Thanks for stopping by. I understand that the stolen fund is a small portion of GiveDirectly’sfunding, but it is definitely not small to the people in extreme poverty living in war-torn zones that were denied. They could have used the fund to solve pressing problems, perhaps, save lives in emergency situations if they had received their funds as and when due. This is not about the multi-million dollar brand GiveDirectly has become, it is about the intentions of donors when they donated.
To your second point, let me state unequivocally that it is the responsibility of GiveDirectly to see to it that its system is 100% fail-proof. There is absolutely no excuse for losing 1 cent to fraud. We never thought it could happen when $900,000 got swept away. We don’t know what amount will be lost in the future if nothing tangible is done. I think it is foolhardy to wait until when your loss exceeds the costs to prevent fraud before you act. What will happen if the fraud happens on a scale that makes recovery impossible? No matter the cost now is the time to safeguard the resources of donors who entrusted it with their hard-earned funds.
100% fraud-proof systems do not exist. The most powerful organizations in the world—major world governments—can’t pull that off. Neither can the world’s largest financial institutions. I don’t understand why we should expect GiveDirectly to do what even these organizations can’t do.
If we put too much pressure on non-profits like GiveDirectly to reduce fraud to an absolute minimum, two bad things are going to happen:
First, they are going to stop working in riskier places like Eastern D.R.C. where conditions make their systems more suspectible to fraud; and
Second, they are going to spend a lot more money on fraud prevention and detection. They have a fixed amount of money, so the only way they can do that is take money that they would have otherwise given to poor families and use it on security measures instead.
I can’t speak for all of GiveDirectly’s donors, but I don’t want them to (say) spend $2,000 on fraud prevention to prevent $1,000 of fraud.
I understand your concerns about the challenges of achieving a 100% fraud-proof system, especially when even major world governments and financial institutions face similar difficulties. However, it is important to consider the specific context of GiveDirectly and the impact of fraud on its mission to alleviate poverty.
While striving for absolute minimum fraud may pose challenges, it is essential to emphasize the potential consequences of not taking substantial action to prevent fraud. The stolen funds, although a small portion of GiveDirectly’s overall funding, have significant implications for individuals living in extreme poverty who were denied assistance in war-torn zones. These funds could have been life-saving in emergency situations and addressed urgent needs. It is crucial to keep the intentions of the donors in mind and ensure the effective utilization of their funds for the intended recipients.
Regarding the expectation for GiveDirectly to achieve what major organizations struggle with, it is important to note that smaller-scale interventions and focused approaches can often yield positive results. While the challenges may seem daunting, it is not unreasonable to expect GiveDirectly to prioritize fraud prevention and continuously improve its systems to minimize losses. The approaches highlighted in my essay should not require a significant amount of financial resources for an organization that receives funds in the range of $15-25 million per month, as mentioned by MichaelStJules. It is crucial to prioritize and allocate resources effectively to safeguard the entrusted funds and assist those in distress.
Moreover, the argument that putting pressure on non-profits like GiveDirectly to reduce fraud could lead to negative outcomes overlooks the potential benefits of investing in fraud prevention measures. By implementing robust fraud prevention and detection mechanisms, GiveDirectly can continue working in riskier areas like Eastern D.R.C. and make a significant impact on the lives of those in need. While additional financial resources may be required, considering GiveDirectly’s monthly funding according to MichaelStJules, it should not be a significant burden. It is important to weigh the long-term benefits against the potential short-term costs.
Thanks for stopping by. I understand that the stolen fund is a small portion of GiveDirectly’sfunding, but it is definitely not small to the people in extreme poverty living in war-torn zones that were denied. They could have used the fund to solve pressing problems, perhaps, save lives in emergency situations if they had received their funds as and when due. This is not about the multi-million dollar brand GiveDirectly has become, it is about the intentions of donors when they donated.
To your second point, let me state unequivocally that it is the responsibility of GiveDirectly to see to it that its system is 100% fail-proof. There is absolutely no excuse for losing 1 cent to fraud. We never thought it could happen when $900,000 got swept away. We don’t know what amount will be lost in the future if nothing tangible is done. I think it is foolhardy to wait until when your loss exceeds the costs to prevent fraud before you act. What will happen if the fraud happens on a scale that makes recovery impossible? No matter the cost now is the time to safeguard the resources of donors who entrusted it with their hard-earned funds.
100% fraud-proof systems do not exist. The most powerful organizations in the world—major world governments—can’t pull that off. Neither can the world’s largest financial institutions. I don’t understand why we should expect GiveDirectly to do what even these organizations can’t do.
If we put too much pressure on non-profits like GiveDirectly to reduce fraud to an absolute minimum, two bad things are going to happen:
First, they are going to stop working in riskier places like Eastern D.R.C. where conditions make their systems more suspectible to fraud; and
Second, they are going to spend a lot more money on fraud prevention and detection. They have a fixed amount of money, so the only way they can do that is take money that they would have otherwise given to poor families and use it on security measures instead.
I can’t speak for all of GiveDirectly’s donors, but I don’t want them to (say) spend $2,000 on fraud prevention to prevent $1,000 of fraud.
I understand your concerns about the challenges of achieving a 100% fraud-proof system, especially when even major world governments and financial institutions face similar difficulties. However, it is important to consider the specific context of GiveDirectly and the impact of fraud on its mission to alleviate poverty.
While striving for absolute minimum fraud may pose challenges, it is essential to emphasize the potential consequences of not taking substantial action to prevent fraud. The stolen funds, although a small portion of GiveDirectly’s overall funding, have significant implications for individuals living in extreme poverty who were denied assistance in war-torn zones. These funds could have been life-saving in emergency situations and addressed urgent needs. It is crucial to keep the intentions of the donors in mind and ensure the effective utilization of their funds for the intended recipients.
Regarding the expectation for GiveDirectly to achieve what major organizations struggle with, it is important to note that smaller-scale interventions and focused approaches can often yield positive results. While the challenges may seem daunting, it is not unreasonable to expect GiveDirectly to prioritize fraud prevention and continuously improve its systems to minimize losses. The approaches highlighted in my essay should not require a significant amount of financial resources for an organization that receives funds in the range of $15-25 million per month, as mentioned by MichaelStJules. It is crucial to prioritize and allocate resources effectively to safeguard the entrusted funds and assist those in distress.
Moreover, the argument that putting pressure on non-profits like GiveDirectly to reduce fraud could lead to negative outcomes overlooks the potential benefits of investing in fraud prevention measures. By implementing robust fraud prevention and detection mechanisms, GiveDirectly can continue working in riskier areas like Eastern D.R.C. and make a significant impact on the lives of those in need. While additional financial resources may be required, considering GiveDirectly’s monthly funding according to MichaelStJules, it should not be a significant burden. It is important to weigh the long-term benefits against the potential short-term costs.