MPCA Targeting Easily Explained

From Blanket Coverage to Precision Targeting

Since the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s humanitarian cash response has evolved dramatically. What began as blanket coverage—providing multi-purpose cash assistance (MPCA) to anyone displaced or affected—has matured into a sophisticated, evidence-based targeting system.

By 2024, humanitarian partners reached over 1 million people with MPCA, with 88% living in oblasts closest to the frontline. This concentration underscores a critical reality: not all needs are equal, and limited resources must reach those facing the most severe vulnerabilities.

The July 2025 MPCA Targeting Framework introduces two distinct pathways for determining who receives cash assistance. Understanding these routes—one for emergencies, one for planned interventions—is essential for program designers implementing humanitarian cash programming across conflict-affected Ukraine.

Our expert believes this approach would be viable for 2026 too.

Two Pathways of MPCA, One Goal

Think of the MPCA targeting system as a highway with two lanes:

Both routes lead to the same destination— cash assistance. The Cash Workingn Group (CWG) recommends monthly pay of 3600 Hryvniias (around $90) over three months.

The Emergency Route of MPCA. Crisis = Speed

The Rapid Targeting Approach recognizes that some situations demand immediate action. When a military-related trigger occurs, the framework switches from vulnerability scoring to categorical eligibility.

What Activates the Emergency Route?

Four specific triggers open this pathway:

1. Direct Housing Damage. Your apartment building is hit by a missile strike, rendering it uninhabitable. You’re living with relatives, unable to return home, facing sudden expenses for temporary accommodation and replacing essential belongings.
2. Personal Loss or Injury. A household member is hospitalized or killed due to a military attack. The family faces not only grief but also medical expenses, funeral costs, and potential loss of the primary breadwinner.
3. Organized Evacuation. Local authorities issue mandatory evacuation orders for your hromada (territorial community). You’re evacuated by government, humanitarian partners, or volunteer groups, leaving behind your home, livelihood, and community support networks.
4. Self-Evacuation. You independently flee a high-risk area under mandatory evacuation orders, making the difficult decision to leave before organized transport arrives, often with limited resources and preparation time.

The Planned Route. Systematic Vulnerability Assessment

For households not experiencing acute crisis, the Standard Targeting methodology provides a rigorous, data-driven selection process.

This route operates in two stages.

Stage 1: The Income Threshold (The Gatekeeper) for MPCA

Before any vulnerability assessment begins, households must demonstrate monthly income below the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) of 6,318 UAH per person. This is calculated on a per capita basis.

Example: A family of three earning 15,000 UAH monthly (5,000 UAH/person) passes this threshold and proceeds to vulnerability scoring. An identical family earning 30,000 UAH (10,000 UAH/person) is immediately ineligible, regardless of other vulnerabilities.

This hard cut-off exists because income is the primary driver of livelihood needs—47.9% of households with severe needs live below this subsistence level. However, since income is often under-reported or difficult to verify, the framework doesn’t stop here.

Stage 2: The Cumulative Vulnerability Score (The Prioritization System)

Households that pass the income threshold are assessed across multiple dimensions:

• Employment Status: Are there unemployed working-age members?
• Disability Status: Does anyone have Group 1, 2, or WashingtonGroup-defined disabilities?
• Health Status: Are there chronically ill or permanently sick members?
• Household Composition: Single parents, elderly-only households, families with 3+ children?
• Geography: Rural vs. urban, proximity to the frontline (0-30km, 30-100km, 100km+)
• Displacement Status: Are they IDPs or returnees?
• Coping Strategies: Are they adopting crisis or emergency coping mechanisms?

Each factor receives a weight based on statistical analysis from the 2024 Multi-Sector Needs Assessment. For instance, households with only unemployed working-age members show a 93.5% probability of severe needs, compared to the national average of 57.6%.

The Three-Tier Priority System

After scoring, households fall into one of three categories:

• 🟢 Priority 1 (Highest Vulnerability): Score 13.5+ — Select immediately
• 🟡 Priority 2 (High Vulnerability): Score 11-13 — Select if funding allows
• 🔴 Priority 3 (Moderate Vulnerability): Score 8.5-10.5 — Select only if significant funding available

Households scoring 8 or below are not eligible, even if they passed the income threshold.

Real-World Example

An elderly couple (both 65+) living in a rural village 25km from the frontline in Kherson Oblast. The husband has Group 2 disability. Their pension provides 5,500 UAH/person. They pass the income test (below 6,318 UAH/person) and accumulate points for: elderly household composition, rural location near frontline, and disability status. Their combined score places them in Priority 1—immediate selection for assistance.

Why Two Routes Matter

This dual-pathway approach balances humanitarian imperatives:

Speed vs. Precision: The Emergency Route sacrifices detailed verification for rapid response when crisis strikes. The Planned Route invests time in thorough assessment to identify chronic vulnerability.

Acute vs. Chronic Needs: Not everyone in crisis is poor, and not everyone who is poor is in crisis. A middle-class family whose home was destroyed needs immediate support but may recover quickly. A rural elderly couple living on minimal pensions faces enduring vulnerability requiring sustained intervention.

Resource Allocation: In a context where demand far exceeds supply, the framework prevents both under-targeting (missing the most vulnerable) and over-targeting (assisting those with adequate coping capacity). By 2024, partners collectively reached only 1 million people—a fraction of those affected by the war. These mechanisms ensure limited funds reach those who need them most.

Moving Forward

The MPCA Targeting Framework represents a maturation of humanitarian cash programming in Ukraine. It acknowledges that vulnerability is multidimensional, that context matters (rural vs. urban, frontline vs. rear areas), and that one size does not fit all.

For program designers, the key is knowing which route applies:

• Has there been a triggering event within the last 30 days? Use Rapid Targeting.
• Are you planning ongoing assistance in a stable (if difficult) context? Use Standard Targeting with the vulnerability scorecard.

Both routes ultimately serve the same purpose: ensuring that multipurpose cash assistance reaches Ukrainian households when they need it most, enabling them to meet basic needs and maintain dignity in the face of ongoing conflict.

---

For implementation tools, including the vulnerability scorecard calculator, assessment questionnaires, and verification guidance, consult the Cash Working Group’s technical documentation.