Giving money directly to the poor (as in rural Kenya poor) seems to work pretty well actually. There's little overhead, which is great, and with no strict limit

Giving money directly to the poor (as in rural Kenya poor) seems to work pretty well actually. There's little overhead, which is great, and with no strict limits it doesn't stop people from doing something sensible just because theres some contract/other complications ("oh sorry, this grant doesn't cover buying a roof"). It turns out that the people seem to use the money productively. Givedirectly [0] are a charity that do this, and they do randomised trials and conduct follow up interviews. Maybe it's a difference in money. Give someone just enough money to make their life slightly less awful for a bit (e.g. enough for a drink, not enough to get somewhere to live) and it's probably not going to help much. Give someone enough to actually make a difference and they probably will. GiveDirectly finds that people get things like tin roofs, invest in their businesses, pay for education and medicine. A couple of quotes from their page > Cash transfers benefit children. Many studies find positive effects on the health of children - for example, large increases in height-for-age and weight-for-height in South Africa, large reductions in HIV infection rates and psychological distress in Malawi, and large reductions in the incidence of low birth weight in Uruguay (2,15,16,17,18,19,20,25,26,27,29). Several studies also find that unconditional cash transfers substantially increase schooling and decrease child labor. (21,22,23) and > Cash transfers have long-term impacts. Recipients often save or invest a large proportions of the transfers they receive, generating increases in future income. (1,2,3,4,5,6) One study found that men's annual income five years after receiving transfers had increased by 64%-96% of the grant amount. (24) The references are on the linked page. [0] http://www.givedirectly.org/evidence.php http://www.givedirectly.org/evidence.php