Given the /where/ this money is being sent, how well does 1000 USD spend in Kenya? That is, what would it cost to buy someone in the US that same result?
Edit: I missed the 'quarterly' part of the education cost.
I think I'll compare the 50-70 USD per 3mo (~230/year) education cost of a student to one from the USA. According to a census website post one of the less expensive schools spent about 7000 per student / year. ( http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-98.h... )
Roughly calculating, that's about a 30x difference in cost of living. So it'd be a lot more like unconditionally giving a poor US family 30K. If this is a one time infusion, it isn't BIG, but close enough to it to break negative feedback loops.
Lets use the figures from the operating model page: "The average recipient in Kenya lives on just 65 cents (nominal) per day" - so a cash injection of $1,000 is 1,538 days @ $0.065 - or about 4 years. If it is a family of four, $1,000 is a year's worth of expenses for the whole family.
That's probably a fair measure of what this represents - a year's salary for a family of four.
As a cash injection, it also allows for large purchases, e.g. to spend a few hundred on a roof. So each payment is the equivalent in the US of enough cash to buy, say, a car?
TLDR: It's an advertisement for a non-profit that mentions their website's name about a million times. The money is going to people in very poor places like Kenya. Almost all of it is spent on education fees, housing, food, and healthcare. About 3% on vices like tobacco.
It would be an advertisement if the writer was directly compensated or connected to GiveDirectly. That doesn't seem to be the case, and surely people who are operating in the philanthropy market would also follow FTC sponsorship disclosure laws?
As stated:
This is an unsolicited Op-Ed by an individual who is not being compensated by GiveDirectly, it’s patrons, benefactors, affiliates, or partners.
Calling it an advertisement detracts (and by definition, it isn't) from the essential: that there's good being done.
Why would they pay a near-nobody to advertise? That's not how this works. The money goes to Medium to host content as a native advertisement, or the money is spent on ads and promotion elsewhere to get more clicks on this article. Neither of which has to be disclosed.
Also - what a surprise. The article writer owns a marketing and advertising consulting company! With a specialty in social referral campaigns and native advertising! Which is coincidentally exactly what GiveDirectly is focusing on right now.
The lack of money directly exchanging hands between the person who wrote it and the beneficiary doesn't mean it isn't advertising.
It's interesting how this disclaimer says that Andrew isn't being compensated by GiveDirectly and its affiliates etc. It doesn't say anything about whether any of the affiliates of Andrew (such as his business) received compensation from GiveDirectly, which is the much more likely scenario. Regardless, it's easy enough for anyone to claim they're writing something as an individual and not as a service to their own company.
It seem like, these days, anyone talking about how something is good is "advertising". You're not allowed to praise or recommend anything, only criticize.
I think persuasion pieces have become somewhat synonymous with "advertising" due to the rise in popularity of sponsored content. With everyone trying to sell you something, it's hard not to become jaded.
The article was written by a guy who owns a advertising consulting business, specializing in social media and native advertising. He's trying to sell something, even if it's not strictly a business transaction directly between him and GiveDirectly.
It seem like, these days, anyone talking about how something is suspiciously lacking in transparency is a critic. You're not allowed to question or second guess anything, only mindlessly praise.
Not sure if it actually matters much, but I'm curious how they're able to track spending. It seems tracking spending habits could be construed as a condition of receiving subsequent installments and thus change the recipients' behavior into what they think GD wants them to spend it on, rather than what they'd actually want to spend it on.
> tracking spending habits could be construed as a condition of receiving subsequent installments and thus change the recipients' behavior into what they think GD wants them to spend it on, rather than what they'd actually want to spend it on.
I agree that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) is probably true, but the the question is really hard to answer or put in perspective because "what I want to spend money on" changes based on lots of factors, not least of which is the amount received.
It is also likely that getting three payments changes the spending from receiving a single payment, which would be different to the spending from GD's latest program, https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income, a test to "... scientifically test the idea of a universal basic income by providing regular cash payments to thousands of extremely poor households in East Africa for more than ten years."
There are sooooooo many questions about cash transfers, and given the almost complete lack of administrative costs - $0.91 in every dollar ending up in a poor person's hand is insane - they are all worth investigating. Your question is likely item 9,999 on that list :)
> In Uganda and Rwanda more than 96% of eligible recipients have opted in, respectively.
> ... In July 2015 we entered Homa Bay, a new county and our first venture outside of Siaya. In Homa Bay and the neighboring areas, roughly 45% of the households we speak with decline to be enrolled into the program.
It is amazing that people will give up free money, and shows the lengths GD goes to investigate the problems surrounding cash transfers.
91% of donations going towards the intended recipients is almost too-good-to-be-true.
I volunteered for a small locally run charity in a Nairobi slum and observed that for every dollar received, the Director would use up to 60% towards maintaining him and his family. This, I was told, is the norm.
The legal requirement for an organization to receive tax-free nonprofit status in the US is that at least 5% of funds be spent to serve the stated mission. The bar is low everywhere.
If everyone is building mud huts, are they held back by lack of tools? It seems like a decent kiln for making roof or floor tiles would make a big difference in many of their lives.
Developing art or goods for export would help to make this sustainable.
Edit: I missed the 'quarterly' part of the education cost.
I think I'll compare the 50-70 USD per 3mo (~230/year) education cost of a student to one from the USA. According to a census website post one of the less expensive schools spent about 7000 per student / year. ( http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-98.h... )
Roughly calculating, that's about a 30x difference in cost of living. So it'd be a lot more like unconditionally giving a poor US family 30K. If this is a one time infusion, it isn't BIG, but close enough to it to break negative feedback loops.