A Localized Procedural Model for Cash-based Assistance to Livelihood and Health of Natural Disasters’ Victims Based on Information Technology


Cash-based Assistance
Information Technology
Natural Disasters

How to Cite

Taghavifard , M. T. ., & Yousefzadeh , Y. . (2020). A Localized Procedural Model for Cash-based Assistance to Livelihood and Health of Natural Disasters’ Victims Based on Information Technology. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 22(5). Retrieved from https://ircmj.com/index.php/IRCMJ/article/view/600


Background: After the end of an emergency period and through setting up emergency settlement camps, humanitarian agents will take action to improve livelihood and health conditions of those suffering from the disaster through sending livelihood and health packages with standard contents and based on people’s requirements. However, the problem is that the packages are prepared for normal people, and they would be no use for infants, children, and the elderly or patient family members. Cash-based Assistance (CBA) instead of in-kind donations would result in observing the human dignity of victims during the post-emergency period, as well as families and economic recovery of the affected region. There are many toolkits and process models provided by international humanitarian agencies, but because of special conditions of Iran (sanctions/economy) and a large number of natural disasters, we need a localized process model on CBA for victims of natural disasters based on Information Technology (IT), which would lead to speed, accuracy, and transparency.

Methods: The research was performed in two phases. Through a systematic review in the first phase, we studied international models/toolkits and proposed a process model for CBA in Iran. In the second phase, the localized model was customized using Delphi based on experts’ opinions. The statistical population in the first phase was the international publications in addition to operational reports provided by local/international organizations/agencies from 2004 to 2019. In the second part, the statistical population included the executive managers of rescue and relief agencies and university professors in critical management from whom, 14 individuals were selected through targeted sampling and participated in Delphi rounds.

Results: In the first stage, by a systematic review, based on five well known international toolkits/models, researcher experiences, and experts, a process model was developed with five steps and 27 processes. In the first round of Delphi, four processes were rejected, and four new processes were added by experts. In the second and third rounds, the experts agreed with all of the items. The calculated Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (KCC) value of 0.724 evidenced a good expert agreement on the obtained localized CBA model.

Conclusions: The localized process model on CBA for victims of natural disasters based on IT included 27 processes in five steps: (1) preparedness, (2) assessment, (3) response analysis, (4) implementation, and (5) monitoring, evaluation, and exit. These are localized processes agreed on by the Delphi panel expert, emphasizing hardware for e-transactions; victims, retailers, and wholesalers training in the fourth step; and program quality assurance and report to donors in the fifth step. The achieved theoretical process model would be a fundamental model to develop a process-based software application system for use in the future in Iran.



  1. Reid K. GSMA Humanitarian Connectivity Charter Annual Report - 2017. 2018, [cited 26 February 2018]. Available from: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/programme/mobile-for-humanitarian-innovation/humanitarian-connectivity-charter-annual-report-2017/.
  2. Sphere Association. The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Geneva, Switzerland: Spherestandards; 2018.
  3. World Bank Development Research Group; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Better Than Cash Alliance. The Opportunities of Digitizing Payments. The World Bank; 2014.
  4. High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers. Doing cash differently. How cash transfers can transform humanitarian aid. London: ODI; 2015, [cited 12 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.odi.org/publications/9876-doing-cash-differentlyhow-cash-transfers-can-transform-humanitarian-aid.
  5. Smart K, Pelly I, Baldoumas A. CTP Operational Models Analytical Framework. CaLP; 2018.
  6. Delo E, Eccleshall S, Rizk A, Olsen B, et al. IFRC Secretariat Cash Based Programming (CBP) standard operating procedures. Cash in Emergency Toolkit, IFRC; 2015.
  7. ICRC; IFRC. Guidelines for Cash Transfer Programming. Geneva; 2007.
  8. Mercy Corps. Cash Transfer Implementation Guide: Part of the Cash Transfer Programming Toolkit. 2017.
  9. UNHCR. Cash Delivery Mechanism Assessment Tool. UNHCR CBI Section; 2016.
  10. Oxfam. Working With Markets And Cash Standard Operating Procedures And Guidance Notes. Oxfam GB; 2013.
  11. UNHCR. Cash Feasibility and Response Analysis Toolkit. 2017.
  12. Bailey S. Evaluation of ECHO-funded cash and voucher food assistance in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Norwegian Refugee Council; 2014, [cited 20 December 2019]. Available from: http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/evaluation-echo-cash-voucher-drc.pdf.
  13. Casswell J, Hamilton Z, Khan M, Baah B. Navigating the Shift to Digital Humanitarian Assistance: Lessons from the International Rescue Committee's Experience. GSMA Mobile for Humanitarian Innovation; 2019.
  14. Metcalfe-Hough V, Fenton W, Poole L. Grand Bargain annual independent report 2019. HPG Commissioned Report, ODI; 2019.