EVD RESPONSE – SOCIAL SAFETY NET CASH TRANSFERS

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

May 2015

A. Background The Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak is unprecedented in both scope and scale. The impact of the

outbreak and its associated effects on individuals and households of all income levels will be varied and

long-lasting. Containment measures, travel restrictons, border closures and behavioral responses (e.g.

fear of infection) have exacerbated the precarious situation. This has been more keenly felt where there

have been shocks of losing breadwinners and disruption of household economic activities. The impact

on extremely poor households is particularly concerning given their limited ability to meet basic

consumption needs even before the onset of the outbreak. The Government of Sierra Leone’s (GoSL)

recovery and transition plan with regards to social protection puts a priority focus on vulnerable groups

including survivors, orphans, girls, women, destigmatized workers further categorized to target 18,000

EVD affected; 55,000 chronic poor and 92,000 recoverable poor families. Responding appropriately to

the EVD outbreak in a context of high poverty requires providing an additional layer of protection to the

most vulnerable households, especially those that have limited means to respond to shocks and have

been directly or indirectly affected.

All forces both UN, International and local organizations joined the efforts of the government to target

support to individuals, households and communities affected by EVD. In particular, the national EVD

response strategy provides a discharge package of food and non-food items targeted at survivors and

their families, as well as families of non-survivors. However, according to the World Bank Socio-

economic Survey, food insecurity has not proven to be directly related to the prevalence of EVD in the

area. In fact households are more likely to adopt coping strategies in non-quarantined areas where

Ebola infection rates are lower due to pre-existing poverty levels and the indirect impacts of the SOE

restrictions (e.g. market closures) which further affected livelihoods and household incomes. There is a

definite need for further support interventions and the provision of cash to targeted ‘vulnerable’

households who have been directly or indirectly impacted by EVD.

Provision of a Safety Net for EVD affected and indirectly affected households also fits well with the

current Poverty Reduction Strategy (Agenda for Prosperity), which specifies that the social protection

objectives of the Government include, inter alia, to strengthen resilience to natural disasters, shocks and

epidemic diseases.

Therefore, the Government with support from the World Bank and UNICEF have designed the Rapid EVD

Social Safety Net (RE-SSN) program which targets approximately 9,000 beneficiary households in six

districts (Kenema, Kailahun, Tonkolili, Bo, Western Urban and Port Loko). A number of other actors

ranging from donors to INGOs have also conveyed their intent to support cash transfer to EVD direct and

indirectly affected households. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) will

support the mapping of cash related activities of partners by sourcing data from the food security,

WASH and educational sector groups which can be accessed through

https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/operations/sierra-leone.

In the medium term, pre-existing social protection instruments, such as the national Social Safety Net

(SSN) Programme, offer an opportunity to mitigate the effects of the crisis by leveraging investments

that the Government of Sierra Leone (with support from the World Bank and UNICEF) have already

made to provide income support to extremely poor households. However the RE-SSN is being

implemented as the needed emergency response and with the coordinated support from other actors

will enable transition to the government driven ongoing SSN programme.

As the interest in cash and in-kind programs grows within the donor community in response to the EVD

outbreak, it is important to lay down processes that will ensure consistency of approach and clarity of

roles and responsibilities of all the actors. Given the rapid scale up in response to the EVD outbreak it is

vital that early planning ensures a smooth transition from short term emergency interventions into long

term sustainable government and partner led safety net approaches. This key transition phase should

carefully identify steps to ensure EVD directly impacted households (those that have suffered deaths

and those that hold or have taken in survivors) are given all the inputs and tools they require to

reintegrate into their communities.

B. Objectives The key objective of this document is to provide actors (government and partners) a structured way of

how the cash response programs can be implemented and primarily keep in mind the objective of

ensuring the recovery, safety and welfare of EVD-affected and vulnerable households. It is meant to give

a common understanding and improve the working of the partners by defining roles, responsibilities and

steps to enhance timely and effective delivery of services to beneficiaries. This complements the

government efforts to establish a coherent manner in response to social protection in relation to the

EVD response and its ongoing social safety net programs in the country.

Key principals underlying the selection of the actions, modalities and interventions of support are:

1. Targeting Strategy

Pre-existing and current poverty levels: targeting based on nationwide poverty mappings

undertaken by Statistics Sierra Leone and other partners. This data can be sourced through

NaCSA/SSL for utilization by participating actors.

Households that are directly and indirectly affected by EVD and are extreme poor: criteria

assessed at community level using prescribed targeting tools that capture indicators that are

EVD, vulnerability and poverty related. These indicators form the basis for identification of

the poor, EVD survivors and the vulnerable constituencies and can be used by partners (see

annex)

2. Rapid and Emergency response EVD safety net programmes are aligned with broader Government

social protection policy, Social Protection Strategy and Implementation plan and the Agenda for

prosperity and other relevant strategies

3. New proposed interventions in the Social Protection sector or targeting poor/vulnerable groups

need to be validated by the national Social Protection coordination mechanisms already in

existence, including the Social Protection Technical Steering Committee and the Social Protection

Inter-agency Forum

4. The most efficient mechanisms should be selected for the period of support. Whilst adhering to the

underlying principles of the SOP, stakeholders should still provide the most efficient mechanism of

delivery during implementation to reduce the burden and logistics of the operation for the

beneficiary and ensure a cost effective method is utilized by the implementer.

5. Support to strengthening financial systems and services

6. Timeliness of interventions; interventions should be implemented within the defined recovery

period.

C. Scope This SOP focuses exclusively on interventions that are responding to the needs of poor households who

have been directly and indirectly impacted by EVD with cash programming interventions as the primary

goal and actions should be consistent with ensuring the needs of affected households are met in a

timely manner. This document is not a technical document and therefore will not seek to provide

guidance on specific technical issues. However, the document provides details on specific themes such

as targeting, transfer value, program duration, and transition and implementation arrangements. These

key areas should ensure harmonization of the approaches of the various actors.

In addition the document stipulates the steps to be followed for the design and implementation of these

type of cash programs. For this purpose, the cash program refers to the following interventions:

monetary transfers given to EVD directly and indirectly affected households under the RE-SSN and

further similar support activities from other partners.

D. Targeting

The Ebola cash response targeting proposes to rely on the overall targeting approach of the Sierra Leone

Social Safety Net Program, whilst adjusting specific programme elements to rapidly respond to the EVD

crisis. The Ebola cash response program would provide a safety net to individuals and households

directly and indirectly affected by EVD with poverty being a key determinant.

For the main part the Ebola response targeting will include EVD specific criteria in the selection of

programme geographical areas and selection of beneficiary households. Secondly, it would seek to

minimize health risks associated with implementation by minimizing large gatherings and contact points,

and introducing standardized protocols. Finally, it would tailor accompanying measures (i.e., co-

responsibilities) toward helping households cope with EVD shocks. In addition, the cash program will

further endeavor to link these specific beneficiaries to accompanying measures which will promote

psychosocial wellbeing, good nutrition and utilization of basic health and education services in the

current context by making this data available to relevant support partners.

4. Common targeting mechanisms are being developed by the National Social Protection

Secretariat in an effort to build a Social Protection Registry for Integrated National Targeting

(SPRINT) containing a database of extremely poor households, EVD survivors and beneficiaries

from other social programs. SPRINT is expected to include details of beneficiary households of

the cash transfers projects by implementing partners. Partners that may seek to implement non

social programs that aim at the poor households will benefit by using the targeting mechanisms

and the SPRINT (for example seeds distribution) through a memorandum of understanding

(MOU) between the relevant agency and the Social Protection Secretariat for access to the

SPRINT data. The common targeting system relies on a three-stage targeting mechanism to

allocate programme resources: geographic, community-based identification which uses poverty

based criteria now adapted to include EVD indicators, and verification through proxy means

test. The process has three main steps:

Geographical targeting: Using satellite poverty maps, ebola cases and other robust tools, the

poorest enumeration areas (EAs) to be targeted are identified. Statistics Sierra Leone will work

with partners to identify localities within EAs and grouped them into clusters (i.e. operational

feasibility).

Community-based identification: The household will be the unit of target for potential

beneficiaries except for EVD survivors who can be targeted individually. A community

committee consisting of 5 persons chosen by the community in a fair and transparent manner

will identify potential beneficiary households from the poor/ extremely poor households within

each of the targeted localities. The purpose of this process is to use community knowledge to

correctly identify poor/extreme poor households as potential beneficiaries of the inteneded

programme and to minimize exclusion errors.

The beneficiary identification will be followed by a ‘light’ (shortened) proxy-means test (PMT)

verification process using smartphones where applicable. The purpose of the PMT is to verify

that the beneficiaries selected by communities are in fact eligible, based on indicators that are

correlated with poverty (proxies), thereby minimizing inclusion errors. The PMT scores will be

ranked and priority will be given to those households with the highest poverty scores and willing

to participate in the program. In cases where the number of households classified as eligible by

the PMT is greater than the maximum quota allocated to the community, beneficiaries will be

selected by lottery from a pool of eligible individuals with equal PMT scores.

E. Grievance Redress Mechanism

Partners will use a grievance redress system that will provide a channel through which beneficiaries and

other stakeholders can raise any grievances about the implementation of their respective projects.

These grievances will primarily be received and recorded by Civil Society Organizations (CSO) monitors,

as well as through a national toll-free corruption reporting hotline maintained by the Anti-Corruption

Commission (ACC). Corruption or fraud reports will be routed to the ACC, which will resolve cases as per

its routine corruption investigation and resolution procedures. Operational or administrative grievances

(e.g., targeting, enrollment, payment-related issues) received by the CSO monitors will be recorded

using the appropriate technology (e.g., smartphones) and uploaded to the agency GRM database. The

grievances will be resolved primarily by agency staff at the district level, with the support and oversight

of a District Grievance Resolution Committee (DGRC). Unresolved cases will be escalated to the

headquarter appropriate officer/office (GRM officer).

All implementing partners will provide GRM cards or information to beneficiaries detailing ACC toll free.

Partners will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the ACC.

F. Transfer Values and Mechanism

The monthly Rapid Ebola Social Safety net amount being administered through NaCSA funded by the

World Bank and GoSL has been approved as the value of thirty US dollars (see annex for rationale) per

household over a period of 9 months. This transfer value supports some of the food consumption needs

and provides basic monetary support to stabilize the economic status of extreme poor households

affected directly and indirectly by EVD. The Leone value should be revisited on a regular basis to

evaluate the status of inflation, exchange rate and market conditions.

The transfer mechanism utilizes mobile money technology to undertake online and offline payments to

beneficiaries. The payment system draws from the successful work undertaken in previous cash for

work (CfW) initiatives implemented by NaCSA whereby payments are outsourced to a service provider

who delivers payments to beneficiaries through an agent based model made up of community banks

and retail agents. To the extent possible, delivery of transfers are electronic to improve the timeliness

and predictability of transfers and minimizes the risk of leakages. The service is free of charge to

beneficiaries, with service fees financed by the RE-SSN project. In areas where electronic payments are

not be possible, offline systems are utilized.

G. Duration and Transition

The Social Protection Recovery plan indicates the recovery period to be from 6 – 9 months; May to January 2016.

NaCSA Rapid Ebola –Social Safety Net cash transfer: 9 months duration

On exiting complementary and Re-SSN support, households that qualify for the SSN via PMT may be absorbed and captured under the national social safety net project which has a 24 month duration

H. Stakeholders and Implementation Arrangements

The key stakeholders involved in these implementation arrangements are:

The Government of Sierra Leone represented by the Interagency Forum, The National

Commission for Social Action (NaCSA)

The United Nations represented by the World Bank, World Food Program and UNICEF

The International and local NGO Community represented by the Sierra Leonean Cash and

Vouchers Working Group

District level representation including District Councils and Local Authorities

I. Stakeholders’ responsibilities and roles

Collective responsibilities will entail the sharing and protection of data, use of common targeting and

tools, harmonizing the level of cash transfer, meeting to share implementation lesson learnt and

coordination of interventions through the Cash Working Group.

Annex 1 - Simplified Community-based Targeting Processes for Rapid Ebola Social

Safety Nets

The Rapid EVD Safety Net (RE-SSN) will provide a safety net to extremely poor households, including

those who have been directly or indirectly affected by EVD. The RE-SSN will rely on the implementation

arrangements and overall targeting approaches of the SSN, while adjusting specific program elements to

rapidly respond to the EVD crisis. With respect to targeting, the RE-SSN modifies three main aspects of

the SSN Program.

First, the RE-SSN will include disease-specific criteria in the selection of program geographical areas and

in the identification of beneficiary households during the community-based identification stage. Second,

a proxy-means test (PMT) verification process will not initially be carried out to verify beneficiary

households for the RE-SSN, as this exercise carries high risks and extends the time required for targeting.

However, at the end of the RE-SSN, households that have benefited from RE-SSN will be referred to the

SSN program and a PMT will be applied to determine their eligibility for enrollment. Third, due to the

current outbreak, the community-based targeting will be simplified to reduce the number of contact

points (i.e., number of times field staff visit communities) and avoid large community gatherings, while

ensuring a transparent and objective process.

The proposed approach, the Rapid Ebola Light Community-based Identification (RE-LCBI) process, is a

modification of the LCBI process currently being used for the SSN. The RE-LCBI includes: (i) sensitization

of community and local authorities; (ii) listing of communities within selected EAs; (iii) formation of

Community Identification Committees (CICs) and training on the identification of potential beneficiaries;

(iv) development of poverty criteria and preliminary list of potential beneficiaries; and (v) validation of

the preliminary list with key community stakeholders. The proposed process will take 1-2 days per

selected community, depending on the community quota.

The Anti-corruption Commission (ACC) will be present during each stage of the RE-LCBI process. Only

one representative/monitor from the ACC will participate per community to minimize the size of the

gathering.

Sensitization of communities and local authorities.

Before the targeting process starts, NaCSA in collaboration with the Local Councils, will conduct

sensitization on the RE-SSN program, through meetings and/or using different communication tools (e.g.

radio, official letters). Sensitization meetings and communication tools should provide information on

the program objectives, the target population, and the process to identify beneficiaries (including the

formation of CICs).

A geographical targeting mechanism based on a combination of data on Ebola caseloads and poverty

maps is used for the selection of chiefdoms, sections, and EAs within the four targeted RE-SSN districts

(i.e., Kenema, Kailahun, Port Loko, and Western Urban) and allocation of beneficiaries to each area.

During sensitization, NaCSA may inform local authorities about resources allocated to a particular

geographical area above the section level (e.g., number of targeted communities). However, to avoid

perverse incentives, NaCSA should not reveal community or enumeration area (EA) quotas. The

reasoning behind this strategy is that CICs knowing the quota from the start can influence the process,

for instance if: (i) CIC members accidently leave out some households that are poorer than others

because the quota has been met with the first poor households that came to mind; or (ii) CIC members

wrongly interpret reaching the quota as a measure of performance, shifting the focus away from

evaluating households based on poverty criteria. This approach will allow CIC members to develop a

comprehensive list of poor eligible households and NaCSA facilitators will then guide them to shortlist

the poorest households based on objective criteria.

Listing of communities within selected EAs.

In some EAs, the specific communities within the EA will not be known. In these cases, NaCSA field staff

will first work with 1 local SSL field staff (i.e., staff based in field offices) and 1-2 key community

stakeholders with knowledge about EA boundaries and communities’ locations (e.g., sections chiefs,

ward councilors) to list the communities within each selected EA. In EAs where NaCSA has a list of

communities within the selected EA prior to going to the field, the SSL field staff and key community

stakeholders will be required to update the list of communities within the EA in case any communities

have changed (e.g., no longer exist, new communities created within EA boundaries). In these cases, all

communities within the selected EA will be eligible to participate as a cluster.

The same SSL field staff and key stakeholders will also ensure that where possible EAs with less than 60

targeted households are grouped together into a cluster. To form clusters NaCSA field staff should

ensure it is feasible for clustered communities to participate in a single RE-LCBI process (e.g., are at

“walking distance” or similar operationally feasible distance).

Step1: Introduction to local authorities, training of CIC members, and identification of potential

beneficiaries

1. Introduction. NaCSA staff reaches the community and explain the process to local authorities, describing the series of meetings that will be held and their purpose, and requesting support for communicating to the community the need for reducing contact points.

2. CIC formation. The CIC consists of 5 members in total, with a minimum of 3 women. Each CIC will have one chairman, one secretary, and three support members. To the select CIC members, NaCSA field staff will meet with a small group of maximum 5 key community representatives (e.g. mamma queen, youth leaders, elders, religious leaders, section leaders, other local authorities) before starting the identification process. In clustered communities, the group of representatives should as much as possible include representatives from the different communities. NaCSA field staff will guide the CIC formation process as follows:

Box 1: CIC Member Eligibility Criteria

Is trusted by the community and has good

knowledge about living conditions of all

households in the community

Is able to read and write (required ONLY for

chairman and secretary positions)

Is not a village authority, leader or politically

affiliated

Is willing and available to work voluntarily (these are

unpaid positions)

Is preferably from a poor household

(a) NaCSA facilitator explains to participants the CIC eligibility criteria of the CIC members (see Box 1).

(b) If there is a representative of the Child Welfare Committee available within the community, he/she is automatically assigned as a CIC member.

(c) NaCSA facilitator asks participants to individually nominate4 candidates in the community (or communities in case of cluster) that they consider should be part of the CIC and fulfill the eligibility criteria. To prevent elite capture none of these candidates can be a local authority and participants cannot nominate themselves as candidates. In cases where no Child Welfare Committee member is available in the community, 5 candidates should be nominated instead of 4 and selected following the processes below.

(d) IMPORTANT: participants should write down the names of the 4 candidates in secret without sharing with other participants.

(e) NaCSA facilitator counts votes for each candidate. The 4candidates with the highest number of votes will be selected. Facilitator confirms selected people actually fulfill the eligibility criteria, and in case of cluster, there is also an acceptable representation of communities in cluster cases.

(f) NaCSA field staff opens discussion with participants in the following cases: (i) there is a tie, (ii) eligibility criteria are not met by some of the selected candidates, or (iii) representation of different communities can be improved (i.e. selected candidates represent all or most of the communities in cluster). Participants will make decisions based on eligibility criteria (and community representation in case of cluster).

(g) NaCSA field staff will confirm, preferably the same day, whether selected CIC members are willing to participate under program conditions and throughout the entire implementation of the program. Any required change to the agreed list of selected CIC members will be consulted with the meeting participants.

3. Call for Meeting. A meeting is convened with the CICs to conduct the RE-LCBI process. (a) Participants: NaCSA Facilitators + 5 CICs + 1 ACC. To reduce health risks, no other participants

will be allowed at the meeting. NaCSA facilitator records his/her information as well as the information of the ACC participant in the RE-LCBI form.

(b) NaCSA staff registers all 5 CIC members’ basic information using Tool 1 “CIC registration ODK” on the smartphones.

4. Training and definition poverty criteria. NaCSA trains CIC on the identification of potential beneficiaries and on the objectives of the RE-SSN program.

(a) NaCSA explains the concept of extreme or chronic poverty and discusses how Ebola can affect a household’s poverty situation not only if someone catches the disease, but also in indirect ways even if no one in the household became sick (e.g., loss of main source of livelihood because markets shut down). NaCSA explains that it is important for the success and credibility of the program that the CIC lists only extremely poor households, including those who became extremely poor due to Ebola, and that the list will be independently verified.

(b) NaCSA provides the predefined extreme poverty criteria including the criteria outlined in the current SSN Program plus additional EVD poverty criteria. The CIC discusses and agrees on up to ten criteria that they think best explain poverty in their communities. CIC members are allowed to replace up to three of the pre-defined criteria with criteria relevant for local context as long as they do not contradict the program's objectives. NaCSA records the final list of poverty criteria used in that community in Tool 2 “Poverty Criteria Selection” following the instructions.

(c) The community quota is NOT revealed at this stage.

5. Identification and listing of potential beneficiaries. Typically the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender, and Children’s Affairs (MSWGCA) will be responsible for providing the SP Secretariat with databases of verified survivors and children orphaned by Ebola to be used in the RE-SSN community-based targeting processes. If these lists are available the CICs will validate (i.e., confirm the extreme poverty status) households listed in this list based on the agreed criteria following steps below. When such lists are not available or when number of households listed and confirmed poor do not reach the quota, CIC members will be asked to list all households in the community who fulfill the poverty criteria.

(a) Theca members will assign households a poverty score based on the number of poverty criteria they fulfill (e.g., if household meets three of the poverty criteria it gets three points) and record these in the RE-LCBI Tool 3 “CIC Identification of Potential Beneficiaries”.

(b) The CIC members will be responsible for developing a list of extreme poor households based on their knowledge (i.e. without leaving the meeting venue); the CICs will not visit any households to confirm these criteria. If there is any disagreement in whether a household should be on the list, at least three CICs should be in agreement for a household to be listed.

(c) No CIC members or any of their household members can be listed in the RE-LCBI form.

6. Preparation of preliminary list. NaCSA guides the CIC in preparing the list of potential beneficiaries for RE-SSN. NaCSA reminds the CICs of the eligibility criteria for RE-SSN: head of household and/or senior female

must have Sierra Leonean citizenship; household must be a poor, Ebola-affected household based

on the criteria set by the community (see Annex 1, indicators 1 to 9) and been affected directly or

indirectly by the Ebola outbreak (see Annex 1 indicators 10 to 13). Note that the restriction of

having resided in the community for 1 year specified in the SSN program DOES NOT APPLY for RE-

SSN.

(a) The CIC generates the list of beneficiaries by recording on the paper RE-LCBI Tool 4 “Shortlisted Potential Beneficiaries”. The CIC does this by taking the households with the highest number of poverty points from among those that are not yet listed for the SSN until the quota is achieved. In case of ties, criteria and process to untie is left to participants.

(b) NaCSA confirms that no CIC members or their household members are on the list and confirms the number of households listed is within the assigned quota for SSN.

Step 2: Validation of preliminary lists

1. Call for meeting. NaCSA convenes a meeting with key community representatives to validate the preliminary list.

2. Meeting attendees. Key community representatives should include the same representatives that initially elected the CIC members. In case one or more of the suggested representatives are not available, they can be replaced – in order of priority – by another youth leader, another elder, or another religious leader. Key community representatives should not include chiefs or other local authorities. If necessary, one such authority can be invited on an exceptional basis to witness the process but is not allowed to influence the process (observation only). The key community representatives should be different from the CIC joining the identification process or their household members.

(a) Participants: NaCSA facilitators + 1 CIC representative + 4 key community representatives+ 1 ACC staff. To reduce health risks, no other participants will be allowed at the meeting. The CIC representative is nominated by the other CIC members to represent them at the validation meeting.

(b) If community is a cluster of smaller villages, can consider conducting separate meetings for each village, while always complying with this restricted list of participants.

3. Validation of preliminary list. The 4 community representatives review the list and endorse it based only on program eligibility and poverty criteria. (a) Community representatives can remove households only when, in their opinion, they do not

meet the program criteria or poverty criteria decided by the CIC the previous phase. These households can be replaced with other households that the community representatives consider have a higher poverty score based on the poverty criteria agreed on phase1; at least 3 of the community representatives must agree with adding a particular household. The community representatives can drop as many households as they want from the list, but can only add a maximum of 5 households. The NaCSA facilitator must ensure that this cap is not exceeded. Any households beyond the first five will be automatically declared ineligible.

(b) The CIC representative provides clarifications as needed on why particular households were listed.

4. Verification of household tracking information. The community representatives confirm or correct tracking information of the households listed as needed (e.g. full name, address).

5. Confirmation of quotas. NaCSA checks once more that the list does not include more people than the quotas assigned for each program and records the validated preliminary list in the smartphone form and takes a picture of the paper list. The validated information is recorded in RE-LCBI Tool 6 “Validated List of Potential Beneficiaries”. A copy for the village should be made by using carbon paper.

6. Posting of validated lists. NaCSA with help from the meeting members posts the copy of the validated preliminary list in public place. Where feasible, community representatives/CICs may also contact listed households and to deliver this message; however, household visits should be discouraged in favor of forms of communication that do not require contact.

Step 3: Registration for RE-SSN beneficiaries

After phase2, NaCSA and Splash proceed to registering RE-SSN beneficiaries as per the procedures

outlined in the CfW Operational Manual. The only difference is that the registration process will be done

in smaller batches, with CICs supporting NaCSA in ensuring a maximum of 15 of the listed beneficiaries

are gathered for registration at one time. NaCSA will also put in place protocols to minimize Ebola

transmission risks (e.g., hand washing, no physical contact) as per national health standards. Where

feasible, NaCSA will indicate in the smartphone registration form the number of orphans and survivors

in the identified households, in order to facilitate follow up by MSWGCA and provision of psychosocial

support.

Predefined criteria for extreme poor Ebola-affected households

1 Building material of household roof/floor/walls is low quality(e.g. thatch roof, wattle and mud brick walls)

2 Household lives in one single room

3 Household size is 5 persons or more

4 Household has children under 5

5 Household has children between 5 and 9 year old

6 Household head is illiterate or has little or no education

7 Household does not have access to safe drinking water (e.g. public tap, tube well, borehole)

8 Household does not have access to improved sanitation (e.g. bush, unprotected latrines)

9 Household does not have any animals (e.g. chicken, ducks, cows, sheep)

10 Household lost main livelihood due to Ebola (e.g., illness or death of a primary income earner, fear of

contagion, or being ostracized for having or knowing someone with Ebola)

11 Household that depleted or lost assets due to Ebola crisis (e.g., distress sale, destruction of property)

12 Households with Ebola survivors or children orphaned by Ebola

13 Child-headed and other households with insufficient financial support to meet their basic consumption

needs

Annex 2 – Transfer Value Rationale

The nature of the Social Safety Net project makes it difficult to conduct traditional cost-benefit analysis.

In particular, placing value on the benefits that a poor household accrues from increased and stabilized

consumption is not a straightforward exercise. For this reason a series of ex ante micro-simulations to:

I. Identify the transfer amount that would maximize the expected impacts on poverty given the

budget constraint;

II. Test the extent to which targeting errors are likely to lessen these impacts; and

III. (iii) Simulate the impacts of a scaled-up program was conducted. The micro-simulations were

performed using the nationally representative household budget survey, the Sierra Leone

Integrated Household Survey (SLIHS 2011). The approach used considered the following

parameters: the number of expected beneficiaries and the amount of the monthly transfer to

the household as well as the household’s initial poverty status. Then, the consumption level of

these households was simply adjusted upwards by the amount of the transfer (i.e., the transfer

amount is added to the selected households’ consumption). Finally, the various variables of

interest (e.g., consumption per capita, poverty headcount, poverty gap, Gini coefficient) were

calculated based on this new counterfactual dataset.

To identify the transfer amount that would maximize the expected outcomes on poverty given the

available budget. Three different scenarios were tested using three different transfer amounts ($10, $15

& $20) calculated as a percentage of extremely poor households’ average monthly consumption. All

scenarios presented assume perfect targeting, with poor households first ranked according to per capita

consumption and the poorest households selected as beneficiaries.

Overall the results of these simulations indicate that the three transfer amounts show very similar

results in terms of poverty reduction, particularly the poverty gap and Gini coefficient. In all three

scenarios, a reduction of more than 2.3% and approximately 0.016 points for the poverty gap and Gini

coefficient, respectively. The $10.0 transfer (10%) option was obviously the one that given the budget

constraint allowed for a larger number of households, approximately 30,384 households, to benefit

from the program and thus produces the best results in terms of poverty headcount. Based on

international experience, 10% is on the lower end of the appropriate range for the transfer size. The

$15.0 (15%) transfer size has a slightly higher impact on the poverty gap, which is considered to be a

more relevant measure than headcount for this type of program. The $15.0 is expected to benefit

20,143 households while the $20.0 will benefit 15,177 households with same impact on the poverty gap

Thus the 15 percent transfer amount was chosen as it was considered to be a transfer size that is

meaningful, while small enough to avoid generating negative incentives and likely scalable.

However, it is important to highlight that the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak has likely reduced

consumption across the board and especially among the poor. As the SLIHS was collected in 2011, the

simulations above do not reflect the increase in poverty resulting from the EVD crisis. To maintain the

pre-Ebola consumption rate and help poor households cope with the economic shock of the EVD, the

$15.0 was increased to $30.0.