It IS a very big step to suggest that the actual money goes into the peoples' hands. The National AIDS Secretariat in the Gambia has tried this in one of their components. One key obstacle in this program has been, ironically, the funding of communications projects. What I mean is that a majority of the people that apply for funding are either civil servants looking for a kickback, and/or engage in cost-uneffective 'sensitisation' projects that really amount to people passively listening to orations on HIV/AIDS in exchange for free lunches. To mitigate this, this proposal needs to 1. favor access over literacy and 2. promote the spending on actual equipment and structures (tractors, homes, schools, etc.) with some inital funding of sensitisation projects to get out the word. For number 1, it presents a major accounting problem, but it makes no sense to favor the most literate (who may be 'assisting' others) in the society, who oftentimes have the most resources. If anything, maybe a framework should be in place (if not, build it) that would socially map out the community leaders in villages and towns, especially those who are illiterate or semi-literate themselves. The banks can then work with these leaders to verify the applicants and proposals, and the bank can fill out the applications themselves. It may be a big gamble, but sure less risky and with bigger prospects than the traditional formula of poverty eradication. -- Alan Chiem, MPH, atchiem@ucdavis.edu