Breaking: Cash Practitioners Unite to Challenge Humanitarian System - An Inside Analysis of Our Collective Letter to the UN Reset

Breaking: Cash Practitioners Unite to Challenge Humanitarian System - An Inside Analysis of Our Collective Letter to the UN Reset
Thomas Byrnes
Thomas Byrnes
Humanitarian & Digital Social Protection Expert | Director of MarketImpact

June 3, 2025
Executive Summary
Unprecedented Collective Action: Our group of cash practitioners has broken traditional silos to issue a unified challenge to UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher on systemic reform
The 17.7% Crisis: Cash assistance has fallen to just 17.7% of humanitarian aid (from 23.3%) precisely when efficiency matters most—our letter explains why this represents system failure, not a natural ceiling
Beyond MPCA Terminology: We expose how "Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance" has become a tool for institutional evasion rather than effective aid delivery
UN80 Opportunity Window: Our timing targets the critical IASC meetings where fundamental decisions about humanitarian architecture will be made
Practitioner Reality Check: For the first time, frontline experts collectively document how coordination failures cost lives and waste resources

Introduction: A Collective Voice Emerges
Today, the humanitarian cash community has taken an unprecedented step. The "Letter from Cash Practitioners on the Humanitarian Reset: The Case for Unified Assistance" has been published on the CALP Network website, representing the collective voice of cash experts from UN agencies, international and local NGOs worldwide who have united to shape the ongoing humanitarian reset.

As someone who participated in crafting this letter alongside colleagues from across the humanitarian spectrum, I can share the inside perspective on why this moment demanded collective action. The letter opens with a stark acknowledgment: "The 'humanitarian reset' proposed by the ERC and the UN80 reform processes has emerged from a convergence of financial pressures and longstanding 'coordination failures' which the IASC has been to date unable to address."

This isn't just another policy document. It's a practitioner-led intervention at a critical juncture, when cash assistance has fallen to just 17.7% of humanitarian aid (down from 23.3% in 2023) precisely when shrinking budgets demand maximum efficiency. Our executive summary declares unequivocally: "Cash is the most efficient humanitarian assistance modality, but institutional barriers limit its use."

The Journey to Collective Voice: How This Letter Emerged
The WhatsApp Catalyst
Our Informal Cash Programming Discussion Hub began as a space for technical exchange among cash experts. Operating under Chatham House Rules, we could discuss operational realities without institutional filters. But as the US aid freeze unfolded and UN80 reforms accelerated, our discussions evolved from technical problem-solving to fundamental questioning of the system itself.

The catalyst came in late April 2025. As we watched cash volumes plummet while needs soared, several members proposed moving beyond private frustration to public action. The initial call on April 30, titled "Rethinking Cash Assistance: From 'MPCA' to Emergency Cash for Life-Saving Needs," crystallized our shared recognition that incremental adjustments would no longer suffice.

Building Consensus Across Competing Institutions
Creating consensus among professionals from competing organizations proved both challenging and revelatory. Initial drafts went through multiple iterations as we balanced:

Clarity vs. Diplomacy: Some pushed for "undiplomatic" directness while others worried about burning bridges
Focus vs. Comprehensiveness: The tension between a punchy 2-pager and including all critical nuances
Technical Detail vs. Accessibility: Making arguments understandable to non-cash experts while maintaining precision

The final decision to present ourselves simply as "a group of leading cash experts, working for UN agencies, international and local NGOs worldwide" reflected both pragmatism and principle. We needed to protect those still working within institutions while demonstrating that our critique transcended organizational boundaries.

The Evidence We Could No Longer Watch Being Ignored
When Efficiency Becomes a Moral Imperative
Our letter's emphasis that "cash is about 25% more efficient than traditional aid" understates what we see daily. The letter specifically cites that "deduplication systems in Ukraine alone saved $230 million in three years by preventing duplicative cash assistance"—money that could have reached thousands more families.

Yet we watch cash assistance decline from 23.3% to 17.7% of humanitarian aid. This isn't academic debate. That 25% efficiency gain, combined with the multiplier effects the letter describes—"a larger overall increase in economic activity and household well-being"—represents the potential to reach millions more people.

The Dignity Dimension: Amplifying Recipient Voices
Our letter emphasizes that "Crisis-affected people prefer cash assistance, specifically multi-purpose cash assistance...allowing flexibility, self-determination and choice." This preference, "extensively evidenced by Ground Truth Solution's work," forms the foundation of our argument.

The letter states clearly: "Their dignity is enhanced when they can prioritize their own needs rather than receiving pre-determined sectoral assistance." Every sectoral distribution that could have been cash represents a dignity violation, not just an inefficiency.

Exposing the Systemic Dysfunction: What We See from Inside
Coordination Failures: The Daily Reality
When we write about "coordination failures," we're documenting our lived experience. As the letter defines it, these are situations "where mis-aligned incentives and systemic ambiguities impede effective decision-making, resulting in sub-optimal allocation and use of resources."

The letter identifies how "the current humanitarian architecture under the cluster approach creates inefficiencies and sectoral fragmentation that undermines our collective ability to serve crisis-affected people effectively." In any given response, cash practitioners navigate multiple, often conflicting coordination mechanisms that fragment rather than unify assistance.

The MPCA Battlefield: How Ambiguity Serves Power
Our letter's critique of Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA) reflects years of frustration. The letter describes MPCA as "a redundant construct as a subset of Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA), that has fuelled abstract debate rather than improving delivery, reach and outcomes and allowed organizations to preserve their sectoral mandates and funding streams while appearing progressive."

We explicitly state that "Organizations have strategically embraced the ambiguity created by the label of MPCA" to maintain control while appearing innovative. This "symptomatic of institutional evasion when meant to advance accountability to affected people" represents a fundamental betrayal of humanitarian principles.

The recent BHA requirement for "tagging MPCA against sectors in funding proposals" represents, as our letter warns, a risk of "reinforcing the very fragmentation that unified cash approaches were designed to overcome."

Innovation Stifled by Institution Protection
Our letter identifies "prevailing financial interests to segment cash assistance according to organizational mandates/comparative advantages rather to investing in the multi-sectoral space often perceived as more competitive funding-wise." This represents a choice to prioritize institutional territories over operational effectiveness.

Why Now: The UN80 Window and Fletcher's Challenge
Strategic Timing for Maximum Impact
Our decision to finalize and release this letter now reflects careful strategic consideration. As the letter notes, "The 'humanitarian reset' proposed by the ERC and the UN80 reform processes has emerged from a convergence of financial pressures and longstanding 'coordination failures.'"

Tom Fletcher's appointment as Emergency Relief Coordinator and his explicit championing of cash created an unprecedented opening. Our letter acknowledges being "supportive of the Emergency Relief Coordinator's (ERC) efforts to secure a central role for cash in this process" while arguing that "no scale-up of humanitarian cash assistance can be successful if we do not address first the systemic issues within the sector."

The Financial Crisis as Catalyst
The letter acknowledges that "recent sudden funding constraints, including changes to BHA's language around cash assistance, have made these challenges impossible to ignore." The financial crisis strips away the buffer that allowed parallel systems and coordination failures to persist.

Our Vision: What Reformed Cash Programming Could Achieve
Beyond Incremental Adjustments
Our letter deliberately rejects incremental reform for fundamental redesign. Key recommendations include:

Unified Basic Needs Response: "Invest in a unified coordination window to basic needs (food, NFIs and hygiene items) to reduce silos and fragmentation, in line with existing practice in refugee settings."

Elevated Cash Coordination: "Elevating cash coordination 'ownership' directly to Humanitarian Coordinator level with strong technical and strategic support, not treating it as another 'cross-cutting issue' to be embedded in sector-based planning."

Standardized Systems: "Make the use of unified information management systems that prevent duplication while preserving beneficiary privacy, a standardized response requirement."

Empowered Local Leadership: Our Theory of Change explicitly states we must "empower local actors and financial systems in cash delivery."

The Practical Path Forward
Our recommendations balance vision with pragmatism:

Clear Definitions: "Clearly define MPCA as 'emergency cash assistance for basic needs' to reduce ambiguity"
Unified Standards: "Create a system of centralised and harmonized reporting requirements"
Pooled Funding: "Expand pooled funding mechanisms that directly fund local actors"
End False Neutrality: "Get away from 'cash modality-neutral' positions"

Critical Reflections: The Risks and Tensions
What We Chose Not to Say
Our drafting process involved heated debates about what to include. We ultimately focused on systemic issues rather than naming specific agencies or detailing internal politics. These omissions reflect tactical choices to maintain unity while delivering clear messages.

The Localization Imperative
Our letter emphasizes the need to "directly fund local actors" and "empower local actors and financial systems." This reflects our recognition that current reforms risk further marginalizing local organizations already facing disproportionate funding cuts.

The Implementation Challenge
Some practitioners worried our letter would be welcomed rhetorically while ignored practically. We acknowledge this risk in stating that reform "must start with a clear understanding of the external changes needed in how assistance is delivered, and then shape sectoral reform to support those aims, not the other way around."

What We Hope to Achieve: Building on Our Recommendations
Our letter provides specific recommendations for different stakeholder groups:

For Donors
"Ensure cash assistance guidance balances accountability requirements with operational efficiency"
"Create a system of centralised and harmonized reporting requirements"
"Expand pooled funding mechanisms that directly fund local actors"
"Get away from 'cash modality-neutral' positions"

For the IASC/UN Reform Process
"Embrace the simplicity and directness of cash assistance"
"Recognize that effective cash assistance fundamentally redefines coordination itself"
"Invest in a unified coordination window to basic needs"
"Reframe the success metrics for cash assistance"

For Operational Partners
"Ensure operational unity in cash delivery"
"Share proactively with decision-makers evidence on the benefits of unified cash approaches"

The Call to Action: What Happens Next
For Humanitarian Leadership
Our letter places responsibility squarely on those with power to change systems. As we conclude: "The choice is clear: continue fragmenting assistance to preserve institutional mandates, or put crisis-affected people first through unified cash assistance. The humanitarian reset demands we choose the latter."

For All Stakeholders
The letter calls for using "the ongoing reform process as an opportunity to strengthen cash assistance approaches that truly prioritize the needs and preferences of crisis-affected populations."

Conclusion: Speaking Truth Under Protection
Participating in drafting this letter reminded me why I entered humanitarian work—and why so many colleagues consider leaving. We see daily how institutional dynamics override evidence, politics trump effectiveness, and beneficiary needs get lost in organizational positioning.

The fact that this letter had to be created under Chatham House Rules speaks volumes about the state of our sector. The truths we've articulated—that cash is more efficient, that recipients prefer it, that institutional barriers prevent its scale-up—are self-evident to anyone working in the field. Yet these same truths could damage careers if attributed to individuals, and many of our organizations would never officially endorse such direct criticism of the system they operate within.

This protective anonymity allowed us to state clearly what everyone knows but few can say publicly: "Instead of embracing the simplicity and directness that cash offers, organizations captured it, forcing it into an already imperfect system and stifling it down with standardization and categorization."

The humanitarian reset offers perhaps the final opportunity for voluntary reform before external forces impose more brutal changes. As cash practitioners, we've done something unprecedented: spoken with one voice across institutional lines, protected by the veil of collective authorship but united by shared conviction.

What humanitarian leadership does with this gift—this moment of collective truth-telling—will determine whether the reset delivers transformation or merely rearranges dysfunction. The choice, as our letter concludes, is clear. The question is whether those with power have the courage to make it.

Read the full letter here: "Letter from Cash Practitioners on the Humanitarian Reset: The Case for Unified Assistance"

Collective Action: What does it reveal about systemic dysfunction when practitioners must use Chatham House Rules to state truths that should be openly discussed?
The MPCA Definition: How can we ensure "emergency cash assistance for basic needs" becomes the operational standard rather than another contested term?
Reform Dynamics: Will the convergence of financial pressure and practitioner advocacy finally overcome institutional resistance to unified cash approaches?
Accountability Mechanisms: What concrete metrics should track whether our recommendations translate into actual changes in how assistance reaches crisis-affected people?

#HumanitarianReform #CashProgramming #UN80 #PractitionerVoice #HumanitarianReset #CashAssistance #SystemChange #AidEffectiveness #CollectiveAction #MPCAReform #HumanitarianCoordination #CALPNetwork