Research and evaluation from humanitarian settings show that it can be very difficult to obtain accurate, comparable cost data. For VfM there is the added challenge of comparing outcomes since the expenditure patterns and benefits of cash are not easily compared with in-kind assistance – beyond narrow measures like food consumption indicators. Benefits such as preference, flexibility and timeliness are not easily quantified.
The main gaps identified in the review are practical tools for analysing efficiency and costeffectiveness or VfM (ex ante and ex post), analysis on the efficiency and VfM of cash-based programming as a multisector tool and evidence on the economic impacts of interventions and multiplier effects