In an article for The New Humanitarian, Madison Bakewell, Vittorio Bruni and Olivier Sterck explain why implementing differentiated assistance among refugees in Kenya’s Kakuma Refugee Camp isn’t just unfair — it’s harmful.
“Up until August, everyone in Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp received the same amount of food aid, but that changed dramatically when tens of thousands of residents were cut off from assistance.
A new targeted system, known as differentiated assistance, replaced blanket distribution as a cost-cutting measure in response to falling aid budgets. Instead of receiving equal support, refugees were split by the World Food Programme (WFP) into four categories receiving different levels of assistance based on their perceived vulnerability.
Category 1, considered the most vulnerable – single mothers, new arrivals, child-headed households, and people with disabilities – received just 40% of a full ration, worth $8 per person each month. Category 2, deemed less vulnerable but still without a reliable income, received 20% of a ration, only $4 per month.
Households in Categories 3 and 4, assessed as having other income sources, were cut off entirely – a dramatic step that affected a third of the 300,000 refugees in Kakuma.
In theory, the logic is straightforward: Scarce resources should go to those considered most in need. Similar models have been piloted in Uganda and Lebanon.
But in practice, our research team found that none of the refugees we spoke with, in any category, supported this new system. On the ground, differentiated assistance is fuelling tension, collapsing livelihoods, worsening hunger and mental health, and deteriorating coping strategies. It also led to protests in which the police killed at least two people.”