Gathering evidence through action research is one of the ways that the CaLP aims to improve cash transfer programming (CTP) implementation and raise awareness about CTP and its use as an appropriate and effective mechanism for emergency response. The CaLP plays a key role in circulating relevant documents related to CTP on its website and via its newsletter. The CaLP website provides a platform for the publication and sharing of research, evaluations, standard operating procedures and other such documents with the wider community of practice. As outlined in the recently completed CaLP strategy (Jan 2013- Dec 2014), action research and evidence gathering form Result 2: ‘Key humanitarian stakeholders access tools, good practice, action research and programme guidance to improve the quality of CTP’.

To date, CaLP has not only developed a significant number of documents, such as implementation guides, good practice guides, modality briefs and training materials, but has also undertaken research into a number of topics[1], all of which are available on the CaLP website.

A number of potential research topics for 2013 were identified with the assistance of the CaLP community of practice, stakeholders and also by a review of recommendations made in previous research. This process involved stakeholder meetings[2], the use of a survey via Survey Monkey[3] to canvas the CaLP community of practice (CoP) for their perspectives on research themes, and a review of previous research and recommendations made within each piece.

However, it became evident that a thorough understanding of research ‘gaps and needs’ in CTP was required within the wider humanitarian sector. For this reason the CaLP launched a short piece of research to look into the gaps in CTP research, with the aim of enabling:

a)      An appreciation of what CTP research (action and evidence based research) has taken place, is planned and is being undertaken.

b)      An identification of who is requesting, undertaking and applying the research. Linked to this is an understanding of how research findings and recommendations are used, shared and their impact monitored (with a view to increasing this aspect)[4].

c)       A better understanding of any gaps in action research and a prioritisation of topics that may require awareness raising and advocacy to highlight their importance.

Available now - Research gaps in cash transfer programming

This research was commissioned in October 2013 by CaLP, with the generous support of the Government of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD). 

Research gaps in cash transfer programming is available to download now.

The key findings are presented around the main lines of enquiry followed in this study:

  •          The CTP research context
  •          Key research actors
  •          Current gaps in CTP research
  •          Addressing the gaps
  •          Research utilisation and impact
  •          Research dissemination

Sharing the findings and the way forward

It is CaLP’s intention to share the findings of this analysis with NGOs, think tanks, research bodies, donors and academic institutions planning research into the sphere of CTP. In doing so, CaLP aims to influence decisions regarding CTP research topics, to ensure that they are well informed and consider the wider research environment within CTP. Where necessary, CaLP will also advocate for priority action research areas.

CaLP will also use these findings to inform its own action research strategy, which will include approaches to increase the application of research findings and recommendations within the humanitarian sector.

Who to contact for more information:

If you would like to know more about this piece of work, please contact techco@cashlearning.org


 

[1] Recent research includes: the use of new technology in CTP, capacity for CTP scale-up ‘ready or Not’, a compilation of tools for CTP implementation in urban contexts, and a review of emergency market analysis.

[2] these meetings were held in London and DC in June 2012 in which opinions regarding future research were sought and discussed

[3] In August 2012 135 members of the CoP participated in this

[4] For example, see ODI HPN Network Paper Number 73, February 2013 ‘Response analysis and response choice in food security crisis, a road map’ http://www.odihpn.org/hpn-resources/network-papers/response-analysis-and-response-choice-in-food-security-crises-a-roadmap