Whatever happened to Concern Worldwide's cash transfer programs?

Before GiveDirectly burst upon the scene, other charities operated cash transfer and voucher programs with less fanfare – and they still do so.  GiveDirectly has in fact relied on reviews and evaluations of these earlier programs to promote its own valuable work.  In a 2010 research note, GiveDirectly stated:  "Reviewing cash transfer projects run by Concern Worldwide and Oxfam following flooding in Western Zambia, Concern Worldwide (2007) found that less than 0.5% of the transfers were spent on 'unproductive' uses (including alcohol and tobacco)."

I began contributing to Concern Worldwide because I read about its cash transfer and voucher programs.  Apparently these programs continue; a page on Concern Worldwide's website is devoted to them:  https://www.concern.net/category/free-tagging/cash-transfer.  However, Concern Worldwide does not appear to be promoting these cash transfer programs:  its home page does not mention them, and I could not even reach its page on cash transfers through links on its home page (I found the page on cash transfers through Google). 

Possibly Concern Worldwide's reticence about its cash transfer programs reflects an old-fashioned assumption that contributors to international charities do not favor cash transfers.  I would have thought, and hoped, that Concern Worldwide would be more willing to expand and promote its own cash transfer programs now that GiveDirectly has made such programs by charities (dare I say it) sexy.  I actually think the structure of Concern Worldwide's programs is superior to that of GiveDirectly's programs:  As I have argued, GiveDirectly's standard grant of $1,000 per family is too large. 

There is something off-putting about the Deworm the World/Evidence Action websites

Having discovered the charity Deworm the World on the GiveWell website, I went to the Deworm the World website, intending to contribute.  There I saw this off-putting statement in large type at the top of the website, preceding any description of the charity's program or the problem it is meant to address:

Evidence Action is now responsible for the management, strategic direction and growth of Deworm the World. Programs of the Deworm the World Initiative at Evidence Action are implemented in partnership with Action Foundation for Social Services in India and Innovations for Poverty Action in Kenya. Learn more about Evidence Action.

This is like something you would see during the opening credits of a movie, or maybe at an athletic event where sponsors are elbowing each other to put their names front and center.  The charity's mission and program kind of take a back seat to brand promotion.

I also found Evidence Action's own website a little off-putting, though I can't put my finger on exactly why.

Nevertheless, I have sent them a check.

GiveWell and GiveDirectly: What’s with the similarity in names?

I was a little taken aback when I first saw that the charity evaluator GiveWell had awarded its top ranking to the charity GiveDirectly.  The names of these two organizations are so similar:  each is two words, beginning with the word “give,” and with the second word smushed up against the first.

Suppose I were to announce the recipient of the first annual Mark Stein humanitarian award:  my (fictional) brother, Michael Stein, who best embodies the ideals of humanitarianism.  People would rightly be skeptical of such an announcement.  Is something of the sort going on with GiveWell and GiveDirectly?

In short, no.  There does not appear to be any relationship between the two organizations that would reduce the credibility of GiveWell’s recommendation of GiveDirectly.    GiveWell, founded in 2007, is slightly older than GiveDirectly, which was founded in 2008.  It’s possible that the organizers of GiveDirectly got the idea for their name from GiveWell.  If so, it’s hard to blame GiveDirectly for borrowing the idea because their name so perfectly represents the ambition (if not quite the reality) of their organization: we allow you to give so directly to the world’s poor that we eliminate the space between you and them.   

Updated February 9, 2014 (minor edit)

Should GiveDirectly spread its grants more widely?

The new charity GiveDirectly has made quite a splash with its program of giving money to poor families in Africa through mobile phone transfers.  GiveDirectly has been featured on National Public Radio and in The Guardian, among other prominent news sites.  In 2013, GiveDirectly was rated as one of the top three charities by the charity evaluator GiveWell. 

I have happily added GiveDirectly to the list of charities I support.  I am troubled, however, that GiveDirectly makes large grants to a relatively small number of families, rather than smaller grants to a larger number of families.  GiveDirectly’s standard grant of $1,000 per family is on average more than 100% of the annual consumption of the poorest families it helps, according to GiveWell’s analysis.  The $1,000 grant is also more than 100% of the annual consumption of the poorest families GiveDirectly does not help.

The large grants distributed by GiveDirectly trouble me because I believe that those who are poorer are likely to benefit more from additional money than those who are richer.  This is an intuitive and widely-held view, even if it is not always enunciated.  If charitable donors did not believe that those who are poorer are likely to benefit more from additional money than those who are richer, they probably would not give charity at all

GiveDirectly’s grants are so large, in relation to the income and wealth of potential recipients, that they open a wide gulf between families that receive the grants and similarly-situated families that do not receive the grants.  To me, this suggests that GiveDirectly could do more good by splitting up its grants into smaller amounts – say, $250 per family – and distributing them more widely.  Distributing smaller grants to a larger number of families could also help to mitigate feelings of envy, disappointment, and perceived unfairness in families that are not selected to receive the grants. 

Despite this criticism, I will continue to contribute to GiveDirectly, and I hope I do not discourage others from contributing.

Updated February 9, 2014 (minor edit)