There are many definitions of poverty, yet at the heart of all of them lies the lack of adequate income to meet essential needs. It is therefore no surprise that poverty reduction policies often focus on providing poor people with cash, often to great effect. However, the extent to which such policies are effective is dependent on many other factors. One of these is the extent to which the delivery of support is done in a way that respects people’s dignity. Another is whether cash is complemented with other support that helps people meet their needs. Empathy offers practical guidance for how to improve delivery of support.

How can the provision of cash undermine dignity, and why is it a problem?

Lack of money is core to poverty, making welfare policies such as benefits and cash grants vital for poverty reduction. However, evidence from around the world shows that complex application processes, pejorative treatment and discriminatory practices undermine dignity of people receiving monetary assistance. In some cases, it even contributes to people being excluded from accessing benefits, despite being eligible.

In South Africa, poor single mothers who were eligible for income support for their children reportedly opted out of receiving the Child Support Grant due to how they were being treated at the local welfare office (Wright et al., 2014). Despite living in poverty, they choose to forego benefits to avoid being asked unnecessary invasive questions about their private life by welfare officers (Wright et al., 2014). In Bangladesh, urban residents who fell into poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic feel too ashamed about their new predicament to ask for support for fear of losing face (Roelen et al., 2024).

Non-take-up of support – people choosing not to claim benefits they’re entitled to – can be extensive. According to a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, an estimated 40 per cent of Europeans who are eligible for some type of welfare benefits do not take up support they have the right to receive (Human Rights Council, 2022). In the US, the non-take-up rate is as high 72 per cent for the country’s main welfare scheme, namely the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (Human Rights Council, 2022). Stigma, lack of awareness and limited transparency about eligibility criteria and application procedures are reasons for this.

Why does poverty reduction require more than cash?

Even if benefits are delivered with dignity and reach everyone who is entitled to them, the provision of cash alone has its limits.

Cash benefits have a long history (Gentilini, 2024), and a large evidence base from across the globe points to the importance and impact of monetary support (Bastagli et al., 2016). It decreases hunger, allows children to go to school and improves access to health services (Bastagli et al., 2016). At the same time, effects on wellbeing such as nutritional, education and health outcomes are more mixed (Little et al., 2021). While cash lays the foundation for poverty reduction and improved wellbeing, complementary support is often required to go the extra mile.

So-called ‘cash plus’ programmes do exactly this (Roelen et al., 2017). They complement regular cash support with additional support that help build knowledge and skills, that offer coaching or mentoring, or provide links to other services that people may not be aware or have been unable to access. Research suggests that effects of these programmes are positive, and that the provision of cash and other types of support offers synergistic positive impact.

In Haiti, home visits by case managers to extremely poor women participating in the Chemen Lavi Miyò (CLM) programme helped them understand the importance of using the water filters they were provided with through the programme (Roelen and Saha, 2019). In Bangladesh, community mobilisers helped to connect participants in the CLARISSA Cash Plus programme to government assistance and NGO-provided health care, which they wouldn’t have been able to access otherwise (Howard et al., 2025).

Effects can also extend to those who are not involved in the programme. In Burundi, for example, training about hygiene practices among participants in an anti-poverty programme also led to an increase in the use of soap among community members who were not part of the programme (Roelen and Devereux, 2019).

How can empathy make a difference?

Empathy is vital for making poverty reduction efforts more dignified and effective. The book The Empathy Fix proposes the 3 Rs of empathy as a three-step plan for doing so (Roelen, 2025).

The first R – Relate – is about connecting with or ‘feeling into’ the experience of poverty and how it affects behaviour and attitudes.

The second R – Realise – refers to understanding how the ways in which society treat people in poverty can render anti-poverty interventions ineffective and prevent people from escaping poverty.

Having related to the issue of poverty and realised how the odds are so often stacked against people in poverty, the third R – Respond – is about putting these learnings into action. This includes the development of policies that respect the dignity, agency and voice of people in poverty.  

Rather than treating poverty as a technical problem that can be solved through clever engineering or punishing people for their situation, empathy allows for seeing it as the human experience it is and for finding humane solutions to tackle it effectively and with dignity.