Executive Summary

In November 2017, the Office of Food for Peace (FFP) convened implementing partners (IPs), representatives from the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL), and other stakeholders for a two-day learning event in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The event was focused on surfacing learning from the cash transfer programming (CTP) initiated as part of the response to the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) crisis in West Africa, and took place as IPs prepared to close out programming in December 2017. The objectives of the event were: (1) to identify learning that FFP and IPs can bring forward from their experience in Sierra Leone to inform future cash transfer programming in West Africa and beyond; and (2) to identify challenges and innovations from the experience of implementing cash transfer programs to support recovery from the EVD crisis in Sierra Leone.

DAY 1: FFP AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

The first day of the event focused on internal discussion among implementing partners and USAID to identify lessons learned from their experience in implementation. Participants included both headquarters and field representatives from ACDI/VOCA, CARE, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children, and World Vision.

The first two sessions on Day 1 delved into challenges, successes, and lessons learned in beneficiary targeting and examined gaps in knowledge regarding cash delivery systems. Session three invited participants to consider what complementary activities were chosen and why, and to what extent programming achieved its intended outcomes. Sessions four and five were designed to encourage synthesis. In session four, teams/organizations gathered to identify key takeaways from the discussions as well as action items/next steps, and shared them in plenary during session five.

DAY 2: FFP, IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE

On the second day, representatives from GoSL, the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP), and the World Bank were in attendance to provide their perspective of the challenges and innovations of implementing cash transfer programs in Sierra Leone and continue the shared learning. The agenda provided for discussion of key elements of CTP, including sessions on beneficiary targeting, cash delivery systems, complementary programming, cash harmonization, working with traditional gender roles and within existing social structures, and coordination between humanitarian actors.

Key points from the “Now What?” plenary discussion included a request from IPs that the GoSL National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) set up a strong national-level cash working group in Freetown to support current and future programming. Partners also expressed interest in evaluating the graduation process within CTP, potentially through interviews with beneficiaries who graduated on the benefits/challenges of the programming. Broadly speaking, participants emphasized the need for further collaboration and information sharing around concerns such as the risk of cash exposure, payment calendars, and accessibility.

KEY TAKEAWAYS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CASH TRANSFERS

• Cash programs included several adaptations to mitigate risk, including implementing partners working with the agent networks to increase the number of individual agents and locations, and decreasing the number of days of distribution per month.
• A map of service providers was available, but an adequate assessment of service provider capacity was lacking. The regulatory framework on digital finance services was weak, which also affected the cash delivery system. In order to increase preparedness, attention should be given to service provider capacity and digital financial services.
• Quarterly provision of a large transfer to cover more than a month's need (as opposed to the same value in monthly intervals) was well-received and may have had an added dividend for resilience.

DATA NEEDS

• Available targeting data was not up-to-date, resulting in delays and implementation challenges. Good maps and more complete population data would increase country-level cash transfer preparedness. Conducting joint assessments could support data needs.

COORDINATION

• Coordination should be improved to better harmonize/coordinate the response, eliminate duplication, leverage resources, share tools/methodologies etc. Establishing a knowledge/information sharing platform across partners could help.
• Establish a national-level cash working group early in the process. GoSL leadership is imperative to institutionalize coordination and harmonization. The working group could also ensure that standard operating procedures and memoranda of understanding are in place, also improving preparedness.

• For USAID, there is an opportunity to enhance internal coordination with other USAID activities, such as the U.S. Global Development Lab, which is providing more support to the private sector (e.g., financial institutions and mobile companies) on the timing of implementations and information sharing.

TARGETING, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SENSITIZATION

• The role of Community Identification Committees (CICs) need to be revisited. While CICs are key partners in CTP and needed for targeting, pre-listing of potential beneficiaries, and mobilization at the community level, partners faced challenges in incentivizing CIC members to continue in a voluntary role while being excluded from program benefits. Improved engagement and/or different models are needed to keep CICs motivated and vested in the activity.
• More community sensitization is needed on the process for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
• There is a need to increase the financial literacy of the beneficiaries.

COMPLEMENTARY ACTIVITIES (CASH PLUS)

• Cash Plus was considered by partners to be a positive aspect of the Sierra Leone programs. Many partners posited that complementary activities support household resilience and there was a fair amount of anecdotal information about how it likely strengthened the programs, but the benefits were difficult to objectively quantify. More data should be collected to support the impact of these complementary activities.
• Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) were identified as a particularly helpful activity to build resilience in rural communities. Group saving and group investment is also a means to sustain good performance results of complementary activities.

GRIEVANCE REDRESS

• More community sensitization is needed on grievance redress mechanisms and current feedback mechanisms need improvement. Feedback mechanisms were undermined by weak communications infrastructure, lack of user-friendliness, and concerns about confidentiality.
• Stakeholders’ understanding of grievance redress was also an issue. To strengthen the outcome, there is need to agree on the principles and terms for the redress processes and include those in project documents/agreements, instead of having redress as a standalone or isolated action.

EXISTING SOCIAL STRUCTURES, GENDER AND PROTECTION

• There is need for IPs to conduct formative research on emerging issues during implementation to improve outcomes (e.g., gender, household utilization of the cash, etc.).
• More work may be needed to identify best practices for distribution in complex familial relationships.

EXIT STRATEGY

• Graduation/exit strategy should be developed in the project design stage, rather than an afterthought.