What problem is GiveDirectly working on?

Today, 817 million people have to survive on less than $3 per day, meaning they cannot afford their most basic needs. Cash gives families living in extreme poverty the agency and capital to meet their individual needs, rather than guessing for them. According to GiveDirectly, 500+ academic studies find that people in poverty use cash transfers to improve their health, education, income, self-reliance, and more. And there is also some evidence that these results are sustained years into the future. (See GiveDirectly's research page for an overview of some of the key studies on cash transfers.)

Yet, people living in extreme poverty rarely get to decide how aid money intended to help them gets spent. Cash transfers – which does provide this agency – make up a very small proportion of aid and charitable giving.

What does GiveDirectly do?

Since 2009, GiveDirectly has given more than $900 million in direct cash transfers to more than 1.6 million people living in poverty. Research from GiveDirectly and others shows recipients spend the money on essentials like healthcare, education, entrepreneurship, clean water, solar lights, tin roofs, irrigation, and more.

GiveDirectly runs several different programs, like emergency relief for survivors of international crises, basic income and cash for mothers and babies. However, all donations made through Giving What We Can will directly support GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program, which:

Delivers large, one-time cash transfers of approximately $1,000 USD to households living in extreme poverty, empowering them to meet their urgent needs and invest in their futures.
Identifies villages where most residents live on less than $2.15/day, enrolls households through door-to-door visits, and sends funds via SMS-enabled mobile money. Recipients can use the funds however they choose, typically for essentials like food and housing or investments like, education, farmland, and new businesses.

GiveDirectly measures its impact through rigorous research, conducts pilot programmes and randomized controlled trials, and reports on the evidence base for cash transfer programmes. GiveDirectly studies include:

A “cash multiplier” study in Kenya – this study found that a one-time $1,000 GiveDirectly cash transfer generated 2.5x local economic activity in rural Kenya. Most recipients spent locally, raising business revenue by 65% without causing major inflation. Researchers are now running a study 10x larger in Malawi to test how cash scales as an economic stimulus.
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) study in Kenya – this study compares the impact of three cash transfer models: a large one-time lump sum, a short-term UBI (two years), and a long-term UBI (12 years). Two-year results show that both the lump sum and long-term UBI led to significant economic gains, with recipients saving more, investing in businesses, and improving their overall well-being. This study is ongoing and upcoming surveys will explore longer-term effects.
Ongoing research by Egger et al. on cash transfers provided to Kenyans in 2015 – preliminary findings show that recipients were still spending 12% more than a control group 5-7 years after receiving a one-time payment. Future surveys, expected in 2026, will further explore the long-term impacts of cash transfers on recipients and their communities.
- A follow up from the same study found cash reduced infant mortality by 48% and under-five mortality by 45%, highlighting the transformative potential of cash transfers on public health.
An ongoing study examining the effect of large cash payments to urban refugees in Nairobi – this study found that recipients experienced substantial improvements, including nearly doubling their income, increasing their savings by 57%, and expanding business ventures within six months. The study is now in its second phase, which will focus on evaluating long-term impacts over two years, with plans to compare outcomes between different support models. Some groups will receive cash only, while others will be offered additional support, such as job skills training or mentorship. This phase aims to uncover insights into how cash transfers can best promote economic independence and social integration for refugees.

What information does Giving What We Can have about the cost-effectiveness of GiveDirectly?^1.

In November 2024, the Charity evaluator, GiveWell, increased their cost-effectiveness estimate of GiveDirectly’s Cash for Poverty Relief program by 3-4 times compared to their last evaluation in 2019. This update was driven by new estimates of direct cash’s positive impact on local economies, consumption, and child mortality.

This update hasn’t changed GiveWell’s top charity and funding recommendations, but this could shift in the future, as forthcoming studies on GiveDirectly’s work could further increase their assessment. GiveWell continues to use cash transfers as a benchmark for determining cost-effectiveness. Additionally, donors may have good reasons for choosing GiveDirectly over (or in addition to) GiveWell’s top charities – including that cash transfer recipients have greater agency than recipients of the public health programs implemented by GiveWell’s top charities. For more details, see:

Founders Pledge’s research team also advised us that GiveDirectly may be listed on our platform, and Open Philanthropy has given GiveDirectly multiple grants in recent years.

Please note that GWWC does not evaluate individual charities. Our recommendations are based on the research of third-party, impact-focused charity evaluators our research team has found to be particularly well-suited to help donors do the most good per dollar, according to their recent evaluator investigations. Our other supported programs are those that align with our charitable purpose — they are working on a high-impact problem and take a reasonably promising approach (based on publicly-available information).

At Giving What We Can, we focus on the effectiveness of an organisation's work -- what the organisation is actually doing and whether their programs are making a big difference. Some others in the charity recommendation space focus instead on the ratio of admin costs to program spending, part of what we’ve termed the “overhead myth.” See why overhead isn’t the full story and learn more about our approach to charity evaluation.