GiveDirectly — Scoping Grant for New Program Variations (March 2025)

Note: This page summarizes the rationale behind a GiveWell grant to GiveDirectly. GiveDirectly staff reviewed this page prior to publication.

Published: June 2025

Background

GiveDirectly is a non-profit focused predominantly on delivering unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) to poor people living in low-income countries. Its Cash for Poverty Relief program transfers an unconditional one-off transfer of ~$1,000 via mobile money to households living in poor regions of low-income countries (LICs).1 The program is currently operational in 5 sub-Saharan Africa countries: Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda.2

In November 2024, GiveWell updated our cost-effectiveness analysis of GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program. We found that the program was ~3-4x more cost-effective than we had previously estimated, primarily due to modelling the program in countries outside Kenya and accounting for benefits that accrue to households in nearby villages who do not receive cash transfers themselves (known as ‘spillovers’).3

The grant

This grant provides GiveDirectly with funding to scope and design potential iterations of its Cash for Poverty Relief program that could plausibly meet GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness bar.4 If this scoping grant is successful, GiveWell would consider funding GiveDirectly to pilot these programs in the second half of 2025.

At this stage, GiveDirectly plans to focus on exploring new implementation models in Mozambique and Uganda, due to the low baseline consumption of the poorest people in these countries and the strong existing presence and operations capacity that GiveDirectly has in these countries.5 GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness analysis is sensitive to baseline consumption, as we explain in further detail here.

Potential implementation models that GiveDirectly has proposed scoping include:6

• Improved targeting: leveraging geospatial targeting (e.g. using AtlasAI) to identify the pilot sites with the highest proportion of people living in extreme poverty and with access to markets, in order to maximise consumption and spillover effects, respectively;
• Layering interventions by partnering with other implementers to deliver additional benefits for little-to-no additional cost.
• Modifications to transfer design or timing, such as aligning transfers with the harvest seasons in order to maximise investment potential, or providing top-ups for young adults, who GiveDirectly believes are most likely to invest their cash.

During this scoping phase, GiveDirectly will:7

• Determine how it will measure the success of potential program pilots (e.g., whether it will use shortened consumption surveys, or something else), and collect or model baseline data to identify the most appropriate pilot sites;
• Scope potential implementation partners for layering interventions, and create specific designs for the modified transfer design or timing approach;
• Engage prospective recipients with pulse surveys or focus group discussions, in order to inform the design of the programs;
• Conduct a donor market assessment, and stage preliminary funding conversations;
• Narrow down its list of ideas into two or three multi-phase pilot programs across Mozambique and Uganda, with an estimate of the total addressable market if these programs were to be scaled up.

We expect that GiveDirectly’s final proposal will include details on:8

• Where and when these programs could be implemented, considering factors like baseline consumption levels in target populations and potential for economic spillovers;
• The total addressable market (in terms of number of people reached and room for additional philanthropic funding);
• Learning value, i.e., how the pilots would improve GiveDirectly’s understanding of what makes for an effective poverty relief program;
• Strategic alignment, i.e., how the program variations fit within GiveDirectly’s priorities and whether other funders could be interested in supporting them;
• Implementation complexity;
• Whether there are other constraints that could affect program implementation.

The budget for the $89,347 grant breaks down as follows:9

• Staff costs – $49,770
• Data collection – $25,577
• Travel – $14,000

The case for the grant

We are recommending this grant because:

• We view this grant as “on strategy” for GiveWell’s livelihoods grantmaking portfolio. Increasing the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers is one of our areas of focus in our livelihoods portfolio, which focuses on interventions primarily designed to increase recipients’ consumption (rather than primarily to improve health outcomes). We think GiveDirectly cash transfer program is a particularly important intervention to pursue because:
  • It is our key point of comparison for all other livelihoods programs. Cash transfers are GiveWell’s benchmark for evaluating all interventions, including health programs, but this benchmark is particularly useful and salient for livelihoods, since the comparison is like-for-like: when we evaluate other livelihoods interventions, we can compare their effects directly and straightforwardly to the effects of providing recipients with cash instead.
  • GiveDirectly has demonstrated the scalability of its cash transfers program. It currently operates versions of its flagship large cash transfer program in five countries, and we believe it can reach new populations rapidly. This ability to flexibly scale its program up or down makes it a good candidate for receiving large amounts of GiveWell funding in the future, if we are able to identify a version of the program that meets our cost-effectiveness threshold.
• This grant could unlock the ability to fund pilots that would test whether these modified programs are likely to meet our cost-effectiveness bar. With this grant, GiveDirectly will produce a proposal that lays out specific modifications to its cash transfer program that could be piloted. Assuming GiveDirectly delivers this, GiveWell would then be able to decide whether or not to recommend funding for these pilots. If GiveWell funds at least one pilot and the pilots are successful, then this small scoping grant would have contributed to potentially unlocking large additional funding opportunities for GiveWell in the future.
  • We estimate a 75% chance that we will decide to support at least one follow-on pilot, a 33% chance that we recommend at least $10m in grants to GiveDirectly by the end of 2027, and a 10% chance that GiveDirectly becomes one of GiveWell’s Top Charities by the same date.
  • Even if we decided not to fund a pilot, we think it’s possible that this exercise will identify versions of the program that GiveDirectly would want to continue implementing with other funding. We would expect this to lead to an increase in the cost-effectiveness of other donors’ funding.
• This grant provides an inexpensive way to test one of the core hypotheses of our livelihoods grantmaking team. We think it’s possible that the program modifications that GiveDirectly plans to test could boost the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers enough to meet our cost-effectiveness funding threshold. This grant provides a cheap, structured way to explore this further.
• We have a strong qualitative impression of GiveDirectly, and we think the proposal we receive will be well-suited to our needs. Based on our experience of communicating with GiveDirectly, both during this investigation and during our research into its program when we updated our cost-effectiveness analysis in late 2024, we think GiveDirectly is well-aligned with our values of transparency and impact, which gives us confidence that the work we receive through this grant will be high-quality and informative for our decision of whether or not to fund program pilots.

Risks and reservations

Our main reservations about this grant are:

• It may be inherently difficult for a modified version of a cash transfer program to reach our bar. It's possible that the program modifications GiveDirectly proposes will not be sufficient for their program to meet our cost-effectiveness bar.
  • For example, some difficulties include:
    • GiveDirectly’s large cash transfers have a high base cost (~$1,000/household), which, all else equal, makes it relatively more difficult for them to reach our cost-effectiveness threshold.
    • We would also expect an inherent trade-off to targeting transfers to extremely poor populations with lower baseline consumption, e.g. because:
      • Those on extremely low incomes may find it more difficult to invest a large share of their cash transfer, rather than allocate it towards immediate needs (such as food or healthcare). Investments (e.g. in livestock, agriculture, or education) are likely to drive greater consumption gains in the long term.
      • People in these areas may also have relatively lower access to markets, which we think contribute to the economic spillovers that led us to increase our cost-effectiveness estimate of GiveDirectly’s program last year.
    • The evidence on layering interventions onto cash transfers is mixed, and this could introduce operational complexities that erode the value of any potential efficiencies.
  • Nonetheless, we think that this grant is worth pursuing given its low cost and the potential for marginal improvements to the program's cost-effectiveness which receives substantial funding from other donors.
• GiveDirectly could use this grant to pitch us on pilots that it is already considering, and for which it would otherwise receive funding. While we think this is possible, we’re not unduly concerned about this, primarily because this work is tailored to GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness analysis of GiveDirectly’s program, with a focus on maximizing consumption and spillover effects. Our impression is that some of GiveDirectly’s prior iterations to its program have been less focused on these aspects of the program.

Plans for follow up

• We plan to have regular check-in conversations with GiveDirectly throughout the course of the scoping period to review the potential cost-effectiveness of possible versions of the program and provide feedback on GiveDirectly’s work.
• We expect to receive the pilot proposals in approximately July 2025, at which point we will consider whether or not to provide a follow-on grant for these pilots.

Internal forecasts

For this grant, we are recording the following forecasts:

Confidence	Prediction	By time	Resolution
75%	We will fund at least one follow-on pilot by December 2025	December 2025	-
33%	We will fund at least $10m in grants to GiveDirectly by 2027	December 2027	-
10%	GiveDirectly will become a GiveWell top charity by December 2027	December 2027	-

Our process

• We began this investigation after our 2024 update to our cost-effectiveness analysis of GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program showed that it was significantly more cost-effective than we had previously thought.
• We decided that it could make sense for GiveDirectly to answer some of our core questions about the possibility of further increasing the cost-effectiveness of their program through a funded scoping period, rather than through an investigation for a larger grant.
• In March 2025, based on conversations with GiveDirectly about which program tweaks could work best, we shared our criteria with GiveDirectly. GiveDirectly returned with a short scope of work and budget.

Sources

Document	Source
AtlasAI	Source (archive)
GiveDirectly, Cash for Poverty Relief	Source (archive)
GiveDirectly, GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal	Source
GiveWell, GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief Program	Source
GiveWell, GiveWell's Cost-Effectiveness Analyses	Source
GiveWell, Internal Forecasts	Source
GiveWell, Our Top Charities	Source
GiveWell, Scoping >8x opportunities with GiveDirectly	Source
Our World in Data, Threshold income or consumption per day marking the poorest decile, 1963 to 2024	Source (archive)
Raising the Village	Source (archive)

• 1
  • “Every household in a village receives ~$1,000 with no strings attached." GiveDirectly, Cash for poverty relief.
  • “We primarily use government data to target villages where most or all residents are living in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as earning under $2.15/day." GiveDirectly, Cash for poverty relief.

• 2

  “As of February 2024, our poverty relief program is currently running in Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda." GiveDirectly, Cash for poverty relief.

• 3

  "Our best guess is the donations to GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program are ~3-4x our previous estimate. Quantitatively, the most important drivers of this update are: i) modeling the program in countries beyond Kenya and ii) an updated best-guess of consumption spillovers on non-recipients." GiveWell, GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief Program

• 4

  We use GiveDirectly's unconditional cash transfer program as a benchmark for comparing the cost-effectiveness of different funding opportunities, which we describe in multiples of "cash." As of August 2024, our bar for funding Top Charities is 8x cash, and our bar for funding other programs is 10x.

  • Note that we continue to use our pre-2024 cost-effectiveness analysis of GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program as our funding benchmark (i.e. the funding bar does not account for the recent finding that the program is ~3-4x more cost-effective than we had previously estimated). We are considering the implications of the updated GiveDirectly cost-effectiveness analysis and may revisit our funding bar in the future.

• 5
  • Mozambique and Uganda rank at 3rd and 8th in the world, respectively, for the depth of extreme poverty (measured by the level of consumption per day below which 10% of the population falls). Our World in Data, Threshold income or consumption per day marking the poorest decile, 1963 to 2024
  • “GiveDirectly has delivered cash to 119,000+ Ugandans and 22,000+ Mozambicans to date, has experience successfully targeting specific communities and sub-populations (climate survivors, conflict-affected youth, refugees), and strong relationships with the government, other local NGOs, and telecom providers.” GiveDirectly, GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal, p.2

• 6

  "Program Design: What are the current options under consideration?

  • Tech-Driven Targeting: We’re interested in leveraging geospatial targeting to identify potential pilot sites (e.g. with AtlasAI using community infrastructure/assets and socioeconomic datasets) with (i) the highest proportion of people in extreme poverty and (ii) strong access to markets and health infrastructure to maximize spillover effects and health impacts.
  • Pluses: We plan to explore layering or co-locating with partner interventions with strong potential to amplify impact at low or no marginal cost for our programming (e.g. agricultural inputs or training, financial literacy modules in enrollment surveys, SMS-based weather/farming guidance, supply-side nudges). For example in Uganda, we’re interested in exploring what a collaboration could look like with Raising the Village.
  • Transfer Design & Timing: We may align transfer timing with harvest/planting seasons to maximize investment potential. We’re also interested in exploring different transfer designs that could further boost ROI (e.g. delivering transfers to every adult, plus top-ups for young adults most likely to invest their cash)."

  GiveDirectly, GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal, p.1
  See [Shared] GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal note these are based on the fact that GiveWell shared our initial list of promising ideas (based on intuition of key drivers of cost-effectiveness in our GiveDirectly model rather than explicit modeling of these versions), which included (i) targeting expectant mothers and babies or underemployed youth; (ii) delivering cash to the poorest areas with existing market access; and (iii) testing interventions that could be layered on cash like nudges for child health or alerting business owners about the timing of cash transfers to they can plan/adjust inventory accordingly

• 7

  "Our Plan: Scope & Design Pilot Over ~4 Months
  Our time and investments will focus on establishing feasibility, vetting partner(s), comparing delivery and design options with an eye towards potential scale-up, in success. We expect this will be a generative process and we may ultimately go in a different direction or recommend multiple options, but we anticipate the work will include some combination of:

  1. Determining measurement framework (i.e. shortened consumption index or something else) and collect or model baseline data to identify pilot site(s)
  2. Scoping potential “plus” partners and cash designs (transfer timing, size) across countries
  3. Engaging prospective recipients with pulse surveys &/or focus group discussions to inform design
  4. Narrowing down to 2-3 multi-phase pilots across Mozambique &/or Uganda designed to optimize against measurement (e.g. SCI) with estimates of total addressable market in scale-up scenarios
  5. Conducting donor market assessment and preliminary funding conversations to assess potential funding leverage"

  GiveDirectly, GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal, p.2

• 8

  "Below, we lay out some questions we think would likely be important for GiveDirectly to address throughout scoping.
  Where and when could these programs be implemented? What has GiveDirectly learned about potential implementation locations for the proposed program variations? Considering factors like:

  • Baseline consumption levels in target populations
  • Existing market access and potential for economic spillovers
  • Infrastructure for mobile money transfers
  • Government relationships and support
  • Operational feasibility and cost efficiency

  Total addressable market: For each proposed program variation, what is the total potential reach (number of people who could be served)? What is the estimated room for more funding over the next 3-5 years?
  Learning value of pilots: How would the proposed pilots increase GiveDirectly's understanding of what works? How would they address key uncertainties about implementation and impact? What is the difference between what they know now and what they would know after conducting the pilots?
  Strategic alignment: How do the proposed program variations fit within GiveDirectly's priorities? Are they pitching these variations to other funders? Do they have reason to believe others would be excited to fund these approaches?
  Implementation complexity: How challenging would these program variations be to implement? Could GiveDirectly implement them now, or would they need to hire new staff, develop new partnerships, or build new systems?
  Evidence generation: Is the lack of evidence the main barrier to implementing these programs now, or are there other constraints (e.g. GiveDirectly preferences, donor preferences)? How would pilots influence GiveDirectly's or other funders' behavior?"
  GiveWell, Scoping >8x opportunities with GiveDirectly (unpublished)

• 9

  See budget table p.2-3 of GiveDirectly, GiveWell >8x Scoping Proposal