[pratyushag]

My wife runs an early stage charity called New Incentives supported by Givewell, hoping to become a candidate for their top charity recommendation.

They use an evidence-backed model called conditional cash transfers. They give money to disadvantaged pregnant women when they achieve health goals that increase the probability of their child's survival (example: activities to reduce HIV transmission from mothers to babies).

The whole organization is a mobile-first organization using biometrics for verification (because technology is the best way to cut across corruption) and they work on many interesting operational challenges. The organization could really use the help of more engineers, especially Android app developers, to tackle some of these challenges.

If anyone is interested, please respond to this comment or ping me.

[tgb]

I have a (minor) concern that we here at HN are biased towards charities that are tech-oriented, hip app-developing to solve the world, versus a more mundane charity. Can you (or your wife) comment on that? Why does this charity need flashy tech? New tech comes with costs, like unreliability or unexpectedly high costs or extra training - any concern for that? Givewell's support is a significant confidence booster in this regards, but I think it's an interesting subject to discuss.

Best of luck to New Incentives.

(P.S. if you want to recruit in this thread, I'd specify if it's paid or volunteer and whether it's on-site or remote. Or anything else they have in Who's Hiring? threads.)

[pratyushag]

Great question! The key is in what way are we using tech. Our model, conditional cash transfers (CCTs), has been used for many years by governments in several contexts. We are not inventing anything new by any means. However, our manner of implementation is trying to innovate by reducing some of the biggest challenges these government programs face: corruption and accountability.

For example, without technology we'd be facing the same issue as the Nigerian government (the country we work in): ghost beneficiaries. By taking advantage of currently available biometric solutions, we reduce this and increase the likelihood that our money goes to real beneficiaries. We are wary of adopting technology unless it is absolutely necessary. Another way we use technology is to collect data in the field. We are working in remote, rural areas with high levels of rainfall so we use mobile apps to collect data. This helps reduce the amount of data compromised and also provides an additional layer of verification: by seeing timestamps and knowing exactly who edits what and when. This helps us maintain higher levels of accountability and identify early warning signs of potential fraud.

[tgb]

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

[tormeh]

Tech is very effective in reducing corruption, because tech makes it possible to make for example bureaucrats and applicants unknowable to each other in simple cases, thereby making it harder to ask for, or give, money.

Online applications are a huge success, corruption-wise. So tech does really have something going on in a very meaningful amount of cases.

[cuchoi]

Do you know if there is a good cost-effective/cost-benefit analysis for Conditional Cash Transfers? In the one that I have seen, CCTs do poorly. I would like to know why GiveWell is pushing in that direction.

[nindalf]

Article from 2013 analysing and comparing Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) and Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCTs) - Pennies From Heaven (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-...). The evidence suggests that they're both pretty effective, and you would choose between the two depending on the initial conditions in the region and budget available.

There are benefits besides poverty-reduction. For example, this study by the World Bank (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServ...) concludes that CCTs reduce child labout.

[pratyushag]

Great links!

[pratyushag]

Thanks for this question! You can find GiveWell's preliminary cost-effectiveness assessment of New Incentives in their writeup here: http://www.givewell.org/international/charities/new-incentiv....

It's important to note that GiveWell is not necessarily pushing in this direction yet. Instead, they are placing bets that they potentially think could have a huge payoff if done right.

CCTs can be very effective or completely ineffective. This is because the second "C" matters a lot. What the program conditions makes all the difference. If the program is focusing on incentivizing interventions that are not cost-effective, the CCT won't be cost-effective because the underlying focus is too costly. Another aspect is what the long-term effects of the program are when the incentive ends. In our case, we are focusing on HIV transmission from mothers to infants and neonatal death. Our temporary incentives have a long-lasting effect by saving a child from getting HIV or a newborn from dying. However, if you were to have a CCT for something that is not life or death and would be needed throughout one's lifetime, the cost would potentially be too high.

Some of the most successful CCTs are for immunizations. This is because immunizations are a proven cost-effective health intervention in the first place. So adding the small CCT to increase coverage maintains cost-effectiveness while achieving benefits from having a greater percent of the population that is immunized.