The Sendong/Washi Voucher

Experience

Implementation of cash voucher programming in Cagayan de Oro and Iligan City in Mindanao,

Philippines

(January –February 2012)

Cash Based ProgrammingDefinition:

Cash-based Programming (CBP) to address food insecurity/ hunger is an intervention with cash or

voucher, as opposed to “in-kind” based programming with objective to connect the food* insecure households with food* trader in order to fulfil their basic* needs.

(*) You can change food to

other need, but it has to be

specific

Basic Principle:

Cash Based Programming is to respond to problem of ‘access’ not ‘availability’, e.g. people can’t affordfood, where there is no shortage.

**Give people ‘purchasing power’, lets “the market” (traders) bring the goods/services to the people.

SPHERE 2011

Sphere

2011

Voucher System vs Other ModesAreas of Comparison Traditional Goods

Handover

Voucher System Cash Handover

Systems

Canvass (supplier

selection)

Canvass and selection

of supplier

Canvass and

selection of

supplier/store

No need to canvass for

suppliers

Purchasing and

repacking

• Bulk Purchase and

Delivery of goods

to desired

warehouse or

place.

• Usually free

delivery. Direct

Payment after

billing.

• May incur losses

due to damages,

spoilage due to

handling and

storage.

• Need to repack the

goods to facilitate

distribution

• Need space for

• No need to

transfer goods

from supplier to

buyer’s

warehouse

• No losses and

spoilage

• No need for

warehouse

• No need to

transport goods

• No need to repack

goods

• No need to

purchase goods for

the people

• People can choose

what to buy with

their money

• People may abuse

their freedom of

choice and buy

goods

• No losses and

spoilage

• No need for

warehouse

• No need to

transport goods

• No need to repack

goods

Type of Cash Based Programming

1. Unconditional Transfer

2. Conditional Transfer, including CFW

Voucher System vs Other Modes

Areas of Comparison Traditional Goods

Handover

Voucher System Cash Handover

Systems

Distribution • Needs transport of

goods to

distribution site

(trucks)

• Needs space for

distribution

• High chances of

losses during

distribution

• More people

converge in one

place, may cause

traffic in the area,

high possibility of

accidents

• Easy to monitor as

the beneficiaries

are the actual

recipients

• Distribution within

store vicinity

• Have spaces for

people to converge

• Safer place for

people as the place

is usually designed

for a good number

of crowd

• Monitoring is

through

arrangements with

the store.

• Need for a secure

place for

distribution, if cold

cash

• More option on

distribution of cash

as channels are

available like smart

money, globe

wallet, Automatic

Teller machines,

etc.

• If through cash

channels, no

crowding, people

may get cash at

their own

convenience.

• Control is through

arrangements with

Voucher System vs Other Modes

Areas of Comparison Traditional Goods

Handover

Voucher System Cash Handover

Systems

People participation and

restoration of dignity

• People participation

in goods/needs

identification

• People share the

load by

volunteering/partici

pation in the

loading, repacking,

unloading and

distribution.

• People have to line

up for the goods as

they await for their

turn to receive them

as if close to beg

for it.

• People may have

freedom to choose

the goods as they

needed

• May prescribe

preferred goods to

ensure

appropriateness of

goods (no liquor

and cigarettes)

• Doesn’t have to line

up and receive

goods as they may

choose the goods

as if they are

buying it.

• People don’t have

to line up for the

hand over, thus

preserving their

dignity.

• Hard to monitor on

the spending and

appropriateness of

use of funds

• People participation

is more expressed

by their freedom to

choose the goods

they believe will

respond to their

needs

Voucher System vs Other Modes

Areas of Comparison Traditional Goods

Handover

Voucher System Cash Handover

Systems

Security Risks • High risk for

distribution of

food/goods as the

distribution team is

travelling with the

goods.

• Limited risk during

distribution of

vouchers as the

distribution may be

within the vicinity of

the store which is

usually have

several layers of

security measures.

• If distributing cold

cash, very high risk

for the safety of

distribution team.

• If distributing

through other

channels like Cash

Distribution Agents

(CDAs) less risks

for the

organization’s staff.

Staffing and manpower • Manpower intensive

from start to end.

• Manpower intensive

during verification

of beneficiaries and

the distribution of

voucher..

• Manpower intensive

during verification

of beneficiaries.

Fast Facts on Sendong/ Washi

• Tropical Storm Sendong was the most destructive tropical

cyclone for 2011 in the Philippines in terms of dead casualties

which reached up to 1,268

• 131,618 families/698,882 persons were affected

in 866 barangays (villages) 60 municipalities and 9 cities

in 13 provinces

• Cagayan de Oro City in Misamis Oriental province and Iligan City in Lanao del

Norte province had the most casualties

Why vouchers were used in this case

• Vouchers were used to have a mechanism that will ensure that the

provision will support the needs of the families while allowing them to

choose the items they need. By using vouchers, we are able to limit the use

of the provision for purchase of necessary commodities family needs and

not for use in vices.

Why use a big supplier such as Robinsons or Gaisano?

• Less chance of price increases happen to big traders as they are usually

monitored by government agencies. Price increases in local markets are the

usual result of increasing demands and decreasing availability of supply

which is the usual impact of disaster to small local traders.

• Wide range of goods available that gives options for affected population to

choose what they need to purchase.

• Ability to supply the huge volume of supplies needed by the beneficiaries

• Local traders are not expected to be affected as commodities that are

usually chosen by beneficiaries are those that they cannot get on wet/local

markets (such as local produce).

Process Flow

During the Shopping Day

Advantages (as experienced)

1. Transactions were easier. Payment for the goods were also arranged (billing system) which makes transaction easier and monitoring of expenses and purchases easier. Only the vouchers needed to be paid so this eliminated the need to transact with various suppliers, WV only had to transact with the store.

2. No need to look for a storage area or warehouse for stocks since WVDF was purchasing vouchers from the supermarket.

3. No need for repacking which allowed the organization to cut down on costs in administration and incidental expenses usually incurred in mobilizing people for repacking and rental of space for warehouse.

Advantages

4. More supportive of the intention of restoring the dignity of beneficiaries . Beneficiaries are given power to choose and take what they need from the store, at their own pace without waiting for somebody to hand it over to them.

• Beneficiaries don’t have to line up for their goods, instead they can go directly to the

store with their voucher and take their desired goods as they needed and pay it

through the cashier using their vouchers.

Advantages

5. Provides more liberty to beneficiaries to

choose items in accordance to their needs as

against the pre-packed relief goods which may contain some items that they may not need at the moment. This also eliminates the typical scenario in traditional relief goods distribution where beneficiaries end up selling goods they do not really need for whatever amount just so they can convert it to cash to buy what they actually need.

Advantages

6. BETTER SECURITY- The distribution of vouchers was done inside the store premises which provides for several layers of security. The presence of security personnel and the decency that is provided by the place limits the incidence of mobbing and facilitates orderliness. Logistically and security wise, the voucher system in the Typhoon Washi response was quite effective.

Challenges1. There were some misplaced vouchers (which were recovered

later). This was due to the idea that the vouchers were not money but mere cards or piece of paper. Some vouchers were carelessly placed in unsafe places and were not secured and accounted for by the accountable person.

2. Its being handy yet high value and very liquid ( it is almost as good cash),makes it more vulnerable to theft. It could easily be concealed and taken without being noticed.

3. As it is as handy as money, it can easily be passed on and used in other places where it would be difficult for the organization to trace. It is very susceptible for an “inside job” type of theft.

4. There is a need to prepare a very strict control system, this

must be followed –should be with accountable persons

identified and roles defined

Recommendation

CUSTOMIZED DESIGN FOR VOUCHER Considering the arrangements made with the

store and the intention where the vouchers will

be used, a customized design particular to the

project will be useful as it is easier to monitor

and control. The probability of the voucher being

used for some other purpose will be lessened.