Proposed
Initial priority group
Widowed mothers whose husbands died through war or conflict and who are raising dependent children without adequate household income.
Draft document · v0.1
Concept note: an evidence-led household support pilot.
This concept note sets out the problem the Foundation intends to address, the proposed pilot design, the boundaries of its authority, and the questions a first cohort would be designed to answer.
Status of this document
Working draft v0.1 — not formally adopted
This is a working design document prepared by the Foundation. It has not been externally reviewed, funded or approved, and it describes intentions rather than delivered activity. No pilot has yet been implemented and no results exist.
1. Problem statement
Why a household-level pilot
Households in Afghanistan that have lost a primary earner through war or conflict frequently face a combination of insufficient income, insecure accommodation, interrupted schooling for children and limited access to formal financial services. Support that arrives irregularly is difficult for such households to plan around, and unstructured distribution makes accountability to donors and to beneficiaries harder to demonstrate. The Foundation's registered purpose is the relief of poverty in Afghanistan through the provision of food, shelter, education and all other necessary care for children, and the pilot is designed strictly within that purpose.
2. Proposed response
What the pilot would do
- Define transparent vulnerability and eligibility criteria before any enrolment begins.
- Enrol a small, achievable first cohort rather than a large untested caseload.
- Provide predictable household support at a stated amount and interval.
- Verify beneficiary identity proportionately, collecting the least data necessary.
- Deliver support through accountable electronic payment routes where feasible, with offline fallback.
- Review household circumstances periodically and record decisions.
- Operate an accessible grievance and appeal route from day one.
- Document costs, exceptions, failures and lessons alongside successes.
Explicit boundary
The Foundation does not hold governmental authority and does not operate a national social-security system. Any national framework would require competent authorities and institutional partners.
3. Learning questions
What a first cohort is designed to answer
Targeting
Can vulnerability criteria be applied consistently, understandably and without unsafe exclusion?
Payment reliability
Can support reach households on schedule, in full, with a verifiable trail and an offline pathway?
Safeguarding
Can enrolment, verification and receipt of support be delivered without exposing women and children to risk?
Household effect
What changes in food security, schooling and accommodation stability do households themselves report?
Cost
What is the full cost per household per period, including verification, monitoring and grievance handling?
Feasibility of scale
Which parts of the model would break first if the caseload increased, and what would have to change?
4. Risks and assumptions
Recorded before implementation
- Assumption: eligible households can be identified through community and partner referral without creating unsafe visibility.
- Assumption: a regulated payment route usable by the target group exists or can be arranged with a compliant provider.
- Risk: legal, sanctions and due-diligence constraints may limit permissible routes; activity proceeds only where lawful.
- Risk: security or access conditions may interrupt delivery; contingency and offline pathways are required.
- Risk: inclusion or exclusion error damages trust; grievance and review mechanisms must be genuinely usable.
- Risk: data held about vulnerable households could cause harm if mishandled; data minimisation is a design condition.
5. Sequence
How this note fits the five-year plan
The pilot described here sits in Phase 1 (Year 1) of the Foundation's proposed roadmap: feasibility, governance, safeguarding, beneficiary criteria, technology architecture and a first implementation. Progression to later phases is intended to depend on evidence and independent evaluation, not on elapsed time.
Comment on this draft
Technical review is welcome, particularly from agencies with experience of cash transfers, beneficiary targeting, safeguarding and monitoring in Afghanistan. Written comments are read and logged, and revisions are versioned.