Thank you for the clarification.
If funding for different GiveDirectly projects are sufficiently separate, your donation would pretty much just increase the budgets of the programmes you wish to support, perhaps especially if you give via GiveWell.
Confused about this one as I have not donated directly to GiveDirectly—I thought that if I were to donate $100 for standard cash transfer, some % of that goes directly to recipients. They state 89% for specific African countries. I would hope there would be some comparable % for standard cash transfers to US recipients.
If I were considering giving to GiveDirectly, I would want to look into this a bit more.
What questions come to mind for you? Some that I think of...
What is the criteria for someone to receive this benefit? What does that vetting process look like?
What would coverage look like?
How do they ensure that the funds will actually benefit the recipients and where do they draw those margins?
I would guess that the decision of which GiveDirectly programme to support† is dominated by the principle you noted, of
the dollar going further overseas.
Maybe GiveDirectly will, in this case, be able to serve people in the US who are in comparable need to people in extreme poverty. That seems unlikely to me, but it seems like the main thing to figure out. I think your ‘criteria’ question is most relevant to checking this.
† Of course, I think the most important decision tends to be deciding which problem you aim to help solve, which would precede the question of whether and which cash transfers to fund.