A new round of funding withdrawals is leaving some of the world’s poorest families facing renewed financial hardship, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of global poverty alleviation programs.
Story Highlights
- The “graduation” approach to poverty alleviation faces significant setbacks.
- Funding cuts and policy changes leave ultra-poor families vulnerable.
- Debates arise over the ethics of withdrawing support prematurely.
- Calls for integrating these programs into national systems grow louder.
Graduation Approach Faces Challenges
The “graduation” approach, pioneered by BRAC in Bangladesh in the early 2000s, has recently encountered implementation challenges. This method, designed to help ultra-poor families escape extreme poverty through asset transfers, skills training, and mentorship, has been scaled back in several countries following funding shortfalls and shifting donor priorities. These reductions, according to monitoring reports from BRAC and the World Bank, have been linked to renewed economic strain for some participants.
The model has been replicated in parts of Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, with varying results. However, global economic disruptions, including inflation, climate-related shocks, and lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, have strained the sustainability of such programs. In Uganda and other regions, field reports describe abrupt program closures that left participants struggling to maintain income-generating activities. These outcomes have prompted discussion on whether donor-funded graduation programs can ensure lasting benefits once external support ends.
They were promised a lifeline to “graduate” from poverty. Then it was taken away. – NPR https://t.co/Zc2lH4NpNd
— Patricia Lafond-Valade (@pattyvalade) November 2, 2025
Funding Constraints and Program Withdrawals
In September 2025, AVSI relaunched a smaller version of its Uganda graduation program, targeting 1,000 households, just one-tenth of its previous coverage, due to reduced funding. Similar challenges have been reported by Village Enterprise and Trickle Up. NGO field assessments indicate that some former participants experienced loss of income and uncertainty following the conclusion of earlier program phases. These developments have sparked a wider debate about the ethical responsibility of donors and governments to ensure continuity for beneficiaries transitioning out of aid.
While a few organizations maintain limited operations, others have paused their activities entirely. Participants who depended on these programs for livelihood stability are now navigating an uncertain economic landscape, with several organizations citing inflation and shifting donor priorities as the main reasons for scaling back operations.
Need for Sustainable Integration
Development specialists increasingly argue that the graduation approach should be embedded within national social protection systems to ensure long-term sustainability. Shameran Abed, Executive Director of BRAC International, has cautioned that scaling the model without adequate funding could dilute its effectiveness. Analysts from the Center for Global Development note that the resource-intensive nature of graduation programs makes them challenging to maintain without strong government and donor collaboration.
They were promised a lifeline to “graduate” from poverty. Then it was taken away. – NPR https://t.co/ic0wvPBhVC
— The Social News Express (@TheSocialNewsSJ) November 2, 2025
The future of these programs remains uncertain amid rising global economic pressures. Many experts advocate for closer coordination between NGOs, governments, and international lenders to safeguard gains made in poverty reduction and prevent program participants from relapsing into poverty.
Sources:
BRAC UPGI and Poverty Unpacked
VoxDev (BRAC International interview)
Village Enterprise and IPA research
Trickle Up and AVSI press releases
