Anti-Poverty Program Is Effective Even in One of the World's Toughest Settings

Why It Matters

The study validates a proven poverty‑alleviation model in one of the world’s most insecure environments, guiding donors and governments on effective interventions for displaced populations.

Key Takeaways

• 5,000 Baidoa households received $42.50 cash transfers for six months.
• 68% of participants now earn more and avoid extreme poverty.
• Majority chose goat assets, expanding herds from 5 to 15 goats.
• Smaller households saw the biggest income gains among participants.

Pulse Analysis

The graduation approach, pioneered in rural low‑income settings, blends unconditional cash, asset provision and intensive coaching to address the multifaceted nature of ultra‑poverty. In Baidoa, the program’s design mirrored earlier successes: six months of cash to smooth consumption, followed by a choice of a modest cash lump sum or livestock—most beneficiaries selected goats, a culturally appropriate asset that can be multiplied through breeding. This asset‑first strategy leverages existing market structures, even when formal markets are weak, and creates a tangible income stream that households can reinvest.

What sets the Baidoa trial apart is its context. Half of the city’s 1.2 million residents are internally displaced, facing chronic insecurity, limited services and low human‑capital levels. Yet the intervention achieved a 68% uplift in earnings, a result that sits at the high end of graduation outcomes worldwide. Researchers attribute this to the stark need gap: when basic needs are unmet, cash and assets generate outsized marginal benefits. The data also reveal a nuanced pattern—smaller households with fewer dependents captured the largest gains—highlighting the importance of household composition in program design.

For policymakers, the Baidoa evidence offers a compelling case to sustain and scale multi‑component poverty programs, even in conflict‑affected zones. Although the Trump administration halted a planned $150 million USAID allocation, the documented impact provides a data‑driven argument for renewed investment. Donors can adapt the model to other fragile settings, tailoring asset choices to local livelihoods while preserving the core cash‑plus‑coaching framework. As markets falter and humanitarian crises persist, such evidence‑based interventions become essential tools for breaking the cycle of extreme poverty.