Elie Hassenfeld: [00:00:00] Hey everyone, I'm Elie Hassenfeld, GiveWell's co-founder and CEO. Today we're gonna talk about GiveWell's work on livelihoods. Livelihoods programs are ones that aim to help people have more money so they can buy more of the things they want that help them, help their family.
And GiveWell, historically, has focused primarily on health programs. That's where we've directed the vast majority of our funds. But it's always been a big question for us, how we should think about weighing the benefits that come from health programs, which can improve health, reduce sickness, even avert the deaths of often very young children, versus programs that allow people to earn more money and buy more of the things that they want.

So when we're trying to do this, we aim to find a way to compare the good that's accomplished in a health program, so say, saving the life of a young child, versus the good that's accomplished by enabling someone to [00:01:00] have more income that they can use to purchase things. And we call those moral weights.

These moral weights are our mechanism for comparing between these different kinds of goods. And this is something that GiveWell's done, not quite since our beginning, but for a very long time. And I think it's important to know that these moral weights are integrated into all of the cost-effectiveness analysis that we do to try and estimate the impact a program has.

But they're very much not true in an objective sense. You know, they're based on a lot of pretty challenging judgment calls that we have to make. We base them on things like academic research, some of our own judgements about what makes sense to us as staff, and then some outside perspectives. We've done some work to fund research asking the people in the places we're trying to help what they want and how they would weigh these things differently.

It's obviously the case that these weights, or this way of comparing is not true in some objective sense. And so because of that, we've long wanted to put more energy into exploring options that would [00:02:00] serve donors who might have different philosophical views about how to weigh income versus health than the GiveWell standard view. And we really haven't had the ability to do that in the past because we've had limited capacity on the research team. But with growth in the team over the last few years, with more specialization, we really now feel like we have the capacity to do this, and we're in a place where we can put some additional energy into livelihoods.

And so joining me today to talk about this is Julie Faller. Julie's a senior program officer at GiveWell, and she oversees many of our research teams that focus on specific cause areas, so that's water, nutrition, vaccines, and more. So Julie, before we dive in on livelihoods with questions, can you just share a bit about your personal background?

Julie Faller: Yeah, hey, thanks Elie. In terms of background, I'm a political scientist by training. So I have a PhD in government from Harvard and a BA in International Relations and history from Stanford. And in both those places I studied Africa as my geographic focus.

I've been at GiveWell [00:03:00] for about five years, and before that I had a variety of positions that I think can be grouped under the big heading of trying to do good, or at least trying not to do bad, while using evidence. And then I've been at GiveWell since then.

Elie Hassenfeld: Great. Thanks Julie. So I thought it would be helpful to start with just like, what concretely is GiveWell planning to do differently in order to put more energy into livelihoods? We've launched a search for a livelihoods program officer, someone who's going to focus on this specifically, but what will be different about GiveWell's focus on livelihoods in the future than was in the past?

Julie Faller: So I think that there are two sets of things. So one is related to having at least a program officer, and potentially more staff if we decide to scale up staffing there, focused on livelihoods. And so I think that this changes how we work in a few different ways.

One of them is just sort of this mechanical thing that I think we will have more people hours focused on trying to find good grant opportunities in livelihoods, and so there's just a linear relationship between the amount of time you spend [00:04:00] looking for stuff and then the stuff that you find in terms of grant opportunities to fund. But that's the straightforward thing.

I also think that having somebody focus on trying to understand the space and trying to understand the sector has a couple of maybe less straightforward benefits in terms of how it affects our grant making. So one of them is that this person will be trying to grow their network, and I think this will result in more efficient and better grant making. Just having people understand that we're looking into the area and our experience causes more implementing organizations to say, hey, I have a program that I think you might wanna fund. I also think having a network helps you test ideas out, do gut checks. Is this an area where there might be funding gaps and where GiveWell might be an appropriate funder?

And then also I think there's this sort of strategic element. You know, we ask our program officers to build strategies. What are you going to look into in your field and why? How are you gonna learn over time? How's your understanding of whether your investments are working, how's that gonna grow over time? And those kind of bigger picture questions of, how do our investments fit together? How has [00:05:00] our understanding of the space evolved? Are the kind of thing that get edged out when you don't have somebody working full-time in a particular area.

And so I think that will be how having a a person whose focus this is will change the way that we're working.

Elie Hassenfeld: And so we've sort of done this in the past. How does the level of focus in the past compare to what's to come? Like maybe it's just been a side focus where possible of some people, but it's just not getting the benefits you're describing?

Julie Faller: Yeah, so I think currently we have one program officer, one great program officer, Erin Crossett, but she splits her capacity between our water quality investments and our livelihood investments. And because water quality is a bit more mature, we thought that it made sense for most of her focus, and particularly a lot of the focus around the strategic side of things to be on water rather than livelihoods, and to have what we're doing in livelihoods be a little bit, just less of a focus for her. So I think right now, Erin estimates it's maybe even like 30% of her capacity, but I think a lot of that capacity has been on executing grant investigations instead of trying to think about like, [00:06:00] big picture, what are we doing here?

And then I did just wanna circle back at the beginning, Elie you asked, concretely, what is GiveWell doing differently? What does this look like to explore the livelihood space? And so one of the things that we're doing differently is this staffing up that we just talked about. And then the second thing is that we're going to be using a different cost-effectiveness threshold for recommendations within this portfolio.

In the intro, Elie, you were saying how GiveWell uses moral weights to say how good is it for a program to accomplish different types of outcomes, which allows us to build these quantitative models. And then, as an output of the model, we have certain cost-effectiveness estimates and we will fund programs if we think they're over a given value of cost-effectiveness.

So for this portfolio, the livelihoods portfolio, we're going to be using a cost-effectiveness threshold that's lower using our standard, GiveWell moral weights. But if you're somebody who thinks consumption is twice as valuable as GiveWell's standard moral weights imply, then you would think that the recommendations within this portfolio are roughly as cost [00:07:00] effective as most of our health recommendations.

So that's a way of taking seriously this idea that consumption might be more valuable than we think, and it's also gonna cause us to fund programs that we wouldn't otherwise be able to explore more.

Elie Hassenfeld: So then for something like this I'm curious, like how you think about the opportunity cost of this decision. Presumably, instead of putting this additional time, energy, money into livelihoods, we could put it into something else. Why do you think this is the right step to take here, given this huge world of possibilities of things that we could choose to focus on?

Julie Faller: Yeah, I think there are a couple different answers. One is that I do think it goes back to the sort of moral weights question that you brought up at the beginning. When I interact with others in the field and then my own, honestly, my own intuitions match this, I think this question of whether we're undervaluing livelihoods is one that comes up pretty consistently in terms of something that we might be getting wrong with our grant making strategy overall, and so, that to me, I don't know, a [00:08:00] lot of people are saying you might be getting this wrong, people that you respect, that I think makes the case that it's worth exploring.

Another thing is that I think it's pretty close to our area already. Like people often talk about global health and development as sort of one big bucket. And we've done some investigations thus far, and so I don't think that it's something that's beyond our team's capacities to take on. It seems like a natural extension of what we're already doing to me.

I also think we're adding a position we're hoping to hire for this. If you said, would you like to just take all of Erin, our existing program officer's, time away from water and put it on livelihoods, I probably wouldn't be excited to do that.

Elie Hassenfeld: Yeah, I think that's a good articulation of the way I see this too, it's like we know that these moral weights are this very core part of all the decision making we do. And then so many other things are built on top of it. And if you just took the weight we put on consumption and doubled it relative to health, all of a sudden the set of opportunities that we would find very promising would look quite different.[00:09:00]

And that means that if we acknowledge, which we should, that those moral weights are like not true in some objective sense, then it becomes this thing that GiveWell could easily be wrong about.

And then to your point, which I think is also really compelling, it's not just that we could be wrong, but it's also like not that challenging for us to make progress on it. Where if someone else said you know, other kind of like big picture critiques of GiveWell, GiveWell doesn't focus enough on sustainability, let's say. I mean, that would be a separate conversation, but that's like more different from the way that we work. So it would take more effort to address. And so this in some ways becomes a pretty defined concrete step we could take to explore this area where we could potentially be wrong and we could learn a lot from it.

Julie Faller: Yeah, I think that's right. And I do think that there are other kind of less important considerations, but that to me matter. For example, just thinking about the portfolio diversification benefits of doing grant making that doesn't rely on health metrics as a primary input. So for [00:10:00] example, we have certain modeled estimates of burden of disease that go into almost all of our grant making decisions on health programs. And we have a lot of uncertainty about them. They might be wrong in correlated ways. That could mean that we're off about the impact of that whole set of grant making.

I think to me, there's something that's nice about having another set of investments that's not correlated with that. But I don't know how nice that is. And so that's why for me, it's not a primary consideration.

Elie Hassenfeld: Yeah. Yeah, and I'm not sure that like, I would put, personally, a lot of weight on like diversification per se, you know, some form of reducing the risk that GiveWell's portfolio is all incorrect because of burden data.

But I do think there's a really like practical benefit of diversification, which is it gives us this opportunity to like get to know another space where I could imagine us wanting to do more grant making in or provide more support to, and just makes GiveWell like a more robust research organization for the future. So that's not a portfolio diversification [00:11:00] benefit, but maybe a like institutional diversification benefit.

Julie Faller: Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that as well. Although I do think maybe we disagree on the former points. That could be a good longer conversation.

Elie Hassenfeld: So many future conversations to have. Okay. So, we're talking kind of like at a high level about livelihoods. I thought it'd be interesting to drill down a little bit and go through like some of the kinds of programs or what programs and livelihoods seem most promising to you.

Julie Faller: So I think we don't really know. We have looked into it a bit and part of what I'm excited about for hiring this role is to have somebody who just takes a much broader view and looks into many more things.

But I do have some thoughts. So one thing that I'm really excited for us to try to get more information on is just our understanding of the types of programs that are likely to have spillover benefits to non-program participants. And so this comes from the GiveDirectly update that we made recently, which you're familiar with.

Elie Hassenfeld: Yeah, so I mean, basically for a long time, the way we thought about the impact of GiveDirectly's program is that GiveDirectly would give money directly to [00:12:00] a household. Often they'd give a thousand dollars, that would enable the household to purchase things. We then said, how valuable is it to that household to get that money? And that would be some function both of the benefit they got from purchasing things and also like some investment that had return over time.

Last year, we updated this analysis to take into account research that showed the funds that households received were also having positive benefits in the local economy as a whole. And so even non recipients of GiveDirectly funds were benefited by GiveDirectly directing money to people. And so that made the program as a whole be more beneficial to a larger number of people than we had been estimating. And so that spillover meaning those benefits that accrued to people who were not direct recipients, seems like a fairly significant benefit that the program is creating.

And then, I guess what you're saying is that using, GiveDirectly as an example of that, there may be other programs that have similar benefits that we should be taking into account.

Julie Faller: Yeah, I think there might be other [00:13:00] programs, and then I think there's a lot that we should learn about the context too.

So the thing about the spillover benefits is that theoretically, at least from a sort of Econ 101 standpoint, they could be positive or negative. Basically, what the transfers did is it's an infusion into the local economy. And the way that we're interpreting the evidence is that there was enough slack in the economy that was good, that caused people to be able to use those resources more productively.

A different thing that could happen is that could basically lead to inflation and be bad for people who didn't receive the money because prices go up and they didn't get a transfer. And so I think there's a lot that we don't know about, what does it look like for economies to have that kind of slack? What are the context where we would expect that to be good and not bad? Erin and I were talking earlier and she sent me a couple papers from public employment programs in Ethiopia or India that also find evidence of positive spillovers for non recipients.

And I think it would be really interesting and productive to think about can we bring that evidence together? Can we help fund [00:14:00] some of that evidence? And then have more of a sort of framework for where should we be targeting these interventions where we think they might get a multiplier.

Elie Hassenfeld: That makes sense. I know you can't answer this with any degree of specificity because we're saying we wanna hire someone who's going to put more time to this so we can understand things. But if you imagine what happens at GiveWell in livelihoods over the next year, what are the kinds of things we're looking into? What are the kinds of questions we're answering? What are the kinds of programs we might support or results we might find? What do you envision? What do you think?

Julie Faller: Yeah, so I think that one set of things that we could be doing is looking at interventions, that we've already identified and thinking about whether there are program tweaks that could make them look more cost effective in our model, either through layering additional interventions on top of it or through targeting it differently. So that's one set of things.

We worked with GiveDirectly to ask them to scope out some ways that GiveDirectly might be tweaked in order to help look more cost-effective by our lights. And so [00:15:00] they're gonna come back to us, hopefully this year with a set of proposals around those kind of layering or targeting interventions.

Elie Hassenfeld: So targeting would be like which people receive cash transfers and then layering is like additional programs alongside cash transfers. What are the kinds of things that you imagine they might explore?

Julie Faller: I think it will depend on the actual intervention itself. But with GiveDirectly that could look like also layering on the addition of health commodities that we think are highly cost-effective. I'm not sure exactly what that would look like in practice, and I think we're hoping that their proposal will help us figure that out.

There are other big livelihoods programs that we've looked at in the past that involve you know, working with villages to deliver agricultural inputs. You could also think if you're delivering agricultural inputs, might you bring something else along while you're doing that. Those are a couple examples.

Elie Hassenfeld: Even though livelihoods is not something we've focused on heavily, we do know some about a number of programs. And then the question is we're intentionally relaxing our numerical standard for livelihoods [00:16:00] programs, because we recognize that the numerical standard is a function of this moral weight, which itself is highly debatable. That means that some of the programs we've looked at in the past are much more likely to be things that we'd fund in this new rubric, and they could potentially be even more cost-effective with some degree of targeting and layering. So that's category one.

What are the other things that you imagine over the next year that moves the livelihoods work forward?

Julie Faller: So, there's a set of programs that are sometimes called community driven development programs that involve working with communities to figure out a way that they might want to use an asset within their community and then helping them implement that plan. We've seen program models that share broadly similar models, but where, at least the evidence that we've seen, implies really different levels of impact and cost-effectiveness, which is kind of puzzling on its face. It's like if you go to a village, you say, how do you wanna use this asset? The village decides this is a productive asset that we've decided matches our context and then you do it. Why in some places does this look much more cost effective than in [00:17:00] others? And so I think that's an area where we have questions and it seems like there might be program models that are highly cost-effective. I could see us exploring that further.

Elie Hassenfeld: And so when you say productive asset, what kind of thing are you describing?

Julie Faller: It could be agricultural inputs is one example.

Elie Hassenfeld: That's like fertilizer or seeds, or what would that be?

Julie Faller: Fertilizer, seeds, livestock, storage facilities for grains or for the foods that you're producing. There are also things like the village might decide we want to get a bicycle that we could use as an ambulance. That could be another example of an asset.

Elie Hassenfeld: Okay. So, basically there's this category of program, which is go to villages and ask some form of what kind of productive asset do you want? And then here's some examples of productive assets that we've talked through. And the evidence is mixed and confusing. And so, we haven't been able to form a very clear view of what explains the difference in how well these program work across different contexts and different kinds of assets or [00:18:00] different program models.

And so with more attention, we could get a better answer and that could hopefully like lead us to have a better sense of whether and to what extent we'd want to fund these kinds of programs. What else is on the list of things that you think we'd really wanna look into or where we're feeling the pain of not having done more work on this in the past.

Julie Faller: I mean there are a few areas where we have already funded research and we're expecting to get results from that research in the next couple years. So one example is the program Bridges to Prosperity, which helps build foot bridges to connect villages to the broader community when they're cut off because of seasonal flooding or something like that.

We helped contribute to an RCT that they were running in 2022, and we're hoping to get those results in the next month or two. We think it'll inform how good is it to be connected to one of these bridges? How much does it increase household consumption? We had questions when we looked into it about, the temporal variation in the effect as in like maybe when you first build a bridge, there's a big boost, but then it peters off as everything returns equilibrium. And then also the distance from the [00:19:00] bridge that you have to be to still benefit from it. So presumably if it's like really far away, that's less good for you than if it's moderately far away and those kind of questions.

So, that's an example of something where we funded a study in the past and we just we haven't gotten the results yet. We do want to look into them as soon as we get the results. And having more capacity would let us look at more things like that more quickly.

Another example is an RCT we funded on distribution of eyeglasses, where the idea is that people get older and they lose their near vision. They can't do work that requires near vision. So there's been some studies that have shown that giving people eyeglasses helps them increase their consumption. We felt unsure about how that evidence would generalize. We funded a study to help generate better evidence, and we will get those results, and I'd expect the program officer to look into that.

As we're talking about it I'm giving you examples from stuff that we know about, but what I'm most excited about is the stuff that we don't know about because we haven't looked into it yet.

Elie Hassenfeld: Yeah, what's your, guess about how much there is that we like, really don't know about? You know, and it's true we have put way more time and energy [00:20:00] into health historically. According to the way we've set up our moral weights and then our modeling, health has looked better to us. But, you know, we've been exploring livelihoods opportunities because they could have been ones that we wanted to recommend.

You're overseeing all these grant making teams in different program areas where over the last, roughly two years, we've done little versions of this experiment where we've said instead of having a generalist team that focuses on everything as it comes up, we have people focus on nutrition and people focus on vaccines.

And I wonder how that informs your expectation about what we might find here in the next year.

Julie Faller: I really don't know if there are that many programs that exists right now in the world that could look very cost-effective that we just have never heard of.

We have been talking to people and we have been looking, but I think the experience from the other sector pods has shown us that there's a lot of room for a funder to play a more active role [00:21:00] in helping say like, hey, this is the kind of program we would be excited to fund in a place like this.

And so I think instead of saying like finding, I would bet that more of the juice would come from helping create a market for those kind of programs.

Elie Hassenfeld: Right, it's like we see in our engagement with CHAI in the incubator, where it's not the case that CHAI is just independently creating programs that it wants to run, and when we're finding them. Instead, it's that we've been very explicit about the kinds of programs we're looking for and what we would support.

And then they're using that information and what they believe they can deliver effectively to then create programs that we think are really great. And so there's really this way in which, putting a stake down and saying, this is an area we wanna focus on. We are gonna put some energy and intention on livelihoods. Then creates the opportunity for more people to do things that we could potentially support in the future. And then I think it's important to then have the person at GiveWell who is there to [00:22:00] engage with everyone. You know, develop or tailor the programming that you know, would end up being most cost effective.

Julie Faller: Yeah I completely agree. And I think particularly because even once you say, in the abstract, these are the kinds of things we're interested in, for our funding decisions, the devil often is in the details. And so there is a lot of iteration, which means I think to have that really happen, you do need a person focused on it at GiveWell.

Elie Hassenfeld: When I think about this space and some of what we've done and some of what you've talked about, so there's this category that is looking at existing programs and then changing targeting or adding on something additional, layering. There's also funding research, and then finally there's some degree of working with organizations to develop new programs.

You could see how those three things, the tweaks to existing programs, research, and then developing new programs, it could be hard to predict where it would lead, but it could lead to something really impactful. But the only way to get there is to invest time and energy and money. It's not just going to [00:23:00] happen without our doing that.

Julie Faller: And I also think that those different threads could all inform each other, right? So you might learn something through layering that really changes how you approach trying to get groups to build new kinds of programs.

Elie Hassenfeld: So that just means me think about this fact, you know, we've talked a little bit about this as an experiment where we're gonna learn things. We've talked about spending maybe $10 million on this in the first year on livelihoods programs.

Is a year enough time to like, learn all the things that we wanna learn? I mean, what we're describing here is, a model that you could have an additional person and time to just conduct a more comprehensive search of the space. And you know, that seems like it takes less time. And then on the other hand, there's bring in a person who is going to be like pretty active in engaging with the sector to see what might come of that additional engagement. And that strikes me as a longer term path.

So, I'm curious, how you think about this, especially given this framing of additional focus in livelihoods as something of an [00:24:00] experiment.

Julie Faller: Yeah, so I think you are right that a year is not long enough for us to really make progress against that set of questions. We're thinking in terms of a commitment of at least two years to try to do both the landscaping and then also see what we can make in this kind of like co-creation, bringing people into the market, whatever you wanna call that set of things that we were just talking about.

The two year timeline is based a bit on the experience of our other pods. You were referring earlier to how we had reorganized into these kind of sector specific grant making teams. And I think with many of them, we're now starting to see the fruits of the groundwork that they laid, say 18 months ago. And so I think that makes me feel good that it is possible to start to make some progress, at least I think we could know if it seemed like everything we tried didn't lead to many grants that we wanted to make.

Elie Hassenfeld: And so maybe like another way of even framing what we're doing here is, GiveWell started out, at the very [00:25:00] beginning, as an extremely passive funder. We were just like, we wanna make sure that money goes to the great, cost-effective programs that already exist. And we did that and then slowly over time we evolved and became more of an active funder.

And you know, you could sort of trace that history over a very long period of time. But in the cause area focus teams that we've created in research over the last couple of years, we've done that even more. The thing that we have not done at all in livelihoods is try to be a more active funder that's really engaging.

And that's the really big thing we're taking on now because we think the time allows us to engage more actively in the sector. And that's something that's very different than anything we've tried before in that space.

Julie Faller: I think that's true. I will say, I think the fact that we're going to be making grant decisions with this different moral weight that puts more value on consumption, I do think that will cause us to fund things that we haven't in the past, even if we have looked into them. And so I think that's the other thing that's changing and will make a [00:26:00] difference. But I agree with where I think the bulk of the juice will come from.

Elie Hassenfeld: Right. And then we're intentionally saying, we know these moral weights are not objectively true. So we want to make this path a little bit easier at the beginning and then, you know, we can always reevaluate how we wanna deal with the moral weights down the line.

People like to talk about GiveWell's cost-effectiveness numbers as truth or something and this is true even internally sometimes. So like if a program is 10x, then it's good, and if it's 9x, it's not. And of course, even within health programs, there's so many like difficult judgment calls. You know, 9 and 10x are not that different in the scheme of things. We're talking about using a different, roughly speaking, almost doubling the moral weight we put on consumption to make those programs more attractive in this portfolio. You could imagine us or think of us as lowering our bar for these livelihoods programs. Yeah, I don't know. How do you think about that?

Julie Faller: So I think that the moral ways questions are important, and they do cause us to fund different things. So I think it's important to have a framework, and it's [00:27:00] important that we be transparent about what that framework is. I sometimes find myself being a little bit impatient with these conversations because I think, I don't know, practically speaking, GiveWell focuses on interventions in low and middle income countries because those are the places where costs are lower, needs are higher. You can get more bang for your buck.

And so I think about the kinds of things that in my family we choose to give our charitable dollars to. And I'm like, okay, there's any GiveWell recommended intervention, with this doubling consumption, or not, which is a really great thing to give money to. And then there's stuff like my kids' school raised money for a Montessori classroom in Ghana, and we also give money to that. And then there's things like, my kids' school raised money for their own school, and we also give money to that.

And it's like the spectrum of impact between these things is so different that I feel very comfortable saying GiveWell might be wrong about the moral weights. Donors might have different preferences. These are still really excellent opportunities if you care [00:28:00] about ROI.

Elie Hassenfeld: Right, like the benefits of exploring this other area that we have insufficiently explored in the past, overwhelm any other consideration because anything that we ultimately believed to be above this threshold, is just so clearly good that it's a good thing to fund, certainly in the scheme of things.

Julie Faller: Yeah. And then I will say, like getting into the question of the moral weights in particular, I think as an individual, I do have a sort of intuition that we might be missing something, we might be undervaluing something in our consumption weight, and that it's related to the way that having more money can enable you to have more agency, have more like choices in how you organize your life. And I think some, but not all livelihoods programs might have that effect, just letting you organize your life quite differently. And I feel like that's not just about consumption.

Elie Hassenfeld: Yeah. Cool. Well thanks, Julie.

[00:29:00] Hey everyone, it's Elie again. So I think this is a really good example of a way in which GiveWell has evolved over the last several years, and it's put us in a position to do something we couldn't have done before. And that's in a couple ways.

First of all, we have long wanted to cast a wider net and look at a wider variety of programs, and we were limited by the staff capacity we have. But we've been able to grow our team significantly the last two years, and that's put us in a position where we're able to look into more and explore more areas that we couldn't have previously.

You know, similarly, that expansion has led to another evolution at GiveWell. Historically we were relatively passive as an evaluator and a funder. We said, we wanna find the things that are best and then direct funds to them. And slowly over time, first with GiveWell incubation grants that supported New Incentives and No Lean Season in 2014, 15, 16. Then with some work with Evidence Action's Accelerator and CHAI's Incubator, we slowly became a more active [00:30:00] funder, directly engaging with organizations to not only assess the programs they were running, but work closely with them to co-create programs that we thought would be really cost effective. Finally, have put much more energy recently as we've grown the team into this specialized knowledge where people focus in different areas, vaccines, malaria, water, etc.

And so I think you can really see that coming together in what we were talking about here with livelihoods where that expanded team, that more specialized team and this skill we've built up or this practice we've built up of being more active is enabling us to do more. And I think potentially make better grant decisions than we were able to in the past.

Just wanna thank everyone again for listening, for your interest in what we do. If you wanna support the kind of work that we were discussing in this program, meaning this livelihoods work, the best way to do that is via our All Grants Fund, which gives us the flexibility to respond to needs, even those that could be riskier, or newer, or areas we know less about.

As always, our Top [00:31:00] Charities Fund is a great option too, and it goes to the organizations that we've had the most confidence in and know the most about their impact historically. Thanks again for your support and interest in our work. We really appreciate it.