MAIN FINDINGS

Type of humanitarian assistance intervention: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are the most common type of humanitarian assistance intervention, followed by food transfers, vouchers, conditional cash transfers (CCTs), and public works.

The impacts of humanitarian assistance programmes vary by the types of outcomes being assessed. We find that most humanitarian assistance programmes can effectively improve some individual and household-level outcomes compared to the control group. However, the evidence is limited to be able to draw general conclusions across outcomes and modalities:

a) Basic needs outcomes: Most types of humanitarian assistance interventions can effectively improve basic needs outcomes, such as food security, food expenditure, and coping strategies, compared to the control group.

b) Financial outcomes: Cash-based programmes, such as UCTs, vouchers, and cash-for-work improve household asset accumulation in humanitarian settings, while food assistance and food-for-work have no impact. On savings and income, the evidence is very limited and, therefore, inconclusive.

c) Human development outcomes: The evidence is limited to a few studies that suggest that UCTs and CCTs can positively affect education and health. However, the impact of food transfers and vouchers on these outcomes is mixed and inconclusive.

d) Gender outcomes: The evidence on women’s empowerment and gender-based violence is very scarce and ambiguous. Some studies suggest that cash-based interventions can increase women’s intra-household bargaining power or involvement in income-generating activities, while other studies do not find similar evidence.

e) Social cohesion outcomes: A small number of studies show that both cash and in-kind transfers can effectively promote social capital and social cohesion during humanitarian crises compared to the control group. Regarding the relative effectiveness of different modalities, decisions about the most appropriate modality versus another cannot be generalized or predetermined. All these factors must be considered when choosing transfer modalities.

a) Basic needs outcomes: Cash and in-kind transfers are similarly effective in improving basic needs outcomes, such as food security or coping strategies. However, specific differences among modalities depend on the type of indicator used to measure them. For example, cash tends to increase non-food expenditure more than in-kind transfers.

b) Financial outcomes: Lump sum cash transfers are more effective than multiple smaller payments for generating assets, but there is no difference in encouraging savings behaviour.

c) Human development outcomes: There is no study on the relative effectiveness of different transfer modalities in improving human capital outcomes.

d) Gender outcomes: The limited evidence on gender-based violence shows that giving cash vs. in-kind transfers to women has no differential impacts on gender-based violence.

e) Social cohesion outcomes: The limited evidence indicates that both cash and vouchers can be equally effective in improving social capital during humanitarian crises.

While the effectiveness of cash and in-kind transfers is similar on average, the efficiency is generally in favour of cash. When comparing equally valued transfers across different modalities, cash transfers seem to be more efficient to deliver than in-kind modalities. Studies suggest that mobile money cash transfers are the most efficient, provided that mobile network infrastructure is available. The second most efficient  transfer method is manual cash delivery, followed by voucher transfers, with food transfers being the most expensive way to deliver assistance. It is important to note that this ordering is based on the costs only, and one also must consider the benefits, which are typically multi-dimensional.

Given the lack of rigorous causal evidence on humanitarian assistance programmes, there is a high dividend to be earned from conducting more impact evaluations in humanitarian settings. Substantial evidence gaps remain, and there is a need to better understand implementation design choices, such as which population to target, what type of modality to transfer, and the duration, size, and frequency of transfers, to name a few. In this review, we identified several cross-cutting evidence gaps where more impact evaluations would be needed.