All of GiveDirectly's Comments + Replies

While the broad cash program in this study is certainly more expensive per family than other global health programs, the researchers note that if the cash was targeted to pregnant women in their third trimester, it could be “comparably cost effective to a number of WHO-recommended maternal and child health interventions, even without taking into account other possible benefits of unconditional cash transfers (such as consumption gains).”

We’re launching a pilot this fall in Kenya specifically for pregnant women to learn just how much more cost-effectively c... (read more)

Darren "We don’t push hard for donations. Our primary goal is to educate and inspire, not fundraise. Donations are a bonus. We usually have sponsors for the videos, and the money we earn from those sponsors goes directly to the projects. In the case of the GiveDirectly video, we made a $200,000 donation, and anything beyond that is a bonus. However, someone who saw the video is now matching up to $150,000, which will help reach the fundraising goal."

If you want to help this match succeed, reshare the campaign page or Darren's X post.

Also here's our blog on... (read more)

You can read more about how the project came together on our blog. Adding a specific section below that might be of interest: 

Working with the most watched person on Earth will help us reach more people in need

Beast Philanthropy videos are typically seen by 20-40 million people and dubbed into over a dozen languages to improve accessibility. We expect this will help us reach more families in need. Here’s why:

Partnering with content creators means large, new audiences learn about direct cash

You may support direct cash giving, but most people still do n... (read more)

good idea! just did https://www.givedirectly.org/evidence-on-how-cash-transfers-empower-women-in-poverty/ 

Good call! Added

Fair point re: "nearly twice" vs. "over 50%." Edited original point to reflect this update. 

To the second point, the differences in data sources seem moot to the overall argument. If we stick just to OWID's visual from 1990 to 2019 (pre-COVID), this is is still a 117 million person (43%) increase of the number people living in extreme poverty since 1990, which is certainly an undercount given the well-documented setbacks post 2019. 

Responding below, much of which are direct quotes from the original post. 

Eradicating extreme poverty is not a high bar, it's actually the lowest and one very much worth clearing. 

• The $2.15/day threshold is not "completely arbitrary." It's set by the World Bank, is an estimate of what a person needs to afford a basic basket of goods including food, clothing, and shelter. It’s a rough measure of how many live in unacceptable deprivation in our wealthy world.
• While this metric is limited, it’s also quite descriptive. The many symptoms of poverty – d

As people escape extreme poverty, that total decreases year-over-year -- explained in detail here. 

Sure. We expanded the excerpt from the blog for clarity: "[GiveWell's moral weight approach] results in a spreadsheet. This framework combines the views of a relatively small number of stakeholders and then applies those outcomes to millions of people. GiveDirectly believes that the weights that should count the most are those of the specific people we’re trying to help. Each individual will have their own specific needs, preferences, and aspirations. We have yet to see a place we worked in (village, county, country) where everyone made the same investment... (read more)

Research finds people use these funds to improve their health, education, income, and self-reliance, ultimately reducing adult and child mortality. And these results can be sustained years into the future. [Footnote: Source on reducing adult & child mortality.  Two examples of long-term cash impact: Uganda (12 years), Mexico (20 years).]

GiveDirectly's baseline measures don't date back that far, but we do expect research on 5- and 9-year follow-up measures sometime in 2024. 

Cash transfers alone won't eradicate extreme poverty gl... (read more)

It was an active choice to not make this post a structured point-by-point debate with GiveWell's thinking as theirs is not the only guiding philosophy of how EAs think about issues of global health and development. With much of the $200B/year in Official Development Assistance going to interventions of question effectiveness and over a trillion dollars sitting in private foundations, the EA movement can and should open the aperture of how it thinks about what it recommends beyond the marginal donation. 

We're optimistic the movement could influence exi... (read more)

Thanks, very interesting insights re: healthcare access (you'd enjoy this pod with our research director who is a former medical doctor). The ~$15 is at market value for a phone, so the incentive isn't especially appealing. That said, sometimes other members of a household will have a phone but the assigned recipient does not so elects to buy one.

Here's the link in question: https://www.fsdafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/YEG-Brochure-29.10.21.pdf 

Hi @Robi Rahman we have a webinar on effective zakat this Saturday April 1. Hope you can come. 

Great question! We'll discuss at our upcoming webinar this Saturday. Hope you can join. 

It has not! We just posted the sign up link here: GiveDirect.ly/zakat-webinar (it's this coming Saturday April 1)

Great question. How we approach this: 

1. Our Yemen program is not the same as our Zakat fundraising. We've been paying Yemeni families since August 2022 using non-zakat funds. Zakat funds are delivered according to the zakat policy. Non-zakat funds are handled the same as any other donations. 
2. We don't ask families about faith status and do not plan to start doing so. The reason we direct zakat funds to Yemen is that it's a non-issue –  99.99% of the country is Muslim. Our zakat advisors who certified the fund were happy with this arrangement.
3. Wh

We do have a page in Arabic for non-English readers. However, an important part of building trust with zakat givers is transparency and directness (donor=>GiveDirectly=>Yemeni recipient). Rather than market/collect zakat through another organization as a pass-through, we opted to stick with the simplicity that has appealed to other donors. UNHCR is a secular organization with a successful zakat campaign marketed under their name, albeit a much more famous name than GiveDirectly. 

Another way we plan to bridge the gap: working with Muslim groups and influencers to share the campaign. 

Two reasons:
- Our biggest program (large transfers) allows families to select a single head of household to receive the funds. Women often handle household spending so are slightly over-represented  as the recipient in this program. 
- We run a few specialty programs that are explicitly targeting women (e.g. this nutrition program or this cancer program)

Great idea! edited to encourage posting down here too, in addition to through the form.