Are cash-based interventions a feasible approach for expanding humanitarian assistance in Syria?

Doocy, Shannon; Tappis, Hannah; Lyles, Emily

doi:10.1186/s41018-016-0015-7

Journal of International Humanitarian Action

Table 1 Humanitarian needs (January–February 2016) and assistance received (October 2015–January 2016)

From: Are cash-based interventions a feasible approach for expanding humanitarian assistance in Syria?

			Overall				By risk level						Risk level comparison p value
			Overall				High/moderate		Acceptable		Low
			(N = 400)				(N = 100)		(N = 100)		(N = 200)
			Number	Point		95% CI	Point	95% CI	Point	95% CI	Point	95% CI
Humanitarian vulnerability and needs profile
Household type
Affected			173	43.2%		[32.6,54.6]	43.0%	[22.6,66.1]	44.0%	[23.0,67.4]	43.0%	[29.0,58.2]	0.205
Displaced			106	26.5%		[18.6,36.3]	13.0%	[7.0,22.9]	39.0%	[27.0,52.5]	27.0%	[15.7,42.4]
Returnee			121	30.2%		[18.4,45.5]	44.0%	[24.7,65.3]	17.0%	[7.9,33.0]	30.0%	[12.6,56.1]
Households reporting asset sales in the month preceding the survey			138	34.5%		[25.8,44.4]	42.0%	[26.2,59.6]	28.0%	[21.4,35.7]	34.0%	[20.5,50.7]	0.770
Households reporting borrowing money or receiving credit in the month preceding the survey			235	58.8%		[52.9,64.4]	53.0%	[39.7,65.9]	64.0%	[56.7,70.7]	59.0%	[50.9,66.6]	0.325
Households reporting lack of food or money to buy food in the preceding month			283	70.8%		[62.0,78.2]	68.0%	[59.8,75.3]	66.0%	[56.2,74.6]	74.5%	[57.5,86.3]	0.451
Households reporting any unmet need			398	99.5 %		[97.9,99.9]	99.0%	[93.4,99.9]	99.0%	[93.4,99.9]	100%		0.337
Highest priority unmet need
Food			295	74.1%		[66.3,80.6]	66.7%	[59.4,73.2]	74.7%	[62.3,84.1]	77.5%	[63.3,87.3]	0.761
Non-food items			51	12.8%		[8.5,18.8]	19.2%	[12.2,28.8]	14.1%	[7.7,24.6]	9.0%	[3.9,19.5]
Health			21	5.3%		[3.5,8.0]	4.0%	[1.6,9.6]	7.1%	[4.1,12.0]	5.0%	[2.5,9.7]
Water and sanitation			10	2.5%		[0.9,6.6]	4.0%	[1.2,12.5]	1.0%	[0.1,6.6]	2.5%	[0.5,12.1]
Others			9	2.3%		[1.1,4.6]	2.0%	[0.3,12.7]	2.0%	[0.6,6.5]	2.5%	[1.0,6.1]
Shelter			8	2.0%		[0.8,5.2]	2.0%	[0.6,6.5]	1.0%	[0.1,6.6]	2.5%	[0.6,9.6]
Education			3	0.8%		[0.2,3.4]	1.0%	[0.1,6.8]	0.0%		1.0%	[0.1,7.3]
Livelihoods			1	0.3%		[0.0,2.0]	1.0%	[0.1,6.6]	0.0%		0.0%
Receipt of humanitarian assistance, October 2015–January 2016
Households receiving any assistance			258		64.5%	[55.6,72.5]	59.0%	[38.6,76.7]	62.0%	[46.9,75.1]	68.5%	[56.6,78.4]	0.584
Non-food items			87		22.5%	[14.6,31.1]	21.0%	[9.5,34.3]	25.0%	[10.3,49.1]	22.0%	[12.2,35.1]	0.846
Food basket/items			237		59.3%	[51.9,66.2]	57.0%	[38.8,73.5]	53.0%	[44.1,61.7]	63.5%	[53.8,72.2]	0.401
# of times received	Mean		237		2.1	[1.8,2.3]	2.3	[1.7,2.9]	2.3	[2.1,2.5]	1.9	[1.5,2.2]	0.177
Food vouchers			24		6.0%	[2.1,16.3]	8.0%	[1.1,41.2]	2.0%	[0.3,12.7]	7.0%	[1.7,24.5]	0.607
# of times received^a	Mean		24		1.6	[1.4,1.9]	1.8	[1.8,1.8]	1	[1.0,1.0]	1.6	[1.3,2.0]	0.675
Value of voucher received^a	Mean		24		99.3	[76.4,122.1]	113.9	[113.9,113.9]	161.5	[161.5,161.5]	80.7	[63.4,97.9]	0.063
Unrestricted vouchers			10		2.5%	[0.5,12.5]	1.0%	[0.1,6.6]	0.0%		4.5%	[0.7,23.7]	0.412
# of times received^a	Mean		10		1.6	[1.3,1.9]	1	[1.0,1.0]	–		1.7	[1.4,1.9]	0.035
Value of voucher received^a	Mean		10		102.8	[81.0,124.5]	127.1	[127.1,127.1]	–		100.0	[80.2,119.9]	0.139
Unrestricted cash transfer			1		0.3%	[0.0,2.0]	0.0%		1.0%	[0.1,6.6]	0.0%		0.735
Percent of household’s diet provided for by humanitarian assistance
None		116			29.0%	[23.1,35.7]	32.0%	[20.8,45.8]	35.0%	[23.7,48.3]	24.5%	[17.5,33.2]	0.586
0–24%		146			36.5%	[30.7,42.7]	29.0%	[21.0,38.5]	32.0%	[24.7,40.2]	42.5%	[34.0,51.4]
25–49%		68			17.0%	[12.9,22.1]	20.0%	[15.3,25.8]	14.0%	[8.3,22.6]	17.0%	[10.5,26.4]
50–74%		37			9.3%	[6.5,13.0]	15.0%	[9.4,23.1]	8.0%	[4.3,14.5]	7.0%	[4.1,11.8]
75–100%		32			8.0%	[4.9,12.8]	4.0%	[1.6,9.6]	11.0%	[5.0,22.3]	8.5%	[4.3,16.2]

^aAmong households receiving this type of assistance; values reported in USD

Back to article page