Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
markov_user9
0
0

Thanks for the post, and for working on such an important problem! This sounds very exciting, and I'm very much looking forward to future reports of ACTRA.

I have to admit though I'm a bit baffled by the apparent evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions:

Evidence: Over 50 high-quality randomized studies show CBT reduces criminal relapse by 25-50%, theft by 54%, and homicide arrests by 65%. One CBT program alone prevented ~300 crimes per participant over a decade at ~$2 per crime averted. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and leading research organizations (J-PAL and IPA) all endorse CBT as highly promising, with IPA calling it a "best bet."

These numbers sounds "too good to be true" on a level I can barely put into words. I haven't looked into the linked studies in detail, and I think very highly of Charity Entrepreneurship and their thorough research, so I'm sure there is indeed something to it. Yet, I wonder, is there a good understanding as to why CBT apparently works so well in this case? I generally do well with the heuristics of "most effect sizes are small" and "behavior change is very difficult (even in yourself, let alone in others)". Of course a heuristic is just that, a heuristic, and there are always cases where they don't hold. What is your current understanding why this area in particular would be so different, and such large positive effect sizes are comparably ~easily achievable?

To expand a bit, I would assume that many different factors contribute to a person leading a life of crime. One part of that surely is some degree of impulsiveness, mental health, dealing with negative emotions - the kinds of properties that CBT can plausibly improve[1] -  but I would assume that there are many other, potentially even stronger effects (social circle in particular, career perspective and unemployment, substance abuse, being in debt, ...) that should not be affected that much, if at all, by a CBT intervention. Hence, CBT alone reducing crime rates by 50% in some studies just seems very unexpected to me.

Hope I don't sound too critical. But would be very interested in your views on this. :)

  1. ^

    And "improve" usually means some marginal improvement - these issues are usually not fully solved by CBT.

Reply
See in context
by Henning Peters, LauraSofia
4 min read 2

57

Global health & developmentCause prioritizationFunding request (open)Giving Season (2024)Marginal Funding WeekMental health (cause area)Announcements and updatesCriminal justice reformFundraisingOrganization updates
Frontpage

Summary

ACTRA (Acción Transformadora) is a new organization, just incubated through the AIM Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program. Our first year goal is to adapt an incredibly cost-effective crime prevention program to the Latin American context for the first time. Doing so successfully could allow us to scale massively from year two on, as government funding for programs as ours is often available in the region.

We received seed funding for a bare-bone implementation budget, but more funding would allow us to take less risks, move faster and increase the quality of our first year’s implementation (more details below). Also, our program would greatly benefit from an additional implementation research budget for potential research partners.

We believe that funding us could be among the most impactful funding choices, as the first year of a charity’s existence is when the marginal dollar makes the most difference.

If you are interested, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We can send you additional materials like the exact budgets, our first year plan, cost-effectiveness analysis and arrange a one on one meeting.

Background

The Problem: Latin America has the highest crime rates in the world. In Colombia, the homicide rate is over four times the global average, with one in four people falling victim to crime yearly. Citizens in the region rate safety as their number one concern, even above unemployment.

The Gap: Only 3 - 10% of government programs in the region are evidence-based. This misallocation highlights the urgent need to invest in proven, cost-effective solutions.

The Solution: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) reliably prevents chronic offending by shifting identities and promoting thoughtful decision-making. CBT-informed approaches are estimated to be >7x more cost-effective than the next best crime reduction intervention.

Evidence: Over 50 high-quality randomized studies show CBT reduces criminal relapse by 25-50%, theft by 54%, and homicide arrests by 65%. One CBT program alone prevented ~300 crimes per participant over a decade at ~$2 per crime averted. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and leading research organizations (J-PAL and IPA) all endorse CBT as highly promising, with IPA calling it a "best bet."

Our mission is to implement and scale the most cost-effective solutions against violence and crime, starting in Colombia. As the first organization to scale CBT for at-risk populations across Latin America, we'll apply the principles of iterative learning to ensure our program's effectiveness and cultural fit. 

Near term plans: In early 2025, we'll co-design a group therapy program with our target participants. Mid-2025, we'll pilot the full intervention to refine logistics, outreach, and engagement strategies. Following that, we'll conduct A/B tests and a pilot RCT to optimize scalability and cost-effectiveness. Each iteration will provide valuable insights, allowing us to adapt and improve until we're ready for a full-scale RCT, after which we'll focus on expanding our reach across the region.

Cost-effectiveness: Three different models converge in CBT-informed programs being 13x-29x more effective than direct cash transfers at scale (GiveWell “pre-2024 estimate”). The intervention delivers benefits in health (33%), economic gains (32%), wellbeing (29%), and business productivity (6%).

Learn more about us here. This is the link to the AIM/Charity Entrepreneurship report recommending the idea.

Scarcely Funded: First Year Implementation

As announced in this post, we have just received seed funding for our first year’s implementation. However, we have only received our minimal budget and more funding would allow us to take less risks, move faster and increase the quality of our first year’s implementation.

Additional funding of $20,000 would allow us to:

  1. Enhance outreach and program quality by securing an additional scoping visit to a second city
  2. Hire a freelance CBT expert to consult us during curriculum design
  3. Offer competitive market salaries for our first two facilitators, leading to higher quality implementation
  4. Pay for better survey data, legal support and access to relevant conferences.

Additional funding of $50,000 total (+$30,000) would allow us to:

  1. Offer an increased budget to our implementation partner, leading to faster and more effective pilot work
  2. Hire an experienced CBT expert to design the curriculum for us
  3. Visit the implementor of STYL in person, offering valuable on-the-ground learning
  4. Stronger participant engagement incentives, making sure our pilot will not fail due to low take-up or adherence
  5. Rent an office as soon as we start implementing

We have a detailed funding proposal ready that we are happy to share on request.

Need for Funding: Implementation Research

On top of the increased implementation budget, our project would greatly benefit from professional implementation research. Having a research partner with proper equipment, skills to transcribe and formally analyze qualitative data will improve the insight we can gather in our early on the ground stages by manyfold. Currently we are seeking the following funding:

  • $46,000 would allow us to partner with a strong research partner (like IPA) for the human centered design stage and carry out 20 cognitive interviews, 6 focus groups and 4 prototyping sessions. This formative research would allow us to culturally translate the curriculum and to refine our program based on the needs of our target population (See funding pitch here).
  • Another $82,000 would allow us to carry out a full process evaluation for our pilot, including prototyping a shortened version of our program with two groups and then running the full version of our program with four groups, while collecting intake, mid-term and post intervention qualitative and quantitative data, and refining the program according to our results.

Conclusion: Why Invest in Our Vision?

Advantages

Funding our organization in its first year has a significant impact. Early investments allow us to build a stronger foundation by refining our program and creating efficiencies that will save both time and resources in future years. According to a survey conducted with past charity entrepreneurs, additional funding would have made the biggest difference in their first years. 

  • The success or challenges of this pilot phase will set the course for our future and play a pivotal role in our second-year fundraising efforts
  • Currently, we have enough funding to implement a basic version of our program but ample room for additional funding that could meaningfully enhance our impact.
  • Given our early stage, we may face challenges in securing additional budgets from larger, institutional donors. This makes the value of your funding especially high—it positions us to attract future funding by proving our program's efficacy and long-term potential.

Risks

While early-stage funding can drive substantial impact, it also carries inherent risks. We may encounter unforeseen challenges that could lead to program closure, in which case your funding may have had a greater impact in more established programs.

57

1
0
3

Reactions

1
0
3
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
markov_user9
0
0

Thanks for the post, and for working on such an important problem! This sounds very exciting, and I'm very much looking forward to future reports of ACTRA.

I have to admit though I'm a bit baffled by the apparent evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions:

Evidence: Over 50 high-quality randomized studies show CBT reduces criminal relapse by 25-50%, theft by 54%, and homicide arrests by 65%. One CBT program alone prevented ~300 crimes per participant over a decade at ~$2 per crime averted. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and leading research organizations (J-PAL and IPA) all endorse CBT as highly promising, with IPA calling it a "best bet."

These numbers sounds "too good to be true" on a level I can barely put into words. I haven't looked into the linked studies in detail, and I think very highly of Charity Entrepreneurship and their thorough research, so I'm sure there is indeed something to it. Yet, I wonder, is there a good understanding as to why CBT apparently works so well in this case? I generally do well with the heuristics of "most effect sizes are small" and "behavior change is very difficult (even in yourself, let alone in others)". Of course a heuristic is just that, a heuristic, and there are always cases where they don't hold. What is your current understanding why this area in particular would be so different, and such large positive effect sizes are comparably ~easily achievable?

To expand a bit, I would assume that many different factors contribute to a person leading a life of crime. One part of that surely is some degree of impulsiveness, mental health, dealing with negative emotions - the kinds of properties that CBT can plausibly improve[1] -  but I would assume that there are many other, potentially even stronger effects (social circle in particular, career perspective and unemployment, substance abuse, being in debt, ...) that should not be affected that much, if at all, by a CBT intervention. Hence, CBT alone reducing crime rates by 50% in some studies just seems very unexpected to me.

Hope I don't sound too critical. But would be very interested in your views on this. :)

  1. ^

    And "improve" usually means some marginal improvement - these issues are usually not fully solved by CBT.

Reply
Milena Canzler🔸2
0
0

Thanks for this write-up, I'm hoping to see where ACTRA heads in the coming year! I wish you the best of luck. Have you received any additional funding so far?

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Help tighten up a calculator for cost effectiveness of addiction treatment?
LSterling
· · 1m read
0
0
45
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
0
0
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more