Innovation-led multi-purpose cash programming: practitioner reflections from the Horn of Africa

Innovation has become a defining feature of multi-purpose cash (MPC) programming. Across the Horn of Africa, humanitarian agencies increasingly rely on digital payment platforms, alternative transfer mechanisms, data-driven targeting tools and adaptive voucher models to deliver cash and voucher assistance (CVA). These approaches are typically introduced to improve speed, scale and user experience in fragile, market-dependent contexts where conventional delivery mechanisms face persistent constraints.

In principle, innovation is expected to strengthen MPC delivery under conditions of inflation, market volatility and weak financial infrastructure. In practice, however, practitioner experience suggests that governance and fiduciary systems have not always evolved at the same pace as delivery innovation. Controls originally designed for single-modality cash responses are often stretched when innovation-led initiatives are introduced as parallel delivery systems, rather than being embedded within existing CVA portfolios. In operational terms, parallel delivery systems are initiatives that operate with separate approval lines, delivery calendars and reconciliation processes, even when they target the same populations or rely on the same markets and financial service providers.

Drawing on field-level and regional CVA technical support experience across the Horn of Africa between 2018 and 2025, this article examines how governance, fiduciary assurance, liquidity management and equity risks emerge at system level when innovation operates alongside, rather than within, core MPC delivery. Rather than assessing organisational performance, the focus is on how these risks appear in day-to-day operations, how they can be detected early, and how they can be mitigated through integrated CVA design.

Why integration is now critical

Across the Horn of Africa, MPC programming increasingly operates in high-risk market environments characterised by persistent cash liquidity shortages, elevated inflation, reliance on imported goods and limited local production capacity. In such contexts, predictability and coordination are as important as transfer value. Predictable transfer schedules support household planning, while coordinated engagement with markets and financial service providers helps reduce system-wide pressure on cash-out channels.

At the same time, innovation-led CVA initiatives are frequently introduced as discrete pilots, often supported by separate funding streams, partnerships or digital platforms. While usually intended to complement core MPC responses, these initiatives commonly operate with distinct workflows, delivery calendars, reconciliation processes and reporting lines. This separation is often driven by donor requirements, technology partnerships or time-bound innovation objectives, rather than deliberate portfolio-level design.

For the purposes of this article, integration refers to innovation tools being embedded within the same governance, decision-making, reconciliation and risk-management structures as standard MPC delivery. Integration enables programme teams to manage transfer timing, liquidity risks and modality adaptation across the entire CVA portfolio. Parallel systems, by contrast, operate alongside core MPC responses but remain operationally separate, limiting the ability to coordinate decisions during periods of market stress.

Practitioner experience suggests that parallel arrangements can unintentionally increase risk. Fragmentation has led to duplicated processes, uncoordinated transfer schedules, unclear authority to adapt modalities during market disruption, and weak contingency planning for liquidity shocks. Rather than increasing resilience, such arrangements can intensify pressure on shared financial channels and undermine coordinated risk management, contrary to guidance from the Cash Learning Partnership on integrated CVA programming.

For instance, in one drought-affected, market-dependent area, a large MPC programme and an innovation-led cash pilot were implemented concurrently. Both targeted overlapping communities and relied on the same commercial bank branches for cash-out, but they operated with separate delivery schedules and reconciliation systems.

As inflation increased and branch liquidity deteriorated, participants of both programmes faced repeated delays in accessing funds. Because there was no shared liquidity forecasting, no consolidated transfer calendar and no agreed trigger for switching delivery modalities, transfers continued to be released even as cash-out capacity declined. Complaints increased sharply, field teams spent increased time on case management, and decisions to introduce vouchers were delayed due to unclear authority. In this case, the parallel design amplified fiduciary and access risks rather than mitigating them.

Governance and decision-making accountability

Innovation-led MPC typically involves multiple actors, including programme teams, finance units, digital service providers, financial service providers, and information management or innovation teams. While this can strengthen technical capacity, it also increases the risk of blurred decision-making authority if governance arrangements are not explicit.

In operational terms, governance refers to who has the authority to make which decisions, at what point in the delivery cycle, and based on what information. Clear governance arrangements allow teams to respond quickly to disruption without navigating overlapping mandates or seeking ad hoc approvals. This becomes most critical during periods of pressure, such as when payments are delayed, systems partially fail, markets fluctuate or liquidity at cash-out points deteriorates.

Across several contexts in the Horn of Africa, governance challenges were more pronounced where innovation tools operated outside standard MPC workflows. Authority – for payment sequencing, exception handling, modality changes or system overrides – was sometimes dispersed across multiple units or remained undocumented. This slowed escalation and decision-making at precisely the moment when rapid, coordinated action was required.

During an MPC response using a newly introduced digital payment platform, partial payment failures affected a significant number of households. Field teams identified the issue quickly, but responsibility for approving corrective payments was unclear because the pilot followed separate approval lines from the core MPC programme. While guidance was sought from multiple units, affected households experienced delays of up to two transfer cycles (approximately 6–8 weeks). Resolution occurred only after decision-making authority was explicitly aligned with existing MPC governance structures.

Practitioner learning highlights the importance of explicit responsibility matrices, such as Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) frameworks, embedded at CVA-portfolio level. Where accountability was clearly defined in advance, escalation was faster, decisions were documented, and control was better maintained during periods of stress.

Segregation of duties and reconciliation in hybrid systems

Hybrid MPC delivery models, combining manual processes with digital platforms, require deliberate redesign of fiduciary controls. Automation changes how risk appears, but it does not remove the need for segregation of duties.

In practical terms, segregation of duties means ensuring that no single individual or unit controls all stages of a transaction, from participant enrolment and payment approval to fund release and reconciliation (the end-to-end verification process that aims to confirm that the correct funds were disbursed, in full, to the intended recipient). This principle reduces the risk of error, misuse or undetected system failure by introducing independent checks at key stages of delivery. In digital environments, this typically requires role-based system access, independent verification of payment files, and documented audit trails for system changes or overrides.

Where innovation tools were introduced without revisiting these controls, recurring weaknesses were observed. These included overlapping system access rights, heavy reliance on system-generated reconciliation outputs, and limited clarity on how digital platforms interfaced with legacy finance systems.

In one hybrid MPC system, the same staff member generated participant payment files, uploaded them to the digital platform and verified the reconciliation reports produced by the system. Although no misuse was identified, a subsequent review found incomplete audit trails for manual overrides. Controls were strengthened by revising access rights and introducing independent verification of payment and reconciliation data.

Applying established segregation-of-duties principles within digital systems, and aligning them with donor requirements and the Core Humanitarian Standard, is essential to maintaining fiduciary assurance as innovation scales.

Liquidity, market adaptation and equity of access

Liquidity constraints emerged as a recurrent risk, particularly where innovation pilots relied on the same cash-out channels as standard MPC delivery. In several cases, funds were successfully transferred from organisational accounts, but participants were unable to access them due to downstream liquidity shortages at bank branches. In such situations, programme performance may appear satisfactory in financial systems, while participants suffered delays, repeated travel or partial withdrawals.

These constraints had disproportionate equity impacts. Older people, people with disabilities, pregnant and lactating women and others with limited mobility were more affected by repeated cash-out attempts, long travel distances and the need for multiple withdrawals. Such conditions increased protection risks and undermined dignified access to assistance.

In one programme area, transfers were released on schedule and recorded as successfully completed in internal systems. However, participants reported waiting days or weeks to access funds due to cash shortages at agents. Early monitoring focused on transfer execution rather than access outcomes, delaying recognition of the problem. Once indicators on participants’ access were incorporated into routine monitoring, the scale of the issue became clear. This prompted a temporary reduction in transfer frequency and the introduction of voucher-dispensing vendors in the most affected locations.

This experience underscores the importance of integrating liquidity and access risk assessments into CVA design, including predefined thresholds for adapting modalities when inflation, liquidity stress or access constraints exceed agreed levels.

Oversight and assurance in parallel implementation arrangements

Parallel implementation of innovation pilots alongside standard MPC responses can generate valuable learning, but it also introduces oversight complexity. Observed challenges included uneven control standards, fragmented reporting lines and inconsistent staff familiarity with fiduciary procedures.

In this context, assurance refers to the processes through which managers and donors gain confidence that assistance reaches intended recipients on time, at the correct value and without exposing them to undue risk. Effective assurance therefore requires visibility not only of fund transfers, but also of whether assistance can be accessed safely, predictably and at full value. This typically draws on reconciliation data, monitoring findings, audits and structured field feedback.

Oversight mechanisms were most effective where innovation initiatives were explicitly aligned with core MPC governance. This included shared indicators, harmonised standard operating procedures, consolidated dashboards and joint assurance processes that allowed senior management to view fiduciary, market and access risks across the entire CVA portfolio.

Where alignment was absent, innovation initiatives risked being perceived as operating outside mainstream accountability structures, increasing exposure to donor scrutiny and weakening organisational learning.

Concluding reflections

Innovation does not introduce entirely new risks to MPC programming; rather, it amplifies familiar risks when delivery systems are fragmented. Practitioner experience from the Horn of Africa suggests that integration, rather than parallelism, is the primary determinant of fiduciary, operational and equity resilience in innovation-led MPC.

For practitioners designing or scaling innovation-led MPC, three practical lessons stand out:

• First, innovation tools should be embedded within portfolio-level CVA governance, with explicit accountability for decision-making, escalation and adaptation during periods of stress.
• Second, delivery architectures should enable coordinated liquidity management, transfer scheduling and modality switching across the entire CVA portfolio, rather than treating pilots as standalone systems.
• Third, assurance models must extend beyond transfer execution to include routine monitoring of participant access, equity impacts and market functionality.

Aligning innovation with robust governance and fiduciary assurance is essential to scaling MPC responsibly while safeguarding accountability, market integrity and inclusion.

Itana Ejeta Gudeta is a cash and voucher assistance practitioner with experience across the Horn of Africa.