DOCSLIB.ORG

Givedirectly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Givedirectly GiveDirectly Goldilocks Toolkit Innovations for Poverty Action poverty-action.org/goldilocks Right-fit monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems embody the principles of Credible, Actionable, Responsible, and Transportable, or CART. In the Goldilocks case study series, we examine the M&E systems of several innovative organizations and explore how the CART Principles can work in practice. Acknowledgements: This Goldilocks Toolkit was authored by Mary Kay Gugerty, Dean Karlan, Delia Welsh, Tetyana Zelenska, with editing and design by the IPA Communications Team (David Batcheck, Laura Burke, Jennifer Cowman, Heidi McAnnally-Linz, Megan McGuire). GiveDirectly: Developing a Research Agenda after Impact Evaluation Unconditional cash transfers are 1) existing cash transfer programs, an impact evaluation. Specifically, increasingly recognized to be a cost- which can be opaque and suffer from GiveDirectly seeks to improve cost- effective strategy for reducing poverty.1 leakage and design challenges, and 2) effectiveness of its operating model, This is in large part due to a small but international philanthropy, for which the measure longer-run impacts, and growing body of research that shows founders of GiveDirectly aim to establish understand its influence on the larger significant positive welfare effects of direct transfers as the benchmark economy (e.g., market prices, new programs that provide cash to the poor against which all other approaches are business development, etc). However, with no strings attached. This subject measured. while building a robust research agenda sparked a debate in the international into the operations can be fruitful, it has development field about an alternative Since its inception, the leadership of its costs. GiveDirectly must make sure approach to improving social welfare, as GiveDirectly has been committed to that its constituents, or others in the compared to traditional forms of aid. rigorously measuring the impact of its development space, will benefit from the cash transfer program using randomized research in order to ensure their strategy GiveDirectly is a New York-based evaluations. Results from a randomized is responsible. nonprofit that provides secure direct cash evaluation implemented in Kenya found transfers to the extreme poor in Kenya the transfers increased investments by and Uganda primarily via mobile phone. 58 percent in assets such as livestock, Since it was founded in 2009, GiveDirectly furniture, and metal roofs, and also has grown rapidly: as of 2013, it had increased spending on goods including transferred $1.5 million to recipients, food, medical and educational expenses, with $3.4 million scheduled for delivery. and social events. There was no increase The organization has enrolled nearly in expenditures on temptation goods, 10,000 recipients to date and planned to such as alcohol and tobacco.2 However, move $20 million during FY2015. Beyond the study also found that transfers the immediate goal of transforming induced jealousy among neighbors.3 lives of the poor by providing direct cash transfers, the founders of GiveDirectly In this case study, we examine intend to influence two markets: GiveDirectly’s learning agenda following What They Do GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash Typically, recipients receive an SMS alert GiveDirectly shares publically how transfers to the extreme poor in Kenya on their phones to notify them of the much of their budget goes directly and Uganda primarily via mobile phone. transfer and to let them know how they to the poor and how much is spent GiveDirectly’s model contrasts with the can collect the cash from a mobile money delivering the program. Based on our traditional approach to international aid, agent in their village or the nearest town. review of financial statements submitted which delivers specific goods and services GiveDirectly staff check with all recipients to GiveWell, GiveDirectly transfers a to the poor. to make sure they received the transfer high share of funds raised directly to and to assess their experience. After its recipients (close to 90 percent in The program targets families that live in receiving the full transfer amount, the both countries), relative to total costs houses with mud walls and a thatched household is no longer eligible for future (excluding set up costs). roof—these housing materials are transfers. a strong proxy for poverty in these As of early 2015, GiveDirectly has run locations.4 To select who will receive the The cash transfers are equivalent to nine transfer programs in total (seven in transfers, program staff first identify poor approximately one year’s household Kenya and two in Uganda), each with its areas using publically available statistics budget—a large amount compared own recipients, timeline, and objectives. on poverty. They then conduct a village- to a typical government cash transfer Of these programs, 14 campaigns have level census in these areas to collect data program. GiveDirectly’s transfer size was concluded, with all transfers sent and on poverty and enroll recipients. After the designed to be large enough to enable follow-up surveys completed. enrollment process, eligible households the poor to make larger purchases receive a series of cash transfers totaling and investments with the potential to approximately $1,0005 via mobile phones. generate income over time. 4 Theory of Change GiveDirectly’s program is founded on in which they work. The organization decisions based on their individual needs the idea that large unconditional cash sends money to recipients via cell phones and preferences. The ultimate goal of transfers to the extreme poor should using electronic payment services that the program is to improve individual and improve their welfare. GiveDirectly are secure and transparent. Because household well-being. identifies and enrolls beneficiaries the cash transfers GiveDirectly provides by using objective criteria of housing are unconditional, they are expected material (mud and thatch) that correlate to empower poor households to make highly with poverty levels in the areas their own consumption and investment Needs Activities Outputs Impact • Improved individual and • Poor families lack resources to • Identify and enroll poor • Poor households are household well-being: make needed investments in households identified and enrolled education, food, and livelihoods • Increased assets and higher • Cash is transfered income • Traditional development • Send cash transfers • Improved mental health assistance fails to efficiently • Transfer is confirmed improve the welfare of the • Enhanced food security extreme poor • Conduct performance audits • Increased women’s empowerment FIGURE 1. THEORY OF CHANGE* *Organizations use a variety of methods to present their theories of change. To standardize our discussion of these cases, we present our own simplified version of GiveDirectly’s theory of change here. 5 Activity Monitoring GiveDirectly has a strong monitoring organizational priorities, and the is made of mud and has a thatched system that relies on mobile data total amount of funds available roof, a credible proxy for extreme collection and multiple quality controls to be allocated. Next, program poverty—to identify households to ensure that eligible households staff visit villages to introduce the eligible for the cash transfer are correctly identified, only eligible program, answer questions, and programs. households are enrolled into the garner support from community program, fraud and theft are minimized, leaders and local officials. 3. Registration. A separate field and eligible households receive the full GiveDirectly believes such visits team visits eligible households to amount of cash transfers. clarify the program’s goals and help enroll them into the program. In mitigate collusion or gaming the Kenya, enrollment involves giving a The program is implemented in several system. household member a SIM card used stages, with data collection and quality for transfers through the M-PESA controls at each step. 2. Village census. Next, field system6, if they do not already have staff conduct door-to-door visits an M-PESA account. The enrollment 1. Village selection. First, to collect basic demographic process is similar in Uganda. GiveDirectly identifies low-income information from everyone in the GiveDirectly staff may also help villages from national census village and take GPS coordinates eligible households to obtain ID data. Villages are selected based of the houses. The team uses cards or sign up for mobile money on a combination of census data, objective criteria–whether a house accounts. 6 4. Back-checks. An independent Uganda: In Kenya, the first transfer accountability and transparency: enumerator visits eligible is approximately $50, and the next the organization began signing households within the next month two transfers are split into two $475 memorandums of understanding to confirm eligibility and to inform payments, disbursed approximately with local government officials, the recipients of GiveDirectly’s two and six months later. In created a formal mechanism security measures to minimize Uganda, transfers are of equal to capture complaints during fraud. The enumerator also collects amounts and are sent monthly. the enrollment stage (such as personal identifying data and house GiveDirectly staff call all recipients households that felt they were GPS coordinates to compare them to confirm that the first transfers unfairly excluded from the with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Givedirectly
    GiveDirectly GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash transfers using cell phone technology to some of the world’s poorest people, as well as refugees, urban youth, and disaster victims. They also are currently running a historic Universal Basic Income initiative, delivering a basic income to 20,000+ people in Kenya in a 12-year study. United States (USD) Donate to GiveDirectly Please select your country & currency. Donations are tax-deductible in the country selected. Founded in Moved Delivered cash to 88% of donations sent to families 2009 US$140M 130K in poverty families Other ways to donate We recommend that gifts up to $1,000 be made online by credit card. If you are giving more than $1,000, please consider one of these alternatives. Check Bank Transfer Donor Advised Fund Cryptocurrencies Stocks or Shares Bequests Corporate Matching Program The problem: traditional methods of international giving are complex — and often inefficient Often, donors give money to a charity, which then passes along the funds to partners at the local level. This makes it difficult for donors to determine how their money will be used and whether it will reach its intended recipients. Additionally, charities often provide interventions that may not be what the recipients actually need to improve their lives. Such an approach can treat recipients as passive beneficiaries rather than knowledgeable and empowered shapers of their own lives. The solution: unconditional cash transfers Most poverty relief initiatives require complicated infrastructure, and alleviate the symptoms of poverty rather than striking at the source. By contrast, unconditional cash transfers are straightforward, providing funds to some of the poorest people in the world so that they can buy the essentials they need to set themselves up for future success.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Paywalled
    Wringing the Most Good Out of a FACEBOOK FORTUNE SAN FRANCISCO itting behind a laptop affixed with a decal of a child reaching for an GIVING apple, an illustration from Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree, Cari Tuna quips about endowing a Tuna Room in the Bass Library at Yale Univer- sity, her alma mater. But it’s unlikely any of the fortune that she and her husband, Face- By MEGAN O’NEIL Sbook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, command — estimated by Forbes at more than $9 billion — will ever be used to name a building. Five years after they signed the Giving Pledge, the youngest on the list of billionaires promising to donate half of their wealth, the couple is embarking on what will start at double-digit millions of dollars in giving to an eclectic range of causes, from overhauling the criminal-justice system to minimizing the potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence. To figure out where to give, they created the Open Philanthropy Project, which uses academic research, among other things, to identify high-poten- tial, overlooked funding opportunities. Ms. Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, hopes the approach will influence other wealthy donors in Silicon The youngest Valley and beyond who, like her, seek the biggest possible returns for their philanthropic dollars. Already, a co-founder of Instagram and his spouse have made a $750,000 signers of the commitment to support the project. What’s more, Ms. Tuna and those working alongside her at the Open Philanthropy Project are documenting every step online — sometimes in Giving Pledge are eyebrow-raising detail — for the world to follow along.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/152659 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Effective Altruism and Extreme Poverty by Fırat Akova A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Warwick September 2020 Table of Contents Acknowledgments vi Declaration viii Abstract ix Introduction 1 What is effective altruism? 1 What are the premises of effective altruism? 4 The aims of this thesis and effective altruism as a field of philosophical study 11 Chapter 1 13 The Badness of Extreme Poverty and Hedonistic Utilitarianism 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Suffering caused by extreme poverty 15 1.3 The repugnant conclusions of hedonistic utilitarianism 17 1.3.1 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify extreme poverty if it is without suffering 19 1.3.2 Hedonistic utilitarianism can morally justify the secret killing of the extremely poor 22 1.4 Agency and dignity: morally significant reasons other than suffering 29 1.5 Conclusion 35 ii Chapter 2 37 The Moral Obligation to Alleviate Extreme Poverty 2.1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism: an Elucidation and a Defence1
    Effective altruism: an elucidation and a defence1 John Halstead,2 Stefan Schubert,3 Joseph Millum,4 Mark Engelbert,5 Hayden Wilkinson,6 and ​ ​ ​ James Snowden7 The section on counterfactuals (the first part of section 5) has been substantially revised (14 April 2017). The advice that the Open Philanthropy Project gives to Good Ventures changed in 2016. Our paper originally set out the advice given in 2015. Abstract In this paper, we discuss Iason Gabriel’s recent piece on criticisms of effective altruism. Many of the criticisms rest on the notion that effective altruism can roughly be equated with utilitarianism applied to global poverty and health interventions which are supported by randomised control trials and disability-adjusted life year estimates. We reject this characterisation and argue that effective altruism is much broader from the point of view of ethics, cause areas, and methodology. We then enter into a detailed discussion of the specific criticisms Gabriel discusses. Our argumentation mirrors Gabriel’s, dealing with the objections that the effective altruist community neglects considerations of justice, uses a flawed methodology, and is less effective than its proponents suggest. Several of the 1 We are especially to grateful to Per-Erik Milam for his contribution to an earlier draft of this paper. For very helpful contributions and comments, we would like to thank Brian McElwee, Theron Pummer, Hauke Hillebrandt, Richard Yetter Chappell, William MacAskill, Pablo Stafforini, Owen Cotton-Barratt, Michael Page, and Nick Beckstead. We would also like to thank Rebecca Raible of GiveWell for her helpful responses to our queries, and Catherine Hollander and Holden Karnofsky of the Open Philanthropy Project for their extensive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Innovations in Cash Grants to Households in Malawi
    Whitepaper series - Operational Innovations in Cash Grants to Households in Malawi Program Report Date: November 2020 This whitepaper was prepared for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Malawi. The contents are the responsibility of GiveDirectly and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 3 Acronyms 4 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Introduction 6 2.1. Approach: USAID - GiveDirectly Partnership 6 2.2. Introduction to GiveDirectly 8 3. Program Design 8 3.1. Operational Approach 8 3.2. Operational Innovations 11 4. Program Results 18 4.1. Use of Funds 19 4.2. Operational quality findings 21 4.3. Recipients’ Stories 22 5. Impacts of Household Grants and Recommendations for What Next 24 5.1. Gender 24 5.2. Youth Empowerment and Employment 26 5.3. Nutrition 27 5.4. Humanitarian Response 29 6. Conclusions 31 Annex 1 32 Annex 2 36 2 Acknowledgements Authors: Shaunak Ganguly, Omalha Kanjo, Mara Solomon, and Rachel Waddell at GiveDirectly This white paper was prepared for USAID/Malawi. The contents are the responsibility of GiveDirectly and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 3 Acronyms CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy GD GiveDirectly GoM Government of Malawi HEC Human Elephant Conflict IPA Innovations for Poverty Action IVR Interactive Voice Response KYC Know Your Client PIN Personal Identification Number PPE Personal Protective Equipment RCT Randomized Controlled Trial SCTP Social Cash Transfer Program UCT Unconditional Cash Transfers UNC University of North Carolina 4 1. Executive Summary As part of an ambitious, multi-country partnership and with generous support from USAID and Good Ventures, GiveDirectly (GD) successfully launched its first household grants program in Malawi in early 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Top Charities | Givewell
    12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell DONATE GIVING EFFECTIVELY HOW WE WORK TOP CHARITIES RESEARCH OUR MISTAKES ABOUT UPDATES HOME » TOP CHARITIES Our Top Charities Donate to high-impact, cost-effective charities—backed by evidence and analysis Updated annually — Last update: November 2020 Give Effectively Give to cost-effective, evidence-backed charities We search for charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar. These are the best we’ve found. Supported by 20,000+ hours of research annually.( 1) Donate based on evidence—not marketing Even well-meaning charities can fail to have impact. We provide evidence-backed analysis of effectiveness. Pick a charity or give to our Maximum Impact Fund We grant from our Maximum Impact Fund to the charities where we believe donations will help the most. Either way, we take zero fees. Skip to Medicine to prevent malaria Nets to prevent malaria Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency Cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities 1/12 12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell Treatments for parasitic worm infections Cash transfers for extreme poverty GiveWell’s Maximum Impact Fund CHARITY 1 OF 9 Medicine to prevent malaria Photo credit: Malaria Consortium/Sophie Garcia OVERVIEW https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities 2/12 12/29/2020 Our Top Charities | GiveWell Malaria kills over 400,000 people annually, mostly children under 5 in sub-Saharan Africa.( 2) Seasonal malaria chemoprevention is preventive medicine that saves children’s lives. It is given during the four months of the year when malaria infection rates are especially high.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College Forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018
    Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018 The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Effective Altruism has historically been dedicated to finding out what charitable giving is the most overall-effective, that is, the most effective at promoting or maximizing the impartial good. But some members of EA want the movement to be more inclusive, allowing its members to give in the way that most effectively promotes their values, even when doing so isn’t overall- effective. When we examine what it means to give according to one’s values, I argue, we will see that this is both inconsistent with what EA is like now and inconsistent with its central philosophical commitment to an objective standard that can be used to critically analyze one’s giving. While EA is not merely synonymous with act utilitarianism, it cannot be much more inclusive than it is right now. Introduction The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Members of the movement, who often refer to themselves as EAs, have done a great deal to get philosophers and the general public to think about how much they can do to help others. But EA is at something of a crossroads. As it grows beyond its beginnings at Oxford and in the work of Peter Singer, its members must decide what kind of movement they want to have.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism
    Forthcoming in Utilitas The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism BRIAN BERKEY University of Pennsylvania In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated much discussion about the ways in which we can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals. One of the most common criticisms of the movement is that it has unjustifiably neglected issues related to institutional change that could address the root causes of poverty, and instead focused its attention on encouraging individuals to direct resources to organizations that directly aid people living in poverty. In this paper, I discuss and assess this “institutional critique.” I argue that if we understand the core commitments of effective altruism in a way that is suggested by much of the work of its proponents, and also independently plausible, there is no way to understand the institutional critique such that it represents a view that is both independently plausible and inconsistent with the core commitments of effective altruism. In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated a great deal of discussion about the ways in which we (that is, at least those of us who are at least reasonably well off) can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals (for example, reducing the suffering of non-human animals, or achieving criminal justice reform in the United States).1 Two of the movement’s most prominent members, Peter Singer and William MacAskill, have each produced a popular book aimed at broad audiences.2 These books, and the efforts of the movement that they represent, have in turn generated a significant amount of critical discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting Supererogationism Tarsney, Christian
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Groningen University of Groningen Rejecting Supererogationism Tarsney, Christian Published in: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly DOI: 10.1111/papq.12239 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Tarsney, C. (2019). Rejecting Supererogationism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(2), 599-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12239 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 26-12-2020 REJECTING SUPEREROGATIONISM BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY Abstract: Even if I think it very likely that some morally good act is supereroga- tory rather than obligatory, I may nonetheless be rationally required to perform that act.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Development Cooperation
    EVIDENCE-BASED DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION Greater Effectiveness Through Impact Evaluations POLICY PAPER Despite the unprecedented economic and technological advances of the past decades, roughly one in ten people still live in extreme poverty. This is one of the most urgent ethical problems of our time. Every year, Germany and Switzerland devote billions to development cooperation in order to create opportunities for these people. However, results from scientific research show that both countries finance extremely low-impact projects as well as highly effective ones. This paper introduces the current state of empirical research on development cooperation and recommends the following: particularly impactful projects should be promoted, and less effective projects should be ended; evaluations should be carried out more frequently as impact evaluations, and should meet academic research standards; more financial resources should be provided to achieve these goals; and Germany and Switzerland should affiliate with international research projects on impact measurement, as this would help countless people in need and simultaneously strengthen the trust of voters. January 2018 Policy paper by the Effective Altruism Foundation. Preferred citation: Vollmer, J., Pulver, T., and Zimmer, P. (2017). Evidence-based Development Cooperation: Greater effectiveness through impact evaluations. Policy paper by the Effective Altruism Foundation: 1-15. English translation: Rose Hadshar and Adrian Rorheim. For their feedback and critical input, we would like to
    [Show full text]
  • 990-PF Or Section 4947(A)(1) Trust Treated As Private Foundation | Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public
    EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 16, 2020 Return of Private Foundation OMB No. 1545-0047 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation | Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury 2019 Internal Revenue Service | Go to www.irs.gov/Form990PF for instructions and the latest information. Open to Public Inspection For calendar year 2019 or tax year beginning , and ending Name of foundation A Employer identification number THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 13-1659629 Number and street (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number 420 FIFTH AVENUE 212-852-8361 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code C If exemption application is pending, check here ~ | NEW YORK, NY 10018-2702 G Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here ~~ | Final return Amended return 2. Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, Address change Name change check here and attach computation ~~~~ | X H Check type of organization: Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here ~ | X I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: Cash Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination (from Part II, col. (c), line 16) Other (specify) under section 507(b)(1)(B), check here ~ | | $ 4,929,907,452.
    [Show full text]
  • Givewell Metrics Report – 2013 Annual Review
    GiveWell Metrics Report – 2013 Annual Review How much money did GiveWell move? .......................................................................................... 1 To top charities .................................................................................................................................................. 1 GiveWell Labs money moved .......................................................................................................................... 2 Uncertainty in money moved ............................................................................................................ 2 Which charities received it? .............................................................................................................. 3 Money moved by donor size .............................................................................................................. 4 Change in money moved by donor size ......................................................................................... 4 Understanding the drop in money moved from larger donors ................................................................ 5 Unrestricted funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 How do donors find GiveWell? ......................................................................................................... 6 Major donors .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]