Roughly, the process for choosing a trustee or helper is to get the recipient alone and ask who that recipient trusts the most. Generally, GiveDirectly prefers to choose trustees and helpers who are already recipients themselves, so that they have less of an incentive to steal the transfer and so that GiveDirectly can stop transfers to them if they are not performing their role appropriately. Terminated the GiveDirectly staff who had been involved in the fraud; started working with new mobile money agents.

There was no significant effect found on health and education outcomes, profits, or cortisol levels. Cash transfers are among the best-studied development interventions, though questions remain. Studies generally show substantial increases in short-term consumption,41especially food, and little evidence of negative impacts (e.g., increases in alcohol or tobacco consumption). It is important to note that most of these studies are of “income transfers” ; there is more limited evidence for programs with “wealth transfer” (relatively large, one-time transfers) models like GiveDirectly’s. This is one of the reasons that we are particularly interested in GiveDirectly experimenting with and evaluating different approaches. Generally speaking, are unconditional cash transfers a promising approach to helping people?

Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form 990. If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. An official record of the events cool farm names stardew valley that take place during a board meeting ensures that a contemporaneous document exists for future reference. Charities are not required to make their Board meeting minutes available to the public. For this performance metric, we are checking to see if the charity reports on its Form 990 that it does keep those minutes.

The results will directly inform policy debates in emerging markets, which are the front lines of the global fight against poverty. 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.

In November 2019, an economics paper on the GiveDirectly experiment found each dollar from cash transfers increased local economic activity by $2.6. GiveDirectly notes that it was not involved in the fundraising or spending for this research study, though it did incur costs due to coordinating with researchers. We note that GiveWell recommended a grant of $350,000 for part of the costs of this research study.

We are missing cost data for the Rarieda RCT, the general equilibrium study, and have partial cost data for the Aspirations and Ideas42 studies. We have excluded this from our calculations of what portion of GiveDirectly’s all-time incurred expenses were cash grants. GiveDirectly notes that it was involved in the initial fundraising for this work, but does not expect to be involved in future fundraising.