Hide table of contents

Donations to GiveDirectly put power in the hands of recipients, 62% of whom are women. On International Women’s Day, hear directly from women and girls in poverty in Malawi about the unique ways that direct cash empowers them:

This impact is more than anecdotal; research finds that cash aid lets women improve their lives in many ways. Below, we break down the evidence by story.

Maternal & infant health

Lenita“When I was pregnant, I would fall sick [and] could not afford the fare to go to the hospital.”

Studies find that cash can: 

  • Increase the use of health facilities.[1] 
  • Improve birth weight and infant mortality[2] – one study found GiveDirectly’s program reduced child mortality by ~70% and improved child growth.[3]

Education & domestic violence

Agatha“My husband was so abusive... so I left him and went back to try to finish school.”

Studies find that cash can: 

  • Reduce incidents of physical abuse by a male partner of a woman[1] – one study found GiveDirectly’s program reduced physical intimate partner violence.[4] 
  • Increase school attendance for girls.[1]

Decision-making power

Beatrice“My husband and I always argued… about how to spend what little money we had. Now, when we receive the money, we plan together.”

Studies find that cash can: 

  • Increase a woman’s likelihood of being the sole or joint decision-maker.[1]

Entrepreneurship & savings

Anesi“With the businesses I started, I want to buy land for my children so they will never forget me.” 

Studies find that cash can: 

  • Increase entrepreneurship[1] – one study of GiveDirectly’s program found new business creation doubled.[5]  For more on female entrepreneurs, watch→  
  • Increase the number of families saving and the amount they saved[1] – one study of GiveDirectly’s program found women doubled their savings.[5] To learn about women's savings groups, watch→ 

Elderly support

Faidesi“Now that I am old, I can’t farm and often sleep hungry. I would have been dead if it wasn’t for these payments.” 

Studies find that cash can: 

  • Reduce the likelihood of having had an illness in the last three months[6] – one study in Tanzania found cash reduced the number of doctor visits made by women over 60.[7] 
Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Why is it that 62% of recipients are women?

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)

Thank you for this post!

I really like combining the emotional access to these women's stories with the intellectual facts of the studies - often I only see people focus on the emotional side (and then I am unsure if I should really factually believe it, or it is just cherry-picked anecdotal stuff), or only on the intellectual side and leave out emotions entirely (which just leaves a whole bunch of low-hanging potential motivation go to waste), so combining the two is great!

I think it'll be great if this post is also on GiveDirectly's website, perhaps under the blogs section?

Curated and popular this week
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
64
· · 1m read
34