speaker-0: 85 cents of every euro will get into the hands of recipients. And that's really important to us to have this transparency. We take that money and we transfer it to people who live who are living in extreme poverty. So we send the money to them on a phone and they are able to spend that money however they want. If your program is not better than cash, improve your program or just do cash. I think if enough people buy into that in our lifetime, it's totally possible that we can end extreme poverty. And I think that would be. Something that globally we all can be very proud of.

speaker-1: In heute's Episode ist mein Harris Roberts von Gift Directly. Einer der ersten Organisationen, die in von Effektiv Spenden unserer Bestseller, wir für Menschen mit extremem Poverty Was Gift Directly unik dass sie Geld direkt an die Menschen Es keine Bindungen, aber es ist eine der größten effektivsten Charities im Welt. Hier mit allen Details ist Harris. Willkommen Harris!

speaker-0: Thanks for having me. Excited to be here.

speaker-1: Du bist Vizepräsident von Growth und Gift Directly. Du aber den USA, wo du auch Business Administration Du fängst auf die Verkaufsverkaufung Jetzt kämpfst die extreme Poverty in Berlin und Deutschland. Wie hat das passiert?

speaker-0: Wow. Yeah, let me take it back. Yeah, I was studying entrepreneurship and supply chain ⁓ in school. I think I wasn't really sure exactly what I wanted to do, but thought there was always sort of a business case and those would be applicable skills. And while I was there, I was actually, this is when these massive online courses were starting. And so I took one at MIT on extreme poverty, actually. They had like hundreds of courses, and I thought this one looks really interesting. I don't know a lot about it. And that was Sort of my first exposure to the academic side of poverty work.

speaker-1: mich an Frage, warum ihr diesen Kurs

speaker-0: I wish I had a great answer. It was just like there were so many and it looked really interesting. And I thought, I really know very little about this. And it was really quite fascinating to go all the way through the course and and ⁓ read all of the studies and and be part of it. But then it was quite a while before I got back into sort of the impact space. I had been ⁓ traveling in sort of the middle of my career. I think you can sort of optimize your career for like a few things. You could be optimizing for like money. You could be optimizing for impact, or you could be optimizing for like lifestyle. And I think at that point I was optimizing for lifestyle. I was sort of traveling around. Yeah. This was like 2015, 16, working remotely, sort of freelancing. ⁓ and I was also in another a a number of contexts that were ⁓ really quite poor. And I thought to myself, ⁓ I should probably do something other than just like being here ⁓ as like a traveler or a tourist. And I remembered a podcast I had heard. About Give Directly years before. And so I started becoming a monthly donor at that point. And then years later, I moved to New York, which is where Give Directly is headquartered. And I went to a donor event and spoke with the team. And they were starting to build out their fundraising and growth team. And so I joined as the second growth hire. And that was almost seven years ago now. So that's sort of been my journey to Give Directly. And I think, you know, it was really sparked by interest as a donor about. How can you do the most good with a limited amount of resources?

speaker-1: Ja, bedeutet dass du deine organische Popcorn-Kompanie auch startest.

speaker-0: Yes, in ⁓ university I started an organic popcorn company ⁓ during a summer for an internship project.

speaker-1: Ja, also lass uns nicht auf das fokussieren, aber eher auf deinem Werk bei GIF direkt. Du hast die Business Administration und hast andere Projekte, die für den Profit-Welt Und auch wenn du bei einer digitalen Marketing-Kompanie warst du sicherlich nur mit Non-Profit-Klienten. Was würdest die Hauptveränderung, wenn für Non-Profit-Klienten du machst? es sehr ähnlich, sehr anders? challenges.

speaker-0: I think one of the big challenges is the expectations that people have when they donate to a charity is that it's really highly efficient. And I think that's important. But what often people think is that means you shouldn't spend any money to do your work, or that costs should be low, or that you should ⁓ pay below market rate for talent. And I think this is really quite challenging because if you want to create a really highly efficient organization, you need to spend money in certain places. I think like An example is ads, for example. When you go out and buy ads, you're competing against a number of other organizations who are also sort of bidding for those ads or buying ads on those platforms. And so it's okay for some of those for-profits to buy ads that are not profitable because they're VC backed or it's part of a larger play. But for a charity, it would be very hard for you to say your donors, I'm spending ⁓ two euros to raise 86 cents.

speaker-1: Ja, meine, sogar schwerer. Für einen Grund, wie die Weihnachtszeit oder die Weihnachtszeit, die wichtigste Zeit, auch sehr kompetitiv, um für Adres Und auch für einen Vorwürfnachlässigen, wenn man 1 Euro für ein Ad spendet und 1 Euro und 1 Cent in den Rückblick dann das tolles Geldverfahren. Und ich würde es schwer machen, unsere Donoren dass wir ... Sie gesagt, Euro Cent Sie erwarten, dass 10 oder 20 Cent Und sie haben gesagt, dass sie Marktgrad für Talent Das eine schwierige Erwartung von einigen Donoren. Nicht unsere Donoren, aber in der würde sagen, dass man die Überfallkarte Und eine Überfallkarte ist einfach, verdammte Zahlläufe Wenn die Leute nicht einzigartig und sich bezahlen müssen sie sich Es ist gute Leute zu wenn sie so verletzt sind.

speaker-0: I think it's a fair critique that, you know, not all charities and nonprofits are perfect. And there is like a lot of waste historically in the system. And so I think it's a fair critique to ask where the money is going. And a lot of organizations are quite ⁓ opaque. It's it's not very clear exactly where your money is going. And so I think this historical context makes it difficult for people today to really trust or invest or or think about it the way they would a for profit. But I think maybe a little bit ha needs to happen on both sides, both that like people need to be possibly open to spending more or or paying market rates if they want ⁓ great talent. But also like from a sector perspective, there just needs to be more transparency and and people need to understand what the actual impact of their work is.

speaker-1: Ja, ein guter Weg, ⁓ zu meinem nächsten Fragen nicht mehr mit der Non-Profit-Sektion, aber zurück zu Gift Directly, wo du arbeitest. Was ist Gift Directly? mir deinen Elevator-Pitch.

speaker-0: Sure. So Give Directly is an organization where you can donate money. We take that money and we transfer it to people who live who are living in extreme poverty. So we send the money to them on a phone and they are able to spend that money however they want. It's not a loan, it's no strings attached. And what you find is that each person has a very unique set of needs, and the money allows them to prioritize what's most important for them. So there might be one person who wants to send their kids to school. And so they might pay for school fees and buy a backpack, but there might be someone else who wants to put a new roof on their house or needs to get glasses or wants to start a business. And so basically the idea is that everyone has a very unique set of challenges and priorities. And by giving them the resources, they're able to prioritize what's most important to them. And there's a lot of research, over a thousand studies on cash today, that show it's incredibly impactful across a number of different ⁓ indicators. And so We're really excited about the dignity and and choice that this gives people to allow them to choose how they want to improve their life.

speaker-1: Ich habe viel Zeit für Gift Directly und wir fanden es schon seit dem Tag, seit es effektiv Spenden gibt und so weiter. Aber bin mir dass ich auch, auch ich, ein wenig skeptisch Es könnte sogar verrückt dass geben, was sie mit dem ich weiß Alkohol oder es einfach waschen oder andere Sachen nur kurzfristig konsumieren. Wenn es tun wäre es besser, eine Kuh oder einen neuen Wissen Es geht nicht um viele Fische, sondern um, fischen Man muss wieder Aber das klingt, als ob man Fische Was ist deine Antwort?

speaker-0: Yeah, I think this is a common ⁓ question. I think a lot of people were maybe raised and and told that we shouldn't just give money to people who are poor. But if you think about ⁓ poverty as being the lack of money, if you would like to end poverty, which globally I think we we all want to end extreme poverty, you can give people money and then they are less poor. Like it it's very foundational to the problem. ⁓ and there's a lot of research as well that people are not increasing their spending on what we would call. Temptation goods like alcohol or or tobacco. And so we both have a lot of research, but ⁓ also evidence the of positive outcomes. And so it is a common question, but I think over time people are are asking that question less as it becomes more normalized. I think, particularly with COVID, quite a lot of countries did cash payments and had to go remote with a lot of their programming. And so it's becoming more and more normalized. And we get those questions less often today than we did ten years ago.

speaker-1: Ja, ich denke der Missverständnisse vielleicht ist, dass viele Leute nicht wirklich wissen, was Extrempoverty bedeutet. Ich werde ein Video in der Show Note das von einigen deiner Kollegen aus dem Feld in sie beschreibt, wie krass es ist. Diese Geschichte ist über eine Frau, die von ihrem Mann bleibt mit ihren drei Kindern, sieben, vier und zwei. Every day she has to eke a living to bring food to the table. One of these days she's not able to bring food to the table and the children, not knowing what is happening with their mother, sit around her cooking stove waiting for food. The mother, unable to explain what is happening with her, puts three stones inside a pan and lights the fire and starts cooking three stones insistently. No water in the pan, no nothing. She is literally Und Herausforderung ist, deine Kinder wie wir beide jetzt und du vorhin gesagt, dass du mein Kind und dann bekomme ich etwas Geld und erste, was brauche, ein Bier oder so, das klingt verrückt. Was denkt von Leuten, die erwartet, in der Suche von basicen Gründen Und ein anderer Punkt, den ich überlegt dass es nicht so spät ist, wie in rübenen Kenia oder in rübenen Teilen extrem kurzer Länder, also es könnte eigentlich ziemlich schwer sein, zu aber das ist anderes Thema. Ja, also, wenn das Giftariteki

speaker-0: Fifteen years ago now. Yeah.

speaker-1: Und du hast gerade den Meistern von 1 Billion Dollar Du hast also 1 Billion Dollar die Menschen in Neuheit getätigt. ist natürlich ziemlich beeindruckend. Auch das ist wahrscheinlich das größte NGO, das wir an effektiven Spenden unterstützen. du angefangen hast, hast du es sich vorgestellt, so groß und so schnell zu werden?

speaker-0: No, I when I joined, I think the organization was just hitting the two hundred million milestone. ⁓ and so it's been really impressive to see the growth and acceptance of cash from individual donors and and institutions. And you know

speaker-1: würde sagen, dass dem Einladen

speaker-0: ⁓ I think part of what happened was we had a COVID response ⁓ both ⁓ in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where we were working and also in the United States. And the fact that our model is remote and that you can send the the money to the phone and that it's traceable and you know exactly where it went, this really appealed to people in a time when there were very few things that you could do because in-person operations were closed. And so this is when really a lot of people were introduced to this idea. And the billion, the billion dollar milestone is really exciting for Give Directly and the fact that we've transferred this money. But when you look at the the problem of extreme poverty, there's 830 million people in extreme poverty. And the models today don't see that decreasing unless we change something. And so we're really excited about not only the amount of money that we deliver via cash, but how can we also impact the rest of the sector? other influencers, how can we help governments, et cetera? So we can do more cash programming and more effective programming. What goes with cash as a complement that works better together? I think there's a lot of opportunity here because ⁓ we need to change and ⁓ there's also a lot of urgency. I mean, to the point you said earlier, people who are living in extreme poverty, I sort of explain it to people as having to make impossible choices. Like you mentioned, like do you ⁓ feed your child or Do you clothe your child? Do you try to invest in a new business or you try to buy ⁓ you know, medical treatment that you need? And so it's these sort of challenges which are not only physically demanding, but also mentally really quite taxing. There's a real burden of living in extreme poverty on your physical health, on your mental health. It's ⁓ really, I think, very impossible sort of for us to understand sitting here today.

speaker-1: Ja, ich erinnere mich, dass einiges, was viele Leute mit dem Geld, das sie Gift, neu Das klingt schön, aber es eher wie Konsumtion. Manche haben gedacht, warum nicht in ein Geschäft investieren? Aber eigentlich, für Ruf ist ein Beispiel für gute Rechen. oder wie Konsumption ein Investiment

speaker-0: Yeah. And I think it like back to your question about putting on a new roof. Most people are living in a small one room home. So it would be like mud walls and a thatched grass roof. ⁓ they might have ⁓ they might have windows, they might not have windows and they will have a door, they might not have a lock on the door. So like roofs, but also a lot of people will buy a lock for their door because it's nice to be able to leave your house and go maybe farming for the day and come back and realize that all your things have not been stolen. Right. Yeah. ⁓ the other thing about the roof is it provides a lot of a lot of different benefits. So one is that it's no longer leaky when it rains. ⁓ you can imagine sleeping on the floor with, you know, maybe ⁓ like a a little bit of matting, but really not a a bed. ⁓ or you can think about trying to sleep on that floor when it's wet and having your children be there and having your children get sick. So the roof provides like protection. But also, it's quite a bit more cost effective over the long term because you have to continually replace that grass roof. And if you have an iron sheet roof, you're able to avoid that cost every few years of having to replace it. You also can collect the rainwater off of the roof. There was a study that ⁓ the metal roof actually also reduced malaria rates because you don't have as much like sort of standing water, et cetera. And so just a lot of benefits that are not. intuitive when you ⁓ sort of think about like, ⁓ someone's putting on a new roof. It's really quite transformative for people.

speaker-1: Du hast auch viele Studien über die Geldabgabe Ich in deinem DNA. Du warst gefunden, Leute ihre PhDs oder werden Professor in der der Entwicklung der Kannst uns bisschen mehr über diese Studien Wie werden Geldabgabe mit der traditionellen Arbeit Oder gibt es noch Studien, diese Dinge

speaker-0: Yeah. So Give Directly was founded, as you mentioned, by four co-founders who were doing their PhDs at Harvard and MIT. And at the time, and at the time, ⁓ they were ⁓ there was a lot of evidence coming out about cash. Give Directly is not the first organization to do cash. We didn't invent cash. ⁓ a lot of studies were coming out of Latin America. ⁓ what Give Directly did is they created an organization that anyone could donate. in cash. And s and still today, I'm actually quite surprised that there's no other ⁓ like large growing organization that's just doing cash. Many other organizations do cash, ⁓ but Give Directly is I think the largest today where we're solely focused on cash. So you know if you give a euro that it's going to be distributed by cash.

speaker-1: Es interessant, in von 1 Billion Dollar Das leider noch klein als das Problem oder die Herausforderung. Aber für einen NGO, nicht so alt wirklich großer Niveau. Und im Vorwärtsbereich wird es Konkurrenz Wenn man so schnell wächst mit diesem neuen Ansatz, wird es viele Copycats überall Welt. Und leider nicht so Copycats wie in Ihrem Fall. Warum ist das durch effektive Spenden und andere Partner, du hast auch Geld in Europa anderen Teilen der Welt, ich bin mir Aber es keine gesetzliche Geldabgabe-Organisation hier in Deutschland oder in anderen Ländern. Das ist sehr enttäuschend. Aber hast eine Erklärung für das? Ist es Lackung Marktkräften?

speaker-0: I mean, one of the things that's really challenging about nonprofits is that it's a sector that's based on trust. And a lot of that trust comes from historical brand recognition. And so the amount of time that it takes as a new charity to gain trust in the market, I think is not ⁓ incredibly conducive to starting something new and growing it quickly. And as I mentioned at the beginning, you can't just go buy a bunch of ads to tell people about it or pay for a bunch of bunch of sponsorships. ⁓ but I think, you know, one of the reasons that Give Directly grew so quickly, as you mentioned, is because of the evidence. And I think people really were excited about both the evidence and the dignity and trust and autonomy that you're giving recipients to make their own decisions and the flexibility that you're giving them. I think these two things together are a really unique package that many interventions don't offer that that cash does. And so, you know, at Give Directly we've run Must be over 25 studies now, either finished or in in progress. And ⁓ we've shown a number of different indicators that cash moves. I think this is one of the things that's really exciting is if you care about nutrition, there's a cash story for you. If you t care about consumption or economic development, there's a cash story for you. If you care about ⁓ you know, infant and child mortality, there's a cash story for you. And so

speaker-1: Es Studienstück, Kindermotivationen dass die Geldversorgung die Kindermotivation von 48 % ⁓

speaker-0: Yeah, this is ⁓ in Kenya, this research just came out and it's really quite astounding. ⁓ people who received the cash transfers ⁓ b right before ⁓ giving birth, you saw this decrease in mortality. And this number is is really ⁓ high comparatively. I think we were all really amazed by this. And it was something that we were we were shocked sort of to see. And then when you start to look into it more and you start to understand the mechanisms, you start to say, Okay, this this actually makes a lot of sense. You can see how this works.

speaker-1: Ja, das ist Begabesetzung, ich wirklich mag. Und wen ich sprechen werde, Begabesetzung die Begabesetzung direkt zu einem Indexfund ETF wie die Investitionenbegabesetzung Es könnte also andere Programme die vielleicht noch effizienter als nur eine Kasse Aber wahrscheinlich sehr wenige. haben gute Reisen, um zu dass Sie besser als Cash die Leute selbst was zu tun Also für fast alle, die mit dem ETF mit dem Index-Fund, sind wahrscheinlich besser. Vielleicht Sie Warren Buffett und es Props für Sie. Bitte gehen vorwärts und machen etwas sogar besser. Aber Sie sind nicht Warren Buffett. Und das geht auch für ... Die Länder geben die und so Mein erster Job war in der öffentlichen Entwicklungstechnik. Und Wahl, wo sie das Programm spenden, ich versuche noch erkennen. Aber ich bin mir dem Abstand Geld Was eure Gedanken auf die Beziehung zu den Geldverfassungen? spend more money on cash or other evidence there.

speaker-0: Yeah, I mean, I think there's many programs that are valuable outside of cash, and there's many things that cash also can't do. So cash is not going to ⁓ build roads or infrastructure. It's not going to ⁓ fix institutions, right? Like ⁓ you know, the quality of policing or j the judicial system. ⁓ it's also not going to ⁓ sort of improve services like it could improve access to those services. Like you could ⁓ see more people going to the hospital to deliver births, for example. But it's not going to improve the care at the hospital. And so there's some things that cash can't do and there's other programs. But for many other indicators, cash is one part of the story. And I think it's ⁓ it would it would be great if we moved and really, especially as government budgets are decreasing, look at like what are the most effective uses of of the funding that we have and how can we stretch the funding to go further. I think you're seeing actually the opposite of that where people are starting to look at some of the things that are easier to defend, like nutritional programs where you just give people the food. You know, there's a lot of costs in doing that. And so sometimes just giving the money directly to people is more effective than trying to run a a large logistical program to move and deliver food, for example, on the nutritional side.

speaker-1: Ja, ich denke, besonders wenn um die Verletzung Ich denke, vielleicht können ein bisschen was Giftar.it dort Also, wenn ein Ersatzkrieg geschehen oder ein Tsunami oder so etwas. Und natürlich ist viel Hilfe nötig und viele Organisationen und Staaten hoffentlich in Rutsch sind, um Menschen oder so. Aber auch dort könnte eine der besseren Antworten Können Sie mehr dazu

speaker-0: Yeah, and this is a place where actually cash is more accepted and being done more often than in the development sector. ⁓ a lot of it is through vouchers, for example. But there's a lot of opportunity there. If you look at the last 20 years, maybe about a billion people have been brought out of extreme poverty. But that's not a clean line of just, you know, every day the same people move out. People move in and out of poverty all the time, depending on their circumstances. And one of the things that pulls people back into poverty is these shocks, right? And so natural disaster disasters and and climate shocks are going to become more common ⁓ with climate change. And so there's a real need to be able to provide assistance to people when one of these sort of ⁓ intense shocks happens, because otherwise you have all these people who had maybe had just escaped poverty and now they're being pulled back down. And so there's a lot of There's a lot of need there, and we see a real opportunity for for cash to play a role. Yeah.

speaker-1: Wenn ich eine 50 Euro mit was sind die konkreten Schritte, bis das in die Hände der Menschen in Poverty Wie viel diesen 50 Euro, oder 100 Euro, um es noch einfacher zu kümmern, wie viel von diesen 100 Euro endet in die Hände der Menschen in Poverty?

speaker-0: So today, about 85 cents of every euro that's donated will end up in the hands of a recipient. And that looks at all costs. So that looks at transfer fees, that looks at call center, enrollment staff. ⁓ it looks at paying for the salary of sort of the global team and legal and compliance, all these things, 85 cents of every euro will get into the hands of recipients. And that's really important to us to have this transparency. We call this efficiency. It's little bit different than overhead, which most organizations benchmark against, but this way you know exactly how much of your money is going into the hands of recipients.

speaker-1: Ja, und du hast erwähnt, aber ich möchte, dass die Leute es Das bedeutet nicht, eine Überwachung von 15 % Ich könnte auch ganze Rente über Überwachung und man sollte nicht sogar sehen. Aber wenn man über Überwachung oder Valtungskosten es in Deutschland dann das andere Sache. Wenn ein typischer NGO sagt, dass 85 % in die Programme dann von diesen 85%, das ist ein average Nr., Viel Geld geht an die Kosten Auch für Menschen in Deutschland oder in USA. Nicht nur für außenstehenden Wenn die Überdrehung 15 % bedeutet das, 85 % wirklich in die Hände des Bezügeherkommens Aber gibt noch andere Dinge, Also die 85 % eigentlich ziemlich beeindruckend.

speaker-0: Yeah. I mean, our overhead is still really quite good when you compare it. It's around twelve percent in costs. But I think what you're what you're talking about is just how manipulable the the overhead number is. And and one example of that is imagine you give to a large organization and they subgrant it to another organization that then subgrants it to a local implementer. Each of those organizations can claim, let's say 90%. ⁓ that they have 10% overhead costs. And then they take, you know, that $90 that you gave. And then they do it again, right? And they can claim their 10%. And so they can sort of take the costs off at each level. And you as a donor, you would just see which ⁓ percentage went into programming, not which percent actually ended up ⁓ helping the person on the other end.

speaker-1: Ja, definitiv. Du hast ein Beispiel gegeben, viel die Person in Neuheit hast verschiedene Programme, oder? Oder experimentierst mit unterschiedlichen Programmen, wie es die Leute monatlich oder einmal Jahr wie Lumpen-Summe gibt? Kannst du ein bisschen darüber reden, für Programme du runnst? sind deine Findungen? Was funktioniert best? Oder ist das, wenn die Situation gibt, Länder? Oder wie entscheidest du

speaker-0: Yeah, so the the context matters a lot. And this is one of the reasons that we run studies in different countries, because each country is really quite different in the sort of economics of that country, the sort of broader landscape of of challenges that people are facing. ⁓ and so we want to test and see what's the most effective version of cash. And this depends a little bit on what you're trying to do. We mentioned the mortality study that came out earlier. And so now we're running a program specifically for mothers. So trying to target mothers because that study where you saw that huge drop of mortality data, that was just a a study where we gave everyone cash. And so we could become quite a bit more effective if we were really targeting people. You also could do targeting around agricultural seasons, for example. There's different ways of thinking about how you can stretch the dollar to make it more impactful. And so those are all sort of things that we're considering. You also mentioned ⁓ like flow payments, as they'd be called, like a universal basic income, a UBI. And we have a 12-year study that's ongoing right now in Kenya where we're testing that. There's sort of a a few groups. So ⁓ it's a randomized control trial. There's one control group that's not getting paid anything, and then there's other another group that's getting ⁓ monthly payments for two years. There's a a third group that's getting the equivalent amount at once as a large payment to the two year. And then there's one group that's getting 12 months, twelve, sorry, 12 years of monthly payments. And so we'll compare sort of what are the impacts and costs of all these groups at the end.

speaker-1: Wie lange wirst Wann zwölf vorbei?

speaker-0: I think 12 years is 2030 is when it ends. I think it was 2018 that the program ⁓ started. And so we're getting close. We have some results from two years, ⁓ which have been published. It's independent researchers who are doing it. And it's really interesting because ⁓ across all of them, you're not seeing increase in temptation goods, like I mentioned. But the other thing that people ask is, does it decrease work? Are people working less? And the answer would be no. Like in all groups, they're not they're not working less. What was really interesting is that the group that got the large transfers is actually doing ⁓ better on some things like consumption than the ones that were getting the ⁓ investment of assets than the ones that are getting the ⁓ monthly payments. Yeah. ⁓ both are beneficial, but the at two years, the large payment is generally more effective, except for if you care about like nutritional consumption. Or if you care about like mental health, those were a little bit higher in the monthly group.

speaker-1: Warum denkst das? Weil wenn du Lumpsump eher in ein Kind von Geschäftsaktivität Oder was ist der Grund dafür?

speaker-0: Yeah. I mean, I think on the nutritional consumption side, you can imagine how getting like a s a small amount each month, you're spending that sort of as as part of your nutritional ⁓ spending. And then on the mental health side, you can imagine how like having the guarantee that you're getting money every month is like going to reduce the burden of sort of the cognitive load of of being in poverty. But what it doesn't allow you to do is make these large investments, like you meant. Like if you want to start a business, that might cost. $500, $600. And if you're getting $50 a month, it's going to take a long time to save up. During that time, you'll have some shocks. And so the larger amounts allow you to invest in larger purchases. And so this is one of the things that is very unique about gift directly is we're giving out about $500, $550 US dollars per person. And so for a family, that's almost equivalent to an entire year's. of earnings. So it's a really significant amount of money which allows them to really invest in things that they prioritize.

speaker-1: Ich finde es interessant, dass ihr die größte UBI-Universität-Basic Income Test in der Geschichte 12 Jahre ist das längste, das je stattgefunden Ich ist viel mehr relevant, so einen langen Zeitreisen Ich für in der UBI interessiert, unabhängig von Gift Direct. Ich denke, das ist eine der Reasons, warum die Leute auf Gift Direct Aber wenn in rischen Ländern ein Experiment es meistens ein oder zwei Jahre. Und fragte wie man etwas darüber wenn man mir 10.000 Euro oder was auch dann es in einem Jahr etwa 12.000 Also ja, es natürlich schön, aber ich weiß, ich arbeiten Es ist nicht die Möglichkeit, für die nächsten zehn Jahre weil ich das Geld Es hilft nicht wirklich. für die Entscheidung, ob wir implementieren oder 12 Jahre sind viel mehr sinnvoller. Ich gespannt, was Entscheidungen werden.

speaker-0: It'll be really interesting to see with that group that's getting the the payments for twelve years at what point they surpass the group that got the two year lump sum amount. Because at some point you would expect that actually they're doing

speaker-1: Wenn ich nach 3 4 Jahren hab, dann sag ich, ich kann mich an anstecken und wer weiß, was in den nächsten Jahren Ich ein bisschen optimistisch, aber wir sehen, was das Menschen Dann kommen zu einer kritischen Frage. V.a. Effectiv Spenden begonnen, um Geld für die Karte zu Weil es von Giffwell Giffwell ist ein Charity-Researcher, den wir noch mitarbeiten. Giff Directly war eine der Top-Charities für ein Zeitpunkt. Und jetzt ist nicht mehr Was ist

speaker-0: So, GiveWell, as you mentioned, is this great ⁓ charity rater. They do an incredible amount of research. They're sort of like ⁓ putting together some of the most evidence and and best recommendations of of where you should spend for global ⁓ health and sort of development. That's their area of focus. And so for many years, ⁓ we were on the lists of recommended charities, and we were ⁓ what they're calling sort of the ⁓ like the bar or the line of which you have to beat to be on the list, essentially. If you are better than cash, then you can be on the lists per how they determine that rating.

speaker-1: Sie wollen, dass sich die Warren Buffets Die Cash ist eine sehr gute Baseline. Wenn Sie noch besser dann Aber wenn Sie unter der dann Sie Denn dann wir nur zu Cash. Es skalibel und wir wissen, dass es funktioniert.

speaker-0: And I I think this is a question that many people should ask, which is if your program is not better than cash, improve your program or just do cash. I think those are those are your two options. ⁓ and so yes, when this change was made, essentially what they did is they raised they raised the bar ⁓ to say we now only want to recommend organizations that are, you know, X times better better than cash. ⁓ they did not decrease the rating of Give Directly or their evaluation of Give Directly. They just sort of said that this is how we're we're calculating the list now. ⁓ and so I think like that's sort of their their decision to make where they draw that line and what multiple is important to them. I think all the charities on the list should be funded and we should try to fully fund these. But one of the challenges ⁓ for me when I look at it is ⁓ how can you ⁓ think about trying to scale to those 800 million people in extreme poverty? And the list of interventions on the list. Are incredibly helpful and impactful, and we should definitely do them, but they will not be able to reach all 800 million people. And one of the really unique things about cash is the scalability. And so what I said at beginning is how do we try to transform more of the sector to be focused on highly evidenced inter interventions? And how do we try to scale cash and get more adoption of cash? Because I think the opportunity in cash is less about, you know. What's the very, very best? Like we know cash works very well for many different outcomes. How can we try to get the best outcomes for as many people as possible? And that will be a mix of interventions. It won't just be one intervention or three interventions. There's it's a lot of work from a lot of different partners and governments and organizations to get there.

speaker-1: Ja, wir haben uns die Gifte Und ich möchte die Baseline-Argumenten du gesagt hast, dass jede andere Charite und jeder Euro oder von den Regierungen an der Entwicklung gehandelt sich vertreten, warum es besser als Geld. Also, ich denke, ist wertvoll, Aber mehr wichtig ist, Giffell hat auch Giff Directiv-Themen und sie haben letztendlich Können Sie ein bisschen darüber

speaker-0: Yeah, so they re-evaluated Give Directly with some research on spillover effects, essentially that ⁓ let's say you get a transfer and I don't, that there's an economic benefit that I receive. And so that was about 2.5 ⁓ times for the community. And so they they improved this in the model, and this greatly improved ⁓ how they looked at at the effectiveness of Give Directly, which we were very excited about. I think the previous model actually had ⁓ a negative spillover slightly. And so we were very excited about this recognition of the the research that was being done and just the impactfulness of cash. I mean, all the previous cash that has been done, it's you know, having this higher level of effectiveness. So we were we were really excited to see them do the reevaluation and people were were excited about that. I think the other thing people can think about with going back to the ETF idea is I would ask people also ⁓ who gets to make the decision. Of where the funding goes. And there I think is a a place for ⁓ experts to decide, but I also think there's a place for individuals to decide. And so, like what percentage of your giving is the person all the way at the other end having the the autonomy and agency to decide. And at least I personally believe that it should be some percent. You can decide if that's, you know, 50%, 75%, 100%, 10%. But generally I think. As you think about your investments, you know, I I wouldn't say like you should be giving a hundred percent to give directly, you should give hundred percent to the number one charity on ⁓ you know, give well, but you should think about what's the right mix for you.

speaker-1: Ich denke, DiffDirect ist eine der wenigsten organisativen Organisationen, die Ein Kritik von der der Aide ist, dass manche riche in Europa den USA entscheiden, wie man ihnen Rheine und und ihnen was sie tun was essen oder trinken oder was immer. Die hilft noch. Aber wir wissen besser, was man braucht, was will und was dir glücklich Ich sehe definitiv. Ich sehe auch den Spillover-Effekt. Wenn ich mehr Geld es positiven Effekt auf meine lokale Wirtschaft. Ich kaufe mehr und gebe anderen Jobs und erhöhe Wirtschaft. Ich dass GIF-Welt noch so andere Charite noch effektiver Aber die Unterschied ist wieder kleiner. Auch bei GIF-Welt die Unterschied nicht groß wie es vorher war. Und ich finde interessant, dass jedes Jahr, wenn GIF-Welt-Staff etwas in ihrem Blog wo sie ihr Geld giften, wo sie donierten. Und Ali Hasenfeld, einer der Founder und der current CEO von GIF-Welt, denkt, dass immer GIFs Ich auch eine starke Anweisung man mit einiges Geld anbieten und sie nicht nur sagen, was sie tun sollten. Ich wollte schämen, aber vielleicht können wir es jetzt mit dem ... nicht mit den Leuten was zu tun Es viele tolle Beispiele, ich möchte alle Aber eine, ich wirklich liebte, die Leute, die Geld verwendeten, die nie erwartet und no one would ever sagen, in diesem Fall eine 70 oder 72 Jahre alte Frau Geld von Gift direkt und einen riesigen Wassertank

speaker-0: Yeah, I think I I think I shared this one on Link LinkedIn. It was ⁓ I was scrolling through some stories internally and I saw this woman, Katsu, and she was seventy two and she was living in Kenya in this drought stricken region and she bought this like ten thousand liter water tank and you see it in the photo and it's like it's yeah, enormous. Yeah.

speaker-1: Das ist einfach verrückt. Es sieht aus wie ein AI-Generation, aber es nicht.

speaker-0: And she's not drinking all of this water. I mean, people do buy these water tanks for their house and they collect rainwater. ⁓ but what she does is she sells the water to her neighbors because previously people had to walk like I think 30 or 45 minutes ⁓ each way to get collect water. That water was dirty, then you can get, you know, sick from drinking the water, etc. And so she pays ⁓ once or twice a month for like a truck to come out and it fills the tank, and then she sells the water. So at 72, she has a business. ⁓ are like no charities in the world that I have heard of that are giving 10,000 liter water tanks to women in rural Kenya who are, you know, ⁓ over the age of 70. And so I think like that's a great example. But there's many, many fun examples as well of people just being really clever and coming up with really smart uses of the money. Thinking about ⁓ you know, we've had a few bands that have started, people who have started bands with the Give Directly Money, and they go around and Music. Yeah, they've they've they've bought instruments and ⁓ they'll go around and they'll play like weddings and different events and things and celebrations. There's a few ⁓ song sometimes we get songs from them that they'll record and send in, which is fun. ⁓ another good example of like a story that I think about that surprised me was ⁓ I think in Malawi there's a specific ⁓ test you take in school, and depending how you do on that test, it sort of determined it determinates. Determines, determinates. There's a word here, you know, in English. It's my first language, so

speaker-1: Determine.

speaker-0: That determines ⁓ what you go to next and how much funding you you will get from ⁓ sort of the government and which type of school you can go to. So it's a very important test. It happens around like thirteen, fourteen years of age. And so what they did is they organized ⁓ like six or seven parents organized together and they pooled a few ⁓ dollars each week and they paid for a teacher to come to this rural village on the weekend and do test prep for this test because they realized this is such A pivotal point for people in their education. I mean, trying to set up a program to go to some one rural village once a week, and you know, what was the cost like five dollars per week for this program? You know, the amount of cost it would take to administer that program, as you mentioned. Yeah. People sort of create their own solutions and and are are self-administering, which is really impressive to see. So there's a bunch of these stories that are are really fun, and you can see the imagination that people have when they have the resources.

speaker-1: Ja, in einer fühlt sich an, als ob man die Forschung in neuen Entwicklungsprogrammen. Man gibt den Leuten Geld und dann kommen mit Lösungen. Vielleicht wird jemand sie aufpicken und ausrollen auspusten. Oder vielleicht passiert einfach natürlich. Man spürt die Welt über die Möglichkeit, weitere Lehrer zu bieten oder mehr Gigantische Wasserbremsen oder Instrumente oder so weiter. Das ist auch interessant, würde sagen. Eine unverfassungsvolle die in den letzten zwei Jahren ist, dass Geld, die die Regierungen an die Entwicklung steigen, schärflich zwingend zwingend Europa und Deutschland zwingend, und wird zwingend, in den UK und in Frankreich, aber in den USA, Sieht in diesem Fall Letztes Jahr, als Elon Musk kurz vor dem Verlust des Bundesverfassungsbeamten sein erstes Ziel die Erwerbung von AID. Und ich zuerst bisschen gespannt, aber ich es Möglichkeiten, es effizienter Vielleicht wird er Kurs als Basis und alle dafür beitragen, ihre Programme um noch besser Aber das war nicht sein Ansatz. All over the place and also some parts of GiveDirectly, where we worked with the government, were cut. So what was that like and how did you respond to that?

speaker-0: Yeah. So we did have a number of programs that were previously funded by USAID and that were cut. And so for us, ⁓ you know, the first thing we thought about were recipients because there were people in these programs who we enrolled who we had committed to that we would send them money and the money was no longer there. And so we opened up a campaign and some private philanthropy and we existing funding that we had, we were able to deliver on all those commitments. That's one of the really important things to us. Our first value is recipients first. So when we think about how we do things at Give Directly, we always talk about recipients first. And ⁓ we when we make a commitment to someone, it's very important to us that we that we hold stay true on that and that we make that payment. So we were able to do that on those programs. ⁓ but obviously the landscape has changed greatly. As you mentioned, like across the entire globe, we're seeing cuts in budgets. And I think ⁓ we're seeing less scrutiny of where the remaining funds are going. As I mentioned earlier, I think it might be an opportunity to ask how can we make each euro go further? But that's not really the conversation that that we're seeing. And I think that's a little disheartening, to be honest.

speaker-1: Ja, definitiv. Ich hatte ziemlich viel Hoffnung. Ich war nicht so begeistert von der neuen Administration in den USA. Aber dachte, das könnte eine der Bereiche in ich begeistert bin. Aber es ging eine andere Richtung als ich es gehofft habe. Wir hoffen, dass wieder verändert wird. Wir haben so weit Du arbeitest in sehr zahlreichen Ländern, du arbeitest in sehr zahlreichen du All das das durch Effektivspenden ist für afrikanische und extrem schwere Länder Aber Sie tun in den USA um relativ schwere Menschen Warum macht ihr Was macht ihr Welche anderen Zahlsäle verbreiten sich von Ihrem Arbeit in der Entwicklung Länder?

speaker-0: Yeah, so we do work in the United States. We've done disaster work there for a number of years and a number of ⁓ poverty programs as well. I mean, the United States has less of like a social net or social system than Europe, for example. And there's a lot of people who are living not in extreme poverty, but relatively ⁓ quite quite strong and intense levels of of poverty in the United States. And so being able to help these people, there's sort of different funding buckets, I think you could say. And actually we think that by working in the United States, we're increasing the profile of Give Directly and we're increasing the amount of dollars we can deliver in extreme poverty context, both through awareness, like people who are aware of Give Directly and accept cash as an intervention. I think like there's both that portion of it and also just that, you know, the team is also funding like a large part of part of the broad organization of Give Directly as well. It's almost subsidizing to some degree. ⁓ the Africa work. And so we we don't find them in tension at all. They're actually working together quite well. And I think, you know, there's other orgs like this as well. If you look at the Red Cross, for example, you know, there's Red Cross operating in in multiple countries. And so there hasn't been too much donor confusion. I think, you know, you still can can allocate the money to where you want it to go on the website. And the default is Africa. So you have to be quite explicit that you would like to give to the US.

speaker-1: Ja, ich wollte sagen, dass Sie mich entfalten.

speaker-0: It's a question people have and I think is totally fair because many organizations you do just donate into a black hole and you don't know what program or what fund it goes to. If you give fund, give directly, you know, we'll send you an email and tell you exactly where your money went. You know, your money went to this village on this day. And these are the people in that village that were paid. So, you know, that's a a level of transparency that I think donors deserve and that that we we would like to provide.

speaker-1: Ja, und wie ich erwähnte, die Geld, die durch effektive Spenden Wir sagen den Organisationen, die wir finanzieren, was mit der Geldesituation eurem sagen dass wir es in extremen, zahlreiche Aber da gehen wir in weiteres Detail und lassen Sie, die Experten, entscheiden, wo es am meisten nötig Ich habe die Erinnerung, dass Geflakrate auch eine Textsavierung Auch wenn es ⁓ Fundraising man AI verwendet, ⁓ Experten aber auch, wenn es Geldverstöße Am Anfang Sie Satelliten im Bild zu ⁓ extrem schwere Bereiche Ich denke, haben jetzt neuen Modell. Können Sie uns bisschen mehr über die Technologie und geben dir Geld an die Menschen.

speaker-0: Yeah, in disaster context, we're doing a a number of programs ⁓ after like a natural disaster. We're responding right now in Madagascar, for example. ⁓ we'll use satellite data to look at like damage levels and try to overlay that with with poverty data to try to understand who are the who are the poorest people who are also most impacted by the disaster, and we'll try to work there. ⁓ so for example, we we do use it in that case. ⁓ for our ⁓ like our poverty relief programs, we usually work with like government data to look at the poorest areas. And then we try to do a saturation model where everyone's getting paid within a village or within a region. ⁓ and this is just like the most efficient and fastest way. All people in that area for the most part are are really poor. And so it's not worth going through all the effort of trying to ⁓ administer like a proxy means test, like a very long quiz, essentially. And you also have. you know, exclusion errors where maybe you actually did deserve the money and you didn't get it. We know today as well that a lot of the benefit is from spillovers. So even like, you know, if I don't pay the neighbor, the neighbor will benefit anyway. And so ⁓ it's just a lot easier in ⁓ in many contexts.

speaker-1: Es keinen Risiko, dass zu einem rechten Menschen Auch wenn man etwas über die Poverty-Linie und man auf vier Dollar Tag es noch helfen.

speaker-0: To be clear, the extreme poverty line is like your most basic needs. Living above the extreme poverty line is still a very terrible and difficult life. Yeah. And I think this is another thing that we sort of have to grapple with, which is yes, there's 830 million people in extreme poverty. But like at some point, the work will not be done when those people are all above. We'll have like, you know, move to another set of challenges. ⁓ and so to your point, yeah, someone who's living on three or four dollars, it's not. like a cushy lifestyle. It's not a comfortable lifestyle by any means. It's it's still quite demand.

speaker-1: Wenn wir über die extreme Poverty-Line dann es auch wichtig, dass über die Purcht von steigenden Preisen Das ist bereits in den Fällen, dass vieles in wöchentlichen 3 Dollar bedeutet 3 Dollar Wert von Preisen. die US-Kredite, also. Und versuche, mit drei Dollar und alles verhindern, von Rechnung, Medizin, Futter, und wirst bald ich denke. Das ist wirklich extrem, extrem schrecklich. Und wenn du etwas über dem hast du für Verbesserungen, mit Beziehungen zu basic needs. Eine Sache, Du gerade über die Dyracash-Transfer dass sie so skalabel Außer Kriegszonen oder extrem-authoren Regime wie Nordkorea. könnte wahrscheinlich meisten Menschen in extremer Poverty nur durch Cash. Du hast es extremer Poverty weil es eine Lackung von Cash Wenn wir wirklich auf diesem Planeten Wie viel Geld brauchen Ich will unsere Donoren zu weit aber das gibt uns ein ambitiöses Ziel.

speaker-0: Yeah, I mean I think I think it is possible. The recent estimate is to bring it to one percent the poverty level, it would be three hundred and eighteen billion per year, which sounds like a big price tag.

speaker-1: Das klingt, als ob wachsen müssen, aber ja.

speaker-0: Yeah. But comparatively it it's ⁓ you know, I think ⁓ what is it, point three percent of ⁓ GDP globally to do that.

speaker-1: Ja, das klingt wie viel, wie du gesagt hast, aber 0,03 % der GDP, der grossdomastischen Produkt, sieht sehr klein Was ist die weltweit der etwa 2 %? Das bedeutet, dass wir die Wirtschaft auf drei Monate Wir leben wie wir in Oktober das war nicht so schlecht, ehrlich gesagt. Das bedeuten, aus extremer Poverty

speaker-0: Yeah, if you if you think of a family that's making, you know, forty five thousand Euros per year, the cost to that family would be, you know, a hundred and thirty five Euros. So not an amount that seems

speaker-1: Ich Netflix-Subscription, ich denke.

speaker-0: Everyone go go out and cancel go cancel your Netflix subscription. That's

speaker-1: Ja, oder was auch du Ich habe weniger Geld Ich wollte noch ein Bier aber wir sind Deutschland und fokussieren Netflix. Das wäre eine schöne Geschichte, als ein der extreme Poverty-Endung Aber es klingt auch ziemlich abstrakt. Ich gemacht, sagen, dass es ist, Herz und die der Menschen bewerben. Vielleicht enden mit einer anderen Geschichte aus Feld. Was noch? Wolltest mir noch Wolltest du schon mal in der GIF-Direction

speaker-0: Yeah, I've visited ⁓ a few countries of our operations and and worked with the field teams to sort of see their work and and spoken with recipients. And it's every time a really humbling experience and and also energizing for for the work that we do and the impact that you can have. I think, you know, it's easy to think that nothing matters because the world is so big and so complicated and there's so many terrible things happening that, you know, what is it? My place to do something. But the reality is that very far away, there are people who are relatively, you know, relatively, they're so incredibly disconnected from the global economy and system. And they're living in, you know, the most extreme poverty. And the fact that you, as an individual, can change their life with a relatively small amount of money for you, I think it's just a really exciting opportunity. You know, many times you would. you know, give your money and you might not know exactly what happens with it. But in this case, you can you can know that your money is going to end up on the other end that someone will take that money. And you know, when I when I speak with recipients, sometimes I ask them like, ⁓ is there anything you wish ⁓ donors knew or that you could tell donors? And I think overall people are just so thankful and they say, you know, at first I didn't believe that someone who had never met me would trust me. But it meant so much more to know that that's the intention when they gave the money. And I think that's really just humbling because it is a sort of leap of trust. You have to trust in the other person on the other end. And there's this sort of ⁓ in this world where so many things feel like broken, sort of like a beautiful opportunity to be able to, you know, empower someone and give them the choice of changing a life. And you might not, you know, directly know what that is, but. For these people, it's incredibly transformative and I think just a really exciting opportunity. And so if enough people buy into that in our lifetime, it's totally possible that we can end extreme poverty. And I think that would be something that globally we all can be very proud of.

speaker-1: Ja, ja, also, let's do it. And if you want to read more about those stories, you also can go to live.giftdirectly.org, where you have like probably thousands stories by now, where people pretty unfiltered tell like what they did with the money. And I mean unfiltered. sometimes I looked at it, it looks a little bit rough or so, but that makes it totally more authentic. So there's a lot of editing going on from the side of GIFT directly. So you get like a Wir haben Bildung dem, passiert und wie man die Lebensweise der vielen Menschen auch, ich meine, ja, manchmal, besonders in letzten paar Jahren, glaube sich überwärmt Es ist so viel Scheiß im Weltall so weiter man kann sich hilflos und was kann ich tun? Aber man kann viel Gutes ja, bitte, bitte tun. Ihr könnt es an giftdirectly.org Wenn Deutschland, Südseln oder Österreich können es auch durch effektive Spenden machen. Wir sind verhörbar, wir senden das Geld direkt an Sie. Sie können auch uns Harris, um uns direkt wenn Sie mehr Vielen Dank, Harris, dass Sie diese Zeit verwendet und meine Fragen

speaker-0: Thanks for having me. This was a lot of fun.