{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026196779174939334, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020461063313478932, 'mean_word_length': 5.1685660826671205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 4, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 8, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conceptual Administration of Cash Transfers within the Wider Social Protection Initiatives in Reducing Poverty in Uganda

The existence of disconnected and overlapping research findings on who are vulnerable poor continue to mingle in minds of researchers, policy and decision makers as well as households in various communities. Most of these groups have had specific research studies conducted, but all skewed toward strategic policy design to address household vulnerability to poverty. This article attempts to provide a strategic model approach to understanding of the concept of cash transfers programs and policies towards reducing and preventing households from poverty and vulnerability from a social protection perspective. In this regards, the paper looks at and reviews available text on who are vulnerable households in a post-conflict context and then focus on more general issues of poverty and vulnerability at household and community levels in Uganda. It examines the causes of household and community vulnerability to poverty and suggests what social protection interventions provided by social protection actors including the state and non-state actors can do in reducing and preventing household vulnerability to poverty. The vulnerable communities reviewed here are those households and communities members emerging from inter-intra-conflicts. The article begins with an overview of poverty distribution trends and identifies who are vulnerable poor among rural and urban context.

The growth effect continued to be felt in central and western Uganda as poverty and inequality continues to decline from the same sub-region (central and western), but poverty and inequality is the opposite in northern and eastern Uganda (RoU 2015). Consumption growth rate was robust at 8.2% in a year, higher than GDP growth rate that stood at 5.8% (GoU 2011). Between the same period 2000 and 2003, the country witnessed yet again a setback in decline of household poverty with a substantial increases in household income inequality (MFPED, 2014;UNHS, 2013). The continued rising household inequality offset the increases from growth and caused a reversal in poverty trends. However, the lowest consumption growth rate was 0.7% a year, which was recorded in the same period (UNHS 2013). Lastly, between 2003 and2006, the country also witnessed a reversal in poverty trends as observed in preceding period (Lwanga-ntale and Mcclean 2014). The poverty headcount though declined by 7.8 percentage points between 2000 and 2003 period and later increased by nearly 4 percentage points in the latter period 2003 and 2006. During the period of poverty reduction the growth in consumption rate also stood at 3.6% a year (GoU 2011). Between 1992/93-2005/06, household income inequality increased by 11.8% which was considered ostensibly higher levels of household income inequality treated (Okello 2015b) by state and non-state actors (NSAs) as a major "great" concern for policy and decision makers (Okello, 2015b;MFPED, 2014).
Government and development partners are committed to reducing and preventing household's poverty through the CT program, and especially to promoting pro-poor growth and development (UNDP 2015). Despite the efforts made however, a segment of the population more so in post-conflict areas does not seem to benefit from CT interventions and initiatives (Okello, 2015a;Lwanga-ntale et al, 2014;RoU, 2015). Whereas targeting poor and vulnerable households is necessary in reduce poverty, it must be acknowledged that this clutch is not homogenous (Okello, 2016b;Lwanga-ntale et al, 2014;GoU, 2011;UNHS, 2013). Pro-poor spending through effective provision and implementation of social protection programmes backed by actionable political rhetoric support on transparency and accountability, will protect the available resources from misuse and abuse, thus enabling poor and vulnerable household reduce poverty and transit out of poverty line as defined in (NDP-2, 2016).
Uganda among the most SSA seems to be the best in terms of having better designed anti-poverty interventions, but policy and decision makers are shy to effectively implement and support such interventions. The miss conceptualisation of cash transfers in Uganda has for example, led to poor delivery of comprehensive social protection services such as health and education to the poor and vulnerable households. The gap between the rich and poor households in post-conflict and non-conflict affected sub-regions continues to widen due to poor targeting and execution of social protection services. The services provided however, seems not reaching the targeted poorest of the poor as the less disadvantaged household groups in rural areas have no social and economic support due to mismanagement of cash transfer programmes (NDP-2, 2016).
The introduction of social protection interventions such as northern Uganda social action funds (NUSAF) and peace recovery and development plan (PRDP) for instance, has to some extent led to decline in poverty and income inequalities among recipients. These two interventions, has seen household receiving cash transfer interventions transit out of poverty though marginal, are able to mitigate their vulnerability levels (WB, 2018;Lwanga-ntale, et al, 2014;IDA, 2015). However, high unemployment rate amongst the youths in post-conflict regions of eastern Uganda is high as most of the, would be working class never went to school due to insecurities. The about 98% of the population then lived in displaced persons camps created by the government in which, access to education services was not guaranteed.
While the intensions of the two interventions are justifiable, the selection criteria and delivery of the cash transfers has failed to meet the purpose of poverty and income inequality. Thus, in order to effectively deliver social protection services to the poor and vulnerable households, there is need to conceptualize cash transfers into two that includes both the poor and vulnerable irrespective of the criteria of selection (GoU 2011). Thus, the poor and vulnerable households especially, the children who are orphans with no family help, women divorced and widows are always, less privileged individuals who should be, supported through cash transfer interventions. Most often, this category of individual household heads are incapable to take benefit of the prospects associated with cash transfer support on economic empowerment (Fiona, 2009). Although there exists market opportunities for individual households to invest their cash transfer earnings, they are incapable of selling their extra units of output, as markets alone cannot be, relied upon to deliver satisfactory transition movement out of poverty traps and income inequality. Nevertheless, there is need for strong conceptualisation of social cash transfers that covers all the poor and vulnerable households. If for instance uncertainties occur the poor and vulnerable individual household heads who are not recipients of cash transfers will continue to be living below the poverty line (Okello 2016b).

Understanding vulnerable households
Vulnerable households are those persons who always face different limitations in accessing social protection services like education and health facilities due to distance and often live in depilated mud houses (Duvendack, et al., 2011). Thus, households facing limitations require social protection cash transfers because, cash transfer interventions have been considered as a realistic tool that can be used to eliminate poverty and vulnerability (Philip, Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-846X An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.53, 2020et al, 2004. This paper therefore, identifies the potential role of cash transfer in reducing poverty and income inequality through conceptualisation of cash transfers within the wider social protection initiatives aimed at empowering households to transit out of poverty. Cash transfer schemes have always existed in most communities where this study was undertaken. This is, evidently seen where group members (burial) or associations (farmers) pool together their resources to support those in need or facing difficulties (MGLSD 2010).
Therefore, all activities related to social protection is considered to be important tool for reducing poverty and income inequality (Philip et al, 2004). Therefore, conceptualizing and measuring the impact of and establishing the number of households trapped and transiting out of poverty and income inequality remains elusive (Ssewanyana, et al, 2014). Using Friedman model, we base our inquiry on household income hypothesis as developed and advanced by (Lachaud, 2006:18) in which, we seek to conceptualize and measure the impacts of cash transfer in reducing poverty and preventing households from falling back into future poverty and establishing those ones transiting from current poverty line (Upreti et al. 2012). Rationally, our thinking and intention of scrawling this paper is to provide a conceptual analysis of 'cash transfer' as a good lens that should be built on and used to support the existing frameworks that effectively reduces and prevents households from falling back into poverty (Okello 2015a).

Data Sources and Model Specification
We used the Uganda National Household Survey results of 2005/06 (UNHS III) conducted in May 2005and April 2006(UNHS 2013. The survey covered the entire country, including post-conflict internally displaced peoples (IDPs) camps in which, 39,289 individuals in 7,426 households (UBOS 2014) were covered. Additional data for analysis was, drawn from the earlier survey results conducted by UBOS nationally since 1992/93. The survey sample weights from UBOS were, applied to derive the impact and contribution of CTP in reducing and preventing poverty, strategies used by households to reduce poverty levels, income inequalities and to transit out of poverty. One of the main tools used in determining the extent of poverty levels, is by specifying the poverty line that separates the poor from the non-poor and vulnerable from the non-vulnerable. We use two basic methods for determining the poor facing poverty and strategies used to transit out of poverty. The use of various household coping strategies and description of household characteristics in relation to cash transfers support is given. Combining these two techniques, we use household expenditures on cash transfer pay-out to devour the hypothetical basket of goods and services considered by household head as being essential for meeting and sustaining his/her household needs, but all aimed at improving the wellbeing.

The Model Specification
Household heads have various sources of incomes (HSYs) used to meet the needs of the family over a given time period. To quantify items purchased by household heads using cash transfer pay-out, we extract household income (Ys) used by that household to measure and garner his/her consumption data so as to form a linear expenditure system method to aid our analysis. In this way, household demand function and poverty line is, obtained using the estimated parameters within the context of households facing poverty and failing to transit out of poverty. Hence, we use the following model to represent the phenomenon being investigated with the view of conceptualizing and enabling us to attribute numerical values into concrete concepts within social protection cash transfers agenda. To aid our analysis, poverty data proxies on absolute number of the poor household living below poverty line is used as dependent variable depicted in the model below;   We are assume that a household is faced with several situation of long-lasting deprivation for the case of nonebeneficiaries of CTP only when his or her incomes falls below the official poverty line defined here as $1 per day (Holmes et al. 2010). We also assume however that, household incomes or welfare can change positively if a household is a beneficiary of the state sponsored CTP and negatively if household head does not receive any CTP support (MFPED 2010). If households x is faced with unfavorable risk or adverse shock like illness, droughts, climate change, low productivity, limited access to markets opportunities, then they are likely to remain facing long-lasting deprivations and other associated risks that makes them more trapped in poverty with no options to transit out of poverty. By reformatting and deriving the above mathematical model, we form the following econometric model presented in b and c; Where we define Ys = poverty (POVT) is proxy by absolute amount of vulnerable poor households living below poverty line. Here; Ys is the incomes of the households either, received in form of remittance or, other sources of household incomes. X 1 is the cash transfers to household recipient, X 2 is the household vulnerability to poverty (HVP), X 3 is state social grant transfers (SGTs), X 4 is household other sources of earnings/incomes (HSY), X 5 is the household access to market opportunities (HAMO), X 6 is the household consumption levels (HCL), X 7 is the price stability on household sales (Px). β 0 is the intercept of the model, β 1 -β 8 is the parameters of the regression coefficients and µ i is the stochastic error term. The F-test in the model is applied to check the overall significance level of the impact of model variables and measures used to curb poverty. The F-statistic instrument was, used in verifying the overall significance of an estimated hypothesis of the significance level or, fit of social protection cash and in-kind remittances is given: H 0 : The model has no (weak) significance or, fit. H 1 : The model has a (strong) significance of fit, discard if H 0; or if f cal is greater than f α [f cal > f α ], (k-1; n-k); α = 5%, decide or otherwise.
Where: V 1 / V 2 that is if the degree of freedom (df) V 1 = n-k and V 2 = k -1; n (observed interactions between variables and measures); k (number of variables and measures); and k-1 = 9-1= 8, Thus, n-k = 35-9 = 26. At this point, we present a detailed analysis of child headed household poverty status by age group and other household head type. The frequency of poverty is greater among children heads of household Table 2 reveals an age measurement. Generally, children between six and nine (6-9) years of age suffer far greater poverty than children who are none heads of households in other age categories. The predictability is given because; it comprises a relatively greater share of the national population size. Those aged between 15 and 17 suffer the least poverty levels. Therefore, F 0.05 (8.26) = 1.94; and F-statistic = 385.6301 (from regression result)…. F-calculated. A high percentage of households in post-conflict setting move into Poverty due to risks and shocks that can be overturned over a given period of time especially if household head is faced with illness or lost employment. Similarly, various households who transit out of or escape poverty and or who are not vulnerable only thrive for a given period of time not more than one or two years before a reverse in their circumstances pushes them back under official national and global poverty line which makes them more susceptible.

Results and discussion
The econometric method employed in the analysis and interpretation of the data is the ordinary least square (OLS) model and SPSS version 22 software was used to carry out regression and t-statistics analysis (see table 1). The information gained from the review of the existing data, we examined the impact of social protection transfers (SPTs) on reducing poverty (HVP). We formulate and use the growth model in order to measure the impact of SPTs mainly on access and quality of health and education on households. We also use the same model to establish household other sources of earnings or incomes (HSYs), household access to market opportunities (AMO), household consumption (C), and expenditures (E) levels, and price stability on household extra unit of outputs ready for sale at a given market price (Px) as explanatory variables. Uganda is, credited for reducing the share of households trapped under the national poverty line that dropped to 19.7% from 31.1% in 2006/07 the financial year 2013/14, the proportion of households surviving on $1.90 per day has also reduced to 34.6% from 53.2% to in the same financial year (FY 2006(FY /2007. Results from the analysis reveals a regression line that has an undesirable intercept showed by a constant (c) = -40.92588. The implication of having undesirable or negative (-ve) intercept means altogether the variables are kept at constant or fixed at zero (0) with poverty line devalued at -40.92588. Our expectation during the analysis of the variables was to find the intercept to be positive or negative so that it answers the theoretical opportunities of implementing cash transfers within the wider social protection interventions for the targeted populations. Direct cash transfers to households enables and empowers the recipients to reduce their poverty levels which eventually enables household to transit out of poverty through engaging in productive activities like agriculture.
We further observed that there exists some variances on how households receiving cash transfers spend their money. Most beneficiaries stated that they spend their money on household needs mainly food and less on other basic social services like medical cost and educational requirements. We also note that household invests their earnings into productive ventures like small scale business enterprises and farming activities. This finding is significantly, correlated to the household behaviours on how they spending their disposable incomes mainly on health and education services. Thus, the recipients of cash transfers are less susceptible to household poverty and community poverty because of their ability to spend the additional income earned from business enterprises and farming activities (MGLSD 2015a). From the regression analysis, we also observed that all the variables conform to our theoretical expectation of analyzing the influence of cash transfers on reducing levels of household vulnerability to poverty (MGLSD 2015b). Thus, we decompose and summarize the table 1 findings into a priori test of our analysis. We, employ R-squared (R 2 ) adjusted and the S.E with the f-test in order to determine statistical reliability of the estimated impact of cash transfer (CT) on reducing poverty at household and community Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-846X An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.53, 2020 5 levels.
If household have access to market opportunities that enables them sale their extra unit of output, the outcome will lead to increase on their income levels as well as consumption levels since they are able to fetch additional incomes from the sale of their extra unit of output when prices of their products are assumed to be stable (favourable). On other hand, if prices of their products are not stable (unfavourable), their consumption levels is likely to be negative, meaning that, they are not able to fetch enough incomes to improve on their consumption. 99% of the households are not able to transit out of poverty because they are not selected as beneficiaries of the state cash transfers. The policy implication of this is that the remittances received by households selected as beneficiaries have a positive impact relationship in empowering and reducing their vulnerability levels to poverty, while those household not receiving remittances are negatively facing the impact of poverty and 1% indicates the disparity in other poverty mitigation measures not used in the analysis.
Therefore, the concept and impact of cash transfers on household vulnerability to poverty is dynamic and is broadly an ex-ante or frontward looking measure of a household's wellbeing or (lack thereof). The term has been, used in a variety of related text but with different interpretation attached to it. For instance, Julius Okello (2016) explains household vulnerability as exposure to contingencies and stress which is defenceless populations lack of social protection income support to help them cope (Okello, 2016a: 126-127). Philip et al., (2004) provide distinct vulnerability as a probability that results into a shock decline in household well-being (Philip et al., 2004:1). With no acceptable definition or measurement methodology for household vulnerability to poverty, vulnerability scholars have an agreed position on how they have conceptualised vulnerability in relation to social protection concept (Okello, 2016a:126). For instance, Armando Barrientos (2010), describe vulnerability as the probability of a household or individual falling into poverty now or in the near future. This is a danger that is socially not unacceptable level of the household wellbeing which may materialize in future (Barrientos, 2010:2-3). The results suggest that inclusive cash transfers of social protection to the poor and vulnerable households does not necessarily benefit a large proportion of the poor and vulnerable household to escape poverty (Lwanga-ntale, et al., 2014).

Analysis and understanding of poverty amongst poor and vulnerable households
Understanding of and being vulnerable to poverty among conflict and disaster affected communities have drawn different views that we attempt to analyze based on the Ugandan context (MGLSD 2015a). Poverty though relative is referred to a situation where household head is incapable to provide basic social needs to support to his/her household members. These needs are decent housing, food, clothing, school requirements, education cost and medical cost (Rebecca, 2013). In other words, family members are deprived of such social support because the head of the family/household lacks alternative means to earn income either, due to illness and or old age. Cognizant of household state of being vulnerable to poverty, state and non-state actors (NSA) involved in providing social protection support through cash transfer to the targeted households, need to identify the needs of the households in a broader terms. Effective and transparent implementation of cash transfer will empower beneficiaries to manage current poverty levels and prevent future causes of poverty. This is evidenced within household that receive regular cash transfers ability to diversify their means of production which has improved on their social wellbeing due to available household sources of incomes (HSY).
If Ys is the incomes of the households either received inform of state remittance or other sources exposed to households resulting from the sale of extra unit of output, then the household x is assumed to be capable of meeting the basic needs of the family members. Meaning that, such household, has the capacity to use the incomes (Ys) earned to diversify and improve on their social wellbeing, thus they are, capable to manage future poverty. Household can only be vulnerable to poverty if he/she cannot provide basic social needs like food, clothing, housing, medical and educational cost if the household head is ill and very old with no alternatives to salvaged the family. From the analysis, 79% of the household receiving state cash transfers (CR) support have the potential to transit out of poverty compared to 82% of households who are none-beneficiaries. This therefore, satisfies assumption that H 0 model is no weak, meaning that, the significance of fit and H 1 model has a strong significance relationship of fit in which we discard H 0; or if f cal is greater than f α [f cal > f α ], (k-1; n-k); α = 5%, and decide or otherwise.

Conceptual impact of cash transfer on reducing poverty and vulnerability
Household (X 2) beneficiaries of cash transfers are less vulnerable to poverty (HVP) because they are able to smoothen their consumption compared to none-beneficiaries of cash transfer. Therefore, regular transfer of state (X 3 ) social grant transfers (SGTs) to poor and vulnerable households reduces their vulnerabilities to risks and shocks. There is a strong relationship fit between cash transferred and other household sources of incomes (HSY) Journal of Poverty, Investment andDevelopment www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-846X An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.53, 2020 6 earned as a result of the sale of the extra unit of output and household access to market opportunities (HAMO) where prices are stable and favourable with the coefficient of 0.033577 that is positive and the t-test statistics of 2.924481. Household consumption levels (HCL) is positive with 0.00356 because price stability on household sales (Px) is positive with 5.984841 as absolute poverty among beneficiaries declined as this findings collaborates with the UBOS national decline of poverty to 19.7% from 56.4% in 2012/13 and 1992/93 1 nationwide, though figures published by UBOS are questionable.
In comparison with data obtained and reviewed from UBOS indicates showed that, there is poverty reduction rate of nearly 2% per annum which has a reduction of about 4.8 percentage points over the three-year period from 2009/10 to 2012/13 (UBOS, 2014). Although the increase in population doubled from 17.4 million between 1992 and 1993 to 34.1 million in 2012/13, there were significantly fewer people recorded as living in absolute poverty within the same period 2012/13 (6.7 million) than was the case in 2002/03 (9.8 million) (UBOS, 2014). With Poverty often defined and referred to as the lack of insufficient money by an individual or household head to meet basic needs, including food, clothing and shelter (Carter 2006). Though poverty has always been perceived differently by various scholars across the globe, the uncertainties about the sustainability of cash transfer programmes for future remains real as poor and vulnerable households in conflicts continue to languish in decades of poverty (ESP 2012). The available studies on household poverty aim at improving the well-being of households who are currently poor (Carter 2006). Through providing alternative policy options mainly on preventing people from becoming poor in the future, but rather, not the process of designing forward looking view to inform comprehensive implementation of cash transfers model that stakeholders should adopted and mainstream into social protection discourse (MGLSD 2015a).
Bearing this in mind, the incomes of households living below the poverty line declined as a result of state supported cash transfers to some extent, help household beneficiaries to participants in various post-conflict recovery activities each year. Regular cash transfer of state (X 3 ) social grant transfers (SGTs) to poor and vulnerable households will reduce and enable poor and vulnerable households to cope, mitigate social risks and shocks linked to poverty. Results from the analysis reveals that, household beneficiaries of cash transfers have a probability of 0.0002 or 0.05% chance of transiting out of poverty contrary to the none-beneficiaries who have the probability of 0.0139 percentage chance of succumbing to poverty now and in future. The F-statistic instrument was used to verify overall significance of an estimated hypothesis of impacts tested on significance levels or fit of social protection cash and in-kind transfer's interventions and initiative's through remittances. Emphatically speaking, social protection cash transfers to any poor and vulnerable households will fetch more poor and vulnerable households trapped in poverty and empowers them to transit out of poverty line shaped than a decline in poverty headcount. But the impact on the severity of poverty to the poor and vulnerable households is higher than on the poverty line or gap. The "extremely" vulnerable poor households also benefit from such cash transfers programmes, they often fail to meet other basic necessitates.
The implications of CT should not be viewed as a mean of reducing the household poverty headcounts (GoU 2016), but as a means of improving households incomes supported by other household income generating activities (MGLSD 2015b) especially of those facing thrilling poverty and in turn falling their vulnerability to poverty traps (RoU 2010). If social protection CT program is designed with the view of targeting all child headed households (MGLSD 2015a), this will lead to a greater decline in poverty levels which results will impact the national poverty headcount than targeting only elderly persons (MGLSD 2015a). Transfer of social protection CTP to all vulnerable children will reduce their poverty levels to a similar extent as targeting only orphans or school going children aged between six and seven (6-17) years (RoU 2010). Contracting the targeting processes of social protection transfers to specific clusters, does not necessarily appear to be leading to a bigger aggregate reduction in household poverty levels. Such targeting will entail distributing benefits to non-poor children (MFPED 2014). Given the fact that about 67% of children are living in non-poor households (MFPED 2014). Distributing the benefits to all children would include the two-thirds who are living above the absolute poverty line (transited out of poverty) (MFPED 2014). Understanding the impact of cash transfers in addressing poverty and vulnerability in any human development strategy in conjunction with other post-conflict recovery interventions, requires sober mind sets (MGLSD 2015a). Poverty is crucial, first, because household vulnerability is an intrinsic aspect of household wellbeing.
In calculating household's well-being social protection actors and stakeholders must not be limited to the household's actual welfare status but, rather must also account for household's forecasts for being well now, and in the near future as well as being well today does not necessarily imply, being well tomorrow because they could easily fall back into conflict (RoU 2010). The relative improvement of the household welfare especially of the rural household's defines a basket of goods and services that household heads could purchase now using the state supported cash transfers than before (Rebecca 2013). This outcome is not in any way means that household receiving state supported cash transfers are moving or transiting out of poverty by improvement in purchase of

MFPED (2014) Poverty Status Report 2014; Structural Change and Poverty Reduction in Uganda
Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-846X An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.53, 2020 consumer goods and services is a sufficient condition that, post-conflict communities are transiting out of poverty (RoU 2010). The calls for sober intellect minds needs to be sourced, fetched in, empowered and equipped with the necessary skills to champion the implementation of social protection cash transfers policies and programmes (MGLSD 2015a). Social protection programmes however, should be all-inclusive, comprehensive, appropriate and forward-looking with clear anti-poverty interventions that aim to reduce and prevent prospect households from falling back into poverty rather than lessen existing poverty among poor and vulnerable households.
Furthermore, understanding vulnerability is also significant from a contributory perspective. This is because of the many risks and shocks households face during and after conflict, they often experience shocks leading to a wide variability in their endowment and incomes. According to Holzmann and Jorgensen (2001), a high percentage of households move into poverty due to temporary shocks (such as illness or loss of employment) that are reversed just one or two years later (Holzmann and Jorgensen 2001). Similarly, many of the people who escape poverty or who are not vulnerable now succeed in doing so for years before a reverse in their circumstances can push them back below the poverty line. The concept of vulnerability therefore, is dynamic and is broadly an ex-ante or forward looking measure of a household's wellbeing or lack thereof (Holmes, et al., 2009).

Poverty amongst the poor and vulnerable households
The analysis endeavours to offer policy and decision makers various options for reducing poverty using cash transfer program, the poverty distribution status especially by household types. Focusing on reducing poverty status amongst poor and vulnerable households in post-conflicts setting needs effective and comprehensive implementation of cash transfer interventions. Precisely, the analysis forms a contextual for the choice of the target household types and groups selected to benefit from cash transfer schemes. Table 2 demonstrates the degree of poverty by individual poor and vulnerable household type. In respect of individuals poverty levels, poverty among child headed households aged 6-17 is significantly higher than the national average poverty levels. This is the case for all the poverty measures. In contrast, therefore, there is no similar statistical significance between the elderly headed household's population and the national average for the entire population. The incidence of poverty among children is significantly higher than among the elderly. The only exception is the severity of poverty, which is almost the same for younger child headed households and for the elderly persons. These results seem to suggest that children aged 6-17 are in much worse situations than the entire population, and especially the elderly (see table 2 for details in annex 1).
In respect to household category, numerous analytical observations ought to be made if cash transfer programmes can effectively and efficiently be used to reduce household poverty amongst the poor and vulnerable individuals (MFPED 2014). First, the poverty headcount for households with child headed households but with no elderly members supporting them is similar to the national average (ESP 2012). These category of individuals need direct cash transfer social support if they are to move out of poverty line and escaping poverty traps (MGLSD 2015a). Nonetheless, households in depth and facing severity of poverty is greater than national average (MFPED, 2014). Secondly, households headed by an elderly person are not much worse off than those whose household head is of prime age (GoU, 2016;RoU, 2010). This is because, these category of household have access to other productive and income generating activities, thus requiring less cash transfer assistance (MGLSD 2015a). Thirdly, female-headed households especially of the single mothers and or divorced and widowed are generally in much worse facing high poverty levels with less hope of transiting out of poverty line than their male-headed households counter parts (MFPED 2014). Therefore, women require comprehensive social protection support especially direct cash transfers since they have less access to productive and other sources of incomes (HSY) compared to their male counter parts (ESP, 2012).

In conclusion
The analysed results reveals that effective implementation of social protection cash transfers to the targeted poor and vulnerable households living in extreme poverty and below poverty lines leads to greater decline in the depth and severity of poverty among the recipients. The impact as a result of effective conceptual administration of social protection cash transfer is more specifically being felt by the recipients compared to none recipients who often are poor and vulnerable households. Although government have other anti-poverty interventions and initiatives, social protection need to be mainstreamed into those interventions if poverty is to be defeated. To address household vulnerability to poverty, there is therefore, a need for transparent targeting of the would be potential beneficiaries comprehensively that should precede with effective implementation of social protection cash transfers. A more straightforward tool that provides households with a universal escape root of poverty needs to be jointly designed and mainstreamed.