Comparative Learning Study on Cash Consortium Models in East Africa and the Horn

Organization: Concern Worldwide Closing date: 23 Oct 2026 Background and rationale Cash consortia are now an established feature of humanitarian cash and voucher assistance in crisis-affected settings (e.g. Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Colombia). They are usually established to improve coordination, align approaches, reduce duplication, strengthen accountability, build donor confidence, and support more coherent, people-centered and efficient delivery of multi-purpose cash assistance. However, the added value of a consortium model is not automatic. Consortia can improve coverage, harmonisation, shared systems, risk management and learning, but they can also add coordination layers, management costs, complex governance arrangements and tensions around decision-making, accountability and the role of local and national actors. Whether a consortium model justifies its cost should therefore be examined rather than assumed. The Somalia Cash Consortium (SCC) initiated the study and will serve as the administrative anchor. However, the assignment will be designed as a regional comparative study rather than a Somalia assessment supplemented by country examples. The retained consortia will be examined as full cases, with attention to how operating context, programme modalities, donor requirements and stage of development influence their structures and costs. The study will initially consider five country contexts: Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia. The final number of full cases will be agreed during inception by the steering committee, based on relevance, comparability, data availability, access to key informants, and the time and cost required to achieve sufficient analytical depth. Purpose and central question The purpose of the assignment is to generate practical comparative learning on cash consortium models in East Africa and the Horn, with priority given to governance and operating structure, added value, and cost structure and efficiency. The study should help participating consortia understand how different models work in practice, identify approaches that may be adapted across contexts, and define practical areas where governance, shared functions and cost structures could be strengthened. It should also provide credible evidence for dialogue with donors without assuming in advance that a consortium model is more effective or efficient than other arrangements. The study will be guided by one central question: When does a cash consortium model add value, for whom, and at what cost compared with realistic alternatives? Added value and cost efficiency should not be assessed in isolation. The study should use realistic, named comparators and should prioritise, where data are accessible, standalone cash programmes implemented by consortium members in closely comparable context. Other alternatives, such as pooled funding without a full consortium structure, direct funding to local actors, UN-led delivery, or coordination mechanisms without a consortium management layer, may be used selectively where they provide a credible comparison. The assignment is not expected to quantify every alternative. Objectives The study will pursue three objectives: 1. Map and compare consortium governance and operating models. Describe and compare lead-agency arrangements, consortium management units, governance bodies, member and local-partner roles, decision-making processes, accountability lines, shared functions and financial architecture. The study should use existing consortium and collaboration typologies as a starting point and refine only the dimensions needed for this comparison. 2. Assess the added value of the consortium model against realistic alternatives. Examine whether and how each model generates benefits for affected populations and improves coordination, harmonisation, coverage, programme quality, speed, preparedness, risk and compliance management, accountability, monitoring, innovation, technical support and learning. Claims of added value should be tested against named alternatives that are realistic and feasible in each operating context, with attention to benefits as well as any additional process, constraint or duplication created by the consortium. 3. Assess the efficiency of consortium cost structures. Identify and compare the main operational and management costs of each model, including shared or mutualised costs, costs retained by individual members, hidden and indirect costs, duplicated functions, and efficiencies generated through mutualisation. The analysis should explain how context, modality, payment infrastructure, access, protection requirements, scale and consortium maturity affect costs. Quantitative comparison should be undertaken only where sufficiently comparable data are available and should not rely on blanket comparisons of overhead or transfer ratios. Please find all further details, including requirements and timelines here How to apply Interested candidates, who meet the requirements, should submit their by email to som.vacancies@concern.net with the subject line “Consultant for Comparative Learning Study on Cash Consortium Models in East Africa and the Horn” before Thursday 23rd October, 2026.