Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nutrition Cash for Households with Malnourished Children in Mangochi District


Published on

Brian Kiswii's (UNICEF Malawi) presentation at the Transfer Project Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania on 4th April 2019.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nutrition Cash for Households with Malnourished Children in Mangochi District

  1. 1. NutritionCash for HHs with Malnourished Children in Mangochi District Part of DFID funded Lean Season Response
  2. 2. Why the Project?  Evidence that MVAC targeting criteria is not nutrition based.  Nutrition needs for non MVAC benefiting HHs given the thin line in poverty distances.  Mangochi among districts with chronic malnutrition.  Evidence on sharing (ration dilution) for OTP/SFP commodities at HH level.  Global evidence on nutrition CTs and reduced treatment periods (nutrition outcomes).
  3. 3. The NutCash Project  3 months (January – March).Aligned to the lean season.  3 cohorts (split into into 1, 2 and 3) with a total target of 5000 children.  Transfer value of MKW 20,000 per cycle. 3 cycles planned.  Transfer value calculated as a percentage of Cost of Diet estimates (HH size 5) by ConcernWW for Mangochi.  Nutrition messaging includes rational spend of cash on nutritious diets.
  4. 4. Key components  The registration process (facility level).  Active engagement of existing nut structures including Care Groups.  Targets SAM, MAM, RFU and CNST.  Learning component limited to SAM cases only (treatment period 2- 3 months). MAM treatment takes longer plus follow ups.  Complaint Feedback Mechanism (at registration and payment points).  Leveraged onWFP existing payment infrastructure (payment points aligned to health facilities).  Active engagement of DNCC andANCCs.
  5. 5. The learning component  Limited to SAM cases only in Cohorts 1 and 2.  Cohorts 1 and 2 differentiated using admission dates (period under treatment by the time of registration).  Option to employ RDD or ComparativeAnalysis using historical data depending on registered caseloads and therefore sample size.  Study variables majorly pathways rather nutrition outcomes (refer learning framework).  Food security indicators forms data points 1 (baseline) and 2 (end line).
  6. 6. Limitations  Planned againstActual Caseloads  Fear that nut cash might have adverse effects (motivator)  Short project period limits the transfer spacing; double payment leads to huge cash payouts and utilization diversion.