̽»¨¾«Ñ¡

The Syrian crisis was a catalyst for a massive humanitarian response across the region, including the unprecedented scale-up of cash transfer programming (CTP) to respond to the largely urban refugee crisis. The scope and complexity of the crisis and the resultant needs of Syrian refugees are immense. With limited global practice and guidance on programming cash transfers to enhance protection in an emergency context, in 2013, the ̽»¨¾«Ñ¡â€™s (̽»¨¾«Ñ¡) started cash transfer programming (CTP) as part of the urban Women’s Protection and Empowerment (WPE) program in Jordan. The aim was to use cash transfers as a tool to build women’s resilience towards gender based violence through meeting their basic needs and targeted protection services. Three years into the program, the ̽»¨¾«Ñ¡ sought to reflect on its experiences to inform future use of cash assistance in gender based violence (GBV) programming in Jordan and other contexts.

The objective of this case study is to identify lessons learned and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of cash-based interventions in mitigating GBV risks and building women and girls’ resilience. Specifically, the research seeks to examine how the combination of cash transfers and psycho- social services (case management, counseling, and gender discussion groups) support women and girls’ protection, if and how cash assistance exacerbates protection issues, and how existing assessment, monitoring, and targeting tools and systems can be further strengthened.

Drawing on existing (but limited) literature on cash and GBV in urban refugee settings, and with qualitative data from focus group discussions among men and women beneficiaries and key informant interviews with ̽»¨¾«Ñ¡ staff and other protection stakeholders, the research arrived at the following key findings:

Cash and protection

• Resilience to GBV is supported by receiving both cash transfers (CT) and WPE services, rather than cash alone.
• Receiving cash and attending Gender Discussion Groups (GDGs) can result in a decrease of domestic violence.
• The impact of cash is limited to CT duration, while GDGs and Psychosocial services (PSS) offer a sustained protection impact beyond CT duration.
• Cash associated with individual GBV case management can be lifesaving:
  • in preventing an imminent threat of violence from occurring.
  • in ensuring immediate health, safety and security once violence has occurred.

Mitigation of domestic violence

• Fewer arguments/conflicts reported over money.
• Fewer conflicts reported as reducing domestic violence.
• Reduction of tension largely attributed to last during the period of CTP.
• Resilience to gender based violence (GBV).
• Women feeling strong, confident, respected, independent and able to negotiate. zzBeneficiaries feel listened to, can share their problems and solutions.
• Skills acquired in dealing with changing dynamics among family members.
  • Expanded social networks and improved social cohesion between host and refugee community at a more individual, micro level.

Cash transfer design

• Quantitative scoring alone to assess vulnerabilities and risks to GBV is limited and insufficient.
• To reduce vulnerability to specific forms of GBV (as opposed to general economic vulnerability), flexibility in the amounts and duration of the CT is essential.
• Different cash delivery mechanisms should be used to give beneficiaries a range of options, depending on their specific needs.

Challenges – risks related to targeting

• Targeting women as CT recipients may be seen as undermining men’s power and place women at risk of violence , if there is no adequate communication to the husband.
• General humanitarian targeting of assistance in Jordan to single/divorced/widowed women is perceived by some respondents as contributing to increased divorces and separation.
• Similarly as any other type of humanitarian assistance, CT can, in some instances, contribute to social tensions between refugees and local communities at a more macro level.

Challenges – operational

• Using quantitative targeting criteria alone limits ability to assess and target women based on vulnerability to GBV.
• Cash transfers without protection activities limit the potential to mitigate GBV.
• Providing a standard CT amount limits responsiveness to GBV survivors needs and/or for more sustainable solutions.

Key recommendations

• Integrate CT and GBV programming in the design of the project but also in the training of staff.
  • Include activities and support to ensure sustainable protection outcomes beyond the period of cash transfers (such as referral and enrollment in activities to support income generation).
  • Mitigate beneficiaries’ exposure to risks from receiving CTs by building in strong qualitative monitoring and feedback mechanisms.
• Stronger encouragement and explanation of the increased benefits of participating in all aspects of the GBV programming (eg. GDGs, PSS, group counselling) should continue to be practiced in order to make the protection outcomes that come with both cash transfers and GBV programme engagement more sustainable after the end of CT assistance.
• Communicate in a more transparent way the eligibility criteria for cash assistance.
• Introduce qualitative measurement in CT targeting and monitoring system.

Cash transfer mechanisms

• Use different cash modalities depending on need and vulnerability.
• Allow option to tailor CT amount and duration for life saving where a specific amount has directly contributed to protection. For example, providing a single, pregnant woman, who has experienced GBV, with the basic minimum amount over twelve months rather than nine months to support her to be healthy and not resort to negative coping mechanisms for the duration of the pregnancy and in the post-birth period.
• Ensure beneficiaries’ personal information is protected to the extent possible and ensure contracts with financial service providers make adequate provisions for this too.