page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11 page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
< prev - next > Disaster response mitigation and rebuilding Emergency relief Cash for Work Sahel _ English (Printable PDF)
members who are able to perform the work, a cash transfer is the most
appropriate intervention. In this case 3-5% of households received cash
transfers, however the RTE team still found senior women and those with
hypertension working on the site. So the appropriate percentage in EARLI’s
case is more than 3-5%, but this figure will certainly depend on the context.
7. Alternative tasks should be available that are reasonable and
appropriate for the capacity of both men and women, including those
with limited physical capacity.
Although cash for work is designed to allow people the dignity of payment
for their work, the tasks must be appropriate to the peoples’ capacities.
Focus group participants included women in their 50s and one who
suffered from hypertension. Although they are not elderly, they are not in
physical condition to perform hard labor in Niger’s extreme April conditions.
8. To more effectively diminish gaps in aid, choose a uniform proportion
rather than number of eligible households in each village.
Selecting a standard number of households for each village that doesn’t
take into account village size contributes to gaps in coverage. A small
village that can choose 100 beneficiary households may be able to provide
assistance to every member of the village regardless of their level of
vulnerability whereas the vulnerable population of a large villages may not
all benefit. Therefore designating the number of benefitting households per
village based on a proportion of all households that applies to all villages
will more effectively target the most vulnerable to receive aid. For example,
it would be more efficient if the next project provided assistance to 10% of
households that are the most vulnerable rather than a fixed number that
doesn’t adjust for village size.
9. Use participatory, transparent methods for identifying the most
vulnerable households in a community.
Project EARLI used the ABC participatory method to choose households
within villages, with the following steps:
1. A general assembly is called to inform the population how the project
participants will be selected
2. Start by using the list of village households that is used for tax collection.
3. Ask for five key informants who know everyone in the village.
4. Share with them the process of determining the criteria for classifying
households in the Category A (Least Vulnerable); Category B (Semi-
Vulnerable); and Category C (Most Vulnerable) (Other NGOs have started to
use the category (D) for Extremely Vulnerable, but CRS only uses A-C.)
5. The group of key informants determines the criteria of the three categories
(A, B and C). (Each village will have unique criteria.)
6. The key informants categorize each household into one of the three