Give them money.
No, seriously, give them money.
Aid Watch's Laura Freschi has a brilliant post on the innovative (though arguably really, truly obvious) aid approach taken by Oxfam GB and Concern WorldWide after the horrible flash floods that swept through the Western Province of Zambia in 2007. People lost their homes, livestock, and crops - in short, their livelihoods. Yet where USAID sent $280,000 worth of seeds and fertilizer, training for farmers, and emergency supplies, Oxfam and Concern Worldwide gave every affected family from $20 to $50 monthly, with absolutely no conditions:
An evaluation found that common fears about cash transfers—that the cash infusion will cause inflation in the market, that the money will be squandered, or that men will take control of the money—were unrealized.
What did people buy with the money? The list includes maize, beans, salt, cooking oil, meat, vegetables, clothes and blankets, paraffin, transport, soap and body lotion, and lots of other mundane household items. They also loaned it to friends, used it to pay back debts, purchased health care, education and transport, and rebuilt their homes. Only a very small fraction of the money (less than .5%) was spent on “unproductive” items, like liquor for the men.
Huh, go figure: poor people are capable of determining the depth and breadth of their particular needs! Shock horror! Who would have thought? And why didn't anyone discover this sooner?! *sigh*
Of course such cash transfers remain laden with concerns as those noted above and others, among them targeting the right people and equipping individuals with the knowledge to truly capitalize on the funds given to them. Regardless, such cash transfer programs appear to be the logical way to help people who have lost their livelihoods regain control once again. As Freschi writes:
With the cash transfers, the people can decide for themselves how to meet their most urgent needs. This gives people who have lost their livelihoods, belongings or loved ones a new feeling of control over their lives, builds money-management skills, and restores to them their power to make economic decisions. If you were in their shoes, which would you prefer?