A Do No Harm (DNH) approach, also known as conflict sensitivity, helps us think about the way we interact with existing social structures. In this blog I want to focus on two aspects of Social Income that are particular to our approach and reflect a DNH approach: our localized approach and the independence of cash.

A conscientious approach 

The DNH approach goes back to Mary B. Anderson and her book titled How Aid Can Support Peace--or War. Her premise is disarmingly simple: aid interventions interact with conflict dynamics. They take place in communities with histories, relationships, and at times — tensions — existing since before our engagement. She reminds us that even well intended intervention can cause unintended harm. Engaging in post-conflict societies thus requires humility, care, and above all; knowledge.

Anderson offers a practical framework for navigating this. First, it requires understanding the context — identifying what divides communities and what connects them. Second, is to assess existing capacities for both conflict and peace. And third, it requires an honest reflection on how the programme interacts with those dynamics, for better or worse.

While Anderson focuses explicitly on aid in conflict-torn contexts, we adopt her account to make it fit a post-conflict context. In doing so, we have designed Social Income practices with a DNH approach in mind that allows us to continuously ask ourselves several questions.

Local knowledge through local partners

The key to a successful DNH approach is contextual knowledge. What are the dividers and connectors? And, what do capacities for conflict and resolve look like? We know that we don’t have all the answers but we are still curious. To find out what we don’t know, we work closely with those who do. We have three avenues to help us understand the contexts we operate in:

1. our staff in the country offices, 

2. our local partner organizations, and 

3. our regular visits to our country offices and recipients. 

A lot of our knowledge comes from our country offices; local staff know the context best. Our partner organizations know their communities. And through regular visits to our country offices and partner organizations we are able to speak directly to beneficiaries and other stakeholders,  triangulating our knowledge. 

This is not a one-time exercise. Context changes. Sustained, humble engagement is the only way to stay in touch with the lived-reality on the ground and to act responsibly within it.

Knowing the risks and strengths

Using cash transfers via mobile money is unlike traditional aid programs. From a DNH perspective, this requires understanding how cash is valued and perceived by communities in the first place. We do some of this thinking in our DNH guidelines. I want to focus on two very practical aspects of Social Income that are pressing from a DNH perspective; who receives support, and how direct cash transfers can impact communities. 

Our selection process

Like other NGOs, Social Income has to make choices of where to engage and who should benefit. We rely on our local partners to compile a pool of possible recipients, however, the actual selection of individuals is done randomly. Randomness is key to prompt fairness and avoid bias among potential recipients. This also means that in principle, Social Income is able to engage the entire population of individuals affected by poverty, rather than focusing on specific sub-groups. Moreover, we phase our support to partner’s community over time; avoiding expanding too quickly or becoming too concentrated in select locations. But randomization alone is not sufficient — everyone in the eligible pool must have a genuine equal chance of being included in the first place. This requires verification by local staff and regular engagement with partners to ensure the pre-selection process remains fair and free from bias.

Direct cash transfers 

Cash transfers via mobile money are a unique form of giving. Cash is the most empowering form of support precisely because it carries no conditions. But its fungibility also carries risks. A sudden influx of cash could generate unintended negative externalities. 

Two features of our approach are designed to help mitigate this. First, mobile money transfers are inherently discreet. Unlike in-kind contributions, mobile money transfers are only as visible as the beneficiaries choose to. This gives individuals control not just over how they spend, but over how exposed they are. This aims to minimize risk to the individual. 

Second, the amount itself is carefully calibrated to fit the context. The amount is genuinely meaningful but insufficient to structurally disrupt markets. The size of the transfer is not arbitrary. It reflects a deliberate judgement about the threshold at which cash empowers without endangering. This aims to minimize risk at the community level.

No approach is risk free; nor is ours. A DNH framework does not promise that either. What it demands is that we remain honest about the risks that exist, keep asking the questions that are uncomfortable, and stay close enough to the country context to notice when our answers need to change. If you want to know more about the questions we ask ourselves and how we answer them, read more about our DNH approach here.