Hide table of contents

Our U.S. COVID-19 response was based on a bet

In April 2020, we launched Project 100, a U.S. COVID-19 response, in partnership with Propel and Stand for Children. To date, the program has delivered one-time $1,000 payments to over 178K Americans living in poverty, with the most recent round going out last week. 

For the past decade, our core mission has been to reach people living in extreme poverty. While many millions in the United States are in poverty, they’re typically not facing extreme poverty as it is officially defined (living below $1.90/day). 

We decided to launch the program given: 

  1. the growing need we saw in the U.S. that could be met with cash
  2. the number of funders interested in getting cash to people in the U.S. who would not otherwise give internationally
  3. the opportunity to raise direct giving’s public profile beyond what we could do with our international programs alone

Our bet, based on points 2 and 3, was that a justified U.S. cash program would also end up drawing in more funding for people living below the extreme poverty line internationally. 

We kept funds & attention going to our global work

We continued to focus on driving attention to our global work and took precautions not to divert funds when setting up Project 100: 

  • We only allocated funds specifically donated to the U.S. program to American recipients. No other funding went to the program
  • We tested and tracked whether donors who first gave to the U.S. would be interested in giving internationally with their future gifts
  • We maximized press/social media attention on direct giving and ensured the press mentioned our international work wherever possible

Our U.S. work helped make 2021 our best fundraising year yet for international recipients

A year and a half on, the results suggest the bet has paid off. This has already been our strongest year raising funds for people living in poverty internationally with $138.8M YTD in 2021 versus $121.4M and $47.2M total raised for int’l recipients in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Beyond that:  

  • We’ve driven over $70M to international programs from donors who initially gave to U.S. projects — more than our revenue for any year before 2020
  • Our U.S. program had over 100 press mentions, helping to raise direct cash giving’s profile on the national and global stage
  • We expect to reach even more international recipients by the end this year than last:

 

We will continue to work in the U.S.

We expect there to continue to be a legitimate need in the US that can be met with cash, be it after a catastrophic hurricane or in geographies that are chronically poor & under-resourced. We also know there will always be funders who are more focused on giving within the U.S. (perhaps some immutably, and some not). So, moving forward, we’ll launch U.S. programs that we think could both fill a real need and raise direct giving’s profile to drive more support to international recipients. 

This was a bet that we’re glad paid off. We’re proud to have helped 178K Americans living in poverty:

Numbers as of Sept 13th, 2021. To hear more from recipients themselves, check out stories from Project 100 recipients and GDLive to hear from folks we’ve reached internationally.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for this post! When I learned last year that GiveDirectly was including U.S. recipients I admit my naive reaction was disappointment. It's great to hear it has worked out so well, and also a useful example where I failed to appreciate the complexity of a situation.

Really happy to see that this seems to have worked so well!

Would it be possible to clarify how MacKenzie Scott's donation of $50 million was counted in the above figures and how the numbers change if one were to not include it?

For the EA community: what other usually internationally facing organizations do you think could benefit from trying this approach?

Meh. Not from me. I quit donating to GiveDirectly based on this very change. and your analysis above doesn't control for confounding factors...At a minimum, you should compare your revenue increase with that of the other GiveWell groups where my money went instead.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f