Cash or In-Kind? Why Not Both? Response analysis lessons from multimodal programming

This publication reviews lessons learned from emergency responses wherein more than one modality (cash, vouchers, or in-kind) was a “best fit” – or where the type of response changed over the course of the project. The research provides concrete examples of projects that used various criteria to choose their responses and, by extension, the conditions under which cash or vouchers or in-kind assistance may be most appropriate, generally. This work does not aim to inform technical or operational considerations of how to do cash transfers or multimodal programming. Rather, it is intended to help analysts, advisors, and decision-makers to improve their response analysis, both at project design and throughout a response. The cases analyzed in this study span the globe and include low-, middle-, and high-income countries. The crises include sudden-onset and slow-onset natural disasters, as well as sudden-onset and protracted conflict.

CANADA: Canadian Red Cross
SOUTH SUDAN: World Vision
GUATEMALA: CRS
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: Samaritan’s Purse and CRS 
NEPAL: CRS and the Red Cross Movement (RCM)
NEPAL: CRS and Caritas 
MYANMAR: Oxfam