In a new article for The New Humanitarian, Vittorio Bruni and Olivier Sterck outline the findings of recent research exploring how unpredictable aid impacts people on the ground.
To explore the issue, they surveyed 622 refugee households in the Kakuma camp in Kenya, interviewing each household 10 times over the course of a year. Halfway through the study, the World Food Programme was forced to cut assistance by 20% after a special US funding contribution expired. From $17 per person per month, aid was reduced to only $13 per person per month.
They found that the effect of the shock was swift and severe. The share of households eating one meal or less per day increased by 8 percentage points, from about 43% to 51%, with a reduction in quality of diet too. Households were also forced to cut expenditure on firewood, health, and education.
The cuts also triggered a collapse in the informal credit market, with shopkeepers who had once offered credit with aid as the collateral restricting or ceasing the practice.
They also explored the impact of delays in aid. They found that the vast majority of cash transfers were delayed during the study period, forcing many refugees to turn to debt to survive. But they found that prices for food bought on credit were on average 17% higher than those paid in cash.
They conclude that mechanisms are needed to protect humanitarian assistance from sudden withdrawals, such as pooled funding, contingency reserves, or multi-year commitments, and that humanitarian organisations should prioritise life-saving support at times of accute funding shortages.
And they argue that Kenya and other host countries should grant refugees the right to work and move freely, reducing dependency on aid and opening pathways to dignity and self-sufficiency.
Read the full story.