GPC 2026 Protection Series - Transferts monétaires à des fins de protection

So, hello everyone. My name is Marie, I work with the Global Protection Cluster based in Geneva and I wanted to uh uh welcome you to this 5th session of the GPC's Protection 2026 series . Uh, welcome to this new webinar. As you know, since the beginning of the year, the GPC has been organizing a series of events and webinars on protection topics. Uh, this is an initiative which aims to strengthen practices and knowledge in our sector and also to use protection partners, the various tools that are being developed, the guidelines and the research that is underway to improve protection outcomes. So we are very, uh, very happy to see so many of you and to continue to receive interest in these webinars. So, during today's session, I wanted to welcome Julia Grasset and Roberta Gadler, who are the co-coordinators of the GPC working group on monetary assistance for protection purposes. Uh, they will, uh, they will lead today's session and talk to you about, uh, monetary assistance for the protection sector. So I'll let you introduce yourself in a few minutes, but I just wanted to remind you that this session was already done in English a few weeks ago and so today's session will take place only in French. It will be more or less the same content as the session from 3 weeks ago, but it allows us to have the session in another language for the colleagues who requested it last time since we did not have simultaneous translation. So it's an important topic. Monetary assistance in the field of protection, as you know, is a response modality that is increasingly used in humanitarian responses and it can also aim to support protection outcomes and reduce protection risks. We see that actors in the protection sector are increasingly integrating cash transfers into their programs, whether it be specialized protection or, uh, into broader integrated responses. But we continue to face operational issues in terms of beneficiary targeting, transfer design, and coordination. So that's why it seemed important to us to give a little reminder today about financial assistance and the link with protection. So in today's session, Julia and Roberta will present an overview of the main elements of what is called cash for protection, or monetary assistance for protection, whether in specialized protection programs or integrated programs. and then I will let them introduce and uh and also make the presentation and then at the end we should normally have some time to take questions if uh if necessary for clarification, but do not hesitate to uh also put your questions and remarks in the chat. And thank you also to those who are in the process of introducing themselves. Um Julia Roberta, thank you so much for being with [clears throat] us and thank you for agreeing to redo this session in French and I'll give you the floor. Thank you very much, Marie Muni. Hello everyone, er, dear colleagues. So, I'm Julia, I'm uh the coordinator of this TAS Team with Roberta. Uh, and so I am kind of the, let's say, the hidden person of the two. Roberta being, uh, a specialist in protection. Um Roberta, I don't know if you want to say a few words before we start. Yes, thank you. Well, just hello, good afternoon everyone and thank you for joining us. Uh, maybe you've already had the opportunity to participate in other presentations we've done, but we're happy to have you here and I think we can begin. Great, thank you very much. I'm just going to remove the camera to, uh, make sure the connection is good for everyone. So we'll start by giving you a little overview of the activities of the TAS Team. So this task team, uh, it's already existed for quite a few years. So, over the years, we've worked on quite a few things. We have worked a lot on developing tools, we have worked a lot on capacity building. Uh, so uh, now I'm going to present a little more about what is part of the work plan uh, and of this year and the different initiatives. So that's going to be at the beginning. Next we will present with Roberta the two main global guidelines that have been developed on cash for protection. So the first one is a guideline that is specific to the protection project which incorporates cash. And the other is a guideline that is currently being tested, so being piloted in the field, which is centralized on integrated programs, so caching and protection. So there you have it, that's going to be the first big part. We will also talk to you a little bit, so we will give you an illustration of the different tools and resources that have been developed in recent years . Many of them have been translated into French, not all but many. Uh, and we're also going to show you where they are so you can access them easily. And we're also going to talk a little bit about all the work we're doing to uh better document and better capture the impact uh of cash on protection at the uh global level and at the end we will of course have some time for uh questions and answers. So broadly speaking, uh, let's say the TASIM this year, it will focus on, uh, let's say I think four priority areas. So the first being, uh, the finalization of these guidelines on cash, on integrated cash and protection programs, which we will talk about in a moment. The idea is therefore to pilot them in the field to ensure that they are useful and sufficiently comprehensive for field actors. Uh, I'll tell you a little more about these drivers towards the end of the presentation. Well, we're working on it, it's quite related, but we're also going to develop methodological notes on the issues of targeting and calculating monetary transfer values. That's because it has been identified as a priority in the sense that these are the two technical points on which we have the most questions. So we are really going to try, uh, through these exchanges with you and with other colleagues around the world, to better understand what the main issues are related to these two themes and we are going to try to use these methodological notes to uh better address them. We will also have one that will be more dedicated, slightly separate in terms of theme but which will be a little more dedicated to coordination and therefore coordination around cash for protection. Another priority area, therefore, is capacity building. So we will finally go through the year and a little bit into next year as well, we will conduct several training courses. So we have in-person training courses, but we have also developed an online training course. My knowledge of it is not yet translated into French, but I think it will be done quickly. Uh, we'll share it with you in the chat if it's useful. So, this is a training course that is uh specific to cash for child protection. And we have just finished the last module which is specific to monitoring and evaluation in this type of intervention. Uh, we also work quite a bit on the dissemination of information, meaning that there are really a lot of things that have been done in recent years. So really one objective this year is to make sure that uh colleagues uh are aware of these tools that are available, that they know where to find them. So, uh, to do that, we're trying to do a bit more of these presentations, like the one we're doing today. Uh, we are also trying to, we have several uh, uh workshops planned also uh at country level uh at the end of this year and next year and we are also trying to work uh on the promotion, let's say, of the online library. The GPC colleges have done a great job, by the way, updating the library that you will see, hopefully soon. And we are also finalizing a video on cash for protection which will of course also be translated into French which I hope will help you to introduce this topic a little more easily. So, we're going to try to really summarize what we're going to present today in a 4-5 minute video. Well, there you go. And finally, two last points. So one of our priority areas remains technical support. So we are at your disposal when you encounter technical problems. We have a helpdk. We will give you the link right after that you can use to contact us. We will do our best to answer you. And of course, the way we primarily work is through clusters. So, if the point of entry remains the national clusters, then of course we come to support the cluster as soon as necessary. And finally, uh, as I was saying in the introduction, the last priority of this year is therefore on the construction of evidence, the evidence building. Uh, and uh, we're going to talk to you a little more at the end, uh, about the presentation of what this initiative consists of and how you can take part in it. So that's the general outline of the TAS Team and its activities. Uh, so that's kind of the timeline, so what we've been working on this year, where we are, we've currently started to do these training courses. There is a first one that was done in Ukraine. There is a second one that we have just finished with the Myanmar teams in Bangkok and we are preparing to carry out uh between August and October in Sudan uh in Syria as well as in Afghanistan. Well, there you go . And then, you have a bit of the timing of the different activities that I have, that I have, uh, I have just talked to you about. Well, there you go . With that, I think we're going to get straight into the details and I might hand it over to Roberta who will introduce you to the first of the two guidance sessions, the two guides that we have developed. THANKS. Thank you, Julia. Yes. So we're going to look first at this first guide that we produced uh with the TAS Team and in particular in a small technical working group that focused on the technical aspects precisely uh [throat scraping] in relation to the covers for protection. And just before I present the note to you, uh, all these, these two notes that we are going to present uh today, in fact, are uh, based on indicators of our orientation, on existing guidelines produced by different agencies as well as on protection classes in different countries. So we also tried to capitalize on what already existed in terms of technical guidance. So this note, as I was saying, focuses on caches for protection within the framework of specialized or specific protection programs, as they are called. Uh, the logic a little bit behind this note and also the second document that we are going to present to you today, is in fact to try to determine a little bit what the standards, key points, key considerations are related to the use of monetary assistance, therefore of monetary transfer within the framework of the continuum of protection. If you see in the image, we have the first sphere which speaks to us of cross-cutting integration of protection or the cross-cutting nature of protection, which, as I imagine you already know, is everything that is linked to the integration of protection principles into humanitarian programming, which is of course also valid when we talk about cash transfers. uh and which must of course be put in place with uh attention to all these aspects of non-discrimination, security, uh dignity, respect for the principles of accountability, participation uh and empowerment of the population as well as the principle of not flourishing. So this remains a framework which is also valid with regard to the cash for protection. Then, we have a second uh in second approach which is linked to the integration of protection uh which we will talk about a little more in detail in the second part of this presentation, but just to frame a little uh when we talk about the integration of protection, we look at the program which uh whether we are uh humanitarian programs which are designed to support both objective protection objectives and objectives of other sectors uh so support uh to populations which are which are obtbl. And finally, uh, we have specialized or autonomous protection programs, uh, which of course have a focus on specific protection objectives that aim to prevent or respond to protection risks. And that's the subject of this first note, this first guideline that we're going to present to you. Uh, so if we come to the definition of cash for protection or monetary transfer for protection if you prefer, [clears throat] in fact, uh, that's precisely it. This is the intervention which uses cash transfers as one of the methods to contribute to or meet the needs for protection, whether for individuals or at the household level. Uh, this definition includes three essential elements. The first is that monetary transfers will therefore be one of the methods among others, therefore on the same level as the provision of services or supplies in kind, in our broader protection strategy. So, that is to say, the monetary transfer will be associated with other protection activities to achieve our objective or our mental protection results. Uh, the second aspect is that, uh, cash for protection can be used, uh, both in prevention programs and in response programs. So we can use it to reduce imminent protection risks or protection risks for a certain target, but also to respond reactively or correctively to protection concerns that people have already experienced. And finally, the third point to remember is that we are talking about cash protection, but that does not mean that we are focusing solely on monetary transfer as an autonomous intervention. So the provision of cash or vouchers must, as I said earlier, be associated with other protection activities in order for it to be considered part of our CAS program for protection. Uh [clears throat] often there is some confusion between the distinction uh cages for protection uh with multi-purpose cash transfers the MPCA. So here, we're trying to clarify the two approaches and explain them to you. So I'll start a little bit on the side of MC, so the multi-purpose cash transfers, which are in fact cash transfers that aim to meet the basic needs of households to cover in part or totally the needs that can be monetized of course, so these are transfers that are multi-purpose in the sense that we provide cash and so the households that receive the assistance have the possibility to decide how to use it to meet their needs. Uh, on the other hand, you see, we're going back a bit to the definition of cash for protection, and the first distinction is, uh, the objective. So when we talk about cages for protection, uh the objective is to use uh aid uh monetary transfers to achieve protection objectives. So we're not going to look at, uh [clears throat] socio-economic vulnerabilities in general, but we're trying to understand what the protection risks are and what the link is between these protection problems we've identified and how financial assistance can be used to reduce or mitigate these risks. So as you can see, in this context, the risks of protection are central and remain our objective. Uh, another important point to remember is that, as these two types of assistance have different objectives, they are not mutually exclusive. That is to say, the same person, in the same household can receive both a multi-purpose monetary transfer and also cash for protection. uh the objectives [throat clearing] are different and so the two interventions can be combined to support uh basic needs and also the aspects of protection and development. I'll give you two slightly more practical examples to reinforce this distinction, this concept, these two concepts. So in the first example you see, we can imagine a situation where we are a person who, during a trip, has lost their essential civil status documents and consequently finds themselves facing recurring violations of their rights, such as restrictions on freedom of movement, risks of being arrested or detained. So in this context, the programs that we can install in terms of cash for protection, we can put in place this problem to respond through a monetary transfer to the needs that can be used to cover the costs to deliver civil status documents. Uh, which can include, for example, lawyers' fees, costs for the document itself, court fees, or transportation costs to access the civil registry service, and so on. And at the same time, we can combine this monetary assistance with legal assistance, with psychosocial support if necessary, or other protective activities. So these two parts will constitute our cache for protection in this context. Uh, here you have, however, another example which, uh, is not a cage for protection. Uh, in this example, we find ourselves in a situation where a humanitarian actor identifies a group of people with disabilities among the target population of a cash transfer intervention. So these people are included in the list of beneficiaries uh [clears throat] as a vulnerable group and to meet their uh basic needs. Uh [clears throat] so as you can see here uh we are not dealing with cases for protection because our objective uh is to meet basic needs as I was telling you earlier through the multiprop cash. Well, that always comes back to the concept of protection in the sense that the inclusion of people with disabilities in these cases is part of the cross-cutting nature of protection. So it's not about cash for protection, but rather about the cross-cutting aspects of protection. Uh here you see uh [clears throat] a little bit of the cycles, the decision tree if you will which helps us to uh to define [clears throat] the main design steps of a cash protection program within the framework of specialized protection interventions . Uh [clears throat] you can find this uh this diagram in the guides. So [clears throat] we'll let you go look at all the details afterwards. We'll explain a little more in a bit. What I wanted to mention first is that in fact there is a prerequisite, which is to establish in advance referral mechanisms between protection actors who are setting up specialized programs including cash for protection and actors from other sectors in general, but also multi-purpose monetary assistance. uh, having referencing systems that go from one side [clears throat] to the other. It allows us to somewhat meet the needs and provide assistance. Uh, and then the starting points, in fact, for our design of the cash program for protection will always be the analysis of protection risks, which is basically to identify the risks to which the population is affected, and then how a cash transfer intervention can help us respond to this type of risk. And I will now give the floor to Julia to start explaining a little more about the design aspects to be taken into consideration. Thank you very much, Roberta. So we're going to start by, uh, talking about the identification and selection of beneficiaries. So this is an important point because very often this is where the mixing already begins to happen between caching for protection and standard caching programs . Uh, in the caching programs for protection, the protection risk analysis, and the primary entry point . So it is through this that we begin to identify this connection, let's say, between protection risks and financial barriers, which will lead to monetary transfers as a tool, in a way, to respond to these risks. So risk analysis in terms of protection is really the basis that will allow you to determine or build the identification. This will allow us to answer the question we wrote on the slide. How will financial debt address the identified protection risks and contribute to a direct protection outcome? Once we have used this risk analysis to get a general idea of ​​the identification, we can potentially identify certain profiles of at-risk populations whose risks are explained by underlying economic problems or causes. [grunt] So we move on to the selection part. So for the selection part, the most recommended approach is to use an individual protection assessment approach as much as possible. So for example in everything related to case management, we will really seek to do the targeting via, well, targeting is a bit like the term we use in monetary transfers, but in any case it is through this individual assessment that we will really understand if for a certain given case, cash will be necessary and will therefore reduce certain risks or mitigate them. It is also about being able to have this more individual approach versus the targeting strategies that are more group-oriented in other sectors. It is also that it will allow us to better comply with the principle of do harm, because we know that in some cases, well, each case of protection is unique and each case of protection can have certain potential risks. We also know that we always operate within a context. So we can also consider whether targeting a particular person in this context alone might potentially put them at risk. So , we really try as much as possible to make this selection based on the analysis and individual assessment of protection. In some cases, uh, in some situations, you may have certain population groups that uh will therefore have similar patterns, let's say. Well, that's still quite rare. For example, let's take the example of unaccompanied and isolated minors in certain displacement crises. So in this case, we know that more or less this at-risk group all have certain needs. So, we can possibly in the early phases of a response consider something a little more harmonized for that group. But it's still quite rare because we really do have some pretty different groups. So. So identification via risk analysis in terms of protection, selection ideally via individual assessment of protection [grunt] and also we always take into account the fact that there is this notion of complementarity which remains essential. So really we always operate, well, we really integrate cash into protection activities. Ideally, it can finally, in general, we often take this example of case management. It's a tool that supports protection activities; it's not an activity in itself. So in case management, for example, we really integrate monetary transfers into the case planning. Uh, it's really a tool. So, in the next slide, we looked a little bit at how we did this targeting. Uh, we also look at, uh, afterwards everything related to the calculation, so calculation of the value of the transfers. So that's another big point on which we very often have questions. We often get questions because we are used to, let's say in the cash world, having amounts that are fixed or at least having amounts that are determined at the level of the cash working group that may possibly evolve from one area to another or possibly we may have topups for certain population groups. But in general, there has really been a big effort in recent years to harmonize the amount of transfers in protection. That's not really how we operate in the sense that, as I told you earlier, well, just now, there may be certain situations where we have groups of populations that may share the same needs, well, in or at least the same risks from a protection point of view , but it's still quite rare to have something so homogeneous, let's say. Uh, very often the needs and the cases vary from case to case, and so the needs vary, and so it is very difficult to calculate an amount that works for everyone in certain situations. Well, one case will only need very occasional support, but a very high sum. In another situation, it might be support that will be linked to transport, for example, to access the service, which will be something that will be regular in the long term but not huge in terms of volume. So there you have it, so that's why we really try as much as possible when we talk about calculating transfers in protection to do it on a case-by-case basis and to really have amounts that are determined if you work or operate within the framework of case management that are calculated and designed really for the case and not for a particular group. Often, the protective binders will have a maximum amount. So, generally speaking, this is a maximum amount that can be used. Well, it's often calculated using, for example, the different prices of the different services. So it's, let's say, a sort of average. What is important in terms of the cap is to ensure that the amounts that will be distributed, ideally on a case-by-case basis, or as close as possible to the idea of ​​a case- by-case basis, is to ensure that we are not distributing, let's say, $1000 in a context where other populations who are not part of, well, who are not necessarily in a protection program receive $10. You see, we still have to think about ensuring that the proportionality is not too different so as not to create new risks. Well, with certain orientations, we very often get questions about the budget. We're told, "OK, but if we try to make transfers as much as possible on a case-by-case basis, how do we create a budget?" So, for the budget in general, what we recommend is basing it on previous experience. For example, if you've only worked on managing Cam and haven't used cash, you can get an idea of ​​what, for each case, what averages were needed, what services were required, and what costs were incurred. So, to make an estimate, you can use that amount as a starting point for the budget, but clearly state in the project proposal that this amount would be adapted on a case-by-case basis according to the specific needs of each case. So, those are the main considerations to take into account. The key thing to consider is how to address financial obstacles through cash transfers. If we really need to look at it from this perspective... That prism. Uh, there are reasons why certain risks exist; there are economic reasons that create certain risks. We try to reduce the risks by addressing these financial barriers. Uh, in the next slide, we'll talk a little more about everything related to the design of the transfer. As I mentioned earlier, the frequency of transfers is also something we're generally used to seeing guidelines. So, cash transfers are given for three months during the lean season, or monthly, or for one month for displaced populations, and so on. So, generally, we have a fixed timeframe, let's say. Uh, here it's the same thing, the same logic as the amount. Uh, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis as much as possible. You can, of course, make estimates, but the best thing is really to be able to see... What is necessary on a case-by-case basis? Let's take the example of someone who might need a fairly large amount for civil documents, for example, but who otherwise doesn't particularly need assistance, or perhaps needs assistance, but rather multi-sectoral cash assistance, let's say, not necessarily protection, versus this example of someone who really needs very regular access to the service, and for whom this creates a financial burden. So, paying for transportation, which isn't a huge sum, but rather an amount that needs to be spread over a longer period. Another thing to consider is the profiles. Well, very often we calculate transfers monthly, but we also need to consider certain profiles, such as programs that target children through cash transfers, where we [grunt] target... For teenagers, we'll give them the cash directly. Uh, in some situations, uh, when talking with teenagers, we realize that they prefer, for example, to receive smaller amounts more frequently rather than one large sum per month. So here too, we really need to see this from a flexible point of view and be able to adapt as much as possible to the needs of each case. Again, this is all in the interest of not creating new risks through the project design. Uh, another important point on which we very often get questions is conditionality, restrictions. Uh, it's very common to have—but this isn't just about protection, it's really pretty much every sector. In general, when a sector starts using cash for protection—uh, sorry, monetary transfers— uh, for the first time, there's always this great fear that—uh, the monetary transfers won't be used exclusively to—uh, meet sectoral needs. Uh, so very often, we see a lot of conditionality being put in place. There are many restrictions. Very often, I've heard of case management teams, for example, who are terrified that their case wo n't use 100% of the transfer as intended and who will ask for receipts, for example, things like that . The basic recommendation is that cash for protection is designed to be unconditional and without restrictions. That's the basic recommendation because if the identification is done correctly, if the amount calculation is done correctly, we'll also show you tools that can be used in case management more specifically to support, let's say, the case or the family in using the cash transfer. [grunt] If all that has been done correctly, there's really no reason why the cash transfer shouldn't be used to meet or address protection needs. No more or less than if you're providing assistance in kind, with, well, assets, let's say. And that's finally The overall evidence has shown, uh, demonstrated this. Uh, the cases where conditionality and restriction are necessary are specific cases. So we often talk about cases, for example, where there are families, uh, well, in which there are certain parents, for example, who have behaviors related to, well, maybe alcohol or other substances. Uh, so, these are cases that, unless, of course, it's a specialized program, but these are rather exceptional cases. So the rule is unconditional, without restriction, unless it's necessary and it's demonstrated that it's necessary. And again, as a protection actor, you are always in the best position to, uh, properly conduct this analysis. Uh, one last point, but I'll go over it very quickly because we'll talk about it a bit more in, uh, the next section on integration, but, well, always design and think about referral. Uh, that's the idea, really that The cash for protection should be used as much as possible to address financial barriers related to protection, access to services, and so on. But you will also very often work with cases that have other financial vulnerabilities and therefore other types of needs. In this case, always think about referring multi-sectoral cash programs in countries with social protection systems to the social protection system. You really have to think of it in the same way you make referrals to access certain services. You really have to see it that way and build the necessary bridges with other organizations that distribute this type of assistance so that you can refer your cases. This is a much more sustainable approach, especially from a financial point of view. So, I think that's about it for this guide on cash in specialized protection programs. I think I'll pass it on to you. Uh, Roberta, over to you to move on to, uh, let's talk about scenarios. Thank you, Julia. Actually, we're going to hand things over to you a bit, or at least involve you a little more in this little exercise. Uh, so, we just wanted to try to go back over the different typologies a bit; scenarios help us to solidify the theory a little more . Uh, so, I'm going to show you three scenarios. I'm going to present them to you. Okay, I'll put them all on the slides so you can read them too . Uh, and actually, the question we're going to ask you in two minutes—I'm going to give you a link so, uh, if you have your phone, you can answer the quiz online. Uh, otherwise, you can also give your answer in the chat. Uh, so the question is, among these three scenarios, which one gives us an example of, uh, protection related to what we just presented? Uh, so the first scenario, we have As mentioned in the quote, our program aims to strengthen the safety and facilitate the recovery of survivors of gender-based violence. So, we identify survivors, particularly female survivors, who are at increased risk of violence due to economic dependence on their abusers. Therefore, following our individual risk assessment, we decide to use a one-time protection payment . This single cash payment covers expenses such as relocation and transportation. And we also provide ongoing support, including legal and psychosocial assistance. That's the first scenario. The second scenario involves a program designed to help households affected by flooding recover after the disaster. We've included a monthly cash transfer in our program for households that have... They were affected by the floods, and to remember their food needs and the need for shelter, we prioritized households headed by women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. We also have our protection team, which will oversee the distribution and ensure follow-up on certain protection cases that are reported. Finally, we have our third scenario here. In this context, the objective is to offer family-based care to children who have been associated with armed groups. So we support host families registered in the programs for the care of these children, and they will receive a cash transfer to cover the needs of these children, including food, education, clothing—all the needs the children will have, as defined in the individual intervention plans for each child. child. Uh, so these payments will also be monitored by a child protection manager who will make regular visits and monitor the intervention plans in general. I'll give you a moment to reread if you like, and then I'll show you the QR codes here so you can scan them with your phone to access the quizzes, or you can also go to digit testido.com and the numbers you see to enter the quizzes. So it's 7 107 86 2. Okay, I see someone is starting to join the quiz. Very good. And as I was saying, if you ca n't, if it's not working for some reason, you can also answer in the chats. You just put scenario 1, 2, or 3, depending on what you think. Good, I see quite a few people. So, I'll come back to the question. You have 40 seconds. So the question is Which of the scenarios corresponds to an example of cash for protection? Good. I'll leave you with the remaining 20 seconds of the quiz for those who joined a little later. And now, we'll see our results. There you go. [grunt] Hello. So, the quiz tells us that most of the people who answered think that scenario 1 is an example of cash for protection. So, the case of survivors of the BBG who receive a one-time cash transfer to meet their safety needs. And in fact, that's correct, it's a clear example of how cash for protection can be used, and in this context, it's also integrated into the management of BBG cases. So, to meet a specific, individualized need, assessed at the individual level, and you see, there is a very clear link between protection risks, therefore exposure to violence, and how cash transfers can help reduce these risks by... allowing the person to find another space to be safe. We had some people say that the second scenario, uh, is also about shelters for protection, but in fact it is n't. So, uh, well, congratulations to everyone else who answered very well . [clears throat] So, like, uh, somewhat similarly to the example I presented earlier, in this context, it involves multiple cash assistance programs, uh, so cash transfers that include cross-sectoral protection but aim to, uh, [clears throat] meet the basic needs of the populations affected by the disaster. And finally, for the third scenario, I see that it's perhaps a little less clear, a little more complicated to identify. Uh, it's also, in the case of, uh, an example of shelters for protection. Uh, it seems a little more complicated because we're talking about the basic needs of children. I imagine that it can lead to a little bit of Confusion. But actually, uh, as in the first scenario, in this case, uh [clears throat] it's about integrating the CACH (Child Protection and Care Center) into the response offered through case management for children who have been associated with armed groups, for the support families who will take them in . So even if we're talking about basic needs, food, education, and so on, we're still within the framework of ensuring the protection of these children and how the CACH can help ensure a safe environment for these children and reduce the risks, for example, of being exposed to further violence or recruitment, and so on. So thank you very much for participating, and congratulations to everyone who answered well. Congratulations to Ahed, who answered very well and also super quickly, faster than everyone else. But congratulations to everyone. Very good. With that, we'll move on to our second [clears throat] [Throat] 2nd guide. And if you have any questions about the scenario, about what we said in relation to the first document, you can also write them in the chat. We can keep this for a moment at the end. Thank you also to everyone who responded in the chats. So, we come to our second guide, as I was saying, which focuses more on cages for protection within the framework of integrated protection programs and other sectors that use cash transfers. As we told you, this second guide has been developed but is still in the pilot phase in the field. That is to say, and we'll explain a little more about how you can also contribute later. We want to gather feedback on these documents to enrich them, to ensure that they are [clears throat] very usable and meet the needs in the field. Let's introduce the approach a little. In fact, when we talk about integrated programming and, of course, its connection to caches for protection, we look at how integrated protection programming can be implemented to include caches for protection. When we talk about program designs that simultaneously have a protection objective and objectives related to other sectors or other needs, including, of course, the needs of the population databases, then, generally speaking, we need a joint analysis of the [laughs] protection risks and, at the same time, socio-economic vulnerabilities [clears throat]. And we also need to have an integrated programming plan and a joint design. So, in this type of program, we also need... Uh, a good mutual understanding between protection actors and other sectoral actors who will contribute to our integrated program, uh, and uh [laughs] and a good level of coordination as well. So I'll let Julien explain the minimum configuration in a bit more detail [clears throat] . Thank you very much. So yes, we've tried to isolate some of the key points, let's say. Uh, so first there needs to be—well, it seems a bit obvious, but there needs to be a proven causal link between the protection risks and the economic and financial obstacles. So it's a similar logic to the one we talked about earlier with the protection programs that use the CACH. But really, this causal link is what we're going to try to demonstrate, and it's what will ultimately form the basis of the integrated project design . Uh, as in any integrated project, of course , there needs to be a A mix of expertise, therefore, from two or more sectors. I say "more" because it could, of course, be a caching program integrated with a protection and livelihoods program, for example. It could be several sectors combined. Here, we're just focusing on these two, but it can be much more comprehensive. But of course, it's necessary to have, uh, who is within the organization or consortium, right? It could also be programs that are integrated between organizations. Uh, so, solid expertise in the area of cash transfer and protection. Uh, what we can also see, by the way, is situations where we have, for example, one actor who specializes in cash transfer, uh, another who is transformed and who specializes in certain protection themes, and yet another in other protection themes, for example. Uh, in any case , there you have it, regardless of whether it's within the same organization or within a consortium, there needs to be This expertise is needed to ensure the successful implementation of the integrated project. Of course, it seems obvious, but in practice, we often see it gets stuck. A very high level of operational collaboration is essential. Each sector is very used to doing its own little bit of work, as they say, its own little bit of cooking. his corner. So we are really used to working much more in silos and well it's not just now on this type of program that we realize it but it is quite difficult sometimes to get out of these habits and these somewhat standard operations and to come and integrate with another sector. So really this is work that must be initiated from the beginning, from the design of the project, bringing the different technical experts around the table and which then becomes much more concrete, materialized for example through the development of joint SOPs. So. Uh, another point to consider is that, uh, in integrated programs, very often, especially in the context of integrated protection and cash programs, we are often dealing with timeframes that are not necessarily the same. And this is particularly true when working on topics such as rapid population displacement, or at least when dealing with rapid responses. Well, one where there is a new response, for example, cash programs in general are already operational within a maximum of 3 months . It's something that happens very quickly. Whereas, for example, if you have to set up an entire case management program in a new area, you wo n't be operational at the same time. After 3 months, it's going to be very difficult to be fully operational. Well , I'm just giving an example, the 3 months isn't necessarily appropriate for every context, but to give you an idea, what happens very often in this kind of situation where you have to start from scratch is that the cash program starts and goes very fast and spends its budget very quickly in practice and sometimes has finished its entire budget when the protection program starts. And in this case, there was a missed opportunity to integrate. So when you are designing the project, when you are making the work plan and the planning of the distributions, you must ensure that there is a proportion, for example, of the budget that is maintained for protection referencing. So, this is just a somewhat concrete illustration of how sometimes we think we're managing to integrate something, but in fact we realize we're not succeeding. This is something that can really help you in practice to make it happen. So, in the next slide we'll go back a bit to the main programmatic aspects. So, the analysis of the situation and the design of the program. This is what we're going to do in this, in the integrated programs. So we will of course always continue to use the analysis of protection, the analysis of risks, the analysis of protection, the one we use in standard protection programs as we talked about before. But no, in fact, what will happen is that we will start to do a cross-analysis also with uh uh uh socio-economic analyses, so the needs assessments, uh needs assessments which are carried out by uh by colleagues who work more on monetary transformations or on food security and so on. Uh, so here we're really going to try to understand what the dynamics are on both sides, what the needs are, and where the areas of intersection are between the two. always looking for this causal link between certain protection risks and uh financial barriers, but also while fully understanding that we are operating in a system where populations, well, a context where populations are very likely not only uh in need of assistance from a protection product, therefore exposed to risks, but also vulnerable populations. In which case we will also seek to understand these needs in order to meet basic needs through the cash transfer part of the project and the financial barriers specific to protection through integrated intervention with protection. So. So you really need to have a theory of, I don't know if that's even a thing in French, a theory of change, but in any case, really have this causal link that is conceived from the design of the project, from the conception of the project, that this is really what constitutes the foundation. Uh, one last thing then, at this somewhat crucial stage of the project design, we also have quite a few tools that allow us to identify the potential risks associated with different types of monetary transfers. And uh, so we have this, that's the more protection part, and then in the more monetary transfer part, there are of course feasibility studies that exist. So the idea here too is to be able to bring both together at the same time and to be able to conduct both analyses simultaneously. The feasibility is being studied. What is the best way to transfer money to a specific location? Yes, but also if we use such a method, will it be appropriate for those population profiles that are most at risk? So there you have it , so we really need to use two types of tools to really succeed in identifying, let's say, a method of assistance or a transfer system that is adapted to at- risk populations. Next, another important programmatic aspect is the safe integration of the most at-risk populations. We can therefore already talk about these identification mechanisms. Well, in this case, SEO really becomes the very heart of targeting within an integrated program. So that means we really need to establish two, uh, two entry points for targeting or at least for identification. We will see the entry point which will be identification via the cache teams and the entry point which will be identification via the protection teams. Uh, and we will need to put in place referencing systems between the two that work while ensuring that uh, we always pay attention to issues of sensitivity, uh, sorry, data risk. So, cash management teams, for example, need to be trained in the safe identification of individuals at potential risk. That doesn't mean that cash people should suddenly become case managers and start asking lots of questions in order to, well, start a case management process. No not at all. We just need these people to be trained in the same way that we will train several members of the teams in the field in secure identification and referencing. We will do the same thing with the cash teams so that if they identify a potential case, they know immediately what to do and then to the protection team so that they can carry out the necessary analyses. That's something that, for example, in some responses, allowed us to identify many cases of unaccompanied and isolated minors who came to the cash distribution point and asked for help there. So the fact that these references were put in place and pre-existing made it possible for the protection teams to have access to this population profile, sorry, to isolated and unaccompanied children who are, in any case, sometimes quite difficult to identify. Conversely, the protection teams, therefore, in their work, their protection activities, will sometimes identify cases that have needs, that need access to a multi-sectoral cash program, for example. So those who will be in a situation of economic vulnerability and who will not necessarily need other things related to protection, who will just need access to a certain service, but which for example may be a free service. In that case, the protection team needs to know how to refer that case to the cash team. Uh, in other situations, uh, the protection team will work with cases where there will be a need to receive multi-sectoral cash assistance to meet basic needs and a top-up to be able to address financial barriers specific to protection. That's it, it works the same way. It's a system of finally a referral but at the same time the protection team will ask the cash team in addition to the MPCA to be able to prioritize so this case for the MPCE but in addition to making a more specific topup to meet its financial protection barriers. So, I've already mentioned everything that was a little bit related to the SOP. So of course, in order for all this to materialize, it is necessary to put in place fairly solid operations which must be built by the caching teams and the protection teams and/or any other sector which is involved in the implementation of the project. Uh, a few points about calculating transfer values. Finally, the principles are more or less the same as in what we talked about just previously for the protection program only . The assistance must therefore respond both to basic needs and to the financial obstacles that are at the origin of the protection risk, which have been identified. Uh, and we try as much as possible, so there you go, to take this case-by-case approach where we assess on a case-by-case basis what the needs are. Now we know that uh this case-by-case approach is not possible in all contexts and all situations. It could be because the program has just started and we don't have enough trained staff. It could be because we are working in a situation where we have to give very, very quick answers and we don't have time to do so, so there is an in- depth case management and so on and so forth. So there are other methodologies that exist. However, we finally have the gift I'm going to talk to you about. There are other methodologies that exist. However, it is important to take into account that the best one is the one towards which we should always strive, and therefore the one on a case- by-case basis. So, an alternative for situations where we are really in quick responses, where we don't have the possibility or the capacity to do a more in-depth analysis. So it's an approach that, uh, that estimates, uh, therefore, that is based, sorry, on three levels of risk. So the risks are uh very high, medium high and low. So, for each of these risk categories, we're going to look at what the main risks associated with the context are. And on that basis, we will make an estimate for these main risks of what the main financial need might be. So. [grunt] So we have useful assistance that is specific to the identified risk and we use this as a methodology to be able to make a quick response in situations that are a bit in between, where we still can't really do a more in-depth case management. What we do put in place, though, we have established a bit more, let's say, what we advise is to calculate a top-up that will be added on top of the standard monetary transfers and that will be provided to certain population profiles. Uh, for example, uh, in the situation in Gaza, so there were a lot of, I'm sorry, I always use the example of unaccompanied minors, I don't know why, uh, but anyway. So in this example, what we were doing, what was recommended, was to place isolated children in foster homes. So we calculated a specific top-up amount that would be given to each family that received a child. So, this is it, we estimated the monthly cost and, uh, we made this top specific to a profile. So this can be an alternative methodology once again which cannot be as good as the one at Cabarca but which has the merit of being able to provide assistance which is still a little more attached to either the risk profile or the risk itself [grunt] and to provide it a little more quickly. So. Uh, and with that, I think we're going to uh close this part, Roberta, if I'm not mistaken. Okay, I'm going to speak very briefly because I'd like us to have some time for questions and answers. So, this guide I just told you about is a guide that we try to pilot as much as possible and in as many countries as possible. Well, the pilot himself, that doesn't involve a huge amount either. This means that, uh, if you are in a situation where you are about to design an integrated project or you are in the process of implementing an integrated project, the idea is to do it by following this guide and then tell us what you thought of it, whether this guide was complete enough, whether there were aspects that were missing, whether there were aspects that were erroneous. So, if you wish to be part of this pilot, we have put the QR code to scan at the bottom of the page and if you are interested we will contact you and we, of course, can come and support you occasionally during the implementation of the pilot and do some of these follow-up sessions. So. Uh, so that's for the pilot and then I think, uh, yeah, we might move on to that, Roberta. Uh yeah , we can maybe just move on to resources quickly then. So. So. Very quickly. We mentioned at the beginning that there are quite a few resources available currently, many of which are also translated into French. So, we've put together a small page here that's more specifically about child protection. So you have a typ sheet which brings together a little bit of the essential information, which is available on uh the cash for child protection. There are two manuals that have been developed which cover the entire design of the well, not even the study, uh, the risk and needs analysis up to the follow-up evaluation, so for uh, integrated child protection projects. There is a specific guide for, uh, hiding it from teenagers. And then uh there is a whole series of uh monitoring and evaluation tools. So, some are designed more for adults and others more for teenagers. And finally, you also heard about a childcare guide in cash transfer projects. So we also have several things available regarding gender-based violence. Uh [grunt] so here too you have a kind of so you have a guide on how to uh on the whole design of cash projects uh in the management of cases of gender-based violence and you also really have a tool kit, a very comprehensive toolbox on uh uh everything that is risk identification upstream and uh monitoring evaluation so in projects more specific uh to gender-based violence. [grunt] Uh, and finally, we're also working on other themes as well, of course . So you will see, we have put the link to the library here in case you do not have access to it. Uh, we also have quite a bit of work on mind action issues. I don't have the French translation. uh everything related to mining uh uh and uh also everything related to House Landing Land and uh property. So these are two types of sheets that bring together pretty much all the information currently available on the use of cash in this type of project. So. Uh, one last point, we have just started, uh, to launch our page on LinkedIn. If you use LinkedIn, we invite you to follow it so that we will start sharing all these resources regularly on LinkedIn as well as all updates from the TAS Team. So there you have it, it's a good way to keep you informed, to stay in touch with us. And you also have the address of the uh at the bottom of the technical questions to ask us. Uh, there you go, and I think we'll stop there and give you the floor. So, we'll share the presentation with you later. So for the QR codes and to review what we just said and also for the links for the different resources and also we are preparing a list of resources in French. So here you have seen the images, it's from the site with English, but actually everything is translated. will also share with you directly the links for resources in French and if you have any questions, uh, just a few more minutes. I just see Maga reading in a raised hand, sorry, I can't read all the names but if you want to talk, he has Magali's hand. Yes, Magalie Vido and then Jérémie. Magalie, to you. Ah, hello. Uh, so Magalie, international handicap. Um, I might have a question, a comment. So you confirm that when you talk about the cash for protection approach in an integrated program, you are referring to an integrated program of monetary transfer and protection because protection can be integrated into another sector, but here the focus is really on using cash for protection, integrated into a program that already does monetary transfer, multipurpose cash. Yes, absolutely. Finally, who is already doing it, or who is going to start doing it for the first time ? Quite. OK. Uh, very well. Uh, and so indeed, because at the beginning I was a... and so, uh, on the specifics, finally, because for example, it was mentioned that, uh, the feasibility study on the use of cash transfers, you emphasized, but really, only at the level of the... of the program that would be integrated. Uh, but we're still supposed to do this feasibility assessment , even if we know we'll use cash, even in a specialized protection program, we still need to do this feasibility study on monetary transfers. I didn't quite understand the nuances in fact and what are the specificities and notable differences in fact between the prerequisites on the implementation of the use of cash in a specialized program versus integrated with the civil. THANKS. I might let Roberta answer more about the differentiation between the two, or rather between the two types of intervention. Yes of course. Finally, the feasibility study, let's say that what we don't want to impose is that the actors of protection should suddenly have to conduct feasibility studies of cash. Well, that's generally something that's being done more and more at the cash working group level. Uh, and what we really wanted was to finally try to put more emphasis on, uh, the emphasis in the cash guide for projects specific to protection, to put more emphasis on how it was done in terms of design. After, in practice, yes, of course, the feasibility study, finally, it must be done when using monetary transfers and of course the studies, the risk analysis is something but which will perhaps be done more often in stand-alone protection programs than integrated programs. So that's why we didn't pick it up . Yes, of course. OK. I don't know if Roberta you want to elaborate on the difference between integr and Yes, I might go back a little to this slide which sorry we went through quickly but in fact it's a bit of a summary of what we just said and the differences between the two approaches between specialized protection and integrated program. Well, basically the difference in designs comes from the objective. So as we said, if we have a protection program, of course the objective is protection; when we have an integrated program, we have a protection objective which is also associated with other, uh, broader objectives of responses if it is for cases of assistance with basic needs and so on. H so [clears throat] of course there are points in common especially because it is very difficult to have a protection program that is not in some way associated with other programs because we have needs that require to be covered in addition to the needs of protections to ensure that the protection is maintained in a sustainable way. So uh there is yes , so the difference in the basics, I would say it's really this design which is focused on protection itself, protection activities. So for example when we use money transfer in the context of camp management, that's the example, it's a bit classic, easier if we want more understandable specialized protection programs that integrate caches. Uh, on the other hand, when we look at it, and so, for example, [throat clearing], we can have external references if we want to cover other needs in these frameworks. If we have an integrated program, we will have rather uh the same target which uh can receive uh assistance for aspects related to the protection sector and uh the multiple cages we take this example at the same time or anyway through the same program that's it that explains a little bit the differences Yes yes, absolutely. THANKS. Actually, it's because for me, an integrated program means you can have integrated programs without the CV section. But what I understand is that when you talk about an integrated program, it automatically includes the civilian component and perhaps other sectors. So that was also what I had trouble understanding. But now I understand that these are indeed sector-specific results linked to transfer activities. Yes, absolutely. That's it. Well , because since I come from the protection field, it's true that, well, we can also make integrated protection projects that are not integrated with TPM, and therefore we could still use cash. Um, so that would n't fit into that guidance, for example. Do you see what I mean? Yes. Uh, if we take, for example, a child protection integrated with an education program, we can of course have cash linked to protection, that's it, and associated with the education program as such . But uh the guides also want to answer, for example, if we have a protection program that wants to integrate cash transfers, uh, which is integrated with the education sectors that use cash forcing, so cash transfers for education, you see. So how can we actually combine the two? That's more or less the logic we tried to work with. OK. In any case, I think you have already spoken to my colleague who has already volunteered to be part of the piloting. So there we are, we can continue the discussion on the subject. THANKS. Quite. THANKS. [grunt] There's still one more question, it was Jérémie who had his hand raised for a little while. I'm going to open the microphone, Jérémie, if you want to ask your question, and then we can perhaps close the session. Yes. Uh, hello everyone. Actually, I had a quick question, it's about uh, monetary transfer and multiple uses. and monetary transfers for protection. Actually, I wanted to understand if the MPC cannot meet the protection needs? Because I imagine, I think to myself, uh, in a situation for example where we want to meet household needs, for example, so there are households where we want to help them strengthen their financial situation. and that in this household, there are also protection problems. Can't this address the financial and protection issues beyond just vulnerability? Thank you very much for the question. So I'm going to answer you based a little bit on what we know in terms of monitoring, evaluation and impact study that we have done. So what we saw was that uh cash programs uh so what we did was we used protection indicators uh in multi-sector cash programs. So , no integrated programs, nothing, well, there weren't any particular targets or protection activities. We were just curious to see, on certain indicators, if there was an impact. What we saw is that, for example, on certain risks, here I'm thinking of the risk of, oh I forgot how to say child labour, child labour, child labour. We saw a reduction simply by providing a multi-sectoral transfer. So that's what's so great about it. So it's a bit of an impact, uh, no, no, how to say no, planned, there you go, but no negative, certainly, uh, that said, this impact is, uh, not common everywhere, so it's not something we've seen absolutely everywhere, we've seen it sometimes, and we haven't seen this impact in all the different types of risk protection, uh, there you go. So I think what's important is to take into account the fact, finally, to become aware of the fact that multi-sector cash can have, but not only in protection, by the way, beneficial effects not necessarily expected. But if we really want to use it for the purpose of risk reduction or risk mitigation, then it really needs to be integrated into a protection program. And this is especially true when we start looking at risks such as child marriage, recruitment, or really other types of risks. So there you have it, I would say that sometimes it can, it can just work like that, but it's more, let's say, a positive, uh, unplanned effect, but it's not something that's going to happen in all programs. So that's why it really needs to be integrated. Perhaps I see that there is still one last touch from Isaya, but unfortunately we are really reaching the end. Ilaria, if I may give you the floor for a second, a minute, just to ask your question, and then we'll close. All right. THANKS. Regarding the last slide that was displayed before coming back here, uh, I could see a little bit, uh, yes, the protection cache and then, uh, no, the protection, well, the specialized protections against, against, against integrated programming. [grunt] Sometimes there are projects that are multi-sectoral but there is no integration because I believe that one of the pillars of integration is also having common targets. And in this kind of project how can uh protection work with uh cash transfer programs but for which the design uh did not foresee common targets. THANKS. I, I, I will try, maybe, to answer. Well, there are programs that are multi-sectoral, but that's not exactly the same as integrated programs. So maybe, I do n't know if that's what you, uh, have in mind. Uh, and in fact, that's what we're trying to promote here, it's really this concept that if we want to have an integrated program, it's important from the very design of the program to have this joint analysis [clears throat] of protections within this framework and all of the other needs, of how we can respond to what the needs of the same population are and how we can also align the response of the two sectors. So I completely agree. There are programs that have said yes, they are multi-sectoral but they can have different targets and therefore meet different needs for different parts of the population. Uh, that's kind of our program typology, it's that uh, we've tried to uh, outline in these in this guide. So maybe we should stop here. A big thank you to everyone for joining us today. Thank you for taking the time to stay with us until the end and for all the questions in the chat. I can see from your commitment that this session was, I hope, very useful. A huge thank you to Roberta Julia for agreeing to redo this session in French. And as I noted in the chat and colleagues also mentioned, we will share the recording of this session and also uh the presentation uh which will be available from tomorrow on the GPC website. Uh, and we'll also send one by email. So there you have it , for those who need it, these are public sessions, so feel free to encourage your colleagues who may have missed today's session to listen again. Thank you all again. I wish you a pleasant end to the afternoon and Robert and Julien, thank you very much again for being with us today. See you soon. Thank you very much for the organization and participation. THANKS. Thank you so much.