Cash, Projects, or Something Else? The Best Way to Aid Kenya

By Craig William O

Kenya is home to thousands of NGOs promising change. From the big names like USAID, World Vision, and CARE International to local grassroots organizations, billions have flowed into projects aimed at alleviating poverty. But after the photos are taken, the reports filed, and the donors updated, what happens to the people they were meant to help?

This question has become even more pressing as USAID scales back funding and international donors shift priorities. The sudden exit of major aid players raises an uncomfortable but necessary conversation: what’s the most effective way to provide aid, and how do we ensure real, lasting impact?

The Cycle of Dependency vs. Empowerment

For decades, the dominant aid model has been service provision, building schools, digging wells, distributing food. Yet, we’ve seen time and again that these interventions often fail to create long-term self-sufficiency. Take the example of PlayPumps, an initiative in the early 2000s that installed merry-go-round water pumps across Africa. It was hailed as an innovative solution: kids play, and water gets pumped. But within years, reports emerged that the pumps were breaking down, maintenance was a challenge, and the community wasn’t benefiting as expected.

In contrast, organizations like GiveDirectly have taken a radically different approach: direct cash transfers. The idea is simple; give money to people in poverty and let them decide how to use it. Studies have shown that recipients invest in businesses, healthcare, and education, leading to more sustainable outcomes. But even this model isn’t without skepticism, as some argue that it lacks long-term structural change.

Where Are the Follow-Ups?

One of the biggest failings of the aid industry is the lack of post-project accountability. We celebrate the immediate impact: children vaccinated, farmers given fertilizer, but how many organizations track their beneficiaries five, ten, or even fifteen years later?

An example that hits close to home: in 2015, a Kenyan NGO provided solar lamps to rural families. Five years later, only a fraction were still in use, most had broken down, with no one available to fix them. The organization had moved on to its next donor-funded initiative, leaving behind good intentions but little lasting impact.

A New Way Forward?

As Kenya faces shifting donor priorities and an increasingly skeptical public, aid organizations must rethink their approach. Here’s what needs to change:

• More Long-Term Tracking – NGOs should commit to measuring impact beyond the initial funding cycle. Where are the beneficiaries years later?

• Shift from Giving to Enabling – Instead of one-off handouts, focus on models that foster financial independence. Direct cash transfers are one example, but so are community-run microfinance groups and business incubation programs.

• Greater Transparency – Organizations must be honest about what works and what doesn’t. We need more real-time reporting, not just curated success stories.

• Stronger Local Leadership – The best solutions come from those who live the problem daily. Investing in Kenyan-led organizations ensures aid is contextually relevant and sustainable.

As aid dynamics shift, we must ask ourselves: are we truly helping, or are we just perpetuating the cycle of dependency? Because if the impact is real, we shouldn’t have to wonder what happened to the beneficiaries, we should already know.

The author is a communications specialist