improve advocacy and accountability to affected populations,
77
donors and other stakeholders, and for WFP to demonstrate positive impact of our programming on
people’s lives. Regular analysis and updates on outcomes should be provided to CBT Officers, Activity
Managers and WFP management throughout the year as soon as the data is available. This evidence
can then be used to guide cash programming, including design, targeting, implementation and
adjustments. Additionally, use of the data will help strengthen operational efficiency and effectiveness
to reach programme objectives and enable increased resourcing from demonstrating operation
outcomes.

Perhaps most importantly, findings can be used to make programme adjustments. In conjunction with
Output and Process Monitoring data, Outcome Monitoring data should be used to determine if we
are achieving the desired results (as elaborated in the Line of Sight) and if not, why not. If outputs are
not leading to desired outcomes, assumptions/hypotheses in the Line of Sight should be revisited and
retested through programme adjustments.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Outcome (Post Distribution) Monitoring Report: Summary of key quantitative outcome and process
results (as applicable), triangulated with qualitative data collected through complementary qualitative
research activities.

KEY LINKS:
• Monitoring Handbook (on Outcome & Process Monitoring)
• WFP Indicator Compendium (2022-2025) | WFPgo
• Outcome Monitoring guidance: 4.4 Outcome monitoring (wfp.org)

BACK TO THE FLOW

• WFP Survey Designer
• Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
• Survey Designer Process Monitoring Guidance (forthcoming)

78
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF FINANCIAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Country Director

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT, CO Fin, SCOP and TEC (or your internal CWG, if one exists)

ACTION:
The Financial Service Provider (FSP) Performance Evaluation Tool (PET) enables COs to assess the
quality and effectiveness of the FSP service(s) provided to WFP. The comprehensive reviews integrated
in the tool capture the information on the key aspects of the FSP’s services – which could impact WFP’s
future engagements with the FSP.

One representative from the responsible functions above should be nominated to collect feedback
from different stakeholders before answering the FSP Performance Evaluation questions. The
tool allows this representative to designate one collaborator who can also fill out the tool. The team
working on the FSP performance review should approve the performance evaluation (including
collective decisions regarding the appropriate actions to be taken). Once done, the performance
evaluation should be forwarded to the Country Director (or delegated authority) for endorsement,

BACK TO THE FLOW

through the DOTS platform. At this stage, the performance evaluation will be marked as completed.

The tool consists of five sections that will provide key information on the FSP and facilitate the
performance review team’s conclusions, decision-making processes, support monitoring, and risk
management of engagements with FSPs. These five sections are:

• Assessing Services to WFP: Assesses FSP performance in terms of quality and effectiveness of the
services provided.

• Assessing FSP’s institutional and operational developments: Assesses changes in FSP

operations, services, ownership and governance, which occurred during the contract period.

• Scoring: Shows overall score based on the answers to the question and how to interpret the
score.

• Overall Comment from Country Office: Allows CO to provide an overall comment and additional
information as required.

• Country Director’s Endorsement: Ensures accountability and awareness of the performance of

the FSP by CO management.

The FSP overall performance score indicates the achieved level of service(s) delivered to WFP classified
as: very poor, poor, fair, and satisfactory.

To access the FSP PET, users can log in to the dedicated page in on this link (to be added). As the tool
is powered by DOTS, if you are accessing DOTS for the first time, please follow the steps here.

A completed FSP Performance report is a prerequisite to extend any FSP LTA or contract and shall be
obtained at least once a year and before the expiry of the FSP contract, even if the contract will not be
further extended.

79
TO REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF WESTERN UNION IN THE CO:
Although Western Union (WU) is contracted at global level, the activities are performed locally.
The functions that use the contract should review it 3 months after starting to use the contract,
checking the following elements:

Which WU services did the CO use?

How long did the set-up take, starting from the

day the decision was made to proceed with using
WU to set-up being ready for implementation?

Did the pre-financing limit cover the needs for the

CO or was the number of possible transactions
sufficient for the CO needs?

Were there any requests to add access points that

were not approved, and why?

BACK TO THE FLOW

If applicable, comparing to local market similar or
same solution, is WU pricing the same or lower
transaction cost?

Where there any issues raised to HQ and not

resolved in a timely manner, explain?

The review should be shared with FINB so that actions can be taken, if possible, and it can be used to
inform other transfer mechanism selection decisions in the future.

TO REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF PLUGPAY:

PlugPay is WFP’s proprietary digital payment solution that allows mass payments to recipients, being
piloted in some Country Offices and with the potential for large scale up. Country Offices that use it
should review its performance at least 3 months after its roll out, looking at the dimensions below.

How long did the set-up take, starting from the day
the decision was made to proceed with using plug-
PAY to set-up being ready for implementation?

Was the number of transactions possible sufficient

for the CO needs?

80
 Was the number of access points sufficient for the
people’s needs?

Were people able to switch between the different

banks when requested?

Where there any issues raised to HQ and not re-

solved in a timely manner, explain?

The review should be shared with plugPay project team so that actions can be taken, if possible, and
will inform transfer mechanism selection decisions in the future.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
A full evaluation performed cross-functionally, approved by the review team and endorsed by CO
management. The report should be kept confidential, unless it has been agreed with the FSP and
specified in the contract, and agreed upon on a case-by-case basis, that results can be shared with
other parties (e.g., Governments).

There is a database collecting answers and feedback from all performance evaluations conducted
(HQ technical teams are currently working on dashboards for data visualisation to allow easy and
systematic monitoring and oversight of poor performing areas).

BACK TO THE FLOW

Key Links:
• FSP Performance Evaluation Tool (FSP PET) | WFPgo
• 2.4 ​​​​​​​NEW: Using Non-Government Organisations as Transfer Agents for Cash-Based Transfers

81
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
COOPERATING PARTNERS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
Head of Cooperating Partners (CP) Management mostly but it is cross-cutting (Programme, AOs, Pro-
tection, Gender, AAP, etc.)

ACTION:
A Cooperating Partner (CP) is defined as “a non-governmental, non-profit, non-political organisation”
working in countries where WFP is operating.
Partnerships are collaborative relationships between actors that achieve better outcomes for the
people we serve by:

• Combining and leveraging complementary resources of all kinds;

• Working together in a transparent, equitable and mutually beneficial way; and

• Sharing risks, responsibilities and accountability.

BACK TO THE FLOW

A Partner Performance Evaluation (PPE) is based on the partners’ implementation of activities
specified in the FLA Plan of Operation. Evaluating existing partner performance should be conducted
before the conclusion of each FLA (or every six months/annually (up to the CO) for longer term FLAs,
or ad-hoc when there is an implementation issue). In all cases, it must be done before a new FLA is
signed with a CP.

Steps for the evaluation process can be summarised as:

1. WFP and partner shall designate a focal person who will anchor the evaluation process on behalf
of the organisation. The focal person can be decided by the CO, depending on technical areas of
expertise and capacity, however it should be managed/coordinated by the CP management unit
and take into account/mitigate any potential conflict of interest.

2. The relevant WFP partner focal point is expected to complete the performance evaluation matrix
and return it to WFP (CP management unit) within the agreed-upon deadline (which will depend on
the CO SOP).

3. The performance evaluation matrix will be used as the standard evaluation tool. The tool will
include key performance indicators, required data/verification sources, score descriptions against
each performance indicator and a comments/remarks section for additional relevant qualitative
information.

4. Heads of relevant unit(s) shall be responsible for discussing evaluation findings and
recommendations with the partner and suggesting mechanisms to ensure that all
recommendations are carried out.

5. Feedback sessions on performance will be provided jointly with the quarterly review meetings.
However, individual performance feedback sessions will be facilitated bilaterally between WFP
(activity units and/or CP management unit) and partners on an ad hoc basis (as needed). For CPs
82
 underperforming, consider putting together an improvement plan to document steps to be taken
and monitored to ensure this can be tracked as completed.

6. The performance evaluation can be completed with a country office-level partnership consultation.

7. Where needed, set up long-term improvement plans that can be part of the FLA extension and/or
the next FLA with the CP.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Using the “WFP Evaluation of NGO Partners´ Performance” tool (Annex 6.2 of the NGO Partnership
Guidance), the CO will evaluate the NGO from different perspectives (Operational Management,
Complementary Activities, Protection, Gender, Accountability to People we assist, Protection from
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Reporting/M&E, Risk Management, Finance and Logistic). The tool will
provide a scoring which will recommend if the NGO is eligible as a low-risk, medium-risk or high-risk
partner. This report should remain confidential, unless specified otherwise in the FLA contract.

KEY LINKS:
• Partner Performance Evaluation (PPE) guidance: Partner Performance Evaluation (PPE) | NGO
Partnership Guidance (wfp.org)
• For NGOs as Transfer Agents, there is a specific protocol to evaluate performance: 2.4 NEW:
​​​​​​​ Using
Non-Government Organisations as Transfer Agents for Cash-Based Transfers (wfp.org)
• Cooperating Partner as Transfer Agent - Performance Evaluation Tool

BACK TO THE FLOW

83
INCORPORATE LEARNING AND ADJUST/
REFINE CBT OPERATIONS
ACCOUNTABLE:
Head of Programme

RESPONSIBLE:
CBT Officer in collaboration with Programme, M&E, and CFM teams

ACTION:
Learning is the use of data and information collected during a programme or project to improve how
we do things – particularly for the people we are assisting. As everyone in our COs knows, WFP has
numerous compulsory tools and annual/cyclical processes that require us to go out and speak to
people we assist, government stakeholders, donors, other humanitarian actors, and each other that
often collect huge amounts of information. Learning is about using all of this to do things better and
redesign or adapt how we work – not just writing reports that sit on shelves gathering dust.

We’ve collected a few suggestions about how to systematise learning in your cash operations, to
tweak and improve how we do things for the people we assist.

BACK TO THE FLOW

COLLECT DATA THAT YOU CAN USE – AND STOP GATHERING INFORMATION YOU CANNOT
ACTION: Imagine being asked constantly what you think about something, but nothing ever
changes. Sometimes, this is how we treat the people we are assisting and other stakeholders. Sit
down with your RAM team and consider which questions and surveys are targeting things you can
change – like which transfer mechanism you can use – and those you can’t – such as increasing
transfer values, which might not be possible given the CO budget. Try to reduce the amount of time
you are spending asking people about things you cannot change and instead spend more time
looking into issues you have control over. Most importantly, make sure you set aside time to go
back and tell the community what you can and cannot change and what you are doing with all this
information you have been gathering (see more on approaches to this later in this section).

MAKE TIME TO REVIEW DATA AND INFORMATION TO ACTION AND MAKE USE OF FINDINGS:
We know everyone is busy, however we recommend against waiting too long to visit your CFM
data. It is important to know, for example, if everyone we assist is having trouble with the ATMs in
a particular location. This sort of problem should actually be identified within days or maximum a
week, but you should also be making time about once a month to review certain types of operational
data that can be used to make quick, actionable decisions and changes. Every three months, sit
with both quantitative and qualitative data (already analysed) to identify lessons learned that will
take a bit longer and require more effort to adapt and make changes. Once a year, look deeply into
your qualitative data and quantitative analysis to make bigger decisions (for example about major
programme design issues, changes to FSP contracts and arrangements, etc.) that will take the most
effort to implement. Make sure to work closely with RAM and M&E to ensure data availability –
qualitative data analysis in particular can take time to prepare.

Management support to learning is essential, but it is technical and programme teams that need to
make the most time for working together on learning processes. If you integrate and systematise
learning, it is more likely to become part of your office ways of working – a time when you’re able to
gather together and look at things honestly, change the things you can, and bring better services to
people we work for. You can use learning logs and action lists to track and document what has been
learned and what you’re doing to change things – and, importantly, who is leading and supporting
84
to make sure things are implemented. Keep things really simple, but it will be useful to have these
to hand at the end of the year when compiling annual reports, noting achievements, and preparing
new funding applications. You’d be surprised how much learning and innovation is going on, once
you start a basic tracking a bit.

GIVE FEEDBACK ON FEEDBACK AND SHARE WITH EACH OTHER AND THE COMMUNITY WHAT
YOU’VE LEARNED – AND WHAT YOU’LL BE DOING DIFFERENTLY:
Take the time to reflect on what has been learned and share with each other (for instance, between
different sub-offices, between country and regional offices, etc) and with the communities we serve
and the stakeholders we work with. Particularly with the people we assist, schedule a meeting at
least once a year to tell them what we learned from all the data we collected from them throughout
the year – or better yet, have validation sessions with them to make sure you have drawn the right
conclusions. You can organise these as ‘town hall’ type events or as part of other activities you have
planned as part of your community engagement. Whatever format you choose, just make sure you
go over what you heard from the information gathered, what you’ve been able to change, and the
things you couldn’t do much about and why. People will appreciate the effort and understand why
we do these data collection efforts in the first place.

Finally, remember that when we have learning that might support others – it is important to share
and disseminate, through relevant channels.

REQUIRED OUTPUT:
Totally up to the CO, but we recommend a basic learning log and action item list to keep track of
what has been identified and changed/adapted from what you’ve learnt. You can also document
things in monthly operational or project reports – or really anywhere that works best for you.

BACK TO THE FLOW

THAT’S THE END!

85
T H E C A S H B O O K C O N T E N T R E L E A S E

The CBT Division would like to thank all contributors - individuals and divisions -
for their inputs and support to producing this manual.

THANK YOU!

Please reach out to Bronwyn Healy-Aarons and Francesco de Rosa

for everything about the CashBook!